MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2878750195 · doi:10.1111/cch.12600

Associations between maternal responsive linguistic input and child language performance at age 4 in a community‐based sample of slow‐to‐talk toddlers

2018· article· en· W2878750195 on OpenAlexaff
Penny Levickis, Sheena Reilly, Luigi Girolametto, Obioha C. Ukoumunne, Melissa Wake

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Care Health and Development · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersMedical Research CouncilNational Health and Medical Research CouncilEuropean CommissionState Government of VictoriaNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchRoyal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust
KeywordsPsychologyLogistic regressionChecklistPopulationDevelopmental psychologyVocabularyStandard languageLanguage developmentDemographyMedicineLinguisticsCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In a community sample of slow-to-talk toddlers, we aimed to (a) quantify how well maternal responsive behaviors at age 2 years predict language ability at age 4 and (b) examine whether maternal responsive behaviors more accurately predict low language status at age 4 than does expressive vocabulary measured at age 2 years. DESIGN OR METHODS: Prospective community-based longitudinal study. At child age 18 months, 1,138 parents completed a 100-word expressive vocabulary checklist within a population survey; 251 (22.1%) children scored ≤20th percentile and were eligible for the current study. Potential predictors at 2 years were (a) responsive language behaviors derived from videotaped parent-child free-play samples and (b) late-talker status. Outcomes were (a) Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-Preschool Second Edition receptive and expressive language standard score at 4 years and (b) low language status (standard score > 1.25 standard deviations below the mean on expressive or receptive language). RESULTS: = 3.5%) language scores at 4. The logistic regression model containing only responsive behaviors achieved "fair" predictive ability of low language status at age 4 (area under curve [AUC] = 0.79), slightly better than the model containing only late-talker status (AUC = 0.74). This improved to "good" predictive ability with inclusion of other known risk factors (AUC = 0.82). CONCLUSION: A combination of short measures of different dimensions, such as parent responsive behaviors, in addition to a child's earlier language skills increases the ability to predict language outcomes at age 4 to a precision that is approaching clinical value. Research to further enhance predictive values should be a priority, enabling health professionals to identify which slow-to-talk toddlers most likely will or will not experience later poorer language.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild Care Health and DevelopmentSame topicLanguage Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207