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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score0.681

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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