MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406457049 · doi:10.1111/cdev.14218

Connecting Language Abilities and Social Competence in Children: A Meta-Analytic Review

2025· review· en· W4406457049 on OpenAlexafffund
Karolina Wieczorek, Megan DeGroot, Heather Ganshorn, Susan A. Graham

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Development · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEarly Childhood Education and Development
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalOntario Council of University LibrariesCarleton UniversityUniversity of Calgary
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaAlberta Children's Hospital FoundationChildren's Hospital Foundation
KeywordsPsychologyCompetence (human resources)Social competenceDevelopmental psychologyLanguage developmentCognitive psychologySocial changeSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research examining relations between language skills and social competence has yielded mixed findings. Three meta-analyses investigated links between language skills (overall, receptive, and expressive) and social competence in 2- to 12-year-old children. Data from 130 studies representing 62,120 children (M age at language assessment = 4.70 years; 52% male), predominantly from North America and Europe, and identifying as White (33%), Black (17%), Hispanic (14%), Asian (2%), Mixed (4%), Indigenous (1%), and Other/Unspecified (29%) were analyzed. Analyses indicated significant medium-sized associations between social competence and: overall language (r = 0.27), receptive language (r = 0.23), and expressive language (r = 0.20). Exploratory analyses indicated significant moderating effects of study design, publication status, social type, and geographic region. Results and implications are discussed.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.011
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild DevelopmentSame topicEarly Childhood Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207