MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407669762 · doi:10.1177/02656590251314720

Exploring parent–child interactions during a parent-implemented language intervention for children who are late-to-talk

2025· article· en· W4407669762 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Language Teaching and Therapy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityWestern University
FundersOntario Ministry of Research and Innovation
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)Developmental psychologyPsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Supportive parent–child interactions are critical for facilitating typically developing children's language and social skill development. For children who are late-to-talk, parent–child interactions may be particularly important to address as a means of supporting growth in children's early language abilities. Target Word is one parent-implemented intervention for children who are late-to-talk that teaches parents strategies for facilitating more meaningful communicative interactions with their children, but little is known about the impact of this program on parent–child interactions. The aim of the present study was to determine whether the nature of parent–child interactions changed during the virtual Target Word program and whether changes in parent–child interaction were associated with parents’ participation in the virtual Target Word program. A total of 40 children between 16 and 27 months of age who were identified as late-to-talk and their caregivers were assigned to a treatment or wait-list control group. Parent–child interactions were captured virtually using Zoom at four time points and measured using the Parenting Interactions with Children: Checklist of Observations Linked to Outcomes (PICCOLO). Families completed book reading, pretend, and manipulative play tasks. While 16 of the 20 families in the treatment group completed the study, only 5 of the 20 families in the wait-list control group completed the entire study. Data were analyzed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis approach. Group differences in parent–child interactions were not statistically different at any time point. Further research is necessary to evaluate whether parent–child interactions are in fact impaired in late talkers, the psychometric properties of the PICCOLO for late talkers, and whether parent–child interactions may be assessed differently in virtual versus in-person environments.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.736
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.308 · 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