MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Exploring Parent-Child Shared Book Reading in the First Three Years of Life: Characteristics and Language Outcomes

2025· dissertation· en· W6940193674 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Online (University of Wollongong) · 2025
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)VocabularyLiteracyLanguage developmentCognitionCognitive developmentVocabulary developmentEarly childhood

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shared Book Reading (SBR) is a widely established home literacy activity that benefits young children’s language and cognitive development (Hoyne & Egan, 2019). Much of the research in this area has focused on interactions between children aged over 2 years and their mothers. When younger ages are considered, reading frequency is often the primary measure of early exposure, overlooking nuances of these early interactions. Relatively little is known about fathers’ involvement in early SBR, or SBR practices outside of Western society. This thesis, comprising five studies, explored the frequency, characteristics, and impact of early SBR on young infants’ and toddlers’ language development within and across families of Western and Asian cultural backgrounds.The first three studies explored early SBR practices within a small cohort of Australian parents and infants. In Study 1, mother-infant dyads were observed reading an unfamiliar book in a laboratory when infants were aged 6 months (n = 17), 9 months (n = 14), or 12 months (n = 17). High frequency maternal behaviours observed from videos were the production of attention attracting behaviours, immediate talk, and verbal encouragement to maintain infant book engagement. Infant communication scores were associated with non-immediate talk (e.g., making connections between the book content and the real world) at 6 months, maternal questions at 9 months, and non-book related talk at 12 months.Study 2 examined the long-term impact of these early maternal SBR behaviours on infants’ language and cognitive development at 18 months. Engaging in non-immediate talk significantly predicted infants’ later communication and vocabulary scores. Nurturing/affectionate behaviours, rather than directives and organisational talk during SBR, also positively contributed to infants’ later vocabulary scores. These findings suggest that the complex language and emotionally-supportive environment of early SBR have lasting benefits for infants’ early language development.Study 3 examined maternal frequency reports of father-child SBR within the first year of life on infant language development at 24 months. Frequent exposure to fathers’ SBR during the early years (both measured in the first year and at 24 months) significantly contributed to infants’ vocabulary at 24 months. These preliminary findings suggest that fathers’ engagement in early SBR has a positive long-term impact on infants’ early vocabulary development and requires further investigation.Given that Study 3 examined fathers’ SBR frequency via maternal reports and did not capture the specific characteristics of these interactions, Study 4 utilised an online survey design to directly ask fathers about their early home literacy involvement with young children. Survey respondents were 151 fathers, predominantly residing in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom, or United States, with a child aged 1 to 36 months. In these families, 95% of children experienced early SBR with one or more adult readers. Reading had begun in most families (77%) before the child was aged 12 months, with 49% of fathers reading with their young child at least five times a week. Fathers reported utilising all SBR behaviours identified from Study 1 to some extent. Beyond reading the written text, most frequently reported behaviours included pointing, immediate talk, nurturing/affectionate behaviours, and responding contingently to infants’ vocalisations. These insights offer a foundation for continued exploration of the unique contribution of these early paternal SBR behaviours on infants’ language and cognitive development.Lastly, Study 5 employed an online survey design to extend knowledge of early SBR practices to families in an Asian country, Singapore. In a sample of 74 parents (55% Chinese, 23% Indian, 14% Malay) with a child aged 5 to 46 months, SBR was a common practice, beginning in most families (74%) during the first year. Frequent SBR activities were positively linked to children’s vocabulary scores, and children tended to be engaged in SBR with multiple adults at home. Where a grandparent was reported as the primary caregiver (16% of families), the frequency of grandparent-child SBR was also positively related to children’s language abilities. These findings highlight the need to consider the contributions of parental and non-parental carers to SBR and the home literacy environment of young children in Asian families, and the impact this has on early language development.Together, this thesis reports on the early onset and frequent SBR practices within a sample of Western and Asian families, and offers insights into the characteristics of early SBR with young children. It underscores the value and impact of both mothers’ and fathers’ early and frequent SBR practices, along with a variety of interactions around a book that serves to promote language and literacy in the early years.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Online (University of Wollongong)Same topicReading and Literacy DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207