Cited by 43Infant Development and Preterm CareLanguage Development and DisordersBirth, Development, and Health

Birth weight variability and language development: risk, resilience, and responsive parenting.

Madigan, Sheri, Wade, Mark, Plamondon, Andre, Browne, Dillon, Jenkins, Jennifer M.·2015·Journal of Pediatric Psychology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study examined whether birth weight variation within the normal range was associated with language ability at 36 months, and whether responsive parenting-the putative protective factor-buffered children from the risk of relatively low birth weight. METHODS: In all, 467 community mother-child dyads were followed longitudinally from birth. Receptive language was measured at 36 months. Responsive parenting was assessed through observed interactions at 18 months and examined as the hypothesized moderator. RESULTS: Controlling for confounds, both birth weight and responsive parenting positively predicted children's language skills. There was also a significant interaction between birth weight and responsive parenting-higher responsivity was associated with better language ability, and this link was especially pronounced for children at risk owing to relatively low birth weight. CONCLUSION: Normative differences in birth weight are a source of variability in children's language, but postnatal socialization factors such as parenting may buffer this risk.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jpepsy/jsv056

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [6]6. Burchinal, M., & Forestieri, N. (2011). Development of early literacy: Evidence from major US longitudinal studies. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 3, pp. 85-96). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  2. [12]12. Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Third edition: Manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Madigan, S., Wade, M., Plamondon, A., Browne, D., & Jenkins, J. M.
Affiliations
University of Toronto (CA)
Venue
Journal of Pediatric Psychology
Published
2015-06-24
Volume
40
Issue
9
Pages
869-877
ISSN
  • 0146-8693 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-735X
OpenAlex
W1883673857
Cited by
43
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1
FWCI
3.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Pediatric Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (70334)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Infant Development and Preterm Care
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Birth, Development, and Health
Keywords
birth weight, language development, responsive parenting, receptive language, low birth weight, risk and resilience, moderating effect, mother-child interaction, early childhood language skills
MeSH terms
Birth Weight, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Infant, Language Development, Male, Parenting, Resilience, Psychological

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review