Cited by 52Language Development and DisordersChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentHearing Impairment and Communication

Maternal communicative behaviours and interaction quality as predictors of language development: Findings from a community-based study of slow-to-talk toddlers

Open access
Conway, Laura J., Levickis, Penny A., Smith, Jodie, Mensah, Fiona, Wake, Melissa, Reilly, Sheena·2018·International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders

Abstract

Background: Identifying risk and protective factors for language development informs interventions for children with developmental language disorder (DLD). Maternal responsive and intrusive communicative behaviours are associated with language development. Mother–child interaction quality may influence how children use these behaviours in language learning. Aims: To identify (1) communicative behaviours and interaction quality associated with language outcomes; (2) whether the association between a maternal intrusive behaviour (directive) and child language scores changed alongside a maternal responsive behaviour (expansion); and (3) whether interaction quality modified these associations. Methods & Procedures: Language skills were assessed at 24, 36 and 48 months in 197 community‐recruited children who were slow to talk at 18 months. Mothers and 24‐month‐olds were video‐recorded playing at home. Maternal praise, missed opportunities, and successful and unsuccessful directives (i.e., whether followed by the child) were coded during a 10‐min segment. Interaction quality was rated using a seven‐point fluency and connectedness (FC) scale, during a 5‐min segment. Linear regressions examined associations between these behaviours/rating and language scores. Interaction analysis and simple slopes explored effect modification by FC. Outcomes & Results: There was no evidence that missed opportunities or praise were associated with language scores. Higher rates of successful directives in the unadjusted model and unsuccessful directives in the adjusted model were associated with lower 24‐month‐old receptive language scores (e.g., unsuccessful directives effect size (ES) = −0.41). The association between unsuccessful directives and receptive language was weaker when adjusting for co‐occurring expansions (ES = −0.34). Both types of directives were associated with poorer receptive and expressive language scores in adjusted models at 36 and 48 months (e.g., unsuccessful directive and 48‐month receptive language, ES = −0.66). FC was positively associated with 24‐, 36‐ and 48‐month language scores in adjusted models (e.g., receptive language at 24 months, ES = 0.21, at 48 months, ES = 0.18). Interaction analysis showed the negative association between successful directives and 24‐month receptive language existed primarily in poorly connected dyads with low FC levels. Conclusions & Implications: These findings illustrate the effects of the combined interaction between different maternal communicative behaviours and features of the interaction itself on child language development, and the need to consider both in research and practice. Whilst more intrusive directives were associated with poorer language scores, this association attenuated when adjusting for co‐occurring responsive expansions, and the association was strongest for children in lower quality interactions. This work may inform clinical practice by helping clinicians target the most appropriate communicative behaviours for specific mother–child dyads.

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 · 10.1111/1460-6984.12352

Cites

45 of 45 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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: 4

  1. Semel, E., Wiig, E. H. and Secord, W. A., 2006, The Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-Preschool, Second Edition (CELF-P2): Australian Standardised Edition, 2nd edn (Harcourt Assessment).
  2. Vygotsky, L. S., 1978, Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Mental Process (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
  3. Zimmerman, I. L., Steiner, V. G. and Pond, R. E., 2002, The Preschool Language Scale, 4th Edition (San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation).
  4. Conway, L. J., Levickis, P. A., Smith, J., Mensah, F., Wake, M. & Reilly, S. (2018). Maternal communicative behaviours and interaction quality as predictors of language development: findings from a community-based study of slow-to-talk toddlers. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE & COMMUNICATION DISORDERS, 53 (2), pp.339-354. https:// doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12352. Persistent Link: http://hdl.handle.net/11343/293998

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Conway, L. J., Levickis, P. A., Smith, J., Mensah, F., Wake, M., & Reilly, S.
Affiliations
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • Murdoch Children's Research Institute (AU)
  • Royal Children's Hospital (AU)
  • Griffith University (AU)
Corresponding author
Conway, Laura J.
Venue
International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-12-07
Volume
53
Issue
2
Pages
339-354
ISSN
  • 1368-2822 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-6984
OpenAlex
W2775616774
Cited by
52
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
3.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Funders
National Health and Medical Research Council (Career Development Fellowship for FM 1111160, Centre of Research Excellence 1023493, Early Career Fellowship for FM 1037449, Practitioner Fellowship for SR 1041892, Project Grant 607407, Strategic Award 384491)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Hearing Impairment and Communication
Keywords
mother-child interaction, language development, specific language impairment, directive communication, receptive language, expressive language, interaction quality, missed opportunities, toddlers, risk and protective factors, early intervention, community-based study, effect modification
MeSH terms
Adult, Child, Preschool, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Language, Language Development, Language Development Disorders, Male, Maternal Behavior, Mother-Child Relations, Mothers

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