Cited by 150Language Development and DisordersReading and Literacy DevelopmentEarly Childhood Education and Development

The impact of dialogic book-sharing training on infant language and attention: A randomized controlled trial in a deprived South African community

Open access
Vally, Zahir, Murray, Lynne, Tomlinson, Mark, Cooper, Peter J.·2015·Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: Dialogic book‐sharing is an interactive form of shared reading. It has been shown in high income countries ( HIC s) to be of significant benefit to child cognitive development. Evidence for such benefit in low and middle income countries ( LMIC s) is scarce, although a feasibility study of our own produced encouraging findings. Accordingly, we aimed to establish the impact on child language and attention of providing training in dialogic booksharing to carers of infants in an impoverished South African community. Methods: We conducted a randomized controlled trial in Khayelitsha, an informal settlement in South Africa. Mothers of infants aged between 14 and 16 months were recruited and randomized to either 8 weeks of manualized training in dialogic book‐sharing or a no‐intervention control group. Independent assessments were made of infant language and attention at baseline and following training. The trial was registered ( ISRCTN 39953901). Results: Ninety one carer‐infant dyads were recruited and randomized to the intervention group ( n = 49) or the control group ( n = 42), 82 (90%) of whom were available for follow‐up assessments. On a standardized carer report of infant vocabulary, compared to those in the control group, carers who received the intervention reported a significantly greater increase in the number of words understood by their infants as well as a larger increase in the number of words that their infant understood and could vocalize. Intervention group children also showed substantially greater gains on a measure of sustained attention. Conclusions: In line with evidence from HIC s, a dialogic book‐sharing programme delivered to an impoverished South African sample was shown to be of considerable benefit to the development of child language and focussed attention. The training programme, which is simple and inexpensive to deliver, has the potential to benefit child cognitive development in LMIC contexts where such development is commonly compromised.

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/jcpp.12352

Cites

34 of 34 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?

  • In studies relying on parent-reported child language, blinding mattered because awareness of intervention status could skew answers.

    “However, for studies that used parent self-report measures of child language (Cronan et al., 1996;Vally et al., 2015), blinding was a potentially important issue because knowledge of having received the intervention could have biased responses.”

    From Shared Picture Book Reading Interventions for Child Language Development: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Vally et al., 2015

    The Child language section says the study used mothers’ reports to measure child language. The Discussion raises a potential reporting problem: trained carers may have become more aware of their children’s linguistic abilities, rather than the children’s language having improved. It does not specifically attribute possible bias to carers’ knowledge of their intervention status. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Many group programs included chances for parents to discuss home book-sharing experiences and barriers.

    “Indeed, many of the group-based interventions incorporated opportunities for parents to share their experiences of book-sharing with their children at home as well as discuss perceived barriers and challenges they were experiencing (e.g.Vally et al., 2015;Weisleder et al., 2018).”

    From Shared Picture Book Reading Interventions for Child Language Development: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Vally et al., 2015

    The Training section (page unavailable) describes a group-based program with a 20-minute discussion about the book carers would take home, followed by encouragement to practise book-sharing daily. It does not say that carers were invited to share their experiences of book-sharing at home or discuss barriers and challenges. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Two studies in an impoverished urban South African township provided strong evidence for the efficacy of dialogic book-sharing in low- and middle-income settings.

    “Most recently, two studies conducted in an impoverished urban South African township provided strong evidence for the efficacy of dialogic book-sharing in LMIC settings (Cooper et al., 2014;Vally, Murray, Tomlinson, & Cooper, 2015).”

    From Shared Picture Book Reading Interventions for Child Language Development: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Vally, Murray, Tomlinson, & Cooper, 2015

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: 1

  1. [35]35. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vally, Z., Murray, L., Tomlinson, M., & Cooper, P. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Reading (GB)
  • Stellenbosch University (ZA)
Corresponding author
Cooper, Peter J.
Venue
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-11-17
Volume
56
Issue
8
Pages
865-873
ISSN
  • 0021-9630 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-7610
OpenAlex
W1987541175
Cited by
148
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 4
FWCI
16.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • CentAUR (University of Reading) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • DG Murray Trust
  • Nick Robinson of Constable-Robinson Publishing
  • Felix Foundation Scholarship
  • National Research Foundation (NRF) of South Africa
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Education › Early Childhood Education and Development
Keywords
shared reading, infant language development, infant vocabulary, sustained attention, carer training, low- and middle-income countries, informal settlements, child cognitive development, poverty, Khayelitsha
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention, Books, Child Development, Feasibility Studies, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Infant, Language, Language Development, Male, Mothers, Poverty, Reading, South Africa

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