Tentative longitudinal interaction: mother spatial language quantity at 24 months relates negatively to boys' but positively to girls' later spatial language quality¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r2–r3 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The child sex × mother spatial language quantity (24m) interaction significantly added to the longitudinal model for child spatial language quality. → Farran 2025 q3 i2 Follow-up correlations by sex were non-significant: negative for boys (r = -.217) and positive for girls (r = .229). → Farran 2025 (2)

Evidence¶

Farran 2025¶

Farran, E. K., Fink, E., Hughes, C., Gilligan-Lee, K. A., & The NewFAMS team. (2025). Limited sex differences in spatial language in parent-child dyads. Learning and Instruction, 95, 102006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.102006

q3 · i? · associational · r2

In the longitudinal regression for child spatial language quality (N = 111), step 3 added the gender × mother spatial language quantity interaction, "F-change(1, 99) = 6.67, p = .011, ΔR2 change = .055"; the overall model was not significant (p = .193).

"For spatial language quality, Model 3 was not significant, F(11, 99) = 1.382, p = .193, ΔR2 = .037, but did significantly add to the model, F-change(1, 99) = 6.67, p = .011, ΔR2 change = .055."

Farran 2025 (2)¶

Farran, E. K., Fink, E., Hughes, C., Gilligan-Lee, K. A., & The NewFAMS team. (2025). Limited sex differences in spatial language in parent-child dyads. Learning and Instruction, 95, 102006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.102006

q3 · i2 · associational · r3

Exploratory correlations of mother spatial language quantity at 24 months with child spatial language quality at 48 months were non-significant for both sexes: boys "r = .217, N = 63, p = .087" (negative), girls "r = .229, N = 48, p = .118" (positive).

"the relationship was negative for boys (r = .217, N = 63, p = .087) and positive for girls (r = .229, N = 48, p = .118). This interaction is therefore interpreted with caution."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Parent spatial language is concurrently associated with child spatial language at 48 months, explaining substantial variance beyond controls — related
• Parent spatial language at 24 months does not predict child spatial language two years later — reports the opposite
• Parents use a greater variety of spatial words (higher spatial language quality) with daughters than sons, regardless of SES or talkativeness — related
• Mothers and fathers show no difference in spatial language use with their children, and children produce similar spatial language with each parent — related
• Boys and girls show comparable spatial language use at 24 and 48 months during structured DUPLO play — related
• Parents used more spatial language at 24 months than at 48 months, an effect attributable to differences in overall talkativeness — related