Prescriptives that lead the child's attention did not correlate significantly with productive vocabulary¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 1991 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Only FOLLOW-prescriptives showed a significant correlation with vocabulary; LEADING-prescriptives did not, indicating the attentional direction of the directive matters. → Nameera Akhtar 1991

Evidence¶

Nameera Akhtar 1991¶

Nameera Akhtar, Frances Dunham and Philip J. Dunham. (1991). Directive interactions and early vocabulary development: the role of joint attentional focus. Journal of Child Language, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp. 41-49. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900013283

q2 · i? · associational · r1

In the same correlational study of twelve dyads, prescriptives were split into LEADING and FOLLOWING types based on whether they changed or followed the child's focus of attention. The word "Only" indicates the FOLLOW category alone correlated significantly with the 1;10 vocabulary measure; no statistic for the LEADING category is printed in the available text.

"Prescriptives were coded as either changing (LEADING) or FOLLOWING the child's focus of attention. Only the frequency of mothers' FOLLOW-prescriptives correlated significantly"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Maternal prescriptives that follow the child's focus of attention correlate positively with productive vocabulary at 1;10 — related
• Maternal directiveness, measured as prescriptive use, is correlated with slow vocabulary development — related