Parent number talk about present, visible objects predicts children's later cardinal-number knowledge, whereas number talk without present objects does not¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2011 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Controlling for SES, parent talk about small sets (1–3) of present objects significantly predicted children's Point-to-X performance (β=.33, p<.05), while small-set talk without present objects did not (β=.18, n.s.). → Gunderson Elizabeth A. 2011 q2 i? Controlling for SES, parent talk about large sets (4–10) of present objects significantly predicted cardinal knowledge (β=.41, p<.01), while large-set talk without present objects did not (β=.16, n.s.). → Gunderson Elizabeth A. 2011 (2)

Evidence¶

Gunderson Elizabeth A. 2011¶

Gunderson Elizabeth A., Levine Susan C. (2011). Some types of parent number talk count more than others: Relations between parents' input and children's cardinal-number knowledge. Developmental Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01050.x

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Regression Model 2 in the Results section of this longitudinal correlational study (N=44), predicting Point-to-X scores at 46 months from parent number talk at 14–30 months. The article reports "an additional 8.9 percent of the variance"; no standardized effect size beyond β is printed.

"controlling for parents' SES, parent talk about small sets of present objects significantly predicted children's later number knowledge (β=.33, p<.05), accounting for an additional 8.9 percent of the variance"

Gunderson Elizabeth A. 2011 (2)¶

Gunderson Elizabeth A., Levine Susan C. (2011). Some types of parent number talk count more than others: Relations between parents' input and children's cardinal-number knowledge. Developmental Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01050.x

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Regression Model 4 in the Results section, same sample and outcome. Large-set present-object talk accounted for "an additional 15.7 percent of the variance over and above parents' SES"; Model 5 showed large-set non-present talk was not significant (β=.16, n.s.).

"number talk involving present objects was a significant predictor of children's cardinal-number knowledge (β=.41, p<.01), accounting for an additional 15.7 percent of the variance over and above parents' SES"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Parent number talk about large sets (4–10) of present objects predicts children's cardinal-number knowledge more robustly than talk about small sets (1–3) — related
• Parent number talk is infrequent but varies widely, and most of it concerns counting or labeling sets, with present-object small-set talk the most common type — related
• Parent SES significantly predicts children's cardinal-number knowledge at 46 months, accounting for 24 percent of variance — related
• Small-number parent talk predicts children's performance only on low-number items, whereas large-number talk predicts both low- and high-number Point-to-X items — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Parent number talk is not related to children's general vocabulary development once SES and overall talk are controlled, indicating domain specificity — related