This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Yoder, P. J. Articles by Watson, A. L. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Important Distinctions in Measuring Maternal Responses to Communication in Prelinguistic Children with Disabilities

Vanderbilt University

Rebecca B. McCathren

University of Missouri, Columbia

Steven F. Warren

University of Kansas

Amy L. Watson

University of Missouri

Two research hypotheses were tested in the research reported here: The first was that non linguistic maternal responses to intentional child communication, but not to preintentional communication, will predict later intentional communication but not later language development. The second hypothesis was that linguistic mapping of intentional communication, but not of preintentional communication, will predict later language development but not later intentional communication. Study participants were 58 children with disabilities or developmental delays and their primary caretakers. Receptive language, prelinguistic communication, and maternal responses were measured at Time 1 (entry into study) and Time 2 (6 months later). Vocabulary level was measured at Time 2. Expressive and receptive language were measured at Time 3 (12 months after entry into study). After controlling for initial measures of child communication or language, number of maternal nonlinguistic responses to intentional communication were positively related to Time 2 rate of intentional communication and to Time 3 expressive and receptive language scores. After controlling for initial child language, number of linguistic mapping responses to intentional communication was positively related to Time 3 expressive and receptive language scores. The results of this study showed no relationship between responsiveness to preintentional communication and later language or communication, thus emphasizing the importance of responding differentially to preintentional and intentional communications.

Communication Disorders Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 3, 135-147 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/152574010102200303


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. L. DesJardin, S. E. Ambrose, and L. S. Eisenberg Literacy Skills in Children With Cochlear Implants: The Importance of Early Oral Language and Joint Storybook Reading J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ., January 1, 2009; 14(1): 22 - 43. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Ruble, A. McDuffie, A. S. King, and D. Lorenz Caregiver Responsiveness and Social Interaction Behaviors of Young Children With Autism Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, November 1, 2008; 28(3): 158 - 170. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. L. Desjardin Maternal Perceptions of Self-Efficacy and Involvement in the Auditory Development of Young Children with Prelingual Deafness Journal of Early Intervention, April 1, 2005; 27(3): 193 - 209. [Abstract] [PDF]