Association of the Type of Toy Used During Play With the Quantity and Quality of Parent-Infant Communication | Child Development | JAMA Pediatrics | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 18.204.227.34. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Rowe  ML.  A longitudinal investigation of the role of quantity and quality of child-directed speech in vocabulary development.  Child Dev. 2012;83(5):1762-1774.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Hart  B, Risley  T.  The early catastrophe.  Am Educ. 2003;27(4):6-9.Google Scholar
3.
Huttenlocher  J.  Language input and language growth.  Prev Med. 1998;27(2):195-199.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Zimmerman  FJ, Gilkerson  J, Richards  JA,  et al.  Teaching by listening: the importance of adult-child conversations to language development.  Pediatrics. 2009;124(1):342-349.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Tamis-LeMonda  CS, Bornstein  MH, Baumwell  L.  Maternal responsiveness and children’s achievement of language milestones.  Child Dev. 2001;72(3):748-767.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Tanimura  M, Okuma  K, Kyoshima  K.  Television viewing, reduced parental utterance, and delayed speech development in infants and young children.  Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2007;161(6):618-619.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Christakis  DA, Gilkerson  J, Richards  JA,  et al.  Audible television and decreased adult words, infant vocalizations, and conversational turns: a population-based study.  Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2009;163(6):554-558.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Zimmerman  FJ, Christakis  DA, Meltzoff  AN.  Associations between media viewing and language development in children under age 2 years.  J Pediatr. 2007;151(4):364-368.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Mendelsohn  AL, Mogilner  LN, Dreyer  BP,  et al.  The impact of a clinic-based literacy intervention on language development in inner-city preschool children.  Pediatrics. 2001;107(1):130-134.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Klass  P, Neddlman  R, Zuckerman  B.  Reach Out and Read Program Manual. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Boston Medical Center; 1999.
11.
Tamis-LeMonda  C, Bornstein  MH.  Specificity in mother-toddler language-play relations across the second year.  Dev Psychol. 1994;30(2):283-292. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.30.2.283.Google ScholarCrossref
12.
Christakis  DA, Zimmerman  FJ, Garrison  MM.  Effect of block play on language acquisition and attention in toddlers: a pilot randomized controlled trial.  Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2007;161(10):967-971.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Brown  A; Council on Communications and Media.  Media use by children younger than 2 years.  Pediatrics. 2011;128(5):1040-1045.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Krcmar  M, Grela  B, Lin  K.  Can toddlers learn vocabulary from television? an experimental approach.  Media Psychol. 2007;10(1):41-63.Google Scholar
15.
Roseberry  S, Hirsh-Pasek  K, Golinkoff  RM.  Skype me! socially contingent interactions help toddlers learn language.  Child Dev. 2014;85(3):956-970.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Milteer  RM, Ginsburg  KR; Council on Communications and Media; Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health.  The importance of play in promoting healthy child development and maintaining strong parent-child bond: focus on children in poverty.  Pediatrics. 2012;129(1):e204-e213.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Weitzman  CC, Roy  L, Walls  T, Tomlin  R.  More evidence for reach out and read: a home-based study.  Pediatrics. 2004;113(5):1248-1253.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Hwa-Froelich  DA.  Play assessment for children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.  Perspect Commun Disord Sci Cult Linguist Diverse Popul. 2004;11(2):5-9.Google ScholarCrossref
19.
Ginsburg  KR; American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Communications; American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health.  The importance of play in promoting healthy child development and maintaining strong parent-child bonds.  Pediatrics. 2007;119(1):182-191.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Verdine  BN, Golinkoff  RM, Hirsh-Pasek  K, Newcombe  NS.  Finding the missing piece: blocks, puzzles, and shapes fuel school readiness.  Trends Neurosci Educ. 2014;3(1):7-13.Google ScholarCrossref
21.
High  PC, Klass  P; Council on Early Childhood.  Literacy promotion: an essential component of primary care pediatric practice.  Pediatrics. 2014;134(2):404-409.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Fletcher  KL, Reese  E.  Picture book reading with young children: a conceptual framework.  Dev Rev. 2005;25(1):64-103.Google ScholarCrossref
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    1 Comment for this article
    EXPAND ALL
    An extension to Sosa, 2015: A report of effect sizes
    Manish K. Rami | Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of North Dakota
    This comment serves as an extension to the above investigation. For whatever reasons, the investigation does not provide any measure of magnitude of the effects of the different types of toys. Report of sizes of effects in experimental investigations has been recommended for years.1,2,3,4,5,6 Such reports aid prospective calculation of power in future studies.7 Lack of report of effect sizes in the discipline of speech-language pathology, however; is quite common.5 Using the sample size, confidence intervals, and the likelihood of .05 in the investigation, I calculated standard deviations from the relevant t distributions.8 These standard deviations were used to calculate the Glass’s Δ keeping the electronic toys as the basis of comparison.9 Glass’s Δ quantifies the advantage traditional toys and books have over electronic toys in standard deviation units. For example, a child’s vocalizations are one-half of one standard deviation more when parents used books as compared to electronic toys. A table showing the Glass’s Δ for traditional toys and books is provided below. I hope the readers find these values useful.

    Glass’s Δ for each of the outcome measure for traditional toys and books as compared to electronic toys.
    Outcome Measures;Traditional;Books
    Adult words:1.05;1.79
    Content-specific words:1.34;3.08
    Child vocalizations:0.44;0.53
    Conversational turns:0.64; 0.82
    Responses:0.70;0.78

    REFERENCES
    1. Cohen, JC. Statistical power analysis. Cur Dir Psy Sci. 1992b;1(3):98-101.
    2. Cohen, JC. The Earth is round. Am Psy. 1994;49(12):997-1003.
    3. Glass, GV. Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Ed Res. 1976;5(10):3-8.
    4. Zumbo, BD, Hubley, AM. A note on misconceptions concerning prospective and retrospective power. The Statistician. 1998;47(2):385-388.
    5. Rami, MK. Power and Effect Size Measures: A Census of articles published from 2009-2012 in the Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. Am Int J Soc Sci. 2014;3(4):13-19.
    6. Keren G, Lewis, C eds. A handbook for data analysis in behavioral sciences: methodological issues. (pp.461-479). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1992.
    7. Rosnow, R., Rosenthal, R. Statistical procedures and the justification of knowledge in psychological science. Am Psy. 1989;44(10):1276-1284.
    8. Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
    9. Hedges, LV, Olkin, I. Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando: Academic Press; 1985.
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
    READ MORE
    Original Investigation
    February 2016

    Association of the Type of Toy Used During Play With the Quantity and Quality of Parent-Infant Communication

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff
    JAMA Pediatr. 2016;170(2):132-137. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.3753
    Abstract

    Importance  The early language environment of a child influences language outcome, which in turn affects reading and academic success. It is unknown which types of everyday activities promote the best language environment for children.

    Objective  To investigate whether the type of toy used during play is associated with the parent-infant communicative interaction.

    Design, Setting, and Participants  Controlled experiment in a natural environment of parent-infant communication during play with 3 different toy sets. Participant recruitment and data collection were conducted between February 1, 2013, and June 30, 2014. The volunteer sample included 26 parent-infant (aged 10-16 months) dyads.

    Exposures  Fifteen-minute in-home parent-infant play sessions with electronic toys, traditional toys, and books.

    Main Outcomes and Measures  Numbers of adult words, child vocalizations, conversational turns, parent verbal responses to child utterances, and words produced by parents in 3 different semantic categories (content-specific words) per minute during play sessions.

    Results  Among the 26 parent-infant dyads, toy type was associated with all outcome measures. During play with electronic toys, there were fewer adult words (mean, 39.62; 95% CI, 33.36-45.65), fewer conversational turns (mean, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.12-2.19), fewer parental responses (mean, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.87-1.77), and fewer productions of content-specific words (mean, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.49-2.35) than during play with traditional toys or books. Children vocalized less during play with electronic toys (mean per minute, 2.9; 95% CI, 2.16-3.69) than during play with books (mean per minute, 3.91; 95% CI, 3.09-4.68). Parents produced fewer words during play with traditional toys (mean per minute, 55.56; 95% CI, 46.49-64.17) than during play with books (mean per minute, 66.89; 95% CI, 59.93-74.19) and use of content-specific words was lower during play with traditional toys (mean per minute, 4.09; 95% CI, 3.26-4.99) than during play with books (mean per minute, 6.96; 95% CI, 6.07-7.97).

    Conclusions and Relevance  Play with electronic toys is associated with decreased quantity and quality of language input compared with play with books or traditional toys. To promote early language development, play with electronic toys should be discouraged. Traditional toys may be a valuable alternative for parent-infant play time if book reading is not a preferred activity.

    ×