Content uploaded by Craig K. Van Pay
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Craig K. Van Pay on Jul 30, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Running head: EFFECTIVENESS OF A PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM 1
© 2020. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Investigation of the effectiveness of a community-based parent education program to engage
families in increasing language interactions with their children.
Constance C. Beecher
Iowa State University
Craig K. Van Pay
Iowa State University
Constance C. Beecher, cbeecher@iastate.edu, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8507-3465, School of
Education, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, 50011.; Craig K, Van Pay, cvanpay@iastate.edu,
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8556-8778, School of Education, Iowa State University, Ames,
Iowa, 50011
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Constance C Beecher,
School of Education, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 50011.
Email: cbeecher@iastate.edu
Funding: This work was supported by a grant from an anonymous foundation.
Acknowledgements: The authors would like to acknowledge our community partners,
volunteers, and families who participated in this study.
This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in Early Childhood
Research Quarterly. The final version is available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2020.04.001
EFFECTIVENESS OF A PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM 2
© 2020. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Abstract
The home language environment (HLE) is robustly associated with children’s later language and
literacy abilities. The present study used a quasi-experimental comparison design to examine the
changes in LENA (Language ENvironment Analysis) estimates of the HLE for participants who
completed a community-based parent-education program relative to participants who regularly
visit the library, but did not participate in the program. Twenty-eight caregivers and their zero to
30-month-old children made up the comparison sample. They were matched on key control
variables using propensity score matching techniques to participants in the intervention sample.
The intervention sample was 28 caregivers and their children drawn from the larger sample of
participants who completed the educational program. Using longitudinal growth curve modeling,
we found significant growth in weekly estimates in adult language input to children,
conversational turn-taking, and child vocalizations for the intervention group, but not for the
comparison group. Community-delivered interventions have the potential to engage caregivers to
provide enriching language environments that lead to children’s healthy language development.
Keywords: early intervention, language development, parent engagement,
community-based research
EFFECTIVENESS OF A PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM 3
© 2020. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Investigation of the effectiveness of a community-based parent education program to engage
families in increasing language interactions with their children.
Introduction
In the first years of a child’s life, the rapid development of neural connections that shape
language development occurs as a result of environmental input and transactions the child
experiences with his or her most proximal caregivers (Hoff, 2006; Perani et al., 2011). Although
humans are uniquely gifted with the ability to learn a language at birth, the full expression of
language development transpires through contingent exchanges with caring and engaged adults
within the context of their various ecologies – home, childcare, school, and community (Hoff,
2006; Pruden, Hirsh-Pasek, & Golinkoff, 2006; Zauche, Thul, Mahoney, & Stapel-Wax, 2016).
Studies suggest that a small portion of language skills can be attributed to genetics, making
language development primarily influenced by environmental factors (Price et al., 2000; Kovas
et al., 2005). Bronfenbrenner and Ceci’s Bioecological model (1994) foregrounds proximal
processes and places importance on children’s characteristics, their closest contexts, and their
everyday interactions with those in their environments. The progressively more complex
reciprocal language interactions a child experiences over the first years of life lays down the
neuronal highways that will lead to later language and literacy development.
Robust language development helps lay the foundation for school readiness, reading
comprehension, academic achievement, and later occupational outcomes (Bleses, Makransky,
Dale, HØJen, & Ari, 2016; Dickinson, Golinkoff, & Hirsh-Pasek, 2010; Johnson, Beitchman, &
Brownlie, 2010). Indeed, the evidence of the linkage between early language interactions,
enriching environments, and later academic readiness is so strong that increasing parental
language input to children has become a public health effort (Greenwood et al., 2017; Mahoney,
EFFECTIVENESS OF A PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM 4
© 2020. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
McConnell, Larson, Becklenberg, & Stapel-Wax, 2019; Suskind et al., 2013). Therefore,
communities and organizations that serve families with young children should engage parents
and other caregivers early and often to ensure they have the tools to prepare their children for
school success. Much in the same way that communities attend to public health needs such as
universal vaccinations, engaging families in their children’s language development should be
part of community health efforts.
The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of a community-based parent
education program to increase parental language input to children. There is a lack of research on
the efficacy of a universal preventative approach to preventing language delays or poor early
literacy development by equipping all parents and caregivers to provide an enriching early
language environment. To that end, a team including university researchers, public librarians,
and staff from a community non-profit agency focused on literacy worked together to test the
effectiveness of a universal, community-based intervention to increase parents’ or caregivers’
child-directed speech, back-and-forth interactions with their child, and knowledge of child
development. The group used the LENA Start™ curriculum, and the project was entitled “Small
Talk.” Researchers conducted a comparison study after an initial longitudinal study (withheld
for blind review) due to the preferences of community partners who felt random assignment for
parents of young children was not practical or ethical in a publicly available program. The
comparison sample was drawn from families who regularly attended library storytime and had
children of eligible age, but did not participate in the parent education program.
Effect of Home Language on Child’s Language Development
Young children receive differing amounts and types of language enrichment in their
home context, and some of the marked differences in language input occurs between families of
EFFECTIVENESS OF A PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM 5
© 2020. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
low and high socioeconomic status (Hart & Risley, 1995; Rowe, 2008). Disparities in access to
resources, parental educational attainment, and parental knowledge of child development may
undergird these differences (Bornstein, Cote, Haynes, Hahn, & Park, 2010; Rowe, Denmark,
Harden, & Stapleton, 2016; Rowe, Pan & Ayoub, 2005). Such patterns of differential language
input to children can also appear cross-culturally (Fuligni & Brooks-Gunn, 2013; Rowe,
Denmark, Harden, & Stapleton, 2016). Two primary, but not sole differences of these home
language experiences, include the quality and quantity of the child-directed speech (Hoff, 2006;
Rowe, 2012). For example, there are strong temporal associations between the number of words
a child hears and their language ability, such as vocabulary size at age two (Hurtado, Marchman,
& Fernald, 2008), third-grade vocabulary and reading ability (Walker, Greenwood, Hart, &
Carta, 1994), and even receptive language differences as early as 18 months of age (Fernald,
Marchman, & Weisleder, 2013). The child-directed speech provided by caregivers can also differ
in terms of the quality of language used, with variations in the richness of vocabulary from
parents or caregivers (Rowe, 2012; Weizman & Snow, 2001) and the amount of affirmative or
encouraging utterances versus prohibitive or directing utterances (Hart & Risley, 2003; Rowe,
2008). These variations, analogous to variance in language quantity, are associated with
significant differences in a child’s language developmental trajectory when retested a year
(Rowe, 2008) or a few years later (Weizman & Snow, 2001). Furthermore, parents who are
judged by third-party adult observers as being better at teaching words to their children have
children with larger vocabularies three years later (Cartmill et al., 2013). Lastly, a longitudinal
study demonstrating that conversational turn counts of families with children aged 18-24 months
accounted for 14-27% of the variance in I.Q., verbal comprehension, and receptive/expressive
EFFECTIVENESS OF A PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM 6
© 2020. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
vocabulary scores ten years later gives strong evidence of the lasting impact of early language
environments (Gilkerson et al., 2018).
Need for Community Programs to Meet Numbers of Families
Parents, caregivers, and teachers of young children need information about language
development strategies so they can better understand their role in their children's development
and success. Roberts and Kaiser (2011) analyzed 18 studies on parent-implemented language
interventions and found significant, positive effects (ranging from g = 0.35- 0.82) on children’s
expressive and receptive language skills. Although these studies were conducted with families
whose children had language delays, the principles of teaching parents to support their child’s
language development are likely to be similar for parents of children without an identified
language delay. Programs such as Early Head Start and Head Start have found that home-visiting
programs that taught parents how to read interactively with their children increased children's
language and literacy skills (Cronan, Cruz, Arriaga, & Sarkin, 1996). More recently, Suskind and
colleagues (2016) implemented a home-based intervention using the LENA® quantitative
language analysis as a feedback tool. Parents from low-SES backgrounds increased their
knowledge of child development and the amount of talk with their children during the study.
While these programs are successful, it may not be practical to bring them up to a large-scale,
due to the expense of intensive one-to-one interventions. As the 2017 U.S. Census estimates,
nearly one in five children under five experiences poverty (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017), and it is
not feasible to provide one-to-one home visiting services to all families in need. A public-health
model could provide the template for initiatives delivered at the population, community, and
individual levels (Greenwood et al., 2017; Suskind et al., 2013) to meet the scale of demand in
the United States. Although research on the ability to affect child-directed speech from parents
EFFECTIVENESS OF A PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM 7
© 2020. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
using group-based programs is scarce, there is some promising evidence. For example, public
libraries have long provided early literacy information to parents through storytime
programming. Although the empirical base is scant due to methodological challenges, one recent
study in the state of Washington demonstrated children’s pre-literacy skills benefitted from the
storytimes (Campana et al., 2016). Trained volunteers can also positively impact the literacy
skills of young children. In the Reading Partners project, volunteers who had received training
tutored children on literacy skills (Jacob, Smith, Willard, & Rifkin, 2014). The children who
received this tutoring outperformed comparison children in reading comprehension, sight words,
and fluency. These examples demonstrate that community partners can work with caregivers of
children to make a substantial positive change in children's outcomes.
Need to Create Programs that Meet the Needs of Harder-to-reach Families
Bronfenbrenner and Ceci’s Bioecological model (1994) provides a strong justification for
widening the responsibility of providing language input to young children from the immediately
proximal caregivers in the microsystem. Parents, caregivers, and other caring adults need to
understand their role in children’s language development and to see talking and reading to
infants and toddlers as normal and expected of all. Families with stressors and responsibilities
may need more support from the larger mesosystem (e.g., from the community) and even
ecosystems (e.g., support via public health campaigns) to be able to engage with their children.
They will need other caring adults to interact with children when they cannot. Communities
should ensure preventative interventions are available to everyone in the population of interest,
namely those who may be considered at-risk for less optimal outcomes. However, engaging and
retaining families in prevention and intervention programs is challenging across all public health
domains (Ingoldsby, 2010), and parenting programming is no exception (Doyle & Zhang, 2011).
EFFECTIVENESS OF A PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM 8
© 2020. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
In the current study, community partners and researchers discussed theoretical
frameworks that may influence parents’ attendance. We examined research on effective ways to
reduce obstacles for families to attract more families with low-income and increase the
likelihood of retention. In a review of interventions to improve family engagement and retention,
Ingoldsby (2010) pointed out several concrete strategies. The Small Talk team focused on three
of these evidence-based strategies. The first was to support attendance through text reminders
(built into the LENA® system), testing different days and timeslots to hold programs, and
providing make-up sessions for missed days. The second was to reduce barriers by providing
child care, providing healthy snacks or meals, and providing bus or parking passes. The third
strategy involved providing incentives such as books and or monetary gifts and actively doing in-
person recruiting. The discussion section will present the results of these efforts.
We hypothesized that parents/caregivers who completed the Small Talk program would
increase the amount of talk with their child relative to comparable parents who regularly attend
the library. Additionally, we expected to see an increase in parent knowledge of child
development and a subsequent rise in children’s vocalizations, as a result of participation in the
program. Specifically, this study addressed the following questions:
1) Do participants of the Small Talk parent education program grow significantly in adult
word count and conversational turns with their child compared to participants who
regularly attend a library storytime? Subsequently, do their children grow in child
vocalizations compared to children who attend a library storytime?
2) Do participants of the Small Talk parent education program increase in knowledge of
child development compared to participants who regularly attend library storytimes?
EFFECTIVENESS OF A PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM 9
© 2020. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Method
Sample
Full details of the participants of the intervention study (N = 105) are described elsewhere
(Beecher & Van Pay, 2019) and detailed in the CONSORT-like diagram in Figure 1. Most
participants were primarily from a mid-sized, Midwestern town, with a smaller portion of
families (N = 17) from local, more rural communities. The intervention program took place in
public libraries, as one of the goals of the program is also to increase library use and create
routines surrounding visiting the library. Due to the study location, some participants with young
children in the area were international and domestic graduate students who had high educational
attainment. As such, many of the participants who reported low income or receiving public
assistance in the sample can be described as being in situational poverty rather than in enduring
poverty.
The comparison sample included 28 primary caregivers and their children aged between
0 and 36 months recruited from two of the three library locations from the original study. See
Table 1 for detailed participant demographics and Table 2 for baseline measurements of the
variables of interest and results of tests of statistical difference. The comparison sample was
matched to 28 intervention families from the original study using Propensity Score Matching
(see Propensity score matching of participants). All participants in the comparison and the
intervention group reported their children to be typically developing in language skills using the
LENA® Developmental Snapshot (Gilkerson & Richards, 2008a). Overall, 86% of participating
intervention families completed the program and met the graduation criteria of attending at least
nine classes and turning in nine recordings. In the comparison sample, 85% completed the
required procedures of completing at least six recordings.
EFFECTIVENESS OF A PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM 10
© 2020. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Frequencies for the Demographic Information of the Comparison and
Intervention Groups
Comparison
(n=28)
Intervention
(n=28)
Child Gender
Female
14 (50.0%)
10 (35.7%)
Male
14 (50.0%)
18 (64.3%)
Child Age (months)
Mean (SD)
16.8 (8.76)
17.9 (8.16)
Median [Min, Max]
18.1 [3.00, 31.6]
18.1 [3.30, 34.4]
Race/Ethnicity
White/Caucasian
13 (46.4%)
13 (46.4%)
Black/African-American
1 (3.6%)
1 (3.6%)
Asian/Asian-American/Pacific Islander
13 (46.4%)
14 (50.0%)
Other
1 (3.6%)
0 (0%)
Home Language
English Primary
15 (53.6%)
14 (50.0%)
Non-English Primary
13 (46.4%)
14 (50.0%)
Educational Attainment
Some College/High School
2 (7.1%)
1 (3.6%)
Associate's Degree
2 (7.1%)
0 (0%)
Bachelor's Degree
10 (35.7%)
11 (39.3%)
Graduate Degree
14 (50.0%)
16 (57.1%)
Income Per Month (USD)
4,400 or less
18 (64.3%)
17 (60.7%)
4,401 to 6,100
4 (14.3%)
3 (10.7%)
6,101 to 8,200
2 (7.1%)
5 (17.9%)
8,201 or more
4 (14.3%)
3 (10.7%)
Caregiver Age (years)
Mean (SD)
34.0 (7.67)
32.4 (4.75)
Median [Min, Max]
31.5 [26.0, 62.0]
32.5 [22.0, 41.0]
EFFECTIVENESS OF A PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM 12
© 2020. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Procedure
Recruitment.
The community organizations took the lead on recruiting for both the intervention and
comparison samples. For the comparison group, participation was open to library patrons in two
locations, and recruitment primarily came through face-to-face invitation at presentations given
during storytimes at the libraries. Recruitment for these families occurred for approximately six
months in the fall and spring. Some participants were recruited through the use of social media,
or posters, and with flyers posted around the libraries. The eligibility requirements were posted
on all recruitment materials: (1) parent or guardian of a child zero to approximately thirty
months, (2) willing to participate in a research study, (3) use of and ability to comprehend
English language, (4) willing to complete all assessments, including a recording once weekly for
at least six weeks (more than six recordings were encouraged), and (5) had not participated in the
intervention. Participants meeting the research requirements received $100 in compensation at
the end of the study for completing all the assessments and measures.
Consent.
The research team obtained consent during a one-hour orientation session. Participants
received a paper copy of both the research consent form and the LENA® consent form for their
review. Facilitators provided a brief introduction to demonstrate the language recorder and the
requirements for participation. Time was allotted for consent review and for addressing any
questions or concerns potential participants may have. Participants used a laptop to sign the
consent form digitally. Participants were informed about consent in a small group setting with up
to four participants per session, with a member of the research team facilitating each group. A
small number of caregivers received the orientation session individually due to scheduling.
EFFECTIVENESS OF A PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM 13
© 2020. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Curriculum.
A complete description of the intervention curriculum, including the theoretical
framework and research base, is given in (withheld for blind review). Briefly, intervention
participants attended LENA Start™, a 13-week program authored by the LENA Foundation.
This curriculum is designed to teach participants about the importance of talking and reading to
and with their children. Components include quantitative linguistic feedback (Suskind et al.,
2013), a workbook, teacher-facilitated visual presentations, and videos showing information on
child language and literacy development and modeling of talk and conversational strategies for
use with young children. Each week, the participants completed one full-day recording of their
child’s language environment using a specially designed device (See LENA® Language
Environment Analysis below). Participants then received a graphical report the following week
detailing the number of adult words and the number of conversational turns they engaged in with
their child, as well as the amount of electronic sound the child heard (television or other types of
digital sound). The reports gave raw number counts, but also percentiles in relation to a normed
sample of families with children of a similar age (Gilkerson & Richards, 2008b). Facilitators
gave positive reinforcement, encouragement, and helped participants to set reasonable goals.
Participants also received weekly text messages asking them to report the number of reading
minutes for the week. The graduation requirements asked participants to complete at least nine
valid recordings with the LENA® device, as well as attend at least nine of the thirteen weekly
classes.
Fidelity.
The Fidelity of the intervention group was measured by an observation checklist provided
by the LENA® curriculum. A member of the research team observed all facilitators at each site,
EFFECTIVENESS OF A PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM 14
© 2020. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
and then feedback on the observation was shared with the facilitator. Rather than a numerical
score, the feedback was qualitative, where observers noted the facilitators’ ability to follow the
structured guide, invite and support group discussion, and explain the technical features of the
LENA® system (the reports, digital language processor, vest, etc.). Each facilitator met the
requirements to deliver the curriculum.
Data collection for comparison.
Participant adult word counts (AWC), conversational turn counts (CTC), and child
vocalizations counts (CVC) were collected using a LENA® Digital Language Processor (DLP)
recording device. Participants received a DLP and a specially designed vest to fit their child at
orientation. They were asked to place the recorder in the vest discretely and put it on their child
when the child woke up. The DLPs recorded for up to 16 hours. Ten hours of recording were
required to be considered valid. Participant DLPs were processed using LENA® Hub, yielding
adult word counts, conversational turns between an adult and the target child, and the number of
child vocalizations. Participants returned the DLP each week to the library and took home
another DLP to do the next week’s recording. Participants in the comparison group did not
receive graphical reports generated by the recordings until the end of their participation in the
study. Participants also completed the pretest of the Survey of Parental Expectations and
Knowledge About Language Learning from Suskind, Leung, Zimowski, and Hernandez (2017) –
a test of parent knowledge of child development, at orientation and again at the end of their
participation.
Measures
LENA® Language Environment Analysis.
EFFECTIVENESS OF A PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM 15
© 2020. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
The LENA® Digital Language Processor (DLP) and LENA® Language Environment
Analysis served as the primary method of data collection. The DLP records and holds 16 hours
of audio heard by the focus child of the enrolled participants. Later, with the use of LENA®
Online software, the audio file is interpreted into quantitative information through the use of
algorithms, and the recordings are deleted, with only the variables retained. Specifically,
variables include the number of adult words (adult word count; AWC) the child heard, and the
number of conversational turns engaged in with the child, which is defined as a verbal response
from a conversation partner within five seconds (conversational turn count; CTC). Child
vocalization counts (CVC) were also captured, along with the amount of electronic time
(television or screen time) in those 16 hours (Richards, Gilkerson, Paul, & Xu, 2008). The test-
retest reliability of the algorithms analyzing the same audio file approaches 100%, and the
validity is 95% when compared to transcribed, human decided audio (Xu, Yapanel, & Gray,
2009). Participants in the intervention group received their scores each week displayed in graphic
form using percentiles derived from a normative sample (Gilkerson & Richards, 2008b) for their
child’s age group. Participants in the comparison group did not receive their scores until they had
completed the study requirements.
Survey of parental demographics and social validity.
At the start of the program, participants filled out a demographics survey, including
information about socioeconomic status, ethnicity, language status, and library or social media
usage. Upon completion of the course, participants in the intervention completed a satisfaction or
social validity survey. Participants rated the program and the materials of the program on a five-
point Likert scale from very useful to not useful at all. Additionally, open-ended questions
invited participants to share their favorite aspects of the program, their least favorite aspects, and
EFFECTIVENESS OF A PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM 16
© 2020. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
what, if anything, should be added or changed to the program. The open-ended questions did not
have prompts and were not required to complete the survey. Parents in the comparison group did
not complete a satisfaction survey; they only completed the demographic questionnaire and
SPEAK.
Survey of parental expectations and knowledge about language learning (SPEAK).
To measure parent/caregiver knowledge of child language development, we utilized the
Survey of Parental Expectations and Knowledge about Language Learning (SPEAK) from
Suskind, Leung, Zimowski, and Hernandez (2017). Participants completed the SPEAK survey
via computer at orientation before the intervention was received, and at graduation after
completion of the program or after completing the comparison. The 30-question survey contains
two sections. One asks parents when children should be exposed to skills like math and
language, and the second asks whether parents agree or disagree with findings from current
research on child language development. The first section allows parents to select from “as an
infant (0 to 6 months)” to “in elementary school (6 years and up)” for six questions of when a
child should be exposed. Then in the second section, parents are given a 5-point Likert scale
from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree with Neither Agree Nor Disagree at the center point
for each of 24 questions. Each question is scored either incorrect or correct based on findings
from recent research in the field of child development. Then a score is compiled from 17 items
with good content validity and reliability at α = 0.84 (Suskind, Leung, Zimowski, & Hernandez,
2017).
Data Analysis
An a priori power analysis using the interclass correlation coefficient (ICC = 0.63), the
estimate of effect size (d = 0.49), nine measurements per participant for conversational turn
EFFECTIVENESS OF A PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM 17
© 2020. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
count from the intervention study (Beecher & Van Pay, 2019), and an alpha of 0.05 was
conducted using the R package “powerlmm” version 0.4.0 (Magnusson, 2018). The power to
detect a similar effect in the current study was estimated at β = 0.82, with 28 participants per
condition.
Multilevel linear modeling (MLM) longitudinal growth curves with time nested in
participants were used to investigate the research questions about the participants’ growth in
adult words and conversational turns during the program as well as to assess their children’s
growth in child vocalizations. There are several advantages to MLM, compared with other
analyses, such as the lack of requirement for complete data across time points and the ability to
test individual and group differences in growth curves. Separate growth models were tested for
each dependent variable (AWC, CTC, and CVC) using full restricted maximum likelihood
(REML) estimation using R 3.6.1 and package “lme4”, version 1.1-21 (Bates, Maechler, Bolker,
& Walker, 2015; R Core Team, 2019). The analysis included condition (Comparison vs.
Treatment) with time as an interaction term. Package “lmerTest,” version 3.1-0, was used for
estimating the p-values, for providing the test of random effects, and for comparing models, and
package “sjPlot,” version 2.6.3 created visualization of the growth curves and creation of the
table and figures (Kuznetsova, Brokhoff, & Christensen, 2017; Lüdecke, 2019). Researchers
conducted a simple slopes analysis of differences for growth between conditions using the
package “interactions,” version 1.1.0 (Long, 2019), and effect sizes for the models were
computed using “emmeans,” version 1.4.2 (Lenth, 2019). Growth in parent knowledge of child
development was tested with a difference score from pre- to post-test, and a Welch’s two-sample
t-test was conducted using Base R 3.6.1.
Propensity score matching of participants.
EFFECTIVENESS OF A PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM 18
© 2020. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Participants who completed the comparison procedure were matched one-to-one to
participants from the intervention study with the use of Nearest Neighbor Propensity Score
Matching (Ho, Imai. King, & Stuart, 2011; Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1983). This method uses
logistic regression of the treatment variable as a dependent variable and significant covariates as
predictors to try and reduce selection effects and confounding variables in observational studies
(Austin, 2011). Although the sample was similar in that both intervention and comparison
participants were likely to use the library, we used Propensity Score Matching to balance our
data and for both conditions to be similar on demographic and baseline variables. We used the R
package “MatchIt,” version 3.0.2, to conduct and evaluate the results of the matching using the
Nearest Neighbor method.
Conditions were matched on the following covariates: baseline adult word count, child’s
age, child’s gender, the family’s language status (English or non-English language primarily
used in the home), educational attainment, if the family received Woman, Infants and Children
supplements, and race/ethnicity. The match was acceptable, having standardized mean
differences of less than 0.1 (a suggested guideline for assessing balance) for baseline adult word
count, language status, Woman, Infants, and Children receipt, and race/ethnicity. Three
covariates had a standardized mean difference slightly larger than .1, with child age at 0.14,
educational attainment at 0.16, and child gender at 0.29 (see Table 1 for all demographic data).
Thus, the overall match was investigated by visualizing the data in ways specified by Austin
(2009; i.e., boxplots, quantile-quantile plots, and density plots) and was deemed acceptable.
EFFECTIVENESS OF A PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM 19
© 2020. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics and Difference Tests of Adult Word Count, Conversational Turn
Counts, Child Vocalization Count, and SPEAK for the Comparison and Intervention Groups
Comparison
(n=28)
Intervention
(n=28)
Adult Word Count (Time 0)
Mean (SD)
13639 (5317)
13734 (6610)
Median [Min, Max]
13474 [5494, 28372]
12975 [3327, 36048]
Difference test
t(54) = -0.059, p = 0.95
Conversational Turn Count (Time 0)
Mean (SD)
494 (262)
478 (206)
Median [Min, Max]
415 [129, 1146]
461 [218, 920]
Difference test
t(54) = 0.25, p = 0.80
Child Vocalization Count (Time 0)
Mean (SD)
1797 (867)
1844 (761)
Median [Min, Max]
1626 [375, 3604]
1734 [723, 3535]
Difference test
t(54) = -0.21, p = .83
SPEAK (Pre-Test)
Mean (SD)
57.14 (9.41)
54.93 (11.65)
Median [Min, Max]
58.50 [28, 68]
57.50 [31, 71]
Difference test
t(54) = 0.78, p = 0.44
Results
Effect of intervention on AWC
Linear mixed model growth curves were fit to the data with an interaction of time and
condition (Intervention or Comparison) to examine whether participants in the intervention grew
in adult word count (AWC) in relation to participants in the comparison group. First, a series of
descriptive analyses were conducted to test the equivalence of the variables of interest. T-tests
indicated there were no statistically significant differences in initial levels of AWC, CTC, or
CVC (see Table 2). Next, an “unconditional means model” was fit to the data, allowing a random
intercept of AWC for each participant with no other predictors in the model. The model was
EFFECTIVENESS OF A PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM 20
© 2020. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
iteratively built up in complexity and included predictors of time, condition, and the interaction
of time and condition with the Intervention group as the reference. Allowing the model to have a
random slope of time for each participant resulted in significantly lower deviance than a random
intercept per participant according to a chi-squared test of difference and was selected as the best
model (χ2(2) = 6.291, p < .05).
The final growth curve model provided an estimated mean of 14521.48 adult words for a
participant in the comparison group at time 0 (SE = 1054.02, t(54.39) = 13.78, p < 0.001; see
Table 3 for all parameters). Participants in the intervention group were predicted to have a mean
AWC at time 0 of 14637.20 (SE = 1050.47), for which there was no significant main effect of
condition (t(54.03) = 0.078, p > 0.05). There was no significant main effect of time in the model
(β = 75.47, SE = 131.03, t(56.17) = 0.58, p > 0.05). Critically, there was a significant interaction
of time and condition (β = 369.64, SE = 180.53, t(53.14) = 2.048, p < 0.05)., Interaction plots of
the interaction of condition and time were examined and showed differential growth in AWC
over time for the two groups. A simple slopes analysis of the fixed effects yields significant
growth in Adult Word Count for the Intervention group at 445 per time point (SE = 124.18, p <
0.05) but not for the comparison group at 75 per time point (SE = 131.03, p = 0.57). Overall, this
provides evidence that participants who took part in the intervention, but not in the comparison
group grew in the amount of AWC over time (see Figure 2 for the overall growth curves). The
final growth curve model explained 63.4% of the variance in AWC, and the size of the effect
was estimated at d = 0.36, or a small to medium-sized effect (Cohen, 1988).
EFFECTIVENESS OF A PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM 21
© 2020. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Figure 2. Overall growth curves of Adult Word Count (AWC), Conversational Turn Count
(CTC), and Child Vocalization Count (CVC) for the Intervention and Comparison groups with
95% Confidence Intervals.
Effect of intervention on CTC
Individual growth curves were fit to the data, with time nested in participants to examine
whether there were group differences in the growth of conversational turns between caregivers
and the focus child. Similar to the analysis for AWC, a baseline model was first fit to the data for
CTC, which allowed a random intercept of each participant and had no predictors in the model.
The model was then built up in complexity, adding predictors of time, condition, and the
interaction of time and condition with the comparison group as the reference group.
Additionally, a model which allowed time to vary per participant was compared to a random
EFFECTIVENESS OF A PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM 22
© 2020. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
intercept only model, resulting in a better fit with time as a random slope, (χ2(2) = 21.37, p <
.05).
The final model for estimating the changes in CTC had an estimated mean of 510.04
conversational turns for a participant in the comparison group at time 0 (SE = 43.92, t(54.31) =
11.61, p < 0.001; see Table 3 for all parameter estimates). Participants in the intervention group
were predicted to have a mean CTC at time 0 of 538.64 (SE = 43.80), and there was no
significant main effect of condition (t(54.03) = 0.461, p > 0.05). Furthermore, there was no
significant main effect of time on CTC (β = -5.04, SE = 5.68, t(56.91) = -0.89, p > 0.05), but
critically, there was significant interaction of time and condition (β = 21.93, SE = 7.89, t(54.23)
= 2.78, p < 0.01). Interaction plots were created and examined to visualize and understand the
interaction and showed differential growth in CTC for the Comparison and Intervention groups
over time. A simple slopes analysis yields significant growth in CTC for the Intervention group
at 17 per time point (SE = 5.47, p < 0.05) but not for the comparison group at -5 per time point
(SE = 5.68, p = 0.38). As seen with AWC, this provides evidence that participants in the
Intervention group grew in the number of conversational turns they had with their children, but
that participants in the comparison group did not (see Figure 2 for the overall growth curves).
This model predicting CTC was able to account for more variance overall than the final model
for AWC, accounting for 71.3% of the variance in conversational turns and with a large effect
size of d = 0.80 (Cohen, 1988).
Running head: EFFECTIVENESS OF A PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM 23
© 2020. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Table 3
Results and Parameter Estimates of Final Linear Mixed Models for AWC, CTC, and CVC
Adult Word Count (AWC)
Conversational Turn Count (CTC)
Child Vocalization Count (CVC)
Predictors
Est.
std.
Error
std.
Beta
95% CI
p
Est.
std.
Error
std.
Beta
95% CI
p
Est.
std.
Error
std.
Beta
95% CI
p
(Intercept)
14521.48
1054.02
-0.11
12455.63 –
16587.32
< 0.001
510.04
43.91
-0.22
423.97 –
596.11
< 0.001
1869.31
143.35
-0.19
1588.35 –
2150.27
< 0.001
Time
75.47
131.03
0.03
-181.34 –
332.29
0.567
-5.04
5.68
-0.05
-16.18 –
6.09
0.378
-14.73
20.02
-0.05
-53.98 –
24.51
0.465
Condition
(Intervention)
115.73
1488.11
0.22
-2800.91 –
3032.36
0.938
28.60
62.02
0.43
-92.96 –
150.17
0.647
58.13
202.46
0.37
-338.69 –
454.96
0.775
Time *
Condition
(Intervention)
369.64
180.53
0.13
15.81 –
723.47
0.046
21.93
7.89
0.21
6.47 –
37.38
0.007
63.01
27.86
0.20
8.40 –
117.62
0.028
Random Effects
σ2
18660526.89
20651.58
206248.17
τ00
23848435.36
45916.47
494493.96
τ11
120803.76
492.78
7075.45
ρ01
0.34
-0.26
-0.43
ICC
0.62
0.69
0.69
Observations
491
491
491
Marginal R2 /
Conditional R2
0.026 / 0.634
0.061 / 0.713
0.047 / 0.700
Running head: EFFECTIVENESS OF A PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM 24
© 2020. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Effect of intervention on CVC
Child vocalization counts of the focus children were examined in each condition and
across time to see if there were different trajectories associated with the changes in adult word
count and conversational turn counts seen in the following two analyses. First, a model
predicting a random intercept of child vocalization for each participant was fitted, and then one
with a random slope of time per participant was compared to it. As with the models for AWC
and CTC, the model allowing a random slope of time per participant was better using a
Likelihood Ratio Test (χ2(2) = 37.62, p < .05).
The best model for predicting changes in child vocalization count had an estimated mean
of 1869 vocalizations for each focus child per day in the comparison group at time 0 (SE =
143.35, t(54.23) = 13.04, p < 0.001; see Table 3). The number of child vocalizations for children
in the intervention group at time 0 was estimated at 1869, with no significant main effect of
condition (SE = 202.46, t(53.96) = 0.287, p > .05). Similar to AWC & CTC, there was also no
significant main effect of time, predicted at -14.73 vocalizations per time point, but there was a
significant interaction of time and condition estimated at 63.01 (SE = 27.86, t(54.95) = 2.26, p <
.05). This interaction was plotted and is shown in Figure 2, showing that there was differential
growth in the number of child vocalizations over time in the two conditions. A simple slopes
analysis of these two trajectories shows that children of families in the intervention condition
significantly grew 48.28 (SE = 19.38, t(26) = 2.49, p < .05) vocalizations per time overall.,
Children of families in the comparison condition did not significantly change in the number of
vocalizations per time point,(β =-14.73 SE = 20.02, t(26) = -0.74, p > .05) . Similar to the
findings in AWC and CTC, these estimates provide evidence the focus children of participants
who were in the intervention grew in the number of vocalizations measured during the program,
EFFECTIVENESS OF A PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM 25
© 2020. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
but that was not the case for focus children in the comparison condition. The final growth curve
model explained 70% of the variance in child vocalization count, and the condition by time
effect size was estimated at d = 0.67, a medium to large effect of the intervention on the number
of child vocalizations (Cohen, 1988).
Effect of intervention on SPEAK
Change in parent knowledge of child development due to the intervention was analyzed
using a Welch independent sample t-test of the difference score on the SPEAK from pre-test to
post-test. There was a significant difference between the conditions on the difference scores,
(t(33.52) = 2.59, p < .05), with the intervention group difference (M = 6.08, SD = 10.70, N = 26)
being significantly greater than the comparison group difference (M = 0.18, SD = 4.17, N = 22).
The effect size for this difference was computed as d = 0.73, a medium to large effect of the
intervention on parent knowledge of child development (Cohen, 1988).
Program Features that Helped Families Persist
The strategies to support attendance, including text reminders (built into the LENA®
system), and providing make-up sessions for missed days, resulted in a retention rate of 86%,
with weeknight sessions having the highest attendance rates. Childcare, providing healthy snacks
or meals, and bus or parking passes were also offered, along with books and monetary
incentives. For this study, we coded the open-ended questions which asked parents about the
features of the program they appreciated, or that helped them the most, to understand which of
the above strategies or program features was effective. Of the responses listed, most of the
participants indicated that parents valued learning the language strategies (40%) and that they
could see immediate benefits to their children (17%). Less often mentioned was using the reports
as a way to track their progress and share information with family members (7%). However, we
EFFECTIVENESS OF A PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM 26
© 2020. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
asked a specific question about the usefulness of the reports in the social validity survey (results
reported in Beecher & Van Pay, 2019), which indicated that 86% of families found the reports
useful. The food (3%), books (5%), and childcare (4%) were all mentioned as helpful and
appreciated parts of the program. Lastly, approximately 9% of the responses indicated the fun
and social atmosphere of the class was motivating. Surprisingly, only 1.5% mentioned the
monetary incentive they received for participating in the study. Note that not all respondents
answered this question, and some answers did not fit into the categories mentioned above.
Discussion
Bringing the national conversation about early childhood language development to the
forefront will require a multi-component effort modeled after successful public health campaigns
that changed the American landscape – such as smoking cessation (Greenwood et al., 2017;
Mahoney et al., 2019). Currently, there is little research on population-level
prevention/intervention efforts in children’s language development. Our results suggest that a
community-based program is effective at changing adult behavior. The changes in AWC, CTC,
and CVC of participants ranged from a small effect in the increase of adult words, at about 450
words added each week to the child’s language environment, to a large effect in CTC, where
caregivers added about 17 conversational turns with their child per week during the program.
Given recent research by Romeo and colleagues (2018), which found impacts on neural language
processing due to children’s conversational experience over and above socioeconomic status or
the number of adult words heard, the increase in conversational turns is particularly promising.
Taken together, the rise in adult words and conversational turns seem to have helped children
vocalize more than their comparison counterparts, adding about 50 more vocalizations per week.
Our comparison group of families offers more support for the efficacy of this approach. These
EFFECTIVENESS OF A PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM 27
© 2020. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
parents or caregivers were attending the library regularly and participated in library
programming. Regardless, the overall number of words and conversational turns these parents
and caregivers provided did not change, nor did individuals change in their understanding of
child development. We also see the children’s vocalizations on a steady or decreasing trend in
the comparison group. Although this evidence does not suggest that comparison children are not
progressing in their language development. Providing intervention parents with specific language
strategies and feedback about their use of the strategies was more effective at increasing their
language input over more general exposure to information about or modeling of reading and
talking with children that were provided at the library storytime programs.
In both the Thirty Million Words project (Suskind et al., 2013) and the Providence Talks
project (Wong, Boben, & Thomas, 2018), programs designed to teach parents simple interaction
strategies led to an increase in adult words and conversational turns. Unlike the one-to-one home
visiting model those programs employed, we found significant increases with group-based
community educational intervention. This finding is promising because it is a more cost-effective
approach. Further, although the research staff supported the project with technical assistance,
community members employed by the public library primarily carried out the program. The
partnership with the community organizations was vital in gaining parents’ trust to conduct the
research. The library is a highly trusted institution (Geiger, 2017). Since the library staff were
included in the research process from the beginning and throughout the study, the traditional
wariness of university research was overcome (Luo et al., 2019).
The finding that a higher percentage of parents reported they valued the educational
strategies of the program over the other benefits is supported by other research in family literacy
that asserts many parents want to learn how to support their children’s development (de la Rie,
EFFECTIVENESS OF A PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM 28
© 2020. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
van Steensel, van Gelderen, 2017; Doyle & Zhang, 2011). Although only 40% of the respondents
who answered this question referenced the educational strategies, this should not be interpreted
that other participants did not value the strategies. Instead, they may have found different facets
of the program more salient, or simply did not identify one aspect as more important than
another. The social validity results from the previous study (Beecher & Van Pay, 2019) found
that 86% of families reported they found the content of the program useful and that they found
the reports helpful. Thus, they may not have repeated this in the open-ended portion of the
survey – perhaps feeling that they had already answered this question.
Limitations and Future Directions
Several limitations of the current study must be noted. First, our sample primarily
consisted of parents who reside near or likely are involved with a university. Although two
groups were conducted at libraries in other locations without a nearby university, these parents
made up a smaller portion of the sample. Even though many of our families qualified for and
received federal assistance such as WIC, some are temporarily lower income, as one or both
parents were enrolled in school. Thus, the education level of our sample may limit the
generalizability of our results. Secondly, and related to the first, we had a large portion of
families for whom English was not their native language. All instruction and all assessments
were conducted in English, and participants were asked to be proficient in English. It should be
noted many of these participants were in this community to pursue educational goals, and this
also limits the applicability of the findings. Lastly, given that the study was not randomized and
utilized a smaller local sample, caution is warranted in interpreting the outcomes.
We hypothesized the quantitative feedback that the parents received weekly was a key
element to support a change in linguistic behavior because the graphical nature of the linguistic
EFFECTIVENESS OF A PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM 29
© 2020. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
feedback was clear and interpretable, perhaps contributing to parents’ self-efficacy. However,
this hypothesis has yet to be tested. Future investigation into “active ingredients” of community-
based programs that could be implemented widely would be very beneficial to the field and have
broad generalization to other prevention programs. Larger samples are needed to look for
significant mediators of parent behavior – such as parental knowledge of child development.
Further, families and caregivers have varied required levels of support. Analogous to multi-tiered
systems of support in public health or education (Carta & Miller, 2019), families could be
screened for baseline levels of language input and then referred to a prevention program that
would be appropriate for their level of need. In our study, some parents commented on the
repetitive nature of the materials, and some parents began at a level well above the 50th percentile
in talk. In essence, those families may not need as intensive of a dose. Yet, some families were
very new to the idea of talking and reading with infants and toddlers. They began the program
below the 25th percentile in the amount of talk with their children and may need more time and
practice to develop their skills and confidence in this area. It is important to emphasize here the
universal nature of this program, which is open to any interested parent, regardless of risk status.
Our goal was to ensure that parents and caregivers from a wide range of backgrounds have
access to information about why and how to provide enriching language environments for their
children. This universal focus may help reach children and families missed by targeted programs,
and those who may feel individualized programs are not a good fit for them (Greenwood et al.,
2017; Pontoppidan et al., 2016).
Providing universal programs does not deny the reality that recruitment strategies to find
and engage the families that are in the most need of the prevention program are sorely under-
researched. The amount of time it takes to recruit “hard-to-reach” families actively cannot be
EFFECTIVENESS OF A PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM 30
© 2020. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
underestimated. In the current study, the most effective recruiting strategy was a face-to-face
discussion with families at a location that they regularly attend (for example, well-child visits or
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children [WIC]) by the class
facilitators. Most community organizations do not have this time in their operational budget (Luo
et al., 2019), but this may be a strategy worth investigating. Participating in a universal program
does not preclude receiving other services. It can be considered to benefit individuals, but also to
raise community awareness of the importance of engaging all families. Again, we assert that
following Bronfenbrenner and Ceci’s (1994) model of Bioecological development leads to a
logical conclusion of the need to impact communities as well as individuals.
More flexible systems of the delivery of prevention programs need to be developed.
There are more aspects to studying how to create and deliver evidence-based programs (i.e.,
implementation science) at the community level that will be effective at engaging parents and
caring others to support children’s optimal development in the area of language and literacy.
Spoth and colleagues (2013) describe the first stage (or Type 1) of translational work as bringing
basic prevention/intervention research to the population. The second stage (or Type 2) is building
capacity to scale-up evidence-based interventions and improving research methods for capturing
the impact that the developed systems are having on the phenomena of interest. As this work is
critical to the early intervention field, researchers may need to find more adaptive styles of
research to meet the urgency of the need to ensure all children are receiving adequate language
enrichment.
Conclusion
Early intervention/prevention in language and literacy has yet to develop a
comprehensive system of support and evaluation that reaches all caregivers of young children.
EFFECTIVENESS OF A PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM 31
© 2020. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Understanding how the environments, norms, and interactions that families and children are
embedded in can be adapted to optimize adults learning or behavioral change may be an under-
utilized strategy to support parents in making permanent, positive changes in their daily
interactions with their children. Finding and engaging parents who should be the targets of these
types of prevention programs is challenging, and often those who are in the greatest need of
support are not willing or able to participate (Luo et al., 2019). Indeed, productive discussion of
retention rates and recruitment strategies are not always available in intervention research. There
is little empirical evidence to draw on to understand the actual reach of early language and
literacy interventions into populations with the highest need. Intervention science in early
childhood has been moving towards the recognition of the need for more emphasis on
translational research. When carried out with the ultimate end-users of programs and policies,
translational research can help communities provide systematic and strategic support to all
families during the critical time of early childhood.
EFFECTIVENESS OF A PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM 32
© 2020. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
References
Austin, P. C. (2009). The relative ability of different propensity-score methods to balance
measured covariates between treated and untreated subjects in observational
studies. Medical Decision Making, 29: 661–677. doi:10.1177/0272989X09341755
Austin, P. C. (2011). An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of
confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46(3), 399-424.
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). Fitting linear mixed-effects models
using lme4. ArXiv Preprint. arXiv:1406.5823.
Beecher, C.C., Van Pay, C.K. (2019). Small Talk: A Community Research Collaboration to
Increase Parental Provision of Language to Children. Child Youth Care Forum.
Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-019-09507-7
Bleses, D., Makransky, G., Dale, P. S., HØJen, A., & Ari, B. A. (2016). Early productive
vocabulary predicts academic achievement 10 years later. Applied Psycholinguistics,
37(06), 1461-1476. doi:10.1017/s0142716416000060
Bornstein, M. H., Cote, L. R., Haynes, O. M., Hahn, C. S., & Park, Y. (2010). Parenting
knowledge: Experiential and sociodemographic factors in European American mothers of
young children. Developmental Psychology, 46(6), 1677.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nuture reconceptualized in developmental
perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological Review, 101(4), 568.
Campana, K., Mills, J. E., Capps, J. L., Dresang, E. T., Carlyle, A., Metoyer, C. A., ... & Kotrla,
B. (2016). Early literacy in library storytimes: A study of measures of effectiveness. The
Library Quarterly, 86(4), 369-388.
EFFECTIVENESS OF A PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM 33
© 2020. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Carta, J.J. & Miller, R. (Eds)(2019). Multi-tiered systems of support for young children: A guide
to response to intervention in early education. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.
Cartmill, E. A., Armstrong, B. F., 3rd, Gleitman, L. R., Goldin-Meadow, S., Medina, T. N., &
Trueswell, J. C. (2013). Quality of early parent input predicts child vocabulary 3 years
later. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(28), 11278-11283.
doi:10.1073/pnas.1309518110
Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2017). The Family Engagement Inventory (FEI): A brief
cross-disciplinary synthesis. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Children’s Bureau.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Cronan, T. A., Cruz, S. G., Arriaga, R. I., & Sarkin, A. J. (1996). The effects of a community-
based literacy program on young children's language and conceptual development.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 24(2), 251-272.
de la Rie, S., Van Steensel, R. C. M., & Van Gelderen, A. J. S. (2017). Implementation quality of
family literacy programmes: A review of literature. Review of Education, 5(1), 91-118.
doi: 10.1002/rev3.3081
Dickinson, D. K., Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2010). Speaking out for language: Why
language is central to reading development. Educational Researcher, 39(4), 305-310.
Doyle, A., & Zhang, J. (2011). Participation structure impacts on parent engagement in family
literacy programs. Early Childhood Education Journal, 39(3), 223-233.
EFFECTIVENESS OF A PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM 34
© 2020. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P., ... &
Sexton, H. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology,
43(6), 1428.
Fernald, A., Marchman, V. A., & Weisleder, A. (2013). SES differences in language processing
skill and vocabulary are evident at 18 months. Developmental Science, 16(2), 234-248.
doi:10.1111/desc.12019
Fuligni, A. S., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2013). Mother–child interactions in Early Head Start: Age
and ethnic differences in low-income dyads. Parenting, 13(1), 1-26.
Geiger, A. (2017). Most Americans—especially millennials—say libraries can help them find
reliable, trustworthy information. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved
from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/08/30/most-americans-especially-
millennials-say-libraries-can-help-them-find-reliable-trustworthy-information
Gilkerson, J. & Richards, J. A. (2008a). The LENA™ Developmental Snapshot. Retrieved from
Boulder, CO: https://www.lena.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/LTR-07-2_Snapshot.pdf
Gilkerson, J., & Richards, J. A. (2008b). The LENA™ Natural Language Study. Retrieved from
Boulder, CO: http://lena.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/LTR-02-
2_Natural_Language_Study.pdf
Gilkerson, J., Richards, J. A., Warren, S. F., Oller, D. K., Russo, R., & Vohr, B. (2018).
Language experience in the second year of life and language outcomes in late
childhood. Pediatrics, 142(4), e20174276.
Greenwood, C. R., Carta, J. J., Walker, D., Watson-Thompson, J., Gilkerson, J., Larson, A. L., &
Schnitz, A. (2017). Conceptualizing a public health prevention intervention for bridging
EFFECTIVENESS OF A PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM 35
© 2020. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
the 30 million word gap. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 20(1), 3-24.
doi:10.1007/s10567-017-0223-8
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young
American children: Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes Publishing.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (2003). The early catastrophe: The 30 million word gap by age 3.
American Educator, 27(1), 4-9.
Hirsh-Pasek, K., Adamson, L. B., Bakeman, R., Owen, M. T., Golinkoff, R. M., Pace, A., . . .
Suma, K. (2015). The contribution of early communication quality to low-income
children's language success. Psychological Science, 26(7), 1071-1083.
doi:10.1177/0956797615581493
Ho, D. E., Imai, K., King, G. and Stuart, E. A. 2011. MatchIt: Nonparametric preprocessing for
parametric causal inference. Journal of Statistical Software, 42(8), 1-28.
Hoff, E. (2006). How social contexts support and shape language development. Developmental
Review, 26(1), 55-88. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2005.11.002
Hoff, E. (2013). Interpreting the early language trajectories of children from low-SES and
language minority homes: Implications for closing achievement gaps. Developmental
Psychology, 49(1), 4-14. doi:10.1037/a0027238
Hurtado, N., Marchman, V. A., & Fernald, A. (2008). Does input influence uptake? Links
between maternal talk, processing speed and vocabulary size in Spanish-learning
children. Developmental Science, 11(6), F31-F39. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00768.x
Ingoldsby, E. M. (2010). Review of interventions to improve family engagement and retention in
parent and child mental health programs. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19(5),
629-645.
EFFECTIVENESS OF A PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM 36
© 2020. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Jacob, R. T., Smith, T. J., Willard, J. A., & Rifkin, R. E. (2014). Reading partners: The
implementation and effectiveness of a one-on-one tutoring program delivered by
community volunteers. New York, NY: MDRC
Johnson, C. J., Beitchman, J. H., & Brownlie, E. B. (2010). Twenty-year follow-up of children
with and without speech-language impairments: Family, educational, occupational, and
quality of life outcomes. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 19(1), 51-65.
Kovas, Y., Hayiou‐Thomas, M. E., Oliver, B., Dale, P. S., Bishop, D. V., & Plomin, R. (2005).
Genetic influences in different aspects of language development: the etiology of language
skills in 4.5‐year‐old twins. Child Development, 76(3), 632-651.
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: tests in
linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13).
Lenth, R. (2019). emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. R package
version 1.4.2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans.
Long, J. A. (2019). interactions: Comprehensive, User-Friendly Toolkit for Probing Interactions.
R package version 1.1.0, https://cran.r-project.org/package=interactions.
Luo, R., Alper, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Mogul, M., Chen, Y., Masek, L. R., ... & Golinkoff, R.
M. (2019). Community-based, caregiver-implemented early language intervention in
high-risk families: Lessons learned. Progress in Community Health Partnerships:
Research, Education, and Action, 13(3), 283-291.
Lüdecke, D. (2019). sjPlot: Data Visualization for Statistics in Social Science.
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1308157, R package version 2.8.0, https://CRAN.R-
project.org/package=sjPlot.
EFFECTIVENESS OF A PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM 37
© 2020. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Madigan, S., Prime, H., Graham, S. A., Rodrigues, M., Anderson, N., Khoury, J., & Jenkins, J.
M. (2019). Parenting behavior and child language: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 144(4),
e20183556.
Magnusson, K. (2018). powerlmm: Power Analysis for Longitudinal Multilevel Models. R
package version 0.4.0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=powerlmm.
Mahoney, A. D., McConnell, S. R., Larson, A. L., Becklenberg, A., & Stapel-Wax, J. L. (2019).
Where do we go from here? Examining pediatric and population-level interventions to
improve child outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.01.009
Perani, D., Saccuman, M. C., Scifo, P., Anwander, A., Spada, D., Baldoli, C., ... & Friederici, A.
D. (2011). Neural language networks at birth. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 108(38), 16056-16061.
Price, T. S., Eley, T. C., Dale, P. S., Stevenson, J., Sandino, K., & Plomin, R. (2000). Genetic
and environmental covariation between verbal and nonverbal cognitive development in
infancy. Child Development, 71(4), 948-959.
Pruden, S. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2017). The social dimension in language
development: A rich history and a new frontier. In P. Marshall & N. Fox (Eds.), The
Development of Social Engagement: Neurobiological Perspectives (pp. 118-152). New
York: Oxford University Press.
R Core Team (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria:
R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.r-project.org/.
EFFECTIVENESS OF A PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM 38
© 2020. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Richards, J. A., Gilkerson, J., Paul, T., & Xu, D. (2008). The LENATM automatic vocalization
assessment. LTR-08-1. Retrieved from https://www.lenafoundation.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/10/LTR-08-1_Automatic_Vocalization_Assessment. pdf.
Roberts, M. Y., & Kaiser, A. P. (2011). The effectiveness of parent-implemented language
interventions: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 20(3),
180-199. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2011/10-0055)
Romeo, R. R., Leonard, J. A., Robinson, S. T., West, M. R., Mackey, A. P., Rowe, M. L., &
Gabrieli, J. D. (2018). Beyond the 30-million-word gap: Children’s conversational
exposure is associated with language-related brain function. Psychological Science,
29(5), 700-710.
Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in
observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41-55.
Rowe, M. L. (2008). Child-directed speech: Relation to socioeconomic status, knowledge of
child development and child vocabulary skill. Journal of Child Language, 35(1), 185-
205.
Rowe, M. L. (2012). A longitudinal investigation of the role of quantity and quality of child‐
directed speech in vocabulary development. Child Development, 83(5), 1762-1774.
Rowe, M. L., Denmark, N., Harden, B. J., & Stapleton, L. M. (2016). The role of parent
education and parenting knowledge in children's language and literacy skills among
White, Black, and Latino families. Infant and Child Development, 25(2), 198-220.
Rowe, M. L., Pan, B. A., & Ayoub, C. (2005). Predictors of variation in maternal talk to
children: A longitudinal study of low-income families. Parenting: Science and
Practice, 5(3), 259-283.
EFFECTIVENESS OF A PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM 39
© 2020. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. (2010). CONSORT 2010 statement: updated
guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC medicine, 8(1), 18.
Spoth, R., Rohrbach, L. A., Greenberg, M., Leaf, P., Brown, C. H., Fagan, A., ... & Hawkins, J.
D. (2013). Addressing core challenges for the next generation of type 2 translation
research and systems: The translation science to population impact (TSci Impact)
framework. Prevention Science, 14(4), 319-351.
Suskind, D. L., Leffel, K. R., Graf, E., Hernandez, M. W., Gunderson, E. A., Sapolich, S. G., ...
& Levine, S. C. (2016). A parent-directed language intervention for children of low
socioeconomic status: A randomized controlled pilot study. Journal of Child
Language, 43(2), 366-406.
Suskind, D. L., Leffel, K. R., Hernandez, M. W., Sapolich, S. G., Suskind, E., Kirkham, E., &
Meehan, P. (2013). An exploratory study of "quantitative linguistic feedback": Effect of
LENA feedback on adult language production. Communication Disorders Quarterly,
34(4), 199-209. doi:10.1177/1525740112473146
Suskind, D. L., Leung, C. Y., Webber, R. J., Hundertmark, A. C., Leffel, K. R., Suskind, E., ... &
Graf, E. (2018). Development of the survey of parent/provider expectations and
knowledge (SPEAK). First Language, 38(3), 312-331.
U.S. Census Bureau (2017). Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic
Supplement. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2018/demo/p60-263.html.
Walker, D., Greenwood, C., Hart, B., & Carta, J. (1994). Prediction of school outcomes based on
early language production and socioeconomic factors. Child Development, 65(2), 606-
621.
EFFECTIVENESS OF A PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM 40
© 2020. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Weizman, Z. O., & Snow, C. E. (2001). Lexical output as related to children's vocabulary
acquisition: Effects of sophisticated exposure and support for meaning. Developmental
Psychology, 37(2), 265.
Wong, K., Boben, M., & Thomas, M. C. (2018). Disrupting the early learning status quo:
Providence Talks as innovative policy in diverse urban communities. Retrieved from:
http://www.providencetalks.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/updated-brown-eval.pdf
Xu, D., Yapanel, U., & Gray, S. (2009). Reliability of the LENA Language Environment
Analysis System in young children’s natural home environment. Retrieved from Boulder,
CO: https://www.lena.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/LTR-05-2_Reliability.pdf
Zauche, L. H., Thul, T. A., Mahoney, A. E. D., & Stapel-Wax, J. L. (2016). Influence of
language nutrition on children’s language and cognitive development: An integrated
review. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 36, 318-333.
doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2016.01.015
