Analysis of article using Artificial Intelligence tools
|Author||Dowdall, N.; Melendez-Torres, G.J.; Murray, L.; Gardner, F.; Hartford, L.; Cooper, P.J.|
|Title||Shared Picture Book Reading Interventions for Child Language Development: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis|
Dowdall N, Melendez-Torres GJ, Murray L, Gardner F, Hartford L, Cooper PJ (2019). Shared picture book reading interventions for child language development: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Child Dev. 91(2) E383-E399
|Keywords||book reading; child language development; systematic review; meta-analysis
|Link to article|| https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13225
|Abstract||Interventions that train parents to share picture books with children are seen as a strategy for supporting child language development. We conducted meta‐analyses using robust variance estimation modeling on results from 19 RCT s (N total = 2,594; M childage = 1–6 years). Overall, book‐sharing interventions had a small sized effect on both expressive language (d = 0.41) and receptive language (d = 0.26). They had a large effect on caregiver book‐sharing competence (d = 1.01). The impact of the intervention on child language was moderated by intervention dosage, with lower dosage associated with a minimal impact. Child age and caregiver education level were unrelated to child outcome. This review and meta‐analysis confirms the promise of book‐sharing interventions for enhancing and accelerating child language development.
|Metodology||A protocol was submitted to the PROSPERO registry for systematic reviews (CRD number:42017057258) with child language as the primary outcome. While this registered protocol also speciﬁed assessment of child socioemotional outcomes as a secondary outcome, a recent meta-analysis (Xie, Chan, Ji, & Chan, 2018) focused directly on this question, rendering this analysis redundant. PRISMA guidelines of reporting were followed. A tailored data extraction form (based on the Cochrane Handbook recommendations) was devel-oped in order to obtain all the necessary information from the included studies. Two reviewers (NDand LH) extracted data independently into exceland discrepancies were identiﬁed and resolved through discussion with a third reviewer (GM). Robust variance estimation meta‐analysis model was chosen as the most suitable approach for the analysis to account for multiple effect sizes per study per outcome, or multiple intervention arms (Hedges, Tipton, & Johnson, 2010). This approach allows for the inclusion of any number of dependent effect size estimates within a single analysis.
||Technique||Systematic review; Meta-analysis; Cochrane Handbook risk-of-bias tool; Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test (EOWPVT); Illinois Test of Phycholinguistic Abilities (ITPA); Microsoft Excel; Stata;|