Responsive Interaction Interventions for Children With or at Risk for Developmental Delays

Abstract

Early communication and social-emotional skills play a critical role in children's development (Kaiser & Hester, 1994; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). Social-communication and emotional development are closely related and also influence subsequent academic achievement (Fujiki, Brinton, & Todd, 1996; Van Daal, Verhoeven, & van Balkom, 2007). Behavior problems often accompany language delays in preschool-aged children (Qi & Kaiser, 2004). Brinton and her colleagues found, for example, that children with language delays had a difficult time entering ongoing conversations and, even when they participated in a conversation, they talked and cooperated less compared with their typically developing peers (Brinton, Fujiki, Spencer, & Robinson, 1997). Difficulties such as these can reduce opportunities for children to engage in social interactions, which in turn can weaken their language and social competence (Robertson & Weismer, 1999). Children's communication skill not only lays the groundwork for their later social development but also influences their achievement in academic areas when they enter school (Dickinson & Tabors, 1991; Walker, Greenwood, Hart, & Carta, 1994). Communication difficulties are pervasive in young children who receive services under the Individuals With 426486T EC33110.

Stimulating parents' self-efficacy beliefs or verbal responsiveness: Which is the best way to decrease children's externalizing behaviors?

“…This suggests that self-efficacy intervention was slightly more effective in stimulating positive parenting, which could in turn result in better outcomes for children. Second, several studies have demonstrated that the stimulation of verbal responsiveness in parents leads to more positive behavior in their children, in particular positive affect and task engagement (Kim & Mahoney, 2004;Kong & Carta, 2013;Landry et al, 2006). However, such positive variables were not under consideration in the current study, which prevented us from identifying additional benefits of verbal responsiveness stimulation.…”

“…The main purpose of verbal responsiveness intervention is to lead to better child communication. The current research is one of the first analyses of its impact on children's behavior (Kong & Carta, 2013). How should these main research finding be interpreted?…”

“…Such strategies often consist of following the child's lead, maintaining face-to-face interactions, balancing turn-taking, adapting vocabulary and grammatical structures to the child or using language modeling strategies. Previous research has shown that these interventions increase parents' verbal responsiveness, children's language development, initiative and engagement, and frequency of play (Kong & Carta, 2013;Roberts & Kaiser, 2011). For example, Kim and Mahoney (2004) demonstrated that mothers' responsiveness was associated with children's active engagement in a task.…”

Handbook of Early Childhood Special Education

“…During weekly home visits, the parent coach (a) asks caregivers to review their experiences across the previous week related to the specifi c parenting target behavior, (b) introduces the current week's target behavior, (c) watches and discusses a short educational video that depicts a range of caregivers performing the target behavior, (d) videotapes the parent during a childcare situation (e.g., playing, feeding), (e) coaches the parent to critique her behavior and her child's responses during the videotaped sessions, and (f) assists the caregiver to plan ways that she plans to use the target behavior over the coming week (see Landry, Smith, Swank, & Guttentag, 2008 ). Findings from a number of published studies demonstrate the effects of PALS in the promotion of parental responsiveness and young children's development (e.g., social-emotional competence, communication, cognitive competence; Kong & Carta, 2011 ;Landry et al, , 2008. (IYPT;Webster-Stratton, 2001 ).…”

Associations between early maternal behaviours and child language at 36 months in a cohort experiencing adversity

“…Prevalence estimates in the general population range from 7% to 13% (McLeod and McKinnon 2007), but are substantially higher in at-risk populations, with estimates rising to around 30-50% (Locke et al 2002). Parenting has the potential to mediate the impact of such risk factors on early language development (Lugo-Gil and Tamis-LeMonda 2008), with increasing parental responsivity typically the focus of early language interventions (Kong and Carta 2011). For the purpose of this study, the term adversity will be used to encompass this broader range of factors associated with lower language trajectories, beyond just SES measures.…”