Parent training: vocabulary growth for toddlers with hearing loss


Toddlers with hearing loss do not gain vocabulary at the same rate as toddlers with normal hearing. Some of the reasons for this delay are out of our control as therapists. We cannot change a child’s speech perception or the age at which the child received amplification. What we can do is manipulate the child’s environment to promote vocabulary growth.

Lund trained six parents of toddlers with hearing loss in two strategies: transparent naming and linguistic mapping.

Transparent naming is using a new vocabulary word while visually signaling (pointing) to the referent. This has been found to increase children’s vocabulary skills (groundbreaking, I know).  All six parents were able to increase their use of transparent naming with just two 45-minute training sessions.

Linguistic mapping is a little more complex. It involves overlaying words on a child’s communicative act after that child has initiated intentional communication. This is not simply narrating the actions of a child. It requires the communication partner to correctly interpret a child’s communicative attempt and quickly generate an appropriate utterance to go with it.  Only half of parents were able to adequately demonstrate linguistic mapping after two training sessions, which suggests that a little more time might be needed to teach parents this particular skill.

After training sessions were completed, four out of six children increased their rate of word learning. If you have any tots on your caseload with hearing loss, or who are struggling with word learning, you might consider training parents in transparent naming and linguistic mapping.

Lund, E. (2018). Effects of parent training on vocabulary scores of young children with hearing loss. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 1–13. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1044/2018_AJSLP-16-0239

Parent training: supporting complex communication needs

Many early intervention centers are moving from a direct therapy model to a parent training/coaching model. This shift in philosophy can be challenging for many therapists, especially those who have heard “all you do is play!” from parents a few too many times. Teaching our intricate strategies to a parent with no background in language development is not easy!

Douglas et al., sheds some light on effective parent training and coaching. The study included four children with complex communication needs, multiple developmental areas impacted. At baseline, parents struggled to provide communication opportunities and often did not give adequate wait time. Parents then participated in training sessions based on the POWR method which involved the following steps:

  1. Prepare” a developmentally appropriate activity
  2. Offer opportunities for communication” (e.g. giving choices, asking questions, commenting)
  3. Wait for the child’s communication” (at least 5 seconds)
  4. Respond” appropriately to child’s communication

The best part of this training? It was all provided online. Parents participated in the training by watching videos on various modules on their own time. Their skills were then assessed in person. Do you see kids at daycare? Do you work with kids whose parents clean the kitchen during therapy? Of course you do. Providing training for parents to watch on their own time might motivate them to become more involved in their child’s communication. 

After receiving this online training parents increased their communication opportunities provided to the child and increased their responses to the child’s communication. The children also showed increased communicative attempts. Parent feedback indicated that they would prefer to have in-person coaching sessions to go along with the online trainings (us too!), as well as more video examples of strategies being implemented. This is definitely something to consider if you’re working with a parent training model for your EI students.

Douglas, S. N., Nordquist, E., Kammes, R., & Gerde, H. (2018). Online parent training to support children with complex communication needs. Infants & Young Children, 30(4), 299–303.

Parents' role in the identification of early signs of autism

There have been many advances in the early identification of autism in recent years, but did you know that the average age of diagnosis is still around 4 years old???!!!. I’m sure you’re thinking the same thing that I am—We need to do better than that!

When it comes to early identification of autism, previous research has shown that one way we can make sure we’re getting all of the information needed to make a well-informed decisions is by including more than one person’s input in the process. And, if we’re talking about the birth to 3 population and we’re talking about autism, we naturally think of including the parent, right? Many of the well-known, most frequently-used screening tools for identifying early signs of autism and communication delays are designed to be completed by the parent, or at least include a parent questionnaire component (think: M-CHAT and CSBS DP).


But, exactly how should we be using parent input? Should we be putting more or less weight on our clinical observations? When we’re talking about children under two, how accurately is a parent able to identify the early signs of ASD compared to an experienced clinician? If you’ve wondered these same kinds of things, I have some good news for you: the results from this study help to clarify the role that parents play in the early identification of autism. 

This study included 188 siblings of children with ASD and their primary caregivers. Parents completed the Autism Parent Screen for Infants [APSI], and SLPs completed the corresponding Autism Observation Scale for Infants [AOSI] when the children were 12 months, and then again at 18 months. Parent response to the 19 items included in both the APSI and the AOSI (e.g., vocalizing back and forth, showing interest and pleasure, imitating, eye contact) were compared to the clinicians’ responses. And, the results were not only interesting, but also extremely informative: parents identified more behaviors on the APSI that differentiated children diagnosed with ASD from typically-developing children compared to clinicians’ identification of behaviors on the AOSI.

So, based on this information, when it comes to early identification of autism, we really should be viewing parents as a first line of defense. The setting as well as the context of our assessments limit our ability to get all of the information. We need to rely on parents to help us fill in the gaps, adding specificity and depth to our understanding of the developing communication skills of children under 18 months of age. Now more than ever, we need to see parents as our allies, and as key contributors to the assessment process.

Sacrey, et al., (2018). Parent and clinician agreement regarding early behavioral signs in 12- and 18-month-old infants at-risk of Autism Spectrum Disorder. Autism Research, 11(3), 539–547.

Can we predict ASD in high-risk toddlers?


It has become pretty clear that intensive early intervention can improve outcomes for children with autism, but according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the age of diagnosis is often after the age of 3 (check it out). What’s a birth-to-three SLP to do? It would be great if we could predict which high risk infants and toddlers were more likely to get a diagnosis using widely available tools, or better yet, using tools we are already using.  This study looked at whether scores on developmental measures at 8 and 14 months could predict diagnosis of ASD at 36 months.

Children at high risk (sibling with ASD) and low-risk (typically developing sibling) were assessed using the Mullen Scales of Early Learning (MSEL) and Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale (VABS) at 8, 14, 24, and 36 months. Together, these assessments cover several developmental domains, including Communication, Motor, Cognitive, Adaptive, and Social. Those five domains should sound familiar to EI evaluators—they’re listed in Part C of IDEA 2004. Children in the high-risk group were also assessed for autism in the later visits, and all of the results were entered into a program for a statistical magic trick analysis.

So, can we predict ASD diagnosis from early measures of global development in our daily practice? Not quite yet, but we can keep a few key points in mind as we evaluate high-risk infants and toddlers. The authors found a few trends we should consider:

  • Scores at 8 months didn’t predict ASD group any better than chance, but by 14 months the predictions got better, with the VABS Daily Living score (an adaptive measure) being the best predictor
  • High risk infants who ended up with an ASD diagnosis tended to show delays first in the motor domain (8 months) and then the social domain (14 months) (but this resulted in only small differences in VABS and MSEL scores)
  • There were clear differences in VBAS and MSEL scores among groups at 8 and 12 months, and those differences grew by 24 and 36 months (keep that in mind when you evaluate a high risk 1-year-old that “doesn’t look that bad”)

Note: This article is open access (that means FREE)!

Bussu, G., Jones, E.J.H., Charman, M.H., Johnson, J.K., Buitelaarthe, K. (2018). Prediction of Autism at 3 Years from Behavioural and Developmental Measures in High-Risk Infants: A Longitudinal Cross-Domain Classifier Analysis. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1007/s10803-018-3509-x.

What, who, when, or how: What matters in shared book reading?


We all know reading books with our kids and clients is wonderful for language development, but what about shared reading makes it so beneficial to learning vocabulary? This meta-analysis included 38 studies to determine what elements of shared book reading contribute to word learning in typically developing* children ages 33 months–12 years. Good news, shared book reading works! The authors found that children learned almost half of the words they were exposed to during shared reading, but some factors seemed to matter more than others. For example, more exposures to target words was better for word learning, and a dialogic reading style helped children learn 1.22 more words on average than non-dialogic styles. In other words, interactive reading styles with many opportunities to hear and use new words contribute to word learning. No surprise there! What was surprising is that it didn’t matter who read the book. Across studies, children did just as well on word learning measures after shared reading with their parents as they did with researchers or teachers. And the length of time between reading and testing did not affect word learning, so either immediacy wasn’t an important factor for these children, or they retained knowledge of the words they learned during reading. So, if you aren’t already, try incorporating story books into your sessions, and include dialogic reading as part of a home program or coaching session!

*Note: This meta-analysis only included studies on typically developing children, but there are studies out there on implementing therapy techniques into dialogic reading: try here and here for some ideas, and here for more on dialogic reading!

This review appears in both our Early Intervention and Preschool & School-Age sections this month!

Flack, Z. M., Field, A. P, & Horst, J. (2017). The effects of shared storybook reading on word learning: a meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/dev0000512.

Integrating therapists into the research: a how-to

Have you ever heard of Triadic Gaze Intervention? No? Me neither. Unless you went to the University of Washington for grad school, you probably don’t know that TGI is an evidence-based protocol with 20 years of research behind it. But hey, we have to give these researchers credit—they acknowledge this common research-to-practice gap, and are invested in working to fix it.

In this study, Feuerstein et al. sought to include early intervention practitioners in their research. Specifically, they used qualitative methods to assess practitioner’s perceptions of Triadic Gaze Intervention, in terms of acceptability and feasibility for implementation. Their overarching goal was to highlight the unique contribution of practitioners in implementing research to practice. #shoutout


Triadic Gaze Intervention is a technique used to teach toddlers with physical disabilities to use gaze as a form of intentional communication. During play activities, therapists recognize a child’s potential communicative behavior, and shape that behavior toward a three-point triadic gaze. To read more about this method, see Olswang et al. (2014).

So what did SLPs have to say about implementing this highly researched technique in everyday practice? They felt that it closely aligned with their intervention priorities for this population. They found it easy to learn and implement into their current practice. They also thought it was an extremely acceptable and feasible intervention method.

SLPs also listed some potential barriers. They wanted TGI to be taught to a broad range of EI team members, not just SLPs. PTs and OTs are often the first service providers to see toddlers with disabilities, and TGI may align with the motor and social engagement goals targeted by these clinicians. SLPs also brought up the idea that most EI models use a parent training/coaching model. They wanted support from researchers for how to train parents to use this intervention.

So there you have it, folks! Collaboration between researchers and practitioners is not only useful, but necessary for implementing evidence-based protocols into everyday practice. Practitioners should not just be consulted, but integrated into research programs. When we collaborate with each other, everybody wins, including the children.

Feuerstein, J. L., Olswang, L. B., Greenslade, K. J., Dowden, P., Pinder, G.L., & Madden, J. (2018). Implementation research: Embracing practitioner’s views. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1044/2017_JSLHR-L-17-0154

And more...

  • Bottema–Beutel et al. found that parents of children with ASD used more utterances that were related to the object or activity that the child was focusing on compared to parents of typically developing children. And these utterances (esp. comments, as opposed to directives) were particularly effective in establishing joint engagement with reciprocal turn-taking and imitation between the parent and child.
  • Gunderson, et al., found that parental praise (specifically process praise (“praise for effort and strategies”) from ages 1–3 years indirectly predicts math & reading performance seven years later, in 4th grade. Specifically, praise related to effort was found to influence the children’s beliefs that intelligence is malleable. Keep on praising that hard work!  
  • Loy et al. considered parent and infant behaviors that have been shown to predict joint attention in previous research, and examined how these behaviors might relate to later language outcomes. Findings provide evidence to support the notion that attentive, responsive, interactive caregivers are the key ingredient when it comes to establishing joint attention with infants and toddlers.

Bottema-Beutel, K., Lloyd, B., Watson, L., & Yoder, P. (2018). Bidirectional influences of caregiver utterances and supported joint engagement in children with and without Autism Spectrum Disorder. Autism Research. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1002/aur.1928

Gunderson, E. A., Sorhagen, N. S., Gripshover, S. J., Dweck, C. S., Goldin-Meadow, S., & Levine, S. C. (2018). Parent praise to toddlers predicts fourth grade academic achievement via children’s incremental mindsets. Developmental Psychology, 54(3), 397–409.

Loy, M., Masur, E. F., & Olson, J. (2018). Developmental changes in infants’ and mothers’ pathways to achieving joint attention episodes. Infant Behavior and Development, 50, 264 – 273.

Profile of preterm infants' language development

SLPs know that prematurity affects brain development, and is a risk factor for speech–language delay. But how great of a risk factor, exactly?

There are many studies of the cognitive and linguistic outcomes associated with prematurity. This study is unique, though, as a meta-analysis of available research on language outcomes in children ages 5–9 years old. This helps us to address the question of, “Do these preterm infants catch up?”

The findings show that preterm infants, as a group, do not tend to catch up to peers’ language by school-age. Specifically: “Children born VPT (very preterm) and who have VLBW (very low birth weight) do not catch up with their full-term peers at early school age in terms of their total language, receptive language, expressive language, phonological awareness, and grammar abilities...” Do note that there is quite a bit of variability within the study samples though, with many preterm children achieving normal language scores, but many not. And, not surprisingly, the more preterm or medically fragile the infant, the greater likelihood of neurodevelopmental differences.


So, early intervention SLPs—conversations, resources, and support must start in the NICU and continue through the early years (note: this article points you toward some papers on the effectiveness of EI services, as well). School-based SLPs—prematurity isn’t a “non-issue”, but still a relevant piece of the child’s case history all the way up through elementary years, and may shed light on current performance.

*Note—this article appears in both our Early Intervention and Pediatrics & School-Based SLPs’ research reviews, because we had a heck of a time trying to decide where to put it. Bonus! :)


Zimmerman, E. (2018). Do Infants Born Very Premature and Who Have Very Low Birth Weight Catch Up With Their Full Term Peers in Their Language Abilities by Early School Age? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 61, 53–65.

Toddlers’ revisions signal normal development, not stuttering

Working with toddlers who stutter can be a major gray area for early intervention SLPs. Is the child going through a typical phase of language development, or is she truly showing disfluent behaviors? Do we intervene, or do we wait and see if she grows out of it? Parents often want concrete answers, but sometimes we just don’t have them when it comes to stuttering. However, new research may help us differentiate between stuttering-like behaviors and typical disfluencies in toddlers, specifically by observing “stalls” vs. “revisions.”

Revisions are replacements of a speaker’s word choice in a sentence with an alternative. For instance:

“(He) She wants to get ice cream.”

“(I gotta…) You gotta get pizza”

In these examples, the speaker initially uses one pronoun, but then revises the subject of the sentence to another.

Rispoli (2018) studied revisions in toddler’s language samples as they relate to grammatical development, such as Mean Length of Utterance (MLU) and Number of Different Words (NDW).  He found that revisions were positively related to MLU and NDW, as well as increased lexical diversity. Theoretically, this makes sense because in order for a revision to occur, the toddler must have other options with which to replace the word.

Stalls are repetitions or pauses that occur after the speaker has begun to speak. For instance:

            “I-I-I-I-I-I-I go to bed”

            “You---------you want a drink?”

Previous research by the same author indicated that stalls are not related to measures of grammatical development.


How does this relate to the potential stutterer, you might ask? Well, since the use of revisions are actually positively related to grammatical development, they are not indicative of a fluency disorder. In fact, revisions increase with language development in both stutterers and non-stutterers at the same rate! You might even take revisions as a signal that your language therapy is working. Stalls, on the other hand, may be indicative of a fluency disorder, as they do occur more often in true stutterers than in typically-developing toddlers. And while intervening with toddlers who stutter might continue to be debatable, you may be able to reassure a worried parent that revisions, are in fact normal for a toddler. 


Rispoli, M. (2018). Changing the Subject: The Place of Revisions in Grammatical Development. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. Advance online publication.  doi:10.1044/2017_JSLHR-L-17-0216.

Throwback Pub (2017): Treating CAS in the under-three crowd

Childhood Apraxia of Speech. Where to begin? If you’ve tried searching for treatment strategies in very young children, like here or here, or read ASHA’s Technical Report (though that one’s now a decade old…), you know it’s slim pickings. There are good treatment strategies for older children. But, ah, hellooo, what do we do before age four?

This study describes the Speech Motor Learning (SML) approach and tested its effect on a 33-month-old boy with CAS. SML is based on the Four Level Framework (FLF) of speech sensorimotor control. The basic idea in the FLF is that there are four phases in processing speech: linguistic-symbolic planning, speech motor planning, speech motor programming, and execution. The motor and sensory systems communicate to develop motor plans and adjust motor programs. See the article for a synopsis of the FLF.

SML uses principles of motor learning to train sound sets of gradually increasing difficulty. The (very basic) idea is to build “core motor plans” for each speech sound, and then build the flexibility to execute those motor plans in varying phonetic contexts. Nonword targets are based on stimulability, accuracy of production, and developmental appropriateness, and are introduced in a series of stages. The SLP trains a small set of stimulable consonants and vowels, and targets CVCV non-words in five levels of increasing difficulty as the child masters each level. For example, the first level might include nonwords like /bɪbu/, /bɪbi/, /bɪba/ and then slowly increase complexity to nonwords like /bɪdu/, /bɪmu/, /bɪgu/.


Does it work? Well, maybe. The boy in this single case study had been involved in an early intervention program using the Hanen program for over a year with minimal improvement in his articulation. He had normal hearing as screened by an audiologist, and scored within normal range on the Rossetti Infant-Toddler Language Scale. Treatment was provided for 9 weeks, and the authors examined whether the treated sounds could be correctly produced in words or nonwords. The child decreased his total number of errors per word and non-word, and improved his production in the first set of targets and some of the second set, but the authors hesitated to attribute all of his progress to the treatment alone because his baseline scores were variable.

For more on the SML approach and FREE software for creating CVCV and CVC stimuli, see the lead author’s website here.


van der Merwe, A., & Steyn, M. (2017). Model-driven treatment of childhood apraxia of speech: Positive effects of the speech motor learning approach. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 1-15.

Throwback Pub (2012): Training parents to support children with developmental language disorder

As SLPs working in EI, we know that developmental language disorder presents risk for later academic skills. We also know that parent-implemented language interventions can be effective (see Roberts & Kaiser, 2011, for a meta-analysis of parent-implemented language interventions). This study examined whether parent-implemented Enhanced Milieu Teaching (EMT) would impact receptive and expressive language growth in children with language disorder (with cognitive standard score > 80 and no other primary diagnoses; see article for full inclusion/exclusion criteria).

The researchers examined three groups of 24–42-month old children:

  • Typical language
  • Language disorder w/ no treatment, or a “wait-and-see” approach
  • Language disorder w/ parent-implemented Enhanced Milieu Teaching

Families treatment group participated in parent training in 28 sessions (workshops, clinic, and home visits) over a three-month period. EMT strategies were trained in four phases: 1) setting a communicative context, 2) modeling and expanding communication, 3) time delay strategies, and 4) prompting strategies (see Table 5 for examples and description). During training at the clinic, therapists and parents practiced strategies using a specific set of toys. Home visits also included integrating strategies into functional family routines such as snack. All children were assessed with monthly language samples (MLU, total words, different words) plus the Preschool Language Scale, Fourth Edition (PLS-4), at the beginning and end of the study.

So what happened? Parent-implemented EMT was effective for improving language outcomes for children with LI, and parents in the treatment group used significantly more strategies than either other group! Parent use of strategies for typically-developing children and those with language disorder undergoing “wait and see” were about the same.

Children whose parents used EMT

  • significantly improved their PLS-4 Total and Expressive Communication scores and gained an average of 50 more words than untreated children with language disorder
  • gained an average of 15 more words per month compared to untreated children with language disorder
  • grew at about the same rate as children with typical language

Fantastic, right? But what about the kids with language disorder undergoing a “wait and see” approach? They showed significantly slower growth. Not only did those “wait and see” kids start out with lower language abilities, it looks like “waiting and seeing” might just hold them at a disadvantage when compared to those who have access to intervention. The authors stated, “Children in the LI-control group did not catch up but fell farther behind their peers with TL.”

How about a little extra info? The authors also looked at which child characteristics predicted language growth and outcomes. They examined risk at birth (e.g., a NICU stay), cognitive skills, and receptive skills (based on the Bayley-III scores). Risk at birth and cognitive skills were not predictive of expressive language analyses performed. However, “Receptive language at the start of the study predicted growth in language for all three groups of children after controlling for differences in IQ.”

The authors note that more research is needed to determine long-term outcomes. For example, how would these children progress over a period of 12 months? What kind of gains would come from 28 hours of traditional therapy in 3 months? Overall, parent-implemented EMT looks to be a promising model to add to our intervention options for young children with developmental language disorder.

Note: For our bilingual SLPs, see Peredo, Zelaya, & Kaiser, 2017 for a study on adapting parent-implemented EMT for Spanish-Speaking families.


Roberts, M. Y., & Kaiser, A. P. (2012). Assessing the effects of a parent-implemented language intervention for children with language impairments using empirical benchmarks: A pilot study. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research55(6), 1655-1670.

Throwback Pub (2014): Telegraphic or grammatically complete prompts—which is best?

“Dog sitting.”
“The dog is sitting.”

Which would you choose to use as a model in therapy for a language delayed toddler?

If you said the first sentence, you’re not alone. The common assumption among many pediatric SLPs and parents of young children is that short phrases with the grammar removed—aka: “telegraphic utterances”—are a better choice for young kids because they make it easier for them to understand and imitate. And, popular, research-based treatment programs like Enhanced Milieu Teaching (Hancock & Kaiser, 2006) include telegraphic prompts, so they have to be good, right?

But, here’s the problem: previous research has actually shown just the opposite (e.g., van Kleeck et al., 2010). And, in fact, some studies have shown that when young kids don’t hear grammatically complete models, they begin to assume that those telegraphic utterances are the rule (e.g., Leonard & Deevy, 2011), and then have trouble using them in spontaneous productions (e.g., Theakston, Lieven, & Tomasello, 2003).

So, what’s an SLP to do?

That’s where this study comes in. Because we know that hearing correct syntax and morphology is important, and particularly for young kids with language impairments, Bredin-Oja and Fey wanted to find out what happens when models for imitation are grammatically complete. Can young kids with expressive delays still imitate them? And, how does that compare to their ability to imitate telegraphic models?


Five 2-, 3-, and 4-year-olds with expressive language delays participated in 14 play-based therapy sessions. Seven of the sessions involved grammatically complete prompts (“The boy is jumping”), and seven included telegraphic models (“Boy jumping”). Results show that all five of the kids responded just as reliably to grammatically complete prompts to imitate as they did to telegraphic. And, three* of the five kids included morphemes in their imitated utterances only following a grammatically correct model.

This small study has big implications when it comes to the models that we provide in therapy, and also how we teach parents to talk to their young kids. Put simply, the message has to be simplified, but not at the expense of accuracy when it comes to grammar. The authors provide some helpful suggestions for how clinicians and parents can achieve this at the end of this article.

*Two of the kids didn’t produce the morphological markers at all, regardless of whether they were presented in a telegraphic or a grammatically complete utterance. The authors hypothesized that they were probably just not developmentally ready to produce those language forms, and that makes a lot of sense and aligns with previous research (e.g., Fey & Loeb, 2002). 


Bredin-Oja, S. L. & Fey, M. (2014). Children’s responses to telegraphic and grammatically complete prompts to imitate. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 23, 15 – 26.

Throwback Pub (2008): Early gestures to predict vocabulary

Note: This study was part of a larger longitudinal study, information available here.

Wouldn’t it be fantastic if we could screen infants at 8 months and predict later development? This study looked at gesture and object use at 8 months, then followed up at ages 1;0 and 2;0 to determine whether later vocabulary can be predicted by early gesture and object use. The authors mailed out questionnaire packages to 1,477 families when their children were ages 0;8, 1;0, and 2;0. The Macarthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories (CDI) were included in the packet, the CDI Words and Gestures (CDI:W&G) was completed for the first two data collections, and the CDI Words and Sentences (CDI:W&S) was completed at the 2-year mark.

In addition to measuring gestures to predict vocabulary use, the authors also examined the effects of SES and gender on vocabulary. Here’s what they found:

  • Gestures at 0;8 didn’t predict vocabulary (at 2;0) all that well. But gestures at 1;0 year did. Also, gestures predicted 2;0 vocabulary comprehension better than production.
  • Girls produced more words than boys at 1;0 and 2;0, but there were no differences between boys and girls in comprehension
  • Children in the two higher SES groups (there were 5 groups total) reportedly understood fewer words than the children in the lower SES groups. And children in the second lowest SES group were reported to produce more words than children in the higher SES groups

Remember that these fun facts were all based on the CDI, which relies on parent report. So how can we use this information? The authors suggest that parent estimation of their children’s skills may differ by SES; that is, families in lower SES backgrounds may overestimate their children’s abilities, or families from higher SES backgrounds may underestimate their children’s knowledge. This is something to keep in mind when many of our assessments in EI are based, in some capacity, on parent report.


Bavin, E. L., Prior, M., Reilly, S., Bretherton, L., Williams, J., Eadie, P., ... & Ukoumunne, O. C. (2008). The early language in Victoria study: Predicting vocabulary at age one and two years from gesture and object use. Journal of Child Language35(3), 687-701.