Dr. Michal Perlman

Professor, University of Toronto and Director, Dr. R.G.N. Laidlaw Research Centre, University of Toronto

416-978-0596

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE)

252 Bloor Street West
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
M5S 1V6

Sibship Size, Sibling Cognitive Sensitivity, and Children's Receptive Vocabulary

Journal article

Heather Prime, Sharon Pauker, Andr{\'{e}} Plamondon, Michal Perlman, Jennifer Jenkins
Pediatrics, vol. 133, American Academy of Pediatrics ({AAP}), 2014 Feb, pp. e394--e401

DOI: 10.1542/peds.2012-2874

View PDF

Cite

APA Click to copy
Prime, H., Pauker, S., Plamondon, A., Perlman, M., & Jenkins, J. (2014). Sibship Size, Sibling Cognitive Sensitivity, and Children's Receptive Vocabulary. Pediatrics, 133, e394–e401.

Chicago/Turabian Click to copy
Prime, Heather, Sharon Pauker, Andr{\'{e}} Plamondon, Michal Perlman, and Jennifer Jenkins. “Sibship Size, Sibling Cognitive Sensitivity, and Children's Receptive Vocabulary.” Pediatrics 133 (February 2014): e394–e401.

MLA Click to copy
Prime, Heather, et al. “Sibship Size, Sibling Cognitive Sensitivity, and Children's Receptive Vocabulary.” Pediatrics, vol. 133, American Academy of Pediatrics ({AAP}), Feb. 2014, pp. e394–e401.

BibTeX Click to copy

@article{prime2014a,
  title = {Sibship Size,  Sibling Cognitive Sensitivity,  and Children's Receptive Vocabulary},
  year = {2014},
  month = feb,
  journal = {Pediatrics},
  pages = {e394--e401},
  publisher = {American Academy of Pediatrics ({AAP})},
  volume = {133},
  author = {Prime, Heather and Pauker, Sharon and Plamondon, Andr{\'{e}} and Perlman, Michal and Jenkins, Jennifer},
  month_numeric = {2}
}

OBJECTIVES:

The aim of the current study was to examine the relationship between sibship size and children’s vocabulary as a function of quality of sibling interactions. It was hypothesized that coming from a larger sibship (ie, 3+ children) would be related to lower receptive vocabulary in children. However, we expected this association to be moderated by the level of cognitive sensitivity shown by children’s next-in-age older siblings.

METHODS:

Data on 385 children (mean age = 3.15 years) and their next-in-age older siblings (mean age = 5.57 years) were collected and included demographic questionnaires, direct testing of children’s receptive vocabulary, and videos of mother-child and sibling interactions. Sibling dyads were taped engaging in a cooperative building task and tapes were coded for the amount of cognitive sensitivity the older sibling exhibited toward the younger sibling.

RESULTS:

Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted and showed an interaction between sibship size and sibling cognitive sensitivity in the prediction of children’s receptive vocabulary; children exposed to large sibships whose next-in-age older sibling exhibited higher levels of cognitive sensitivity were less likely to show low vocabulary skills when compared with those children exposed to large sibships whose siblings showed lower levels of cognitive sensitivity.

CONCLUSIONS:

Children who show sensitivity to the cognitive needs of their younger siblings provide a rich environment for language development. The negative impact of large sibships on language development is moderated by the presence of an older sibling who shows high cognitive sensitivity.