ArticlePediatrics2014
Sibship size, sibling cognitive sensitivity, and children's receptive vocabulary.
Article in Pediatrics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Psychology of Problem Finding: from the Arousal System to Cognitive Sensitivity.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2026Review
- Beyond adult speech: why research on language development should consider speech from children.Child development perspectives · 2026Article
- Adversity in Infancy and Childhood Cognitive Development: Evidence From Four Developing Countries.International journal of public health · 2022Article
- Article
- Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Brazilian Portuguese Version of an Observational Measure for Parent-Child Responsive Caregiving.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Article
- Having Siblings is Associated with Better Social Functioning in Autism Spectrum Disorder.Journal of abnormal child psychology · 2019Article
- Having Older Siblings is Associated with Less Severe Social Communication Symptoms in Young Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder.Journal of abnormal child psychology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe 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.
methodsData 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.
resultsHierarchical 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.
conclusionsChildren 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24470649What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.