ArticleActa paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992)2022
Asking parents about babbling at 10 months produced valid answers but did not predict language screening result 2 years later.
Article in Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Investigating the Relationship Between Early Speech Milestones and Oral-Motor Development in Infants.Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992) · 2026Article
- Profiling the Longitudinal Development of Babbling in Infants with Cerebral Palsy: Validation of the Infant Monitor of Vocal Production (IMP) Using the Stark Assessment of Early Vocal Development-Revised (SAEVD-R).Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Asking parents about babbling at 10 months produced valid answers but did not predict language screening result 2 years later.Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992) · 2022Article
- Early Screening for Developmental Language Disorder: Predictive Validity of German Parent Reports.International journal of language & communication disordersArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
aimWe evaluated the concurrent and predictive validity of questions to parents of 10-month-old children about babbling.
methodsChildren with at least one native Swedish-speaking parent were eligible for inclusion in this prospective longitudinal study. The parents were asked three questions about babbling at a routine healthcare visit. If parents reported a lack of canonical babbling (CB), children were assessed by a speech and language pathologist to evaluate the questions' concurrent validity. We then examined whether the babbling questions predicted which children would fail the routine language screening at 2.5/3 years.
resultsFifteen of the 1126 children lacked CB according to the parent responses and the expert assessment confirmed 12 of these cases, providing a concurrent validity of 80%. The sensitivity to predict routine language screening was 8% (95% confidence interval 3-17), and the positive predictive value was 40% (95% confidence interval 20%-65%). However, only six of the children lacking CB at 10 months were among the 71 children who failed later language screening.
conclusionThis study suggests that the babbling questions could be included in the 10-month surveillance at the child health services as valid measures of babbling development, but they cannot predict language screening result at 2.5/3 years.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.