Advertising Disclaimer
Published online November 30, 2007
PEDIATRICS Vol. 120 No. 6 December 2007, pp. e1441-e1449 (doi:10.1542/peds.2007-0045)
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Reilly, S.
Right arrow Articles by Ukoumunne, O. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Reilly, S.
Right arrow Articles by Ukoumunne, O. C.
Related Collections
Right arrow Office Practice
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

ARTICLE

Predicting Language at 2 Years of Age: A Prospective Community Study

Sheena Reilly, PhDa,b,c, Melissa Wake, MDc,d,e, Edith L. Bavin, PhDf, Margot Prior, PhDg, Joanne Williams, PhDc,d, Lesley Bretherton, PhDh, Patricia Eadie, PhDa,c, Yin Barrett, BComm/BScc, Obioha C. Ukoumunne, PhDe,i

a Schools of Human Communication Sciences
f Psychological Science, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
b Speech Pathology Department
d Centre for Community Child Health
h Psychology Department, Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
i Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics Unit
c Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
e Department of Paediatrics
g School of Behavioural Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

OBJECTIVE. This article responds to evidence gaps regarding language impairment identified by the US Preventive Services Task Force in 2006. We examine the contributions of putative child, family, and environmental risk factors to language outcomes at 24 months of age.

METHODS. A community-ascertained sample of 1720 infants who were recruited at 8 months of age were followed at ages 12 and 24 months in a prospective, longitudinal study in metropolitan Melbourne, Australia. Outcomes at 24 months were parent-reported infant communication (Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales and MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories vocabulary production score). Putative risk factors were gender, preterm birth, birth weight, multiple birth, birth order, socioeconomic status, maternal mental health, maternal vocabulary and education, maternal age at birth of child, non–English-speaking background, and family history of speech-language difficulties. Linear regression models were fitted to total standardized Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales and Communicative Development Inventories vocabulary production scores; a logistic regression model was fitted to late-talking status at 24 months.

RESULTS. The regression models accounted for 4.3% and 7.0% of the variation in the 24-month Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales and Communicative Development Inventories scores, respectively. Male gender and family history were strongly associated with poorer outcomes on both instruments. Lower Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales scores were also associated with lower maternal vocabulary and older maternal age. Lower vocabulary production scores were associated with birth order and non–English-speaking background. When the 12-month Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales Total score was added as a covariate in the linear regression of 24-month Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales Total score, it was by far the strongest predictor.

CONCLUSIONS. These early risk factors explained no more than 7% of the variation in language at 24 months. They seem unlikely to be helpful in screening for early language delay.

Key Words: language development • communication development • longitudinal study • risk factors

Abbreviations: USPSTF—US Preventive Services Task Force • SES—socioeconomic status • ELVS—Early Language in Victoria Study • LGA—local government area • SEIFA—Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas • CSBS—Communication and Symbolic Behaviour Scales • CDI—MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories • CI—confidence interval

Accepted May 9, 2007.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?