Limited evidence of test-retest reliability in infant-directed speech preference in a large preregistered infant experiment.

Test-retest reliability-establishing that measurements remain consistent across multiple testing sessions-is critical to measuring, understanding, and predicting individual differences in infant language development. However, previous attempts to establish measurement reliability in infant speech perception tasks are limited, and reliability of frequently used infant measures is largely unknown. The current study investigated the test-retest reliability of infants' preference for infant-directed speech over adult-directed speech in a large sample (N = 158) in the context of the ManyBabies1 collaborative research project. Labs were asked to bring in participating infants for a second appointment retesting infants on their preference for infant-directed speech. This approach allowed us to estimate test-retest reliability across three different methods used to investigate preferential listening in infancy: the head-turn preference procedure, central fixation, and eye-tracking. Overall, we found no consistent evidence of test-retest reliability in measures of infants' speech preference (overall r = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.06,0.25]). While increasing the number of trials that infants needed to contribute for inclusion in the analysis revealed a numeric growth in test-retest reliability, it also considerably reduced the study's effective sample size. Therefore, future research on infant development should take into account that not all experimental measures may be appropriate for assessing individual differences between infants. RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS: We assessed test-retest reliability of infants' preference for infant-directed over adult-directed speech in a large pre-registered sample (N = 158). There was no consistent evidence of test-retest reliability in measures of infants' speech preference. Applying stricter criteria for the inclusion of participants may lead to higher test-retest reliability, but at the cost of substantial decreases in sample size. Developmental research relying on stable individual differences should consider the underlying reliability of its measures.

National assessment of obstetrics and gynecology and family medicine residents' experiences with CenteringPregnancy group prenatal care.

OBJECTIVE: To examine family medicine (FM) and obstetrician-gynecologist (OB/GYN) residents' experiences with CenteringPregnancy (CP) group prenatal care (GPNC) as a correlate to perceived likelihood of implementing CP in future practice, as well as knowledge, level of support, and perceived barriers to implementation. METHODS: We conducted a repeated cross-sectional study annually from 2017 to 2019 with FM and OB/GYN residents from residency programs in the United States licensed to operate CP. We applied adjusted logistic regression models to identify predictors of intentions to engage with CP in future practice. RESULTS: Of 212 FM and 176 OB/GYN residents included in analysis, 67.01% of respondents intended to participate as a facilitator in CP in future practice and 51.80% of respondents were willing to talk to decision makers about establishing CP. Both FM and OB/GYN residents who spent more than 15 h engaged with CP and who expressed support towards CP were more likely to participate as a facilitator. FM residents who received residency-based training on CP and who were more familiar with CP reported higher intention to participate as a facilitator, while OB/GYN residents who had higher levels of engagement with CP were more likely to report an intention to participate as a facilitator. CONCLUSION: Engagement with and support towards CP during residency are key factors in residents' intention to practice CP in the future. To encourage future adoption of CP among residents, consider maximizing resident engagement with the model in hours of exposure and level of engagement, including hosting residency-based trainings on CP for FM residents.

The Influence of Four Constructs of Social Support on Pregnancy Experiences in Group Prenatal Care.

Objective: This study aimed to identify the influence of the four constructs of social support on positive pregnancy experiences in CenteringPregnancy, a group prenatal care (GPNC) model. Methods: Using a qualitative descriptive design, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 women who had participated in at least 6 of 10 GPNC sessions at a family practice medicine residency. Participants were asked to describe their experiences in GPNC. Results: Using a standard content analysis, four constructs of social support (emotional, informational, instrumental, and appraisal) were identified through three major themes: (1) informational support, offered by peers in GPNC settings, promotes learning and prepares women for motherhood; (2) emotional and appraisal support, offered by peers in GPNC, improves emotional well-being and helps women build lasting, supportive connections with peers, and (3) emotional, informational, instrumental, and appraisal support work in tandem to create positive relationships between women and health care providers. Conclusion: Social support provided a means to a positive prenatal health care experience that facilitated the attainment of new knowledge and the formation of positive relationships with health care providers and peers. The findings of this study can provide health care providers with a framework to examine and enhance their practice and care of women in the perinatal period.

Sequential Bayes Factor designs in developmental research: Studies on early word learning.

Developmental research, like many fields, is plagued by low sample sizes and inconclusive findings. The problem is amplified by the difficulties associated with recruiting infant participants for research as well as the increased variability in infant responses. With sequential testing designs providing a viable alternative to paradigms facing such issues, the current study implemented a Sequential Bayes Factor (SBF) design on three findings in the developmental literature. In particular, using the framework described by Schönbrödt and colleagues (2017), we examined infants' sensitivity to mispronunciations of familiar words, their learning of novel word-object associations from cross-situational learning paradigms, and their assumption of mutual exclusivity in assigning novel labels to novel objects. We tested an initial sample of 20 participants in each study, incrementally increasing sample size by one and computing a Bayes Factor with each additional participant. In one study, we were able to obtain moderate evidence for the alternate hypotheses despite testing less than half the number of participants as in the original study. We did not replicate the findings of the cross-situational learning study. Indeed, the data were five times more likely under the null hypothesis, allowing us to conclude that infants did not recognize the trained word-object associations presented in the task. We discuss these findings in light of the advantages and disadvantages of using a SBF design in developmental research while also providing researchers with an account of how we implemented this design across multiple studies.

A multi-lab study of bilingual infants: Exploring the preference for infant-directed speech.

From the earliest months of life, infants prefer listening to and learn better from infant-directed speech (IDS) than adult-directed speech (ADS). Yet, IDS differs within communities, across languages, and across cultures, both in form and in prevalence. This large-scale, multi-site study used the diversity of bilingual infant experiences to explore the impact of different types of linguistic experience on infants' IDS preference. As part of the multi-lab ManyBabies 1 project, we compared lab-matched samples of 333 bilingual and 385 monolingual infants' preference for North-American English IDS (cf. ManyBabies Consortium, 2020: ManyBabies 1), tested in 17 labs in 7 countries. Those infants were tested in two age groups: 6-9 months (the younger sample) and 12-15 months (the older sample). We found that bilingual and monolingual infants both preferred IDS to ADS, and did not differ in terms of the overall magnitude of this preference. However, amongst bilingual infants who were acquiring North-American English (NAE) as a native language, greater exposure to NAE was associated with a stronger IDS preference, extending the previous finding from ManyBabies 1 that monolinguals learning NAE as a native language showed a stronger preference than infants unexposed to NAE. Together, our findings indicate that IDS preference likely makes a similar contribution to monolingual and bilingual development, and that infants are exquisitely sensitive to the nature and frequency of different types of language input in their early environments.

Maternal input and infants' response to infant-directed speech.

Caregivers typically use an exaggerated speech register known as infant-directed speech (IDS) in communication with infants. Infants prefer IDS over adult-directed speech (ADS) and IDS is functionally relevant in infant-directed communication. We examined interactions among maternal IDS quality, infants' preference for IDS over ADS, and the functional relevance of IDS at 6 and 13 months. While 6-month-olds showed a preference for IDS over ADS, 13-month-olds did not. Differences in gaze following behavior triggered by speech register (IDS vs. ADS) were found in both age groups. The degree of infants' preference for IDS (relative to ADS) was linked to the quality of maternal IDS infants were exposed to. No such relationship was found between gaze following behavior and maternal IDS quality and infants' IDS preference. The results speak to a dynamic interaction between infants' preference for different kinds of social signals and the social cues available to them.

Let's talk action: Infant-directed speech facilitates infants' action learning.

Parents modulate their speech and their actions during infant-directed interactions, and these modulations facilitate infants' language and action learning, respectively. But do these behaviors and their benefits cross these modality boundaries? We investigated mothers' infant-directed speech and actions while they demonstrated the action-effects of 4 novel objects to their 14-month-old infants. Mothers (N = 35) spent the majority of the time either speaking or demonstrating the to-be-learned actions to their infant while hardly talking and acting at the same time. Moreover, mothers' infant-directed speech predicted infants' action learning success beyond the effect of infant-directed actions. Thus, mothers' speech modulations during naturalistic interactions do more than support infants' language learning; they also facilitate infants' action learning, presumably by directing and maintaining infants' attention toward the to-be learned actions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Listen up! Developmental differences in the impact of IDS on speech segmentation.

While American English infants typically segment words from fluent speech by 7.5-months, studies of infants from other language backgrounds have difficulty replicating this finding. One possible explanation for this cross-linguistic difference is that the input infants from different language backgrounds receive is not as infant-directed as American English infant-directed speech (Floccia et al., 2016). Against this background, the current study investigates whether German 7.5- and 9-month-old infants segment words from fluent speech when the input is prosodically similar to American English IDS. While 9-month-olds showed successful segmentation of words from exaggerated IDS, 7.5-month-olds did not. These findings highlight (a) the beneficial impact of exaggerated IDS on infant speech segmentation, (b) cross-linguistic differences in word segmentation that are based not just on the kind of input available to children and suggest (c) developmental differences in the role of IDS as an attentional spotlight in speech segmentation.