ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To determine feasibility and explore effects of literacy promotion using e-books versus board books on the home reading environment, book reading, television use, and child development. METHODS: Randomized controlled trial comparing digital literacy promotion (DLP) using e-books to standard literacy promotion (SLP) using board books among Medicaid-eligible infants. DLP participants received e-books on home digital devices, while SLP participants received board books at well visits between 6 and 12 months of age. Differences in StimQ Read Subscale (StimQ-Read) scores, parent-reported reading and television use, and Bayley Scales of Infant Development-3rd Edition (Bayley-3) scores between groups were assessed using intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: A total of 104 Medicaid-eligible infants were enrolled and randomized from 3 pediatric practices. There were no differences in sociodemographic characteristics between groups at baseline. Children in the DLP group initially had lower StimQ-Read scores but showed similar increases in StimQ-Read scores over time as children in the SLP group. Parents in the DLP group reported greater use of digital devices to read or engage their child (65% vs 23%, P < .001) but similar board book reading and television viewing. There were no differences between groups in cognitive or motor scale scores, but DLP participants had marginally lower language scales scores (DLP 85.7 vs SLP 89.7; P = .10) at the 6-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS/DISCUSSION: Literacy promotion using e-books was feasible and associated with greater e-book usage but no difference in board book reading, television viewing, or home reading environment scores. A potential adverse impact of e-books on language development should be confirmed in future study.
Subject(s)
Books , Literacy , Humans , Infant , Language Development , Pilot Projects , Reading , United StatesABSTRACT
Objective: To determine if early literacy promotion, which consisted of board books and reading promotion beginning with newborns, is more effective than standard literacy promotion beginning at 6 months. Study design: Hybrid type 1 randomized controlled implementation trial of Medicaid-eligible newborns. Prior to 6 months of age, early literacy promotion participants received board books and reading promotion at well visits plus weekly text messages on reading, while standard literacy promotion participants only received weekly text messages on safety. Both groups received board books and reading promotion at well visits after 6 months as part of Reach Out and Read. Measures included proportion who received board books to assess implementation and StimQ Read Subscale (SQRS) scores and Preschool Language Scale-Fifth Edition (PLS-5) scores at 6 and 24 months to assess outcomes. Differences in measures were assessed using intention-to-treat analysis. Results: Of 120 newborns enrolled, most were African American, resided with a single parent, or had a parent with ≤high school education. Overall 82% of early literacy promotion participants received books/counseling at well visits <6 months old. Children in the early literacy promotion arm had greater SQRS scores (11.0 vs 9.4, P = .006) but similar PLS-5 scores at 6 months, but there were no differences in SQRS or PLS-5 scores between groups at 24 months. Conclusions: Implementation of a literacy promotion program early in infancy was associated with richer home reading environments at 6 months but did not improve language development. Although an early literacy program was feasible, additional study may be needed to assess other potential benefits. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02713659.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To assess the validity of Spanish versions of the Survey of Well-being of Young Children (SWYC) Milestones and the Ages & Stages Questionnaire, Third Edition (ASQ-3), and to document the rates of developmental delays in an urban cohort of children with Hispanic parents. METHODS: Spanish-speaking families with a child 9 to 60 months of age (Nâ¯=â¯991) were initially screened using Spanish translations of the SWYC Milestones and the ASQ-3. A stratified random sample of 494 of these children subsequently received standardized clinical assessment to confirm the presence of developmental delays. Reverse weighting corrected for the selection bias inherent in the stratification scheme. RESULTS: Fifty-five percent of toddlers (9 to 41 months of age) and 34.8% of preschoolers (42 to 60 months of age) scored in the moderately to severely delayed range, most frequently in language. Sensitivity and specificity for toddlers with severe delays associated with the SWYC were 0.69 and 0.64, respectively, and 0.55 and 0.75 for the ASQ-3. Sensitivity and specificity for preschoolers with severe delays associated with the SWYC were 0.87 and 0.58, respectively, and 0.71 and 0.86 for the ASQ-3. CONCLUSIONS: Although psychometric properties of the Spanish translated versions are not as strong as the English versions, the findings suggest that both the SWYC Milestones and ASQ-3 represent promising tools for identifying Hispanic children with developmental delays. The rate of delays were consistent with other studies showing a high percentage of Hispanic children with developmental delays, most frequently in language skills.
