Observation is a valid way of assessing common variables in typical babbling and identifies infants who need further support

Lieberman, Marion; Lohmander, Anette

doi:10.1111/apa.12776

Cited by 16 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 25 publications

(50 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the nonclinical group, 29 of the 30 children who were assessed at 10 months displayed CB according to the observation and all of the children in the group assessed at 12 months in a previous study by the authors displayed CB. One of the parents, whose child did display CB during the observation at 10 months, maintained that their child did not display CB at this age.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One of our main interests was to investigate whether the previously validated variables in babbling in a previously studied group of 12‐month‐old children , which occur in typically developing children, could identify children in clinical groups at risk for delayed development of speech, language and communication. This purpose was well‐founded in the literature, as it showed a strong association between the babbling variables we chose and the later development of expressive language .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Swedish was the native language of at least one parent in the family. We also included 21 children (11 girls and 10 boys) with a mean age of 12 months and one day, who had previously been recruited from child and well‐baby clinics in the Gothenburg region for another study of babbling, which included the same information as the observation form used in this study .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Data on the CB variables observed in the 12‐month‐old children without medical diagnoses – the CB ratio, oral stops, anterior placement, oral stops with dental or alveolar placement and number of different consonants – were collected from Lieberman and Lohmander . The remaining data collection was performed in the following standardised manner on the other 30 nonclinical children at 10 months.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Natural listening in a live setting, or from a recording, and verbally expressing or writing the utterances as documentation of babbling structure, and consonant sounds have been proven to be a valid and reliable method . Similarly, observation of CB, the presence or absence of oral stop consonants, anterior placement and dental or alveolar stops in an interactive live setting, or from a recording, have been proven to be valid and reliable .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Observation method identifies that a lack of canonical babbling can indicate future speech and language problems

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: We investigated how accurate observations of canonical babbling (CB) were and explored predictive babbling measures in children with and without medical diagnoses of conditions that can lead to speech and language problems.Methods: From 2012 to 2014 this Stockholm-based study recruited 38 children aged nine months to 21 months with medical diagnoses and 30 children aged 10 months without diagnoses and included 21 previously studied 12-month-old children without medical diagnoses. CB and consonant sound production were directly observed by video recording natural play with a caregiver. The percentage of CB was calculated from each recording, and a validated observation form was used. How accurately the children with and without CB were classified was investigated with sensitivity and specificity. The groups were compared using predictive babbling variables. Results:The observation method identified children with and without CB well, with a specificity of 0.89 and sensitivity of 0.93, respectively. Children with predictive babbling measures were identified in the clinical group (specificity 0.93-0.97), and a lack of these measures indicated a risk of being in the clinical group (odds ratios > 10). The sensitivity was low (0.32-0.42). Conclusion:Observation effectively identified a lack of CB and supported the importance of assessing babbling measures.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Observation method identifies that a lack of canonical babbling can indicate future speech and language problems

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Canonical babbling ratio – Concurrent and predictive evaluation of the 0.15 criterion

Nyman

Strömbergsson

Lohmander

2021

Journal of Communication Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Babbling in children with neurodevelopmental disability and validity of a simplified way of measuring canonical babbling ratio

Nyman

Lohmander

2017

Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Babbling is an important precursor to speech, but has not yet been thoroughly investigated in children with neurodevelopmental disabilities. Canonical babbling ratio (CBR) is a commonly used but time-consuming measure for quantifying babbling. The aim of this study was twofold: to validate a simplified version of the CBR (CBR), and to use this measure to determine if early precursors to speech and language development could be detected in children with different neurodevelopmental disabilities. Two different data sets were used. In Part I, CBR was compared to two other CBR measures using previously obtained phonetic transcriptions of 3571 utterances from 38 audio recordings of 12-18 month old children with and without cleft palate. In CBR, number of canonical utterances was divided by total number of utterances. In CBR, number of canonical syllables was divided by total number of syllables. In CBR, number of canonical syllables was divided by total number of utterances. High agreement was seen between CBR and CBR, suggesting CBR as an alternative. In Part II, babbling in children with neurodevelopmental disability was examined. Eighteen children aged 12-22 months with Down syndrome, cerebral palsy or developmental delay were audio-video recorded during interaction with a parent. Recordings were analysed by observation of babbling, consonant production, calculation of CBR, and compared to data from controls. The study group showed significantly lower occurrence of all variables, except for of plosives. The long-term relevance of the findings for the speech and language development of the children needs to be investigated.

show abstract

Observation is a valid way of assessing common variables in typical babbling and identifies infants who need further support

Abstract: Previously suggested predictive measures of babbling were shown to be valid and observation is a reliable method of identifying children who need further support.

Cited by 16 publications

References 25 publications

Observation method identifies that a lack of canonical babbling can indicate future speech and language problems

Observation method identifies that a lack of canonical babbling can indicate future speech and language problems

Canonical babbling ratio – Concurrent and predictive evaluation of the 0.15 criterion

Babbling in children with neurodevelopmental disability and validity of a simplified way of measuring canonical babbling ratio

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About