About this poster

---

Panel information
Panel 1. Context: Cross-Cultural, Neighborhood, and Social

Abstract

---

Early language and literacy skills are integral to children’s academic and social outcomes (Bleses et al., 2016). However, children from low socioeconomic backgrounds are at an increased risk for delayed language and literacy development (Black et al., 2017; Hoff, 2013). Evidence points to differences in various qualitative aspects of language across income groups that mediate language and literacy development, including verbal sensitivity (e.g., Baumwell et al., 1997), syntactic complexity (e.g., Hoff & Naigles, 2002), child-directed speech (e.g., Rowe, 2012; Weisleder & Fernald, 2013), mean length of utterances (Rowe, 2008) and contingency (Conway et al., 2018; Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2015). Although poverty itself does not diminish language and literacy development, outcomes can be inhibited when families have limited or restricted access to services and opportunities—including differences in formal education, flexibility of work schedules, financial and educational-enrichment resources, as well as social and cultural capital to access financial and educational resources (Foster et al., 2005). As a result, children’s language and literacy skills can vary widely at kindergarten-level entry (von Hippel & Hamrock, 2019). Recent evidence indicates that the quantity and quality of parent-child reciprocal interactions mediate the effects of socioeconomic risk on children’s early language and literacy development (Gilkerson et al., 2018). Given the high plasticity and malleability of early language and literacy development (Pace et al., 2017), public health campaigns frequently emphasize parents’ role in supporting children’s early language and literacy (Mahoney et al., 2020). Additionally, organizations throughout the world are recognizing and implementing parent-focused interventions early in children’s lives (Asmussen et al., 2016; Law et al., 2019). However, one issue impacting the success of parent-implemented language intervention is the fit with recipient families’ culture (Larson et al., 2020a) as most of existing interventions are developed with the cultural ideals of the Western world (van Kleeck, 1994) and may not be effective in other settings without appropriate cultural and linguistic adaptations (Larson et al., 2020a). We conducted a systematic review to describe and analyze culturally and or linguistically adapted intervention studies implemented by parents to promote children’s language and literacy development, from a global context, to identify the ways in which interventions have been culturally or linguistically adapted among children at risk due to poverty and determine the extent to which researchers are addressing social validity. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA; Moher et al., 2009), a total of 24 studies met the inclusion criteria see Figure 1. The studies employed naturalistic, routines-based activities, interactive book reading or book making activities, and in some instances both naturalistic and book reading/making activities to deliver the interventions. Sixteen studies (67%) reported that the interventions were effective in enhancing all targeted child language and literacy outcomes. Some studies consulted with locals, asked participants to provide cultural and linguistic resources and materials, and engaged community in co-constructing intervention materials (see Table 1). Other studies enhanced sociolinguistic pride of the local culture to counter linguistic racism. Only twelve (50%) addressed social validity. All the twelve studies addressed the procedure aspect of social validity (i.e., feasibility of the intervention), seven of the twelve (58%) addressed content aspect (i.e., acceptance of intervention), four (33%) addressed goals and objectives (i.e., perceived importance of intervention targets), and four (33%) addressed effect (i.e., perceived importance of the intervention outcomes) see Table 2. Nearly all the studies in this review experienced positive language and literacy outcomes which lends strength to the argument that attention to the cultural and linguistic contexts of participants is likely to improve outcomes (Hammer & Sawyer, 2016). Social validity identifies quality of interventions among the individuals and communities it is designed to serve.

⇦ Back to session