Cargando…

Twins' and Singletons' Linguistic Environment: A Systematic Review

Background: Among twins, lower linguistic skills emerged when compared with singletons. Considering the association found between parental linguistic input and children's language development, exploring the differences between twins and singletons' linguistic environments could find variab...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Trombetta, Tommaso, Brustia, Piera, Curti, Lorenzo, Caldarera, Angela M., Gerino, Eva, Rollè, Luca
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6733883/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31551866
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02005
_version_ 1783450046142873600
author Trombetta, Tommaso
Brustia, Piera
Curti, Lorenzo
Caldarera, Angela M.
Gerino, Eva
Rollè, Luca
author_facet Trombetta, Tommaso
Brustia, Piera
Curti, Lorenzo
Caldarera, Angela M.
Gerino, Eva
Rollè, Luca
author_sort Trombetta, Tommaso
collection PubMed
description Background: Among twins, lower linguistic skills emerged when compared with singletons. Considering the association found between parental linguistic input and children's language development, exploring the differences between twins and singletons' linguistic environments could find variables that are potentially associated with the lower linguistic skills of twins. Aim: The current systematic review aims to analyze and systematize the existing literature focused on the comparison of twins' and singletons' linguistic environments within their first 3 years of life. Methodological issues (i.e., the procedure used to assess the linguistic environment, the coding of the linguistic environment's features, the computational method employed to assess the parental linguistic input, and participant characteristics) and differences found among twins and singletons regarding their linguistic environment (i.e., linguistic input quantity, linguistic input complexity, linguistic features of child-directed speech, parental responsiveness, and directiveness, joint attention, and book reading) were highlighted. Method: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement was followed. Eligible studies were searched through EBSCO, PubMed, and Web of Science. From this search, 1,347 study results emerged, and 8 studies were included. Results: To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review focused on the comparison of twins' and singletons' linguistic environments. Differences between the groups were found in all of the included studies. Data against twins were generally identified regarding all the considered linguistic environment's features. However, conflicting results within and between the included studies emerged, mainly according to the computational method employed (i.e., twin moms value, twin direct dyadic value, twin direct dyadic + both value, and input directed toward both children simultaneously). Conclusion: The disadvantaged linguistic environment of twins is likely due to limited parental resources and demands associated with the management of two children of the same age. However, the limited and conflicting data found did not allow for a firm conclusion to be drawn on the differences in the twins' and singletons' linguistic environments. Further studies on the topic are needed.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6733883
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67338832019-09-24 Twins' and Singletons' Linguistic Environment: A Systematic Review Trombetta, Tommaso Brustia, Piera Curti, Lorenzo Caldarera, Angela M. Gerino, Eva Rollè, Luca Front Psychol Psychology Background: Among twins, lower linguistic skills emerged when compared with singletons. Considering the association found between parental linguistic input and children's language development, exploring the differences between twins and singletons' linguistic environments could find variables that are potentially associated with the lower linguistic skills of twins. Aim: The current systematic review aims to analyze and systematize the existing literature focused on the comparison of twins' and singletons' linguistic environments within their first 3 years of life. Methodological issues (i.e., the procedure used to assess the linguistic environment, the coding of the linguistic environment's features, the computational method employed to assess the parental linguistic input, and participant characteristics) and differences found among twins and singletons regarding their linguistic environment (i.e., linguistic input quantity, linguistic input complexity, linguistic features of child-directed speech, parental responsiveness, and directiveness, joint attention, and book reading) were highlighted. Method: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement was followed. Eligible studies were searched through EBSCO, PubMed, and Web of Science. From this search, 1,347 study results emerged, and 8 studies were included. Results: To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review focused on the comparison of twins' and singletons' linguistic environments. Differences between the groups were found in all of the included studies. Data against twins were generally identified regarding all the considered linguistic environment's features. However, conflicting results within and between the included studies emerged, mainly according to the computational method employed (i.e., twin moms value, twin direct dyadic value, twin direct dyadic + both value, and input directed toward both children simultaneously). Conclusion: The disadvantaged linguistic environment of twins is likely due to limited parental resources and demands associated with the management of two children of the same age. However, the limited and conflicting data found did not allow for a firm conclusion to be drawn on the differences in the twins' and singletons' linguistic environments. Further studies on the topic are needed. Frontiers Media S.A. 2019-09-03 /pmc/articles/PMC6733883/ /pubmed/31551866 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02005 Text en Copyright © 2019 Trombetta, Brustia, Curti, Caldarera, Gerino and Rollè. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Psychology
Trombetta, Tommaso
Brustia, Piera
Curti, Lorenzo
Caldarera, Angela M.
Gerino, Eva
Rollè, Luca
Twins' and Singletons' Linguistic Environment: A Systematic Review
title Twins' and Singletons' Linguistic Environment: A Systematic Review
title_full Twins' and Singletons' Linguistic Environment: A Systematic Review
title_fullStr Twins' and Singletons' Linguistic Environment: A Systematic Review
title_full_unstemmed Twins' and Singletons' Linguistic Environment: A Systematic Review
title_short Twins' and Singletons' Linguistic Environment: A Systematic Review
title_sort twins' and singletons' linguistic environment: a systematic review
topic Psychology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6733883/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31551866
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02005
work_keys_str_mv AT trombettatommaso twinsandsingletonslinguisticenvironmentasystematicreview
AT brustiapiera twinsandsingletonslinguisticenvironmentasystematicreview
AT curtilorenzo twinsandsingletonslinguisticenvironmentasystematicreview
AT caldareraangelam twinsandsingletonslinguisticenvironmentasystematicreview
AT gerinoeva twinsandsingletonslinguisticenvironmentasystematicreview
AT rolleluca twinsandsingletonslinguisticenvironmentasystematicreview