Limited evidence of test-retest reliability in infant-directed speech preference in a large preregistered infant experiment.
adult‐directed speech
infant‐directed speech
language acquisition
speech perception
test‐retest reliability
Journal
Developmental science
ISSN: 1467-7687
Titre abrégé: Dev Sci
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9814574
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 Jul 2024
22 Jul 2024
Historique:
revised:
08
04
2024
received:
26
12
2022
accepted:
02
07
2024
medline:
22
7
2024
pubmed:
22
7
2024
entrez:
22
7
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
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.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e13551Subventions
Organisme : Leibniz ScienceCampus Primate Cognition
Organisme : Research Council of Norway
ID : 301625
Organisme : Centres of Excellence funding scheme
ID : 223265
Organisme : ERC Grant
ID : 773202-ERC 2017
Organisme : SSHRC Partnership Development Grant
Organisme : NSF
ID : NSFDGE-1747503
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Author(s). Developmental Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Bergmann, C., & Cristia, A. (2016). Development of infants’ segmentation of words from native speech: A meta‐analytic approach. Developmental Science, 19(6), 901–917. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12341
Byers‐Heinlein, K., Bergmann, C., & Savalei, V. (2022). Six solutions for more reliable infant research. Infant and Child Development, 31(5), e2296. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.2296
Byers‐Heinlein, K., Tsui, A. S. M., Bergmann, C., Black, A. K., Brown, A., Carbajal, M. J., Durrant, S., Fennell, C. T., Fiévet, A.‐C., Frank, M. C., Gampe, A., Gervain, J., Gonzalez‐Gomez, N., Hamlin, J. K., Havron, N., Hernik, M., Kerr, S., Killam, H., Klassen, K., … Wermelinger, S. (2021). A multilab study of bilingual infants: Exploring the preference for infant‐directed speech. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(1), 2515245920974622. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920974622
Byers‐Heinlein, K., Tsui, R. K.‐Y., Van Renswoude, D., Black, A. K., Barr, R., Brown, A., Colomer, M., Durrant, S., Gampe, A., Gonzalez‐Gomez, N., Hay, J. F., Hernik, M., Jartó, M., Kovács, Á. M., Laoun‐Rubenstein, A., Lew‐Williams, C., Liszkowski, U., Liu, L., Noble, C., … Singh, L. (2021). The development of gaze following in monolingual and bilingual infants: A multi‐laboratory study. Infancy, 26(1), 4–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/infa.12360
Colombo, J., Mitchell, D. W., & Horowitz, F. D. (1988). Infant visual attention in the paired‐comparison paradigm: Test‐retest and attention‐performance relations. Child Development, 59(5), 1198–1210. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130483
Cooper, R. P., & Aslin, R. N. (1990). Preference for infant‐directed speech in the first month after birth. Child Development, 61(5), 1584–1595. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130766
Cristia, A., Seidl, A., Junge, C., Soderstrom, M., & Hagoort, P. (2014). Predicting individual variation in language from infant speech perception measures. Child Development, 85(4), 1330–1345. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12193
Cristia, A., Seidl, A., Singh, L., & Houston, D. (2016). Test–retest reliability in infant speech perception tasks. Infancy, 21(5), 648–667. https://doi.org/10.1111/infa.12127
DeBolt, M. C., Rhemtulla, M., & Oakes, L. M. (2020). Robust data and power in infant research: A case study of the effect of number of infants and number of trials in visual preference procedures. Infancy, 25(4), 393–419. https://doi.org/10.1111/infa.12337
DePaolis, R. A., Vihman, M. M., & Keren‐Portnoy, T. (2014). When do infants begin recognizing familiar words in sentences? Journal of Child Language, 41(1), 226–239. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000912000566
Dunst, C., Gorman, E., & Hamby, D. (2012). Preference for infant‐directed speech in preverbal young children. Center for Early Literacy Learning, 5(1), 1–13. Retrieved from http://www.earlyliteracylearning.org/cellreviews/cellreviews_v5_n1.pdf
Egger, J., Rowland, C. F., & Bergmann, C. (2020). Improving the robustness of infant lexical processing speed measures. Behavior Research Methods, 52(5), 2188–2201. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428‐020‐01385‐5
Fernald, A., & Marchman, V. A. (2012). Individual differences in lexical processing at 18 months predict vocabulary growth in typically developing and late‐talking toddlers. Child Development, 83(1), 203–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2011.01692.x
Fernald, A., Taeschner, T., Dunn, J., Papousek, M., Boysson‐Bardies, B. d., & Fukui, I. (1989). A cross‐language study of prosodic modifications in mothers’ and fathers’ speech to preverbal infants. Journal of Child Language, 16(3), 477–501. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900010679
Floccia, C., Keren‐Portnoy, T., DePaolis, R., Duffy, H., Delle Luche, C., Durrant, S., White, L., Goslin, J., & Vihman, M. (2016). British english infants segment words only with exaggerated infant‐directed speech stimuli. Cognition, 148, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.12.004
Frank, M. C., Bergelson, E., Bergmann, C., Cristia, A., Floccia, C., Gervain, J., Hamlin, J. K., Hannon, E. E., Kline, M., Levelt, C., Lew‐Williams, C., Nazzi, T., Panneton, R., Rabagliati, H., Soderstrom, M., Sullivan, J., Waxman, S., & Yurovsky, D. (2017). A collaborative approach to infant research: Promoting reproducibility, best practices, and theory‐building. Infancy, 22(4), 421–435. https://doi.org/10.1111/infa.12182
Graf Estes, K., & Hurley, K. (2013). Infant‐directed prosody helps infants map sounds to meanings. Infancy, 18(5), 797–824. https://doi.org/10.1111/infa.12006
Haines, N., Kvam, P. D., Irving, L. H., Smith, C., Beauchaine, T. P., Pitt, M. A., & Ahn, W.‐Y., Turner, B. (2020). Theoretically informed generative models can advance the psychological and brain sciences: Lessons from the reliability paradox [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/xr7y3
Hedge, C., Powell, G., & Sumner, P. (2018). The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences. Behavior Research Methods, 50(3), 1166–1186. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428‐017‐0935‐1
Houston, D. M., Horn, D. L., Qi, R., Ting, J. Y., & Gao, S. (2007). Assessing speech discrimination in individual infants. Infancy, 12(2), 119–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532‐7078.2007.tb00237.x
Hunter, M. A., & Ames, E. W. (1988). A multifactor model of infant preferences for novel and familiar stimuli. Advances in Infancy Research, 5, 69–95.
Johnson, E., & Zamuner, T. (2010). Using infant and toddler testing methods in language acquisition research. In E. Blom & S. Unsworth (Eds.), Experimental methods in language acquisition research (pp. 73–93). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Junge, C., Everaert, E., Porto, L., Fikkert, P., Klerk, M. d., Keij, B., & Benders, T. (2020). Contrasting behavioral looking procedures: A case study on infant speech segmentation. Infant Behavior and Development, 60, 101448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2020.101448
Lo, C. H., Hermes, J., Kartushina, N., Mayor, J., & Mani, N. (2023). E‐Babylab: An open‐source browser‐based tool for unmoderated online developmental studies. Behavior Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428‐023‐02200‐7
Lord, F. M. (1956). The measurement of growth. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 16, 421–437. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316445601600401
Ma, W., Golinkoff, R. M., Houston, D. M., & Hirsh‐Pasek, K. (2011). Word learning in infant‐and adult‐directed speech. Language Learning and Development, 7(3), 185–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2011.579839
ManyBabies Consortium. (2020). Quantifying sources of variability in infancy research using the infant‐directed‐speech preference. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3(1), 24–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919900809
Marimon, M., & Höhle, B. (2022). Testing prosodic development with the headturn preference procedure: A test‐retest reliability study. Infant and Child Development, 31(6), e2362. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.2362
Miller, S. A. (2017). Developmental research methods. Sage publications.
Naoi, N., Minagawa‐Kawai, Y., Kobayashi, A., Takeuchi, K., Nakamura, K., Yamamoto, J., & Shozo, K. (2012). Cerebral responses to infant‐directed speech and the effect of talker familiarity. Neuroimage, 59(2), 1735–1744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.07.093
Newman, R., Ratner, N. B., Jusczyk, A. M., Jusczyk, P. W., & Dow, K. A. (2006). Infants’ early ability to segment the conversational speech signal predicts later language development: A retrospective analysis. Developmental Psychology, 42(4), 643. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012‐1649.42.4.643
Newman, R., Rowe, M. L., & Ratner, N. B. (2016). Input and uptake at 7 months predicts toddler vocabulary: The role of child‐directed speech and infant processing skills in language development. Journal of Child Language, 43(5), 1158–1173. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000915000446
Oakes, L. M. (2017). Sample size, statistical power, and false conclusions in infant looking‐time research. Infancy, 22(4), 436–469. https://doi.org/10.1111/infa.12186
Oliveira, C. M., Hayiou‐Thomas, M. E., & Henderson, L. M. (2023). The reliability of the serial reaction time task: Meta‐analysis of test–retest correlations. Royal Society Open Science, 10(7), 221542. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.221542
Rouder, J. N., & Haaf, J. M. (2019). A psychometrics of individual differences in experimental tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(2), 452–467. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423‐018‐1558‐y
Santolin, C., Garcia‐Castro, G., Zettersten, M., Sebastian‐Galles, N., & Saffran, J. R. (2021). Experience with research paradigms relates to infants’ direction of preference. Infancy, 26(1), 39–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/infa.12372
Schreiner, M. S., & Mani, N. (2017). Listen up! Developmental differences in the impact of IDS on speech segmentation. Cognition, 160, 98–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.12.003
Scott, K. M., & Schulz, L. E. (2017). Lookit (part 1): A new online platform for developmental research. Open Mind, 1(1), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00002
Silverstein, P., Feng, J., Westermann, G., Parise, E., & Twomey, K. E. (2021). Infants learn to follow gaze in stages: Evidence confirming a robotic prediction. Open Mind, 5, 174–188. https://doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00049
Singh, L., Nestor, S., Parikh, C., & Yull, A. (2009). Influences of infant‐directed speech on early word recognition. Infancy, 14(6), 654–666. https://doi.org/10.1080/15250000903263973
Thiessen, E. D., Hill, E. A., & Saffran, J. R. (2005). Infant‐directed speech facilitates word segmentation. Infancy, 7(1), 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327078in0701_5
Weaver, H., Zettersten, M., & Saffran, J. (2022). Becoming word meaning experts: Infants’ processing of familiar words in the context of typical and atypical exemplars. Child Development. Advance online. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.14120
Zangl, R., & Mills, D. L. (2007). Increased brain activity to infant‐directed speech in 6‐and 13‐month‐old infants. Infancy, 11(1), 31–62. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327078in1101_2