The Relationship between Imitation at 12 Months and Language and Self-Regulation at 42 Months
Laura Strenk Senior Honors Thesis
Department of Psychology and Neuroscience The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Spring 2016
A thesis presented to the faculty of The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Bachelor of Science degree with Honors in Psychology.
Approved by:
____________________________________ Advisor: Dr. J. Steven Reznick
Acknowledgements
First of all, I would like to thank the members of my committee. Thank you to Dr. J. Steven Reznick for giving me this amazing opportunity, for pushing me to think critically, and for your constant support throughout this process. Thank you to Dr. Rebecca Stephens for her passionate and endless dedication to not just me, but all of her student mentees. Thank you to Dr. Barbara Goldman for her enthusiastic support of this project and my professional development.
I would also like to thank all of the undergraduate research assistants who made
this thesis possible. Special thanks to Mary Katherine Beam, Elizabeth Raines, Michelle Nguyen, Amber Holt, and Sa’a Mohammed for the countless hours of time each spent working on this research project, as well as for their personal support.
Abstract
The Relationship between Imitation at 12 Months and Language and Self-Regulation at 42 Months
According to Reznick, Baranek, Reavis, Watson, and Crais (2007), social communication behavior is a complex domain that involves many interacting constructs including imitation, joint attention, affective engagement, language, self-regulation, and Theory of Mind (Westby & Robinson, 2014). Research on the constructs included in social communication behavior is of interest because of the deficits seen in this behavior in individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Social communication behaviors are important in order to form social relationships. This importance extends beyond individuals with ASD, as it represents critical abilities applicable to all people starting from the moment they are born. This paper explores social communication behaviors in typically-developing children by looking at the relationship between the constructs of imitation, language, and self-regulation within the developmental perspective of Theory of Mind.
A Developmental Perspective on Theory of Mind
Mind. If the child says that the other person knows the true content of the box (after the change), then he or she fails this task (Westby & Robinson, 2014).
Recent research has changed the beliefs held about Theory of Mind. Neuroscience research has shown that Theory of Mind should not be viewed as a unitary construct, but as a multidimensional one that includes cognitive, affective, interpersonal, and intrapersonal aspects. Furthermore, Theory of Mind does not suddenly appear at age 5, but instead develops gradually, starting when a child is born. Constructs such as imitation, play behaviors, and joint attention are the cornerstones for the development of Theory of Mind (Westby & Robinson, 2014). Other constructs, such as self-regulation and language, have been found to be associated predictively and concurrently with Theory of Mind (Charman et al., 2000; Moses & Carlson, 2004).
Additional support for this developmental view of Theory of Mind is provided by research on individuals with ASD. Individuals with ASD have deficits in all of the constructs that fall under the broad umbrella of social-communication behaviors – imitation, joint attention, play behaviors, language, self-regulation, Theory of Mind, etc. These deficits not only represent areas of risk for children with ASD, but their connection also suggests that all of these constructs are linked, both in children with ASD and children who are typically-developing (Charman et al., 2000).
Theory of Mind in Relation to Imitation, Language, and Self-Regulation
gestures/movements), and actions with objects (copying how someone interacts with an object; Brown & Whiten, 2000). Theory of mind is primarily measured using behavioral paradigms and observation.
Language skills are inextricably linked to Theory of Mind because effective
communication requires Theory of Mind. For example, Theory of Mind deficits are very often associated with language impairments (Westby & Robinson, 2014). There are two broad categories of language development: receptive and expressive. Language is measured in a wide variety of ways across different studies, sometimes with standardized measures such as the MacArthur Bates Communicative Development Inventory (MCDI; Fenson et al., 1994), the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT; Dunn & Dunn, 1981), and the Expressive Vocabulary Test (EVT; Williams, 1997).
Theory of Mind is also associated with self-regulation. Self-regulation is an expansive construct that has been operationalized in many different ways. Self-regulation is broadly
Carlson and Moses (2001) further divide inhibitory control into two components: conflict and delay. Conflict inhibitory control requires children to respond one way when faced with a more appealing and conflicting option. It can be measured in toddlers with Stroop-like tasks such as the “day/night task,” where children must say “day” for cards with a moon on them and “night” for cards with a sun on them (Carlson & Moses, 2001). Although this task involves self-regulation by requiring children to inhibit their natural inclination to say “day” for the sun and “night” for the moon, this construct is more a measure of executive function. In contrast, delay inhibitory control tests one’s ability to delay or suppress the impulsive response that a task may elicit, and therefore more closely targets self-regulation in a way that is relevant to theory of mind. Delayed gratification tasks can be used to measure delay inhibitory control in toddlers. An example of this would be a “Tower Building” task, in which children must take turns building a tower with an experimenter, even though the pauses the experimenter takes are very long (Carlson & Moses, 2001). In tasks such as these, higher self-regulation skills are indicated by ability to wait and/or employ distraction techniques. On the other hand, lower self-regulation skills are indicated by the inability to wait, prompting the assessor to move the trial forward, and/ or showing very high levels of anticipation (Vaughan Van Hecke, Mundy, Block, Delgado, Parlade, Pomares, & Hobson, 2011). Overall, much research suggests that children’s ability to regulate themselves is tied to their mental state concepts, or Theory of Mind (Moses & Carlson, 2004; Sokol, Muller, Carpendale, Young, & Iarocci, 2010).
Connections among Imitation, Language, and Self-Regulation
The research in this study is framed by this modern construct of Theory of Mind.
between imitation and self-regulation in children with ASD or typically-developing children. Children with ASD have deficits in both of these constructs and both of these constructs have been related to Theory of Mind. Imitation and self-regulation are both part of the development of social communication. Therefore, it is hypothesized that early imitation will predict later self-regulation skills.
Language delays are the most common reason for referral in children with ASD (Thurm, Lord, Lee, & Newschaffer, 2007). Although language deficits are extremely variable in children with ASD, they are frequently targeted in intervention and research. Additionally, imitation deficits are one of the earliest behaviors observed in children who are later diagnosed with ASD, suggesting a possible connection between the constructs of imitation and language. Because of the increasing prevalence of ASD and the characteristic language deficits represented in its symptomatology, most research concerning the relationship between imitation and language focuses on children with ASD. These studies have found imitation to be a predictor of later language skills, in particular expressive language (Charman et al., 2003; Miniscalco, Rudling, Råstam, Gillberg, & Johnels, 2014; Thurm et al., 2007; Young et al., 2011; Zambrana, Ystrom, Schjølberg, & Pons, 2013). A study by Charman et al. (2000) found imitation at 20 months to predict expressive language skills at 44 months in typically-developing children, but the sample size was small (consisting of 13 children) and the results preliminary, still in need of further confirming research. A later study conducted by Young et al. (2011) found imitation at 12 months to predict 24 month expressive language ability in both typically-developing children and children who were diagnosed with ASD at age three.
relationships among them as early on as possible in order to gain a more complete understanding of their interconnections. Further knowledge of how imitation predicts language and
self-regulation skills could help determine whether early intervention should target imitation in hopes of lessening later deficits. Much research has highlighted the connection between these three constructs in children with ASD, and research has indicated deficits in Theory of Mind and its underlying components to be partially responsible for social communication difficulties in individuals with language impairment, deafness, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and other behavioral/psychiatric disorders (Westby & Robinson, 2014). However, it is also important to explore these connections in children who show more typical patterns of development.
Gender Differences
Past research has indicated that mean levels of imitation skills, language abilities, and self-regulation differ for boys and girls. These gender differences are important to recognize because they suggest different underlying mechanisms and developmental courses. There are gender differences in imitation in infancy, such that girls show greater imitation than boys (Nagy, Kompagne, Orvos, & Pal, 2007). There is also much research that supports the assertion that girls have more advanced language abilities than boys throughout childhood (Burman, Bitan, & Booth, 2008). Finally, meta-analytic work has indicated that there are gender differences in the ability to delay gratification (a measure of self-regulation). Girls are more able to delay gratification throughout the lifespan (Silverman, 2003). Therefore, it is expected that all of the variables in this study will differ in mean levels for boys and for girls. Also, I will consider whether gender moderates the associations between imitation and language skills and between imitation and self-regulation abilities.
This longitudinal study focuses on the relationship between imitation at 12 months and measures of language and self-regulation at 42 months. Based on a developmental perspective of Theory of Mind, five research questions will be explored: (1) Does imitation at 12 months predict language skills at 42 months? (2) Does imitation at 12 months predict self-regulation skills at 42 months? (3) Are self-regulation and language skills correlated at 42 months? (4) Are there gender differences in mean levels of imitation, language, and self-regulation? (5) Does gender moderate associations between imitation at 12 months and both language and self-regulation at 42 months? It is hypothesized that imitation scores at 12 months will predict both performance on language measures and self-regulation at 42 months, such that better imitation scores will predict better expressive language, receptive language, and self-regulation scores. Furthermore, it is hypothesized that expressive and receptive language will be related to self-regulation, such that higher language scores will be correlated with better self-regulation. It is also hypothesized that girls will have higher scores on imitation, language, and self-regulation and that gender will moderate the relationship between imitation and both language and self-regulation at 42 months, such that girls will demonstrate stronger positive relationships between these variables. Results from this study will both provide a deeper understanding of the many constructs related to ToM and inform early interventions.
Methods Participants
complete lab measures. The majority of the participants were White/Caucasian (83.8%, n=88), with remaining participants identified as Black/African American (5.7%, n=6), Asian (5.7%, n=6), and Other (4.8%, n=5). Levels of maternal education and household income were very high in this sample. Mothers reported their education levels as having some college (4.8%, n=5), a 4-year college education (34.6%, n=36), and a post-graduate education (60.6%, n=63).
Household income was reported as less than $35,000 (4.8%, n=5), $35,000-$60,000 (9.5%, n=10), $60,000-$90,000 (16.2%, n=17), $90,000-$150,000 (40.0%, n=42), and greater than
$150,000 (29.5%, n=31). Overall, the sample was very homogeneous in terms of race/ethnicity and income. The primary caregiver of the participants contacted filled out a form at one year stating that they were interested in participating in further research studies (Baranek, Watson, Crais, & Reznick, 2003). Participants were recruited within 4 weeks of turning 42 months via telephone calls to their parents, and were only contacted to come into the lab if they lived within about a 30-minute driving distance of the study’s test location.
Procedure
After recruitment, the primary caregiver (in all cases a parent) of each child participant filled out an online questionnaire and then brought the child to our test location. First, the parent and child played together with an assortment of toys laid out on the floor for five minutes so that the child could get acquainted with the room. After cleaning up the toys, the parent was directed to a chair in the corner of the room to fill out a brief survey while the child completed the tasks with an experimenter. The parent was instructed to not help the child during any of the tasks. The children then completed a series of ten tasks with the experimenter, including the two language measures and two measures of self-regulation.
Imitation. The measure of imitation used in this study had been included in the FYI as part of this large parent report survey. This imitation scale consisted of six questions about vocal, gestural, and action-with-objects imitation (see Appendix). Answers to all questions had been recorded on different Likert scales that had then been standardized and combined to create risk scores (Baranek, Watson, Crais, & Reznick, 2003). For the purposes of the larger study, to which this thesis research is related, the scoring algorithm had been changed to be continuous in nature (Stephens, Sabatos-DeVito, & Reznick, unpublished manuscript). Instead of receiving different numbers of risk points for different answers, all answers were transformed to be on a continuous scale, on which lower scores indicated higher (better) levels of imitation and higher scores indicated lower (worse) levels of imitation. Refer to Table 1 to see how this variable was measured in comparison to the other variables of interest in this study.
Receptive Language Task. In order to measure receptive language skills, this study used
a subset of items from the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – Revised (PPVT-R; Dunn & Dunn, 1981). For this task, children were shown a grid of four pictures in black and white.
Experimenters told the children to “Put your finger on [single word that matches one of the pictures].” First, there were 4 practice rounds that had children identify two nouns (“dog” and “ball”) and two verbs (“sleeping” and “crying”). Then, the task began to be coded for accuracy. Participants completed three sets of twelve words, with each set increasing in difficulty.
the participants. This scoring scale was continuous, with each correct answer contributing one point towards the overall score. This task was live-coded and then a second coder watched each video and coded it again. Coding differences were identified and resolved in 16.8% of the tasks. Scores used for analysis were those with perfect agreement, or that had been determined via consensus. Refer to Table 1 to see how this variable was measured in comparison to the other variables of interest in this study.
Expressive Language Task. In order to measure expressive language skills, this study
used a subset of items from of the Expressive Vocabulary Test (EVT; Williams, 1997). This task was broken into two parts: simple expressive language and synonyms. For the first part,
participants were shown a picture and asked to state, in one word, what they saw. There were two practice trials and then the child’s responses to the task were coded for accuracy for the next twenty-one items. For the second part of the task, participants were shown a picture and the experimenter told them one word that the picture could mean. The participants then had to identify another word that had the same meaning (synonym). Experimenters phrased this question by saying, for example, “Jet. Tell me another word for jet.” Participants had two practice trials and then the responses were coded for accuracy for the next nineteen items. For both parts of this task, there were explicit instructions for which questions could be taught (T), for which questions experimenters could prompt the participant for a better answer (P), and for which questions and answers experimenters could not correct. The purpose of this task was not to create an overall proficiency score based on performance, but to compare individual
resolved in 25.5% of the tasks. Scores for analyses were those with perfect agreement or the resolutions of those with some difference. Refer to Table 1 to see how this variable was measured in comparison to the other variables of interest in this study.
Sticker Delay Task. This task is a measure of delay inhibitory control, and therefore an indicator of self-regulation. This task is a modified version of the Snack-Delay task developed by Vaughan Van Hecke et al. (2011). For this task, the participant and experimenter sat facing each other at a small table. The experimenter explained to the child that for this game he/she was going to win some stickers to take home, but that he/she had to follow some rules. The
experimenter then explained that they would put a sticker under a clear plastic cup and that the child could not retrieve the sticker until the experimenter rang a bell. A demonstration and practice trial were completed in order to ensure the children understood the game. Then, seven coded trials of the task began. For each of the seven trials, the experimenter either waited 5, 10, 0, 20, 0, 30, or 45 seconds respectively before ringing the bell after placing the sticker under the cup. If the child did not wait the full length of the trial, they still received the sticker but were reminded that they had to wait until the bell rang to get the sticker. This task was scored on continuous scales for either the number of prompts, anticipatory behaviors, distraction, total delay time, and completed trials. In other words, children were given scores based on the number of times the child impatiently prompted the experimenter to ring the bell before the delay had elapsed on each trial and the highest level of impatient anticipatory behaviors shown each trial. Because “prompting” and “anticipating” both reflected impatient behavior, low scores reflected better regulation. In contrast, high levels of three other variables reflected better
stickers, and the number of trials they completed. For data analyses, prompt scores were assigned based on number of prompts per second that children waited, anticipation scores were assigned based on the average highest level of anticipation for each trial, and distraction scores were assigned based on the average highest level of distraction for each trial (Vaughan Van Hecke et al., 2011). To see the specific coding followed for this task, refer to Table 2. Refer to Table 1 to see how this variable was measured in comparison to the other variables of interest in this study. Reliability was determined by a second coder assessing 19.4% of the videos. For the more subjective variables (anticipation and distraction), Cohen’s kappas were calculated in order to measure the reliability in a more conservative way that takes into account that some agreement occurs by chance. The Cohen’s kappas calculated for anticipation (kappa = 0.634) and
distraction (kappa = 0.706) both indicated “good” reliability. Correlations were calculated as a measure of reliability in the scoring for prompts (r = 0.966), completed trials (r = 0.940), and delay (r = 0.945). Absolute average differences were also calculated between the two coders for prompts (difference = 1.21), completed trials (difference = 0.05), and delay (difference = 0.21).
Tower of Patience Task. This task is another measure of delay inhibitory control, and
child of the rules, and then put the experimenter’s block on the tower, ending the trial. This task is scored in the same way as the Sticker Delay Task, with children receiving scores on impatient prompts, impatient anticipatory behaviors, appropriate distraction techniques, ability to delay, and completed trials. A slightly different coding schema was used to assign scores for each variable during the Tower of Patience task in order to more accurately capture behaviors on this task (Vaughan Van Hecke et al., 2011). To see the specific coding followed for this task, refer to Table 3. Refer to Table 1 to see how this variable was measured in comparison to the other variables of interest in this study. Reliability was determined by a second coder who viewed and coded 23.8% of the videos. For the more subjective variables (anticipation and distraction), Cohen’s kappas were calculated in order to measure the reliability in a more conservative way that takes into account that some agreement occurs by chance. The Cohen’s kappas calculated for anticipation (kappa = 0.727) and distraction (kappa = 0.792) both yielded “good” reliability. Correlations were calculated for prompts (r = 0.990), completed trials (r = 0.930), and delay (r = 0.977). Absolute average differences were also calculated between the two coders for prompts (difference = 0.80), completed trials (difference = 0.10), and delay (difference = 1.50).
Analyses
Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, minimums, maximums) for all
variables are presented. All of the measures in this study are continuous except for gender which is discrete. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to discover possible bivariate
variables. On the first step, I entered gender in order to see if there were any gender differences in mean levels of the dependent variables. On the second step, I entered imitation in order to see if imitation was associated with the dependent variables when controlling for gender. On the third step, I entered the interaction between gender and imitation in order to see if gender moderated the relationships between imitation and language, and self-regulation. Further exploratory analyses involved creating two categorical versions of the continuous imitation variable, via a median split and by using the top and bottom tertiles. Two independent samples t-tests were conducted to determine if groups defined in these ways differed in mean levels of all language variables and self-regulation variables.
Results
Descriptive statistics for all variables are provided in Table 4. While 108 children visited the lab, varying numbers of children completed each task based on different exclusion criteria, such as assessor error, parental interference, and child refusal. Refer to Table 4 to see the number of children who completed each task. The small sample size of this study and concerns about my power to detect effects made me decide to report results that trended towards significance (p < 0.10) in order to give a more complete picture about the findings of this study.
Intercorrelations among measures of language
Pearson’s correlations were conducted to determine the relationships among the types of language (receptive and expressive). There was a small, positive relationship between simple expressive language scores and receptive language scores, r(88) = 0.28, p = 0.007. There was a small, positive relationship between complex expressive language scores and receptive language scores, r(76) = 0.26, p = 0.025. There was a medium, positive relationship between total
a correlation table of these findings, refer to Table 5. These correlations indicated that children who have better receptive language also had better expressive language.
Intercorrelations among measures of self-regulation
Pearson’s correlations were conducted to determine if different task scores for the Sticker Delay task were related. There was a medium, negative correlation between impatient prompting and distraction in the Sticker Delay task, r(98) = -0.47, p < 0.001. There was also a strong, negative correlation between prompts and both completed trials and delay (r(98) = -0.59, p < 0.001; r(98) = -0.53, p < 0.001). There was a medium, negative correlation between anticipation and distraction in the Sticker Delay task, r(98) = -0.33, p = 0.001. There was a strong, positive correlation between distraction and both completed trials and delay, r(98) = 0.56, p < 0.001; r(98) = -0.54, p < 0.001. There was also a very strong, statistically significant positive correlation between completed trials and delay, r(98) = 0.92, p < 0.001.
Pearson’s correlations were also conducted to determine if the different task scores for the Tower of Patience task were related. There was a small, negative correlation between prompts and completed trials in the Tower of Patience task, r(84) = -0.22, p = 0.044. The
relationship between prompts with both anticipation and delay trended towards negative, r(84) = -0.19, p = 0.078; r(84) = -0.20, p = 0.076. There was a small, positive relationship correlation between anticipation and completed trials, r(85) = 0.25, p = 0.022. There was a medium, positive correlation between distraction and both completed trials and delay, r(85) = 0.43, p < 0.001; r(84) = 0.47, p < 0.001. There was also a strong, positive correlation between completed trials
and delay, r(84) = 0.78, p < 0.001.
Pearson’s correlations were conducted to determine the relationships among
positive relationship between the two prompts (Sticker Delay and Tower of Patience tasks) scores, r(82) = 0.64, p < 0.001. There were small, negative correlations between prompts in the Sticker Delay task and distraction and delay in the Tower of Patience task, r(83) = -0.22, p = 0.047; r(82) = -0.22, p = 0.05. There was also a relationship between anticipation in the Sticker Delay task and prompts in the Tower of Patience task trending on positive, r(82) = 0.21, p = 0.059. The relationships between Sticker Delay anticipation and Tower of Patience completed trials and delay trended on negative, r(83) = -0.19, p = 0.095; r(82) = -0.20, p = 0.065. There was a medium, positive relationship between distraction scores on the two tasks, r(83) = 0.43, p < 0.001. There was also a small, negative relationship between Sticker Delay distraction and Tower of Patience prompts, r(82) = -0.28, p = 0.01, and a small, positive relationship between Sticker Delay distraction and Tower of Patience delay, r(82) = 0.29, p = 0.009. The completed trials variable had a small, negative correlation with Tower of Patience prompts, r(82) = -0.22, p = 0.05 and a small, positive correlation with Tower of Patience delay, r(82) = 0.18, p = 0.099. The scores for delay on both tasks trended towards a positive relationship, r(82) = 0.19, p = 0.086. Delay in the Sticker Delay task and Tower of Patience distraction were also trending towards a positive relationship, r(83) = -0.21, p = 0.053. In order to see a correlation table of these findings, refer to Table 6.
with questionable validity was the measure of anticipation. Although anticipation and distraction on this Sticker Delay task had a medium, positive correlation, r(98) = -0.33, p = 0.001, the correlation between anticipation and completed trials in the Tower of Patience task was positive, r(85) = 0.25, p = 0.022. These are the only significant correlations with the measure of
anticipation and they contradict one another in terms of direction.
Associations between language and self-regulation skills during toddlerhood
The final analyses explored the association between language and self-regulation at 42-months. Simple expressive language scores and anticipation levels on the Tower of Patience task trended towards a small, negative relationship, r(79) = -0.21, p = 0.062. There was a small, positive relationship between simple expressive language scores and completed trials on the Sticker Delay task, r(90) = 0.24, p = 0.024. The relationship between simple expressive scores and completed trials on the Tower of Patience task trended towards a positive, significant relationship as well, r(79) = 0.19, p = 0.095. There was a small, positive relationship between simple expressive language scores and delay on the Sticker Delay task, r(90) = 0.22, p = 0.04. There was a medium, positive relationship between simple expressive language scores and delay on the Tower of Patience task as well, r(78) = 0.38, p = 0.001. This finding shows that simple expressive language skills were correlated with many measures of self-regulation, such that better scores on simple expressive language were related to better self-regulation. Additionally, the relationship between receptive language scores and prompts on the Tower of Patience task trended towards a positive, significant relationship, r(76) = 0.20, p = 0.086. This result suggests that children who prompted the assessor to move the trial forward more also had better scores on receptive language. In order to see a correlation table of these findings, refer to Table 7.
In order to test the hypothesis that imitation scores at 12 months on the FYI parent report survey would predict language scores assessed in the lab at 42 months, first Pearson’s
correlations were conducted. No relationship was found between imitation scores and any language measure. Pearson’s correlations were also conducted to determine if imitation scores at 12 months would predict self-regulation scores during testing in the lab at 42 months. There was a small, positive relationship between imitation and the number of completed trials in the Tower of Patience task, r(84) = 0.23, p = 0.037. These results suggest that deficits in imitation at 12 months were correlated with a better ability to complete trials in the Tower of Patience task at 42 months. The scores for delay in the Sticker Delay task trended towards a negative relationship, r(97) = -0.182, p = 0.074. These results suggested that fewer deficits in imitation at 12 months
were correlated with a better ability to wait in the Sticker Delay task at 42 months.
imitation (M = 3.96) and higher for the group with worse imitation (M = 4.53). These results support the correlations and suggest that deficits in imitation at 12 months are correlated with a better ability to complete the trials in the Tower of Patience task at 42 months.
Hierarchical linear regression analyses were conducted to determine whether (a) there were gender differences in mean levels of language and self-regulation variables, (b) there were associations between imitation and measures of language and self-regulation, controlling for gender, and (c) gender moderated associations between imitation and measures language and self-regulation. Only one gender difference emerged. Girls scored higher on ability to delay for the Tower of Patience task, B = 6.55, SE = 3.25, β = 0.22, t(82) = 2.02, p = 0.047. There were no significant associations between imitation and measures of language. There were two
approaching significance for the associations between imitation and measure of self-regulation. These associations are the same that were seen with the Pearson’s correlation and t-tests. There was a trending relationship between imitation and completed trials in the Tower of Patience task when controlling for gender, B = 1.08, SE = 0.58, β = 0.20, t(83) = 1.87, p = 0.066. There was also a trending relationship between imitation and delay in the Sticker Delay task when
controlling for gender, B = -12.69, SE = 7.06, β = -0.18, t(96) = -1.80, p = 0.075. There were no effects of gender as a moderator. An independent samples t-test was conducted to see if there were any gender differences in imitation scores, but no significant differences were found.
Discussion
The simple measure of expressive language was correlated with (or trending towards correlated with) many of the indicators of good self-regulation (completed trials and delay). Gender differences were only seen in the measure of delay on the Tower of Patience task, where girls scored higher, and higher scores reflected better self-regulation. Gender did not moderate the relationships between imitation and either language or self-regulation.
I had multiple measures for two of my constructs of interest: language and
self-regulation. There was support for the idea that these multiple measures were measuring the same or related constructs. The toddlers who scored well on receptive language also scored well on expressive language. Performance indicating greater self-regulation on the Sticker Delay task was related to performance on the Tower of Patience task that also indicated greater
self-regulation. Importantly, the self-regulation variables were related to each other in directions that would be expected – measures of better self-regulation (distraction, completed trials, delay) were negatively correlated with measure of poor self-regulation (impatient prompts, impatient
anticipation), but positively correlated with each other. The only variable which showed very little relationship to other variables was impatient anticipation. This could mean that either anticipation was not measured in a valid way or that anticipation is not an appropriate way of measuring self-regulation.
lack of relationship found in this study suggests that there was probably a problem with the validity of the measures, the differences in methods of measurement, or the representativeness of the sample. Additionally, imitation was only significantly correlated with one self-regulation variable (completed trials in the Tower of Patience task), and this correlation was the opposite of what was hypothesized. The correlation suggested that worse imitation predicts a better ability to wait during the Tower of Patience task, and therefore better self-regulation. Given that imitation was unrelated to any of the other variables, I think that it is safe to assume that this result was just obtained by chance. Therefore, there is likely no relationship between imitation measured via parent report on the FYI and self-regulation 2 ½ years later . This finding contradicts my hypothesis that imitation would predict self-regulation, based on the developmental perspective of Theory of Mind.
highest risk on the FYI, however, it is unlikely that this sample was significantly affected. Finally, the imitation questions were parent-report. It is often difficult to connect parent-reports with lab measures because parents have a broader, but also possibly more biased, perspective on their children’s behavior.
The simple measure of expressive language in this study (where children were simply asked to verbally identify pictures) was correlated with or trending towards being correlated with many of the measures indicative of good self-regulation (completed trials and delay). The more complex measure of expressive language (where the children had to identify synonyms) did not have a significant relationship with any of the measures of self-regulation. This may be because this language task was too advanced for 42-month olds. This correlation with simple expressive language suggests that there is a relationship between language (particularly expressive) and self-regulation as a toddler. Previous research has found expressive language to be predicted by imitation, so it is interesting that this study found expressive language to also be related to self-regulation (Charman et al., 2003; Miniscalco, Rudling, Råstam, Gillberg, & Johnels, 2014; Thurm et al., 2007; Young et al., 2011; Zambrana, Ystrom, Schjølberg, & Pons, 2013). Although the directionality and causality of this relationship is uncertain, it is clear that expressive
language is a key aspect of ToM – and related to both imitation and self-regulation. Perhaps ability to express oneself verbally makes it easier to regulate oneself, or vice versa. Furthermore, expressive language may be more closely related to self-regulation than is receptive language because the ability to verbally express thoughts and feelings is more important for the
Gender differences were only significant in delay on the Tower of Patience task, where girls scored higher, which reflects better self-regulation. Previous research has suggested that there are definite gender differences in imitation, language, and self-regulation for children (Nagy, Kompagne, Orvos, & Pal, 2007; Burman, Bitan, & Booth, 2008; Silverman, 2003). The results of this study showed very little support for gender differences. In addition, gender did not moderate associations between imitation and either language or self-regulation. One possible reason for this contradiction could be because this sample is so homogeneous. This sample was not diverse in terms of race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status (SES), and is therefore not representative and generalizable to the normal population. This could affect the results of the study, especially with respect to gender differences. Parents from a high SES background (such as those included in this sample) may have more quality interactions with their children, helping their imitation, language, and self-regulation development and therefore closing the gap that often exists between boys and girls.
References
Baranek, G. T., Watson, L. R., Crais, E., & Reznick, S. (2003). First-year inventory (FYI)
2.0. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Brown, J., & Whiten, A. (2000). Imitation, theory of mind and related activities in Autism an observational study of spontaneous behaviour in everyday contexts. Autism, 4, 185-204. doi: 10.1177/1362361300004002006
Burman, D. D., Bitan, T., & Booth, J. R. (2008). Sex differences in neural processing of language among children. Neuropsychological, 46(5), 1349-1362. doi:
10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.12.021
Carlson, S. M., & Moses, L. J. (2001). Individual differences in inhibitory control and children's theory of mind. Child Development, 1032-1053. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00333
Charman, T., Baron-Cohen, S., Swettenham, J., Baird, G., Drew, A., & Cox, A. (2003). Predicting language outcome in infants with autism and pervasive developmental disorder. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 38, 265-285. doi: 10.1080/136820310000104830
Charman, T., Baron-Cohen, S., Swettenham, J., Baird, G., Cox, A., & Drew, A. (2000). Testing joint attention, imitation, and play as infancy precursors to language and theory of mind. Cognitive development, 15, 481-498. doi: 10.1016/S0885-2014(01)00037-5 Dunn, L., & Dunn, L. (1981). PPVT-R Manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Fenson, L., Dale, P. S., Reznick, J. S., Bates, E., Thal, D. J., Pethick, S. J., Tomasello, M.,
Mervis, C. B., & Stiles, J. (1994). Variability in early communicative development. Monographs of the society for research in child development, 59(5), 1-185. doi:
Gallagher, S., & Hutto, D. (2008). Understanding others through primary interaction and narrative practice. The shared mind: Perspectives on Intersubjectivity, 17-38. doi: 10.1075/celcr.12.04gal
Hayden, E. P., Klein, D. N., & Durbin, C. E. (2005). Parent reports and laboratory assessments of child temperament: A comparison of their associations with risk for depression and
externalizing disorders. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 27(2), 89-100.
Hofmann, W., Schmeichel, B. J., & Baddeley, A. D. (2012). Executive functions and self-regulation. Trends in cognitive sciences, 16, 174-180. doi: 10.1177/0095399713516352 Jahromi, L. B., & Stifter, C. A. (2008). Individual differences in preschoolers' self-regulation and
theory of mind. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 54, 125-150. doi: 10.1353/mpq.2008.0007 Miniscalco, C., Rudling, M., Råstam, M., Gillberg, C., & Johnels, J. Å. (2014). Imitation (rather
than core language) predicts pragmatic development in young children with ASD: a preliminary longitudinal study using CDI parental reports. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 49, 369-375. doi: 10.1111/1460-6984.12085
Moses, L. J., & Carlson, S. M. (2004). Self-regulation and children’s theories of mind. Changing conceptions of psychological life (pp. 127-146).
Nagy, E., Kompagne, H., Orvos, H., & Pal, A. (2007). Gender‐related differences in neonatal imitation. Infant and Child Development, 16(3), 267-276. doi: 10.1002/icd.497
Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and brain sciences, 1, 515-526. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00076512
first year inventory. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 37, 1691-1710. doi: 10.1007/s10803-006-0303-y
Rueda, M. R., Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (2005). The development of executive attention: Contributions to the emergence of self-regulation. Developmental Neuropsychology, 28, 573-594. doi: 10.1207/s15326942dn2802_2
Silverman, I. W. (2003). Gender differences in delay of gratification: A meta-analysis. Sex roles, 49(9-10), 451-463. doi: 10.1023/A:1025872421115
Sokol, B., Muller, U., Carpendale, J., Young, A., & Iarocci, G. (2010). Self and social regulation: Social interaction and the development of social understanding and executive
functions. Developmental Neuropsychology, 36. doi: 10.1080/87565641.2011.556994 Stephens, R., Sabatos-DeVito, M., & Reznick, J.S. (2016). The development and validation of
attention constructs from the First Year Inventory. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Thurm, A., Lord, C., Lee, L. C., & Newschaffer, C. (2007). Predictors of language acquisition in preschool children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37, 1721-1734. doi: 10.1007/s10803-006-0300-1
Vaughan Van Hecke, A., Mundy, P., Block, J.J., Delgado, C.E.F., Parlade, M.V., Pomares, Y.B., & Hobson, J.A. (2011). Infant responding to joint attention, executive processes, and self-regulation in preschool children. Infant Behavior and Development, 35, 303-311. doi: 10.1016/j.infbeh.2011.12.001
Williams, K. T. (1997). Expressive Vocabulary Test Second Edition (EVT™ 2). Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 42, 864-872.
Young, G. S., Rogers, S. J., Hutman, T., Rozga, A., Sigman, M., & Ozonoff, S. (2011). Imitation from 12 to 24 months in autism and typical development: A longitudinal Rasch
analysis. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1565. doi: 10.1037/a0025418
Table 1
Variable Explanations
Variable Description Scale
Deficits in imitation Parent-report FYI at 12 months Low score = better imitation Language skill levels
Receptive skills Pointing to the correct image High score = better language Simple Expressive skills Verbalizing the word for an
image
High score = better language Complex Expressive skills Providing a synonym of a word High score = better language Total Expressive skills Total of simple and complex High score = better language Self-regulation skills
Prompting the
experimenter impatiently to act before the delay had elapsed
Average number of prompts per second
Low score = better self-regulation
Anticipating or impatiently starting to respond too soon
Average highest level of
impatient anticipation across the trials
Low score = better self-regulation
Use of Distraction
techniques to help self wait
Average highest level of distraction across the trials
High score = better self-regulation
Ability to Delay Total number of seconds waited High score = better self-regulation
Table 2
Sticker Delay Task Variable Descriptions____________________________________________ Variable Description__________________________________________________ 1. Prompts Average number of times per second the child pointed at/reached for the
bell; touched/rang the bell; touched or moved near the assessor; or said something to move the trial forward such as: “Ring it,” “Now,” “I’m ready,” or “OK.”
2. Anticipation Children received one score for each trial indicating the highest level of anticipation observed. A final score of “Average Level Anticipation” was recorded by summing the levels of anticipation and dividing by the 5 trials. Levels of anticipation are as follows: 0=no anticipation; 1=gaze shifts between bell/cup/assessor; 2=child reaches for/points to/holds/picks up/plays with cup, looks at cup or bell for >3s; 3=child points to or touches sticker but does not pick sticker up/end trial, vocalization about the sticker/waiting/bell/cup (but not a prompt).
3. Distraction Children received one score for each trial indicating the highest level of distraction observed. A final score of “Average Level Distraction” was recorded by summing the levels of distraction and dividing by the 5 trials. Levels of distraction are as follows: 0=no distraction; 1=any gaze shift around the room/at parent/under table/out window; 2=child makes sticker unrelated comment to assessor or parent; 3=child engages in any of the following behaviors >3s: looks around the room, looks at/stares at/fixates on assessor, runs around room, physically adjusts self on chair, fidgets with body/chair (sit/stand/tip/bounces), plays with hands/face, goes over to parent, makes silly facial expressions to parent or assessor; 4=child
engages in level 3 distraction for greater than ½ the time of the trial (ex: 15s of 30s trial).
4. Total Delay The total number of seconds the child waits before retrieving the sticker. Max score of 110 seconds if child waited all trials.
Table 3
Tower of Patience Task Variable Descriptions____________________________________ Variable Description__________________________________________________ 1. Prompts Average number of times per second the child pointed at/reached for the
blocks/tower/assessor; hands/ pushes a block to the assessor; touched or moved near the assessor; or said something to move the trial forward such as: “Your turn,” “Now,” “I’m ready,” or “OK.”
2. Anticipation Children received one score for each trial indicating the highest level of anticipation observed. A final score of “Average Level Anticipation” was recorded by summing the levels of anticipation and dividing by the 5 trials. Levels of anticipation are as follows: 0=no anticipation; 1=gaze shifts between tower/blocks/assessor; 2=child reaches for or touches blocks/tower, verbalizes about the task (that is not a prompt); 3=child looks at tower/blocks for >3s, picks up and holds block for their next turn. 3. Distraction Children received one score for each trial indicating the highest level of
distraction observed. A final score of “Average Level Distraction” was recorded by summing the levels of distraction and dividing by the 5 trials. Levels of distraction are as follows: 0=no distraction; 1=any gaze shift around the room/at parent/under table/out window; 2=child physically fidgets, moves around the room, or touches the tower (in a
non-anticipatory way) for <3s; 3=child makes task-unrelated comment to assessor or parent (including talking about the tower), child engages in any of the following behaviors >3s: looks around the room, looks at/stares at/fixates on assessor, runs around room, fidgets with body
(sit/stand/tip/bounces), plays with hands/face, goes over to parent, makes silly facial expressions to parent or assessor, builds own tower to the side; 4=child engages in level 3 distraction for greater than ½ the time of the trial (ex: 15s of 30s trial).
4. Total Delay The total number of seconds the child waits before placing their block on the tower. Max score of 110 seconds if child waited all trials.
Table 4
Descriptive Statistics __________________________________________________ Variables N Mean Std. Dev. “Worst” “Best” _
Imitation 108 1.72 0.241 2.5* 1.2*
Receptive Language Total 92 21.87 3.28 14 31
Expressive Simple 96 18.96 2.08 10 21
Expressive Synonyms 78 7.83 3.75 1 19
Expressive Language Total 78 27.13 4.55 15 40
Prompting Stickers 98 0.052 0.101 0.464* 0*
Anticipation Stickers 98 1.44 0.428 2.6* 0.2*
Distraction Stickers 98 1.73 0.797 0 3.4
Completed Trials Stickers 98 4.59 0.983 0 5
Delay Stickers 98 104.92 15.64 22 110
Prompting Tower 84 0.775 0.105 0.450* 0*
Anticipation Tower 84 1.31 0.417 2.4* 0*
Distraction Tower 84 2.21 0.852 0 4
Completed Trials Tower 84 4.22 1.14 0 5
Table 5
Intercorrelations among Measures of Language Variables 1 2 3 4 1. Expressive Simple
-2. Expressive Synonyms .37**
-3. Expressive Total .64** .95**
-4. Receptive Total .28** .26* .30**
Table 6
Intercorrelations among Measures of Self-Regulation Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Tower of Patience
1. Prompts
-2. Anticipation -.19t
-3. Distraction -.15 -.04
-4. Completed trials -.22* .25* .43**
-5. Delay -.20t .08 .47** .78**
-Sticker Delay Task
6. Prompts .64** -.03 -.22* -.17 -.22t
-7. Anticipation .21t .10 -.01 -.19t -.21t .01
-8. Distraction -.28* -.12 .43** .17 .29** .47** .33**
-9. Completed trials -.22* -.02 .18 .11 .18t -.59** .05 .56**
-10. Delay -.16 -.08 .21t .11 .19t -.53** .13 .54** .92**
Table 7
Intercorrelations among Measures of Self-Regulation and Language
Variables Expressive Expressive Expressive Receptive
Simple Synonyms Total Total Tower of Patience
1. Prompts -.02 -.02 -.02 .20t
2. Anticipation -.21t .15 .03 .01
3. Distraction .08 -.03 -.05 -.02
4. Completed trials .19t .01 .01 .01
5. Delay .38** -.06 -.06 .02
Sticker Delay Task
6. Prompts -.16 .02 -.02 .13
7. Anticipation -.04 .14 .11 -.02
8. Distraction .14 -.09 -.07 -.07
9. Completed trials .24* -.07 -.04 -.00
10. Delay .22* -.06 -.03 -.03
Appendix Imitation Scale
24) Does your baby copy or imitate you when you make sounds or noises with your mouth?
1 - Often 2 - Sometimes 3 - Seldom 4 - Never
25) Does your baby copy or imitate your actions, like sticking out your tongue, clapping your hands, or shaking your head?
1 - Often 2 - Sometimes 3 - Seldom 4 - Never
26) Does your baby copy or imitate you when you do something with a toy or object, like shaking a rattle or banging a spoon on the table?
1 - Often 2 - Sometimes 3 - Seldom 4 - Never
49) When you introduce your baby to a new game (peek-a-boo, so-big, patty-cake, etc.) how does your baby respond?
1 - Almost always joins in immediately without any help. 2 - Usually joins in, with a little help.
3 - Joins in only with a lot of help
4 - Doesn’t seem very interested in new baby games.
53) What do you typically have to do to get your baby to smile or laugh at you? 1 - Smiling and laughing is enough.
2 - Usually need to touch and tickle. 3 - Usually need to swing and bounce. 4 - Your baby doesn’t do this yet.
58) If you start a game by copying or imitating a sound your baby makes, what does your baby typically do? (R)
1 - Doesn’t seem to notice the sound.
2 - Looks at you, but doesn’t make the sound. 3 - Looks at you and makes the sound.
