bs_bs_banner
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
1
Contribution of parenting to complex syntax development
in preschool children with developmental delays or typical
development
C. T. Moody,1 B. L. Baker1 & J. Blacher2,1
1 Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
2 Graduate School of Education, University of California, Riverside, CA, USA
Abstract
Background Despite studies of how parent–child
interactions relate to early child language develop-
ment, few have examined the continued contribution
of parenting to more complex language skills through
the preschool years. The current study explored how
positive and negative parenting behaviours relate to
growth in complex syntax learning from child age 3 to
age 4 years, for children with typical development or
developmental delays (DDs).
Methods Participants were children with or without
DD (N = 60) participating in a longitudinal study of
development. Parent–child interactions were tran-
scribed and coded for parenting domains and child
language. Multiple regression analyses were used to
identify the contribution of parenting to complex
syntax growth in children with typical development or
DD.
Results Analyses supported a final model,
F(9,50) = 11.90, P < .001, including a significant
three-way interaction between positive parenting be-
haviours, negative parenting behaviours and child
delay status. This model explained 68.16% of the
variance in children’s complex syntax at age 4. Simple
Correspondence: Ms Christine T. Moody, Department of
Psychology, University of California, 1285 Franz Hall, Los Angeles,
CA 90095-1563, USA (e-mail: christinemoody@ucla.edu).
© 2018 MENCAP and International Association of the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and
John Wiley & Sons Ltd
doi: 10.1111/jir.12501
two-way interactions indicated differing effects of
parenting variables for children with or without DD.
Conclusions Results have implications for
understanding of complex syntax acquisition in young
children, as well as implications for interventions.
Keywords complex syntax, developmental delay,
language, parent–child interaction, parenting,
preschool
The transactional model of development (Sameroff
2009) asserts that the child and environment interact
with one another to contribute to individual
developmental trajectories. Consistent with this
model, parenting is known to play a vital role in
promoting positive social–emotional, cognitive and
adaptive skill outcomes in children (Landry et al.
2001; Warren & Brady 2007; Fenning & Baker 2012).
Additionally, among children at risk for poor
outcomes, parenting may be especially important in
fostering developmental resilience (Baker et al. 2007).
As the acquisition of productive language is a
milestone of universal importance for all children, this
is a particularly potent outcome to examine.
Accordingly, extensive literature documents the
effects of parenting behaviours, such as warmth, affect
and responsiveness, on early communication skills
before age 3 in both typical and vulnerable children
(Hart & Risley 1992; Tamis-LeMonda et al. 2001;
Warren & Brady 2007). Despite this body of research
 Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
2
C. T. Moody, B. L. Baker & J. Blacher • Parenting and complex syntax
on parenting and early language development, few
studies have examined the continued contribution of
parenting to more complex language skills. As present
knowledge does suggest that there is considerable
variability in child acquisition of complex syntax past
age 3 (Huttenlocher et al. 2002; Vasilyeva et al. 2008;
Huttenlocher et al. 2010), it is crucial to examine the
role of the parent–child interaction in these individual
differences.
Parenting interaction behaviours
Parent–child interactions have been examined
thoroughly for specific parenting behaviours that may
promote child development. Although these
behaviours have been given many labels, they
frequently measure similar constructs: responsiveness
(e.g. contingent responding to the child’s
communication), synchronicity (e.g. speech and
actions related to the child’s attentional focus),
sensitivity (e.g. awareness of and attention to the
child’s needs and wants) and scaffolding (e.g.
provision of developmentally appropriate support).
These positive interaction strategies have been linked
to many positive outcomes before age 2, including age
of first words, early vocabulary size, play skills, social–
emotional development and cognitive skills (Tamis-
LeMonda et al. 1996; Tamis-LeMonda et al. 2001;
Landry et al. 2006). In general, the research in typical
development becomes less robust past age 3; however,
there appears to be continued support for the positive
impact of these parent interaction strategies. Jackson
& Roberts (2001) found that children from more
responsive homes were more likely to use increasingly
complex grammatical forms in their speech at ages 3
and 4. Similarly, maternal synchronous behaviours
were shown to be associated with child language,
cognitive and social outcomes at 42 months (Landry
et al. 2000).
Researchers have also examined interaction
strategies that have been associated with poor social,
behavioural and academic outcomes (Heller & Baker
2000). These negative interaction strategies are often
defined as overtly negative, intrusive or controlling
verbal and non-verbal behaviours (e.g. criticism,
unnecessary instructions and interrupting child
actions). When specifically examining language
outcomes, rates of negative parenting behaviours have
independently explained variation in both expressive
© 2018 MENCAP and International Association of the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and
John Wiley & Sons Ltd
and receptive language in typically developing (TD)
toddlers and preschoolers (Keown et al. 2001;
Pungello et al. 2009). While most studies have
supported inverse relationships between negative
parenting behaviours and child outcomes, some
research has indicated that negative parenting
behaviours do not contribute independently over and
above positive parenting characteristics (Tamis-
LeMonda et al. 2004).
Children with developmental delays
Many studies have extended these findings to
vulnerable populations, including children with a
variety of developmental disabilities (Siller & Sigman
2002; Warren & Brady 2007; Warren et al. 2010). For
example, scaffolding and synchronicity have been
linked to gains in language skills on standardised
assessments for both children born prematurely and
children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) (Siller
& Sigman 2002; Dieterich et al. 2006; Siller & Sigman
2008). Similarly, parental linguistic responses to both
child attentional leads and joint attention in
minimally verbal preschoolers with ASD were value-
added predictors of later expressive and receptive
language outcomes (Yoder et al. 2015). Further,
research indicates that children with developmental
risk may be even more sensitive to variability in
parenting behaviour than TD children (Crnic &
Greenberg 1987; Denham et al. 2000; Baker et al.
2007).
However, parents of children with developmental
delays (DD) may also be more likely to utilise
negative parenting behaviours than parents of
children with TD (Blacher et al. 2013). These
differences may be a result of the child’s interactive
style, whereby infants and young children with delays
evoke different parental responses. Consistent with
this theory, the behaviour of mothers of infants with
Down syndrome showed no differences at child age
8 weeks from parents of TD infants but diverged by
age 20 weeks to be more remote and less sensitive
(Slonims & McConachie 2006). Analyses in this
study indicated that the behaviour of mothers with
children with Down syndrome was indeed driven by
infant behaviour. Additionally, other research has
indicated that children with developmental and
language delays have a higher prevalence of behaviour
problems, which subsequently predicts increased
 Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
3
C. T. Moody, B. L. Baker & J. Blacher • Parenting and complex syntax
parenting stress (Hastings 2002; Horwitz et al. 2003)
and may also affect parenting behaviour. This
potentially altered parenting environment presents
additional developmental risk that may amplify the
inherent risk in these populations. Expressive and
receptive language deficits occur across a variety of
developmental disorders (Rice et al. 2005), which may
be at least partially explained by impaired intellectual
ability (Cromer 1991). However, Rice et al. (2005)
show evidence of unique language profiles in various
developmental disorders, which are unexplained by
cognitive ability alone. Thus, it is possible that
environmental factors, such as parenting interaction
style, may have differing salience for different
populations and for different components of language
(e.g. syntax) within each population.
The current study
There is ample literature supporting the critical role of
parenting for early childhood language milestones, such
as vocabulary. However, few researchers have looked
beyond child age 3 and examined complex syntax use in
naturalistic setting. Further, the majority of the studies
have been conducted with either TD children or
children with DDs, which limits insight into potential
differences in the mechanisms of child language
learning. In the current study, we sought to address these
gaps by investigating the impact of multiple aspects of
parenting interaction behaviours (e.g. sensitivity, affect,
intrusiveness and engagement) on the development of
complex syntax in both TD and DD children.
Aims and expectations
In preparation for the primary analyses, we planned to
examine group differences with respect to syntax
development and parenting interaction behaviours.
Consistent with prior literature (Rice et al. 2005), it was
expected that DD children would show less complex
syntax than TD children at ages 3 and 4. As parents of
DD children have previously shown lower levels of
positive parenting and higher levels of negative parenting
than parents of TD children (Slonims & McConachie
2006; Blacher et al. 2013), it was hypothesised that these
patterns would also emerge in the current sample.
Building upon studies demonstrating the effects of
parenting behaviours on early language development,
we hypothesised that both positive and negative
parenting dimensions would also contribute to
© 2018 MENCAP and International Association of the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and
John Wiley & Sons Ltd
complex syntax growth from age 3 to age 4. However,
we hypothesised that the effect of negative parenting
at age 3 would depend on the amount of positive
parenting interaction strategies present, such that at
high levels of positive parenting behaviours, negative
parenting behaviours would not have a significant
impact. Conversely, at lower levels of positive
parenting behaviours, higher rates of negative
parenting behaviours would correspond to less
growth in complex syntax. This two-way interaction
between positive and negative parenting behaviour
dimensions could explain why some studies have
shown independent effects of negative interaction
elements over and above positive elements, and some
have not (Tamis-LeMonda et al. 2004). We also
expected these relationships to differ by child
developmental status, supporting a significant three-way
interaction. Specifically, it was hypothesised that the
magnitude of the relationships would be larger for
children with DD, similar to prior research (Crnic &
Greenberg 1987; Denham et al. 2000; Baker et al. 2007).
Methods
Participants
Participants were a randomly selected sample (n = 60)
of families drawn from a larger pool (N = 208) of
English-speaking families enrolled in a longitudinal
study of children with or without DD conducted
across three national sites (see Baker et al. 2002 for a
thorough description of original study procedures). In
the current study’s sample, each of the three sites were
represented: University of California, Los Angeles
(n=29), the University of California, Riverside (n=15),
and Pennsylvania State University (n=16). Selection
criteria required that the child be between 30 and
39 months of age, be ambulatory and not be diagnosed
with ASD. Families were recruited from community
service providers and local preschools.
A subsample (n = 60) was used due to the time-
intensive nature of transcription and language coding.
Random selection was constrained to maintain equal
distribution across the DD (n = 30) and TD (n = 30)
groups. Families were excluded from the current
study selection if the participating child was
diagnosed with Down syndrome, because of their
unique syntactic development (Rice et al. 2005), or if
the child did not reach number of utterances required
 Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
4
C. T. Moody, B. L. Baker & J. Blacher • Parenting and complex syntax
Table 1 Demographic data of current study sample of TD children and DD children
Gender (% male)
Race (% Caucasian)
Family income (% <$50 000)
Maternal education level (last grade completed, where 16 would refer to
graduating from a 4-year university)
BSID-II MDI
+
p < .10.
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
***p < .001.
BSID-II MDI, Bayley Scales of Infant Development II Mental Development Index; DD, developmental delay; TD, typically developing/typical development.
to obtain a valid Index of Productive Syntax (IPSyn)
score (Scarborough 1990). Table 1 shows demographic
characteristics of the current sample. Families were from
diverse backgrounds and from a wide socio-economic
range. Overall, there were more male than female
children. On average, mothers of TD children had
achieved significantly higher levels of education [Mgrade
completed = 16.27, standard deviation (SD) = 2.36] than
mothers of DD children (Mgrade completed = 14.23,
SD = 2.50), t(58) = 3.24, P = 0.002. There were no other
significant group demographic differences. Two
children in the DD group were diagnosed with cerebral
palsy; the rest had undifferentiated DDs.
Procedures
The participating universities’ institutional review
boards approved all study procedures. All
assessments were conducted by trained doctoral
students or research staff. At intake, child age 3, early
cognitive development was assessed in the home
using the Mental Development Index (MDI) on the
Bayley Scales of Infant Development II (Bayley 1993).
Children were classified as TD if they demonstrated
normative cognitive development (MDI >85) or as
DD if they demonstrated delayed cognitive
development (MDI <85). A classification of
intellectual disability was not given at this age.
Following intake, families were scheduled for a
laboratory visit, which included a videotaped mother–
child interaction, consisting of several parts: 10 min of
free play, 3 min of clean-up, 5 min of snack and
© 2018 MENCAP and International Association of the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and
John Wiley & Sons Ltd
TD percentage or DD percentage or
2
mean (SD) mean (SD) t or χ
60.00 73.33 1.20
70.00 60.00 0.66
40.00 63.33 3.27+
16.27 (2.36) 14.23 (2.50) 3.24**
108.23 (10.92) 68.03 (10.18) 14.75***
10 min of joint problem-solving tasks (e.g. creating a
replica of a lego tower, completing a jigsaw puzzle).
For all tasks, parents were provided brief instructions
by a research staff member and then left alone with
their child. For example, during free play, parents
were instructed to act as though they were in their
own living room and were provided with a variety of
toys (e.g. ball, car wash, potatoheads). The
procedures of this lab visit were repeated
approximately 1 year later, when the child was 4 years
old, with slight modifications to make the materials
and tasks developmentally appropriate.
Child transcription
Child language during the videotaped mother–child
interaction was transcribed by trained research
assistants using Computerized Language Analysis
software and Child Language Database Exchange
System transcription conventions (MacWhinney
2014). The following activities were transcribed, in
the listed order, until the number of spontaneous
utterances required to assign a valid IPSyn score was
reached: free play, clean-up, snack and problem-
solving tasks 1–3. The majority of children reached
this benchmark within the first three activities,
equivalent to 18 min of interaction, at age 3 (26 of the
TD children and 24 of the DD children) and 4 (25 of
the TD children and 26 of the DD children). The first
author reviewed all transcripts to ensure accuracy.
Twenty percent of final transcripts were subsequently
randomly selected for reliability checks by a research
 Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
5
C. T. Moody, B. L. Baker & J. Blacher • Parenting and complex syntax

assistant trained in transcription who had not
contributed to any of the final transcriptions.
Reliability was calculated by dividing the number of
utterances in which the reliability judge agreed exactly
with the final transcript by total number of utterances.
Average reliability was 98.6%, with no one transcript
below 92.8% agreement.
Measures
Parenting interaction strategies
Global ratings of both positive and negative
interaction features were coded at child age 3 using
the Parent–Child Interaction Rating Scale (Belsky
et al. 1995). The Parent-Child Interaction Rating
System measures six dimensions of parenting (Table 2),
which create two composite scores, positive parenting
and negative parenting, through a previously derived
factor structure (Fenning et al. 2007). The positive
parenting factor score consisted of positive
affect + sensitivity + stimulation of
cognition ! detachment. The negative parenting factor
score consisted of intrusiveness + negative affect. Coding
teams rated each mother in each dimension, in each
interaction activity, using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at
all characteristic, 5 = highly characteristic). Research
assistants were trained until reliability was established,
defined as reaching a criterion over 70% exact agreement
and 95% agreement within one scale point with the
criterion coder. Once reliable, two research assistants
were paired to code the mother–child interactions as a
team. Reliability was collected for 30% of the tapes.
Kappa for inter-rater reliability was 0.71 (range = 0.68–
0.77), which is considered acceptable. Once collected,
these Likert ratings were converted into z-scores and
summed to form the two composites.
Child complex syntax
As mean length of utterance (MLU) becomes less
sensitive to growth past age 3 and may overestimate
the language complexity of children with DD
(Scarborough et al. 1991), the IPSyn (Scarborough
1990) was used to measure child complex syntax use.
The IPSyn is a reliable measure of syntactic growth in
the preschool years that has been used with both TD
and DD children (Scarborough et al. 1991). An IPSyn
score is obtained by analysing a 100-utterance sample
of non-imitative language for 60 unique syntactic
structures. For each syntactic structure measured, the
child can receive up to 2 points (i.e. 0 points for no
observed use, 1 point for one exemplar and 2 points
for two or more exemplars). Thus, the highest
possible IPSyn score is 120. During measure
development, syntactic structures that showed
predictable developmental progression were selected.
Therefore, a higher IPSyn score indicates a more
developmentally advanced and diverse
morphosyntactic repertoire but does not necessarily
correspond to a specific level of syntactic
development, as the same score can be achieved with
different items. Each child’s language was IPSyn
scored at ages 3 and 4 from the transcripts produced
during the parent–child interaction. Coding teams
consisted of two trained coders who established
reliability in IPSyn coding by meeting 90% item
agreement with the first author master coder on three
transcripts in a row. Twenty percent of transcripts

Table 2 Description of the six dimensions of parenting interactions coded in the PCIRS

Parenting interaction dimension Description

Positive affect Expression of positive regard, either verbal or non-verbal (e.g. smiling and praising)
Sensitivity Ability of parent to respond appropriately and consistently to the child’s needs
in a developmentally appropriate way, the extent to which parent is ‘child centred’
Stimulation of cognition Attempts to foster cognitive development (e.g. academic skills such as numbers
or letters and problem solving)
Detachment (reverse coded in analysis) Passivity or being unaware of child (e.g. mother reading magazine while child plays)
Negative affect Expression of negative regard, either verbal or non-verbal (e.g. scolding, tone of
voice and facial expressions)
Intrusiveness Imposition of adult agenda on child activities and overstimulation

PCIRS, Parent Child Interaction Rating System.

© 2018 MENCAP and International Association of the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and
John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
6
C. T. Moody, B. L. Baker & J. Blacher • Parenting and complex syntax

were then randomly selected to be coded twice. parenting behaviours on complex syntax growth while
Reliability was calculated as the percent item holding positive parenting behaviours constant at the
agreement with a master IPSyn scoresheet created mean, as well as ±1 SD.
through consensus. Average reliability was 97.4%,
with no transcripts falling below 91.7% agreement.
Results
Child complex syntax
Analysis plan
As expected, data revealed that as children age, their
Prior to exploring the three-way interaction of primary
language becomes more syntactically complex. Using
interest (delay status × positive parenting × negative
the complete sample, children at age 4 received
parenting), paired samples t-tests were used to confirm
significantly greater IPSyn scores (M = 67.7,
that there was indeed change in complex syntax from
SD = 13.7) than at age 3 (M = 52.0, SD = 17.9),
age 3 to age 4 for both TD and DD children, which
t(59) = 10.24, p < .001. Further, within each group,
provided the foundation for the regression analyses.
significant complex syntax growth from age 3 to age 4
One-way and repeated measures analyses of vaiance
occurred. TD children received significantly higher
(ANOVAs) were conducted to analyse TD/DD
IPSyn scores at age 4 (M = 75.9, SD = 8.0) than at
differences in complex syntax use at both age 3 and age
age 3 (M = 64.1, SD = 9.2), t(29) = 7.32, p < .001.
4, as well as differences in rates of change in IPSyn
Children with DDs also received significantly higher
scores from age 3 to age 4. With respect to parenting
IPSyn scores at age 4 (M = 59.4, SD = 13.4) than at
behaviours, one-way ANOVAs were used to examine
age 3 (M = 39.9, SD = 16.3), t(29) = 8.02, p < .001.1
group differences in the positive and negative parenting
Finally, the repeated measures ANOVA revealed a
factor scores. Analyses of covariance were also
significant time by delay status interaction,
conducted to parcel out any contribution of maternal
F(1,58) = 6.85, p = .011, suggesting that, on average,
education to parenting behaviour.
DD children showed faster growth in complex syntax
To address the primary hypothesis, a four-step
from child age 3 to age 4 than did TD children.
hierarchal regression was used. The outcome variable
With respect to group differences present at a
used was child IPSyn score at age 4. In the first step of
singular time point (Table 3), children with DD used
the analyses, child IPSyn score at age 3 was entered,
significantly less complex language than TD children
to control for baseline individual differences and
at both age 3, F(1,58) = 50.25, p < .001, and age 4,
isolate the effects of parenting on change in complex
F(1,58) = 33.88, p < .001. Although the assumption of
syntax from age 3 to age 4. Mother’s educational
homogeneity of variances was violated at both age 3
achievement was also entered as a covariate given
and age 4, the F-test is known to be robust against
significant group differences. In the second step, the
inequality of variances when sample sizes are equal
three variables of interest were entered: child delay
(Glass et al. 1972), as in these analyses.
status, positive parenting factor score and negative
parenting factor score. The third step included all
possible two-way interactions between the variables of Parenting interaction strategies
interest. The final step included the three-way Overall, parents used a range of both negative and
interaction of delay status, the positive parenting positive parenting interaction strategies. The average
factor score and the negative parenting factor score. positive parenting unstandardised factor score,
As the primary interest in this study was the three-way
interaction, all main effects and two-way interactions 1
It is difficult to qualify exactly what a given numerical IPSyn score
were necessarily included and not evaluated prior to means for an individual child’s syntax development. However, as a
the interpretation of the three-way interaction. To general statement, a score of 40 would usually indicate that a child is
further understand the three-way interaction, simple using simple sentences with one verb phrase (e.g. ‘I do this’), while a
score of 60 would likely support the ability to use two verb phrases in
two-way interactions between positive and negative
one sentence (e.g. ‘I want to go’ and ‘I’ll be the green and you be the
parenting were examined for both groups of children. blue’). Scores around 75 or higher are usually reached through use of
Simple slopes were calculated to probe these simple increasingly complex syntax structures, such as dependent clauses
two-way interactions, which test the effect of negative (e.g. ‘that’s what I told you’ and ‘this is the big one that we have too’).

© 2018 MENCAP and International Association of the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and
John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
7
C. T. Moody, B. L. Baker & J. Blacher • Parenting and complex syntax

Table 3 Descriptive statistics of the language and parenting variables of interest by group

TD children Children with DD

Mean (SD) Minimum–maximum Mean (SD) Minimum–maximum F

IPSyn score, age 3 64.10 (9.17) 46–81 39.93 (16.27) 13–72 50.25***
IPSyn score, age 4 75.93 (7.96) 60–93 59.40 (13.37) 30–82 33.88***
Positive parenting 0.63 (3.25) !6.25 to 0.63 !1.23 (2.82) !8.79 to 3.76 5.58*
Negative parenting !1.03 (1.46) !2.41 to 2.93 0.72 (1.61) !2.41 to 4.00 19.58***

Parenting variables collected at age 3. Positive parenting is equivalent to the sum of its respective standardised factor dimensions, which included positive
affect, sensitivity, stimulation of cognition and detachment reverse coded. Negative parenting is equivalent to the sum of its standardised factor dimensions,
which included negative affect and intrusiveness.
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
***p < .001.
DD, developmental delay; IPSyn, Index of Productive Syntax; SD, standard deviation; TD, typical development.

collapsing across DD and TD, was 13.32 (SD = 1.97),

Table 4 Results of multiple regression of child developmental delay
where the range of possible scores was 4–20. The
status, negative parenting and positive parenting at age 3 on child
average negative parenting unstandardised factor
complex syntax at age 4, controlling for child complex syntax at age 3
score across both groups was 3.87 (SD = 1.26), with and mother’s education at age 3
the range of possible scores being 2–10, suggesting a
low base rate of negative interaction strategies in this
Parameter β SE t
sample. When comparing the sum of the standardised
factor scores, results revealed that parents of TD
Constant (intercept) 71.02 2.04 34.88***
children (M = !1.03, SD = 1.46) were significantly IPSyn at age 3 0.45 0.09 5.06***
less negative than parents of DD children (M = 0.72, Maternal education level (grade) 0.65 0.51 1.27
SD = 1.61), F(1,58) = 19.58, p < .001 (Table 3). In Delay status !6.98 3.21 !2.18*
addition, parents of TD children (M = 0.63, Negative parenting 0.75 1.15 0.66
Positive parenting 0.65 0.76 0.86
SD = 3.25) were more likely to use higher levels of
Positive * negative 0.60 0.42 1.42
positive interaction strategies than parents of DD Positive * status 0.48 1.15 0.42
children (M = !1.23, SD = 2.82), F(1,58) = 5.58, Negative * status !2.53 1.78 !1.43
p = .022. After controlling for maternal education, Positive * negative * status !1.65 0.55 !3.00**
parents of DD children remained more likely to use
higher levels of negative interaction behaviours than Delay status: typically developing coded as 0.
*p < .05.
parents of TD children, F(1,57) = 10.16, p = .002.
**p < .01.
However, no differences in positive interaction ***p < .001.
behaviours were observed between the two groups of β, unstandardised regression coefficient; IPSyn, Index of Productive Syntax;
parents after controlling for maternal education, SE, coefficient standard error; t, obtained t-value.
F(1,57) = 1.64, p > .05.

variance in children’s IPSyn scores at age 4; however,

Multiple regression model
The final model, including the three-way interaction,
was highly significant, F(9,50) = 11.90, p < .001.
Table 4 includes the unstandardised beta coefficients
of each parameter in this model. The full set of
variables and interactions explained 68.16% of the
the bulk of the explained variance was accounted for
by prior language at age 3 (R2IPSYN36 = 0.56). The
addition of the three-way interaction in the fourth
model resulted in a significant increase in explained
variance, Fchange(1,50) = 8.98, p = 0.004. The
significant three-way interaction indicates that

© 2018 MENCAP and International Association of the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and
John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
8
C. T. Moody, B. L. Baker & J. Blacher • Parenting and complex syntax

positive and negative parenting behaviours interact with
each other differently for TD and DD children. The
simple two-way interactions were graphed for both TD
and DD children (Figs 1, 2, respectively) to depict the
association between negative parenting behaviours and
IPSyn scores at varying levels of positive parenting
interaction strategies in the two groups.
For TD children (Fig. 1), the simple two-way
interaction between positive and negative parenting
behaviours was not significant, t(24) = 1.63, p > .05.
Accordingly, each simple slope at each level of
positive parenting behaviours was also non-
significant. This indicates no relationship is present
between negative parenting behaviours and complex
syntax at 4, while controlling for prior levels of
complex syntax, at any of the three levels of the
positive parenting factor score. Because the two-way
interaction was not significant for TD children, main
effects of positive and negative parenting interaction
strategies alone were examined. There were no
significant main effects of positive parenting
behaviours, t(25) = !0.48, p > .05, or negative
parenting behaviours, t(25) = 0.85, p > .05. The only
significant predictor of child complex syntax at age 4
was complex syntax scores at age 3, t(28) = 2.84,
p = .008, accounting for 22.39% of the variance.
When examining the relationship between negative
parenting behaviours and complex syntax at various
levels of positive parenting behaviour for DD
children, as seen in Fig. 2, results revealed that the
simple two-way interaction was significant,
t(24) = !2.53, p = .018. Thus, for DD children, the
association between negative parenting behaviours
and complex syntax growth from age 3 to age 4 was
dependent on the level of positive parenting
interaction strategies. Simple slopes analyses
supported a significant negative association between
levels of negative parenting interaction elements at

85

80

75
IPSyn score at age 4

70

65

60

55

50

45
Low Average High Figure 1 Simple two-way interaction between positive and
Negative Parenting negative parenting for typically developing children. IPSyn,
Index of Productive Syntax.

85

80

75
IPSyn score at age 4

70

65
Figure 2 Significant simple two-way interaction between
60 positive and negative parenting for children with
developmental delays, t(24) = !2.53, P = 0.018. A
55
significant negative association between levels of negative
50 parenting at age 3 and complex syntax at age 4 was detected
for those developmental delay children whose parents were
45 above average on positive parenting interaction strategies,
Low Average High
t(24) = !2.14, P = 0.043. IPSyn, Index of Productive
Negative Parenting
Syntax.

© 2018 MENCAP and International Association of the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and
John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
9
C. T. Moody, B. L. Baker & J. Blacher • Parenting and complex syntax
age 3 and complex syntax at age 4 but only for those
DD children whose parents are above average on
positive parenting interaction strategies,
t(24) = !2.14, p = .043. This suggests that at high
levels of positive parenting behaviours (i.e. one SD
above the mean), child complex syntax growth
diminishes significantly as negative parenting
behaviours increase. However, at low and average
levels of positive parenting behaviours, there was no
significant association with negative parenting
interaction elements on complex syntax growth.
As stated, the earlier results included maternal
education level in the model as a covariate. However,
the model revealed that maternal education level did
not explain a significant amount of variance over and
above child complex syntax at age 3. Thus, the model
was also tested without maternal education level.
Overall, the results remained largely similar.
However, without this covariate, the simple two-way
interaction between positive and negative parenting
behaviours for TD children reached significance,
t(24) = 2.06, p = .050. Further, one simple slope
approached significance, t(25) = 1.90, p = .069,
indicating that for TD children in high positive
parenting strategy contexts, increases in negative
parenting interaction elements corresponded to
enhanced complex syntax growth from age 3 to age 4.
Discussion
We aimed to elucidate the relationship between
parenting interaction style and the continued
acquisition of language through the preschool years.
At this time, children move past simply expanding
their vocabulary and begin to learn the grammatical
and syntactical rules that govern language use.
Through complex syntax, children begin to
communicate and understand increasingly complex
ideas and thoughts, an essential developmental task.
Our findings revealed a significant three-way
interaction, suggesting that the predictive power of
parenting interaction characteristics on complex syntax
growth varies for children with TD versus children with
DDs. Although the presence of a significant three-way
interaction is consistent with our hypotheses, the nature
of the interaction was different than expected.
Specifically, findings indicate that parenting interaction
styles, neither positive nor negative, do not significantly
impact complex syntax growth from age 3 to age 4 in
© 2018 MENCAP and International Association of the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and
John Wiley & Sons Ltd
TD children. In contrast, for DD children, parenting
behaviours, as coded here, remain important. As one
might expect, the most ideal parenting environment for
this population is one of high positive and low negative
interactional elements. However, results indicate that
high positive parenting behaviours may not be able to
buffer against negative parenting interactional
elements, such that in the presence of high negative
parenting behaviours, the benefits of positive parenting
behaviours are diminished.
For TD children, one interpretation of these results
could be that complex syntax learning is fuelled
simply by increased language input, irrespective of the
emotional context. Therefore, language learning at
preschool age may be founded on basic statistical
learning, where children notice and generalise the
grammatical patterns present in language input,
rather than occurring through a dynamic interactional
process. This hypothesis would suggest that while
positive interaction strategies may be essential for
initial word learning and early milestones (Tamis-
LeMonda et al. 1996; Tamis-LeMonda et al. 2001;
Landry et al. 2006), they are not the sole avenue
towards syntactic learning. That is, syntactic learning
can occur within positive and negative parent–child
interaction contexts. These differences across periods
of development are face valid, because very young
children may require additional interactional supports
to establish a level of engagement that enables
learning. As TD children become older, these
interactional supports may not be necessary for
children to cue into syntax and grammar rules, given
that they already have the foundational knowledge
and ability to use language to interact socially.
When maternal educational achievement was not
included in the model, simple slopes suggest that for
TD children, negative parenting interaction
behaviours may actually have a positive benefit to
complex syntax acquisition but only if high levels of
positive parenting interaction behaviours are also
present. This finding was unexpected and
inconsistent with previous literature, which has found
negative or null associations between negative
parenting behaviours and language acquisition.
However, the current analyses offer an increasingly
nuanced examination of this relationship within the
context of positive parenting behaviours. Further, as
both positive and negative parenting constructs
contain variables that may be confounded with
 Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
10
C. T. Moody, B. L. Baker & J. Blacher • Parenting and complex syntax
increased language input directed at the child (e.g.
stimulation of cognition for positive and intrusiveness
for negative), it is possible that this result may be a
function of increased language input for the child.
This result could also be interpreted as consistent
with prior research supporting a divergence model of
emotion understanding development, which posits
that TD children benefit when their two parents
demonstrate different emotional reactions to
situations (McElwain et al. 2007), suggesting the
possible value of using some amount of both positive
and negative strategies. Of note, however, parents in
this sample used low overall levels of negative
parenting behaviours. Thus, it is also possible that
more frequent and pervasive levels of negative
interaction strategies would elicit different effects.
In contrast to TD children, these results indicate
that parenting interaction strategies significantly
predict language outcomes at age 4 for children with
DDs. This may be simply a function of the fact that
children with DD are at an earlier stage of language
development at age 3 than TD children. This
explanation may suggest that the effects of parenting
on language acquisition matters most when children
are acquiring new skills and gradually erodes as
children solidify their language knowledge. However,
these results are also consistent with prior research
that suggests that environment, including parenting
context, is especially important for children with high
developmental risk (Baker et al. 2007; Green et al.
2014). In particular, it appears that interactions that
include high levels of positive affect, sensitivity,
engagement and cognitive stimulation are especially
beneficial for DD children. However, the advantages
conferred by positive parenting interactions are
sharply diminished if high levels of negative parenting
interactional elements (e.g. negative affect,
intrusiveness and control) are also present.
Comparing this result to TD children, it appears that
syntax learning for DD children is dependent on the
emotional context of the interaction.
Limitations
Although powered to detect moderate to large effect
sizes, the current study’s sample size may have limited
our ability to detect smaller effects present in the
population. Even so, the age and child status
differences were consistent and significant, and the
© 2018 MENCAP and International Association of the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and
John Wiley & Sons Ltd
presence of a significant three-way interaction indicates
that there are indeed differences in how parenting
behaviours predict complex syntax growth children
with TD as compared with DD. Further, although
results suggest that parenting behaviours at age 3 may
impact complex syntax growth, particularly for children
with DD, the nature of the analyses can not rule out
alternative explanations of the observed relationship
between parenting behaviours and complex syntax. A
second limitation is the use of unidirectional analyses,
examining parenting behaviours as a predictor of child
language. As stated in the transactional theory of
development (Sameroff 2009), there is likely a
bidirectional influence, whereby child language
predicts parenting behaviours, but that was not the
focus of this study. Similarly, the current study only
examined characteristics of mother–child interactions;
however, at this age, children likely interact with other
caregivers, including fathers, teachers and day-care
providers. These interactions may also have predictive
value for complex syntax learning.
Future directions
To further explore the effect of parenting on complex
syntax development in children, it would be important
to examine the role of parent language input during this
preschool period. Parent language input
characteristics, such as the number of different words
or MLUs spoken to the child, have been linked to larger
child vocabularies (Tomasello et al. 1986; Huttenlocher
et al. 1991; Hart & Risley 1995) and more advanced
complex syntax use (Huttenlocher et al. 2002;
Huttenlocher et al. 2010). The limited body of research
relating to complex syntax is in need of replication in
TD populations and extension to children with DDs, a
population for which the impact of parental language
input (e.g. parent MLU and telegraphic speech) has
only preliminary support (Venker et al. 2015; Sandbank
& Yoder 2016). Further, to our knowledge, no studies
have examined both parent language input and parent
interaction strategies simultaneously. Although past
research has demonstrated the benefits of input that
follows a child’s lead (Siller & Sigman 2008), this
research could be expanded to account for other
interactive elements, such as affect and spatial
proximity. In the context of the current study’s findings
with respect to TD children, examining the role of
input would determine whether amount of parent
 Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
11
C. T. Moody, B. L. Baker & J. Blacher • Parenting and complex syntax
language is indeed one of the propelling mechanisms
behind syntactic growth and confirm that this process is
robust regardless of the emotional context of the
parent–child interaction.
Implications
As such, the current study has particularly clear
implications for intervention efforts with preschool
children with DDs and their families. As high levels of
negative parenting have particularly deleterious
effects and parents of children with delays used more
negative parenting behaviours in this sample,
reducing negative interaction elements may be an
important treatment target, rather than just boosting
positive interaction elements. Additionally, as positive
interaction strategies seem to offer continued benefit
through the preschool years in this population, these
results provide support for continued parent
education regarding how to adapt to their children as
they develop. In particular, constructs such as
sensitivity, stimulation of cognition and engagement
may each require adjustment as children grow older.
Indeed, the effect of different types of caregiver
responsiveness is moderated by developmental
language level in children with ASD (Haebig et al.
2013). The feasibility of such approaches is bolstered
by prior parent training research, in which parents of
children with and without DD have successfully
increased contingent responding and enthusiasm,
while decreasing criticism (Schuhmann et al. 1998;
Kasari et al. 2010; Kaiser & Roberts 2013; Siller et al.
2013; Sanders et al. 2014).
Acknowledgements
This article utilizes data originally collected by the
Collaborative Family Study (CFS), supported by
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development, Grants 34879-
1459 (PIs: K. A. Crnic, B. L. Baker, J. Blacher, C.
Edelbrock). The CFS was conducted at three sites:
Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA, the
University of California, Los Angeles, CA, and the
University of California, Riverside, CA. The authors
would like to acknowledge Catherine Sandhofer,
PhD, for her consultation on this work and the
research assistants who contributed to transcription
and coding, especially Yassaman Erfani, Gina Hana,
© 2018 MENCAP and International Association of the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and
John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Janet Quan, Yerim Oh, Mary Dizon, Amanda Tran,
Marco Gomez, Araceli Gonzalez, Tram Nguyen,
Josefina Flores, and Stephanie Le. Lastly, the authors
would like to thank the children and families who
participated and made this research possible.
References
Baker B. L., Blacher J., Crnic K. A. & Edelbrock C. (2002)
Behavior problems and parenting stress in families of
three-year-old children with and without developmental
delays. American Journal on Mental Retardation 107, 433–
44.
Baker J. K., Fenning R., Crnic K., Baker B. L. & Blacher J.
(2007) Prediction of social skills in 6-year-old children
with and without developmental delays: contributions of
early regulation and maternal scaffolding. American
Journal on Mental Retardation 112, 375–91.
Bayley N. (1993) Bayley Scales of Infant Development Second
Edition: Manual. San Antonio: Psychological
Corporation.
Belsky J., Crnic K. & Woodworth S. (1995) Personality and
parenting: exploring the mediating role of transient mood
and daily hassles. Journal of Personality 63, 905–29.
Blacher J., Baker B. L. & Kaladjian A. (2013) Syndrome
specificity and mother–child interactions: examining
positive and negative parenting across contexts and time.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 43, 761–74.
Crnic K. A. & Greenberg M. T. (1987) Transactional
relationships between perceived family style, risk status,
and mother–child interactions in two-year-olds. Journal of
Pediatric Psychology 12, 343–62.
Cromer R. F. (1991) Language and Thought in Normal and
Handicapped Children. Blackwell, Cambridge MA.
Denham S. A., Workman E., Cole P. M., Weissbrod C.,
Kendziora K. T. & Zahn-Waxler C. (2000) Prediction of
externalizing behavior problems from early to middle
childhood: the role of parental socialization and emotion
expression. Development and Psychopathology 12, 23–45.
Dieterich S. E., Assel M. A., Swank P., Smith K. E. &
Landry S. H. (2006) The impact of early maternal verbal
scaffolding and child language abilities on later decoding
and reading comprehension skills. Journal of School
Psychology 43, 481–94.
Fenning R. M. & Baker J. K. (2012) Mother–child interaction
and resilience in children with early developmental risk.
Journal of Family Psychology 26, 411–20.
Fenning R. M., Baker J. K., Baker B. L. & Crnic K. A.
(2007) Parenting children with borderline intellectual
functioning: a unique risk population. American Journal on
Mental Retardation 112, 107–21.
Glass G. V., Peckham P. D. & Sanders J. R. (1972)
Consequences of failure to meet assumptions underlying
 Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
12
C. T. Moody, B. L. Baker & J. Blacher • Parenting and complex syntax
the fixed effects analyses of variance and covariance.
Review of educational research 42, 237–88.
Green S., Caplan B. & Baker B. (2014) Maternal supportive
and interfering control as predictors of adaptive and social
development in children with and without developmental
delays. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 58, 691–703.
Haebig E., McDuffie A. & Weismer S. E. (2013) The
contribution of two categories of parent verbal
responsiveness to later language for toddlers and
preschoolers on the autism spectrum. American Journal of
Speech-Language Pathology 22, 57–70.
Hart B. & Risley T. R. (1992) American parenting of
language-learning children: persisting differences in
family–child interactions observed in natural home
environments. Developmental Psychology 28, 1096–105.
Hart B. & Risley T. R. (1995) Meaningful Differences in the
Everyday Experiences of Young Children. Paul H. Brookes
Publishing, Baltimore, MD.
Hastings R. P. (2002) Parental stress and behaviour problems
of children with developmental disability. Journal of
Intellectual and Developmental Disability 27, 149–60.
Heller T. L. & Baker B. L. (2000) Maternal negativity and
children’s externalizing behavior. Early Education and
Development 11, 483–98.
Horwitz S. M., Irwin J. R., Briggs-Gowan M. J., Heenan J. M. B.,
Mendoza J. & Carter A. S. (2003) Language delay in a
community cohort of young children. Journal of the American
Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 42, 932–40.
Huttenlocher J., Haight W., Bryk A., Selzer M. & Lyons T.
(1991) Early vocabulary growth: relation to language input
and gender. Developmental Psychology 27, 236–48.
Huttenlocher J., Vasilyeva M., Cymerman E. & Levine S.
(2002) Language input and child syntax. Cognitive
Psychology 45, 337–74.
Huttenlocher J., Waterfall H., Vasilyeva M., Vevea J. &
Hedges L. V. (2010) Sources of variability in children’s
language growth. Cognitive psychology 61, 343–65.
Jackson S. C. & Roberts J. E. (2001) Complex syntax
production of African American preschoolers. Journal of
Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 44, 1083–96.
Kaiser A. P. & Roberts M. Y. (2013) Parent-implemented
enhanced milieu teaching with preschool children who
have intellectual disabilities. Journal of Speech, Language,
and Hearing Research 56, 295–309.
Kasari C., Gulsrud A. C., Wong C., Kwon S. & Locke J.
(2010) Randomized controlled caregiver mediated joint
engagement intervention for toddlers with autism. Journal
of autism and developmental disorders 40, 1045–56.
Keown L. J., Woodward L. J. & Field J. (2001) Language
development of pre-school children born to teenage
mothers. Infant and Child Development 10, 129–45.
Landry S. H., Smith K. E., Swank P. R. & Miller-Loncar C.
L. (2000) Early maternal and child influences on
children’s later independent cognitive and social
functioning. Child Development 71, 358–75.
© 2018 MENCAP and International Association of the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and
John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Landry S. H., Smith K. E., Swank P. R., Assel M. A. &
Vellet S. (2001) Does early responsive parenting have a
special importance for children’s development or is
consistency across early childhood necessary?
Developmental Psychology 37, 387–403.
Landry S. H., Smith K. E. & Swank P. R. (2006) Responsive
parenting: establishing early foundations for social,
communication, and independent problem-solving skills.
Developmental Psychology 42, 627–42.
MacWhinney B. (2014) The CHILDES project: Tools for
analyzing talk, Volume II: The database. New York:
Psychology Press.
McElwain N. L., Halberstadt A. G. & Volling B. L. (2007)
Mother-and father-reported reactions to children’s
negative emotions: Relations to young children’s
emotional understanding and friendship quality. Child
Development 78, 1407–25.
Pungello E. P., Iruka I. U., Dotterer A. M., Mills-Koonce R.
& Reznick J. S. (2009) The effects of socioeconomic
status, race, and parenting on language development in
early childhood. Developmental Psychology 45, 544–57.
Rice M. L., Warren S. F. & Betz S. K. (2005) Language
symptoms of developmental language disorders: an
overview of autism, Down syndrome, fragile X, specific
language impairment, and Williams syndrome. Applied
Psycholinguistics 26, 7–27.
Sameroff A. J. (2009) The Transactional Model of
Development: How Children and Contexts Shape Each Other.
American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Sandbank M. & Yoder P. (2016) The association between
parental mean length of utterance and language outcomes
in children with disabilities: a correlational meta-analysis.
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 25, 240–51.
Sanders M. R., Kirby J. N., Tellegen C. L. & Day J. J. (2014)
The Triple P-Positive Parenting Program: a systematic
review and meta-analysis of a multi-level system of
parenting support. Clinical psychology review 34, 337–57.
Scarborough H. S. (1990) Index of productive syntax.
Applied Psycholinguistics 11, 1–22.
Scarborough H., Rescorla L., Tager-Flusberg H., Fowler A.
& Sudhalter V. (1991) The relation of utterance length to
grammatical complexity in normal and language-
disordered groups. Applied Psycholinguistics 12, 23–45.
Schuhmann E. M., Foote R. C., Eyberg S. M., Boggs S. R. &
Algina J. (1998) Efficacy of parent–child interaction therapy:
interim report of a randomized trial with short-term
maintenance. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 27, 34–45.
Siller M. & Sigman M. (2002) The behaviors of parents of
children with autism predict the subsequent development
of their children’s communication. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders 32, 77–89.
Siller M. & Sigman M. (2008) Modeling longitudinal change
in the language abilities of children with autism: parent
behaviors and child characteristics as predictors of change.
Developmental psychology 44, 1691–704.
 Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
13
C. T. Moody, B. L. Baker & J. Blacher • Parenting and complex syntax
Siller M., Hutman T. & Sigman M. (2013) A parent-
mediated intervention to increase responsive parental
behaviors and child communication in children with ASD:
a randomized clinical trial. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders 43, 540–55.
Slonims V. & McConachie H. (2006) Analysis of mother–
infant interaction in infants with Down syndrome and
typically developing infants. American journal on mental
retardation 111, 273–89.
Tamis-LeMonda C. S., Bornstein M. H., Baumwell L. &
Melstein Damast A. (1996) Responsive parenting in the
second year: specific influences on children’s language
and play. Early Development and Parenting 5, 173–83.
Tamis-LeMonda C. S., Bornstein M. H. & Baumwell L.
(2001) Maternal responsiveness and children’s
achievement of language milestones. Child Development
72, 748–67.
Tamis-LeMonda C. S., Shannon J. D., Cabrera N. J. &
Lamb M. E. (2004) Fathers and mothers at play with their
2- and 3-year olds: contributions to language and
cognitive development. Child Development 75, 1806–20.
Tomasello M., Mannle S. & Kruger A. C. (1986) Linguistic
environment of 1- to 2-year-old twins. Developmental
Psychology 22, 169–76.
© 2018 MENCAP and International Association of the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and
John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Vasilyeva M., Waterfall H. & Huttenlocher J. (2008)
Emergence of syntax: commonalities and differences
across children. Developmental Science 11, 84–97.
Venker C. E., Bolt D. M., Meyer A., Sindberg H., Weismer
S. E. & Tager-Flusberg H. (2015) Parent telegraphic
speech use and spoken language in preschoolers with
ASD. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
58, 1733–46.
Warren S. F. & Brady N. C. (2007) The role of maternal
responsivity in the development of children with
intellectual disabilities. Mental Retardation and
Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews 13, 330–8.
Warren S. F., Brady N., Sterling A., Fleming K. & Marquis
J. (2010) Maternal responsivity predicts language
development in young children with fragile X syndrome.
American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental
Disabilities 115, 54–75.
Yoder P., Watson L. R. & Lambert W. (2015) Value-added
predictors of expressive and receptive language growth in
initially nonverbal preschoolers with autism spectrum
disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
45, 1254–70.
Accepted 1 April 2018