Parent programs for latino families with young children: social, cultural, and linguistic considerations.

Parent Programs for Latino Families with Young Children: Social, Cultural, and Linguistic Considerations Lauren M. Cycyk, M.S.1 and Aquiles Iglesias, Ph.D.2

Downloaded by: National University of Singapore. Copyrighted material.

ABSTRACT

It is likely that speech-language pathologists (SLPs) will be called upon to serve the growing numbers of children under age 5 from Latino families. Families are considered central to implementing language facilitation strategies at this age. These strategies must be both culturally informed and also focus on naturally occurring experiences in children’s homes. However, few existing early intervention programs are specific to the cultural values and language learning experiences of young Latino children. This article reviews the current knowledge base on the early language learning experiences of these children and provides SLPs implementing family programs with suggestions on adapting family-centered language facilitation techniques to this population. KEYWORDS: Early language, parent programs, family-centered, Latinos, Hispanic

Learning Outcomes: As a result of this activity, the reader will be able to (1) discuss components of the general language learning experience of young Latino children and possible variations; (2) address components of the language learning experience with individual families; and (3) apply recommended cultural adaptations to current intervention programs for family-centered language facilitation when appropriate.

T

he number of Latino children in the United States has grown nearly 40% over the last decade to represent approximately a quarter of all individuals under the age of 18.1 The

majority of these children are under the age of 5. In 2009, 25% of children ages 0 to 5 living in this country were of Latino origin.2 This population is primarily of Mexican origin but also

1

Semin Speech Lang 2015;36:143–153. Copyright # 2015 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA. Tel: +1(212) 584-4662. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1549109. ISSN 0734-0478.

Communication Sciences and Disorders, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; 2Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware. Address for correspondence: Lauren M. Cycyk, M.S., Temple University, 1701 N. 13th Street, 110 Weiss Hall, Philadelphia, PA 19122 (e-mail: [email protected]). Language Impairment in Bilingual Children: From Theory to Practice; Guest Editor, Aquiles Iglesias, Ph.D.

143

SEMINARS IN SPEECH AND LANGUAGE/VOLUME 36, NUMBER 2

represents a variety of Latino backgrounds, including Puerto Rican, Salvadoran, Cuban, Dominican, and Guatemalan. Many are exposed to Spanish in their homes.3 Unfortunately, many of these children also live in impoverished circumstances: nearly 26% of Latino households report annual incomes that fall below the federal poverty level.2 Regardless of shifts in immigration from Latino countries, the number of children born to Latino parents continues to rise.1 As such, it is expected that early childhood and intervention programs will see substantial increases in the numbers of young Latino children served in the coming years, particularly those from low-income and Spanish-speaking backgrounds. To promote the educational success of these children, federal standards for early childhood programming emphasize a focus on language development in particular.4 These policies acknowledge the critical links between early language development and later educational outcomes for children of Latino heritage from Spanish-speaking homes.5,6 In an effort to bolster language skills prior to age 5, strategies to enhance family engagement in young children’s development have been widely recommended. This emphasis on family engagement results from the general understanding that families provide the source and context of language learning in children’s early years.7 Furthermore, family engagement in children’s early learning has been found to support the acquisition of various preacademic skills of diverse children from low-income homes, including improved language abilities.8–10 As a result, preventative interventions designed to improve family engagement in early language development are becoming more prevalent. Because speech-language pathologists (SLPs) are the professionals most poised to facilitate language development, SLPs may be increasingly called upon to engage families in language-promoting practices with their children from an early age. The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association mandates that interventions for children younger than age 5 involve families using culturally responsive strategies that acknowledge families’ naturally occurring practices.11 This directive echoes the general

2015

consensus in the early childhood field that increased sensitivity to families’ home cultures is beneficial to child outcomes. Language, in particular, is inextricably linked to culture.12 Cultural differences in the interactional experiences of young children are manifested in how everyday activities are structured and prioritized as well as to what degree children may participate.13,14 Therefore, it is critical that interventions designed to facilitate language development in the home integrate families’ cultural beliefs, values, and practices.15,16 Yet, few intervention programs do. This shortfall is due to the fact that most existing research on language learning is based on studies of mainstream, middle-class, English-speaking families. Consequently, language interventions to engage families of young children often promote strategies born of Anglo-American cultural values and practices. For example, the Hanen It Takes Two to Talk Program includes strategies such as encouraging child-directed interactions and offering children verbal explanations.17 These strategies reflect the mainstream Anglo-American values of child independence and equality to adults. Asking culturally diverse families to apply these strategies may undermine the views of those cultures in which teaching is accomplished through adult direction and child observation.16 This overreliance on Anglo-American norms in family-centered language interventions does not necessarily account for the experience of young children from Latino backgrounds. When compared with mainstream culture, Latino families have shown important differences in their beliefs, values, and practices in regards to promoting child development.18 For instance, in contrast to Anglo-American families, Latino families tend to value adult-directed over child-focused experiences and to promote child obedience over autonomy. Given these and other differences, the unmodified application of existing language intervention programs to Latino families risks jeopardizing both the efficacy of the intervention and the ethics of asking families to apply strategies that do not properly align with their own cultural positions.16,19 Latino families may not successfully (or consistently) implement culturally foreign language facilitation


144

techniques or may simply choose not to participate in programs that they view as culturally underinformed.20,21 This concern was further underscored by a recent focus group of Latinos who expressed their need for family interventions that appropriately matched their cultural background.22 To better engage Latino populations in promoting the early language of their young children, SLPs must increase their understanding of the language experiences that occur naturally in the home environment. This goal is best accomplished through rich descriptions of the existing experiences in which children’s language learning takes place within the family. Gallimore and colleagues offer an appropriate framework for examining the culturally driven contexts of children’s daily experiences that has been previously utilized to compare the parenting practices of Latinos at large to those of Anglo-American families.13,18 This framework includes five objective and subjective components that can be applied to describe the language learning experiences provided by families’ to their children. First, the overarching values and beliefs of the cultural community to which families belong should be identified. Broader cultural values and beliefs are thought to implicitly guide how language learning experiences unfold and can be used to influence intervention strategies. Second, the types of interactional activities in which children commonly participate should be identified (e.g., play, household chores, book reading). Some activities may be similar between households, whereas others may differ. These naturally occurring activities will serve as the context for implementing language facilitation strategies. Third, the goals for each activity should be similarly characterized. Goals for child language learning may drive the implementation of the activity itself. Fourth, the individuals present for each activity should be noted. Variations in household composition, family schedules, and expectations for participation can impact children’s overall experience. Frequent participants in children’s routines can be recruited to assist in language facilitation strategies. Last, the communicative input provided by the participants during children’s activities should be described. The input

used within interactions, such as frequency and complexity of talk and proportion of Spanish and English spoken to the child, may differentially impact language development and serve as a foundation from which to strengthen language facilitation. In the previous two decades, the knowledge base on the language learning experiences of children in Latino communities as a whole has steadily increased. However, the field’s understanding of the home-language experience of children under age 5 from Latino backgrounds continues to be limited. Much of the existing research has focused on children who are of preschool age or older. Because language development in the early years is fundamentally distinct from later developmental stages, findings from preschool- and school-aged populations may not be applicable. In addition, children younger than 5 depend on their caregivers for self-care considerably more than do older children, suggesting that their everyday activities and the language experience therein will differ. The few published studies specific to younger Latino populations have either focused on middle-class Latino families, most of whom were living in countries or territories outside of the mainland United States, or used an AngloAmerican framework to describe practices that may be less relevant to Latino cultures, such as book reading or parent-to-child play. As previously mentioned, a large proportion of the Latino population living inside the continental United States is considered low income, a circumstance that enacts important influences on children’s early language learning experiences.23,24 Furthermore, families living in the United States have the added history of immigration, variable English proficiency and exposure to mainstream cultural values, and diverse experiences with U.S. educational settings, all of which that have been found to impact children’s home-learning experiences.25–27 In addition, Harwood and colleagues caution that the extension of Anglo-American frameworks to measure the language learning experience of Latinos may not account for the unique components of the home environment that can serve as critical resources to child development.18 Given these limitations and the substantial heterogeneity of the Latino population at large,

145


PARENT PROGRAMS FOR LATINOS/CYCYK AND IGLESIAS


it is recommend that SLPs investigate the particular language learning circumstances of each of the individual families they serve. Understanding the specific contexts of children’s language learning can enhance the interventions provided by SLPs and may build stronger relationships between interventionists and the families with whom they work. Once the home context is known, language facilitation strategies can be tailored to the specific needs of the participating family and infused in their everyday practices. It is possible that families participate more robustly as a result of this individualized approach.15 Furthermore, this approach takes into account the substantial variability in the Latino community living in the United States resulting from differences in family ethnicity, nativity status, access to resources, affiliation with Anglo-American culture, and Spanish–English language use, among other characteristics.18 Though overarching cultural characteristics may be shared, SLPs are wise to avoid overgeneralizations and consider individually the nature of each family’s language experiences and their impact on children’s language development.28 As a starting point, we will review the existing research findings relevant to the general language learning experiences of children from Latino backgrounds using the framework of Gallimore and colleagues.13 We will also provide suggestions for SLPs to bolster the cultural appropriateness of family programs in light of these findings.

CULTURAL BELIEFS AND VALUES Most research examining the cultural beliefs and values of the Latino community has focused on global child-rearing beliefs rather than providing information specific to families’ beliefs and values regarding language development. To that end, researchers have identified three central themes that are thought to underlie the language experiences of Latino children18,22,29–31: orientation to and interconnectedness with the family (familismo), respect for others, especially elders (respeto), and acquisition of responsible emotional and behavioral skills in addition to formal schooling (educacioń). It has been suggested that these cultural themes enact important effects on the language

2015

learning practices of this community.32 For example, the emphasis on familismo may be reflected in the regular inclusion of extended social networks in family routines and child caregiving.33 Respeto is often noted in the value Latinos place on child obedience and conformity to others over autonomy and assertiveness.34–36 Accordingly, the child-rearing styles of Latinos are largely described as authoritative and traditional though variations have been noted.37 Educacioń has been reflected in families’ reports of their efforts to provide children with emotional support and to teach socialemotional skills in addition to emphasizing academic achievement.38 Importantly, this value may not translate into families’ direct participation in educational activities, as is generally expected by the United States educational system, but rather manifest in families’ provision of resources to meet children’s basic physical and emotional needs.39 Accordingly, families may view an early childhood program as the main entity responsible for driving children’s development.37,40 To improve family engagement in early language facilitation programs, it is important that SLPs first engage Latino families in dialogues about their general values for raising their young children. These discussions can serve as a foundation from which to encourage the use of language facilitation techniques in the home. SLPs should stress in their conversations with families that improving children’s language abilities has the potential to facilitate their relationships with others (addressing the value of familismo), modify their social behavior (addressing the value of respeto), and improve their emotional and educational outcomes (addressing the value of educacioń). Then, SLPs may consider engaging families in intervention activities that utilize language, routines, and materials relevant to the previously mentioned values if applicable. For example, SLPs can emphasize teaching the vocabulary necessary to talk about extended family and community, practicing appropriate forms of greetings and politeness, and using family photo albums to further language learning experiences. When engaging families in any language-facilitating tasks, SLPs should remember that children’s obedience may be fundamentally valued and


146

deference to parental authority should be maintained. Discussions with families specific to their beliefs and values about how language develops and the importance placed on the acquisition of Spanish and/or English from an early age are further suggested so that SLPs can best plan the education they provide to families on these topics. SLPs should also invest time in explaining to families the expectations for their involvement in the intervention program and informing them of the benefit of their active engagement. Empowering families to take on a critical role as their young children’s educators may have the added advantage of priming families for future collaboration with teachers and schools as their children move through the United States educational system.41 Gaining families’ confidence in this regard may be best achieved if SLPs prioritize forging personalized relationships with families that maintain appropriate levels of respect and acknowledge their home culture.29,42 This can be accomplished by making sure to spend time to greet families appropriately and engage them in small talk as well as demonstrating efforts to learn about Latino cultural traditions.43 The use of Spanish, by the SLP or through an interpreter, may also be essential for connecting with families on a personal level.

ACTIVITY TYPES Researchers have also investigated the broad types of activities in which children of Latino descent living in the United States participate, primarily during their preschool- and schoolaged years. The language learning experiences of preschool-aged children have been found to coincide with family mealtime or household chores rather than school-related activities such as book reading.32,44 Among school-aged Latino children, watching television and doing homework are also frequent home experiences,45 in addition to engaging in activities that teach the cultural traditions of the home country of origin in some cases.46 Those studies that have focused on the activity types of younger Latino children have largely quantified the frequency of preliteracy practices in their homes, often making compar-

isons to the experiences of Anglo-American families. As such, it is known that Latino families read less frequently to their children and tell them stories less often.47–49 In addition, families of Latino backgrounds seldom visit libraries.50 In part, these experiences may be less frequent because Latino families may view literacy experiences as relevant only to older children who have outwardly demonstrated an appreciation for and understanding of written content.26 In some cases, families may not have access to these literacy materials or experiences as a result of their generally limited economic resources or may not provide them because they are not proficient readers themselves on account of their generally low educational attainment. In an investigation documenting the naturally occurring experiences of middle-class Latino toddlers in their homes and child care settings, Place and Hoff found that these children’s most common language learning activities included play, mealtime, and caregiving routines (i.e., dressing and bathing).51 Television watching also occurred frequently. Because research is limited on the everyday activities of Latino children under age 5, SLPs would be wise to inquire about children’s daily routines. It is important to note that child care hours may vary by center and by the working schedule of adults in the home; therefore, significant variability between children’s morning/afternoon and weekday/weekend activities is possible. As such, SLPs should ask families to describe their children’s activities across a typical week. Generally speaking, SLPs should avoid introducing novel activities that do not naturally occur in families’ routines. Instead, the most commonly reported activities of young children should be explicitly targeted as the contexts in which families are taught to apply language facilitation strategies. Mealtime, for example, is widely regarded as an optimal opportunity for facilitating early language development and one such activity in which young Latino children are frequently engaged.52 Consequently, SLPs may consider teaching families how to implement strategies supporting language development at that time, such as those recommended by Snow and Beales,52 who encourage increasing explanatory talk and providing children access to novel vocabulary. In

147




addition, families should be encouraged to reduce the time their young children spend watching television in favor of increasing their interactional experiences. Though watching television is not thought to be sufficiently supportive for language development,23 SLPs could train families on how to make the child’s experience with the television more interactive by labeling objects and actions appearing on the screen and asking questions about the content of the programming. Though less emphasis should be placed on preliteracy activities, as they are not shown to commonly occur in the Latino homes, the importance of fostering early literacy experiences in the home must be acknowledged, particularly for children from low-income families.53 As such, SLPs should explain to families the importance of facilitating their children’s literacy development from an early age. SLPs can then encourage families to engage in supportive practices that may not be considered traditional literacy experiences. For example, telling oral stories that incorporate morals or relate to families’ individualized experiences have been shown to garner support from Latino populations.54 Families with limited resources could further be encouraged to create their own books or to use other sources of printed material in the home (e.g., newspaper inserts, labels on food containers) to facilitate early literacy. In addition, SLPs can assist families to locate and subscribe to local libraries to access more traditional forms of literacy if families express an interest in doing so. Research has shown that Latino families are likely to modify some practices to follow the suggestions given by professionals for encouraging literacy activities in the home.26

PARTICIPANTS OF ACTIVITIES Existing research documenting the involvement of individuals in the language experiences of Latino families has provided an overview of families’ social networks and their engagement in child care across age groups. As such, it is known that Latinos report more extensive and cohesive social networks than AngloAmericans, regularly involving extended family members in everyday routines.18 Many

2015

families live in close geographic proximity or in the same household as extended kin, resulting in their frequent participation in child care routines.55 As a result of being often cared for by friends and relatives, Latino children spend substantial amounts of time engaged in multiparty interactions with several adults and children.33,56 Accordingly, studies documenting the social activities of preschool-aged children of Latino descent have found that siblings and other relatives are commonly involved in interactions.32,57,58 Mothers persist as the primary participants in the activities of toddlers and older children in Latino homes45,51; however, the regular involvement of fathers, grandparents, siblings, friends, and other relatives (e.g., aunts, cousins) in the language learning experiences of young children from varied Latino subgroups has been identified.51 Traditionally, interventions to facilitate language in the home have been centered on children’s mothers. Although mothers continue to be an important source of children’s language learning experiences in Latino families, SLPs should consider training and involving other members of the household who participate in young children’s caregiving routines on language facilitation strategies as well. It is important that SLPs determine the degree of participation of each household member and their roles in the most commonly occurring activities of the young child to best plan intervention strategies. For example, young children’s play partners may more commonly be siblings or other peers than adults in these homes. As play is a central activity in most language intervention programs designed for this age, SLPs are advised to recruit the appropriate participants to serve as language models in play-based tasks. Early evidence has shown that older siblings can enact important influences on early language development for example.59 Furthermore, SLPs should be comfortable navigating multiparty interactions when working with Latino families, as it is likely that multiple household members will be present during activities with the child. See Wing and colleagues for suggestions on incorporating multiple participants in language facilitation strategies.60


148

ACTIVITY GOALS There is scant research on the specific goals of Latinos that drive the language learning experiences of their children. One study by Gallimore and Goldenberg explored the goals of Latino parents of kindergartners for activities related to the development of literacy skills, such as book reading or practice with writing.61 Their findings indicate that because families viewed these types of activities as sources of entertainment for children rather than opportunities to build literacy skills, no purposeful attempts at teaching children to read were observed. Other researchers have loosely linked families’ activity goals to the language used by mothers during tasks that reinforce home-based skills (e.g., baking) as compared with those that target academic abilities (e.g., book reading).62,63 Because mothers provided a greater amount of direct instruction and feedback to their preschool-aged children in the home tasks, these researchers theorized that mothers’ underlying goals for each activity differed. However, mothers were not asked to report on their goals in these studies. Without additional research, it is difficult to provide robust recommendations on how examining family goals can improve family engagement in language intervention programs. However, experts have suggested that conversations between SLPs and families regarding the underlying goals of activities presented in the course of intervention programs can facilitate the cooperation of both parties in finding common goals for language facilitation.15,16 SLPs should be explicit in identifying the goals of each recommended home activity to families to promote their investment in the task and motivation toward its realization.

COMMUNICATIVE INPUT The majority of what is known about the communicative input occurring in the language learning experiences of Latino children is based on studies of preschoolers. With this population, researchers have primarily categorized the type of talk to which children are exposed. For example, it has been found that the language provided to preschool-aged children relies heavily on the provision of verbal

discipline, inquiry, directives, and self-correction59,62,64–66; however, mothers of Latino children have also been found to label objects and their function.59 In addition, researchers have looked at how this language varies by type of task, finding that more complex language (e. g., modeling, expanding) is provided to preschoolers of Latino descent during their participation in home-based tasks, such as baking, as compared with those that reinforce academic skills.62,63 Similar to research on mainstream populations, preliminary evidence with toddler-aged children of Latino backgrounds indicates that the total number of words (i.e., vocabulary breadth) and the average length of sentences (i.e., syntactic complexity) relate to toddler vocabulary development.67,68 Importantly, both studies cited previously found substantial variability in the amount and complexity of adult input. Furthermore, descriptions of the home language experience of these children would be incomplete without detailing the amount of Spanish and English to which they are exposed. It has been well documented that Latino children have varied experiences with both languages based on a variety of factors, including family goals for Spanish and English use, language proficiency of household members, and the nature of the home activity.51,69–71 Differences in children’s exposure to Spanish and English have consistently been found to impact the language development of preschoolaged and older children of Latino descent.72–74 Early evidence with toddlers shows that their Spanish and English vocabulary is similarly affected by the amount of exposure to each language in their homes.51 No different than recommendations given for best practice with any families engaged in early intervention, SLPs should look toward the existing evidence base to select effective language facilitation programs for Latino families. However, because studies specific to interventions with toddlers from Latino backgrounds are severely limited, we recommend that SLPs become familiar with recent research on cultural adaptation of evidence-based family interventions borne from the field of psychology.75,76 Strategies for adapting existing intervention programs to be applicable to Latino families

149




may include modifications to service delivery methods and particular linguistic content, for example. Kummerer’s case study of an adapted family-centered intervention used to support the language development of a young child of Mexican decent offers an example of how cultural adaptation can be applied in the field of speech-language pathology specifically.15 One important component of most evidence-based language facilitation programs designed for toddlers is encouraging increases to the quality and quantity of communicative input provided by families. When working with Latino families, SLPs may see the greatest benefit from this type of training if language facilitation strategies such as modeling, expanding, and narrating are applied in home-based activities. These activities could include cooking, completing household chores, and caregiving. Families may be further encouraged to reduce the frequency of directives and corrective language used with their young children in favor of more supportive language; however, as previously stated, the SLP should acknowledge families’ current practices and explain without judgment the rationale for this recommendation. SLPs may also wish to teach families how directives can be utilized to further child language skills.60 Moreover, interventions may benefit when participants are able to speak in the language of their choosing. Families should not be persuaded to use only English but rather supported in their use of both languages as naturally occurs in many of these homes.51 If working on Spanish and English simultaneously is an important goal for the family, household members of differing Spanish–English proficiencies could be recruited to facilitate language growth in their more dominant language. For example, English-dominant older siblings may be helpful for facilitating the English language growth of younger children in their home whereas Spanish-dominant parents and grandparents should be encouraged to use the home language in interactions with their children.

CONCLUSION Although more research is needed to provide SLPs with culturally appropriate strategies

2015

that facilitate family engagement in language facilitation for the growing population of young Latinos, the information reviewed in this article can serve as a foundation for building our field’s competence in this area. SLPs should be mindful of the everyday routines of the families and children they serve, considering the cultural values and beliefs, activities, goals, participants, and communicative input that impact participation in language facilitation strategies. Families of Latino descent may not share the culture of the SLPs with whom they work, yet they are similarly invested in their children’s developmental progress and educational success. As SLPs increase their own sensitivities to the culture of these families, the services they provide to children from an early age stand to be greatly improved, as do the partnerships between home and program.

REFERENCES 1. Passel JS, Cohn D, Lopez MH. Hispanics account for more than half of nation’s growth in past decade. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. Available at: http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/ 140.pdf. Accessed January 31, 2015 2. United States. Census Bureau. The Hispanic Population of the United States. Washington, DC: GPO; 2012 3. Vogel C, Aikens N, Burwick A, et al. 2006 Findings from the survey of early head start programs: communities, programs, and families. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. December 15, 2006. Available at: http://www.acf. hhs.gov/programs/opre/resource/findings-fromthe-survey-of-early-head-start-programs-communities-programs. Accessed October 10, 2014 4. US Department of Health and Human Services. Head Start Program Performance Standards, 45 CFR Chapter XIII (10-1-09 Edition). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Head Start; 2009 5. August D, Shanahan T. Executive Summary: Developing Literacy in Second-Language Learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2006 6. National Early Literacy Panel. Developing Early Literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. A Scientific Synthesis of Early Literacy


150

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

Development and Implications for Intervention. Jessup, MD: National Institute for Literacy; 2008 Snow CE. Understanding social interaction and language acquisition; sentences are not enough. In: Bornstein MH, Bruner JS, eds. Interaction in Human Development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1989:83–103 Bradley RH, Convyn RF, Burchinal M, McAdoo HP, Coll CG. The home environments of children in the United States part II: relations with behavioral development through age thirteen. Child Dev 2001;72(6):1868–1886 Fantuzzo J, McWayne C, Perry MA, Childs S. Multiple dimensions of family involvement and their relations to behavioral and learning competencies for urban, low-income children. School Psych Rev 2004;33(4):467–480 Hammer CS, Farkas G, Maczuga S. The language and literacy development of Head Start children: a study using the Family and Child Experiences Survey database. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 2010;41(1):70–83 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Roles and responsibilities of speech-language pathologists in early intervention: guidelines. Available at: http://www.asha.org/policy/GL2008-00293/. Published 2008. Accessed January 31, 2015 Ochs E, Schieffelin B. Language acquisition and socialization: three developmental stories and their implications. In: Duranti A, ed. Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing; 2001:263–301 Gallimore R, Goldenberg CN, Weisner TS. The social construction and subjective reality of activity settings: implications for community psychology. Am J Community Psychol 1993;21(4):537–559 Rogoff B, Mistry J, Go¨ncu¨ A, Mosier C. Guided participation in cultural activity by toddlers and caregivers. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev 1993;58(8): v–vi, 1–174, discussion 175–179 Kummerer SE. Promising strategies for collaborating with Hispanic parents during family-centered speech-language intervention. Commun Diord Q 2012;33:84–95 van Kleeck A. Potential cultural bias in training parents as conversational partners with their children who have delays in language development. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 1994;3:67–78 Pepper J, Weitzman E. It Takes Two to Talk: A Practical Guide for Parents of Children with Language Delays. Toronto, Canada: The Hanen Centre; 2004 Harwood R, Leyendecker B, Carlson V, Asencio M, Miller A. Parenting among Latino families in the U.S. In: Bornstein MH, ed. Handbook of Parenting. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2002:21–46

19. Ball J. The challenge of creating an optimal learning environment in child care: cross-cultural perspectives. In: Girolometto L, Weitzman E, eds. Enhancing Caregiver Language Facilitation in Child Care Settings. Proceedings from the Symposium of the Canadian Language and Literacy Research Network; Toronto, Canada: Hanen Centre; 2002 20. Garcıá Coll C, Akiba D, Palacios N, et al. Parental involvement in children’s education: lessons from three immigrant groups. Parent Sci Pract 2002; 2(3):303–324 21. Kumpfer KL, Alvarado R, Smith P, Bellamy N. Cultural sensitivity and adaptation in family-based prevention interventions. Prev Sci 2002;3(3): 241–246 22. Cardona JP, Holtrop K, Co´rdova D Jr, et al. “Queremos aprender”: Latino immigrants’ call to integrate cultural adaptation with best practice knowledge in a parenting intervention. Fam Process 2009;48(2):211–231 23. Hoff E. How social contexts support and shape language development. Dev Rev 2006;26(1):55–88 24. Vernon-Feagans L, Hammer C, Miccio A, Manlove E. Early language and literacy skills in lowincome African American and Hispanic children. In: Neuman S, Dickinson B, eds. Handbook of Early Literacy Research. New York, NY: The Guildford Press; 2001:192–210 25. Cabrera NJ, Shannon JD, West J, Brooks-Gunn J. Parental interactions with Latino infants: variation by country of origin and English proficiency. Child Dev 2006;77(5):1190–1207 26. Reese L, Gallimore R. Immigrant Latinos’ cultural model of literacy development: an evolving perspective on home-school discontinuities. Am J Educ 2000;108:103–134 27. Romero AJ, Cuellar I, Roberts E. Ethnocultural variables and attitudes toward cultural socialization of children. J Community Psychol 2000;28(1):79–89 28. Center for Early Care and Education Research— Dual Language Learners. Research Brief #8: Factors Associated with Development of Dual Language Learners: Results from a Secondary Analysis of the ECLS-B. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute; 2011 29. Delgado-Gaitan C. Involving Latino Families in schools: Raising Student Achievement through Home-School Partnerships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press; 2004 30. Halgunseth LC, Ispa JM, Rudy D. Parental control in Latino families: an integrated review of the literature. Child Dev 2006;77(5):1282–1297 31. Reese L, Balzano S, Gallimore R, Goldenberg C. The concept of educacioń: Latino family values and American schooling. Int J Educ Res 1995;23:57–81

151




32. Delgado-Gaitan C. Parenting in two generations of Mexican American families. Int J Behav Dev 1993;16(3):409–427 33. Fracasso MP, Lamb ME, Scholmerich A, Leyendecker B. The ecology of mother-infant interactions in Euro-American and immigrant Central American families living in the United States. Int J Behav Dev 1997;20(2):207–217 34. Arcia E, Reyes-Blanes ME, Vazquez-Montilla E. Constructions and reconstructions: Latino parents’ values for children. J Child Fam Stud 2000;9(3): 333–350 35. Gonzalez-Ramos G, Zayas LH, Cohen EV. Child-rearing values of low-income, urban Puerto Rican mothers of preschool children. Prof Psychol Res Pr 1998;29(4):377–382 36. Suizzo MA, Chen W-C, Cheng C-C, et al. Parental beliefs about young children’s socialization across US ethnic groups: coexistence of independence and interdependence. Early Child Dev Care 2014;178:467–486 37. Rodriguez BL, Olswang LB. Mexican-American and Anglo-American mothers’ beliefs and values about child rearing, education, and language impairment. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2003;12(4): 452–462 38. McWayne CM, Melzi G, Schick AR, Kennedy JL, Mundt K. Defining family engagement among Latino Head Start parents: a mixed-methods measurement development study. Early Child Res Q 2013;28:593–607 39. Valdes G. Con Respeto: Bridging the Distances between Culturally Diverse Families and Schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press; 1996 40. Vasquez OA, Pease-Alvarez L, Shannon SM. Pushing Boundaries: Language and Culture in a Mexicano Community. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2007 41. Chrispeels JH, Rivero E. Engaging Latino families for student success: how parent education can reshape parents’ sense of place in the education of their children. Peabody J Educ 2001;76(2): 119–169 42. Roseberry-McKibbin C. Multicultural Students with Special Language Needs. Oceanside, CA: Academic Communication Associates; 1995 43. Scribner JD, Young MD, Pedroza A. Building collaborative relationships with parents. In: Reyes P, Scribner JD, Scribner AP, eds. Lessons from High-Performing Hispanic Schools. New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press; 1999:36–60 44. Livas-Dlott A, Fuller B, Stein GL, Bridges M, Mangual Figueroa A, Mireles L. Commands, competence, and carinõ: maternal socialization practices in Mexican American families. Dev Psychol 2010;46(3):566–578 45. Weisner T, Ryan GW, Reese L, Kroesen K, Bernheimer L, Gallimore R. Behavior sampling

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

2015

and ethnography: complementary methods for understanding home-school connections among Latino immigrant families. Field Methods 2001; 13:20–46 Knight GP, Bernal ME, Garza CA, Cota MK, Ocampo KA. Family socialization and the ethnic identity of Mexican-American children. J Cross Cult Psychol 1993;24:99–114 Barrueco S, Lo´pez ML, Miles JC. Parenting behaviors in the first year of life: a national comparison of Latinos and other cultural communities. J Lat Educ 2007;6:253–265 Raikes H, Pan BA, Luze G, et al. Mother-child bookreading in low-income families: correlates and outcomes during the first three years of life. Child Dev 2006;77(4):924–953 Tomopoulos S, Dreyer BP, Tamis-LeMonda C, et al. Books, toys, parent-child interaction, and development in young Latino children. Ambul Pediatr 2006;6(2):72–78 Gonzalez JE, Uhing BM. Home literacy environments and young Hispanic children’s English and Spanish oral language a communality analysis. J Early Interv 2008;30:116–139 Place S, Hoff E. Properties of dual language exposure that influence 2-year-olds’ bilingual proficiency. Child Dev 2011;82(6):1834–1849 Snow CE, Beals DE. Mealtime talk that supports literacy development. New Dir Child Adolesc Dev 2006;111(111):51–66 Rodriguez ET, Tamis-LeMonda CS, Spellmann ME, et al. The formative role of home literacy experiences across the first three years of life in children from low-income families. J Appl Dev Psychol 2009;30(6):677–694 Riojas-Cortez M, Flores BB, Smith HL, Clark ER. Cuentame un cuento [tell me a story]: bridging family literacy traditions with school literacy. Lang Arts 2003;81:62–71 Sarkisian N, Gerena M, Gerstel N. Extended family integration among Euro and Mexican Americans: ethnicity, gender, and class. J Marriage Fam 2007;69(1):40–54 Fen X, Harwood RL, Leyendecker B, Miller AM. Changes across the first year of life in infants’ daily activities and social contacts among middle-class Anglo and Puerto Rican families. Infant Behav Dev 2001;24(3):317–339 Gamble WC, Ramakumar S, Diaz A. Maternal and paternal similarities and differences in parenting: an examination of Mexican-American parents of young children. Early Child Res Q 2007;22(1): 72–88 Moreno RP. Teaching the alphabet: an exploratory look at maternal instruction in Mexican American families. Hisp J Behav Sci 2002;24(2):191–205 Perez-Granados DR. Normative scripts for object labeling during a play activity: mother-child and


152

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

sibling conversations in Mexican-descent families. Hisp J Behav Sci 2002;24:164–190 Wing C, Kohnert K, Pham G, et al. Culturally consistent treatment for late talkers. Comm Disord Q 2007;29:20–27 Gallimore R, Goldenberg C. Activity settings of early literacy: home and school factors in children’s emergent literacy. In: Forman E, Minick N, Stone CA, eds. Contexts for Learning: Sociocultural Dynamics in Children’s Development. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1993:315–335 Eisenberg AR. Maternal teaching talk within families of Mexican descent: influences of task and socioeconomic status. Hisp J Behav Sci 2002; 24:206–224 Kermani H, Janes HA. Adjustment across task in maternal scaffolding in low-income Latino immigrant families. Hisp J Behav Sci 1999;21(2): 134–153 Halgunseth LC, Ispa JM. Mexican Parenting Questionnaire (MPQ). Hisp J Behav Sci 2012; 34(2):232–250 Tenenbaum HR, Leaper C. Mothers’ and fathers’ questions to their child in Mexican-descent families: moderators of cognitive demand during play. Hisp J Behav Sci 1997;19(3):318–332 Zucker E, Howes C. Respectful relationships: socialization goals and practices among Mexican mothers. Inf Mental Hlth J 2009;30(5):501–522 Hurtado N, Gru¨ter T, Marchman VA, Fernald A. Relative language exposure, processing efficiency and vocabulary in Spanish–English bilingual toddlers. Biling Lang Cogn 2014;17(01):189–202 Weisleder A, Fernald A. Talking to children matters: early language experience strengthens

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

processing and builds vocabulary. Psychol Sci 2013;24(11):2143–2152 Lo´pez L. A look into the homes of Spanishspeaking preschool children. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press; 2005 Schecter SR, Bayley R. Language socialization in theory and practice. Int J Qual Stud Educ 2004; 17(5):605–625 Zentella AC. Growing up Bilingual: Puerto Rican Children in New York. Malden, MA: Blackwell; 1997 Bedore LM, Penã ED, Summers CL, et al. The measure matters: language dominance profiles across measures in Spanish-English bilingual children. Biling (Camb Engl) 2012;15(3):616–629 Hammer CS, Davison MD, Lawrence FR, Miccio AW. The effect of maternal language on bilingual children’s vocabulary and emergent literacy development during Head Start and kindergarten. Sci Stud Read 2009;13(2):99–121 Hammer CS, Komaroff E, Rodriguez BL, Lopez LM, Scarpino SE, Goldstein B. Predicting Spanish-English bilingual children’s language abilities. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2012;55(5): 1251–1264 Bernal GE, Domenech-Rodrı´guez MM. Cultural Adaptations: Tools for Evidence-Based Practice with Diverse Populations. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2012 Parra Cardona JR, Domenech-Rodriguez M, Forgatch M, et al. Culturally adapting an evidencebased parenting intervention for Latino immigrants: the need to integrate fidelity and cultural relevance. Fam Process 2012;51(1):56–72

153



Postoperative pain management in Latino families: parent beliefs about analgesics predict analgesic doses provided to children.

A parent-focused pilot intervention to increase parent health literacy and healthy lifestyle choices for young children and families.

The effects of behavioral parent training on families with young hyperactive children.

Parent-child interaction over time in families of young children with borderline intellectual functioning.

Burden, professional support, and social network in families of children and young adults with muscular dystrophies.

Bone age, social deprivation, and single parent families.

STRoNG intervention for military families with young children.

Ethnic identity: Evidence of protective effects for young, Latino children.

Nutritional strategies of Latino farmworker families with preschool children: identifying leverage points for obesity prevention.

Physical activity of preschool-aged Latino children in farmworker families.

Pediatric asthma management within Latino and non-Latino White families.

Parent Scaffolding of Young Children When Engaged with Mobile Technology.

Improving parent-child interactions for families of children with developmental disabilities.

Enhancing the effectiveness of self-administered videotape parent training for families with conduct-problem children.

Services and supports for young children with Down syndrome: parent and provider perspectives.

Cultural considerations in the development of children with disabilities: implications for future work potential.

Social support networks among families of children with craniofacial anomalies.

Parent and Teacher Concordance on the Social Responsiveness Scale for Children with Autism.

Prevention and intervention research with Latino families: a translational approach.

A Research Note on Time With Children in Different- and Same-Sex Two-Parent Families.

Youths' imitation and de-identification from parents: a process associated with parent-youth cultural incongruence in Mexican-American families.

Establishing treatment fidelity in evidence-based parent training programs for externalizing disorders in children and adolescents.

Motor, linguistic, personal and social aspects of children with Down syndrome.

Stress, coping, and adjustment in mothers and young adolescents in single- and two-parent families.