Received: 27 December 2021  |  Accepted: 6 July 2022

DOI: 10.1111/bjdp.12429

ARTICLE

Early language outcomes in Argentinean toddlers:

Associations with home literacy, screen exposure
and joint media engagement

Julieta Medawar1  | Ángel Javier Tabullo2,3,4   |

Lucas Gustavo Gago-­Galvagno3,5,6

1
Facultad de Educación, Universidad Nacional de
Cuyo (UNCUYO), Mendoza, Argentina Abstract
2
Instituto de Ciencias Humanas, Sociales y This study aimed to analyse the contribution of mothers'
Ambientales (INCIHUSA), CCT-­Mendoza,
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas home literacy beliefs and practices and the quantity and
y Técnicas (CONICET)-­A rgentina, Grupo de
Lingüística y Neurobiología Experimental del quality of screen media exposure on Argentinean toddler's
Lenguaje (LyNEL), Godoy Cruz, Argentina language. In addition, we considered parent–­ child joint
3
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas
y Técnicas (CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina engagement, as well as adult scaffolding behaviours during
4
Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias the use of electronic devices. A total of 465 mothers of
Económicas (Sede Mendoza), Pontificia
Universidad Católica Argentina, Mendoza, 18–­36 months old children completed an online survey
Argentina including: the MacArthur Bates CDI, home literacy, screen
5
Facultad de Psicología y Relaciones Humanas,
Universidad Abierta Interamericana, Buenos exposure, joint engagement and scaffolding questionnaires.
Aires, Argentina We observed positive effects of literacy beliefs, PC
6
Instituto de Investigaciones en Psicología,
Facultad de Psicología –­Universidad de Buenos times and verbal scaffolding on language outcomes. TV
Aires (UBA), Buenos Aires, Argentina exposure contributed negatively to vocabulary and, along
Correspondence with educational content, to sentence use. Shared reading
Julieta Medawar, Facultad de Educación,
Universidad Nacional de Cuyo (UNCUYO), and screen media experiences can be an opportunity for
Mendoza, Argentina. language stimulation, provided there is dialogue and joint
Email: julieta.medawar@gmail.com
engagement. Passive screen exposure and inadequate
content may be detrimental for toddlers' language outcomes,
probably by displacement of socially significant interactions.

K EY WOR DS
home literacy environment, joint engagement, screen media exposure,
toddlerhood, vocabulary

© 2022 British Psychological Society.

Br J Dev Psychol. 2022;00:1–18.  wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/bjdp  |  1

2  |    MEDAWAR et al .

Statement of Contribution
What is already known on this subject?
• Parents' literacy beliefs and shared reading contribute to infants' language outcomes.
• Screen media quantity can be detrimental to infants' language outcomes, but quality (type of
content, parent interaction) can modulate this effect.
What does this study add?
• Mother's literacy beliefs, PC use, joint engagement and verbal support for electronic device
use contributed to toddler's language outcomes.
• Passive screen exposure (TV viewing) and educational content were negatively associated
with language outcomes.

I N T RODUC T ION

Early experiences act as the foundation of children's cognitive development (d’Apice et al., 2019; Hart
& Risley, 1995; Kirkorian et al., 2008). Children's sociocultural environments may have an impact on
their linguistic exposure and are associated with their vocabulary development (Hoff, 2003; Rosemberg
et al., 2020). During the first three years of life, infants' daily linguistic input stimulates their abilities
to use and understand language (Al-­Harbi, 2015; Bloom & Lahey, 1978; Sundqvist et al., 2021). These
abilities play a crucial role in cognitive and social skills development, including expressive and receptive
language, writing, spelling, general verbal ability, literacy skills, IQ, numeracy, executive function skills,
among others (Linebarger et al., 2014; Linebarger & Vaala, 2010; Zauche et al., 2017).
Among the sources that may influence early language outcomes are the Home Literacy Environment
(HLE, for a review, see: Head Zauche et al., 2016) and screen media exposure (Krcmar et al., 2007;
Madigan et al., 2020; Vulchanova et al., 2017). A child's HLE is composed of ‘the experiences, atti-
tudes and materials pertaining to literacy that a child encounters and interacts with at home’ (Roberts
et al., 2005). Available data supports the idea that shared reading (Bingham, 2007; Rosemberg et al., 2020;
Zauche et al., 2017) and parental reading practices during the first three years of life are strongly associ-
ated with infants' language development (d'Apice & von Stumm, 2019; Leseman & De Jong, 1998). It has
been shown that maternal reading beliefs and practices completely mediate the effects of parent educa-
tion and SES on receptive vocabulary (Gonzalez et al., 2017) and are stronger covariates of vocabulary
size and syntax development than other HLE variables (Tabullo & Gago-­Galvagno, 2021). Moreover,
parents' literacy beliefs might be even more important than shared reading for language outcomes.
Weigel et al. (2006) state that parental literacy beliefs, which include parents' attitudes, values and per-
ceptions of their children's literacy and language development, are linked to the HLE, since the homes
of parents with more positive attitudes as regards literacy practices are richer in literacy opportunities
for children. They also argue that parents' literacy beliefs are related to the children's emerging literacy
skills, as children's print knowledge and interest differs based on parental literacy beliefs. In accordance
with these findings, after observing the spoken language of 107 children aged 24–­48 months and their
families over 3 days, d'Apice and von Stumm (2019) suggested that parents' literacy beliefs and practices
predict the quantity of adult spoken language and, what is more, children's language outcomes, with a
higher effect size correlations for beliefs in comparison to practices. Therefore, it might be the case that
literacy beliefs are more closely related to the quality of adults' language input or other relevant aspects
of parent–­child interactions than the amount of time reading to the child (or other HLE variables), so
it is crucial to include them as potential covariates of infants' vocabulary.
Screen media refers to visual/verbal content that can be delivered via electronic devices, including
on-­a ir and previously recorded television content, computers, smartphones and tablets (Linebarger &
Vaala, 2010). Nowadays, electronic devices use prevails in child-­rearing environments (AAP Council
on Communications and Media, 2016). During the COVID-­19 pandemic, staying at home has led to
HLE, SCREEN TIMES AND TODDLERS’ LANGUAGE |
       3

families spending more time using technology (Drouin et al., 2020). Digital media may have negative
effects on infants' vocabulary development (Ewin et al., 2020; Linebarger & Walker, 2005), replacing
other activities that can contribute to their linguistic abilities, such as shared reading and social interac-
tions with their primary caregivers (Dore et al., 2020). Nevertheless, available evidence is mixed (Taylor
et al., 2017; Zimmerman et al., 2007), with some studies even finding positive contributions (Rice, 1983).
For instance, Mendelsohn et al. (2010), showed that verbal interactions between low-­income parents and
their infants during media exposure were related to enhanced language development. Fiorini (2010)
and McCarrick and Li (2007) found cognitive benefits of computer use among 3–­5 and 5–­7-­year-­olds,
respectively stating that this device provides an opportunity for language learning. In agreement with
this idea, Sundqvist et al. (2021) found a non-­significant yet positive correlation between vocabulary
and computer use among 25 -­month-­olds, possibly because they use the device to video-­chat with their
relatives. In addition, as Chen et al. (2020) put it, it may be that computers allow for more ‘teachable mo-
ments’ since they require more ‘in-­person instruction’ from caregivers and also finer and more complex
motor skills on the part of the child (p. 10).
A recent meta-­analysis (Madigan et al., 2020) of children (35–­4 4 months) showed that screen use
was associated with lower language skills (with low effect sizes), while better quality (educational pro-
grammes and co-­v iewing) were positively associated with language development. The negative impact
of screen media exposure on language development may be modulated by the type of technological
devices, the content, time and frequency of exposure, the extent to which they use interactive media and
the interactions that take place during joint media engagement ( JME; Arundell et al., 2020; Linebarger
& Vaala, 2010; Padilla-­Walker et al., 2020). As stated by Takeuchi and Stevens (2011) JME refers to
‘spontaneous and designed experiences of people using media together’ and among its modes we
find viewing, playing, searching, reading and creating, either with digital or traditional media. Dore
et al. (2020) assessed the extent to which adults use media with the child and the extent to which they
talk to the child about media. They state that joint media engagement plays a buffering role in the
relation between children's early literacy skills and media use. Although some studies have shown less
parent–­infant verbal interaction in younger children (Archer et al., 2021), it is widely acknowledged
that the younger the child, the more physical, verbal and technical interactions with the device (Ewin
et al., 2020; Mendelsohn et al., 2010). Research has found that parental screen co-­use decreases as
the child's age goes up. In other words, media use becomes more independent among older children
(Rideout & Robb, 2020). Wood et al. (2016) observed 104 parent–­child interactions while engaged
with a touchscreen tablet device and concluded that the children's age predicted the amount of ver-
bal and physical scaffolding parents provided them: older children received less support than younger
children. In the same way, as a result of the observation of 55 parent–­child dyads playing on an iPad,
Neumann (2017) found that technical scaffolding, which consists of assisting the child to use the device
and overcome difficulties regarding the app, was less common as children aged. These findings suggest
that it is necessary to study the nature of parent–­child interactions that take place when they engage in
shared activities using a technological device.
On the other hand, data from Latin America in general and Argentina in particular provide an
opportunity to study associations of environmental factors with language in populations that are
significantly different to those of developed countries (which represent the majority of previous
research). This region is considered a collectivist culture, albeit likely showing cohesion in a differ-
ent manner as compared to more typically studied Asian cultures. That is, cohesion often involves
extended family and peers, and incorporates multiple Latin ethnicities (Hofstede, 1989; Mesurado
et al., 2016). Additionally, the region is marked by high levels of social inequality, poverty and social
vulnerability (CEPAL, 2022). In Argentina, specifically, 40.6% of the population has been desig-
nated as living in poverty (INDEC, 2022). Within this context, it is notable that children show high
levels of media use. According to the Argentine Paediatric Association, 90% of parents reported
that their children used some type of electronic device, owning their own screens since age 3. In
addition, one third of babies used tablets before they began to walk (Waisman et al., 2018). It is
important to determine whether findings in basic research extend beyond the WEIRD samples
4  |    MEDAWAR et al .

typically studied in psychology, in order to replicate findings cross-­c ulturally to enhance general-
izability. Thus, this research extends prior research in important ways, examining associations in a
relatively novel context.
To this day, little is known about the relations between HLE, screen media exposure and infants'
linguistic development in Latin America. Besides, most studies focus on TV and do not consider other
technological devices (Gago Galvagno et al., 2021). Taking this into account, we examined the associa-
tions between the use of different electronic devices, HLE and children's early vocabulary size and use
of sentences in a previous study. We found that PC use and HLE contributed significantly to infants'
language development (Tabullo & Gago-­Galvagno, 2021). We carried out this follow-­up study to anal-
yse in detail which aspects of screen media exposure are positively -­or negatively-­related to children's
early language development and to also replicate our previous results on a bigger sample. We hypothe-
sized that shared reading, literacy beliefs, joint media engagement, parent scaffolding and PC use will
be positively associated with toddler's language outcomes.

M E T HOD

Participants

The sample was recruited from social networks, using non-­probabilistic and intentional sampling
methods. The inclusion criteria were: mothers of infants between 18 and 36 months of age and native
Spanish speakers. Exclusion criteria were: infant prematurity (i.e. born before 37 weeks), illness and
mental disorders. Five hundred and fifty-­four mothers responded to a Google Forms survey. Twenty of
them (3.6%) were discarded because the child had been born preterm (<37 gestation weeks). In addition,
69 (12.45%) respondents were discarded because the child's age fell outside target range (18–­36 months).
The final study sample consisted of 465 mothers (M = 32.45, SD = 9.21 years) of Argentinean, Spanish-­
speaking, children (49.2% girls, M = 26.35 SD = 5.04 months). Regarding parental education, 93.54%
of the mothers and 80% of the fathers had received tertiary or university education (see Table 1 for
details). Most of the children's mothers (98.23%) and fathers (95.69%) had Argentine nationality, the
rest having foreign nationality, such as: Chilean, Uruguayan, Mexican, Venezuelan, Bolivian, Peruvian,
Paraguayan and Spanish.

Instruments

Parents' education level

The Permanent Household Survey (INDEC, 2018), an instrument developed by the National Institute
of Statistics and Censuses (INDEC) was used to describe the main demographic and socioeconomic
characteristics of the Argentinean population. We chose parental education level as a proxy indicator for
SES, considering that it seems to be the SES aspect that is more strongly related to children's language
outcomes (Hoff, 2003, 2006).

Child's daycare experiences

The items came from the Permanent Household Survey (INDEC, 2018). Infant's attendance at daycare,
including whether they attended early childhood educational centres (Yes/No), the number of hours
they attended, the number of teachers and classmates in their classroom and at what age they began to
attend were measured. These are all open-­ended questions.

Home literacy practices and beliefs

Practices and beliefs are actions and thoughts, respectively that indicate favourable or unfavourable
attitudes (i.e. tendency to evaluate a particular entity) towards reading (Dobbs-­oates et al., 2015). In
HLE, SCREEN TIMES AND TODDLERS’ LANGUAGE |
       5

T A B L E 1   Descriptive statistics of measure variables

Variables M (SD)/% Minimum Maximum n

Sociodemographic data
Child age (months) 26.35 (5.04) 18 36 465
18–­24 40.65%
25–­30 34.62%
30–­36 24.73%
Mother education 465
Primary 2.37%
Secondary 4.09%
Tertiary 16.77%
University 76.77%
Father education 465
Primary 3.23%
Secondary 16.77%
Tertiary 20.22%
University 59.78%
Daycare 465
Attends to Daycare 49.5%
Time since Daycare (months) 16.18 (10.05) 1 30 144
Age start Daycare (months) 19.75(6.97) 1 33 144
CDI scores
Child Lexical Density 309.86 (211.94) 23 697 465
Child Sentence Use 7.30 (2.51) 0 10 465
Home Literacy
Number Books at Home 2.91(0.98) 1 4 465
Shared Reading Times 5.21(1.17) 1 6 465
Literacy beliefs 4.21(0.42) 1.43 4.64 465
Screen Media Exposure
Child TV times 1.91(1.16) 0 4 465
Child PC times 0.18(0.51) 0 3 465
Child Tablet times 0.15(0.47) 0 2 465
Child Cellphone times 0.76(0.92) 0 4 465
Shared TV times 1.61(0.91) 0 3 465
Shared PC times 0.38(0.74) 0 3 465
Shared Tablet times 0.22(0.63) 0 3 465
Shared Cellphone times 1.06(0.91) 0 3 465
Background TV exposure 1.23(1.15) 0 3 465
Screen Media Content
Apss/games 0.21(0.54) 0 4 465
Videos 1.77(1.1) 0 4 465
Educational content 1.18(0.57) 0 2 465
Recreational content 1.25(0.62) 0 2 465
Adult content 0.23(0.43) 0 2 465
Children content 1.7(0.53) 0 2 465

(Continues)
6  |    MEDAWAR et al .

T A B L E 1   (Continued)

Variables M (SD)/% Minimum Maximum n

Joint Engagement
Joint Engagement scale 3.63(0.52) 1 5.14 465
Verbal scaffolding 5.26(.73) 1 6 465
Physical scaffolding 2.73(0.65) 1 4.64 465

order to assess Home Literacy Practices, participants answered a series of questions. First, the estimated
number of books at home (1 = less than 10, 2 = 10–­50, 3 = 51–­100, 4 = more than 100). Then, they
informed their shared book reading frequency (e.g. ‘how often do you read aloud to the child?’; ‘how
often do you read picture books with the child?’). Responses were given on a 1–­6 Likert scale, 1 = almost
never, 6 = at least once a day. In addition, we examined Literacy Beliefs by measuring attitude towards
literacy through 13 items (e.g. ‘reading helps children learn about things they never see in real life’,
‘When we read, we talk about the pictures as much as we tell the story’.) from the Parent Belief Reading
scale (PRBI; DeBaryshe & Binder, 1994; see Appendix S1). This scale measures what and how children
learn from reading and also parents' self-­efficacy as their children's instructor. More specifically, it
assesses positive affect associated with reading, parents' intentions to elicit children's active verbal
participation when reading, whether children acquire moral orientation and world knowledge from
books and parents' practical capacity to participate in reading (DeBaryshe, 1995). Reliability analysis
yielded a Cronbach's Alpha of .825. The questionnaire was based on d'Apice and von Stumm (2019)
study.

Child's screen exposure

Participants answered questions regarding the amount of time of exposure to different devices (i.e.
TV, Cell phone, Computer and Tablet) and type of activities with them (i.e. watch videos, use apps or
video games, or read books alone or with an adult). We included an item for each device and each type
of activity. The response options were: 0 (does not use it), 1 (1 hr or less), 2 (1–­2 hr), 3 (2–­3 hr), 4 (more
than 3 hr). Also, the frequency of exposure to different types of content (i.e. educational, entertainment,
adult content and child content) was assessed. There was an item per device and options ranged from 0
(never) to 3 (always). We included one question for exposure to background TV. As regards shared use,
we asked about each type of electronic device separately and added an item for shared use of reading
material (magazine, books etc.). Answer options were from 0 (never) to 3 (every day). In total, there were
17 items. This scale was used in previous studies (McArthur et al., 2020).

Joint media engagement (JME)

To assess JME, the extent to which adults use media with the child and the extent to which adults talk
to the child about media was measured (Dore et al., 2020). Responses were on a 6-­point scale from 1
(strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). One of the items asks about co-­v iewing, one asks about distracted
co-­v iewing (caregiver is in the room but engaged in another task), three ask about conversation during
media use (two reverse scores) and two ask about discussing media after use (see Appendix S2). These
seven items were summed to create a global score. Cronbach's Alpha score for this sample was .71.

Self-­reported scaffolding
This self-­report (Wood et al., 2016) contained 12 items that assessed parents verbal scaffolds (e.g. ‘asking
questions about what you see/hear or how an app or device is used’), and 11 items that assessed parents
physical scaffolds (e.g. ‘Hold and operate the device for him/her’; see Appendix S3). The response
options were from 1 (never) to 5 (always). For this sample, Cronbach's Alpha was .89 for verbal scaffolds,
and .78 for physical scaffolds.
HLE, SCREEN TIMES AND TODDLERS’ LANGUAGE |
       7

Children's linguistic development

The second part of the McArthur Bates Communicative Development Inventory (CDI) adapted to the
Argentine population was used (Resches et al., 2021). It is made up of two subdivisions: ‘Lexical density’
(LD) and ‘Sentence Use’ (SU). This questionnaire assesses the language skills of infants through the
report of a primary caregiver.

Lexical density
Measures word use. It includes a vocabulary list of 23 semantic categories (e.g. animals, food, objects,
clothes, toys, actions) with a total of 699 items (e.g. dog, cake, tree, shirt, crayons and run).

Sentence use
Five questions asked about the way in which the infant uses language, including about evocation of
past and future events, places or people who are not present and symbolic competence (detaching
language from its immediate context). Response options were: not yet (1), sometimes (2) or many times
(3), scoring a total on a scale of 0–­10 points. This last part focuses on the evaluation of syntactic and
grammar development, responding to the observations that indicate that children after the year begin
to use complex combinations of words, generalize grammar rules and use morphosyntactic principles
(Díaz et al., 2011).
The reliability analysis of the inventory yielded a Cronbach's Alpha of .86 for LD and .89 for SU.

Procedure

The questionnaire was administered online, was made available between June and August of 2021, and
it was targeted to residents of Argentina. Participants completed a Google Forms® that was shared
on Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp networks. It could be completed from a cell phone, tablet or
computer.
All tests were administered in the same order. Parents' Education Level was requested first, then
Child's Daycare Experiences, Child's Screen Exposure, JME, Scaffolding, Home Literacy Practices and
Beliefs and finally CDI scales.
The study protocol was approved by the University of Buenos Aires Ethics Committee; in accor-
dance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Before the survey, all participants completed an informed
consent. None received financial compensation and all completed the scales individually. Although they
received information about the general objectives of the study, they were not informed about our spe-
cific hypothesis, and they were invited to participate anonymously and voluntarily to avoid bias in their
answers. Answering the questionnaires took approximately 40 min.

Data analysis

Hierarchical linear regressions were conducted to analyse the differential contribution of study variables
to CDI lexical diversity and sentence use outcomes. Casewise diagnostics were applied to deal with outli-
ers (standardized residuals above 3 or below −3; Cousineau & Chartier, 2010). Since no outliers were de-
tected, no data were removed from the analysis. A post hoc power analysis was computed to determine
whether sample sizes provided sufficient power to detect association effects in linear regression models.
With α = .05, a sample of 465 participants and 22 variables, the power estimate was .95 with an effect
size of .20, indicating high power to detect association effects (Faul et al., 2009). Assumptions of nor-
mality, homoscedasticity and linearity were verified by inspection of: normal quantile plots of residuals,
standardized residuals scatter plots and observed versus predicted values, respectively. Independence of
error assumption was met for both models (1.941 < Durbin-­Watson < 2.003). Variance inflation factors
indicated that multicollinearity was not a concern in any of the models (1.019 < VIFs < 1.122).
 8 
|   

T A B L E 2   Regression analyses of CDI LD and SU scores

Regression CDI LD CDI SU

CI CI

Step: 3 Std β LL UL T Std β LL UL T

***
Sex .183 45.081 108.864 4.744 –­ –­ –­ –­
Child age (months) .492 17.148 23.992 11.816*** .341 0.125 0.216 7.344***
Daycare assistance –­ –­ –­ –­ .089 0.009 0.887 2.006*
**
Literacy beliefs .157 28.342 127.914 3.084 –­ –­ –­ –­
TV times −.110 −39.907 −0.100 −1.975* −.128 −0.543 −0.012 −2.057*
PC times .088 3.924 67.479 2.208* .122 0.164 1.011 2.728**
*
Apps −.085 −65.338 0.059 −1.962 –­ –­ –­ –­
Educational content –­ –­ –­ –­ −.112 −0.916 −0.065 −2.268*
Joint engagement .092 2.791 50.568 2.195* –­ –­ –­ –­
Verbal scaffolding .120 5.329 53.732 2.398* –­ –­ –­ –­
2 2 2 2 2 2
Model R Adj R ΔR F R Adj R ΔR F
*** *** ***
Step 1 .304 .295 .304 32.309 .148 .136 .148 12.779***
*** *** ***
Step 2 .350 .337 .046 26.317 .188 .171 .040 11.304***
Step 3 .397 .365 .047** 12.208*** .245 .209 .061** 6.144***
Note: Only significant (or marginally significant) full model (step 3) coefficients are shown. Beta coefficients are standardized.
Abbreviations: CI, 95% Confidence Interval; LL, Lower limit; UL, Upper limit.
*p < .05.; **p < .01.; ***p < .001.
MEDAWAR et al .
HLE, SCREEN TIMES AND TODDLERS’ LANGUAGE |
       9

In the first step of the models (see Table 2), we included the child's age, gender, mother's and father's
education level and the child's attendance in daycare. In the second step, we added HLE variables (num-
ber of books at home, shared reading times and mother literacy beliefs). In the third step, we considered
screen media measures that described quantity and contents of screen media exposure, and parent–­child
interactions ( JME and scaffolding scales) during shared electronic device use. Considering that total
screen times and shared screen times were highly correlated within devices (.566 < r < .859, p's < .001),
we ran different versions of the models including only one of each measures for exposure. Results for
the alternative regression with shared screen exposure times are provided in the (see Table S4).
In order to address potential mediation and/or moderation effects among home literacy and screen
exposure measures, we carried out mediation analyses using the medmod module of the JAMOVI
statistical software. This module implements the lavaan R package for structural equation modelling
(Rosseel, 2012). Following Williams and MacKinnon (2008), we applied bias-­corrected bootstrapping
methods (n = 10,000 samples) to estimate confidence intervals for the effects. For the selection of in-
dependent, dependent and mediator variables, we considered theoretically relevant associations. In the
case of literacy practices and beliefs, we followed Gonzalez et al. (2017) strategy and examined potential
mediation of literacy belief scores by HLE variables (shared reading and books at home). Given the
possibility of an interaction, we searched for moderation effects as well. Regarding screen media, we
considered JME and verbal scaffolding as potential moderators of shared TV (Dore et al., 2020) and
PC times (Wood et al., 2016), respectively. These devices were chosen since they were the more strongly
correlated screen media variables in the regression analysis.

R E SU LT S

Descriptive statistics

Descriptive statistics of study variables are provided in Table 1. A detailed summary of HLE and screen
time frequencies can be found in Tables S1 and S2, respectively. Regarding HLE, the number of books
at home was higher than 50 in 63% of the sample, while 57.4% of the mothers reported reading to their
children daily. On the other hand, screen times were rather low, being less than one hour (or none) on a
typical day for most media (PC and tablet: >95%; smartphone: 81.9%) with the exception of TV. In this
case, most frequently observed daily TV times fell between 1 and 2 hr (35.7%), while times higher than
two hours were reported in 29.2% of the sample. An exploratory correlation analysis of outcome study
variables can be found in the Supporting Information.

Regression analysis of CDI lexical density scores

The final step of the regression model accounted for 36.5% of the CDI LD variance (F = 12.208,
p < .001). After controlling for age, gender, parental education and daycare attendance effects, home
literacy variables increased explained variance significantly (ΔR 2  = .046, p < .001). Screen exposure
measures further contributed to the model in the final step (ΔR 2  = .047, p = .003). Literacy beliefs scale
was the only positive significant home literacy covariate of LD ( p = .002; see Table 2). Regarding screen
exposure, LD improved with joint engagement, verbal scaffolding and PC times ( p's < .029), while it
decreased with TV times ( p = .049). Negative effects of daily apps and video games use ( p = .05) were
observed. In addition, LD scores were better for older children (as expected) and girls ( p's < .029),
while no additional effects of sociodemographic factors were found (see Table 2). The first step of the
regression indicated a positive effect of daycare attendance (β  = .087, p = .036), but it was no longer
significant in the final step. Similar results were obtained when screen times were replaced by shared
screen times in the model, but the effects of shared TV times and apps use did not reach significance
( p's > .071).
10  |    MEDAWAR et al .

Regression analysis of CDI sentence use scores

The final step of the regression model accounted for 20.9% of the CDI SU variance (F = 6.144,
p < .001). After controlling for age, gender, parental education and daycare attendance effects, home
literacy variables increased explained variance significantly, again with literacy beliefs as the only
relevant covariate (ΔR 2  = .04, p < .001). Screen exposure measures further contributed to the model
in the final step (ΔR 2  = .057, p < .005). The effect of literacy beliefs was no longer significant (see
Table 2). Regarding screen exposure, SU improved with PC times, while it decreased with TV times and
educational content exposure ( p's < .04). Verbal scaffolding effects and joint engagement did not reach
significance this time ( p's > .068). In addition, SU was higher for older children ( p < .001) and daycare
attendants ( p = .045), but, contrary to LD, the effect of gender ( p = .078) was not significant. Similar
results were obtained by replacing shared screen times in the model, but in this case, shared TV times
effect was no longer significant ( p = .076).

Moderation effects among home literacy and screen exposure measures

Following Gonzalez et al. (2017), we examined potential mediation effects of shared reading and number
of books at home over literacy beliefs effects on CDI LD and SU scores. We did not find evidence of
mediation in any case (−0.077 < Z  < 1.32; p's > .185). However, we did find moderation effects of shared
reading over literacy beliefs effect on LD scores (β = 31.5, Z = 2.063 p = .039; see Table 3). Simple slope
analysis indicated that LD scores increased more with literacy beliefs for higher shared reading times
( p's < .001).
Following Dore et al. (2020), we examined potential moderation effects of JME and verbal scaf-
folding over shared TV and PC times effects on CDI scores, respectively. We did not find evidence of
moderation in any case (−1.74 < Z's < −1.04; p's > .081).

DIS C US SION

This research constitutes a follow-­up on our previous study (Tabullo & Gago-­Galvagno, 2021), that in-
dicated independent contributions of literacy practices and beliefs and electronic media use to Argentine
toddlers' vocabulary and syntax development. In addition, this study is the first to simultaneously con-
sider quantity and quality measures of screen media exposure, and parent–­child interactions during
electronic media use, for this population. Our results showed: (1) among literacy measures, mothers’
literacy beliefs were most strongly associated with toddlers' language ability; (2) language abilities were
positively associated with PC use, verbal scaffolding and JME; (3) negative correlations were observed
between TV times and both CDI measures, and of educational content for SU. We discuss these find-
ings in detail in the following sections.

T A B L E 3   Moderation analysis of home literacy beliefs association with CDI scores by shared reading times

Moderation estimates

95% confidence
interval

Estimate SE Lower Upper Z p

Literacy beliefs 153.83 27.54 99.85 207.8 5.586 <.001
Shared reading 7.56 8.07 −8.26 23.4 0.937 .349
Literacy beliefs × Shared reading 31.15 15.10 1.55 60.7 2.063 .039
Note: Confidence intervals computed with bias-­corrected bootstrap method.
HLE, SCREEN TIMES AND TODDLERS’ LANGUAGE |
       11

Home literacy practices and beliefs effects

Literacy beliefs were more strongly associated with LD than shared reading, and contributed to SU
when screen media exposure was not considered. This diverges from our previous study, where literacy
beliefs were more strongly associated with LD and shared frequency with SU (Tabullo & Gago-­
Galvagno, 2021). The quantity and quality of talking, interacting and reading with a child in the first
three years of life are strongly associated with language (for a review, see Head Zauche et al., 2016). In
particular, shared reading introduces new vocabulary, concepts and semantic associations to the child,
and promotes textual and extra-­textual talk with adults (Gonzalez et al., 2017). Quach et al. (2018) found
that shared reading at age 2 predicted vocabulary outcomes at 4. A structural equation modelling study
showed that literacy beliefs effects on four-­year-­old children's receptive (but not expressive) vocabularies
were mediated by HLE scores, which in turn were mediated by shared reading (Gonzalez et al., 2017).
Similar HLE effects have been reported for early literacy skills (Bingham, 2007; Weigel et al., 2006).
Furthermore, a recent study showed that it was the parent's linguistic input and not their literacy practices
and beliefs that best predicted lexical diversity in toddlers (d'Apice & von Stumm, 2019). In turn, HLE
variables were significantly associated with adult's lexical diversity. On the other hand, literacy beliefs
explained vocabulary beyond shared reading frequency in our study. We propose two non-­mutually
exclusive interpretations for this. (1) Literacy beliefs are acting as a covariate for a broader set of variables,
related to primary caregiver's emotional and verbal responsiveness, acceptance of the child's behaviour,
organization of the environment, academic and language stimulation, and maternal involvement with
the child. A previous study showed that a global measure of responsiveness and support in the home
environment was a more strongly associated with children's language outcomes (3–­5 years old) than
literacy-­specific variables, although they were highly correlated (Roberts et al., 2005). (2) Literacy beliefs
might be more closely related to the quantity and complexity of the mother's language (and/or child-­
directed speech, for a review see Gordon & Watson, 2015) than the amount of time spent reading to the
child. Therefore, this variable might act as a proxy for socially significant language stimulation within
and beyond the context of reading. It is worth noting that, while literacy beliefs effects did not depend
on reading times, their impact on vocabulary was larger for children who spent more time reading with
their parents. This finding thus indicates a synergy of literacy beliefs and practices over young children's
language development.

Quantity and quality of screen media exposure and joint engagement effects

Regarding screen media exposure, we observed positive relations of PC times and negative of TV times
on both language measures. Moreover, educational contents were negatively associated with SU, and a
negative effect of apps and video game use ( p = .05) was found for LD as well. However, this particular
effect should be treated with caution and further replicated, since it was at the threshold of significance
values. Positive effects of PC (and shared PC) times replicate and expand our previous findings (Tabullo
& Gago-­Galvagno,  2021), and are congruent with the literature available for older children. Studies of
5–­7-­year-­olds (Fiorini,  2010) and 5–­12-­year-­olds (Rosenqvist et al., 2016) found beneficial effects of
computer use on cognitive development when considering measures of vocabulary, attention, memory
and executive functions. In line with our study, these effects were specific for computers, but not for
video games (e.g. consoles; Fiorini, 2010). Rosenqvist et al. (2016) proposed that computer use skills
recruit several cognitive functions, including verbal abilities, and that computer use is more education-
ally oriented and parentally controlled at younger ages (Fiorini, 2010). About this point, the subset
of the sample that used a computer reported sharing it between sometimes (34.51%) and many times
(48.23%) and only 8.62% reported not sharing PC. This might also explain the marginal detrimental
effects of Apps and videogames on language, since their use was poorly correlated with shared PC times
(see Table S3). Since computers are complex devices, caregivers tend to control and share their use on
a greater extent with infants and toddlers than with older children (Connell et al., 2015; Mendelsohn
12  |    MEDAWAR et al .

et al., 2010; van den Heuvel et al., 2019; Waisman et al., 2018). Also, PCs require the coordination of the
mouse and the keyboard, which leads to a greater motor demand for infants, compared to other screen
devices. This is congruent with the significant associations we observed between PC times and verbal
as well as physical scaffolding (see Table S2).
Available data shows that TV use is negatively associated with children's language development
(Fiorini, 2010; Sundqvist et al., 2021; Taylor et al., 2017; Zimmerman et al., 2007). Several interpre-
tations of these findings have been proposed: (1) transfer deficits, the difficulty or inability of young
children to apply information from screens (including vocabulary) to real life, (2) time displacement for
practicing skills relevant to developmental milestones, such as language or motor skills, (3) less time
available for socially significant caregiver–­child interactions, critical for language development at young
ages (see Madigan et al., 2020 for a meta-­analytic review). Our data are consistent with these arguments,
since we found negative effects of TV exposure on both CDI scores. Surprisingly, the effect of TV co-­
viewing was not significant. This may be due to the important role JME plays on children's vocabulary
outcomes. In addition, it has been argued that TV times are detrimental to HLE (Chen et al., 2020;
Madigan et al., 2020). In line with this claim, we observed weak but significant negative correlations
(rho's < −.169, p's < .001) between TV and Smartphone times (but not shared times) and shared reading.
On the other hand, several lines of evidence indicate that it is the quality-­and not quantity-­of media
exposure that plays a key role on infants' linguistic outcomes (Chonchaiya & Pruksananonda, 2008;
Hudson et al., 2013; Madigan et al., 2020). It has been suggested that better quality of screen use –­that
is educational programmes and co-­v iewing with caregivers –­is positively related to child language-­skills
(Al-­Harbi,  2015; Linebarger et al., 2014; Madigan et al., 2020). For instance, Mendelsohn et al. (2010)
found that, only when children are exposed to educational content, do verbal interactions contribute to
children's language outcomes. Despite these claims, we observed negative associations between educa-
tional content and SU scores. This result can be explained in terms of available evidence. Firstly, chil-
dren under 18 months benefit more from real-­l ife experiences, regardless of the content they are exposed
to, even if it is not considered appropriate for their age (Kirkorian et al., 2008; Krcmar et al., 2007).
As Linebarger and Vaala (2010) put it, ‘screen media effects are dependent on the degree to which its
content resembles infants' and toddlers' real life experiences’ (p. 197). This supports the idea of a video
deficit for learning by infants and toddlers (Kirkorian et al., 2008). van den Heuvel et al. (2019) state that
screen exposure may not be appropriate for children younger than 30 months, since they are not capable
of learning language from it; secondly, it has been found that, in general, TV shows directed to young
children are not actually appropriate for their age range. Brodsky and Sulkin (2020) analysed the music
and sound of episodes of series for 0-­to 3-­year-­olds and discovered that, although they seem to attract
children, they do not promote screen interactions and, as a result, do not contribute to their cognitive
development. Moreover, as linguistic constituents are for the most part unintelligible utterances, no
opportunity is created for the kid to develop a more comprehensible language.
We also observed a slightly negative association between daily use of apps and CDI LD scores. Vaala
et al. (2015) found that only a small number of ‘educational’ apps are really focused on children's linguis-
tic developments and promote joint media engagement, and there are many entertainment apps with no
learning purposes. These authors argue that most apps do not include co-­use functions in their designs,
and they don't allow the user to handle the level of difficulty, and that this can have a negative influence
on their educational function. What is more, these apps do neither normally offer caregivers any type
of feedback on their children's progress, nor do they include suggestions to boost the effectiveness of
their use. Only awarded apps offer detailed information about their teaching strategies or why certain
abilities are important. In line with these findings, Reid Chassiakos et al. (2016) claim that, of all the
commercially available apps on the educational and entertainment sections of the app stores, only a few
demonstrate to be effective in fostering learning opportunities for infants and toddlers. They argue that
most apps are directed towards the development of memory skills (such as learning the colours and days
of the week), are not based on the established curricula and include almost no input from specialists.
Besides, the sounds used can distract the children from meaningful interactions with their caregivers.
These interpretations could be applied to our results.
HLE, SCREEN TIMES AND TODDLERS’ LANGUAGE |
       13

One of the main goals of this study was to examine the effects of JME and scaffolding during screen
media use on toddler's language outcomes. While some evidence suggests that JME might mitigate
the negative effects screen media exposure could have on infants and toddlers' language development,
findings on this regard have been mixed (for a review, see Ewin et al., 2020). Alroqi et al. (2021) found
that the frequency of interactive JME with the child correlated positively with expressive and recep-
tive vocabulary size during the second year of life (12–­16 months), but they also observed that sheer
volume of screen exposure was the main negative covariate of language measures for older children
(17–­36 months), with no JME interactions. Dore et al. (2020) found that high JME scores buffered the
potential negative impact of screen exposure over literacy skills, but they did not observe associations
with vocabulary measures, on 6–­8 -­ year-­olds. In line with these findings, JME was a significant co-
variate of a toddler's vocabulary, but we did not find evidence of mediation or moderation effects over
total or shared TV and PC times associations with CDI scores. Thus, our findings suggest that JME
contributes to word learning in parent–­child media interactions within our study age-­range. However,
it does not seem to buffer or interact with potentially detrimental effects of TV viewing on vocabulary
development. In this regard, a recent review (Ewin et al., 2020) suggests that JME associations with
language might vary according to the topics and qualities of parent–­child interactions during screen
media sharing, thus explaining its lack of consistency.
On the other hand, verbal scaffolding (the use of instructions and comments to assist the child using
electronic devices) made additional contributions to LD, suggesting that the verbal interactions adults
use to help the child constitute an opportunity for word learning. This finding is in accord with the
fact that, the younger the child, the more the adult uses electronic media with them and, as a result, the
more interactions are shared (Ewin et al., 2020; Mendelsohn et al., 2010; Rideout & Robb, 2020). On
the other hand, it should be noted that scaffolding did not interact with shared PC times, as would have
been expected according to this line of reasoning. In spite of this, our interpretation is congruent with
previously reported effects of verbal scaffolding on language (Ewin et al., 2020; Smith et al., 2000) and
cognitive (Hammond et al., 2012) development. Taken together, these findings indicate that the quality
of joint attention and parent–­child verbal interactions during shared media use contribute significantly
to language development, by creating an opportunity for engaging in dialogue and word learning.

Differences between CDI LD and SU effects

While the differences between the result patterns observed for LD and SU were not the main focus
of our study, we can put forward a possible explanation for them. As d'Apice and von Stumm (2019)
suggested, parent literacy behaviours might be differentially associated with lexical and syntactic
children's development. One possibility is that SU score associations had been driven by LD.
Previous transversal (Silva et al., 2017) and longitudinal (Cadime et al., 2019) studies using the CDI
found that vocabulary is strongly associated with syntax development among toddlers. Altogether,
the literature indicates that the complexity of toddlers' utterances increases with their lexicon size
(for a detailed discussion of the inter-­relatedness of lexicon and grammar throughout development,
see Pérez-­L eroux et al., 2012). In addition, a recent study showed that HLE effects on toddlers'
morphosyntax skills were mediated by their expressive vocabulary (DiCataldo & Roch, 2000).
We addressed this possibility by examining potential mediation effects of LD over literacy beliefs
associations with SU scores. We found that literacy beliefs effects on SU were completely mediated
by LD, since only the indirect path was significant (β  = .179, p < .001; see Table S5). Therefore, our
results support the interpretation that the main target of HLE (literacy beliefs) effects is the toddler's
vocabulary size. This might explain the differences between LD and SU regression analyses, since
most SU covariates are also significantly associated with LD, but not every LD covariate contributes
to SU.
14  |    MEDAWAR et al .

Study limitations and future directions

Despite the strengths of this study, several limitations should be noted: (1) Due to the correlational
and cross-­sectional nature of our study, we cannot draw direct conclusions regarding the causality of
the observed effects, and all our interpretations in this sense should be considered speculative. In this
sense, future longitudinal studies would provide further empirical support to our claims. (2) While
we did work with a bigger sample than in our previous study, we still used non-­probabilistic methods
to recruit the participants, who were for the most part highly educated caregivers. Thus, our sample
was not representative of the general population. (3) We only included parental self-­report measures
of children's language outcomes. Future research would benefit from including direct measures, such
as home recordings, enabling control of adult language exposure effects and more detailed analysis of
children's vocabulary. (4) Receptive language was not measured. As d'Apice and von Stumm (2019)
suggest, taking this into account might give rise to stronger associations with literacy practices. (5) Even
though we considered parents' education level, which appears to be the SES variable more strongly
related to infants' language outcomes, we failed to include other variables such as housing status, income
and household overcrowding. In the future, it will be important to take these aspects into consideration,
since they might as well have an impact over early language development. In the same way, it would be
interesting to see if our results are replicated in other caregivers than the child's mother. (6) Furthermore,
future studies should examine if the effects observed in infants and toddlers remain in older children.

C ONC LUSION

We explored the associations between a toddler's quantity and quality of screen media exposure,
parent–­child interactions while sharing electronic devices, mother's literacy beliefs and practices and
early language outcomes. Among literacy measures, we found that mother's literacy beliefs were strongly
associated with infants' vocabulary, possibly reflecting the effects of language stimulation, responsiveness
and general maternal styles. PC use, verbal scaffolding and JME made additional contributions to CDI
scores, indicating that parent–­child shared screen experiences constitute an opportunity for language
learning beyond reading contexts. On the other hand, TV exposure, and educational content (and,
to a lesser extent, apps and video games) were negatively correlated to language. This suggests that
passive exposure and inadequate content may interfere with a toddler's language development, possibly
by displacing time from talking, playing and relevant social interactions. As in our previous study,
our findings indicate that infants' linguistic development can be positively related to home literacy
practices and beliefs and certain media exposure (in this case, PC), while others (such as TV) might be
detrimental. This study extends the existing literature as it was carried out in a much lesser studied Latin
American context.

AU T HOR C ON T R I BU T ION S
Ángel Javier Tabullo: Conceptualization; formal analysis; investigation; methodology; writing –­orig-
inal draft; writing –­review and editing. Julieta Medawar: Conceptualization; investigation; meth-
odology; writing –­original draft; writing –­review and editing. Lucas Gustavo Gago-­Galvagno:
Conceptualization; formal analysis; investigation; methodology; writing –­original draft; writing –­re-
view and editing.

AC K NOW L E D G E M E N T S
The authors thank Dr. Mariela Resches for her assistance with the adapted version of the MacArthur
Bates CDI and her support through the different stages of this project.

C ON F L IC T OF I N T E R E S T
All Authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
HLE, SCREEN TIMES AND TODDLERS’ LANGUAGE |
       15

DATA AVA I L A BI L I T Y S TAT E M E N T

The data that support the findings of this study will be openly available in Open Science Framework
at osf.io/ax42g.

ORC I D
Ángel Javier Tabullo  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1340-0156
Lucas Gustavo Gago-­Galvagno  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5993-3866

R EF ER ENCES
AAP Council on Communications and Media. (2016). Media and young minds. Pediatrics, 138(5), e20162591. https://doi.
org/10.1542/peds.2016-­2591
Al-­Harbi, S. (2015). The influence of media in children's language development. Journal of Educational and Developmental Psycholog y,
5(1), 1-­5. https://doi.org/10.5539/jedp.v5n1p1
Alroqi, H., Serratrice, L., & Cameron-­Faulkner, T. (2021). The association between screen media quantity, content, and context and language
development. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/​osf.io/afdy8
Archer, K., Wood, E., & De Pasquale, D. (2021). Examining joint parent-­c hild interactions involving infants and tod-
dlers when introducing mobile technology. Infant Behavior & Development, 63, 101568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
infbeh.2021.101568
Arundell, L., Parker, K., Timperio, A., Salmon, J., & Veitch, J. (2020). Home-­based screen time behaviors amongst youth and
their parents: familial typologies and their modifiable correlates. BMC Public Health, 20(1), 1–­11.
Bingham, G. E. (2007). Maternal literacy beliefs and the quality of mother-­child book-­reading interactions: Associations with
children's early literacy development. Early Education and Development, 18(1), 23–­49. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409​28070​
1274428
Bloom, L., & Lahey, M. (1978). Language development and language disorders. Wiley.
Brodsky, W., & Sulkin, I. (2020). What babies, infants, and toddlers hear on fox/Disney BabyTV: An exploratory study. Psycholog y
of Popular Media. Advance online publication, 10(3), 330–­339. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm00​0 0321
Cadime, I., Moreira, C. S., Santos, A. L., Silva, C., Ribeiro, I., & Viana, F. L. (2019). The development of vocabulary and gram-
mar: A longitudinal study of European Portuguese-­speaking toddlers. Journal of Child Language, 46(4), 653–­681. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0305​0 0091​9000060
CEPAL. (2022). Panorama Social de América Latina. https://www.cepal.org/es/publi​cacio​nes/47718 ​-­panor​a ma-­socia ​l-­a meri​
ca-­latin​a-­2 021
Chen, C., Chen, S., Wen, P., & Snow, C. E. (2020). Are screen devices soothing children or soothing parents? Investigating the
relationships among children's exposure to different types of screen media, parental efficacy and home literacy practices.
Computers in Human Behavior, 112, 106462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106462
Chonchaiya, W., & Pruksananonda, C. (2008). Television viewing associates with delayed language development. Acta Paediatrica,
97(7), 977–­982. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1651-­2 227.2008.00831
Connell, S. L., Lauricella, A. R., & Wartella, E. (2015). Parental co-­use of media technology with their young children in the
USA. Journal of Children and Media, 9(1), 5–­21. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482​798.2015.997440
Cousineau, D., & Chartier, S. (2010). Outliers detection and treatment: A review. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3,
58–­67. https://doi.org/10.21500/​2 0112​084.844
d’Apice, K., Latham, R. M., & Von Stumm, S. (2019). A naturalistic home observational approach to children's language, cogni-
tion, and behavior. Developmental Psycholog y, 55(7), 1414-­1427. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev00​0 0733.
d'Apice, K., & von Stumm, S. (2019). The role of spoken language and literacy exposure for cognitive and language outcomes in
children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 24, 108–­122. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888​438.2019.1641505
DeBaryshe, B. (1995). Maternal belief systems: Linchpin in the home reading process. Journal of Applied Developmental Psycholog y,
16(1), 1–­2 0. https://doi.org/10.1016/0193-­3973(95)90013 ​- ­6
DeBaryshe, B. D., & Binder, J. C. (1994). Development of an instrument for measuring parental beliefs about reading aloud to
young children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78(3_suppl), 1303–­1311. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1994.78.3c.1303
Díaz, M. F. L., María, Á, Fonseca, G, Marcela, D, Bohórquez, G, Guechá, C. M, & Sellabona, E. S (2011). Normativización del
Inventario del Desarrollo Comunicativo MacArthur-­Bates al español, Colombia, Revista Latinoamericana de psicología, 43(2):
241–­254. Retrieved from: http://www.redal​yc.org/artic​u lo.oa?id=80521​287003
Dicataldo, R., & Roch, M. (2000). How does Toddlers' engagement in literacy activities influence their language abilities?
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(1), 526. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerp​h1901​0526
Dobbs-­ o ates, J., Pentimonti, J. M., Justice, L. M., & Kaderavek, J. N. (2015). Parent and child attitudinal fac-
tors in a model of children's print-­concept knowledge. Journal of Research in Reading, 38(1), 91–­108. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-­9817.2012.01545.x
Dore, R. A., Logan, J., Lin, T.-­J., Purtell, K. M., & Justice, L. (2020). Characteristics of children's media use and gains in lan-
guage and literacy skills. Frontiers in Psycholog y, 11(2224), 1-­10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02224
16  |    MEDAWAR et al .

Drouin, M., McDaniel, B. T., Pater, J., & Toscos, T. (2020). How parents and their children used social media and technology
at the Beginning of the COVID-­19 pandemic and associations with anxiety. Cyberpsycholog y, Behavior and Social Networking,
736, 727-­736. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.0284
Ewin, C. A., Reupert, A. E., McLean, L. A., & Ewin, C. J. (2020). The impact of joint media engagement on parent–­c hild
interactions: A systematic review. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 1–­25, 230–­2 54. https://doi.org/10.1002/
hbe2.203
Fiorini, M. (2010) The effect of home computer use on children's cognitive and non-­cognitive skills. Economics of Education Review,
29(1), 55–­72. Retrieved from: https://www.learn​techl​ib.org/p/68673/
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation
and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–­1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
Gago Gavagno, L. G., Elgier, A. M., & Azzollini, S. C. (2021). Does use of books and electronic media associate to joint atten-
tion skills and temperament during the first year of life? International Journal of Educational Psycholog y, 10(3), 222–­246. https://
doi.org/10.17583/​ijep.7307
Gonzalez, J. E., Acosta, S., Davis, H., Pollard-­Durodola, S., Saenz, L., Soares, D., Resendez, N., & Zhu, L. (2017). Latino
maternal literacy beliefs and practices mediating socioeconomic status and maternal education effects in predicting child
receptive vocabulary. Early Education and Development, 28(1), 78–­95. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409​289.2016.1185885
Gordon, R. G., & Watson, L. R. (2015). Child-­d irected speech: Influence on language development. In International
Encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp. 399–­4 04). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-­0 -­0 8-­0 9708​
6-­8 .23131​- ­0
Hammond, S. I., Müller, U., Carpendale, J. I., Bibok, M. B., & Liebermann-­Finestone, D. P. (2012). The effects of paren-
tal scaffolding on preschoolers' executive function. Developmental Psycholog y, 48(1), 271–­2 81. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0025519
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaning ful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Paul H. Brookes Publishing
Company.
Head Zauche, L., Thul, T. A., Darcy Mahoney, A. E., & Stapel-­Wax, J. L. (2016). Influence of language nutrition on children's
language and cognitive development: An integrated review. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 36, 318–­333. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2016.01.015
Hoff, E. (2003). The specificity of environmental influence: Socioeconomic status affects early vocabulary development via
maternal speech. Child Development, 74(5), 1368–­1378. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-­8624.00612
Hoff, E. (2006). How social contexts support and shape language development. Developmental Review, 26(1), 55–­88. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.dr.2005.11.002
Hofstede, G. (1989). Organizing for cultural diversity. European Management Journal, 7(4), 390–­397.
Hudson, T. M., Fennell, C. T., & Hoftyzer, M. (2013). Quality not quantity of television viewing is associated with bilingual
toddlers' vocabulary scores. Infant Behavior & Development, 36(2), 245–­254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2013.01.010
INDEC. (2018). Encuesta permanente de hogares. Documento para la comunidad educativa. INDEC.
INDEC. (2022). Principales Indicadores del INDEC. https://www.indec.gob.ar/
Kirkorian, H. L., Wartella, E. A., & Anderson, D. R. (2008). Media and young Children's learning. The Future of Children, 18(1),
39–­61. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.0.0002
Krcmar, M., Grela, B., & Lin, K. (2007). Can toddlers learn vocabulary from television? An experimental approach. Media
Psycholog y, 10(1), 41–­63. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213​26070​1300931
Leseman, P., & De Jong, P. F. (1998). Home literacy: Opportunity, instruction, cooperation and social-­emotional quality pre-
dicting early Reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 33(3), 294–­318. https://doi.org/10.1598/rrq.33.3.3
Smith, K. E., Landry, S. H., & Swank, P. R. (2000). Does the content of mothers' verbal stimulation explain differences in
children's development of verbal and nonverbal cognitive skills? Journal of School Psycholog y, 38(1), 27–­49. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0022​- ­4 405(99)00035​-­7
Linebarger, D. L., Barr, R., Lapierre, M. A., & Piotrowski, J. T. (2014). Associations between parenting, media use, cumula-
tive risk, and children's executive functioning. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 35(6), 367–­377. https://doi.
org/10.1097/DBP.00000​0 0000​0 00069
Linebarger, D. L., & Vaala, S. E. (2010). Screen media and language development in infants and toddlers: An ecological perspec-
tive. Developmental Review, 30(2), 176–­2 02. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2010.03.006
Linebarger, D. L., & Walker, D. (2005). Infants' and toddlers' television viewing and language outcomes. American Behavioral
Scientist, 48(5), 624–­645.
Madigan, S., McArthur, B. A., Anhorn, C., Eirich, R., & Christakis, D. (2020). Associations between screen use and child
language skills: A systematic review and meta-­a nalysis. JAMA Pediatrics, 174(7), 665–­675. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamap​
ediat ​r ics.2020.0327
McArthur, B. A., Browne, D., Tough, S., & Madigan, S. (2020). Trajectories of screen use during early childhood: Predictors
and associated behavior and learning outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 113, 106501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2020.106501
McCarrick, K., & Li, X. (2007). Buried treasure: The impact of computer use on young children's social, cognitive, lan-
guage development and motivation, AACE Journal, 15(1), 73–­95. Retrieved from: https://www.learn​t echl ​ib.org/
prima​r y/p/19982/
HLE, SCREEN TIMES AND TODDLERS’ LANGUAGE |
       17

Mendelsohn, A. L., Brockmeyer, C. A., Dreyer, B. P., Fierman, A. H., Berkule-­Silberman, S. B., & Tomopoulos, S. (2010). Do
verbal interactions with infants during electronic media exposure mitigate adverse impacts on their language development
as toddlers? Infant and Child Development, 19(6), 577–­593. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.711
Mesurado, B., Cristina Richaud, M., & José Mateo, N. (2016). Engagement, flow, self-­efficacy, and eustress of university stu-
dents: A cross-­national comparison between The Philippines and Argentina. The Journal of Psycholog y, 150(3), 281–­299.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223​980.2015.1024595
Neumann, M. M. (2017). Parent scaffolding of young children's use of touch screen tablets. Early Child Development and Care, 188,
1654–­1664. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004​430.2016.1278215
Padilla-­Walker, L. M., Coyne, S. M., Booth, M. A., Domoff, S. E., Summers, K., Schvaneveldt, E., & Stockdale, L. (2020).
Parent–­child joint media engagement in infancy. Infancy, 25, 1–­19. https://doi.org/10.1111/infa.12355
Pérez-­L eroux, A. T., Castilla-­Earls, A. P., & Brunner, J. (2012). General and specific effects of lexicon in grammar: Determiner
and object pronoun omissions in child Spanish. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 55, 313–­327.
Quach, J., Sarkadi, A., Napiza, N., Wake, M., Loughman, A., & Goldfeld, S. (2018). Do fathers' home reading practices
at age 2 predict child language and literacy at age 4? Academic Pediatrics, 18(2), 179–­187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
acap.2017.10.001
Rice, M. L. (1983). The role of television in language acquisition. Developmental Review, 3, 211–­2 24.
Rideout, V., & Robb, M. B. (2020). The common sense census: Media use by kids age zero to eight, 2020. Common Sense Media.
Reid Chassiakos, Y., Radesky, J., Christakis, D., Moreno, M. A., Cross, C., & AAP COUNCIL ON COMMUNICATIONS
AND MEDIA. (2016). Children and adolescents and digital media. Pediatrics, 138(5), e20162593. https://doi.org/10.1542/
peds.2016-­2593
Resches, M., Querejeta, M., Kohan Cortada, A., & Laguens, A. (2021). Adaptación y normativización del Inventario del
Desarrollo Comunicativo Mac Arthur Bates (CDI-­Forma II) al español rioplatense. Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología, 14
(3), 107–120. Retrieved from: https://revib​erops​icolo​g ia.ibero.edu.co/article/view/2038
Roberts, J., Jurgens, J., & Burchinal, M. (2005). The role of home literacy practices in preschool children's language
and emergent literacy skills. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing, 48(2), 345– ­359. https://doi.org/10.1044/109
2-­4388(2005/024
Rosemberg, C. R., Alam, F., Audisio, C. P., Ramirez, M. L., Garber, L., & Migdalek, M. J. (2020). Nouns and verbs in the linguis-
tic environment of Argentinian toddlers: Socioeconomic and context-­related differences. First Language, 40(2), 192–­217.
https://doi.org/10.1177/01427​23719​901226
Rosenqvist, J., Lahti-­Nuuttila, P., Holdnack, J., Kemp, S. L., & Laasonen, M. (2016). Relationship of TV watching, computer
use, and reading to children's neurocognitive functions. Journal of Applied Developmental Psycholog y, 46, 11–­21. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.appdev.2016.04.006
Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–­36. https://doi.
org/10.18637/​jss.v048.i02
Silva, C., Cadime, I., Ribeiro, I., Santos, S., Santos, A. L., & Viana, F. L. (2017). Parents' reports of lexical and grammatical
aspects of toddlers' language in European Portuguese: Developmental trends, age and gender differences. First Language,
37(3), 267–­284. https://doi.org/10.1177/01427​23716​689274
Sundqvist, A., Koch, F.-­S., Birberg Thornberg, U., Barr, R., & Heimann, M. (2021). Growing up in a digital world –­Digital
media and the association with the Child's language development at two years of age. Frontiers in Psycholog y, 12, 569920.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.569920
Tabullo, A. J., & Gago-­G alvagno, L. G. (2021). Early vocabulary size in Argentinean toddlers: Associations with home literacy
and screen media exposure. Journal of Children and Media, 1–­16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482​798.2021.1982742
Takeuchi, B. L., & Stevens, R. (2011). The new coviewing: Designing for learning through joint media engagement. Available at: http://ww-
w.joang​a nzco​oneyc​enter.org/wp-­conte​nt/uploa​ds/2011/12/jgc_covie​w ing_desktop.pdf
Taylor, G., Monaghan, P., & Westermann, G. (2017). Investigating the association between children's screen media exposure
and vocabulary size in the UK. Journal of Children and Media, 12, 51–­65. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482​798.2017.1365737
Vaala, S., Ly, A., & Levine, M. H. (2015). Getting a read on the app stores: A market scan and analysis of children's literacy apps. The
Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop. http://www.joang​a nzco​oneyc​enter.org/wp-­conte​nt/uploa​ds/2015/12/
jgcc_getti​ngare​ad.pdf
van den Heuvel, M., Ma, J., Borkhoff, C. M., Koroshegyi, C., Dai, D., Parkin, P. C., Maguire, J. L., Birken, C. S., & TARGet
Kids! Collaboration. (2019). Mobile media device use is associated with expressive language delay in 18-­month-­old chil-
dren. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 40(2), 99–­104. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.00000​0 0000​0 00630
Vulchanova, M., Baggio, G., Cangelosi, A., & Smith, L. (2017). Editorial: Language development in the digital age. Frontiers in
Human Neuroscience, 11, 447. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00447
Waisman, I., Hidalgo, E., & Rossi, M. L. (2018). Uso de pantallas en niños pequeños en una ciudad de Argentina. Archivos
Argentinos de Pediatría, 116(2), e186–­e195. https://doi.org/10.5546/aap.2018.e186
Williams, J., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Resampling and distribution of the product methods for testing indirect effects in
complex models. Structural Equation Modeling, 15, 23–­51. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705​51070​1758166
Weigel, D., Martin, S., & Bennett, K. K. (2006). Mother's literacy beliefs: Connections with the home literacy environment and
pre-­school children's literacy development. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 6(2), 191–­211. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687​
98406​066444
18  |    MEDAWAR et al .

Wood, E., Petkovski, M., De Pasquale, D., Gottardo, A., Evans, M. A., & Savage, R. S. (2016). Parent scaffolding of young
children when engaged with Mobile technology. Frontiers in Psycholog y, 7, 690. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00690
Zauche, L. H., Mahoney, A. E. D., Thul, T. A., Zauche, M. S., Weldon, A. B., & Stapel-­Wax, J. L. (2017). The power of language
nutrition for children's brain development, health, and future academic achievement. Journal of Pediatric Health Care, 31(4),
493–­503.
Zimmerman, F. J., Christakis, D. A., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2007). Associations between media viewing and language development
in children under age 2 years. The Journal of Pediatrics, 151(4), 364–­368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2007.04.071

SU PP OR T I NG I N FOR M AT ION
Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section at the
end of this article.

How to cite this article: Medawar, J., Tabullo, Á. J., & Gago-­Galvagno, L. G. (2022). Early
language outcomes in Argentinean toddlers: Associations with home literacy, screen exposure
and joint media engagement. British Journal of Developmental Psycholog y, 00, 1–18. https://doi.
org/10.1111/bjdp.12429