Thirty Million Words: Well Baby Initiative
Phase: NA
Conditions: Behavior, Communication, Language
Sponsor: University of Chicago

Protocol Version 10/1/2019 
Page 1 of 15 
NCT02812017: Thirty Million Words- Well Baby Initiative (TMW-WB) 
PROTOCOL TITLE: Thirty Million Words- Well Baby Initiative (TMW-WB) 
PI: Dana Suskind, M.D. 
FUNDING: External funding from Kellogg Foundation 
SPONSER: Private Industry 
TYPE OF RESEARCH: Longitudinal Randomized Control Trial 
INTERVENTION: Experimental Technique To Change Knowledge And Beliefs 
PROTOCOL VERSION DATE: 10/01/2019 
 

Protocol Version 10/1/2019 
Page 2 of 15 
Thirty Million Words: Well Baby Initiative IRB 
Protocol Narrative 
 
Introduction 
The Thirty Million Words Well Baby Initiative (TMW-WB) is a public health intervention 
that aims to impact parents’ beliefs about their role is in creating a stimulating and enriching 
language environment for their baby. This comparative study of will evaluate the effectiveness of 
promoting critical language and cognitive development in infants of low-SES English- and Spanish-
speaking parents. TMW-WB will target infants zero to six months and their parents during routine 
Well Baby pediatric visits at one week, one month, two months, four months, six months, and a final 
nine month follow-up. Developed in both English and Spanish, TMW-WB will integrate education 
and technology into a scalable multimedia platform. This educational intervention will impact 
maternal awareness and knowledge about the importance of children’s early language 
environment. 
 
Theoretical Background 
The Well Baby Initiative is both an extension and a focused adaptation of the larger Thirty 
Million Words Initiative (TMW®). TMW-WB is grounded in three main bodies of literature and 
research. The first is research on early childhood language acquisition, child development, and child 
behavior. The foundation of our evidence-based curriculums derives from the differences found in 
children’s language environments, which largely depend on socio-economic status (Hart and Risley 
1995). Second is research on maternal health education and health literacy, specifically on prenatal, 
perinatal and postpartum education. Third is research and data on the impact of bilingual language 
environments on early childhood language development. Additionally, this project addresses a high 
priority topic for both patients and health care providers that has long-term implications for 
educational and health trajectories for low-SES children. In regards to making informed decisions 
about their children’s language and cognitive development, research has shown that a gap exists 
between the anticipatory guidance parents want to receive, and the guidance that is provided by 
practitioners and parent-focused interventions. Therefore, TMW-WB aims to increase parental 
knowledge of early childhood language development and to identify the most effective way to 
provide consistent anticipatory guidance to caretakers. We aim to bring these bodies of research 
together to craft a public health intervention using existing initiatives while also adding an 
important educational component. 
 
Importance of Language Acquisition on Cognitive Development: 
A child’s early language exposure is pivotal in language development and in ultimate 
educational and intellectual achievement (Bruner, 1981; Chapman, 2000; Gallaway & Richards, 
1994; Hart & Risley, 1995; Huttenlocher, Haight, Bryk, Selzer, & Lyons, 1991; Rowe, 2008). Hart and 
Risley’s landmark study demonstrated the tremendous impact of a child’s early language milieu on 
future learning by revealing a significant correlation between the number of words a child is 
exposed to between ages 0-3 and his or her ultimate IQ and academic success (Hart & Risley, 1992; 
1995). Their findings were both significant and alarming, demonstrating the critical and time-
sensitive role that early language exposure plays in a child’s life. 
 
The concern for children born into poverty is the overwhelming inequity in their early 
language experience. Hart and Risley’s study revealed a steep socioeconomic gradient in early 
exposure to words and language. At the end of their third year, children from high socioeconomic 
status (SES) families heard approximately forty-five million words; children from economically 
impoverished backgrounds heard only approximately thirteen million. Hart and Risley found that 

Protocol Version 10/1/2019 
Page 3 of 15 
more parental talk equated to faster vocabulary growth and higher IQ test scores at three years and 
older. Their follow-up with these children at 9-10 years of age confirmed that preschool/school 
interventions came too late to alter these trajectories; the reverberations of early linguistic shortfall 
were likely to follow these children throughout their lives.  
 
However, the challenges these children face is not unalterable. It is neither genetics nor a 
lack of potential that lie at the heart of this inequity, but rather parental knowledge. In 2008, Rowe 
demonstrated that the relationship between socioeconomic status and parental communication 
ability is mediated by parental knowledge (Rowe 2008). Other studies have corroborated these 
findings, demonstrating that the effect of socioeconomic status on a child’s vocabulary was 
primarily dictated by maternal speech (Hoff 2003). Encouragingly, studies have also demonstrated 
that a well-planned, parent-directed language intervention in low-income populations may 
positively affect parental speech behaviors by increasing the use of facilitative language with their 
children (Oneil-Pirozzi, 2009). 
 
Additionally, in families where neither parent has native English proficiency, parents may 
choose to speak English with their children to aid their transition into an English-speaking school 
system. However, research reveals that native language input is more supportive of language and 
cognitive development than nonnative language input. (Place & Hoff, 2011; Winsler et al., 2014) 
This strongly suggests that both quantity and quality of input matters for successful early child 
language development. Additionally, native input is critical since native proficiency in one language 
facilitates the acquisition of another language (Oller & Eilers, 2002). 
 
Addressing the Gap in Anticipatory Guidance 
Even though parent knowledge of child development has been shown to mediate language 
outcomes for low-SES children, parents report that early learning topics and discussions of 
developmental issues are information they desire but do not receive during pediatric visits (Dungy, 
2000; Young, Davis , Schoen, & Parker, 1998). Patients’ unmet needs include psychosocial concerns 
for children, and guidance in understanding how children grow and develop (Hickson, Altemeier, & 
O’Connor, 1983; McCune, Richardson, & Powell, 1984; Young et al., 1998). 
 
Practitioners agree about the need for anticipatory guidance, but report multiple barriers 
and wide variability in their use of screening tools (Sand et al., 2005). In a review conducted by 
Piotrowski, Talavera, and Mayer (2009), health care providers cited time constraints, limited staff, 
and lack of knowledge and resources for specific recommendations and preventative care (Kogan et 
al., 2004; Piotrowski et al., 2009). Similarly, Coker’s and colleagues’ (2013) systematic review 
revealed that the need for research on effective anticipatory guidance methods and redesign of 
patient-centered strategies to improve Well Baby care has been identified as a priority among 
health care providers (Chien et al., 2006; Coker et al., 2013).  
 
The proposed study is designed to fill this gap in anticipatory guidance from birth to six 
months of age by providing parents with the information they seek regarding childhood 
development. It aims to determine the most effective and scalable way to improve healthcare 
delivery and increase parent knowledge, child language outcomes, and parent-child interaction.  
 
A Participatory Model of Educational Intervention: 
The TMW-WB educational intervention is currently being designed and planned with 
iterative participation and feedback from the audience we seek to have an impact on. Exploratory 
and formative qualitative research informs the intervention, drawing insights from mothers in 
immediate post-partum, parents, and healthcare providers. Our intervention is being developed 

Protocol Version 10/1/2019 
Page 4 of 15 
with focus groups and individual interviews with mothers and parents, consultation with medical 
professionals (RNs, OB GYNs, Pediatricians), and visits to community health centers and in Chicago 
to understand the feasibility of implementation during recommended well baby visits. 
 
While the earlier TMW intervention was developed for toddlers, the TMW-WB intervention 
will be tailored for parents of newborns and infants. The advantage of TMW-WB is the employment 
of multiple touch points to disseminate information to parents, allowing for a continuous flow of 
information. The utilization of the recommended well baby visits as a platform for the TMW 
educational intervention ensures that parents receive information that parallels their baby’s 
present developmental stage rather than being predictive of future behaviors. The curriculum will 
include messages and strategies specifically for children from birth to six months of age with a 
focus on preverbal communication and mother-child attachment.   
 
The significance of the Well Baby Initiative as a Public Health Initiative 
The Well Baby Initiative is a public health effort to raise awareness about the critical 
importance of early childhood language development. For the intervention, TMW-WB will be 
integrated into the recommended and routine postpartum Well Baby visits. If successful, we aim to 
scale the TMW-WB Initiative to the national level so that the Well Baby curriculum will be available 
for all parents to watch during routine Well Baby visits nationwide. As a public health approach to 
disparities in early language environments, cognitive development, and later school readiness, 
TMW-Well Baby offers the potential for the development of a new standard of care for pediatricians. 
 
 
Purpose 
The purpose of the proposed study is to determine the efficacy of a multi-media educational 
curriculum, presented as interactive video module, in strengthening the early learning 
environments of vulnerable children, and positively impacting their language and cognitive 
development. Through evidence-based strategies, the TMW-WB curriculum teaches parents how to 
harness the power of their words to build their child’s brain and impact their child’s learning 
trajectory. 
We hypothesize that the TMW-WB intervention will be more effective in improving parent 
knowledge of child language development, parent-child interactions, and child language outcomes 
for low-SES English and Spanish-speaking families than the Neutral Video or Usual Care 
comparators (more on these below).  Additionally, we expect that parents who receive the TMW-
WB educational intervention will report receiving more consistent anticipatory guidance and 
demonstrate an improved understanding of the critical importance of their child’s early language 
environment for cognitive development and school readiness. The hypothesis relies on the existing 
research data supporting the idea that parental understanding and beliefs will alter parental 
behavior, and consequently, that increased parental linguistic input will impact their child’s 
cognitive development. 
We propose a three armed randomized-controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of the 
Thirty Million Words-Well Baby curriculum in reducing early language disparities among low-SES 
infants; specifically impacting parents by improving parent knowledge of child language 
development, parental language input and parent-child interaction, and children by improving 
language development outcomes and child-parent interaction The Thirty Million Words-Well Baby 
curriculum will constitute the treatment arm of the study (arm 1). The Neutral Video arm (arm 2), 
will act as the first control group. In the Neutral Video arm, participants view educational videos 
about infant safety. A second control group, the Usual Care arm (arm 3), will receive care as usual at 
their clinic. The same divisions will be made for those participants in the Spanish-speaking group.  
 

Protocol Version 10/1/2019 
Page 5 of 15 
 
Protocol 
 
Study Timeline: 
Participants will be recruited at Lawndale Christian Health Clinic (LCHC), Advocate Medical Group 
(AMG), Friend Family Health Center at the University of Chicago Medical Center (FFHC) or PCC 
Community Wellness Center (PCC) at their first well-baby visit. More on this in the section labeled 
Recruitment. If the parent and child are eligible for the study, the parents will be asked to give 
informed consent for the study. More detailed information is provided in the Consent section below. 
Please see the following figure for a graphical representation of the study timeline: 
 
 
 
 Surveys and Assessments: SPEAK: Survey of Parental Knowledge and Expectations about cognitive development, SPEAK-R: 
Survey of Parental Knowledge and Expectations-Research edition, TOPSE: Parenting Self-Efficacy Tool, FLE: Family Life Events 
Survey of family structure, the household, and the child's caretaker(s), TOI: Survey of Theories of Intelligence, Post-Visit Survey: 
Feedback survey about the participant's Well-Child appointment, NCAST: NCAST Teaching Scale of Parent-Child Interactions, WJ-
IV: Woodcock-Johnson IV Test of Cognitive Abilities: Verbal Reasoning Assessment, MacArthur CDI-Level I: MacArthur-Bates 
Communicative Development Inventories: Words and Gestures (Short form) 8- to 18- months, MacArthur CDI-Level II: 
MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories: Words & Sentences (Short form) 16- to 30-months, SDoH: Social 
Determinants of Health survey, STIM-Q: Measurement of the cognitive home environment, ACE: Adverse Childhood Experiences 
survey, Book-Sharing: short book sharing activity between caregiver and child. Collected and shared by partner clinic: EPDS: 
Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (or other standardized depression scale), ASQ: Ages and Stages Questionnaire, ROWPVT: 
Receptive One-word Picture Vocabulary Test, CBCL: Child Behavior Checklist, Pearlin Mastery Scale. Advice Sources: a survey 
about where parents seek advice about child development. Past parenting style experience surveys: PDSQ and family structure 
survey. 
Following consent, patients will be asked to complete four surveys and provide contact 
information. The first survey is a simple demographics questionnaire indicating their 
race/ethnicity, age, income and education level, as well as the birth-order rank of the child who will 
be participating in the study. Second, patients will fill out a Family Life Questionnaire detailing the 
family structure of the household and the child’s caregivers. Parents will be asked to fill out two 
final questionnaires that assess knowledge and beliefs. The Survey of Parental Expectations And 
Knowledge about Language Learning (SPEAK), providing a measure of their knowledge of child 
language development. Last, parents will complete the TOPSE, a tool for measuring Parenting Self-

Protocol Version 10/1/2019 
Page 6 of 15 
Efficacy. If parents are called into the pediatrician’s office before they have finished, they will be 
asked to complete the questionnaires after the visit is over. Questionnaire and assessment data will 
be collected digitally on the secure online project database REDCap. Research assistants will be 
assigned the task of obtaining consent, conducting the survey, and delivering the educational 
intervention Consent forms, questionnaires and assessments will be delivered in Spanish for 
Spanish speakers by a Spanish-speaking Research Assistant.  
 
At the one-month Well Baby visit, participants in the Usual Care arm of the study will 
receive care as usual. Participants in the Neutral Video arm will watch the first of four short videos 
(approximately 5-10 minutes) about infant safety. Patients in the TMW-Well Baby arm will watch 
the Module 1 video intervention. This module presents information on child language and cognitive 
development. Videos will be shown in the waiting room, or during the period after the nurse 
completes the child’s vitals and before the pediatrician sees the patient. Should a video still be 
running when the pediatrician enters the room, it will be stopped and completed after the 
pediatrician has left. After the visit, patients in all arms will be asked to complete the Post-Visit 
survey about their visit, indicating the areas and level of anticipatory guidance they received during 
their visit, their overall satisfaction levels, and their unmet needs for guidance and requests for 
more information. At this visit, the health clinic may collect information using a standardized 
depression scale. This provides information on the covariates parental language ability and 
depression level. Results from the depression scale will be shared by the patient’s pediatrician, both 
because pediatricians need to administer a depression scale anyway and in an effort to reduce 
burdens associated with housing the study in the clinic. If the clinic does not administer a 
depression scale, the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) will be administered by the 
research staff. 
 
At their two-month Well Baby visit, patients in the TMW-Well Baby arms will watch the 
Module 2 video intervention , while patients in the Usual Care arm will receive care as usual, and 
patients in the Neutral Video arm will watch an infant safety video. All measures will be taken in the 
same way as at the one-month Well Baby visit.  
 
At their four-month Well Baby visit, patients in the TMW-Well Baby arm will watch the 
Module 3 video intervention , while patients in the Usual Care arm will receive care as usual, and 
patients in the Neutral Video arm will watch an infant safety video. All measures will be taken in 
exactly the same way as at the one-month Well Baby visit.  
 
At their six-month Well Baby visit, patients in the TMW-Well Baby arms will watch  the 
Module 4 video intervention, while patients in the Usual Care arm will receive care as usual, and 
patients in the Neutral Video arm will watch an infant safety video. After the visit, patients in each 
group will be asked to complete the Post-Visit survey about their appointment. Additional 
measures will be taken at this visit. The SPEAK will be administered for a second time, the Verbal 
Comprehension section of the Woodcock-Johnson Test of Cognitive Abilities assessment will be 
completed, and the participants will be asked to carry out an NCAST PCI teaching task, which is a 
measure for assessing parent-child interaction via scalable teaching tasks that parents teach their 
children. Finally, the depression scale results will be shared by the patient’s pediatrician, as well as 
the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ), if applicable. The Ages and Stages Questionnaire is a 
screening questionnaire that pinpoints developmental progress in children between the ages of one 
month to 5 years. 
 
At age seven-months, or about one month after their six-month Well Baby visit, participants 
will be emailed two follow-up surveys (i.e. the SPEAK and TOPSE surveys). If they complete these 

Protocol Version 10/1/2019 
Page 7 of 15 
surveys within four weeks of receipt, they are eligible for a $10 gift card to be emailed. If the 
surveys are not completed, participants will not receive the gift-card and will complete these 
surveys at their next Well-Baby visit. 
 
At their nine-month Well Baby visit, all patients will participate in a second NCAST PCI 
teaching scale task with their child. At this visit, the MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development 
Inventories: Short Form Vocabulary Checklist: Level 1(MacArthur-CDI) will be administered. 
Finally, the depression scale and ASQ results will be shared by the patient’s pediatrician, if 
applicable. 
 
At their twelve-month Well Baby visit, all patients complete the Family Life Events, SPEAK 
and TOPSE surveys again. Participants will also participate in a third NCAST PCI teaching scale task 
with their child. The MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories Short Form 
Vocabulary Checklist: Level 1 (MacArthur-CDI) will be administered. Finally, any depression scale 
and ASQ results will be shared by the patient’s pediatrician, if applicable. 
 
We are offering participants the opportunity to extend their participation in the study to their 18-
month and 24 –month well child visits. If participants choose to extend their participation in the 
study: 
 
At their 18-month Well Baby visit, participants will complete the MacArthur-Bates 
Communicative Development Inventories Short Form Vocabulary Checklist: Level 2 (MacArthur-
CDI), the Family Life Events survey, a survey about social determinants of health, the Theories of 
Intelligence (TOI) survey, and the SPEAK-R survey. Also, participants will participate in a NCAST 
PCI teaching scale task with their child. Finally, any depression scale and ASQ results will be shared 
by the patient’s pediatrician, if applicable. 
 
At their 24-month Well Baby visit, participants will complete the MacArthur-Bates 
Communicative Development Inventories Short Form Vocabulary Checklist: Level 2 (MacArthur-
CDI), the StimQ Cognitive Home Environment survey, a survey about Social Determinants of Health 
(SDoH), a survey about Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs), repeated select demographics 
questions, and the SPEAK-R. Also the participants will be asked to carry out an NCAST PCI teaching 
task and a short book-sharing activity with their child. Finally, any depression scale and ASQ results 
will be shared by the patient’s pediatrician, if applicable. 
 
We are offering participants the opportunity to extend their participation in the study to a 30-
month home visit. If participants choose to extend their participation in the study:   
 
Around age 30-months, participants will complete the Receptive One-word Picture 
Vocabulary Test (ROWPVT), two surveys about previous parenting style experiences (PDSQ and 
family structure), Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), the TOPSE, a survey about seeking advice about 
child development, and the Pearlin Mastery Scale. 
 
 
Recruitment  
Participants will be recruited from Lawndale Christian Health Center (LCHC), Advocate 
Medical Group (AMG), Friend Family Health Center at the University of Chicago Medicine (FFHC) 
and PCC Community Wellness Center (PCC). All study locations are federally qualified health 
centers in Chicago serving low-SES English-speaking and Spanish-speaking families and their 
infants. Patients will be recruited in the clinic waiting room before being called in for the infant’s 
first Well Baby visit at approximately 1 week after birth. If interested, patients will move to a more 

Protocol Version 10/1/2019 
Page 8 of 15 
private space in the waiting room area, where they will be screened for eligibility. If families are 
eligible and would like to participate, they will be consented. 
 
Consent 
All participants will be asked to read and sign an Informed Consent Form following the 
delivery of a script. For Spanish speaking participants, informed consent and all consent materials 
will be administered and completed in Spanish with a Spanish-speaking Research Assistant.  
Trained research assistants will go over the consent form one section at a time, answering any 
questions along the way. We will ask permission to obtain contact information including name, 
address, telephone and email in order to contact subject and complete follow-up survey. Research 
staff will keep one copy and the participant will keep one copy. This will take place during the first 
well baby visit at LCHC, AMG, FFHC, or PCC clinics while the potential study participant waits to see 
the pediatrician. So that Dr. Suskind or her research team may contact the participants in the future, 
we will consent for permission to keep contact information from this study (name, address, phone 
number, and email address) in a password-protected database.  
 
Randomization 
We will use the website Research Randomizer to generate a randomization table. We will 
use the service to generate a dummy set of 500 unique unsorted numbers where each unique 
number is paired with a participant number (1-250, sorted). In an Excel spreadsheet, the first half 
of the dummy number set) will be assigned evenly to the Treatment condition (arm 1) and the 
other half will be assigned evenly to the Control conditions (arms 2 or 3). Then, the data in the 
columns “participant”, “condition” and “dummy” will be sorted using the Excel “Sort by” function on 
the column “dummy”. The participant numbers are now unsorted and randomly assigned to either 
one of the two experimental conditions: Treatment or Control. This will allow us to ensure equal 
sample sizes for all treatment and control conditions. A separate randomization table will be crated 
in the same way for the Spanish-speaking group. 
 
Participants 
 
Participants will include a goal of 250 Spanish- and 250- English speaking parent-child 
dyads (500 parent-child dyads; a total of 1000 subjects) from LCHC, AMG, FFHC, and PCC. These 
participants will be randomly assigned to either the TMW-Well Baby, Neutral Video, or Usual Care 
conditions in English or Spanish as described above. All 500 parent-child dyads will be allocated to 
one of the six experimental conditions: TMW-Well Baby English, Neutral Video English, Usual Care 
English, TMW-Well Baby Spanish, Neutral Video Spanish or Usual Care Spanish. 
 
 
Exclusion criteria 
Exclusion criteria is as follows: 1) participants (i.e. parents and their children) who live over 
200% of the federal poverty line, 2) parents under the age of 18, 3) children older than 1 month old 
(at start of study), 4) parents who do not have legal custody of their child, 5) parents whose child 
does not live with them, 6) parents who are unable to commit to the intervention requirements, 7) 
foster parents, 8) children who have experienced any of the following conditions: premature birth 
(36 weeks or less), cleft lip or cleft palate (and syndromes associated with clefts), Neurocutaneous 
syndromes (nf1 and 2, tuberous sclerosis, etc), Trisomy, cerebral palsy, history of failing a hearing 
test, syndromes associated with sensorineural hearing loss (alport, jervell-lange-nielsen, 
waardenburg, treacher-collins, etc), TORCH infection, Head bleeds or history of intraventricular 
hemorrhage (IVH), or has had a tracheal intubation, 9) parents who have earned or are currently 
working toward a graduate or professional degree (e.g. M.A., M.S., M.B.A). 

Protocol Version 10/1/2019 
Page 9 of 15 
 
Payment  
Patients who participate in this study will receive a total of $200 in cash and gift-cards, plus 
an additional opportunity to receive $80 in cash if they choose to extend their participation in this 
study. Of the initial $200, $190 will be received in cash divided across seven sessions – $10 at the 
first Well Baby visit and enrollment, $20 at the one-, two-, four-month Well-Baby clinical visits, $40 
at the 6-month visit, $30 at their 9-month visit, and $50 at their 12-month well baby visit. At 7-
months participants are eligible for a $10 gift-card to their choice of Wal-Mart of Target. 
Participants will have the opportunity to complete study activities at the 18-month and 24-
month Well-Baby clinical visits. Participants will be paid $30 in cash for completion of these tasks at 
the 18-month visit, and $50 in cash for completion of these tasks at the 24-month visit.  
Participants will have the opportunity to complete study activities at a 30-month home visit. 
Participants will be paid $30 in cash for completion of these tasks at the 30-month home visit. 
 
Risks and Benefits of Participation 
Risks are minimal, relating mostly to loss of confidentiality. Testing involves answering a 
questionnaire, providing demographic information, and in-clinic videotaping. The data will be 
stored in password-protected computers and stored in locked file cabinets. Benefits include the 
chance to provide feedback to clinic providers on each of the Well Baby visits attended. For those in 
the TMW-Well Baby intervention groups, there is the possible benefit of increased knowledge of the 
importance of early childhood language for cognitive development. 
 
Analysis 
Paired t-tests will be used to analyze total survey scores before and after intervention. 
ANOVAs will be used to evaluate differences in outcomes based on SES and other variables in 
intervention vs. control group.  
 
Confidentiality and Data Sharing 
The raw data will only be made available to the PI and study personnel listed on the 
protocol. Contact information for the participants will be stored on password-protected computers. 
Survey participants’ names will be replaced with numerical codes such that survey scores will not 
be attached directly to the participants’ contact information in order to protect anonymity. Via a 
data-sharing contracts agreement, de-identified data will be shared with LCHC, AMG, FFHC, and 
PCC. After the completion of their participation in the study, video data collected during the 
duration of the study will be shared with the participant upon their request. After a participant 
requests copies of their video data, research personnel will prepare flash drives using their video files. Once 
the flash drives are ready, they will be in contact with the participant to coordinate a time to drop-off the 
flash drive to the participant. All results from surveys and assessment measures will be shared under 
this agreement. The data will be carefully monitored to protect patient privacy. All paper data will 
be stored in a locked cabinet in a locked office with access allowed only to researchers affiliated 
with the project. 
 
Files from the 24 month book-sharing activity will be shared with a contracted third party transcription 
service in order to prepare the video files for analysis. The videos files will be de-identified by extracting 
the audio before sending. Only the audio recording will be sent to the transcription service and they will 
be saved under a coded ID number so that the transcription service receives no identifiable participant 
information. The contractor will listen to and transcribe each audio file, which is a necessary first step 
before any analyses can be done on the videos. Files will be shared using UChicago Box and staff from 

Protocol Version 10/1/2019 
Page 10 of 15 
the transcription service will need a password in order to access the audio recordings. Files will be 
removed from UChicago Box after they are complete. 
References:  
 
Early childhood language acquisition, child language development, and child behavior: 
 
American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Public Education, (2001). Children, adolescents, and 
television. Pediatrics,107 (2), 423–426.  
 
Bialystok, E., Majumder, S., Martin, M. M., (2003). Developing phonological awareness: Is there a 
bilingual advantage? Applied Psycholinguistics, 24(1), 27-44. 
 
Bloom, L. (1993). The transition from infancy to language. New York: Cambridge University Press. 
 
Bloom, L. (1998). Language acquisition in its developmental context. In D. Kuhn & R. S. Siegler (Ed.), W.  
 
Damon (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2. Cognition, perception, and language, (5th ed., 
pp. 309–370). New York: Wiley. 
 
Broaders , S. C. Cook , S. W. Mitchell , Z. Goldin-Meadow , S. (2007). Making children gesture brings out 
implicit knowledge and leads to learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136 (4), 539-550. 
 
Carpenter, M., Nagell, K., & Tomasello, M. (1998). Social cognition, joint attention and communicative 
competence from 9 to 15 months of age. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 
63(4, Serial No. 255).   
 
Cooper, R. P., Abraham, J., Berman, S., & Staska, M. (1997). The development of infants' preference 
for motherese. Infant Behavior & Development, Vol 20(4), 477-488. 
 
Dieterich, S.E., Assel, M. A., Swank, P., Smith, K. E., & Landry, S. H. (2006) The impact of early maternal 
verbal scaffolding and child language abilities on later decoding and reading comprehension skills. 
Journal of School Psychology, 43, 481-494. 
 
Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P., et al. (2007). 
School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1428–1446. 
 
Fernald, A. (1985). Four-month-old infants prefer to listen to motherese. Infant Behavior and 
Development, 8, 181-195. 
 
Funk, J. B., Brouwer, J., Curtiss, K., & McBroom, E., (2009). Parents of preschoolers: expert media 
recommendations and ratings knowledge, media-effects beliefs, and monitoring practices. Pediatrics, 
123, 981-988. 
 
Genesee, F., Boivin, I., Nicoladis, E., (1996). Talking with strangers: A study of bilingual  
children's communicative competence. Applied Psycholinguistics. 17(4), 427-442. 
 

Protocol Version 10/1/2019 
Page 11 of 15 
Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American 
children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. 
 
Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M., Cymerman, E., & Levine, S. (2002). Language input and child syntax. 
Cognitive psychology, 45(3), 337–74.  
 
Huttenlocher, J., Waterfall, H., Vasilyeva, M., Vevea, J., & Hedges, L. V. (2010). Sources of variability in 
children’s language growth. Cognitive Psychology, 61, 343–365. 
 
Iverson, J. M., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2005). Gesture paves the way for language development. 
Psychological Science, 16, 368–371. 
 
Kcrmar, M., Grela, B., & Lin, K. (2007). Can toddlers learn vocabulary from television? An experimental 
approach. Media Psychology, 10:41–63.  
 
Kirkorian, H. L., Pempek, T. A., Murphy, L. A., Schmidt, M. E., & Anderson, D. R. (2009). The impact of 
background television on parent-child interaction. Child Development, 80(5), 1350-1359. 
 
Lonigan, C. J., & Whitehurst, G. J. (1998). Relative efficacy of parent and teacher involvement in a 
shared-reading intervention for preschool children from low-income backgrounds. Early Childhood  
Research Quarterly, 13(2), 263–290. 
 
Masur, E.F., Flynn, V., Eichorst, D., (2005). Maternal responsive and directive behaviours and utterances 
as predictors of children's lexical development. Journal of Child Language, 32(1), 63-91. 
 
Moore, C., & Dunham, P. (1995). Joint attention: Its origins and role in development. Mahwah, NJ: 
Erlbaum. 
 
Pan , B.A. Rowe, M. Spier, E. Tamis-Lemonda, C. (2004). Measuring productive vocabulary of toddlers in 
low-income families: Concurrent and predictive. Journal of Child Language, 31, 587-608. 
 
Place, S., & Hoff, E. (2011). Properties of Dual Language Exposure That Influence 2-Year-Olds’ Bilingual 
Proficiency. Child Development, 82(6), 1834–1849. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01660.x 
 
Phillips, M. (2011). Parenting, time use, and disparities in academic outcomes. In G. Duncan & R.  
 
Murnane (Eds.), Whither opportunity: rising inequality schools, and children’s life chances (pp. 207–228). 
New York, NY: Russell Sage. 
 
Oller, D. K., & Eilers, R. E. (2002). Language and Literacy in Bilingual Children. Bristol, United Kingdom: 
Multilingual Matters. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=iSVAcN5_mJ0C 
 
O'Neil-Pirozzi, T. M. (2009). Feasibility and benefit of parent participation in a program emphasizing 
preschool child language development while homeless. American Journal of Speech-Language 
Pathology, 18(3), 252-263. 
 
Rowe, M. L. (2012). A longitudinal investigation of the role of quantity and quality of child-directed 
speech in vocabulary development. Child Development, 83(5), 1762-1774. 

Protocol Version 10/1/2019 
Page 12 of 15 
 
Rowe, M. L., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2009a). Early gesture selectively predicts later language learning. 
Developmental Science, 12, 182 187. 
 
Rowe, M. L., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2009b). Differences in early gesture explain SES disparities in child 
vocabulary size at school entry. Science, 323, 951–953. 
 
Schmidt, M. E., Rich, M., Rifas-Shiman, S. L., Oken, E., & Taveras, E. M. (2009). Television viewing in 
infancy and child cognition at 3 years of age in a US cohort. Pediatrics, 123(3), e370-e375. 
 
Setliff, A. E., & Courage, M. L., (2011). Background television and infants’ allocation of their attention 
during toy play. Infancy, Vol 16(6), Nov-Dec 2011, 611-639. 
 
Senechal, M., & LeFevre, J. (2002). Parental involvement in the development of children’s reading skill: a 
five-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 73(2), 445-460. 
 
Snow, C. E. (1972). Mothers’ speech to children learning language. Child Development, 43, 549–565. 
 
Snow, C. E., Burns, S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, 
DC: National Academy Press. 
 
Schoon, I., Parsons, S., Rush, R., & Law, J. (2010). Children's language ability and psychosocial 
development: a 29-year a follow-up study. Pediatrics, 126, e73-e80. 
 
Tamis-LeMonda , C. S. Bornstein , M. H. Baumwell , L. (2001). Maternal responsiveness and children's 
achievement of language milestones. Child Development 72, 748-67. 
 
Wasik, B. A., & Bond, M. A. (2001). Beyond the pages of a book: Interactive book reading and language 
development in preschool classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 243–250. 
 
Whitehurst, G. J., Falco, F. L., Lonigan, C. J., Fischel, J. E., DeBaryshe, B. D., Valdez-Menchaca, M. C., et al. 
(1988). Accelerating language development through picture book reading. Developmental Psychology, 
24, 552–559. 
 
Winsler, A., Burchinal, M. R., Tien, H.-C., Peisner-Feinberg, E., Espinosa, L., Castro, D. C., … De Feyter, J. 
(2014). Early development among dual language learners: The roles of language use at home, maternal 
immigration, country of origin, and socio-demographic variables. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 
29(4), 750–764. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.02.008 
 
Health Education, Maternal Health Literacy and Postpartum Learning Needs 
 
Beger, D., & Loveland Cook, C. A. (1998). Postpartum Teaching Priorities: The Viewpoints of Nurses and 
Mothers. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, & Neonatal Nursing, 27(2), 161–168.  
 
Bernaix, L. W., Beaman, M. L., Schmidt, C. A., Harris, J. K., & Miller, L. M. (2010). Success of an 
Educational Intervention on Maternal/Newborn Nurses’ Breastfeeding Knowledge and Attitudes. Journal 
of Obstetric, Gynecologic, & Neonatal Nursing, 39(6), 658–666.  
 

Protocol Version 10/1/2019 
Page 13 of 15 
Bernstein, H. H., Rieber, S., Stoltz, R. A., Shapiro, D. E., & Connors, K. M. (2004). Assessing the learning 
needs of maternal and child health professionals to teach health promotion. Maternal and child health 
journal, 8(2), 87–93. 
 
Bowman, K. G. (2005). Postpartum Learning Needs. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, & Neonatal 
Nursing, 34(4), 438–443.  
 
Buchko, B. L., Gutshall, C. H., & Jordan, E. T. (2012). Improving quality and efficiency of postpartum 
hospital education. The Journal of perinatal education, 21(4), 238–247.  
 
Bull, M., & Lawrence, D. (1985). Mothers’Use of Knowledge During the First Postpartum Weeks. Journal 
of Obstetric, Gynecologic, & Neonatal Nursing, 14(4), 315–320.  
 
Cheng, C.-Y., Fowles, E. R., & Walker, L. O. (2006). Postpartum Maternal Health Care in the United 
States: A Critical Review. The Journal of Perinatal Education, 15(3), 34–42.  
 
Chien, A., Coker, T., Choi, L., Slora, E., Bodnar, P., Weiley, V., … Johnson, J. (2006). What Do Pediatric 
Primary Care Providers Think Are Important Research Questions? A Perspective From PROS Providers. 
Ambulatory Pediatrics, 6(6), 352–355. doi:10.1016/j.ambp.2006.07.002 
 
Coker, T. R., Windon, A., Moreno, C., Schuster, M. A., & Chung, P. J. (2013). Well Baby Care Clinical 
Practice Redesign for Young Children: A Systematic Review of Strategies and Tools. PEDIATRICS, 
131(Supplement), S5–S25. doi:10.1542/peds.2012-1427c 
 
Davis, J. H., Brucker, M. C., & Macmullen, N. J. (1988). A study of mothers’ postpartum teaching 
priorities. Maternal-child nursing journal, 17(1), 41–50. 
 
Dungy, C. I. (2000). Anticipatory guidance: Missed opportunities. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent 
Medicine, 154(12), 1185–1186. doi:10.1001/archpedi.154.12.1185 
 
Evans, S., & Jeffrey, J. (1995). Maternal Learning Needs During Labor and Delivery. Journal of Obstetric, 
Gynecologic, & Neonatal Nursing, 24(3), 235–240.  
 
Fowles, E., Cheng, H.-R., & Mills, S. (2012). Postpartum Health Promotion Interventions: A Systematic 
Review. Nursing Research July/August 2012, 61(4), 269–282.  
 
Hickson, G. B., Altemeier, W. A., & O’Connor, S. (1983). Concerns of mothers seeking care in private 
pediatric offices: opportunities for expanding services. Pediatrics, 72(5), 619–624. 
 
Kogan, M. D., Schuster, M. A., Yu, S. M., Park, C. H., Olson, L. M., Inkelas, M., … Halfon, N. (2004). 
Routine Assessment of Family and Community Health Risks: Parent Views and What They Receive. 
Pediatrics, 113(Supplement 5), 1934–1943. 
 
McCune, Y. D., Richardson, M. M., & Powell, J. A. (1984). Psychosocial Health Issues in Pediatric 
Practices: Parents’ Knowledge and Concerns. Pediatrics, 74(2), 183–190. 
 
McKellar, L. V., Pincombe, J., & Henderson, A. M. (2002). Congratulations you’re a mother: a strategy for 
enhancing postnatal education for first-time mothers investigated through an action research cycle. 

Protocol Version 10/1/2019 
Page 14 of 15 
Australian journal of midwifery: professional journal of the Australian College of Midwives Incorporated, 
15(3), 24–31. 
 
Piotrowski, C. C., Talavera, G. A., & Mayer, J. A. (2009). Healthy Steps: A Systematic Review of a 
Preventive Practice-Based Model of Pediatric Care: Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 
30(1), 91–103. doi:10.1097/DBP.0b013e3181976a95 
 
Sand, N., Silverstein, M., Glascoe, F. P., Gupta, V. B., Tonniges, T. P., & O’Connor, K. G. (2005). 
Pediatricians’ reported practices regarding developmental screening: do guidelines work? Do they help? 
Pediatrics, 116(1), 174–179. doi:10.1542/peds.2004-1809 
 
Sword, W., & Watt, S. (2005). Learning Needs of Postpartum Women: Does Socioeconomic Status 
Matter? Birth, 32(2), 86–92.  
 
Young, K. T., Davis K, Schoen C, & Parker S. (1998). Listening to parents: A national survey of parents 
with young children. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 152(3), 255–262. 
doi:10.1001/archpedi.152.3.255 
 
Universal Newborn Hearing Screening: 
 
Alam, S., Gaffney, M., & Eichwald, J. (2013). Improved Newborn Hearing Screening Follow-up Results in 
More Infants Identified. Journal of public health management and practice: JPHMP.  
 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013, April). 2011 CDC EHDI Hearing Screening Summary. 
Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/hearingloss/ehdi-data2011.html 
 
Crockett, R., Wright, A. J., Uus, K., Bamford, J., & Marteau, T. M. (2006). Maternal anxiety following 
newborn hearing screening: the moderating role of knowledge. Journal of medical screening, 13(1), 20–
25.  
 
Deem, K. C., Diaz-Ordaz, E. A., & Shiner, B. (2012). Identifying Quality Improvement Opportunities in a 
Universal Newborn Hearing Screening Program. Pediatrics, 129(1), e157–e164.  
 
Ferro, L. M., Tanner, G., Erler, S. F., Erickson, K., & Dhar, S. (2007). Comparison of universal newborn 
hearing screening programs in Illinois hospitals. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 
71(2), 217–230.  
 
Gaffney, M., Green, D. R., & Gaffney, C. (2010). Newborn Hearing Screening and Follow-up: Are Children 
Receiving Recommended Services? Public Health Reports, 125(2), 199–207. 
 
Holte, L., Walker, E., Oleson, J., Spratford, M., Moeller, M. P., Roush, P., Tomblin, J. B. (2012). Factors 
influencing follow-up to newborn hearing screening for infants who are hard of hearing. American 
Journal Of Audiology, 21(2), 163–174.  
 
Yoshinaga-Itano, C. (2004). Levels of evidence: universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) and early 
hearing detection and intervention systems (EHDI). Journal of communication disorders, 37(5), 451–465.  
 
Research Methodology: 

Protocol Version 10/1/2019 
Page 15 of 15 
 
Winickoff, J.P et al. (2010) Using the Postpartum Hospital Stay to Address Mothers’ and Fathers’ 
Smoking: The NEWS Study.  Pediatrics: (125) 518-525.