Child DevelopmentNCT05037773
Intervention Targeting Parental Reminiscing and Its Effects on Preschoolers' Memory and Metacognition
A study testing Intervention targeting parental reminiscing style in people with Child Development and Parent-Child Relations, run by University of Liege at 1 site in Belgium.
Trial summary
This randomized controlled study aims to investigate the effects of an intervention targeting parental reminiscing style on preschoolers' memory (i.e., episodic and autobiographical) and metacognition (i.e., confidence judgment and memorability-based heuristic). Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 36 to 71 monthsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Child Development, Parent-Child Relations
- What is being tested?
- Intervention targeting parental reminiscing style
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 40 participants
- Where
- 1 siteBelgium
- Study dates
- 21 Jan 2021to Jan 2022
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 36 to 71 months
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child
Who may be able to join
- Children: French as mother tong
- Parent : be the parent who talks the most with the child (if both parents speak equally, the choice of the participating parent is left to them)
Who cannot join
- Children: major cognitive or language difficulties at the time of the study and attested by a neuropsychological or language assessment
- Children: actual medication that may lead to cognitive difficulties
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Training Parents in an Elaborative Reminiscing Style to Boost Preschoolers' Development of Memory and Metacognition: A Randomized Controlled Study
This randomized controlled study aims to investigate the effects of an intervention targeting parental reminiscing style on preschoolers' memory (i.e., episodic and autobiographical) and metacognition (i.e., confidence judgment and memorability-based heuristic).
Read the detailed description
It has been demonstrated that parental reminiscing plays an important role in preschoolers' cognitive development among which memory (Waters \& al., 2019). Specifically, both correlational and interventional studies show that children of parents using a high-elaborative style during reminiscing (i.e., frequent, detailed and collaborative discussions about the past) recount their memories in a more detailed and coherent way (Wu \& Jobson, 2019). Besides, some correlational studies (e.g., Langley et al., 2017) seem to also reveal an effect of parental reminiscing on children's ability to learn new information, as assessed in clinical neuropsychology by episodic memory tasks. However, the mechanisms underlying these influences are currently unclear. Indeed, several non-mutually exclusive hypotheses are frequently suggested (e.g., among which the development of metacognition (Rudek \& Haden, 2005)) but, to date, have never been tested. Identifying these mechanisms could contribute to design interventions targeting parental reminiscing and to determine in which clinical contexts to use them. Currently, interventional studies in the field are scarce (for a review, see Corsano \& Guidotti, 2019) and lack of consensus.
The primary aims of the present study are multiple. First, we aim to evaluate the effectiveness of a brief intervention program to improve the way parents reminisce with their child. After the intervention, we expect an increase in the frequency of use of the targeted behaviors and thus an increase in the level of parental elaboration. The second goal of this study is to explore the effects of the improvements in parental reminiscing style on children's memory skills, both autobiographical memory (i.e., ability to recount one's own memories) and episodic memory (i.e., ability to learn new information). Regarding autobiographical memory, we anticipate to replicate the results shown in other interventional studies (i.e., an increase in the amount of information reported by children at the end of the intervention; for a review, see Corsano \& Guidotti, 2019). Regarding episodic memory, based on the results of correlational studies (e.g., Léonard et al., in prep), we anticipate after the intervention to show among children an improved ability to learn new information. Beyond these primary aims, secondary aims are also targeted in this study. Currently, the mechanisms underlying the relation between parental reminiscing and child's memory are still relatively unknown. A hypothesis that is frequently suggested is the development of metacognition (Rudek \& Haden, 2005). One purpose of this study is to test this assumption by focusing on 2 metacognitive skills that develop during the preschool years: (a) the ability to make confidence judgments, (b) the ability to use the memorability-based heuristic. After the intervention, we expect children to make more accurate confidence judgments and to use more successfully the memorability-based heuristic to guide their memory decisions. Therefore, we may obtain information on the active ingredients of the relation between parental reminiscing and memory. Then, in an exploratory way, we explore whether such an intervention could improve parental cognitions as well as parents' perception of reminiscing with their child. We anticipate an improvement in parental cognitions and a more positive perception of reminiscing. Finally, we are interested in assessing parents' adherence to the intervention by exploring their feelings about its format, content and feasibility in daily life.
For all these purposes, a randomized controlled trial is currently being conducted. 2 experimental groups have been created and parent-child dyads were assigned to one of them using a stratified randomization on children's age and when possible on children's gender. Participants from both groups begin the study with an assessment of all variables of interest (i.e., baseline1). Immediately after this baseline assessment, participants from Group 1 receive the intervention. Participants from Group 2 (i.e., a waiting-list group acting as a control group) receive exactly the same intervention but later (i.e., after a second baseline assessment which is held after the completion of the intervention by the Group 1). Approximatively 2 weeks after the intervention, the dyads in each group undergo a post-intervention assessment (i.e., follow-up 1; similar to the baseline assessments). Besides, 6 months later, the Group 1 will participate in a follow-up session to check the persistence of the effects over time (i.e., follow-up 2). If the intervention is successful, this long-term follow-up may allow us to show either the maintenance of effects over time (e.g., an increase in parental elaboration) and/or the appearance of some effects (e.g., effects on child outcomes due to the time it takes for the improvement in parental style to have an effect on them).
In this study, all parents are provided with an 8-session intervention (i.e., 1 session/week) targeting different aspects of parental reminiscing: (a) the promotion of child participation (e.g., through parent's use of feedbacks), (b) the structure of reminiscing (e.g., parent's use of open-ended questions) and (c) the content addressed during reminiscing (e.g., contextual information). Parents learn to use the target behaviors through different standardized techniques: (a) psychoeducation, (b) modeling and (c) supervised practice. Due to Covid-19 epidemic, the intervention is held completely online (i.e., 4 e-learnings and 4 videoconferencing sessions).
- Conditions
- Child Development, Parent-Child Relations
- Being tested
- Intervention targeting parental reminiscing style
- Keywords
- Typically developing preschoolers, Parental reminiscing, Memory, Metacognition
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Intervention targeting parental reminiscing styleBehavioural
8-session intervention (i.e., 1 session/week) targeting 3 main aspects of parental reminiscing: the promotion of child participation, the structure of discussions about the past and the content addressed during these discussions. Different learning techniques are used: psychoeducation, modeling and supervised practice.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Group 1 | Experimental | In this condition, the intervention is administered immediately after the baseline. Receives: Behavioral: Intervention targeting parental reminiscing style |
| Group 2 (waiting-list group) | Experimental | This group is both a control and an experimental group. Indeed, the intervention (i.e., the same as for group 1) is administered but after a second baseline which is held after the completion of the Group 1. This condition will allow to check the specific efficiency of the intervention. Receives: Behavioral: Intervention targeting parental reminiscing style |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Parental reminiscing style
Filmed parent-child discussion about a shared event of the previous day (as naturally as possible, without time constraint and in absence of the experimenter). These discussions will be transcribed for analysis with a specific coding scheme. Index : based on various raw scores, indexes will be computed.
Measured: Group 1 : Baseline 1 (1 week before the intervention)
Parental reminiscing style
Filmed parent-child discussion about a shared event of the previous day (as naturally as possible, without time constraint and in absence of the experimenter). These discussions will be transcribed for analysis with a specific coding scheme. Index : based on various raw scores, indexes will be computed.
Measured: Group 1 : Follow-up 1 (2 weeks after the intervention)
Parental reminiscing style
Filmed parent-child discussion about a shared event of the previous day (as naturally as possible, without time constraint and in absence of the experimenter). These discussions will be transcribed for analysis with a specific coding scheme. Index : based on various raw scores, indexes will be computed.
Measured: Group 1 : Follow-up 2 (6 months after the intervention)
Parental reminiscing style
Filmed parent-child discussion about a shared event of the previous day (as naturally as possible, without time constraint and in absence of the experimenter). These discussions will be transcribed for analysis with a specific coding scheme. Index : based on various raw scores, indexes will be computed.
Measured: Group 2 : Baseline 1 (10 weeks before the intervention)
Parental reminiscing style
Filmed parent-child discussion about a shared event of the previous day (as naturally as possible, without time constraint and in absence of the experimenter). These discussions will be transcribed for analysis with a specific coding scheme. Index : based on various raw scores, indexes will be computed.
Measured: Group 2 : Baseline 2 (1 week before the intervention)
Parental reminiscing style
Filmed parent-child discussion about a shared event of the previous day (as naturally as possible, without time constraint and in absence of the experimenter). These discussions will be transcribed for analysis with a specific coding scheme. Index : based on various raw scores, indexes will be computed.
Measured: Group 2 : Follow-up 1 (2 weeks after the intervention)
Explicit knowledge about parental reminiscing
10-item questionnaire aimed to assess parents' explicit knowledge about how to effectively discuss the past with their child (i.e., each item consists in a scenario and parents have to choose among different options which one would be the best way to interact with their child). 3 parallel versions of this questionnaire were created (i.e., order counterbalanced). Index : number of correct responses.
Measured: Group 1 : Baseline 1 (1 week before the intervention)
Explicit knowledge about parental reminiscing
10-item questionnaire aimed to assess parents' explicit knowledge about how to effectively discuss the past with their child (i.e., each item consists in a scenario and parents have to choose among different options which one would be the best way to interact with their child). 3 parallel versions of this questionnaire were created (i.e., order counterbalanced). Index : number of correct responses.
Measured: Group 1 : Follow-up 1 (2 weeks after the intervention)
Explicit knowledge about parental reminiscing
10-item questionnaire aimed to assess parents' explicit knowledge about how to effectively discuss the past with their child (i.e., each item consists in a scenario and parents have to choose among different options which one would be the best way to interact with their child). 3 parallel versions of this questionnaire were created (i.e., order counterbalanced). Index : number of correct responses.
Measured: Group 1 : Follow-up 2 (6 months after the intervention)
Explicit knowledge about parental reminiscing
10-item questionnaire aimed to assess parents' explicit knowledge about how to effectively discuss the past with their child (i.e., each item consists in a scenario and parents have to choose among different options which one would be the best way to interact with their child). 3 parallel versions of this questionnaire were created (i.e., order counterbalanced). Index : number of correct responses.
Measured: Group 2 : Baseline 1 (10 weeks before the intervention)
Explicit knowledge about parental reminiscing
10-item questionnaire aimed to assess parents' explicit knowledge about how to effectively discuss the past with their child (i.e., each item consists in a scenario and parents have to choose among different options which one would be the best way to interact with their child). 3 parallel versions of this questionnaire were created (i.e., order counterbalanced). Index : number of correct responses.
Measured: Group 2 : Baseline 2 (1 week before the intervention)
Explicit knowledge about parental reminiscing
10-item questionnaire aimed to assess parents' explicit knowledge about how to effectively discuss the past with their child (i.e., each item consists in a scenario and parents have to choose among different options which one would be the best way to interact with their child). 3 parallel versions of this questionnaire were created (i.e., order counterbalanced). Index : number of correct responses.
Measured: Group 2 : Follow-up 1 (2 weeks after the intervention)
Children's autobiographical memory
Retrieval of autobiographical memories cued by words (i.e., food, play, family, friend, happy, cry). 2 words/assessment (i.e., order counterbalanced). Children's production will be analyzed through a specific coding scheme. Index : the nature and the richness of information addressed by children.
Measured: Group 1 : Baseline 1 (1 week before the intervention)
Children's autobiographical memory
Retrieval of autobiographical memories cued by words (i.e., food, play, family, friend, happy, cry). 2 words/assessment (i.e., order counterbalanced). Children's production will be analyzed through a specific coding scheme. Index : the nature and the richness of information addressed by children.
Measured: Group 1 : Follow-up 1 (2 weeks after the intervention)
Children's autobiographical memory
Retrieval of autobiographical memories cued by words (i.e., food, play, family, friend, happy, cry). 2 words/assessment (i.e., order counterbalanced). Children's production will be analyzed through a specific coding scheme. Index : the nature and the richness of information addressed by children.
Measured: Group 1 : Follow-up 2 (6 months after the intervention)
Children's autobiographical memory
Retrieval of autobiographical memories cued by words (i.e., food, play, family, friend, happy, cry). 2 words/assessment (i.e., order counterbalanced). Children's production will be analyzed through a specific coding scheme. Index : the nature and the richness of information addressed by children.
Measured: Group 2 : Baseline 1 (10 weeks before the intervention)
Children's autobiographical memory
Retrieval of autobiographical memories cued by words (i.e., food, play, family, friend, happy, cry). 2 words/assessment (i.e., order counterbalanced). Children's production will be analyzed through a specific coding scheme. Index : the nature and the richness of information addressed by children.
Measured: Group 2 : Baseline 2 (1 week before the intervention)
Children's autobiographical memory
Retrieval of autobiographical memories cued by words (i.e., food, play, family, friend, happy, cry). 2 words/assessment (i.e., order counterbalanced). Children's production will be analyzed through a specific coding scheme. Index : the nature and the richness of information addressed by children.
Measured: Group 2 : Follow-up 1 (2 weeks after the intervention)
Children's episodic memory (1)
Assessment of children's ability to learn new information through the House Test (Picard et al., 2012) and 2 parallel versions created by our research team for this study (i.e., order counterbalanced). These tasks include an encoding phase and a retrieval phase in the form of free-recall and recognition after a 10-minute delay Index : number of correct responses at the free-recall task and the recognition task.
Measured: Group 1 : Baseline 1 (1 week before the intervention)
Children's episodic memory (1)
Assessment of children's ability to learn new information through the House Test (Picard et al., 2012) and 2 parallel versions created by our research team for this study (i.e., order counterbalanced). These tasks include an encoding phase and a retrieval phase in the form of free-recall and recognition after a 10-minute delay Index : number of correct responses at the free-recall task and the recognition task.
Measured: Group 1 : Follow-up 1 (2 weeks after the intervention)
Children's episodic memory (1)
Assessment of children's ability to learn new information through the House Test (Picard et al., 2012) and 2 parallel versions created by our research team for this study (i.e., order counterbalanced). These tasks include an encoding phase and a retrieval phase in the form of free-recall and recognition after a 10-minute delay Index : number of correct responses at the free-recall task and the recognition task.
Measured: Group 1 : Follow-up 2 (6 months after the intervention)
Children's episodic memory (1)
Assessment of children's ability to learn new information through the House Test (Picard et al., 2012) and 2 parallel versions created by our research team for this study (i.e., order counterbalanced). These tasks include an encoding phase and a retrieval phase in the form of free-recall and recognition after a 10-minute delay Index : number of correct responses at the free-recall task and the recognition task.
Measured: Group 2 : Baseline 1 (10 weeks before the intervention)
Children's episodic memory (1)
Assessment of children's ability to learn new information through the House Test (Picard et al., 2012) and 2 parallel versions created by our research team for this study (i.e., order counterbalanced). These tasks include an encoding phase and a retrieval phase in the form of free-recall and recognition after a 10-minute delay Index : number of correct responses at the free-recall task and the recognition task.
Measured: Group 2 : Baseline 2 (1 week before the intervention)
Children's episodic memory (1)
Assessment of children's ability to learn new information through the House Test (Picard et al., 2012) and 2 parallel versions created by our research team for this study (i.e., order counterbalanced). These tasks include an encoding phase and a retrieval phase in the form of free-recall and recognition after a 10-minute delay Index : number of correct responses at the free-recall task and the recognition task.
Measured: Group 2 : Follow-up 1 (2 weeks after the intervention)
Children's episodic memory (2)
Assessment of children's ability to learn new information through a story-recall task which consists of listening to a story (i.e., encoding phase) immediately followed by a true-false recognition. 3 comparable story-recall tasks were created (i.e., order counterbalanced). Index : a signal detection analysis (Macmillan \& Creelman, 2005) will be performed to calculate sensitivity scores (i.e., reflecting children's ability to discriminate between studied information and lures).
Measured: Group 1 : Baseline 1 (1 week before the intervention)
Children's episodic memory (2)
Assessment of children's ability to learn new information through a story-recall task which consists of listening to a story (i.e., encoding phase) immediately followed by a true-false recognition. 3 comparable story-recall tasks were created (i.e., order counterbalanced). Index : a signal detection analysis (Macmillan \& Creelman, 2005) will be performed to calculate sensitivity scores (i.e., reflecting children's ability to discriminate between studied information and lures).
Measured: Group 1 : Follow-up 1 (2 weeks after the intervention)
Children's episodic memory (2)
Assessment of children's ability to learn new information through a story-recall task which consists of listening to a story (i.e., encoding phase) immediately followed by a true-false recognition. 3 comparable story-recall tasks were created (i.e., order counterbalanced). Index : a signal detection analysis (Macmillan \& Creelman, 2005) will be performed to calculate sensitivity scores (i.e., reflecting children's ability to discriminate between studied information and lures).
Measured: Group 1 : Follow-up 2 (6 months after the intervention)
Children's episodic memory (2)
Assessment of children's ability to learn new information through a story-recall task which consists of listening to a story (i.e., encoding phase) immediately followed by a true-false recognition. 3 comparable story-recall tasks were created (i.e., order counterbalanced). Index : a signal detection analysis (Macmillan \& Creelman, 2005) will be performed to calculate sensitivity scores (i.e., reflecting children's ability to discriminate between studied information and lures).
Measured: Group 2 : Baseline 1 (10 weeks before the intervention)
Children's episodic memory (2)
Assessment of children's ability to learn new information through a story-recall task which consists of listening to a story (i.e., encoding phase) immediately followed by a true-false recognition. 3 comparable story-recall tasks were created (i.e., order counterbalanced). Index : a signal detection analysis (Macmillan \& Creelman, 2005) will be performed to calculate sensitivity scores (i.e., reflecting children's ability to discriminate between studied information and lures).
Measured: Group 2 : Baseline 2 (1 week before the intervention)
Children's episodic memory (2)
Assessment of children's ability to learn new information through a story-recall task which consists of listening to a story (i.e., encoding phase) immediately followed by a true-false recognition. 3 comparable story-recall tasks were created (i.e., order counterbalanced). Index : a signal detection analysis (Macmillan \& Creelman, 2005) will be performed to calculate sensitivity scores (i.e., reflecting children's ability to discriminate between studied information and lures).
Measured: Group 2 : Follow-up 1 (2 weeks after the intervention)
Secondary outcomes (12)
Children's confidence judgments
Assessment of children's ability to make accurate confidence judgments when performing the aforementioned story-recall tasks. In these tasks, for each memory decision, children have to rate their confidence in their decisions through a 2-point pictorial scale (for a study using this method, see Geurten \& Bastin, 2019). Index : the meta d'/d' ratio (Fleming \& Lau, 2014) will be calculated to reflect children's ability to make accurate confidence judgments.
Measured: Group 1 : Baseline 1 (1 week before the intervention)
Children's confidence judgments
Assessment of children's ability to make accurate confidence judgments when performing the aforementioned story-recall tasks. In these tasks, for each memory decision, children have to rate their confidence in their decisions through a 2-point pictorial scale (for a study using this method, see Geurten \& Bastin, 2019). Index : the meta d'/d' ratio (Fleming \& Lau, 2014) will be calculated to reflect children's ability to make accurate confidence judgments.
Measured: Group 1 : Follow-up 1 (2 weeks after the intervention)
Children's confidence judgments
Assessment of children's ability to make accurate confidence judgments when performing the aforementioned story-recall tasks. In these tasks, for each memory decision, children have to rate their confidence in their decisions through a 2-point pictorial scale (for a study using this method, see Geurten \& Bastin, 2019). Index : the meta d'/d' ratio (Fleming \& Lau, 2014) will be calculated to reflect children's ability to make accurate confidence judgments.
Measured: Group 1 : Follow-up 2 (6 months after the intervention)
Children's confidence judgments
Assessment of children's ability to make accurate confidence judgments when performing the aforementioned story-recall tasks. In these tasks, for each memory decision, children have to rate their confidence in their decisions through a 2-point pictorial scale (for a study using this method, see Geurten \& Bastin, 2019). Index : the meta d'/d' ratio (Fleming \& Lau, 2014) will be calculated to reflect children's ability to make accurate confidence judgments.
Measured: Group 2 : Baseline 1 (10 weeks before the intervention)
Children's confidence judgments
Assessment of children's ability to make accurate confidence judgments when performing the aforementioned story-recall tasks. In these tasks, for each memory decision, children have to rate their confidence in their decisions through a 2-point pictorial scale (for a study using this method, see Geurten \& Bastin, 2019). Index : the meta d'/d' ratio (Fleming \& Lau, 2014) will be calculated to reflect children's ability to make accurate confidence judgments.
Measured: Group 2 : Baseline 2 (1 week before the intervention)
Children's confidence judgments
Assessment of children's ability to make accurate confidence judgments when performing the aforementioned story-recall tasks. In these tasks, for each memory decision, children have to rate their confidence in their decisions through a 2-point pictorial scale (for a study using this method, see Geurten \& Bastin, 2019). Index : the meta d'/d' ratio (Fleming \& Lau, 2014) will be calculated to reflect children's ability to make accurate confidence judgments.
Measured: Group 2 : Follow-up 1 (2 weeks after the intervention)
Children's use of the memorability-based heuristic
Assessment of children's use of the memorability-based heuristic when performing the aforementioned story-recall tasks. Indeed, this measure was allowed by the inclusion in each story of 8 low-memorable events and 8 high-memorable events. Children's use of the memorability-based heuristic was measured by contrasting their tendency to be more or less conservative in memory decisions for low-memorable versus high-memorable events. Index: a signal detection analysis (Macmillan \& Creelman, 2005) will be performed to calculate response bias scores.
Measured: Group 1 : Baseline 1 (1 week before the intervention)
Children's use of the memorability-based heuristic
Assessment of children's use of the memorability-based heuristic when performing the aforementioned story-recall tasks. Indeed, this measure was allowed by the inclusion in each story of 8 low-memorable events and 8 high-memorable events. Children's use of the memorability-based heuristic was measured by contrasting their tendency to be more or less conservative in memory decisions for low-memorable versus high-memorable events. Index: a signal detection analysis (Macmillan \& Creelman, 2005) will be performed to calculate response bias scores.
Measured: Group 1 : Follow-up 1 (2 weeks after the intervention)
Children's use of the memorability-based heuristic
Assessment of children's use of the memorability-based heuristic when performing the aforementioned story-recall tasks. Indeed, this measure was allowed by the inclusion in each story of 8 low-memorable events and 8 high-memorable events. Children's use of the memorability-based heuristic was measured by contrasting their tendency to be more or less conservative in memory decisions for low-memorable versus high-memorable events. Index: a signal detection analysis (Macmillan \& Creelman, 2005) will be performed to calculate response bias scores.
Measured: Group 1 : Follow-up 2 (6 months after the intervention)
Children's use of the memorability-based heuristic
Assessment of children's use of the memorability-based heuristic when performing the aforementioned story-recall tasks. Indeed, this measure was allowed by the inclusion in each story of 8 low-memorable events and 8 high-memorable events. Children's use of the memorability-based heuristic was measured by contrasting their tendency to be more or less conservative in memory decisions for low-memorable versus high-memorable events. Index: a signal detection analysis (Macmillan \& Creelman, 2005) will be performed to calculate response bias scores.
Measured: Group 2 : Baseline 1 (10 weeks before the intervention)
Children's use of the memorability-based heuristic
Assessment of children's use of the memorability-based heuristic when performing the aforementioned story-recall tasks. Indeed, this measure was allowed by the inclusion in each story of 8 low-memorable events and 8 high-memorable events. Children's use of the memorability-based heuristic was measured by contrasting their tendency to be more or less conservative in memory decisions for low-memorable versus high-memorable events. Index: a signal detection analysis (Macmillan \& Creelman, 2005) will be performed to calculate response bias scores.
Measured: Group 2 : Baseline 2 (1 week before the intervention)
Children's use of the memorability-based heuristic
Assessment of children's use of the memorability-based heuristic when performing the aforementioned story-recall tasks. Indeed, this measure was allowed by the inclusion in each story of 8 low-memorable events and 8 high-memorable events. Children's use of the memorability-based heuristic was measured by contrasting their tendency to be more or less conservative in memory decisions for low-memorable versus high-memorable events. Index: a signal detection analysis (Macmillan \& Creelman, 2005) will be performed to calculate response bias scores.
Measured: Group 2 : Follow-up 1 (2 weeks after the intervention)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted8 Sep 2021
- Study start21 Jan 2021
- Primary completionJan 2022 (estimated)
- Study completionJan 2022 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (8)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Child DevelopmentStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Model description
- All participants receive the same intervention. However, Group 1 receives the intervention immediately after the baseline and Group 2 (i.e., the waiting-list group - acting as the control group -) receives the intervention after a second baseline assessment which is held after the completion of the Group 1 (i.e., approximatively 10 weeks later). Parent-child dyads were assigned to one of the 2 groups using a stratified randomization on children's age and when possible on children's gender. This design was chosen to check the specific efficiency of the intervention (i.e., which would result in no evolution for the Group 2 between the 2 baselines).
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 40 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Liege
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Christina Leonard, University of Liege
- Investigators
- Marie Geurten, Study director, University of LiegeSylvie Willems, Study director, University of Liege
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05037773
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 1920-44
- Status last verified
- Aug 2021
- First submitted
- 31 Aug 2021
- Last updated
- 8 Sep 2021
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: Data and analyses will be available from an online repository or from the principal investigator.
Publications
Waters TEA, Camia C, Facompre CR, Fivush R. A meta-analytic examination of maternal reminiscing style: Elaboration, gender, and children's cognitive development. Psychol Bull. 2019 Nov;145(11):1082-1102. doi: 10.1037/bul0000211.
PubMed 31621348Wu Y, Jobson L. Maternal reminiscing and child autobiographical memory elaboration: A meta-analytic review. Dev Psychol. 2019 Dec;55(12):2505-2521. doi: 10.1037/dev0000821. Epub 2019 Sep 19.
PubMed 31535892Langley HA, Coffman JL, Ornstein PA. The Socialization of Children's Memory: Linking Maternal Conversational Style to the Development of Children's Autobiographical and Deliberate Memory Skills. J Cogn Dev. 2017;18(1):63-86. doi: 10.1080/15248372.2015.1135800. Epub 2016 Sep 10.
PubMed 29270083Rudek DJ, Haden CA. Mothers' and Preschoolers' Mental State Language During Reminiscing Over Time. Merrill Palmer Q. 2005;51(4):557-583. doi: 10.1353/mpq.2005.0026
Corsano P, Guidotti L. Parents' reminiscing training in typically developing and 'at-risk' children: a review. Early Child Dev Care. 2019; 189(1): 143-156. doin: 10.1080/03004430.2017.1289518
Geurten M, Bastin C. Behaviors speak louder than explicit reports: Implicit metacognition in 2.5-year-old children. Dev Sci. 2019 Mar;22(2):e12742. doi: 10.1111/desc.12742. Epub 2018 Sep 19.
PubMed 30159971Bornstein MH, Putnick DL, Suwalsky JTD. Parenting cognitions --> parenting practices --> child adjustment? The standard model. Dev Psychopathol. 2018 May;30(2):399-416. doi: 10.1017/S0954579417000931. Epub 2017 Jun 19.
PubMed 28625208Leonard C, Geurten M, Willems S. Parental reminiscing training and preschoolers' memory and metacognition: A randomized controlled trial. Dev Psychol. 2023 Jul;59(7):1167-1180. doi: 10.1037/dev0001514. Epub 2023 May 18.
PubMed 37199921
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 8 Sep 2021. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Training Parents in an Elaborative Reminiscing Style to Boost Preschoolers' Development of Memory and Metacognition: A Randomized Controlled Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05037773
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 1920-44
- Conditions
- Child Development, Parent-Child Relations
- Keywords
- Typically developing preschoolers, Parental reminiscing, Memory, Metacognition
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 40 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of LiegeUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 21 Jan 2021 (actual)
- Primary completion
- Jan 2022 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Jan 2022 (estimated)
- First posted
- 8 Sep 2021 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This randomized controlled study aims to investigate the effects of an intervention targeting parental reminiscing style on preschoolers' memory (i.e., episodic and autobiographical) and metacognition (i.e., confidence judgment and memorability-based heuristic).
Detailed description
It has been demonstrated that parental reminiscing plays an important role in preschoolers' cognitive development among which memory (Waters \& al., 2019). Specifically, both correlational and interventional studies show that children of parents using a high-elaborative style during reminiscing (i.e., frequent, detailed and collaborative discussions about the past) recount their memories in a more detailed and coherent way (Wu \& Jobson, 2019). Besides, some correlational studies (e.g., Langley et al., 2017) seem to also reveal an effect of parental reminiscing on children's ability to learn new information, as assessed in clinical neuropsychology by episodic memory tasks. However, the mechanisms underlying these influences are currently unclear. Indeed, several non-mutually exclusive hypotheses are frequently suggested (e.g., among which the development of metacognition (Rudek \& Haden, 2005)) but, to date, have never been tested. Identifying these mechanisms could contribute to design interventions targeting parental reminiscing and to determine in which clinical contexts to use them. Currently, interventional studies in the field are scarce (for a review, see Corsano \& Guidotti, 2019) and lack of consensus.
The primary aims of the present study are multiple. First, we aim to evaluate the effectiveness of a brief intervention program to improve the way parents reminisce with their child. After the intervention, we expect an increase in the frequency of use of the targeted behaviors and thus an increase in the level of parental elaboration. The second goal of this study is to explore the effects of the improvements in parental reminiscing style on children's memory skills, both autobiographical memory (i.e., ability to recount one's own memories) and episodic memory (i.e., ability to learn new information). Regarding autobiographical memory, we anticipate to replicate the results shown in other interventional studies (i.e., an increase in the amount of information reported by children at the end of the intervention; for a review, see Corsano \& Guidotti, 2019). Regarding episodic memory, based on the results of correlational studies (e.g., Léonard et al., in prep), we anticipate after the intervention to show among children an improved ability to learn new information. Beyond these primary aims, secondary aims are also targeted in this study. Currently, the mechanisms underlying the relation between parental reminiscing and child's memory are still relatively unknown. A hypothesis that is frequently suggested is the development of metacognition (Rudek \& Haden, 2005). One purpose of this study is to test this assumption by focusing on 2 metacognitive skills that develop during the preschool years: (a) the ability to make confidence judgments, (b) the ability to use the memorability-based heuristic. After the intervention, we expect children to make more accurate confidence judgments and to use more successfully the memorability-based heuristic to guide their memory decisions. Therefore, we may obtain information on the active ingredients of the relation between parental reminiscing and memory. Then, in an exploratory way, we explore whether such an intervention could improve parental cognitions as well as parents' perception of reminiscing with their child. We anticipate an improvement in parental cognitions and a more positive perception of reminiscing. Finally, we are interested in assessing parents' adherence to the intervention by exploring their feelings about its format, content and feasibility in daily life.
For all these purposes, a randomized controlled trial is currently being conducted. 2 experimental groups have been created and parent-child dyads were assigned to one of them using a stratified randomization on children's age and when possible on children's gender. Participants from both groups begin the study with an assessment of all variables of interest (i.e., baseline1). Immediately after this baseline assessment, participants from Group 1 receive the intervention. Participants from Group 2 (i.e., a waiting-list group acting as a control group) receive exactly the same intervention but later (i.e., after a second baseline assessment which is held after the completion of the intervention by the Group 1). Approximatively 2 weeks after the intervention, the dyads in each group undergo a post-intervention assessment (i.e., follow-up 1; similar to the baseline assessments). Besides, 6 months later, the Group 1 will participate in a follow-up session to check the persistence of the effects over time (i.e., follow-up 2). If the intervention is successful, this long-term follow-up may allow us to show either the maintenance of effects over time (e.g., an increase in parental elaboration) and/or the appearance of some effects (e.g., effects on child outcomes due to the time it takes for the improvement in parental style to have an effect on them).
In this study, all parents are provided with an 8-session intervention (i.e., 1 session/week) targeting different aspects of parental reminiscing: (a) the promotion of child participation (e.g., through parent's use of feedbacks), (b) the structure of reminiscing (e.g., parent's use of open-ended questions) and (c) the content addressed during reminiscing (e.g., contextual information). Parents learn to use the target behaviors through different standardized techniques: (a) psychoeducation, (b) modeling and (c) supervised practice. Due to Covid-19 epidemic, the intervention is held completely online (i.e., 4 e-learnings and 4 videoconferencing sessions).
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- All participants receive the same intervention. However, Group 1 receives the intervention immediately after the baseline and Group 2 (i.e., the waiting-list group - acting as the control group -) receives the intervention after a second baseline assessment which is held after the completion of the Group 1 (i.e., approximatively 10 weeks later). Parent-child dyads were assigned to one of the 2 groups using a stratified randomization on children's age and when possible on children's gender. This design was chosen to check the specific efficiency of the intervention (i.e., which would result in no evolution for the Group 2 between the 2 baselines).
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Group 1 | Experimental | Behavioral: Intervention targeting parental reminiscing styleIn this condition, the intervention is administered immediately after the baseline. |
| Group 2 (waiting-list group) | Experimental | Behavioral: Intervention targeting parental reminiscing styleThis group is both a control and an experimental group. Indeed, the intervention (i.e., the same as for group 1) is administered but after a second baseline which is held after the completion of the Group 1. This condition will allow to check the specific efficiency of the intervention. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 36 to 71 months
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Children: French as mother tong
- Parent : be the parent who talks the most with the child (if both parents speak equally, the choice of the participating parent is left to them)
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Children: major cognitive or language difficulties at the time of the study and attested by a neuropsychological or language assessment
- Children: actual medication that may lead to cognitive difficulties
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention targeting parental reminiscing style8-session intervention (i.e., 1 session/week) targeting 3 main aspects of parental reminiscing: the promotion of child participation, the structure of discussions about the past and the content addressed during these discussions. Different learning techniques are used: psychoeducation, modeling and supervised practice. | Behavioural | Group 1, Group 2 (waiting-list group) |
Primary outcome
Parental reminiscing style
Time frame: Group 1 : Baseline 1 (1 week before the intervention)
Filmed parent-child discussion about a shared event of the previous day (as naturally as possible, without time constraint and in absence of the experimenter). These discussions will be transcribed for analysis with a specific coding scheme. Index : based on various raw scores, indexes will be computed.
Parental reminiscing style
Time frame: Group 1 : Follow-up 1 (2 weeks after the intervention)
Filmed parent-child discussion about a shared event of the previous day (as naturally as possible, without time constraint and in absence of the experimenter). These discussions will be transcribed for analysis with a specific coding scheme. Index : based on various raw scores, indexes will be computed.
Parental reminiscing style
Time frame: Group 1 : Follow-up 2 (6 months after the intervention)
Filmed parent-child discussion about a shared event of the previous day (as naturally as possible, without time constraint and in absence of the experimenter). These discussions will be transcribed for analysis with a specific coding scheme. Index : based on various raw scores, indexes will be computed.
Parental reminiscing style
Time frame: Group 2 : Baseline 1 (10 weeks before the intervention)
Filmed parent-child discussion about a shared event of the previous day (as naturally as possible, without time constraint and in absence of the experimenter). These discussions will be transcribed for analysis with a specific coding scheme. Index : based on various raw scores, indexes will be computed.
Parental reminiscing style
Time frame: Group 2 : Baseline 2 (1 week before the intervention)
Filmed parent-child discussion about a shared event of the previous day (as naturally as possible, without time constraint and in absence of the experimenter). These discussions will be transcribed for analysis with a specific coding scheme. Index : based on various raw scores, indexes will be computed.
Parental reminiscing style
Time frame: Group 2 : Follow-up 1 (2 weeks after the intervention)
Filmed parent-child discussion about a shared event of the previous day (as naturally as possible, without time constraint and in absence of the experimenter). These discussions will be transcribed for analysis with a specific coding scheme. Index : based on various raw scores, indexes will be computed.
Explicit knowledge about parental reminiscing
Time frame: Group 1 : Baseline 1 (1 week before the intervention)
10-item questionnaire aimed to assess parents' explicit knowledge about how to effectively discuss the past with their child (i.e., each item consists in a scenario and parents have to choose among different options which one would be the best way to interact with their child). 3 parallel versions of this questionnaire were created (i.e., order counterbalanced). Index : number of correct responses.
Explicit knowledge about parental reminiscing
Time frame: Group 1 : Follow-up 1 (2 weeks after the intervention)
10-item questionnaire aimed to assess parents' explicit knowledge about how to effectively discuss the past with their child (i.e., each item consists in a scenario and parents have to choose among different options which one would be the best way to interact with their child). 3 parallel versions of this questionnaire were created (i.e., order counterbalanced). Index : number of correct responses.
Explicit knowledge about parental reminiscing
Time frame: Group 1 : Follow-up 2 (6 months after the intervention)
10-item questionnaire aimed to assess parents' explicit knowledge about how to effectively discuss the past with their child (i.e., each item consists in a scenario and parents have to choose among different options which one would be the best way to interact with their child). 3 parallel versions of this questionnaire were created (i.e., order counterbalanced). Index : number of correct responses.
Explicit knowledge about parental reminiscing
Time frame: Group 2 : Baseline 1 (10 weeks before the intervention)
10-item questionnaire aimed to assess parents' explicit knowledge about how to effectively discuss the past with their child (i.e., each item consists in a scenario and parents have to choose among different options which one would be the best way to interact with their child). 3 parallel versions of this questionnaire were created (i.e., order counterbalanced). Index : number of correct responses.
Explicit knowledge about parental reminiscing
Time frame: Group 2 : Baseline 2 (1 week before the intervention)
10-item questionnaire aimed to assess parents' explicit knowledge about how to effectively discuss the past with their child (i.e., each item consists in a scenario and parents have to choose among different options which one would be the best way to interact with their child). 3 parallel versions of this questionnaire were created (i.e., order counterbalanced). Index : number of correct responses.
Explicit knowledge about parental reminiscing
Time frame: Group 2 : Follow-up 1 (2 weeks after the intervention)
10-item questionnaire aimed to assess parents' explicit knowledge about how to effectively discuss the past with their child (i.e., each item consists in a scenario and parents have to choose among different options which one would be the best way to interact with their child). 3 parallel versions of this questionnaire were created (i.e., order counterbalanced). Index : number of correct responses.
Children's autobiographical memory
Time frame: Group 1 : Baseline 1 (1 week before the intervention)
Retrieval of autobiographical memories cued by words (i.e., food, play, family, friend, happy, cry). 2 words/assessment (i.e., order counterbalanced). Children's production will be analyzed through a specific coding scheme. Index : the nature and the richness of information addressed by children.
Children's autobiographical memory
Time frame: Group 1 : Follow-up 1 (2 weeks after the intervention)
Retrieval of autobiographical memories cued by words (i.e., food, play, family, friend, happy, cry). 2 words/assessment (i.e., order counterbalanced). Children's production will be analyzed through a specific coding scheme. Index : the nature and the richness of information addressed by children.
Children's autobiographical memory
Time frame: Group 1 : Follow-up 2 (6 months after the intervention)
Retrieval of autobiographical memories cued by words (i.e., food, play, family, friend, happy, cry). 2 words/assessment (i.e., order counterbalanced). Children's production will be analyzed through a specific coding scheme. Index : the nature and the richness of information addressed by children.
Children's autobiographical memory
Time frame: Group 2 : Baseline 1 (10 weeks before the intervention)
Retrieval of autobiographical memories cued by words (i.e., food, play, family, friend, happy, cry). 2 words/assessment (i.e., order counterbalanced). Children's production will be analyzed through a specific coding scheme. Index : the nature and the richness of information addressed by children.
Children's autobiographical memory
Time frame: Group 2 : Baseline 2 (1 week before the intervention)
Retrieval of autobiographical memories cued by words (i.e., food, play, family, friend, happy, cry). 2 words/assessment (i.e., order counterbalanced). Children's production will be analyzed through a specific coding scheme. Index : the nature and the richness of information addressed by children.
Children's autobiographical memory
Time frame: Group 2 : Follow-up 1 (2 weeks after the intervention)
Retrieval of autobiographical memories cued by words (i.e., food, play, family, friend, happy, cry). 2 words/assessment (i.e., order counterbalanced). Children's production will be analyzed through a specific coding scheme. Index : the nature and the richness of information addressed by children.
Children's episodic memory (1)
Time frame: Group 1 : Baseline 1 (1 week before the intervention)
Assessment of children's ability to learn new information through the House Test (Picard et al., 2012) and 2 parallel versions created by our research team for this study (i.e., order counterbalanced). These tasks include an encoding phase and a retrieval phase in the form of free-recall and recognition after a 10-minute delay Index : number of correct responses at the free-recall task and the recognition task.
Children's episodic memory (1)
Time frame: Group 1 : Follow-up 1 (2 weeks after the intervention)
Assessment of children's ability to learn new information through the House Test (Picard et al., 2012) and 2 parallel versions created by our research team for this study (i.e., order counterbalanced). These tasks include an encoding phase and a retrieval phase in the form of free-recall and recognition after a 10-minute delay Index : number of correct responses at the free-recall task and the recognition task.
Children's episodic memory (1)
Time frame: Group 1 : Follow-up 2 (6 months after the intervention)
Assessment of children's ability to learn new information through the House Test (Picard et al., 2012) and 2 parallel versions created by our research team for this study (i.e., order counterbalanced). These tasks include an encoding phase and a retrieval phase in the form of free-recall and recognition after a 10-minute delay Index : number of correct responses at the free-recall task and the recognition task.
Children's episodic memory (1)
Time frame: Group 2 : Baseline 1 (10 weeks before the intervention)
Assessment of children's ability to learn new information through the House Test (Picard et al., 2012) and 2 parallel versions created by our research team for this study (i.e., order counterbalanced). These tasks include an encoding phase and a retrieval phase in the form of free-recall and recognition after a 10-minute delay Index : number of correct responses at the free-recall task and the recognition task.
Children's episodic memory (1)
Time frame: Group 2 : Baseline 2 (1 week before the intervention)
Assessment of children's ability to learn new information through the House Test (Picard et al., 2012) and 2 parallel versions created by our research team for this study (i.e., order counterbalanced). These tasks include an encoding phase and a retrieval phase in the form of free-recall and recognition after a 10-minute delay Index : number of correct responses at the free-recall task and the recognition task.
Children's episodic memory (1)
Time frame: Group 2 : Follow-up 1 (2 weeks after the intervention)
Assessment of children's ability to learn new information through the House Test (Picard et al., 2012) and 2 parallel versions created by our research team for this study (i.e., order counterbalanced). These tasks include an encoding phase and a retrieval phase in the form of free-recall and recognition after a 10-minute delay Index : number of correct responses at the free-recall task and the recognition task.
Children's episodic memory (2)
Time frame: Group 1 : Baseline 1 (1 week before the intervention)
Assessment of children's ability to learn new information through a story-recall task which consists of listening to a story (i.e., encoding phase) immediately followed by a true-false recognition. 3 comparable story-recall tasks were created (i.e., order counterbalanced). Index : a signal detection analysis (Macmillan \& Creelman, 2005) will be performed to calculate sensitivity scores (i.e., reflecting children's ability to discriminate between studied information and lures).
Children's episodic memory (2)
Time frame: Group 1 : Follow-up 1 (2 weeks after the intervention)
Assessment of children's ability to learn new information through a story-recall task which consists of listening to a story (i.e., encoding phase) immediately followed by a true-false recognition. 3 comparable story-recall tasks were created (i.e., order counterbalanced). Index : a signal detection analysis (Macmillan \& Creelman, 2005) will be performed to calculate sensitivity scores (i.e., reflecting children's ability to discriminate between studied information and lures).
Children's episodic memory (2)
Time frame: Group 1 : Follow-up 2 (6 months after the intervention)
Assessment of children's ability to learn new information through a story-recall task which consists of listening to a story (i.e., encoding phase) immediately followed by a true-false recognition. 3 comparable story-recall tasks were created (i.e., order counterbalanced). Index : a signal detection analysis (Macmillan \& Creelman, 2005) will be performed to calculate sensitivity scores (i.e., reflecting children's ability to discriminate between studied information and lures).
Children's episodic memory (2)
Time frame: Group 2 : Baseline 1 (10 weeks before the intervention)
Assessment of children's ability to learn new information through a story-recall task which consists of listening to a story (i.e., encoding phase) immediately followed by a true-false recognition. 3 comparable story-recall tasks were created (i.e., order counterbalanced). Index : a signal detection analysis (Macmillan \& Creelman, 2005) will be performed to calculate sensitivity scores (i.e., reflecting children's ability to discriminate between studied information and lures).
Children's episodic memory (2)
Time frame: Group 2 : Baseline 2 (1 week before the intervention)
Assessment of children's ability to learn new information through a story-recall task which consists of listening to a story (i.e., encoding phase) immediately followed by a true-false recognition. 3 comparable story-recall tasks were created (i.e., order counterbalanced). Index : a signal detection analysis (Macmillan \& Creelman, 2005) will be performed to calculate sensitivity scores (i.e., reflecting children's ability to discriminate between studied information and lures).
Children's episodic memory (2)
Time frame: Group 2 : Follow-up 1 (2 weeks after the intervention)
Assessment of children's ability to learn new information through a story-recall task which consists of listening to a story (i.e., encoding phase) immediately followed by a true-false recognition. 3 comparable story-recall tasks were created (i.e., order counterbalanced). Index : a signal detection analysis (Macmillan \& Creelman, 2005) will be performed to calculate sensitivity scores (i.e., reflecting children's ability to discriminate between studied information and lures).
12 secondary outcomes
Children's confidence judgments
Time frame: Group 1 : Baseline 1 (1 week before the intervention)
Children's confidence judgments
Time frame: Group 1 : Follow-up 1 (2 weeks after the intervention)
Children's confidence judgments
Time frame: Group 1 : Follow-up 2 (6 months after the intervention)
Children's confidence judgments
Time frame: Group 2 : Baseline 1 (10 weeks before the intervention)
Children's confidence judgments
Time frame: Group 2 : Baseline 2 (1 week before the intervention)
Children's confidence judgments
Time frame: Group 2 : Follow-up 1 (2 weeks after the intervention)
Children's use of the memorability-based heuristic
Time frame: Group 1 : Baseline 1 (1 week before the intervention)
Children's use of the memorability-based heuristic
Time frame: Group 1 : Follow-up 1 (2 weeks after the intervention)
Children's use of the memorability-based heuristic
Time frame: Group 1 : Follow-up 2 (6 months after the intervention)
Children's use of the memorability-based heuristic
Time frame: Group 2 : Baseline 1 (10 weeks before the intervention)
Children's use of the memorability-based heuristic
Time frame: Group 2 : Baseline 2 (1 week before the intervention)
Children's use of the memorability-based heuristic
Time frame: Group 2 : Follow-up 1 (2 weeks after the intervention)
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 8 Sep 2021.
- Background: PubMed 31621348Waters TEA, Camia C, Facompre CR, Fivush R. A meta-analytic examination of maternal reminiscing style: Elaboration, gender, and children's cognitive development. Psychol Bull. 2019 Nov;145(11):1082-1102. doi: 10.1037/bul0000211.
- Background: PubMed 31535892Wu Y, Jobson L. Maternal reminiscing and child autobiographical memory elaboration: A meta-analytic review. Dev Psychol. 2019 Dec;55(12):2505-2521. doi: 10.1037/dev0000821. Epub 2019 Sep 19.
- Background: PubMed 29270083Langley HA, Coffman JL, Ornstein PA. The Socialization of Children's Memory: Linking Maternal Conversational Style to the Development of Children's Autobiographical and Deliberate Memory Skills. J Cogn Dev. 2017;18(1):63-86. doi: 10.1080/15248372.2015.1135800. Epub 2016 Sep 10.
- BackgroundRudek DJ, Haden CA. Mothers' and Preschoolers' Mental State Language During Reminiscing Over Time. Merrill Palmer Q. 2005;51(4):557-583. doi: 10.1353/mpq.2005.0026
- BackgroundCorsano P, Guidotti L. Parents' reminiscing training in typically developing and 'at-risk' children: a review. Early Child Dev Care. 2019; 189(1): 143-156. doin: 10.1080/03004430.2017.1289518
- Background: PubMed 30159971Geurten M, Bastin C. Behaviors speak louder than explicit reports: Implicit metacognition in 2.5-year-old children. Dev Sci. 2019 Mar;22(2):e12742. doi: 10.1111/desc.12742. Epub 2018 Sep 19.
- Background: PubMed 28625208Bornstein MH, Putnick DL, Suwalsky JTD. Parenting cognitions --> parenting practices --> child adjustment? The standard model. Dev Psychopathol. 2018 May;30(2):399-416. doi: 10.1017/S0954579417000931. Epub 2017 Jun 19.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 37199921Leonard C, Geurten M, Willems S. Parental reminiscing training and preschoolers' memory and metacognition: A randomized controlled trial. Dev Psychol. 2023 Jul;59(7):1167-1180. doi: 10.1037/dev0001514. Epub 2023 May 18.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. Data and analyses will be available from an online repository or from the principal investigator.
Related trials for Child Development
RecruitingPhase 1
Cannabidiol (CBD) in Adults With ASD
Autism Spectrum Disorder
RecruitingPhase 3
A Study to Evaluate the Long-term Safety and Tolerability of Xanomeline and Trospium Chloride for the Treatment of Psychiatric Disorders in Children and Adolescents
Schizophrenia, Autism-Related Irritability
Not yet recruiting
Sensory-integration Therapy Verses Augumented Reality-based Training in ASD
Autism Spectrum Disorder
Not yet recruiting
Hearing Intervention Effects on Brain and Language Development in Children With Bilateral Mild Hearing Loss
Hearing Loss, Bilateral
Recruiting
Cumulative and Booster Effects of Multisession Prefrontal tDCS in ASD Adolescents
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation, Autistic Spectrum Disorder
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Marie Geurten study director
University of Liege
Sylvie Willems study director
University of Liege
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Intervention targeting parental reminiscing style in people with Child Development and Parent-Child Relations, run by University of Liege at 1 site in Belgium.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 8 Sep 2021. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Belgium. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Results are not available in the source record.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Parental reminiscing style (time frame: Group 1 : Baseline 1 (1 week before the intervention)). The study lists 30 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT05037773, which also lists 8 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 8 Sep 2021.