Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2025 Jan 16;96(3):930–946. doi: 10.1111/cdev.14218

Connecting Language Abilities and Social Competence in Children: A Meta‐Analytic Review

Karolina Wieczorek 1,✉, Megan DeGroot 2, Heather Ganshorn 3, Susan A Graham 1,4
PMCID: PMC12023832  PMID: 39821914

ABSTRACT

Research examining relations between language skills and social competence has yielded mixed findings. Three meta‐analyses investigated links between language skills (overall, receptive, and expressive) and social competence in 2‐ to 12‐year‐old children. Data from 130 studies representing 62,120 children (M age at language assessment = 4.70 years; 52% male), predominantly from North America and Europe, and identifying as White (33%), Black (17%), Hispanic (14%), Asian (2%), Mixed (4%), Indigenous (1%), and Other/Unspecified (29%) were analyzed. Analyses indicated significant medium‐sized associations between social competence and: overall language (r = 0.27), receptive language (r = 0.23), and expressive language (r = 0.20). Exploratory analyses indicated significant moderating effects of study design, publication status, social type, and geographic region. Results and implications are discussed.

Keywords: language, Meta‐analysis, social competence

Learning language is a critical developmental milestone. From the earliest points in development, language abilities are linked to meeting social needs. That is, language is critical for facilitating communication with others, and communication is inherently a social phenomenon (Hebert‐Myers et al. 2006). During childhood, children are tasked with leveraging both their developing language skills and social abilities to navigate various contexts. The extent to which these interactions are successful depends on whether a child can understand others and facilitate an appropriate response (Gallagher 1993). Indeed, the relation between various forms of language and social competence may advance according to a developmental cascade (Yao and Enright 2021), such that children who skillfully integrate language skills and socially competent behavior are rewarded with more opportunities for engagement, repetition, and success in these experiences, which may allow for further development of these skills. That said, there are mixed findings regarding the strength and nature of the relation between language skills and social competence in the literature. This study leverages the power of meta‐analysis to examine the scope and magnitude of the association between social competence and three types of language skills (overall, receptive, and expressive), and explores potential moderators of these relations.

1. Language

Language development involves the progressive acquisition of a system of symbols that allows for communication with others (Brooks and Kempe 2014). It encompasses various components including vocabulary, grammar, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics (Hoff 2015). Language is often characterized according to different domains including receptive, expressive, and overall language abilities. Receptive language refers to the comprehension and understanding of words and language. Expressive language refers to the oral use of words and language for communication. Language skills can also be broadly characterized as overall language skills, offering a comprehensive perspective that may comprise receptive and expressive aspects of language. Assessments of language may focus solely on receptive (e.g., Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test—Fifth Edition; Dunn 2019) or expressive (e.g., Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test—Fourth Edition; Martin and Brownell 2010) abilities, or adopt a broader perspective encompassing overall language abilities (e.g., Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals—Fifth Edition; Wiig, Semel, and Secord 2013). The current meta‐analyses focus on associations between these different aspects of language and social competence.

2. Social Competence

Social competence is a multifaceted construct encompassing interpersonal effectiveness and adaptability in social situations that across developmental stages and contexts. Although there is no universally accepted model (see Rose‐Krasnor 1997 for a review), social competence often includes social skills (specific abilities in social situations) and social functioning (achievement of social and developmental goals). Social skills are measured through specific behaviors like cooperation and self‐control (e.g., Social Skills Rating System; Gresham and Elliot 1990), while social functioning evaluates broader aspects such as peer relations and adaptive behavior across contexts (e.g., Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale; Sparrow, Cicchetti, and Saulnier 2016). The current study adopts this framework of social competence to examine the association of different types of language abilities with both specific social skills and overall social functioning, which aligns with approaches in related literature (Huber, Plötner, and Schmitz 2019; Hukkelberg et al. 2019).

3. Mixed Findings in the Association Between Language Skills and Social Competence

It has been suggested that language skills set the foundation for social success (Gallagher 1993). Children develop their language abilities through social interactions and simultaneously learn socially appropriate behavior through these experiences (Barnett et al. 2012). Research on the link between language and social competence, however, has yielded mixed results. Some studies support significant associations (Arnold et al. 2012; Aro et al. 2012; Barnett et al. 2012; Davis and Qi 2020), while others find no significant correlations (Curenton 2015; Park et al. 2012), and some report mixed findings (Conte, Grazzani, and Pepe 2018; Mulvey and Jenkins 2021). The strength of the effect has also varied with respect to small (e.g., Conte, Grazzani, and Pepe 2018), medium (e.g., Barnett et al. 2012), and large (e.g., Aarne et al. 2014) effect sizes for the associations (where r = 0.10, 0.20, and 0.30 indicate small, medium, and large effects; Funder and Ozer 2019). Furthermore, some studies assess overall language skills (Aarne et al. 2014), some examine receptive and expressive skills separately (Aro et al. 2012), or only one or the other (Arnold et al. 2012).

The modality of language (i.e., receptive, expressive, or overall language) being considered may differentially impact social competence. Some literature suggests that receptive language skills are more impactful for social competence compared to expressive language (Rose, Weinert, and Ebert 2018; Tan and Dobbs‐Oates 2013), possibly due to associated emotional and behavior challenges (Conti‐Ramsden et al. 2019). Having well‐developed receptive language skills may allow for heightened sensitivity to social cues, potentially resulting in increased opportunities for social interactions, and reduced misunderstandings and conflicts (Cadima et al. 2019; Menting, van Lier, and Koot 2011). On the contrary, children with weaker expressive language abilities might face challenges in verbal communication; however, they may still demonstrate adequate social competence despite these difficulties. That said, other views suggest that all forms of language are related to social behavior (Cassidy et al. 2003), which could indicate that the strongest relations would be expected between overall language as it comprises the most comprehensive assessment of language compared to receptive or expressive measures alone. Some meta‐analyses in the field have examined potential differences in language and social competence associations by considering language modality as a moderator (e.g., Troesch, Keller, and Grob 2016; Wieczorek et al. 2024). As such, the current study adopts a different approach by performing three distinct meta‐analyses, each focusing on receptive, expressive, and overall language, respectively. This methodology allows for detailed exploration of how various language modalities are influenced by different demographic and methodological factors. By disentangling these differences, our approach can reveal subtle, modality‐specific influences. We do note, however, that a limitation of this approach is that it does not allow for direct comparisons across the three meta‐analyses.

To our knowledge, no systematic and meta‐analytical reviews have examined the associations between various modalities of language and social competence in typically developing children. Other reviews and meta‐analyses have focused on links between language and social preference (how popular a child is; Troesch, Keller, and Grob 2016), language and psychopathology (Hentges et al. 2021), language and problem behaviors (Curtis et al. 2018), social competence and problem behaviors (externalizing, aggression, and conduct problems; Hukkelberg et al. 2019), and social competence and psychopathology (Huber, Plötner, and Schmitz 2019). Given the extensive literature on language and social competence, there is a need for a comprehensive examination of these links and an assessment of possible factors that might amplify them.

4. Potential Moderators in the Association Between Language Skills and Social Competence

Moderator analyses are used to explain heterogeneity of effects across studies and can inform whether certain factors impact the strength of the associations of interest. In the present study, the following moderators were examined: demographic factors (i.e., child sex at birth, age, socioeconomic status (SES), geographic region, and percentage minority) and methodological factors (i.e., study design, social type, informant, and publication status).

4.1. Child Sex at Birth

The relation between language and social competence may vary based on child sex at birth. In general, girls may have a language advantage relative to boys, given that girls tend to show stronger language skills in earlier childhood (Bornstein, Hahn, and Haynes 2004; Rice and Hoffman 2015) and that boys show higher prevalence rates of clinical language difficulties (e.g., Chilosi et al. 2021; Norbury et al. 2016). Some literature also suggests that girls tend to present as more prosocial compared to boys (e.g., McTaggart, McGill, and Stephens 2022). Such a proposal may be explained in part by links between language and externalizing in boys (e.g., Hentges et al. 2021), such that boys with language challenges may show more externalizing behaviors which impacts their perceived social competence. Recent meta‐analyses, however, did not find a moderating effect of child sex on links between language and social functioning in typically developing children (Troesch, Keller, and Grob 2016) or in children with language difficulties (i.e., Developmental Language Disorder; Wieczorek et al. 2024). That said, it is possible that these differences were not captured as child sex was not examined as a moderator based on language modality. Indeed, there is some evidence that receptive language may be more crucial for social competence in boys, while expressive language is more impactful for girls (Rose, Weinert, and Ebert 2018). Given mixed findings on the associations between language and social competence, child sex was included as an exploratory moderator across all meta‐analyses.

4.2. Age

The relation between language skills and social competence may vary according to age, with the relation shifting at different stages in development (Rose‐Krasnor 1997). In early childhood, the acquisition of developmental language milestones varies widely (Rowe, Raudenbush, and Goldin‐Meadow 2012), with receptive language development preceding expressive language (Fenson et al. 1994). However, this variability tends to narrow throughout middle and late childhood when language development becomes more stable (Rice and Hoffman 2015). Indeed, language skills may be more important for social competence during early childhood; however, as children get older, other skills may be more important (e.g., emotion regulation; executive functioning; Hay, Payne, and Chadwick 2004). A meta‐analysis on language and social preference indicated that age moderated the association, showing stronger associations in younger children (Troesch, Keller, and Grob 2016). In accordance with these observations, it was hypothesized that age would moderate the association between all three types of language and social competence, with stronger effects with younger age.

4.3. Socioeconomic Status (SES), Geographic Region, Race, and Ethnicity

Demographic factors such as socioeconomic status (SES), the geographic region of the study, and the race and ethnicity of the sample may influence the relation between language and social competence. These factors may indirectly impact children's language and social development due to factors such as experiences of discrimination and reduced access to resources faced by minoritized groups, coupled with exposure to social expectations or norms of behavior that may vary relative to the dominant culture (Coll et al. 1996). Alternatively, minoritized children with stronger academic skills (i.e., including language) may be more likely to receive support which could indirectly impact social functioning in a positive manner (Arnold et al. 2012). Given the complex nature of these demographic factors, geographic region, SES, as well as the percentage of minority youth in each sample were included as exploratory moderators with no specific hypotheses made.

4.4. Social Competence Measure

Links between language and social competence may vary according to the aspect of social competence assessed in the study. As noted earlier, social competence is not a universally defined concept and may be differentially operationalized across different studies and measures. Measures of social competence typically comprise a broad evaluation of social functioning, or a narrow view of social skills. It may be that stronger associations are found between receptive language and social skills (e.g., cooperation; Rose, Weinert, and Ebert 2018) compared to expressive language. However, given limited literature examining different modalities of language with different forms of social competence, social competence measure was included as an exploratory moderator in all analyses.

4.5. Study Design

Cross‐sectional designs explore the connection between different types of language and social competence within a specific and time‐limited range, while longitudinal studies examine this association over an extended time and potentially across different developmental periods. Given that these differences in design may impact the strength of the association, study design was included a moderator in all three meta‐analyses with no specific predictions.

4.6. Informant

Language and social competence are often assessed by various individuals, leading to differing perspectives based on the informant's role and observation of the child across varying contexts. Given that many studies in the literature on language and social competence include single‐informant designs, the type of informant was included as an exploratory moderator across all meta‐analyses to assess for possible variations in the relations across different informants.

4.7. Publication Status

To address the possibility of a file drawer problem (i.e., the tendency for published literature to embody stronger and significant effects; Franco, Malhotra, and Simonovits 2014), we include both published and unpublished literature in our search strategy. Publication status was included as a moderator across all meta‐analyses, with no hypotheses made regarding how this may impact the relations.

4.8. The Current Study

There is a large body of evidence that suggests language skills and social competence are interrelated in typically developing children. Given that these domains have cascading impacts on other areas of development, it is important to have a nuanced understanding of this relation. The goals of this study are two‐fold: first, to synthesize the evidence surrounding the association between language abilities (i.e., overall, receptive, and expressive language) and social competence in typically developing children through meta‐analysis, and second, to assess for possible moderators of these relations. Together, the findings will advance the knowledge base on language and social development in typically developing children and shed light on clinical and policy directions to optimize childhood outcomes.

5. Method

5.1. Search Strategy

Relevant studies were collected through a database search and a reference list search of included studies. The database search targeted published and unpublished studies and was completed by a research librarian (Author3) in June 2021 using the following databases with no date restrictions: PsycINFO; MEDLINE (both on the Ovid platform); Scopus (Elsevier); Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (ProQuest platform), and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global (ProQuest platform). The concepts of “language,” “social competence,” and “children” were captured using subject heading and keyword search strings (see Appendix). The reference lists of included studies were reviewed for relevant studies that were not captured in the larger search. As this meta‐analysis focused on the results of primary research, books and chapters were excluded. The search process is outlined in PRISMA flow diagram (see Figure 1).

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

PRISMA flow diagram.

5.2. Eligibility Criteria

Studies were included in the meta‐analysis if three criteria were fulfilled. First, the study included a sample of typically developing children between the ages of 2 and 12. Second, the study included a measure of language and a measure of social competence. Third, the study reported an effect size statistic for typically developing children that could be used as a Pearson's r correlation coefficient for language and social scores. Studies were excluded for the following reasons: (1) if the sample included children with a clinical, psychological, medical, or genetic condition such as autism, developmental language disorder, hearing loss, or impairment; (2) if samples were participating in an intervention and pre‐intervention language and social assessment data were not reported; (3) if the study assessed only pre‐verbal language abilities (e.g., gestures); and (4) if the study was not written in English.

5.3. Study Screening

A total of 21,616 studies were identified through the search process and were entered into Covidence for Systematic Reviews (Covidence Inc.). Duplicate studies were identified and removed using (1) Covidence automated processes (N = 5981) and (2) through an additional manual screening in Microsoft Excel (N = 553). A total of 15,082 studies proceeded to the title and abstract review where each study was assessed for eligibility by two independent reviewers. All reviewers were trained by an experienced coder, and weekly meetings were held to answer clarification questions and facilitate consensus voting if any disagreements occurred.

5.4. Data Extraction and Coding

Full‐text articles were collected for a total of 735 studies that proceeded to a full‐text review. Data were extracted from 247 studies, and a total of 120 studies were included in the study. The reference lists of included studies were also screened, and 68 additional studies were identified. Of these studies, 10 studies met all eligibility criteria and were included in the current analyses. Six independent reviewers were involved in data extraction, and 20% were double coded by two independent reviewers. Each study was assessed according to the eligibility criteria, and data were extracted for demographic and methodological information and statistical data. Unadjusted effect sizes were selected for the analyses.

5.4.1. Demographic Characteristics

Child sex at birth was coded based on the percentage of male participants reported in each sample. Child age was coded according to the mean age reported at the time of the language and social competence assessments. Socioeconomic status (SES) was coded as low, middle/high, mixed, or not specified, based on which category represented 80% or more of each sample. Race and ethnicity were coded according to the percentage of children who were identified as White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Indigenous, Mixed, Other, or Missing Ethnicity in each study. When the data were available, the proportion of minoritized youth was coded according to the percentage of children in each sample who identified with a minority race or ethnic background (e.g., non‐White children in North America). Geographic region was coded according to where the study took place and included North America, Europe, Asia, the Middle East, South America, Oceania, and South Africa.

5.4.2. Methodological Characteristics

Study design was coded as longitudinal or cross‐sectional. Publication status was coded as published or unpublished (e.g., thesis). The social measure type was coded as either social functioning or social skills and was double coded with acceptable reliability (Cohen's κ = 0.60). Informants were coded based on who completed the measure (i.e., parent, teacher, clinician, trained coder, self‐report, or a combination).

5.5. Data Synthesis

Data for studies that met inclusion criteria were synthesized according to a protocol created for managing overlapping samples and selecting effect sizes. For studies that were identified as overlapping samples, the study selected for inclusion was chosen according to the following hierarchy of priorities: maximum sample size, longitudinal over cross‐sectional data, and older age, coupled with considering the most comprehensive effect size. Comprehensive effect sizes for type of language were prioritized; if multiple effect sizes for the modality of language were reported (e.g., two effect sizes for receptive language), pooling of both effect sizes was completed to obtain the most comprehensive statistic (following from Anderson et al. 2021; Madigan et al. 2019; Cooke et al. 2022). Furthermore, if language abilities were measured for more than one language (e.g., in children described as dual language learners or as bilingual) for the same type of language, pooling of effect sizes of both languages was used to obtain the most comprehensive statistic. Comprehensive effect sizes for social competence were prioritized; if effect sizes for different forms of social functioning were reported (e.g., cooperation, assertion, self‐control), pooling across effect sizes for these skills was used to obtain the most comprehensive statistic. Some studies used a variety of informants for language or social assessments; for these studies, effect sizes were pooled across informants to obtain the most comprehensive statistic.

5.6. Data Analysis

Outlier analyses were completed in SPSS (version 29.0; IBM Statistics) and involved an assessment of boxplots and effects sizes falling outside three standard deviations of the mean. Meta‐analytic statistics were completed in Comprehensive Meta‐Analysis Software (CMA, Version 3.0; Borenstein et al. 2013) including assessments of publication bias, effect sizes, heterogeneity analyses, and moderator analyses. Publication bias was evaluated by inspecting funnel plot graphs for asymmetry and determining the significance of the Egger statistic. All effect sizes included in the analysis were originally reported as Pearson's r. For pooled statistics, Fisher's z was used to combine the correlations, and then the pooled Fisher's z was converted back to Pearson's r for the overall analysis. All analyses were completed using random‐effects models, with heterogeneity analyses comprising evaluations of the Cochran's Q,I 2 , and τ2 statistics coupled with p‐values. Categorical moderators were assessed for significance using Cochran's Q, while continuous moderators were tested for significance with mixed‐effects meta‐regressions.

6. Results

6.1. Study Characteristics

The analyses were generated from a total of 130 studies (k = 49 for overall language; k = 68 for receptive language; k = 34 for expressive language) and 62,120 children (N = 15,488 for overall language; N = 24,509 for receptive language; N = 26,208 for expressive language). Table S1 summarizes study characteristics and analytical information. Across all samples, the mean age of children was 4.69 years (SD = 1.79) at the time of the language assessment, and 5.14 years (SD = 2.13) at the social competence assessment. The mean percentage of males was 51.77% (SD = 9.90). Studies included low SES (k = 39; 30%), middle to high SES (k = 20; 15%), mixed SES (k = 56; 43%), and unspecified SES (k = 15; 12%). Studies were conducted in North America (k = 77; 59%), Europe (k = 34; 26%), Asia (k = 11; 8%), Middle East (k = 5; 4%), Oceania (k = 3; 2%), South America (k = 2; 0.5%), and South Africa (k = 1; 0.5%). Information on race or ethnicity was described in 81 studies (N = 45,205 children) and included White (N = 20,712; 33% of total sample), Black (N = 10,765; 17% of total sample), Hispanic (N = 8782; 14% of total sample), Asian (N = 1080; 2% of total sample), Indigenous (N = 191; < 1% of total sample), Mixed (N = 2466; 4%), Other (N = 1660; 3%), and Unspecified (N = 549; < 1%) individuals. Information on race or ethnicity was not described in 49 studies (N = 15,915 children). Race or ethnicity was unspecified for 26% of children (N = 16,464). It was possible to extrapolate ethnic or racial minority status from 77 studies (N = 23,239). Studies included both published (k = 100; 77%) and unpublished (k = 30; 23%) work. The studies comprised both cross‐sectional (k = 100; 77%) and longitudinal designs (k = 30; 23%). Studies used social measures that examined social functioning (k = 31; 24%) and social skills (k = 99; 76%). For language measures, informants included clinicians (k = 27), parents (k = 5), teachers (k = 2), self‐report (k = 4), trained coders (k = 93), and combination of informants (k = 3). For social measures, informants included clinicians (k = 1), parents (k = 20), teachers (k = 72), self‐report (k = 4), trained coders (k = 20), and combination of informants (k = 13).

6.2. Overall Language and Social Competence

The data were inspected for outliers, and no outliers were identified (i.e., within ± 3SD of the mean). Across 49 studies and 15,488 children, the association between overall language and social competence was significantly, positively correlated (r = 0.27 [95% CI = 0.21–0.32], p < 0.001, see Figure 2), within a medium effect size range (Funder and Ozer 2019). Publication bias was assessed for and did not suggest concerns (see Figure S1, Egger's regression intercept = 1.65 [95% CI = −0.19 to 3.50], p = 0.07). Heterogeneity statistics were significant (Q (48) = 553.01, p < 0.001, I 2  = 91.32, τ2 = 0.04) suggesting sufficient variability among the studies to evaluate moderators. See Table 1 for the results of the moderator analyses. The association between overall language and social competence was significantly moderated by study design (Q = 5.54, p = 0.02) and social competence type (Q = 8.90, p = 0.003). With respect to study design, the association was stronger in cross‐sectional (k = 39, r = 0.29 [95% CI = 0.22–0.36]) compared to longitudinal studies (k = 10, r = 0.17 [95% CI = 0.09–0.25]). With respect to social competence type, the association was stronger in studies that used a social functioning measure (k = 15, r = 0.40 [95% CI = 0.29–0.51]) compared to those that used a social skills measure (k = 34, r = 0.21 [95% CI = 0.16–0.26]). No other moderators emerged as significant (all p > 0.25).

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Forest plot examining the association between overall language and social competence.

TABLE 1.

Results for the categorical and continuous moderators examined for the correlation between overall language and social competence.

Results
Categorical moderators k r 95% CI Q p
Socioeconomic status
Low 14 0.25*** 0.16–0.33 0.50 0.92
Middle to high 8 0.30*** 0.18–0.40
Mixed 21 0.26*** 0.15–0.36
Unspecified 6 0.28*** 0.17–0.38
Study design
Cross‐sectional 39 0.29*** 0.22–0.36 5.54 0.02
Longitudinal 10 0.17*** 0.09–0.25
Publication status
Published 37 0.26*** 0.19–0.32 0.48 0.49
Unpublished 12 0.30*** 0.17–0.39
Social competence
Social skills 34 0.21*** 0.16–0.26 8.90 0.003
Social functioning 15 0.40*** 0.29–0.51
Language informant
Clinician 10 0.23*** 0.14–0.31 0.26 0.61
Parent 2 — —
Teacher 2 — —
Trainer coder 32 0.25*** 0.19–0.31
Combination 3 — —
Social Informant
Clinician 1 — — 0.84 0.84
Parent 4 0.33 −0.05–0.63
Teacher 30 0.27*** 0.23–0.31
Self‐report 3 — —
Trained Coder 6 0.20*** 0.03–0.36
Combination 5 0.27* 0.04–0.48
Geographic region
Asia 5 0.37*** 0.22–0.50 2.80 0.25
Europe 11 0.30*** 0.12–0.46
Middle East 1 — —
North America 29 0.24*** 0.18–0.30
Oceania 2 — —
South America 1 — —
Continuous moderators k b 95% CI z p
% Male 47 −0.0001 −0.0055–0.0054 0.02 0.98
Age at language assessment 45 0.0027 −0.0212–0.0266 0.22 0.82
Age at social assessment 45 −0.0087 −0.0289–0.0119 −0.83 0.41
% Minority 21 −0.0009 −0.0032–0.0013 −0.84 0.41
Open in a new tab
*

p < 0.05.

***

p < 0.001.

6.3. Receptive Language and Social Competence

The data were inspected for outliers, and one possible outlier was identified (i.e., within ± 3 SD of the mean). Sensitivity analyses determined that removal of the outlier did not significantly change the results (r = 0.23 [95% CI = 0.19–0.26], p < 0.001); thus it was retained. Across 68 studies and 24,509 children, the association between receptive language and social competence was significantly, positively correlated (r = 0.23 [95% CI = 0.20–0.27], p < 0.001; see Figure 3), within a medium effect size range (Funder and Ozer 2019). Publication bias was assessed for and did not suggest concerns (see Figure S2, Egger's regression intercept = −0.02 [95% CI = −0.94 to 0.89], p = 0.98). Heterogeneity statistics were significant (Q (67) = 310.19, p < 0.001, I 2  = 78.40, τ2 = 0.02) suggesting sufficient variability to evaluate moderators. See Table 2 for the results of the moderator analyses. The association between overall language and social competence was significantly moderated by publication status (Q = 4.40, p = 0.04), with stronger effect sizes in published (k = 53, r = 0.25 [95% CI = 0.21–0.29]) compared to unpublished literature (k = 14, r = 0.17 [95% CI = 0.11–0.23]). No other moderators emerged as significant (all p > 0.07).

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Open in a new tab

Forest plot demonstrating the correlation between receptive language and social competence.

TABLE 2.

Results for the categorical and continuous moderators examined for the correlation between receptive language and social competence.

Results
Categorical moderators k r 95% CI Q p
Socioeconomic status
Low 23 0.24*** 0.18–0.30 3.32 0.35
Middle to high 9 0.19*** 0.10–0.28
Mixed 30 0.21*** 0.16–0.27
Unspecified 6 0.30*** 0.17–0.57
Study design
Cross‐sectional 52 0.24*** 0.19–0.29 0.52 0.47
Longitudinal 16 0.22*** 0.18–0.25
Publication status
Published 54 0.25*** 0.21–0.29 4.40 0.04
Unpublished 14 0.17*** 0.11–0.23
Social competence
Social skills 50 0.22*** 0.18–0.26 1.57 0.21
Social functioning 18 0.27*** 0.20–0.34
Language informant
Clinician 16 0.21*** 0.17–0.25 1.08 0.30
Trained coder 51 0.24*** 0.19–0.28
Parent 1 — —
Social informant
Parent 13 0.21*** 0.15–0.27 2.98 0.40
Teacher 36 0.21*** 0.18–0.25
Self‐report 1 — —
Trained coder 11 0.34*** 0.19–0.46
Combination 7 0.24*** 0.01–0.38
Geographic region
Asia 5 0.27*** 0.19–0.34 3.05 0.22
Europe 17 0.26*** 0.19–0.34
Middle East 2 — —
North America 41 0.21*** 0.16–0.25
Oceania 1 — —
South America 1 — —
South Africa 1 — —
Continuous moderators k b 95% CI z p
% Male 64 0.0014 −0.0023–0.0051 0.75 0.45
Age at language assessment 65 −0.0053 −0.0332–0.0227 −0.37 0.72
Age at social assessment 65 −0.0093 −0.0314–0.0127 −0.83 0.41
% Minority 41 −0.0010 −0.0021–0.0001 −1.81 0.07
Open in a new tab
***

p < 0.001.

6.4. Expressive Language and Social Competence

The data were inspected for outliers, and no outliers were identified. Across 34 studies and 26,208 children, the association between expressive language and social competence was significantly, positively correlated (r = 0.20 [95% CI = 0.16–0.24], p < 0.001; see Figure 4) within a medium effect size range (Funder and Ozer 2019). Publication bias was assessed for with possible concerns (see Figure S3, Egger's regression intercept = 1.18 [95% CI = 0.43 to 1.92], p < 0.001). Heterogeneity statistics were significant (Q (33) = 114.78, p < 0.001, I 2  = 71.25, τ2 = 0.01) suggesting sufficient variability to evaluate moderators. See Table 3 for the results of the moderator analyses. The association between expressive language and social competence was significantly moderated by study design (Q = 6.75, p = 0.01) and geographic region (Q = 4.77, p = 0.03). With respect to study design, the association was stronger in cross‐sectional (k = 26, r = 0.22 [95% CI = 0.17–0.27]) compared to longitudinal studies (k = 8, r = 0.14 [95% CI = 0.09–0.18]). The association was stronger for studies originating from North America (k = 20, r = 0.24 [95% CI = 0.18–0.27]) compared to Europe (k = 8, r = 0.14 [95% CI = 0.08–0.20]). Of note, moderator analyses for geographic region were not run for other areas (i.e., Asia, Middle East, Oceania, and South America) due to a small number of studies originating from those areas. No other moderators emerged as significant (all p > 0.26).

FIGURE 4.

FIGURE 4

Open in a new tab

Forest plot demonstrating the correlation between expressive language and social competence.

TABLE 3.

Results for the categorical and continuous moderators examined for the correlation between expressive language and social competence.

Results
Categorical moderators k r 95% CI Q p
Socioeconomic status
Low 11 0.22*** 0.15–0.28 0.42 0.94
Middle to high 5 0.19*** 0.08–0.30
Mixed 14 0.19*** 0.12–0.26
Unspecified 4 0.19** 0.05–0.31
Study design
Cross‐sectional 26 0.22*** 0.17–0.27 6.75 0.01
Longitudinal 8 0.14*** 0.09–0.18
Publication status
Published 27 0.19*** 0.15–0.22 0.94 0.33
Unpublished 7 0.24*** 0.14–0.33
Social competence
Social skills 29 0.20*** 0.15–0.24 0.30 0.59
Social functioning 5 0.23*** 0.12–0.33
Language informant
Clinician 7 0.21*** 0.09–0.26 0.48 0.49
Parent 3 — —
Trained coder 24 0.22*** 0.16–0.25
Social informant
Parent 12 0.19*** 0.11–0.26 2.39 0.30
Teacher 14 0.24*** 0.18–0.29
Trained coder 5 0.17*** 0.09–0.24
Combination 3 — —
Geographic region
Asia 2 — — 4.77 0.03
Europe 8 0.14*** 0.08–0.20
Middle East 2 — —
North America 20 0.24*** 0.18–0.27
Oceania 1 — —
South America 1 — —
Continuous moderators k b 95% CI z p
% Male 30 −0.0028 −0.0112–0.0057 −0.64 0.52
Age at language assessment 33 −0.0137 −0.0412–0.0139 −0.97 0.33
Age at social assessment 33 −0.0166 −0.0454–0.0122 −1.13 0.26
% Minority 19 −0.0002 −0.0015–0.0010 −0.35 0.73
Open in a new tab
**

p < 0.01.

***

p < 0.001.

7. Discussion

This study examined the strength of the associations between three modalities of language (overall, receptive, and expressive language) and social competence. Findings from 130 studies and 62,120 children overall indicated medium‐sized associations between social competence and overall language (r = 0.27, 95% confidence interval [0.21, 0.32], p < 0.001), receptive language (r = 0.23, 95% confidence interval [0.20, 0.27], p < 0.001), and expressive language (r = 0.20, 95% confidence interval [0.16, 0.24], p < 0.001). Although the current study cannot infer causality, results demonstrate that language skills are positively linked with social competence in typically developing children across childhood, in all three of the modalities of language assessed. These findings support the notion that language skills are important for social competence, and vice versa. That is, these associations may develop bi‐directionally whereby children with enhanced language skills are afforded with more opportunities for social practice, and children with stronger social abilities may be provided with more occasions to develop language capabilities (Girard et al. 2016; Sparapani et al. 2018). Alternatively, these skills may develop via a developmental cascade such that opportunities for back‐and‐forth practice of language and social competence build upon one another in a reciprocal and dynamic fashion and lead to further development and success in these domains overtime (e.g., Guo et al. 2023; Masten and Cicchetti, 2010; Yao and Enright 2021).

What might explain these associations? It is possible that language and social skills may be linked through a third variable such as general cognitive abilities. Another possibility is that language and social competence develop via relational factors in early development, namely, via nurturing experiences with caregivers. Children who experience warm and sensitive relations with caregivers may be provided with supportive contexts to build skills and experience models for both their developing language (e.g., Madigan et al. 2019) and social abilities (e.g., Groh et al. 2014). Such experiences may foster the development of these skills and allow them to be practiced and generalized to other relationships. Indeed, positive child–parent verbal interactions (Bratsch‐Hines et al. 2020), sensitive parenting (Barnett et al. 2012), and child‐caregiver attachment (McElwain et al. 2008) have been associated with social competence through language skills. The nature of this link has also been explored via individual skills that develop across childhood. Children with well‐developed language capabilities may be better equipped to recognize, understand, and make sense of social situations as well as others' emotions (Gallagher 1993). They may also use language‐based strategies, such as inner speech, to regulate their emotions more effectively (Bono and Bizri 2014). Indeed, language has been linked to social competence via emotional regulation skills (Eisenberg and Spinrad 2004). The combination of these skills may facilitate more successful social interactions by improving social signaling and conflict resolution, thereby improving social competence (Bakopoulou and Dockrell 2016; Bornstein, Hahn, and Haynes 2010). Given that language (Curtis et al. 2018; Hentges et al. 2021) and social competence (Huber, Plötner, and Schmitz 2019; Hukkelberg et al. 2019) have been related to psychopathology, well‐developed skills in these domains may serve a protective role against psychological problems.

Findings across the three meta‐analyses found support for the moderating effect of varying demographic and methodological moderators on the relation between different modalities of language and social competence. The moderators that emerged as significant included study design (i.e., overall and expressive language meta‐analyses), social type (i.e., overall language meta‐analysis), geographic region (i.e., expressive language meta‐analysis), and publication status (i.e., receptive language meta‐analysis). Study design significantly moderated the relation between social competence and both overall and expressive language. In both meta‐analyses, language skills were more strongly linked to social competence in cross‐sectional compared to longitudinal studies. This was not the case for receptive language, where effect sizes were similar and strong across both cross‐sectional and longitudinal designs. These findings suggest that overall and expressive language are more strongly linked to social competence when the constructs are examined concurrently and developing in sync with one another, rather than across different developmental periods. Although direct comparisons are difficult as three separate meta‐analyses were conducted, it is possible that receptive language skills may be more relevant for social competence both in the short‐term and persisting later across childhood (Davis and Qi 2020; Rautakoski et al. 2021). Indeed, these findings support the notion that compared to children with general or expressive language challenges, children who specifically experience receptive language issues may have both immediate and enduring difficulties with social competence.

The type of social competence assessed emerged as a significant moderator in the relation between overall language and social competence in that the association was stronger in studies that assessed social functioning versus social skills. This finding may have emerged due to the overall language meta‐analysis involving more comprehensive and multi‐faceted measures of language which may also include social aspects of language (i.e., pragmatic language; Wieczorek et al. 2024), compared to measures that focus solely on receptive and expressive language. Similarly, measures of social functioning may capture broader competencies that are not considered or accounted for in narrow social skills measures (Hukkelberg et al. 2019). In turn, a more multifaceted assessment of language would then be more strongly linked with a similarly broad construct of social competence (i.e., social functioning) as opposed to a specific skills lens (i.e., social skills). Indeed, it is plausible that general language skills would be more strongly associated with capabilities such as adapting to different social situations or navigating social relations effectively, as compared to specific social skills like being cooperative or assertive.

The geographic region where the study took place also emerged as a significant moderator in the expressive language, but not overall or receptive meta‐analyses. The connection between expressive language and social competence was stronger in North American compared to European samples, with other regions excluded from this analysis due to a small number of studies. These findings suggest that when comparing children from different WEIRD (White, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic) regions, there are stronger links between expressive language and social competence in children from North America compared to Europe. To our knowledge, developmental research has often focused on disentangling differences between western and eastern regions (e.g., Cameron‐Faulkner et al. 2021; Farver et al. 2000). In turn, this study offers unique insights into specific variations between European and North American regions with respect to expressive language and social competence and highlights the need for future research to consider these differences among more diverse regions.

Publication status emerged as a significant moderator in the receptive language meta‐analysis, with stronger effects between receptive language and social competence for published compared to unpublished literature. The issue of publication bias has long been identified as a longstanding issue in psychology (e.g., McShane, Böckenholt, and Hansen 2016). Although we did seek out unpublished work, this finding suggests that significant results may have been overrepresented in this meta‐analysis. Together, these findings highlight the importance of editorial policies that do not privilege the publication of significant results over nonsignificant results.

The association between all three modalities of language and social competence did not vary based on age, which was contrary to our hypotheses that proposed the association would be stronger in younger children. The lack of a significant moderating effect of age suggests that the associations between overall, receptive, and expressive language are similar across developmental periods spanning two to 12 years of age. An alternative possibility is that age‐related effects exist between language and social abilities in childhood; however, they were not captured in the current study. The age range was selected to encompass the early and mid‐childhood years; however, it is possible that changes during infancy or adolescence not captured in the current study could impact these relations. While the current study comprised a broader age range relative to other meta‐analyses on related topics (e.g., Huber, Plötner, and Schmitz 2019), it may not have fully captured effects of age due to the exclusion of infants and adolescents (i.e., over the age of 12), coupled with the mean age of participants coinciding with early childhood.

Child sex at birth was not a significant moderator among any of the meta‐analyses completed, suggesting that patterns of social competence and overall, receptive, and expressive language are similar across boys and girls. Similarly, SES did not emerge as a significant moderator in any of these meta‐analyses, suggesting that the association between language and social competence holds across children who vary in socioeconomic status. The absence of child sex and SES‐related findings is consistent with other meta‐analyses on language and social development (Troesch, Keller, and Grob 2016; Wieczorek et al. 2024) and problem behaviors (Hukkelberg et al. 2019). Finally, the social and language informant used across studies did not emerge as a significant moderator suggesting similar associations between receptive, expressive, and overall language regardless of informant.

7.1. Limitations and Future Directions

There are several limitations of the current study. First, it is not possible to make causal claims regarding the relations between language and social competence from a correlational meta‐analytic approach. Second, the receptive and expressive meta‐analyses may have been impacted by some level of publication bias as evidenced by a significant Egger statistic (for expressive language) and publication status emerging as a significant moderator (for receptive language). Thus, significant results may have been overrepresented across analyses. Third, moderators of interest were examined via isolated impacts between various forms of language and social competence; however, real‐world relations likely involve complex relations and interactions among multiple variables (Hentges et al. 2021). Fourth, carrying out three separate meta‐analyses based on language modality, rather than one overall meta‐analysis with language modality as a moderator, does not allow for direct comparsion between different language modalities. In turn, an alternative approach would be to carry out one meta‐analysis with language modality as a moderator. Furthermore, we note that our approach to dealing with overlapping samples by choosing only one effect size is a limitation of this research. Future research should address these methodological limitations by using multi‐level modeling approaches (e.g., Van den Noortgate et al. 2013). These approaches allow for inclusion of effect sizes from overlapping samples as well as examining interactions between moderators of interest. Fifth, disagreement remains on the topic of what distinctly embodies social competence, with definitions and models varying across different studies and measures. Sixth, the overall effect sizes, although characterized as medium, account for less than 10% of the variance. Finally, the search strategy employed may have been biased towards WEIRD research resulting in a sample that was not equally representative of varied races or ethnicities, minority groups, SES, or geographic regions. This in turn limits the generalizability of the findings to predominantly White children from North America and Europe.

There are several possible future directions that could build upon the findings in this study. First, future meta‐analyses could opt to increase the age range of study inclusion. Including children from infancy through the end of adolescence may allow for a more in‐depth understanding of associations in these areas across all childhood developmental periods. For example, enhanced emphasis on social competence prior to academic transitions (e.g., secondary school) that typically occur in adolescence has been shown to impact later emotional well‐being (e.g., Gough Kenyon, Palikara, and Lucas 2022). Thus, there is utility in considering language and social associations in older youth. A second fruitful avenue for future research would be to examine the connection between different forms of language and social competence in clinical populations. For example, children with conditions such as autism, social communication disorder, social anxiety, or selective mutism may differentially experience language and social competence relations, and a better understanding of these relations may refine our understanding of possible prevention and intervention strategies for youth with these conditions. Given the socially driven aspect of pragmatic language, another possible direction for future research would be to specifically examine the connection between pragmatic language and social competence. Finally, as noted above, an important avenue for future studies would include analyses with multi‐level modeling, longitudinal mediation, or cross‐lagged models to further our understanding of developmental trajectories and cascades between language and social competence.

8. Conclusion

The three meta‐analyses presented here add to the body of literature supporting important, positive connections between three modalities of language (overall, receptive, and expressive) and social competence during childhood. These findings advance our understanding of how different forms of language are associated with social competence across childhood. Indeed, an enhanced understanding of these associations is critical given that children with more developed skills in these domains experience notable impacts across areas including peer relations (Menting, van Lier, and Koot 2011), peer victimization and bullying (Øksendal et al. 2021; Jenkins, Mulvey, and Floress 2017), academic outcomes (Caprara et al. 2000; Yao and Enright 2021), psychopathology (i.e., internalizing and externalizing conditions; Hentges et al. 2021; Huber, Plötner, and Schmitz 2019), and long‐term education and occupational prospects (Johnson, Beitchman, and Brownlie 2010; Jones, Greenberg, and Crowley 2015).

Supporting information

Data S1.

CDEV-96-930-s005.docx (41.4KB, docx)

Figure S1. Funnel plot assessing for publication bias for the analysis examining the association between overall language and social competence.

CDEV-96-930-s002.docx (16.2KB, docx)

Figure S2. Funnel plot assessing for publication bias for the analysis examining the association between receptive language and social competence.

CDEV-96-930-s001.docx (16.6KB, docx)

Figure S3. Funnel plot assessing for publication bias for the analysis examining the association between expressive language and social competence.

CDEV-96-930-s003.docx (15.6KB, docx)

Table S1. Summary of study characteristics.

CDEV-96-930-s004.docx (81.9KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

The data and materials necessary to produce the analyses presented here are publicly accessible (https://osf.io/9zr28/?view_only=b398a94734cf41e6bd12d9d1f84eb80c) and are available from the authors upon reasonable request. The analytical code necessary to reproduce the results is not publicly accessible given that the analyses were conducted in Comprehensive Meta‐Analysis (CMA) using standard procedures. The analyses were not pre‐registered. This research was funded by an Insight Grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and funding from the Alberta Children's Hospital Foundation awarded to SG. KW was supported by a Canada Graduate Scholarship from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Appendix A. PsycINFO Search Strategy.

Database(s): APA PsycInfo 1806 to May Week 3 2021. Search Strategy

# Searches Results
1 language/ or exp. Language Development/ 69,722
2 exp speech development/ or exp. Verbal Communication/ 128,468
3 verbal ability/ or verbal fluency/ 10,320
4 exp Language disorders/ 38,636
5 ((language* or speech* or verbal* or linguistic*) adj (skill* or develop* or fluen* or abilit* or competenc* or disabil* or delay* or disorder* or impair*)).tw. 48,797
6 (Language adj3 (expressive or receptive)).tw. 4243
7 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 238,852
8 social skills/ or social communication/ or social emotional learning/ or social functioning/ or socioemotional functioning/ 21,005
9 social behavior/ or altruism/ or prosocial behavior/ or “sharing (social behavior)”/ or “Assistance (Social Behavior)”/ or self‐control/ or social adjustment/ or interpersonal interaction/ or caring behaviors/ or social integration/ or interpersonal relationships/ or social interaction/ 133,055
10 self‐control/ or emotional control/ or emotional regulation/ or self‐regulation/ 33,706
11 empathy/ or social emotional learning/ 14,774
12 ((social* or prosocial* or pro‐social* or emotion* or socioemotion* or socio‐emotion* or interpersonal* or inter‐personal* or peer*) adj2 (competen* or skill* or develop* or behavio?r* or function* or success* or adapt* or adjust* or perform* or regulat* or relation* or intelligen* or abilit*)).tw. 275,131
13 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 386,277
14 exp Childhood Development/ 110,738
15 (child* or toddler* or preschool* or pre‐school* or kindergarten* or kid or kids or boy* or girl* or tween* or teen* or p?ediatric*).tw. 828,765
16 (child* or p?ediatric*).jn. 50,767
17 14 or 15 or 16 852,999
18 7 and 13 and 17 8056
Open in a new tab

Appendix B. MEDLINE Search Strategy.

Database(s): Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In‐Process, In‐Data‐Review & Other Non‐Indexed Citations and Daily 1946 to May 31, 2021. Search Strategy

# Searches Results
1 language/ or exp. Language Development/ 57,380
2 exp Language Disorders/ 49,688
3 ((language* or speech* or verbal* or linguistic*) adj (skill* or develop* or fluen* or abilit* or competenc* or disabil* or delay* or disorder* or impair*)).kf,tw. 34,121
4 (Language adj3 (expressive or receptive)).kf,tw. 3310
5 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 119,633
6 interpersonal relations/ or social integration/ or social interaction/ or social skills/ 76,341
7 social behavior/ or altruism/ or cooperative behavior/ or self‐control/ 106,386
8 emotional intelligence/ or empathy/ 22,206
9 ((social* or prosocial* or pro‐social* or emotion* or socioemotion* or socio‐emotion* or interpersonal* or inter‐personal* or peer*) adj2 (competen* or skill* or develop* or behavio?r* or function* or success* or adapt* or adjust* or perform* or regulat* or relation* or intelligen* or abilit*)).kf, tw. 147,687
10 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 307,502
11 exp Child Development/ 62,445
12 (child* or toddler* or preschool* or pre‐school* or kindergarten* or kid or kids or boy* or girl* or tween* or teen* or p?ediatric*).kf,tw. 1,839,987
13 (child* or p?ediatric*).jn. 235,669
14 11 or 12 or 13 1,948,623
15 5 and 10 and 14 4183
Open in a new tab

Appendix C. Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts Search Strategy.

Search Strategy: Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts. Date of search: June 2, 2021

Set# Searched for Databases Results
S1 MAINSUBJECT.EXPLODE(“Language Acquisition”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXPLODE(“Language Pathology”) Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA) 10,341
S2 AB,TI((language* or speech* or verbal* or linguistic*) NEAR/1 (skill* or develop* or fluen* or abilit* or competenc* or disabil* or delay* or disorder* or impair*)) Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA) 38,928
S3 AB,TI(Language NEAR/3 (expressive OR receptive)) Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA) 2397
S4 s1 or s2 or s3 Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA) 47,205
S5 MAINSUBJECT.EXPLODE(“Empathy”) OR (MAINSUBJECT(“Interpersonal Relationships”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXPLODE(“Social Perception”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXPLODE(“Social Functions of Language”)) Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA) 2763
S7 ab,ti((social* OR prosocial* OR “pro‐social*” OR emotion* OR socioemotion* OR “socio‐emotion*” OR interpersonal* OR “inter‐personal*” OR peer*) NEAR/2 (competen* OR skill* OR develop* OR behavior* OR behaviour* OR function* OR success* OR adapt* OR adjust* OR perform* OR regulat* OR relation* OR intelligen* OR abilit*)) Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA) 12,402
S8 s5 OR s7 Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA) 14,445
S10 ab,ti(child* OR toddler* OR preschool* OR pre‐school* OR kindergarten* OR kid OR kids OR boy* OR girl* OR tween* OR teen* OR pediatric* OR paediatric*) Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA) 81,273
S11 pub(child* OR pediatric* OR paediatric*) Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA) 9023
S12 s10 OR s11 Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA) 83,315
S13 s4 AND s8 AND s12 Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA) 1574
Open in a new tab

Appendix D. Scopus Search Strategy.

Search Strategy: Scopus. Date searched: June 3, 2021

((TITLE‐ABS‐KEY ((language* OR speech* OR verbal* OR linguistic*) W/1 (skill* OR develop* OR fluen* OR abilit* OR competenc* OR disabil* OR delay* OR disorder* OR impair*)) OR TITLE‐ABS‐KEY (language W/3 (expressive OR receptive))))

AND

(TITLE‐ABS‐KEY ((social* OR prosocial* OR “pro‐social*” OR emotion* OR socioemotion* OR “socio‐emotion*” OR interpersonal* OR “inter‐personal*” OR peer*) W/2 (competen* OR skill* OR develop* OR behavio?r* OR function* OR success* OR adapt* OR adjust* OR perform* OR regulat* OR relation* OR intelligen* OR abilit*)))

AND

((TITLE‐ABS‐KEY (child* OR toddler* OR preschool* OR “pre‐school*” OR kindergarten* OR kid OR kids OR boy* OR girl* OR tween* OR teen* OR p?ediatric*) OR SRCTITLE (child* OR p?ediatric*)))

Results: 6273.

Appendix E. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

Search Strategy: ProQuest Dissertations. Date of search: June 7, 2021

Set# Searched for Databases Results
S1 AB,TI((language* or speech* or verbal* or linguistic*) NEAR/1 (skill* or develop* or fluen* or abilit* or competenc* or disabil* or delay* or disorder* or impair*)) OR AB,TI(Language NEAR/3 (expressive OR receptive)) ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global 22,024
S2 ab,ti((social* OR prosocial* OR “pro‐social*” OR emotion* OR socioemotion* OR “socio‐emotion*” OR interpersonal* OR “inter‐personal*” OR peer*) NEAR/2 (competen* OR skill* OR develop* OR behavior* OR behaviour* OR function* OR success* OR adapt* OR adjust* OR perform* OR regulat* OR relation* OR intelligen* OR abilit*)) ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global 135,504
S3 ab,ti(child* OR toddler* OR preschool* OR pre‐school* OR kindergarten* OR kid OR kids OR boy* OR girl* OR tween* OR teen* OR pediatric* OR paediatric*) ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global 284,232
S4 s1 AND s2 AND s3 ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global 1563
Open in a new tab

Funding: This research was funded by an Insight Grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and funding from the Alberta Children's Hospital Foundation awarded to SG. KW was supported by a Canada Graduate Scholarship from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Contributor Information

Karolina Wieczorek, Email: karolina.wieczorek@ucalgary.ca.

Susan A. Graham, Email: grahams@ucalgary.ca.

Data Availability Statement

The data and materials necessary to produce the analyses presented here are publicly accessible (https://osf.io/9zr28/?view_only=b398a94734cf41e6bd12d9d1f84eb80c).

References

  1. Aarne, P. , Almkvist O., Mothander P. R., and Tallberg I.‐M.. 2014. “Parent‐Rated Socio‐Emotional Development in Children With Language Impairment in Comparison With Typically Developed Children.” European Journal of Developmental Psychology 11: 279–291. 10.1080/17405629.2013.817332. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson, N. J. , Graham S. A., Prime H., Jenkins J. M., and Madigan S.. 2021. “Linking Quality and Quantity of Parental Linguistic Input to Child Language Skills: A Meta‐Analysis.” Child Development 92, no. 2: 484–501. 10.1111/cdev.13508. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Arnold, D. H. , Kupersmidt J. B., Voegler‐Lee M. E., and Marshall N.. 2012. “The Association Between Preschool Children's Social Functioning and Their Emergent Academic Skills.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 27: 376–386. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.12.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Aro, T. , Eklund K., Nurmi J. E., and Poikkeus A. M.. 2012. “Early Language and Behavioral Regulation Skills as Predictors of Social Outcomes.” Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 55: 395–408. 10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0245). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bakopoulou, I. , and Dockrell J. E.. 2016. “The Role of Social Cognition and Prosocial Behaviour in Relation to the Socio‐Emotional Functioning of Primary Aged Children With Specific Language Impairment.” Research in Developmental Disabilities 49–50: 354–370. 10.1016/j.ridd.2015.12.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Barnett, M. A. , Gustafsson H., Deng M., Mills‐Koonce W. R., and Cox M.. 2012. “Bidirectional Associations Among Sensitive Parenting, Language Development, and Social Competence.” Infant and Child Development 21: 374–393. 10.1002/icd.1750. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bono, K. E. , and Bizri R.. 2014. “The Role of Language and Private Speech in Preschoolers' Self‐Regulation.” Early Child Development and Care 184: 658–670. 10.1080/03004430.2013.813846. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Borenstein, M. , Hedges L., Higgins J., and Rothstein H.. 2013. Comprehensive Meta‐Analysis Version 3. Englewood, NJ: Biostat. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bornstein, M. H. , Hahn C.‐S., and Haynes O. M.. 2004. “Specific and General Language Performance Across Early Childhood: Stability and Gender Considerations.” First Language 24: 267–304. 10.1177/0142723704045681. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bornstein, M. H. , Hahn C.‐S., and Haynes O. M.. 2010. “Social Competence, Externalizing, and Internalizing Behavioral Adjustment From Early Childhood Through Early Adolescence: Developmental Cascades.” Development and Psychopathology 22: 717–735. 10.1017/s0954579410000416. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Bratsch‐Hines, M. E. , Carr R., Zgourou E., Vernon‐Feagans L., and Willoughby M.. 2020. “Infant and Toddler Child‐Care Quality and Stability in Relation to Proximal and Distal Academic and Social Outcomes.” Child Development 91: 1854–1864. 10.1111/cdev.13389. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Brooks, P. J. , and Kempe V., eds. 2014. Encyclopedia of Language Development. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc. 10.4135/9781483346441. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Cadima, J. , Barros S., Ferreira T., Serra‐Lemos M., Leal T., and Verschueren K.. 2019. “Bidirectional Associations Between Vocabulary and Self‐Regulation in Preschool and Their Interplay With Teacher–Child Closeness and Autonomy Support.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 46: 75–86. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.04.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Cameron‐Faulkner, T. , Malik N., Steele C., Coretta S., Serratrice L., and Lieven E.. 2021. “A Cross‐Cultural Analysis of Early Prelinguistic Gesture Development and Its Relationship to Language Development.” Child Development 92: 273–290. 10.1111/cdev.13406. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Caprara, G. V. , Barbaranelli C., Pastorelli C., Bandura A., and Zimbardo P. G.. 2000. “Prosocial Foundations of Children's Academic Achievement.” Psychological Science 11: 302–306. 10.1111/1467-9280.00260. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Cassidy, K. W. , Werner R. S., Rourke M., Zubernis L. S., and Balaraman G.. 2003. “The Relationship Between Psychological Understanding and Positive Social Behaviors.” Social Development 12: 198–221. 10.1111/1467-9507.00229. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Chilosi, A. M. , Brovedani P., Cipriani P., and Casalini C.. 2021. “Sex Differences in Early Language Delay and in Developmental Language Disorder.” Journal of Neuroscience Research 1‐14: 654–667. 10.1002/jnr.24976. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Coll, C. G. , Lamberty G., Jenkins R., et al. 1996. “An Integrative Model for the Study of Developmental Competencies in Minority Children.” Child Development 67: 1891. 10.2307/1131600. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Conte, E. , Grazzani I., and Pepe A.. 2018. “Social Cognition, Language, and Prosocial Behaviors: A Multitrait Mixed‐Methods Study in Early Childhood.” Early Education and Development 29: 814–830. 10.1080/10409289.2018.1475820. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Conti‐Ramsden, G. , Mok P., Durkin K., Pickles A., Toseeb U., and Botting N.. 2019. “Do Emotional Difficulties and Peer Problems Occur Together from Childhood to Adolescence? The Case of Children with a History of Developmental Language Disorder (DLD).” European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 28, no. 7: 993–1004. 10.1007/s00787-018-1261-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Cooke, J. E. , Deneault A., Devereux C., Eirich R., Fearon R. M. P., and Madigan S.. 2022. “Parental Sensitivity and Child Behavioral Problems: A Meta‐Analytic Review.” Child Development 93, no. 5: 1231–1248. 10.1111/cdev.13764. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Curenton, S. M. 2015. “African American Preschoolers' Emotion Explanations Can Provide Evidence of Their Pragmatic Skills.” Topics in Language Disorders 35: 46–60. 10.1097/tld.0000000000000045. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Curtis, P. R. , Frey J. R., Watson C. D., Hampton L. H., and Roberts M. Y.. 2018. “Language Disorders and Problem Behaviors: A Meta‐Analysis.” Pediatrics 142: 1–14. 10.1542/peds.2017-3551. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Davis, A. N. , and Qi C. H.. 2020. “A Longitudinal Examination of Language Skills, Social Skills, and Behavior Problems of Preschool Children From Low‐Income Families.” Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 40: 172–186. 10.1177/0271121420946104. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Dunn, D. M. 2019. Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. 5th ed. Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson. [Google Scholar]
  26. Eisenberg, N. , and Spinrad T. L.. 2004. “Emotion‐Related Regulation: Sharpening the Definition.” Child Development 75: 334–339. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00674.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Farver, J. A. M. , Kim Y. K., and Lee‐Shin Y.. 2000. “Within Cultural Differences.” Journal of Cross‐Cultural Psychology 31, no. 5: 583–602. 10.1177/0022022100031005003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Fenson, L. , Dale P. S., Reznick J. S., et al. 1994. “Variability in Early Communicative Development.” Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 59: 1–174. 10.2307/1166093. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Franco, A. , Malhotra N., and Simonovits G.. 2014. “Publication Bias in the Social Sciences: Unlocking the File Drawer.” Science 345: 1502–1505. 10.1126/science.1255484. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Funder, D. C. , and Ozer D. J.. 2019. “Evaluating Effect Size in Psychological Research: Sense and Nonsense.” Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 2: 156–168. 10.1177/2515245919847202. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Gallagher, T. M. 1993. “Language Skill and the Development of Social Competence in School‐Age Children.” Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 24: 199–205. 10.1044/0161-1461.2404.199. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Girard, L. C. , Pingault J. B., Doyle O., Falissard B., and Tremblay R. E.. 2016. “Developmental Associations Between Conduct Problems and Expressive Language in Early Childhood: A Population‐Based Study.” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 44: 1033–1043. 10.1007/s10802-015-0094-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Gough Kenyon, S. M. , Palikara O., and Lucas R. M.. 2022. “Predictors of School Concern Across the Transition to Secondary School With Developmental Language Disorder and Low Language Ability: A Longitudinal Developmental Cascade Analysis.” International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders 57: 1368–1380. 10.1111/1460-6984.12761. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Gresham, P. M. , and Elliot S. N.. 1990. “Social Skills Rating System (SSRS).” [Database record]. APA PsycTests.
  35. Groh, A. M. , Fearon R. P., Bakermans‐Kranenburg M. J., van IJzendoorn M. H., Steele R. D., and Roisman G. I.. 2014. “The Significance of Attachment Security for Children's Social Competence With Peers: A Meta‐Analytic Study.” Attachment &Amp; Human Development 16: 103–136. 10.1080/14616734.2014.883636. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Guo, L. X. , Pace A., Masek L. R., Golinkoff R. M., and Hirsh‐Pasek K.. 2023. “Cascades in Language Acquisition: Re‐Thinking the Linear Model of Development.” Advances in Child Development and Behavior 64: 69–107. 10.1016/bs.acdb.2022.11.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Hay, D. F. , Payne A., and Chadwick A.. 2004. “Peer Relations in Childhood.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 45: 84–108. 10.1046/j.0021-9630.2003.00308.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Hebert‐Myers, H. , Guttentag C. L., Swank P. R., Smith K. E., and Landry S. H.. 2006. “The Importance of Language, Social, and Behavioral Skills Across Early and Later Childhood as Predictors of Social Competence With Peers.” Applied Developmental Science 10: 174–187. 10.1207/s1532480xads1004_2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Hentges, R. F. , Devereux C., Graham S. A., and Madigan S.. 2021. “Child Language Difficulties and Internalizing and Externalizing Symptoms: A Meta‐Analysis.” Child Development 92: 691–715. 10.1111/cdev.13540. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Hoff, E. 2015. “Language Development.” In Developmental Science, 443–488. New York: Psychology Press. [Google Scholar]
  41. Huber, L. , Plötner M., and Schmitz J.. 2019. “Social Competence and Psychopathology in Early Childhood: A Systematic Review.” European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 28: 443–459. 10.1007/s00787-018-1152-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Hukkelberg, S. , Keles S., Ogden T., and Hammerstrøm K.. 2019. “The Relation Between Behavioral Problems and Social Competence: A Correlational Meta‐Analysis.” BMC Psychiatry 19: 354. 10.1186/s12888-019-2343-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Jenkins, L. N. , Mulvey N., and Floress M. T.. 2017. “Social and Language Skills as Predictors of Bullying Roles in Early Childhood: A Narrative Summary of the Literature.” Education and Treatment of Children 40: 401–417. 10.1353/etc.2017.0017. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Johnson, C. J. , Beitchman J. H., and Brownlie E. B.. 2010. “Twenty‐Year Follow‐Up of Children With and Without Speech‐Language Impairments: Family, Educational, Occupational, and Quality of Life Outcomes.” American Journal of Speech‐Language Pathology 19: 51–65. 10.1044/1058-0360(2009/08-0083). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Jones, D. E. , Greenberg M., and Crowley M.. 2015. “Early Social‐Emotional Functioning and Public Health: The Relationship Between Kindergarten Social Competence and Future Wellness.” American Journal of Public Health 105: 2283–2290. 10.2105/AJPH.2015.302630. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Madigan, S. , Prime H., Graham S. A., et al. 2019. “Parenting Behavior and Child Language: A Meta‐Analysis.” Pediatrics 144: e20183556. 10.1542/peds.2018-3556. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Martin, N. A. , and Brownell R.. 2010. “Expressive One‐Word Picture Vocabulary Test.” (4th editon). [Measurement instrument].
  48. Masten, A. S. , and Cicchetti D.. 2010. “Developmental Cascades.” Development and Psychopathology 22, no. 3: 491–495. 10.1017/s0954579410000222. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. McElwain, N. L. , Booth‐LaForce C., Lansford J. E., Wu X., and Justin Dyer W.. 2008. “A Process Model of Attachment–Friend Linkages: Hostile Attribution Biases, Language Ability, and Mother–Child Affective Mutuality as Intervening Mechanisms.” Child Development 79: 1891–1906. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01232.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. McShane, B. B. , Böckenholt U., and Hansen K. T.. 2016. “Adjusting for Publication Bias in Meta‐Analysis: An Evaluation of Selection Methods and Some Cautionary Notes.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 11, no. 5: 730–749. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. McTaggart, V. , McGill R., and Stephens S.. 2022. “Gender Differences in the Development of Children's Social and Emotional Competencies During the Pre‐School Year.” Early Child Development and Care 192: 1952–1966. 10.1080/03004430.2021.1957859. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Menting, B. , van Lier P. A., and Koot H. M.. 2011. “Language Skills, Peer Rejection, and the Development of Externalizing Behavior From Kindergarten to Fourth Grade.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 52: 72–79. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02284.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Mulvey, N. , and Jenkins L.. 2021. “Language Skills as Predictors of Social Skills and Behaviors in Preschool Children.” Contemporary School Psychology 25: 503–514. 10.1007/s40688-020-00281-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Norbury, C. F. , Gooch D., Wray C., et al. 2016. “The Impact of Nonverbal Ability on Prevalence and Clinical Presentation of Language Disorder: Evidence From a Population Study.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 57: 1247–1257. 10.1111/jcpp.12573. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Øksendal, E. , Brandlistuen R. E., Wolke D., Helland S. S., Holte A., and Wang M. V.. 2021. “Associations Between Language Difficulties, Peer Victimization, and Bully Perpetration From 3 Through 8 Years of Age: Results From a Population‐Based Study.” Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 64: 2698–2714. 10.1044/2021_jslhr-20-00406. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Park, C. J. , Yelland G. W., Taffe J. R., and Gray K. M.. 2012. “Brief Report: The Relationship Between Language Skills, Adaptive Behavior, and Emotional and Behavior Problems in Pre‐Schoolers With Autism.” Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 42: 2761–2766. 10.1007/s10803-012-1534-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Rautakoski, P. , Ursin P. A., Carter A. S., Kaljonen A., Nylund A., and Pihlaja P.. 2021. “Communication Skills Predict Social‐Emotional Competencies.” Journal of Communication Disorders 93: 106–138. 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2021.106138. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Rice, M. L. , and Hoffman L.. 2015. “Predicting Vocabulary Growth in Children With and Without Specific Language Impairment: A Longitudinal Study From 2;6 to 21 Years of Age.” Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 58: 345–359. 10.1044/2015_JSLHR-L-14-0150. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Rose, E. , Weinert S., and Ebert S.. 2018. “The Roles of Receptive and Productive Language in children's Socioemotional Development.” Social Development 27: 777–792. 10.1111/sode.12317. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  60. Rose‐Krasnor, L. 1997. “The Nature of Social Competence: A Theoretical Review.” Social Development 6: 111–135. 10.1111/j.1467-9507.1997.tb00097.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Rowe, M. L. , Raudenbush S. W., and Goldin‐Meadow S.. 2012. “The Pace of Vocabulary Growth Helps Predict Later Vocabulary Skill.” Child Development 83: 508–525. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01710.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Sparapani, N. , Connor C. M., McLean L., Wood T., Toste J., and Day S.. 2018. “Direct and Reciprocal Effects Among Social Skills, Vocabulary, and Reading Comprehension in First Grade.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 53: 159–167. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.03.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Sparrow, S. S. , Cicchetti D. V., and Saulnier C. A.. 2016. Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Third Edition (Vineland‐3). San Antion, TX: Pearson. [Google Scholar]
  64. Tan, M. , and Dobbs‐Oates J.. 2013. “Relationship Between Emergent Literacy and Early Social–Emotional Development in Preschool Children From Low‐Income Backgrounds.” Early Child Development and Care 183: 1509–1530. 10.1080/03004430.2012.729051. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  65. Troesch, L. M. , Keller K., and Grob A.. 2016. “Language Competence and Social Preference in Childhood: A Meta‐Analysis.” European Psychologist 21: 167–179. 10.1027/1016-9040/a000262. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  66. Van den Noortgate, W. , López‐López J. A., Marín‐Martínez F., and Sánchez‐Meca J.. 2013. “Three‐Level Meta‐Analysis of Dependent Effect Sizes.” Behavior Research Methods 45: 576–594. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Wieczorek, K. , DeGroot M., Madigan S., Pador P., Ganshorn H., and Graham S.. 2024. “Linking Language Skills and Social Competence in Children With Developmental Language Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis.” American Journal of Speech‐Language Pathology 33: 505–526. 10.1044/2023_ajslp-22-00406. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Wiig, E. H. , Semel E., and Secord W. A.. 2013. Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals–Fifth Edition (CELF‐5). Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson. [Google Scholar]
  69. Yao, A. , and Enright R.. 2021. “A Developmental Cascade Model of Prosocial Behavior, Academic Competence, and Peer Exclusion Across Preadolescence.” Merrill‐Palmer Quarterly 67: 269–292. 10.13110/merrpalmquar1982.67.3.0269. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Data S1.

CDEV-96-930-s005.docx (41.4KB, docx)

Figure S1. Funnel plot assessing for publication bias for the analysis examining the association between overall language and social competence.

CDEV-96-930-s002.docx (16.2KB, docx)

Figure S2. Funnel plot assessing for publication bias for the analysis examining the association between receptive language and social competence.

CDEV-96-930-s001.docx (16.6KB, docx)

Figure S3. Funnel plot assessing for publication bias for the analysis examining the association between expressive language and social competence.

CDEV-96-930-s003.docx (15.6KB, docx)

Table S1. Summary of study characteristics.

CDEV-96-930-s004.docx (81.9KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

The data and materials necessary to produce the analyses presented here are publicly accessible (https://osf.io/9zr28/?view_only=b398a94734cf41e6bd12d9d1f84eb80c).

Articles from Child Development are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES