Towards a conceptual framework of adaptivity in face-to-face-interaction: an interdisciplinary review of adaptivity concepts

Figures & data

Table 1. Concepts of adaptivity, number of total and analysed hits, number of adaptivity indicators and number of cells of the conceptual framework (see Tables 3 and 4) in which the adaptivity indicators occur.

Search term	Concept	No. of hits^a	No. of analysed hits (%)^b		No. of adaptivity indicators^c	No. of cells in conceptual framework (max = 7)^d
adapt*	adaptivity/adaptive teaching	1425	15^e	(1.05%)	28	5
align*	alignment	142	16	(11.27%)	30	5
attun*	attunement	48	13	(27.08%)	32	7
bidirectional*	bidirectionality	73	4	(5.48%)	15	2
calibrat*	calibration	26	1	(3.85%)	1	1
co-construct*	co-construction	77	3	(3.90%)	5	3
co-creat*	co-creation	49	0	(0.00%)	0	0
complement*	complementarity	245	16	(6.53%)	31	6
congruen*	congruency	232	2	(0.86%)	4	2
connectedness	connectedness	79	0	(0.00%)	0	0
contingen*	contingency	441	16	(3.63%)	59	5
coordin*	coordination	561	16	(2.85%)	33	5
co-regulat*/coregulat*	coregulation/co-regulation	34	16	(47.06%)	32	5
differentiat*	differentiated instruction	367	0	(0.00%)	0	0
echo*	echoing	47	3	(6.38%)	5	1
enmesh*	enmeshment	5	0	(0.00%)	0	0
entrain*	entrainment	62	5	(8.06%)	42	2
fit	fit	331	1	(0.30%)	1	1
harmon*	harmony	123	1	(0.81%)	1	1
imitat*	imitation	320	16	(5.00%)	52	2
individual* instruct*	individualized instruction	6	0	(0.00%)	0	0
interdependen*	interdependence	191	2	(1.05%)	8	2
intersubject*/inter-subject*	intersubjectivity/inter-subjectivity	171	11	(6.43%)	25	6
joint attention/joint engagement	joint attention/joint engagement	113	16	(14.16%)	29	4
match*	matching	398	16	(4.02%)	33	5
mimicry*	mimicry	83	7	(8.43%)	29	2
mirror*	mirroring	88	5	(5.68%)	6	3
mutual*	mutual adaptiation/mutuality	284	14	(4.93%)	34	4
negotiat*	negotiation	802	1	(0.12%)	4	1
personali* instruct*	personalized instruction	2	0	(0.00%)	0	0
reactiv*	reactivity	561	4	(0.71%)	6	2
reciproc*	reciprocity	528	15^e	(2.84%)	25	4
responsiv*	responsiveness	504	16	(3.17%)	40	5
rhythmic*	rhythmicity	98	3	(3.06%)	4	2
scaffold*	scaffolding	224	14	(6.25%)	33	5
sensitiv*	sensitivity	978	10	(1.02%)	15	4
shar* think*	shared thinking	2	0	(0.00%)	0	0
similar*	similarity	912	4	(0.44%)	7	1
student-cent*	student-centered instruction	25	0	(0.00%)	0	0
symmetr*	symmetry	95	0	(0.00%)	0	0
synchron*	synchrony	503	16	(3.18%)	21	5
uptak*	uptake	109	9	(8.26%)	12	1
Column totals		11.364	307	(27.02%)^f	702

^a This refers to the number of articles that our search yielded, per concept.

^b The number of articles that we selected, based on our selection criteria. This is 0 when no articles met our criteria; if 0, the concept does not occur in the conceptual framework.

^c Many articles contained more than one adaptivity indicator; we made one schematic summary for each indicator.

^d This refers to the number of cells in our adaptivity framework in which each concept occurs.

^e For adapt, the total number of articles is 15, not 16, because in our first selection round, we only found 14 relevant articles. In the validation check selection, we added only 1 article for each concept, resulting in a total of 15 articles. For reciproc, we also selected 15, but these were all selected in the first selection round. In the validation check selection, we did not encounter any relevant articles.

^f This refers to the average percentage of relevant hits compared to the total number of hits.

Table 2. Examples of schematic summaries.

Article and concept	Time-point 1		Time-point 2		Time-point 3
Scaffolding (Sun & Rao, 2012)	PROPORTION Motherinstruction with guidance level X → Childsuccess → Motherinstruction with guidance level X-1
Parental scaffolding (Evans et al., 2003)	PROPORTION Parentinstructional demand level X → Childsucceeds → Parentinstructional demand level X-1
Dyadic matching (Noe et al., 2015)	DURATION (Infantaffective behavioural state x∞ WHILE Motheraffective behavioural state x∞)
Coordin (Ruusuvuori, 2001)^a	Doctororients to X	←→	Patientorients to X	←→	∞
	Doctororients to X WHILE Patientorients to X

^a In this article, two adaptivity indicators were used.

Note. The conventions for making the schematic summaries can be found in Supplemental Material B.

Table 3. Conceptual framework of adaptivity in face-to-face interaction.

		Responsivity
		Reactivity	Co-occurrence
Relatedness	Sameness
	Oppositeness
	Specified attentiveness
Mixed/Other

Note. The framework consists of two main dimensions: Relatedness and Responsivity, which are each divided into sub dimensions. Each cell denotes an adaptivity type.

Table 4. Placement of concept indicators in the conceptual framework of adaptivity in face-to-face interaction.

		Responsivity
		Reactivity	Co-occurrence
Relatedness	Sameness	Adapt^3/3 | Align^14/10 | Attun^6/3 | Bidirect^10/3 | Coord^14/5 | Compl^7/5 | Congr^1/1 | Cont^34/11 | Coreg^15/7 | Echo^5/3 | Entrain^27/5 | Imitat^50/17 | Interdep^6/2 | Intersubject^1/1 | Joint^2/2 | Match^15/7 | Mimic^3/3 | Mirror^1/1 | Mutual^13/5 | Negotiat^4/1 | Reactiv^4/2 | Recipr^15/9 | Respons^5/3 | Scaffold^4/3 | Sensitiv^3/1 | Synchr^2/2 Total: 264/115	Adapt^13/7 | Align^9/4 | Attun^10/7 | Co-constr^1/1 | Compl^4/3 | Congr^3/1 | Coord^15/12 | Coreg^14/11 | Entrain^15/2 | Intersub^13/6 | Joint^16/10 | Match^13/9 | Mimic^26/4 | Mirror^2/1| Mutual^7/6 | Recipr^5/5 | Respons^4/1 | Rhythm^3/2 | Scaffold^1/1 | Sensitiv^1/1 | Similar^7/4 | Synchr^10/10 Total: 192/108
	Oppositeness	Adapt^1/1 | Attun^2/1 |Align^1/1 | Intersub^1/1 | Coconstr^2/1 | Compl^7/6 | Cont^1/1 | Interdep^2/1 | Joint^2/2 | Scaffold^2/1 Total: 21/16	Adapt^4/3 | Attun^1/1 | Compl^4/4 | Coord^1/1 | Match^2/2 | Synchr^1/1 Total: 13/12
	Specified attentiveness	Adapt^7/5 | Align^5/3 | Attun^2/2| Bidirect^5/3 | Calibrat^1/1| Coconstr^2/2 | Coord^2/1| Compl^1/1 | Cont^21/7| Coreg^1/1| Fit^1/1 | Intersub^3/2 | Joint^9/4 | Mutual^9/3| Reactiv^2/2 | Respons^27/11| Scaffold^24/13 | Sensitiv^9/8| Synchr^2/1 | Uptake^12/9 Total: 145/80	Attun^7/2 | Cont^1/1 | Coreg^1/1| Intersub^4/3 | Match^1/1| Recipr^1/1| Respons^2/1 Total: 17/10
Mixed/Other		Align^1/1 | Attun^4/4 | Compl^3/3 | Cont^2/2 | Coord^1/1 | Coreg^1/1 | Harmon^1/1 | Imitat^2/1 | Intersub^3/3 | Match^2/1 | Mirror^3/3 | Mutual^5/3 | Recipr^4/4 | Respons^2/2 | Rhythm^1/1| Scaffold^2/1 | Sensitiv^2/2 | Synchr^6/5 Total: 45/39

Note. The first superscript number refers to the number of adaptivity indicators belonging to the concept; the second superscript number refers to the number of articles from which the adaptivity indicators of this concept stem.

*Sun, J., & Rao, N. (2012). Scaffolding interactions with preschool children: Comparisons between Chinese mothers and teachers across different tasks. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 58(1), 110–140. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2012.0000

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Evans, M. A., Moretti, S., Shaw, D., & Fox, M. (2003). Parent scaffolding in children's oral Reading. Early Education & Development, 14(3), 363–388. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed1403_5

 Google Scholar

*Noe, D., Schluckwerder, S., & Reck, C. (2015). Influence of dyadic matching of affect on infant self-regulation. Psychopathology, 48(3), 173–183. https://doi.org/10.1159/000376586

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Ruusuvuori, J. (2001). Looking means listening: Coordinating displays of engagement in doctor–patient interaction. Social Science & Medicine, 52(7), 1093–1108. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00227-6

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar