Effects of kindergarten retention on children's social-emotional development: An application of propensity score method to multivariate, multilevel data.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the effects of kindergarten retention on children's social-emotional development in the early, middle, and late elementary years. Previous studies have generated mixed results partly due to some major methodological challenges, including selection bias, measurement error, and divergent perceptions of multiple respondents in different domains of child development. The authors address these challenges by using propensity score stratification to contend with selection bias and by embedding measurement models in hierarchical models to account for measurement error and to model dependence among observations. The authors' analyses of a series of multivariate models enable them to compare the retention effects across different respondents over different time points. In general, the results show no evidence suggesting that kindergarten retention does harm to children's social-emotional development. Rather, the findings suggest that, had the retained kindergartners been promoted to the first grade instead, they would possibly have developed a lower level of self-confidence and interest in reading and all school subjects 2 years later and would have displayed a higher level of internalizing problem behaviors at the end of the treatment year and 2 years later.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.059 | 0.107 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".