Association between nonmaternal care in the first year of life and children's receptive language skills prior to school entry: the moderating role of socioeconomic status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies have suggested that nonmaternal care (NMC) may either carry risks or be beneficial for children's language development. However, few tested the possibility that NMC may be more or less protective for children with different family backgrounds. This study investigates the role of the family environment, as reflected in the socioeconomic status (SES), in the association between NMC in the first year of life and children's receptive language skills prior to school entry. METHOD: A representative sample of 2,297 Canadian children aged between 0 and 11 months at their first assessment was followed over 4 years. Receptive language skills were assessed with the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Revised (PPVT-R) when the child was 4 to 5 years old. RESULTS: After controlling for selection factors, SES was found to moderate the association between NMC and receptive language skills: Full-time NMC in the first year of life was associated with higher PPVT-R scores among children from low SES families (d = .58), but not among children from adequate SES families. CONCLUSION: Full-time NMC in infancy may contribute to reducing the cognitive inequalities between children of low and adequate SES.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".