MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2184744218 · doi:10.4073/csr.2010.2

Self‐control interventions for children under age 10 for improving self‐control and delinquency and problem behaviors

2010· article· en· W2184744218 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCampbell Systematic Reviews · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJuvenile delinquencyPsychological interventionSelf-controlContext (archaeology)PsychologyIntervention (counseling)Control (management)Developmental psychologyApplied psychologyComputer sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main objective of this Campbell systematic review is to assess the available research evidence on the effect of self‐control improvement programs on self‐control and delinquency and problem behaviors. In addition to investigating the overall effect of early selfcontrol improvement programs, this review will examine, to the extent possible, the context in which these programs may be most successful. This review includes 34 randomized controlled studies covering a total of 4,386 children, aged from to 10 years. Of these, 31 studies are from the USA, 2 are from Canada and 1 is from Israel. The review covers a time span of 33 years (1975–2008). The studies included in this systematic review indicate that self‐control improvement programs are an effective intervention for improving self‐control and reducing delinquency and problem behaviors, and that the effect of these programs appears to be rather robust across various weighting procedures, and across context, outcome source, and based on both published and unpublished data. Considering these results, future efforts should be made to examine the effectiveness of self‐control improvement programs over time and across different segments of the life‐course (e.g., midadolescence, young adulthood etc.), and conduct rigorous cost‐benefit analysis on programs such as these. Executive Summary/Abstract BACKGROUND Self‐control improvement programs are intended to serve many purposes, most notably improving self‐control. Yet, interventions such as these often aim to reduce delinquency and problem behaviors. However, there is currently no summary statement available regarding whether or not these programs are effective in improving self‐control and reducing delinquency and problem behaviors. OBJECTIVES The main objective of this review is to assess the available research evidence on the effect of self‐control improvement programs on self‐control and delinquency and problem behaviors. In addition to investigating the overall effect of early self‐control improvement programs, this review will examine, to the extent possible, the context in which these programs may be most successful. SEARCH STRATEGY Several strategies were used to perform an exhaustive search for literature fitting the eligibility criteria: (1) A keyword search was conducted across a number of online abstract databases; (2) The reference lists of previous reviews of early childhood prevention/intervention programs in general and self‐control improvement programs specifically were consulted; (3) Hand searches were carried out on leading journals in the field; (4) The publications of research and professional agencies were searched; and (5) Recognized scholars (experts) in various disciplines who were knowledgeable in the specific area of self‐control improvement programs were contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA Studies that investigated the effect of early self‐control improvement programs on improving self‐control, and/or reducing delinquency and problem behaviors were included. Studies were only included if they had a randomized controlled evaluation design that provided post‐test measures of self‐control and/or delinquency and problem behaviors among experimental and control subjects. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Narrative findings are reported for the 34 studies included in this review. A meta‐analysis of all 34 of these studies was carried out. The means and standard deviations were predominantly used to measure the effect size. Results are reported for the unbiased effect sizes and the weighted effect sizes and, where possible, comparisons across outcome sources (parent‐reports, teacher‐reports, direct‐observer reports, self‐reports, and clinical reports). Bivariate and multivariate analyses (using Lipsey & Wilson's SPSS macros) are performed in an effort to determine potential moderators and predictors of the effect sizes, respectively. MAIN RESULTS The studies included in this systematic review indicate that self‐control improvement programs are an effective intervention for improving self‐control and reducing delinquency and problem behaviors, and that the effect of these programs appears to be rather robust across various weighting procedures, and across context, outcome source, and based on both published and unpublished data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We conclude that self‐control improvement programs should continue to be used to improve self‐control and reduce delinquency and behavior problems up to age 10, which is the age cutoff where Gottfredson and Hirschi argue that self‐control becomes relatively fixed and no longer malleable. Considering these results, future efforts should be made to examine the effectiveness of self‐control improvement programs over time and across different segments of the life‐course (e.g., mid‐adolescence, young adulthood etc.), and conduct rigorous cost‐benefit analysis on programs such as these.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.595
Threshold uncertainty score0.892

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it