Importance of Childhood Psychological Wellbeing on Parental Divorce-Educational Level Relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although there is consistent evidence of the negative effects of parental divorce on children’s educational level, the mechanisms and the protective factors that explain the consequences of divorce on children have not been clearly determined. This information is required in order to create effective policies and programs to help children through the divorce process. This study uses the longitudinal data from the British Birth Cohort Study 1970 and structural equation models to test whether family income, maternal supervision, and children’s psychological problems mediate the effect of parental divorce on children’s educational level and to what extent these variables are important protective factors for children through the divorce process. The main aim of this study, however, is to test the importance of children’s psychological well-being on the relationship between parental divorce and children’s educational level. Only two studies noted the importance of children’s psychological well-being theoretically, but were unable to measure it. This study demonstrates empirically that children’s psychological well-being is not a negligible mechanism and that this variable represents a very important protective factor for children of divorce, since the effect of psychological problems on educational level is significantly greater for children from divorced families than for those from intact ones. Although most family policies aimed at divorced families are targeted to improving family income, these findings reveal the need for governments to ensure that all children of divorce have access to programs and interventions designed to improve their psychological well-being.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".