Early childhood child care and disruptive behavior problems during adolescence: a 17‐year population‐based propensity score study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Child-care services during early childhood provide opportunities for social interactions that may facilitate children's learning of acceptable social behaviors. Furthermore, they may reduce exposure to family adversity for some children. The aim of this study was to determine whether intensity of exposure to child-care services prior to age 5 years has a beneficial effect on disruptive behavior problems during adolescence, and whether the effect is more pronounced for children from low socioeconomic families. METHODS: N = 1,588 participants from the Québec Longitudinal Study of Child Development were assessed 14 times from 5 months to 17 years. Intensity of child-care exposure was measured from 5 months to 5 years of age. Main outcomes were self-reported physical aggression and opposition from age 12 to 17 years. Family socioeconomic status (SES) was measured at 5 months. Factors explaining differences in child-care use were controlled using propensity score weights (PSW). RESULTS: Children exposed to moderate-intensity child-care services (part-time child-care services before 1½ years and full time afterward) reported lower levels of physical aggression (d = -.11, p = .056) and opposition (d = -.14, p = .029) during adolescence compared to children exposed to low-intensity child-care services. A significant child care by SES interaction (p = .017) for physical aggression indicated that the moderate-intensity child-care effect was specific to children from low SES families (d = -.36, p = .002). No interaction with socioeconomic status was found for opposition. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-intensity child-care services from infancy to school entry may prevent disruptive behavior during adolescence, especially for disadvantaged children.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".