Early Shared Reading Is Associated with Less Harsh Parenting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Shared reading is believed to enhance parent-child relationships, but the extent to which it reduces harsh parenting is understudied. Associations between early shared reading and subsequent harsh parenting were investigated. METHODS: Data from a national urban birth cohort were used to estimate associations between mother-reported shared reading at ages 1 and 3 years and harsh parenting-based on a composite of psychological and physical aggression subscales of a validated self-report instrument-when the children were at ages 3 and 5 years. The authors used multivariable linear regression and generalized estimating equations to account for repeated observations. Given potential inverse associations between shared reading and child disruptive behaviors, which can trigger harsh parenting, the authors investigated the extent to which children's behavior at age 3 years mediated the association between shared reading at age 1 year and harsh parenting at age 5 years. RESULTS: This study included 2165 mother-child dyads. Thirty-four percent and 52% of mothers reported daily reading at ages 1 and 3 years. In adjusted models, shared reading at age 1 year was associated with less harsh parenting at age 3 years. Similarly, shared reading at age 3 years was associated with less harsh parenting at age 5 years. These associations remained significant in lagged repeated-measures models. Decreased disruptive behaviors partially mediated the association between shared reading at age 1 year and harsh parenting at age 5 years. CONCLUSION: Shared reading predicted less harsh parenting in a national urban sample. These findings suggest that shared reading contributes to an important aspect of the parent-child relationship and that some of the association operates through enhanced child behaviors.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".