Parents’ Beliefs About Play and the Purpose of Preschool Education, Preschoolers’ Home Activity and Executive Functions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to replicate and extend previous findings that depict a link between preschoolers' home experience and EFs. It also examined Hungarian parents' views about the purpose of preschool education and its relationship with their play beliefs. A total of 87 Hungarian preschoolers participated in neuropsychological testing of executive functioning (44 boys, 42 girls, one not reported; mean age = 62.37 months; SD = 8.33 months; age range = 47-80 months) and their parents (8male and 79 females; mean age = 37.73 years; SD = 5.64 years; age range = 22-63 years) filled in questionnaires. The finding from hierarchical regression analyses depicted that the frequency of pretend play the preschoolers engage in and parental play support beliefs were small to medium-sized predictors of children's inhibitory control, after accounting for age and SES. Children's frequency of participation in fine motor activities at home was a small but significant predictor of their visual-spatial working memory, after controlling for age and SES. Furthermore, results indicated that parents hold the belief that the development of social-emotional competence and children enjoying themselves instead of academic skills is the primary purpose of preschool education. To sum up, parental play support and preschoolers' activities at home are important predictors for children's EF skills.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".