A Parent-Report Diary Study of Young Children’s Prospective Memory Successes and Failures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although laboratory studies have examined the development of children’s prospective memory (PM) and the factors that influence its performance, much less is known about children’s PM performance and development in their everyday life. The current study used an online parent diary report approach to examine American 2- to 6-year-olds’ PM successes and failures. In an initial session, 206 parents completed a series of questionnaires on their child’s memory and cognition. For the next four days, parents reported instances of PM successes and failures and answered questions about a number of task factors (task motivation, importance to the parent and child, who assigned the PM task, task typicality, and parental assistance). We found that: (1) parents reported children as young as 2 years old had PM successes in daily life and there were no age differences in the number of reported PM successes and failures, (2) parents reported more PM successes than failures, and (3) several factors influenced the likelihood of children’s success in everyday PM tasks, including child motivation and task importance to parents, whereas task typicality and parental assistance were related to PM failure. Finally, we explored the domains of PM successes and failures as well as the type of assistance that parents provided. These results are discussed in relation to past findings of children’s PM in laboratory and naturalistic settings. Parent diary-report methodology is a feasible and efficient alternative to naturalistic laboratory tasks to examine young children’s PM in everyday life.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".