On executive functioning and childcare: The moderating role of parent–child interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Childcare services are widely used by families and thereby exert an important influence on many young children. Yet, little research has examined whether childcare may impact the development of child executive functioning (EF), one of the pillars of cognitive development in early childhood. Furthermore, despite persisting hypotheses that childcare may be particularly beneficial for children who have less access to optimal developmental resources at home, research has yet to address the possibility that putative associations between childcare and EF may vary as a function of family factors. Among a sample of 180 mostly White middle-class families (91 girls), we examined if childcare participation in infancy was related to two aspects of EF (Delay and Conflict) at 3 years, and whether two aspects of maternal parenting behavior (sensitivity and autonomy support) moderated these associations. The results showed positive associations between participation in group-based childcare and Delay EF specifically among children of relatively less autonomy-supportive mothers. These findings suggest that out-of-home childcare services may play a protective role for children exposed to parenting that is less conducive to their executive development. RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS: Little research has considered effects of childcare in infancy on executive functioning (EF). Long-standing hypothesis that childcare is more beneficial for children exposed to less sensitive and supportive parenting. We test interactions between maternal parenting and childcare participation in infancy in relation to EF at age 3 years. We find positive associations between participation in group-based childcare and Delay EF specifically among children of relatively less autonomy-supportive mothers.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".