Abstract:Developmental theories often posit that changes in children's early psychological characteristics will affect much later psychological, social, and economic outcomes. However, tests of these theories frequently yield results that are consistent with plausible alternative theories that posit a much smaller causal role for earlier levels of these psychological characteristics. Our paper explores this issue with empirical tests of skill building theories, which predict that early boosts to simpler skills (e.g., n… Show more
“…We found that projected impacts systematically over‐estimated observed impacts, replicating Bailey et al. (). Thus, given the implausibility of regularly collecting a battery of pretest controls more thorough than those included in this study, regression control does not appear to provide an effective means for projecting the future benefits of successful interventions.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…The extent to which these findings generalize to other types of interventions, target skills, and age groups is not well understood. The finding that intervention effects declined to approximately 1/3 their initial size after the first year is similar to findings from prior comparisons of fadeout effects across multiple studies of academic interventions in early childhood and the early school years (Bailey et al., ; Li et al., ). It is less clear if this pattern generalizes well to interventions targeting older children.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 84%
“…The present analysis extends prior work with a rigorous set of pretest control measures, in a sample with which observed impacts can be compared with projections based on end-of-intervention impacts and regression-estimated persistence rates. We found that projected impacts systematically over-estimated observed impacts, replicating Bailey et al (2018). Thus, given the implausibility of regularly collecting a battery of pretest controls more thorough than those included in this study, regression control does not appear to provide an effective means for projecting the future benefits of successful interventions.…”
Section: Estimating Long-term Impact From Regression Analysessupporting
confidence: 50%
“…When they are followed, fadeout is common. The typical finding is rapid declines in treatment effects soon after the program has ended and small to no long-term advantages relative to at-risk children who did not receive the intervention (Bailey, Duncan, Watts, Clements, & Sarama, 2018;Li et al, 2017).…”
Section: Prior Studies On Longitudinal Effects Of Math Interventionsmentioning
We present first‐grade, second‐grade, and third‐grade impacts for a first‐grade intervention targeting the conceptual and procedural bases that support arithmetic. At‐risk students (average age at pretest = 6.5) were randomly assigned to three conditions: a control group (n = 224) and two variants of the intervention (same conceptual instruction but different forms of practice: speeded [n = 211] vs. nonspeeded [n = 204]). Impacts on all first‐grade content outcomes were significant and positive, but no follow‐up impacts were significant. Many intervention children achieved average mathematics achievement at the end of third grade, and prior math and reading assessment performance predicted which students will require sustained intervention. Finally, projecting impacts 2 years later based on nonexperimental estimates of effects of first‐grade math skills overestimates long‐term intervention effects.
“…We found that projected impacts systematically over‐estimated observed impacts, replicating Bailey et al. (). Thus, given the implausibility of regularly collecting a battery of pretest controls more thorough than those included in this study, regression control does not appear to provide an effective means for projecting the future benefits of successful interventions.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…The extent to which these findings generalize to other types of interventions, target skills, and age groups is not well understood. The finding that intervention effects declined to approximately 1/3 their initial size after the first year is similar to findings from prior comparisons of fadeout effects across multiple studies of academic interventions in early childhood and the early school years (Bailey et al., ; Li et al., ). It is less clear if this pattern generalizes well to interventions targeting older children.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 84%
“…The present analysis extends prior work with a rigorous set of pretest control measures, in a sample with which observed impacts can be compared with projections based on end-of-intervention impacts and regression-estimated persistence rates. We found that projected impacts systematically over-estimated observed impacts, replicating Bailey et al (2018). Thus, given the implausibility of regularly collecting a battery of pretest controls more thorough than those included in this study, regression control does not appear to provide an effective means for projecting the future benefits of successful interventions.…”
Section: Estimating Long-term Impact From Regression Analysessupporting
confidence: 50%
“…When they are followed, fadeout is common. The typical finding is rapid declines in treatment effects soon after the program has ended and small to no long-term advantages relative to at-risk children who did not receive the intervention (Bailey, Duncan, Watts, Clements, & Sarama, 2018;Li et al, 2017).…”
Section: Prior Studies On Longitudinal Effects Of Math Interventionsmentioning
We present first‐grade, second‐grade, and third‐grade impacts for a first‐grade intervention targeting the conceptual and procedural bases that support arithmetic. At‐risk students (average age at pretest = 6.5) were randomly assigned to three conditions: a control group (n = 224) and two variants of the intervention (same conceptual instruction but different forms of practice: speeded [n = 211] vs. nonspeeded [n = 204]). Impacts on all first‐grade content outcomes were significant and positive, but no follow‐up impacts were significant. Many intervention children achieved average mathematics achievement at the end of third grade, and prior math and reading assessment performance predicted which students will require sustained intervention. Finally, projecting impacts 2 years later based on nonexperimental estimates of effects of first‐grade math skills overestimates long‐term intervention effects.
“…different measures were administered at different time points), the authors do not implement repeated measures and are therefore unable to control for the preexisting relation between symbolic and non‐symbolic processing at time one. As such, these studies do not provide strong evidence for a relation between non‐symbolic skills at time one and growth in symbolic number abilities (see Bailey, Duncan, Watts, Clements, & Sarama, ).…”
A long‐standing debate in the field of numerical cognition concerns the degree to which symbolic and non‐symbolic processing are related over the course of development. Of particular interest is the possibility that this link depends on the range of quantities in question. Behavioral and neuroimaging research with adults suggests that symbolic and non‐symbolic quantities may be processed more similarly within, relative to outside of, the subitizing range. However, it remains unclear whether this unique link exists in young children at the outset of formal education. Further, no study has yet taken numerical size into account when investigating the longitudinal influence of these skills. To address these questions, we investigated the relation between symbolic and non‐symbolic processing inside versus outside the subitizing range, both cross‐sectionally and longitudinally, in 540 kindergarteners. Cross‐sectionally, we found a consistently stronger relation between symbolic and non‐symbolic number processing within versus outside the subitizing range at both the beginning and end of kindergarten. We also show evidence for a bidirectional relation over the course of kindergarten between formats within the subitizing range, and a unidirectional relation (symbolic → non‐symbolic) for quantities outside of the subitizing range. These findings extend current theories on symbolic and non‐symbolic magnitude development by suggesting that non‐symbolic processing may in fact play a role in the development of symbolic number abilities, but that this influence may be limited to quantities within the subitizing range.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.