1970
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1970.tb01045.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Early Training Project: A Seventh-Year Report

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
39
0

Year Published

1973
1973
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(39 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
39
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Further, a disproportional number of children in each group were in full-day or halfday PDC programs (also a selection threat). Of the 341 students available for this retrospective analysis, data on whether they participated in the At-Home Program were only available for 142, and the effect of this attrition was never addressed in the Dokecki, 1983General, 1979Datta, 1971Lazar, 1981 Beller (1969) The Philadelphia Project X X Deutsch, Talepores, & Victor (1974) Institute for Developmental Studies (IDS) X X Gilmer, Miller, & Gray (1970) X X Gordon (1971) The Parent Education Program X X X X X Gray & Klaus (1970) The Early Training Project X X X X X Gray & Ruttle (1976) The Family Oriented Visiting Program X Karnes, Hodgins, & Teska (1969) The Curriculum Comparison Project X X X X Karnes et al (1970) X X Glass (1976), as the mean score of the first experimental group minus the mean score of the second experimental group, divided by the pooled standard deviation of the groups: i.e., (x l~x2 ) + SD = ES. Further information about how variables were defined and coded and the procedures for coding and rating methodological quality are contained in Casto, White, & Taylor, 1983. analyses (experimental mortality threat).…”
Section: White Taylor and Mossmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Further, a disproportional number of children in each group were in full-day or halfday PDC programs (also a selection threat). Of the 341 students available for this retrospective analysis, data on whether they participated in the At-Home Program were only available for 142, and the effect of this attrition was never addressed in the Dokecki, 1983General, 1979Datta, 1971Lazar, 1981 Beller (1969) The Philadelphia Project X X Deutsch, Talepores, & Victor (1974) Institute for Developmental Studies (IDS) X X Gilmer, Miller, & Gray (1970) X X Gordon (1971) The Parent Education Program X X X X X Gray & Klaus (1970) The Early Training Project X X X X X Gray & Ruttle (1976) The Family Oriented Visiting Program X Karnes, Hodgins, & Teska (1969) The Curriculum Comparison Project X X X X Karnes et al (1970) X X Glass (1976), as the mean score of the first experimental group minus the mean score of the second experimental group, divided by the pooled standard deviation of the groups: i.e., (x l~x2 ) + SD = ES. Further information about how variables were defined and coded and the procedures for coding and rating methodological quality are contained in Casto, White, & Taylor, 1983. analyses (experimental mortality threat).…”
Section: White Taylor and Mossmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The literature shows that high-quality intervention programs targeting disadvantaged children generally show either beneficial or no effects from the program. For example, Gray and Klaus (1970), Lazar et al (1982), Campbell and Ramey (1994, Yoshikawa (1995), andReynolds et al (2001) document beneficial effects of intervention programs targeting disadvantaged children. Barnett (1995) reviews a variety of early intervention programs and shows that there were mainly beneficial effects on children's development outcomes, although some programs had no treatment effects.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The research design of the Early Training Project and its early findings will be famil iar to some readers; for others a brief account of the original design and the findings through the first 6 years of the study (Klaus and Gray, 1968;Gray and Klaus, 1970) may be in order.…”
Section: The Original Studymentioning
confidence: 99%