Search results

@yadid I don’t have a personal stake in this as I don’t use a daycare center at this time, but I do think the blog post is fundamentally flawed as it ignores some of the scant literature available (all the maternal report studies) and glosses over issues. This is literally the best evidence to...

@philipb It’s unclear how many under 2s since all the studies do not include age of entry in their data set. I clarified because a lot of people thought it daycare was only over 2 in this study, which is incorrect. This study does lump them together.

@elisjohn It’s not giving more weight to the study because it is reassuring, but because it’s a better study (higher n, multi-cite, international, fixed effect modeling which is a stronger statistical control).

@elisjohn This study does cover kids who entered daycare as infants. Please see my edit.

@motherof7 Yes people seem to want to dismiss the study because it doesn’t look at age of entry effects specifically, but it is pretty conclusive that being in daycare for a longer period of time in toddlerhood is not related to externalizing symptoms. That is significant on its own...

@chuckf The sample size is good for longitudinal work, but the variation is low. They have very unequal group sizes (only 27 moms in their group that showed a significant effect). They should have used affection as a scale variable, not a categorical variable.

@hoohkostwon That’s not true. Several of the studies begin in early infancy and then have follow-up in toddlers!

@greyareagcu I’m sorry for they confusion. I think the longitudinal aspect has confused many people. Since the first time point they measure externalizing behaviors is in toddlers, lots of posters assumed that’s when the kids were entering daycare.

@scooper8 It’s unlikely to be a large statistical masking problem as at least one of the sub-studies did not find age of entry effects for children under 2 (see edit 2); however, this study is not designed to answer the age of entry question. Instead, it shows pretty conclusively that it does...

@philipb This study shows no effect and it included infants at a variety of ages of entry. Even if it did not examine age of entry in a sub-analysis, it is relevant because it has infants that started early included in the study too. It’s just not specific to them. The paper’s fixed effect...

@jssusislord There is some research on fathers out there too! here is one study of paternal sensitivity at 24mo and executive function at age 3. There are some good adoption studies out there too. It is objectively harder to get participation from fathers and other caregivers though, especially...

@snowlucario No I’m just saying that some studies tracked age of entry and some didn’t, but that the studies didn’t begin at age 2. Many include infants included in the study were likely starting before age 2 (see the link for the Norwegian study where most entered around 10-12 months).

@greyareagcu It’s not true! This study has sub-studies that start in early infancy including prenatally, 5 months and 6 months. They followed them up in toddlerhood to assess the toddler’s behavior problems, but many were in care much longer. That’s why it’s a longitudinal study. I should have...

@greyareagcu It is a fair criticism to not have long term data. Early externalizing behaviors in toddlers are linked to later conduct problems and psychiatric diagnoses though. There are also a lot of other sources of variance later on (parenting, peers, school quality, resources, neighborhood...

There is been significant debate on this sub about daycare and it’s effects on children’s externalizing behaviors (I.e. disruptive behaviors, behavior problems, etc). A new study out in Child Development shows that the number of hours that a child spends in center-based daycares is not related...

@jesrdking Likely they’re objecting to the use of the word “predicts” - the study is not causal nor is it a machine-learning type prediction. It’s common terminology in longitudinal research though. Regression models have “predictors” which is what they’re referring to. It is a little misleading...

@robertvox A couple responses to this: (1) Forms of SES correlate fairly strongly, but estimates vary depending on what measure you include. (2) Some of the meta-analyses that use multiple kids of SES separate the types of SES out and look at the effect of each domain. For instance, Perverill...

@follow_the_word It’s a great question! It’s really hard to say if there is a plateau above which income does not matter. Meta-analyses are not designed to answer this question well unfortunately. However, across most of the individual studies included in the meta-analyses, most used a linear...

@notloveisnotjesus This study actually says that the “high affection group” (27 out of 486 moms) had lower anxiety, but not that the reverse is true. The vast majority of moms in the study has “normal affection,” (n=402) which did NOT lead to higher emotional distress than the moms with “low...

@bryony Agreed re: social determinants of health. My title is misleading (would change it to SES if I could), but the reviews look at a variety of different types of SES. I didn’t include the parental stress or nutrition or healthcare access or racism literature though. Those are also important...