Daycare is NOT associated with behavior problems in 10,000+ children across 5 countries

[jaimegage]

@damacri This is a really provocative topic for a lot of parents, it makes sense that you may find that article upsetting. I've seen on here that many, many parents get upset about the implications of the research it's summarising. Imagine how many of those upset parents then message the author with links and anecdotes. I can understand why the author may feel the need to not respond to the avalanche of messages they likely receive.

I don't know the studies you sent, but it's possible that they were maybe able to find flaws in their design that aren't immediately clear from an abstract. I say this because the study you've highlighted is interesting, but it doesn't find what you've claimed even after your edits. Rather than rehashing, I've linked a couple of thorough comments below:

• The thought experiment in this one might be helpful to conceptualise the study's limitations around age groups: Comment One
• Comment Two

 

[damacri]

@jaimegage I am not misunderstanding the study at all. Those comments are overlooking the fact that this study pretty conclusively shows that there are no associations between number of hours in daycare and externalizing symptoms as a whole!! It is not set up to discuss age at entry, but it does include a range of ages in the analysis. Nobody has yet to show any solid evidence that number of hours in daycare as a whole is related to adverse outcomes (spoiler: because this is the best study out there and has null findings).

It is still an open question about subgroups with age of entry because this study was not designed to answer that question. BUT that is not the only question that matters. It is important that daycare hours do not relate to externalizing symptoms, especially for people choosing between full time and part time care.

 

[jaimegage]

@damacri 'It is not set up to discuss age at entry, but it does include a range of ages in the analysis.' This is the issue that we're all pointing out. The article you take issue with was supportive of the benefits for toddlers joining daycare, and summarising the researched potential drawbacks of infants in daycare. The study you've highlighted hasn't measured the impacts of young age at entry, and so by lumping a few studies that include younger subjects in with those that don't, any potential findings would be drowned out.

We cannot draw the wider conclusions that you have from this study.

I personally am supportive of families doing what's best for them as a unit, and for many that means sending their young ones to daycare. Anecdotally, I have many friends who have wonderful children with no concerning behaviour after going into daycare at young ages. That doesn't mean that the research into externalising behaviour after young daycare entry is incorrect - we can acknowledge that research is not correct across all individual circumstances without throwing away the broader findings of the research.

 

[simondarok]

@damacri What “agenda” is that exactly?

 

[damacri]

@simondarok Maybe agenda is the wrong word, but she tried to frame studies to show mothers should stay home with their infants before age 2 years and ignores any study that does not fit that narrative. She has refused in the past to add studies with null results for children under the age of 2 years.

 

[simondarok]

@damacri A lot of people seem to interpret the article that way but I think that suggests an emotional read which jumps to conclusions to be frank.

The article specifically says there is no research suggesting that there is any reason for mothers to be the one caring for the child over, say, fathers.

I think the larger societal bias is that daycare is the norm (especially in US) so people want it to beneficial or at least not harmful.

 

[katrina2017]

@simondarok

The article specifically says there is no research suggesting that there is any reason for mothers to be the one caring for the child over, say, fathers.

Not only that, the article repeatedly stresses that any form of relative care seems to be equally as good. This touches a nerve for folks, I get it, but there is simply no reading that article and coming away in good faith thinking it's advocating for stay at home moms only. It's advocating for moms, dads, grandparent, close relative care as the gold standard for young kids. I also have a really hard time with this idea that it's propagating some sort of a problematic SAHM narrative when the author emphasizes that policy change that supports families and allows more flex for families to keep their kids home longer is the only reasonable solution. Stepping back for a second, I think we can probably all agree that reform is a good idea given the poor landscape of leave (in as much as it exists, which sometimes it doesn't) for US families and the associated impacts of that deficit in support?

 

[katrina2017]

policy change that supports families and allows more flex for families to keep their kids home longer is the only reasonable solution

I believe policy change is necessary and I also believe it's incredibly harmful to parents (especially women) to say that the only reasonable thing is for them to be stay-at-home parents. I am a neuropsychologist who studies early life development from a biological perspective. I am well versed in infant development. I would personally choose to send my two LOs to daycare over having a stay-at-home parent, if given the option to choose between the two (at least after 4 months). I think it's really unhealthy to force the narrative that staying at home with your kids is the only healthy option -- that is simply not true.

 

[katrina2017]

@damacri

She has an agenda and ignored half the existing daycare research.

Many people on this sub seem to be missing this point. Thanks to r/book_connoisseur for trying to correct a little bit of the bias here (I can see how many comments you've made trying to counteract these issues, and months later, I think they are still helpful for people searching for more info on this topic).

 

[damacri]

@katrina2017 Thank you! I’m really glad you found the post helpful.

 

[continualseeker]

@damacri Here is the full text:

https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/bc1/schools/lsoe/sites/iecp/Child Development Research_Rey-Guerra.pdf

It would be good if you added that to the OP, since multiple posters are asking for it.

FYI: One can sometimes find the full text is available for free using Google Scholar usually indicated as a pdf or html on the right side of the screen. Sometimes you have to clink on the "All [N] versions" link to find a full text pdf.

 

[damacri]

@continualseeker Done! Thanks for adding it! I have access to the full text, but didn’t know how to share it without my credentials.

 

[yahwhshua]

@damacri This is a really interesting addition to the literature, but I don’t think it necessarily invalidates the bulk of previous research finding adverse outcomes amongst children entering center based care younger than 24-36 months. As the authors noted, the analysis they ran can not account for subgroup differences (eg age at first entry), which was the main argument made by the previous research — negative effects are greatest in infants and begin to ‘net out’ as the child approaches 3.

To synthesize this with the previous literature, perhaps this work suggests that the negative behavioral effects seen in 3yos (netted out by positive effects) don’t in fact exist, and after that age it’s all (or mostly) positive?

 

[damacri]

@yahwhshua While they cannot distinguish age at first entry (since all the studies do not include that information), they do have kids who entered daycare as infants within the study. See my edit for the ages that the longitudinal studies began tracking. Some of those infants did in fact begin before age 2, see edit 2.

 

[christianloyalty]

@damacri Before age 1 and before age 2 were still critically significant variants in the discussion on age at entry. It appears this may be something that should be considered in future longitudinal studies.

 

[damacri]

@christianloyalty Totally agree! There is a lot wrong with the previous daycare literature (see Dearing 2017) and more study is definitely needed.

 

[continualseeker]

@damacri I think one interesting thing about Norway is that they have a national parent training program uses Parent Management Training-Oregon (PMTO) Model (now called GenerationPMTO). This program is one of the most effective methods for reducing externalizing behaviors according to randomized controlled trials:

https://www.cebc4cw.org/program/parenting-through-change/

https://www.cebc4cw.org/program/the-oregon-model-parent-management-training-pmto-2/

One curious aspect of those studies of the effects of daycare on behavior is that it implies that there is a gap of many years between the presumed cause (early daycare) and the identified effects (externalizing behavior at school). So parenting during the toddler/preschool stage could make a difference.

 

[damacri]

@continualseeker Thanks for pointing that out. There are SO many studies showing that the parenting quality makes a huge difference in children’s behaviors. Low parental warmth/sensitivity and high parental harshness are strongly linked to externalizing behaviors. Additionally, parent child interaction therapy of various types tends to be very effective.

 

[christianmiguel]

@damacri I feel like this is the signal getting lost in the noise.

 

[katrina2017]

@damacri OP, it sounds like you have a personal gripe against the author of the blog post and therefore latched onto this as proof she is wrong. As others are pointing out, this doesn’t prove her wrong and cannot do so due to the serious limitations of the study. I’m glad you added a link to the actual study so people can see for themselves that the study doesn’t say what you are suggesting it says.