Today @clairlemon made me aware of a study that the authors claim that is "proof of concept" that early childhood intervention can reduce later social ills. But is it?
Layman's summary:https://theconversation.com/early-days-but-weve-found-a-way-to-lift-the-iq-and-resilience-of-australias-most-vulnerable-children-119003 …
-
Show this thread
-
The study is called the Early Years Education Program (EYEP). It is targeted to children who are at high risk of school failure and other negative social outcomes. It's a lot like the Perry Preschool Project in the 21st century.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
The study is not finished, but this month the authors released the report for the children's outcomes after 24 months in the program. Later reports are scheduled for 36 months in the program and six months after kindergarten entry. Full report here: https://fbe.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/3085770/EYERP-Report-4-web.pdf …
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
Russell T. Warne 🇺🇸 🇨🇱 Retweeted Russell T. Warne 🇺🇸 🇨🇱
Here is what's good about the study:
An intensive program. Typical programs (see below) don't provide permanent academic or social benefits. If we're serious about improving IQ or other outcomes, the intervention needs to be INTENSE.https://twitter.com/Russwarne/status/1091198811957997568?s=20 …Russell T. Warne 🇺🇸 🇨🇱 added,
Russell T. Warne 🇺🇸 🇨🇱 @RusswarneLow-income children randomly assigned to state pre-K performed better than control children in kindergarten. After that, control children caught up. By grades 1-3, control children surpassed the treatment group in most variables.#psychology#edchat https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.03.005 … pic.twitter.com/yE9xko7JcfShow this thread1 reply 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
Kids in the EYEP treatment had 3 yrs of child care (5 hrs per day, 50 weeks per year) w/an academic curriculum designed & implemented by highly trained staff. An infant mental health consultant visited the homes regularly & an in-house qualified cook ensured nutritious meals.pic.twitter.com/ZVqXlGBEU9
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
Another strength of EYEP:
Random assignment. I cannot stress this enough. Moreover, the researchers checked the randomization on their dependent variables, and the randomization process balanced out the experimental and control groups.1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
EYEP is also targeted at the right people. These kids are truly at risk. All had at least 2 risk factors from this list, and 70% had 4 or more. 35% had 6 or more. These are exactly the children society should be concerned about.pic.twitter.com/ttouPGaFpi
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likesShow this thread -
EYEP also targets the right variables. These are exactly what psychologists are concerned about in children ages 5 and under.pic.twitter.com/dVFOEEu6hS
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
Now for the drawbacks:
Sample size is too small. With 145 children total, the statistical power for the expected d = .25 effect size is only 44.9%.
And attrition makes that problem worse. 34% of the control group and 22% of the treatment group dropped out.1 reply 0 retweets 6 likesShow this thread -
Statistical significance criteria are fishy. The one-tailed test decision is reasonable. (No one thinks EYEP will harm children.) But there is no justification for setting alpha at .10. A one-tailed alpha of .10 is equivalent to a two-tailed alpha a .20(!).pic.twitter.com/k5KwuQE5HA
2 replies 2 retweets 10 likesShow this thread
No reason to promote this dumb study. Just another useless intervention study being promoted by the gullible.
-
-
Replying to @KirkegaardEmil @clairlemon
I'm not promoting it. I'm discussing it in the hopes of removing some hype.
0 replies 0 retweets 3 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.