School Readiness

Running head: School Readiness and Later Achievement DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
2
MANUSCRIPT UNDER REVIEW - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
School Readiness and Later Achievement

Greg J . Duncan
ab
, Chantelle J . Dowsett
c
, J eanne Brooks-Gunn
d
, Amy Claessens
b
,
Kathryn Duckworth
e
, Mimi Engel
b
, Leon Feinstein
e
, Aletha C. Huston
c
, Crista J apel
f
, Pamela
Klebanov
g
, Katherine Magnuson
h
, Linda Pagani
f
, and Holly Sexton
i

a
Russell Sage Foundation,
b
Northwestern University,
c
University of Texas Austin,
d
Columbia
University,
e
Institute of Education, University of London,
f
Universit de Montral,
g
Princeton
University,
h
University of Wisconsin Madison,
i
Center for the Analysis of Pathways from
Childhood to Adulthood, University of Michigan

Acknowledgements: A partial version of this paper was presented at the biennial meetings of the
Society for Research on Child Development, April 10, 2005. The authors are grateful to the
NSF-supported Center for the Analysis of Pathways from Childhood to Adulthood (Grant #
0322356) for research support. We would like to thank Larry Aber, Mark Appelbaum, Mark
Lipsey, Arnold Sameroff, Ross Thompson, Sandra J o Wilson, Nicholas Zill, and other members
of CAPCA and the MacArthur Network on Families and the Economy for helpful comments.

Abstract
Using six longitudinal data sets, we estimate the influence of two key elements of school
readiness -- kindergarten-entry academic skills and self-regulation -- on later achievement. In an
effort to identify how preschool interventions focused on augmenting reading and math skills
and self-regulation might influence childrens subsequent learning, our preferred regression
models control for cognitive skills and self-regulation measured prior to kindergarten entry.
Our findings suggest that the strongest predictors of later learning are children's academic
skills such as knowing numbers, and ordinality (the average effect size of beginning math skills
was .34) and knowing letters, words and beginning and ending word sounds (the average effect
size of beginning reading skills across our studies was .16). We find much less evidence that
emotional self-regulation and social skills make noteworthy, independent contributions to school
success. An important exception was that a childs ability to sustain attention did predict later
learning consistently, although its average effect size on later academic achievement was only
.09 per standard-deviation increase in attention.
Our results suggest a surprisingly important role for pre-school mastery of math skills,
the wisdom of distinguishing between cognitive and emotional self-regulation, and the power of
kindergarten assessments of academic skills to predict later school success.

2

School Readiness and Later Achievement

I ntroduction
The purpose of this monograph is to assess the comparative role of self-regulation and
academic skills acquired by the point of kindergarten entry in the development of childrens later
achievement. Our approach consists of comparable analyses of six major longitudinal
developmental studies: the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-
K); the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth - Child Study (NLSY); the NICHD Study of
Early Child Care and Youth Development (NICHD SECCYD); the Infant Health and
Development Program (IHDP); the Montreal Longitudinal-Experimental Preschool Study
(MLEPS); and the 1970 British Cohort Study (BCS). The ECLS-K and the NLSY samples are
representative of U.S. children; the NICHD SECCYD and the IHDP are multi-site U.S. studies;
and the MLEPS and the BCS draw from samples outside of the United States.
We use these data to assess continuity and change in social and cognitive development
and the interplay between these domains as they relate to school success. We measure success
using teacher-reported classroom achievement, test performance, and grade retention by middle
childhood, and, in the case of one of our studies, completed schooling and labor market success
in early adulthood. All six data sets provide school-entry measures of academic skills as well as
assessments of socio-emotional characteristics of children. Moreover, all but one provides
measures of cognitive ability and self-regulation prior to the point of school entry, which are
used as key control variables in our analyses.
Developmentalists often assert that cognitive and socioemotional developmental domains
are interdependent. Beginning in infancy, an individuals physical, cognitive, and socioemotional
characteristics interact with the environment to set the stage for learning. For instance, a healthy,
alert infant who is highly sociable is likely to elicit interactive conversation, which in turn
promotes language development. Many early education interventions, including Head Start, are
designed to enhance childrens physical, intellectual, and social competencies on the grounds
that each domain contributes to a childs overall developmental competence and to his/her
readiness for school. These competencies correspond to the five dimensions of school readiness
outlined by National Education Goals Panel in 1997: (1) health and physical development; (2)
emotional well-being and social competence; (3) approaches to learning; (4) communication
skills; and (5) cognition and general knowledge.
The rationale behind this definition of readiness is that a broad constellation of skills
allows a child to profit from the learning environment upon school entry. On the other hand, if
early acquisition of specific academic skills provides a crucial foundation for later achievement,
it would be beneficial to add domain-specific early skills to the definition of school readiness and
to devote a substantial portion of the preschool curriculum to teaching these skills.
These two views have emerged in current controversies about what constitutes school
readiness, particularly what preschool education programs should be teaching children to prepare
them for school. A 1991 survey of kindergarten teachers found that when asked to name the most

3
important determinants of readiness to learn, they most frequently mentioned the following:
being physically healthy, rested, and well-nourished; being able to communicate needs, wants,
and thoughts verbally; being enthusiastic and curious in approaching new activities; taking turns;
and knowing how to sit still and pay attention (Lewit & Baker, 1995; National Center for
Educational Statistics [NCES], 1993). Only about 10 percent of kindergarten teachers considered
it important that children starting school identify letters of the alphabet or count to 20.
Supporting the teachers position is the Neurons to Neighborhoods report of the National
Research Council and Institute on Medicine, which argued that the elements of early
intervention programs that enhance social and emotional development are just as important as
the components that enhance linguistic and cognitive competence (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000,
pp. 398-99).
In contrast, President George W. Bush endorsed skill-oriented Head Start reforms in
2002, observing that [o]n the first day of school, children need to know letters and numbers.
They need a strong vocabulary...These are the building blocks of learning, and this nation must
provide them. Supporting the Bush position is a report from the National Research Councils
Committee on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties in Young Children, which argued for the
importance of the acquisition of certain pre-literacy skills before kindergarten and urged that all
children be provided access to early childhood environments that promote language and literacy
growth (Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998). Similarly, a recent joint position statement of the
National Association for the Education of Young Children and the National Council of Teachers
of Mathematics encourages high-quality mathematics education for children ages 3-6 (National
Association for the Education of Young Children & National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics [NAEYC & NCTM], 2002). Understanding which skills are important for
childrens school success has important implications for the curricula of pre-school programs.
Should they be oriented more toward teaching narrowly-defined academic skills or broader goals
that include self-regulatory and social skills?
In this monograph, we draw from both economic and developmental psychology
literatures to identify the components of school success and to derive theoretical predictions
about how childrens academic and self-regulatory skills at school entry contribute to short- and
long-term success. The economic perspective focuses on the production of human capabilities
how it is that some children grow up to be productive adults while other children do not
(Cunha, Heckman, Lochner, & Masterov, forthcoming). We view school success as a major
indicator of progress toward productive adulthood (Card, 1999). Behind this production
framework are simple but appealing ideas shared by both economists and developmental
psychologists about what might matter for school and adult success. Both view childrens school
learning as a function of the achievement-related and the self-regulatory skills and behaviors
they bring to kindergarten, but the relative contribution of different skills is unknown. This is the
crux of the Head Start debateshould early interventions be concentrated on teaching specific
literacy and numeracy skills, or should they emphasize self-regulatory and social skills as well?
Relations between early skills and later achievement
Economists have long emphasized the acquisition of concrete, achievement-related skills,
defined by such indicators as completed schooling and test scores (Becker, 1964), but have
recently recognized the potentially critical role of non-cognitive characteristics, (e.g., behavior

4
and attention patterns, participation in delinquent activities) as important contributors to adult
success (Heckman & Rubinstein, 2001). Psychologists typically separate broad cognitive skills
(e.g., memory, language, and visual-spatial abilities) from more narrowly-defined academic
skills (e.g., reading and math proficiency), and they group many non-cognitive skills under the
broad rubric self-regulation.
Self-regulation has been defined as the "processes by which the human psyche exercises
control over its functions, states, and inner processes" (Baumeister & Vohs, 2004, p. 1). It
involves the ability to evaluate the steps and actions required to meet a desired goal and to
control behavior deliberately in order to reach that goal. Current theory and research on young
childrens self-regulation subdivides the construct in a variety of ways, but all of them separate
cognitive and emotional components (Eisenberg, Sadovsky, & Spinrad, 2005; Olson, Sameroff,
Kerr, Lopez, & Wellman, 2005; Raver, 2004; Raver, Smith-Donald, Hayes, & J ones, 2005;
Rhoades, Domitrovich, & Greenberg, 2005). Cognitive self-regulation includes such overlapping
constructs as executive function, planning, sustaining attention, effortful control of attention or
action, task persistence, and inhibition of impulsive responses. Emotional self-regulation is the
ability to modulate the experience and expression of positive and negative emotions (Bridges,
Denham, & Ganiban, 2004, p. 340). It includes ability to control anger, sadness, joy, and other
emotional reactions, which predict such behavior as aggression and internalizing problems (e.g.,
social withdrawal, anxiety) (Eisenberg et al., 2005; Eisenberg, Spinrad, & Morris, 2002; Patrick,
1997).
Information about how children acquire reading and math skills points to the importance
of specific academic skills at first, but indicates that more general cognitive skills, particularly
oral language and conceptual ability, may be increasingly important for mastering later and more
complex reading and mathematical tasks. Poor code-related skills (e.g., knowledge of
graphemes, grapheme-phoneme correspondence, and phonological awareness) are the most
common source of early reading difficulties, but more general oral language skills are important
during the transition to conventional reading, and they are increasingly important as children
make the transition from learning to read to reading to learn (i.e., reading comprehension)
(NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2005a; Scarborough, 2001; Snow et al, 1998;
Storch & Whitehurst, 2002; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). Learning code-related skills occurs
primarily as a result of specific instruction (Adams, Treiman, & Pressley, 1998; Tunmer &
Nesdale, 1998), but children acquire oral language through everyday exposure to speech and
through opportunities to interact verbally with others (NICHD Early Child Care Research
Network, 2005a).
Parallel processes occur in the development of mathematical skills. Some mathematical
concepts are acquired through everyday interactions, but computational skills are learned
primarily through formal teaching (Baroody, 2003). Basic number skills, such as counting,
predict subsequent math achievement (Aunola, Leskinen, Lerkkanen, & Nurmi, 2004; Ginsburg,
Klein & Starkey, 1998; Entwisle & Alexander, 1996; Case, 1975). The requisite knowledge for
later use of arithmetic strategies involves more than just identifying numbers or counting;
children also need to view the number system as a dimensional concept (i.e., a mental number
line; Resnick, 1989; Griffin, Case, & Siegler, 1994; Hirsh-Pasek, Golinkoff, & Eyer, 2003). J ust
as basic oral language skills resurface when the scope and difficulty of reading passages
increase, foundational concepts of numbers allow for deeper understanding of more complex

5
mathematical problems and flexible problem solving techniques (Baroody, 2003; Ferrari &
Sternberg, 1998; Hiebert & Wearne, 1996).
Cognitive self-regulation skills are consequential to childrens learning because they
increase the time children are engaged and participating in academic endeavors. Among Head
Start children, ability to control and sustain attention was associated with math and language
skills (Raver, et al., 2005), and first grade teachers ratings of classroom participation and
attention span predicted achievement test scores and grades throughout the early elementary
grades (Alexander, Entwisle, & Dauber, 1993). Cognitive self-regulation (i.e., work-related
skills, attention/persistence) is associated with later academic achievement, independent of initial
cognitive ability (McClelland, Morrison, & Holmes, 2000; Yen, Konold, & McDermott, 2004),
and teachers ratings of childrens self-regulatory abilities are related to achievement test scores,
net of prior reading ability and current vocabulary (Howse, Lange, Farran, & Boyles, 2003).
Children who are skilled in emotional self-regulation particularly managing aggression
and internalizing problems (e.g., social withdrawal or anxiety) can profit from the educational
experiences provided in the classroom. In the Beginning School Study, first grade ratings on
items describing a cheerful, outgoing temperament (roughly the opposite of internalizing
problems) predicted adult educational attainment better than preschool or first-grade
achievement scores did (Entwisle, Alexander, & Olson, 2005). In contrast, disruptive and
negative behavior may result in the childs exclusion from the classroom learning environment,
either by placement in a special class or expulsion.
In a recent national survey, children in pre-kindergarten programs were expelled because
of their behavior at three times the rate for children in K-12 (Gilliam, 2005). Children with
consistently high levels of aggression from age 2 through 9 more often had problems in
achievement, attention, and peer relations in third grade (NICHD Early Child Care Research
Network, 2004). Inadequate interpersonal skills (and, at the extreme, anti-social behavior) fosters
child-teacher conflict and social exclusion (Parker & Asher, 1986; Newcomb, Bukowski, &
Pattee, 1993). Conflict and rejection, in turn, may operate as stressors and reduce childrens
participation in collaborative learning activities (Ladd, Birch, & Buhs, 1999; Pianta & Stuhlman,
2004). However, not all aggressive children fare poorly. Children who are socially skilled but
also assert themselves using some aggression tend to be more popular with their peers and
viewed as leaders (Stormshak, Bierman, Bruschi, Dodge, & Coie, 1999; Rodkin, Farmer, Pearl,
& Van Acker, 2000; DeRosier & Thomas, 2003). This is likely because aggression and social
dominance share some common characteristics (Vaughn, Vollenweider, Bost, Azira-Evans, &
Snider, 2003).
Emotional and cognitive self-regulation may work in concert to influence school
achievement. In one study, preschool children with high levels of prosocial behavior and low
aggression in kindergarten had high levels of cognitive self-control (i.e., working toward long-
term goals, staying with an activity until finished, ability to concentrate on one task), which in
turn predicted first grade school achievement (Normandeau, 1998). Classroom participation (i.e.,
complying with teacher requests, following classroom rules and responsibilities, and
independent, self-directed behavior) is a strong predictor of achievement and an important
mediator of the effects of classroom behavior and peer acceptance on achievement (Ladd, et al.,
1999).

6
Although problems in cognitive and emotional self-regulation often co-occur, there are
strong conceptual and empirical reasons to separate them (e.g., Raver et al., 2005; Lengua,
2003). For example, externalizing behavior problems include both aggression, an indicator of
low emotional self-regulation, and attention problems, an indicator of low cognitive self-
regulation. There is mounting evidence that the associations between behavior problems,
including aggression, and low achievement are accounted for by attention problems (Frick,
Kamphaus, Lahey, Loeber, Christ, Hart, et. al., 1991; Barriga, Doran, Newell, Morrison,
Barbetti, & Robbins, 2002).
Achievement
School achievement can be measured in a variety of ways. Test performance provides an
important, independent assessment of academic achievement, but teacher ratings of childrens
performance also matter because teachers see childrens everyday achievements, and they assign
grades. Childrens behavior has an equal, if not greater importance for teacher-rated attainment
than do prior cognitive ability (Lin, Lawrence, & Gorrell, 2003) and academic skills (NCES,
1993). Teachers evaluations are probably based on a broad picture of childrens
accomplishments, which include their academic skills but also whether they complete
assignments on time, work independently, get along with others, and show involvement in the
learning agenda of the classroom.
Other important achievement-related outcomes include grade promotion, high school and
post-secondary school completion and labor market success. Children with poor test scores and
grades in the early years of school, and boys are more likely to be retained in grade (McCoy &
Reynolds, 1999; Dauber, Alexander, & Entwisle, 1993). Among boys in a high-risk, low-income
sample, low grades and physical aggression in first grade were factors associated with drop-out
prior to high school completion (Ensminger & Slusarcick, 1992). Research on labor market
outcomes suggests that both cognitive and self-regulation (often called non-cognitive in this
literature) skills developed by adolescence are important predictors of earnings and occupational
attainment (J encks et al., 1979; Farkas, 2003; Bowles, Gintis, & Osborne, 2001; Caneiro &
Heckman, 2003). Researchers have found, for example, that measures of aggression and
withdrawal (Feinstein & Bynner, 2004), behavioural problems in high school (Cawley, Heckman
& Vytlacil, 2001), and locus of control (Goldsmith, Veum & Darity, 1997) each have predictive
power with respect to wages, although there is little agreement on which self-regulation skills
matter the most.
Boys, racial/ethnic minorities, and children from families with low socioeconomic status
are more likely than their counterparts to have problems with achievement or behavior. On
average, boys get poorer grades and have more difficulties in school progress (e.g., grade
retention, special education) than girls do, and these gender differences are especially
pronounced among African American and low-income children. Boys also have higher
frequencies of problems in cognitive self-regulation and higher average levels of externalizing
problems (Entwisle et al., 2005; NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2004; Moffitt,
Caspi, Rutter, & Silva, 2001; Raffaelli, Crockett, & Shen, 2005), and their rates of expulsion
from pre-kindergarten are 5 times those for girls (Gilliam, 2005). African American children and
children from low-income families enter school with lower mean academic skills, and the gap
tends to increase during the school years. These groups also have higher rates of problems in

7
self-regulation and externalizing behavior (Entwisle et al., 2005; Meich & Goldsmith, 2001;
Raver, 2004). African American children are twice as likely as children from other ethnic groups
to be expelled from pre-kindergarten programs (Gilliam, 2005).
Opportunity for Intervention
A wealth of data shows that childrens achievement test scores are strongly related to
their prior cognitive functioning and attainment of basic skills in math and literacy such as
number and letter recognition (Stevenson & Newman, 1986). In their meta-analysis of early-
grade longitudinal studies, La Paro and Pianta (2000) report mean correlations of .43 in academic
measures from preschool to either kindergarten or first grade and .48 for academic measures
between kindergarten and first or second grade. Similarly, there is evidence for longitudinal
consistency of self-regulation (McClelland & Morrison, 2003; Raffaelli et al., 2005). La Paro
and Pianta (2000) report mean correlations of about .30 for social/behavioral measures from
preschool to either kindergarten or first grade, which are about one-third less than mean
correlations for academic measures.
Continuity in early academic and self-regulatory skills is likely to reflect individual
differences in ability due in part to genetic and/or neurobiological endowments (Turkheimer,
Haley, Waldron, DOnofrio & Gottesman, 2003). However, the moderate size of these
correlations is also an indication of the malleability of early skills, and underscores the potential
importance of proximal influences beginning very early in life such as parenting, the home
environment, or experiences in settings outside the home (e.g., child care). We are especially
interested in identifying cognitive and self-regulatory skills that may be learned or improved by
experiences prior to school, whether these be in the family, school, or other settings. If
achievement at older ages is the product of a sequential process of skill acquisition, with early
skills as a prerequisite for later achievement, an intervention that targets these skills would affect
the timing and possibly ultimate level of achievement. But which skills can be modified through
instruction, and how do these modifications predict achievement?
A number of experiments provide encouraging evidence that specially designed
intervention programs that target pre-school children at-risk for school failure produce
cognitive and academic achievement gains and long-term reductions in referral for special
education services, grade retention, school drop-out, and increases in adult educational
attainment (Lazar & Darlington, 1982; Reynolds, 1994; Royce, Darlington, & Murray, 1983;
Reynolds & Temple, 1998; Ramey et al., 2000; Campbell, Ramey, Pungello, Sparling, & Miller-
J ohnson, 2002). But, most of these programs had a broad curriculum designed to enhance
cognitive and social skills, so they do not provide tests of the relative value of academically-
focused and behaviorally-oriented curricula. Their more persistent effects on grade retention and
special education vs. achievement test performance suggests that behavioral outcomes of the
interventions may have played a role in their long-term school success (Lazar & Darlington,
1982).
The model programs that produced these results were small-scale and costly to
implement, which limits the generalizablity of the findings. Rigorous experimental evaluations
of Head Start and Early Head Start, two large-scale, national programs that serve low-income
families, have recently been implemented. From its inception, Head Start has been designed to
provide a comprehensive set of services to address the physical, cognitive, and socio-emotional

8
needs of children. First-grade outcomes from the Head Start National Impact Study will be
measured in the spring of 2006, but early results after one year of the program show gains in pre-
reading (i.e., letter identification and naming) but not math skills for 3- and 4 year-olds, and
reductions in total behavior problems (particularly hyperactivity) for 3-year-olds only (U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, 2005).
Similarly, the evaluation of Early Head Start programs shows increases in cognitive and
language scores and reductions in aggressive behavior at ages 2 and 3 for children who received
program services relative to their control-group counterparts (Love et al., 2003).
Given that teachers emphasize the importance of self-regulatory skills for school
readiness, it might be expected that these early skills would have crossover effects on later
achievement outcomes. There is little conclusive evidence on this issue, because most
longitudinal research on childrens capabilities has been conducted within domains, linking, for
example, early to later conduct disorder rather than early conduct disorder to later achievement.
In order to estimate linkages between early self-regulation and later achievement, the preferred
approach would involve a random-assignment intervention that is directed toward changing
behavior but that also evaluates impacts on academic achievement. The key shortcoming of
extant research in this area is that many programs provide a combination of services to children,
so it is not possible to disentangle impacts of the self-regulation and academic components of the
program. For example, the Fast Track prevention program provided a number of services to
children who were identified as disruptive in kindergarten, including direct tutoring in reading
skills in first grade (Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 1992; 2002).
Few behavioral interventions also estimate impacts on later academic outcomes. In one
such study, low-achieving, socially-rejected fourth graders were assigned to an intensive social
skills intervention, academic skills training or a combination of social and academic skills
training (Coie & Krehbiel, 1984). Significant impacts of the social skills training were observed
for reading comprehension test scores one year later, but there was no difference between
treatment and control groups on either mathematics tests (computation and applications) or
reading vocabulary. Dolan et al. (1993) report results from a behavioral intervention targeted at
both aggressive and shy behaviors among first graders. A random-assignment evaluation showed
short-run impacts on both teacher and peer reports of aggressive and shy behavior, but no
crossover impacts on reading achievement.
In a third study, Tremblay and colleagues (Tremblay, Pagani-Kurtz, Msse, Vitaro, &
Pihl, 1995) randomly assigned some of the 166 disruptive kindergarten boys in their study to a
two-year treatment consisting of both school-based social skills training and home-based parent
training in effective child rearing. Treatment/control differences in delinquency were evident
through age 15. Although they did not test their subjects for academic skills, they did track
whether the boys were placed in regular classrooms. In this case, impacts of the behavioral
intervention on classroom placement were apparent until age 12, after which treatment/control
differences faded. A notable limitation of these studies is that they were implemented after the
children had some exposure to formal schooling, so it is unclear whether intervention in the pre-
kindergarten years would produce larger effects on achievement. However, even small,
temporary changes in behavior that open the door for learning might possibly set off a
multiplier effect when rewarding experiences with classmates and school achievement
improve a childs attitude toward learning and motivation for school success (Dickens, 2005).

9
From a life-course perspective, this can have important long-term implications for social
integration and economic self-reliance.
A fourth noteworthy study is the Multimodal Treatment Study of Children with ADHD
(The MTA Cooperative Group, 1999), which assigned 579 children with ADHD to 14 months of
medication management, intensive behavioral therapy, these two treatments combined or to
standard community care. Focusing on the combined treatment condition, impacts were observed
for both parent and teacher-reported ADHD symptoms, several other measures of emotional self-
regulation and reading but not math test scores.
In sum, non-experimental evidence suggests that both self-regulatory skills and social
skills predict achievement test scores in the early years of school, as do early academic skills.
Although much of this research controls for child characteristics, it is difficult to disentangle the
antecedents to individual differences in preschool. Problems of omitted variable bias may still be
present. Randomized trials of intervention programs show that children can benefit from targeted
direct services, but it remains unclear whether program components directed at specific academic
skills and/or self-regulation skills produce impacts on school achievement. Given the increasing
pressure on preschool programs to promote school readiness, it is essential to identify teachable
early academic and self-regulatory skills that influence later success in school and in adulthood.
The focus of this monograph is to estimate, as precisely as possible using longitudinal, non-
experimental data, the impacts of early achievement and self-regulation and of increments to
those skills on later academic success.
Method/Results
In the following section, we give brief descriptions of the data sets involved in this study,
followed by an explanation of the common analytic plan that was implemented across studies.
Detailed information about the sample, measures, and results from each study is presented next,
followed by a synthesis of results and conclusions.
The Studies
The Early Childhood Longitudinal Study Kindergarten Cohort
Longitudinal data (n~13,000) from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study
Kindergarten Cohort were collected on a national sample of children entering kindergarten in
1998 (NCES, 2001). School readiness measures include school-entry test scores on math,
reading and general knowledge as well as teacher reports of self-control, sociability, mental
health, aggressive behavior, and approaches to learning. Reading and mathematics achievement
are assessed in both tests and by teachers, at the end of third grade. Strengths of the ECLS-K data
are its achievement tests, which were developed especially for the project, its national scope, and
its sample size, which enable investigations of model differences by race/ethnicity and
socioeconomic status. Its chief weakness is that it drew its sample at the beginning of
kindergarten and thus lacks measurement of child ability and behavior prior to that point.
The Children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth
Longitudinal data (n~1,700) collected from the Maternal and Child Supplement to the
National Longitudinal Study of Youth (NLSY) 1979 Cohort are also drawn from a representative
national sample (Center for Human Resource Research, 2004). In this case, all women ages 14-

10
21 were sampled, and it is their children who constitute the sample children used in our analyses.
School readiness measures include math and reading test scores (Peabody Individual
Achievement Tests) and maternal reports of childrens behavior problems (adapted from the
Achenbach Behavior Problems Checklist). Both academic achievement and behavior problems
measures were collected biennially for children between the ages of 5 and 14 years of age. In
addition, at age 3 or 4, childrens receptive vocabulary was assessed (PPVT) and data on key
dimensions of childrens temperament (compliance and sociability) was collected. Strengths of
the NLSY data are its national scope, sample size, and the longitudinal design which provide the
opportunity to estimate the long-term effects of differing dimensions of school readiness with
controls for key early child and family background characteristics (including a measure of
mothers academic aptitude). Its chief weakness is that behavior problems are assessed by
maternal reports, and thus may not reflect important aspects of childrens classroom behavior.
The NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development
Longitudinal data (n~1,000) from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth
Development (SECCYD) are drawn from a multi-site study of births in 1991 (NICHD Early
Child Care Research Network, 2005b). Among the strengths of this dataset is that all school
readiness measures are assessed prior to school entry at age 4 . Achievement tests and
attention/impulsivity tasks are administered in a controlled laboratory setting, and social skills,
attention problems, aggression, and internalizing behavior is measured by teacher report in the
fall of the kindergarten year. Outcomes at first, third, and fifth grade include achievement in
math and reading according to teacher ratings and Woodcock-J ohnson test scores. The SECCYD
also includes information from infancy about childrens early environments, including child care
type and quality, home environment, and parenting. A limitation of this dataset is that we are
unable to test for differences by race/ethnicity because it is a predominately white sample.
The Infant Health and Development Program
Data from the Infant Health and Development Program are drawn from an eight-site
medical subsample of 700 low birth weight, premature infants and their families (IHDP, 1990).
School readiness measures include preschool performance and verbal test scores, parental reports
of childrens mental health and aggressive behavior, and observer reports of childrens attention
and task persistence. Reading and math achievement are assessed by the Woodcock-J ohnson
broad reading and math tests and by the WISC-III performance and verbal tests at eight years of
age. Strengths of the IHDP data include its multiple administrations of achievement tests and
behavioral measures, and extensive measures of the family environment (family income,
maternal mental health, HOME environment. The IHDP is fairly represented by African-
American and European-American families and by poor and non-poor families, thus allowing
examination by racial and SES subgroups. The primary weakness of the IHDP is that it is a
sample of low birth weight, premature infants and their families and has a limited sample size.
The Montreal Longitudinal-Experimental Preschool Study
The Montreal Longitudinal-Experimental Preschool Study was launched in 1997 and is
composed of several sequential longitudinal cohorts of French language preschool children
living in the poorest neighborhoods of Montreal, Canada. School readiness assessments include
performance on individually administered number knowledge and receptive vocabulary tests

11
upon junior kindergarten (age 4, cohort 1) and senior kindergarten (age 5, cohort 2) entry.
Teachers also provided assessments of their classroom social climate and childrens behavioral
development, including physically aggressive, anxious, depressive, hyperactive, inattentive, and
prosocial behavior. Grade three assessments include a group-administered math test, and teacher
ratings of childrens academic self-regulation, French language skills, and the behavioral
adjustment factors mentioned above. A strength is that the MLEPS data provide international
information and therefore helps in demonstrating the similarities and differences that exist across
the different cultures and social policy contexts. Other strengths of the Montreal data are its
sampling of a high risk population and its focus on number skills and behavioral development.
Its chief weaknesses include absence of reading achievement in grade 3 and early childhood
behavioral and cognitive measures prior to junior and senior kindergarten entry.
The British 1958 Birth Cohort
Our final data set features longitudinal data (n~10,000) collected from the British 1958
Birth Cohort, a.k.a. the British Cohort Study (BCS; Bynner, Ferri, & Shepherd, 1997). School
entry test measures (age 5 years) include measures of vocabulary and copying skills, as well as
mother reports of externalising behaviour, internalising behaviour and attention. Reading and
mathematics achievement are assessed in tests at age 10 years. Adult outcomes are performance
on national qualifications and hourly wages. The data also include measures of development at
ages 22 and 42 months for a 10% sub-sample of the data. Strengths of the BCS data are its
national scope, sample size and longitudinality, running from birth, through ages 5 and 10 to
adulthood. An important weakness in the current context is that the age 5 measures are taken
when the children had already entered school, change in pre-school measures is not available and
the study lacks teacher reports of behaviour or socio-emotional development at school entry.

Common Analytic Plan
The common approach taken in our analyses relates academic outcomes measured at
various points beyond kindergarten to kindergarten-entry behaviors and academic skills. Taking
the example of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study - Kindergarten Cohort data, the school-
entry skills and behaviors are measured in the fall of kindergarten (FK) while math and
reading achievement are measured in the spring of third grade (3
rd
). The estimating equation is
as follows:
(1) ACH
i3rd
= a
1
+
1
ACAD
iFK
+
2
SR
iFK
+
1
FAM
i
+
2
CHILD
i
+ e
it

where ACH
i3rd
is the math or reading achievement of the i
th
child at the end of third
grade. Some of the data sets we employ assess achievement outcomes in adolescence; one has
followed a sample of children long enough to gather information on labor market success in
early adulthood; and two have both test-score-based and teacher reports of reading and
mathematics achievement. ACAD
iFK
is the collection of math, reading and general knowledge
skills that child i has acquired at the point of entry into kindergarten, as assessed by achievement
tests in the fall of the kindergarten year; SR
iFK
is the collection of teacher-reported cognitive and
emotional self-regulation skills that child i has acquired as of the fall of the kindergarten year;
FAM
i
and CHILD
i
are sets of family background and child characteristics that are likely to exert

12
enduring influences on child achievement up to and beyond the point of school entry; a
1
is a
constant and e
it
is a stochastic error term.
Our interest is in estimating
1
and
2
, which, in the absence of omitted-variable bias and
model misspecification, can be interpreted as the impact of school-entry skills and behaviors on
subsequent achievement. Our principal strategy for unbiased estimation of
1
and
2
, adopted in
analyses of all of the data sets we employ, is to estimate an equation of the form of equation (1)
that includes as many prior measures of FAM and CHILD as possible. All of the data sets we use
contain numerous demographic measures of both the child and the family. Of course, one can
never be certain that even large numbers of demographic control variables capture all of the
important dimensions of FAM and CHILD, which leaves open the possibility that this approach
will still produce biased estimates of
1
and
2
. An obvious bias of this sort would arise if scores
on a kindergarten mathematics test reflected both math skills and underlying cognitive ability.
To combat these biases, all but one of our data sets provides measures of a childs
behaviors and either cognitive ability or achievement taken prior to entry into kindergarten. With
these prior measures, our model becomes:
(2) ACH
i3rd
= a
1
+
1
ACAD
iFK
+
2
SR
iFK
+
3
ACAD
iPre-K
+
4
SR
iPre-K
+
1
FAM
i
+
2
CHILD
i
+ e
it

There are two ways of viewing this model. First, it is an especially powerful version of
equation (1) since its controls for the childs pre-K skills provide unusual power against omitted-
variable bias in estimating
1
and
2
. Second, when the pre-K and Fall-K measures are
comparable, manipulation of (2) leads to a kind of change model in which early increments to
achievement and behavior are related to subsequent achievement, controlling for baseline levels
of achievement and behavior:
(3) ACH
i3rd
= b
1
+
1
ACAD
i
+
2
SR
i
+
3
ACAD
iPre-K
+
4
SR
iPre-K
+
1
FAM
i
+
2

CHILD
i
+
it

with indicating a simple difference between pre-K and the beginning of kindergarten.
Algebraic manipulation shows that the
1
and
2
parameters in (3) are identical to the
1
and
2

parameters of equation (2). Expressing our model as (3) shows that the thought experiment we
seek to approximate with our regression analysis is to estimate the impact on subsequent learning
and school achievement of an effective randomly-assigned academic or behavioral intervention
around the point of entry into kindergarten. If the intervention improves the achievement or
behavior of the treatment group relative to the control group at the point of kindergarten entry,
do these gains translate into more learning or higher achievement years later? Lacking
experimental manipulation of these skills and behaviors, we rely on longitudinal models for
estimating these impacts.

Third Grade Achievement in the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study Kindergarten Cohort
Sample
The ECLS-K follows a nationally representative sample of 21,260 children who were in
kindergarten in 1998-99. The study intends to collect five waves of data at the following time
points: fall of kindergarten and spring of kindergarten, first, third and fifth grades. All but the

13
fifth grade data were available to us. Data are collected from multiple sources, including direct
achievement tests of children, interviews with parents and surveys of teachers and school
administrators (NCES, 2001).
Achievement tests were administered in the fall of kindergarten and in the spring of
kindergarten, first and third grades. We use teacher reports of childrens self-regulatory
behaviors self-control, interpersonal skills, externalizing and internalizing behavior problems
and a rating of the students approaches to learning -- collected in the fall and spring of
kindergarten.
1
Although baseline data were collected from over 21,000 children, missing data
reduced our analysis samples to between 10,000 and 12,000 cases. Students were excluded from
the analysis if their data were missing test scores from the fall of kindergarten or the spring of
third grade or if they were missing data on gender. We also excluded cases that were missing
two or more of the teacher self-regulatory rating scales. The vast majority of our missing data,
however, is due to missing test scores -- there are a total of 17,622 reading IRT scores in the fall
of kindergarten, and 14,280 reading IRT scores in the spring of third grade.
The battery of achievement tests given as part of the ECLS-K kindergarten and first grade
assessments covered three subject areas: language and literacy, mathematical thinking, and
general knowledge. The children pointed to answers or gave verbal responses and were not
asked to write or explain their reasoning. The tests were administered using a computer-assisted
interviewing methodology. The achievement test scores used in our analyses are IRT (item
response theory) scores that are included in the ECLS-K data. Reliabilities reported for the
overall IRT scores in reading and mathematics for all three grades are over .9.
In third grade, the achievement tests included mathematics, reading and science. We use
IRT scores for the first two of these as key dependent variables. These third grade assessments
required students to complete workbooks and open-ended mathematics problems. Reading
passages and questions were provided to children so that they could reference the passages when
answering questions. However, all questions were read to the students. In math, all answer
choices were read to the students; in reading, the students read the answer options.
Measures
Dependent Variables
Our key dependent variables consist of third grade achievement test scores, teacher
reports of student achievement in reading and mathematics and grade retention. In the case of
reading test scores, we constructed composites using only the two most advanced IRT subscales
extrapolation/homonyms and evaluation of the ECLS-Ks reading test. For third-grade
mathematics, we used only the three most advanced subscales multiplication and division,
place value, and rate and measurement. Descriptive statistics for these measures are shown in
Table 1.
The ECLS-K also asked third grade teachers to complete academic rating scales (ARS)
on student reading and mathematics achievement. In the case of the reading achievement score,
we combined teacher ratings of proficiency in expressing ideas, use of strategies to gain
information, reading on grade level, and writing. This scale has a reported reliability of .95. A
teacher report of students math achievement was based on ratings of student mastery of number

14
concepts, data analysis, measurement, operations, geometry, application of mathematical
strategies and creating and extending patterns. This scale has a reported reliability of .94.
To examine shorter-run links between school entry skills and achievement, we also
estimate models using as dependent variables test scores and teacher reports measured at the end
of first grade. In contrast with the third-grade scores, the variability in first grade scores across
subscales overlapped substantially with kindergarten scores. Accordingly, we opted to use the
overall first-grade reading and mathematics IRT scores included in the ECLS-K. The first grade
achievement test included five reading and five mathematics proficiency levels
2
that reflect a
progression of skills and knowledge such that if a child has mastered a higher level, she is likely
to have mastered the items in the earlier levels as well. For example, an early skill area would be
identifying upper- and lower- case letters of the alphabet, and a later skill area would be reading
words in context. Similarly, in mathematics, an early skill area on the first grade test is
identifying one-digit numerals and recognizing geometric shapes. A later skill area is
multiplication and division.
Finally, to estimate the relationship between school entry skills and short-term school
outcomes, we estimate a logistic regression model using grade retention as the dependent
variable. The grade retention variable is a dummy variable indicating whether a child was
retained between the fall of kindergarten and third grade.
Key Independent Variables
Our key independent variables of interest include achievement test scores and teacher
reports of self-regulatory behaviors, all measured in the fall of kindergarten. For reading, our fall
kindergarten composite includes subscales for letter recognition, beginning sounds and ending
sounds. For mathematics, our composite includes the components of counting up to 10,
recognizing numbers and shapes; counting beyond 10, relative size and patterns; and ordinality,
sequence and simple word problems. It is important to note that there is no overlap in the
subscales used to construct fall-kindergarten and third-grade achievement. This is in keeping
with our desire to understand the building blocks of subsequent achievement. Continuity is not
at work here, since the rudimentary reading and math skills in the kindergarten measures are
completely distinct from the more advanced skills assessed in the third grade data. Descriptive
statistics on this and other fall-kindergarten variables are presented in Table 1.The measures of
self-regulation were all constructed by ECLS-K staff from teacher responses to a self-
administered questionnaire from the fall of kindergarten.
3
The items in all five measures are
measured on a scale of 1 never to 4 very often. The measure of self-control is constructed
from four items that indicate a childs ability to control behavior by respecting the property
rights of others, controlling temper, accepting peer ideas for group activities and responding
appropriately to pressure from peers. The scale has a reported reliability of .79 in the fall of
kindergarten.
The five items that comprise the measure of interpersonal skills rate a childs skill in
forming and maintaining friendships, getting along with people who are different, comforting or
helping other children, expressing feelings, ideas and opinions in positive ways, and showing
sensitivity to the feelings of others. The reliability for interpersonal skills in the fall of
kindergarten is .89.

15
The measure of externalizing problem behaviors consists of five items that rate the
frequency with which a child argues, fights, gets angry, acts impulsively, and disturbs ongoing
activities. The four items that make up the measure of internalizing behaviors ask about the
apparent presence of anxiety loneliness, low self-esteem, and sadness. The reliabilities for
externalizing and internalizing problem behaviors are .90 and .80, respectively.
The approaches to learning scale includes six items that measure the childs attentiveness,
task persistence, eagerness to learn, learning independence, flexibility and organization. This
measure has a reliability of .89 in the fall of kindergarten.
Our final fall-kindergarten achievement measure is an IRT score on a general knowledge
test. The general knowledge test subject matter was too diverse to be divided into proficiency
levels, thus only a single overall IRT score is available in the data set. The test assessed
knowledge of science and social studies material. It evaluated childrens conception and
understanding of the social, physical, and natural world and their ability to draw inferences and
comprehend implications. It also measured childrens skills in establishing relationships
between and among objects, events, or people and to make inferences and comprehend the
implications of verbal and pictorial concepts. While the ECLS-K data does not include a specific
measure of cognitive ability, it is possible that the general knowledge test at least partially
captures it. The reliability of the general knowledge test for this sample in the fall of
kindergarten was .88.
Our change models relate third grade achievement to achievement and self-regulation
measured in both the spring and fall of kindergarten. Apart from the timing of the measurement,
the spring-kindergarten measures are identical to the ones just described.
[Insert Table 1 about here]
Covariates
In addition to the independent variables described above, we include an extensive list of
child and family control variables in most of our models. A list of these variables and descriptive
statistics for them can be found in Appendix A.
Results
Correlations
Correlations among the various skill and behavior measures taken at the beginning of
kindergarten and the end of first and third grades are shown in Table 2. The first two columns
preview some of our regression results by showing stronger fall-K to third grade correlations for
math (r=.68) than reading (r=.56) test scores, and a stronger correlation between initial math and
third grade reading test scores (r=.61) than between initial reading and third grade math (r=.53).
Kindergarten-entry general knowledge test scores have substantial correlations with both third
grade math and reading scores. Surprisingly, kindergarten general knowledge scores have higher
associations with reading scores at the end of third than first grade. The correlation between
third-grade teacher report and test-score-based measures of reading achievement is only .58 and
is slightly less .54 for mathematics achievement.
With the exception of approaches to learning, the absolute value of the correlations
between third grade test scores and teacher-rated school-entry self-regulatory behaviors average

16
.17, and none are higher than .22. In contrast, the approaches to learning index correlates with
third grade test and teacher-report achievement between .27 and .35.
Basic Models
Table 3 shows estimates of the various forms of the reading and math achievement
models, as measured by test scores and teacher reports, represented by equation (1). All variables
have been standardized by full-sample standard deviations so that coefficients are comparable
with one another and with the correlations presented in Table 2. Bear in mind that higher scores
on internalizing and externalizing behavior problems indicate more problems and are expected to
produce negative coefficients in these regressions.
We estimate two models for each of our dependent variables. In the first, only the fall-
kindergarten achievement and self-regulation scores are included. For these models, standard
errors are adjusted using Huber-White methods to account for the lack of independence caused
by classroom clustering of sample students (White, 1980). In the second set of models, the full
set of child and family controls listed in Appendix A are included. Since the ECLS-K sample
was clustered by classroom, and the same teachers often rated more than one child, we also
control in these second models for teacher fixed effects. In essence, this amounts to including
dummy variables for individual teachers.
Beginning math, reading, and general knowledge scores are highly predictive of
subsequent reading achievement, although general knowledge is less predictive of teacher
reports. Kindergarten general knowledge and, especially, math scores are highly predictive of
third grade math scores. Early reading skills are barely predictive of subsequent math
achievement, with a standardized coefficient of .05 in the model with full controls. Kindergarten
reading skills are somewhat more important predictors of teacher reports of both reading and
math proficiency, but in both cases early math achievement is much more predictive of these
outcomes. With the exception of approaches to learning, kindergarten self-regulatory behaviors
are not associated with teacher reported proficiencies in math or reading.
Focusing on the coefficients on the self-regulatory behaviors in Table 3, we see that, with
the exception of approaches to learning, in no case are standard deviation increments associated
with more than a .02 standard-deviation increase in test scores once control variables are added
and none of these coefficients are statistically significant. In contrast, the kindergarten teachers
assessment of students approaches to learning are significant predictors of both reading and
math achievement with respective standardized coefficients of .04 and .10. Approaches to
learning is an even more powerful predictor of teacher reports of student achievement, with
effects of .14 and .12 on reading and math, respectively, in the full-control models.
Turning to the results for grade retention, we see that beginning reading and math scores
are also significant predictors of grade retention, with math having a slightly larger effect than
reading. Students one standard deviation above the mean math score in the fall of kindergarten
are almost 2 percentage points less likely to have been retained by third grade. Consistent with
our achievement results, the only self-regulatory behavior that is a significant predictor of grade
retention is approaches to learning.
Table 4 presents the same results as those seen in Table 3, but with first grade test scores

17
and teacher reports as outcomes rather than third grade. The coefficient on early reading skills in
the reading achievement regression is now much larger (.40), reflecting the utility of early
reading skills such as letter recognition and mastery of beginning and ending word sounds for
first-grade skills such as understanding words by sight and in context. In the case of self-
regulatory behaviors, the results are very similar to those shown in Table 3, again, with the
exception of approached to learning, no self-regulatory behavior produces consistently
significant coefficient.
We also ran regressions estimating the change model in equation (2). Recall that in the
presence of beginning-of-kindergarten controls, the coefficients on the end-of-kindergarten
measures can be interpreted as the effect of skill changes over the course of kindergarten.
Coefficients on the end-of-kindergarten measures are generally consistent with those from the
level models (results not shown). Among the self-regulatory behaviors, only changes in
approaches to learning are predictive of third grade achievement with a standardized coefficient
of .06 in the reading achievement model and .10 for math achievement. Among the achievement
test scores, gains in reading over the course of kindergarten are not more predictive of eventual
reading achievement than had been the case in the earlier models (.13 standardized coefficient).
Cross-kindergarten gains in math and general knowledge are consistently predictive of
subsequent reading and math achievement.
Improving basic academic and self regulatory skills may matter the most for children
with very low levels of these skills. To test for this possibility, we estimated piecewise linear
(spline) functions allowing for different coefficients for children in the bottom one-third of the
academic and behavioral scales and children in the top two-thirds (results not shown). The
results from these analyses show few significant non-linear effects. While there is some evidence
that early math skills have a non-linear effect on later math and reading achievement, there is no
evidence that other measures of early achievement or behavior have non-linear relationships with
the outcomes.
Subgroup models
While most self-regulatory behaviors appear relatively unimportant in regards to
achievement for all children taken together, perhaps there are subgroups of children defined by
ethnicity, SES or gender for whom the results are different. We estimated level models for black
and Latino children; as well as for boys, girls and children in low- and high-SES families (Table
5 includes third grade reading and math achievement). We define low SES as being in the
bottom 25% of the weighted distribution on the ECLS-Ks SES composite and high SES as
being in the top 25% of that distribution. We do not rescale any of the variables in these
regressions. Thus, all are standardized according to full-sample standard deviations, with
estimated coefficients reflecting fractions of whole-sample standard deviation changes in a given
dependent variable associated with a whole-sample standard deviation change in a given
independent variable.
Coefficients on the kindergarten test score variables are generally consistent across
subgroups. A notable exception is that beginning-kindergarten reading skills appear to matter

18
more for black than for other children. Beginning-kindergarten math achievement and general
knowledge are consistently predictive of subsequent math and reading achievement, particularly
for the overlapping groups of black and low-SES children. Turning to the self-regulatory
behaviors, only in the case of approaches to learning is a given measure predictive of both
reading and math achievement for more than one of the subgroups.
Age 13/14 Achievement in the Children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth
Sample
The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth is a multi-stage stratified random sample of
12,686 individuals aged fourteen to twenty-one in 1979 (Center for Human Resource Research,
2004). Black, Hispanic, and low-income youth were over-represented in the sample. Annual
(through 1994) and biennial (between 1994 and 2000) interviews with sample members, and
very low cumulative attrition in the study, contribute to the quality of the studys data.
Beginning in 1986, the children born to NLSY female participants were tracked through
biennial mother interview supplements and direct child assessments. Given the nature of the
sample, it is important to note that early cohorts of the child sample were born disproportionately
to young mothers. With each additional cohort the children become more representative of all
children, and NLSY children younger than age 14 in 2000 share many demographic
characteristics of their broader set of age mates.
The sample used in the present analysis consists of 1,762 children whose academic
achievement was tracked from age 7/8 to age 13/14 and whose achievement and self-regulatory
behavior was assessed at age 5/6. Consequently, our sample is comprised of children who were
age 5 or 6 in 1986, 1988, 1990 or 1992. The age 13/14 achievement and behavior of these
children were assessed in the respective 1994, 1996, 1998 and 2000 interviews.
Measures
Dependent variables
As summarized in Table 6, the dependent variables include tests of academic
achievement (reading and math) assessed during middle childhood (age 7/8) and adolescence
(age 13/14). Academic achievement was assessed by the Peabody Individual Achievement Tests
(PIAT, reading recognition and math). Children were eligible for the PIAT tests if they were
older than 5 years of age. Descriptive statistics for the nationally standardized reading and math
achievement tests are presented in Table 6. For the purposes of analysis, scores are standardized
to have a mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1.
Interviewers verbally administered the PIATs. Children were first given an age
appropriate item, and a basal score was established when a child answered five consecutive
questions correctly. Once a basal was established, interviewers continued to ask the child
questions until the child answered 5 out of 7 consecutive items incorrectly. Subtracting the
number of incorrect scores between the basal and the ceiling score from the ceiling score
produced a raw test score.

19
The reading recognition test consists of 84 items that measure word recognition and
pronunciation ability. It tests childrens skills at matching letters, naming names, and reading
single words out loud. Dunn and Markwardt (1970) reported the one-month temporal reliability
of a national sample, and the test-retest correlations ranged from a low of .81 for kindergarteners
to a high of .94 for third grade students. Overall the test had an average temporal reliability of
.89. Studies of the tests concurrent validity find that the test was moderately correlated with
other tests of intelligence (e.g.,Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised) and reading
vocabulary (e.g., Metropolitan Achievement Test) (Davenport, 1976; Wikoff, 1978).
The math subscale consists of 84 multiple-choice items designed to measure mathematic
concepts taught in mainstream classrooms. The problems were designed so that children are
required to apply math concepts to questions rather than conduct increasingly complicated
computations. The test starts with basic skills such as number recognition and counting. The test
increases in difficulty to problems involving division, multiplication, and fractions. The most
difficult questions involve advanced concepts from algebra and geometry. Dunn & and
Markwardt (1970) reported one-month test-retest reliabilities from a national sample. The
reliabilities ranged from a low of .52 for kindergarteners to a high of .84 for high school seniors.
On average the test-retest reliability was .74. Studies of the PIAT math tests concurrent validity
found that the test correlated moderately with other tests of intelligence and math achievement
(Davenport, 1976; Wikoff, 1978).
Grade retention is determined by mothers responses to questions that asked whether her
child was retained. The exact wording of the questions differed slightly from year to year. For
example, in 1988 mothers were asked if their child had repeated any grade whereas in 1994
mothers were asked which, if any, grade their child had repeated and then asked to specify
which grade. By combining mothers responses across the available waves of data, an indicator
of whether a child had ever been retained by age 13/14 was created. About 20% of the children
were reported by their mothers to have been retained at least once by the time of their age 13/14
assessment.

Childrens early academic skills (age 5/6) are measured by standardized PIAT reading
recognition and math scores. Self-regulatory skills were assessed by mothers responses to 28
items that asked how true statements were about a childs behavior problems during the past 3
months. These questions were created specifically for the NLSY, and consist of items derived
from the Achenbach Behavior Problems Checklist as well as other established measures (Baker
et al., 1993). The single item questions were recoded so that a response of not true
corresponded to a score of 0, and sometimes true and often corresponded to a score of 1.
Six subscales were created by the NLSY staff based on a factor analysis of the items. The
process for creating these subscales and the reliability of each is reported in Baker, Keck, Mott,
and Quilan (1993). Five of the 6 behavior problem subscales are used in this study
hyperactivity, head strong, antisocial, peer problems, and anxious/depressed.
4
The sample
average, minima and maxima of the raw scores for each subscale are reported in Table 6.

20
However, for the purposes of the analyses, the raw scores are translated into standardized scores
with a mean of 0, and standard deviation of 1. The subscales correlate moderately, with
correlations between scales ranging from .38 to .56 (Table 7).
The hyperactivity scale is comprised of 5 items that ask about the following child
behaviors: being restless and overactive, having difficulty concentrating or paying attention,
being easily confused or in a fog, and having trouble with obsessions. The NLSY reports that
this subscale has adequate reliability ( =.69).
The headstrong subscale is also comprised of 5 items. Interviewers ask mothers about the
following types of child behavior: being high strung, tense or nervous, arguing too much, being
disobedient at home, being stubborn, sullen or irritable, and having a strong temper and losing it
easily. The reliability of the headstrong subscale is reported to be adequate (alpha of .71).
The antisocial subscale is created from 6 items that measure whether the child cheats or
tells lies, bullies or is cruel to others, does not feel sorry after misbehaving, breaks things
deliberately, is disobedient at school, and has trouble getting along with teachers. The anti-social
subscale has adequate reliability ( =.67).
The anxious/depressed scale consists of 5 items that indicate how often the child: has
sudden changes in mood or feeling, feels or complains that no one loves him/her, is too fearful or
anxious, feels worthless or inferior, and is unhappy, sad or depressed. The reliability of this scale
is also adequate ( =.65).
Finally, the peer conflict scale is comprised of only 3 items. These include questions
about how frequently the child is withdrawn and not involved with others, is not liked by other
children, and has trouble getting along with others. The smaller number of items results in a
somewhat lower level of reliability for this subscale ( =.57).
Covariates
To alleviate concerns that associations between childrens behavior and achievement may
be the result of omitted variable biases, the analyses include measures of childrens temperament
and achievement in early childhood. In addition, a rich set of child and mother characteristics
and early family environments are included in analyses as covariates. Missing data on all
covariates is handled by including a set of missing data dummy variables.
5

Maternal and interviewer reports of 2 relevant dimensions of childrens temperament,
sociability and compliance, are available for children at age 3 or 4.
6
The compliance measure
was created by summing maternal ratings of the frequency of childrens behavior on a five-point
scale from almost never (1) to almost always (5). Taken together, the seven items capture how
well the child follows directions. For example, questions include how often the child obeys
when told to go to bed and turns off the TV when asked. This measure has adequate
reliability, with NLSY reporting the alpha of .59 for children of all ages (Baker et al., 1993).
Descriptive statistics for the temperament measures are presented in Table 6.
Summing 3 interviewer ratings of the childs cooperation during the assessment created
the sociability scale. Children were rated on a scale of poor (1) to excellent (5). Items include, for
example, the observers rating of how cooperative the child was in completing the assessment

21
and of the childs attitude toward being tested. This measure has a high reliability; the NSLY
reports an alpha of .93 (Baker et al., 1993).
The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test- Revised (PPVT) is used to measure childrens
early receptive vocabulary at age 3/4. The PPVT consists of 175 vocabulary items which
increase in difficulty. Nationally standardized scores are used in analyses and descriptive
statistics for the sample are presented in Table 6.
Data on childrens family environments were coded to correspond to two intervals
between birth and age 5 and at age 5/6. Measures available at both times include: family income,
family structure, and urban residence. However, some information was only consistently
available when children were age 5/6 including childrens HOME environment and two
measures of family structure (blended family and cohabitation). The highest grade a mother
completed when the child was age 5/6 is also used as a control (See Appendix B).
The NLSY measures an array of child and mother background characteristics, which are
used as covariates in analyses. These variables include, for example, measures of the childs race
(Black, Hispanic, or non-Hispanic white) and mothers percentile scores on the Armed Forces
Qualifying Test (AFQT, a measure of mothers academic aptitude assessed in 1980). In addition,
several variables that measure mothers risk-taking behaviors (drug and alcohol use) and her
adolescent experiences are also included as covariates. For a complete list of these variables see
Appendix B.
Results
Correlations
Bivariate correlations among the academic and self-regulatory measures are presented in
Table 7. Associations between childrens early and later achievement are stronger than
associations between early behavior and later achievement. Childrens math and reading
achievement at 13/14 are highly correlated with their achievement at age 7/8 (r=.69 for reading
and r=.59 for math) and age 5/6 (r=.42 for reading and r=.43 for math), as well as childrens
receptive vocabulary at age 3/4 (r=.40 for reading and r=.44 for math).
The correlations between childrens early self-regulatory behavior and their academic
achievement are more modest, and differ according to the type of behavior being considered.
Across all ages, hyperactivity is the dimension of behavior most strongly associated with
achievement (e.g, for reading r=-.20 at age 5/6, r=-.23 at age 7/8, and r=-.20 at age 13/14),
followed closely by antisocial behavior and peer problems. Headstrong behavior has the lowest
correlations with childrens achievement.
Basic Models
Moving from bivariate correlations to multivariate regressions, associations between
adolescents achievement and their early achievement and behavior decrease by more than half
(Table 8). For example, holding math achievement and problem behavior constant, a one
standard deviation increase in reading achievement at age 5/6 is associated with a .20 standard
deviation higher reading score at age 13/14 (Column 1, Table 8). Adding in covariates for child

22
and family background characteristics as well as childrens receptive vocabulary and
temperament reduces the estimates only slightly.
Absent controls for background characteristics, temperament, and receptive vocabulary,
regression results suggest rather small negative effects of childrens antisocial behavior on their
later reading achievement (-.07), and of hyperactivity on their math achievement (-.12).
Surprisingly, childrens headstrong behavior has a small positive association with math
achievement (.06). However, adding additional controls into the regressions substantially these
reduce associations. For example, the effect of hyperactivity on math achievement falls by a third
(-.12 to -.08). The positive headstrong effect for math skills is reduced, and a negative
hyperactivity effect emerges. Results from regressions with the most complete set of control
variables suggest a small negative effect of hyperactivity on both reading and math achievement,
as well as a small negative effect of antisocial behavior on reading achievement.
7

Do young childrens problem behaviors have stronger links to their achievement in
middle childhood than in adolescence? The next set of analyses estimates the effects of
childrens behavior and achievement at age 5/6 on their achievement just two years later (age
7/8). A remarkably similar pattern of results is apparent (see Table 9). Again, childrens
academic achievement is a stronger predictor of their later achievement than their behavior
problems. Given the closer proximity of the assessments, it is not surprising that these effects are
larger than those previously estimated for adolescent achievement. For example, the estimated
effects for early reading achievement are nearly twice as large during middle childhood (.34 vs.
.17).
In terms of behavior, the results indicate that holding constant child and family
background characteristics, the effects of hyperactivity are remarkably consistent across
achievement in middle childhood and early adolescence. Estimated effects are slightly larger for
age 7/8 reading (-.06 vs. -.05) than later reading, but identical for childrens math achievement (-
.08 at both ages).
Other dimensions of self-regulatory behavior are not as consistently predictive of
childrens achievement. Although antisocial behavior predicts lower reading achievement at age
13/14 (-.05), it is not associated with reading at age 7/8. In addition, peer problems do not predict
reading achievement in early adolescence, but it does appear to matter for childrens reading
skills during middle childhood (-.06).
Considering grade retention, the results indicate that childrens self regulatory behavior
is associated with the likelihood of being retained in grade by the age of 13/14. For example, a
one standard deviation increase above the mean is associated with a 4% higher probability of
having been retained. However, adding covariates decreases the estimated effects to non-
significance suggesting that changes in childrens preschool self-regulatory behavior are not
uniquely associated with their later school progression.
Spline regressions were conducted to determine if the effects of early hyperactivity and
achievement were non-linear, perhaps with improvements among children with higher levels of
hyperactivity and lower levels of achievement more predictive of subsequent achievement at age

23
13/14 (results not shown). The effects were allowed to differ for children whose scores were in
the top half of the hyperactivity score and the bottom half achievement measures. The results
from these analyses indicate that the effects of childrens hyperactivity are non-linear, such that
increments in higher levels of hyperactive behavior are more detrimental to childrens math
achievement (-.15) than increments to lower levels of the same behavior (-.00). This pattern of
hyperactivity effects is also apparent for reading achievement (-.10 vs. .00), but the standard
errors are large and the coefficients do not reach statistical significance. There is no evidence that
early achievements effects on later achievement are non-linear.
Subgroup models
Do these average early behavior and achievement effects mask differences across boys
and girls or high and low SES children? With respect to early adolescent achievement, it appears
that the pattern of effects for childrens behavior does not systematically differ according to
gender or SES background (See Table 10). The only exception is that hyperactivity appears to be
particularly predictive of math skills among low SES youth, but not high SES youth (low and
high SES is defined as having the lowest 25% of family incomes respectively and high SES
including the top 75% of incomes).

Fifth Grade Achievement in the NI CHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development
Sample
Participants were recruited from hospitals located at 10 sites across the U.S in 1991
(Little Rock, AK; Irvine, CA; Lawrence, KS; Boston, MA; Philadelphia, PA; Pittsburgh, PA;
Charlottesville, VA; Morganton, NC; Seattle, WA; and Madison, WI). During 24-hour sampling
periods, there were 5,265 women new mothers who met the selection criteria and agreed to be
contacted after returning home from the hospital. At one month of age, 1,364 healthy newborns
were enrolled in the study. Although it is not nationally representative, the study sample closely
matches national and census tract records on demographic variables such as household income
and ethnicity. Among the 1281 families with children who were retained through the first 15
months, there were 206 with pre-transfer incomes below the poverty threshold, and another 277
whose incomes were between 100% and 200% of the poverty threshold (NICHD ECCRN,
1997). The majority of children in the sample are white, 12% are African-American, and 11%
are Hispanic or another ethnicity. Over the first 15 months of the study approximately 39% of
the mothers worked less than 10 hours per week, 30% had a high school education or less, and
14% were single parents.
Measures
Dependent Variables
The means and standard deviations of key dependent and independent variables are
presented in Table 11. Our key dependent variables consist of achievement test scores and
teacher reports of reading and math achievement at first, third, and fifth grade, and parent report
of grade retention over the course of the first six years of school (includes kindergarten).

24
The Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery Revised (WJ-R) tests were
individually administered to children during the spring of the first, third, and fifth grade years
(Woodcock & Johnson, 1989; Woodcock, 1990). Raw scores for each test are converted into W
scores (a special transformation of the Rasch ability scale) which have equal interval units and
are set to approximate the average performance of beginning fifth-grade students (centered on a
value of 500). At third and fifth grades, the broad reading score includes the letter-word
identification and passage comprehension tests (5
th
grade =.92; 3
rd
grade =.93). The first five
letter-word identification items require the child to match a pictographic representation of a word
with an actual picture of the object, and the remaining items measure skills in identifying isolated
letters and words. The first four passage comprehension items require the child to point to the
picture represented by a phrase (multiple-choice format), and for the remaining items the child
reads a short passage and identifies a missing key word that would be appropriate in the context
of the passage. The number of scales administered from the WJ-R differed somewhat at the
spring of first grade assessment from what was administered at third and fifth grades. At first
grade, the mean of the WJ-R letter-word identification ( =.92) and word attack (=.92) scales
was used as a measure of reading achievement. The word attack scale measures a childs ability
to apply phonic and structural analysis skills to the pronunciation of unfamiliar printed words.
At third and fifth grades, the broad math score includes applied problems and calculation
tests (5
th
grade =.92; 3
rd
grade =.89). The applied problems scale measures the childs skill in
analyzing and solving practical problems in mathematics. This scale requires children to
recognize the procedure to be followed and then perform relatively simple calculations. The
calculation scale measures the childs skill in performing mathematical calculations including
addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and combinations of these basic operations, as
well as some geometric, trigonometric, logarithmic, and calculus operations. The calculations
involve decimals, fractions, and whole numbers. At first grade, the applied problems scale was
used as a measure of math achievement ( =.83).
At first, third, and fifth grades, teachers reported on the childs classroom achievement
using the Academic Rating Scale, which was adapted from the Academic Skills measure used in
the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (NCES, 2001). The teacher rates the study childs
performance compared with other children at the same grade level on a 5-point scale (1=Not
Yet to 5=Proficient). The items in the language and literacy scale address listening, speaking,
and early reading and writing behaviors (5
th
grade 10 items, =.94; 3
rd
grade 10 items, =.95; 1
st

grade 15 items, =.95), and the items in the mathematical thinking scale address the childs
ability to perceive, understand, and utilize skills in solving mathematical problems (5
th
grade13
items, =.92; 3
rd
grade13 items, =.91; 1
st
grade 10 items, =.92).
Mothers (or alternate primary caregivers) were asked several questions about the schools
the study child attended each year. As part of this interview, mothers were asked to indicate the
start and stop dates for each school attended within each grade level. We used this information to
calculate a dichotomous variable indicating whether or not the child ever repeated a grade from
kindergarten through the end of fifth grade (99/1059 children in the sample with valid data
through sixth grade had ever repeated a grade; 35 repeated kindergarten, 27 repeated first grade,
18 repeated second grade, 11 repeated third grade, 5 repeated fourth grade, and 6 repeated fifth
grade).

25
The WJ -R letter-word identification scale was used to measure early reading skill (
=.84) and applied problems scale is used to measure early skill in mathematics ( =.84) at age 4
. The measure of cognitive ability was the mean of the memory for sentences ( =.82),
incomplete words ( =.86), and picture vocabulary ( =.76) scales. Memory for sentences is a
measure of short-term memory that requires the child to make use of sentence meaning to aid in
recall, incomplete words is a measure of auditory processing that requires the child to names a
complete word after hearing a recorded word that has one or more phonemes missing, and
picture vocabulary is a measure of verbal comprehension or crystallized intelligence.
The Preschool Language Scale3 (Zimmerman, Steiner & Pond, 1979) was administered
during the home visit at age 4 in order to measure the auditory comprehension and expressive
communication skills. Because the two scales are highly correlated (.70), only the expressive
communication standard score was used in this study. The scale includes 48 items that require
the child to say what he/she understands (scored 1 for each question if the pass criterion is
met or if the child self-corrects a response; scored 0 if the pass criterion is not met or for
partially correct or incomplete responses).
Sustained attention and impulsivity were assessed using a 7 minute Continuous
Performance Task (CPT), during the laboratory visit at age 4 (Rosvold, Mirsky, Sarason,
Bransome & Beck, 1956). Children viewed dot-matrix computer-generated images that were
presented on a 2-inch square screen. The child was asked to press a button as fast as you can
each time the target stimulus (a chair) appeared and to inhibit responding to nontarget stimuli
(e.g., butterfly, flower, etc.). The percentage of correct responses to target stimuli was used as a
measure of sustained attention and the percentage of incorrect responses to non-target stimuli
was used as a measure of impulsivity.
In the fall of the kindergarten year, teachers rated childrens attention problems,
internalizing problems, and aggressive behavior using the Teacher Report Form of the Child
Behavior Checklist for ages 4-18 (Achenbach, 1991). Teachers responded to 120 items which
asked whether the study child currently or during the previous two months had displayed a range
of behavioral/emotional problems using a 3-point scale (0 not true to 2 very true). Narrow
band T-scores for attention problems (i.e., cant concentrate, cant sit still, confused, fails to
finish things, fidgets, day-dreams, difficulty following directions, acts young) and aggression
(i.e., argues, defiant, brags, demands a lot of attention, disobedient at school, disturbs other
pupils, jealous, fights, cruelty, talks out of turn) and the broad band T-score for internalizing
problems (i.e., shy, sad, withdrawn, complains of headaches, complains of nausea, afraid of
making mistakes, worries) are used.
Teachers also completed the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS K-6 version) in the fall of
the kindergarten year (Gresham & Elliott, 1990). Teachers rated the frequency of a series of
behaviors using a 3-point scale from 0 (never) to 3 (very often). The teacher version of the SSRS
( =.93) includes three subscales: cooperation (i.e., paying attention to teachers instructions),
assertion (i.e., volunteering to help), and self-control in conflict situations (i.e., responding to
teasing or peer pressure appropriately). The standardized total score is used in the analyses.

26
Key Control Variables at Age 3
TheBracken School Readiness Composite (SRC) subscale of the BBCS Diagnostic Scale
was administered to children at 3 years of age. The SRC tests the child's knowledge of the
following basic concepts: color, letter identification, number/counting, comparisons, and shape
(Bracken, 1984).
The Reynell Developmental Language Scale (RDLS), an observational assessment
specifically tailored to detect changes in language development in young children, was
administered at the age 3 assessment (Reynell, 1990). The RDLS has two 67-item scales: Verbal
Comprehension ( =.93) and Expressive Language ( =.86).
Problem behaviors including internalizing and externalizing symptoms at age 3 were
rated by mothers using the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) for ages 2-3
(Achenbach, 1992). Children were rated on 99 items describing behavioral/emotional problems
during the previous two months on a 3-point scale from 0 (not true of child) to 2 (very true of the
child).
A forbidden toy task was administered and videotaped during the laboratory visit at age
3. Child was allowed to play with an attractive toy. Then the experimenter told the child that she
had some work to do, and the child could play with other toys that were previously played with,
but he/she could not touch the attractive toy until told to do so. The attractive toy was placed at
arms length from the child and the experimenter sat in the corner of the room doing paperwork
for 2.5 minutes. After 2.5 minutes the examiner returned and allowed to play with the attractive
toy. Active engagement time with the forbidden toy was used as a measure of impulsivity (inter-
rater reliability was .98).
Covariates
Means and standard deviations of the full set of covariates can be found in Appendix C.
A variety of measures of child and family characteristics were collected at multiple points during
a childs infancy and early childhood. Baseline information about the child, including gender,
ethnicity, and birth order was provided by the mother at the time of study enrollment. At the age
4 assessment period, mothers rated the childs general health since the last interview on a 4-
point scale ranging from 1 (poor health) to 4 (excellent health).
Information about the childs home environment, including the number of children in the
household and household structure was collected at the age 4 interview. A composite
parenting quality score was created by first averaging standardized ratings of observed maternal
sensitivity and of observed home environmental quality as measured by the Home Observation
for Measurement of the Environment (HOME; Caldwell & Bradley, 1984).
Information regarding parental characteristics including mothers age, and mothers and
partners education (in years), job status (categorized along a continuum from high status,
professional/administrative jobs to low status, laborer/helper type jobs), and total family income
(including mothers and partners earnings, from social security and SSI, TANF, and/or food
stamps) was gathered at the age 4 interview. A dummy variable was created indicating
whether the family ever received public assistance during the first 4 years of the childs life.
Maternal reports of depressive symptoms were assessed at the age 4 interview ( =.90) using
the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scales (Radloff, 1997).

27
Non-maternal child care was defined as regular care by anyone other than the mother
including care by fathers, relatives, and nannies (whether in home or out of the home), family-
day-care providers, and centersthat was routinely scheduled each week. Parents reported the
study childrens hours of routine non-maternal care during the phone and personal interviews
conducted at approximately 3-month intervals (called epochs) between birth and age 4 . For
each epoch, the childs primary care arrangement was classified as center-based or home-based
(any home-based care in the childs own home or another persons home). Epochs in which
children were in non-maternal care for less than 10 hours per week were coded as exclusive
maternal care. The two indicators of type of care were constructed included the proportion of
epochs in which the child received care in a center and the proportion of epochs in a home-based
setting.
Average Quality of Care was defined by the caregiver-child interaction and stimulation.
Observational assessments were conducted in the primary child care arrangement at ages 6, 15,
24, 36, and 54 months. Global quality was assessed during two half-day visits scheduled within a
2-week interval at 6-36 months and one half-day visit at 54 months. Observers completed four
44-minute cycles of the Observational Record of the Caregiving Environment (ORCE) per child
age through 36 months and two 44-minute ORCE cycles at 54 months. Detailed descriptions of
the ORCE assessments can be found in NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (2002),
including coding definitions, training procedures, and inter-observer agreement. Reliability
exceeded .90 at 6 months, .86 at 15 months, .81 at 24 months, .80 at 36- months and .90 at 54
months. Complete operational and observation manuals can be found at http://secc.rti.org/.
Results
Correlations
Correlations among key analysis variables are presented in Table 12. At the zero-order
level, early reading, math, cognitive, and language ability show strong relations to both
achievement test scores and teacher reports of classroom achievement at first, third, and fifth
grades (size of the correlations rage from .37 to .60). Of the self-regulatory behaviors examined,
kindergarten teacher reports of attention problems and social skills show the strongest
associations with later achievement (absolute value of correlations range from .14 to .29),
followed by the two independent measures of self-regulation (from the Continuous Performance
Task), impulsivity and sustained attention (absolute value of correlations range from .25 to .35).
The remaining measures of emotional self-regulation, internalizing problems and aggression,
show a small, negative association with later school achievement and are much smaller than the
correlations between early and later achievement test scores (correlations range from -.09 to -
.21).
We regressed childrens math and language performance at fifth, third, and first grade on
reading, math, cognitive, and expressive language test scores, performance on delay of
gratification, impulsivity, and sustained attention laboratory tasks at age 4 and teachers
ratings of attention problems, internalizing problems, aggressive behavior, and social skills in
kindergarten using the ordinary least squares method. Analysis variables have been standardized
using full sample standard deviations to allow comparisons across domains and with the

28
correlations presented in Table 12. In order to maximize the sample size for the analysis, cases
with missing data were flagged with a dichotomous variable, which was included in the
regressions, and the mean has been imputed for independent variables with missing data. Cases
that were missing more than 3 of the key independent variables were dropped from the analyses.
The multivariate models tested in this paper are presented in order of complexity,
beginning with a basic model (model 1) that includes early math, reading, cognitive ability,
impulsivity, and sustained attention measured prior to school entry (age 4 ), and teacher report
of attention problems, internalizing problems, aggressive behavior, and social skills measured in
the fall of the kindergarten year. Model 2 adds an extensive list of child and family covariates
(means and standard deviations can be found in Appendix C). Model 3 adds prior measures of
school readiness including: basic knowledge, expressive and receptive vocabulary, impulsivity,
and maternal ratings of internalizing and externalizing problems at age 3; this model represents
change in basic skills and self-regulation over the preschool period (between age 3 and age 4.5 or
the fall of kindergarten). We then tested for sub-group differences based on child gender and
tested for non-linear effects using piecewise linear (spline) functions.
Basic Models
Fifth grade achievement results are displayed in Table 13. The coefficients for the age 4
Woodcock-J ohnson reading test decrease in size and the amount of variance accounted for
increases as the models increase in complexity, particularly in the case of the achievement test
score outcomes. The size of the self-regulation coefficients change little as the covariates are
added, and, overall, the amount of variance accounted stays about the same across model
specifications for teacher reported achievement outcomes.
Our discussion focuses on Model 3, which can be interpreted as the effect of a one-
standard deviation change in a given independent variable over the course of the preschool years.
High scores on the early reading and cognitive ability tests and low levels of attention problems
in kindergarten were the strongest predictors of fifth grade reading test scores (net of earlier
school readiness). Children with good expressive communication skills and those who were rated
high on aggressive behavior by their kindergarten teachers also performed well on the reading
test. Early math test scores and kindergarten teacher ratings of attention were the strongest
predictors of later math achievement test scores. The effect of early reading, expressive
communication, and impulsivity scores were about half as large as early math test scores.
Turning to teacher reports of achievement, a high expressive communication score at age
4 was the strongest predictor of classroom reading achievement at the end of fifth grade. A set
of other predictors showed nearly the same predictive power, included: high early math and
reading test scores, low levels of attention problems and high levels of social skills, internalizing
problems, and aggressive behavior as reported by kindergarten teachers. Kindergarten teacher
ratings of attention problems show a strong, negative association with teacher reported math
achievement.
The relation of teacher rated attention problems to later reading achievement is nearly as
strong as that of early reading to fifth grade reading, and is a stronger predictor of math
achievement than either early reading or math test scores. Interestingly, children rated high on
aggressive behavior were rated high on reading and math ability (sub-group analyses revealed

29
that this was true for boys only) and children rated high on internalizing problems had high
levels of classroom achievement in reading (subgroup analyses indicated that this was true only
of girls). Recall that, at the zero-order level, both aggressive behavior and attention problems are
negatively related to achievement (see Table 12). Results from additional analyses that did not
include the cognitive self-regulation measures of impulsivity, sustained attention, and teacher-
rated attention problems in the models indicated that social skills show a positive (and
statistically significant) association, and aggression is unrelated to both test scores and teacher-
reported achievement. This suggests a suppressor effect of attentioni.e., children with attention
problems and difficulties with emotional self-regulation and social skills are worst off in terms of
their achievement.
Another practical measure of school success is timely grade promotion. We calculated
the marginal effects from a logistic regression predicting whether the child had ever been
retained in grade over the period between kindergarten and the end of fifth grade (results not
shown). Here the early self-regulation skills were better predictors of grade retention than were
early academic skills. A one standard-deviation increase in teacher reported attention problems is
associated with a 2.31 percentage point increase in the probability of grade repetition. An
increase in impulsivity as measured by the continuous performance task (CPT) is associated with
a 1.33 % reduction in grade repetition, and an increase in kindergarten teacher ratings of
aggression is associated with a 1.48% reduction in grade repetition. Though none of the
coefficients from the early academic skills were statistically significant at conventional levels, a
marginally significant effect of the letter-word identification scale at age 4 was observed.
Specifically, a one standard-deviation increase in early reading ability is associated with 1.20%
reduction in the probability of ever being retained in grade (p<.10).
Third grade achievement results are presented in Table 14. Early reading test scores are
the strongest predictor of third grade reading test scores, followed by cognitive ability at age 4
and attention in kindergarten. The coefficients for previous math test scores, internalizing
problems, and aggressive behavior are about one-third the size of the coefficient for prior reading
test score. Kindergarten teacher ratings of attention, prior math test score, and prior reading
scores were strong predictors of third grade math test scores. Kindergarten teacher report of
internalizing problems also predicted math test scores, but the size of the coefficient was about
two-thirds smaller than the other predictors in the model.
Previous math test score is the strongest predictor of third grade teacher-rated reading,
followed by prior reading test score and kindergarten teacher ratings of attention, social skills,
and internalizing problems. The pattern of teacher-reported math achievement results at third
grade is similar to those observed at fifth grade. Children who were rated as having high levels of
attention problems in kindergarten were rated low on math achievement by third grade teachers.
High scores on early math and reading tests, and to a lesser extent, internalizing problems were
also related to classroom achievement in math.
First grade achievement results are presented in Table 15. A high score on the early
reading test is the strongest predictor of achievement on the first grade reading test. Kindergarten

30
teacher rated attention, previous math test score, and aggressive behavior are also statistically
significant predictors of reading test scores, but the size of the coefficients are about two-thirds
smaller than the coefficient for prior reading test score. Prior math test score and, to a lesser
extent, prior reading test score are the best predictors of third grade math test scores. Children
with good expressive communication, those rated low on attention problems by their
kindergarten teachers, and those with high performance on the sustained attention task at age 4
also had high math test scores at first grade.
Overall, reading test scores are strongest predictors of teacher reported achievement.
Children who score high on reading tests at age 4 (net of earlier school readiness) are rated
high on both math and reading by their first grade teachers. High math test scores at age 4
predict high ratings on reading by first grade teachers, a similar pattern is observed between early
math test scores and teacher rated math, but the effect is not significant at conventional levels.
Tests of cognitive ability and expressive communication at age 4 are unrelated to teacher
ratings of math or reading in first grade. High performance on the sustained attention task at age
4 and kindergarten teachers ratings of classroom behavior predicted first grade teacher reports
of math and reading. Specifically, children who demonstrated low levels of attention problems,
and high levels of aggressive behavior and social skills in kindergarten were rated high in
reading and math by their first grade teachers.
One might expect the gains in early skills matter more for children who begin school with
low-levels of early skills. In order to test for non-linear effects, we ran a set of models using
piecewise, linear (spline) regressions, which allowed for different coefficients for the lowest one-
third and the highest two-thirds of the sample on a given independent variable (results not
shown). No significant differences were found, indicating that the slopes did not differ for the
low- and high-scoring groups.

Subgroup Models
Separate analyses for boys and girls are shown in Table 16. Coefficients between groups
for each subgroup analysis were tested for significant differences using a standard mean
difference test. Overall, the patterns of association between reading and math test scores at age 4
and test performance and fifth-grade teacher ratings and were similar for boys and girls.
Although not all of the coefficients for other variables were statistically significant, perhaps
because of the smaller number of cases within each subgroup, many of the patterns were similar
to those for the full sample.
High scores on the applied problems scale of the Woodcock-J ohnson at age 4 predicted
teacher ratings of reading ability at fifth grade for girls but not boys. High cognitive ability
scores at age 4 predicted teacher ratings of reading and math achievement for boys but not
girls. Kindergarten teacher reports of internalizing problems predicted high scores on the
Woodcock-J ohnson reading test at fifth grade for girls but not boys. Finally, kindergarten teacher
reports of aggressive behavior predicted high fifth grade reading and math test scores for boys
but not girls. We were unable to test for SES differences because the size of the low-income
sample is too small relative to the number of independent variables in the model.

31

Age 8 Achievement in a Low Birth Weight Sample: The I nfant Health and Development
Program

Sample
The IHDP is an eight-site randomized clinical trial designed to evaluate the efficacy of a
comprehensive early-intervention program for low birth weight (LBW) premature infants
(Brooks-Gunn, Klebanov, & Liaw 1995; IHDP 1990: McCormick, Brooks-Gunn, Workman-
Daniels, Turner, & Peckham,, 1992). Infants weighing 2,500 grams or less at birth were
screened for eligibility if their postconceptional age between J anuary 7, 1985 and October 9,
1985 was 37 weeks or less and if they were born in one of the eight participating medical
institutions (Arkansas at Little Rock, Einstein, Harvard, Miami, Pennsylvania, Texas at Dallas,
Washington, and Yale). A total of 985 infants were randomly assigned either to a medical
follow-up only (FUO) or to a comprehensive early childhood intervention (INT) group
immediately following neonatal hospital discharge.
Because of the higher risk associated with lower birth weights, two-thirds of the infants
had birth weights 2,000 grams or less, and one-third had birth weights between 2,001 and 2,500
grams. Infants in both the INT and FUO groups participated in a pediatric follow-up program of
periodic medical, developmental, and familial assessments from 40 weeks conceptional age (the
age at which they would have been born if they had not been premature) to 36 months of age
corrected for prematurity. The intervention program, lasting from hospital discharge until 36
months, consisted of home visits (weekly in the first year, biweekly thereafter), child care
services (a minimum of 4 hours per day, 5 days per week, from 12 to 36 months), and parent
group meetings (bimonthly, from 12 to 36 months). A coordinated educational curriculum of
learning games and activities was used both during home visits and at the center (Ramey, Bryant,
Wasik, Sparling, Fendt, & LaVange, 1992; Sparling, Lewis, Ramey, Wasik, Bryant, & LaVange,
1991; Sparling & Lewis, 1984). Home visitors also used a problem-solving curriculum with the
parents (Wasik, 1984; Wasik, Bryant, Lyons, Sparling, & Ramey, 1997).
Of the 1,302 infants who met the enrollment criteria, 274 were excluded because consent
was refused and 43 withdrew before entry into their assigned group. The remaining 985 infants
constituted the primary analysis group. This study focuses upon a subsample of 690 children
who were not born extremely low birth weight (ELBW; 1000 grams or less). ELBW children
differ markedly from other LBW children in cognitive and behavioral functioning (Aylward,
Pfeiffer, Wright, & Verhulst, 1989; Hoy, Bill, & Sykes, 1988; Klebanov, Brooks-Gunn, &
McCormick, 1994a,b; Saigal, Szatmari, Rosenbaum, Campbell, & Kerry, 1991). Data come from
a variety of sources: questionnaires, home visits, and laboratory tests.
Measures
Dependent Variables
Academic achievement at age 8 is measured by the Woodcock-J ohnson Tests of
Achievement-Revised (Woodcock & J ohnson, 1990), focusing on the broad math and broad

32
reading scales of the Woodcock-J ohnson. Reliabilities for the achievement clusters are in the
.90s. These standardized tests are normed so that the mean score is 100 and the standard
deviation is 15 for the Woodcock-J ohnson. The means and standard deviations for our sample
are provided in Table 17.
Mothers provided reports of their childs grade retention at age 8. The grade retention
variable is a dummy variable indicating whether the child ever repeated a grade.
Cognitive functioning at age 5 is measured by the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale
of Intelligence (WPPSI; Wechsler, 1967), a test developed for use with children between the
ages of 4 and 6 1/2 years. The reliability of verbal IQ and performance IQ is .94 and .93,
respectively (Sattler, 1982). Verbal IQ assesses language expression, comprehension, listening,
and problem solving ability. It consists of the information, comprehension, arithmetic,
vocabulary, similarities, and sentences scales. Performance IQ assesses nonverbal problem
solving, perceptual organization, speed, and visual-motor skills. Performance IQ consists of the
object assembly, geometric design, block design, mazes, picture completion, and animal pegs
scales.
Behavioral functioning at age 5 is measured by the Revised Child Behavior Profile (Ages
4 & 5; Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1984). The CBP/4-5 is a 120-item questionnaire that measures
behavioral competence. Mothers characterize statements about their child as not true (0), often or
very true (2) for behavior within the past six months. The total CBP, less the three items
pertaining to attention, is used with higher scores indicating more behavior problems. The means
and standard deviations for our behavior problem measures are presented in Table 17.
Attention is measured at age 5 using three items relating to attention from the Achenbach
Revised Child Behavior Profile. Mothers characterize statements about their child as not true (0),
often or very true (2) for behavior within the past six months. The three items are: cant
concentrate or pay attention for long, cant sit still or restless, and cant stand waiting/wants
everything now. These items were summed to create a measure of attention problems (range=0
to 6; =.61). Similar to the total CBP score, higher scores indicate more behavior problems.
Descriptive information for our attention measures is provided in Table 17.
Covariates
At 36 months of age, cognitive functioning is measured with the Stanford-Binet
Intelligence Scale Form L-M, 3rd edition (Terman & Merrill 1973). It is the most widely used
intelligence test for this age group (Anastasi, 1988; Sattler, 1982). Reliability data are not
available for the 3
rd
edition, however, for the 4
th
edition it is .97 (Thorndike, Hagen, & Sattler,
1986). Behavioral functioning at age 3 is measured by the Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 2-3
(CBCL/2-3; Achenbach, Edelbrock, & Howell 1987). The CBCL/2-3 is a 99-item questionnaire
that measures behavioral competence. It has adequate reliability and validity (Achenbach et al.
1987). Mothers rate the degree to which statements about their child are not true (0) to very true
or often true (2) within the past two months. The total CBCL score is used, with higher
indicating more behavior problems.

33
Sustained attention is measured at age 3 using the test observers rating of the childs
behavior during the administration of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence test. These items assess the
childs attention, activity level, response time, emotional independence, persistence, and reaction
to failure (1=very poor response to 5=optimal response).The sum of the eight items were used to
create this measure, with higher scores indicating greater attention ( =.94).
To control for differences across the 8 study sites, seven dummy variables were created
and included in our regression analyses. In addition, a number of child initial health status
variables, maternal and family characteristics were controlled for.
Results
Correlations
Correlations between the different cognitive tests, presented in Table 18, reveal math and
reading scores at age 8 are highly correlated with performance and verbal scores at age 5 and
moderately correlated with Stanford-Binet IQ at age 3. The correlations between the behavior
problem scales reveal that behavior problems at age 3 are moderately correlated with reports at
age 5.
Basic Models
Three OLS multiple linear regression models were run for our age 8 Woodcock J ohnson
Broad Math and Reading scores. The first model controls for cognitive test scores (WPPSI
verbal and performance IQ) and Achenbach total behavior problems and attention problems
measured close to the time of school entry (age 5) to assess their relative contribution to school
achievement. The second model adds controls for study site and treatment status and child (birth
weight, neonatal health, gender) and family variables (number of children, maternal race,
maternal education, age, and marital status at birth, average family income-to-needs ratio,
HOME score, maternal verbal test score [PPVT], and depressive symptoms). This model will
assess whether the associations observed in the first model are accounted for by differences in
childrens family environments. The third model adds controls for cognitive test (Stanford-
Binet), Achenbach behavior scores prior to school entry, and observers ratings of attention (age
3) to examine the incremental effect of cognitive skills, behavior, and attention to school
achievement. All variables have been standardized using full sample standard deviations to
allow across domain comparisons. Descriptive statistics for all control variables added to Models
2 and 3 are presented in Appendix D.
Table 19 presents the results for the math and reading scores. In the first model (columns
1 and 4), both verbal and performance IQ are associated with math and reading scores. Attention
problems, but not overall behavior problems, are associated with math and reading scores. When
family characteristics are added to the model (columns 2 and 5), the effects of verbal and
performance IQ remain basically unchanged. Attention problems remain significantly associated
with math scores, but are marginally associated with reading scores. When prior controls for
verbal and performance IQ, behavior, and attention are added in the third model (columns 3 and
6), the coefficients for verbal and performance IQ remain associated with math and reading
scores. These results suggest that if there are two children with the same test scores at age 3, the

34
increment in test scores from age 3 to 5 persists through age 8. Attention problems remain
associated with worse math achievement, but not reading achievement.
The results for grade retention reveal that verbal IQ at age 5 is a significant predictor of
grade retention (Table 19 columns 7 to 9). Students one standard deviation above the mean in
verbal IQ are seven percentage points less likely to have been retained by age 8. This result
remains significant even when family variables and our prior controls at age 3 are entered. For
these models, students one standard deviation above the mean in verbal IQ are 3 percentage
points less likely to have been retained by age 8. Unlike previous models, the association
between performance IQ and grade retention is not significant.
Subgroup Models
Table 20 presents the results of our third regression model by gender, ethnicity, and SES
subgroups. Coefficients for verbal and performance IQ are generally consistent across all
subgroups. Verbal and performance IQ are associated with math and reading scores for boys and
girls, for black and white children, and for high SES children (defined as the top 25% of the
distribution) and low SES groups (defined as the bottom 25%). Only one significant interaction
between our subgroups and independent variables was found. Attention problems are associated
with reading scores for black children, but not for white children. The interaction between
attention and ethnicity is not significant for math scores. Attention problems are not associated
with math and reading scores for low SES or high SES groups. Behavior problems are not
associated with math or reading scores for any of the subgroups. Further analyses examining the
possibility of non-linear effects using spline regressions were not conducted because of sample
size limitations.
Cognitive skills were the strongest predictor of math and reading scores. Cognitive skills
at the time of school entry were significantly associated with math and reading scores, even
controlling for early cognitive ability and family background variables. Attention was also a
predictor of math and reading scores. However, attention was more strongly correlated with math
scores than with reading scores. The results for math scores were significant across our three
models. The results for attention are attenuated once family level controls are entered in the
regression model. Contrary to expectation, behavior problems were not associated with
childrens achievement. Intercorrelations between internalizing and externalizing behavior
problems and attention at both ages 3 and 5 were very high (r >.70). Multicollinearity precluded
having all of these variables in our regression model. There is no evidence that cognitive skills
are more predictive of math and reading scores for certain subgroups of children. Cognitive skills
were significantly associated with math and reading scores of black and white children, boys and
girls, and low SES and high SES children.

Third Grade Achievement in the Montreal Longitudinal-Experimental Preschool Study
Sample

35
The Montreal Longitudinal-Experimental Preschool Study comprises several consecutive
cohorts launched from 1997 to 2000. The original sample of 4- and 5-year-old children (n =
1,928), representing one-third of the population invited to participate, was obtained only after a
multilevel consent process involving school board officials, local school committees, and parents
and teachers after informing them about the longitudinal nature of the project. Given that its final
cohort (2000) does not meet all the data requirements for the research objective examined here,
we limit ourselves to the sample of children beginning kindergarten in fall of 1998 and fall of
1999.
Initial and follow-up data were collected from multiple sources, including direct cognitive
assessments of children, and surveys of parents and teachers. Although initial data were available
for 1,369 children, the final sample for these analyses was reduced to 767 participants because of
incomplete data. Students in the final sample had a valid value on any of the four outcome
measures of interest (first and third grade measures of reading and math ability) and on at least
four of the six socio-emotional measures. Of the 767 participants in the final sample, 439 began
kindergarten in 1998 and 328 began kindergarten in the fall of 1999. Additionally, for 350 of the
767 students, initial data were collected during the fall of junior kindergarten (332 who began
junior kindergarten in 1997 and 18 who began junior kindergarten in 1998). There were no
significant differences between the two kindergarten cohorts (those who started in 1998 and
those who started in 1999) on any of the reading or math outcome variables (all Fs <1, ns);
therefore, these two groups were combined into one for the data analyses.
Measures
Dependent Variables
Teachers rated childrens verbal skills at the end of grades 1 and 3 using four items:
How would you rate this childs: (1) understanding in French; (2) using language effectively in
French; (3) ability to chose and organize his/her ideas in order to be understood in situations of
oral communication; and (4) ability to chose the appropriate way of speaking in situations of oral
communication. Each item was rated on a five-point scale ranging from 1 Very poor to 5
Excellent. These four items were summed to create an overall verbal skills measure.
8
Scale
reliability analysis of the four items resulted in an alpha =.95 for grade 1 and alpha =.94 for
grade 3. Descriptive statistics for both first and third grade outcome measures and key
independent variables are presented in Table 21.
The Number Knowledge Test (NKT) was administered at the end of grades 1 and 3.
Norms were developed for children from ages 4 through 10 with both low- and middle-income
children from Ontario, Massachusetts, Oregon, and California (Okamoto & Case, 1996). From a
previous collaborative study with Robbie Case, we have norms for an adapted, shorter version
with 6000 French-Canadian preschool and elementary school children. The versions
administered increase in item complexity, testing basic skills such as number positioning,
addition, and subtraction (grade 1, individually administered by a trained examiner) and
computations involving multiplication, divisions, and fractions (grade 3, standardized group
administration and supplemented with short-form items of the National Longitudinal Study of
Children and Youth Math Computation Test). The first grade version of the test comprises 22
items, while the third grade version comprises 43-items (ordered in increasing difficulty). Scores

36
are derived by summing the number of correct responses for each student (see Table 21 for
means and standard deviations).
The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT, Forms A and B, French adaptation:
chelle de vocabulaire en images Peabody) was assessed at the end of kindergarten.
Administered by trained examiners, the French-version of the PPVT has been standardized by
Dunn, Thriault-Whalen, & Dunn (1993). Reliability was established using the split-half method
with Spearman-Brown correction for each age group and for both Forms A and B (r =.66 and
.85, respectively). Test-retest reliability of the parallel forms was .72 at a one week interval. As
with the original version, correlations with other French vocabulary tests and other intelligence
tests are high (Dunn et al., 1993).
The Number Knowledge Test (NKT) was administered at the end of kindergarten. From
ages 4 through 6, the NKT represents an individually administered assessment of children's
informal knowledge of number and conceptual prerequisites of arithmetic operations (Okamoto
& Case, 1996). Administered by trained examiners, the test for the youngest children measures
the following conceptual prerequisites: (1) knowledge of the number sequence from one to ten;
(2) knowledge of the one to one correspondence in which a sequence is mapped onto objects
being counted; (3) understanding the cardinal value of each number; (4) understanding the
generative rule which relates adjacent cardinal values; and (5) understanding that each successive
number represents a set which contains more objects. In a recent psychometric study, the test
was shown to have a higher mathematics factor loading than other available preschool tests
(Robinson, Abbott, Berninger, & Busse, 1996). For junior kindergarten, the NKT consists of four
complex items assessing knowledge of shapes, colors, counting, and basic concept of addition.
The kindergarten version comprises 19 items that assess more advanced informal number
knowledge.
At the end of kindergarten, the Social Behavior Questionnaire (SBQ, Tremblay et al.,
1991) was completed by teachers. This measure assesses children's behavioral adjustment. The
items on the questionnaire can be divided into the following conceptual scales: Attentive
9
(4
potential items; listens attentively; easily distractible (reverse coded); unable to concentrate
(reverse coded); inattentive (reverse coded) - average kindergarten alpha =.82); Prosocial (9
items: shows sympathy toward others; tries to help someone who is hurt; offers to help clean up
somebody elses accidental mess; tries to make peace if there is a conflict; offers to help
someone perceived as weaker or less able; consoles a crying or upset peer; helps spontaneously
to clean or pick things up; invites others to take part in play; comes to the aid of others - average
kindergarten =.92); Physically Aggressive
10
(7 potential items: physical fight at least once a
day; threatens others; bullies or is cruel toward others; bites, kicks, and hits; gets into many
fights; if accidentally hurt, assumes it was intentional; physically attacks people - average
kindergarten =.72); Anxious (3 items: seems worried or fearful; seems anxious; is nervous or
tense - average kindergarten =.75); Depressed (2 items: seems unhappy, sad, or depressed;
cries a lot - average kindergarten =.53); Hyperactive (5 items: seems agitated and has
difficulty staying in one place; keeps moving; seems impulsive; has difficulty waiting his/her
turn; difficulty staying calm - average kindergarten =.90); The SBQ represents a good

37
predictor of later psycho-social adjustment and academic failure (Dobkin, Tremblay, Msse, &
Vitaro, 1995; Pagani, Tremblay, Vitaro, Boulerice, & McDuff, 2001). National Longitudinal
Study of Children and Youth (NLSCY) norms are available from early childhood through age
12. All of the items of the SBQ were rated on a scale of 1 (often or very true) to 3 (never or not
true). Items were reverse scored (except for the three negatively worded attentive items) and then
summed to create each scale such that a higher value on the scale would indicate a higher degree
of the scale construct. The descriptive statistics for each scale are presented in Table 21.
Covariates
At the end of kindergarten, the person-most-knowledgeable (usually the mother)
provided data on child characteristics,
11
parental socio-demographic factors, home
environment,
12
early childhood care arrangements, neighborhood characteristics, and parental
aspirations and expectations regarding the target child. In order to reduce the amount of missing
data, if specific data was not available for the end of kindergarten, information from a prior time
point (i.e., either beginning of kindergarten or end of junior kindergarten) was used.
13
Appendix
D reports descriptive statistics for these variables. Finally, parts of the analytic strategy called for
standardized measures of prior cognitive abilities. The timing of these assessments depended
upon when the child joined the study. As such, the prior cognitive control data is either available
at the end of junior kindergarten (350 cases) or at the beginning of kindergarten (417 cases).
Prior cognitive control variables were generated by initially standardizing the NKT and PPVT
within each time point and then combining the data from both groups to generate a final variable
(comprising both time points) with the standardized score from each group.
Results
Correlations
Correlations between cognitive skills in grade 3 and the key independent variables are
reported in Table 22. We observe consistent correlations between verbal and math outcomes and
their specific cognitive precursors measured at the end of kindergarten. Prosocial, hyperactive,
and attentive behavior are also linked with the outcome variables.
Examining the correlations with the socio-emotional behaviors, it is possible to see the
positive correlation between attentive behavior and both cognitive skill outcomes in grade 3 (rs
=.30 and .31; columns 1 and 2). The remaining socio-emotional behaviors suggest moderate
relations between both prosocial (positive) and hyperactive (negative) behavior and cognitive
skills. The correlation patterns are very similar with respect to cognitive skills in grade 1
(columns 3 and 4) and the predictors. The inter-correlations among the socio-emotional
behaviors suggest moderate significant relations, with hyperactive and attentive factors showing
the highest correlation (r =-.66), but none are large enough to suggest multicollinearity in the
regression models.
Basic Models
Table 23 reports the standardized coefficients (and standard errors) from three models
regressing verbal and math skills on end-of-kindergarten NKT, PPVT, and socio-emotional
behaviors.
14
The first model only tests these key putative indicators of school readiness. The

38
second model adds the full list of sociodemographic and family control variables (see Appendix
E). The third, fully controlled model further includes prior cognitive skills (earlier PPVT and
NKT scores). All of the variables were standardized by full-sample standard deviations so that
coefficients across models are comparable.
Interestingly, in the first models both prior achievement variables significantly predict
verbal skills (standardized coefficients of .25 and .15, respectively); however, only prior NKT
scores are significantly associated with subsequent math skills (.39). The association between
end-of-kindergarten NKT and verbal skills is reduced and becomes no longer significant in the
fully controlled model (dropping from .15 to .07). Also, controlling for prior abilities reduces the
association between end-of-kindergarten PPVT and verbal skills (dropping from .25 to .19).
Including these controls also slightly reduces the coefficient between end-of-kindergarten NKT
and math skills (dropping from .39 to .29), although it remains a significant predictor.
Among the end-of-kindergarten socio-emotional predictors, attentive behavior predicts higher
verbal and math skills. This link remains in the fully controlled model. The positive link between
attention and verbal skills is larger than that with math skills (..20 and .14, respectively). Also
notable is that hyperactive behavior has a marginal, but not significant, positive effect on verbal
ability (.12, p =.054) while it demonstrates a negative, significant effect on math skills (-.11) in
the fully controlled models. None of the other socio-emotional behaviors reported in Table 23
have significant effects on verbal and math skills. Among the prior cognitive controls, only the
NKT has a significant, positive relation with both later verbal and math skills (..19 and .17,
respectively). However, the PPVT did not significantly influence either outcome.
The results from similar models estimating the influence of end-of-kindergarten cognitive
and socio-emotional measures upon first grade verbal and math skills are presented in Table 24.
The coefficients represent standardized betas from the three aforementioned models. The pattern
of results for the outcomes is nearly identical to those reported for third grade: End-of-
kindergarten NKT and PPVT significantly predict verbal ability; whereas, only end-of-
kindergarten NKT significantly predicts math skills. The magnitude of these associations is
somewhat subdued upon the inclusion of both socio-demographic control variables and prior
cognitive controls. Once again, end-of- kindergarten attentive behavior has a significant positive
association with both verbal and math skills. However, in contrast to the third grade, the
magnitude of the associations between attentive behavior and both cognitive outcomes are more
similar (.15 and .13, respectively), perhaps suggesting the links with early attentive behavior
become stronger over time, especially for verbal abilities. There are no other significant
associations between the socio-emotional behaviors and first grade outcomes.
The prior cognitive controls are also significantly predictive of first grade outcomes. Both
prior PPVT and NKT are positively associated with later verbal skills (.17 and .17, respectively).
However, only prior NKT is significantly associated with later math skills (.13). Aside from the
association between prior PPVT and later verbal skills, these results are similar to those for the
third grade outcomes.
Subgroup Models

39
For the subgroup analyses, the results for the fully controlled regressions are only
reported for long-term cognitive outcomes (grade 3) in Table 25. Our first subgroup regression
models predicting verbal and math skills were conducted separately for boys and girls.
Our second set of fully controlled subgroup analyses predicting long-term verbal and
math outcomes were conducted separately by linguistic status in columns 3 (linguistic-majority,
representing native French-speakers) and 4 (linguistic-minority, representing a language other
than French spoken at home). The characteristics of Montreal are distinctive from other
Canadian cities, in that although the country adopts a bilingual (English and French) policy, the
only official language in the province of Quebec is French. For children of newcomers, this
means that the language of instruction is French. There are historical and socio-cultural issues
concerning the French language in Canada that parallel some of the concerns that justify racial
and ethnic categories for analyses in American data sets.
The coefficients between groups for each subgroup analysis were tested for significant
differences using a standard mean difference test. Between the male and female coefficients, the
only significant difference was found for the effect of attentive behavior on third grade math
achievement (.01 and .32, respectively): Females gain a nearly one-third increase in math
achievement for every standard unit increase in attentive behavior compared to males who see no
significant impact of attentive behavior on math achievement. There were no significant
differences between the linguistic majority and minority group for any of the key independent
variable coefficients for either outcome.

Longer-Term School Attainment and Earnings in the British 1970 Birth Cohort
Sample
Data used for the analyses in this section are drawn from the UK 1970 Birth Cohort, a
nationally representative longitudinal study that has attempted to follow into adulthood all the
children born in Great Britain in the week of April 5--11, 1970 (Bynner et al. 1997). The
achieved sample at birth was 17,196, approximately 97% of the target birth population. Attrition
has reduced the sample to 11, 200 at the last survey. Representativeness of the original birth
cohort has been maintained with only slight biases in the currently participating sample towards
women and towards the more educated (Ferri & Smith, 2003). However, missing data at the item
response level (again maintaining broadly the representativeness of the original cohort) reduces
the effective data set for most analyses to between 9,000 and 10,000 cases. At each wave, cohort
members were given a battery of tests of intellectual, emotional and personal development. The
full list of tests is given in the Appendix F.
Of particular value are the data collected for two sub-groups of the full sample, when the
cohort members were 22 and 42 months old. The aims of the sub-sample data collection were to
assess obstetric services and quality of life in the first week of life, as well as to attempt to
identify fetal malnutrition and investigate its effects on brain cell proliferation and subsequent
development. The sub-samples consisted of all twins in the original cohort, the small-for-dates
and post-mature births as well as a 10% random sample of the original cohort.

40
Inference about the general population using the non-random components of the sub-
sample are likely to be biased if fetal malnutrition is indeed linked both to the development of
brain activity and so to performance in development tests, particularly since fetal malnutrition is
also linked to unobserved aspects of family background. To deal with this possibility, sensitivity
analysis was undertaken by conducting the analyses on the control group separately to test
whether results varied from those for the whole sub-sample. The results from the change models
for the random group are very similar to those for the post-mature infants. These two groups are
also very similar in their mean scores at 22 and 42 months. However, the other two groups have
below average scores at 42 months and for these groups externalizing behavior is more important
than for the control group. While this result is interesting, these two groups each represent only
about 3% of the full sample population. Therefore, we have re-weighted the data such that the
random control group are given their appropriate full sample weight in the sub-sample analyses.
Whereas all children in the full sample who were at risk of fetal malnutrition were selected for
the 22 month sub-sample, the probability of sampling was only 10% for the control group. We
have, therefore, given the control group an inverse probability weight of 10 in the weighted
analyses. The results presented are from models specified on this basis.
Selection of the sub-sample groups was also subject to the important restriction that all
the children in these early sub-samples were from two-parent families. This is likely to limit the
representativeness of these results, particularly for those concerned with family breakdown.
Nonetheless, bearing this exclusion in mind, analysis of these data still sheds light on the
question of the relative explanatory power of early abilities and behaviors.
Measures
Dependent Variables
Academic achievement was defined as the cohort members self reported highest
educational qualifications by age 30. This variable reports the academic level achieved on a 0-4
scale where 4 denotes university degrees. Since the measure is not fully continuous we
undertook all regression analysis for this outcome using the ordered probit method (Greene,
1993) as well as ordinary least squares but the results are not sensitive to this methodological
concern. Therefore we have reported results using ordinary least squares regression. The wage
measure is the log of the cohort members self-reported hourly wage at age 30.
Age 10 math achievement was measured by the Friendly Maths Test developed by the
University of Bristol, containing 72 items with a reported reliability of .93. Reading achievement
was measured by the 69 item Shortened Edinburgh Reading Test.
In the full sample at age 5, cognitive ability was assessed by a standard test of vocabulary
as well as through three drawing tasks; copying designs, human figure drawing, and profile
drawing. Vocabulary was examined using the English Picture Vocabulary Test (EPVT). Similar
to the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT), the EPVT is a test of receptive vocabulary in
which children are asked to identify one of four pictures which best matches the stimulus words
meaning. The test is made up of 56 items, arranged in ascending order of difficulty. Testing is
stopped after the child makes five consecutive errors.

41
In the copying designs test, children were asked to copy 8 basic designs as carefully as
possible. They were given two attempts at each design but no help by the instructor. For the
Human Figure Drawing test, the child is asked to draw the best picture he/she can of a whole
person, not just a face or head. Instructors are not permitted to help the child in any way or make
suggestions. However, once the child has finished, instructors are allowed to clarify aspects of
the drawing. For the Profile Drawing test, the child is asked to complete the profile of a basic
head shape given in the test booklet. Harris (1963) and Koppitz (1968) show these tests also have
good properties of discrimination and reported reliability of .94. Again, instructors are not able to
provide any assistance.
Externalizing and internalizing behavior problems and attentiveness were also assessed at
age 5 using mothers ratings on the Rutter Behaviour Problem Scales (Rutter, Tizard &
Whitemore, 1970). The scale is comprised of three subscales: externalizing, internalizing and
inattention. The reported reliabilities of these subscales are .72 externalizing, .54 internalizing
and .67 inattention.
Covariates
At 42 months, health visitors administering the survey assessed children and asked them
to complete a range a different, age appropriate tasks to test current development and emerging
IQ. Children were given a number of tasks including measures of early cognitive ability such as
counting sequential blocks and a shorter version of the copying designs test administered at age
5, again without assistance. This counting test has a reported reliability of .95, and the copying
test has a reported reliability of .83. Speaking and basic vocabulary was assessed by pointing and
naming picture tasks, including discrimination tests in which the child had to point to the correct
picture when asked Which one do we eat? and Which one swims in the water? The speaking
and vocabulary test has a reported reliability of .79.
Health visitors also reported on simple measures of observed behavior and rated the child
on each of the following items: how easily distracted they were, how shy / withdrawn they were,
and how cooperative they were during the assessment. These three early indicators of observed
behavior parallel our age 5 mother reported problem behaviors of inattention, internalizing and
externalizing behavior respectively.
At 22 months, again assessed by health visitors, fine locomotor control was assessed by
a cube stacking task in which children had to build the tallest tower they could from 1 inch
cubes. Language was measured by maternal responses to questions such as Can he say ma
ma? and Does he put two / three / four word sentences together?, as well as interviewer
observations of the childs speech, for example, by the child pointing to their eyes, hair and nose
to illustrate understanding. Responding correctly to commands to give mummy the pencil and
put the pencil on the table were indicators of personal and social development. The language
assessment has a reported reliability of .92. Copying tests again assessed early copying and
drawing skills. Children were first allowed to scribble spontaneously on the page and then, in
turn, the interviewer showed the child how to draw a circle, a vertical line and a cross and asked
them to copy each design. Interviewers could show the child again if they failed to try and copy
the design the first time. This copying test has a reported reliability of .46.

42
These tests together with those at 42 months were intended to indicate the general
development of children based on the tests used for screening in child health clinics
(Chamberlain & Davey, 1976). A pilot study found high correlation between the tests used here
and similar, standard tests of development such as the Bayley Scale of Infant Behavior or the
Newcastle Survey (Neligan & Prudham, 1969).
We control for a range of distal features of the family environment and for measures of
parenting style, attitudes and mothers mental health. Summary statistics for all dependent,
independent and control variables can be found in Table 26.
Results
Correlations
Bivariate correlations between all outcome and key independent variables are presented
in Table 27 and are nearly all significant at p<.05. Age 30 academic attainment and log wage are
strongly correlated (r =.34) as are reading and math at age 10 (r =.75). Both age 10 measures of
attainment correlate highly with academic attainment by age 30 (reading, r =.46; math, r =.46),
but show slightly weaker associations with age 30 wage (reading, r =.26; math, r =.32).
Within-domain associations between earlier cognitive measures and later attainment
scores are stronger than the between-domain association of measures of earlier behavioral
problems and later attainment. For example, childrens age 5 copying score is highly correlated
with age 10 reading (r =.42) and math (r =.43) ability. The correlations of age 5 inattention with
age 10 test scores however, are weaker and negatively associated with age 10 outcomes: reading
(r =-.15) and math (r =-.15). For externalizing behavior the correlations are slightly higher:
reading (r =-.21) and math (r =-.18). Internalizing behavior problems show even weaker
relations with age 10 academic reading and math attainment. All three age 5 problem behavior
measures also show negative associations with our age 30 outcomes.
Basic Models
Turning to the results of the multiple regression analyses, Table 28 shows the regression
of the age 30 outcomes, academic attainment and log wage, on the early achievement and
behavioral measures. The age 5 cognitive development copying score is strongly predictive of
both adult outcomes, even when all additional control sets are included in the regression model.
The copying score remain strongly predictive in model 3, in which it has a change interpretation.
The copying score also predicts to age 30 hourly wages (p<.01). None of the other cognitive
measures are statistically significant predictors in model 3 for either of the two age 30 outcomes.
The age 5 externalizing behavior problems score predicts negatively to age 30 academic
attainment (-.11). It is change in the inattention score rather than in externalizing behavior that
predicts the age 30 hourly wage. A one standard deviation decrease in inattention at age 5 is
associated with a 6% increase in the hourly wage at age 30 (Column 6, Table 28)
Table 29 reports the summary results for the intermediate outcomes at age 10 and shows

43
a similar pattern of continuity across both cognitive and behavioral development. With the
exception of profile drawing, all age 5 cognitive measures are substantial predictors for age 10
reading and math. This broad pattern of prediction is not altered substantially with the
introduction of additional controls to the regression model.
The age 5 copying score has much larger effects on age 10 reading and math than do the
other cognitive measures. It is rather striking that the age 5 copying measure also has a
substantially larger effect than the age 5 vocabulary measure on age 10 reading. Inattention at
age 5 carries strong negative predictions for age 10 reading and math ability (-.08 for both
outcomes). There are no persistent effects of externalizing or internalizing behavior on either age
10 math or reading.
The long-term explanatory power of the copying score is striking. Change in copying
ability between 42 months and 5 years is strongly associated with final educational qualifications
achieved and with the log wage at age 30. It also appears to cause gains in reading and math
scores at age 10. The skills involved in scoring highly in this test appear to be more productive
and protective in school than the language skills assessed in the vocabulary tests.
One concern was that the copying score result might be driven by children with a very
low score who had mental or physical disabilities and that the variable had no general cognitive
predictive power in the rest of the distribution. To test this we relaxed the assumption of
continuity in the scoring of this measure and introduced a set of dummy variable measures,
indicating the exact score from 1-8 on the copying test. The estimated effect is remarkably
linear.
The findings here also show a remarkable persistence of attention and externalizing
behavior problems in the prediction of adult labor market outcomes. The presence of attention
problems is shown as a high risk factor for reductions in adult wages earned; externalizing
behavior predicts more strongly to final educational attainment. Interestingly it is inattention
rather than externalizing behavior problems that predicts age 10 reading and math and yet
externalizing behavior is a stronger predictor of final educational achievements. To some extent
this distinction may reflect the element of choice involved in sitting and passing educational tests
during adolescence.
Subgroup Models
Table 30 presents the results for the sub-group analysis of the age 30 adult outcomes
according to gender and SES. High SES is defined as those in SES groups I, II and III (non-
manual) and low SES III (manual), IV and V.
The age 5 copying score strongly predicts adult academic attainment for both males and
females and for both the high and low SES groups. The effect of the copying score is
substantially and significantly greater for the high SES children than for the low SES group
(p<.01). Conversely the effect of the human figure drawing score is stronger for the low SES
group (p<.01).
The negative effect of externalizing behavior problems on educational achievement is
strong for males but absent for females. This gender difference is substantive in magnitude (-.26

44
for males compared to .07 for females) and significant statistically (p<.05). There is a negative
effect of the inattention score on the academic achievement measure for females and for the low
SES group but these interaction effects are not significant statistically.
There are no statistically significant interaction terms for the wage outcome. It is
noteworthy that the effect of the copying score on the age 30 wage is very similar across genders
and SES groups and that the effect of the inattention score is apparent for both SES groups.


Discussion
Using six data sets, we have related two key elements of school readiness -- kindergarten-
entry academic skills and self-regulation -- to later achievement. Our most complete regression
models control for cognitive skills and self-regulation measured prior to kindergarten entry, and
in some cases show whether childrens subsequent learning is more closely linked to changes in
childrens academic skills or to changes in their self-regulatory skills over the preschool years.
Our analysis is designed to identify how preschool interventions instituted around the time of
kindergarten entry and focused on augmenting concrete math and reading skills and self-
regulation might influence childrens eventual learning.
A Meta-Analysis
To summarize our findings, we performed a meta-analysis of the estimated effects of
kindergarten-entry
15
achievement and self-regulation, using our full-control models. Each
coefficient constituted a separate observation in this analysis. Because we had only a few
estimated effects of these measures on completed schooling and earnings outcomes, we limited
our analysis to test- or teacher-based reading or mathematics achievement. The 236 coefficients
included in our meta-analysis are plotted in Figure 1, with square and diamond symbols
indicating coefficients taken from the respective regressions of math and reading outcomes.
16

Darker symbols represent statistically significant effects (p<.05); lighter symbols indicate that
the coefficient fell short of statistical significance.
[Insert Figure 1 about here]
To quantify these patterns, we ran multiple regressions using these standardized
coefficients as dependent variables. Independent variables consisted of: i) type of measure (e.g.,
math or reading test score, attention-related self-regulation, externalizing and internalizing
behaviors and social skills
17
); ii) elapsed time (scaled in years) between measurement of
kindergarten-entry characteristics and the outcome; iii) whether the outcome is math or reading
achievement; iv) whether the outcome is based on a test or a teacher report; and v) a set of
dummy variables indicating the study from which the given standardized coefficient was
estimated. In keeping with standard meta-analytic practices, we weighted each coefficient
observation by the inverse of its variance.
Results from three meta-analytic regressions are shown in Table 31. All 236 of the
coefficients served as observations to produce the results shown in the first column. The second

45
and third columns show results separately for reading and math outcomes. A clear conclusion
from these regressions is that only three characteristics matter for subsequent reading and math
achievement: kindergarten-entry reading and math skills and measures of attention-related
cognitive self-regulation. Moreover, rudimentary mathematics skills appear to matter the most,
with an average standardized coefficient of .34.
18
The average coefficient on school-entry
reading skills was only half that large (.16), and, at .09, the average standardized coefficient for
attention-related self-regulation was less than one third as large as the mean math skills
coefficient. Despite the fairly high degree of precision with which the effects of the remaining
characteristics were estimated, none was statistically significant. Indeed, none had a standardized
coefficient that averaged more than .02 in absolute value.
Not surprisingly, results in the second and third columns show that early reading skills
predicted later reading achievement better than later math achievement. Less expected is the fact
that early math skills appear to matter as much for later reading achievement as for later math
achievement. In fact, in the case of later reading achievement, the average standardized
coefficient on early math skills was every bit as large as the average coefficient on early reading.
Early reading skills matter relatively little for later math achievement. The various measures of
self-regulation and social skills were equally important (or, in most cases, unimportant) for the
two outcomes.
Turning to the other coefficients listed in Table 31, we see that the standardized
coefficients decreased a little (.010 per year) with each additional year between kindergarten
entry and the point of assessment of the math or reading outcome. The estimated annual
decrements in effect sizes appeared to be larger for reading than math outcomes. On average,
teacher-reported outcomes were predicted about as well as were later test scores. None of the
study coefficient dummies attained statistical significance
To see if kindergarten-entry skills predicted subsequent test scores better than subsequent
teacher reports of academic performance, we added interactions between the kindergarten entry
skills and whether the given outcome was based on a test or a teacher report (results not shown).
We found no evidence that the impact of early reading and math skills mattered more for test-
based than teacher-reported outcomes. We did find one statistically significant interaction --
between the kindergarten-entry assessments of cognitive self-regulation and the mode of
outcome assessment. The average coefficient on cognitive self-regulation was nearly twice as
large for teacher reports of reading and math achievement (.13) as for reading and math test
scores (.07).
Gender interactions with kindergarten-entry academic and self-regulation skills were also
estimated for all six data sets,
19
while SES interactions were estimated for all but the NICHD
SECCYD and MLEPS. In the case of gender interactions, ten of 76 relevant interaction
coefficients were .05 or more and statistically significant,
20
but there was no consistent pattern in
the direction of effects. In the case of SES interactions, only 2 of 30 interaction coefficients were
.05 or more and statistically significant. All in all, our results appear to suggest that the
influences of achievement and self-regulation are similar for both boys and girls and for children
from both low- and high-SES families.

46

Limitations-Real and Imagined
More than the usual number of cautions apply to our research. Our data are longitudinal
rather than experimental and thus subject to omitted-variable bias. Because we were able to
control for a large set of parental and family background factors as well as, in most cases,
measures of the childs pre-kindergarten cognitive ability and temperament, the remaining bias is
likely to be small, but we have no convincing way of assessing the scope or even the direction of
residual bias.
There are quite a number of reasons to worry that we may have stacked the deck against
the self-regulation measures: i) the achievement-oriented independent and dependent variables
have shared method variance; ii) self-regulatory skills may be more difficult to measure than
achievement-related skills; iii) in part because parents do not observe their children in school
settings, maternal reports are less predictive than teacher reports of later academic achievement;
iv) the greater predictive power of early academic skills for academic achievement may merely
reflect continuity in skills development; v) our models may overcontrol for prior family and
child characteristics; vi) self-regulatory skills may matter more for important school-related
outcomes such as dropout than test scores do, since dropout reflects some combination of
achievement and behavior; vii) most of our outcomes are measured in middle childhood and the
relative importance of school-entry factors may change as schools encourage children to become
independent learners; viii) the range of the self-regulation measures is restricted relative to the
range of the achievement measures; and ix) self-regulation problems may matter more for the
achievement of classmates than for the problematic child. We discuss each of these potential
problems in turn.
Should we worry that we find larger effects of early achievement-related skills on later
achievement because both are assessed with similar tests? Our meta-analysis suggests not: there
was no overall evidence of significantly larger impacts of early tests on later tests than on later
teacher reports (results not shown). Looking more specifically at third grade outcomes in the
ECLS-K, we find that the explanatory power of early test scores does not seem to depend on the
way in which the outcomes are measured. The standardized coefficients on kindergarten-entry
reading scores are .20 for third-grade reading test scores and .18 for teacher-reported reading
achievement. Kindergarten-entry math coefficients are .25 for test-based and .27 for teacher-
based reading outcomes. Only in the case of the predictive power of kindergarten-entry math for
later mathematics achievement was the shared-variance hypothesis supported, with coefficients
of .54 for the third-grade mathematics test but only .30 for teacher-reported math achievement.
In no case were the coefficients on the self-regulatory measures as predictive of teacher-report
achievement as were early test scores.
In the NICHD SECCYD data, on the other hand, early test scores are consistently less
powerful predictors of teacher reports than test-based assessments of later achievement. The
standardized coefficients on early reading test scores are .16 for fifth grade reading test scores
but only .08 for teacher report of reading. Age 4 math coefficients are .17 for test-based and
.11 for teacher-based math outcomes at fifth grade. Several self-regulatory measures were as
predictive of teacher-reported achievement as were early test scores. Given the somewhat

47
disparate pictures from these two data sets, the jury is still out on the role of shared method
variance.
A second potential threat to our general conclusion is that childrens classroom behavior
is more difficult to measure than their achievement. Perhaps the lower reliability or validity of
the behavioral measures accounts for their weaker explanatory power. It is certainly true that
school-entry tests have high internal consistency (e.g., the alphas were at least .84). But the
internal consistency of most of the self-regulation measures was also fairly high, particularly in
the case of teacher reports, where all were .79 or higher.
To investigate the impact of unreliability on our results, we used the reported internal
consistencies in the ECLS-K and NLSY data to estimate regression models using the errors-in-
variables reliability adjustment in the EIVREG procedure in Stata. To accord the behavioral
measures maximum explanatory power, our regressions included kindergarten-entry academic
test scores as well as family and child control variables, but only the given measure of self-
regulation or social skills.
For third-grade reading outcomes and no reliability adjustments in the ECLS-K, the
standardized coefficients on self-control, interpersonal skills, externalizing problems,
internalizing problems and approaches to learning were .02, .02, -.03, .00 and .05, respectively.
Reliability adjustments produced very similar coefficients: .02, .03, -.04, .00 and .06. Changes to
the coefficients on these measures predicting math achievement were similarly modest.
For the NLSY early adolescent reading test score outcome, respective coefficients
associated with hyperactivity/attention, headstrong, antisocial behavior, anxiety/depression and
peer problems were -.05, -.02, -.05, -.02 and -.02. Adjusting for reliability generally increased
(the absolute value of) these coefficients somewhat, to: -.08, -.03, -.08, -.03, and -.04
respectively. Changes in coefficients predicting early adolescents math scores following
reliability adjustments were similar. Although the proportionate increases in these coefficients
are substantial in some cases, none begins to rival the size of the coefficients on early reading
and math.
In sum, it is unlikely that our self-regulation measures lack the explanatory power of the
reading and math measures because they are less reliable. The overall validity of the self-
regulation measures is much more difficult for us to assess, so there remains the possibility that
low validity might lead us to underestimate their predictive power. Of course, the validity of
kindergarten-level achievement tests has also been questioned (Hirsh-Pasek, Kochanoff,
Newcombe, & de Villiers, 2005; Meisels & Atkins-Burnett, 2004), so validity-based bias is also
an issue for the explanatory power of early achievement measures.
A third concern is that we relied on maternal reports of self-regulatory behaviors in the
NLSY, IHDP and BCS data sets. Since there are important distinctions in comparative (siblings
vs. classmates) and contextual (family vs. school) reference, it is possible that our reliance on
maternal reports in these data sets leads to a downward bias in the estimated effects of the self-
regulation measures (Gagnon & Tremblay, 1992).
To investigate the issue further, we took data from the ECLS-K, which gathered
comparable ratings from parents and teachers of several components of self-regulation, and
substituted parent reports for the teacher-report-based measures used in Table 3. In the case of

48
third-grade reading test outcomes, the full-control model produced respective standardized
coefficients on parent reports of self-control, interpersonal skills, externalizing problems and
internalizing problems of .01, .00, -.01, and .03. Substituting teacher reports changed these
coefficients very little, to .01, .02, .00, and .01. In only one case did the parent or teacher report
measures predict childrens later achievement, and that was for a parent rather than teacher
report of externalizing problems in the math outcome regression. This suggests that our reliance
on maternal reports rather than teacher reports of childrens self-regulatory skills is not likely to
bias our results.
The NICHD SECCYD also gathered reports of self-regulation from both teachers and
parents, while the majority of the behavior problem questions were identical, additional
questions were asked of teachers. For example, teachers were asked additional questions about
attention problems that affect learning in the classroom (i.e., fails to finish things, has difficulty
learning, inattentive, fails to carry out assigned tasks), and teacher ratings of aggression included
extra items such as disturbs other pupils and talks out of turn. Many of the questions about social
skills were specific to the home or classroom setting. In particular, mothers were asked
additional questions about responsibility (i.e., requests permission before leaving the house,
answers the phone appropriately) that teachers were not asked.
Two consistent patterns occurred when maternal reports were substituted for teacher
reports in the full-control models predicting fifth grade outcomes. Whereas maternal report of
attention problems was never a significant predictor of either test scores or teacher rated
achievement in reading or math (coefficients ranged from -.01 to -.03), teacher-rated attention
problems did consistently predict low levels of achievement across all measures of achievement
(coefficients ranged from -.11 to -.17). Second, when teacher-rated reading and math
achievement is considered, mother reports of aggression (coefficients were -.01 and .00) and
social skills (coefficients were -.01 and .02) were never significant predictors of teacher-rated
achievement. With the exception of social skills and math achievement at fifth grade, the
corresponding coefficients for teacher-reports of aggression and social skills on teacher-rated
reading and math achievement were statistically significant (both coefficients were .08 for
aggression, and coefficients were .11 and .06 for social skills). All told, there is mixed evidence
for possible bias in the estimated influences of NLSY, IHDP and BCS maternal reports of self-
regulatory behavior.
A fourth concern is that cross-time associations in cognitive skills may merely reflect
continuity in skills. If continuity is understood to mean high inter-temporal correlations, then
continuity is problematic for our conclusions only to the extent that the correlations reflect
spurious rather than causal effects. A causal explanation for high inter-temporal correlations
would be one in which achievement is the product of a sequential process of skill acquisition,
with early skills serving as a necessary foundation for later skills (Resnick, 1989). This does not
pose a problem for our conclusions, because this causal source of continuity is precisely what we
have designed our analyses to uncover.
In contrast, a spurious explanation for continuity is one in which continuity in some
omitted variable accounts for the close association between early and later achievement. For
example, it could be that genetic cognitive skill endowments are omnipotent and high

49
correlations between test scores over time reflect these unchanging endowments. In this case, an
early academic skills intervention would have no lasting impacts on achievement.
Since our estimates are based on non-experimental methods, they are likely to reflect
some combination of causal and spurious effects. We have made every effort to eliminate
sources of spurious continuity. In all but the ECLS-K data set, measures of cognitive ability prior
to school-entry are included in our full control models and thus adjust estimates of the effects
of early reading and mathematics skills for differences in basic cognitive ability. In the case of
the ECLS-K and MLEPS, we showed that academic skills acquired by the spring of the
kindergarten year were predictive of third-grade outcomes even when kindergarten-entry test
scores were controlled.
Also arguing against a spurious continuity effect is the fact that early mathematics skills
were as predictive of later reading achievement as were early reading skills, even after adjusting
for pre-kindergarten cognitive ability. Continuity would lead us to expect a similar pattern to that
found for mathematics, in which early math skills are more predictive of later achievement than
are early reading skills. That we did not find such patterns for reading suggests that there is
something about the acquisition of early mathematical skills that promotes achievement across
multiple domains.
The fifth issue, overcontrol, is more subtle. Regression models estimated on most of our
data sets include a wide range of control variables, such as assessments of family functioning,
socioeconomic status, mental health, parenting practices, child-care influences, and, usually,
antecedent measures of children's social-behavioral and cognitive functioning. By controlling
for early self-regulatory and academic skills, are we not robbing the kindergarten-entry measures
of some of their explanatory power?
To set ideas, suppose that self-regulation matters a great deal for later academic
achievement but that its influence is exerted by enhancing childrens early language and
numeracy skills. In this case, preschool controls for achievement might rob our kindergarten-
entry self-regulation measure of all of its formidable explanatory power. Alternatively, suppose
that self-regulation trajectories are set indelibly in infancy and early childhood, perhaps by some
combination of inherent temperament and early parenting. In this case, controls for preschool
self-regulation would soak up much of the explanatory power of school-entry self-regulation.
We acknowledge this consequence of our approach, but remain unapologetic in choosing
it. When our pre-kindergarten controls are similar to our kindergarten-entry measures, our
regression models constitute a kind of change model in which naturally-occurring changes in
self-regulation and other aspects of childrens early skills and behaviors between preschool and
kindergarten are related to subsequent achievement. Precisely this kind of formulation is needed
to address the policy question of whether remediable aspects of preschool behavior and cognitive
skills matter for later learning. Indelible trajectories will render null both our coefficients and the
intervention impacts.
Two addition notes regarding overcontrol: An overcontrol argument applies equally to
the cognitive as well as the self-regulatory measures, and thus cannot account for the differential
explanatory power between the two kinds of measures without additional assumptions. Second,
our general pattern of results holds regardless of whether prior controls are included or not. In

50
the case of third-grade reading outcomes in the ECLS-K, for example, the respective
standardized coefficients on early reading and math achievement, self-control, interpersonal
skills, externalizing problems, internalizing problems and approaches to learning in the full-
control models were: .18, .27, .01, .02, .00, .00 and .04, respectively. In the absence of control
variables, the respective coefficients were not much larger: .20, .25, -.02, .01, -.05, .01, and .06.
Only in the case of externalizing problems does the coefficient become statistically significant
when the controls are removed, but even then the standardized coefficient is only -.05.
Surprisingly, then, despite the added explanatory power of our control variables, coefficients on
our self-regulation measures changed relatively little in most of our data sets, which argues
against indelible and consequential self-regulatory trajectories.
21

Sixth, self-regulatory skills may matter more for school outcomes such as special
education classification, drop out or criminality than for the test score and teacher-reported
achievement outcomes used in our studies. The outcomes of our analyses are indeed limited, and
it may well be that behavioral measures of school success are more strongly linked to childrens
school-entry self-regulatory skills than to academic skills. For the British Cohort Study,
externalizing behavior problems were a significant predictor high completed schooling (although
not wages). In the case of the other five data sets, our efforts to test for this included only
estimating models of the effects of early academic and self-regulatory skills on grade retention,
an outcome that includes elements of both academic and behavioral competence. Results were
quite similar to those from models with purer achievement-related outcomes.
Only the BCS has followed study participants long enough to measure their completed
schooling, and it found school-entry inattention problems to be a significant predictor of school
completion but not labor market success. Other achievement-related outcomes, such as work
habits, classroom engagement, and motivation for learning may be associated with self-
regulation. We intend to a larger number of non-achievement school outcomes in our future
work.
A seventh concern is the general absence of data on children from fifth through twelfth
grade. Achievement in middle and high schools involve increasingly complex reading and
mathematical tasks, and it may be that general cognitive skills, particularly oral language and
conceptual abilities are necessary skills for comprehension and advanced problem solving
(NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2005a; Scarborough, 2001; Snow et al., 1998;
Storch & Whitehurst, 2002; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998; Baroody, 2003; Ferrari & Sternberg,
1998; Hiebert & Wearne, 1996). It is also possible that, once children are past learning the
basics in the early grades, the relative importance of early self-regulation skills increase when
children are required to be independent learners, allocate their own time, and complete group
work and assignments.
For a general look at the evidence about whether any of the impacts of academic or self-
regulatory measures are growing over time, we reran our meta-analytic regressions including
interactions between each of the kindergarten-entry measures and time between kindergarten
entry and the outcome assessment. Coefficients on the interactions with early reading, early math
and self-regulation were all negative and ranged from -.023 to -.039 annual decrements in effect
sizes. Since most of our data comes from elementary-school tests, it remains possible that these
interactions might reverse sign if outcomes were measured during middle or high school.

51
The NLSY data are most telling on this point, since they provide comparable test-score
based outcomes at both ages 7/8 and age 13/14. School-entry hyperactivity retained its modest
explanatory power (effect sizes around -.07) between these two points, while the explanatory
power of other predictors either fell (in the case of early reading and math skills) or remained
insignificant (in the case of all other self-regulatory measures). In the case of NICHD SECCYD
outcomes measured in third and fifth grade, there was mixed evidence on the direction of
coefficient change.
An eighth methodological threat to our conclusions is that several of the self-regulatory
measures are counts of students problems, which restricts their range and perhaps explanatory
power relative to the full-scale achievement measures. This is a reasonable concern, and our
attempts to address it consisted of estimating spline regressions, which allow for effects of the
self-regulation to be non-linear. In these analyses, two linear segments per measure were fit to
the data. The first segment was estimated for the most problematic third of the sample
distribution and the second segment was estimated for the other two-thirds. If, say, externalizing
behavior problems matter a lot for the most problematic children but, owing to restricted range,
much less for the others, then the slope of the line fit to the most problematic group should
perhaps rival the slopes of lines on the early reading or math achievement measures.
As discussed in our results section, we found little systematic evidence that this was the
case. In the ECLS-K data, there was some evidence that improving early math skills mattered
more for low math achievers, while the NLSY showed that hyperactivity mattered more for
children with the highest levels of it. No significant nonlinearities emerged in the analysis of
NICHD SECCYD data. All in all, it does not appear that the reduced variance of some of our
self-regulatory measures has biased our conclusions.
The ninth and final concern is that the impact of self-regulatory measures such as
externalizing behaviors may be larger for classmates than for the problematic child. This could
happen if classroom activity is disrupted to the point that teaching becomes difficult. Testing for
this requires information on the behaviors of all children in the classroom, a condition met by
none of the data sets we analyze. This possibility remains on the agenda for future research.

Implications
Despite studies suggesting that self-regulation skills make important, independent
contributions to school success (Alexander et al., 1993; McClelland et al., 2000; Yen et al., 2004;
Howse et al., 2003), we found little evidence that this was the case after taking into account
preschool levels of cognitive ability and self-regulation. An important exception was that a
childs ability to sustain attention did predicted later learning consistently, although its average
effect size on later reading and math achievement was only .09 per standard-deviation increase in
attention. Considerably more important than any of the self-regulatory skills were school-entry
academic skills such as knowing numbers and ordinality (the average effect size of beginning
math skills was .34) and knowing letters, words and beginning and ending word sounds (the
average effect size of beginning reading skills across our studies was .16). The average effect
sizes of emotional self-regulation and social skills were essentially zero.

52
What do our results suggest about the determinants of childrens academic achievement
and how learning occurs? Given the impressive predictive power of early academic skills and
unimportance of self-regulatory behavior other than attention, it indeed appears that knowledge
begets knowledge more than self-regulation facilitates the acquisition of knowledge. During the
first three years of school children are learning the mechanics of literacy and mathematics.
Developmental theory suggests that early achievement is the merger of childrens informal,
intuitive knowledge of central concepts that should have been developed in early childhood and
the algorithms formally taught in the elementary school curriculum (Adams et al., 1998; Tunmer
& Nesdale, 1998; Griffin, Case, & Capodilupo, 1995; Baroody, 2003).
With regard to self-regulation, where possible we separated cognitive and emotional
components of self-control, rather than relying on the broad construct of externalizing
problems. The distinction between cognitive and emotional self-regulation is warranted given
current theory and research on young childrens self-regulation (Eisenberg, et. al., 2005; Olson,
et al., 2005; Raver, 2004; Raver, et al., 2005; Rhoades, et al., 2005). However, the indicators of
cognitive self-regulation that were included in this study are limited to attention, impulsivity, or
hyperactivity. None of our studies focused on the assessment of self-regulation, so we lack the
detailed measures of other cognitive self-regulation skills that may be relevant to school success.
Notably absent are measures of executive function, planning, effortful control of attention or
action, and task persistence that might be important predictors of achievement. For example,
attentional control, or the ability to shift attention away from distracting stimuli, may be a
particularly beneficial aspect of cognitive self-regulation for learning in the classroom
environment. On the other hand, the measures we were able to include are likely to be highly
correlated with these more refined measures, so it is unclear whether our conclusions would
change if better measures were available to us.
The striking predictive power of early mathematical skills raises important questions as to
why. Through interaction with their environment, young children have the potential to develop
considerable mathematical knowledge, in tandem with verbal knowledge. Why have we
observed that early math is a much more powerful predictor of later reading achievement than
early reading is of later math achievement? One possibility is the acquisition of algorithms in
early arithmetic learning. It might be that the algorithmic nature of intuitive mathematical
knowledge that children develop early on influences their spontaneous use of similar strategies
during emergent literacy, especially when faced with decoding links for orthographic word
forms. More specifically, decoding during beginning literacy stages could be facilitated by the
intuitive algorithms associated with addition and subtraction given that orthographic
representations (letters) of phonetic sounds are combined or added together to make a word unit
(c +a +r). It seems even more plausible that without such natural back-up strategies, learning to
read might be more difficult. For example, addition processes seem active to a child in both math
(1 +1) and reading letters for sounds (c +a +r).
Another consistent theme across our studies is that cognitive self-regulation, whether
measured by attention, impulsivity, or hyperactivity is modestly but consistently associated with
poor achievement outcomes. Why cognitive self-regulation rather than emotional self-
regulation? Since cognitive self-regulation skills increase the time children are engaged and
participating in academic endeavors, it is perhaps not surprising that they predict later success.
Despite the fact that children who are skilled in emotional self-regulation can potentially profit

53
from the educational experiences provided in the classroom, it does not appear to be the case that
entering school with more of these skills promotes later achievement. Although all of the studies
included in these analyses draw most of their children with variations in behavior problems such
as aggression and attention in the normal range, all contain at least some children falling in the
clinical ranges of behavior problems. None of our attempts to estimate bigger impacts for
reducing problem behavior among the most problematic children supported the idea that teachers
might able to surmount most instances of problematic emotional self-regulation. It remains
possible that a more focused analysis, based on samples with larger concentrations of clinical
samples might reach different conclusions.
The results of this study suggest that early academic skills make a strong contribution to
reading and math achievement, which suggests that reading and math should take a prominent
place in the curriculum of early childhood programs. Indeed, this perspective is not new, and has
been endorsed by both the National Research Councils Committee on the Prevention of Reading
Difficulties in Young Children and the joint position statement issued by the National
Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and the National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). This conclusion does not imply that drill-and-practice
curricula are required. Play-based curricula designed with the needs of children in mind can
easily foster the development of these skills in the preschool years (Hirsch-Pasek, et al., 2003).
Learning games and activities that promote early literacy and math concepts and skills can be
engaging and fun. Taking early math skills as an example, the Big Math for Little Kids program
has been designed to capitalize on childrens interest in exploring and manipulating numbers
(Greenes, Ginsburg, & Balfanz, 2004). Play-based curriculum also has the added benefit of
fostering cognitive-self regulation. During play, children also spontaneously demonstrate a
greater capacity for self-regulation in order to fit in with the rules and prescribed roles of the play
situation (Berk, 1994).

Policy
Based on the results of our analysis, we would expect that preschool mathematics
interventions would best promote both math and reading achievement and reduce early grade
failure; early reading interventions would promote later reading achievement better than later
math achievement; and interventions that successfully boost childrens ability to pay attention
would have beneficial but more modest effects on academic achievement and grade failure. On
the other hand, we would expect that interventions that succeed only in improving non-attention-
related behaviors would fail to promote subsequent achievement.
A number of carefully designed pre-school intervention programs have produce cognitive
and academic achievement gains, and long-term reductions in referral for special education
services, grade retention, school drop-out and increases in adult educational attainment (Lazar &
Darlington, 1982; Reynolds, 1994; Royce et al., 1983; Reynolds & Temple, 1998; Ramey et al.,
2000; Campbell et al., 2002). But, most of these programs had a broad curriculum designed to
enhance cognitive and social skills, so they do not provide tests of the relative value of
academically-focused and behaviorally-oriented curricula.

54
Indeed, a key shortcoming of early childhood intervention research is that many
programs provide a combination of services to children, so it is not possible to disentangle
impacts of the self-regulation and academic components of the program. These programs show
scattered effects on achievement and self-regulation (Love et al., 2003; U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, 2005), with some
indication that long-term effects on grade retention and special education (Lazar & Darlington,
1982). The few behavioral interventions that also estimate impacts on later academic outcomes
tend to begin after school entry (Coie & Krehbiel, 1984; Dolan et al., 1993; Tremblay et al.,
1995), which leaves open the possibility that the mixed effects that they produced on
achievement, grade retention, and delinquent behavior might be larger if the problems were
addressed instead during the early childhood years.
In thinking about the implications of our findings for policy, it is crucial to go beyond
Cohens (1988) rules of thumb regarding effect sizes and consider the feasibility and cost of
interventions aimed at increasing self-regulatory or academic skills. It is the ratio of the effect
size to the interventions cost that matters. Some argue that even a small effect size can be
important on a population basis, since a small effect size multiplied by a large population base
can add up to a large aggregate benefit. While it is certainly true that a small effect multiplied by
10 or 20 million children can add up to a large aggregate benefit, the key is still the ratio of
benefits to costs. If that ratio is less than one, then the per-child cost multiplied by 10 or 20
million children is an even bigger number relative to the aggregate benefit. In other words,
aggregating up a small, but costly benefit will yield a larger, but more even costly benefit.
In the case of early reading, math and self-regulatory skill interventions with identical
costs and identically sized effects on their targeted skills, our results suggest that the ratio of
subsequent achievement benefits relative to costs would be highest in the case of an early math
intervention, next highest for a reading intervention, next highest for the attention-focused
intervention, and close to zero in the case of interventions focused on emotional self-regulation.
But since we know little about the comparative costs of these kinds of interventions, it is
conceivable that an attention-enhancing intervention costs so much less than a math-skills-
enhancing intervention that the former is preferable to the latter. Given the pattern of effects
sizes, it is highly unlikely that any intervention focused solely on improving emotional self-
regulation or social skills during the preschool years would have a cost-effective impact on later
school achievement. It is possible that an intervention targeting childrens self-regulatory skills
during infancy might yield larger benefits for childrens subsequent achievement, although our
approach can neither support nor refute that hypothesis.
The design of preschool interventions need not be either/or choices if a curriculum is able
to promote a variety of academic and self-regulatory skills. Indeed, as in the whole child
approach, the synergy of these elements is a standard assumption in early education. Programs
like Head Start have an even broader range of goals that include improving child health and the
ability of parents to promote childrens learning, with early evidence from the National Head
Start Study indicating scattered impacts on pre-reading, behavior problems, dental and overall
health and learning-enhancing parent-child interactions (Puma et al., 2005). Given our results, it
is disappointing that the National Head Start Study failed to find short-run impacts on early math
skills.

55
The policy implications of our analyses are limited by our focus on achievement and
early grade failure. These are certainly important outcomes. Cawley et al. (1997) demonstrate the
importance of early-adolescent achievement test scores, even net of completed schooling, for
later labor-market success. And given that accountability pressures are putting greater numbers
of children at risk for early grade failure (Cosden, Zimmer, & Tuss, 1993; Rosenkoetter, 2001),
curricular innovation aimed at improving children's potential for learning during kindergarten
can help to optimize their academic performance and thus reduce the concomitants of early
school failure during the elementary school years.
At the same time, we acknowledge the value of other curricular objectives such teaching
children to be autonomous learners, affecting motivation to learn, teaching them to interact
successfully with each other and with adults, etc. Virtually untested in our analyses is the
possibility that behavioral interventions might have beneficial impacts on school-related
behaviors and outcomes that combine elements of achievement and behavior, such as assignment
to special education classes, drop out or suspensions. As illustrated in the High/Scope Perry
Preschool intervention, it is quite possible for early interventions to have only transitory impacts
on achievement but formidable life-course impacts on school- and labor-market-related success
(Hohmann & Weikart, 2002; Dickens, 2005; Schweinhart, in press).
Finally, our results also have implications for the controversy over the reliability of tests
given to children when they first enter school. All of our data sets suggest that tests administered
around the point of kindergarten entry can be a highly reliable way of assessing early skills.
Moreover, in most cases early reading and math scores are relatively powerful predictors of later
achievement. At the same time, most of the variation in later school achievement cannot be
attributed to kindergarten-entry factors, so the potential for productive interventions during the
early school grades remains.
Ours are hardly the final words on the comparative impact of early academic and self-
regulatory skills. If nothing else, though, our data challenge the common assertion that the two
sets of skills are of equal importance for a childs academic success.


56
References
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the child behavior checklist/4-18 and Profile. Burlington,
VT: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.
Achenbach, T. M. (1992). Manual for the child behavior checklist / 2-3 and 1992 Profile.
Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry.
Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. S. (1984). Psychopathology of childhood. Annual Review of
Psychology, 35, 227-256.
Achenbach, T. M., Edelbrock, C. S., & Howell, C. T. (1987). Empirically-based assessment of
the behavioral/emotional problems of 2- and 3-year-old children. Monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development, 46.
Adams, M. J ., Treiman, R., & Pressley, M. (1998). Reading, writing and literacy. In I. Sigel & A.
Renninger (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Child Psychology and Practice (5
th

Ed., vol. 4, pp 275-355). New York: J ohn Wiley & Sons.
Alexander, K. L., Entwisle D. R., & Dauber, S. L. (1993). First grade classroom behavior: Its
short- and long-term consequences for school performance. Child Development, 64, 801-
514.
Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing (6th ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Aunola, K., Leskinen, E., Lerkkanen, M., & Nurmi, J . (2004). Developmental dynamics of math
performance frompreschool to grade 2. J ournal of Educational Psychology, 96, 699-713.
Aylward, G. P., Pfeiffer, S. I., Wright, A., & Verhulst, S. J . (1989). Outcomes studies of low birth
weight infants published in the last decade: A meta-analysis. J ournal of Pediatrics, 115,
515-520.
Baker, P. C., Keck, C. K., Mott, F. L., & Quilan, S. V. (1993). NLSY Child Handbook, Revised
Edition: A guide to the 1986-1990 NLSY child data. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State
University, Center for Human Resource Research.
Baroody, A. J . (2003). The development of adaptive expertise and flexibility: The integration of
conceptual and procedural knowledge. In A. J . Baroody & A. Dowker (Eds.), The
Development of Arithmetic Concepts and Skills: Constructing Adaptive Expertise Studies.
Mahwah, N.J . : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Barriga, A. Q., Doran, J . W., Newell, S. B., Morrison, E. M., Barbetti V., & Robbins, B. D.
(2002). Relationships between problem behaviors and academic achievement in
adolescents: The unique role of attention problems. J ournal of Emotional and Behavioral
Disorders, 10, 233-240.
Baumeister, R.F, & Vohs, K.D. (Eds.). (2004). Handbook of Self-Regulation: Research, Theory,
and Applications. New York: Guilford Press.
Becker, G. (1964). Human Capital. New York: Columbia University Press.
Berninger, V. W., & Richards, T. L. (2002). Brain literacy for educators and psychologists. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.

57
Berk, L. E. (1994). Vygotskys theory: The importance of make-believe play. Young Children,
50, 30-39.
Bowles, S., Gintis, H., & Osborne, M. (2001). The determinants of earnings: A behavioral
approach. J ournal of Economic Literature, 34, 1137-1176.
Bracken, B. A. (1984). Bracken basic concept scale. San Antonio, TX: Psychological
Corporation.
Bridges, L. J ., Denham, S. A., & Ganiban, J . M. (2004). Definitional issues in emotion regulation
research. Child Development, 75, 340-345.
Brooks-Gunn, J ., Klebanov, P. K., & Liaw, F. (1995). The learning, physical and emotional
environment of the home in the context of poverty: The Infant Health and Development
Program. Children and Youth Services Review, 17, 396-408.
Bush, G. W. (2002, April 3) President, Mrs. Bush Promote Early Childhood Education
Initiative. Speech posted by the Office of the Press Secretary. Retrieved J uly 6, 2005,
from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020403-6.html
Byles, J ., Byrne, C., Boyle, M., & Offord, D. (1988). Ontario Child Health Study reliability
and validity of the general functioning subscale of the McMaster Family Assessment
Device. Family Process, 27, 97-104.
Bynner, J . Ferri, E., & Shepherd, P. (Eds.) (1997). Twenty Something in the 1990s: Getting On,
Getting By, Getting Nowhere. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Caldwell, B. M., & Bradley, R. H. (1984). Home observation for measurement of the
environment. Little Rock: University of Arkansas Press.
Campbell, F. A., Ramey, C., Pungello, E. P., Sparling, J . J ., & Miller-J ohnson, S. (2002). Early
childhood education: Young adult outcomes from the Abecedarian Project. Applied
Developmental Science, 6, 42-57.
Card, D. (1999) The Causal Effect of Education on Earnings. In O. Ashenfelter & D. Card
(Eds.), Handbook of Labor Economics, Vol. 3A, Chapter 30, pp. 1801-1863.
Carneiro, P. & Heckman, J . (2003). Human Capital Policy. In J .J . Heckman & A.B. Krueger
(Eds.), Inequality in America: What role for human capital policies? (pp. 77-239).
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Case, R. (1975). Social class differences in intellectual development: A Neo-Piagetian
investigation. Canadian J ournal of Behavioral Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences
du Comportement, 7(3), 244-261.
Case, R. (1996). Reconceptualizing the nature of childrens conceptual structures and their
development in middle childhood. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 61(1-2), 1-26.
Case, R., Griffin, S., & Kelly, W. M. (2001). Socioeconomic differences in childrens early
cognitive development and their readiness for schooling. In S. L. Golbeck, Psychological
perspectives on early childhood education. Reframing dilemmas in research and practice
(pp. 37-63). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

58
Cawley, J ., Heckman, J . & Vytlacil, E. (2001). Three Observations on Wages and Measured
Cognitive Ability. Labor Economics, 8, 419-442.
Center for Human Resource Research (2004). A Guide to the 1979-2002: National Longitudinal
Survey of Youth. Washington, DC: US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Chamberlain, R. & Davey, A. (1976). Cross-sectional study of developmental test items in
children aged 94 97 weeks: report of the British Births Child Study. Developmental
Medicine and Child Neurology, 18, 54 70.
Cohen, J . (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillside, N.J .:
Erlbaum.
Coie, J . & Krehbiel, G. (1984). Effects of academic tutoring on the social status of low-
achieving, social rejected children. Child Development, 55, 1465-1478.
Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, (1992). A developmental and clinical model for
the prevention of conduct disorder: The FAST Track Program. Development and
Psychopathology, 4, 509-527.
Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (2002). Evaluation of the first three years of the
Fast Track Prevention Trial with children at high risk for adolescent conduct problems.
J ournal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 19-35.
Cosden, M., Zimmer, J ., & Tuss, P. (1993). The impact of age, sex, and ethnicity on kindergarten
entry and retention decisions. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 209-
222.
Cunha, F., Heckman, J ., Lochner, L., & Masterov, D. (forthcoming) Interpreting the evidence on
life cycle skill formation. In E. Hanushek & F. Welch (Eds.) Handbook of the Economics
of Education, North Holland.
Dauber, S. L., Alexander, K. L., & Entwisle, D. R. (1993). Characterisitcs of retainees and early
precursors of retention in grade: Who is held back? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39, 326-
343.
Davenport, B. M. (1976). A comparison of the Peabody Individual Achievement Test, the
Metropolitan Achievement Test, and the Otis-Lennon Mental Ability Test. Psychology in
the Schools, 13, 291-297.
DeRosier, M. E., & Thomas, J . M. (2003). Strengthening sociometric prediction: Scientific
advances in the assessment of childrens peer relations. Child Development, 75, 1379-
1392.
Dickens, W. T. (2005). Genetic differences and school readiness. The Future of Children, 15, 55-
69.
Dobkin, P. L., Tremblay, R. E., Msse, L. C., & Vitaro, F. (1995). Individual and peer
characteristics in predicting boys early onset of substance abuse : A 7-year longitudinal
study. Child Development, 66, 1198-1214.
Dolan, L., Kellam, S., Brown, C., Werthamer-Larsson, L., Rebok, G., Mayer, L., et al. (1993).
The short-term impacts of two classroom-based preventive interventions on aggressive

59
and shy behaviors and poor achievement. J ournal of Applied Developmental Psychology,
14, 317-345.
Dunn, L. M., Thriault-Whalen, C. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1993). chelle de vocabulaire en images
Peabody. Adaptation franaise du Peabody Picture Vocabulary test-revised. Manuel
pour les formes A et B. Toronto: Psycan.
Dunn, L. M., & Markwardt, F. C. J r. (1970). Peabody Individual Achievement Test Manual.
Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance System.
Eisenberg, N., Sadovsky, A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2005). The relations of problem behavior
status to childrens negative emotionality, effortful control, and impulsivity:
Concurrent relations and predictions of change. Developmental Psychology, 41, 193-
211.
Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., & Morris, A.S. (2002). Regulation, resiliency, and quality of social
functioning. Self & Identity, 1, 121-129.
Ensminger, M. E., & Slusarcick, A. L. (1992). Paths to high school graduation or drop-out: A
longitudinal study of a first-grade cohort. Sociology of Education, 65, 95-113.
Epstein, N., Baldwin, L., & Bishop, D. (1983). The McMaster Family Assessment Device.
J ournal of Marital and Family Therapy, 9, 171-180.
Entwisle, D. R., & Alexander, K. L. (1996). Family type and children's growth in reading and
math other the primary grades. J ournal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 341-355.
Entwisle, D., Alexander, K., & Olson, L. (2005). First grade and educational attainment by age
22: A new story. American J ournal of Sociology, 110, 1458-1502.
Farkas, G. (2003). Cognitive skills and noncognitive traits and behaviors in stratification
processes. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 541-562.
Feinstein, L., & Bynner, J . (2004). The importance of cognitive development in middle
childhood for adult socioeconomic status, mental health, and problem behavior. Child
Development, 75, 1329-1339.
Ferrari, M., & Sternberg, R. J . (1998). The development of mental abilities and styles. In W.
Damon (Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Child Psychology and Practice (5
th
Ed.,
vol. 2, pp 899-946). New York: J ohn Wiley & Sons.
Ferri, E., & Smith, K. (2003). Family life. In E. Ferri, J . Bynner & M. Wadsworth (Eds.),
Changing Britain, Changing Lives. Three generations at the turn of the century. London:
Institute of Education. University of London.
Frick, P. J ., Kamphaus, R. W., Lahey, B. B., Loeber, R, Christ, M. A. G., Hart, E. L., et al.
(1991). Academic underachievement and the disruptive behavior disorders. J ournal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 289-294.
Gagnon, C., Vitaro, F. & Tremblay, R.E. (1992). Parent-teacher agreement on kindergarteners'
behavior problems: a Research Note. J ournal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 33,
1255-1261.

60
Gilliam, W. S. (2005). Prekindergarteners left behind: Expulsion rates in state prekindergarten
programs. Accessed on 5/23/05 at
http://www.fcd.us.org/PDFs/NationalPreKExpulsionPaper03.02_new.pdf
Ginsburg, H. P. Klein, A., & Starkey, P. (1998). The development of childrens mathematical
thinking: Connecting research with practice. In I. Sigel & A. Renninger (Eds.), Handbook
of Child Psychology: Child Psychology and Practice (5
th
Ed., vol. 4, pp 401-476). New
York: J ohn Wiley & Sons.
Goldsmith, A.H., Veum, J .R. & Darity, W. J r. (1997). The impact of psychological and human
capital on wages. Economic Inquiry, 35, 815-829.
Greene, W.H., (1993) Econometric Analysis. Macmillan Publishing, NY.
Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). The social skills rating system. Circle Pines, MN:
American Guidance Service.
Griffin, S., Case, R., & Capodilupo, A. (1995). Teaching for understanding: The importance of
the central conceptual structure in the elementary mathematics curriculum. In A.
McKeough, J . Lupart, & A. Marini (Eds.), Teaching for Transfer (pp. 123-151, ch. 6).
Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Griffin, S. A., Case, R., & Siegler, R. S. (1994). Rightstart: Providing the central conceptual
prerequisites for first formal learning of arithmetic to students at risk for school failure. In
K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroomlessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom
practice (pp. 1-50). MIT Press/Bradford Books.
Harris, D.B. (1963). Childrens Drawings as Measures of Intellectual Maturity. New York:
Harcourt, Brace & World.
Heckman, J .J ., & Rubinstein , Y. (2001). The importance of noncognitive skills: Lessons from
the GED Testing Program. American Economic Review, 145-149.
Hiebert, J ., & Wearne, D. (1996). Instruction, understanding, and skill in multidigit addition and
subtraction. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 251-283.
Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., & Eyer, D. (2003). Einstein never used flashcards: How our
children really learn and why the need to play more and memorize less. Rodale.
Hohmann, M. & Weikart, D. P. (2002) Educating young children: Active learning practices for
preschool and child care programs (2nd Edition). Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.
Howse, R. B., Lange, G., Farran, D. C., & Boyles, C. D. (2003). Motivation and self-regulation
as predictors of achievement in economically disadvantaged young children. The J ournal
of Experimental Education, 71, 151-174.
Hoy, E. A., Bill, J . M., & Sykes, D. H. (1988). Very low birth weight: A long-term development
impairment? International J ournal of Behavioral Development, 11, 37-67.
Infant Health and Development Program. (1990). Enhancing the outcomes of low-birthweight,
premature infants. J ournal of the American Medical Association, 263, 3035-3042.

61
J encks, C., Bartlett S., Corcoran M., Crouse J ., Eaglesfield D., J ackson G., et al. (1979). Who
Gets Ahead? The Determinants of Economic Success in America. New York: Basic
Books.
Klebanov, P. K., Brooks-Gunn, J ., & McCormick, M. C. (1994a). School achievement and
failure in very low birth weight children. J ournal of Developmental and Behavioral
Pediatrics, 15, 248-256.
Klebanov, P.K., Brooks-Gunn, J ., & McCormick, M. C. (1994b). Classroom behavior of very
low birth weight elementary school children. Pediatrics, 94, 700-708.
Koppitz, E.M. (1968). Psychological Evaluation of Childrens Human Figure Drawings. New
York: Grure & Stratton.
Kuhn, D. (1995). Scientific thinking and knowledge acquisition. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development, 60(4), 152-157.
Ladd, G. W., Birch, S. H., & Buhs, E. S. (1999). Childrens social and scholastic lives in
kindergarten: Related spheres of influence? Child Development, 70, 1373-1400.
LaParo, K. M., & Pianta, R.C. (2000). Predicting children's competence in the early school years.
A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 70, 443-84.
Lazar, I. & Darlington, R. B. (1982). Lasting effects of early education. Monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development, 47.
Lengua, L.J . (2003). Associations among emotionality, self-regulation, adjustment problems, and
positive adjustment in middle childhood. J ournal of Applied Developmental Psychology,
24, 595-618.
Lewit, E.M., & Baker, L. S. (1995). School readiness. The Future of Children, 5, 128-139.
Lin, H., Lawrence, F. R., & Gorrell, J . (2003). Kindergarten teachers views of childrens
readiness for school. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18, 225-237.
Love, J , M., Harrison, L., Sagi-Schwartz, A., van Ijzendoorn, M. H., Ross, C., Ungerer, J . A., et
al. (2003) Child care quality matters: How conclusions may vary with context. Child
McClelland, M. & Morrison, F. J . (2003). The emergence of learning-related social skills in
preschool children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18, 206-224.
McClelland, M., Morrison, F. J ., & Holmes, D. L. (2000). Children at risk for early academic
problems: The role of learning-related social skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
15, 307-329.
McCormick, M. C., Brooks-Gunn, J ., Workman-Daniels, K., Turner, J ., & Peckham, G. (1992).
The health and development status of very low birth weight children at school age.
J ournal of American Medical Association, 267, 2204-2208.
McCoy, A. R., & Reynolds, A. J . (1999). Grade retention and school performance: An extended
investigation. J ournal of School Psychology, 37, 273-298.

62
Meisels, S. J ., & Atkins-Burnett, S. (2004). The Head Start National Reporting System: A
critique. Beyond the J ournal: Young Children on the Web, National Association for the
Education of Young Children. Retrieved J uly 6, 2005, from
http://journal.naeyc.org/btj/200401/meisels.pdf
Miech, R., Essex, M. J ., & Goldsmith, H. (2001). Socioeconomic status and the adjustment to
school: The role of self-regulation during early childhood. Sociology of Education, 74,
102-120.
Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Rutter, M., & Silva, P. A. (2001). Sex differences in antisocial
behavior: Conduct disorder, delinquency, and violence in the Dunedin Longitudinal
Study. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
National Association for the Education of Young Children, & National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics. (2002). Math experiences that count! Young Children 57, 6062.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1993). Public school kindergarten teachers' views on
children's readiness for school. Contractor report to the National Center for Education
Statistics. NCES 93-410. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Educational Research and Improvement.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2001). Users Manual for the ECLS-K Public-
UseData Files and Electronic Codebook. Princeton, NJ .
National Education Goals Panel. (1997). The National Education Goals report, 1997: Building a
nation of learners. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Neligan, G.A. & Prudham, D. (1969). Norms for four standard development milestones by sex,
social class and place in family. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 11, 413.
Newcomb, A. F., Bukowski, W. M., & Pattee, L. (1993). Children's peer relations: A meta-
analytical review of popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and average sociometric
status. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 99-128.
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (1997). Poverty and patterns of child care. In J .
Brooks-Gunn & G. Duncan (Eds.), Consequences of Growing up Poor (pp. 100-131).
New York: Russell-Sage.
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (2004) Trajectories of physical aggression from
toddlerhood to middle childhood: Predictors, correlates, and outcomes. Monographs of
the Society of Research in Child Development, 69, Serial number 278.
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (2005a). Pathways to reading: The role of oral
language in the transition to reading. Developmental Psychology, 41, 428-442.
NICHD Early Child Care Research. (Ed.). (2005b). Child Care and Development: Results from
the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development. NY: Guilford Press.
Normandeau, S. (1998). Preschool behavior and first-grade achievement: The mediational role of
cognitive self-control. J ournal of Educational Psychology, 90, 111-121.
Okamoto, Y., & Case, R. (1996). Exploring the microstructure of children's central conceptual
structures in the domain of number. In R. Case & Y. Okamoto (Eds.), The role of central

63
conceptual structures in the development of children's thought. Monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development, 60, 27-58.
Olson, S. L., Sameroff, A. J ., Kerr, D. C. R., Lopez, N. L., & Wellman, H. M. (2005).
Developmental foundations of externalizing problems in young children: The role of
effortful control. Development and psychopathology, 17, 25-45.
Pagani, L. S., J apel, C., Girard, A., Farhat, A., Cte, S.,& Tremblay, R. E. (in press). Middle
childhood life-course trajectories: Links between family dysfunction and childrens
behavioral development. In A.C. Huston & M.N. Ripke (Eds.), Middle Childhood:
Contexts of Development. New York: Cambridge University Press
Pagani, L. S., Tremblay, R. E., Vitaro, F., Boulerice, B., & McDuff, P. (2001). Effects of grade
retention on academic performance and behavioral development. Development and
Psychopathology, 13, 297-315.
Parker, J . G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low-
accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 86, 357-389.
Patrick, H. (1997). Social self-regulation: Exploring the relations between children's social
relationships, academic self-regulation, and school performance. Educational
Psychologist, 32, 209-220.
Pepper, K. L., & Hunting, R. P. (1998). Preschoolers' counting and sharing. J ournal for Research
in Mathematics Education, 29(2), 164-183.
Pianta, R. C. & Stuhlman, M. W. (2004). Teacher-child relationships and childrens success in
the first years of school. School Psychology Review, 33, 444-458.
Radloff, L. S. (1997). The CES-D scale: A self report depression scale for research in general
population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401.
Raffaelli, M., Crockett, L.J ., & Shen, Y-L. (2005). Developmental stability and change in self-
regulation from childhood to adolescence. J ournal of Genetic Psychology, 166, 54-75.
Ramey, C. T., Bryant, D. B., Wasik, B. H., Sparling, J . J ., Fendt, K. H., & La Vange, L. M.
(1992). The Infant Health and Development Program for low birth weight, premature
infants: Program elements, family participation, and child intelligence. Pediatrics, 79,
343-365.
Ramey, C. T., Campbell, F. A., Burchinal, M., Skinner, M. L., Gardner, D. M., & Ramey, S. L.
(2000). Persistent effects of early childhood education on high-risk children and their
mothers. Applied Developmental Science, 4, 2-14.
Raver, C. C. (2004). Placing emotional self-regulation in sociocultural and socioeconomic
contexts. Child Development, 75, 346-353.
Raver, C. C., Smith-Donald, R., Hayes, T., & J ones, S. M. (2005, April). Self-regulation across
differing risk and sociocultural contexts: Preliminary findings fromthe Chicago School
Readiness Project. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in
Child Development, Atlanta, GA.

64
Resnick, L. B. (1989). Developing mathematical knowledge. American Psychologist, 44, 162-
169.
Reynell, J . (1990). Reynell developmental language scales (U.S. Edition). Los Angeles, CA:
Western Psychological Services.
Reynolds, A., & Temple, J . A. (1998). Extended early childhood intervention and school
achievement: Age thirteen findings from the Chicago Longitudinal Study. Child
Rhoades, B., Domitrovich, C., & Greenberg, M. (2005, April). The role of executive function I
the prediction of socioemotional competence in preschoolers. Paper presented at the
biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Atlanta, GA.
Robinson, N. M., Abbott, R. D., Berninger, V. W., & Busse, J . (1996). The structure of abilities
in math-precocious young children: Gender similarities and differences. J ournal of
Educational Psychology, 88(2), 341-352.
Rodkin, P. C., Farmer, T.W., Pearl, R., & Van Acker, R. (2000). Heterogeneity of popular boys:
Antisocial and prosocial configurations. Developmental Psychology, 36, 14-24.
Rosenkoetter, S. E. (2001). Lessons for preschool language socialization from the vantage point
of the first day of kindergarten. Early Education and Development, 12, 325-342.
Royce, J . M., Darlington, R. B. & Murray, H. W. (1983). Pooled analyses: Findings across
studies. In Consortium for Longitudinal Studies (Ed.) As the Twig is Bent. Hillsdale, NJ :
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rutter, M., Tizard, J ., & Whitmore, K. (1970). Education, Health and Behaviour. London:
Longmans
Saigal, S., Szatmari, P., Rosenbaum, P., Campbell, D., & Kerry, S. (1991). Cognitive abilities
and school performance of extremely low birth weight children and matched term control
children at age 8 years: A regional study. J ournal of Pediatrics, 118, 751-760.
Sattler, J . M. (1982). Assessment of children's intelligence and special abilities Boston: Allyn &
Bacon, Inc.
Scarborough, H. S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities:
Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of
Early Literacy Research, New York: The Guilford Press.
Schweinhart, L. J ., Montie, J ., Xiang, Z., Barnett, W. S., Belfield, C. R., & Nores, M. (in press).
Lifetime effects: The High/Scope Perry Preschool study through age 40. (Monographs of
the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, 14). Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.
Shonkoff, J ., & Phillips, D. (Eds.). (2000) FromNeurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of
Early Childhood Development. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young
children. Washington D.C.: National Research Council, National Academy Press.
Sparling, J . J ., & Lewis, I. S. (1984). Partners for learning. Lewisville, NC: Kaplan Press.

65
Sparling, J . J ., Lewis, I. S., Ramey, C. T., Wasik, B. H., Bryant, D. M., & La Vange, L. M.
(1991). Partners, a curriculum to help premature, low-birth-weight infants get off to a
good start. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 11, 36-55.
Stevenson, H. W., & Newman, R. S. (1986). Long-term prediction of achievement and attitudes
in mathematics and reading. Child Development, 57, 646-659.
Storch, S. A., & Whitehurst G. J . (2002). Oral language and code-related precursors to reading:
Evidence from a longitudinal structural model. Developmental Psychology, 38, 934-947.
Stormshak, E. A., Bierman, K. L., Bruschi, C., Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J .D. (1999). The relation
between behavior problems and peer preference in different classroom contexts. Child
Terman, L. M., & Merrill, M. A. (1973). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, Manual for the third
revision, FormL-M. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
The MTA Cooperative Group (1999). A 14-month randomized clinical trial of treatment
strategies for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Archives of General Psychiatry,
56, 1073-1086.
Thorndike, R. L., Hagen, E., & Sattler, J . (1986). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, Fourth
Edition. Riverside Publishing: Chicago, IL.
Tremblay, R. E., Loeber, R., Gagnon, C., Charlebois, P., Larive, S., & LeBlanc, M. (1991).
Disruptive boys with stable and unstable high fighting behavior patterns during junior
elementary school. J ournal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 19, 285-300.
Tremblay, R., Pagani-Kurtz, L., Msse, L., Vitaro, F., & Pihl, R. (1995). A bimodal preventive
intervention for disruptive kindergarten boys: Its impact through mid-adolescence.
J ournal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 560-568.
Turkheimer, E., Haley, A., Waldron, M., DOnofrio, B., & Gottesman, I. (2003). Socioeconomic
status modifies heritability of IQ in young children. Psychological Science, 14, 623-628.
Tunmer, W.E., & Nesdale, A.R. (1985) Phonemic segmentation skill and beginning reading.
J ournal of Educational Psychology, 77, 417-427.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (May
2005). Head Start Impact Study: First Year Findings. Washington, DC.
Vaughn, B. E., Vollenweider, M., Bost, K. K., Azira-Evans, M. R., & Snider, J . B. (2003).
Negative interactions and social competence for preschool children in two samples:
Reconsidering the interpretation of aggressive behavior for young children. Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly, 49, 245-278.
Wasik, B. H. (1984). Coping with parenting through effective problemsolving: A handbook for
professionals. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child
Development Center.
Wasik, B. H., Bryant, D. M., Lyons, C., Sparling, J . J ., & Ramey, C. T. (1997). Home visiting. In
R. T. Gross, D. Spiker & C. S. Haynes (Eds.), Helping low birth weight, premature

66
babies: the Infant Health and Development Program(pp. 27-41). Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Wechsler, D. (1967). Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence. New York:
Psychological Corp.
White, H. (1980). A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test
for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica, 48, 817-838.
Whitehurst, G. J ., & Lonigan, C. J . (1998). Child development and emergent literacy. Child
Wikoff, R. L. (1978). Correlational and factor analysis of the Peabody Individual Achievement
Test and the WISC-R. (1978). J ournal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 322-
325.
Woodcock, R. W. (1990). Theoretical foundations of the WJ -R measures of cognitive ability.
J ournal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 8, 231-258.
Woodcock, R. W., & J ohnson, M.B. (1989). Woodcock-J ohnson Psycho-Educational Battery-
Revised. Allen, TX: DLM Teaching Resources.
Woodcock, R. W., & J ohnson, M. B. (1990). Manual for the Woodcock-J ohnson Tests of
Achievement-Revised. Allen, Texas: RCL Enterprises.
Wynn, K. (1992). Addition and subtraction by human infants. Nature, 358, 709-750.
Yen, C., Konold, T. R., & McDermott, P. A. (2004). Does learning behavior augment cognitive
ability as an indicator of academic achievement? J ournal of School Psychology, 42, 157-
169.
Zimmerman, I. L., Steiner, V. G., & Pond, R. E. (1979). Preschool language scale- revised
edition. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
R
u
n
n
i
n
g

h
e
a
d
:

S
c
h
o
o
l

R
e
a
d
i
n
e
s
s

a
n
d

L
a
t
e
r

A
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t

D
O

N
O
T

C
I
T
E

O
R

Q
U
O
T
E

6
7

F
i
g
u
r
e

1
:

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
i
z
e
d

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
s

f
r
o
m

m
o
d
e
l
s

o
f

r
e
a
d
i
n
g

a
n
d

m
a
t
h

a
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

f
r
o
m

s
i
x

d
a
t
a

s
e
t
s

-
0
.
3
-
0
.
2
-
0
.
1 0
0
.
1
0
.
2
0
.
3
0
.
4
0
.
5
0
.
6
S t a n d a r d i z e d C o e f f i c i e n t
M
a
t
h

O
u
t
c
o
m
e
s
R
e
a
d
i
n
g

O
u
t
c
o
m
e
s
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
M
a
t
h
A
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
C
o
g
n
i
t
i
v
e

s
e
l
f
-
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
S
o
c
i
a
l

s
k
i
l
l
s
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
i
n
g
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
i
n
g
E
m
o
t
i
o
n
a
l

s
e
l
f
-
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
L
i
g
h
t
e
r

s
h
a
d
i
n
g

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s

s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
a
l
l
y

i
n
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
s
.
A
c
a
d
e
m
i
c

s
k
i
l
l
s


68

Footnotes
1
Fall parent interviews were conducted between October 1998 and J anuary 1999, and spring
interviews were conducted between March and J une of 1999. The vast majority (approximately
97%) were conducted by phone by field staff using a computer assistance program. Teacher
questionnaires were administered between October and December 1998 for the fall and between
March and J une 1999 for the spring.
2
In the third grade dataset, eight reading and seven math IRT subscales are provided for all years
in which children were tested (kindergarten, first and third grade). However, in kindergarten and
first grade, only the five subscales which tested earlier skills were administered and in third
grade only the five subscales which tested later skills were administered. Scores for all
subscales were constructed by ECLS-K staff for all years using IRT so that scores on subscales
could be compared across years to measure change.
3
Identical items were administered in the spring of kindergarten and are used in the change
models discussed in the results section.
4
The dependent/clingy subscale is not used in these analyses.
5
A dummy variable is set equal to 1 if data are missing for a particular regressor, and 0 if the
data is observed. Next, the relevant regressor is set to 0 for cases with missing data, and
regressions are run with both the regressor of interest and the dummy variable included as
independent variables.
6
Children who were age 5 or 6 in 1986 do not have early childhood measures of PPVT or
temperament (n=345) because the maternal and child interview was not conducted at an earlier
age for these children. In addition, about 20 children in the second and third cohorts are missing
data for these measures. Finally, NLSYs restriction of the measurement of sociability to
children over age 4 in 1990, resulted in a large number of missing data on this measure for
children in cohort 4 that were age 3 in 1990 (n=222). Restricting the sample to children with
complete temperament and PPVT data does not change the reported findings.
7
Regressions using model (3) were also conducted with each behavior problem subscale entered
individually. Resulting coefficients for the problem behavior subscales did not differ from those
reported in Table 3 or 4.
8
Principal components analysis was initially used to evaluate the cohesiveness among the four
items. For items in grades 1 and 3, the percent of variance among the items that could be
explained by a single factor solution ranged between 84% and 86% (eigenvalues =3.44 and 3.38,
respectively; all other eigenvalues were less than 0.39). Factor loadings for the four items ranged
between .90 and .95 (grade 1) and between .90 and .94 (grade 3).
9
For the attentive scale, different cohorts received slightly different versions of the SBQ with
varying number of items. For the students who started kindergarten in 1998, the available
attentive items are listens attentively, easily distractible, and inattentive; for the students who
started kindergarten in 1999, the available attentive items are the last three items. In order to

69

create a universal attentive factor for the two cohorts, each score was rescaled to represent a
value out of four items (with a range of 4 to 12).
10
The aggression scale is similar to the attentive scale, in that different cohorts received slightly
different versions of the SBQ with a varying number of items. For the students who started
kindergarten in 1998, the available aggression items are the first four items; for the students who
started kindergarten in 1999, the available aggression items are the last six items. In order to
create a universal aggression item for the two cohorts, each score was rescaled to represent a
value out of seven items (with a range of 7 21).
11
The child health item that is included in the control variables is a dichotomous variable
identifying whether the child was either born with a birth defect or has a chronic illness.
12
One aspect of the home environment that is included in the control variables represents a 12-
item measure of general family functioning (GFF), developed by researchers at Chedoke-
McMaster Hospital, McMaster University (Epstein, Baldwin, & Bishop, 1983). This measure
assesses support, communication, and family problem-solving. Responses to each item on a
Likert-type scale ranged from 1 (Strongly agree) to 4 (Strongly disagree). To create the family
functioning scale, first negatively-worded items were reverse scored so that a higher score
indicated greater agreement with the statement. Then, the items were summed and divided by 12
such that scores on the final scale ranged from 1 (better family functioning) to 4 (worse family
functioning). For more information regarding validity and reliability, see Byles, Byrne, Boyle, &
Offord (1988) and the interpretation and use of the GFF with respect to longitudinal data, see
Pagani, J apel, Girard, Farhat, Cte, & Tremblay (in press).
13
The two control variables with the largest amount of missing data were the variables
associated with each parents education and occupation prestige. Therefore, an average was
computed for each of these variables such that if either parents information was missing, the
other parents data would be available.
14
There were no significant differences between the two kindergarten cohorts (1998 and 1999)
and each of the reading or math outcome variables. There were also no significant differences
between the two groups with the controls for prior achievement measured at different times - end
of junior kindergarten and beginning of kindergarten. (All Fs <1, ns.) Therefore, all of the
cohorts were combined into one group for analytic purposes and dummy variables identifying
kindergarten and time of cognitive control measurement were included as controls in the second
and third regression models.
15
We remind the reader we use the term kindergarten entry somewhat loosely. It refers to age
5 in several cases, ages 5-6 in one case, and the fall of the kindergarten year in only one case.
16
Coefficients are grouped into six categories of early academic and self regulatory skill.
Cognitive self-regulation/attention includes approaches to learning, hyperactivity, sustained
attention and attention problems. Emotional self-regulation/internalizing includes internalizing
problem behaviors and anxious/depressed. Emotional self-regulation/externalizing includes
externalizing problem behaviors, headstrong, aggressive behavior. Social skills include
interpersonal skills, peer problems, antisocial and interpersonal skills.

70

17
The decision of which type of measure should serve as the omitted dummy variable category is
noteworthy, since the coefficients on the included measure categories represent differences from
the omitted category. We selected internalizing behavior problem coefficients as the omitted
category since their simple average was very close to zero (-.01 for reading outcomes and -.01
for math outcomes).
18
Technically speaking, the .34 coefficient reflects the regression-adjusted difference between
the average school-entry math and the omitted-group internalizing problem behavior
standardized coefficient.
19
In the case of the BCS we estimated gender and SES interactions for educational attainment
and wage outcomes. See Table 30 for these results. BCS interactions are not included in the
calculations presented here.
20
Coefficients were excluded from these calculations if their standard errors were too large to
detect a difference of .15 or less. In the case of the MLEPS data, there is one significant gender
interaction; however, this finding is excluded from these calculations due to the size of its
standard error.
21
Yet another possibility is that early self-regulation might have an important impact on the
acquisition of kindergarten-entry academic skills but modest impacts on academic skills after
that. Our models are not designed to pick this up, so it remains as a possible role for early self-
regulation that we have not identified.
Table 1
ECLS-K Descriptive Statistics for Measures of Achievement and Self-Regulation
M SD
Test Score
Reading IRT extrapolation and homonyms .47 (.37)
Reading IRT evaluation .30 (.27)
Reading Composite .13 (1.01)
Math IRT multiplication and division .80 (.29)
Math IRT place value .44 (.39)
Math IRT rate and measurement .17 (.29)
Math Composite .14 (.99)
Teacher Report
Reading ARS 3.13 (.73)
Math ARS 3.36 (.86)
Test Score
Reading IRT 69.81 (20.26)
Math IRT 56.24 (15.64)
Teacher Report
Reading ARS 3.53 (.87)
Math ARS 3.51 (.89)
Reading IRT letter recognition .72 (.35)
Reading IRT beginning sounds .32 (.34)
Reading IRT ending sounds .18 (.27)
Reading Composite .03 (1.00)
Math IRT count (up to 10), number, shape .94 (.15)
Math IRT count (beyond 10), relative size, patterns .60 (.34)
Math IRT ordinality, sequence, simple word problems .23 (.32)
Math Composite .10 (1.00)
General Knowledge IRT 22.78 (7.45)
Teacher Report
Self-Control 3.11 (.60)
Interpersonal Skills 3.01 (.62)
Externalizing Problem Behaviors 1.59 (.61)
Internalizing Problem Behaviors 1.51 (.51)
Approaches to Learning 3.03 (.66)
Fall of Kindergarten
Spring of 3rd Grade
Achievement Test Score
Spring of 1st Grade
T
a
b
l
e

2
S
p
r
i
n
g

3
r
d

G
r
a
d
e
T
e
s
t

S
c
o
r
e

1
.

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

C
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
e
1
.
0
0

2
.

M
a
t
h

C
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
e
.
6
7
1
.
0
0
T
e
a
c
h
e
r

R
e
p
o
r
t

3
.

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

A
R
S
.
5
8
.
5
3
1
.
0
0

4
.

M
a
t
h

A
R
S
.
4
6
.
5
4
.
8
1
1
.
0
0
S
p
r
i
n
g

1
s
t

G
r
a
d
e
T
e
s
t

S
c
o
r
e

5
.

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

I
R
T
.
6
7
.
5
9
.
5
9
.
4
9
1
.
0
0

6
.

M
a
t
h

I
R
T
.
5
9
.
7
6
.
4
9
.
4
8
.
6
2
1
.
0
0
T
e
a
c
h
e
r

R
e
p
o
r
t

7
.

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

A
R
S
.
5
6
.
5
2
.
5
9
.
4
7
.
6
9
.
5
2
1
.
0
0

8
.

M
a
t
h

A
R
S
.
4
8
.
5
5
.
4
9
.
4
5
.
5
5
.
5
4
.
8
0
1
.
0
0
F
a
l
l

K
i
n
d
e
r
g
a
r
t
e
n
T
e
s
t

S
c
o
r
e

9
.

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

C
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
e
.
5
6
.
5
3
.
4
7
.
4
0
.
6
7
.
5
5
.
5
6
.
4
7
1
.
0
0

1
0
.

M
a
t
h

C
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
e
.
6
1
.
6
8
.
4
9
.
4
4
.
6
3
.
7
0
.
5
6
.
5
4
.
7
5
1
.
0
0

1
1
.

G
e
n
e
r
a
l

K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

I
R
T
.
6
0
.
5
2
.
3
7
.
3
0
.
4
5
.
5
4
.
3
9
.
3
9
.
5
4
.
6
2
1
.
0
0
T
e
a
c
h
e
r

R
e
p
o
r
t

1
2
.

S
e
l
f
-
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
.
1
9
.
1
5
.
1
9
.
1
4
.
1
7
.
1
7
.
1
8
.
1
6
.
1
9
.
1
9
.
1
8
1
.
0
0

1
3
.

I
n
t
e
r
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

S
k
i
l
l
s
.
2
2
.
1
7
.
2
2
.
1
6
.
1
9
.
1
9
.
2
2
.
1
9
.
2
2
.
2
2
.
2
2
.
7
8
1
.
0
0

1
4
.

E
x
t
e
r
n
.

P
r
o
b
.

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s
-
.
1
7
-
.
1
2
-
.
1
8
-
.
1
3
-
.
1
4
-
.
1
3
-
.
1
5
-
.
1
3
-
.
1
3
-
.
1
5
-
.
1
3
-
.
6
8
-
.
5
6
1
.
0
0

1
5
.

I
n
t
e
r
n
.

P
r
o
b
.

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s
-
.
1
3
-
.
1
3
-
.
1
4
-
.
1
2
-
.
1
2
-
.
1
4
-
.
1
6
-
.
1
4
-
.
1
5
-
.
1
7
-
.
1
3
-
.
2
7
-
.
3
5
.
2
4
1
.
0
0

1
6
.

A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
s

t
o

L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
.
3
2
.
3
0
.
3
5
.
2
7
.
3
2
.
3
3
.
3
7
.
3
4
.
3
6
.
3
9
.
3
1
.
6
7
.
6
9
-
.
5
0
-
.
3
7
n
=
7
2
9
9
1
5
1
2
1
3
1
4
4
7
8
1
1
N
o
t
e
.

A
l
l

c
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
a
l
l
y

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t

a
t

p
<
.
0
5
.
E
C
L
S
-
K

C
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n

M
a
t
r
i
x

f
o
r

S
p
r
i
n
g

3
r
d

G
r
a
d
e

A
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t
,

S
p
r
i
n
g

1
s
t

G
r
a
d
e

A
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t
,

a
n
d

F
a
l
l

K
i
n
d
e
r
g
a
r
t
e
n

T
e
s
t

S
c
o
r
e
s

a
n
d

T
e
a
c
h
e
r

R
e
p
o
r
t

M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
1
2
5
6
9
1
0
3
T
a
b
l
e

3
D
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

S
p
r
i
n
g

o
f

3
r
d

G
r
a
d
e
:
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
(
1
)
(
2
)
(
3
)
(
4
)
(
5
)
(
6
)
(
7
)
(
8
)
(
9
)
(
1
0
)
F
a
l
l

o
f

K
i
n
d
e
r
g
a
r
t
e
n
T
e
s
t

S
c
o
r
e

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

C
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
e
.
2
0
*
*
*
.
1
8
*
*
*
.
0
2
*
*
*
.
0
5
*
*
*
.
1
9
*
*
*
.
1
5
*
*
*
.
1
3
*
*
*
.
0
9
*
*
*
-
1
.
8
6
*
*
*
-
1
.
2
9
*
*
*
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
2
4
)
(
.
2
0
)

M
a
t
h

C
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
e
.
2
5
*
*
*
.
2
7
*
*
*
.
5
6
*
*
*
.
5
3
*
*
*
.
2
6
*
*
*
.
3
1
*
*
*
.
3
0
*
*
*
.
3
4
*
*
*
-
2
.
6
5
*
*
*
-
1
.
9
5
*
*
*
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
2
8
)
(
.
2
3
)

G
e
n
e
r
a
l

K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

I
R
T
.
3
2
*
*
*
.
3
4
*
*
*
.
1
7
*
*
*
.
1
6
*
*
*
.
0
7
*
*
*
.
1
4
*
*
*
.
0
3
*
.
1
0
*
*
*
-
0
.
5
7
*
*
-
0
.
3
2
*
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
1
7
)
(
.
1
6
)
T
e
a
c
h
e
r

R
e
p
o
r
t
P
o
s
i
t
i
v
e

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

S
e
l
f
-
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
-
.
0
2
.
0
1
-
.
0
1
.
0
0
-
.
0
7
*
*
*
.
0
1
-
.
0
6
*
*
*
.
0
1
.
4
0
.
3
1
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
2
2
)
(
.
1
8
)

I
n
t
e
r
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

S
k
i
l
l
s
.
0
1
.
0
2
-
.
0
3
*
-
.
0
2
.
0
0
.
0
1
-
.
0
1
-
.
0
1
.
3
8
.
2
6
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
2
1
)
(
.
1
7
)
P
r
o
b
l
e
m

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
i
n
g

P
r
o
b
l
e
m

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s

-
.
0
5
*
*
*
.
0
0
-
.
0
2
-
.
0
1
-
.
0
8
*
*
*
.
0
0
-
.
0
5
*
*
.
0
1
.
3
5
*
.
2
0
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
1
6
)
(
.
1
3
)

I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
i
n
g

P
r
o
b
l
e
m

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s
.
0
1

.
0
0
-
.
0
1
.
0
0
-
.
0
1
-
.
0
1
-
.
0
2
-
.
0
2
.
1
4
.
1
5
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
1
3
)
(
.
1
1
)

A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
s

t
o

L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
.
0
6
*
*
*
.
0
4
*
*
.
0
7
*
*
*
.
1
0
*
*
*
.
1
8
*
*
*
.
1
4
*
*
*
.
1
3
*
*
*
.
1
2
*
*
*
-
1
.
7
3
*
*
*
-
1
.
1
6
*
*
*
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
2
3
)
(
.
1
9
)
C
o
n
t
r
o
l

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
X
X
X
X
X
C
l
a
s
s
r
o
o
m

f
i
x
e
d

e
f
f
e
c
t
s
X
X
X
X
O
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
1
1
8
5
1
1
0
7
7
9
1
1
9
2
6
1
0
8
3
3
9
5
6
4
8
7
7
6
9
4
2
6
8
6
4
7
1
2
3
9
3
1
1
2
4
8
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

c
l
a
s
s
r
o
o
m
s

(
f
i
x
e
d

e
f
f
e
c
t
s
)
2
5
7
9
2
5
8
6
2
2
9
2
2
2
8
0
R
2
.
4
8
.
4
4
.
5
1
.
5
0
.
3
2
.
3
9
.
2
4
.
3
2
N
o
t
e
.

A
l
l

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

a
r
e

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
i
z
e
d

u
s
i
n
g

f
u
l
l

s
a
m
p
l
e

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
.

M
o
d
e
l
s

(
1
)
,
(
3
)
,
(
5
)
,
(
7
)
,
(
9
)
,
(
1
0
)

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

e
r
r
o
r
s

a
r
e

c
o
r
r
e
c
t
e
d

f
o
r

c
l
a
s
s
r
o
o
m

c
l
u
s
t
e
r
i
n
g

u
s
i
n
g

H
u
b
e
r
-
W
h
i
t
e

m
e
t
h
o
d
s
.
A
l
l

m
o
d
e
l
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

m
i
s
s
i
n
g

d
a
t
a

d
u
m
m
i
e
s

f
o
r

m
i
s
s
i
n
g

t
e
a
c
h
e
r

r
e
p
o
r
t

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
.

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e

s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s

f
o
r

t
h
e
s
e

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

a
r
e

l
i
s
t
e
d

i
n

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
.
i
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
.
*
p
<
.
0
5
,

*
*
p
<
.
0
1
,

*
*
*
p
<
.
0
0
1
.
C
o
n
t
r
o
l

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

f
a
l
l

o
f

k
i
n
d
e
r
g
a
r
t
e
n

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s

o
f
:

c
h
i
l
d

a
g
e

&

g
e
n
d
e
r
,

p
a
r
e
n
t

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
,

f
a
m
i
l
y

i
n
c
o
m
e
,

p
a
r
e
n
t

o
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
,

n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

s
i
b
l
i
n
g
s
,

p
r
e
s
c
h
o
o
l

c
h
i
l
d

c
a
r
e
,

m
o
t
h
e
r

e
v
e
r

w
o
r
k
e
d
,

m
a
t
e
r
n
a
l

d
e
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
,

p
a
r
e
n
t

e
x
p
e
c
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
,

p
u
b
l
i
c

a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
.

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

t
h
e

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
-
p
o
i
n
t

c
h
a
n
g
e

i
n

t
h
e

p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
f

e
v
e
r

b
e
i
n
g

r
e
t
a
i
n
e
d

a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

a

o
n
e

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n

c
h
a
n
g
e

i
n

t
h
e

g
i
v
e
n

E
C
L
S
-
K

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

E
r
r
o
r
s

f
r
o
m

R
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

M
o
d
e
l
s

o
f

S
p
r
i
n
g

3
r
d

G
r
a
d
e

A
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t

o
n

E
a
r
l
y

A
c
a
d
e
m
i
c

S
k
i
l
l
s

a
n
d

S
e
l
f
-
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
E
v
e
r

r
e
t
a
i
n
e
d

i
n

g
r
a
d
e
a
R
e
a
d
i
n
g

C
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
e
M
a
t
h

C
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
e
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
M
a
t
h
A
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t

t
e
s
t

s
c
o
r
e

3
r
d

g
r
a
d
e
T
e
a
c
h
e
r

r
a
t
e
d

a
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t

3
r
d

g
r
a
d
e
a
M
a
r
g
i
n
a
l

e
f
f
e
c
t
s

f
r
o
m

a

l
o
g
i
s
t
i
c

r
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
.

D
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

i
s

a
n

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r

o
f

e
v
e
r

b
e
i
n
g

r
e
t
a
i
n
e
d

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

f
a
l
l

o
f

k
i
n
d
e
r
g
a
r
t
e
n

a
n
d

t
h
i
r
d

g
r
a
d
e
.

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
s

T
a
b
l
e

4
A
c
a
d
e
m
i
c

S
k
i
l
l
s

a
n
d

S
e
l
f
-
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
D
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

S
p
r
i
n
g

o
f

1
s
t

G
r
a
d
e
:
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
(
1
)
(
2
)
(
3
)
(
4
)
(
5
)
(
6
)
(
7
)
(
8
)
F
a
l
l

o
f

K
i
n
d
e
r
g
a
r
t
e
n
T
e
s
t

S
c
o
r
e

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

C
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
e
.
4
0
*
*
*
.
3
7
*
*
*
.
0
3
*
*
*
.
0
6
*
*
*
.
2
7
*
*
*
.
2
5
*
*
*
.
1
1
*
*
*
.
1
2
*
*
*
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)

M
a
t
h

C
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
e
.
3
0
*
*
*
.
3
0
*
*
*
.
5
5
*
*
*
.
5
2
*
*
*
.
3
0
*
*
*
.
3
5
*
*
*
.
3
8
*
*
*
.
3
9
*
*
*
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)

G
e
n
e
r
a
l

K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

I
R
T
.
0
5
*
*
*
.
0
7
*
*
*
.
1
7
*
*
*
.
1
6
*
*
*
.
0
2
.
0
7
*
*
*
.
0
6
*
*
*
.
0
7
*
*
*
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
T
e
a
c
h
e
r

R
e
p
o
r
t
P
o
s
i
t
i
v
e

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

S
e
l
f
-
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
-
.
0
1
-
.
0
1
-
.
0
1
-
.
0
2
-
.
0
7
*
*
*
-
.
0
4
*
-
.
0
4
-
.
0
1
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)

I
n
t
e
r
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

S
k
i
l
l
s
-
.
0
2
-
.
0
1
-
.
0
3
*
*
-
.
0
3
*
.
0
1
.
0
1
-
.
0
3
-
.
0
2
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
2
)
P
r
o
b
l
e
m

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
i
n
g

P
r
o
b
l
e
m

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s

-
.
0
4
*
*
*
-
.
0
1
-
.
0
1
-
.
0
1
-
.
0
3
*
.
0
1
-
.
0
2
.
0
0
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)

I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
i
n
g

P
r
o
b
l
e
m

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s
.
0
0
.
0
0
-
.
0
1
-
.
0
1
-
.
0
3
*
*
*
-
.
0
3
*
*
-
.
0
2
*
-
.
0
2
*
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
s

t
o

L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
.
0
8
*
*
*
.
0
9
*
*
*
.
0
9
*
*
*
.
1
3
*
*
*
.
1
9
*
*
*
.
1
7
*
*
*
.
1
8
*
*
*
.
1
7
*
*
*
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
C
o
n
t
r
o
l

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
X
X
X
X
C
l
a
s
s
r
o
o
m

f
i
x
e
d

e
f
f
e
c
t
s
X
X
X
X
O
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
1
2
0
2
5
1
0
9
7
2
1
2
0
2
7
1
0
9
7
3
1
2
2
2
5
1
1
1
2
5
1
2
0
8
4
1
0
9
9
0
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

c
l
a
s
s
r
o
o
m
s

(
f
i
x
e
d

e
f
f
e
c
t
s
)
2
5
9
1
2
5
9
1
2
5
3
4
2
5
2
6
R
2
.
5
3
.
4
9
.
5
4
.
5
1
.
4
1
.
4
7
.
3
5
.
3
9
N
o
t
e
.

A
l
l

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

a
r
e

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
i
z
e
d

u
s
i
n
g

f
u
l
l

s
a
m
p
l
e

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
A
l
l

m
o
d
e
l
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

m
i
s
s
i
n
g

d
a
t
a

d
u
m
m
i
e
s

f
o
r

m
i
s
s
i
n
g

t
e
a
c
h
e
r

r
e
p
o
r
t

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
.

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e

s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s

f
o
r

t
h
e
s
e

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

a
r
e

l
i
s
t
e
d

i
n

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
.
*
p
<
.
0
5
,

*
*
p
<
.
0
1
,

*
*
*
p
<
.
0
0
1
.
C
o
n
t
r
o
l

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

f
a
l
l

o
f

k
i
n
d
e
r
g
a
r
t
e
n

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s

o
f
:

c
h
i
l
d

a
g
e

&

g
e
n
d
e
r
,

p
a
r
e
n
t

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
,

f
a
m
i
l
y

i
n
c
o
m
e
,

p
a
r
e
n
t

o
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
,

n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

s
i
b
l
i
n
g
s
,

p
r
e
s
c
h
o
o
l

c
h
i
l
d

c
a
r
e
,

m
o
t
h
e
r

e
v
e
r

w
o
r
k
e
d
,

m
a
t
e
r
n
a
l

d
e
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
,

p
a
r
e
n
t

e
x
p
e
c
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
,

p
u
b
l
i
c

a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
.

E
C
L
S
-
K

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

E
r
r
o
r
s

f
r
o
m

R
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

M
o
d
e
l
s

o
f

S
p
r
i
n
g

1
s
t

G
r
a
d
e

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

a
n
d

M
a
t
h

A
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t

o
n

E
a
r
l
y

T
e
s
t

S
c
o
r
e
T
e
a
c
h
e
r

R
e
p
o
r
t
R
e
a
d
i
n
g

I
R
T
M
a
t
h

I
R
T
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
M
a
t
h
T
a
b
l
e

5
D
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

S
p
r
i
n
g

o
f

3
r
d

G
r
a
d
e
:
F
e
m
a
l
e
M
a
l
e
H
i
g
h

S
E
S
L
o
w

S
E
S
F
e
m
a
l
e
M
a
l
e
H
i
g
h

S
E
S
L
o
w

S
E
S
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
(
1
)
(
2
)
(
3
)
(
4
)
(
5
)
(
6
)
(
7
)
(
8
)
F
a
l
l

o
f

K
i
n
d
e
r
g
a
r
t
e
n
T
e
s
t

S
c
o
r
e

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

C
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
e
a
.
1
8
*
*
*
.
1
9
*
*
*
.
1
5
*
*
*
.
1
8
*
*
*
.
0
9
*
*
*
.
0
3
.
0
6
*
*
.
0
3
*
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)

M
a
t
h

C
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
e
.
2
7
*
*
*
.
2
6
*
*
*
.
2
4
*
*
*
.
2
8
*
*
*
.
4
8
*
*
*
.
5
3
*
*
*
.
5
2
*
*
*
.
5
3
*
*
*
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
2
)

G
e
n
e
r
a
l

K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

I
R
T
.
3
7
*
*
*
.
3
4
*
*
*
.
3
7
*
*
*
.
3
4
*
*
*
.
1
3
*
*
*
.
1
8
*
*
*
.
1
4
*
*
*
.
1
7
*
*
*
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
1
)
T
e
a
c
h
e
r

R
e
p
o
r
t
P
o
s
i
t
i
v
e

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

S
e
l
f
-
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
.
0
1
-
.
0
1
-
.
0
2
.
0
2
.
0
1
-
.
0
3
-
.
0
2
.
0
0
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
2
)

I
n
t
e
r
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

S
k
i
l
l
s
b
.
0
2
.
0
4
-
.
0
1
.
0
3
-
.
0
1
-
.
0
3
-
.
0
8
*
*
.
0
0
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
2
)
P
r
o
b
l
e
m

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
i
n
g

P
r
o
b
l
e
m

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s
a

.
0
1
.
0
0
.
0
0
-
.
0
1
.
0
3
-
.
0
3
-
.
0
4
.
0
0
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
2
)

I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
i
n
g

P
r
o
b
l
e
m

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s
c
.
0
1
.
0
0
-
.
0
4
.
0
2
.
0
0
.
0
2
-
.
0
3
.
0
1
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
1
)
A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
s

t
o

L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
.
0
5
*
.
0
3
.
0
9
*
*
.
0
2
.
1
2
*
*
*
.
1
1
*
*
*
.
0
9
*
*
*
.
1
0
*
*
*
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
2
)
O
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
5
3
5
3
5
4
2
6
3
1
6
2
7
6
1
7
5
3
6
9
5
4
6
4
3
1
6
4
7
6
6
9
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

c
l
a
s
s
r
o
o
m
s

(
f
i
x
e
d

e
f
f
e
c
t
s
)
2
1
1
4
2
1
2
6
1
2
7
0
2
3
8
9
2
1
2
0
2
1
3
3
1
2
7
0
2
3
9
4
R
2
.
4
4
.
4
4
.
4
3
.
4
1
.
4
8
.
5
0
.
4
7
.
4
9
N
o
t
e
.

A
l
l

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

a
r
e

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
i
z
e
d

u
s
i
n
g

f
u
l
l

s
a
m
p
l
e

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
A
l
l

m
o
d
e
l
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

m
i
s
s
i
n
g

d
a
t
a

d
u
m
m
i
e
s

f
o
r

m
i
s
s
i
n
g

t
e
a
c
h
e
r

r
e
p
o
r
t

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
.

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e

s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s

f
o
r

t
h
e
s
e

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

a
r
e

l
i
s
t
e
d

i
n

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
.
a
M
a
l
e

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

i
s

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
y

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t

f
r
o
m

f
e
m
a
l
e

f
o
r

m
a
t
h

o
u
t
c
o
m
e

a
t

p
<
.
0
5
.
b
H
i
g
h

S
E
S

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

i
s

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
y

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t

f
r
o
m

l
o
w

S
E
S

f
o
r

m
a
t
h

o
u
t
c
o
m
e

a
t

p
<
.
0
5
.
c
H
i
g
h

S
E
S

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

i
s

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
y

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t

f
r
o
m

l
o
w

S
E
S

f
o
r

r
e
a
d
i
n
g

o
u
t
c
o
m
e

a
t

p
<
.
0
5
.
*
p
<
.
0
5
,

*
*
p
<
.
0
1
,

*
*
*
p
<
.
0
0
1
.
C
o
n
t
r
o
l

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

f
a
l
l

o
f

k
i
n
d
e
r
g
a
r
t
e
n

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s

o
f
:

c
h
i
l
d

a
g
e

&

g
e
n
d
e
r
,

p
a
r
e
n
t

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
,

f
a
m
i
l
y

p
r
e
s
c
h
o
o
l

c
h
i
l
d

c
a
r
e
,

m
o
t
h
e
r

e
v
e
r

w
o
r
k
e
d
,

m
a
t
e
r
n
a
l

d
e
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
,

p
a
r
e
n
t

e
x
p
e
c
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
,

p
u
b
l
i
c

a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
.

E
C
L
S
-
K

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

E
r
r
o
r
s

f
r
o
m

R
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

M
o
d
e
l
s

f
o
r

S
u
b
g
r
o
u
p
s

o
f

S
p
r
i
n
g

3
r
d

G
r
a
d
e

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

a
n
d

M
a
t
h

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

C
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
e
M
a
t
h

C
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
e
T
e
s
t

S
c
o
r
e
A
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t

o
n

E
a
r
l
y

A
c
a
d
e
m
i
c

S
k
i
l
l
s

a
n
d

S
e
l
f
-
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
NLSY Descriptive Statistics for Measures of Achievement and Self-Regulation
Variable M SD
Achievement
Ages 13/14
PIAT Reading Recognition 101.95 (16.20)
PIAT Math 98.59 (13.62)
Ages 7/8
PIAT Math 99.42 (11.70)
School-Readiness
Age 5/6 Achievement
PIAT Math 97.96 (13.83)
Age 5/6 Behavior Problems
Hyperactivity 2.08 (1.53)
Headstrong 2.34 (1.61)
Antisocial 1.48 (1.41)
Anxious/Depressed 1.53 (1.34)
Peer Problems 0.44 (0.76)
Receptive Vocabulary (PPVT) 86.15 (19.98)
Sociability 11.02 (3.24)
Compliance 22.25 (4.43)
Table 6
Age 3/4 Ability and Temperament
N
L
S
Y

C
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

A
m
o
n
g

K
e
y

I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

a
n
d

D
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
A
g
e

3
/
4
1
.

R
e
c
e
p
t
i
v
e

V
o
c
a
b
u
l
a
r
y
1
.
0
0
2
.

S
o
c
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
.
2
9
1
.
0
0
3
.

C
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
.
1
4
.
8
1
1
.
0
0
A
g
e

5
/
6
4
.

P
I
A
T

R
e
a
d
i
n
g
.
3
8
.
0
1
a
-
.
0
4
a
1
.
0
0
5
.

P
I
A
T

M
a
t
h
.
4
3
.
1
2
.
0
7
.
5
1
1
.
0
0
6
.

H
y
p
e
r
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
-
.
1
8
-
.
1
2
-
.
1
4
-
.
2
0
-
.
1
6
1
.
0
0
7
.

H
e
a
d
s
t
r
o
n
g
-
.
0
6
a
-
.
0
8
-
.
1
0
-
.
1
2
-
.
0
6
.
5
4
1
.
0
0
8
.

A
n
t
i
s
o
c
i
a
l

-
.
1
9
-
.
0
9
-
.
1
0
-
.
1
7
-
.
1
5
.
5
1
.
5
6
1
.
0
0
9
.

A
n
x
i
o
u
s
/
D
e
p
r
e
s
s
e
d
-
.
1
1
-
.
0
8
-
.
1
1
-
.
1
2
-
.
1
2
.
4
9
.
5
1
.
4
2
1
.
0
0
1
0
.

P
e
e
r

P
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
-
.
1
2
-
.
0
5
-
.
0
5
-
.
1
5
-
.
1
3
.
3
9
.
3
8
.
5
0
.
4
4
1
.
0
0
A
g
e

7
/
8
1
1
.

P
I
A
T

R
e
a
d
i
n
g
.
4
2
.
1
6
.
1
2
.
5
2
.
4
4
-
.
2
3
-
.
1
1
-
.
2
1
-
.
1
1
-
.
1
8
1
.
0
0
A
g
e

7
/
8
1
2
.

P
I
A
T

M
a
t
h
.
4
6
.
1
8
.
1
4
.
4
2
.
5
0
-
.
2
2
-
.
0
8
-
.
1
8
-
.
1
4
-
.
1
3
.
6
0
1
.
0
0
A
g
e

1
3
/
1
4
1
3
.

P
I
A
T

R
e
a
d
i
n
g
.
4
0
.
1
4
.
1
3
.
4
2
.
4
0
-
.
2
0
-
.
0
7
-
.
1
9
-
.
1
1
-
.
1
4
.
6
9
.
5
1
1
.
0
0
1
4
.

P
I
A
T

M
a
t
h
.
4
4
.
1
7
.
1
5
.
3
5
.
4
3
-
.
2
1
-
.
0
8
-
.
1
6
-
.
1
3
-
.
1
5
.
5
3
.
5
9
0
.
5
9
1
.
0
0
a

N
o
t

s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
a
l
l
y

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
.

A
l
l

o
t
h
e
r

c
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

i
n

t
a
b
l
e

a
r
e

s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
a
l
l
y

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t

a
t

t
h
e

5
%

l
e
v
e
l
.

T
a
b
l
e

7
A
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t

o
n

E
a
r
l
y

A
c
a
d
e
m
i
c

S
k
i
l
l
s

a
n
d

S
e
l
f
-
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
D
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
:
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
(
1
)
(
2
)
(
3
)
(
4
)
(
5
)
(
6
)
(
7
)
(
8
)
(
9
)
A
g
e

5
/
6
P
I
A
T

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

R
e
c
o
g
n
i
t
i
o
n
.
2
0
*
*
.
1
7
*
*
.
1
7
*
*
.
1
5
*
*
.
1
3
*
*
.
1
2
*
*
-
.
0
5
*
*
-
.
0
5
*
*
-
.
0
4
*
*
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
P
I
A
T

M
a
t
h

.
1
4
*
*
.
1
3
*
*
.
1
2
*
*
.
3
3
*
*
.
2
4
*
*
.
2
2
*
*
-
0
.
0
6
*
*
-
.
0
4
*
*
-
.
0
4
*
*
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
H
y
p
e
r
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
-
.
0
2
-
.
0
5
*
*
-
.
0
5
*
-
.
1
2
*
*
-
.
0
9
*
*
-
.
0
8
*
*
.
0
3
*
*
.
0
2
.
0
2
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
H
e
a
d
s
t
r
o
n
g
.
0
4
.
0
2
.
0
3
.
0
6
*
.
0
0
.
0
1
-
.
0
2
-
.
0
1
-
.
0
1
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
A
n
t
i
s
o
c
i
a
l

-
.
0
7
*
-
.
0
5
*
*
-
.
0
5
*
-
.
0
3
-
.
0
2
-
.
0
2
.
0
4
*
*
.
0
2
.
0
2
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
A
n
x
i
o
u
s
/
D
e
p
r
e
s
s
e
d
.
0
3
.
0
1
.
0
1
-
.
0
1
.
0
4
.
0
3
-
.
0
1
-
.
0
1
-
.
0
1
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
P
e
e
r

P
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
-
.
0
5
.
0
1
.
0
0
-
.
0
3
-
.
0
3
-
.
0
3
.
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
0
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
(
.
0
1
)
C
o
n
t
r
o
l

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
X
X
X
X
X
X
R
e
c
e
p
t
i
v
e

V
o
c
a
b
u
l
a
r
y

&

T
e
m
p
e
r
a
m
e
n
t

X
X
X
O
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
1
7
6
2
1
7
6
2
1
7
6
2
1
7
6
2
1
7
6
2
1
7
6
2
1
7
6
2
1
7
6
2
1
7
6
2
R
2
.
1
1
.
6
3
.
6
4
.
2
4
.
3
5
.
3
6
.
0
9
.
1
7
.
1
7
a
t

a
g
e

3
/
4
.
i
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
.
*

p
<

.
0
5
,

*
*

p
<

.
0
1
,

*
*
*

p
<

.
0
0
1
.

N
o
t
e
.

A
l
l

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s

a
r
e

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
i
z
e
d

t
o

h
a
v
e

a

m
e
a
n

o
f

0

a
n
d

s
d

o
f

1
.
T
a
b
l
e

8
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
A
g
e

1
3
/
1
4

P
I
A
T

M
a
t
h
N
L
S
Y

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
i
z
e
d

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

E
r
r
o
r
s

f
r
o
m

R
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
s

o
f

A
g
e

1
3
/
1
4

A
c
a
d
e
m
i
c

E
v
e
r

R
e
t
a
i
n
e
d
a
C
o
n
t
r
o
l

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

p
r
e
s
c
h
o
o
l

a
n
d

e
a
r
l
y

c
h
i
l
d
h
o
o
d

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s

o
f
:

c
h
i
l
d

a
g
e

&

g
e
n
d
e
r
,

m
a
t
e
r
n
a
l

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
,

f
a
m
i
l
y

i
n
c
o
m
e
-
t
o
-
n
e
e
d
s
,

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e

s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s

f
o
r

t
h
e
s
e

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

a
r
e

l
i
s
t
e
d

i
n

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

B
.

R
e
c
e
p
t
i
v
e

v
o
c
a
b
u
l
a
r
y

i
s

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

P
P
V
T

s
c
a
l
e

a
t

a
g
e

3
/
4
,

a
n
d

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
m
e
n
t

i
s

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

b
y

s
o
c
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

a
n
d

c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
s

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

t
h
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

i
n

t
h
e

p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
f

e
v
e
r

b
e
i
n
g

r
e
t
a
i
n
e
d

a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

a

o
n
e

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n

c
h
a
n
g
e

i
n

t
h
e

g
i
v
e
n
m
a
t
e
r
n
a
l

a
l
c
o
h
o
l

a
n
d

d
r
u
g

u
s
e
,

h
o
m
e

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
,

m
a
t
e
r
n
a
l

a
c
a
d
e
m
i
c

a
p
t
i
t
u
d
e
,

r
a
c
e
,

m
a
t
e
r
n
a
l

d
e
l
i
n
q
u
e
n
t

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
,

a
n
d

u
r
b
a
n

r
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
.
a
M
a
r
g
i
n
a
l

e
f
f
e
c
t
s

f
r
o
m

a

l
o
g
i
s
t
i
c

r
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
.

D
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

i
s

a
n

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r

o
f

e
v
e
r

b
e
i
n
g

r
e
t
a
i
n
e
d

b
y

a
g
e

1
3
/
1
4
.

Dependent Variable:
Independent Variables (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Age 5/6
PIAT Reading Recognition .38** .34** .34** .20** .17** .16**
(.02) (.02) (.02) (.02) (.02) (.02)
PIAT Math .22** .17** .16** .37** .30** .29**
(.02) (.02) (.02) (.02) (.02) (.02)
Hyperactivity -.10** -.07** -.06* -.12** -.09** -.08**
(.03) (.03) (.03) (.03) (.03) (.03)
Headstrong .05 .02 .02 .07** .03 .03
(.02) (.02) (.02) (.03) (.02) (.02)
Antisocial -.08** -.04 -.03 -.06* -.03 -.02
(.03) (.03) (.03) (.03) (.03) (.03)
Anxious/Depressed .05 .04 .04 -.03 .00 -.01
(.03) (.03) (.03) (.03) (.03) (.03)
Peer Problems -0.06* -0.05* -0.06* 0.01 0.01 0.01
(.02) (.02) (.02) (.02) (.02) (.02)
Control Variables X X X X
Receptive Vocabulary & Temperament X X
Observations 1762 1762 1762 1762 1762 1762
R
2
.34 .40 .41 .30 .37 .39
and compliance measured at age 3/4.
* p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001.
Descriptive statistics for these variables are listed in Appendix B.
Academic Skills and Self-Regulation
Control variables include preschool and early childhood measures of: child age & gender, maternal education,
family income-to-needs, maternal alcohol and drug use, home environment, maternal academic aptitude, race,
maternal delinquent behavior, and urban residence.
Receptive vocabulary is measured by the PPVT scale at age 3/4, and temperament is measured by sociability
Note. All measures are standardized to have a mean of 0 and sd of 1.
Math
Table 9
Reading
NLSY Standardized Coefficients and Standard Errors from Regressions of Age 7/8 Achievement on Early
Age 7/8 PIAT
T
a
b
l
e

1
0
D
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
:
F
e
m
a
l
e
M
a
l
e
L
o
w

S
E
S
H
i
g
h

S
E
S
F
e
m
a
l
e
M
a
l
e
L
o
w

S
E
S
H
i
g
h

S
E
S
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
(
1
)
(
2
)
(
3
)
(
4
)
(
5
)
(
6
)
(
7
)
(
8
)
A
g
e

5
/
6
P
I
A
T

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

R
e
c
o
g
n
i
t
i
o
n
a
.
1
2
*
*
.
2
1
*
*
.
1
7
*
*
.
1
6
*
*
.
1
1
*
*
.
1
2
*
*
.
1
2
*
.
1
3
*
*
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
5
)
(
.
0
3
)
P
I
A
T

M
a
t
h
.
1
5
*
*
.
0
9
*
*
.
1
6
*
*
.
1
1
*
*
.
2
0
*
*
.
2
5
*
*
.
2
2
*
*
.
2
2
*
*
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
5
)
(
.
0
3
)
H
y
p
e
r
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
-
.
0
5
-
.
0
6
-
.
0
3
-
.
0
5
*
-
.
0
8
*
-
.
1
0
*
*
-
.
1
3
*
-
.
0
6
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
6
)
(
.
0
3
)
H
e
a
d
s
t
r
o
n
g
.
0
2
.
0
4
.
0
6
.
0
2
-
.
0
4
.
0
6
.
0
0
-
.
0
1
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
6
)
(
.
0
3
)
A
n
t
i
s
o
c
i
a
l

-
.
0
2
-
.
0
6
*
-
.
0
5
-
.
0
4
.
0
3
-
.
0
5
.
0
3
-
.
0
2
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
6
)
(
.
0
3
)
A
n
x
i
o
u
s
/
D
e
p
r
e
s
s
e
d
.
0
0
.
0
2
-
.
0
5
.
0
2
.
0
5
.
0
0
.
0
8
.
0
2
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
6
)
(
.
0
3
)
P
e
e
r

P
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
.
0
2
-
.
0
1
.
0
3
-
.
0
2
-
.
0
4
-
.
0
1
-
.
0
7
-
.
0
3
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
5
)
(
.
0
3
)
C
o
n
t
r
o
l

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R
e
c
e
p
t
i
v
e

V
o
c
a
b
u
l
a
r
y

&

T
e
m
p
e
r
a
m
e
n
t

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
8
9
0
8
7
2
4
1
9
1
2
9
1
8
9
0
8
7
2
4
1
9
1
2
9
1
R
2
.
3
3
.
4
2
.
7
2
.
6
1
.
3
4
.
4
1
.
3
7
.
3
2
*

p
<

.
0
5
,

*
*

p
<

.
0
1
,

*
*
*

p
<

.
0
0
1
.

a
M
a
l
e

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

i
s

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
y

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t

f
r
o
m

f
e
m
a
l
e

f
o
r

r
e
a
d
i
n
g

o
u
t
c
o
m
e

a
t

p
<
.
0
5
.

a
n
d

S
e
l
f
-
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
,

b
y

G
e
n
d
e
r

a
n
d

S
E
S

S
u
b
g
r
o
u
p
s
a
t

a
g
e

3
/
4
C
o
n
t
r
o
l

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

p
r
e
s
c
h
o
o
l

a
n
d

e
a
r
l
y

c
h
i
l
d
h
o
o
d

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s

o
f
:

c
h
i
l
d

a
g
e

&

g
e
n
d
e
r
,

m
a
t
e
r
n
a
l

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
,

f
a
m
i
l
y

i
n
c
o
m
e
-
t
o
-
n
e
e
d
s
,

m
a
t
e
r
n
a
l

a
l
c
o
h
o
l

a
n
d

d
r
u
g

u
s
e
,

h
o
m
e

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
,

m
a
t
e
r
n
a
l

a
c
a
d
e
m
i
c

a
p
t
i
t
u
d
e
,

r
a
c
e
,

m
a
t
e
r
n
a
l

d
e
l
i
n
q
u
e
n
t

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
,

a
n
d

u
r
b
a
n

r
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
.

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e

s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s

f
o
r

t
h
e
s
e

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

a
r
e

l
i
s
t
e
d

i
n

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

B
.

R
e
c
e
p
t
i
v
e

v
o
c
a
b
u
l
a
r
y

i
s

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

P
P
V
T

s
c
a
l
e

a
t

a
g
e

3
/
4
,

a
n
d

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
m
e
n
t

i
s

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

b
y

s
o
c
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

a
n
d

c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

N
o
t
e
.

A
l
l

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s

a
r
e

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
i
z
e
d

t
o

h
a
v
e

a

m
e
a
n

o
f

0

a
n
d

s
d

o
f

1
.
N
L
S
Y

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

E
r
r
o
r
s

f
r
o
m

R
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

M
o
d
e
l
s

o
f

A
g
e

1
3
/
1
4

P
I
A
T

T
e
s
t

S
c
o
r
e
s

o
n

E
a
r
l
y

A
c
c
a
d
e
m
i
c

S
k
i
l
l
s
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
M
a
t
h
A
g
e

1
3
/
1
4

P
I
A
T
Table 11
NI CHD SECCYD Descriptive Statistics for Measures of Achievement and Self-Regulation
M SD
5th Grade Test Score
Reading 507.80 (13.77)
Math 510.73 (12.43)
5th Grade Teacher Report
Reading 3.70 (0.90)
Math 3.29 (0.91)
3rd Grade Test Score
Reading 494.69 (15.36)
Math 493.69 (12.17)
3rd Grade Teacher Report
Reading 3.58 (0.95)
Math 3.41 (0.86)
1st Grade Test Score
Reading 463.21 (20.08)
Math 470.06 (15.55)
1st Grade Teacher Report
Reading 3.35 (0.95)
Math 3.20 (0.94)
Age 4 1/2 Test Score
Reading 369.44 (21.19)
Math 425.14 (19.09)
Cognitive Ability 459.98 (13.40)
Expressive Language 101.39 (19.59)
Impulsivity 0.08 (0.12)
Sustained Attention 0.74 (0.19)
Kindergarten Teacher Report
Attention Problems 52.61 (5.39)
Internalizing Problems 46.80 (8.99)
Aggression 53.61 (6.10)
Social Skills 103.68 (14.04)
Note. n =1015.
T
a
b
l
e

1
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
1
9
2
0
2
1
2
2
5
t
h

G
r
a
d
e

T
e
s
t

S
c
o
r
e

1
.

R
e
a
d
i
n
g
1
.
0
0

2
.

M
a
t
h
.
6
6
1
.
0
0
5
t
h

G
r
a
d
e

T
e
a
c
h
e
r

R
e
p
o
r
t

3
.

R
e
a
d
i
n
g
.
5
7
.
5
4
1
.
0
0

4
.

M
a
t
h
.
4
9
.
5
9
.
7
1
1
.
0
0
3
r
d

G
r
a
d
e

T
e
s
t

S
c
o
r
e

5
.

R
e
a
d
i
n
g
.
8
8
.
6
3
.
6
0
.
5
1
1
.
0
0

6
.

M
a
t
h
.
6
3
.
7
7
.
5
3
.
5
8
.
6
7
1
.
0
0
3
r
d

G
r
a
d
e

T
e
a
c
h
e
r

R
e
p
o
r
t

7
.

R
e
a
d
i
n
g
.
6
6
.
5
9
.
6
0
.
5
3
.
6
8
.
6
0
1
.
0
0

8
.

M
a
t
h
.
5
4
.
6
1
.
4
8
.
5
0
.
5
6
.
6
1
.
7
9
1
.
0
0
1
s
t

G
r
a
d
e

T
e
s
t

S
c
o
r
e

9
.

R
e
a
d
i
n
g
.
6
8
.
5
7
.
4
8
.
4
5
.
7
6
.
6
1
.
6
0
.
5
3
1
.
0
0

1
0
.

M
a
t
h
.
5
7
.
6
9
.
4
9
.
5
1
.
5
7
.
6
8
.
5
5
.
5
8
.
5
9
1
.
0
0
1
s
t

G
r
a
d
e

T
e
a
c
h
e
r

R
e
p
o
r
t

1
1
.

R
e
a
d
i
n
g
.
5
5
.
4
9
.
5
0
.
4
4
.
5
7
.
5
3
.
5
7
.
4
9
.
6
4
.
5
1
1
.
0
0

1
2
.

M
a
t
h
.
4
4
.
4
9
.
4
0
.
4
0
.
4
5
.
5
3
.
4
5
.
4
6
.
5
0
.
5
3
.
7
7
1
.
0
0
A
g
e

4

1
/
2

T
e
s
t

S
c
o
r
e
s

1
3
.

R
e
a
d
i
n
g
.
5
2
.
4
5
.
4
2
.
3
9
.
5
4
.
4
6
.
4
6
.
4
1
.
5
5
.
5
0
.
4
7
.
4
0
1
.
0
0

1
4
.

M
a
t
h
.
4
9
.
5
4
.
4
7
.
4
4
.
5
1
.
5
2
.
5
0
.
4
4
.
4
4
.
6
0
.
4
4
.
3
7
.
5
6
1
.
0
0

1
5
.

C
o
g
n
i
t
i
v
e

A
b
i
l
i
t
y
.
4
9
.
4
4
.
4
1
.
4
1
.
5
0
.
4
5
.
4
2
.
3
8
.
3
8
.
5
0
.
3
5
.
3
2
.
5
1
.
6
2
1
.
0
0

1
6
.

E
x
p
r
e
s
s
i
v
e

L
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
.
4
8
.
4
8
.
4
6
.
3
9
.
4
7
.
4
5
.
4
5
.
3
8
.
3
7
.
5
1
.
3
5
.
2
9
.
4
6
.
6
2
.
6
5
1
.
0
0

1
7
.

I
m
p
u
l
s
i
v
i
t
y
-
.
2
0
-
.
1
8
-
.
1
9
-
.
1
7
-
.
2
1
-
.
1
8
-
.
2
2
-
.
1
7
-
.
1
9
-
.
2
2
-
.
1
8
-
.
1
4
-
.
2
5
-
.
3
4
-
.
2
5
-
.
3
3
1
.
0
0

1
8
.

S
u
s
t
a
i
n
e
d

A
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
.
1
8
.
2
2
.
2
3
.
2
5
.
1
9
.
2
4
.
2
2
.
2
0
.
2
0
.
2
9
.
2
4
.
2
1
.
2
3
.
3
2
.
2
7
.
2
9
-
.
2
2
1
.
0
0
K
i
n
d
e
r
g
a
r
t
e
n

T
e
a
c
h
e
r

R
e
p
o
r
t

1
9
.

A
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n

P
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
-
.
2
9
-
.
3
1
-
.
3
4
-
.
2
8
-
.
2
8
-
.
3
5
-
.
2
8
-
.
2
8
-
.
2
9
-
.
3
1
-
.
3
4
-
.
2
8
-
.
2
8
-
.
3
5
-
.
2
8
-
.
2
8
.
1
7
-
.
2
4
1
.
0
0

2
0
.

I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
i
n
g

P
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
-
.
1
4
-
.
1
3
-
.
1
5
-
.
1
4
-
.
1
5
-
.
1
6
-
.
1
4
-
.
1
5
-
.
1
4
-
.
1
3
-
.
1
5
-
.
1
4
-
.
1
5
-
.
1
6
-
.
1
4
-
.
1
5
-
.
0
1
-
.
0
5
.
4
0
1
.
0
0

2
1
.

A
g
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
-
.
1
6
-
.
2
1
-
.
1
2
-
.
1
3
-
.
1
5
-
.
1
6
-
.
1
9
-
.
1
4
-
.
1
1
-
.
1
4
-
.
1
2
-
.
0
9
-
.
1
3
-
.
1
7
-
.
1
4
-
.
1
5
.
1
9
-
.
1
7
.
6
0
.
2
9
1
.
0
0

2
2
.

S
o
c
i
a
l

S
k
i
l
l
s
.
2
9
.
3
3
.
2
9
.
2
6
.
2
8
.
3
0
.
3
2
.
2
6
.
2
5
.
3
0
.
3
2
.
2
7
.
2
4
.
3
5
.
2
7
.
2
9
-
.
1
5
.
2
0
-
.
6
1
-
.
4
6
-
.
5
5
1
.
0
0
N
I
C
H
D

S
E
C
C
Y
D

C
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n

M
a
t
r
i
x

f
o
r

S
p
r
i
n
g

5
t
h

G
r
a
d
e

A
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t
,

3
r
d

G
r
a
d
e

A
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t
,

S
p
r
i
n
g

1
s
t

G
r
a
d
e

A
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t
,

A
g
e

4

1
/
2

T
e
s
t

S
c
o
r
e
s
,

a
n
d

K
i
n
d
e
r
g
a
r
t
e
n

T
e
a
c
h
e
r

R
e
p
o
r
t

o
f

S
e
l
f
-
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

N
o
t
e
.

A
l
l

c
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
a
l
l
y

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t

a
t

p
<
.
0
1
.
D
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
:
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
(
1
)
(
2
)
(
3
)
(
1
)
(
2
)
(
3
)
(
1
)
(
2
)
(
3
)
(
1
)
(
2
)
(
3
)
A
g
e

4

1
/
2

a
b
i
l
i
t
y
T
e
s
t

s
c
o
r
e
s

R
e
a
d
i
n
g
.
2
5
*
*
*
.
1
9
*
*
*
.
1
6
*
*
*
.
1
3
*
*
*
.
1
2
*
*
*
.
0
9
*
*

.
1
4
*
*
*
.
0
8
*

.
0
8
*

.
1
2
*
*
*
.
1
0
*
*

.
0
9
*

(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)

M
a
t
h
.
0
9
*
*

.
0
7

.
0
5

.
2
2
*
*
*
.
1
8
*
*
*
.
1
7
*
*
*
.
1
3
*
*
*
.
1
1
*
*

.
1
1
*
*

.
1
3
*
*
*
.
1
1
*
*

.
1
1
*
*

(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)

C
o
g
n
i
t
i
v
e

a
b
i
l
i
t
y
.
1
4
*
*
*
.
1
1
*
*
*
.
1
3
*
*
*
.
0
4

.
0
1

.
0
1

.
0
5

.
0
4

.
0
5

.
1
2
*
*
*
.
0
9
*

.
0
9
*

(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)

E
x
p
r
e
s
s
i
v
e

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
1
5
*
*
*
.
0
9
*

.
0
8
*

.
1
5
*
*
*
.
0
9
*

.
0
8
*

.
2
2
*
*
*
.
1
6
*
*
*
.
1
7
*
*
*
.
1
1
*
*

.
1
0
*

.
0
8
*

(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
S
e
l
f
-
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
T
e
s
t

s
c
o
r
e

(
A
g
e

4

1
/
2
)
I
m
p
u
l
s
i
v
i
t
y
.
0
3

.
0
6
*

.
0
4

.
0
5

.
0
7
*
*

.
0
6
*

.
0
1

.
0
5

.
0
4

.
0
2

.
0
3

.
0
2

(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
S
u
s
t
a
i
n
e
d

A
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
-
.
0
3

-
.
0
2

-
.
0
1

.
0
0

.
0
1

.
0
1

.
0
3

.
0
5

.
0
5

.
0
7
*
*

.
0
8
*
*

.
0
7
*

(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
K
i
n
d
e
r
g
a
r
t
e
n

t
e
a
c
h
e
r

r
e
p
o
r
t
A
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n

P
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
-
.
0
9
*
*

-
.
1
1
*
*

-
.
1
1
*
*

-
.
1
8
*
*
*
-
.
1
7
*
*
*
-
.
1
7
*
*
*
-
.
1
2
*
*
*
-
.
1
0
*
*

-
.
1
0
*
*

-
.
1
6
*
*
*
-
.
1
5
*
*
*
-
.
1
5
*
*
*
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)

I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
i
n
g

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
.
0
4

.
0
3

.
0
3

.
0
5

.
0
3

.
0
4

.
1
2
*
*
*
.
1
0
*
*
*
.
1
0
*
*
*
.
0
5

.
0
4

.
0
4

(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)

A
g
g
r
e
s
s
i
v
e

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
.
0
5

.
0
7
*

.
0
7
*

.
0
5

.
0
6

.
0
6

.
0
8
*
*

.
0
8
*

.
0
8
*

.
0
8
*

.
0
8
*

.
0
8
*

(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
S
o
c
i
a
l

S
k
i
l
l
s
.
0
8
*

.
0
4

.
0
4

.
0
6

.
0
1

.
0
2

.
1
2
*
*
*
.
1
0
*
*

.
1
1
*
*

.
0
6

.
0
5

.
0
6

(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
C
o
n
t
r
o
l

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A
g
e

3

a
b
i
l
i
t
y

a
n
d

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
X
X
X
X
O
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
9
3
9
9
3
9
9
3
9
9
3
9
9
3
9
9
3
9
8
8
9
8
8
9
8
8
9
8
8
1
8
8
1
8
8
1
R
2
.
3
6
.
4
1
.
4
2
.
3
4
.
4
2
.
4
2
.
3
2
.
3
6
.
3
6
.
2
8
.
2
9
.
2
9
N
o
t
e
.

A
l
l

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

a
r
e

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
i
z
e
d

b
y

f
u
l
l

s
a
m
p
l
e

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
.

C
o
n
t
r
o
l

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
:

d
a
t
a

c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

s
i
t
e
;

c
h
i
l
d

e
t
h
n
i
c
i
t
y
,

g
e
n
d
e
r
,

m
o
t
h
e
r
'
s

r
a
t
i
n
g

o
f

c
h
i
l
d
'
s

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

h
e
a
l
t
h

a
t

a
g
e

4

1
/
2
,

s
i
t
e

o
f

d
a
t
a

c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
,

c
h
i
l
d
'
s

b
i
r
t
h

o
r
d
e
r
,

n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n

l
i
v
i
n
g

i
n

t
h
e

h
o
m
e

a
t

a
g
e

4

1
/
2
,

h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
,

p
a
r
e
n
t
i
n
g
,

m
o
t
h
e
r
'
s

a
g
e
,

m
o
t
h
e
r
'
s

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
,

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
'
s

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
,

m
o
t
h
e
r

e
v
e
r

w
o
r
k
e
d
,

t
o
t
a
l

f
a
m
i
l
y

i
n
c
o
m
e

a
t

a
g
e

4

1
/
2
,

m
o
t
h
e
r
'
s

o
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

s
t
a
t
u
s
,

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
'
s

o
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

s
t
a
t
u
s
,

m
a
t
e
r
n
a
l

d
e
p
r
e
s
s
i
v
e

s
y
m
p
t
o
m
s
,

p
u
b
l
i
c

a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
,

e
v
e
r

i
n

n
o
n
-
m
a
t
e
r
n
a
l

c
a
r
e
,

p
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
i
m
e

i
n

c
e
n
t
e
r
-
b
a
s
e
d

o
r

h
o
m
e
-
b
a
s
e
d

c
h
i
l
d

c
a
r
e

f
r
o
m

b
i
r
t
h

t
o

a
g
e

4

1
/
2
,

a
n
d

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

c
h
i
l
d

c
a
r
e

q
u
a
l
i
t
y
.

K
e
y

c
o
n
t
r
o
l

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

a
t

a
g
e

3

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
:

t
h
e

B
r
a
c
k
e
n

S
c
h
o
o
l

R
e
a
d
i
n
e
s
s

c
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
e
,

t
h
e

R
e
y
n
e
l
l

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
n
g
u
a
g
e

S
c
a
l
e
,

m
a
t
e
r
n
a
l

r
e
p
o
r
t
s

o
f

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
i
n
g

a
n
d

e
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
i
n
g

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
,

a
n
d

t
o
t
a
l

t
i
m
e

c
h
i
l
d

a
c
t
i
v
e
l
y

p
l
a
y
e
d

w
i
t
h

a

"
f
o
r
b
i
d
d
e
n
"

t
o
y
.

A
l
l

m
o
d
e
l
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

d
u
m
m
i
e
s

f
o
r

m
i
s
s
i
n
g

d
a
t
a
.
*
p
<
.
0
5
,

*
*
p
<
.
0
1
,

*
*
*
p
<
.
0
0
1
.

R
e
a
d
i
n
g
M
a
t
h
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
M
a
t
h
T
a
b
l
e

1
3
A
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t

t
e
s
t

s
c
o
r
e

5
t
h

g
r
a
d
e
T
e
a
c
h
e
r

r
a
t
e
d

a
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t

5
t
h

g
r
a
d
e
N
I
C
H
D

S
E
C
C
Y
D

R
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

E
r
r
o
r
s

f
r
o
m

R
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

M
o
d
e
l
s

o
f

F
i
f
t
h

G
r
a
d
e

M
a
t
h

a
n
d

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

A
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t
o
n

E
a
r
l
y

A
c
a
d
e
m
i
c

S
k
i
l
l
s

a
n
d

S
e
l
f
-
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
n

E
a
r
l
y

A
c
a
d
e
m
i
c

S
k
i
l
l
s

a
n
d

S
e
l
f
-
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
D
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
:
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
(
1
)
(
2
)
(
3
)
(
1
)
(
2
)
(
3
)
(
1
)
(
2
)
(
3
)
(
1
)
(
2
)
(
3
)
A
g
e

4

1
/
2

a
b
i
l
i
t
y
T
e
s
t

s
c
o
r
e
s

R
e
a
d
i
n
g
.
2
7
*
*
*
.
2
4
*
*
*
.
2
0
*
*
*
.
1
6
*
*
*
.
1
5
*
*
*
.
1
3
*
*
*
.
1
9
*
*
*
.
1
4
*
*
*
.
1
2
*
*
*
.
1
5
*
*
*
.
1
4
*
*
*
.
1
3
*
*
*
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
4
)

M
a
t
h
.
1
2
*
*
*
.
0
9
*

.
0
7
*

.
2
0
*
*
*
.
1
8
*
*
*
.
1
6
*
*
*
.
1
6
*
*
*
.
1
6
*
*
*
.
1
5
*
*
*
.
1
4
*
*
*
.
1
4
*
*
*
.
1
3
*
*

(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)

C
o
g
n
i
t
i
v
e

a
b
i
l
i
t
y
.
1
5
*
*
*
.
1
3
*
*
*
.
1
4
*
*
*
.
0
8
*

.
0
6

.
0
6

.
0
5

.
0
5

.
0
4

.
0
7

.
0
6

.
0
5

(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)

E
x
p
r
e
s
s
i
v
e

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
1
1
*
*

.
0
7

.
0
6

.
1
1
*
*

.
0
7
*

.
0
7

.
1
5
*
*
*
.
0
9
*
*

.
0
7

.
1
1
*
*

.
0
8
*

.
0
6

(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
S
e
l
f
-
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
T
e
s
t

s
c
o
r
e

(
A
g
e

4

1
/
2
)
I
m
p
u
l
s
i
v
i
t
y
.
0
2

.
0
4

.
0
3

.
0
4

.
0
5

.
0
4

-
.
0
1

.
0
1

.
0
0

.
0
1

.
0
3

.
0
2

(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
S
u
s
t
a
i
n
e
d

A
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
-
.
0
2

-
.
0
1

.
0
0

.
0
3

.
0
3

.
0
3

.
0
1

.
0
2

.
0
2

.
0
2

.
0
3

.
0
3

(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
K
i
n
d
e
r
g
a
r
t
e
n

t
e
a
c
h
e
r

r
e
p
o
r
t
A
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n

P
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
-
.
1
1
*
*
*
-
.
1
3
*
*
*
-
.
1
3
*
*
*
-
.
1
6
*
*
*
-
.
1
7
*
*
*
-
.
1
7
*
*
*
-
.
1
1
*
*

-
.
1
0
*
*

-
.
1
0
*
*

-
.
1
7
*
*
*
-
.
1
8
*
*
*
-
.
1
8
*
*
*
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)

I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
i
n
g

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
.
0
6
*

.
0
6
*

.
0
6
*

.
0
6
*

.
0
6
*

.
0
6
*

.
0
7
*
*

.
0
7
*

.
0
7
*

.
0
6
*

.
0
7
*

.
0
7
*

(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)

A
g
g
r
e
s
s
i
v
e

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
.
0
5

.
0
6

.
0
7
*

.
0
6

.
0
5

.
0
5

.
0
3

.
0
3

.
0
3

.
0
7
*

.
0
7
*

.
0
7

(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
S
o
c
i
a
l

S
k
i
l
l
s
.
0
7
*

.
0
5

.
0
5

.
0
7
*

.
0
5

.
0
5

.
1
1
*
*
*
.
1
0
*
*

.
0
9
*
*

.
0
7
*

.
0
5

.
0
5

(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
C
o
n
t
r
o
l

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A
g
e

3

a
b
i
l
i
t
y

a
n
d

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
X
X
X
X
O
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
9
6
1
9
6
1
9
6
1
9
6
2
9
6
2
9
6
2
9
3
9
9
3
9
9
3
9
9
3
0
9
3
0
9
3
0
R
2
.
3
8
.
4
1
.
4
2
.
3
3
.
3
7
.
3
8
.
3
3
.
3
5
.
3
5
.
2
6
.
2
8
.
2
8
N
o
t
e
.

A
l
l

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

a
r
e

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
i
z
e
d

b
y

f
u
l
l

s
a
m
p
l
e

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
.

C
o
n
t
r
o
l

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
:

d
a
t
a

c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

s
i
t
e
;

c
h
i
l
d

e
t
h
n
i
c
i
t
y
,

g
e
n
d
e
r
,

m
o
t
h
e
r
'
s

r
a
t
i
n
g

o
f

c
h
i
l
d
'
s

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

h
e
a
l
t
h

a
t

a
g
e

4

1
/
2
,

s
i
t
e

o
f

d
a
t
a

c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
,

c
h
i
l
d
'
s

b
i
r
t
h

o
r
d
e
r
,

n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n

l
i
v
i
n
g

i
n

t
h
e

h
o
m
e

a
t

a
g
e

4

1
/
2
,

h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
,

p
a
r
e
n
t
i
n
g
,

m
o
t
h
e
r
'
s

a
g
e
,

m
o
t
h
e
r
'
s

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
,

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
'
s

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
,

m
o
t
h
e
r

e
v
e
r

w
o
r
k
e
d
,

t
o
t
a
l

f
a
m
i
l
y

i
n
c
o
m
e

a
t

a
g
e

4

1
/
2
,

m
o
t
h
e
r
'
s

o
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

s
t
a
t
u
s
,

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
'
s

o
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

s
t
a
t
u
s
,

m
a
t
e
r
n
a
l

d
e
p
r
e
s
s
i
v
e

s
y
m
p
t
o
m
s
,

p
u
b
l
i
c

a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
,

e
v
e
r

i
n

n
o
n
-
m
a
t
e
r
n
a
l

c
a
r
e
,

p
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
i
m
e

i
n

c
e
n
t
e
r
-
b
a
s
e
d

o
r

h
o
m
e
-
b
a
s
e
d

c
h
i
l
d

c
a
r
e

f
r
o
m

b
i
r
t
h

t
o

a
g
e

4

1
/
2
,

a
n
d

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

c
h
i
l
d

c
a
r
e

q
u
a
l
i
t
y
.

K
e
y

c
o
n
t
r
o
l

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

a
t

a
g
e

3

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
:

t
h
e

B
r
a
c
k
e
n

S
c
h
o
o
l

R
e
a
d
i
n
e
s
s

c
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
e
,

t
h
e

R
e
y
n
e
l
l

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
n
g
u
a
g
e

S
c
a
l
e
,

m
a
t
e
r
n
a
l

r
e
p
o
r
t
s

o
f

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
i
n
g

a
n
d

e
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
i
n
g

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
,

a
n
d

t
o
t
a
l

t
i
m
e

c
h
i
l
d

a
c
t
i
v
e
l
y

p
l
a
y
e
d

w
i
t
h

a

"
f
o
r
b
i
d
d
e
n
"

t
o
y
.

A
l
l

m
o
d
e
l
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

d
u
m
m
i
e
s

f
o
r

m
i
s
s
i
n
g

d
a
t
a
.
*
p
<
.
0
5
,

*
*
p
<
.
0
1
,

*
*
*
p
<
.
0
0
1
.

R
e
a
d
i
n
g
M
a
t
h
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
M
a
t
h
T
a
b
l
e

1
4
N
I
C
H
D

S
E
C
C
Y
D

R
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

E
r
r
o
r
s

f
r
o
m

R
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

M
o
d
e
l
s

o
f

T
h
i
r
d

G
r
a
d
e

M
a
t
h

a
n
d

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

A
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t

A
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t

t
e
s
t

s
c
o
r
e

3
r
d

g
r
a
d
e
T
e
a
c
h
e
r

r
a
t
e
d

a
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t

3
r
d

g
r
a
d
e
D
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
:
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
(
1
)
(
2
)
(
3
)
(
1
)
(
2
)
(
3
)
(
1
)
(
2
)
(
3
)
(
1
)
(
2
)
(
3
)
A
g
e

4

1
/
2

a
b
i
l
i
t
y
T
e
s
t

s
c
o
r
e
s

R
e
a
d
i
n
g
.
3
5
*
*
*
.
3
4
*
*
*
.
3
0
*
*
*
.
1
7
*
*
*
.
1
7
*
*
*
.
1
5
*
*
*
.
2
6
*
*
*
.
2
3
*
*
*
.
2
1
*
*
*
.
2
2
*
*
*
.
2
2
*
*
*
.
2
0
*
*
*
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
4
)

M
a
t
h
.
1
0
*
*

.
0
9
*
*

.
0
8
*

.
2
6
*
*
*
.
2
6
*
*
*
.
2
3
*
*
*
.
1
3
*
*
*
.
1
2
*
*
*
.
1
1
*
*

.
0
9
*

.
0
8
*

.
0
7

(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)

C
o
g
n
i
t
i
v
e

a
b
i
l
i
t
y
.
0
4

.
0
3

.
0
5

.
0
9
*
*

.
0
5

.
0
4

.
0
1

.
0
3

.
0
2

.
0
5

.
0
4

.
0
3

(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)

E
x
p
r
e
s
s
i
v
e

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
0
4

.
0
2

.
0
2

.
1
2
*
*
*
.
1
2
*
*
*
.
0
9
*
*

.
0
5

.
0
3

.
0
2

.
0
2

.
0
2

.
0
1

(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
S
e
l
f
-
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
T
e
s
t

s
c
o
r
e

(
A
g
e

4

1
/
2
)
I
m
p
u
l
s
i
v
i
t
y
.
0
0

.
0
0

-
.
0
1

.
0
2

.
0
0

.
0
0

-
.
0
1

.
0
1

.
0
1

.
0
1

.
0
1

.
0
1

(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
S
u
s
t
a
i
n
e
d

A
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
.
0
2

.
0
2

.
0
2

.
0
6
*

.
0
5
*

.
0
5
*

.
0
6
*

.
0
6
*

.
0
5
*

.
0
7
*

.
0
7
*

.
0
7
*

(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
K
i
n
d
e
r
g
a
r
t
e
n

t
e
a
c
h
e
r

r
e
p
o
r
t

A
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n

P
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
-
.
1
1
*
*

-
.
1
1
*
*

-
.
1
1
*
*

-
.
0
7
*

-
.
0
9
*
*

-
.
0
8
*
*

-
.
1
6
*
*
*
-
.
1
5
*
*
*
-
.
1
5
*
*
*
-
.
1
4
*
*
*
-
.
1
4
*
*
*
-
.
1
3
*
*
*
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)

I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
i
n
g

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
.
0
0

-
.
0
1

-
.
0
1

.
0
2

.
0
2

.
0
2

.
0
3
.
0
3

.
0
2

.
0
1

.
0
0

.
0
0

(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)

A
g
g
r
e
s
s
i
v
e

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
.
0
7
*

.
0
7
*

.
0
7
*

.
0
3

.
0
4

.
0
5

.
1
3
*
*
*
.
1
3
*
*
*
.
1
3
*
*
*
.
1
2
*
*
*
.
1
3
*
*
*
.
1
3
*
*
*
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
S
o
c
i
a
l

S
k
i
l
l
s
.
0
5

.
0
3

.
0
3

.
0
5

.
0
3

.
0
3

.
1
3
*
*
*
.
1
2
*
*
*
.
1
1
*
*
*
.
1
1
*
*

.
0
9
*
*

.
0
9
*

(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
C
o
n
t
r
o
l

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A
g
e

3

a
b
i
l
i
t
y

a
n
d

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
X
X
X
X
O
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
1
0
1
4
1
0
1
4
1
0
1
4
1
0
1
2
1
0
1
2
1
0
1
2
9
2
2
9
2
2
9
2
2
9
9
0
9
9
0
9
9
0
R
2
.
3
3
.
3
5
.
3
6
.
4
2
.
4
5
.
4
6
.
3
1
.
3
2
.
3
7
.
2
4
.
2
6
.
2
6
N
o
t
e
.

A
l
l

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

a
r
e

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
i
z
e
d

b
y

f
u
l
l

s
a
m
p
l
e

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
.

C
o
n
t
r
o
l

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
:

d
a
t
a

c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

s
i
t
e
;

c
h
i
l
d

e
t
h
n
i
c
i
t
y
,

g
e
n
d
e
r
,

m
o
t
h
e
r
'
s

r
a
t
i
n
g

o
f

c
h
i
l
d
'
s

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

h
e
a
l
t
h

a
t

a
g
e

4

1
/
2
,

s
i
t
e

o
f

d
a
t
a

c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
,

c
h
i
l
d
'
s

b
i
r
t
h

o
r
d
e
r
,

n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n

l
i
v
i
n
g

i
n

t
h
e

h
o
m
e

a
t

a
g
e

4

1
/
2
,

h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
,

p
a
r
e
n
t
i
n
g
,

m
o
t
h
e
r
'
s

a
g
e
,

m
o
t
h
e
r
'
s

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
,

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
'
s

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
,

m
o
t
h
e
r

e
v
e
r

w
o
r
k
e
d
,

t
o
t
a
l

f
a
m
i
l
y

i
n
c
o
m
e

a
t

a
g
e

4

1
/
2
,

m
o
t
h
e
r
'
s

o
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

s
t
a
t
u
s
,

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
'
s

o
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

s
t
a
t
u
s
,

m
a
t
e
r
n
a
l

d
e
p
r
e
s
s
i
v
e

s
y
m
p
t
o
m
s
,

p
u
b
l
i
c

a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
,

e
v
e
r

i
n

n
o
n
-
m
a
t
e
r
n
a
l

c
a
r
e
,

p
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
i
m
e

i
n

c
e
n
t
e
r
-
b
a
s
e
d

o
r

h
o
m
e
-
b
a
s
e
d

c
h
i
l
d

c
a
r
e

f
r
o
m

b
i
r
t
h

t
o

a
g
e

4

1
/
2
,

a
n
d

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

c
h
i
l
d

c
a
r
e

q
u
a
l
i
t
y
.

K
e
y

c
o
n
t
r
o
l

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

a
t

a
g
e

3

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
:

t
h
e

B
r
a
c
k
e
n

S
c
h
o
o
l

R
e
a
d
i
n
e
s
s

c
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
e
,

t
h
e

R
e
y
n
e
l
l

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
n
g
u
a
g
e

S
c
a
l
e
,

m
a
t
e
r
n
a
l

r
e
p
o
r
t
s

o
f

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
i
n
g

a
n
d

e
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
i
n
g

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
,

a
n
d

t
o
t
a
l

t
i
m
e

c
h
i
l
d

a
c
t
i
v
e
l
y

p
l
a
y
e
d

w
i
t
h

a

"
f
o
r
b
i
d
d
e
n
"

t
o
y
.

A
l
l

m
o
d
e
l
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

d
u
m
m
i
e
s

f
o
r

m
i
s
s
i
n
g

d
a
t
a
.
*
p
<
.
0
5
,

*
*
p
<
.
0
1
,

*
*
*
p
<
.
0
0
1
.

R
e
a
d
i
n
g
M
a
t
h
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
M
a
t
h
T
a
b
l
e

1
5
o
n

E
a
r
l
y

A
c
a
d
e
m
i
c

S
k
i
l
l
s

a
n
d

S
e
l
f
-
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
A
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t

t
e
s
t

s
c
o
r
e

1
s
t

g
r
a
d
e
T
e
a
c
h
e
r

r
a
t
e
d

a
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t

1
s
t

g
r
a
d
e
N
I
C
H
D

S
E
C
C
Y
D

R
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

E
r
r
o
r
s

f
r
o
m

R
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

M
o
d
e
l
s

o
f

F
i
r
s
t

G
r
a
d
e

M
a
t
h

a
n
d

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

A
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t
Dependent Variable:
Independent Variables Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male
Age 4 1/2 ability
Test scores
Reading .14 ** .18 *** .07 .10 .05 .09 .07 .11
(.04) (.05) (.04) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.06)
Math
a
.11 .03 .23 *** .14 ** .24 *** .05 .20 ** .08
(.06) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.06) (.05) (.07) (.05)
Cognitive ability
b
.11 * .11 * -.02 .04 -.05 .12 * -.02 .16 **
(.05) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.06) (.06)
Expressive communication .10 * .03 .14 ** .02 .19 *** .10 .07 .05
(.05) (.05) (.05) (.06) (.05) (.06) (.06) (.06)
Self-Regulation
Test score (Age 4 1/2)
Impulsivity .00 .08 * .00 .07 .06 .03 -.03 .03
(.05) (.03) (.05) (.04) (.06) (.04) (.07) (.04)
Sustained Attention -.03 .03 .01 .03 .03 .06 .02 .10 *
(.03) (.04) (.03) (.04) (.04) (.04) (.04) (.04)
Kindergarten teacher report
Attention Problems -.06 -.11 * -.13 ** -.18 *** -.18 ** -.05 -.22 *** -.11 *
(.05) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.06) (.06)
Internalizing problems
c
.11 ** -.02 .09 * -.01 .11 ** .07 .02 .05
(.04) (.04) (.04) (.04) (.04) (.04) (.04) (.04)
Aggressive behavior
d
-.03 .19 *** -.01 .17 *** .08 .13 ** .10 * .10
(.04) (.05) (.04) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.05)
Social Skills .04 .07 -.03 .08 .07 .16 ** .02 .10
(.04) (.05) (.04) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.06)
Control Variables X X X X X X X X
Age 3 ability and behavior X X X X X X X X
Observations 474 464 474 464 453 435 448 432
R
2
.47 .41 .45 .41 .40 .33 .33 .28
Table 16
NI CHD SECCYD Regression Coefficients and Standard Errors fromRegression Models of Fifth Grade Math and
Achievement test score 5th grade Teacher rated achievement 5th grade
Reading Achievement on Early Academic Skills and Self-Regulation by Gender
Note. All variables are standardized by full sample standard deviation. Control variables include: data collection site; child ethnicity, gender,
mother's rating of child's general health at age 4 1/2, site of data collection, child's birth order, number of children living in the home at age 4
1/2, household structure, parenting, mother's age, mother's education, partner's education, mother ever worked, total family income at age 4
1/2, mother's occupational status, partner's occupational status, maternal depressive symptoms, public assistance, ever in non-maternal care,
proportion of time in center-based or home-based child care frombirth to age 4 1/2, and average child care quality. Key control variables at
age 3 include: the Bracken School Readiness composite, the Reynell Developmental Language Scale, maternal reports of internalizing and
externalizing problems, and total time child actively played with a "forbidden" toy.
All models include dummies for missing data.
a
Female coefficient is significantly different frommale coefficient for teacher report of reading achievement, p<.05.
b
Female coefficient is significantly different frommale coefficient for teacher report of math and reading achievement, p<.05.
c
Female coefficient is significantly different frommale coefficient for reading test score outcomes, p<.05.
d
Female coefficient is significantly different frommale coefficient for reading and math test score outcomes, p<.05.
*p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001.
Reading Math Reading Math
Table 17
M SD
Age 8 Achievement
Test Score
Reading 98.57 (19.53)
Math 97.80 (18.64)
Maternal Report
Grade Failure .12 (.33)
Age 5
Test Score
Verbal IQ 90.85 (17.14)
Performance IQ 95.40 (16.41)
Maternal Report
Attention Problems 1.92 (1.47)
Overall Problem Behavior 30.45 (18.49)
Age 3
Overall IQ 88.81 (19.40)
Observer Report
Sustained Attention 26.47 (6.99)
Maternal Report
Overall Problem Behavior 45.63 (19.94)
I HDP Descriptive Statistics for Measures of Achievement and Self-Regulation
Test Score
T
a
b
l
e

1
8
I
H
D
P

C
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n

M
a
t
r
i
x

f
o
r

A
g
e

8

A
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

A
g
e

5

T
e
s
t

S
c
o
r
e
s
,

A
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
,

a
n
d

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

P
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
A
g
e

8

1
.

R
e
a
d
i
n
g
1
.
0
0

2
.

M
a
t
h
.
7
7
1
.
0
0

3
.

G
r
a
d
e

f
a
i
l
u
r
e
-
.
3
6
-
.
3
6
1
.
0
0
A
g
e

5

4
.

V
e
r
b
a
l

I
Q
.
6
7
.
6
5
-
.
2
9
1
.
0
0

5
.

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

I
Q
.
6
6
.
6
4
-
.
2
6
.
7
3
1
.
0
0

6
.

A
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n

P
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
-
.
3
3
-
.
3
2
.
1
2
-
.
2
9
-
.
3
0
1
.
0
0

7
.

O
v
e
r
a
l
l

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

P
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
-
.
2
4
-
.
2
2
.
0
6
a
-
.
1
8
-
.
1
9
.
6
2
1
.
0
0
N
o
t
e
.

A
l
l

c
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
a
l
l
y

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t

a
t

p
<
.
0
5

u
n
l
e
s
s

o
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e

n
o
t
e
d
.
a

p

<

.
1
0
T
e
s
t

S
c
o
r
e
T
e
s
t

S
c
o
r
e
M
a
t
e
r
n
a
l

R
e
p
o
r
t
M
a
t
e
r
n
a
l

R
e
p
o
r
t
T
a
b
l
e

1
9
D
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

a
t

A
g
e

8
:
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
(
1
)
(
2
)
(
3
)

(
4
)
(
5
)
(
6
)
(
7
)
(
8
)
(
9
)
A
g
e

5

T
e
s
t

S
c
o
r
e

V
e
r
b
a
l

I
Q
.
4
0
*
*
*
.
3
3
*
*
*
.
3
0
*
*
*
.
3
7
*
*
*
.
3
9
*
*
*
.
3
4
*
*
*
-
7
.
3
4
*
*
*
-
3
.
2
4
*
-
3
.
1
6
*
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
5
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
5
)
(
.
0
5
)
(
1
.
7
0
)
(
1
.
3
9
)
(
1
.
6
0
)

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

I
Q
.
3
3
*
*
*
.
3
1
*
*
*
.
3
0
*
*
*
.
3
4
*
*
*
.
3
4
*
*
*
.
3
1
*
*
*
-
2
.
4
4
-
1
.
2
2
-
1
.
2
1
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
1
.
5
2
)
(
1
.
2
4
)
(
1
.
2
9
)
M
a
t
e
r
n
a
l

R
e
p
o
r
t

A
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
-
.
0
7
*
-
.
0
6

-
.
0
5

-
.
0
8
*
-
.
1
0
*
*
-
.
0
9
*

.
9
4
.
6
2
.
5
3
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
1
.
3
5
)
(
.
9
7
)
(
1
.
0
0
)

O
v
e
r
a
l
l

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
-
.
0
6

-
.
0
5

-
.
0
4

-
.
0
4

-
.
0
3

-
.
0
3

-
.
6
3
-
.
2
7
-
.
0
5
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
1
.
3
1
)
(
1
.
0
1
)
(
1
.
1
1
)
C
o
n
t
r
o
l

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
X
X
X
X
X
X
A
g
e

3

A
b
i
l
i
t
y

a
n
d

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
X
X
X
O
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
6
9
0
6
9
0
6
9
0
6
9
0
6
9
0
6
9
0
7
4
4
6
4
8
6
4
4
R
2
.
5
2
.
5
7
.
5
7
.
4
9
.
5
2
.
5
2
*
p
<
.
0
5
,

*
*
p
<
.
0
1
,

*
*
*
p
<
.
0
0
1
.

I
H
D
P

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

E
r
r
o
r
s

f
r
o
m

R
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

M
o
d
e
l
s

o
f

A
g
e

8

A
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t

o
n

E
a
r
l
y

A
c
a
d
e
m
i
c

S
k
i
l
l
s

a
n
d

S
e
l
f
-
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
E
v
e
r

R
e
t
a
i
n
e
d

i
n

G
r
a
d
e
a
M
a
t
h
A
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t

t
e
s
t

s
c
o
r
e

a
t

a
g
e

8
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
N
o
t
e
.

A
l
l

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

a
r
e

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
i
z
e
d

b
y

f
u
l
l

s
a
m
p
l
e

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
.

C
o
n
t
r
o
l

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
:

d
a
t
a

c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

s
i
t
e
,

t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t

s
t
a
t
u
s
,

c
h
i
l
d

e
t
h
n
i
c
i
t
y
,

g
e
n
d
e
r
,

b
i
r
t
h

w
e
i
g
h
t
,

n
e
o
n
a
t
a
l

h
e
a
l
t
h
,

m
o
t
h
e
r
'
s

r
a
t
i
n
g

o
f

h
o
m
e

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
,

n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n

l
i
v
i
n
g

i
n

t
h
e

h
o
m
e
,

h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

a
t

b
i
r
t
h
,

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

f
a
m
i
l
y

i
n
c
o
m
e

t
o

n
e
e
d
s

r
a
t
i
o

a
t

a
g
e
s

1
-
3
,

m
o
t
h
e
r
'
s

a
g
e
,

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
,

a
n
d

d
e
p
r
e
s
s
i
v
e

s
y
m
p
t
o
m

s
c
o
r
e

a
t

4
0

w
e
e
k
s
.

A
g
e

5

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
:

M
a
t
e
r
n
a
l

r
e
p
o
r
t
s

o
f

a
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s

(
3

i
t
e
m
s
)

a
n
d

o
v
e
r
a
l
l

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s

(
l
e
s
s

t
h
e

t
h
r
e
e

i
t
e
m
s

p
e
r
t
a
i
n
i
n
g

t
o

a
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
)

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

A
c
h
e
n
b
a
c
h

C
h
i
l
d

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
.

A
g
e

3

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
:

M
a
t
e
r
n
a
l

r
e
p
o
r
t
s

o
f

o
v
e
r
a
l
l

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s

(
A
c
h
e
n
b
a
c
h

C
h
i
l
d

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
)

a
n
d

t
e
s
t

o
b
s
e
r
v
e
r

r
e
p
o
r
t
s

o
f

c
h
i
l
d
'
s

a
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
.

a

M
a
r
g
i
n
a
l

e
f
f
e
c
t
s

f
r
o
m

a

l
o
g
i
s
t
i
c

r
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
.

D
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

i
s

a
n

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r

o
f

e
v
e
r

b
e
i
n
g

r
e
t
a
i
n
e
d

a

g
r
a
d
e
.

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
s

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

t
h
e

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
-
p
o
i
n
t

c
h
a
n
g
e

i
n

t
h
e

p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
f

b
e
i
n
g

r
e
t
a
i
n
e
d

a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

a

o
n
e

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n

c
h
a
n
g
e

i
n

t
h
e

g
i
v
e
n

i
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
.
T
a
b
l
e

2
0D
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

a
t

A
g
e

8
:
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
A
g
e

5

T
e
s
t

S
c
o
r
e
V
e
r
b
a
l

I
Q
.
3
0
*
*
*
.
2
9
*
*
*
.
3
4
*
*
*
.
2
8
*
*
*
.
2
1
*
.
3
4
*
*
.
3
9
*
*
*
.
2
7
*
*
*
.
4
8
*
*
*
.
3
1
*
*
*
.
3
2
*
*
*
.
3
5
*
*
*
(
.
0
7
)
(
.
0
7
)
(
.
0
6
)
(
.
0
8
)
(
.
0
9
)
(
.
1
1
)
(
.
0
6
)
(
.
0
8
)
(
.
0
7
)
(
.
0
8
)
(
.
1
0
)
(
.
1
1
)
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

I
Q
.
3
1
*
*
*
.
2
8
*
*
*
.
3
2
*
*
*
.
2
4
*
*
*
.
4
0
*
*
*
.
1
7
*
.
2
9
*
*
*
.
3
4
*
*
*
.
2
5
*
*
*
.
4
0
*
*
*
.
3
9
*
*
*
.
3
0
*
*
*
(
.
0
6
)
(
.
0
6
)
(
.
0
6
)
(
.
0
7
)
(
.
0
9
)
(
.
0
8
)
(
.
0
5
)
(
.
0
7
)
(
.
0
6
)
(
.
0
7
)
(
.
0
9
)
(
.
0
9
)
M
a
t
e
r
n
a
l

R
e
p
o
r
t

A
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
b
-
.
0
4

-
.
0
6

-
.
1
2
*
*
.
0
3

-
.
0
3

-
.
0
5

-
.
0
2

-
.
1
5
*
*
-
.
1
1
*
-
.
0
3

-
.
0
4

-
.
0
5

(
.
0
5
)
(
.
0
5
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
7
)
(
.
0
7
)
(
.
0
8
)
(
.
0
5
)
(
.
0
5
)

(
.
0
5
)
(
.
0
6
)
(
.
0
7
)
(
.
0
9
)

O
v
e
r
a
l
l

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
-
.
0
2
-
.
0
5
-
.
0
1

-
.
0
8

-
.
0
4

-
.
1
3

-
.
0
2
-
.
0
3
-
.
0
1

-
.
0
9
-
.
1
1

-
.
1
5

(
.
0
5
)
(
.
0
5
)
(
.
0
5
)
(
.
0
6
)
(
.
0
7
)

(
.
0
8
)
(
.
0
5
)
(
.
0
5
)
(
.
0
5
)
(
.
0
6
)
(
.
0
7
)
(
.
0
9
)
O
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
3
3
8
3
5
1
3
6
9

2
5
2
1
6
9

1
7
2
3
3
8
3
5
1
3
6
9
2
5
2
1
6
9

1
7
2
R
2
.
5
9
.
5
9
.
5
3
.
5
7
.
6
0
.
5
4
.
6
1
.
5
3
.
4
6
.
6
0
.
5
8
.
5
7
M
a
l
e
M
a
l
e
F
e
m
a
l
e
(
8
)
(
7
)
(
2
)
(
6
)
(
3
)
(
4
)
(
5
)
I
H
D
P

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

E
r
r
o
r
s

f
r
o
m

R
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

M
o
d
e
l
s

f
o
r

S
u
b
g
r
o
u
p
s

o
f

A
g
e

8

M
a
t
h

a
n
d

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

A
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t

o
n

E
a
r
l
y

A
c
a
d
e
m
i
c

S
k
i
l
l
s

a
n
d

S
e
l
f
-
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
B
l
a
c
k
s
W
h
i
t
e
s
L
o
w
S
E
S
a
H
i
g
h
S
E
S
B
l
a
c
k
s
W
h
i
t
e
s
L
o
w
S
E
S
a
H
i
g
h
S
E
S
F
e
m
a
l
e
*
p
<
.
0
5
,

*
*
p
<
.
0
1
,

*
*
*
p
<
.
0
0
1
.

N
o
t
e
.

A
l
l

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

a
r
e

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
i
z
e
d

b
y

f
u
l
l

s
a
m
p
l
e

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
.

C
o
n
t
r
o
l

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
:

d
a
t
a

c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

s
i
t
e
,

t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t

s
t
a
t
u
s
,

c
h
i
l
d

e
t
h
n
i
c
i
t
y
,

g
e
n
d
e
r
,

b
i
r
t
h

w
e
i
g
h
t
,

n
e
o
n
a
t
a
l

h
e
a
l
t
h
,

m
o
t
h
e
r
'
s

r
a
t
i
n
g

o
f

h
o
m
e

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
,

n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n

l
i
v
i
n
g

i
n

t
h
e

h
o
m
e
,

h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

a
t

b
i
r
t
h
,

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

f
a
m
i
l
y

i
n
c
o
m
e

t
o

n
e
e
d
s

r
a
t
i
o

a
t

a
g
e
s

1
-
3
,

m
o
t
h
e
r
'
s

a
g
e
,

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
,

a
n
d

d
e
p
r
e
s
s
i
v
e

s
y
m
p
t
o
m

s
c
o
r
e

a
t

4
0

w
e
e
k
s
.

A
g
e

5

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
:

M
a
t
e
r
n
a
l

r
e
p
o
r
t
s

o
f

a
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s

(
3

i
t
e
m
s
)

a
n
d

o
v
e
r
a
l
l

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s

(
l
e
s
s

t
h
e

t
h
r
e
e

i
t
e
m
s

p
e
r
t
a
i
n
i
n
g

t
o

a
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
)

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

A
c
h
e
n
b
a
c
h

C
h
i
l
d

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
.

A
g
e

3

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
:

M
a
t
e
r
n
a
l

r
e
p
o
r
t
s

o
f

o
v
e
r
a
l
l

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s

(
A
c
h
e
n
b
a
c
h

C
h
i
l
d

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
)

a
n
d

t
e
s
t

o
b
s
e
r
v
e
r

r
e
p
o
r
t
s

o
f

c
h
i
l
d
'
s

a
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
.

a

M
a
r
g
i
n
a
l

e
f
f
e
c
t
s

f
r
o
m

a

l
o
g
i
s
t
i
c

r
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
.

D
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

i
s

a
n

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r

o
f

e
v
e
r

b
e
i
n
g

r
e
t
a
i
n
e
d

a

g
r
a
d
e
.

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
s

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

t
h
e

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
-
p
o
i
n
t

c
h
a
n
g
e

i
n

t
h
e

p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
f

b
e
i
n
g

r
e
t
a
i
n
e
d

a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

a

o
n
e

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n

c
h
a
n
g
e

i
n

t
h
e

g
i
v
e
n

i
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
.
(
1
)
T
e
s
t

S
c
o
r
e
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
M
a
t
h
(
1
1
)
(
1
2
)
(
9
)
(
1
0
)
Table 21
MLEPS Descriptive Statistics for Measures of Achievement and Self-Regulation
M SD
Prior Achievement
PPVT 43.30 (22.81)
Number Knowledge Test 3.15 (0.94)
PPVT 52.84 (25.61)
Test Score
PPVT 62.58 (24.01)
Teacher Report
Attentive Behavior 9.91 (2.34)
Prosocial Behavior (Interpersonal Skills) 18.22 (5.21)
Physically Aggressive Behavior (Externalizing) 8.19 (2.57)
Anxious Behavior (Internalizing) 3.96 (1.38)
Depressive Behavior 2.47 (0.80)
Hyperactive Behavior 7.09 (2.76)
Teacher Report
Verbal Skills 15.94 (3.81)
Test Score
Teacher Report
Verbal Skills 15.44 (3.75)
Test Score
End of 3rd Grade
End of J unior Kindergaten (Cohort 1)
Beginning of Kindergarten (Cohort 2)
End of Kindergarten
End of 1st Grade
T
a
b
l
e

2
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
E
n
d

o
f

3
r
d

G
r
a
d
e
T
e
a
c
h
e
r

R
e
p
o
r
t

1
.

V
e
r
b
a
l

S
k
i
l
l
s
1
.
0
0
T
e
s
t

S
c
o
r
e

2
.

N
u
m
b
e
r

K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

T
e
s
t
.
4
3
1
.
0
0
E
n
d

o
f

1
s
t

G
r
a
d
e
T
e
a
c
h
e
r

R
e
p
o
r
t

3
.

V
e
r
b
a
l

S
k
i
l
l
s
.
4
9
.
3
5
1
.
0
0
T
e
s
t

S
c
o
r
e

4
.

N
u
m
b
e
r

K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

T
e
s
t
.
3
4
.
4
5
.
3
4
1
.
0
0
E
n
d

o
f

K
i
n
d
e
r
g
a
r
t
e
n
T
e
s
t

S
c
o
r
e

5
.

P
P
V
T
.
3
5
.
2
1
.
5
2
.
2
3
1
.
0
0

6
.

N
u
m
b
e
r

K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

T
e
s
t
.
3
3
.
4
5
.
4
4
.
4
3
.
4
6
1
.
0
0
T
e
a
c
h
e
r

R
e
p
o
r
t

7
.

A
t
t
e
n
t
i
v
e

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
.
3
0
.
3
1
.
2
9
.
3
1
.
1
2
.
3
0
1
.
0
0

8
.

P
r
o
s
o
c
i
a
l

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

.
1
6
.
1
1
.
1
4
.
1
0
.
1
7
.
1
4
.
2
4
1
.
0
0

9
.

P
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
l
y

A
g
g
r
e
s
s
i
v
e

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
-
.
0
6
a
-
.
0
8
a
-
.
0
6
a
-
.
1
3
-
.
0
1
a
-
.
0
9
-
.
3
6
-
.
2
1
1
.
0
0

1
0
.

A
n
x
i
o
u
s

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
-
.
0
8
a
-
.
0
5
a
-
.
0
7
a
-
.
0
8
-
.
0
4
a
-
.
0
5
a
-
.
2
8
-
.
1
8
.
1
6
1
.
0
0

1
1
.

D
e
p
r
e
s
s
i
v
e

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
-
.
0
5
a
-
.
0
4
a
-
.
0
4
a
-
.
1
5
.
0
1
a
-
.
0
4
a
-
.
2
5
-
.
1
4
.
2
5
.
5
5
1
.
0
0

1
2
.

H
y
p
e
r
a
c
t
i
v
e

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
-
.
1
2
-
.
2
3
-
.
1
4
-
.
2
1
-
.
0
3
a
-
.
1
8
-
.
6
6
-
.
2
2
.
6
0
.
2
2
0
.
2
1
1
.
0
0
E
n
d

o
f

J
r
-
K
/
B
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g

o
f

K
i
n
d
e
r
g
a
r
t
e
n

1
3
.

P
P
V
T
.
3
3
.
1
9
.
5
1
.
2
4
.
8
7
.
4
4
.
1
4
.
1
4
-
.
0
0
a
-
.
0
2
a
.
0
1
a
-
.
0
5
a
1
.
0
0

1
4
.

N
u
m
b
e
r

K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

T
e
s
t
.
3
5
.
3
7
.
4
3
.
3
5
.
4
0
.
4
9
.
2
4
.
1
4
-
.
0
9
-
.
0
4
a
-
.
0
5
a
-
.
1
5
.
4
1
1
.
0
0
N
o
t
e
.

A
l
l

c
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
a
l
l
y

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t

a
t

p

<

.
0
5

u
n
l
e
s
s

o
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e

n
o
t
e
d
.

C
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

h
a
v
e

v
a
r
i
e
d

n
'
s

d
u
e

t
o

p
a
i
r
w
i
s
e

d
e
l
e
t
i
o
n
;

l
o
w
e
s
t

p
a
i
r
e
d

n

=

4
2
7
.
a
p

>

.
0
5
.
M
L
E
P
S

C
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

A
m
o
n
g

E
n
d

o
f

3
r
d

G
r
a
d
e

A
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t
,

E
n
d

o
f

1
s
t

G
r
a
d
e

A
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t
,

a
n
d

E
n
d

o
f

K
i
n
d
e
r
g
a
r
t
e
n

A
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

S
o
c
i
o
e
m
o
t
i
o
n
a
l

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s
Table 23
Dependent Variable End of 3rd Grade:
End of Kindergarten
Test Score
PPVT .25*** .30*** .19* .00 .08 .05
(.05) (.06) (.09) (.04) (.06) (.08)
Number Knowledge Test .15** .13* .07 .39*** .35*** .29***
(.05) (.06) (.06) (.05) (.05) (.05)
Teacher Report
Positive Behavior
Attentive Behavior .26*** .23*** .20*** .16** .15** .14**
(.06) (.06) (.06) (.05) (.05) (.05)
Prosocial Behavior (Interpersonal Skills) .05 .04 .04 .01 .01 .00
(.04) (.05) (.05) (.04) (.04) (.04)
Problem Behavior
Physically Aggressive Behavior (Externalizing) -.04 -.04 -.03 .04 .06 .06
(.06) (.06) (.06) (.05) (.05) (.05)
Anxious Behavior (Internalizing) -.01 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02
(.05) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.05)
Depressive Behavior .00 -.01 -.03 .01 .03 .02
(.05) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.05)
Hyperactive Behavior .09 .13* .12 -.08 -.11* -.11*
(.06) (.07) (.07) (.06) (.06) (.06)
Cognitive Controls (Prior NKT and PPVT) X X
Observations 477 477 477 565 565 565
R
2
.19 .20 .23 .22 .26 .28
the PPVT and the NKT.
MLEPS Coefficients and Standard Errors from Regressions of End of 3rd Grade Verbal and Math Achievement
Teacher-Rated Score
Verbal Skills
Achievement Test Score
Math Skills
on Early Academic Skills and Self-Regulation
Note. All variables are standardized by full sample standard deviation.

X =variables included in the regression.
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001.
The full set of control variables and respective descriptive statistics are listed in Appendix E.
Control variables include measures of child and parent characteristics, parent expectations,
the home environment, childcare characteristics, and a neighborhood assessment.
Cognitive control variables (assessed at end of junior kindergarten/beginning of kindergarten) include:
T
a
b
l
e

2
5
o
n

E
a
r
l
y

A
c
a
d
e
m
i
c

S
k
i
l
l
s

a
n
d

S
e
l
f
-
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

b
y

G
e
n
d
e
r

a
n
d

L
i
n
g
u
i
s
t
i
c

M
a
j
o
r
i
t
y
/
M
i
n
o
r
i
t
y

S
u
b
g
r
o
u
p
s
D
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

E
n
d

o
f

3
r
d

G
r
a
d
e
:
M
a
l
e
F
e
m
a
l
e
L
i
n
g
u
i
s
t
i
c

M
a
j
o
r
i
t
y
L
i
n
g
u
i
s
t
i
c

M
i
n
o
r
i
t
y
M
a
l
e
F
e
m
a
l
e
L
i
n
g
u
i
s
t
i
c

M
a
j
o
r
i
t
y
L
i
n
g
u
i
s
t
i
c

M
i
n
o
r
i
t
y
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
(
1
)
(
2
)
(
3
)
(
4
)
(
1
)
(
2
)
(
3
)
(
4
)
E
n
d

o
f

K
i
n
d
e
r
g
a
r
t
e
n
T
e
s
t

S
c
o
r
e

P
P
V
T
.
1
2
.
2
6
*
-
.
0
2
.
3
3
*
*
.
0
7
.
0
7
.
0
4
.
1
1
(
.
1
4
)
(
.
1
3
)
(
.
1
3
)
(
.
1
5
)
(
.
1
2
)
(
.
1
2
)
(
.
1
1
)
(
.
1
3
)

N
u
m
b
e
r

K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

T
e
s
t
.
1
5
-
.
0
1
.
0
3
.
0
5
.
3
2
*
*
*
.
2
5
*
*
*
.
3
0
*
*
*
.
3
0
*
*
*
(
.
0
9
)
(
.
0
9
)
(
.
0
9
)
(
.
1
0
)
(
.
0
8
)
(
.
0
8
)
(
.
0
7
)
(
.
0
8
)
T
e
a
c
h
e
r

R
e
p
o
r
t
P
o
s
i
t
i
v
e

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

A
t
t
e
n
t
i
v
e

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
a
.
1
8
*
.
2
3
*
*
.
1
1
.
3
0
*
*
.
0
1
.
3
2
*
*
*
.
1
4
*
.
1
6
(
.
0
9
)
(
.
0
9
)
(
.
0
8
)
(
.
1
0
)
(
.
0
7
)
(
.
0
9
)
(
.
0
7
)
(
.
0
9
)

P
r
o
s
o
c
i
a
l

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

(
I
n
t
e
r
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
)
.
0
4
.
0
2
.
0
9
.
0
6
.
0
0
.
0
5
.
0
1
-
.
0
2
(
.
0
8
)
(
.
0
7
)
(
.
0
7
)
(
.
0
9
)
(
.
0
7
)
(
.
0
6
)
(
.
0
6
)
(
.
0
7
)
P
r
o
b
l
e
m

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

P
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
l
y

A
g
g
r
e
s
s
i
v
e

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

(
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
i
n
g
)

-
.
0
4
-
.
0
0
-
.
0
4
-
.
0
6
.
1
0
.
0
3
.
1
0
-
.
0
5
(
.
0
7
)
(
.
1
2
)
(
.
0
7
)
(
.
1
1
)
(
.
0
7
)
(
.
1
0
)
(
.
0
7
)
(
.
0
9
)

A
n
x
i
o
u
s

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

(
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
i
n
g
)
.
0
4
.
0
5
.
0
3
-
.
0
3
-
.
0
0
.
0
7
.
0
2
-
.
0
0
(
.
0
9
)
(
.
0
7
)
(
.
0
7
)
(
.
1
0
)
(
.
0
7
)
(
.
0
6
)
(
.
0
6
)
(
.
0
8
)

D
e
p
r
e
s
s
i
v
e

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
-
.
0
3
-
.
0
7
-
.
0
4
-
.
0
6
.
0
6
-
.
0
2
.
0
5
-
.
0
4
(
.
0
9
)
(
.
0
7
)
(
.
0
6
)
(
.
1
2
)
(
.
0
7
)
(
.
0
7
)
(
.
0
6
)
(
.
1
0
)

H
y
p
e
r
a
c
t
i
v
e

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
.
1
7
.
1
0
.
0
4
.
2
6
*
*
-
.
1
9
*
.
0
3
-
.
1
1
-
.
0
6
(
.
0
9
)
(
.
1
1
)
(
.
0
9
)
(
.
1
1
)
(
.
0
8
)
(
.
1
1
)
(
.
0
8
)
(
.
1
0
)
C
o
n
t
r
o
l

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C
o
g
n
i
t
i
v
e

C
o
n
t
r
o
l
s

(
P
r
i
o
r

P
P
V
T

a
n
d

N
K
T
)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
2
1
8
2
5
9
2
6
7
1
9
3
2
6
6
2
9
9
3
2
3
2
2
3
R
2
.
2
1
.
2
1
.
1
5
.
3
4
.
2
7
.
2
7
.
2
8
.
2
8

X

=

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

r
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
.
T
h
e

f
u
l
l

s
e
t

o
f

c
o
n
t
r
o
l

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

a
n
d

r
e
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e

d
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e

s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s

a
r
e

l
i
s
t
e
d

i
n

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

E
.
C
o
n
t
r
o
l

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

e
n
d

o
f

k
i
n
d
e
r
g
a
r
t
e
n

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s

o
f

c
h
i
l
d

a
n
d

p
a
r
e
n
t

c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s
,

p
a
r
e
n
t

e
x
p
e
c
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
,

t
h
e

h
o
m
e

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
,
c
h
i
l
d
c
a
r
e

c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s
,

a
n
d

a

n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
.
C
o
g
n
i
t
i
v
e

c
o
n
t
r
o
l

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

(
a
s
s
e
s
s
e
d

a
t

e
n
d

o
f

j
u
n
i
o
r

k
i
n
d
e
r
g
a
r
t
e
n
/
b
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g

o
f

k
i
n
d
e
r
g
a
r
t
e
n
)

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
:

t
h
e

P
P
V
T

a
n
d

t
h
e

N
K
T
.
A
l
l

m
o
d
e
l
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

d
u
m
m
i
e
s

f
o
r

m
i
s
s
i
n
g

d
a
t
a
.
a

-

M
a
l
e

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

i
s

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
y

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

f
e
m
a
l
e

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

f
o
r

m
a
t
h

o
u
t
c
o
m
e

a
t

p

<

.
0
5
*
p
<
.
0
5
,

*
*
p
<
.
0
1
,

*
*
*
p
<
.
0
0
1
.
N
o
t
e
.

A
l
l

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

a
r
e

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
i
z
e
d

b
y

f
u
l
l

s
a
m
p
l
e

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
.

M
L
E
P
S

R
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

E
r
r
o
r
s

f
r
o
m

R
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
s

o
f

E
n
d

o
f

3
r
d

G
r
a
d
e

V
e
r
b
a
l

a
n
d

M
a
t
h

A
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t
T
e
a
c
h
e
r

R
a
t
e
d

S
c
o
r
e
V
e
r
b
a
l

S
k
i
l
l
s
A
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t

T
e
s
t

S
c
o
r
e
M
a
t
h

S
k
i
l
l
s
Table 24
Math Achievement on Early Academic Skills and Self-Regulation
Dependent Variable End of 1st Grade:
End of Kindergarten
Test Score
PPVT .41*** .41*** .24** .07 0.11* .04
(.04) (.05) (.07) (.04) (.05) (.08)
Number Knowledge Test .18*** .18*** .11** .37*** .35*** .30***
(.04) (.04) (.04) (.04) (.04) (.04)
Teacher Report
Positive Behavior
Attentive Behavior .20*** .17*** .15** .16** .15** .13**
(.05) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.05)
Prosocial Behavior (Interpersonal Skills) -.01 .02 .01 -.01 -.01 -.01
(.03) (.04) (.04) (.04) (.04) (.04)
Problem Behavior
Physically Aggressive Behavior (Externalizing) .02 .04 .03 .00 .01 .01
(.05) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.05)
Anxious Behavior (Internalizing) -.01 .02 .02 .03 .05 .04
(.04) (.04) (.04) (.04) (.04) (.04)
Depressive Behavior .01 .02 .02 -.08 -.07 -.07
(.04) (.04) (.04) (.04) (.04) (.04)
Hyperactive Behavior .01 .00 .00 -.04 -.09 -.09
(.05) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.06) (.06)
Cognitive Controls (Prior PPVT and NKT) X X
Observations 627 627 627 666 666 666
R
2
.33 .34 .37 .27 .26 .27

X =variables included in the regression.
The full set of control variables and respective descriptive statistics are listed in Appendix E.
Control variables include measures of child and parent characteristics, parent expectations,
the home environment, childcare characteristics, and a neighborhood assessment.
Cognitive control variables (assessed at end of junior kindergarten/beginning of kindergarten) include:
the PPVT and the NKT.
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001.
Note. All variables are standardized by full sample standard deviation.
MLEPS Coefficients and Standard Errors from Regressions of End of 1st Grade Verbal and
Math Skills
Teacher-Rated Score Achievement Test Score
Verbal Skills
Table 26
BCS Descriptive Statistics for Measures of Achievement and Self-Regulation
M SD
Age 30 Outcomes
Highest Academic Qualification 1.80 (1.42)
Log wage 2.04 (0.49)
Age 10 test scores
Reading 0.00 (1.00)
Math 0.00 (1.00)
Age 5 test scores
Human Figure Drawing 0.00 (1.00)
Vocabulary 0.00 (1.00)
Profile Drawing 0.00 (1.00)
Copying Designs 0.00 (1.00)
Age 5 behavioral measures
Inattention 0.00 (1.00)
Internalizing Behavior 0.00 (1.00)
Externalizing Behavior 0.00 (1.00)
Table 27
Academic and Behavior Skills
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Age 30 outcomes
1. Highest Academic Qualification 1.00
2. Log wage .34 1.00
Age 10 test scores
3. Reading .46 .26 1.00
4. Math .46 .32 .75 1.00
Age 5 test scores
5. Human Figure Drawing .20 .10 .31 .26 1.00
6. Vocabulary .21 .15 .34 .31 .28 1.00
7. Profile Drawing .12 .03 .15 .13 .29 .22 1.00
8. Copying Designs .31 .22 .42 .43 .46 .30 .25
Age 5 behavioral measures
9. Inattention -.14 -.07 -.15 -.15 -.11 -.10 -.06 -.16 1.00
10. Internalizing Behavior -.02 -.05 -.04 -.06 -.02 -.06 -.02 -.04 .20 1.00
11. Externalizing Behavior -.19 -.07 -.21 -.18 -.13 -.14 -.07 -.18 .46 .27 1.00
Note. All correlations are statistically significant at p<.05.
BCS Correlation Matrix for Age 30 Adult Outcomes, Age 10 Reading and Math Test Scores and Age 5
T
a
b
l
e

2
8

D
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

a
t

a
g
e

3
0
:
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
(
1
)
(
2
)
(
3
)
(
4
)
(
5
)
(
6
)
T
e
s
t

s
c
o
r
e
H
u
m
a
n

F
i
g
u
r
e

D
r
a
w
i
n
g
.
0
4
.
0
2
.
0
2
.
0
0
-
.
0
1
-
.
0
1
(
.
0
5
)
(
.
0
5
)
(
.
0
5
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
V
o
c
a
b
u
l
a
r
y
.
1
1
*
.
0
8
.
0
5
.
0
3
.
0
3
.
0
2
(
.
0
5
)
(
.
0
5
)
(
.
0
5
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
P
r
o
f
i
l
e

D
r
a
w
i
n
g
-
.
0
2
-
.
0
2
.
0
0
-
.
0
2
-
.
0
1
-
.
0
1
(
.
0
5
)
(
.
0
5
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
C
o
p
y
i
n
g

D
e
s
i
g
n
s
.
4
2
*
*
*
.
3
6
*
*
*
.
2
5
*
*
*
.
1
1
*
*
*
.
1
0
*
*
*
.
0
8
*
*
(
.
0
5
)
(
.
0
5
)
(
.
0
5
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
3
)
M
o
t
h
e
r

r
e
p
o
r
t
P
r
o
b
l
e
m

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
I
n
a
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
-
.
0
7
-
.
0
7
-
.
0
8
-
.
0
6
*
*
-
.
0
5
*
-
.
0
6
*
*
(
.
0
5
)
(
.
0
5
)
(
.
0
5
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
i
n
g

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
.
0
6
.
0
3
.
0
5
-
.
0
1
.
0
0
.
0
0
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
i
n
g

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
-
.
1
8
*
*
-
.
1
5
*
*
-
.
1
1
*
-
.
0
1
-
.
0
2
.
0
0
(
.
0
6
)
(
.
0
6
)
(
.
0
5
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
2
)
C
o
n
t
r
o
l

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
X
X
X
X
A
g
e

2
2

a
n
d

4
2

m
o
n
t
h

A
b
i
l
i
t
y

a
n
d

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
X
X
O
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
1
5
8
5
1
5
8
5
1
5
8
5
1
1
6
0
1
1
6
0
1
1
6
0
R
2
.
1
4
.
2
3
.
3
3
.
1
2
.
1
7
.
2
5
*

p
<

.
0
5
,

*
*

p
<

.
0
1
,

*
*
*

p
<

.
0
0
1
.
N
o
t
e
.

A
l
l

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

a
r
e

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
i
z
e
d

b
y

f
u
l
l

s
a
m
p
l
e

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
.

A
l
l

m
o
d
e
l
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

m
i
s
s
i
n
g

d
a
t
a

d
u
m
m
i
e
s
.

I
n
a
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
,

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
i
n
g

a
n
d

e
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
i
n
g

p
r
o
b
l
e
m

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s

a
r
e

n
o
t

r
e
v
e
r
s
e

s
c
a
l
e
d
.

C
o
n
t
r
o
l

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
:

c
h
i
l
d

a
g
e

a
n
d

g
e
n
d
e
r
,

p
a
r
e
n
t

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
,

p
a
r
e
n
t

o
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
,

n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

s
i
b
l
i
n
g
s
,

m
a
t
e
r
n
a
l

d
e
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
,

m
a
t
e
r
n
a
l

a
t
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
,

a
m
o
u
n
t

t
h
e

c
h
i
l
d

i
s

r
e
a
d

t
o
.

A
g
e

2
2

a
n
d

4
2

m
o
n
t
h

c
o
n
t
r
o
l

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
:

e
a
r
l
y

c
o
g
n
i
t
i
v
e

a
n
d

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
l

a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,

t
e
s
t

o
b
s
e
r
v
e
r

r
e
p
o
r
t
s

o
f

t
h
e

c
h
i
l
d
'
s

e
a
r
l
y

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
a
l

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,

h
e
i
g
h
t

a
n
d

w
e
i
g
h
t
.

B
C
S

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

E
r
r
o
r
s

f
r
o
m
R
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

M
o
d
e
l
s

o
f

A
g
e

3
0

A
d
u
l
t

O
u
t
c
o
m
e
s

o
n

E
a
r
l
y

A
c
a
d
e
m
i
c

S
k
i
l
l
s

a
n
d

S
e
l
f
-
R
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

H
i
g
h
e
s
t

A
c
a
d
e
m
i
c

Q
u
a
l
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
L
o
g

W
a
g
e
T
a
b
l
e

2
9
B
C
S

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

E
r
r
o
r
s

f
r
o
m

V
a
r
i
o
u
s

R
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

M
o
d
e
l
s

o
f

A
g
e

1
0

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

a
n
d

M
a
t
h

A
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t
o
n

E
a
r
l
y

A
c
a
d
e
m
i
c

S
k
i
l
l
s

a
n
d

S
e
l
f
-
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
D
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

a
t

a
g
e

1
0
:
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
(
1
)
(
2
)
(
3
)
(
4
)
(
5
)
(
6
)
T
e
s
t

s
c
o
r
e
H
u
m
a
n

F
i
g
u
r
e

D
r
a
w
i
n
g
.
1
1
*
*
*
.
1
1
*
*
*
.
0
9
*
*
.
1
0
*
*
.
1
0
*
*
.
0
8
*
*
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
V
o
c
a
b
u
l
a
r
y
.
2
0
*
*
*
.
1
9
*
*
*
.
1
3
*
*
*
.
1
7
*
*
*
.
1
4
*
*
*
.
0
9
*
*
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
P
r
o
f
i
l
e

D
r
a
w
i
n
g
-
.
0
1
-
.
0
1
.
0
0
-
.
0
2
-
.
0
3
-
.
0
2
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
C
o
p
y
i
n
g

D
e
s
i
g
n
s
.
3
7
*
*
*
.
3
3
*
*
*
.
2
6
*
*
*
.
4
4
*
*
*
.
4
1
*
*
*
.
3
5
*
*
*
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
M
o
t
h
e
r

r
e
p
o
r
t
P
r
o
b
l
e
m

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
I
n
a
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
-
.
0
7
*
-
.
0
6
-
.
0
8
*
*
-
.
0
9
*
*
-
.
0
7
*
-
.
0
8
*
*
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
i
n
g

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
.
0
2
.
0
0
.
0
1
.
0
2
.
0
1
.
0
2
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
i
n
g

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
-
.
0
6
-
.
0
4
-
.
0
3
-
.
0
3
-
.
0
1
.
0
0
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
3
)
C
o
n
t
r
o
l

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
X
X
X
X
A
g
e

2
2

a
n
d

4
2

m
o
n
t
h

A
b
i
l
i
t
y

a
n
d

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
X
X
O
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
1
7
7
8
1
7
7
8
1
7
7
8
1
7
5
3
1
7
5
3
1
7
5
3
R
2
.
3
0
.
3
6
.
4
5
.
2
9
.
3
6
.
4
4
*

p
<

.
0
5
,

*
*

p
<

.
0
1
,

*
*
*

p
<

.
0
0
1
.
N
o
t
e
.

A
l
l

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

a
r
e

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
i
z
e
d

b
y

f
u
l
l

s
a
m
p
l
e

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
.

A
l
l

m
o
d
e
l
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

m
i
s
s
i
n
g

d
a
t
a

d
u
m
m
i
e
s
.

I
n
a
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
,

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
i
n
g

a
n
d

e
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
i
n
g

p
r
o
b
l
e
m

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s

a
r
e

n
o
t

r
e
v
e
r
s
e

s
c
a
l
e
d
.

C
o
n
t
r
o
l

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
:

c
h
i
l
d

a
g
e

a
n
d

g
e
n
d
e
r
,

p
a
r
e
n
t

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
,

p
a
r
e
n
t

o
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
,

n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

s
i
b
l
i
n
g
s
,

m
a
t
e
r
n
a
l

d
e
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
,

m
a
t
e
r
n
a
l

a
t
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
,

a
m
o
u
n
t

t
h
e

c
h
i
l
d

i
s

r
e
a
d

t
o
.

A
g
e

2
2

a
n
d

4
2

m
o
n
t
h

c
o
n
t
r
o
l

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
:

e
a
r
l
y

c
o
g
n
i
t
i
v
e

a
n
d

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
l

a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,

t
e
s
t

o
b
s
e
r
v
e
r

r
e
p
o
r
t
s

o
f

t
h
e

c
h
i
l
d
'
s

e
a
r
l
y

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
a
l

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,

h
e
i
g
h
t

a
n
d

w
e
i
g
h
t
.

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

T
e
s
t

S
c
o
r
e
M
a
t
h

T
e
s
t

S
c
o
r
e
T
a
b
l
e

3
0
D
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

a
t

a
g
e

3
0
:
F
e
m
a
l
e
M
a
l
e
H
i
g
h

S
E
S
L
o
w

S
E
S
F
e
m
a
l
e
M
a
l
e
H
i
g
h

S
E
S
L
o
w

S
E
S
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
(
1
)
(
2
)
(
3
)
(
4
)
(
5
)
(
6
)
(
7
)
(
8
)
T
e
s
t

s
c
o
r
e
H
u
m
a
n

F
i
g
u
r
e

D
r
a
w
i
n
g

a
.
0
6
-
.
0
4
-
.
1
1
.
1
2
*
-
.
0
6
.
0
2
.
0
0
-
.
0
2
(
.
0
7
)
(
.
0
7
)
(
.
0
9
)
(
.
0
6
)
(
.
0
5
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
3
)
V
o
c
a
b
u
l
a
r
y
.
0
4
.
0
8
-
.
0
7
.
0
6
.
0
4
.
0
2
-
.
0
1
.
0
5
*
(
.
0
7
)
(
.
0
7
)
(
.
1
0
)
(
.
0
6
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
2
)
P
r
o
f
i
l
e

D
r
a
w
i
n
g
.
0
4
-
.
0
3
-
.
1
4
-
.
0
4
.
0
0
-
.
0
2
-
.
0
1
-
.
0
1
(
.
0
6
)
(
.
0
7
)
(
.
0
7
)
(
.
0
5
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
2
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
2
)
C
o
p
y
i
n
g

D
e
s
i
g
n
s

b
.
1
9
*
.
3
0
*
*
*
.
4
3
*
*
*
.
1
4
*
.
1
0
*
*
.
0
7
*
.
0
6
.
1
0
*
*
(
.
0
8
)
(
.
0
8
)
(
.
1
0
)
(
.
0
6
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
4
)
M
o
t
h
e
r

r
e
p
o
r
t
P
r
o
b
l
e
m

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
I
n
a
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
-
.
1
3
*
-
.
0
2
.
0
0
-
.
1
4
*
*
-
.
0
3
-
.
0
6
*
-
.
1
0
*
-
.
0
5
*
(
.
0
6
)
(
.
0
7
)
(
.
1
0
)
(
.
0
5
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
5
)
(
.
0
2
)
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
i
n
g

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
.
0
6
.
0
3
.
0
3
.
0
6
.
0
4
-
.
0
2
-
.
0
3
.
0
1
(
.
0
5
)
(
.
0
7
)
(
.
0
8
)
(
.
0
5
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
2
)
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
i
n
g

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

c
.
0
7
-
.
2
6
*
*
*
-
.
2
6
*
-
.
0
9
.
0
0
-
.
0
1
-
.
0
1
-
.
0
1
(
.
0
8
)
(
.
0
7
)
(
.
1
0
)
(
.
0
6
)
(
.
0
4
)
(
.
0
3
)
(
.
0
5
)
(
.
0
3
)
O
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
7
8
9
7
9
6
4
4
2
1
1
3
6
5
4
1
6
1
9
3
2
2
8
3
4
R
2
.
4
2
.
3
9
.
5
1
.
3
0
.
3
7
.
3
2
.
4
2
.
2
7
*

p
<

.
0
5
,

*
*

p
<

.
0
1
,

*
*
*

p
<

.
0
0
1
.
B
C
S

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

E
r
r
o
r
s

f
r
o
m

R
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

M
o
d
e
l
s

f
o
r

S
u
b
g
r
o
u
p
s

o
f

A
g
e

3
0

A
d
u
l
t

O
u
t
c
o
m
e
s

o
n

E
a
r
l
y

A
c
a
d
e
m
i
c

S
k
i
l
l
s

a
n
d

S
e
l
f
-
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
a

L
o
w

S
E
S

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

i
s

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
y

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t

f
o
r
m

h
i
g
h

S
E
S

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

f
o
r

a
c
a
d
e
m
i
c

a
t
t
a
i
n
m
e
n
t

a
t
p
<
0
.
0
1
.

b

L
o
w

S
E
S

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

i
s

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
y

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t

f
r
o
m

h
i
g
h

S
E
S

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

f
o
r

a
c
a
d
e
m
i
c

a
t
t
a
i
n
m
e
n
t

a
t
p
<
0
.
0
1
.

c

F
e
m
a
l
e

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

i
s

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
y

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t

f
r
o
m

m
a
l
e

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

f
o
r

a
c
a
d
e
m
i
c

a
t
t
a
i
n
m
e
n
t

a
t
p
<
0
.
0
5
.
H
i
g
h
e
s
t

A
c
a
d
e
m
i
c

Q
u
a
l
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
L
o
g

W
a
g
e
N
o
t
e
.

A
l
l

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

a
r
e

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
i
z
e
d

b
y

f
u
l
l

s
a
m
p
l
e

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
.

A
l
l

m
o
d
e
l
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

m
i
s
s
i
n
g

d
a
t
a

d
u
m
m
i
e
s
.

I
n
a
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
,

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
i
n
g

a
n
d

e
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
i
n
g

p
r
o
b
l
e
m

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s

a
r
e

n
o
t

r
e
v
e
r
s
e

s
c
a
l
e
d
.

C
o
n
t
r
o
l

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
:

c
h
i
l
d

a
g
e

a
n
d

g
e
n
d
e
r
,

p
a
r
e
n
t

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
,

p
a
r
e
n
t

o
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
,

n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

s
i
b
l
i
n
g
s
,

m
a
t
e
r
n
a
l

d
e
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
,

m
a
t
e
r
n
a
l

a
t
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
,

a
m
o
u
n
t

t
h
e

c
h
i
l
d

i
s

r
e
a
d

t
o
.

A
g
e

2
2

a
n
d

4
2

m
o
n
t
h

c
o
n
t
r
o
l

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
:

e
a
r
l
y

c
o
g
n
i
t
i
v
e

a
n
d

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
l

a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,

t
e
s
t

o
b
s
e
r
v
e
r

r
e
p
o
r
t
s

o
f

t
h
e

c
h
i
l
d
'
s

e
a
r
l
y

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
a
l

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,

h
e
i
g
h
t

a
n
d

w
e
i
g
h
t
.

Table 31
Dependent Variable: All Outcomes Reading Outcomes Math Outcomes
Independent Variables (1) (2) (3)
School Entry Measure
Reading .16*** .23*** .09***
(.03) (.03) (.02)
Math .34*** .26*** .41***
(.04) (.03) (.04)
Cognitive Self-regulation: Attention .09*** .08*** .10***
(.01) (.02) (.02)
Emotional Self-regulation: Externalizing .01 .01 .01
(.01) (.02) (.01)
Social Skills .01 .01 -.00
(.01) (.02) (.01)
Emotional Self-regulation: Internalizing (Omitted)
Time
Years between school entry measure and outcomes -.010* -.013** -.006
(.004) (.004) (.005)
Outcome Source
Test Score -.00 -.01 .00
(.01) (.02) (.02)
Teacher Report (Omitted)
Outcome Subject
Math -.00
(.02)
Reading (Omitted)
Dataset
NLSY .01 .03 -.01
(.03) (.03) (.03)
NICHD SECCYD -.02 -.01 -.02
(.01) (.02) (.02)
IHDP .03 -.00 .09
(.05) (.03) (.09)
MLEPS -.03 -.04 -.02
(.02) (.03) (.02)
BCS .00 -.00 .01
(.02) (.03) (.02)
ECLS-K (Omitted)
Observations 236 118 118
R
2
.73 .78 .84
Note. All coefficients used in these analyses come from the study regressions that include full controls.
Coefficient observations are weighted by the inverse of their variances.
Robust standard errors in parentheses.
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001.
Meta-analytic Regressions of the 236 Standardized Coefficients from the Six Data Sets
Variable M SD
Baseline child characteristics
Race
White .61 (.49)
Black .14 (.35)
Hispanic .13 (.34)
Asian .05 (.23)
Other .06 (.23)
Female .50 (.50)
Age (inmonthsat Fall K assessment) 68.53 (4.26)
Age (squared) 4714.21 (587.80)
Age (cubed x 1000) 3.26E+08 (61100000.00)
Birth weight (inpounds) 6.96 (2.15)
Missing birthweight .06 (.23)
Premature (childover 2weeks early) .16 (.37)
Parent report of overall child health (1=excellent, 5=poor) 1.54 (.85)
Geographic controls
West .21 (.41)
Midwest .27 (.44)
Northeast .20 (.40)
South .32 (.47)
Urban .46 (.50)
Rural .23 (.42)
Suburban .31 (.46)
Home Environment
Number of siblings 1.43 (1.11)
Number of siblings (squared) 3.28 (5.70)
Number of siblings (cubed) 10.27 (37.90)
Childpart of multiplebirth .03 (.16)
Two biological parents (continuouslymarried) .58 (.49)
Adopted .01 (.12)
Live with guardian .02 (.15)
Single biological parent .20 (.40)
Biological parent andother parent .07 (.25)
Two biological parents (not continuously married) .11 (.31)
English not primary homelanguage .08 (.27)
Missingprimary home language .03 (.16)
Four or more moves pre-school .10 (.30)
Parent reads to child(days/week) 4.88 (2.29)
Missingread to child .05 (.22)
Parent tells stories to child (days/ week) 3.55 (2.47)
Missing tell stories to child .05 (.23)
Appendix A
ECLS-K Descriptive Statistics for Control Variables
Appendix A (continued)
Variable M SD
Number of children's books in the home 75.33 (60.96)
Missing number of books .06 (.24)
Watched Sesame Street pre-school .56 (.50)
Parental Characteristics
Mother's ageat child's birth 26.19 (9.48)
Missing mother's ageat child's birth .07 (.25)
Mother's ageat first birth 21.75 (9.25)
Missingmother'sage at first birth .11 (.31)
Mother's education (in years) 13.21 (3.52)
Missing mother's education .04 (.20)
Father'seducation (in years) 11.16 (6.11)
Missing father'seducation .20 (.40)
Mother workedbetween birth and kindergarten .71 (.45)
Missing whether mother worked betweenbirthandkindergarten .06 (.24)
Income 46184.24 (37955.73)
Missing income .13 (.34)
Mother's occupation (prestigescore) 29.44 (22.68)
Mother's occupation (squared) 1381.15 (1338.13)
Mother's occupation (cubed x 1000) 6.93E+07 (86500000.00)
Missing mother's occupation .33 (.47)
Father'soccupation (prestige score) 32.48 (21.44)
Father's occupation(squared) 1514.67 (1324.56)
Father'soccupation (cubed x 1000) 7.57E+07 (90300000.00)
Missing father'soccupation .26 (.44)
WIC .39 (.49)
Missing WIC .03 (.18)
Food Stamp .24 (.43)
Missing FoodStamp .06 (.23)
AFDC .16 (.37)
Missing AFDC .06 (.23)
Child care arrangements(pre-K)
Relative pre-school care .13 (.34)
Center-Based pre-school care .43 (.50)
Non-Relative pre-school care .10 (.31)
Head Start .08 (.27)
Varied pre-school care .06 (.23)
Missing pre-school care .04 (.19)
Child ever in center-based pre-school care .74 (.44)
(1="Big Problem", 3="No Problem")
Neighborhood safety 2.71 (.51)
Neighborhood litter 2.88 (.36)
Neighborhood drug use 2.89 (.37)
Neighborhood burglary 2.88 (.36)
Neighborhood characteristics
Appendix A (continued)
Variable M SD
Neighborhood violence 2.97 (.20)
Neighborhood vacancies 2.95 (.26)
Parental expectations at baseline
Years of educationparent expects childto complete 15.27 (4.29)
Missing educationexpectation .06 (.23)
How important is it that your childdoes thefollowing by kindergarten?
(1="Essential", 5="Not Important")
Count 2.23 (1.02)
Missing count .05 (.22)
Share 1.62 (.68)
Missing share .05 (.22)
Draw 1.97 (.88)
Missing draw .05 (.22)
Be calm 1.85 (.80)
Missing calm .05 (.22)
Knows letters 2.09 (.95)
Missing knows letters .05 (.22)
Communicates well 1.62 (.70)
Missing communicates well .05 (.22)
Missing Dummiesfor teacher measures
Missing teacher report self control .04 (.21)
Missing teacher report interpersonal skills .05 (.22)
Missing teacher report externalizing .02 (.15)
Missing teacher report internalizing .03 (.18)
Note . n=10852.
Variable M S
Child Characteristics
Black .34 (.47)
Hispanic .20 (.40)
Boy .50 (.50)
Cohort 1 .19 (.40)
Cohort 2 .29 (.45)
Cohort 3 .30 (.46)
Mother Characteristics
Mother AFQT Test Score .33 (.26)
Missing AFQT .03 (.16)
Mother Ever Use Alcohol .86 (.35)
Mother Fight .30 (.73)
MomSteal .06 (.24)
Age MomStart toSmoke 10.80 (6.48)
Mother Never Smoke .23 (.42)
Mother Marijuana Use: Occasional .14 (.35)
Mother Marijuana Use: Moderate or High .26 (.44)
Mother Drug Use: Occasional .05 (.22)
Mother Drug Use: Moderate or High .08 (.27)
Age of Momat Birth 22.52 (2.96)
Missing MomSteal .04 (.20)
Missing MomDrug Use .05 (.21)
Mother fromTwo-Parent Family .57 (.49)
MomBorn in US .94 (.24)
MomUse Alcohol During Pregnancy .41 (.49)
MomReceived Prenatal Care .95 (.22)
Missing Alcohol During Pregnancy .04 (.20)
Missing Prenatal Care .04 (.19)
Missing SmokingDuring Pregnancy .04 (.19)
Childhood Characteristics (Age 5/6)
In Poverty .30 (.46)
Near Poverty .15 (.35)
Middle Income .10 (.30)
Missing Family Income .18 (.39)
Urban Residence .75 (.43)
Never Married .14 (.35)
Years Divorced .20 (.40)
Cohabiting .04 (.19)
Blended Family .06 (.24)
Live w/ Grandmother .09 (.29)
Ave #Children 2.54 (1.16)
Total HOME Score 1.85 (.55)
Missing Total HOME .05 (.21)
Mom's Highest Grade Completed 12.18 (2.07)
Early Childhood Characteristics (Age 0-5)
% Years Poverty .19 (.27)
% Years Near Poverty .21 (.26)
% Years Middle Income .14 (.20)
Missing Family Income .14 (.34)
% Years Urban Residence .75 (.41)
% Years Never Married .25 (.40)
% Years Divorced .11 (.25)
% Years w/ Grandmother .17 (.29)
Ave #Children 2.21 (1.03)
Missing Urban Residence .02 (.15)
Appendix B
NLSY Descriptive Statistics for Control Variables
D
M SD
Child characteristics
Ethnicity
a
African-American 0.11 (0.32)
Hispanic 0.06 (0.23)
Other 0.06 (0.24)
Gender
a
, 1=male, 2=female 1.50 (0.50)
Child is first born
a
, 0=no, 1=yes 0.46 (0.50)
General health 3.38 (0.65)
Missing health 0.02 (0.13)
Home environment
Number of children living in home 2.26 (0.95)
Household structure
Married, mother and other male 0.03 (0.18)
Partnered, mother and bio-father 0.04 (0.19)
Single mother or Partneredmother w/other 0.19 (0.39)
Parenting (z-score) 0.03 (0.82)
Missing parenting 0.02 (0.15)
Mother's age
a
28.55 (5.58)
Mother's education
a
14.43 (2.47)
Partner's education
a
14.66 (2.66)
Missing partner'seducation 0.06 (0.24)
Total family income 55,678 49,589
Missing total family income 0.03 (0.16)
Mother's job status, 1=low, 3=high 2.10 (0.80)
Missing mother's job status 0.03 (0.18)
Partner's job status, 1=low, 3=high 2.15 (0.89)
Missingpartner's job status 0.23 (0.42)
Maternal depressivesymptoms 9.69 (8.62)
Missing maternal depressive symptoms 0.02 (0.13)
Ever received public assistance
b
, 0=no, 1=yes 0.12 (0.32)
Child care arrangements
c
Ever innon-maternal care, 0=no, 1=yes 0.99 (0.11)
Proportionof timein center-based care 0.21 (0.26)
Proportion of time inhome-based care 0.12 (0.12)
Missing type of care 0.01 (0.08)
Average qualityof child care 2.94 (0.40)
Missing child care quality 0.08 (0.27)
KeyControl Variables at Age 3
Bracken Basic Skills test 9.11 (2.86)
MissingBracken Basic Skills test 0.04 (0.19)
Expressive Language 97.67 (14.29)
Receptive Vocabulary 98.84 (15.65)
Missing Reynell languagetest 0.03 (0.17)
Impulsivity (total active time engaged withforbidden toy) 40.80 (56.34)
Missing impulsivity 0.08 (0.28)
Maternal report internalizingproblems 51.21 (9.48)
Maternal report externalizing problems 51.21 (8.53)
Missingmaternal report of problembehavior 0.02 (0.15)
Missing Dummiesfor Key Independent Variables
Missing woodcock-johnson 0.02 (0.15)
Missing expressivelanguage 0.02 (0.14)
Missingimpulsivity/sustained attention task(CPT) 0.07 (0.26)
Missing kindergartenteacher report of problembehavior 0.07 (0.25)
Missing kindergartenteacher report of social skills 0.08 (0.27)
Note . n=1014. All covariates measured when thechild wasage4 1/2, unlessotherwisenoted.
c
Averagebetween 6 months and age4 1/2.
Appendix C
NICHDSECCYD Descriptive Statistics for Control Variables
a
Measured at birth.
b
Averagebetween 6 monthsand age3.
M S
Ethnicity
African-American .51 (.50)
White .38 (.48)
Hispanic .11 (.31)
Female .51 (.50)
Birth weight (grams) 1866.93 (391.60)
Neonatal health 100.27 (15.94)
.39 (.49)
Home environment
Number of children livingin home
a
1.83 (.95)
Mother married .47 (.50)
Overall HOME score
b
37.61 (8.95)
Mother's age at child's birth 24.73 (5.99)
Mother's education (in years) 11.92 (2.47)
Average family income to needs
c
1.85 (1.65)
Mother's depressive symptoms
a
10.36 (4.60)
Note . All covariates measured when the child was born, unless otherwise noted. n=744.
a
Measured at 40 weeks.
bM
easured at age3.
c
Measured at ages 1-3.
Treatment status
Appendix D
IHDP Descriptive Statistics for Control Variables
Variable
Baseline child characteristics
D
M SD
Child characteristics
Not-Native Canadian 0.12 (0.33)
Missing not-native Canadian 0.05 (0.22)
Female 0.52 (0.50)
Kindergarten Cohort - 1999 (vs 1998) 0.43 (0.50)
Cohort - Dataavailable J unior Kindergarten (vsSenior) 0.46 (0.50)
Behind inSchool - 3rd Grade 0.13 (0.33)
Missing behind inschool - 3rdGrade 0.43 (0.49)
Age (in years at Spring Kindergarten assessment) 6.13 (0.29)
Missing age 0.01 (0.08)
Child Health (chronicillness/birth defect) 0.07 (0.25)
Missing child health 0.06 (0.24)
Home Environment
Child's livingsituation
Twobiological parents (continuously married) 0.66 (0.47)
Single biological parent 0.25 (0.43)
Biological parent and other 0.07 (0.25)
Guardians (relatives/non-relatives/adoptive) 0.02 (0.15)
Missing child's living situation 0.01 (0.10)
French not primary home language 0.40 (0.49)
Missing primary home language 0.04 (0.20)
Family functioning (dysfunctional) 1.67 (0.48)
Missing family functioning 0.07 (0.25)
Mother'sage at first birth 25.34 (5.10)
Missing mother's age at first birth 0.08 (0.26)
Average parent education 12.25 (3.38)
Missing average parent education 0.16 (0.37)
Mother worked in the last 12months 0.55 (0.50)
Missing whether mother workedin thelast 12months 0.02 (0.14)
Income 5.87 (3.38)
Missing income 0.09 (0.29)
Average parental occupational prestige 39.49 (11.70)
Missing average parental occupational prestige 0.25 (0.43)
Welfare(Mother or Father) 0.34 (0.47)
Missing Welfare 0.01 (0.11)
Child carearrangements (K)
Noreported childcare 0.38 (0.48)
Center-Basedcare 0.46 (0.50)
Non-center care (relative/non-relative at home/other) 0.07 (0.25)
Varied Childcare 0.10 (0.30)
Missing Childcare 0.01 (0.10)
Neighborhood characteristics
Neighborhood good for raising children 3.48 (0.86)
(1="Excellent", 5 ="Very poor" - Reverse scored)
Missing neighborhood goodfor kids 0.05 (0.22)
Parental expectations at baseline
Years of education parent expects child to complete 15.34 (1.14)
Missing education expectation 0.10 (0.30)
How important is it that your child get good grades? 3.60 (0.52)
(1="Very important", 4 ="Not important at all" - Reverse scored)
Missing good grades 0.05 (0.22)
MissingDummies for teacher measures
Missing teacher report attentivebehavior 0.00 (0.00)
Missing teacher report prosocial behavior (interpersonal skills) 0.02 (0.13)
Missing teacher report physically aggressive behavior (externalizing) 0.00 (0.06)
Missing teacher report anxious behavior (internalizing) 0.00 (0.06)
Missing teacher report depressivebehavior 0.00 (0.04)
Missing teacher report hyperactivebehavior 0.01 (0.08)
MLEPSDescriptiveStatistics for Control Variables
Appendix E
Variable M SD
Age 42month test scores
Counting .00 (.92)
Counting (missing) .15 (.36)
Speaking .00 (.92)
Speaking (missing) .15 (.36)
Copying .00 (.92)
Copying (missing) .15 (.36)
Age 42month behavioral measures
Distractibility (Easily distracted) .16 (.36)
Distractibility (Moderately absorbed) .38 (.48)
Distractibility (Absorbed) .25 (.43)
Distractibility (missing) .25 (.43)
Shy / withdrawn .21 (.41)
Friendly & outgoing .25 (.44)
Shy / withdrawn (other) .51 (.50)
Shy / withdrawn (missing) .25 (.44)
Co-operative (Very) .28 (.45)
Co-operative .21 (.41)
Co-operative (Fairly) .16 (.37)
Rather unco-operative .19 (.39)
Unco-operative .09 (.29)
Co-operativeness (missing) .16 (.37)
Age 22month test scores
Cubes .00 (.95)
Cubes (missing) .10 (.30)
Language .00 (.95)
Language (missing) .10 (.30)
Personal development .00 (.95)
Personal development (missing) .10 (.30)
Copying designs .00 (.95)
Copying designs (missing) .10 (.30)
Baseline childand family characteristics
Female .48 (.50)
Sub-group type1 .47 (.50)
Birthweight quintile1 .19 (.39)
Birthweight quintilemissing .09 (.28)
No father present .04 (.21)
Father's SES I .04 (.20)
Father's SES II .10 (.30)
Father's SES III non-manual .10 (.30)
Father's SES III manual .40 (.49)
Father's SES IV .13 (.34)
Father's SES V .06 (.24)
Father's SES other .03 (.16)
Father's SES missing .09 (.28)
Appendix F
BCSDescriptive Statisticsfor Control Variables
Appendix F (continued)
Variable M SD
Father unemployed .03 (.18)
Father unemployed(missing) .11 (.31)
Mother's SES I or II .08 (.27)
Mother's SES III non-manual .25 (.43)
Mother's SES III manual .04 (.21)
Mother's SES IV .18 (.38)
Mother's SES V .01 (.11)
Mother's SES other .01 (.08)
Mother homemaker .27 (.45)
Mother's SES (missing) .16 (.37)
Mother currently employed .04 (.19)
Mother currently employed (missing) .35 (.48)
Mother age 14-18 .05 (.22)
Mother age 19-24 .37 (.48)
Mother age 25-34 .43 (.50)
Mother age 35+ .08 (.27)
Mother age (missing) .06 (.24)
Father's age (no father) .03 (.18)
Father age 14-18 .01 (.09)
Father age 19-24 .17 (.37)
Father age 25-34 .37 (.48)
Father age 35+ .12 (.32)
Father age (missing) .31 (.46)
No older siblings .36 (.48)
1 older sibling .31 (.46)
2 or 3 older siblings .22 (.41)
4 or more older siblings .05 (.21)
Number of older siblings (missing) .06 (.24)
Mother foreign language .34 (.47)
Father speaks a foreign language .34 (.47)
Childand family characteristics at age 5
Number of younger siblings .36 (.59)
High TV viewing .05 (.21)
High TV viewing (missing) .33 (.47)
People per room .90 (.27)
People per room(missing) .01 (.10)
No mother .00 (.05)
No father .03 (.18)
Father's SES I .05 (.21)
Father's SES II .13 (.33)
Father's SES III non-manual .06 (.23)
Father's SES III manual .31 (.46)
Father's SES IV .09 (.28)
Father's SES V .03 (.18)
Father's SES other .00 (.03)
Father's SES (missing) .31 (.46)
Father unemployed .03 (.18)
Father unemployed(missing) .51 (.50)
Mother works part-time .24 (.42)
Mother workstatus missing .30 (.46)
Mother works full-time .05 (.21)
Mother no qualifications .38 (.48)
Mother highest qualification (low) .22 (.42)
Baseline child and family characteristics (continued)
Appendix F (continued)
Variable M SD
Mother highest qualification (medium) .06 (.23)
Mother highest qualification (high) .02 (.13)
Mother highest qualification (missing) .33 (.47)
Father no qualifications .34 (.47)
Father highest qualification (low) .18 (.39)
Father highest qualification (medium) .05 (.23)
Father highest qualification (high) .09 (.28)
Father highest qualification (missing) .34 (.47)
Housing type(house) .61 (.49)
Housing type(flat) .07 (.26)
Housing type(bedsit) .01 (.08)
Housing type(missing) .31 (.46)
Telephone ownership .40 (.49)
Telephone ownership (missing) .30 (.46)
Number of younger siblings (missing) .30 (.46)
Mother depression .13 (.33)
Mother depression (missing) .30 (.46)
Mother anti-TV attitude .00 (.43)
Mother anti-TV attitude (missing) .30 (.46)
Mother low-authoritarian attitude .00 (.72)
Mother low-authoritarian attitude (missing) .30 (.46)
Not read to in past week .08 (.27)
Read to on 1 or 2 days in past week .12 (.33)
Read to on 3-5 days in past week .18 (.39)
Read to on 6-7 days in past week .29 (.45)
Read to (missing) .33 (.47)

School Readiness

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

School Readiness

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Running head: School Readiness and Later Achievement DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi