Sentences with phrase «scores on child outcomes»

Not exact matches

In most families, there was no significant impact of the home visits on the children's mental development or school outcomes, but in families where mothers scored especially low on measures of intelligence and mental health, children's academic performance did improve.

A 10 percent drop in scores, for example, could mean that two new children in a class of 20 affected the outcome, said Lawrence Rudner, director of the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation.

Using a three - arm cluster randomized control trial, we assess the impact of PC on children's social - emotional skills (e.g., executive function, emotion regulation, social competence) and academic outcomes (e.g., literacy, math scores).

The policies that were criticized were those that increased attention to academic outcomes at the expense of children's exploration, discovery, and play; methods that focused on large group activities and completion of one - dimensional worksheets and workbooks in place of actual engagement with concrete objects and naturally occurring experiences of the world; and directives that emphasized the use of group - administered, computer - scored, multiple - choice achievement tests in order to determine a child's starting place in school rather than assessments that rely on active child engagement, teacher judgment, and clinical opinion.

«Not only are their educational outcomes better but, on the best available evidence - value - added scores - independent schools (on average) progress their children more during their school years than state schools.»

During middle school, for example, students from elementary schools that had implemented the Developmental Studies Center's Child Development Project — a program that emphasizes community building — were found to outperform middle school students from comparison elementary schools on academic outcomes (higher grade - point averages and achievement test scores), teacher ratings of behavior (better academic engagement, respectful behavior, and social skills), and self - reported misbehavior (less misconduct in school and fewer delinquent acts)(Battistich, 2001).

This report provides a new resource for understanding the state of urban public schools in the U.S. Geared specifically toward city leaders who want to evaluate how well traditional district and charter schools are serving all their city's children and how their schools compare to those in other cities, the report measures outcomes for all public schools, based on test scores and non-test indicators, in 50 mid - and large - sized cities.

Many schools abandoned decades of research and training in whole child and developmentally appropriate pedagogy to focus on boosting test score outcomes.

As more and more parents choose to opt their children out of standardized tests, some educators and teachers» union representatives have been speculating about how all those missing scores might impact teacher - evaluation outcomes that are based on test results.

For at least a decade, the dominant idea about how to improve outcomes for children and youth has focused on control and compliance; holding adults accountable for raising test scores.

In addition to these four state - based studies of voucher program impacts on test scores, some recent studies do show positive effects on graduation rates, parent satisfaction, community college enrollment, and other nonachievement - based outcomes, but it is unclear if these outcomes are lasting and valid.23 For example, research shows that nationally, graduation rates for students in public schools and peers participating in voucher programs equalize after adjusting for extended graduation rates.24 Some critics suggest that private schools may graduate students who have not successfully completed the full program.25 Also, in regard to parent satisfaction, while some studies do show greater satisfaction among parents whose children participate in voucher programs, the most recent evaluation of the D.C. voucher program shows that any increase in parent or student school satisfaction is not statistically significant.26

We report on the development of the evidence base by examining the ACE survey scores in relationship to the established clinical measures of clinical severity, global function, and problem severity collected routinely for children and adolescents referred and accepted for treatment.29, 30 Systemwide implementation of the ACE survey, as a first step, positions CAAMHPP to become an evidence - based, trauma - informed service organization, because ACE survey scores necessarily must relate to clinical outcomes in order to evaluate the effect of trauma - focused interventions in clinical practice.

Efficacy (as a continuous outcome), measured by the overall mean change scores on depressive symptom scales (self - rated or assessor - rated), for example, Children's Depression Rating Scale (CDRS - R) 32 and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) 33 from baseline to endpoint.

We show selected results in figures 1 through 3.64 In these figures, we show how children's predicted scores on the outcome measures vary as a function of their family type.

Main Outcome Measures Child diagnoses based on the Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia; child symptoms based on the Child Behavior Checklist; child functioning based on the Child Global Assessment Scale in mothers whose depression with treatment remitted with a score of 7 or lower or whose depression did not remit with a score higher than 7 on the Hamilton Rating Scale for DepresChild diagnoses based on the Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia; child symptoms based on the Child Behavior Checklist; child functioning based on the Child Global Assessment Scale in mothers whose depression with treatment remitted with a score of 7 or lower or whose depression did not remit with a score higher than 7 on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depreschild symptoms based on the Child Behavior Checklist; child functioning based on the Child Global Assessment Scale in mothers whose depression with treatment remitted with a score of 7 or lower or whose depression did not remit with a score higher than 7 on the Hamilton Rating Scale for DepresChild Behavior Checklist; child functioning based on the Child Global Assessment Scale in mothers whose depression with treatment remitted with a score of 7 or lower or whose depression did not remit with a score higher than 7 on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depreschild functioning based on the Child Global Assessment Scale in mothers whose depression with treatment remitted with a score of 7 or lower or whose depression did not remit with a score higher than 7 on the Hamilton Rating Scale for DepresChild Global Assessment Scale in mothers whose depression with treatment remitted with a score of 7 or lower or whose depression did not remit with a score higher than 7 on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression.

Children living in poverty have lower scores on standardized tests of academic achievement, poorer grades in school, and lower educational attainment.2, 3 These patterns persist into adulthood, ultimately contributing to low wages and income.4, 5 Moreover, increased exposure to poverty in childhood is tied to greater deficits in these domains.6, 7 Despite numerous studies demonstrating the relationship between family resources and children's educational outcomes, little is known about mechanisms underlying the influence of poverty on children's learning and achiChildren living in poverty have lower scores on standardized tests of academic achievement, poorer grades in school, and lower educational attainment.2, 3 These patterns persist into adulthood, ultimately contributing to low wages and income.4, 5 Moreover, increased exposure to poverty in childhood is tied to greater deficits in these domains.6, 7 Despite numerous studies demonstrating the relationship between family resources and children's educational outcomes, little is known about mechanisms underlying the influence of poverty on children's learning and achichildren's educational outcomes, little is known about mechanisms underlying the influence of poverty on children's learning and achichildren's learning and achievement.

In the early months and years of these initiatives, it can be difficult to assess whether changes in policy and practice are having a significant effect on big - picture outcomes for children — third grade reading scores, for instance, or college and career readiness.

Nevertheless, children in this cluster did not score significantly better than other children on 10 additional outcomes.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Father involvement has a unique impact on children's outcomes, including cognitive development, achievement, math and reading scores, as well as behavior.

So each child has a score from zero to five based on the number of outcomes that we have used in our analysis above:

Children were assigned to «positive» and «negative» child development outcome categories based on mean or median scores for the various tests used.

By school entry, 43 — 47 % of Aboriginal children have markers of developmental vulnerability.12, 13 In 2009, the first - ever national census of childhood development at school entry showed that Aboriginal children were 2 — 3 times more likely than non-Aboriginal children to be developmentally vulnerable — defined as an Australian Early Development Census (AEDC) score below the 10th centile — on one or more domains.14 The Longitudinal Survey of Australian Children reported similar disparities for cognitive outcomes among Aboriginal children aged 4 — 5 years, although the number of Aboriginal children was very small and not representative of the Aboriginal population.15 There is currently a dearth of empirical research that identifies the drivers of positive early childhood health and development in Aboriginal children, or characterises vulnerable developmental trajechildren have markers of developmental vulnerability.12, 13 In 2009, the first - ever national census of childhood development at school entry showed that Aboriginal children were 2 — 3 times more likely than non-Aboriginal children to be developmentally vulnerable — defined as an Australian Early Development Census (AEDC) score below the 10th centile — on one or more domains.14 The Longitudinal Survey of Australian Children reported similar disparities for cognitive outcomes among Aboriginal children aged 4 — 5 years, although the number of Aboriginal children was very small and not representative of the Aboriginal population.15 There is currently a dearth of empirical research that identifies the drivers of positive early childhood health and development in Aboriginal children, or characterises vulnerable developmental trajechildren were 2 — 3 times more likely than non-Aboriginal children to be developmentally vulnerable — defined as an Australian Early Development Census (AEDC) score below the 10th centile — on one or more domains.14 The Longitudinal Survey of Australian Children reported similar disparities for cognitive outcomes among Aboriginal children aged 4 — 5 years, although the number of Aboriginal children was very small and not representative of the Aboriginal population.15 There is currently a dearth of empirical research that identifies the drivers of positive early childhood health and development in Aboriginal children, or characterises vulnerable developmental trajechildren to be developmentally vulnerable — defined as an Australian Early Development Census (AEDC) score below the 10th centile — on one or more domains.14 The Longitudinal Survey of Australian Children reported similar disparities for cognitive outcomes among Aboriginal children aged 4 — 5 years, although the number of Aboriginal children was very small and not representative of the Aboriginal population.15 There is currently a dearth of empirical research that identifies the drivers of positive early childhood health and development in Aboriginal children, or characterises vulnerable developmental trajeChildren reported similar disparities for cognitive outcomes among Aboriginal children aged 4 — 5 years, although the number of Aboriginal children was very small and not representative of the Aboriginal population.15 There is currently a dearth of empirical research that identifies the drivers of positive early childhood health and development in Aboriginal children, or characterises vulnerable developmental trajechildren aged 4 — 5 years, although the number of Aboriginal children was very small and not representative of the Aboriginal population.15 There is currently a dearth of empirical research that identifies the drivers of positive early childhood health and development in Aboriginal children, or characterises vulnerable developmental trajechildren was very small and not representative of the Aboriginal population.15 There is currently a dearth of empirical research that identifies the drivers of positive early childhood health and development in Aboriginal children, or characterises vulnerable developmental trajechildren, or characterises vulnerable developmental trajectories.

Assignment to «positive» and «negative» child development outcome categories was based on mean or median scores for the various tests used.

Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations) The study compared scores on measures of cognitive and social ability for children whose parents had participated in the New Parents as Teachers (NPAT)[now called Parents as Teachers] demonstration program with a comparison group from the same community.

The study used a variety of sources to measure outcomes, including mother, teacher, and child reports (e.g., on child behavior), school records (e.g., achievement test scores, GPA), and state administrative records (e.g., receipt of welfare and other government assistance).

Although the differences between children with low and high scores on the negative outcome scale were not large, they were statistically significant.

In recent years, the responsible fatherhood field has expanded beyond its roots in employment and parenting services for low - income fathers, recognizing the need to also help fathers enhance their relationship skills.4 Research indicates that children raised by both parents in low ‐ conflict homes achieve better scores, on average, for a host of indicators.5 Non-residential fathers face various communication and relationship challenges that can affect engagement with their children and willingness to pay child support.6 By providing services to help fathers communicate openly in healthy, cooperative parenting relationships, programs can improve potential outcomes for children, irrespective of their parents» living arrangements.

Positive scores on Instruction Support in the CLASS have been shown by researchers to be directly correlated to positive child outcomes for children.

First, we examined the relationships of plausible covariates, including gender, birth - weight, post-conceptual age on the visit day (gestational age + days of life since birth to the visit day), ethnicity, prenatal smoking exposure, and child sleep condition at the time of EEG recording with outcome measures (frontal EEG power, functional connectivity at 6 and 18 months of age, or behavioral scores at 24 months of age).

The aim of the present study was to examine whether treatment fidelity scores obtained for PMTO certification purposes prior to the intervention would be associated with treatment completion and with larger treatment effects on various outcome variables, including child externalizing behavior problems, parenting practices, parental psychopathology, parenting stress, working alliance.