The DOI matches its Crossref record; 110 of the 110 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 88 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes
Open accessAbstract
Success in school and the labour market relies on more than high intelligence. Associations between ‘non-cognitive’ skills in childhood, such as attention, self-regulation and perseverance, and later outcomes have been widely investigated. In a systematic review of this literature, we screened 9,553 publications, reviewed 554 eligible publications and interpreted results from 222 better-quality publications. Better-quality publications comprised randomized experimental and quasi-experimental intervention studies (EQIs) and observational studies that made reasonable attempts to control confounding. For academic achievement outcomes, there were 26 EQI publications but only 14 were available for meta-analysis, with effects ranging from 0.16 to 0.37 s.d. However, within subdomains, effects were heterogeneous. The 95% prediction interval for literacy was consistent with negative, null and positive effects (−0.13 to 0.79). Similarly, heterogeneous findings were observed for psychosocial, cognitive and language, and health outcomes. Funnel plots of EQIs and observational studies showed asymmetric distributions and potential for small study bias. There is some evidence that non-cognitive skills associate with improved outcomes. However, there is potential for small study and publication bias that may overestimate true effects, and the heterogeneity of effect estimates spanned negative, null and positive effects. The quality of evidence from EQIs underpinning this field is lower than optimal and more than one-third of observational studies made little or no attempt to control confounding. Interventions designed to develop children’s non-cognitive skills could potentially improve outcomes. The interdisciplinary researchers interested in these skills should take a more strategic and rigorous approach to determine which interventions are most effective. Smithers et al. find that, although there is some evidence that non-cognitive skills are associated with improved academic, psychosocial and health outcomes, the evidence is weak and heterogeneous. More rigorous research is required in this field.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
65 Own result · 53 Not checked yet · 25 Own interpretation · 24 No basis given · 19 Own method
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This review can say little about longer-term effects that are of central policy interest such as effects of non-cognitive skills on labour market experience because studies eligible for this review do not have data on longer-term outcomes or do not report it.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For EQIs, Figure 2 (panel A) shows the effect sizes ranged from 0.27SD (95%CI 0.01 to 0.53) for expressive vocabulary to 0.56SD (95%CI 0.14 to 0.99) for general cognitive development.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Results > Cognitive & Language Outcomes
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite the policy enthusiasm and discussion of the importance of non-cognitive skills, the current body of evidence is severely limited given median follow-up periods for EQIs of only about one year.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The quality of evidence from EQIs under-pinning this field is lower than optimal and more than a third of observational studies made little or no attempt to control confounding.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The 95% prediction interval for all psychosocial outcomes were consistent with negative, null and positive effects.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Results > Psychosocial Outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The quality of evidence from EQIs under-pinning this field is lower than optimal and more than a third of observational studies made little or no attempt to control confounding.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was little evidence for differential small study bias comparing EQIs and observational studies.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Results > Assessment of Small Study (Publication) Bias
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Egger regression coefficient p values were all <0.01.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Results > Assessment of Small Study (Publication) Bias
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Observational studies showed little evidence for associations with any of these outcomes.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Results > Health Outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For EQIs, Figure 2 (panel A) shows effect sizes ranged from 0.16SD (95%CI -0.02 to 0.34) for academic achievement and school readiness to 0.37 (95%CI 0.16 to 0.57) for numeracy.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Results > Academic Achievement Outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For observational studies, Figure 2 (panel B) shows effect sizes ranged from 0.13SD (95%CI 0.07 to 0.18) for social skills to 0.21SD (95%CI 0.15 to 0.28) for externalizing behaviour.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Results > Psychosocial Outcomes
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For observational studies, Figure 2 (panel B) shows effect sizes ranged from 0.08SD (95%CI -0.01 to 0.17) for general cognitive development to 0. 20SD (95%CI 0.11 to 0.30) for total IQ.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Results > Cognitive & Language Outcomes
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For EQIs, Figure 2 (panel A) shows effect sizes ranged from 0.23SD (95%CI 0.15 to 0.30) for externalising behaviour to 0.46SD (95%CI 0.31 to 0.61) for social skills.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Results > Psychosocial Outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, in academic achievement and psychosocial outcome domains, larger sample, cluster RCTs tended to generate smaller effects than individually randomized small RCTs.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Across RCTs there was no consistent evidence favouring one mode of intervention delivery over another.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Results > Psychosocial Outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For effortful control, evidence was mixed, ranging from null to 0.85SD on externalizing behaviour.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Results > Psychosocial Outcomes
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For inhibitory control, self-regulation, emotional regulation, impulsivity, self-control and temperament, there was some evidence of effects (0.1 to 0.7SD) on social skills and mental health problems.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Results > Psychosocial Outcomes
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, there was insufficient evidence upon which to base a conclusion about the relative effectiveness of different modes and mechanisms of intervention on non-cognitive skills.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Main findings
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was no compelling evidence of effects of attention on cognitive and language outcomes from observational studies.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Results > Cognitive & Language Outcomes
plainn = 77- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Larger, higher quality RCTs showed effects from 0 to 0.3SD25,48–50.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Main findings
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [25] Raver, C. C. et al. CSRP’s Impact on low-income preschoolers’ preacademic skills: self-regulation as a mediating mechanism. Child Dev. 82, 362–378 (2011). source
- Not checked yetcites [48] Brotman, L. M. et al. Cluster (school) RCT of parentcorps: impact on kindergarten academic achievement. Pediatrics 131, e1521–e1529 (2013). source
- Not checked yetcites [49] Barnett, W. S. et al. Educational effects of the Tools of the Mind curriculum: a randomized trial. Early Child. Res. Q. 23, 299–313 (2008). source
- Not checked yetcites [50] Ialongo, N. S. et al. Proximal impact of two first-grade preventive interventions on the early risk behaviors for later substance abuse, depression, and antisocial behavior. Am. J. Commun. Psychol. 27, 599–641 (1999). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, we found little evidence of differences in potential small study and publication bias between EQIs and observational studies.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was little evidence that attention, executive function and delay of gratification affected psychosocial outcomes.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Results > Psychosocial Outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was little evidence to conclude that any one measurement tool, measurement method (objective or subjective) or underlying non-cognitive construct was consistently associated with academic achievement.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Results > Academic Achievement Outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Interventions that trained children in more specific skills such as executive function, generally showed small effects (e.g., Tools of the Mind)49.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Implications for future research
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [49] Barnett, W. S. et al. Educational effects of the Tools of the Mind curriculum: a randomized trial. Early Child. Res. Q. 23, 299–313 (2008). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It was not uncommon for the same objective tasks to be used as measures of different conceptualisations of non-cognitive abilities.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Implications for future research
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The psychosocial outcome studies were the most diverse in interventions (ranging from martial arts, to Motivational Interviewing and Tools of the Mind), and exposure and outcome measurement.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Main findings
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is difficult to draw conclusions for physical health outcomes.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Main findings
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The interventions we reviewed attempted to influence many different facets of non-cognitive skills.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Implications for future research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We could find almost no evidence of these sorts of purposeful comparative studies in this field.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Implications for future research
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For psychosocial outcomes, the evidence from RCTs was dominated by studies of externalising problems, with fewer RCTs on social skills and internalising problems.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Main findings
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A good example of this is the inconsistent results reported in five publications that all used the same data source53–57.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Main findings
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [53] NICHD Early Child Care Research Network Do children’s attention processes mediate the link between family predictors and school readiness? Dev. Psychol. 39, 581–593 (2003). source
- Not checked yetcites [54] Ramani, G. B., Brownell, C. A. & Campbell, S. B. Positive and negative peer interaction in 3- and 4-year-olds in relation to regulation and dysregulation. J. Genet. Psychol. 171, 218–250 (2010). source
- Not checked yetcites [55] Runions, K. C. & Keating, D. P. Anger and inhibitory control as moderators of children’s hostile attributions and aggression. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 31, 370–378 (2010). source
- Not checked yetcites [56] Mintz, T. M., Hamre, B. K. & Hatfield, B. E. The role of effortful control in mediating the association between maternal sensitivity and children’s social and relational competence and problems in first grade. Early Educ. Dev. 22, 360–387 (2011). source
- Not checked yetcites [57] Booth-Laforce, C. & Oxford, M. L. Trajectories of social withdrawal from grades 1 to 6: prediction from early parenting, attachment, and temperament. Dev. Psychol. 44, 1298–1313 (2008). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even within the same study, effect sizes differed according to which aspects of academic achievement were measured.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Main findings
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The different measures of attention had different associations with the same social skills outcome.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Main findings
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The heterogeneity of effects is mirrored in the twin, longitudinal and cross-sectional studies.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Main findings
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The relatively small number of studies in this outcome domain (n=23) produced a wide range of effects.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Main findings
plainn = 23- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Effects on externalising problems for EQIs was 0.23 (95% CI 0.15-0.30) with a 95% prediction interval of 0.07 to 0.39.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Main findings
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For example, one RCT showed an effect on numeracy but not literacy49.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Main findings
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [49] Barnett, W. S. et al. Educational effects of the Tools of the Mind curriculum: a randomized trial. Early Child. Res. Q. 23, 299–313 (2008). source
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similarly inconsistent results were reported for EQIs with social skills outcomes.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Main findings
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Across these five publications, interpretation of the effects of self-regulatory abilities depended on how the exposure (attention, delayed gratification, and inhibitory control) and outcome (social skills, withdrawal, and aggression) was measured.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Main findings
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were only 3 EQIs reporting diverse outcomes.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Main findings
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of the academic outcomes reviewed here, over half involved only preschool teachers.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Implications for future research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, until such longer-term studies are reported, many of the claims in the literature that early interventions on a specific trait or with a particular intervention have major long-term effects are supported by very little empirical evidence.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Implications for future research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“More than 90% of all research in this field comes from observational studies.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Evidence Quality
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found no publications attempting to test this theory, despite its obvious importance for judging how non-cognitive skills might influence later life outcomes.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Implications for future research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were seven RCTs published from 2014-2016.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Evidence Quality
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The highest number of citations of previous RCTs referenced in any of the RCTs published from 2014-16 was four79.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Evidence Quality
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [79] Blair, C. & Raver, C. C. Closing the achievement gap through modification of neurocognitive and neuroendocrine function: results from a cluster randomized controlled trial of an innovative approach to the education of children in kindergarten. PLoS ONE 9, e112393 (2014). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This also meant the meta-analysed effect size for literacy increased from 0.22 (including studies with P>p) to 0.33 (excluding studies with P>p) for EQIs because of the exclusion of studies with smaller effect sizes.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Evidence Quality
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It was common for studies to not report variance or exact p values.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Methods > Data synthesis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Excluding outcomes where an effect size could not be calculated reduced the number of available literacy outcomes to 42 outcomes from 14 EQIs.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Evidence Quality
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The literature reported 49 literacy related outcomes in 17 EQIs.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Evidence Quality
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, attention regulation and self-control were common ingredients of almost all of these interventions (Supplementary Table 2-5), so the impression is that new RCTs were not being explicitly justified on the basis of what was already known from existing RCTs.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Evidence Quality
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Several RCTs published between 2014 and 2016 referenced no previous RCTs.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Evidence Quality
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further excluding results where the p-value was reported as P>p meant the meta-analysis and funnel plots could only include 33 literacy outcomes from 11 EQIs.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Evidence Quality
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were 27 previous RCTs of non-cognitive skills on academic achievement and psychosocial outcome domains available to be cited.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Evidence Quality
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of all observational studies, 42% made little or no attempt to adjust for even basic confounding i.e., common causes of non-cognitive ability and the outcome.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Evidence Quality
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Over one-quarter of RCTs may have had other potential biases, for example, differential participation in the control and intervention groups, and unclear processes for selection of control participants.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Evidence Quality
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is a paucity of literature with long-term follow-up.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Implications for future research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For instance, of the 11 literacy EQIs able to be included in the meta-analysis only three were population based.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Implications for future research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For externalising behaviours, of 13 EQIs, only one was in a population-based sample.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Implications for future research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of the 504 observational studies reviewed here, 66% were judged as ‘weak’ or ‘poor’ quality.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Evidence Quality
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, this 2-layer exclusion of reported results (due to sub-optimal reporting practices) meant we could only include 67% of the literacy outcomes actually presented in the literature.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Evidence Quality
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Success in school and the labour market relies on more than high intelligence.”
- Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
“It is over forty years since economists Bowles and Gintis1, in their critique of the US education system, pointed to the importance of skills for labour market success beyond those captured by intelligence, abstract reasoning and academic achievement in literacy and numeracy.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bowles and Gintis1
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While outcomes like academic achievement are clearly related to employment and labour market experience, this review cannot directly inform the role of non-cognitive ability on important outcomes later in life.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interventions designed to develop children’s non-cognitive skills could potentially improve outcomes.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Abstract
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, there is evidence from published EQIs supporting a role for non-cognitive skills in better academic achievement, psychosocial, and cognitive and language outcomes ranging from approximately 0.2 to 0.5SD depending on outcome as shown in Figure 2 Panel A..”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Evidence from RCTs suggests that preschool interventions that improve school readiness may do so in part by increasing children’s ability to self-regulate their attention, emotion and behaviour25.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Introduction > Examples of the evidence for effects of early life non-cognitive skills
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [25] Raver, C. C. et al. CSRP’s Impact on low-income preschoolers’ preacademic skills: self-regulation as a mediating mechanism. Child Dev. 82, 362–378 (2011). source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The need for such a systematic review is driven by the fact that these abilities are being considered by policy makers to underpin early life interventions3, beyond cognitive abilities (intelligence or IQ) and academic achievement (literacy, numeracy).”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [3] Skills for Social Progress: The Power of Social and Emotional Skills (OECD, Paris, 2015).
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“A recent meta-analysis of observational studies of over 14,000 children47 showed a mean effect size of 0.27 for inhibitory control on academic achievement.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [47] Allan, N. P., Hume, L. E., Allan, D. M., Farrington, A. L. & Lonigan, C. J. Relations between inhibitory control and the development of academic skills in preschool and kindergarten: a meta-analysis. Dev. Psychol. 50, 2368–2379 (2014). source
plaincorrelationaln = 14,000- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So at 0.25 and with no bias, effects found in observational data would be expected to be four times larger than experimental impacts.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Effects of interventions on the target non-cognitive skill are likely closer to 0.2 to 0.5 SD.
In the paper
“However, a recent meta-analysis of early childhood education programs found little evidence that those with parenting involvement produced larger effects, unless it involved a high dose of home visits75.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Implications for future research
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [75] Grindal, T. et al. The added impact of parenting education in early childhood education programs: a meta-analysis. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 70, 238–249 (2016). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, non-cognitive abilities appear to have effects on cognitive and language outcomes of ≤0.2SD.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Main findings
hedgedconditionaln = 23- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One regrettable consequence of the relatively low quality of much of the research effort in this field, is that it is not able to shed much light on the question of whether improving non-cognitive skills positively influences outcomes.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Evidence Quality
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, a true null effect of non-cognitive skills on these outcomes cannot be ruled out.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We urge caution in interpreting this overall finding as unequivocally positive, given the potential for small study (publication) bias that may over-estimate the true effects, and the underlying heterogeneity of effect estimates as shown in 95% prediction intervals that were generally consistent with negative, null and positive effects.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Conclusion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 62
- Probably not a substantial claim. 67
In the paper
“Analysis of funnel plots clearly demonstrate asymmetry of effect size and the potential of small study bias43.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [43] Egger, M. & Smith, G. D. Misleading meta-analysis. BMJ 310, 752–754 (1995). source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Prediction intervals were consistent with negative, null and positive effects, ranging from -0.01 to 0.33 for literacy and -0.07 to 0.52 for school readiness.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Results > Academic Achievement Outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The 95% prediction interval for the 11 literacy studies available for meta-analysis was consistent with negative, null and positive effects (-0.13 to 0.79).”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Results > Academic Achievement Outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For observational studies, Figure 2 (panel B) shows effect sizes ranged from 0.16 (95%CI 0.12 to 0.20) for literacy and 0.22 (95%CI 0.14 to 0.31) for academic achievement and school readiness.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Results > Academic Achievement Outcomes
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Table 1 shows that of the 554 eligible studies, only 40% (n=222) were rated as “better” evidence, 21.5% classified as weak and 38.5% as poor, where there was effectively no attempt to control confounding.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Results
plainn = 222- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The systematic search identified 9553 articles from electronic and hand-searched sources.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Funnel plots for both experimental and observational studies were positively skewed and consistent with smaller studies having larger effects.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Results > Assessment of Small Study (Publication) Bias
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were only four studies that could be included in this analysis, so interpretive caution is warranted with no clear pattern to support evidence of fade out effects.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Results > Fade Out
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, forest plots and 95% prediction intervals show large heterogeneity of reported effect sizes generally including the null.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Associations between “non-cognitive” skills in childhood, such as attention, self-regulation, and perseverance, and later outcomes have been widely investigated.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After removing duplicates and assessing eligibility, 554 articles were included and presented in a PRISMA36 flowchart (Figure 1).”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Presenting the analysis in Figure 2 by separating EQIs (Panel A) and observational publications (Panel B) shows larger effects from EQIs than found in higher quality observational studies which ranged from approximately 0.06 to 0.22SD.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One quasi-experimental study reported an effect of 0.79SD, but this effect is difficult to interpret because of an inadequate description of the control group and the outcome.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Results > Health Outcomes
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This is consistent with one higher quality observational publication11 which examined six different cohorts with longer follow-up of 5.5 years and reported effects from 0 to 0.2SD.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Main findings
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [11] Duncan, G. J. et al. School readiness and later achievement. Dev. Psychol. 43, 1428–1446 (2007). source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most studies of self-regulation used the HTKS task and showed some effects on vocabulary.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Results > Cognitive & Language Outcomes
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These studies were generally consistent with 0.2 to 0.4SD short-term effects on academic achievement but effects were heterogeneous with 95% prediction intervals including negative, null and positive effects.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Main findings
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Observational studies on academic achievement generally showed effects around 0.2SD but all 95% prediction intervals included the null.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Main findings
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For executive function effects ranged from a detrimental -0.36 to 0.52SD, but the evidence is predominantly from convenience samples.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Results > Cognitive & Language Outcomes
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Three reasonably-sized cluster RCTs provided the best estimate of the effect of non-cognitive skills on language and cognitive outcomes25,49. They found effects of ~0.1 to 0.2SD.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Main findings
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [25] Raver, C. C. et al. CSRP’s Impact on low-income preschoolers’ preacademic skills: self-regulation as a mediating mechanism. Child Dev. 82, 362–378 (2011). source
- Not checked yetcites [49] Barnett, W. S. et al. Educational effects of the Tools of the Mind curriculum: a randomized trial. Early Child. Res. Q. 23, 299–313 (2008). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In our review, there is little evidence to decide which mode of delivery is best and we can find no evidence of attempts at purposive testing of which way to intervene (e.g. teacher, student, parent or various combinations).”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Implications for future research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The observational studies provide little evidence that the effects are likely to be bigger than ~0.1SD, with seven of nine longitudinal studies showing few differences and cross-sectional studies reporting mixed effects (-0.38 to 0.56SD).”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Main findings
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Average age at the time of intervention was around 4 years with median follow up time under one year.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Main findings
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Higher quality RCTs examining externalising outcomes, reported positive5152 and null effects in the largest of the RCTs37.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Main findings
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [5152]
- Not checked yetcites [37] Webster‐Stratton, C., Jamila Reid, M. & Stoolmiller, M. Preventing conduct problems and improving school readiness: evaluation of the incredible years teacher and child training programs in high‐risk schools. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 49, 471–488 (2008). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, all these studies were small (ranging from n=12 to 64) and reported effects that attenuated over time or were inconsistent at different ages.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Main findings
plainn = 12- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Research that has examined non-cognitive skills in childhood has spanned many disciplines and research traditions, leading to a large number of constructs and tasks being investigated that are sometimes similar in their definition and operationalisation69,70.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Implications for future research
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [69] Duckworth, A. L. & Kern, M. L. A meta-analysis of the convergent validity of self-control measures. J. Res. Pers. 45, 259–268 (2011). source
- Not checked yetcites [70] Zhou, Q., Chen, S. H. & Main, A. Commonalities and differences in the research on children’s effortful control and executive function: a call for an integrated model of self-regulation. Child Dev. Perspect. 6, 112–121 (2012). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Other studies imply that non-specific interventions seem to generate better generalised outcomes31, which may suggest that more holistic programs including multi-dimensional content, may better support overall child development and broad-based benefits.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Implications for future research
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [31] Heckman, J. J., Pinto, R. & Savelyev, P. Understanding the mechanisms through which an early childhood program boosted adult outcomes. Am. Econ. Rev. 103, 2052–2086 (2013). source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Exceptions were: Barnett et al.49 and Blair and Raver79 who examined effects of Tools of the Mind intervention in cluster RCTs and both found small effects of ~0.1SD for vocabulary.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Implications for future research
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [49] Barnett, W. S. et al. Educational effects of the Tools of the Mind curriculum: a randomized trial. Early Child. Res. Q. 23, 299–313 (2008). source
- Not checked yetcites [79] Blair, C. & Raver, C. C. Closing the achievement gap through modification of neurocognitive and neuroendocrine function: results from a cluster randomized controlled trial of an innovative approach to the education of children in kindergarten. PLoS ONE 9, e112393 (2014). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For example the Continuous Performance Task (aka “Go/No Go” task) is used in executive functioning research as a measure of sustained attention and inhibitory control, but it is also used as a measure of effortful control70.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Implications for future research
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [70] Zhou, Q., Chen, S. H. & Main, A. Commonalities and differences in the research on children’s effortful control and executive function: a call for an integrated model of self-regulation. Child Dev. Perspect. 6, 112–121 (2012). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Similarly, the “Head Toes Knees Shoulders Task” has been used to measure both behavioural self-regulation73 and executive functioning74.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Implications for future research
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [73] Ponitz, C. C., McClelland, M. M., Matthews, J. & Morrison, F. J. A structured observation of behavioral self-regulation and its contribution to kindergarten outcomes. Dev. Psychol. 45, 605–619 (2009). source
- Not checked yetcites [74] Cameron, C. E. et al. Fine motor skills and executive function both contribute to kindergarten achievement. Child Dev. 83, 1229–1244 (2012). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Outcomes reported across the 28 better quality observational studies were diverse ranging from anthropometry, to injury to physiological characteristics and were consistent with effects ranging from 0.06 to 0.14SD.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Main findings
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The longitudinal studies were dominated by non-cognitive skills measured using the HTKS and the WJ Picture Vocabulary as the outcome, and despite the popularity of these measurement tools, the results indicate no effects on vocabulary outcomes.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Main findings
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The largest effect sizes were from a well-designed regression discontinuity study (0.44SD)58, a non-randomised intervention (0.55-0.73SD)59 and a small, low quality randomised trial60.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Main findings
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [58] Weiland, C. & Yoshikawa, H. Impacts of a pre kindergarten program on children’s mathematics, language, literacy, executive function, and emotional skills. Child Dev. 84, 2112–2130 (2013). source
- Not checked yetcites [59] Bradley, R. T., Galvin, P., Atkinson, M. & Tomasino, D. Efficacy of an emotion self-regulation program for promoting development in preschool children. Glob. Adv. Health Med. 1, 36–50 (2012). source
- Not checked yetcites [60] Ford, R. M., McDougall, S. J. & Evans, D. Parent-delivered compensatory education for children at risk of educational failure: improving the academic and self-regulatory skills of a Sure Start preschool sample. Br. J. Psychol. 100, 773–797 (2009). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Similarly, another RCT showed that effects on literacy depended on the component of literacy that was measured40,41 and effects on some outcomes faded after one year42.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Main findings
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [40] Nix, R. L., Bierman, K. L., Domitrovich, C. E. & Gill, S. Promoting children’s social-emotional skills in preschool can enhance academic and behavioral functioning in kindergarten: findings from Head Start REDI. Early Educ. Dev. 24, 1000–1019 (2013). source
- Not checked yetcites [41] Bierman, K. L. et al. Promoting academic and social‐emotional school readiness: the Head Start REDI program. Child Dev. 79, 1802–1817 (2008). source
- Not checked yetcites [42] Bierman, K. L. et al. Effects of Head Start REDI on children’s outcomes 1 year later in different kindergarten contexts. Child Dev. 85, 140–159 (2014). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such an intervention has generated about 13% greater improvement than the natural growth in reading during that time.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Evidence Quality
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“No RCTs had a formal pre-registered protocol and two thirds did not explicitly identify primary outcomes (See Supplementary Table 6 on Risk of Bias Tool83).”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Evidence Quality
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [83] Higgins, J. P. T. et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343, d5928 (2011). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“It was common for cluster RCTs to have too few clusters to achieve balance between intervention and control groups and in some it was unclear whether clustering was adequately dealt with in the analysis85.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Evidence Quality
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [85] Leyrat, C., Morgan, K., Leurent, B. & Kahan, B. Cluster randomized trials with a small number of clusters: which analyses should be used? Int. J. Epidemiol. 47, 321–331 (2018). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We urge caution in interpreting this overall finding as unequivocally positive, given the potential for small study (publication) bias that may over-estimate the true effects, and the underlying heterogeneity of effect estimates as shown in 95% prediction intervals that were generally consistent with negative, null and positive effects.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This review clearly demonstrated large between-study heterogeneity from 95% prediction intervals that were consistent with negative, null and positive effects among sub-domains such as literacy and numeracy.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Implications for future research
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The quality of RCTs was not ideal and reporting of some details was poor or even absent.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Evidence Quality
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For instance we sought to examine whether studies that used more representative population-based samples tended to generate smaller effect estimates, but the number of population-based samples in this field is actually rather small.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Implications for future research
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Ninety-two percent of RCTs did not adequately report randomisation procedures, 81% did not report concealment of allocation processes and participant flow, and most failed to address missing data.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Evidence Quality
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Studies typically began at age 4-5, with median follow-up of about one year, and with very few studies with follow-up beyond age 10, there is very little evidence addressing effects on medium to longer-term outcomes.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Implications for future research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were only four studies in which we could assess evidence for fade out and results were inconclusive.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Implications for future research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Poor reporting made it difficult to fully assess study quality and we strongly encourage researchers, journal editors and reviewers to use tools such as the CONSORT statement (http://www.consort-statement.org/) for reporting, and for RCTs to be pre-registered.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Evidence Quality
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This suggests the overall meta-analysed effects from EQIs reported here may be over-estimates that include a null effect.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“some of the EQIs included in better evidence did not receive high quality ratings according to the Risk of Bias tool (Supplementary Table 6).”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, (as pointed out by a reviewer) effect sizes from EQIs and observational studies would only be comparable if the EQI induced a SD change in the particular non-cognitive skill.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Interventions to improve non-cognitive skills may directly improve outcomes7,15, or indirectly, through cognitive ability or other mechanisms.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Introduction > Diversity of non-cognitive skills
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [7] Heckman, J. J. & Kautz, T. Hard evidence on soft skills. Labour Econ. 19, 451–464 (2012). source
- Not checked yetcites [15] Heckman, J. J. & Kautz, T. Fostering and Measuring Skills: Interventions that Improve Character and Cognition (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2013). source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In analysing the long term outcomes of the trial, Heckman et al.31, reported that while initially the intervention increased IQ these increases were not maintained to age 7-8 years.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Introduction > Examples of the evidence for effects of early life non-cognitive skills
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [31] Heckman, J. J., Pinto, R. & Savelyev, P. Understanding the mechanisms through which an early childhood program boosted adult outcomes. Am. Econ. Rev. 103, 2052–2086 (2013). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“It is argued that if these skills are not developed early in life, then it can be extremely difficult and expensive to compensate later in life, and this reduces returns on later investments6.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Introduction > The policy motivation to improve early life non-cognitive skills
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [6] Heckman, J. J. Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged children. Science 312, 1900–1902 (2006). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“observational studies that made reasonable attempts to control for confounding (endogeneity) bias.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Introduction > Examples of the evidence for effects of early life non-cognitive skills
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It is also of great policy interest to governments in many countries3,4, who wish to sustain future economic productivity and social inclusion, by investing significant resources to bolster the development of human capabilities in early life5, especially for disadvantaged children.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Introduction > The policy motivation to improve early life non-cognitive skills
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [3] Skills for Social Progress: The Power of Social and Emotional Skills (OECD, Paris, 2015).
- Not checked yetcites [4] Institute of Education The Impact of Non-cognitive Skills for Young People (UK Cabinet Office, 2013).
- Not checked yetcites [5] Allen, G. Early Intervention: the Next Steps. An Independent Report to Her Majesty’s Government (UK Cabinet Office, 2011).
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“However, this meta-analysis did not exclude poor quality studies, and did not explore potential for small study bias.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [47] Allan, N. P., Hume, L. E., Allan, D. M., Farrington, A. L. & Lonigan, C. J. Relations between inhibitory control and the development of academic skills in preschool and kindergarten: a meta-analysis. Dev. Psychol. 50, 2368–2379 (2014). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“While we can find no evidence that the Perry Preschool Program deliberately set out to influence non-cognitive abilities, Heckman and colleagues argued that the intervention resulted in better outcomes for the participants not as a result of increasing their intelligence, but through fostering non-intelligence based socio-emotional “personality” skills31 (p. 2503).”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Introduction > Examples of the evidence for effects of early life non-cognitive skills
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [31] Heckman, J. J., Pinto, R. & Savelyev, P. Understanding the mechanisms through which an early childhood program boosted adult outcomes. Am. Econ. Rev. 103, 2052–2086 (2013). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, the HighScope Perry Preschool Program started in 1962 suggests other mechanisms may be involved30,31.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Introduction > Examples of the evidence for effects of early life non-cognitive skills
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [30] Schweinhart, L. J. et al. Lifetime Effects: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study through Age 40 (High/Scope Press, Ypsilanti, 2005).
- Not checked yetcites [31] Heckman, J. J., Pinto, R. & Savelyev, P. Understanding the mechanisms through which an early childhood program boosted adult outcomes. Am. Econ. Rev. 103, 2052–2086 (2013). source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Heckman has argued that interventions to develop these skills, especially in disadvantaged young children have the potential for high rates of return due to their positive effects in multiple life domains6.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Introduction > Examples of the evidence for effects of early life non-cognitive skills
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [6] Heckman, J. J. Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged children. Science 312, 1900–1902 (2006). source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“They have been the target of interventions, especially in early life when these traits are thought to be especially malleable16, and for disadvantaged children, who may benefit most6.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Introduction > Diversity of non-cognitive skills
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [16] Diamond, A. & Lee, K. Interventions shown to aid executive function development in children 4 to 12 years old. Science 333, 959–964 (2011). source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“For instance, our own longitudinal analyses in three large population-based cohorts in the UK and Australia showed both cognitive abilities and non-cognitive skills were important in explaining socioeconomic inequalities in academic achievement early in life and that non-cognitive skills were only weakly associated with cognitive ability17.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Introduction > Diversity of non-cognitive skills
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [17] Pearce, A. et al. Do early life cognitive ability and self-regulation skills explain socio-economic inequalities in academic achievement? An effect decomposition analysis in UK and Australian cohorts. Soc. Sci. Med. 165, 108–118 (2016). source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“They have been the target of interventions, especially in early life when these traits are thought to be especially malleable16, and for disadvantaged children, who may benefit most6.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Introduction > Diversity of non-cognitive skills
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [6] Heckman, J. J. Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged children. Science 312, 1900–1902 (2006). source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Non-cognitive abilities have been associated with a number of shorter and longer-term outcomes including mental health18,19, physical health20, school readiness and academic achievement21,22, crime23, employment and income10, and mortality24.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Introduction > Examples of the evidence for effects of early life non-cognitive skills
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [18] Eisenberg, N. et al. Relations among maternal socialization, effortful control, and maladjustment in early childhood. Dev. Psychopathol. 22, 507–525 (2010). source
- Not checked yetcites [19] Fergusson, D. M., Boden, J. M. & Horwood, L. Childhood self-control and adult outcomes: results from a 30-year longitudinal study. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 52, 709–717.e1 (2013). source
- Not checked yetcites [20] Evans, G. W., Fuller-Rowell, T. E. & Doan, S. N. Childhood cumulative risk and obesity: the mediating role of self-regulatory ability. Pediatrics 129, e68–e73 (2012). source
- Not checked yetcites [21] Blair, C. & Razza, R. P. Relating effortful control, executive function, and false belief understanding to emerging math and literacy ability in kindergarten. Child Dev. 78, 647–663 (2007). source
- Not checked yetcites [22] Mischel, W., Shoda, Y. & Peake, P. K. The nature of adolescent competencies predicted by preschool delay of gratification. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 54, 687–696 (1988). source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We deliberately selected higher quality observational studies with more stringent controls for confounding, so it is possible that true effects of non-cognitive skills are actually closer to those from higher quality observational studies that may include a null effect.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Despite this, children who received the intervention went on to enjoy more successful lives in adulthood including greater labour market success, reduced crime involvement and better health30,33,34.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Introduction > Examples of the evidence for effects of early life non-cognitive skills
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [30] Schweinhart, L. J. et al. Lifetime Effects: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study through Age 40 (High/Scope Press, Ypsilanti, 2005).
- Not checked yetcites [33] Schweinhart, L. J., Weikart D. P. & Barnes, H. V. Significant Benefits: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study Through Age 27 (Monographs of the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation) (High/Scope Press, Ypsilanti, 1993).
- Not checked yetcites [34] Heckman, J., Moon, S. H., Pinto, R., Savelyev, P. & Yavitz, A. Analyzing social experiments as implemented: a reexamination of the evidence from the HighScope Perry Preschool Program. Quant. Econom. 1, 1–46 (2010). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This is the opposite of what is often seen where observational studies over-estimate effects found in large, well designed RCTs.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [45] Fewell, Z., Davey Smith, G. & Sterne, J. A. The impact of residual and unmeasured confounding in epidemiologic studies: a simulation study. Am. J. Epidemiol. 166, 646–655 (2007). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It is widely accepted that children’s cognitive ability (i.e., intelligence or IQ) associates with academic achievement and later success in adulthood26–29.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Introduction > Examples of the evidence for effects of early life non-cognitive skills
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [26] Deary, I. J., Whiteman, M. C., Starr, J. M., Whalley, L. J. & Fox, H. C. The impact of childhood intelligence on later life: following up the Scottish mental surveys of 1932 and 1947. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 86, 130–147 (2004). source
- Not checked yetcites [27] Fergusson, D. M., John Horwood, L. & Ridder, E. M. Show me the child at seven II: childhood intelligence and later outcomes in adolescence and young adulthood. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 46, 850–858 (2005). source
- Not checked yetcites [28] Kuh, D., Richards, M., Hardy, R., Butterworth, S. & Wadsworth, M. E. Childhood cognitive ability and deaths up until middle age: a post-war birth cohort study. Int. J. Epidemiol. 33, 408–413 (2004). source
- Not checked yetcites [29] Whalley, L. J. & Deary, I. J. Longitudinal cohort study of childhood IQ and survival up to age 76. BMJ 322, 819–822 (2001). source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“They argued that schooling does not make children more intelligent, rather, it socializes them into, and rewards, certain characteristics and behaviours that are valued in the labour market.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Introduction > Examples of the evidence for effects of early life non-cognitive skills
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] Bowles, S. & Gintis, H. Schooling in Capitalist America: Educational Reform and the Contradictions of Economic Life (Basic Books, New York, 1976).
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This review covers the entire published inter-disciplinary research field describing intentional efforts and observational analogues of interventions to improve development of non-cognitive skills, albeit with most evidence coming from rich countries, especially the USA.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > The value of a systematic review
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Each approach points to different conceptualisations of where psychosocial problems arise and for how, where and whom to intervene (e.g. teachers, psychologists, community nurses or social workers).”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Main findings
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The scope of the review should minimise ‘cherry picking’ of results to bolster a particular concept, theory or intervention.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > The value of a systematic review
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We a priori created criteria for bias based on well-established procedures including quality appraisal tools, evidence hierarchies, directed acyclic graphs and content knowledge about potential sources of confounding and selection bias.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Limitations of this review
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This diversity reflected different approaches to improving children’s psychosocial outcomes, such as supporting parents or helping teachers to manage classroom behaviour.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Main findings
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The compilation of 554 publications was systematic but our assessment of the quality of the evidence is based on our judgement of the potential for bias.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Limitations of this review
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While this involves an element of subjective judgement, we are confident that any other reasonable assessment of the quality of evidence would not change the overall conclusions presented here.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Limitations of this review
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This exception highlights the potential value of these comparisons.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Implications for future research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is possible that some relevant articles were not included in this review, even though we undertook an extensive search that included multiple databases, numerous search terms, contacting authors of potentially-relevant papers, and hand searching reference lists of published papers.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Limitations of this review
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These variable effects could be due to differences in the focus of intervention, mode of delivery (parent, teacher or both), or problems with implementation fidelity in larger trials.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Main findings
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“While there have been reviews of some aspects of non-cognitive skills,3,4,14,15,47,63 none have been systematic in covering the entire literature, or included screening for evidence quality.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > The value of a systematic review
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [3] Skills for Social Progress: The Power of Social and Emotional Skills (OECD, Paris, 2015).
- Not checked yetcites [4] Institute of Education The Impact of Non-cognitive Skills for Young People (UK Cabinet Office, 2013).
- Not checked yetcites [14] Borghans, L., Duckworth, A. L., Heckman, J. J. & Ter Weel, B. The economics and psychology of personality traits. J. Hum. Resour. 43, 972–1059 (2008).
- Not checked yetcites [15] Heckman, J. J. & Kautz, T. Fostering and Measuring Skills: Interventions that Improve Character and Cognition (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2013). source
- Not checked yetcites [47] Allan, N. P., Hume, L. E., Allan, D. M., Farrington, A. L. & Lonigan, C. J. Relations between inhibitory control and the development of academic skills in preschool and kindergarten: a meta-analysis. Dev. Psychol. 50, 2368–2379 (2014). source
- Not checked yetcites [63] Diamond, A. Executive functions. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 64, 135–168 (2013). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“which may suggest that more holistic programs including multi-dimensional content, may better support overall child development and broad-based benefits.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Implications for future research
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Small p values on the Egger regression coefficient suggest the presence of small study bias that may produce larger effects.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Methods > Data synthesis
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The y intercept of Egger regression is expected to be zero if there is an even spatial spread of studies within the funnel.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Where eligibility was not able to be determined by the title or abstract the full text was reviewed, and when eligibility was unclear this was resolved by group consensus.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Methods > Screening
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, our assessment of better quality evidence relied on a subjective judgment of the risk of bias from confounding.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Methods > Screening to assess risk of bias
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Conditional exchangeability between exposed and unexposed is assumed for interpreting causal effects from observational data.
In the paper
“He cautioned that such generic application of sizes of effects to all research fields was”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Evidence Quality
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [92] Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences 2nd edn (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, 1988).
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Deciding whether an intervention is worth implementing will depend not only on its benefits, but also its costs, discount rate, scalability and a range of other potential considerations.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Evidence Quality
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Even though these metrics are widely, often ritualistically, used as reference points, Cohen did not intend them to be used as absolutes.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Evidence Quality
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [92] Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences 2nd edn (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, 1988).
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“so the impression is that new RCTs were not being explicitly justified on the basis of what was already known from existing RCTs.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Evidence Quality
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To ensure consistency of searching, the first 300 references were searched as a group by all authors and subsequent references were searched independently (Kappa values for agreement were >0.80).”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Methods > Screening
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Lipsey, et. al. present a sophisticated understanding of interpreting effect sizes96.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Evidence Quality
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [96] Lipsey, M. W. et al. Translating the Statistical Representation of the Effects of Education Interventions into More Readily Interpretable Forms (US Department of Education, 2012).
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interventions that have small effects on average across the population and that are cheap could be very cost effective, particularly if they influence long term outcomes in adulthood.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Evidence Quality
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, if the best interventions available to improve a particular outcome, found reliable effects of 0.2SD when trialled in large population based samples, then a novel intervention finding the same effect might be considered large.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Evidence Quality
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The authors JL, LS and AS reviewed all eligible studies and rated their evidence quality as ‘better, weak, or poor’ on the basis of study design and confounding adjustment (Table 1).”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Methods > Screening to assess risk of bias
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“LS, JL, CC, AS, TG and TN extracted data from articles. ND independently (i.e., blinded to assessments of other authors) reviewed the data extraction for 15% of all studies, including all intervention studies, and consensus was reached for the very small number of discrepancies.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Methods > Data extraction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To overcome this problem for conducting meta-analyses using inverse variance weighting we were forced to make assumptions about p values to calculate confidence intervals.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Methods > Data synthesis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- The authors state this as an assumption: When p was reported as less than a specific value, p was assumed to equal that value (e.g., p<0.01 assumed p=0.01) for calculating confidence intervals.
In the paper
“Larger effects observed in smaller RCTs may be due to several factors including publication bias favouring positive results, true heterogeneity of effects due to differing baseline risks in different intervention populations, implementation difficulties in maintaining intervention intensity and fidelity in larger community settings, and poorer methodological design of smaller studies81.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Implications for future research
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [81] Egger, M., Davey Smith, G., Schneider, M. & Minder, C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315, 629–634 (1997). source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Use of such standardized effect measures has been criticized in several disciplines.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Evidence Quality
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [93] Greenland, S., Maclure, M., Schlesselman, J. J., Poole, C. & Morgenstern, H. Standardized regression coefficients: a further critique and review of some alternatives. Epidemiology 2, 387–392 (1991). source
- Not checked yetcites [94] King, G. How not to lie with statistics: avoiding common mistakes in quantitative political science. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 30, 666–687 (1986). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In political science, King argued that if apples and oranges cannot be meaningfully compared on the original outcome measurement scale then this lack of comparability is not improved by comparing standardized fruit94.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Evidence Quality
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [94] King, G. How not to lie with statistics: avoiding common mistakes in quantitative political science. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 30, 666–687 (1986). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“For RCTs, the risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Assessment Tool83 (Supplementary Table 6).”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Methods > Screening to assess risk of bias
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [83] Higgins, J. P. T. et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343, d5928 (2011). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The following information was systematically extracted from each article using a standardised form created by the authors.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Methods > Data extraction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Here we only report results from studies that met the definition of ‘Better evidence’.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Methods > Screening to assess risk of bias
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Conditional exchangeability between exposed and unexposed is assumed for interpreting causal effects from observational data.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Publications that made no attempt to statistically control for common causes of exposure and outcome were rated as ‘poor’ because the likelihood of confounding (endogeneity) bias was high, and so these publications could not inform any assessment of likely causal effects of non-cognitive skills on outcomes.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Methods > Screening to assess risk of bias
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Conditional exchangeability between exposed and unexposed is assumed for interpreting causal effects from observational data.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, the traditional labelling of an intervention as having “small” effects (~0.2SD) is inappropriate because it fails to consider the research, policy and practice context within which the intervention is situated.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Evidence Quality
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“We adopted a “potential outcomes approach” to conceptualizing confounding where the interpretation of a ‘causal’ effect of an exposure estimated from observational data relies on several assumptions101.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Methods > Screening to assess risk of bias
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [101] Little, R. J. & Rubin, D. B. Causal effects in clinical and epidemiological studies via potential outcomes: concepts and analytical approaches. Annu. Rev. Public Health 21, 121–145 (2000). source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To reduce bias that may have arisen from studies reporting multiple measures of the same outcome, we obtained an overall estimate across all of the reported measures.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Methods > Data synthesis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“In epidemiology, Greenland et al.93, have argued that the process of standardizing effects, rather than making them more comparable across studies, simply serves to confound that comparison by the observed standard deviation, which is often an artefact of the study sample, particularly for homogenous convenience samples.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Evidence Quality
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [93] Greenland, S., Maclure, M., Schlesselman, J. J., Poole, C. & Morgenstern, H. Standardized regression coefficients: a further critique and review of some alternatives. Epidemiology 2, 387–392 (1991). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Another way of norming effect size may be to consider the size of intervention effects against secular change in an outcome over time.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Evidence Quality
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The systematic review protocol was preregistered with the International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, CRD42013006566) in December 2013 and is available at: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Methods
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“We examined asymmetry of the published evidence by generating funnel plots of effect size against inverse of study size separately for EQIs and observational studies (Supplementary Figures 20a-23b) and calculated the summary Egger regression coefficient and p value indicating the degree of asymmetry81.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Methods > Data synthesis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [81] Egger, M., Davey Smith, G., Schneider, M. & Minder, C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315, 629–634 (1997). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The y intercept of Egger regression is expected to be zero if there is an even spatial spread of studies within the funnel.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Searches were not restricted by language.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Methods > Literature Search
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“However, it is frequently argued that non-cognitive skills developed in childhood have major impacts on long-term adult outcomes6.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Implications for future research
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [6] Heckman, J. J. Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged children. Science 312, 1900–1902 (2006). source
plaindirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, interventions which have short term effects, but few detectable long-term effects are unlikely to be cost-effective.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Implications for future research
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For example, they show that the secular growth in reading from kindergarten to grade one in the US is estimated to be about 1.5 SD. By grades 4-5 this growth has declined to about 0.4 SD per year.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Evidence Quality
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [96] Lipsey, M. W. et al. Translating the Statistical Representation of the Effects of Education Interventions into More Readily Interpretable Forms (US Department of Education, 2012).
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, yes, there is some evidence supporting a role for non-cognitive skills in better academic achievement, psychosocial, cognitive and language, but these effects are highly heterogeneous as they relate to the shorter-term outcomes examined in this review.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Conclusion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“We have avoided labelling effect sizes as “small (~0.2SD)”, “medium (~0.5SD)”, or “large (~0.8SD)” according to Cohen’s suggestions92.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Evidence Quality
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [92] Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences 2nd edn (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, 1988).
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Study outcomes were not included as search terms to capture all published outcomes associated with non-cognitive abilities.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Methods > Literature Search
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper relies on this without support.
No prior systematic assessment of effects of improving different types of non-cognitive skills existed.
“While it may be intuitive that there is more to success in life than high intelligence, there has been no attempt to systematically assess the research evidence on effects of improving different types of non-cognitive skills.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Children who develop cognitive and non-cognitive skills early in life have better outcomes later in life.
“The investment logic is that children who develop cognitive and non-cognitive skills early in life have better outcomes later in life.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Data on effects of early life cognitive skills on later life outcomes are very limited.
“However, data on effects of early life cognitive skills on these kinds of later life outcomes are very limited.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Non-cognitive skills such as sustained attention may scaffold later development of cognitive and non-cognitive abilities.
“Non-cognitive skills, such as being able to sustain attention, may be especially important in this regard because they can scaffold later development of cognitive and non-cognitive abilities.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Observational results comparing higher and lower non-cognitive skills are often used as evidence for their importance in the same way as experimental results.
“In observational (correlational) data, results from comparing outcomes for higher and lower levels of non-cognitive skills is often used as evidence for their importance in the same way as results from experimental studies.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Effects of interventions on the target non-cognitive skill are likely closer to 0.2 to 0.5 SD.
“In reality, effects of interventions on the target non-cognitive skill might be closer to 0.2 to 0.5 SD.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Problems of endogeneity and confounding are well known and may substantially bias associations between non-cognitive skills and later outcomes.
“Problems of endogeneity and confounding are well known and may result in substantial bias of the association of non-cognitive skills and later outcomes.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Conditional exchangeability between exposed and unexposed is assumed for interpreting causal effects from observational data.
“One of the key assumptions is conditional exchangeability between exposed and unexposed.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
When p was reported as less than a specific value, p was assumed to equal that value (e.g., p<0.01 assumed p=0.01) for calculating confidence intervals.
“If p was reported as less than a specific value we assumed p equalled that value, e.g. if p was reported as p<0.01 we assumed p=0.01 for the purpose of calculating confidence intervals.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The y intercept of Egger regression is expected to be zero if there is an even spatial spread of studies within the funnel.
“The expectation is that the y intercept is zero if there is an even spatial spread of studies within the funnel.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The scientific literature is particularly lacking in high-quality, longitudinal studies that assess both cognitive and noncognitive attributes before objectively gauging success outcomes weeks, months, and years later (16).”
From Cognitive and noncognitive predictors of success (2019) · cites this paper as [16]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Results > Psychosocial Outcomes
“The 95% prediction interval for all psychosocial outcomes were consistent with negative, null and positive effects.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes > Discussion > Main findings
“Effects on externalising problems for EQIs was 0.23 (95% CI 0.15-0.30) with a 95% prediction interval of 0.07 to 0.39.”
Citations
Cites
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
Higgins, J. P. T., Altman, D. G., Gotzsche, P. C., Juni, P., Moher, D., Oxman, A. D., Savovic, J., Schulz, K. F., Weeks, L., Sterne, J. A. C., et al. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928 · Cited by 33,817
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 · Cited by 28,164
Dermyshi, E., Wang, Y., Yan, C., Hong, W., Qiu, G., Gong, X., & Zhang, T. (2017) · Neonatology · doi:10.1159/000454668 · Cited by 24,586
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2700 · Cited by 17,648
Diamond, A. (2013) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750 · Cited by 13,268
Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science
Open Science Collaboration (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aac4716 · Cited by 8,515 · cited 1×
“…on outcomes later in life, there is little point in amassing more small-scale86, biased observational or experimental studies that have higher likelihood of failing to be replicated65,66,87 and are unable to contribute to evidence triangulation which is central for stronger causal inference88,89.”
School readiness and later achievement.
Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P., Pagani, L. S., Feinstein, L., Engel, M., Brooks-Gunn, J., et al. (2007) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1428 · Cited by 5,439
A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety
Moffitt, T. E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N., Hancox, R. J., Harrington, H., Houts, R., Poulton, R., Roberts, B. W., Ross, S., et al. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1010076108 · Cited by 4,885
The effects of cognitive and noncognitive abilities on labor market outcomes and social behavior
Heckman, J. J., Stixrud, J., & Urzua, S. (2006) · Journal of Labor Economics · doi:10.1086/504455 · Cited by 4,427
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Self-regulation in childhood as a predictor of future outcomes: A meta-analytic review.
Robson, D. A., Allen, M. S., & Howard, S. J. (2020) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000227 · Cited by 759
21st-Century Readers: Developing Literacy Skills in a Digital World
OECD (2021) · PISA · doi:10.1787/a83d84cb-en · Cited by 337
Investigating the genetic architecture of noncognitive skills using GWAS-by-subtraction
Demange, P., Malanchini, M., Mallard, T. T., Biroli, P., Cox, S. R., Grotzinger, A. D., Tucker–Drob, E. M., Abdellaoui, A., Arseneault, L., van Bergen, E., et al. (2021) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41588-020-00754-2 · Cited by 308
OECD (2021) · OECD eBooks · doi:10.1787/92a11084-en · Cited by 449
Cognitive and noncognitive predictors of success
Duckworth, A. L., Quirk, A., Gallop, R., Hoyle, R. H., Kelly, D. R., & Matthews, M. D. (2019) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1910510116 · Cited by 170
Metadata
- Authors
- Smithers, L. G., Sawyer, A. C. P., Chittleborough, C. R., Davies, N. M., Davey Smith, G., & Lynch, J. W.
- Affiliations
- The University of Adelaide (AU)
- University of Bristol (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Lynch, John W.
- Venue
- Nature Human Behaviour
- Published
- 2018-11-05
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 867-880
- ISSN
- 2397-3374 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6277013
- OpenAlex
- W2898299779
- Semantic Scholar
- 9a8cf3885ee02c73b17a937afa24d546ae990c67
- Cited by
- 175
- References
- 110
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 11
- FWCI
- 5.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Licence
- Locations
- Nature Human Behaviour (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Explore Bristol Research (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Bristol
- Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12013, MC_UU_00011/1)
- Economic and Social Research Council (ES/N000757/1)
- National Health and Medical Research Council (1099422, 1056888)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Early Childhood Education and Development
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Grit, Self-Efficacy, and Motivation
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Keywords
- non-cognitive skills, early childhood, academic performance, psychosocial outcomes, cognitive outcomes, health outcomes, self-regulation, attention, perseverance, literacy, publication bias, small-study bias, confounding adjustment, quality of evidence
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
