CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 47Child Welfare and AdoptionEarly Childhood Education and DevelopmentChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development

The Effects of Early Institutionalization and Foster Care Intervention on Children's Social Behaviors at the Age of Eight

Open access
Almas, Alisa N., Degnan, Kathryn A., Walker, Olga L., Radulescu, Anca, Nelson, Charles A., Zeanah, Charles H., Fox, Nathan A.·2015·Social Development
DOI 10.1111/sode.12089PMC PMC4539259
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The present study compared the social behaviors of eight‐year‐old previously institutionalized R omanian children from the B ucharest E arly I ntervention P roject ( BEIP ) in two groups: (1) children randomized to foster care homes ( FCG ), and (2) children randomized to care as usual (remaining in institutions) ( CAUG ). Children were observed interacting with an age‐ and gender‐matched unfamiliar, non‐institutionalized peer from the community during six interactive tasks, and their behavior was coded for speech reticence, social engagement, task orientation, social withdrawal, and conversational competence. Group comparisons revealed that FCG children were rated as significantly less reticent during a speech task than CAUG children. For CAUG children, longer time spent in institutional care was related to greater speech reticence and lower social engagement. Using an actor–partner interdependence model, CAUG children's behaviors, but not FCG , were found to influence the behavior of unfamiliar peers. These findings are the first to characterize institutionalized children's observed social behaviors toward new peers during middle childhood and highlight the positive effects of foster care intervention in the social domain.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/sode.12089

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

0 of 25 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    In foster-care/never-institutionalized dyads, there was a significant actor interaction effect of social reticence on conversational competence (b = −0.29, SE = 0.13, t(72.10) = −2.15, p = .04).

    “Results also showed a significant actor interaction effect for FCG-NIG dyads, b = -.29, SE = .13, t(72.10) = -2.15, p = .04.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Children who received the foster care intervention were rated as less inhibited during the speech task than children randomly assigned to continued institutional care.

    “We found a positive intervention effect, with foster care children being rated as less inhibited during the speech task than children randomly assigned to receive continued institutional care.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Social reticence showed no significant actor or partner main or interaction effects on social withdrawal during the competitive tasks in either care-as-usual/never-institutionalized or foster-care/never-institutionalized dyads (all p > .05).

    “There were no significant actor or partner main or interaction effects of SR on Social Withdrawal during the competitive tasks for CAU-NIG or FCG-NIG dyads, all ps > .05.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Boys were rated as more socially withdrawn during the competitive tasks than girls.

    “Boys were rated as more conversationally competence on the Brainstorming task, more oriented towards the tasks during the cooperative tasks, and more socially withdrawn during the competitive tasks than were girls (all ps < .05).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In care-as-usual/never-institutionalized dyads, social reticence showed no actor main or interaction effects on task orientation during the cooperative tasks (p > .05).

    “However, there were no actor main or interaction effects of SR on Task Orientation during the cooperative tasks for CAU-NIG dyads, ps > .05.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 22
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 19
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The slopes linking social reticence to conversational competence differed significantly between foster care and never-institutionalized children, with competence decreasing as reticence increased among foster care children and increasing among never-institutionalized children.

    “The simple slopes for both groups were not significantly different from zero; however, the slopes for each group were significantly different from one another. Specifically, as children displayed greater SR, Conversational Competence decreased for FCG children and increased for NIG children.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The simple slope relating social reticence to conversational competence was not statistically significant for either foster care children (b = 0.33, SE = 0.21, t(49) = 1.60, p = .12) or never-institutionalized children (b = −0.25, SE = 0.15, t(49) = −1.59, p = .12).

    “Follow-up analyses indicated that the relation between SR and Conversational Competence did not reach significance for either FCG (b = .33, SE = .21, t(49) = 1.60, p = .12) and NIG (b = -.25, SE = .15, t(49) = -1.59, p = .12) groups.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Boys were rated as more conversationally competent on the Brainstorming task than girls.

    “Boys were rated as more conversationally competence on the Brainstorming task, more oriented towards the tasks during the cooperative tasks, and more socially withdrawn during the competitive tasks than were girls (all ps < .05).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Care-as-usual children were less engaged in response to a reticent never-institutionalized partner during the cooperative tasks, but not during the competitive tasks.

    “One difference between the cooperative and competitive task contexts emerged in relation to the CAUG children's responses to a reticent NIG partner: during the cooperative tasks the CAUG were less engaged, while in the competitive tasks they were not.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In care-as-usual/never-institutionalized dyads, social reticence showed no significant partner main effect or interaction effect on conversational competence.

    “There were no significant partner main or interaction effects for CAUG-NIG dyads.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Among foster care children, behavior toward an unfamiliar peer was not influenced by the age at first placement into foster care or by cumulative time spent in foster care.

    “Children's behavior towards an unfamiliar peer does not appear to be influenced by the age at which they were first placed into foster care, nor the cumulative amount of time spent in foster care, in the FCG.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In foster-care/never-institutionalized dyads, social reticence showed no significant actor or partner main effects and no partner interaction effect on conversational competence (all p > .05).

    “There were no significant actor or partner main effects or a partner interaction effect for FCG-NIG dyads, all p's > .05.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    At the age 8 assessment, 49 children in the foster care group and 51 in the care-as-usual group remained in the study.

    “At 8 years of age, 49 FCG children and 51 CAUG children remained in the study.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). The quote only partly states this claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    The Speech Reticence composite demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (α = .70).

    “all were averaged to form a Speech Reticence composite (α = .70; M = -.01, SD = .80).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The Actor-Partner Interdependence Model keeps individual measures but treats them as nested within the dyad.

    “However, APIM retains the individual measures, but treats them as nested within the dyad (Cook & Kenny, 2005).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Cook & Kenny, 2005

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The Lego/Puzzles Social Engagement composite had an internal consistency of α = .51.

    “all were averaged to form the Lego/Puzzles Social Engagement score (α = .51; M = .01, SD = .71).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    When care-as-usual children's behavior leads peers to be less socially engaged with them, they risk social rejection and subsequent loneliness and depression.

    “In addition, when the behavior of CAUG children leads their peers to be less socially engaged towards them, they risk social rejection, and subsequent feelings of loneliness, and depression (Parker & Asher, 1993; Pedersen, Vitaro, Barker, & Borge, 2007; Vernberg, 1990).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Parker & Asher, 1993

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Pedersen, Vitaro, Barker, & Borge, 2007

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Vernberg, 1990

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Care-as-usual children's behavior had some impact on the behavior of their never-institutionalized partners, but the reverse influence was not present.

    “In general, CAUG children's behavior somewhat had an impact on the behavior of their NIG partners, but not vice versa.”
    • Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
      “In addition, our data show how children who did not receive foster care may negatively influence the nature of a dyadic interaction through their own behaviors.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Partner effects in the APIM reflect a causal influence of one child's behavior on the other child's behavior rather than other sources of association.
    • Rests on an assumption: The unfamiliar never-institutionalized peers' behavior in these dyadic interactions is representative of never-institutionalized children's behavior in such interactions.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    Prior studies have documented social difficulties among institution-reared children and adolescents, but they did not examine specific behaviors to understand why these children struggled with friendships.

    “Although these and other studies have reported social difficulties amongst institution-reared children and adolescents, researchers did not examine children's specific behaviors in order to understand potential reasons for the lack of friendships and social difficulties in their samples.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Performance across the tasks was a function not only of prior experience but possibly also of the child's individual personality.

    “Hence, performance across these tasks was a function not only of prior experience but also possibly of the child's individual personality.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Children's reticence during the first task may have made them appear less attractive as playmates, which in turn led their peers to engage with them less in later tasks.

    “It may be that children's reticence during the first task, which involved taking longer to begin their speech, needing prompting from the experimenter to continue, and saying little about themselves (as indicated by a shorter speaking time) made them appear less attractive as a playmate overall and, in turn, led their peers to engage with them less during subsequent tasks.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Partner effects in the APIM reflect a causal influence of one child's behavior on the other child's behavior rather than other sources of association.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The same researchers also observed institutionalized children to be less engaged with peers in classroom and playground settings.

    “They also reported institutionalized children to be less engaged with their peers during observations of their behavior in the classroom and on the playground.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Vorria et al., 1998

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The absence of timing effects in this study is consistent with BEIP findings on psychiatric symptomatology and disorders and on structural brain imaging, but differs from BEIP findings of timing effects on IQ and attachment.

    “These findings differ from some previous research from the BEIP showing timing effects, including studies examining IQ and attachment (e.g., Nelson et al., 2007; Smyke et al., 2010), for example, but they are consistent other BEIP results examining psychiatric symptomatology and disorders (e.g., Zeanah et al, 2009) and structural brain imagining results (Sheridan, Fox, Zeanah, McLaughlin, & Nelson”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Nelson et al., 2007

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Smyke et al., 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Zeanah et al, 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    At age 8, children typically begin to expand their social skills and place greater value on peers and friendships.

    “We assessed children when they were 8 years old, an age when children are typically beginning to broaden their social skills and increasingly value peers and friendships (Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 2006).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 2006

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The positive effects of the foster care intervention may arise from giving children the chance to form an attachment to a primary caregiver and to meet and get to know other children in the foster family.

    “The positive effects of the foster care intervention may come from providing children an opportunity to form an attachment relationship to a primary caregiver and through meeting and getting to know biological children in their foster family or other foster children received into that family.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Care-as-usual children were less socially competent and more reticent in initial interactions with an unfamiliar peer, which led their never-institutionalized peers to engage with them less in subsequent interactions.

    “We found that these children were less socially competent and more reticent during initial interactions with an unfamiliar peer, which led their NIG peer to engage with them less during subsequent interactions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The social behaviors observed in the dyadic laboratory tasks index children's social competence in settings outside the assessment.
    • Rests on an assumption: Partner effects in the APIM reflect a causal influence of one child's behavior on the other child's behavior rather than other sources of association.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Inter-coder reliability was assessed by having approximately 20% of the tapes coded independently by different teams.

    “an additional 25 tapes (approximately 20%) were coded independently by the teams of coders to achieve reliability (intra-class correlations, or ICCs).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    The group comparisons controlled for gender and verbal comprehension.

    “while controlling for gender and verbal comprehension”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    It remains largely unknown how a history of institutional rearing affects children's ability to interact with unfamiliar peers and how early foster care placement influences their success in the peer domain.

    “Specifically, the degree to which a history of institutional rearing influences children's ability to interact with unfamiliar peers, with whom they could potentially form a friendship, and the effects of early intervention, such as placement into a foster care home, on children's success in negotiating the peer domain remain relatively unknown.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Deficits in social skills can result in rejection or exclusion, potentially leading adolescents to engage in deviant or risk-taking behaviors.

    “Poor social skills can lead to social rejection or exclusion, which may lead adolescents to become involved with deviant or risk-taking behaviors (Erol et al., 2010; Ollendick, Weist, Borden, & Greene, 1992).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Erol et al., 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Ollendick, Weist, Borden, & Greene, 1992

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Care-as-usual children's reticence during the first task was related to lower social engagement from their never-institutionalized partners during the competitive tasks and, to some degree, during the cooperative tasks.

    “Specifically, CAUG children's reticent behavior during the first task (giving a speech about yourself) was related to lower social engagement from their NIG partners during the competitive tasks and somewhat during the cooperative tasks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Partner effects in the APIM reflect a causal influence of one child's behavior on the other child's behavior rather than other sources of association.
    • Rests on an assumption: The unfamiliar never-institutionalized peers' behavior in these dyadic interactions is representative of never-institutionalized children's behavior in such interactions.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The difference in care-as-usual children's behavior across contexts may reflect a lack of social awareness, in that their wish to compete may have limited their ability to match their peer's level of engagement.

    “This difference in behavior across contexts may reflect a lack of social awareness on the part of the CAUG in that their desires to engage in a competitive game may have limited their ability to thoughtfully match the engagement level of their peer.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Behavioral coders were Romanian research assistants who were unaware of the children's group assignment.

    “Children's behavior was videotaped and coded by teams of Romanian research assistants who were blind to group assignment and trained by the second author.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In a previous paper, teachers rated foster care children as significantly more socially skilled at age 8 than care-as-usual children and no different from never-institutionalized peers.

    “However, in a recent paper we reported that teachers rated FCG children as significantly more socially skilled at age 8 than CAUG children, and no different than their never-institutionalized peers (Almas et al, 2012).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Almas et al, 2012

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The present study used an intent-to-treat approach to examine the effects of foster care intervention on social behavior.

    “For purposes of the present study we used an intent-to-treat approach in order to examine the effects of foster care intervention on social behavior.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Children may have regarded their peer as less socially competent and turned their attention to the puzzle or Lego task as a way of avoiding engagement with a less attractive playmate.

    “Children may have considered their peer less socially competent and, in turn, turned their attention to completing the puzzle or building the Lego structure as a way of avoiding engaging with the less attractive playmate.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Changes in rearing context may have affected the children's social behavior and skills, positively or negatively, depending on the frequency and type of changes each child experienced.

    “It is possible that these changes in rearing context may have impacted the children's social behavior and skills in positive or negative ways, depending on the frequency and type of changes experienced by each child.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The Speech Reticence composite was chosen as the predictor because it was coded from the very first interactive task the children engaged in during the assessment.

    “The Speech Reticence composite was chosen as the predictor because it was coded from the very first interactive task that the children engaged in during the assessment.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    This study is the first to provide systematic observational data on the social behavior of children with a history of institutional care during middle childhood and to examine the effects of a foster care intervention.

    “This is, to our knowledge, the first study of its kind to present systematic, observational data on social behavior in a sample of children with a history of institutional care during middle childhood and examine the effects of a foster care intervention.”
    • Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
      “The present study is the first to provide an observational assessment of institutionalized children's social behaviors during middle childhood and examine these in the context of foster care intervention.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    It is possible that foster care children's behavior would also not differ significantly from that of never-institutionalized peers in the present context.

    “It is possible that FCG children's behavior would not be considered significantly different from their NIG peers in the present context as well.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Foster care intervention remediates some of the negative consequences of institutional care for children's social development, with children who received foster care being more socially successful than those who received continued institutional care.

    “These results show the value of foster care intervention in remediating the negative effects of early psychosocial deprivation and preventing early experiences from negatively influencing their interpersonal interactions.”
    • Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
      “The present study shows the positive effect of foster care intervention on remediating some of the negative consequences of institutional care on children's social development, as children in our sample who received foster care were more socially successful than their peers who received continued institutional care.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The social behaviors observed in the dyadic laboratory tasks index children's social competence in settings outside the assessment.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The APIM model was chosen because it accounts for the interdependence in the dyadic social interaction data.

    “The APIM model was selected to account for the interdependence in the dyadic social interaction data.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Kashy & Kenny, 1999

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Kenny, 1996

      Not checked in the free run.

37 of 37

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The comparison between the foster care and care-as-usual groups at age 8 reflects the effect of the initial random assignment, even though many children's actual placements changed after the intervention began.

    “We maintained a non-interference policy regarding placements throughout the course of the study, meaning that all decisions regarding placement were made by local authorities. Therefore, many children who were in institutions at the beginning of the study were adopted, returned to their biological parents or placed in government foster care that didn't exist when the study began.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The never-institutionalized children recruited from pediatric clinics are representative of community children with no institutional rearing, so their behavior during the interaction reflects typical peer behavior.

    “An additional group of 72 children were recruited across the course of the study from pediatric clinics in communities throughout Bucharest to act as a control group (Never Institutionalized Group, NIG), and they were matched to the initial institutional group on sex and age.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The social behaviors observed in the dyadic laboratory tasks index children's social competence in settings outside the assessment.

    “These results show the value of foster care intervention in remediating the negative effects of early psychosocial deprivation and preventing early experiences from negatively influencing their interpersonal interactions.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Partner effects in the APIM reflect a causal influence of one child's behavior on the other child's behavior rather than other sources of association.

    “It may be that children's reticence during the first task, which involved taking longer to begin their speech, needing prompting from the experimenter to continue, and saying little about themselves (as indicated by a shorter speaking time) made them appear less attractive as a playmate overall and, in turn, led their peers to engage with them less during subsequent tasks.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The unfamiliar never-institutionalized peers' behavior in these dyadic interactions is representative of never-institutionalized children's behavior in such interactions.

    “It is important to note that because the NIG children participated as unfamiliar peers during dyadic interactions, we were not able to directly compare their behavior to that of the CAUG or FCG children using group comparisons.”
5 of 5

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?

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • ConsistentF(1, 101) = 4.7reported p = .03 · recomputed p = .033

    “F (1,101) = 4.70, p = .03”

  • Consistentt(54.11) = -3.98reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(54.11) = -3.98, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(72.1) = -2.15reported p = .04 · recomputed p = .035

    “t(72.10) = -2.15, p = .04”

  • Consistentt(49) = 1.6reported p = .12 · recomputed p = .116

    “t(49) = 1.60, p = .12”

  • Consistentt(49) = -1.59reported p = .12 · recomputed p = .118

    “t(49) = -1.59, p = .12”

  • Consistentt(55) = -3.33reported p = .002 · recomputed p = .002

    “t(55) = -3.33, p = .002”

  • Consistentt(51.68) = -1.99reported p = .05 · recomputed p = .052

    “t(51.68) = -1.99, p = .05”

  • Consistentt(70.61) = -1.96reported p = .05 · recomputed p = .054

    “t(70.61) = -1.96, p = .05”

  • Consistentt(56.76) = 2.03reported p = .05 · recomputed p = .047

    “t(56.76) = 2.03, p = .05”

  • Consistentt(46) = -2.46reported p = .02 · recomputed p = .018

    “t(46) = -2.46, p = .02”

  • Consistentt(46) = 1.12reported p = .27 · recomputed p = .269

    “t(46) = 1.12, p = .27”

  • Consistentt(61.76) = 2.16reported p = .04 · recomputed p = .035

    “t(61.76) = 2.16, p = .04”

12 of 12

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.

  • Conversational-competence trends are described in the opposite direction

    Major

    The reported slopes are positive for FCG and negative for NIG, so greater reticence corresponds to increasing-not decreasing-competence for FCG, and the reverse for NIG.

  • Baseline minimum age differs between sections

    Minor

    The participant description gives six months as the youngest baseline age, whereas the care-information section gives five months.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Kashy D. A., 2000, Handbook of research methods in social psychology, 451
  2. Kenny D. A., 1998, Handbook of social psychology, 233
  3. Kenny D. A., 2006, Dyadic data analysis
  4. Parker J., 2006, Developmental psychopathology: risk, disorder, and adaptation, 419
  5. Wechsler D., 2003, WISC‐IV technical and interpretive manual

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Almas, A. N., Degnan, K. A., Walker, O. L., Radulescu, A., Nelson, C. A., Zeanah, C. H., & Fox, N. A.
Affiliations
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • University of Bucharest (RO)
  • Boston Children's Hospital (US)
  • Tulane University (US)
Corresponding author
Fox, Nathan A.
ORCID
Venue
Social Development
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-07-26
Volume
24
Issue
2
Pages
225-239
ISSN
  • 0961-205X (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9507
DOI
10.1111/sode.12089
PMC
PMC4539259
OpenAlex
W1892544262
Cited by
47
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 2
FWCI
8.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Social Development (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH091363)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Child Welfare and Adoption
  • Social Sciences › Education › Early Childhood Education and Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Keywords
early institutionalization, foster care, Romanian orphans, Bucharest Early Intervention Project, social behavior, social engagement, social withdrawal, conversation skills, peer interaction, middle childhood, institutional care, actor-partner interdependence

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-04.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-04.

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