Cited by 2,410Early Childhood Education and DevelopmentAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference

Multiple inference and gender differences in the effects of early intervention: A reevaluation of the Abecedarian, Perry Preschool, and Early Training Projects

Anderson, Michael L.·2008·Journal of the American Statistical Association

Abstract

The view that the returns to educational investments are highest for early childhood interventions is widely held and stems primarily from several influential randomized trials—Abecedarian, Perry, and the Early Training Project—that point to super-normal returns to early interventions. This article presents a de novo analysis of these experiments, focusing on two core issues that have received limited attention in previous analyses: treatment effect heterogeneity by gender and overrejection of the null hypothesis due to multiple inference. To address the latter issue, a statistical framework that combines summary index tests with familywise error rate and false discovery rate corrections is implemented. The first technique reduces the number of tests conducted; the latter two techniques adjust the p values for multiple inference. The primary finding of the reanalysis is that girls garnered substantial short- and long-term benefits from the interventions, but there were no significant long-term benefits for boys. These conclusions, which have appeared ambiguous when using “naive” estimators that fail to adjust for multiple testing, contribute to a growing literature on the emerging female–male academic achievement gap. They also demonstrate that in complex studies where multiple questions are asked of the same data set, it can be important to declare the family of tests under consideration and to either consolidate measures or report adjusted and unadjusted p values.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1198/016214508000000841

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 statistical analysis, the authors adjusted for multiple tests by implementing FDR corrections and report FDR q values, and also report bootstrapped P values to account for regressions with a small number of clusters.

    “In the results presented in Extended Data Tables 6 and 7, we also adjusted for the fact that we conducted multiple tests on the same dataset by implementing FDR corrections and report the FDR q values50. We also report the bootstrapped P value51 to account for regressions with a small number of clusters.”

    From Last-mile delivery increases vaccine uptake in Sierra Leone (2024) · cites this paper as [50]

  • The findings are robust to Type I error concerns: sharpened two-stage q-values show the observed impacts remain statistically significant at the 1 percent level.

    “Finally, we note that our findings are robust to Type I error concerns. 10 We calculate sharpened two-stage q-values in Table 4 (Benjamini et al., 2006b; Anderson, 2008) and the observed impacts remain statistically significant at the 1 percent level.”
  • The analysis performs False Discovery Rate (FDR) adjustment using the method described in (77), considering each experiment separately and grouping variables into primary, secondary, and tertiary outcomes.

    “We perform False Discovery Rate (FDR) adjustment using the method described in (77), considering each experiment (Reduced and Increased Exposure) separately and grouping the variables as:”
  • Anderson's indices are difficult to interpret because they group diverse outcomes and their components change with age.

    “The outcomes used to create each index are quite diverse and group a variety of very different outcomes (e.g., crime, employment, education). It is difficult to interpret his indices. Moreover, the components of his indices change with age.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 37 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Anderson, M. L.
Affiliations
University of California, Berkeley (US)
Corresponding author
Anderson, Michael L.
Venue
Journal of the American Statistical Association
Published
2008-12-01
Volume
103
Issue
484
Pages
1481-1495
ISSN
  • 0162-1459 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-274X
OpenAlex
W2099805722
Cited by
2,410
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 210 · 2025: 258 · 2024: 262 · 2023: 266 · 2022: 258 · 2021: 240 · 2020: 187 · 2019: 147 · 2018: 117 · 2017: 85 · 2016: 93 · 2015: 65 · 2014: 47 · 2013: 68 · 2012: 37
FWCI
99.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of the American Statistical Association (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Early Childhood Education and Development
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Keywords
gender differences, early childhood intervention, Abecedarian Project, treatment effect heterogeneity, family-wise error rate, false discovery rate, returns to education

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.

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