4.6 Article

Early Social-Emotional Functioning and Public Health: The Relationship Between Kindergarten Social Competence and Future Wellness

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 105, 期 11, 页码 2283-2290

出版社

AMER PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOC INC
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2015.302630

关键词

-

资金

  1. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation [70895]
  2. National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) [R18 MH48043, R18 MH50951, R18 MH50952, R18 MH50953, K05MH00797, K05MH01027]
  3. Department of Education [S184U30002]
  4. National Institute on Drug Abuse [DA16903, DA017589, K05DA015226, P30DA023026]
  5. Center for Substance Abuse Prevention
  6. National Institute on Drug Abuse
  7. NIMH

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. We examined whether kindergarten teachers' ratings of children's prosocial skills, an indicator of noncognitive ability at school entry, predict key adolescent and adult outcomes. Our goal was to determine unique associations over and above other important child, family, and contextual characteristics. Methods. Data came from the Fast Track study of low-socioeconomic status neighborhoods in 3 cities and 1 rural setting. We assessed associations between measured outcomes in kindergarten and outcomes 13 to 19 years later (1991-2000). Models included numerous control variables representing characteristics of the child, family, and context, enabling us to explore the unique contributions among predictors. Results. We found statistically significant associations between measured social-emotional skills in kindergarten and key young adult outcomes across multiple domains of education, employment, criminal activity, substance use, and mental health. Conclusions. A kindergarten measure of social-emotional skills may be useful for assessing whether children are at risk for deficits in noncognitive skills later in life and, thus, help identify those in need of early intervention. These results demonstrate the relevance of noncognitive skills in development for personal and public health outcomes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据