| Title |
The Abecedarian Approach to Social, Educational, and Health Disparities
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10567-018-0260-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Craig T. Ramey |
| Abstract |
This paper places the Abecedarian Approach in theoretical and historical context and reviews the results from three randomized controlled trials that have tested an experimental protocol designed to prevent cognitive disabilities and their social consequences. Results affirm that cognitive disabilities can be prevented in early childhood and subsequent academic achievement enhanced via a multipronged comprehensive approach that contains individualized and responsive early childhood education starting in early infancy, coupled with pediatric health care, good nutrition, and family-oriented social services. Additional important findings reveal that the most vulnerable children benefited the most and that cognitive gains were not at the expense of children's socioemotional development or relationship to family. In general, mothers derived benefits in education and employment and teenage mothers especially benefited from their children participating in the early education treatment group. On the whole, the overall pattern of results supports a multidisciplinary, individualized, and long-term longitudinal perspective on human development and prevention science. Recent structural and functional brain imaging in the fifth decade of life shows persistent effects of intensive early educational treatment. Independent recent cost-benefit analysis in adulthood reveals a 7.3:1 return on investment with a 13.7% average annual rate of return. The paper concludes with a discussion of implications of the Abecedarian Approach to today's high-risk population in the USA. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 121 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 13 | 11% |
| Researcher | 13 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 8% |
| Other | 24 | 20% |
| Unknown | 38 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 12% |
| Unspecified | 13 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 9% |
| Psychology | 11 | 9% |
| Other | 20 | 17% |
| Unknown | 41 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 July 2018.
All research outputs
#2,430,380
of 23,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review
#98
of 376 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,383
of 332,266 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 376 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,266 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.