School of Public Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Robinson Research Institute, Adelaide, Australia.
PLoS One. 2019 Jun 4;14(6):e0204189. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204189. eCollection 2019.
There is widespread interest in temperament and its impact upon cognitive and academic outcomes. Parents adjust their parenting according to their child's temperament, however, few studies have accounted for parenting while estimating the association between temperament and academic outcomes. We examined the associations between temperament (2-3 years) and cognitive and academic outcomes (6-7 years) when mediation by parenting practices (4-5 years) was held constant, by estimating the controlled direct effect. Participants were from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (n = 5107). Cognitive abilities were measured by the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (verbal) and the Matrix Reasoning test (non-verbal). Literacy and numeracy were reported by teachers using the Academic Rating Scale. Mothers reported children's temperament using the Short Temperament Scale for Toddlers (subscales: reactivity, approach, and persistence). Parenting practices included items about engagement in activities with children. Marginal structural models with inverse probability of treatment weights were used to estimate the controlled direct effect of temperament, when setting parenting to the mean. All temperament subscales were associated with cognitive abilities, with persistence showing the largest associations with verbal (PPVT; β = 0.58; 95%CI 0.27, 0.89) and non-verbal (Matrix Reasoning: β = 0.19; 0.02, 0.34) abilities. Higher persistence was associated with better literacy (β = 0.08; 0.03, 0.13) and numeracy (β = 0.08; 0.03, 0.13), and higher reactivity with lower literacy (β = -0.08; -0.11, -0.05) and numeracy (β = -0.07; -0.10, -0.04). There was little evidence that temperamental approach influenced literacy or numeracy. Overall, temperament had small associations with cognitive and academic outcomes after accounting for parenting and confounders.
人们普遍关注气质及其对认知和学业成绩的影响。父母会根据孩子的气质调整育儿方式,然而,很少有研究在考虑育儿方式的情况下估计气质与学业成绩之间的关联。我们通过估计控制直接效应,检验了气质(2-3 岁)与认知和学业成绩(6-7 岁)之间的关联,同时控制了育儿实践(4-5 岁)的中介作用。参与者来自澳大利亚儿童纵向研究(n=5107)。认知能力通过皮博迪图片词汇测验(言语)和矩阵推理测验(非言语)进行测量。教师使用学术评定量表报告读写和计算能力。母亲使用幼儿短气质量表(反应性、接近性和坚持性分量表)报告孩子的气质。育儿实践包括与孩子一起参与活动的项目。使用逆处理概率权重的边际结构模型来估计当育儿方式设为平均值时,气质的控制直接效应。所有气质分量表都与认知能力相关,坚持性与言语(PPVT;β=0.58;95%CI 0.27, 0.89)和非言语(矩阵推理:β=0.19;0.02, 0.34)能力的关联最大。较高的坚持性与更好的读写(β=0.08;0.03, 0.13)和计算(β=0.08;0.03, 0.13)能力相关,而较高的反应性与较低的读写(β=-0.08;-0.11, -0.05)和计算(β=-0.07;-0.10, -0.04)能力相关。气质的趋近性对读写和计算能力几乎没有影响。总体而言,在考虑到育儿方式和混杂因素后,气质与认知和学业成绩的相关性较小。