MPACT Fall 2017 - Fall 2018 Chicago
Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s) Ariel Kalil, University of Chicago. Harris School of Public Policy; Susan Mayer, University of Chicago. Harris School of Public Policy
Version: View help for Version V2
Name | File Type | Size | Last Modified |
---|---|---|---|
MPACT Codebook.docx | application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document | 303.2 KB | 06/29/2023 09:00:AM |
MPACT Dataset.dta | application/x-stata-dta | 170.5 KB | 06/29/2023 09:24:AM |
Project Citation:
Kalil, Ariel, and Mayer, Susan. MPACT Fall 2017 - Fall 2018 Chicago. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2023-06-29. https://doi.org/10.3886/E176341V2
Project Description
Summary:
View help for Summary
Math skill in early childhood is a key predictor of future academic achievement. Parental engagement in math learning contributes to the growth of children's math skills during this period. To help boost parent-child engagement in math activities and children's math skills, we conducted an RCT lasting 12 weeks with 758 low-income preschoolers (3-5 years old) and their primary caregivers. Parents were randomized into five groups: 1) a control group, and groups that received 2) a digital tablet with math apps for children; 3) analog math materials for parents to use with children, 4) analog math materials with weekly text messages to manage parents' present bias; and 5) analog math materials with weekly text messages to increase parents' growth mindset. Relative to the control group, neither the analog math materials alone nor the analog materials with growth mindset messages increased child math skills during the intervention period. However, the analog math materials combined with messaging to manage present bias and the digital tablet with math apps increased child math skills by about 0.20 standard deviations (p=.10) measured six months after the intervention. These two treatments also significantly increased parents' self-reported time engaged in math activities with their children.
Scope of Project
Subject Terms:
View help for Subject Terms
Education and Inequality;
Returns to Education;
Early Childhood Development
Geographic Coverage:
View help for Geographic Coverage
Chicago
Time Period(s):
View help for Time Period(s)
12/3/2017 – 2/24/2019
Collection Date(s):
View help for Collection Date(s)
12/3/2017 – 2/24/2019
Universe:
View help for Universe
Chicago parents whose
primary language was either English or Spanish, who had a child enrolled in one
of 29 subsidized preschool programs in Chicago, who were between the ages of
three and four years old enrolled in a participating preschool.
Data Type(s):
View help for Data Type(s)
experimental data;
survey data
Methodology
Response Rate:
View help for Response Rate
For all three rounds, parents
were recruited in one of two ways. In the eleven centers that allowed it, all
eligible parents were automatically enrolled in MPACT but were given a chance
to opt out of participation. Eighteen
preschools did not permit opt-out recruitment. In these centers, research
assistants recruited parents in person by approaching them at drop-off and pick-up
time to ask if they would be willing to participate. Participation rates were
high at both opt-out (99%) and opt-in (71%) preschool centers.
Specifically, we initially recruited 1,459 children. Eleven children dropped out before randomization. Of the remaining 1,448 children, 93 were siblings of enrolled children. We dropped siblings, leaving only one child per parent. After randomization, 61 children dropped out. This included children in a preschool that closed after randomization, and children that left the preschool in which they were enrolled before we were able to collect any data on either parents or children. Ten children remained enrolled in the preschool but were chronically absent; we were not able to collect data on either parents or children. Another 6 children could not be assessed reliably because of either cognitive or behavioral problems. This left 1,278 children who were assessed at baseline.
Specifically, we initially recruited 1,459 children. Eleven children dropped out before randomization. Of the remaining 1,448 children, 93 were siblings of enrolled children. We dropped siblings, leaving only one child per parent. After randomization, 61 children dropped out. This included children in a preschool that closed after randomization, and children that left the preschool in which they were enrolled before we were able to collect any data on either parents or children. Ten children remained enrolled in the preschool but were chronically absent; we were not able to collect data on either parents or children. Another 6 children could not be assessed reliably because of either cognitive or behavioral problems. This left 1,278 children who were assessed at baseline.
Sampling:
View help for Sampling
We randomized in two
stages. In the first stage, we randomly assigned classrooms across preschools
to either a treated or untreated group. We assigned 15 classrooms (5 in each
round) to the untreated group. All sample children in these classrooms were
assigned to the control group. In the second stage, we randomly assigned
students in the remaining sample classrooms to the control group or one of the treatment
groups.
Data Source:
View help for Data Source
All data is collected by the research team.
Collection Mode(s):
View help for Collection Mode(s)
cognitive assessment test;
web-based survey
Scales:
View help for Scales
Likert-type scales are used for the pre- and post-experiment parental survey. We use the Woodcock-Johnson IV Applied
Problems subtest for the baseline and follow-up assessments.
Weights:
View help for Weights
No weight is included in the analysis.
Unit(s) of Observation:
View help for Unit(s) of Observation
Parent-child dyad
Related Publications
Published Versions
Report a Problem
Found a serious problem with the data, such as disclosure risk or copyrighted content? Let us know.
This material is distributed exactly as it arrived from the data depositor. ICPSR has not checked or processed this material. Users should consult the investigator(s) if further information is desired.