Peter Jensen

Children’s emergent mathematics skills are important predictors of their later achievements. We analyze and present the effects of a large-scale school readiness intervention in preschools in Denmark. We thereby provide evidence on the effects of a broadly based professional development program (with supporting materials) implemented in a universal childcare system. Estimates of the effects were obtained from a cluster-randomized controlled trial on a large sample of more than 5000 children. The children’s emergent mathematics skills were assessed using a formal validated test (Tools for Early Assessment in Math) before and after the intervention. The results showed that the intervention on average had significantly positive effects for the participating children. Only children of non-Western origin benefitted more than other children from the intervention. In addition, the effects were moderated by exposure and by child-staff-ratio; stronger effects were associated with higher exposure and with lower child-staff-ratio.

“Early intervention” has been a mantra in recent debates about human capital investment. Strong theoretical models motivate this focus by predicting that investment in children is most cost‐effective when they are young. The “Heckman curve” summarizes this idea visually (Heckman, 2006). However, hardly any reviews scrutinize this hypothesis empirically in modern welfare states such as those in Scandinavia that already invest heavily during early childhood. Any such review is ideally based on interventions conducted as randomized controlled trials (RCTs), set in the same welfare state, and comparable across ages through cost‐standardized effects. This meta‐analysis assembles cost‐standardized effect estimates from 10 RCTs, including a total of 18 intervention arms and 30,578 participants (aged 1.5–24 years), conducted by the same research center in the Scandinavian welfare state of Denmark. These interventions show significant effects relative to their costs, despite the large baseline investment level. Interventions targeted at younger children tend to produce larger effects, consistent with the Heckman curve. However, variation in the effect size within age groups is as large as it is across age groups. This indicates that both the quality and timing of investments matter and that “early interventions” are not necessarily superior to later interventions.

Sound assessment tools are needed to evaluate effects of mathematics interventions that familiarize children with early mathematics concepts before they enter the formal school system. We developed a short version of an existing early mathematics tool based on analyses of data collected in a nationally representative Danish sample. Research findings: The Danish adaptation and development process of the Tools for Early Assessment in Math (TEAM) for children aged 3−6 years was carried out in four steps: (a) choosing and translating relevant items, (b) conducting a pilot study, (c) testing items in a representative sample of Danish children aged 3−6 years (n = 5,621), and (d) analyses based on Rasch models. The process resulted in a final 19-item version—the DK-TEAM (final)—that has no differential item functioning relative to age and gender and is sensitive to the full range of abilities. The great majority of the children viewed the test as enjoyable. Practice or Policy: The DK-TEAM (final) appears to be broadly applicable for young Danish children, though the modest reliability at 3 years (which may be remediable by adding easy items) should be kept in mind.

In both basic research and applied domains, the prevailing paradigm for assessing social development has shifted from deficit-oriented measures to strength-based assessments or a combination. However, it is not yet clear the extent to which strength-based assessment reflects one end of a single dimension of children’s socio-emotional skills, or a distinctly different dimension from a problem-focused examination. This validation study compares the Social Emotional Assessment Measure (SEAM) with two well-known psychopathological questionnaires (the Caregiver-Teacher Report Form; C-TRF and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire; SDQ-T. We explore the relations between and the variation of the three questionnaires’ scores based on a low-risk sample of 2−5-year-old Danish children (n = 291). The SEAM Empathy Index is directly and positively related to the SDQ-T Prosocial subscale, while the SEAM Self-regulation & Cooperation Index is directly and negatively related to the SDQ-T Conduct problems subscale and the C-TRF Aggressive behaviour and Attention problems subscales. The variation in the SEAM indexes at the floor of the problem-based scales appears to reflect that strength-based assessments measure a distinct aspect of behaviour that is not identical to absence of problem-based behaviour. Thus, positive and negative aspects of socio-emotional skills are not entirely on the same dimension, and strength-based assessment improves the range of information. Abbreviations: Child Behavior Checklist: CBCL; Social Emotional Assessment Measure: SEAM; Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: SDQ