Neighborhood and Child Development at Age Five: A UK–US Comparison
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Data and Comparative Analytical Approach
2.2. Variables
2.2.1. Dependent Variables
2.2.2. Independent Variables
2.3. Analytical Strategy
3. Results
3.1. Area and Children’s Verbal Scores
3.2. Area and Children’s Externalizing Adjustment
3.3. Area and Children’s Internalizing Adjustment
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- van Ham, M.; Manley, D. Neighbourhood Effects Research at a Crossroads. Ten Challenges for Future Research Introduction. Environ. Plan. Econ. Space 2012, 44, 2787–2793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Minh, A.; Muhajarine, N.; Janus, M.; Brownell, M.; Guhn, M. A Review of Neighborhood Effects and Early Child Development: How, Where, and for Whom, Do Neighborhoods Matter? Health Place 2017, 46, 155–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leventhal, T.; Dupéré, V. Neighborhood Effects on Children’s Development in Experimental and Nonexperimental Research. Annu. Rev. Dev. Psychol. 2019, 1, 149–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bronfenbrenner, U. Toward an Experimental Ecology of Human Development. Am. Psychol. 1977, 32, 513–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bronfenbrenner, U.; Morris, P. The Bioecological Model of Human Development. In Theoretical Models of Human Development; Handbook of Child Psychology; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006; Volume 1, pp. 793–828. [Google Scholar]
- Leventhal, T.; Brooks-Gunn, J. Changing Neighborhoods and Child Well-Being: Understanding How Children May Be Affected in the Coming Century. Adv. Life Course Res. 2001, 6, 263–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dupere, V.; Leventhal, T.; Crosnoe, R.; Dion, E. Understanding the Positive Role of Neighborhood Socioeconomic Advantage in Achievement: The Contribution of the Home, Child Care, and School Environments. Dev. Psychol. 2010, 46, 1227–1244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sampson, R.J.; Morenoff, J.D.; Gannon-Rowley, T. Assessing “Neighborhood Effects”: Social Processes and New Directions in Research. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2002, 28, 443–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Grinstein-Weiss, M.; Key, C.; Yeo, Y.H.; Yoo, J.; Holub, K.; Taylor, A.; Tucker, J. Homeownership, Neighbourhood Characteristics and Children’s Positive Behaviours among Low- and Moderate-Income Households. Urban Stud. 2012, 49, 3545–3563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martens, P.J.; Chateau, D.G.; Burland, E.M.J.; Finlayson, G.S.; Smith, M.J.; Taylor, C.R.; Brownell, M.D.; Nickel, N.C.; Katz, A.; Bolton, J.M.; et al. The Effect of Neighborhood Socioeconomic Status on Education and Health Outcomes for Children Living in Social Housing. Am. J. Public Health 2014, 104, 2103–2113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flouri, E.; Tzavidis, N.; Kallis, C. Adverse Life Events, Area Socioeconomic Disadvantage, and Psychopathology and Resilience in Young Children: The Importance of Risk Factors’ Accumulation and Protective Factors’ Specificity. Eur. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 2010, 19, 535–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Barnes, J.; Cheng, H. Do Parental Neighbourhood Perceptions Contribute to Child Behaviour Problems? A Study of Disadvantaged Children. Vulnerable Child. Youth Stud. 2006, 1, 2–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kohen, D.E.; Leventhal, T.; Dahinten, V.S.; McIntosh, C.N. Neighborhood Disadvantage: Pathways of Effects for Young Children. Child Dev. 2008, 79, 156–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Heberle, A.E.; Thomas, Y.M.; Wagmiller, R.L.; Briggs-Gowan, M.J.; Carter, A.S. The Impact of Neighborhood, Family, and Individual Risk Factors on Toddlers’ Disruptive Behavior. Child Dev. 2014, 85, 2046–2061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Edwards, B.; Bromfield, L.M. Neighborhood Influences on Young Children’s Conduct Problems and pro-Social Behavior: Evidence from an Australian National Sample. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2009, 31, 317–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Midouhas, E.; Kuang, Y.; Flouri, E. Neighbourhood Human Capital and the Development of Children’s Emotional and Behavioural Problems: The Mediating Role of Parenting and Schools. Health Place 2014, 27, 155–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosenbaum, J.E. Changing the Geography of Opportunity by Expanding Residential Choice: Lessons from the Gautreaux Program. Hous. Policy Debate 1995, 6, 231–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leventhal, T.; Brooks-Gunn, J. Moving to Opportunity: An Experimental Study of Neighborhood Effects on Mental Health. Am. J. Public Health 2003, 93, 1576–1582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chetty, R.; Hendren, N.; Katz, L.F. The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighborhoods on Children: New Evidence from the Moving to Opportunity Experiment. Am. Econ. Rev. 2016, 106, 855–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Root, E.D.; Humphrey, J.L. The Impact of Childhood Mobility on Exposure to Neighborhood Socioeconomic Context Over Time. Am. J. Public Health 2014, 104, 80–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Anderson, S.; Leventhal, T.; Dupéré, V. Exposure to Neighborhood Affluence and Poverty in Childhood and Adolescence and Academic Achievement and Behavior. Appl. Dev. Sci. 2014, 18, 123–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shonkoff, J.P.; Garner, A.S.; The Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, Committee on Early Childhood, Adoption, and Dependent Care, And Section on Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics; Siegel, B.S.; Dobbins, M.I.; Earls, M.F.; Garner, A.S.; McGuinn, L.; Pascoe, J.; Wood, D.L. The Lifelong Effects of Early Childhood Adversity and Toxic Stress. PEDIATRICS 2012, 129, e232–e246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gambaro, L.; Joshi, H. Moving Home in the Early Years: What Happens to Children in the UK? Longitud. Life Course Stud. 2016, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Beck, B.; Buttaro, A., Jr.; Lennon, M.C. Home Moves and Child Wellbeing in the First Five Years of Life in the United States. Longitud. Life Course Stud. 2016, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kulu, H.; Steele, F. Interrelationships Between Childbearing and Housing Transitions in the Family Life Course. Demography 2013, 50, 1687–1714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mulder, C.H. Home-Ownership and Family Formation. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2006, 21, 281–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Flouri, E.; Midouhas, E.; Francesconi, M. Neighbourhood Deprivation and Child Behaviour across Childhood and Adolescence. Longitud. Life Course Stud. 2020, 11, 203–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flouri, E.; Papachristou, E.; Midouhas, E. The Role of Neighbourhood Greenspace in Children’s Spatial Working Memory. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2019, 89, 359–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Flouri, E.; Midouhas, E.; Joshi, H. The Role of Urban Neighbourhood Green Space in Children’s Emotional and Behavioural Resilience. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014, 40, 179–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cho, Y.; Whitehead, C. The Immobility of Social Tenants: Is It True? Does It Matter? J. Hous. Built Environ. 2013, 28, 705–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, N.; Beauregard, J.L.; Kramer, M.R.; Bécares, L. Neighbourhood Ethnic Density Effects on Behavioural and Cognitive Problems Among Young Racial/Ethnic Minority Children in the US and England: A Cross-National Comparison. Popul. Res. Policy Rev. 2017, 36, 761–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Waldfogel, J. Britain’s War on Poverty; Russell Sage Foundation: New York, NY, USA, 2010; ISBN 978-0-87154-897-9. [Google Scholar]
- Joshi, H.; Fitzsimons, E. The Millennium Cohort Study: The Making of a Multi-Purpose Resource for Social Science and Policy. Longitud. Life Course Stud. 2016, 7, 409–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Centre for Longitudinal Studies. Institute of Education. University of London. Millennium Cohort Study: First Survey, 2001–2003, 12th ed.; University of London: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Centre for Longitudinal Studies. Institute of Education. University of London. Millennium Cohort Study: Second Survey, 2003–2005, 9th ed.; University of London: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Centre for Longitudinal Studies. Institute of Education. University of London. Millennium Cohort Study: Third Survey, 2006, 7th ed.; University of London: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Centre for Longitudinal Studies. Institute of Education. University of London. Millennium Cohort Study: Longitudinal Family File, 2001–2015, 2nd ed.; University of London: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reichman, N.E.; Teitler, J.O.; Garfinkel, I.; McLanahan, S.S. Fragile Families: Sample and Design. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2001, 23, 303–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wagmiller, R.L. How Representative Are the Fragile Families Study Families? A Comparison of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Birth Cohort and Fragile Families Samples; Working Paper No. 1216; Center for Research on Child Wellbeing, Princeton University: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Desmond, M. Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City; Penguin Random House: London, UK, 2017; ISBN 978-1-4328-4313-7. [Google Scholar]
- Rubin, D.B. Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys; John Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011; ISBN 978-0-471-65574-9. [Google Scholar]
- Prince, M. Measurement Validity in Cross-Cultural Comparative Research. Epidemiol. Psichiatr. Soc. 2008, 17, 211–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elliott, C.D. BAS II: British Ability Scales Second Edition; NFER-Nelson: Windsor, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Dunn, L.M.; Dunn, L.M.; American Guidance Service. Examiner’s Manual for the PPVT-III, Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Third Edition; AGS: Circle Pines, MN, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Bradbury, B.; Corak, M.; Waldfogel, J.; Washbrook, E. Too Many Children Left behind: The U.S. Achievement Gap in Comparative Perspective; Russell Sage Foundation: New York, NY, USA, 2015; ISBN 978-1-61044-848-2. [Google Scholar]
- Goodman, R. The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A Research Note. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 1997, 38, 581–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Achenbach, T.M. Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/2-3 and 1992 Profile; Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont: Burlington, VT, USA, 1992; ISBN 0-938565-20-6. [Google Scholar]
- Feinstein, L. Inequality in the Early Cognitive Development of British Children in the 1970 Cohort. Economica 2003, 70, 73–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waldfogel, J.; Washbrook, E. Early Years Policy. Child Dev. Res. 2011, 2011, 343016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Zimmerman, D.W.; Zumbo, B.D. Can Percentiles Replace Raw Scores in the Statistical Analysis of Test Data? Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2005, 65, 616–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buttaro, A., Jr.; Gambaro, L. The Index of Local Area Relative Disadvantage: A Cross-Country Comparison; Centre for Longitudinal Studies, UCL: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Gambaro, L.; Joshi, H.; Lupton, R.; Fenton, A.; Lennon, M.C. Developing Better Measures of Neighbourhood Characteristics and Change for Use in Studies of Residential Mobility: A Case Study of Britain in the Early 2000s. Appl. Spat. Anal. Policy 2016, 9, 569–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gambaro, L.; Buttaro, A., Jr.; Joshi, H.; Lennon, M.C. Does Residential Mobility Affect Child Development at Age Five? A Comparative Study of Children Born in US and UK Cities. Dev. Psychol. Forthcoming.
- Kessler, R.C.; Andrews, G.; Mroczek, D.; Ustun, B.; Wittchen, H.-U. The World Health Organization Composite International Diagnostic Interview Short-Form (CIDI-SF). Int. J. Methods Psychiatr. Res. 1998, 7, 171–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shonkoff, J.P.; Phillips, D.A. From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2004; ISBN 0-309-06988-2. [Google Scholar]
- Lawrence, E.; Root, E.; Mollborn, S. Residential Mobility in Early Childhood: Household and Neighborhood Characteristics of Movers and Non-Movers. Demogr. Res. 2015, 33, 939–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Lupton, R. Neighbourhood Effects: Can We Measure Them and Does It Matter? LSE STICERD Research Paper No. CASE073. Available online: https://Ssrn.Com/Abstract=1158964 (accessed on 11 November 2003).
- Flowerdew, R.; Manley, D.J.; Sabel, C.E. Neighbourhood Effects on Health: Does It Matter Where You Draw the Boundaries? Soc. Sci. Med. 2008, 66, 1241–1255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Haynes, R.; Daras, K.; Reading, R.; Jones, A. Modifiable Neighbourhood Units, Zone Design and Residents’ Perceptions. Health Place 2007, 13, 812–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Finch, C.E.; Morgan, T.E. Developmental Exposure to Air Pollution, Cigarettes, and Lead: Implications for Brain Aging. Annu. Rev. Dev. Psychol. 2020, 2, 585–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milojevic, A.; Dutey-Magni, P.; Dearden, L.; Wilkinson, P. Lifelong Exposure to Air Pollution and Cognitive Development in Young Children: The UK Millennium Cohort Study. Environ. Res. Lett. 2021, 16, 055023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variables by Domain | UK | US | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | Mean | SD | Range | Corr. Area Soc. Adv. 1 yr | N | Mean | SD | Range | Corr. Area Soc. Adv. 1 yr | |
Dependent variables | ||||||||||
Verbal score at 5 yrs (original) | 7967 | 54.6 | 11.1 | 20–80 | 0.31 *** | 1458 | 95.2 | 17.6 | 40–133 | 0.43 *** |
Verbal score at 5 yrs (percentile) | 7967 | 52.7 | 28.0 | 1–99 | 0.32 *** | 1458 | 53.8 | 30.5 | 1–100 | 0.44 *** |
Externalizing behavior at 5 yrs (original) | 7583 | 4.6 | 3.3 | 0–19 | −0.22 *** | 1820 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.0–1.5 | −0.17 *** |
Externalizing behavior adjustment at 5 yrs (percentile) | 7583 | 56.7 | 29.3 | 1–100 | 0.21 *** | 1820 | 53.5 | 28.6 | 1–100 | 0.16 *** |
Internalizing behavior at 5 yrs (original) | 7606 | 2.4 | 2.5 | 0–18 | −0.20 *** | 1820 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.0–1.1 | −0.17 *** |
Internalizing behavior adjustment at 5 yrs (percentile) | 7606 | 60.5 | 30.9 | 1–100 | 0.21 *** | 1820 | 53.7 | 30.7 | 1–100 | 0.16 *** |
Area and mobility | ||||||||||
Area social advantage at 1 yr (percentile) | 7967 | 50.5 | 28.8 | 1–100 | — | 1820 | 49.2 | 29.0 | 1–100 | — |
Area social advantage at 5 yrs (percentile) | 7967 | 50.5 | 28.8 | 1–100 | 0.83 *** | 1820 | 48.7 | 29.4 | 1–100 | 0.78 *** |
Moved between 1–5 yrs | 7967 | 0.399 | — | 0–1 | −0.02 * | 1820 | 0.628 | — | 0–1 | −0.02 * |
Change in area social advantage 1–5 yrs (diff. of percentiles) | 7967 | 0.7 | 15.4 | −91–95 | −0.27 *** | 1820 | 0.0 | 19.6 | −76–92 | −0.31 *** |
Family context | ||||||||||
Household was workless at 1 yr | 7478 | 0.159 | — | 0–1 | −0.35 *** | 1804 | 0.139 | — | 0–1 | −0.34 *** |
Mother was single at 1 yr | 7967 | 0.135 | — | 0–1 | −0.27 *** | 1811 | 0.197 | — | 0–1 | −0.30 *** |
LN equivalized income at 1 yr | 7875 | 9.7 | 0.7 | 6.8–11.2 | 0.56 *** | 1820 | 9.9 | 1.4 | 0.0–13.0 | 0.54 *** |
Mother’s level of education | 7950 | 4.0 | 1.7 | 1–7 | 0.48 *** | 1820 | 4.0 | 1.8 | 1–7 | 0.52 *** |
Race/Ethnicity | ||||||||||
White (ref. group) | 7967 | 0.855 | — | 0–1 | 0.15 *** | 1820 | 0.383 | — | 0–1 | 0.52 *** |
Black | 7967 | 0.036 | — | 0–1 | −0.07 *** | 1820 | 0.246 | — | 0–1 | −0.41 *** |
Hispanic | — | — | — | — | — | 1820 | 0.300 | — | 0–1 | −0.26 *** |
Indian | 7967 | 0.028 | — | 0–1 | −0.01 *** | — | — | — | — | — |
Pakistani/Bangladeshi | 7967 | 0.050 | — | 0–1 | −0.17 | — | — | — | — | — |
Other race/ethnicity | 7967 | 0.030 | — | 0–1 | −0.01 *** | 1820 | 0.071 | — | 0–1 | 0.19 *** |
Mother was not born in UK/US | 7089 | 0.122 | — | 0–1 | −0.03 ** | 1816 | 0.208 | — | 0–1 | −0.14 *** |
Household size at 1 yr | 7967 | 4.0 | 1.2 | 2–12 | −0.11 *** | 1814 | 4.4 | 1.5 | 1–15 | −0.26 *** |
Mother’s age in years at cohort member’s birth | 7966 | 29.3 | 5.8 | 14–49 | 0.38 *** | 1820 | 26.8 | 6.2 | 14–47 | 0.29 *** |
Cohort member was first child | 7967 | 0.447 | — | 0–1 | 0.07 *** | 1819 | 0.364 | — | 0–1 | 0.14 *** |
Housing Tenure at 1 yr | ||||||||||
Public housing | 7952 | 0.222 | — | 0–1 | −0.45 *** | 1818 | 0.078 | — | 0–1 | −0.31 *** |
Subsidized rented housing | 7952 | 0.025 | — | 0–1 | −0.07 *** | 1818 | 0.051 | — | 0–1 | −0.16 *** |
Market rented housing | 7952 | 0.045 | — | 0–1 | 0.03 * | 1818 | 0.325 | — | 0–1 | 0.01 |
Owned housing (ref. group) | 7952 | 0.652 | — | 0–1 | 0.44 *** | 1818 | 0.336 | — | 0–1 | 0.39 *** |
Shared/other types of housing | 7952 | 0.056 | — | 0–1 | −0.08 *** | 1818 | 0.210 | — | 0–1 | −0.15 *** |
Health | ||||||||||
Cohort Member was born underweight | 7959 | 0.073 | — | 0–1 | −0.03 ** | 1775 | 0.061 | — | 0–1 | −0.08 ** |
Cohort Member’s general health at 3 yrs/1 yr | 7089 | 0.159 | — | 0–1 | −0.04 *** | 1818 | 4.5 | 0.8 | 1–5 | 0.11 *** |
Mother’s general health at 1 yr | 7963 | 2.2 | 0.7 | 1–3 | 0.19 *** | 1820 | 3.7 | 1.0 | 1–5 | 0.15 *** |
Mother depressed at 1 yr | 7963 | 0.229 | — | 0–1 | −0.10 *** | 1820 | 0.122 | — | 0–1 | −0.03 |
Changes in family context 1–5 yrs | ||||||||||
Household was workless at 5 yrs | 7476 | 0.047 | — | 0–1 | −0.11 *** | 1802 | 0.092 | — | 0–1 | −0.06 *** |
Household was employed at 5 yrs | 7476 | 0.064 | — | 0–1 | −0.17 *** | 1802 | 0.089 | — | 0–1 | −0.28 *** |
Mother was single at 5 yrs | 7966 | 0.086 | — | 0–1 | −0.09 *** | 1811 | 0.171 | — | 0–1 | −0.04 |
Mother was coupled at 5 yrs | 7966 | 0.047 | — | 0–1 | −0.15 *** | 1811 | 0.074 | — | 0–1 | −0.19 *** |
Change in LN equivalized income 1–5 yrs | 7802 | 0.1 | 0.5 | −3.8–3.4 | −0.09 *** | 1820 | 0.1 | 1.1 | −10.9–10.5 | −0.09 ** |
Change in household size 1–5 yrs | 7966 | 0.3 | 1.1 | −9–9 | 0.08 *** | 1803 | 0.1 | 1.5 | −8–8 | 0.15 *** |
Basic control variables | ||||||||||
Cohort Member’s sex is male | 7967 | 0.506 | — | 0–1 | 0.00 | 1820 | 0.559 | — | 0–1 | −0.02 |
Cohort Member’s age in months at 5 yrs | 7967 | 62.6 | 2.9 | 53–74 | 0.04 *** | 1802 | 60.9 | 2.2 | 56–71 | 0.08 ** |
Variable | Model 1: Area Social Advantage | Model 2: Area and Mobility | Model 3: Model 2 + Family Context & Health | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
UK | US | UK | US | UK | US | |
Area social advantage at 1 year (percentile) | 0.31 *** (0.02) | 0.47 *** (0.09) | 0.33 *** (0.02) | 0.58 *** (0.06) | 0.11 *** (0.02) | 0.10 (0.11) |
Change in area social advantage 1–5 years (diff. of p-tiles) | — | — | 0.16 *** (0.02) | 0.47 ** (0.11) | 0.04 (0.02) | 0.23 ** (0.08) |
Moved between 1–5 years | — | — | −0.40 (0.87) | 2.55 (5.53) | −0.91 (0.82) | 1.99 (3.29) |
Constant | 59.41 *** (7.89) | 48.15 (60.05) | 59.49 *** (7.89) | 10.22 (55.92) | 25.81 * (10.75) | 31.15 (41.07) |
F-test | 104 *** | 70 *** | 70 *** | 57 *** | 133 *** | 10,189 *** |
Adjusted R2 | 0.10 | 0.20 | 0.11 | 0.28 | 0.24 | 0.46 |
Model 1: Area Social Advantage | Model 2: Area and Mobility | Model 3: Model 2 + Family Context & Health | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
UK | US | UK | US | UK | US | |
Area social advantage at 1 year (percentile) | 0.22 *** (0.01) | 0.15 ** (0.05) | 0.23 *** (0.01) | 0.17 ** (0.05) | 0.04 * (0.02) | 0.10 (0.10) |
Change in area social advantage 1–5 years (diff. of p-tiles) | — | — | 0.07 ** (0.03) | 0.07 (0.06) | −0.03 (0.03) | 0.02 (0.05) |
Moved between 1–5 years | — | — | 2.46 ** (0.77) | 3.71 (2.61) | −0.72 (0.78) | 5.01 ** (1.51) |
Constant | 32.72 *** (8.48) | 74.18 ** (23.21) | 32.48 *** (8.44) | 72.97 *** (22.40) | 9.43 (11.26) | 46.45 (23.53) |
F-test | 168 *** | 6 | 103 *** | 4 * | 52 *** | 810 *** |
Adjusted R2 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 0.07 | 0.03 | 0.13 | 0.09 |
Model 1: Area Social Advantage | Model 2: Area and Mobility | Model 3: Model 2 + Family Context & Health | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
UK | US | UK | US | UK | US | |
Area social advantage at 1 year (percentile) | 0.22 *** (0.01) | 0.16 ** (0.05) | 0.24 *** (0.02) | 0.19 * (0.07) | 0.07 ** (0.02) | 0.15 (0.12) |
Change in area social advantage 1–5 years (diff. of p-tiles) | — | — | 0.12 *** (0.03) | 0.15 (0.11) | 0.03 (0.03) | 0.13 (0.11) |
Moved between 1–5 years | — | — | −1.54 * (0.75) | −0.32 (3.40) | −0.51 (0.73) | 0.59 (3.59) |
Constant | 42.04 *** (9.56) | 152.90 ** (45.57) | 41.96 *** (9.59) | 142.93 ** (45.57) | 14.88 (13.75) | 154.37 *** (32.21) |
F-test | 74 *** | 12 *** | 45 *** | 12 *** | 42 *** | 2571 *** |
Adjusted R2 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.10 | 0.11 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Buttaro, A., Jr.; Gambaro, L.; Joshi, H.; Lennon, M.C. Neighborhood and Child Development at Age Five: A UK–US Comparison. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 10435. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph181910435
Buttaro A Jr., Gambaro L, Joshi H, Lennon MC. Neighborhood and Child Development at Age Five: A UK–US Comparison. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(19):10435. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph181910435
Chicago/Turabian StyleButtaro, Anthony, Jr., Ludovica Gambaro, Heather Joshi, and Mary Clare Lennon. 2021. "Neighborhood and Child Development at Age Five: A UK–US Comparison" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 19: 10435. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph181910435