View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Caregiver Monitoring, but Not Caregiver Warmth, Is Associated with General Cognition in Two Large Sub-Samples of Youth

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Caregiver Monitoring, but Not Caregiver Warmth, Is Associated with General Cognition in Two Large Sub-Samples of Youth
Language: English
Authors: Keller, Arielle S. (ORCID 0000-0003-4708-1672), Mackey, Allyson P., Pines, Adam, Fair, Damien, Feczko, Eric, Hoffmann, Mauricio S., Salum, Giovanni A., Barzilay, Ran, Satterthwaite, Theodore D.
Source: Developmental Science. May 2023 26(3).
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 15
Publication Date: 2023
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Cognitive Ability, Caregiver Role, Cognitive Development, Family Income, Socioeconomic Influences, Adolescents
DOI: 10.1111/desc.13337
ISSN: 1363-755X
1467-7687
Abstract: Individual differences in cognitive abilities emerge early during development, and children with poorer cognition are at increased risk for adverse outcomes as they enter adolescence. Caregiving plays an important role in supporting cognitive development, yet it remains unclear how specific types of caregiving behaviors may shape cognition, highlighting the need for large-scale studies. In the present study, we characterized replicable yet specific associations between caregiving behaviors and cognition in two large sub-samples of children ages 9-10 years old from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study® (ABCD). Across both discovery and replication sub-samples, we found that child reports of caregiver monitoring (supervision or regular knowledge of the child's whereabouts) were positively associated with general cognition abilities, after covarying for age, sex, household income, neighborhood deprivation, and parental education. This association was specific to the type of caregiving behavior (caregiver monitoring, but not caregiver warmth), and was most strongly associated with a broad domain of general cognition (but not executive function or learning/memory). Additionally, we found that caregiver monitoring partially mediated the association between household income and cognition, furthering our understanding of how socioeconomic disparities may contribute to disadvantages in cognitive development. Together, these findings underscore the influence of differences in caregiving behavior in shaping youth cognition.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1372301
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEoo41wEm74ebhDtxueQtHcAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDJuTShx0VUwpo3onjQIBEICBm25-j-EWxHxlR1iK2XegCjWSBSsI1P5j9oCgAzu6Fk2tx3MVdjXL9v3V2m1tHklhklzexIdIVt2ma8fg7YUvyceL1lIEjF_1cJZ08_4BLEQK_uLcG5pvqOw6ABlaxOB48sJKghb3WcEGpWqLl2Wb3fliM8a9AhgE_sYbx1wvJfmRhkPj17QO1UrxjqDE1MCa-n8ojQOE3YlptYKp
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0162916560;5g501may.23;2023Apr07.05:49;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0162916560-1">Caregiver monitoring, but not caregiver warmth, is associated with general cognition in two large sub‐samples of youth </title> <p>Individual differences in cognitive abilities emerge early during development, and children with poorer cognition are at increased risk for adverse outcomes as they enter adolescence. Caregiving plays an important role in supporting cognitive development, yet it remains unclear how specific types of caregiving behaviors may shape cognition, highlighting the need for large‐scale studies. In the present study, we characterized replicable yet specific associations between caregiving behaviors and cognition in two large sub‐samples of children ages 9—10 years old from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study® (ABCD). Across both discovery and replication sub‐samples, we found that child reports of caregiver monitoring (supervision or regular knowledge of the child's whereabouts) were positively associated with general cognition abilities, after covarying for age, sex, household income, neighborhood deprivation, and parental education. This association was specific to the type of caregiving behavior (caregiver monitoring, but not caregiver warmth), and was most strongly associated with a broad domain of general cognition (but not executive function or learning/memory). Additionally, we found that caregiver monitoring partially mediated the association between household income and cognition, furthering our understanding of how socioeconomic disparities may contribute to disadvantages in cognitive development. Together, these findings underscore the influence of differences in caregiving behavior in shaping youth cognition. Research Highlights: Caregiver monitoring, but not caregiver warmth, is associated with cognitive performance in youthCaregiver monitoring partially mediates the association between household income and cognitionResults replicated across two large matched samples from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study® (ABCD)</p> <p>Keywords: ABCD; caregiving; cognition; monitoring; socioeconomic status; warmth</p> <p>Caregiving plays an important role in supporting cognitive development, yet it remains unclear how specific types of caregiving behaviors may shape cognition, highlighting the need for large‐scale studies. Replicating findings across two large sub‐sample of children ages 9‐10 years old, we found that child reports of caregiver warmth were positively associated with general cognition abilities. Additionally, we found that caregiver monitoring partially mediated the association between household income and cognition, furthering our understanding of how socioeconomic disparities may contribute to disadvantages in cognitive development.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/5G5/01may23/desc13337-gra-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="desc13337-gra-0001.jpg" title="." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0162916560-3">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>Individual differences in cognition emerge early in development (Boogert et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref1">13</reflink>]; Fischer & Silvern, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref2">35</reflink>]) and continue to evolve into adolescence (Casey et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref3">18</reflink>]; Luna, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref4">60</reflink>]; Tervo‐Clemmens et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref5">83</reflink>]). Adolescents with poorer cognition are more likely to engage in risk‐taking behaviors (Shamosh et al., [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref6">77</reflink>]) and are at heightened risk for psychopathology (Shanmugan et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref7">78</reflink>]), cardiovascular disease (Gow et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref8">42</reflink>]; Hart et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref9">43</reflink>]; Wraw et al., [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref10">91</reflink>]), all‐cause mortality (Batty et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref11">9</reflink>]; Calvin et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref12">16</reflink>]), financial struggles (Moffitt et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref13">69</reflink>]), and poorer cognition in adulthood (Agha et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref14">3</reflink>]; Gow et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref15">42</reflink>]; Richards et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref16">71</reflink>]). Thus, it is critical to understand the experiences during childhood that cultivate positive cognitive development prior to the onset of adolescence.</p> <p>Caregiving behaviors play an essential role in shaping cognitive development. A plethora of studies have shown that differences in parenting styles are associated with differences in youth cognition. Studies have highlighted the benefits of responsive (Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref17">80</reflink>]), sensitive (Mileva‐Seitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref18">67</reflink>]), and authoritative parenting (Gauvain et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref19">38</reflink>]; Lamborn et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref20">55</reflink>]) for positive cognitive development and have shown that children with secure attachment representations tend to have better cognitive performance than those with insecure attachment (de Ruiter & van Ijzendoornt, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref21">26</reflink>]; Ding et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref22">29</reflink>]; Jacobsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref23">45</reflink>]; Jacobsen & Hofmann, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref24">46</reflink>]). Randomized control trials of caregiving interventions, such as those targeting sensitivity and responsiveness (Alvarenga et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref25">5</reflink>]; Korom et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref26">52</reflink>]) or the amount of linguistic and cognitive stimulation (Chang et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref27">20</reflink>]), provide further evidence for this association. While this body of research has demonstrated that caregiving behaviors play an important role in shaping cognitive development in early childhood, it remains unclear which specific domains of caregiving behaviors, such as caregiver monitoring and warmth (Deville et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref28">27</reflink>]), relate to which aspects of cognition, especially during the critical transition from childhood to adolescence.</p> <p>Caregiver monitoring, typically assessed as a caregiver's supervision or regular knowledge of the child's whereabouts, may have particular relevance for the transition to adolescence. Previous studies have shown that caregiver monitoring is inversely related with illegal substance and alcohol use (Belintxon et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref29">10</reflink>]; Flannery et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref30">36</reflink>]; Keogh‐Clark et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref31">49</reflink>]; Larm et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref32">56</reflink>]; Mills et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref33">68</reflink>]; Rusby et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref34">74</reflink>]; Sobrino‐piazza et al., [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref35">81</reflink>]), risky sexual activity (DiClemente et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref36">28</reflink>]; Metzler et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref37">66</reflink>]; Romer et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref38">72</reflink>]), and poor academic performance (Crouter et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref39">24</reflink>]; Santiago et al., [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref40">75</reflink>]; Spera, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref41">82</reflink>]; White & Kaufman, [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref42">90</reflink>]) in adolescents. Caregiver warmth, typically assessed as a child's perception of their caregiver's emotional supportiveness, has been negatively associated with adolescent binge drinking (Donaldson et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref43">30</reflink>]) and adolescent anger (Cano‐Lozano et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref44">17</reflink>]). This work describing associations between caregiving behaviors and youth's vulnerability to behavioral problems provides a strong foundation for investigations into associations with cognitive functioning. Moreover, investigating associations between these caregiving behaviors and cognition just before the transition to adolescence would allow for the development of protective interventions during this critical time in development.</p> <p>Caregiving can be challenging even in the best circumstances, and it is known that factors such as stress (Luethi et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref45">58</reflink>]; Lupien et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref46">61</reflink>]), fatigue/sleep deprivation (Engle & Kane, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref47">31</reflink>]; Horne, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref48">44</reflink>]), and lack of nutrition (Blanton et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref49">11</reflink>]; Francis & Stevenson, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref50">37</reflink>]) are all associated with poorer emotional and cognitive control capacities in caregivers (Crandall et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref51">23</reflink>]). Caregivers with lower socioeconomic status (SES) who may experience such challenges more often and who may have reduced time/resources available for caregiving may therefore be disproportionately disadvantaged (for review, Bradley & Corwyn, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref52">14</reflink>]). It is therefore essential that investigations of cognitive development further consider and explore the effects of SES. Furthermore, it has been presumed that one potential reason for adverse outcomes in the context of low caregiver monitoring is an increased risk of exposure to adversity; research in both humans and non‐human primates has highlighted the adaptive nature of caregiver‐child proximity for survival (for review, Barnett et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref53">8</reflink>]) and a recent study showed that adolescents with high levels of caregiver monitoring had fewer adverse experiences (Chainey et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref54">19</reflink>]). It is therefore also essential that investigations of caregiver monitoring account for potential differences in the overall frequency of adverse childhood experiences.</p> <p>To advance this line of research, there are three key challenges that we sought to overcome. First, prior studies have often relied on small datasets, leading to heterogeneity of results in the literature. We therefore leveraged data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study<sups>®</sups> (ABCD) (Volkow et al., [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref55">87</reflink>]), and specifically the ABCD BIDS Community Collection (ABCC Collection 3165) (Feczko et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref56">33</reflink>]). To ensure the reliability and generalizability of our anticipated small effect sizes (Marek, Tervo‐Clemmens et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref57">63</reflink>]) we utilized the ABCD Reproducible Matched Samples (ARMS) (Feczko et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref58">33</reflink>]) and conducted analyses in socio‐demographically matched discovery (<emph>n</emph> = 4664) and replication sub‐samples (<emph>n</emph> = 4596) (Cordova et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref59">22</reflink>]). Second, studies probing associations between caregiving behaviors and cognition in middle childhood have typically not focused on parsing specificity in both the type of caregiving behavior and domains of cognition. We therefore assessed child reports of caregiver monitoring and caregiver warmth and investigated their associations with three major domains of cognition (General Cognition, Executive Function, and Learning/Memory). These cognitive domains capture the majority of variance across a battery of cognitive tasks, making them promising candidates for uncovering broad cognitive risk factors. We leveraged the baseline ABCD cohort of 9–10 year old children on the precipice of the critical transition to adolescence, complementing prior work on the effects of parenting in early childhood or late adolescence. Third, given the known effects of socioeconomic factors on cognitive development, we controlled for three measures of SES in our analyses: household income, parental education, and geocoded neighborhood deprivation. Furthermore, we examined whether caregiving behaviors might mediate the association between socioeconomic disparities and individual differences in youth cognition.</p> <hd id="AN0162916560-4">MATERIALS AND METHODS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0162916560-5">Participants</hd> <p>Data were drawn from the ABCD (Volkow et al., [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref60">87</reflink>]) baseline sample from ABCD Data Release 3.0, which included <emph>n</emph> = 11,878 children ages 9–10 years old and their parents/guardians collected across 21 sites. Inclusion criteria for this study included being within the desired age range (9–10 years old), English language proficiency in the children, and having the ability to provide informed consent (parent) and assent (child). Exclusion criteria included the presence of severe sensory, intellectual, medical or neurological issues that would have impacted the child's ability to comply with the study protocol, as well as MRI scanner contraindications. As depicted in Figure S1, we additionally excluded participants with incomplete data and participants whose cognition scores across one or more domains were outside a range of ± three standard deviations from the average to reduce the impact of high‐leverage points, yielding a final sample of <emph>n</emph> = 9,517. Included and excluded participants did not differ significantly in age or sex but excluded participants had slightly greater neighborhood deprivation (lower median neighborhood household income) and lower household income (<emph>p</emph>s < 0.001).</p> <p>To test the generalizability of our results, we utilized the ARMS (Feczko et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref61">33</reflink>]) and repeated each of our analyses in both a discovery sample (<emph>n</emph> = 4,664) and a separate replication sample (<emph>n</emph> = 4,596) that were matched across multiple socio‐demographic variables including age, sex, site, ethnicity, parent education, combined family income, and others (Cordova et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref62">22</reflink>]; Feczko et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref63">33</reflink>]). Socio‐demographic characteristics of participants in the discovery and replication samples may be found in Table 1. As previously published (Feczko et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref64">33</reflink>]), we found no significant differences between participants in the discovery and replication samples across any socio‐demographic variables, nor were there any significant differences in scores across the three cognitive domains (<emph>p</emph>s > 0.16) or two caregiving behaviors (<emph>p</emph>s > 0.53).</p> <p>1 TABLE Demographic characteristics and variables of interest in the matched discovery (n = 4,664) and replication (n = 4,596) samples</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th /><th align="left">Total</th><th align="left">Discovery</th><th align="left">Replication</th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic>‐Value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Age</td><td>9.92 (± 0.63)</td><td>9.93 (± 0.63)</td><td>9.91 (± 0.63)</td><td>0.33</td></tr><tr><td>Sex</td><td>4,412 (47.6%)</td><td>2,246 (48.2%)</td><td>2,166 (47.1%)</td><td>0.33</td></tr><tr><td>Neighborhood deprivation</td><td>77,858.6 (± 35,895)</td><td>77,862.4 (± 35,985)</td><td>77,854.7 (± 35,807)</td><td>0.99</td></tr><tr><td>Household income</td><td /><td /><td /><td>0.73</td></tr><tr><td>[< 50K]</td><td>2,665 (28.8%)</td><td>1,329 (28.5%)</td><td>1,336 (29.1%)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>[> = 50K & < 100K]</td><td>2,634 (28.4%)</td><td>1,342 (28.8%)</td><td>1,292 (28.1%)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>[> = 100K]</td><td>3,961 (42.8%)</td><td>1,993 (42.7%)</td><td>1,968 (42.8%)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Race</td><td /><td /><td /><td>0.94</td></tr><tr><td>White</td><td>6,116 (66.0%)</td><td>3,101 (66.5%)</td><td>3,015 (65.6%)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Black</td><td>1,299 (14.0%)</td><td>638 (13.7%)</td><td>661 (14.4%)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Asian</td><td>208 (2.2%)</td><td>105 (2.3%)</td><td>103 (2.2%)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>AIAN/NHPI</td><td>54 (0.6%)</td><td>27 (0.6%)</td><td>27 (0.6%)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>338 (3.7%)</td><td>169 (3.6%)</td><td>169 (3.7%)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Mixed</td><td>1,142 (12.3%)</td><td>570 (12.2%)</td><td>572 (12.4%)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Missing</td><td>103 (1.1%)</td><td>54 (1.2%)</td><td>49 (1.1%)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Parent education</td><td /><td /><td /><td>0.13</td></tr><tr><td>< HS Diploma</td><td>348 (3.8%)</td><td>194 (4.2%)</td><td>154 (3.4%)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>HS Diploma/GED</td><td>769 (8.3%)</td><td>370 (7.9%)</td><td>399 (8.7%)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Some College</td><td>2,353 (25.4%)</td><td>1,169 (25.1%)</td><td>1,184 (25.8%)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Bachelor</td><td>2,457 (26.5%)</td><td>1,262 (27.1%)</td><td>1,195 (26.0%)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Post Graduate Degree</td><td>3,333 (36.0%)</td><td>1,669 (35.8%)</td><td>1,664 (36.2%)</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Acronyms: AIAN, American Indian/Alaska Native; GED, general educational development; HS, high school; NHPI, Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander.</p> <hd id="AN0162916560-6">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0162916560-7">Caregiving behavior</hd> <p>We focused on two distinct domains of caregiving behavior: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref65">1</reflink>) caregiver monitoring and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref66">2</reflink>) caregiver warmth. Caregiver monitoring was assessed using five items from the Parental Monitoring scale (Karoly et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref67">47</reflink>]) as in prior work using ABCD Study® data (Deville et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref68">27</reflink>]). This scale, which is known to have moderate internal consistency in this dataset (R. Gonzalez et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref69">41</reflink>]), assesses caregiver knowledge of the child's whereabouts. These items included: "How often do your parents/guardians know where you are?" "How often do your parents know who you are with when you are not at school and away from home?" "If you are at home when your parents or guardians are not, how often do you know how to get in touch with them?" "How often do you talk to your parent or guardian about your plans for the upcoming day, such as your plans about what will happen at school or what you are going to do with friends?" and "In an average week, how many times do you and your parents/guardians eat dinner together?" Youth responses for each item were reported on a five‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 (<emph>never</emph>) to 5 (<emph>almost always</emph>).</p> <p>We assessed children's perception of caregiver warmth using the acceptance subscale of the Child Report of Parent Behavior Inventory (CRPBI) (Schaeffer, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref70">76</reflink>]) as in prior work in the ABCD Study® dataset (Deville et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref71">27</reflink>]). These items, which are known to have acceptable internal reliability in this dataset (R. Gonzalez et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref72">41</reflink>]) were assessed with regard to the primary caregiver and included the following items: "Makes me feel better after talking over my worries with him/her," "Smiles at me very often," "Is able to make me feel better when I am upset," "Believes in showing his/her love for me" and "Is easy to talk to." Youth responses were reported on a three‐point Likert scale from 1 (<emph>Not like him/her</emph>) to 3 (<emph>A lot like him/her</emph>). To equate effect sizes for analyses of both caregiving behaviors, we <emph>z</emph>‐scored the values for caregiver monitoring and caregiver warmth in each sub‐sample independently.</p> <hd id="AN0162916560-8">Cognition</hd> <p>Participants completed a battery of cognitive assessments, including seven tasks from the NIH Toolbox (Picture Vocabulary, Flanker Test, List Sort Working Memory Task, Dimensional Change Card Sort Task, Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Task, Picture Sequence Memory Task, and the Oral Reading Test) (Weintraub et al., [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref73">88</reflink>]) as well as two additional tasks (the Little Man Task and the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Task) (Luciana et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref74">57</reflink>]). To reduce the dimensionality of these measures and focus our analyses on cognitive domains that explained the majority of variance in performance in these tasks, we used scores in three previously‐established cognitive domains derived from a prior study in this same dataset (Thompson et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref75">84</reflink>]): (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref76">1</reflink>) General Cognition, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref77">2</reflink>) Executive Function, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref78">3</reflink>) Learning/Memory. In this study, a three‐factor Bayesian Probabilistic Principal Components Analysis (BPPCA) model was applied to the aforementioned battery of nine cognitive tasks. Scores generated by varimax rotated loadings for this three‐factor model for General Cognition (highest loadings: Oral Reading Test, Picture Vocabulary, and Little Man Task), Executive Function (highest loadings: Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Task, Flanker Test, and Dimensional Change Card Sort Task), and Learning/Memory (highest loadings: Picture Sequence Memory Task, Rey Auditory and Verbal Learning Task, and List Sort Working Memory Task) were downloaded directly from the ABCD Data Exploration and Analysis Portal (DEAP).</p> <hd id="AN0162916560-9">Socio‐demographic variables</hd> <p>To estimate SES, we included three socio‐demographic variables as covariates in all models: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref79">1</reflink>) household income, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref80">2</reflink>) parental education and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref81">3</reflink>) neighborhood deprivation.</p> <p>Household income was assessed as a three‐level categorical measure representing low‐, middle‐, and high‐income households within the following summary brackets: < $50K, > $50K and < $100K, or > $100K. Continuous measures of household income were not available, as the ABCD Study® collected data on household income within ten income brackets [(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref82">1</reflink>) < $5000; 2) $5000−12,000; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref83">3</reflink>) $12,000−16,000; (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref84">4</reflink>) $16,000−25,000; (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref85">5</reflink>) $25,000−35,000; (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref86">6</reflink>) $35,000−50,000; (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref87">7</reflink>) $50,000−75,000; (<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref88">8</reflink>) $75,000−100,000; (<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref89">9</reflink>) $100,000−200,000; (<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref90">10</reflink>) > $200,000] and subsequently simplified these categories to the three aforementioned income groupings used in recent studies (Akhlaghipour & Assari, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref91">4</reflink>]; Assari et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref92">6</reflink>]; Marshall et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref93">64</reflink>]). For the purpose of reporting simplified mediation models (see Section 2.3 Statistical Analyses), we converted the measure of household income to a binary variable (>100K or <100K) but note that the overall pattern of results is the same when using a different binarization (>50K or <50K).</p> <p>Neighborhood deprivation was operationalized by the residential history derived areal deprivation index of median family income (Fan et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref94">32</reflink>]), which provides a geo‐coded measure of average socioeconomic deprivation and cost‐of‐living for residents of a given area. Parental education was assessed based on the parents' highest degree of education (the highest degree earned by either parent). While race and ethnicity are known factors associated with SES due to pervasive racism and discrimination that warrant further research, we chose not to include race or ethnicity in our analyses due to the difficulties with disentangling the effects of systemic racism on cognition (e.g., disparities in educational opportunities for minoritized groups) (Acevedo‐Garcia et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref95">1</reflink>]; Acevedo‐Garcia et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref96">2</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0162916560-10">Statistical analyses</hd> <p>All statistical analyses were conducted using <emph>R</emph> version 4.1.2 and RStudio version 2021.09.2. Code is available at https://github.com/PennLINC/CaregiverMonitoringCognition.</p> <hd id="AN0162916560-11">Linear mixed‐effects models</hd> <p>We used linear mixed effects models (implemented with the "lme4" package in <emph>R</emph>) to assess associations between caregiving behaviors and cognitive domains while accounting for both fixed and random predictors. All models included fixed effects parameters for age, biological sex, household income, parental education, and neighborhood deprivation, as well as random intercepts for family (accounting for siblings in the ABCD Study®) and site groupings. We initially fit six separate models (three cognitive domains × two caregiving behaviors) in each half of the data and applied Bonferroni correction for the number of predictors in each model to account for multiple comparisons.</p> <hd id="AN0162916560-12">Specificity analyses</hd> <p>We conducted three specificity analyses to further parse the association between caregiving behaviors and cognition. First, to further confirm whether associations with cognition are specific to the type of caregiving behavior, we repeated our linear mixed effects models with both caregiver monitoring and caregiver warmth included concurrently as they exhibited only moderate collinearity (<emph>r</emph> = 0.360) (Figure S2). Second, we conducted item‐level analyses to assess the relative influence of each individual caregiving behavior included in the caregiver monitoring or caregiver warmth scales. These item‐level analyses were conducted in two ways for completeness: first, we applied a linear mixed effects model in which each item from the scale included as a separate predictor; second we applied a linear mixed effects model in which item was encoded as a factor and we included an interaction term between item and score. In both cases we used Bonferroni correction to account for multiple comparisons. Third, to account for the possibility that children reporting lower levels of caregiver monitoring are at an increased overall likelihood to experience external stressors, we investigated whether there was an association between caregiver monitoring and adverse childhood experiences, quantified as the sum of endorsements of adverse childhood experiences from the Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (Kaufman et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref97">48</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0162916560-13">Mediation analyses</hd> <p>To determine whether caregiving behaviors mediated associations between SES household income and cognition, we conducted mediation analyses and assessed the significance of indirect effects using bootstrapping (Bollen & Stine, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref98">12</reflink>]; Shrout & Bolger, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref99">79</reflink>]) with 1000 iterations. We conducted such mediation analyses only with socioeconomic variables (household income, neighborhood deprivation, or parental education) that were significantly associated with both caregiving behavior and cognition across both discovery and replication samples.</p> <hd id="AN0162916560-14">RESULTS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0162916560-15">Higher levels of reported caregiver monitoring are associated with better general cognition</hd> <p>In the discovery sample, we found that higher levels of reported caregiver monitoring were significantly associated with better General Cognition (<emph>β =</emph> 0.042, <emph>p</emph> = 6.23 × 10<sups>−6</sups>, <emph>p</emph><subs>bonf</subs> = 6.83 × 10<sups>−5</sups>), and this finding replicated in our matched replication sample (<emph>β</emph> = 0.055, <emph>p</emph> = 1.68 × 10<sups>−9</sups>, <emph>p</emph><subs>bonf</subs> = 1.821 × 10<sups>−8</sups>). Caregiver monitoring was not significantly associated with performance across the other two cognitive domains after correction for multiple comparisons (Executive Function: <emph>β</emph> = 0.001, <emph>p</emph> = 0.934, <emph>p</emph><subs>bonf</subs> = 1.00; Learning/Memory: <emph>β</emph> = 0.026, <emph>p</emph> = 0.007, <emph>p</emph><subs>bonf</subs> = 0.076), nor did we find any significant associations between caregiver warmth and cognition after multiple comparisons correction in either the discovery sample (General Cognition: <emph>β</emph> = 0.013, <emph>p</emph> = 0.138, <emph>p</emph><subs>bonf</subs> = 1.00; Executive Function: <emph>β</emph> = −0.014, <emph>p</emph> = 0.171, <emph>p</emph><subs>bonf</subs> = 1.00; Learning/Memory: <emph>β</emph> = 0.010, <emph>p</emph> = 0.292, <emph>p</emph><subs>bonf</subs> = 1.00) or the replication sample (General Cognition: <emph>β</emph> = 0.005, <emph>p</emph> = 0.595, <emph>p</emph><subs>bonf</subs> = 1.00; Executive Function: <emph>β</emph> = 0.011, <emph>p</emph> = 0.298, <emph>p</emph><subs>bonf</subs> = 1.00; Learning/Memory: <emph>β</emph> = 0.008, <emph>p</emph> = 0.407, <emph>p</emph><subs>bonf</subs> = 1.00). Associations between caregiving behaviors and cognitive performance are shown in Table 2 and Figure 1.</p> <p>2 TABLE Associations between caregiving behaviors (Panel A: Caregiver Monitoring; Panel B: Caregiver Warmth) and three domains of cognition (General Cognition, Executive Function, and Learning/Memory)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th align="left">(a)</th></tr><tr><th /><th align="left">General Cognition</th><th align="left">Executive Function</th><th align="left">Learning/Memory</th></tr><tr><th><italic>Predictors</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>β</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>Std. Error</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>t</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>p<sub>bonf</sub></italic></th><th align="left"><italic>β</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>Std. Error</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>t</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>p<sub>bonf</sub></italic></th><th align="left"><italic>β</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>Std. Error</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>t</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>p<sub>bonf</sub></italic></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Intercept</td><td>‐0.88</td><td>0.06</td><td>‐15.04</td><td>6.34 × 10<sup>‐49</sup></td><td>‐0.16</td><td>0.07</td><td>‐2.43</td><td>0.017</td><td>‐0.34</td><td>0.06</td><td>‐5.90</td><td>4.25 x 10<sup>‐8</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>0.18</td><td>0.01</td><td>20.92</td><td>6.61 × 10<sup>‐92</sup></td><td>0.17</td><td>0.01</td><td>16.71</td><td>7.38 x 10<sup>‐60</sup></td><td>0.08</td><td>0.01</td><td>8.99</td><td>3.99 x 10<sup>‐18</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Sex</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.02</td><td>3.47</td><td>0.006</td><td>‐0.07</td><td>0.02</td><td>‐3.20</td><td>0.015</td><td>‐0.10</td><td>0.02</td><td>‐5.40</td><td>7.90 x 10<sup>‐7</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Household Income [50K‐100K]</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.03</td><td>6.51</td><td>9.08 × 10<sup>‐10</sup></td><td>0.10</td><td>0.03</td><td>2.98</td><td>0.031</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.03</td><td>2.34</td><td>0.211</td></tr><tr><td>Household Income [> 100K]</td><td>0.29</td><td>0.03</td><td>8.58</td><td>1.38 × 10<sup>‐16</sup></td><td>0.11</td><td>0.04</td><td>2.79</td><td>0.058</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.04</td><td>3.23</td><td> 0.014</td></tr><tr><td>Neighborhood Deprivation</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>7.10</td><td>1.54 × 10<sup>‐11</sup></td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>3.22</td><td>0.014</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>2.13</td><td>0.366</td></tr><tr><td>Parent Educ: HS Diploma/GED</td><td>0.18</td><td>0.06</td><td>2.98</td><td>0.032</td><td>‐0.10</td><td>0.07</td><td>‐1.42</td><td>1.00</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.06</td><td>1.49</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td>Parent Educ: Some College</td><td>0.41</td><td>0.05</td><td>7.67</td><td>2.22 × 10<sup>‐13</sup></td><td>‐0.03</td><td>0.06</td><td>‐0.42</td><td>1.00</td><td>0.17</td><td>0.06</td><td>2.99</td><td>0.031</td></tr><tr><td>Parent Educ: Bachelor</td><td>0.57</td><td>0.06</td><td>10.04</td><td>1.94 × 10<sup>‐22</sup></td><td>0.04</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.68</td><td>1.00</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.06</td><td>5.06</td><td>4.88 x 10<sup>‐6</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Parent Educ: Post Graduate</td><td>0.73</td><td>0.06</td><td>12.50</td><td>3.14 × 10<sup>‐34</sup></td><td>0.05</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.71</td><td>1.00</td><td>0.44</td><td>0.06</td><td>7.19</td><td>8.46 x 10<sup>‐12</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Caregiver Monitoring</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.01</td><td>4.52</td><td>6.83 × 10<sup>‐5</sup></td><td>0.00</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.08</td><td>1.00</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.01</td><td>2.70</td><td>0.076</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th align="left">(b)</th></tr><tr><th /><th align="left">General Cognition</th><th align="left">Executive Function</th><th align="left">Learning/Memory</th></tr><tr><th><italic>Predictors</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>β</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>Std. Error</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>t</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>p<sub>bonf</sub></italic></th><th align="left"><italic>β</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>Std. Error</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>t</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>p<sub>bonf</sub></italic></th><th align="left"><italic>β</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>Std. Error</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>t</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>p<sub>bonf</sub></italic></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Intercept</td><td>−0.89</td><td>0.06</td><td>−15.05</td><td>5.57 × 10<sup>‐49</sup></td><td>−0.16</td><td>0.07</td><td>−2.44</td><td>0.164</td><td>−0.34</td><td>0.06</td><td>−5.96</td><td>3.03 x 10<sup>‐8</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>0.18</td><td>0.01</td><td>21.51</td><td>7.24 × 10<sup>‐97</sup></td><td>0.17</td><td>0.01</td><td>16.84</td><td>9.15 x 10<sup>‐61</sup></td><td>0.08</td><td>0.01</td><td>9.32</td><td>1.96 x 10<sup>‐19</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Sex</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.02</td><td>2.77</td><td>0.062</td><td>−0.07</td><td>0.02</td><td>−3.36</td><td>0.009</td><td>−0.11</td><td>0.02</td><td>−5.92</td><td>3.76 x 10<sup>‐8</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Household Income [50K‐100K]</td><td>0.20</td><td>0.03</td><td>6.65</td><td>3.67 × 10<sup>‐10</sup></td><td>0.10</td><td>0.03</td><td>2.97</td><td>0.033</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.03</td><td>2.43</td><td>0.165</td></tr><tr><td>Household Income [> 100K]</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.03</td><td>8.80</td><td>2.14 × 10<sup>‐17</sup></td><td>0.11</td><td>0.04</td><td>2.81</td><td>0.054</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.04</td><td>3.36</td><td>0.009</td></tr><tr><td>Neighborhood Deprivation</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>7.23</td><td>6.09 × 10<sup>‐12</sup></td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>3.25</td><td>0.013</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>2.21</td><td>2.95e‐01</td></tr><tr><td>Parent Educ: HS Diploma/GED</td><td>0.18</td><td>0.06</td><td>3.04</td><td>0.026</td><td>−0.10</td><td>0.07</td><td>−1.41</td><td>1.00</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.06</td><td>1.52</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td>Parent Educ: Some College</td><td>0.41</td><td>0.05</td><td>7.71</td><td>1.67 × 10<sup>‐13</sup></td><td>−0.03</td><td>0.06</td><td>−0.43</td><td>1.00</td><td>0.17</td><td>0.06</td><td>3.02</td><td>0.028</td></tr><tr><td>Parent Educ: Bachelor</td><td>0.58</td><td>0.06</td><td>10.09</td><td>1.23 × 10<sup>‐22</sup></td><td>0.04</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.68</td><td>1.00</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.06</td><td>5.09</td><td>3.99 x 10<sup>‐6</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Parent Educ: Post Graduate</td><td>0.74</td><td>0.06</td><td>12.56</td><td>1.43 × 10<sup>‐34</sup></td><td>0.05</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.72</td><td>1.00</td><td>0.44</td><td>0.06</td><td>7.24</td><td>5.81 x 10<sup>‐12</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Caregiver Warmth</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.01</td><td>1.48</td><td>1.00</td><td>−0.01</td><td>0.01</td><td>−1.37</td><td>1.00</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.01</td><td>1.05</td><td>1.00</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 <emph>Note</emph>: All models include random effects for family and data collection site. <emph>p</emph>‐Values are adjusted using Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/5G5/01may23/desc13337-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="desc13337-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Associations between caregiving behaviors (Top row: Caregiver Monitoring; Bottom row: Caregiver Warmth) and performance across three cognitive domains in the discovery sample (Panel A) and replication sample (Panel B). Jitter applied for ease of visualization only." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0162916560-17">Specificity analyses</hd> <p>To explore the specificity of our results, we included both caregiver monitoring and caregiver warmth predictors together in linear mixed effects models predicting cognition scores. As depicted in Table S1, we again found in the discovery sample that caregiver monitoring was significantly associated with General Cognition (<emph>β</emph> = 0.04, <emph>p</emph> = 7.08 × 10<sups>−5</sups>, <emph>p</emph><subs>bonf</subs> = 9.18 × 10<sups>−4</sups>) but was not significantly associated with Executive Function or Learning/Memory (all <emph>p</emph><subs>bonf</subs> > 0.25). We found similar results in the replication sample (Table S2), with caregiver monitoring again specifically associated with General Cognition (<emph>β</emph> = 0.06, <emph>p</emph> = 2.85 × 10<sups>−9</sups>, <emph>p</emph><subs>bonf</subs> = 3.64 × 10<sups>−8</sups>) but not Executive Function or Learning/Memory (all <emph>p</emph><subs>bonf</subs> > 0.99). There were no significant associations found for caregiver warmth in either the discovery (all <emph>p</emph><subs>bonf</subs> > 0.99) or replication samples (all <emph>p</emph><subs>bonf</subs> > 0.99). Accordingly, the effect sizes (standardized beta values) for associations between caregiver monitoring and General Cognition were larger than for other cognitive domains or for caregiver warmth, but were notably smaller than the effect sizes for socio‐economic variables such as household income and parental education. We also found no significant interactions between caregiver monitoring and caregiver warmth in relation to any cognitive domain across either sub‐sample (all <emph>p</emph><subs>bonf</subs> > 0.99).</p> <p>Next, we sought to assess whether the association between caregiver monitoring and general cognition was driven by individual items on the caregiver monitoring scale. Item‐level analyses on the full sample revealed that all five items comprising the caregiver monitoring score were significantly associated with General Cognition (Table S3 and Figure S3; all <emph>p</emph><subs>bonf</subs> < 0.01), as anticipated given the internal reliability of this scale. We also found no significant interactions between caregiver monitoring score and individual items (all <emph>p</emph><subs>bonf</subs> > 0.05) with the exception of item 4 ("How often do you talk to your parent or guardian about your plans for the upcoming day, such as your plans about what will happen at school or what you are going to do with friends?") which showed an inverted‐U relationship with cognition (Figure S3; <emph>β</emph> = 0.01, <emph>p</emph><subs>bonf</subs> = 0.009). This suggests that the effect of caregiver monitoring on cognitive performance was not exclusively driven by a particular item or subset of items on this scale.</p> <p>Finally, we tested whether the association between caregiver monitoring and cognitive performance was driven by an increased frequency of adverse childhood experiences in children with lower caregiver monitoring. Contrary to this notion, we found that caregiver monitoring was not significantly associated with the number of adverse childhood experiences reported (<emph>β</emph> = 0.013, <emph>p</emph> = 0.227).</p> <hd id="AN0162916560-18">Caregiver monitoring partially mediates the association between household income and general...</hd> <p>Having established that caregiver monitoring is associated with differences in General Cognition over and above the effects of SES, we next aimed to disentangle relationships among the three socioeconomic measures we included (household income, neighborhood deprivation, and parental education), parental monitoring, and General Cognition. We found that higher household income was significantly associated with General Cognition and parental monitoring across both the discovery and replication samples, with no association observed for neighborhood deprivation or parental education (Table 3 and Figure 2). These observations provided justification for conducting mediation analysis with household income, but not with neighborhood deprivation or parental education.</p> <p>3 TABLE Linear mixed effects models assessing the associations of general cognition and caregiver monitoring with socioeconomic variables (household income, neighborhood deprivation, and parent education)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th /><th align="left">General Cognition: Discovery Sample</th><th align="left">General Cognition: Replication Sample</th><th align="left">Caregiver Monitoring: Discovery Sample</th><th align="left">Caregiver Monitoring Replication ample</th></tr><tr><th><italic>Predictors</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>β</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>Std. Error</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>t</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>p<sub>bonf</sub></italic></th><th align="left"><italic>β</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>Std. Error</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>t</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>p<sub>bonf</sub></italic></th><th align="left"><italic>β</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>Std. Error</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>t</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>p<sub>bonf</sub></italic></th><th align="left"><italic>β</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>Std. Error</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>t</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>p<sub>bonf</sub></italic></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Intercept</td><td>−0.89</td><td>0.06</td><td>−15.04</td><td>5.76 × 10<sup>‐49</sup></td><td>−0.92</td><td>0.06</td><td>−14.56</td><td>5.54 × 10<sup>‐46</sup></td><td>−0.15</td><td>0.08</td><td>−2.00</td><td>0.457</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.99</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>0.18</td><td>0.01</td><td>21.52</td><td>5.15 × 10<sup>‐97</sup></td><td>0.20</td><td>0.01</td><td>22.97</td><td>1.28 × 10<sup>‐109</sup></td><td>0.11</td><td>0.01</td><td>7.71</td><td>1.55 × 10<sup>‐13</sup></td><td>0.09</td><td>0.01</td><td>6.32</td><td>2.87 × 10<sup>‐9</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Sex</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.02</td><td>2.67</td><td>0.075</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.02</td><td>4.73</td><td>2.30 × 10<sup>‐5</sup></td><td>−0.37</td><td>0.03</td><td>−13.08</td><td>2.02 × 10<sup>‐37</sup></td><td>−0.38</td><td>0.03</td><td>−12.99</td><td>6.53 × 10<sup>‐37</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Household Income [50K‐100K]</td><td>0.20</td><td>0.03</td><td>6.62</td><td>3.90 × 10<sup>‐10</sup></td><td>0.24</td><td>0.03</td><td>7.96</td><td>2.07 × 10<sup>‐14</sup></td><td>0.10</td><td>0.04</td><td>2.22</td><td>0.267</td><td>0.15</td><td>0.04</td><td>3.47</td><td>0.005</td></tr><tr><td>Household Income [> 100K]</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.03</td><td>8.81</td><td>1.72 × 10<sup>‐17</sup></td><td>0.27</td><td>0.03</td><td>8.18</td><td>3.63 × 10<sup>‐15</sup></td><td>0.21</td><td>0.05</td><td>4.13</td><td>3.73 × 10<sup>‐4</sup></td><td>0.23</td><td>0.05</td><td>4.65</td><td>3.39 × 10<sup>‐5</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Neighborhood Deprivation</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>7.25</td><td>4.77 × 10<sup>‐12</sup></td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>7.53</td><td>6.15 × 10<sup>‐13</sup></td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>2.49</td><td>0.129</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.66</td><td>0.969</td></tr><tr><td>Parent Educ: HS Diploma/GED</td><td>0.18</td><td>0.06</td><td>3.05</td><td>0.023</td><td>0.15</td><td>0.06</td><td>2.35</td><td>0.189</td><td>0.14</td><td>0.09</td><td>1.62</td><td>1.00</td><td>−0.15</td><td>0.09</td><td>−1.63</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td>Parent Educ: Some College</td><td>0.41</td><td>0.05</td><td>7.71</td><td>1.59 × 10<sup>‐13</sup></td><td>0.38</td><td>0.06</td><td>6.45</td><td>1.20 × 10<sup>‐9</sup></td><td>0.10</td><td>0.08</td><td>1.20</td><td>1.00</td><td>−0.14</td><td>0.09</td><td>−1.60</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td>Parent Educ: Bachelor</td><td>0.58</td><td>0.06</td><td>10.09</td><td>1.10 × 10<sup>‐22</sup></td><td>0.58</td><td>0.06</td><td>9.38</td><td>1.04 × 10<sup>‐19</sup></td><td>0.13</td><td>0.08</td><td>1.54</td><td>1.00</td><td>−0.10</td><td>0.09</td><td>−1.12</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td>Parent Educ: Post Graduate</td><td>0.74</td><td>0.06</td><td>12.57</td><td>1.17 × 10<sup>‐34</sup></td><td>0.71</td><td>0.06</td><td>11.19</td><td>1.09 × 10<sup>‐27</sup></td><td>0.18</td><td>0.09</td><td>2.10</td><td>0.359</td><td>−0.04</td><td>0.09</td><td>−0.40</td><td>1.00</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 <emph>Note</emph>: P‐values are adjusted using Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/5G5/01may23/desc13337-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="desc13337-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Associations of household income with cognitive performance (Panels A and B) and caregiver monitoring (Panels C and D) in the discovery sample (Panels A and C) and replication sample (Panels B and D)." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Given that we observed associations of both household income and caregiver monitoring with cognition and given previous literature linking household income to caregiver monitoring and adverse academic outcomes (Findlay et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref100">34</reflink>]), we next sought to determine whether caregiver monitoring might mediate the association between household income and general cognition. We conducted mediation analyses using the same linear mixed effects models as in our previous analyses (covarying for age, sex, family, site, neighborhood income, and parents' highest degree of education), here comparing regression models with household income and general cognition and regression models that included caregiver monitoring as a covariate (Figure 3). To assess the strength of the indirect effect, we calculated the change in the beta estimate for the association between household income and general cognition when the caregiver monitoring predictor was added to the model. Bootstrapped analysis of these indirect effects across 1000 iterations confirmed that the indirect effect was significant in both the discovery sample (<emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib999" id="ref101">999</reflink>) = 55.042, <emph>p</emph> < 2.2 × 10<sups>−16</sups>) and the replication sample (<emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib999" id="ref102">999</reflink>) = 64.209, <emph>p</emph> < 2.2 × 10<sups>−16</sups>), indicating that caregiver monitoring partially mediated the association between household income and general cognition.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/5G5/01may23/desc13337-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="desc13337-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 Caregiver monitoring partially mediates the association between household income and general cognition in both the discovery sample (Panel A) and replication sample (Panel B). Betas and p‐values are shown between household income and caregiver monitoring (path a), between caregiver monitoring and general cognition (path b), and between household income and general cognition are derived from linear mixed effects models without the caregiver monitoring variable included (path c, top row) and with the caregiver monitoring variable included (path c', bottom row)." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0162916560-21">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>We found that individual differences in caregiving behaviors were associated with individual differences in cognition in youth, extending prior research on associations with extreme differences in caregiving. Specifically, we found that higher levels of caregiver monitoring, but not caregiver warmth, were associated with better general cognition in youth on the precipice of the transition to adolescence. Household income was also associated with cognitive abilities over and above associations with neighborhood deprivation and parent education, and we found that caregiver monitoring partially mediated this effect. Thus, differences in caregiver monitoring may contribute to variability in children's cognitive abilities.</p> <p>Our work contributes to a growing body of research emphasizing the importance of caregiver monitoring for childhood and adolescent development. Our observation that caregiver monitoring, but not caregiver warmth, was associated with cognition fits with findings in more extreme circumstances that physical neglect more often drives associations with cognitive outcomes than emotional neglect (Dannehl et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref103">25</reflink>]; Vaskinn et al., [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref104">86</reflink>]). Prior work on caregiver monitoring in particular has shown that lower levels of caregiver monitoring are associated with a number of adverse outcomes for youth, including externalizing symptoms (Lac & Crano, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref105">53</reflink>]; Laird et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref106">54</reflink>]), depressive symptoms (MacPherson et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref107">62</reflink>]) anti‐social behavior (Bacchini et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref108">7</reflink>]; Kim et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref109">50</reflink>]; Pettit et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref110">70</reflink>]), illegal substance and alcohol use (Belintxon et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref111">10</reflink>]; Flannery et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref112">36</reflink>]; Keogh‐Clark et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref113">49</reflink>]; Larm et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref114">56</reflink>]; Mills et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref115">68</reflink>]; Rusby et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref116">74</reflink>]; Sobrino‐piazza et al., [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref117">81</reflink>]), risky sexual activity (DiClemente et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref118">28</reflink>]; Metzler et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref119">66</reflink>]; Romer et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref120">72</reflink>]), and poor academic performance (Crouter et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref121">24</reflink>]; Santiago et al., [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref122">75</reflink>]; Spera, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref123">82</reflink>]; White & Kaufman, [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref124">90</reflink>]). Importantly, low caregiver monitoring has also been associated with suicidal ideation and suicide attempts (King et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref125">51</reflink>]), including in the ABCD Study® (Deville et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref126">27</reflink>]), further underscoring the importance of this measure in childhood and adolescence. Our findings also replicate and extend prior work using data from the ABCD Study® demonstrating the effects of a child's home environment on cognitive performance (Meredith et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref127">65</reflink>]; M. R. Gonzalez et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref128">40</reflink>]) and linking caregiver monitoring with children's behavioral problems (Gong et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref129">39</reflink>]; Zhang et al., [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref130">92</reflink>]) by further parsing the <emph>specific</emph> caregiving behaviors that drive associations with <emph>specific</emph> domains of cognition. Together with these initial findings, the current study helps provide a clearer picture of how caregiving relates to cognition in children, providing more specific targets for intervention research and highlighting the utility of performing related analyses of the same data by different research groups.</p> <p>Importantly, we found that the association between caregiver monitoring and cognition was significant even when covarying for socioeconomic factors such as income or parental education, and was not driven by an overall increase in adverse childhood experiences. These results corroborate findings that positive caregiving independently promotes optimal cognitive development (Chang et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref131">21</reflink>]; Lugo‐Gil & Tamis‐Lemonda, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref132">59</reflink>]). One possible explanation for our findings is that caregivers who exhibit higher levels of caregiver monitoring also use more child‐directed speech, which is known to be associated with accelerated language development and larger expressive vocabularies (Weisleder & Fernald, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref133">89</reflink>]). Indeed, the general cognition factor that we found to be most strongly associated with caregiver monitoring is loaded on most highly by tasks assessing linguistic abilities (e.g., Oral Reading and Picture Vocabulary; Thompson et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref134">84</reflink>]). Future studies may further explore the many other potential explanations for the results we have described here, such as the provision of safety, cognitive enrichment, day‐to‐day structure, and modeling. It is also likely that other environmental factors, such as neighborhood, culture, and school environments (Meredith et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref135">65</reflink>]), contribute to the associations among SES, caregiver monitoring, and cognition. Moreover, caregivers with lower SES may work multiple jobs, have less flexible working hours, struggle to afford consistent childcare or organized after‐school educational/recreational programs, etc. Together, these important factors could lead to lower levels of reported caregiver monitoring.</p> <p>There are several limitations of this work that should be acknowledged. First, the caregiver monitoring and caregiver warmth surveys that were administered as part of the ABCD Study® assess each child's perception of these caregiving behaviors rather than providing a direct measure (e.g., hours of caregiver supervision). Although children's perceptions of caregiving behavior are justifiably important in their own right, future work may seek to corroborate these results with direct measures of caregiving behaviors or surveys of caregiver perceptions. Moreover, these brief surveys contain items that may reflect multiple important aspects of caregiving style (including caregiver‐child proximity; Barnett et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref136">8</reflink>]) which could be further parsed in future studies using longer‐form surveys. For example, Byford et al. ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref137">15</reflink>]) used a factor analysis to attain summary scores related to parenting practices, and found that intellectual home environment, parental aspiration, and cognitive stimulation factors were each associated with cognitive ability independently of parental cognitive ability, education and social class. Second, our analyses were conducted on cross‐sectional data from the baseline ABCD Study® cohort of 9–10 year old children, but future studies may seek to leverage longitudinal data to build upon this work. Longitudinal mediation analyses could be conducted to further investigate whether associations between caregiving behaviors and cognition may be causal, as our cross‐sectional mediation analysis does not allow for causal inference. In addition, one might investigate whether caregiver monitoring mediates the association between SES and the pace of cognitive development as children age (Roubinov et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref138">73</reflink>]; Tooley et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref139">85</reflink>]), as it has been suggested that children perceiving a safe environment can have a protracted developmental period that benefits cognition. Given that test‐retest reliability of caregiving measures from 1 year to the next may be low (R. Gonzalez et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref140">41</reflink>]), future studies using longitudinal waves of the ABCD Study® could examine whether our observed effects are replicable across development or specific to 9–10 year olds. Moreover, prior work in data from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children K Cohort (Chainey et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref141">19</reflink>]) showed that caregiver monitoring earlier in adolescence can predict outcomes such as future orientation later in adolescence. This observation suggests that baseline measures of caregiver monitoring in the ABCD Study® may be associated with cognitive functioning later in development, potentially independently from changes in caregiving behavior over time.</p> <p>Third, our results showed that caregiver monitoring was more strongly associated with a broad domain of general cognition as compared to executive function or learning/memory. This may be in part due to the nature of the principal components analysis used to derive these domains, with second and third components accounting for less variance than the first and thus potentially lower signal‐to‐noise ratio. Future studies assessing a wider array of cognitive domains may further investigate the specificity of this effect, for example comparing between verbal and non‐verbal cognition given the known importance of child‐directed speech and language exposure (Weisleder & Fernald, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref142">89</reflink>]). Finally, although the effect sizes we observed here were small, as expected from recent work investigating effect sizes in large samples such as the ABCD Study® (Marek, Tervo‐Clemmens, et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref143">63</reflink>]), our use of large independent discovery and replication sub‐samples underscores the robust replicability of these effects.</p> <p>Together, our results reveal substantial specificity in how caregiving behaviors may shape youth cognition that consistently replicates across two large sub‐samples. Highlighting the importance of parsing specificity in caregiving behaviors, we found that caregiver monitoring, but not caregiver warmth, is consistently associated with a general measure of youth cognition, but not executive function or learning/memory. Our findings also speak to the importance of examining aspects of a child's environment and experiences that may be associated with cognitive development, complementing a large body of research on the effects of more extreme circumstances. Finally, our results support efforts for more equitable social and economic policies that can alleviate the lasting impacts of low SES on cognitive development.</p> <hd id="AN0162916560-22">ACKNOWLEDGMENT</hd> <p>This study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Health: R01MH113550 (TDS & DSB), R01MH120482 (TDS), R01EB022573 (TDS), R37MH125829 (TDS & DAF). ASK was supported by a Neuroengineering and Medicine T32 Fellowship from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (5T32NS091006‐08). Additional support was provided by the Penn‐CHOP Lifespan Brain Institute.</p> <p>Data used in the preparation of this article were obtained from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development<sups>SM</sups> (ABCD) Study (https://abcdstudy.org), held in the NIMH Data Archive (NDA). This is a multisite, longitudinal study designed to recruit more than 10,000 children age 9–10 and follow them over 10 years into early adulthood. The ABCD Study® is supported by the National Institutes of Health and additional federal partners under award numbers U01DA041048, U01DA050989, U01DA051016, U01DA041022, U01DA051018, U01DA051037, U01DA050987, U01DA041174, U01DA041106, U01DA041117, U01DA041028, U01DA041134, U01DA050988, U01DA051039, U01DA041156, U01DA041025, U01DA041120, U01DA051038, U01DA041148, U01DA041093, U01DA041089, U24DA041123, U24DA041147. A full list of supporters is available at https://abcdstudy.org/federal‐partners.html. A listing of participating sites and a complete listing of the study investigators can be found at https://abcdstudy.org/consortium%5fmembers/. ABCD consortium investigators designed and implemented the study and/or provided data but did not necessarily participate in the analysis or writing of this report. This manuscript reflects the views of the authors and may not reflect the opinions or views of the NIH or ABCD consortium investigators. The ABCD data repository grows and changes over time. The ABCD data used in this report came from [NIMH Data Archive Digital Object Identifier 10.15154/1523041]. DOIs can be found at https://nda.nih.gov/abcd.</p> <hd id="AN0162916560-23">CONFLICT OF INTEREST</hd> <p>Ran Barzilay reports owning stock in Taliaz Health and serving on the scientific boards of Taliaz Health and Zynerba Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. The other authors of this manuscript have no conflicts of interest to disclose.</p> <hd id="AN0162916560-24">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>Data used in the preparation of this article were obtained from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study<sups>®</sups> (https://abcdstudy.org), held in the NIMH Data Archive (NDA).</p> <p>GRAPH: Supporting Information</p> <ref id="AN0162916560-25"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref65" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Ran Barzilay and Theodore D. Satterthwaite senior authors who contributed equally</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0162916560-26"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibtext> Acevedo‐Garcia, D., McArdle, N., Hardy, E. F., Crisan, U. I., Romano, B., Norris, D., Baek, M., & Reece, J. (2014). The child opportunity index: Improving collaboration between community development and public health. Health Affairs, 33 (11), 1948 – 1957. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0679</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref66" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Acevedo‐Garcia, D., Noelke, C., McArdle, N., Sofer, N., Hardy, E. F., Weiner, M., Baek, M., Huntington, N., Huber, R., & Reece, J. (2020). Racial and ethnic inequities in children's neighborhoods: Evidence from the new child opportunity index 2.0. Health Affairs (Project Hope), 39 (10), 1693 – 1701. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00735</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref14" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Agha, G., Kezios, K., Baccarelli, A. A., DuBois Bowman, F., Rauh, V., Susser, E. S., Cohn, B., Cirillo, P., Link, B. G., Factor‐Litvak, P., & Staudinger, U. M. (2019). Cognition level and change in cognition during adolescence are associated with cognition in midlife. Annals of Epidemiology, 35, 48 – 52.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2019.03.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref84" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Akhlaghipour, G., & Assari, S. (2020). Parental education, household income, race, and children's working memory: Complexity of the effects. Brain Sciences, 10, 1 – 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10120950</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref25" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Alvarenga, P., Kuchirko, Y., Cerezo, M. Á., de Mendonça Filho, E. J., Bakeman, R., & Tamis‐LeMonda, C. S. (2021). An intervention focused on maternal sensitivity enhanced mothers' verbal responsiveness to infants. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 76, 101313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2021.101313</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref86" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Assari, S., Boyce, S., Bazargan, M., & Caldwell, C. H. (2020). Sex differences in the association between household income and children's Executive Function. Sexes, 1, 19 – 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/sexes1010002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref87" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bacchini, D., Miranda, M. C., & Affuso, G. (2011). Effects of parental monitoring and exposure to community violence on antisocial behavior and anxiety/depression among adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 269 – 292. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260510362879</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref53" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Barnett, W., Hansen, C. L., Bailes, L. G., & Humphreys, K. L. (2022). Caregiver‐child proximity as a dimension of early experience. Development and Psychopathology, 34 (2), 647 – 665. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579421001644</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref11" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Batty, G. D., Deary, I. J., & Gottfredson, L. S. (2007). Premorbid (early life) IQ and later mortality risk: Systematic review. Annals of Epidemiology, 17 (4), 278 – 288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2006.07.010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Belintxon, M., Osorio, A., de Irala, J., van Riper, M., Reparaz, C., & Vidaurreta, M. (2020). Connections between family assets and positive youth development: The association between parental monitoring and affection with leisure‐time activities and substance use. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17, 1 – 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218170</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blanton, C. A., Green, M. W., & Kretsch, M. J. (2013). Body iron is associated with cognitive executive planning function in college women. British Journal of Nutrition, 109, 906 – 913. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114512002620</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bollen, K. A., & Stine, R. (1990). Direct and indirect effects: Classical and bootstrap estimates of variability. Sociological Methodology, 20, 115 – 140. https://doi.org/10.2307/271084</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Boogert, N. J., Madden, J. R., Morand‐Ferron, J., & Thornton, A. (2018). Measuring and understanding individual differences in cognition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 373 (1756), 20170280. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0280</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2002). Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of Psychology, 53 (1), 371 – 399. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135233</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Byford, M., Kuh, D., & Richards, M. (2012). Parenting practices and intergenerational associations in cognitive ability. International Journal of Epidemiology, 41 (1), 263 – 272. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyr188</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Calvin, C. M., Deary, I. J., Fenton, C., Roberts, B. A., Der, G., Leckenby, N., & Batty, G. D. (2011). Intelligence in youth and all‐cause‐mortality: Systematic review with meta‐analysis. International Journal of Epidemiology, 40, 626 – 644. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyq190</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cano‐Lozano, M. C., Rodríguez‐Díaz, F. J., León, S. P., & Contreras, L. (2020). Analyzing the relationship between child‐to‐parent violence and perceived parental warmth. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1 – 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.590097</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Casey, B. J., Tottenham, N., Liston, C., & Durston, S. (2005). Imaging the developing brain: what have we learned about cognitive development? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 104 – 110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.01.011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chainey, C., Burke, K., & Haynes, M. (2022). Does parenting moderate the association between adverse childhood experiences and adolescents' future orientation? Journal of Child and Family Studies, 31 (9), 2359 – 2375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826‐022‐02275‐4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chang, M., Park, B., Singh, K., & Sung, Y. Y. (2009a). Parental involvement, parenting behaviors, and children's cognitive development in low‐income and minority families. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 23, 309 – 324. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568540909594663</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chang, M., Park, B., Singh, K., & Sung, Y. Y. (2009b). Parental involvement, parenting behaviors, and children's cognitive development in low‐income and minority families. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 23, 309 – 324. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568540909594663</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cordova, M. M., Doyle, O., Conan, G., Feczko, E., Earl, E., Perrone, A., & Fair, D. (2021). ABCD Reproducible Matched Samples (ARMS) software [WWW Document]. Open Science Framework.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crandall, A. A., Deater‐Deckard, K., & Riley, A. W. (2015). Maternal emotion and cognitive control capacities and parenting: A conceptual framework. Developmental Review, 36, 105 – 126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2015.01.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crouter, A. C., Macdermid, S. M., Mchale, S. M., & Perry‐Jenkins, M. (1990). Parental monitoring and perceptions of children's school performance and conduct in dual‐and single‐earner families, Developmental Psychology, 26 (4), 649 – 657.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dannehl, K., Rief, W., & Euteneuer, F. (2017). Childhood adversity and cognitive functioning in patients with major depression. Child Abuse and Neglect, 70, 247 – 254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.06.013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Ruiter, C., & van Ijzendoornt, M. H. (1993). Attachment and cognition: A review of the literature.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deville, D. C., Whalen, D., Breslin, F. J., Morris, A. S., Khalsa, S. S., Paulus, M. P., & Barch, D. M. (2020). Prevalence and family‐related factors associated with suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and self‐injury in children aged 9 to 10 years. JAMA Network Open, 3, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.20956</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DiClemente, R. J., Wingood, G. M., Crosby, R., Sionean, C., Cobb, B. K., Harrington, K., Davies, S., Hook III, E. W., & Kim Oh, M. (2001). Parental monitoring: Association with adolescents' risk behaviors.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ding, Y. H, Xu, X., Wang, Z. Y., Li, H. R., & Wang, W. P. (2014). The relation of infant attachment to attachment and cognitive and behavioural outcomes in early childhood. Early Human Development, 90, 459 – 464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2014.06.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Donaldson, C. D., Handren, L. M., & Crano, W. D. (2016). The enduring impact of parents' monitoring, warmth, expectancies, and alcohol use on their children's future binge drinking and arrests: A longitudinal analysis. Prevention Science, 17, 606 – 614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121‐016‐0656‐1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Engle, R. W., & Kane, M. J. (2004). Executive attention, working memory capacity, and a two‐factor theory of cognitive control.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fan, C. C., Marshall, A., Smolker, H., Gonzalez, M. R., Tapert, S. F., Barch, D. M., Sowell, E., Dowling, G. J., Cardenas‐Iniguez, C., Ross, J., Thompson, W. K., & Herting, M. M. (2021). Adolescent brain cognitive development (ABCD) study Linked External Data (LED): Protocol and practices for geocoding and assignment of environmental data. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 52, 1 – 14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2021.101030</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feczko, E., Conan, G., Marek, S., Tervo‐Clemmens, B., Cordova, M., Doyle, O., Earl, E., Perrone, A., Sturgeon, D., Klein, R., Harman, G., Kilamovich, D., Hermosillo, R., Miranda‐Dominguez, O., Hendrickson, T., Juliano, A. C., Snider, K., Moore, L. A., Uriartel, J., ... Fair, D. A. (2021). Adolescent brain cognitive development (ABCD) community MRI collection and utilities. BioRxiv, 20, https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.09.451638</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Findlay, L., Garner, R., & Kohen, D. (2013). Trajectories of parental monitoring knowledge and their associations with adoelescents' substance use, poor academic outcomes, and behaviour problems. International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies, 4 (4), 403 – 424.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fischer, K. W., & Silvern, L. (1985). Stages and individual differences in cognitive development. Annual Review of Psychology, 36, 613 – 648.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flannery, D. J., Vazsonyi, A. T., Torquati, J., & Fridrich, A. (1994). Ethnic and gender differences in risk for early adolescent substance use, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 23 (2), 195 – 213.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Francis, H., & Stevenson, R. (2013). The longer‐term impacts of Western diet on human cognition and the brain. Appetite, 63, 119 – 128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2012.12.018</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gauvain, M., Perez, S. M., & Beebe, H. (2012). Authoritative parenting and parental support for children's cognitive development., in: Authoritative Parenting: Synthesizing Nurturance and Discipline for Optimal Child Development. American Psychological Association, pp. 211 – 233. https://doi.org/10.1037/13948‐010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gong, W., Rolls, E. T., Du, J., Feng, J., & Cheng, W. (2021). Brain structure is linked to the association between family environment and behavioral problems in children in the ABCD study. Nature Communications, 12 (1), 3769. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467‐021‐23994‐0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gonzalez, M. R., Palmer, C. E., Uban, K. A., Jernigan, T. L., Thompson, W. K., & Sowell, E. R. (2020). Positive economic, psychosocial, and physiological ecologies predict brain structure and cognitive performance in 9–10‐year‐old children. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 14, 578822. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2020.578822</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gonzalez, R., Thompson, E. L., Sanchez, M., Morris, A., Gonzalez, M. R., Feldstein Ewing, S. W., Mason, M. J., Arroyo, J., Howlett, K., Tapert, S. F., & Zucker, R. A. (2021). An update on the assessment of culture and environment in the ABCD Study®: Emerging literature and protocol updates over three measurement waves. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 52, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2021.101021</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gow, A. J., Johnson, W., Pattie, A., Brett, C. E., Roberts, B., Starr, J. M., & Deary, I. J. (2011). Stability and change in intelligence from age 11 to ages 70, 79, and 87: The Lothian birth cohorts of 1921 and 1936. Psychology and Aging, 26, 232 – 240. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021072</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hart, C. L., Taylor, M. D., Smith, G. D., Whalley, L. J., Starr, J. M., Hole, D. J., Wilson, V., & Deary, I. J. (2004). Childhood IQ and cardiovascular disease in adulthood: Prospective observational study linking the Scottish Mental Survey 1932 and the Midspan studies. Social Science and Medicine, 59, 2131 – 2138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.03.016</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horne, J. (2012). Working throughout the night: Beyond "sleepiness" – impairments to critical decision making. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 36 (10), 2226 – 2231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.08.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jacobsen, T., Edelstein, W., & Hofmann, V. (1994). A longitudinal study of the relation between representations of attachment in childhood and cognitive functioning in childhood and adolescence, Developmental Psychology, 30 (1), 112 – 124.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jacobsen, T., & Hofmann, V. (1997). Children's attachment representations: Longitudinal relations to school behavior and academic competency in middle childhood and adolescence, Developmental Psychology, 33 (4), 703 – 710.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karoly, H. C., Callahan, T., Schmiege, S. J., & Feldstein Ewing, S. W. (2016). Evaluating the hispanic paradox in the context of adolescent risky sexual behavior: The role of parent monitoring. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 41, 429 – 440. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsv039</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaufman, J., Birmaher, B., Brent, D., Rao, U., Flynn, C., Moreci, P., Williamson, D., & Ryan, N. (1997). Schedule for affective disorders and schizophrenia for school‐age children‐present and lifetime version (K‐SADS‐PL): Initial reliability and validity data. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 980 – 988. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583‐199707000‐00021</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keogh‐Clark, F., Whaley, R. C., Leventhal, A. M., & Krueger, E. A. (2021). Sex differences in the association between parental monitoring and substance use initiation among adolescents. Addictive Behaviors, 122, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2021.107024</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, J. E., Hetherington, E. M., & Reiss, D. (1999). Associations among family relationships, antisocial peers, and adolescents' externalizing behaviors: Gender and family type differences, child development.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> King, R. A., Schwab‐Stone, M., Flisher, A. J., Greenwald, S., Kramer, R. A., Goodman, S. H., Lahey, B. B., Shaffer, D., & Gould, M. S. (2001). Psychosocial and risk behavior correlates of youth suicide attempts and suicidal ideation. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 837 – 846. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583‐200107000‐00019</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Korom, M., Goldstein, A., Tabachnick, A. R., Palmwood, E. N., Simons, R. F., & Dozier, M. (2021). Early parenting intervention accelerates inhibitory control development among CPS‐involved children in middle childhood: A randomized clinical trial. Developmental Science, 24, https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.13054</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lac, A., & Crano, W. D. (2009). Monitoring matters meta‐analytic review reveals the reliable linkage of parental monitoring with adolescent marijuana use.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laird, R. D., Criss, M. M., Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (2009). Developmental trajectories and antecedents of distal parental supervision. Journal of Early Adolescence, 29, 258 – 284. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431608320123</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Larm, P., Livingston, M., Svensson, J., Leifman, H., & Raninen, J. (2018). The increased trend of non‐drinking in adolescence: The role of parental monitoring and attitudes toward offspring drinking, in: Drug and alcohol review. Blackwell Publishing, pp. S34 – S41. https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.12682</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luciana, M., Bjork, J. M., Nagel, B. J., Barch, D. M., Gonzalez, R., Nixon, S. J., & Banich, M. T. (2018). Adolescent neurocognitive development and impacts of substance use: Overview of the adolescent brain cognitive development (ABCD) baseline neurocognition battery. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 32, 67 – 79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2018.02.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luethi, M., Meier, B., & Sandi, C. (2009). Stress effects on working memory, explicit memory, and implicit memory for neutral and emotional stimuli in healthy men. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 3, https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.08.005.2008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lugo‐Gil, J., & Tamis‐Lemonda, C. S., 2008. Family resources and parenting quality: Links to children's cognitive development across the first 3 years, child development.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luna, B. (2009). Developmental changes in cognitive control through adolescence. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 37, 233 – 278. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065‐2407(09)03706‐9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lupien, S. J., McEwen, B. S., Gunnar, M. R., & Heim, C. (2009). Effects of stress throughout the lifespan on the brain, behaviour and cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10, 434 – 445. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2639</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacPherson, H. A., Wolff, J., Nestor, B., Frazier, E., Massing‐Schaffer, M., Graves, H., Esposito‐Smythers, C., & Spirito, A. (2021). Parental monitoring predicts depressive symptom and suicidal ideation outcomes in adolescents being treated for co‐occurring substance use and psychiatric disorders. Journal of Affective Disorders, 284, 190 – 198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.02.021</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marek, S., Tervo‐Clemmens, B., Calabro, F. J., Montez, D. F., Kay, B. P., Hatoum, A. S., Donohue, M. R., Foran, W., Miller, R. L., Hendrickson, T. J., Malone, S. M., Kandala, S., Feczko, E., Miranda‐Dominguez, O., Graham, A. M., Earl, E. A., Perrone, A. J., Cordova, M., Doyle, O., ... Dosenbach, N. U. F. (2022). Reproducible brain‐wide association studies require thousands of individuals. Nature, 603, 654 – 660. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586‐022‐04492‐9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marshall, A. T., Betts, S., Kan, E. C., McConnell, R., Lanphear, B. P., & Sowell, E. R. (2020). Association of lead‐exposure risk and family income with childhood brain outcomes. Nature Medicine, 26, 91 – 97. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591‐019‐0713‐y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meredith, W. J., Cardenas‐Iniguez, C., Berman, M. G., & Rosenberg, M. D. (2022). Effects of the physical and social environment on youth cognitive performance. Developmental Psychobiology, 64 (4). https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.22258</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Metzler, C. W., Noell, J., Biglan, A., Ary, D., & Smolkowski, K. (1994). The social context for risky sexual behavior among adolescents, Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 17 (4), 419 – 38.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mileva‐Seitz, V. R., Ghassabian, A., Bakermans‐Kranenburg, M. J., van den Brink, J. D., Linting, M., Jaddoe, V. W. V., Hofman, A., Verhulst, F. C., Tiemeier, H., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2015). Are boys more sensitive to sensitivity? Parenting and executive function in preschoolers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 130, 193 – 208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2014.08.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mills, R., Mann, M. J., Smith, M. L., & Kristjansson, A. L. (2021). Parental support and monitoring as associated with adolescent alcohol and tobacco use by gender and age. BMC Public Health, 21, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889‐021‐12119‐3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moffitt, T. E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N., Hancox, R. J., Harrington, H. L., Houts, R., Poulton, R., Roberts, B. W., Ross, S., Sears, M. R., Thomson, W. M., & Caspi, A. (2011). A gradient of childhood self‐control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108, 2693 – 2698. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1010076108</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pettit, G. S., Laird, R. D., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Criss, M. M. (2001). Antecedents and behavior‐problem outcomes of parental monitoring and psychological control in early adolescence, child development.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richards, M., Shipley, B., Fuhrer, R., & Wadsworth, M. E. J. (2004). Cognitive ability in childhood and cognitive decline in mid‐life: Longitudinal birth cohort study. British Medical Journal, 328, 552 – 554. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.37972.513819.ee</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Romer, D., Black, M., Ricardo, I., Feigelman, S., Kaljee, L., Galbraith, J., Nesbit, R., Homik, R. C., & Stanton, B. (1994). Social influences on the sexual behavior of youth at risk for HIV exposure.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roubinov, D., Meaney, M. J., & Boyce, W. T. (2021). Change of pace: How developmental tempo varies to accommodate failed provision of early needs. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 131, 120 – 134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.09.031</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rusby, J. C., Light, J. M., Crowley, R., & Westling, E. (2018). Influence of parent‐youth relationship, parental monitoring, and parent substance use on adolescent substance use onset. Journal of Family Psychology, 32, 310 – 320. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000350</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Santiago, C. D., Gudiño, O. G., Baweja, S., & Nadeem, E. (2014). Academic achievement among immigrant And U.S.‐born Latino adolescents: Associations with cultural, family, and acculturation factors. Journal of Community Psychology, 42, 735 – 747. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21649</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schaeffer, E. (1965). Children's reports of parental behavior: An inventory. Child Development, 36, 413 – 424.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shamosh, N. A., Deyoung, C. G., Green, A. E., Reis, D. L., Johnson, M. R., Conway, A. R. A., Engle, R. W., Braver, T. S., & Gray, J. R. (2008). Individual differences in delay discounting: Relation to intelligence, working memory, and anterior prefrontal cortex. Psychological Science, 19, 904 – 911. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐9280.2008.02175.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shanmugan, S., Wolf, D. H., Calkins, M. E., Moore, T. M., Ruparel, K., Hopson, R. D., Vandekar, S. N., Roalf, D. R., Elliott, M. A., Jackson, C., Gennatas, E. D., Leibenluft, E., Pine, D. S., Shinohara, R. T., Hakonarson, H., Gur, R. C., Gur, R. E., & Satterthwaite, T. D. (2016). Common and dissociable mechanisms of executive system dysfunction across psychiatric disorders in youth. American Journal of Psychiatry, 173, 517 – 526. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2015.15060725</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7 (4), 422 – 445. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082‐989X.7.4.422</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, K. E., Landry, S. H., & Swank, P. R. (2006). The role of early maternal responsiveness in supporting school‐aged cognitive development for children who vary in birth status. Pediatrics, 117 (5), 1608 – 1617.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sobrino‐piazza, J., Foster, S., Estévez‐lamorte, N., & Mohler‐kuo, M. (2021). Parental monitoring, individual dispositions, and alcohol use disorder: A longitudinal study with young swiss men. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18, 9938. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18189938</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spera, C. (2005). A review of the relationship among parenting practices, parenting styles, and adolescent school achievement. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 125 – 146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648‐005‐3950‐1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tervo‐Clemmens, B., Calabro, F. J., Parr, A. C., Fedor, J., Foran, W., & Luna, B. (2022). A canonical trajectory of executive function maturation during the transition from adolescence to adulthood.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thompson, W. K., Barch, D. M., Bjork, J. M., Gonzalez, R., Nagel, B. J., Nixon, S. J., & Luciana, M. (2019). The structure of cognition in 9 and 10 year‐old children and associations with problem behaviors: Findings from the ABCD study's baseline neurocognitive battery. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 36, 100606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2018.12.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tooley, U. A., Bassett, D. S., & Mackey, A. P. (2021). Environmental influences on the pace of brain development. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 22, 372 – 384. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583‐021‐00457‐5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vaskinn, A., Engelstad, K. N., Torgalsbøen, A. K., & Rund, B. R. (2021). Childhood trauma, social cognition and schizophrenia: Specific association between physical neglect and cognitive theory of mind in homicide offenders. Psychiatry Research, 303, 114093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2021.114093</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Volkow, N. D., Koob, G. F., Croyle, R. T., Bianchi, D. W., Gordon, J. A., Koroshetz, W. J., Pérez‐Stable, E. J., Riley, W. T., Bloch, M. H., Conway, K., Deeds, B. G., Dowling, G. J., Grant, S., Howlett, K. D., Matochik, J. A., Morgan, G. D., Murray, M. M., Noronha, A., Spong, C. Y., ... Weiss, S. R. B. (2018). The conception of the ABCD study: From substance use to a broad NIH collaboration. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 32, 4 – 7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2017.10.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weintraub, S., Dikmen, S. S., Heaton, R. K., Tulsky, D. S., Zelazo, P. D., Bauer, P. J., Carlozzi, N. E., Slotkin, J., Blitz, D., Wallner‐Allen, K., Fox, N. A., Beaumont, J. L., Mungas, D., Nowinski, C. J., Richler, J., Deocampo, J. A., Anderson, J. E., Manly, J. J., Borosh, B., ... Gershon, R. C. (2013). Cognition assessment using the NIH toolbox. Neurology, 80, S54 – S64. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182872ded</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weisleder, A., & Fernald, A. (2013). Talking to children matters: Early language experience strengthens processing and builds vocabulary. Psychological Science, 24, 2143 – 2152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613488145</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> White, M. J., & Kaufman, G. (1997). Language usage, social capital, and school completion among immigrants and native‐born ethnic groups, Social Science Quarterly, 78 (2), 385 – 398.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wraw, C., Deary, I. J., Gale, C. R., & Der, G. (2015). Intelligence in youth and health at age 50. Intelligence, 53, 23 – 32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2015.08.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, H., Lee, Z. X., White, T., & Qiu, A. (2020). Parental and social factors in relation to child psychopathology, behavior, and cognitive function. Translational Psychiatry, 10 (1), 80. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398‐020‐0761‐6</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Arielle S. Keller; Allyson P. Mackey; Adam Pines; Damien Fair; Eric Feczko; Mauricio S. Hoffmann; Giovanni A. Salum; Ran Barzilay and Theodore D. Satterthwaite</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib999" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref127"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref132"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref137"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref138"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref139"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1372301
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Caregiver Monitoring, but Not Caregiver Warmth, Is Associated with General Cognition in Two Large Sub-Samples of Youth
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Keller%2C+Arielle+S%2E%22">Keller, Arielle S.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4708-1672">0000-0003-4708-1672</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mackey%2C+Allyson+P%2E%22">Mackey, Allyson P.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Pines%2C+Adam%22">Pines, Adam</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Fair%2C+Damien%22">Fair, Damien</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Feczko%2C+Eric%22">Feczko, Eric</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hoffmann%2C+Mauricio+S%2E%22">Hoffmann, Mauricio S.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Salum%2C+Giovanni+A%2E%22">Salum, Giovanni A.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Barzilay%2C+Ran%22">Barzilay, Ran</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Satterthwaite%2C+Theodore+D%2E%22">Satterthwaite, Theodore D.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Developmental+Science%22"><i>Developmental Science</i></searchLink>. May 2023 26(3).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 15
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cognitive+Ability%22">Cognitive Ability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Caregiver+Role%22">Caregiver Role</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cognitive+Development%22">Cognitive Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Family+Income%22">Family Income</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Socioeconomic+Influences%22">Socioeconomic Influences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adolescents%22">Adolescents</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/desc.13337
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1363-755X<br />1467-7687
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Individual differences in cognitive abilities emerge early during development, and children with poorer cognition are at increased risk for adverse outcomes as they enter adolescence. Caregiving plays an important role in supporting cognitive development, yet it remains unclear how specific types of caregiving behaviors may shape cognition, highlighting the need for large-scale studies. In the present study, we characterized replicable yet specific associations between caregiving behaviors and cognition in two large sub-samples of children ages 9-10 years old from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study® (ABCD). Across both discovery and replication sub-samples, we found that child reports of caregiver monitoring (supervision or regular knowledge of the child's whereabouts) were positively associated with general cognition abilities, after covarying for age, sex, household income, neighborhood deprivation, and parental education. This association was specific to the type of caregiving behavior (caregiver monitoring, but not caregiver warmth), and was most strongly associated with a broad domain of general cognition (but not executive function or learning/memory). Additionally, we found that caregiver monitoring partially mediated the association between household income and cognition, furthering our understanding of how socioeconomic disparities may contribute to disadvantages in cognitive development. Together, these findings underscore the influence of differences in caregiving behavior in shaping youth cognition.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1372301
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1372301
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/desc.13337
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Cognitive Ability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Caregiver Role
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cognitive Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Family Income
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Socioeconomic Influences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adolescents
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Caregiver Monitoring, but Not Caregiver Warmth, Is Associated with General Cognition in Two Large Sub-Samples of Youth
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Keller, Arielle S.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mackey, Allyson P.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Pines, Adam
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Fair, Damien
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Feczko, Eric
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hoffmann, Mauricio S.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Salum, Giovanni A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Barzilay, Ran
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Satterthwaite, Theodore D.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 05
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1363-755X
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1467-7687
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 26
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Developmental Science
              Type: main
ResultId 1