Honestly I am surprised this doesn’t get more views I know a lot of people who would debate about this but from the looks of it it isn’t getting many views
Great content, as usual. Just wanted to mention that the production value has obviously improved (from great to super), so way to go, whoever's responsible for that!
I’ll save you some time, yes... they work. 🤣 very interesting video. So many statistics that show how beneficial early childhood intervention actually is! ♥️🤙😎 Thank you!
Hey HCT! I'm in a Stats class and I have some questions. At 2:05 you talked about improvements of some statistical significance. Would this be at an alpha = .05, .1, .01? Does it vary based on the category being tested? I tried to look at the document but it costs $28. I would be so happy if you could answer this question, or even if anyone can lend information about this! My professor doesn't usually talk about how levels of significance are determined, and it seems like it could have a big effect on a study like this!
Hey HCT! Haven't watched your vids in a few years --used to watch them just for fun, now I watch them as I work toward my RN... and for fun 😉. Just wanted to put in my 2 cents that I like the old, 2d design and transition animations more than the new ones! Although I will admit that the new ones make you seem more professional... And maybe more dated. What made you want to switch? The format of the information - the flow - is incredible. It makes it really easy to understand what is happening in the study and what one can meaningfully take away from it. Thanks, great content as always!
What would happen if we could delay the births of the kids currently needing these programs until their parents are in a better position to provide for them? The reason the reproductive rights debate is so stupid is because on one side you have people who only really care about prevention after the fact and on the other side you have people who want poor people with not much hope to just pray their sexual urges away. What we need is a pragmatic approach. Instead of just fighting for the sake of fighting while people are going to keep doing what they are going to keep doing and us having to pay for the programs for the kids and their kids and their kids, we should just pay people to be on preventative birth control. But that would greatly reduce the demand for the the programs the politicians pretend to fight over really cutting into their job security.
Hi HealthCare Triage! I would love to see a segment on physical and developmental disabilities! I'm a SPED teacher who watches all of your and affiliated channels and share this content with the students I teach and my colleagues wanting to know more about Health and Research! Please consider my Go Fund Me campaign for making STEM activities more accessible to students with special needs: www.gofundme.com/fund-a-k5-sdc-mild-to-moderate-classroom Thank you for the content you provide to the world! Ngozi
I'm so confused. At 4:27 you say birth outcomes and substance use outcomes were significantly improved, with a effect sizes below 0.2. Not 1 minute earlier you told us 0.2 was a small effect size. So which is it? This continues through the video. I hope this was an honest mistake, rather than pushing some kind of agenda.
samurai1200 he mentions that pooling the types of programs together makes it so a smaller effect size is more statistically significant. So he means over all these programs, the effect seems small, but is actually large. In a single program, it's not much; in a ton of programs together it is.
Rainlitnight it's not that the effect size grows. It's that there's less doubt that the effect isn't an artifact of the random sampling. With a larger sample size you have a better picture of the population and so you can say with higher confidence that the small effect you saw was not due to chance.
I thought the same thing. He sets the bar for significance. These programs reach the very lowest bar for any effect all, and then victory is declared. I'll be interested to see next week's video. Because it seems like these programs helped, but very little. So if they cost much of anything at all, they won't be worth the cost.
MethosOhio It's hard to communicate statistics in a way that makes sense to people who haven't studied it, but I'll give it a try. The threshold for whether an effect is "significant" has nothing to do with the impact of that effect. It has a special meaning in statistics which has to do with how sure you are about your results. An effect size of .3 means that if an average performing child went through one of these programs, while the rest of their peers didn't, that child would go from being better than half their peers to being better than ~62% of their peers. This is a fairly large effect when compared to most other things in education.
In the spirit of the internet I'm going to comment before watching the video Jimmy's in a Programme. Jimmy's parents become interested (they're getting letters home from school, teachers and professionals are talking to them about their child) Jimmy's outcomes improve *because of parental involvement* not because of the programme*. How do you disentangle this? *One possible conclusion is that it almost doesn't matter what the Programme is. Jimmy could be digging holes at Camp Green Lake, what matters is that mum and dad are interested in him so his life gets better. It's not the Programme, it's the Parents. Right, now on to the video...
It does seem to matter what the programme is, as different programmes correlated to different outcomes. You could argue that generalized parents arbitration improves a random subset of outcomes, to some random effect, but then you wouldn't expect similar improvements of outcomes correlated to specific programmes. Thus conclude that regardless of whether those parents placing their children in such programmes are simply more engaged parents, the programme selected has a non zero effect on the outcome.
Bryan Caplan cites a lot of twin research in his book "Selfish Reason to have More Kids". It turns out that people are going to grow based on genetic factors. And childhood interventions don't work very much at all. Anyone who has watched "are you smarter than a 5th grader" knows this. Hell, anyone who tries to remember the stuff they were taught in high school knows this. EDIT: Did you seriously call effect sizes of less than 0.2 "significant"? Please stop using the term "statistical significance". A lot of people don't know that this merely means "detectable".
You have no idea whether the kids on "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader" had interventions or not. My guess would be not. I don't see what that game show has to do with interventions.
Q B Well yeah, because the kinds of things that are covered in elementary school social studies tests aren't trivia that the average adult needs to know or use on a day to day basis. If it's been twenty years since you learned something and you haven't needed to know it since, it's often hard to remember.
