3岁孩子脑功能测试结果可以预测孩子的未来,看了这个研究你还纠结公校私校牛校普校吗?

中国人说人看从小,新西兰和美国的教授专家的大量研究证明,3岁孩子脑功能测试结果完全可以预测孩子的未来。

Brain tests predict children’s futures
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38281663
How brain tests at the age of THREE can predict a child’s future
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4026274/Brain-tests-age-THREE-predict-child-s-future-Scientists-say-scores-reveal-kids-burden-society.html#ixzz4T0zXJKFo
× The test assessed language abilities, motor skills, frustration and impulsivity
× Those with lower scores were far more likely to commit crimes and need welfare
× Kids with lower scores were 25% more likely to become a smoker later in life
× These children were also 15% more likely to end up overweight as an adult
× Findings suggest reaching these at-risk children young could turn things around

Brain tests may predict children at risk of becoming ‘social burdens’
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2016/12December/Pages/Brain-tests-may-predict-children-at-risk-of-becoming-social-burdens.aspx

Brain tests at the age of three appear to predict a child’s future chance of success in life, say researchers. Low cognitive test scores for skills like language indicate less developed brains, possibly caused by too little stimulation in early life, they say. These youngsters are more likely to become criminals, dependent on welfare or chronically ill unless they are given support later on, they add.

Their study in New Zealand appears in the journal, Nature Human Behaviour. The US researchers from Duke University say the findings highlight the importance of early life experiences and interventions to support vulnerable youngsters. Although the study followed people in New Zealand, the investigators believe that the results could apply to other countries.

They followed the lives of more than 1,000 children. Those who had low test scores for language, behavioural, movement and cognitive skills at three years old went on to account for more than 80% of crimes, required 78% of prescriptions and received 66% of social welfare payments in adulthood.

It is known that disadvantaged people use a greater share of services. While many of the children in the study who were behind in brain development came from disadvantaged backgrounds, poverty was not the only link with poor futures.

When the researchers took out children below the poverty line in a separate analysis they found that a similar proportion of middle class children who scored low in tests when they were three also went on to experience difficulties when they were older.

Modifiable

The researchers stress that children’s outcomes are not set at the age of three. The course of their lives could potentially be changed if they receive support later in life, for example through rehabilitation programmes when they are adults. Prof Terrie Moffitt, from Duke University in North Carolina in the US, who co-led the study, told BBC News: "The earlier children receive support the better. “That is because if a child is sent off on the wrong foot at three and not ready for school they fall further and further behind in a snowball effect that makes them unprepared for adult life”.

Prof Moffitt said nearly all the children who had low scores in cognitive assessments early on in life went on to fall through “society’s cracks”. "We are able to predict who these high cost service users will be from very early in life. “Our research suggests that these were people who, as very young children, never got the chance that the rest of us got. They did not have the help they needed to build the skills they need to keep up in this very complicated and fast-paced economy”. She said society should rethink their view of these people who are often condemned as “losers” and “dropouts” and instead offer more support. Prof Moffitt conducted the study with her husband, Prof Avshalom Caspi, from King’s College London. He said he hoped that the study would persuade governments to invest in those in most need early on in life.

“I hope what our study does is not feed into prejudice,” he told BBC News. “I hope that our research will create the public compassion and political will to intervene with children and more importantly offer services to families of children so they can get a better start in life”.

[b]Nursery education

[/b]Successive governments have invested in expanding nursery education in the UK over the past 20 years. According to Josh Hillman, who is the director of education for the Nuffield Foundation, policy makers already realise the value of early years education. “But this new research suggests that they may have underestimated its importance,” he said. “The issue now in the UK is to provide more high quality nursery provision and to consider targeting it to those disadvantaged groups that would benefit the most.”

Participants were members of the Dunedin longitudinal study, an investigation of the health and behaviour of a representative group of the population of 1,037 people born between April 1972 and March 1973 in Dunedin, New Zealand. As adults these people account for only 20% of the population - but they use 80% of public services in an analysis of a group of people in New Zealand whose lives were tracked for 40 years.

“Brain tests predict children’s futures,” BBC News reports. A study found that childhood factors such as low IQ, parental neglect and poor self-control were strongly associated with “socially costly” outcomes in adulthood, including smoking and obesity.

The New Zealand based study followed the lives of 1,037 individuals from birth until midlife.

Children were assessed on four specific risk factors:
[ul]

  • socio-economic status
  • IQ
    
  • exposure to parental mistreatment / neglect
    
  • level of self-control
    

[/ul]

The researchers aimed to see whether these factors could predict outcomes in adulthood that place a high burden on the economy through costs on healthcare and social services, such as obesity, criminal convictions and cigarette smoking. They found a strong link between poorer adult outcomes and the four factors.

The researchers were keen to stress that their research wasn’t an attempt to identify and stigmatise a group of children – “blaming the victims” as they put it. Instead they hoped it could be used to identify children who would benefit most from early-years interventions, such as pre-school education and parental training. They argue that the initial costs of these types of intervention would prove to be a wise investment by avoiding the potential societal costs that could be incurred in the long-term.

However, finding reliable interventions that effectively address such broad and varied issues as social deprivation and child IQ may be quite a challenge.

What kind of research was this?

This was an analysis of a prospective cohort study (the Dunedin Longitudinal Study) which followed the lives of 1,037 children in New Zealand.

The analysis tested the hypothesis that childhood risks may be able to predict poor outcomes in adulthood (such as obesity, criminal convictions, and rate of cigarette smoking). The researchers believed a small segment of the adult population places a large burden on the economy and that this could be predicted with fairly good accuracy from early childhood.

Prospective cohort studies are useful in determining the potential relationship between an exposure and an outcome, in this case between exposure during childhood and potentially detrimental outcomes in adulthood.

However, the study design does not allow for confirmation of cause and effect, and it isn’t possible to rule out the influence of other factors.
What did the research involve?

The Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study tracked 1,073 individuals born in Dunedin, New Zealand during the years 1972 and 1973, from birth to midlife. The participants were assessed at age 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 18, 21, 26, 32 and 38.

The following childhood risk factors were measured:

[ul]

  • Childhood socioeconomic status – an average of the highest earning parent was measured from birth until age 11 (1 = unskilled labourer and 6 = professional).
  • Childhood maltreatment – evidence of harsh discipline, maternal rejection, changes in the child's primary caregiver, physical abuse etc.
    
  • Childhood intelligence – measured as IQ at ages 7, 9 and 11 years of age.
    
  • Childhood self-control – this was determined using parent or teacher reports of hyperactivity, lack of persistence, impulsive aggression etc., from birth until age 10.
    

[/ul]
“Brain health” was also measured at age three. This was described as a process of creating an index (or scorecard) based on intelligence, language and development, as well as basic functions associated with the brain, such a movement.

When the cohort reached adulthood, clinical data and information from personal interviews were derived using New Zealand’s multiple nationwide administrative databases and electronic medical records. Data on the following outcomes was measured:
[ul]

  • social welfare benefit months
  • fatherless child-years
    
  • tobacco smoking pack-years
    
  • excess obese kilograms
    
  • hospital-bed nights
    
  • injury insurance claims
    
  • convictions for crime
    

[/ul]

The data was analysed to investigate whether there was a link between childhood risk factors and these economic-burden outcomes in adulthood – that is, growing up to become an adult responsible for a high cost to society.

What were the basic results?

Overall, the researchers observed a strong link between poorer adult outcomes and four childhood risk factors: growing up in more socially deprived conditions, experience of child maltreatment, poor childhood IQ score, and exhibition of low self-control.

Each of the four exposures significantly increased risk of social welfare by between 18 and 31%; the more of these factors present in childhood, the greater the risk.

The four childhood risk factors were variably associated with the other economic burdens. The next strongest predictors were for crime, with childhood risk factors being weaker predictors of other outcomes, such as excess weight and injury claims.

The researchers estimated that 22% of the cohort was responsible for:
[ul]

  • 36% of the cohort’s injury claims
  • 40% of excess obese kilograms
    
  • 54% of cigarettes smoked
    
  • 57% of hospital nights
    
  • 66% of welfare benefits
    
  • 77% of fatherless child-rearing
    
  • 78% of prescription fills
    
  • 81% of criminal convictions
    

[/ul]

“Brain health” at age three – as measured by the child’s neurological signs, intelligence, language and development – was estimated to be a strong mediator of economic-burden outcomes.
How did the researchers interpret the results?

The researchers concluded: “This research yielded two results. First, the study uncovered a population segment that featured as high cost across multiple health and social sectors … Second, by linking administrative data with individual-level longitudinal data, the study provides the strongest effect sizes yet, measuring the connection between an at-risk childhood and costly adult outcomes in the population.”
Conclusion

This study aimed to test the hypothesis that childhood risks may be able to predict poor outcomes in adulthood (such as obesity, criminal convictions, rate of cigarette smoking etc.) that are potentially responsible for the greatest economic burden on society.

Overall it found that the four factors – growing up in more socially deprived conditions, experience of child maltreatment, poor childhood IQ score, and exhibition of low self-control – were associated with poorer outcomes in adulthood.

The research benefits from using a fairly large sample of individuals followed up from birth until midlife. As the authors also say, it wouldn’t have been possible to identify these factors without the comprehensive databases and electronic health records that they had.

However, cohort studies like this one aren’t able to rule out the influence of other factors in the suspected links. We don’t know that these four childhood risk factors are directly and independently responsible for the adult outcomes. The researchers’ calculations of the proportion of economic burden that they could be contributing are estimates only, not certain answers.

This is also a single New Zealand cohort. Analysing another birth cohort from a different culture or society could identify different high-burden adult outcomes, and different associated child factors.

Even if the four identified risk factors are directly contributing to economic burden in society, what to actually do about it is another question. The researchers hope that early life interventions that address these risk factors “could yield very large returns on investment”.

However, finding interventions that effectively tackle such broad and varied issues as social deprivation and child IQ may be quite a challenge.

Though due to the potential long-term savings these interventions could bring, it is arguably a challenge worth undertaking.

未来的意外太多,谁敢保证啊

三岁看老,面由心生,这些都有科学依据呀

Modifiable… So definitely school education is important.

干嘛给小孩测试这些,这样负担是不是有点儿太多,每个孩子都是天使,开开心心长大,懂得拥有自己的幸福才是王道。

Low cognitive test scores for skills like language indicate less developed brains, possibly caused by too little stimulation in early life, they say.

These youngsters are more likely to become criminals, dependent on welfare or chronically ill unless they are given support later on, they add.

“分数低的孩子成年以后成为罪犯,依赖于福利或者长期有病,的比例比较高。”

作为社会,难道不应该早期干预,积极的去改变这些孩子以后的命运吗?

如果孩子知道自己智商低,咋办,放弃治疗?

智商只是四个测试指标之一,另外所谓智商就是process information的能力,training会有改善的。

Childhood socioeconomic status – an average of the highest earning parent was measured from birth until age 11 (1 = unskilled labourer and 6 = professional).
Childhood maltreatment – evidence of harsh discipline, maternal rejection, changes in the child’s primary caregiver, physical abuse etc.
Childhood intelligence – measured as IQ at ages 7, 9 and 11 years of age.
Childhood self-control – this was determined using parent or teacher reports of hyperactivity, lack of persistence, impulsive aggression etc., from birth until age 10.

任何学术论证都有局限性,就好像学术论文可以加工得到偏向于自己的finding一样,这种测试机械化的把人评定一遍,美其名曰预防性,实质上把人划分成三六九等,有这些功夫还不如想想怎么培养孩子,每个孩子都是一张白纸,就看栽到谁手里培养,我觉得那些学术人士倒不如做个测试,看看什么样的父母能教育好孩子,比起孩子,最要警戒的是那些没事瞎折腾的成年人!

照你这么说很多父母就不应该生孩子,问题是这些人不但生而且生的很多,及早的识别问题社会及早介入预防以后可能的问题我觉得很好。

有局限性不等于没有意义啊。这个研究还挺不容易的,跨度几十年。研究的也是很有意思的课题:nature和nurture的意义。它的结论也make sense,而且是有建设性的。

我很乐意让我的孩子做这样的测试,让我更了解他、更好的帮助他,取长补短。

即使测出来他有很多短处,我也不会沮丧,不觉得他被分到最低档了。因为我觉得家长的意义不是等中彩票一样看自己能不能生个天才,而是完全接受孩子、但帮助他成长得尽量好。

啊呀,我可没这么说,大叔何必急着拿出人权道德大棒来嘛,我只觉得有这些funding搞些怎样预测小孩将来的,倒不如侧重怎么培养孩子,怎样协助家长培养孩子,增强全民素质,怎样平衡社会阶级差异更好些, {:5_142:}

据说那个设计IQ的人根据多年的跟踪结果,发现他的IQ其实根本没用,成功与否不具有正相关。

如果你这样想很好啊,这就好像有人信算命一样,算算预防为主也行,就怕有些比较笨的,真觉得自己孩子不行了,很沮丧有了心理负担啥的,呵呵