Running head: INTERVENING AGAINST NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON SCHOOL
PERFORMANCE 1
Intervening Against Negative Effects on School Performance in Young Dutch Children
Mandy Roosendaal, 2663488
Statistics II
Diana Lucía Gross, Group 31
Word count: 1400
31-03-2021
, INTERVENING AGAINST NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON SCHOOL PERFORMANCE 2
Intervening Against Negative Effects on School Performance in Young Dutch Children
Lamas (2015) defines school performance (SP) as a measure of abilities that express what
children have learned at school; it is the purpose of education and is positively associated with
career outcomes. Keilow et al. (2019) explain that results from the Strengths and Difficulties
Questionnaire (SDQ) are closely associated with SP. Specifically, externalising problems (e.g.,
hyperactivity and inattention) are negatively associated with SP whereas prosocial behaviour
(e.g., obeying rules and helping others) is positively associated with SP. Increasing prosocial
behaviour may compensate for negative effects of externalising problems on SP.
Von Stumm (2017) states that a large gap exists in SP between children from families
with low or high socioeconomic status (SES). She explains that decreased SP in children with
low SES is independent of IQ. Interventions targeted at increasing SP may increase SP of
children with low SES.
This study aims to investigate the influence of strengths and difficulties and SES on SP in
young Dutch children. A Dutch version of the REDI-intervention will be used which, according
to Bierman and Torres (2016), increases the development of executive function (EF) and,
therefore, increases SP. It is expected that externalizing problems measured by the SDQ
negatively predict SP as indicated by the teacher. This relationship is weaker as prosocial
behaviour scores increase. Another expectation is that children with low SES on average score
lower on SP as indicated by their teacher than children with average or high SES. The effect of
SES will be weaker for children in the intervention group than for children in the control groups.
PERFORMANCE 1
Intervening Against Negative Effects on School Performance in Young Dutch Children
Mandy Roosendaal, 2663488
Statistics II
Diana Lucía Gross, Group 31
Word count: 1400
31-03-2021
, INTERVENING AGAINST NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON SCHOOL PERFORMANCE 2
Intervening Against Negative Effects on School Performance in Young Dutch Children
Lamas (2015) defines school performance (SP) as a measure of abilities that express what
children have learned at school; it is the purpose of education and is positively associated with
career outcomes. Keilow et al. (2019) explain that results from the Strengths and Difficulties
Questionnaire (SDQ) are closely associated with SP. Specifically, externalising problems (e.g.,
hyperactivity and inattention) are negatively associated with SP whereas prosocial behaviour
(e.g., obeying rules and helping others) is positively associated with SP. Increasing prosocial
behaviour may compensate for negative effects of externalising problems on SP.
Von Stumm (2017) states that a large gap exists in SP between children from families
with low or high socioeconomic status (SES). She explains that decreased SP in children with
low SES is independent of IQ. Interventions targeted at increasing SP may increase SP of
children with low SES.
This study aims to investigate the influence of strengths and difficulties and SES on SP in
young Dutch children. A Dutch version of the REDI-intervention will be used which, according
to Bierman and Torres (2016), increases the development of executive function (EF) and,
therefore, increases SP. It is expected that externalizing problems measured by the SDQ
negatively predict SP as indicated by the teacher. This relationship is weaker as prosocial
behaviour scores increase. Another expectation is that children with low SES on average score
lower on SP as indicated by their teacher than children with average or high SES. The effect of
SES will be weaker for children in the intervention group than for children in the control groups.
