Table 5.
Weighted estimates of the effect of concentrated disadvantage on verbal ability: PHDCN cohorts 6–12, African-American children
| Treatment, bottom quartile of concentrated disadvantage in Chicago neighborhoods |
||
|---|---|---|
| Fully balanced sample at wave 1(n = 724 subjects) | Fully balanced sample at wave 2(n = 638 subjects) | |
| Basic model parameters | Coefficient (SE) | Coefficient (SE) |
| Intercept | 1.25 (0.73) | −0.13 (0.85) |
| Wave 1 | −3.46** (0.63) | −3.67** (0.71) |
| Wave 2 | −3.88** (0.79) | −3.42** (0.89) |
| Causal parameters of interest | ||
| Effect of wave 1 concentrated disadvantage on wave 1 verbal ability | −0.75 (1.29) | 0.04 (1.15) |
| Effect of wave 1 concentrated disadvantage on wave 2 verbal ability | −4.28* (1.78) | −3.28* (1.62) |
| Effect of wave 2 concentrated disadvantage on wave 2 verbal ability | 1.40 (1.85) | 0.86 (1.79) |
| Conditional variance components | ||
| Within subjects by neighborhood | 73.44 | 70.61 |
| Between subjects | 115.45 | 126.79 |
| Between neighborhoods | 3.26 | 3.94 |
| Treatment slope | 57.35 | 56.62 |
Verbal ability constructed to have a mean of 0 and SD of 15 points. Data are IPT-weighted and cross-classified, with time points nested within subjects and time-varying neighborhoods.
*, Significant at P < 0.05 (two-tailed)
**, significant at P < 0.01.