. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2026 Oct 7.

Published in final edited form as: Psychol Bull. 2026 Jul-Aug;152(7-8):575–597. doi: 10.1037/bul0000532

Table 2.

Associations Between Caregiver Cognitive Stimulation and Developmental Outcome Domains

Domain	N		r _p	95% CI	p	Prediction Interval	τ ²	Q _m
Domain	Effect Sizes	Studies	r _p	95% CI	p	Prediction Interval	τ ²	Q _m
Cognitive	250	107	.12	[.10, .14]	<.001	[−0.09, 0.32]	0.004	159.10
Psychosocial	57	35	.10	[.07, .13]	<.001	[−0.11, 0.30]	0.001	43.27
Physical	23	14	.17	[.11, .25]	<.001	[−0.04, 0.38]	0.021	57.29
Composite	24	20	.13	[.08, .18]	<.001	[−0.08, 0.33]	0.008	31.06

Note. CI = confidence interval. r_p = partial correlation coefficient (effect size). The sign of the partial correlation coefficients (r_p) indicates whether caregiver cognitive stimulation is positively or negatively associated with child development. The prediction interval reflects the dispersion of partial correlation coefficients, such that 95% of studies comparable to those in the analysis will have the true effect size fall within the respective interval (Bornstein, 2024). Across outcome domains, heterogeneity was significant, τ₁² = 0.01, τ₂² = 0.01, Q_m(4, 124) = 49.36, p < .001. While each domain is statistically different from zero, none of the estimates are significantly different from each other.