This study examines the impact of the Relative Age Effect (RAE), measured by students´ birth month, the cognitive ability, school achievement and socioemotional competencies. A longitudinal approach is applied by using data from a Swedish cohort of students born in 1972, from 3^rd Grade (age 10) until the end of upper secondary school (age 19).

When Swedish students begin their first school year in August every year (age 7) some children are almost one year older than some of their peers in the same year level. This is due to that the school entry cut-off date is 1^st January.

Being among the oldest or youngest in a group of students has been shown to have effects on many outcomes throughout school trajectory. Being relatively young has been identified as a negative impact on cognitive and maturity issues (Rod Larsen & Solli, 2017). While being relatively older when starting school seems to affect achievement, working life and later outcomes positively. Outcomes such as higher achievements and reaching higher educational attainment (Crawford et al. 2014). You are also more likely to participate in high school leadership activities (Dhuey & Lipscombe, 2008) and being more successful in sports (Gibbs et al., 2012). Further, the literature shows the existence of physical advantages of being relatively old which gives advantages in individuals identification processes during their upbringing (McCarthy et al., 2016). While mixed results exist on the impact of relative age on earnings (Black et al., 2008; Fredriksson & Öckert, 2014).

However, the economic literature has found a reverse age effect (RAE), suggesting that being older when starting school is beneficial for earnings earlier in the working career while being younger is beneficial for earnings later in the working career (McCarthy et al. 2016).

The effect of relative age on noncognitive outcomes such as self-concept, self-confidence self-esteem, coping and resilience strategies is also evident (Duckworth et al. 2007; Dweck, 2006). Findings from several studies show that children and adolescents being relatively old in the school cohort become influenced in their self-confidence, self-beliefs, and social interactions in school positively (Crawford et al., 2014). Further, it has been shown that relatively old children have higher self-esteem (Thompson et al., 1999, 2004) and suffer less from psychological and behaviour problems (Muhlenweg et al., 2010) compared to relatively younger students.

Even though research has shown that many socioemotional competencies seem to be affected by RAE some may be more crucial for success in learning such as coping and resilience strategies (Duckworth et al., 2007; Dweck, 2006).

This study contributes to the research field by providing empirical support for long-term consequences of relative age in school on cognitive ability, school achievements and noncognitive competencies in terms of students´ academic self-concept, coping and resilience strategies.

Purposes

The main aim of this study is to examine the importance of the relative age effect, measured by birth month, for students´ cognitive and socioemotional outcomes by using a longitudinal approach. Following research questions will be investigated with longitudinal data from several time points:

How does relative age affect cognitive outcomes in terms of cognitive ability, GPA, and educational attainment?

How does relative age affect socioemotional outcomes in terms of perceived academic self-concept, coping and resilience strategies?

What are the long-term effects of relative age for cognitive and socioemotional outcomes and for subgroups of students related to gender and family socioeconomic status?

Data from the Evaluation Through Follow-up (UGU) longitudinal infrastructure is used. The UGU database contain 10% national representative samples of students in 11 birth cohorts, born between 1948 to 2010. The cohort relevant to the present study were born in 1972 (N=9037). The participants were in grade 3 in the academic years 1987/88. The participants received a survey and a cognitive test in Grade 3 (age 10) and 6 (age 13) and a follow-up survey in Grade 10 (age 16 and without a cognitive test). The cognitive tests in Grades 3 and 6 were identical within the cohort and consisted of verbal, inductive and spatial battery of tasks. The survey in Grade 10 (age 17) was sent to the participants home address by mail. Administrative and register data such as birth month, grades and educational attainment is available for all the participants through upper secondary education (age 19). The 1972 cohort is unique in the sense that the participants received cognitive ability tests at two time points in compulsory school. Another reason is that the participants finished upper secondary school in 1991. Descriptive statistics and regression analyses were conducted, and outcomes were measured by cognitive ability in Grade 3 and 6, Grade Point Average in 9th Grade (age 16) and educational attainment in upper secondary school (age 19). All through the analyses gender and socio-economic status (SES) were included. Several multivariate multiple regression models have been estimated and logistic regressions are underway. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) and structural equation models (SEM) will be estimated to investigate the importance of socioemotional competencies (about 20 items reflecting coping and resilient strategy factors) for the relative age effect. Analyses with a longitudinal growth modelling approach is ongoing. Data management and preparation was conducted in the SPSS program, version 28. The analyses were conducted in the Mplus program, version 8.5 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2019).

Preliminary results show that there is a significant negative age effect on cognitive ability in Grade 3 and 6 and on GPA in Grade 9. The negative age effect decreases over time, being strongest for the measure of cognitive ability in Grade 3 (age 10). The result show that there are no effects for the covariates on the main relations between birth month and the three outcome measures of cognitive ability in Grade 3 and 6, and GPA in Grade 9. Factors reflecting coping and resilient strategies are constructed by CFA and will be analysed in SEM. Growth model analyses including data from upper secondary school is ongoing.

Black, S., Devereux, P., Salvanes, K.G., 2011. Too young to leave the nest? The effects of school starting age. Rev. Econ. Stat. 93, 455–467. Crawford, C., Dearden, L., Greaves, E., 2014. The drivers of month-of-birth differences in children's cognitive and non-cognitive skills. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A (Stat. Soc.), 177, 829–860. Dhuey, E., Lipscomb, S., 2008. What makes a leader? Relative age and high school leadership. Econ. Educ. Rev. 27, 173–183. Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087–1101. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: random house. Fredriksson, P., Öckert, B., 2014. Life-cycle effects of age at school start. Econ. J. 124, 977–1004. Gibbs, B., Jarvis, J., Dufur, M., 2012. The rise of the underdog? The relative age effect reversal among Canadian-born NHL hockey players. Int. Rev. Sociol. Sport, 47, 644– 649. McCarthy, N., Collins, D., & Court, D. (2016). Start hard, finish better: further evidence for the reversal of the RAE advantage. Journal of Sports Science, 34(15), 1461–1465. Mühlenweg, A.M., Puhani, P.A., 2010. The evolution of the school-entry age effect in a school tracking system. J. Hum. Resour. 45, 407–438. Rod Larsen, E., & Solli, I.F. (2017). Born to run? Persisting birth month effects on earnings. Labour Economics, 46, 200-2010. Solli, I.F., 2017. Left Behind by Birth Month. Educ. Econ. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080// 09645292.2017.1287881. Thompson, A.H., Barnsley, R.H., Battle, J., 2004. The relative age effect and the development of self-esteem. Educ. Res. 46, 313–320.