HMR (controls: child age, DC 6 hist, SES, parent age education): higher quality (ECERS), CG 1 child major, less exper 4 in the centera higher CBI intelligence
| 612 | Center, child-care homes, in-home sitters, grandparents, fathers | C:A Ratio 3 , Group Size, CG 1 Education, CG 1 Specialized Training, CG 1 Beliefs, CG 1 Experience | ORCE (Positive caregiving frequency, Positive caregiving quality) | Pearson Correlations Simultaneous Multiple Regression | Across all 3 ages (15, 24, 36 mos) types of care, smaller group sizes, lower C:A ratios 3 , CG 1 had higher level of education, CG 1 held more child-centered beliefs about childrearing, more experience in child care, and environments were safer more stimulatinga positive caregiving more likely. CG 1 child care exper specialized training not correlated any ages.
MR: Pos caregiving ratings sig higher when CG 1 had more child-centered beliefs (all ages), higher levels of ed more experience providing care (at 24 36 mos), more specialized training (15 mos), when lower C:A ratio 3 smaller gp sizes (15 24 mos)
Better C:A ratios 3 , lower center enrollment, lower proportion of Infant/Toddler subsidized children in center also predicted higher process quality for preschool. Teacher wages strongly related to process quality in infant/toddler preschool. |
Centers | C:A Ratio, group size, CG yrs education, child related training, education, physical environment | Caregiver behaviors including management, social interaction; child aimless wandering | Correlations | Smaller group sizes = more teacher-child interaction, less child aimless wandering
Lower C:A ratios 3 , more teacher education, and more teacher training were correlated w/ higher process measures of quality, however, less correlated w/ process quality criteria. b Process Quality Measure Acronyms are Alphabetized. AIS: Adult Involvement Scale; APECP: Assessment Profile for Early Childhood Programs; AQS: Attachment Q-Set; CIS: Caregiver Interaction Scale ECERS: Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale; ECOI: Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale; FDCRS: Family Day Care Rating Scale; HOME: Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment ITERS: Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale; ORCE: Observational Record of the Caregiving Environment; TIS: Teacher Involvement Scale Table 2 |
Group size, C: A Ratio 3 , CG 1 education, CG 1 center exper 4 , CG 1 field exper 4 , CG 1 age | Child Age, SES 7 , parental age education, day care history | CBI: (Soc Intelligence)
Children’s language development positively correlated quality, but not literacy related activities. HMR literacy environment predicted significant portion children’s language development controlling for SES 7 |
410 | CIS, A IS, T. behs | CG 1 background in ECE 2 | Cognitive play, Peer play | CG 1 w/ BA or Child Development Associatea greater child language, play most complex play w/ peers, most language activity
M.R.: for girls compliance best predicted by combination of high quality DC 6 , low life complexity, low parental involvement. Task-resistance best predicted by combination of low quality DC 6 , high life complexity, high parent involvement. CC 5 Quality best predicted self-regulation in boys. Low qual care missing dev approp experiences to promote compliance self-regulation |
C:A Ratio 3 , group size | AQS- (Attachment) Peer Play Scale (Soc Orient, Interact w/ peers) | CG 1 who practiced more appropriate caregivinga child more secure with CG 1
HMR (child age, CC 5 history controls): quality did not predict language or intellect, Family Background did. HMR (child age, CC 5 history control): higher quality CC 5 (CDPE-IC: structural measure)a children better socially adjusted, more sociable MR: More contact w/ CG 1 more CG 1 involvementa higher social competence. Less contact w/ CG 1 more involvement in high yield activitiesa higher cognitive competence. Controlling for total # functional utterances by CG 1 to child, family background group care experience, more verbal |
