|CITATION(a)||N||TYPE OF CARE||STRUCTURAL VARIABLES||PROCESS VARIABLES(b)||ANALYSIS||FINDING|
|Arnett (1989)||59||Centers||CG1 training (1. No training, 2. 2 courses Bermuda college, 3. 4 course training prog, 4. 4-yr college degree in ECE2||Parental Modernity Scale
CIS (Positive Interaction, Punitiveness, Detachment, Permissiveness)
|ANCOVA||CG1 w/ half or all the Bermuda College training less authoritarian in childrearing attitudes than cg w/ no training, rated higher on positive interaction and lower on detachment in interactions w/ children.
CG1 w/ 4-yr ECE2 degree diff from other 3 gps: childrearing attitudes less authoritarian, interact w/ children rated higher on Pos Interact and lower on Punitiveness & Detachment
|Berk (1985)||37||Centers||CG formal education & CG specialized training||Observations of caregiver behavior||ANOVAs and correlations||College educated caregivers had more encouraging behaviors, more suggestions, less restrictive actions.|
|Blau (in press)||548 classrooms
(reanalysis of CQO data)
|Centers||Group size, ratio, CG experience, job tenure, ethnicity, formal education, specialized training||ECERS, ITERS||Pearson correlations,
Regressions with and without a fixed effect control for center ID
|Simple correlations and regressions that did not include the fixed effect center control found lower group size, lower C:A ratio, and more CG training to be related to better ECERS scores; these relations were substantially reduced when the center fixed effect control was added to the model|
|Burchinal, Howes, & Kontos (in press)||Total=244
Florida Child Care Study=144
California Licensing Study=100
|Family Child Care||CG1 Education, Formal and Informal Training experiences, experience as a child care provider, group size, business practices
Points(sum of number or children, weighted by age of children)
|FDCRS, CIS||Pearson Correlations
|CG1 ed & experience better predictors of cc quality than C:A Ratios. CG1 w/ more edà more sensitive & rated higher on global quality.
More experienced CG1 slightly more detached and provide lower quality care
CG w/ more education tended to have settings w/ higher global quality ratings
CG experience was negatively related to observed quality in the licensed Family Child Care Study
Group size or ratio not related to observed quality of care.
|Burchinal, Roberts, Nabors, & Bryant (1996)||79||Centers||Director & observer reports of group size & C:A ratio; Teacher report of training & experience||ITERS||Pearson correlations||Higher observed & reported C:A ratios were associated with lower ITERS scores
Higher CG training was associated with higher ITERS scores
|Burchinal, et al. (in press)||27||Centers||C:A Ratio3, CG1 Education, Group Size||ITERS, ECERS||Pearson Correlations||Higher C:A Ratios3 were related lower global quality at 12 mos, 24 mos, & 36 mos
Higher group size were related to lower global quality at 24 mos & 36 mos
Higher teacher education was related to higher global quality at 12 mos & at 36 mos
|Clarke-Stewart, et al. (2000)||15 mos=133
|Child Care Homes||Group Size, Group Size Points, CG1 Education, Amount of specialized training, recent training||ORCE-Positive Caregiving
|Both correlational analyses & HLM analyses indicated overall quality of care measure by CC-HOME & by ratings of obs CG1 behavior was higher when CG1 were more highly educated, had more specialized training pertaining to children, and had received training in the past year, with the strongest effects evident at 36 mos. CG1 exhibited more pos caregiving when group sizes were smaller|
|Dunn (1993)||30||Day Care Centers||CG1 Education, Child Major, Training, Center Exp4, Field Exp4, CG1 Age, Group Size, C:A Ratio3, ECERS||Play Space, Variety, Divergent/Elaborative Interact, Praise/ Nurturance/ Redirection, Clear Limits, Total Limits||Pearson Correlations||CG with more experience in the field and larger group sizes was positively related higher ECERS scores.
Larger Group Sizes was positively related to more variety in classes. Higher ECERS scores were related to more divergent/elaborative interactions, and less total limits.
|Dunn et al. (1994)||30||Day Care Centers||Group Size, C:A Ratio3, CG1 Education, CG1 Exp4 in Field, CG1 Exp4 in Centers, CG1 Certification||Lang/Reasoning (ECERS), Dev. Approp Act (ECERS), Variety, Literacy Act, Literacy Quality||Pearson Correlations
|Only one structural quality variable correlated w/ quality of environment. CG who held some form of teacher certification provided classes rated higher on literacy quality scale.|
|Elicker, Fortner-Wood, & Noppe (1999)||23||Family Day Care||Group Size, C:A ratio3||Caregiver-Infant Involvement-AQS||Pearson Correlations||Smaller group size and less children per adultà more CG-Child Involvement
CG yrs experience, CG educational level, income, overall work satisfaction, work-related stress, control over work sched, work & family conflict not sig corr w/ CG-Child Involvement or Infant-CG attachment
|Goelman (1988)||74||Center Day Care
Family Day Care
|Caregiver Education||Learning Activities, Social Development, Language Development, Creative Activities, Total Quality||Pearson Correlations||Higher CG Education was correlated with higher total quality scores in both family day care and center day care|
|Holloway, & Reichart-Erickson (1988)||15||Preschools & Day Care Centers||Group Size, C:A Ratio3||ECOI||Pearson Correlations||Smaller group sizes were related to higher ratings on the Interaction Quality Composite and accommodation of varied groups.
C:A Ratio was not related to any ECOI Indicators.
|Howes (1983)||40||Center Day Care & Family Day Care||C:A Ratio3, Group Size, # Adults, CG1 years experience, training child development||CG1 Beh (facilitative social, express pos affect, neg affect, restrict, responsivity)||Pearson Correlations||Caregivers in both settings w/ fewer children in their care, who worked shorter hours, w/ less housework responsibilities engaged in more facilitative social stimulation, expressed more positive affect, were more responsive, and less restrictive and negative.
Family day care caregivers who worked in spaces specifically designed to be safe & appropriate for children were less restrictive of toddler activity.
Cost, Quality, Outcome Study(CQOS) =655
Florida Quality Improvement Study(FQIS)=410
|Child Care Centers||C:A Ratio3, CG1 Education, CG1 ECE2 Training||CIS, AIS||ANOVA||CQOS: CG1 w/ BA or beyond degrees in ECE2 rated more sensitive than CG w/ AA degrees in ECE2, who were more sensitive than CG1 w/ other bkgds. CG1 w/ at least AA degree less harsh than CG1 in other bkgds. CG1 in classes in compliance w/ ratio standards rated more sensitive, less harsh, & less detached. FQIS: CG1 w/ at least BA in ECE2 rated more sensitive than CG1 w/ CDA training who were rated as more sensitive than all other CGs1. Caregivers w/ most advanced educationà most effective|
|Howes & Rubenstein (1985)||50
|Home, Center Day Care, Family Day Care||C:A Ratio3
|Caregiver-Child Interaction (Talk & Play, Restrict & Cry, Touch & Laugh)||Pearson Correlations
|Lower C:A Ratio predicted quality of CG1 -child interaction (i.e., social interactions-talk & play, touch & laugh, & less restrict & cry).
C. at home, in high C:A ratio3 FDC, & high C:A ratio3 CDC-->higher Restrict & Cry than in low C:A ratio3 FDC.
Smaller group sizes & lower C:A ratiosà higher Talk & Play & higher Touch & Laugh, less Restrict & Cry than children in larger groups & higher C:A ratios
|Howes & Smith (1995)||150||Child Care Centers||CG1 char (yrs ed + specialized training in ECE2), C:A Ratio3, Group Size||ITERS, ECERS||Pearson Correlations||Classes w/ more educated & trained teachersà higher ITERS & ECERS scores. Infant-toddler classes w/ more educated & trained teachersà smaller group size. Preschool classes w/ more educated & trained teachersà smaller group size & fewer children per adult|
|Howes, Phillips, & Whitebook (1992)||143||Child Care Centers||C:A Ratio3, Group Size||Appropriate Caregiving, Developmentally Appropriate Activities||Chi-Square||Higher Child:Adult Ratios were in classrooms rated as inadequate in caregiving & rated as inadequate in activities. Children in classes w/ better ratios than children in classes w/ worse (higher)ratios experienced both caregiving & activities rated as good or very good.
Large group sizes were more likely to be rated as inadequate in caregiving and inadequate in activities. However, Smaller group sizes were also rated as inadeq in activities. Children in classes w/ smaller group sizes were more likely than children in classrooms exceeding these standards to experience developmentally appropriate activities. No association between group size and appropriate caregiving.
|Howes, Whitebook, & Phillips (1992)||1300||Child Care Centers||CC5 Experience, Specialized Training, Education||ECERS, ITERS, Arnett Teacher Sensitivity Measure||Pearson Correlations
|CG1 Experience not good predictor of CG1 behavior. More formal education & more specialized child-related trainingà CG1 behaviors
Formal education better predictor than specialized training. Infant/Toddler CGs1 need more college-level specialized training than preschool teachers to be competent teachers.
|Iutcovich, J., Fience, R., Johnson, J., Koppel, R., & Langan, F. (1997)||675
|Center, group home, family||CG1 Education, CG1 yrs in field, CG1 salary, CG1 long term ed goal, Training Characteristics, Organizational Climate||ITERS, ECERS, FDCRS||Pearson Correlations||Higher CG1 Salaryà higher ITERS & ECERS scores
Younger CG1, CG1 w/ more long term ed goals, evaluating appropriateness, and evaluate usefulness à higher FDCRS score
CGs1 w/ higher long term educational goals, more likely to evaluate appropriateness & usefulnessà Higher FDCRS scores
CG1 higher ratings of Professional growth, Clarity, Reward System, Goal Consensus, & Task Orientationà Higher ECERS Scores
|Kontos, S., Howes, C., & Galinsky, E. (1996)||Training Group=130
|Family Day Care||CG1 Training, C:A Ratio3, Group Size||Process Quality: Arnett Scale of Provider Sensitivity, Adult Involvement Scale
Global Quality: FDCRS
|Chi-Square/t-test||The training group & the comparison group were similar on structural, process, and global quality. Providers in comparison gp cared for slightly more children per adult than training group.
Effects of trainingà no changes in Process quality
Effects of trainingà increased global quality in 2 of 3 sites.
|NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (1996)||576||Center, child care homes, in-home sitters, grandparents, fathers||Group Size, C:A Ratio3, Physical Environment
CG1 Characteristics (formal ed, specialized training, child care experience, beliefs about childrearing)
|ORCE: Caregiver Interactions||Pearson Correlations & Multiple Regression Analyses (backward elimination procedure)||Caregivers rated as providing more positive caregiving when group sizes and C:A ratios3 were smaller & when cg held less-authoritarian beliefs about child rearing.
Small group sizes, low C:A ratios3, CG1 nonauthoritarian child-rearing beliefs, and safe, clean & stimulating physical environments consistently associated with positive caregiving behaviors within each of the different types of settings.
|NICHD Early Child Care Research Network
|612||Center, child-care homes, in-home sitters, grandparents, fathers||C:A Ratio3, Group Size, CG1 Education, CG1 Specialized Training, CG1 Beliefs, CG1 Experience||ORCE (Positive caregiving frequency, Positive caregiving quality)
Global quality rating
|Pearson Correlations & Simultaneous Multiple Regression||Across all 3 ages (15, 24, & 36 mos) & types of care, smaller group sizes, lower C:A ratios3, CG1 had higher level of education, CG1 held more child-centered beliefs about childrearing, & more experience in child care, and environments were safer & more stimulatingà positive caregiving more likely. CG1 child care exper & specialized training not correlated any ages.
MR: Pos caregiving ratings sig higher when CG1 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 ratio3 & smaller gp sizes (15 & 24 mos)
|Phillipsen, Burchinal, Howes, & Cryer (1997)||749 Total
|Child Care Centers||CG1 Background (Ed Level & Exper), Class Struct (C:A Ratio3 & Group Size)
CG1 Ed x A:C Ratio3, lead CG1 wages, center struct, direct bkgd, econ char center, state, & sector
|ITERS, ECERS, TIS, CIS||MANOVA
|Structural measures predicted process quality more strongly in preschool than infant/toddler classes.
Infant/Toddler: process qual higher in classes w/ mod exper & better pd teachers, & more experienced directors.
Preschool: process quality higher in classes w/ CG1 w/ more education, moderate amount experience, & higher wages.
Better C:A ratios3, 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.
|Ruopp, Travers, Glantz, & Coelen (1979)||Natural study (n = 64)
|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
Smaller C:A ratios = less time in child behavior management
More child-related education = more teacher-child interaction,
|Scarr, Eisenberg, & Deater-Deckard (1994)||363||Child Care Centers||C:A Ratio3, Group Size, CG1 Training in child dev & child care, CG1 educ, highest wage pd to a CG1 in the center, staff tunover||ITERS, ECERS, APECP||Pearson Correlations||Highest CG1 wages was highly correlated w/ process measures of quality (ITERS/ECERS & Profile Score)
Lower C:A ratios3, more teacher education, and more teacher training were correlated w/ higher process measures of quality, however, less correlated w/ process quality criteria.
|Stallings & Porter (1980)||303||Child-care homes, included sponsored, regulated, and unregulated homes||Observed C:A ratio,||Specific caregiver behaviors including teaches, plays, directs, converses, comforts, tends to physical needs, housekeeping, not involved||Pearson correlations
|Larger child:adult ratios associated with less caregiver teaching, playing with child, and facilitating child activities; larger child:adult ratios associated with more efforts to control child behavior. These relations were stronger when focal children were less than 35 months of age. Limited significant relations were found with caregiver education. The obtained associations indicated that less educated caregivers were more directive.|
|Stith & Davis (1984)||30||Employed moms, substitute CG1 unemployed moms||Group Size||Yarrow, Rubenstein & Pedersen’s (1975) infant environment observational scale||Pearson Correlations||Larger group sizesà less expression of positive affect & less contingency of responses to distress.|
|Vandell & Powers (1983)||53||Center||Structural composite (C:A Ratio3 & toys accessible +CG1education+space allotment per child||Positive & Negative behavior w/ adults, total adult-directed behavior||ANOVA||Better C:A Ratio3, higher CG1 education, & more toy availabilityà more likely than children in low to moderate quality care to interact w/ adults (positive behavior, positive vocalizations, total behavior)|
|Volling & Feagans (1995)||36||Center||Group size
|Positive adult-child interaction
Nonsocial activity, positive peer interaction, negative peer interaction
|Pearson correlations||Smaller group sizes and C:A ratios related to children having more time in positive staff-child interactions and less time in nonsocial activities. Larger C:A ratios were related to more frequent negative interactions with peers.|
|aFull citations available in Reference Section
bProcess 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
2ECE=Early Childhood Education
3C:A Ratio: Child:Adult Ratio
5CC: Child Care
"report.pdf" (pdf, 132.7Kb)
"table1.pdf" (pdf, 43.75Kb)
"table2.pdf" (pdf, 43.32Kb)