|CITATIONa||N||AGE||PROCESS QUALITY MEASURE||STRUCTURAL QUALITY MEASURE||OTHER CHILD CARE MEASURES||FAMILY CONTROLS||CHILD DEVELOPMENTAL OUTCOMESc||QUALITY FINDINGS|
|Blau (1999 c)||Not specified||variable||None||Mother report of group size,
|Type of care, no. of arrangements, hours, cost||Mode of Care (CC control)||BPI (Behavior Problems Index)
PIAT (math & reading achievement)
|Broberg et al. (1990)||84 children in Sweden||Time 1 =prior to care; M age = 16 mos.
Time 2 = 1 yr later;
Time 3 = 2 years later
|Pos & neg events (Belsky & Walker Spot observ checklist||None||Type of Care||Social status, quality home envir, parents perceived social support, child temperament, child sociability||Griffith’s Developmental Scales-Scale C (Verb/Ling ability at 28 mos and 40 mos)||ANOVA: no care group difference in verbal abilities at 28 or 40 months
PLS:- no effect of child care quality nor type of care on verbal ability at 28 or 40 months.
|Broberg et al. (1997)||Initial sample of 146 was recruited at 12- 24 mos. 123 assessed at 8 yrs.
|Composite: Adult Child interact – 16, 28, 40 mos||Composite: C:A Ratio3, # hrs in care per day: 16, 28, 49 mos||Time in child care||Social status, inhibition, paternal involvement, home environment||Griffith’s Developmental Scales-(Lang Subscales)
Standardized School Readiness Test (numerical subscales)
|Struct qual related at 40 mos (.30*) & 80 mos (.22*) w/ math 2nd grades.
Verbal in 2nd predicted by (1) verb at 40 & 80 mos, (2) # mos in CC, (3) consistent high paternal involvement
Math in 2nd pred by (1) mat at 80 mos, (2) struct qual, (3) inhib scores, (4) process qual.
Not predicted by # sibs, gender, qual home. SES not entered in equation.
|Burchinal et al. (in press)||89||Recruited in first yr; Reassessed at 12, 24, & 36 mos.||ITERS, ECERS||C:A Ratio3, Group size, Teacher education||Child age, child Gender, poverty status, home environment||Bayley (Cog: 12, 24, 36 mos)
Lang: Receptive & Express (vocab) Communic Skills (12, 24, 36 mos; Communicative, Social Affective, Symbolic Skills (12, 18, 24 mos)
|Quality care increased linearly b/w 12 & 36 mos
12 mos concurrent: process quality related to cognitive skills, receptive language, overall communication
C:A Ratio3 & group sized related to overall communication. HOME related to cognitive & overall communication.
24 mos (concurrent): Process quality related to cognitive skills, receptive language, expressive language, & overall communication skills. Structural not related. HOME related to overall communication.
36 mos (concurrent): process qual related to cog, recept & express lang. Ratio & Gp size related to cog skill, expressive lang. T. Ed related to express lang. HOME not related.
HLM (separate for process qual, ratio, T ed) controlling for sex, poverty, HOME
Process qual: higher qual over time related to better cog, recept lang, express lang, & overall communic skills. Assoc w/ expressive lang increase w/ age
Ratio: related to higher scores over time on receptive lang & overall communic skills; & to rate at which express skills acquired.
T. Educ: related to higher cog & receptive lang skills for girls only
|Chin-Quee & Scarr (1994)||127||Recruited preschool, follow-up 5-9 yrs||ECERS
Amount & Type of Verbal Interact b/w Child & CG1
|Childs experiences in CC5, Age of entry into CC5, # Hrs. Attendance||Maternal Education & Maternal IQ (PPVT-R), Values Conform, Value Soc Skills||Report Cards (Social & Cog Dev)
Teacher report peer relations, cooperative beh, Acad Achieve
|HMR: (1) mat ed, mat IQ, values conform, values soc skills; (2) CC Exper: Age began care, Total time in care; (3) Quality: ECERS
Quality of Care in infant & preschool yrsà NOT related to school age outcomes
HMR: (1) same; (2) same; (3)Prop control utterances, Prop expressive utterance
Quality indicators(prop control & express utter) failed to predict school age outcomes
|Deater-Deckard, et al. (1996)||141||Time 1 = toddler or preschoolerTime 2 = 4 yrs later||Composite of ITERS, ECERS, Profile, CG education, wages||C:A ratio||SES, child sex, child age, parenting stress, harsh parental discipline||Composite scores of mother-reported behavior problems and social withdrawal and teacher-reported behavior problems and social withdrawal||No significant correlations between Time 1 process quality and Time 2 child outcomes or between Time 1 C:A ratio and Time 2 child outcomes
Also Time 1 process quality and C:A ratio did not predict Time 2 outcomes in hierarchical regressions that controlled for Time 1 adjustment.
in full time care by 2
All high qual
|Amount time in care||Maternal extraversionà child outcome||BRS: (Sociability, Socioemot Adj)
Buck I/E scale
|Partial correlations (maternal extraversion): amount time spent in high qual, stable care & later adjust (5-8) associated w/ all child outcomes.|
|56||6th grade (M = 11.5) full time care by 2||Not assessed
All high qual
|C:A Ratio3, CG1 education, CG1 turnover||Amount time in care||No family variables associated w/ time in care||BRS (socioem adjust & sociability)
Peer Interact Beh
Acad Meas: gifted prog, lang arts, math grades
|Simple correlations: amount of time in high quality programs. Stable care & later adjustment at 6th grade
Amount of time in high quality care associated with all child outcomes.
|Hagekull & Bohlin (1995)||52
|Recruited at 6 wks until 4 yrs||Stimulation
Emotional Tone b/w Adults & Children
|C:A Ratio3, Group Size, CG1: Child-oriented Education & Experience, Security Aspects, Available Space
|Overall rating of quality of care includes both||SES7, overall quality of home, child gender, temperament (10, 15, 20 mos)||TBQ
Hagekull & Bohlin: Ego Strength/ Effectance & Soc Comp
|29 mos (concurr): observed day care qualityà maternal report positive emotional expression
4 yrs (long): observed day care quality --: aggregated reports internalizing problems & ego strength/effectance
29 mos: children from low quality homes, in good qual DC6à reduction in externalizing behaviors. Children from medium or high quality homes, DC6 quality not important in explaining externalizing behaviors
4 yrs: Children, low SES7, in good quality care à less aggressive, no effect on higher SES7.(2) aggressiveness of easy children positively affect by high quality DC6. Difficult children no decrease in aggressiveness in high quality setting (3) for boys, good qual care associated w/ less internalizing/ social withdrawal problems & more ego strength/effectance
|Howes (1988)||87||45-57 mos followed for 2 yrs||CG1 training in child development, small group size, low C:A Ratio3, planned & indiv educ prog, adeq physical space||Age of entry
Length of day
# diff arrangements
|Maternal education, family struct maternal employ||Academic progress (1st grade CG1 report)
CBP: (Behavior Problems, School Skill)
|HMR: (1) family characteristics (2) CC5 char
Higher child care quality predicted:
smaller # arrangementsà better academic skills for boys & girls
|Howes (1990)||80 children||45 center care b-4 1 yr
other full time between 1 & 4
|CG involvement/ investment in child compliance
(toddler period: 18, 24, 30. 36 mos)
|Composite: C:A Ratio3, CG1 training, CG1 stability (toddler period)||Family social
|Structural Quality– concurrent (toddler)
M.E.: High qualityà more compliant at care, more self-regulation in lab. Longit (Preschool): M.E.: high qualityà more social pretend play, more positive affect, less CG1 rated difficult. Longit (Kindergarten): high qualityà less CG1 rating of hostility
Process Qual (Long), age partialled out: Preschool: CG1 involvement/investmentà observed social play, social pretend play, positive affect, less CG1 rate difficult & hesitant. Kindergarten: CG1 involvementà less parent ratings of internalizing & externalizing; less CG1 rate of distract, hostile, higher rate verbal IQ, consideration.
See summary sheet for further analyses.
|Jacobs & White (1994)||36 c Kind, 4 yrs at recruit
32 Kind, not enrolled
|Kindergarten||ECERS||None||SES7||PPVT-R: (Recept lang)
|MANOVAs (same results w/ no covar & w/ SES & PPVT cov)
children in center care higher on interest-participation than children in no-care; no difference b/w high & low quality care
no care effect on cooperation-compliance
children in high-quality center highest on receptive language, followed by no care & then low quality
|NICHD (1998) ECCRN||1,085
|24 & 36 mos||ORCE positive caregiving rating at 6, 15, 24, and 36 mos||Quantity, entry age, stability, group type||Income/needs, psych adjust, c. gender, c. temp||Mother reported behavior problems & social competence; caregiver report of problems; laboratory observations of compliance & negativity||C. in higher qual child care during 1st 3 yrsà more compliant & cooperative during observations; CG reported fewer behavior problems|
|NICHD (in press-b) ECCRN||6, 15, 24, 36 mos||Positive CG1 composite,
|Quantity, type||Maternal PPVT-R, child gender, HOME & maternal stimulation||Bayley MDI , Bracken School Readiness, Macarthur CDI; Reynell Dev Lang||Positive caregiving & language stimulation significantly related to cognitive & language outcomes at 24 & 36 mos
HMR: 1) selection variables, 2) child gender, 3) family envir, 4) quantity & type of care, 5) positive caregiving (PC), 6) frequency of language stimulation (LS) – see summary sheet
Cognitive & Lang predicted by Process qual at 15, 24, 36 mos
Lagged effects: Cog: at 24 mos only concurr LS pred
Lang (express) at 24 & 36, c. w/ higher LS earlier assess better scores.
Lang (receptive) at 36 mos, predicted pos by earlier LS
|NICHD (submitted) ECCRN||669
|24 & 36 mos||Positive Caregiving (ORCE)
|Amt time in CC5
Available other Children
|Maternal education, maternal attitude toward employment, child gender, cog/ ling perf at 24 & 36 mos, mat sens in play, mat psych adjus, fam struc # c in home)||Mother and caregiver report of peer competencies; observed peer interaction in child care and structured task.||24 mos: More Positive Caregivingà Child more positive sociability at 24 mos, lower proportion negative interaction w/ peers observed.
|Peisner-Feinberg et al. (1999)||826-year 1
|4.3 (year 1)
5.1 (year 2)
6.0 (year 3)
8.0 (year 5)
|ECERS, CIS, UCLA ECOF, AIS, PPS, IEOS, STRS||CG1 education, CG1 exper4, gender, ethnicity, beliefs||Maternal education, child gender, child ethnicity||PPVT-R, WJ-R (letter-word, math), CBI, ASB||--Children who attended CC5 w/ higher quality classroom practices had better language & math skills from the preschool years into elementary school.
--Children w/ closer CG1-child relationships in CC5 had better classroom social & thinking skills, language ability, & math skills from the preschool years into elementary school.
--Better quality CC4 was more strongly related to better math skills & fewer problem behaviors from the preschool years through second grade fro children whose mothers had less education.
|Pierrehumbert et al. (1996)||47 Swiss||1-5, recruited 3-9 mos||Positive Contact (Ainsworth interactive scale)||None||SES7, child gender, attachment w/ mom, positive contact w/ mom||Developmental Quotients
|Attach security, SES, & positive contact w/ CG1 predicted increase in cognitive index between 2 & 5 years|
|Vandell et al. (1988)||20||Obs at 4 & at 8 yrs||None||C:A Ratio3, Group size, space, materials available, CG1 education||Family struc, age of entry in full-time care, family social class||PRS
Parent Ratings socioemotional adjust (Santrock & Warshak)
|HMR: 1) family social class 2) day care quality
Better care qualityà 1) more friendly & fewer unfriendly interact; 2) higher observer ratings pos affect & social comp, & 3) fewer peer nominations of shy. No prediction of Parent ratings
Partial Correlations (family social class parialled out)
Positive interaction w/ adults at 4 yrs = 8 year social competence, peer acceptance, empathy, conflict negotiation, impulse control
Unoccup behs at 4 yrs = 8 yr less social comp, conflict negotiation, reaction to frustration, peer acceptance
|Vernon-Feagans, Emanuel, & Blood (1997)||67||Recruited before age 1, followed until 4||Adults present (C:A Ratio3), group size||SICD: (Receptive & Expressive Language)||Children in high quality centersà better expressive language & receptive language.|
aFull references are available in reference section.
bQUALITY MEASURE ACRONYMS ALPHABATIZED: AIS: Adult Involvement Scale; CIS: Caregiver Interaction Scale; ECOF: UCLA Early Childhood Observation Form; ECERS: Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale; ECOI: Early Childhood Observation Instrument; IEOS: Instructional Environment Observation Scales; ITERS: Infant-Toddler Environmental Scale; ORCE: Observational Record of the Caregiving Environment; STRS: Student-Teacher Relationship Scale
cCHILD DEVELOPMENTAL OUTCOME MEASURE ACRONYMS ALPHABATIZED: ASBI: Adaptive Social Behavior Inventory; ASB: Teacher Assessment of Social Behavior; BCL: Behavior Checklist; Boehm: Test of Basic Skills; BPI: Behavior Problems Index; BRS: Behavior Rating Scale; BSQ: Behavior Screening Questionnaire; Buck I/E Scale: Buck Internalizer/Externalizer Scale; CBCL: Child Behavior Checklist; CBI: Child Behavior Inventory; CBP: Child Behavior Profile; CTBS: Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills; MacArthur CDI: Communication Development Inventory; MDI: Mental Development Index (Bayley II); MSCA: McCartney Scale of Children’s Abilities; ORCE: Observational Record of the Caregiving Environment; PBQ: Preschool Behavior Questionnaire; PEI: Parent as Educator Interview PIAT: Peabody Individual Achievement Test; PPS: Peer Play Scale; PPVT-R: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised; PRS: Peer Relations Scale; RCSA: Rutter Child Scales (A & B); SCS: Social Competence Scale; SICD: Sequence Inventory of Communication Development; SRA: Science Research Associates Achievement Battery; TBQ: Toddler Behavior Questionnaire; WJ-R: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement-Revised
1CG: Caregiver, 2ECE: Early Childhood Education, 3C:A Ratio: Child:Adult Ratio, 4Exp: Experience, 5CC: Child Care, 6DC: Child Development, 7SES: Socioeconomic Status
"report.pdf" (pdf, 132.7Kb)
"table1.pdf" (pdf, 43.75Kb)
"table2.pdf" (pdf, 43.32Kb)