Behaviors and beliefs of caregivers in family day care: The effects of background and work environment

Early

Childhood

Research

Quarterly,

6, 263-283

(1991)

Behaviors and Beliefs of Caregivers in Fami/y Day Care: The Effects of Background and Work Environment* Miriam The

Hebrew

University

K. Rosenthal of jerusalem

This article examines the relationship of the caregiver’s beliefs and behavior to her personal and professional background, as well as to her work environment. Caregivers in 41 sponsored family day care homes were studied. The quality of care was analyzed in terms of two dimensions of the curegiver’s behavior, which were found empirically to be independent of each other: (a) the quality of the interaction between caregiver and child; (b) the quality of the educational program she provided. Results showed that the former was related to the frequency of supervision and degree of autonomy, whereas the latter was related to the mean age and social background of the children in the group. The curegiver’s beliefs explored the nature of her role perception and her beliefs about child development. The data suggest that even caregivers with little training and education, working in their own homes, held beliefs that were typical of “professional educators.” Most caregivers attributed more influence over the child’s development to themselvesthan to his/her parents, especiallyin the social domain. They expected earlier competence in social and cognitive development than in “independence” and believed in the greater effectiveness of permissiveand authoritative methods of control over authoritarian methods. With the exception of the attribution of influence, caregivers’ beliefs were not related to their background or to their work environment. The two dimensions of quality of care were differentially associated with the caregiver’s beliefs.

+ Only women caregivers were used in this research, hence the continuous use of the feminine gender throughout this article. The author wishes to thank Shmuel Broner who acted as statistical advisor and programmer for this study and Ester Zilkha who helped in some of the data reduction. Thanks and appreciation are given to JDC-Israel for their financial support of this study. Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Miriam K. Rosenthal, School of Social Work, The Hebrew University, Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem, Israel 91905. n Received November 8, 1989; Revision received June 18, 1990; Accepted October 23, 1990. 263

264

Rosenthal

INTRODUCTION

In the past decade, research concerning the effects of day care on the development of children has focused mainly on the comparison of children in home care with children in day care environments, in an attempt to determine whether day care was detrimental or beneficial to child development (Clarke-Stewart & Fein, 1983; Howes, 1986). At present, there is growing recognition among researchers that neither “day care” nor “home care” can be regarded as a unitary description of the environment of the child. As a result, recent research has investigated the relationship between the levels and dimensions of the quality of care in various types of day care, and different aspects of the child’s behavior and development (Howes, 1986; McCartney, 1984; McCartney, Starr, Phillips, & Grajek, 1985). Family day care is probably the most frequently used form of day care for infants and toddlers (Goelman, Rosenthal, & Pence, 1990). Nevertheless, most of the research on the effects of day care has focused on center day care rather than on family day care (FDC). Furthermore, the cumulative research literature of the past 2 decades suggests that the dimensions of the concept of “quality care” need to be refined (Rosenthal, 1990). Since the behavior of the caregiver is one of the key determinants of the quality of care provided in a given day care setting (Roupp et al., 1979), a model that delineates the caregiver’s role should help refine the concept of quality of care. Criteria for evaluating caregivers’ behavior in studies of day care have been derived from research on the effects of maternal behavior on child development (e.g., Carew, 1980; ClarkeStewart, 1973). Recent research, however, has suggested that a better understanding is needed of the role of the caregiver in day care settings (Pettygrove, Whitebook, & Weir, 1984; Phillips & Whitebook, 1986). This article proposes that a model of the caregiver’s role in a day care setting must assume that the nature of the relationship between caregiver and child differs from that of mother and child in its emotional intensity, emotional investment, and life history. Two additional factors must be taken into account: (a) providing care to a group of infants and toddlers simultaneously creates a context of interaction unlike most families (Wandersman, 1981, e.g., found that FDC caregivers caring for more (5-8) children felt better about their work than those caring for fewer (2-4) children. In her study, the number of children was the best indicator of “professionalism.“); (b) providing such care within a framework of an inslifution or organization adds further dimensions to the professional aspect of the caregiver’s role (Hess, Price, I!& Dickson, 1981; Rubenstein & Howes, 1979). Pence and Goelman (1987) found differences between licensed and unlicensed FDC caregivers in their experience, attitude to work, and the availability of a support system. They concluded that licensed caregivers seem to be more “professional.”

Caregivers

in Family

Day Care

265

The quality of care provided in a given FDC home is a function of the curegiver’s behavior. It is important to distinguish between the dimension of the caregiver’s spontaneous interactions with the children and the dimension of the educational program that requires planning and possibly some articulation of educational goals, particularly in the context of FDC which contains homelike and institutional elements. This article therefore distinguishes between two dimensions of quality of care: (a) the caregiver’s spontaneous and direct interaction with children, and (b) the educational program she creates to facilitate the child’s development. The former includes elements such as the extent of caregiver involvement with the children, responsiveness, verbal interaction, and restrictiveness. The latter reflects the activities of the daily program, amount of group interactions, and the educational quality of the physical environment, such as the space for play and the accessibility of toys. Both dimensions have been shown by previous research (e.g., McCartney et al., 1985) to affect the development of infants and toddlers. Among developmental researchers, there is a growing interest in a cognitive or an emotional mediation model of caregiver-child interaction (Dix & Grusec, 1983; Parke, 1978). Some studies suggest that parents’ behavior may be related to their belief system. For example, parents’ responsiveness to children and their choice of disciplinary measures were found to be related to their beliefs about their role and effectiveness in influencing the child’s development (Bugenthal & Shennum, 1984; Feldman dc Yirmiya, 1986). Parental background may have an effect on their beliefs. For example, parents’ beliefs and expectations were found to be related to factors such as socioeconomic status (SES; e.g., McGillicuddi-DeLisi, 1981). To date, very little data is available on the belief system of caregivers in day care settings, its relationship to the quality of care they provide, or the factors influencing this system. Some studies have shown that the caregivers’ experiences in the day care setting determine the extent of their job satisfaction or “burnout” (Maslach & Pines, 1977). Others found that personal characteristics of the care provider, in FDC, predicted job stress and satisfaction, and a combination of personal and program characteristics was related to job commitment (Kontos & Riessen, 1988). Other work has documented variability among caregivers in their perception of their professional role (Irmes & Innes, 1984; Kontos & Stremmel, 1988; Shinman, 1981; Wattenberg, 1977) and the extent of their influence on the development of children in their care (Feldman & Yirmiya, 1986). The relationship between caregivers’ perception of their influence on the development of children in their care and the quality of care they provide is of special interest because it is expected that child rearing and care behaviors will be related to this perception (Knight & Goodnow, 1988). Cognitive aspects of the caregiver’s role refer to her knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs concerning child development, child rearing, and her own role in

266

Rosenthal

the socialization and development of the child. Many attitudes and beliefs may be relevant to the caregiver’s role. For example, several studies have suggested that FDC caregivers vary in their perception of their role as “professional educators” (e.g., Shinman, 1981) and that these differences may influence the educational component of the program the caregiver offers. This study chose to focus on those that seemed most salient to her role as socializer and teacher of the child. In our study, a distinction was made between self-reflective attitudes towards her professional role, such as job satisfaction and self-attribution of the ability to influence the child’s development and more general beliefs about development. The latter include the caregiver’s expectations about developmental achievement, her beliefs concerning the ways infants and toddlers learn, and her beliefs concerning effective control methods. An Ecological Model for the Analysis of the Caregiver’s Role

The ecological approach proposed by Bronfenbrenner (1979) seems most appropriate for the analysis of the caregiver’s role. This approach suggests that individual differences between caregivers can be explained by differences in their personal and professional background as well as by their immediate and extended work environment. Factors in the background of caregivers that have been examined in relation to the cognitive and behavioral aspects of the caregiver’s role are her age, education, experience, and training. Of these, training in child development or early education has been found to be the most consistent predictor of the quality of care. Caregivers with more child-related training provide better quality interactions with the children and a better physical environment (Arnett, 1989; Howes, 1983; Kaplan & Conn, 1984; Roupp et al., 1979; Stallings & Porter, 1980). Training was found to affect caregivers’ attitudes and beliefs as well (Peters & Sutton, 1984). For example, those with more training were less authoritarian in their child-rearing attitudes (Arnett, 1989). Also, caregivers with more education tended to have more “child-oriented” attitudes and greater job satisfaction (Berk, 1985). They also spent more time on social interaction and cognitive/ language stimulation. Caregivers with more experience spent less time on these activities (Roupp et al., 1979) but were more responsive (Howes, 1983). Others found no relationship between caregivers’ experience and behavior (Stalling & Porter, 1980). Caregiver’s Work Environment. Factors in the caregiver’s work environment can facilitate or obstruct interactions between caregivers and children. The present study distinguishes between the immediate and extended work environment. The immediate work environment refers to the children in the group (e.g., their number, ages, family background), the type of setting in which the caregiver works, and so on. Previous research has shown that

Caregivers

in Family

Day Care

267

group composition (group size in the FDC home, mean age, and age mix) was one of the dominant features of the immediate work environment that affected caregiver-child interaction (e.g., Howes, 1983, 1986). Caregivers working with larger groups of children spent more time in behavior management and displayed more negative affect. They spent less time in social interaction and cognitive/language stimulation (Roupp et al., 1979). The age mix of the group affected the amount of time the caregiver spent with different aged children and the type of activity she engaged in (e.g., more controlling with a high proportion of toddlers and more language activity with preschoolers; Stalling & Porter, 1980). The extended work environment refers to the organization or community of parents that employ the caregiver and determine her working conditions (e.g., working hours, autonomy in decision making, in-service training, availability of professional consultation and supervision). In the Israeli FDC system under investigation, pay level and work hours were uniform in all homes. Three major features characterized the sponsored FDC system (Rosenthal, 1984). although they were realized differently in each program: (a) a short training course prior to the assignment of children; (b) individual and group supervision, or consultation, by a trained professional; and (c) autonomy in decision making. There is some research evidence demonstrating that such “supervision” can improve the quality of care in FDC homes (Howes, Keeling, & Sale, 1988). However, although supervision and support have been shown to change caregivers’ attitudes and role perception (Shinman, 1981), a shortterm (j-week) training course was not found to be very effective (Jackson & Jackson, 1979). Some research has indicated that caregivers who were more autonomous in decisions concerning their program provided more verbal interactions with their children by asking questions and offering choices. These strategies lead to the enhancement of language development in young children (Tizard, 1974). This article is therefore an attempt to explore some of the behavioral and cognitive aspects of the role of FDC providers in the context of such a model. METHOD Sample

The sample consisted of 41 of the 97 sponsored FDC homes operating in Israel at the time (Rosenthal, 1984). Only homes that had at least one infant were included in the sample. Two thirds of the sampled homes were from the Jerusalem area, with an additional two homes selected randomly from each of the six other locations where sponsored FDC was operating. In 89% of the FDC homes in the sample, care was restricted to infants and toddlers under 3 years of age.

268

Rosenthal

Procedure

Two sets of data were obtained for each caregiver: one based on an observation day, and the other based on a structured interview conducted in the caregiver’s home. The observafions were conducted by four trained observers. Observers used the following data collection procedures: 1.

Time-sampling observation of the caregiver’s behavior (CC OBS). The time-sampling procedure used predefined recording sheets and followed a prescribed routine and recording rules. During an observation day, the caregiver’s behavior was observed for six time-sample periods of 5 min each. Behavior was observed for 10 s and then recorded for 10 s. Each minute thus yielded three 10-s units of observation. Altogether, 90 time-sampling units of behavior were obtained for each caregiver. 2. A Daily Log (DL). The Daily Log was an ongoing record of the activities of the group, including the duration of each group activity, throughout the day. 3. An Environment Rating Questionnaire (ERQ). The ERQ was adapted from the Day Care Environment Inventory (Prescott, Kritchevsky, & Jones, 1972) and the Family Day Care Rating Scale (Harms & Clifford, 1984) for the Israeli settings. The rating was completed by the observer at the end of the observation day. 4. A Group Composition record. This record was derived from the caregiver’s files. The interviews were conducted by three trained interviewers. They obtained information about (a) the caregivers’ personal and professional background and the professional support offered by the sponsoring agency; and (b) the caregivers’ perception of their own influence and beliefs about development. Measures

The following measures were considered most relevant to the phenomena under investigation: 1. Background and Work Environment (a) Caregiver’s characteristics: Age, marital status, number of children, years of experience as a caregiver, and years of education. (b) Immediate work environment: Group composition, that is, group size, age mean, and age mix. In addition, a composite measure of familial SES of the children in the group was derived from the proportion of children from distressed families and the mean parental education level. The correlation between each of the components with the composite measure was - 38 and .88, respectively.

Caregivers

in Family

Day Care

269

(c) Extended work environment: Frequency of individual and/or group supervision was rated on a 3-point scale from 1 = infrequent (once a month or less) to 3 =very frequent (once a week or more). Autonomy in decision making on daily routine and choice of equipment was also rated on a 3-point scale: (1 = decides with supervisor, 2 = decides with peers, 3 = decides alone, without consulting anyone). 2. Quality of Care Quality of care was defined in this study by two dimensions of the caregiver’s behavior: (a) Quality of interaction with the children: Assessment was based on two measures. The first, positive interaction, is a composite measure of the ratings of positive affect (ERQ): frequency of positive responsiveness, frequency of one-to-one interaction, positive use of language, involvement with the children (i.e., not engaged in preparations), and encouragement (OBS). Cronbach standardized item alpha for the composite score is .66. The second, restrictions, is a measure of the frequency of the caregiver’s attempts to control the children’s behavior: diverting attention, warning, or scolding (OBS). (b) Quality of the educationalprogram: Assessment includes three measures. Educational (directed) activity is a measure of the proportion of total daily activities (DL) initiated by the caregiver that are expected to contribute to development (e.g., painting, playing with puzzles, concept games, singing, story telling, playing music). Group interaction is a measure of the caregiver’s interaction with the entire group (OBS). Educational quality of the physical enviroment is a composite measure derived from the ratings of several aspects of the educational environment (ERQ), including physical care conditions, the amount of space available for free movement of children both indoors and out, and the number and organization of toys and play materials. Cronbach standardized item alpha for the composite score is .71. The components of each of the composite measures were assigned equal weights. The interobserver agreement was calculated as the percent agreement between a criterion-observer and the three other observers. It ranged for all measures from 69% to 90%. 3. Caregivers’ Belief System (a) Caregivers’professional-role attitudes: A measure of job satisfaction (ranging from 1 = highly satisfied to 4 = not satisfied at all) and six measures of attribution of influence. The caregivers ranked their own, the mothers’, and the fathers’ relative influence on 11 items relating to child development (3 = most influential, 1 = least influential). These 11 items represented two domains: emotional maturity (e.g., being independent and assertive, controlling anger; Cronbach alpha ranging between .62 and .68) and social development (e.g., being friendly and sensitive to others, sharing; Cronbach

270

Rosenthal

alpha ranging from .66 to .78). This variable thus yielded six separate measures for three agents (self, mother, and father) and two domains (emotional maturity and social development). The domain of cognitive development was not included because informal interviews suggested virtual unanimity among caregivers regarding their expected role in this domain. (b) Caregivers’ beliefs about development: Three sets of beliefs were examined. Developmental expectations was an average of caregivers’ responses to 37 items stating the age of achievement in cognitive, social, and independence development (Cronbach IX= .71). Active learning was an average of caregivers’ responses to 37 items stating the process by which children achieve developmental goals (spontaneous maturation = 1; gaining experiences = 2; active learning = 3). (Cronbach (Y= .72). Severity of control was an average of caregivers’ responses to 17 episodes of misbehavior and disobedience. Six responses were possible, ranging from “permissive” (l-2), to “authoritative” (3-4), to “authoritarian” (5-6). A higher average indicates a belief in severe methods of control (Cronbach CY= .65). Data Analysis First, descriptive statistics were used to examine individual characteristics of caregivers in the sponsored FDC system, the distinctive features of their work environment, their attitudes and beliefs, and the quality of care they provided. Using a series of regression analyses, we then investigated the mutual interrelations between each of these elements and their relative contribution to the prediction of the quality of care provided. A normal distribution of all the measures was assumed.

RESULTS Caregivers’ Characteristics All but one of the FDC caregivers in this study were married women. Only 20% cared for their own child as one of the FDC group (Rosenthal, 1984). Typically, they were middle aged, with 2 to 5 children of their own. Most had less than a high school education and little experience in caring for children other than their own (Table 1). Caregivers’ characteristics were not interrelated. Caregivers ’ Work Environment The Extended Environment. On the average, the sponsoring organizations offered a 2-month training course and bimonthly professional supervision (individually and/or in groups). These were provided by the program coordinator. The caregivers tended not to consult with their peers. Although most caregivers (73.0%) planned the daily routine and the activities for the

Caregivers

in Family

Day Care

Table 1. Characteristics Descriptive Statistics

Caregivers’ Age (years)

271

of Caregivers

Environment: Range

M

SD

35.10 2.66 10.41 3.50

1.21 1.64 1.92 1.95

25.0-56.0

2.12 1.54 2.46 2.02

0.97 0.87 0.87 0.57

1 .o-4.5 I .o-3.0 1 .o-3.0 1 .o-3.0

25.57 5.52 5.17 12.37 0.21

5.45 3.56 0.83 2.63 0.27

13.0-36.5 0.4-14.3 3.0- 7.0 8.2-17.8 o.o1.0

Characteristics

Experience (years) Education (years) N of children Cnregiver’s

and Their Work

l.O-

7.0

6.0-16.0 l.O-

7.0

Work Environment

Extended En vironmenr: Training (months) Autonomy (equipment)8 Autonomy (daily routine)a Supervision (frequency)8 Immediate En virontnent: Age (months) Age (SD) Group size M parental education (years) Proportion of distressed families B 3 = high.

children on their own, many (70.3%) reported consulting with their supervisor about decisions on the choice of equipment, furniture, toys, and the adaptation of their apartment to the needs of children. The distributions of the two types of consulting behaviors were significantly different (goodnessof-fit x2 =44.48, pc JOI). The Immediate Environment: Group Composition. Usually caregivers worked with groups of five children, ranging in age from 1 to 3 years (Table 1). Some had fairly homogenous groups (i.e., less than a 6 months age difference between the youngest and oldest child), while others had to cope with extensive age heterogeneity (i.e., more than 2 years between the youngest and oldest child). The groups were quite heterogeneous in terms of the socioeconomic background of the children. Various aspects of the caregiver’s work environment were interrelated. Heterogeneous age groups tended to be larger (r= .32, p< .05) and to have older children (r = .36, pc .Ol), who came from homes with more problems (r= .38, pc .Ol) and less educated parents (r= .49, p< .OOl). Caregivers in these groups were given slightly longer training (r= .44, p< .Ol). Caregivers with more children from distressed families received more supervision (r = .45, p c .Ol). The composite score of positive interaction suggests that, on the average, caregivers in these settings tended to provide positive interactions. They

Rosenthal

272

Table 2. Quality of Care and Caregivers’ Descriptive Statistics

Attitudes

and Beliefs:

M Quality

SD

Range

N

of Care

Quality of Interaction: Positive

interactiona

Restrictionsb

-

-

-

41

10.06

5.78

2.0-22.0

41

Educational Program: Educational activities Group interactionb Educational environments Attitudes

and

0.26

0.18

20.88 -

8.13 -

0 - 0.7 6.0-38.9 -

36 41

I.50

0.64

l.O-

3.0

40

2.66 2.50

0.37 0.50

l.Ol.O-

3.0 3.0

2.23 2.30 1.37 1.49

0.32 0.41 0.45 0.49

1.31.2l.O1.0-

3.0 3.0 2.8 3.0

41 41 41

25.93 25.80 37.55 2.33

4.96 4.29 8.48 0.20

2.80

0.34

41

Beliefs

Professional Role Perception: Job satisfactionC Attribution of influenced Self: social Self: emotional maturation Mother: social Mother: emotional maturation Father: Father:

social emotional

maturation

41 41 41

Beliefs About Developmenr: Developmental

expectation

(months)

Cognitive Social Independence Active learningd Severity n b c d e

of controle

These are composite measures, structured The range of these scores is O-90. Scale from 1 to 4; I = high. Scale from 1 to 3; 3 = high. Scale from 1 to 6; 6 = high.

as a standardized

15.8-40.4

41

19.1-35.7 21.3-51.8 2.0- 2.8

41 41 40 41

2.0-

3.4

score.

spent 32.6% of the observation time in facilitative and encouraging interactions with the children, 27% of the time in preparation work not involving the children, and only 11.2% in restricting them. No correlation was found between positive interaction and restrictions. The ratings of the components of the composite score of the educational quality of the physical environment indicate that, on the average, caregivers offered sufficient play space in their homes with adequately varied play materials and equipment. The caregivers initiated educational activities during 26% of the daily program (see Table 2). There was a high correlation between the educational quality of physical environment and the frequency of educational activities (r= .56, p< .OOl).

Caregivers

in Family

Day Care

Other measures of the quality of care had only low and/or intercorrelations.

273

insignificant

Caregivers’ Belief System Caregivers’ Attitudes Towards Their Professional Role. The vast majority of caregivers (92.5%) were either very satisfied or quite satisfied with their job, despite the fact that over 50% said that economically it was not worthwhile. Most caregivers continued to work in this field because they liked children and enjoyed the convenience of working at home (Rosenthal, 1984). Due to the extremely narrow distribution of job satisfaction scores, this measure was eliminated from the remaining data analysis. As Table 2 shows, caregivers attributed more influence to themselves than to mothers, especially in the domain of social development (t pairs = 4.69, df =4O, p< ,001). Significant differences were found between domains. Caregivers believed they had more influence over social development than over emotional maturity (t = 3.07, p< .004). Although altogether very little influence was attributed to fathers, more influence was attributed to them in the emotional maturity than the social development domain (I = 2.51, p< .02). Caregivers’ Beliefs About Development. Developmental expectations. Caregivers expected children to achieve an understanding of basic concepts relating to size, speed, time or gravity and to acquire social skills such as waiting a turn, communicating clearly, or helping a friend at about the same time (approximately 26 months; Table 2). They did not expect children to attain aspects of “independence” (such as staying alone in the house, getting dressed without help, making a bed, visiting friends alone) until they were at least 3 years old. Active learning. Over 53% of the caregivers believed that children achieved developmental goals through the active involvement of an adult, who demonstrates, explains, and encourages. Only 20% believed children develop mainly through spontaneous maturation. Severity of control. Most caregivers described themselves as either “permissive” (41 olo) or “authoritative” (48%), with only 11% describing themselves as “authoritarian.” Interrelations Among Caregivers’ Attitudes and Beliefs Caregivers who attributed high influence to an agent in one domain tended to do so in the other domains as well (r = .72 for self, r = .68 for mother and r= .81 for father; pc .OOl). Attribution of influence to themselves was negatively related to the attribution of influence to the mother (r= - .46 and - .30; p < .05 for social development and emotional maturity, respectively). Other measures of caregivers’ beliefs were only mildly and/or nonsignificantly correlated with each other.

274

Rosenthal

The Relationship Between Caregivers’ Characteristics and Work Environment and Their Beliefs and the Quality of Care Provided A preliminary analysis revealed that the caregiver’s age, number of children, experience, length of training, autonomy in decisions about the daily program, and age mix of the group were not related to their beliefs or to the quality of care she provided. A hierarchical regression model examined the relative contribution of the extended and immediate work environment to the explanation of the variance in quality of care and belief systems beyond the contribution of the caregiver’s education level (Table 3). The model was computed separately for the different measures of attitudes and beliefs and for the two parameters of quality of care. The most striking finding of this analysis is that although aspects of the work environment were found to be related to the quality of care provided, they were not related to the caregiver’s belief system. Group composition was the best predictor of the caregiver’s likelihood of initiating educational activities. Caregivers of older children and higher SES parents initiated more frequent educational activities. Caregivers who were relatively autonomous in their decisions about the choice of equipment and space organization in their homes, and those who received more frequent supervision, tended to have more positive interactions with the children. More frequent supervision was also related to restrictive behavior, although autonomy in decision making was not. More autonomous caregivers were less likely to engage in group interactions. Neither variation in the educational quality of the physical environment nor beliefs about development were explained by this equation. Education was related to the caregiver’s professional role perception and the quality of the educational program: Better educated caregivers attributed more influence to themselves and less to mothers; they also tended to spend less time in group interaction with the children. The Relationship Between Caregivers’ Beliefs and the Quality of Care A hierarchical regression analysis revealed that although attribution of influence, developmental expectation, and beliefs concerning methods of control were all related to the behavior of caregivers, beliefs about the process of learning were not (Table 4). As Table 4 shows, it was the caregivers’ perception of their role that was related to the quality of interaction: Caregivers who attributed more influence to themselves in the social domain interacted more positively with the children and spent less time in group interaction. Caregivers who expected early attainment of developmental goals also spent less time in group interaction and imposed fewer restrictions on the children’s

p: VI

.19** .09 .16* 39 .oo .06 .03

- .05 24 - .20

.17+ .11* .09

.19 - .47** .27

.54** .39* - .43* - .25

.02 .07

.14 - .23

R* Change

.08 .oo .oo

- .20 - .18 .12 - .05

.57*** .60*** .29

- .05 - .02

l

.04 .27 - .23

.14 .19 .I8 .13

- .02 .oo .25

-.13 .ll - .26

.09 .16 - .19 - .29

.31* .14 .04

.18 -.14

SES

Size

- .15 -.13

Parents’

Work

.oo .16 .19 - .lO - .21 .34 -.09

.04 .05 .lO

.25 - .30* .29

.09 - .15 .07

.17 .18 - .35 - .22

- .16 .Ol .oo

.48*+ .37*

Supervision

a4 .ll .lO

.02 .05 .ll .05

.07 .08 .08

.36*‘* .lO

Change

R2

and Work Environment

Extended

.40+* .oo

Autonomy

.07 .04 .02 .05

.28** .36*** .13

.04 .o!l

R2 Change

Environment

of Care on Her Background

Group

Immediate

Beliefs, and Quality

Age M

a Beta values and adjusted R 2 are taken from the final equation. p< .05. l * p< .Ol. l ** p< .OOl.

Attitudes and Betiefs Professional Role Pkrception: Attribution of influence Self: social Self: emotional maturation Mother: social Mother: emotional maturation Beliefs About Development: Developmental expectation Active learning Severity of control

Quallty of Care Quality of Interaction: Positive interaction Restrictions Educational Program: Educational activities Group interaction Fducationaf environment

Caregiver Educetlon

Table 3. Hierarchical Regression of Caregivers’ Attitudes, (Beta Coefficients, R* Change, and Adjusted Rz)’

.09 .22 .14

.28* .20 .30 .19

.52* .55* .30

.43* .27

Final R2

.05.

and adjusted * p< .Ol.

the final

p-c

l

R* are taken ***p-c .OOl.

l

a Beta values

- .28 - .07 - .08

- .33* .06

.05 - ,52*‘* .23 from

Mother: Emotional

Educational Program Educational activities Group interaction Educational environment

self: Social

.35* -.04

of Care

of Influence

Quality of Interaction Positive interaction Restrictions

Quality

Attribution

RI

.13 .34-g .08

.31*** .03

Change

- .19 .34* - .I2

- .15 - .30

Developmental Expectation

Beliefs

of Care on Their Attitudes

equation.

Table 4. Hierarchical Regression of Caregivers’ Quality (Beta Coefficients, R2 Change, and Adjusted R2)' About

-44 - .14 -46

- .02 - .I8

Active Learning

Development

and Beliefs

- .09 .Ol - .40**

.ll .30’

Severity of Control

R2

.Ol .02 .14*

.Ol .I1

Change

.I8 .48*** .27’

.33** .30*

R2

Final

Caregivers

in Family

Day Care

277

behavior. Caregivers who described themselves as more authoritarian were indeed observed to impose more restrictions on the children. The educational environment they provided was also of poorer quality. The Relative Contribution of the Caregivers’ Education, Work Environment and Belief System to the Quality of Care Provided A second stage regression analysis compared the contribution of several factors to an explanation of the variance in the quality of care provided by the caregivers. The best predictors of quality of care in the first stage of the regression analysis were selected for the second stage regression analysis. These predictor variables represented aspects of the caregiver’s background, her extended and immediate work environment, and her belief system. This equation (Table 5) confirms the results reported above and explains more than 44% of the variance in all the parameters of quality of care. However, the negative relationship found between attribution of influence and group interaction disappeared when we controlled for the caregiver’s education. Better educated caregivers attributed more influence to themselves and also tended to engage less frequently in group interaction with infants and toddlers. While both measures of quality of care-quality of interaction and quality of the educational program-were explained by the extended work environment (supervision) and by beliefs concerning developmental expectations, only positive interaction was explained by attribution of influence. In contrast, all measures reflecting the quality of the educational program were explained by the immediate work environment (mean age) rather than by the extended environment (supervision). High frequency of group interaction was associated with low educational levels of caregivers and with late developmental expectations, whereas the educational quality of the physical environment was negatively related to a belief in severity of control. DISCUSSION The attitudes, beliefs, and behavior of parents, especially mothers, have been studied in an attempt to gain insight into those child-rearing processes that determine the development of the young child. With an increasing number of very young children spending longer hours in out-of-home care, there is a growing need for more knowledge and understanding of the role of the caregiver in these settings. In this study, we have proposed a model that addresses the relationship between the behavioral and cognitive aspects of the care-q giver’s role, within the framework of an ecological approach. This model explores individual differences in belief systems and interactions with children in terms of the caregiver’s personal and professional characteristics and her immediate and extended work environment.

of Care

a Beta values l p< .05.

l

and adjusted * p-e .Ol.

Educational activities Group interaction Educational environment

Educational Program

Quality of Interaction Positive interaction Restrictions

Quality

l

** p<

R2 are

.03

taken .ool.

-.04 - .40**

- .03 - .09

Educational Level

Backeround

Caregivers’

from

.60*** .49*** .38*

.Ol - .I1

M Age

Environment

the final equation.

- .21 .09 .04

- .41** .38**

Supervision

Work

.31+* .41*** .19+

.I9 .2@’

Change

R2

.2l - .I2 .09

.47** - .I9

Influence Self: Social

Table 5. Second Stage Regression Analysis: The Comparative Effects of Caregivers’ on Quality of Care (Bets Coefficients, R2 Change, and Adjusted R*)’

System

- .28 .31* - .23

- .28* .30*

- .06 .Ol - .41**

.I2 .29’

Severity of Control

Work Environment,

Developmental Expectations

Belief

Background,

.13 .I1 .25**

,308. .22+’

Change

R2

,448.. .52*** Al’*

.49*** .48***

R2

Final

and Belief System

Caregivers

in Family

Day Care

279

The caregivers we studied worked in sponsored family day care settings. They were mostly middle-aged women with less than high school education, little training, and little experience in providing care for other children. Dimensions of the Quality of Care

Our a priori assumption that the “quality of care” could not be regarded as a unitary concept was supported by the results. We found that the two dimensions of quality of care were not highly correlated, that is, caregivers who tended to have frequent positive interactions with the children did not necessarily provide a high-quality educational program. Moreover, although the tendency to interact positively with children or to restrict them was related to factors in the extended environment (namely frequency of supervision and degree of autonomy), the quality of the educational program was related to factors in the immediate environment, particularly group composition. Thus, caregivers who had greater autonomy and more frequent supervision provided more positive interaction. Those who cared for older children, and children of higher SES parents, tended to provide a higher quality educational program. Each of these dimensions of the quality of care was also differentially related to the caregiver’s beliefs. Caregivers who attributed more influence over the child’s development to themselves than to the parents tended to have more frequent positive interactions with the children but did not necessarily provide a better program. In fact, the frequency of educational activities was not related to any of the caregivers’ beliefs. However, the educational quality of the physical environment was related to a belief in more permissive methods of control. Moreover, those who believed in using more severe methods of disciplining children did indeed restrict the children more often. The parameters of the two dimensions of quality of care had been defined on an a priori basis. One of the parameters of the quality of the educational program was group interaction. Our results suggest that this measure should not be included as a parameter in the dimensions of quality of care, because it did not correlate with any other parameter of the quality of the educational program. Caregivers who interacted more frequently with the whole group of children showed less positive interactions with individual children and used more restrictions. They were also less educated, had less autonomy, expected children to achieve developmental goals at a later age, and tended to attribute less influence to themselves over the child’s development than to mothers. Altogether, the frequency of group interaction does not appear to reflect the quality of the educational program. Of course we do not suggest that these are the only dimensions of quality of care. We suggest, however, that other dimensions should be analyzed in a similar fashion. The specific relationships between the dimensions of quality of care, the caregivers’ background, beliefs, and conditions of their

280

Rownthal

work environment arc likely to vary in diffcrcnt populations of caregiver and in different child cart settings. The main conclusion of this Ntudy ia that these relatiomrhips should be invcrrtigated in order to gain a better undcrstanding of the caregiver’s role. Curegivers ’ Relief Sy,stem A coherent pattern of the self-perception of an early childhood educator seems to emerge from the data. Although caregivers varied in the degree of their self-perception as “professianal educators” (Shinman, 1981), our rern.tlta suggest that even caregivcrs with very little training and education, working in their own home, responded to the context and definition of their role. The group care context in which caregivers enact their roles determined their role perception and was reflected in their attitude8 toward the attribution of influence and their developmental expectations. Although they attributed more influence over the child? development to themselves than to the parents, they distinguished between influence over the child’s rrocial development and hia or her acquisition of emotional maturity. A.Y a re.rult of the perception of their role in the group context, they attributed to themrrelvce greater influcncc in the social domain. Morcover, caregivers expected children to achieve competence in the social and cognitive area.9 before they achieved independence Another indication of their professional role perception was the dominant belief in the greater effectiveness of permissive or authoritative methods of control over authoritarian methods, Thcsc arc similar to the ideologies of trained teachers and are different from those of mothers (Hess et al., 1981). Caregivers also showed con.gistency in their beliefs. Those who attributed more influence to a given Jocialiration agent did so in both domains of development. Caregivers who attributed more influence to them.rclvea also had earlier developmental expectations, and those with early expectationa in turn preferred more permissive methods of control. This pattern, however consistent, did not encompass all the beliefs we examined. Although most caregivers expressed beliefs in active learning, this variable W&Y related to the attribution of greater influence to the molher rather than to the caregiver herself and was not related to the caregiver’a behavior. With the exception of attribution of influence, the beliefs of caregivera in this study were not related to their background or work environment. More educated caregivers tended to attribute more influence to themrrelves than to parents in both domains of development. Presumably this is because, aclthe literature on “locus of control” rmggests, more educated people perceive themselves a.s having greater control of their environment than do those who arc less educated (Phares, 1976). It is interesting to note that although both immediate work environment and extended work environment had a

281

considerable effect on the carcgivers’ behavior, these variables had no effect on their beliefs. The fact that neither training nor supervision had any effect on beliefs seems to suggest that either attitudes and beliefs are not dealt with in these sessions, or that the training and supervision, as it is offered by the sponsoring agencies, can influence behavior rather than more deeply rooted beliefs.

This study explored anly a small part of the ecology of caregivers in family day care. Individual differences in the quality of interaction with children and in the educational quality of the program provided by caregivers were explained by various aspects of the immediate and extended work environments. Caregivers’ beliefs, on the other hand, were not influenced by their work environment and only some were related to their educational level, The ecological approach further suggests that these levels of the work environment and the caregivers’ beliefs and behavior are likely to be influenced by the macro-system (e.g., cultural attitudes to child care, socfal policy concerning day care). It has elsewhere been shown that these features of the work environment are influenced by the social policy which allocates resources and assigns professional responsibility for the care of young children in a given society (Rosenthal, 1990). It seems than an ecological study of belief systems must be extended beyond the levels included in this study. It should also incorporate ~pectr of the cultural milieu in which the caregiver was educated and of the one in which she is currently living (Rosenthal, in press).

Arnett,

J. (1989).

Careplvcrr In day cure centers: Brxa tralnlng matter7 Journel o/App/lcrl i?~chOiOyy, 10, 541-552. Bark, I.. (1985). Rrlutlenshlp of cducatlonal attainment, child orlented attitudes, Job 8atlsfactlan, and career commitment to curcgiver’s khuvlor toward8 children. Child Cure Quurferiy. 14, IO3- 129. Rronfcnbrenna, U. (1979). The eculugy oJ humun deve/upmenl. Cambrl&e, MA: Harvard Unlvclrlty Prenr. Buycntal, D.U., & Shennum, W.A. (1984). “Difficult” children as sllcltou ti targets of adult communlcatlon patterns. An attrlburlon&behnvlor fransectional an&lyolr. Monogruph.q CJJ the Secle~y Jur Reseurch In Child Bewlopmenl, 49(1, &In1 No. 205). Carcw, J. (191111). Expcrlcnce and the development of Intelll~ In young chltdren. Mono#ruph.r oJ the SosocIety /or Reseurch In Child &velopmenl, M(l-2, Serial No. 183). Clarke-&wart, K.A. (1973). InteractIona between mothers and their young chlldrsn: Chure~erlrtlcn and cmsequme~~. Monqruph oj Ihe bclety for Rueurch In Child Developmen/, 36(6-7, Serial No. lJ3). ClarkeJtmnrt, K.A., & Plw, 61. (1983). Early chlldhood pr~gfms. In P. MWIMI (Ed.), Ifundbaok oJ child psychology (pp. 917-W). New York: Wllcy. &U@kJprWIkd

282

Rosenthal

Collins, Dix, T.,

A.H., & Watson, E.L. (1976). I+mily duv cure. Boston: Beacon. & Grusec, J.E. (1983). Parental influence techniques. An attributional analysis. Developmeni. 54, 645-652. Feldman, S.S., & Yirmiya, N. (1986). Perceptions of childrearing roles: A study of mothers and caregivers in town and kibbutz. lnternafiorrul Jo~nul of Psychology, 153-166. E., & Birchall, DHSS.

Ferri, Goclman,

Harms, Hess,

Howcs, Howes, Howes, Innes,

D. (1986).

Study

of supporl

and

Iruininx

Jar

childminders.

Child Israeli 21.

London:

H., Rosenthal, M.K., & Pence, A.R. (1990). Family day care in two countries: Parents, caregivers and children in Israel and British Columbia, Canada. Child und Yorrrh Care Qtrarlerly. 19(4). 25 I-270. T., &Clifford, R.M. (1984). The Funri/.v Day Care Holing Scale. New York: Teachers

College Press. R.D., Price, C.P., Dickson, W.R., & Conroy, M. (1981). Differenl roles and teachers: Contrasting styles of child care. In S. Kilmer (Ed.), Advances cation und du.v cure. London: JAI Press. C. (lY83). Caregiver opmental Psychology, C. (1986). Keeping ington DC: National

behavior in center and family 4, 99-107. current in child care research: Association for the Education

day care.

Journal

for molhers in early edrc-

of Applied

Devel-

An annotated bibliography. of Young Children.

Wash-

C., Keeling, K., & Sale, J. (1988). The home visitor: Improving quailty in family care Itontes. Manuscript submitted for publication. R.B., & Innes. S.M. (1984). A qualitative study of caregivers’ altitudes about child

duy care.

Eur1.v Child

Development and Care, IS, I33- 148. Jackson, B.. & Jackson, S. (1979). Childminder: A srttd.v in acfion research. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Kaplan, M.G., & Corm, J.S. (1984). The effects of caregiver’s training in classroom setting and caregiver’s performance in 8 community centers. Child Sfudy Journul, 14, 79-83. R.A., & Goodnow, J.J. (1988). Parents’ beliefs about influence over cognitive and social development. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 11(4), 5 17-527. Kontos, S., & Riessen, J. (1988). Predictors of job satisfurlion, job stress. and job commit-

Knighl,

Kontos,

ment in fumi/y day cure providers. Manuscript submitted for publication. S., & Stremmel, A.J. (1988). Caregiver’s perceptions of working conditions care environments. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 3, 77-90.

in child

Maslach,

C., & Pines, A. (1977). The burnout syndrome in day care setting. Child Care Quorrefly, 6, ICO-113. Mayall, B., & Petrie, P. (1983). ChiMminding und day nurseries: Wlrar kind of cure? London: Heinemann. McCartney, K. (1984). Effect of quality of day care environment on children’s language development. Developmentul Psychology, 20, 244-260. McCartney, K., Starr, S., Phillips, parisons of varying quality 6. 247-260.

D., & Grajek, S. (1985). Day care as intervention: Comprograms. Journul of Applied Developmenkd Psychology,

McGillicuddy-DeLisi, A.V. (1981). The relafionship belween parenls’ beliefs about development and family consrellution, socioeconomic status and parents’ teaching strategies. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Parke, R.D. (1978). Parent-child interaction: Progress, paradigms and problems. In G.P. Sackett (Ed.), Observing behavior (Vol. I). Baltimore: University Park Press. Pence, A.R., & Goelman, H. (1987). Who cares for the child in day care? An examination of caregivers 315-334.

from

three

types

of

child

care.

Early

Childhood

Research

Quarter/y,

2,

Caregivers

in Family

Day Care

283

Peters,

D.L., & Sutton, R.E. (1984). The effects of CDA training on the beliefs, and behavior of Head Start personnel. Child Care Quarterly, 13(4), 251-261. Pettygrove, W., Whitebook, M., & Weir, M. (1984). Beyond babysitting: Changing

attitudes the treat-

ment and image of caregivers. Young Children, 39, 14-21. Pharcs, E.J. (1976). Locus of control in personality. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. Phillips, D., & Whitebook, M. (1986). Who are child care workers: The search for answers. Young Children. 41, 14-20. Prescott, E., Kritchevsky, S., & Jones, E. (1972). The Day Cure Environnrenl Inventory. Washington, Rosenthal, M.K. Jerusalem:

DC: U.S. Departmen of Health, EducaIion and Welfare. (1984). The Isruel Family Duy Care Studv: Parficipants and Hebrew University of Jerusalem. (Hebrew)

Rosemhal, M.K. (1990). Ioddlers in family 85-103. Rosenlhal, M.K. (1991).

Child

and

Youth

Social policy and iIs effects on the daily experiences day care in Israel. Journal of Applied Developmental Daily

Care

Rosenthal, M.K. (in press). spective. In M. Lamb,

twt:

Historical

experiences

Forum,

cltltural

in three

child

care

of care.

of infants

and

Psychology, settings

II,

in Israel.

20, 36-60.

Non-parental K. SIernberg,

and cross

of toddlers

quality

child care C-P.Hwang,

perspectives.

in Israel: A cultural and historical per&A. Brobcrg (Eds.), Daycare in conHillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

R., Travers, J., Glantz, F., & Coelen, C. (1979). Children at the center (Final of the National Day Care Study). Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates. Rubenstein, J.L., & Howes, C. (1979). Caregiving and infant behavior in day care homes. Developmental Psychology, 15. l-24. Roupp,

report and

in

S. (1981). A choice for every child? Access and response to preschool provision. London: Tavistock. Slallings, J., & Porter, A. (1980). National Day Care Horne Study: Observation component (Final Report). Washington, DC: DHEW. Tizard, B. (1974). Do social relationships affect language development7 In J. Connolly & J. Shinman,

Bruner (Eds.), The growfh of competence. Wandersman, L.P. (1981). Ecological relationships 10. 89-102. Wattenberg.

Child

E. (1977).

Characteristics

Wel/are,

56, 21 l-229.

of family

Academic, in family

day

day care providers:

care.

Child

Implications

Cure

Quarterly, for

training.