Sequence of child care type and child development: What role does peer exposure play?

Early Childhood Research Quarterly 25 (2010) 33–50

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Early Childhood Research Quarterly

Sequence of child care type and child development: What role does peer exposure play? Taryn W. Morrissey ∗ Society for Research in Child Development Congressional Fellow, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 2 May 2008 Received in revised form 16 August 2009 Accepted 23 August 2009 Keywords: Child care Child care type Peers Social development Cognitive development

a b s t r a c t Child care arrangements change as children age; in general, hours in home-based child care decrease as hours in center-based settings increase. This sequence of child care type may correspond with children’s developmental needs; the small peer groups and low child–adult ratios typical of home-based care may allow for more individual child–adult time for infants and toddlers, whereas the social stimulation found in center-based care during the preschool years may prepare children for kindergarten. This study examined associations between school readiness and the timing of child care type among children in NICHD’s Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (N = 1349). Findings suggest that children who experience home-based care during the infant–toddler period and center care during the preschool period display the improved cognitive outcomes, but not the increased behavioral problems, generally associated with sustained center care attendance. Continuous home-based care was associated with higher social status at school entry partially through smaller peer groups during the preschool period. These patterns did not differ by child or family characteristics. Implications for policy and research are discussed. Published by Elsevier Inc.

At any given time, more than one-half of children under age five in the United States are in nonparental child care (Johnson, 2005). The majority of children change child care arrangements several times before kindergarten (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network [ECCRN], 2004). These changes in child care can result from changes in parental employment, caregiver availability, or from shifting family for child care preferences as children age. In particular, the use of nonparental home-based care, including in-home, relative, and family child care, during the infant and toddler years and center-based care, including child care centers, Head Start, preschools, and prekindergarten programs, during the preschool years has been found to be both preferred by parents and the most common general pattern of child care before school entry (Gable & Cole, 2000; Huston, Chang, & Gennetian, 2002; NICHD ECCRN, 2004; Pence & Goelman, 1987; Phillips & Adams, 2001). Parents may prefer home-based care during the infant and toddler years because they believe children receive more individual attention than in center care (Layzer & Goodson, 2003; NICHD ECCRN, 2004; Phillips & Adams, 2001), whereas the traditionally educational and social environments of centers and preschool programs may appeal for older children to prepare them for the demands of kindergarten (Gable & Cole, 2000; Kontos, Hsu, & Dunn, 1994; NICHD ECCRN, 2004; Pence & Goelman, 1987). Indeed, there is some evidence that home-based care during the infant and toddler periods and center-based programming during the preschool years provide higher quality care and promote both social-emotional and cognitive development (Loeb, Bridges, Bassok, Fuller, & Rumberger, 2007; Loeb, Fuller, Kagan, & Bidemi, 2004; Maccoby & Lewis, 2003; NICHD ECCRN, 2000, 2004). Structural differences in peer exposure, i.e., group size and child–adult ratios, across child care types may underlie these effects. However, research on how the timing and sequence of child care type affects school readiness and the potential

∗ Tel.: +1 202 224 7675. E-mail address: [email protected]. 0885-2006/$ – see front matter. Published by Elsevier Inc. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.08.005

34

T.W. Morrissey / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 25 (2010) 33–50

mediating role of peer exposure is very limited. Using longitudinal data from the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development’s Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (NICHD SECCYD), the present study examined the relationship between the timing of child care type and peer exposure over the first 4 1/2 years of life and children’s social-emotional and cognitive outcomes at school entry and the first 2 years of school. 1. Types of child care Child care and early education settings are generally categorized into one of three main types based on the child’s relationship to the caregiver and the setting in which they take place: (1) “informal,” nonparental home-based care, often referred to as family, friend or neighbor care or “kith and kin” care, that is provided in a private home (either the child’s or the caregiver’s) by a relative or trusted family friend; (2) “formal” family child care that takes place in the caregiver’s home and is typically regulated and/or licensed by the state; and (3) center-based care, or care that takes place in commercial, more “school-like” settings, which can include prekindergarten, preschool, or nursery school programs, Head Start, and child care centers. Although there are important differences between unregulated family, friend, and neighbor care and regulated family child care including structural quality, caregiver education, and the quality and consistency of relationships among the parent, child, and caregiver (e.g., NICHD ECCRN, 2004), these types are often referred to collectively as “home-based child care” because both take place in a private home. Typically, these home-based care arrangements mirror a family-like setting and differ from center-based care in many structural features, particularly in their number of children and adults in the setting, and the presence of mixed-age peer groups. This paper uses the collective term “home-based care” to refer to both formal and informal nonparental, home-based child care settings. Home-based care includes both “informal” arrangements with relatives, friends, or neighbors and “formal” family child care homes regulated by the state. Both types of home-based child care provide a home-like setting in relatively small, mixed-age groups (Kontos, Howes, Shinn, & Galinsky, 1995; Pence & Goelman, 1987; for a review, see Morrissey, 2007). With relatively few children per adult, children may receive more adult attention in home-based care than in schools or centers (Clarke-Stewart, Gruber, & Fitzgerald, 1994; NICHD ECCRN, 2004), particularly language interaction with adults (Dowsett, Huston, Imes, & Gennetian, 2008). Research has found that although most home-based child care provides a safe and unrestricted environment, providers tend to take on more managerial and supervisory functions than teaching roles (Layzer & Goodson, 2003). Although structured activities and outdoor playtime are more common in regulated family child care settings than in informal arrangements (Kontos et al., 1995), the most common types of activities in both regulated and informal home-based care arrangements involve routines such as naps, meals, physical care, television-watching, and free play (Dowsett et al., 2008; Kisker, Hofferth, Phillips, & Farquahar, 1991; Kontos et al., 1994; Layzer & Goodson, 2003; Pence & Goelman, 1987). In contrast to home-based care, most center-based facilities were designed specifically for the purpose of early care and education and usually offer a greater number and variety of toys, space, and materials for children (Clarke-Stewart et al., 1994; Kontos et al., 1994). Typically, centers organize children based on age into large groups with two or more adults, averaging higher child–adult ratios and exposing children to greater numbers of peers than home-based settings (Dowsett et al., 2008). On average, children in centers experience more cognitive stimulation and spend more time in structured, adult-directed activities than do children in home-based care (Kisker et al., 1991; Kontos et al., 1994). 2. Child care type and child development Developmental psychology theory and research emphasize the importance of early experiences, including child care, for children’s later development (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). Research has not identified one “best” type of child care; if high-quality, all child care can foster positive child development. However, several studies have linked more time in center-based care with improved cognitive and language development (Loeb et al., 2004, 2007; Magnuson, Ruhm, & Waldfogel, 2007) as well as more behavior problems (Loeb et al., 2007; Magnuson et al., 2007), when compared to time in home-based care. It is possible that the unique characteristics of each type of care may be best suited to promote development at different developmental stages (Maccoby & Lewis, 2003). In general, parents report a preference for home-based care during the infant and toddler years to simulate a home environment, whereas center care is preferred when children reach preschool age to prepare them for kindergarten (Gable & Cole, 2000; Pence & Goelman, 1987). National surveys indicate that actual child care use patterns mirror these preferences. In 1999, over three-quarters of children under three with employed mothers were primarily in home-based care; by contrast, nearly half of children aged three and four with employed mothers were in center-based settings (Capizzano, Adams, & Sonenstein, 2000). This shift from home- to center-based care is neither universal nor abrupt; as children age, hours in home-based settings decrease as hours in center care increase (NICHD ECCRN, 2004), which may be motivated by parents’ desire to expose their children to increasingly social and traditionally educational settings to prepare them for kindergarten. Whereas child care instability is generally associated with poorer child outcomes (e.g., Loeb et al., 2004), developmental transitions of child care, such as the shift from home- to center-based care, may be beneficial for development. Indeed, there is some evidence that the shift in child care type from infancy to the preschool years positively impacts children’s development. More hours in center care during infancy have been negatively related to cognitive and behavioral outcomes at school entry (Loeb et al., 2007). By contrast, enrollment in child care centers during the preschool years has

T.W. Morrissey / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 25 (2010) 33–50

35

been linked to more advanced intellectual and language development than for children who were cared for by their parents or in home-based arrangements (Loeb et al., 2004, 2007; Magnuson et al., 2007; Winsler et al., 2008), and those who enter center care between the age of two and three display the most positive cognitive gains (Loeb et al., 2007). 3. Exposure to peers Previous research suggests that the presence of structured educational environments do not explain the differences in quality and child outcomes across child care types (Kontos et al., 1994). Variability in peer exposure, as measured by group size (i.e., number of children in the setting) and child–adult ratio, present another possible explanation for these differences. Infants and toddlers may not be cognitively or socially equipped to adapt to high levels of social stimulation, and large peer groups may interfere with young children’s emotional regulation (Watamura, Donzella, Alwin, & Gunnar, 2003). Home-based care, with few peers, may help buffer the stress induced at nonparental care and promote self-regulation among very young children (Ahnert & Lamb, 2003). Indeed, in their review of studies examining young children’s patterns of cortisol, a stressreactive hormone, Vermeer and van IJzendoorn (2006) found that higher cortisol levels at center-based care, as compared to home-based settings, was particularly pronounced among children under 36 months of age, and speculated that this increase may be the result of stressful interactions in the group setting. Indeed, moving from a large classroom environment to a small group context has been linked with decreased cortisol levels (Rappolt-Schlictmann, 2007). Furthermore, experimental research has found that while lower child–adult ratios are associated with higher quality caregiver–child interactions across early childhood, ratios are particularly important for younger children (De Schipper, Riksen-Walraven, & Geurts, 2006). By contrast, some research suggests that experience in the large peer groups typical of center-based care may be adaptive (Langlois & Liben, 2003), particularly during the preschool period. Group size is positively associated with both higher positive and negative peer interaction (NICHD ECCRN, 2008), and high levels of positive interactions may buffer against the development of problem behaviors (Watamura et al., 2003) as well as facilitate the development of collaborative and communicative skills that contribute to positive peer play and acceptance (Howes & Phillipsen, 1998; NICHD ECCRN, 2008). Moreover, high child–adult ratios (i.e., more children per adult) have been associated with improved cognitive and social competence among 2 1/2 to 5-year-old (Kontos et al., 1994). Prior research examining child care quality using data from the NICHD SECCYD suggests that home-based care may provide high-quality care for infants and toddlers, whereas center care may provide higher quality care during the preschool years. Between the ages of 6 months and 3 years, children who experienced longer hours in home-based relative care also experienced higher quality care than those in center care (Dowsett et al., 2008; NICHD ECCRN, 2000, 2004), while the least positive caregiving during this period was found in centers with higher ratios of children to adults (NICHD ECCRN, 2000). At 2 and 3 years of age, center caregivers had less frequent language interactions with children than home-based caregivers (Dowsett et al., 2008). However, center care provided higher quality care when children were 4 1/2 years old (Dowsett et al., 2008; NICHD ECCRN, 2004). Furthermore, at 3 and 4 1/2 years, centers provided higher levels of cognitive stimulation than home-based care (Dowsett et al., 2008). To date, few studies have examined how the developmental timing and sequence of child care type affect child outcomes. Loeb et al. (2007) examined the duration and intensity of center care, defined as the age of entry into center care and center care attendance in the year before kindergarten. However, child care data were based on mothers’ retrospective reports, and neither child care arrangements prior to center care entry nor changes in care types after initial center entry were taken into account. Additionally, using prospective child care data, the NICHD ECCRN (2004) identified four “pure” or “progressive” patterns of care: all center care; all home-based care; and two progressive patterns, consisting of either parental or nonparental home-based care before 36 months and center care after 36 months. However, together, these four patterns accounted for only 41% of the total sample; consequently, children’s outcomes at school entry were examined in relation to the total hours they had spent in each type of care. The low proportion of the sample in pure or progressive patterns may be the result of multiple, concurrent child care arrangements during a single day or week (Capizzano & Adams, 2000; Morrissey, 2008). Examining restrictive patterns likely masked broader sequences of care. Although these two studies revealed important findings regarding the “dosage” or cumulative effects of center care attendance, the importance of developmental sequence and the mechanisms underlying these effects remain unexplored. Moreover, research has not examined the mediating effects of social stimulation. Because home- and center-based care provide different intensities and opportunities for social stimulation, the general shift from home- to center-based care, controlling for care quality, may balance center care’s positive relationship with cognitive outcomes and negative association with behavior problems. The two main measures of peer exposure, group size and child–adult ratio, may independently affect child outcomes. Group size, or the total number of children in the classroom, represents the number of children with which children can or must regularly interact. The number of adults in the room may mitigate the effect of large groups of children by providing greater opportunity for individual child–adult interactions. 4. Moderating effects of child and family characteristics Bioecological theory emphasizes that individuals are agents in their own development (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998). In turn, children’s background characteristics, including gender, temperament, and family income status, may moderate how the sequence and timing of child care type affect development (Crockenberg, 2003; Maccoby & Lewis, 2003). In one study

36

T.W. Morrissey / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 25 (2010) 33–50

conducted in child care centers in the Netherlands, boys were more likely to initiate negative interactions in child care than girls (Deynoot-Schaub & Riksen-Walraven, 2006), and greater amounts of negative peer interactions during early childhood have been associated with greater aggression, poorer communicative skills, and having fewer friends in elementary school (NICHD ECCRN, 2008). Therefore, continuous center care from infancy through the preschool years may not be optimal for boys. In addition, the temperamental “match” between the individual and the environment may influence the how social stimulation in child care affects development (Thomas & Chess, 1977). In Deynoot-Schaub and Riksen-Walraven’s study, children with difficult temperaments were less likely to participate in interactions initiated by others, although only in lowquality child care arrangements; fewer peer interactions at home-based care may better fit these children’s social needs. Finally, family income status may moderate how the type of child care impacts children’s development. High-quality centerbased programming, particularly Head Start (Li-Grining & Coley, 2006) and public prekindergarten (Winsler et al., 2008), has been found to be especially beneficial for low-income children’s development (e.g., Fuller, Kagan, Loeb, & Chang, 2004; Loeb et al., 2004; Votruba-Drzal, Coley, & Chase-Lansdale, 2004). Furthermore, several studies indicate that the association between center-based care and behavior problems is absent among children from low-income families (Fuller et al., 2004; Votruba-Drzal et al., 2004; Winsler et al., 2008). However, children from low-income families are more likely to be in unregulated home-based care, which tends to be less expensive but also of lower quality than center care (Fuller et al., 2004; Li-Grining & Coley, 2006; Loeb et al., 2004). Thus, it is possible that continuous center care attendance across the early years may positively impact school readiness among low-income children. Because family characteristics influence both their child care choices and children’s outcomes, selection issues must be taken into account in order to isolate the relationship between child care characteristics and child development (Duncan, Magnuson, & Ludwig, 2004; NICHD ECCRN & Duncan, 2003). For example, family income has significant, positive impacts on children’s development (Dearing, McCartney, & Taylor, 2006); higher income families are also more likely to choose (and afford) higher quality and more stable child care than lower income families (NICHD ECCRN, 1997). If the effects of income on child development are not taken into account, the impacts of early care and education on child development would likely be overestimated and positively biased. Because families’ child care decisions are highly influenced by multiple factors, numerous child and family characteristics extracted from previous research, including maternal education, attitudes, and family income and structure (e.g., Belsky et al., 2007; NICHD ECCRN & Duncan, 2003; for a review, see Lamb, 1998), were used as covariates in regression models. 5. The current study Despite the wealth of research on child care and children’s development, how the developmental timing of child care type and peer exposure affect school readiness remains unexplored. The present study examined children’s sequence of child care type from infancy through the preschool years and their cognitive and social-emotional outcomes at age 4 1/2, kindergarten, and first grade using longitudinal data from the NICHD SECCYD. This study differs from previous research in three main ways. First, the developmental timing and sequence of child care type were taken into account. Unlike previous analyses using the NICHD SECCYD, sequences of child care type were created using a large age window for entry into center care (36–60 months) and accounted for the use of multiple, concurrent types of child care. Children who experienced home-based child care during the infant and toddler periods and center care during the preschool years were expected to exhibit more positive outcomes at school entry than those who experienced continuous home-based care or continuous center care, after controlling for child care quantity, quality, and overall stability. Secondly, peer exposure in child care, as measured by group size and child–adult ratio experienced during the infant–toddler and preschool periods, was examined as a potential mediator between child care type, sequence, and child outcomes. Finally, child gender, temperament, and family income status were hypothesized to moderate the relationships between child care sequence and school readiness; boys and children with difficult temperaments would exhibit more positive outcomes after attending more home-based care than those who experienced center care, whereas children from low-income families who experienced continuous center care would display more positive outcomes at school entry. Because families’ child care choices are influenced by many factors, a wealth of child, family, and child care characteristics were controlled to account for selection of child care. 6. Method 6.1. Participants Participants in the NICHD SECCYD were recruited beginning in 1991 at hospitals at ten sites across the country: Boston, MA; Lawrence, KS; Seattle, WA; Orange County, CA; Little Rock, AR; Pittsburgh, PA; Philadelphia, PA; Morganton, NC; Madison, WI; and Charlottesville, VA. The range of regulations governing child–staff ratios and group sizes in the nine states included in the sample did not differ significantly from those in the other 41 states (NICHD ECCRN, 1999). Sample exclusion criteria included: (1) the mother was under 18; (2) the mother was not conversant in English; (3) the family planned to move; (4) the child was hospitalized for more than seven days after birth or had obvious disabilities; (5) the mother had a known or acknowledged substance abuse problem; and (6) the family lived far away from the data collection site or in an area deemed dangerous for home visitors. At 1 month of age, 1364 infants and their families were enrolled in the study in accordance with a conditionally random sampling plan. Although the sample was not intended to be nationally represen-

T.W. Morrissey / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 25 (2010) 33–50

37

tative, families represented a range of socio-economic and cultural backgrounds: 40% were considered low-income, 11% of mothers had not graduated high school, 14% were mother-headed households, and 24% of the sample was ethnic minority. The demographic characteristics of the sample were comparable to those of people living in the same geographic areas at the beginning of the study (NICHD ECCRN, 1997). Attrition reduced the sample to 1018 children and families at first grade. Remaining families were less likely to be minority or low-income than families who had left the study. Multiple imputation (MI) was used to account for potential biases resulting from missing data (Allison, 2002). MI replaces missing values several times with predictions based on other observed variables, creating multiple “complete” datasets to account for uncertainty in assigning values (N = 1364 in each dataset). In addition to the predictors, outcomes, and interactions included in the analyses reported in the paper, other variables were included in the multiple imputations to increase the accuracy of the imputations: the proportion of time spent in group child care; scores from the Bayley Scales of Infant Development (Mental Development Index) at 24 months; mothers’ and teachers’ reports of child social-emotional outcomes from the Social Skills Rating System at 24, 36, and 54 months; and scores from the individual tests of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised at 54 months and 1st grade. Regression and descriptive analyses were performed using the ‘mim’ procedure in Stata v. 10 to yield single estimates from five imputed datasets. 6.2. Procedure Family background information was gathered at the child’s birth and during a home visit 1 month later. Telephone interviews collected information on the focal child’s child care arrangements and family demographics at 3–4-month intervals from 1 to 54 months of age and during the fall of kindergarten and the spring of first grade, generating a total of 19 time points. Additional information was collected at 6, 15, 24, 36, and 54 months through questionnaires administered to mothers and child care providers and observations of the child’s home and nonmaternal child care settings. Child assessments were conducted at a university laboratory and through questionnaires administered to mothers, child care providers, and teachers at 54 months, kindergarten, and first grade. 6.3. Measures 6.3.1. Child care type and sequence During each telephone interview, mothers provided information regarding the child care arrangements their children had attended over the prior 3 months. From 1 to 36 months, mothers reported up to three child care arrangements; from 42 to 54 months, mothers reported up to six arrangements. The type of and number of hours in care were reported for each arrangement. Types of nonparental arrangements were coded as: (1) home-based care, which included grandparent care, in-home care (other relatives, friends, or babysitters in the child’s home), and family child care (care in someone else’s home by someone other than a parent or grandparent); (2) center-based care, including child care centers, pre-k programs, and nursery schools; or (3) other care, which consisted of predominantly sibling care. Using these longitudinal reports of children’s child care arrangements, three general sequences of nonparental care were created based on the age at which children first entered center-based child care and the number of hours they spent in center care and nonparental home-based care (including family child care, in-home, and grandparent care). Sequences were different from the pure and progressive sequences identified in the NICHD ECCRN (2004), as the present analyses included secondary and tertiary child care arrangements and children who were attending more than one type of child care at one point in time. Because it is a normative experience to enter center-based early education (e.g., preschool) programs around age three, an age cut-off of 36 months was used. At 36 months, about one-third of the sample had attended center care. Children who did not enter center care before school entry (set at 60 months) and attended nonparental home-based care both before and after 36 months of age were categorized into Continuous Home-based Care (17%). Children who entered center-based care before 36 months of age and attended center care both before and after 36 months were categorized into the Continuous Center Care (36%). Finally, children who began center care between 36 and 60 months of age and attended nonparental home-based before 36 months and center care after 36 months were classified into the Home-Center Sequence (46%). No children had attended center care during the infant and toddler years but not the preschool period (i.e., a CenterHome Sequence). These sequences of child care were based on children’s aggregate hours per week in the different types of child care at each age, including their primary, secondary, and tertiary arrangements. Sequences do not take into account changes within types of care, such as changing centers. Because patterns were based on center care attendance, it is possible that children in the Continuous Center Care or Home-Center Sequence groups were attending home-based care at the same time as center care. However, children in the Continuous Home-based Care group did not attend any center care. The remaining children had not attended any nonparental care before 60 months (i.e., had been in exclusive maternal or paternal care); they were categorized as experiencing an “other” sequence (1%). Descriptive statistics for children who experienced other patterns of care are presented, but this group is not included in regression analyses, resulting in a final sample size of 1349 children. Descriptive statistics for the child care background variables and those used to create these sequences of child care type are provided in Table 1. Children who experienced a Home-Center Sequence entered care later, averaged fewer hours in nonparental care, experienced fewer different child care arrangements, and spent more time in exclusive maternal care than

38

T.W. Morrissey / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 25 (2010) 33–50

Table 1 Child care background characteristics for each sequence of child care type (N = 1364). Home-center sequence

Continuous home-based care

Variables used to create sequences Age entered center carea , b ,c Mean hours in center care 1–35 monthsb Mean hours in center care 36–60 monthsa , b ,c Mean hours in nonparental home-based care 1–35 months Mean hours in nonparental home-based care 36–60 monthsa , c

48.79 (6.71) N/A 9.33 (9.12) 14.08 (14.37) 12.73 (13.55)

N/A N/A N/A 14.34 (14.20) 20.17 (17.67)

16.95 (10.74) 13.33 (11.83) 24.57 (14.86) 13.35 (11.90) 11.25 (12.79)

54.99 (5.07) 0 0 0 0

Child care covariates Hours nonmaternal care intercept 1–54 monthsb, c Proportion of time in exclusive maternal care 1–54 monthsa , b, c Proportion of time spent in some center carea , b ,c Age entered 1+ hours of nonmaternal careb, c Number of different care arrangements from 1 to 54 monthsa , c Hours per week in afterschool care at Kindergartenb, c Hours per week in afterschool care at 1st Gradeb, c

21.48 (17.15) .34 (.27) .11 (.08) 10.36 (13.11) 6.64 (3.95) 9.63 (8.63) 6.86 (6.10)

22.27 (17.50) .41 (.30) N/A 10.69 (13.50) 5.24 (3.56) 8.92 (8.68) 6.42 (5.70)

33.25 (14.32) .21 (.20) .47 (.26) 5.97 (6.29) 6.76 (3.72) 12.19 (9.31) 8.83 (6.69)

0 1 (0) 0 0 0 5.05 (6.21) 4.15 (5.27)

N

628

227

Continuous center care

494

Other

15

Note: Standard deviations are displayed in parentheses. The sample size in each child care sequence represents sample size from imputation 1. The Home-Center Sequence served as the reference group for regression-corrected comparisons. a Home-Center Sequence and Continuous Home-based Care significantly differ (p < .05). b Home-Center Sequence and Continuous Center-based Care significantly differ (p < .05). c Continuous Home-based Sequence and Continuous Center-based Care significantly differ (p < .05).

those who experienced Continuous Center Care. Children who experienced the Home-Center Sequence spent less time in exclusive maternal care than those who experienced Continuous Home-based Care. 6.3.2. Social-emotional outcomes Mothers’, child care providers’, and teachers’ ratings of child behavior and social status on the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL: Achenbach, 1991a), Teacher Report Form (TRF: Achenbach, 1991b), and the Friends or Foes? (Ladd, 1983) questionnaires were used to measure the social-emotional components of children’s school readiness. At 54 months and during the fall of kindergarten and the spring of first grade, mothers completed the CBCL. At 54 months, children’s primary child care providers completed the TRF, and at kindergarten and first grade, their teachers completed the TRF. In both measures, which are slightly different versions of a widely used measure to assess children’s behavior problems, the child’s typical behavior was rated on a 3-point scale (0 = not true of the child, 2 = very true of the child) on about 100 items. Two general subscales were generated: Internalizing Problems (e.g., Withdrawn, Nervous/tense) and Externalizing Problems (e.g., Has temper tantrums, Gets in many fights). Raw scores were converted to standard T-scores based on normative data to allow for the comparison of scores across ages. Both the CBCL and TRF are highly reliable and internally consistent (see Achenbach, 1991a,b). Mothers’ and caregivers’ ratings were highly correlated for internalizing problems (r > .9), but only moderately correlated for externalizing problems (r = .3). Ratings of the focal child’s popularity in child care and school were gathered as a component of the longer Friends or Foes? Questionnaire, which was designed to assess a child’s ability to interact with peers and form friendships. Using a 5-point Likert-type scale, caregivers or teachers responded to four questions/statements regarding the child’s interactions with classmates. Ratings of children’s peer status had moderate reliability (Cronbach’s ˛ = .81–.88). 6.3.3. Cognitive outcomes Both standardized test scores and teacher-reported school performance were used as measures of children’s cognitive outcomes at 54 months, kindergarten, and first grade. The Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised (WJ-R: Woodcock & Johnson, 1989), a comprehensive set of individually administered tests designed to assess children’s cognitive aptitude and achievement, was administered at 54 months and first grade. The Tests of Cognitive Ability assessed the child’s ability to remember and repeat simple words and phrases, auditory closure with words containing missing phonemes, and the ability to recognize and name picture objects. The Tests of Achievement assessed the ability to match a pictographic representation of a word with an actual picture of the object (i.e., symbolic learning), and Applied Problems, which measures the child’s skills in analyzing and solving practical mathematical problems (˛ = .91–.98). The Preschool Language Scale (PLS: Zimmerman, Steiner, & Pond, 1979), designed to assess vocabulary, grammar, morphology, and language reasoning, was also administered at 54 months. Composite cognitive scores were computed from the mean standard scores from the WJ-R and PLS at 54 months and from the WJ-R only at first grade. Ratings of children’s skills, knowledge, and behaviors were gathered from their teachers during the fall of kindergarten and the spring of first grade using the Academic Skills questionnaire, originally designed by the National Center for Education Statistics for the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS, 2002). Two areas of academic functioning were assessed:

T.W. Morrissey / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 25 (2010) 33–50

39

Table 2 Social-emotional and cognitive outcomes: descriptive statistics by age and sequence of child care type (N = 1349). Home-center sequence

Continuous home-based care

Continuous center care

CBCL internalizing problems (mother) 54 months 47.45 (9.26) Kindergarten 46.77 (9.50) First grade 48.17 (9.26)

46.93 (8.45) 46.52 (8.90) 47.59 (8.80)

47.25 (9.04) 48.07 (9.12) 48.10 (9.08)

CBCL externalizing problems (mother) 54 months 51.48 (9.40) Kindergarten 49.65 (9.88) First grade 48.62 (9.70)

51.40 (9.03) 49.44 (9.60) 48.35 (10.03)

51.95 (9.68) 50.14 (9.72) 48.42 (10.12)

CBCL internalizing problems (caregiver) 54 months 50.09 (10.46) Kindergarten 46.96 (9.31) First grade 49.55 (9.33)

50.26 (10.55) 46.96 (9.90) 49.88 (8.85)

51.65 (10.28) 47.78 (9.14) 48.69 (9.45)

CBCL externalizing problems (caregiver) 48.76 (9.56) 54 monthsa, b 48.93 (8.54) Kindergartenb, c 50.20 (8.63) First gradeb

52.17 (10.33) 48.90 (8.38) 50.81 (8.67)

52.21 (10.50) 51.58 (9.69) 51.85 (9.25)

Peer status 54 monthsa, c Kindergarten First grade

18.39 (3.01) 16.55 (3.31) 16.30 (3.25)

16.73 (3.21) 16.06 (3.36) 15.76 (3.35)

93.16 (12.91) 101.96 (11.44)

98.63 (13.65) 104.69 (12.18)

2.74 (.96) 3.17 (.90)

3.03 (.94) 3.27 (.91)

16.69 (3.10) 16.45 (3.17) 16.15 (3.20)

Mean standardized cognitive outcomes 98.45 (13.25) 54 monthsa, c 104.29 (11.43) First gradea, c Academic skills: total skills Kindergartena, c First grade N

2.95 (.92) 3.20 (.93) 628

227

494

Note: Standard deviations are displayed in parentheses. The sample size in each child care sequence represents sample size from imputation 1. a Home-Center Sequence and Continuous Home-based Care significantly differ (p < .05). b Home-Center Sequence and Continuous Center-based Care significantly differ (p < .05). c Continuous Home-based Sequence and Continuous Center-based Care significantly differ (p < .05).

Language/Literacy and Mathematical Thinking. The child’s proficiency was rated on 28 items at kindergarten and 25 items at first grade using a 5-point scale (1 = not yet, 5 = proficient). The Total Skills Score was computed as the mean scores from all items (˛ = .96). Descriptive statistics for outcomes by child care sequence and age are displayed in Table 2. 6.3.4. Mediating variables Three measures of exposure to peers in child care, namely the proportion of time spent in center care, child–adult ratio, and group size, were examined as potential mediators between the sequence of child care type and children’s development. Mean values from 6 to 35 months represented peer exposure during the infant and toddler periods; mean values from 36 to 54 months represented peer exposure during the preschool period. Total numbers of adults and children (including sleeping children) in each child’s primary care arrangement were recorded by observers as part of the Observational Record of the Caregiving Environment (ORCE: NICHD ECCRN, 2002), explained in the covariates section. Child–adult ratios were calculated by dividing the total number of children by the total number of adults observed in the setting. Sequences of care included secondary and tertiary arrangements, whereas group size and child–adult ratio variables were gathered for children’s primary arrangements only. Thus, a child could be categorized as experiencing Continuous Center Care because he consistently attended center care, but at a given time point his primary arrangement could be homebased care. About 20% of children in the NICHD SECCYD experienced multiple, concurrent arrangements from 3 to 54 months (Morrissey, 2008); therefore, among the majority of children, the structural characteristics of the primary arrangement match the type of care given the sequence. Descriptive statistics for the peer exposure variables are displayed in Table 3. 6.3.5. Moderating variables Based on previous research, the moderating effects of child gender and temperament and mean family income from 6 to 54 months, described below in the covariates section, were tested. 6.3.6. Covariates A wealth of child, family, and child care characteristics were included as covariates. At the child’s birth, mothers reported their age, total number of completed years of education, and each focal child’s birth order, gender (0 = female, 1 = male), and

40

T.W. Morrissey / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 25 (2010) 33–50

Table 3 Peer exposure variables by sequence of child care type (N = 1349). Home-center sequence Mean child–adult ratio 6–35 monthsb, c Mean child–adult ratio 36–54 monthsa , b ,c Mean child–adult ratio 6–54 monthsa , b ,c Mean group size 6–35 monthsb, c Mean group size 36–54 monthsa , b ,c Mean group size 6–54 monthsa , b ,c N

2.68 (1.71) 5.22 (2.38) 4.00 (1.92) 2.75 (1.75) 9.12 (4.69) 6.07 (3.52) 628

Continuous home-based care 2.83 (1.71) 3.53 (2.19) 3.19 (1.81) 2.87 (1.79) 3.90 (2.85) 3.36 (2.07) 227

Continuous center care 3.48 (1.81) 6.00 (2.57) 4.59 (1.77) 5.68 (3.39) 12.28 (5.35) 8.57 (3.41) 494

Note: Standard deviations are displayed in parentheses. The sample size in each child care sequence represents sample size from imputation 1. a Home-Center Sequence and Continuous Home-based Care significantly differ (p < .05). b Home-Center Sequence and Continuous Center-based Care significantly differ (p < .05). c Continuous Home-based Sequence and Continuous Center-based Care significantly differ (p < .05).

ethnicity (0 = white, 1 = nonwhite). During the 1-month home visit, the Attitudes Toward Maternal Employment questionnaire (Greenberger, Goldberg, Crawford, & Granger, 1988) assessed mothers’ beliefs about the costs and benefits of maternal employment. A continuous composite variable was created by subtracting Costs scores from Benefits scores, so that high scores indicate positive beliefs about maternal employment. Also at 1 month, mothers’ childrearing attitudes were assessed using the 30-item Parental Modernity of Child-rearing and Educational Beliefs (Schaefer & Edgarton, 1985). Two subscales were calculated: Progressive Beliefs (attitudes favoring self-directed child behavior) and Traditional Beliefs (attitudes that child behavior should follow adult directives). A continuous composite variable was created by subtracting Progressive Beliefs scores from Traditional Beliefs scores, so that high scores indicate more traditional beliefs about childrearing. At 1 and 6 months, mothers rated their children’s temperament using the Early Infancy Temperament Questionnaire (EITQ: Medoff-Cooper, Carey, & McDevitt, 1993). The scores on all 55 items from the approach, activity, mood, intensity, and adaptability subscales were added to form a composite measure of difficulty. The mean of ratings at 1 and 6 months is used in this study. At each telephone interview, mothers reported the number of hours per week they worked outside the home, total family income, and their marital status, which was used to generate a dichotomous partner status variable (0 = motherheaded household, 1 = married or cohabitating household). The mean of mothers’ hours of employment per week from 1 to 54 months was controlled in regression models; if mothers were not employed at all from 1 to 54 months, this value was set to zero. Both mothers’ partner status at the outcome age and the proportion of time mothers were partnered from 1 to 54 months were included as covariates. At each time point, family income-to-needs ratios, an index of family resources, were computed as the ratio of mother-reported family income to the poverty threshold for each household size and number of children under 18 using data from the U.S. Census Bureau for the year the data were collected. The family income-to-needs ratio at the outcome age and the mean of ratios from 6 to 54 months were included as controls. Income-to-needs ratios at 1 month were not included in the mean because maternity leave often creates a temporary decrease in family income soon after the birth of a child. Two measures of the emotional and cognitive climate at home were included as covariates. The Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment scale (HOME: Caldwell & Bradley, 1984), administered during home visits when children were 6, 15, 36, and 54 months old, contains 57 items on 8 subscales: learning materials; language stimulation; physical environment; parental responsivity; learning stimulation; modeling of social maturity; variety in experience. Assessments of mothers’ sensitivity to their children’s needs were derived from videotaped mother-child interactions at 6, 15, 24, 36, and 54 months. Scores reflected mothers’ reactions to their children’s nondistress, intrusiveness (reversed), positive regard, supportive presence, hostility (reversed), and respect for autonomy. The mean of standardized scores from maternal sensitivity and HOME measures were used to create a parenting quality composite score at each age. Individual levels in parenting quality were computed as the intercepts from an unconditional hierarchal linear modeling (HLM) analysis of the five repeated measures. The intercept should be interpreted as the predicted parenting quality for that child at 27 months (the mean age). Also during home visits at 6, 15, 24, 36, and 54 months, mothers completed the 20-item My Feelings questionnaire, adapted from the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D: Radloff, 1977), to assess their depressive symptoms. As with parenting quality, child-specific intercepts of maternal depression were calculated using unconditional HLM analyses on repeated measures from 6 to 54 months of age. Descriptive statistics on child and family characteristics for each sequence of child care type are displayed in Table 4. Additionally, several measures of aggregate child care quantity, stability, and quality are included as covariates in regression models. First, the hours spent in nonparental settings were summed at each child care epoch and the mean hours in care were calculated for the 1–35 months and 36–54 month periods and entered as two separate covariates. Secondly, the age of entry into child care, specifically the age in months that mothers reported their children began attending one or more hour per week of nonmaternal care, was controlled. Thirdly, the proportion of the 17 epochs that the child spent in exclusive maternal care from 1 to 54 months of age was included as a covariate because the present study sought to compare sequences of nonparental child care, not comparisons of parental vs. nonparental care. Fourthly, the total number of hours children spent in nonparental afterschool care (including child care, extra-curricular activities, etc.) was gathered during phone interviews with mothers at kindergarten and first grade. This measure was set to zero at 54 months, as chil-

T.W. Morrissey / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 25 (2010) 33–50

41

Table 4 Child and family background characteristics for families using each sequence of child care type (N = 1349). Home-center sequence

Continuous home-based care

Continuous center care

Child characteristics % Male Temperament % Nonwhite Birth orderb, c

51.72% 3.26 (.44) 21.57% 1.87 (.95)

51.70% 3.25 (.44) 24.46% 1.96 (1.00)

51.60% 3.24 (.42) 26.15% 1.72 (.91)

Family characteristics Maternal education (in years)a , c Maternal age at birtha, c Maternal childrearing attitudesa , c Maternal attitudes toward employmentb, c Average family income-to-needs ratio 6–54 monthsa , c Proportion of time mother was partnered 6–54 monthsc Parenting quality intercept 1–54 monthsa , c Maternal depression intercept 1–54 months Mean hours per week mother worked 1–54 monthsb Family income-to-needs ratio at 54 monthsa , c Family income-to-needs ratio at kindergartena , c Family income-to-needs ratio at 1st gradea , c Mother was employed at 54 months Mother was employed at kindergarten Mother was employed at 1st grade Mother was partnered at 54 monthsb Mother was partnered at kindergartena , b Mother was partnered at 1st gradea , b Quality of child care intercept 1–54 monthsb, c

14.42 (2.42) 28.43 (5.46) 26.84 (16.52) .29 (7.07) 3.66 (2.85) .86 (.30) .02 (.67) 9.26 (5.76) 11.72 (13.49) 3.57 (3.50) 3.45 (2.89) 3.76 (2.98) 57.77% 57.87% 58.06% 77.14% 76.10% 73.92% 2.85 (.23)

13.26 (2.58) 26.72 (5.77) 32.47 (16.28) −.09 (7.29) 2.50 (1.90) .83 (.31) −.25 (.67) 9.73 (5.55) 13.54 (14.54) 2.58 (2.18) 2.39 (2.04) 2.56 (2.06) 58.69% 56.09% 57.89% 70.70% 66.76% 65.05% 2.83 (.24)

14.50 (2.49) 28.34 (5.71) 26.07 (17.22) 2.20 (6.88) 3.94 (3.06) .80 (.35) −.02 (.66) 9.38 (5.35) 15.84 (15.21) 3.86 (3.25) 3.73 (3.06) 4.08 (3.38) 62.60% 59.52% 62.89% 67.73% 65.89% 65.02% 2.75 (.22)

N

628

227

494

Note: Standard deviations are displayed in parentheses. The sample size in each child care sequence represents sample size from imputation 1. a Home-Center Sequence and Continuous Home-based Care significantly differ (p < .05). b Home-Center Sequence and Continuous Center-based Care significantly differ (p < .05). c Continuous Home-based Sequence and Continuous Center-based Care significantly differ (p < .05).

dren were not yet attending school and thus not attending afterschool programs. In addition, the total number of different nonmaternal care arrangements each child had experienced from 1 to 54 months of age, calculated using the total number of mother-reported starts in child care arrangements, was included to control for stability over time. The quality of the care arrangement in which children spent the most time, i.e., the primary arrangement, was assessed at five points before school entry (6, 15, 24, 36, and 54 months) using the ORCE (NICHD ECCRN, 2002). Unlike other measures of child care quality, the ORCE assesses the interactions and experiences of a single focal child in child care and can be used across different types of care. On separate days, observers completed four 44-min cycles at 6, 15, 24, and 36 months, and two cycles at 54 months. At 6, 15, 24, and 36 months, caregiver behavior was rated on five scales: sensitivity to the child’s nondistress, stimulation of the child’s cognitive development, positive regard for the child, emotional detachment (reversed), and flatness of affect (reversed); and four scales at 54 months: caregiver sensitivity, intrusiveness (reversed), detachment (reversed), and stimulation of cognitive development (˛ = .80–.90; see NICHD ECCRN, 2002, for a detailed description). In this study, total child care quality scores at each age were calculated as the mean of individual ratings on each scale. Scores ranged from 1 to 4, with higher scores indicating higher quality. Individual measures of the level of quality were estimated as the mean quality ratings from 6 to 35 months and from 36 to 54 months. Descriptive statistics on child care variables are presented above in Tables 1 and 4. 6.4. Analytic strategy Because most child care research does not involve randomly assigning children to different care arrangements, it is important to account for potential selection bias. With its multitude of measures and large sample size, the NICHD SECCYD lends itself to a multiple regression approach. Consistent with recommendations (Duncan & Gibson, 2006; Lamb, 1998), a wealth of empirically and theoretically relevant child, family, and child care characteristics were included as covariates in regression models to account for family selection of child care. Ideally, assessments of child outcomes prior to the “treatment,” in this case the sequence of child care type from 1 to 54 months of age, would be used to adjust for pre-existing cognitive and behavioral differences. Unfortunately, no assessments of child cognitive and social-emotional outcomes were conducted prior to 15 months. However, the EITQ, explained above, gathered mothers’ reports of their children’s activity, approach, mood, and intensity during infancy; thus, the mean ratings at 1 and 6 months were included as a pretreatment control in regression models. The inclusion of child, child care, and family covariates in multiple regression models produce relatively conservative estimates, but do not eliminate the possibility of omitted variable bias, and therefore, results should be interpreted with some caution.

42

T.W. Morrissey / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 25 (2010) 33–50

This study employed multiple regression techniques using Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) to examine the associations between sequence of child care type and children’s social-emotional and cognitive outcomes in four steps. In Model 1, differences between the three sequences of child care type and child outcomes were examined. In Model 2, the total proportion of time in center care from 1 to 54 months of age was added as a predictor to examine whether cumulative experience in center care, rather than the timing of the experience, affects child outcomes (A zero for total time in center care was entered for children in the Continuous Home-based Care sequence.) In Models 3 and 4, the mediating effects of the two measures of peer exposure, adult–child ratio and group size, respectively, were included as predictors. Finally, the moderating effects of child gender, temperament, and family income status were tested using interactions between these three variables and dummy coded variables for Continuous Center Care and Continuous Home-based Care (e.g., Baron & Kenny, 1986). These steps are repeated for social-emotional and cognitive outcomes. Random intercepts and slopes were used to account for repeated measures for the 3 time points for social-emotional outcomes; random intercepts only were used for the cognitive outcomes, as they were assessed at two time points. Child age was controlled, and interactions between sequence and care and age were included to investigate differences in the effects of sequence over time. All outcome and predictor variables were centered at the age mean to limit multicollinearity. Data collection site was controlled in each model as dummy variables, but site differences were not explored. Effect sizes (d), computed by dividing the coefficient by the outcome variable’s standard deviation, are reported. 7. Results 7.1. Descriptive results As shown above in Table 4, there was significant and substantial differences between the children who experienced different child care sequences. Children who attended Continuous Center Care tended to be higher in their families’ birth order and had mothers who held more positive views toward maternal employment and who worked longer averages than those in the other two sequences. In addition, they systematically experienced lower quality child care than the children who followed a Home-Center Sequence. In contrast, children who experienced Continuous Home-based Care experienced lower average family income and parenting quality, and had younger mothers with less education and more traditional child-rearing attitudes, than the children who had transitioned from home-based to center care during the preschool years. 7.2. Social-emotional outcomes Results, displayed in Table 5, indicate that, after controlling for child, family, and child care background characteristics, child care sequence was largely unrelated to mother-reported behavioral and social-emotional outcomes at 54 months, kindergarten, and first grade. Child–adult ratio and group size were also unassociated with maternal reports. By contrast, as shown in Table 6, children who experienced Continuous Center Care displayed more caregiver- or teacherreported internalizing and externalizing problems compared to those in the Home-Center Sequence group. The significant interaction between Continuous Center Care and age for externalizing problems suggests that the experience of sustained center care becomes less predictive of increased behavioral problems as children age. Similarly, both children who experienced Continuous Center Care and Continuous Home-based Care exhibited more teacher-reported externalizing problems than those in the Home-Center Sequence group, and once again, the effect of sequence of care on behavior problems decreased as children aged. By contrast, children who experienced Continuous Home-based Care were rated by their caregivers and teachers as significantly more popular than those who experienced a Home-Center Sequence. This effect weakened as children aged. There was no evidence that the total proportion of time in center care or child–adult ratio mediated these relationships. However, there was some evidence that group size during the preschool period partially mediated the effect of Continuous Home-based Care on children’s peer status; with group size in the model, the coefficient for the effect of Continuous Home-based Care decreased slightly, whereas the effect of mean group size from 36 to 54 months remained the same. A Sobel test indicated that the indirect effect of Continuous Home-based Care on peer status via group size during the preschool period was significant (test statistic = −2.67, p = .007). Tests of moderation indicated that child gender, temperament, or mean family income from 6 to 54 months did not moderate the relationship between child care sequence and any of the measures of children’s social-emotional outcomes. 7.3. Cognitive outcomes Findings suggest that, in general, children who experienced Continuous Home-based Care scored lower than those who experienced a Home-Center Sequence on standardized cognitive outcomes at 54 months and first grade (d = −.61) and exhibited marginally lower teacher ratings of their academic skills at kindergarten and first grade (d = −.62). Results are displayed in Table 7. In contrast to the social-emotional outcome results, the interactions between Continuous Home-based Care and age suggest that the experience of sustained home-based care becomes more important to cognitive outcomes as children grew older. There was no evidence that the total proportion of time spent in center care, child–adult ratio, or group size mediated the effect of Continuous Home-based Care on children’s standardized cognitive scores or teachers’ ratings of children’s academic

Table 5 Multilevel regression results predicting mother-reported social-emotional outcomes at 54 months, kindergarten, and 1st grade from sequence of child care type (N = 1349). Predictor

Internalizing problems

Home-center sequence (reference) Continuous home-based care Continuous center care Continuous home-based care × Age in years Continuous center care × Age in years Mediators Proportion of time in center care Child adult ratio 6–36 months Child–adult ratio 36–54 months Group size 6–35 months Group size 36–54 months Constant X2

.06 (1.72) .88 (1.35) −.06 (.30) −.21 (.24)

Model 2 B (SE) .02 (1.72) .99 (1.40) −.06 (.30) −.21 (.24)

Externalizing problems Model 3 B (SE) −.45 (1.87) .45 (1.41) −.04 (.33) −.09 (.25)

Model 4 B (SE) −1.46 (1.96) −.88 (1.49) .07 (.34) .08 (.26)

Model 1 B (SE) −.43 (1.60) 2.51 (1.26) −.04 (.28) −.48* (.22)

−.42 (1.30)

Model 2 B (SE) −.30 (1.61) 2.17 (1.33) −.04 (.28) −.48* (.22)

285.08***

−2.81* (1.27) 285.19***

−1.14 (1.71) 1.56 (1.30) .08 (.30) −.31 (.23)

Model 4 B (SE) −1.34 (1.72) 1.71 (1.32) .08 (.31) −.31 (.23)

1.19 (1.45) −.06 (.14) .11 (.10)

.04 (.13) −.16† (.09)

−2.90* (1.25)

Model 3 B (SE)

8.46*** (1.27) 258.68***

−.01 (.09) −.05 (.05) .16 (1.38) 310.49***

8.46*** (1.27) 476.46***

8.20*** (1.30) 477.29***

9.66*** (1.38) 449.07***

−.03 (.10) −.01 (.05) 9.63*** (1.38) 47.82***

Note: Regressions included random intercepts and slopes using the xtmixed procedure in STATA. The sample size of 1349 represents the maximum number of children across the 5 imputed datasets. The Home-Center Sequence served as the reference category. All predictors and outcomes were centered at the mean at each age. Covariates include: child age (in years), gender, race, temperament, birth order, maternal education, mother’s age at child’s birth, maternal attitudes toward childrearing and employment, mean hours per week mother worked from 1 to 54 months, proportion of time mother was partnered from 6 to 54 months, mother’s current partner and employment status, mean family income-to-needs ratio from 6 to 54 months, current income-to-needs ratio, maternal depression intercept from 6 to 54 months, parenting quality intercept from 6 to 54 months, age child began 1 or more hours of child care, mean hours in nonparental care from 1 to 35 months and 36 to 54 months, mean quality of nonparental child care from 1 to 35 months and 36 to 54 months, proportion of time in exclusive maternal care from 1 to 54 months, the total number of different child care arrangements from 1 to 54 months, the number of hours per week of afterschool care (set to zero at 54 months), and data collection site was controlled (not shown). † p < .10. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

T.W. Morrissey / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 25 (2010) 33–50

Model 1 B (SE)

43

44

Table 6 Multilevel regression results predicting caregiver- and teacher-reported social-emotional outcomes at 54 months, kindergarten, and 1st grade from sequence of child care type (N = 1349). Predictor

Internalizing problems

Home-center sequence (reference) Continuous −1.03 (3.55) home-based care Continuous center 6.43* (2.57) care .06 (.34) Continuous home-based care × Age in years Continuous center −1.07* (.47) care × Age in years Mediators Proportion of time in center care Child–adult ratio 6–36 months Child–adult ratio 36–54 months Group size 6–35 months Group size 36–54 months Constant −2.87 (2.26)

Externalizing problems

Model 2 B (SE)

Model 3 B (SE)

Model 4 B (SE)

−1.04 (3.58)

−1.18 (3.40)

−1.19 (3.39)

6.45* (2.57)

6.75* (2.61)

6.74* (2.65)

.07 (.34)

.02 (.62)

.02 (.62)

−1.07* (.46)

−1.12* (.47)

−1.13* (.47)

Model 1 B (SE)

Peer status Model 3 B (SE)

Model 4 B (SE)

Model 1 B (SE)

Model 2 B (SE)

Model 3 B (SE)

Model 4 B (SE) 3.35* (1.33)

5.55** (2.14)

5.32† (2.62)

5.02† (2.90)

5.24† (2.88)

3.93* (1.44)

3.87* (1.43)

3.56* (1.35)

5.40** (1.67)

5.09** (1.83)

5.34* (1.92)

5.08* (1.96)

.58 (.89)

.74 (.86)

.95 (.86)

1.08 (.84)

−.94* (.39)

−.87† (.50)

−.92† (.53)

−.92† (.53)

−.59* (.24)

−.59* (.24)

−.52* (.23)

−.52* (.23)

−.75* (.30)

−.82* (.32)

−.76* (.34)

−.76* (.34)

−.15 (.16)

−.15 (.16)

−.21 (.16)

−.21 (.16)

−.07 (1.23)

−2.85 (2.30)

Model 2 B (SE)

1.99 (1.41)

.58 (.46)

.03 (.16)

.01 (.08)

−.05 (.13)

−.03 (.03)

−2.88 (2.15)

.02 (.12)

.05 (.16)

.01 (.05)

−.02 (.06)

.03 (.06)

−.05* (.02)

−2.89 (2.15)

−1.05 (1.38)

−3.29 (1.98)

−1.93 (1.97)

−1.95 (1.94)

.87 (.69)

.99 (.69)

.35 (.70)

.34 (.69)

Note: Regressions included random intercepts and slopes using the xtmixed procedure in STATA. The sample size of 1349 represents the maximum number of children across the 5 imputed datasets. The Home-Center Sequence served as the reference category. All predictors and outcomes were centered at the mean at each age. The covariates described in the text were controlled (not shown). † p < .10. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

T.W. Morrissey / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 25 (2010) 33–50

Model 1 B (SE)

Table 7 Random-intercept regression results predicting cognitive outcomes at 54 months, kindergarten, and 1st grade from sequence of child care type (N = 1349). 54 months and 1st grade Standardized mean of cognitive Model 1 B (SE) Home-center sequence (reference) Continuous home-based care Continuous center care Continuous home-based care × Age in years Continuous center care × Age in years Mediators Proportion of time in center care Child–adult ratio 6–36 months Child–adult ratio 36–54 months Group size 6–35 months Group size 36–54 months Constant

−7.99** (2.39) −.23 (1.62) 1.49** (.41) .12 (.27)

Kindergarten and 1st grade outcomesa

Model 2 B (SE) −7.76** (2.43) −.82 (1.64) 1.50** (.41) .12 (.27)

Academic skills totala

Model 3 B (SE) −6.26* (2.50) .06 (1.70) 1.26** (.42) .07 (.27)

Model 4 B (SE) −6.45* (2.54) .01 (1.72) 1.26** (.42) .07 (.27)

Model 1 B (SE)

Model 2 B (SE)

Model 3 B (SE)

Model 4 B (SE)

−.58† (.30) .12 (.31) .12* (.05) −.005 (.004)

−.57† (.30) .09 (.30) .12* (.05) −.004 (.05)

−.64* (.31) .13 (.31) .13* (.05) −.005 (.05)

−.68* (.32) .15 (.31) .13* (.05) −.005 (.05)

2.10 (1.83)

.09 (.15) −.01 (.19) .20 (.12)

−16.87*** (1.86)

−17.30*** (1.86)

−17.97*** (2.01)

.01 (.01) .004 (.01) .05 (.13) .03 (.07) −17.98*** (2.03)

−.92** (.19)

−.94*** (.19)

−.96*** (.20)

.004 (.01) −.01 (.01) −.95*** (.20)

Note: Regressions included random intercepts and slopes using the xtmixed procedure in STATA. The sample size of 1349 represents the maximum number of children across the 5 imputed datasets. The Home-Center Sequence served as the reference category. All predictors and outcomes were centered at the mean at each age. The covariates described in the text were controlled (not shown). † p < .10. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

T.W. Morrissey / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 25 (2010) 33–50

Predictor

45

46

T.W. Morrissey / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 25 (2010) 33–50

skills. As with the social-emotional results, child gender, temperament, or mean family income from 6 to 54 months did not moderate the relationship between child care sequence and children’s cognitive outcomes. 7.4. Post hoc analyses It is possible that for differences in social-emotional and cognitive outcomes to emerge across sequences of care, sequences must reflect a minimum level of exposure to care, particularly center care. To test this, the Home-Center Sequence and Continuous Center Care sequences were limited to include children who had experienced at least an average of 5 h per week of center-based care between 36 and 54 months of age, and main effects analyses were conducted using these more limited criteria of sequences. The more restrictive criteria substantially reduced the number of children in the Home-Center Sequence (from 628 to 100, imputation 1) and slightly reduced the number in Continuous Center Care (from 494 to 419), which resulted in a much smaller total analysis sample (N = 639). Results changed slightly using the more restricted definitions of sequence of care. First, using the minimum level of exposure to center-based care, there were no significant differences between sequences in mother-reported externalizing behaviors; however, children experiencing Continuous Center Care exhibited marginally more caregiver-reported internalizing behaviors than those following a Home-Center Sequence. There were no significant differences in cognitive outcomes across sequences. These findings may indicate that there are few differences in the outcomes of children following the various child care sequences; however, the lack of significant findings may also be due to the small analysis size resulting from the more restrictive criteria for sequence. This point is consistent with the findings of the NICHD ECCRN (2004), which emphasized the general lack of pure or progressive patterning in children’s child care arrangements over time. Together, findings provide limited support to the hypothesis that the experience of home-based care during the infant–toddler periods and center care during the preschool period may produce the cognitive benefits of center care, while offsetting the increased behavior problems associated with sustained center care. However, sustained experience in home-based care was associated with higher peer status, which was partially accounted for by smaller group sizes present in nonparental home-based settings during the preschool period. These effects were not moderated by certain child and family characteristics. 8. Discussion Over the first 5 years of life, there is a gradual shift from home- to center-based child care (NICHD ECCRN, 2004). Previous research offers some evidence that the small groups characteristic of home-based care may better meet the developmental needs of infants and toddlers, whereas the larger peer groups typical of center care may be more developmentally appropriate for preschool-age children (e.g., Dowsett et al., 2008; Loeb et al., 2004, 2007). The present study tested (1) whether the timing or cumulative experience of center care predicts children’s school readiness, (2) whether peer exposure mediates the relationships between child care type and child outcomes, and (3) if these associations vary with child and family characteristics. In general, findings suggest that children who experience home-based care during the infant–toddler years and center care during the preschool period display the improved cognitive outcomes that are generally associated with center care attendance; however, these children do not display the higher rates of behavior problems also associated with sustained center care. These patterns of association do not vary with child gender, temperament, or family income. Nevertheless, findings should be interpreted with caution. Like previous research (e.g., NICHD ECCRN, 2006), family characteristics and child care quality were consistently more important predictors of school readiness than child care type. Child temperament, parenting quality, and maternal depression and education were consistently more predictive of social-emotional and cognitive outcomes than child care sequence. With these points in mind, several findings and implications regarding the amount and timing of child care type and peer exposure can be extracted. 8.1. A home-based to center care sequence: a trade-off between behavior problems, peer status, and cognitive development? The findings from this study are consistent with previous research (e.g., Loeb et al., 2007; Magnuson et al., 2007), which suggests that more time in center-based settings is associated with benefits for cognitive competence but also with small increases in externalizing behaviors. However, unlike prior studies, this study provided limited evidence that it may be the developmental timing of center care attendance during the infant–toddler period or the sustained experience of center care that contributes to behavior problems. Consistent with the original hypothesis, it appears that children who begin center care during the preschool years (3–5 years of age), after attending home-based settings prior, demonstrate similar cognitive benefits but do not experience the same behavioral problems that have been associated with sustained center attendance. Although children who followed a home-center sequence prior to kindergarten exhibited similar levels of motherreported externalizing behaviors as those who had experienced continuous home-based care, children who never attended centers were rated by their caregivers and teachers as displaying fewer externalizing problems and as being more popular among their peers. In particular, children who attended home-based care settings with small peer groups during the preschool years displayed higher social status during the early elementary school years. Repeated encounters with many different peers during the day may contribute to young children’s stress and withdrawal as a result of little or no alone time to develop emotional regulation skills (Ahnert & Lamb, 2003; Watamura et al., 2003). The surprising importance of group size

T.W. Morrissey / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 25 (2010) 33–50

47

during the preschool years, as opposed to the infant and toddler period, may be the result of increased stress from high levels of social interactions. In general, younger children display more physiological stress in child care than preschoolers (Vermeer & van IJzendoorn, 2006), and the toddler years in particular may be a peak period for rising stress-sensitive hormone levels at center-based care (Watamura et al., 2003). Researchers speculate that the nonlinear relationship between age and cortisol increases results from the onset of friendships and peer play during the toddler period. Peer play in child care is linearly associated with child age; whereas very little peer play occurs during the infant period, toddlers spend more time engaged in social interactions (Watamura et al., 2003). Furthermore, peer play changes qualitatively as a function of group size, generally becoming more aggressive as size increases (Fabes, Hanish, & Martin, 2003). Toddlers and preschoolers in particular may react to the continuous exposure to large groups of peers by withdrawing or by investing in a few, closer relationships. Furthermore, the affective quality of peer interactions in child care has been found to be important to children’s later social competence (NICHD ECCRN, 2008); future investigations examining the intricacies of social interactions and opportunities for private time may reveal more nuanced associations between peer exposure, behavior, and social status. It is interesting to note that the number of adults in the care setting, as measured by child–adult ratio, did not mitigate the effects of the total number of children in the room. Alternatively, behavior problems may be brought on by transitions throughout the day. A large proportion of children, particularly preschool-age children, attend more than one child care setting during a single day or week (Morrissey, 2008), and previous research has linked greater numbers of concurrent child care arrangements with more behavioral problems (Morrissey, 2009). In turn, many children in this sample who attended center settings attended multiple center settings as well as addition nonparental home-based child care arrangements; it is possible that it is the transitions among arrangements, rather than the experience of center care itself, that influences children’s behavior. It is important to note that sequence of care was unrelated to mothers’ ratings of their children’s behavior, which may indicate that behavioral effects are present in nonparental settings only. Results provide some evidence that care in smaller groups during the preschool years, such as those found in homebased settings, may prepare children for forming positive peer relationships in early elementary school. Alternatively, it may be that more socially adept children are selected into home-based care and small peer groups. Because of the correlational nature of the study and the significant differences in child and family characteristics, the causal direction (i.e., child care type and peer group affecting social behavior vs. social behavior affecting child care type and peer group) is unclear. Another possibility is that child care settings with smaller peer groups have more resources available than those with larger class sizes. Group size and child–adult ratios were significantly correlated with observed child care quality; the association between social behavior and peer group size may be an artifact of another aspect of quality that was not included in analyses. Additional research is needed to determine both the direction of causality, as well as to isolate the particular mechanisms and important variables underlying the relationship between peer exposure and children’s social-emotional development. Surprisingly, these patterns of association between sequence of child care type and school readiness were apparent across child and family characteristics. In contrast to previous research (e.g., Loeb et al., 2007; Votruba-Drzal et al., 2004), children from low-income families did not exhibit greater benefits, particularly within cognitive development, from center care attendance than those from middle- and high-income families. However, other studies focused on low-income populations only, and examined cumulative experiences in center care as opposed to the developmental sequence of child care. Alternatively, the effects of center care have been found to be sensitive to the definition of income status (Loeb et al., 2007). Very low-income children (income-to-needs ratios less than .5) have been found to reap the most benefits from center attendance (Loeb et al., 2007); the NICHD SECCYD sample may not have enough very low-income children to explore this sensitivity. The impacts of child care sequence on low-income children’s development warrants further exploration, particularly in light of recent increases in publicly supported prekindergarten programs for low-income children (e.g., Barnett, Hustedt, Friedman, Boyd, & Ainsworth, 2007) and that child care subsidy receipt increases the likelihood of using center-based care for children at all ages (Crosby, Gennetian, & Huston, 2005). 8.2. Implications for policy and practice Together, findings provide limited evidence that children who attend home-based child care, including both regulated family child care and informal arrangements with relatives and neighbors, as infants, and center-based arrangements, including prekindergarten and child care centers, as preschoolers may be striking a balance between social-emotional and cognitive outcomes. Whereas exposure to the larger peer groups typical of center care may enhance language skills and provides examples that support cognitive competence, large peer groups present challenges to behavior and the formation of social skills among infants and toddlers. Alternatively, the parents of children may purposefully enroll those with greater language skills and those with poorer social skills in large peer group settings to support their language development or to expose them to peers in the hopes of improving their social behaviors. These findings mirror family preferences and overall patterns of use for their children’s child care, and, if replicated by other studies that can provide greater evidence for causality, have implications for policy. Greater investment in high-quality home-based programs for infants and toddlers, such as Early Head Start’s family child care model, and increased investment in early childhood program staff could be used to create smaller groups in child care centers for children of all ages, as a growing body of research has demonstrated the importance of lower child–adult ratios for cognitive and social development

48

T.W. Morrissey / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 25 (2010) 33–50

(e.g., De Schipper et al., 2006). Secondly, it is possible that across both home- and center-based child care settings, more time could be devoted to helping children effectively manage peer interactions, incorporating curricula demonstrated to improve self-regulation (Barnett et al., 2008). 8.3. Limitations and future research This study used a large-scale, longitudinal dataset to explore how the amount and timing of child care experiences affect children’s subsequent development; however, several limitations must be noted. First, while unique in its comprehensiveness, the NICHD SECCYD is not nationally representative. Although multiple imputation was used to limit bias from attrition and missing data, which were more common among minority and low-income families, the income differences identified in this study may not be replicated in studies including larger proportions or different definitions of low-income families. Furthermore, racial and ethnic differences in the effects of center care have been identified (e.g., Loeb et al., 2007), but the NICHD SECCYD sample did not allow for the comparisons of child care patterns across minority groups or immigrant children. Secondly, geographic variations in child care supply, important to families’ child care choices (Gordon & Chase-Lansdale, 2001), were not taken into account. Thirdly, categorizing children’s child care experiences into generalized, a priori sequences of child care type is only one method for examining child care patterns. Longitudinal cluster analysis techniques, also known as person-oriented techniques (e.g., Bergman, Magnusson, & Khouri, 2003), may identify different patterns of child care over time. Fourthly, although multiple measures of child development were included, discrepant findings between ratings suggest potential reporter biases (e.g., Cai, Kaiser, & Hancock, 2004). Behavioral ratings gathered from stressed teachers in large classes may be particularly susceptible to bias. Furthermore, only teacher-reported peer status was assessed; future research that gathers sociometric status measures from children in the classroom could corroborate or conflict with teachers’ ratings. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, potential selection bias is an important drawback to this study. Parents make child care decisions based on numerous family, cultural, economic, and geographic characteristics, and many of these characteristics are related to children’s development. Despite the wealth of theoretically and empirically derived child, family, and child care covariates included in analyses, given the substantial differences in family characteristics among the groups, including the covariates likely does not adequately address family selection bias. Because centers and prekindergarten programs are considered “normative” for preschool-age children, children in home-based care at this age may be a selective group of children. Furthermore, the center-based settings attended by infants and those attended by preschoolers vary widely in structure and content; only general measures of structural quality were included in these analyses, which could mask important differences across the centers designed specific age groups (e.g., prekindergarten) and those designed to serve young children of all ages. However, while alternative statistical techniques could be used to further limit potential omitted variable bias, previous research has found that multiple regression, instrumental variables, and propensity score analyses provide similar results regarding the timing and intensity of center care (Loeb et al., 2007). Moreover, this study identified several important child and family characteristics that are associated with different child care patterns. The majority of the child care choice and selection literature has examined the choice of a single care arrangement at a single point in time or cumulative experiences over a period of time; by examining patterns of child care use over time, and how families’ child care choices change with respect to children’s developmental stage and their prior child care arrangements, this study extends the literature on child care choice. 9. Conclusion There does not appear to be a single type or sequence of child care that is “optimal” for children’s development; rather, effects vary across behavioral, cognitive, and social domains. This study provides some evidence that children who experience nonparental home-based settings during the infant–toddler period and center-based settings after age three exhibit a more positive combination of cognitive and behavioral competence than those in continuous center-based care and those who never attend center care. However, results also indicate that children who experience in small groups, such as those in homebased settings, during the preschool period display better social skills than those who attend large-group care. Additional research that examines peer exposure along with other potential mediating factors underlying the child care type-child development relationship can enhance our understanding of how environmental contexts can be better designed to balance cognitive, behavioral, and social aspects of school readiness. Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Rachel Dunifon, Mildred Warner, Moncrieff Cochran, the HD writing group, and anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper. This research was supported by grant #90YE0089 from the Child Care Bureau, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and a dissertation grant from the Cornell University College of Human Ecology. The contents are solely the responsibility of the author and do not represent the official views of the funding agency, nor does publication in any way constitute an endorsement by the funding agency.

T.W. Morrissey / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 25 (2010) 33–50

49

References Achenbach, T. M. (1991a). Manual for the child behavior checklist/4–18 and profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry. Achenbach, T. M. (1991b). Manual for the teacher report form and profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry. Ahnert, L., & Lamb, M. E. (2003). Shared care: Establishing a balance between home and child care settings. Child Development, 74, 1044–1049. Allison, P. D. (2002). Missing data. Series: Quantitative applications in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage University Press. Barnett, W. S., Hustedt, J. T., Friedman, A. H., Boyd, J. S., & Ainsworth, P. (2007). The state of preschool 2007. New Brunswick, NJ: The National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University. Barnett, W. S., Jung, K., Yarosz, D. J., Thomas, J., Hornback, A., Stechuk, R., et al. (2008). Educational effects of the tools of the mind curriculum: A randomized trial. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 219–313. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. Belsky, J., Vandell, D. L., Burchinal, M., Clarke-Stewart, K. A., McCartney, K., Owen, M. T., & the NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2007). Are there long-term effects of early child care? Child Development, 78, 681–701. Bergman, L., Magnusson, D., & Khouri, B. (2003). Studying individual development in an interindividual context: A person-oriented approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development. New York: Wiley. Cai, X., Kaiser, A. P., & Hancock, T. A. (2004). Parent and teacher agreement on Child Behavior Checklist items in a sample of preschoolers from low-income and predominantly African-American families. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 303–312. Caldwell, B., & Bradley, R. (1984). Home observation for measurement of the environment. Little Rock, AR: University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Capizzano, J., & Adams, G. (2000). The number of child care arrangements used by children under five: Variation across states. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Capizzano, J., Adams, G., & Sonenstein, F. (2000). Child care arrangements for children under five: Variation across states. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Clarke-Stewart, K. A., Gruber, C. P., & Fitzgerald, L. M. (1994). Children at home and in day care. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Crockenberg, S. (2003). Rescuing the baby from the bathwater: How gender and temperament (may) influence how child care affects child development. Child Development, 74, 519–536. Crosby, D., Gennetian, L., & Huston, A. (2005). Child care assistance policies can affect the use of center-based care for children in low-income families. Applied Developmental Science, 9, 86–106. Dearing, E., McCartney, K., & Taylor, B. A. (2006). Within-child associations between income and externalizing and internalizing problems. Developmental Psychology, 46, 237–252. De Schipper, E. J., Riksen-Walraven, J. M., & Geurts, S. A. E. (2006). Effects of child–caregiver ratio on the interactions between caregivers and children in child care centers: An experimental study. Child Development, 77, 861–874. Deynoot-Schaub, M. J. G., & Riksen-Walraven, J. M. (2006). Peer contacts of 15-month-old in child care: Links with child temperament, parent–child interaction and quality of child care. Social Development, 15, 709–729. Dowsett, C. J., Huston, A. C., Imes, A. E., & Gennetian, L. (2008). Structural and process features in three types of child care for children from high and low income families. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 69–93. Duncan, G. J., & Gibson, C. M. (2006). Childcare quality and child outcomes: Drawing policy lessons from nonexperimental data. American Journal of Evaluation, 30, 611–630. Duncan, G. J., Magnuson, K. A., & Ludwig, J. (2004). The endogeneity problem in developmental studies. Research in Human Development, 1, 59–80. ECLS-K Base Year Public Use Data Files and Electronic Codebook (2002). Available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/. Fabes, R. A., Hanish, L. D., & Martin, C. L. (2003). Children at play: The role of peers in understanding the effects of child care. Child Development, 74, 1039–1043. Fuller, B., Kagan, S. L., Loeb, S., & Chang, Y. (2004). Child care quality: Centers and home settings that serve poor families. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 505–527. Gable, S., & Cole. (2000). Parents’ child care arrangements and their ecological correlates. Early Education and Development, 11, 549–572. Gordon, R. A., & Chase-Lansdale, P. L. (2001). Availability of child care in the United States: A description and analysis of data sources. Demography, 38, 299–316. Greenberger, E., Goldberg, W. A., Crawford, T. J., & Granger, J. (1988). Beliefs about the consequences of maternal employment for children. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 12, 35–59. Howes, C., & Phillipsen, L. (1998). Continuity in children’s play with peers. Social Development, 7, 340–349. Huston, A., Chang, Y., & Gennetian, L. (2002). Family and individual predictors of child care use by low-income families in different policy contexts. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17, 441–469. Johnson, J. O. (2005). Who’s minding the kids? Child care arrangements: Winter 2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Kisker, E. E., Hofferth, S. L., Phillips, D. A., & Farquahar, E. (1991). A profile of child care settings: Early education and care in 1990. Report prepared for the U.S. Department of Education. Kontos, S., Howes, C., Shinn, M., & Galinsky, E. (1995). Quality in family child care and relative care. New York: Teachers College Press. Kontos, S., Hsu, H., & Dunn, L. (1994). Children’s cognitive and social competence in child care centers and family day care homes. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 15, 387–411. Ladd, G. W. (1983). Social networks of popular, average, and rejected children in school settings. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 283–307. Lamb, M. E. (1998). Nonparental child care: Context, quality, correlates and consequences. In W. Damon, I. Siegel, & A. Renninger’s (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Child psychology in practice (5th ed., pp. 73–134). New York: Wiley & Sons. Langlois, J. H., & Liben, L. S. (2003). Child care research: An editorial perspective. Child Development, 74, 969–975. Layzer, J. I., & Goodson, B. D. (June 2003). Care in the home: A description of family child care and the experiences of the families and children that use it. National Study of Child Care for Low-Income Families, Wave I Report. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates. Li-Grining, C. P., & Coley, R. L. (2006). Child care experiences in low-income communities: Developmental quality and maternal views. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 125–141. Loeb, S., Bridges, M., Bassok, D., Fuller, B., & Rumberger, R. W. (2007). How much is too much? The influence of preschool centers on children’s social and cognitive development. Economics of Education Review, 26, 52–66. Loeb, S., Fuller, B., Kagan, S. L., & Bidemi, C. (2004). Child care in poor communities: Early learning effects of type, quality, and stability. Child Development, 75, 47–65. Maccoby, E. E., & Lewis, C. C. (2003). Less day care or different day care? Child Development, 74, 1069–1075. Magnuson, K. A., Ruhm, C., & Waldfogel, J. (2007). Does prekindergarten improve school preparation and performance? Economics of Education Review, 26, 33–51. Medoff-Cooper, B., Carey, W. B., & McDevitt, S. (1993). The early infancy temperament questionnaire. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 14, 230–235. Morrissey, T. W. (2007). Family child care in the United States. Prepared for child care & early education research connections. New York, NY: National Center for Children in Poverty, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University. Morrissey, T. W. (2008). Familial factors associated with the use of multiple child-care arrangements. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 549–563.

50

T.W. Morrissey / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 25 (2010) 33–50

Morrissey, T. W. (2009). Multiple child care arrangements and young children’s behavioral outcomes. Child Development, 80, 59–76. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (1997). Familial factors associated with the characteristics of non-maternal care for infants. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 389–408. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (1999). Child outcomes when child care center classes meet recommended standards for quality. American Journal of Public Health, 89, 1072–1077. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2000). Characteristics and quality of child care for toddlers and preschoolers. Applied Developmental Science, 4, 116–135. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2002). Direct and indirect influences of child care quality on young children’s development. Psychological Science, 13, 199–206. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2004). Type of child care and children’s development at 54 months. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 203–230. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2006). Child care effect sizes for the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development. American Psychologist, 61, 99–116. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2008). Social competence with peers in third grade: Associations with earlier peer experiences at child care. Social Development, 17, 419–453. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, & Duncan, G. J. (2003). Modeling the impacts of child care quality on children’s preschool cognitive development. Child Development, 74, 1454–1475. Pence, A., & Goelman, H. (1987). Who cares for the children in day care? An examination of caregivers from three types of care. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 2, 315–334. Phillips, D., & Adams, G. (2001). Child care and our youngest children. The Future of Children, 11, 34–51. Radloff, L. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–410. Rappolt-Schlictmann, G. (2007). Poverty, relationship conflict, and the regulation of cortisol in small and large group contexts at childcare, unpublished dissertation. Schaefer, E., & Edgarton, M. (1985). Parental and child correlates of parental modernity. In I. E. Sigel (Ed.), Parental belief systems: The psychological consequences for children (pp. 287–318). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Committee on Integrating the Science of Early Childhood Development, Board on Children, Youth, and Families. (2000). In J. P. Shonkoff, & D. A. Phillips (Eds.), From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood programs. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and development. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Vermeer, H. J., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2006). Children’s elevated cortisol levels at child care: A review and meta-analysis. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 390–401. Votruba-Drzal, E., Coley, R. L., & Chase-Lansdale, P. L. (2004). Child care quality and low-income children’s development: For who is child care most important? Child Development, 75, 296–312. Watamura, S. E., Donzella, B., Alwin, J., & Gunnar, M. R. (2003). Morning-to-afternoon increases in cortisol concentrations for infants and toddlers at child care: Age differences and behavioral correlates. Child Development, 74, 1006–1020. Winsler, A., Tran, H., Hartman, S., Madigan, A., Manfra, L., & Bleiker, C. (2008). School readiness gains made my ethnically diverse children in poverty attending center-based child care and public school pre-kindergarten programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 314–329. Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1989). Woodcock-Johnson psycho-educational battery-revised. Allen, TX: DLM. Zimmerman, I. L., Steiner, V. G., & Pond, R. E. (1979). The preschool language scale. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.