Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
V. EARLY HEAD START PROGRAMS’ OVERALL IMPACTS ON CHILDREN’S DEVELOPMENT, PARENTING, AND FAMILY WELL-BEING
This chapter presents findings from our analysis of the overall impacts of 17 Early Head Start programs on the children and families they served. The chapter begins with a brief discussion of the various ways in which Early Head Start programs work with parents and children and suggests why these programmatic strategies can be expected to have positive influences on children’s development, parenting behaviors and attitudes, and other aspects of child and family well-being. In some cases, the different program approaches implemented by Early Head Start programs, as discussed in Chapter I, are expected to have different patterns of impacts. Those differences, as well as differences in impacts related to patterns of program implementation, are presented in Chapter VI. In Chapter VII, we explore how children and parents who entered the program with different characteristics fared. First, however, this chapter focuses on the overall impacts—the ways in which Early Head Start programs, on average, were found to make a difference in the lives of the families they have served during the first three years of the children’s lives.
In developing hypotheses to guide our analysis and interpretations, we have drawn on research literature, the experiences of other programs, but also, to considerable degree, on site visit discussions with Early Head Start program staff about their theories of change.1 Following the presentation of findings from the national study, we present findings in “boxes” that address impacts of the program on Early Head Start fathers and local research reports that pertain to site-specific findings.
One of the major goals of Early Head Start is to improve the cognitive, social, and emotional development of infants and toddlers in low-income families. Programs seek to accomplish these aims by working directly with the child in center-based care, during home visits, or both, and to support this work through health, nutrition, and parent education services. Programs also support children’s development indirectly by working with parents and providing parent education to support close parent-child relationships, which are expected to enhance the longer-term development of infants and toddlers.
Close relationships provide infants and toddlers with the emotional support necessary for developing trusting relationships with important adults in their lives, learning to regulate their emotional responses, and playing cooperatively with their peers. Trusting relationships also support cognitive development (especially cause-and-effect reasoning) and communication skills. Parent-child interactions that also include talking, reading, teaching, and encouragement of new developmental experiences can promote the cognitive development of infants and toddlers. Parents support their children’s cognitive development by creating a supportive and stimulating learning environment in the home.
A strong parent-child relationship is expected to support and extend the development of infants and toddlers while families participate in the Early Head Start program and well into the future, as parents continue to guide children in the years after Early Head Start services end. In addition, programs focus to some degree on improving parent and family well-being, which can constitute a third, but more indirect, influence on child outcomes. Programs may seek to improve family functioning and in so doing may help parents move toward self-sufficiency; improvements in self-sufficiency, in turn, will offer families more resources to support a more cognitively stimulating home environment and activities for the child.
Parents’ ability to develop a supportive relationship with their children and make progress toward self-sufficiency may depend on their mental health and various aspects of family functioning. For example, parents who are depressed or who live in families with high levels of conflict may have difficulty in nurturing their children and functioning in the workplace. The effects of stress, conflict, and depression on children may be mediated by the parent-child relationship. Programs attempt to address mental health and family functioning in a variety of ways, but it is very challenging for them to overcome these substantial barriers to the development of supportive parent-child relationships and economic self-sufficiency.
Early Head Start eligibility guidelines require that at least 90 percent of enrolled families have incomes below the poverty line. While they have many strengths, families at this income level often struggle for survival, and financial concerns can interfere with parenting. Therefore, to develop support for the children, many programs aim to help families become economically stable and move toward self-sufficiency.
A. HYPOTHESES AND BRIEF SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Early Head Start was designed as an intervention to support children’s development, promote supportive parent-child relationships, and assist families in their efforts to attain self-sufficiency. As described in Chapter III, Early Head Start programs provided extensive services of many kinds to their families, and the broad range of services families received would be expected to promote such outcomes. Further, in most areas, as reported in Chapter IV, Early Head Start families received substantially more services than their control-group counterparts did. The differences in receipt of parent education, home visits, center-based care, and case management, both overall and at the intensity required by Head Start program performance standards, support hypotheses of both direct and indirect impacts on children, parenting and the home environment, and self-sufficiency outcomes.
The programs’ focus on child development and parenting leads us to expect impacts on child cognitive, language, and social-emotional development and on parenting practices and knowledge. We further expect that the case management support provided by programs has the potential to enhance parents’ mental health, family functioning, and self-sufficiency. In addition, as a consequence of the programs’ focus on family development and enhancements in the quality of child care that programs provide or arrange for, we expect modest impacts on self-sufficiency.
To summarize the 3-year findings briefly, before presenting them in detail, Early Head Start had favorable impacts on a wide range of outcomes for children and parents. For the most part, the impacts found at 2 years were sustained at age 3.
-
For children, the programs produced positive impacts on cognitive and language development at age 3, sustaining the impacts found when children were 2.
-
For children, the programs produced favorable impacts on aspects of social-emotional development at age 3, broadening the range of impacts on these behaviors found at age 2. At age 3, Early Head Start children engaged their parents more, were more attentive during play, and showed less negativity toward parents during play compared to control-group children, and levels of aggressive behavior were lower than for control children.
-
When children were 3, Early Head Start programs continued to have positive impacts on parenting behavior, including emotional support and support for the child’s language development and learning. The programs also led to lower levels of insensitive and hostile parenting behavior and to the use of less-punitive discipline strategies.
-
At age 3, we found no overall impacts on measures of parent’s health or mental health and family functioning, although some had been seen when children were 2.
-
Important for parent self-sufficiency, overall results showed continued impacts on training and education activities, with some emerging impacts on employment (but not in average hours worked per week), and fewer subsequent births among Early Head Start mothers.
B. OUTCOME MEASURES USED AT AGE 3
Measures of children’s behavior and development, parenting, and family development were chosen to assess areas that Early Head Start was expected to influence, and that are important indications of favorable early development. We selected measures that had been used in previous evaluations and large-scale studies of children and families. We used multiple methods of measurement, including direct assessments of children; parent report; interviewer observation of the parent and child during the in-home interview; and videotaped, semistructured parent-child interaction tasks that were later coded by trained psychologists following a standard protocol. Use of multiple methods for measuring outcomes within a single domain avoids reliance on any single method that may have particular biases or inaccuracies.
Next, we provide an overview of the domains of child development, parenting, parent mental health, family functioning, and self-sufficiency activities measured at the most recent follow-up point. Descriptions of the particular measures used are provided throughout this chapter in boxes next to each table of impact estimates to help in interpreting the findings in each area. Details on the measures’ psychometric properties are given in Appendix C.
1. Child Development Measures
Cognitive development is a critical area to measure at this early age because of the foundation that knowledge and such skills as problem solving establish for later success in school. Language development is important as a foundation for cognitive and social development. Infants and toddlers are in a particularly sensitive period for language development; language delays during this period can persist, and may inhibit the acquisition of reading skills later on. We conducted direct assessments of children’s cognitive and language development.
Social-emotional development, including persistence and self-control, are developing during infancy and toddlerhood and contribute to children’s ability to learn in a variety of settings. Greater self-control, less-aggressive behavior, and a more positive relationship with the parent are important foundations for relationships with peers and with other adults. We used a combination of parent report and observation to measure children’s social-emotional development.
2. Parenting and Home Environment Measures
To measure the impacts of Early Head Start on parenting behavior and the home environment, we tapped four important areas:
-
Emotional support, which includes the parent’s warmth and affection toward the child, positive feelings about the child that are conveyed to others, and appropriate responses to needs that the child communicates
-
Stimulation of language and learning, which includes talking and reading to the child regularly, encouragement for learning basic concepts such as colors, numbers, and the alphabet, and the parent’s approach to assisting the child with a challenging task
-
Negative aspects of parenting behavior, which include insensitivity, emotional detachment from the child, hostility, anger, and punitiveness
-
The parent’s knowledge about safety and discipline strategies
Measures of parenting behavior and the home environment were collected using several different methods, including parents’ self-report, observations conducted by in-home interviewers, and coded videotaped interactions with their child, which guarded against biases and inaccuracies that can arise when relying on a single measurement strategy.
3. Measures of Parent Health and Mental Health, Family Functioning, and Self-Sufficiency
Parent health and mental health and family well-being are important, both for supporting parent-child relationships and for parents’ progress toward self-sufficiency. In fact, a number of programs described a theory of change that included such constructs as parent mental health as important expected outcomes. Nevertheless, these outcomes are not the main focus of most program services, and they are particularly challenging for programs to influence. We included brief, parent-report measures of these outcomes that have been widely used in empirical studies and have demonstrated validity. Measures of parent health, mental health, and family functioning include health status, feelings of depression, family conflict, and stress related to parenting. Measures of economic self-sufficiency tap education and training, employment, welfare program participation, family income, and births since enrollment.
4. Data Sources for Child, Parent, and Family Measures
Data come from two major sets of follow-up measures (see Chapter II and Appendix C for details). Assessment of children’s development and some aspects of parenting behavior require standardization or modification as children get older; thus, measures of these constructs were collected at specific age levels (when children were approximately 14, 24, and 36 months old). Outcomes closely related to child development and parenting, including mental health and family functioning, were also collected during the birthday-related interviews. Self-sufficiency activities, like the receipt of program services, are likely to be influenced by the length of the intervention. Therefore, information on these outcomes was collected at intervals after the family enrolled in Early Head Start (on average at 7, 16, and 28 months).
C. OVERALL IMPACTS ON CHILDREN’S DEVELOPMENT
Early Head Start programs had favorable impacts on a broad range of child development outcomes at age 3. This section discusses the programs’ impacts on cognitive and language development and on social-emotional development. Overall, the programs’ impacts on children’s cognitive and language development at age 2 were sustained at age 3, and impacts on social-emotional development at age 3 were greater and broader than they had been at age 2.
1. Overall Impacts on Cognitive and Language Development
Early Head Start enhanced children’s cognitive and language development at age 3, sustaining the positive impacts on cognitive development and language found at age 2 (Box V.1 describes the measures and Table V.1 presents the impacts). Early Head Start children scored higher on the Bayley Mental Development Index (MDI) at age 3 than control children, replicating the findings at age 2. Perhaps even more important, fewer Early Head Start than control children scored below 85 on the MDI (one standard deviation below the standardized mean). Reducing the number of children scoring below this threshold may be indicative of Early Head Start programs potentially reducing the need for special education services. This effect was first seen at age 2 and was sustained through age 3.
At age 3, the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Third Edition (PPVT-III), a test of children’s receptive vocabulary, was administered. Early Head Start children scored higher on the PPVT-III at age 3 than control children. In addition, fewer Early Head Start than control children scored below 85 on the PPVT-III. At age 2, the significant positive vocabulary impacts were based on parent-reported vocabulary; it is noteworthy that this effect was sustained when this widely used, standardized direct assessment of receptive vocabulary was administered when children were 3 years old. Children who spoke Spanish in the home were assessed using the Test de Vocabulario en Imagenes Peabody (TVIP), which measures receptive vocabulary in Spanish. We found no significant impacts on the TVIP standard scores or on the percentage with scores below 100. Fewer than 200 children were assessed using this measure, however.
To investigate supporting evidence for the impacts on receptive vocabulary, we factor analyzed the Bayley and found a “language/reasoning” factor. Early Head Start programs had a significant impact on this outcome.2 While this factor is not an accepted standard measure (and is highly correlated with the MDI at r = .78), this finding suggests an impact of Early Head Start on broader aspects of language development than receptive vocabulary, since the Bayley items include observations of the extent and complexity of the child’s spoken language (language production).
In summary, the positive Early Head Start impacts on cognitive and language development found when children were 2 years old were sustained through age 3. The reduction in the proportion of children scoring below 85 on the Bayley MDI and PPVT-III may be especially important in reducing the likelihood that children would need special services at an early age. It is important to note that although Early Head Start had positive impacts on children’s cognitive and language development, average scores on the cognitive and language assessments for both program- and control-group children remained below the national average.
2. Overall Impacts on Children’s Social-Emotional Development
Because policymakers, parents, and caregivers view positive and negative behaviors differently, and because the evaluation obtained data on both aspects of social-emotional development, we present the results separately here. Although when the children were 2 years old we found no Early Head Start impacts on the positive aspects of children’s social-emotional development, when they were a year older, significant positive impacts were found on some aspects of children’s behavior during play, as assessed by trained observers of videotaped parent-child interactions (see Box V.2 and Table V.2).
Early Head Start children were more engaging of their parents during play; in other words, Early Head Start children, when compared to controls, were more likely to behave in ways that maintained interaction with their parent. They were also rated as more attentive to objects during play at age 3 than were control children, a behavior pattern that, should it persist, could be important for attending to tasks in later preschool programs the children might attend. Early Head Start programs did not have a significant impact on child behavior during the puzzle challenge task, as rated by trained coders of videotaped parent-child interactions, or on child behavior during the Bayley assessment, as rated by trained observers during the in-home interviews.3
|
BOX V.1 MEASURES OF COGNITIVE AND LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT Bayley Mental Development Index (MDI) – measures the cognitive, language, and personal-social development of children under age 3½. Children were directly assessed by the Interviewer/Assessor following a standardized protocol. The MDI is one of three component scales of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development – Second Edition (Bayley 1993). At 36 months, the child is assessed on his/her ability to follow simple spoken directions that indicate an understanding of prepositions, size comparisons, quantities, colors, and simple numbers; on his or her spoken vocabulary during the assessment; on spatial concepts, memory, and the ability to match shapes and identify patterns. For example, the child is asked to build a bridge and a wall of cubes; identify the big tree in a picture; count; understand prepositions like in, under, or between; name four colors; sort pegs by color; place shapes into holes of the same size and shape; use the past tense; and repeat short number sequences. The Bayley MDI was normed on a nationally representative sample of children of various ages so that raw scores can be converted to age-adjusted, standardized scores with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. The percentage of children with Bayley MDI below 85 measures the proportion with delayed performance, or scores one standard deviation or more below the mean for their age in the nationally representative, standardization sample. Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Third Edition (PPVT-III) – measures listening comprehension of spoken words in standard English for children and adults from age 2 ½ and over (Dunn and Dunn 1997). The child is presented with four pictures and is asked to point to the picture that matches the word spoken by the interviewer. The PPVT-III was normed on a nationally representative sample of children and adults of various ages so that raw scores can be converted to age-adjusted, standardized scores with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. The percentage of children with PPVT-III below 85 measures the proportion with scores one standard deviation or more below the mean for their age in the nationally representative, standardization sample. Test de Vocabulario en Imagenes Peabody (TVIP) – measures the listening comprehension of spoken words in Spanish for Spanish-speaking and bilingual children from age 2 ½ to 18 (Dunn, Lloyd, Eligio, Padilla, Lugo, and Dunn 1986). The child is presented with four pictures and is asked to point to the picture that matches the Spanish word spoken by the interviewer. The TVIP was normed on a sample of Mexican and Puerto Rican children of various ages so that raw scores can be converted to age-adjusted, standardized scores with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. The percentage of children with TVIP below 100 measures the proportion with scores below the mean for their age in the standardization sample. This cutoff was chosen because only 6 percent of the Early Head Start evaluation sample scored below 85. The higher standardized scores on the TVIP compared to the PPVT-III could be attributable to the fact that norms for the TVIP were developed nearly two decades ago. |
| Outcome | Program Group Participantsa |
Control Groupb | Estimated Impact per Participantc |
Effect Sized |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cognitive Development | ||||
| Bayley Mental
Development Index (MDI) Standard Score |
91.4 | 89.9 | 1.6** | 12 |
| Percentage with Bayley MDI Below 85 | 27.3 | 32 | -4.7* | -10.1 |
| Receptive Language Development | ||||
| Peabody
Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-III) Standard Score |
83.3 | 81.1 | 2.1** | 13.1 |
| Percentage with PPVT-III Below 85 | 51.1 | 57.1 | -6.0** | -12.1 |
| Test
de Vocabulario en Imagenes Peabody (TVIP) Standard Score |
97.2 | 94.9 | 2.3 | 27.1 |
| Percentage with TVIP Below 100 | 36.2 | 41.2 | -5 | -9.9 |
| Sample Size | ||||
| Bayley | 879 | 779 | 1,658 | |
| PPVT | 738 | 665 | 1,403 | |
| TVIP | 95 | 89 | 184 | |
SOURCE: Parent interview and child assessments conducted when children were approximately 36 months old. NOTE: All impact estimates were calculated using regression models, where each site was weighted equally. aA participant is defined as a program group member who received more than one Early Head Start home visit, met with an Early Head Start case manager more than once, received at least two weeks of Early Head Start center-based care, and/or participated in Early Head Start group parent-child activities.(back) bThe control group mean is the mean for the control group members who would have participated in Early Head Start if they had been assigned to the program group instead. This unobserved mean was estimated as the difference between the program group mean for participants and the impact per participant.(back) cThe estimated impact per participant is measured as the estimated impact per eligible applicant divided by the proportion of program group members who participated in Early Head Start services (which varied by site). The estimated impact per eligible applicant is measured as the difference between the regression-adjusted means for all program and control group members.(back) dThe effect size was calculated by dividing the estimated impact per participant by the standard deviation of the outcome measure for the control group times 100 (that is, it is the impact expressed as a percentage of the standard deviation).(back) *Significantly different from zero at the .10 level,
two-tailed test. |
||||
|
BOX V.2 MEASURES OF POSITIVE ASPECTS OF CHILD SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL DEVELOPMENT Child Behavior During Parent-Child Semistructured Play – measures the child’s behavior with the parent during a semistructured play task. The parent and child were given three bags of interesting toys and asked to play with the toys in sequence. The semistructured play task was videotaped, and child and parent behaviors were coded on a 7-point scale by child development researchers according to strict protocols (see Appendix C). This assessment was adapted for this evaluation from the Three Box coding scales used in the NICHD Study of Early Child Care (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network 1999). Two positive aspects of children’s behavior with the parent were rated on a 7-point scale: Engagement – measures the extent to which the child shows, initiates, or maintains interaction with the parent. This may be expressed by approaching or orienting toward the parent, establishing eye contact with the parent, positively responding to the parent’s initiations, positive affect directed toward the parent and/or engaging the parent in play. Very high engagement receives a 7. Sustained Attention with Objects – measures the degree to which the child is involved with the toys presented in the three bags. Indicators include degree to which the child “focuses in” when playing with an object and the extent to which the child coordinates activities with several objects and/or explores different aspects of a toy. Very high sustained attention receives a 7. Child Behavior During Parent-Child Puzzle Challenge Task – measures the child’s behavior with the parent during a puzzle completion task. The child was given a puzzle to play with, and the parent was instructed to give the child any help needed. After 3 minutes, or earlier if the puzzle was completed, the interviewer gave the child a second, harder puzzle and asked the mother not to help the child. If that puzzle was completed or 3 minutes elapsed, another, more challenging puzzle was provided. The puzzle challenge task was videotaped, and child and parent behaviors were coded on a 7-point scale by child development researchers according to strict protocols (see Appendix C). The scales are based on a puzzle task used by Brooks-Gunn et al. (1992) in the Newark Observational Study of the Teenage Parent Demonstration. Two positive aspects of children’s behavior with the parent were rated on a 7-point scale: Engagement – measures the extent to which the child shows, initiates, or maintains interaction with the parent. This may be expressed by approaching or orienting toward the parent, establishing eye contact with the parent, positively responding to the parent’s suggestions, positive affect directed toward the parent and/or engaging the parent in the puzzle task. Very high engagement receives a 7. Persistence – measures how goal-oriented, focused, and motivated the child remains toward the puzzle throughout the task. The focus of this measure is on the child’s apparent effort to solve the puzzle, not on how well the child performs. Very high persistence receives a 7. Bayley Behavioral Rating Scale (BRS) – measures the child’s behavior during the Bayley MDI assessment. The BRS is one of three component scales of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development – Second Edition (Bayley 1993). Emotional Regulation – measures the child’s ability to change tasks and test materials; negative affect; and frustration with tasks during the assessment. Orientation/Engagement – measures the child’s cooperation with the interviewer during the assessment; positive affect; and interest in the test materials. The interviewer assesses the child’s behavior by scoring items on a 5-point scale, with 5 indicating more positive behavior (for example, less frustration and more cooperation). Scores are the average of the items in the subscale. |
| Outcome | Program Group Participantsa |
Control Groupb | Estimated Impact per Participantc |
Effect Sized |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Engagement of
Parent During Parent-Child Semistructured Playe |
4.8 | 4.6 | 0.2*** | 20.3 |
| Sustained
Attention to Objects During Parent-Child Semistructured Playe |
5 | 4.8 | 0.2*** | 15.9 |
| Engagement
of Parent During Parent-Child Puzzle Challenge Taskf |
5 | 4.9 | 0.1 | 8.8 |
| Persistence
During Parent-Child Puzzle Challenge Taskf |
4.6 | 4.5 | 0.1 | 6.3 |
| Bayley
Behavior Rating Scale (BRS): Emotional Regulationg |
4 | 4 | 0 | 0.6 |
| Bayley
BRS: Orientation/Engagementg |
3.9 | 3.8 | 0 | 4 |
| Sample Size | ||||
| Parent-Child Interactions | 875 | 784 | 1,659 | |
| Bayley BRS | 936 | 833 | 1,769 | |
| SOURCE: Child assessments,
interviewer observations, and assessments of semistructured parent-child
interactions conducted when children were approximately 36 months
old.
NOTE: All impact estimates were calculated using regression models, where each site was weighted equally. aA participant is defined as a program group member who received more than one Early Head Start home visit, met with an Early Head Start case manager more than once, received at least two weeks of Early Head Start center-based care, and/or participated in Early Head Start group parent-child activities.(back) bThe control group mean is the mean for the control group members who would have participated in Early Head Start if they had been assigned to the program group instead. This unobserved mean was estimated as the difference between the program group mean for participants and the impact per participant.(back) cThe estimated impact per participant is measured as the estimated impact per eligible applicant divided by the proportion of program group members who participated in Early Head Start services (which varied by site). The estimated impact per eligible applicant is measured as the difference between the regression-adjusted means for all program and control group members.(back) dThe effect size was calculated by dividing the estimated impact per participant by the standard deviation of the outcome measure for the control group times 100 (that is, it is the impact expressed as a percentage of the standard deviation).(back) eBehaviors were observed during the videotaped parent-child semistructured play task and coded on a seven-point scale.(back) fBehaviors were observed during the videotaped parent-child puzzle challenge task and coded on a seven-point scale.(back) gBehaviors were observed during the Bayley assessment and rated on a five-point scale by the interviewer/assessor.(back) *Significantly different from zero at the .10 level,
two-tailed test. |
||||
The positive impacts found in the semistructured play interaction suggest that Early Head Start may improve the parent-child relationship and the child’s ability to focus on objects during play. By enhancing the degree to which young children maintain interest in exploring objects they are playing with and maintain their interaction with their parent, Early Head Start programs may be contributing to behavior patterns that will help children learn in early learning settings.
These impact analyses were supplemented with growth curve analyses for selected outcomes. (The methodology and approach to these analyses are described in Chapter II, with more details in Appendix D.5. Appendix D.5 also includes figures depicting the growth curves that are reported in this chapter.) We undertook these analyses to take advantage of the longitudinal nature of some of the measures. Because growth curves required having the same measures administered at all three ages, these results are limited.4 However, they do show change over time and allow us to conclude not only that Early Head Start programs produced impacts at particular points in time but that, in a few cases, altered the rate of change over time (indicated by a significant impact on the slopes of the curves). For child engagement of the parent and child sustained attention with objects, the group mean differences were significant at 2 and 3 years of age, as found in the overall impact analyses just described. The Early Head Start program experience did not alter the growth trends, however (that is, the program had no significant impact on slopes).
In general, there was a broader pattern of favorable impacts on reducing negative aspects of children’s social-emotional development at age 3 than at age 2. Early Head Start reduced two of the three negative measures of children’s social-emotional development at age 3. The reduction in parent-reported aggressive behavior sustains the findings at age 2 and extends them to behavior in semistructured play with the parent (see Box V.3 and Table V.3). Similar to findings at age 2, Early Head Start children were reported by their parents as being less aggressive than control-group children.
At age 3, Early Head Start children also displayed less negativity toward their parents during semistructured play, an impact that did not appear at age 2 (Table V.3). The growth curve analysis of this outcome similarly showed no program impact on the change in negativity overtime—it declined at the same rate for both program and control children. Early Head Start had no impact on the level of child frustration during the parent-child puzzle challenge task at age 3, as rated by trained observers of videotaped parent-child interactions. This task was not administered at age 2.
As early aggressive behavior is predictive of later conduct problems (Moffitt et al.1996; and Dishion et al. 1995), these findings indicating less negativity toward the parent and less agressive behavior among Early Head Start children. Children may enhance children’s conduct and performance when they enter school.
|
BOX V.3 MEASURES OF NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF CHILD SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL DEVELOPMENT Child Behavior During Parent-Child Semistructured Play – measures the child’s behavior with the parent during a semistructured play task. The parent and child were given three bags of interesting toys and asked to play with the toys in sequence. The semistructured play task was videotaped, and child and parent behaviors were coded on a 7-point scale by child development researchers according to strict protocols (see Appendix C). This assessment was adapted for this evaluation from the Three Box coding scales used in the NICHD Study of Early Child Care (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network 1999). Three aspects of children’s behavior with the parent were rated on a 7-point scale, with one reflecting a negative aspect of children’s social-emotional development: Negativity Toward Parent – measures the degree to which the child shows anger, hostility, or dislike toward the parent. Expressions may be overt (for example, forcefully rejecting a toy offered by the parent or pushing the parent away) or covert (for example, hitting or throwing an object in response to the parent’s behavior). Very high negativity receives a 7. Child Behavior During Parent-Child Puzzle Challenge Task – measures the child’s behavior with the parent during a puzzle completion task. The child was given a puzzle to play with, and the parent was instructed to give the child any help needed. After 3 minutes, or earlier if the puzzle was completed, the interviewer gave the child a second, harder puzzle and asked the mother not to help the child. If that puzzle was completed or 3 minutes elapsed, another, more challenging puzzle was provided. The puzzle challenge task was videotaped, and child and parent behaviors were coded on a 7-point scale by child development researchers according to strict protocols (see Appendix C). Three aspects of children’s behavior with the parent were rated on a 7-point scale, with one reflecting a negative aspect of children’s social-emotional development: Frustration with Task – measures the degree to which the child expresses frustration or anger toward the puzzle task, for example, by putting hands in lap, whining, pushing away puzzle pieces, crying about the puzzle, saying it is too hard, or throwing puzzle pieces. Very high frustration receives a 7. Child Behavior Checklist – Aggressive Behavior – this subscale measures the incidence of 19 child behavior problems that tend to occur together and constitute aggressive behavior problems. Parents completed the Aggressive subscale of the Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 1 ½ to 5 Years (Achenbach and Rescorla 2000). Some behaviors asked about include, “Child has temper tantrums,” “Child hits others,” and “Child is easily frustrated.” For each of the possible behavior problems, the parent was asked whether the child exhibits this behavior often, sometimes, or never. Scores range from 0, if all of the behavior problems are “never” observed by the parent, to 38, if all of the behavior problems are “often” observed. |
| Outcome | Program Group Participantsa |
Control Groupb | Estimated Impact per Participantc |
Effect Sized |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Negativity Toward
Parent During Parent-Child Semistructured Playe |
1.2 | 1.3 | -0.1** | -13.8 |
| Frustration
with Parent-Child Puzzle Challenge Taskf |
2.7 | 2.7 | 0 | 2.2 |
| Child
Behavior Checklist: Aggressive Behavior |
10.6 | 11.3 | -0.7** | -10.8 |
| Sample Size | ||||
| Parent Interview | 1,107 | 1,003 | 2,110 | |
| Parent-Child Interactions | 875 | 784 | 1,659 | |
SOURCE: Parent interviews and assessments of semistructured parent-child interactions conducted when children were approximately 36 months old. NOTE: All impact estimates were calculated using regression models, where each site was weighted equally. aA participant is defined as a program group member who received more than one Early Head Start home visit, met with an Early Head Start case manager more than once, received at least two weeks of Early Head Start center-based care, and/or participated in Early Head Start group parent-child activities.(back) bThe control group mean is the mean for the control group members who would have participated in Early Head Start if they had been assigned to the program group instead. This unobserved mean was estimated as the difference between the program group mean for participants and the impact per participant.(back) cThe estimated impact per participant is measured as the estimated impact per eligible applicant divided by the proportion of program group members who participated in Early Head Start services (which varied by site). The estimated impact per eligible applicant is measured as the difference between the regression-adjusted means for all program and control group members.(back) dThe effect size was calculated by dividing the estimated impact per participant by the standard deviation of the outcome measure for the control group times 100 (that is, it is the impact expressed as a percentage of the standard deviation).(back) eBehaviors were observed during the videotaped parent-child semistructured play task and coded on a seven-point scale.(back) fBehaviors were observed during the videotaped parent-child puzzle challenge task and coded on a seven-point scale.(back) *Significantly different from zero at the .10 level,
two-tailed test. |
||||
D. OVERALL IMPACTS ON PARENTING
Early Head Start programs had favorable impacts on a broad range of parenting behavior, the home environment, and parenting knowledge. Overall, Early Head Start had favorable impacts on several aspects of emotional support for the child and support for language development and learning. Fewer impacts were found on negative aspects of parenting behavior, although there is evidence that the program reduced the use of punitive discipline.
1. Parenting Behavior and the Home Environment
This section discusses Early Head Start impacts on emotionally supportive parenting behavior, on measures of the parent’s support for the child’s language development and learning (including the overall measure of the emotional support and stimulation available in the home environment), and negative aspects of parenting behavior, including insensitivity, hostility, and punitive behavior.
a. Emotional Supportiveness
Early Head Start increased parents’ emotional supportiveness toward their children, as rated by interviewer observations and through coding of behavior during videotaped, semistructured parent-child activities (see Box V.4 and Table V.4). Early Head Start parents exhibited more warmth towards their children during the parent interview session, as rated by the interviewer/assessor using a short subscale of the Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME) warmth subscale. This finding replicates the positive impact of Early Head Start on emotional responsivity, a similar subscale of the HOME for infants and toddlers, used when children were 2 years old. The positive impact of Early Head Start at age 2 on parent supportiveness observed during parent-child semistructured play was sustained at age 3: Early Head Start parents were rated as more supportive (warmer, more sensitive, and offering more cognitive stimulation) in play than parents in the control group. In the puzzle challenge situation, in which parents were instructed to give needed help as their child tried to complete a series of puzzles (see description in Box V.4), however, there was no significant program effect on emotionally supportive parenting. In other words, Early Head Start parents were no more likely than control parents to show support and enthusiasm for their child’s work, or to display a positive attitude toward the child while the child attempted a complex activity that was challenging to complete (more so than the semistructured play task). This measure was not administered at age 2.
The group differences in parent supportiveness during the semistructured play task also are seen in the results of the growth curve analysis (see Appendix D.5). The growth curves indicate that this measure of supportiveness declined slightly over time, but the decline was the same for both groups of parents (that is, the program did not alter the rate of change). The observed decline for both groups may reflect parent provision of greater autonomy to their maturing, more capable children.
b. Support for Language and Learning
When children were 3 years old, Early Head Start had positive impacts on several aspects of parent support for language and learning and the overall quality of the home environment, continuing the pattern of impacts in this domain originally observed at age 2. These outcomes were measured by a variety of methods—parent report, interviewer observation, and coding by trained observers of videotaped parent-child interactions.
|
BOX V.4 MEASURES OF EMOTIONALLY SUPPORTIVE PARENTING Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME) – measures the quality of stimulation and support available to a child in the home environment (Caldwell and Bradley 1984). At the 36-month assessment, we based our measure on the HOME-Short Form inventory, Preschool version, used in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY). Information needed to score the inventory is obtained through a combination of interview and observation conducted in the home with the child’s parent while the child is present. A total of 37 items were used for the 36-month HOME scale in this study. In addition to a total score, we derived five subscales from this assessment, with one related to emotional support: Warmth – Measures responsive and supportive parenting behavior observed by the interviewer during the home visit. Items in this subscale are based entirely on interviewer observations of the parent and child during the interview, and include whether the mother kissed or caressed the child during the visit; whether her voice conveyed positive feeling, and whether she praised the child. Scores can range from 0, if none of the positive behaviors were observed, to 3, if all of the behaviors were observed. Parent Behavior during Parent-Child Semistructured Play – measures the parent’s behavior with the child during a semistructured play task. The parent and child were given three bags of interesting toys and asked to play with the toys in sequence. The semistructured play task was videotaped, and child and parent behaviors were coded by child development researchers according to strict protocols (see Appendix C). This assessment was adapted for this evaluation from the Three Box coding scales used in the NICHD Study of Early Child Care (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network 1999). Four aspects of the parent’s behavior with the child were rated on a seven-point scale, with one aspect related to emotional support: Supportiveness – this composite measure is an average of parental sensitivity, cognitive stimulation, and positive regard during play with the child. Sensitivity includes such behavior as acknowledgement of the child’s affect, vocalizations, and activity; facilitating the child’s play; changing the pace of play when the child seems under-stimulated or over-excited; and demonstrating developmentally appropriate expectations of behavior. Cognitive stimulation involves taking advantage of the activities and toys to facilitate learning, development, and achievement; for example, by encouraging the child to talk about the materials, by encouraging play in ways that illustrate or teach concepts such as colors or sizes, and by using language to label the child’s experiences or actions, to ask questions about the toys, to present activities in an organized series of steps, and to elaborate on the pictures in books or unique attributes of objects. Positive regard includes praising the child, smiling or laughing with the child, expressing affection, showing empathy for the child’s distress, and showing clear enjoyment of the child. Parent Behavior during Parent-Child Puzzle Challenge Task – measures the parent’s behavior with the child during a puzzle completion task. The child was given a puzzle to play with, and the parent was instructed to give the child any help needed. After 3 minutes, or earlier if the puzzle was completed, the interviewer gave the child a second, harder puzzle and asked the mother not to help the child. If that puzzle was completed or 3 minutes elapsed, another, more challenging puzzle was provided. The puzzle challenge task was videotaped, and child and parent behaviors were coded on a 7-point scale by child development researchers according to strict protocols (see Appendix C). Four aspects of the parent’s behavior with the child were rated on a 7-point scale, with one aspect related to emotional support: Supportive Presence – measures the parent’s level of emotional support and enthusiasm toward the child and his or her work on the puzzles; displays of affection and a positive attitude toward the child and his or her abilities. |
| Outcome | Program Group Participantsa |
Control Groupb |
Estimated Impact per Participantc |
Effect Sized |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Home Observation
for Measurement of the Environment (HOME): Warmthe |
2.6 | 2.5 | 0.1* | 9 |
| Supportiveness
During Parent- Child Semistructured Playf |
4 | 3.9 | 0.1*** | 14.6 |
| Supportive
Presence During Parent-Child Puzzle Challenge Taskg |
4.5 | 4.4 | 0.1 | 4.2 |
| Sample Size | ||||
| Parent Interview | 1,107 | 1,003 | 2,110 | |
| Parent-Child Interactions | 874 | 784 | 1,658 | |
SOURCE: Parent interviews and assessments of semistructured parent-child interactions conducted when children were approximately 36 months old. NOTE: All impact estimates were calculated using regression models, where each site was weighted equally. aA participant is defined as a program group member who received more than one Early Head Start home visit, met with an Early Head Start case manager more than once, received at least two weeks of Early Head Start center-based care, and/or participated in Early Head Start group parent-child activities.(back) bThe control group mean is the mean for the control group members who would have participated in Early Head Start if they had been assigned to the program group instead. This unobserved mean was estimated as the difference between the program group mean for participants and the impact per participant.(back) cThe estimated impact per participant is measured as the estimated impact per eligible applicant divided by the proportion of program group members who participated in Early Head Start services (which varied by site). The estimated impact per eligible applicant is measured as the difference between the regression-adjusted means for all program and control group members.(back) dThe effect size was calculated by dividing the estimated impact per participant by the standard deviation of the outcome measure for the control group times 100 (that is, it is the impact expressed as a percentage of the standard deviation).(back) eBehaviors were observed during the HOME assessment and rated on a yes/no scale by the interviewer/assessor.(back) fBehaviors were observed during the videotaped parent-child structured play task and coded on a seven-point scale. Supportiveness is a combination of Warm Sensitivity and Positive Regard.(back) gBehaviors were observed during the videotaped parent-child puzzle task and coded on a seven-point scale.(back) *Significantly different from zero at the .10 level,
two-tailed test. |
||||
Sustaining the impact found at age 2, the total HOME score was significantly higher for Early Head Start families than for control families, suggesting that overall, Early Head Start children live in home environments that provide more emotional support and cognitive stimulation (see Box V.5 and Table V.5).
Early Head Start programs did not have an impact on the internal physical environment of the home, an index derived from the HOME scale that measures the presence of home furnishings and decorations as well as cleanliness and orderliness. Families in both groups received relatively high scores on this measure (which ranges from 3 to 9) so impacts would likely have been difficult to accomplish.
More importantly, Early Head Start families scored higher on the subscale of the HOME that measures support of language and learning (Table V.5). Thus, Early Head Start improved the amount of cognitively stimulating toys and materials, along with the interactions that children experience in the home. This finding is consistent with impacts found at age 2 on a comparable subscale of the HOME.
In the videotaped parent-child puzzle challenge, Early Head Start parents provided higher quality of assistance to their children as well. This is one of the few puzzle challenge outcomes for which Early Head Start impacts paralleled those in the semistructured play situation. The parent-child puzzle challenge task was not administered at age 2.
Early Head Start parents reported engaging more frequently in a broader range of play activities with their children, a finding that was significant at age 2 and sustained at age 3.
Early Head Start impacts on regular reading to children were mixed at age 3. Similar to the findings at age 2, when children were 3, Early Head Start parents were more likely than control-group parents to report that they read daily to their children (57 percent of program-group parents compared with 52 percent of control-group parents). However, Early Head Start had no impact on the proportion of Early Head Start parents reporting reading to their children regularly at bedtime at age 3, although there had been a favorable program impact at age 2.5 By age 3, 29 percent of control group families reported reading to their children at bedtime, a figure similar to the percentage of Early Head Start families who reported reading at bedtime at age 2, while 32 percent of program parents at age 3 reported reading at bedtime.
At age 3, we found no impact of Early Head Start on parents’ structuring the child’s day by keeping a regular bedtime and following regular bedtime routines. Nearly 60 percent of both program and control groups set a regular bedtime for their 3-year-old children, and nearly 70 percent followed regular bedtime routines. At age 2, the program had an impact on regular bedtimes but not on routines.
In general at age 3, Early Head Start parents provided more support for children’s language development and learning than control parents by making efforts to teach colors, shapes, and numbers, by frequent reading to the child, telling stories, and singing songs, by providing more cognitive stimulation in interaction with the child, and by providing cognitively stimulating books, toys, games, and materials in the home. However, Early Head Start parents were not more likely than control parents to structure the child’s day by setting a regular bedtime or following regular bedtime routines by age 3.
|
BOX V.5 MEASURES OF THE HOME ENVIRONMENT AND PARENT STIMULATION OF LANGUAGE AND LEARNING Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME) – measures the quality of stimulation and support available to a child in the home environment (Caldwell and Bradley 1984). At the 36-month assessment, we based our measure on the HOME-Short Form inventory, Preschool version, used in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY). Information needed to score the inventory is obtained through a combination of interview and observation conducted in the home with the child’s parent while the child is present. A total of 37 items were used for the 36-month HOME scale in this study. In addition to a total score, we derived five subscales from this assessment, with two related to the home environment and to stimulation of language and learning, as well as the Total Score: Total Score – measures the cognitive stimulation and emotional support provided by the parent in the home environment. The total includes all 37 items. The maximum potential score is 37. Support of Language and Learning – measures the breadth and quality of the mother’s speech and verbal responses to the child during the home visit, as rated by the interviewer; whether the parent encourages the child to learn shapes, colors, numbers, and the alphabet; the presence of books, toys, and games accessible to the child; and whether the parent reads to the child several times per week. Items are obtained by a combination of parent report and interviewer observation. The maximum potential score is 13. Internal Physical Environment – measures the cleanliness, organization, and warmth of the home environment. Items in this subscale are based entirely on interviewer observations during the interview and were each coded on a 3-point scale for this subscale (but on a binary scale for the total HOME). Scores can range from 3 to 9. Regular Bedtime – measures whether the parent has a regular bedtime for the child. The parent must name the time and report that the child went to bed at that time at least four of the past five weekdays. Regular Bedtime Routines – measures whether the parent reports having a regular set of routines with the child around bedtime, such as singing lullabies, putting toys away, or telling stories. Parent-Child Play – measures the frequency with which the parent engages in several activities with the child that can stimulate cognitive and language development, including reading or telling stories, dancing, singing, and playing outside together. Read Every Day – measures whether the parent reported that she reads to the child “every day” or “more than once a day.” Read at Bedtime – measures whether the parent reported that the child has a regular bedtime routine and, in response to an open-ended question about activities that are part of that routine, the parent reported that reading is one of the routine activities. Parent Behavior during Parent-Child Puzzle Challenge Task – measures the parent’s behavior with the child during a puzzle completion task. The child was given a puzzle to play with, and the parent was instructed to give the child any help needed. After 3 minutes, or earlier if the puzzle was completed, the interviewer gave the child a second, harder puzzle and asked the mother not to help the child. If that puzzle was completed or 3 minutes elapsed, another, more challenging puzzle was provided. The puzzle challenge task was videotaped, and child and parent behaviors were coded on a 7-point scale by child development researchers according to strict protocols (see Appendix C). Four aspects of the parent’s behavior with the child were rated on a 7-point scale, with one aspect related to emotional support: Quality of Assistance – measures the frequency and quality of clear guidance to the child, flexible strategies for providing assistance, and diverse, descriptive verbal instructions and exchanges with the child. |
| Outcome | Program Group Participantsa |
Control Groupb | Estimated Impact per Participantc |
Effect Sized |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Home Observation
for Measurement of the Environment (HOME) - Total Score |
27.6 | 27 | 0.5** | 10.9 |
| Structuring the Child's Day | ||||
| Percentage
of Parents Who Set a Regular Bedtime for Child |
59.4 | 58.2 | 1.3 | 2.5 |
| Percentage
of Parents and Children Who Have Regular Bedtime Routines |
69.3 | 68.6 | 0.7 | 1.4 |
| Parent-Child Activities and Learning Support | ||||
| HOME: Support of Language and Learning | 10.6 | 10.4 | 0.2** | 9.9 |
| Parent-Child Play | 4.4 | 4.3 | 0.1* | 9.1 |
| Quality
of Assistance During Parent- Child Puzzle Challenge Taske |
3.6 | 3.5 | 0.1* | 9 |
| Percentage
of Parents Who Read to Child Every Day |
56.8 | 52 | 4.9** | 9.7 |
| Percentage
of Parents Who Regularly Read to Child at Bedtime |
32.3 | 29.2 | 3.1 | 6.8 |
| Internal Home Environment | ||||
| HOME: Internal Physical Environment | 7.8 | 7.8 | 0 | -0.3 |
| Sample Size | ||||
| Parent Interview | 1,107 | 1,003 | 2,110 | |
| Parent-Child Interactions | 874 | 784 | 1,658 | |
SOURCE: Parent interviews, interviewer observations, and assessments of semistructured parent-child interactions conducted when children were approximately 36 months old. NOTE: All impact estimates were calculated using regression models, where each site was weighted equally. aA participant is defined as a program group member who received more than one Early Head Start home visit, met with an Early Head Start case manager more than once, received at least two weeks of Early Head Start center-based care, and/or participated in Early Head Start group parent-child activities.(back) bThe control group mean is the mean for the control group members who would have participated in Early Head Start if they had been assigned to the program group instead. This unobserved mean was estimated as the difference between the program group mean for participants and the impact per participant.(back) cThe estimated impact per participant is measured as the estimated impact per eligible applicant divided by the proportion of program group members who participated in Early Head Start services (which varied by site). The estimated impact per eligible applicant is measured as the difference between the regression-adjusted means for all program and control group members.(back) dThe effect size was calculated by dividing the estimated impact per participant by the standard deviation of the outcome measure for the control group times 100 (that is, it is the impact expressed as a percentage of the standard deviation).(back) eBehaviors were observed during the videotaped parent-child puzzle task and coded on a seven-point scale.(back) *Significantly different from zero at the .10 level,
two-tailed test. |
||||
c. Negative Aspects of Parenting Behavior
Continuing the pattern observed at age 2, Early Head Start had few impacts on insensitivity, hostility toward the child, and punishment at age 3 (see Box V.6 and Table V.6). Early Head Start parents were less detached in semistructured play than control-group parents, and the proportion of Early Head Start parents who reported spanking the child in the past week was lower than for control-group parents. There were no program effects on ratings of intrusiveness or negative regard toward the child in the semistructured play setting or on detachment or intrusiveness during the parent-child puzzle challenge task. In addition, there was no difference between Early Head Start and control-group families in the amount of harshness expressed toward the child during the parent interview (HOME harshness subscale), consistent with the findings at age 2. Average levels of insensitivity, hostility, and punitive behavior were relatively low among both program- and control-group parents.
The growth curve analyses for detachment, intrusiveness, and negative regard outcomes show similar patterns (see Appendix D.5). All three of these negative behaviors declined as children developed over the two-year period from approximately 1 to 3 years of age, and for the most part, impacts were not significant at any age. Control group parents were higher in detachment than program parents when children were 15 months, and their decrease over time was somewhat greater than was the program parents’ decrease (that is, the programs’ impact on slopes was significant). No impact on change was found for either intrusiveness or negative regard.
Early Head Start parents were less likely to report spanking during the previous week, sustaining a similar finding at age 2. The reported reduction in the use of physical punishment at ages 2 and 3 is consistent with findings discussed in the next section about Early Head Start impacts on parents’ knowledge of discipline strategies.
2. Parenting Knowledge
Our assessment of parenting knowledge at age 3 was more limited than at age 2. Parenting knowledge is not always consistent with behavior. Therefore, in general, we focused the age 3 assessments on a broader range of child development outcomes and parenting behaviors than was true at age 2. It seemed likely that after two or three years of family enrollment, programs would expect behavioral changes to be emerging, and would place greater importance on them than on indicators of knowledge. We limited the measures of parenting knowledge to two important topics: safety practices with respect to child car seats and discipline strategies for common parent-child conflict situations.
Early Head Start had no impact on car seat safety practices, with about 70 percent of both program and control families reporting that they regularly used a car seat for their young children (see Box V.7 and Table V.7). At age 2, we also found no Early Head Start impacts on regular use of car seats.
In response to questions about how they would handle four common parent-child conflict situations (temper tantrums, playing with breakables, refusing to eat, and hitting the parent in anger), Early Head Start parents were less likely to report that they would physically punish their 3-year-old children or threaten physical punishment. At age 2, we found a similar reduction in physical punishment as a discipline strategy. However, in contrast to the findings at age 2, Early Head Start had no impact on the proportion of parents suggesting other discipline strategies, including positive discipline strategies, such as preventing certain situations, distracting the child, and talking to or explaining consequences to the child at age 3. The percentage of parents who suggested only mild discipline strategies (including all discipline strategies except shouting, threatening, or using physical punishment) was significantly higher among Early Head Start parents. Similarly, the most severe discipline strategy mentioned tended to be more severe among control group than program families.
|
BOX V.6 MEASURES OF NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF PARENTING BEHAVIOR Parent Behavior during Parent-Child Semistructured Play – measures the parent’s behavior with the child during a semistructured play task. The parent and child were given three bags of interesting toys and asked to play with the toys in sequence. The semistructured play task was videotaped, and child and parent behaviors were coded by child development researchers according to strict protocols (see Appendix C). Four aspects of the parent’s behavior with the child were rated on a seven-point scale, with three related to negative parenting behavior: Detachment – measures the extent to which the parent is inattentive to the child, inconsistently attentive, or interacts with the child in an indifferent manner. For example, the parent may be inattentive, perfunctory, or cold when interacting with the child, may not respond to the child’s talk or expressions, or may not try to engage the child with the new toys. Intrusiveness – measures the extent to which the parent exerts control over the child rather than acting in a way that recognizes and respects the validity of the child’s perspective. Higher scores on intrusiveness indicate that the parent controlled the play agenda, not allowing the child to influence the focus or pace of play, grabbing toys away from the child, and not taking turns in play with the child. Negative Regard – measures the parent’s expression of discontent with, anger toward, disapproval of, or rejection of the child. High scores on negative regard indicate that the parent used a disapproving or negative tone, showed frustration, anger, physical roughness, or harshness toward the child, threatened the child for failing at a task or not playing the way the parent desired, or belittled the child. Parent Behavior during Parent-Child Puzzle Challenge Task – measures the parent’s behavior with the child during a puzzle completion task. The child was given a puzzle to play with, and the parent was instructed to give the child any help needed. After 3 minutes, or earlier if the puzzle was completed, the interviewer gave the child a second, harder puzzle and asked the mother not to help the child. If that puzzle was completed or 3 minutes elapsed, another, more challenging puzzle was provided. The puzzle challenge task was videotaped, and child and parent behaviors were coded on a 7-point scale by child development researchers according to strict protocols (see Appendix C). Four aspects of the parent’s behavior with the child were rated on a 7-point scale, with two related to negative parenting behavior: Detachment – measures the extent to which the parent is inattentive to the child, or interacts in a perfunctory or indifferent manner. For example, the parent may be inattentive, perfunctory, or cold when interacting with the child, may not respond to the child’s talk or expressions, or may not try to engage the child with the new toys. Intrusiveness – measures the degree to which the parent controls the child rather than recognizing and respecting the validity of the child’s independent efforts to solve the puzzle. For example, a parent behaving intrusively may complete the puzzle for the child or offer rapid, frequent instructions. Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME) – measures the quality of stimulation and support available to a child in the home environment (Caldwell and Bradley 1984). At the 36-month assessment, we based our measure on the HOME-Short Form inventory, Preschool version, used in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY). Information needed to score the inventory is obtained through a combination of interview and observation conducted in the home with the child’s parent while the child is present. A total of 37 items were used for the 36-month HOME scale in this study. In addition to a total score, we derived five subscales from this assessment, with one related to negative parenting: Harshness – measures harsh or punitive parenting behavior observed during the home interview. Items in this subscale are based entirely on interviewer observations of the parent and child during the interview, and include whether the parent scolded the child, physically restrained the child, or slapped or spanked the child. For this subscale (but not for the total HOME score), items were reverse-coded so that higher scores indicate more observed harsh behavior. Scores can range from 0, if no harsh behavior was observed, to 3, if the three types of harsh behavior were observed. Spanked Child in Previous Week – measures parent’s report that she used physical punishment in the previous week by spanking the child. |
| Outcome | Program Group Participantsa |
Control Groupb | Estimated Impact per Participantc |
Effect Sized |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Insensitivity | ||||
| Detachment
During Parent-Child Semistructured Playe |
1.2 | 1.3 | -0.1* | -9 |
| Intrusiveness
During Parent-Child Semistructured Playe |
1.6 | 1.6 | 0 | -5.5 |
| Detachment
During Parent-Child Puzzle Challenge Taskf |
1.6 | 1.6 | 0 | -0.2 |
| Intrusiveness
During Parent-Child Puzzle Challenge Taskf |
2.7 | 2.7 | -0.1 | -5.8 |
| Hostility and Punishment | ||||
| Negative
Regard During Parent- Child Semistructured Playe |
1.3 | 1.3 | 0 | -1.6 |
| Home
Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME): Harshnessg |
0.3 | 0.3 | 0 | 2.1 |
| Percentage
of Parents Who Spanked the Child During the Previous Week |
46.7 | 53.8 | -7.1*** | -14.2 |
| Sample Size | ||||