Early Childcare and Socio-Emotional

Development. An Analysis of the Longitudinal

Study of Australian Children

Linda Harrison

Charles Sturt University

Australia

Background

• Parental and policy decisions about the type of care

that is best for babies under age 1 year

– Parent only – parental leave provisions, shared parent care

– Formal/government regulated services

• infant-toddler group care in child care centre

• mixed age small group in family day care home

– Informal/non-regulated care with relatives, nanny

• Research evidence tells us that

– early and more extensive non-parental care is linked with

higher levels of problem behaviour, most consistently in

carer/teacher reported outcomes (NICHD SECCYD, 2005)

– non-parental care in infancy has limited links to school-age

behavioural functioning (ECLS – B, 2012)

Research evidence tells us that characteristics of

the care setting influence outcomes

– Quality

• Caregiver language/stimulation (ORCE: NICHD ECC, 2000)

• Ratios of adults-to-children (de Schipper et al., 2006; Harrison, 2008)

• Carer time in play/interaction or non-play activities(Harrison, 2008)

• Global measures; eg. Infant Toddler Environment Rating Scale

(ITERS) (Bowes et al., 2009, Winer & Phillips, 2012)

• Opportunities for play – content /meaning (Thyssen, 2000)

– Caregiver-child interaction

• Caregiver availability (de Schipper et al., 2004)

• Attachment security (Howes & Guerra, 2009)

• Teaching behaviour (Klein & Feldman, 2007)

– Type of care

• Multiple care settings (Bowes et al., 2009)

• Stability of care (de Schipper et al., 2004)

• Centre vs home-based care settings (Ahnert et al., 2006)

Research evidence also tells us that

• Characteristics of the child influence outcomes:

– Gender

• male (de Schipper et al., 2004); female (Ahnert et al., 2006)

• gender by quality (Winer & Phillips, 2012)

– Temperament

• difficulty adapting to novelty; irritable (de Schipper et al., 2004)

– Affect regulation

• negative emotion during transition to care (Ahnert et al., 2004)

– Communication

• gestures/signals in response to carer communication (Vallotton,

2010)

– Attachment relationship

• secure toddler-mother attachment (Ahnert et al., 2004)

• childcare separation behaviour (Klein et al, 2010)

Aims of the present paper

Using a representative sample of 2-3 year old

Australian children attending centre-based

childcare

To test the:

- possible predictive associations between aspects

of infant care (parental care vs child care; carer-

child relationship; type of care) and children’s

social development and well-being,

- after taking account of the effects of known

predictors of child outcomes as well as features of

children’s current care arrangements

1. Identifying the LSAC subsample

• Use of centre-based child care at Wave 2 (2-3y)

N = 2211

• Type of child care at Wave 1 (6-12m)

• Parent only N = 1234 (56%)

• Child care centre N = 334 (15%)

• Home based care N = 449 (23%)

• Centre + home N = 144 ( 7%)

• Wave 2 data provided by centre-based carer

N = 1233

• Wave 1 data provided by home or centre carer

N = 354

2. Identifying the outcome measures

• Children’s adjustment in child care is described by:

– well-being in day care

(de Schipper, Tavecchio, van IJzendoorn, Zeijl, 2004)

– behaviour problems

(NICHD SECCYD, 1998)

– social competence

(Howes & Hamilton, 1993)

– play/exploration

(Thyssen, 2000)

– caregiver relationship

(Ahnert, Pinquart, Lamb, 2006)

– participation in community of peers

(Elfer, 2006)

2. Identifying LSAC measures at age 2-3 years

1. Social competence and behaviour problems

– Brief Infant-Toddler Scale of Emotional Adjustment (BITSEA)

(Briggs-Gowan & Carter, 2002)

2. Teacher-child closeness and conflict

– Student-Teacher Relationship Scale – short version (Pianta, 2001)

3. Wellbeing in day care

– Leiden Inventory for Child Wellbeing in Daycare (De Schipper et al.,

2004) – short form

4. Play behaviour in day care

– Object and Social Play Scale (National Early Intervention

Longitudinal Study NEILS, 2000)

5. Separation behaviour

– Child Separation/Reunion scale (McCartney & Beauregard,1991)

3. Identifying predictor/explanatory variables

1. Child characteristics

- Age at Wave 2 (2-3 years)

- Sex

- Temperament (6-12 months; rated by parent)

• approach (pleasant when first arriving in unfamiliar places)

• irritability (negative mood, responds to frustration intensely)

• cooperative/manageability

2. Maternal separation anxiety (6-12 months)

– proxy for attachment relationship (Harrison & Ungerer, 2002)

3. Care at age 6-12 months

– Type

• home-based, centre-based, home + centre

– Carer-child relationship quality

• Closeness

• Difficulty/conflict

4. Current childcare experience (weekly hours, quality of care)

4. Analysis plan

1. Test the effect of non-parental care vs no care in infancy

Each outcome regressed on child sex, age, temperament, family

socioeconomic position, use of infant child care, current care hours and

carer-rated quality

Children with parent and W2 carer data N = 980

Results summarised in Table 1 (teacher ) 1a (parent)

2. Tested the effects of child care type on infancy

Each outcome regressed on child sex, age, temperament, maternal-

child relationship, type of infant child care (categorical variable), carer-

infant relationship quality, current care hourS

Children with W1 and W2 carer data N = 192

Results summarised in Table 2 (teacher ) 2a (parent)

3. Interaction terms sex by type of care also tested

Table 1

Teacher ratings

Social

comp’t

Behav.

Prob.

Carer

closenes

Carer

conflict

Well-

being

Social

Play

Positiv

Arrival

R2 .13 .04 .09 .07 .06 .07 .07

Child sex *** † *** * - *** †

Child age - ** - - - - -

Temperament

approachability- - - ** - - -

irritability - - - * † - -

cooperative - - - - - - -

Mat sep anxiety - - - - - † -

Family SEP † - * - - - -

Infant childcare - - - - - - -

Quality of care

Interactive*** * *** ** *** *** ***

custodial - * - ** - - -

Hours of care *** - *** *** *** - -

Table 1a

Parent ratings

Social

comp’t

Behav.

Prob.

R2 .12 .10

Child sex *** *

Child age - *

Temperament

approachability** †

irritability - ***

cooperative *** *

Mat sep anxiety - -

Family SEP *** ***

Infant childcare - -

Quality of care

Interactive- -

custodial - -

Hours of care - -

Results

Teacher rated socio-emotional

outcomes at age 2-3 were

influenced by

- infant characteristics (better for

girls, older children, easier

temperament)

- current care quality and hours

But not infant childcare

Parent rated socio-emotional

outcomes were influenced by

- infant characteristics (better for

girls, older children, easier

temperament) and

- family socio-economic position

(better for more advantaged)

- not by current or infant child care

Table 2

Teacher ratings

Social

comp’t

Behav.

Prob.

Carer

closenes

Carer

conflict

Well-

being

Social

Play

Positiv

Arrival

R2 .07 .08 .04 .11 .05 .09 .05

Child sex *** - † - - *** -

Child age - - - * - - -

Temperament

approachability- - - - - - -

irritability - - - * - - -

cooperative - - - * - - -

Mat sep anxiety - - - - - - -

Family SEP - † - - - - -

Type of infant

childcare- - - - - - -

Relationship

closeness- - - * - - -

difficulty - - - - - - -

Hours of care - - - - - - -

Results Table 2a

Parent ratings

Social

comp’t

Behav.

Prob.

R2 .13 .11

Child sex ** -

Child age - *

Temperament

approachability- -

irritability - -

cooperative * -

Mat sep anxiety - -

Family SEP - -

Infant childcare - -

Relationship

closeness- -

difficulty - -

Hours of care - -

For the group who entered

childcare as infants,

parent ratings of

socioemotional

development were

influenced by

- child characteristics

(better for girls, older

children, temperamentally

easier)

- and not features of infant

child care

Interaction between type of care and child sex regressed

on carer-child conflict (added 2.5% to explained variance)

Conclusion

• Consistent findings, based on 9 different outcome measures

of child socio-emotional development, provided by both

parents and child care educators, that attending child care in

infancy vs receiving parental only care was not was not

related to differences in children’s outcomes at age 2-3.

• Furthermore, within the group who received care, type of

infant care did not have a direct effect on any outcomes.

• Some evidence that type of care effects were moderated by

child gender, with boys being negatively affected by receiving

a mix of home and centre care arrangements, but this was

only found for one outcome – conflict with carers.

Conclusion

• These findings provide an encouraging message for parents

struggling to decide when to start using child care and what

type of care is best for their baby

• At age 2-3, longer hours of care were associated with more

positive outcomes (more prosocial with peers, greater sense of

wellbeing/enjoyment in childcare, close relationship with adults)

• Teacher-reported quality (amount of time spent engaged with

children) was also linked to more positive outcomes

• Why are Australian findings different from reports from US

regarding early / extensive childcare and behaviour difficulties?

– consider quality and quality assurance systems

International studies using observed measure of

child care quality (ECERS, ITERS)

How is Australia doing relative to UK on ECERS quality?

CCC U.K. (Sylva et al. 2010)

How is Australia doing relative to US on ITERS quality?

Child Care Choices U.S.A. (Elicker)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

ITERS ratings

0

5

10

15

20

25

Mean = 3.06Std. Dev. =

1.17

N = 121