Supplemental Materials

Time Spent in Child Care: How and Why Does It Affect Social Development?

by A. C. Huston et al., 2015, Developmental Psychology

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038951

Online Table A

Quantity of Care Findings from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Developmenta,b

Age assessedYear of publication

Mother rated problems, social skills

Teacher/caregiver rated problems, social skills

Other measure of child social development

Qualifiers, moderators

15 months1997b

NA NA Security of attachment to mother. No main effects.

Interaction of quantity x maternal sensitivity. Low sensitivity and high quantity had fewer children with secure attachment.

24 months1998a

Behavior problems = 0Social competence = 0

Behavior problems = ↑All child care variables accounted for 2% of total variance

Observed defiance with M = 0Observed negative behavior with M = 0Noncompliance in CC = 0

36 months1998a

Behavior problems = 0Social competence = 0

Behavior problems = 0 Observed defiance with M = 0Observed negative behavior with M = 0

36 months2001b

NA NA Attachment to mother.No main effects of quantity.

Interaction of quantity x maternal sensitivity.Low sensitivity and high quantity had higher % insecure, inhibited children.High sensitivity and high quantity had higher % secure children.

24 months2001aPeer interactions

Positive sociability = 0Negative/aggression = 0

Positive sociability = 0Negative/aggression = ↑24 mo = .1136 mo = .04

Observed play in child care Positive = 0 Negative = 0

36 months2001aPeer interactions

Positive sociability = 0Negative/aggression = 0

Positive sociability = 0Negative/aggression = 0

Observed play in child care Positive = 0 Negative = 0Observed dyadic play: Peer skill = 0 Peer aggression = 0 Self assertion = 0

Care 6-24 monthsOutcome 6-36 months.1999Mother-child interaction

NA NA Observed mother-child interaction:Mother sensitivity = ↓ (without quality in model)Mother sensitivity = 0 (with quality included; smaller sample)b

Child engagement = ↓

Care 0-3 yearsOutcome:36 months -1st grade2003cMother-child interaction

NA NA Observation of mother-child interaction at 36, 54, 1st grade Maternal sensitivity = 0 Child engagement = 0

Interaction of ethnic group x quantity (sensitivity and engagement): White non-Hisp = ↓ Non-white = ↑Interaction of quantity x time (mother sensitivity only): Sensitivity at 3 yr = ↓ Sensitivity later = 0

4.5 yr.2002 & 2003a

Social competence = ↓ r = -.08Externalizing = 0

Social competence ↓r = -.12Externalizing ↑ r = .20Caregiver conflict ↑ r = .16

Observed in child care: Positive = 0 Negative = 0Dyadic play Positive = 0 Negative = 0

24, 36, 54 months2006

Social skills = 0Behavior problems = 0

Social skills = 0Behavior problems 24 mo = 0 36 mo ↑ r = .09 54 mo ↑ r = .14Conflict with teacher 54 mo ↑ r = .13

K2003a

Social competence = 0Externalizing = ↑

Social competence = 0Externalizing ↑ r = .08Caregiver conflictt ↑ r = .08

54 months - 3rd Social skill = 0 Social skill = ↓ NA Age x quantity

grade2005b

Externalizing = 0Conflict = 0

Externalizing = ↑Conflict = ↑Social emotional well-being = 0

interaction for externalizing and conflict. With age, association of quantity with externalizing and teacher conflict declined to nonsignificant levels.Externalizing: 4.5 = .12, 1st = .08, 3rd = .03Conflict: 4.5 = .11, 1st = .07, 3rd = .05

54 months.-6th

gradeBelsky et al., 2007

NA Social skill = 0Externalizing = 0Conflict = 0Social emotional well-being = 0

NA Age x quantity interaction for externalizing and conflict. With age, association of quantity with externalizing and teacher conflict declined to nonsignificant levels.Externalizing:4.5 r = .11,1st r = .07,3rd r = .03;6th r = -.03Conflict:4.5 r = .12, 1st r = .11,3rd r = .05,6th r = -.02

9th gradeVandell et al.,

NA NA Self-reports: Risk taking d = .09

2010 Impulsivity d = .13 Externalizing 0

a. Relations of cumulative quantity to child social behavior. Quantity is defined as average hours/week from 4 months of age to

age of assessment. All analyses include all children remaining in the sample at time of assessment b. Where available, effect sizes are given for significant main effects. Except where noted, they are partial correlations of hours in

care with the outcome, controlling for other variables in the model. They indicate in standard deviation units how much increase in the outcome is expected for an increase of one standard deviation in the predictor. In one study, d is the effect size, indicating the predicted mean difference between youth with high (30+) and low (<10) amounts of child care experience.

c. The sample with quality in the analysis was restricted to children who were observed in child care. The sample without quality was larger because it included all children.

Key: ↑ = positive coefficient for the association of quantity with dependent variable, p < .05. 0 = no significant association of quantity with dependent variable. ↓ = negative coefficient for the association of quantity with dependent variable, p < .05.

Online Table BRelations of Cumulative Experience in Center or Large Group Care to Child Social Behavior in NICHD Studya

PredictorAge assessedYear of publication

Mother rated problems, social skills

Teacher/caregiver rated problems, social skills

Other measure of child social development

Qualifiers, moderators

In settings with 2 or more other children24 months1998a

Behavior problems = 0Social competence = 0

Behavior problems = ↑ Observed defiance with M = 0Observed negative behavior with M = 0Noncompliance in CC = ↑

In settings with 2 or more other children36 months1998a

Behavior problems = 0Social competence = 0

Behavior problems = ↑ Observed defiance with M = 0Observed negative behavior with M = 0

Peer availability24 months2001a

Positive sociability = 0Negative/aggression = 0

Positive sociability = 0Negative/aggression = ↑r = .09

Observed play in child care Positive = 0 Negative = 0

Peer availability36 months2001a

Positive sociability = 0Negative/aggression = 0

Positive sociability = 0Negative/aggression = 0

Observed play in child care Positive = ↑r = .15 Negative = 0Observed dyadic play: Peer skill = 0

Peer aggression = 0 Self assertion = 0

Hours in center care ages 1-54 monthsOutcome: 54 months2004

Social skill = 0Externalizing = 0Internalizing =0

Social skill = 0Externalizing = ↑Internalizing =0

Percent of epochs in center care4.5 yr.2002b

Social skill= 0Behavior problems = 0

Social skill = 0Behavior problems = ↑

No center care vs. some (24, 36) or vs. >33% of epochs in center (54 months)2006

Social skill= 0Behavior problems = 0

Social skill 24 ↓ d = -.28 36 ↓ d = -.18 54 = 0Behavior problems 24 = 0 36 = ↑ d = .20 54 = ↑ d = .14

Positive with friend 54 mo ↑ d = .21Negative with friend = 0

Percent of epochs in center careKindergarten2003a

Behavior Problems = 0

Behavior Problems = ↑Conflict = ↑

Percent of epochs in center care54 months.- 3rd grade2005b

Social skill = 0Externalizing = 0Conflict = ↑rs from age 4.5 to 3rd = .08 to .05

Social skill = 0Externalizing = ↑rs from age 4.5 to 3rd = ..11 to .05Conflict = ↑Social emotional well-being = 0

Age x center interaction for teacher conflict. With age, association of centers with teacher conflict declines4.5 r = .131st r = .09

3rd r = .01Percent of epochs in center care54 months.-6th

gradeBelsky et al., 2007

NA Social skill = 0Externalizing = ↑rs from age 4.5 to 6th = ..12 to .08Conflict = 0Social emotional well-being = 0

9th gradeVandell et al., 2010

NA NA Self-reports: Risk taking 0 Impulsivity 0 Externalizing 0

a. All predictors are cumulative from 6 months to time of assessment.b. Where available, effect sizes are given for significant main effects. Except where noted, they are partial correlations of hours

in care with the outcome, controlling for other variables in the model. They indicate in standard deviation units how much increase in the outcome is expected for an increase of one standard deviation in the predictor. In the 2006 study, d is the effect size, indicating the predicted mean difference between children with no center experience and those with some experience or, at 54 months, more than 33% of the time in center care.

Key: ↑ = positive coefficient for the association of quantity with dependent variable, p < .05 0 = no significant association of quantity with dependent variable. ↓ = negative coefficient for the association of quantity with dependent variable, p < .05.

Online Table C

Summary of Longitudinal Studies Examining Quantity of Care and Social Behavior

Study Age AssessedAge of Child Care Experience

Quantity Definition

Type of Behavior and Direction of Effect

Reporter Sample

Baker, Gruber, & Mulligan, 2008 2-3 years old Not specified

Availability of inexpensive child care

Hyperactive = 0Anxiety = ↑Separation anxiety = 0Aggression = ↑

Mother CanadaN about 14,500

Barnes, Leach, Malmberg, Stein, & Sylva 2010

36 months old

3, 10, 18, 36 months old

Average hours in any type of child care between 0-36 months

Disruptive = 0Expressive = ↑ for 19-36 monthsCompliance = 0

Mother UK;N = 1000+

Bates, Marvinney, Kelly, Dodge, Bennett, & Pettit, 1994

Kindergarten 0-1, 1-4, 4-5 years old

Time in any type of child care calculated for each of 3 “eras”

Negative adjustment = ↑,σ2 explained = 2.9%Positive adjustment = ↓σ2 explained = 2.9%

MultipleUS; mixed SES;3 sitesN = 580

Borge, Rutter, Côté, & Tremblay, 2004

24-47 months old Concurrent Any care vs.

motherPhysical aggression = 0

Person most knowledgeable (PMK)

Canada (Random NLSCY sample); mixed SES;N = 3431

Bornstein, Hahn, Gist, & Haynes, 2006

4 ½ years old Any prior experience

Cumulative hours

Behavior problems = 0 Teacher US; mixed SES

Online Table C

Summary of Longitudinal Studies Examining Quantity of Care and Social Behavior

Study Age AssessedAge of Child Care Experience

Quantity Definition

Type of Behavior and Direction of Effect

Reporter Sample

Coley, Votruba-Drzal, Miller, & Koury, 2013 Kindergarten

9 months, 2 years, 4 years old

None, 5-25 hours; >25 hours/week

Age 4 full-time vs. none predictsParent:

Externalizing = ↑D = .16Learning behavior = 0

Teacher:Externalizing = ↑d = .26Learning behavior = ↑d = .18

ParentTeacher

US (ECLS-B); nationally representative born in 2001.N = 6.000 parent report; 4500 teacher report

Côté, Borge, Geoffroy, Rutter, & Tremblay, 2008

4 years old 0-1 year old in 1994

Any care vs mother

Physical aggressionLo risk ↑d = .16Hi risk ↓d = -.17Emotional problemsGirls in lo risk = ↑d = ..44

PMK

Canada (Random NLSCY Sample);mixed SESN = 1358

Crosby, Dowsett, Gennetian, & Huston, 2010

5-7 years old 3-4 years old Center, home, both, or neither

Externalizing = ↑ (using OLS)Externalizing = ↓ (using IV)

Mother

US; Low SESN=3290N for Teacher ratings = 379

Jaffee, Van 5-7 and 0-1, 1-3, none Any care OLS (entered care Mother US (NLSY Child

Online Table C

Summary of Longitudinal Studies Examining Quantity of Care and Social Behavior

Study Age AssessedAge of Child Care Experience

Quantity Definition

Type of Behavior and Direction of Effect

Reporter Sample

Hulle, & Rodgers, 2011

11-13 years old

before 3 years old

between 0-1) Conduct Problems ↓ d = -.12Oppositional Behaviors = ↓d = -.08Fixed effects: Oppositional Behaviors = 0Entered care age 2-3: Adolescent Conduct Problems = ↑d = .08

Sample);Mixed SES;N=9185SiblingsN = 2700+ families

Lekhal, 2012 3 years old 1, 2, and 3 years old

Age at entry into either center care or family day care

Externalizing & internalizing behaviors = 0

Mother

Norway; population-based Mother and Child Cohort Study N=73,068

Online Table C

Summary of Longitudinal Studies Examining Quantity of Care and Social Behavior

Study Age AssessedAge of Child Care Experience

Quantity Definition

Type of Behavior and Direction of Effect

Reporter Sample

Loeb, Bridges, Bassok, Fuller, & Rumberger, 2007

Kindergarten 4 (Pre-K)

Center, Head Start, other nonparent, parent;Age of entry by yr.;Moderate vs. high intensity (centers)

Aggregate variable including self-control, interpersonal skills, and externalizing = ↑d = -.089 (center) and d = -.12 (Head Start)

Teacher

US (ECLS-K);Nationally-representative; N = 14,162 children who entered Kindergarten in 1998

Magnuson, , Ruhm, & Waldfogel, 2007

Kindergarten and 1st grade

Year prior to Kindergarten

Center, Pre-K, Head Start, other nonparent; Pre-K vs all others

Self control = ↓r = -.07 (for Pre-K, center-based, Head Start)

Externalizing = ↑ r = .11 (for Pre-K, center-based, Head Start; Not true for kids in same school).

Teacher

US (ECLS –K); Nationally-representative; N = 9,547 children who entered Kindergarten in 1998

Votruba-Drzal, Coley, & Chase-

3-5 years old 2-4 years old Hours in care at first

Positive behavior = 0Internalizing = 0

Mother U.S. 3 cities. Low income single

Online Table C

Summary of Longitudinal Studies Examining Quantity of Care and Social Behavior

Study Age AssessedAge of Child Care Experience

Quantity Definition

Type of Behavior and Direction of Effect

Reporter Sample

Lansdale, 2004 assessment

Externalizing = 0Interaction of quality x hours on all 3 measures

mothers. N = 204

Votruba-Drzal, Coley, Maldonado-Carreño, Li-Grining, & Chase-Lansdale, 2010

8-10 years old

2-4, 3-5 years old

Hours in care at one or both assessments

Internalizing = 0Externalizing = 0 Mother

U.S. 3 cities. Low income single mothers. N = 349

Solheim, Wichstrøm, Belsky, & Berg-Nielsen, 2013

4 years old 6-54 months old

Cumulative hours 6-54 months old

Social competence = 0Externalizing = 0Conflict w teacher ↑ , Cohen’s f2 = .05

Teacher NorwayN = 995

Yamauchi & Leigh, 2011 2-3 years old

From age 0-1 to 2-3 years old

Cumulative amount 0-3 years old

Approach = 0Persistence = 0nonReactivity = ↓Average of all 3 scales = ↓

Parent

Australia (Longitudinal Survey of Australian Children, Birth Cohort)N = 5,000

Zachrisson, Dearing, Lekhal,

36 months old

18 and 36 months

Hours per week at 18, 36

Externalizing (with correction for

Mother Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort

Online Table C

Summary of Longitudinal Studies Examining Quantity of Care and Social Behavior

Study Age AssessedAge of Child Care Experience

Quantity Definition

Type of Behavior and Direction of Effect

Reporter Sample

Toppelberg, 2013 months

missing data), fixed effects = 0Externalizing with listwise deletion = ↑ES = .04 for every added 10 hours

Study – population-based.N about 75,000

Note. Where available, effect sizes are given for significant main effects. Except where noted, they are partial correlations of hours in care with the outcome, controlling for other variables in the model. They indicate in standard deviation units how much increase in the outcome is expected for an increase of one standard deviation in the predictor.Key: ↑ = positive coefficient for the association of quantity with dependent variable, p < .05.

0 = no significant association of quantity with dependent variable. ↓ = negative coefficient for the association of quantity with dependent variable, p < .05.