53
with others) ( alpha = .64), and independence ( thinking for self, responsible for own work) ( alpha = .61). Higher
scores represent greater value placed on that dimension.
In the second year survey, parents completed the Home Screening Questionnaire ( HSQ; Frankenburg & Coons,
1986) which provides information about the quality of the home environment for children. The HSQ is a self-administered
version of the Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment ( HOME) scale ( Caldwell &
Bradley, 1980), which is a well- established and widely used observational measure of the social, emotional, and
cognitive support available to the child in the home. The HSQ captures parental perceptions of the support
available in the home. The HSQ is scored as a total score, based on the sum of the 35 item scores, with a range
from 0 to 56. Scores at or below 41 are considered “ suspect” for developmental screening for the child, indicat-ing
that the child’s development is at risk due to poor home environment conditions. The internal consistency
of the scale was determined by first examining correlations of items with the total score. Six of the items were
nonsignificantly correlated ( r < .04). We next used the KR20 formula to test the internal consistency of the scale.
( The KR20 was used because 30 of the items had a binary score, one used a 2- point scale, one used a 3- point
scale, one used a 6- point scale, and one used a 14- point scale.) The KR20 for the overall scale was .66. We then
recalculated the KR20 after deleting the six items that had nonsignificant correlations with the total score. This
improved the KR20 to .73. Therefore, the revised HSQ total deleting the six noncorrelated items was used as the
summary measure for this variable.
The third year survey included the Family Routines Inventory ( FRI; Boyce, Jensen, James, & Peacock, 1983),
which is designed to measure the use of positive routines that support children’s development and family cohe-sion.
The routines captured on the scale include those associated with the typical workday, weekend and leisure
time, bedtime, meals, extended family, leaving and arriving home, discipline, and chores. The modified FRI that
we used consisted of 28 items scored on a 0– 3 scale of frequency, with 3 indicating the routine is more fre-quently
followed and 0 indicating it is never followed. We used factor analyses to derive three subscale scores:
( a) parent- child interactions ( e. g., parents have time to talk with children, parents read stories to children) ( alpha
= .71); ( b) household routines ( e. g., family eats dinner together, family visits with relatives) ( alpha = .66); and ( c)
work/ after- school routines ( e. g., working parents are home at same time each day, young children go to child
care regularly) ( alpha = .32).
The fourth year survey included the short form version of the Parenting Stress Index ( PSI; Abidin, 1990). The PSI is
a widely used measure of parents’ perceptions of their concerns about being parents and the parent- child
relationship. Items are scored on a 1– 5 scale, with higher scores indicating more stress in the parent- child
relationship. A total score was used as a summary measure for this variable ( alpha=. 93).
The fifth year survey included the Parental Modernity Scale ( Schaefer & Edgerton, 1985), which is a 1 to 5 rating
scale of child rearing beliefs. The measure discriminates between “ traditional” or more authoritarian approaches
to child rearing and “ progressive” or more child- centered approaches. There are two subscales, the 22- item
traditional subscale ( alpha = .88) and the 8- item progressive subscale ( alpha = .60). Higher scores on the
subscale represent stronger beliefs in that approach to child rearing.
DATA ANALYSES
For the longitudinal findings ( findings 1– 3), analyses examined longitudinal patterns of development from ages 4
( next- to- last year of preschool) through 8 ( second grade) using hierarchical longitudinal analyses. A separate
analysis was conducted for each of six developmental outcomes: assessments of children’s receptive language
ability ( PPVT- R standard score), letter- word recognition ability ( WJ- R Letter- Word Identification Rasch score), and
math ability ( WJ- R Applied Problems Rasch score), and teacher ratings of children’s cognitive/ attention skills