The children of the cost, quality, and outcomes study go to school : technical report. - Page 66 |
Previous | 66 of 77 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
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
Object Description
Description
Title | The children of the cost, quality, and outcomes study go to school : technical report. - Page 66 |
Pres Local File Path-M | \Preservation_content\StatePubs\pubs_borndigital\images_master\ |
Full Text | 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 |