Do regulable features of child-care homes affect children’s development?

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(02)00133-3Get rights and content

Abstract

Data from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care were used to assess whether regulable features of child-care homes affect children’s development. Child-care homes selected were those in which there were at least two children and the care provider received payment for child care (ns=164 when the study children were 15 months old, 172 at 24 months, and 146 at 36 months). Caregivers who were better educated and had received more recent and higher levels of training provided richer learning environments and warmer and more sensitive caregiving. Caregivers who had more child-centered beliefs about how to handle children also provided higher quality caregiving and more stimulating homes. In addition, when settings were in compliance with recommended age-weighted group size cut-offs, caregivers provided more positive caregiving. Quality of care was not related to caregivers’ age, experience, professionalism, or mental health, or to the number of children enrolled in the child-care home or whether the caregivers’ children were present. Children with more educated and trained caregivers performed better on tests of cognitive and language development. Children who received higher quality care, in homes that were more stimulating, with caregivers who were more attentive, responsive, and emotionally supportive, did better on tests of language and cognitive development and also were rated as being more cooperative. These findings make a case for regulating caregivers’ education and training and for requiring that child-care homes not exceed the recommended age-weighted group size.

Introduction

Today, in the United States, the majority of infants and toddlers have mothers who work outside the home, and the most common child-care arrangement for them, if dad or another relative is not available, is care in a child-care home (National Center for Education Statistics, 1998). Because this form of child care is so common, concern has been voiced about the quality of attention children receive in these settings (Kontos, Howes, Shinn, & Galinsky, 1995). Child-care homes are enormously varied and largely invisible. They range from informal drop-off sites in the neighborhood to organized facilities run by child-care professionals. They may be licensed or operate “underground,” provide care for one or two children or groups of six or more. The children in the home may be infants or toddlers or older children, including school-age children in the late afternoon; they may or may not include the care provider’s own children. It is hard to know what goes on in these diverse settings. Media reports of neglect or abuse in some child-care homes (e.g., Healy, 1998, MacGregor, 1998) fuel efforts to regulate home-based child care. But not only do we not know what goes on in these homes, we do not know which features should be regulated, or if regulating them would improve the quality of care children receive.

In centers, the features of care that are most commonly regulated include the child–staff ratio, group size, and teacher preparation. Regulating these features in center care makes sense, because research indicates that when center classes have fewer children, a better child–staff ratio, and more educated teachers, children receive more positive caregiving and do better on assessments of their behavior and development (Lamb, 1997, NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 1999b). Would regulating these same dimensions be likely to promote higher quality care and better child outcomes in child-care homes, or are there other dimensions of child-care home settings that outweigh the significance of these factors, such as whether the caregiver’s own children are present or whether the caregiver suffers from depression?

In the present study, we used data from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care to consider these issues. In particular, we posed three questions:

  • 1.

    Do regulable features such as caregiver education and training and group size predict the quality of children’s experiences observed in child-care homes?

  • 2.

    Do nonregulable factors such as caregivers’ beliefs predict the quality of care children experiences in child-care homes or mediate the effects of regulable variables?

  • 3.

    Do these regulable and nonregulable features and observed quality of care predict children’s cognitive and social development?

The data set provided by the NICHD Study of Early Child Care allowed us a unique opportunity to address these questions. Data were collected at 10 research sites in nine states that varied widely in their regulation of child-care homes. Children were enrolled in the study at birth, and were followed through their first 3 years, with observations in their primary child-care arrangements at 15, 24, and 36 months. Standardized cognitive and language assessments were obtained at these same ages, along with mother and caregiver reports of children’s social skills and behavior problems. Family factors associated with child-care features were also assessed. Thus, it was possible to examine the contributions of regulable features, nonregulable factors, and observed quality of care to a broad array of child developmental outcomes measured at three different ages, while controlling for selection factors like family income and maternal education. Analyses of this complexity and breadth have not been possible in previous studies of child-care homes. In addition, because families were recruited at the child’s birth, the likelihood that the sample was composed only of families who were satisfied with their care arrangements or who used licensed settings was reduced. Prior research has not included such methodological control. The NICHD Study has its limitations: the number of children who were cared for in child-care homes was modest; the sample was not a nationally representative one; and certain exclusion criteria were applied in recruiting the sample in the first place. Nevertheless, the strengths of the study make it an important source of information for answering questions about the quality of care in child-care homes.

In the study, we observed quality of care in two different ways. In previous work, researchers have defined child-care quality in terms of the caregiver’s behavior (e.g., Arnett, 1989), or in terms of more global measures of the physical and social environment (e.g., Abbott-Shim and Sibley, 1987, Harms and Clifford, 1989)—or both (Kontos et al., 1995). In the current study, we followed both approaches. Ratings of caregivers’ behavior with individual children were based on minute-to-minute observations of study children’s experiences. These ratings, which included dimension such as the caregiver’s sensitivity and positive regard for the child, were based on Ainsworth’s well-known ratings of maternal behavior (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978). A second measure of child-care quality was a more global assessment that included aspects of both the physical and the social environment. The Child-care HOME (CC-HOME) was adapted from Caldwell and Bradley’s HOME inventory (Caldwell & Bradley, 1984), an instrument that has been widely used to measure the quality of care provided by parents (e.g., Bradley et al., 1989). The HOME was modified by Bradley and Caldwell for the NICHD Study of Early Child Care to assess the quality of home child care.

The first question on which the present study was based was whether regulable features of child-care homes predict the observed quality of care in terms of both caregivers’ behavior and overall quality assessed with the CC-HOME. Based on research conducted over the past two decades, we identified the following regulable features as likely to be related to observed quality of care and, therefore, as being worthy of investigation: (a) caregiver education and specialized training, (b) number of children in the home, and (c) government licensing.

Several researchers have previously reported that more highly educated providers offer higher quality care as assessed by indices of positive caregiver behavior (Clarke-Stewart, Gruber, & Fitzgerald, 1994; Kontos et al., 1995, Rosenthal, 1994, Stallings, 1980) and global quality scores (Burchinal, Howes, & Kontos, 2002; Goelman, 1988). These differences have not always been observed, however (Kontos, 1994). Similarly, in a substantial number of studies, it has been reported that care providers with specialized training in child care or child development provide better quality care on global scales (Burchinal et al., 2002) and are more sensitive and do more teaching (Bollin, 1990, Clarke-Stewart et al., 1994; Fischer & Eheart, 1991; Fosburg, 1981, Kontos et al., 1995; Kontos, Howes, & Galinsky, 1996; Howes, 1983; Howes, Keeling, & Sale, 1988), but these findings have not been replicated in all studies (Kontos, 1994, Rosenthal, 1994).

A limitation of many of these studies is that investigators have focused on bivariate associations between caregiver education and training and observed quality of care; they have not determined the independent contributions of general education and specialized training. Nor have other caregiver characteristics such as professionalism or mental health been controlled in the analyses in order to investigate the unique contributions of education and training. A further limitation of earlier research is that these relations between caregiver education and training and observed quality of care have not typically been examined for children of varying ages. In the present study, we examined the independent links between caregivers’ education, training, and observed quality of care for children at three ages, while controlling for other caregiver characteristics and features of the child-care home. We expected to find significant links with both caregiver education and caregiver training with these statistical controls in place.

Evidence concerning relations between the number of children in the child-care home and observed care quality is extensive but somewhat inconsistent. In a number of studies, researchers have found that caregivers were more positive and responsive to children when fewer children were present (Clarke-Stewart et al., 1994; Elicker, Fortner-Wood, & Noppe, 1999; Howes, 1983, Stallings, 1980). In the study by Clarke-Stewart et al. (1994) and in the National Day Care Home Study (Fosburg, 1981), in fact, group size was the strongest predictor of home care providers’ behavior. The same was true for infants in the NICHD Study of Early Child Care (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 1996); the number of children for whom the caregiver was responsible was the strongest contributor to observed positive caregiving when the infants were 6 months of age.

This link with group size has not been observed in every study, however (e.g., Burchinal et al., 2002, Kontos, 1994). Moreover, in the Family and Relative Care Study (Kontos et al., 1995), family child-care homes with more children received higher ratings on the Family Day Care Rating Scale (FDCRS; Harms & Clifford, 1989) than homes with fewer children. The reason for the apparent discrepancy appeared to be the caregivers’ training and reasons for providing care, which were not controlled in the group size analyses. Caregivers caring for only one or two children tended to have less specialized training and to be more likely to view their role as temporary; caregivers who cared for more children were more professionally committed. In the Vancouver Project, Pence and Goelman (1991) reported similar relations between group size, caregiver training, and professional commitment. Caregivers who cared for more children were likely to have specialized training, to be committed to family child care as a career, and to provide higher quality care. In present study, we explored the relation between the number of children in the child-care home and the quality of care, while controlling for caregiver background variables such as training and professional commitment. We predicted that, with caregiver background controlled, better quality care would occur in homes with fewer children.

Another factor considered in the current investigation was the number of children of various ages. The National Association for Family Child Care has devised a “point system” that takes into account the number of children of different ages in a child-care home. A child-care home is given “points” that represent a weighted sum of the number of children in different age categories. Each child under age 2 is given 33 points; each 2-year-old gets 25 points; children aged 3–6 get 16 points each; and children over age 6 each receive 10 points (Modigliani & Bromer, 1997). The National Association proposed that child-care homes with one caregiver should total fewer than 100 points, whereas those with two paid caregivers present at least half the time should total fewer than 175 points. The link between “points” and quality of care has been tested empirically in only one study that we are aware of. Burchinal et al. (2002) found no reliable linear relation between group size points and the quality of care as measured by a global rating (FDCRS). The present study allowed us to examine the effect of “point sizes” on the two measures of child-care home quality, the CC-HOME and the positive caregiving ratings, and to determine if better quality care was offered when points did not exceed recommended levels. We predicted that compliance with group size point cut-offs would be related to better quality care.

Although it is often assumed that the quality of care in licensed child-care homes is superior to that in unlicensed homes, the research documenting positive effects of licensing is not extensive. Study of this issue is complicated by the fact that states vary in whether they issue licenses and what they require of the licensee. Despite this variability, there is some evidence that licensed homes provide higher quality care than unlicensed homes. Specifically, in the three-state Family and Relative Care Study and in the California Licensing Study, licensed caregivers were observed to provide higher quality care and to be more sensitive to the children in their care (Burchinal et al., 2002). Goelman and Pence (1987) also reported that licensed programs in Canada obtained higher scores on the FDCRS than did nonlicensed child-care homes. The NICHD data set provided an opportunity to further examine the effect of licensing on the quality of care, across the broader variability represented by nine different states. We predicted that quality of care would be higher in licensed homes.

In our second question in the present study, we asked how quality of care was related to nonregulable features of child-care homes. The nonregulable factors we selected for investigation were the following: (a) the caregiver’s professional attitude toward being a care provider, (b) the length of her experience in the child-care field, (c) her age, (d) her beliefs about child rearing, (e) her mental health, and (f) the presence of her own children in the child-care home. It is unlikely that states can regulate these factors, but they may be important markers of quality of care nonetheless. Parents might, for example, consider these factors in their interviews with prospective caregivers. Moreover, these factors might mediate the effects of the regulable factors. For example, if caregivers’ education predicts the quality of care, this may be because education forms the basis for the caregiver’s beliefs about how to discipline and manage children. These nonregulable factors were selected on the basis of known links with caregivers’ or parents’ behavior.

An association between caregivers’ professional attitudes toward providing care and the quality of care they provide has been reported in several studies. Fosburg (1981) and Pence and Goelman (1991) found that caregivers who participated in a family child-care network—an indication of their professionalism—provided higher quality care. In the Family Child Care and Relative Care study (Kontos et al., 1995), “intentional” care providers were more committed to caring for children and offered higher quality, warmer, and more attentive care. Stallings (1980) observed that child-care home providers who considered themselves professionals were more likely to talk, help, teach, and play with the children and provided better physical environments; caregivers who provided family care only because no better job was available or as an informal agreement with friends, neighbors, or relatives were less interactive and stimulating and spent more time on housework. Therefore, we predicted that caregivers with more professional attitudes would provide better care.

Findings from previous research related to caregiver experience and quality of care are not so straightforward. In some studies, more experienced home care providers have been observed to provide warmer and more responsive care (e.g., Howes, 1983), but these results have not been replicated in other studies (Kontos, 1994, Rosenthal, 1994). In other studies, the opposite relation has been found: Burchinal et al. (2002) observed lower FDCRS scores and more detachment when caregivers had more experience. In the National Day Care Home Study (Fosburg, 1981), caregivers whose interactions with the children were most educational had a moderate amount of experience, 7–11 years in the field, showing yet another relation between caregiver experience and care quality. Finally, in analyses of care for 6-month-olds in the NICHD Study of Early Child Care (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 1996), significant but small negative correlations between caregivers’ experience and positive caregiving appeared to be the result of more experienced caregivers working in child-care homes with more children. When group size, child–adult ratio, and caregivers’ child-rearing beliefs were statistically controlled, experience, per se, was not associated with positive caregiving. In the present study, we examined the contribution of caregiver experience, while controlling for other nonregulable and regulable factors. We expected that if there was an effect of experience, when other factors were controlled, a moderate amount of experience would predict higher quality care.

In previous research, caregivers’ age has not been found to be a significant predictor of observed caregiving quality (Kontos, 1994; Pence & Goelman, 1991; Rosenthal, 1994), although it has certainly been related to more positive maternal behavior (e.g., Ragozin et al., 1982). Nevertheless, it was included as a variable in the present study because it is a simple demographic factor that might be related to quality when other caregiver characteristics are controlled. We made no specific prediction that age would be related to higher quality of caregivers’ behavior, but explored this possibility.

We did predict that quality of care would be related to having more child-centered beliefs about child rearing. This prediction was based on research by Rosenthal (1994) showing that caregivers who believed in less authoritarian control initiated more frequent educational activities and provided better physical environments for the children in their care. It also follows from research showing that such child-rearing beliefs predict more positive and responsive behavior in mothers (e.g., NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 1999a) and higher scores on the HOME (Palacios, Gonzalez, & Moreno, 1992).

Another nonregulable variable that we expected would be related to the quality of care, although it has not been considered in previous research on child care, is the care provider’s mental health. This factor, too, has been studied in research on parents. Mothers who are less depressed behave in more positive and involved ways with their children (e.g., NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 1999c). It seemed reasonable to expect that mental health would operate similarly for paid caregivers, and this was explored in the present study.

Finally, the last nonregulable feature we investigated was the presence of the caregivers’ own children in the child-care home. Kontos (1994) observed that care providers who were looking after their own children at the same time as they were caring for other children scored higher on global quality of care assessed with the FDCRS, but there was no difference in the frequency of their high-level involvement with individual children. Fosburg (1981) found that caregivers did less teaching, talking, and playing with individual children when their own child was present. Based on these studies, we expected that caregivers whose children were present in the child-care home would provide higher overall quality care on the CC-HOME but would not be rated higher on the quality of behavior with individual study children.

Our third question in this study was whether children would perform better on assessments of their cognitive, social, and behavioral development when they were cared for in child-care homes characterized by higher levels of regulable features, more positive nonregulable characteristics, and better observed quality. Previous research examining these relations between child-care home quality and children’s developmental outcomes has been limited, especially with respect to research focused specifically on child-care home settings and standardized measures of developmental outcomes.

Clarke-Stewart et al. (1994) reported relations between regulable features (caregiver education and number of children) and child outcomes (cognitive development) for children in all types of home care, including child-care homes, but these investigators did not specifically ask if regulable features predicted outcomes for the subsample of children who were in child-care homes. In a study that focused exclusively on child-care homes, Howes and Stewart (1987) reported that children engaged in higher levels of play in the child-care home setting when there were fewer children in that setting. However, Kontos (1994), in a relatively small study, found no relation between caregivers’ education and specialized training or number of children in the child-care home and children’s scores on standardized cognitive and language tests. Blau (1997), similarly, analyzing data from a much larger study, the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, found that relations between child outcomes and caregivers’ educational background and the number of children in the child-care home were small and inconsistent. By investigating associations between regulable features and child development outcomes for children in child-care homes, the present study offered important information to shed light on the inconsistent results in these previous studies.

Evidence in the published literature regarding relations between nonregulable aspects of child-care homes and child development outcomes is scarce and warrants more attention. Several investigators have reported negative relations between maternal depression and children’s developmental outcomes (Beardslee et al., 1983, Gelfand and Teti, 1990; NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 1999c). It is not clear, however, whether such associations would also appear in child care, which lacks the genetic connection of mother and child. To investigate this issue, in the present study, we examined children’s cognitive and social development in relation to their caregivers’ depressive symptoms. Previous researchers also have reported relations between mothers’ beliefs about child rearing and children’s development (see Sigel, McGillicuddy-DeLisi, & Goodnow, 1992; Smetana, 1994), suggesting that caregivers’ beliefs may also be predictive of children’s development. However, this link, too, has seldom been explored in child-care research. Kontos (1994) assessed home care providers’ child-rearing beliefs, but she did not report whether they were related to child outcomes. Only Rosenthal (1994) reported that children whose caregivers had more authoritarian beliefs were less socially competent. Thus, there is some reason to expect that caregiver beliefs will predict child outcomes, but limited empirical support for this prediction. The regulable features of caregivers’ age, experience, and the presence of the caregiver’s child in care were also investigated in Kontos’s (1994) study. She found that caregivers’ age was unrelated to children’s cognitive, language, and social outcomes, but children whose caregivers had more professional experience in the child-care field performed better on cognitive tests, and children in homes in which the caregiver’s own child was present were rated as less sociable. Because previous research on the prediction of child outcomes from nonregulable variables was so scarce, we did not make specific predictions about links between children’s developmental outcomes and caregivers’ mental health, child-rearing beliefs, experience, professionalism, and the presence of the caregiver’s children in the home. However, because this is an important and understudied aspect of home care, we explored the possibility that such associations might exist.

We also investigated whether children’s developmental outcomes would be predicted by the observed quality of care in the child-care home. In an early, unpublished study, Golden et al. (1978) showed that children did better on assessments of cognitive ability and social competence when caregivers offered them more cognitive and social-emotional stimulation. Similarly, both Goelman (1988) and Kontos (1994) reported positive correlations between global quality (FDCRS scores) and children’s scores on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. Other investigators found relations between observed quality and children’s functioning within the child-care home setting: higher quality care was associated with more competent play with caregivers, peers, and objects (Howes & Stewart, 1987), higher social competence with peers (Rosenthal, 1994), and higher cognitive competence and more secure attachment relationships with the caregiver (Elicker et al., 1999, Kontos et al., 1995). In the present study, we predicted that the quality of observed care, assessed in terms of caregivers’ behavior with individual children and with the more global inventory, the CC-HOME, would be significantly and positively related to children’s cognitive, social, and behavioral development.

We also investigated whether observed quality of care mediated the associations between child outcomes and regulable and nonregulable factors. The reason to conduct such analyses was to determine whether the process by which these factors influence children’s behavior and development—if the factors indeed turned out to be associated with child outcomes—was through the caregiver’s behavior and the environment in the home. This would lend credence to the argument that regulable or nonregulable features “cause” differences in children’s performance, rather than just being statistically associated with those differences. This step has not been taken in previous research on child-care homes, even when researchers have assessed both regulable and nonregulable features and observed quality of care (Kontos et al., 1995). It has proven to be an important and informative step in investigating the significance of quality in child-care centers (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, in press), and we expected that it would prove informative in research on child-care homes as well.

In summary, we expected that both regulable and nonregulable factors would be related to observed quality of care. Higher quality care was anticipated when the caregiver had received more education and training, there were fewer children in the child-care home, and the home was licensed. Higher quality care was also expected when the caregiver had a more professional attitude toward care, a moderate amount of experience in the child-care field, more child-centered beliefs about how to rear children, better mental health, and her own children in the child-care home. In addition, we predicted that child outcomes would be positively related to observed quality of care. We did not predict direct associations between regulable and nonregulable factors and child outcomes, because previous research on these relations was limited and observed links, weak or inconsistent. We did not make specific predictions about how nonregulable factors would mediate the effects of regulable factors, because there was no research basis for such predictions.

In order to investigate our predictions and answer the three overarching research questions posed in the study, we analyzed associations between regulable features, non regulable features, observed care, and child outcomes in the context of family variation. It was essential to rule out the possibility that observed associations were the result of family factors that covaried with child-care and child factors. Because parents select the care arrangements for their children, it is possible that they introduce a confound between the quality of care in the child-care home and the quality of care the child experiences in the family. Therefore, in the present study, we controlled for a range of family factors (family income, mother’s education, partner status, and child’s ethnicity).

Our final prediction was that child outcomes would be linked to observed quality of care for children from both lower and higher socio–economic levels. In previous studies of child-care homes, it has been observed that quality of care was related to children’s cognitive and social development across different levels of parental education (Rosenthal, 1994) and ethnicity (Kontos et al., 1995). In these studies, family factors did not significantly moderate the effects of child-care quality in child-care homes, as has sometimes been observed in child-care centers (Clarke-Stewart et al., 1994; Peisner-Feinberg & Burchinal, 1997). This issue was investigated in the present study.

Section snippets

Participants

Participants in the study were recruited during the first 11 months of 1991 from hospitals located in or near Little Rock, AK; Irvine, CA; Lawrence, KS; Boston; Philadelphia; Pittsburgh; Charlottesville, VA; Morganton, NC; Seattle; and Madison, WI. During selected sampling periods, all women giving birth in each hospital were screened. Mothers were excluded if they were giving the baby up for adoption, had medical complications, were under 18 years of age, did not speak English, planned to move

Characteristics of child-care homes in the sample

On average, there were 6.7 children enrolled in the child-care homes in the study, according to caregivers’ reports. The maximum number enrolled was 30. The number of children present during our observations, averaged 4.9 (maximum=14). The average number of group size points was 145 (range=16–492) in homes with a single caregiver (93% of the homes) and 300 (range=159–532) in homes with two caregivers. Just over half of the care providers had their own child present at the time we observed

Discussion

To investigate the quality of care in the child-care homes in the NICHD Study, we posed three overarching questions: are regulable factors, such as caregivers’ formal education and specialized training and the number of children in the home, related to the quality of care in child-care homes? Are nonregulable factors, such as the caregivers’ beliefs and the presence of the caregiver’s own children, related to quality of care in child-care homes? Are measures of children’s development associated

Acknowledgments

The authors are investigators in the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and acknowledge the generous support of their time by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. They also thank their coinvestigators who worked with them on the design of the larger study, the site coordinators and research assistants who collected the data, and the families and teachers who continue to participate in this longitudinal study. The study is directed by a Steering Committee and supported by

References (53)

  • R.M. Baron et al.

    The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1986)
  • Bayley, N. (1969). Bayley Scales of Infant Development. New York: Psychological...
  • Bayley, N. (1993). Bayley Scales of Infant Development (2nd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological...
  • W.R. Beardslee et al.

    Children of parents with major depressive disorder: A review

    American Journal of Psychiatry

    (1983)
  • Blau, D. M. (1997). The effect of child care characteristics on child development. Unpublished manuscript, Department...
  • D.M. Blau

    The effects of child care characteristics on child development

    Journal of Human Resources

    (1999)
  • Bollin, G. (1990). An investigation of turnover among family day care providers. Paper presented at the annual meeting...
  • R.H. Bradley et al.

    Home environment and cognitive development in the first 3 years of life: A collaborative study involving six sites and three ethnic groups in North America

    Developmental Psychology

    (1989)
  • M. Burchinal et al.

    Structural predictors of child-care quality in child-care homes

    Early Childhood Research Quarterly

    (2002)
  • Caldwell, B. M., & Bradley, R. H. (1984). Home observation for measurement of the environment. Little Rock, AR:...
  • Clarke-Stewart, K. A., Gruber, C. P., & Fitzgerald, L. M. (1994). Children at home and in day care. Hillsdale, NJ:...
  • Fosburg, S. (1981). Family day care in the United States: National Day Care Home Study, Volume I: Summary of findings....
  • D.M. Gelfand et al.

    The effects of maternal depression on children

    Clinical Psychology Review

    (1990)
  • Goelman, H. H. (1988). The relationship between structure and process variables in home and day care settings on...
  • Goelman, H., & Pence, A. R. (1987). Effects of child care, family, and individual characteristics on children’s...
  • Golden, M., Rosenbluth, L., Grossi, M. T., Policare, H. J., Freeman, H., & Brownlee, E. M. (1978). The New York City...
  • Cited by (169)

    • Child Care: Policy, Characteristics, and Associations With Children’s Development

      2020, Encyclopedia of Infant and Early Childhood Development
    • Child and Day Care, Effects of

      2020, Encyclopedia of Infant and Early Childhood Development
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text