Evaluating the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS): Assessing differences between the first and revised edition
Section snippets
Selection of centers
Forty-three centers were selected for participation in this study. The centers were located in the Northern California counties of San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz. These communities share certain features, including a mix of high-, middle-, and low-income neighborhoods. The majority of the centers operated in middle-income neighborhoods (65%) on a nonprofit basis (72%).
The sample was part of a larger longitudinal study on center-based quality focused on the NAEYC accreditation process
Global ratings
Before 1998, most large-scale studies of center-based child care quality used the 1980 version of the ECERS as their outcome measure. To know whether data from studies conducted after 1998 using the ECERS-R can be fairly compared to data from studies using the 1980 ECERS, we conducted simultaneous assessments using both measures in a sample of 68 classrooms that were part of a larger study of child care quality, staffing, and NAEYC accreditation. The distribution of scores on the ECERS and
Discussion
This investigation sought to provide evidence regarding the comparability of the original and revised ECERS and to explore whether the revised measure addresses key weaknesses identified by practitioners in the field. The results presented here suggest that the original ECERS and ECERS-R can be viewed, as their authors intended, as comparable measures of quality. Based on simultaneous observations using both instruments, scores were highly correlated and similarly distributed. In addition, both
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by grants from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation to the Center for the Child Care Workforce and the Center for the Study of Child Care Employment at the University of California at Berkeley. The authors wish to thank the research assistants and our Advisory Committee members and reviewers. A special thanks to the child care teachers and directors who participated in this study, welcomed us into their centers, and gave so generously of their time.
References (29)
Caregivers in day-care centers: Does training matter?
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology
(1989)- et al.
The changing experience of child care: Changes in teachers and in teacher–child relationships and children’s social competence with peers
Early Childhood Research Quarterly
(1993) - et al.
Within and beyond the classroom door: Assessing quality in child care centers
Early Childhood Research Quarterly
(2000) - et al.
Child care program and teacher practices: Associations with quality and children’s experiences
Early Childhood Research Quarterly
(2003) - Bellm, D., Burton, A., Shukla, R., & Whitebook, M. (1997). Making work pay in the child care industry: Promising...
- Burton, A., Mihaly, J., Kagiwada, J., & Whitebook, M. (2000). The CARES Initiative in California: Pursuing public...
- California Early Childhood Mentor Program. (2001). Annual report, 2000–2001. San Francisco: California Early Childhood...
- Chang, H., Muckelroy, A., & Pulido-Tobiassen, D. (1996). Looking in, looking out: Redefining child care and early...
- Coelen, C., Glantz, F., & Calore, D. (1979). Day care centers in the U.S.: A national profile 1976–1977. Cambridge, MA:...
- Harms, T., & Clifford, R. (1980). Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale. New York: Teachers College...
Cited by (51)
Using the early childhood environment rating scale-Revised in high stakes contexts: Does evidence warrant the practice?
2018, Early Childhood Research QuarterlyPredictors of Chinese early childhood program quality: Implications for policies
2016, Children and Youth Services ReviewInfant child care quality in Portugal: Associations with structural characteristics
2016, Early Childhood Research QuarterlyExamining the validity of the ECERS-R: Results from the German National Study of Child Care in Early Childhood
2016, Early Childhood Research QuarterlyChinese Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (trial) (CECERS): A validity study
2014, Early Childhood Research QuarterlyCitation Excerpt :Although originally designed for the U.S. contexts, the ECERS/ECERS-R showed good psychometric properties in terms of evidence for measurement reliability and validity in both U.S. and some other socio-cultural contexts (Harms et al., 2005; Mathers et al., 2007; Rentzou, 2010; Tietze, Cryer, Bairrão, Palacios, & Wetzel, 1996). However, research studies about the underlying factor structure of the ECERS/ECERS-R yielded inconsistent findings, ranging from one single-dimension global quality factor (Holloway, Kagan, Fuller, Tsou, & Carroll, 2001; Scarr, Eisenberg, & Deater-Deckard, 1994), a two-factor structure (Cassidy, Hestenes, Hegde, Hestenes, & Mims, 2005; Sakai et al., 2003), to a three-factor structure (Gordon, Fujimoto, Kaestner, Korenman, & Abner, 2013; Perlman, Zellman, & Le, 2004). Even for studies suggesting the same number of factors (e.g., a two-factor structure), the composition of the factors could be quite different (Cassidy et al., 2005; Sakai et al., 2003).
Transitioning to new child-care nutrition policies: Nutrient content of preschool menus differs by presence of vegetarian main entrée
2014, Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics