Evaluating the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS): Assessing differences between the first and revised edition

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2003.09.004Get rights and content

Abstract

Before 1998, most large-scale studies of center-based child care programs measured quality using the 1980 version of the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS). To know whether data from studies conducted after 1998 using the revised ECERS-R can be fairly compared to data from studies using the 1980 ECERS, simultaneous assessments using both measures in a sample of 68 classrooms were conducted. The results suggest that the original ECERS and ECERS-R can be viewed, as their authors intended, as comparable measures of quality. Scores were highly correlated and similarly distributed. Principal components analysis resulted in two factors for both measures. Both measures fall short in addressing staff stability and key components of culturally sensitive practice, such as communicating with families in their home language.

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)

  • Harms, T., & Clifford, R. (1989). Family Day Care Rating Scale. New York: Teachers College...
  • Harms, T., Clifford, R., & Cryer, D. (1998). Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (Rev. ed.). New York: Teachers...
  • Harms, T., Cryer, D., & Clifford, R. (1990). Infant-Toddler Environment Rating Scale. New York: Teachers College...
  • Helburn, S. W. (Ed.). (1995). Cost, quality and child outcomes in child care centers. Technical report. Denver, CO:...
  • Cited by (51)

    • Chinese Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (trial) (CECERS): A validity study

      2014, Early Childhood Research Quarterly
      Citation 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).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text