comparisons of observed process quality in german and american infant/toddler programs
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [Nova Southeastern University]On: 07 October 2014, At: 13:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Early YearsEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ciey20
Comparisons of observed processquality in German and American infant/toddler programsWolfgang Tietze a & Debby Cryer ba Freie Universität Berlin , Germanyb University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill , USAPublished online: 14 Oct 2010.
To cite this article: Wolfgang Tietze & Debby Cryer (2004) Comparisons of observed process qualityin German and American infant/toddler programs, International Journal of Early Years Education,12:1, 43-62, DOI: 10.1080/0966976042000182370
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0966976042000182370
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
International Journal of Early Years EducationVol. 12, No. 1, March 2004
ISSN 0966–9760 (print)/ISSN 1469–8463 (online)/04/010043–20© 2004 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI: 10.1080/0966976042000182370
Comparisons of observed process quality in German and American infant/toddler programsComparaisons de qualité de processus observée dans les programmes allemands et américains pour des Enfants/Petits EnfantsComparaciones de la calidad de proceso observada en los programas alemanes y americanos para infantes/niños pequeños
Wolfgang Tietze1* & Debby Cryer2
1Freie Universität Berlin, Germany; 2University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA
Taylor and Francis LtdCIEY1216.sgm10.1080/0966976042000182370International Journal of Early Years Education0966-9760 (print)/1469-5463 (online)Original Article2004Taylor & Francis Ltd121000000March 2004WolfgangTietzeFree University BerlinKaiserswerther Str. 16–1814195 [email protected]
Observed process quality in infant/toddler classrooms was compared in Germany (n = 75) and theUSA (n = 219). Process quality was assessed with the Infant/Toddler Environment RatingScale (ITERS) and parent attitudes about ITERS content with the ITERS Parent Questionnaire(ITERSPQ). The ITERS had comparable reliabilities in the two countries and similar factors werefound. Content validity of the ITERS is supported in both countries by similarly high ITERSPQimportance scores. ITERS classroom mean scores are similar (Germany = 3.21; USA = 3.36), buta higher US standard deviation is found. A discriminant analysis revealed differences between coun-tries on a bipolar dimension, with US programs characterized by higher scores on custodial issueswhile German programs have higher scores on educational aspects. Spearman rank order correla-tions were completed on ITERSPQ importance scores and observed ITERS scores, showing anassociation only in the USA. Results are discussed in terms of the parental values and infrastructuresfound in the two countries.
La qualité de processus observée dans les salles de classe des Enfants/Petits Enfants a été comparéeen l'Allemagne (n = 75) et aux Etats-Unis (n = 219). La qualité de processus a été évaluée avecl'Échelle d'Évaluation de l'Environnement des Enfants/Petits Enfants (ITERS) et les attitudes desparents au sujet du contenu de l'ITERS avec le Questionnaire d'ITERS pour les Parents (ITER-SPQ). L'ITERS a eu fiabilités comparables dans les deux pays et des facteurs semblables ont ététrouvés. La validité du contentu de l'ITERS est soutenue dans les deux pays par des points surl'importance d'ITERSPQ pareillement hauts. Les points moyens ITERS de la salle de classesont semblables, (Allemagne = 3.21 ; Etats-Unis = 3.36), mais un écart type plus élevé pour lesEtats-Unis est trouvé. Une analyse discriminante a indiqué des différences entre les pays sur une
*Corresponding author: Free University Berlin, Kaiserswerther Str. 16–18, 14195 Berlin,Germany. Email: [email protected]
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nov
a So
uthe
aste
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
13:
28 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
44 W. Tietze & D. Cryer
dimension bipolaire, avec les programmes des Etats-Unis caractérisés par de points plus hauts surla question de la garde tandis que les programmes allemands ont de points plus hauts sur des aspectséducatifs. Des corrélations Spearman d'ordre de rang ont été accomplies sur les points d'importanceITERSPQ et on a observé des points d'ITERS montrer une association seulement pour les Etats-Unis. Des résultats sont discutés en termes de valeurs et infrastructures parentales trouvées dans lesdeux pays.
La calidad de proceso observada en salas de clase de infantes/niños pequeños fue comparada enAlemania (n = 75) y los E.E.U.U. (n = 219). La calidad de proceso fue determinada con la Escalapara Evaluar el Ambiente del Infante/ Niño pequeño (ITERS) y las actitudes de los padres hacia elcontenido del ITERS con el Cuestionario ITERS para los Padres (ITERSPQ). El ITERS teníaconfiabilidades comparables en los dos países y se encontraron factores similares. La validez delcontenido del ITERS es apoyada en ambos países por los puntajes sobre la importancia del ITER-SPQ que son semejantemente altos. Los puntajes medios ITERS de la sala de clase son similares,(Alemania = 3.21; E.E.U.U. = 3.36), pero se encuentra una desviación estándar más alta con losE.E.U.U. Un análisis discriminante reveló diferencias entre los países en una dimensión bipolar,con los programas de los E.E.U.U. caracterizados por puntajes más altos en el área de la custodiamientras que los programas alemanes tienen puntajes más altos en los aspectos educativos. Lascorrelaciones Spearman sobre el orden de rango fueron completadas en los puntajes sobre la impor-tancia de ITERSPQ y se observaron puntajes de ITERS demostrando una asociación solamente enlos E.E.U.U. Los resultados se discuten en términos de los valores parentales e infraestructurasencontradas en los dos países.
Background
As an increasing number of women have entered the workforce in many industrializedcountries, child care has become a necessary support for numerous families with youngchildren. In the USA it is estimated that three to five million children are in center-based child care programs and 20% of children under the age of three with employedmothers are in center-based care (Willer et al., 1991). The number of infants andtoddlers in American child care centers has shifted over the years, reflecting theincreased proportion of mothers of very young children who are in the labor force.Between 1976 and 1990, the proportion of children in US center care who were undera year in age increased four-fold and the proportion of children aged one to two yearsnearly doubled (Willer et al., 1991). According to the National Center for EducationStatistics (1996), data from the 1995 National Household Education Survey show thatabout 1.5 million US children under the age of three are participating in center-basedcare and education programs.
In Germany, where two different systems and traditions of center-based care forchildren under three years of age are still being merged, center-based care for youngchildren is also of great societal importance. Until reunification, East Germany, theformer GDR, was the country with the highest coverage rate for the under-threes inthe world (55%), whereas West Germany had, and continues to have, an enrollmentrate of only some 2%, the lowest rate of center-based care for under-threes among thecountries of the EU (Tietze & Paterak, 1993). However, a remarkable expansion ofcenter-based care for these youngest children is expected in West Germany in thenext few years. An expert commission of the German parliament has estimated thata coverage rate of 20% for this age group will be needed and that considerable public
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nov
a So
uthe
aste
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
13:
28 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Infant/toddler care in Germany and the USA 45
investments have to be made to reach this goal (Deutscher Bundestag, 1992).According to the most recent information available (1998), about 7% of childrenunder the age of three are enrolled in German child care centers.
Child care is presently a heavily debated issue in both the USA and Germany. Bothcountries have similar economic pressures, and mothers of younger children areentering the workforce in increasing numbers. Culturally, the countries are different,but not so different because both are Western industrialized nations with many similarcharacteristics and issues. Child care policy decisions in both countries have animpact on ensuring an adequate workforce, and are related to welfare reform, govern-ment spending, and maximizing the educational potential of children. Althoughmuch of the child care debate in both countries is related to ensuring an adequatesupply of child care, also important is ensuring that the quality of that supply meetschildren's developmental needs.
There is substantial evidence that the quality of care that children receive is relatedto their developmental success, and that poor-quality child care prevents childrenfrom maximizing their potential. Results of the National Child Care Staffing Study(Whitebook et al., 1989) and the more recent study on Cost, Quality and ChildOutcomes in Child Care Centers (Peisner-Feinberg & Burchinal, 1997) report thatbetter development for preschool-aged children in both intellectual and social-emotional areas was found to be related to higher quality care. Similar findings havebeen found for preschoolers in Germany (Tietze, 1998). In addition, better infant childdevelopment outcomes have also been shown to relate to higher levels of child carequality (Beller et al., 1996; Burchinal et al., 1996; NICHD Early Child Care ResearchNetwork, 1996). There are also indications that social gains from child care carry intothe school years (Zaslow, 1991; Peisner-Feinberg et al., 1999). Paradoxically, it hasalso been shown that for the average American family the quality of care that is availablefor infants and toddlers is of such poor quality that there is cause for serious concern(Helburn, 1995; Phillipsen et al., 1995). The poor quality of care is associated withcompromising the development of this most vulnerable age group, for whom carefullydesigned out-of-home settings are required (Zigler & Lang, 1991). In the medical field,infants in child care are considered to be at heightened risk of health problems, espe-cially for diarrheal diseases and respiratory infections, which are especially problematicin very young children whose immune systems are not yet fully developed (Churchill& Pickering, 2000; Collier & Henderson, 2000). Researchers are concerned about less-ened chances for positive emotional and intellectual development that must occurduring a period when children ideally learn to form attachments to others, and learnthe basics of communication and thinking. (Love et al., 2000).
Since the quality of child care is related to children's developmental outcomes,there is presently a heightened interest in understanding more completely how toproduce high-quality care in an efficient, cost-effective manner. Thus, cross-countrycomparisons of child care quality are useful because through these comparisons amore complete understanding of the options for child care, not limited to precon-ceived national perspectives, can be considered by both policy-makers and practitio-ners. Recent work comparing preschool care and education in four Europeancountries (Austria, Germany, Portugal and Spain) and in the USA has allowed us to
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nov
a So
uthe
aste
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
13:
28 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
46 W. Tietze & D. Cryer
see that definitions of quality in Western industrialized countries apply well across thecountries (Tietze et al., 1996) and that these definitions are related to child develop-ment outcomes in similar ways (European Child Care and Education Study Group,1997; Peisner-Feinberg & Burchinal, 1997). In addition, this work has allowed us tosee that similar levels of quality can be produced in the different countries, using avariety of structural options (Cryer et al., 1999). For example, in Germany, where thenumbers of children per teacher were substantially higher than in the USA, but teach-ers were more highly qualified, quality of care was found to be about the same in thetwo countries, with less of a range found in Germany. This may indicate that a morecost-effective use of better qualified staff might be possible in the USA, and certainlyhas implications for the possibility of being able to pay higher wages to more highlyqualified teachers. Understanding that there are trade-offs that might be made in theproduction of higher quality care will help policy-makers and practitioners decidewhether the system being used to create higher quality child care classrooms is themost efficient.
Although some information regarding child care quality for preschoolers from across-national perspective is now available, there is no information of this type availableto help provide the same type of information to guide decisions regarding care of infantsand toddlers. For example, as with the system for preschool-aged children mentionedabove, Germany has a policy of allowing substantially more infants and toddlers permore highly qualified adult than programs usually found in the USA. Typical Germanratios for infants/toddlers in mixed age groups are 1:7, while in age-homogeneousgroups they are 1:6, with slight differences depending on state regulations. In the USA,we see ratios for infants/toddlers differing substantially across states, with Californiarequiring, for example, one teacher for every three children, while other states are muchless demanding. In Germany, child care teachers are required to have three years ofspecialized training, including two years of course work beyond high school and a thirdyear of practice that is supervised by the training institution. In the USA, teacher educa-tion requirements vary substantially, by state, but are generally far less demanding thanthose found in Germany. In addition, German child care programs have frequentlyadopted a policy of including a number of infants/toddlers in groups of older childrenin the kindergarten setting that serves children up to six years of age. These groupsare larger than those found in the USA that enroll infants/toddlers, so the overall costof caring for the younger children is lower. It is not known whether these strategiesare successful in providing for the developmental needs of infants and toddlers orwhether these strategies are more effective than those chosen in the USA.
The present study
To date, the emphasis of the ICCE cross-country study has been on comparisons ofearly childhood programs for preschoolers, beginning with children who are threeyears old. However, with the increased use of child care centers by parents of infantsand toddlers during these crucial years of development, it has become apparent thata serious effort must be made to understand how high-quality infant/toddler childcare is best produced so that policy-makers and child care professionals have the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nov
a So
uthe
aste
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
13:
28 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Infant/toddler care in Germany and the USA 47
information they need to make efficient use of scarce resources while ensuring thatchildren's developmental needs are met. To reach beyond national conceptions aboutwhat works well to produce infant/toddler child care, cross-country studies need tobe extended to the younger age group. This will allow consideration of the differentoptions utilized in somewhat different cultural settings and their relative success inmeeting children's developmental needs.
It is important to remember that when dealing with comparisons of process qualityacross countries, the possibility of a systematic evaluative approach, using the sameinstruments to assess quality, will always be questioned (e.g. Farquhar, 1989; Brophy& Statham, 1994). Even in a single country there are many cultures and differingchildrearing philosophies at work which prevent total acceptance of a quality assess-ment instrument. Yet in reality these perceived differences cause fewer difficulties incross-country comparisons of early childhood programs than might be imagined. Ideasharing, through years of cross-cultural exchanges, has in fact provided westernindustrial cultures with many shared notions about what children require for positivedevelopment. At least within the early childhood profession, there appears to be acore of basic elements that are recognized as being necessary for children's positivedevelopment. When quality definitions are inspected closely, the themes of these coreelements appear repeatedly, with only the minor details differing. For example, thepoints regarding infant/toddler protection, relationships, and learning represented inNAEYC's Criteria (1991) often overlap with the view of process quality representedby work in the EU (Balageur et al., 1992) as well as with the view of quality presentedin the World Health Organization's Child Care Facility Schedule (Division of MentalHealth, World Health Organization, 1990). In addition, parents in Germany and theUSA also report similar values with regard to what is important for preschoolers inchild care (Cryer et al., 2002), and it is likely that there are many shared notions aboutwhat is needed for infants and toddlers as well. One would expect that what parentsconsider important for their young children in child care would be, to some extent,represented in the process quality that their children experience. Thus it is possibleto consider using the same measure for infant/toddler child care quality in bothGermany and the USA to study child care from a cross-country perspective, if themeasure adequately represents the values of the child care constituents in both coun-tries, and is applied with similar consistency.
Based on this background, we pose five research questions for this cross-countrycomparison of infant/toddler care:
(1) Do we find comparable psychometric characteristics for the ITERS in the USAand Germany with regard to aspects of reliability, such as internal consistency?
(2) Do we find comparable aspects of validity, such as content validity and factorstructures, in the ITERS when used in the two countries?
(3) Does the quality of infant/toddler child care differ between Germany and the USA?(4) Do the different child care systems emphasize different aspects of process quality
in their child care systems?(5) Are variations in observed quality in the two countries associated with the quality
priorities of the parents who use the programs?
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nov
a So
uthe
aste
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
13:
28 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
48 W. Tietze & D. Cryer
Sample
Information used in this study was collected in child care programs in the USA andGermany. A description of the sample is shown in Table 1.
For the USA, the sample consists of 219 infant/toddler classrooms which were partof the 1993 Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes data set (Helburn, 1995). Thissample includes randomly selected for-profit and non-profit centers located inselected regions in California (Orange County, 27 classes), Connecticut (Hartford toNew Haven Corridor, 57 classes), Colorado (Frontal Range area—Denver—Fort, 59classes), and North Carolina (triad cities—Greensboro, Winston-Salem, High Point,86 classes). Within each center, one classroom that served infants or toddlers(children under 30 months of age) was randomly selected, if available, for inclusionin the sample. For more complete information on the sampling of classes in the USsample, see Helburn (1995).
The German sample of classrooms included in this study consists of three sub-samples which were selected according to three dimensions. First, societal differenceswere represented in the sample by including centers from both the eastern andwestern parts of Germany. As mentioned above, care for under threes still differs byregion, with a history of more care for this age group continuing in the east (theformer GDR). Thus, an attempt was made to represent centers from the two areasabout equally. Second, centers in both metropolitan and non-metropolitan areaswere selected. Center-based child care for infants and toddlers is far more commonin metropolitan areas than in non-metropolitan (Tietze et al., 1993), and this may belinked to the quality characteristics of centers. Accordingly, both metropolitan andnon-metropolitan areas were included in the sample. Finally, centers were selected torepresent the various age groupings found in the care for infants/toddlers in Germany,where group composition ranges from age-homogeneous groups serving childrenwith an age range from one to two yeas in a single classroom, to heterogeneous group-ings serving children with an age range of up to six years in the same class (the young-est child usually being under a year of age, and the oldest close to seven years beforeentry into elementary school). Since group composition may affect the quality of careand education received by the children, these different possibilities were included inthe sample. However, these three dimensions mentioned so far are not independentof one another. Regional factors are confounded with grouping factors.
Based on this background, three regions were selected for the sampling ofclassrooms. The city of Berlin (West) as a metropolitan area, with the prevalence ofage-homogeneous groupings, the city of Münster, a ‘white-collar’ town with some250,000 inhabitants, with age heterogeneous groupings as a rule, and selected areas
Table 1. Achieved samples of centers according to region in Germany and the USA
USA Germany
CA CO CT NC Total USA Berlin Brandenburg Münster Total Germany
27 57 59 86 219 24 14 37 75
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nov
a So
uthe
aste
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
13:
28 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Infant/toddler care in Germany and the USA 49
of Brandenburg (East Germany) where age-homogeneous grouping is prevalent.Centers in each of the three regions were selected from a pre-determined list ofprograms. If there were two or more classes in a center enrolling children under threeyears of age, one class was randomly selected for inclusion in the study. In a few cases,two classes in the same center were included. On average, about 20% of centersrefused to participate. Non-participation was generally due to staff members facinguncertainties, such as upcoming organizational changes or changes in administration,or to having recently participated in another study.
Measures
In this cross-country study, an attempt was made to select a program qualityassessment instrument that included requirements for the appropriate protection,interaction and learning opportunities that are associated with positive developmentalsuccess for infants and toddlers. To ensure that instruments selected were appropriatefor use in both Germany and the USA, instrument selection was a cooperative effort.
Thus, process quality was measured with the Infant/Toddler Environment RatingScale (ITERS) (Harms et al., 1990). The scale is an adaptation of the Early ChildhoodEnvironment Rating Scale (ECERS; Harms & Clifford, 1980). It is based on a broaddefinition of the child care environment including organization of space, interaction,activities, schedule for children, and provisions for staff and parents, and gives acomprehensive picture of the quality of care provided in one room or for one groupof children. The scale was developed in the USA to broadly assess global process qual-ity of early care and education environments for children under 30 months of age. Ithas been used widely as a measure of process quality (e.g. Whitebook et al., 1989;Scarr et al., 1994; Helburn, 1995; Petrogiannis & Melhuish, 1996) because the scaleassesses the classroom features which allow certain processes to occur as well as assess-ing the processes themselves. It has been used widely in child development researchin the USA. Versions of the scale were already developed or being tried out in coun-tries (e.g. Italy, Greece, the Netherlands, Germany) other than the USA prior to andindependent of this study (e.g. Petrogiannis & Melhuish, 1996; Tietze & Cryer, 1999).
The ITERS consists of 35 items for the assessment of the quality of center-basedchild care for infants and toddlers. These 35 items are organized under seven catego-ries: Furnishings and Display for Children, Personal Care Routines, Listening andTalking, Learning Activities, Interaction, Program Structure, and Adult Needs. Eachitem is presented as a 7-point scale, with descriptors for 1 (inadequate), 3 (minimal),5 (good), and 7 (excellent). Inadequate describes care that does not even meet custo-dial care needs, minimal describes care that meets custodial and to some small degreebasic developmental needs, good describes the basic dimensions of developmentalcare, and excellent describes high-quality, personalized care. The inadequate (1) andminimal (3) ratings usually focus on provision of basic materials and on health andsafety precautions. The good (5) and excellent (7) ratings require positive interaction,planning, and personalized care, as well as appropriate materials.
The ITERS was translated and adapted for use in the German context. In complet-ing this adaptation, the German group relied on prior experiences with adapting the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nov
a So
uthe
aste
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
13:
28 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
50 W. Tietze & D. Cryer
ECERS. The adaptation procedure followed a sequence of five steps. First, a trans-lation of the original ITERS was prepared. This translation was completed by aGerman psychologist, with work experience with infants and toddlers in US childcare centers, and who was familiar with the original version of the scale. The transla-tion was checked by two other experts in the field and revisions were made whenneeded. Second, the revised translation was submitted to a group of experts consist-ing of practitioners, psychologists, educators, and representatives of the medical field,including pediatricians and epidemiologists. This group checked the appropriatenessof items and indicators in terms of the German context, and to ensure that the mean-ing of the requirements was clear. Generally, the experts concluded that some of thehealth-related criteria did not apply to the German context. For example, tuberculo-sis infections are rare in Germany and TB tests are not required for child care staff asrequired in the ITERS, and child care staff are not required to have health check-ups,also a consideration in the ITERS. Moreover, a majority of experts felt that thehealth, hygiene and safety standards in the ITERS were overemphasized, especiallywith regard to the balance that is needed between maintaining a safe environment anda child's need to explore and seek independence. In addition, the mention of somematerials, such as cribs, which are commonly used in the US context but not in theGerman, were not considered appropriate for the scale. These comments wereconsidered as a revised version of the scale was completed. However, the adaptationwas guided by an intention to limit changes in order to ensure comparability betweenthe US and German versions. All changes were communicated and discussed with theauthors of the ITERS.
Third, the scoring format of the revised edition of the ECERS (ECERS-R) wasused, in which indicators within items can be checked as ‘yes’, ‘no’, or ‘not applicable’,in addition to giving the item a numeric score. This change allows the reason for anygiven score to be more finely explained than in the original US version.
Fourth, the process of adaptation was accompanied by a continuing process offield-testing each draft. This process led to many clarifications.
Fifth, the final German version was used in various observations in Germancenters, in which the classes were observed simultaneously by one of the authors ofthe US version and several German researchers. The author used the US version ofthe scale while the other observers used the German version. Inter-rater agreementwas calculated between the observers using the two versions, and agreement on itemscores was found for more than 85% of the items. Areas of disagreement werediscussed to clarify understandings of the requirements.
The German adaptation of the ITERS includes all 35 items found in the originalUS version. In addition, three items were added, one relating to the transition ofnew children into the group, another relating to support of the social-emotionaldevelopment of the child, and the third relating to the inclusion of the child's familyin the center-based setting.
A parent questionnaire version of the ITERS (ITERSPQ) was also used in thisstudy. In this instrument, ITERS item content is extracted and presented in a simpli-fied form, at a lower reading level. Parents are asked to rate the importance of eachitem on a 3-point scale (1 = not important, 3 = very important) and to indicate how
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nov
a So
uthe
aste
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
13:
28 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Infant/toddler care in Germany and the USA 51
well their child's class does on each item using a 7-point scale (1 = not well, 7 = verywell). A German translation of the questionnaire was used for German parents whileUS parents could respond to either an English or Spanish version (for a morecomplete description of the ITERSPQ, see Cryer & Burchinal, 1997).
Data collection
Classroom quality data were collected in the spring of 1993 in the USA and duringthe middle of the 1999 academic year in Germany to avoid typical periods of transi-tions in classes. In both countries data collection was completed by trained observers.In the USA, data collectors were generally individuals with experience in the earlychildhood community, and in Colorado, graduate students in economics, statisticsand public policy, who also had some experience in working with children, were alsoincluded. In Germany, data collectors were graduate students in education orpsychology who had extensive prior experience using the ECERS.
To obtain sound data in both countries, similar training procedures wereimplemented within each country, consisting of an introduction to the conceptualbackground and technical characteristics of the ITERS, practice in scoringvideotaped situations with discussion and corrective feedback, and practice with theinstruments in centers under direct supervision of the researchers followed by morefeedback. Initial training was followed by independent practice, in pairs, and itemchecks to ensure inter-rater agreement. In the USA, 80% agreement between datacollectors was required before data collection was initiated, while German observerswere required to have 85% agreement with the master trainer. In the USA, formalreliability checks were performed at the mid-point of data collection, both within andbetween states.
In the USA and in Germany, ITERS observations were completed during a typicalmorning. The observations, which generally lasted for about three to four hours, werefollowed by a question session with the lead teacher of the observed class, in whichinformation was collected to complete the few unobserved indicators.
In addition, information on structural characteristics of the program (e.g. teachereducation and experience, operating hours, group size, etc.) were obtained throughinterviews with the lead teacher and director in Germany, while this informationwas collected through a director interview and teacher questionnaire in the USA. Inthe USA, information on group size and ratios was observed, while in Germany thisinformation was reported by staff.
In both countries, parents were asked to rate the ITERS items according toimportance and how well their child's class did on each. An ITERS parent question-naire (German and US versions) (ITERSPQ), which provided a simplified versionof the content of each item, was used for this purpose. In Germany, this question-naire was used in about half of the programs being studied, and those responseswere used only when at least half of the parents in the class responded. In the USA,parent responses were available for about 75% of the classrooms included in thestudy. In Germany, lead teachers of the classrooms were also asked to respond tothe questionnaire.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nov
a So
uthe
aste
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
13:
28 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
52 W. Tietze & D. Cryer
Results
Comparing psychometric characteristics of instruments
Before any content-related comparisons of data could be made, an examination wasmade of how all items performed in the two countries to ensure that the measureswere used in a comparable manner. In this study, 27 ITERS items are used in theanalyses, representing the process quality items that are comparable in both versionsof the scale. The final subscale, Adult Needs, which relates to meeting the needs ofstaff and parents within the child care context, was not used since the items relatemore to structural quality, and only indirectly to the process quality that childrenexperience directly.
To examine inter-rater agreement, US inter-rater reliabilities were calculated usingcorrelations. ITERS inter-rater agreement ranged from .74 to .97, with a medianof .97. In Germany, ITERS inter-rater agreement was based on the percentage agree-ment (either exact or within 1 point) on all items; agreement averaged 87%.
In order to examine internal consistency, item-total correlations were run andCronbach's alpha was calculated. Item-total correlations for the German version varybetween r = .04 and .77, with a median of r = .44. Cronbach's alpha = .87. This issimilar to the results found for the US 27-item version, where r = .48 to .77, with amedian of r = .61, and Cronbach's alpha of .95. Thus, the internal consistency of theGerman version appears to be somewhat lower than that found for the US versionused in this study, but the magnitude is acceptable.
To examine the content validity of the ITERS within the two countries, the extentto which parents indicated that ITERS requirements were important for their childrenwas considered. Parent importance scores (1 = not important, 3 = very important)from the ITERSPQ were used. For Germany the parent sample was n = 164, whilefor the USA, n = 727. In Germany, the scores from 68 lead teachers were alsoavailable, and examined. The results are depicted in Table 2.
As can be seen, parents in both countries rate ITERS item content as being veryimportant. Mean total importance scores are 2.7 in Germany and 2.83 in the USA,with a score of 3 indicating ‘very important’. From the parents' perspective, ITERSitems are valid quality indicators in general. This is also true from the Germanteachers' perspective. These professionals tend to rate the importance of ITERSitems even more highly than the parents do (X = 2.83). The lowest mean item scoreindicates that no item is considered unimportant (all min. ≥ 2.0). Nevertheless,average importance scores per item vary in each of the three groups of respondents,
Table 2. Importance of ITERS item content, as rated by parents using the ITERSPQ
Parents USA N = 727 Parents Germany N = 164
M 2.83 2.7SD .18 .20min. 3.00 3.00max. 1.89 1.96
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nov
a So
uthe
aste
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
13:
28 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Infant/toddler care in Germany and the USA 53
indicating that respondents assign different importance to the various items withinthe frame of general importance. In order to assess the extent to which the threegroups agreed on the relative importance of each of the ITERS items, the averageimportance scores were rank ordered within each group and the resulting rank orderscores were compared. Rank orders correlate with r = .495 for German and USparents and r = .378 for German parents and teachers. Results thereby indicate thatthe three reference groups not only agree in general on the importance of the ITERSitem content but that they agree, to some extent, in terms of the rank of importance.The correlation between US and German parents is .5 (p = .01) while the correla-tion between German parents and teachers is .38 (p < .05) Altogether, these resultsindicate high content validity of the ITERS in terms of use in comparisons acrossthe two countries. To obtain further information on the comparable validity of thetwo ITERS versions, the factor structure of both scales was examined. Factor analy-sis of the original ITERS using 31 items, and omitting the Adult Needs subscale,revealed three factors (Cryer et al., 1995) which were labeled Provisions forFurnishings and Materials (15 items), Interactions (six items), and Basic CaregivingRoutines (five items).
A principal components analysis was completed for each of the two reduced ITERSitems sets (the US and German versions of the scale). Based on scree-test and inter-pretability, a three-factor solution appeared as the best option in both analyses. Forthe US ITERS the three factors account for 54.6% of the variance, while accountingfor 43.2% of the German. The loadings for varimax rotated factors are depicted inTable 3 (r ≥ .40). Results clearly indicate a high degree of similarity in the factor struc-tures of the US and German reduced set of ITERS items. With a few exceptions,ITERS items load in both countries on the same factors. In addition, the factor struc-tures of the reduced item sets clearly reflect that found earlier in the original scale.Altogether, both attempts to examine the validity of the ITERS for cross-countrycomparisons indicate comparable content validity and factorial validity for the twoversions used in the present study.
Differences between countries
To examine whether there were potential differences between sampled US andGerman infant/toddler classrooms, ITERS total scores were calculated, based on thereduced set of 27 items, and means and standard deviations were compared. Scoreson the ITERS have been defined according to three broad levels (Helburn, 1995).ITERS scores below 3 represent poor quality, scores of 3, but less than 5 representmediocre quality, and scores of 5 or higher are good quality. For the German sample,a mean of 3.21 and a standard deviation of .78 were found. For the US sample, therespective parameters were X = 3.36 and SD = 1.11. The means in both countriesindicate an average mediocre level of quality, however, clearly at the lower end ofthis level. T-tests reveal no difference in means between the two countries (t = −1.07,df = 301, p = .29). A relatively high standard deviation exists in both samples. ALevene test indicates that the standard deviation is significantly higher in the USAthan in Germany (F = 12.74, p < .0001). The distribution of total ITERS scores in
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nov
a So
uthe
aste
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
13:
28 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
54 W. Tietze & D. Cryer
Table 3. Factor analyses: loadings of ITERS items (factor I—Provisions for Furnishings and
Materials; factor II—Interactions; factor III—Basic Caregiving Routines)
Original scale (Adult Needs subscale
omitted)Reduced scale US
versionReduced scale
German version
Item number and title I II III I II III I II III
1. Furnishings for routine care .40 .452. Furnishings for learning .54 .58 .793. Furn. relaxation & comfort .63 .63 .604. Room arrangement .44 .585. Display for children .63 .69 .596. Greeting & departing .54 .727. Meals/snacks .61 .66 .478. Nap .55 .66 .479. Diapering/toileting .70 .79 .6010. Personal grooming .66 .74 .5211. Health practice .74 .7712. Health policya
13. Safety practice .55 .58 .4514. Safety policya
15. Informal use of language .42 .65 .40 .66 .7216. Books and pictures .58 .65 .4517. Eye–hand coordination .57 .59 .40 .7218. Active physical play .43 .4719. Art .69 .69 .5520. Music & movement .53 .53 .4521. Blocks .52 .61 .6122. Pretend play .66 .70 .6623. Sand and water .54 .57 .5424. Cultural awareness .53 .6225. Peer interaction .74 .72 .7926. Caregiver–child
interaction.71 .77 .77 .42
27. Discipline .74 .80 .64 .4428. Schedule .48 .50 .46 .57 .5629. Supervision of daily
activities.74 .44 .72
30. Staff cooperationa
31. Prov. exceptional childrena
32. Adult personal needsa
33. Oppor. professional growtha
34. Adult meeting areaa
35. Provisions for parentsa
aNot included in reduced data set for this study.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nov
a So
uthe
aste
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
13:
28 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Infant/toddler care in Germany and the USA 55
the two samples is depicted in Figure 1. The figure reflects graphically the higherdegree of dispersion in the US sample, as mentioned above. With regard to the threebroad quality levels, 42.9% of the US sample falls into the poor category, 49.1%is mediocre, and 8.3% is good. For the German sample, 45.3% is poor, 54.6% ismediocre, and no classes fall in the good range.Percentage of classrooms within each quality levelThe fact that no differences in the total means were found between the two samplesdoes not necessarily mean that the samples do not differ in more specific characteris-tics. Those differences may occur, but may be averaged when all specific qualitycharacteristics are considered, as is represented in the total score. To look for differ-ences in specific quality characteristics a discriminant analysis was performed usingthe countries as groups and the 27 ITERS items as dependent variables. In addition,univariate group comparisons were run. Results of the discriminant analysis reveal ahighly significant discriminant function (Wilk's lamda = .464; chi square = 201.79(df 27); p = .000). The canonical correlation between the grouping variable and the27 dependent variables amounts to .73. Differences between the two countriesexplain 53.6% of the variance in the discriminant function.
Structure coefficients for the discriminant function as well as univariate groupcomparisons are represented in Table 4. The discriminant function (i.e. the dimen-sion which discriminates best between the German and the US sample of classrooms)correlates positively with ITERS items Safety practice, Cultural awareness, Healthpractice, Supervision of daily activities, Diapering/toileting, Schedule of daily activi-ties, Music & movement, and Furnishings for routine care. Negative correlations canbe observed for ITERS items Blocks, Sand and water play, Pretend play, andFurnishings for relaxation and comfort. The discriminant function appears as abipolar dimension, which is primarily described on the positive side by qualitycharacteristics related to the more custodial issues, such as safety, health, supervisionand routine care. The negative side is characterized by more educationally orientedaspects of the setting, which require more enriched play opportunities includinguse of blocks, sand and water, and furnishings for comfort. US classrooms scorehigher than the German in the custodial care-related dimension, whereas Germanclassrooms score higher on the more educationally oriented characteristics.
This result is clearly supported by the univariate group comparisons, as can be seenin Table 4. With one exception, the univariate group comparisons of means for the
Figure 1. Percentage of classrooms within each quality level
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nov
a So
uthe
aste
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
13:
28 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
56 W. Tietze & D. Cryer
ITERS considered as marker variables for the discriminant function are statisticallysignificant (p ≤ .05). Means indicate higher scores in the health and safety-relatedaspects for the US sample and higher scores in the education-related aspects for theGerman sample.
When classrooms, based on their scores in the discriminant function, were reclas-sified, 92% of all classrooms were classified correctly, 77% of the German sample and97% of the US sample.
Association between observed quality and the quality priorities of the parents
The differences in quality found in the discriminant analysis of ITERS scores may bereflections of the influences that parents have on centers and that centers reciprocallyhave on parents. If parents consider an aspect of child care more important, theymight be more likely to demand this practice of the center staff, and the center willrespond with higher ITERS scores on an item. Or when centers emphasize an aspectof quality, parents may become more aware of the practice and thus assign higherimportance to it. Under certain circumstances we would expect to see some relationbetween what parents view as being important to their children and the quality of thepractices their children experience.
To examine whether a relation exists between what parents consider important andhow well centers do on that aspect of care, Spearman rank order correlations werecompleted for the two countries on parent item importance scores from the ITER-SPQ and observed classroom ITERS item scores. Rank orders of the items are shownin Table 5. A moderate and significant correlation was found between US parent
Table 4. Univariate group comparisons and structure matrix of discriminant analysis (countries as
grouping variables, 27 ITERS items as dependent variables)a
Means
ITERS itemGermany
n = 75USA
n = 203 pStructure coefficient
Safety practice 1.35 3.18 .000 .42Cultural awareness 1.00 2.00 .000 .35Health practice 1.16 2.42 .000 .33Blocks 3.88 2.93 .000 −.28Supervision of daily activities 2.69 3.80 .000 .22Sand and water play 3.77 2.79 .000 −.22Diapering/toileting 1.52 2.40 .000 .27Schedule of daily activities 2.68 3.48 .000 .20Music & movement 2.45 3.07 .001 .19Pretend play 3.43 2.76 .005 −.16Furnishings for relaxation 3.96 3.45 .014 −.14Furnishings for routine care 3.40 3.83 .071 .10
aOnly ITERS items with structure coefficients r ≥ .10 or p ≤ .05 in univariate group comparisons.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nov
a So
uthe
aste
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
13:
28 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Infant/toddler care in Germany and the USA 57
importance scores and classroom observed ITERS scores (r = .57, p = .01). Norelationship between the rank orders was seen in the German data (r = .04, p = .81).Thus, an overall association exists only in the US data with regard to the ITERS itemsthat parents consider of more and less importance and the practices their childrenexperience.
There is some agreement in both countries, however, at the high and low ends ofthe rank orders, and this is seen in both countries. In inspecting the rank order ofitems we can see that at the high end the parent importance scores and center prac-tices are quite congruent. The items Greeting/departing, Informal use of language,Peer interaction and Caregiver–child interaction are important to parents, andcenters tend to do better on these aspects of care. This is true for both Germany and
Table 5. Rank order of reduced set of ITERSPQ and ITERS items for Germany and the USA(1 = highest importance score)
Rank order position
Item number and title
Germany parent
importance
Germany observed ITERS
US parent importance
US observed ITERS
1. Furnishings for routine care 21 13 12 72. Furnishings for learning 8 5 11 83. Furn. relaxation & comfort 14 6 23 134. Room arrangement 20 18 16 155. Display for children 27 10 25 106. Greeting & departing 4 1 2 37. Meals/snacks 10 22 9 248. Nap 17 14 15 119. Diapering/toileting 7 24 8 2610. Personal grooming 13 21 19 2011. Health practice 23 26 17 2513. Safety practice 16 25 7 1715. Informal use of language 5 3 3 416. Books and pictures 18 16 14 2217. Eye–hand coordination 6 11 13 618. Active physical play 3 15 10 1219. Art 11 17 20 1620. Music & movement 19 23 21 1821. Blocks 26 8 22 1922. Pretend play 22 12 24 2323. Sand and water 24 9 27 2124. Cultural awareness 25 27 26 2725. Peer interaction 2 2 6 226. Caregiver–child interaction 1 7 1 527. Discipline 12 4 4 128. Schedule 15 20 18 1429. Supervision of daily activities 9 19 5 9
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nov
a So
uthe
aste
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
13:
28 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
58 W. Tietze & D. Cryer
the USA. Similarly, parent importance scores and center practice scores in bothcountries are fairly congruent in terms of some of the lowest scoring items, includingCultural awareness (the most consistently low ranked item in terms of both practiceand parent importance), but also Music & movement and Pretend play. Examples ofinconsistencies between parent importance ranks and ITERS scores are seen inDisplay for children, where centers do better on an aspect of care that parents do notreport as important, and in the health or safety-related items, Meals/snacks, Diaper-ing/toileting, and Safety practices, where centers do less well relative to other items,while parents rank these items as being more important for their children.
Discussion
Support for using the ITERS in cross-country comparisons of child care
The ITERS provides a global view of infant/toddler classroom quality that includesfurnishings, arrangement of space, classroom schedule and routines, health andsafety, materials and activities for children, as well as adult-to-child and child-to-childinteraction. Results show that, when applied consistently, the ITERS is acceptable forassessing program quality in both the USA and in Germany. In both countries thescale had adequate psychometric properties. In terms of reliability, inter-rater agree-ment is acceptable in both countries. Internal consistencies in both countries werehigh, although somewhat higher in the US versions of the scale. Magnitudes werecertainly acceptable for both countries, indicating that the instrument has similarproperties when used in the two countries. In part, this confirms the use of the scalein cross-national comparisons of child care in the two countries.
Additional confirmation supporting the use of the ITERS in comparisons ofGerman and US infant/toddler child care quality is shown in examinations of thescale's validity. As found for reliability results, similarities are seen in the two countries.First, cross-cultural equivalence of applicability of the scale is demonstrated whenexamining the ITERSPQ importance scores that represent how parents value thecontent of the ITERS items. Results demonstrate that both German and Americanparents consider the ITERS requirements to be highly important for their children inchild care. The importance scores assigned to ITERS items by German teachers alsoreinforce this finding.
Second, similar results were found regarding factor structures of the ITERS in thetwo countries. With a few exceptions, ITERS items load in both countries on thesame factors and the factor structures of the reduced item sets clearly reflect thatfound earlier in the original scale. Altogether, both attempts to examine the validityof the ITERS for cross-country comparisons indicate comparable content validityand factorial validity for the two versions used in the present study.
Comparisons of infant/toddler child care quality in Germany and the USA
From an initial perspective, infant/toddler child care quality appears to be rated at asimilar level in the two countries. Mean total ITERS scores do not differ by country
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nov
a So
uthe
aste
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
13:
28 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Infant/toddler care in Germany and the USA 59
and both indicate a prevalence of poor-quality programs for this age group. A closerinspection of the quality scores shows that the mean total scores cloak some differ-ences that do exist. For example, the US mean score has a greater standard deviation,with programs represented in the poor, mediocre and good ranges. Germany, onthe other hand, has a smaller standard deviation in ITERS scores, with programsrepresented in the poor and mediocre ranges of quality, but none in the good range.
In addition, when a discriminant analysis is used to highlight differences in howcountry mean scores are constituted, a different emphasis is shown in each of the twocountries. US child care tends to do better on health and safety-related items whileGerman programs generally do less well on these. Conversely, German programstend to score higher on items that require more enriched play opportunities than dothe US programs that score lower on these. Thus, although mean total ITERS scoresare similar in the two countries, they are produced with different emphases, andprograms with similar means might look quite different in practice.
With the generally low ITERS scores found in both countries, it becomes apparentthat problems exist with regard to meeting the developmental needs of the youngestchildren in child care. Although parents in both countries assign high importance tothe aspects of care that are assessed with the ITERS, and German teachers also agreein these attitudes, high-quality care that meets ITERS requirements is not provided.We see a moderate relation between the rank order of parent importance scores in theUSA and the ITERS scores received by their children's programs, while we see norelation, in general, between these variables in the German sample, although for bothcountries some congruence in ranks is seen, especially at the high and low ends of theorder. This may be an indication that US centers and the parents share more similargoals regarding child care quality than found in the German sample. However,despite the relationship seen here, it must be noted that ITERS scores are generallyvery low while parent importance scores for the requirements on the ITERS are veryhigh, indicating a mismatch between what parents think is important for theirchildren and what their children actually experience.
To a small extent we do see some high-quality programs in the USA, but these arecertainly not the rule. Few children experience good infant/toddler care. In Germany,it is of great concern to note that there are no high-scoring programs in the sample.Both countries have similar percentages of programs that fall into the poor range ofquality.
For the German and US children in the more than 40% of poor-quality programs,serious concerns exist because there is sound research that ties more positive devel-opment to higher quality child care for infants and toddlers. In programs that fallinto the poor range of quality, we know that children's basic needs for protection,learning and interactions are not being met. It is apparent that neither country hasyet provided the infrastructure required for higher quality programs for this agegroup.
It should be noted that in explaining any similarities and differences found in thetwo countries' performance on the ITERS, the effects of regulation, various struc-tural quality variables, and basic underlying philosophical approaches or socialcontexts are likely to be playing important roles, and it is likely that other factors are
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nov
a So
uthe
aste
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
13:
28 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
60 W. Tietze & D. Cryer
having effects as well. In this study, our findings have been limited primarily todescriptive information. We do not attempt to explain, statistically, why qualitymight be what it is in the two countries. Further research is required to understandmore fully why infant/toddler care in the two countries can be described as shownhere.
Acknowledgements
In this article the work reported for Germany was part of various projects aiming toadapt and evaluate the ITERS for quality assessments in German day care centers.The assistance of Katja Grenner, Kaethe-Maria Schuster and Beate Wellner as wellas various experts and practitioners in the fields of developmental psychology, educa-tion and medicine in developing the German version of the scale is gratefullyacknowledged. The work reported here was supported by the Free University ofBerlin, PaedQUIS (Pedagogical Quality Information Systems), the city of Muensterand the state of Brandenburg. The research reported for the USA was part of thelarger Cost, Quality and Outcomes in Child Care Centers Study conducted byresearch teams at the University of Colorado at Denver (Drs Suzanne Helburn andMary Culkin—Principal Investigators), the University of California at Los Angeles(Dr Carollee Howes—Principal Investigator), Yale University (Dr Sharon LynnKagan—Principal Investigator), and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill(Drs Donna Bryant, Richard Clifford, Debby Cryer, and Ellen Peisner-Feinberg—Principal Investigators). Other key investigators in the project included Drs MargaretBurchinal (UNC), H. Naci Mocan and John Morris (CU-Denver). The Cost, Qual-ity and Outcomes in Child Care Centers Study was funded in part by the CarnegieCorporation of New York and the William T. Grant Foundation. Additional fundingcame from various foundations, private companies and governmental agencies. Thispaper was funded in part by the A. L. Mailman Family Foundation.
References
Balageur, I., Mestres, J. & Penn, H. (1992) Die Frage der Qualität in Kinderbetreuungseinrichtungen(Diskussionspapier) (Brussels, Kommission der europäischen Gemeinschaften).
Beller, K., Stahnke, M., Butz, P., Stahl, W. & Wessels, H. (1996) Two measures of the qualityof group care for infants and toddlers, European Journal of Psychology of Education, 11(2),151–167.
Brophy, J. & Statham, J. (1994) Measure for measure: values, quality and evaluation, in: P. Moss& A. Pence (Eds) Valuing quality in early childhood services: new approaches to defining quality(London, Paul Chapman), 61–75.
Burchinal, M., Roberts, J., Nabors, L. & Bryant, D. (1996) Quality of center child care and infantcognitive and language development, Child Development, 67, 606–620.
Churchill, R. & Pickering, L. (2000) Health issues in the context of out-of-home child care:diarrheal disease in infants and toddlers, in: D. Cryer & T. Harms (Eds) Infants and toddlersin out-of-home care (Baltimore, MD, Brookes).
Collier, A. & Henderson, F. (2000) Respiratory disease in infants and toddlers, in: D. Cryer &T. Harms (Eds) Infants and toddlers in out-of-home care (Baltimore, Brookes).
Cryer, D. & Burchinal, M. (1997) Parents as child care consumers, Early Childhood ResearchQuarterly, 12, 35–58.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nov
a So
uthe
aste
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
13:
28 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Infant/toddler care in Germany and the USA 61
Cryer, D., Peisner-Feinberg, E., Culkin, M., Phillipsen, L. & Rustici, J. (1995) Design of study, inS. Helburn (Ed.) Cost, quality and child outcomes in child care centers, technical report (Denver,CO, Department of Economics, Center for Research and Social Policy, University ofColorado at Denver).
Cryer, D., Tietze, W., Burchinal, M., Leal, T. & Palacios, J. (1999) Predicting process qualityfrom structural quality in preschool programs: a cross-country comparison, Early ChildhoodResearch Quarterly, 14(3), 339–361.
Cryer, D., Tietze, W. & Wessels, H. (2000) Parents' perceptions of their children's child care: a cross-national comparison, unpublished manuscript, Frank Porter Graham Child DevelopmentCenter, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Deutscher, Bundestag (1992) Finanzielle Folgen der Verbesserung der Tagesbetreuung von Kindern[Financial consequences of the improvement of day care for children]. Ausschussdrucksache0088. Sonderausschuss Schutz des ungeborenen Lebens. 12. Wahlperiode.
Division of Mental Health, World Health Organization (1990) WHO child care facility schedule withuser's manual (Geneva, WHO).
European Child Care and Education Study Group (1997) European child care and education study:cross national analyses of the quality and effects of early childhood programmes on children'sdevelopment (Berlin, Institut für Kleinkindpädagogik, Freie Universität).
Farquhar, S. (1989) Assessing New Zealand child care quality using the Early Childhood Environ-ment Rating Scale, Early Child Development and Care, 47, 93–105.
Harms, T. & Clifford, R. M. (1980) Early childhood environment rating scale (New York, TeachersCollege Press).
Harms, T., Cryer, D. & Clifford, R. (1992) Scala per la Valuazione dellíAsilo Nido (M. Ferrari &P. Livraghi Trans.) (Milan, FrancoAngeli).
Helburn, S. (Ed.) (1995) Cost, quality and child outcomes in child care centers. Technical report forDepartment of Economics, Center for Research in Economic Social Policy (Denver, CO,University of Colorado).
Love, J., Raikes, H., Paulsell, D. & Kisker, E. (2000) New directions for studying quality inprograms for infants and toddlers, in: D. Cryer & T. Harms (Eds) Infants and toddlers inout-of-home care (Baltimore, MD, Brookes).
National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) (1991) National Associationfor the Education of Young Children's Accreditation Criteria and Procedures (Washington DC,NAEYC).
National Center for Education Statistics (1996) Statistics in brief: child care and early educationprogram participating of infants, toddlers and preschoolers, Publication number NCES 95-824(Washington DC, NCES).
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (1996) Characteristics of infant child care: factorscontributing to positive caregiving, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11, 269–306.
Peisner-Feinberg, E. & Burchinal, M. (1997) Relations between preschool children's child-care experiences and concurrent development: the cost, quality and outcomes study,Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 43(3), 451–477.
Peisner-Feinberg, E., Burchinal, M., Clifford, R., Culkin, M., Howes, C., Kagan, S., Yazejian, N.,Byler, P., Rustici, J. & Zelazo, J. (1999) The children of the cost, quality and outcomes study go toschool: executive summary (Chapel Hill, NC, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center).
Petrogiannis, K. & Melhuish, E. (1996) Aspects of quality in Greek day care centers, EuropeanJournal of Psychology of Education, 11(2), 177–191.
Phillipsen, L., Cryer, D. & Howes, C. (1995) Classroom process and classroom structure, in:S. Helburn (Ed.) Cost, quality and child outcomes in child care centers, technical report (Denver,CO, Department of Economics, Center for Research and Social Policy, University ofColorado at Denver).
Scarr, S., Eisenberg, M. & Deater-Deckard, K. (1994) Measurement of quality in child carecenters, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 9, 131–151.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nov
a So
uthe
aste
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
13:
28 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
62 W. Tietze & D. Cryer
Tietze, W. (Ed.) (1998) Wie gut sind unsere Kindergaerten? Eine Untersuchung zur paedagogisdenUqualitaet in deutschen Kindergarten [How good are our preschool provisions? A study onquality in German preschool provisions] (Neuwied, Luchterhand).
Tietze, W. & Cryer, D. (1999) Current trends in European early child care and education, Annalsof the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 563, 175–193.
Tietze, W., Cryer, D., Bairrão, J., Palacios, J. & Wetzel, G. (1996) Comparisons of observed qual-ity in early child care and education programs in five countries, Early Childhood ResearchQuarterly, 11, 447–475.
Tietze, W. & Paterak, H. (1993) Hilfen für die Betreuung und Erziehung von Kindern imVorschulalter in den Ländern der Europäischen Gemeinschaft [Support measures for caringand educating preschool-aged children in EU countries], in: W. Tietze & H.-G. Rossbach(Eds) Erfahrungsfelder in der frühen Kindheit. Bestandsaufnahme, Perspektiven (Freiburg,Lambertus), 272–315.
Tietze, W., Roßbach, H.-G. & Roitsch, K. (1993) Betrenungsangebate für Kinder im vorschulischenAlter [Care and education services for children before school age] (Stuttgart, Kohlhammer).
Whitebook, M., Howes, C. & Phillips, D. (1989) Who cares? Child care teachers and the quality ofcare in America: final report, National Child Care Staffing Study (Oakland, CA, Child CareEmployee Project).
Willer, B., Hofferth, S., Kisker, E., Divine-Hawkins, P., Farquhar, E. & Glantz, F. (1991) Thedemand and supply of child care in 1990 (Washington DC, National Association for theEducation of Young Children).
Zaslow, M. (1991) Variation in child care quality and its implications for children, Journal of SocialIssues, 47, 125–138.
Zigler, E. & Lang, M. (1991) Child care choices: balancing the needs of children, families, and society(New York, Free Press).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nov
a So
uthe
aste
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
13:
28 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014