teacher–child relationships as dynamic systems

Journal of School Psychology 48 (2010) 187–218

Teacher–child relationships as dynamic systems

Erin O'Connor ⁎

New York University, USA

Received 5 December 2007; received in revised form 13 August 2009; accepted 27 January 2010

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to examine factors associated with the quality of theteacher–child relationship from first through fifth grade using data from phases I, II and III of theNational Institutes of Child Health and Human Development Study of Early Child Care and YouthDevelopment, a prospective study of 1364 children from birth through sixth grade. On average,children evidenced moderately high quality relationships with teachers in fifth grade. However, therewas extensive variation in fifth grade relationship quality across children. Children who receivedmore support and stimulation at home and whose parents had higher quality interactions with theschool had higher quality relationships. Additionally, children in classrooms with more positiveenvironments and better management had higher quality relationships. Lastly, females, European-American children, children with lower levels of behavior problems and children who had higherquality relationships with their teachers in kindergarten also had higher quality relationships withteachers. On average, children evidenced decreases in the quality of their relationships with teachersfrom first through fifth grade. Interestingly, children whose parents had more contact with theirschools, who were in schools where teachers received higher salaries and in classrooms that hadmore positive emotional climates and that were better managed evidenced slower rates of decline inrelationship quality. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.© 2010 Society for the Study of School Psychology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Teacher–child relationships; Elementary school; Contextual systems model

⁎ Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development, 665 Broadway, Suite 805, New York, NY10013, USA.

E-mail address: [email protected] EDITOR: Mark D. Shriver.

0022-4405/$ - see front matter © 2010 Society for the Study of School Psychology. Published by Elsevier Ltd.All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2010.01.001

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2010.01.001

188 E. O'Connor / Journal of School Psychology 48 (2010) 187–218

Introduction

A robust literature demonstrates that high quality teacher–child relationships contributeto children's social and cognitive skill development in elementary school (e.g. Hamre &Pianta, 2001; Howes, Matheson, & Hamilton, 1994; Pianta, 1999). Supporting children inthe development of high quality relationships is thus vital. Our understanding of how tofoster high quality relationships between children and teachers in elementary school,however, is limited as little research exists on the developmental trajectories and correlatesof teacher–child relationship quality during this developmental period.

Researchers speculate that the quality of the teacher–child relationship is determined bycomplex interactions between individual and environmental factors, and have recommendedthe use of dynamic systems and ecological models to identify specific factors associated withthe quality of teacher–child relationships over time (Kontos, 1992; Mantzicopoulos, 2005;Pianta, 1999). According to dynamic system models, relationships are constantly changingdue to alterations in the environments in which relationships exist and changes in theindividuals within the relationship. According to ecological models, children develop overtime within interrelated systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Pianta &Walsh, 1996). Pianta andWalsh's (1996) Contextual SystemsModel (CSM), which is rooted in both dynamic systemsand ecological models, was used as a framework for the current study, as it provides atheoretical model of factors within the child, teacher, family and school environmentsassociated with the quality of the teacher–child relationship during elementary school.

Teacher–child relationships

Teacher–child relationships in early and middle childhood have many of the propertiesand functions of parent–child attachment relationships (Pianta, 1999; Wentzel, 1996). Highquality relationships are defined by high levels of closeness and low levels of conflictbetween the teacher and child. Positive correlations in the quality of children's relationshipswith teachers have been found between kindergarten and first grade (O'Connor &McCartney, 2006). Some variation, however, exists in the quality of children'srelationships with different teachers across the elementary school years (Jerome, Hamre,& Pianta, 2009). For example, in a study of children from first through third grade, therewas evidence of only moderate stability in relationship quality across different teachers(O'Connor & McCartney, 2007).

Examining factors associated with change in relationship quality is important, as evensmall changes in quality have implications for child outcomes. For example, in one study, asmall decrease per year in relationship quality across the first three years of elementaryschool was associated with significantly lower levels of achievement at third grade(O'Connor & McCartney, 2007). The CSM outlines various factors that may be associatedwith change in relationship quality.

Contextual systems model

The CSM posits that children develop within the family and school environments. Theseenvironments are composed of various systems, or related factors, that exist at levels distal and

189E. O'Connor / Journal of School Psychology 48 (2010) 187–218

proximal to the child. The family environment is composed of the systems of family resourcesand functions. Family resources include a family's socio-economic supports. Family functionsare more proximal to the child than family resources and are actions within the family thatregulate children's behavior and development. Family functions include parent–childrelationships and parents' provision of support and stimulation for children's learning.

Systems in the school environment are: the school, the classroom, the teacher and thechild. The school system is characterized by collective child characteristics, such aspercentage of children living in poverty, as well as school characteristics, such as theemotional and financial support offered teachers, which influence students' and teachers'experiences. The classroom system includes aspects of the environment that involveinteractions between individuals in the classroom, such as the instructional support thatteachers provide students, as well as structural characteristics, including child–teacherratios, which are independent of interactions between individuals (Cassidy et al., 2005;Helmke & Schrader, 1988; LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007; Pianta, 1994). The systems of theteacher and child are composed of individual characteristics and experiences of teachersand children, such as personality, which influence their behaviors.

The school and family environments do not exist in isolation from one another. In fact,the school and family environments are in a relationship with each other (Pianta, 1999;Pianta &Walsh, 1996). This relationship is characterized by both the amount of contact thatexists between the parents and school, as well as the quality of the interactions betweenparents and the school (Pianta & Walsh, 1996).

Factors in the family and school systems are interdependent such that the effect of a factorwithin the school environment on a child's developmentmay be dependent on a factorwithin thefamily environment and vice versa (Pianta&Walsh, 1996). Consequently, the family and schoolenvironments impact child development individually, as well as through their interactions withone another (Pianta & Walsh, 1996; Sameroff & Chandler, 1975).Teacher–child relationshipsare at the heart of the CSM. According to the CSM, these relationships are open systems thatdevelop through “feedforward” and “feedback” loops. Teacher–child relationships developwithin the school environment; however, factors in both the family and school environmentsinfluence relationship quality over time (Pianta & Walsh, 1996). In other words, within theCSM, the quality of the teacher–child relationship is the result of various factors within thefamily and school environments (Hamre, Pianta, Downer, & Mashburn, 2008).

The family environment

Family resources and functionsResearch indicates that family socio-economic resources are associated with relationship

quality. Children from less advantaged backgrounds tend to develop lower qualityrelationships with teachers (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Ladd, Birch, & Buhs, 1999; Pianta &Stuhlman, 2004a,b). In particular, children from lower income families and whose parentshave fewer years of education tend to have less close and more conflictual relationshipswith their teachers than their more advantaged peers (e.g. Ladd et al., 1999).

Family functions are also associated with relationship quality. Due to the amount of timechildren spend with mothers during the first year of life, their initial attachment relationshipsare usually to their mothers. In general, children develop either secure or insecure maternal


attachment relationships. Children with secure attachments are presumed to form models oftheir mothers as trusting and supportive, and use them as a secure base (Bowlby, 1973;Bretherton & Munholland, 1999; Thompson, 1999; Weinfield, Sroufe, Egeland, & Carlson,1999). In contrast, childrenwith insecure attachments may developmodels of their mothers asinconsistently available, and are not as effective as children with secure attachments in usingtheir mothers as secure bases. A small group of children does not develop either secure orinsecure attachment relationships. These children form insecure/other attachments. Childrenwith insecure/other attachments may have unorganized and incoherent working models of themother–child attachment relationship, and are unable to use their mothers as secure bases(Main & Cassidy, 1988).

Due to relationships with their mothers, children may arrive at school with models ofattachment relationships that influence the quality of their early relationships with teachers.Children with secure attachments tend to develop higher quality relationships with teachersthan children with insecure attachments (Howes & Hamilton, 1992; Pianta, Nimetz, &Bennett, 1997; Sroufe, Fox, & Pancake, 1983). Children with insecure/other attachmentstend to form the lowest quality relationships with teachers (O'Connor &McCartney, 2006).

Parental support and stimulation for children's cognitive and academic developmentalso correlate with the quality of the teacher–child relationship. Through interactions withparents, children learn behaviors and information that regulate their actions in theclassroom. Not surprisingly, children whose parents provide them with greater amounts ofsupport and stimulation evidence higher quality relationships with teachers (Pianta, 1999;Pianta & Walsh, 1996). Children who receive high levels of support and stimulation athome likely develop skills and behaviors that prepare them to be positively engaged in theclassroom and with teachers (Pianta & Walsh, 1996).

The family–school relationshipThe family–school relationship connects the family environment to the school

environment in which the teacher–child relationship develops. Children whose parentshave more frequent contact and more positive interactions with teachers tend to evidencelower levels of conflict with teachers in elementary school (Mantzicopoulos, 2005;Reynolds, Weissberg, & Kasprow, 1992). Contact between parents and teachers sets thestage for “establishing shared goals and mutual decision making, avoiding misunderstand-ings, and helping parents understand how to reinforce learning and school instruction in thehome” (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001, p.118). Additionally, higher quality relationshipsbetween teachers and parents may increase teachers' expectations for the quality of theirinteractions with children and thereby foster higher quality teacher–child relationships(Pianta & Walsh, 1996).

The school environment

School systemThe school system regulates teachers' and students' behaviors, and consequently

influences teacher–child interactions and relationship quality. Teachers tend to have lessfrequent positive and sensitive interactions with children in schools where there are higherpercentages of children living below the poverty line (NICHD Early Child Care Research


Network [ECCRN], 2003; Pianta et al., 2005). This association may reflect that teachers areless able to attend to individual children's needs when multiple children in the schoolevidence difficulties associated with poverty (Hanushek, 1997; Pianta et al., 2005).

Several studies have also identified associations between resources in the schoolavailable to teachers and the quality of teacher–child interactions and relationships.Teachers report higher quality interactions and relationships with students in schools inwhich there are supportive and involved principals (Pianta, 1999). Furthermore, teacher–child interactions are more positive in schools with greater amounts of professionaldevelopment offered to teachers (Fontaine, Torre, Grafwallner, & Underhill, 2006).Financial support correlates with the quality of teacher–child interactions as well. Teacher–child interactions tend to be more positive in schools in which teachers have higher salaries(Hall & Cassidy, 2002).

Classroom systemA relatively extensive body of literature demonstrates that characteristics of the

classroom, which involve teacher–child and child–child interactions, are associated withthe quality of teacher–child relationships (Howes, 2000; Mashburn et al., 2008). Teacher–child relationships tend to be higher quality in classrooms with very positive emotionalclimates, characterized by teacher–child and peer interactions that are warm and supportiveand by high levels of teacher sensitivity. On the other hand, relationships tend to be lower inquality in classrooms with less positive environments where the predominant patterns ofteacher–child and peer interactions are angry and/or insensitive (Birch & Ladd, 1997;Hamre & Pianta, 2005; Hamre et al., 2008; Howes, 2000; Pianta, Steinberg, & Rollins,1995).

Teacher–child relationships also tend to be higher quality in classrooms with betterinstructional practices. For example, in one study, levels of conflict in the relationship werelower when classroom instruction was characterized by the teacher's use of developmen-tally appropriate practices (Mantzicopoulos, 2005). Additionally, teacher–child interac-tions that foster higher quality relationships are more often observed in classrooms in whichclassroom instruction is characterized by frequent instructional dialogue between teachersand students, high levels of evaluative feedback and whole and small group instruction (e.g.La Paro, Pianta, & Stuhlman, 2004). Lastly, teacher–child interactions associated withhigher quality relationships are more often observed in classrooms that are managed wellsuch that teacher expectations are clear and the pacing and level of activities are appropriate(e.g. Donohue, Perry, & Weinstein, 2003; Emmer & Stough, 2001).

Characteristics of the classroom related to structure are associated with relationshipquality as well. Higher quality teacher–child relationships are observed in classes withlower child–teacher ratios, where teachers interact with students more positively, observetheir development more diligently and interact with them in a more individualized fashion(Bourke, 1986; McGiverin, Gilman, & Tillitski, 1989; NICHD ECCRN, 2002; Pianta,1999; Thurlow, Ysseldyke, Wotruba, & Algozzine, 1993).

Teacher systemTeacher characteristics, including education and experience, also correlate with

relationship quality. Teachers with more years of education tend to develop higher quality


relationships with students (Hearns, 1998; Howes, Whitebrook, & Phillips, 1992).Interestingly, teachers with more experience tend to form lower quality relationships withchildren (Mashburn, Hamre, Downer, & Pianta, 2006; O'Connor & McCartney, 2006).

Teacher beliefs influence relationship quality as well. In particular, previous researchshows correlations between teacher self-efficacy and relationship quality. Teacher self-efficacy refers to teachers' beliefs regarding their abilities to impact decision making intheir school and to manage and motivate children in their classroom. Teachers with higherlevels of self-efficacy report closer and less conflictual relationships with children (Hamreet al., 2008; Mashburn et al., 2006). This association may reflect teacher behaviors.Teachers who report higher levels of self-efficacy often interact with children in a mannerthat enhances student engagement and prosocial behavior (Mashburn et al., 2008; Midgley,Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989).

Child systemResearchers have identified various child characteristics, including gender, behavior

problems and language ability, associated with the quality of the teacher–child relationship(e.g. Howes, Hamilton, & Matheson, 1994; Murray & Greenberg, 2000; Paget, Nagle, &Martin, 1984). Girls often evidence higher quality relationships than boys (Bracken &Crain, 1994; Howes, 2000; Pianta, 1999; Ryan, Stiller, & Lynch, 1994). Girls tend to bemore positively engaged in the classroom than boys, which may foster higher qualityteacher–child relationships (Birch & Ladd, 1997). Teachers also describe higher qualityrelationships with European-American than African-American and Latino-Americanchildren (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Saft & Pianta, 2001; Taylor & Machinda, 1996). Thisassociation may reflect “ethnic match” as teachers tend to report higher quality relationshipswhen teacher–child ethnic match is present (Saft & Pianta, 2001). In previous research, themajority of teachers have been European-American.

A relatively large body of literature demonstrates associations between behaviorproblems and conflict in the teacher–child relationship (Birch & Ladd, 1998; Hamre et al.,2008; Ladd et al., 1999; Murray & Greenberg, 2000; Murray & Murray, 2004). Thisnegative association between behavior problems and the quality of the teacher–childrelationship may arise as children with behavior problems frequently disturb the class, andthus make teaching difficult (LaPointe, 2003).

Children who evidence higher level language skills tend to have higher qualityinteractions with teachers (Qi & Kaiser, 2004). Children with higher level language skillsare better able to communicate their needs to teachers allowing their teachers to respond tothem in a sensitive and responsive manner that encourages a high quality relationship(Rudasill, Rimm-Kaufman, Justice, & Pence, 2006). Shyness, the extent to which a childevidences a slow or inhibited approach in situations involving novelty or uncertainty, isassociated with the quality of the teacher–child relationship as well (Rudasill et al., 2006).Uninhibited children tend to interact with teachers more than their shy peers fostering morepositive relationships (e.g. Lerner, Lerner, & Zabski, 1985; Patrick, Yoon, & Murphy,1995; Rimm-Kaufman & Kagan, 2005; Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2002; Skarpness & Carson,1986).

Children's experiences in child care and kindergarten may also influence the quality oftheir relationships with teachers in elementary school. Children in more hours of child care


tend to have higher quality relationships with child care teachers (Goossens & vanIJzendoorn, 1990; O'Connor & McCartney, 2006). Additionally, children with higherquality relationships with teachers in kindergarten tend to have higher quality relationshipswith their elementary school teachers (Jerome, Hamre, & Pianta, 2009; O'Connor &McCartney, 2006; Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004a).

The Present Study

In the current study, the quality of children's relationships with teachers from firstthrough fifth grade, and factors associated with relationship quality over time wereexamined using individual growth modeling techniques. To extend previous research onteacher–child relationships, the following research questions were addressed: (a) dochildren evidence change in relationship quality with teachers from first through fifthgrade?; (b) what family, school, classroom, teacher and child factors are associated withchange in relationship quality from first through fifth grade?; (c) what family, school,classroom, teacher and child factors are associated with relationship quality at fifth grade?;and (d) do the effects of factors in the family, school, classroom, teacher and child systemson relationship quality vary as a function of one another?

Based on previous research, it was hypothesized that the average quality of the teacher–child relationship would decrease slightly during elementary school. It was expected thatchildren who experienced more supportive home, school and classroom environmentswould evidence less rapid rates of decline than their peers with less supportiveenvironments as supportive environments may encourage children's continued feelingsof safety and security in the relationship as they encounter new stressors related to peer andacademic pressures in later childhood. Due to the lack of longitudinal studies of overallrelationship quality, additional hypotheses regarding factors associated with change werenot proposed. At fifth grade, it was hypothesized that children from families with greaterfinancial resources, who had secure attachments, whose parent were more involved in theschool, who were in classrooms with more positive environments, lower child-to-teacherratios and that were better managed, and whose teachers had more education andexperience, as well as reported higher levels of self-efficacy, would have higher qualityrelationships. Furthermore, it was expected that females, European-American children,children with greater language skills, fewer behavior problems, higher levels of inhibitorycontrol, more hours in child care and higher quality kindergarten teacher–childrelationships would have higher quality relationships at fifth grade. Given the scarcity ofprevious research on family and school factors associated with relationship quality, specifichypotheses regarding how the effects of factors in the various systems of the CSM onrelationship quality would vary as a function of one another were not advanced.

As far as the author can determine, this is the first study to apply the CSM to the study ofteacher–child relationships across the elementary school years. An examination of factorswithin the CSM that are associated with relationship quality during the elementary schoolyears adds to the literature on teacher–child relationships in at least three ways. First, to theextent that the quality of children's relationships with teachers varies across teachers,identifying developmental trajectories of relationship quality would improve the ecologicalvalidity of research on teacher–child relationships. Second, examining family, school,


classroom, teacher and child factors associated with relationship quality in the same modelwould demonstrate the relative influence of factors in each of these systems on the qualityof teacher–child relationships. In past research the effects of factors in multiple systems onteacher–child relationship quality have not been examined in the same statistical model.Thus, the relative influences of factors in various systems on relationship quality areunknown. Additionally, because few researchers have considered the effects of factors inthe family and school environments in the same model, it is possible that previous resultsdemonstrating associations between factors in the family or school environments mayreflect the effects of unmeasured variables. Third, investigating possible interactions offactors in the family and school environments with child characteristics on relationshipquality may help identify supports for children at-risk for developing lower qualityrelationships by identifying factors that buffer children from the effects of risk-factors forlow quality relationships. Findings may thus inform targeted interventions aimed atsupporting the development of high quality teacher–child relationships.

Method

Participants

The current studywas conducted using data from the first three phases of theNICHDStudyof Early Child Care and Youth Development (NICHD SECCYD), a prospective study ofchildren from birth through adolescence. In 1991, 1364 women and their newborn children inor near 10 urban and suburban sites in the United States were recruited through a conditionalrandom sampling plan to participate in the NICHD SECCYD (for detailed recruitment andsampling details, see NICHD ECCRN, 2001, 2003). The demographic distribution of thisoriginal sample was 24% ethnic minority; 11% of the mothers did not have a high schooleducation, and 14% were single at the birth of the child (NICHD ECCRN, 1997).

Only 870 families of the 1364 in the recruitment sample had complete data, mostly dueto attrition during the study. The children with complete data were compared with childrenfrom the original sample who did not have complete data either because they dropped out ofthe study by fifth grade or had missing data on one or more measurements. In the samplelost to attrition/incomplete data children's families had lower income-to-needs ratios at firstgrade (3.98 vs. 3.32; F=6.49; pb01), and children were more likely to not be European-American (Chi-square=44.77; pb .001). Due to the high rate of missing data, multipleimputation was completed in order to correct for potential biases that may have resultedfrom the selective attrition (Runions & Keating, 2007). The data appeared to be missing atrandom due to the greater amount of missingness found among lower income and non-European-American families (Rubin, 1978). Therefore, WinMICE (Jacobusse, 2005) wasused to impute missing values. WinMICE used information from all other variables in theimputation model to impute individual missing values (van Buuren & Oudshoorn, 2000).Twenty complete data files were imputed, which resulted in a low fraction of missinginformation and acceptable degrees of freedom for tests of significance (Runions &Keating, 2007; von Hippel, 2005; see Enders, 2010, for a detailed discussion on multipleimputation). Analyses were combined in SAS Proc MI Analyze. All analyses reported arebased on these estimates and standard errors.


Overview of data collection

The current study was conducted using secondary data analysis of the NICHD SECCYDdataset. In the NICHD SECCYD study, the NICHD Early Child Care Research Network(ECCRN) collected data on children, their families and school contexts from birth throughgrade 5 in three phases. Data were collected by the NICHD ECCRN and research assistantstrained by the NICHD ECCRN through teacher and parent reports, observations and childdirect assessments (see NICHD ECCRN, 2005, for additional details on data collection).More specifically, family income-to-needs information was gathered through parentinterviews at first, third and fifth grades. Mother–child attachment behaviors were observedat laboratory visits when children were 36 months old. Teacher questionnaires werecompleted when the children were in kindergarten, first, third and fifth grade, andclassroom observations were conducted when the children were in first, third and fifthgrade. The home environment was evaluated through home visits in third and fifth grade.

Measures

Quality of the teacher–child relationship

The 15-item Student Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; Pianta, 1992) was used toassess teacher perceptions of the quality of the teacher–child relationship at first, third andfifth grade. Items on the STRS were developed based on behaviors used in the classificationof parent–child attachments and the Attachment Q-set (Waters & Deane, 1985), as well asthrough observations of teachers and children interacting in the classroom and teachers'descriptions of children's behaviors towards them (Pianta & Nimetz, 1991).

Using a 5-point Likert scale that ranges from “1 (definitely does not apply)” to “5 (definitelyapplies)”, teachers rated how applicable statements were to their current relationship with aparticular child. Two features of the relationship were studied: closeness and conflict. Thecloseness subscale is an index of the amount ofwarmth and open communication present in therelationship (e.g. “I share an affectionate, warm relationship with this child”; αs in the NICHDSECCYD were .88, .85 and .91 at first, third and fifth grade, respectively). The conflictsubscale measures the extent to which the relationship is marked by antagonistic,disharmonious interactions (e.g. “This child and I always seem to be struggling with eachother”; α in the NICHD SECCYD was .94 at all three time points). The overall quality of therelationship is determined by the amounts of closeness and conflict (reflected). Higher scoresindicate higher quality relationships. The internal reliability for the overall score across allthree time points in the NICHD SECCYD was moderately high (α=.86, .89 and .88 at first,third and fifth grade, respectively). Teachers completed the STRS in the spring of each year.

The STRS evidences both convergent and discriminant validity (Pianta & Nimetz,1991). Scores on the STRS correlate with observational measures of the quality of theteacher–child relationship as well as with ratings of child behavior problems, frustrationtolerance, work habits and social competence (e.g., Birch & Ladd, 1997; Howes &Hamilton, 1992; Howes & Ritchie, 1999; Pianta & Nimetz, 1991). Additionally, STRSscores are associated with Attachment Q-Set ratings of teachers and students such thathigher STRS scores correlate with more secure relationships (Howes & Ritchie, 1999).


Family resources variables

Income-to-needsAt first, third and fifth grade, the ratio of family income-to-needs was computed by

dividing total family income by the poverty threshold for the appropriate family size (U.S.Bureau of the Census, 1999). Income-to-needs ratios less than 1 indicate poverty status.

Maternal educationLevel of education was obtained during interviews at time of recruitment into the study, and

scored as: less than 12=number of years in school, 12=high school graduate orGED, 14=somecollege, 16=a bachelor's degree, 17=some graduate school experience, 18=a master's degree,19=a law school degree and 21=more than one master's degree or a doctoral degree.

Family functions system variables

Maternal attachmentA modified Strange Situation procedure, based on recommendations by Cassidy and

Marvin and the MacArthur Working Group on Attachment (1992), was used to assessattachment style at 36 months. In this procedure, designed to be moderately stressful for thechild, the mother and child were invited to make themselves comfortable in a room. After3 min, the mother was signaled to leave. The first separation lasted 3 min, unless the childwas overly distressed. After a 3-min reunion, the mother left again. The second separationlasted for 5 min. The children's behaviors during the assessment were classified accordingto the system developed by Cassidy and Marvin and the MacArthur Working Group onAttachment (see Cassidy & Marvin, 1992). Children were assigned codes for secure andinsecure, as well as insecure/other attachment patterns.

Reliability information was obtained from pairs of coders, who each scored a total of1140 tapes from the 10 collection sites. Percent agreement on attachment classificationbetween the two coders was computed. Percent agreement was 84.0%. In the currentanalyses, two dummy codes to represent insecure and insecure/other attachment werecreated. Children were assigned a value of 1 for insecure if they demonstrated an insecureattachment pattern. Children were assigned a value of 1 for insecure/other if they exhibitedan insecure/other attachment pattern. Secure attachment served as the comparison group.

Support and stimulation at homeAt third and fifth grade, parental support and stimulation of children's cognitive and

academic development were measured through the HOME Inventory (Caldwell & Bradley,1984). The HOME Inventory consists of direct observation and a semi-structured interviewwith themother, and is designed tomeasure the quality and quantity of support and stimulationavailable to a child at home. At third grade, the middle childhood version of the HOME wascompleted, and at fifth grade the early adolescent version of the HOME was completed.

The middle childhood version of the HOME consists of 59 items and includes sevensubscales: Responsivity, Encouragement of Maturity, Acceptance, Learning Materials,Enrichment, Family Companionship and Physical Environment. The total score is computed


as the sum of the items on the subscales. The possible range of values is 0 to 59, with a higherscore indicating greater levels of child support and stimulation.

The early adolescent version of the HOME inventory consists of 44 items organized into5 subscales: Physical Elements, Learning Materials, Modeling, Variety of Experiences andAcceptance and Responsivity. The total score is computed as the sum of the items on thesubscales. The possible range of values on the early adolescent version of the HOME is 0 to44, with a higher score indicating greater levels of support and stimulation. Values at thirdand fifth grade were averaged to create a mean HOME score. The HOME score at thirdgrade was weighted by .90 in the calculation of the mean so that the third and fifth gradeHOME scores contributed equally to the average HOME score.

In the NICHD SECCYD, the items on the middle childhood and early adolescentversions of the HOME had moderately high internal reliability (Cronbach's alpha= .82 and.84 at third and fifth grades, respectively). A robust body of literature indicates that HOMEscores correlate with scores on other measures of family context as well as measures ofchildren's cognitive and socio-emotional development across socio-cultural and socio-economic groups (e.g., Bradley, 1994; Bradley, Caldwell, Rock, Hamrick, & Harris, 1988;Bradley et al., 2000; Wen-Jui, Leventhal, & Linver, 2004).

Family–school relationship variables

Family–school contactAmount of contact between the parents and the school was assessed through an item

from the teacher version of the Parent–Teacher Involvement Questionnaire (PTIQ-T;Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 1991) at first, third and fifth grade.Teachers rated on a 5-point Likert scale from “1 (not at all) to 5 (a great deal)” “how oftenthe parent volunteers or visits the school”. Reports of family–school contact on the PTIQ-Tevidence discriminant validity and correlate with parent reports of attendance at schoolmeetings and contact with teacher and school personnel (Conduct Problems PreventionResearch Group, 1999; Kohl, Lengua, McMahon, & the Conduct Problems PreventionResearch Group, 2000; Malone, 2000).

Quality of parent–school interactionsThe quality of parent–school interactions was measured through the 12-item Parent's

Endorsement of Child's School subscale of the 26-item Parent–Teacher InvolvementQuestionnaire-Parent Version (PTIQ-P Miller-Johnson, Maumary-Gremaud, & ConductDisorders Research Group, 1995). The Parent's Endorsement of Child's School subscaleassesses the extent to which parents feel comfortable at their child's school, have positiveinteractions with teachers and school personnel, and show positive attitudes towards theirchild's school. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “1 (not at all)” to 4 “(agreat deal)”. The average value across all 12 itemswas calculated such that scores ranged from0 to 4.00, with higher scores indicating higher quality interactions between the parent andschool personnel and the parent's more positive attitudes towards their child's school. Theitems on the scale had high internal reliability in the NICHD SECCYD study across all threetime points (Cronbach's α=.89, .91, and .91 at first, third and fifth grade, respectively).Subscale scores on the PTIQ-P for Endorsement of Child's School correlate positively with


other parent, teacher and observational measures of quality of parent–school interactions andparent's attitudes towards their child's school (Miller-Johnson, Maumary-Gremaud, &Conduct Disorders Research Group, 1995).

School system variables

Percentage of students on free/reduced lunchAt first, third and fifth grade the percentage of students eligible for free lunch in the

school was obtained through principal report.

Principal involvementAt third and fifth grade, teachers were asked to report on the level of positive principal

involvement with the teaching staff using the Principal Involvement Scale of the SchoolTeacher Survey of the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS; National Center for EducationalStatistics, 1994). The questionnaire includes nine items (e.g. “how often does the principalcommunicate respect and value for teachers”) rated on a 4-point Likert scale from “1 (veryoften) to 4 (never)”. Higher scores indicate more frequent and positive interaction betweenthe school principal and the teaching staff. The items on the scale had high internal reliabilityin the NICHD SECCYD (Cronbach's alpha= .90 at third and fifth grade). Principalinvolvement scores from the Principal Involvement Questionnaire of the School TeacherSurvey correlate with other teacher and principal report measures of principal involvement,supporting the validity of the measure (Tourkin et al., 2007). Additionally, teacher andprincipal interview data regarding principal involvement correlate highly with scores on thePrincipal Involvement Scale, further supporting scale validity (Tourkin et al., 2007).

Professional developmentAt third and fifth grade, principals were asked to report on teacher professional

development at the school using the Professional Development Scale of the School TeacherSurvey of the SASS (National Center for Educational Statistics, 1994). The questionnaireincludes nine items (e.g. “workshops or conferences offered at school”) rated on a 5-point scalefrom “1 (never) to 5 (always)”. Higher scores indicate more professional development forteachers. The raw items on the scale had moderate internal reliability in the NICHD SECCYD(Cronbach's alpha=.80 at third and fifth grade, respectively). Professional developmentreports from the School Teacher Survey correlate with other measures of professionaldevelopment (Choy, Chen, & Bugarin, 2006). Additionally, information on professionaldevelopment gained through teacher and principal interview data correlates highly with scoreson the Professional Development Scale, further supporting scale validity (Choy et al., 2006).Values at third and fifth grade were averaged to create amean professional development score.

Teacher salaryAt third and fifth grade information was collected on the teacher's monthly salary

through teacher reports. Salary was calculated as the annual salary divided by the number ofmonths covered by the salary.


Classroom system variables

Positive classroom environment, quality of classroom instruction, classroom managementTheClassroomObservation System (COS;NICHDECCRN, 1999)was used to individually

assess the participating children's experiences in their classrooms at first, third, and fifth grade.The COS was modified slightly after the first grade administration. Two additional codes wereincluded at third and fifth grade.One codemeasured quality of classroom instruction, as indexedby richness of instructional methods, and another code measured the quality of classroommanagement, as indexed by the productive use of instructional time. All classroom observationsoccurred during the morning and began with the official start of the school day.

Trained observers visited the child's classroom and observed both the classroom andeach participating child. Children were observed for two 44-min cycles in first grade andeight 44-min cycles in third and fifth grade. In each cycle observers made partial-intervalrecordings during 30-s “observe” and 30-s “record” intervals. In addition, teachers andchildren were observed for 5 min before and 10 min after the coding cycles.

Coders relied on these dedicated periods of observation to assign global ratings for positiveemotional climate, richness of instructional methods and productive use of instructional timeusing a 7-point rating scale. A rating of “1” was assigned when a particular code was“uncharacteristic,” a “3”was assigned when the description was “minimally characteristic,” a“5” was assigned when the description of the code was “very characteristic”, and a “7” wasassigned when the description was “extremely characteristic” of the observed classroom. Ahigh rating for positive classroom environment denotes a classroom in which the teacher isresponsive and sensitive to student needs, and shows animated affect toward the children. Ahigh rating for richness of instructional methods indicates a classroom in which a variety ofteaching strategies and techniques are used that encourage the use of higher level thinkingskills among students in the class. A high rating for productive use of instructional timedenotes a classroom in which time and activities are managed well to insure child productivityand classroom engagement, and in which teacher expectations for children's behavior areclear. A high rating for productive use of instructional time also indicates that the pacing andlevel of classroom activities are developmentally appropriate.

Inter-coder agreements for positive classroom climate were .84, .76, and .90 at first, thirdand fifth grade, respectively. RELTHAP for ratings of positive classroom emotional climatewere .88, .93 and .94 at first, third and fifth grade, respectively. Inter-coder agreements forrichness of instructional methods were .76 and .92 at third and fifth grade, respectively.RELTHAP for ratings of richness of instructional methods were .85 and .95 at third and fifthgrade, respectively. Inter-coder agreement for productive use of instructional time was .76and .88 at third and fifth grade, respectively. Lastly, RELTHAP for ratings of the productiveuse of instructional time were .86 and .93 at third and fifth grade, respectively. Scores on theCOS correlate with observational and teacher reports of classroom climate and child andteacher behaviors, as well as with standardized assessments of children's academic andsocial functioning (Love, Meckstroth, & Sprachman, 1997; NICHD ECCRN, 2003, 2005).

Child–teacher ratioAt first, third and fifth grade, the ratios of children to teachers were computed from the

number of children reported in each cycle of the COS (NICHD ECCRN, 1999) divided by


the number of teachers in each cycle. The value was computed at the beginning and end of acycle and then the two values were averaged to obtain a mean for the cycle. Values acrosscycles were averaged.

Teacher system variables

Teacher educationTeacher education at first, third and fifth grade was coded as follows: 1 = less than high

school education, 2 = high school diploma or GED, 3 = bachelor's degree, 4 = somegraduate work, 5 = master's degree and 6 = doctorate.

Teacher experienceTeacher experience at first, third and fifth grade was represented by a continuous

variable indicating the number of years an individual had been teaching at any level.

Teacher self-efficacyAt third and fifth grade, teachers completed the Teacher Self Efficacy Scale (Bandura,

1986). This questionnaire contains 21 items that measure teachers' beliefs regarding theirability to impact decision making, teach effectively, discipline effectively, and create apositive environment. Items are rated on a 9-point Likert scale from “1 (nothing) to “9 (agreat deal)”. Factor analysis with a varimax rotation demonstrated that the scale containsone factor that measures overall self-efficacy. Total self-efficacy is computed as the sum ofresponses to items 1–21. The possible range of values is from 21 to 189 with higher valuesindicating more self-efficacy. In the NICHD SECCYD items had high internal reliability atthird and fifth grade (Cronbach's α=.91 and .90 at third and fifth grade, respectively).Scores on this scale correlate with other measures of teacher self-efficacy and withobservational measures of teacher behavior (Midgley et al., 2000).

Child system variables

FemaleGender was dummy coded such that female was assigned a value of 1 and male a value

of 0.

Race/EthnicityTwo dichotomous variables were created for race/ethnicity. Children were assigned a

value of 1 for African-American if parents reported their race/ethnicity as African-American. Children were assigned a value of 1 for Latino-American if parents reportedtheir race/ethnicity as Latino-American. European-American served as the reference group.

Language abilityChildren's language ability at first, third and fifth grade was assessed using the Picture

Vocabulary subscale of the Woodcock Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery- Revised(WJR; Woodcock & Johnson, 1990). The same test is administered for individuals from4.5 years of age through adulthood. It assesses the ability to recognize or to name pictured


objects, and is a measure of verbal comprehension and oral language. Vertically-equatedIRT-scaled scores or W-scores were used in the current study. W-scores are a specialtransformation of the Rasch ability scale. The W-score is centered on a value of 500. Onmeasurements in which test administration is terminated after failing a certain number ofitems and in which items differ across assessments, only IRT-scaled scores providemeasurements that are equivalent across time points, which is necessary for growthmodeling. The items on this subscale had high internal reliability at all three time points inthe NICHD SECCYD (Cronbach's α= .91). The Picture Vocabulary subscale has excellenttest–retest reliability and predictive validity regarding language ability across the lifespan(e.g. Breen, 1985). It also correlates with other measures of oral language and verbalcomprehension (e.g. Breen, 1985; McGrew & Kopnick, 1993).

Child behavior problemsTotal behavior problems were assessed at first, third and fifth grade through the parent

version of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach, 1991). The CBCL contains 118items that describe a broad range of child behavior/emotional problems.Higher scores indicatemore overall problems. Raw scores were used in the current analyses, as standardized scoresare calculated with age-specific standard deviations, which produce inaccurate estimates ofeffect in longitudinal data analyses. Consequently, equating scores across time is not possiblewith standardized scores (Singer & Willett, 2003). The CBCL has excellent concurrent andpredictive validity, and is the most widely used screening instrument for tracking theemergence of behavior problems in children. The CBCL also has been shown to predictsubsequent problem behavior over a 6-year period (Achenbach, Edelbrock, & Howell, 1987).The CBCL also has good test–retest reliability (Achenbach et al., 1987).

Child temperamentAt 54 months mothers completed the Child Behavior Questionnaire (Rothbart, Ahadi,

Hershey,& Fisher, 1994). The 13-item inhibition/shyness subscale of the CBQwas used in thecurrent study. This subscale measures how shy a child is in different situations, and includesitems such as “sometimes prefers to watch rather than join other children playing” and “issometimes shy even around people s/he has known a long time.” The items were scored on aseven-point Likert scale that ranged from “1 (extremely untrue)” to “7 (extremely true)”.Shyness was computed as the mean of responses to the items with scores ranging from 1 to 7.Higher scores indicate greater inhibition/shyness. The internal reliabilities for this subscale asreported by Rothbart (1996) are high (Cronbach's α=.94) and in the NICHD SECCYD aremoderately high (Cronbach's α=.85). Shyness scores on the CBQcorrelate with observationalratings and parent reports of shyness, aggression, boldness and prosocial behavior (Findlay,Girardi&Colplan, 2006). Shyness tends to be a stable trait andwas therefore not assessed after54 months in Phases II and III of the NICHD SECCYD.

Hours in child careNumber of hours in non-maternal care was obtained from maternal reports at 6, 15, 24,

36 and 54 months. A variable for average number of hours in non-maternal care from 6through 54 months was created.


Quality of the kindergarten teacher–child relationshipThe 15-item Student Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; Pianta, 1992) was used to

assess teacher perceptions of the quality of the teacher–child relationship in kindergarten.Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale that ranges from “1 (definitely does not apply)” to“5 (definitely applies)”. Scores range from 15 to 75 with higher values indicating a higherquality relationship. In the NICHD SECCYD the Cronbach's alpha for the closeness andconflict subscales and for the overall scale at kindergarten were relatively high (α=.90, .86,and .87 for closeness, conflict and overall relationship quality, respectively).

Data analysis plan

In the current analyses, individual growth modeling was used as it allows one to modelchange over time in an outcome with repeated measures, in this case quality of the teacher–child relationship. All models were fitted with SAS PROCMIXED. The metric of time usedwas grade.

Time was centered around fifth grade, so that the parameter for the intercept wouldrepresent relationship quality at fifth grade, the end of elementary school for most children inthe sample. In order to center grade, a value of five was subtracted from the timemetric, grade.Additionally, time-invariant predictors were mean centered, as zero is not a valid value forseveral of them and therefore interpretation of the fitted intercepts when values for these arezerowould be difficult. Variables were centered on the samplemean by subtracting the samplemean from each individual's score. Time-varying variables were centered at the grandmean toguard against issues of multicollinearity when examining same level interactions (see Bickel,2007). These variables were grand mean centered by subtracting each individual's overallmean from his/her score at every time point. A linear model was examined, as nonlinearfunctions such as logistic growth curves or higher order polynomial functions (e.g. cubicgrowth curves) require more than three repeated assessments (Singer & Willett, 2003).

Initially, an unconditional means (i.e. random effects ANOVA) model was estimated toexamine the intraclass correlation (ICC), and to determine the amount of variation in STRSscores that occurred across students.

STRSti = γ00 + u0i + rti ð1Þ

The subscript t refers to repeated response variable observations (level-1 units) gatheredlongitudinally from i students (level-2 units) (Peugh, 2010). The model in Eq. (1) is calledan unconditional means model because the STRS score for student i at time t (STRSti) ismodeled as a function of a grand mean STRS score for all students (γ00), plus a term thatrepresents deviations in an individual student's STRS mean around the grand STRS mean(u0i) and a time-specific residual term that demonstrates the differences between eachindividual's observed and predicted STRS scores (rit) (Peugh, 2010).

Next, to investigate the first research question, an unconditional growth model was fittedto examine children's STRS scores from first through fifth grade.

STRSij = γ00 + γ10 Gradeij−5� �

+ u0i + u1i Gradeij−5� �

+ rti ð2Þ


As previously mentioned, five was subtracted from the timemetric to center grade on fifthgrade in order for the intercept to correspond to the final assessment time point (fifth grade).As shown in Eq. (2), the STRS score of student i at time t, or fifth grade, is modeled as afunction of the grand mean STRS score at fifth grade (y00), as well as a residual term thatdemonstrates deviations in students' fifth grade STRS scores about the grand mean (uoi).Additionally, each student's rate of STRS score change over time is modeled as a grandmean rate of STRS change (y10) and a residual term that shows individual differences inSTRS change around the grand mean (u1i). Nine dummy variables to represent datacollection site were added to this model along with their interactions with time to examinewhether there were slope and intercept differences across sites. Significant site differenceswere not found, therefore, dummy variables for site were not retained in subsequent models.

The unconditional growth model outlined above served as the baseline to whichpredictors, selected to operationalize the systems in Pianta and Walsh's (1996) CSM, wereadded to investigate the second and third research questions. Variables for whichinformation was available at all three time points were entered as time-varying variables.Variables for which information was available at only two time points were averaged, aswith only two time points it is not possible to model change over time, and treated as time-invariant variables. The average value was used, as it provides a representation of anindividual's total experience over time. Variables for which information was only availablefor one time point were also treated as time-invariant variables.

Variables were entered into the model in sets from the most distal to most proximalsystems to the teacher–child relationship: family resources, family functions, family–schoolrelationship, school, classroom, and teacher and child systems. Teacher and childcharacteristics were entered in the same set given that teachers and children are partnersin the relationship and as such at the same level of proximity to the relationship. The sets ofpredictors were tested hierarchically to assess the separate contributions of each of the sets ofvariables. Changes in goodness-of-fit (i.e.,Δ−2LL) between nestedmodels, as each new setof variables was added, were calculated. In order to create the most parsimonious model ateach step of model building only variables that predicted significant variation in the slopeand/or the intercept, as indicated by a significant t-statistic associated with the parameterestimate, were retained in the model. Multicollinearity was not a problem in any model(tolerance statistics were above .80 in all models). Lastly, interaction terms betweenvariables in the family, school, classroom, and teacher and child systems were added to thefinal model to address the fourth research question, and to investigate whether the influencesof variables in each of the systems of the CSM on STRS scores varied as a function of oneanother. Interactions were tested in separate models to avoid problems of multicollinearity.

Results

Descriptive statistics

Means and standard deviations for continuous variables and percentages fordichotomous variables are presented in Table 1. Descriptive statistics revealed that theaverage quality of the teacher–child relationship decreased over time and that there wasconsiderable variation in family, school, classroom, child and teacher characteristics.

Table 1Descriptive statistics for predictor and outcome variables (n=1364).

Variable Mean SD %

Student Teacher Relationship Scale (teacher report)First grade 65.04 8.16Third grade 63.46 9.31Fifth grade 62.42 9.13

Family resourcesIncome-to-needs (parent report)

First grade 3.79 3.11Third grade 4.15 3.59Fifth grade 4.31 3.81

Maternal education (parent report) 14.23 2.51

Family functionsSecure (observation, 36 m.) 67.80Insecure (observation, 36 m.) 26.00Insecure/other (observation, 36 m.) 6.20Support and stimulation at home (observed, average 3rd and 5th grade) 40.18 6.59

Family–school relationshipFamily–school contact (teacher report)


Quality of parent–school interaction (mother report)First grade 3.84 .89Third grade 3.58 .89Fifth grade 3.52 .88

School systemPercentage of students on free/reduced lunch (principal report)

First grade .26 .19Third grade .23 .20Fifth grade .25 .21

Principal involvement (teacher report, average 3rd and 5th grade) 27.61 4.57Professional development (teacher report, average 3rd and 5th grade) 33.40 4.80Teacher salary (teacher report, average 3rd and 5th grade) 3814.48 1247.77

Classroom systemPositive classroom environment (observation)

First grade 5.35 1.26Third grade 5.06 .76Fifth grade 5.11 .68

Quality of classroom instruction (observation, average 3rd and 5th grade) 4.85 .80Classroom management (observation, average 3rd and 5th grade) 4.85 .81Child–teacher ratio (observation)



Table 1 (continued)

Variable Mean SD %

Teacher systemEducation (teacher report)

First grade 4.21 .79Third grade 3.86 .91Fifth grade 3.96 .90

Experience (teacher report)First grade 13.63 8.62Third grade 7.43 5.41Fifth grade 7.97 5.69

Self-efficacy (teacher report, average 3rd and 5th grade) 133.28 15.19

Child systemFemale 51.70African-American 12.70Latino-American 6.10Language ability (test)


Behavior problems (maternal report)First grade 13.02 9.75Third grade 12.55 10.10Fifth grade 11.85 10.27

Temperament (maternal report, 54 m.) 4.65 .77Hours in child care (maternal report, average 6 to 54 months) 26.29 15.03Kindergarten teacher–child relationship (teacher report, kindergarten) 65.53 8.67


Individual growth modeling

The results for the unconditional means model shown in Eq. (1) are presented in thesecond column of Table 2. Results showed a significant grand mean STRS score,γ00=63.35, pb .001. Results also demonstrated that children's mean STRS scores (i.e. themean score across all three assessments) significantly varied around the grand mean,τ00=37.12, pb .001 , as well as significant differences between each child's observed andpredicted STRS scores over time σ2 =24.07, pb .001. ICC calculations demonstrated that65% of the variation in STRS scores occurred across students.

The results for the unconditional growth model in Eq. (2) are presented in the third columnof Table 2. Results showed a significant grand mean STRS score at grade 5 (γ00=62.23,pb .001) that decreased .66 points per grade level, on average (γ01=66, pb .001). Further,variance component estimates demonstrated: (a) significant variance in observed versuspredicted STRS scores within students (level-1 residual; σ2=34.96, pb .001), (b) significantvariation in STRS scores across students at grade 5 (τ00=23.98, pb .001), and (c) significantslope variance (τ11= .80, pb .05) in STRS growth trajectories across students. Lastly, theintercept-slope covariance estimate (τ01=1.38, pb .05) was significant as well. A positiveintercept-slope covariance estimate demonstrated that students with higher STRS scores atgrade 5 demonstrated lesser decreases in STRS scores across grades 1 to 5 (Peugh, 2010).

Table 2Model summary.

Parameters Unconditional Level-1 Final model

Regression coefficients(fixed effects)

Intercept (γ00) 63.35 (.12)*** 62.23 (.27)*** 25.23 (2.78)***Time (γ10) − .66 (.08)*** − .48 (.83)Family–school contact (γ01) .08 (.13)Quality of parent–school interaction (γ02) 3.38 (.24)***Teacher salary (γ03) .10 (.01)**Positive classroom climate (γ04) .43 (.28)*Classroom management (γ05) 1.03 (.22)***Teacher self-efficacy (γ06) .08 (.01)***Female (γ07) 3.93 (.33)***African-American (γ08) −3.50 (.52)***Latino-American (γ09) −1.39 (.69)Behavior problems (γ010) − .12 (.02)***Kindergarten teacher–child relationship (γ011) .16 (.02)***Family–school contact*time (γ11) .23 (.05)***Quality of parent–school interaction*time (γ12) − .07 (.09)Teacher salary*time (γ13) .02 (.01)***Positive classroom climate*time (γ14) .10 (.03)**Classroom management*time (γ15) .23 (.08)**Teacher self-efficacy*time (γ16) .02 (.004)***Female*time (γ17) .03(.01)African-American*time (γ18) − .52 (.17)Latino-American*time (γ19) − .24 (.22)Behavior problems*time (γ110) − .001 (.006)Kindergarten teacher–child relationship*time (γ111) .06 (.01)

Variance components(random effects)

Residual (σ2) 37.12(1.01)*** 34.96 (1.34)*** 28.46 (.76)***Intercept (τ00) 24.07(1.44)*** 23.98 (2.52)*** 11.46 (1.09)***Slope (τ11) .80 (.24)* .13 (.01)Covariance (τ01) 1.38 (.62)* 1 .23 (.20)*

Model summaryDeviance statistic 27,875.66 27,725.23 26,379.90Number of estimated parameters 3 6 28

Note *=pb .05. **=pb .01, ***=pb .001: Parameter estimate standard errors in parentheses.


Given that the previous model demonstrated significant intercept and slope variance inSTRS scores across students, predictor variables were added to Level-1 and Level-2 of themodel to explain this variance. Based on a taxonomy of multilevel models, the followingmodel (Model 3) best represents the underlying association between factors in the CSM andSTRS scores from first through fifth grade in the population (see Table 2). Model 3 is thereduced model as in model building all non-significant parameter estimates, such as thosefor percentage of children on free or reduced price lunch, were trimmed from the model.The magnitudes of the coefficients for the variables were similar in the full and reducedmodels.


In mathematical notation, the final reduced model was:

STRSti = γ00 + γ10 Gradeti−5ð Þ + γ01CONTACTti + γ11 CONTACTti∗Gradeti−5ð Þ+ γ02INTERACTIONti + γ12 INTERACTIONti∗Gradeti−5ð Þ + γ03SALARYi

+ γ13 SALARYi∗Gradeti−5ð Þ + γ04 POSITIVEti + γ14 POSITIVEti∗Gradeti−5ð Þ+ γ05MANAGEMENTi + γ15 MANAGEMENTi∗Gradeti−5ð Þ+ γ06EFFICACYi + γ16 EFFICACYi∗Gradeti−5ð Þ + γ07FEMALEi

+ γ17ðFEMALEi∗Gradeti−5Þ + γ08AFRICAN−AMERICANi

+ γ18 AFRICAN−AMERICANi∗Gradeti−5ð Þ + γ09LATINO−AMERICANi

+ γ19 LATINO−AMERICANi∗Gradeti−5ð Þ + γ010BEHAVIORPROBLEMSti

+ γ110BEHAVIORPROBLEMSti∗Gradeti−5Þ + γ011KINDERGARTENRELi

+ γ111 KINDERGARTENRELi∗Gradeti−5ð Þ + u0i + u1i Gradeti−5ð Þ + rti

The values presented in column 4 of Table 2 indicate the association between theindependent variables and STRS scores after controlling for the other main effects in themodel, and can be interpreted as partial correlations. The intercept now represents the averageSTRS score for European-American, male students (i.e., the groups coded zero) with meanvalues for all continuous variables in the model (due to the centering of all continuousvariables at their mean). The slope is now the average change in STRS scores per grade levelincrease for European-American, male students with average values for all continuousvariables in the model. Quality of parent–school interactions as well as factors in the school,classroom and teacher systems were associated with STRS scores at fifth grade. Childrenwhose parents had higher quality interactions with the school (γ02=3.38, pb .001) had higherSTRS scores. More specifically, for every additional unit on the quality of parent–schoolinteraction scale, children evidenced 3.38 additional units on the STRS. In addition, childrenin schools where teachers had higher salaries (γ03= .10, pb .001) tended to have higher STRSscores such that for every additional thousand dollars a teacher made per year children hadSTRS scores that were .10 points higher. Children in classroomswithmore positive emotionalclimates (γ04= .43, pb .05) and with better management (γ05=1.03, pb .05) also tended tohave higher STRS scores. In fact, for every additional unit in positive classroom climatechildren scored .43 points higher on the STRS while for every additional unit in managementchildren scored 1.03 points higher on the STRS. Teacher self-efficacy (γ06= .08, pb .001) wasalso associated with STRS scores at fifth grade such that for every additional unit that teachersscored on the efficacymeasure children demonstrated STRS score that were .08 points higher.Several child characteristics were associated with STRS scores at fifth grade as well. Morespecifically, females (γ07=3.93, pb .001) evidenced STRS scores that were 3.93 points higherthan males. African-American children (γ08=−3.50, pb .001) tended to have STRS scores3.50 points lower than their European-American peers. In addition, children with morebehavior problems (γ010=− .12, pb .001) evidenced lower quality relationships such that forevery one unit higher on the behavior problemmeasure children scored .12 points lower on theSTRS. Lastly, children with higher quality relationships with their teachers in kindergarten(γ011= .16, pb .001) had higher STRS scores at fifth grade as well. More specifically, childrenwho scored one point higher on the STRS at kindergarten scored .16 points higher on theSTRS at fifth grade.


Several significant interactions with time were identified indicating differences ingrowth rates in STRS scores due to family–school contact and factors in the school,classroom and teacher systems. Children whose parents reported greater contact with theschool evidenced less rapid rates of decline in STRS scores (γ11= .23, pb .001). Morespecifically, for every one additional unit in amount of family–school contact there was a.23 unit per grade less rapid decrease in children's STRS scores. Additionally, children inschools where teachers reported higher salaries (γ13= .02, pb .001) demonstrated less rapidrates of decline in their STRS scores such that for every additional 1000 dollars a year ateacher made children evidenced a .02 point per grade less rapid decline in STRS scores.Children in classrooms with more positive climates (γ14= .10, pb .01) and that were bettermanaged (γ15= .23, pb .001), and who had teachers who reported greater self-efficacy(γ16= .02, pb .001) also evidenced less rapid rates of decline in STRS scores over time.More specifically, for each unit more of positive climate in the classroom children's STRSscores declined .10 points per grade more slowly, and for each unit more of classroommanagement children's STRS scores declined .23 points more slowly. Lastly, childrenwhose teachers scored one unit higher on the self-efficacy measure evidenced a .02 pointless rapid rate of decline in STRS scores per grade.

Variance component estimates demonstrated: (a) significant variance in observed versuspredicted STRS scores within students (level-1 residual; σ2 =28.46, pb .001), (b) significantvariation in STRS scores at grade 5 (τ00=11.46, pb .001), (c) non-significant slope variance(τ11= .13, pN .05), in STRS growth trajectories across students, and (d) a significantintercept-slope covariance estimate (τ01=1.23, pb .05). The level-1 residual variance andthe level-2 intercept and slope variance estimates decreased substantially indicating that theindependent variables in the model were relatively strong predictors of STRS variancewithin and between individuals.

Two significant interactions related to the intercept were found. Interactions were testedand included in separate models (interaction terms not included in the main effects modelpresented above). First, an interaction between African-American status and positiveemotional classroom climate (γ012=1.48, pb .01) was identified. The association betweenpositive classroom climate and relationship quality was greater for African-American thanEuropean-American children. Second, an interaction between African-American status andteacher self-efficacy (γ013= .08, pb .05) was found. The results suggest that the effect ofteacher self-efficacy on relationship quality was greater for African-American than European-American children.

Discussion

Although teacher–child relationships have been shown to be important contributors tochildren's social and cognitive skill development, few studies have examined thedevelopmental trajectories of these relationships across the elementary school years.Furthermore, the influences of family and school contexts have received little attention instudies of teacher–child relationships. Research on the quality of teacher–child relationshipsbased in a theoretical framework that considers the multiple contexts that influencerelationship quality over time has been lacking. The NICHD SECCYD data set allows forinvestigation in this area. Using Pianta and Walsh's (1996) CSM, the current study examined


the quality of the teacher–child relationship across elementary school, aswell as the influencesof factors in the family and school environments on relationship quality.

Relationship quality in elementary school

Growth trajectories for the quality of children's relationshipswith teacherswere in linewithexpectations based on earlier research on teacher–child relationships in childhood. Onaverage, the quality of the teacher–child relationship declined slightly throughout elementaryschool. More specifically, children evidenced a decrease of approximately .70 points per yearmonth or .60 points per year in teacher-reported relationship quality on a 15-item measure ofrelationship quality (Pianta, 1992). This finding is consistent with that of previous research,which demonstrated an increase in conflict and a decrease in closeness in the teacher–childrelationship from kindergarten through sixth grade (Jerome et al., 2010). This decrease inrelationship quality is a concern, as in past research with the NICHD SECCYD sample a .6point per year decrease in relationship quality, as assessed by the samemeasure of relationshipquality as that used in the current study, was negatively associated with elementary schoolachievement (O'Connor & McCartney, 2007).

Despite the decrease in relationship quality across elementary school, on average,children were reported by their teachers to have moderately high quality relationships atfifth grade as indicated by teachers rating “definitely applies” to a majority of itemsdescribing close and supportive teacher–child relationships. However, there was extensivevariation across children in relationship quality with some children evidencing very lowquality relationships. The identification of factors associated with relationship quality inelementary school may inform education and intervention efforts aimed at preventingdecreases in relationship quality and low quality relationships.

Family and school environments and relationship quality

The family–school relationship was associated with teacher–child relationship quality inelementary school. More specifically, the amount of contact between parents and the schoolwas associated with change in relationship quality. Children whose parents had greatercontact with the school evidenced less rapid rates of decline in relationship quality. Contactbetween parents and the school likely supports children's development of high qualityrelationships with teachers, as it helps teachers learn about children and their families andencourages teachers' understandings of child and family values (Smolkin, 1999). Parentcontact with the school may help prevent decreases in relationship quality across theelementary school years as pressures to prepare children for academic assessments increase.Teachers may perceive parents with whom they have more contact as partners in theeducational process, and consequently view children's behaviors more positively.

The quality of parent–school interactions was related to relationship quality at fifth grade.Children whose parents reported higher quality interactions with their child's teachers andschool personnel evidenced higher quality relationships at fifth grade. Higher qualityinteractions may promote teachers' positive feelings and attitudes towards children, which inturn support a higher quality teacher–child relationship. Additional research is necessary toexamine mechanisms responsible for this association. The current findings regarding the


family–school relationship demonstrate the importance not only of higher levels of contactbetween families and schools but also of high quality interactions.

At the school level, teacher salary influenced both change in relationship quality andrelationship quality at fifth grade. Children whose teachers reported higher salariesevidenced a less rapid rate of decline in relationship quality and higher quality relationshipsat fifth grade. These associations were expected, and similar to findings from previousstudies (Hall & Cassidy, 2002). In previous research, it has been difficult to isolate theeffects of teacher salary on the quality of teacher–child interactions and relationships fromother variables, most notably student SES, often correlated with salary. In the current study,however, it would be difficult to argue that the effects of teacher salary were due to omittedvariables, as multiple variables associated with student SES were included in the models.Additional research is necessary to identify the mechanisms through which teacher salaryinfluences relationship quality.

At the classroom level, a positive emotional climate was positively associated with a lessrapid decline in relationship quality from first through fifth grade and a higher qualityrelationship at fifth grade. This finding is in accordwith previous research (seeHamre&Pianta,2005). A positive emotional climate supports children's interest in the classroom,which fostershigh quality teacher–child relationships (Wentzel, 2002). Furthermore, teachers in classroomswith more positive emotional climates tend to demonstrate a greater appreciation of children'sindividual needs and to havemore interactions with children that are high in reciprocity, whichare associated with high quality teacher–child relationships (La Paro et al., 2004).

Interestingly, the effect of classroom emotional climate on fifth grade relationshipquality was much greater for African-American than European-American children.African-American children in classrooms with less positive climates had substantiallylower quality relationships than their European-American peers while African-Americanchildren in classrooms with highly positive climates had similar quality relationships totheir European-American peers. These results are in accord with those of a previous studyof African-American elementary school students in which classroom emotional climate wasthe strongest predictor of relationship quality (Johnson, 2006). A positive classroomenvironment may be of particular importance for African-American children who may bereticent to engage with new teachers due to previous negative interactions with teachers.

Children in better managed classrooms, as defined by the teachers' productive use ofinstructional time, evidenced higher quality relationships at fifth grade and a less rapid rateof decline in relationship quality. A well-managed classroom may promote goodness-of-fitbetween teachers and students resulting in higher quality relationships. In a well-managedclassroom children are encouraged to engage in behaviors that the teacher values and areprovided with clear behavioral and academic expectations (Emmer & Stough, 2001;Evertson & Emmer, 1982). Children's engagement in behaviors viewed as positive by theteacher likely supports a high quality relationship. In addition, children tend to evidencehigher levels of cooperation and prosocial behaviors in classrooms that are well-managed(Donohue et al., 2003). Teachers may in turn be better able to develop high qualityrelationships with children who are cooperative and socially engaged. Finally, whenactivities are well-managed teachers have more time to interact with individual students,and may thus be better able to learn about students' needs and provide appropriate supportsthat foster high quality teacher–child relationships.


Child and teacher experiences and characteristics were associated with relationshipquality as well. In regards to teacher characteristics, teacher self-efficacy was positivelyassociated with a less rapid decline in relationship quality from first through fifth grade anda higher quality relationship at fifth grade. Associations between relationship quality andteacher self-efficacy are likely a reflection of variation in the manner in which teachersinteract with students. Teachers who report greater feelings of self-efficacy may be betterable to foster students' independence and prosocial behaviors, which foster more positiverelationships (Birch & Ladd, 1998; Hamre & Pianta, 2004; Mashburn et al., 2006).Furthermore, teachers with higher levels of self-efficacy report lower levels of stress relatedto teaching and classroom management and more positive interactions with studentsthroughout the later elementary school years (Kumarakulasingam, 2003).

Interestingly, relationship quality at fifth grade was related to the joint effects of child race/ethnicity with teacher self-efficacy. African-American children whose teachers reported lowlevels of self-efficacy showed substantially lower quality relationships than their European-American peers while African-American children whose teachers reported high levels of self-efficacy evidenced relationships similar in quality to their European-American peers.

Most teachers in the SECCYD sample were European-American females. Results fromprevious studies have found that teachers report more positive relationships with students whoare their same race/ethnicity (e.g. Saft & Pianta, 2001). Teachers are more likely to interpretthe behaviors of children different from them negatively. Teachers with greater self-efficacy,however, may be more accurate observers of child behaviors, and may be less likely tonegatively interpret the behavior of children different from themselves (Egyed&Short, 2006).

At the child level, behavior problems and the quality of the child's relationship with his/her kindergarten teacher were related to the quality of the teacher–child relationship inelementary school. Children who evidenced higher levels of behavior problems had lowerquality relationships with teachers at fifth grade. The finding of a negative associationbetween behavior problems and relationship quality is in accord with previous research(Howes & Ritchie, 1999). Children with behavior problems tend to disturb the class, whichmakes teaching difficult, and may harm the quality of the teacher–child relationship.

On the other hand, children with higher quality relationships with teachers inkindergarten evidenced higher quality relationships at fifth grade. This finding is in accordwith attachment theory and previous research, which found a positive association betweenquality of the kindergarten and first grade teacher–child relationships (O'Connor &McCartney, 2006). Children appear to develop models of teacher–child relationshipsthrough their early relationships with teachers that they apply to subsequent relationships.Children may thus try to engender behaviors from their current teachers that are similar tothose of their former teachers. Children's relationships with teachers in kindergarten arethus extremely important, as they serve as a basis for future relationships. The effect ofquality of the early teacher–child relationship but not maternal attachment on the quality ofthe teacher–child relationship in elementary school suggests that a high quality teacher–child relationship in early childhood may serve as a compensatory relationship for childrenwith insecure maternal attachments.

Interestingly, different factors were associated with change in relationship quality overtime and at fifth grade. Only environmental (amount of parent–school contact, teachersalary, positive classroom climate) and teacher (self-efficacy) factors were associated with


change in relationship quality overtime. This finding is in line with the CSM, dynamicsystems and attachment theories of development. A central tenant of both the CSM anddynamic systems theories is that relationships resist major change from a preferred state,but that they do change in response to alterations in the environment (Coleman & Watson,2000; Pianta & Walsh, 1996). According to attachment theory (Bowlby, 1988), workingmodels of attachment relationships are relatively stable but do change in response tomodifications in the caregiving environment (Coleman & Watson, 2000; Weinfield,Whaley, & Egeland, 2004). A child would be expected to develop consistent qualityteacher–child relationships across time if the caregiving environment supports the child'soriginal model of teacher–child relationships, but to develop varying quality relationships ifthe caregiving environment changes (Weinfield et al., 2004).

Limitations

These findings provide further empirical support for important associations betweenfamily, school, classroom, teacher and child characteristics and relationship quality. Severallimitations, however, must be noted. The sample did not include children with identifieddisabilities or other factors that may place them at-risk for developing lower qualityrelationships with teachers. Furthermore, the majority of the children and families in thestudy were middle income. Due to the affluent nature of the sample, children were unlikelyto have experienced extremely chaotic school environments. In sum, the low-risk nature ofthe sample limits the generalizability of these findings. It is necessary to examineassociations between systems within the CSM and teacher–child relationships amonghigher risk samples. Research with higher risk samples could provide more information onprotective factors within classroom and school systems for children at-risk of developinglower quality relationships.

Several limitations related to measurement exist in the current study. First, the majority ofmeasures were teacher and parent report. Consequently, reports of relationship quality andteacher and child behaviorsmay reflect teacher and parent perceptions. It is important to examineassociations between teacher and child characteristics and relationship quality usingobservational measurements of the relationship and teacher and child behaviors. Second, thesame measure was used to assess relationship quality at first, third and fifth grade. It is possiblethat the average decrease in relationship quality across elementary school in the current studyreflects developmental changes in children's behaviors within relationships with adults notcaptured in themeasure used in the current study. Third, direct observation data of the classroomwere collected during relatively few observation sessions. Therefore, it is possible that resultsmay reflect teacher and student reactivity to the observation. Fourth, themeasurement of family–school contact used in the current study only assessed the amount of face-to-face contact betweenparents and school personnel. Therefore, this measure may have under-estimated parent–schoolcontact that may also occur through verbal, written and electronic communication.

Conclusions and implications

The current findings have both theoretical and practical implications. With regards totheory, findings support central tenets of the CSM that are based in dynamic systems and


ecological theories of development. In accord with dynamic systems theory, the significantchange in relationship quality overtime demonstrates that teacher–child relationships areopen systems that develop through “feedforward” and “feedback” loops. In accord withecological systems theories, the quality of the teacher–child relationship was influenced bymultiple factors in the family and school environments. Furthermore, the influence offactors in multiple systems on relationship quality varied as a function of one another.

With regards to practice, the positive influences of parent–school contact and higher qualityfamily–school interactions on the fifth grade teacher–child relationship have implications forthe design of elementary school classrooms. Schools tend to be organized such that in the laterelementary grades parents have less contact with teachers and the quality of the family–schoolrelationship decreases (e.g., Adams & Christenson, 2000). These changes may have negativeimplications for the quality of the teacher–child relationship and in turn for children'sacademic and social development.

In addition, findings related to the effects of teacher salary and self-efficacy underscorethe importance of supporting teachers. Given the role of teacher–child relationships inchildren's social and cognitive development, efforts to financially and emotionally supportteachers may very well result in greater social and academic success for students. Findingsmay also inform teacher education and professional development efforts. In particular,positive associations between classroom management and relationship quality indicate theimportance of providing teachers with information on effective management strategies andexpanding current management programs to include greater numbers of teachers (Pianta,2005). Findings regarding associations between child characteristics and relationshipquality may also inform professional development. Professional development efforts inwhich teachers are instructed as to the effects of child characteristics on the quality ofteacher–child relationships may prevent teachers from developing maladaptive relation-ships with students on the basis of personal characteristics.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the investigators in the National Institute of Child Health andHuman Development (NICHD) Early Child Care Research Network for the dataset. I wouldalso like to thank Kristen Bub, Ed Daly, Craig Enders, Robert Pianta and Sandee McClowryfor their feedback on this manuscript, the site coordinators and research assistants whocollected data, and the families and teachers who continue to participate in this longitudinalstudy. This project was funded by a grant from the National Institute for Child Health andHuman Development to Kathleen McCartney (HD25451).

References

Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the child behavior checklist. Burlington, VT: University of VermontDepartment of Psychiatry.

Achenbach, T. M., Edelbrock, C., & Howell, C. T. (1987). Empirically based assessment of the behavioral/emotional problems of 2- and 3-year-old children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 15(4), 629−650.

Adams, K. S., & Christenson, S. L. (2000). Trust and the family–school relationship: An examination of parent–teacher differences in elementary and secondary grades. Journal of School Psychology, 38, 447−497.


Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Bickel, R. (2007). Multilevel analysis for applied research: It's just regression. Guilford Press.Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1997). The teacher–child relationship and children's early school adjustment. Journal

of School Psychology, 35, 61−79.Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1998). Children's interpersonal behaviors and the teacher–child relationship.

Developmental Psychology, 34, 934−946.Bourke, S. (1986). How smaller is better: Some relationships between class size, teaching practices, and student

achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 23(4), 558−571.Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation. New York: Basic Books.Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Clinical applications of attachment theory. London: Routledge.Bracken, B. A., & Crain, M. R. (1994). Children's and adolescents' interpersonal relationships: Do age, race and

gender define normalcy? Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 12(1), 14−32.Bradley, R. H. (1994). The HOME inventory: Review and reflections. Advances in Child Development and

Behavior, 25, 241−288.Bradley, R. H., Caldwell, B. M., Rock, H. M., Hamrick, H. M., & Harris, P. T. (1988). Home observations for

measurement of the environment: Development of a home inventory for use with families having children 6 to19years old. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13(1), 58−75.

Bradley, R. H., Corwyn, R. F., Caldwell, B. M., Whiteside-Mansell, L., Wasserman, G. A., & Mink, I. T. (2000).Journal of Research on Adolescence, 10(3), 247−288.

Breen, M. J. (1985). The Woodcock–Johnson test of cognitive ability: A comparison of two methods of clusterscale analysis for three learning disability subtypes. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 3(2), 167−174.

Bretherton, I., & Munholland, K. A. (1999). Internal working models in attachment relationships: A constructrevisited. In J. Cassidy, & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research and clinicalapplications (pp. 89−115). New York: Guilford Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32(7), 513−531.

Caldwell, B., & Bradley, B. (1984). Home observation for measurement of the environment. Little Rock, AR:University of Arkansas at Little Rock.

Cassidy, D. J., Hestenes, L. L., Hansen, J. K., Hedge, A., Shim, J., & Hestenes, S. (2005). Revisiting the two facesof child care quality: Structure and process. Early Education and Development, 16(4), 505−520.

Cassidy, J., & Marvin, R. S. (1992). Attachment organization in preschool children: Coding guidelines.Unpublished manuscript, MacArthur Working Group on Attachment, Seattle, WA.

Choy, S. P., Chen, X., & Bugarin, R. (2006). Teacher professional development in 1999–2000: What teachers,principals, and district staff report. NCES 2006-305. Washington, Dc: National Center for EducationStatistics.

Christenson, S. L., & Sheridan, S. M. (2001). Schools and families: Creating essential connections for learning.NY, New York: Guilford Press.

Coleman, P., &Watson, A. (2000). Infant attachment as a dynamic system.Human Development, 43(6), 295−313.Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (1991). Parent–teacher involvement questionnaire—Teacher

version. Fast Track Project.Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (1999). Initial impact of the Fast Track prevention trial for conduct

problems: I. The high-risk sample. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67(5), 631−647.Donohue, K. M., Perry, K. E., &Weinstein, R. S. (2003). Teachers' classroom practices and children's rejection by

their peers. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 24(1), 91−118.Egyed, C. J., & Short, R. J. (2006). Teacher self-efficacy, burnout, and decision to refer a disruptive student. School

Psychology International, 27(4), 462−474.Emmer, E. T., & Stough, L. (2001). Classroom management: A critical part of educational psychology, with

implications for teacher education. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 103−112.Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. New York: Guilford Press.Evertson, C. M., & Emmer, E. T. (1982). Effective management at the beginning of the school year in junior high

asses. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(4), 485−498.Findlay, L., Girardi, A., & Colplan, R. (2006). Links between empathy, social behavior, and social understanding

in early childhood. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21(3), 347−359.


Fontaine, N. S., Torre, L. D., Grafwallner, R., & Underhill, B. (2006). Increasing quality in early care and learningenvironments. Early Child Development and Care, 176(2), 157−169.

Goossens, F. A., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1990). Quality of infants' attachment to professional caregivers:Relation to infant–parent attachment and daycare characteristics. Child Development, 52, 879−892.

Hall, A. H., & Cassidy, D. J. (2002). An assessment of the North Carolina school-age child care accreditationinitiative. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 17(1), 84−96.

Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. (2004). Self-reported depression in nonfamilial caregivers: Prevalence and associationswith caregiver behavior in child care settings. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 297−318.

Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher–child relationships and the trajectory of children's schooloutcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 65, 253−263.

Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first-grade classroom make adifference for children at risk of school failure? Child Development, 76(5), 949−967.

Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C., Downer, J. T., & Mashburn, A. J. (2008). Teachers' perception of conflict with youngstudents: Looking beyond problem behaviors. Social Development, 17(1), 115−136.

Hanushek, E. A. (1997). Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance: An update. EducationalEvaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 141−164.

Hearns, S. (1998). Is child-related training or general education a better predictor of good quality care? Early ChildDevelopment and Care, 141, 31−39.

Helmke, A., & Schrader, F. W. (1988). Successful student practice during seatwork: Efficient management andactive supervision not enough. Journal of Educational Research, 82(2), 70−75.

Howes, C. (2000). Social-emotional classroom climate in child care, child–teacher relationships and children'ssecond grade peer relations. Social Development, 9(2), 191−204.

Howes, C., & Hamilton, C. E. (1992). Children's relationships with caregivers: Mothers and child-care teachers.Child Development, 63, 859−866.

Howes, C., Hamilton, C., & Matheson, C. (1994). Children's relationships with peers: Differential associationswith aspects of the teacher–child relationship. Child Development, 65, 253−263.

Howes, C., Matheson, C. E., & Hamilton, C. E. (1994). Maternal, teacher, and child care history correlates ofchildren's relationships with peers. Child Development, 65(1), 264−273.

Howes, C., & Ritchie, S. (1999). Attachment organizations in children with difficult life circumstances.Development and Psychopathology, 11(2), 251−268.

Howes, C., Whitebrook, M., & Phillips, D. (1992). Teacher characteristics and effective teaching in childcare: Findings from the National Child Care Staffing Study. Child and Youth Care Forum, 21(6),399−414.

Jacobusse, G. (2005). WinMICE user's manual for WinMICE prototype (version 0.1). Leiden, The Netherlands:Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research.

Jerome, E. M., Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2009). Teacher-child relationships from kindergarten to sixthgrade: Early childhood predictors of teacher-perceived conflict and closeness. Social Development, 18(4),915−945.

Johnson, L. M. (2006). Elementary school students' learning preferences and the classroom learning environment:Implications for educational practice and policy. Journal of Negro Education, 75(3), 506−518.

Kohl, G. O., Lengua, L. J., & McMahon, R. J. the Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2000). Parentinvolvement in school: Conceptualizing multiple dimensions and their relations with family and demographicrisk factors. Journal of School Psychology, 38, 501−523.

Kontos, S. (1992). The role of continuity and context in children's relationships with nonparental adults. NewDirections for Child Development, 57, 109−119.

Kumarakulasingam, T. M. (2003). Relationships between classroom management, teacher stress, teacher burnout,and teachers' levels of hope. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences63(10-A).

La Paro, K. M., Pianta, R. C., & Stuhlman, M. (2004). The Classroom Assessment Scoring System: Findings fromthe pre-kindergarten year. The Elementary School Journal, 104(5), 409−426.

Ladd, G. W., Birch, S. H., & Buhs, E. S. (1999). Children's social and scholastic lives in kindergarten: Relatedspheres of influence? Child Development, 70, 1373−1400.

LaPointe, J. M. (2003). Teacher–student conflict and misbehavior: Toward a model of the extended symmetricalescalation. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 38(2), 11−19.


Lerner, J. A., Lerner, R. M., & Zabski, S. (1985). Temperament and elementary school children's actual and ratedacademic performance: A test of a “goodness-of-fit” model. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 26(1), 125−136.

LoCasale-Crouch, J., Konold, T., Pianta, R., Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Bryant, D., et al. (2007). Observedclassroom quality profiles in state-funded pre-kindergarten programs and associations with teacher, program,and classroom characteristics. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22(1), 3−17.

Love, J. M., Meckstroth, A., & Sprachman, S. (1997). Measuring the quality of program environments inHead Start and other early childhood programs: A review and recommendations for future research.Contract RN 94094001. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for EducationStatistics.

Main, M., & Cassidy, J. (1988). Categories of response to reunion with the parent at age 6: Predicted from infantattachment classifications and stable over a 1-month period. Developmental Psychology, 24, 415−426.

Malone, D. S. (2000). Parent–teacher involvement questionnaire: Teacher version. Technical Report year 2. FastTrack Project.

Mantzicopoulos, P. (2005). Conflictual relationships between kindergarten children and their teachers:Associations with child and classroom context variables. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 425−442.

Mashburn, A. J., Hamre, B.K., Downer, J. T., & Pianta, R. C. (2006). Teacher and classroom characteristics associatedwith teachers' ratings of pre-kindergartners' relationships and behaviors. Journal of PsychoeducationalAssessment, 24(4), 367−380.

Mashburn, A. J., Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., Downer, J. T., Barbarin, O. A., Bryant, D., et al. (2008). Measures ofclassroom quality in prekindergarten and children's development of academic, language and social skills.ChildDevelopment, 79(3), 732−749.

McGiverin, J., Gilman, D., & Tillitski, C. (1989). A meta-analysis of the relation between class size andachievement. The Elementary School Journal, 90(1), 47−56.

McGrew, K., & Kopnick, S. (1993). The relationship between the WJ-R cognitive clusters and writingachievement across the life-span. School Psychology Review, 22, 687−695.

Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. S. (1989). Change in teacher efficacy and student self-and task- relatedbeliefs in mathematics during the transition to junior high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2),247−258.

Midgley, C., Maehr, M., Hruda, L., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K., et al. (2000). Manual for thepatterns of adaptive learning scales. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.

Miller-Johnson, & Maumary-GremaudConduct Disorders Research Group. (1995). Parent–teacher involvementquestionnaire: Parent version.

Murray, C., & Greenberg, M. T. (2000). Children's relationship with teachers and bonds with school—Aninvestigation of patterns and correlates in middle childhood. Journal of School Psychology, 38(5),423−445.

Murray, C., & Murray, K. M. (2004). Child level correlates of teacher–student relationships: An examination ofdemographic characteristics, academic orientations, and behavioral orientations. Psychology in the Schools, 41(7), 751−762.

National Center for Educational Statistics (1994). Schools and staffing survey.NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (ECCRN) (1997). The effects of infant child care on infant–mother

attachment security: Results of the NICHD study of early child care. Child Development, 68(5), 860−879.NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (ECCRN) (1999). Classroom observational system.NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (ECCRN) (2001). Social competence with peers in third grade:

Associations with earlier peer experiences in child care. Social Development, 17(3), 419−443.NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (ECCRN) (2002). The relation of global first-grade classroom

environment to structural classroom features and teacher and student behaviors. The Elementary School Journal,102(5), 367−387.

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (ECCRN) (2003). Social functioning in first grade: Prediction fromhome, child care and concurrent school experience. Child Development, 74(6), 1639−1662.

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (ECCRN) (2005). A day in third grade: Classroom quality, teacher,and student behaviors. Elementary School Journal, 105(4), 377−394.

O'Connor, E., & McCartney, K. (2006). Testing associations between mother–child and teacher–childrelationships. Journal of Educational Psychology, 26(5), 301−326.


O'Connor, E., & McCartney, K. (2007). Examining teacher–child relationships and achievement as part of anecological model of development. American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 340−369.

Paget, K. D., Nagle, R. J., &Martin, R. P. (1984). Interrelationships between temperament characteristics and first-grade teacher–student interactions. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 12(4), 547−559.

Patrick, H., Yoon, K., & Murphy, A. M. (1995, March). Personality characteristics, social competence, and earlyschool adjustment: A contextual and developmental perspective. Poster session presented at the biannualmeeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Indianapolis, IN.

Peugh, J. L. (2010). A practical guide to multilevel modeling. Journal of School Psychology, 48, 85−112.Pianta, R. C. (1992). Conceptual and methodological issues in research on relationships between children and

nonparental adults. In R. Pianta (Ed.), Beyond the parent: The role of other adults in children's livesNewdirections for child development, No. 57. (pp. 121−129) San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Pianta, R. C. (1994). Patterns of relationships between children and kindergarten teachers. Journal of SchoolPsychology, 32(1), 15−31.

Pianta, R. C. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers. Washington, D.C., AmericanPsychological AssociationWashington, D.C.

Pianta, R. C. (2005). Standardized observations and professional development: A focus on individualizedimplementation and practices. In M. Zaslow & I. Martinez-Beck (Eds.), Critical issues in early childhoodprofessional development (pp. 231−254). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.

Pianta, R., Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Bryant, D., Clifford, R., Early, D., et al. (2005). Features of pre-kindergartenprograms, classrooms, and teachers: Do they predict observed classroom quality and child–teacherinteractions? Applied Developmental Science, 9(3), 144−159.

Pianta, R. C., & Nimetz, S. L. (1991). Relationships between children and teachers: Associations with classroomand home behavior. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 12(3), 379−393.

Pianta, R. C., Nimetz, S. L., & Bennett, E. (1997). Mother–child relationships, teacher–child relationships, andschool outcomes in preschool and kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 263−280.

Pianta, R. C., Steinberg, M. S., & Rollins, K. (1995). The first two years of school: Teacher–child relationships anddeflections in children's classroom adjustment. Development and Psychopathology, 7(2), 295−312.

Pianta, R. C., & Stuhlman, M. W. (2004). Teacher–child relationships and children's success in the first years ofschool. School Psychology Review, 33(3), 444−458.

Pianta, R. C., & Stuhlman, M. W. (2004). Conceptualizing risk in relational terms: Associations among the qualityof child–adult relationships prior to school entry and children's developmental outcomes in first grade.Educational and School Psychology, 21, 32−45.

Pianta, R. C., & Walsh, D. J. (1996). High-risk children in schools: Constructing sustaining relationships. NewYork, NY: Routledge.

Qi, C. H., & Kaiser, A. P. (2004). Problem behaviors of low-income children with language delays: An observationstudy. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47(3), 595−609.

Reynolds, A. J., Weissberg, R. P., & Kasprow, W. J. (1992). Prediction of early social and academic adjustment ofchildren from the inner city. American Journal of Community Psychology, 20(5), 599−624.

Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Early, D. M., Cox, M. J., Saluja, G., Pianta, R. C., Bradley, R. H., et al. (2002). EarlyBehavioral attributes and teachers' sensitivity as predictors of competent behavior in the kindergartenclassroom. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 23(4), 451−470.

Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Kagan, J. (2005). Infant predictors of kindergarten behavior: The contribution ofinhibited and uninhibited temperament types. Behavioral Disorders, 30(4), 331−347.

Rothbart, M. K. (1996). Children's Behavior Questionnaire, Version I. Portland, OR: University of Oregon.Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., Hershey, K. L., & Fisher, P. (1994). Temperament and social behavior in childhood.

Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 40, 21−39.Rubin, D. B. (1978). Multiple imputation in sample surveys: A phenomenological Bayesian approach to

nonresponse (with discussion). Proceedings of the American Statistical Association. Survey Research MethodsSection (pp. 20−34).

Rudasill, K. M., Rimm-Kaufman, S., Justice, L., & Pence, K. (2006). Temperament and language skills aspredictors of teacher–child relationship quality in preschool. Early Education and Development, 17(2),271−291.

Runions, K. C., & Keating, D. P. (2007). Young children's social information processing: Family antecendents andbehavioral correlates. Developmental Psychology, 43(4), 838−849.


Ryan, R. M., Stiller, J. D., & Lynch, J. H. (1994). Representations of relationships to teachers, parents, and friendsas predictors of academic motivation and self-esteem. Journal of Early Adolescence, 226−249.

Saft, E. W., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Teachers' perceptions of their relationships with student: Effects of child age,gender, and ethnicity of teachers and children. School Psychology Quarterly, 16, 125−141.

Sameroff, A. J., & Chandler, M. (1975). Reproductive risk and the continuum of caretaking casualty. In F.Horowitz, E. M. Hetherington, S. Scarr-Salapatek, & G. Siegel (Eds.), Review of child development research,4. (pp. 17−32)New York: Basic Books.

Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence.New York: Oxford University Press.

Skarpness, L. R., & Carson, D. K. (1986). Temperament, communicative competence and the psychologicaladjustment of kindergarten children. Psychological Reports, 59(3), 1299−1306.

Smolkin, L. B. (1999). The practice of effective transitions: Players who make a winning team. In R. C. Pianta &M. J. Cox (Eds.), The transition to kindergarten (pp. 325−349). Baltimore, MD: Brooks.

Sroufe, L. A., Fox, N. E., & Pancake, V. R. (1983). Attachment and dependency in developmental perspective.Child Development, 54, 1615−1627.

Taylor, A., & Machinda, S. (1996, April). Student–teacher relationships of Head Start children. Paper presented atthe annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.

Thompson, R. A. (1999). Early attachment and later development. Handbook of attachment: Theory, research andclinical applications (pp. 265−287). New York: The Guildford Press.

Thurlow, M. L., Ysseldyke, J. E., Wotruba, J. W., & Algozzine, B. (1993). Instruction in special educationclassrooms under varying student–teacher ratios. The Elementary School Journal, 93(3), 305−320.

Tourkin, S. C., Warner, T., Parner, P., Cole, C., Jackson, B., Zukerberg, A., et al. (2007). Documentation for the2003–2004 schools and staffing survey. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

U.S Bureau of the Census (1999). Statistical abstract of the United States: 1999. Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office.

van Buuren, S., & Oudshoorn, C. G. M. (2000). Multivariate imputation by chained equations: MICE user'smanual (Version 1.0). TNO Report PG/VGZ/00.038. Leiden, The Netherlands: The Netherlands Organizationfor Applied Scientific Research (TNO) Institute Prevention and Health.

von Hippel, P. T. (2005). How many imputations are needed? A comment on Hershberger and Fisher (2003).Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 334−335.

Waters, E., & Deane, K. (1985). Defining and assessing individual differences in attachment relationships: Q-methodology and the organization of behavior in infancy and early childhood. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters(Eds.), Growing points of attachment theory and researchMonographs of the Society for Research in ChildDevelopment, 50 (1),.

Weinfield, N., Sroufe, L., Egeland, B., & Carlson, E. (1999). The nature of individual differences in infant–caregiver attachment. In J. Cassidy, & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research andclinical applications. New York: Guilford Press.

Weinfield, N. S., Whaley, G. J. L., & Egeland, B. (2004). Continuity, discontinuity, and coherence in attachmentfrom infancy to late adolescence: Sequelae of organization and disorganization. Attachment & HumanDevelopment, 6(1), 73−97.

Wen-Jui, H., Leventhal, T., & Linver, M. R. (2004). The Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment(HOME) in middle childhood: A study of three large-scale data sets. Parenting: Science and Practice, 4(2–3),189−210.

Wentzel, K. R. (1996). Social and academic motivation in middle school: Concurrent and long-term relations toacademic effort. Journal of Early Adolescence, 16(4), 390−406.

Wentzel, K. R. (2002). Are effective teachers like good parents? Teaching styles and student adjustment in earlyadolescence. Child Development, 73(1), 287−301.

Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. D. (1990).Woodcock–Johnson psycho-educational battery revised.Chicago, IL:The Riverside Publishing Company 4/6/09.

teacher–child relationships as dynamic systems

Documents