Exploring dimensions of process quality measured by the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale

The Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale, revised edition (ECERS-R; Harms, Clifford, & Cryer, 1998), is an instrument used widely to observe and rate levels of process quality in child care centers. The authors have divided the instrument into six subscales to help ensure broad and flexible coverage of various aspects of child care quality. (The ECERS-R actually contains seven subscales, but the last one pertains to parents and staff instead of process quality experienced by children.) Psychometric analyses suggest the ECERS-R actually measures two latent dimensions of quality at most. Perlman, Zellman, and Le (2004) concluded that process quality, as measured by the ECERS-R, is unidimensional. Sakai and colleagues (2003) and Cassidy and colleagues (2005) concluded that the ECERS-R measures two latent dimensions, although their factor loadings and interpretations differ across the two studies.

I am writing a paper to present at the upcoming American Educational Research Association (AERA) conference in Denver. The paper will report results from a structural equation mediation model of the influence of on-site child care professional development on school readiness through child care quality. Given the lack of agreement among the earlier psychometric analyses of the ECERS-R, I conducted an exploratory factor analysis to see if I could replicate findings from one of the earlier studies. As shown in the table below, my preliminary results and interpretations do not align perfectly with either of the two-factor solutions from the earlier studies, but the similarities helped me decide which items to drop and which of my interpretations to keep. I plan to use a confirmatory factor analysis to formally compare model fit between the one- and two-factor solution before estimating the mediation model. I hope the summary below will help others who are wrestling with the possibility of multiple dimensions of child care quality as measured by the ECERS-R.

Summary of ECERS-R two-factor solutions from three studies

Item number Item Subscale Sakai and colleagues (2003) Cassidy and colleagues (2005) Moore (2010) Decision
1 Indoor space Space and furnishings Provisions for learning     Drop
2 Furniture for care, play, and learning Space and furnishings Teaching and interactions   Provisions for learning Discrepancy
3 Furnishings for relaxation Space and furnishings Teaching and interactions Materials/activities   Discrepancy
4 Room arrangement Space and furnishings Provisions for learning     Drop
5 Space for privacy Space and furnishings   Materials/activities Provisions for learning Keep
6 Space for gross motor Space and furnishings     Provisions for learning Discrepancy
7 Child-related display Space and furnishings Teaching and interactions     Drop
8 Gross motor equipment Space and furnishings Provisions for learning   Provisions for learning Keep
9 Greeting/departing Personal care routines Teaching and interactions     Drop
10 Meals/ snacks Personal care routines Provisions for learning     Drop
11 Nap/rest Personal care routines     Provisions for learning Discrepancy
12 Toileting/diapering Personal care routines Provisions for learning     Drop
13 Health practices Personal care routines Provisions for learning     Drop
14 Safety practices Personal care routines Provisions for learning     Drop
15 Books and pictures Language-reasoning Provisions for learning Materials/activities Provisions for learning Keep
16 Encouraging children to communicate Language-reasoning     Provisions for learning Discrepancy
17 Using language to develop reasoning skills Language-reasoning Teaching and interactions Language/interaction Language/interaction Keep
18 Informal use of language Language-reasoning Teaching and interactions Language/interaction Language/interaction Keep
19 Fine motor Activities Teaching and interactions Materials/activities Provisions for learning Keep
20 Art Activities   Materials/activities   Drop
21 Music/movement Activities Teaching and interactions   Language/interaction Keep
22 Blocks Activities Provisions for learning Materials/activities Provisions for learning Keep
23 Sand/water Activities Provisions for learning     Drop
24 Dramatic play Activities Provisions for learning Materials/activities Provisions for learning Keep
25 Nature/science Activities   Materials/activities Provisions for learning Keep
26 Math/numbers Activities Teaching and interactions Materials/activities Provisions for learning Keep
27 Use of TV, video, and/or computers Activities     Language/interaction Discrepancy
28 Promoting acceptance of diversity Activities Provisions for learning   Provisions for learning Keep
29 Supervision of gross motor activities Interaction     Language/interaction Discrepancy
30 General supervision of children Interaction Provisions for learning Language/interaction   Discrepancy
31 Discipline Interaction   Language/interaction Language/interaction Keep
32 Staff-child interactions Interaction Provisions for learning Language/interaction Language/interaction Keep
33 Interactions among children Interaction Teaching and interactions Language/interaction Language/interaction Keep
34 Schedule Program structure Provisions for learning     Drop
35 Free play Program structure Teaching and interactions     Drop
36 Group time Program structure Provisions for learning Language/interaction Language/interaction Keep

Note: Empty cells indicate loadings less than |0.3|, cross-loadings greater than |0.3|, or items skewed greater than |2|. Item 37, which asks about provisions for children with disabilities was excluded due to high missingness.

This entry was posted in Praxes. Bookmark the permalink.