program practices, caregiver stability, and child–caregiver relationships

Applied Developmental Psychology 24 (2003) 497–516

Program practices, caregiver stability, and

child–caregiver relationships

Sharon Ritchie*, Carollee Howes

Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, University of California,

Los Angeles, CA 90095-1521, USA

Abstract

In this article, we examine program practices, caregiver behaviors, and classroom climates

associated with positive child–caregiver relationships. We used the presence or absence of these

practices and our independent observations of child–caregiver interactions and classroom climates to

predict children’s attachment security. Two hundred and fifty-six children (48% girls) from 22

programs serving underrepresented children and families in Los Angeles and rural North Carolina

participated in this research. Three of the programs served only children from difficult life

circumstances. Over half of the children experienced basic stability and uniform/consistent caregiving,

while primary caregiver assignment and looping were rare. Programs specifically serving only children

from difficult life circumstances were more likely to use relationship practices; 74% of them

experienced all four practices, in programs for the other children, none of them experienced all four

practices. The children from difficult life circumstances were in less acrimonious classrooms, and were

more likely to be with teachers who interacted with them intensely and sensitively. Intense and

sensitive interactions, and spending more time with the primary caregiver were most important in

predicting child–caregiver attachment security. Secondary and negative predictors were membership

in a caregiver direction cluster and being assigned to a caregiver.

D 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Caregiver stability; Caregiver behaviors; Child–caregiver relationships; Program practices

0193-3973/$ – see front matter D 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/S0193-3973(03)00028-5

* Corresponding author.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Ritchie), [email protected] (C. Howes).

S. Ritchie, C. Howes / Applied Developmental Psychology 24 (2003) 497–516498

1. Introduction

Children in early childhood programs spend their days with a variety of caregivers. They

often have different caregivers in the morning as they do in the afternoon, and move through

multiple groupings and activities that are facilitated by different adults. Caregivers however

are not interchangeable. Each child–caregiver relationship is with a particular caregiver. A

child in a classroom may very well have different patterns of relationships with the morning

caregiver, the afternoon caregiver, and the assistant caregivers. Every time the child

experiences a new caregiver, both must then engage in the process of constructing a new

relationship. The nature of the relationships that children construct with their caregivers

influences children’s competence and learning while they are in their current program, and as

they move along in school (Howes, 2000; Howes, Matheson, & Hamilton, 1994; Howes,

Phillipsen, & Peisner-Feinberg, 2000). In this article, we examine program practices that

inhibit or promote the development of secure attachment relationships between caregivers and

children—caregiver stability, caregiver behaviors, and classroom climates associated with

positive child–caregiver relationships.

1.1. Secure attachment with caregivers

In general, child–caregiver attachment security is independent of child–mother attachment

security (Goossen & van IJzendoorn, 1990; Mitchell-Copeland, Denham, & DeMulder, 1997;

Pianta, Nimetz, & Bennett, 1997). Each new caregiver has the opportunity to construct a

different relationship than the child has previously experienced. However, when children

come from difficult life circumstances they may bring to new relationships prior histories of

acrimonious, conflictual, neglectful, or unstable interaction and caregiving. These children

who have experienced difficult life circumstance often tend to act towards new caregivers as

if they too will be untrustworthy partners (Howes & Ritchie, 2002).

Caregivers may have to be particularly sensitive and talented to construct a secure

attachment relationship with a child with prior difficult life circumstances. Children who

have been adopted from Romanian orphanages (Chisholm, 1998), and from the United States

foster care system (Marcus, 1991; Ritchie, 1995) are able to construct secure attachment

relationships with their new caregivers. The likelihood of achieving a secure relationship is

increased when the caregivers are rated as highly sensitive, consistently positive, and

committed to the loving caregiver role. Therefore, in our current work we were particularly

interested in the relationships of the children enrolled in programs only for children with

difficult life experiences.

Ideas drawn from attachment theory and empirical research on child–caregiver relation-

ships suggest that the particular nature of children’s social interactions with their primary

caregivers and the emotional climate of these interactions (Boyce et al., 1998; Cassidy &

Shaver, 1999; Howes, 1999) influence the nature of relationships. Thus, all children who

have warm, responsive, and individualized interactions with caregivers in the context of a

harmonious classroom emotional climate are more likely to form secure attachment relation-

ships with their caregivers (Goossen & van IJzendoorn, 1990; Howes & Hamilton, 1992;

S. Ritchie, C. Howes / Applied Developmental Psychology 24 (2003) 497–516 499

Howes & Smith, 1995; Kontos, Howes, Shin, & Galinsky, 1995). These findings are

consistent with a large and well established body of research on mother–child attachment

relationships, which finds that warm, responsive, and sensitive mothers construct secure

mother–child attachments with their children (Bretherton, 1985). Accordingly, we examined

children’s experiences of caregiving with particular attention to the emotional quality of

child–caregiver interactions.

1.2. Caregiver stability

A body of literature suggests that children who experience instability in caregivers are less

likely to form positive relationships with caregivers. The prototype context for this concern is

foster care and adoption rather than childcare. Children who experience extremes of

instability, particularly as infants, tend to have persistent problems with positive relationship

formation (Marcovitch et al., 1997; Rutter, 1999). Because childcare environments frequently

involve multiple caregivers and high turnover rates there has been some documentation of the

negative impacts of instability of caregivers in childcare. The National Child Care Staffing

Study (Whitebook et al., 1990), the Child Care Employee Project (Whitebook, Phillips, &

Howes, 1993) and the NAEYC Accreditation as a Strategy for Improving Child Care Quality

(Whitebook et al., 1997) have all established as best practice the need to reduce high turnover

rates amongst teaching staff. Children in the National Child Care Staffing Study who were

enrolled in centers with higher rates of caregiver turnover spent less time engaged in social

activities with peers, more time in aimless wandering, and scored lower on assessments of

language development (Whitebook, Howes, Phillips, & Pemberton, 1989). Furthermore,

children who experienced more caregivers between the ages of one and four were more

aggressive with peers than children who had fewer caregiver changes (Howes & Hamilton,

1993). Infants who spent more time with the same caregiver were rated (by the caregiver) as

having a more secure attachment relationship with their caregiver (Raikes, 1993). The

National Child Care Staffing Study, more than any previous research effort, made it apparent

that as long as the early childhood field failed to resolve the staff compensation crisis that

contributes to high turnover, that childcare’s capacity to nurture children and assist families

would continue to be shortchanged (Whitebook et al., 1993). Childcare quality also has been

found to affect turnover. Centers that retained a greater percent of highly skilled teachers are

significantly more likely to receive good or better ratings on overall classroom quality

(Whitebook et al., 1997).

1.3. Relationship-based practices

The response of the early childhood field to the issues of high turnover rates and the

importance of positive child–caregiver relationships has been to develop a number of

practices designed to mitigate the potentially negative influences of caregiver instability

and to enhance positive child–caregiver relationships. Although widely accepted as ‘‘best

practice,’’ and drawn from years of experience, there have been few empirical tests of the

efficacies of these practices. As part of our ethnographic work with programs designated by


communities as successful in their work with children and families, we identified a number of

practices the program participants believed to be important in the development of positive

relationships. In this paper, we used the presence or absence of these practices as well as our

independent observations of child–caregiver interactions and classroom climates to predict

children’s attachment security.

To reduce caregiver instability, programs attempted a number of strategies to keep

instability to a minimum. At the most basic level caregivers were assigned to a group of

children, usually a classroom, for 1 year. Caregivers were not rotated between groups and

caregivers did not move to different classrooms or sites during the week. Programs who

articulated a particular concern with relationship formation added at least one of the three

following practices to their repertoire: primary caregiver assignment; uniform/consistent

caregiving, and/or looping. When programs practiced primary caregiver assignment, the

director or head caregiver assigned each child within a group to a particular caregiver. The

assigned caregiver was to provide all emotionally salient caregiving for that child—greeting

the child in the morning, helping the child with meals and toileting or diapering, putting the

child to nap, and monitoring the child’s play throughout the day. Programs that practiced

uniform/consistent caregiving believed that all caregivers in the program should share and

practice a uniform/consistent philosophy. They made purposeful efforts in staff meetings and

in-service training to insure that caregivers maintained shared beliefs around ideas of

positively relating with children, language development, separation from parents, and child

involvement in the program activities. In programs that practiced looping, a group of children

were assigned to a head caregiver for more than 1 year.

1.4. Positive classroom climate

The emotional climate of the classroom is a relatively recent addition to the construct of

childcare quality. It refers to the tone of the classroom and can range from positive and

prosocial to acrimonious and harsh. Early classroom climates in one study, predicted social

competence with peers in second grade (Howes, 2000). Acrimonious interactions disrupt the

learning of the child involved and at times, the entire classroom. Acrimonious interactions

can involve conflicts between teachers and children or between children and children. They

are often marked by verbal or physical aggression, disregard for classroom rules of conduct,

or disputes over materials. We prefer to call them acrimonious rather than conflictual

interactions because in these episodes children introduce disruptive behaviors and teachers

can respond by escalating or de-escalating behaviors. For classroom interaction to be

harmonious, there must be agreement on the rules of conduct, specifically the explicit and

implicit rules for which behaviors are permitted and forbidden in classrooms.

Important to examining the tone of a classroom is an awareness of the nature of the

difficult relationships within it. Attachment theorists have described two attachment

organizations associated with insecure relationships: avoidant and ambivalent/resistant

(Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978). Children with avoidant attachment organiza-

tions turn away rather than seek comfort from adults because they have experienced

rejection and insensitivity from adults (Ainsworth et al., 1978). Since they expect the adult


to reject them, they tend to make ‘‘preemptive strikes,’’ acting in a hostile fashion before

the adult has an opportunity to be rejecting. Alternatively, they may avoid the adult to

avoid being rejected. Children with avoidant maternal attachment histories tend to be rated

by teachers as high in aggression and passive withdrawal (Renken, Egeland, Marvinney,

Mangelsdorf, & Sroufe, 1989).

Children with an ambivalent/resistant attachment organization also do not trust their

attachment figure to provide comfort and emotional security. However, in contrast to children

with avoidant attachments, their experience of the attachment figure has been inconsistent,

and thus confusing (Cassidy & Berlin, 1994). Sometimes, the adult will be there for them and

other times the adult will withdraw from the child. Children with ambivalent/resistant

attachment organization tend to be dependent and hard to comfort. These children may

appear to seek comfort, and then reject the adult’s attempts to provide it. Thus, these children

are both ‘‘clingy’’ and difficult. Children with a history of ambivalent/resistant maternal

attachment are characterized as fearful and inhibited in exploration with both peers and

materials (Cassidy & Berlin, 1994). Children with ambivalent/resistant attachment organ-

izations can also be disruptive within classrooms. Unlike the child with an avoidant

attachment organization, the child with an ambivalent/resistant attachment organization uses

disruptive behavior to draw the teacher into interpersonal conflict.

In a positive classroom climate, the goal of teachers is to maximize harmonious

interactions by keeping acrimonious interactions from becoming conflicts that disrupt

learning. It would be logical to assume that children from difficult life circumstances

would be in more acrimonious classrooms, as children who act out more could prompt

more teacher frustration, more time-outs and reprimands. Consideration, however, of the

teachers who choose to work in classrooms with these children in programs that have a

philosophical base which supports the development of positive relationships can perhaps

reduce the likelihood of acrimony for children who have likely already experienced far too

much of it.

1.5. Summary

As early childhood classrooms become increasingly burdened with federal and state

mandates for child outcomes in literacy and math, it is essential to bear in mind the practices

and program philosophies that may promote children’s success in school which are not

directly linked to academic progress. This study examines the ground work, the basic

principles and practices which allow children to form important relationships with their

caregiver so that they are ready to take the opportunities to learn that are available to them in

the programs they attend. It is essential to remain mindful of this idea as we explore the

pathways that lead children to success. Educational policies that compel an academic agenda

that forsakes the development of the whole child may be both shortsighted and counter-

productive. Children with more positive child–teacher relationships appear more able to

make use of the learning opportunities available in classrooms (Howes & Smith, 1995) and

better adjust to the demands of formal schooling (Birch & Ladd, 1997). Awareness of the

specific practices that may well be the precursors to success for children is important for the


lives of the children in the programs as well as for the efficacy of the people who provide

their care.

In summary, we examined the prevalence of practices to mitigate against caregiver

instability and enhance positive relationships in programs serving underrepresented children

and families, associations among these practices, classroom emotional climate, caregiver

behaviors, and the prediction of child–caregiver attachment security from practices, class-

room emotional climate, and caregiver behaviors. Our design included assessing the integrity

of classroom practices, conducting observation of children and caregiver behavior, and

assessing child–caregiver attachment relationship quality.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

2.1.1. Selection of sites

2.1.1.1. Advisory board. Ten respected early childhood professionals identified 23 exem-

plary programs that worked with low income, minority children in Los Angeles and rural

North Carolina. This was not a random sample, but rather one purposefully comprised of

programs that earned the respect of the community they served. Baseline data on environ-

mental quality was gathered at each nominated site (n= 23). Classroom scores on the Early

Childhood Environmental Rating Scale (ECERS) (Harms & Clifford, 1980) averaged 5.67

(SD = .75; range 5.41–6.35). No classroom had an overall score lower than 5. ECERS scores

of 5 and above are considered to be good to excellent in quality. Additionally, researchers

talked with caregivers and directors about who was served by the program and the purpose

and mission of their program. Profiles for each site were developed and presented it to a

community advisory board to structure a discussion on dimensions of quality.

2.1.1.2. Best practices programs. The final selection of 16 participating sites was made by

the project staff based on the following criteria: service to low income children; representa-

tion of ethnic groups similar to that of Los Angeles County and rural North Carolina; a mix of

centers serving children from predominantly one ethnic or home language group, and

programs serving children from diverse backgrounds; representation of children with special

needs both included into programs for typical children and in ‘‘stand alone programs’’; a

variety of distinct practices including practices that appeared to be debatable within the

childcare community (e.g., home language vs. English only; child initiated vs. didactic

approaches to teaching).

In a subsequent phase of the study, the advisory board and the original 16 sites nominated

10 additional partner sites. The criteria for participation included similar demographics to the

original sites, and a willingness to engage in thinking and talking about their practices with

researchers. Partnership sites were chosen to determine if those practices observed in the

community nominated sites could be introduced into similar environments of overall lower


quality as determined at baseline level by the ECERS. Although average environmental

quality scores for these sites were good (mean ECERS score of 5.56), the range of ECERS

scores (3.83–6.06) indicated not all classrooms were in the good quality range. The study

was both a close examination of the process through which change occurs, as well as a look at

the change itself.

2.2. Sample

Two hundred and fifty-six children (48% girls) participated in this research. One hundred

and eighty-three of the total sample of children were randomly selected to have approx-

imately 25% of the children in each program participate. The remaining 77 children were

selected from a pool of children at 12 of the Best Practices Programs whose parents

volunteered to have them participate in a longitudinal study. Ninety-seven percent of the

parents volunteered to participate. We randomly selected two girls and two boys from each of

the 20 classrooms (n= 80) included in the 12 Best Practices Programs used in the longitudinal

study. Three children were persistently absent reducing our n to 77. We used a MANOVA to

examine age, gender, and ethnic differences in the sample of children randomly selected and

those from parental volunteers and found no significant differences.

Thirty-two percent of the children were African American, 39% Latino, 16% White, 7%

Asian, and the remaining biracial. Sixty-two percent of Latino children, 52% of White

children, and 81% of African American children were taught by teachers from their own

ethnic backgrounds. The children averaged 50 months (SD= 10.8) at the time of the first

observation and ranged in age from 15 to 82 months.

A subsample of these children (n = 31) were enrolled in one of three programs that only

included children with particular difficult life circumstances. By difficult life experiences we

mean maltreatment, parental psychopathology or substance abuse, homelessness, and multi-

ple placements. While we assume that there were children with difficult life circumstance in

all programs, these three programs were exclusively for children with difficult life experi-

ences: a therapeutic preschool; a program for emancipated teen mothers who lived with their

children at the facility; and a program for the children of teen age parents who had

experienced domestic violence. The programs we included in this subsample served children

of teen parents who were themselves often struggling with substance abuse and/or domestic

violence, poverty, and low education levels, as well as children who had been diagnosed as

having special needs, (posttraumatic stress disorder, separation anxiety, attachment disorders,

oppositional defiant disorder). Many of the children entered the programs with aggressive,

depressed, or withdrawn behaviors, which suggested that their prior relationships with adults

had been problematic. Many of the children in the programs continued to experience difficult

life circumstances throughout their time in the programs. Only 41% of these children were

girls because the therapeutic preschool enrolled more boys than girls. The ethnic distribution

of this subsample was dissimilar to the larger sample by having somewhat more White (28%)

and somewhat fewer African American children (28%) but similar proportions of Latino

children (45%). The children in this subsample averaged 50.48 months (SD= 15.8) and

ranged in age from 15 to 76 months.


2.3. Procedure

The study took place over the course of two school years. In each year, Time 1 data were

collected in November, and Time 2 data in May. Eight trained observers conducted the

observations. Additionally, a research partner acted as a participant observer for at least a year

in the program. The participant observer spent one full day each week getting to know the

programs and the staff, taking extensive field notes, interviewing staff, and in the end, helping

to interpret and make use of the data. Each was comfortable in early childhood classrooms,

and was matched to the ethnicity of caregivers and/or the majority of the children in the

classrooms. In all cases, Spanish-speaking participant observers were in classrooms where

Spanish was the primary language. On the basis of field notes and interview transcripts,

programs were rated as ascribing, or not to practices. Members of the research team who had

not served as participant observers in that particular program conducted the observations and

assessments. Each data collector spent at least 4 h observing each study child and their

primary caregiver at each data collection period.

2.4. Measures

2.4.1. Attachment Q-sort-security of attachment with primary caregiver

To examine the relationships between individual caregivers and children, we used the

Attachment Q-Set (AQS) (Waters, 1990).The AQS has good validity with the Strange

Situation (Howes & Hamilton, 1992; van IJzendoorn, Vereijken, & Riksen-Walrave, in

press). Following their observations, the observers sorted the 90 behavior descriptions that

serve as items in the AQS, i.e., ‘‘this child turns to the caregiver when she is upset,’’ into nine

piles of 10 items each. In this way the observers described the child–caregiver relationship

according to the behavior descriptions. The particular behavior was given a score (1–9)

corresponding to very characteristic (pile no. 9) to very uncharacteristic (pile no. 1). The item

scores for each child–caregiver relationship were correlated with an ideal child–caregiver

relationship (Waters, 1990) to determine the child’s security score. Scores may vary from

� 1.0 to 1.0. A higher score indicates greater security, with a .33 as the determinant for the

lowest score describing a secure relationship. Subscale scores were developed based on

clusters of AQS items (Howes & Ritchie, 1999). As a result each child–caregiver relationship

could be described as high or low on the following subscales: avoidant, resistant, seeking

comfort, using the caregiver as a secure base, and engaging in harmonious interactions. The

avoidant and resistant subscales conceptually correspond to insecure attachment organiza-

tions. The other three subscales correspond to secure attachment organizations. We catego-

rized each child’s child–caregiver attachment relationship based on a cluster analysis of AQS

items (Howes & Ritchie, 1999). The categories of attachment organization were disorganized,

avoidant insecure, resistant insecure, near secure and secure.

Observers were trained to an 85% exact agreement criterion on each item prior to data

collection with the gold standard trainer. Monthly observer–trainer reliability checks were

conducted throughout data collection. Median interobserver reliability for exact item place-

ment was Kappa = .87 (range Kappa = .79 to .96).


2.5. Snapshot observations

We used a ‘‘snapshot’’ (time sampling) procedure to capture aspects of adult–child

interaction including time with caregivers and caregiver involvement and engagement with

the child. We also examined the activities in which the children were engaged as the context

for the adult–child interaction. Over the course of a program morning, 50+ snapshots were

collected for each child. To complete a snapshot, the data collector observed a target child for

20 s, and then had 40 s to record presence of the variables described in the next sections. The

observer then watched the next child and proceeded in the same manner to observe a total of

four study children. This process was repeated throughout the program morning for a total of

4 h (50+ snapshots for each child).

Observers were trained to an 85% exact agreement criterion on each item prior to data

collection. Monthly interobserver reliability checks were conducted throughout data collec-

tion. Median interobserver reliability for exact item placement was Kappa = .84 (range

Kappa = .79 to .93).

Involvement and engagement were coded during the snapshot observations.

2.5.1. Involvement

The adult involvement scale (Howes & Stewart, 1987) rates the intensity of child–

caregiver involvement. Each time the caregiver was within 3 ft of the child, or a child–

caregiver interaction occurred during the 20-s observation period, an aspect of adult

involvement with the child was scored. Therefore, a child could have a maximum of 50

ratings (one for each snapshot scored). Only one of the following scale points could be

recorded in each snapshot: (0) Monitor (caregiver is close to the child but does not engage

in interaction); (1) Routine (caregiver touches the child for routine caregiving, or passes out

materials, but has no verbal interaction with the child); (2) Minimal (caregiver touches the

child only for necessary redirection, answers child requests in a few words, or makes a

brief remark.); (3) Simple (caregiver provides helpful physical support, verbally answers the

child in simple sentences, ‘‘Yes, you need to glue that piece.’’ or initiates simple social

interaction such as ‘‘What book are you reading today?’’); (4) Elaborate (caregiver

maintains close proximity to the child, responds to child’s statements without restating,

or asks and answers complex questions); (5) Intense (caregiver hugs/holds the child,

answers by restating the child’s statement, engages the child in reciprocal conversation, or

plays interactively).

The scale points for the adult involvement codes represent increasing complexity and

reciprocity in adult–child interaction. We created a total score for adult–child involve-

ment by summing the levels of involvement. We also scored the percent of time the

caregiver was within 3 ft of the child during each of the six levels of involvement.

Finally, we created a set of codes representing the proportion of each type of

involvement over the total number of observations and scored ‘‘high’’ caregiver

involvement as the proportion of simple, elaborated and intense involvement scores,

and ‘‘low’’ caregiver involvement as the proportion of monitor, routine and minimal

scores.


2.5.2. Engagement

During each observation we coded the type of engagement the caregiver had with the

child. The caregiver was not required to be within 3 ft of the child, and more than one coding

category could be recorded in each snapshot. The following categories comprised the

engagement index: (1) Positive initiation (caregiver initiates positive physical/verbal inter-

action with the child without child’s solicitation); (2) Positive response (caregiver responds in

a positive verbal/physical manner to the child’s social bids); (3) Positive management

(caregiver verbally intervenes, redirects the child or reminds the child of the rules for

behavior); (4) Negative management (caregiver handles problem/misbehavior in a harsh or

negative manner, including time-out, yelling, belittling, spanking, or threatening); (5)

Facilitate peer (caregiver promotes the child’s interaction with other children); (6) Language

play (caregiver engages in language play with the child or group of children, including

rhyming games, reading one-on-one, or a social conversation).

2.5.3. Learning and play activities

This set of codes captures the activity that the teacher provides for the children. These

categories were (1) Creative activities (fantasy play, blocks, and open-ended art); (2)

Language arts (looking at or reading books to self, being read to, listening to a story, music

activities, and circle time); (3) Didactic learning (teacher-modeled art projects or teacher-

directed drill and practice of school skills); (4) Fine motor (use of art materials, puzzles,

stringing beads, pegboards, or Legos); (5) Routine (transitioning to the next activity,

grooming activities, meal, and snack time) (6) Unoccupied (child is not engaged with any

other person, any object or any specific activity). During each snapshot, the observer selected

only one activity that best fit what the child was doing. For analysis, each child received a

score for the proportion of time they were involved in these activities.

The proportion of time for each engagement category over the entire observation period

was scored. In addition, the proportion of time of total engagement for each category was

scored.

2.6. Time with primary caregivers

Because each snapshot observation of a child that included adult involvement or engage-

ment was linked to the identity of the adult, we were able to separately consider the children’s

experiences with their primary caregiver, their other caregivers, or when there was no

engagement with a caregiver. A primary caregiver was defined as the caregiver to whom the

child was assigned, or as the head caregiver/lead teacher.

2.7. Classroom emotional climate

We devised two sets of class scores to capture classroom emotional climate. ‘‘Acrimony’’

represented the degree of child–caregiver conflict, and the ‘‘nature of difficult relationships’’

represented the proportion of children in the room with each type of insecure attachment

relationship (avoidant insecure, resistant insecure, near secure, and secure).


2.7.1. Classroom interaction scale

The classroom interaction scale (Arnett, 1989) is a 26-item 4-point rating scale completed

by the observer of the head caregiver in the classroom at the conclusion of the observation

period. It yields three scores: sensitive (warm, attentive, and engaged); harsh (critical,

threatening, and punitive) and detached (low levels of interaction, interest, and supervision).

Scores from this instrument have been found to predict childcare caregiver’s involvement

with children and the children’s social competence (Howes, Whitebook, & Phillips, 1992)

and attachment security (Howes & Hamilton, 1992). Median interobserver reliability was

Kappa = .85 (range Kappa = .81 to .89).

We created a classroom acrimony score by summing the standard scores for harshness and

detachment with the standard score for proportion of adult engagement in negative manage-

ment, from the adult engagement codes.

2.7.2. Attachment organization

Based on our prior work that found children categorized as disorganized, resistant and

avoidant in AQS attachment organizations to be higher in behavior problems than children

categorized as secure or near secure in AQS attachment organization, we calculated the

proportion of children in each room categorized as disorganized, resistant, and avoidant. This

gave us the number of children who had difficult relationships with their teachers (Howes &

Ritchie, 1999).

3. Results

3.1. Child–caregiver attachment relationships

A security score of .33 and above indicates a secure relationship with the caregiver.

Security scores for children in the study averaged .29 (SD = .24) and ranged from � .52 to

.74. The mean indicates low level secure relationships and the range indicates both some very

difficult relationships as well as some that were very positive. There were no relations

between age and security and no ethnic differences in security scores. Gender and ethnicity

was determined by chi squares and an ANOVAwas used to test age. As expected, children in

the only difficult life circumstances programs had lower child–caregiver attachment security

scores, M(difficult) = .16; SD = .27; M(other) = .31, SD = .23; t(254) = 3.31, p = .001.

3.2. Practices

Sixty percent of the 256 children, (enrolled in eight different programs) experienced basic

stability practices. Eleven percent of the children (enrolled in three different programs)

experienced primary caregiver assignment. Fifty-two percent of the children (enrolled in

seven different programs) experienced uniform/consistent caregiving. Fifteen percent of the

children (enrolled in four different programs) experienced looping or being kept with the

same caregiver and peer group over more than 1 year. Children enrolled in only difficult life


circumstances programs were more likely to experience basic stability, 81%; v2(1) = 6.40;p < .01, primary caregiver assignment, 86%; v2(1) = 168.72; p < .001, uniform/consistent

caregiving, 81%; v2(1) = 11.63; p < .001, and looping, 100%; v2(1) = 168.72; p < .001, than

children in other programs (basic stability 57%; primary caregiver assignment 2%; uniform/

consistent caregiving 4%, and looping 4%). Seventy-four percent of the children in the

difficult life circumstances subsample experienced all four practices, while 26% experienced

one. In programs for the other children, 37% experienced one practice, 53% experienced two

and 9% experienced three. None of these children experienced all four practices.

3.3. Classroom climate

3.3.1. Acrimony

Acrimony scores averaged 0 (SD = 2.11) and ranged from � 2.33 to 10.17. There were no

gender, ethnic, or age associations with acrimony. Gender and ethnicity was determined by

chi squares and an ANOVAwas used to test age. Children in only difficult life circumstances

programs had lower acrimony scores than children in other programs, M(difficult) =� 0.68,

SD = .81; M(other) = .09, SD = 2.21; t(98) = 3.64, p < .001.

3.3.2. Proportion children of children in the classroom with insecure attachment

organizations

We categorized approximately half of the children as having secure child–caregiver

attachment behavior organizations. There were no gender, ethnic, or age associations with

attachment behavior organizations. Children in the only difficult life circumstances programs

were less likely to have secure child–caregiver attachment behavior organizations and more

likely to have disorganized or resistant child–caregiver attachment behavior organizations

than children in other programs, v2(4) = 17.15; p < .01 (see Table 1).

The proportion of children in classrooms with avoidant child–caregiver attachment

behavior organizations ranged from none to 50% (M = .10, SD = .11), with resistant

attachment behavior organizations from none to 25% (M = .02, SD = .05), and with

disorganized behavior attachment organizations from none to 25% (M = .07, SD = .07).

Children in the only difficult life circumstances programs were more likely to have higher

proportions of children with avoidant attachment behavior organizations, M(difficult) = .14,

SD = .09; M(other) = .10, SD = .10; t(254) = 2.47, p < .01, resistant attachment behavior

Table 1

Percentage of attachment behavior organizations in different programs

Type of attachment organization All children (%) Only difficult (%) Other programs (%)

Secure 51 29 53

Near secure 29 32 28

Avoidant 10 14 10

Resistant 1 7 1

Disorganized 9 18 8


organizations, M(difficult) = .07, SD = .06; M(other) = .01, SD = .4; t(94) = 5.11, p < .001,

anddisorganizedattachment behaviororganizations,M(difficult) = .18,SD= .11;M(other)= .06,

SD = .08; t(94) = 6.15, p < .001, than children in other programs.

3.4. Adult involvement and engagement

We used K-means cluster analysis to create composite variables. Cluster analysis is a

technique most commonly used to identify taxonomies or data structure. A k-means cluster

analysis is a tool to identify underlying structure in the observed data. In this procedure initial

cluster centers are randomly assigned and then cases are selected to the next closest cluster

based on distance from cluster center. The procedure repeats reassignment and recalculation

of cluster centers until centers cease changing. The cluster analysis using involvement and

engagement codes converged in three iterations. The minimum distance between initial

centers was 1.6465 and the maximum distance by which any center changed was 0.0275

indicating that the structure was stable.

The descriptive statistics for the adult involvement and engagement clusters are in Table 2.

The adult involvement and engagement codes resulted in three clusters that represent different

experiences that children had with their primary caregiver. Children in cluster 1 (31% of the

children) experienced the most simple and minimal involvement and positive management.

We named cluster 1 caregiver direction. Children in cluster 2 (48% of the children)

experienced the most positive initiations and responses and were similar to children in

Table 2

Descriptions and differences among adult involvement and engagement clusters: Proportion of involvement or

engagement

Caregiver direction

cluster (1)

Interactive

cluster (2)

Language play

cluster (3)

F Post hoc

M SD M SD M SD

Adult involvement

Monitor .14 .17 .09 .12 .17 .19 5.68* 3,1 > 2

Routine .05 .08 .03 .06 .06 .11 2.19

Minimal .18 .17 .10 .10 .16 .21 7.98** 1,3>2

Simple .28 .31 .19 .15 .12 .14 9.79*** 1>3,2

Elaborated .26 .21 .32 .19 .28 .21 2.42

Intense .09 .10 .27 .21 .22 .27 19.69 2,3>1

Adult engagement

Positive initiation .14 .13 .33 .18 .16 .15 41.76*** 2>1

Positive response .17 .16 .30 .19 .11 .10 30.64*** 2>3,1

Positive management .47 .24 .11 .10 .08 .08 161.41*** 1>2,3

Facilitate peer .04 .07 .05 .07 .07 .09 2.69

Language play .16 .18 .16 .14 .57 .20 132.66*** 3>2,1

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.


cluster 3 in intense involvement. Cluster 2 was named interactive. Children in cluster 3 (21%

of the children) experienced the most language play, were similar to children in cluster 1 in

monitored involvement and to children in cluster 2 in intense involvement. Cluster 3 was

named language play.

There were no gender, ethnic, or age associations with adult involvement and engagement

cluster membership. Children in the only difficult life circumstances programs were more

likely to be in the interactive cluster and less likely to be in the caregiver direction and

language play clusters than children in other programs, v2(2) = 19.13; p < .001 (see Table 3).

3.4.1. Time with primary caregivers

We conducted a 2 (type of program)� 3 (type of caregiver) ANOVA with a repeated

measure on the last factor on amount of time. Children spent, on the average, 22% (SD = .16)

of their time with their primary caregiver, 29% (SD = .18) with the other caregivers

combined, and 49% (SD = .21) with no adult. There were no age, ethnic, or gender

differences in time spent with caregivers. We used a repeated measure ANOVA with only

difficult life circumstances programs as the grouping variable to compare time distributions.

There was a significant interaction between program and time, F(2,250) = 2.54, p < .01, and

a significant main effect for time, F(2,250) = 66.41, p < .001. All children spent more time

without an adult than with an adult. Children in only difficult life circumstances programs

spent more time than other children with no adult, M(difficult) = .58, SD = .12; M(other) =

.49, SD = .24, and less time with their primary caregiver, M(difficult) = .13, SD = .07;

M(other) = .23, SD = .15.

3.5. Associations among practices, classroom climate, involvement and engagement with

adults, and child–caregiver attachment security

Descriptive information for the proportion of adult involvement and engagement is in

Table 4. High level adult involvement (M = .70, SD = .27, range: 0–1.00). Adult engagement

for positive initiation, positive response, positive management, and language play were quite

similar (M = .23, SD = .22, range: 0–1:00). Engagement in facilitating peer interaction was

lower (M = .05, SD = .07, range: 0–36).

3.6. Relationship based practices

We used a series of two-way ANOVAwith practices (yes or no) and program for children

with difficult life circumstances (yes or no) as grouping variables to examine differences in

Table 3

Percent differences in adult involvement and engagement clusters

Clusters Only difficult (%) Other (%)

Caregiver direction 10 33

Interactive 86 43

Language play 3 23

Table 4

Proportion of adult involvement and engagement

Mean SD High Low

Involvement

Monitor .12 .15 .67 0

Routine .04 .08 .50 0

Minimal .14 .16 .96 0

Simple .20 .22 1.00 0

Elaborated .29 .20 .88 0

Intense .20 .21 .89 0

Percent high level involvement .70 .27 1.00 0

Engagement

Positive initiation .24 .18 1.00 0

Positive response .22 .19 1.00 0

Positive management .21 .23 1.00 0

Facilitate peer .05 .07 .36 0

Language play .25 .24 1.00 0


child–caregiver attachment security when children did or did not experience the four

identified relationship practices. There were no significant main effects for practice and no

significant interactions.

3.6.1. Classroom climate

We used Pearson product–moment correlations to examine associations between class-

room climate and child–caregiver security scores (see Table 5). Children’s security scores

were negatively associated with the percent of children in their classrooms with avoidant

attachment behavior organizations.

Table 5

Associations between child–caregiver security and classroom climate and time with caregiver

Security scores (Pearson product–moment correlations)

Classroom climate

Acrimony � .08

% avoidant � .21**

% resistant � .19**

% disorganized � .13*

Time with caregiver

Primary .29**

Others .01

No caregiver � .18**

*p < .05. **p < .01.


3.6.2. Adult involvement and engagement

We used a two-way ANOVA with involvement and engagement cluster membership and

program for children with difficult life circumstances (yes or no) as grouping variables to

examine differences in child–caregiver attachment security scores. Children in the interactive

cluster (M = .35, SD = .23) had higher scores than children in the language play cluster (M = .29,

SD = .22) and caregiver direction cluster (M = .19, SD = .24), F(2, 251) = 3.52, p < .05. There

were no significant main effects or interactions for program enrollment.

We used Pearson product–moment correlations to examine associations between time with

caregivers and child–caregiver security scores (see Table 5). Children who spent more time

with their primary caregiver and less time away from adults had higher security scores.

Table 6

Predicting child–caregiver attachment scores

Security

R R2 R2 change Final h sri2

Model I: Includes proportion of insecure children as part of classroom climate

Enrollment in program for children with

difficult life circumstances

.20** .04 � .01 � .00

Classroom climate and adult involvement

and engagement

.48** .24 .20

Acrimony � .02 � .03

% avoidant � 1.31 � .08

Caregiver direction � 2.18* � .14*

Interactive 3.00** .20**

Time with primary caregiver 3.58** .25**

Practices .50** .25 .01

Basic stability .04 .03

Uniform .00 .01

Assign � 1.70 � .12*

Looping � .46 � .03

Model II: Does not include proportion of insecure children as part of classroom climate

Enrollment in program for children with

difficult life circumstances

.20** .04 .17 .16

Classroom climate and adult involvement

and engagement

.49** .24 .20

Acrimony � .11 � .10

Caregiver direction � .37** � .24*

Interactive .27** .20**

Time with primary caregiver .56** .45**

Practices .50** .26 .02

Basic stability .03 .03

Uniform .02 .01

Assign � .22 � .20*

*p < .05. **p < .01.


3.7. Predicting child–caregiver attachment security

The final step in our analysis was to test a predictive model using sequential multiple

regression. We completed this analysis twice with and without the proportion of the children

in the classroom with insecure child–teacher attachment relationships as a predictor. In both

equations, we first entered enrollment in a program only for children with difficult life

circumstances because we expected from theory and our descriptive analyses that these

children present special challenges to caregivers. We then entered classroom climate and adult

involvement and engagement together because prior research and our preliminary analysis

suggested relations. In the analysis including attachment as part of classroom climate we used

only one of the three proportion of children with insecure attachment behavior organization

variables, and dummy coded involvement and engagement membership to avoid multi-

colinearity. We entered practices as the last step in the analysis, although there were no simple

relations between practices and security scores, because it was the primary focus of our

analysis. Table 6 displays the standardized regression correlations (h), the semipartial

correlations (sri2), and R, adjusted R2, and change in R2 at each step for each of the

regression models.

In both models classroom climate and teacher involvement and engagement best predicted

security scores; relationship practices added little to the predictive power of the model.

Inspection of the final standardized regression correlations and the semipartial correlations

suggest that membership in an interactive cluster and spending more time with the primary

caregiver were most important in predicting child–caregiver attachment security. Secondary

predictors and negative predictors were membership in a caregiver direction cluster and being

assigned to a caregiver.

4. Discussion

Over half of children experienced basic stability and uniform/consistent caregiving,

while primary caregiver assignment and looping were rare. Traditionally children are

placed in classrooms or groups for 1 year. High turnover rates in childcare, rather than

philosophical approach may account for lack of basic stability for those children who did

not experience the same caregiver over the course of a year. Short of the good luck of

having teachers work in concert with one another without communicating, or teachers who

work alone, uniform/consistent caregiving requires that staff members have the opportunity

to talk with one another to discuss philosophy and approach on a regular basis. Although

many programs do often choose to make regular meetings a priority, some programs

simply do not have the luxury of time or money to insure that these conversations take

place.

Programs enrolling only children who had experienced difficult life circumstances were

more likely to use relationship practices. Three of the programs in this study were

dedicated to helping children specifically through improving their relationships with

adults. These groups were philosophically bent towards both knowing about and deciding


upon specific approaches to support the development of positive relationships. It was

within these programs that practices of looping and primary caregiver assignment were

observed.

These same children, those in programs only for children from difficult life circumstances,

had less acrimonious classrooms and were more likely to be in interactive cluster. Here again

were programs that both developed and implemented philosophies that suggested that to

support positive adult–child relationships, it was important that caregivers be intensely

engaged, warm, responsive, and consistent, and that they initiate positive interactions with the

children. Still these classrooms had the highest proportion of children with insecure

relationships. To overcome the relationship damage that some children bring with them

may take longer than a single year. In the therapeutic preschool, it was found in a separate

study that children with more time in the program (often 2 years) had more secure

relationships with their teachers (Howes & Ritchie, 1997). Children in the group of programs

for children with difficult life circumstances spent less time with a primary caregiver than

children in other programs. Children with avoidant, resistant, and disorganized attachment

organizations can be difficult to spend time with. Logically, the children will avoid and/or

resist the caregiver, who in these cases seem to make the most of the time they do spend with

the child, by relating to the child intensely and sensitively.

Membership in an interactive cluster and spending more time with the primary caregiver

were most important in predicting child–caregiver attachment security. Secondary and

negative predictors were membership in a caregiver direction cluster and being assigned to

a caregiver. Children who spend the day in programs where their primary caregiver is

available and accessible to them and who is intensely and sensitively interacting with them

throughout the day are, not surprisingly, more likely to have a more secure relationship

with their caregivers than those who experience minimal interactions, mostly centered

around management. What is important here is using this information to help programs

think about their priorities. It has become a prevalent practice to have lead teachers move

from classroom to classroom, sometimes spending only a few days a week with a specific

group, and sometimes so overwhelmed by administrative duties, that they spend virtually

no time in the classroom. Teachers who interact minimally with children are perhaps a

product of a childcare system that must hire untrained, and possibly unmotivated personnel

to spend whole days and whole years with children. Children who are assigned to

caregivers, even with the best of intentions, may be assigned to those who are themselves

perhaps unable or unwilling to form positive relationships. Currently some programs are

looking at the notion of observing children over the first several months of childcare and

then using the choice of the child to help make more informed decisions about the

assignments of children.

It is important to consider the impact of multiple caregivers on children. It appears evident

that programs must consider their population and become increasingly aware of the specific

needs of the children they serve to devise their philosophies and approaches. It may be that

traditional notions of relationship practices may not be at the heart of what is important.

Further work needs to be done to more closely define those components that genuinely

support the development and maintenance of secure attachment relationships.


Acknowledgements

This work was supported by grants to the National Center for Early Development and

Learning under the Educational Research and Development Centers Program, PR/Award

Number R307A60004, as administered by the Office of Educational Research and

Improvement, US Dept. of Education. We wish to acknowledge the participation and time

of the programs, teachers, and children who allowed us to record their actions, words, and

practices. We would also like to thank the research assistants and project coordinator for their

hard work. Finally, we would like to acknowledge our colleagues’ insights as we developed

this research.

References

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study

of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Arnett, J. (1989). Issues in the training of caregivers. In J. S. Lande, S. Scarr, & N. Gunzenhauser (Eds.), Caring

for children (pp. 241–255). New Jersey: Erlbaum Publishing.

Birch, S., & Ladd, G. (1997). The teacher–child relationship and children’s early school adjustment. Journal of

School Psychology, 35, 61–79.

Boyce, W. T., Frank, E., Jensen, P. S., Kesler, R. C., Nelson, C. A., & Steinberg, L. (1998). Social context in

developmental psychopathology recommendations for future research from the MacArthur network on psy-

chopathology and development. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 143–164.

Bretherton, I. (1985). Attachment theory: Retrospect and prospect. Monographs of the Society for Research in

Child Development, 50, 3–35.

Cassidy, J., & Berlin, L. (1994). The insecure/ambivalent pattern of attachment. Child Development, 65, 971–991.

Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. (1999). Handbook of attachment. NY: Guilford.

Chisholm, K. (1998). A three year follow-up of attachment and indiscriminate friendliness in children adopted

from Romanian orphanages. Child Development, 69, 1092–1106.

Goossen, F. A., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1990). Quality of infant’s attachment to professional teachers: Relation

to infant–parent attachment and daycare characteristics. Child Development, 61, 832–837.

Harms, T., & Clifford, R. M. (1980). Early childhood environmental rating scale. New York: Teacher’s College

Press.

Howes, C. (1999). Attachment relationships in the context of multiple caregivers. In J. Cassidy, & P. R. Shaver

(Eds.), Handbook of attachment theory and research (pp. 671–687). NY: Guilford.

Howes, C. (2000). Social–emotional classroom climate in child care, child–teacher relationships, and children’s

second grade peer relations. Social Development, 9, 191–204.

Howes, C., & Hamilton, C. E. (1992). Children’s relationships with child care teachers: Stability and concordance

with maternal attachments. Child Development, 63, 879–892.

Howes, C., & Hamilton, C. E. (1993). The changing experience of child care: Changes in teachers and in teacher–

child relationships and children’s social competence with peers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8, 15–32.

Howes, C., Matheson, C. C., & Hamilton, C. E. (1994). Maternal teacher and child care history correlates of

children’s relationships with peers. Child Development, 65, 264.

Howes, C., Phillipsen, L., & Peisner-Feinberg, E. (2000). The consistency and predictability of teacher–child

relationships during the transition to kindergarten. Journal of School Psychology, 87–113.

Howes, C., & Ritchie, S. (1997). Changes in child-teacher relationships in a therapeutic preschool program. Early

Education and Development, 4, 411–422.

Howes, C., & Ritchie, S. (1999). Attachment organizations in children with difficult life circumstances. Develop-

ment and Psychopathology, 11, 254–268.


Howes, C., & Ritchie, S. (2002). A matter of trust. N.Y., N.Y.: Teachers College Press.

Howes, C. M., & Smith, E. (1995). Children and their child care teachers: Profiles of relationships. Social

Development, 4, 44–61.

Howes, C., & Stewart, P. (1987). Child’s play with adults, toys, and peers: An examination of family and child-

care influences. Developmental Psychology, 23, 423–430.

Howes, C., Whitebook, M., & Phillips, D. A. (1992). Teacher characteristics and effective teaching in child care.

Findings from the National Child Care Staff Study. Child and Youth Care Forum V, 21, 309–414.

Kontos, S., Howes, C., Shin, M., & Galinsky, E. (1995). Quality in family child care and relative care. New York:

Teachers College Press.

Marcovitch, S., Goldberg, S., Gold, A., Washington, J., Wasson, C., Krekewich, K., & Handley-Derry, M. (1997).

Determinants of behavioral problems in Romanian children adopted in Ontario. International Journal of

Behavioural Development, 20, 17–31.

Marcus, R. F. (1991). The attachments of children in foster care. Genetic, Social and General Psychology

Monograph, 17, 365–394.

Mitchell-Copeland, J., Denham, S., & DeMulder, E. (1997). Q-Sort assessment of child– teacher attachment

relationships and social competence in the preschool. Early Education and Development, 8, 27–39.

Pianta, R. C., Nimetz, S. L., & Bennett, E. (1997). Mother–child relationships; teacher–child relationships; and

adjustment in preschool and kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 263–280.

Raikes, H. (1993). Relationship duration in infant care: Time with a high ability teacher and infant– teacher

attachment. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8, 309–325.

Renken, B., Egeland, B., Marvinney, D., Mangelsdorf, S., & Sroufe, L. A. (1989). Early childhood antecedents of

aggression and passive-withdrawal in early elementary school. Journal of Personality, 57, 257–281.

Ritchie, S. (1995). Attachment relationships of substance-exposed children with their caregivers and their teach-

ers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.

Rutter, M. (1999). Clinical implications of attachment concepts: Retrospect and prospect. In L. Atkinson, & K. J.

Zucker (Eds.), Attachment and psychopathology (pp. 17–46). NY: Guilford.

Waters, E. (1990). Appendix A: The attachment q-set (version 3.0). Monographs of the Society for Research on

Child Development, 60, 234–246.

Whitebook, M., Howes, C., & Phillips, D. (1990). Taking on turnover. In house report for Center for the Childcare

Workforce, Washington, D.C.

Whitebook, M., Howes, C., Phillips, D., & Pemberton, C. (1989). Who cares? Child care teachers and the quality

of care in America. Young Children, 46 (4), 5–47.

Whitebook, M., Phillips, D., & Howes, C. (1993). Child Care Employee Project. The national child care staffing

study revisited: Four years in the life of center-based child care. Washington, DC: Center for the Early

Childhood Work Force.

Whitebook, M., Sakai, L., et al. (1997). NAEYC accreditation as a strategy for improving child care quality (p. 20).

Washington, DC: National Center for the Early Childhood Work Force.

program practices, caregiver stability, and child–caregiver relationships

Documents