Description:
The 26-item Caregiver Interaction Scale assesses the quality
and content of the teacher’s interactions with children.
The scale was designed to provide information on various socialization
practices that have been identified in research on parenting.
The scale can be used without modification in both center
and home-based settings. The items measure the emotional tone,
discipline style, and responsiveness of the caregiver in the
classroom. The items are usually organized into the following
four sub-scales: (1) positive interaction (warm, enthusiastic,
and developmentally appropriate behavior), (2) punitiveness
(hostility, harshness, and use of threat), (3) detachment
(uninvolvement and disinterest), and (4) permissiveness.
Uses of Information: The scale
can be used to assess caregiver’s interactions with
children and their emotional tone and approach to engaging
and disciplining children.
Reliability: (1) Internal consistency:
Layzer et al. obtained Cronbach alphas of .91 for warmth/responsiveness
(positive interaction) and .90 for harshness (punitiveness),
while Resnick and Zill obtained alphas for the total scale
of .98 for lead teachers and .93 for assistant teachers. Jaeger
and Funk reported coefficients of .81 and higher for the sensitivity
(positive interaction), punitiveness, and detachment subscales.
(2) Inter-rater reliability: Jaeger and Funk reported inter-rater
reliability coefficients ranging from .75 to .97 between a
certified observer and trainees.
Validity: (1) Concurrent validity:
Layzer et al. reported correlation coefficients of .43 to
.67 between the Arnett and the Early Childhood Environment
Rating Scale (ECERS), Assessment Profile for Early Childhood
Programs, and the Description of Preschool Practices. The
authors did not expect the coefficients to be large because
the Arnett scale focused more narrowly on an aspect of teacher
behavior not directly measured by the other three observation
instruments. However, Phillipsen et al. reported a correlation
of .76 between the Arnett and the ECERS.
Method of Scoring: The observer
rates the extent to which the caregiver exhibits the behavior
described in the item on a 4-point scale, ranging from not
at all (1) to very much (4). Averages can be calculated for
each subscale.
Interpretability: Depending
on the program’s needs, individual caregiver scores
can be compared to the scores of other caregivers or the mean
scores of a group of caregivers compared against the means
of other groups of caregivers. Statistical tests have been
frequently utilized to assess the differences between scores.
Training Support: None described.
Adaptations/Special Instructions for
Individuals with Disabilities: None described.
Report Preparation Support:
None described.
References:
Arnett, Jeffery. “Caregivers in Day-Care Centers: Does
Training Matter?” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology.
Vol. 10, 1989, pp. 541-552.
Jaeger, Elizabeth, and Suzanne Funk. The Philadelphia Child
Care Quality Study: An Examination of Quality in Selected
Early Education and Care Settings. Philadelphia: Saint Joseph’s
University, October 2001.
Layzer, Jean I., Barbara D. Goodson, and Marc Moss. Observational
Study of Early Childhood Programs, Final Report, Volume I:
Life in Preschool. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates, Inc., 1993.
Phillipsen, Leslie, Debby Cryer, and Carollee Howes. “Classroom
Process and Classroom Structure.” In Cost, Quality,
and Child Outcomes in Child Care Centers, edited by Suzanne
W. Helburn. Denver: Department of Economics, Center for Research
in Economics and Social Policy, University of Colorado at
Denver, 1995, pp. 125-158.
Resnick, Gary, and Nicholas Zill. Is Head Start Providing
High-Quality Education Services? “Unpacking” Classroom
Processes. Albuquerque, NM: Biennial Meeting of the Society
for Research in Child Development, April 15-18, 1999.
U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education
Statistics. Measuring the Quality of Program Environments
in Head Start and Other Early Childhood Programs: A Review
and Recommendations for Future Research, Working Paper No.
97-36, by John M. Love, Alicia Meckstroth, and Susan Sprachman.
Jerry West, Project Officer. Washington, DC: 1997. |
