Family Day Care Providers Research Articles

Child-centred educational practice in different early education settings: Associations with professionals’ attitudes, self-efficacy, and professional background

The present study investigated whether teacher beliefs (self-efficacy and attitudes) mediate the impact of professional background on child-centred educational practice. We specifically investigated whether teacher beliefs related to self (self-efficacy) are a stronger predictor of educational practice than teacher beliefs related to teaching approach (attitudes). A total of 265 professionals from different early education and care settings (i.e., centre-based daycare, family-based daycare, and educational playgroups) in Switzerland participated in the study. A self-report questionnaire was developed to assess professionals’ self-efficacy, attitudes and educational practice in terms of child-centredness. The results confirm the factorial validity of the questionnaire. Self-efficacy positively predicted educational practice, while professionals’ attitudes were not associated with educational practice. Further, the positive effect of domain-specific knowledge on educational practice was mediated by self-efficacy. Finally, family daycare providers reported lower self-efficacy and lower levels of child-centred educational practice than other professionals. The present study emphasises the role of professionals’ self-efficacy in the context of delivering high-quality childcare and child-centred education in early childhood. The results suggest that promoting knowledge of teaching approaches may be a promising way to promote early childhood educators’ child-centred educational practice through increasing their self-efficacy.

Child-feeding Practices and Child Overweight Perceptions of Family Day Care Providers Caring for Preschool-aged Children

Introduction The purpose of this study was to evaluate the attitudes, feeding practices, and child overweight perceptions of family day-care providers caring for preschool-aged children and to examine whether child feeding practices differ based on child weight perceptions. Method One hundred twenty-three family day-care providers participated in this cross-sectional exploratory study and completed a self-administered survey measuring feeding attitudes and practices from the Child Feeding Questionnaire, demographic information, and self-reported height and weight. Participants selected a cut point to identify childhood overweight using male and female child figure drawings. Results Participants reported a high level of responsibility in feeding and monitoring of children's food intake. Differences were found in child feeding practices between family day-care providers based on their child weight perceptions for girls. Providers who selected the smaller girl figures as the cut point for overweight were more concerned about the children becoming overweight and used more restriction in child feeding compared with the providers who selected the larger girl figures. Discussion Health professionals should continue working with this population to promote positive feeding environments.

Development of the child care worker job stress inventory

After a series of instrument development studies, a mail survey was conducted with 196 randomly selected family day care providers (FDCPs) and child care center workers (CCCWs) residing in the state of Maryland (response rates were 76.6% and 70.5%, respectively). Embedded in the instrument were three job stress scales, specific to child care workers, measuring job demands, job control, and job resources. Extensive psychometric testing of the three 17-item instruments demonstrated several areas of strength. The job demands scale, because of its breadth of stressors covered, fared slightly worse on indicators of reliability (alpha = 0.77; mean interitem correlation [MIC] = 0.17; item-to-total correlations [ITCs] = 0.14 to 0.49) than did job control (alpha = 0.88; MIC = 0.31; ITCs = 0.26 to 0.69) and job resources (alpha = 0.89; MIC = 0.35; ITCs = 0.32 to 0.70). Known groups validity was demonstrated through a conceptually meaningful pattern of differences between FDCPs and CCCWs. Construct validity for all three scales was demonstrated by a pattern of stronger correlations with conceptually similar versus dissimilar instruments. Average correlations with similar versus dissimilar instruments were: job demands, 0.54 versus 0.24; job control, 0.74 versus 0.30; and job resources, −0.53 versus 0.30. Similar to the reliability analysis, results of factor analysis were stronger for job control and job resources than for job demands.

The effects of a burn prevention program on child-care providers

Since fire and burns are the second leading cause of injury to young children up to age 4, fire and burn prevention education and training must reach the people who care for young children to be effective. Increasingly larger percentages of young children are cared for in out-of-home settings, including child-care centers and family child-care facilities. The majority of children, however, are still cared for by their parents or other relatives, for all or part of the day. Thus, there was a need for an injury prevention program for child-care providers in different settings. A group of experts in a variety of fields developed a burn prevention curriculum as part of a comprehensive injury prevention project. These experts represent a variety of related fields, including injury prevention, early childhood education, child-care administration, instructional design, and evaluation. Operators of child-care facilities, parents, and care providers were involved in the planning and implementation of a training workshop. The program was tested with 141 child-care providers at seven sites. Subjects included child-care center staff, family child-care operators, and parents of young children. Materials included an instructor manual, coursebook, video, and test booklet. Subjects' knowledge, attitudes, and practices intentions were tested before and after the training. Subjects also completed a program evaluation. Results indicated significant improvement in knowledge, attitudes, and practices intentions for the total group and for subjects at each site. Gains made by center staff and family day-care providers were significant on all three measures, as they were for parents on knowledge and practices. Measures of attitudes and injury prevention practices indicated a high level of acceptance of program goals. A large majority of the subjects said the program was useful and interesting. An analysis of the test results by objective indicated that subjects had improved their knowledge scores on each objective. They had the highest achievement on topics related to understanding characteristics of burns and understanding the hazards and prevention techniques related to smoke, matches, lighters, and hot surface burns. An important finding was that child-care providers in different environments can be instructed in burn prevention using the same program. Injuries are not accidents. If they were random, unpredictable acts of God, it would make little sense to talk about preventing them. But injuries can be scientifically understood and societally controlled by modifying physical agents, environments, and behaviors. Injury is not mysterious. It will take a concerted effort by a large and varied group of individuals in order for injury prevention to succeed.

Comprehensive Services in Child-Care Settings: Prevalence and Correlates

At the beginning of 1990, 80 000 day-care centers in the US were serving about 4 million preschool children.1 This represents threefold increase since 1976 to 1977 in the number of centers and a fourfold increase in enrollments. Approximately 118 000 regulated family day-care providers were serving about 700 000 children. There were between 550 000 and 1.1 million nonregulated family day-care homes that were serving an unknown number of children. The number of regulated family day-care homes and the number of children enrolled in those homes increased since the mid-1970s, though not as much as the number enrolled in centers. About 17% of the children enrolled in center-based programs and 5% of those enrolled in regulated family day-care homes came from families receiving public assistance. Low-income families are overrepresented in Head Start and other sponsored non-profit programs. The fact that increasing numbers of children are enrolled in early education and care programs presents an opportunity to serve the needs of disadvantaged children who may not necessarily receive nutritious meals, environmental stimulation, developmental screening, and adequate preventive health care at home. Programs such as Head Start, for example, are required to provide a comprehensive set of services in addition to a developmentally appropriate curriculum. In the first part of this paper we examine the general health and safety procedures followed by center staff and family day-care providers for sick children ill providers. The extent to which providers conform to health and safety provisions will be examined. For example, do providers maintain records, obtain medical releases, have the phone number of a physician, have an emergency medical plan, have a list of persons to whom the child may be released, and conduct fire drills?

Predictors of job satisfaction, job stress, and job commitment in family day care

Three hundred eighty family day-care providers responded to a questionnaire examining three aspects of family day-care provider's job attitudes (job stress, satisfaction, and commitment) as they relate to providers' personal characteristics, program characteristics, and child-rearing preferences. Results showed that personal characteristics predicted job stress and satisfaction whereas a combination of personal and program characteristics predicted job commitment. Perceived social support predicted all three aspects of a provider's job attitudes. Providers who perceived more social support were more likely to be satisfied with their work. They also perceived less job stress and were more committed to their jobs. Data are discussed in light of Jorde-Bloom's (1986) ecological framework.

An investigation of job stability and job satisfaction among family day care providers

In this research, the effects of perceived social support, job satisfaction, and the establishment of boundaries between a family day care (FDC) provider's nuclear family and her FDC system were studied in tandem with demographic factors to provide a possible explanation for the high turnover rate among FDC providers. Analysis of the data gathered from a mail survey of over 300 currently and formerly registered FDC providers in Delaware suggests that nonstable providers are more likely to have their own young children at home. Stable providers are more likely to report high levels of job satisfaction, to work longer hours, and to have previously held child-related jobs.

Mothering Others' Children: The Experiences of Family Day-Care Providers

Previous articleNext article No AccessMothering Others' Children: The Experiences of Family Day-Care ProvidersMargaret K. NelsonMargaret K. Nelson Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Signs Volume 15, Number 3Spring, 1990The Ideology of Mothering: Disruption and Reproduction of Patriarchy Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/494611 Views: 11Total views on this site Citations: 23Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1990 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Alison Hooper “I’m a Teacher, Unofficially”: How Home-Based Providers Perceive and Navigate Their Roles, Journal of Research in Childhood Education 36 (Nov 2019): 1–15.https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2019.1676847Boitumelo Seepamore Chapter 9 Between and Betwixt – Positioning Nannies as Mothers: Perspectives from Durban, South Africa, (Sep 2018): 141–155.https://doi.org/10.1108/S1529-212620180000025009İdil S. Soyseçkin Ceylan In the Middle of a Family Story, SAGE Open 6, no.11 (Jan 2016): 215824401562669.https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015626696 References, (Sep 2013): 243–291.https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118602386.refsKate Boyer, Suzanne Reimer, Lauren Irvine The nursery workspace, emotional labour and contested understandings of commoditised childcare in the contemporary UK1, Social & Cultural Geography 14, no.55 (Aug 2013): 517–540.https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2012.710913Raymond T. Lee, Céleste M. Brotheridge Words from the heart speak to the heart, Career Development International 16, no.44 (Aug 2011): 401–420.https://doi.org/10.1108/13620431111158805Patrice DiQuinzio Reconceiving Pregnancy and Childcare: Ethics, Experience, and Reproductive Labor by Amy Mullin, Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy 22, no.33 (Jul 2007): 204–209.https://doi.org/10.2979/HYP.2007.22.3.204Laura Mellini, Carrie Yodanis, Alberto Godenzi ‘ON PAR’? THE ROLE OF THE AU PAIR IN SWITZERLAND AND FRANCE, European Societies 9, no.11 (Feb 2007): 45–64.https://doi.org/10.1080/14616690601079432Mara Buchbinder, Jeffrey Longhofer, Thomas Barrett, Peter Lawson, Jerry Floersch ethnographic approaches to child care research, Journal of Early Childhood Research 4, no.11 (Jul 2016): 45–63.https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X06059789Martha J. Buell, Ilka Pfister, Michael Gamel-McCormick Caring for the caregiver: Early Head Start/family child care partnerships, Infant Mental Health Journal 23, no.1-21-2 (Feb 2002): 213–230.https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.10013Sara Gable, Kelly Cole Parents' Child Care Arrangements and their Ecological Correlates, Early Education & Development 11, no.55 (Oct 2000): 549–572.https://doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed1105_2Sue Owen Assessing Quality in Childminding, Children & Society 14, no.22 (Apr 2000): 147–153.https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0860(200004)14:2&lt;147::AID-CHI611&gt;3.0.CO;2-ISue Owen Assessing Quality in Childminding, Children <html_ent glyph="@amp;" ascii="&"/> Society 14, no.22 (Apr 2000): 147–153.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1099-0860.2000.tb00162.xKathy R. Thornburg, Kimberly Townley, Dwayne Crompton Competence and Burnout in Family Child Care Providers, Early Child Development and Care 141, no.11 (Jan 1998): 61–71.https://doi.org/10.1080/0300443981410105Ann M. Berghout Austin, Shelley L. Knudsen Lindauer, Ariel Rodriguez, Maria L. Norton, Farol A. Groutage Nelson Conditions of Caregiving, Provider Nurturance and Quality Care, Early Child Development and Care 135, no.11 (Jan 1997): 21–33.https://doi.org/10.1080/0300443971350103Betsy Squibb, Joel King Play in home spaces in family child care, Child & Youth Care Forum 25, no.33 (Jun 1996): 195–205.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02589310Deborah Rutman Caregiving as Women's Work: Women's Experiences of Powerfulness and Powerlessness as Caregivers, Qualitative Health Research 6, no.11 (Jul 2016): 90–111.https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239600600106Deborah J. Cassidy, Rosemarie Vardell, Martha J. Buell If you don't know where you are, how can you get where you're going?: A contextual examination of professional development in the early childhood field, Child & Youth Care Forum 24, no.33 (Jun 1995): 151–168.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02128541Sherry Saggers, Jan Grant, Maggie Woodhead, Vicki Banham The Professionalisation of Mothering: Family Day Care, The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology 30, no.33 (Sep 2016): 273–287.https://doi.org/10.1177/144078339403000303Susan Kontos, Joan Riessen Predictors of job satisfaction, job stress, and job commitment in family day care, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 14, no.33 (Jul 1993): 427–441.https://doi.org/10.1016/0193-3973(93)90018-QVirginia K. Molgaard Caregivers' perceptions of the relationship between the family day care business and their own families, Child & Youth Care Forum 22, no.11 (Feb 1993): 55–71.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00868991Alice M. Atkinson Evaluation of career and family roles by family day care providers, mothers at home, and employed mothers, Early Childhood Research Quarterly 8, no.44 (Jan 1993): 445–456.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(05)80079-1Sherry Boland Ahrentzen Home as a Workplace in the Lives of Women, (Jan 1992): 113–138.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-8753-4_6

Family Environment and Family Day Care

Forty-four family day-care providers participated in a study of the relationships between the of the day-care program, the level of cognitive stimulation in the caregivers' home, and the social-emotional climate of the caregiver's own family life. Data were collected using Caldwell and Bradley's (1979) Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME) Scale; Moos's (1986) Family Environment Scale (FES); and Harms, Clifford, and Padan-Belkin's (1983) Day Care Home Environment Rating Scale (DCHERS). HOME and DCHERS scores were highly correlated and yielded a total quality score in subsequent factor analyses. HOME, DCHERS, and the Quality scores all correlated highly with FES subscales on Organization, Independence, Active-Recreational, and Intellectual-Cultural orientations. The implications of these findings for day-care providers, trainers, and consultants to caregivers and parents are discussed. Family day care is the most widely used and least researched form of child care in North America. Within this narrow research base, studies have focused on either the programmatic of the day-care experience, or selected aspects of the family day-care provider's own family life. There have been few attempts, however, to systematically examine the relationship between the program and the family life of the provider. In this article a research study is reported which examined (a) the level of cognitive stimulation available to children in the family day-care home, (b) aspects of the social and emotional dynamics of the caregiver's own family, and (c) the of the day-care program. The article discusses the implications of these findings for family day-care providers; professionals involved in training, licensing, and consulting with family day-care providers; and parents in their search for and selection of family day-care homes for their children. As an ecological niche, family day care occupies a unique and ambiguous position. As a home environment it represents a setting reflecting the needs and uses of family life. The members of the family are involved in a system of relationships with one another; the system itself must accommodate the demands of time, logistics, work, play, study, and all of the other features and pressures of family life. In addition, the home is expected to meet the needs of up to six unrelated children who are cared for, in the vast majority of cases, by the mother in the family. The day-care function places additional demands upon the family: Space must be organized in specific ways, certain age-appropriate materials must be present, the day-care provider's time must be organized around the, at times, competing demands of family life and day care. Until now, quality in family day care has almost always been defined in the literature as referring to the quality of the day-care program itself, with little reference to the variability and vagaries of family life within which the day-care function is situated. A major question addressed in this study, then, is how to reconceptualize in family day care to include the relationships between the day-care program and the cognitive and social dimensions of family life. There is far more information in the research literature on the effects of the cognitive and social environments of children's own-home environments than on the cognitive and social environments of family day-care environments. Level of cognitive stimulation is generally defined as both the availability of certain materials in the home environment, such as children's books, toys, and puzzles, and the frequency of certain kinds of activities and interactions, such as adult-child

Negotiating Care: Relationships between Family Daycare Providers and Mothers

Negotiating Care: Relationships between Family Daycare Providers and Mothers

Computerized feedback and recipes for family day-care providers

Computerized feedback and recipes for family day-care providers