The Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS) and its revised version (ECERS-R) were designed as global measures of quality that assess structural and process aspects of Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) programs. Despite frequent use of the ECERS/ECERS-R in research and applied settings, associations between it and child outcomes have not been systematically reviewed. The objective of this research was to evaluate the association between the ECERS/ECERS-R and children’s wellbeing. Searches of Medline, PsycINFO, ERIC, websites of large datasets and reference sections of all retrieved articles were completed up to July 3, 2015. Eligible studies provided a statistical link between the ECERS/ECERS-R and child outcomes for preschool-aged children in ECEC programs. Of the 823 studies selected for full review, 73 were included in the systematic review and 16 were meta-analyzed. The combined sample across all eligible studies consisted of 33, 318 preschool-aged children. Qualitative systematic review results revealed that ECERS/ECERS-R total scores were more generally associated with positive outcomes than subscales or factors. Seventeen separate meta-analyses were conducted to assess the strength of association between the ECERS/ECERS-R and measures that assessed children’s language, math and social-emotional outcomes. Meta-analyses revealed a small number of weak effects (in the expected direction) between the ECERS/ECERS-R total score and children’s language and positive behavior outcomes. The Language-Reasoning subscale was weakly related to a language outcome. The enormous heterogeneity in how studies operationalized the ECERS/ECERS-R, the outcomes measured and statistics reported limited our ability to meta-analyze many studies. Greater consistency in study methodology is needed in this area of research. Despite these methodological challenges, the ECERS/ECERS-R does appear to capture aspects of quality that are important for children’s wellbeing; however, the strength of association is weak.
Child-staff ratios are a key quality indicator in early childhood education and care (ECEC) programs. Better ratios are believed to improve child outcomes by increasing opportunities for individual interactions and educational instruction from staff. The purpose of this systematic review, and where possible, meta-analysis, was to evaluate the association between child-staff ratios in preschool ECEC programs and children’s outcomes. Searches of Medline, PsycINFO, ERIC, websites of large datasets and reference sections of all retrieved articles were conducted up to July 3, 2015. Cross-sectional or longitudinal studies that evaluated the relationship between child-staff ratios in ECEC classrooms serving preschool aged children and child outcomes were independently identified by two reviewers. Data were independently extracted from included studies by two raters and differences between raters were resolved by consensus. Searches revealed 29 eligible studies (31 samples). Child-staff ratios ranged from 5 to 14.5 preschool-aged children per adult with a mean of 8.65. All 29 studies were included in the systematic review. However, the only meta-analysis that could be conducted was based on three studies that explored associations between ratios and children’s receptive language. Results of this meta-analysis were not significant. Results of the qualitative systematic review revealed few significant relationships between child-staff ratios and child outcomes construed broadly. Thus, the available literature reveal few, if any, relationships between child-staff ratios in preschool ECEC programs and children’s developmental outcomes. Substantial heterogeneity in the assessment of ratios, outcomes measured, and statistics used to capture associations limited quantitative synthesis. Other methodological limitations of the research integrated in this synthesis are discussed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.