li et al

Question 1

what is the aim?

Answer 1

looked at the timing of preschool care

Question 2

what were li et al’s hypotheses?

Answer 2

1) children with HQ in P1 only have positive outcomes after p2 if they have HQ care in p2
2) HQ in P1 and P2 would have a better outcome than HQ and LQ in P1 and P2
3) HQ and HQ in P1 and P2 would have a better outcome than any other combination

Question 3

what is the procedure?

Answer 3

• data used from the NICHD study of early childcare
• 1,364 families were used from 10 sites around USA
• childcare quality was assessed at 6,15,24,26 and 54 months consisting of 4x44 minute observations across 2 days
• an average score of 3.0 was the cut-off for HQ and LQ care - higher scores means caregivers were more sensitive to children’s behaviours

Question 4

what were the findings?

Answer 4

• cognitive, language and maths skills were highest among children who experienced HQ care in both P1 and P2
• skills were somewhat lower among children who experienced HQ care during only one of these periods
• skills were lowest among children who experienced LQ care during both periods

Question 5

what are the conclusions?

Answer 5

• there are no clear winners as some functions were better with later HQ whereas others are benefitted more from early HQ
• overall, results suggest that early and later HQ care are both important
• HQ does not inoculate children against poorer quality later experiences

Question 6

what is a strength?

Answer 6

they used a large/broad data sets which leads to less bias due to anomalies means the generalisability is good
- however, teenage mums and low birthwright babies were excluded from the NICHD studies
- P1 samples tended toward relatively economically disadvantaged

however, more white children than original study as they used all americans therefore there is reduced generalisability

Question 7

what is a weakness?

Answer 7

the type of childcare not accounted for in the analysis of this study such as informal (e.g. grandparents)
- it doesn’t focus on the quality of emotional care or the amount of time spent
- this reduces the internal validity due to the confounding variables

Question 8

what is the weakness of the short term?

Answer 8

no longitudinal study beyong 54 months - it only focuses on the short term
- the deficiencies due to quality of care may have been reduced over time when in school, with the worser performers catching up

therefore, there are limited conclusions

Question 9

how can it be applied?

Answer 9

the findings suggest HQ care at either P1 or P2 is advantageous to boosting subsequent school performance
- ideally HQ care during both periods
- however, as most synaptic formation happens before 3 yrs old, if one must choose between HQ care during P1 or P2, P1 would be preferable