Quality Interventions for Early Care and Education (QUINCE) -- Partners for Inclusion, 2004-2007 [California, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Carolina] (ICPSR 28124)
Version Date: Feb 1, 2017 View help for published
Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s)
Donna Bryant, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute;
Pat Wesley, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute;
Margaret Burchinal, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute;
Sue Hegland, Iowa State University;
Kere Hughes, Iowa State University;
Kathryn Tout, Child Trends;
Marty Zaslow, Child Trends;
Helen Raikes, University of Nebraska-Lincoln;
Julia Torquati, University of Nebraska-Lincoln;
Amy Susman-Stillman, University of Minnesota;
Carollee Howes, University of California-Los Angeles;
Hyun-Joo Jeon, University of California-Los Angeles
https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR28124.v2
Version V2
Alternate Title View help for Alternate Title
Summary View help for Summary
The Quality Interventions for Early Care and Education Partnership for Inclusion (QUINCE-PFI) study is one half of a multistate study of two assessment based, individualized on-site consultation models. The Partnerships for Inclusion (PFI) consultation model, was implemented in California, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and North Carolina and included consultations of child care provider training for providers and teachers in both centers and homes, with a special emphasis on providers in family child care homes, including license-exempt care. The goal of this research was to determine the conditions under which a very specific assessment based, on-site consultation model of child care provider training enhances the quality of the family home or child care classroom and results in positive child change.
The PFI consists of two main components, the assessment tools used to index quality -- The Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale-Revised, (ITERS), 2003, The Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale--Revised, (ECERS ), 1998, and Family Day Care Rating Scale (FDCRS), 1989, measures developed by Harms, Clifford and Cryer, and the theory-based, collaborative, problem-solving model of consultation developed by Pat Wesley. The model builds on the literature that suggests greater change is possible when individuals are involved in assessing their own needs, receive individualized support over an extended period of time, and have opportunities to apply new knowledge and skills in their own work setting.
The public release of the data files includes only datasets containing summary variables from direct interviews and scale scores. The restricted release contains all data available for release including all direct interview variables, roster information and demographic variables.
Citation View help for Citation
Export Citation:
Funding View help for Funding
Subject Terms View help for Subject Terms
Geographic Coverage View help for Geographic Coverage
Restrictions View help for Restrictions
This data collection may not be used for any purpose other than statistical reporting and analysis. Use of these data to learn the identity of any person or establishment is prohibited. To protect respondent privacy, portions of the data are restricted from general dissemination. Access to parts of this study requires a signed user agreement. To obtain the file(s), researchers must agree to the terms and conditions of the Restricted Data Use Agreement, found via ICPSR's online Restricted Data Contracting System, by clicking the "apply online for access to the data" link above.
Distributor(s) View help for Distributor(s)
Time Period(s) View help for Time Period(s)
Date of Collection View help for Date of Collection
Data Collection Notes View help for Data Collection Notes
The Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute (FPG) at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill acted as the coordinating center for the five states evaluating the PFI model. They were responsible for one of the study sites. The other four study sites and their administrative homes were California (University of California-Los Angeles), Iowa (Iowa State University), Nebraska (University of Nebraska-Lincoln) and Minnesota (Child Trends, Inc. and University of Minnesota). Each state partnered with two-five state or community agencies that currently provide training to family and/or center-based child care providers. The agencies committed to allowing their consultant staff to participate in the proposed evaluation, including agreement to random assignment of participating consultants to treatment (PFI) or control conditions.
To protect respondent confidentiality, some verbatim response and full text variables have been blanked. All exact dates have been recoded to the 15th of the month.
Study Purpose View help for Study Purpose
The purpose of the QUINCE study was to test two primary focuses, one concerning environmental quality as an outcome and one concerning children's outcomes across different levels of quality. The study aimed to discover whether child care providers (both teachers and FCC home providers) who received services from a consultant trained to implement the PFI consultation model would: (1) provide higher quality child care than those providers who did not receive services from a PFI-trained consultant, (2) provide higher quality care than they provided before receiving the services, and (3) continue to provide higher quality care six months after the PFI-trained consultant services ended.
The study also examined if (4) children who were cared for by providers who received services from a PFI-trained consultant would have better outcomes than children who were cared for by child care providers who did not receive services from a PFI-trained consultant, and if (5) outcomes for children in higher quality care, regardless of the type of intervention their provider received, would be higher than those in lower quality care.
Three secondary focuses concerned possible moderators of the effectiveness of the intervention were also examined: provider education, experience, and level of professional motivation. The study looked at whether (6) the providers' education could moderate the effects of the intervention, (7) if experience could moderate the effects of the intervention such that new providers made greater gains or experienced providers understood more quickly how to integrate new knowledge into their teaching behavior, and (8) if teachers and FCC providers with higher levels of professional motivation would gain more from the intervention.
Two secondary focuses concerned whether selected caregiver and treatment factors would mediate any association between treatment and quality: (9) If the interventions received by teachers and FCC providers would influence their childrearing attitudes and contribute to the changes observed in the quality of their classrooms or FCC homes, and (10) whether teachers and FCC providers who participated in a greater number of on-site consultant visits would make greater gains in child care quality than those who participated very little.
Finally, the conditions under which the PFI model would work were analyzed: (11) Would providers served by consultants who more closely adhere to the procedures of the PFI model show greater benefits of participation in the intervention, and (12) would the PFI model be an effective for improving the quality of child care in both child care centers and family child care homes (regulated and unregulated); with providers from diverse cultural backgrounds; and in settings that serve a range of children with special needs, diverse language backgrounds, or from low-income families.
In short, the study examined if PFI was a child care provider training model that is effective in a broad range of circumstances.
Study Design View help for Study Design
The study design included randomization at two levels, consultants and child care providers (teachers and FCC providers). Consultants who agreed to participate in the study were randomly assigned to either a PFI Treatment group who implemented the PFI model of consultation or a control group who continued to offer quality enhancement activities as typically provided by their agencies. In other words, the controls were conducting "business as usual." The control group was not a no-treatment group. About six months after random assignment of consultants, during which time the PFI consultants were trained on the model for one week of group training in North Carolina and then implemented the model with a pilot site, random assignment of classroom teachers and family child care providers took place in one of two ways. If an agency had both PFI and control consultants, providers were randomly assigned to PFI or control conditions.
If an agency had only one consultant, whether PFI or control, or assigned providers to consultants within geographic areas where only a PFI or a control consultant was available, consultants received their study providers via random selection. Specifically, providers were randomly selected from lists of those seeking quality enhancement services from the participating agency and were asked to participate in the study. Thus, about 50 percent of study providers were randomly assigned to a consultant and about 50 percent were randomly selected to be in the study.
Sample View help for Sample
Recruitment of children into the study occurred in the school year just following providers' participation in the PFI or control intervention. The providers helped the researchers recruit children into the study by giving to the parents of eligible children the study description, consent forms and contacts for the research team in each state.
Two cohorts of consultants were recruited and randomized, one in 2004 and one in 2005. At the end of their first year, control consultants in the first cohort were offered the opportunity to continue in the study, receive PFI training, and serve providers in the next year using the PFI model. Because the providers they served were randomly assigned to receive PFI or control consultation, all providers of the crossover consultants are included in the intent-to-treat outcomes analyses and the fidelity analyses. However, in descriptive analyses, these "crossover" consultants are always considered controls.
Altogether, 101 consultants (46 PFI treatment and 55 control), 108 child care teachers (55 PFI, 53 control) and 263 family child care providers (127 PFI, 136 control) agreed to be in the study. A total of 710 children were involved (352 PFI, 358 control).
Universe View help for Universe
Child care providers who requested quality improvement assistance from their local child care resource and referral agency.
Unit(s) of Observation View help for Unit(s) of Observation
Data Type(s) View help for Data Type(s)
Mode of Data Collection View help for Mode of Data Collection
Response Rates View help for Response Rates
Of the 76 consultants who were assigned sites, 64 (84.2 percent) completed their planned intervention work with those sites (either PFI or control).
Presence of Common Scales View help for Presence of Common Scales
- Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale-Revised, (ITERS), 2003
- The Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale--Revised, (ECERS), 1998
- Family Day Care Rating Scale (FDCRS)
Original Release Date View help for Original Release Date
2010-09-28
Version History View help for Version History
- Bryant, Donna, Pat Wesley, Margaret Burchinal, Sue Hegland, Kere Hughes, Kathryn Tout, Marty Zaslow, Helen Raikes, Julia Torquati, Amy Susman-Stillman, Carollee Howes, and Hyun-Joo Jeon. Quality Interventions for Early Care and Education (QUINCE) -- Partners for Inclusion, 2004-2007 [California, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Carolina]. ICPSR28124-v2. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2016-12-21. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR28124.v2
2017-02-01 Value labels have been corrected for variable DR_E15_R in DS26: Center Director Interview '02. Several restricted data files have been updated to display integer values previously truncated by the system.
2016-12-21 The datasets: Bracken '03, CIS '01, Child Level Scores '03 (English), Child Level Scores '03 (Spanish), Center Teacher Interview '03, ECERSR '02, FDCRS '02, Family Provider Interview '04, and Target Child Provider Interview '03, have been updated to display values previously truncated by the system.
2010-09-28 ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:
- Created variable labels and/or value labels.
- Created online analysis version with question text.
Notes
The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public. Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.
ICPSR usually offers files in multiple formats for researchers to be able to access data and documentation in formats that work well within their needs. If you have questions about the accessibility of materials distributed by ICPSR or require further assistance, please visit ICPSR’s Accessibility Center.
One or more files in this data collection have special restrictions. Restricted data files are not available for direct download from the website; click on the Restricted Data button to learn more.