Center-Based Child Extended Care: Implications for Young Children’s Development in a Five-Year Follow-Up

doi:10.4236/sm.2012.24056

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Sociology Mind

2012. Vol.2, No.4, 435-440

Published Online October 2012 in SciRes (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/sm) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/sm.2012.24056

Center-Based Child Extended Care: Implications for Young

Children’s Development in a Five-Year Follow-Up

Tokie Anme1, Emiko Tanaka1, Ryoji Shinohara1, Yuka Sugisawa1,

Taeko Watanabe1, Etsuko Tomisaki1, Uma A. Segal2

1University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan

2University of Missouri, St. Louis, USA

Email: [email protected]

Received March 30th, 2012; revised May 17th, 2012; accepted May 28th, 2012

Effects of early extended child care on children’s functioning from age one year through the end of year

six were examined in the Japan Child Care Cohort Study. This longitudinal project sought to assess the

developmental and adaptation effects on children. Parents completed a survey on the childrearing envi-

ronment at home, their feelings of self-efficacy, and the available support for childcare. Childcare profes-

sionals evaluated the development of children. The results, using a panel cohort method, indicated that

although parenting was a stronger and more consistent predictor of children’s development than was the

early extended child-care experience, support from the spouse predicted higher vocabulary development.

Keywords: Extended Child Care; Child Development; Child Rearing Environment; Self-Efficacy

Introduction

Large numbers of children in Japan experience routine non-

maternal child care during their infant, toddler, and preschool

years. In 2011, 2.1 million (33.1%) Japanese children, under the

age of five years, were in child care (Ministry of Health, La-

bour and Welfare, 2011). The increased number of working

mothers has led to the dramatic expansion of center-based child

care. As nonmaternal child care has become more common,

researchers and policy makers have become increasingly con-

cerned about its effects on children’s development (Belsky,

1988, 2001; Clarke-Stewart, 1989; Greenspan, 2003). High-

quality center-based extended care is essential for children

whose parents are employed in long hours that also include the

evening and night hours.

Some researchers have highlighted potentially beneficial

consequences of early child care, especially of high-quality care,

on social functioning (Peisner-Feinberg, 1997; Vandell, 1988),

as well as on cognitive-linguistic development or academic

achievement (Broberg, 1997; Burchinal, 2000). Others have

mentioned potentially adverse consequences, especially of long

hours of care initiated early in life, on socioemotional func-

tioning, including the emergence of behavior problems (Belsky,

2001; Vandell, 1990). Moreover, some have contended that

child-care “effects,” whether beneficial or detrimental, do not

endure beyond the preschool or early elementary school years

(Blau, 1999; Colwell, 2001; Deater-Deckard, 1996; Egeland,

1995), whereas others have claimed that child-care “effects” are

more long lasting (Belsky, 1988; Vandell, 1990) or endure for

some time, at least in the case of low-income children in high-

quality care (Campbell, 2001).

While studies of nonmaternal care are prevalent, there is less

empirical information regarding the effects of placing children

in nonmaternal care for long periods of time (11 + hours). Few

studies have assessed the influence of center-based extended

care on child development (Anme, 2010). Therefore, in the

present work, we used panel cohort data from the Japan Child

Care Cohort to ascertain whether the amount of time and child

rearing environment affected children’s social competence or

vocabulary/motor/intelligence development after five years.

Methods

Setting an d S am pl e

All authorized child-day-care centers across Japan partici-

pated in the study. Centers unauthorized by the government

were excluded as they often do not cooperate with external

investigators. The subjects were all parents and service provid-

ers in the authorized facilities. Parents who had a one-year-old

child were surveyed regarding the home environment, and ser-

vice providers evaluated the development of each child in the

facility. The valid response rate was 71.5% (1242) both for

parents and service providers. Children with diagnosed disabili-

ties and health problems were excluded from the study as these

characteristics were expected to confound results. Of the 1242

children sampled at age one, 888 were sampled again at age

five years, with both parents and service-providers evaluating

the children. Table 1 provides the gender and age composition

of the child population that was evaluated and the family struc-

ture, siblings, economic status, type of child care, and occupa-

tions of the parents. The distribution of boys, 449 (50.6%), and

girls, 439 (49.4%), was fairly even.

Overview of Measures

Indicators of child-care quantity, quality, stability, and type

(normal vs long) along with measures of family background,

mothering, child characteristics and child adaptation to cen-

ter-based care were obtained from questionnaires completed by

the parents responsible for the children in the first six years of

their lives (Appendix 1). Parents completed Japanese versions

of questionnaires on the child-rearing environment (Caldwell,

T. ANME ET AL.

Table 1.

Demographic background of subjects.

Variable n %

Gender

Male 449 50.6

Female 439 49.4

Family structure

Nuclear family

Parents 666 90.1

Mother only 70 9.5

Father only 3 0.4

Extended family

Parents + grandparents 83 55.7

Mother + grandparents 21 14.1

Others 45 30.2

Siblings

None 482 54.3

One or more 406 45.7

Economic status

Below tax payment minimum 432 48.6

Others 55 6.2

N.A. 398 44.8

Length of child care

<11 h 563 63.4

11 + h 325 36.6

Total 888 100.0

1984) and on self-efficacy and support for childcare (Anme,

1990, 1995).

Childcare professionals, the service providers, evaluated

children’s social competence, communication, and develop-

ment in vocabulary/motor/intelligence for each child using

developmental scales standardized in Japan (Tumori, 1974). All

childcare professionals, already qualified in child development,

were provided with a minimum of eight hours of training to

translate children’s development into the measures indicated on

the child development scale.

The two categories of childcare were identified by the time at

which children left the center-based care: “normal care” (use of

center-based care for less than 11 hours), and “long care” (use

of center-based care for 11 or more hours). Of the subjects, 563

(63.4%) were enrolled in “normal care” and 325 (36.6%) in

“long care.”

Family and child variables included the child’s gender and

age, child development, parent behavior, parent efficacy for

care, and the existence of childcare support. Professional care-

givers, who participated in a six-hour training session on how

to use the developmental scale , measured child development

along six variables (gross and fine motor skills, social compe-

tence, communication, vocabulary, and intelligence develop-

ment) that were categorized into 2-point items [(normal, de-

layed) Tumori, 1974] (See Table 2). These caregivers/service

providers in the center-based childcare facilities also evaluated

the health and disabilities of the children.

Parent behavior was assessed based on dichotomous re-

sponses (yes/no) to thirteen activities in the home environment.

For analysis, the 25th percentile point was used as a cut-off for

non-nominal items. Parents provided self reports on a five-point

scale, (where 1 = always, 2 = often, 3 = sometimes, 4 = rarely,

5 = never) to indicate their feelings of efficacy for care (Anme,

1998) and which reflected the parent’s affective state. Emotions

evaluated were depression, anxiety, instability, stress, and ex-

haustion.

Results

The difference between the two types of care was examined

by using items of child development, positive qualities of par-

ents’ behavior, parent efficacy for care, and existence of sup-

port for care. The Statistical Analysis System (SAS) statistical

package was used for analysis. Multiple regression analysis was

used to predict child development (delayed or normal) and

child adaptation to center-based care (adapted or not) after five

years using independent variables such as types of care (“night

care” or else), positive qualities of parents' behavior (measured

using 13 items), parent efficacy for care, and existence of sup-

port for care. Odds ratio was calculated to clarify the magnitude

of effects. Odds ratio was calculated by multiple logistic analy-

sis to estimate the strength of relations. All results that were

assessed significant at the p < .01 or p < .05 level, however, the

variable “types of care” was not selected as a related variable in

all analyses.

Table 2 reports the number of risks related to child devel-

opment.

As indicated in Table 3, a chi-square test was applied to the

data to assess child development five years later. Baseline fine

motor skills, social competence and communication develop-

ment was significantly related to intelligence development five

years later. Support from spouse was significantly related to

vocabulary and intelligence development five years later; ap-

propriate response to mistakes was related to vocabulary de-

velopment, support for child care was correlated with intelli-

gence development, and communication with parents was asso-

ciated with fine motor development.

Table 2.

Percentage of group at risk.

Variables Risk Non-risk

n % n %

Gross motor skills 17 1.9 871 98.1

Fine motor skills 16 1.8 872 98.2

Social competence 12 1.4 876 98.6

Communication skills 18 2.0 870 98.0

Vocabulary development24 2.7 864 97.3

Intelligence development18 2.0 870 98.0

436

T. ANME ET AL.

Table 3.

Significant correlations between baseline variables and development after 5 years.

Risk Non-risk χ2

Independent variable Dependent variable

Na n

b %

c N n %

Gender Fine motor 439 13 2.9 449 3 0.7

Fine motor (baseline) Intelligence development46 4 9.0 842 14 1.7 *

Social competence (baseline) Intelligence development58 5 8.6 830 13 1.6 *

Communication (baseline) Intelligence development29 3 10.3 859 15 1.8 *

Support from spouse (baseline) Vocabulary development59 4 6.8 829 24 2.4 *

Intelligence development59 4 6.8 829 14 1.7 *

Appropriate response to mistakes (baseline) Vocabulary development54 4 7.4 834 20 2.4 *

Support for child care (baseline) Intelligence development201 8 4.0 687 10 1.5 *

Communication with parents (baseline) Fine motor 39 3 7.7 849 13 1.5 *

Note: *0.01 ≤ p < 0.05, aNumber of children “at risk” or “not at risk” at baseline for the independent measures; bNumber of children in each category (“at risk”

or “not at risk”) identified as being developmentally delayed on the dependent measure. cPercentage of children (n/N × 100).

Table 4 shows the results of multiple regression analysis.

Support from the spouse was significantly related to vocabulary

development five years later (odds ratio 4.07), appropriate re-

sponse to mistakes was related to vocabulary development

(odds ratio 4.35), and going to the park was related to fine mo-

tor development (odds ratio 2.90).

Discussion

The aims of this study were to assess whether children’s ex-

periences in early child care and parenting facilitated their later

social and academic development. This paper represents the

latest installment in the ongoing study of relations between

experiences in child care in the first year of life and child de-

velopment using data gathered in the Japan Child Care Cohort.

Two issues were addressed in this paper: 1) whether associa-

tions linking child functioning with child-care quantity contin-

ued to be evident after five years, and 2) whether associations

between parenting at one-year-old and child development after

five years continued over time. We found evidence of relations

between parenting and child development, as well as evidence

that parenting quality proved to be a far stronger and more con-

sistent predictor of child development than was length of

child-care experiences. Associations linking child-care experi-

ence with child development after five years were smaller in

size and less pervasive than those associated with parenting.

This is not surprising because such results are consistent with

earlier study findings (Bacharach, 2003; Borge, 2004).

Some studies indicated that children who were placed in

nonmaternal care in the first year of life were more advantaged

relative to those who initiated into nonmaternal care in the sec-

ond or third year (Jaffee, 2011). These findings that differed

from those of the current study suggest that observed associa-

tions between the timing of entry into nonmaternal care and

children’s behavior and academic abilities can be confounded

by additional family characteristics that could influence child-

care choices and children’s outcomes.

It is possible that evidence for main effects of the timing of

placement in nonmaternal care is weak and inconsistent be-

cause these effects are qualified by interactions with child

characteristics or family circumstances. Borge (2004) have

shown that family characteristics such as maternal education,

SES, and composite measures of family risk moderate the effect

of nonmaternal care on children’s aggression, emotional prob-

lems, and language ability. They show that nonmaternal care is

a protective factor for children from socially disadvantaged

families but is not associated with cognitive or behavioral out-

comes for children from socially advantaged families. To the

extent that these findings can be replicated, they may lend sup-

port to efforts to subsidize high quality child care for low in-

come families and to expand programs like Early Head Start.

While interesting and raising questions about earlier studies,

these conclusions are preliminary and need to be tested more

rigorously before they can advance theory and inform policy.

The study may be benefit from replication. In addition, contin-

ued monitoring of the current sample may provide further in-

sight into the longer-term effects as children move through the

education system. Future studies may seek to assess not only

child development but correlations between the independent

variables and child behavior and adaptation to school and other

environments.

Examination of social and intelligence functioning in pre-

school represents an important next step in understanding the

relations between child care and developmental outcomes. Fu-

ture research will need to focus on classroom and playground

dynamics instead of focusing solely on individual child out-

comes.

Acknowledgements

We express our deepest gratitude to Japan Night Child Care

Alliance, President Amahisa, Vice-President Edamoto, all the

participants and staffs.

This research was supported by the Grants-in-Aid for Scien-

T. ANME ET AL.

Table 4.

Correlation with risk factors following four year in care (multiple regression analysis includes all items—see below).

Gross motor Fine motor Vocabulary development

Variables Category Odds ratio p 95% range Odds ratiop 95% range Odds ratio p 95% range

Length of child care 11 + h 0.69 0.221 -2.1190.56 0.170-1.8391.20 0.503-2.881

<11 h 1

Gender Male 2.12 0.749 -6.0073.90 1.061-14.309 1.13 0.479-2.651

Female 1

Siblings None 0.85 0.303 -2.3921.21 0.421-3.4720.84 0.363-1.946

One or

more 1

Reading books Rare 0.35 0.042 -2.9701.75 0.422-7.2522.04 0.678-6.125

Other 1

Sing song together Rare - - -- 1.06 0.087-12.759- - --

Other 1

Support by spouse Rare 2.80 0.467 -16.8411.03 0.105-10.0884.07 1.023 -16.713

Other 1

Rare - - -- 2.33 0.219-24.8221.21 0.130-11.243

At least one meal with

parents Other 1

Risk 2.29 0.201 -26.0420.78 0.083-7.2294.35 1.166 -16.195

Appropriate

response to mistakes Non-risk 1

Risk 0.24 0.054 -1.0460.85 0.275-2.6380.58 0.219-1.541

Punishment

Non-risk 1

Rare 0.79 0.078 -8.040 - - -- - - --

Going grocery store

together Other 1

Rare 2.90 1.023 -8.2220.56 0.148-2.1340.89 0.344-2.327

Going park with

child Other 1

* 1

Rare 1.24 0.449 -3.4180.77 0.263-2.2511.30 0.562-2.999

Going friend’s house

Other 1

No 1.88 0.614 -5.7670.73 0.179-3.0150.84 0.286-2.463

Support for child care

Yes 1

No 0.58 0.058 -5.8152.58 0.375-17.7890.94 0.103-8.597

Consultation

Yes 1

Rare 2.02 0.226 -18.0263.76 0.374-37.7940.99 0.141-6.908

Talking with spouse

about child Other 1

Rare 3.10 0.529 -18.1503.20 0.720-14.1660.64 0.073-5.576

Confidence for child

care Other 1

Note: *0.01 ≤ p < 0.05; Input items: length of child care, gender, sibling, play with child, reading books, sing song together, support by spouse, at least one meal with

parents, appropriate response to mistakes, punishment, going grocery store together, going park together, going friend’s house, support for child care, consultation, talking

with spouse about child, confidence for child care, adaptation for center based care, age of start for center based care, fine motor (baseline)—a, social competence (base-

line)—b, vocabulary (baseline)—c, *(a-c) baseline variable was only input when that particular variable was being assessed.

tific Research (23330174) and Research Institute of Science

and Technology for Society.

REFERENCES

Anme, T. (1995). Risk assessment using evaluation of environmental

stimulation in Japan. National Roundtable on Child Protective Ser-

vices Risk Assessment, 9, 37-47.

Anme, T., & Uma, S. (2010). Effectiveness of Japan’s extended/night

child care: A five-year follow up. Procedia Social and Behavioural

Sciences, 2, 5573-5580. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.909

Anme, T., & Takayama, T. (1990). Evaluation of home stimulation for

normal and handicapped children in Japan. In T. Takayama (Ed.),

Early childhood toward the 21st century (pp. 427-430). Hong Kong:

Yew Chung Education Publishing Company.

438

T. ANME ET AL.

Bacharach, V. R., & Baumeister, A. A. (2003). Child care and severe

externalizing behavior in kindergarten children. Applied Develop-

mental Psychology, 23, 527-537.

doi:10.1016/S0193-3973(02)00140-5

Belsky, J. (1988). The “effects” of infant day care reconsidered. Early

Childhood Research Quarterly, 3 , 235-272.

doi:10.1016/0885-2006(88)90003-8

Belsky, J. (2001). Developmental risks (still) associated with early

child care. Journal of Ch ild Psychology and Psychiatry, 42, 845-859.

doi:10.1111/1469-7610.00782

Blau, D. (1999). The effects of child care characteristics on child de-

velopment. Journal of Hu man Resources, 34, 786-822.

doi:10.2307/146417

Borge, A. I., Rutter, M., Cote, S., & Tremblay, R. E. (2004). Early

childcare and physical aggression: Differentiating social selection

from social causation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,

45, 367-376. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00227.x

Broberg, A. G., Wessels, H., Lamb, M. E., & Hwang, C. P. (1997).

Effects of day care on the development of cognitive abilities in

8-year-old: A longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 33, 62-

69. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.33.1.62

Burchinal, M. R., Roberts, J. E., Riggins, R., Zeisel, S., Neebe, E., &

Bryant, M. (2000). Relating quality of center child care to early cog-

nitive and language development longitudinally. Child Development,

71, 339-357. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00149

Caldwell, B. M., & Bradley, R. H. (1984). Home observation for meas-

urement of the environment. Little Rock: University of Arkansas at

Little Rock.

Campbell, F. A., Pungello, E. P., Miller-Johnson, S., Burchinal, M. R.,

& Ramey, C. (2001). The development of cognitive and academic

abilities: Growth curves from an early intervention educational ex-

periment. Developmental Psychology, 37, 231-242.

doi:10.1037/0012-1649.37.2.231

Clarke-Stewart, K. A. (1989). Infant day care: Maligned or malignant?

American Psychologist, 44, 266-273.

doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.2.266

Colwell, M., Pettit, G., Meece, D., Bates, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (2001).

Cumulative risk and continuity in nonparental care from infancy to

early adolescence. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 47, 207-234.

doi:10.1353/mpq.2001.0009

Deater-Deckard, K. A., Pinkerton, R., & Scarr, S. (1996). Child care

quality and children’s behavioral adjustment: A four-year longitudi-

nal study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 37, 937-948.

doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1996.tb01491.x

Egeland, B., & Hiester, M. (1995). The long-term consequences of

infant day-care and mother-infant attachment. Child Dev elo pm ent , 66,

474-485. doi:10.2307/1131591

Greenspan, S. I. (2003). Child care research: A clinical perspective.

Child Development, 74, 1064-1068. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00591

Jaffee, S. R., Hulle, C. V., & Rodgers, J. L.(2011). Effects of nonma-

ternal care in the first 3 years on children’s academic skills and be-

havioral functioning in childhood and early adolescence: A sibling

comparison study. Child Development, 82, 1076-1091.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01611.x

Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (2011). Fact sheet of child care

2011.

http://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/org/pamphlet/dl/pamphlet-about_mhl

w.pdf#page=24

Peisner-Feinberg, E., & Burchinal, M. (1997). Concurrent relations

between child care quality and child outcomes: The study of cost,

quality and outcomes in child care centers. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,

43, 451-477.

Tumori, S. (1974). Developmental evaluation. Kyusu: Kyusu Daigaku

Syuppan.

Vandell, D. L., Henderson, V. K., & Wilson, K. S. (1988). A longitu-

dinal study of children with day-care experiences of varying quality.

Child Development, 59, 1286-1292. doi:10.2307/1130491

T. ANME ET AL.

Appendix 1. Questionnaire (Extract)

1. How often do you play with your child per wee k?

1) rarely 2) 1 - 2 weeks 3) 3 - 4 weeks 4) 5 - 6 weeks

5) almost every day 6) other ( )

2. How often do y ou go shopping with your child?

1) rarely 2) 1 - 2 months 3) 1 - 2 weeks 4) 3 - 4 weeks

5) almost every day 6) other ( )

3. How often do you read to your child?

1) rarely 2) 1 - 2 months 3) 1 - 2 weeks 4) 3 - 4 weeks

5) almost every day 6) other ( )

4. How often do you sing songs with your child?

1) rarely 2) 1 - 2 months 3) 1 - 2 weeks 4) 3 - 4 weeks

5) almost every day 6) other ( )

5. How often do you go to the park with your child?

1) rarely 2) 1 - 2 months 3) 1 - 2 weeks 4) 3 - 4 weeks

5) almost every day 6) other ( )

6. How often do you and your child meet with friends or

relatives with children of a similar age?

1) rarely 2) 1 - 2 months 3) 1 - 2 weeks 4) 3 - 4 weeks

5) almost every day 6) other ( )

7. How often does your spouse, partner, or other care giver

help you with the child?

1) rarely 2) 1 - 2 months 3) 1 - 2 weeks 4) 3 - 4 weeks

5) almost every day 6) other ( )

8. How often does your child eat meals together with both

parents?

1) rarely 2) 1 - 2 months 3) 1 - 2 weeks 4) 3 - 4 weeks

5) almost every day 6) other ( )

9. What do you do if your child spills milk purposely?

1) hit the child 2) scold the child 3) discipline in another

way 4) determine how to prevent it in the future

5) other ( )

10. How many times did you hit or kick your child last

week?

1) never 2) 1 - 2 times 3) 3 - 4times 4) 4 - 5 times

5) almost every day 6) other ( )

11. How many times do you have a chance to talk with your

partner about your child?

1) very little 2) 1 - 2 months 3) 1 - 2 weeks 4) 3 - 4 weeks

5) almost every day 6) other ( )

12. Does someone help you take care of your child?

1) Yes 2) No 3) other ( )

If yes, circle all the following that apply:

1) spouse 2) grandparent 3) friend 4) relative

5) neighbor 6) child care professionals from the nursery

7) director of nursery 8) baby-sitter 9) other staff at the

nursery 10) other ( )

13. Do you have someone to consult with about childcare?

1) Yes 2) No 3) other ( )

If yes, circle all the following that apply:

1) spouse 2) grandparent 3) friend 4) relative

5) neighbor 6) child care professionals from the nursery

7) director of nursery 8) baby-sitter 9) other staff at the

nursery 10) other ( )

440