Fs

JAD

a

ARRA

KEPRS

ctwiacoho

i2

V

C

0d

Early Childhood Research Quarterly 26 (2011) 74–86

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Early Childhood Research Quarterly

amily risks and protective factors: Pathways to Early Head Start toddlers’ocial–emotional functioning

essica E. Vick Whittaker ∗,1, Brenda Jones Harden, Heather M. See2,llison D. Meisch3, T’Pring R. Westbrook4

epartment of Human Development, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, United States

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 4 August 2009eceived in revised form 9 April 2010ccepted 14 April 2010

eywords:arly Head Startarentingisks and protective factors

a b s t r a c t

Early Head Start children may be more likely to exhibit difficulties with social–emotional functioningdue to the high-risk environments in which they live. However, positive parenting may serve as a pro-tective factor against the influence of risk on children’s outcomes. The current study examines the effectsof contextual and proximal risks on children’s social–emotional outcomes and whether these effectsare mediated by maternal sensitivity. One-hundred and fourteen low-income, high-risk mother–toddlerdyads participated in this longitudinal study designed to examine the relationships between family risk,mothers’ sensitivity, and children’s social–emotional functioning in Early Head Start families. Researchersconducted two 2.5-h home visits, approximately six months apart, during which they assessed mothers’levels of family risk, maternal sensitivity, and their children’s social–emotional functioning. A theoreti-

ocial–emotional functioningcally derived structural equation model was tested to examine the direct paths from family risk variablesto children’s social–emotional functioning and the indirect paths by way of the mediator variable, mater-nal sensitivity. Support was found for a model that identified maternal sensitivity as a mediator of therelationship between parenting stress and children’s social–emotional functioning. Results have impli-cations for providing services through Early Head Start programs that are aimed at alleviating parentingstress and enhancing maternal sensitivity.

© 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Recently, developmental scholars have suggested that theharge for this generation of researchers is to develop causal modelshat explain the process of vulnerability and resilience in children,hich may provide a rationale for interventions that promote pos-

tive development (Masten & Gewirtz, 2006). Before a model of risk

nd resiliency can be developed, it is important to understand theomplex direct and indirect effects of risk and protective factorsn children’s social and emotional outcomes. Theoretical modelsave been tested to examine family process variables as mediatorsf the relationship between family risk and children’s social and

∗ Corresponding author at: The Center for Advanced Study of Teaching and Learn-ng, University of Virginia, 2410 Old Ivy Road, P.O. Box 400878, Charlottesville, VA2904, USA. Tel.: +1 434 243 4905; fax: +1 434 243 4947.

E-mail address: jew9t@virginia.edu (J.E.V. Whittaker).1 Now at the Center for Advanced Study of Teaching and Learning, University ofirginia, United States.2 Now at the Urban Institute, Washington, DC, United States.3 Now at Westat, Rockville, MD, United States.4 Now at the Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration forhildren and Families, Washington, DC, United States.

885-2006/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.oi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.04.007

emotional outcomes (e.g., Conger & Elder, 1994; McLoyd, 1990).These family risk variables include contextual factors (e.g., poverty,family discord), as well as more proximal parent psychologicalfunctioning variables (e.g., stress, depression). Specific to parenting,researchers have investigated whether mothers’ sensitive caregiv-ing behaviors, including warmth, acceptance, and responsiveness,can buffer against the impact of risk on children’s outcomes (e.g.,Bradley, Corwyn, Burchinal, Pipes McAdoo, & Garcia Coll, 2001;Burchinal, Roberts, Zeisel, Hennon, & Hooper, 2006). However,there remain gaps in our understanding of the relations amongrisks and protective factors, and which are the most salient pre-dictors of children’s social–emotional development. Even less isknown about these linkages in very young children. The aim of thisstudy was to examine how key contextual and proximal family riskfactors are associated with very young children’s social–emotionalfunctioning, specifically investigating whether maternal sensitivitycan buffer the impact of risk on children’s development. A the-

oretically derived structural equation model was developed andtested to examine the direct paths from family risk variables tochildren’s social–emotional functioning and the indirect paths byway of the mediator variable, maternal sensitivity. This study addsto previous research by including multiple risk factors and simul-

ood Re

to

1

&efptofcboow

haiewathfRti1pdKbridoofesa2

2f

dcatmei2miRipm

J.E.V. Whittaker et al. / Early Childh

aneously modeling the impacts of both risk and protective factorsn children’s social–emotional functioning.

. Theoretical framework

Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory (1977; BronfenbrennerCeci, 1994) was used as a guide to understand multiple influ-

nces on children’s development. According to this theory, “theamily is the principal context in which human development takeslace” (Bronfenbrenner, 1986, p. 723) and is most influential duringhe first few years of life. Within this context, proximal processes,r complex, reciprocal interactions (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994),unction to facilitate or impede development (Eamon, 2001). Spe-ific to research on risk and resiliency, the application of theioecological theory allows researchers to focus not only on childutcomes related to individual and environmental factors, but alson the process through which children experience these factors,hich consequently influence their development.

This study also draws heavily on the family stress theory, whichas been used to understand the process by which family incomeffects children’s development. This theory posits that low familyncome has a detrimental effect on family functioning and par-nts’ emotional well-being, which influence parents’ interactionsith their children, and in turn, children’s outcomes (Conger et

l., 1992; Conger & Elder, 1994). However, if parents are ableo engage in positive parenting practices despite their economicardships and psychological difficulties, this can protect children

rom the negative impacts of associated risks (e.g., Gershoff, Aber,aver, & Lennon, 2007; Yeung, Linver, & Brooks-Gunn, 2002). Thisheory was initially developed in studies examining the behav-or of white adolescents from rural areas (e.g., Conger & Elder,994). More recently, researchers have used the family stresserspective to investigate social emotional outcomes in moreiverse samples of younger children (e.g., Linver, Brooks-Gunn, &ohen, 2002; Yeung et al., 2002). Thus, our hypothesized modeluilds on this theoretical model of family stress and incorpo-ates both perceived family resources (including not only familyncome but also the adequacy of food, housing, etc.) and familyisconnectedness in efforts to more fully explain the influencef inadequate family financial and social capital on child devel-pment in alignment with the bioecological theory. Further, theamily stress theory allows us to consider the influence of thesexogenous (contextual) processes on more proximal processes,uch as maternal mental health, which have been documented toffect parenting behaviors and child outcomes (Petterson & Albers,001).

. Family risk and young children’s social–emotionalunctioning

Developmental researchers distinguish the transition from tod-lerhood into the preschool years as a time of developmentalhange during which children learn how to regulate their emotionsnd control their behavior (Campbell, 2006). Social competence inoddlerhood is defined as behaviors that reflect age-appropriate

ilestones in social development including the ability to expressmotion, delay gratification, and engage in self-regulatory behav-ors (e.g., looking for a parent when upset) (Briggs-Gowan & Carter,002). In contrast, toddlers who are unable to engage in these tasksay exhibit a greater than expected frequency of behaviors such as

mpulsivity, inattention, and aggression (Baillargeon et al., 2007).esearch suggests that early delays in the social–emotional domain,

ncluding low levels of social competence and elevated levels ofroblem behaviors, may be stable from toddlerhood through ele-entary school and into adolescence, and are associated with later

search Quarterly 26 (2011) 74–86 75

conduct disorders, antisocial behavior disorders, and academicunderachievement (Bennett et al., 1999; Campbell, Shaw, & Gilliom,2000; Farmer, 1995; Fox, Dunlap, & Powell, 2002; White, Moffitt,Earls, Robins, & Silva, 1990). Therefore, it is critical to determinewhat factors may place children at risk for poor social–emotionalfunctioning.

Children’s early social and emotional experiences occur duringsocial interactions with their caregiver in the context of the homeenvironment (Thompson & Lagattuta, 2006). Children who expe-rience a supportive environment characterized by high levels offamily closeness, low levels of stress, and sensitive parent–childinteractions, are likely to exhibit positive social–emotional func-tioning (i.e., high social competence and low levels of behaviorproblems) (Bornstein, 1995; Denham, 1998; Jones Harden et al.,2000). In contrast, early exposure to family risk during tod-dlerhood and the preschool years can leave children vulnerableto social–emotional problems that persist and are evident atschool entry (Campbell et al., 2000; Thompson & Lagattuta, 2006).Longitudinal research suggests families’ contextual and proxi-mal risk factors are salient predictors of early and persistentsocial emotional difficulties (Aguilar, Sroufe, Egeland, & Carlson,2000; Campbell, 1997). In order to enhance our understanding ofthe processes that lead to poor social emotional functioning inearly childhood, and because early social emotional developmentoccurs within the context of the family and home environment,researchers have explored the complex paths between family riskfactors and adverse social emotional outcomes during this devel-opmental period.

2.1. Contextual and proximal risk factors

Extant literature suggests that exposure to sociodemographicrisk factors is associated with young children’s problem behav-iors and compromised social competence (Aguilar et al., 2000;Campbell, 1997; Li-Grining, 2007; Raver, 2004). Researchers havenoted a higher prevalence of emotional and behavioral prob-lems among poor children (e.g., Adams, Hillman, & Gaydos, 1994),and current poverty has been related to externalizing problems(McLeod & Shanahan, 1993). Evidence also suggests that povertyco-factors (e.g., family conflict, family disconnectedness) arerelated to parents’ and teachers’ reports of young children’s prob-lem behaviors (Ackerman, Izard, Schoff, Youngstrom, & Kongos,1999; Fox et al., 2002; Halpern, 2004; Jones Harden et al., 2000).

Although the research outlined above suggests a direct linkbetween contextual risk (i.e., poverty and poor family function-ing) on children’s social–emotional functioning, other studies havesuggested that poverty and poor family functioning indirectlyaffect children’s problem behaviors through their influence onproximal risk factors (e.g., parental mental health) (e.g., Boyce,Behl, Mortensen, & Akers, 1991; Henderson, Sayger, & Horne,2003). McLoyd (1990) suggests that poverty increases parents’psychological distress, which diminishes their ability to providesensitive caregiving, and consequently leads to children’s impairedsocial–emotional functioning. For example, research suggests thatstress and depression can negatively affect parents’ interactionswith their children and are associated with inconsistent disci-pline, lack of warmth, and inappropriate expectations of children(Crawford & Manassis, 2001; Deater-Deckard & Scarr, 1996). Highlystressed mothers may not provide the quality and quantity ofcare necessary to promote children’s cognitive, affective, and social

development (Sameroff & Seifer, 1983). However, recent researchsuggests that if parents are able to engage in positive parentingpractices despite the risks they face, this can buffer the negativeeffects of family risk on children’s social emotional functioning(Gershoff et al., 2007; Yeung et al., 2002).

7 ood Re

3m

i(i2bwtMadnicSscBlmtrca

cdLaihpdicpm(

slfedhrfiMahpmremno

tfsw

6 J.E.V. Whittaker et al. / Early Childh

. Family risk and children’s social–emotional functioning:ediation through maternal sensitivity

Early parenting behaviors play an important role in determin-ng the trajectories of children’s social–emotional developmentDeater-Deckard, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1998). Positive parent-ng is associated with socially competent behaviors (Bradley et al.,001; Burchinal et al., 2006). Specifically, sensitive caregiving haseen documented to be a particularly influential parenting practice,hich has been associated with children’s positive social emo-

ional functioning (e.g., Bornstein, 1995; Tamis-LeMonda, Briggs,cClowry, & Snow, 2009). A sensitive parent engages in warm

nd supportive behaviors that respond to and promote children’sevelopment (Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2009). Research on mater-al sensitivity has underscored the complexity of this construct,

ncluding that it incorporates affective and behavioral factors whichombine to influence children’s development (e.g., Landry, Smith,wank, & Guttentag, 2008). There is also evidence that maternalensitivity may have a differential impact depending on the spe-ific child behavior to which the mother is responding (Leerkes,lankson, & O’Brien, 2009). Further, Thompson (1997) has high-

ighted the importance of considering the ecological influences onaternal sensitivity. In the present study, we include a broad spec-

rum of behaviors to reflect maternal sensitivity (i.e., acceptance,esponsiveness, and warmth) and address the influence of variousontextual factors on the manifestation of this parenting process,nd its subsequent effect on child outcomes.

The current study builds on the research that addresses theomplex relations among family risk, parenting behaviors, and chil-ren’s outcomes. For example, using data from the Early Childhoodongitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998–1999, Gershoff etl. (2007) examined whether parenting stress and positive parent-ng and investment mediated the relationship between materialardship and children’s cognitive skills and social–emotional com-etence. They found that high parent stress was associated with aecrease in parents’ ability to engage in positive parenting behav-

or, which in turn was associated with a decrease in sociallyompetent behavior. A similar study with a low birthweight sam-le found that the provision of stimulating experiences in the homeediated the relation between family income and child outcomes

Linver et al., 2002).The extant literature highlights the importance of comprehen-

ively examining risk and protective factors in young children fromow-income families. It also suggests several important next stepsor researchers. To date, there have been few studies that havexamined the effect of family risk and protective factors on theevelopment of very young children. Furthermore, few studiesave been designed to examine the processes by which familyisks and parenting practices influence children’s social–emotionalunctioning with a low-income, Early Head Start sample. The find-ngs of previous studies that included higher income families (e.g.,

istry, Biesanz, Taylor, Burchinal, & Cox, 2004) may not be gener-lizable to this unique population. Furthermore, previous studiesave narrowly defined family risk using low family income andarental depression (e.g., Yeung et al., 2002), whereas we took aore comprehensive approach, examining inadequacy of family

esources, family disconnectedness, maternal depression, and par-nting stress, as the literature suggests that all of these risk factorsay influence children’s functioning. We also examine how mater-

al sensitivity may serve as a mediator of the impact of family riskn children’s social emotional functioning.

The goal of this study was to examine the effects of contex-ual and proximal family risk factors on children’s social–emotionalunctioning, as mediated by maternal sensitivity, in a low-incomeample of Early Head Start infants and toddlers. Specifically,e tested the following hypotheses in our model: (1) Contex-

search Quarterly 26 (2011) 74–86

tual risk factors (i.e., inadequacy of family resources and familydisconnectedness) will positively relate to proximal risk factors(i.e., parenting stress and maternal depression); (2) Proximal riskfactors will directly affect children’s social–emotional function-ing; and (c) Proximal risk factors will indirectly affect children’ssocial–emotional functioning through maternal sensitivity. Bothpartial and full mediation were tested to explore whether the addi-tion of maternal sensitivity to the model reduced or eliminatedthe direct effect of either or both of the selected proximal riskfactors.

4. Method

The current study was part of a longitudinal study to exam-ine parental and home influences on social–emotional outcomesof toddlers reared in “high-risk” families who were participants inEarly Head Start (EHS). In addition to the poverty status of theseEHS families, they were deemed “high-risk” if they reported on ascreening instrument that they met at least one of the followingeligibility criteria: adolescent motherhood, multiple births, home-lessness, multiple children under age five, or depression symptomsin the clinical range. These risk factors have been consistently doc-umented to be associated with maladaptive outcomes in youngchildren (Masten & Gewirtz, 2006). Although multiple forms ofparental psychopathology have been linked to adverse child out-comes, the current study focused on maternal depression becauseof prior research on Early Head Start populations documentinghigh proportions of mothers with depressive symptomatologyand strong relations between maternal depression and parenting(Robinson & Emde, 2004; U.S. Department of Health and HumanServices, 2002a).

4.1. Participants

Participants in this study were 114 mother–child dyads who metthe above delineated inclusionary criteria. Mothers were recruitedfrom Early Head Start centers when their children were betweenthe ages of 3 and 23 months. The EHS centers were located in a largemetropolitan city. Mothers were excluded if they did not speakEnglish well enough to complete a 2.5-h interview. After eligibil-ity was determined, mothers were contacted by phone to set up avisit at their home. Of the 130 mothers eligible to participate, 114mothers completed a Time 1 visit, for a completion rate of 88%. Ofthe 114 mothers who completed a Time 1 visit, 95 participated ina Time 2 visit, for a retention rate of 83%.

Mothers’ ages at Time 1 ranged from 15 to 51 years (M = 26.14,SD = 26.14), and children’s ages ranged from 3.5 to 25 months(M = 16.41, SD = 5.97). At Time 2, children’s ages ranged from 12.5 to37.2 months (M = 26.03, SD = 6.34). There were an equal number ofmale and female children (n = 57) in the study. Approximately 74%of mothers were African American, 14% Latino, 4% Haitian or otherCaribbean, 4% African, and 4% reported other ethnicities. The major-ity of mothers were single and had never been married (73%), 16%were married, 7% were divorced, and 4% were separated. Twenty-eight percent of mothers worked full-time, 21% worked part-time,32% were unemployed and looking for a job, and the remainderwere homemakers (19%). Sixty-eight percent of mothers had com-pleted at least 12 years of school or obtained their GED. Thesedemographic characteristics remained relatively stable from Time1 to Time 2.

4.2. Procedure

Two visits to the mothers’ homes were conducted approxi-mately six months apart, during which data were collected bytrained members of the research team. If the mother was unwilling

ood Re

odwces

dfCotittrpPc“ps

rhTssH(Satmtat1plr(csrr

4

4

mcwtratfDgrES˛

J.E.V. Whittaker et al. / Early Childh

r unable to complete the visit in her home, the visit was con-ucted at her EHS center. Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvalas sought and granted prior to data collection. Signed, informed

onsent was obtained at the beginning of each visit. At the end ofach visit, mothers were given $50 for their participation in thetudy.

Researchers were trained in standardized interviewing proce-ures. Researchers were also trained on the Home Observation

or Measurement of the Environment Infant/Toddler Version (HOME;aldwell & Bradley, 2003), which includes both interview andbservation items. All members of the research team followed theraining protocol outlined in the manual, which includes watch-ng videotapes of a skilled Visitor conducting the HOME, readinghe training manual, and conducting five pilot visits to administerhe HOME. The P.I. of the project had extensive previous expe-ience administering the HOME, and so was designated as theroject’s trained Visitor. All members of the team accompanied the.I. on visits until inter-rater reliability with her reached 90%. Anyoding discrepancies were resolved through discussion. On-goingbooster” sessions were conducted throughout the data collectionhase to ensure that inter-rater reliability among all coders wasustained.

During the Time 1 visit, mothers were administered self-eport questionnaires, and we conducted observations of theome environment, including parenting practices. During theime 2 visit, mothers were questioned about their children’social–emotional functioning. Many of the measures used wereelected because they had been used and validated in the Earlyead Start Research and Evaluation Project, a large-scale study

n = 3001 families) designed to assess the effect of Early Headtart on child and family outcomes (U.S. Department of Healthnd Human Services, 2002b). For this study, we examined fourypes of variables: (a) contextual risk, (b) proximal risk, (c)

aternal sensitivity, and (d) children’s social–emotional func-ioning. Additionally, we controlled for mother’s age and child’sge and gender in the model. A post hoc analysis of varianceest showed that there were no significant differences in Time

demographic characteristics between those participants whoarticipated in the Time 2 visit and those who did not on the fol-

owing characteristics: mother’s age (t(112) = .99, p > .05); mother’sace (t(112) = .57, p > .05); number of years of school completedt(112) = .57, p > .05); total monthly income (t(92) = .22, p > .05); andhild’s gender (t(112) = .25, p > .05). Therefore, Time 2 data for childocial–emotional functioning did not appear to be missing as aesult of a particular family characteristic but was rather missing atandom.

.3. Measures of contextual risk

.3.1. Inadequacy of family resourcesThe Family Resource Scale (FRS; Dunst & Leet, 1987) was used to

easure the inadequacy of resources in households with younghildren. This 31-item measure asks individuals to indicate tohat extent resources (e.g., “Food for 2 meals a day”; “Money

o buy necessities”) are adequate for their families. Participantsesponded using a 5-point Likert-type rating scale from “Not atll adequate” to “Almost always adequate.” We reverse scoredhe items on this measure so that a higher total score reflectedewer resources and a lower total score reflected more resources.unst and Leet (1987) reported a test–retest reliability at .70 and

ood internal consistency (˛ = .92) and validity. Good reliability waseported for this measure in the Early Head Start Research andvaluation Project (˛ = .91) (U.S. Department of Health and Humanervices, 2002b). Internal reliability for our sample was good at= .88.

search Quarterly 26 (2011) 74–86 77

4.3.2. Family disconnectednessFamily disconnectedness was assessed using the Cohesion sub-

scale of the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales(FACES II; Olson, Portner, & Bell, 1992). The Cohesion subscalemeasures the degree to which family members feel connected toother family members (e.g., “Family members are supportive ofeach other during difficult times”; “Family members feel very closeto each other”). Individuals responded to statements on a 5-pointLikert-type scale ranging from “Almost never” to “Almost always.”We reverse scored the items on this measure so that a higher totalscore indicated more disconnectedness and a lower score reflectedless disconnectedness. Olson et al. (1992) reported good internalconsistency (˛ = .87), test–retest reliability (.83), and evidence ofvalidity for the Cohesion subscale. Internal reliability for our samplewas ˛ = .87.

4.4. Measures of proximal risk

4.4.1. Maternal depressionThe Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D;

Radloff, 1977) was used to assess parents’ level of depression. Thisscale consists of 20 items and measures how frequently symp-toms associated with depression occurred in the past week (e.g.,“I was bothered by things that don’t usually bother me”; “I hadtrouble keeping my mind on what I was doing”). Response cate-gories range on a 3-point Likert-type scale from “Rarely or Never(less than 1 day)” to “Most or All (5–7 days).” A score of 16 hasbeen established as a cutoff for individuals reporting symptoms inthe clinical range with higher scores indicating greater levels ofdepressive symptomatology. Radloff (1977) reported a coefficientalpha of .85 for community populations. Validity and reliability ofthe measure have been previously demonstrated in low-incomepopulations (e.g., Thomas & Brantley, 2004). Internal reliability forour sample was examined and determined to be strong (˛ = .89).

4.4.2. Parenting stressThe Parenting Stress Index Short Form (PSI/SF; Abidin, 1990) is a

38-item measure of parenting stress. This measure contains threesubscales: Parental Distress, Parent–Child Dysfunctional Interac-tion, and Difficult Child, as well as a Total Stress score. Using a5-point Likert-scale ranging from “Strongly disagree” to “Stronglyagree,” participants indicated how much they agreed with state-ments such as: “I sometimes feel like I cannot handle things verywell,” and “My child does not smile as much as other children.”We used the Total Stress score on the PSI short form, which has ahigh correlation (.94) with the Total Stress score of the full-lengthPSI (Abidin, 1990). This measure has also been found to have atest–retest reliability of .84 and good internal consistency (˛ = .91;Abidin, 1990). The internal reliability for our sample was ˛ = .87.

4.5. Maternal sensitivity

Three manifest variables were included as indicators of thelatent variable of Maternal Sensitivity: warmth, responsiveness,and acceptance. The Warmth/Respect subscale of the Parental Atti-tudes toward Child Rearing (PACR II; Holden & Edwards, 1989) wasused to measure maternal warmth. The PACR asks participants torate on a 6-point Likert-scale ranging from “Strongly disagree” to“Strongly agree” how much they agree or disagree with statementssuch as “I joke and play with my child” and “I express affection byhugging, kissing, and holding my child.” Internal reliability for this

scale was examined and found to be adequate (˛ = .75).

The quality of maternal responsiveness and acceptance in thehome environment were measured using the Home Observationfor Measurement of the Environment Infant/Toddler Version (HOME;Caldwell & Bradley, 2003). The Infant/Toddler HOME is a 45-

7 ood Re

iilszTatVc&Mnpfmn

vskea&amtt(tIrHH

tccf.rrtcAsatlGstis

4

ss&asbrs

8 J.E.V. Whittaker et al. / Early Childh

tem measure completed using both interview and observationtems designed to measure the quality and quantity of stimu-ation and support in the home. This measure consists of sixubscales including: (1) Responsivity; (2) Acceptance; (3) Organi-ation; (4) Learning Materials; (5) Involvement; and (6) Variety.he Responsivity and Acceptance subscales were used in this studys similar constructs have been used in previous studies to opera-ionalize maternal sensitivity (e.g., Landry, Smith, Swank, Assel, &ellet, 2001; Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2009), and are associated withhildren’s social emotional development (e.g., Bradley, Caldwell,

Rock, 1988). The remaining subscales (Organization, Learningaterials, Involvement and Variety) measure things like the orga-

ization of the physical environment, the provision of appropriatelay materials, and learning stimulation. These subscales have beenound to be more closely related to children’s academic achieve-

ent (e.g., Bradley, Caldwell, Rock, & Casey, 1987), and thus wereot included in the analyses.

The Responsivity subscale measures mothers’ emotional anderbal responsivity to the child and includes items such as: “Parentpontaneously praises child at least twice,” and “Parent caresses orisses child at least once.” The Acceptance subscale measures moth-rs’ acceptance of “less than optimal behavior from the child andvoidance of undue restriction and punishment” (HOME; CaldwellBradley, 2003). Example items include: “Parent does not shout

t child” and “Parent does not interfere with or restrict childore than three times during visit.” The infant/toddler version of

he HOME has been reported to have adequate internal consis-ency, test–retest reliability, and concurrent and predictive validityCaldwell & Bradley, 1984). Caldwell and Bradley (1984) reportedhat internal consistency averaged .70 for the six subscales. Thenfant/Toddler HOME total score (˛ = .76) and subscales (alphasanged from .68 to .78) showed adequate reliability in the Earlyead Start Research and Evaluation Project (U.S. Department ofealth and Human Services, 2002b).

For this study, we examined the strength of the subscales byesting the item-to-scale correlations, and rejected items with loworrelations with the subscale that did not contribute to the internalonsistency of the subscale. After deleting three out of eight itemsrom the Acceptance subscale, the reliability estimates ranged from64 to .66 (Responsivity, ˛ = .64; Acceptance, ˛ = .66). Although theeliability for these composites were relatively low, they wereetained given that the Infant/Toddler HOME has been showno have good concurrent and predictive validity with respect tohildren’s social–emotional functioning (e.g., Bradley et al., 1988).dditionally, in a subsequent test of the strength of the hypothe-ized latent variable of Maternal Sensitivity, both HOME subscaless well as the PACR Warmth subscale loaded highly, indicatinghat the combination of indicators contributed significantly to thisatent construct. Similar steps were taken in a related study byershoff et al. (2007) in which they reported low reliabilities oneveral Early Childhood HOME subscales but subsequently retainedhem for their structural equation model due to their conceptualmportance and high loadings on the hypothesized latent con-truct.

.6. Children’s social–emotional functioning

Three scales were used as indicators of children’social–emotional functioning. The Aggressive Behavior sub-cale of the Child Behavior Checklist 1½–5 (CBCL 1½–5; AchenbachRescorla, 2000) was used to measure parents’ ratings of children’s

ggressive behavior. The CBCL provides a total problem behaviorcore, two broadband scores for internalizing and externalizingehaviors, and seven specific syndrome scores (emotionallyeactive, anxious–depressed, somatic complaints, withdrawn,leep problems, attention problems, aggressive behavior). The

search Quarterly 26 (2011) 74–86

Aggressive Behavior subscale consists of 19 items and measuresaggressive behaviors in children ages 1.5–5 years. Parents scoreitems from (0) “Not True” to (2) “Very True or Often True.” Exam-ple items include: “Defiant,” “Hits others,” and “Angry moods.”Achenbach and Rescorla (2000) report strong reliability andvalidity for the CBCL 1½–5 subscales. Internal reliability for theAggressive Behavior subscale with our sample was examined andfound to be strong (˛ = 0.93). The Aggressive Behavior subscalewas used in the Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2002b) and alsoshowed good reliability (˛ = 0.91).

The Brief Infant–Toddler Social & Emotional Assessment (BITSEA;Briggs-Gowan & Carter, 2002) was used to measure children’s socialcompetence and problem behaviors. This total scale consists of 42-items and measures social–emotional problems and competenciesin infants and toddlers from 12 to 36 months. Examples of state-ments for the Problem Domain include: “Is restless and can’t sitstill” and “Breaks or ruins things on purpose.” Example items for theCompetence domain include: “Is affectionate with loved ones” and“Follows rules.” Responses range from “Not True/Rarely” to “VeryTrue/Often” on a Likert-type scale. Briggs-Gowan, Carter, Irwin,Wachtel, and Cicchetti (2004) reported acceptable internal con-sistency (˛ = .79) for the Problem domain, and moderate internalconsistency for the Competence domain (˛ = .65). For our sample,the internal reliability was ˛ = .76 for the Problem domain, and for˛ = .49 for the Competence domain. Although the reliability for theCompetence domain is below what is considered acceptable, wedecided to include this subscale in subsequent analyses for severalreasons. Criterion-related validity for both subscales of the BITSEAhas been established with the Child Behavior Checklist 1½–5 (CBCL1½–5; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000). Both of the subscales of theBITSEA have also been shown to have good predictive validity in anethnically and socioeconomically diverse sample of infants and tod-dlers (Briggs-Gowan & Carter, 2008). Specifically, low Competencescores in toddlerhood have been shown to predict teacher-reportedproblems and parent-reported disorders in early elementaryschool (Briggs-Gowan & Carter, 2008). Additionally, we choseto include the Competence subscale because it functioned wellin subsequent analyses testing our hypothesized measurementmodel for Child Social Emotional Functioning. Competence nega-tively correlated with the complementary BITSEA social–emotionalproblem scale and loaded significantly onto the latent outcomevariable.

5. Results

5.1. Analytic strategy

Structural equation modeling (SEM) (using Mplus 5.0; Muthén& Muthén, 1998–2007) was used to test our research questionsas it allowed us to examine the complex relationships among mea-sured variables and hypothesized latent variables, mainly MaternalSensitivity and Child Social–Emotional Functioning (CSEF). The pro-posed structural model represents the following parameters: (1)the influence of two contextual risks factors—specifically inade-quacy of family resources and family disconnectedness—on twoproximal risk factors—maternal depression and parenting stress;(2) the direct effects of maternal depression and parenting stressat Time 1 on CSEF at Time 2; and (3) the indirect effects of mater-nal depression and parenting stress at Time 1 on CSEF at Time 2 by

way of Maternal Sensitivity at Time 1. In addition, two nested mod-els were estimated to test for mediation: a direct effects model, inwhich the mediating effect of Maternal Sensitivity was constrained,and a fully mediated model, in which the direct effects of the prox-imal risk factors were removed.

J.E.V. Whittaker et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 26 (2011) 74–86 79

Table 1Descriptive statistics.

Variable/measure N M SD Min Max

Child gender (1 = male) 114 .50 .50 0 1Child age at Time 2 assessment (in mos.) 92 26.03 6.34 12.52 37.16Mother’s age 114 26.14 6.64 15 51FRS–inadequacy of resources 114 71.77 17.17 35 117FACES–family disconnectedness 113 47.45 10.34 26 67CES-D–maternal depression 114 13.93 10.69 0 47PSI–parenting stress 113 71.35 17.62 37 110PACR–warmth 113 111.27 9.85 83 131HOME–responsivity 112 10.02 1.41 3 11HOME–acceptance 112 4.69 .78 1 5CBCL–aggressive behaviors 91 12.71 9.04 0 66BITSEA–problem behaviors 91 13.57 6.14 2 28BITSEA–social competence 91 17.25 2.37 11 22

Note: FRS = Family Resource Scale (Dunst & Leet, 1987); FACES = Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (Olson et al., 1992); CES-D = Center for EpidemiologicalStudies Depression Scale (Radloff, 1977); PSI = Parenting Stress Index (Abidin, 1990); PACR = Parental Attitudes toward Child Rearing (Holden & Edwards, 1989); HOME = HomeObservation for Measurement of the Environment (Caldwell & Bradley, 2003); CBCL = Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000); BITSEA = Brief Infant–ToddlerS

eARdww

wc(NospcbammcCtmiTm

TI

ocial and Emotional Assessment (Briggs-Gowan & Carter, 2002).

We used three model fit indices to evaluate the fit of the mod-ls: the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Root Mean Square Error ofpproximation (RMSEA), and the Standardized Root Mean Squareesidual (SRMR). We used Hu and Bentler’s (1999) joint criteria toetermine data-model fit, which include .96 and above for the CFIith .09 and below for the RMSEA, or .09 and below for the SRMRith .06 and below on the RMSEA.

However, the criteria for testing model fit are approximate, andith smaller sample sizes, the resulting model fit indices are typi-

ally not as robust as those found with larger sample sizes. Bentler2007) recommends that “Any SEM based on a small sample (say,< 100) should additionally report at least one meaningful a pri-

ri model that is expected to be rejected” (p. 826). In general, aample size of between 100 and 200 is considered a “medium” sam-le size and a recommended minimum, depending on the model’somplexity (Kline, 2005). We had 114 participants in our study,ut since our sample size was near the smaller end of this rangend our model was more complex, we followed Bentler’s recom-endation and ran alternative models instead of one hypothesizedodel. This method also served to test for mediation. In order to

ompare the fit across models, we evaluated the model �2 from thehi-Square Test of Model Fit, and conducted chi-square difference

ests to compare the fit of alternative models to the hypothesized

odel. We utilized maximum likelihood (ML) procedures for miss-ng data. Since only a small number of participants were missingime 1 data, additional methods of handling missing data, such asean imputation, were deemed unnecessary.

able 2ntercorrelations of model variables.

1 2 3 4

1 Child gender (1 = male)2 Child age (Time 2) −.23*

3 Mother age −.05 .034 FRS—inadequacy of resources .03 −.09 .095 FACES— family .07 −.08 −.16 .26*

Disconnectedness6 CES-D—maternal depression −.01 −.06 .05 .34*

7 PSI—parenting stress −.03 .11 −.09 .36*

8 PACR—warmth .15 −.04 .20* −.129 HOME—responsivity −.01 −.09 .36* .01

10 HOME—acceptance −.00 −.14 .11 .19*

11 CBCL—aggressive behaviors .18 −.12 −.19 −.0412 BITSEA—problem behaviors −.01 −.04 −.22* .1813 BITSEA—social competence −.26* .28* .18 .03

* p < .05.

5.2. Preliminary analyses

Descriptive statistics were run for the selected model variablesusing SPSS 15.0 (see Table 1). Intercorrelations between model vari-ables were estimated in order to determine the strength of therelationships (see Table 2). Of the 45 intercorrelations among themain variables of interest (excluding covariates), 58% were statis-tically significant. Since no variable in the model was identifiedas being uncorrelated with all other model variables, the selectedvariables were retained.

Before testing the proposed structural model with predictorsand covariates, we ran a series of measurement models to mea-sure the strength of the latent variables, and specifically, to confirmthat the factor indicators were statistically related and loaded prop-erly onto the hypothesized latent variable(s) (Kline, 2005). We ranthree separate measurement models (one for each latent variableand another for all exogenous predictor variables) instead of a fullmeasurement model with all model variables, as has been done byother researchers (e.g., Gershoff et al., 2007).

The latent variables of interest were Maternal Sensitivity andCSEF. Measurement Model 1 estimated the fit of Maternal Sensitiv-ity; Measurement Model 2 estimated the fit of Maternal Sensitivity

with the family risk factors; and Measurement Model 3 estimatedthe fit of CSEF. Table 3 presents a summary of the model fit indicesand the unstandardized and standardized parameter estimates. Allthree models met the criteria for good model fit, and all factor load-ings across the two factors were statistically significant and loaded

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

.41*

.43* .60*

−.30* −.21* −.50*

−.22* −.16 −.30* .35*

−.15 −.00 −.00 .20* .33*

.22* .15 .13 −.08 −.07 −.08

.21* .32* .45* −.31* −.18 −.00 .53*

−.30* −.08 −.23* .33* .27* .10 −.28* −.16

80 J.E.V. Whittaker et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 26 (2011) 74–86

Table 3Summary of measurement models.

Unstandardized coefficient Standardized coefficient

Measurement Model 1: Maternal sensitivityVariable loadings on latent factor

Maternal sensitivity → responsivity 1.01 .76*

Maternal sensitivity → acceptance .34 .44*

Maternal sensitivity → warmth 4.53 .46*

Model fit: CFI = 1.000, RMSEA = .000, SRMR = .016, x2 (df = 2) = 0Measurement Model 2: Maternal sensitivity with parent variables

Variable loadings on latent factorMaternal sensitivity → responsivity .63 .45*

Maternal sensitivity → acceptance .16 .20Maternal sensitivity → warmth 7.71 .79*

CovariancesInadequacy of resources with maternal sensitivity −2.11 −.12Family disconnectedness with maternal sensitivity −4.10 −.40*

Parenting stress with maternal sensitivity −11.07 −.63*

Maternal depression with maternal sensitivity −2.85 −.27*

Inadequacy of resources with family disconnectedness 46.45 .26*

Inadequacy of resources with parenting stress 109.21 .36*

Inadequacy of resources with maternal depression 60.86 .34*

Family disconnectedness with parenting stress 78.28 .43*

Family disconnectedness with maternal depression 45.33 .41*

Parenting stress with maternal depression 114.57 .61*

Responsivity with acceptancea .26 .28*

Model fit: CFI = .972, RMSEA = .075, SRMR = .047, x2 (df = 7) = 11Measurement Model 3: Child social–emotional functioning

Variable loadings on latent factorSocial competence .68 .29*

Problem behaviors −3.39 −.56*

Aggressive behaviors −8.54 −.95*

Model fit: CFI = 1.000, RMSEA = .000, SRMR = .000, x2 (df = 0) = 0

N R ≤ .09

ipis

5

sfofhd

TC

N

f

ote: Recommended indices: CFI ≥ .96 with RMSEA ≤ .09, or RMSEA ≤ .06 with SRMa Error covariances added to model as recommended by modification indices.* p < .05.

n the expected direction. Moreover, these results indicated theresence of significant relationships among contextual and prox-

mal risk factors and Maternal Sensitivity, thus providing furtherupport for our full structural model.

.3. Testing structural models

To address our research questions, we first tested our hypothe-ized structural model, followed by two alternative models to test

or mediation: the direct effects only model and the indirect effectsnly (i.e., full mediation) model. Table 4 lists the model fit indicesor each structural model and the difference in indices between theypothesized and the alternative models. The results of chi-squareifference tests indicate whether the fit of the hypothesized model

able 4omparison of model fit indices for hypothesized and alternative structural models.

Model CFI RMSEA S

Hypothesized model .927 .058 .0Maternal sensitivity partially mediating effects ofparenting stress and maternal depression on Child S-EFunctioning (controlling for mother’s age)

Alternative models .768 .100 .11. Direct effects model

Constrained indirect paths through maternal sensitivity2. Full mediation model .934 .054 .0

Constrained direct paths fromParenting stress → Child S-E FunctioningMaternal depression → Child S-E Functioning

ote: Recommended indices: CFI ≥ .96 with RMSEA ≤ .09, or RMSEA ≤ .06 with SRMR ≤ .09a No significant difference between partially mediated and fully mediated model; there

ully mediated model).* p < .05; significant difference between hypothesized model and direct effects models.

.

was significantly better than the fit of either nested comparisonmodel.

5.3.1. Hypothesized mediation modelOur hypothesized model estimated both the direct and indirect

effects of two proximal risk factors—maternal depression and par-enting stress—at Time 1 on CSEF at Time 2, controlling for the effectsof the contextual risk factors of inadequacy of family resources andfamily disconnectedness. We hypothesized that Maternal Sensi-

tivity would mediate the relationship between proximal risks andchildren’s social outcomes.

The four predictors were grand mean-centered to reduce mul-ticollinearity. Child age at Time 2 and gender were added ascovariates of CSEF given the significant correlations between these

RMR x2 df �CFI �RMSEA �SRMR |�x2| |�df|70 64 46

11 105 49 −.159 +.041 −.041 41* 3

70 64 48 +.007 −.004 .000 0a 2

.fore, according to SEM procedures, the more parsimonious model was chosen (i.e.,

More complex hypothesized model preferred.

J.E.V. Whittaker et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 26 (2011) 74–86 81

ct effe

dsnpbcmbB(

mpittea(wppstdTswo(o

5

afirpw|t

Fig. 1. Hypothesized mediation model with both direct and indire

emographic characteristics and the BITSEA Social Competencecale. Additionally, mother’s age was added as a covariate of Mater-al Sensitivity. A model building approach was used, such thatredictors and covariates were added to the model one at a time touild up to the full structural model. Two theoretically and statisti-ally supported modifications were made based upon requestedodification indices. These included error covariances between

ehavior problems and social competence (both scales from theITSEA), and between behavior problems and aggressive behaviorson the CBCL).

The resulting model fit indices were good based on the recom-ended criteria (CFI = .927, RMSEA = .058, SRMR = .070), and thus

rovided support for our hypothesized model (see Fig. 1). Approx-mately 55% of the variance in Maternal Sensitivity and 54% ofhe variance in CSEF was explained by the model. According tohe results, mothers who experienced higher family disconnect-dness and fewer family resources had higher stress (ˇ = .36, p < .05nd ˇ = .27, p < .05, respectively) and more depressive symptomsˇ = .34, p < .05 and ˇ = .24, p < .05, respectively). Parenting stressas highly negatively related to Maternal Sensitivity (ˇ = −.74,< .05), which had a strong positive effect on later CSEF (ˇ = .58,< .05). Conversely, maternal depressive symptoms were not

ignificantly associated with Maternal Sensitivity (ˇ = .15, n.s.). Nei-her parenting stress nor depressive symptoms had a significantirect effect on later CSEF (ˇ = −.11 and ˇ = .01, n.s, respectively).he lack of significant direct effects suggested that Maternal Sen-itivity might fully mediate the effects of parenting stress on CSEF,hich was subsequently tested. Additionally, mothers who were

lder showed significantly higher levels of maternal sensitivityˇ = .32, p < .05), while older children demonstrated higher levelsf social–emotional functioning (ˇ = .24, p < .05).

.3.2. Direct effects modelIn order to test whether Maternal Sensitivity significantly medi-

ted the effects of parenting stress and depression on CSEF, wexed the indirect paths through Maternal Sensitivity to zero and

eran the model. The resulting direct effects model demonstratedoor model fit (CFI = .768, RMSEA = .100, SRMR = .111; see Fig. 2) andas significantly worse than the hypothesized model |�x2| = 41,

�df| = 3). The predictors accounted for only 31% of the variance inhe dependent variable (R2 = .31, p = n.s.).

cts of proximal risk factors on child social–emotional functioning.

When removing Maternal Sensitivity from the model, parentingstress subsequently had a negative direct effect on CSEF (ˇ = −.53,p < .05). Maternal depressive symptoms continued to have aninsignificant direct effect (ˇ = .10, n.s.), but the effect size was largercompared to the .01 found in the hypothesized model. This pro-vided evidence of full mediation for parenting stress and partialmediation for depressive symptoms. The presence of Maternal Sen-sitivity in the hypothesized model had decreased the direct effectof parenting stress to a level where it was no longer significant.

5.3.3. Full mediation modelThe direct effects model demonstrated that Maternal Sensitiv-

ity mediated stress and depression and contributed significantly tothe model. In order to test whether Maternal Sensitivity fully medi-ated the effects of both proximal risk factors on CSEF we first fixedthe path loading from stress to CSEF to zero and reran the model.The same process of constraining the path loading was repeated fordepressive symptoms and then both stress and depressive symp-toms simultaneously (see Fig. 3).

After constraining the path for stress, we found that the modelaccounted for an increased amount of variance in the dependentvariables (R2 = .58, p < .05, R2 = .58, p < .05, for Maternal Sensitiv-ity and CSEF, respectively). The model fit indices improved fortwo of the indices (CFI = .930, RMSEA = .056, SRMR = .070); how-ever, the chi-square value remained unchanged (x2 = 64, df = 47,|�x2| = 0, |�df| = 1). The same fit indices were found when the pathfrom depressive symptoms was constrained. Additionally, the fullymediated model with both direct paths constrained showed simi-lar model fit indices (CFI = .934, RMSEA = .054, SRMR = .070, x2 = 64,df = 48) and no significant change in the chi-square value in compar-ison to the hypothesized model (x2 = 64, df = 48, |�x2| = 0, |�df| = 2).These findings indicated that although neither direct path con-tributed anything additional to the model, statistically there wasno significant difference between the full mediation model andhypothesized partial mediation model.

If there is no significant difference between nested models, the

more parsimonious of the two models should be chosen (Kline,2005). In the case of our hypothesized model with direct pathsto the child outcome and our fully mediated model with onlyindirect effects, the fully mediated model was the simpler modelas it had fewer parameters to estimate. Thus, we concluded that

82 J.E.V. Whittaker et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 26 (2011) 74–86

Fig. 2. Direct effects model with effects of maternal sensitivity fixed to zero.

paths

neaba

6

eawgvs

Fig. 3. Fully mediated model with direct

either stress nor depressive symptoms had a significant directffect on Child Social Emotional Functioning, but rather stress aloneppeared to indirectly affect Child Social Emotional Functioningy negatively influencing Maternal Sensitivity, which consequentlyffected children’s social–emotional well-being.

. Discussion

The current study tested a theoretically derived structuralquation model to examine the relations among family risk vari-

bles, maternal sensitivity, and child social–emotional functioningithin a sample of young children from low socioeconomic back-

rounds. The combination of the selected family risk and parentingariables offered a strong explanation for the variance in childocial–emotional outcomes in this sample. Overall, these findings

from proximal risk factors fixed to zero.

extend the evidence that children who experience multiple prox-imal and distal risks are more prone to negative developmentaloutcomes (Ackerman et al., 1999; Fox et al., 2002; Sameroff & Seifer,1983) by documenting these processes in families from low-incomebackgrounds with young children. Further, the results of this studysupport theory and research which underscore the import of pos-itive parenting, in this case maternal sensitivity, as a means ofprotecting children against the effect of adverse family ecologies(Bornstein, 1989; Jones et al., 2008). In particular, this study doc-uments that positive parenting is a salient protective factor in the

lives of very young children from low-income backgrounds, whosefamilies experience a myriad of risk factors. We will discuss thespecific findings in the paragraphs that follow, in the context of ourconceptual and empirical understanding of the relation betweenproximal risk factors and child social–emotional outcomes.

ood Re

6

r(spast1rttts1opo

twuhttt2eprtBsaCthas

6

tidbtnKTpu(C

otsa(cem

J.E.V. Whittaker et al. / Early Childh

.1. The effect of parental stress

Although numerous studies have highlighted the negativeelationship between parental depression and child outcomesAnthony et al., 2005; Downey & Coyne, 1990), the effect of parentaltress is less well documented and understood. In the current study,arental stress was a more potent predictor of parenting practicesnd child social–emotional outcomes than was parental depressiveymptomatology. From a methodological perspective, it is impor-ant to note that the measure used to assess stress (PSI; Abidin,990) includes items that directly relate to the stress parents expe-ience relative to their children’s temperament and behavior, and toheir interactions with their children. Thus, it stands to reason thathis construct would be more strongly related to parenting cogni-ions and practices than would a measure of parental psychiatricymptomatology (e.g., depressive symptoms on the CESD; Radloff,977). Further, our findings are consonant with the evidence fromther studies that parental stress has a direct effect on parentingractices (Crawford & Manassis, 2001) and child social–emotionalutcomes (Anthony et al., 2005; Bagner et al., 2009).

Nevertheless, as with other studies of parents’ functioning, whathey do and how they respond to their children have more importith respect to their children’s outcomes than parents’ individ-al characteristics. For example, research on depressed mothersas documented the distinction between their parenting prac-ices and their manifestations of depressive symptomatology, andhat the former is more predictive of child outcomes than the lat-er (Dix, Cheng, & Day, 2009; Feng et al., 2008; Jennings et al.,008). Additionally, studies of children and parents who experi-nce stress related to trauma (e.g., community violence, intimateartner violence) have suggested that the parenting children expe-ience may be more predictive of their outcomes than the traumahat they and their parents experience (Levendosky & Graham-ermann, 1998; Punamaki, Qouta, & El-Sarraj, 2001). There is amall body of research that suggests that stress may indirectlyffect children’s behavior through parenting quality (Murray, Fiori-owley, & Hooper, 1996; Teti, Nakagawa, Das, & Wirth, 1991). Inhe current study, we documented that maternal sensitivity mayave a major role in protecting young children reared in povertygainst the effect of adverse family processes, such as parentaltress.

.2. The role of maternal sensitivity

Multiple psychological theories and frameworks have espousedhe primacy of parenting quality in children’s outcomes, includ-ng approaches emanating from ethological (Bowlby, 1980),evelopmental psychopathology (Cicchetti & Cohen, 2006), andioecological (Bronfenbrenner, 1977) theories. In support of theseheories, multiple studies have documented a link between mater-al sensitivity and children’s outcomes across domains (e.g.,aplan, Burgess, Sliter, & Moreno, 2009; Leerkes et al., 2009;hompson, 1997). Specifically, research on such constructs asarental warmth, responsivity, and emotional availability has doc-mented their relation to positive child social–emotional outcomesDeater-Deckard, Dodge, & Sorbring, 2005; Kim-Cohen, Moffitt,aspi, & Taylor, 2004).

Although only a few studies have examined the mediating rolef maternal sensitivity between family risk and child outcomes,he findings of this study support the small corpus of research thatuggests that positive parenting can protect children against the

dverse effect of family risk on their social emotional outcomesGershoff et al., 2007). Specifically, studies that target very younghildren from low SES backgrounds suggest that the microsystemxperiences relative to parent characteristics and child rearing areore salient regarding their outcomes than macro- and exosys-

search Quarterly 26 (2011) 74–86 83

tem factors such as poverty and its concomitants (Ackerman et al.,1999; Jones et al., 2008; McLoyd, 1990). In the present study, wewere interested in examining a latent variable that reflected moth-ers’ sensitivity to their children as the parenting variable that couldexacerbate or decrease the influence of family risk on children’soutcomes. As expected, maternal sensitivity mediated the effect ofparenting stress on child outcomes, thereby adding to the literatureon the import of positive parenting for young children at high-risk.Thus, our study extends the literature on the influence of parentalstress by documenting that even among families living highlystressful lives, due to poverty and their parenting experiences,parents’ practices with their very young children (i.e., maternalsensitivity) are more directly related to children’s outcomes and,if strengthened, can facilitate more positive child social–emotionalfunctioning.

6.3. The influence of age

This study examined hypothesized relations between familyfactors and child outcomes in a group of toddlers and their families.Research has identified toddlerhood as a particularly challengingtime for parents, as their children negotiate such developmen-tal tasks as autonomy-seeking and emotion regulation (Belsky,Woodworth, & Crnic, 1996). Although in the main, parents con-tinue to exhibit warmth and responsiveness to their children duringthe toddler period, the stress of parenting evolves from meetingthe multiple concrete demands of caring for infants (e.g., night-feedings) to the more psychological demands of responding to non-compliance and temper tantrums (Edwards & Liu, 2002). Moreover,parents often report initiating discipline during this period, such as“time-out” and corporal punishment (Straus & Stewart, 1999).

In the current study, both child and mother were associatedwith study variables. First, younger children exhibited significantlylower social emotional functioning. These findings are consistentwith the literature that suggests that as young children mature,they become more self-regulated and exhibit more social compe-tencies and fewer behavior problems (Campbell, 2006; Denham etal., 2003). It is important to note that the age range of the chil-dren in this study, at the point at which mothers reported ontheir children’s behavior, was 12.5–37.2 months. Thus, even theolder children in this study would arguably just be transitioninginto the preschool period and would most likely still be exhibit-ing the behavioral dysregulation associated with the toddlerhood(Edwards & Liu, 2002). This finding argues for more refined researchon the perceptions of parents from varying backgrounds about thebehavior of children at different points of development. It may bethat parents experiencing poverty find the behavior of infants andyounger toddlers, due to their intensive concrete needs, to be morechallenging than that of older toddlers.

Another age-related finding was that older mothers had higherlevels of sensitivity to their children than younger mothers. Stud-ies comparing adolescent to adult mothers have shown that oldermothers exhibit better parenting cognitions, affect, and practices(Moore & Brooks-Gunn, 2002), which suggest higher levels of sen-sitivity to their children. Further, research on the influence ofmaternal age on parenting has produced some evidence that oldermothers (e.g., over 30 years of age) are more stimulating, affection-ate, and engaged with their children (Bornstein & Putnick, 2007).Notably, the age range of the mothers in the current study wasquite broad (15–51), with the overwhelming majority (approxi-mately 70%) of the mothers being under the age of 30. This set of

findings extends the evidence from the few prior studies relativeto maternal age, which tended to dichotomize age (e.g., adolescentvs. non-adolescent, older vs. younger mother), by documenting agradual improvement in parenting as women from low-incomebackgrounds mature.

8 ood Re

6

ptaheuAmwlso

iigdrmml

ra(atoisaat

22iwisi

pomomDdctowita(

6

ta

4 J.E.V. Whittaker et al. / Early Childh

.4. Research limitations and directions

Although this study has contributed to our understanding of therotective role of maternal sensitivity in families experiencing mul-iple risk factors, there are nevertheless limitations that must becknowledged. First, this study had a relatively small sample whichas obvious methodological implications. Because we were inter-sted in the latent variable of maternal sensitivity, we elected tose structural equation modeling (SEM) as a data analytic strategy.lthough SEM can be used with smaller sample sizes of approxi-ately 100 (Bentler, 2007), most experts suggest that it be usedith samples of 200 or more (Barrett, 2007). However, despite the

imited sample size, we still found good model fit, strong effectizes, and significant R-squared values, which gives good evidencef strong underlying associations among the factors investigated.

Further, this relatively small and homogenous (i.e., 100% livingn poverty; 74% African American) sample precludes generalizabil-ty of the current findings to other racial/ethnic and socioeconomicroups. The urban setting in which the study was implemented alsoid not allow for inclusion of families who live in impoverishedural areas. Additionally, the families in this study all experiencedultiple risks, which prevents an examination of these develop-ental processes within families experiencing a broad range of

evels of risk (i.e., from low to high).Additionally, there were some measurement concerns that war-

ant caution in interpreting the results of this study. Althoughn observation measure of parenting was included in this studyi.e., HOME; Caldwell & Bradley, 1984), most of the measures usedcross constructs relied on self-report questionnaires. Specifically,he mother reported on family risk, parenting practices, and childutcomes. This has obvious methodological and interpretabilitymplications, particularly in terms of the increased likelihood ofhared method variance, in that only one individual is reporting onrange of constructs and contexts. In addition, the parenting vari-bles were measured at the same time, which has implications forhe interpretability of the mediation findings.

Furthermore, both the HOME subscales (Caldwell & Bradley,003) and the BITSEA Competence domain (Briggs-Gowan & Carter,002) had relatively low levels of internal consistency, suggest-

ng that they were not reliable measures of the constructs theyere designed to assess. Although we provide justification for the

nclusion of these subscales despite their low reliability, cautionhould be used in interpreting the results of this study, particularlyn relation to these measures.

Future studies should recruit a larger and more diverse sam-le that includes multiple racial/ethnic groups and varying levelsf risk. It would be beneficial to incorporate a broader range ofeasures and data sources. For example, videotaped assessments

f family and parenting processes across time would allow for aore refined examination of the construct of maternal sensitivity.irect assessment of child social–emotional functioning, or at leastata collected from other reporters in the same or other contexts,ould add much to our understanding of the social–emotional func-ioning of children experiencing multiple risks, and the influencef family and parenting processes on their functioning. Finally, itould be important to examine other ecological variables that may

nfluence child social–emotional functioning, such as the quality ofheir early education and child care experiences (e.g., Head Start)nd neighborhood variables which may affect parenting practicese.g., community stability).

.5. Policy and practice implications

The families involved in the current study were participants inhe Early Head Start program. Such programs are two-generational,nd therefore aim to improve child and family functioning. The

search Quarterly 26 (2011) 74–86

results of this study suggest that parenting quality can mediatethe effect of adverse ecological circumstances on young children’ssocial–emotional outcomes. Thus, they affirm the import of earlychildhood policy that moves beyond a singular focus on child-specific strategies to promote the development of young children,to an incorporation of service systems and funding streams thatallow for interventions to enhance parent and family functioning(Brooks-Gunn, Berlin, & Fuligni, 2000). Given the age findings in thestudy relative to parenting, this approach seems to be particularlygermane for programs serving younger mothers.

Specifically, the evidence presented herein argues for ser-vices within the early childhood intervention context that addressparental stress and maternal sensitivity in young children. Thereis a vast literature base on the benefits of interventions designedto improve parenting quality in high-risk families (e.g., Nowak &Heinrichs, 2008). Aspects of maternal sensitivity, such as respon-siveness, have been successfully targeted in interventions toenhance early parent–child relationships and to prevent early con-duct problems (Dishion et al., 2008; Landry et al., 2008). It isimportant that these interventions be translated into community-based contexts, such as Early Head Start programs.

To a lesser extent, early childhood interventions have beendocumented to improve the mental health of parents. Althoughmost studies in this vein have addressed parental depression (e.g.,Sanders & McFarland, 2000), there is an emerging body of evi-dence that parenting interventions can reduce parental stress(Caldwell, Horne, Davison, & Quinn, 2007; Timmer, Urquiza, Zebell,& McCrath, 2005). Some of these interventions are provided inthe context of parent education programs, which simultaneouslyyield benefits for parent psychological functioning and parentingcapacity (e.g., Beach et al., 2009). Thus, there are evidence-basedpractices which can be implemented in Early Head Start and otherearly childhood programs that could enhance parental functioning,and ultimately improve child outcomes.

In regard to child outcomes, this study focused on childsocial–emotional functioning, specifically social competence andbehavior problems. Given the salience of low social compe-tence and elevated problem behaviors in young children rearedin high-risk contexts (Raver, 2004), it is critical that earlychildhood intervention programs address this domain of child func-tioning. Fortunately, researchers have successfully implementedinterventions that have yielded benefits for young children’ssocial–emotional competence (e.g., Raver et al., 2009; Shaw,Dishion, Supplee, Gardner, & Arnds, 2006). Integrating such inter-ventions into ongoing Early Head Start and other early childhoodprograms has the potential to enhance the social–emotional func-tioning of participant children, as well as their overall schoolreadiness (Knitzer, 2000).

7. Conclusion

The goal of this study was to examine the mechanismsthrough which children reared in impoverished contexts achievedsocial emotional competence. Using theory-driven structural equa-tion modeling as the principle data analytic strategy, this studyaddressed the question of the mediating role of maternal sensi-tivity in the link between family risks and the social–emotionalfunctioning of toddlers. Maternal sensitivity did serve as a media-tor between parental stress and child social–emotional functioning.As expected, family contextual risks did predict parental stress; agewas also found to influence child and parental functioning.

These findings provide further evidence that family risks,although highly influential, have an indirect effect on children’ssocial–emotional outcomes. Parenting quality, in this case mater-nal sensitivity, can be construed as the mechanism through whichthese risk factors impinge on children’s functioning. From a

ood Re

rrSctEsbe

R

A

A

A

A

A

A

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

BB

B

B

B

B

B

B

J.E.V. Whittaker et al. / Early Childh

esilience perspective, such findings suggest that children who areeared in high-risk contexts are not doomed to adverse outcomes.pecifically, the experience of parental warmth and responsivityan place these children on a more positive developmental trajec-ory. Thus, early interventions programs such as Head Start andarly Head Start, while working to increase the economic self-ufficiency of parents, could also promote positive child outcomesy intervening in their families to reduce parental stress and tonhance parenting quality.

eferences

bidin, R. R. (1990). Parenting Stress Index Short Form: Test manual. Charlottesville,VA: Department of Pediatrics, University of Virginia.

chenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2000). Manual for the ASEBA preschool formsand profiles. Burlington, VT: Burlington University of Vermont, Department ofPsychiatry.

ckerman, B. P., Izard, C. E., Schoff, K., Youngstrom, E. A., & Kogos, J. (1999). Con-textual risk, caregiver emotionality, and the problem behaviors of six- andseven-year-old children from economically disadvantaged families. Child Devel-opment, 70, 1415–1427.

dams, C., Hillman, N., & Gaydos, G. (1994). Behavioral difficulties in toddlers: Impactof sociocultural and biological risk factors. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 23,373–381.

guilar, B., Sroufe, L. A., Egeland, B., & Carlson, E. (2000). Distinguishing the life-course-persistent and adolescent-limited antisocial behavior types: From birthto 16 years. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 109–132.

nthony, L. G., Anthony, B. J., Glanville, D. N., Naiman, D. Q., Waanders, C., & Shaffer, S.(2005). The relationship between stress, parenting behaviour and preschoolers’social competence and behaviour problems in the classroom. Infant and ChildDevelopment, 14, 133–154.

agner, D., Sheinkopf, S., Miller-Loncar, C., LaGasse, L., Lester, B., Liu, J., et al. (2009).The effect of parenting stress on child behavior problems in high-risk childrenwith prenatal drug exposure. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 40(1),73–84.

aillargeon, R., Normand, C., Séguin, J., Zoccolillo, M., Japel, C., Pérusse, D., et al.(2007). The evolution of problem and social competence behaviors during tod-dlerhood: A prospective population-based cohort survey. Infant Mental HealthJournal, 28(1), 12–38, doi:10.1002/imhj.20120.

arrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modeling: Adjudging model fit. Personalityand Individual Differences, 42(5), 815–824.

each, S., Brody, G., Kogan, S., Philibert, R., Chen, Y., & Lei, M. (2009). Change incaregiver depression in response to parent training. Journal of Family Psychology,23(1), 112–117.

elsky, J., Woodworth, S., & Crnic, K. (1996). Trouble in the second year: Threequestions about family interaction. Child Development, 67(2), 556–578.

ennett, K. J., Lipman, E. L., Brown, S., Racine, Y., Boyle, M. H., & Offord, D. R. (1999).Predicting conduct problems: Can high-risk children be identified in kinder-garten and Grade 1? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 470–480.

entler, P. M. (2007). On tests and indices for evaluating structural models. Person-ality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 825–829.

ornstein, M. (Ed.). (1989). Maternal responsiveness: Characteristics and consequences.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

ornstein, M. (1995). Handbook of parenting: Vol. 1. Children and parenting. Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.

ornstein, M., & Putnick, D. (2007). Chronological age, cognitions, and practices inEuropean American mothers: A multivariate study of parenting. DevelopmentalPsychology, 43(4), 850–864.

owlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss. New York, NY: Basic.oyce, G., Behl, D., Mortensen, L., & Akers, J. (1991). Child characteristics, family

demographics and family processes: Their effects on the stress experiencedby families of children with disabilities. Counseling Psychology Quarterly, 4(4),273–288.

radley, R., Caldwell, B., & Rock, S. (1988). Home environment and school perfor-mance: A ten-year follow-up and examination of three models of environmentalaction. Child Development, 59(4), 852–867, doi:10.2307/1130253.

radley, R., Caldwell, B., Rock, S., & Casey, P. (1987). The early development of low-birthweight infants: Relationship to health, family status, family context, familyprocesses, and parenting. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 10(3),301–318.

radley, R., Corwyn, R., Burchinal, M., Pipes McAdoo, H., & García Coll, C. (2001).The home environments of children in the United States Part II: Relationswith behavioral development through age thirteen. Child Development, 72(6),1868–1886.

riggs-Gowan, M. J., & Carter, A. S. (2002). The Brief Infant–Toddler Social and Emo-tional Assessment—Parent version. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment, Inc.

riggs-Gowan, M. J., & Carter, A. S. (2008). Social–emotional screening status in earlychildhood predicts elementary school outcomes. Pediatrics, 121, 957–962.

riggs-Gowan, M. J., Carter, A. S., Irwin, J. R., Wachtel, K., & Cicchetti, D. V.(2004). The Brief Infant–Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment: Screeningfor social–emotional problems and delays in competence. Journal of PediatricPsychology, 29, 143–155.

search Quarterly 26 (2011) 74–86 85

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development.American Psychologist, 32, 513–531.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human develop-ment: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22(6), 723–742.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualized indevelopmental perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological Review, 101,568–586.

Brooks-Gunn, J., Berlin, L., & Fuligni, A. (2000). Early childhood intervention pro-grams: What about the family? In J. Shonkoff, & S. Meisels (Eds.), Handbook ofearly childhood intervention (pp. 549–588). New York, NY: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Burchinal, M., Roberts, J. E., Zeisel, S. A., Hennon, E. A., & Hooper, S. (2006). Socialrisk and protective child, parenting, and child care factors in early elementaryschool years. Parenting Science and Practice, 6, 79–113.

Caldwell, B. M., & Bradley, R. H. (1984). Home Observation for Measurement of theEnvironment. Little Rock, AR: University of Arkansas at Little Rock.

Caldwell, B. M., & Bradley, R. H. (2003). Home Observation for Measurement of theEnvironment: Administration manual. Little Rock, AR: University of Arkansas.

Caldwell, C., Horne, A., Davison, B., & Quinn, W. (2007). Effectiveness of a multiplefamily group intervention for juvenile first offenders in reducing parental stress.Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16(3), 443–459.

Campbell, S. B. (1997). Behavior problems in preschool children: Developmental andfamily issues. Advances in Clinical Child Psychology, 19, 1–26.

Campbell, S. B. (2006). Maladjustment in preschool children: A developmentalpsychopathology perspective. In K. McCartney, & D. Phillips (Eds.), Blackwellhandbook of early childhood development (pp. 358–378). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Campbell, S., Shaw, D., & Gilliom, M. (2000). Early externalizing behavior problems:Toddlers and preschoolers at risk for later maladjustment. Development andPsychopathology, 12(3), 467–488, doi:10.1017/S0954579400003114.

Cicchetti, D., & Cohen, D. (2006). Handbook of developmental psychopathology. Hobo-ken, NJ: Wiley.

Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., Elder, G. H., Lorenz, F. O., Simons, R. L., & Whitbeck, L. B.(1992). A family process model of economic hardship and adjustment of earlyadolescent boys. Child Development, 63, 526–541.

Conger, R. D., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (1994). Families in troubled times: Adapting to changein rural America. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.

Crawford, A., & Manassis, K. (2001). Familial predictors of treatment outcome inchildhood anxiety disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Ado-lescent Psychiatry, 40, 1182–1189.

Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K., Bates, J., & Pettit, G. (1998). Multiple risk factorsin the development of externalizing behavior problems: Group and individualdifferences. Development and Psychopathology, 10(3), 469–493.

Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K. A., & Sorbring, E. (2005). Cultural differences in theeffects of physical punishment. In M. Rutter, & M. Tienda (Eds.), Ethnicity andcausal mechanisms (pp. 205–226). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Deater-Deckard, K., & Scarr, S. (1996). Parenting stress among dual-earner moth-ers and fathers: Are there gender differences? Journal of Family Psychology, 10,45–59.

Denham, S. A. (1998). Emotional development in young children. New York, NY: Guil-ford.

Denham, S., Blair, K., DeMulder, E., Sawyer, K., Auerbach-Major, S., & Queenan, P.(2003). Preschoolers’ emotional competence: Pathway to mental health? ChildDevelopment, 74, 238–256.

Dishion, T., Shaw, D., Connell, A., Gardner, F., Weaver, C., & Wilson, M. (2008). Thefamily check-up with high-risk indigent families: Preventing problem behav-ior by increasing parents’ positive behavior support in early childhood. ChildDevelopment, 79(5), 1395–1414.

Dix, T., Cheng, N., & Day, W. (2009). Connecting with parents: Mothers’ depressivesymptoms and responsive behaviors in the regulation of social contact by one-and young two-year-olds. Social Development, 18(1), 24–50.

Downey, G., & Coyne, J. C. (1990). Children of depressed parents: An integrativereview. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 50–76.

Dunst, C. J., & Leet, H. E. (1987). Measuring the adequacy of resources in householdswith young children. Child: Care, Health, and Development, 13(2), 111–125.

Eamon, M. K. (2001). The effects of poverty on children’s socioemotional develop-ment: An ecological perspective. Social Work, 43, 256–266.

Edwards, C., & Liu, W. (2002). Parenting toddlers. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbookof parenting: Vol. 1. Children and parenting (2nd ed., pp. 45–71). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

Farmer, E. M. (1995). Extremity of externalizing behavior and young adult outcomes.Journal of Psychology and Psychiatry, 36, 617–632.

Feng, X., Shaw, D., Kovacs, M., Lane, T., O’Rourke, F., & Alarcon, J. (2008). Emotionregulation in preschoolers: The roles of behavioral inhibition, maternal affectivebehavior, and maternal depression. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,49(2), 132–141.

Fox, L., Dunlap, G., & Powell, D. (2002). Young children with challenging behav-ior: Issues and considerations for behavior support. Journal of Positive BehaviorInterventions, 4, 208–217.

Gershoff, E., Aber, J., Raver, C., & Lennon, M. (2007). Income is not enough: Incorpo-rating material hardship into models of income associations with parenting and

child development. Child Development, 78(1), 70–95.

Halpern, L. F. (2004). The relations of coping and family environment to preschoolers’problem behavior. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 25, 399–421.

Henderson, A., Sayger, T., & Horne, A. (2003). Mothers and sons: A look at therelationship between child behavior problems, marital satisfaction, maternaldepression, and family cohesion. The Family Journal, 11(1), 33–41.

8 ood Re

H

H

J

J

J

K

K

K

K

L

L

L

L

L

L

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

N

White, J. L., Moffitt, T., Earls, F., Robins, L., & Silva, P. A. (1990). How early canwe tell? Predictors of childhood conduct disorder and adolescent delinquency.

6 J.E.V. Whittaker et al. / Early Childh

olden, G. W., & Edwards, L. A. (1989). Parental attitudes toward child rearing:Instruments, issues, and implications. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 29–58.

u, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance struc-ture analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural EquationModeling, 6(1), 1–55.

ennings, K., Sandberg, I., Kelley, S., Valdes, L., Yaggi, K., Abrew, A., et al. (2008).Understanding of self and maternal warmth predict later self-regulationin toddlers. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32(2), 108–118,doi:10.1177/0165025407087209.

ones, D., Forehand, R., Rakow, A., Colletti, C., McKee, L., & Zalot, A. (2008). Thespecificity of maternal parenting behavior and child adjustment difficulties: Astudy of inner-city African American families. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(2),181–192.

ones Harden, B., Winslow, M., Kendziora, A. S., Rubin, K. H., Fox, N. A., Crowley,M. J., et al. (2000). Externalizing problems in Head Start children: An ecologicalexploration. Early Education and Development, 11, 357–385.

aplan, P., Burgess, A., Sliter, J., & Moreno, A. (2009). Maternal sensitivity and thelearning-promoting effects of depressed and non-depressed mothers’ infant-directed speech. Infancy, 14(2), 143–161.

im-Cohen, J., Moffitt, T., Caspi, A., & Taylor, A. (2004). Genetic and environmen-tal processes in young children’s resilience and vulnerability to socioeconomicdeprivation. Child Development, 75(3), 651–668.

line, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York,NY: Guilford.

nitzer, J. (2000). Early childhood mental health services: A policy and systemsdevelopment perspective. In J. Shonkoff, & S. Meisels (Eds.), Handbook of earlychildhood intervention (pp. 416–438). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

andry, S., Smith, K., Swank, P., Assel, M., & Vellet, S. (2001). Does early responsiveparenting have a special importance for children’s development or is consistencyacross early childhood necessary? Developmental Psychology, 37(3), 387–403,doi:10.1037/0012-1649.37.3.387.

andry, S., Smith, K., Swank, P., & Guttentag, C. (2008). A responsive parentingintervention: The optimal timing across early childhood for impacting maternalbehaviors and child outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 44(5), 1335–1353.

eerkes, E., Blankson, A., & O’Brien, M. (2009). Differential effects of maternal sensi-tivity to infant distress and nondistress on social–emotional functioning. ChildDevelopment, 80(3), 762–775.

evendosky, A., & Graham-Bermann, S. (1998). The moderating effects of parentingstress on children’s adjustment in woman-abusing families. Journal of Interper-sonal Violence, 13(3), 383–397.

i-Grining, C. (2007). Effortful control among low-income preschoolers in threecities: Stability, change, and individual differences. Developmental Psychology,43(1), 208–221.

inver, M., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Kohen, D. (2002). Family processes as pathwaysfrom income to young children’s development. Developmental Psychology, 38(5),719–734.

asten, A., & Gewirtz, A. (2006). Vulnerability and resilience in early child develop-ment. In K. McCartney, & D. Phillips (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of early childhooddevelopment (pp. 22–43). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

cLeod, J. D., & Shanahan, M. J. (1993). Poverty, parenting and children’s mentalhealth. American Sociological Review, 58, 351–366.

cLoyd, V. (1990). The impact of economic hardship on Black families and chil-dren: Psychological distress, parenting, and socioemotional development. ChildDevelopment, 61(2), 311–346.

istry, R., Biesanz, J., Taylor, L., Burchinal, M., & Cox, M. (2004). Family income andits relation to preschool children’s adjustment for families in the NICHD Studyof Early Child Care. Developmental Psychology, 40(5), 727–745.

oore, M. R., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2002). Adolescent parenthood. In M. Bornstein (Ed.),Handbook of parenting: Vol. 3. Being and becoming a parent (2nd ed., pp. 173–214).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

urray, L., Fiori-Cowley, A., & Hooper, R. (1996). The impact of postnatal depressionand associated adversity on early mother–infant interactions and later infant

outcomes. Child Development, 67, 2512–2526.

uthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2007). Mplus user’s guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles,CA: Muthén & Muthén.

owak, C., & Heinrichs, N. (2008). A comprehensive meta-analysis of TripleP—Positive Parenting Program using hierarchical linear modeling. Clinical Childand Family Psychology Review, 11(3), 114–144.

search Quarterly 26 (2011) 74–86

Olson, D. H., Portner, J., & Bell, R. Q. (1992). FACES II: Family adaptability and cohesionsevaluation scales. St. Paul, MN: Family Social Science, University of Minnesota.

Petterson, S., & Albers, A. (2001). Effects of poverty and maternal depression on earlychild development. Child Development, 72(6), 1794–1813.

Punamaki, R., Qouta, S., & El-Sarraj, E. (2001). Resiliency factors predicting psy-chological adjustment after political violence among Palestinian children.International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25(3), 256–267.

Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-reported depression scale for researchin the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 385–401.

Raver, C. (2004). Placing emotional self-regulation in sociocultural and socioeco-nomic contexts. Child Development, 75(2), 346–353.

Raver, C., Jones, S., Li-Grining, C., Zhai, F., Metzger, M., & Solomon, B. (2009). Targetingchildren’s behavior problems in preschool classrooms: A cluster-randomizedcontrolled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(2), 302–316.

Robinson, J., & Emde, R. (2004). Mental health moderators of Early Head Start on par-enting and child development: Maternal depression and relationship attitudes.Parenting, 4(1), 73–97.

Sameroff, A. J., & Seifer, R. (1983). Familial risk and child competence. Child Devel-opment, 54, 1254–1268.

Sanders, M., & McFarland, M. (2000). Treatment of depressed mothers withdisruptive children: A controlled evaluation of cognitive-behavioral familyintervention. Behavior Therapy, 31, 89–112.

Shaw, D., Dishion, T., Supplee, L., Gardner, F., & Arnds, K. (2006). Randomized trial ofa family centered approach to the prevention of early conduct problems. Journalof Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74, 1–9.

Straus, M. A., & Stewart, J. H. (1999). Corporal punishment by American parents:National data on prevalence, chronicity, severity, and duration, in relation tochild and family characteristics. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 2,55–70.

Tamis-LeMonda, C., Briggs, R., McClowry, S., & Snow, D. (2009). Maternal control andsensitivity, child gender, and maternal education in relation to children’s behav-ioral outcomes in African American families. Journal of Applied DevelopmentalPsychology, 30(3), 321–331, doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2008.12.018.

Teti, D. M., Nakagawa, M., Das, R., & Wirth, O. (1991). Security of attachment betweenpreschoolers and their mothers: Relations among social interaction, parentingstress, and mothers’ sorts of the Attachment Q-Set. Developmental Psychology,27, 440–447.

Thomas, J. L., & Brantley, P. J. (2004). Factor structure of the Center for EpidemiologicStudies Depression Scale in low-income women attending primary care clinics.European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 20, 106–115.

Thompson, R. (1997). Sensitivity and security: New questions to ponder. Child Devel-opment, 68(4), 595–597.

Thompson, R. A., & Lagattuta, K. H. (2006). Feeling and understanding: Early emo-tional development. In K. McCartney, & D. Phillips (Eds.), Blackwell handbook ofearly childhood development (pp. 317–337). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Timmer, S., Urquiza, A., Zebell, N., & McCrath, J. (2005). Parent–Child InteractionTherapy: Application to maltreating parent–child dyads. Child Abuse and Neglect,29(7), 329–334.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Chil-dren and Families, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation. (2002a).Making a difference in the lives of infants and toddlers and their fami-lies: The impacts of Early Head Start, Executive summary. Retrieved fromhttp://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/ehs/ehs resrch/reports/impactsexesum/impacts execsum.pdf.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children andFamilies, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation. (2002b). Making adifference in the lives of infants and toddlers and their families: The impactsof Early Head Start. Vol. II: Final technical report appendices. Retrieved fromhttp://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/ehs/ehs resrch/reports/impacts vol2/impacts vol2.pdf.

Criminology, 28, 507–533.Yeung, W., Linver, M., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2002). How money matters for young devel-

opment: Parental investment and family processes. Child Development, 73(6),1861–1879.