Teacher-Child Relationships As Dynamic Systems

Journal of School Psychology 48 (2010) 187 – 218
Teacher–child relationships as dynamic systems

Erin O'Connor ⁎
New York University, USA
Received 5 December 2007; received in revised form 13 August 2009; accepted 27 January 2010
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to examine factors associated with the quality of the
teacher–child relationship from first through fifth grade using data from phases I, II and III of the
National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development Study of Early Child Care and Youth
Development, a prospective study of 1364 children from birth through sixth grade. On average,
children evidenced moderately high quality relationships with teachers in fifth grade. However, there
was extensive variation in fifth grade relationship quality across children. Children who received
more support and stimulation at home and whose parents had higher quality interactions with the
school had higher quality relationships. Additionally, children in classrooms with more positive
environments and better management had higher quality relationships. Lastly, females, European-
American children, children with lower levels of behavior problems and children who had higher
quality relationships with their teachers in kindergarten also had higher quality relationships with
teachers. On average, children evidenced decreases in the quality of their relationships with teachers
from first through fifth grade. Interestingly, children whose parents had more contact with their
schools, who were in schools where teachers received higher salaries and in classrooms that had
more positive emotional climates and that were better managed evidenced slower rates of decline in
relationship quality. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.
© 2010 Society for the Study of School Psychology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Teacher–child relationships; Elementary school; Contextual systems model
⁎ Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development, 665 Broadway, Suite 805, New York, NY
10013, USA.
E-mail address: eoc2@nyu.edu.
ACTION EDITOR: Mark D. Shriver.
0022-4405/$ - see front matter © 2010 Society for the Study of School Psychology. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2010.01.001
188 E. O'Connor / Journal of School Psychology 48 (2010) 187–218
Introduction
A robust literature demonstrates that high quality teacher–child relationships contribute

to children's social and cognitive skill development in elementary school (e.g. Hamre &
Pianta, 2001; Howes, Matheson, & Hamilton, 1994; Pianta, 1999). Supporting children in
the development of high quality relationships is thus vital. Our understanding of how to
foster high quality relationships between children and teachers in elementary school,
however, is limited as little research exists on the developmental trajectories and correlates
of teacher–child relationship quality during this developmental period.
Researchers speculate that the quality of the teacher–child relationship is determined by
complex interactions between individual and environmental factors, and have recommended
the use of dynamic systems and ecological models to identify specific factors associated with
the quality of teacher–child relationships over time (Kontos, 1992; Mantzicopoulos, 2005;
Pianta, 1999). According to dynamic system models, relationships are constantly changing
due to alterations in the environments in which relationships exist and changes in the
individuals within the relationship. According to ecological models, children develop over
time within interrelated systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Pianta & Walsh, 1996). Pianta and
Walsh's (1996) Contextual Systems Model (CSM), which is rooted in both dynamic systems
and ecological models, was used as a framework for the current study, as it provides a
theoretical model of factors within the child, teacher, family and school environments
associated with the quality of the teacher–child relationship during elementary school.
Teacher–child relationships
Teacher–child relationships in early and middle childhood have many of the properties
and functions of parent–child attachment relationships (Pianta, 1999; Wentzel, 1996). High
quality relationships are defined by high levels of closeness and low levels of conflict
between the teacher and child. Positive correlations in the quality of children's relationships
with teachers have been found between kindergarten and first grade (O'Connor &
McCartney, 2006). Some variation, however, exists in the quality of children's
relationships with different teachers across the elementary school years (Jerome, Hamre,
& Pianta, 2009). For example, in a study of children from first through third grade, there
was evidence of only moderate stability in relationship quality across different teachers
(O'Connor & McCartney, 2007).
Examining factors associated with change in relationship quality is important, as even
small changes in quality have implications for child outcomes. For example, in one study, a
small decrease per year in relationship quality across the first three years of elementary
school was associated with significantly lower levels of achievement at third grade
(O'Connor & McCartney, 2007). The CSM outlines various factors that may be associated
with change in relationship quality.
Contextual systems model
The CSM posits that children develop within the family and school environments. These
environments are composed of various systems, or related factors, that exist at levels distal and
E. O'Connor / Journal of School Psychology 48 (2010) 187–218 189
proximal to the child. The family environment is composed of the systems of family resources
and functions. Family resources include a family's socio-economic supports. Family functions
are more proximal to the child than family resources and are actions within the family that
regulate children's behavior and development. Family functions include parent–child
relationships and parents' provision of support and stimulation for children's learning.
Systems in the school environment are: the school, the classroom, the teacher and the
child. The school system is characterized by collective child characteristics, such as
percentage of children living in poverty, as well as school characteristics, such as the
emotional and financial support offered teachers, which influence students' and teachers'
experiences. The classroom system includes aspects of the environment that involve
interactions between individuals in the classroom, such as the instructional support that
teachers provide students, as well as structural characteristics, including child–teacher
ratios, which are independent of interactions between individuals (Cassidy et al., 2005;
Helmke & Schrader, 1988; LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007; Pianta, 1994). The systems of the
teacher and child are composed of individual characteristics and experiences of teachers
and children, such as personality, which influence their behaviors.
The school and family environments do not exist in isolation from one another. In fact,
the school and family environments are in a relationship with each other (Pianta, 1999;
Pianta & Walsh, 1996). This relationship is characterized by both the amount of contact that
exists between the parents and school, as well as the quality of the interactions between
parents and the school (Pianta & Walsh, 1996).
Factors in the family and school systems are interdependent such that the effect of a factor
within the school environment on a child's development may be dependent on a factor within the
family environment and vice versa (Pianta & Walsh, 1996). Consequently, the family and school
environments impact child development individually, as well as through their interactions with
one another (Pianta & Walsh, 1996; Sameroff & Chandler, 1975).Teacher–child relationships
are at the heart of the CSM. According to the CSM, these relationships are open systems that
develop through “feedforward” and “feedback” loops. Teacher–child relationships develop
within the school environment; however, factors in both the family and school environments
influence relationship quality over time (Pianta & Walsh, 1996). In other words, within the
CSM, the quality of the teacher–child relationship is the result of various factors within the
family and school environments (Hamre, Pianta, Downer, & Mashburn, 2008).
The family environment
Family resources and functions

Research indicates that family socio-economic resources are associated with relationship
quality. Children from less advantaged backgrounds tend to develop lower quality
relationships with teachers (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Ladd, Birch, & Buhs, 1999; Pianta &
Stuhlman, 2004a,b). In particular, children from lower income families and whose parents
have fewer years of education tend to have less close and more conflictual relationships
with their teachers than their more advantaged peers (e.g. Ladd et al., 1999).
Family functions are also associated with relationship quality. Due to the amount of time
children spend with mothers during the first year of life, their initial attachment relationships
are usually to their mothers. In general, children develop either secure or insecure maternal
attachment relationships. Children with secure attachments are presumed to form models of
their mothers as trusting and supportive, and use them as a secure base (Bowlby, 1973;
Bretherton & Munholland, 1999; Thompson, 1999; Weinfield, Sroufe, Egeland, & Carlson,
1999). In contrast, children with insecure attachments may develop models of their mothers as
inconsistently available, and are not as effective as children with secure attachments in using
their mothers as secure bases. A small group of children does not develop either secure or
insecure attachment relationships. These children form insecure/other attachments. Children
with insecure/other attachments may have unorganized and incoherent working models of the
mother–child attachment relationship, and are unable to use their mothers as secure bases
(Main & Cassidy, 1988).
Due to relationships with their mothers, children may arrive at school with models of
attachment relationships that influence the quality of their early relationships with teachers.
Children with secure attachments tend to develop higher quality relationships with teachers
than children with insecure attachments (Howes & Hamilton, 1992; Pianta, Nimetz, &
Bennett, 1997; Sroufe, Fox, & Pancake, 1983). Children with insecure/other attachments
tend to form the lowest quality relationships with teachers (O'Connor & McCartney, 2006).
Parental support and stimulation for children's cognitive and academic development
also correlate with the quality of the teacher–child relationship. Through interactions with
parents, children learn behaviors and information that regulate their actions in the
classroom. Not surprisingly, children whose parents provide them with greater amounts of
support and stimulation evidence higher quality relationships with teachers (Pianta, 1999;
Pianta & Walsh, 1996). Children who receive high levels of support and stimulation at
home likely develop skills and behaviors that prepare them to be positively engaged in the
classroom and with teachers (Pianta & Walsh, 1996).
The family–school relationship

The family–school relationship connects the family environment to the school
environment in which the teacher–child relationship develops. Children whose parents
have more frequent contact and more positive interactions with teachers tend to evidence
lower levels of conflict with teachers in elementary school (Mantzicopoulos, 2005;
Reynolds, Weissberg, & Kasprow, 1992). Contact between parents and teachers sets the
stage for “establishing shared goals and mutual decision making, avoiding misunderstand-
ings, and helping parents understand how to reinforce learning and school instruction in the
home” (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001, p.118). Additionally, higher quality relationships
between teachers and parents may increase teachers' expectations for the quality of their
interactions with children and thereby foster higher quality teacher–child relationships
(Pianta & Walsh, 1996).
The school environment
School system
The school system regulates teachers' and students' behaviors, and consequently
influences teacher–child interactions and relationship quality. Teachers tend to have less
frequent positive and sensitive interactions with children in schools where there are higher
percentages of children living below the poverty line (NICHD Early Child Care Research
Network [ECCRN], 2003; Pianta et al., 2005). This association may reflect that teachers are
less able to attend to individual children's needs when multiple children in the school
evidence difficulties associated with poverty (Hanushek, 1997; Pianta et al., 2005).
Several studies have also identified associations between resources in the school
available to teachers and the quality of teacher–child interactions and relationships.
Teachers report higher quality interactions and relationships with students in schools in
which there are supportive and involved principals (Pianta, 1999). Furthermore, teacher–
child interactions are more positive in schools with greater amounts of professional
development offered to teachers (Fontaine, Torre, Grafwallner, & Underhill, 2006).
Financial support correlates with the quality of teacher–child interactions as well. Teacher–
child interactions tend to be more positive in schools in which teachers have higher salaries
(Hall & Cassidy, 2002).
Classroom system
A relatively extensive body of literature demonstrates that characteristics of the
classroom, which involve teacher–child and child–child interactions, are associated with
the quality of teacher–child relationships (Howes, 2000; Mashburn et al., 2008). Teacher–
child relationships tend to be higher quality in classrooms with very positive emotional
climates, characterized by teacher–child and peer interactions that are warm and supportive
and by high levels of teacher sensitivity. On the other hand, relationships tend to be lower in
quality in classrooms with less positive environments where the predominant patterns of
teacher–child and peer interactions are angry and/or insensitive (Birch & Ladd, 1997;
Hamre & Pianta, 2005; Hamre et al., 2008; Howes, 2000; Pianta, Steinberg, & Rollins,
1995).
Teacher–child relationships also tend to be higher quality in classrooms with better
instructional practices. For example, in one study, levels of conflict in the relationship were
lower when classroom instruction was characterized by the teacher's use of developmen-
tally appropriate practices (Mantzicopoulos, 2005). Additionally, teacher–child interac-
tions that foster higher quality relationships are more often observed in classrooms in which
classroom instruction is characterized by frequent instructional dialogue between teachers
and students, high levels of evaluative feedback and whole and small group instruction (e.g.
La Paro, Pianta, & Stuhlman, 2004). Lastly, teacher–child interactions associated with
higher quality relationships are more often observed in classrooms that are managed well
such that teacher expectations are clear and the pacing and level of activities are appropriate
(e.g. Donohue, Perry, & Weinstein, 2003; Emmer & Stough, 2001).
Characteristics of the classroom related to structure are associated with relationship
quality as well. Higher quality teacher–child relationships are observed in classes with
lower child–teacher ratios, where teachers interact with students more positively, observe
their development more diligently and interact with them in a more individualized fashion
(Bourke, 1986; McGiverin, Gilman, & Tillitski, 1989; NICHD ECCRN, 2002; Pianta,
1999; Thurlow, Ysseldyke, Wotruba, & Algozzine, 1993).
Teacher system
Teacher characteristics, including education and experience, also correlate with
relationship quality. Teachers with more years of education tend to develop higher quality
relationships with students (Hearns, 1998; Howes, Whitebrook, & Phillips, 1992).
Interestingly, teachers with more experience tend to form lower quality relationships with
children (Mashburn, Hamre, Downer, & Pianta, 2006; O'Connor & McCartney, 2006).
Teacher beliefs influence relationship quality as well. In particular, previous research
shows correlations between teacher self-efficacy and relationship quality. Teacher self-
efficacy refers to teachers' beliefs regarding their abilities to impact decision making in
their school and to manage and motivate children in their classroom. Teachers with higher
levels of self-efficacy report closer and less conflictual relationships with children (Hamre
et al., 2008; Mashburn et al., 2006). This association may reflect teacher behaviors.
Teachers who report higher levels of self-efficacy often interact with children in a manner
that enhances student engagement and prosocial behavior (Mashburn et al., 2008; Midgley,
Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989).
Child system
Researchers have identified various child characteristics, including gender, behavior
problems and language ability, associated with the quality of the teacher–child relationship
(e.g. Howes, Hamilton, & Matheson, 1994; Murray & Greenberg, 2000; Paget, Nagle, &
Martin, 1984). Girls often evidence higher quality relationships than boys (Bracken &
Crain, 1994; Howes, 2000; Pianta, 1999; Ryan, Stiller, & Lynch, 1994). Girls tend to be
more positively engaged in the classroom than boys, which may foster higher quality
teacher–child relationships (Birch & Ladd, 1997). Teachers also describe higher quality
relationships with European-American than African-American and Latino-American
children (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Saft & Pianta, 2001; Taylor & Machinda, 1996). This
association may reflect “ethnic match” as teachers tend to report higher quality relationships
when teacher–child ethnic match is present (Saft & Pianta, 2001). In previous research, the
majority of teachers have been European-American.
A relatively large body of literature demonstrates associations between behavior
problems and conflict in the teacher–child relationship (Birch & Ladd, 1998; Hamre et al.,
2008; Ladd et al., 1999; Murray & Greenberg, 2000; Murray & Murray, 2004). This
negative association between behavior problems and the quality of the teacher–child
relationship may arise as children with behavior problems frequently disturb the class, and
thus make teaching difficult (LaPointe, 2003).
Children who evidence higher level language skills tend to have higher quality
interactions with teachers (Qi & Kaiser, 2004). Children with higher level language skills
are better able to communicate their needs to teachers allowing their teachers to respond to
them in a sensitive and responsive manner that encourages a high quality relationship
(Rudasill, Rimm-Kaufman, Justice, & Pence, 2006). Shyness, the extent to which a child
evidences a slow or inhibited approach in situations involving novelty or uncertainty, is
associated with the quality of the teacher–child relationship as well (Rudasill et al., 2006).
Uninhibited children tend to interact with teachers more than their shy peers fostering more
positive relationships (e.g. Lerner, Lerner, & Zabski, 1985; Patrick, Yoon, & Murphy,
1995; Rimm-Kaufman & Kagan, 2005; Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2002; Skarpness & Carson,
1986).
Children's experiences in child care and kindergarten may also influence the quality of
their relationships with teachers in elementary school. Children in more hours of child care
tend to have higher quality relationships with child care teachers (Goossens & van
IJzendoorn, 1990; O'Connor & McCartney, 2006). Additionally, children with higher
quality relationships with teachers in kindergarten tend to have higher quality relationships
with their elementary school teachers (Jerome, Hamre, & Pianta, 2009; O'Connor &
McCartney, 2006; Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004a).
The Present Study
In the current study, the quality of children's relationships with teachers from first
through fifth grade, and factors associated with relationship quality over time were
examined using individual growth modeling techniques. To extend previous research on
teacher–child relationships, the following research questions were addressed: (a) do
children evidence change in relationship quality with teachers from first through fifth
grade?; (b) what family, school, classroom, teacher and child factors are associated with
change in relationship quality from first through fifth grade?; (c) what family, school,
classroom, teacher and child factors are associated with relationship quality at fifth grade?;
and (d) do the effects of factors in the family, school, classroom, teacher and child systems
on relationship quality vary as a function of one another?
Based on previous research, it was hypothesized that the average quality of the teacher–
child relationship would decrease slightly during elementary school. It was expected that
children who experienced more supportive home, school and classroom environments
would evidence less rapid rates of decline than their peers with less supportive
environments as supportive environments may encourage children's continued feelings
of safety and security in the relationship as they encounter new stressors related to peer and
academic pressures in later childhood. Due to the lack of longitudinal studies of overall
relationship quality, additional hypotheses regarding factors associated with change were
not proposed. At fifth grade, it was hypothesized that children from families with greater
financial resources, who had secure attachments, whose parent were more involved in the
school, who were in classrooms with more positive environments, lower child-to-teacher
ratios and that were better managed, and whose teachers had more education and
experience, as well as reported higher levels of self-efficacy, would have higher quality
relationships. Furthermore, it was expected that females, European-American children,
children with greater language skills, fewer behavior problems, higher levels of inhibitory
control, more hours in child care and higher quality kindergarten teacher–child
relationships would have higher quality relationships at fifth grade. Given the scarcity of
previous research on family and school factors associated with relationship quality, specific
hypotheses regarding how the effects of factors in the various systems of the CSM on
relationship quality would vary as a function of one another were not advanced.
As far as the author can determine, this is the first study to apply the CSM to the study of
teacher–child relationships across the elementary school years. An examination of factors
within the CSM that are associated with relationship quality during the elementary school
years adds to the literature on teacher–child relationships in at least three ways. First, to the
extent that the quality of children's relationships with teachers varies across teachers,
identifying developmental trajectories of relationship quality would improve the ecological
validity of research on teacher–child relationships. Second, examining family, school,
classroom, teacher and child factors associated with relationship quality in the same model
would demonstrate the relative influence of factors in each of these systems on the quality
of teacher–child relationships. In past research the effects of factors in multiple systems on
teacher–child relationship quality have not been examined in the same statistical model.
Thus, the relative influences of factors in various systems on relationship quality are
unknown. Additionally, because few researchers have considered the effects of factors in
the family and school environments in the same model, it is possible that previous results
demonstrating associations between factors in the family or school environments may
reflect the effects of unmeasured variables. Third, investigating possible interactions of
factors in the family and school environments with child characteristics on relationship
quality may help identify supports for children at-risk for developing lower quality
relationships by identifying factors that buffer children from the effects of risk-factors for
low quality relationships. Findings may thus inform targeted interventions aimed at
supporting the development of high quality teacher–child relationships.
Method
Participants
The current study was conducted using data from the first three phases of the NICHD Study
of Early Child Care and Youth Development (NICHD SECCYD), a prospective study of
children from birth through adolescence. In 1991, 1364 women and their newborn children in
or near 10 urban and suburban sites in the United States were recruited through a conditional
random sampling plan to participate in the NICHD SECCYD (for detailed recruitment and
sampling details, see NICHD ECCRN, 2001, 2003). The demographic distribution of this
original sample was 24% ethnic minority; 11% of the mothers did not have a high school
education, and 14% were single at the birth of the child (NICHD ECCRN, 1997).
Only 870 families of the 1364 in the recruitment sample had complete data, mostly due
to attrition during the study. The children with complete data were compared with children
from the original sample who did not have complete data either because they dropped out of
the study by fifth grade or had missing data on one or more measurements. In the sample
lost to attrition/incomplete data children's families had lower income-to-needs ratios at first
grade (3.98 vs. 3.32; F = 6.49; p b 01), and children were more likely to not be European-
American (Chi-square = 44.77; p b .001). Due to the high rate of missing data, multiple
imputation was completed in order to correct for potential biases that may have resulted
from the selective attrition (Runions & Keating, 2007). The data appeared to be missing at
random due to the greater amount of missingness found among lower income and non-
European-American families (Rubin, 1978). Therefore, WinMICE (Jacobusse, 2005) was
used to impute missing values. WinMICE used information from all other variables in the
imputation model to impute individual missing values (van Buuren & Oudshoorn, 2000).
Twenty complete data files were imputed, which resulted in a low fraction of missing
information and acceptable degrees of freedom for tests of significance (Runions &
Keating, 2007; von Hippel, 2005; see Enders, 2010, for a detailed discussion on multiple
imputation). Analyses were combined in SAS Proc MI Analyze. All analyses reported are
based on these estimates and standard errors.
Overview of data collection
The current study was conducted using secondary data analysis of the NICHD SECCYD
dataset. In the NICHD SECCYD study, the NICHD Early Child Care Research Network
(ECCRN) collected data on children, their families and school contexts from birth through
grade 5 in three phases. Data were collected by the NICHD ECCRN and research assistants
trained by the NICHD ECCRN through teacher and parent reports, observations and child
direct assessments (see NICHD ECCRN, 2005, for additional details on data collection).
More specifically, family income-to-needs information was gathered through parent
interviews at first, third and fifth grades. Mother–child attachment behaviors were observed
at laboratory visits when children were 36 months old. Teacher questionnaires were
completed when the children were in kindergarten, first, third and fifth grade, and
classroom observations were conducted when the children were in first, third and fifth
grade. The home environment was evaluated through home visits in third and fifth grade.
Measures
Quality of the teacher–child relationship
The 15-item Student Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; Pianta, 1992) was used to
assess teacher perceptions of the quality of the teacher–child relationship at first, third and
fifth grade. Items on the STRS were developed based on behaviors used in the classification
of parent–child attachments and the Attachment Q-set (Waters & Deane, 1985), as well as
through observations of teachers and children interacting in the classroom and teachers'
descriptions of children's behaviors towards them (Pianta & Nimetz, 1991).
Using a 5-point Likert scale that ranges from “1 (definitely does not apply)” to “5 (definitely
applies)”, teachers rated how applicable statements were to their current relationship with a
particular child. Two features of the relationship were studied: closeness and conflict. The
closeness subscale is an index of the amount of warmth and open communication present in the
relationship (e.g. “I share an affectionate, warm relationship with this child”; αs in the NICHD
SECCYD were .88, .85 and .91 at first, third and fifth grade, respectively). The conflict
subscale measures the extent to which the relationship is marked by antagonistic,
disharmonious interactions (e.g. “This child and I always seem to be struggling with each
other”; α in the NICHD SECCYD was .94 at all three time points). The overall quality of the
relationship is determined by the amounts of closeness and conflict (reflected). Higher scores
indicate higher quality relationships. The internal reliability for the overall score across all
three time points in the NICHD SECCYD was moderately high (α = .86, .89 and .88 at first,
third and fifth grade, respectively). Teachers completed the STRS in the spring of each year.
The STRS evidences both convergent and discriminant validity (Pianta & Nimetz,
1991). Scores on the STRS correlate with observational measures of the quality of the
teacher–child relationship as well as with ratings of child behavior problems, frustration
tolerance, work habits and social competence (e.g., Birch & Ladd, 1997; Howes &
Hamilton, 1992; Howes & Ritchie, 1999; Pianta & Nimetz, 1991). Additionally, STRS
scores are associated with Attachment Q-Set ratings of teachers and students such that
higher STRS scores correlate with more secure relationships (Howes & Ritchie, 1999).
Family resources variables
Income-to-needs
At first, third and fifth grade, the ratio of family income-to-needs was computed by
dividing total family income by the poverty threshold for the appropriate family size (U.S.
Bureau of the Census, 1999). Income-to-needs ratios less than 1 indicate poverty status.
Maternal education
Level of education was obtained during interviews at time of recruitment into the study, and
scored as: less than 12 = number of years in school, 12 = high school graduate or GED, 14 = some
college, 16 = a bachelor's degree, 17 = some graduate school experience, 18 = a master's degree,
19 = a law school degree and 21 = more than one master's degree or a doctoral degree.
Family functions system variables
Maternal attachment
A modified Strange Situation procedure, based on recommendations by Cassidy and
Marvin and the MacArthur Working Group on Attachment (1992), was used to assess
attachment style at 36 months. In this procedure, designed to be moderately stressful for the
child, the mother and child were invited to make themselves comfortable in a room. After
3 min, the mother was signaled to leave. The first separation lasted 3 min, unless the child
was overly distressed. After a 3-min reunion, the mother left again. The second separation
lasted for 5 min. The children's behaviors during the assessment were classified according
to the system developed by Cassidy and Marvin and the MacArthur Working Group on
Attachment (see Cassidy & Marvin, 1992). Children were assigned codes for secure and
insecure, as well as insecure/other attachment patterns.
Reliability information was obtained from pairs of coders, who each scored a total of
1140 tapes from the 10 collection sites. Percent agreement on attachment classification
between the two coders was computed. Percent agreement was 84.0%. In the current
analyses, two dummy codes to represent insecure and insecure/other attachment were
created. Children were assigned a value of 1 for insecure if they demonstrated an insecure
attachment pattern. Children were assigned a value of 1 for insecure/other if they exhibited
an insecure/other attachment pattern. Secure attachment served as the comparison group.
Support and stimulation at home

At third and fifth grade, parental support and stimulation of children's cognitive and
academic development were measured through the HOME Inventory (Caldwell & Bradley,
1984). The HOME Inventory consists of direct observation and a semi-structured interview
with the mother, and is designed to measure the quality and quantity of support and stimulation
available to a child at home. At third grade, the middle childhood version of the HOME was
completed, and at fifth grade the early adolescent version of the HOME was completed.
The middle childhood version of the HOME consists of 59 items and includes seven
subscales: Responsivity, Encouragement of Maturity, Acceptance, Learning Materials,
Enrichment, Family Companionship and Physical Environment. The total score is computed
as the sum of the items on the subscales. The possible range of values is 0 to 59, with a higher
score indicating greater levels of child support and stimulation.
The early adolescent version of the HOME inventory consists of 44 items organized into
5 subscales: Physical Elements, Learning Materials, Modeling, Variety of Experiences and
Acceptance and Responsivity. The total score is computed as the sum of the items on the
subscales. The possible range of values on the early adolescent version of the HOME is 0 to
44, with a higher score indicating greater levels of support and stimulation. Values at third
and fifth grade were averaged to create a mean HOME score. The HOME score at third
grade was weighted by .90 in the calculation of the mean so that the third and fifth grade
HOME scores contributed equally to the average HOME score.
In the NICHD SECCYD, the items on the middle childhood and early adolescent
versions of the HOME had moderately high internal reliability (Cronbach's alpha = .82 and
.84 at third and fifth grades, respectively). A robust body of literature indicates that HOME
scores correlate with scores on other measures of family context as well as measures of
children's cognitive and socio-emotional development across socio-cultural and socio-
economic groups (e.g., Bradley, 1994; Bradley, Caldwell, Rock, Hamrick, & Harris, 1988;
Bradley et al., 2000; Wen-Jui, Leventhal, & Linver, 2004).
Family–school relationship variables
Family–school contact
Amount of contact between the parents and the school was assessed through an item
from the teacher version of the Parent–Teacher Involvement Questionnaire (PTIQ-T;
Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 1991) at first, third and fifth grade.
Teachers rated on a 5-point Likert scale from “1 (not at all) to 5 (a great deal)” “how often
the parent volunteers or visits the school”. Reports of family–school contact on the PTIQ-T
evidence discriminant validity and correlate with parent reports of attendance at school
meetings and contact with teacher and school personnel (Conduct Problems Prevention
Research Group, 1999; Kohl, Lengua, McMahon, & the Conduct Problems Prevention
Research Group, 2000; Malone, 2000).
Quality of parent–school interactions

The quality of parent–school interactions was measured through the 12-item Parent's
Endorsement of Child's School subscale of the 26-item Parent–Teacher Involvement
Questionnaire-Parent Version (PTIQ-P Miller-Johnson, Maumary-Gremaud, & Conduct
Disorders Research Group, 1995). The Parent's Endorsement of Child's School subscale
assesses the extent to which parents feel comfortable at their child's school, have positive
interactions with teachers and school personnel, and show positive attitudes towards their
child's school. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “1 (not at all)” to 4 “(a
great deal)”. The average value across all 12 items was calculated such that scores ranged from
0 to 4.00, with higher scores indicating higher quality interactions between the parent and
school personnel and the parent's more positive attitudes towards their child's school. The
items on the scale had high internal reliability in the NICHD SECCYD study across all three
time points (Cronbach's α = .89, .91, and .91 at first, third and fifth grade, respectively).
Subscale scores on the PTIQ-P for Endorsement of Child's School correlate positively with
other parent, teacher and observational measures of quality of parent–school interactions and
parent's attitudes towards their child's school (Miller-Johnson, Maumary-Gremaud, &
Conduct Disorders Research Group, 1995).
School system variables
Percentage of students on free/reduced lunch

At first, third and fifth grade the percentage of students eligible for free lunch in the
school was obtained through principal report.
Principal involvement
At third and fifth grade, teachers were asked to report on the level of positive principal
involvement with the teaching staff using the Principal Involvement Scale of the School
Teacher Survey of the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS; National Center for Educational
Statistics, 1994). The questionnaire includes nine items (e.g. “how often does the principal
communicate respect and value for teachers”) rated on a 4-point Likert scale from “1 (very
often) to 4 (never)”. Higher scores indicate more frequent and positive interaction between
the school principal and the teaching staff. The items on the scale had high internal reliability
in the NICHD SECCYD (Cronbach's alpha = .90 at third and fifth grade). Principal
involvement scores from the Principal Involvement Questionnaire of the School Teacher
Survey correlate with other teacher and principal report measures of principal involvement,
supporting the validity of the measure (Tourkin et al., 2007). Additionally, teacher and
principal interview data regarding principal involvement correlate highly with scores on the
Principal Involvement Scale, further supporting scale validity (Tourkin et al., 2007).
Professional development
At third and fifth grade, principals were asked to report on teacher professional
development at the school using the Professional Development Scale of the School Teacher
Survey of the SASS (National Center for Educational Statistics, 1994). The questionnaire
includes nine items (e.g. “workshops or conferences offered at school”) rated on a 5-point scale
from “1 (never) to 5 (always)”. Higher scores indicate more professional development for
teachers. The raw items on the scale had moderate internal reliability in the NICHD SECCYD
(Cronbach's alpha = .80 at third and fifth grade, respectively). Professional development
reports from the School Teacher Survey correlate with other measures of professional
development (Choy, Chen, & Bugarin, 2006). Additionally, information on professional
development gained through teacher and principal interview data correlates highly with scores
on the Professional Development Scale, further supporting scale validity (Choy et al., 2006).
Values at third and fifth grade were averaged to create a mean professional development score.
Teacher salary
At third and fifth grade information was collected on the teacher's monthly salary
through teacher reports. Salary was calculated as the annual salary divided by the number of
months covered by the salary.
Classroom system variables
Positive classroom environment, quality of classroom instruction, classroom management

The Classroom Observation System (COS; NICHD ECCRN, 1999) was used to individually
assess the participating children's experiences in their classrooms at first, third, and fifth grade.
The COS was modified slightly after the first grade administration. Two additional codes were
included at third and fifth grade. One code measured quality of classroom instruction, as indexed
by richness of instructional methods, and another code measured the quality of classroom
management, as indexed by the productive use of instructional time. All classroom observations
occurred during the morning and began with the official start of the school day.
Trained observers visited the child's classroom and observed both the classroom and
each participating child. Children were observed for two 44-min cycles in first grade and
eight 44-min cycles in third and fifth grade. In each cycle observers made partial-interval
recordings during 30-s “observe” and 30-s “record” intervals. In addition, teachers and
children were observed for 5 min before and 10 min after the coding cycles.
Coders relied on these dedicated periods of observation to assign global ratings for positive
emotional climate, richness of instructional methods and productive use of instructional time
using a 7-point rating scale. A rating of “1” was assigned when a particular code was
“uncharacteristic,” a “3” was assigned when the description was “minimally characteristic,” a
“5” was assigned when the description of the code was “very characteristic”, and a “7” was
assigned when the description was “extremely characteristic” of the observed classroom. A
high rating for positive classroom environment denotes a classroom in which the teacher is
responsive and sensitive to student needs, and shows animated affect toward the children. A
high rating for richness of instructional methods indicates a classroom in which a variety of
teaching strategies and techniques are used that encourage the use of higher level thinking
skills among students in the class. A high rating for productive use of instructional time
denotes a classroom in which time and activities are managed well to insure child productivity
and classroom engagement, and in which teacher expectations for children's behavior are
clear. A high rating for productive use of instructional time also indicates that the pacing and
level of classroom activities are developmentally appropriate.
Inter-coder agreements for positive classroom climate were .84, .76, and .90 at first, third
and fifth grade, respectively. RELTHAP for ratings of positive classroom emotional climate
were .88, .93 and .94 at first, third and fifth grade, respectively. Inter-coder agreements for
richness of instructional methods were .76 and .92 at third and fifth grade, respectively.
RELTHAP for ratings of richness of instructional methods were .85 and .95 at third and fifth
grade, respectively. Inter-coder agreement for productive use of instructional time was .76
and .88 at third and fifth grade, respectively. Lastly, RELTHAP for ratings of the productive
use of instructional time were .86 and .93 at third and fifth grade, respectively. Scores on the
COS correlate with observational and teacher reports of classroom climate and child and
teacher behaviors, as well as with standardized assessments of children's academic and
social functioning (Love, Meckstroth, & Sprachman, 1997; NICHD ECCRN, 2003, 2005).
Child–teacher ratio
At first, third and fifth grade, the ratios of children to teachers were computed from the
number of children reported in each cycle of the COS (NICHD ECCRN, 1999) divided by
the number of teachers in each cycle. The value was computed at the beginning and end of a
cycle and then the two values were averaged to obtain a mean for the cycle. Values across
cycles were averaged.
Teacher system variables
Teacher education
Teacher education at first, third and fifth grade was coded as follows: 1 = less than high
school education, 2 = high school diploma or GED, 3 = bachelor's degree, 4 = some
graduate work, 5 = master's degree and 6 = doctorate.
Teacher experience
Teacher experience at first, third and fifth grade was represented by a continuous
variable indicating the number of years an individual had been teaching at any level.
Teacher self-efficacy
At third and fifth grade, teachers completed the Teacher Self Efficacy Scale (Bandura,
1986). This questionnaire contains 21 items that measure teachers' beliefs regarding their
ability to impact decision making, teach effectively, discipline effectively, and create a
positive environment. Items are rated on a 9-point Likert scale from “1 (nothing) to “9 (a
great deal)”. Factor analysis with a varimax rotation demonstrated that the scale contains
one factor that measures overall self-efficacy. Total self-efficacy is computed as the sum of
responses to items 1–21. The possible range of values is from 21 to 189 with higher values
indicating more self-efficacy. In the NICHD SECCYD items had high internal reliability at
third and fifth grade (Cronbach's α = .91 and .90 at third and fifth grade, respectively).
Scores on this scale correlate with other measures of teacher self-efficacy and with
observational measures of teacher behavior (Midgley et al., 2000).
Child system variables
Female
Gender was dummy coded such that female was assigned a value of 1 and male a value
of 0.
Race/Ethnicity
Two dichotomous variables were created for race/ethnicity. Children were assigned a
value of 1 for African-American if parents reported their race/ethnicity as African-
American. Children were assigned a value of 1 for Latino-American if parents reported
their race/ethnicity as Latino-American. European-American served as the reference group.
Language ability
Children's language ability at first, third and fifth grade was assessed using the Picture
Vocabulary subscale of the Woodcock Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery- Revised
(WJR; Woodcock & Johnson, 1990). The same test is administered for individuals from
4.5 years of age through adulthood. It assesses the ability to recognize or to name pictured
objects, and is a measure of verbal comprehension and oral language. Vertically-equated

IRT-scaled scores or W-scores were used in the current study. W-scores are a special
transformation of the Rasch ability scale. The W-score is centered on a value of 500. On
measurements in which test administration is terminated after failing a certain number of
items and in which items differ across assessments, only IRT-scaled scores provide
measurements that are equivalent across time points, which is necessary for growth
modeling. The items on this subscale had high internal reliability at all three time points in
the NICHD SECCYD (Cronbach's α = .91). The Picture Vocabulary subscale has excellent
test–retest reliability and predictive validity regarding language ability across the lifespan
(e.g. Breen, 1985). It also correlates with other measures of oral language and verbal
comprehension (e.g. Breen, 1985; McGrew & Kopnick, 1993).
Child behavior problems

Total behavior problems were assessed at first, third and fifth grade through the parent
version of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach, 1991). The CBCL contains 118
items that describe a broad range of child behavior/emotional problems. Higher scores indicate
more overall problems. Raw scores were used in the current analyses, as standardized scores
are calculated with age-specific standard deviations, which produce inaccurate estimates of
effect in longitudinal data analyses. Consequently, equating scores across time is not possible
with standardized scores (Singer & Willett, 2003). The CBCL has excellent concurrent and
predictive validity, and is the most widely used screening instrument for tracking the
emergence of behavior problems in children. The CBCL also has been shown to predict
subsequent problem behavior over a 6-year period (Achenbach, Edelbrock, & Howell, 1987).
The CBCL also has good test–retest reliability (Achenbach et al., 1987).
Child temperament
At 54 months mothers completed the Child Behavior Questionnaire (Rothbart, Ahadi,
Hershey, & Fisher, 1994). The 13-item inhibition/shyness subscale of the CBQ was used in the
current study. This subscale measures how shy a child is in different situations, and includes
items such as “sometimes prefers to watch rather than join other children playing” and “is
sometimes shy even around people s/he has known a long time.” The items were scored on a
seven-point Likert scale that ranged from “1 (extremely untrue)” to “7 (extremely true)”.
Shyness was computed as the mean of responses to the items with scores ranging from 1 to 7.
Higher scores indicate greater inhibition/shyness. The internal reliabilities for this subscale as
reported by Rothbart (1996) are high (Cronbach's α = .94) and in the NICHD SECCYD are
moderately high (Cronbach's α = .85). Shyness scores on the CBQ correlate with observational
ratings and parent reports of shyness, aggression, boldness and prosocial behavior (Findlay,
Girardi & Colplan, 2006). Shyness tends to be a stable trait and was therefore not assessed after
54 months in Phases II and III of the NICHD SECCYD.
Hours in child care

Number of hours in non-maternal care was obtained from maternal reports at 6, 15, 24,
36 and 54 months. A variable for average number of hours in non-maternal care from 6
through 54 months was created.
Quality of the kindergarten teacher–child relationship

The 15-item Student Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; Pianta, 1992) was used to
assess teacher perceptions of the quality of the teacher–child relationship in kindergarten.
Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale that ranges from “1 (definitely does not apply)” to
“5 (definitely applies)”. Scores range from 15 to 75 with higher values indicating a higher
quality relationship. In the NICHD SECCYD the Cronbach's alpha for the closeness and
conflict subscales and for the overall scale at kindergarten were relatively high (α = .90, .86,
and .87 for closeness, conflict and overall relationship quality, respectively).
Data analysis plan
In the current analyses, individual growth modeling was used as it allows one to model
change over time in an outcome with repeated measures, in this case quality of the teacher–
child relationship. All models were fitted with SAS PROC MIXED. The metric of time used
was grade.
Time was centered around fifth grade, so that the parameter for the intercept would
represent relationship quality at fifth grade, the end of elementary school for most children in
the sample. In order to center grade, a value of five was subtracted from the time metric, grade.
Additionally, time-invariant predictors were mean centered, as zero is not a valid value for
several of them and therefore interpretation of the fitted intercepts when values for these are
zero would be difficult. Variables were centered on the sample mean by subtracting the sample
mean from each individual's score. Time-varying variables were centered at the grand mean to
guard against issues of multicollinearity when examining same level interactions (see Bickel,
2007). These variables were grand mean centered by subtracting each individual's overall
mean from his/her score at every time point. A linear model was examined, as nonlinear
functions such as logistic growth curves or higher order polynomial functions (e.g. cubic
growth curves) require more than three repeated assessments (Singer & Willett, 2003).
Initially, an unconditional means (i.e. random effects ANOVA) model was estimated to
examine the intraclass correlation (ICC), and to determine the amount of variation in STRS
scores that occurred across students.
STRSti = γ00 + u0i + rti ð1Þ
The subscript t refers to repeated response variable observations (level-1 units) gathered
longitudinally from i students (level-2 units) (Peugh, 2010). The model in Eq. (1) is called
an unconditional means model because the STRS score for student i at time t (STRSti) is
modeled as a function of a grand mean STRS score for all students (γ00), plus a term that
represents deviations in an individual student's STRS mean around the grand STRS mean
(u0i) and a time-specific residual term that demonstrates the differences between each
individual's observed and predicted STRS scores (rit) (Peugh, 2010).
Next, to investigate the first research question, an unconditional growth model was fitted
to examine children's STRS scores from first through fifth grade.

STRSij = γ00 + γ10 Gradeij −5 + u0i + u1i Gradeij −5 + rti ð2Þ
As previously mentioned, five was subtracted from the time metric to center grade on fifth
grade in order for the intercept to correspond to the final assessment time point (fifth grade).
As shown in Eq. (2), the STRS score of student i at time t, or fifth grade, is modeled as a
function of the grand mean STRS score at fifth grade (y00), as well as a residual term that
demonstrates deviations in students' fifth grade STRS scores about the grand mean (uoi).
Additionally, each student's rate of STRS score change over time is modeled as a grand
mean rate of STRS change (y10) and a residual term that shows individual differences in
STRS change around the grand mean (u1i). Nine dummy variables to represent data
collection site were added to this model along with their interactions with time to examine
whether there were slope and intercept differences across sites. Significant site differences
were not found, therefore, dummy variables for site were not retained in subsequent models.
The unconditional growth model outlined above served as the baseline to which
predictors, selected to operationalize the systems in Pianta and Walsh's (1996) CSM, were
added to investigate the second and third research questions. Variables for which
information was available at all three time points were entered as time-varying variables.
Variables for which information was available at only two time points were averaged, as
with only two time points it is not possible to model change over time, and treated as time-
invariant variables. The average value was used, as it provides a representation of an
individual's total experience over time. Variables for which information was only available
for one time point were also treated as time-invariant variables.
Variables were entered into the model in sets from the most distal to most proximal
systems to the teacher–child relationship: family resources, family functions, family–school
relationship, school, classroom, and teacher and child systems. Teacher and child
characteristics were entered in the same set given that teachers and children are partners
in the relationship and as such at the same level of proximity to the relationship. The sets of
predictors were tested hierarchically to assess the separate contributions of each of the sets of
variables. Changes in goodness-of-fit (i.e., Δ − 2LL) between nested models, as each new set
of variables was added, were calculated. In order to create the most parsimonious model at
each step of model building only variables that predicted significant variation in the slope
and/or the intercept, as indicated by a significant t-statistic associated with the parameter
estimate, were retained in the model. Multicollinearity was not a problem in any model
(tolerance statistics were above .80 in all models). Lastly, interaction terms between
variables in the family, school, classroom, and teacher and child systems were added to the
final model to address the fourth research question, and to investigate whether the influences
of variables in each of the systems of the CSM on STRS scores varied as a function of one
another. Interactions were tested in separate models to avoid problems of multicollinearity.
Results
Descriptive statistics
Means and standard deviations for continuous variables and percentages for
dichotomous variables are presented in Table 1. Descriptive statistics revealed that the
average quality of the teacher–child relationship decreased over time and that there was
considerable variation in family, school, classroom, child and teacher characteristics.
Table 1
Descriptive statistics for predictor and outcome variables (n = 1364).
Variable Mean SD %
Student Teacher Relationship Scale (teacher report)
First grade 65.04 8.16
Third grade 63.46 9.31
Fifth grade 62.42 9.13
Family resources
Income-to-needs (parent report)
Maternal education (parent report) 14.23 2.51
Family functions
Secure (observation, 36 m.) 67.80
Insecure (observation, 36 m.) 26.00
Insecure/other (observation, 36 m.) 6.20
Support and stimulation at home (observed, average 3rd and 5th grade) 40.18 6.59
Family–school relationship
Family–school contact (teacher report)
Quality of parent–school interaction (mother report)
First grade 3.84 .89
Third grade 3.58 .89
Fifth grade 3.52 .88
School system
Percentage of students on free/reduced lunch (principal report)
First grade .26 .19
Third grade .23 .20
Fifth grade .25 .21
Principal involvement (teacher report, average 3rd and 5th grade) 27.61 4.57
Professional development (teacher report, average 3rd and 5th grade) 33.40 4.80
Teacher salary (teacher report, average 3rd and 5th grade) 3814.48 1247.77
Classroom system
Positive classroom environment (observation)
Quality of classroom instruction (observation, average 3rd and 5th grade) 4.85 .80
Classroom management (observation, average 3rd and 5th grade) 4.85 .81
Child–teacher ratio (observation)
Table 1 (continued)
Variable Mean SD %
Teacher system
Education (teacher report)
First grade 4.21 .79
Experience (teacher report)
Self-efficacy (teacher report, average 3rd and 5th grade) 133.28 15.19
Child system
Female 51.70
African-American 12.70
Latino-American 6.10
Language ability (test)
Behavior problems (maternal report)
Temperament (maternal report, 54 m.) 4.65 .77
Hours in child care (maternal report, average 6 to 54 months) 26.29 15.03
Kindergarten teacher–child relationship (teacher report, kindergarten) 65.53 8.67
Individual growth modeling
The results for the unconditional means model shown in Eq. (1) are presented in the
second column of Table 2. Results showed a significant grand mean STRS score,
γ00 = 63.35, p b .001. Results also demonstrated that children's mean STRS scores (i.e. the
mean score across all three assessments) significantly varied around the grand mean,
τ00 = 37.12, p b .001 , as well as significant differences between each child's observed and
predicted STRS scores over time σ2 = 24.07, p b .001. ICC calculations demonstrated that
65% of the variation in STRS scores occurred across students.
The results for the unconditional growth model in Eq. (2) are presented in the third column
of Table 2. Results showed a significant grand mean STRS score at grade 5 (γ00 = 62.23,
p b .001) that decreased .66 points per grade level, on average (γ01 = 66, p b .001). Further,
variance component estimates demonstrated: (a) significant variance in observed versus
predicted STRS scores within students (level-1 residual; σ2 = 34.96, p b .001), (b) significant
variation in STRS scores across students at grade 5 (τ00 = 23.98, p b .001), and (c) significant
slope variance (τ11 = .80, p b .05) in STRS growth trajectories across students. Lastly, the
intercept-slope covariance estimate (τ01 = 1.38, p b .05) was significant as well. A positive
intercept-slope covariance estimate demonstrated that students with higher STRS scores at
grade 5 demonstrated lesser decreases in STRS scores across grades 1 to 5 (Peugh, 2010).
Table 2
Model summary.
Parameters Unconditional Level-1 Final model
Regression coefficients
(fixed effects)
Intercept (γ00) 63.35 (.12)*** 62.23 (.27)*** 25.23 (2.78)***
Time (γ10) − .66 (.08)*** −.48 (.83)
Family–school contact (γ01) .08 (.13)
Quality of parent–school interaction (γ02) 3.38 (.24)***
Teacher salary (γ03) .10 (.01)**
Positive classroom climate (γ04) .43 (.28)*
Classroom management (γ05) 1.03 (.22)***
Teacher self-efficacy (γ06) .08 (.01)***
Female (γ07) 3.93 (.33)***
African-American (γ08) −3.50 (.52)***
Latino-American (γ09) −1.39 (.69)
Behavior problems (γ010) −.12 (.02)***
Kindergarten teacher–child relationship (γ011) .16 (.02)***
Family–school contact*time (γ11) .23 (.05)***
Quality of parent–school interaction*time (γ12) −.07 (.09)
Teacher salary*time (γ13) .02 (.01)***
Positive classroom climate*time (γ14) .10 (.03)**
Classroom management*time (γ15) .23 (.08)**
Teacher self-efficacy*time (γ16) .02 (.004)***
Female*time (γ17) .03(.01)
African-American*time (γ18) −.52 (.17)
Latino-American*time (γ19) −.24 (.22)
Behavior problems*time (γ110) −.001 (.006)
Kindergarten teacher–child relationship*time (γ111) .06 (.01)
Variance components
(random effects)
Residual (σ2) 37.12(1.01)*** 34.96 (1.34)*** 28.46 (.76)***
Intercept (τ00) 24.07(1.44)*** 23.98 (2.52)*** 11.46 (1.09)***
Slope (τ11) .80 (.24)* .13 (.01)
Covariance (τ01) 1.38 (.62)* 1 .23 (.20)*
Model summary
Deviance statistic 27,875.66 27,725.23 26,379.90
Number of estimated parameters 3 6 28
Note * = p b .05. ** = p b .01, *** = p b .001: Parameter estimate standard errors in parentheses.
Given that the previous model demonstrated significant intercept and slope variance in
STRS scores across students, predictor variables were added to Level-1 and Level-2 of the
model to explain this variance. Based on a taxonomy of multilevel models, the following
model (Model 3) best represents the underlying association between factors in the CSM and
STRS scores from first through fifth grade in the population (see Table 2). Model 3 is the
reduced model as in model building all non-significant parameter estimates, such as those
for percentage of children on free or reduced price lunch, were trimmed from the model.
The magnitudes of the coefficients for the variables were similar in the full and reduced
models.
In mathematical notation, the final reduced model was:
STRSti = γ00 + γ10 ðGradeti −5Þ + γ01 CONTACTti + γ11 ðCONTACTti ∗Gradeti −5Þ
+ γ02 INTERACTIONti + γ12 ðINTERACTIONti ∗Gradeti −5Þ + γ03 SALARYi
+ γ13 ðSALARYi ∗Gradeti −5Þ + γ04 POSITIVEti + γ14 ðPOSITIVEti ∗Gradeti −5Þ
+ γ05 MANAGEMENTi + γ15 ðMANAGEMENTi ∗Gradeti −5Þ
+ γ06 EFFICACYi + γ16 ðEFFICACYi ∗Gradeti −5Þ + γ07 FEMALEi
+ γ17 ðFEMALEi ∗Gradeti −5Þ + γ08 AFRICAN−AMERICANi
+ γ18 ðAFRICAN−AMERICANi ∗Gradeti −5Þ + γ09 LATINO−AMERICANi
+ γ19 ðLATINO−AMERICANi ∗Gradeti −5Þ + γ010 BEHAVIORPROBLEMSti
+ γ110 BEHAVIORPROBLEMSti ∗Gradeti −5Þ + γ011 KINDERGARTENRELi
+ γ111 ðKINDERGARTENRELi ∗Gradeti −5Þ + u0i + u1i ðGradeti −5Þ + rti
The values presented in column 4 of Table 2 indicate the association between the
independent variables and STRS scores after controlling for the other main effects in the
model, and can be interpreted as partial correlations. The intercept now represents the average
STRS score for European-American, male students (i.e., the groups coded zero) with mean
values for all continuous variables in the model (due to the centering of all continuous
variables at their mean). The slope is now the average change in STRS scores per grade level
increase for European-American, male students with average values for all continuous
variables in the model. Quality of parent–school interactions as well as factors in the school,
classroom and teacher systems were associated with STRS scores at fifth grade. Children
whose parents had higher quality interactions with the school (γ02 = 3.38, p b .001) had higher
STRS scores. More specifically, for every additional unit on the quality of parent–school
interaction scale, children evidenced 3.38 additional units on the STRS. In addition, children
in schools where teachers had higher salaries (γ03 = .10, p b .001) tended to have higher STRS
scores such that for every additional thousand dollars a teacher made per year children had
STRS scores that were .10 points higher. Children in classrooms with more positive emotional
climates (γ04 = .43, p b .05) and with better management (γ05 = 1.03, p b .05) also tended to
have higher STRS scores. In fact, for every additional unit in positive classroom climate
children scored .43 points higher on the STRS while for every additional unit in management
children scored 1.03 points higher on the STRS. Teacher self-efficacy (γ06 = .08, p b .001) was
also associated with STRS scores at fifth grade such that for every additional unit that teachers
scored on the efficacy measure children demonstrated STRS score that were .08 points higher.
Several child characteristics were associated with STRS scores at fifth grade as well. More
specifically, females (γ07 = 3.93, p b .001) evidenced STRS scores that were 3.93 points higher
than males. African-American children (γ08 = −3.50, p b .001) tended to have STRS scores
3.50 points lower than their European-American peers. In addition, children with more
behavior problems (γ010 = −.12, p b .001) evidenced lower quality relationships such that for
every one unit higher on the behavior problem measure children scored .12 points lower on the
STRS. Lastly, children with higher quality relationships with their teachers in kindergarten
(γ011 = .16, p b .001) had higher STRS scores at fifth grade as well. More specifically, children
who scored one point higher on the STRS at kindergarten scored .16 points higher on the
STRS at fifth grade.
Several significant interactions with time were identified indicating differences in

growth rates in STRS scores due to family–school contact and factors in the school,
classroom and teacher systems. Children whose parents reported greater contact with the
school evidenced less rapid rates of decline in STRS scores (γ11 = .23, p b .001). More
specifically, for every one additional unit in amount of family–school contact there was a
.23 unit per grade less rapid decrease in children's STRS scores. Additionally, children in
schools where teachers reported higher salaries (γ13 = .02, p b .001) demonstrated less rapid
rates of decline in their STRS scores such that for every additional 1000 dollars a year a
teacher made children evidenced a .02 point per grade less rapid decline in STRS scores.
Children in classrooms with more positive climates (γ14 = .10, p b .01) and that were better
managed (γ15 = .23, p b .001), and who had teachers who reported greater self-efficacy
(γ16 = .02, p b .001) also evidenced less rapid rates of decline in STRS scores over time.
More specifically, for each unit more of positive climate in the classroom children's STRS
scores declined .10 points per grade more slowly, and for each unit more of classroom
management children's STRS scores declined .23 points more slowly. Lastly, children
whose teachers scored one unit higher on the self-efficacy measure evidenced a .02 point
less rapid rate of decline in STRS scores per grade.
Variance component estimates demonstrated: (a) significant variance in observed versus
predicted STRS scores within students (level-1 residual; σ2 = 28.46, p b .001), (b) significant
variation in STRS scores at grade 5 (τ00 = 11.46, p b .001), (c) non-significant slope variance
(τ11 = .13, p N .05), in STRS growth trajectories across students, and (d) a significant
intercept-slope covariance estimate (τ01 = 1.23, p b .05). The level-1 residual variance and
the level-2 intercept and slope variance estimates decreased substantially indicating that the
independent variables in the model were relatively strong predictors of STRS variance
within and between individuals.
Two significant interactions related to the intercept were found. Interactions were tested
and included in separate models (interaction terms not included in the main effects model
presented above). First, an interaction between African-American status and positive
emotional classroom climate (γ012 = 1.48, p b .01) was identified. The association between
positive classroom climate and relationship quality was greater for African-American than
European-American children. Second, an interaction between African-American status and
teacher self-efficacy (γ013 = .08, p b .05) was found. The results suggest that the effect of
teacher self-efficacy on relationship quality was greater for African-American than European-
American children.
Discussion
Although teacher–child relationships have been shown to be important contributors to

children's social and cognitive skill development, few studies have examined the
developmental trajectories of these relationships across the elementary school years.
Furthermore, the influences of family and school contexts have received little attention in
studies of teacher–child relationships. Research on the quality of teacher–child relationships
based in a theoretical framework that considers the multiple contexts that influence
relationship quality over time has been lacking. The NICHD SECCYD data set allows for
investigation in this area. Using Pianta and Walsh's (1996) CSM, the current study examined
the quality of the teacher–child relationship across elementary school, as well as the influences
of factors in the family and school environments on relationship quality.
Relationship quality in elementary school
Growth trajectories for the quality of children's relationships with teachers were in line with
expectations based on earlier research on teacher–child relationships in childhood. On
average, the quality of the teacher–child relationship declined slightly throughout elementary
school. More specifically, children evidenced a decrease of approximately .70 points per year
month or .60 points per year in teacher-reported relationship quality on a 15-item measure of
relationship quality (Pianta, 1992). This finding is consistent with that of previous research,
which demonstrated an increase in conflict and a decrease in closeness in the teacher–child
relationship from kindergarten through sixth grade (Jerome et al., 2010). This decrease in
relationship quality is a concern, as in past research with the NICHD SECCYD sample a .6
point per year decrease in relationship quality, as assessed by the same measure of relationship
quality as that used in the current study, was negatively associated with elementary school
achievement (O'Connor & McCartney, 2007).
Despite the decrease in relationship quality across elementary school, on average,
children were reported by their teachers to have moderately high quality relationships at
fifth grade as indicated by teachers rating “definitely applies” to a majority of items
describing close and supportive teacher–child relationships. However, there was extensive
variation across children in relationship quality with some children evidencing very low
quality relationships. The identification of factors associated with relationship quality in
elementary school may inform education and intervention efforts aimed at preventing
decreases in relationship quality and low quality relationships.
Family and school environments and relationship quality
The family–school relationship was associated with teacher–child relationship quality in

elementary school. More specifically, the amount of contact between parents and the school
was associated with change in relationship quality. Children whose parents had greater
contact with the school evidenced less rapid rates of decline in relationship quality. Contact
between parents and the school likely supports children's development of high quality
relationships with teachers, as it helps teachers learn about children and their families and
encourages teachers' understandings of child and family values (Smolkin, 1999). Parent
contact with the school may help prevent decreases in relationship quality across the
elementary school years as pressures to prepare children for academic assessments increase.
Teachers may perceive parents with whom they have more contact as partners in the
educational process, and consequently view children's behaviors more positively.
The quality of parent–school interactions was related to relationship quality at fifth grade.
Children whose parents reported higher quality interactions with their child's teachers and
school personnel evidenced higher quality relationships at fifth grade. Higher quality
interactions may promote teachers' positive feelings and attitudes towards children, which in
turn support a higher quality teacher–child relationship. Additional research is necessary to
examine mechanisms responsible for this association. The current findings regarding the
family–school relationship demonstrate the importance not only of higher levels of contact
between families and schools but also of high quality interactions.
At the school level, teacher salary influenced both change in relationship quality and
relationship quality at fifth grade. Children whose teachers reported higher salaries
evidenced a less rapid rate of decline in relationship quality and higher quality relationships
at fifth grade. These associations were expected, and similar to findings from previous
studies (Hall & Cassidy, 2002). In previous research, it has been difficult to isolate the
effects of teacher salary on the quality of teacher–child interactions and relationships from
other variables, most notably student SES, often correlated with salary. In the current study,
however, it would be difficult to argue that the effects of teacher salary were due to omitted
variables, as multiple variables associated with student SES were included in the models.
Additional research is necessary to identify the mechanisms through which teacher salary
influences relationship quality.
At the classroom level, a positive emotional climate was positively associated with a less
rapid decline in relationship quality from first through fifth grade and a higher quality
relationship at fifth grade. This finding is in accord with previous research (see Hamre & Pianta,
2005). A positive emotional climate supports children's interest in the classroom, which fosters
high quality teacher–child relationships (Wentzel, 2002). Furthermore, teachers in classrooms
with more positive emotional climates tend to demonstrate a greater appreciation of children's
individual needs and to have more interactions with children that are high in reciprocity, which
are associated with high quality teacher–child relationships (La Paro et al., 2004).
Interestingly, the effect of classroom emotional climate on fifth grade relationship
quality was much greater for African-American than European-American children.
African-American children in classrooms with less positive climates had substantially
lower quality relationships than their European-American peers while African-American
children in classrooms with highly positive climates had similar quality relationships to
their European-American peers. These results are in accord with those of a previous study
of African-American elementary school students in which classroom emotional climate was
the strongest predictor of relationship quality (Johnson, 2006). A positive classroom
environment may be of particular importance for African-American children who may be
reticent to engage with new teachers due to previous negative interactions with teachers.
Children in better managed classrooms, as defined by the teachers' productive use of
instructional time, evidenced higher quality relationships at fifth grade and a less rapid rate
of decline in relationship quality. A well-managed classroom may promote goodness-of-fit
between teachers and students resulting in higher quality relationships. In a well-managed
classroom children are encouraged to engage in behaviors that the teacher values and are
provided with clear behavioral and academic expectations (Emmer & Stough, 2001;
Evertson & Emmer, 1982). Children's engagement in behaviors viewed as positive by the
teacher likely supports a high quality relationship. In addition, children tend to evidence
higher levels of cooperation and prosocial behaviors in classrooms that are well-managed
(Donohue et al., 2003). Teachers may in turn be better able to develop high quality
relationships with children who are cooperative and socially engaged. Finally, when
activities are well-managed teachers have more time to interact with individual students,
and may thus be better able to learn about students' needs and provide appropriate supports
that foster high quality teacher–child relationships.
Child and teacher experiences and characteristics were associated with relationship
quality as well. In regards to teacher characteristics, teacher self-efficacy was positively
associated with a less rapid decline in relationship quality from first through fifth grade and
a higher quality relationship at fifth grade. Associations between relationship quality and
teacher self-efficacy are likely a reflection of variation in the manner in which teachers
interact with students. Teachers who report greater feelings of self-efficacy may be better
able to foster students' independence and prosocial behaviors, which foster more positive
relationships (Birch & Ladd, 1998; Hamre & Pianta, 2004; Mashburn et al., 2006).
Furthermore, teachers with higher levels of self-efficacy report lower levels of stress related
to teaching and classroom management and more positive interactions with students
throughout the later elementary school years (Kumarakulasingam, 2003).
Interestingly, relationship quality at fifth grade was related to the joint effects of child race/
ethnicity with teacher self-efficacy. African-American children whose teachers reported low
levels of self-efficacy showed substantially lower quality relationships than their European-
American peers while African-American children whose teachers reported high levels of self-
efficacy evidenced relationships similar in quality to their European-American peers.
Most teachers in the SECCYD sample were European-American females. Results from
previous studies have found that teachers report more positive relationships with students who
are their same race/ethnicity (e.g. Saft & Pianta, 2001). Teachers are more likely to interpret
the behaviors of children different from them negatively. Teachers with greater self-efficacy,
however, may be more accurate observers of child behaviors, and may be less likely to
negatively interpret the behavior of children different from themselves (Egyed & Short, 2006).
At the child level, behavior problems and the quality of the child's relationship with his/
her kindergarten teacher were related to the quality of the teacher–child relationship in
elementary school. Children who evidenced higher levels of behavior problems had lower
quality relationships with teachers at fifth grade. The finding of a negative association
between behavior problems and relationship quality is in accord with previous research
(Howes & Ritchie, 1999). Children with behavior problems tend to disturb the class, which
makes teaching difficult, and may harm the quality of the teacher–child relationship.
On the other hand, children with higher quality relationships with teachers in
kindergarten evidenced higher quality relationships at fifth grade. This finding is in accord
with attachment theory and previous research, which found a positive association between
quality of the kindergarten and first grade teacher–child relationships (O'Connor &
McCartney, 2006). Children appear to develop models of teacher–child relationships
through their early relationships with teachers that they apply to subsequent relationships.
Children may thus try to engender behaviors from their current teachers that are similar to
those of their former teachers. Children's relationships with teachers in kindergarten are
thus extremely important, as they serve as a basis for future relationships. The effect of
quality of the early teacher–child relationship but not maternal attachment on the quality of
the teacher–child relationship in elementary school suggests that a high quality teacher–
child relationship in early childhood may serve as a compensatory relationship for children
with insecure maternal attachments.
Interestingly, different factors were associated with change in relationship quality over
time and at fifth grade. Only environmental (amount of parent–school contact, teacher
salary, positive classroom climate) and teacher (self-efficacy) factors were associated with
change in relationship quality overtime. This finding is in line with the CSM, dynamic
systems and attachment theories of development. A central tenant of both the CSM and
dynamic systems theories is that relationships resist major change from a preferred state,
but that they do change in response to alterations in the environment (Coleman & Watson,
2000; Pianta & Walsh, 1996). According to attachment theory (Bowlby, 1988), working
models of attachment relationships are relatively stable but do change in response to
modifications in the caregiving environment (Coleman & Watson, 2000; Weinfield,
Whaley, & Egeland, 2004). A child would be expected to develop consistent quality
teacher–child relationships across time if the caregiving environment supports the child's
original model of teacher–child relationships, but to develop varying quality relationships if
the caregiving environment changes (Weinfield et al., 2004).
Limitations
These findings provide further empirical support for important associations between
family, school, classroom, teacher and child characteristics and relationship quality. Several
limitations, however, must be noted. The sample did not include children with identified
disabilities or other factors that may place them at-risk for developing lower quality
relationships with teachers. Furthermore, the majority of the children and families in the
study were middle income. Due to the affluent nature of the sample, children were unlikely
to have experienced extremely chaotic school environments. In sum, the low-risk nature of
the sample limits the generalizability of these findings. It is necessary to examine
associations between systems within the CSM and teacher–child relationships among
higher risk samples. Research with higher risk samples could provide more information on
protective factors within classroom and school systems for children at-risk of developing
lower quality relationships.
Several limitations related to measurement exist in the current study. First, the majority of
measures were teacher and parent report. Consequently, reports of relationship quality and
teacher and child behaviors may reflect teacher and parent perceptions. It is important to examine
associations between teacher and child characteristics and relationship quality using
observational measurements of the relationship and teacher and child behaviors. Second, the
same measure was used to assess relationship quality at first, third and fifth grade. It is possible
that the average decrease in relationship quality across elementary school in the current study
reflects developmental changes in children's behaviors within relationships with adults not
captured in the measure used in the current study. Third, direct observation data of the classroom
were collected during relatively few observation sessions. Therefore, it is possible that results
may reflect teacher and student reactivity to the observation. Fourth, the measurement of family–
school contact used in the current study only assessed the amount of face-to-face contact between
parents and school personnel. Therefore, this measure may have under-estimated parent–school
contact that may also occur through verbal, written and electronic communication.
Conclusions and implications
The current findings have both theoretical and practical implications. With regards to
theory, findings support central tenets of the CSM that are based in dynamic systems and
ecological theories of development. In accord with dynamic systems theory, the significant
change in relationship quality overtime demonstrates that teacher–child relationships are
open systems that develop through “feedforward” and “feedback” loops. In accord with
ecological systems theories, the quality of the teacher–child relationship was influenced by
multiple factors in the family and school environments. Furthermore, the influence of
factors in multiple systems on relationship quality varied as a function of one another.
With regards to practice, the positive influences of parent–school contact and higher quality
family–school interactions on the fifth grade teacher–child relationship have implications for
the design of elementary school classrooms. Schools tend to be organized such that in the later
elementary grades parents have less contact with teachers and the quality of the family–school
relationship decreases (e.g., Adams & Christenson, 2000). These changes may have negative
implications for the quality of the teacher–child relationship and in turn for children's
academic and social development.
In addition, findings related to the effects of teacher salary and self-efficacy underscore
the importance of supporting teachers. Given the role of teacher–child relationships in
children's social and cognitive development, efforts to financially and emotionally support
teachers may very well result in greater social and academic success for students. Findings
may also inform teacher education and professional development efforts. In particular,
positive associations between classroom management and relationship quality indicate the
importance of providing teachers with information on effective management strategies and
expanding current management programs to include greater numbers of teachers (Pianta,
2005). Findings regarding associations between child characteristics and relationship
quality may also inform professional development. Professional development efforts in
which teachers are instructed as to the effects of child characteristics on the quality of
teacher–child relationships may prevent teachers from developing maladaptive relation-
ships with students on the basis of personal characteristics.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the investigators in the National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development (NICHD) Early Child Care Research Network for the dataset. I would
also like to thank Kristen Bub, Ed Daly, Craig Enders, Robert Pianta and Sandee McClowry
for their feedback on this manuscript, the site coordinators and research assistants who
collected data, and the families and teachers who continue to participate in this longitudinal
study. This project was funded by a grant from the National Institute for Child Health and
Human Development to Kathleen McCartney (HD25451).
References
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the child behavior checklist. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont
Department of Psychiatry.
Achenbach, T. M., Edelbrock, C., & Howell, C. T. (1987). Empirically based assessment of the behavioral/
emotional problems of 2- and 3-year-old children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 15(4), 629−650.
Adams, K. S., & Christenson, S. L. (2000). Trust and the family–school relationship: An examination of parent–
teacher differences in elementary and secondary grades. Journal of School Psychology, 38, 447−497.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Bickel, R. (2007). Multilevel analysis for applied research: It's just regression. Guilford Press.
Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1997). The teacher–child relationship and children's early school adjustment. Journal
of School Psychology, 35, 61−79.
Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1998). Children's interpersonal behaviors and the teacher–child relationship.
Developmental Psychology, 34, 934−946.
Bourke, S. (1986). How smaller is better: Some relationships between class size, teaching practices, and student
achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 23(4), 558−571.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Clinical applications of attachment theory. London: Routledge.
Bracken, B. A., & Crain, M. R. (1994). Children's and adolescents' interpersonal relationships: Do age, race and
gender define normalcy? Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 12(1), 14−32.
Bradley, R. H. (1994). The HOME inventory: Review and reflections. Advances in Child Development and
Behavior, 25, 241−288.
Bradley, R. H., Caldwell, B. M., Rock, H. M., Hamrick, H. M., & Harris, P. T. (1988). Home observations for
measurement of the environment: Development of a home inventory for use with families having children 6 to
19 years old. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13(1), 58−75.
Bradley, R. H., Corwyn, R. F., Caldwell, B. M., Whiteside-Mansell, L., Wasserman, G. A., & Mink, I. T. (2000).
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 10(3), 247−288.
Breen, M. J. (1985). The Woodcock–Johnson test of cognitive ability: A comparison of two methods of cluster
scale analysis for three learning disability subtypes. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 3(2), 167−174.
Bretherton, I., & Munholland, K. A. (1999). Internal working models in attachment relationships: A construct
revisited. In J. Cassidy, & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research and clinical
applications (pp. 89−115). New York: Guilford Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32
(7), 513−531.
Caldwell, B., & Bradley, B. (1984). Home observation for measurement of the environment. Little Rock, AR:
University of Arkansas at Little Rock.
Cassidy, D. J., Hestenes, L. L., Hansen, J. K., Hedge, A., Shim, J., & Hestenes, S. (2005). Revisiting the two faces
of child care quality: Structure and process. Early Education and Development, 16(4), 505−520.
Cassidy, J., & Marvin, R. S. (1992). Attachment organization in preschool children: Coding guidelines.
Unpublished manuscript, MacArthur Working Group on Attachment, Seattle, WA.
Choy, S. P., Chen, X., & Bugarin, R. (2006). Teacher professional development in 1999–2000: What teachers,
principals, and district staff report. NCES 2006-305. Washington, Dc: National Center for Education
Statistics.
Christenson, S. L., & Sheridan, S. M. (2001). Schools and families: Creating essential connections for learning.
NY, New York: Guilford Press.
Coleman, P., & Watson, A. (2000). Infant attachment as a dynamic system. Human Development, 43(6), 295−313.
Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (1991). Parent–teacher involvement questionnaire—Teacher
version. Fast Track Project.
Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (1999). Initial impact of the Fast Track prevention trial for conduct
problems: I. The high-risk sample. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67(5), 631−647.
Donohue, K. M., Perry, K. E., & Weinstein, R. S. (2003). Teachers' classroom practices and children's rejection by
their peers. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 24(1), 91−118.
Egyed, C. J., & Short, R. J. (2006). Teacher self-efficacy, burnout, and decision to refer a disruptive student. School
Psychology International, 27(4), 462−474.
Emmer, E. T., & Stough, L. (2001). Classroom management: A critical part of educational psychology, with
implications for teacher education. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 103−112.
Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. New York: Guilford Press.
Evertson, C. M., & Emmer, E. T. (1982). Effective management at the beginning of the school year in junior high
asses. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(4), 485−498.
Findlay, L., Girardi, A., & Colplan, R. (2006). Links between empathy, social behavior, and social understanding
in early childhood. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21(3), 347−359.
Fontaine, N. S., Torre, L. D., Grafwallner, R., & Underhill, B. (2006). Increasing quality in early care and learning
environments. Early Child Development and Care, 176(2), 157−169.
Goossens, F. A., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1990). Quality of infants' attachment to professional caregivers:
Relation to infant–parent attachment and daycare characteristics. Child Development, 52, 879−892.
Hall, A. H., & Cassidy, D. J. (2002). An assessment of the North Carolina school-age child care accreditation
initiative. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 17(1), 84−96.
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. (2004). Self-reported depression in nonfamilial caregivers: Prevalence and associations
with caregiver behavior in child care settings. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 297−318.
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher–child relationships and the trajectory of children's school
outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 65, 253−263.
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first-grade classroom make a
difference for children at risk of school failure? Child Development, 76(5), 949−967.
Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C., Downer, J. T., & Mashburn, A. J. (2008). Teachers' perception of conflict with young
students: Looking beyond problem behaviors. Social Development, 17(1), 115−136.
Hanushek, E. A. (1997). Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance: An update. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 141−164.
Hearns, S. (1998). Is child-related training or general education a better predictor of good quality care? Early Child
Development and Care, 141, 31−39.
Helmke, A., & Schrader, F. W. (1988). Successful student practice during seatwork: Efficient management and
active supervision not enough. Journal of Educational Research, 82(2), 70−75.
Howes, C. (2000). Social-emotional classroom climate in child care, child–teacher relationships and children's
second grade peer relations. Social Development, 9(2), 191−204.
Howes, C., & Hamilton, C. E. (1992). Children's relationships with caregivers: Mothers and child-care teachers.
Child Development, 63, 859−866.
Howes, C., Hamilton, C., & Matheson, C. (1994). Children's relationships with peers: Differential associations
with aspects of the teacher–child relationship. Child Development, 65, 253−263.
Howes, C., Matheson, C. E., & Hamilton, C. E. (1994). Maternal, teacher, and child care history correlates of
children's relationships with peers. Child Development, 65(1), 264−273.
Howes, C., & Ritchie, S. (1999). Attachment organizations in children with difficult life circumstances.
Development and Psychopathology, 11(2), 251−268.
Howes, C., Whitebrook, M., & Phillips, D. (1992). Teacher characteristics and effective teaching in child
care: Findings from the National Child Care Staffing Study. Child and Youth Care Forum, 21(6),
399−414.
Jacobusse, G. (2005). WinMICE user's manual for WinMICE prototype (version 0.1). Leiden, The Netherlands:
Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research.
Jerome, E. M., Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2009). Teacher-child relationships from kindergarten to sixth
grade: Early childhood predictors of teacher-perceived conflict and closeness. Social Development, 18(4),
915−945.
Johnson, L. M. (2006). Elementary school students' learning preferences and the classroom learning environment:
Implications for educational practice and policy. Journal of Negro Education, 75(3), 506−518.
Kohl, G. O., Lengua, L. J., & McMahon, R. J. the Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2000). Parent
involvement in school: Conceptualizing multiple dimensions and their relations with family and demographic
risk factors. Journal of School Psychology, 38, 501−523.
Kontos, S. (1992). The role of continuity and context in children's relationships with nonparental adults. New
Directions for Child Development, 57, 109−119.
Kumarakulasingam, T. M. (2003). Relationships between classroom management, teacher stress, teacher burnout,
and teachers' levels of hope. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences
63(10-A).
La Paro, K. M., Pianta, R. C., & Stuhlman, M. (2004). The Classroom Assessment Scoring System: Findings from
the pre-kindergarten year. The Elementary School Journal, 104(5), 409−426.
Ladd, G. W., Birch, S. H., & Buhs, E. S. (1999). Children's social and scholastic lives in kindergarten: Related
spheres of influence? Child Development, 70, 1373−1400.
LaPointe, J. M. (2003). Teacher–student conflict and misbehavior: Toward a model of the extended symmetrical
escalation. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 38(2), 11−19.
Lerner, J. A., Lerner, R. M., & Zabski, S. (1985). Temperament and elementary school children's actual and rated
academic performance: A test of a “goodness-of-fit” model. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 26
(1), 125−136.
LoCasale-Crouch, J., Konold, T., Pianta, R., Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Bryant, D., et al. (2007). Observed
classroom quality profiles in state-funded pre-kindergarten programs and associations with teacher, program,
and classroom characteristics. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22(1), 3−17.
Love, J. M., Meckstroth, A., & Sprachman, S. (1997). Measuring the quality of program environments in
Head Start and other early childhood programs: A review and recommendations for future research.
Contract RN 94094001. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics.
Main, M., & Cassidy, J. (1988). Categories of response to reunion with the parent at age 6: Predicted from infant
attachment classifications and stable over a 1-month period. Developmental Psychology, 24, 415−426.
Malone, D. S. (2000). Parent–teacher involvement questionnaire: Teacher version. Technical Report year 2. Fast
Track Project.
Mantzicopoulos, P. (2005). Conflictual relationships between kindergarten children and their teachers:
Associations with child and classroom context variables. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 425−442.
Mashburn, A. J., Hamre, B. K., Downer, J. T., & Pianta, R. C. (2006). Teacher and classroom characteristics associated
with teachers' ratings of pre-kindergartners' relationships and behaviors. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 24(4), 367−380.
Mashburn, A. J., Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., Downer, J. T., Barbarin, O. A., Bryant, D., et al. (2008). Measures of
classroom quality in prekindergarten and children's development of academic, language and social skills. Child
Development, 79(3), 732−749.
McGiverin, J., Gilman, D., & Tillitski, C. (1989). A meta-analysis of the relation between class size and
achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 90(1), 47−56.
McGrew, K., & Kopnick, S. (1993). The relationship between the WJ-R cognitive clusters and writing
achievement across the life-span. School Psychology Review, 22, 687−695.
Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. S. (1989). Change in teacher efficacy and student self-and task- related
beliefs in mathematics during the transition to junior high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2),
247−258.
Midgley, C., Maehr, M., Hruda, L., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K., et al. (2000). Manual for the
patterns of adaptive learning scales. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Miller-Johnson, & Maumary-GremaudConduct Disorders Research Group. (1995). Parent–teacher involvement
questionnaire: Parent version.
Murray, C., & Greenberg, M. T. (2000). Children's relationship with teachers and bonds with school—An
investigation of patterns and correlates in middle childhood. Journal of School Psychology, 38(5),
423−445.
Murray, C., & Murray, K. M. (2004). Child level correlates of teacher–student relationships: An examination of
demographic characteristics, academic orientations, and behavioral orientations. Psychology in the Schools, 41
(7), 751−762.
National Center for Educational Statistics (1994). Schools and staffing survey.
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (ECCRN) (1997). The effects of infant child care on infant–mother
attachment security: Results of the NICHD study of early child care. Child Development, 68(5), 860−879.
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (ECCRN) (1999). Classroom observational system.
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (ECCRN) (2001). Social competence with peers in third grade:
Associations with earlier peer experiences in child care. Social Development, 17(3), 419−443.
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (ECCRN) (2002). The relation of global first-grade classroom
environment to structural classroom features and teacher and student behaviors. The Elementary School Journal,
102(5), 367−387.
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (ECCRN) (2003). Social functioning in first grade: Prediction from
home, child care and concurrent school experience. Child Development, 74(6), 1639−1662.
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (ECCRN) (2005). A day in third grade: Classroom quality, teacher,
and student behaviors. Elementary School Journal, 105(4), 377−394.
O'Connor, E., & McCartney, K. (2006). Testing associations between mother–child and teacher–child
relationships. Journal of Educational Psychology, 26(5), 301−326.
O'Connor, E., & McCartney, K. (2007). Examining teacher–child relationships and achievement as part of an
ecological model of development. American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 340−369.
Paget, K. D., Nagle, R. J., & Martin, R. P. (1984). Interrelationships between temperament characteristics and first-
grade teacher–student interactions. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 12(4), 547−559.
Patrick, H., Yoon, K., & Murphy, A. M. (1995, March). Personality characteristics, social competence, and early
school adjustment: A contextual and developmental perspective. Poster session presented at the biannual
meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Indianapolis, IN.
Peugh, J. L. (2010). A practical guide to multilevel modeling. Journal of School Psychology, 48, 85−112.
Pianta, R. C. (1992). Conceptual and methodological issues in research on relationships between children and
nonparental adults. In R. Pianta (Ed.), Beyond the parent: The role of other adults in children's livesNew
directions for child development, No. 57. (pp. 121−129) San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Pianta, R. C. (1994). Patterns of relationships between children and kindergarten teachers. Journal of School
Psychology, 32(1), 15−31.
Pianta, R. C. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers. Washington, D.C., American
Psychological AssociationWashington, D.C.
Pianta, R. C. (2005). Standardized observations and professional development: A focus on individualized
implementation and practices. In M. Zaslow & I. Martinez-Beck (Eds.), Critical issues in early childhood
professional development (pp. 231−254). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.
Pianta, R., Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Bryant, D., Clifford, R., Early, D., et al. (2005). Features of pre-kindergarten
programs, classrooms, and teachers: Do they predict observed classroom quality and child–teacher
interactions? Applied Developmental Science, 9(3), 144−159.
Pianta, R. C., & Nimetz, S. L. (1991). Relationships between children and teachers: Associations with classroom
and home behavior. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 12(3), 379−393.
Pianta, R. C., Nimetz, S. L., & Bennett, E. (1997). Mother–child relationships, teacher–child relationships, and
school outcomes in preschool and kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 263−280.
Pianta, R. C., Steinberg, M. S., & Rollins, K. (1995). The first two years of school: Teacher–child relationships and
deflections in children's classroom adjustment. Development and Psychopathology, 7(2), 295−312.
Pianta, R. C., & Stuhlman, M. W. (2004). Teacher–child relationships and children's success in the first years of
school. School Psychology Review, 33(3), 444−458.
Pianta, R. C., & Stuhlman, M. W. (2004). Conceptualizing risk in relational terms: Associations among the quality
of child–adult relationships prior to school entry and children's developmental outcomes in first grade.
Educational and School Psychology, 21, 32−45.
Pianta, R. C., & Walsh, D. J. (1996). High-risk children in schools: Constructing sustaining relationships. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Qi, C. H., & Kaiser, A. P. (2004). Problem behaviors of low-income children with language delays: An observation
study. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47(3), 595−609.
Reynolds, A. J., Weissberg, R. P., & Kasprow, W. J. (1992). Prediction of early social and academic adjustment of
children from the inner city. American Journal of Community Psychology, 20(5), 599−624.
Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Early, D. M., Cox, M. J., Saluja, G., Pianta, R. C., Bradley, R. H., et al. (2002). Early
Behavioral attributes and teachers' sensitivity as predictors of competent behavior in the kindergarten
classroom. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 23(4), 451−470.
Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Kagan, J. (2005). Infant predictors of kindergarten behavior: The contribution of
inhibited and uninhibited temperament types. Behavioral Disorders, 30(4), 331−347.
Rothbart, M. K. (1996). Children's Behavior Questionnaire, Version I. Portland, OR: University of Oregon.
Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., Hershey, K. L., & Fisher, P. (1994). Temperament and social behavior in childhood.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 40, 21−39.
Rubin, D. B. (1978). Multiple imputation in sample surveys: A phenomenological Bayesian approach to
nonresponse (with discussion). Proceedings of the American Statistical Association. Survey Research Methods
Section (pp. 20−34).
Rudasill, K. M., Rimm-Kaufman, S., Justice, L., & Pence, K. (2006). Temperament and language skills as
predictors of teacher–child relationship quality in preschool. Early Education and Development, 17(2),
271−291.
Runions, K. C., & Keating, D. P. (2007). Young children's social information processing: Family antecendents and
behavioral correlates. Developmental Psychology, 43(4), 838−849.
Ryan, R. M., Stiller, J. D., & Lynch, J. H. (1994). Representations of relationships to teachers, parents, and friends
as predictors of academic motivation and self-esteem. Journal of Early Adolescence, 226−249.
Saft, E. W., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Teachers' perceptions of their relationships with student: Effects of child age,
gender, and ethnicity of teachers and children. School Psychology Quarterly, 16, 125−141.
Sameroff, A. J., & Chandler, M. (1975). Reproductive risk and the continuum of caretaking casualty. In F.
Horowitz, E. M. Hetherington, S. Scarr-Salapatek, & G. Siegel (Eds.), Review of child development research,
4. (pp. 17−32)New York: Basic Books.
Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Skarpness, L. R., & Carson, D. K. (1986). Temperament, communicative competence and the psychological
adjustment of kindergarten children. Psychological Reports, 59(3), 1299−1306.
Smolkin, L. B. (1999). The practice of effective transitions: Players who make a winning team. In R. C. Pianta &
M. J. Cox (Eds.), The transition to kindergarten (pp. 325−349). Baltimore, MD: Brooks.
Sroufe, L. A., Fox, N. E., & Pancake, V. R. (1983). Attachment and dependency in developmental perspective.
Child Development, 54, 1615−1627.
Taylor, A., & Machinda, S. (1996, April). Student–teacher relationships of Head Start children. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
Thompson, R. A. (1999). Early attachment and later development. Handbook of attachment: Theory, research and
clinical applications (pp. 265−287). New York: The Guildford Press.
Thurlow, M. L., Ysseldyke, J. E., Wotruba, J. W., & Algozzine, B. (1993). Instruction in special education
classrooms under varying student–teacher ratios. The Elementary School Journal, 93(3), 305−320.
Tourkin, S. C., Warner, T., Parner, P., Cole, C., Jackson, B., Zukerberg, A., et al. (2007). Documentation for the
2003–2004 schools and staffing survey. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
U.S Bureau of the Census (1999). Statistical abstract of the United States: 1999. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
van Buuren, S., & Oudshoorn, C. G. M. (2000). Multivariate imputation by chained equations: MICE user's
manual (Version 1.0). TNO Report PG/VGZ/00.038. Leiden, The Netherlands: The Netherlands Organization
for Applied Scientific Research (TNO) Institute Prevention and Health.
von Hippel, P. T. (2005). How many imputations are needed? A comment on Hershberger and Fisher (2003).
Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 334−335.
Waters, E., & Deane, K. (1985). Defining and assessing individual differences in attachment relationships: Q-
methodology and the organization of behavior in infancy and early childhood. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters
(Eds.), Growing points of attachment theory and researchMonographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 50 (1),.
Weinfield, N., Sroufe, L., Egeland, B., & Carlson, E. (1999). The nature of individual differences in infant–
caregiver attachment. In J. Cassidy, & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research and
clinical applications. New York: Guilford Press.
Weinfield, N. S., Whaley, G. J. L., & Egeland, B. (2004). Continuity, discontinuity, and coherence in attachment
from infancy to late adolescence: Sequelae of organization and disorganization. Attachment & Human
Development, 6(1), 73−97.
Wen-Jui, H., Leventhal, T., & Linver, M. R. (2004). The Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment
(HOME) in middle childhood: A study of three large-scale data sets. Parenting: Science and Practice, 4(2–3),
189−210.
Wentzel, K. R. (1996). Social and academic motivation in middle school: Concurrent and long-term relations to
academic effort. Journal of Early Adolescence, 16(4), 390−406.
Wentzel, K. R. (2002). Are effective teachers like good parents? Teaching styles and student adjustment in early
adolescence. Child Development, 73(1), 287−301.
Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. D. (1990). Woodcock–Johnson psycho-educational battery revised.Chicago, IL:
The Riverside Publishing Company 4/6/09.

Teacher-Child Relationships As Dynamic Systems

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Teacher-Child Relationships As Dynamic Systems

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Journal of School Psychology 48 (2010) 187 – 218

Teacher–child relationships as dynamic systems

Keywords: Teacher–child relationships; Elementary school; Contextual systems model

A robust literature demonstrates that high quality teacher–child relationships contribute

Contextual systems model

The family environment

Family resources and functions

The family–school relationship

The school environment

The Present Study

Overview of data collection

Quality of the teacher–child relationship

Family resources variables

Family functions system variables

Support and stimulation at home

Family–school relationship variables

Quality of parent–school interactions

School system variables

Percentage of students on free/reduced lunch

Classroom system variables

Positive classroom environment, quality of classroom instruction, classroom management

Teacher system variables

Child system variables

objects, and is a measure of verbal comprehension and oral language. Vertically-equated

Child behavior problems

Hours in child care

Quality of the kindergarten teacher–child relationship

Data analysis plan

STRSti = γ00 + u0i + rti ð1Þ

Individual growth modeling

In mathematical notation, the final reduced model was:

Several significant interactions with time were identified indicating differences in

Although teacher–child relationships have been shown to be important contributors to

Relationship quality in elementary school

Family and school environments and relationship quality

The family–school relationship was associated with teacher–child relationship quality in

Conclusions and implications

S-ar putea să vă placă și