4.1.1 Children

Eighty-nine children (n = 42 females), 39 to 75 months (M = 54.9, SD = 8) in age, participated in the study. Mean age did not differ significantly between boys (M = 55.43, SD = 8.14) and girls (M = 54.24, SD = 8.00), or between childcare center (M = 55.60, SD = 6.90) and family childcare (M = 53.73, SD = 9.66). Fifty-five children (62%, n = 26 females) came from three state-licensed childcare centers; 34 children (38%, n = 16 females) from eight state-licensed family childcare programs. Seventy-six children (85%) were Caucasian, reflecting the homogeneity of the region. Eight parents (9%) described their child's ethnicity as Latino/Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, or 'other.' Five parents (6%) declined to report child ethnicity. Seventy-eight children (88%) spoke English as a first language.

### 4.1.2 Parents

The education level of both parents was higher for center care families (Mothers center care: M = 1.94, SD = 99, Mothers home care: M = 0.78, SD = 0.19, t(73) = 4.9, p = 0.001; Fathers center care: M = 2.09, SD = 1.07, Fathers home care: M = 1, SD = 0.23, t(60) = 3.73, p = 0.001), and fathers of center care children (M = 38.42, SD = 8.04) were older than fathers of family care children (M = 32.47, SD = 5.49, t (41) = 2.67, p = 0.05). Parents of children in family care programs worked more hours, per week, on average however the difference was not significant. Yearly family income did not differ between center and family care families and ranged between \$30,000 and \$50,000.

Predictors of Early Numeracy: Applied Measures in Two Childcare Contexts DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.81065

#### 4.1.3 Caregivers

environment (e.g., [30]). It is unclear whether skills develop differently for children in separate types of childcare. As a result, we wanted to know if the relationships among the measures in this study would differ between setting since their caregiving environments may provide different support for learning number skills.

1. Do scores on early numeracy, phonological awareness, receptive language, executive functioning, and phonological working memory differ in this study

Demographic information for the child, family, and caregiver was collected. Child information included age, gender, and ethnicity. Family information included partnered status of primary caregiver/parent, age of parent(s), number of children in family, whether the family received state funding/services, parental education, family income, hours worked per week per parent, and primary language spoken in the home. Caregiver information included type of childcare (family or center), years in business, program size, enrollment, and whether the program was non-

Eighty-nine children (n = 42 females), 39 to 75 months (M = 54.9, SD = 8) in age,

The education level of both parents was higher for center care families (Mothers center care: M = 1.94, SD = 99, Mothers home care: M = 0.78, SD = 0.19, t(73) = 4.9, p = 0.001; Fathers center care: M = 2.09, SD = 1.07, Fathers home care: M = 1, SD = 0.23, t(60) = 3.73, p = 0.001), and fathers of center care children (M = 38.42, SD = 8.04) were older than fathers of family care children (M = 32.47, SD = 5.49, t (41) = 2.67, p = 0.05). Parents of children in family care programs worked more hours, per week, on average however the difference was not significant. Yearly family income did not differ between center and family care families and ranged

participated in the study. Mean age did not differ significantly between boys (M = 55.43, SD = 8.14) and girls (M = 54.24, SD = 8.00), or between childcare center (M = 55.60, SD = 6.90) and family childcare (M = 53.73, SD = 9.66). Fifty-five children (62%, n = 26 females) came from three state-licensed childcare centers; 34 children (38%, n = 16 females) from eight state-licensed family childcare programs. Seventy-six children (85%) were Caucasian, reflecting the homogeneity of the region. Eight parents (9%) described their child's ethnicity as Latino/Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, or 'other.' Five parents (6%) declined to report child ethnic-

ity. Seventy-eight children (88%) spoke English as a first language.

between children in center care and from those in family childcare?

2.Which of the applied measures (phonological awareness, executive functioning, or phonological working memory) is the best predictor of performance on number tasks? Does the predictor change when looking at

Our research questions were as follows:

different age groups?

Early Childhood Education

4. Method

profit.

4.1 Participants

4.1.1 Children

4.1.2 Parents

136

between \$30,000 and \$50,000.

Thirty center and family childcare programs were approached about participating in the study: 77% agreed to participate. The children that met participation criteria were from the three childcare centers and eight of the 20 family childcare programs. The three childcare centers that participated averaged almost 30 years (range: 2–81 years) in operation, the average capacity was 90 children (range: 45– 173), and the average career ladder level was 6.33 (range: 0–10), 10 being the highest possible, with level determined by training participation. One center was accredited by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC).

The 8 family childcare programs that participated averaged 12.25 years (range: 4–24 years) in operation and the average career ladder level was 8.5 (range: 6–10). Three programs were accredited by the National Association for Family Child Care (NAFCC).

#### 4.2 Measures

#### 4.2.1 Parent and caregiver measures

Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Preschool Version (BRIEF-P): The BRIEF-P [22], is an age- and gender-normed clinical measure designed to be completed by the child's parent/guardian and/or out-of-home caregiver, with 63 questions distilling to five subscales: Inhibit, Emotional Control, Shift, Working Memory, and Planning and Organizing. Each subscale has a summary score, with higher scores indicating more concerns about behavior. Gioia et al. [22] reported internal consistency for the composite score (parents: 0.95; caregivers: 0.97), correlation between parents and caregivers (r = 0.17, p < 0.01), and test-retest reliability (parents: 0.90; caregivers: 0.88).

#### 4.2.2 Individually administered child measures

Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening, Pre-K (PALS): PALS [28] is an assessment of phonological awareness in eight areas: name writing, upper-case and lower-case alphabet recognition, letter sounds, beginning sound awareness, print and word awareness, rhyme awareness, and nursery rhyme awareness. Cronbach's alphas range from 0.75 to 0.93.

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Third Edition (PPVT-III): The PPVT-III [31] measures receptive vocabulary abilities for children as young as 2 years 6 months old. Children are shown four pictures simultaneously and asked which picture best represents a certain word. Reported split-half reliability is 0.94.

Test of Early Mathematics Ability, Third Edition, Form B (TEMA-3): The TEMA-3 [32] is an assessment of children's verbal and nonverbal numerical knowledge (age: 36–107 months), with items for young children (e.g., nonverbal problem solving, counting small numbers of objects, cardinality, etc.) and for older children (e.g., writing single-digit numerals, simple word problems, magnitude comparisons, etc.). Reliability (0.80–0.90) and criterion validity correlations with other norm-referenced mathematics scales (0.54–0.91) have been reported.

Phonological Working Memory: Two direct, verbal assessments of children's phonological working memory were used, each with five one-, two-, and threesyllable words, for a total of fifteen real words and fifteen non-words [27]. Hereafter, the real words measure will be referred to as the real words repetition task and the made-up words measure will be referred to as the non-words repetition task.

First the real words repetition task was presented, then the non-words repetition task. The assessor told the child 'I will say a word and I would like you to repeat it.' If the child had a problem with immature articulation, this was taken into consideration. The reliability for this study was 0.80.
