View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Relevance of Child Characteristics for the Envisaged and Real Start of Childcare Attendance for the Under-3s in Germany

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Relevance of Child Characteristics for the Envisaged and Real Start of Childcare Attendance for the Under-3s in Germany
Language: English
Authors: Burghardt, Lars (ORCID 0000-0001-9308-8563)
Source: European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 2018 26(6):873-892.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 20
Publication Date: 2018
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Individual Characteristics, Early Childhood Education, Young Children, Child Care Centers, Family Characteristics, Parent Attitudes, Parenting Styles, Personality Traits, Competence, Health, Body Weight, Birth Order
Geographic Terms: Germany
DOI: 10.1080/1350293X.2018.1533706
ISSN: 1350-293X
Abstract: Although there are many studies on the use of childcare, most German research has focused on the role of socio-economic factors such as parents' level of education, household income, or migration background. Little is known about the role of child characteristics such as health or temperament. Using longitudinal data from the National Educational Panel Study (NEPS, N = 2630 and N = 1891), this study investigated the impact of child characteristics on when parents envisage and actually start using childcare for a national representative sample. Results showed small direct effects of child characteristics and interaction effects of child characteristics and parental beliefs. Parents whose children had a difficult temperament envisaged an early entry in childcare, expecting that attendance would benefit their child's development. It is concluded that in the German early childhood and education system child characteristics play a minor role. In contrast, parent's beliefs and expectation play a crucial role on parent's envisaged and real entry in childcare.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 54
Entry Date: 2018
Accession Number: EJ1197423
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEjUTqDaMd3h5pf97n92RFGAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDN90QLdF4E2U2BkJmQIBEICBm1od-5QDrFLQDFKK5ewaeahwVN7gVHx7AuIcYxbMaIumWhMPl0xnser5KvTGF8rk4Tm7FYxb8dt8eBvZXpR44G0C25oFZX2Hah56LmrcMO1fXigfMRP1Taw9KTQz-yesogpzkEZs-PKSmxaaWlWUh0apOMZgdFgCoLYjsSsLXWzWLR3wMrueY_67c7m4DjHsNuc6pci5_96HSpez
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0133199957;h3h01dec.18;2018Nov27.10:16;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0133199957-1">Relevance of child characteristics for the envisaged and real start of childcare attendance for the under-3s in Germany </title> <p>Although there are many studies on the use of childcare, most German research has focused on the role of socio-economic factors such as parents’ level of education, household income, or migration background. Little is known about the role of child characteristics such as health or temperament. Using longitudinal data from the National Educational Panel Study (NEPS, N = 2630 and N = 1891), this study investigated the impact of child characteristics on when parents envisage and actually start using childcare for a national representative sample. Results showed small direct effects of child characteristics and interaction effects of child characteristics and parental beliefs. Parents whose children had a difficult temperament envisaged an early entry in childcare, expecting that attendance would benefit their child’s development. It is concluded that in the German early childhood and education system child characteristics play a minor role. In contrast, parent’s beliefs and expectation play a crucial role on parent’s envisaged and real entry in childcare.</p> <p>Keywords: Childcare; beliefs and expectations; child characteristics; temperament; health; competencies</p> <hd id="AN0133199957-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Over the last 10 years, the percentage of children in Germany attending institutional childcare in their first 3 years of life has risen from 13.6% in 2006 to 32.7% in 2016. Attendance of early childhood education and care (ECEC) services is not evenly distributed across Germany, being significantly higher in the eastern (51.8%) than in the western part (28.1%) of the country (German Federal Statistical Office 2016). Although there is a growing body of research analysing which factors influence ECEC selection, most German studies have investigated socio-economic factors such as the parents' level of education (e.g. Kreyenfeld and Krapf 2010; Schober and Spieß 2012, 2014; Fuchs-Rechlin and Bergmann 2014; Alt, Berngruber, and Pötter 2016), whereas none have examined the effect of child characteristics on institutional childcare attendance. From a theoretical point of view, as depicted in the rich accommodation model of Meyers and Jordan (2006), how parents see their own child may have a direct effect on their decision-making. One can hypothesize, that if a child shows, for example, difficult temperament, parents may wish for an early start of using childcare, maybe because of the idea of relief for the parents or because the child's development would benefit from another learning environment and the contact to other children and professional childcare staff, especially if he/she shows difficult temperament.</p> <p>Quoting Youngblut et al. (2005, 246), 'there is a dearth of published research examining effects of child factors on use of non-parental childcare'. The present study aimed to address this dearth by using longitudinal data from the National Educational Panel Study (NEPS[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>]) to examine the role of child characteristics such as temperament, health, early competencies, birth weight and size, birth order and sleeping problems in determining when parents envisage and actually start using childcare. For a better understanding, a short overview of the German ECEC-system will be presented first, followed by the theoretical framework and the state of research.</p> <hd id="AN0133199957-3">The German ECEC system</hd> <p>Usually, the German ECEC system is divided into two institutional settings: one for children aged 0 to 3 years and one for those aged 3 to 6. Besides this division, there is a mixed form, where all children age 0 to 6 are cared for. Note that these are age-mixed groups within the particular age range. Since 1996, each child aged 3 years or older has been entitled to a place in a German child day care centre. In 2013, this legal right was expanded to entitle each child older than 1 year to a place in a childcare centre or in family-based daycare. With an attendance rate for 3- to 6-year-olds of 93.6%, almost every child in this age group has some ECEC experience, and the use of such services is highly accepted. The rate for the under-3s is 32.7% (2.5% for 0- to 1-year-olds, 36.1% for 1- to 2-year-olds and 60.6% for the 2- to 3-year-olds; German Federal Statistical Office 2016). The lower attendance rates for the under-3s are due partially to the laws on parental benefits and parental leave. If parents decide to stay at home and care for their child after birth, the government will replace their income loss by 65-100% for a maximum of 14 months. Since July 2015, an additional law called 'ElterngeldPlus' even allows a further 4 months of combining parental allowance and part-time work (Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth 2015). However, there is a higher demand for places in childcare centres than places available (Alt, Berngruber, and Hubert 2014). Empirical research shows, as a result, that up to 60% of children are already registered in childcare centres when they are 7 months old (Burghardt 2017). These high registration rates can be explained in three ways: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref2">1</reflink>) parents register their child, but have to wait because not enough places are available. (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref3">2</reflink>) The child attends immediately after registration. (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref4">3</reflink>) Parents register their child at an early date, but want to use childcare later.</p> <hd id="AN0133199957-4">Theoretical framework</hd> <p>Childcare decisions are complex, and different theoretical approaches explain the underlying assumption of how parents decide to use formal ECEC services (for an overview, see Chaudry, Henly, and Meyers 2010). One well-known conceptual framework is the <emph>economic consumer choice model</emph>. This predicts that parents make decisions that maximize their satisfaction by weighing the potential costs and benefits of childcare. This theoretical approach focuses mainly on the trade-off of returning to work through using childcare (Boudon 1974). One assumption that seems to go hand in hand with this model is that adults with more <emph>human capital</emph> (Bourdieu 1996) will more probably be able to afford childcare and therefore reveal higher attendance rates. This may be mostly because parents with high human capital are more likely to have stable, full-time jobs and relatively high earnings (Huston, Chang, and Gennetian 2002). However, the consumer choice model is built on several beliefs such as the implicit assumption of <emph>rational choice,</emph> presupposing that parents have all the necessary information to form objective decisions and an unlimited availability of childcare. Chaudry, Henly, and Meyers (2010) argue that this is not the case for most parents, because they often have limited information and their childcare searches tend to be short. They add that the choice model takes preferences as being given while neglecting the fact that they are shaped by cultural norms, beliefs, or prior experiences. Meyers and Jordan (2006) argue that childcare choices are not choices at all, but rather accumulations of various factors. Their so-called <emph>accommodation model</emph> tries to eliminate the constraints of previous theoretical frameworks by viewing childcare decisions as contextualized patterns of action that are affected by accommodations to market, family, and social realities while taking into account that socio-economic characteristics and demographics do not operate in isolation. As a result, their accommodation model particularly emphasizes parental beliefs and expectations, their level of information, and the role of parents' social and cultural contexts. Recent research by Burghardt (2017) supports this framework, showing that parents' beliefs are a stronger predictor than socio-demographic characteristics (e.g. education or income). Burghardt's (2017) results confirmed the assumption that parental information about childcare opportunities plays a central role, because informed parents show a significantly higher attendance rate. Another important aspect that only few studies have incorporated is supply-side factors such as the limited number of places in childcare centres that may well restrict the attendance of children (Klement, Müller, and Prein 2006). There is both theoretical (Pungello and Kurtz-Costes 1999; Weber 2011) and empirical support (Early and Burchinal 2001; Fuchs and Peucker 2006; Burghardt 2017) for considering the role of supply-side factors when analysing why and how parents use formal ECEC services. Sylva et al. (2007) draw on a theoretical position postulated by Pungello and Kurtz-Costes (1999) whose model takes an eco-behavioural approach (Bronfenbrenner 1986). In this model, the following aspects play a role in parent's choice of childcare: socio-demographics (e.g. occupation, education, and income), environmental contexts (e.g. childcare availability), maternal beliefs (e.g. childrearing attitudes), and child characteristics (e.g. age, gender, and temperament).</p> <hd id="AN0133199957-5">Theoretical model and state of research</hd> <p>The present study is based on a theoretical model proposed by Burghardt (2017) and Burghardt and Kluczniok (2016) and is extended by the assumption made by Sylva et al. (2007) that child characteristics may influence parental orientational characteristics (see Figure 1). From a pedagogical point of view, this rich accommodation model adds essential factors such as parents' expectations or their level of information. This makes it a perfect fit for the present study. The model in the present study adds the theoretical assumption that child characteristics shape parents' beliefs and therefore impact indirectly (as interaction effects) on the use of childcare (Sylva et al. 2007). The theoretical model has two sides: a demand side and a supply side.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 1 Theoretical model (based on Sylva et al. 2007; Burghardt and Kluczniok 2016; Burghardt 2017).</p> <hd id="AN0133199957-6">Practical implications and alternative care</hd> <p>Relevant factors on the demand side are <emph>practical implications</emph> for parents such as whether they are able to drive to the next childcare centre (Fuchs and Peucker 2006), or the <emph>availability of alternative care</emph> that is provided most commonly by family members (Fuller, Holloway, and Liang 1996; Schober and Spieß 2013).</p> <hd id="AN0133199957-7">Structural characteristics</hd> <p>Most studies, especially in Germany, have focused on the family's <emph>structural characteristics</emph>, in particular on socio-demographics such as education, income, mother's employment, or an immigration background (for an overview, see Fuchs-Rechlin et al. 2014). Research shows that given higher maternal education, higher income, and a mother returning to work at an early point of time, the probability of both using childcare services in general and using them sooner increases (Blau and Robins 1991; Volling and Belsky 1993; NICHD 1997; Sylva et al. 2007; Kreyenfeld and Krapf 2010; Alt, Berngruber, and Pötter 2016). Although international findings (Sylva et al. 2007) are inconsistent, German research reveals a definite trend for children whose parents have an immigration background to be less likely to attend childcare (Eckhardt and Riedel 2012; Schober and Spieß 2013; Fuchs-Rechlin and Bergmann 2014).</p> <hd id="AN0133199957-8">Parental orientational characteristics</hd> <p>One set of factors that has hardly been studied is <emph>parents' beliefs and expectations</emph>. Overviews of the current state of research reveal that parents' beliefs regarding their return to work (Melhuish et al. 1991; Sylva et al. 2007; Weber 2011) and their expectations regarding childcare (Johansen, Leibowitz, and Waite 1996; Geier and Riedel 2008; Burghardt 2017) play an important role in explaining the use of childcare services. As Burghardt and Kluczniok (2016) show, there are moderate associations between parents' structural characteristics and these orientational characteristics. Adding parent's beliefs and expectations to a model examining the role of structural, orientational, and context variables (such as availability of childcare) doubles the explained variance in registering for a childcare centre (Burghardt 2017). These results strengthen Weber's (2011, 3) statement that 'childcare and early education decision-making cannot be understood outside the world in which a family lives and works'.</p> <hd id="AN0133199957-9">Child characteristics</hd> <p>Another set of potential influences are <emph>child characteristics</emph> such as temperament or early competencies. Even though several researchers such as Pungello and Kurtz-Costes (1999) theorize that these child characteristics may affect parent's decisions, there is little empirical support for this argument.</p> <hd id="AN0133199957-10">Temperament</hd> <p>Results on temperament are inconsistent, with some studies finding no impact on attendance (Melhuish et al. 1991; Volling and Belsky 1993; Miller, Votruba-Drzal, and Coley 2013). However, Galambos and Lerner (1987) reported that mothers who returned to work were less likely to say that their child had a fussy temperament, suggesting that mothers whose children do have a difficult temperament prefer to stay at home rather than use ECEC services. Sylva et al. (2007) found that children with difficult temperament experience more hours of institutional care. On the other hand, Jaffee, van Hulle, and Rodgers (2011) found that children with more difficult temperament were less likely to attend nonmaternal care. One can hypothesize two impact patterns of temperament: First, parents may prefer using childcare if their child has a difficult temperament, maybe because of the idea of relief for the parents or because the child's development would benefit from another learning environment. Second parents see the difficult temperament of their child as a hindrance for using childcare, implying that institutional childcare may be too stressful or the child would have difficulties adapting.</p> <hd id="AN0133199957-11">Competencies</hd> <p>Regarding competencies, there seems to be even less empirical consensus. Coley et al. (2014) refer to Grogan (2012) who suggested that parents of children with higher literacy and numeracy skills prefer childcare. Yet, their own study revealed no effect for competencies, temperament, or other child characteristics. From a theoretical point of view, on the one hand, parents may use childcare if there child shows lower competencies, because they assume a promotion of these competencies when the child enters childcare. On the other hand, there could be the opposite assumptions; parents may see their child as not yet ready if he/she does not show a certain level of skills. This could be true mainly for language and motor skills, as the child may need basic skills to communicate and be mobile.</p> <hd id="AN0133199957-12">Health</hd> <p>The connection between child's health (especially disabilities) and the attendance of ECEC services tends to be clearer, showing that mothers of disabled children are less likely to return to work (Corman, Noonan, and Reichman 2005; Spieß and Dunkelberg 2009) and to use non-maternal childcare (Booth and Kelly 1998; Brandon 2000; Jaffee, van Hulle, and Rodgers 2011). While the state of research is quite small, but points in one certain direction, there could also be the theoretic assumption, that parents would like their children to start using child care, again because of the idea of relief or that the child would benefit from special support in childcare.</p> <hd id="AN0133199957-13">Birth weight, size and order</hd> <p>Other rarely studied child characteristics are birthweight, birth size, and birth order. However, one could theorize that, if a child's weight is lower, parents may think that she or he is not yet 'ready' to attend childcare services, there is no existing research on birth weight and size. Results on birth order show that using childcare is more common for firstborns (Sylva et al. 2007). This finding is supported by quite a wide range of studies showing that the probability of using non-maternal childcare decreases with the increasing number of siblings (Singer et al. 1998; Lang 2006; Alt, Berngruber, and Pötter 2016). An underlying assumption on the effect of birth order lies in parents' wish that their children grow up together, which would lead to the non-usage of child centres. If the child is the first born, he/she does not have any sibling; if the family has many children, one can assume, that it becomes more likely, that one parent decides to stay at home and care for the children.</p> <p>In summary, child characteristics have been less well studied (Peyton et al. 2001), and when they were included in models, they delivered little to no empirical evidence. One possible explanation for this is given by the theoretical model of Sylva et al. (2007, 119). Their model (but not their analysis) indicates that child characteristics may impact on maternal beliefs. Perhaps this effect is not direct, but moderated by the effect of parental beliefs and expectations. The current state of research reveals that most studies up to now have tried to explain whether or not a child attends childcare. However, none have compared parents' envisaged, ideal starting point for using institutional childcare with the real starting point. Theoretically, one can hypothesize that different underlying mechanisms impact on the factors explaining the ideal versus the real starting point. In particular, the ideal starting point could be influenced mainly by parents' beliefs and expectations and how they see their own child. This could be examined by asking parents from what age their child should attend childcare if their only concern is the child's well-being. Nonetheless, child or orientational characteristics might contribute less when it comes to explaining the real starting point for using childcare. Indeed, other factors such as aspects on the demand side may play a major role in explaining the different starting points when the envisaged and the real starting point do not match.</p> <p>Based on these theoretical considerations and the fact that most (German) studies fail to include child characteristics, the present study focuses on the direct and interaction effects of child characteristics on the envisaged and real starting point of using institutional childcare.</p> <p>It poses the following research questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> In what way do child characteristics predict parent's <emph>envisaged starting point</emph> of using childcare centres?</item> <p></p> <item> Are parental beliefs and expectations moderated through child characteristics? In other words, is there an <emph>interaction effect of child characteristics and parents' expectations</emph> on the envisaged starting point of using childcare?</item> <p></p> <item> Which factors determine the <emph>real starting point</emph> of using childcare services?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0133199957-14">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0133199957-15">Sample</hd> <p>The study draws on data from Starting Cohort One - Newborns - of the German National Educational Panel Study (NEPS), which was conducted, via computer-assisted interviews (CAPI) and direct measures of the children. By including data from the first four waves (children's age: at Wave 1 = 7 months; at Wave 2 = 17 months; at Wave 3 = 27 months; at Wave 4 = 38 months), this covers the entire period of using childcare centres for children under the age of 3 in a representative sample. To get a deeper insight into the sample that is addressed in the NEPS, some demographic information of the first wave is provided in the following. Ninety-eight percent of the study participants are the mother of the child addressed. Their average age is 32 years. The socioeconomic status measured by the Index of occupational state (ISEI 08) lies above the German average (which is: 44) with a value of 54.93. Thirty-four percent of the sample have an immigration background according to the first language spoken in the household. The number of siblings is.82, meaning that 45.6% of the parents have an only child and the rest has two or more children.</p> <p>The biggest advantage of longitudinal data is that they reveal a clear direction of the relationships. As Coley et al. (2014) argue, most studies assess child characteristics and the use of childcare at one and the same time, leaving the directionality of relationships unclear. This criticism is supported by the NICHD Early Childcare Research Network (1997), claiming that a family's decision-making is affected by maternal, child, and familial characteristics <emph>before</emph> care begins. This issue has been rarely addressed, especially in German research. Taking this into account, the present study drew factors from either previous waves or the same wave as the dependent variables. In line with the theoretical model, data on the availability of childcare centres on a district level provided by German Statistics on Child and Youth Welfare were added to control for supply-side factors.</p> <hd id="AN0133199957-16">Measurement</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0133199957-17">Dependent variables</hd> <p>Attendance of childcare centres for children under the age of 3 was assessed with two variables. The first was labelled 'envisaged starting point'. In the first wave (<emph>n</emph> = 3481), parents were given the following question: 'parents have different ideas about the age at which children should attend a daycare or a Kindergarten for the first time. If the only concern is the child's wellbeing: From what age would you like to send < target child's name > to a day care or a Kindergarten?' This variable was coded in months and shows parent's perception of at what age their child should start attending a childcare centre. The second variable was the real starting point of childcare (in months). This was determined with data from Waves 2 (<emph>n</emph> = 2849), 3 (<emph>n</emph> = 2609), and 4 (<emph>n</emph> = 2478). The dependent variables were assessed using computer-assisted interviews.</p> <hd id="AN0133199957-18">Independent variables</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0133199957-19">Control variables</hd> <p>All analyses controlled for the care rate at the district level (in percent), child's age (in months), and gender (0 = <emph>female</emph>, 1 = <emph>male</emph>).</p> <hd id="AN0133199957-20">Structural characteristics</hd> <p>Based on the state of research, the following structural characteristics of the family (measured in Wave 1 via CAPI) were entered into the models: mother's educational status (ISEI 08; Ganzeboom 2010), monthly net household income (in €), migration background (based on data on the first language spoken in the home, 0 = <emph>no migration background</emph>, 1 = <emph>migration background of at least one parent</emph>), and number of siblings. Note that the region (western and eastern part of Germany) could not be included due to multicollinearity between this factor and the places available at the district level (<emph>r</emph> = .81; tolerance = <.20; VIF = > 5).</p> <hd id="AN0133199957-21">Orientational characteristics</hd> <p>The following parental beliefs and expectations (measured during Wave 1, via CAPI) were included: mother's general assessment of their occupation labelled as 'importance of occupation' (1 = <emph>very unimportant</emph>, 5 = <emph>very important</emph>); the expectation that if the child were to attend childcare, the mother would be able to work ('benefit expectation for childcare: occupation', 1 = <emph>very poor</emph>, 5 = <emph>very good</emph>); the expectation that attending childcare would be beneficial for the child's development ('benefit expectation for childcare: enrichment', 1 = <emph>very poor</emph>, 5 = <emph>very good</emph>); how difficult parents find it to pay the financial costs of childcare (1 = <emph>very difficult</emph>, 5 = <emph>very easy</emph>); and whether friends and relatives would look down on the parents if they were to use childcare centres (1 = does not apply at all, 5 = applies completely). Parents answered these questions while thinking about the possibility of <emph>their</emph> child attending a childcare centre. This indicates that beliefs refer to their child and are not general beliefs regarding whether, for example, childcare is beneficial for children in general. This underlines the prospective approach of the study, because none of the children had started attending childcare. Another variable was added to address how well parents were informed about care services in the region (1 = very poor, 5 = very good).</p> <hd id="AN0133199957-22">Child characteristics</hd> <p>NEPS used the Very Short Form of the Infant Behavior Questionnaire (Helbig et al. 2009) to assess a child's temperament (Bayer et al. 2015) at the age of 7 months. Two variables were formed: 'Negative Affectivity' (Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> = .59; four items) and 'Orienting/ Regulatory Capacity' (Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> = .59; five items). All items were rated on 6-point scales, higher ratings indicating difficult temperament. Child's Health was assessed by asking the parents whether the child had to return to a children's hospital during the first 3 months of life (0 = <emph>no</emph>, 1 = <emph>yes</emph>). Another set of variables was the child's birth weight (in grams) and size (in centimetres). A sensorimotor development scale was adapted from the Bayley Scales as a rather broad indicator of the child's development, and the weighted maximum likelihood estimates were entered into the models. Finally, birth order was included (0 = <emph>not first born</emph>, 1 = <emph>first born</emph>). To investigate the role of child characteristics in more depth, the following variables were added from Wave 2 of NEPS: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref5">1</reflink>) communicative gestures: whether the child shakes her or his head to communicate not wanting something (0 = <emph>no</emph>, 1 = <emph>yes</emph>) and whether the child can draw someone's attention on something (0 = <emph>no</emph>, 1 = <emph>yes</emph>); (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref6">2</reflink>) productive language skills: imitating words spontaneously (0 = <emph>no</emph>, 1 = <emph>yes</emph>) and vocabulary size (0 = <emph>none</emph>, 1 = <emph>1-3 words</emph>, 2 = 4<emph>-10 words</emph>, 3 = <emph>11-20 words</emph>, 4 = <emph>more than 20 words</emph>); (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref7">3</reflink>) receptive language: following requests and understanding instructions (0 = <emph>no</emph>, 1 = <emph>yes</emph>); (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref8">4</reflink>) cognitive skills: whether the child plays pretend or role play games and whether the child completes a means-end task such as getting a chair to do something (0 = <emph>no</emph>, 1 = <emph>yes</emph>);[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref9">2</reflink>] (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref10">5</reflink>) motor skills: the ability to walk up stairs and to climb on things (0 = <emph>no</emph>, 1 = <emph>yes</emph>);[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref11">3</reflink>] and (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref12">6</reflink>) troubles with sleeping: how often does the child wake up during the night (0 = <emph>does not wake up</emph>, 1 = <emph>1-2 times</emph>, 2 = <emph>3-4 times</emph>, 3 = 5 <emph>times or more</emph>). These child characteristics were assessed with parental reports (CAPI) on their child and therefore drew a picture of how parents saw their child and her or his abilities.</p> <hd id="AN0133199957-23">Analyses</hd> <p>The first and the last research questions were analysed with linear regression models. To identify whether child characteristics alone explained the variance in envisaged and real starting point, Model 1 included only child characteristics. Model 2 added structural characteristics. Model 3 added a set of orientational characteristics. All models controlled for the availability of childcare as well as child's age and gender (Model 0). Following a prospective methodological approach, only child characteristics from Wave 1 were used to identify parent's envisaged starting point of using institutional childcare, because this information was also gathered in Wave 1. The following child characteristics were used to predict parent's envisaged starting point: temperament, health, birth weight and size, sensorimotor development and birth order. Due to the panel design of the NEPS, there is no information on child's early competencies when the child was seven months old, as they were assessed for the first time in Wave 2 of the NEPS. Therefore, it was not possible to link competencies of the child (as perceived by parents and standardized test) to parent's envisaged starting point in using childcare.</p> <p>Childcare use actually started during or after Wave 2. Therefore, one can assume a connection between child characteristics at that age (Wave 2) as well as connections between child characteristics at the age of 7 months (Wave 1) that impact on the real starting point of using childcare. Therefore, the following child characteristics were added to the ones mentioned above to address the third research question: early competencies (a set of each two variables for communicative gestures, productive language, receptive language, cognition and motor skills) as well as the amount the child wakes up during night as an indicator for sleeping problems. However, because it was not possible to derive a factor for child characteristics (factor analysis failed), all child characteristics were included as individual items. Note that parents' beliefs and attitudes were only assessed in the first wave of the starting cohort one. Because of the design of the National Educational Panel Study, we do not have this information assessed for additional waves. This is why oriental and structural characteristics of the first wave are used in the models.</p> <p>Aiken and West's (1991) methodological approach was used to determine whether parents' expectations were moderated through child characteristics by analysing interaction effects between parent's expectation that their child would benefit from childcare and child characteristics. Additionally, Bonferroni-adjusted <emph>post hoc</emph> analysis were run, as Levene's test showed unequal variances (<emph>p</emph> < .001) and the sample sizes are unequal, to see which groups are accountable for the differences in the envisaged starting point of using childcare.</p> <p>To account for missing values, multiple imputations were used to add data for structural and orientational characteristics (Lüdtke et al. 2007). To increase the validity, ten datasets were generated (Rubin 1996). Note that multiple imputations was only used to add missing data for structural characteristics and orientational characteristics, as it did not seem reasonable to impute child characteristics or dependent variables. Regarding beliefs and expectations, there was a maximum of 2% missing data. Structural characteristics also showed missing data in the single-digit range. Most missing data was found regarding parents' income (15%), auxiliary variables like parents education (ISCED, CASMIN) and a variable where parents income was categorized (with less missing data) have been used for imputation. All variables were standardized using <emph>z</emph> scores. The analysis has been carried out using IBM SPSS 22.</p> <hd id="AN0133199957-24">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0133199957-25">Descriptive results</hd> <p>Table 1 reports the descriptives for the dependent and independent variables. The envisaged starting point of using childcare was 25.7 months, but the real starting point was 10 months earlier, showing that most children entered childcare at the age of 15.6 months. Note that answers on the envisaged starting point were available for all children (<emph>n</emph> = 3376), whereas data on the real starting point (<emph>n</emph> = 2634) were available only if the child entered childcare in the first four waves of the NEPS. Hence, part of the difference between envisaged and real starting point could be explained by those children who entered childcare at a later time or never entered childcare at all.</p> <p>Research Question1: In what way do child characteristics predict parent's envisaged starting point of using childcare centres?</p> <p></p> <p>Descriptive data on variables in the analyses.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="6"><tr><td align="left">Characteristic</td><td align="center">N</td><td align="center">Mean</td><td align="center">SD</td><td align="center">Minimum</td><td align="center">Maximum</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Dependent variables</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Envisaged starting point (in months)</td><td align="char">3376</td><td align="char">25.66</td><td align="char">10.69</td><td align="char">0</td><td align="char">72</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Real starting point (in months)</td><td align="char">2634</td><td align="char">15.60</td><td align="char">7.69</td><td align="char">6</td><td align="char">41</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Control variables</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Care rate at district level (in per cent)</td><td align="char">3413</td><td align="char">27.16</td><td align="char">11.14</td><td align="char">12</td><td align="char">58</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Child's age (in months)</td><td align="char">3413</td><td align="char">6.97</td><td align="char">.83</td><td align="char">3</td><td align="char">12</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Child's gender (0 = female, 1 = male)</td><td align="char">3413</td><td align="char">.51</td><td align="char">.50</td><td align="char">0</td><td align="char">1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Child characteristics</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Temperament: Negative affectivity (1 = easy, 6 = difficult temperament)</td><td align="char">3180</td><td align="char">3.62</td><td align="char">1.19</td><td align="char">.0</td><td align="char">6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Temperament: Orienting/regulatory capacity (1 = easy, 6 = difficult temperament)</td><td align="char">3330</td><td align="char">1.09</td><td align="char">.73</td><td align="char">.0</td><td align="center">5.60</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Health: Relocation to children's hospital (0 = no, 1 = yes)</td><td align="char">3413</td><td align="char">.14</td><td align="char">.34</td><td align="char">.0</td><td align="char">1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Birth weight (in gram)</td><td align="char">3411</td><td align="center">3371.06</td><td align="center">567.05</td><td align="char">355</td><td align="center">5765</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Birth size (in cm)</td><td align="char">3408</td><td align="char">51.26</td><td align="char">3.05</td><td align="char">28</td><td align="char">62</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Sensorimotor development (weighted maximum likelihood estimates)</td><td align="char">2889</td><td align="char">−.04</td><td align="char">1.45</td><td align="char">−6.76</td><td align="char">3.68</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Birth order (0 = not first born; 1 = first born)</td><td align="char">3413</td><td align="char">.46</td><td align="char">.50</td><td align="char">0</td><td align="char">1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Communicative gestures: Negation (headshaking)* (0 = no, 1 = yes)</td><td align="char">2781</td><td align="char">.76</td><td align="char">.42</td><td align="char">0</td><td align="char">1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Communicative gestures: Drawing someone's attention* (0 = no, 1 = yes)</td><td align="char">2788</td><td align="char">.91</td><td align="char">.29</td><td align="char">0</td><td align="char">1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Productive language: Imitating words spontaneously* (0 = no, 1 = yes)</td><td align="char">2788</td><td align="char">.39</td><td align="char">.49</td><td align="char">0</td><td align="char">1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Productive language: Vocabulary size* (0 = none, 1 = 1-3 words, 2 = 4-10 words, 3 = 11-20 words)</td><td align="char">2787</td><td align="char">1.22</td><td align="char">.85</td><td align="char">0</td><td align="char">4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Receptive language: Following requests* (0 = no, 1 = yes)</td><td align="char">2708</td><td align="char">.51</td><td align="char">.50</td><td align="char">0</td><td align="char">1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Receptive language: Understanding instructions* (0 = no, 1 = yes)</td><td align="char">2772</td><td align="char">.88</td><td align="char">.33</td><td align="char">0</td><td align="char">1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cognition: As-if game* (0 = no, 1 = yes)</td><td align="char">2783</td><td align="char">.35</td><td align="char">.48</td><td align="char">0</td><td align="char">1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cognition: Means-end task* (0 = no, 1 = yes)</td><td align="char">2787</td><td align="char">.44</td><td align="char">.50</td><td align="char">0</td><td align="char">1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Motor skills: Walking up steps* (0 = no, 1 = yes)</td><td align="char">2762</td><td align="char">.61</td><td align="char">.49</td><td align="char">0</td><td align="char">1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Motor skills: Climbing up* (0 = no, 1 = yes)</td><td align="char">2789</td><td align="char">.74</td><td align="char">.44</td><td align="char">0</td><td align="char">1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Wakes up during night* (0 = does not wake up, 1 = 1-2 times, 2 = 3-4 times, 3 = 5 times or more)</td><td align="char">2783</td><td align="char">.83</td><td align="char">.74</td><td align="char">0</td><td align="char">3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Structural characteristics</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Mother's educational status (ISEI 08)</td><td align="char">3080</td><td align="char">54.93</td><td align="char">20.68</td><td align="char">11.56</td><td align="char">88.96</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Monthly net household income (in €)</td><td align="char">2868</td><td align="center">3188.46</td><td align="center">1781.65</td><td align="char">200</td><td align="left">30000</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Immigration background (0 = no IB, 1 = IB)</td><td align="char">3169</td><td align="char">.34</td><td align="char">.47</td><td align="char">0</td><td align="char">1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Number of siblings</td><td align="char">3413</td><td align="char">.82</td><td align="char">1.03</td><td align="char">0</td><td align="char">8</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Orientational characteristics</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Importance of occupation (1 = very unimportant, 5 = very important)</td><td align="char">3409</td><td align="char">3.94</td><td align="char">1.09</td><td align="char">1</td><td align="char">5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Benefit expectation for childcare: Occupation (1 = very poor, 5 = very good)</td><td align="char">3317</td><td align="char">4.22</td><td align="char">1.04</td><td align="char">1</td><td align="char">5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Benefit expectation for childcare: Enrichment (1 = very poor, 5 = very good)</td><td align="char">3376</td><td align="char">4.03</td><td align="char">1.02</td><td align="char">1</td><td align="char">5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Willingness to pay child care costs (1 = very difficult, 5 = very easy)</td><td align="char">3371</td><td align="char">3.46</td><td align="char">1.13</td><td align="char">1</td><td align="char">5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Social costs of childcare: Looked down on (1 = does not apply at all, 5 = applies completely)</td><td align="char">3387</td><td align="char">1.73</td><td align="char">1.05</td><td align="char">1</td><td align="char">5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Subjective awareness: Care services in the region (1 = very poor, 5 = very good)</td><td align="char">3400</td><td align="char">3.06</td><td align="char">1.23</td><td align="char">1</td><td align="char">5</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note: * = variable drawn from the second wave of the Starting Cohort 1 - Newborns. All other variables are drawn from the first wave.</p> <p>Source: NEPS - Starting Cohort 1, first four waves. doi:https://doi.org/10.5157/NEPS:SC1:4.0.0.</p> <p>Regression analyses (Table 2) showed that after controlling for the care rate at the district level along with child's age and gender, three child characteristics affected parents' envisaged starting point of using childcare.</p> <p>Results show that when the child had a difficult temperament - meaning less regulatory capacity - parents wished for an earlier entry in institutional childcare. In contrast, when the child was taller and the firstborn, parents wished for an early start (Model 1). However, the explained variance was quite small, adding only 1% to the overall explained variance (8%). By adding structural characteristics, explained variance rose to 15%. All four variables added explanatory power. Mothers with a higher educational status and a higher income preferred an early start in childcare. On the other hand, parents with an immigration background and families with more children wanted to start using childcare later. After adding structural characteristics, only the effect of birth order remained significant. The direction of the effect shifted, indicating a potential suppressor effect between birth order and number of siblings. When adding orientational characteristics (Model 3), the explained variance more than doubled (38%). The strongest predictor for the envisaged starting point seemed to be the expectation that it would be beneficial for the child's development. Higher mother's perceived importance of occupation, as well as being aware of care services in the region indicated an earlier start. On a ten percent level, there was a small connection between the willingness to pay for childcare and the envisaged starting point. However, the influence of structural variables decreased when orientational characteristics were added and the effects of child characteristics disappeared.</p> <p>Research Question 2: Are parental beliefs and expectations moderated through child characteristics?</p> <p></p> <p>Results on interaction effects of child characteristics and parent's expectation (Model 4 in Table 2) showed a small, yet significant effect of child's temperament (regulatory/orienting capacity). The relation between parents' expectation that childcare would be beneficial for the child's development was moderated (weakly) by child's temperament (Figure 2).</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 2. Scatterplot, interaction effect of child's temperament (orienting/regulatory capacity) and parents' expectation.</p> <p>Multivariate linear regression models: Envisaged starting point of using childcare.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="11"><tr><td align="left" /><td align="center" colspan="10">Envisaged starting point of using childcare (n = 2630)</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="center" colspan="2">Model 0</td><td align="center" colspan="2">Model 1</td><td align="center" colspan="2">Model 2</td><td align="center" colspan="2">Model 3</td><td align="center" colspan="2">Model 4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Predictor</td><td align="center">B</td><td align="center">SE</td><td align="center">B</td><td align="center">SE</td><td align="center">B</td><td align="center">SE</td><td align="center">B</td><td align="center">SE</td><td align="center">B</td><td align="center">SE</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Step 0 Control Variables</td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td></tr><tr><td align="left">Care rate at district level</td><td align="char">−.27***</td><td align="center">.02</td><td align="center">−.27***</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">−.26***</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">−.16***</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">−.16***</td><td align="char">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Child's age (in months)</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="center">.02</td><td align="center">.03</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.01</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.01</td><td align="char">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Child's gender (0 = female, 1 = male)</td><td align="char">−.01</td><td align="center">.02</td><td align="center">.00</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.00</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">−.01</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">−.01</td><td align="char">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Step 1 Child Characteristics</td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td></tr><tr><td align="left">Temperament: Negative affectivity</td><td /><td /><td align="char">.01</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.00</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.00</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.00</td><td align="char">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Temperament: Orienting/ Regulatory capacity</td><td /><td /><td align="char">−.05*</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">−.03</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">−.02</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">−.02</td><td align="char">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Health: Relocation to children's hospital</td><td /><td /><td align="char">.00</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">−.01</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.00</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.00</td><td align="char">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Birth weight</td><td /><td /><td align="char">.03</td><td align="char">.03</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.03</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.03</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.03</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Birth size</td><td /><td /><td align="char">−.07*</td><td align="char">.03</td><td align="char">−.05</td><td align="char">.03</td><td align="char">−.04</td><td align="char">.03</td><td align="char">−.04</td><td align="char">.03</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Sensorimotor development</td><td /><td /><td align="char">−.02</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">−.01</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">−.01</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">−.01</td><td align="char">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Birth order (0 = not first born; 1 = first born)</td><td /><td /><td align="char">−.05**</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.07*</td><td align="char">.03</td><td align="char">.03</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.03</td><td align="char">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Step 2 Structural Characteristics</td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td></tr><tr><td align="left">Mother's educational status (ISEI 08)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td align="char">−.21***</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">−.15***</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">−.15***</td><td align="char">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Monthly net household income (in €)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td align="char">−.06**</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">−.04*</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">−.04*</td><td align="char">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Immigration background (0 = no IB, 1 = IB)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td align="char">.06**</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.06***</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.06***</td><td align="char">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Number of siblings</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td align="char">.14***</td><td align="char">.03</td><td align="char">.09**</td><td align="char">.03</td><td align="char">.09***</td><td align="char">.03</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Step 3 Orientational Characteristics</td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td></tr><tr><td align="left">Importance of occupation</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td align="char">−.15***</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">−.15***</td><td align="char">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Benefit expectation for childcare: Occupation</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td align="char">−.02</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">−.02</td><td align="char">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Benefit expectation for childcare: Enrichment</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td align="char">−.35***</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">−.36***</td><td align="char">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Willingness to pay child care costs</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td align="char">−.03<sup>+</sup></td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">−.03<sup>+</sup></td><td align="char">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Social costs of childcare: Looked down on</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.01</td><td align="char">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Subjective awareness: Care services in the region</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td align="char">−.14***</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">−.14***</td><td align="char">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Step 4 Interaction Child & Benefit Expectation: Enrichment</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Temp. negative Affect × Benefit expectation Enrichment</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Temp. Orienting/ Regulatory capacity × Benefit expectation: Enrichment</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td align="char">−.03*</td><td align="char">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Health × Benefit expectation: Enrichment</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td align="char">.03</td><td align="char">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Birth weight × Benefit expectation: Enrichment</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td align="char">.04</td><td align="char">.03</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Birth size × Benefit expectation: Enrichment</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td align="char">.00</td><td align="char">.03</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Sensorimotor development × Benefit expectation: Enrichment</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td align="char">.00</td><td align="char">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Birth order × Benefit expectation: Enrichment</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td align="char">−.01</td><td align="char">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">R<sup>2</sup></td><td align="center" colspan="2">.07</td><td align="center" colspan="2">.08</td><td align="center" colspan="2">.16</td><td align="center" colspan="2">.38</td><td align="center" colspan="2">.38</td></tr><tr><td align="left">adj. R<sup>2</sup></td><td align="center" colspan="2">.07</td><td align="center" colspan="2">.08</td><td align="center" colspan="2">.16</td><td align="center" colspan="2">.38</td><td align="center" colspan="2">.38</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note: Coefficients and standard errors are shown. Results based on multiple imputation with 10 datasets.</p> <p> <sups>+</sups> <emph>p</emph> < .10; *<emph>p</emph> < .05; **<emph>p</emph> < .01; ***<emph>p</emph> < .001.</p> <p>Source: NEPS - Starting Cohort 1 - Newborns, wave one. doi:https://doi.org/10.5157/NEPS:SC1:4.0.0</p> <p>The higher regression effect (<emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = .36 vs. <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = .22) indicated stronger correlations between parents' benefit expectation and the envisaged starting point if the child had a difficult temperament. In other words, if the child had a difficult temperament, the parents' expectation that childcare would be beneficial for the child's development rose and therefore they envisaged an earlier starting point. Bonferroni-adjusted <emph>post hoc</emph> analysis revealed a significant difference (<emph>p</emph> < .001) in parents benefit expectations and child's temperament. The difference in the envisaged starting point of using childcare comes from the differences of parents with high benefit expectations for their child with a difficult temperament compared to parents with low benefit expectations for their child with an easy temperament (−11.68, 95% CI [−14.81, −8.55]).</p> <p>Research Question 3: Which factors determine the real starting point of using childcare services?</p> <p></p> <p>Looking at the real starting point, the explained variance of the regressions models was much lower. Child characteristics (Model 1 in Table 3) revealed four variables that were linked to the age at which a child entered childcare. First-born children and children who could draw someone's attention tended to have an early entry. There was an additional effect of cognitive competencies, showing that being able to play as-if games led to a later childcare entry. Finally, children who woke up more often during the night entered childcare at a later point of time. However, these child characteristics added only 2% of the explained variance.</p> <p>Multivaritate linear regression models: real starting point of using childcare</p> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="9"><tr><td align="left" /><td align="center" colspan="8">Real starting point of using childcare (n = 1891)</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="center" colspan="2">Model 0</td><td align="center" colspan="2">Model 1</td><td align="center" colspan="2">Model 2</td><td align="center" colspan="2">Model 3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Steps</td><td align="center">B</td><td align="center">SE</td><td align="center">B</td><td align="center">SE</td><td align="center">B</td><td align="center">SE</td><td align="center">B</td><td align="center">SE</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Step 0 Control Variables</td><td align="char"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td></tr><tr><td align="left">Care rate at district level</td><td align="char">−.09***</td><td align="center">.02</td><td align="center">−.09***</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">−.08**</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">−.02</td><td align="char">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Child's age (in months)</td><td align="char">.06*</td><td align="center">.02</td><td align="center">.05*</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.05*</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.05*</td><td align="char">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Child's gender (0 = female, 1 = male)</td><td align="char">−.02</td><td align="center">.02</td><td align="center">−.02</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">−.03</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">−.04</td><td align="char">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Step 1 Child Characteristics</td><td align="char"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td></tr><tr><td align="left">Temperament: Negative Affectivity</td><td /><td /><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.01</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Temperament: Orienting/Regulatory capacity</td><td /><td /><td align="char">−.02</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">−.01</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.00</td><td align="char">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Health: Relocation to children's hospital</td><td /><td /><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Birth weight</td><td /><td /><td align="char">.06</td><td align="char">.04</td><td align="char">.05</td><td align="char">.04</td><td align="char">.06<sup>+</sup></td><td align="char">.04</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Birth size</td><td /><td /><td align="char">−.02</td><td align="char">.04</td><td align="char">−.01</td><td align="char">.04</td><td align="char">−.02</td><td align="char">.04</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Sensorimotor development</td><td /><td /><td align="char">−.01</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.00</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.00</td><td align="char">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Birth order (0 = not first born; 1 = first born)</td><td /><td /><td align="char">−.11***</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">−.08*</td><td align="char">.04</td><td align="char">−.10**</td><td align="char">.04</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Communicative gestures: Negation (headshaking)</td><td /><td /><td align="char">−.03</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">−.04<sup>+</sup></td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">−.04</td><td align="char">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Communicative gestures: Drawing someone's attention</td><td /><td /><td align="char">−.04<sup>+</sup></td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">−.03</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">−.03</td><td align="char">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Productive language: Imitating words spontaneously</td><td /><td /><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.03</td><td align="char">.00</td><td align="char">.03</td><td align="char">.01</td><td align="char">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Productive language: Vocabulary size</td><td /><td /><td align="char">−.03</td><td align="char">.03</td><td align="char">−.04</td><td align="char">.03</td><td align="char">−.05<sup>+</sup></td><td align="char">.03</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Receptive language: Following requests</td><td /><td /><td align="char">.04</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.03</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.03</td><td align="char">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Receptive language: Understanding instructions</td><td /><td /><td align="char">.01</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.01</td><td align="char">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cognition: As-if game</td><td /><td /><td align="char">.09***</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.06*</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.06**</td><td align="char">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cognition: Means-end task</td><td /><td /><td align="char">−.02</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">−.01</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">−.01</td><td align="char">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Motor skills: Walking up steps</td><td /><td /><td align="char">.03</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.01</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.01</td><td align="char">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Motor skills: Climbing up</td><td /><td /><td align="char">−.03</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">−.02</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">−.01</td><td align="char">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Wakes up during night</td><td /><td /><td align="char">.05*</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.06*</td><td align="char">.02</td><td align="char">.05*</td><td align="char">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Step 2 Structural Characteristics</td><td align="char"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td></tr><tr><td align="left">Mother's educational status (ISEI 08)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td align="char">−.16***</td><td align="char">.03</td><td align="char">−.10***</td><td align="char">.03</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Monthly net household income (in €)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td align="char">−.04</td><td align="char">.03</td><td align="char">−.02</td><td align="char">.03</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Immigration background (0 = no IB, 1 = IB)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td align="char">.05<sup>+</sup></td><td align="char">.03</td><td align="char">.06*</td><td align="char">.03</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Number of siblings</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td align="char">.04</td><td align="char">.05</td><td align="char">.01</td><td align="char">.04</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Step 3 Orientational Characteristics</td><td align="char"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> </td></tr><tr><td align="left">Importance of occupation</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td align="char">−.20***</td><td align="char">.03</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Benefit expectation for childcare: Occupation</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td align="char">−.06*</td><td align="char">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Benefit expectation for childcare: Enrichment</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td align="char">−.12***</td><td align="char">.03</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Willingness to pay child care costs</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td align="char">−.02</td><td align="char">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Social costs of childcare: Looked down on</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td align="char">.00</td><td align="char">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Subjective awareness: Care services in the region</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td align="char">−.07**</td><td align="char">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">R<sup>2</sup></td><td align="center" colspan="2">.01</td><td align="center" colspan="2">.04</td><td align="center" colspan="2">.08</td><td align="center" colspan="2">.16</td></tr><tr><td align="left">adj R<sup>2</sup></td><td align="center" colspan="2">.01</td><td align="center" colspan="2">.03</td><td align="center" colspan="2">.06</td><td align="center" colspan="2">.15</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note. Coefficients and standard errors are shown. Results based on multiple imputation with 10 datasets.</p> <p> <sups>+</sups> <emph>p</emph> < .10; *<emph>p</emph> < .05; **<emph>p</emph> < .01; ***<emph>p</emph> < .001.</p> <p>Source: NEPS - Starting Cohort 1, first four waves. doi:https://doi.org/10.5157/NEPS:SC1:4.0.0.</p> <p>When structural characteristics were added, the effects of child characteristics remained roughly the same. The effect of the child being able to draw someone's attention lost its significance, but another communicative gesture (shaking the head to communicate not wanting something) attained significance. Hence, children who were able to negate something had an earlier childcare start. The directions of the effects of the structural characteristics were the same as those for the analysis of the envisaged starting point. Children with more highly educated mothers started earlier; children of families with a migration background started later. In the final Model (Model 3), explained variance rose to 15%.</p> <p>Referring to the child characteristics, the effects of communicative gestures vanished. The effects of birth order, cognition, and sleep remained almost unchanged. One child factor emerged: vocabulary size. This indicated that children who were able to speak more words had an earlier start in childcare. Again, parents' beliefs and expectations played the leading role in explaining effects on the demand side. Four variables were associated significantly with an early start in institutional childcare: the high importance of being employed, the benefit expectation of being able to work because of using childcare, the expectation that the child's development would benefit from childcare, and parents' awareness of care services in the region. However, the relatively low explanatory power of the models should be noted (maximum adj. <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = .15).</p> <hd id="AN0133199957-26">Discussion</hd> <p>To address the gap in research on the relationship between child characteristics and the use of childcare, the present study investigated how child characteristics influence the envisaged and real starting point of entering childcare not only directly but also indirectly (as interaction effects) through influencing parents' expectations. These are interesting research questions for two reasons. First, they have not been investigated in any previous study of the German ECEC system. Second, although it has been assumed theoretically that child characteristics impact on the use of childcare and interact with parents' beliefs (Sylva et al. 2007), there is little to no research on this topic. Results on the envisaged starting point show that a difficult temperament is linked to the wish of parents to use childcare at an early time. This corresponds to findings reported by Galambos and Lerner (1987). The effect of birth size can be interpreted as indicating that parents base their decision partly on the size of their child. They may perceive a comparatively small child as not being 'ready' for childcare. Interestingly, the effects of child characteristics decrease when structural characteristics are added, and they vanish completely when adding orientations. This is surprising, because it contradicts the assumption that the ideal starting point (which refers only to the well-being of the child) is explained primarily by child characteristics. The effects of structural and orientational characteristics are in line with recent studies on the use of childcare in Germany (Burghardt 2017). These findings show that when asking why parents choose to use childcare for children under the age of 3, it is important to consider more than just socio-economic variables. The second research question analysed interaction effects of child characteristics and parent's beliefs. Because most child characteristics were assessed by the parents, there is a strong theoretical assumption that how parents see <emph>their</emph> child influences whether they think childcare would be beneficial for <emph>their</emph> child's development. Results show only a small effect of temperament, indicating that having a child with a difficult temperament increases the impact of the expected benefit on the envisaged starting point. However, this effect is quite small and adds no additional explanatory power to the envisaged starting point. Bonferroni-adjusted <emph>post hoc</emph> analysis showed that the difference in the envisaged starting point of using childcare regarding interaction-effects of benefit expectations and child factors, is due to parents who have high benefit expectations and a child with a difficult temperament and parents who have low expectations and a child with easy temperament. The first group of parents prefers an earlier start in using childcare (on an average 11 months earlier in contrast to the second group). Examining the role of child characteristics on the real starting point shows that several factors have an impact, and most even retain this impact after adding structural and orientational characteristics. Table 2 (Model 3) shows that the real start of using childcare is earlier when a child is first born and able to speak more words. There is also a positive effect of cognition and the amount a child wakes up in the night. The last effect shows that the more often a child wakes up during the night, the later the child will enter childcare. This may indicate that having sleeping troubles may influence the parents' perception that their child is (not yet) ready for childcare. The effect of cognition can be interpreted as indicating that children with lower cognitive skills enter childcare earlier. Parents may hope that social interaction with peers and the stimulation in childcare will be beneficial for their child's cognitive development. The disparity between the envisaged and real starting point and the small proportion of explained variance indicate that the real starting point is influenced by other factors. One indicator is the relatively high effect of the perceived importance of work for the mother. The real starting point of 15 months matches almost perfectly with the German parental leave laws specifying that if parents decide to stay at home and care for their child right after birth, 65-100% of their loss in income will be replaced by the government for a maximum of 14 months. Note that the additional coverage of 4 months - 'ElterngeldPlus' - was established after the present study was conducted. One can assume that the real starting point emerges only partly because of child, structural, and orientational characteristics, but mostly because of the need for one's child to be cared for after returning to work. The difference in explained variance (adj. <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = .38 for envisaged starting point, adj. <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = .15 for real starting point) supports the hypothesis that different underlying mechanisms explain the differences between the envisaged and the real start of using childcare.</p> <p>The theoretical models indicating the importance of child characteristics as direct and interaction effects on childcare decisions do not seem to apply that strongly to the German ECEC system. Given the fact that German ECEC is a universal system (Dreyer 2010) in which costs for childcare are relatively low, some federal states already have or are discussing free childcare, and there is an entitlement to childcare, child characteristics do not seem to play a key role in the parents' decision-making process. Perhaps in a system in which most childcare is offered by private and more costly providers, parents will have second thoughts about whether using childcare is right for <emph>their</emph> child. The fact that up to 60% of 7-month-old children are registered in childcare centres (Burghardt 2017), the insufficient amount of places available in childcare (Alt, Berngruber, and Hubert 2014), but mostly the regulations on parental leave that line up almost perfectly with the present findings, strengthen the hypothesis that child characteristics do not play a very important role for parents in Germany. The lack of places in childcare is highlighted by the fact that there are some cities in which parents have to register while the mother is still pregnant or right after birth, even if they wish for a later start. This is hardly a time when parents will be in a position to assess their child's competencies.</p> <p>Nonetheless, the study has some limitations. Due to the design of NEPS, there are no variables assessing parent's beliefs and expectations at Wave 2. Hence, it was not possible to extend the analysis of the interaction effects of child characteristics in Wave 2 (language, cognitive skills, motor skills, and sleep) and parental beliefs and expectations. As mentioned above, the effects of child characteristics found in the present study are quite small and have a very limited explanatory power. Therefore, results have to be treated with caution. It is possible that the effects are so small because of the NEPS sample. The data reveal hardly any children with high negative scores on, for example, health. If the sample were to include more extreme groups, the results would be different. Another limitation can be seen in the wording of the question on the envisaged starting point of using childcare. Parents were asked to say when the right starting point for using childcare would be if their only concern were their child's well-being. This wording is the strength of the present study because it focuses on the child, but it is also a weakness because it neglects parents' needs.</p> <p>Nonetheless, there are significant effects that suggest avenues for further research. For example, it would be interesting to compare these findings on the role of child characteristics with those in the ECEC systems of other nations.</p> <ref id="AN0133199957-27"> <title> Notes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> This paper uses data from the National Educational Panel Study (NEPS): Starting Cohort Newborns, doi:https://doi.org/10.5157/NEPS:SC1:4.0.0. <emph>From 2008 to 2013, NEPS data was collected as part of the Framework Program for the Promotion of Empirical Educational Research funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). As of 2014, NEPS is carried out by the Leibniz Institute for Educational Trajectories (LIfBi) at the University of Bamberg in cooperation with a nationwide network.</emph></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref3" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Both cognitive and language items were drawn from the ELFRA (Grimm and Doil 2006), a parent questionnaire to detect at-risk children.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref4" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Taken from the ET 6-6 developmental test (Petermann, Stein, and Macha 2008).</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <hd id="AN0133199957-28">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.</p> <hd id="AN0133199957-29">ORCID</hd> <p> <emph>Lars Burghardt</emph> <ulink href="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9308-8563">http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9308-8563</ulink> </p> <ref id="AN0133199957-30"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Aiken, L. S., and S. G. West. 1991. <emph>Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions</emph>. Newbury Park : Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Alt, C., A. Berngruber, and S. Hubert. 2014. <emph>Trotz Ausbau kein Platz?: Zum Einfluss von Einstellungen und soziodemografischen Faktoren auf die Nichtinanspruchnahme öffentlicher Kindertagesbetreuung</emph>. DJI TOP THEMA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Alt, C., A. Berngruber, and U. Pötter. 2016. " Wer bemüht sich um einen Kitaplatz und wer nimmt ihn in Anspruch? " <emph>Zeitschrift für Pädagogik</emph> 62 ( 5 ): 690 - 706.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref8" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bayer, M., F. Wohlkinger, J.-D. Freund, H. Ditton, and S. Weinert. 2015. <emph>Temperament bei Kleinkindern: Theoretischer Hintergrund, Operationalisierung im Nationalen Bildungspanel (NEPS) und empirische Befunde aus dem Forschungsprojekt VIVA</emph>. NEPS Working Papers (No. 58). Bamberg.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref10" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Blau, D. M., and P. K. Robins. 1991. " Childcare Demand and Labor Supply of Young Mothers Over Time." <emph>Demography</emph> 28 ( 3 ): 333 - 351. doi: 10.2307/2061460</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref12" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Booth, C. L., and J. F. Kelly. 1998. " Child-Care Characteristics of Infants with and Without Special Needs: Comparisons and Concerns." <emph>Early Childhood Research Quarterly</emph> 13 ( 4 ): 603 - 621. doi: 10.1016/S0885-2006(99)80063-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Boudon, R. 1974. <emph>Education, Opportunity, and Social Inequality: Changing Prospects in Western Society</emph>. New York : Wiley & Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bourdieu, P. 1996. <emph>Die feinen Unterschiede: Kritik der gesellschaftlichen Urteilskraft</emph>. Frankfurt am Main : Suhrkamp.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Brandon, P. D. 2000. " Childcare Utilization among Working Mothers Raising Children with Disabilities." <emph>Journal of Family and Economic Issues</emph> 21 ( 4 ): 343 - 364. doi: 10.1023/A:1026428604501</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bronfenbrenner, U. 1986. " Ecology of the Family as a Context for Human Development: Research Perspectives." <emph>Developmental Psychology</emph> 22 : 723 - 742. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.22.6.723</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burghardt, L. 2017. " Zusammenhänge elterlicher Erwartungen und Einstellungen mit der Anmeldung und späteren Inanspruchnahme einer Krippe." <emph>Frühe Bildung</emph> 6 ( 2 ): 83 - 92. doi: 10.1026/2191-9186/a000312</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burghardt, L., and K. Kluczniok. 2016. " Erwartungen von Eltern zu Nutzen und Kosten eines Krippenbesuchs - Eine Analyse zu Zusammenhängen mit kindbezogenen und familialen Strukturmerkmalen." <emph>Diskurs Kindheits- und Jugendforschung</emph> 11 ( 3 ): 339 - 354. doi: 10.3224/diskurs.v11i3.7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chaudry, A., J. Henly, and M. Meyers. 2010. <emph>Conceptual Frameworks for Children Care Decision-Making</emph>. Washington, DC : Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U. S. Department of Health and Human Services.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coley, R. L., E. Votruba-Drzal, M. A. Collins, and P. Miller. 2014. " Selection Into Early Education and Care Settings: Differences by Developmental Period." <emph>Early Childhood Research Quarterly</emph> 29 : 319 - 332. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.03.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Corman, H., K. Noonan, and N. E. Reichman. 2005. " Mothers' Labor Supply in Fragile Families: The Role of Child Health." <emph>Eastern Economic Journal</emph> 31 ( 4 ): 601 - 616.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dreyer, R. 2010. <emph>Frühkindliche Bildung, Betreuung und Erziehung in Deutschland und Frankreich. Strukturen und Bedingungen, Bildungsverständnis und Ausbildung des pädagogischen Personals im Vergleich</emph>. Hamburg : Dr. Kovac.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Early, D. M., and M. R. Burchinal. 2001. " Early Childhood Care: Relations with Family Characteristics and Preferred Care Characteristics." <emph>Early Childhood Research Quarterly</emph> 16 : 475 - 497. doi: 10.1016/S0885-2006(01)00120-X</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eckhardt, A. G., and B. Riedel. 2012. " Familialer Habitus und Inanspruchnahme außerfamilialer Bildungs-, Betreuungs- und Freizeitangebote bei unter dreijährigen Kindern." <emph>Frühe Bildung</emph> 1 ( 4 ): 210 - 219. doi: 10.1026/2191-9186/a000064</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth. 2015. <emph>The ElterngeldPlus with Partnership Bonus and More Flexible Parental Leave</emph>. Berlin.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fuchs, K., and C. Peucker. 2006. "  ... und raus bist du!": Welcher Kinder besuchen nicht den Kindergarten und warum? " In <emph>Wer betreut Deutschlands Kinder? DJI-Kinderbetreuungsstudie</emph>, edited by W. Bien, T. Rauschenbach, and B. Riedel, 61 - 82. Weinheim : Beltz.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fuchs-Rechlin, K., and C. Bergmann. 2014. " Der Abbau von Bildungsbenachteiligung durch Kindertagesbetreuung für unter 3-Jährige - zwischen Wunsch und Wirklichkeit." <emph>Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft</emph> 17 ( 2 ): 95 - 118. doi: 10.1007/s11618-013-0464-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fuchs-Rechlin, K., G. Kaufhold, M. Thuilot, and T. Webs. 2014. <emph>Der U3-Ausbau im Endspurt: Analysen zu kommunalen Betreuungsbedarfen und Betreuungswünschen von Eltern</emph>. Dortmund : Eigenverlag Forschungsverbund DJI/TU Dortmund.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fuller, B., S. D. Holloway, and X. Liang. 1996. " Family Selection of Child-Care Centers: The Influence of Household Support, Ethnicity, and Parental Practices." <emph>Child Development</emph> 67 ( 6 ): 3320 - 3337. doi: 10.2307/1131781</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Galambos, N. L., and J. V. Lerner. 1987. " Child Characteristics and the Employment of Mothers with Young Children: A Longitudinal Study." <emph>Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry</emph> 28 : 87 - 98. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1987.tb00654.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ganzeboom, H. 2010. Questions and Answers about ISEI-08. <ulink href="http://home.fsw.vu.nl/hbg.ganzeboom/isco08/qaisei-08-htm">http://home.fsw.vu.nl/hbg.ganzeboom/isco08/qaisei-08-htm</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geier, B., and B. Riedel. 2008. " Ungleichheiten der Inanspruchnahme öffentlicher frühpädagogischer Angebote. Einflussfaktoren und Restriktionen elterlicher Betreuungsentscheidungen." In <emph>Frühpädagogische Förderung in Institutionen</emph>, edited by H.-G. Roßbach, and H.-P. Blossfeld, 11 - 28. Wiesbaden : VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> German Federal Statistical Office. 2016. <emph>Kindertagesbetreuung regional 2016: Ein Vergleich aller 402 Kreise in Deutschland</emph>. Wiesbaden : Federal Statistical Office.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grimm, H., and H. Doil. 2006. <emph>ELFRA. Elternfragebögen für die Früherkennung von Risikokindern</emph>. Göttingen : Hogrefe.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grogan, K. E. 2012. " Parents' Choice of Pre-Kindergarten: The Interaction of Parent, Child and Contextual Factors." <emph>Early Child Development and Care</emph> 182 ( 10 ): 1265 - 1287. doi: 10.1080/03004430.2011.608127</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Helbig, A. L., S. P. Putnam, M. A. Gartstein, and M. K. Rothbart. 2009. <emph>Development and Assessment of Short and Very Short Forms of the Infant Behavior Questionnaire-Revised</emph>. Presentation at the biannual convention of the Society for Research in Child Development, Denver: CO.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huston, A. C., Y. E. Chang, and L. Gennetian. 2002. " Family and Individual Predictors of Childcare Use by Low-Income Families in Different Policy Contexts." <emph>Early Childhood Research Quarterly</emph> 17 ( 4 ): 441 - 469. doi: 10.1016/S0885-2006(02)00185-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jaffee, S. R., C. van Hulle, and J. L. Rodgers. 2011. " Effects of Nonmaternal Care in the First 3 Years on Children's Academic Skills and Behavioral Functioning in Childhood and Early Adolescence: A Sibling Comparison Study." <emph>Child Development</emph> 82 ( 4 ): 1076 - 1091. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01611.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johansen, A. S., A. Leibowitz, and L. J. Waite. 1996. " The Importance of Child-Care Characteristics to Choice of Care." <emph>Journal of Marriage and Family</emph> 58 : 759 - 772. doi: 10.2307/353734</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klement, C., G. Müller, and G. Prein. 2006. " Vereinbarkeit muss man sich leisten können: Zur Erklärung von Betreuungs- und Erwerbsarrangements in Familien mit Kindern unter drei Jahren." In <emph>Wer betreut Deutschlands Kinder? DJI-Kinderbetreuungsstudie</emph>, edited by W. Bien, T. Rauschenbach, and B. Riedel, 238 - 253. Weinheim : Beltz.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kreyenfeld, M., and S. Krapf. 2010. " Soziale Ungleichheit und Kinderbetreuung - Eine Analyse der sozialen und ökonomischen Determinanten der Nutzung von Kindertageseinrichtungen." In <emph>Bildung als Privileg. Erklärungen und Befunde zu den Ursachen der Bildungsungleichheit</emph>, edited by R. Becker, and W. Lauterbach, 107 - 128. Wiesbaden : VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lang, C. 2006. " Institutionelle Kinderbetreuung: Erschwinglich für alle? " In <emph>Wer betreut Deutschlands Kinder? DJI-Kinderbetreuungsstudie</emph>, edited by W. Bien, T. Rauschenbach, and B. Riedel, 106 - 121. Weinheim : Beltz.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lüdtke, O., A. Robitzsch, U. Trautwein, and O. Köller. 2007. " Umgang mit fehlenden Werten in der psychologischen Forschung: Probleme und Lösungen." <emph>Psychologische Rundschau</emph> 58 : 103 - 117. doi: 10.1026/0033-3042.58.2.103</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Melhuish, E. C., P. Moss, A. Mooney, and S. Martin. 1991. " How Similar are Day-Care Groups before the Start of Day Care? " <emph>Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology</emph> 12 ( 3 ): 331 - 346. doi: 10.1016/0193-3973(91)90004-N</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meyers, M. K., and L. P. Jordan. 2006. " Choice and Accommodation in Parental Childcare Decisions." <emph>Journal of the Community Development Society</emph> 37 ( 2 ): 53 - 70. doi: 10.1080/15575330609490207</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, P., E. Votruba-Drzal, and R. L. Coley. 2013. " Predictors of Early Care and Education Type among Preschool-Aged Children in Immigrant Families: The Role of Origin and Characteristics of the Immigrant Experience." <emph>Children and Youth Services Review</emph> 35 : 1342 - 1355. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.04.024</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NICHD Early Childcare Research Network. 1997. " Familial Factors Associated with the Characteristics of Nonmaternal Care for Infants." <emph>Journal of Marriage and Family</emph> 59 ( 2 ): 389 - 408. doi: 10.2307/353478</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Petermann, F., I. A. Stein, and T. Macha. 2008. <emph>Entwicklungstest für Kinder von 6 Monaten bis 6 Jahren (ET 6-6)</emph>. Frankfurt : Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peyton, V., A. Jacobs, M. O'Brien, and C. Roy. 2001. " Reasons for Choosing Childcare: Associations with Family Factors, Quality and Satisfaction." <emph>Early Childhood Research Quarterly</emph> 16 : 191 - 208. doi: 10.1016/S0885-2006(01)00098-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pungello, E. P., and B. Kurtz-Costes. 1999. " Why and How Working Women Choose Childcare: A Review with a Focus on Infancy." <emph>Developmental Review</emph> 19 : 31 - 96. doi: 10.1006/drev.1998.0468</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rubin, D. B. 1996. " Multiple Imputation After 18+ Years." <emph>Journal of the American Statistical Association</emph> 91 : 473 - 489. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1996.10476908</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schober, P. S., and K. Spieß. 2012. <emph>Frühe Förderung und Betreuung von Kindern: bedeutsame Unterschiede bei der Inanspruchnahme besonders in den ersten Lebensjahren</emph>. DIW Wochenbericht (43).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schober, P. S., and C. K. Spieß. 2013. " Early Childhood Education Activities and Care Arrangements of Disadvantaged Children in Germany." <emph>Child Indicators Research</emph> 6 ( 4 ): 709 - 735. doi: 10.1007/s12187-013-9191-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schober, P. S., and C. K. Spieß. 2014. <emph>Local Day-Care Quality and Maternal Employment: Evidence from East and West Germany</emph> (SOEP papers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research No. 649).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Singer, J. D., B. Fuller, M. K. Keiley, and A. Wolf. 1998. " Early Child-Care: Variation by Geographic Location, Maternal Characteristics, and Family Structure." <emph>Developmental Psychology</emph> 34 ( 5 ): 1129 - 1144. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.34.5.1129</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spieß, K., and A. Dunkelberg. 2009. " The Impact of Child and Maternal Health Indicators on Female Labor Force Participation after Childbirth: Evidence from Germany." <emph>Journal of Comparative Family Studies</emph> 40 ( 1 ): 119 - 138.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sylva, K., A. Stein, P. Leach, J. Barnes, and L.-E. Malmberg. 2007. " Family and Child Factors Related to the Use of Non-Maternal Infant Care: An English Study." <emph>Early Childhood Research Quarterly</emph> 22 ( 1 ): 118 - 136. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.11.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Volling, B. L., and J. Belsky. 1993. " Parent, Infant, and Contextual Characteristics Related to Maternal Employment Decisions in the First Year of Infancy." <emph>Family Relations</emph> 42 ( 1 ): 4 - 12. doi: 10.2307/584914</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weber, R. 2011. <emph>Understanding Parents' Childcare Decision-Making: A Foundation for Childcare Policy Making</emph>. OPRE Research-to-Policy, Research-to-Practice Brief OPRE 2011-12. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U. S. Department of Health and Human Services.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Youngblut, J. M., D. Brooten, S. L. Lobar, L. Hernandez, and M. McKenry. 2005. " Childcare Use by Low-Income Single Mothers of Preschoolers Born Preterm Versus Those of Preschoolers Born Full Term." <emph>Journal of Pediatric Nursing</emph> 20 ( 4 ): 246 - 257. doi: 10.1016/j.pedn.2005.02.013</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Lars Burghardt</p> </aug>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1197423
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Relevance of Child Characteristics for the Envisaged and Real Start of Childcare Attendance for the Under-3s in Germany
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Burghardt%2C+Lars%22">Burghardt, Lars</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9308-8563">0000-0001-9308-8563</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22European+Early+Childhood+Education+Research+Journal%22"><i>European Early Childhood Education Research Journal</i></searchLink>. 2018 26(6):873-892.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 20
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2018
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Individual+Characteristics%22">Individual Characteristics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Young+Children%22">Young Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Care+Centers%22">Child Care Centers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Family+Characteristics%22">Family Characteristics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Attitudes%22">Parent Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parenting+Styles%22">Parenting Styles</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Personality+Traits%22">Personality Traits</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Competence%22">Competence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Health%22">Health</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Body+Weight%22">Body Weight</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Birth+Order%22">Birth Order</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Germany%22">Germany</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/1350293X.2018.1533706
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1350-293X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Although there are many studies on the use of childcare, most German research has focused on the role of socio-economic factors such as parents' level of education, household income, or migration background. Little is known about the role of child characteristics such as health or temperament. Using longitudinal data from the National Educational Panel Study (NEPS, N = 2630 and N = 1891), this study investigated the impact of child characteristics on when parents envisage and actually start using childcare for a national representative sample. Results showed small direct effects of child characteristics and interaction effects of child characteristics and parental beliefs. Parents whose children had a difficult temperament envisaged an early entry in childcare, expecting that attendance would benefit their child's development. It is concluded that in the German early childhood and education system child characteristics play a minor role. In contrast, parent's beliefs and expectation play a crucial role on parent's envisaged and real entry in childcare.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 54
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2018
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1197423
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1197423
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/1350293X.2018.1533706
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 20
        StartPage: 873
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Individual Characteristics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Early Childhood Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Young Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Care Centers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Family Characteristics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parent Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parenting Styles
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Personality Traits
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Competence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Health
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Body Weight
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Birth Order
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Germany
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Relevance of Child Characteristics for the Envisaged and Real Start of Childcare Attendance for the Under-3s in Germany
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Burghardt, Lars
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2018
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1350-293X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 26
            – Type: issue
              Value: 6
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: European Early Childhood Education Research Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1