View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Reading Builds Empathy Pilot Survey: Picturebooks for Empathy Development

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Reading Builds Empathy Pilot Survey: Picturebooks for Empathy Development
Language: English
Authors: Valerie Lorene Williams-Sanchez (ORCID 0000-0003-4287-8711), Kyle DeMeo Cook
Source: Early Childhood Education Journal. 2024 52(7):1601-1613.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 13
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Culturally Relevant Education, Picture Books, Childrens Literature, Reading Instruction, Social Emotional Learning, Empathy, Parent Participation, Young Children, Family Environment, Reading Habits, Parent Attitudes, Child Development, Affective Behavior, Test Construction
DOI: 10.1007/s10643-023-01574-9
ISSN: 1082-3301
1573-1707
Abstract: Culturally Relevant Pedagogy and use of diverse picturebooks to support reading development and social-emotional skills are gaining acceptance and broader use. With this shift, new measures of efficacy are needed to confirm, bolster, and source new policies and strategies for family and classroom literacy practices. To this end, the Reading Builds Empathy (RBE) literacy study sought to develop and pilot a new instrument that uses picturebook reading as a way to understand empathy development. The RBE study participants included 21 parent-child dyads (N = 42) and piloted a tool that was created to measure children's empathy development for children ages six-eight. The tool includes collecting parent reports of children's at-home literacy practices and engagement with picturebooks as well as parents' perspectives on their child's empathy development. The tool also includes a researcher-administered tool to directly measure children's empathy development in a developmentally appropriate format across three domains: affective, cognitive, and ethnocultural empathy. This paper describes the process for instrument development, initial pilot data, considerations for changes to the instrument, and ideas for how the instrument can be used in future intervention studies.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1439003
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwELtG6O2ADWS8EkYlfBK64lAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDP8B_jYu0SoNIkB50gIBEICBm0jAMNthUafj6TbbdhjfF5WkiRli0zc_Y4MIY6qnbAQKeSho35XJmsDByd9MPnv20sJmWmeVUcUsFirRptxa1ZK4TQDh83jhQPt8Dnl9lV_fVTAKg6qIs5-ccO0ahMn1RYdKFasxyNeznOo3tdhQ7g7qkGRm4HlAmIzFQHslRhRpSA3Tgx7wPReNeNI5y3TaGHyKRq2GAQhySuWz
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0179573569;5mx01oct.24;2024Sep13.04:56;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0179573569-1">The Reading Builds Empathy Pilot Survey: Picturebooks for Empathy Development </title> <p>Culturally Relevant Pedagogy and use of diverse picturebooks to support reading development and social-emotional skills are gaining acceptance and broader use. With this shift, new measures of efficacy are needed to confirm, bolster, and source new policies and strategies for family and classroom literacy practices. To this end, the Reading Builds Empathy (RBE) literacy study sought to develop and pilot a new instrument that uses picturebook reading as a way to understand empathy development. The RBE study participants included 21 parent-child dyads (N = 42) and piloted a tool that was created to measure children's empathy development for children ages six–eight. The tool includes collecting parent reports of children's at-home literacy practices and engagement with picturebooks as well as parents' perspectives on their child's empathy development. The tool also includes a researcher-administered tool to directly measure children's empathy development in a developmentally appropriate format across three domains: affective, cognitive, and ethnocultural empathy. This paper describes the process for instrument development, initial pilot data, considerations for changes to the instrument, and ideas for how the instrument can be used in future intervention studies.</p> <p>Keywords: Picturebooks; Culturally relevant pedagogy; Empathy; Socio-emotional learning; Emotional intelligence</p> <p>Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</p> <p>Ladson-Billings' ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref1">22</reflink>]) Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (CRP) and the use of picturebooks, which have long been used to support reading development, are gaining acceptance and broader usage among students of all ages. With this shift, quantitative measures of efficacy can confirm, bolster, and inform new policies and strategies for implementation in new and existing learning frontiers that engage at-home reading and family literacy practices. To this end, the Reading Builds Empathy (RBE) literacy study seeks to develop and pilot a new instrument, (part of the larger RBE Literacy Program), that uses picturebooks to understand empathy development, that can be used in future intervention studies. Focusing on the active ingredients of culturally relevant pedagogy, along with empathy and its three dimensions (affective, cognitive, and ethnocultural empathy), this instrument adapts proven methods for assessing early readers, aged six to eight years, on affective learning measures. Notably, the tool is informed by Marinak's ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref2">24</reflink>]) Me and My Reading Profile (MMRP) survey to construct a new instrument to help reading researchers, educators, and families better measure and understand the power of young readers' engagement with picturebooks.</p> <p>The study is guided by Ladson-Billings' ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref3">22</reflink>]) original manifestation of a CRP that was described as "a pedagogy that empowers students intellectually, socially, emotionally, and politically by using cultural referents to impart knowledge, skills, and attitudes." Notably, the theory is explicit in its leaning toward the inclusion of socio-emotional learning. More, for primary-grade readers, picturebooks' ability to leverage and in fact to introduce and teach young readers about cultural referents as described make them invaluable in putting this theory into practice. The present study provides an overview of development of the RBE tool, preliminary findings from pilot data collection, suggested revisions to the tool and ideas for how it can be used in future research.</p> <hd id="AN0179573569-2">The Power of Picturebooks</hd> <p>Children's picturebooks are having an unprecedented moment in American culture. Through a veritable explosion of authors, artists, and stories, picturebooks are impacting the world like never before. People from all walks of life are sharing their narratives. From celebrities to the marginalized, children to grandparents, there is new appreciation for and participation in the genre often noted for its artful folios, age-defying content and creative storytelling. In myriad languages, fresh and familiar stories, these books communicate a wide world of lived and imagined experiences that enliven the emotions and sensibilities of their readers while connecting and engaging in meaningful ways. This category of complex word and pictorial compositions have established their relevance in classroom literacy development and pedagogy as well as in at-home entertainment and family literacy moments that are impacting readers across communities and socio-economic boundaries. In U.S. schools and homes, readers are increasingly looking for and finding themselves in the pages of picturebooks. These conceptually weighty tomes, as Rudine Sims Bishop ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref4">6</reflink>]) noted, can aspire to be windows into a wide array of new experiences, open doors to new cultures, lives, and lifestyles, and to mirror and reflect those previously absent. The growing awareness and need for more diversity in picturebooks, despite commercial publishing's selective tradition and exclusionary practices regarding Black and indigenous peoples of color (BIPOC) narratives, is among other current motivators of the recent proliferation of new categories and themes in the children's picture book genre. According to the host of at least one industry contest, while the number of projects has shown only a slight increase – up just about 12% from pre-pandemic entry levels – the growth in the diversity of themes has been noteworthy, inclusive of titles and topics that touch a wider variety of audiences than ever before (Dulemba, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref5">14</reflink>]).</p> <p>Picturebooks are quite distinct from other narrative forms due to the intricate interplay of text and image (or, perhaps more accurately, verbal and visual texts; Beckett, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref6">5</reflink>]). Children's picturebooks are an effective tool for telling stories, sharing histories, communicating and learning about emotions for readers of all ages (DeLuca, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref7">12</reflink>]; Sharp, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref8">32</reflink>]; Nikolajeva, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref9">26</reflink>]). More, from their beginnings, picturebooks also have been used to socialize and teach young children's cultural values, a function which has often made them polarizing. It is worth note, PEN America, the New York City-based human rights and literature non-profit, documented that among the 1648 banned books in the U.S. during the 2021–22 school year, some 317 of them were picturebooks, titles meant specifically for K-5 audiences (Pendharkar, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref10">28</reflink>]). When construed as ideological artifacts, picturebooks have the power to not only capture a cultural zeitgeist, but over time, can chronicle the literary tropes of today's children's books as they form and promulgate the social and cultural norms of tomorrow's adults (Serafini, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref11">31</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0179573569-3">Picturebooks as Text – History</hd> <p>New themes signal a new awareness of the modality which was first chronicled in 1659 London with Johan Amos Comenius's publication, Orbis sensualium pictus. Credited as the first children's picturebook, this textbook written in Latin aspired to reach students of all abilities to show how the senses can by harnessed to enhance learning. Learning about the senses and emotions, however, dates back even further and surfaces in the works of Plato who included pedagogies about self-awareness, moral judgment and character-building in his conceptualization of what would later be considered a classical education. Today, picturebooks are used to explore all types of emotions, e.g., anger, embarrassment, fear, gratitude, grouchiness, happiness, loneliness, and sadness (Scholastic, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref12">34</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0179573569-4">Picturebooks and Empathy, Making the Critical Connection</hd> <p>The reason this pilot study was designed to use picturebooks is because the multimodal, format operates in a particular way, at a critical time in a reader's development. Bandura & Walters ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref13">4</reflink>]) Social Learning Theory which stresses how observing, modeling, and imitating the behaviors, attitudes, and emotional reactions of others is a factor of learning, and consideration of the developmental stage of the target population are what informed the selection of the picturebook format and style of the RBE presentation of the resources. That is to say, picturebooks were chosen for the endeavor because they include communications that rely on multiple modes, or semiotic systems to convey a message, including visual imagery and written language which in combination allow for deeper, richer and more informative communications experiences. Different than novels or other formats that are affective for those with fully formed reading abilities, picturebooks which broadly target readers ages 2–8, engage a host of senses, expand schema, enliven sensibilities, and exercise developing intellectual capabilities in unique ways (Clark et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref14">9</reflink>]; Garces-Bacsal, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref15">16</reflink>]; Harper, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref16">19</reflink>]; Paul & Russo, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref17">27</reflink>]). In literacy development, picturebooks help young readers understand what meaning words seek to convey. Pictures connect with words on the picturebook page enabling kids to associate new words or align their background knowledge with images to reinforce or draw contextual clues for vocabulary development. Similar as with other forms of literacies which can be taught, and trained through the use of content area-specific text, emotional intelligence and emotional literacy can also be enhanced and trained through content area-specific text. In this case, specifically, picturebooks where characters' emotions are represented are a powerful tool for emotional literacy development, (Nikolajeva, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref18">26</reflink>]). It is on the pages of picturebooks that interpretations of other's emotions become possible. They engender emotional engagement through impactful images and words, and through the amplification of words by images. Metaphorically speaking, with picturebooks, one plus one equals three, and vast empirical research reinforces their exponential benefit (Arizpe & Styles, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref19">2</reflink>]; Evans, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref20">15</reflink>]; Sipe & Pantaleo, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref21">33</reflink>]). Reading picturebooks prepares and builds children's capacity for dealing with empathy and real-life "mind-reading" by exposing them to a host of simulated emotional experiences.</p> <hd id="AN0179573569-5">Picturebooks in SEL Curriculum</hd> <p>Research has shown that that teaching social-emotional learning skills works to support children's development (Mahoney et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref22">23</reflink>]). And increasingly, states are adopting social-emotional learning (SEL) curricula as part of educational standards. Moreover, nearly 30 of the 50 states have added formal SEL learning to their educational policies and practices (Positive Action, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref23">29</reflink>]). Importantly, what is recurrent in a majority of these programs is the inclusion of picturebooks as a teaching modality. But as this modality is increasingly relied upon and as more states add SEL to their curricula, the need for SEL standards—and the picturebooks they employ—grows. Moreover, the monitor and control of SEL programs, specifically the assortment of picturebooks implemented through such curriculum should be thoughtfully and strategically planned, implemented, evaluated, and continuously improved. And to facilitate continuous improvement, a baseline of what is "good" is required.</p> <hd id="AN0179573569-6">Finding What's Good in Picturebooks</hd> <p>One study sought to craft a rubric for how to assess picturebooks. Hefflin's ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref24">20</reflink>]) discussion of what is considered a good book, specifically for African American primary-grade children, builds from earlier guidelines developed for the expressed purpose of children's picturebook evaluation noting that illustrations should catch the attention of the reader, move the story forward, and enhance the meanings and tone presented by the story. Moreover, there are four characteristics suggested as attributes of a "good book" which should: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref25">1</reflink>) include memorable, well portrayed characters, typically children the same age as the child reader; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref26">2</reflink>) present a plot that provides interesting events in an understandable sequence that are clear and easy to follow yet with enough complexity to hold reader's attention, lead to predictions, questions, and wonderings. In realistic stories, plots should deal with problems, events, or issues that children will understand and to which they can relate. Also, books should (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref27">3</reflink>) incorporate vivid, well-crafted language that reads smoothly and reflect the mood of the story; and last, should (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref28">4</reflink>) contain a worthy and truthful theme, (Hefflin, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref29">20</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0179573569-7">Looking Beyond the Narrative</hd> <p>What resonates in the picturebook reading process goes beyond the quality of the artifact. As Aram and Shapira ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref30">1</reflink>]) point out, picturebooks' real super power is their ability to spur "[discussions] between parents and their children that encourage the children to define emotions, to consider the motivations for characters' behaviors and their implications, and to understand the array of relationships of the characters and their surroundings, [which in turn] can help the children to express, understand, and regulate their own emotions." It is because of these attributes that picturebooks have been considered and included as trusted tools and a best practice in literacy pedagogy.</p> <hd id="AN0179573569-8">Measuring Picturebook Efficacy & Learning</hd> <p>In a review of literature from 2019 to date, picturebook reading has been shown to be efficacious for children's development for things as broad as their foundational psychomotor skills to things more closely aligned to literacy development including reading and language development, specifically regarding vocabulary and sentence complexity (Dowdall, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref31">13</reflink>]; Montag, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref32">25</reflink>]; Wickens & Parker, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref33">36</reflink>]). Among the more recent work in this space, Gunn's ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref34">18</reflink>]) look at what works with picturebooks and SEL focuses on their use in teaching self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision making. These constructs, which align with the Collaborative for Academic, Social, Emotional Learning (CASEL) framework which explicitly names empathy development as one of its goals. And while all seek to foster the myriad facets of this complex construct, none seek implicitly or explicitly to measure empathy. Separate tools such as Davis' ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref35">11</reflink>]) Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI), and Wang and colleagues' ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref36">38</reflink>]) Scale of Ethnocultural Empathy (SEE) measure empathy but not specifically for young children and not within a format that could be applied to young children. Davis' ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref37">11</reflink>]) IRI was designed to measure empathy as a set of constructs with the goal to develop a scale that was (a) easy to administer and that could (b) capture individual differences in cognitive and emotional reactions for those in early and late adolescence, aged 11–18. The SEE measures of empathy toward people of racial and ethnic backgrounds different from one's own specifically developed using a sample of undergraduate college students.</p> <p>So, while tools and frameworks for selecting picturebooks exist, and tools for studying empathy in older populations exist, there are currently no references to a scientific approach for evaluating recommended SEL-specific picturebook reading effects for children ages six–eight. As reliance on picturebooks for SEL and the availability of new titles grow, it is important to be able to identify and measure a specific reading list's efficacy toward helping early readers develop, learn, and understand a specific SEL attribute. To this end, the RBE literacy study seeks to develop and pilot a new instrument to be used in future intervention studies, namely the RBE Literacy Program.</p> <hd id="AN0179573569-9">Picturebooks and the RBE Literacy Program</hd> <p>The RBE Literacy Program is a multiple part program that seeks to help young readers develop critical socio-emotional capabilities and learning skills. Once completed, the program will include a reading-based socio-emotional assessment as well as therapeutic reading treatments for youth. The RBE Literacy Program is intended to have multiple parts. The first part of the program includes picturebook reading, an intervention through which participants read preselected titles over a 6-week period. As piloted, the RBE survey is intended to be administered before and after the reading intervention to gather pre- and post-test measurements, results of which are evaluated using statistical analysis. The intervention includes curated selections of reading titles that are part of a preselected group of picturebooks that have been indexed across (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref38">1</reflink>) empathy type (Cognitive, Socio-emotional, and/or socio-cognitive), (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref39">2</reflink>) implicit/explicit messaging approach to better discern textual and extratextual interactions, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref40">3</reflink>) fiction/non-fiction classification, and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref41">4</reflink>) featured character type from a selection of (a) animal, (b) fantasy or (c)human characters of Asian, Black, Latino/a, Other, or White cultural ancestry (Williams-Sanchez, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref42">37</reflink>]). More than 100 picturebooks have been sourced and catalogued for this phase of the study, including titles ranging from new publications to classic titles, all of which have been evaluated and identified as meaningful books for readers aged six–eight. Each of the titles included were in active publication at the time of the pilot study and/or available through the New York Public Library.</p> <hd id="AN0179573569-10">Present Study</hd> <p>The purpose of the RBE pilot study is to perfect the development of an instrument to measure how a child's reading behaviors using picturebooks are related to levels of affective, cognitive, and ethnocultural empathy. Further, the instrument is intended to help families and educators better understand how use of culturally relevant literature in classrooms and at-home to support early readers' empathy development It intends to measure both children's self-reports and parent's reports of the child's home literacy practices. The significance of this study lies in its forward-looking conceptualization of picturebook use and assessment as a means for socio-emotional literacy pedagogy to be measured, evaluated, innovated, and subsequently replicated. Included in this inquiry, current iterations of CRP which explore the combined effects of affective, cognitive, and ethnocultural empathic development were studied and considered. A conflation of these attributes has only recently been considered together within the context of early childhood education and literacy development. Further, this instrument focuses on home family literacy practices, which distinguishes this from past work. Finally, by focusing on picturebooks as a pedagogical modality to support CRP, this study and the resultant instrument contributes to the body of research related to children's literature. This study sought to address the following aims, to: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref43">1</reflink>) develop a new instrument to measure affective, cognitive, and ethnocultural empathy for early readers, aged 6–8, using picturebooks; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref44">2</reflink>) pilot the instrument with child and parent dyads; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref45">3</reflink>) use pilot data to consider potential changes to the instrument in the future.</p> <hd id="AN0179573569-11">Procedures & Method</hd> <p>The main objective of this project was to develop and pilot a new measure of affective, cognitive, and ethnocultural empathy for early readers, aged 6–8, called the Reading Builds Empathy Survey (RBE). Below we detail the process for tool development, pilot data collection efforts, and how the pilot data was analyzed. The "Findings" section then provides results from the pilot data and considerations for changes to the instrument in the future.</p> <hd id="AN0179573569-12">Existing Measures that Informed Tool Development</hd> <p>The RBE was developed by building off of existing measures. After a thorough review, the format of RBE was modeled after Marinak's ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref46">24</reflink>]) tool for assessing whether an early reader's motivation to read is extrinsic or intrinsic, with subscales: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref47">1</reflink>) Self-concept, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref48">2</reflink>) Value of Reading, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref49">3</reflink>) Literacy Out Loud. MMRP also serves as a model for the RBE inasmuch as it has demonstrated reliability and validity in young children's ability to self-report on affective learning measures, including: affective expression, cognitive understanding, and ethnocultural difference (Marinak, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref50">24</reflink>]).</p> <p>RBE also draws from Davis' ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref51">11</reflink>]) IRI and Wang's ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref52">38</reflink>]) SEE. The IRI is a 28-item survey answered on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "Does not describe me well" to "Describes me very well". The measure has 4 subscales, each made up of 7 different items, taken directly from this source. IRI identified empathy as a multidimensional construct with four subscales: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref53">1</reflink>) Perspective Taking – the tendency to spontaneously adopt the psychological point of view of others (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref54">2</reflink>) Fantasy – taps respondents' tendencies to transpose themselves imaginatively into the feelings and actions of fictitious characters in books, movies, and plays (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref55">3</reflink>) Empathic Concern – assesses "other-oriented" feelings of sympathy and concern for others (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref56">4</reflink>) Personal Distress – measures "self-oriented" feelings of personal anxiety and unease in interpersonal settings. The RBE adapted six items from the IRI.</p> <p>Wang's ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref57">38</reflink>]) SEE is a self-reporting instrument on measures of empathy toward people of racial and ethnic backgrounds different from one's own. It was developed based on responses of 364 enrolled undergraduates at Midwestern universities. It derived an exploratory factor analysis that yielded 4 factors: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref58">1</reflink>) Empathic Feeling and Expression, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref59">2</reflink>) Empathic Perspective Taking, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref60">3</reflink>) Acceptance of Cultural Differences, and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref61">4</reflink>) Empathic Awareness. Research showed that SEE was correlated with general empathy and attitudes toward people's similarities and differences. High internal consistency and test-retest reliability estimates were found and a confirmatory factor analysis provided evidence for the stability and generalizability of this 4-factor solution (Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref62">38</reflink>]). Items from SEE informed all items related to ethnocultural empathy (for parents and kids) in the RBE and related attitudes about people of races different than the survey respondents.</p> <hd id="AN0179573569-13">Development of the RBE Tool: Constructs and Measures</hd> <p>Drawing on existing measures, two surveys were developed as part of the RBE Tool: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref63">1</reflink>) the Parents Say! survey; and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref64">2</reflink>) The Kids Say! survey. The Parents Say! survey included 41items that covered child and parent demographic characteristics, child and family at-home reading behaviors and children's empathy. The Kids Say! survey covered children's affective ethnocultural empathy, cognitive empathy and cognitive ethnocultural empathy. Table 1 provides the number of items per construct and notes existing measures used to create the items.</p> <p>Table 1 RBE study item adaptations by construct</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Study construct</p></th><th align="left"><p># of items</p></th><th align="left"><p>Adapted from existing instrument</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Parents Say! </p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Demographic characteristics</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>13</p></td><td align="left"><p>N/A</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Reading behaviors</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>16</p></td><td align="left"><p>N/A</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Empathy</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>12</p></td><td align="left"><p>Scale of ethnocultural empathy (Wang et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr38">2003</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Kids say! </p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Affective empathy</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>12</p></td><td align="left"><p>Scale of ethnocultural empathy (Wang et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr38">2003</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Cognitive empathy</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>Interpersonal reactivity index (IRI; Davis, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr11">1980</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Ethnocultural empathy</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>Scale of ethnocultural empathy (Wang et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr38">2003</xref>)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>The Parents Say!</emph> survey is an online survey for parents to gather data about the parent-child dyads': (a) demographic characteristics, (b) reading behaviors and environments; and (c) parent's perspective of their child's empathy. <emph>Parents Say!</emph> included 41 survey items (13 demographic, 16 reading behaviors, and 12 empathy items) that were newly developed for this survey and adapted from other sources including Lexile guides that "translate" language for age appropriateness as well as the MMRP. It was designed to take no more than 20 min. First, demographic data included parents' and children's ages, gender, race/ethnicity, the child's grade level, parents' education level, occupation, and income. Second, questions regarding reading behaviors and at-home reading environment were posed. Past research has shown the importance of home literacy environments and children's language and literacy development (Bracken & Fischel, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref65">7</reflink>]; Puglisi et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref66">30</reflink>]). Drawing upon features of home literacy environments in the literature, 15 items were developed to assess constructs such as: the number of books in the home including but not limited to picturebooks, parent's estimates of reading ability, and literacy behaviors and practices including the amount of time spent reading.</p> <p>Finally, parents were asked about their perspective of their child's empathy. These items were adapted from Wang et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref67">38</reflink>]) SEE, which is a self-report instrument that measures empathy toward people of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds than one's own. This model has shown high internal reliability for four factors: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref68">1</reflink>) acceptance of cultural differences, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref69">2</reflink>) empathic awareness, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref70">3</reflink>) empathic feeling and expression, and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref71">4</reflink>) empathic perspective-taking. Survey questions were answered using a five-point scale of responses ranging from definitely true, probably true, neither true nor false, probably false, through to definitely false, was used to enable parents to better reflect their understanding of their children's perspectives. It was requested that the parent's questionnaire be completed and submitted electronically before the child-focused, final survey session, the Kids Say! survey was scheduled. This was to ensure that the parent's answers were not influenced by their children's responses.</p> <p> <emph>The Kids Say!</emph> survey instrument was developed to be administered by a researcher to participating children with parental consent either virtually over video conference or in person. This instrument was created with the intention that educators and others concerned with early readers' literacy growth to use with kindergarten through second-grade children. It is a 23-item multiple-choice instrument comprised of three subscales: one that assesses the child's cognitive empathy development (six items), one that the child's ethnocultural affective empathy development (12–14 items), and one that assess ethnocultural cognitive development (five items). The Kids Say! survey seeks to gather self-reports on children's subscales of empathy. This instrument's survey procedures were modeled after those of another instrument, the MMRP (Marinak et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref72">24</reflink>]) that is intended to be administered in-person, in a classroom environment. While MMRP seeks to assess whether a student's reading motivation is extrinsic and intrinsic, the tool's methodology for framing the inquiry (i.e., the scripted directives, use of child-friendly queuing icons instead of a numbering system, and the simplified Likert-like scale responses) are the procedural details that were replicated and adapted for the present piloted study. Further, and unique to this study that was situated during the COVID-19 global pandemic, the vastly distinct needs and engagement required for an online, versus an "in-real-time" research survey, this survey was necessarily administered through the Zoom video conferencing platform. Once parents provided consent and children assent to participate, each child was read the 23 questions and given the opportunity to respond with one of three response options, "yes," "maybe/sort of," or "no." <emph>The Kids Say!</emph> survey was designed to be administered in a single sitting. The entire survey is intended to take 20 min to complete. Twelve to 15 questions about participants' affective ethnocultural empathy, six cognitive empathy, and five cognitive ethnocultural empathy questions were asked. Finally, the children's survey included items posed to the children from the construct subscales (i.e., affective empathy, cognitive empathy, ethnocultural empathy). These questions reflect a cross-section of adapted items from instruments used to measure similar constructs for older children, adolescents, and adults. Conceptually, the questions were the same but the vocabulary and sentence structure were changed to create a more age-appropriate adaptation. Examples of item adaptations are included in Table 2.</p> <p>Table 2 <emph>Kids say!</emph> item adaptation examples</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Construct</p></th><th align="left"><p>Original scale</p></th><th align="left"><p>Original item</p></th><th align="left"><p>Adaptation for RBE</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Affective empathy</p></td><td align="left"><p>Scale of ethnocultural empathy</p><p>(Wang et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr38">2003</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>"I don't care if people make racist statements against other racial or ethnic groups."</p></td><td align="left"><p>"I don't care if people say mean things about people who don't have the same skin color as me or who don't look like me."</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Cognitive empathy</p></td><td align="left"><p>Interpersonal reactivity index (Davis, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr11">1980</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>"Before criticizing somebody, I try to imagine how I would feel if I were in their place."</p></td><td align="left"><p>"Before I say something that might be mean about someone, I imagine how it would feel if I were in their place."</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Ethnocultural empathy</p></td><td align="left"><p>Scale of ethnocultural empathy</p><p>(Wang et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr38">2003</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>"It is difficult for me to relate to stories in which people talk about racial or ethnic discrimination they experience in their day to day lives."</p></td><td align="left"><p>"It is hard for me to imagine myself in stories about daily life of people who do not look like me."</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0179573569-14">Procedures for Data Collection</hd> <p>To pilot the RBE surveys, Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was obtained, including consent processes and procedures for data collection using the RBE instruments. The enrollment form, <emph>Parents Say!</emph> and <emph>Kids Say!</emph> surveys were accessed through an online survey platform and relied only on digitally administered, cross-sectional questionnaires made up of closed and open-ended questions. The enrollment form included the first set of eleven questions posed to parents to gather contact information for prospective participants and enroll participants in the study. The questionnaire administered through an online survey platform gathered data from parents about the participant's online contact data including parent and child's names, mailing and email addresses, phone and text contacts, as well as the name of participants' home library. The RBE study consent was the final question in this form and included study participation details and requirements. Participants were asked to indicate their understanding and to confirm with their electronic signature their consent to be contacted further by the study. Once the form was signed, enrollment was complete.</p> <hd id="AN0179573569-15">Recruitment</hd> <p>Twenty-one parent and child dyads (<emph>N</emph> = 42<emph>)</emph> were recruited to participate in this study. The goal of the piloted study was to recruit as many parent and child dyads to participate as possible. Ultimately, twenty-one dyads enrolled from four states (California, Delaware, New York, and Texas). Nineteen pairs successfully completed the study. Participants were recruited through a combination of organic, word of-mouth promotion, social network referrals, outreach through the first authors' local library system, and posted and distributed flyers that lead interested participants to enroll through an online project page. The inclusion criteria for recruitment included respondents who were early readers, a child between the ages of 6- and 8-year-olds, able to read and speak English, along with a participating custodial parent or caregiver who was also able to read and speak English, and who was willing and able to complete and sign the consent form for themselves and the child. Dyads were also required to have access to a computer and internet access to participate in the study.</p> <hd id="AN0179573569-16">Administration</hd> <p>To administer the two RBE instruments, separate processes were developed. For the parents, all were asked to complete the <emph>Parents Say!</emph> survey as a self-administered survey about their perceptions of their at-home reading behaviors, and their child's empathy. Parents were asked to complete the survey at a time of their choosing by accessing it through the RBE's online survey platform. Parents were instructed to complete the digital 42 survey form and to advise the principal investigator prior to scheduling the child's sitting for the <emph>Kids Say!</emph> survey and the video-conference survey.</p> <p>For children, the <emph>Kids Say!</emph> survey was designed to allow the investigator to proctor the series of questions vis-à-vis a read-aloud approach for the children. Looking to replicate this important facet of the survey data gathering exchange in a digital environment, the study was administered to the child of each dyad, one-at-a-time, via the Zoom video conference platform. Parents were asked to be present during the Zoom call; however, they were not asked to answer questions during this portion of the study. Rather, they were simply asked to be present to oversee their child's participation in the online conference, including to ensure that the proctor was made aware of any questions the child may have. Also, if any of the children had asked to leave the study, the parent was present to help the child exit the survey session. One practice item was provided to acquaint each child with the instrument format. One child at-a-time was taken through the series of questions each session. The researcher read the question, then read the answer choices. If the child could answer, he/she did. If there was a question or the child needed more time, the question was re-read. Once decided, the child spoke his/her response and the PI recorded it on a digital survey. The image of the live document was visible to both the PI and the child using the screenshare feature in Zoom. The researcher filled out the child's responses, concurrently. As appreciation for participant's time, each dyad was sent a letter of appreciation, certificate of participation, free <emph>Eddie and the Hot Cocoa Hot Rod</emph> (Williams-Sanchez, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref73">37</reflink>]) eBook, and book series logo button from the first author's self-published children's picturebook series, the Cocoa Kids Collection®.</p> <hd id="AN0179573569-17">Researcher's Notes</hd> <p>In addition to survey data collection, the lead researcher also took detailed notes throughout the pilot process on the instrument use, interactions with children and parents, and overall process for data collection. These notes inform the study and lead to better understanding of how the new instruments work to consider future changes.</p> <hd id="AN0179573569-18">Pilot Participants</hd> <p>Table 3 provides demographic characteristics of the parent-child dyads who participated in the pilot as reported by the parent. Panel one includes the parents' characteristics and panel two includes the child's characteristics. Participants in the pilot group came from multiple states, the majority of whom were residents in New York State. All parent respondents (<emph>N</emph> = 21) were mothers, of whom 24% were aged 26 to 39, 53% were 40–50 years old, and roughly 10% were between the ages 51 and 60. Most of those in the study reported having completed at least some amount of college-level education, including many who had completed a bachelor's degree (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref74">5</reflink>).</p> <p>Table 3 Parents Say! parents' & children's demographic characteristics</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Parent characteristic</p></th><th align="left"><p>%</p></th><th align="left"><p>Child characteristic</p></th><th align="left"><p>%</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>State of residence</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p> Child race/ethnicity</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> CA</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p> Black</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> DE</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10</p></td><td align="left"><p> Latinx</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> NY</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>75</p></td><td align="left"><p> White</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>72</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p> Multiple</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> TX</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10</p></td><td align="left"><p> Missing</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Age</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p> Age</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Up to 39</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>24</p></td><td align="left"><p> 6 years old</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>29</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 40–50</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>52</p></td><td align="left"><p> 7 years old</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>33</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 51–65</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10</p></td><td align="left"><p> 8 years old</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>19</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Missing</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14</p></td><td align="left"><p> Missing</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>19</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Highest education</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p> Gender</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Associates</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p> Male</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>43</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Bachelors</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>24</p></td><td align="left"><p> Female</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>43</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Masters</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>43</p></td><td align="left"><p> Missing</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Post grad, doctorate</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14</p></td><td align="left"><p> School type</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Missing</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14</p></td><td align="left"><p> Home school</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Occupation</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p> Public school</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>71</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Homemaker</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10</p></td><td align="left"><p> Private school</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Office Worker</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p> Missing</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Trade</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>48</p></td><td align="left"><p> Grade</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Certified professional</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14</p></td><td align="left"><p> Kindergarten</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Other professional</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p> First grade</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Missing</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>19</p></td><td align="left"><p> Second grade</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>43</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Household income</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p> Third grade</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>19</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Up to $30,000</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p> Missing</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>19</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> $30,000–50,000</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> $50,001–80,000</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> $80,001- 100,001</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> $100,001+</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>57</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Declined</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Missing</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>N</emph> = 42; all responses are from parent report; cells may not add up to 100% due to rounding</p> <p>The majority, however, reported they had completed a master's degree (<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref75">9</reflink>). Further, three also reported having post-graduate or doctoral degrees. Only one parent reported not having completed a college-level degree. Parents' occupations were varied and ranged from Administrative Assistants, Arts Administrator, Fundraising Professional, Graphic Designer, Homemakers (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref76">3</reflink>), Innovation Strategist for a Consumer Goods Company, Nonprofit Volunteer, Occupational Therapist, Paralegal/Interpreter (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref77">2</reflink>), Teacher/Educator (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref78">6</reflink>), and Translator. The majority of participating households reported dual income-earning parents. Further and beyond the two respondents who declined to state, household incomes for others included 4.8% up to $30,000; 4.8% between $50,001- $80,000; 9.5% between $80,001-$100,000, and 57.1% at $100,000 or more.</p> <p>Parents also provided demographic information about their children for the <emph>Parents Say!</emph> survey which included data about children's age, ethnicity, gender, type of school attended, and grade. Participating children were on average, 6.8 years old (<emph>m</emph> = 0.82, <emph>sd</emph> = 0.18). All but two child respondents were white, one was Latino, and the other was an adopted child of multiple race/ethnicity who was part of a white family. An equal number of boys and girls participated in the study. Finally, the majority of respondents attended public schools, while two were home-schooled or attended private school. There were more second-graders in the studies than from any other grade with one kindergartener, three first-graders, four third-graders, and four from whom a grade was not indicated.</p> <hd id="AN0179573569-19">Data Analysis for Pilot Data</hd> <p>Frequencies and descriptive statistics were conducted for all survey questions including demographic characteristics of the parents and children, and response to each item of the <emph>Parents Say!</emph> and <emph>Kids Say!</emph> surveys. Since some of the constructs were intended to group together as scales, a series of Cronbach's Alpha statistics were calculated to measure how closely related a set of items were as a group and to determine the scale reliability and internal consistency.</p> <p>One potential future use of the instrument is to better understand if parents and children report the child's empathy development in similar ways. Therefore, some of the items on the <emph>Parents Say!</emph> and <emph>Kids Say!</emph> about the child's empathy development were the same on both surveys. To gain a better understanding if parents and children's responses are correlated with one another, empathy scores reported by parents and children were analyzed to assess correlations on subscales and on the total empathy scores. Another potential use of the instrument in the future is to understand whether and how parent's reports of the child's picturebook reading habits are correlated with the child's empathy development. Therefore, correlations were also conducted on the reading behaviors scores from the parents' reports, and children's reported empathy scores. All quantitative analyses were conducted using SPSS statistical software. In addition, the lead researchers' notes during data collection were analyzed using thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref79">8</reflink>]) to inform future changes to the instruments and procedures.</p> <hd id="AN0179573569-20">Findings</hd> <p>The RBE study generated findings and insights in terms of instrument development. In this way, the first study aim was intended to develop the new instrument. The process was detailed in the Method & Procedures section above. For the study's second and third aims the survey pilot data including researchers' notes provide insights into how the initial instrument is working, internal reliability and considerations for future changes to the instrument. First, descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations and ranges are presented in Table 4 for each of the (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref80">1</reflink>) <emph>Parents Say!</emph> Reading behaviors; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref81">2</reflink>) <emph>Parents Say! </emph>Children's empathy; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref82">2</reflink>) <emph>Kids Say! </emph>Total empathy score; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref83">3</reflink>)<emph> Kids Say!</emph> scores on three empathy subscales.</p> <hd id="AN0179573569-21">Considerations for Internal Reliability</hd> <p>Table 4 also provides the Cronbach's alpha for each scale and subscale. Internal reliability testing (Cronbach, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref84">10</reflink>]) was conducted using SPSS statistical software. From the <emph>Parents Say! </emph>survey, measures of family literacy and reading behaviors consisting of 15 items and had moderate-high internal reliability when combined in to one scale (<emph>ɑ </emph>= 0.75). In addition, when factor analysis was conducted for these items, all items loaded onto one factor. A scale was also made for the parents' reports on their child's empathy consisted of 12 items, with moderate-high internal reliability when combined (<emph>ɑ </emph>= 0.68). When factor analysis was conducted on these items, all but one item loaded onto one factor. Combined with information that the reliability alpha coefficient would only increase slightly if this item was removed, we decided to keep all items. For the <emph>Kids Say!</emph> survey a total scale was created for all empathy items. In addition, three subscales (cognitive, affective, and ethnocultural empathy) were created in order to address the dimensionality of the study construct and the participants' self-reported beliefs. Cronbach's alpha for the total and subscales indicated that the total score, affective empathy score, and cognitive empathy score did not show internal reliability. In other words, children did not respond in similar ways to the items on the same scale. However, the ethnocultural empathy scale showed moderate internal reliability (<emph>ɑ</emph> = 0.44). Factor analyses conducted on the <emph>Kids Say!</emph></p> <p>Table 4 Descriptive findings for the Parents Say! and Kids Say!</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Scale</p></th><th align="left"><p>Items</p></th><th align="left"><p>Mean (SD) </p></th><th align="left"><p>Cronbach's alpha</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>Parents Say!</italic></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Home reading behaviors</p><p>(standardized mean score)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>15</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.04 (0.46)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.75</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Child's empathy (mean score)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>12</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.14 (0.33)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.68</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>Kids Say!</italic></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Total empathy scale (mean score)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>23</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.25 (0.12)</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.55</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Affective empathy (mean score)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>12</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.36 (0.16)</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.83</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Cognitive empathy (mean score)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.31 (0.28)</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.04</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Ethnocultural empathy (mean score)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.911 (0.44)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.44</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>N</emph> = 18</p> <p>Empathy items revealed that the items did not load onto three factors as proposed, and most items did not load onto one factor. Through future exploration, we found that six items- one from the proposed cognitive empathy subscale and five from the proposed affective empathy scale did hang together on to one factor. Put together into a scale, these items had moderate internal reliability (ɑ = 0.58). Qualitatively, what these questions had in common was a focus on children's empathy within the context of friendships. These questions may have been more concrete (compared to more abstract questions) as children considered specific friends when answering the question.</p> <hd id="AN0179573569-22">Considerations for Validity</hd> <p>To begin to assess some aspects of predictive validity of the measures, we considered whether parents and children's reports of their empathy would be correlated with one another.</p> <p>There was no statistically significant correlation between the parents' empathy scores for their child and the total children's report of empathy or any of the subscales. It is possible that the children's items and parents' items were tapping into somewhat different constructs and there are reasons to consider why parents and children may respond differently to questions related to the child's empathy (more on this in the discussion).</p> <p>As noted in the introduction, one goal of the development of the RBE tool is to use it as pre and post-test measure in future studies on reading interventions with picturebooks to increase children's empathy development. Therefore, we also used the pilot data to assess whether parents' report of children's at-home literacy environment and reading behaviors were correlated with parents and/or children's reports of their empathy. No statistically significant correlation was shown between family reading behaviors and parents or children reports of their child's empathy.</p> <hd id="AN0179573569-23">Considerations Future Instrument Changes Based on Pilot Data</hd> <p>Findings from the descriptive analyses of the pilot data show that revisions are needed to the <emph>Kids Say!</emph> survey in particular. As noted, the total empathy scale and the individual subscales lacked internal reliability. While this leads us to pause and consider whether the items were written in age-appropriate manner, or whether they were tapping into slightly different constructs and therefore, could reliability be combined in scales, it also brings up the challenges of assessing empathy development in generally, and specifically with young children. This is something that needs to be considered in future revisions of RBE and discussed further in the "Discussion" section. In addition, to this consideration, feedback directly from parents captured through researcher notes also provides some insights into potential changes.</p> <hd id="AN0179573569-24">Feedback from Parents</hd> <p>In the early sessions of proctoring the <emph>Kids Say!</emph> survey, feedback was gathered from a small group of participating parents. The information shared was very insightful and comments addressed ways to improve the study. Parents suggested more interactive approaches to data gathering including using answer panels (i.e., a hand paddle with "yes" one side, and "no" on the other that kids would hold up and turn to give their answers). Such changes, according to the parent, would be more engaging for their child who prefers a kinetic instruction style. Another parent suggested that a pre-survey narrative could be provided to help respondents better contextualize the survey questions, as she felt her child, one of the younger participants, would be better able to understand the questions. Other challenges that came up during the <emph>Kids Say!</emph> survey, were evident in two items, #8 and #9. These questions included an overly challenging sentence structure (a double negative was used ineffectively) that may have led to confusion and confusing results on the item response. In a future survey revision, these questions would be restated to eliminate the double negative structure.</p> <p>Other parents also mentioned that the survey media and medium could be more "kid friendly." Specifically, a few parents noted that their children typically responded better to learning approaches that integrate more sensory stimulating experiences. To achieve this effect, they suggest that the survey screen could be redesigned to take a multimodal tack or to include a more vibrant color palette. Overall feedback from parents suggested that they appreciated the experience and the resulting insight they gained about their children from hearing their first-hand responses. This effect was essentially similar to what the research team had observed in earlier experiences with administering the MMRP (Marinak et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref85">24</reflink>]) survey. Conversations with parents after survey administration (and captured in researcher notes) yielded helpful insights on how to improve the survey in the future, and were among the "Moments of Genuine Connection" (which will be explored later in this piece) that were a benefit of this study beyond simple instrument development.</p> <hd id="AN0179573569-25">Discussion</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0179573569-26">Construct Muddiness</hd> <p>Although caution is needed in interpreting these results due to the small sample size, it is important to note that the internal reliability analysis found that there is some muddiness to the constructs the instruments are meant to measure. First, while the full scale for the parent reports of empathy had high internal reliability, the child score and two of the subscales did not. The RBE data supported construct descriptions in the literature that enumerate the complexity of empathy as a multidimensional, multifaceted construct. Moreover, the muddiness of the construct that was seen in this study demands a more precise identification of the dimensions to be tested in the future. This could be achieved through the further distillation of the construct dimension and survey items. Future research may consider deploying the instrument with a flight of questions that unpack the binary relationship of a single dimension. However, in the present study, an antithetical relationship did not appear, and the literature review has surfaced empirical evidence of the construct's presence in older children (Asakawa et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref86">3</reflink>]; Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref87">38</reflink>]). In scholarship about empathy as a psychometric trait, Asakawa et al. ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref88">3</reflink>]) draw similar conclusions. Moreover, the construct itself is so multifaceted that the items may have not sufficiently isolated the construct properties in ways that are understandable to young children.</p> <p>Second, the parent reports and children's reports of the child's empathy development were not statistically significantly positively correlated with one another. It is possible that the sample size was too small to detect a correlation, it is also possible that the ways parents consider their children's empathy development is not the same as the way a 6–8-year-old considers their own empathy. One example of this is the data from kids' responses around empathic consideration among their friends. In such instances and in questions when empathy was tied to friends and friendship, tangible interpersonal relationships, reliability scores were higher than on items that dealt with empathy abstractly. This suggests that children and parents do not think about empathy in the same way.</p> <p>Future work would need to consider whether it is appropriate to use the same items for both parent and child reports or if there are more appropriate and accurate ways to measure this construct for children compared to parents. Given the picturebook process of learning such traits, in which children and their mirror neurons mimic the thought processes of those they see in picturebooks or those reading with them, this muddiness continues to be a compelling site for research. This is because the range of influences is unclear and the scope of impact of reading picturebooks to build schema and expand empathic experiences has unclear boundaries.</p> <hd id="AN0179573569-27">Moments of Genuine Connection</hd> <p>Throughout the study, what emerged was a process in which the lead researcher utilized and cultivated what Gonzalez ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref89">17</reflink>]) coined as Moments of Genuine Connection (MGC). These are the brief moments, typically lasting fewer than 5 min, during which educators and students (or in this case, proctors and survey respondents) engage in one-on-one dialogues about issues of mutual interest and concern. These MGCs were brief interactions intended to help participants feel valued, acknowledged, respected, and safe, and were activities that provided opportunities for trust-building between the PI and the child respondents. The MGCs yielded respondents' volunteering willingness to share their thoughts and feedback about their RBE experience.</p> <p>Children's consideration and interest in the idea of reading research got them talking and freely expressing their thoughts and opinions, which made for a smooth transition of their thinking and discussion of other survey concepts. It also provided an additional opportunity to demonstrate that the child could trust the process as one in which they could share thoughts freely. The ability to establish MGCs and the level of ostensibly forthcoming engagement in the digital space for a self-report instrument was a study success inasmuch as it proved that these aspects, which were evident in the MMRP, when implemented digitally, were not lost.</p> <hd id="AN0179573569-28">Limitations</hd> <p>It is important to note some study limitations that are taken into consideration when thinking about future changes to the tool and future research. This study was shaped by the COVID-19 pandemic insofar as it was first designed to be an in-person engagement, but the administration was moved online, a process that facilitated real-time data collection, due to COVID-19 data collection restrictions present during the summer of 2020. This brought many limitations, including how the pilot survey administration was conducted for children. A strength of the MMPR, which was what the RBE Kids Say! survey administration was based upon, is the positive discussions that can happen as a result of the child's participation. Having the opportunity to speak and be heard is a gratifying experience for anyone at any age, but specifically for young children whose world is dominated by the normative experiences related to school, the opportunity to have their perspectives honored rather than to give "the right answer," is empowering.</p> <p>Another challenge related to the COVID-19 pandemic affected pilot study recruitment efforts. Originally, the research team intended to recruit closer to 100 parent-child dyads. However, the study took place during a time when families were facing unprecedented stressors and balancing work, child care, online schooling, and threats to their health and well-being as well as state-mandated, public health lockdown. This likely contributed to the lower study number. In turn, the smaller sample constrained the options the research team had for statistical analyses, minimized opportunities for broad participant diversity, and limited the ability to draw specific conclusions from the quantitative data from the pilot. Evidence of reliability and validity however, should be addressed in the next iteration of the RBE, one which would better pinpoint construct dimensions to be tested, include a larger, more robust sample size.</p> <hd id="AN0179573569-29">Future Research</hd> <p>The RBE was developed with the intention to serve as a pre and post-test instrument future intervention studies on the use of picturebooks to support empathy development in young children. It is critical to note that a number of the selected picturebook works were not available to pilot the reading portion of the study at a meaningful scale. Rather, the present study details the development of the instrument, lessons learned from developing and piloting the instrument, and considerations for future survey revisions. Future research should implement the intervention along with testing out the tool on a larger and more diverse sample of parent-child dyads. The hope is that after revisions to the tool, it would be ready to be used in future intervention studies. First and foremost, the RBE tool could be used a baseline empathy measure. Following the implementation of a modified reading program of diverse picturebooks, curated to impart explicit and implicit lessons of a single characteristic of either (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref90">1</reflink>) affective, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref91">2</reflink>) cognitive, or (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref92">3</reflink>) ethnocultural empathy, the RBE would again be implemented to determine whether the picture book intervention had an impact on readers' awareness and understanding of the individual empathy construct. The others would follow in kind.</p> <p>This pilot sought to measure and compare in family dyads the dimensions of empathy that had shown relevance, reliability and validity in their studies of origin. Structurally sound translation of the items' language was conducted, however, more than simply re-calibrating lexical complexity, what may be considered in future studies is the actualized level of human development (i.e., maturity level) participants possess. The low values on the scaled scores, was perhaps a signal that the select group of respondents were at earlier seeding points in their empathy development than would be needed to understand and articulate the trait. Namely, the piloted study's audience of readers aged 6–8 simply may not have yet be able to fully understand the construct in a way that was meaningful to the survey's approach to afford the "stickiness" the study methodology required. Asakawa et al. ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref93">3</reflink>]) hypothesized in a study discussion that used the Bryant Empathy Index, that empathy develops at a concordant cadence with the development of cognitive capability (Hoffman, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref94">21</reflink>]). That reach crystallizes and crescendos between 3rd and 4th grade, when students were 8- to 9-years-old.</p> <hd id="AN0179573569-30">Implications for Policy & Practice: The Future of Empathy and Other SEL Attributes</hd> <p>Finally, it is hoped that the RBE study will provide useful information to parents who are working to build their child's empathetic capacity by: (a) Supporting their children's socioemotional and literacy development through wide reading, specifically through picturebooks; (b) Nurturing empathetic individuals who are critical thinkers, able to understand themselves and those around them, and (c) Providing a formative assessment designed to provide families feedback to increase and expand students' ability to engage in deeper, more complex learning. Ultimately, the goal of all this work is (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref95">1</reflink>) to optimize the use of picturebooks and the special powers this multimodal format possess; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref96">2</reflink>) to help the children fully develop empathy, which is a key to education success and lifelong learning; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref97">3</reflink>) to learn to identify and appreciate the diverse feelings, thoughts, and ethnocultural experiences of those kids know and have yet to encounter in the world.</p> <hd id="AN0179573569-31">Author Contributions</hd> <p>VLW-S: conceptualized this study, designed the tool, conducted the data collection, analyzed the data, and led the writing and editing. KDC: provided guidance and support on the study design development and data analysis, and contributed to writing and editing the paper. The final manuscript was approved by all authors.</p> <hd id="AN0179573569-32">Funding</hd> <p>None.</p> <hd id="AN0179573569-33">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0179573569-34">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>The authors have not disclosed any competing interests.</p> <hd id="AN0179573569-35">Ethical Approval</hd> <p>This study received Institutional Review Board approval. This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Written consent for participation and publication of findings was obtained.</p> <hd id="AN0179573569-36">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0179573569-37"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref25" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Aram D, Shapira R. Parent-child shared book reading and children's language, literacy, and empathy development. 2012; Firenze University Press: 55-65</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref19" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Arizpe E, Styles MArizpe E, Styles M. A gorilla with 'grandpa's eyes': how children interpret ironic visual texts. Children reading pictures: Interpreting visual texts. 2003; Routledge Falmer: 77-96</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref27" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Asakawa, K, Iwawaki, S, Mondori, Y, & Minami, H. (1988). Altruism in school and empathy: A developmental study of Japanese pupils. In meeting of the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, Tokyo.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref13" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura A, Walters RH. Social learning theory. 1977; Prentice Hall</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref6" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Beckett SL. Crossover picturebooks: A genre for all ages. 2013; Routledge. 10.4324/9780203154038</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref4" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bishop, R. S. (1990, March). Windows and mirrors: Children's books and parallel cultures. In California State University reading conference: 14th annual conference proceedings (pp.3–12).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref65" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bracken SS, Fischel JE. Family reading behavior and early literacy skills in preschool children from low-income backgrounds. Early Education and Development. 2008; 19; 1: 45-67. 10.1080/10409280701838835</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref79" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Braun V, Clarke V. Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. Successful qualitative research. 2013; Sage Publications Ltd: 1-400</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref14" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Clark CT, Chrisman A, Lewis SG. Using picturebooks to teach with and against social and emotional learning. Language Arts. 2021; 98; 5: 246-259. 10.58680/la202131212</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951; 16; 3: 297-334. 10.1007/BF02310555</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davis MH. Interpersonal reactivity index. APA PsycTests. 1980. 10.1037/t01093-000</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DeLuca G. Art, illusion and children's picturebooks. Children's Literature Association Quarterly. 1984; 9; 1: 21-23. 10.1353/chq.0.0255</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dowdall N, Melendez-Torres GJ, Murray L, Gardner F, Hartford L, Cooper PJ. Shared picture book reading interventions for child language development: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Child Development. 2020; 91; 2: e383-e399. 10.1111/cdev.13225</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dulemba, E. (2022). Covid, inclusivity, and mindfulness: Three years of picture book trends. Publishers Weekly, online. Retrived october 2022, from, https://<ulink href="http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/bytopic/childrens/childrens-industry-news/article/90747-covid-inclusivity-and-mindfulness-three-years-of-picture-book-trends.html">www.publishersweekly.com/pw/bytopic/childrens/childrens-industry-news/article/90747-covid-inclusivity-and-mindfulness-three-years-of-picture-book-trends.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Evans J. Creative and aesthetic responses to picturebooks and fine art. Education. 2009; 3–13; 2: 177-190</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garces-Bacsal RM. Diverse books for diverse children: Building an early childhood diverse booklist for social and emotional learning. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy. 2022; 22; 1: 66-95. 10.1177/1468798420901856</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gonzalez, J. (2020). Creating moments of genuine connection online. [Audio podcast]. Cult of Pedagogy. Retrived 2020, from https://www.cultofpedagogy.com/genuine-connection-online//.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gunn AA, Bennett SV, Peterson BJ. Exploring Multicultural Picturebooks with Social–Emotional themes. Read Teach. 2022; 76: 362-374. 10.1002/trtr.2145</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harper LJ. Using picture books to promote social-emotional literacy. Young Children. 2016; 71; 3: 80</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hefflin BR, Barksdale-Ladd MA. African American children's literature that helps students find themselves: Selection guidelines for grades K-3. The Reading Teacher. 2001; 54; 8: 810-819</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoffman ML. Moral internalization, parental power, and the nature of parent-child interaction. Developmental Psychology. 1975; 11; 2: 228. 10.1037/h0076463</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ladson-Billings G. Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal. 1995; 32; 3: 465-491. 10.3102/00028312032003465</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mahoney JL, Durlak JA, Weissberg RP. An update on social and emotional learning outcome research. Phi Delta Kappa. 2018; 100; 4: 18-23. 10.1177/0031721718815668</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marinak BA, Malloy JB, Gambrell LB, Mazzoni SA. Me and my reading profile: A tool for assessing early reading motivation. The Reading Teacher. 2015; 69; 1: 51-62. 10.1002/trtr.1362</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Montag JL. Differences in sentence complexity in the text of children's picturebooks and child-directed speech. First Language. 2019; 39; 5: 527-546. 10.1177/0142723719849996</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nikolajeva M. Picturebooks and emotional literacy. The Reading Teacher. 2013; 67; 4: 249-254. 10.1002/trtr.1229</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paul P, Russo M. How to raise a reader. 2019; Workman Publishing Company</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pendharkar, E. (2023). Over 300 picturebooks were banned last school year. Education week, digital. Retrived February, 2023, from https://<ulink href="http://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/over-300-picture-books-were-banned-last-school-year/2023/02">www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/over-300-picture-books-were-banned-last-school-year/2023/02</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Positive Action. (2023). Positive action curriculum & program. Elementary curriculum [Kit]. Positive Action. https://<ulink href="http://www.positiveaction.net/">www.positiveaction.net/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Puglisi ML, Hulme C, Hamilton LG, Snowling MJ. The home literacy environment is a correlate, but perhaps not a cause, of variations in children's language and literacy development. Scientific Studies of Reading. 2017; 21; 6: 498-514. 10.1080/10888438.2017.1346660</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Serafini F. Multimodal literacy: From theories to practices. Language Arts. 2015; 92; 6: 412-423. 10.58680/la201527389</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sharp, D. (1991). Jung lexicon. The Jung Page. Reflections on psychology culture and life, pp. 201–213.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sipe L, Pantaleo S. Introduction. Postmodernism and picturebooks. Postmodern picturebooks: Play, parody, and self-referentiality. 2008; Routledge: 1-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scholastic. (2023). Social-emotional learning. Retrieved March 15, 2023 from https://shop.scholastic.com/teachers-ecommerce/teacher/shops/social-emotional.html</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang YW, Davidson MM, Yakushko OF, Savoy HB, Tan JA, Bleier JK. The scale of ethnocultural empathy: Development, validation, and reliability. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 2003; 50; 2: 221. 10.1037/0022-0167.50.2.221</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wickens C, Parker J. Integrating literature in physical education: Read-alouds, young adult literature and graphic novels. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance. 2022; 93; 6: 35-41. 10.1080/07303084.2022.2081273</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williams-Sanchez VL. Eddie and the hot cocoa hot rod. 2015; Lulu Publishing Services</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williams-Sanchez VL. Reading builds empathy: Piloting a literacy tool to measure reading's impact on kids' empathy development. 2021; St. John's University</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Valerie Lorene Williams-Sanchez and Kyle DeMeo Cook</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref94"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1439003
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Reading Builds Empathy Pilot Survey: Picturebooks for Empathy Development
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Valerie+Lorene+Williams-Sanchez%22">Valerie Lorene Williams-Sanchez</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4287-8711">0000-0003-4287-8711</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kyle+DeMeo+Cook%22">Kyle DeMeo Cook</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education+Journal%22"><i>Early Childhood Education Journal</i></searchLink>. 2024 52(7):1601-1613.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 13
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Culturally+Relevant+Education%22">Culturally Relevant Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Picture+Books%22">Picture Books</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Childrens+Literature%22">Childrens Literature</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Instruction%22">Reading Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Emotional+Learning%22">Social Emotional Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Empathy%22">Empathy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Participation%22">Parent Participation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Young+Children%22">Young Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Family+Environment%22">Family Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Habits%22">Reading Habits</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Attitudes%22">Parent Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Development%22">Child Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Affective+Behavior%22">Affective Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Construction%22">Test Construction</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10643-023-01574-9
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1082-3301<br />1573-1707
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Culturally Relevant Pedagogy and use of diverse picturebooks to support reading development and social-emotional skills are gaining acceptance and broader use. With this shift, new measures of efficacy are needed to confirm, bolster, and source new policies and strategies for family and classroom literacy practices. To this end, the Reading Builds Empathy (RBE) literacy study sought to develop and pilot a new instrument that uses picturebook reading as a way to understand empathy development. The RBE study participants included 21 parent-child dyads (N = 42) and piloted a tool that was created to measure children's empathy development for children ages six-eight. The tool includes collecting parent reports of children's at-home literacy practices and engagement with picturebooks as well as parents' perspectives on their child's empathy development. The tool also includes a researcher-administered tool to directly measure children's empathy development in a developmentally appropriate format across three domains: affective, cognitive, and ethnocultural empathy. This paper describes the process for instrument development, initial pilot data, considerations for changes to the instrument, and ideas for how the instrument can be used in future intervention studies.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1439003
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1439003
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10643-023-01574-9
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 1601
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Culturally Relevant Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Picture Books
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Childrens Literature
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Emotional Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Empathy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parent Participation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Young Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Family Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Habits
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parent Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Affective Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Construction
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Reading Builds Empathy Pilot Survey: Picturebooks for Empathy Development
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Valerie Lorene Williams-Sanchez
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kyle DeMeo Cook
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 10
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1082-3301
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1707
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 52
            – Type: issue
              Value: 7
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Early Childhood Education Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1