View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Factors Associated with Kindergarten Readiness in Early Literacy Skills, Mathematical Knowledge, and Social Foundations: An HLM Approach

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Factors Associated with Kindergarten Readiness in Early Literacy Skills, Mathematical Knowledge, and Social Foundations: An HLM Approach
Language: English
Authors: Xumei Fan (ORCID 0000-0003-2465-8133), Leigh Kale D'Amico (ORCID 0000-0001-9531-8289), Janice Kilburn, Alexis Jones, Chelsea Richard, Lauren Zollars, Sommer Garrett, D'Arion Johnston
Source: Early Childhood Education Journal. 2025 53(7):2421-2435.
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: 15
Publication Date: 2025
Sponsoring Agency: Administration for Children and Families (ACF) (DHHS)
Contract Number: 90TP00800200
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Elementary Education
Kindergarten
Primary Education
Descriptors: School Readiness, Kindergarten, Early Childhood Education, Preschool Children, Emergent Literacy, Mathematics Skills, Social Emotional Learning, Family Influence, Family Involvement, Transitional Programs, Access to Education
DOI: 10.1007/s10643-024-01744-3
ISSN: 1082-3301
1573-1707
Abstract: Kindergarten readiness plays a very important role in children's later school success. This study investigated factors associated with kindergarten readiness in early literacy skills, mathematical knowledge, and social foundations using a hierarchical linear modelling (HLM) approach. Assessment data of 617 kindergarteners (Aged 5) in 30 classrooms nested within 28 elementary schools in one state in the southeastern United States were analyzed. Participation in a kindergarten transition program, attendance in a Pre-K program, and family engagement were positively associated with children's readiness in all three domains. Interaction effects between school-level factors (i.e., poverty, ranking) and child-level factors (i.e., Pre-K program attendance) on children's performance in early literacy skills were identified. The findings can be used to inform the design and implementation of transition programs as well as policymaking in early education and development. We recommend that policymakers should consider targeting resources to rural, high-poverty, and underinvested communities to promote equitable access to high-quality programs that support children and their families.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1483145
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEqoUJb3DlaiJ84LAJ13KdJAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDP3wX3wNBDoiPf0JpgIBEICBmycx6eoeu_kupygEpGKRnlwoOaXuV8hb_pHsQwn1m7gjNJH2DZVib86GSMYZ9xj3a_R8Lfv26x2m_29hJYOB2ammv6rBBtE1sNWGLLm6zJebGuQEJl-mV60j8fkfch24C8d6ga22owm4LZzEq_lLiY8yJtRcWBv1t2vMjExSMpNWRm8Xzw_0CEvr3-_oWBA5AF0_29iIEvPzNb-R
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0187863963;5mx01oct.25;2025Sep12.06:13;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0187863963-1">Factors Associated with Kindergarten Readiness in Early Literacy Skills, Mathematical Knowledge, and Social Foundations: An HLM Approach </title> <p>Kindergarten readiness plays a very important role in children's later school success. This study investigated factors associated with kindergarten readiness in early literacy skills, mathematical knowledge, and social foundations using a hierarchical linear modelling (HLM) approach. Assessment data of 617 kindergarteners (Aged 5) in 30 classrooms nested within 28 elementary schools in one state in the southeastern United States were analyzed. Participation in a kindergarten transition program, attendance in a Pre-K program, and family engagement were positively associated with children's readiness in all three domains. Interaction effects between school-level factors (i.e., poverty, ranking) and child-level factors (i.e., Pre-K program attendance) on children's performance in early literacy skills were identified. The findings can be used to inform the design and implementation of transition programs as well as policymaking in early education and development. We recommend that policymakers should consider targeting resources to rural, high-poverty, and underinvested communities to promote equitable access to high-quality programs that support children and their families.</p> <p>Keywords: Kindergarten readiness; Transition program; Academic outcome; Social foundations; HLM; Education Specialist Studies In Education Medical and Health Sciences Public Health and Health Services</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> <hd id="AN0187863963-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Kindergarten readiness plays a fundamental role in children's later school success (e.g., Duncan et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref1">27</reflink>]). Kindergarten is often defined as a preschool program or learning space for children from two to six years of age. Kindergarten has different connotations in different cultures. In the United States, kindergarten is generally a program for 5-year-olds, and it helps children build academic and non-academic skills and transition to school smoothly. Kindergarten readiness is defined differently, and no consensus is reached regarding what, when, or how kindergarten readiness should be measured (Pierson, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref2">48</reflink>]). Kindergarten readiness is often measured through assessing children's cognitive, physical, and social-emotional development. For example, Chazan-Cohen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref3">10</reflink>]) examined children's school readiness by measuring their receptive vocabulary, letter-word knowledge, observed emotion regulation, approaches toward learning, and behavior problems. While some researchers focused on measuring children's language and literacy skills, mathematical skills, and mastery of sustained academic attention (e.g., Merideth et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref4">44</reflink>]), others considered children's language and literacy skills, physical skills, and social skills as major indicators of school readiness (Piker & Kimmel, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref5">49</reflink>]). However, parents and caregivers often use general concepts such as free play, creativity, and social-emotional development to describe their children's kindergarten readiness (Merideth et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref6">44</reflink>]). Kindergarten readiness is shaped by children's life experiences, access to resources, and their development variations (National Association for the Education of Young Children, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref7">45</reflink>]), and it depends on the interaction of opportunities, environmental, and developmental factors (Griebling & Gilbert, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref8">32</reflink>]; Hoffman et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref9">33</reflink>]).</p> <p>Children's early literacy experiences impact their later language and reading skills (Dickinson & Porche, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref10">22</reflink>]; Dickinson et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref11">25</reflink>]). Home and school environments are crucial in shaping children's literacy skills. Both home and school characteristics contributed to children's literacy achievement at age five (Dickinson & Tabors, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref12">23</reflink>]). Home literacy environment in low-SES families' homes impacted children's language and literacy skills, the number of storybooks in the home predicted variance within children's receptive vocabulary (Burris et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref13">9</reflink>]). Similarly, socioeconomic status influenced children's home literacy environment as well as their language and literacy outcomes (Jiang et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref14">35</reflink>]). School and class experiences are also important in shaping children's language and literacy skills. Dickinson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref15">24</reflink>]) suggested using teacher-delivered book reading and play to enhance children's vocabulary learning and self-regulation.</p> <p>Mathematical knowledge is an important domain of early learning, and early mathematical skills can predict children's later mathematics achievement (MacDonald & Carmichael, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref16">42</reflink>]; Watts et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref17">61</reflink>]). School and home environments influenced children's mathematical knowledge (e.g., Cheung et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref18">11</reflink>]; DeFlorio & Beliakoff, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref19">20</reflink>]; Susperreguy et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref20">58</reflink>]). For example, researchers found that parent-child and teacher-child closeness was associated with children's mathematical ability, and mathematical development was interwoven with language and literacy development in the early years (Cheung et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref21">11</reflink>]). Children from lower SES families entered kindergarten with less developed mathematical knowledge than those from middle SES families (DeFlorio & Beliakoff, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref22">20</reflink>]). Engaging families in mathematical play has the potential to improve children's mathematical knowledge (Linder & Emerson, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref23">38</reflink>]).</p> <p>Social foundations of development impact children's academic outcomes (DeRosier & Lloyd, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref24">21</reflink>]). Both school and home characteristics shape children's social-emotional development (Fan et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref25">29</reflink>]; Kelly et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref26">36</reflink>]). Cook and Coley ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref27">14</reflink>]) indicated that kindergarten teachers' engagement in more types of transition practices can predict children's prosocial behaviors. Fan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref28">29</reflink>]) found that smaller class sizes were associated with children's higher social-emotional outcomes, and higher school poverty was associated with children's lower social-emotional outcomes. Kelly et al. ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref29">36</reflink>]) found that family experiences were related to children's social-emotional outcomes. Specifically, maternal sensitivity was positively associated with infants' and toddlers' social-emotional competence, and parenting stress was negatively associated with their social-emotional outcomes.</p> <p>Impact of the home environment on children's learning and development was documented by other studies (e.g., Bradley et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref30">5</reflink>]; Martin et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref31">43</reflink>]). Home environment had great influence on children's school readiness in terms of their cognitive, social-emotional, and behavioral development (Bradley et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref32">4</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref33">5</reflink>]; Chazan-Cohen et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref34">10</reflink>]; Crawford & Zygouris-Coe, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref35">17</reflink>]; Polat & Bayindir, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref36">50</reflink>]; Slicker et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref37">55</reflink>]). Parental involvement and children's self-regulation skills significantly predicted children's school readiness (Polat & Bayindir, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref38">50</reflink>]). The interactions between parents and children had substantial impact on children's academic readiness (Connell & Prinz, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref39">13</reflink>]; Watkins-Lewis & Hamre, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref40">60</reflink>]). Maternal supportive parenting influenced children's interest and academic persistence, which predicted children's early academic skills (Martin et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref41">43</reflink>]). In addition, active and meaningful family engagement in children's early education improved children's school readiness (Powell et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref42">51</reflink>]).</p> <p>Access to high-quality early care and education programs is one factor that can shape a child's trajectory for school readiness (e.g., Duncan et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref43">27</reflink>]). Children's pre-kindergarten experience plays an important role in their kindergarten transition and readiness. Children who did not attend pre-kindergarten programs fell behind their higher socioeconomic counterparts, which led to an achievement gap (Garcia & Weiss, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref44">31</reflink>]). Children's preschool enrollment was positively associated with more school readiness, especially for those from families where parents had a low level of education (Umek et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref45">59</reflink>]). Specifically, children's emergent literacy gains significantly predicted their literacy skills at kindergarten entry when estimated in isolation (e.g., Duncan et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref46">27</reflink>]; Logan et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref47">41</reflink>]). Compared with families whose children did not attend a preschool program, those whose children attended reported significantly more child preparedness for kindergarten (Fan et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref48">30</reflink>]). The positive impact of children's pre-kindergarten experience on their kindergarten readiness may be due to the pre-kindergarten curriculum that focuses on developing children's social-emotional skills which help enhance their academic and behavioral functioning in kindergarten (Nix et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref49">46</reflink>]).</p> <p>During school transitions, many children experience some types of difficulties, and the transition is extremely challenging for children from disadvantaged backgrounds (Coulton et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref50">16</reflink>]; Jiang et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref51">34</reflink>]; Rimm-Kaufman et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref52">53</reflink>]). Therefore, transition programs and practices are developed to increase family involvement and engagement, strengthen home-school relationships, promote successful transitions, and enhance children's academic achievement, social-emotional development, and behavioral skills (Bierman et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref53">3</reflink>]; Cook & Coley, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref54">15</reflink>]; Griebling & Gilbert, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref55">32</reflink>]; Hoffman et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref56">33</reflink>]; Slicker et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref57">55</reflink>]). School-based transition programs and home visitation programs are two common forms of transition programs. Although many transition programs share the common goal of supporting child learning and development, they differ in their curricula, transition models, activities, schedule, dosage, and levels of family engagement (Griebling & Gilbert, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref58">32</reflink>]; Hoffman et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref59">33</reflink>]; Merideth et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref60">44</reflink>]).</p> <p>The positive impact of a purposeful and coordinated transition to school has been documented by many studies (e.g., D'Amico et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref61">19</reflink>]; Fan et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref62">30</reflink>]; Fan et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref63">29</reflink>]; Griebling & Gilbert, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref64">32</reflink>]; Schulting et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref65">54</reflink>]). Transition programs often involve a component of family engagement that helps develop strong home-school relationships to support children's smooth transition to school. Atchison and Pompelia ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref66">1</reflink>]) indicated that transition programs promoted home-school partnerships and fostered relationships that helped children succeed at schools. Griebling and Gilbert ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref67">32</reflink>]) found that smooth and successful school transitions supported stable relationships between children's home and school, which helped build a strong foundation for children's short- and long-term academic success. Some transition programs have been shown to help improve children's literacy skills and prepare them for the social transition to kindergarten (Berlin et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref68">2</reflink>]; Griebling & Gilbert, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref69">32</reflink>]). Children who participated in the transition program were more likely to demonstrate kindergarten readiness, and their parents reported more involvement in school activities and better relationships with their teachers (Fan et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref70">30</reflink>]). Transition programs were especially beneficial for children from disadvantaged backgrounds (e.g., Bierman et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref71">3</reflink>]; Fan et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref72">30</reflink>]; Schulting et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref73">54</reflink>]).</p> <p>Various studies investigated factors associated with kindergarten readiness (e.g., Fan et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref74">29</reflink>]; Coulton et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref75">16</reflink>]; Little, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref76">40</reflink>]; Logan et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref77">41</reflink>]), but limited research has considered the nested feature of data (e.g., students nested within schools) in investigating the factors associated with kindergarten readiness. To address the research gap, this study employed a hierarchical linear modelling (HLM) approach and investigated the interaction effect of child-level and school-level factors on children's kindergarten readiness in early literacy skills, mathematical knowledge, and social foundations.</p> <p>This study was grounded in the ecological systems theory that views child development as a complex system that includes multiple levels of the environment, and the environments interactively impact a child's cognitive and psychological development (Bronfenbrenner, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref78">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref79">7</reflink>]; Bronfenbrenner & Evans, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref80">8</reflink>]). This study was also informed by the ecological and dynamic model of transition (Rimm-Kaufman et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref81">53</reflink>]) which acknowledges the impact of a child's home environment on their transition to school (Griebling & Gilbert, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref82">32</reflink>]). Researchers found an association between ecological disadvantages and academic challenges in early childhood (Duncan & Magnuson, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref83">26</reflink>]; Dupere et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref84">28</reflink>]). To further explore the topic, this study investigated how a child's school environment (e.g., location, poverty) and child-level factors (e.g., family engagement, Pre-K experience) are associated with a child's kindergarten readiness in language and literacy, mathematical thinking, and social foundations.</p> <p>This study has significance in several aspects. First, this study explored children's kindergarten readiness in early literacy skills, mathematical knowledge, and social foundations, and the findings can help inform kindergarten curriculum design and instruction aligned with the three domains. Second, this study investigated the complex relationships between child-level and school-level factors and kindergarten readiness in the three domains. Identifying the differences in kindergarten readiness based on various factors can further inform the development and implementation of intervention programs to support the learning of all children. In addition, the study findings can guide policymaking in early childhood education. For example, if the summer transition program is effective in supporting the kindergarten readiness of children from disadvantaged backgrounds, policymaking based on the evidence can better serve children and families.</p> <p>This study was expected to address the following questions.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How do children differ in their overall performance in early literacy skills, mathematical knowledge, and social foundations based on child-level factors (i.e., transition program participation, 4 K/Pre-K program attendance, family engagement) and school-level factors (i.e., poverty, location, ranking)?</item> <p></p> <item> Do the associations between child-level factors and children's performance in the three domains vary across schools of different poverty, location, and ranking?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0187863963-3">Methodology</hd> <p>We employed a quantitative method and explored factors associated with children's kindergarten readiness in early literacy skills, mathematical knowledge, and social foundations. A quantitative method is appropriate because we collected numeric data on children's kindergarten readiness and compared the differences in children's kindergarten readiness based on child-level and school-level factors (Creswell, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref85">18</reflink>]). We used a hierarchical linear modelling approach because child-level data is nested within school-level data (Raudenbush et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref86">52</reflink>]), and we sought to identify school-level variances, child-level variances, and the interaction effect of school-level and child-level factors on children's kindergarten readiness.</p> <hd id="AN0187863963-4">Participants</hd> <p>Participants of this study included 617 kindergarteners within the classes of 30 kindergarten teachers who were randomly selected from a total of 155 kindergarten teachers who participated in a summer transition program in 2022. These children were between five and six years of age at the time of data collection. About 34% of the children attended a 4 K/Pre-K program, and 66% did not attend a 4 K Pre-K program. Regarding eligibility and participation in the transition program, about 28% were eligible but did not participate in the program, 42% were eligible and participated in the program, and 30% were not eligible to participate in the program. Eligibility was determined based on multiple factors including adverse experiences, low income, housing instability, single parent household, immigration, military deployment, disability, special need, and primary language spoken at home. The 30 teachers were from 28 elementary schools or early childhood centers within 18 school districts in the state. The teachers were all female with an average of 14 years of teaching experience, and their class sizes ranged from 15 to 28 children. The study was performed based on ethical standards, and it has been approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of South Carolina.</p> <hd id="AN0187863963-5">Measures</hd> <p>Children's kindergarten readiness was measured using an instrument developed collaboratively by the authors. The instrument includes 21 items within three domains including early literacy skills (seven items), mathematical knowledge (seven items), and social foundations (seven items) (Table 1). Items in both the early literacy skills domain and the mathematical knowledge domain are on a 4-point response scale (1-Not Met, 2-Partially Met, 3-Mostly Met, 4-Fully Met), and a higher score indicates a higher level of readiness in early literacy skills or mathematical knowledge. Items in the domain of social foundations are on a 4-point response scale (1-Never, 2-Sometimes, 3-Often, 4-Always), and a higher score indicates a higher level of readiness in social foundations. Teachers were asked to select how often the children in their class demonstrated certain behaviors related to social foundations. In addition, there is one item about the strength of the connection between children's family and the school (1-Weak, 2-Moderate, 3- Strong), one item about the engagement of children's family with the teacher (1- Not Engaged, 2- Moderately Engaged, 3-Very Engaged), and one item about the engagement with children to support kindergarten progress at home (1- Not Engaged, 2- Moderately Engaged, 3-Very Engaged). Further, the instrument also includes one item about children's eligibility to participate in the transition program, one item about children's participation in the program, and one item about children's attendance in a 4 K/Pre-K program. The 30 kindergarten teachers were asked to assess each child in their classes on these items.</p> <p>The 21 items within the three major domains are aligned with the state Profile of the Ready Kindergartener (South Carolina's Profile of the Ready Kindergarten, n.d.). To support the validity of the scales, we invited five professionals who have expertise in early childhood education as well as instrument development to review the scales. We made revisions based on suggestions from these experts. In addition, we calculated Cronbach's alpha coefficients to examine the reliability of the scales. The Cronbach's alpha coefficients were 0.87 for the domain of early literacy skills, 0.91 for the domain of mathematical knowledge, and 0.87 for the domain of social foundations (Table 1), which suggests high internal consistency of the three scales (Nunnally & Bernstein, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref87">47</reflink>]).</p> <p>To examine the internal structure of the three domains with 21 items, we conducted a Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) analysis. Before conducting the factor analysis, we performed a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test for sampling adequacy and a Bartlett test for sphericity. The KMO test value is 0.915 which is greater than 0.5, indicating that the assumption of sampling adequacy is met. The p-value based on the Bartlett test of sphericity is smaller than 0.001, which suggests that the correlation matrix is not an identity matrix, and the items are correlated. We used a Promax (oblique) rotation method because the extracted factors are correlated. In making decisions of the number of factors extracted, we used eigenvalues (> 1), scree plots, percentage of variance explained, and factor loadings. The three extracted factors explained 63.5% of the variance. Table 1 presents the pattern matrix with factor loadings, and factor loadings smaller than 0.30 were suppressed in the output table.</p> <p>Overall, the internal structure of the instrument is simple and clear. Eight items are loaded on Factor 1, and the factor loadings range from 0.340 to 0.720. Among the eight items, four items (Items 1, 2, 3, 4) are within the domain of early literacy skills, three (Items 19, 20, 21) are in the domain of social foundations, and one (Item 12) is in the domain of mathematical knowledge. Eleven items are loaded on Factor 2, and the factor loadings range from 0.329 to 0.928. Among the 11 items, seven (Items 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14) are in the domain of mathematical knowledge, and four (Items 4, 5, 6, 7) are in the domain of early literacy skills. We checked the four items that were originally designed in the domain of early literacy skills carefully, and we found that the wordings (e.g., recognize, match) are similar to some items in the domain of mathematical knowledge. We decided to keep the four items in the domain of early literacy skills after careful consideration. Six items (Items 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21) which are in the domain of social foundations loaded on Factor 3, and the factor loadings range from 0.431 to 0.889. Item 19 (Act as a leader in the class), an item in the domain of social foundations, has a small loading (0.358) on Factor 1. Although leadership is not commonly included in early learning standards, it is discussed in the section on social-emotional development in many standards. We decided to keep this item as a descriptor of children's social foundations. After examining the factor loadings, item content, and item wording, we decided to keep the original structure.</p> <p>Table 1 Descriptive statistics, factor loadings, and Scale Internal consistency Cronbach's alpha</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Scales and items</p></th><th align="left"><p>M (SD)</p></th><th align="left"><p>F 1 loadings</p></th><th align="left"><p>F 2 loadings</p></th><th align="left"><p>F 3 loadings</p></th><th align="left"><p>α</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Early Literacy Skills</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.87</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>I1. Communicate thoughts, feelings, and ideas using verbal and nonverbal cues</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.10 (0.97)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.655</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>I2. Discuss what is happening in stories</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.81 (1.05)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.686</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>I3. Show interest in books and reading</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.06 (0.93)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.720</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>I4. Hold books upright and turn pages front to back</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.52 (0.90)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.362</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.329</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>I5. Recognize some letters</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.82 (1.14)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.928</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>I6. Make some sound-to-letter matches</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.46 (1.18)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.903</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>I7. Write some letters</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.77 (1.08)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.776</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Overall</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.93 (0.79)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Mathematical Knowledge</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.91</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>I8. Count to 20</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.90 (1.16)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.741</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>I9. Count up to 10 objects using one number for each object</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.99 (1.12)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.691</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>I10. Compare sets of objects by quantity (more or less)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.69 (1.10)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.698</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>I11. Identify basic shapes (circle, square, triangle)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.20 (1.01)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.655</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>I12. Sort and classify objects</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.04 (0.98)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.427</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.528</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>I13. Describe size, length, and weight of objects</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.46 (1.07)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.492</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>I14. Recognize simple repeating patterns</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.53 (1.05)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.647</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Overall</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.83 (0.87)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Social Foundations</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.87</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>I15. Follow simple rules and directions</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.89 (0.90)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.889</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>I16. Maintain attention and focus</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.70 (0.92)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.823</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>I17. Adjust to changes in routine and environment</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.09 (0.85)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.654</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>I18. Share, take turns, and play well with others</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.10 (0.88)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.703</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>I19. Act as a leader in the class</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.26 (1.07)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.358</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>I20. Form positive relationships with teachers</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.46 (0.80)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.471</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.431</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>I21. Form positive relationships with peers</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.21 (0.84)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.340</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.639</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Overall</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.96 (0.67)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization</p> <hd id="AN0187863963-6">Data Collection and Data Analysis</hd> <p>We contacted the 30 randomly selected kindergarten teachers and shared with them the kindergarten readiness assessment instrument, an Excel reporting template, and instructions for completing the reporting template. The instructions provide clear and detailed descriptions of each variable. For example, for the domain of social foundations, the instruction indicates, "Please use your knowledge and experience with each child as they entered kindergarten and indicate how often they demonstrate the social-emotional aspects using the dropdown menu options (Always, Often, Sometimes, Never)." We also provided the teachers with researchers' contact information so they could reach out when they need support completing the assessment. Thirty teachers completed the assessment of each child in their classes, and there was no missing data. Each participating teacher received an incentive of $500 for their time and effort.</p> <p>In addition to data collected from the teachers, we also used secondary data about school poverty, location, and ranking. The school poverty index is a composite of multiple factors related to poverty such as SNAP, TANF, Foster, Medicaid, Migrant, and Homelessness (South Carolina Department of Education, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref88">57</reflink>]). A higher poverty score suggests a higher level of poverty. We recategorized school poverty into two categories: high poverty (poverty index 51-100%) and low poverty (poverty index 1 − 50%). The school location is based on the state Department of Education's designation of school locations, and it has two categories including rural and urban. School ranking is based on the school report cards provided by the state Department of Education, which provides information about each school. School ranking has five categories including Excellent, Good, Average, Below Average, and Unsatisfactory. Considering that only 30 schools were involved in this study, we grouped school rankings into two categories including Excellent and Good or Below. The cut-off points were decided based on the pattern identified from the initial descriptive analysis of each category.</p> <p>We used SPSS 28 and HLM 8.2 (Raudenbush et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref89">52</reflink>]) to analyze the data, and data were analyzed based on the three domains including early literacy skills, mathematical knowledge, and social foundations. First, we used descriptive statistics (e.g., mean, standard deviation) to describe children's performance on individual items within each domain. Second, we analyzed children's overall performance on the three domains based on child-level factors (i.e., eligibility/participation in the program, attendance in a 4 K/Pre-K program, family engagement) and school-level factors (i.e., poverty, location, ranking). We reported both descriptive and inferential statistics. Independent samples t-tests and ANOVAs were used to compare the domain means between groups. We calculated effect sizes (e.g., Cohen's <emph>d</emph>, Partial <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups>) to help understand the practical significance, and we conducted post hoc pairwise comparisons when the group differences were statistically significant based on the ANOVAs.</p> <p>In addition, we used an HLM approach to examine the prediction of child-level (Level 1) factors and school-level (Level 2) factors on children's performance in early literacy skills, mathematical knowledge, and social foundations. Children's eligibility/participation in the program, 4 K attendance, and family engagement were Level-1 predictors, and school poverty, location, and ranking were Level-2 predictors. Three HLM models were tested to help determine whether school-level factors could predict children's performance over and above the variability explained by child-level factors. The first model was an unconditional model with no predictors, examining whether there were differences at the school level in the children's performance. The second model was a random intercepts model with only level-1 predictors (Level 1 model), examining whether eligibility/participation in the transition program, attendance in a 4 K/Pre-K program, and family engagement accounted for a statistically significant amount of variation in children's performance. For eligibility/participation in the transition program, those who were eligible but did not participate in the transition program were set as the reference group. The third model was a random intercepts and slopes model with both Level-1 and Level-2 predictors (Full model), examining the proportion of variance in children's performance accounted for by child-level and school-level predictors.</p> <hd id="AN0187863963-7">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187863963-8">Early Literacy Skills</hd> <p>Children's scores in early literacy skills were reported based on eligibility/participation in the program, attendance in a 4 K/Pre-K program, and family engagement (Table 2). An ANOVA indicated that children's eligibility/participation in the program was significantly associated with their performance in early literacy skills with a small to medium effect (<emph>p</emph> <.001, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.035) (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref90">12</reflink>]). A post hoc test Tukey HSD indicated that compared with children who were eligible but did not participate in the program, those who were eligible and participated in the program had significantly better performance. An independent samples t-test indicated that children who attended a 4 K/Pre-K program performed significantly better than children who did not attend a 4 K/Pre-K program with a small to medium difference (<emph>p</emph> <.001; <emph>d</emph> = 0.39) (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref91">12</reflink>]). Children whose families were highly engaged as identified by the kindergarten teacher (Score: 2–3) performed significantly better than children whose families had low engagement (Score: 1–2) with a medium to large difference (<emph>p</emph> <.001; <emph>d</emph> = 0.56) (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref92">12</reflink>]).</p> <p>Children's scores in early literacy skills were reported based on school poverty, location, and ranking (Table 2). An independent samples t-test indicated that children from low-poverty schools performed significantly better than children from high-poverty schools with a small to medium difference (<emph>p</emph> =.003; <emph>d</emph> = 0.32) (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref93">12</reflink>]). Children from urban schools performed significantly better than children from rural schools with a small difference (<emph>p</emph> =.038; <emph>d</emph> = 0.19) (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref94">12</reflink>]). Children from excellent schools performed significantly better than children from schools that were rated as good or below with a small to medium difference (<emph>p</emph> <.001; <emph>d</emph> = 0.37) (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref95">12</reflink>]).</p> <p>The HLM results are presented in Table 3. The unconditional model revealed that a statistically significant amount of variance in children's performance in early literacy skills was explained by Level-2 grouping, χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref96">27</reflink>) = 317.24, <emph>p</emph> <.001. The intraclass correlation (ICC) was calculated to be 0.326, suggesting that 32.6% of the variance in children's performance in early literacy skills was accounted for at the school level, and 67.4% of the variance was explained at the child level. The random intercepts model (Level 1 model) revealed that there was a statistically significant association between children's performance in early literacy skills and family engagement (<emph>b</emph> = 0.419, <emph>p</emph> <.001) and attendance in 4 K/Pre-K programs (<emph>b</emph> = 0.340, <emph>p</emph> <.001). Children's eligibility/participation in the transition program was not statistically significantly associated with their performance in early literacy skills. The effect size <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> was calculated to be 0.194, suggesting a medium to large effect size (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref97">12</reflink>]). Based on the random intercepts and slopes model (Full model) results, there were statistically significant interaction effects between Level-1 predictor attendance in a 4 K/Pre-K program and Level-2 predictors school poverty (<emph>b</emph> = 0.031, <emph>p</emph> =.039) and school ranking (<emph>b</emph> = 0.046, <emph>p</emph> =.031). The association between children's attendance in 4 K/Pre-K programs and their performance in early literacy skills was statistically significant across schools with different poverty levels and rankings.</p> <hd id="AN0187863963-9">Mathematical Knowledge</hd> <p>Children's scores in mathematical knowledge were reported based on their eligibility/participation in the program, attendance in a 4 K/Pre-K program, and family engagement (Table 2). An ANOVA indicated that children's eligibility/participation in the program was significantly associated with their performance in mathematical knowledge with a small to medium effect (<emph>p</emph> =.004, η<sups>2</sups> = 0.026) (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref98">12</reflink>]). A post hoc test Tukey HSD indicated that compared with children who were eligible but did not participate in the program, those who were eligible and participated in the program had significantly better performance. An independent samples t-test indicated that children who attended a 4 K/pre-K program performed significantly better than children who did not attend a 4 K/Pre-K program with a medium difference (<emph>p</emph> <.001; <emph>d</emph> = 0.48) (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref99">12</reflink>]). Children whose families were highly engaged as identified by the kindergarten teacher (Score: 2–3) performed significantly better than children whose families had low engagement (Score: 1–2) with a medium to large difference (<emph>p</emph> <.001; <emph>d</emph> = 0.66) (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref100">12</reflink>]).</p> <p>Children's scores in mathematical knowledge were reported based on school poverty, location, and ranking (Table 2). An independent samples t-test indicated that children from low-poverty schools performed significantly better than children from high-poverty schools with a medium to large difference (<emph>p</emph> <.001; <emph>d</emph> = 0.56) (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref101">12</reflink>]). Children from urban schools performed significantly better than children from rural schools with a small to medium difference (<emph>p</emph> <.001; <emph>d</emph> = 0.39) (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref102">12</reflink>]). School ranking was not significantly associated with children's performance in mathematical knowledge (<emph>p</emph> =.373).</p> <p>The HLM results are presented in Table 4. The unconditional model revealed that a statistically significant amount of variance in children's performance in mathematical knowledge was explained by Level-2 grouping, χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref103">27</reflink>) = 249.339, <emph>p</emph> <.001. The intraclass correlation (ICC) was calculated to be 0.275, suggesting that 27.5% of the variance in children's performance in mathematical knowledge was accounted for at the school level, and 72.5% of the variance was explained at the child level. The random intercepts model (Level 1 model) revealed that there was a statistically significant association between children's performance in mathematical knowledge and family engagement (<emph>b</emph> = 0.416, <emph>p</emph> <.001), attendance in 4 K/Pre-K programs (<emph>b</emph> = 0.353, <emph>p</emph> <.001), and being not eligible to participate in the program (<emph>b</emph> = 0.317, <emph>p</emph> =.008). The effect size <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> was calculated to be 0.176, suggesting a medium to large effect size (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref104">12</reflink>]). Based on the random intercepts and slopes model (Full model) results, there were no statistically significant interaction effects between Level-1 and Level-2 predictors. The association between child-level factors and children's performance in mathematical knowledge was not statistically significant across schools with different poverty, location, or ranking.</p> <hd id="AN0187863963-10">Social Foundations</hd> <p>Children's scores in social foundations were reported based on eligibility/participation in the program, attendance in a 4 K/Pre-K program, and family engagement (Table 2). An ANOVA indicated that children's eligibility/participation in the program was significantly associated with their performance in social foundations with a small to medium effect (<emph>p</emph> =.013, η<sups>2</sups> = 0.021) (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref105">12</reflink>]). A post hoc test Tukey HSD indicated that compared with children who were eligible but did not participate in the transition program, those who were eligible and participated in the program had significantly better performance in social foundations. An independent samples t-test indicated that children who attended a 4 K/Pre-K program performed significantly better than children who did not attend a 4 K/Pre-K program with a small difference (<emph>p</emph> =.010; <emph>d</emph> = 0.21) (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref106">12</reflink>]). Children whose families were highly engaged as identified by the kindergarten teacher (Score: 2–3) performed significantly better than children whose families had low engagement (Score: 1–2) with a small to medium difference (<emph>p</emph> <.001; <emph>d</emph> = 0.34) (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref107">12</reflink>]).</p> <p>Children's scores in social foundations were reported based on school poverty, location, and ranking (Table 2). An independent samples t-test indicated that children from low-poverty schools performed significantly better than children from high-poverty schools with a large difference (<emph>p</emph> <.001; <emph>d</emph> = 0.90) (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref108">12</reflink>]). Children from urban schools performed significantly better than children from rural schools with a small to medium difference (<emph>p</emph> <.001; <emph>d</emph> = 0.35) (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref109">12</reflink>]). Children from excellent schools performed significantly better than children from schools that were rated as good or below with a small to medium difference (<emph>p</emph> =.003; <emph>d</emph> = 0.28) (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref110">12</reflink>]).</p> <p>The HLM results are presented in Table 5. The unconditional model revealed that a statistically significant amount of variance in children's performance in social foundations was explained by Level-2 grouping, χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref111">27</reflink>) = 182.966, <emph>p</emph> <.001. The intraclass correlation (ICC) was calculated to be 0.206, suggesting that 20.6% of the variance in children's performance in social foundations was accounted for at the school level, and 79.4% of the variance was explained at the child level. The random intercepts model (Level 1 model) revealed that there was a statistically significant association between children's performance in social foundations and family engagement (<emph>b</emph> = 0.197, <emph>p</emph> <.001) and attendance in 4 K/Pre-K programs (<emph>b</emph> = 0.227, <emph>p</emph> =.003). The effect size <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> was calculated to be 0.092, suggesting a medium effect size (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref112">12</reflink>]). Based on the random intercepts and slopes model (Full model) results, there were statistically significant interaction effects between Level-1 predictor attendance in a 4 K/Pre-K program and Level-2 predictor school ranking (<emph>b</emph> = 0.034, <emph>p</emph> =.019). The association between children's attendance in 4 K/Pre-K programs and their performance in social foundations was statistically significant across schools with different rankings.</p> <p>Table 2 Scale scores based on child level (level 1) factors and School Level (Level 2) factors (Mean)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" colspan="12"><p><bold>Child Level (Level 1) Factors</bold></p></th></tr><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Scale</p></th><th align="left" colspan="6"><p>Eligibility/Participation</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>4K/Pre-K Attendance</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Family Engagement</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Not Eligible</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Eligible and participated</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Eligible but did not participate</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>No</p></th><th align="left"><p>Yes</p></th><th align="left"><p>Low</p></th><th align="left"><p>High</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Early Literacy Skills</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.87</p></td><td align="left" colspan="3"><p>3.06</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>2.72</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>2.83</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.13</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.68</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.11</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="6"><p><italic>p</italic> <.001; <italic>η</italic><sup>2</sup> = 0.035</p></td><td align="left" colspan="3"><p><italic>p</italic> <.001; <italic>d</italic> = 0.39</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p><italic>p</italic> <.001; <italic>d</italic> = 0.56</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Mathematical Knowledge</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.83</p></td><td align="left" colspan="3"><p>2.94</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>2.6</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>2.69</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.1</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.51</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.05</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="6"><p><italic>p</italic> =.004; <italic>η</italic><sup>2</sup> = 0.026</p></td><td align="left" colspan="3"><p><italic>p</italic> <.001; <italic>d</italic> = 0.48</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p><italic>p</italic> <.001; <italic>d</italic> = 0.66</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Social Foundations</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.95</p></td><td align="left" colspan="3"><p>2.98</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>2.76</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>2.91</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.06</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.83</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.05</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="6"><p><italic>p</italic> =.013; <italic>η</italic><sup>2</sup> = 0.021</p></td><td align="left" colspan="3"><p><italic>p</italic> =.010; <italic>d</italic> = 0.21</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p><italic>p</italic> <.001; <italic>d</italic> = 0.34</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" colspan="12"><p><bold>School Level (Level 2) Factors</bold></p></th></tr><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Scale</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>School Poverty</p></th><th align="left" colspan="4"><p>School Location</p></th><th align="left" colspan="4"><p>School Ranking</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>High Poverty</p></th><th align="left"><p>Low Poverty</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Rural</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Urban</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Good or below</p></th><th align="left"><p>Excellent</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Early Literacy Skills</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>2.91</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.15</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>2.89</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>3.04</p></td><td align="left" colspan="3"><p>2.87</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.16</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="3"><p><italic>p</italic> =.003; <italic>d</italic> = 0.32</p></td><td align="left" colspan="4"><p><italic>p</italic> =.038; <italic>d</italic> = 0.19</p></td><td align="left" colspan="4"><p><italic>p</italic> <.001; <italic>d</italic> = 0.37</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Mathematical Knowledge</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>2.78</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.26</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>2.75</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>3.08</p></td><td align="left" colspan="3"><p>2.86</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.93</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="3"><p><italic>p</italic> <.001; <italic>d</italic> = 0.56</p></td><td align="left" colspan="4"><p><italic>p</italic> <.001; <italic>d</italic> = 0.39</p></td><td align="left" colspan="4"><p><italic>p</italic> =.373; <italic>d</italic> = 0.08</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Social Foundations</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>2.9</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.49</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>2.9</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>3.13</p></td><td align="left" colspan="3"><p>2.9</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.09</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="3"><p><italic>p</italic> <.001; <italic>d</italic> = 0.90</p></td><td align="left" colspan="4"><p><italic>p</italic> <.001; <italic>d</italic> = 0.35</p></td><td align="left" colspan="4"><p><italic>p</italic> =.003; <italic>d</italic> = 0.28</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Cohen ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref113">12</reflink>]) defined a small effect (d = 0.2), medium effect (d = 0.5), and large effect (d = 0.8) Cohen ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref114">12</reflink>]) defined a small effect (η<sups>2</sups> = 0.008), medium effect (η<sups>2</sups> = 0.059), and large effect (η<sups>2</sups> = 0.138)</p> <p>Table 3 Multilevel regression estimates and model comparisons of early literacy skills</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Variable</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Unconditional model</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Level 1 model</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Full model</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Estimate</p></th><th align="left"><p>SE</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic>-value</p></th><th align="left"><p>Estimate</p></th><th align="left"><p>SE</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic>-value</p></th><th align="left"><p>Estimate</p></th><th align="left"><p>SE</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic>-value</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Fixed Effects</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>Principal intercepts (β</italic><sub>0</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Intercept (<italic>γ</italic><sub>00</sub>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.939</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.090</p></td><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.942</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.093</p></td><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.113</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.139</p></td><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Poverty (<italic>γ</italic><sub>01</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.014</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.011</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.220</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Ranking (<italic>γ</italic><sub>02</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.023</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.015</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.140</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Location (<italic>γ</italic><sub>03</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.181</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.243</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.465</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4 K/Pre-K Program slopes (<italic>β</italic><sub>1</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Intercept (<italic>γ</italic><sub>10</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.340</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.077</p></td><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.096</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.167</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.571</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Poverty (<italic>γ</italic><sub>11</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.031</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.014</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.039</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Ranking (<italic>γ</italic><sub>12</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.046</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.020</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.031</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Location (<italic>γ</italic><sub>13</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.078</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.275</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.780</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Family Engagement slopes (<italic>β</italic><sub>2</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Intercept (<italic>γ</italic><sub>20</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.419</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.058</p></td><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.386</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.143</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.014</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Poverty (<italic>γ</italic><sub>21</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.003</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.011</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.813</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Ranking (<italic>γ</italic><sub>22</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.015</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.933</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Location (<italic>γ</italic><sub>23</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.246</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.221</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.280</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Eligible and Participated slopes (<italic>β</italic><sub>3</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Intercept (<italic>γ</italic><sub>30</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.044</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.085</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.605</p></td><td align="left"><p>-0.113</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.222</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.618</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Poverty (<italic>γ</italic><sub>31</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.009</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.020</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.666</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Ranking (<italic>γ</italic><sub>32</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.006</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.023</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.794</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Location (<italic>γ</italic><sub>33</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.242</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.329</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.470</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Not Eligible slopes (<italic>β</italic><sub>4</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Intercept (<italic>γ</italic><sub>40</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.115</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.103</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.263</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.169</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.222</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.457</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Poverty (<italic>γ</italic><sub>41</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.011</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.020</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.583</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Ranking (<italic>γ</italic><sub>42</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.014</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.023</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.540</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Location (<italic>γ</italic><sub>43</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.260</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.368</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.487</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Random Components</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Principal intercept variance (<italic>u</italic><sub>0</sub>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.205</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.208</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.217</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4 K/Pre-K Program slope variance (<italic>u</italic><sub>1</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.143</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.001</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Family Engagement slope variance (<italic>u</italic><sub>2</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.095</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.003</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Eligible and Participated slope variance (<italic>u</italic><sub>3</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.160</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Not Eligible slope variance (<italic>u</italic><sub>4</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.065</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.012</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Level-1 (<italic>r</italic>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.423</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.341</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.301</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 4 Multilevel regression estimates and model comparisons of Mathematical Knowledge</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Variable</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Unconditional Model</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Level 1 Model</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Full Model</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Estimate</p></th><th align="left"><p>SE</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic>-value</p></th><th align="left"><p>Estimate</p></th><th align="left"><p>SE</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic>-value</p></th><th align="left"><p>Estimate</p></th><th align="left"><p>SE</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic>-value</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Fixed Effects</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Principal intercepts (β<sub>0</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Intercept (<italic>γ</italic><sub>00</sub>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.833</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.092</p></td><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.834</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.097</p></td><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.068</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.121</p></td><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Poverty (<italic>γ</italic><sub>01</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.018</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.010</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.076</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Ranking (<italic>γ</italic><sub>02</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.032</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.013</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.023</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Location (<italic>γ</italic><sub>03</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.452</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.209</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.043</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4 K/Pre-K Program slopes (<italic>β</italic><sub>1</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Intercept (<italic>γ</italic><sub>10</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.353</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.090</p></td><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.160</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.260</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.545</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Poverty (<italic>γ</italic><sub>11</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.034</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.021</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.117</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Ranking (<italic>γ</italic><sub>12</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.047</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.030</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.134</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Location (<italic>γ</italic><sub>13</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.039</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.427</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.928</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Family Engagement slopes (<italic>β</italic><sub>2</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Intercept (<italic>γ</italic><sub>20</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.416</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.068</p></td><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.423</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.144</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.008</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Poverty (<italic>γ</italic><sub>21</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.016</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.011</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.184</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Ranking (<italic>γ</italic><sub>22</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.005</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.015</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.733</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Location (<italic>γ</italic><sub>23</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.043</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.218</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.847</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Eligible and Participated slopes (<italic>β</italic><sub>3</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Intercept (<italic>γ</italic><sub>30</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.039</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.099</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.692</p></td><td align="left"><p>-0.216</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.209</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.314</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Poverty (<italic>γ</italic><sub>31</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.028</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.018</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.148</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Ranking (<italic>γ</italic><sub>32</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.042</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.021</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.056</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Location (<italic>γ</italic><sub>33</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.342</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.290</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.253</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Not Eligible slopes (<italic>β</italic><sub>4</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Intercept (<italic>γ</italic><sub>40</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.317</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.119</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.008</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.205</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.261</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.441</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Poverty (<italic>γ</italic><sub>41</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.017</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.022</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.447</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Ranking (<italic>γ</italic><sub>42</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.006</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.027</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.833</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Location (<italic>γ</italic><sub>43</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.240</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.436</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.588</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Random Components</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Principal intercept variance (<italic>u</italic><sub>0</sub>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.211</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.219</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.150</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4 K/Pre-K Program slope variance (<italic>u</italic><sub>1</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.503</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Family Engagement slope variance (<italic>u</italic><sub>2</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.067</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.005</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Eligible and Participated slope variance (<italic>u</italic><sub>3</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.091</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.170</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Not Eligible slope variance (<italic>u</italic><sub>4</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.164</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.006</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Level-1 (<italic>r</italic>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.557</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.459</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.367</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 5 Multilevel regression estimates and model comparisons of Social foundations</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Variable</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Unconditional model</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Level 1 model</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Full model</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Estimate</p></th><th align="left"><p>SE</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic>-value</p></th><th align="left"><p>Estimate</p></th><th align="left"><p>SE</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic>-value</p></th><th align="left"><p>Estimate</p></th><th align="left"><p>SE</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic>-value</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Fixed Effects</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Principal intercepts (β<sub>0</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Intercept (<italic>γ</italic><sub>00</sub>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.962</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.062</p></td><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.929</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.068</p></td><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.034</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.102</p></td><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Poverty (<italic>γ</italic><sub>01</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.012</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.008</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.151</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Ranking (<italic>γ</italic><sub>02</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.018</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.011</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.110</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Location (<italic>γ</italic><sub>03</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.216</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.175</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.234</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4 K/Pre-K Program slopes (<italic>β</italic><sub>1</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Intercept (<italic>γ</italic><sub>10</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.227</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.076</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.003</p></td><td align="left"><p>-0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.107</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.995</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Poverty (<italic>γ</italic><sub>11</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.018</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.010</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.080</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Ranking (<italic>γ</italic><sub>12</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.034</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.013</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.019</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Location (<italic>γ</italic><sub>13</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.169</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.183</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.365</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Family Engagement slopes (<italic>β</italic><sub>2</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Intercept (<italic>γ</italic><sub>20</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.197</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.057</p></td><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.198</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.141</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.176</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Poverty (<italic>γ</italic><sub>21</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.007</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.012</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.531</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Ranking (<italic>γ</italic><sub>22</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.000</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.015</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.990</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Location (<italic>γ</italic><sub>23</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.070</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.217</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.749</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Eligible and Participated slopes (<italic>β</italic><sub>3</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Intercept (<italic>γ</italic><sub>30</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.045</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.083</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.588</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.118</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.165</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.480</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Poverty (<italic>γ</italic><sub>31</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.004</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.014</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.792</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Ranking (<italic>γ</italic><sub>32</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.011</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.016</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.509</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Location (<italic>γ</italic><sub>33</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.246</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.209</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.254</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Not Eligible slopes (<italic>β</italic><sub>4</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Intercept (<italic>γ</italic><sub>40</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.116</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.100</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.250</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.220</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.188</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.255</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Poverty (<italic>γ</italic><sub>41</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.006</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.016</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.708</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Ranking (<italic>γ</italic><sub>42</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.006</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.019</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.739</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Location (<italic>γ</italic><sub>43</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.196</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.334</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.564</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Random Components</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Principal intercept variance (<italic>u</italic><sub>0</sub>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.093</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.101</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.102</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4 K/Pre-K Program slope variance (<italic>u</italic><sub>1</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.003</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.029</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Family Engagement slope variance (<italic>u</italic><sub>2</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.083</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.168</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Eligible and Participated slope variance (<italic>u</italic><sub>3</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.003</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.500</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Not Eligible slope variance (<italic>u</italic><sub>4</sub>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.045</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.118</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Level-1 (<italic>r</italic>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.360</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.327</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.295</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0187863963-11">Discussion</hd> <p>The findings of this study confirmed the ecological systems theory that highlights how home and school environments influence a child's cognitive and psychological development (Bronfenbrenner, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref115">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref116">7</reflink>]). We found that school characteristics were associated with children's kindergarten readiness. Children from low-poverty schools demonstrated significantly better readiness in early literacy skills, mathematical knowledge, and social foundations than those from high-poverty schools. Children from urban schools demonstrated significantly better readiness in all three domains than those from rural schools. These differences might be due to the unequal access to opportunities between children from high-poverty schools and those from low-poverty schools. Our study findings echo those in the literature. There is an association between ecological disadvantages and children's academic challenges (Duncan & Magnuson, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref117">26</reflink>]; Dupere et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref118">28</reflink>]). Poverty hurts children's school readiness (e.g., Kriebel & Brown, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref119">37</reflink>]), and children from high-poverty schools tended to have lower readiness scores in their social-emotional development (Fan et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref120">29</reflink>]). These findings consistently highlight the importance of supporting schools and families in high-poverty and rural areas to improve children's school transition and readiness.</p> <p>We found that higher levels of family engagement were associated with children's better kindergarten readiness in early literacy skills, mathematical knowledge, and social foundations. The findings are consistent with those in the literature. Children's home environment had a great impact on their school readiness measured by their cognitive, social-emotional, and behavioral development (Bradley et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref121">4</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref122">5</reflink>]; Chazan-Cohen et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref123">10</reflink>]; Crawford & Zygouris-Coe, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref124">17</reflink>]; Polat & Bayindir, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref125">50</reflink>]; Slicker et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref126">55</reflink>]). Active and meaningful family engagement was associated with children's school readiness (Powell et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref127">51</reflink>]). Children were more likely to demonstrate kindergarten readiness when their parents and caregivers had more knowledge about kindergarten expectations and stronger relationships with the kindergarten teacher (Fan et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref128">30</reflink>]). These findings confirmed the ecological systems theory that emphasizes the impact of environments on children's development (Bronfenbrenner, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref129">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref130">7</reflink>]). Children's learning and development require collaborative efforts of both families and schools. While developing and implementing programs, program developers should be intentional about how families are engaged to support children's school transition and readiness.</p> <p>This study revealed that for the children who were eligible to participate in the summer transition program, those who participated in the program had significantly better performance in early literacy skills, mathematical knowledge, and social foundations than those who did not participate in the program. Eligibility means that children were from disadvantaged backgrounds. These findings suggest the positive impact of transition programs on children's school readiness. Various studies found that transition programs help improve children's literacy skills and prepare them for the social transition to kindergarten (Berlin et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref131">2</reflink>]; Griebling & Gilbert, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref132">32</reflink>]). Children who participated in the transition program had significantly more preparedness for kindergarten, better adjustment to kindergarten, and more interest in kindergarten than children who did not participate in the program based on the views of parents/caregivers (Fan et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref133">30</reflink>]). Educators reported that the kindergarten transition program positively impacted family awareness of school expectations and teacher-family relationships, which support children's school transition and readiness (D'Amico et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref134">19</reflink>]). These findings suggest the importance of developing and implementing programs to support children's school transition and readiness, and the programs should increase parent involvement and engagement, especially in low-SES families (Schulting et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref135">54</reflink>]).</p> <p>We found that attending a 4 K/Pre-K program was significantly associated with better kindergarten readiness in early literacy skills, mathematical knowledge, and social foundations. These findings are consistent with those in the literature, which highlight the importance of prekindergarten experience in supporting children's kindergarten readiness (Fan et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref136">30</reflink>]; Umek et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref137">59</reflink>]). It is important to point out that this study was based on the transition program in summer 2022, which means that many children involved in this study might have experienced disruptions in their 4 K/Pre-K programs due to the global COVID-19 pandemic. Despite disruptions or modifications to the 4 K/Pre-K experience (e.g., virtual preschool), our findings further confirmed the positive association between children's prekindergarten experience and their kindergarten readiness. To support children's kindergarten readiness, it is important to make the prekindergarten programs accessible and affordable, especially for the children and families who demonstrate the greatest needs.</p> <p>Based on the HLM full models, the association between children's attendance in 4 K/Pre-K programs and their performance in early literacy skills was statistically significant across schools with different poverty and rankings. The association between children's attendance in 4 K/Pre-K programs and performance in social foundations was statistically significant across schools with different rankings. These findings suggest that there are some interactions between child-level factors and school-level factors in shaping children's kindergarten readiness. Access to high-quality 4 K/Pre-K programs in high-poverty communities may help reduce poverty-associated achievement gaps in kindergarten. As evidence continues to emerge on the benefits of preschool programs on kindergarten readiness (Fan et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref138">30</reflink>]; Umek et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref139">59</reflink>]), policymakers should consider investing in accessible, high-quality pre-kindergarten opportunities for children from high-poverty areas.</p> <p>Several limitations of this study should be noted. First, considering the age of the children involved in this study, we used ratings by their teachers rather than standardized tests to measure children's kindergarten readiness. Although we provided detailed instructions for the assessment, we were concerned that teachers might have slightly different criteria for assessing children's readiness. Also, each child was rated by one teacher, and we did not calculate the interrater reliability. Future studies should include multiple raters of children's performance, and multiple methods of measuring children's readiness should be used. It would be important to involve parents/caregivers in understanding children's kindergarten readiness. Second, we did not collect children's demographic information (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, SES) due to the consideration of protecting their privacy. The information about program participation eligibility suggested that the children and families eligible for program participation tended to come from disadvantaged backgrounds (e.g., low-income, housing instability, adverse experience). We recommend future studies consider collecting children's demographic information, which will be helpful in better understanding their readiness based on these variables. Third, we examined the content validity through expert review and calculated the internal consistency of the scales using Cronbach's alpha in validating the instrument. However, we did not validate it against other tests that measure the same constructs, which will limit the generalizability of the study findings. We recommend future studies should test different types of validity (e.g., convergent validity, discriminant validity) to validate the instrument. In addition, this study focused on one state in the southeastern United States. The state has its unique social, geographical, and educational characteristics, and the early care and education landscape in the state is also unique. Our findings showed a positive association between 4 K/Pre-K attendance and kindergarten readiness, but they should be viewed through the lens of the social, geographical, and educational landscape of 4 K/Pre-K opportunities available to families in the state. Future studies should explore how different types of 4 K/Pre-K programs (i.e., state-funded, private vs. public, center-based vs. family/home-based) and other school, community, and state-level factors associated with kindergarten readiness. The findings based on this study may not be fully generalized to other national or international settings, but they may be woven with other findings to uncover regional or national differences in patterns of kindergarten readiness.</p> <p>This study revealed that participation in a 4 K/Pre-K program and a kindergarten transition program was associated with better kindergarten readiness. However, we do not know if the positive effect will continue or fade out in these children's elementary years (e.g., Lipsey et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref140">39</reflink>]; Logan et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref141">41</reflink>]; Weiland et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref142">62</reflink>]). Longitudinal studies are needed to track the effect of early childhood programming. In addition, in the current sample, only one in three children reported participation in a 4 K/Pre-K program. A notable percentage of children who were eligible to participate in the program did not participate in the program. We believe that these children and families might have some difficulties in participating in the programs. Although families may meet eligibility requirements to participate in high-quality 4 K/Pre-K programs or summer transition programs, the rurality of the state may impact accessibility to these opportunities. Families living in rural areas of the state may live in childcare deserts or lack reliable transportation to attend these programs. Another consideration is that high-poverty communities may be under-resourced and under-invested, thus limiting access to opportunities to 4 K/Pre-K programs and transition programs that support children's kindergarten readiness.</p> <p>In addition to corroborating the literature related to kindergarten readiness, our study findings contribute to new knowledge pertinent to kindergarten readiness and transition programs. First, multiple factors impact learning, and studying the complex relationships between these factors is extremely important. We investigated kindergarten readiness using an HLM approach that considers the nested feature of child-level data within school-level data and the interactions between the two levels. We found that 4 K/Pre-K attendance and school poverty and rankings were interactively associated with children's readiness in early literacy skills. It further highlights the importance of access to high-quality 4 K/Pre-K programs in high-poverty communities to improve children's early literacy skills. Identifying the interactive effects of child-level and school-level factors on kindergarten readiness can inform the development and implementation of transition programs. Second, we studied kindergarten readiness in three domains early literacy skills, mathematical knowledge, and social foundations. We found that children demonstrated the most readiness in social foundations and the least readiness in mathematics. These findings can be used to guide kindergarten curriculum design and instruction. In addition, the study examined the effect of a summer transition program. This intervention program was different because children's soon-to-be teachers were the visitors of children and families, which helped build strong relationships between teachers and children and families (Fan et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref143">30</reflink>]; Fan et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref144">29</reflink>]). This study found a positive association between participation in the transition program and children's kindergarten readiness. These findings inform evidence-based policymaking in early childhood education to support children and families.</p> <p>As more funding becomes available, policymakers should consider targeting resources to rural, high-poverty, and underinvested communities to promote equitable access to high-quality programs that support children and their families. School transition programs and 4 K/Pre-K programs should be accessible and affordable to more children and families who demonstrate needs. Targeted funding and program implementation may help reduce disparities in early education access, thereby securing a strong developmental foundation for children who have the greatest needs. Early investments in a child's education may yield significant short- and long-term economic and social benefits for the local and state community.</p> <hd id="AN0187863963-12">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>The authors would like to acknowledge the input from teachers involved in the Countdown to Kindergarten program administered by South Carolina First Steps and First Steps local partnerships.</p> <hd id="AN0187863963-13">Funding</hd> <p>This work was supported by a Preschool Development Grant from the Administration for Children and Families/US Department of Health and Human Services [grant number: 90TP0080-02-00] administered by the South Carolina Department of Social Services and South Carolina First Steps.</p> <hd id="AN0187863963-14">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187863963-15">Ethics Approval</hd> <p>The study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of South Carolina.</p> <hd id="AN0187863963-16">Competing Interest</hd> <p>The authors do not have any financial or non-financial interests that are directly or indirectly related to the work submitted for publication.</p> <hd id="AN0187863963-17">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0187863963-18"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref66" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Atchison, B, & Pompelia, S. (2018). Transition and alignment from preschool to kindergarten. Education Commission of the States. https://<ulink href="http://www.ecs.org/wp-content/uploads/Transitions-and-Alignment-From-Preschool-to-Kindergarten.pdf">www.ecs.org/wp-content/uploads/Transitions-and-Alignment-From-Preschool-to-Kindergarten.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref68" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Berlin L, Dunning R, Dodge K. Enhancing the transition to kindergarten: A randomized trial to test the efficacy of the stars summer kindergarten orientation program. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2010; 26: 247-254. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.07.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref53" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bierman KL, Welsh JA, Heinrichs BS, Nix RL, Mathis ET. Helping Head Start parents promote their children's kindergarten adjustment: The research-based developmentally informed parent program. Child Development. 2015; 86; 6: 1877-1891. 10.1111/cdev.12448</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref32" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bradley RH, Corwyn RF, Burchinal M, McAdoo HP, Coll CG. The home environments of children in the United States part II: Relations with behavioral development through age thirteen. Child Development. 2001; 72: 1868-1886. 10.1111/1467-8624.t01-1-00383</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref30" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bradley RH, McKelvey LM, Whiteside-Mansell L. Does the quality of stimulation and support in the home environment moderate the effect of early education programs?. Child Development. 2011; 82: 2110-2122. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01659.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref78" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bronfenbrenner U. Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology. 1986; 22; 6: 723-742. 10.1037/0012-1649.22.6.723</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref79" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human development. Sage Publications Ltd.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref80" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bronfenbrenner U, Evans GW. Developmental science in the 21st century: Emerging questions, theoretical models, research designs and empirical findings. Social Development. 2000; 9; 1: 115-125. 10.1111/1467-9507.00114</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref13" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Burris PW, Phillips BM, Lonigan CJ. Examining the relations of the home literacy environments of families of low SES with children's early literacy skills. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR). 2019; 24; 2: 154-173. 10.1080/10824669.2019.1602473</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chazan-Cohen R, Raikes H, Brooks-Gunn J, Ayoub C, Pan BA, Kisker EE, Roggman L, Fuligni AS. Low-income children's school readiness: Parent contributions over the first five years. Early Education and Development. 2009; 20; 6: 958-977. 10.1080/10409280903362402</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cheung SK, Siu TSC, Caldwell MP. Mathematical ability at a very young age: The contributions of relationship quality with parents and teachers via children's language and literacy abilities. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2022; 51: 705-715. 10.1007/s10643-022-01338-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Connell CM, Prinz RJ. The impact of childcare and parent-child interactions on school readiness and social skills development for low-income African American children. Journal of School Psychology. 2002; 40; 2: 177-193. 10.1016/S0022-4405(02)00090-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cook KD, Coley RL. School transition practices and children's social and academic adjustment in kindergarten. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2017; 109; 2: 166-177. 10.1037/edu0000139</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cook KD, Coley RL. Coordination between Head Start and elementary schools to enhance children's kindergarten success. Early Education and Development. 2019; 30; 8: 1063-1083. 10.1080/10409289.2019.1656318</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coulton CJ, Richter F, Kim SJ, Fischer R, Cho Y. Temporal effects of distressed housing on early childhood risk factors and kindergarten readiness. Children and Youth Services Review. 2016; 68: 59-72. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.06.017</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crawford PA, Zygouris-Coe V. All in the family: Connecting home and school with family literacy. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2006; 33; 4: 261-267. 10.1007/s10643-005-0047-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> D'Amico, L. K, Fan, X, Garrett, S, Zhang, X, Kilburn, J, Jones, A, & Richard, C. (2024). Supporting children and families with opportunity gaps: Educators' perspectives of a summer kindergarten transition program. Educational Research and Evaluation, 29(5-6), 366–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2024.2352493</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DeFlorio, L, & Beliakoff, A. (2015). Socioeconomic status and preschoolers' mathematical knowledge: The contribution of home activities and parent beliefs. Early Education and Development, 26, 319–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2015.968239</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DeRosier ME, Lloyd SW. The impact of children's social adjustment on academic outcomes. Reading and Writing Quarterly. 2010; 27; 1: 25-47. 10.1080/10573569.2011.532710</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dickinson DK, Porche M. Relationship between language experiences in preschool classrooms and children's kindergarten and fourth grade language and reading abilities. Child Development. 2011; 82; 3: 870-886. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01576.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dickinson DK, Tabors P. Early literacy: Linkages between home, school, and literacy achievement at age five. Journal of Research in Childhood Education. 1991; 6: 30-46. 10.1080/02568549109594820</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dickinson DK, Collins MF, Nesbitt KT, Toub TS, Hassinger-Das BL, Hadley EB, HirshPasek K, Golinkoff RM. Effects of teacher-delivered book reading and play on vocabulary learning and self-regulation among low-income preschool children. Journal of Cognition and Development. 2018; 20; 2: 136-164. 10.1080/15248372.2018.1483373</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dickinson DK, Nesbitt KT, Hofer KG. Effects of language on initial reading: Direct and indirect associations between code and language from preschool to first grade. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2019; 49: 122-137. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.04.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duncan, G. J, & Magnuson, K. (2011). The nature and impact of early achievement skills, attention skills, and behavior problems. In G. J. Duncan, & R. J. Murnane (Eds.), Whither opportunity: Rising inequality, schools, and children's life chances (pp. 47–69). Russell Sage Foundation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duncan GJ, Cowsett CJ, Claessens A, Magnuson K, Huston AC, Klebanov P, Pagani LS, Feinstein L, Engel M, Brooks-Gunn J, Sexton H, Duckworth K, Japel C. School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology. 2007; 43; 6: 1428-1446. 10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1428</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dupere V, Leventhal T, Crosnoe R, Dion E. Understanding the positive role of neighborhood socioeconomic advantage in achievement: The contribution of the home, childcare, and school environments. Developmental Psychology. 2010; 46; 5: 1227-1244. 10.1037/a0020211</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fan, X, D'Amico, L. K, Kilburn, J, Jones, A, Richard, C, Garrett, S, & Leverage, L. (2024). Kindergarten readiness: Associations with a summer transition program and teacher/school level factors. Educational Research and Evaluation. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2024.2367493</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fan, X, D'Amico, L. K, Kilburn, J, Jones, A, Richard, C, Zollars, L, Garrett, S, & Johnston, D. (2023). Perspectives of parents and caregivers on kindergarten readiness: A focus on the impact of a summer transition program. International Journal of Early Childhood. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-023-00378-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garcia, E, & Weiss, E. (2017). Reducing and averting achievement gaps: Key findings from the report 'Education Inequalities at the School starting Gate' and comprehensive strategies to mitigate early skills gaps. Economic Policy Institute.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Griebling S, Gilbert J. Examining the value of a summer kindergarten transitioning program for children, families, and schools. School Community Journal. 2020; 30; 1: 191-208</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoffman JA, Uretsky MC, Patterson LB, Green BL. Effects of a school readiness intervention on family engagement during the kindergarten transition. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2020; 53: 86-96. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2020.02.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jiang H, Justice L, Purtell KM, Lin T, Logan J. Prevalence and prediction of kindergarten-transition difficulties. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2021; 55: 15-23. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2020.10.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jiang Y, Lau C, Tan CY. Socioeconomic status and children's English language and literacy outcomes: The mediating role of home literacy environment. Early Education and Development. 2023; 35; 3: 588-614. 10.1080/10409289.2023.2186089</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelly CL, Slicker G, Hustedt JT. Family experiences, parenting behaviors, and infants' and toddlers' social-emotional skills. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2024; 52: 603-615. 10.1007/s10643-022-01425-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kriebel DK, Brown ED. Parent teaching, cumulative instability and school readiness for children attending Head Start preschool. Early Child Development and Care. 2020; 190; 6: 911-920. 10.1080/03004430.2018.1501563</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Linder SM, Emerson A. Increasing family mathematics play interactions through a take-home math bag intervention. Journal of Research in Childhood Education. 2019; 33; 3: 323-344. 10.1080/02568543.2019.1608335</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lipsey MW, Farran DC, Durkin K. Effects of the Tennessee prekindergarten program on children's achievement and behavior through third grade. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2018; 45: 155-176. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.03.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Little MH. School-based kindergarten transition practices and child outcomes: Revisiting the issue. The Elementary School Journal. 2017; 118; 2: 335-356. 10.1086/694221</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Logan JAR, Piasta SB, Purtell KM, Nichols R, Schachter RE. Early childhood language gains, kindergarten readiness, and Grade 3 reading achievement. Child Development. 2023. 10.1111/cdev.14019</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacDonald A, Carmichael C. Early mathematical competencies and later achievement: Insights from the longitudinal study of Australian children. Mathematics Education Research Journal. 2018; 30: 429-444. 10.1007/s13394-017-0230-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin A, Ryan RM, Brooks-Gunn J. Longitudinal associations among interest, persistence, supportive parenting, and achievement in early childhood. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2013; 28; 4: 658-667. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2013.05.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Merideth C, Cavanaugh B, Romas S, Ralston N, Arias E, Tarasawa B, Waggoner J. Family perceptions of participating in a structured summer kindergarten transition program. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2022; 50: 1383-1394. 10.1007/s10643-021-01268-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Association for the Education of Young Children (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. Washington, DC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nix RL, Bierman KL, Domitrovich CE, Gill S. Promoting children's social-emotional skills in preschool can enhance academic and behavioral functioning in kindergarten: Findings from Head Start REDI. Early Education and Development. 2013; 24; 7: 1000-1019. 10.1080/10409289.2013.825565</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nunnally, J. C, & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pierson, A. (2018). Exploring state-by-state definitions of kindergarten readiness to support informed policymaking. Institute of Education Sciences. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/northwest/blog/kindergarten-readiness.asp</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Piker RA, Kimmel M. Preparing young dual language learners for school success: Early childhood teacher beliefs regarding school readiness. Early Child Development and Care. 2018; 188; 10: 1368-1380. 10.1080/03004430.2016.1261336</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Polat O, Bayındır D. The relation between parental involvement and school readiness: The mediating role of preschoolers' self-regulation skills. Early Child Development and Care. 2022; 192; 6: 845-860. 10.1080/03004430.2020.1806255</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Powell DR, Son S-H, File N, San Juan RR. Parent-school relationships and children's academic and social outcomes in public school pre-kindergarten. Journal of School Psychology. 2010; 48: 269-292. 10.1016/j.jsp.2010.03.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raudenbush, S. W, Bryk, A. S, Cheong, Y. F, & Congdon, R. (2019). HLM 8 for Windows. [Computer software]. Scientific Software International, Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rimm-Kaufman SE, Pianta RC, Cox MJ. Teachers' judgments of problems in the transition to kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2000; 15: 147-166. 10.1016/S0885-2006(00)00049-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schulting AB, Malone PS, Dodge KA. The effect of school-based kindergarten transition policies and practices on child academic outcomes. Developmental Psychology. 2005; 41; 6: 860-871. 10.1037/0012-1649.41.6.860</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slicker G, Barbieri CA, Collier ZK, Hustedt JT. Parental involvement during the kindergarten transition and children's early reading and mathematics skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2021; 55: 363-376. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2021.01.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> South Carolina's Profile of the Ready Kindergartener (n.d.). https://ed.sc.gov/instruction/early- learning-and-literacy/early-learning/profile-of-the-ready-kindergartner-english/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> South Carolina Department of Education (2017). https://ed.sc.gov/newsroom/school-district-memoranda-archive/poverty-rating-indicator-in-powerschool/poverty-rating-indicator-in-powerschool-memo/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Susperreguy MI, Burr SDL, Xu C, Douglas H, LeFevre JA. Children's home numeracy environment predicts growth of their early mathematical skills in kindergarten. Child Development. 2020; 91: 1663-1680. 10.1111/cdev.13353</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Umek LM, Kranjc S, Fekonja U, Bajc K. The effect of preschool on children's school readiness. Early Child Development and Care. 2008; 178; 6: 569-588. 10.1080/03004430600851280</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Watkins-Lewis KM, Hamre BK. African-American parenting characteristics and their association with children's cognitive and academic school readiness. Journal of African American Studies. 2012; 16: 390-405. 10.1007/s12111-011-9195-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Watts TW, Duncan GJ, Siegler RS, Davis-Kean PE. What's past is prologue: Relations between early mathematics knowledge and high school achievement. Educational Researcher. 2014; 43: 352-360. 10.3102/0013189X14553660</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weiland C, Unterman R, Shapiro A. The kindergarten hotspot: Literacy skill convergence between Boston prekindergarten enrollees and nonenrollees. Child Development. 2021; 92: 600-608. 10.1111/cdev.13499</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Xumei Fan; Leigh Kale D'Amico; Janice Kilburn; Alexis Jones; Chelsea Richard; Lauren Zollars; Sommer Garrett and D'Arion Johnston</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref140"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref142"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1483145
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Factors Associated with Kindergarten Readiness in Early Literacy Skills, Mathematical Knowledge, and Social Foundations: An HLM Approach
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Xumei+Fan%22">Xumei Fan</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2465-8133">0000-0003-2465-8133</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Leigh+Kale+D'Amico%22">Leigh Kale D'Amico</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9531-8289">0000-0001-9531-8289</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Janice+Kilburn%22">Janice Kilburn</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Alexis+Jones%22">Alexis Jones</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Chelsea+Richard%22">Chelsea Richard</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lauren+Zollars%22">Lauren Zollars</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sommer+Garrett%22">Sommer Garrett</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22D'Arion+Johnston%22">D'Arion Johnston</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education+Journal%22"><i>Early Childhood Education Journal</i></searchLink>. 2025 53(7):2421-2435.
– 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: 15
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: Administration for Children and Families (ACF) (DHHS)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: 90TP00800200
– 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><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Kindergarten%22">Kindergarten</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Primary+Education%22">Primary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Readiness%22">School Readiness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Kindergarten%22">Kindergarten</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Children%22">Preschool Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Emergent+Literacy%22">Emergent Literacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mathematics+Skills%22">Mathematics Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Emotional+Learning%22">Social Emotional Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Family+Influence%22">Family Influence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Family+Involvement%22">Family Involvement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Transitional+Programs%22">Transitional Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Access+to+Education%22">Access to Education</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10643-024-01744-3
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1082-3301<br />1573-1707
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Kindergarten readiness plays a very important role in children's later school success. This study investigated factors associated with kindergarten readiness in early literacy skills, mathematical knowledge, and social foundations using a hierarchical linear modelling (HLM) approach. Assessment data of 617 kindergarteners (Aged 5) in 30 classrooms nested within 28 elementary schools in one state in the southeastern United States were analyzed. Participation in a kindergarten transition program, attendance in a Pre-K program, and family engagement were positively associated with children's readiness in all three domains. Interaction effects between school-level factors (i.e., poverty, ranking) and child-level factors (i.e., Pre-K program attendance) on children's performance in early literacy skills were identified. The findings can be used to inform the design and implementation of transition programs as well as policymaking in early education and development. We recommend that policymakers should consider targeting resources to rural, high-poverty, and underinvested communities to promote equitable access to high-quality programs that support children and their families.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1483145
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1483145
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10643-024-01744-3
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
        StartPage: 2421
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: School Readiness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Kindergarten
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Early Childhood Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Emergent Literacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mathematics Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Emotional Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Family Influence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Family Involvement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Transitional Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Access to Education
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Factors Associated with Kindergarten Readiness in Early Literacy Skills, Mathematical Knowledge, and Social Foundations: An HLM Approach
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Xumei Fan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Leigh Kale D'Amico
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Janice Kilburn
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Alexis Jones
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Chelsea Richard
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lauren Zollars
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sommer Garrett
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: D'Arion Johnston
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 10
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1082-3301
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1707
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 53
            – Type: issue
              Value: 7
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Early Childhood Education Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1