View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Is Something Better than Nothing? An Evaluation of Early Childhood Programs in Cambodia

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Is Something Better than Nothing? An Evaluation of Early Childhood Programs in Cambodia
Language: English
Authors: Rao, Nirmala, Sun, Jin, Pearson, Veronica, Pearson, Emma, Liu, Hongyun, Constas, Mark A., Engle, Patrice L.
Source: Child Development. May-Jun 2012 83(3):864-876.
Availability: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 13
Publication Date: 2012
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Preschool Education
Descriptors: Program Evaluation, Program Effectiveness, Foreign Countries, Rural Areas, Preschool Children, Home Schooling, Child Development, Preschool Education, Scores, Pretests Posttests, Cambodians, Community Programs, State Schools, Educational Experience
Geographic Terms: Cambodia
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01746.x
ISSN: 0009-3920
Abstract: This study evaluated the relative effectiveness of home-based, community-based, and state-run early childhood programs across Cambodia. A total of 880 five-year-olds (55% girls) from 6 rural provinces in Cambodia attending State Preschools, Community Preschools, Home-Based Programs, or no programs were assessed twice using the Cambodian Developmental Assessment Test. Controlling for baseline differences, children who participated in any early childhood programs performed significantly better in posttest than those of children who did not participate in any programs. Children in State Preschools scored significantly higher than those in either Community Preschools or Home-Based Programs; scores did not differ as a function of attending Community Preschools or Home-Based Programs. The results indicate that some preschool experience is better than none at all.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2012
Accession Number: EJ965185
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEH_askcU3Klp6O5cj0cs8SAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDKj0a9XdhNCANGWpEwIBEICBmpajHCJn__tKYHwpd1gr1ihVyqie1PzBgb0YYUsk_Wiw62Swa-I54jqH5QUb-tGpwJYvWEEr70BOZMhrWV8Y09vP20HtrSu95-wOYsQNtTAG7uiMxjiSllG926qL1-TKOTvIj4B-C_rwY5fH-PtXqRyR8aKWjkRM3vrfMnmZMYTX4w1rIcTTKQ51TvpRnDQXk-hX3asMYgTsUe0=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0074690279;cdv01may.12;2019Jun03.14:52;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0074690279-1">Is Something Better Than Nothing? An Evaluation of Early Childhood Programs in Cambodia. </title> <p>This study evaluated the relative effectiveness of home‐based, community‐based, and state‐run early childhood programs across Cambodia. A total of 880 five‐year‐olds (55% girls) from 6 rural provinces in Cambodia attending State Preschools, Community Preschools, Home‐Based Programs, or no programs were assessed twice using the Cambodian Developmental Assessment Test. Controlling for baseline differences, children who participated in any early childhood programs performed significantly better in posttest than those of children who did not participate in any programs. Children in State Preschools scored significantly higher than those in either Community Preschools or Home‐Based Programs; scores did not differ as a function of attending Community Preschools or Home‐Based Programs. The results indicate that some preschool experience is better than none at all.</p> <p>Numerous methodologically rigorous small‐scale studies, such as the Perry Preschool Project conducted in Ypsilanti, Michigan ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref1">30</reflink>]), as well as large‐scale studies conducted in the United States ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref2">16</reflink>]) and in the United Kingdom ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref3">31</reflink>]) have shown that children who have attended preschools typically have better developmental outcomes than children who do not have access to preschool. Although these studies have been conducted in developed countries, the results are often cited as evidence for expanding preschool in developing countries, probably because research on preschool attendance and child outcomes in the developing world is scarce. Evidence is slowly accumulating from the developing world that indicates that children from economically deprived backgrounds who attend preschool programs have better developmental outcomes than those who do not ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref4">7</reflink>]). However, less is known about the particular characteristics of preschool programs that result in improved child outcomes in developing country contexts. This study is an evaluation of the relative effectiveness of three models of preschool (State Preschools, Community Preschools, and Home‐Based Programs) in poor, primarily rural settings in Cambodia. This study not only evaluates characteristics of preschool programs associated with cognitive outcomes, but it also examines whether programs that are poorly resourced by the standards of the developed world can still produce positive, measureable benefits in young children; that is, this research directly addresses the question, "Is something better than nothing?"</p> <hd id="AN0074690279-2">Early Childhood Programs in the Developing World</hd> <p> <bold>Importance </bold> Preschool services are particularly important in the developing world where 86% of the world's children reside ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref5">34</reflink>]) as they promote children's rights to survival and development, can compensate for early disadvantage, and can bring long‐term economic benefits to society ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref6">32</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref7">33</reflink>]). Growing international acknowledgment of the benefits of preschool attendance is reflected in the number of children now enrolled in preschool programs around the world, which has tripled since 1970 ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref8">32</reflink>]). Between 1970 and 2004, the gross enrollment rate in preprimary programs increased from 40% to 73% in developed countries and increased from below 10% to 32% in developing countries. According to UNESCO statistics, the gross enrollment ratio in preprimary education in Cambodia in 2004 was 9%, similar to Lao PDR (8%) but far below neighboring countries such as China (36%) or Malaysia (92%; [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref9">32</reflink>]). Preschool evaluation research is both timely and particularly important for developing countries, where a focus on early childhood policies and programs is rapidly growing.</p> <p>In many countries, access to preschool programs may be limited to private programs for the wealthy, and services for disadvantaged children may be erratic due to difficulties coordinating across programs, lack of funding and shortage of space or adequate facilities. A lack of rigorous evidence regarding which programs work best across diverse contexts also impedes effective decision making about where to best invest in early childhood programs to improve human capital. Therefore, research that evaluates the effectiveness of different approaches to early childhood care and education (ECCE) for low‐income children is needed, particularly in and for highly resource‐constrained environments.</p> <p> <bold>Evidence for effectiveness of early childhood programs in developing countries </bold>[<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref10">7</reflink>] reviewed 20 early childhood programs in Asia, Africa, and Latin America and concluded that a range of early interventions can be effective in promoting child development and averting the loss of young children's development potential. Among the 8 studies that evaluated the effectiveness of center‐based programs on child outcomes only 4 were conducted in Asia (Bangladesh, Myanmar, Nepal, and Vietnam). These studies have shown that preschool program attendance led to greater readiness for school, more advanced cognitive development, and psychosocial maturity in Bangladesh ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref11">1</reflink>]), better school attendance in Nepal ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref12">28</reflink>]), better primary school achievement in Myanmar ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref13">29</reflink>]), and more advanced abstract reasoning in Vietnam ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref14">38</reflink>]). Comprehensive services including health and nutrition as well as early childhood education (Bangladesh, India, Philippines) positively affected learning. For example, children who attended the Integrated Child Development Services (a comprehensive center‐based program that includes a feeding program in India) had significantly better motor and cognitive development than controls ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref15">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref16">18</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0074690279-3">Significance of the Present Study</hd> <p>Even though the majority of the world's population lives in Asia, and the rate of preschool attendance is rising rapidly ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref17">33</reflink>]), relatively few studies have assessed the effectiveness of preschool models or curricula in the region, although more countries have early childhood development policies ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref18">7</reflink>]). This study therefore examined factors related to the effectiveness of preschool programs for child learning in a context that has rarely been studied, primarily rural Cambodia, a low‐income country according to the [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref19">39</reflink>]. The present study is one of the first to systematically examine the effectiveness of different ECCE programming strategies on child outcomes in a low income Asian country.</p> <hd id="AN0074690279-4">ECCE in Cambodia</hd> <p> <bold>An overview </bold> Over a quarter of Cambodia's population (projected to be about 14 million) are aged 9 or under. These children face a number of challenges including high risk of mortality (U5MR = 91 of 1,000 in 2007, ranked at 40 of 189 globally) and a high rate of stunting (37%; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref20">36</reflink>]). In this situation, better health care and nutrition and access to ECCE programs are vital for optimal child development.</p> <p>During the past decade, there has been a significant increase in access to early childhood services in Cambodia. However, millions of children still do not have access and quality varies greatly. In 2005–2006, the enrollment rate in ECCE for 3‐ to 5‐year‐olds in Cambodia was about 12% overall ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref21">26</reflink>]). For 5‐ to 6‐year‐olds, it was 27.27% (State Preschools 21.23%, Private Preschools 1.43%, Community Preschools 3.96%, and Home‐Based Programs 0.84%). Thus, among the already privileged minority that have access to ECCE, the majority were in State Preschools.</p> <p>The Cambodian government's formal education policy makes clear that no child should be excluded from primary school on the grounds of gender, poverty, disability or ethnic minority status. The percentages of boys and girls attending primary school are becoming more equal; in the school year 2004–2005, enrollment rates in primary school were 91% for girls and 93% for boys, up from 84% and 90%, respectively, in 2001–2002. Overwhelmingly, poverty and attendant sequelae keep children out of preschools and primary schools, with the result that many do not complete primary school ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref22">22</reflink>]).</p> <p>The Cambodian government's stated position on the funding of ECCE is that it does not have the resources to expand State Preschool provision or to increase the national budget for ECCE despite having identified the poorest children in the most remote areas as priority targets. Instead, it expects local communities to fund their own programs and that money currently spent on State Preschools be reduced and the amount saved redistributed to support ECCE programs in rural areas. Given this position, a systematic evidence base that the government can use in making decisions regarding how best to distribute and redistribute resources is critical. This study therefore aimed to provide a systematic assessment of child outcomes in the largest ECCE programs operating in Cambodia: State Preschools, Community Preschools, and Home‐Based Programs.</p> <p> <bold>The three models of ECCE programs </bold> The three major types of preschool programs in Cambodia are the State Preschools, funded by the government and attached to local primary schools; Community Preschools, currently subsidized by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) but intended to be financed by local community groups in the long term; and Home‐Based Programs, which are run by mothers' groups that are formed within and across villages in local communes. Appendix A shows the variations between the three types of program. There are differences in their dates of establishment, size, modes of operation, and staffing. Efforts are now being made to align the curriculum followed in all three programs to the Cambodian Early Learning and Development Standards (ELDS; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref23">35</reflink>]). The timings and the months of operation of the Community Preschools and Home‐Based Programs take into account the fact that many parents are farmers. For example, Community Preschools run from 7 to 9 a.m. and both Community Preschools and Home‐Based Programs do not operate in the harvest seasons.</p> <p>State Preschools, which are typically located in primary schools, operate a 3‐hr program, 5 days a week during the 38‐week school year. Instruction is provided in a proper classroom with a roof, posters with curriculum‐related materials are displayed on the walls, and toilets and running water are available. Children have access to paper, pens, coloring pencils, books, and play materials. Classes are taught by a teacher who has completed a 2‐year full‐time professional preparation course undertaken after Grade 12 and who receives a government salary. Such teachers have access to the resources and facilities of their schools. State primary schools are usually located in towns and cities and the parents of the children are normally literate themselves. State Preschools are generally assumed by parents and field practitioners in Cambodia to result in the best outcomes for children because of their access to resources and links with the formal education system. These programs have the best trained teachers, best facilities, and most financing. Over half the children receiving any form of ECCE were in State Preschools.</p> <p>In Community Preschools, educational experiences for 3‐ to 5‐year‐olds are provided by a member of the village who has typically received 10 days of initial training and who participates in refresher training for 3–6 days a year. The program operates for 2 hr a day, 5 days a week, for 24–36 weeks a year. Community Preschool teachers receive a wage of US$7.50 each month for their work. In reality, many teachers have not received payment for some months but continue to work nevertheless. The costs are expected to be borne by the village while the local commune council is responsible for finding a place to hold classes and for providing any materials that may be used. Most classes are held under teachers' houses, and in such cases, materials are stored in plastic bags tied to the poles supporting the house. Such settings posed problems in terms of hygiene, lack of clean water and sanitation, and safety hazards in children's play areas. Villagers tended to send all their children, including those less than 3 years of age, to the Community Preschool, making the job of the teachers very difficult.</p> <p>Home‐Based Programs are offered through mothers' groups formed in villages. Each mother has at least one young child who is a beneficiary of the program. Again, the government expects funding and resources for these groups to be found within the village by the local commune council. The groups are facilitated by a "core" mother in the village who has generally received a 2‐day training course in the use of Home‐Based Program materials. Typically, the groups meet early in the morning before women go to work in the fields. While Home‐Based Program materials include advice on nutrition, general well‐being, and the developmental stages presented in a group setting, they are not the same as "home‐visiting" programs found in other countries. Home‐Based Programs in Cambodia enhance relationships in the community and are widely acknowledged for their positive impact on local communities in the villages in which they operate. However, Home‐Based Programs are viewed less positively than State Preschools and Community Preschools in terms of child outcomes.</p> <p>We compared the effectiveness of three different programming strategies through their impact on developmental outcomes in preschool children. We did not explicitly measure the quality of these three programs through systematic observations of process quality. However, these programs differed on important input and structural indicators of preschool quality. State Preschools had better trained staff and more educational resources than the other two programs. Children also attended State Preschools for a longer duration of time in 1 year than children in the other two programs (see Appendix A). Based on evidence of the characteristics of quality in ECCE in developing countries ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref24">14</reflink>]) and the literature from the developed world, we made the following hypotheses. First, we predicted that children receiving any type of preschool would do better than those in the control group who received none, after controlling for pretest scores and other potential confounding variables. Second, we expected children from State Preschools to show better developmental outcomes than those in Community Preschools or Home‐Based Programs, controlling for confounding variables. This is because State Preschools in Cambodia have greater access to resources, higher levels of teacher training, operate for longer periods of time, and are more "formal" than the other two programs.</p> <hd id="AN0074690279-5">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0074690279-6">Sampling</hd> <p>The present study was conducted in six of the poorest provinces where UNICEF was focusing its efforts in Cambodia. As noted earlier, in 2005–2006, 27.27% of 5‐ to 6‐year‐olds (79,454 children including 39,884 girls) in Cambodia received some sort of preschool services. Given the objectives of this study and because we expected more variability in the functioning of Community Preschools and Home‐Based Programs than in State Preschool services, we used two‐stage cluster random sampling ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref25">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref26">12</reflink>]) with the district and the commune designated as sampling clusters for selection.</p> <p>Within provinces, we randomly selected districts by choosing every third or fifth one from an alphabetical list in Khmer. Then, we randomly selected communes using a table of random numbers. When we reached the commune level, we selected all villages that had Community Preschools and Home‐Based Programs and randomly selected among the remaining villages to form the control group. If there was a program in a village, children tended to attend. We selected all 5‐year‐olds in Community Preschools and Home‐Based Programs in these villages. We went to villages without programs that were closest to the selected Community Preschools and Home‐Based Programs and randomly selected 5‐year‐olds until we met our target number of children for the control group. The State Preschools were not randomly selected at the district and commune levels as were the Community Preschools and Home‐Based programs because inputs to State Preschools were similar, regardless of location. We therefore only randomly selected the State Preschools from a list of classes that were located near the provincial educational office and there is only one of these in each province. The State Preschool group was composed of all 5‐year‐old children from one preschool class in a State Preschool in each of the six provinces.</p> <p>Further description of the sample is presented according to the chronology of the study. We therefore first describe the construction of the pretest study sample, followed by a description of the final posttest sample. The description of the final sample also includes details on attrition analysis. The aim of the attrition analysis was to assess sampling bias between those who remained in the study compared with those who were lost or deliberately excluded. A final section on sampling design provides an overview of sample characteristics across the four study groups.</p> <p> <bold>Pretest sample </bold> The initial sample consisted of 1,312 children enrolled in 185 different programs in 205 villages in 86 different communes, in 27 districts in the six provinces. Most villages had only one program and once at the program level, all 5‐year‐olds were selected for assessment from Community Preschools (<emph>n </emph>=<emph> </emph>548) and Home‐Based Programs (<emph>n </emph>=<emph> </emph>292). We randomly selected children in the control group (<emph>n </emph>=<emph> </emph>352) from villages in communes closest to the selected Community Preschools and Home‐Based Programs. The State Preschool group was composed of all 5‐year‐old children from one preschool class in each of the six provinces (<emph>n </emph>=<emph> </emph>120). A power analysis using a conventional three‐parameter model ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref27">5</reflink>]) was performed to determine the appropriate sample size. Results showed that the sample size for all preschool conditions met the sample size minimum.</p> <p> <bold>Final sample and attrition analysis </bold> At the time of the posttest, it was possible to locate and assess only 1,184 of the original 1,312 children. Attrition ranged from 3.98% to 20% and was as follows from the different provinces: Kampong Speu—10 children (3.98%), Kampong Thom—9 children (5.06%), Prey Veng—33 children (14.86%), Oddar Meanchey—44 children (20.09%), Stung Treng—9 children (4.29%), and Svay Rieng—23 children (9.91%). Attrition from the different programs was as follows: State Preschools—20 children (16.67%), Community Preschools—53 children (9.67%), Home‐Based Programs—17 children (5.82%), and control group—38 children (10.80%). The overall attrition rate was 9.75% but was very high in Oddar Meanchey. This is the most remote of all the provinces and has poor infrastructure. Assessors were not able to locate many children, most of whom they suspected had moved to other parts of this remote province. There were no significant differences in terms of prior preschool experience, maternal education, and occupation between children who dropped out of the study and those for whom we also have posttest data.</p> <p> <bold>Sample used for analysis </bold> Among these 1,184 children assessed at posttest, only 1,019 children remained in the same program at posttest in which they were enrolled at pretest. The data from the 165 children who changed programs were not used in the main analyses. Some children started an additional program (<emph>n </emph>=<emph> </emph>156, including 69 in primary school), others started two additional programs (<emph>n </emph>=<emph> </emph>2), or dropped out of the program (<emph>n </emph>=<emph> </emph>6). The data from 1 child were incomplete. Pretest data, posttest data, or information about mothers' ages, educational levels, and occupations were missing for another 42 children. In addition, the data from 8 children were considered outliers. Of the 959 remaining children, we excluded those who came from 10 villages where there were several preschool programs available. Thus, 880 children from 175 villages offering only one type of preschool programs or control villages were included in the analysis.</p> <p>Among these 175 villages: 29 had only State Preschools, 79 villages had only Community Preschools, 30 had only Home‐Based Programs, and 37 did not have any preschool programs. As noted earlier, 1,019 children did not change program status at posttest. When compared to the 139 children who remained in the same program but were excluded from the analyses, these 880 children did not differ on important developmental correlates including age, gender, maternal education and occupation, and the Cambodian Developmental Assessment Test (CDAT) posttest. Attrition analysis focused on preschool type did not reveal any significant differences on these same correlates.</p> <hd id="AN0074690279-7">The Cambodian Developmental Assessment Test</hd> <p>Concern has been expressed for some time about child development assessment measures developed in Western countries being used to assess children in countries with different cultures, religions, and socioeconomic status. To respond to this concern, UNICEF implemented the "Going Global" project ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref28">10</reflink>]), and as part of this scheme, Ministries of Education in the East Asia and Pacific Region have been supported by UNICEF to develop culturally and contextually appropriate ELDS. Cambodia was one of the first countries in the region to develop their own ELDS and the first country in the region to have conducted studies to validate them. The CDAT was developed by the first author for the study reported here based on the Cambodian ELDS, which has been validated using a national sample of 5‐ to 6‐year‐olds ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref29">27</reflink>]). A few items, adapted from the McCarthy Test of Children's Abilities ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref30">11</reflink>]), were added to obtain more information about children's school readiness competencies.</p> <p>The CDAT was administered in individual sessions and took about 30 min to complete (Cronbach's alphas for the total scale: pretest:.82, posttest:.82). It contained 30 items that tapped General Knowledge (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref31">6</reflink>), for example, name the days of the week in order; Gross‐motor Skills (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref32">3</reflink>), for example, hops first on one foot and then the other; Fine‐Motor Skills (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref33">3</reflink>), for example, demonstrates the ability to use fine‐motor skills in construction with blocks; Preacademic Concepts (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref34">6</reflink>), for example, demonstrates ability to recognize concepts and group objects within them; Memory (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref35">2</reflink>), for example, digit span; Reasoning (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref36">3</reflink>), for example, predicts the effects of dark clouds; Life Skills (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref37">2</reflink>), for example, names different denominations of money; and Language (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref38">5</reflink>), for example, oral vocabulary. The scores for items on the CDAT ranged from 1 to 24 and the maximum total score for the CDAT was 116. We used total CDAT score in the following analyses. Interrater reliability was assessed on pilot subjects before the posttest (κ = .61) when assessors coded videos together.</p> <hd id="AN0074690279-8">Procedure</hd> <p>Children were assessed on the CDAT in October and November 2006, at the beginning of the school year and again in late May and June 2007 toward the end of the school year. The CDAT was administered by high‐level, experienced specialists in ECCE from the Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sports (MoEYS). The research team included six Provincial Offices of Education–Early Childhood Education directors from the six provinces and six senior ECE specialists from the MoEYS in Phnom Penh. All assessors had been involved in the development of the ELDS and received extensive training on administration of the test prior to the pretest assessment. The assessors worked closely with the first author throughout the study. In teams of three to four, assessors went to the selected villages and conducted the pretest and posttest assessments. They did not necessarily work in the same province during the two phases and were blind to the child's initial pretest scores. During the posttest, the examiners interviewed mothers or another family member to obtain standard demographic details, information about the child's preschool history, maternal and paternal education levels, maternal and paternal occupation, and information about the child's siblings.</p> <hd id="AN0074690279-9">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0074690279-10">Analytic Approach: Model Construction</hd> <p>Contemporary methods used to draw inferences from educational data require investigators to employ procedures that acknowledge the inherent nestedness of phenomena studied ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref39">23</reflink>]). This nestedness is particularly evident in the present study as observed child‐level variation is inherently connected to village‐level variation: Different villages offered different types of preschool service. Recognizing the nestedness of data, we used hierarchical linear modeling (HLM), a multilevel analytic method ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref40">23</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref41">24</reflink>]). This allowed us to examine the effects of child level and the group level variables on children's performances.</p> <p>We focused our analyses on whether children's preschool experiences influenced their CDAT posttest score. We treated village as the nested variable in our analyses, as village was the basic unit in our sample strategy and each village included in the analyses only offered one type of preschool experience. The covariates in the model included: children's age, gender, number of siblings at home, maternal education and occupation, and pretest CDAT scores.</p> <p>The analysis procedures were as follows. First, the variances in the posttest score were partitioned into two components using a fully unconditional HLM model: Level 1, between children within villages, and Level 2, between villages. Second, we constructed a two‐level random slope model with only first level covariates. This indicated that the influences of Level 1 covariates on children's posttest scores did not differ across villages. Third, to simplify the model, we therefore decided to construct a two‐level model by estimating only the effects of village‐level variables on the Level 1 intercept to identify the influences of Level 2 predictors on children's performance. All continuous variables were group centered in the model.</p> <p>Specifically, we modeled children's performance in CDAT at posttest as a function of both Level 1 covariates and Level 2 predictors as following:</p> <p>Level 1 model:</p> <p>In this model, <emph>Y</emph><subs><emph>ij</emph></subs> is posttest score of child <emph>i</emph> in village <emph>j</emph>, β<subs>0<emph>j</emph></subs> (intercept) is village <emph>j</emph>'s mean score adjusted for children's differences in the six covariates based on the entire sample; β<subs>1<emph>j</emph></subs>, β<subs>2<emph>j</emph></subs>, β<subs>3<emph>j</emph></subs>, β<subs>4<emph>j</emph></subs>, β<subs>5<emph>j</emph></subs>, and β<subs>6<emph>j</emph></subs> are regression coefficients (slopes) of the corresponding predictors in village <emph>j</emph>; and <emph>e</emph><subs><emph>ij</emph></subs> is the child‐specific random effect.</p> <p>For the child‐specific intercept (β<subs>0<emph>j</emph></subs>), we modeled its variation across villages as a function of the three dummy‐coded variables, which represented the four types of preschool experience. However, we did not include the variations across villages of child level slopes (β<subs><emph>qj</emph></subs>, <emph>q</emph> = 1–6) in the model based on the results of preanalyses:</p> <p>Level 2 model:</p> <p>In the Level 2 model, Prog1<subs>0<emph>j</emph></subs>, Prog2<subs>0<emph>j</emph></subs>, and Prog3<subs>0<emph>j</emph></subs>, the three dummy variables, represented the type of preschool experiences for village <emph>j</emph>. And γ<subs>(0‐6)0</subs>s are the intercepts of the Level 2 predictors for the intercept and slopes in the Level 1 model.</p> <p>All categorical variables were coded as dummy variables in the analyses. Through the two‐level HLM analyses, the effects of children's preschool experiences on their posttest scores were estimated controlling for their pretest scores, age, gender, number of siblings at home, maternal education and occupation, and the nested characteristics of the data.</p> <p>Calculation of effect sizes varied for dichotomous and continuous variables. For dichotomous variables (i.e., gender and dummy variables for parents' occupations and program types), each effect estimate was divided by the standard deviation of the outcome variable. For the continuous predictors, each effect estimate was calculated using the following formula: <emph>x</emph> on <emph>y</emph> = (regression coefficient of <emph>x</emph> × standard deviation of <emph>x</emph>)/standard deviation of <emph>y</emph>, where <emph>x</emph> is the predictor (independent variable) and <emph>y</emph> is the dependent variable. This method has been used by [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref42">3</reflink>] and [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref43">17</reflink>].</p> <p>By convention, an effect size (ES) of 0.1 to 0.2 is considered small, an ES of 0.3 to 0.4 is considered of medium size, and an ES of 0.5 or bigger is considered large ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref44">25</reflink>]). Our interpretation of ES, however, also took into account more recent work on benchmarks for educational outcomes (see [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref45">8</reflink>]) that suggests a lower threshold for medium and large effects.</p> <hd id="AN0074690279-11">Preschool Experiences and Children's Performance on the CDAT</hd> <p>Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations for the Level 1 covariates across four groups of children with different preschool experiences. Children's age did not differ significantly across programs and there were no significant gender differences across programs at pretest. But maternal education and occupation varied significantly across programs. Mothers who had received more education or who were not farmers were more likely to send their children to State Preschools. And children from a family with relatively fewer siblings were more likely to attend State Preschools. Children attending State Preschools before primary school performed significantly better on the CDAT at pretest than other children. Those attending the Community Preschools and Home‐Based Programs attained significantly higher scores on the CDAT at pretest than those in the control group but there were no significant differences between the pretest scores of children attending the Community Preschools and Home‐Based Programs.</p> <p>1  
Means and Standard Deviations for the Level 1 Covariates and the Dependent Variable Across Four Groups</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th /><th>State Preschools (<italic>N </italic>=<italic> </italic>91 children in 29 villages)</th><th>Community Preschools (<italic>N </italic>=<italic> </italic>400 children in 79 villages)</th><th>Home‐Based Programs (<italic>N </italic>=<italic> </italic>147 children in 30 villages)</th><th>Control group (<italic>N </italic>=<italic> </italic>242 children in 37 villages)</th><th><italic>F</italic> or χ<sup>2</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Age at pretest (month) 
<italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>63.76 (3.31)</td><td>64.43 (3.04)</td><td>64.12 (3.66)</td><td>64.18 (3.24)</td><td>1.18</td></tr><tr><td>Male (%)</td><td>46.3</td><td>45.0</td><td>43.7</td><td>43.4</td><td>0.96</td></tr><tr><td>Number of siblings 
<italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>2.89 (1.39)<sub>a</sub></td><td>3.54 (1.54)<sub>b</sub></td><td>3.53 (1.51)<sub>b</sub></td><td>3.69 (1.59)<sub>b</sub></td><td>5.66*</td></tr><tr><td>Year of education mothers received 
<italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>6.35 (3.21)<sub>a</sub></td><td>4.11 (2.19)<sub>bc</sub></td><td>4.62 (2.43)<sub>b</sub></td><td>3.62 (2.31)<sub>c</sub></td><td>30.71*</td></tr><tr><td>Maternal occupation (farmer; %)</td><td>57.1<sub>a</sub></td><td>96.0<sub>b</sub></td><td>96.6<sub>b</sub></td><td>98.3<sub>b</sub></td><td>191.82*</td></tr><tr><td>Pretest score 
<italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>49.72 (19.51)<sub>a</sub></td><td>40.89 (17.79)<sub>b</sub></td><td>42.18 (21.57)<sub>b</sub></td><td>26.19 (17.68)<sub>c</sub></td><td>51.07*</td></tr><tr><td>Posttest score 
<italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>78.27 (14.13)<sub>a</sub></td><td>71.49 (14.02)<sub>b</sub></td><td>71.07 (16.95)<sub>b</sub></td><td>51.98 (15.96)<sub>c</sub></td><td>112.05*</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note.</emph> Means that in the same row that do not share subscript letters differ in the Bonferroni test.</p> <p>2 *<emph>p </emph>< .05.</p> <p>We first constructed the null model (Model 1). There were no predictor variables in this model, which indicates how much of the variance was at Level 1 (the specific child level) and how much was at Level 2 (the village level). If the null model reveals that the variance estimates are significant at Levels 1 and 2, then it is important to try to model and explain the variance at both levels. The intercept value in Model 1 indicated that the mean for children's posttest scores was 67.55. The variance attributable to Level 2 was 178.96 and to Level 1 was 146.82. This means that 54.92% of the variance in children's scores was at Level 2 and 45.08% was at Level 1. Therefore, it is clear that children's posttest scores on the CDAT differed considerably due to their individual characteristics, but it was also evident that children from different villages (with different preschool experiences) also differed in their posttest scores.</p> <p>Based on the results of Model 1, we constructed Model 2 with all the Level 1 covariates and Level 2 predictors (as illustrated earlier). The child's age, gender, number of siblings at home, maternal education and occupation, and child's pretest score were entered into the model as Level 1 covariates. Children's preschool experiences were entered as Level 2 predictors. We only estimated the effects of village‐specific variables on the intercept of Level 1 model. The two models were compared with changes in the log likelihood and number of estimated parameters to determine whether the addition of the new parameters improved the fit of the model. There was a significant difference between the two models, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref46">9</reflink>) = 251.37, <emph>p </emph>< .05.</p> <p>In Model 2, there were significant effects of preschool experience on the intercept of the first level model (see Table 2), which indicated that children from different preschool programs had significantly different levels of performance in the posttest CDAT. As the intercept for each type of preschool experience was predicted from three dummy variables, with one group as the contrast group (by default, the contrast group was the control group), the coefficients for the three dummy variables in the Level 2 model indicated whether there were significant differences in the outcome measures for each group compared to the contrast group, in this case, the control group. With all control variables included, children attending each type of preschool program performed significantly better in the CDAT at posttest than those without any preschool experiences (see Table 2).</p> <p>2  
Fixed and Random Effects Estimates for Models of the Covariates and Predictors of Children's Performance on the Cambodian Developmental Assessment Test at Posttest</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th /><th>Estimates</th><th><italic>SE</italic></th><th>Effect size</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Fixed effects</td></tr><tr><td> Level 1 (child‐specific)</td></tr><tr><td>  Children's age</td><td>−0.07</td><td>0.12</td><td>−0.01</td></tr><tr><td>  Children's gender</td><td>−1.41</td><td>0.87</td><td>−0.08</td></tr><tr><td>  Number of siblings at home</td><td>0.36</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.03</td></tr><tr><td>  Years of education    mother received</td><td>0.54*</td><td>0.20</td><td>0.08</td></tr><tr><td>  Maternal occupation</td><td>0.28</td><td>1.80</td><td>0.02</td></tr><tr><td>  Pretest score</td><td>0.34*</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.39</td></tr><tr><td> Level 2 (village‐specific)</td></tr><tr><td>  State Preschools    versus control (γ<sub>01</sub>)<sup>a</sup></td><td>29.73*</td><td>2.77</td><td>1.68</td></tr><tr><td>  Community Preschools versus control (γ<sub>02</sub>)<sup>a</sup></td><td>17.95*</td><td>2.29</td><td>1.01</td></tr><tr><td>  Home‐Based Programs    versus control (γ<sub>03</sub>)<sup>a</sup></td><td>17.64*</td><td>3.24</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td>  State Preschools versus    Home‐Based Programs (γ<sub>01</sub>)<sup>b</sup></td><td>12.09*</td><td>3.30</td><td>0.68</td></tr><tr><td>  Community Preschools versus    Home‐Based Programs (γ<sub>02</sub>)<sup>b</sup></td><td>0.31</td><td>2.84</td><td>0.02</td></tr><tr><td>  State Preschools versus    Community Preschools (γ<sub>01</sub>)<sup>c</sup></td><td>11.78*</td><td>1.61</td><td>0.66</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2  
Fixed and Random Effects Estimates for Models of the Covariates and Predictors of Children's Performance on the Cambodian Developmental Assessment Test at Posttest</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th /><th><italic>SD</italic></th><th>Variance component</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Random effects</td></tr><tr><td> Intercept (μ<sub>0<italic>j</italic></sub>)</td><td>9.88</td><td>97.76</td></tr><tr><td> Level 1 (<italic>e</italic><sub><italic>ij</italic></sub>)</td><td>10.81</td><td>116.88</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>3 <sups>a</sups>Control group was the contrast group in the dummy coding. <sups>b</sups>Home‐Based Program was the contrast group in the dummy coding. <sups>c</sups>Community Preschool was the contrast group in the dummy coding.</item> <item>4 *<emph>p </emph>< .05.</item> </ulist> <p>To further investigate whether there were significant differences in the CDAT posttest among children who attended State Preschools, Community Preschools, and Home‐Based Programs in their performance at the CDAT posttest, we changed the contrast groups in the dummy coding and reconstructed the multilevel models. Table 2 also presents the estimates for the models with different groups as the contrast group in the dummy coding.</p> <p>When those attending the Home‐Based Programs formed the contrast group, the coefficient for the comparison between Community Preschools and Home‐Based Programs was not significant, suggesting that there were no significant differences in the group‐adjusted means in the posttest between children attending Home‐Based Programs and those attending the Community Preschools.</p> <p>Finally, children from the Community Preschools were used as the contrast group in our dummy coding to examine the differences of posttest scores between those from State Preschools and Community Preschools in the two‐level model. As Table 2 shows, the coefficient for the comparison between these two groups was positive and significant in the model, indicating that children from State Preschools achieved significantly higher scores in the posttest than those from Community Preschools. Figure 1 shows the adjusted means of the posttest scores for children with different preschool experiences based on the HLM models, which are presented in Appendix B.</p> <p>Graph: 1 Cambodian Developmental Assessment Test (CDAT) posttest scores (adjusted group means) for children with different preschool experiences.</p> <hd id="AN0074690279-12">Discussion</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0074690279-13">Children's Preschool Experience and Performance on the CDAT</hd> <p>The present study evaluated the effectiveness of State Preschools, Community Preschools, and Home‐Based Programs in Cambodia on child outcomes. Participation in preschool programs had a significant influence on children's developmental functioning as measured by the CDAT. As predicted, children in all three preschool groups had significantly higher scores than children in the control group after controlling for pretest differences, supporting the proposition that something is better than nothing in terms of preschool attendance. These findings are consistent with those from other studies conducted in the developing world, which show that children who participate in some form of preschool program have better outcomes in terms of developmental functioning or primary school attendance than those who do not ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref47">1</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref48">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref49">28</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref50">29</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref51">38</reflink>]).</p> <p>Studies conducted in developing country contexts in Asia have shown that ECCE program quality is positively related to child outcomes. In Bangladesh ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref52">13</reflink>]) and in India ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref53">19</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref54">21</reflink>]), the quality of programs was found to be positively and significantly related to children's developmental outcomes. We did not explicitly assess the quality of the programs in Cambodia but it was estimated by qualifications of the teachers and resources available. For two (Community Preschools and Home‐Based Programs) of the three, these indicators were low. The State Preschools are better resourced than the other two programs and are judged in Cambodia to be of higher quality. Teachers in State Preschools have higher levels of academic and professional qualification than those in Community Preschools, and teacher qualifications are widely acknowledged as being positively related to process quality, and child outcomes ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref55">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref56">9</reflink>]). As would be expected, children in the State Preschools had significantly higher posttest scores than those in Community Preschools.</p> <p>While notions of "quality" in ECCE have been widely debated in European and American contexts ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref57">4</reflink>]), our results do suggest that Community Preschools and Home‐Based Programs (which would be considered to be quite basic or lower quality by Euro‐American standards) can result in positive, measureable changes for young children. We also found that children who attended Home‐Based Programs did not differ from the Community Preschool group at posttest after we controlled for confounding variables. These findings suggest that both programs were equally effective, although the mechanisms for their impact may have been different, as one was family focused and the other was not.</p> <p>The relative effectiveness of the Home‐Based program was surprising, given the low level of training of the mothers involved. However, there are several hypotheses to explain its impact. The Home‐Based Programs may have enhanced children's family environments. For example, after observing mothers asking questions and repeating the content introduced in the Home‐Based Program in the family setting, other adults also may have done so. We were told during our interviews with mothers that fathers and other members of the extended family interacted with the children more and further reinforced the content of the Home‐Based Program, thereby increasing the "dose" of the program. We also found out that community relationships improved in villages that operated Home‐Based Programs and a collective responsibility for preparing children for school appeared to have developed. These factors may help to explain the lack of significant difference in outcomes associated with the Home‐Based and Community Preschools. However, further research, using contextually and program appropriate measures of quality as well as measures of home and community impacts of programs is needed to draw conclusions about relations among quality of programs, changes in family environments, and child outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0074690279-14">Implications</hd> <p>Relatively low‐resourced programs that build on local capacity and involve families and communities may produce important positive benefits for children. If something in the way of early childhood programs is better than nothing in Cambodia this may also prove to be the case in other (developing country) contexts. "Nothing," of course, is a relative concept but the lesson of "work with who is available and use what you can" is widely applicable.</p> <p>Our findings show that Cambodian 5‐year‐olds attending in any type of preschool have higher scores on the CDAT at age 6 than children who have not attended any type of preschool. It was surprising that Home‐Based Programs produced a level of school readiness that is equal to that of community‐based provision, although they use far fewer resources and require less caregiver training. Our research did not examine the process elements that could make the Home‐Based Programs effective but the provision of information about child development, nutrition, and good parenting practices may have contributed. We now know that Home‐Based Programs (of fairly simple design, with limited resources and input) work but we need to know a great deal more about how and why they work in order to maximize their effects. More recent data suggest that these interventions affect children's progress through school, including reductions in dropout and repetition rates ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref58">37</reflink>]) and a longitudinal study is under way in Cambodia to examine the relation between preschool experience and the completion of primary school.</p> <hd id="AN0074690279-15">Limitations</hd> <p>There are several limitations to this study. First, it was not possible to randomly assign children to groups and the number of participants in each group varied. Second, there were pretest differences favoring children in the State Preschool group. We statistically controlled for these differences using baseline variables and pretest scores in order to examine program impact. However, there may still be bias in our analyses. Third, we did not have village‐level covariates and attributed the village‐level variations to children's program experiences. However, we recruited participants from six provinces that were considered to be similar on a number of dimensions including level of economic development. Fourth, assessors were not totally blind to the program status of children. Children were assessed near their homes or schools and, even if children were brought to them for the evaluation by local authorities, it was relatively easy for the assessors to deduce the program status of children. They could also easily identify children from the control group from their shyness, speech, and behavior. However, all assessors were blind to the child's pretest score as different assessors conducted the pretest and posttest assessments.</p> <hd id="AN0074690279-16">Conclusions</hd> <p>The evaluative research reported here is one of the first to compare types of ECCE programs in a low‐income Asian country. A longitudinal research design, with a large, stratified random sample using a measuring instrument developed specifically for this purpose in Cambodia was employed. It came as no surprise that children attending a State Preschool outperformed those attending Community Preschools and Home‐Based Programs. A learning environment containing qualified teachers, learning materials and structure (paper, pens, coloring pencils, books, play materials, wall decorations, toilets, running water, electricity, and a roof) and adequate food would be considered in many parts of the world as higher quality than the informal preschools, with fewer materials and fewer trained teachers. If children in remote villages could be provided with such facilities and sufficient food, they, too, would benefit.</p> <p>In a situation where resources are limited and depend on grassroots initiatives in environments characterized by scarcity, is something better than nothing in preparing children for primary school? In this context, the answer appears to be positive. Both the Community Preschools and Home‐Based Programs for young children achieved significantly better outcomes than were observed in the control group who received nothing. So something is better than nothing in this context and we think that this may also be the case in other low resource environments in Asia ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref59">19</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref60">20</reflink>]) and possibly elsewhere.</p> <hd id="AN0074690279-17">Appendices</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0074690279-18">Appendix A</hd> <p>A Comparison Among State Preschools, Community Preschools, and Home‐Based Programs</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th>Indicators</th><th align="center">State Preschools</th><th align="center">Community Preschools</th><th align="center">Home‐Based Programs</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Year started</td><td>Before 2000</td><td>2004</td><td>2004</td></tr><tr><td>Age range of children</td><td>3–6 years (3 classes L1–L3)</td><td>3–5 years</td><td>Birth to 6 years</td></tr><tr><td>Number of children covered in 2005–2006</td><td>75,669</td><td>22,265</td><td>7,181</td></tr><tr><td>Hours per day/week</td><td>3 hr per day/5 days a week</td><td>2 hr per day/5 days a week</td><td>Mother groups and the children typically meet once a week but this varies across projects</td></tr><tr><td>Weeks per year</td><td>38 weeks/year</td><td>24–36 weeks/year</td><td>24 weeks/year</td></tr><tr><td>Establishment</td><td>Responsibility of the MoEYS</td><td>Responsibility of Commune Councils</td><td>Responsibility of Commune Councils</td></tr><tr><td>Curriculum</td><td>MoEYS to be aligned with the ELDS</td><td>MoEYS to be aligned with the ELDS</td><td>MoEYS to be aligned with the ELDS</td></tr><tr><td>Staffing</td><td>A teacher who has undergone professional training</td><td>A locally recruited and trained teacher</td><td>Mothers led by a "core" mother</td></tr><tr><td>Staff training</td><td>A 2‐year full‐time teacher training course after Grade 12</td><td>Initial training for 10 days 
Annual refresher training for up to 6 days a year</td><td>Refresher training for 6 days a year</td></tr><tr><td>Salary/Incentives</td><td>Monthly salary of US$20 (MoEYS)</td><td>Teacher incentive of US$7.50 per month</td><td>Not applicable</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>5 <emph>Note.</emph> MoEYS = Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports; ELDS = Early Learning and Development Standards.</p> <hd id="AN0074690279-19">Appendix B</hd> <p>The two‐level model (with the control group as the contrast group) was as follows:</p> <p>Level 1:</p> <p>Level 2:</p> <p> <emph>B</emph> <subs>1</subs> = −0.07</p> <p> <emph>B</emph> <subs>2</subs> = −1.41</p> <p> <emph>B</emph> <subs>3</subs> = 0.36</p> <p> <emph>B</emph> <subs>4</subs> = 0.54</p> <p> <emph>B</emph> <subs>5</subs> = 0.28</p> <p> <emph>B</emph> <subs>6</subs> = 0.34</p> <ref id="AN0074690279-20"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref11" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> This research was supported by a grant from UNICEF Cambodia to Nirmala Rao. Special thanks are due to Ila Varma, Sophea Nhonh, and the research team from the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, Royal Government of Cambodia and to Raymond Lam for advice on statistical analyses. Portions of this research were presented at the 2008 meeting of the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development (ISSBD), Wurzburg, Germany, and the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Comparative and International Education Society, New York, NY.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0074690279-21"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Aboud, F. E. (2006). Evaluation of an early childhood preschool program in rural Bangladesh. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 46 – 60. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq. 2006.01.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref35" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Barnett, W. S. (2003). Better teachers, better preschools: Student achievement linked to teacher qualification. In Preschool Policy Matters, 2. New Brunswick, NJ: NIEER.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref32" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Kim, D., Wastson, M., & Schaps, E. (1995). Schools as communities, poverty levels of student populations, and students' attitudes, motives, and performance: A multilevel analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 627 – 658. doi: 10.3102/ 00028312032003627</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref57" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Burchinal, M. R., & Cryer, D. (2003). Diversity, child care quality, and developmental outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18, 401 – 426. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq. 2003.09.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref27" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power for the behavioral science (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref25" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Cook, T. (2005). Emergent principles for the design, implementation, and analysis of cluster‐based experiments in social science. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 599, 176 – 198. doi: 10.1177/0002716205275738</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref4" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Engle, P. L., Black, M. M., Behrman, J. R., de Mello, M. C., Gertler, P. J., Kapiriri, L., et al. (2007). Child development in developing countries 3: Strategies to avoid the loss of developmental potential in more than 200 million children in the developing world. The Lancet, 369, 229 – 242. doi: 10.1016/S0140‐6736(07)60112‐3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref45" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Hill, C., Bloom, H., Black, A., & Lipsey, M. W. (2007). Empirical benchmarks for interpreting effect sizes in research (MDRC Working Papers on Research Methodology). New York: MDRC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref46" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Howes, C. (1997). Children's experiences in center‐based child care as a function of teacher background and adult‐child ratio. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 43, 404 – 435.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kagan, S. L., & Britto, P. R. (2005). Going global with indicators of child development (UNICEF Final Report). New York: UNICEF.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCarthy, D. (1972). McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilities. New York: Psychological Corporation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Milligan, P., Njie, A., & Bennett, S. (2004). Comparison of two cluster sampling methods for health surveys in developing countries. International Journal of Epidemiology, 33, 469 – 476. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyh096</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moore, A. C., Akhter, S., & Aboud, F. E. (2008). Evaluating an improved quality preschool program in rural Bangladesh. International Journal of Educational Development, 28, 118 – 131. doi: 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2007.05.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Myers, R. G. (2004). In search of quality in programmes of early childhood care and education (Background paper for Education for All, Global Monitoring Report 2005). Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco. org/images/0014/001466/146677e.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Institute of Public Cooperation and Child Development. (1992). National evaluation of integrated child development services. New Delhi: Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2005a). Child care and child development: Results from the NICHD study of early child care and youth development. New York: Guildford.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2005b). Early child care and children's development in the primary grades: Follow‐up results from the NICHD study of early child care. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 537 – 570. doi: 10.3102/00028312042003537</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rao, N. (2005). Children's rights to survival, development and early learning in India: The critical role of the integrated child development services program. International Journal of Early Childhood, 37, 15 – 31. doi: 10.1007/BF03168343</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rao, N. (2010a). Preschool quality and the development of children from economically disadvantaged families in India. Early Education and Development, 21, 167 – 185. doi: 10/1080/10409281003635770</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rao, N. (2010b, September). Quality matters: Observations from early childhood programs in low resource environments in Asia. Key speech at UNESCO World Conference on Early Childhood Care and Education: Building the Wealth of Nations, Moscow, Russian Federation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rao, N., & Li, H. (2007, March). The influence of preschool programs on children from socially disadvantaged backgrounds in India. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development Conference, Boston, MA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rao, N., & Pearson, E. (2007). An evaluation of early childhood care and education programmes in Cambodia. Cambodia: UNICEF. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.unicef.org/evaldatabase/index%5f45249.html">http://www.unicef.org/evaldatabase/index%5f45249.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raudenbush, S., Bryk, A., Cheong, Y. F., Congdon, R., & Toit, M. D. (2004). HLM6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Chicago: Scientific Software International.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1984). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis. New York: McGraw‐Hill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Royal Government of Cambodia. (2006). Early childhood care and education enrollments. Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MoEYS) Management Information System. Cambodia: MoEYS.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Royal Government of Cambodia. (2007). Validation of early learning and development standards. Cambodia: Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Save the Children. (2003). What's the difference? An ECD impact study from Nepal. Nepal: Author. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.unicef.org/media/index%5f29686.html">http://www.unicef.org/media/index%5f29686.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Save the Children. (2004). Early childhood care and development: A positive impact. Myanmar: Save the Children Myanmar Field Office.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schweinhart, L. J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z., Barnett, W. S., Belfield, C. R., & Nores, M. (2005). Lifetime effects: The HighScope Perry Preschool Study through age 40. Ypsilanti, MI: HighScope Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sylva, K., Siraj‐Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., Sammons, P., Melhuish, E., Elliot, K., et al. (2006). Capturing quality in early childhood through environmental rating scales. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 76 – 92. doi: 10.1016/ j.ecresq.2006.01.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UNESCO. (2006). Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2007. Strong foundations: Early childhood care and education. Paris: Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UNESCO. (2008). Transforming early childhood care and education in the insular South East Asia and Mekong sub‐regions: Implications of the Global Monitoring Report 2007. Bangkok, Thailand: UNESCO Bangkok.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UNICEF. (2004). The state of the world's children 2005: Childhood under threat. New York: Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UNICEF. (2007). Cambodian early learning and development standards. Cambodia: Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UNICEF. (2008). State of the world's children 2009: Maternal and newborn health. New York: Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UNICEF. (2011). ECE longitudinal study evaluation. Unpublished paper. Cambodia: UNICEF.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Watanabe, K., Flores, R., Fujiwara, J., & Tran, L. T. H. (2005). Early childhood development interventions and cognitive development of young children in rural Vietnam. Journal of Nutrition, 135, 1918 – 1925.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> World Bank. (2011). Country and funding guide: Classification of countries. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://worldbank.org">http://worldbank.org</ulink></bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Nirmala Rao; Jin Sun; Veronica Pearson; Emma Pearson; Hongyun Liu; Mark A. Constas and Patrice L. Engle</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref60"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ965185
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Is Something Better than Nothing? An Evaluation of Early Childhood Programs in Cambodia
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rao%2C+Nirmala%22">Rao, Nirmala</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sun%2C+Jin%22">Sun, Jin</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Pearson%2C+Veronica%22">Pearson, Veronica</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Pearson%2C+Emma%22">Pearson, Emma</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Liu%2C+Hongyun%22">Liu, Hongyun</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Constas%2C+Mark+A%2E%22">Constas, Mark A.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Engle%2C+Patrice+L%2E%22">Engle, Patrice L.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Child+Development%22"><i>Child Development</i></searchLink>. May-Jun 2012 83(3):864-876.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 13
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2012
– 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="%22Preschool+Education%22">Preschool Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Evaluation%22">Program Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Rural+Areas%22">Rural Areas</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Children%22">Preschool Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Home+Schooling%22">Home Schooling</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Development%22">Child Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Education%22">Preschool Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scores%22">Scores</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pretests+Posttests%22">Pretests Posttests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cambodians%22">Cambodians</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Community+Programs%22">Community Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22State+Schools%22">State Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Experience%22">Educational Experience</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cambodia%22">Cambodia</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01746.x
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0009-3920
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This study evaluated the relative effectiveness of home-based, community-based, and state-run early childhood programs across Cambodia. A total of 880 five-year-olds (55% girls) from 6 rural provinces in Cambodia attending State Preschools, Community Preschools, Home-Based Programs, or no programs were assessed twice using the Cambodian Developmental Assessment Test. Controlling for baseline differences, children who participated in any early childhood programs performed significantly better in posttest than those of children who did not participate in any programs. Children in State Preschools scored significantly higher than those in either Community Preschools or Home-Based Programs; scores did not differ as a function of attending Community Preschools or Home-Based Programs. The results indicate that some preschool experience is better than none at all.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2012
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ965185
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ965185
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01746.x
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 864
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Program Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Rural Areas
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Home Schooling
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scores
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pretests Posttests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cambodians
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Community Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: State Schools
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Experience
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cambodia
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Is Something Better than Nothing? An Evaluation of Early Childhood Programs in Cambodia
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rao, Nirmala
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sun, Jin
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Pearson, Veronica
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Pearson, Emma
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Liu, Hongyun
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Constas, Mark A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Engle, Patrice L.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2012
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0009-3920
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 83
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Child Development
              Type: main
ResultId 1