Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

Inclusion criteria for systematic review and rationale.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 1.

Flow diagram for study selection.

Adapted from Moher, 2009 [47]

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Systematic review of the associations between the ECERS total score, authors A-E and child outcomes.

a Abbreviations: Symbols bolded are significant and positive, symbols bolded and italicized are significant and negative, and symbols in grey are non-significant. Star = Zero Order Pearson’s Correlation, Unfilled circle = Beta, Filled square = Unstandardized Coefficient, Black diamond minus white X = T-Test, Key clover = Partial Correlation, Downward arrow = Effect Size, Filled circle = F-Ratio. aTo improve the readability of these complex diagrams, ten papers[4,46,54,66,67,70,75,82,83,101] that had an outcome that appeared in only that one paper were omitted from this figure. Several analyses from other papers that had idiosyncratic outcomes are also excluded. For a comprehensive display of all of the data for all of the child outcomes see Supplemental Information S4 File.bThis paper is one of a series of Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews assessing the relationship between child care quality and children’s outcomes; therefore, superscript letters below are in reference to various large databases that samples in these papers were drawn from. These letters have been kept consistent across the series for our readers. cSamples within papers are described in more detail in S3 File. dAcronyms for child outcomes are listed in S6 File. DCost, Quality and Outcomes Study (CQO, 1993–1994); S8-county region of North-Central Indiana (Year NR); TOtitis Media Study (Year NR); ZColorado QRIS.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Systematic review of the associations between the ECERS total score, authors F-Z and child outcomes.

aAbbreviations: Symbols bolded are significant and positive, symbols bolded and italicized are significant and negative, and symbols in grey are non-significant. Star = Zero Order Pearson’s Correlation, Unfilled circle = Beta, Filled square = Unstandardized Coefficient, Black diamond minus white X = T-Test, Key clover = Partial Correlation, Downward arrow = Effect Size, Filled circle = F-Ratio. aTo improve the readability of these complex diagrams, ten papers[4,46,54,66,67,70,75,82,83,101] that had an outcome that appeared in only that one paper were omitted from this figure. Several analyses from other papers that had idiosyncratic outcomes are also excluded. For a comprehensive display of all of the data for all of the child outcomes see Supplemental Information S4 File. bThis paper is one of a series of Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews assessing the relationship between child care quality and children’s outcomes; therefore, superscript letters below are in reference to various large databases that samples in these papers were drawn from. These letters have been kept consistent across the series for our readers. cSamples within papers are described in more detail in S3 File. dAcronyms for child outcomes are listed in S6 File. CBermuda Preschool Study (1980); ONational Child Care Staffing Study (NCCSS, 1988.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Systematic review of the associations between the ECERS total score (parents and staff subscale not included) and mean of 5 items and child outcomes.

a Abbreviations: Symbols bolded are significant and positive, symbols bolded and italicized are significant and negative, and symbols in grey are non-significant. Star = Zero Order Pearson’s Correlation, Unfilled circle = Beta, Filled square = Unstandardized Coefficient, Black diamond minus white X = T-Test, Key clover = Partial Correlation, Downward arrow = Effect Size, Filled circle = F-Ratio. aTo improve the readability of these complex diagrams, ten papers[4,46,54,66,67,70,75,82,83,101] that had an outcome that appeared in only that one paper were omitted from this figure. Several analyses from other papers that had idiosyncratic outcomes are also excluded. For a comprehensive display of all of the data for all of the child outcomes see Supplemental Information S4 File.bThis paper is one of a series of Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews assessing the relationship between child care quality and children’s outcomes; therefore, superscript letters below are in reference to various large databases that samples in these papers were drawn from. These letters have been kept consistent across the series for our readers. cSamples within papers are described in more detail in S3 File. dAcronyms for child outcomes are listed in S6 File. eIdentifying Letters (also referred to as Alphabet Recognition Test, Letter Identification, Letter Knowledge, Letter-Naming Test, Naming Letters). fCounting Task (also referred to as Counting One-to-One, One-One Counting). CBermuda Preschool Study (1980); DCost, Quality and Outcomes Study (CQO, 1993–1994.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Systematic review of the associations between the ECERS-R total score, authors A-Hen and child outcomes.

A Abbreviations: Symbols bolded are significant and positive, symbols bolded and italicized are significant and negative, and symbols in grey are non-significant. Star = Zero Order Pearson’s Correlation, Unfilled circle = Beta, Filled square = Unstandardized Coefficient, Black diamond minus white X = T-Test, Key clover = Partial Correlation, Downward arrow = Effect Size, Filled circle = F-Ratio. aTo improve the readability of these complex diagrams, ten papers[4,46,54,66,67,70,75,82,83,101] that had an outcome that appeared in only that one paper were omitted from this figure. Several analyses from other papers that had idiosyncratic outcomes are also excluded. For a comprehensive display of all of the data for all of the child outcomes see Supplemental Information S4 File. bThis paper is one of a series of Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews assessing the relationship between child care quality and children’s outcomes; therefore, superscript letters below are in reference to various large databases that samples in these papers were drawn from. These letters have been kept consistent across the series for our readers. cSamples within papers are described in more detail in S3 File. dAcronyms for child outcomes are listed in S6 File. eIdentifying Letters (also referred to as Alphabet Recognition Test, Letter Identification, Letter Knowledge, Letter-Naming Test, Naming Letters). fCounting Task (also referred to as Counting One-to-One, One-One Counting). gIdentifying Numbers (also referred to as Naming Numbers, Number Identification). ANational Center for Early Development and Learning Dataset (NCEDL, 2002, 2004); FGeorgia Early Childhood Study (GECS, 2002); JHead Start Family and Children Experiences Survey (FACES, 1997) Cohort; KHead Start Family and Children Experiences Survey (FACES, 2000) Cohort.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

Systematic review of the associations between the ECERS-R total score, authors Hes-Z and child outcomes.

aAbbreviations: Symbols bolded are significant and positive, symbols bolded and italicized are significant and negative, and symbols in grey are non-significant. Star = Zero Order Pearson’s Correlation, Unfilled circle = Beta, Filled square = Unstandardized Coefficient, Black diamond minus white X = T-Test, Key clover = Partial Correlation, Downward arrow = Effect Size, Filled circle = F-Ratio. aTo improve the readability of these complex diagrams, ten papers[4,46,54,66,67,70,75,82,83,101] that had an outcome that appeared in only that one paper were omitted from this figure. Several analyses from other papers that had idiosyncratic outcomes are also excluded. For a comprehensive display of all of the data for all of the child outcomes see Supplemental Information S4 File.bThis paper is one of a series of Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews assessing the relationship between child care quality and children’s outcomes; therefore, superscript letters below are in reference to various large databases that samples in these papers were drawn from. These letters have been kept consistent across the series for our readers. cSamples within papers are described in more detail in S3 File. dAcronyms for child outcomes are listed in S6 File. eIdentifying Letters (also referred to as Alphabet Recognition Test, Letter Identification, Letter Knowledge, Letter-Naming Test, Naming Letters). fCounting Task (also referred to as Counting One-to-One, One-One Counting). ANational Center for Early Development and Learning Dataset (NCEDL, 2002, 2004); RNortheastern United States sample (Moller and colleagues, 2008; Year NR).

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Fig 7.

Systematic review of the associations between the ECERS-R total score, authors Hes-Z and child outcomes.

aAbbreviations: Symbols bolded are significant and positive, symbols bolded and italicized are significant and negative, and symbols in grey are non-significant. Star = Zero Order Pearson’s Correlation, Unfilled circle = Beta, Filled square = Unstandardized Coefficient, Black diamond minus white X = T-Test, Key clover = Partial Correlation, Downward arrow = Effect Size, Filled circle = F-Ratio. aTo improve the readability of these complex diagrams, ten papers[4,46,54,66,67,70,75,82,83,101] that had an outcome that appeared in only that one paper were omitted from this figure. Several analyses from other papers that had idiosyncratic outcomes are also excluded. For a comprehensive display of all of the data for all of the child outcomes see Supplemental Information S4 File. bThis paper is one of a series of Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews assessing the relationship between child care quality and children’s outcomes; therefore, superscript letters below are in reference to various large databases that samples in these papers were drawn from. These letters have been kept consistent across the series for our readers. cSamples within papers are described in more detail in S3 File. dAcronyms for child outcomes are listed in S6 File. eIdentifying Colors (also referred to as Color Knowledge, Color Naming, Color Naming Task). fIdentifying Letters (also referred to as Alphabet Recognition Test, Letter Identification, Letter Knowledge, Letter-Naming Test, Naming Letters). gCounting Task (also referred to as Counting One-to-One, One-One Counting). ANational Center for Early Development and Learning Dataset (NCEDL, 2002, 2004); FGeorgia Early Childhood Study (GECS, 2002); HEarly Head Start (EHS, 2001–2003 Cohort); NEarly Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS-B, 2001–2006, Birth Cohort); ZColorado QRIS; YBMore at Four North Carolina Study (2003–2004) Cohort; YCMore at Four North Carolina Study (2005–2006) Cohort.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

Systematic review of the associations between the ECERS-R total score, authors Hes-Z and child outcomes.

aAbbreviations: Symbols bolded are significant and positive, symbols bolded and italicized are significant and negative, and symbols in grey are non-significant. Star = Zero Order Pearson’s Correlation, Unfilled circle = Beta, Filled square = Unstandardized Coefficient, Black diamond minus white X = T-Test, Key clover = Partial Correlation, Downward arrow = Effect Size, Filled circle = F-Ratio. aTo improve the readability of these complex diagrams, ten papers[4,46,54,66,67,70,75,82,83,101] that had an outcome that appeared in only that one paper were omitted from this figure. Several analyses from other papers that had idiosyncratic outcomes are also excluded. For a comprehensive display of all of the data for all of the child outcomes see Supplemental Information S4 File. bThis paper is one of a series of Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews assessing the relationship between child care quality and children’s outcomes; therefore, superscript letters below are in reference to various large databases that samples in these papers were drawn from. These letters have been kept consistent across the series for our readers. cSamples within papers are described in more detail in S3 File. dAcronyms for child outcomes are listed in S6 File. ANational Center for Early Development and Learning Dataset (NCEDL, 2002, 2004); NEarly Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS-B, 2001–2006, Birth Cohort); ZColorado QRIS.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Fig 9.

Systematic review of the associations between the ECERS-R total score, authors Hes-Z and child outcomes.

a Abbreviations: Symbols bolded are significant and positive, symbols bolded and italicized are significant and negative, and symbols in grey are non-significant. Star = Zero Order Pearson’s Correlation, Unfilled circle = Beta, Filled square = Unstandardized Coefficient, Black diamond minus white X = T-Test, Key clover = Partial Correlation, Downward arrow = Effect Size, Filled circle = F-Ratio. aTo improve the readability of these complex diagrams, ten papers[4,46,54,66,67,70,75,82,83,101] that had an outcome that appeared in only that one paper were omitted from this figure. Several analyses from other papers that had idiosyncratic outcomes are also excluded. For a comprehensive display of all of the data for all of the child outcomes see Supplemental Information S4 File. bThis paper is one of a series of Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews assessing the relationship between child care quality and children’s outcomes; therefore, superscript letters below are in reference to various large databases that samples in these papers were drawn from. These letters have been kept consistent across the series for our readers. cSamples within papers are described in more detail in S3 File. dAcronyms for child outcomes are listed in S6 File. DCost, Quality and Outcomes Study (CQO, 1993–1994); ONational Child Care Staffing Study (NCCSS, 1988); S8-county region of North-Central Indiana (Year NR).

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Fig 10.

Systematic review of the associations between the ECERS-R total score, authors Hes-Z and child outcomes.

aAbbreviations: Symbols bolded are significant and positive, symbols bolded and italicized are significant and negative, and symbols in grey are non-significant. Star = Zero Order Pearson’s Correlation, Unfilled circle = Beta, Filled square = Unstandardized Coefficient, Black diamond minus white X = T-Test, Key clover = Partial Correlation, Downward arrow = Effect Size, Filled circle = F-Ratio. aTo improve the readability of these complex diagrams, ten papers[4,46,54,66,67,70,75,82,83,101] that had an outcome that appeared in only that one paper were omitted from this figure. Several analyses from other papers that had idiosyncratic outcomes are also excluded. For a comprehensive display of all of the data for all of the child outcomes see Supplemental Information S4 File. bThis paper is one of a series of Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews assessing the relationship between child care quality and children’s outcomes; therefore, superscript letters below are in reference to various large databases that samples in these papers were drawn from. These letters have been kept consistent across the series for our readers. cSamples within papers are described in more detail in S3 File. dAcronyms for child outcomes are listed in S6 File. eIdentifying Colors (also referred to as Color Knowledge, Color Naming, Color Naming Task). fCounting Task (also referred to as Counting One-to-One, One-One Counting). ANational Center for Early Development and Learning Dataset (NCEDL, 2002, 2004); JHead Start Family and Children Experiences Survey (FACES, 1997) Cohort; KHead Start Family and Children Experiences Survey (FACES, 2000) Cohort.

More »

Fig 10 Expand

Fig 11.

Systematic review of the associations between the ECERS-R factors and child outcomes.

a Abbreviations: Symbols bolded are significant and positive, symbols bolded and italicized are significant and negative, and symbols in grey are non-significant. Star = Zero Order Pearson’s Correlation, Unfilled circle = Beta, Filled square = Unstandardized Coefficient, Black diamond minus white X = T-Test, Key clover = Partial Correlation, Downward arrow = Effect Size, Filled circle = F-Ratio. aTo improve the readability of these complex diagrams, ten papers[4,46,54,66,67,70,75,82,83,101] that had an outcome that appeared in only that one paper were omitted from this figure. Several analyses from other papers that had idiosyncratic outcomes are also excluded. For a comprehensive display of all of the data for all of the child outcomes see Supplemental Information S4 File. bThis paper is one of a series of Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews assessing the relationship between child care quality and children’s outcomes; therefore, superscript letters below are in reference to various large databases that samples in these papers were drawn from. These letters have been kept consistent across the series for our readers. cSamples within papers are described in more detail in S3 File. dAcronyms for child outcomes are listed in S6 File. eIdentifying Colors (also referred to as Color Knowledge, Color Naming, Color Naming Task). fIdentifying Letters (also referred to as Alphabet Recognition Test, Letter Identification, Letter Knowledge, Letter-Naming Test, Naming Letters). gIdentifying Numbers (also referred to as Naming Numbers, Number Identification). National Center for Early Development and Learning Dataset (NCEDL, 2002, 2004); BHead Start Family and Children Experiences Survey (FACES, 2006) Cohort; MHead Start Family and Children Experiences Survey (FACES, 2009) Cohort UPreschool Curriculum Evaluation Research (PCER, 1999–2003).

More »

Fig 11 Expand

Fig 12.

Meta-analyses of the association between ECERS/ECERS-R total score and child outcomes.

More »

Fig 12 Expand

Fig 13.

Meta-analyses of the association between ECERS/ECERS-R interactions subscale and child outcomes.

More »

Fig 13 Expand

Fig 14.

Meta-analyses of the association between ECERS/ECERS-R language reasoning subscale and child outcomes.

More »

Fig 14 Expand

Fig 15.

Meta-analyses of the association between ECERS-R provisions for learning factor and child outcomes.

More »

Fig 15 Expand

Fig 16.

Meta-analyses of the association between ECERS-R teaching and interactions factor and child outcomes.

More »

Fig 16 Expand