U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

National Institutes of Health

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

Findings for Children up to Age 41⁄2 Years
Dear Fellow Parents, 

Raising children is one of the hardest, but most important and rewarding things 

we do. The daily task of caring for children can be a challenging job in and of 

itself. Selecting persons and situations for child care can be even more difficult. 

Child care is now a fact of life for many American families, and many parents now 

use child care from their child’s infancy through kindergarten. More than 10 years 

ago, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) launched 

the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (SECCYD) to investigate 

the relationships between child care and children’s development. The study examines 

how differences among families, children, and child care features are linked to the 

intellectual, social, and emotional development and health of children. The study is 

about more than child care; it describes children’s lives and development. 

This booklet is for all parents: for those whose children are in child care on a fullor part-time basis, for those parents considering child care, and for parents whose 

children are not in any non-parental child care arrangement. We hope that this 

booklet will inform some of your decisions about child care and help you understand 

your child’s development. We will continue to study the complex relationships among 

child care, families, and children and to make these results available to you as they 

are known.

Sincerely yours,

Duane Alexander, M.D.

Director, NICHD


Major Findings from the Study................................................................................................................................1

The NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (SECCYD) ............................................................................2

What are the goals of the NICHD Study? ..........................................................................................................2

How was the NICHD Study conducted? ............................................................................................................3

What is child care? ..........................................................................................................................................4

What did the NICHD Study measure? ...............................................................................................................4

What aspects of child development did the NICHD Study measure? ..................................................................6

An explanation of terms ..................................................................................................................................7

 Causes or Associations? ................................................................................................................................7

 What Is the Nature of the NICHD Study Findings?..........................................................................................7

NICHD SECCYD Findings—Child Care Quality .............................................................................................................8

What is quality child care? ...............................................................................................................................8

 Regulable Features .......................................................................................................................................8

 Process Features ........................................................................................................................................10

How are regulable and process features of child care quality related to each other? ......................................12

How is quality of child care related to children’s development? ......................................................................12

 Child Care Quality and Cognitive and Language Development Outcomes.....................................................12

 Child Care Quality and Social Development Outcomes.................................................................................13

 Child Care Quality and Health Outcomes.....................................................................................................13

How can parents and caregivers evaluate the quality of child care?...............................................................14

Can quality of child care help children from families at risk? ..........................................................................15

NICHD SECCYD Findings—Quantity of Child Care ......................................................................................................16

What is quantity of child care?.......................................................................................................................16

How is quantity of child care related to children’s development? ....................................................................16

 Child Care Quantity and Cognitive and Language Development Outcomes...................................................16

 Child Care Quantity and Social Development Outcomes...............................................................................17

 Child Care Quantity and Health Outcomes...................................................................................................17

Table of Contents
ii

NICHD SECCYD Findings—Child Care Type ..............................................................................................................18

What is child care type?.................................................................................................................................19

How is child care type related to children’s development? ..............................................................................20

 Child Care Type and Cognitive and Language Development Outcomes.........................................................20

 Child Care Type and Social Development Outcomes .....................................................................................21

 Child Care Type and Health Outcomes .........................................................................................................21

NICHD SECCYD Findings—Family Features ..............................................................................................................22

What are family features? .............................................................................................................................22

How are family features related to children’s development?...........................................................................23

 Family Features and Cognitive and Language Development and Social Outcomes........................................23

 Other Findings About Family Features .........................................................................................................25

The NICHD Study—Beyond Infancy, Early Childhood, and Preschool .............................................................................26

Where Can I Go for More Information? ...................................................................................................................28

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)...............................................................28

 NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (SECCYD) .............................................................29

Administration for Children and Families (ACF)...............................................................................................29

Appendices......................................................................................................................................................30

Appendix A—About the Families and the Sites Involved in the NICHD SECCYD ................................................30

Appendix B—Child, Family, and Home Features Measured in the NICHD SECCYD ............................................34

Appendix C—The Positive Caregiving Checklist...............................................................................................36

Appendix D—Guiding the Study .....................................................................................................................39

Appendix E—References.................................................................................................................................43


In the early 1990s, the majority of children began 

some non-maternal care by 6 months of age. Results 

from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth 

Development show that, in its demographically and 

ethnically diverse sample of more than 1,000 children, 

the average child spent 27 hours a week in non-maternal 

care over the first 41⁄2 years of life. During the children’s 

first 2 years of life, most child care took place in family 

homes with relatives or in child care homes; as children 

got older, more were in center-based care.

When it came to understanding how these experiences 

might influence children, knowing simply whether a child 

was or was not ever in non-maternal care provided little 

insight into a child’s development. Children who were 

cared for exclusively by their mothers did not develop 

differently than those who were also cared for by others.

Quality, quantity, and type of non-maternal care were 

modestly, but not strongly, linked to the children’s 

development regardless of family features. 

Children in higher quality non-maternal child care had 

somewhat better language and cognitive development 

during the first 41⁄2 years of life. They were also 

somewhat more cooperative than those who experienced 

lower quality care during the first 3 years of life.

Children with higher quantity (total combined number 

of hours) of experience in non-maternal child care showed 

somewhat more behavior problems in child care and in 

kindergarten classrooms than those who had experienced 

fewer hours.

Children who attended child care centers had somewhat 

better cognitive and language development, but also 

showed somewhat more behavior problems in child 

care and in kindergarten classrooms than children who 

experienced other non-maternal child care arrangements. 

Parent and family characteristics were more strongly 

linked to child development than were child care 

features. And, parent and family characteristics 

predicted some developmental outcomes that were not 

predicted by child care. For instance, children showed 

more cognitive, language, and social competence 

and more harmonious relationships with parents when 

parents were more educated, had higher incomes, and 

provided home environments that were emotionally 

supportive and cognitively enriched, and when mothers 

experienced little psychological distress. 

Family and parenting experiences were as important to 

the well-being of children who had extensive child care 

experience as family and parenting experiences were 

for children with little or no child care experience.







Children who were cared for 

exclusively by their mothers did 

not develop differently than those 

who were also cared for by others.

Major Findings


During the past 30 years, increasing numbers of families 

in the United States have used non-parental child care. 

Such arrangements include care by relatives or in-home 

nannies, family child care homes, and center-based care. 

The decision to use child care is rarely an easy one. 

How will non-maternal child care affect the child’s 

development? How do parents know that their children 

are getting good care? What type of child care setting 

is best? Will being separated from the mother on a 

regular basis affect the child’s relationship with her or 

with other family members? 

With so many books, articles, talk shows, and 

other resources available to offer advice and 

recommendations, it’s hard to find reliable, researchbased information about child care. It’s even more 

difficult when the advice of one “expert” disagrees 

with the recommendations of another. 

The National Institute of Child Health and Human 

Development (NICHD), part of the National Institutes 

of Health (NIH) within the U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services, began a study in 1991 to 

collect information about different non-maternal child 

care arrangements, and about children and families 

who use child care as well as those who do not. The 

result, the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth 

Development (SECCYD), is the most comprehensive study 

to date of children and the many environments in which 

they develop. It provides reliable, accurate, researchbased information about non-maternal child care and its 

links to children’s development. 

The findings will not answer all of your child care 

questions, but they will help you make more informed 

choices to meet the needs of your child and your family. 

They will also help you understand how your home 

environment and your parenting behaviors are related to 

your child’s development. 

What are the goals of the NICHD Study? 

The major goal of the NICHD Study is to examine 

how differences in child care experiences relate to 

children’s social, emotional, intellectual, and language 

development, and to their physical growth and health. 

Other goals of the Study1

 include:

Describing the variety, stability, and changes in children’s 

non-maternal child care experiences over time, including 

the child’s age when first placed in child care, and the 

quantity and quality of care (for instance, how old were 

most children when they first entered child care? How 

many hours did most children spend in child care each 

week? What types of child care arrangements did 

children experience? How much time did caregivers 

spend interacting with children?)

Identifying demographic and family characteristics 

associated with different patterns of child care use

Comparing the development of children who were cared 

for primarily by their mothers to those who spent much of 

their time in non-maternal care 

Identifying the specific links between certain features 

of non-maternal child care (such as quality of care, 

hours each week in care, and type of care) and child 

development, while taking into account the important 

and well-documented roles of the family; in other words, 

identifying the exclusive link (or net effect) between child 

care and child development

Determining whether associations between child care 

experiences and children’s development were the same 

for children from different family backgrounds (such as for 

African American and white children, for children from 

rich and poor families, and for children receiving more 

and less sensitive parenting)

Understanding how family characteristics (such as parents’ 

emotional sensitivity, the quality of the home environment, 

parents’ education, parents’ psychological adjustment, and 

parents’ attitudes and beliefs) are related to development 

for children who do and do not experience child care 













The NICHD Study


How was the NICHD Study conducted?

The NICHD Study collected detailed information on the 

features of child care and on the experiences children have 

in different non-maternal child care settings. The Study also 

collected specifics on the families of the children and on the 

children themselves. Researchers are using this information 

to understand how children’s development is linked to their 

experiences in child care, in their families, and, as they get 

older, in school. 

Since 1991, the Study has followed the development of children 

from the time they were 1 month of age. It was conducted 

in four phases, based on the ages of the children when the 

information or data were collected (see Table 1). As children 

grew older, some families did not continue their participation 

in the study for different reasons (no longer interested, moved 

away, etc.), which explains why the number of children is not 

identical across data collection phases.

The researchers collected data at 10 sites around the country. 

(For a map of the Study sites, go to Appendix A—About the 

Families and the Sites Involved in the NICHD SECCYD.) 

Families came from diverse demographic, economic, and 

ethnic backgrounds. Although the study was not “nationally 

representative” according to standards set by statisticians, 

the study population was very diverse and included children 

who were born healthy into a variety of backgrounds. By 

design, the study included single-parent households, families 

from minority ethnic backgrounds, parents with little formal 

education, as well as their counterparts. 

The NICHD Study of Early 

Child Care and Youth 

Development (SECCYD) is the 

most comprehensive study to 

date of children and the many 

environments in which they 

develop. 

Year Children’s Age or Grade Number of Children (and Their Families)

1991–1994 Phase I, ages 0­ to 3 years 1,364 children enrolled in the Study

1995–1999 Phase II, through first grade 1,095 children remained in the Study

2000–2004 Phase III, through sixth grade 1,073 children remained in the Study

2005–2007 Phase IV, through ninth grade Still calculating the number of families

TABLE 1 SECCYD Phases and Number of Participants


At age 1 month, the general characteristics of the study 

population were as follows (see Appendix A for more 

information):

40.0 percent of the children lived in families defined 

as poor or near-poor. (By age 41⁄2 years, 23.0 percent 

were in such families, as a result of both the families 

moving above the poverty line and of families in poverty 

dropping out of the Study.) 

85.5 percent of the children had mothers who were 

married or partnered. 

10.2 percent of the mothers had no high school 

diploma; 21.1 percent had a high school degree or 

equivalent; 33.4 percent had some college education; 

20.8 percent had a college degree; and 14.5 percent

had postgraduate education. 

12.7 percent of the children were defined at birth by 

their mothers as black/non-Hispanic; 6.1 percent were 

Hispanic; and 4.8 percent were other minorities. 

For more information on the families involved in the 

study, their general characteristics, and the sites at which 

data were collected, please see Appendix A. 

What is child care?

NICHD researchers defined child care as any care 

provided on a regular basis by someone other 

than the child’s mother. This description did not 

include occasional babysitting that was not a regular 

arrangement. 









Children in any type of care for 

fewer than 10 hours a week were 

considered to be in exclusive 

maternal care.

When the Study began, the 

researchers did not all agree about 

which arrangements to include in the 

term “child care.” Some felt that care by the father 

on a regular basis should be considered “child care” 

because that situation differed from one in which the 

mother had full-time care responsibility. Others argued 

that “child care” should include only care by people 

other than the parents. 

Ultimately, the researchers decided to study all child 

care provided by someone other than the mother on a 

regular basis. These arrangements included care from 

the father or other relative, care from one caregiver 

(who was not related to the child) in the child’s home, 

small group care in a caregiver’s home, and centerbased care. 

The information presented here mostly describes 

results from birth through age 41⁄2. Because most 

children age 5 and older are in school, their 

child care experiences change. Once all of the 

findings for school-aged children are collected and 

analyzed, those findings will be summarized in a 

separate booklet.

What did the NICHD Study measure?

Researchers describe what they measure using 

different names: characteristics, traits, variables, and 

qualities. In this booklet, we use the term features to 

mean all of these. The study also measured children’s 

experiences related to the care they received from their 

parents and from child care providers. 

As you read, you will notice numbers, like 1

 or 45, next to certain words or sentences. These 

numbers match up with the SECCYD scientific article that supports an idea or concept. A list 

of these papers, by number, appears in Appendix E—References. The articles provide 

more detailed information about SECCYD research. In general, the articles are geared 

toward scientists, researchers, and health care providers. 


Child care features and experiences2,3 included 

(but were not limited to): 

Child’s age when first placed in child care 

Type of child care (such as center-based care)

Number of hours spent in child care each week

Number of different types of child care that a child 

experienced

Number of professionally pre-defined standards for 

quality that child care met

Observed quality of the caregiving the child received













Family features and experiences4,5 included (but were 

not limited to):

Mother’s education, personality, and psychological 

adjustment

Father’s education, personality, and psychological 

adjustment

Economic resources 

Family’s ethnic heritage

Family structure (such as one or two parents)

Quality of stimulation and interaction in the home 

environment

Mother’s sensitivity to her child 

Mother’s cognitive stimulation during interactions with her 

child (for example, did the mother read to the child, did 

she encourage the child to talk and make sounds, did she 

name colors to the child?)

Parenting beliefs and practices




















What aspects of child development did 

the NICHD Study measure?

The features of child development that were assessed 

included (but were not limited to):

Cognitive and language development—describes 

how children learn to think, respond, and interact with the 

world around them.

Important cognitive and language skills include 

attention, memory, language use, vocabulary, language 

comprehension, problem solving, reasoning, and 

strategies for acquiring knowledge. 

These skills provide the foundations of reading and 

number/math knowledge; in addition, the Study 

measured specific literacy and number skills. 

If something is cognitively stimulating, it 

encourages one or more of the skills listed above.

This booklet uses the terms “cognitive development,” 

“cognitive skills,” and “cognitive outcomes” to refer to 

this broad range of developmental milestones that make 

a child ready for the academic demands of school. 

Social behavior—describes how children interact with 

adults and with one another, as well as how well they 

manage their own behavior.

Being able to build and maintain relationships 

with parents, peers, and other adults are important 

developmental tasks. 

Impolite assertiveness, non-compliance (meaning 

the child doesn’t follow instructions), aggression, 

and social withdrawal are considered behavior 

problems or negative social outcomes. 

If a child is socially competent, then he or she 

behaves and interacts with others appropriately 

for his or her age.



















Emotional development and relationships with 

mothers—describes a child’s emotional growth and skill.

Researchers observed whether the children were 

securely attached or insecurely attached to their 

mothers. Securely attached children are able to use the 

mother as a source of comfort and trust. 

Observing the type of attachment, the mother’s 

sensitivity to the child, and the child’s engagement or 

connection to the mother helps researchers measure 

these skills. 

Researchers also measured mother-child interaction 

during a toy play session to measure the mother’s 

sensitivity and the level of mother-child engagement. 

Health and physical growth—describes the child’s 

physical features and overall physical health. 

To assess health, researchers used parents’ reports 

of children’s overall health and of how often children 

experienced such common illnesses as fevers, upper 

respiratory problems, and gastrointestinal (stomach or 

digestive) upsets. 

Study researchers measured children’s height and 

weight approximately every year. 

For a complete list of the features the Study measured, 

please see Appendix B—Child, Family, and Home 

Features Measured in the NICHD SECCYD.

Because the Study contains so much data, this booklet 

can only provide a summary of the most consistent 

findings. If you want more details about one of the 

findings, we suggest that you locate the reference for 

that finding in Appendix E—References, and then 

consult the published article. Keep in mind that most 

of the articles listed are written for scientists and 

researchers. You can also address specific questions 

about research findings to the NICHD Study researchers 

themselves. Their contact information appears in 

Appendix D—Guiding the Study. 
















An explanation of terms 

Causes or Associations?

The Study examined naturally occurring patterns of child 

care over time. The researchers did not assign children 

to different kinds of child care, nor did they determine 

how early in life children would enter child care or for 

how many hours each week. 

As a result, the study cannot reveal whether child care 

features, such as number of hours in child care, the type 

of child care, or the quality of child care are the direct 

causes of individual differences among children’s health, 

cognitive, or social outcomes. The Study can describe 

only associations between child care experiences and 

children’s development. In other words, it can explain 

if child care experiences co-occur with differences in 

children’s outcomes, but it cannot say that “experience 

A causes outcome B.” This summary booklet doesn’t use 

words such as cause to describe findings. Instead, it 

uses such words as relates, associates, and predicts

to describe the links between child care or the family 

and children’s development. 

What Is the Nature of the 

NICHD Study Findings? 

Only the major scientifically noteworthy findings are 

presented here. The booklet emphasizes results that 

are consistent or reliable; that is, similar associations 

were found again and again using different ways 

of examining the data. The degree of associations 

among features can range from slight or modest (that 

is, statistically significant, but minor) to strong (that is, 

statistically significant and fairly major), with moderate

falling somewhere in between. Most of the relations 

found in the NICHD Study were slight or moderate. 

“Slight” or “modest” describe the degree of the findings, 

not their importance. 

Keep in mind that even minor differences may be 

important from different perspectives, especially if they 

are consistent over time and if they increase or decrease 

as children develop. Similarly, modest effects could be 

important when applied to large numbers of children 

because, if many children were slightly more advanced 

cognitively or slightly more disruptive than they would 

be without child care, the results could impact how child 

care settings and schools operate. These settings might 

be better able to foster additional learning among those 

who are slightly more advanced cognitively. Likewise, 

with children who are slightly more disruptive, teachers 

might need to spend more time managing the class and 

would have less time to support learning. 

Even minor differences between 

outcomes may be important from 

different perspectives, especially 

if they are consistent over time 

and if they increase or decrease 

as children develop.


What is quality child care? 

In examining quality child care, researchers presumed 

that such care promotes the developmental well-being 

of children. In the NICHD Study, child care quality was 

measured in two ways. 

First, the researchers examined structural features of child 

care that are sometimes regulated by public agencies or 

by states (called “regulable” features). These features 

include adult-to-child ratio, group size, and the training 

of the child care provider. Regulable features of child 

care are believed to set the stage for the child’s day-today experiences in child care. 

The second way of measuring child care quality focused 

on children’s actual day-to-day experiences in the 

child care setting (called “process” features). Careful 

observations provide information about children’s social 

interactions with adults and with other children, as well 

as their activities with toys and other items. 

Consider these types of features in more detail.

Regulable Features2

Regulable features used in the Study include the 

following:

Adult-to-child ratio—How many children is each 

adult taking care of? In general, the lower the number 

of children an adult is caring for, the better the observed 

quality of that care and the better the children’s 

developmental outcomes. 

Group size—How many children are in the child’s 

classroom or group? Smaller groups are associated 

with better observed quality of care.

Caregiver’s education level—Did the caregiver 

complete high school? College? Graduate school? 

Higher caregiver education predicts higher quality 

of observed care and better developmental outcomes

for children.







State and local governments set minimum standards 

for regulable features, like those listed here, that child 

care settings must meet to get licensed. These minimum 

standards vary greatly across states. You can contact 

your state or local government to obtain the requirements 

for licensed child care providers in your area. 

More than minimum standards: Accreditation

In addition to the minimum standards set by government 

for child care quality, professional organizations that 

specialize in early childhood education and health care 

set certain higher standards that are useful for parents as 

they examine a potential child care setting. For instance, 

the National Association for the Education of Young 

Children (NAEYC) was one of the first organizations 

to set standards and to offer certification—called 

accreditation—to child care centers and family child 

care homes that meet those standards. Information 

about these standards is available at the NAEYC

Web site (http://www.naeyc.org). 

NICHD SECCYD Findings

Researchers presumed that 

quality child care promotes 

the developmental well-being 

of children. 


The National Association for Family Child Care, also 

among the first groups to set minimum standards, also 

offers certification for family child care homes; visit its 

Web site for more information (http://www.nafcc.org). 

Many states also have systems to designate child care 

settings that meet higher-than-minimum standards of 

quality. These centers and homes often receive higher 

rates of repayment for children who receive government 

aid for child care (called subsidized care). 

Pediatricians and health educators also set regulable 

quality standards for child care centers that are similar 

to those used by NAEYC. These standards, which the 

SECCYD researchers used in the NICHD Study, are 

presented in Table 2. 

Many children who were in the NICHD Study from 

infancy to age 3 attended child care centers that did 

not meet the recommendations for all four standards 

(see Table 3). This finding was particularly true for 

infant and toddler care. Child care centers attended 

by older children were more likely to meet the 

recommended standards.4

TABLE 2 Professional Standards for Child Care Recommended by the 

American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Public Health Association4

Adult-to-Child Ratios

Children ages 6 months to 

11⁄2 years—3 children 

to 1 staff person

Children ages 11⁄2 years to 

2 years—4 children 

to 1 staff person

Children ages 2 years to 

3 years—7 children 

to 1 staff person







Group Sizes

Children ages 6 months to 

11⁄2 years—maximum 

of 6 children in the group

Children ages 11⁄2 years to 

2 years—maximum 

of 8 children in the group

Children ages 2 years to 

3 years—maximum 

of 14 children in the group







Training and Education 

of Staff

Formal post-high school 

training, including certification 

or college degree in child 

development, early childhood 

education, or a related field



TABLE 3 Percentage of Child Care Center Classes Observed in the NICHD Study

 Meeting Recommended Guidelines at Ages 6 Months to 3 Years4,6

Standard 6 Months 11⁄2 Years 2 Years 3 Years

Adult-to-Child Ratio 36% 20% 26% 56%

Observed Group Size 35% 25% 28% 63%

Caregiver Training 56% 60% 65% 75%

Caregiver Education 65% 69% 77% 80%
10

Why are regulable features important to quality? 

Children in child care centers that met accreditation 

standards had slightly better school readiness and 

language comprehension outcomes and fewer behavior 

problems at age 3 than did children in centers that did not 

meet the standards.4

There was no “minimum” number of standards of regulable 

quality that was sufficient. Each standard was important to 

better cognitive and social development. 

Quite simply, the more standards the child care met, the 

better children did. This finding held true when researchers 

controlled for family income and the mother’s sensitivity.4

Process Features3,7

Regulable features of child care offer easy-to-assess 

indicators of child care quality. Observations of each child 

care setting provide more detailed information about dayto-day social interactions and activities. Among process 

features, one of the strongest and most consistent predictors 

of children’s development is positive caregiving—that is, 

sensitive, encouraging, and frequent interactions between 

the caregiver and the child. 

What is positive caregiving?

Positive caregiving is a measure of care quality that is 

based on direct observations of caregiver behavior. 

Positive caregiving behaviors include: 

Showing a positive attitude—Is the caregiver generally 

in good spirits and encouraging when interacting with the 

child? Is he or she helpful? Does the caregiver smile often at 

the child?

Having positive physical contact—Does the caregiver 

hug the child, pat the child on the back, or hold the child’s 

hand? Does the caregiver comfort the child?

Responding to vocalizations—Does the caregiver repeat 

the child’s words, comment on what the child says or tries to 

say, and answer the child’s questions?







Asking questions—Does the caregiver encourage the 

child to talk/communicate by asking questions that the 

child can answer easily, such as “yes” or “no” questions, 

or asking about a family member or toy?

Talking in other ways—such as:

Praising or encouraging—Does the caregiver 

respond to the child’s positive actions with positive 

words, such as “You did it!” or “Well done!”? 

Teaching—Does the caregiver encourage the child 

to learn or have the child repeat learning phrases or 

items, such as saying the alphabet out loud, counting to 

10, and naming shapes or objects? For older children, 

does the caregiver explain what words or names 

mean?

Telling and singing—Does the caregiver tell stories, 

describe objects or events, or sing songs?

Encouraging development—Does the caregiver 

help the child to stand up and walk? For infants, does 

the caregiver encourage “tummy time”—activities the 

child does when placed on his or her stomach while 

awake—to help neck and shoulder muscles get stronger 

and to encourage crawling? For older children, does the 

caregiver help finish puzzles, stack blocks, or zip zippers?

Advancing behavior—Does the caregiver encourage 

the child to smile, laugh, and play with other children? 

Does the caregiver support sharing between the child 

and other children? Does the caregiver give examples 

of good behaviors?

Reading—Does the caregiver read books and stories to 

the child? Does the caregiver let the child touch the book 

and turn the page? For older children, does the caregiver 

point to pictures and words on the page?

Eliminating negative interactions—Does the 

caregiver make sure to be positive, not negative, in the 

interactions with the child? Does the caregiver take a 

positive approach to interacting with the child, even in 

times of trouble? Does the caregiver make it a point to 

interact with the child and not ignore him or her?


















1111

Researchers found that the more positive 

the caregiving, the higher the quality of 

care.3 For example, researchers found 

that the relationship between adult-tochild ratios and children’s outcomes 

could be explained by caregiver 

behavior—that is, when caregivers 

cared for a smaller number of children, 

they showed more positive caregiving, 

which, in turn, was associated with 

better outcomes. The same was true for 

caregiver education level—caregivers 

with higher education levels engaged in 

more positive caregiving and, in turn, 

the children they cared for showed better 

outcomes. Positive caregiving, then, was 

a primary indicator of child care quality.

How much positive caregiving do 

children get?

In the NICHD Study, only a small percentage of children 

received a lot of positive caregiving7 (see Figure 1). 

And that percentage decreased as children got older, 

moving from 18 percent, to 13 percent, to 6 percent 

during the first 3 years of life. Poor quality care, on 

the other hand, in which children received hardly any 

positive caregiving, also occurred for only a small 

percentage of the children, changing from 6 percent, to 

8 percent, to 4 percent during the first 3 years of life. 

The percentage of children who received a fair amount 

of positive caregiving was about 30 percent across 

the first 3 years of life, which means that these settings 

provided care that was good, but not outstanding.7

By comparing the NICHD Study participants to the 

overall U.S. population, SECCYD researchers made 

estimates about positive caregiving provided to 11⁄2- to 

3-year-old children in child care in the United States.7

Estimates of positive caregiving included:

Children in 9 percent of child care settings receive a lot of 

positive caregiving.

Children in 30 percent of child care settings receive a fair 

amount of positive caregiving.

Children in 53 percent of child care settings receive some 

positive caregiving.

Children in 8 percent of child care settings receive hardly 

any positive caregiving.

In other words, the data suggest that most child care 

settings in the United States provide care that is “fair” 

(between “poor” and “good”). Fewer than 10 percent 

of arrangements were rated as providing very high 

quality child care. At the other extreme, fewer than 

10 percent of child care arrangements were estimated 

to provide children with very low quality experiences. 









2 Years 3 Years

Age of Child

11⁄2 Years

Percentage of Children

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

6%

40%

34%

18%

8%

52%

29%

13%

4%

57%

33%

6%

Received hardly any positive caregiving

Received a fair amount of positive caregiving

Received some positive caregiving

Received a lot of positive caregiving

Figure 1 How Much Positive Caregiving Did Children 

 in the SECCYD Get?
12

How are regulable and process 

features of child care quality related

to each other?

Remember that regulable features, the more structural 

features of care that are sometimes regulated by public 

agencies or by states, are indirect indicators of quality 

of the child’s experiences in care. Process features, 

measured through careful observation of children in the 

child care setting, provide more direct information about 

the child’s experiences in care. 

In general, the structure of child care, as described 

in terms of its regulable features, predicts the process 

features or the children’s daily experiences of child care. 

The process features, then, predict children’s behavior 

and development. 

The more standards a child care setting meets, the 

more positive the caregiving. The more positive the 

caregiving, the higher the quality of care and the better 

the children’s outcomes. 

For instance, for young children in care with smaller 

groups of children cared for by trained caregivers with 

higher levels of education in a setting with a low adultto-child ratio, the care provided tends to be warm, 

attentive, and intellectually stimulating. Children who 

receive such care are better off developmentally.7

In contrast, when groups are large, when there are many 

children to care for but few caregivers, and the training/

education of caregivers is limited, the care provided 

tends to be of lower quality, and children’s development 

is less advanced. The next section provides a more 

detailed explanation of the relationship between child 

care quality and children’s outcomes.

How is quality of child care related to 

children’s development?

Researchers examined process quality (child care quality 

in terms of process features) and various outcomes, while 

taking into account children’s family features (such as 

ethnic background and parents’ education) and other 

child care features (such as child care setting). These 

analyses allowed researchers to identify links between 

child care quality and child development outcomes.

Child Care Quality and Cognitive and 

Language Development Outcomes

Results showed that children who experienced higher 

quality child care consistently showed somewhat better 

cognitive function and language development across the 

first 3 years of life.2,9

The most important feature of quality for predicting 

cognitive and language development up to age 3 was the 

language used by the caregiver. More stimulation from the 

caregiver—asking questions, responding to vocalizations, 

and other forms of talking—was linked to somewhat better 

cognitive and language development.9

Higher quality child care also predicted greater school 

readiness at 41⁄2 years of age, as reflected in standardized 

tests of literacy and number skills.10

Even though child care quality was associated with 

cognitive and language development, the link was not 

a strong one. Family and parent features were more 

important predictors of this development than child 

care quality.11 So, the differences between outcomes 

for children in higher and lower quality care were 

small relative to the differences associated with family 

characteristics (the mean score for the pre-academic 

skills test was 100, with a standard deviation of 15).10 

Figure 2 provides an illustration of these findings. 







Regulable Features Process Features 

Behavior and Development8
1313

Child Care Quality and Social 

Development Outcomes 

Children who experienced higher quality child care had 

mothers who were more likely to show slightly higher 

(rather than slightly lower) levels of sensitivity when 

interacting with their children at ages 6 months, 11⁄2 years, 

2 years, and 3 years.12,13

Children who experienced higher quality child care were 

somewhat more cooperative and compliant and slightly 

less aggressive and disobedient at 2 years and 3 years 

of age.14 

Children were somewhat more likely to be insecurely 

attached to their mothers if they were in lower quality 

care, but only if their mothers were also lower in sensitivity 

during interactions with their children.11,12,15

Higher quality child care predicted more positive 

interactions with other children at age 3 years.16









The links between child care quality and social 

outcomes were weak and were more slight than links 

between family features and the same aspects of social 

development.17

Child Care Quality and Health 

Outcomes

Child care quality did not predict children’s health.18,19 

However, it is important to note that the Study did not 

address issues related to hygiene. The few measures 

of hygiene that were included were not statistically 

significant predictors of health outcomes. It is possible, 

though, that hygiene was similar in the different settings 

because of state or local standards. 

101.5

98.61

99.15

100.84

Low Medium High

97

97.5

98

98.5

99

99.5

100

101

100.5

Level of Quality

Pre-Academic Skill Scores

Figure 2 Quality of Care and Child Outcomes in the SECCYD
14

How can parents and caregivers evaluate 

the quality of child care?

As you learned earlier, child care quality has many 

aspects.8,20,21 The easiest aspects to judge are the 

regulable standards—adult-to-child ratios, group size, and 

the child care provider’s education and training. You can 

ask the child care provider whether the setting is accredited 

and by what organization. Accreditation from one of 

the organizations mentioned earlier is a good indicator 

of high quality. Ask whether a child care setting is 

licensed, listed, or certified by the local government 

agency responsible for child care regulations. Such 

a designation means that the setting meets minimum 

standards for quality as defined by the state or local 

area. You can get this information from your local 

government. 
1515

The quality of child care is modestly linked to the cognitive development of children across the 

infant, toddler, and preschool years. Quality is also modestly linked to social development 

during the infant and toddler years. Children who receive higher quality care show slightly 

more positive outcomes than do those in lower quality care. 

What’s the bottom line?

Evaluating process features of child care quality is more 

difficult, but the NICHD Study offers a tool that parents 

can use for this task. The Positive Caregiving Checklist 

(in Appendix C—The Positive Caregiving Checklist) is 

similar to the one used in the NICHD Study. You can use 

this checklist to help evaluate the quality of a child care 

setting you are considering, or at the setting in which 

your child is already enrolled. Go to Appendix C for 

complete details on the checklist and how to use it. 

Can quality of child care help children 

from families at risk?

Research on the effects of early intervention suggests 

that children from socioeconomically disadvantaged 

households benefit a good deal when placed in high 

quality early education programs.3 Based on these 

findings, SECCYD researchers examined whether 

children who were from low-income families, singleparent homes, or minority ethnic groups benefited 

more than other children from exposure to high 

quality child care. They found that, in general, the 

links between child care quality and child development 

were similar for children regardless of their family’s 

social and economic resources.22,23 

But researchers did find that quality of care was 

especially important for children whose development 

was slow at age 11⁄2 years. Among these children, high 

quality care had a greater and more positive impact 

than was the case for other children.24 This finding 

suggests that children’s individual features, specifically 

their developmental status or general level of functioning, 

were stronger predictors of benefit from high quality care 

than was socioeconomic or ethnic status. 

These findings, however, may have been limited in 

detecting a true level of benefit because of some of 

the criteria for participation in the NICHD Study. For 

instance, the Study did not include mothers younger than 

18 years of age, and it did not include a large number 

of extremely poor children. In addition, before age 

4, poor children were less likely than other children to 

experience very high quality care, so researchers had 

little opportunity to learn how these children might have 

benefited. These factors limit the confidence that Study 

researchers place in the conclusion that the most at-risk 

children benefit from high-quality care at a similar level 

as children from more advantaged situations. 
16

What is quantity of child care?

Quantity of child care is the average amount of time 

a child spent in child care each week. 

On average, children in the NICHD Study spent 

27 hours each week in child care between the 

ages of 6 months and 41⁄2 years.25 

In addition, older children were more likely to spend 

more time in care than younger children were. For 

example, the number of children in care for an average 

of 30 hours or more per week increased from 37 percent 

when children were between the ages of 3 months and 

11⁄2 years, to 50 percent when they were between 3 and 

41⁄2 years old. At the same time, many children who 

were not in regular care (less than 10 hours a week) as 

infants increased their time in care by the time they were 

preschool age. As a result, the percentage of children 

in care between 10 and 30 hours each week stayed 

relatively the same over time, as shown in Figure 3.

26

Note the following about the chart: 

Between the ages of 3 months 

and 11⁄2 years, 27 percent of 

the children were in child care 

for at least 10 hours each week, 

and 37 percent were in child care 

for more than 30 hours each week. 

Between the ages of 11⁄2 and 

3 years, 44 percent of the children 

were in child care for more than 

30 hours each week. 

Between the ages of 3 and 

41⁄2 years, 50 percent were 

in child care for 30 or more 

hours each week. 







How is quantity of child care related to 

children’s development?

To understand how quantity of child care may influence 

child development, researchers considered the amount 

of time a child spent in child care since birth, while 

taking into account children’s family features (such as 

ethnic background and parents’ education) and other 

child care features (such as child care quality). They 

examined development of the children at ages 

11⁄2, 2, 3, and 41⁄2 years and compared children’s 

development to standards or milestones for those 

ages. These analyses allowed researchers to identify 

relationships between child care quantity and some 

child development outcomes. 

Child Care Quantity and Cognitive and 

Language Development Outcomes

The amount of time spent in child care was not related to 

children’s cognitive or language skills or to their school 

readiness at any age prior to school entry.9

NICHD SECCYD Findings

Age of Child

Percentage of Children 40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

60%

50%

70%

90%

80%

100%

37%

27%

36%

44%

27%

29% 

50%

31%

19% 

3 Months to <11⁄2 Years 11⁄2 Years to <3 Years 3 Years to <41⁄2 Years

0 to 10 hours per week >10 to <30 hours per week 30+ hours per week

Figure 3 Hours in Care for Children in the SECCYD
1717

When children spent more 

(rather than less) time in child 

care, their mothers showed 

lower levels of sensitivity 

when interacting with them 

across their first 3 years 

of life. The same pattern 

occurred when mother-child 

interaction was studied at 

age 41⁄2 years and again in first grade, but only for white 

children. For African American and Hispanic children, 

the opposite was true: More (rather than less) time spent 

in child care across the first 4 years of life predicted 

higher levels of sensitivity when children were age 41⁄2 

and in first grade. In other words, after age 3, linkages 

between time spent in child care and mothering style were 

different for white and for non-white children.13

Child Care Quantity and Health 

Outcomes

Even though children in child care may be exposed to 

communicable illnesses (that is, sicknesses you can catch 

from someone else, such as a cold), the quantity of child 

care each week had little to do with the likelihood of 

catching such illnesses, except for two specific situations:

Children in more hours of child care each week during 

their first year of life were 8 percent more likely to have 

an ear infection.2,18,23 

Children in more hours of care each week during 

their first year of life were 4 percent more likely to 

have stomach illness (such as an upset stomach or 

brief stomach “flu”).18,19,25





Child Care Quantity and Social 

Development Outcomes

For young children whose mothers showed low levels 

of sensitivity during mother-child interactions, more than 

10 hours of care each week increased the risk of insecure 

attachment to their mothers.12,13 

Children who spent more time in child care were 

somewhat less cooperative, more disobedient, and more 

aggressive at age 2 and age 41⁄2, and in kindergarten, 

but not at age 3.14,25 These findings were based on 

reports from caregivers, mothers, and/or teachers about 

children’s behavior. 

Children who averaged 30 hours of child care or 

more each week during their first 41⁄2 years of life were 

somewhat more likely to show problem behaviors at age 

4 and in kindergarten, based on caregiver reports. But 

child care quantity did not predict problem behaviors in 

the home environment as reported by the mothers.25,27,28 

Time spent in child care did not predict clinical levels 

(behaviors that may require special attention) of behavior 

problems or psychopathology.27,28

Once again, family features were stronger predictors of 

children’s social behavior and development than was 

quantity of child care.4,5,27,28











The amount of time that children spend in child care from infancy through age 41⁄2 is not related to their 

cognitive outcomes prior to school entry. Children who spend many hours in child care, however, show 

somewhat more behavior problems and more episodes of minor illness than those in fewer hours of child care. 

The amount of time a child spent in child care is also associated with mother-child relationships to some degree. 

What’s the bottom line?

Characteristics of Care for Children with Disabilities35

Children who have developmental disabilities, such as Down syndrome, Fragile X syndrome, autism, or other 

disorders, often have special care needs. To learn more about the quality of care these children were getting, 

two Study researchers conducted an independent investigation to compare measures for a group of children 

with developmental disabilities with the same measures for children in the NICHD SECCYD. 

 Among families of children with developmental disabilities, fewer mothers re-entered the work force 

by the time their child was 1 year old than did mothers in the NICHD Study, whose children did not have 

disabilities. For this reason, children with disabilities started child care at a later age than the children in the 

NICHD Study. The data also showed that children with a specific diagnosis of a developmental disorder were 

in child care for fewer hours than children in the NICHD Study. 

 Most importantly, children with disabilities received the same quality of care overall as children in the SECCYD.
18

NICHD SECCYD Findings Child Care Type

The number of children in center care, which included part-time 

preschools, increased from 9 percent at age 6 months, to 31 percent 

at age 3, to 54 percent at age 41⁄2.
1919

What is child care type?

Children experienced many different types of care 

throughout the course of the NICHD Study, including: 

In-home care—meaning fathers, grandparents, 

or other adults came to the child’s home 

Child care homes—meaning adults provided 

care in their own homes 

Child care centers—meaning children received 

care from adults at a non-home location, such as a 

traditional day care center 

As shown in Figure 4, most children in the study 

experienced more than one child care arrangement 

(caregiver, setting, type, etc.) in their first year of life 

(mean of 2.57 arrangements).25 







Age of Child 

Number of Starts in Care

3

2.57

Birth to 1 Year

(n=1,089) (n=877) (n=849)

>1 to 2 Years >2 to 3 Years

0

0.5

1.5

1

2

2.5

2.17 2.14

Figure 4 Mean Number of Starts in Care for Children in the SECCYD
20

As shown in Figure 5, children were increasingly 

likely to spend time in some kind of child care as they 

got older. Other trends in child care type include the 

following:4,7,25,29

The number of children who were only cared for by 

their mothers shrank from 36 percent (when the children 

were 6 months of age), to 21 percent (at age 3 years), 

to 11 percent (at age 41⁄2). 

Enrollment in child care homes was fairly stable for 

children from birth through age 3 years, with 22 percent 

enrolled in this type of care at 6 months of age and 20 

percent enrolled at age 3. But these numbers decreased to 

12 percent at age 41⁄2. 

The number of children in center care, which included parttime preschools, increased from 9 percent at age 6 months, 

to 31 percent at age 3, to 54 percent at age 41⁄2. 







Father care remained stable over time, with about 

13 percent of children in this type of care regardless 

of children’s age. 

Grandparent care and in-home care decreased over 

time from 10 percent, to 8 percent, to 7 percent at 

age 41⁄2 years. 

In-home care decreased from 10 percent, to 7 percent, 

to 4 percent at age 41⁄2 years. 

How is child care type related to children’s 

development?

To understand how type of child care may be linked to child 

development, researchers considered it in addition to children’s 

family features (such as ethnic background and parents’ 

education) and other child care features (such as quantity of 

child care). Researchers found 

that type of child care seemed 

to have both positive and 

negative effects.

Child Care Type 

and Cognitive 

and Language 

Development 

Outcomes

Children 6 months of age and 

older who had more experience 

in child care centers showed 

somewhat better cognitive and 

language development 9 through 

age 3 and somewhat better preacademic skills involving letters 

and numbers at age 41⁄2 than 

children with less center-based 

child care experience7,8,10,29

(when quality was similar). 







Age of Child

Percentage of Children

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

11% 12% 54% 12% 7% 4%

4 1⁄2 Years

6 Months

3 Years

Mother Child Care Home Center Father Grandparent In Home

21% 20% 31% 13% 8% 7%

36% 22% 9% 13% 10% 10%

Figure 5 Child Care Type for Children in the SECCYD
21 21

Child Care Type and Social 

Development Outcomes

Relations between type of child care and children’s 

social development changed over time. For instance:

Children who spent more time in group child care, such 

as child care centers, were somewhat more cooperative 

with their caregivers at age 2, showed fewer problem 

behaviors (as reported by the caregiver) at ages 2 and 3, 

and had somewhat more positive mother-child interactions 

at age 3 than children in other types of child care.7,9,29

By age 41⁄2, however, children with more center-based 

child care experience showed somewhat more behavior 

problems involving disobedience and aggression than 

children with less center-based care experience as 

reported by the child care provider.9,29

Child Care Type and Health 

Outcomes18,19

Children in child care centers and child care homes 

were more likely than children who were cared for in their 

own homes to get ear infections and upper respiratory 

infections, particularly at ages 1 and 2. 

The likelihood of getting stomach illness (such as an upset 

stomach or brief stomach “flu”) was also slightly higher for 

children in center care than for children in other types of 

non-maternal care. 









What’s the bottom line?

Center-based child care is associated with both positive and negative effects. This type of care is linked to 

better cognitive development through age 41⁄2 and to more positive social behaviors through age 3. But 

center-based and large-group settings are also associated with more problem behavior just before and just 

after school entry. These types of care are also linked to more ear infections and upper respiratory and 

stomach illnesses during the first 3 years of life.

Children being cared for by a relative were less likely 

to get stomach illnesses (such as an upset stomach or 

brief stomach “flu”) during their first year of life, but 

this likelihood increased slightly during their third year 

of life.

In addition, the number of other children in the child 

care setting was related to how often a child got 

upper respiratory infections and stomach illnesses. 

For instance:

Rates of upper respiratory infection, stomach illness, 

and ear infections were higher in children in child care 

arrangements that had more than six children. 

Children in large group care were more likely to have 

an upper respiratory illness than were children who 

were reared at home or in small group settings. 

Children in large group care were more likely to 

have an ear infection and a stomach illness (such as 

an upset stomach or brief stomach “flu”) than were 

children reared at home or in small group settings. 

Experience in large group care during the first 2 years 

of life did not reduce children’s chances of contracting 

an illness between ages 3 and 41⁄2. However, children 

who were in large group care during their third year 

of life were less likely to contract upper respiratory and 

stomach illnesses between ages 3 and 41⁄2. 










22

One major scientific strength of the NICHD Study is its 

ability to examine linkages between child care and child 

development, while also examining family features. By 

examining how family features predicted children’s 

developmental outcomes, while also examining the link 

between child care features and children’s development, 

it is possible to reduce the likelihood of finding false links 

between child care and child development. In other 

words, this process may reduce the possibility of saying 

that a link exists between child care and child outcomes 

when actually the outcome is predicted by family 

features instead. 

As noted throughout the booklet, features of the family 

and of children’s experiences in their families proved, in 

general, to be stronger and more consistent predictors of 

child development than did any aspect of child care. 

What are family features?

In addition to their diverse demographic features (noted 

earlier in this booklet and described in Appendix A), 

families in the study had varied home environments, 

child-rearing/parenting attitudes, psychological 

adjustment (such as maternal depression), and sensitivity 

to the emotional and intellectual needs of their children. 

Researchers used different methods to examine the 

features of each family. For instance, researchers 

assessed: 

The quality of the family environment through 

repeated 2-hour visits to the children’s homes—During 

these interviews and observations, researchers learned the 

extent to which the family provided cognitively stimulating 

experiences (such as having books in the home, taking 

trips to the library, and the like) for the child, as well as 

the emotional tone (positive or negative) of the interactions 

between the mother and child 

Parental attitudes and maternal psychological 

adjustment using written questionnaires

Mothers’ sensitivity by observing interactions between 

mothers and their children in situations that were designed 

by the Study investigators, involved interesting toys or other 

play objects, and were the same for all mother-child pairs 

For more information on the methods, see Appendix B.







NICHD SECCYD Findings

Features of the family and 

of children’s experiences 

in their families proved, in 

general, to be stronger and 

more consistent predictors 

of child development than 

did any aspect of child care. 
2323

How are family features related to 

children’s development?

To understand how family features may be involved in 

children’s development, researchers considered these 

features in the context of certain aspects of child care 

(such as the amount of time in care and quality of care), 

while keeping in mind the family demographic features 

(such as income and ethnicity).

Family Features and Cognitive and 

Language Development and Social 

Outcomes

One of the most important and consistent predictors of 

child cognitive and social development was the quality 

of the mother-child interactions. The more sensitive, 

responsive, attentive, and cognitively stimulating the 

mother was during observed interactions, the better the 

children’s outcomes. This result was the same when 

researchers examined attachment security, language 

development, pre-academic letter and number skills, and 

social behavior.4,9,12–15,30

In general, mothers who were more educated, lived in 

more economically advantaged households, experienced 

fewer symptoms of depression, and had more positive 

personalities were more likely to provide the type of 

mother-child interactions linked to better developmental 

outcomes for the Study children. 
24

Level

Low Middle High

53.0

52.0

51.0

50.0

49.0

48.0

46.0

47.0

51.0

48.0

48.7 48.8 48.8

51.7

Parenting Quality Child Care Quantity Parenting Quality Child Care Quality

Family Income Child Care Quantity Family Income Child Care Quality

Level

Low Middle High

104.0

102.0

100.0

98.0

96.0

94.0

90.0

92.0

95.1

98.6

100.1

99.2

103.4

100.8

Level

Low Middle High

104.0

102.0

100.0

98.0

96.0

94.0

90.0

92.0

94.3

97.1

99.3 98.6

102.6

100.9

Level

Low Middle High

Problem Behavior Scores Problem Behavior Scores

Pre-Academic Skill Scores Pre-Academic Skill Scores

53.0

52.0

51.0

50.0

49.0

48.0

46.0

47.0

53.0

48.4

54.0

48.7

49.2

48.5

52.6

Figure 6 Parenting Quality Versus Child Care Features: 

 Problem Behaviors and Pre-Academic Skills

Figure 7 Family Income Versus Child Care Features: 

 Problem Behaviors and Pre-Academic Skills
2525

Many of these predictors of positive mother-child 

interactions were also independently related to child 

well-being—meaning that children had better outcomes 

when these features were present, regardless of the 

mother-child interaction. So, children did better overall 

if their parents were more educated, when they lived 

in more economically advantaged families, and when 

their mothers experienced fewer or no symptoms of 

depression and had more positive personalities. 

Another very important and consistent predictor of 

children’s cognitive and social development was the 

quality of the family environment. Families who had well 

organized routines, those with books and play materials, 

and those who took part in enhancing experiences both 

inside and outside the home (such as going to the library 

or attending a cultural festival) had children who were 

more advanced socially and cognitively.5,6,12,23

The relation between family features and children’s 

outcomes was similar for children in extensive child 

care (30 or more hours each week) and for children in 

extensive maternal care.31 For instance:

Children in exclusive maternal care during the first 

3 years of life performed similarly to children 

in child care on cognitive outcomes but performed 

slightly differently on language outcomes. 



Most children in exclusive maternal care at just older 

than 1 year and at 2 and 3 years of age had cognitive, 

language, and achievement scores similar to those of 

children in child care.9

Recent findings related to cognition, language, and 

social development at ages 2 years, 3 years, and 

41⁄2 years showed almost no evidence suggesting 

that child outcomes were related to whether or not 

the child experienced routine child care.32

Other Findings About Family Features

Family features predicted all the developmental outcomes 

that child care predicted but also predicted outcomes not 

predicted by child care. 

Even though the overall association between family 

features and child development was moderate, the 

association was two to three times stronger than the 

links between child care features and development. 

Figure 6 and Figure 7 compare the strength of these 

links for two specific family features—parenting quality 

and family income—and for two specific outcomes—

problem behaviors and pre-academic skills.

Some of the greater and more consistent predictive power 

of family features (as opposed to child care features) may 

result from a combination of biological inheritance (that 

is, genetic factors) and of children’s experiences in the 

family environment. However, the NICHD Study was not 

designed to make such fine distinctions. 





Many family features are more strongly and more consistently linked to child development outcomes 

than are child care features for children up to age 41⁄2 (and even into kindergarten). The following 

characteristics predicted children’s cognitive/language and social development: parents’ education, 

family income, and two-parent family compared to single-parent family; mothers’ psychological 

adjustment and sensitivity; and the social and cognitive quality of home environment. 

What’s the bottom line?
26

Some of the other topics of analyses include:

Child development outcomes related to before- and afterschool care arrangements33

Quantity of child care and children’s socio-emotional 

adjustment during the school years27

Quality of child care and children’s academic and social 

development during the school years34

Type of child care and children’s academic and social 

development during the school years34

Over the last 10 years, the NICHD Study has explained 

a great deal about the lives of many American families 

and children. As the Study continues through the 

children’s middle adolescence, its results will continue to 

provide an important resource for decisions about child 

care, school, and after-school programs; about families 

and home environments; and about the contribution of 

all these qualities to individual differences in children’s 

intellectual, social, and emotional development.









The SECCYD provides valuable and much-needed 

data on family, schools, and children’s growth and 

development, particularly as children move from child 

care into early school, and from early school to middle 

school and high school. In 2005, the children in the 

SECCYD (born throughout 1991) all celebrated their 

14th birthdays, and the majority was in 8th grade. 

At this time, the NICHD is committed to following the 

development of the children through 9th grade. 

As the children continued in school, researchers 

continued to collect data to help answer basic questions, 

such as whether there were lasting associations among 

family features, child care, and children’s development 

in the middle childhood years, in early adolescence, 

and in mid-adolescence. For instance, Study researchers 

have already completed analyses about how features 

of kindergarten and elementary schools are related to 

child outcomes, and to what degree cognitive enrichment 

provided by the mother and by school are associated 

with the child’s school success. 

The NICHD Study
2727

Over the last 10 years, the NICHD Study has explained a great 

deal about the lives of many American families and children.
28

Information

National Institute of Child Health and 

Human Development (NICHD)

For more information on child development, including 

parenting, the links among child care, school, and 

development, and children’s growth, contact the NICHD. 

The Institute supports and conducts research on topics 

related to the health of children, adults, families, and 

populations, including child care and how child care 

influences children’s growth and development. 

The mission of the NICHD is to ensure that every person 

is born healthy and wanted, that women suffer no 

harmful effects from the reproductive process, and that 

all children have the chance to fulfill their potential for a 

healthy and productive life, free of disease or disability, 

and to ensure the health, well-being, independence, and 

productivity of all people through optimal rehabilitation. 

The Institute supports and conducts 

research on topics related to the 

health of children, adults, families, 

and populations, including child 

care and how child care influences 

children’s growth and development. 

?

You can contact the NICHD at:

NICHD Information Resource Center

Phone: 1-800-370-2943 

TTY: 1-888-320-6942

Fax: (301) 984-1473

E-mail: NICHDInformationResourceCenter@mail.nih.gov

Mail: P.O. Box 3006, Rockville, MD 20847

Internet: http://www.nichd.nih.gov
2929

NICHD Study of Early Child Care and 

Youth Development (SECCYD)

For more information about the SECCYD, visit the Study 

Web site at http://secc.rti.org. Geared more toward 

scientists and researchers, this site provides:

A complete description of the instruments used to collect 

NICHD SECCYD data

An approximate timeline of the data collections

General information about the Study

Instructions for accessing the public use datasets

Contact information for investigators involved in the Study

A complete list of peer-reviewed journal articles related to 

the NICHD SECCYD or the NICHD SECCYD datasets

A complete list of publications related to the Study

The NICHD also maintains a Web site for the Study 

(http://www.nichd.nih.gov/od/secc/index.htm), 

although it is not the primary Web site for the SECCYD.

In addition, a compilation of articles about and resulting 

from the SECCYD was published in April 2005. Child 

Care and Child Development—Results from the NICHD 

Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (457 

pages; ISBN 1-59385-138-3; edited by the NICHD Early 

Child Care Research Network) is available for purchase 

at http://www.guilford.com.















Administration for Children 

and Families (ACF)

For more information on child care programs and 

support, contact the ACF. The ACF, within the 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is 

responsible for federal programs that promote the 

economic and social well-being of families, children, 

individuals, and communities. 

Within the ACF, the Child Care Bureau is dedicated 

to enhancing the quality, affordability, and availability 

of child care for all families. As part of its mission, the 

Child Care Bureau administers federal funds to states, 

territories, and tribes to assist low-income families in 

accessing quality child care for children when the 

parents work or participate in education or training. 

You can contact the ACF at:

ACF Child Care Bureau

Phone: (202) 690-6782

Fax: (202) 690-5600

Mail: Switzer Building, Room 2046, 330 C Street, SW, 

Washington, DC 20447

Internet: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/

index.htm

.
30

Appendix A

The NICHD Study Families5

The SECCYD began in 1991 with 1,364 children and 

their families from across the United States. Researchers 

selected the families from geographically diverse locations 

throughout the country, and the participants differed in 

many ways, from their income, to their ethnicity, to their 

family structure. These differences allowed researchers to 

investigate the relationships among different features of 

child care and the development of children whose families 

had different backgrounds.

In the total study population in 1991, 56 percent of 

families were living-above-poverty; 23 percent were 

living-near-poverty; and 21 percent were living-in-poverty. 

For those families who used child care between 3 and 

15 months, 55 percent were living-above-poverty; 

24 percent were living-near-poverty; and 21 percent 

were living-in-poverty in 1991 and the beginning of 

1992.* (See Table A-1.)

In 1991, some of the features of the families involved in 

the Study included the following:

The average household income of the families in the Study 

($37,947) was only slightly higher than the U.S. average 

($36,875). 

Families who took part in the Study were more likely to 

receive public assistance (18.8 percent) than a family in 

the U.S. average (7.5 percent).

Of the families enrolled, 76.4 percent were white (of nonHispanic origin), 12.7 percent were African American, 

6.1 percent were Hispanic, and 4.8 percent were Asian, 

Pacific Islander, American Indian, or other. 

Mothers of families who took part in the Study had 

a wider variety of education levels than the U.S. 

average; 35.3 percent had a bachelor’s degree 

or higher, 33.4 percent had some college, and 

31.3 percent had a high school degree or lower. 

Demographic Characteristics of the 

SECCYD Participant Families

The families involved in the SECCYD are not nationally 

representative overall because the researchers did not 

draw the sample from the nation as a whole. Instead, 

the families are representative of those who gave birth in 

1991 at one of the 24 hospitals selected for the Study. 

See Table A-1 for more specific information on the family 

characteristics. 









* For the NICHD Study, “poverty” was defined using an income-to-needs ratio, which is calculated by taking the total family 

income (not including federal or state aid) and dividing it by the federal poverty threshold, a number determined every year by 

the U.S. Department of Commerce. When the SECCYD started in 1991, the federal poverty threshold for a family of four was 

$13,924. So, families living-in-poverty had a total income of less than that amount, which would mean their income-to-needs ratio 

was 1.0 or lower. Those families living-near-poverty had an income-to-needs ratio between 1.0 and 1.99. Those living-abovepoverty had a ratio of 2.0 or higher.1,5,6,11

The families are representative 

of those who gave birth in 1991 

at one of the 24 hospitals 

selected for the Study.
31 31

TABLE A-1 Demographic Characteristics of the SECCYD Participant Families

 At Age 1 Month At Age 3 Years At Age 41⁄2 Years

Total Number 

of Families 1,364 1,216 1,084

Income-toNeeds Ratio (Based on 1,273 Families) (Based on 1,208 Families) (Based on 1,073 Families)

0 to 1 (Poverty) 21.5% 14.4% 11.8%

1.1 to 1.9 (Near Poverty) 22.9% 19.5% 19.0%

Greater than 1.9 (Non-poor) 55.6% 66.1% 69.2%

Maternal Education (Based on 1,363 Families) (Based on 1,216 Families) (Based on 1,084 Families)

No High School Degree 10.2% 9.2% 8.5%

High School Degree/GED 21.1% 20.3% 20.1%

Some College 33.4% 33.1% 33.0%

College Degree 20.8% 22.1% 22.9%

Post-Graduate Education 14.5% 15.2% 15.5%

Ethnicity (of child) (Based on 1,364 Families) (Based on 1,216 Families) (Based on 1,084 Families) 

White, non-Hispanic 76.4% 78.1% 78.8%

Black, non-Hispanic 12.7% 11.4% 11.2%

Hispanic 6.1% 5.8% 5.6%

Other 4.8% 4.7% 4.4%

Gender (of child) (Based on 1,364 Families) (Based on 1,216 Families) (Based on 1,084 Families) 

Male 51.7% 51.4% 50.5%

Female 48.3% 48.6% 49.5%

Two-Parent Family (Based on 1,364 Families) (Based on 1,216 Families) (Based on 1,084 Families) 

Yes 85.5% 83.1% 83.4%

No 14.5% 16.9% 16.6%
32

The NICHD Study Sites

Researchers in the SECCYD collect data on families at 

10 sites around the country (see Figure A-1). These 

sites are affiliated with the following universities: 

University of Arkansas at Little Rock

Harvard University and Wellesley College

University of California, Irvine

University of Kansas









University of North Carolina, 

Chapel Hill 

Temple University

University of Pittsburgh

University of Virginia

University of Washington

University of Wisconsin, Madison













Figure A-1 SECCYD Sites
3333

Families that participate in the SECCYD live all across 

the United States, although when they were recruited 

into the Study, the families lived near one of the 10 

data collection sites. Figure A-2 shows the geographic 

locations of the SECCYD families. The purple dots are 

data collection sites, and the green dots indicate the 

locations of participating families.

Figure A-2 Locations of Participating Families

After collecting data for more than 10 years, the SECCYD 

datasets contain hundreds of thousands of pieces of 

information. To manage these data, the SECCYD relies on 

its Data Coordinating Center, located at Research Triangle 

Institute (RTI) International, Inc., in North Carolina. 

In addition, the SECCYD depends on scientific guidance 

and oversight from the NICHD, which has supported the 

Study since it started in 1991. The SECCYD Scientific 

Coordinator is a researcher at the NICHD, located at the 

NIH in Bethesda, Maryland.
34

The measurements were taken in a number of places: at the 

child care location, in the home, in the laboratory at the Study 

sites, and by phone and mail. 

Appendix B ,
3535

NICHD SECCYD researchers noted many features of 

the families who took part in the Study, including: the 

features of the individual child, the features of the child’s 

home environment, and the features of the child care 

situation(s) the child was placed in. The measurements 

were taken in a number of places: at the child care 

location, in the home, in the laboratory at the Study sites, 

and by phone and mail. To get reliable measurements 

that could be compared, SECCYD researchers used 

different tests and scales that are standard within 

the research community. These features and their 

descriptions appear below. For the tests, surveys, 

or observational procedures used to measure these 

features, go to http://secc.rti.org.

Features of the Individual Child 

Behavior—The child’s responses to his or her 

environment as reported by those who know the child, or 

as observed or tested in playroom laboratory visits

Development—The physical, social, emotional, and 

intellectual progress of the child in relation to what is 

typical at a given age

Relationships—Quality of a child’s interactions with 

people in his or her environment, including attachment to 

the mother and interactions with other children

Temperament—A child’s usual mood or personality 

Home/Family Features

Home environment—The details of the child’s home, 

including socioeconomic status and income

Mother and father features—The traits of the parents, 

guardians, or others, including physical health, mental 

health, and parenting attitudes—attitudes toward work, 

family, and child care













Child Care Features

Regulable features—Structural features, including child 

care type, adult-to-child ratio, caregiver education, and 

specialized education

Process features—Observed features, including level of 

positive caregiving and quality




36

Before using the Positive Caregiving Checklist, parents and families should find 

out as much as they can about the child care setting, including whether or not it 

meets the recommendations for adult-to-child ratio, size of group, and caregiver 

training and education. These recommendations are issued by the various 

professional societies that focus on child care (see Table 2 on page 9 for more 

details). They may also want to visit the child care setting and watch how the 

child care providers interact with other children under their care before making a 

decision about their child’s care.

Appendix C

Many features make for quality child 

care. Some of these features include 

adult-to-child ratio, group size, and 

the language a caregiver uses with 

a child. Among predictors of child 

care quality, one of the strongest and 

most consistent predictor of children’s 

development is the extent and the 

degree to which caregivers provided 

positive caregiving. NICHD SECCYD 

researchers looked at all the different 

caregiver behaviors that make up positive caregiving 

and found that these behaviors were linked to features of 

quality care that can be regulated, such as adult-to-child 

ratio. 

Using a checklist (see opposite page) similar to the 

measurements used by NICHD SECCYD researchers, 

parents and families can focus on their children’s 

experiences in the child care setting (either the one they 

are considering or the one their child is currently in). 

To use this checklist when visiting your child’s child care 

location:

1. Talk to your child’s caregiver to let him or her know 

that you will be stopping by sometime during the 

week to watch your child in the child care setting. 

If your child is not yet in the child care setting you 

wish to observe, contact the child care provider and 

ask if you can visit the child care setting; then select 

one child to watch during your visit. 

2. Sit off to the side of the setting and let the child and 

the caregiver go through their day as they normally 

do. Don’t interrupt the play or change the situation in 

any way, if possible. 

3. Use a watch or timer to keep track of a set amount 

of time for watching your child and the caregiver 

together. Try an hour, or maybe 30 minutes.

4. Mark the sheet each time the caregiver does one of 

the actions on the list.

5. When time is up, go back through your record sheet 

and add ratings for each behavior the caregiver 

completed. Use the ratings provided on the next 

page. 

6. Add up how often the caregiver did each of the 

items on the list, and then get an overall total.

If the caregiver does many of the items on the checklist, 

or does them often, then the caregiver is probably 

providing a more positive caregiving environment, 

which suggests that your child is getting higher quality 

child care. This type of environment encourages the 

child to grow and learn and can help him or her build 

important skills.

If you counted the caregiver doing each action only 

once in a 30-minute period, or if you rate the caregiver 

as doing one or more behaviors hardly any of the time, 

you may want to talk to the caregiver about including 

positive interactions with your child more often. 

Note: The Positive Caregiving Checklist is not meant to be the 

only measure of quality care, nor is it intended to take the place 

of other guidelines or standards for quality care.
3737

The Positive Caregiving Checklist

Show a positive attitude—Is the caregiver generally happy and 

encouraging in manner? Is he or she helpful and upbeat? Does the 

caregiver smile often at the child?

Have positive physical contact—Does the caregiver hug the 

child, pat the child on the back, or hold the child’s hand? Does the 

caregiver comfort the child? 

Respond to vocalizations—Does the caregiver repeat the child’s 

words, comment on what the child says or tries to say, or answer the 

child’s questions?

Ask questions—Does the caregiver encourage the child to talk 

by asking questions that the child can answer easily, such as “yes” 

or “no” questions, or asking about a family member or toy?

Talk in other ways

Praising or encouraging—Does the caregiver respond to 

the child’s positive actions with positive words, such as “You 

did it!” or “Well done!”? 

Teaching—Does the caregiver encourage the child to learn or 

have the child repeat learning phrases, such as saying the 

alphabet out loud, counting to 10, naming shapes or objects? 

For older children, does the caregiver explain what words or 

names mean?

Telling and singing—Does the caregiver tell stories, describe 

objects, or sing songs? 

Encourage development—Does the caregiver help the child 

to stand up and walk? Does the caregiver encourage tummy time 

activities with the child? For older children, does the caregiver help 

finish puzzles, stack blocks, or zip zippers?

Advance behavior—Does the caregiver encourage the child 

to smile, laugh, and play with other children? Does the caregiver 

support sharing between the child and other children? Does the 

caregiver give examples of good behaviors?

Read—Does the caregiver read books and stories to the child? Does 

the caregiver let the child touch the book and turn the page? For older 

children, does the caregiver point to pictures and words on the page?

Eliminate negative interactions—Does the caregiver make sure 

to be positive, not negative, in the interactions with the child? 







Date: Set Amount of Time: (For example, 30 minutes)

Rating:

1 = Hardly any of the time

2 = Some of the time

3 = A fair amount of the time

4 = A lot of the time

How Often Does the Caregiver... How Often? Total

Overall Total:
For more information, contact the NICHD Information Resource Center at:

Phone: 1-800-370-2943 (TTY: 1-888-320-6942)

Mail: P.O. Box 3006, Rockville, MD 20847

Fax: (301) 984-1473

E-mail: NICHDInformationResourceCenter@mail.nih.gov

Internet: http://www.nichd.nih.gov
39

Initiating and Maintaining the Study

The NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth 

Development (SECCYD) originated with a decision of the 

NICHD Director, Duane Alexander, M.D. In 1987, it 

came to his attention that the scientific knowledge about 

child care and its effects on the development of young 

children was confusing and left parents wondering if it 

was safe to place infants and toddlers in child care. If it 

was safe, mothers and fathers needed to know at what 

age children could be left with other caregivers, and for 

how many hours. Also parents wondered if there might 

be developmental benefits from child care and how they 

could determine the quality of child care. 

To respond to the public need for evidence-based 

information, the NICHD and the scientific community 

embarked on designing a large, comprehensive, and 

in-depth study of child care and the development 

of children. The NICHD provided resources and 

other conditions to facilitate collaboration among the 

investigators, and to make it possible to carry out this 

landmark study. 

Although the original Study was to track the 

development of the study children for the first 3 years of 

life, the NICHD invited the researchers to continue the 

Study through first grade, and then through fifth grade. 

Most recently, it invited the investigators once again to 

continue the Study through middle adolescence. 

Appendix D

In addition, the NICHD has asked the Study 

researchers to make their datasets available to 

other researchers in the scientific community, so 

that more questions about child care and child 

development could be posed and answered for 

the benefit of children, their families, and society. 

Major scientific decisions about the Study are 

reviewed and approved by the SECCYD Steering 

Committee, which includes a chairperson, the 

principal investigators (PIs) from the 10 data collection 

sites, the PI from the Data Coordinating Center, and 

the Project Scientist/Scientific Coordinator from the 

NICHD. The committee chairperson is an independent 

developmental psychologist, who provides impartial 

oversight of Study activities. When arriving at 

its decisions, the Steering Committee takes into 

consideration input from the co-PIs in the Study, who 

together with the Steering Committee members comprise 

the NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. The 

Network is listed as the author of many of the journal 

articles listed in Appendix E. An Advisory Board of 

leading scholars in the field of child development and 

health provides additional impartial oversight. 

The members of the NICHD Early Child Care Research 

Network (as of 2004) are listed alphabetically. 

To respond to the public need for evidence-based information, 

the NICHD and the scientific community embarked on designing 

a large, comprehensive, and in-depth study of child care and the 

development of children.
40

Virginia D. Allhusen 

University of California, Irvine

Phone: (949) 824-6888

E-mail: vdallhus@uci.edu

Jay Belsky

Birkbeck College, University of London 

(Working with the University of Pittsburgh)

Phone: 44 (0) 20 7079 0835

E-mail: j.belsky@bbk.ac.uk

Cathryn Booth-LaForce* 

University of Washington

Phone: (206) 543-8074

E-mail: ibcb@u.washington.edu

Robert Bradley* 

University of Arkansas, Little Rock

Phone: (501) 569-3422

E-mail: rhbradley@ualr.edu

Celia Brownell

University of Pittsburgh

Phone: (412) 624-4510

E-mail: brownell@pitt.edu

Peg Burchinal

University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Phone: (919) 966-5059

E-mail: burchinal@unc.edu

Susan B. Campbell* 

University of Pittsburgh

Phone: (412) 624-8792

E-mail: sbcamp@pitt.edu

Alison Clarke-Stewart* 

University of California, Irvine

Phone: (949) 824-7191

E-mail: acstewar@uci.edu

 * Site principal investigator in 2004 or 

 NICHD Network partner

** Chair of SECCYD Steering Committee

Martha Cox*

University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Phone: (919) 966-3509

E-mail: martha_cox@unc.edu

Sarah L. Friedman* 

NICHD Project Scientist and Scientific Coordinator

Phone: (301) 435-6946

E-mail: friedmas@exchange.nih.gov

Willard W. Hartup** 

University of Minnesota 

Phone: (612) 624-9805

E-mail: hartup@tc.umn.edu

Kathryn Hirsh-Pasek

Temple University

Phone: (215) 283-1565

E-mail: khirshpa@temple.edu

Aletha Huston 

University of Texas at Austin 

(Working with the University of Kansas)

Phone: (512) 471-0753

E-mail: achuston@mail.utexas.edu

Deborah Johnson

Michigan State University 

(Working with the University of Wisconsin, Madison)

Phone: (517) 432-9115 Ext. 112

E-mail: john1442@msu.edu

Jean Kelly

University of Washington

Phone: (206) 685-3387

E-mail: jkelly@u.washington.edu

Bonnie Knoke 

RTI International, Inc.—Data Coordinating Center

Phone: (919) 541-7075

E-mail: knoke@rti.org

Nancy Marshall

Wellesley College

Phone: (781) 283-2551

E-mail: nmarshall@wellesley.edu

Members of the NICHD Early Child Care Research Network

Name, Affiliation/Study Site, and Contact Information
41 41

Kathleen McCartney* 

Harvard University Phone: (617) 496-1182 E-mail: kathleen_mccartney@harvard.edu Fred Morrison

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Phone: (734) 763-2214 E-mail: fjmorris@umich.edu Philip Nader

University of California, San Diego 

(Working with University of Arkansas)

Phone: (619) 681-0688 E-mail: pnader@ucsd.edu Marion O’Brien

University of North Carolina, Greensboro 

(Working with University of Kansas) Phone: (336) 256-0527 E-mail: m_obrien@uncg.edu Margaret Tresch Owen

University of Texas at Dallas 

(Working with the University of Wisconsin, Madison)

Phone: (972) 883-6876 E-mail: mowen@utdallas.edu Ross Parke

University of California, Riverside 

(Working with University of California, Irvine)

Phone: (909) 787-4144 E-mail: ross.parke@ucr.edu Chris Payne

University of North Carolina, Greensboro 

(Working with University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill)

Phone: (336) 256-1084 E-mail: ccpayne@uncg.edu

Deborah Phillips

University of Virginia

Phone: (202) 687-4042 E-mail: dap4@gunet.georgetown.edu

Robert Pianta* 

University of Virginia

Phone: (434) 243-5483 E-mail: rcp4p@virginia.edu A. Vijaya Rao*

RTIInternational, Inc.—Data Coordinating Center

Phone: (919) 541-6374 E-mail: tdhrao@rti.org

Wendy W. Robeson

Wellesley College

Phone: (781) 283-3499 E-mail: wrobeson@wellesley.edu Carolyn Roy* 

University of Kansas Phone: (785) 330-4480 E-mail: croy@ku.edu

Susan Spieker

University of Washington Phone: (206) 543-8453 E-mail: spieker@u.washington.edu

Deborah Lowe Vandell* 

University of Wisconsin, Madison

Phone: (608) 263-1902 E-mail: dvandell@wisc.edu Marsha Weinraub* Temple University Phone: (215) 204-7183 E-mail: mweinrau@temple.edu

Previous Steering Committee Chairs 

(Tenure Dates) Lewis P. Lipsitt (1993–1998)

Bettye Caldwell (1991–1993)

Henry N. Ricciuti (1989–1991)
42

Applebaum, Mark University of California, San Diego

Batten, Dee Ann U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Boller, Kimberly National Institute of Child Health and Human 

 Development

Bryant, Donna University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Caldera, Yvonne Texas Tech University

Caldwell, Bettye University of Arkansas, Little Rock

Cohn, Jeffrey University of Pittsburgh

Fendt, Kaye National Institute of Child Health and Human 

 Development

Goldberg, Wendy University of California, Irvine

Greenberger, Ellen University of California, Irvine

Hartwell, Tyler RTI International, Inc.—Data Coordinating Center 

Jaeger, Elizabeth St. Joseph’s University

McLeod, Lori RTI International, Inc.—Data Coordinating Center 

Nelson, Lauren University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Overpeck, Mary National Institute of Child Health and Human 

 Development 

Poole, Kenneth RTI International, Inc.—Data Coordinating Center 

Randolph, Suzanne University of Maryland, College Park 

Redden, David RTI International, Inc.—Data Coordinating Center 

Ricciuti, Henry National Institute of Child Health and Human 

 Development 

Scheidt, Peter National Institute of Child Health and Human 

 Development 

Stright, Anne Indiana University

Tarullo, Louisa Administration for Children and Families

Additional Contributors

Name and Affiliation

NICHD SECCYD Advisory Board

An ad hoc Advisory Board also reviews 

research plans for the Study, including 

the development of the study design. 

Members of the Board include:

Roger Bakeman, Georgia State 

University

Deborah L. Coates, City University of 

New York

Andrew Collins, University of Minnesota

Henry N. Ricciuti, Cornell University

Bruce Shapiro, Kennedy-Krieger Institute










43

This list of references includes only selected articles and 

publications about the NICHD Study findings presented 

in this booklet. It is not a complete listing of articles and 

publications related to the Study. For a complete list of 

peer-reviewed journal articles and publications related to 

the SECCYD or the SECCYD datasets, visit the SECCYD 

Web site (http://secc.rti.org).

In addition, a compilation of articles about and resulting 

from the SECCYD was published in April 2005. Child 

Care and Child Development—Results from the NICHD 

Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (457 

pages; ISBN 1-59385-138-3; edited by the NICHD Early 

Child Care Research Network) is available for purchase 

at http://www.guilford.com.

Appendix E

1

 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2003). 

The NICHD Study of Early Child Care: Contexts of 

development and developmental outcomes over the 

first 7 years of life. In J. Brooks-Gunn, A.S. Fuligni, 

& L.J. Berlin (Eds.), Early Childhood Development 

in the 21st Century: Profiles of Current Research 

Initiatives (pp. 182-201). New York, NY: Teachers 

College Press.

2

 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (1999). 

Child outcomes when child care center classes 

meet recommended standards for quality. American 

Journal of Public Health, 89, 1072-1077.
44

3

 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. 

(1996). Characteristics of infant child care: Factors 

contributing to positive caregiving. Early Childhood 

Research Quarterly, 11, 269-306.

4

 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. 

(1997). Familial factors associated with the 

characteristics of non-maternal care for infants. 

Journal of Marriage and Family, 59, 389-408.

5

 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. 

(2001). Before Head Start: Income and ethnicity, 

family characteristics, child care experiences, 

and child development. Early Education and 

Development, 12, 545-576.

6

 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. 

(2001). Child care and family predictors of 

preschool attachment and stability from infancy. 

Developmental Psychology, 37, 847-862. 

7

 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. 

(2000). Characteristics and quality of child care for 

toddlers and preschoolers. Applied Developmental 

Science, 4, 116-135.

8

 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. 

(2002). Child care structure‡process‡outcome: 

Direct and indirect effects of child care quality on 

young children’s development. Psychological 

Science, 13, 199-206.

9

 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. 

(2000). The relation of child care to cognitive and 

language development. Child Development, 71, 

960-980.

10 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. 

(2002). Early child care and children’s development 

prior to school entry: Results from the NICHD Study 

of Early Child Care. American Educational Research 

Journal, 39, 133-164.

11 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. 

(2002). Parenting and family influences when 

children are in child care: Results from the NICHD 

Study of Early Child Care. In J.G. Borkowski, S.L. 

Ramey, & M. Bristol-Power (Eds.), Parenting and the 

Child’s World: Influences on Academic, Intellectual, 

and Social-emotional Development (pp. 99-123).

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 
4545

12 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. 

(1999). Child care and mother-child interaction 

in the first three years of life. Developmental 

Psychology, 35, 1399-1413.

13 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. 

(2003). Early child care and mother-child interaction 

from 36 months through first grade. Infant Behavior 

and Development, 26, 345-370.

14 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. 

(1998). Early child care and self-control, 

compliance, and problem behavior at 24 and 36 

months. Child Development, 69, 1145-1170.

15 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. 

(1997). The effects of infant child care on infantmother attachment security: Results of the NICHD 

Study of Early Child Care. Child Development,

68, 860-879. 

16 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. 

(2001). Child care and children’s peer interaction at 

24 and 36 months: The NICHD Study of Early Child 

Care. Child Development, 72, 1478-1500.

17 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. 

(2003). Does quality of child care affect child 

outcomes at age 41⁄2? Developmental Psychology, 

39, 451-469.

18 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. 

(2001). Child care and communicable illnesses: 

Results from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care.

Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine,

155, 481-488.

19 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. 

(2003). Child care and common communicable 

illnesses in children aged 37 to 54 months. Archives 

of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 157,

196-200.

20 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. 

(2001). A new guide for evaluating child care 

quality. Zero to Three, 21, 40-47.

21 Knoll, K., & O’Brien, M. (2001). Quick Quality 

Check for Infant and Toddler Programs. St. Paul, 

MN: Redleaf.

22 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. 

(2002). The interaction of child care and family 

risk in relation to child development at 24 and 36 

months. Applied Developmental Science, 6,

144-156.

23 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. 

(2003). Families matter—even for kids in child care. 

Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics,

24, 58-62.
46

24 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network and 

Duncan, G.J. (2003). Modeling the impacts of 

child care quality on children’s preschool cognitive 

development. Child Development, 74, 1454-1475.

25 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. 

(2003). Child care in the world—past and present: 

Does amount of time spent in child care predict 

socioemotional adjustment during the transition to 

kindergarten? The Journal of the Japan Society for 

Child Health, 62, 418-431. 

26 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. 

(1997). Child care in the first year of life. MerrillPalmer Quarterly, 43, 340-360.

27 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. 

(2003). Does amount of time spent in child care 

predict socioemotional adjustment during the 

transition to kindergarten? Child Development, 

74, 976-1005.

28 Belsky, J. (2002). Quantity counts: Amount of child 

care and children’s socioemotional development. 

Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics,

23, 167-170.

29 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. 

(2004). Type of child care and children’s 

development at 54 months. Early Childhood 

Research Quarterly, 19(2), 203-230.

30 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. 

(1999). Chronicity of maternal depressive 

symptoms, maternal sensitivity, and child 

functioning at 36 months. Developmental 

Psychology, 35, 1297-1310.
4747

31 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. 

(1998). Relations between family predictors and 

child outcomes: Are they weaker for children in 

child care? Developmental Psychology, 34, 

1119-1128.

32 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. 

(Submitted). Child care effect sizes for the NICHD 

Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development. 

American Psychologist.

33 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. 

(2004). Are child developmental outcomes related 

to before- and after-school care arrangements? 

Results from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care.

Child Development, 75, 280-295.

34 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (In 

Press). The relations of classroom contexts in the 

early elementary years to children’s classroom 

and social behavior. In A.C. Huston and M.N. 

Ripke (Eds.), Developmental Contexts in Middle 

Childhood: Bridges to Adolescence and Adulthood.

New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

35 Booth, C.L., & Kelly, J.F. (1998). Child care 

characteristics of infants with and without special 

needs: Comparisons and concerns. Early Childhood 

Research Quarterly, 13, 603-621.
January 2006

NIH Pub. No. 05-4318