Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten 

Class of 2010-11 (ECLS-K:2011)

Spring Third-Grade National Data Collection, Fourth-Grade 

Recruitment, and Fifth-Grade Tracking

OMB Clearance Package

# 1850-0750 v.15

Supporting Statement

Part B & C

Prepared by

National Center for Education Statistics

U.S. Department of Education
i

Table of Contents

Section Page

B Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods........................... B-1

B.1 Universe, Sample Design, and Estimation......................................... B-1

B.1.1 Universe and Sample Design............................................... B-1

B.1.2 Precision Requirements and Sample Sizes ........................ B-3

B.1.3 Sample Design for the Spring First-Grade and Spring 

Second-Grade Data Collections.......................................... B-5

B.1.4 Sample Design for the Spring Third-Grade Data 

Collection ............................................................................... B-6

B.2 Procedures for the Collection of Information .................................. B-7

B.2.1 Spring Third-Grade Data Collection.................................. B-7

B.3 Methods to Secure Cooperation, Maximize Response Rates, and 

Deal with Nonresponse........................................................................ B-17

B.3.1 Gaining Cooperation from a Variety of Sources.............. B-18

B.3.2 Methods to Maximize Response Rates.............................. B-19

B.4 Individuals Responsible for Study Design and Performance ......... B-26

C The ECLS-K:2011 Instrument Details............................................................ C-1

C.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... C-1

C.2 ECLS-K:2011 Parent Interview .......................................................... C-3

C.2.1 Spring Third-Grade Parent Interview................................ C-3

C.2.1.1 Spring Third-Grade Parent Interview: 

Research Questions.............................................. C-3

C.2.1.2 Spring Third-Grade Parent Interview: 

Construct Coverage.............................................. C-4

C.3 School Administrator Questionnaire.................................................. C-17

C.3.1 School Administrator Questionnaire: Research

Questions ............................................................................... C-17

C.3.2 School Administrator Questionnaire: Construct 

Coverage................................................................................. C-18
ii

Contents (continued)

Section Page

C.4 General Classroom Teacher Questionnaires..................................... C-25

C.4.1 Spring Third-Grade General Classroom Teacher 

Questionnaire......................................................................... C-26

C.4.1.1 Spring Third-Grade General Classroom 

Teacher Questionnaire: Research Questions.... C-26

C.4.1.2 Spring Third-Grade General Classroom 

Teacher Questionnaire, TQA: Construct 

Coverage................................................................. C-27

C.4.1.3 Spring Third-Grade General Classroom 

Teacher Questionnaire, TQS: Construct 

Coverage................................................................. C-33

C.4.1.4 Spring Third-Grade Child-Level Teacher 

Questionnaire, TQC: Construct Coverage........ C-34

C.5 Special Education Teacher Questionnaires....................................... C-37

C.5.1 Special Education Teacher Questionnaires: Research 

Questions ............................................................................... C-37

C.5.2 Special Education Teacher Questionnaires: Construct 

Coverage................................................................................. C-38

C.6 Child Questionnaire .............................................................................. C-40

C.6.1 Child Questionnaire: Research Questions......................... C-40

C.6.2 Child Questionnaire: Construct Coverage......................... C-41

References............................................................................................................ R-1
B-1

This submission requests an update of the most recent previously obtained clearance for the ECLSK:2011 spring second-grade data collection (OMB No. 1850-0750 v.12). This current submission describes 

the procedures for the spring third-grade data collection, which has been informed by the experiences and 

results of the ECLS-K:2011 kindergarten, first-grade, and second-grade data collection rounds, the ECLSK:2011 pilot tests, and the ECLS-K kindergarten, first-grade, and third-grade data collection rounds.

B.1 Universe, Sample Design, and Estimation

Section B.1.1 includes information on the study universe of interest and the sampling plan implemented in 

the base-year of the national study. Section B.1.2 describes the precision requirements and target sample 

sizes set out for the study. Section B.1.3 describes the sample plan implemented in the first- and secondgrade years. Section B.1.4 discusses the sample design for the spring third-grade data collection.

B.1.1 Universe and Sample Design

The universe for the ECLS-K:2011 includes all children attending kindergarten or of kindergarten age 

being educated in ungraded settings in the 2010-11 school year in the 50 States and the District of 

Columbia. The sample design for the ECLS-K:2011 kindergarten year produces a sample that is nationally 

representative of this population of children in the United States. In the base year (i.e., kindergarten year), 

children were selected using a multistage probability design. In the first stage, 90 primary sampling units 

(PSUs) that are counties or groups of counties were selected with probability proportional to size (PPS). In 

the second stage, public and private schools offering kindergarten programs or programs for children of 

kindergarten age in an ungraded setting were selected, also with PPS, within the sampled PSUs. The thirdstage sampling units were children in kindergarten programs and five-year-old children (i.e., children of 

kindergarten age) in ungraded schools and classrooms. Children were selected within each sampled school 

using equal probability systematic sampling. Asians, Native Hawaiians, and Other Pacific Islanders were 

sampled at a higher rate so as to achieve a minimum required sample size in order to generate reliable 

estimates for them and to meet the study precision requirements discussed in section B.1.2. Although they 

were oversampled as one group, the numbers of completed interviews for children in the Asian group and 

children in the Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander group were large enough in the kindergarten 

year to produce estimates for each of these two groups separately. 

The ability to generate reliable estimates and meet study precision requirements are as important for 

Hispanics, Blacks, and children of other races who are not part of the Asian or Native Hawaiian and Other 

Collection of Information 

Employing Statistical Methods B
Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods B

B-2

Pacific Islander groups as they are for children oversampled in the API group. However, children in these 

subgroups do not have to be oversampled because their expected sample sizes exceed the required 

minimum sample size for meeting the precision requirements. 

Only base-year respondents1are eligible for data collection after the kindergarten year. The data collections 

after the kindergarten rounds are named to refer to the grade most of the study children are expected to be 

in during that round of data collection. For example, the spring 2014 data collection is called the thirdgrade data collection because most of the study children are expected to be in third grade at that time. 

However, after kindergarten, children are included in the data collection regardless of their grade at the 

time of data collection. Additionally, children are included in the study regardless of their school 

enrollment status after the first round in which they first participated; thus, children who become 

homeschooled remain part of the study. 

While ideally the study would follow all base-year respondents who move from their original schools after 

the spring of kindergarten, it is expensive to do. Significant effort must be made to locate students in their 

new schools and to obtain permission to assess them in their new schools. As the study progresses, 

student mobility has a more serious impact on the cost of collecting data because the number of schools 

children attend increases. The most expensive children to survey are these children who change schools, 

who are referred to as movers, because collecting data on them requires additional efforts to get 

permission from the entities from which permission is required (e.g., from new districts and school 

administrators). Also, cost per completed case is increased when there are fewer children per school, and it 

is often the case that when children change schools, they are the only study child in the school to which 

they move. Due to the high cost of following children who change schools (i.e., “movers”), most children 

who move from the school they attended in kindergarten are subsampled for follow-up and inclusion in 

later rounds of collection. The study design calls for a subsampling rate of 50 percent. The design allows 

for this rate to be increased or decreased as the study progresses if it becomes necessary to do so in order 

to achieve end-of-study study sample size targets, given the number of respondents in each round of data 

collection. 

 

1 A student needs to have either a complete parent interview or a child assessment in fall 2010 or spring 2011 to be included in the study as a 

base-year participant/respondent. 
Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods B

B-3

There are some situations in which children who change schools are not subsampled for follow-up but 

instead are followed with certainty. The first involves the movement of a group of children from one 

school to a different school because their original school did not educate children past a certain grade. For 

example, many schools originally sampled for the study educate children only through kindergarten, and all 

of the children in the school had to move to a different school after the kindergarten year. Schools to 

which at least four children from original schools move are identified as destination schools for study 

purposes, and all children who move to those destination schools are followed with certainty. There are 

three other groups of children that are not subsampled: students whose primary home language is not 

English (language minority (LM) students), students who have had Individualized Education Program 

(IEP) or who have had an Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP), and students who were sampled for 

the fall first- and fall second-grade data collections, which were conducted in a 30 percent subsample of 

the study PSUs. These groups are followed with certainty to assure that there are enough of them in the 

last round of data collection to generate reliable estimates for them. 

B.1.2 Precision Requirements and Sample Sizes

An objective of the ECLS-K:2011 is to obtain a minimum level of reliability for estimates pertaining to the 

cohort as a whole as well as for analytical subgroups, such as Asians, Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific 

Islanders, Blacks, Hispanics, private school kindergartners, and language minority children. Four precision 

requirements for the survey were identified and formed the basis for the base-year sample design and plans 

for the subsequent rounds. These requirements are the ability to do the following:

 Measure a relative change of 20 percent in proportions across waves;

 Measure a relative change of 5 percent in a mean assessment score across waves;

 Estimate a proportion for each wave with a coefficient of variation (CV) of 10 percent or less; 

and

 Estimate a mean assessment score for each wave with a CV of 2.5 percent or less.

The precision requirements that drive the sample design, which are the same as those used in the ECLS-K, 

are related to the ability to estimate changes over time and the precision of estimates in the grade 5 data 

collection for the sample as a whole, as well as for subgroups of analytic interest. The ECLS-K:2011 

sample design began with the assumption, based on the ECLS-K experience, that at least 10,300 

completed cases would be needed by the end of fifth grade to satisfy the study’s precision requirements.
Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods B

B-4

For the ECLS-K:2011, the minimum subgroup sample size is determined by first solving for the sample 

size needed to achieve the precision requirements under simple random sampling with 100 percent 

overlapping samples between waves using the formula:

,

2 1 2

2

2 1

2

1/ 2

1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2

1

1 / 2



























































   







P P

z PQ z P Q P Q P Q P Q

n

 





where n is the sample size per wave, α is the significance level, β is the power term, z has the standard 

normal distribution,  is the correlation between two waves, P1 and P2 are the two proportions being 

compared, Q1=1- P1, Q2=1-P2,, 

2

P1 P2 P

 , and Q 1P . When α=0.05, β=0.80,  =0.75, P1=0.30, and 

P2=0.36, the sample size needed per wave is 241.2 Assuming a design effect of 4 (based on the ECLS-K), 

this subgroup sample size would need to be further increased by a factor of 4 to 964, since the effective 

sample size is equal to the sample size actually obtained divided by the design effect. 

The assumptions used to arrive at the sample size by the end of the longitudinal study include the 

completion rates for the child assessments, as well as the rates at which children move from the base-year 

sampled school to other schools, the rates at which the movers would be subsampled after the base year 

(children who changed schools between fall- and spring-kindergarten were not subsampled), and the rates 

at which the subsampled movers are expected to be located. A complete case, also referred to as a 

respondent, is a child who has a completed child assessment or a completed parent interview. For the 

ECLS-K:2011, an original sample of 900 responding schools (720 public and 180 private) with an average 

sample size of 23 children in each school was expected to yield approximately 20,700 sampled children 

(18,630 participating students, assuming a 90 percent response rate) in the base year. However, during the 

first round of data collection in the kindergarten year, the sample was smaller than expected due to a 

lower-than-expected school cooperation rate, and also due to slightly lower kindergarten enrollment in the 

schools than was expected based on enrollment data from NCES’s Common Core of Data and Private 

School Survey universe data files. In order to achieve a number close to the original target for participating 

schools, refusing schools were substituted with newly sampled schools and an attempt was made to obtain 

the new schools’ participation. The study ended the base-year data collections with a sample of about 

18,175 kindergarten children, which is about 460 children fewer than expected.

 

2 The assumptions underlying the calculation of sample size noted here are: a two-tailed test of differences with significance level alpha of 0.05 

and power beta of at least 80 percent; estimating proportions of 30 and 36 percent (i.e., a 20 percent relative change); and a correlation 

between assessment scores from different waves of 0.75. This assumed correlation of assessments comes from experiences in the ECLS-K. 

Specifically, looking at difference estimates computed between grade 1 and grade 3, and between grade 3 and grade 5 of the ECLS-K, the 

estimated correlations in assessments between consecutive waves were found to be very high (between 0.72 and 0.98), for an average of 0.75.
Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods B

B-5

The original sample design for the ECLS-K:2011 used information about the movement of ECLS-K 

children after each data collection year and how successful the study was at locating the children to 

calculate the sample sizes and mover subsampling rate that would be necessary to meet precision 

requirements. In the ECLS-K, children who moved to another school (but not necessarily residence) were 

followed at a rate of 50 percent in grade 1, slightly higher in grade 3 so that all language minority children 

were followed, and slightly lower in grade 5 to accommodate a reduction in the overall sample size. The 

grade 5 subsampling rates varied according to child characteristics with the highest rate applied to language 

minority children. The initial ECLS-K:2011 study design was developed with the assumption that 25 

percent of students would change schools between kindergarten and first grade and that 50 percent of 

movers would be followed. As mentioned above, the design allows for that rate to increase or decrease as 

necessary in order to achieve target sample sizes, in particular the 10,300 cases needed at the end of fifth 

grade, similar to the procedures used in the ECLS-K.

B.1.3 Sample Design for the Spring First-Grade and Spring Second-Grade Data 

Collections

The samples for the spring first- and spring second-grade data collections included all students who are 

considered respondents for the base-year data collection and who had not moved outside of the United 

States or died by the time of data collection. All the respondents in the base year who remained in their 

original school (i.e., the school in which they were sampled) or who moved to a destination school were 

followed with certainty. Movers who were LM students, students who have had an Individualized 

Education Program (IEP) or an Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP), and students who were 

sampled for the fall first- and fall second-grade data collections were also followed with certainty. 

Due to cost considerations, the remaining movers (i.e., the movers who are not LM/IEP/IFSP children or 

part of the fall subsamples) were subsampled for following at a rate of 50 percent, per the original sample 

design plan. Thus, these movers had a 50 percent chance of being included in the spring first-grade and 

spring second-grade collections. Subsampling movers was implemented by selecting 50 percent of the 

original sample schools using systematic probability sampling. In the selected schools, a group of nonprotected students was selected to be followed into their new schools if they moved from their original 

school. This designation as a non-protected student to be followed holds for the life of the study.

It was not necessary to increase the subsampling rate for either the spring first-grade or the spring-second 

grade data collections because the rate at which children moved from their original schools was lower than 

expected (i.e., there was a higher-than-expected number of nonmovers who were followed with certainty). 

In the ECLS-K:2011, approximately 5 percent of children sampled in the beginning of kindergarten were 

not in the same school at the end of the 2010-11 school year, meaning they moved between the fall of 
Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods B

B-6

kindergarten and the spring of kindergarten. By the end of first grade and prior to the start of second 

grade, the percentage of students who had moved out of their original sample schools (at any point after 

the fall of kindergarten) increased to 23 percent. This is 2 percentage points lower than the assumed mover

rate noted above that was used in estimating the expected final sample size in the original sample design 

plan. The original sample design plan also included the assumption that 34 percent of students sampled in 

kindergarten would not be in the same school by the end of second grade. This is very close to the actual 

rate of 32 percent based on the preliminary results of the second grade data collection. 

B.1.4 Sample Design for the Spring Third-Grade Data Collection

As in the spring first-grade and spring second-grade data collections, the spring third-grade sample will 

again include all students who are considered respondents for the base-year data collection and who have 

not moved outside of the United States or died by the time of data collection. It will be very similar to 

spring first grade and spring second grade in that base-year respondents who remain in their original 

school (i.e., the school in which they were sampled) or who move to a destination school will be followed 

with certainty.

The subsampling strategy used for first grade and second grade will be used again for third grade. LM 

students, students with an IEP/IFSP on record with the school, and students who were sampled for the 

fall first- and fall second-grade data collections will be followed with certainty if they transfer out of their 

original sample schools. Other movers will be subsampled for following at a rate of 50 percent. This is the 

same subsampling rate used for first grade and second grade. The preliminary results of the second-grade 

data collection show that the number of respondents for the spring second-grade collection is larger than 

expected by 1.5 percent, so the subsampling rate does not need to be increased to meet the sample size 

targets. There are at least 13,700 students who were assessed in second grade, which is 200 students more 

than the expected sample size of approximately 13,500 for second grade.

The hearing evaluations will be conducted with the 30 percent subsample that participated in the hearing 

evaluations in the fall second-grade collection. Conducting the evaluation with the same group of children 

will allow researchers to do analysis on the data over time. 
Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods B

B-7

B.2 Procedures for the Collection of Information

Section B.2.1 describes the data collection procedures for the spring third-grade data collection.

B.2.1 Spring Third-Grade Data Collection

The spring third-grade data collection will include direct child assessments, child questionnaires, height and 

weight measurement, hearing evaluations, parent interviews, and school administrator and teacher (both 

general classroom and special education) questionnaires. Computer assisted interviewing (CAI) will be the 

mode of data collection for the child assessment and the parent interview. The Child Questionnaire (CQ) 

will be administered using audio-CASI, which allows for self-administration. School administrator and 

teacher data will be collected via hard-copy self-administered questionnaires. The hearing evaluations will 

be conducted using specialized audiometric equipment.

Advance School Contact. In the fall of the 2013-14 school year, school coordinators3 will be sent a 

welcome package via Federal Express with a signature requirement. The package will include a letter 

describing the study activities planned for the spring, the role of the school coordinator, and instructions 

for providing information on the participating children. The list of children participating in the study must 

be sent separately from the other study materials so that, in the event of loss, the children on the list are 

not associated with the study, thereby protecting their identity as study participants. For the spring thirdgrade collection, an ECLS-K:2011 Message Center has been created to allow field staff and school 

coordinators to communicate personally-identifiable information (PII) electronically. The message center 

is a secure website accessed with a username and password that has been assigned to specific users, namely 

field staff (field managers, school recruiters,4and team leaders5) and participating schools. Instructions for 

the school coordinator to access their information will be included in the package with the other study 

materials sent in the fall. School coordinators will only be able to access information and messages for 

their particular school. The list of participating children will then be sent to each school from the home 

office as an attachment to a secure message sent through the messaging system. The school coordinator 

will be instructed to access the secure message center, open the attached list of participating children, and 

 

3 The school coordinator will often be the same school staff member who acted as school coordinator in the previous data collection round. 

If that person is not available, then a new staff member will be identified by the school administrator to act as a liaison to the study.

4 School recruiters are specially-trained data collection contractor staff who recruit districts and schools into the study. They are typically used 

in advance school contacts because they have experience in talking with school staff and discussing logistical arrangements, as well as 

recruiting new transfer schools that are identified during the pre-assessment contacts.

5 The team leader is a specially-trained ECLS-K:2011 staff member responsible for communicating with schools and making arrangements for 

assessment activities; for leading a team of assessors in each school; for conducting assessments him/herself; for recording school, child, 

parent, and teacher information in the field management system; and for reporting assessment and parent interview production information 

to the field manager. The field manager is responsible for the management of all data collection activities in a region of approximately 100 

schools, including the supervision of approximately 10 assessment teams, quality control, and reporting assessment, interview, and hard-copy 

production information to the home office field directors.
Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods B

B-8

provide updated child information to the team leader either via secure message or over the telephone 

when a field staff member calls.

During this fall contact period, an experienced team of school recruiters will work with the school 

coordinators to discuss the logistics of the spring assessment visit. Additionally, school recruiters will 

confirm whether the children on the list sent to the school are still enrolled in the school. If the school 

coordinator informs the school recruiter that a child has moved to a new school, the school recruiters will 

attempt to get the child’s new school information from the school coordinator. School recruiters will also 

determine:

 Assessment Dates. The school recruiters will discuss the schedule for spring data collection 

with the school coordinator. The dates for the assessment schedule will be set, making sure to 

avoid conflicts with any special events in the school’s calendar, such as a field trip or school 

holiday.

 Assessment and Hearing Evaluation Locations. The locations within the school where 

the assessments and hearing evaluations will take place will also be determined. The goal will 

be to identify locations that provide as little distraction as possible, that protect the privacy of 

the children, and that are as nondisruptive of the school routine as possible. If space allows, 

the hearing evaluations will be in a separate location than the assessments to allow for a quiet 

space in which to measure hearing.

 Teachers of Sampled Children. School recruiters will ask the school coordinator to identify 

the ECLS-K:2011 children’s regular classroom teachers and, if applicable, special education 

teachers.

School recruiters will make a pre-assessment telephone call to each school coordinator to discuss these 

issues, making sure to address any questions that the school coordinator or school administrator may have. 

A checklist of the arrangements that need to be agreed upon and the tasks to be completed will guide the 

pre-assessment call. As noted above, school recruiters will work with the school coordinator to schedule a 

spring assessment date, determine an assessment location, and identify the teacher (or teachers) of the 

sampled child. If any of the sampled children are identified as having changed schools, a study information 

packet will be sent to the school administrator of the new school and he or she will be contacted by 

telephone in order to recruit the school into the study and identify a school coordinator. A pre-assessment 

call to discuss the issues outlined here will then be conducted with the new school. Throughout these preassessment activities, positive and cooperative working relationships with school personnel and the school 

community will be maintained.

In the spring of the 2013-14 school year, the team leaders will assume responsibility for the contacts with 

the schools. They will call the school coordinators prior to the assessment visit to confirm the logistical 

arrangements for the data collection within the schools that were made during the fall pre-assessment call.
Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods B

B-9

(In addition to the telephone, the team leaders will also continue to use the secure message center to 

communicate with school coordinators on topics that are respondent-specific, such as new information 

about a child who has moved to a new school.)

Team leaders will also ask about the organization of instruction for fourth grade (if fourth grade is taught

in the participating school), specifically whether fourth-graders receive instruction in self-contained 

classrooms with a single teacher teaching multiple subjects; whether team teaching where two or more 

teachers collaborate to teach multiple subjects to a single classroom is used; or whether the school has 

departmentalized instruction where students have different teachers for different subject matter courses. 

This information will enable the study to make a more informed decision about the best questionnaire 

structure to use for the teacher questionnaires in the fourth-grade data collection.6

The spring third-grade hard-copy questionnaires will be mailed to each school coordinator for distribution 

at least 2 weeks prior to the school’s scheduled spring assessment visit.

Child Questionnaire and Direct Assessment

Typically, the assessment visit will take between 1 and 3 days in each school. The number of days for the 

visit will depend on several factors, such as the number of participating children at the school, any 

restrictions on the assessment schedule (e.g., if assessments can only be conducted in the morning), and 

the amount of space available for simultaneous assessments. The length of the assessment visit will be 

worked out with the school coordinator during the pre-assessment call. Generally, the assessment team 

that visits the school will include the team leader and two assessors, though sometimes an additional 

assessor or two will participate in an assessment visit when a larger number of children needs to be 

assessed in a shorter time frame due to the school calendar. There will be one team per PSU. The 

assessment team will arrive at the school on the appointed first day of assessments and, following any of 

the school’s required check-in procedures, immediately contact the school coordinator. The team leader 

will introduce the assessors to the school coordinator. The procedures to be used during the on-site data 

collection period will be discussed with the school coordinator to ensure there is a common understanding 

of those procedures. The team leader also will confirm that all sampled children are still enrolled in the 

 

6 There may be a change in the approach to collecting the teacher questionnaire data in fourth and/or fifth grades. Children in the upper 

elementary grades often have more than one teacher involved in their instruction. Although in some schools children may be taught in one 

classroom by one teacher who covers all subjects, it becomes more common for children in these grades to have different teachers for at 

least a few subject areas, such as reading and language arts, mathematics, science, or social studies. This was the experience in the ECLS-K. 

The model used for the teacher questionnaires in prior rounds of the ECLS-K:2011, in which a single classroom teacher received questions 

about all three core academic subjects in a single questionnaire, may not be the best structure to use in the later grades. The purpose of the

questions on organization of instruction is to obtain information that will enable the study to make an informed decision about the most 

appropriate questionnaire structure to use for these later rounds.
Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods B

B-10

school as of the assessment day and determine which children are at school that day. New school contact 

information will be obtained for any children who may have left the school after the preassessment call.

On assessment day, the team leader and assessors will be taken by school personnel to the assessment 

area(s), where they will remove potential distractions as much as possible and establish a comfortable 

environment for conducting the assessment. They will set up the assessment materials and log into the 

child assessment CAI program on the laptops that they will carry with them. All field staff will be provided 

with backup batteries, cords, etc., to ensure that data collection activities are not disrupted by equipment 

problems.

Once the assessment areas have been set up and assessors are ready to begin work, the school coordinator 

will introduce the ECLS-K:2011 team members to the teacher(s) whose children will be assessed. The 

teacher, in turn, will introduce the assessors to the class. Assessors will then escort the sampled children to 

the assessment areas, one-by-one, and conduct each 80-minute direct child assessment. As discussed in 

Part A, the assessments will consist of the following: a self-administered child questionnaire; a direct 

assessment of reading, mathematics, science, and executive functioning; and measurement of children’s 

weight and height, which will be obtained using instruments and equipment brought by the assessors. 

As in second grade, but unlike the kindergarten and first-grade cognitive assessments, the cognitive 

assessment fielded in third grade will not include a language screener, an assessment of English basic 

reading skills, or a Spanish assessment, as it is expected that by third grade most, if not all, children will be

proficient enough in English to be assessed in English.

When the assessor and study child arrive at the assessment space, the assessor will introduce the child to 

the task and begin the audio-CASI Child Questionnaire. The assessor will explain how to use the 

headphones, adjust the volume, and how to use the stylus pen to choose responses to the questions. After 

the child puts on the headphones, the assessor will begin the audio-CASI program. The questionnaire

starts with example items to show the child how the task works and to give him/her practice choosing 

responses. The instructions, examples, and questionnaire items are all read to the child while the 

corresponding text appears on the screen. The child is able to skip questions, as well as change responses 

to previously-answered questions. During the CQ, the assessor will sit with his/her body averted in order 

to give the child privacy while responding. After the questionnaire is completed, the assessor will thank the 

child and then turn the computer back to face the assessor to begin the cognitive assessments in reading, 

math, executive function, and science, which are administered using CAPI. 
Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods B

B-11

After completing the cognitive assessments, the child’s height and weight will be measured and then the 

child will be returned to the classroom (unless he or she is part of the hearing sample, in which case the 

child will be taken to the hearing evaluation station) and the next sampled child will be assessed. At the 

end of each day, once the assessors are home, the data for their completed assessments will be transmitted 

electronically to a central database by each team leader and assessor.

It is expected that some children will be absent from school when the assessments are scheduled. Certain 

days throughout the field period will be designated as days on which some field staff can conduct make-up 

assessments. Attempts will be made to conduct a make-up assessment at some point during the field 

period for all children absent on their school’s assessment day.

If a school refuses to participate (e.g., the school has changed its mind and no longer wishes to participate 

in the ECLS-K:2011) and attempts to convert the school’s refusal are unsuccessful, then the study will 

attempt to assess the sampled children outside of the school. Other circumstances where a child may be 

assessed outside of school include when sampled children transfer into a school that never agreed to 

participate in the study or into a school in a district that refused to allow its schools to participate, or when 

sampled children are no longer enrolled in a school and are being homeschooled.

Prior to assessing a child outside of school, the assessor will contact the parent to confirm that the child is 

enrolled in a school that has not agreed to participate in the study for the current round of data collection 

(referred to as a refusal school). If the parent informs the assessor that the child has transferred out of a 

refusal school, the assessor will collect information about the school into which the child has transferred 

(referred to as a transfer school), and attempts will be made to assess the child in the transfer school.

However, if it is determined that the child either attends a refusal school (or a school in a refusal district) 

or is homeschooled, the assessor will ask the parent when and where he or she would like the assessment 

to take place. Possible locations for the child assessment include a library, an after-school program 

location, or the child’s house. The assessor will try to accommodate the preferences of the parent as much 

as possible.

Hearing Evaluations

As noted above, during the third-grade data collection, a subsample of children will also participate in 

hearing evaluations. The evaluations will be conducted by trained health technicians.

The hearing screening protocol used in fall 2012 will be used again in the spring third-grade data 

collection, and the entire evaluation is expected to take about 15 minutes. The protocol includes:
Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods B

B-12

 Asking the child a short set of hearing-related questions (appendix B);

 Conducting a brief visual inspection of the ears;

 Obtaining measures of middle ear function in both ears; and

 Obtaining specific audiometric thresholds. It is expected that initially thresholds at three 

primary frequencies will be obtained in each ear (2000, 4000, and 8000 Hz, with a retest of 

2000 Hz for test reliability). Additional frequencies (1000, 3000, and 6000 Hz) will be obtained 

as time and children’s attention permit.

Prior to the inspection of the ears, the trained health technician will ask the child if he or she has had a 

cold, runny nose, or ear pain recently. If the child reports recent ear pain, the technician will ask in which 

ear the pain was experienced. The technician will also ask the child if he or she listens to the TV loudly, 

has ear tubes, wears ear plugs while swimming, or has problems hearing. If ear tubes or problems hearing 

are reported, the technician will follow-up to determine in which ear the child has tubes or problems 

hearing. The results of these questions will aid analysts in the interpretation of the collected evaluation 

data. After the child finishes answering the questions, the technician will also conduct a brief visual review 

of both ears to determine if any abnormalities or issues are immediately apparent, as well as if any 

significant wax buildup is present.

During the hearing evaluation, actual hearing thresholds will be recorded for each ear separately. As part of

data collection, ambient noise levels in the testing rooms will be obtained. As in second grade, the 

equipment specified by the cosponsoring agency for evaluating hearing and measuring ambient noise will 

be used. 

Specialized hearing evaluation equipment will be used for testing auditory impairments. Before assignment 

to a health technician, each set of equipment will be professionally calibrated by staff at the National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), which works closely with the ECLS-K:2011 

hearing evaluation cosponsor (the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders 

(NIDCD)). Health technicians will be trained in a daily equipment calibration check protocol, to be 

conducted each day after their equipment is set up in the school. If the equipment must be moved during 

the day, for example, if the location within the school must change for the afternoon, the health technician 

will again conduct the daily calibration check after setting up in the new space. If a set of equipment fails 

the calibration check in the field, the equipment will be replaced with a properly calibrated set. 

A laptop will be used to capture data from the hearing evaluation. Some information will be entered into 

the laptop by the health technician (e.g., children’s responses to the questions) while other information will 

be transferred directly from the specialized equipment to the laptop (e.g., results of the audiometric 

thresholds). In addition, data from the noise monitor will also be collected and stored by the laptop, so that 
Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods B

B-13

background noise data can be used when analyzing the threshold data. Health technicians will be trained to 

transmit collected data to Westat (the data collection contractor) after each day of hearing evaluations.

Recruitment of the selected schools and their respective school districts to participate in the fall 2012 

hearing evaluations was extremely successful, reflecting enthusiasm and comfort with the schools’ ongoing 

participation in the ECLS-K:2011 main study data collection. Schools’ willingness to participate also 

reflects an awareness of the importance of hearing health for schoolchildren. Of the 308 schools sampled 

for the fall second-grade hearing screenings, no school districts and only six schools refused participation. 

In the fall second-grade hearing evaluations, signed or verbal parental consent was obtained for each child 

prior the evaluations. Consent forms, along with a letter outlining the procedures, were mailed to parents 

of the children in the 30 percent subsample in the spring of 2012. In the fall of 2012, parents who had not 

yet returned a signed consent form were asked to give verbal consent to conduct the hearing evaluations 

during the parent interview; this consent was recorded. Just as consent for the assessments applies to the 

entire duration of the study, the consent that was obtained for the first hearing evaluation is also applicable 

for the evaluations planned for the spring third-grade round. Children whose hearing was evaluated in the 

fall of 2012 will have their hearing re-evaluated in the spring of 2014. Parents of the subsampled children 

will be notified of the spring 2014 hearing evaluation, as well as the next round of assessment, by letter 

(see Appendix H). The letter includes information about how the parent can have his or her child excluded 

from the third-grade screening if so desired.

For those schools in the hearing evaluation subsample, the hearing evaluations will be integrated into the 

ECLS-K:2011 third-grade spring data collections in the same manner as in the fall second-grade round. 

One health technician will accompany the assessment team to the school. Each child who is part of the 30 

percent subsample will receive the hearing evaluation after the conclusion of the other assessment 

activities and will then be returned to the classroom. 

The assessment team will coordinate the timing of the hearing evaluations in relation to the assessments. 

For example, the start time of the assessments of hearing sample children may be staggered on the half 

hour. After an assessment is completed, the assessor will lead the child to the health technician and the 

hearing evaluation will be conducted in 15 minutes. The assessor or the health technician will return the 

child to the classroom, and the health technician will then prepare the hearing screening station for the 

next child, cleaning the equipment and setting out fresh supplies. 

Each participating child’s parent will receive a letter with information about his or her child’s hearing 

evaluation a month or two after the evaluation. The letter will have information summarizing the results of 
Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods B

B-14

the evaluation of children’s audiometric thresholds (the softest sounds he or she is able to hear) and an 

explanation of what the results mean. (These materials are contained in Appendix H.) Should the health 

technician find something of concern during the visual inspection of the ear (e.g., an unusual growth in the 

child’s ear), the technician will consult with a project audiologist and notify the school nurse or other 

school staff member on the day of the evaluation so that the child’s parent/guardian can be notified right 

away.

Teacher and School Administrator Questionnaires

During the advance school contact in the fall and again in the spring of the 2013-14 school year, the team 

leader will identify the teachers of the sampled children who will be asked to complete questionnaires and 

enter the teachers’ names into the field management system (FMS),7creating a link between each sampled 

child and his or her teacher. This linking system was first developed and used successfully for the ECLS-K 

and is currently being used in the ECLS-K:2011 data collections.

Teachers will be sent a set of materials approximately 2 weeks prior to the assessment visit. These 

materials will consist of a letter describing the ECLS-K:2011 and a copy of the ECLS-K:2011 brochure,

8

one teacher-/classroom-level questionnaire, one curriculum-specific questionnaire, one questionnaire for 

each sample child the teacher teaches, an incentive check, and instructions for completing the 

questionnaires and returning them to the school coordinator.

Distributing the Teacher and School Administrator Questionnaires. In the spring third-grade 

collection, teachers will be asked to complete three types of self-administered questionnaires; the first 

focuses on their background, curriculum, and instructional practices.9 They will also complete a 

curriculum-specific questionnaire, containing items asking about the amount of classroom time spent on 

common core reading, math, science, and social studies constructs.

10 If the teacher does not teach one or 

more of these subjects, and thus is unable to answer the items associated with that particular subject, she 

or he will be asked to pass the questionnaire to the teacher who is able to complete the items. Teachers of 

sampled children will also be asked to complete child-level questionnaires about the ECLS-K:2011 

children in their classrooms, which indirectly assess the children’s socioemotional and cognitive skills and 

 

7 The Field Management System (FMS) is a secure web-based system designed to help team leaders manage and view their cases, enter and 

update case information at the school, child, parent, and teacher levels, and communicate information to the contractor’s home office.

8 The ECLS-K:2011 brochure was approved in a previous OMB clearance package that was approved in May 2010 (1850-0750, v.8).

9 While most students will be in third-grade in spring 2014, not all students will be “on-grade.” These data collection activities still apply 

regardless of the grade level of the student and teacher (i.e., off-grade students will have the same teacher questionnaires distributed to their 

teachers that are given to teachers of on-grade students).

10These questions focus on concepts and skills delineated by the “Common Core State Standards (corestandards.org),” which have been 

adopted by 45 states and the District of Columbia as of April 16, 2013. See section C of this document for more details.
Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods B

B-15

collects other information on children’s classroom and program placements. The teacher questionnaires 

will provide data from a source that has first-hand knowledge of the child and his/her abilities. 

As described above, the school recruiter will work with the school coordinator to identify the teachers of 

the ECLS-K:2011 children during the advance school contact phone call. Child-level questionnaires will be 

mailed to the school coordinator for distribution to the children’s teachers. The average number of 

children per teacher is expected to be about two; we have proposed that the teachers of the sampled 

children who are asked to complete the teacher-/classroom-level questionnaire receive an incentive of $20 

plus $7 per child-level questionnaire, for an average incentive of $34 per teacher. The incentives will be 

included in the package of instruments and instructional materials the teachers receive in the spring. Team 

leaders will collect completed teacher questionnaires, with assistance from the school coordinator, during 

the assessment visits. Once all questionnaires have been collected, the team leader will mail the completed 

questionnaires to the home office via signature-required Federal Express. If there are any questionnaires 

that are not completed by the last day of assessments in the school and hence require follow-up collection, 

the team leader will visit the school at a later date to collect the remaining questionnaires and use Federal 

Express to return them to the home office.

11

In the spring, the special education teachers or related service providers of sampled children who are 

receiving special education services will be asked to complete questionnaires about their background and 

qualifications. They also will be asked to answer questions about the types of services the ECLS-K:2011 

children who have an IEP receive in a separate child-level questionnaire. The Special Education Teacher 

Questionnaires will be distributed and collected in the same manner as the regular classroom teacher 

questionnaires described above. In order to have a consistent incentive structure for all teachers

participating in a school, special education teachers will also be offered an incentive of $20 plus $7 per 

child-level questionnaire, and the expectation is that each special education teacher will complete two 

child-level questionnaires, on average, for an average incentive of $34 per teacher. The incentives will be 

included in the package of instruments the special education teachers receive in the spring. 

Also in the spring, school administrators will be asked to complete a self-administered questionnaire. 

There will be two versions of the School Administrator Questionnaire: one for schools that completed an 

SAQ in a prior round of the study (“continuing schools”) and one for any school that did not previously 

complete the SAQ, either because the school is a new school into which an ECLS-K:2011 student has 

 

11If questionnaires have to be collected after the school visit is completed, the team leader will stop by the school on a prearranged date to pick 

up the questionnaires. However, on rare occasions, arrangements are made with the school coordinator to have questionnaires mailed to the 

home office. In these cases, the team leader will give the school coordinator a Federal Express mailer and prepaid label to mail the 

questionnaires to the home office. Such mailings may occur if a follow-up visit cannot be arranged or if the questionnaires are not 

completed by the time of the follow-up visit and another visit by the team leader to the school cannot be arranged.
Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods B

B-16

transferred or because the school did not complete the SAQ in any previous study round. In order to 

reduce respondent burden, the administrator questionnaire for continuing schools will not contain 

questions included in the SAQ in previous rounds about characteristics that are unlikely to change from 

year to year. 

Information about the school administrator, the school staff, and the school building will be collected 

through this questionnaire. The questions about school characteristics may be completed by a designee, 

but the study requests that the principal or head administrator complete the section about his/her 

characteristics. The School Administrator Questionnaire will be mailed to the school administrator in 

advance of the spring assessment visit; on the first day of assessments at the school, the team leader will 

remind the school coordinator of the need to complete this instrument. The team leader for each school 

will collect the school questionnaire during the on-site assessment visit. School administrators will receive 

a $25 incentive, which will be attached to the questionnaire when it is given to the administrator. If the 

school questionnaire has not been completed by the beginning of the last day on-site for assessments, the 

team leader will remind the school coordinator about the questionnaire once more. If the school 

questionnaire still is not completed by the time the team has finished its assessment work at the school, the 

team leader will ask for a specific date from the school coordinator and/or school administrator by which 

the school administrator will complete the questionnaire. Follow-up will continue until the questionnaire 

has been received.

Parent Interview

The ECLS-K:2011 field staff who conduct the child assessments will also be trained to conduct the 

telephone interviews with parents using a computer assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) instrument. 

Having the same staff members conduct the child assessments and the parent interview better links the 

activities that take place in the school with the parent interviews, which may in turn promote greater 

parent participation. Similarly, an effort is made to have the same staff members interview the same 

parents and/or assess the same children that they worked with in previous rounds (as long as the prior 

interaction was positive). The list of parent interview cases assigned to each field staff member will be 

loaded on the laptops when field staff receive them, with new cases being transmitted as they become 

available (e.g., when a parent interview case gets transferred from one interviewer to another).

Flexibility in Scheduling Interviews. Procedures for conducting telephone interviews at times that are 

most convenient for parents and that allow sufficient flexibility will be used. To establish initial contact 

with a parent of a sampled child during the spring third-grade round, field staff will be trained to place two 

day, three evening, and two weekend calls over a 3-week period. If, after these seven call attempts, no 

contact has been made with the parent by telephone, the field staff will visit the child’s home to explain the 
Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods B

B-17

study and attempt to complete an in-person interview. Once telephone contact is established, up to seven 

additional calls will be made to complete the parent interview. If the interview is still not completed after 

seven calls and the respondent has not actively refused to participate, the field staff will swap cases 

amongst the members of their team in order to allow another interview to attempt an in-person interview. 

Sometimes having a different interviewer call from a different phone number has a positive effect on 

completion. During the last few weeks of data collection, cases that have not yet been contacted or 

completed will be attempted as in-person interviews.

Non-English Interviewing. The ECLS-K:2011 sample includes a substantial number of children from 

households in which the parents speak a language other than English as their primary language. Based on 

the data from the spring 2012 first-grade data collection, Spanish is spoken in the majority of these 

households. Of the 12,992 completed spring 2012 parent interviews, 1,582 were completed in a foreign 

language. Of those, 1,410 (or 89 percent) were completed in Spanish. Therefore, as was done for the 

ECLS-K:2011 kindergarten, first-, and second-grade data collections, the parent interview will be fully 

translated into Spanish and field staff will be recruited who are bilingual in Spanish and English to conduct 

parent interviews in Spanish. A number of Asian and other languages were also identified in the 

kindergarten data collections as spoken by parents of sampled children, but in much smaller numbers. It is 

cost-prohibitive to develop a full translation of the parent interview for less common languages and

identify and train bilingual staff that represent all languages spoken by ECLS-K:2011 families. Therefore, 

the primary approach for conducting parent interviews in non-English, non-Spanish languages in the 

ECLS-K:2011 has been to identify someone in the household or community to provide a translation 

during the administration of the parent interview. All translators must sign an affidavit of nondisclosure 

prior to working on the project and are paid for their time. Over the course of the previous rounds of data 

collections, interpreters have been identified for the less common languages that are spoken by sampled 

children’s parents; they will serve as interpreters for the spring third-grade data collection as needed, if they 

are still available. 

B.3 Methods to Secure Cooperation, Maximize Response Rates, and 

Deal with Nonresponse

This section describes methods for securing cooperation and gaining consent for the spring third-grade 

round of the ECLS-K:2011 and the methods that will be used to maximize completion rates for child 

assessments, parent interviews, and school administrator and teacher questionnaires in this round. 

A major challenge in any survey today is obtaining high response rates, and this is even more important in 

longitudinal surveys where nonresponse can occur at multiple time points. As in most longitudinal surveys, 

attrition is closely associated with those persons who move between waves; however, as mentioned earlier, 
Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods B

B-18

“moving” in the ECLS-K:2011 is defined as a change in the school the sampled child attends, whether or 

not the child’s residence changes. In the ECLS-K, 25 percent of children changed schools between 

kindergarten and first grade, and by the fifth-grade round, 56 percent of children were in different schools 

than they were in for kindergarten. By the end of the spring first-grade data collection, the percent of 

students who moved out of their original sample schools (at any point after fall kindergarten) was 23 

percent.

The main problem associated with nonresponse is the potential for nonresponse bias in the estimates 

produced using data collected from those people who do respond. Bias can occur when the people who 

do respond are systematically different from the people who do not. Two approaches that will be used to 

reduce the potential for bias are designing the data collection procedures and methods wisely to reduce 

nonresponse (e.g., being flexible in scheduling parent interviews) and using statistical methods of sampling 

and weighting to reduce the effect of nonresponse on the estimates. While the statistical approaches are 

important in controlling biases and costs, the data collection procedures and methods are at the heart of a 

successful longitudinal survey.

B.3.1 Gaining Cooperation from a Variety of Sources

Cooperation issues loom large in any major school-based survey today. The demands of required testing, 

which have increased since the enactment of ESEA 2002, may reduce time for and willingness to 

participate in voluntary studies like the ECLS-K:2011, such that districts and schools may be increasingly 

less likely to cooperate. Parents are increasingly skeptical about the value of surveys and non-required tests 

for their children. Teachers and school administrators are heavily burdened and often reluctant to spend 

time on non-teaching activities or other activities required as part of their position. The additional burden 

of a longitudinal survey (and the need to communicate clearly to parents and schools the expected burden 

of participation in a longitudinal survey) makes securing cooperation even more challenging. The earlier 

rounds of the ECLS-K:2011 are paving the way for concerted follow-up efforts in later rounds by 

collecting high quality data that will help maintain cooperation and track movers.

The data collection plan approaches the school as a community. We aim to establish rapport with the 

whole community—school administrators, teachers, parents, and children. The school community must be 

approached with respect and sensitivity to achieve high response rates and maintain cooperation for future 

rounds of data collection. 

The ECLS-K:2011 field staff have been trained that all tasks—securing school and teacher cooperation, 

completing parent interviews, and completing the child components—are but different aspects of a single 

case in their assignment, which is their responsibility to complete. Therefore, field staff will be responsible 
Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods B

B-19

for conducting the direct child assessments and child questionnaires as well as the parent interviews and 

any required follow up on the teacher and school administrator questionnaires. (Health technicians will 

only be responsible for conducting the hearing evaluations.) Also, incentives have proven to be effective 

tools in achieving high response rates, and we plan to offer monetary incentives to various respondents, as 

described in section A.9.

Based on the experience from the ECLS-K, most families who participate in kindergarten continue to 

participate in the later rounds, presumably because they feel invested in the study. Similarly, schools 

typically continue to participate once they participate in one round. The fact that parents have given 

consent to the longitudinal study is an incentive for schools to continue participating. In addition, many

school coordinator are instrumental in maintaining school participation and recruiting new teachers into 

the study in later rounds because they see the value in the information collected and, as a result, serve as an 

advocate for the study in the schools.

B.3.2 Methods to Maximize Response Rates

Parent Interviews

Prior to data collection, as the parent interview is developed, careful consideration is given to the length of 

the interview, as well as the actual questions that are included in the instrument. By streamlining the 

interview as much as possible, and including relevant, concise questions, the effort needed to complete the 

questionnaire is reduced, which in turn helps to increase response rates. 

There are four main areas during the field period itself that are also emphasized in order to maximize 

completion rates for the parent interviews: (1) flexibility in scheduling interviews, (2) non-English 

interviewing, (3) locating parents of children who transfer schools, and (4) avoiding refusals, including 

converting initial refusals to completed interviews.

Review of Timings Data. The average length of time to complete the previous round’s interview, as well 

as each section of the instrument, is carefully reviewed to determine if questions should to be cut entirely 

or simplified to keep the interview to the desired time. After a first draft of the interview is developed, 

timings tests with project staff are conducted to obtain a general idea of the length so that further cuts can 

be made if needed. Completion rates typically improve when the interview is shorter in length.

Consideration of Questions. As the instrument is developed, consideration is given to which questions 

asked in prior rounds do not need to be asked again, are no longer relevant due to the age of the children, 

or that have been reported to be overly burdensome or sensitive. As much as possible, the interview is 
Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods B

B-20

streamlined so the questions included are straight-forward and easy for respondents to answer. In addition, 

skip patterns based on answers to questions that appear earlier in the interview or even in a previous round 

are built into the interview so that not all questions need to be asked of all parents.

Flexibility in Scheduling Interviews. Effective calling patterns are essential for achieving high response 

rates on all telephone surveys. Previous experience shows that individual respondent schedules (work, 

classes, recreational activities, vacations, etc.) have a more negative effect on response when call attempts 

are limited to a short time span. A larger percentage of the cases that are noncontacts after the first call 

attempt will be converted to a successful contact if the call attempts are distributed across a longer time 

span. Completion rates improve when interviewers call on different days of the week and at varying times 

of the day and evening.

To establish initial contact with a parent of a sampled child during the spring third-grade round, field staff 

will be trained to place two weekday, three evening, and two weekend calls over a 3-week period. These 

calls will be made in a nonsequential set of targeted time periods called “time slices.” The time slices and 

required number of calls are as follows:

Required Number of Calls

 Weekday 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. 1

 Weekday 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. 1

 Weekday 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. 1

 Weekday 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. 1

 Weekday 7:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. 1

 Saturday or Sunday, 10 a.m. to 8 p.m., on separate weekends 2

If after seven call attempts no contact has been made with the parent, the field staff will be instructed to 

review the case with the team leader for additional instruction on how to proceed. The team leader may 

instruct the field staff to do one or more of the following: (1) send an email or handwritten note to the 

parent; (2) contact the school coordinator to see if the school can help or offer any insight into contacting 

the parent; (3) attempt to contact the parent using alternative contact information or methods listed for the 

parent, if any (i.e., call another phone number); (4) contact the nonresident parent, if applicable; (5) assign 

the case to another field staff member for a fresh approach and a new voice; or (6) conduct an in-person 

visit to the parent’s home.

Once contact is established, up to seven additional calls will be made to complete the parent interview. If 

the interview is not completed after these seven additional calls and the respondent has not explicitly 
Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods B

B-21

refused, the field staff may be instructed by their team leader to attempt an in-person interview. During the 

last few weeks of data collection, noncontact and uncompleted cases will be visited in-person as 

appropriate.

Non-English Interviewing. In the spring first-grade data collection the ECLS-K:2011, 12 percent of the 

12,992 completed parent interviews were conducted in a language other than English. To achieve high 

response rates, it is important that study procedures work to include these parents to the greatest extent 

possible. As described in the data collection procedures section, we will hire and train field staff who are 

bilingual in Spanish and English to conduct fully translated parent interviews in Spanish and use home and 

community interpreters, as available, for interviews in non-English, non-Spanish languages. As mentioned 

above, if a household or community translator is not available, another approach we can employ is to 

identify bilingual staff working in Westat’s Telephone Research Center (TRC) to conduct parent 

interviews.

Locating Parents of Transfer Children. Locating parents of transfer children is critical for maintaining 

high completion rates for parent interviews overall and helps reduce nonresponse bias. It is expected that a 

substantial portion of participating children will transfer schools between rounds of data collections. A 

tracking system database with household contact and school information was developed at the beginning 

of the study and the sample tracking activities described in Part A will be conducted to locate children who 

transfer schools. Maintenance of this tracking database will be an important activity for the lifetime of the 

study, with updates of new information occurring through the final data collection round. 

If children transfer to a school that is outside of a sampled PSU, they are not assessed; however, 

interviewers still attempt to contact the parent and conduct the parent interview, thereby retaining these 

cases as study participants. If the child transfers to a school that is in a sampled PSU, an attempt is made 

to complete all components of the study.

Refusal Avoidance and Conversion Procedures. Achieving an acceptable parent response rate will 

require active and effective refusal conversion efforts. Given that most of the parents will have 

participated in previous data collection rounds, a key factor in converting refusals is the ability of the team 

leaders and assessors to clearly and confidently convey the purpose of the repeated data collections and the 

importance of parents’ continued participation in the study, including the benefits that will be derived 

from it. This will be a focus of the field staff training. The training materials for averting refusals direct 

field staff to become thoroughly familiar with the study and include activities designed to help field staff: 

1) answer frequently asked questions (FAQs) and respond to respondent objections, 2) draft responses to 

FAQs in the interviewer’s own words, 3) practice saying these responses, and 4) diagnose respondent 
Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods B

B-22

objections and quickly respond with a response tailored to the objection. The training includes modules on 

preparing answers for different situations, using the voice effectively, and role-plays between trainers and 

interviewers. Additional training will cover how to avert refusals, focusing specifically on addressing 

reasons for refusals on the parent interview component of the ECLS-K:2011 study.

During the parent interview data collection period, team leaders and field managers will review initial 

refusals (i.e., a refusal by a respondent after the first recruitment effort) with the field staff, putting a 

particular emphasis on reviewing the interviewer record of calls, which will be available to supervisory staff 

(i.e., team leaders and field managers) on a weekly basis. If a parent refusal occurs, the interviewer will be 

instructed to record key demographic information about the refusing respondent (e.g., sex, approximate 

age) and the respondent’s reason(s) (if given) for refusing to participate. This information will be evaluated 

by the team leader to determine the best strategy for converting refusals. Cases identified for refusal 

conversion will be assigned to a select group of field staff identified as possessing the necessary skills to act 

as refusal converters. During data collection, field managers will hold telephone conferences with the 

identified field staff to review the refusal conversion procedures and discuss strategies for converting 

refusals.

Child Questionnaires, Assessments, and Hearing Evaluations

There are two main areas that can be focused on in order to maximize completion rates for the child 

questionnaires, assessments, and hearing evaluations: (1) conducting make-up assessments with children 

who are absent on scheduled assessment days, (2) locating transfer children, and (3) assessing children at 

home.

Absent Children. It is expected that some children will be absent from school during the time that 

assessments are scheduled at their school. Days on which some field staff have no assessments scheduled 

will be set aside throughout the field period so that those staff can conduct make-up assessments. A makeup assessment will be conducted for any child who is unable to be assessed during his/her school’s 

scheduled assessment day(s) and who can be assessed at some other point during the field period. If an inschool make-up assessment cannot be scheduled, team leaders will contact parents to make arrangements 

to assess these children outside of school, if possible.
Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods B

B-23

Locating Transfer Children. As is the case with the parent interview, locating transfer children and the 

new school in which they are enrolled is critical for maintaining high completion rates for child 

assessments overall and reducing nonresponse bias. 

There is an additional consideration with locating children who transfer schools, which is the need to 

contact their new schools and teachers and encourage them to participate (if a child transfers to a school 

not already participating in the ECLS-K:2011), thereby allowing the children to be assessed in the school. 

This issue is discussed further in the next section.

Assessing Children at Home. As children transfer, they may move to schools that decide not to 

participate in the study. In these cases, every effort is made to assess the child at home or in a neutral 

location, such as a public library. Often the field staff can interview the parent in-person before or after 

the assessment as well. Assessing children at home allows for the inclusion of these children in the study,

even when schools decline to participate in the study.

School and Teacher Instruments

There are three main areas that can be focused on in order to maximize completion rates for the teacher 

and school administrator hard-copy instruments: (1) early distribution of instruments to schools and 

teachers, (2) effective communication of the importance of school administrator and teacher participation 

to school personnel, regardless of whether they participated in a prior round, and (3) efforts made by field 

staff to avoid refusals and to convert initial refusals to cooperating respondents.

Early Distribution of Instruments. Feedback from school administrators and teachers in the ECLS-K 

indicated that there would have been increased study participation if they had had more time to complete 

the hard-copy instruments. Along with an increased honorarium model, the distribution of the 

questionnaires early enough in the school year to allow staff sufficient time to complete them is critical.

For the spring third-grade data collection, most of the sampled children’s regular classroom and special 

education teachers, as well as the school administrators, will be identified during the advance school 

contact in the fall of the third-grade school year. School and teacher questionnaires, along with the 

incentive checks, will be sent in February of the school year, to allow sufficient time for these respondents 

to complete and return the instruments to their school coordinator for field staff to collect on assessment 

day.
Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods B

B-24

Effective Communication with School Staff. The participation of school administrators and teachers 

(especially new school administrators and teachers, either at schools to which study children have 

transferred or at schools that participated in the earlier rounds) can be increased by effectively 

communicating information about the ECLS-K:2011, including the goals of the study, what the study 

measures, the various study components, why it is important that schools and teachers participate, the 

study activities to date, study plans for the future, and selected results from the ECLS-K and ECLSK:2011. Effective respondent materials, as well as telephone contact by school recruiters who are trained 

to convey this information efficiently and completely, will help maximize the participation of schools to 

which sample children transfer. In addition, parental consent was recorded for all children who had a 

completed parent interview in the kindergarten data collection, so a record of consent will be available for 

their new schools.12 If children with a completed parent interview move into a new school, his/her 

recorded consent will be reviewed and verified by project staff and a hard-copy consent form will be 

produced documenting the recorded consent. This recorded consent should make it easier to recruit new 

schools and teachers to participate, because they will have written documentation of the parent’s consent 

for the student to participate in the study.

A similar process was followed in regards to the parental consent for the hearing evaluations. Consent for 

the study’s hearing evaluations was initially sought in the spring of the first-grade round. At that time, 

parents were mailed active parent consent forms that they were asked to sign and return to the school in 

order to indicate permission had been granted. In cases where a signed consent form was not received, the 

parent was asked to give verbal consent, which was recorded during the fall 2012 parent interview. School 

staff will be reminded that the children sampled for the third-grade hearing screenings already have

parental permission for their participation.

Avoiding Refusals and Converting Initial Refusals. Team leaders will be trained to maximize the 

response rates for the hard-copy instruments, which will include being flexible in the timing in which they 

collect the questionnaires from teachers, following up with the school administrators and teachers to 

prompt the completion of the questionnaires, and returning to the school after the assessment visit to pick 

up questionnaires from school coordinators or other school staff. Team leaders will be trained to apply the 

general refusal aversion techniques to the collection of hard-copy questionnaires. These techniques will 

include analyzing the reasons for refusal, responding appropriately, and using their voice effectively.

 

12Roughly 70 percent of the schools required that the study obtain active parent consent for the child’s participation. Other schools required 

only passive consent in which the parent was sent a notification consent form for the parent to return only if s/he objected to the child’s 

participation. The study followed the consent procedure required by the school or district. If a child transfers from a school that requires 

passive consent to a school that requires active consent, and recorded consent is not available because the parent interview was not 

completed for that child, field staff will contact the parent and attempt to obtain a signed consent form.
Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods B

B-25

District and school personnel have stated that they face increasing demands upon their schools for a 

variety of noninstructional activities, including requirements for state and district assessments. Sensitivity 

to these concerns is essential to gaining cooperation for the ECLS-K:2011, and it must be made clear to 

school system personnel at all levels that the ECLS-K:2011 staff is more than willing to work with them to 

facilitate their participation with the least burden and disruption possible.

Statistical Approaches to Nonresponse

One of the methods employed to reduce the potential for nonresponse bias is adjustment of the sample 

weights. If people with certain characteristics are systematically less likely than others to respond to a 

survey, the collected data may not accurately reflect the characteristics and experiences of the 

nonrespondents, which can lead to bias. To adjust for this, respondents are assigned weights that, when 

applied, result in them representing their own characteristics and experiences as well as those of 

nonrespondents with similar attributes. After the base year, the weights are also raked to sampled-based 

control totals in order to maintain the background characteristics of the sample. This is another method 

used to reduce the potential for nonresponse bias in the estimates produced from the data. 

As described above, the study will subsample movers using a scheme that follows some groups of students 

at higher rates than other movers to protect the sample sizes and statistical power for analyzing these 

groups of children. The subsampling in and of itself does not reduce nonresponse bias; rather by 

subsampling, the same fixed resources can be allocated to a smaller number of children so that higher 

response rates for subgroups can be achieved. The higher response rates lessen the potential for 

nonresponse bias to exist in the data.

Response rates will be computed for all the instruments fielded in the study. Data collected through any 

instrument with a response rate less than 85 percent will be evaluated for nonresponse bias. In addition to 

comparing the characteristics of respondents and nonrespondents using data that are available from the 

sampling frames (for example, school type and school locale from the school frame for evaluating bias at 

the school level, or student background characteristics collected from the school for student sampling for 

evaluating bias at the student level), we will also compare study estimates to estimates from other available 

sources that include a similar population (for example, estimates common to the ECLS-K:2011 and the 

National Household Education Survey). The nonresponse bias analysis will be similar to the analyses 

conducted for the ECLS-K and earlier rounds of the ECLS-K:2011, and that were reported in study 

methodology documentation (for the most recent ECLS-K methodology report published, see 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2009003).
Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods B

B-26

B.4 Individuals Responsible for Study Design and Performance

The following individuals are responsible for the study design and the collection and analysis of the data 

for the ECLS-K:2011.

Gail Mulligan, NCES (202) 502-7491

Chris Chapman, NCES (202) 502-7414

Jill McCarroll, NCES

Karen Tourangeau, Westat

(202) 219-7002

(301) 251-8265

Christine Nord, Westat (301) 294-4463

Thanh Lê, Westat (301) 610-5105
C-1

C.1 Introduction

This section provides information about the general contents of the ECLS-K:2011 parent interview, the 

regular classroom and special education teacher questionnaires, and the school administrator/principal 

questionnaire. Appendixes A (Child Questionnaire), C (Parent Interview), D (Teacher Questionnaires), 

and E (Special Education Teacher Questionnaires), F (School Administrator Questionnaire), and B (Child 

Questions for Hearing Evaluations) include the final survey instruments for the national spring third-grade 

data collection. Appendix G summarizes the links between items in the instruments, constructs, and 

research questions.

The design of the ECLS-K:2011 and the survey instruments is guided by a conceptual framework of 

children’s development and learning that emphasizes the interaction among the various environments 

which children experience and the resources within those environments to which children have access. For 

this reason, the study collects information on a wide array of topics, including the characteristics of the 

child, the child’s family, the community, nonparental care and education arrangements, and the child’s 

school and classroom environments. The ECLS-K:2011 uses data from multiple respondents (e.g., parents, 

teachers) so that information about each of the environments children experience can be collected from 

the people most likely to provide accurate and reliable data. The respondent interviews and questionnaires 

included for the spring third-grade round of the study and the general topics covered in each include: 

 Parent Interview—to be administered to the parents/guardians of children in the study. In 

the spring of third-grade, the parent interview includes questions about parent involvement 

with the school; family structure; whether a language other than English is spoken in the 

home; the home environment; before-and after- school care; nonresident parents; parental 

warmth; discipline; communication with the child; household food security; parent education; 

parent employment; and household income. Parents also report on their children’s 

experiences with peer victimization, as well as their physical activity, health, and any disabilities

the children may have. New to the third-grade data collection are questions about whether the 

parent monitors that the child's homework has been completed, the child's specific ethnic 

origin (that is, to what specific Hispanic, Asian, or Pacific Islander group the child belongs, 

such as Puerto Rican, Chinese, Samoan, etc.), how many hours of sleep the child gets on 

weeknights, and whether parents have been (since the child was born ) or currently are on 

active duty in the military; questions to assess the child's working memory; and questions 

about whether the child has been on field trips focused on science activities.

The ECLS-K:2011 Instrument Details C
The ECLS-K:2011 Instruments Details C

C-2

 School Administrator/Principal Questionnaire—to be completed in the spring third-grade 

data collection by the school administrator or principal of each school attended by a child in 

the study. This instrument includes a broad range of questions about the school setting; 

policies, programs, and practices at the school level and in third grade; and questions about 

the school administrator/principal and about the teaching staff. No new constructs have been

added to in the third-grade questionnaire, though an item about measures taken to ensure 

school safety has been expanded to ask about additional measures.

 General Classroom Teacher Questionnaires—to be completed by classroom teachers of 

children in the study. In the spring of third-grade, there are three teacher questionnaires. 

– The teacher-/classroom-level questionnaire (TQC) includes questions about the 

classroom and student characteristics, class schedules, technology, and instructional 

practices. It also includes items on the teacher’s background, teaching experience, and 

attitudes about teaching and the school climate. A new construct being introduced for 

third grade is a classroom-level measure of student difficulties, including lack of 

attention, lack of self-control, rejection by peers, and not accepting authority. This 

questionnaire will be completed by the general classroom teacher or by the teacher with 

whom a sampled child spends the most instructional time. (See Part B for further 

information questionnaire distribution.) 

– The curriculum questionnaire (TQS) contains questions about the skills taught in the 

reading, math, science, and social studies curriculum for this grade. For reading, math, 

and science, these skills are based on nationally-recognized curriculum criteria, 

developed by groups of states. This questionnaire will be answered entirely by the 

general classroom teacher if he/she teaches all four curriculum areas. If he/she teaches 

any of the subject areas, he/she will respond to the items relevant to those subjects. For 

subject matters he/she does not teach, if any, he/she will be instructed to pass the 

questionnaire to a teacher who teaches that subject(s) to at least one of the sampled 

children. 

– The child-level questionnaire(TQC) is answered by the general classroom teacher and 

has questions specifically about each study child and includes the teacher’s assessment 

of the child’s academic and cognitive abilities, behaviors, and social skills, as well as 

information about whether the child experiences peer victimization or engages in 

aggressive behaviors, the child’s program placements, and any specific services that each 

child may receive. Two new constructs have been added for third grade – aspects of the 

child’s relationships with peers and the nature of the child’s working memory, an aspect 

of executive function (see descriptions in the parent interview section and the childlevel teacher questionnaire).

 Special Education Teacher Questionnaires—to be completed in the spring third-grade 

data collection by the special education teacher or service provider for children in the study 

who have an Individual Education Program (IEP). There are two questionnaires for the 

special education teacher. The first questionnaire includes questions about the teacher’s 

background, training, and school assignment. The second questionnaire has questions about 

the study child who has an IEP, including items about child’s disability and services the child 
The ECLS-K:2011 Instruments Details C

C-3

receives. . No new constructs are included in the third grade Special Education Teacher 

Questionnaires.

The data from these instruments can be used in conjunction with the data obtained in the ECLS-K:2011 

direct assessments, along with the data from the questionnaires and interviews from previous rounds of 

the ECLS-K:2011, to answer a wide variety of research questions about how home, school, and 

neighborhood factors relate to children’s cognitive, social, emotional, and physical development over time. 

The following sections include research questions that may be addressed with the data from each 

instrument as well as a discussion of some of the important topics covered by each instrument. 

C.2 ECLS-K:2011 Parent Interview

The children in the ECLS-K:2011 come from a broad range of family and community backgrounds and 

enter school with widely differing abilities and levels of preparation for school. Understanding these 

variations and examining the ways in which home and school environments interact in relation to them as 

children progress through school is a key goal of the ECLS-K:2011. Conducting interviews with parents is 

central to obtaining the information necessary to measure these constructs over time. The ECLS-K:2011 

defines the parent to be interviewed as the child’s parent or guardian in the household who knows the 

most about the child’s care, education, and health.

13 If the parent or guardian is not available during the 

field period, or if there is no parent or guardian, another adult who knows about the child’s care, 

education, and health is selected as the respondent. 

C.2.1 Spring Third-Grade Parent Interview

Research questions related to the ECLS-K:2011 spring third-grade parent interview are shown below. 

C.2.1.1 Spring Third-Grade Parent Interview: Research Questions

 PQ1: What is the status of children’s development (as defined by cognitive, social, and 

emotional development; behavior; and physical status measures)? How does children’s 

development vary by child and family social, demographic, and contextual characteristics at 

the end of the third-grade year? 

 PQ2: How are variations in children’s developmental status (as defined by ECLS-K:2011 

cognitive, socioemotional, physical, health, and disability measures) at the end of third grade 

related to later success in school? 

 PQ3: How do family sociodemographic and contextual characteristics influence later success 

in school within and across outcome domains and within sex and racial/ethnic subgroups?

 

13 After the first round of data collection, interviewers ask to speak with the previous round’s respondent. If that person is not available during the field period, 

the interviewer asks to speak with someone who is available and is knowledgeable about the child’s care, education, and health.
The ECLS-K:2011 Instruments Details C

C-4

 PQ4: How do family processes and parenting practices (e.g., home environment, family 

activities, and cognitive stimulation) relate to children’s developmental status and social and 

emotional adjustment? How do critical family processes and parenting practices influence later 

success in school?

 PQ5: How does parental involvement in children’s education relate to school performance 

over the course of the early grades? Do parental involvement levels differ by family social, 

demographic, and contextual characteristics? What forms of parent involvement are most 

influential for children’s outcomes? What school factors are related to parental involvement? 

How do schools respond to the needs of parents with little or no English proficiency? Are 

school or teacher practices to involve parents associated with higher levels of parent 

involvement?

 PQ6: What are children’s patterns of participation in before- and after-school care up to the 

end of third grade? How do before- and after-school care arrangements differ by family 

sociodemographic factors, SES, and race/ethnicity? How are these arrangements related to 

children’s progress through school? How does participation in early care and education in the 

year before kindergarten relate to participation in before- and/or after-school care during 

third grade (e.g., in what ways are these arrangements similar or different)? 

C.2.1.2 Spring Third-Grade Parent Interview: Construct Coverage

Child Characteristics

Background information about study children was collected in the ECLS-K:2011 starting in fall 2010. 

Because of this, the child’s sex and date or birth/age are not collected again in spring 2014. However, data 

for the child’s race and ethnicity will be collected if they are missing from previous rounds. In addition, the 

parent interview will ask more specific questions about the child's ethnic group. 

The spring-third grade parent interview includes questions about:

 Child’s race and ethnicity; and

 Specific Hispanic, Asian, or Pacific Islander group the child is in, such as Puerto Rican, 

Chinese, Samoan, etc.

Parent’s Involvement with the Child’s Education

Parental involvement in education has proven to be a critical influence on school outcomes for children 

(Stallings and Stipek 1986; Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler 1997; Gonzalez-DeHass, Willems, and Holbein 

2005). However, parent involvement is not a single construct but rather refers to many diverse types of 

home-school interaction. One type of parent involvement involves parents managing their child’s 

education by monitoring whether homework has been completed and obtaining tutoring for a child, if he 

or she is having difficulties in school. Other ways that parents are involved with their children’s education 
The ECLS-K:2011 Instruments Details C

C-5

is in their interaction with teachers and through participation in organized school activities. Parents are 

also involved with their children’s education by choosing a school for their children, and in some cases by 

deciding to homeschool their children for all or some of their classes.

The research on parent involvement describes not just how parents are involved with schools but also how 

schools work to involve parents. The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

(ESEA) (No Child Left Behind, or NCLB) specifically mentions the need for states to consider proven 

practices for involving parents in the education of their children. The ECLS-K:2011 will ask parents about 

school practices designed to communicate with parents about their child and increase parental

involvement.

The following data about parent involvement and school practices to involve parents in their children’s 

education will be collected from the parents:

 Parent’s choice of a school for the child;

 Parent attendance at parent-teacher conferences and meetings;

 Parent participation in school activities;

 Parent volunteering at the school;

 School practices to communicate with parents and encourage involvement;

 Parent networks;

 Parent’s satisfaction with the teachers and school;

 Frequency the child does homework at home; and

 How often parent or someone else checked that the child completed homework.

Parental Beliefs and Expectations

Parents’ beliefs and expectations about their children are other areas of interest in the ECLS-K:2011. 

Mother’s educational expectations have been shown to be positively related to children’s academic 

interests as they proceed through school, and academic interests are, in turn, related to school performance 

(Dotterer, McHale, and Crouter 2009). Parent educational expectations can be related to children’s 

academic outcomes in spring-third grade and later years as the study continues.
The ECLS-K:2011 Instruments Details C

C-6

One question about parent expectations will be included in the spring-third grade parent interview: 

 Parent’s educational expectations for how far the child will go in school (high school, college, 

etc.)

Family Structure

Family structure affects the economic, social, and psychological resources available to the family for child 

rearing purposes. In 2010, 31.6% of families headed by a single mother were in poverty, compared to 6.2% 

of families with married parents (National Poverty Center n.d.). Research indicates that a wide range of 

outcomes for children under 18, including academic performance, mental health, behavior, and 

relationships with parents and peers are more optimal in families composed of two biological parents who 

interact with minimal conflict than for children who do not live with both biological parents (Dawson 

1991; McLanahan and Sandefur 1994; Peterson and Zill 1986; Morrison and Cherlin 1992). Also, having 

the additional support of another adult appears to be beneficial to children without a second biological 

parent in their household. Dunifon and Kowaleski-Jones (2007) found that the presence of a residential 

grandmother in single-mother homes was associated with greater cognitive stimulation and higher reading 

scores, although this association was only found for White children. 

Effects of family structure are not static. Structural conditions need to be looked at over time, because 

family turbulence—changing schools, residence, family composition, or even early care and education 

arrangements—can have a negative influence on children’s outcomes (Haurin 1992; Peterson and Zill 

1986; Howes and Stewart 1987). However, there is recent evidence suggesting that after accounting for 

other parental factors, remarriage after divorce may have benefits for children’s academic achievement 

(Shaff, Wolfinger, Kowaleski-Jones, and Smith 2008). The longitudinal nature of the ECLS-K:2011 makes 

it ideal for investigating the impact of change in family composition over the course of children’s 

elementary school years. 

The ECLS-K:2011 will gather data on the following aspects of family structure:

 Current household roster;

 Change in family relationship of key parent figures to the child (e.g., became adopted);

 Marital status of the primary caretakers;

 Information about why people who were in the household in a previous round of collection 

have left the household;
The ECLS-K:2011 Instruments Details C

C-7

 Tenure at current address (based on how many data collection points the child has the same 

address); and

 Family structure change and loss (e.g., remarriage, divorce, and death).

Parent Characteristics

Basic parental demographic information will include: 

 Parent’s sex, age, and race/ethnicity (if not collected in a prior round); 

 Parent’s health; and

 Parent’s vital status (collected indirectly by asking about contact with a biological/adoptive 

parent who does not live in the household or collected when a parent/parental figure 

identified in a previous round is no longer in the household).

Immigration Status

Differences have been found in cultural ideals among immigrant groups regarding child-rearing beliefs, the 

meaning and importance of cognitive ability, and educational objectives in the early grades (Okagaki and 

Sternberg 1993). To address issues regarding immigration status, the ECLS-K:2011 will gather the 

following information for focal children in the third grade if it had not already been collected in a prior 

interview:

 Country of origin for parents and sample child; 

 Length of residence in U.S. for parents and sample child; and

 Citizenship of the child.

Home Language

It is of interest to know how young children in homes where the primary language is not English acquire 

English language skills. One study found that children who started school classified as English language 

learners (ELL), but were reclassified as English proficient later in elementary or middle school, performed 

similarly on achievement tests in high school compared to those who started school speaking English, and 

performed better on achievement tests compared to those who were never reclassified as English 

proficient (Flores, Painter, and Pachon 2009). The parent interview will include questions about the home 

language(s) of the study children and the English proficiency of the parents. Researchers can consider the 

language environment at home along with information from the school and teacher questionnaires about 
The ECLS-K:2011 Instruments Details C

C-8

the child’s instructional environment to better understand the interplay of factors related to ELL children’s 

academic progress.

The parent interview includes questions about:

 Whether a language other than English is spoken in the home; 

 How often parents speak a language other than English to the child; and 

 How often the child speaks a language other than English to the parents.

Home Environment, Activities, and Cognitive Stimulation 

The environment parents create in the home and activities conducted with their children represent a direct 

linkage between parental characteristics and the child’s development. The parenting practices of the 

mother are closely associated with the development of the child (Maccoby and Martin 1983), but the 

practices of the biological father and other parent figures in the household such as step-parents and 

grandmothers have been shown to also play a role in children's development (e.g., Dunifon and 

Kowaleski-Jones 2007).

Many parent-child activities have been linked to children’s achievement in school, for example with respect 

to literacy. In the ECLS-K, children’s literacy was positively correlated with the frequency with which 

parents read to their children (Almond and Holt 2005; U.S. Department of Education 2000; Sy and 

Schulenberg 2005) and also with nonliterary, social activities (e.g., teaching children about nature, doing 

arts and crafts, parents and children eating breakfast together) (Almond and Holt 2005). Other activities 

related to children’s reading achievement in the ECLS-K have been the parent telling stories to the child, 

going to the library, going to museums, and the number of books in the home (Almond and Holt 2005).

The amount of time children spend reading themselves has also been related to reading achievement 

(Mullis, Campbell, and Farstrup 1993).

Having access to a computer in the home is another valuable resource for children. Based on data from 

the ECLS-K, 53 percent of kindergartners in the kindergarten class of 1998-99 had a computer at home 

that they could use and by the third grade 81 percent of them had access to a computer at home. Espinosa 

et al. (2006) looked at how many children had and used computers at home, in addition to the number of 

books in the home and the amount of television the children watched. By the third grade, most children 

had a computer at home, and most of the computers were connected to the Internet. However, children 

whose parents had a higher education and income level had more access to computers and the Internet, 

and more books at home, than children whose parents had a lower education level and income. Among 
The ECLS-K:2011 Instruments Details C

C-9

those with the lowest socioeconomic status (SES), 46 percent of children used a computer at home. 

Among those with the highest SES, 96 percent used a computer at home. Also, having a computer 

available at home and having more books in the home were related to how well children did on the ECLSK reading and mathematics assessments. The ECLS-K:2011 data will be an important source of 

information about how children’s environments – especially with regard to computer access and use –

have changed over the past twelve years. Because computers are now available in many different forms, 

including various handheld devices such as cell phones, questions about computer use in the ECLSK:2011 have been modified to allow for home computers and other electronic devices. Also, in addition to 

asking about how many hours a day children watch television, the study will also ask about how many 

hours a day children play games on computer devices.

The spring-third grade ECLS-K:2011 parent interview will also ask about the hours of sleep children 

generally get on a school night. Sleep has been related to many different children’s outcomes including 

achievement (Eide and Showalter 2012), depression (Smaldone, Honig, and Byrne 2007), and body mass 

index (BMI) (Snell, Adam, and Duncan 2007).

The following information collected in the ECLS-K:2011 parent interview will address research questions 

concerning how the home environment influences children’s cognitive and social development:

 Number of books in the home;

 Frequency of reading by the child;

 Use of a home computer or other electronic device to teach the child something such as 

reading or math skills;

 Tutoring;

 Child’s activities outside of school hours (including new items about science-related field trips 

taken with organized clubs or as part of academic activities outside of school hours);

 Frequency with which the family eats dinner together; and 

 Number of hours of sleep child gets on school nights. 

Peer Victimization

A study of bullying, a construct closely related to peer victimization, by the National Center for Education 

Statistics found that 30 percent of middle and high school students reported being bullied once or twice at 

school in the 2010-2011 school year (United States Department of Education forthcoming). The study 

also found that among middle and high school students surveyed in 1999 and 2011, several indicators of 
The ECLS-K:2011 Instruments Details C

C-10

bullying declined. These included the rate of hate-related words used; hate-related graffiti, being afraid of 

being harmed or attacked at school; and avoiding particular places at school (although for 10th graders and 

Latino students, avoiding particular places at school because of fear increased). Fewer studies have been 

done with younger children, but those that have been published suggest that bullying is experienced by 

many children and is related to negative outcomes. Glew et al.’s (2005) study of third through fifth graders 

found that 22 percent of children were classified as victims, bullies, or both. Victims, and children who 

were both bullies and victims, had lower achievement scores and were more likely to feel like they did not 

belong at school compared to bystanders (Glew et al. 2005). Kochenderfer and Ladd (1996) found a 

relation between victimization and school adjustment outcomes, with victimization related to children's 

loneliness and desire to avoid school. Given these findings and the current White House anti-bullying 

initiative, having the ECLS-K:2011 collect information about peer victimization in this national sample of 

elementary school children would be useful. The parent interview includes questions about:

 Physical, verbal, relational, and indirect social peer victimization.

Parent’s Psychological Well-Being and Health

Current maternal depression is related to mothers’ reports of children’s externalizing problems (Moore et 

al. 2006), internalizing problems, and children’s own report of depressive symptoms (Tompson, Pierre, 

Boger, McKowen, Chan, and Freed 2010). Parents who are depressed or highly stressed are less likely to 

provide emotional support and more likely to employ harsh disciplinary practices (Puckering 1989; Moore, 

Zaslow, Miller, and Magenheim 1995). In the spring of kindergarten, findings from the ECLS-K showed 

that 6.4 percent of children had mothers who indicated they had symptoms of depression, with more 

mothers in lower-income families reporting symptoms than those in higher income families (Moore et al. 

2006). 

The parent interview will include questions about parent’s psychological and physical health including: 

 Depression and subjective well-being; and

 Respondent’s general health status.

Food Sufficiency and Food Consumption

Adequate nutrition is critical for children’s growth and development. Children in families with low income

levels or who are below the poverty level, children of adolescent mothers, and children whose parents are 

receiving welfare may be at risk of undernourishment. Families’ economic status is significantly associated 

with food insecurity and food insecurity is associated with children’s health and behavior difficulties 
The ECLS-K:2011 Instruments Details C

C-11

(Dunifon and Kowaleski-Jones 2003). The food sufficiency and food consumption items in the ECLSK:2011 are from a well-established measure used by the USDA to describe the level of food security or 

insecurity in the household. In order to reduce respondent burden, a shorter 10-item version of this 

measure suggested by USDA will be used to measure adult food security (which can be used to predict 

child food security) in the spring third-grade round.

The items ask about:

 Ability to purchase food sufficient for family needs; and

 Frequency that adults in the household do not have sufficient food.

Parent Education and Human Capital

Parents’ education - especially mothers’ education - has a strong relationship with children’s cognitive 

abilities at the beginning of kindergarten (U.S Department of Education 2000; Lee and Burkam 2002) and 

as children progress through school (Rathbun and West 2004). Studies have shown that maternal 

education is a strong predictor of the amount of time mothers spend playing with children, teaching them, 

and taking them on outings (Hill and Stafford 1980) and engaging in high quality home literacy experiences 

(Roberts, Jurgens, and Burchinal 2005; Storch and Whitehurst 2001). Research has suggested that this 

interaction between a parent and child, especially the amount the parent speaks to an infant or small child, 

dramatically affects the child’s vocabulary development (Huttenlocher, Haight, Bryk, Seltzer, and Lyons 

1991). Lower parent education has also been related to children’s externalizing problems and maternal 

depression (Moore et al. 2006).

Educational attainment data will be collected for the child’s parents if it is missing in a previous round for 

that parent figure. The following data will be collected in spring-third grade:

 Diplomas or degrees parent has obtained

Working Memory

Executive functions are interdependent processes that work together to accomplish purposeful, goaldirected activities and include working memory, attention, inhibitory control, and other self-regulatory 

processes. Executive processes work to regulate and orchestrate cognition, emotion, and behavior to 

enable a student to learn in the classroom. For example, executive control involves the ability to allocate 

attention, to hold information in working memory, and to withhold an inappropriate response (Casey, et 

al. 2000). Not only are these cognitive and behavioral processes predictive of reading and math 
The ECLS-K:2011 Instruments Details C

C-12

achievement (Blair and Razza 2007), but there is also emerging research that indicates that some of these 

cognitive processes are trainable (Rueda, et al. 2005; Klingberg, et al. 2005) and can be improved upon in 

regular public school classrooms without costly interventions (Diamond, et al. 2007). Given the increased 

interest in executive functions, in the parent interview we have included items tapping one aspect of 

executive function: 

 Children’s working memory

Child Care

School-aged children are in a variety of nonparental care arrangements when they are not in school, 

including center-based before- and after school programs, care with related or unrelated adults, and selfcare. A recent national study of children in kindergarten through the 12th grade by the After School 

Alliance (After School Alliance 2009) found that 15 percent of children were in an after school program, 

24 percent were cared for by a relative, 10 percent were cared for by another adult (such as a sitter); and 26 

percent were in self-care. Among children in elementary school, 17 percent of children were in after school 

care and 4 percent were in care by themselves. 

Research has indicated that child care received during the school years can have implications for children’s 

functioning in the elementary school grades. As reviewed by Durlak et al. (2010), although there are some 

inconsistent findings, many studies have shown that after-school care programs can have positive effects 

on children's achievement, behavior. physical health, and social competence. Studies of the effects of 

informal adult care with a relative have shown no apparent risks (Sarampote, Bassett, and Winsler 2004) 

and some protective effects for children of lower socioeconomic status who had child care with a sitter or 

relative compared with children of lower socioeconomic status who did not have this type of care (Pettit et 

al. 1997). Pettit et al. (1997) also found protective effects for children of lower socioeconomic status who 

had child care in a day care center compared to children of lower socioeconomic status who did not have 

this type of care. It was also found that girls who had small amounts of child care with a nonrelative 

neighbor had better behavior and achievement ratings than those without any nonrelative neighbor child 

care or those with high amounts of nonrelative neighbor child care. Research has also looked at the effect 

of children taking care of themselves. Although some studies show have not shown negative effects of this 

for some children (Sarampote, Bassett, and Winsler 2004), Pettit et al. (1997) found that higher amounts of 

self-care was related to children's adjustment problems, especially for children of lower socioeconomic 

status, those with behavior problems at school entry in kindergarten, and those who were not in other 

activities supervised by adults. 
The ECLS-K:2011 Instruments Details C

C-13

Throughout the study, the ECLS-K:2011 will collect information on the number, consistency, and variety 

of formal before- and after-school care arrangements that the children currently experience.

As children move further in to the school-age years, families may rely more often on nonparental care 

arrangements—particularly self-care. Information on the amount of time that children spend in self-care, 

both before and after school, will also be collected.

 Participation in early care and education, by type of arrangement (e.g., relative; non-relative; 

and center-based); 

 Time the child spends in these care arrangements; and

 Time the child spends in self-care.

Parental Discipline, Warmth, and Emotional Supportiveness

Warm, accepting maternal behaviors and relationships are positively linked to children’s intellectual and 

emotional development. Greater warmth and support predict more positive child outcomes, regardless of 

income level (Moore, Zaslow, Miller, and Magenheim 1995; Gregory and Rimm-Kaufman 2008). One way 

that parents can be warm and emotionally supportive to children is through communication. The ECLSK:2011 spring-third grade interview will assess parental warmth and emotional support by asking parents 

to report on whether they listen to their children and encourage them to communicate.

The way in which parents discipline their children has also been related to behavior outcomes. Parents’ use 

of inconsistent discipline has been associated with children’s Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder 

(Ellis and Nigg 2009), and found to be a mediator between mother’s distress and children’s aggression 

(Barry et al. 2009).

The ECLS-K:2011 parent interview will collect information about the following topics:

 Parental warmth;

 Parent-child communication; and

 Consistency of discipline.

Experts have suggested numerous factors to explain the increased obesity rate among children such as 

dietary habits, trends in eating out, sedentary activities, and changes in school lunch programs. However, 

data linking these factors to the recent trends in obesity are needed before policy can direct effective 

change. Parent interview data from the ECLS-K:2011 about the amount of exercise children get, meals 
The ECLS-K:2011 Instruments Details C

C-14

eaten at home, hours spent in sedentary activities such as watching television and playing video games, 

child behavior, and other measures can be used together to examine factors related to obesity. The parent 

interview includes questions on the following topics related to the issue of sedentary behaviors: 

 Amount of time the child watches television and plays video games.

Involvement of the Nonresident Parent

Asking questions about nonresidential parents is of great interest to researchers of family involvement. 

Nearly four out of ten children are born outside of marriage in the United States (Ventura 2009). Although 

one study found that 40 percent of nonmarital births are to mothers who are living with partners, the 

majority of children born outside of marriage do not live with their fathers (Chandra et al. 2005). The high 

incidence of divorce and separation in this country leads to more children living apart from one of their 

parents. 

Although many fathers who do not live with their children tend to play a smaller role with their children 

than do resident fathers and may lose contact with them over time, a significant proportion of nonresident 

fathers do remain involved. Moreover, their involvement is important to children’s lives (Amato and 

Gilbreth 1998; Nord, Brimhall, and West 1998; Jackson, Jeong-Kyun, and Franke 2009). Although the 

majority of nonresident parents are fathers, an increasing number of children have nonresident mothers. 

For both policy reasons and to understand children’s development, it is important to learn more about 

both fathers and mothers who live apart from their children. 

The following data about nonresident parents will be collected in the spring third-grade round:

 Time since last contact (either in person or by telephone, email, text, etc.) with 

biological/adoptive parents no longer living in household; and

 Frequency of contact in the last four weeks that was not in person (e.g., by telephone, email, 

text, etc.) with biological/adoptive parents no longer living in the household

Child’s Health and Well-Being 

This section includes items to identify children with different kinds of disabilities and to determine 

whether children with disabilities are receiving services. The presence of disabilities is an important risk 

factor for children and is related to children’s development and educational in school. These items will also 

provide the data to analyze the accessibility of special education and other programs and plans for children 

with disabilities. Other important indices of children’s well-being include rate of growth, physical fitness, 

and health care utilization (Newacheck and Hallfon 1988).
The ECLS-K:2011 Instruments Details C

C-15

The importance of children’s health for school success is well established. Chronic conditions and 

disabilities, such as hearing impairment and physical handicaps, not only “flag” youngsters for 

administrative attention, they also shape the way that parents, peers, and school personnel relate to the 

child (Alexander and Entwisle 1988). Even seemingly relatively mild conditions, such as earaches, may 

affect children’s performance in school if left untreated.

Impairments in hearing can contribute to deficits in speech and language acquisition, poor academic 

performance, and social and emotional difficulties (Cunningham, et al. 2003). The American Academy of 

Audiology notes that 12% of children who are 6 to 19 years old have hearing loss related to noise (e.g., 

noise that may come from loud toys, stereos, sporting events, movie theaters, bands, etc.) and 

recommends that children be screened for hearing loss yearly if they are involved in activities that expose 

them to loud noise (National Hearing Conservation Association 2004). They also recommend that hearing 

loss be ruled out whenever a child is being considered for special education services (American Academy 

of Audiology 1997). 

Impairments in vision can also lead to learning and socio-emotional difficulties. About one in four schoolage children have vision problems including amblyopia (lazy eye), strabismus (crossed eye), and myopia 

(nearsightedness). Studies find that there are racial and ethnic differences in the prevalence and incidence 

of refractive disorders. A study of 2,523 children in Birmingham, Alabama found that 33.6 percent of 

Asian children and 36.9 percent of Hispanic children had astigmatism (Collaborative Longitudinal 

Evaluation of Ethnicity and Refractive Error Study Group 2003).

The ECLS-K:2011 will collect the following data addressing children’s current and retrospective health 

status:

 Overall health;

 Ear infections since second grade;

 Ear aches since second grade;

 Asthma; 

 Diagnoses of disabilities and health conditions;

 Vision and hearing problems;

 Exercise/physical activities;

 Services for disabilities; 

 Health insurance coverage including Medicaid; 

 Glasses, hearing aids, cochlear implants;

 Prescription medications;

 Behavioral and attention problems;

 Learning problems;

 Emotional or psychological difficulties; and

 Communication problems.
The ECLS-K:2011 Instruments Details C

C-16

Parent Employment

Parental employment status affects the amount of material resources available to the child (Jackson, 

Bentler, and Franke 2006). Meta-analyses of several studies document that socioeconomic status (parent 

occupation and education) is positively associated with the quality of stimulation that parents provide their 

children (Gottfried 1984). 

One type of employment that has not been examined specifically in the ECLS-K:2011 is a family’s 

employment in the military. Children in military families would be important to study because they may 

experience frequent changes in schools as their parent(s) receive new stations for their duties, and long 

periods of absence by one or both parents as they are deployed. Information will be collected about the 

following:

 Parents’ current employment status; and

 Parents’ active duty status in the military since the child was born and currently.

Parent Income and Assets

Family income affects the family’s material standard of living, neighborhood and housing quality, 

opportunities for stimulating recreation and cultural experiences, and the stress and psychological wellbeing of the parents. Youngsters from more economically advantaged households tend to be more 

successful in the primary grades compared to their less advantaged peers (Alexander and Entwisle 1988). 

Any behavior and learning problems the child exhibits in the early grades are more likely to persist for 

children from economically disadvantaged families than for children in families with more financial 

resources (Ackerman, Brown, and Izard 2003). Because income is a dynamic force rather than a stable 

background characteristic (Duncan 1991) it is being measured longitudinally in the parent interviews in the 

ECLS-K:2011. 

The spring third-grade parent interview will also include questions about the following:

 Total family income for the year; and 

 Housing (whether home is owned, rented, or housing is obtained in other ways, such as by 

exchanging services for housing, living in temporary housing, living with a relative, etc.).
The ECLS-K:2011 Instruments Details C

C-17

C.3 School Administrator Questionnaire

The ECLS-K:2011 will collect data in spring 2014 on school composition, policies, and practices from 

school administrators in schools attended by ECLS-K:2011 sampled children. School component data will 

be used to illuminate the school context of each ECLS-K:2011 child and investigate the influence of 

school and administrator attributes on student outcomes. The School Administrator Questionnaire is 

contained in Appendix C. The instrument is very similar to the administrator questionnaires administered 

in the spring data collections for grades K, 1, and 2 of this study. The questionnaire has been shortened 

somewhat compared to the analogous questionnaires used in previous rounds of this study; this was done 

in order to reduce respondent burden and increase response rates. We expanded the item on measures 

taken to ensure safety to address both armed and unarmed security guards and to include elements from 

an item in ECLS-K that asked about whether doors are locked during the school day, whether the school 

has a requirement that visitors sign in, and whether intercoms or telephones are available in classrooms. 

No new constructs were introduced.

The ECLS-K:2011 third-grade administrator questionnaire has two versions: one for schools without a 

completed administrator questionnaire in any prior round of data collection and a more streamlined 

version for schools with a completed questionnaire in a prior round. The items included in the instrument 

are described in more detail below. 

C.3.1 School Administrator Questionnaire: Research Questions

 SAQ1: How does the length of the school day and school year relate to children’s progress, 

especially with respect to cognitive gains?

 SAQ2: How do differences in schools’ basic demographic, enrollment, resource, policy, and 

organizational characteristics relate to children’s academic and social development in the early 

elementary school years?

 SAQ3: Are schools’ practices to involve parents associated with higher levels of parent 

involvement?

 SAQ4: What kinds of services or programs do schools provide to families, children, or 

community members? How do these relate to children’s academic and socioemotional 

development?

 SAQ5: How do schools respond to the needs of parents with little or no English proficiency?

 SAQ6: How do neighborhood or community differences relate to children’s cognitive and 

social development?
The ECLS-K:2011 Instruments Details C

C-18

 SAQ7: What challenges associated with student behavior, attendance, teacher mobility, and 

school safety do schools face, and how do these relate to other school characteristics and 

children’s cognitive and social development?

 SAQ8: What are the characteristics of elementary school administrators and how do 

differences in their background characteristics relate to school characteristics, school practices, 

and interaction with parents and students?

 SAQ9: To what extent do schools use assessments to monitor students’ progress on specific 

skills and identify those in need of interventions? What kinds of interventions are provided for 

struggling students and how much staff support and parent communication are there for these 

efforts? 

C.3.2 School Administrator Questionnaire: Construct Coverage

The ECLS-K:2011 will collect data in spring 2014 on school characteristics, facilities and resources, 

community characteristics and school safety issues, school policies and practices, and school governance 

and climate from school administrators in schools attended by ECLS-K:2011 sampled children. The 

school component data will be used to illuminate the school context of ECLS-K:2011 children and 

investigate the influence of school and administrator attributes on student outcomes. 

School Characteristics, Facilities, and Resources, Including Federal Programs

Several characteristics of schools influence children’s educational experiences and may be related to their 

learning outcomes. For example, school size, average daily attendance, and the numbers of students 

enrolling in or leaving the school during the school year may influence the stability in classroom 

membership experienced by an individual student. Grade span dictates the number of school transitions 

children must make between levels of schooling and the age range of their school peers. In a study using 

ECLS-K data, Ready and Lee (2007) found that the size of elementary schools, as well as the size of 

classes within schools, independently influenced children’s learning in literacy and mathematics in both 

kindergarten and first grade. Farbman (2010) found that schools that had an expanded school year (that is, 

schools in which children attended more class days and/or hours per day) had students with higher 

achievement than schools for which the school year had fewer class days or hours per day.

The type of school attended has important implications for students’ experiences and achievement. Most 

public elementary schools are not selective, enrolling all children within predefined attendance zones. 

Private schools, by contrast, typically have some kind of admission policy and therefore can be more 

selective in their enrollment. Of nonpublic schools, parochial schools, especially Catholic schools, have 

received the most research attention (e.g., Bryk, Lee, and Holland 1993). Catholic schools tend to have low 

absenteeism rates and high academic achievement, despite a high level of heterogeneity in the student 

body. The ECLS-K:2011 data will provide important opportunities to contribute to the literature on the 
The ECLS-K:2011 Instruments Details C

C-19

effects of school type. Not only will analysts have information about sector, they will also know whether 

schools include magnet programs, if they are charter schools, and if they are schools of choice. 

The composition of the student body has important consequences for the types of programs and services 

that schools offer. The diversity of student populations with respect to social and economic background, 

preparation for school, need for particular services, and levels of proficiency in English has created a 

number of challenges for schools. The ECLS-K:2011 will allow analysts to examine how schools have 

responded to student diversity.

In a study using kindergarten through third-grade data from the ECLS-K to examine family, school, and 

neighborhood factors for the impact of socioeconomic status (SES) on children’s reading abilities, Aikens 

and Barbarin (2008) found that family characteristics, including home literacy and parental involvement in 

school, had the largest impact on reading ability at the beginning of kindergarten. However, school and 

neighborhood conditions were more strongly related than family characteristics to SES differences in rates 

of growth in reading over time. The authors stated that a school’s poverty concentration and number of 

children with reading deficits in the school was negatively related to individuals’ reading outcomes. Like 

the ECLS-K, the ECLS-K:2011 will be ideally suited for studies that look at academic growth related to 

school characteristics.

There are strong opinions on both sides of the issue of the efficacy of retention in grade as a practice 

aimed at remediating the academic or social difficulties of young children. Schools and school districts 

mirror this uncertainty, some favoring the use of retention in certain circumstances, others having a “no 

retention” policy. Most research about retention focuses on children in kindergarten, in first grade, or in 

high school. There is a lack of research looking at the effect of retention in later elementary school years. 

Data collected by ECLS-K:2011 on the effect of retention in second- and third-grade would help fill that 

gap. The ECLS-K:2011 will collect data on the number of children retained in second and third grades the 

prior school year. These data will help address the school’s practices regarding retention.

The success (or lack thereof) that the school has had in meeting the goals of NCLB, such as increasing 

overall student achievement and reducing the achievement gaps between subgroups of students, may have 

lasting effects on the school, its enrollment, the services it offers, and potentially on its governance. In 

particular, schools that have not met their NCLB goals (known as AYP, or adequate yearly progress), may 

have planned and implemented a number of specific school improvement activities.

In addition to each of the school context variables mentioned in the paragraphs above, other context 

information will be collected in order to better understand the educational processes occurring in the 
The ECLS-K:2011 Instruments Details C

C-20

school. For example, sources of funding (in particular, Title I and Title III program funds) and adequacy 

of the physical facilities help define the resources available to serve the school’s student. Overcrowding in 

schools can be a serious problem, as can inadequate facilities and low levels of funding. Altogether these 

variables define important differences between schools.

Elementary schools tend to be smaller, more local, and have larger grade spans than either middle or high 

schools. The smaller catchment area of elementary schools, combined with the longer grade span, suggests 

a long-term cumulative influence of the local neighborhood on both children and their schools. Schoollevel characteristics are likely to parallel those for the local neighborhood (demographically, but also, in 

terms of attitudes, values, and expectations), allowing a long-term, mutual reinforcement less possible in 

larger, more diverse middle and high schools. The community characteristics items in the school 

questionnaire focus on school and neighborhood safety and on measures the school has taken to ensure 

school safety. The questionnaire item on safety measures taken has been expanded for the third-grade

questionnaire by the inclusion of three additional items from the ECLS-K, in addition to the existing two 

questions from previous rounds: the number of guards (now including armed and unarmed guards) and 

metal detectors. 

The neighborhood questions in the School Administrator Questionnaire ask about the neighborhood in 

which the school is located. The data collected in these questionnaires can be combined with Census data 

that characterize the neighborhood in other ways (by racial composition, crime, income, employment, 

etc.).

This set of school activities, facilities, and resources items broadly defines the characteristics and basic 

resources of the school. These factors help describe the student population, the goals and purposes of 

instruction, time and resource constraints, and opportunities and resources to meet educational objectives.

These data will allow comparisons of schools that vary by these school characteristics: 

 School type (public/private, affiliation, grades, magnet, etc.);

 Number of instructional days in the school year;

 Enrollment and attendance; 

 Student demographics: racial/ethnic composition of the student population, language minority 

students in the student population, enrollment from outside the school’s attendance zone, 

participation in special education; 

 Percentage of children eligible for free or reduced-price meals; 
The ECLS-K:2011 Instruments Details C

C-21

 Numbers of students retained in focal grades;

 Receipt of Title I and Title III funding; 

 Services and programs/Title I;

 Services and programs/Title III;

 Availability of facilities, resources, and computer labs; 

 State assessment data;

 School status relative to Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP);

 Neighborhood problems (racial tensions, gangs, and crime);

 School safety; 

 Measures taken to ensure school safety; and

 Recent changes at the school including funding, enrollment, demographics, and class sizes.

Response to Intervention Programs

Response to Intervention (RtI) is intended to support improved academic achievement for all students. It 

offers a model for early intervention to prevent failure by identifying students who are struggling in the 

classroom with the general curriculum. A hallmark of RtI is an integrated system of assessment and 

monitoring at every stage of the process (Burns and Ysseldyke 2005, Coleman et al. 2006). All students are 

periodically compared to their classmates, using pre-determined benchmarks or local or national norms. 

Students determined to be at risk in the area of assessment (e.g., reading, math, behavior) receive a 

targeted, evidence-based intervention and the student’s progress is monitored. If the student improves, the 

student returns to general classroom instruction. Frequent monitoring occurs to ensure that progress is 

maintained following the intervention. If the student does not improve, the student may receive a more

intensive intervention. Thus, the approach calls for dynamic assessment that allows practitioners to 

respond to children’s needs (Fuchs and Fuchs 2006). Placement in different levels or “tiers” of services is 

data-driven.

Items related to RtI practices are being included in the School Administrator Questionnaire to obtain 

information at a national level to better understand the extent to which schools across the country are 

implementing identified RtI programs or are using practices that would be identified as RtI practices, even 

if the school has not formally adopted an RtI program.
The ECLS-K:2011 Instruments Details C

C-22

The policy and practice topics covered in the School Administrator Questionnaire include: 

 Implementation of an RtI approach at the school;

 Number of years RtI has been used at the school;

 Areas in which RtI is implemented, i.e., reading, mathematics, writing, and behavior;

 Implementation of various RtI-type features at the school (e.g., learning goals, benchmarks); 

 Communication with parents about RtI;

 Presence of staff members to train and assist teachers with reading and mathematics 

instruction, delivery of behavioral supports, and use of assessment data; and

 Number of students evaluated and eligible for an IEP (using an RtI model or other model). 

School-Family-Community Connections

Parent-school communication may have a number of potential benefits for children’s education. Parents as 

a visible presence in the school can reinforce the notion that education is a valued community goal. 

Parents can volunteer as classroom or school aides, freeing the teacher’s time for instruction. Benefits may 

flow in the other direction as well. When schools actively promote parent involvement and 

communication, parents may become more involved and more aware of school and classroom activities 

and of their own child’s instructional program. Strong relationships between schools and parents are 

associated with positive outcomes for children (Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler 1997; Gonzalez-DeHass, 

Willems, and Holbein 2005). 

The ECLS-K:2011 collects information on the following topics to gauge school-family-community 

connections:

 School-based programs or services for parents and families; and

 Parents’ school involvement.
The ECLS-K:2011 Instruments Details C

C-23

School Programs for Particular Populations

Because the ECLS-K:2011 will provide longitudinal data on a nationally representative sample of children, 

including children with special educational needs, information will be needed on special programs in which 

children in the study may participate. Because programs serving particular populations can vary in content 

and organization—differences that may, in turn, have consequences for both children’s opportunities to 

learn and their progress in school—basic characteristics of these programs need to be documented. 

Services to families of children in special programs should also be documented. The use of specific staff

(e.g., outreach workers, translators, and parent liaisons), parenting education, and other efforts to involve 

parents in support of their children’s success in school are among the topics included. Items on these 

topics will provide data to address issues of how schools can best serve parents of children with special 

needs. 

Data from the ECLS-K were used to examine the association between the school resources for ELL 

children and ELL children’s academic growth from kindergarten through fifth grade (Han and Bridglall 

2009). The authors found that the initial gap in math scores between ELL children and their Englishspeaking peers narrowed by fifth grade. This was especially true for ELL children in schools with either a 

high or low ELL student concentration. The ECLS-K:2011 direct assessments are specially designed to 

directly assess ELL children’s early English reading abilities, which was not possible in the ECLS-K. This 

feature will allow for a more thorough understanding of how services for these children relate to their 

reading growth, regardless of their initial English proficiency. The proportion of ELL children in the third 

grade and the total school, the number of children receiving bilingual education or ELL/ESL services, the 

types of programs in which those children participate, and the services provided to language minority (LM) 

families will be collected in the School Administrator Questionnaire.

Because baseline data were collected during the kindergarten year, a point when many children with 

disabilities have not yet been identified by schools, ECLS-K:2011 can help to shed light on how children 

come to be classified as having a particular disability over time. Information on where children with 

disabilities are served (i.e., in the classroom—“inclusion”—or in special pull-out classes) is also important 

information to be gathered in ECLS-K:2011. Enabling children to function effectively in a regular 

classroom setting is a goal of many special education programs. Although some children spend all of their 

time in separate special education classes or schools, many children move in and out of a regular class 

daily, receiving services in pull-out classes and returning to the classroom for the rest of the day. The 

ECLS-K:2011 data on special education placement and practices will provide critical information about the 

range and effectiveness of options for special education delivery.
The ECLS-K:2011 Instruments Details C

C-24

Another important program that many elementary schools offer is specialized instruction for students 

identified as “gifted and/or talented.” Adelson, McCoach, and Gavin (2012) analyzed ECLS-K data from 

grades 3 and 5 and found that gifted programming in math and reading (overall) had no effect on gifted 

students’ achievement and academic attitudes, and did not have detrimental effects on students not 

participating in these programs. Considered in light of prior research indicating benefits of specific gifted 

programs and the wide variety of program characteristics represented across the nation, the authors urged 

additional study to determine effective gifted program characteristics. 

The ECLS-K:2011 data on special populations include:

 Delivery of instruction to English Language Learners (ELLs) and services for language 

minority (LM) families;

 Delivery of special education and related services to children with disabilities; and

 Programs for gifted and talented children.

Staffing and Teacher Characteristics

The ECLS-K:2011 school-level data on teacher characteristics will allow researchers to evaluate the 

importance of the following elements of the teaching staff for children, aside from the characteristics of 

their own teacher (which will be addressed on the teacher questionnaire):

 Total number of full- and part-time teachers, specialists, nurses, and paraprofessionals; 

 Availability of specialists to support teachers in implementing reading/language arts, 

mathematics, and behavioral programs;

 Teacher mobility; and

 Monetary incentives for teachers.
The ECLS-K:2011 Instruments Details C

C-25

Administrator Characteristics

School administrators have many roles and responsibilities: conveying and implementing state and district 

requirements and initiatives, assuming the role of inspirational leader for the staff, coordinating reform 

efforts, and managing the day-to-day operations of the school. Many administrators also have additional 

teaching or administrative duties. How administrators exercise these duties may influence teachers’

motivation, enthusiasm, and commitment to education.

Although literature exists on how leadership skills create conditions conducive to effective schools, few 

studies addresses the influence of variations in administrators’ characteristics, qualifications, and time use 

on student outcomes. The following information collected in the ECLS-K:2011 might help to explore the 

relationships between characteristics of school administrators and the outcomes for students in their 

schools.

 Administrator’s sex, age, and race/ethnicity;

 Administrator’s years at the study school;

 Administrator’s years in the role of principal;

 Administrator’s formal education and training; 

 Administrator’s use of a non-English language; and 

 Administrator’s familiarity with students.

C.4 General Classroom Teacher Questionnaires

The ECLS-K:2011 will collect information from the teachers of the sampled children. The primary 

purpose of these data is to help describe the children’s classroom experiences which may relate to the 

children’s social and academic development.

In addition, teachers will be asked to provide information on the study participants who are in their 

classes, completing one questionnaire for each ECLS-K:2011 child. The ECLS-K:2011 assessment battery 

provides an objective assessment of academic outcomes for the nationally representative sample of 

children. Teachers can provide another perspective, albeit a less objective perspective, on children’s 

abilities and behavior because they spend a great deal more time with the children under far more routine 

conditions compared to the ECLS-K:2011 assessors. While the ECLS-K:2011 assessment provides a snapshot of what the child knows at the time of assessment, the teacher can provide a more complete overview 

of what the child knows based on experiences with the child in the classroom over the course of almost a 

full school year.
The ECLS-K:2011 Instruments Details C

C-26

Because the ECLS-K:2011 collects a very broad range of information longitudinally, it is well-suited to 

study the relative influence of particular educational and school characteristics on important outcomes, 

particularly in comparison to the relative influence of family background on those outcomes. 

The Teacher Questionnaire is broken into three separate documents. TQA will ask teachers to provide 

information on classroom and student characteristics, instructional and evaluation practices, and their 

teaching qualifications and background. TQS (“S” for subject) includes curriculum-level questions that 

focus on concepts and skills delineated by the “Common Core State Standards” in the case of 

reading/language arts and mathematics. The science-related items rely on the “Next Generation Science 

Standards.” These two sets of standards are nationally recognized and have been developed collaboratively 

by state departments of education. TQC contains child-specific questions such as enrollment, evaluation of 

skills and knowledge, services and programs received, and parent involvement.

C.4.1 Spring Third-Grade General Classroom Teacher Questionnaire

C.4.1.1 Spring Third-Grade General Classroom Teacher Questionnaire: Research Questions

 TQ1: How do instructional practices, content coverage, classroom resources, and methods of 

providing feedback differ across classrooms or schools? What is the relationship of those 

differences to children’s academic and social development?

 TQ2: How does diversity in the classroom regarding age, race/ethnicity, sex, and number of 

third-grade repeaters relate to other classroom characteristics? How do these class-level 

characteristics interact with children’s own characteristics for the development of academic 

and social skills?

 TQ3: How do teachers and schools handle the diversity of children’s skills? How are children 

with special needs (e.g., English Language Learners, gifted and talented students, students with 

IEPs) taught? How might instructional differences for these students relate to academic and 

social outcomes?

 TQ4: Do teachers’ characteristics including sociodemographic characteristics, views on school 

“readiness,” sense of efficacy, job satisfaction, perceptions of school climate, their educational 

background, certifications, and teaching experience influence children’s outcomes, on average 

and in interaction with children’s sociodemographic backgrounds?

 TQ5: Do teachers’ practices to involve parents result in higher levels of parent involvement? 

 TQ6: How do teacher’s relationships with individual students differ? What is the relationship

of those differences to children’s academic and social development?

 TQ7: What academic skills, socioemotional skills, and behaviors (including activity level) do 

teachers report children having as they progress through school? Do these skills and behaviors

vary by family background characteristics? How do these skills and behaviors change over 

time?
The ECLS-K:2011 Instruments Details C

C-27

 TQ8: To what extent do teachers and other school staff use assessments to monitor students’

progress on specific skills and identify those students in need of interventions? What kinds of 

interventions are provided for struggling students and how much staff support and parent 

communication are there for these efforts?

C.4.1.2 Spring Third-Grade General Classroom Teacher Questionnaire, TQA: Construct 

Coverage

Classroom and Student Characteristics

The total number of children enrolled in a class is a widely used index of instructional quality at all levels 

of education. Though the findings are mixed for much of the existing research on class size, Project STAR 

in Tennessee has shown consistently positive gains resulting from smaller class sizes. The project was a 

carefully designed, random assignment study of some 6500 students in 330 classrooms (K through grade 

3) in 80 schools across the state of Tennessee. In each of these grades, children in smaller classes (13 to 17 

students) compared with children in larger classes (22 to 25 students) showed significantly improved 

performance on standardized and curriculum-based tests in reading, mathematics, listening, and word 

recognition scores (Mosteller 1995; Shin and Raudenbush 2011). In a follow up study through grade 8, 

students who were in small classes during K-3 continued to score significantly higher on standardized 

achievement tests than their peers who had attended regular-size classes or regular-size classes with a 

teacher aide (Pate-Bain et al. 1997). While education researchers and economists debate the benefits of 

large-scale class size reduction efforts relative to the high costs of implementation, most seem to agree on 

the benefits of targeted class size reduction policies for select subpopulations of students (Hanushek 2002; 

Krueger 2002; Rice 2002).

Additionally, the demographic characteristics and ability-levels of the children in the class as a whole will 

be collected in the ECLS-K:2011 to support analyses that consider how a child’s learning trajectory might 

be related to the characteristics of their classmates, which may or may not be similar to their own.

The effort to educate all children in regular education programs presents challenges to teachers at all levels 

of education. Children with particular needs that may present challenges to teachers include those with 

physical and cognitive disabilities, as well as ELL and gifted and talented children. The ECLS-K:2011 is 

well-positioned to collect information on how these children are served and the different outcomes 

associated with treatment differences. The questionnaire includes items on the number of children 

receiving services for disabilities and the number receiving services for gifted/talented students. Further, in

light of the growing number of ELL children in the country, the ECLS-K:2011 includes several items for 

the teacher about number of ELL children in the classroom, the languages spoken, and the number of 

those children receiving services targeted to ELL children. 
The ECLS-K:2011 Instruments Details C

C-28

A new construct has been added to this section of the questionnaire for third grade – student difficulties. 

These items, which ask what percentage of the students in the class demonstrate specific problem 

behaviors, are related to the existing item on overall behavior of the class. In addition, one construct used 

in kindergarten and grade 1 has been brought back into the questionnaire for third grade; that is use of the 

school’s library or media center. 

Teachers will provide information about classroom and student characteristics including: 

 Grade level(s) of classes the teacher teaches;

 Class demographics: class size, gender distribution, number repeating grade; 

 Number of students who enter or leave during the school year;

 Number of language minority children and English-language learners (ELL) in the classroom;

 Number of children in the classroom receiving particular services or in special programs (e.g., 

special education services, a gifted and talented program, remedial services);

 Languages used in the classroom;

 Number of children above or below grade level in reading and mathematics;

 Numbers of children with disabilities;

 Number of children tardy or absent on an average day; and

 Overall behavior of the class, and prevalence of specific problem behaviors.

Instructional Activities, Structured and Unstructured Activities

The existing body of research is somewhat mixed on the issue of the best ways for children to spend their 

time during the school day – that is, how the day should be divided between instruction and structured 

activities, less structured activities, and free play and physical activity. Several studies in day care settings 

suggest that large amounts of free play and unstructured time are negatively related to preschool-age 

children’s cognitive and language development (McCartney 1984; Ruopp, Travers, Glantz, and Goelen 

1979). At elementary school ages, a large number of school-based studies have emphasized the importance 

of “time on task” or “student engagement” for student achievement in first and second grades 

(Greenwood 1991; Greenwood, Arreaga-Mayer, and Carta 1994; Wang, Haertel, and Walberg 1990). 

Children in second through fifth grades achieve more (as measured by achievement tests) in classrooms 

where a higher proportion of time is spent in academic instruction, where the teacher maintains both 

discipline an academic focus, and where they are engaged in their work with few interruptions or few 

periods of unoccupied time (Crocker and Brooker 1986). However, across these same age groups –
The ECLS-K:2011 Instruments Details C

C-29

preschool through fifth grade, unstructured activities, child-directed, imaginative play, and physical activity 

appear to promote social skills at the younger ages and health outcomes at least for girls through third 

grade (Singer and Singer 2006; Bergen and Fromberg 2009; Datar and Strum 2004). 

Child development experts have noted that elementary school children today have less time to engage in 

physical education, physical activity, and free play than in years past because many schools have reduced

physical education classes and recess time in favor of more instructional time and that this trend may have 

unintended negative academic consequences at least through first grade (e.g., Pelligrini and Bohn 2005) 

and physical consequences at least through third grade (Datar and Strum 2004). Datar and Strum showed 

that physical education programs helped girls who were overweight, or at risk for becoming overweight, 

avoid becoming obese. It further showed that the resulting reduction in weight for these girls by third 

grade led to improvements in reading and math achievement, approaches to learning, self-control, and 

interpersonal skills. In a study across ten years of a classroom-based physical activity program in 

kindergarten through fifth grades, (Kibbe et al. 2011) found that this integrated physical education 

program led to higher physical activity levels, reduced time off task during instructional time, and 

improved reading, math, and spelling composite scores.

While it is not possible to directly measure the actual “time on task” spent by children in this study or their 

level of engagement in the instruction, nor to observe the level of disciplinary control the teachers exert, 

the questionnaires include some proxy measures for these constructs as well as information about the 

amount of time children spend in free play. For example, teachers are asked estimate the amount of time 

spent on instruction in various subjects and the amount of time spent in physical education, recess, and 

free play. Teachers also rate the level of behavior problems in their classrooms and estimate the amount of 

time they spend on discipline. These can provide data that may be useful to investigate this issue of how 

the children’s school days are organized. To estimate the amount of time children may spend on academic 

subjects outside the school day, the teachers are asked about the frequency and amount of homework the 

teacher assigns in reading, math, and science.

The TQA includes items that characterize the organization of the school day and how children’s time is 

spent in both academic and nonacademic activities.

 Use of class time, by subject area;

 Class activities outside of the regular class (lunch, free play, and recess);

 Amount of time spent on classroom discipline and handling disruptive behavior; and

 Frequency and amount of homework that the teacher assigns.
The ECLS-K:2011 Instruments Details C

C-30

Resources/Materials

Among the resources related to student achievement and that may vary substantially across schools are 

school libraries or media centers and the availability and use of computers and other education-related 

technologies. According to the U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

(www.nclis.gov), at least nineteen states have conducted studies over the past ten years to assess the 

effectiveness of their school libraries in improving student achievement. For example, a study in Illinois 

demonstrated a positive relationship between use of school libraries and academic achievement 

(percentages of fifth- and eighth-graders meeting or exceeding state reading and writing standards) (Lance 

et al., 2005). 

Research on the use of computers in the classroom has shown mixed results both within and across 

studies. For example, Fuchs and Woessman (2004) found that both home and school computer use were 

related to positive achievement outcomes, but when adjusted for family and school characteristics, the

results were negative for home computer use and complicated for school use. That is, school computer use 

showed an inverted “U”-shape relationship with student achievement, meaning that both low and high 

levels of computer use were less effective than moderate use. Nevertheless, studies of more specific use of 

computers in the classroom show less ambiguous results. Gulek and Demirtas (2005) found that daily 

laptop use by middle-school students showed significantly higher achievement (including writing test

scores, and state-mandated standardized test scores in reading and math) for these students than for 

students who did not have daily access to laptop computers. Kim and Chang (2010) found that playing 

computer math games had different effects on fourth-grade NAEP assessment scores depending on the 

characteristics of the students, with the highest positive effects for male students whose first language was 

other than English.

Classes are likely to vary in terms of the use of library resources as well as computers and other electronic 

devices. The following information is collected to characterize a classroom in terms of the use of such 

resources:

 Use of the school library or media center; and

 Use of computers and other electronic devices for instructional purposes.

Student Evaluation

Formal student evaluations include grades, progress reports to parents, portfolios, and report cards. 

Research in this area often focuses on teachers’ criteria for grading, the frequency of feedback, and 

whether constructive information about areas of strengths and weaknesses is included. Martínez, Stecher, 
The ECLS-K:2011 Instruments Details C

C-31

and Borko (2009) used ECLS-K data and found third- and fifth-grade teachers’ ratings of students 

mathematics achievement correlated strongly with the direct assessments; however, this relationship varied 

by certain classroom assessment practices, which suggested that teachers evaluate student performance 

relative to other students in the school.

The following are aspects of student evaluation measured in the ECLS-K:2011:

 Factors in assessing children’s progress; and

 Uses of formal assessments in reading and mathematics.

Response to Intervention

While the School Administrator Questionnaire will provide information about school-wide 

implementation of Response to Intervention (RtI), the TQA will include items targeted at practices and 

procedures in the third-grade classrooms associated with RtI methodology. The questions are intentionally 

worded so that information about methods typically incorporated in RtI models will be obtained from the 

teachers without mentioning RtI by name. This is done so that the implementation of the methods and 

practices themselves can be measured regardless of the particular terminology adopted by the teacher or 

school (i.e., some teachers may incorporate RtI methods without referring to them as RtI).

Teachers will be asked to report on the following classroom practices for measuring performance and for 

delivering instruction to students who are struggling:

 Implementation of various RtI-type features for reading and mathematics (e.g., learning goals, 

benchmarks, criteria for intervention) in the school’s third-grade classrooms; 

 Specialists in reading and math who provide instruction to students who are struggling;

 Professional development activities covering the use of assessment data for identifying 

struggling students and for guiding instruction in reading and mathematics; 

 Frequency and purposes of assessing students in reading and mathematics; 

 Completion of college courses addressing the use of data to inform the choice of academic 

and behavioral interventions; and

 Assistance and training from other staff for reading and mathematics instruction, delivery of 

behavior supports, and use of assessment data.
The ECLS-K:2011 Instruments Details C

C-32

Parent Involvement

Research emphasizes the importance of parental involvement in children’s education in explaining 

differences in student educational outcomes (Schneider and Coleman 1993; Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler 

1997; Gonzalez-DeHass, Willems, and Holbein 2005). Information collected in this area in the ECLSK:2011 includes the following:

 Number of parent-teacher conferences scheduled during the school year; and

 Parent involvement in school activities (volunteering, attending meetings, other activities).

Teachers’ Views on Teaching, School Climate, and Environment 

Teachers’ satisfaction with the amount of autonomy afforded to them and the amount they feel supported 

has a strong effect on teachers’ overall job commitment and interaction styles with children (Manlove 

1993; Rosenthal 1991; Webb and Lowther 1993). A teacher’s sense of professional efficacy is associated 

with student outcomes. In the ECLS-K:2011, teachers’ autonomy, input into school policies, and sense of 

efficacy will be measured. These data can then be used to address questions having to do with how these 

factors relate to teaching practices and ultimately to child outcomes. The following topics are asked about 

in the TQA:

 School climate;

 Job satisfaction; and

 Teachers’ sense of efficacy.

Teacher Background

Teacher demographic variables are mainly of interest in the ECLS-K:2011 in the context of fit with 

children’s backgrounds. Teacher race/ethnicity and sex may interact with student background variables to 

produce interesting results on student achievement. 

The differences in student outcomes that are found in relation to such typically-researched characteristics 

of teacher quality as highest degree earned and major field of study are at best weakly related to student 

cognitive outcomes (Hedges, Laine, and Greenwald 1994). A teacher’s years of teaching experience is 

generally considered by the education community to be an important influence on student outcomes, but 

there is some research that suggests teacher experience has only a weak relationship with student test 

scores (Hedges, Laine, and Greenwald 1994). Nonetheless, these indicators continue to be used as bases 

for salary differences and hiring decisions. Further, researchers and government agencies (for example, the 
The ECLS-K:2011 Instruments Details C

C-33

“highly effective teacher” requirements under NCLB) continue to investigate these variables in attempts to 

isolate the factors that define teacher effectiveness. 

The following demographic, training, and experience variables will be collected as part of the ECLSK:2011:

 Teacher’s sex, age, and race/ethnicity;

 Teaching experience, by school and grade;

 Teacher’s education, including degrees and courses addressing specific topics; and 

 Type of teaching certification held.

C.4.1.3 Spring Third-Grade General Classroom Teacher Questionnaire, TQS: Construct

Coverage

Curricular Focus and Content Coverage for Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and 

Social Studies Instruction

The ECLS-K:2011 curriculum-level questionnaire measures what skills and topics are taught in the areas of 

reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. In addition, for reading/language arts and 

mathematics, the questionnaire also measures how extensively each skill is taught. These content coverage 

questions for reading/language arts and mathematics are modeled on the “Common Core State Standards 

(corestandards.org)”, which have been adopted by 45 states and the District of Columbia, as of April 16, 

2013. Content coverage for science focuses on skills and concepts recommended by the “Next Generation 

Science Standards” (nextgenscienceorg), endorsed by the National Science Teachers Association and the 

National Research Council and developed in conjunction with staff from 26 states.

The following information about content coverage in four curriculum areas will be collected as part of the 

ECLS-K:2011:

 Time spent on specific skills and concepts in reading/language arts;

 Time spent on specific skills and concepts in mathematics;

 Topics and skills taught in science; and

 Topics taught in social studies.
The ECLS-K:2011 Instruments Details C

C-34

C.4.1.4 Spring Third-Grade Child-Level Teacher Questionnaire, TQC: Construct Coverage

Child-Specific: Enrollment Information

The teacher will provide child-specific information about the ECLS-K:2011 children’s:

 Current grade level;

 Length of time child has been enrolled in the classroom; and

 Number of school absences during the current school year.

Child-Specific: Evaluation of Child’s Skills, Knowledge, and Behavior

Teachers’ reports of children’s academic skills augment the information obtained in the direct cognitive 

assessments. Teachers will also rate the ECLS-K:2011 children in their classroom on social skills (including 

their ability to exercise self-control, interact with others, resolve conflict, and participate in group 

activities); problem behaviors (e.g., fighting, arguing, anger, depression, low self-esteem, impulsiveness, 

etc.); and learning dispositions or “approaches to learning” (e.g., curiosity, self-direction, and 

inventiveness). 

These important social-emotional behaviors have been incorporated into a wide variety of research done 

with the ECLS-K data. For example, researchers have found significant relationships between approaches 

to learning and several other important variables (ability grouping in kindergarten through third grade, 

Catsambis and Buttaro 2012), (reading and math achievement in grades 3 and 5, Bodovski and Youn 2011; 

Li-Grining et al. 2010), and bilingualism, Han 2010). Lim and Kim (2011) found that social behaviors 

measured in kindergarten were crucial to reading development through fifth grade. Morgan et al. (2008) 

confirmed their hypothesis that behavior problems and poor reading skills are risk factors for each other. 

That is, behavior problems in first grade predicted poor reading skills in third grade, and poor reading 

skills in first grade predicted behavior problems in third grade.

As mentioned above in the parent interview section (section C.2.1.2) above, while few studies on peer 

victimization have been done with children of the age of the ECLS-K:2011 sample, those that have 

suggest that such victimization is experienced by many children at all ages and that this experience is 

related to negative outcomes. Collecting teacher-report data in addition to parent-report data allow for the 

examination of peer victimization in different contexts and reduces the effect of mono-method bias in 

measuring this construct.
The ECLS-K:2011 Instruments Details C

C-35

The ECLS-K:2011 will also include measures of executive function. As discussed in the parent interview 

section of this document, executive functions include working memory, attention, inhibitory control, and 

other self-regulatory processes. Executive processes work to regulate and orchestrate cognition, emotion, 

and behavior to enable a student to learn in the classroom. Of particular interest is new research on the 

importance of executive function for learning and academic achievement (e.g., Blair and Razza 2007; 

Posner and Rothbart 2006). These cognitive and behavioral processes are predictive of reading and math 

achievement (Blair and Razza 2007). Given the increased interest in executive functions, we have included 

items tapping attention focusing and inhibitory control in the TQC.

In addition to asking teachers to rate each student’s overall language arts, mathematics, science, and social 

studies knowledge and skills, the child-level questionnaire also addresses the child’s relative placement in 

reading and mathematics instructional groups, if those groups are formed on the basis of achievement (as 

opposed to having the students grouped heterogeneously). Compared with whole-class instruction, 

achievement grouping allows teachers to reduce heterogeneity and target instruction to match students’

current level of knowledge and skills (Entwisle 1995; Karweit 1985; Lou et al. 1996; McCoach, O’Connell, 

and Levitt 2006; Slavin 1987). Children’s achievement group placement can determine the amount and 

type of instruction children receive; it can influence the group process through the amount of disruptions 

and interruptions; and it can affect teachers’ and parents’ views of children. Entwisle (1995) and Slavin 

(1987) found these relationships with respect to reading achievement groups. Opponents of achievement 

grouping express concerns that teachers may develop lower expectations for children in low achievement 

groups, that children in low achievement groups will fall further behind their higher-achieving classmates 

and never catch up academically, and that children’s self-esteem will be adversely impacted (McCoach, 

O’Connell, and Levitt 2006).

Teachers are also asked to rate the child’s level of activity during structured play and during unstructured 

play. As discussed in section C.4.1.2, above, providing opportunities for physical activity has been shown 

by numerous researchers to lead to improved fitness, improved social skills, and increased academic 

achievement. In addition, in studies across third through fifth grades, a child’s level of physical activity and 

fitness have been shown to be related to improved assessment scores in reading, language, math, and 

social studies (Hollingsworth 2010; Wittberg et al. 2009; Castelli et al. 2007; and London and Castrechini 

2011), and to reductions in antisocial behavior and resolution of interpersonal disputes (Branta et al. 1996).
The ECLS-K:2011 Instruments Details C

C-36

Child-specific skills and behaviors covered in the child-level teacher questionnaires are child’s: 

 Overall rating of academic skills in reading, writing, oral language, mathematics, science, and 

social studies;

 Social skills and classroom behavior rating scales; 

 Relationships with peers

 Experiences with peer victimization (as a victim or an aggressor);

 Attention focusing, memory and inhibitory control; 

 Reading group placement;

 Mathematics group placement; and

 Physical activity level.

Child-Specific: Specific Services and Programs

Although some children spend all of their time in separate special education classes or schools, many 

children move in and out of a regular class daily, receiving services in pull-out classes and returning to the 

classroom for the rest of the day. The ECLS-K:2011 data on special education placement and practices 

will provide critical information about the range and effectiveness of various special services. These topics

include:

 Receipt of specific services (individual tutoring, ELL services, speech or language therapy, 

other special education programs, programs for children with behavioral/emotional problems, 

gifted/talented instruction);

 Child’s ELL status;

 Child’s IEP/individualized family service plan (IFSP) status; and

 Testing accommodations and participation.

Child-Specific: ECLS-K:2011 Child’s Parent Involvement

Parental involvement in children’s education can have an important influence on school outcomes for 

children (Stallings and Stipek 1986; Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler 1997; Gonzalez-DeHass, Willems, and 

Holbein 2005). Teachers’ report of the study child’s parents’ participation at school and communication 

with the teacher can supplement parents’ report of involvement in school to offer a picture of parent 

involvement from both perspectives.
The ECLS-K:2011 Instruments Details C

C-37

The ECLS-K:2011 items that collect information on school-family-community connections from the 

teacher include:

 The specific study child’s parents’ involvement in the child’s school and education.

Child-Specific: Teacher-Child Interactions

When child-teacher interactions are warm and free from conflict, children are most apt to have academic 

and social success in elementary school and this is especially true for children who might otherwise be at 

risk of academic or social problems in school (Pianta and Steinberg 1992; Peisner-Feinberg et al. 2001). 

The ECLS-K:2011 will include a measure of the teacher-child relationship which will be used to help 

researchers further understand the role that these important interactions play in children’s adjustment to 

school and learning outcomes. 

The teacher will answer questions about:

 Level of closeness between child and teacher; and

 Level of conflict between child and teacher.

C.5 Special Education Teacher Questionnaires

Teachers or related service providers who provide special education and related services to study 

participants will be asked to complete two types of questionnaires in the spring third-grade data collection. 

The first questionnaire gathers data on teacher background, training, experience, and teaching assignment; 

the items are parallel to those on the general classroom teacher classroom-level questionnaire. On the 

second questionnaire, special education teachers will be asked to provide information on the children with 

whom they work, completing one questionnaire for each ECLS-K:2011 child who has an IEP.

C.5.1 Special Education Teacher Questionnaires: Research Questions

 SEQ1: What are the types of service delivery models in place for special education? How do 

program variations relate to differences in children’s academic and social development?

 SEQ2: What is the prevalence of different types of disabilities among children in elementary 

school? What types of services, instructional strategies, and assistive devices are provided to 

children with different types of disabilities?

 SEQ3: How is inclusion related to children’s progress through the early grades? 

 SEQ4: Do teachers’ sociodemographic characteristics and their educational background and 

experience influence children’s outcomes, on average or in interaction with children’s 

sociodemographic backgrounds?
The ECLS-K:2011 Instruments Details C

C-38

 SEQ5: How do teachers and schools handle the diversity of children’s skills? How are 

children with special needs taught? 

 SEQ6: Are teachers’ practices to involve parents associated with higher levels of parent 

involvement? 

 SEQ7: How are children identified for receipt of special education services?

C.5.2 Special Education Teacher Questionnaires: Construct Coverage

Special Education Teacher Background

Information on teachers’ demographic background, education, certification, and teaching experience are of 

interest to researchers because they provide contextual information about the child’s learning environment. 

Other teacher information, such as teacher reports of their professional efficacy and their workload (e.g., 

number of students they teach, teaching assignment, and position), may influence teachers’ interactions 

with students and student outcomes. 

The following demographic, training, and experience information will be collected from special education 

service providers of ECLS-K:2011 children:

 Teacher’s sex, age, and race/ethnicity;

 Total years teaching experience;

 Total years as a special education teacher; 

 Teacher’s education, including degrees, credentials/licenses, certification, and coursework; 

 Teaching position and assignment; 

 Locations in which the teacher delivers services within the school; 

 Teacher’s job satisfaction and sense of efficacy; and

 Teaching student caseload (number of students with IEPs with whom the teacher works 

during a typical week).
The ECLS-K:2011 Instruments Details C

C-39

Child-specific: Disabilities and Placement

Holt, McGrath, and Herring (2007) analyzed ECLS-K data to determine when most children entered 

special education in the early years of elementary school and how long they stayed in the program. Twelve 

percent of children received special education in at least one grade—kindergarten, first, and/or third 

grade

14. Boys, poor children, and children from small towns (compared to children in cities) were most 

likely to be enrolled in a special education program. The percentage of children receiving special services 

was higher in third grade than in kindergarten and first grade and the most commonly identified primary 

disability changed across grade levels. These studies and others conducted with ECLS-K data point to the 

importance of further research on the relationship between children’s diagnosed disabilities and receipt of 

special services and programs. Such information is best collected from the child’s special education teacher 

because he or she is likely the individual most familiar with the child’s IEP plan and the types of services, 

accommodations, and assistive devices used with the child.

The child-level Special Education Teacher Questionnaire asks the teacher to provide the following 

student-level information:

 Whether the child is receiving special education services through an IEP;

 Teacher’s review of the child’s records related to special education services;

 Child’s disabilities; 

 Goals contained in the child’s IEP;

 Type and amount of special education and related services the child receives;

 Child’s classroom placement;

 Teaching methods and curriculum materials used with child, including assistive technologies;

 Communications with other teachers about the child;

 Communication with the child’s parents; 

 Individual evaluations to develop IEP goals; 

 Extent to which the IEP goals have been met; and

 Extent to which child is expected to meet general education goals and participate in gradelevel assessments.

 

14 ECLS-K did not collect data at 2nd grade.
The ECLS-K:2011 Instruments Details C

C-40

C.6 Child Questionnaire

Prior to the start of the direct cognitive assessment, children in the third-grade round will be asked to 

complete a self-administered, computerized questionnaire. The Child Questionnaire (CQ) is administered 

on a computer using audio-CASI. Children will choose answers to the questions by selecting responses 

directly on the touch-sensitive screen of the laptop. Items in the CQ include those measuring children’s 

interest in reading, mathematics, and science; relationships with peers; feelings of loneliness; occurrences 

of peer victimization; and overall happiness with different aspects of life (e.g., attention from parents, 

hobbies and free time activities)

C.6.1 Child Questionnaire: Research Questions 

 CQ1: What are children’s perceived competence and interest in reading, math, and science? 

How is perceived competence related to academic achievement in reading, math, and science? 

How is perceived competence related to cognitive, social, emotional, and behavioral child 

outcomes? What family, teacher, classroom, and school factors are associated with children’s 

perceived competence and interest?

 CQ2: What is the relationship between the peer context and perceived competence and 

interest in the reading, math, and science? Are peer relationships and interactions associated 

with children’s behavior in the classroom? What teacher, classroom, and school factors are 

associated with peer relationships and peer interactions? Is executive functioning associated 

with peer relationships?

 CQ3: How does social distress (as defined by fear of negative evaluation, reported peer 

victimization, and poor peer relationships) relate to academic, cognitive, social, and behavioral 

outcomes? How prevalent is social anxiety among elementary-aged children? How is social 

anxiety related to achievement? What child, family, and teacher characteristics are associated 

with social anxiety, peer victimization, and peer relationships?

 CQ4: How often do children perceive they are victims of peer victimization? What is the 

prevalence of different forms of peer victimization? How do child reports of peer 

victimization compare to teacher and parent reports? What child, family, teacher, classroom, 

and school characteristics are associated with peer victimization? Is reported peer 

victimization related to cognitive functioning, academic achievement, or child behaviors?

 CQ5: What child, family, teacher, classroom, and school characteristics are associated with the 

child’s perception of his/her prosocial behavior? Is perception of prosocial behaviors related 

to the teacher-child relationship, child behaviors in the classroom, and performance in school?

 CQ6: How happy are children with their lives? Is life satisfaction associated with social, 

emotional, and cognitive development and health? How does psychological well-being (as 

measured by life satisfaction) related to the teacher-child relationships, child behaviors in the 

classroom, and performance in school? Does life satisfaction serve as a buffer against 

negative circumstances in the child’s life?
The ECLS-K:2011 Instruments Details C

C-41

C.6.2 Child Questionnaire: Construct Coverage

Interest and Perceived Competence in Reading, Math, and Science Subjects

A child’s self-concept is important for success in school; children who believe that they have the ability to 

succeed in a particular situation are more likely to be successful. Research has shown that the child’s 

perception of academic competence predicts reading and mathematics achievement (e.g., Kirsch et al. 

2002). Students’ beliefs about their competence are linked to how engaged they are in the classroom. 

Students who are engaged in learning are often involved in their work, persevere despite obstacles, and 

show pride in their accomplishments. A child’s beliefs about the likelihood for success can also influence 

the child’s emotional state. For example, a student who believes that he or she will not be successful may 

be anxious or fearful which may result in less engagement in the classroom.

The following types of subject-specific questions will be asked in the CQ:

 Interest in the three subjects;

 Level of ability in the three subjects; and

 Enjoyment of the three subjects.

Relationships with Peers

A child’s relationships with peers are an important predictor of later social, emotional, and psychological 

adjustment (Parker & Asher, 1987) and significantly shape development (e.g., Rubin, Bukowski, and 

Parker, 2006). Within peer contexts, children and adolescents acquire skills, attitudes, and experiences that 

affect adjustment, well-being, and health (Rubin, Bukowski, and Lauren, 2009). Peer relationships can 

contribute to putting a child on a trajectory toward maladjustment and psychopathology or on a path 

toward competence and health (e.g., Parker et al. 2006). Difficulties with getting along with peers can be 

problematic during early childhood and can lead to such problems as peer rejection, school disengagement, 

and underachievement (e.g., Coie and Kupersmidt, 1983; Ladd, 2006). Negative peer relationships can also 

lead to even more serious problems for adolescents and adults, including criminal behavior, mental illness, 

and underachievement (see Dodge, Coie, and Lynam, 2006; Parker and Asher, 1987). In contrast, positive 

peer relationships can increase opportunities for learning, increase self-esteem, influence attitudes toward 

school and learning, and improve academic achievement (Wentzel 2009).

The CQ includes questions on the child’s perception of his/her peer relationships and friendships. 

Children to rate their agreement with statements such as:

 Having lots of friends;
The ECLS-K:2011 Instruments Details C

C-42

 Making friends easily;

 Getting along easily with other children;

 Other children want the child as a friend; and

 Having more friends than other children.

Social Distress

A child’s early positive interactions with peers have been shown to have effects on later social adjustment 

and development, as well as personal satisfaction and happiness. Group acceptance is an important facet 

of children's successful relationships with peers; reciprocal friendships are particularly valued. Unpopular 

children not only have fewer connections with other peers, but also experience increased feelings of 

loneliness (Asher et al. 1984). Children's feelings of loneliness can seriously undermine children's feelings 

of well-being and result in possible further isolation (Parker and Asher 1993).

Social anxiety often arises during the early elementary years and can continue throughout the adolescence.

Particularly in the context of fear of negative peer evaluation, social anxiety has been shown to play a role 

in the development of later socialization skills. Children who excessively worry about that they are 

unlikable or are not accepted by others may also demonstrate lower self-worth and exhibit more behavior 

problems, and may be more susceptible to anxiety and depression (LaGreca and Stone 1993). 

In the CQ, children provide information about the following types of fear of negative evaluation items:

 Concern of not being liked by other children; and

 Concern about what other children think about him/her.

Occurrences of Peer Victimization

As mentioned in the parent interview and teacher questionnaire sections above, research suggests that peer

victimization can be experienced by children in their elementary years and that these experiences can be

related to negative outcomes as children reach adolescence. Collecting self-reported data, in addition to

teacher-report data and parent-report data, will allow for the examination of child’s perception of peer 

victimization across different contexts.

In the CQ children indicate the frequency of being subjected to the following types of behavior by peers 

during the school year:

 Being teased or called names;
The ECLS-K:2011 Instruments Details C

C-43

 Had lies or stories told about them;

 Been physically assaulted (e.g., pushed or kicked); and

 Been left out from play activities.

Life Satisfaction and Prosocial Behavior

Child attitudes and behaviors can serve as a protective factor and support development and health. 

Whereas children who have difficulties forming and maintaining friendships are at risk for later 

maladjustment, children who display prosocial behaviors are on a path toward social competence. Children 

who engage in emphatic and altruistic behaviors are more likely to engage in positive interactions in the 

classroom and demonstrate high social competence with peers (e.g., Ladd and Profilet 1996). A child’s 

tendency to engage in prosocial behaviors is a strong predictor of psychological health in childhood and 

adolescence (e.g., see Eisenberg, Fabes, and Spinrad 2006). 

A child’s emotional health is a function of the child’s perceptions of the child’s experience. One aspect of 

emotional health is the child’s psychological well-being, which includes positive feeling states and life 

satisfaction (Salsman et al. 2010). Life satisfaction is one’s cognitive evaluation of life experiences and, the 

case of children, is concerned with whether children are happy with their lives (Kallen et al. 2012).

Emotion can either support or impair cognitive functioning (for a review, see Isen 1999), and positive 

emotions and psychological well-being can act as a buffer and enhance adjustment and health. It has been 

argued that the proper balance between emotion and cognition is believed to be important for successful 

adjustment in school (Blair 2002; Blair and Dennis 2010). 

The CQ includes questions asking children to rate the following:

 Satisfaction with hobbies and free-time activities;

 Satisfaction with clothes, toys, and games;

 Satisfaction with the amount of attention from parents;

 Satisfaction with friends;

 Satisfaction with skills and talents;

 Satisfaction with the neighborhood and community;

 Likelihood of saying or doing nice things for classmates;

 Likelihood of cheering up classmates; and
The ECLS-K:2011 Instruments Details C

C-44

 Likelihood of helping out other children.
R-1

References

Ackerman, B., Brown, E., and Izard, C. (2003). Continuity and change in levels of externalizing behavior in 

school of children from economically disadvantaged families. Child Development, 74(3): 694-709.

Adelson, J., McCoach, B. & Gavin, K. (2012). Examining the effects of gifted programming in 

mathematics and reading using the ECLS-K. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56 (1), 25-39.

After School Alliance (2009). American After 3 p.m.: The most in-depth study of how America’s children spend their 

afternoons: Retrieved June 24, 2013, from http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/

AA3_Full_Report.pdf.

Aikens, N. and Barbarin, O. (2008). Socioeconomic differences in reading trajectories: The contribution of 

family, neighborhood, and school contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2): 235-251.

Alexander, K.L. and Entwisle, D.R. (1988). Achievement in the first two years of school: Patterns and 

processes. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 53(2): 1-140.

Almond, T. and Holt, J. (2005). What Parents do in the Home and Community that Influences Their Child’s Reading.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association, 

Columbus, Ohio.

Amato, P.R. and Gilbreth, J.G. (1998). Nonresident fathers and children’s well-being. Unpublished manuscript. 

Lincoln, NE: Department of Sociology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

American Academy of Audiology. (1997). Identification of Hearing Loss & Middle-Ear Dysfunction in Preschool & 

School-Age Children. Available online at 

http://www.audiology.org/resources/documentlibrary/Pages/HearingLossChildren.aspx

Aud, S., Hussar, W., Kena, G., Bianco, K., Frolich, L., Kemp, J., and Tahan, K. (2011). The Condition of 

Education 2011 (NCES 2011-033). U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education 

Statistics, Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.

Barker, K. and Wendell, T. (2001). E-learning: Studying Canada’s Virtual Secondary Schools. Society for the 

Advancement of Excellence in Education, Research Series # 8.

Barry, T., Dunlap, S., Lochman, J., Wells, K. (2009). Inconsistent Discipline as a Mediator Between 

Maternal Distress and Aggression in Boys. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 31(1): 1-19.

Bergen, D. and Fromberg, D. (2009). Play and social interaction in middle childhood. Phi Delta Kappan, 

90(6): 426-430.

Blair, C. (2002). School readiness: Integrating cognition and emotion in a neurobiological 

conceptualization of children’s functioning at school entry. American Psychologist, 57, 111-127.

Blair, C., & Dennis, R. (2010). An optimal balance: Cognition-emotion integration in context. In S. D. 

Calkins, & M.A. Bell (Eds.), Child development at the intersection of cognition and emotion. 

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association
References

R-2

Blair, C. and Razza, R. (2007). Relating effortful control, executive function, and false belief understanding 

to emerging math and literacy ability in kindergarten. Child Development, 78(2): 647-663.

Bodovski, K. & Youn, M. (2011). The long term effects of early acquired skills and behaviors on young 

children’s achievement in literacy and mathematics. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 9 (1), 4-

19.

Branta, C. & Goodway, J. (1996). Facilitating social skills in urban school children through physical 

education. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 2 (4), 305-319.

Bryk, A., Lee, V., and Holland, P. (1993). Catholic schools and the common good. Cambridge, MA US: Harvard 

University Press.

Burkam, D., LoGerfo, L., Ready, D., and Lee, V. (2007). The differential effects of repeating kindergarten. 

Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 12(2): 103-136.

Burns, M.K. and Ysseldyke, J.E. (2005). Comparison of existing response-to-intervention models to 

identify and answer implementation questions. The California School Psychologist, 10: 9-20.

Carmichael, S. B., Martino, G., Porter-Magee, K., and Wilson, W. S. (2010, July).The state of state 

standards- and the common core- in 2010. Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

Casey, B.J., Giedd, J.N., and Thomas, K.M. (2000). Structural and functional brain development and its 

relation to cognitive development. Biological Psychiatry 54(1-3): 241-257.

Castelli, D., Hillman, C., Buck, S, & Erwin, H. (2007). Physical fitness and academic achievement in 

third- and fifth-grade students. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 29 (2), 239-252.

Catsambis, S. & Buttaro, A. (2012). Revisiting “kindergarten as boot camp”: A nationwide study of ability 

grouping and psycho-social development. Social Psychology of Education: An International 

Journal, 15 (4), 483-515.

Cavanaugh, C., Gillian, K.J., Kromrey, J., Hess, M., and Blomeyer, R. (2004). The Effects of Distance 

Education on K-12 Student Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis. Learning Point Associates/North Central 

Regional Educational Library.

Chandra, A., Martinez, G.M., Mosher, W.D., Abma, J.C., and Jones, J. (2005). Fertility, family planning and 

reproductive health of U.S. women: Data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth. Vital 

Health Statistics, 23(25).

Coie, J. D., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1983). A behavioral analysis of emerging social status in boys’ groups. 

Child Development, 54, 1400-1416.

Coleman, M. R., Buysse, V., and Neitzel, J. (2006). Response and recognition: An early intervening system for young 

children at risk for learning disabilities. Full report. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, FPG Child 

Development Institute.

Collaborative Longitudinal Evaluation of Ethnicity and Refractive Error Study Group. (2003). Refractive 

error and ethnicity in children. Arch Opthamol, 121(8): 1141-1147.
References

R-3

Crocker, R. and Brooker, G. (1986). Classroom control and student outcomes in grades 2 and 5. American 

Educational Research Journal, 23(1): 1-11.

Cunningham, M., Cox, E.O., the Committee on Practice and Ambulatory Medicine, and the Section on 

Otolaryngology and Bronchoesophagology. (2003). Hearing assessment in infants and children: 

Recommendations beyond neonatal screening. Pediatrics. 111(2): 436-440.

Datar, A. and Sturm, R. (2006). Childhood overweight and elementary school outcomes. International 

Journal of Obesity, 30(9): 1449-1460.

Dawson, D.A. (1991). Family structure and children’s health and well-being: Data from the 1988 National 

Health Interview Survey on Child Health. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53(3): 573-584.

de Leeuw, E.D. and Collins, M. (1997). Data collection method and survey quality: An overview. In L. 

Lyberg et al. (eds). Survey measurement and process quality. New York: Wiley.

de Leeuw, E.D., Hox, J.J., Kef S., and van Hattum, M. (1997). Overcoming the problems of special 

interviews on sensitive topics: computer assisted self-interviewing tailored for young children and 

adolescents, pp.1-14 in: 1997 Sawtooth software conference proceedings. Sequim, WA: Sawtooth Software 

Inc.

Diamond, A., Barnett, S., Thomas, J., and Munro, S. (2007). Preschool program improves cognitive 

control. Science, 318: 1387-1388.

Dodge, K. A., Coie, J.D., & Lynam, D. (2006). Aggression and antisocial behavior in youth. In W. 

Damon (Series Ed.) and N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 719-

788). New York: Wiley.

Dotterer, A., McHale, S., and Crouter, A. (2009). The Development and Correlates of Academic Interests 

from Childhood through Adolescence, Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(2), 509-519.

Durlak, J. A., Mahoney, J.L., Bohnert, A. M., Parente, A. M. (2010). Developing and Improving AfterSchool Programs to Enhance Youth’s Personal Growth and Adjustment: A Special Issue of 

AJCP. American Journal of Community Psychology,45:285–293.

Dunifon, R. and Kowaleski-Jones, L. ( 2003). The Influences of Participation in the National School

Lunch Program and Food Insecurity on Child Well-Being. Social Service Review, 77(1), 72-93.

Eide, E. and Showalter, M. (2012). Sleep and Student Achievement Eastern Economic Journal (2012) 38: 512–

524.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2006). Prosocial development. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) 

and N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 646-718). New York: 

Wiley.

Ellis, B., and Nigg, J. (2009). Parenting practices and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: new findings 

suggest partial specificity of effects. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent 

Psychiatry, 48(2):146-54.

Entwisle, D.R. (1995). The role of schools in sustaining early childhood program benefits. The Future of 

Children, 5(3): 133-144.
References

R-4

Espelage, D L. and Holt, M. (2001). Bullying and victimization during early adolescence: Peer influences 

and psychosocial correlates. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2, 123–142.

Espinosa, L., Laffey, J., Whittaker, T., and Sheng, Y. (2006). Technology in the home and the achievement 

of young children: Findings from the early childhood longitudinal study. Early Education and 

Development, 17(3): 421-441.

Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. (2007). America’s Children: Key National Indicators 

of Well-Being, 2007. Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office. Gabarino, J., and Kosteiny, K. (1993). Neighborhood and community 

influences on parenting. In T. Luster and L. Okagaki (Ed.), Parenting: An ecological perspective (pp. 203-

227). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Flores, E., Painter, G., and Pachon, H. (2009, November). ¿Qué pasa? Are ELL students remaining in English? 

(A Tomás Rivera Policy Institute Full Report). Los Angeles: University of Southern California 

School of Policy, Planning and Development.

Fuchs, D. and Fuchs, L.S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? 

Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1): 92-99.

Fuchs, T and Woessmann, L. (2004). Computers and student learning: bivariate and multivariate evidence 

on the availability and use of computers at home and at school. CESino Working Paper Series 

number 1321, CESifo Group Munich.

Gest, S., Welsh, J., and Domitrovich, C., (2005). Behavioral predictors of changes in social relatedness and 

liking school in elementary school. Journal of School Psychology, Volume 43, Issue 4, Pages 281-301.

Gonzalez-DeHass, A., Willems, P., and Holbein, M. (2005). Examining the relationship between parental 

involvement and student motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 99-123.

Gottfried, A.W. (1984). Home environment and early cognitive development: Integration, meta-analyses, 

and conclusions. In A.W. Gottfried (Ed.), Home environment and early cognitive development (pp. 329-342). 

Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Greenwood, C.R. (1991). A longitudinal analysis of time, engagement, and achievement in at-risk versus 

non-risk students. Exceptional Children, 57(6): 521-535.

Greenwood, C.R., Arreaga-Mayer, C., and Carta, J. (1994). Identification and translation of effective 

teacher-developed instructional procedures for general practice. Remedial and Special Education, 15: 

140-151.

Gregory, A., and Rimm-Kaufman, S. (2008). Positive mother-child interactions in kindergarten: Predictors 

of school success in high school. School Psychology Review, 37(4): 499-515.

Gulek, J.C. & Demirtas, H. (2005). Learning with technology: The impact of laptop use on student 

achievement. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3 (2). 

Han, W. (2010). Bilingualism and socioemotional well-being. Children and Youth Services Review, 32 

(5), 720-731.
References

R-5

Han, W., and Bridglall, B. (2009). Assessing school supports for ELL students using the ECLS-K. Early 

Childhood Research Quarterly, 24(4): 445-462.

Hanushek, E.A. (2002). Evidence, politics, and the class size debate. In L. Mishel and R. Rothstein (Ed.), 

The Class Size Debate. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self: A developmental perspective. New York: The Guilford Press.

Haurin, R.J. (1992). Patterns of childhood residence and the relationship to young adult outcomes. Journal 

of Marriage and the Family, 54: 846-860.

Hedges, L.V., Laine, R.D., and Greenwald, R. (1994). Does money matter? A meta-analysis of studies of 

the effects of differential school inputs on student outcomes. Educational Researcher, 23(3): 5-14.

Hill, C. and Stafford, F. (1980). Parental care of children: Time diary estimates of quantity, predictability, 

and variety. Journal of Human Resources, 15 (2), 219-239.

Hollingsworth, M. (2010). Relationship of friends, physical education, and state test scores: Implications 

for school counselors. Journal of School Counseling, 8 (35).

Holt, E.W., McGrath, D. J., and Herring, W.L. (2007). Timing and Duration of Student Participation in Special 

Education in the Primary Grades (NCES 2007-043). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for 

Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Hong, G. and Yu, B. (2007). Early-grade retention and children’s reading and math learning in elementary 

years. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(4): 239-261.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. and Sandler, H. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their children’s 

education? Review of Educational Research, 67(1): 3. 

Howes, C. and Stewart, P. (1987). Child’s play with adults, toys, and peers: An examination of family and 

child care influences. Developmental Psychology, 23: 423-430.

Huttenlocher, J., Haight, W., Bryk, A., Seltzer, M., and Lyons, T. (1991). Early vocabulary growth: Relation 

to language input and gender. Developmental Psychology, 27, 236-248.

Isen, A.M. (1999). On the relationship between affect and creative problem solving. In S.W. Russ (Ed.), 

Affect, creative experience, and psychological adjustment (pp. 3-17). Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & 

Francis.

Jackson, A.P., Bentler, P. M., and Franke, T.M. (2006), Employment and parenting among current and 

former welfare recipients. Journal of Social Service Research, 33(2): 13-25.

Jackson, A., Jeong-Kyun, C., and Franke, T. (2009). Poor single mothers with young children: Mastery, 

relations with nonresident fathers, and child outcomes. Social Work Research, 33(2): 95-106. 

Judge, S. and Jahns, L. (2007). Association of overweight with academic performance and social and 

behavioral problems: An update from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. Journal of School 

Health, 77(10): 672-678.
References

R-6

Kallen, M., Slotkin, J., Griffith, J., Magasi, S., Salsman, J., Nowinski, C., Gershon, R. (2012). NIH Toolbox 

Technical Manual: NIH Toolbox Domain-Specific Life Satisfaction Survey (Supplemental Measure). 

Retrieved June 25, 2013 from 

http://www.nihtoolbox.org/HowDoI/TechnicalManual/Technical%20Manual%20sections/Toolb

ox%20Domain%20Specific%20Life%20Satisfaction%20Survey%20Technical%20Manual.pdf.

Karweit, N. (1985). Should we lengthen the school term? Educational Researcher, 14(6): 9-15.

Kibbe, D., Hackett, J., Hurley, M., McFarland, A., Schubert, K., Schultz, A., and Harris, S. Integrating 

physical activity with academic concepts in elementary school classrooms. Preventive Medicine, 52 

(1), 43-50.

Kim, S. and Chang, M. Computer games for math achievement of diverse students. Educational 

Technology & Society, 13 (3), 224-232.

Kirsch, I., de Jong, J., Lafontaine, D., McQueen, J., Mendelovits, J., and Monseur, C. 2002. Reading for 

Change: Performance and Engagement Across Countries,Results from PISA 2000. Paris: Organisation for 

Economic Co-operation and Development.

Klingberg, T., Fernell, E., Olesen, P., Johnson, M., Gustafsson, P., and Dahlstrom, K. et al. (2005).

Computerized training of working memory in children with ADHD: A randomized, controlled trial. 

Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 44: 177-186.

Kochenderfer, B. and Ladd, G. (1996). Peer Victimization: Cause or Consequence of School 

Maladjustment? Child Development, Volume 67, Issue 4, 1305-1317.

Krueger, A.B. (2002). Understanding the magnitude and effect of class size on student achievement. In L. 

Mishel and R. Rothstein (Ed.), The Class Size Debate. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

Ladd, G. W. (2006). Peer rejection, aggressive or withdrawn behavior, and psychological maladjustment 

from ages 5 to 12: An examination of four predictive models. Child Development, 77, 822-846.

Ladd, G. W. & Profilet, S. M. (1996). The Child Behavior Scale: A teacher-report measure of young 

children’s aggressive, withdrawn, and prosocial behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 32(6), 1008-

1024. 

La Greca, A. M. and Stone, W. L. (1993). Social anxiety scale for children-revised: Factor structure and 

concurrent validity. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 22(1), 17-27

Lance, K., Curry, Rodney, M., and Hamilton-Pennell, C. (2005). Powerful libraries make powerful 

learners: The Illinois study. Canton, IL: Illinois School Library Media Association

Larsen, L.J. (2004). The Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 2003. Current Population Reports 

P20-551. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Washington, DC.

Lee, V., and Burkam, D. T. (2002). Inequality at the Starting Gate: Social Background Differences in Achievement as 

Children Begin School. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

Li-Gring, C., Votruba-Drzal, E., Maldonado-Carreno, C. & Haas, K. (2010). Children’s early approaches 

to learning and academic trajectories through fifth grade. Developmental Psychology, 46 (5), 1062-

1077.
References

R-7

Lim, H. & Kim, J. (2011). A longitudinal study of children’s social behaviors and their causal relationship 

to reading growth. Asia Pacific Education Review, 12 (2), 197-213.

London, R. & Castrechini, S. (2011). A longitudinal examination of the link between youth physical 

fitness and academic achievement. Journal of School Health, 81 (7), 400-408.

Luekens, M.T., Lyter, D.M., and Fox, E.E. (2004). Teacher attrition and mobility: Results from the Teacher FollowUp Survey, 2000-01 (NCES 2004-301). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for 

Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Maccoby, E. and Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In 

E.M. Hetherington (Ed.), P.H. Mussen (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization,

personality, and social development (pp.1-101). New York: Wiley.

Manlove, J. (1993). Multiple correlates of burnout in child care workers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8: 

499-518.

Marsh, H.W. (1992). Self Description Questionnaire (SDQ) I: A theoretical and empirical basis for the measurement of 

multiple dimensions of preadolescent self-concept. An interim test manual and research monograph. Macarthur, New 

South Wales, Australia: University of Western Sydney, Faculty of Education.

Martin, J.A., Brady, E., Hamilton, P.D., Sutton, S.J., Ventura, F.M., and Kirmeyer, S. (2006). Births: Final 

Data for 2004. National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 55, No. 1, Hyattsville, MD: National Center for 

Health Statistics.

McCartney, K. (1984). Effect of quality of day care environment on children’s language development. 

Developmental Psychology, 20: 244-260.

McCoach, D.B., O’Connell, A.A., and Levitt, H. (2006). Ability grouping across kindergarten using an 

Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. The Journal of Educational Research, 99 (6): 339-346. 

McLanahan, S. and Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing up with a single parent: What hurts, what helps. Cambridge, 

MA: Harvard University Press.

Mead, S., Vaishnav, A., Porter, W., and Rotherham, A.J. (2010). Conflicting missions and unclear results: Lessons 

from education stimulus funds. Washington, DC: Bellwether Education Partners.

Moore, K.A., Zaslow, M.J., Coiro, M., Miller, S.M., and Magenheim, F.B. (1995). How well are they faring? 

AFDC families with preschool-aged children in Atlanta at the outset of the JOBS program. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Moore, K., Hair, E., Vandivere, S., McPhee, C., McNamara, M., and Ling, T. (2006). Depression Among 

Moms: Prevalence, Predictors, and Acting Out Among Third Grade Children. Publication #2006-19 4301. 

Retrieved April 26, 2013, from http://www.childtrends.org/Files/Child_Trends2006_03_01_RB_MomDepression.pdf

Morgan, P., Farkas, G., Tufis, P. & Sperling, R. (2008). Are reading and behavior problems risk factors 

for each other? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41 (5), 417-436.

Morrison, D.R. and Cherlin, A.J. (1992). The divorce process and young children’s well-being: A prospective analysis. 

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, Denver, CO.
References

R-8

Mosteller, F. (1995). The Tennessee study of class size in the early school grades. Future Child, 5 (2), 113-

127. 

Mullis, I., Campbell, J., & Farstrup, A. (1993). NAEP 1992 Reading Report Card for the Nation and the States. 

Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (1998). Learning to read and write. 

Developmentally appropriate practices for young children. Young Children 53(4): 30-45. 

National Hearing Conservation Association. (2004). Crank it down. NHCA Task Force on Hearing 

Conservation Education for Children and Adolescents, American Academy of Audiology.

National Poverty Center (n.d.) Poverty in the United States. Retrieved April 26, 2013, from 

http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/.

Nansel,T., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R.S., Ruan,W.J., Simmons-Morton, B. Schmidt, P. (2001). Bullying 

behaviors among US youth. Journal of American Medical Association, 285, 2094-2100.

Neuman, S.B. (2002). What Research Reveals: Foundations for Reading Instruction in Preschool and Primary 

Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. 

Newacheck, P.W. and Hallfon, N. (1988). Preventive care use by school-aged children: Differences by 

socioeconomic status. Pediatrics, 82: 462-468.

NIH Toolbox for the Assesment of Neurological and Behavioral Function (NIH Toolbox) Emotion 

Battery. Domain-Specific Life Satisfaction Survey (Supplemental Measure). (2012)

http://www.nihtoolbox.org/Pages/default.aspx

Niskar, A.S., Kieszak, S.M., Holmes, A., Esteban, E., Rubin, C., Brody, D.J. (1998). Prevalence of hearing 

loss among children 6 to 19 years of age: the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination 

Survey. Journal of the American Medical Association, 279(14):1071-5.

Noble, K.G., Tottenham, N. and Casey, B.J. (2005). Neuroscience Perspective on Disparities in School 

Readiness and Cognitive Achievement. In School Readiness: Closing Racial and Ethnic Gaps. The 

Future of Children 15(1): 71-89. A publication of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and 

International Affairs at Princeton University and the Brookings Institution.

Nord, C.W., Brimhall, D., and West, J. (1998). Fathers’ involvement in their children’s school (NCE 98-091). U.S. 

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office.

Okagaki, L. and Sternberg, R.J. (1993). Parental beliefs and children’s school performance. Child 

Development, 64: 36-56.

Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low-accepted 

children “at risk”? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357-389.

Parker, J., and Asher, S. (1993). Friendship and Friendship Quality in Middle Childhood: Links with Peer 

Group Acceptance and Feelings of Loneliness and Social Dissatisfaction. Developmental Psychology,

26(4), 611-621.
References

R-9

Parker, J., Rubin, K.H., Erath, S., Wojslawowicz, J.C., & Buskirk, A. A. (2006). Peer relationships and 

developmental psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti & D. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental 

Psychopathology: Risk, Disorder, and Adaptation (2nd edition), Vol. 2. (pp. 419-493). New York: 

Wiley.

Pate-Bain, H., Boyd-Zaharias, J., Cain, V. Word, E., & Binkley, E. (1997). STAR follow-up studies, 1996-

1997: The student/teacher achievement ratio (STAR) project. Lebanon, Tennessee: HEROS, Inc.

Pellegrini, A.D. and Bohn, C.M. (2005). The role of recess in children’s cognitive performance and school 

adjustment. Educational Researcher, 34(1): 13-19.

Perrachione, B.A., Rosser, V.J., and Petersen, G.J. (2008). Why do they stay? Elementary teachers’

perceptions of job satisfaction and retention. The Professional Educator, 32(2).

Peterson, J.L. and Zill, N. (1986). Marital disruption, parent-child relationships, and behavior problems in 

children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48: 295-307.

Pettit, G. S., Laird, R. D., Bates, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (1997).Patterns of after-school care in middle 

childhood: Risk factors and developmental outcomes. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,43, 515–538.

Pianta, R. and Steinberg, M. (1992). Teacher–child relationships and the process of adjusting to school. 

Beyond the parent: The role of other adults in children’s lives (pp. 61-80). San Francisco, CA US: Jossey-Bass. 

Posner, M.I. and Rothbart, M.K. (2006). Educating the Human Brain. Washington DC: American 

Psychological Association.

Powell, D.R. (1992). Families and young children’s school readiness. U.S. Department of Education, National 

Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Puckering, C. (1989). Maternal Depression, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 30(6), 807–817.

Rathbun, A. and West, J. (2004). From Kindergarten through Third Grade: Children’s Beginning School Experiences

(NCES 2004-007). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Rhodes, C., Nevill, A., and Allan, J. (2004). Valuing and supporting teachers: A survey of teacher 

satisfaction, dissatisfaction, morale and retention in an English local education authority. Research in 

Education, 71: 67-80.

Rice, J.K. (2002). Making the evidence matter: Implications of the class size research debate for policy 

makers. In L. Mishel and R. Rothstein (Ed.), The Class Size Debate. Washington, DC: Economic 

Policy Institute.

Roberts, J., Jurgens, J., and Burchinal, M. (2005). The Role of Home Literacy Practices in Preschool 

Children's Language and Emergent Literacy Skills. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 

48(2), 345-359.

Rosenthal, M. (1991). Behaviors and beliefs of caregivers in family day care: The effects of background 

and work environment. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6: 263-283.
References

R-10

Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W. M., & Parker, J. G. (2006). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In 

W. Damon, Lerner, R. M. (Eds)., Handbook of Child Psychology, Volume 3, Social, Emotional, and 

Personality Development (6th Edition, pp. 571-645). New York: Wiley.

Rubin, K.H., Bukowski, W., & Laursen, B. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of Peer Interactions, Relationships, 

and Groups. New York: Guilford.

Rueda, M.R., Rothbart, M.K., McCandliss, B.D., Saccomanno, L., and Posner, M.I. (2005). Training, 

maturation, and genetic influences on the development of executive attention. Proceedings from the 

National Academy of Sciences, 102 (41): 14931-14936.

Ruopp, R., Travers, J., Glantz, F., and Goelen, C. (1979). Children at the center: Final results of the National Day 

Care Study. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.

Salsman, J. M. Butt, Zeeshan, Pilkonis, et al. (2013). Emotion assessment using the NIH Toolbox. 

Neurology, 80(Suppl 3), s76- s86. 

Sarampote, N. C., Bassett, H. H., & Winsler, A. (2004). Afterschool care: Child outcomes and recommendations for 

research and policy. Child and Youth Care Forum, 35, 329–348.

Schneider, B. and J. S. Coleman. (1993). Parents, their children, and schools. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Sell, K., Zlotnik, S., Noonan, K., and Rubin, D. (20120). The Effect of Recession on Child Well-Being. 

Philadelphia: PolicyLab.

Shaff, K., Wolfinger, N., Kowaleski-Jones, L., and Smith, K. (2008). Family structure transitions and child 

achievement. Sociological Spectrum, 28(6): 681-704.

Shin, Y & Raudenbush, S. (2011). The causal effect of class size on academic achievement: Multivariate 

instrumental variable estimators with data missing at random. Journal of Educational and 

Behavioral Statistics, 36 (2), 154-185. 

Simonds, J. & Rothbart, M. K. (2004, October). The Temperament in Middle Childhood Questionnaire (TMCQ): 

A computerized self-report measure of temperament for ages 7-10. Poster session presented at the Occasional 

Temperament Conference, Athens, GA.

Singer, D.G. and Singer, J.L. (2006). “Fantasy and Imagination.” In Doris P. Fromberg and Doris Bergen 

(Ed.), Play from Birth to 12: Contexts,Perspectives, and Meanings (pp. 371-378). New York: Routledge.

Singer, E. and Ye, C. (2013). “The Use and Effects of Incentives in Surveys.” Annals, American Academy of 

Political and Social Science, 645.

Slavin, R.E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidence 

synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57 (3): 293-336.

Smaldone, A., Honig, J., and Byrne, M. (2007) Sleepless in America: Inadequate Sleep and Relationships to 

Health and Well-being of Our Nation's Children. Pediatrics, 119(1), S29 -S37.

Snell, E., Adam, E., Duncan, G..(2007). Sleep and the body mass index and overweight status of children 

and adolescents. Child Development,78(1): 309-23.
References

R-11

Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S., and Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Committee on the 

Prevention of Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Stallings, J.A. and Stipek, D. (1986). Research on early childhood and elementary school teaching 

programs. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 727-753). New York:

Macmillan Publishing Company.

Storch, S., and Whitehurst, G. (2001). The Role of Family and Home in the Literacy Development of 

Children from Low-Income Backgrounds. New Directions for Child & Adolescent Development, 2001(92), 

53-72.

Sudman S. and Bradburn, N.M. (1974). Response effects in surveys: A review and synthesis. Chicago: Aldine.

Sy, S. and Schulenberg, J. (2005). Parent beliefs and children’s achievement trajectories during the 

transition to school in Asian American and European American families. International Journal of 

Behavioral Development, 29(6): 505–515.

Tompson, M., Pierre, C., Boger, K., McKowen, J., Chan, P., and Freed R. (2010). Maternal depression, 

maternal expressed emotion, and youth psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 

38(1):105-17.

Tourangeau, R. and Smith, T.W. (1996). Asking sensitive questions: The impact of data collection, 

question format, and question context. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 275-304.

Tudor-Locke, C., Kronenfeld, J.J., Kim, S.S., Benin, M., and Kuby, M. (2007). A geographical comparison 

of prevalence of overweight school-aged children: the National Survey of Children’s Health 2003. 

Pediatrics, 120(4): e1043-1050.

Turner, C.F., Ku, L., Rogers, S.M., Lindberg, L.D., Pleck, J.H., and Sonenstein, F.L. (1998). Adolescent 

sexual behavior, drug use, and violence: Increased reporting with computer survey technology, 

Science, 8, 867-873.

Denton, K., Germino-Hausken, E.m and West, J. (2000). America’s Kindergartners (NCES 2000-070). U.S. 

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC. 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, ESEA Blueprint 

for Reform, Washington, D.C., 2010.

United States Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (forthcoming). Indicators 

of School Crime and Safety 2012 (NCES 1013-036). U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC: 

National Center for Education Statistics.

Ventura, S.J. (2009). Changing patterns of nonmarital childbearing in the United States. NCHS data brief, no 18. 

Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Watson, J.F. (2007). A national primer on K-12 online learning. Vienna, VA: North American Council for 

Online Learning.

Wang, M., Haertel, G. and Walberg, H. (1990). What influences learning? A content analysis of review 

literature. Journal of Educational Research, 84: 30-43.
References

R-12

Webb, N. and Lowther, M. (1993). Organizational commitment of child care providers employed in 

Centre facilities. Journal of Child and Youth Care, 8: 1-16.

Wentzel, K. R. (2009). Peer relationships and motivation at school. In K Rubin, W. Bukowski, & B. 

Laursen (Eds.), Handbook on Peer Relationships (pp. 531-547). New York, NY: Guilford.

Wittberg, R, Northrup, K., & Cottrel, L. (2009). Children’s physical fitness and academic performance. 

American Journal of Health Education, 40 (1), 30-36.

Zimmer-Gembeck, M.J., Geiger, T.C., and Crick, N.R. (2005). Relational and Physical Aggression,

Prosocial Behavior, and Peer Relations. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(4), 421-452.