Interviewer Ratings of Caregiver Respondent and Home Environment LONGSCAN 1991

Transcription

1 Interviewer Ratings of Caregiver Respondent and Home Environment LONGSCAN 1991 Description of Measure Purpose To assess the interviewer s impression of the interview, the respondent, the respondent s home, and the neighborhood environment in which the interview took place. Conceptual Organization At the Pre-Age 4 and Age 4 interviews the instrument addresses the appearance of the respondent (2 items), the quality of the respondent s responses (4 items), the condition of the respondent s residence (3 items), and the impression of the respondent s neighborhood (5 items). The last five items relate to items or interactions observed in the home environment that are thought to be related to cognitive stimulation for the young child and were administered only at the Pre-Age 4, Age 4 and Age 6 interviews. At Age 6, items assess neighborhood safety and privacy of the interview. Item Origin/Selection Process The items were selected to obtain the interviewer s perception of the respondent, her cooperation with and comprehension of the interview and the home and neighborhood environment in which the interview took place. The five cognitive stimulation items were based on items from the HOME Inventory (Bradley & Caldwell, 1979; Bradley, Caldwell, & Rock, 1988) that assess the availability of toys and learning materials, and the stimulation and responsivity reflected in parent-child interactions. LONGSCAN has used these items as an index of the child-centeredness of the home. Materials Non-copyrighted forms are included in this manual. Time Required Less than 5 minutes

2 Administration Method Completed by interviewer Training Minimal Scoring Score Types Individual item scores. The interviewer ranks each of the first ten items on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (the most positive impression) to 5 (the most negative impression). Response categories are specific to the item. For example, responses for condition of the residence range from 1 (well-maintained) to 5 (dilapidated). The cognitive stimulation items are simply rated as being present or not present. Items 11 through 15 may be combined to create an index of the cognitive stimulation observed in the home environment. This index should be used with caution due to the potential for measurement error. The interviewer may have been in only one room of the home during the interview or the child may not have been present during the interview. LONGSCAN Use Data Points Pre-Age 4, Ages 4, 6, 8, 12 & 14 Respondent Interviewer Mnemonic and Version Pre-Age 4, Age 4: MRAA. An alternate form, the CRAA, was administered if two maternal caregivers were interviewed (See Administration Scoring and Notes.). Age 6: MR6A. Two questions were added on neighborhood safety and privacy of interview. Age 8: RRA. Items 1 and 2, and 11 through 15 were dropped. Age 12 & 14: IRRB. Administered by A-CASI. Same as RRA, with the addition of two items rating the respondent's response to and ease of use of the A-CASI system.

3 Rationale Interviewer ratings are used to assess the respondent s engagement with the interview and to obtain the interviewer's impressions of the environment in which the subject child is developing. The provision of appropriate play and learning materials, and maternal involvement with the child have been shown to predict cognitive development, maladaptive behavior, and social competence (Bradley, et al., 1994). Administration and Scoring Notes At the Pre-Age 4/Age 4 interviews we discovered that there was rarely a need for two caregivers to be interviewed. Thus, the alternate form (CRAA) was eliminated for future data points. The EA and the MW sites did not complete ratings of the home and neighborhood because their interviews were conducted during clinic visits, rather than home visits. Only the respondent was rated. Results Table 1 provides frequency distributions by race and study site on selected questions related to the respondent, the home, and the neighborhood at the Age 4 interview. For each item, we report the percentage scoring the two most negative ratings. Comprehension rates varied little across study sites, and about 4% of the mothers were rated as having difficulty comprehending some of the interview questions. Not surprisingly, interviewers perceived Hispanic mothers as having the most difficult time with comprehension. Although a Spanish translation was used, the language level of the interview may have been too high given the very low educational levels of the Hispanic caregivers. Also, the interviewers' ratings may have been affected by the interviewers being non-hispanic. Table 1 about here Interviewers also rated the Hispanic respondents as living in the least dilapidated dwellings and in the safest neighborhoods. The Black and Multiracial respondents were rated as living in the most dilapidated and least safe neighborhoods. When neighborhood variables were examined by site, some interesting differences emerged. While the MW and NW neighborhoods

4 were far more likely to be rated as unsafe as they were dilapidated, the opposite was true in SW. The SO site had almost equal rates (a little more than 20% for both) of perceived dilapidated and unsafe neighborhoods. Table 2 presents the frequency distribution for the interviewer ratings based on the Age 6 interview. The frequencies do not vary substantially from those at Age 4 with two exceptions: the Hispanic caregivers were much less likely to be rated as having poor comprehension of the interview at Age 6 (3.6%) compared to Age 4 (19.8%). Also, caregivers from the SW site were less likely at Age 6 to be living in dilapidated housing, but more likely to be in unsafe neighborhoods. Table 2 about here Tables 3 and 4 provide means, standard deviations, and internal consistency reliability coefficients (Cronbach s alpha) for ratings of indicators of cognitive stimulation for the child. Initial analyses of the scale showed evidence that the item "parent talks with child" diminished the internal-consistency of the scale. This is likely because children were not present during the caregiver interviews. Thus, this item was dropped from further analysis and a 4-item scale was constructed and labeled Child-Centered Household. Because each item was coded as observed (1) or not observed (0), summary values for the scale could range from 0 to 4. Table 3 about here Table 4 about here The mean value for Child-Centered Household across samples was approximately 2 at the Age 4 interview, indicating that on average only two out of the four indicators were observed in LONGSCAN homes. This number increased to almost 3 by the Age 6 interview. The mean score for White families was somewhat higher than the overall mean, and the mean scores for Black families was somewhat lower. SO and NW had lower scores than SW and MW. The MW and SW sites showed the greatest improvement, but the sample size is so small at MW at age 6 that the reliability is questionable. As such, the SW site showed the greatest estimated improvement.

5 Validity To assess validity, the interviewer ratings of the home environment at Age 6 were compared to caregivers self-reports on these measures from the Neighborhood Short Form. Interviewers rating neighborhoods as unsafe was significantly associated with caregivers' reports of drugs in the neighborhood (χ 2 (12, N = 525) = 184.6, p < 0.001). Interviewer ratings of neighborhood safety were also associated with caregiver reports of neighborhood safety (χ 2 (12, N = 525) = 141.7, p < 0.001). In addition, the interviewer s rating of the condition of respondent s residence was positively related to Neighborhood Pride (χ 2 (12, N = 525) = 13.5, p < 0.001), and inversely related to the item in the Neighborhood Short Form, "The buildings and yards in this neighborhood are really run down" (χ 2 (12, N = 525) = 17.0, p < 0.001). References and Bibliography Bradley, R. H., & Caldwell, B. M. (1979). Home observation for measurement of the environment: A revision of the preschool scale. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 84(3), Bradley, R. H., Caldwell, B. M., & Rock, S. L. (1988). Home environment and school performance: A ten-year follow-up and examination of three models of environmental action. Child Development, 59 (4), Bradley, R. H., Mundford, D. J., Whiteside, L., Caldwell, B. M., Casey, P. H., Kirby, R. S., & Hansen, S. (1994). A re-examination of the association between HOME scores and income. Nursing Research, 43(5),

6 Table 1. Interviewer Ratings of Respondent and Home Environment by Race and Study Site Age 4 Interview N Not Comprehending Dilapidated Unsafe Neighborhood Total Race White Black Hispanic Multiracial Other Study Site* MW SO SW NW Source. Based on data received at the LONGSCAN Coordinating Center by 7/8/97. * EA did not use the interviewer ratings because all interviews were conducted in the clinic rather than the respondents' homes. The MW site did not rate the quality of respondent s responses at the Age 4 interview.

7 Table 2. Interviewer Ratings of Respondent and Home Environment by Race and Study Site Age 6 Interview N Not Comprehending Dilapidated Unsafe Neighborhood Total Race White Black Hispanic Multiracial Other Study Site* EA MW SO SW NW Source. Based on data received at the LONGSCAN Coordinating Center by 6/30/00. * EA did not rate the home environment because all interviews took place in the clinic.

8 Table 3. Means, Standard Deviations, and Cronbach s Alphas for Interviewer Ratings of Child-Centered Household by Race and Study Site Age 4 Interview N M (SD) Cronbach s α Total (1.42).72 Race White (1.35).69 Black (1.38).71 Hispanic (1.39).70 Multiracial (1.27).61 Other (1.53).79 Study Site* MW (1.57).82 SO (1.46).76 SW (1.28).62 NW (1.36).70 Source. Based on data received at the LONGSCAN Coordinating Center by 7/8/97. * EA did not rate the home environment because all interviews took place in the clinic.

9 Table 4. Means, Standard Deviations, and Cronbach s Alpha for Interviewer Ratings on Child-Centered Household by Race and Study Site Age 6 Interview N M (SD) Cronbach s α Total (1.60).70 Race White (1.55).70 Black (1.56).65 Hispanic (1.74).82 Multiracial (1.50).51 Other (1.88).80 Study Site* SO (1.66).74 SW (1.39).66 NW (1.43).62 Source. Based on data received at the LONGSCAN Coordinating Center by 6/30/00. *EA & MW did not rate the home environment because interviews took place in the clinic.