Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 2014, Vol. 82, No. 2, 225–235

© 2014 American Psychological Association 0022-006X/14/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0035720

Pathways From Teacher Depression and Child-Care Quality to Child Behavioral Problems Lieny Jeon, Cynthia K. Buettner, and Anastasia R. Snyder

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

The Ohio State University Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine the associations among teacher depression, global child-care quality, and child internalizing and externalizing behavioral problems in early child-care settings. Method: We analyzed data from 3-year-old children (N ⫽ 761) and their mothers, primarily of disadvantaged socioeconomic status in urban areas, in the late 1990s using the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study. We also had data from the children’s teachers, who reported their own depressed moods. Child behavioral problems were reported by both teachers and parents, and global environmental quality of child care was observed. Path analysis tested direct and indirect effects of teacher depression on children’s behavioral problems via global child-care quality. Results: Teacher depression was directly and indirectly linked to teacher-reported externalizing and internalizing problems through observed global child-care quality, whereas for parent-reported outcomes, teacher depression was only directly related to children’s internalizing problems. Conclusions: Results of this study suggest that teachers’ depressive symptoms can be a contributor to global environmental child-care quality and to child externalizing and internalizing behavioral problems. Practical implications are that programs and policies must take into account effects of teacher depression on child-care quality and young children’s school readiness regarding behavioral problems. Future research should further explore these relationships. Keywords: teacher depression, externalizing problems, internalizing problems, child-care quality, early childhood

ables and process quality variables (e.g., Loeb et al., 2004; Pianta et al., 2005). In general, structural quality includes classroom size, teachers’ professional qualification and training, and process quality accounts for teachers’ practice and attitudes in classrooms such as basic care, learning activities, sensitivity, and interaction with children (Romano, Kohen, & Findlay, 2010). A gap in understanding child-care quality indicators is that few studies address prekindergarten teachers’ emotional well-being (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009) and its impact on the children in their classrooms. Although there is some research on early child-care settings indicating that teachers with symptoms of depression exhibit negative classroom climate, management, and teacher– child interactions (e.g., Gerber, Whitebook, & Weinstein, 2007; Hamre & Pianta, 2004), to our knowledge, there are no studies in which the effects of teacher depression and associated attitudes on preschool-age children’s outcomes have been examined. This is of particular interest as children raised by low-income single mothers are more often exposed to emotionally vulnerable home environments (Mistry, Benner, Biesanz, Clark, & Howes, 2010; Razza, Martin, & Brooks-Gunn, 2010). Thus, an important role of teachers involved in the care of these children is to buffer the effects of chaotic home environments, with a potential for mitigating the effects of a mother’s emotional exhaustion. The main objective of this study, therefore, was to increase understanding of the relationships among teachers’ depressed mood; global process quality of child care, which is represented by observed overall environmental characteristics of a classroom; and children’s externalizing and internalizing behavioral problems in early child-care settings. We use data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (FFCWS; 2008b), which predomi-

Today, increasing numbers of young children from low-income families require out-of-home child care, in part because of the significant increase in the number of low-income single mothers entering the labor force (Loeb, Fuller, Kagan, & Carrol, 2004). The U.S. Census Bureau (2012) reported that the labor force participation rate for single mothers with children under the age of 6 years increased from 48.7% in 1990 to 70.5% in 2000. This influx gave rise to the need for greater investments in high-quality child care (Phillipsen, Burchinal, Howes, & Cryer, 1997), which is of particular importance for children of low-income single mothers (Loeb et al., 2004), given that prior studies have demonstrated that quality of early child-care experiences plays a key role in vulnerable children’s behavioral outcomes (e.g., Burchinal & Nelson, 2000; Votruba-Drzal, Coley, Maldonado-Carreno, Li-Grining, & Chase-Lansdale, 2010). A number of studies have examined components of high-quality child care, which are typically defined by structural quality vari-

This article was published Online First January 20, 2014. Lieny Jeon, Cynthia K. Buettner, and Anastasia R. Snyder, Department of Human Sciences, The Ohio State University. The authors thank the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) for support of the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (through Grants R01HD36916, R01HD39135, and R01HD40421), as well as a consortium of private foundations. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Lieny Jeon, Department of Human Sciences, The Ohio State University, 135 Campbell Hall, 1787 Neil Avenue. Columbus, OH 43210. E-mail: [email protected] 225

226

JEON, BUETTNER, AND SNYDER

nantly consists of children who were born to unmarried lowincome families in urban areas in the late 1990s.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Behavioral Problems in Early Childhood Previous literature has explained children’s behavioral problems as externalizing problems or internalizing problems (Achenbach, McConaughy, & Howell, 1987). Children with externalizing problems are prone to anger and impulsivity and demonstrate a lack of behavioral and attentional control. Children with internalizing problems typically demonstrate sadness, fearfulness, anxiety, social withdrawal, and depression (Eisenberg et al., 2001). Although it is possible that children’s externalizing and internalizing behavior problems co-occur, we separately examined externalizing and internalizing behavior problems because these are two different indicators that represent distinct aspects of children’s behavioral outcomes (Eisenberg et al., 2001). Several longitudinal studies have shown that children who exhibit more problems in managing their anger and impulsivity or negative emotions in early childhood are more likely to show continuous behavioral problems, a lack of social skills, or lower academic achievement in middle childhood (e.g., Lee, 2010; Webster-Stratton, Reid, & Stoolmiller, 2008). Children who have more difficulty in following instructions, paying attention, and getting along with peers struggle with adaptation in school (Ladd, Kochenderfer, & Coleman, 1996), and these behaviors cause rejection from peers and negative feedback from teachers, which in turn, contribute to negative development in later life (Shores & Wehby, 1999). Otherwise, children who are depressed, anxious, sad, or withdrawn are less likely to be engaged in peer relationships or learning opportunities, which also impede school readiness (Eisenberg et al., 2001). In particular, school readiness is a crucial concern for young children from low-income families because they experience more difficulties with the transition to formal schooling (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997). Brauner and Stephens (2006) estimated the prevalence of social and emotional problems in children younger than 5 years old to range from 9.5% to 14.2%. However, Huaqing Qi and Kaiser’s (2003) systematic review of 30 research studies revealed that the prevalence rate of behavior problems was higher for preschool-age children in poverty than for those in the general population. Specifically, they found that the incidence rate of externalizing problems ranged from 16% to 30% and internalizing problems ranged from 7% to 31% for children enrolled in Head Start (Huaqing Qi & Kaiser, 2003).

Child-Care Quality and Behavior Problems Studies that link high-quality early childhood experiences with better child outcomes, including vulnerable children’s social and emotional development, have fueled efforts to improve the quality of child care in practice (e.g., Love et al., 2003; Votruba-Drzal, Coley, & Chase-Lansdale, 2004). Increasingly, improved preschool experiences are seen as a way to improve overall school readiness (Love et al., 2003). This has prompted the development of several observational tools meant to measure global indicators of child-care process quality, such as basic care, language or learning activities, interactions, and space and furnishings (i.e., room arrangement for children’s comfort, activities, and privacy;

e.g., Harms, Clifford, & Cryer, 1998). Subsequently, a number of studies have demonstrated that global measures of child-care quality predicted vulnerable children’s externalizing and internalizing behavioral problems (Burchinal & Nelson, 2000; Loeb et al., 2004; Romano et al., 2010; Votruba-Drzal et al., 2010). Safe and healthy child care employing rich cognitively stimulating materials and responsive teachers enhances children’s positive behaviors as well as long-term development in social– emotional functioning (Votruba-Drzal et al., 2004).

Role of Teacher Depression in Early Child-Care Settings In addition to the associations between global child-care quality and child development, researchers have identified several professional characteristics of preschool teachers that predict children’s behavioral problems, including teachers’ educational degree, major, training, and credentials (e.g., Phillipsen et al., 1997; Pianta et al., 2005). Additionally, teachers’ psychological characteristics, such as attitudes toward children and feelings of burnout, have been associated with process quality of early child-care classrooms (Pianta et al., 2005). However, results regarding the associations between teachers’ depression and overall child-care quality are mixed. Hamre and Pianta (2004) found that among nonfamilial caregivers in early child-care settings, those with high levels of depression were less sensitive, more withdrawn, and less engaged with children than those who reported lower levels of depression. These relationships were stronger for caregivers working in family child-care settings than those working in center-based care. However, Gerber et al. (2007) did not find a significant relationship between teacher depression and observed global child-care quality. Further, even though Pianta et al. (2005) found a negative correlation between teachers’ depressive symptoms and emotional climate in the classroom, this relationships became nonsignificant when other characteristics of teachers were used in analyses to predict child-care quality.

The Present Study The psychological attributes of teachers in early child-care settings have received less attention than those of teachers in primary or secondary school (Hakanen, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2006; Jennings & Greenberg, 2009). Based on the current literature, however, we expected teachers’ depression to operate as a predictor of global child-care quality and of children’s externalizing and internalizing behavioral outcomes. A limitation of the existing research on child-care quality that includes providers’ depression is that no studies that we know of have examined the significance of depressive symptoms of teachers in relation to child outcomes. Additionally, the studies investigating the relationship between teachers’ depression and global child-care quality have had small sample sizes with a small subset of teachers serving low-income families. Therefore, to address this gap in the literature, we used a nationally representative data set (FFCWS), which primarily contains data from disadvantaged children born to low-income unmarried mothers in large U.S. cities (Reichman, Teitler, Garfinkel, & McLanahan, 2001), to investigate the relationships among teacher depression, global child-care quality, and children’s externalizing and internalizing behavioral problems. It is particularly important to

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

TEACHER DEPRESSION AND CHILD BEHAVIORAL PROBLEMS

separately examine externalizing and internalizing behavioral problems in child-care research because children with externalizing problems and internalizing problems are distinguished in how they regulate and control behaviors and emotions, which are skills that can be learned in child-care settings. Eisenberg et al. (2001) suggested that children with externalizing problems undercontrol their behaviors and emotions, and children with internalizing problems overcontrol their behaviors and emotions. The aim of the present study was to examine the direct relationships between teacher depression and children’s behavioral problems (see Figure 1, Hypothesis [H]1), and the mediating effects of global child-care quality on the relationships between teacher depression and child outcomes (H2). We hypothesized that a higher degree of teachers’ depression would predict more negative global child-care quality, which, in turn, would predict children’s negative behavioral outcomes above and beyond a set of child, family, teacher, and child-care characteristics. Additionally, based on the evidence that the associations between nonfamilial caregivers’ depression and their negative interactions with children differ by child-care type (Hamre & Pianta, 2004), we tested the moderating effects of child-care type (i.e., center-based care and home-based care) on all hypothesized paths between teacher depression, global child-care quality, and child behavioral problems to examine whether there are conditional indirect effects of teacher depression on child behavioral outcomes through global child-care quality or if there are conditional direct effects of teacher depression on child behavioral problems (H3).

Method Participants We used data from the Child Care Supplement study (CCS) of the larger Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (FFCWS). The FFCWS is a national longitudinal birth cohort study that oversampled children born between 1998 and 2000 to unmarried parents in 20 large U.S. cities (see Reichman et al., 2001, for a detailed description of the larger FFCWS sampling and design). At the baseline of the FFCWS core study, mothers and fathers of 4,898 children were interviewed at the hospitals of the children’s births. When the focal children were 3 years old, the FFCWS investigators conducted a 36-month in-home longitudinal study that involved visiting the children’s homes (n ⫽ 3,288, mainly

H3

H2

Global Child-care Quality

Teacher Depression H1

Figure 1.

Child-care Type

H3 H3 H2

Child Behavior Problems

Hypothesized model.

227

mothers). During this home visit, participants in 15 of the 20 cities were asked whether they used any type of nonmaternal child care for at least 7 hr per week and whether they used any one child-care arrangement for at least 5 hr a week. A total of 810 of the visited families reported using either center-based or home-based child care. Of the 810 child-care providers identified by the families, 798 completed a CCS survey. The research team was able to conduct child-care observations on 791 of the 810. This resulted in a total of 761 child-care providers who were both observed and completed the survey (n ⫽ 352 for home-based; n ⫽ 409 centerbased child care), composing the sample for this study. Comparisons of children in our analytic sample (n ⫽ 761) to the broader sample of the 36-month in-home study revealed few significant differences. Analyses of comparisons were weighted using the provided 36-month mother survey national weight along with the replicate weights which mask the location of respondents, while still allowing for estimation of variance (see FFCWS, 2008a, for more information regarding the use of sampling weights). This allowed us to consider whether the analytic sample of this study could be generalized to the national sample of FFCWS. The mean age of children in the analytic sample was slightly older than nonparticipating children, t ⫽ 3.15, p ⬍ .01. Children in our sample were more likely to be Black, non-Hispanic, ␹2 ⫽ 27.87, p ⬍ .05, and less likely to be included in the other race category, ␹2 ⫽ 18.48, p ⬍ .01. Mothers in our sample were also more likely to be single at baseline, ␹2 ⫽ 38.61, p ⬍ .01, with a focal child at age 3, ␹2 ⫽ 19.89, p ⬍ .05. All other child and maternal characteristics were statistically equivalent. Differences in race and marital status suggested that our CCS study sample consisted of statistically more vulnerable families than those who did not participate in the study. Demographic characteristics of the analytic sample are described in Table 1. For descriptive analyses, we report the weighted frequencies, which adjust for marital status, age, race, and education (FFCWS, 2008b). For our main analyses, we estimated the hypothesized model using unweighted data because a sampling weight was not available for the CCS study. However, we controlled for marital status, age, race, and education variables to preserve the attributes of the full sample.

Procedures In the current study, we included child, maternal, and household demographic variables from the larger FFCWS baseline and 36-month core studies for mothers. Maternal depression, children’s and mothers’ language ability, and parent-reported child behavioral problems were drawn from the 36-month FFCWS in-home study. From the child-care provider survey of the CCS study, we included child-care program characteristics, child-care providers’ demographics and depressive symptoms, and teacher-reported child behavioral problems. We also used the observed global child-care-quality data, which were obtained by trained observers. In order to be qualified for the study, observers participated in a 5-day-long training in which they had to obtain a minimum of 85% agreement on all items with the observed rating given by a trainer during practice visits (Rigby, Ryan, & Brooks-Gunn, 2007).

JEON, BUETTNER, AND SNYDER

228 Table 1 Demographics: Means (SDs) or Percentages

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Variables Child characteristics Child age (months) Child male (%) Child PPVT–III std score Child-care quantity per week (hours) Mother characteristics Mother age (years) at child birth Mother educational attainment (%) Less than high school High school diploma/GED Some college College or more Mother PPVT–III std score Family poverty status at child age 3 years (%) Poverty (0%–100%) Near-poverty (100%–300%) Middle-class (⬎300%) Mother employed at child age 3 years (%) Mother race/ethnicity (%) Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Hispanic Other race Maternal marital status at child age 3 years (%) Married Cohabiting Single Mother depressed (%) Child-care provider characteristics Early childhood education (years) Female (%) Provider is father (%) At least 2-year college degree (%) Classroom environment characteristics Teacher-to-child ratio Age range in a classroom (%) Preschool-age group Mixed with younger children Mixed with older children Mixed with younger and older children

M (SE) or % 38.71 (0.34) 51.20 92.97 (3.20) 36.54 (2.50) 27.33 (1.05) 42.10 23.10 14.92 19.88 92.68 (1.46) 40.22 28.52 31.26 63.81 30.05 32.35 35.53 2.07 52.77 9.63 37.60 32.26 9.07 (.35) 87.41 7.68 27.26 1:4.50 (3.02) 46.65 23.25 15.55 14.55

Note. PPVT–III ⫽ Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (3rd ed., Dunn & Dunn, 1997); std ⫽ standardized; GED ⫽ General Equivalency Diploma.

Measures Child-care provider depression. The depressed mood of teachers in child-care centers or those providing home-based child care was assessed using the short version of the Johns Hopkins Symptom Checklist (Kandel & Davies, 1982), which includes six items asking the respondent to rate depressed mood during the preceding 14 days. Responses were reverse coded (higher score equals greater depressed mood) and were summed across items (Cronbach’s ␣ ⫽ .82). Observed global child-care quality. To assess global process quality of child-care environments, we used two common observational measures with good reliability and validity: the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale–Revised (ECERS–R; Harms et al., 1998) for center-based settings, and the Family Day Care Rating Scale (FDCRS; Harms & Clifford, 1989) for home-based settings. The ECERS–R and the FDCRS rate overall child-care environmental characteristics and developmental appropriateness

of teacher practices in early child-care settings, including space and furnishings, basic personal care, language-reasoning, a range of learning activities, interactions, and discipline. Scores on the ECERS–R and the FDCRS items range from 1 (inadequate quality care) to 7 (excellent care). Although the ECERS–R and the FDCRS were separately developed to reflect distinct environments for different child-care settings, a considerable number of items and subscales overlap between the two measures. The ECERS–R contains a few additional items describing program structure, activities, and interactions. From among 37 items of the ECERS–R and 29 items of the FDCRS, we drew a total of 27 shared items to create a parallel single score (Cronbach’s ␣ ⫽ .96). An average score of the 27 items was calculated to represent the overall quality of the child-care setting. We note that even though the home-based child-care study included family child care (relatives or biological father), there is not a validated parallel measure for kith and kin providers. Therefore, the FDCRS was used to assess the quality of both nonfamilial and kith and kin home-based child care (Rigby et al., 2007). Child behavioral problems. In the 36-month in-home study, mothers completed the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL/1½–5; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000), a widely used scale for assessing problematic behaviors for preschoolers. In the current study, 22 items from the Externalizing subscale (Cronbach’s ␣ ⫽ .89) and 20 items from the Internalizing subscale (Cronbach’s ␣ ⫽ .82) were used to measure child behavioral problems. To capture a multi-informant measure of child behavior problems, we also used two subscales from the Caregiver–Teacher Report Form for ages 1½–5 years (C–TRF/1½–5; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000): the Externalizing (20 items, Cronbach’s ␣ ⫽ .95) and the Internalizing subscales (five items, Cronbach’s ␣ ⫽ .61). The Externalizing subscale included two specific syndrome scores of aggressive behavior and attention problems, and the Internalizing subscale included three specific syndrome scores: withdrawn, anxious/depressed, and emotionally reactive. A sum of items was calculated for each subscale. Child-care type. To classify child-care type, we created a binary variable to represent whether the child was in center- or home-based care. The variable was coded 1 if the focal child received child care in a center or 0 if the care took place in any home-based setting. The percentage of children who were cared for in center-based settings was 47.14% (n ⫽ 313). Covariates. A wide set of child, family, teacher, and childcare characteristics were entered as covariates. A major challenge when considering the influence of child care on children’s development involves whether child-care characteristics truly enhance children’s development or whether it is simply that children from more advantaged parents are more developmentally advanced and are also sent to the higher quality child care (Votruba-Drzal et al., 2010). Therefore, to isolate less-biased estimates of the influence of child care, most studies have controlled for differences in family characteristics that might influence both family decision making and children’s development (e.g., Burchinal & Nelson, 2000; Romano et al., 2010). In the present study, a variety of child and family characteristics were considered as covariates as well. Child characteristics. Child characteristics included child’s age in months at the time of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) assessment, the child’s sex (1 ⫽ boy, 0 ⫽ girls), and child’s receptive vocabulary using the age-standardized scores of the

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

TEACHER DEPRESSION AND CHILD BEHAVIORAL PROBLEMS

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (3rd ed., or PPVT–III; Dunn & Dunn, 1997), which measures children’s language and cognitive ability. For Spanish-speaking children (n ⫽ 17), we used the age-standardized scores of the Test de Vocabulario en Imagenes Peabody (TVIP; Dunn, Lugo, Padilla, & Dunn, 1986). We also controlled for the quantity of child-care exposure, which is one of three core features of early child care: quantity, quality, and type. The quantity was measured using teacher report of the number of hours per week that children were in child care. Maternal and household characteristics. Maternal and household characteristics entered as covariates included maternal age at child’s birth, race/ethnicity, and educational attainment as recorded in the baseline study. From the 36-months study, we also included maternal PPVT–III or TVIP score, mothers’ marital status, depressive symptoms, household poverty status, and employment status (dummy coded as 1 ⫽ employed). Mother-reported race/ethnicity was coded into three dummy variables representing Black non-Hispanic, Hispanic, and other race (White non-Hispanic as a reference category). Maternal educational attainment was also coded into three sets of dummy variables representing less than high school, high school diploma or general equivalency diploma, and some college (college degree or more as a reference category). Mothers’ marital status at the time of the in-home visit when the child was 3 years old was dummy coded into two variables: married versus single and cohabiting versus single. Given that controlling for maternal depressive symptoms is important to reduce potential bias on a mother’s ratings of children’s behavior problems, we coded maternal depression either as 1 (having depressive symptoms) or 0 (not having symptoms), using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview–Short Form (CIDI–SF; Kessler, Andrews, Mroczek, Ustun, & Wittchen, 1998). Using sequential coding, we created a set of dummy variables indicating whether the family was in poverty (below 100% of the poverty threshold, reference category), near poverty (100%–300%) or nonpoverty (above 300%) when the child was 3 years old. The poverty thresholds were established in the FFCWS data set using the U.S. Census Bureau guidelines in place for the year preceding data collection (2000, 2001, and 2002; FFCWS, 2008b). Teacher and classroom characteristics. Several teacher and classroom characteristics that can be associated with child-care environments or child outcomes were controlled: teacher’s years of experience in early childhood education, teacher’s sex, teacher’s educational attainment (dummy coded as 1 ⫽ having a 2-year college degree or more), teacher-to-child ratio, and age range of children either in the classroom or in the home-based care. A set of dummy variables was created to represent whether children were in a mixed-age group. The 3- to 4-year-old preschool grouping served as a reference category, and then the group mixed with younger children (0 –2 years old), mixed with older children (5 years old or older), and mixed with both younger and older were compared with the reference category. Because there were 51 children (7.68%) whose nonmaternal home-based child-care providers were their biological fathers, we included a binary variable, which indicates whether child-care providers were father (coded as 1) or not as a covariate. Child-care type (i.e., center-based vs. home-based) was also included as a covariate in the main path analysis.

229

Data Analyses Of the 761 participants in our sample, five parents (0.66%) and seven teachers (0.92%) did not complete child behavior measures, and 0.78% were missing the measure of teacher depression (n ⫽ 6). In addition, 5.91% (n ⫽ 45) were missing at least one of the child- or family-related hypothesized control variables, and 4.31% (n ⫽ 33) were missing at least one of the teacher/classroom-related hypothesized control variables. When we compared child, mother, teacher, and child-care characteristics across participants with at least one participant missing data (12.75%) and those with complete data, the groups significantly differed in children’s age and the PPVT score, suggesting that the data were not missing completely at random. Children with missing data were younger, t ⫽ 2.06, p ⬍ .05, and demonstrated lower vocabulary scores, t ⫽ 3.14, p ⬍ .01, than children with complete data. Missing data were handled in the path model using full-information maximumlikelihood estimation, which allowed us to preserve all available data (Arbuckle, 1996). A path analysis was conducted in Stata Version 12.0 (StataCorp, 2011) using structural equation modeling to simultaneously test the direct paths from teacher depression to child behavioral problems and the indirect paths by way of the mediator, global childcare quality. Specifically, we calculated the following estimates: (a) paths from teacher depression to global child-care quality, (b) paths from global child-care quality to child behavioral outcomes, (c) paths from teacher depression to child behavioral outcomes (before and after controlling for child-care quality, which are total effects and direct effects of teacher depression on child outcomes, respectively), and (d) indirect effects of teacher depression on child outcomes through global child-care quality. This procedure follows recent work on mediation analysis (Hayes, 2009; MacKinnon, 2008), which quantifies the indirect effect, rather than following the conservative causal steps of Baron and Kenny (1986). A Sobel test (Sobel, 1982) with bootstrap analysis was conducted to generate the indirect effects. Bootstrapping draws a large number of samples with replacement from a data set, computes the indirect effect for each resample, and then generates an average of the indirect effects across samples. Additionally, we included interaction terms between teacher depression, global child-care quality, and child-care type in the model to test the conditional indirect and direct effects of teacher depression on child behavioral outcomes. We interpreted standardized regression coefficients, and we utilized multiple indices of overall model fit: (a) chi-square statistics are desirable to be nonsignificant (p ⬎ .05) and a chi-square-to-degrees-of-freedom (df) ratio of less than 5 is considered adequate (Bollen, 1989); (b) a comparative fit index (CFI) of .90 or higher indicates good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999); and (c) the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) less than .06 indicates an adequate fit and less than .05 is indicative of a close fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1993).

Results Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Table 2 provides unweighted descriptive statistics for each of the key measures. We also conducted simple t tests for teacher depression, global child-care quality, and child outcomes by child-

JEON, BUETTNER, AND SNYDER

230

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics and Simple t Tests Descriptive statistics Variable

M

SD

Range Theoretical range

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Child-care type (1 ⫽ center) 0.47 — 0–1 Teacher depression 8.18 2.38 6–18 Global child-care quality 4.20 1.59 1.2–7.0 PR externalizing problems 14.22 7.73 0–41 PR internalizing problems 7.13 4.96 0–32 TR externalizing problems 8.54 7.44 0–39 TR internalizing problems 1.75 1.80 0–9

0–1 0–18 1–7 0–44 0–40 0–40 0–10

Home-based Center-based M (SD) M (SD)

t

— — — 8.31 (2.47) 8.03 (2.27) 1.51 3.40 (1.30) 5.12 (1.37) ⫺17.69ⴱⴱⴱ 14.66 (7.76) 13.73 (7.68) 1.55 7.27 (5.07) 6.97 (4.84) 0.77 9.32 (6.90) 7.67 (7.91) 2.87ⴱⴱ 1.74 (1.77) 1.76 (1.84) ⫺0.13

Note. Two-tailed t statistics testing mean differences between those who are in center child care and those who are in home-based child care. PR ⫽ parent-reported; TR ⫽ teacher-reported. p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.

ⴱ

care type to examine the mean differences between children and teachers in home-based and center-based child care. Observed child-care quality was significantly better in center-based child care than in home-based child care. On average, children in homebased care scored slightly greater on behavioral problems than those in center-based care; however, only the difference for teacher-reported externalizing behavioral problems was statistically significant. In addition, we analyzed bivariate correlations between each of the key measures (a correlation table is available from the first author on request). The results indicated significant correlations among teachers’ depression, global child-care quality, and each of proposed outcomes. Teachers’ depression and observed child-care quality were negatively correlated with statistical significance (r ⫽ –.12, p ⬍ .01). Additionally, observed child-care quality was negatively correlated with all child outcomes, parent-reported internalizing problems (r ⫽ –.07, p ⬍ .08) and externalizing problems (r ⫽ –.11, p ⬍ .01), and teacher-reported internalizing problems (r ⫽ –.10, p ⬍ .05) and externalizing problems (r ⫽ –.20, p ⬍ .01). Teachers’ depression was positively correlated with all child outcomes, and the relationships were stronger in magnitude for teacher-reported outcomes (r ⫽ .18 for internalizing and r ⫽ .25 for externalizing, p ⬍ .01 for both) than for parent-reported outcomes (r ⫽ .08, p ⬍ .05 for both). Parent-reported and teacherreported outcomes were statistically correlated with the moderate magnitudes (r ⫽ .15 for internalizing, and r ⫽ .33 for externalizing, p ⬍ .01 for both). We also analyzed correlations between families’ poverty status and child outcomes. Poverty level was positively correlated with teacher- and parent-reported children’s externalizing and internalizing behavioral problems (r ⫽ .11–.24, p ⬍ .01).

Path Analysis The hypothesized mediation model explaining child outcome variables fit the data well, ␹2(85, N ⫽ 761) ⫽ 75.85, p ⫽ .75, CFI ⫽ 1.00, RMSEA ⫽ .00, 90% confidence interval (CI) [.00, .02]. The model explained 10.28% of the variance in parentreported child externalizing problems, 16.01% of the variance in parent-reported child internalizing problems, 12.13% of the variance in teacher-reported child externalizing problems,; and 6.30% of the variance in teacher-reported child internalizing problems. Teacher depression and covariates explained 42.33% of the vari-

ance in global child-care quality. Overall, teacher depression, global child-care quality, and covariates explained 58.11% of the total variance in the model. Specifically, teacher depression and global child-care quality explained 28.6% of the variance in the model over and above the effects of the covariates. Figure 2 and Table 3 show path coefficients for the total, direct, and indirect effects. Direct effects. As Figure 2 illustrates, teachers who exhibited higher levels of depressed mood reported higher scores on child externalizing and internalizing problems after controlling for global child-care quality and child, family, teacher, and child-care covariates (i.e., direct effects); the standardized coefficients were significant, and the effect size was moderate. The coefficient for teacher-reported externalizing problems was greater than that for internalizing problems. Each 1-point standard deviation (SD) increase in teacher depression corresponded to a 0.24 SD increase in externalizing problems and a 0.18 SD increase in internalizing

-.06*

Global Child-care Quality

-.06† 0

.05 Teacher Depression

.06*

- .14***

.24*** .18*** -.08*

PR Externalizing Problems PR Internalizing Problems TR Externalizing Problems TR Internalizing Problems

Figure 2. Path analysis for child behavioral outcome variables. N ⫽ 761. Standardized path coefficients from 5,000 bootstrap samples are reported. A dashed line indicates nonsignificant effects. Covariates include child age, sex, vocabulary, and the quantity of child-care exposure; maternal age, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, marital and employment status, depressive symptoms, vocabulary, and household poverty status; teacher’s sex, years of experience in early childhood education, and educational attainment; teacher-to-child ratio; and age range of children in a classroom. PR ⫽ parent-reported; TR ⫽ teacher-reported. † p ⬍ .10. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.

TEACHER DEPRESSION AND CHILD BEHAVIORAL PROBLEMS

231

Table 3 Mediation of the Effect of Teacher Depression on Child Behavioral Outcomes Through Global Child-Care Quality Total effectsa Outcomes

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

PR Ext. PR Int. TR Ext. TR Int.

Direct effectsb

Indirect effectsc

B

SE

95% CI

␤

B

SE

95% CI

␤

B

SE

95% CI

␤

.17 .15 .75 .15

.11 .08 .11 .03

[⫺.04, .39] [.00, .26] [.53, .95] [.09, .19]

.05 .06ⴱ .25ⴱⴱⴱ .19ⴱⴱⴱ

.16 .12 .72 .14

.11 .07 .11 .03

[⫺.05, .38] [.00, .26] [.51, .92] [.08, .19]

.05 .06ⴱ .24ⴱⴱⴱ .18ⴱⴱⴱ

.01 .00 .03 .01

.01 .00 .01 .01

[.00, .02] [.00, .00] [.00, .05] [.00, .01]

.00 .00 .01ⴱⴱⴱ .01ⴱⴱⴱ

Note. N ⫽ 761. Unstandardized regression path coefficients (B), bootstrap standard errors (SE), and standardized coefficients (␤) are reported. The model includes child-, maternal-, household-, teacher-, and child-care-related covariates. CI ⫽ confidence interval; PR ⫽ parent-reported; TR ⫽ teacher-reported; Ext ⫽ Externalizing problems; Int ⫽ Internalizing problems. a Total effects represent the paths from teacher depression to child outcomes without global child-care quality. b Direct effects represent the effects of teacher depression on child outcomes after controlling for global child-care quality. c Indirect effects represent the effects of teacher depression on child outcomes through global child-care quality. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.

problems. Additionally, teacher depression was significantly and positively associated with parent-reported child internalizing problems with a small effect. The association between teacher depression and parent-reported child externalizing problems was not significant. As we hypothesized (H1), there were direct associations between teacher depression and child behavioral outcomes; however, the effects were stronger for teacher-reported outcomes. Additionally, none of the teacher or child-care characteristics (i.e., experience in early child care, educational attainment, father as child-care provider, child-care type, teacher-to-child ratio, or age range in a classroom) other than teacher depressive symptoms significantly predicted parent- or teacher-reported outcomes. There was also statistically significant direct association between teacher depression and observed global child-care quality after controlling for a set of child, family, teacher, and child-care demographics. Teachers who reported higher levels of depressed mood had lower global child-care quality scores, as we expected. Additionally, global child-care quality negatively predicted child behavioral problems after controlling for teacher depression and the set of covariates. The standardized coefficients for these associations were significant for teacher-reported externalizing and internalizing problems and marginally significant for parent-reported externalizing problems, and the effect sizes were small to moderate. That is, children in better quality child-care settings were scored lower in externalizing and internalizing problems by teacher and parent report. However, there was no significant direct association between observed child-care quality and parent-reported internalizing problems. Indirect effects. The results of a Sobel test using 5,000 bootstrap samples indicated that global child-care quality mediated the associations between teacher depression and teacher-reported externalizing and internalizing behavioral problems after controlling for child, maternal, household, teacher, and child-care covariates, although the indirect standardized coefficients were small (Table 3). Specifically, the products of two direct paths, (a) from teacher depression to child-care quality and (b) from global child-care quality to child outcomes, are the indirect effects of teacher depression on child outcomes through global child-care quality. For both teacher-reported outcomes, when teacher depression increased by 1 SD, child’s externalizing and internalizing problems increased by a total of .01 SD, which was explained entirely by the specific mediating effect of global child-care quality. However,

indirect effects for parent-reported outcomes were not statistically different from zero. The second hypothesis, therefore, was only supported for teacher-reported outcomes but not for parentreported outcomes. Conditional effects. In addition to considering the main effects of child-care experiences, the question of whether the effects of teacher depression and global child-care quality vary as a function of a child-care type (i.e., center-based or home-based) was examined. This was done by adding interactions between child-care characteristics (i.e., teacher depression and observed global child-care quality) and child-care type to the models. Overall model fit was worse than that for the previous model, ␹2(65) ⫽ 795.23, p ⬍ .01, CFI ⫽ .66, RMSEA ⫽ .13, and none of interactions terms were significant, indicating that there was no conditional direct or indirect effect of teacher depression on child behavioral outcomes through global child-care quality by a childcare type.

Discussion Consistent with the hypotheses that guided the study, the findings indicated that children cared by more-depressed teachers exhibited more externalizing and internalizing behavioral problems, as reported by both parents and teachers after controlling for a set of child, family, teacher, and child-care characteristics and observed global child-care quality. There are several possible explanations. First, it may be that an unhealthy classroom climate was created by depressed teachers. Hamre and Pianta (2004) found that depressed teachers spent less time engaging with children, which, consequently, might reduce time dedicated to monitoring children’s misbehavior. Children may have less opportunity to receive guidance for positive behaviors from teachers who suffer from higher levels of depressive moods. Second, it is possible that children may role-model teachers’ negative cognitions and moods, poor emotional regulation, and ineffective problem solving, as social learning theory (Bandura, 1973) would suggest. However, we should note that the strength of the relationship between teachers’ depression and teacher-reported outcomes was greater than with the child outcomes reported by parents. This discrepancy possibly stems from children’s behavioral differences at home and at child care. Or this may be because of the shared method

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

232

JEON, BUETTNER, AND SNYDER

variance common in studies that include the same respondents, especially given that teachers with depressive symptoms perceived their children as having more behavioral problems. Controlling for maternal depression significantly predicted child outcomes with the effect sizes being greater for parentreported outcomes compared with those reported by teachers. According to Berg-Nielsen, Solheim, Belsky, and Wichstrom (2012), parent–teacher disagreement on young children’s behaviors generally exists, and the overall parameter estimate of correlations between the CBCL and C–TRF total problems in the preschool-age sample was 0.26, which corresponds with our results. Moreover, in a study investigating children’s school readiness, Razza et al. (2010) suggested that teacher-reported children’s behavior would have been preferable to that reported by a parent, given that conduct in the classroom is more relevant to school readiness than is behavior at home. In addition, others have suggested that teacher report is less biased than parental report given that teachers interact with many children and, therefore, have a better framework for assessing developmentally appropriate child behavior (Berg-Nielsen et al., 2011). Therefore, teachers’ ratings are most frequently used and are considered the most efficient mode of assessing behaviors of young children for screening and identification (e.g., Berg-Nielsen et al., 2012; Wolraich et al., 2004). However, some researchers still tend to regard parents as better informants because they observe their children across various settings (e.g., Ferdinand, van der Ende, & Verhulst, 2007; Stanger & Lewis, 1993). Considering the advantages and disadvantages of both parent- and teacher-reported child outcomes, the strength of this study is that we employed both informants. We assumed that parents and teachers would offer different perspectives and have different standards for what constituted problem status. Another interesting finding was that the effect size for teacher-reported externalizing behavior problems was stronger than that of internalizing behavior problems. However, this is consistent with previous studies, where it was demonstrated that teachers reported lower ratings on internalizing problems than externalizing problems (e.g., Deng, Liu, & Roosa, 2004; Kolko & Kazdin, 1993; Stanger & Lewis, 1993). A possible explanation for this result is that children are more likely to confide in their parents than in their teachers about their internalizing problems (Berg-Nielsen et al., 2012). To this end, teachers’ difficulties in detection of less-apparent problems may cause low ratings on internalizing problems. Teachers facing chaotic days with many children may not be sufficiently attentive to, or aware of, young children’s internalizing problems. We next investigated the mediating effects of observed global child-care quality on the associations between teacher depression and child behavioral outcomes. Teachers reporting higher levels of depressed moods showed lower levels of global child-care quality after controlling for a set of child, family, teacher, and child-care characteristics. Teachers suffering from depression may not have enough energy to manage classroom environments or to provide basic care and learning opportunities for children because they are emotionally exhausted. However, in contrast to previous research, we found that observed global child-care quality did not predict parent-reported externalizing or internalizing problems, and mediating effects were also only significant for teacher-reported out-

comes. Even though the direct and indirect effect sizes of teacher depression on child outcomes via observed global child-care quality were small to moderate, it was notable that among child-care or teacher-related characteristics (i.e., depression, experience in early child care, educational attainment, father as provider, teacher-tochild ratio, and age range in a classroom), teachers’ depression was the only statistically significant predictor associated with child outcomes. Finally, we found associations among teacher depression, global child-care quality, and child outcomes regardless of child-care type. The lack of moderation by child-care type is not consistent with previous studies in which associations between teacher depression and child-care quality were moderated by child-care type (Hamre & Pianta, 2004), and associations between child-care quality and child outcomes were moderated by child-care type (e.g., Romano et al., 2010; Vandell et al., 2010; Votruba-Drzal et al., 2010). Our finding suggests that teachers’ psychological state can be a predictor of children’s behavior outcomes in both home-care and center-care settings. Although we found consistent links among self-reported teacher depression, observed global child-care quality, and parent- and teacher-reported child behavioral problems, this study is not without limitations. First, the effect sizes of teacher depression on child outcomes were mostly small. Although this study suggests a starting point for investigation of teacher depression in early child-care settings, other child-care variables that might have an association with child outcomes should be considered in conjunction with teacher depression. Second, the measures of global child-care quality for center-based child care and for home-based child care are not fully congruent. When interpreting and comparing parent- and teacher-reported outcomes, it should be noted that the CBCL and C–TRF also are not fully equivalent. Although most studies use these separate versions, we would recommend using congruent tools to compare center-based and home-based child care and to compare parent- and teacher-reported outcomes. Third, the response rate for the CCS study was not high (Ryan, Johnson, Rigby, & Brooks-Gunn, 2011). Thus, the reported findings cannot be generalized to apply to a national FFCWS sample. Future research in this area should replicate the analyses conducted here with a larger and nationally representative child-care data set. Fourth, the data on teacher depression and global child-care quality were collected at the same wave as child behavioral outcomes. Longitudinal studies may provide better understanding of changes over time in relations between child-care contexts and children’s behavioral problems (Rutter & Pickles, 1991). Fifth, this study included only self-reported information on teacher depression, which may not provide sufficient information on chronicity or clinical-range of depression. In addition, although children’s behavior problems were assessed by responses from multi-informants (teachers and parents), objective assessments were not conducted to determine a clinical range of behavior problems. Finally, because children who participated in this study were not randomly assigned to different types of child care, different levels of care quality, or the levels of teacher depression, selection bias is a concern (Love et al., 2003; Vandell et al., 2010). To reduce the bias, we included several statistical controls for mother, child, family, teacher,

TEACHER DEPRESSION AND CHILD BEHAVIORAL PROBLEMS

and child-care characteristics that might be associated with both children’s development and care selection.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Implications This study suggests that teachers’ depression is related to children’s behavioral problems, which is an important area for further exploration. Depression in teachers should be recognized as a potent determinant of the global quality of education in early child-care settings. Given all issues above, replication will be necessary in a larger and more representative sample employing a longitudinal design to establish a causal association. Further studies should take into account the ethnic and cultural diversity of the sample. Although the current sample consisted mainly of children from low-income families, we did not test whether the effects of teacher depression on child behavioral outcomes differs by poverty status. The comparison of child outcomes for children in poverty and nonpoverty would be another interesting topic for future research because it is possible that teachers’ emotional wellbeing buffers the negative effects of family poverty on child outcomes. Additionally, we only used global features of care to explain indirect effects; however, there may be several potential process variables on the associations between teacher depression and child outcomes. For example, teachers’ depression may be associated with a lack of monitoring, engagement, emotional support, or guidance for relationships with others, which, in turn, may be associated with child outcomes. Finally, studies aimed at alleviating teachers’ depression should examine the predictors of teachers’ depression, which may be related to their job-related stress or personal issues. For example, teachers’ educational level or early childhood-education-related training might be related to teachers’ depression. If this is the case, providing additional training to improve teachers’ practice could be helpful in mitigating any effects of teachers’ depression on child outcomes. Beyond empirical implications, this study provides valuable information to practitioners such as teachers, child-care administrators, policy makers, and interventionists working in early childhood education and care programs. Most important, the findings suggest that recognizing the psychological health of child-care teachers is an important component of high-quality child-care that promotes children’s positive behaviors. There is comparatively little investment aimed at protecting teachers’ psychological well-being (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009). Most teacher-related interventions or preventions, which ultimately aim at decreasing children’s negative behaviors, focus on improving teachers’ classroom management strategies or educating them on how to deal with children’s behavioral problems (Heller et al., 2011; Webster-Stratton et al., 2008). These programs explicitly focus on changing teaching practices rather than addressing the teachers’ depression per se. Consequently, teachers may lack the training or available resources as well as the time to address their own psychological difficulties. Based on the findings of this study, interventions aimed at alleviating teachers’ depression could be warranted. These interventions, including individual counseling, may improve both child-care quality and children’s school readiness, particularly children’s behavioral outcomes.

233

Conclusion This study is the first to examine direct and indirect associations between teacher depression, global child-care quality, and children’s behavioral problems using multiple informants and involving a range of methods. It is well known that the child-care environment plays a significant role in children’s development. However, the lack of research on the effect of teachers’ depressed moods on preschool-age children’s behavioral problems, which are related to school readiness, presents a gap in the knowledge and literature on this phenomenon. The significance of teacher’s mental health in children’s behavioral outcomes at such an early stage of childhood heightens the importance of teachers’ role in young children’s school readiness. This study suggests that teachers’ depression has both direct and indirect relationship with children’s behavioral problems via global child-care quality, which is an important area for further exploration.

References Achenbach, T. M., McConaughy, S. H., & Howell, C. T. (1987). Child/ adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: Implications of crossinformant correlations for situational specificity. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 213–232. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.213 Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2000). Manual for the ASEBA preschool forms and profiles. Burlington: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families. Arbuckle, J. L. (1996). Full information estimation in the presence of incomplete data. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques (pp. 243–278). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Oxford, England: Prentice-Hall. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). Moderator–mediator variables distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 Berg-Nielsen, T. S., Solheim, E., Belsky, J., & Wichstrom, L. (2012). Preschoolers’ psychosocial problems: In the eyes of the beholder? Adding teacher characteristics as determinants of discrepant parent-teacher reports. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 43, 393– 413. doi: 10.1007/s10578-011-0271-0 Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: Wiley. Brauner, C. B., & Stephens, C. B. (2006). Estimating the prevalence of early childhood serious emotional/behavioral disorders: Challenges and recommendations. Public Health Reports, 121, 303–310. Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G. J. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. The Future of Children, 7, 55–71. doi:10.2307/1602387 Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136 –162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Burchinal, M. R., & Nelson, L. (2000). Family selection and child care experiences: Implications for studies of child outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 385– 411. doi:10.1016/S08852006(00)00072-7 Deng, S., Liu, X., & Roosa, M. W. (2004). Agreement between parent and teacher reports on behavioral problems among Chinese children. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 25, 407– 417. doi:10.1097/ 00004703-200412000-00004 Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (3rd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

234

JEON, BUETTNER, AND SNYDER

Dunn, L., Lugo, D., Padilla, E., & Dunn, L. (1986). Test de Vocabulario en Imagenes Peabody. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., Spinrad, T. L., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S. A., Reiser, M., . . . Guthrie, I. K. (2001). The relations of regulation and emotionality to children’s externalizing and internalizing problem behavior. Child Development, 72, 1112–1134. doi:10.1111/1467-8624 .00337 Ferdinand, R. F., van der Ende, J., & Verhulst, F. C. (2007). Parent–teacher disagreement regarding psychopathology in children: A risk factor for adverse outcome? Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 115, 48 –55. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.2006.00843.x Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study. (2008a). A brief guide to using the mother, father, and couple weights for core telephone surveys Waves 1– 4. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing. Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study. (2008b). Introduction to the Fragile Families public use data. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing. Gerber, E. B., Whitebook, M., & Weinstein, R. S. (2007). At the heart of child care: Predictors of teacher sensitivity in center-based child care. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22, 327–346. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq .2006.12.003 Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement among teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 495–513. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2005.11.001 Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2004). Self-reported depression in nonfamilial caregivers: Prevalence and associations with caregiver behavior in child-care settings. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 297–318. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2004.04.006 Harms, T., & Clifford, R. M. (1989). Family Day Care Environmental Rating Scale. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Harms, T., Clifford, R. M., & Cryer, D. (1998). Early Childhood Environmental Scale. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408 – 420. doi:10.1080/03637750903310360 Heller, S. S., Boothe, A., Keyes, A., Nagle, G., Sidell, M., & Rice, J. (2011). Implementation of a mental health consultation model and its impact on early childhood teachers’ efficacy and competence. Infant Mental Health Journal, 32, 143–164. doi:10.1002/imhj.20289 Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/ 10705519909540118 Huaqing Qi, C., & Kaiser, A. P. (2003). Behavior problems of preschool children from low-income families: Review of the literature. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 23, 188 –216. doi:10.1177/ 02711214030230040201 Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79, 491–525. doi:10.3102/0034654308325693 Kandel, D. B., & Davies, M. (1982). Epidemiology of depressive mood in adolescents: An empirical study. Archives of General Psychiatry, 39, 1205–1212. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1982.04290100065011 Kessler, R. C., Andrews, G., Mroczek, D., Ustun, B., & Wittchen, H.-U. (1998). The World Health Organization Composite International Diagnostic Interview Short-Form (CIDI–SF). International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 7, 171–185. doi:10.1002/mpr.47 Kolko, D. J., & Kazdin, A. E. (1993). Emotional/behavioral problems in clinic and nonclinic children: Correspondence among child, parent and teacher reports. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 34, 991– 1006. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1993.tb01103.x

Ladd, G. W., Kochenderfer, B. J., & Coleman, C. C. (1996). Friendship quality as a predictor of young children’s early school adjustment. Child Development, 67, 1103–1118. doi:10.2307/1131882 Lee, K. (2010). Do early academic achievement and behavior problems predict long-term effects among Head Start children? Children and Youth Services Review, 32, 1690 –1703. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2010 .07.012 Loeb, S., Fuller, B., Kagan, S. L., & Carrol, B. (2004). Child care in poor communities: Early learning effects of type, quality, and stability. Child Development, 75, 47– 65. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00653.x Love, J. M., Harrison, L., Sagi-Schwartz, A., van Ijzendoorn, M. H., Ross, C., Ungerer, J. A., . . . Chazan-Cohen, R. (2003). Child care quality matters: How conclusions may vary with context. Child Development, 74, 1021–1033. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00584 MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. New York, NY: Erlbaum. Mistry, R. S., Benner, A. D., Biesanz, J. C., Clark, S. L., & Howes, C. (2010). Family and social risk, and parental investments during the early childhood years as predictors of low-income children’s school readiness outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25, 432– 449. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.01.002 Phillipsen, L. C., Burchinal, M. R., Howes, C., & Cryer, D. (1997). The prediction of process quality from structural features of child care. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 281–303. doi:10.1016/S08852006(97)90004-1 Pianta, R., Howes, C., Burchinal, M. R., Bryant, D., Clifford, R., Early, D., & Barbarin, O. (2005). Features of pre-kindergarten programs, classrooms, and teachers: Do they predict observed classroom quality and child-teacher interactions? Applied Developmental Science, 9, 144 –159. doi:10.1207/s1532480xads0903_2 Razza, R. A., Martin, A., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2010). Associations among family environment, sustained attention, and school readiness for lowincome children. Developmental Psychology, 46, 1528 –1542. doi: 10.1037/a0020389 Reichman, N. E., Teitler, J. O., Garfinkel, I., & McLanahan, S. S. (2001). Fragile Families: Sample and design. Children and Youth Services Review, 23, 303–326. doi:10.1016/S0190-7409(01)00141-4 Rigby, E., Ryan, R. M., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2007). Child care quality in different state policy contexts. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 26, 887–907. doi:10.1002/pam.20290 Romano, E., Kohen, D., & Findlay, L. C. (2010). Associations among child care, family, and behavior outcomes in a nation-wide sample of preschool-aged children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 34, 427– 440. doi:10.1177/0165025409351657 Rutter, M., & Pickles, A. (1991). Person– environment interactions: Concepts, mechanisms, and implications for data analysis. In T. D. Wachs & R. Plomin (Eds.), Conceptualization and measurement of organismenvironment interaction (pp. 105–141). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10100-006 Ryan, R. M., Johnson, A., Rigby, E., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2011). The impact of child care subsidy use on child care quality. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26, 320 –331. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.11.004 Shores, R. E., & Wehby, J. H. (1999). Analyzing the classroom social behavior of students with EBD. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 7, 194 –199. doi:10.1177/106342669900700401 Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290 –312. doi:10.2307/270723 Stanger, C., & Lewis, M. (1993). Agreement among parents, teachers, and children on internalizing and externalizing behavior problems. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 22, 107–115. doi:10.1207/ s15374424jccp2201_11 Stata Statistical Software (Release 12) [Computer software]. (2011). College Station, TX: StataCorp.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

TEACHER DEPRESSION AND CHILD BEHAVIORAL PROBLEMS U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). Statistical abstract of the United States: Labor force, employment, and earnings. Washington, DC: Author. Vandell, D. L., Belsky, J., Burchinal, M. R., Steinberg, L., Vandergrift, N., & NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2010). Do effects of early child care extend to age 15 years? Results from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development. Child Development, 81, 737–756. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01431.x Votruba-Drzal, E., Coley, L. R., & Chase-Lansdale, L. P. (2004). Child care and low-income children’s development: Direct and moderated effects. Child Development, 75, 296 –312. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624 .2004.00670.x Votruba-Drzal, E., Coley, R. L., Maldonado-Carreno, C., Li-Grining, C. P., & Chase-Lansdale, P. L. (2010). Child care and the development of behavior problems among economically disadvantaged children in middle childhood. Child Development, 81, 1460 –1474. doi:10.1111/j.14678624.2010.01485.x

235

Webster-Stratton, C., Reid, M. J., & Stoolmiller, M. (2008). Preventing conduct problems and improving school readiness: Evaluation of the Incredible Years teacher and child training programs in high-risk schools. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 471– 488. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01861.x Wolraich, M. L., Lambert, E. W., Bickman, L., Simmons, T., Doffing, M. A., & Worley, K. A. (2004). Assessing the impact of parent and teacher agreement on diagnosing attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 25, 41– 47. doi: 10.1097/00004703-200402000-00007

Received March 2, 2012 Revision received December 2, 2013 Accepted December 16, 2013 䡲

Additional Journal Information Copyright and Permission: Those who wish to reuse APAcopyrighted material in a non-APA publication must secure from APA written permission to reproduce a journal article in full or journal text of more than 800 cumulative words or more than 3 tables and/or figures. APA normally grants permission contingent on permission of the author, inclusion of the APA copyright notice on the first page of reproduced material, and payment of a fee of $25 per page. Libraries are permitted to photocopy beyond the limits of U.S. copyright law: (1) post-1977 articles, provided the per-copy fee in the code for this journal (0022-006X/14/$12.00) is paid through the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923; (2) pre-1978 articles, provided that the per-copy fee stated in the Publishers’ Fee List is paid through the Copyright Clearance Center. Formore information along with a permission request form go to: www.apa.org/about/contact/copyright/index.aspx Electronic access: Individuals subscribers to this journal have automatic access to all issues of the journal in the PsycARTICLES® full-text database. See http://www.apa .org/pubs/journals.ccp and click on View Table of Contents. Reprints: Authors may order reprints of their articles from the printer when they receive proofs.

Single Issues, Back Issues, and Back Volumes: For information regarding single issues, back issues, or back volumes, visit www.apa.org/pubs/journals/subscriptions.aspx or write to Order Department, American Psychological Association, 750 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242; call 202-336-5600 or 800-374-2721. Subscription Claims Information: A claim form to assist members, institutions, and nonmember individuals who have a problem with their subscription is available at http://forms.apa .org/journals/subclaim/; or call 1-800-374-2721. Change of Address: Send change of address notice and a recent mailing label to the attention of Subscriptions Department, APA, 30 days prior to the actual change of address. APA will not replace undelivered copies resulting from address changes; journals will be forwarded only if subscribers notify the local post office in writing that they will guarantee periodicals forwarding postage. APA Journal Staff: Susan J. A. Harris, Senior Director, Journals Program; John Breithaupt, Director, Journal Services; Paige W. Jackson, Director, Editorial Services; Tyler Krupa, Lead Editor; Richard Pepple, Account Manager; Jodi Ashcraft, Director, Advertising Sales and Exhibits.