Ecers R Score Sheet Free Download
Discover the world's research
- 20+ million members
- 135+ million publications
- 700k+ research projects
Join for free
Score Sheet p. 1
SCORE SHEET—EXPANDED VERSION
Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale–Revised
Thelma Harms, Debby Cryer, and Richard M. Clifford
Observer: ___________________________________ Observer Code: ___ ___ ___
Center/School: _______________________________ Center Code: ___ ___ ___
Room: ______________________________________ Room Code: ___ ___
Teacher(s): ___________________________________ Teacher Code: ___ ___
Number of staff present: ___ ___
Number of children enrolled in class: ___ ___
Highest number center allows in class at one time: ___ ___
Highest number of children present during observation: ___ ___
Date of Observation: __ __ / __ __ / __ __
m m d d y y
Number of children with identified disabilities: ___ ___
Check type(s) of disability: physical/sensory cognitive/language
social/emotional other:___________________
Birthdates of children enrolled: youngest __ __ / __ __ / __ __
m m d d y y
oldest __ __ / __ __ / __ __
m m d d y y
Time observation began: ___ ___ : ___ ___ AM PM
Time observation ended: ___ ___ : ___ ___ AM PM
Time interview began: ___ ___ : ___ ___ AM PM
Time interview ended: ___ ___ : ___ ___ AM PM
SPACE AND FURNISHINGS
1. Indoor space
Y N Y N NA Y N Y N
1.1 3.1 5.1 7.1
1.2 3.2 5.2 7.2
1.3 3.3 5.3 7.3
1.4 3.4
3.5
3.5, 5.3. Accessibility:
2. Furniture for routine
care and play
Y N Y N Y N NA Y N NA
1.1 3.1 5.1 7.1
1.2 3.2 5.2 7.2
1.3 3.3 5.3 7.3
3.4 5.4 7.4
5.5
5.2, 7.2. Child-sized table(s) and chairs?
Score Sheet p. 2
3. Provision for
relaxation and comfort
Y N Y N Y N Y N NA
1.1 3.1 5.1 7.1
3.2 5.2 7.2
5.3 7.3
3.1. Furnishings:
5.1. Cozy area? {y / n}
3.2, 5.3. Number of soft toys:
4. Room arrangement
Y N Y N NA Y N Y N
1.1 3.1 5.1 7.1
1.2 3.2 5.2 7.2
3.3 5.3 7.3
5.4
1.2, 3.2, 5.2. Problems with visual supervision
5. Display for children
Y N Y N Y N Y N NA
1.1 3.1 5.1 7.1
1.2 3.2 5.2 7.2
5.3 7.3
5.4 7.4
5.4. Staff talk about display? (Observe 1 example)
A. Subscale (Items 1–5) Score __ __ B. Number of items scored __ __ SPACE AND FURNISHINGS Average Score (A ÷ B) __.__ __
PERSONAL CARE ROUTINES
6. Greeting/departing
Y N Y N Y N NA Y N NA
1.1 3.1 5.1 7.1
1.2 3.2 5.2 7.2
1.3 3.3 5.3
7.3
3.4
1.1, 3.1, 3.4, 5.1, 7.2. Greetings observed (√ = yes, X = no, W = warm)
Child Parent Info. shared
1. _______ _______ _______
2. _______ _______ _______
3. _______ _______ _______
4. _______ _______ _______
5. _______ _______ _______
6. _______ _______ _______
7. _______ _______ _______
8. _______ _______ _______
Score Sheet p. 3
7. Meals/snacks
Y N NA Y N NA Y N NA Y N
1.1 3.1 5.1 7.1
1.2 3.2 5.2 7.2
1.3 3.3 5.3
1.4 3.4 5.4
1.5 3.5 5.5
1.3, 3.3, 5.3. Handwashing: ( = yes, X = no)
Children Adults
Before
eating
Before
food prep,
feeding
After
eating
After
feeding
1.3, 3.3, 5.3. Same sink used? {y / n}
Sink sanitized? {y / n}
Tables/highchair tray washed,
sanitized? {y / n}
8. Nap
Y N Y N Y N NA Y N
1.1 3.1 5.1 7.1
1.2 3.2 5.2 7.2
1.3 3.3 5.3
3.4
1.1. All cots/ mats, cribs > 36" apart or solid barrier? {y / n}
Other issues:
9. Diapering/toileting
Y N Y N Y N Y N NA
1.1 3.1 5.1 7.1
1.2 3.2 5.2 7.2
1.3 3.3 5.3 7.3
1.4 3.4 5.4
1.1, 3.1. Diapering procedure (every adult observed): ( = yes, X = no)
Prep
Proper disposal
Wipe child's hands
Wipe adult's hands
Sanitize diaper area
Same sink sanitized
Other issues:
1.1, 3.1. Same sink sanitized? {y / n}
1.3, 3.3. Handwashing
Adult
Child
10. Health practices
Y N Y N NA Y N NA Y N NA
1.1 3.1 5.1 7.1
1.2 3.2 5.2 7.2
1.3 3.3 5.3 7.3
3.4 5.4
1.1, 3.2, 5.2. Handwashing observations: ( = yes, X = no)
Child Adult
Upon arrival in class or re-entry from outside
Before water; after sand, water, messy play
After dealing with bodily fluids
After touching pets or contaminated objects
11. Safety practices
Y N Y N Y N Y N
1.1 3.1 5.1 7.1
1.2 3.2 5.2 7.2
1.3 3.3
1.1, 1.2, 3.1, 5.1. Safety hazards:
Major Minor
Indoor:
Outdoor:
A. Subscale (Items 6–11) Score __ __ B. Number of items scored __ __ PERSONAL CARE ROUTINES Average Score (A B) __.__ __
Score Sheet p. 4
LISTENING AND TALKING
12. Helping children
understand language
Y N Y N Y N Y N
1.1 3.1 5.1 7.1
1.2 3.2 5.2 7.2
1.3 3.3 5.3 7.3
3.4
5.4
3.1, 5.1. During routines:
During play:
5.4, 7.1. Examples of descriptive words used:
7.2. Examples of observed verbal play:
13. Helping children use
language
Y N Y N Y N Y N NA
1.1 3.1 5.1 7.1
1.2 3.2 5.2 7.2
5.3
7.3
7.4
7.2. Staff add words/ideas to what children say (observe 2 examples):
7.3. Staff ask simple questions (observe 2 examples):
14. Using books
Y N Y N Y N Y N NA
1.1 3.1 5.1 7.1
1.2 3.2 5.2 7.2
1.3 3.3 5.3 7.3
3.4
5.4
1.2, 3.2. Number of books in disrepair:
5.1. Any inappropriate books: {y / n}
(violent, frightening)
5.3. Staff read to individuals/small groups: {y / n}
(observed at least 1 example)
5.2. Wide selection of books
Races:
Ages:
Abilities:
Animals :
Familiar routines:
Familiar objects:
Nature science books for Item 22:
A. Subscale (Items 12–14) Score __ __ B. Number of items scored __ __ LISTENING AND TALKING Average Score (A ÷ B) __.__ __
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Score Sheet p. 5
ACTIVITIES
15. Fine motor
Y N Y N Y N Y N
1.1 3.1 5.1 7.1
1.2 3.2 5.2 7.2
3.3
1.1, 3.1, 5.1.
Materials for infants:
Materials for toddlers:
16. Active physical play
Y N Y N Y N Y N
1.1 3.1 5.1 7.1
1.2 3.2 5.2 7.2
1.3 3.3 5.3 7.3
5.4
5.5
1.1, 1.2, 3.3, 5.5.
Any equipment/materials inappropriate/unsafe?
Appropriate indoor/outdoor space:
17. Art
Y N Y N NA Y N NA Y N
1.1 3.1 5.1 7.1
1.2 3.2 5.2 7.2
3.3 5.3
1.2. Toxic/unsafe art materials used? {y / n}
3.2. Appropriate/safe/nontoxic art materials used
18. Music and movement
Y N Y N Y N Y N
1.1 3.1 5.1 7.1
1.2 3.2 5.2 7.2
3.3
5.3 7.3
5.4
3.1, 5.1. List number of musical toys/instruments:
5.2. Informal singing observed? {y / n}
19. Blocks
Y N Y N Y N Y N
1.1 3.1 5.1 7.1
3.2
5.2 7.2
3.3
5.3 7.3
3.1, 5.1, 7.1. Sets of blocks:
1)
2)
3)
3.2, 7.2. Accessories:
Score Sheet p. 6
5.1 Dramatic play materials:
20. Dramatic play
Y N Y N Y N NA Y N NA
1.1 3.1 5.1 7.1
3.2 5.2 7.2
5.3
7.3
5.4
Infants and toddlers:
Dolls—
Soft animals—
Toy telephones—
Pots & pans—
Toddlers only :
Dress-ups—
Child-sized play furniture—
Play foods—
Dishes/eating utensils—
Doll furniture—
Small play buildings & accessories—
21. Sand and water play
Y N Y N Y N Y N
1.1 3.1 5.1 7.1
3.2 5.2 7.2
3.3 5.3
22. Nature/science
Y N Y N Y N Y N
1.1 3.1 5.1 7.1
1.2 3.2 5.2 7.2
3.3 5.3
5.3. Example of science/nature observed in daily events:
23. Use of TV, video,
and/or computer
Y N NA Y N Y N Y N
1.1 3.1 5.1 7.1
1.2 3.2 5.2 7.2
1.3 3.3 5.3
5.1. Diversity in materials (10 examples, all types of categories):
Books Pictures Materials
Races/
Cultures
Ages
Abilities
Gender
24. Promoting acceptance
of diversity
Y N Y N Y N Y N
1.1 3.1 5.1 7.1
1.2 3.2 5.2 7.2
1.3 3.3
5.2. Dolls (3 different skin tones/facial features):
7.1. Non-sexist images:
7.2. Variety of activities:
A. Subscale (Items 15–24) Score __ __ B. Number of items scored __ __ ACTIVITIES Average Score (A B) __.__ __
Score Sheet p. 7
INTERACTION
25. Supervision of play
and learning
Y N Y N Y N Y N
1.1 3.1 5.1 7.1
3.2 5.2 7.2
5.3 7.3
5.4
26. Peer interaction
Y N Y N Y N Y N
1.1 3.1 5.1 7.1
1.2 3.2 5.2 7.2
7.1. Staff explain actions/intensions/feelings (observe 2 examples):
7.2. Positive social interaction talked about (observe 1 example):
27. Staff-child interaction
Y N Y N Y N Y N
1.1 3.1 5.1 7.1
1.2 3.2 5.2 7.2
1.3 3.3 5.3
3.4
28. Discipline
Y N Y N Y N Y N
1.1 3.1 5.1 7.1
1.2 3.2 5.2 7.2
3.3 5.3 7.3
5.4
A. Subscale (Items 25–28) Score __ __ B. Number of items scored __ __ INTERACTION Average Score (A B) __.__ __
Score Sheet p. 8
PROGRAM STRUCTURE
29. Schedule
Y N Y N Y N Y N
1.1 3.1 5.1 7.1
1.2 3.2 5.2 7.2
1.3 5.3
5.4
5.4. Example of more than 3-minute wait, or obvious distress while waiting:
30. Free play
Y N Y N Y N Y N
1.1 3.1 5.1 7.1
1.2 3.2 5.2 7.2
3.3 5.3
7.1. Supervision as educational interaction (observe 2 examples):
31. Group play activities
Y N Y N Y N Y N
1.1 3.1 5.1 7.1
1.2 3.2 5.2 7.2
1.3 3.3 5.3
32. Provisions for children
with disabilities
Y N Y N Y N Y N
1.1 3.1 5.1 7.1
1.2 3.2 5.2 7.2
1.3 3.3 5.3 7.3
1.4 3.4
A. Subscale (Items 29–32) Score __ __ B. Number of items scored __ __ PROGRAM STRUCTURE Average Score (A B) __.__ __
Score Sheet p. 9
2
PARENTS AND STAFF
33. Provisions for
parents
Y N Y N Y N Y N
1.1 3.1 5.1 7.1
1.2 3.2 5.2 7.2
3.3 5.3 7.3
3.4 5.4
34. Provisions for
personal needs of staff
Y N Y N NA Y N Y N
1.1 3.1 5.1 7.1
1.2 3.2 5.2 7.2
3.3 5.3 7.3
3.4 5.4
3.5 5.5
35. Provisions for
professional needs
of staff
Y N Y N Y N Y N
1.1 3.1 5.1 7.1
1.2 3.2 5.2 7.2
1.3 3.3 5.3
36. Staff interaction and
cooperation
Y N Y N Y N Y N
1.1 3.1 5.1 7.1
1.2 3.2 5.2 7.2
1.3 3.3 5.3 7.3
37. Staff continuity
Y N Y N Y N Y N
1.1 3.1 5.1 7.1
1.2 3.2 5.2 7.2
1.3 3.3 5.3 7.3
1.4 3.4 5.4
Score Sheet p. 10
38. Supervision and
evaluation of staff
Y N Y N Y N Y N
1.1 3.1 5.1 7.1
1.2 3.2 5.2 7.2
5.3 7.3
5.4
39. Opportunities for
professional growth
Y N Y N Y N Y N NA
1.1 3.1 5.1 7.1
1.2 3.2 5.2 7.2
3.3 5.3 7.3
5.4
A. Subscale (Items 33–39) Score __ __ B. Number of items scored __ __ PARENTS AND STAFF Average Score (A B) __.__ __
Total and Average Score
Subscale/Total Score # of Items Scored Average Score
Space and Furnishings __________ ÷ __________ = __________
Personal Care Routines __________ ÷ __________ = __________
Listening and Talking __________ ÷ __________ = __________
Activities __________ ÷ __________ = __________
Interaction __________ ÷ __________ = __________
Program Structure __________ ÷ __________ = __________
Parents and Staff __________ ÷ __________ = __________
TOTAL __________ ÷ __________ = __________
ITERS–R Profile
Center/School:___________________________ Observation 1: __ __ / __ __ / __ __ Observer: ______________________
m m d d y y
Teacher(s)/Classroom:_____________________ Observation 2: __ __ / __ __ / __ __ Observer: ______________________
m m d d y y
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Indoor space
2. Fu rniture for routine care and play
3. Provision for relaxation and comfort
4. Room arrangement
5. Dis play for children
6. Greeting/departing
7. Meals/snacks
8. Nap
9. Diapering/toileting
10. Health practices
11. Safety practices
12. Helping children understand language
13. Helping children use language
14. Using books
15. Fine motor
16. Active physical play
17. Art
18. Music and movement
19. Blocks
20. Dramatic play
21. Sand and water play
22. Nature/science
23. Use of TV, video, and/or computers
24. Promoting acceptance of diversity
25. Supervision of play and learning
26. Peer interaction
27. Staff
child interaction
28. Discipline
29. Schedule
30. Free play
31. Group play activities
32. Provisions for children with disabilities
33. Provisions for parents
34. Provisions for personal needs of staff
35. Provisions for professional needs of staff
36. Staff interaction and cooperation
37. Staff continuity
38. Supe rvision and evaluation of staff
39. Oppo rtunities for professional growth
SPACE AND FURNISHING
PERSONAL CARE ROUTINES
LISTENING AND TALKING
CTIVITIES
INTERACTION
PROGRAM STRUCTURE
PARENTS AND STAFF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I. Space and Furnishings
(1–5)
Obs. 1 Obs. 2
average subscale
score
Average Subscale Scores
II. Personal Care Routines
(6–11)
III. Listening and Talking
(12–14)
IV. Activities
(15–24)
V. Interaction
(25–28)
VI. Program Structure
(29–32)
VII. Parents and Staff
(33–39)
... Four additional investigations analyzed the large-scale, nationally representative ECLS-B or ECLS-K datasets to compare children's outcomes after participation in child care as an infant or toddler, and due to the measures used in three of these studies, also suggest the potential contributions of quality. Ruzek et al. (2014) analyzed ECLS-B data to examine the relationship between observed child care quality as measured by the ITERS (Harms et al., 1990) and Family Day Care Rating Scale (FDCRS; Harms & Clifford, 1989) and children's (n=8,900) cognitive skills at 24 months of age. These researchers found that the cognitive scores of 2-year-olds attending medium (mean score of 3.0-4.9) ...
... Sixty-seven percent of the children were in families with incomes below the poverty line. The quality of the sample's centers was poor to mediocre in that the average ITERS (Harms et al., 1990) score was a 3 out of 7. In addition, caregivers were responsible for 4.5 infants on average and the group sizes ranged from 3 to 16. The majority of caregivers had a high school diploma as their highest level of education. ...
... The second Otitis Media Project study focused on the association between classroom quality and children's cognitive and language development at 12-, 24-, and 36-months-old in a sample of 89 low-income African American children enrolled in 27 child care centers. Given the expanded age range, classroom quality was assessed using the ITERS (Harms et al., 1990) and ECERS (Harms & Clifford, 1980). The average ITERS scores were 3.1 in infant classrooms, 3.4 in toddler classrooms, and 3.1 in 2-year-old classrooms. ...
... Compared to middle-SES families, low-SES families are characterized by a lack of resources, low parental education, economic difficulties, and higher rates of parental depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and poor parenting practices (Okur, 2015), similar to the family characteristics of institutionalized children. Therefore, in the present study, to describe the environmental characteristics of low-SES homes, the Home Environment Quality questionnaire (HEQ: Miser & Hupp, 2012) will be used, while the Infant-Toddler Environmental Rating Scale-Revised (ITERS-R: Harms et al., 2003) will be used for the institutions. ...
... Environment quality of the low-SES family homes was measured with the HEQ (Miser & Hupp, 2012), while the ITERS-R (Harms et al., 2003) was used for the institutions. ...
Institutional care has been shown to increase the risk of attention problems in children, but some children are more sensitive to their environment, both for better and for worse. With this in mind, the current study examined the moderating role of temperament (falling reactivity) between early adversity and attention skills. Six- to 15-month-old infants residing in institutions (n = 63) and infants reared by their biological families from low socioeconomic environments (n = 59) were recruited. The infants' attention skills were measured by calculating the length of time they spent looking at toys. The infants' temperaments were measured by a subscale of the Infant Behavior Questionnaire (falling reactivity/rate of recovery from distress). The findings were in line with the differential susceptibility theory. Compared to infants with high levels of falling reactivity, infants with lower levels of falling reactivity had better attention skills if they were in a family group, but they had lower attention skills if they were residing in institutions. The attention skills of the infants who had higher scores for falling reactivity did not appear to be affected by the adverse environment.
... A positive work environment includes policies that support early childhood teachers' ability to provide instruction effectively and sustain their relationships with co-workers, children, and families (Whitebook et al., 2018). Whereas the field of early childhood has wellestablished criteria for what constitutes high-quality environments for children through measures such as the Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale -Revised (ITERS-R) (Harms et al., 2003) and the Early Childhood Rating Scale -Revised (ECRS -Revised (ECRS-R) (Harms et al., 2006), it has less defined and explicit standards for work environments and supports for teachers across program types. Thus, program type is a crucial aspect to measure and analyze to better understand its relationship with noncontact time. ...
-
![Erin Hamel]()
Early childhood teachers have been the subject of many studies. Their qualifications, practices, and interactions with children have been widely researched as avenues for improving early childhood education. Yet little is known about the work supports early childhood teachers need to be successful. Non-contact time is one element of a supportive work environment that supports teachers' ability to address their professional expectations. However, information and guidance on non-contact time is lacking or absent from the literature. This study addresses this gap by exploring non-contact time from the perspectives of directors and teachers. An embedded mixed methods design was used to investigate non-contact time in high-quality early childhood programs. This study had three aims. First, to identify the term or phrase directors and teachers use to refer to non-contact time. Second, to identify the amount of non-contact time teachers' have and describe how they use it. And third, to identify the factors that directors consider when allotting non-contact time to teachers. A total of 210 participants (104 directors and 106 teachers) completed an online survey. Directors and teachers identified "planning time" as the most common way to refer to non-contact time in their programs. Results indicated that directors' expectations for and teachers' use of non-contact time included many activities outside of planning. The amounts of time teachers were allotted and received varied widely, although one thing was consistent, most directors and teachers acknowledged that teachers rarely have enough non-contact time. Teachers reported addressing this lack of time with strategies that have the potential to impact job satisfaction and the quality of the classroom experience. Even though directors recognized that teachers needed more time, programmatic considerations were the most influential when making non-contact time decisions. This research provides a description of non-contact time in early childhood education that can be used to inform policies and practices to support a profession that has been historically underpaid and underappreciated. Implications of these findings are discussed along with directions for future research. Advisor: Rachel E. Schachter
... Research on the provided learning environment in ECEC seems to be done to a limited extent in the Norwegian context (see also Evertsen et al., 2015), especially related to children's everyday experiences and the mathematical learning environment in Norwegian ECEC centres. (Harms et al., 2006;Harms et al., 2005). The BePro study also investigated the relationships between the quality of the learning environment and children's well-being and development (Bjørnestad et al., 2013). ...
In an international comparative study, the performance expectations in early mathematics in the field of "shapes and space" of qualified early childhood educators and students in Austria, German-speaking Switzerland, China (Shanghai), Vietnam (Hanoi) and the USA (Denver, CO) are examined using the example of construction games. The performance expectations of approximately a third of the qualified early childhood educators and students correspond to the current state of science. In other words, more than two thirds of qualified early childhood educators have performance expectations that are in some cases too low and in others too high. The performance expectations are not more appropriate on average due to the training. However, the assessments tend to be more appropriate for kindergarten children than for toddlers.
... The Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale-Revised Edition (ITERS-R; Harms et al., 2003) is part of the Environment Rating Scales family. ITERS-R provides a total score of process quality in classrooms serving children under 30 months. ...
Research Findings: Driven by the universal two-child policy, the childcare services in China have stepped into a new era after 3-decade of neglect. This national study investigated the accessibility, quality, and administration of childcare services for children under age 3, by establishing a triangulation of survey, interview, and classroom observation. Altogether 28,582 parents and 2,340 teachers were surveyed, 114 classrooms were observed, and 107 service managers were interviewed. The results indicated both signs of progress and problems under the universal two-child policy. The major findings include: (1) although in high demand, childcare services are still scarce; (2) the structure quality and process quality are not high; and (3) a scientific administration should be established to regulate the services, which also need to be standardized. Practice or Policy: The findings contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of Chinese childcare services and provide implications for policymaking and practical improvement.
... The prioritisation of risk management is also reflected in measures of 'quality' in relation to outdoor provision for babies and toddlers in ECEC. The Infant and Toddler Environmental Rating Scale -Revised (ITERS-R) is one of the most commonly employed and was developed as a way of assessing the quality of setting provision based on a suite of indicators relating to the physical, mental and emotional needs of infants and toddlers (Harms, Cryer, and Clifford 2006). The indicator for quality in outdoor provision is 'an easily accessible outdoor area where infants/toddlers are separated from older children'. ...
-
![Nicola Kemp]()
- Jo Josephidou
This paper reports the findings of a narrative review of international research literature about babies' and toddlers' engagement with the outdoor environment whilst attending ECEC (Early Childhood Education and Care) settings. Based on the in-depth review of 21 papers, it identifies four dominant themes in the literature: the outdoors as a space to be physically active, the outdoors as a risky space, the challenge of creating an appropriate outdoor environment and the significance of the practitioner outdoors. The article argues that there is a need to re-conceive the ways in which the youngest children engage with the outdoors and to move beyond possible narratives of exclusion.
... n Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale-Revised (ITERS-R) and Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Revised (ECERS-R) The ITERS-R (Harms, Cryer, and Clifford 2006) is designed for use in settings with children up to 30 months of age, and the ECERS-R (Sylva et al. 2006) is suitable for children 30-60 months of age. The ITERS-R includes 39 items that assess quality across seven dimensions: space and furnishings, personal care routines, listening and talking, activities, interaction, program structure, and parents and staff. ...
... The three centers were also assessed with ITERS-R ((ITERS-R (Infant-Toddler Environment Rating Scale-Revised edition). ITERS-R is a standardized assessment tool, applied in varied cultural contexts [58,59], and a well-established measurement for ECEC-quality [60]. The study showed that, out of the three, the one center that ranked highest on the standardized measurement (one of the ordinary centers) also provided the most, and the most varied, opportunities for risky play for 1-to 3-year olds. ...
Children spend a large amount of time each day in early childhood education and care (ECEC) institutions, and the ECEC play environments are important for children's play opportunities. This includes children's opportunities to engage in risky play. This study examined the rela-tionship between the outdoor play environment and the occurrence of children's risky play in ECEC institutions. Children (N = 80) were observed in two-minute sequences during periods of the day when they were free to choose what to do. The data consists of 935 randomly recorded two-minute videos, which were coded second by second for several categories of risky play as well as where and with what materials the play occurred. Results revealed that risky play (all categories in total) was positively associated with fixed equipment for functional play, nature and other fixed structures, while analysis of play materials showed that risky play was positive-ly associated with wheeled toys. The results can support practitioners in developing their out-door areas to provide varied and exciting play opportunities.
The findings of this empirical research provide new information about the importance of caregiver interactions during care routines, specifically diaper changing, in supporting infant and toddler involvement and well‐being. This correlational study involved observations of 144 separate diapering cycles by 31 caregivers with 74 infants and toddlers in 30 infant and toddler classrooms in a U.S. Midwest city. Based on these observations, caregiver responsiveness was found to be significantly related to both child involvement and child well‐being. Another feature of caregivers' behavior, caregiver encouragement, was significantly associated with child well‐being, but not child involvement. The study results suggest that caregivers' behaviors, specifically responsiveness and encouragement, during diapering are vital proximal processes in the moment‐to‐moment interactions between a caregiver and child. Thus, responsiveness and encouragement in care routines should be emphasized in infant care settings and be a focus for caregiver professional development, including pre‐ and in‐service training. Although training related to diapering is often restricted to health concerns, the findings suggest that specific caregiver–child interactions during this care routine may support or hinder children's well‐being and involvement in the moment. Caregiver responsiveness to children's cues in this context may enhance children's opportunities to practice involvement in bidirectional relationships and support children's well‐being.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.
Posted by: janenebeatty.blogspot.com
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238682910_SCORE_SHEET_InfantToddler_Environment_Rating_Scale-Revised_Edition