Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
ACF Memorandum
MEMORANDUM
To: Alan Yaffe, ACF
From: AIR and Child Trends EDCP Team
Date: April 9, 2003
Re: Proposed Domains and Products
Purpose: During the Work Group meeting on March 20, 2003, the Work Group members prioritized a number of domains and constructs by using dots to indicate their “votes.” In addition to listing their priorities, they requested more direction from EDCP and ACF staff on priorities, products, and scope of the project. The purpose of this memorandum is for the EDCP team to suggest key domains and constructs on which to focus, and propose products to address these domains and constructs. We look forward to feedback from ACF staff on our suggested priority domains and constructs, and our proposed products.
Key Domains and Constructs: Key domains and constructs that the Work Group identified (with
number of “votes” in parentheses) include:
- Socio-emotional development (12)
- Parent child interaction (8)
- Cognitive development (8)
- Language and literacy (7)
- Characteristics of employment, skill requirements of job, income, poverty, earnings (7)
- Child care receipt (6)
- Conflict in the family (and violence...including child abuse and neglect) (5)
- Father involvement (5)
- Parent involvement in school (4)
- Stability of care (3)
- Mental health (3)
- Barriers to employment (3)
- Job skills and work experience (3)
Ideally, we would pursue all of these domains and constructs and create measurement modules for each. However, this is beyond the scope of the current contract. Therefore, we propose to begin with the following four key domains, based on the priorities identified in the March 20th meeting and on an internal discussion among EDCP staff:
1. Children’s socio-emotional development
2. Economic well-being/self sufficiency
3. Parent child interactions
4. Child care
We suggest beginning with these four domains for several reasons. First and foremost, all of these issues are critically important to ACF. Moreover, EDCP members indicated that these
four domains should have a high priority. The domains all fall within the scope of the nine evaluation projects; they are constructs identified in the conceptual models for the participating evaluations. Additionally, they match the expertise, strengths, and interests of the EDCP Work Group. Lastly, work in these four areas will not duplicate work by outside groups.
Children’s socio-emotional development
For the purposes of this project, socio-emotional development is defined as children’s social behaviors (e.g., cooperation and sharing) and their emotional status (e.g., adjustment). Socio-emotional development is an important feature of child well-being, and research suggests that it impacts a child’s success in school and later life. This domain is also important to include within the scope of this project because it is examined in eight of the nine EDCP evaluations and there is little consensus around how to measure it. That is, this is an area for which measurement guidance is both needed and welcomed.
In addition to the EDCP projects, we will draw on external surveys for measures, including:
- Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten and Birth cohorts (ECLS, K and B)
- National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, 1997 (NLSY97)
- National Survey of Adolescent Health (Add Health)
- National Household Education Surveys (NHES)
- Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), Child Supplement
- National Survey of Children’s Health, part of CDC’s State and Local Integrated Telephone Survey (SLAITS)
Economic well-being/self sufficiency
For the purposes of this project, we define this domain to include constructs such as characteristics of employment (e.g., retention, number of hours worked), income, earnings, job skills and work experience, and economic hardship. Economic well-being and self sufficiency is a construct that cuts across the nine evaluations and has a critical impact on the well-being of all family members. This domain is well aligned with the expertise, strengths, and interests of the Work Group.
In addition to the EDCP evaluations, we will draw on external large-scale surveys including:
- Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID)
- National Household Education Survey
- Current Population Survey
- National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY, 1997)
- Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP)
- National Survey of America’s Families (NSAF)
Parent child interactions
For the purposes of this project, we define this domain to include shared parent-child activities (e.g., routines), the quality of the parent-child relationship (e.g., emotional expression), and parenting styles (e.g., discipline style). Seven of the EDCP evaluation projects consider parent child interactions as an important construct to measure and examine. Appropriate measures differ by age of child, and their specific function in conceptual models may also differ depending on child age.
In addition to the nine EDCP projects, we will draw on external surveys including:
- National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, 1997
- National Survey of Adolescent Health (Add Health)
- National Household Education Survey (NHES)
- Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), Child Supplement
- Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten and Birth cohorts (ECLS, K and B)
Child care
For the purposes of this project, we define this domain to include constructs such as quality, stability, number of arrangements, hours, type, cost, and availability. Child care is a critical domain for the nine evaluations. In some of the evaluations, child care is a part of the intervention designed to have a positive impact on the child and the family (e.g., Evaluation of Child Care Subsidy Strategies). In other evaluations, child care—though not part of the intervention—is important to consider when studying child and family well-being (e.g., Rural Welfare to Work Strategies). As a cross-cutting issue, this domain is well aligned with the expertise, strengths, and interests of the Work Group.
In addition to the EDCP evaluations, we will draw on external large-scale surveys including:
- National Child Care Staffing Study
- Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten and Birth cohorts (ECLS, K and B)
- Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), Child Supplement
- Current Population Survey (CPS)
- Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP)
- National Survey of America’s Families (NSAF)
- National Household Education Survey (NHES)
Products: When we met with the Work Group, we described four different products: (1) options documents; (2) guidance documents; (3) measurement modules; and, (4) some combination of these three options. At the meeting on March 20, a comprehensive “warehouse” product was also suggested. To some extent, the choice of domain and construct influence the type of product. For example, a less well-developed domain (e.g., socio-emotional development) may require an options document or a guidance document because there is little consensus around the best way to measure this domain. On the other hand, a domain like economic well-being/self sufficiency may lend itself well to a measurement module because the measurement properties are well established.
Within the scope of the EDCP, we propose beginning with options or guidance documents for less well-developed domains. The purpose of the guidance documents would be to compile measures that ACF projects and other relevant projects have used or are planning to use; to share information on psychometric properties and data quality of the measures; to note problems, concerns, and gaps in measurement; and to evaluate the information we have compiled and make recommendations to researchers who are designing new evaluations. An options document would simply bring together examples of different measures. Our goal prior to the second Work Group meeting would be to complete the compilation of measures and the information regarding psychometrics and data quality, and ask Work Group members to review our work.5 Our goal during the second Work Group meeting would be to gather information about the problems, concerns, and gaps in measurement, as well as possible new directions for measure development.
Guidance documents in these four domains, in which we collect and evaluate the extensive work that already has taken place, would serve as a valuable resource to all researchers. Our ultimate goal would be to develop measurement modules for all of these domains, but this would require resources beyond the scope of the current contract.
Summary: The EDCP staff value the input of the Work Group and ACF in shaping the priorities and products for this project. Although we have provided our suggestions, we seek input from ACF to ensure that these proposed priority domains and products meet the government’s current needs. Once ACF has made this determination, we will revise and share the recommendations with the Work Group and begin developing products.
5 For the purposes of this project, we plan to focus on measures that are appropriate for large sample sizes. Often this will mean an emphasis on “short” measures—a priority that several Work Group members voiced at the meeting on March 20. (back)
| Table of Contents | Previous | Next |