Associations among family environment, sustained attention, and school readiness for low-income...

Associations Among Family Environment, Sustained Attention,and School Readiness for Low-Income Children

Rachel A. Razza,Department of Child and Family Studies, Syracuse University

Anne Martin, andNational Center for Children and Families, Teachers College, Columbia University

Jeanne Brooks-GunnNational Center for Children and Families, Teachers College and the College of Physicians andSurgeons, Columbia University

AbstractIn this study, we examined the developmental pathways from children’s family environment toschool readiness within a low-income sample (N = 1,046), with a specific focus on the role ofsustained attention. Six distinct factors of the family environment representing maternal parentingbehaviors, the physical home environment, and maternal mental health at 3 years of age wereexplored as independent predictors of children’s observed sustained attention as well as cognitiveand behavioral outcomes at 5 years of age. Children were grouped by poverty status (poor vs.near-poor). Results suggest specificity in the associations among attention (focused attention andlack of impulsivity) and its correlates, with different patterns emerging by poverty status group.Overall, the family environment was largely unrelated to children’s sustained attention. For bothgroups, focused attention was associated with receptive vocabulary; however, it partially mediatedthe association between maternal lack of hostility and receptive vocabulary only among the near-poor. In addition, lack of impulsivity was associated with both receptive vocabulary andexternalizing behaviors but only for the poor group. Findings indicate sustained attention as apotential target for efforts aimed at enhancing school readiness among predominantly poorchildren.

Keywordssustained attention; family environment; school readiness; low-income children

Attention generally refers to a complex set of physiological and behavioral responses thatare driven by stimuli in the environment or consciously controlled by the individual (Rueda,Posner, & Rothbart, 2005). One aspect of attention that has received increased interest inrecent years is sustained attention. Sustained attention (Eisenberg et al., 2004; Ruff, 1986)describes a fundamental component of attention characterized by the ability to directcognitive resources to a stimulus and to process information associated with the stimulus(Ruff & Rothbart, 1996; Sarter, Givens, & Bruno, 2001). Specifically, sustained attention

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Rachel A. Razza, 426 Ostrom Avenue, Syracuse, NY [email protected] findings, on which this article is based, were first presented at the Society for Research on Child Development Conference,Denver, Colorado, April 2009.This article was published Online First August 2, 2010.

NIH Public AccessAuthor ManuscriptDev Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 March 8.

Published in final edited form as:Dev Psychol. 2010 November ; 46(6): 1528–1542. doi:10.1037/a0020389.

NIH

-PA Author Manuscript

NIH


NIH


allows children to intentionally focus attention on a particular target in the environment andto avoid distraction over time (Derryberry & Rothbart, 1997).

During the first year of life, sustained attention is supported by an orientating/investigativesystem, which allows infants to orient to and explore objects in the environment. Thevoluntary control of attention emerges toward the end of a child’s first year of life andcontinues to develop across the early childhood years. This development is the result of thematuration of a higher level attention system whose processes are largely dependent on thesocial context (Ruff & Rothbart, 1996). Extant literature suggests that an importantinfluence on the development of sustained attention is the family environment (Dilworth-Bart, Khurshid, & Vandell, 2007; Groot, de Sonneville, Stins, & Boomsa, 2004; NationalInstitute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHD] Early Child Care ResearchNetwork[ECCRN], 2003; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development[NICHD] Early Child Care Research Network [ECCRN], 2005). Collectively, the abovestudies support associations between a variety of maternal and home environmentcharacteristics and individual differences in children’s sustained attention across earlychildhood. These findings have important implications for children’s school readiness, asthere is accumulating research to suggest that sustained attention is associated with bothcognitive and behavioral outcomes and may be a key mechanism underlying the associationbetween family environment and children’s school readiness (Belsky, Fearon, & Bell, 2007;Miech, Essex, & Goldsmith, 2001; NICHD ECCRN, 2003).

In the present study, we address two limitations of the extant research on familyenvironments, sustained attention, and school readiness. First, previous studies of the familyenvironment and early attention have focused on one aspect of the family environment at atime or have used a composite measure of the family environment, thus masking thecontribution of individual factors to children’s sustained attention. Thus, little is knownabout which specific aspects of the family environment influence sustained attention. Thisquestion is pressing in low-income populations, which typically score lower on measures ofthe family environment than middle- or high-income populations (Bradley, Corwyn,McAdoo, & García Coll, 2001; Hart & Risley, 1995; Lareau, 2000).

A second limitation of the existing research on children’s family environment, sustainedattention, and school readiness is that the majority of studies have been conducted with asingle data set— the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (SECCYD;Belsky et al., 2007; Dilworth-Bart et al., 2007; NICHD ECCRN, 2003, 2005). The sample inthat data set represents a range of income levels. Of interest is whether the associationsfound in that sample among family environment, sustained attention, and school readinessgeneralize to children from exclusively low-income backgrounds. Limited research in thisarea shows that low-income children score lower than their peers on sustained attention(Dilworth-Bart et al., 2007; Miech et al., 2001). There is already ample evidence that low-income children enter school with fewer cognitive and behavior skills than other children(Denton & West, 2002). An as yet unstudied question is whether or to what degree low-income children’s poorer sustained attention explains their lower school readiness.Identifying the factors that promote low-income children’s school readiness, and the specificpathways through which they operate, should be a high priority for developmentalists andeducators. Compared with other children, children from low-income families are atincreased risk for school failure (Klebanov, Brooks-Gunn, McCarton, & McCormick, 1998;McLoyd, 1998) and behavior problems (Lengua, 2002; NICHD ECCRN, 2004).

Razza et al.

Dev Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 March 8.

NIH


NIH


NIH


The Association Between Family Environment and Sustained AttentionThe family environment plays a critical role in the development of sustained attentionaccording to Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model of human development, which viewslives in context and considers person– environment interactions to be key to understandingdevelopment (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Specifically,voluntary aspects of attention, including sustained attention, are thought to emerge in thesocial context of the early family environment and are believed to be shaped by thecontinuing interaction between the child and his/her environment. For example, parents playan important role in the development of children’s early attentional skills by sharing in theirexploration and/or by exerting verbal control over attention and action (for review, see Ruff& Rothbart, 1996).

Research on associations between family context and sustained attention has focused almostexclusively on aspects of the mother– child relationship, such as parenting style andattachment status. For example, maternal responsiveness is consistently associated withhigher levels of both concurrent and later attention (Belsky et al., 2007; Bornstein & Tamis-LeMonda, 1989; Findji, 1993). Maternal stimulation is associated with focused attentionduring play even in the first year of life (Belsky, Goode, & Most, 1980; Findji, 1993;Lawson, Parrinello, & Ruff, 1992). In contrast, negative aspects of the mother– childrelationship, such as intrusiveness and insecure child–mother attachment, have been linkedto poorer attention outcomes (Fearon & Belsky, 2004; Hubbs-Tait, Culp, Culp, & Miller,2002). Thus, it appears that supportive parenting helps children sustain attention duringactivities and gradually assume responsibility for their cognitive monitoring, whereasunsupportive parenting limits children’s practice with attention regulation (Jacobvitz &Sroufe, 1987; Smith, Landry, Miller-Loncar, & Swank, 1997). Collectively, these studiesdemonstrate the responsiveness of attention to early socialization practices and highlight theimportance of early mother– child interaction as a key context for the development ofchildren’s attentional processes.

The effects of family environmental factors aside from mother– child interaction, such asstimulating learning materials, family routines, and maternal mental health, are well-documented with respect to young children’s academic and behavioral status (for review,see Bradley & Corwyn, 2006). The influence of these aspects of the broader family contexton children’s attention has received less consideration. The few studies that do exist,however, suggest that family processes beyond the mother– child relationship haveimplications for sustained attention. For example, maternal depression has been negativelyassociated with sustained attention in early childhood (Breznitz & Friedman, 1988).Maternal stress has also been linked to attention problems, although in middle-childhood(Barry, Dunlap, Cotten, Lochman, & Wells, 2005). Moreover, the quality of the homeenvironment, as indexed by the Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment(HOME; Caldwell & Bradley, 1984), was positively associated with children’s sustainedattention (Dilworth-Bart et al., 2007). One study found that kindergarteners who came fromnoisier homes scored lower on attention skills (Heft, 1979).

Although the above-cited studies contribute to our understanding of how the familyenvironment influences children’s sustained attention, they are limited in that they eitherfocus exclusively on one factor or they examine a multifaceted composite withoutdisentangling its components. Thus, in the present study we examine six distinct factors inthe family environment (maternal warmth, maternal lack of hostility, maternal stimulation,the physical environment of the home, maternal depression, and maternal parenting stress),individually and simultaneously to assess their relative explanatory power. These results

Razza et al.


NIH


NIH


NIH


should inform prevention and intervention efforts because different family processes suggestdifferent courses of action.

For example, we include measures of both maternal stimulation and the physicalenvironment. The former captures the presence of toys and other stimulating objects,whereas the latter captures qualities of the home conducive to learning, such as quiet andlack of crowding. Given the importance of parental stimulation for early attention skills(Belsky et al., 1980; Findji, 1993; Lawson et al., 1992), the availability of stimulatingobjects may have special value separate and apart from a home environment that supportslearning more generally. We also include measures of maternal mental health in addition tomeasures of parenting. Given the link between maternal mental health and parentingbehaviors (Pett, Vaughan-Cole, & Wampold, 1994; Webster-Stratton & Hammond, 1988),maternal parenting stress and depression may fail to influence attention once maternalwarmth, lack of hostility, and stimulation are controlled. Indeed, after accounting formothers’ depression levels, parenting stress may not have an independent association withsustained attention. The present study is the first to test these mechanisms simultaneously. Itis difficult to formulate hypotheses because of the lack of previous research in this area.However, the literature documenting that maternal mental health influences parentingbehaviors suggests that depression and parenting stress may not be associated with attentionin a model adjusting for parenting behaviors.

The Association Between Sustained Attention and School ReadinessAttentional processes are thought to be fundamental to controlled cognitive activities andsocial behavior (Calkins & Fox, 2002; Eisenberg et al., 2005; Lawson & Ruff, 2004).Sustained attention, in particular, is thought to underlie goal formation and planning (Ruff &Rothbart, 1996) and cognitive competence in general (Sarter et al., 2001). A growing bodyof evidence supports these claims, as sustained attention has been associated with bothcognitive performance (Carter & Swanson, 1995; Choudhury & Gorman, 2000) andbehavioral regulation (Eisenberg et al., 2005; NICHD ECCRN, 2003) across earlychildhood. Furthermore, deficits in sustained attention have been linked with disorders, suchas attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (Barkley, 1997; Rothbart, Posner, & Hershey,1995), and are believed to be closely associated with executive function skills that underlieplanning and goal-directed behavior, such as working memory (Levy & Hobbes, 1989;Silver & Feldman, 2005) and inhibitory control (Shoda, Mischel, & Peake, 1990). Recentresearch suggests that children acquire self-regulatory skills in the first five years of lifesequentially, such that attentional control in toddlerhood enables behavioral and inhibitorycontrol in preschool (Feldman, 2009). Thus, it is not surprising that difficulties in sustainedattention are associated with both concurrent levels of school adjustment and decreases inschool adjustment over time (Davies, Woitach, Winter, & Cummings, 2008).

In addition to its direct implications for children’s school readiness, sustained attention mayalso mediate the established association between the family environment and schoolreadiness (e.g., Bornstein & Tamis-LeMonda, 1989; Caldwell & Bradley, 1984; Shonkoff &Phillips, 2000). In the NICHD SECCYD, it was found that children’s attentional processesat 54 months partially mediated associations between the quality of their family environmentfrom 6 to 54 months of age and multiple school readiness outcomes at 54 months and firstgrade, including achievement and behavior (NICHD ECCRN, 2003). Using the same dataset, Belsky et al. (2007) reported that attentional control in first grade partially mediatedboth the effect of maternal sensitivity at 54 months on externalizing behavior in third gradeand the effect of maternal sensitivity in first grade on externalizing behavior in fifth grade.

Razza et al.


NIH


NIH


NIH


If sustained attention is a key mechanism underlying the link between children’s early homeenvironment and their school readiness, it may serve as an additional target for preventionand intervention programs remediating poor cognitive performance and problem behavior inearly childhood. However, the current literature leaves unanswered questions regarding thegeneralizability of these pathways to low-income children and across specific domains ofschool readiness. First, past research demonstrating that sustained attention partiallymediates the association between the family environment and school readiness has beenconducted exclusively with the NICHD SECCYD, a mixed-income sample.

Second, a close reading of the literature suggests that one facet of attention may beassociated with both cognitive and behavioral school readiness, whereas another facet maybe associated with cognitive school readiness alone. This distinction hinges on past studies’measures of sustained attention. NICHD ECCRN (2003) distinguished between errors ofcommission and omission on the continuous performance task (Rosvold, Mirsky, Sarason,Bransome, & Beck, 1956), in which children must quickly press a button when a target (butnot a nontarget) stimulus appears onscreen. Errors of commission (pressing the button for anontarget stimulus) assess impulsivity, whereas errors of omission (failing to press thebutton for a target stimulus) assess focused attention. Notably, errors of omission (focusedattention) were associated with both cognitive and behavioral competence at 54 months,whereas errors of commission (impulsivity) were associated with only behavioralcompetence.

Further, when Belsky et al. (2007) reported that attention mediated the association betweenmaternal sensitivity and externalizing behavior, their measure of attention relied exclusivelyon errors of commission (impulsivity). Thus, it is likely that impulsivity may be morestrongly or even solely linked to behavioral school readiness, whereas focused attention maybe linked to both cognitive and behavioral school readiness. Although the above results wereobtained with a mixed-income sample, they find support from a recent study of a Head Startpopulation in which sustained attention, measured by the Leiter International PerformanceScale—Revised (Roid & Miller, 1997) as in the present study, covaried with cognition butnot behavior (Rhoades, Greenberg, & Domitrovich, 2009). Therefore, we expect that in thepresent low-income sample, focused attention will mediate associations between the familyenvironment and both cognitive and behavioral school readiness, whereas lack ofimpulsivity will mediate associations between the family environment and behavioral schoolreadiness.

The Current StudyThe main objective of this study was to increase our understanding of sustained attentionand its correlates across early childhood among low-income children. Children from low-income families enter school with poorer academic skills than other children (Denton &West, 2002) and are more likely to develop cognitive and behavior problems over the gradeschool years (Lengua, 2002; McLoyd, 1998; NICHD ECCRN, 2004; Schmitz, 2003). Inlight of past research indicating that sustained attention may be a key ingredient of schoolreadiness, it is imperative that we identify its predictors and understand its implications forcognitive and behavioral competence. The first aim of this study was to examine thelongitudinal association between the family environment and children’s sustained attention.Of interest is whether attention is differentially influenced by maternal warmth, lack ofhostility, maternal stimulation, the physical environment of the home, maternal depression,and maternal parenting stress. All of these factors have been individually linked to youngchildren’s attention but not in comprehensive models that adjust for the other factors.

Razza et al.


NIH


NIH


NIH


The second aim of the study was to examine the concurrent link between two facets ofsustained attention—focused attention and lack of impulsivity—and both cognitive andbehavioral school readiness, with interest in the possibility of differential associations acrossdomains of competence. Although there are multiple components of school readiness(Kagan, Moore, & Bredekamp, 1995), we focus on cognition and behavior because they areassociated with both family environment and attention, and because their status at schoolentry strongly predicts school success and antisocial behavior later in life (Ensminger &Slusarick, 1992; Feinstein & Bynner, 2004; Moffitt, Caspi, Rutter, & Silva, 2001). Inparticular, we assess receptive vocabulary because it serves as a proxy for general cognitiveability, which is associated with focused attention (Choudhury & Gorman, 2000), one of ourtwo facets of attention. Likewise, we examine externalizing behavior (rather thaninternalizing or prosocial behavior) because it requires the restraint of impulsivity, the othercomponent of attention in this study. The third study aim was to explore the associationsamong the family environment, sustained attention, and school readiness within a singlemodel, with a specific interest in the potential for sustained attention to mediate linksbetween the family environment and school readiness.

Finally, the fourth aim of the study was to compare the results for the previous study aimsacross poor and near-poor subgroups within a low-income sample. Previous research hasdemonstrated nonlinear associations between income and the physical and psychosocialquality of the home environment as well as children’s school readiness (Dearing,McCartney, & Taylor, 2001; Dearing & Taylor, 2007; Votruba-Drzal, 2003). That is, thesame increment in income results in a steeper improvement in the home environment orpositive child outcome in lower income families than in higher income families. Otherdevelopmental processes may vary between children who live below the poverty line andtheir more advantaged peers either because poor children are more responsive to stimuli orbecause their developmental timetable lags behind other children’s. In the present study, wedistinguish between two subgroups within a low-income sample: the poor (below thepoverty line) and the near-poor (above the poverty line but with an income-to-needs ratio ofless than 3). Given the urgent need for educational and behavioral interventions with low-income children, it is worthwhile to document whether there are differences in associationsamong the family environment, sustained attention, and school readiness across the povertyline divide.

MethodParticipants

The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study follows a birth cohort of approximately4,900 children in 20 cities across the United States. By design, children born to unmarriedparents were oversampled (n = 3,712 vs. n = 1,186 children born to married parents). Thecities were selected to be representative of all U.S. cities with populations of 200,000 ormore (for further information on sample selection, see Reichman, Teitler, Garfinkel, &McLanahan, 2001). Hospitals were sampled within cities, and births were sampled withinhospitals. Mothers were first interviewed in the hospital within 48 hr of giving birth, andfathers were interviewed as soon as possible thereafter. As part of the core study, bothmothers and fathers were interviewed by phone when the child was 1, 3, and 5 years of age.

We draw on data from a substudy of the core called the In-Home Longitudinal Study ofPreschool Aged Children. At the phone surveys taken at 3 and 5 years of age, mothers wereinvited to take part in an in-home data collection substudy. Mothers who agreed toparticipate (79% at 3 years of age and 91% at 5 years of age) were visited by data collectorsin their homes. During the home visit at both time points, mothers were interviewed, thehome environment was observed, and children were directly assessed. Families who had

Razza et al.


NIH


NIH


NIH


moved out of the area were eligible to complete the interview by phone. In 18 of the 20cities, an additional module called Child Care and Parental Employment (CCPE) in FragileFamilies was administered. Children’s attention was assessed as part of this module.

Of the 2,848 families who participated in the CCPE module at the 3 years of age wave,1,758 (62%) were eligible for inclusion in our analytic sample because they had completeinformation on their family environment. The most common reason for incompleteinformation was mode of data collection; phone participants lacked observational items thatcontributed to the Maternal Warmth, Lack of Hostility, and Physical Environment scales.Eligible cases tended to be more socioeconomically disadvantaged than ineligible cases. It ispossible that families who moved out of the area did so because of improving economiccircumstances. Eligible cases were also more likely to be African American than wereineligible cases (58% vs. 40%).

Of the 1,758 cases with family environment information, approximately one quarter (n =488) were excluded because they were missing data on child attention or school readiness at5 years of age. Missingness was due to attrition in approximately half these cases and toparticipation by phone (which prevented direct assessment of the child) in the other half.Cases without child attention or school readiness data tended to be more socioeconomicallyadvantaged. Finally, to ensure that the analytic sample was exclusively low-income, 224cases were dropped because their incomes were 300% or more of the federal povertythreshold. The final analytic sample (n = 1,046) differed from the original CCPE sample inthat it was no longer representative of midsized U.S. cities. The analytic sample containedmore African American (63% vs. 51%) and fewer Hispanic (20% vs. 23%) mothers than theoriginal sample. Fewer mothers were college educated (26% vs. 36%) or married orcohabiting (41% vs. 50%).

In sum, members of the analytic sample were universally socioeconomically disadvantaged.Of the mothers, 54% met the federal definition of poverty at baseline, and the remaining46% fell between 100% and 300% of the poverty threshold. Fifty-nine percent lived withouta spouse or partner. Thirty-eight percent did not complete high school, 36% completed highschool or obtained a grade equivalency diploma, and 26% attended some college. The meanage at first birth was 20 years. Sixty-three percent were African American, 20% wereHispanic, and 14% were European American. All but a negligible number of the mothers co-resided with their children at 3 and 5 years of age and were the primary caregivers.

ProcedureData on the children’s family environment were collected at 3 years of age, and data onchildren’s attention and school readiness were collected at 5 years of age. Home visits at 3and 5 years of age were conducted by data collectors who were trained on both interviewsand direct child assessments. The maternal interview covered family routines, parentingbehaviors, and the child’s behavior problems. Data collectors made observations on themother and child’s interaction and the interior of the residence. Data collectors alsomeasured the child’s attention and cognitive ability.

MeasuresFamily environment—There are six measures of the family environment at 3 years ofage. The first three tap maternal parenting behavior, one taps the physical environment ofthe home, and the last two tap maternal mental health. The first measure of parentingassessed maternal warmth via data collector observation during the home visit. There werefour dichotomous items (α = .74; sample item: “mother’s voice conveys positive feelingwhen talking to or about child”). The second parenting measure, maternal lack of hostility,

Razza et al.


NIH


NIH


NIH


comprised four dichotomous items based on data collector observation (α =.80; sample item:“mother does not scold, derogate, or criticize child more than once”). The third parentingmeasure captured maternal stimulation and included eight items (α = .50; sample item:“child has toy that lets her/him play music”) per maternal report at the home visit. Thefourth measure of parenting assessed the quality of the home’s physical environment andincluded four dichotomous items observed by the data collector during the home visit (α = .68; sample item: “home not too noisy from noise outside”). Items for the above four scaleswere drawn from the HOME (Caldwell & Bradley, 1984) and the Homelife Interview(Leventhal, Selner-O’Hagan, Brooks-Gunn, Bingenheimer, & Earls, 2004). For all fourscales, items were summed so that higher scores indicate higher quality.

The first measure of maternal mental health captured maternal depression. During the phoneinterviews for the core sample at 3 years of age, mothers were administered Section A of theComposite International Diagnostic Interview Short Form (Kessler, Andrews, Mroczek,Ustun, & Wittchen, 1998). Seven items describing depressive symptoms were drawn fromthe Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; American PsychiatricAssociation, 1994) definition of a major depressive episode. Responses were summed (α = .92) to generate a count of depressive symptoms during the past year.

The second measure of maternal mental health assessed maternal parenting stress usingitems drawn from the Parenting Stress Index (Abidin, 1995). At the 3 years of age homevisit, mothers endorsed 11 items describing stress on a 5-point scale ranging from 0(strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Sample items include “You feel trapped by yourresponsibilities as a parent” and “You feel alone and without friends.” Items were summed(α = .85), as in other studies (e.g., Taylor, Guterman, Lee, & Rathouz, 2009). Higher scoreson both parenting stress and depression indicate poorer mental health.

Sustained attention—Children’s sustained attention was measured during the 5 years ofage home visit. The attention sustained task from the Leiter International Performance Scale—Revised assessed children’s ability to maintain attention to a specific stimulus and tosuppress their impulses (Roid & Miller, 1997). Children were shown a picture of a variety ofobjects scattered throughout the page. There was a target object at the top of the page, andchildren were asked to put a line through as many of the objects matching the target aspossible without accidentally crossing out any other objects. Children completed four timedtrials. Two scales were yielded. The number of correct responses (crossouts of objectsmatching the target) reflects the child’s focused attention, whereas the number of incorrectresponses (cross-outs of objects not matching the target) was reversed to reflect the child’slack of impulsivity. These scales were named Focused Attention and Lack of Impulsivity,respectively.1 Scores are standardized against a national norming sample with a mean of 10(SD = 3). The task has high internal reliability (α = .83) for children 4–5 years of age andgood test–retest reliability (r = .85).

School readiness—Cognitive school readiness was captured by the Peabody PictureVocabulary Test, Third Edition (PPVT–III; Dunn & Dunn, 1997b), administered at the 5years of age home visit. This test assesses the child’s receptive vocabulary by asking thechild to point to one of four pictures that best depicts the word read aloud. The PPVT–III isnationally normed by age, with a standard score of M = 100 (SD = 15). This measure hashigh internal (α = .93) and test–retest (r = .92) reliability for preschoolers (Dunn & Dunn,1997a). In addition, this measure is correlated with measures of aptitude and school

1In the NICHD SECCYD study, which used a continuous performance task to assess attention at 5 years of age (NICHD ECCRN,2003), the Sustained Attention scale is comparable with our Focused Attention scale, and the Impulsivity scale is comparable with ourLack of Impulsivity scale.

Razza et al.


NIH


NIH


NIH


readiness (Ladd, 1990) and has been used as a measure of cognitive competence across earlychildhood (Blair & Razza, 2007; Culp, Hubbs-Tait, Culp, & Starost, 2000).

Behavioral school readiness was captured by a measure of children’s externalizingproblems. When the child was 5 years of age, mothers reported on all but three items fromthe Externalizing subscale of the Child Behavior Checklist/4 –18 (Achenbach, 1991). Foreach item describing a behavior problem, mothers rated whether it was not true (0),sometimes true (1), or very true (2) of her child. Sample items include “child argues a lot”and “child has temper tantrums or hot temper.” There were 30 items in all (α = .86), whichwere summed. Higher values indicate more externalizing behaviors.

Poverty status—A variable indicating whether the family was in poverty at 3 years of agewas coded affirmatively if the household income fell below the poverty thresholdestablished by the U.S. Census Bureau for the preceding calendar year. The sample was thensplit into two groups: the poor (below the poverty threshold; n = 515) and the near-poor(above the poverty threshold but below 300% of the poverty threshold; n = 467).

Control variables—Characteristics of the child and his or her family were included ascontrols in all multivariate models. These characteristics were selected on the basis ofprevious literature showing their associations with family environment, sustained attention,and school readiness. Except where noted, all were captured at baseline; in a few instances,characteristics were measured at the time point closest to measurement of the familyenvironment.

Indicators were created to reflect whether the child was male or born with low birth weight(<2,500 g). The child’s temperament as an infant was captured at the 1 year of age phoneinterview using the mean of three items (α = .60) drawn from the Emotionality scale of theEmotionality, Adaptability, Sociability (EAS) Temperament Survey for Children (Buss &Plomin, 1984). Mothers were asked to rate how well three items described their child (“oftenfusses and cries,” “gets upset easily,” and “reacts intensely when upset”) on a 5-point scaleranging from 1 (not at all like my child) to 5 (very much like my child). Maternal age at firstbirth was also reported at the 1 year of age phone interview.

Race was coded according to maternal self-report as European American non-Hispanic,African American non-Hispanic, Hispanic, or other. Maternal education was coded as lessthan high school, high school graduation or general equivalency diploma, or some college ormore. Maternal marital status as of the in-home visit at 3 years of age was coded as married/cohabiting or single. A ratio of children to adults living in the household at 3 years of agewas calculated on the basis of a household roster. The mother’s receptive vocabulary wasassessed by the PPVT–III (Dunn & Dunn, 1997b), administered at the 3 years of age homevisit. Scores are standardized by age against a national norming sample (M = 100, SD = 15).Last, city indicator variables were also added as controls.

ResultsTable 1 presents the percentages or means, standard deviations, and sample sizes for thecontrol, predictor, mediator, and outcome variables by poverty group status. All variableswere normally distributed with adequate skew and kurtosis. Zero-order correlations amongthe variables are displayed in Table 2 for the poor and near-poor groups. As expected,significant associations were found across the constructs of interest for both poverty statusgroups, suggesting that family environment, sustained attention, and children’s schoolreadiness outcomes are interrelated. There were some differences by poverty status group.Maternal lack of hostility was positively associated with focused attention only in the near-

Razza et al.


NIH


NIH


NIH


poor group, whereas maternal stimulation was positively associated with focused attentiononly in the poor group. Lack of impulsivity was negatively associated with externalizing inthe poor group only.

Analytic ApproachData analysis involved a two-stage process. In the first stage, we identified uniqueassociations between the family environment and the two facets of sustained attention,which was the first aim of our study. In the second stage, we regressed school readinessoutcomes on the family environment and both facets of sustained attention. This analysisaddressed the second and third aims of our study, namely to identify associations betweensustained attention and school readiness and to test whether sustained attention mediatedassociations between the family environment and school readiness. Given that the last aimof this study was to explore differential associations among these factors between poor andnear-poor participants, all analyses were conducted separately by poverty status group.

Regression analyses were consistent with Baron and Kenny’s (1986) four criteria formediation. Thus, for mediation to be supported, the following conditions had to be satisfied:(a) family environment should predict school readiness, (b) family environment shouldpredict attention, (c) attention should predict school readiness, and (d) the relation betweenthe family environment and school readiness should be reduced or eliminated when bothfamily environment and attention were entered together into the model. Separatehierarchical regression models were run for the two measures of school readiness, receptivevocabulary and externalizing behaviors. In Step 1 of the model, the school readinessoutcome was regressed on the six measures of family environment and all controls. In Step2, children’s focused attention and lack of impulsivity were added as independent predictors.If the coefficient for a family environment measure decreased from Step 1 to Step 2, a Sobeltest (Sobel, 1982) was conducted to determine whether attention mediated the associationbetween that measure of family environment and that outcome. Both focus and lack ofimpulsivity were considered as possible mediators. Formal mediation tests were conductedin STATA using sgmediation, as suggested by Dearing and Hamilton (2006). This programuses bootstrap analyses to estimate the indirect effect of the predictor variable on thedependent variable through the mediator variable. Bootstrap analysis involves drawing alarge number of samples (with replacement) from a data set, computing the indirect effectfor each sample, and then generating an average indirect effect across all samples.

As previously noted, all regression models included controls for child gender, low birthweight, infant temperament, maternal age at first birth, maternal cognitive ability, maternalrace/ethnicity, maternal education, marital status, household child:adult ratio, and city. Thenumber of cases with valid values varies across the two school readiness outcomes and istherefore indicated in tables.

The Association Between Family Environment and Sustained AttentionOrdinary least squares regressions were conducted to explore the longitudinal associationsbetween the family environment at 3 years of age and children’s focused attention and lackof impulsivity at 5 years of age. Of particular interest was whether the six facets of thefamily environment (maternal warmth, maternal lack of hostility, maternal stimulation,physical environment, maternal depression, and maternal parenting stress) would predictattention independent of one another. Thus, measures of attention were regressedsimultaneously on all measures of the family environment plus the controls listed above.Focused attention and lack of impulsivity were evaluated in separate models that includedthe other attention measure as a covariate.

Razza et al.


NIH


NIH


NIH


For the near-poor group, lack of maternal hostility (β =.11, p < .05) significantly predictedchildren’s focused attention, independent of the other five family environment variables (seeTable 3). In addition, the link between the physical environment (β = .09, p < .10) andfocused attention was marginally significant. The other measures of the family environmentdid not predict focused attention for this group. Results from analyses predicting lack ofimpulsivity suggest marginal associations with maternal depression and parenting stressamong the near-poor. The other measures of the family environment did not predict lack ofimpulsivity for this group. For the poor group, none of the family environment variablespredicted focused attention or lack of impulsivity. Therefore the second criterion formediation (an association between family environment and attention) was not satisfied, andformal testing for mediation was not necessary in this group.

Associations Among Family Environment, Sustained Attention, and School Readiness forthe Near-Poor

Hierarchical regressions were conducted to determine whether children’s familyenvironment at 3 years of age and attention at 5 years of age were associated with schoolreadiness at 5 years of age. For the near-poor group, as shown in Step 1 of Table 4, maternallack of hostility (β = .14, p < .01) was significantly associated with receptive vocabulary,such that children whose mothers displayed less hostility scored higher on receptivevocabulary. In addition, the physical environment (β = .12, p < .01) reached significance,indicating that children with higher scoring physical environments had larger receptivevocabularies.

In Step 2, children’s focused attention (β = .32, p < .001), but not lack of impulsivity (β = .06, ns), was strongly associated with receptive vocabulary. Specifically, focused attentionaccounted for 8% of the unique variance in children’s receptive vocabulary, F(1, 417) =52.04, p < .001 (not shown). Given that maternal lack of hostility had significantly predictedchildren’s focused attention (see Table 3), a Sobel test was conducted to formally testwhether focused attention mediated the association between lack of hostility and children’sreceptive vocabulary. The Sobel test was significant (z = 2.27, p < .05; results not shown)and indicated that focused attention mediated 25.25% of the total effect of maternal lack ofhostility on children’s receptive vocabulary. Although the physical environment predictedreceptive vocabulary, because it had been only marginally associated with focused attention,a formal test for mediation was not performed. Last, maternal stimulation and maternalparenting stress were marginally significant predictors of receptive vocabulary.

Similar analyses were conducted using externalizing behaviors as the outcome variable. Asshown in Step 1 of Table 4, maternal parenting stress (β = .20, p < .001) was the only aspectof the family environment that predicted externalizing behaviors. Neither facet of sustainedattention emerged as a significant predictor of externalizing behaviors. Therefore, it was notpossible for attention to mediate the association between maternal parenting stress andexternalizing behaviors in this group.

Associations Among Family Environment, Sustained Attention, and School Readiness forthe Poor

The results from a hierarchical regression model predicting receptive vocabulary fromfamily environment and attention within the poor group are displayed in Table 5. The resultsfrom Step 1 show that maternal stimulation (β =.10, p < .05) predicted receptive vocabulary,such that children with more stimulating mothers had larger receptive vocabularies. Thephysical environment (β = .09, p < .05) also reached significance, with higher scoringchildren having larger receptive vocabularies. Finally, children whose mothers scored higheron parenting stress scored lower on receptive vocabulary (β = −.13, p < .001).

Razza et al.


NIH


NIH


NIH


In Step 2, both focused attention (β = .32, p < .001) and lack of impulsivity (β =.14, p < .001) significantly predicted receptive vocabulary. Specifically, attention accounted for 11%of unique variance in receptive vocabulary, F(2, 469) = 53.31, p < .001. Thus, children withbetter attention demonstrated higher levels of receptive vocabulary in the poor group.However, because none of the family environment factors had predicted either facet ofattention, it was not possible that attention mediated associations between the familyenvironment and receptive vocabulary.

Similar analyses were performed to examine the influence of the family environment andattention on poor children’s externalizing behaviors (see Table 5). The results from Step 1show that maternal warmth (β = −.13, p < .01) predicted externalizing behaviors, such thatchildren with warmer mothers demonstrated fewer externalizing behaviors. In addition,children whose mothers scored higher on parenting stress (β = .17, p < .001) scored higheron externalizing behaviors. Maternal depression was marginally associated withexternalizing behaviors.

In Step 2, children’s lack of impulsivity (β = −.09, p < .01), but not focused attention (β = .03, ns), was significantly associated with externalizing behaviors. Children who scoredhigher on lack of impulsivity had fewer externalizing behaviors. Lack of impulsivityaccounted for 1% of the unique variance in children’s externalizing behaviors, F(1, 468) =3.88, p < .05 (not shown). Given that none of the family environment factors had predictedlack of impulsivity in this group, mediation analyses were not conducted.

DiscussionThe present study extends our understanding of the developmental pathways to schoolreadiness for low-income children by highlighting the role of sustained attention in thisprocess. Individual differences in sustained attention were correlated with selected aspectsof the family environment and both dimensions of school readiness. However, the findingsindicate specificity in the associations between attention and its correlates that differ bypoverty status.

In particular, this study makes four significant contributions to the attention literature. First,the present study increases our understanding of the specificity of the longitudinalassociation between the family environment and sustained attention by examining distinctfacets of both constructs. Specifically, results suggest that maternal parenting behavior(specifically, lack of hostility), but not maternal mental health, predicted children’s focusedattention during early childhood in the near-poor group. In contrast, no measures of thefamily environment predicted either facet of sustained attention in the poor group.

Second, this study furthers our understanding of the specific role of sustained attention inchildren’s school readiness. Focused attention was concurrently associated with cognitiveschool readiness (receptive vocabulary) among both poverty status groups. Lack ofimpulsivity was associated with both cognitive and behavioral school readiness but only inthe poor group. Third, the current study extends the examination of sustained attention as amechanism underlying associations between the family environment and school readiness tolow-income children. Results support focused attention as a partial mediator of theassociation between the family environment (specifically, maternal lack of hostility) andchildren’s cognitive school readiness (specifically, receptive vocabulary) for the near-poorgroup. Fourth, the results of this study suggest that even within a low-income sample, theassociations between sustained attention and its correlates differ by poverty status. Thisfinding has important implications for promoting school readiness outcomes among childrenfrom predominantly low-income backgrounds.

Razza et al.


NIH


NIH


NIH


The Association Between Family Environment and Sustained AttentionSurprisingly, there were few associations between the family environment at 3 years of ageand children’s sustained attention at 5 years of age in this low-income sample. In fact, in thepoor group, the family environment did not predict sustained attention at all. In the near-poor group, only one facet of the home environment— maternal lack of hostility—predictedone facet of sustained attention—focused attention. Overall, then, the present study fails toreplicate several previously obtained associations between the family environment andsustained attention. We propose three possible explanations. The first two refer tomeasurement issues that may have limited our ability to detect associations between thefamily environment and sustained attention, and the last considers the possibility that theseassociations do not exist for low-income children.

First, our measure of sustained attention differs from the one in the NICHD SECCYD, thestudy on which most conclusions to date have been based. In that study, the ContinuousPerformance Test (CPT; NICHD ECCRN, 2003) was used, whereas in the Fragile Familiesstudy, the Leiter International Performance Scale—Revised was used. Although these teststap similar facets of attention, the discrepancies in their formats are nontrivial. Thedifference between paper (Leiter) and computer administration (CPT) is germane in thisrespect. The Leiter task, unlike the CPT, does not actively alert children to nontarget stimuli.Thus, children may be more tempted to make impulsive errors with the CPT. In addition,children’s commission errors are visible to the child throughout the Leiter assessment, whichcontrasts with the CPT, where stimuli appear and disappear quickly on the computer screen.The CPT task also captures children’s attention over a longer period of time. It is possiblethat the CPT measures have better psychometric properties than the Leiter measures, whichwould make it easier to detect associations between attention and the family environment inthe NICHD SECCYD than in the Fragile Families study.

A second possible explanation for the weak associations in the present study between thefamily environment and sustained attention is that our measures of the family environmentwere insufficiently sensitive. It may be that the specificity in developmental pathways wesought to achieve by disaggregating the HOME scales came at the cost of statistical power(given that fewer items decrease a scale’s reliability). It may also be that items from achecklist completed over the course of the home visit were too blunt. Past findings from theNICHD SECCYD linking the family environment to sustained attention used a measure ofthe family environment that incorporated both checklist items and maternal scores onsensitivity and stimulation during a videotaped interaction; moreover, that measurecombined scores from multiple waves between birth and 54 months (NICHD ECCRN,2003). It may not have been possible to replicate the NICHD SECCYD’s findings in theFragile Families study given the lack of robustness of the latter’s family environmentmeasures.

For example, maternal stimulation may have failed to predict sustained attention in oursample because our measure assessed the number of stimulating toys in the home rather thana mother’s stimulating behavior per se. Past research indicates that stimulating interactionsand materials promote sustained attention by facilitating joint attention episodes with objectsor people (Saxon, Frick, & Colombo, 1997; Smith et al., 1997). Our measure of stimulationmay have assessed the potential for stimulating interactions rather than their actualfrequency. Optimally, a test of the influence of the family environment on sustainedattention would measure parenting during an episode of parent– child play or problemsolving. Recent research suggests that a combination of parental contingency andstimulation is particularly facilitative of infants’ focused attention (Miller, Ables, King, &West, 2009). Our measures of parenting did not tap this combination of behaviors.

Razza et al.


NIH


NIH


NIH


Last, this study’s failure to find associations between the family environment and sustainedattention may reflect real developmental differences between the low-income children in oursample and their higher income peers. For example, model results indicate that for the poorgroup only, maternal cognitive ability predicted focused attention, and infant temperamentpredicted lack of impulsivity (not shown). These results suggest that genetic orconstitutional factors may be especially influential for sustained attention among the poorestchildren. It is also possible that experiences of trauma and deprivation are what matter mostfor sustained attention among low-income children. Exposure to violence, homelessness,poor nutrition, sleep deprivation, and frequent changes in household composition all covarywith poverty. Any one of these might dwarf the importance of other environmentalinfluences on attention. Future research will be needed to test these hypotheses. For the timebeing, this study’s findings should be viewed as tentative and in need of replication.

In the near-poor group, there was one aspect of the family environment that significantlypredicted sustained attention. Children whose mothers were least hostile at 3 years of agehad the greatest focused attention at 5 years of age. Mothers who are hostile toward theirchild may place greater importance on their own feelings than their child’s and pay limitedattention to their children’s cues. Previous research indicates that intrusiveness negativelyaffects attention because it devalues the child’s attentional focus and makes it difficult forthe child to make connections between elements in his/her environment (Hubbs-Tait et al.,2002; Miller et al., 2009). It is also possible that the children of hostile mothers are tooanxious to attend to tasks requiring focused attention. Recent experimental evidence showsthat negative mood leads to distractability during an attention task (Smallwood, Fitzgerald,Miles, & Phillips, 2009).

Specificity in the Developmental Pathways to School Readiness for Low-Income ChildrenFurther support for specificity in the developmental pathways was reflected by the direct andindirect effects of the family environment on children’s school readiness. With respect todirect effects, the associations between the family environment and both the cognitive andbehavioral dimensions of school readiness are consistent with previously reported findings.Overall, the pattern suggests that maternal parenting behavior and the physical environmentmatter more for children’s cognitive school readiness, whereas maternal mental health wasmore strongly associated with children’s behavioral school readiness. It is notable thatmaternal mental health predicted children’s behavior even after controlling for maternalparenting behaviors, which are themselves adversely affected by poor maternal mentalhealth (Lovejoy, Graczyk, O’Hare, & Neuman, 2000). Maternal stress and depression areeach associated with insecure child–parent attachment (Atkinson et al., 2000), whichundermines children’s peer relations and classroom behavior (Berlin, Cassidy, & Appleyard,2008). Social learning is also thought to explain the association between poor maternalmental health and children’s behavior problems. Specifically, distressed mothers role modelnegative cognitions, poor emotional regulation, and ineffective problem solving (Goodman,2007).

Interestingly, there were some differences in the patterns between the family environmentand school readiness outcomes across the poverty status groups. Specifically, receptivevocabulary was predicted by maternal stimulation among the poor group and lack ofmaternal hostility among the near-poor group. The failure to find a significant link betweenmaternal stimulation and receptive vocabulary among the near-poor may well have been apower problem, as the association approached significance. It is not immediately apparentwhy maternal lack of hostility failed to predict receptive vocabulary in the poor group.Previous research suggests that early maternal punitiveness negatively impacts children’scognitive competence in kindergarten within both lowincome and more advantaged samples(Culp et al., 2000; Fagot & Gauvain, 1997; Olson, Bates, & Kaskie, 1992). Similarly, it is

Razza et al.


NIH


NIH


NIH


unclear why maternal warmth only predicted externalizing behaviors in the poor group. Onepossibility is that there was a ceiling effect for maternal warmth in the near-poor group,given its high mean score (3.54 out of a possible total of 4).

The pattern of differential associations between predictors and outcomes extended to thelink between sustained attention and school readiness. As hypothesized, focused attentionwas concurrently associated with children’s cognitive school readiness at 5 years of age forboth poverty status groups. This finding adds to a growing body of literature thatdemonstrates the importance of attentional skills for children’s cognitive performance(Carter & Swanson, 1995; Choudhury & Gorman, 2000). Specifically, the ability tointentionally focus attention is believed to be especially critical for reading and languagecompetencies (Tamis-LeMonda & Bornstein, 1989; Velting & Whitehurst, 1997).

Moreover, focused attention emerged as a partial mediator of the association betweenmaternal lack of hostility at 3 years of age and children’s receptive vocabulary at 5 years ofage, although only among the near-poor group. The NICHD SECCYD found that focusedattention mediated associations between the family environment and achievement but notcognition (NICHD ECCRN, 2003). Although that measure of cognition included receptivevocabulary, it also included measures of short-term memory and auditory processing.Therefore, it is difficult to compare results across studies. Taken together, however, thestudies suggest that focused attention contributes to achievement, cognition, or both at thetime of school entry. Although further research is needed to enhance this body ofknowledge, the evidence so far suggests that focused attention may be a target for futureinterventions aimed at improving school readiness.

Although we hypothesized that focused attention would be associated with behavioral aswell as with cognitive school readiness, no such association was found. As expected, lack ofimpulsivity was associated with behavioral school readiness but only in the poor group. Thefailure to find this association in the near-poor group is inconsistent with past researchsuggesting that impulsivity has important implications for children’s externalizing behaviors(Belsky et al., 2007; Eisenberg et al., 2005; NICHD ECCRN, 2003). Moreover, contrary toexpectation, we found that lack of impulsivity predicted cognitive school readiness, thoughin the poor group only. That is, lack of impulsivity was associated with receptive vocabularyamong the poor.

The associations between lack of impulsivity and both cognition and behavior in the poorgroup suggest that impulsivity may have farther reaching effects for poor children than fortheir more advantaged peers. Although it is true that poor children scored both lower onfocused attention and higher on impulsivity, it is not the case that those two facets ofattention necessarily covary, given that it is possible to be distracted without beingimpulsive. However, the correlation between those two facets of attention was higher inpoor than in nonpoor children (see Table 2), suggesting a special association between themin poor children. Lack of impulsivity was also more strongly correlated with receptivevocabulary in poor than in nonpoor children. One possible explanation is that it is extremelydifficult for poor children to sit still and concentrate during paper-and-pencil tests,particularly ones that are intentionally boring (such as sustained attention) and/or repetitive(such as receptive vocabulary). Poor children are read to less frequently by their parents thannonpoor children (Bradley et al., 2001), and book-reading activities largely simulate ourtests of attention and cognition. Children who are more habituated to test-like activities willhave had more practice suppressing their impulses in such situations, putting poor childrenat a disadvantage.

Razza et al.


NIH


NIH


NIH


Conclusions and LimitationsAlthough the current study adds to our understanding of sustained attention and its correlatesamong low-income children, it is not without limitations. First, the methods of measurementused in this study could have influenced the findings. Three of the six measures of thefamily environment relied exclusively on maternal report, as did the measure of behavioralschool readiness, resulting in shared method variance. It is possible that a different pattern ofresults could have emerged had children’s behavior been directly assessed or teacher-reported. Teacher-reported behavior would have been preferable to parent report, given thatbehavior in the classroom is more relevant than behavior at home to school readiness.

A second limitation of the current study is that our mediator, sustained attention, wasobserved at the same point in time as our school readiness outcomes. Although we wereunable to measure attention before 5 years of age, developmental theory suggests thatobserved scores at that age reflect individual differences in voluntary attention originating inthe second year of life. Specifically, according to Feldman’s (2009) hierarchical–integrativeperspective, emotion regulation in infancy is a developmental precursor of attentionalregulation during toddlerhood, which in turn is a developmental precursor of behavioralregulation in preschool. Thus, both sustained attention and school readiness may beobserved at 5 years of age, but the former temporally preceded and even facilitated the latter,as attention skills serve as a lower order foundation for the acquisition of cognitive andbehavior competence.

Finally, a third limitation of the current study is its exclusive focus on sustained attention asa mechanism through which family environment influences school readiness. Althoughsustained attention is an important mediator of this link, it is only one of several key self-regulatory processes that could fulfill this role. For example, executive function and effortfulcontrol are two additional facets of self-regulation that deserve consideration, as both areinfluenced by the family environment and have important consequences for children’sschool readiness (Blair, 2002; Kochanska, Murray, & Harlan, 2000; Li-Grining, 2007).Moreover, although there is overlap among various aspects of selfregulation, the limitedresearch addressing this issue supports specificity in the family environmental predictors ofthe different self-regulatory processes (Li-Grining, 2007) and suggests that each can makeunique contributions to school readiness outcomes (Blair & Razza, 2007; NICHD ECCRN,2003).

In conclusion, this study is the first to examine specific associations among the familyenvironment, sustained attention, and school readiness within an exclusively low-incomesample. Results indicate that the links among sustained attention and its correlates maydiverge for lower and higher income children. They may even diverge for children livingbelow and just above the poverty line. Further study is needed to replicate these findings andto test additional hypotheses about sustained attention in lowincome children. Albeittentatively, this study’s results provide additional support for the increasing call to targetself-regulatory mechanisms in the promotion of school readiness (Blair, 2002; Blair &Diamond, 2008). An important first step is the development and dissemination ofassessment tools for children’s selfregulation in the classroom. Such efforts could helpidentify children with attention deficits who may be at risk for subsequent cognitive andbehavior problems. A comprehensive battery tapping the emotional, attentional, andbehavioral domains of selfregulation was recently developed and validated for low-incomepreschoolers (Smith-Donald, Raver, Hayes, & Richardson, 2007). Additional tests formeasuring the individual and collective components of self-regulation should be piloted indiverse samples.

Razza et al.


NIH


NIH


NIH


A second area for future research concerns sustained attention per se as a potential target forintervention to alleviate poor school performance in low-income children. The results of thecurrent study provisionally support two strategies that might be tested. The first strategyinvolves the promotion of focused attention, which we find to be associated with cognitiveschool readiness among all low-income children. The second strategy involves thepromotion of impulse control, which we find to be associated with both cognitive andbehavioral school readiness but only among children below the poverty threshold. Currentefforts directly targeting young children’s attention and other self-regulatory skills haveshown great promise (Barnett et al., 2008; Bodrova & Leong, 2007; Diamond, Barnett,Thomas, & Munro, 2007; Rueda, Rothbart, McCandliss, Saccomanno, & Posner, 2005).These and future initiatives to assess and promote sustained attention may prove fruitful atincreasing school readiness among low-income children.

AcknowledgmentsThis research was supported in part by Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and HumanDevelopment Grants R01HD36916, R01HD39135, and R01HD40421 and by a consortium of private foundationssupporting the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study.

ReferencesAbidin, RR. Parenting Stress Index. 3. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources; 1995.Achenbach, TM. Manual for Child Behavior Checklist/4–18 and 1991 Profile. Burlington, VT:

University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry; 1991.American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 4.

Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 1994.Atkinson L, Paglia A, Coolbear J, Niccols A, Parker KCH, Guger S. Attachment security: A meta-

analysis of maternal mental health correlates. Clinical Psychology Review 2000;20:1019–1040.[PubMed: 11098398]

Barkley RA. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, selfregulation, and time: Toward a morecomprehensive theory. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics 1997;18:271–279.[PubMed: 9276836]

Barnett WS, Jung K, Yarosz DJ, Thomas J, Hornbeck A, Stechuk R, Burns S. Educationaleffectiveness of the Tools of the Mind curriculum: A randomized trial. Early Childhood ResearchQuarterly 2008;23:299–313.

Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research:Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology1986;51:1173–1182. [PubMed: 3806354]

Barry TD, Dunlap ST, Cotten SJ, Lochman JE, Wells KC. The influence of maternal stress anddistress on disruptive behavior problems in boys. Journal of the American Academy of Child andAdolescent Psychiatry 2005;44:265–273. [PubMed: 15725971]

Belsky J, Fearon RMP, Bell B. Parenting, attention and externalizing problems: Testing mediationlongitudinally, repeatedly and reciprocally. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry2007;48:1233– 1242. [PubMed: 18093029]

Belsky J, Goode MK, Most RK. Maternal stimulation and infant exploratory competence: Cross-sectional, correlational, and experimental analyses. Child Development 1980;51:1168–1178.[PubMed: 7471921]

Berlin, LJ.; Cassidy, J.; Appleyard, K. The influence of early attachments on other relationships. In:Cassidy, J.; Shaver, PR., editors. Handbook of attachment. 2. New York, NY: Guilford Press;2008. p. 333-347.

Blair C. School readiness as propensity for engagement: Integrating cognition and emotion in aneurobiological conceptualization of child functioning at school entry. American Psychologist2002;57:111–127. [PubMed: 11899554]

Razza et al.


NIH


NIH


NIH


Blair C, Diamond A. Biological processes in prevention and intervention: The promotion of self-regulation as a means of preventing school failure. Development and Psychopathology2008;20:899–911. [PubMed: 18606037]

Blair C, Razza RA. Relating effortful control, executive function, and false belief understanding toemerging math and literacy ability in kindergarten. Child Development 2007;78:647–663.[PubMed: 17381795]

Bodrova, E.; Leong, DJ. Tools of the mind. 2. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 2007.Bornstein, MH.; Tamis-LeMonda, CS. Maternal responsiveness and cognitive development in

children. In: Bornstein, MH., editor. Maternal responsiveness: Characteristics and consequences.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1989. p. 49-61.

Bradley, RH.; Corwyn, RF. The family environment. In: Balter, L.; Tamis-LeMonda, CS., editors.Child psychology: A handbook of contemporary issues. 2. New York, NY: Psychology Press;2006. p. 493-520.

Bradley RH, Corwyn RF, McAdoo HP, García Coll C. The home environments of children in theUnited States: Part I. Variations by age, ethnicity, and poverty status. Child Development2001;72:1844–1867. [PubMed: 11768149]

Breznitz Z, Friedman SL. Toddlers’ ability to concentrate: The influence of maternal depression.Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 1988;29:267–279. [PubMed: 3417803]

Bronfenbrenner, U. The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press;1979.

Bronfenbrenner, U.; Morris, PA. The bioecological model of human development. In: Damon, W.,editor. Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development. 6. NewYork, NY: Wiley; 2006. p. 793-828.

Buss, AH.; Plomin, R. Temperament: Early developing personality traits. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum;1984.

Caldwell, BM.; Bradley, RH. Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. Little Rock,AR: University of Arkansas; 1984.

Calkins SD, Fox NA. Self-regulatory processes in early personality development: A multi-levelapproach to the study of childhood social withdrawal and aggression. Development andPsychopathology 2002;14:477–498. [PubMed: 12349870]

Carter JD, Swanson HL. The relationship between intelligence and vigilance in children at risk.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 1995;23:201–220. [PubMed: 7642834]

Choudhury N, Gorman KS. The relationship between sustained attention and cognitive performance in17–24-month old toddlers. Infant and Child Development 2000;9:127–146.

Culp AM, Hubbs-Tait L, Culp RE, Starost H. Maternal parenting characteristics and schoolinvolvement: Predictors of kindergarten cognitive competence among Head Start children. Journalof Research in Childhood Education 2000;15:5–17.

Davies PT, Woitach MJ, Winter MA, Cummings EM. Children’s insecure representations of theinterparental relationship and their school adjustment: The mediating role of attention difficulties.Child Development 2008;79:1570–1582. [PubMed: 18826543]

Dearing E, Hamilton LC. Contemporary advances and classic advice for analyzing mediating andmoderating variables. Monographs for the Society for Research in Child Development2006;71:88–104.

Dearing E, McCartney K, Taylor BA. Changes in family income-to-needs matters more for childrenwith less. Child Development 2001;72:1779–1793. [PubMed: 11768145]

Dearing E, Taylor BA. Home improvements: Within-family associations between income and thequality of children’s home environments. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology2007;28:427–444.

Denton, K.; West, J. Children’s reading and mathematics achievement in kindergarten and first grade.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences; 2002.

Derryberry D, Rothbart MK. Reactive and effortful processes in the organization of temperament.Development and Psychopathology 1997;9:631–650.

Diamond A, Barnett S, Thomas J, Munro S. Executive function can be improved in preschoolers byregular classroom teachers. Science 2007 November 30;318:1387–1388. [PubMed: 18048670]

Razza et al.


NIH


NIH


NIH


Dilworth-Bart JE, Khurshid A, Vandell DL. Do maternal stress and home environment mediate therelation between early income-to-need and 54-months attentional abilities? Infant and ChildDevelopment 2007;16:525–552.

Dunn, LM.; Dunn, LM. Examiner’s manual for the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. 3. Circle Pines,MN: American Guidance Services; 1997a.

Dunn, LM.; Dunn, LM. Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. 3. Circle Pines, MN: American GuidanceServices; 1997b.

Eisenberg N, Sadovsky A, Spinrad TL, Fabes RA, Losoya SH, Valiente C, Shepard SA. The relationsof problem behavior status to children’s negative emotionality, effortful control, and impulsivity:Concurrent relations and prediction of change. Developmental Psychology 2005;41:193–211.[PubMed: 15656749]

Eisenberg N, Spinrad TL, Fabes RA, Reiser M, Cumberland A, Shepard SA, Murphy B. The relationsof effortful control and impulsivity to children’s resiliency and adjustment. Child Development2004;75:25–46. [PubMed: 15015673]

Ensminger ME, Slusarick AL. Paths to high school graduation or dropout: A longitudinal study of afirst-grade cohort. Sociology of Education 1992;65:95–113.

Fagot BI, Gauvain M. Mother–child problem solving: Continuity through the early childhood years.Developmental Psychology 1997;33:480–488. [PubMed: 9149926]

Fearon RMP, Belsky J. Attachment and attention: Protection in relation to gender and cumulativesocial-contextual adversity. Child Development 2004;75:1677–1693. [PubMed: 15566372]

Feinstein L, Bynner J. The importance of cognitive development in middle childhood for adulthoodsocioeconomic status, mental health, and problem behavior. Child Development 2004;75:1329–1339. [PubMed: 15369517]

Feldman R. The development of regulatory functions from birth to 5 years: Insights from prematureinfants. Child Development 2009;80:544– 561. [PubMed: 19467010]

Findji F. Attentional abilities and maternal scaffolding in the first year of life. International Journal ofPsychology 1993;28:681–692.

Goodman SH. Depression in mothers. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 2007;3:107–135.Groot AS, de Sonneville LMJ, Stins JF, Boomsa DI. Familial influences on sustained attention in

preschoolers. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 2004;45:306–314. [PubMed: 14982244]Hart, B.; Risley, TR. Meaningful differences in the everyday experiences of young American children.

Baltimore, MD: Brookes; 1995.Heft H. Background and focal environmental conditions of the home and attention in young children.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1979;9:47–69.Hubbs-Tait L, Culp AM, Culp RE, Miller CE. Relation of maternal cognitive stimulation, emotional

support, and intrusive behavior during Head Start to children’s kindergarten cognitive abilities.Child Development 2002;73:110–131. [PubMed: 14717247]

Jacobvitz D, Sroufe LA. The early caregiver– child relationship and attention deficit disorder withhyperactivity in kindergarten: A prospective study. Child Development 1987;58:1496–1504.[PubMed: 3691198]

Kagan, SL.; Moore, E.; Bredekamp, S., editors. Reconsidering children’s early development andlearning: Towards common views and vocabulary. Washington, DC: National Educational GoalsPanel; 1995.

Kessler RC, Andrews G, Mroczek D, Ustun TB, Wittchen HU. The World Health OrganizationComposite International Diagnostic Interview Short Form (CIDI-SF). International Journal ofMethods in Psychiatric Research 1998;7:171–185.

Klebanov PK, Brooks-Gunn J, McCarton C, McCormick MC. Contribution of neighborhood andfamily income to developmental test scores over the first three years of life. Child Development1998;69:1420–1436. [PubMed: 9839425]

Kochanska G, Murray KT, Harlan ET. Effortful control in early childhood: Continuity and change,antecedents, and implications for social development. Developmental Psychology 2000;36:220–232. [PubMed: 10749079]

Razza et al.


NIH


NIH


NIH


Ladd GW. Having friends, keeping friends, making friends, and being linked by peers in theclassroom: Predictors of children’s early school adjustment? Child Development 1990;61:1081–1100. [PubMed: 2209179]

Lareau A. Social class and the daily lives of children: A study from the United States. Childhood: AGlobal Journal of Child Research 2000;7:155–171.

Lawson KR, Parrinello R, Ruff HA. Maternal behavior and infant attention. Infant Behavior andDevelopment 1992;15:209–229.

Lawson KR, Ruff HA. Early attention and negative emotionality predict later cognitive andbehavioural function. International Journal of Behavioral Development 2004;28:157–165.

Lengua LJ. The contribution of emotionality and self-regulation to the understanding of children’sresponse to multiple risk. Child Development 2002;73:144–161. [PubMed: 14717249]

Leventhal T, Selner-O’Hagan MB, Brooks-Gunn J, Bingenheimer JB, Earls FJ. The HomelifeInterview from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods: Assessment ofparenting and home environment for 3- to 15-year-olds. Parenting: Science and Practice2004;4:211–241.

Levy F, Hobbes G. Reading, spelling, and vigilance in attention deficit and conduct disorder. Journalof Abnormal Child Psychology 1989;17:291–298. [PubMed: 2754114]

Li-Grining CP. Effortful control among low-income preschoolers in three cities: Stability, change, andindividual differences. Developmental Psychology 2007;43:208–221. [PubMed: 17201520]

Lovejoy MC, Graczyk PA, O’Hare E, Neuman G. Maternal depression and parenting behavior: Ameta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review 2000;20:561–592. [PubMed: 10860167]

McLoyd VC. Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American Psychologist1998;53:185–204. [PubMed: 9491747]

Miech R, Essex MJ, Goldsmith HH. Socioeconomic status and the adjustment to school: The role ofself-regulation during early childhood. Sociology of Education 2001;74:102–120.

Miller JL, Ables EM, King AP, West MJ. Different patterns of contingent stimulation differentiallyaffect attention span in prelinguistic infants. Infant Behavior and Development 2009;32:254–261.[PubMed: 19327841]

Moffitt, TE.; Caspi, A.; Rutter, M.; Silva, PA. Sex differences in antisocial behavior: Conductdisorder, delinquency, and violence in the Dunedin Longitudinal Study. Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press; 2001.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Early Child Care ResearchNetwork. Do children’s attention processes mediate the link between family predictors and schoolreadiness? Developmental Psychology 2003;39:581–593. [PubMed: 12760525]

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Early Child Care ResearchNetwork. Trajectories of physical aggression from toddlerhood to middle childhood: Predictors,correlates, and outcomes. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development2004;69:1–146. [PubMed: 15566544]

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Early Child Care ResearchNetwork. Predicting individual differences in attention, memory, and planning in first gradersfrom experiences in home, child care, and school. Developmental Psychology 2005;41:99–114.[PubMed: 15656741]

Olson SL, Bates JE, Kaskie B. Caregiver-infant interaction antecedents of children’s school-agecognitive ability. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 1992;38:309–330.

Pett MA, Vaughan-Cole B, Wampold BE. Maternal employment and perceived stress: Their impact onchildren’s adjustment and mother– child interaction in young divorced and married families.Family Relations 1994;43:151–158.

Reichman NE, Teitler JO, Garfinkel I, McLanahan SS. Fragile Families: Sample and design. Childrenand Youth Services Review 2001;23:303–326.

Rhoades BL, Greenberg MT, Domitrovich CE. The contribution of inhibitory control to preschoolers’social-emotional competence. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 2009;30:310–320.

Roid, GH.; Miller, LJ. Leiter International Performance Scale—Revised. Wood Dale, IL: Stoelting;1997.

Razza et al.


NIH


NIH


NIH


Rosvold HE, Mirksy AF, Sarason I, Bransome ED Jr, Beck LH. A continuous performance test ofbrain damage. Journal of Consulting Psychology 1956;20:343–350. [PubMed: 13367264]

Rothbart, MK.; Posner, MI.; Hershey, KL. Temperament, attention, and developmentalpsychopathology. In: Cicchetti, D.; Cohen, DJ., editors. Developmental psychopathology: Vol. 1.Theory and methods. New York, NY: Wiley; 1995. p. 315-340.

Rueda MR, Posner MI, Rothbart MK. The development of executive attention: Contributions to theemergence of self-regulation. Developmental Neuropsychology 2005;28:573–594. [PubMed:16144428]

Rueda MR, Rothbart MK, McCandliss BD, Saccomanno L, Posner MI. Training, maturation, andgenetic influences on the development of executive attention. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences, USA 2005;102:14931–14936.

Ruff HA. Components of attention during infant manipulative exploration. Child Development1986;57:105–114. [PubMed: 3948587]

Ruff, HA.; Rothbart, MK. Attention in early development. New York, NY: Oxford University Press;1996.

Sarter M, Givens B, Bruno JP. The cognitive neuroscience of sustained attention: Where top-downmeets bottom-up. Brain Research Reviews 2001;35:146–160. [PubMed: 11336780]

Saxon TF, Frick JE, Colombo J. A longitudinal study of maternal interactional styles and infant visualattention. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 1997;43:48–66.

Schmitz MF. Influences of race and family environment on child hyperactivity and antisocial behavior.Journal of Marriage and Family 2003;65:835–849.

Shoda Y, Mischel W, Peake PK. Predicting adolescent cognitive and self-regulatory competenciesfrom preschool delay of gratification: Identifying diagnostic conditions. DevelopmentalPsychology 1990;26:978–986.

Shonkoff, JP.; Phillips, DA., editors. From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childdevelopment. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences; 2000.

Silver H, Feldman P. Evidence for sustained attention and working memory in schizophrenia sharing acommon mechanism. The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences 2005;17:391–398. [PubMed: 16179663]

Smallwood J, Fitzgerald A, Miles LK, Phillips LH. Shifting moods, wandering minds: Negative moodslead the mind to wander. Emotion 2009;9:271–276. [PubMed: 19348539]

Smith KE, Landry SH, Miller-Loncar CL, Swank PR. Characteristics that help mothers maintain theirinfants’ focus of attention. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 1997;18:587–601.

Smith-Donald R, Raver CC, Hayes T, Richardson B. Preliminary construct and concurrent validity ofthe Preschool Self- Regulation Assessment (PSRA) for field-based research. Early ChildhoodResearch Quarterly 2007;22:173–187.

Sobel, ME. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In:Leinhardt, S., editor. Sociological methodology 1982. Washington DC: American SociologicalAssociation; 1982. p. 290-312.

Tamis-LeMonda CS, Bornstein MH. Habituation and maternal encouragement of attention in infancyas predictors of toddler language, play, and representational competence. Child Development1989;60:738–751. [PubMed: 2737021]

Taylor CA, Guterman NB, Lee SJ, Rathouz PJ. Intimate partner violence, maternal stress, nativity, andrisk for maternal maltreatment of young children. American Journal of Public Health2009;99:175–183. [PubMed: 19008518]

Velting ON, Whitehurst GJ. Inattention-hyperactivity and reading achievement in children from low-income families: A longitudinal model. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 1997;25:321–331.[PubMed: 9304448]

Votruba-Drzal E. Income changes and cognitive stimulation in young children’s home learningenvironments. Journal of Marriage and Family 2003;65:341–355.

Webster-Stratton C, Hammond M. Maternal depression and its relationship to life stress, perceptionsof child behavior problems, parenting behaviors, and child conduct problems. Journal of AbnormalChild Psychology 1988;16:299–315. [PubMed: 3403812]

Razza et al.


NIH


NIH


NIH


NIH


NIH


NIH


Razza et al.

Tabl

e 1

Des

crip

tive

Stat

istic

s for

Con

trol,

Pred

icto

r, M

edia

tor,

and

Out

com

e V

aria

bles

Var

iabl

e

Poor

Nea

r-po

or

%M

SDn

%M

SDn

Dem

ogra

phic

s

Mal

e51

.87

561

51.3

448

5

Low

birt

h w

eigh

t11

.76

542

7.42

474

Infa

nt te

mpe

ram

ent

2.82

1.07

543

2.81

1.03

470

Mat

erna

l age

at f

irst b

irth

(yea

rs)

19.5

63.

6653

820

.80

4.31

469

Mat

erna

l cog

nitiv

e ab

ility

84.7

39.

7851

590

.42

12.5

046

7

Mat

erna

l rac

e/et

hnic

ity56

148

2

Eu

rope

an A

mer

ican

10.1

618

.97

A

fric

an A

mer

ican

68.0

956

.70

H

ispa

nic

19.0

721

.24

O

ther

2.67

2.47

Mat

erna

l edu

catio

n56

148

4

Le

ss th

an h

igh

scho

ol52

.05

21.4

4

H

igh

scho

ol g

radu

atio

n/G

ED36

.01

36.7

0

So

me

colle

ge o

r mor

e11

.94

41.6

5

Mat

erna

l mar

ital s

tatu

s29

.23

560

54.0

248

5

Chi

ld:a

dult

ratio

1.78

1.30

561

1.28

0.84

485

Pred

icto

rs

Mat

erna

l war

mth

3.17

1.20

561

3.54

0.87

485

Mat

erna

l lac

k of

hos

tility

3.35

1.17

561

3.59

0.92

485

Mat

erna

l stim

ulat

ion

7.10

1.20

561

7.47

0.82

485

Phys

ical

env

ironm

ent

2.89

1.24

561

3.27

1.09

485

Mat

erna

l dep

ress

ion

1.45

2.31

561

1.20

2.12

485

Mat

erna

l par

entin

g st

ress

14.1

18.

2056

111

.62

6.99

485

Med

iato

rs

Focu

sed

atte

ntio

n12

.36

3.25

561

13.0

23.

2948

5

Lack

of i

mpu

lsiv

ity9.

722.

9656

19.

912.

8948

5


NIH


NIH


NIH


Razza et al.

Var

iabl

e

Poor

Nea

r-po

or

%M

SDn

%M

SDn

Out

com

es

Rec

eptiv

e vo

cabu

lary

89.5

113

.90

556

95.8

113

.71

478

Exte

rnal

izin

g be

havi

ors

12.2

87.

0355

611

.27

6.43

477

Not

e. G

ED =

gen

eral

equ

ival

ency

dip

lom

a.


NIH


NIH


NIH


Razza et al.

Tabl

e 2

Cor

rela

tions

Am

ong

Fam

ily E

nviro

nmen

t, Su

stai

ned

Atte

ntio

n, a

nd S

choo

l Rea

dine

ss

Var

iabl

e1

23

45

67

89

10

1. M

ater

nal w

arm

th—

.31*

** (4

85)

.15*

** (4

85)

.30*

** (4

85)

−.0

2(48

5)−.0

4(4,

851)

.08

(485

).0

7 (4

85)

.20*

** (4

78)

.01

(477

)

2. M

ater

nal l

ack

of h

ostil

ity.3

9***

(561

)—

.01

(485

).1

1* (4

85)

−.0

5 (4

85)

−.1

2**

(485

).1

6***

(485

).0

1 (4

85)

.18*

** (4

78)

−.0

8 (4

77)

3. M

ater

nal s

timul

atio

n.1

0* (5

61)

.05

(561

)—

.06

(485

)−.0

2(48

5)−.0

8 (4

85)

.00

(485

).0

5 (4

85)

.15*

** (4

78)

−.0

4(47

7)

4. P

hysi

cal e

nviro

nmen

t.1

9***

(561

).1

7***

(561

).0

4 (5

61)

—−.0

4(48

5)−.0

2(48

5).0

7 (4

85)

−.0

1 (4

85)

.20*

** (4

78)

−.0

1 (4

77)

5. M

ater

nal d

epre

ssio

n−.0

7 (5

61)

−.0

4 (5

61)

−.0

1 (5

61)

−.0

4 (5

61)

—.2

7***

(485

)−.0

4(48

5)−.0

7 (4

85)

.04

(478

).1

1* (4

77)

6. M

ater

nal p

aren

ting

stre

ss−.0

7 (5

61)

−.0

5 (5

61)

−.0

4(56

1)−.0

8* (56

1).2

2***

(561

)—

−.0

6(48

5).0

4 (4

85)

−.0

3 (4

78)

.24*

** (4

77)

7. F

ocus

ed a

ttent

ion

.05

(561

).0

2 (5

61)

.08*

(561

).0

7 (5

61)

.04

(561

)−.0

7 (5

61)

—.1

5**

(485

).3

1***

(478

)−.0

5 (4

77)

8. L

ack

of im

puls

ivity

.00

(561

)−.0

4 (5

61)

.02

(561

).0

3 (5

61)

−.0

3 (5

61)

−.0

4(56

1).1

8***

(561

)—

.17*

** (4

78)

−.0

5 (4

77)

9. R

ecep

tive

voca

bula

ry.1

1* (5

56)

.06

(556

).1

6***

(556

).1

0* (5

56)

.04

(556

)−.1

6***

(55

6).3

6***

(556

).1

9***

(556

)—

−.0

1 (4

77)

10. E

xter

naliz

ing

beha

vior

s−.1

7***

(55

6)−.1

3**

(556

)−.0

3 (5

56)

−.1

1* (55

6).1

5***

(556

).2

3***

(556

)−.0

1 (5

56)

−.1

2**

(556

)−.0

6(55

5)—

Not

e. B

ivar

iate

cor

rela

tions

are

pre

sent

ed w

ith n

val

ues i

n pa

rent

hese

s. N

umbe

rs b

elow

the

diag

onal

repr

esen

t val

ues f

or th

e po

or g

roup

, and

num

bers

abo

ve th

e di

agon

al re

pres

ent v

alue

s for

the

near

-poo

rgr

oup.

* p <

.05.

**p

< .0

1.

*** p

< .0

01.


NIH


NIH


NIH


Razza et al.

Tabl

e 3

Fam

ily E

nviro

nmen

t as a

Pre

dict

or o

f Chi

ldre

n’s S

usta

ined

Atte

ntio

n

Var

iabl

e

Poor

(n =

515

)N

ear-

poor

(n =

467

)

BSE

βB

SEβ

Focu

sed

atte

ntio

n

Mat

erna

l war

mth

0.00

0.13

.00

−0.

200.

19− .05

Mat

erna

l lac

k of

hos

tility

−0.

020.

13− .01

0.40

0.17

.11*

Mat

erna

l stim

ulat

ion

0.12

0.12

.04

0.01

0.18

.00

Phys

ical

env

ironm

ent

0.10

0.11

.04

0.26

0.14

.09†

Mat

erna

l dep

ress

ion

0.04

0.06

.03

0.05

0.07

.03

Mat

erna

l par

entin

g st

ress

−0.

120.

02− .03

−0.

020.

02− .04

R2

.14*

**.1

6***

Lack

of i

mpu

lsiv

ity

Mat

erna

l war

mth

0.13

0.13

.05

0.26

0.18

.08

Mat

erna

l lac

k of

hos

tility

−0.

190.

13− .07

−0.

120.

16− .04

Mat

erna

l stim

ulat

ion

0.02

0.11

.01

0.16

0.17

.05

Phys

ical

env

ironm

ent

0.07

0.11

.03

−0.

100.

13− .04

Mat

erna

l dep

ress

ion

−0.

030.

06− .02

−0.

120.

07− .09

†

Mat

erna

l par

entin

g st

ress

−0.

010.

02− .04

0.04

0.02

.09†

R2

.06*

*.0

6**

Not

e. M

odel

s inc

lude

con

trols

for c

hild

gen

der,

low

birt

h w

eigh

t, in

fant

tem

pera

men

t, m

ater

nal a

ge a

t firs

t birt

h, m

ater

nal c

ogni

tive

abili

ty, m

ater

nal r

ace/

ethn

icity

, mat

erna

l edu

catio

n, m

ater

nal m

arita

lst

atus

, hou

seho

ld c

hild

:adu

lt ra

tio, a

nd c

ity. L

ack

of im

puls

ivity

is in

clud

ed a

s a c

ovar

iate

in th

e m

odel

pre

dict

ing

focu

sed

atte

ntio

n, a

nd fo

cuse

d at

tent

ion

is in

clud

ed a

s a c

ovar

iate

in th

e m

odel

pre

dict

ing

lack

of i

mpu

lsiv

ity.

† p <

.10.

* p <

.05.

**p

< .0

1.

*** p

< .0

01.


NIH


NIH


NIH


Razza et al.

Tabl

e 4

Res

ults

of H

iera

rchi

cal M

odel

s Pre

dict

ing

Scho

ol R

eadi

ness

Out

com

es fo

r the

Nea

r-Po

or

Var

iabl

e

Step

1St

ep 2

BSE

βB

SEβ

Rec

eptiv

e vo

cabu

lary

(n =

460

)

Mat

erna

l war

mth

0.46

0.78

.03

0.63

0.74

.04

Mat

erna

l lac

k of

hos

tility

2.15

0.68

.14*

*1.

630.

64.1

1*

Mat

erna

l stim

ulat

ion

1.39

0.73

.08†

1.31

0.69

.08†

Phys

ical

env

ironm

ent

1.46

0.56

.12*

*1.

140.

53.0

9*

Mat

erna

l dep

ress

ion

0.21

0.29

.03

0.19

0.27

.03

Mat

erna

l par

entin

g st

ress

0.15

0.09

.08†

0.17

0.08

.08†

Focu

sed

atte

ntio

n1.

320.

18.3

2***

Lack

of i

mpu

lsiv

ity0.

280.

20.0

6

R2 o

r ΔR2

.24*

**.0

9***

Exte

rnal

izin

g be

havi

ors (

n =

459)

Mat

erna

l war

mth

−0.

050.

40− .01

−0.

030.

40.0

0

Mat

erna

l lac

k of

hos

tility

−0.

540.

35− .08

−0.

530.

35− .07

Mat

erna

l stim

ulat

ion

−0.

140.

38− .02

−0.

120.

38− .02

Phys

ical

env

ironm

ent

−0.

060.

29− .01

−0.

050.

29− .01

Mat

erna

l dep

ress

ion

0.16

0.15

.05

0.15

0.15

.05

Mat

erna

l par

entin

g st

ress

0.18

0.05

.20*

**0.

190.

05.2

0***

Focu

sed

atte

ntio

n−0.

050.

10− .03

Lack

of i

mpu

lsiv

ity−0.

120.

11− .05

R2 o

r ΔR2

09**

*.0

0

Not

e. M

odel

s con

trol f

or c

hild

gen

der,

infa

nt te

mpe

ram

ent,

low

birt

h w

eigh

t, m

ater

nal r

ace/

ethn

icity

, mat

erna

l edu

catio

n, m

ater

nal m

arita

l sta

tus,

mat

erna

l age

at f

irst b

irth,

mat

erna

l cog

nitiv

e ab

ility

,ho

useh

old

child

:adu

lt ra

tio, a

nd c

ity.

† p <

.10.

* p <

.05.

**p

< .0

1.


NIH


NIH


NIH


Razza et al. **

* p <

.001

.


NIH


NIH


NIH


Razza et al.

Tabl

e 5

Res

ults

of H

iera

rchi

cal M

odel

s Pre

dict

ing

Scho

ol R

eadi

ness

Out

com

es fo

r the

Poo

r

Var

iabl

e

Step

1St

ep 2

BSE

βB

SEβ

Rec

eptiv

e vo

cabu

lary

(n =

511

)

Mat

erna

l war

mth

0.37

0.58

.03

0.31

0.54

.03

Mat

erna

l lac

k of

hos

tility

0.29

0.57

.02

0.51

0.53

.04

Mat

erna

l stim

ulat

ion

1.18

0.52

.10*

*0.

960.

48.0

8*

Phys

ical

env

ironm

ent

1.04

0.50

.09*

0.83

0.46

.08†

Mat

erna

l dep

ress

ion

0.43

0.27

.07

0.39

0.25

.07

Mat

erna

l par

entin

g st

ress

−0.

220.

07−.1

3***

−0.

190.

07− .11

*

Focu

sed

atte

ntio

n1.

400.

19.3

2***

Lack

of i

mpu

lsiv

ity0.

660.

19.1

4***

R2 o

r ΔR2

.13*

**.1

1***

Exte

rnal

izin

g be

havi

ors (

n =

510)

Mat

erna

l war

mth

−0.

780.

29−.1

3**

−0.

750.

29− .13

*

Mat

erna

l lac

k of

hos

tility

−0.

330.

29−.0

5−0.

360.

29− .06

Mat

erna

l stim

ulat

ion

−0.

090.

27−.0

2−0.

090.

26− .01

Phys

ical

env

ironm

ent

−0.

340.

25−.0

6−0.

330.

25− .06

Mat

erna

l dep

ress

ion

0.26

0.14

.09†

0.25

0.14

.08†

Mat

erna

l par

entin

g st

ress

0.15

0.04

.17*

**0.

150.

04.1

7***

Focu

sed

atte

ntio

n0.

060.

10.0

3

Lack

of i

mpu

lsiv

ity−0.

210.

11− .09

*

R2 o

r ΔR2

09**

*.0

1

Not

e. M

odel

s con

trol f

or c

hild

gen

der,

infa

nt te

mpe

ram

ent,

low

birt

h w

eigh

t, m

ater

nal r

ace/

ethn

icity

, mat

erna

l edu

catio

n, m

ater

nal m

arita

l sta

tus,

mat

erna

l age

at f

irst b

irth,

mat

erna

l cog

nitiv

e ab

ility

,ho

useh

old

child

:adu

lt ra

tio, a

nd c

ity.

† p <

.10.

* p <

.05.


NIH


NIH


NIH


Razza et al. **

p <

.01.

*** p

< .0

01.


Associations among family environment, sustained attention, and school readiness for low-income...

Documents

Transcript of Associations among family environment, sustained attention, and school readiness for low-income...