ECERS-REarly Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Revised Edition
Copyright 1988-2018, All rights reserved.
References in periodicals archive ?
To select an instrument for the study, the researchers considered ECERS-R, which is by far the best-researched instrument and used worldwide in more than 20 countries with different socioeconomic backgrounds for measuring ECE quality in international contexts (Gol-Guven, 2009).
The authors report that the ECERS-R is reliable at the indicator and item level, as well as at the level of the total score (University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, 2010).
Those centers evaluated with ECERS-R showed statistically significant improvement in all quality indicators.
A three module training sequence was developed by a collaborative team of WV early childhood professionals to support local communities in their efforts to build cadres of valid and reliable ECERS-R observers.
Of the rooms in the study, 258 were used for analysis of ECERS-R and 254 for the CLASS.
Because ECERS and ECERS-R are not comparable, we separated the database into two parts, based on the implementation date of ECERS-R in April 2005: records collected before and after April 2005.
This study examines the effects of the ECERS-R as a training device to enlighten directors and classroom teachers of what constitutes quality classrooms.
Burchinal & Cryer, 2003; Mashburn et al., 2008; Peinsner-Feinberg et al., 2001; Phillips, Scarr & McCartney, 1987; Sylva et al., 2006) reveals that ECERS, or ECERS-R, is associated with multiple studies of children's cognitive development and social skills across many countries (identified above).
Correlations with the ECERS-R are moderate as expected, suggesting that the PRISM is picking up general quality, as well as unique information about observed classrooms.
There was also a significant relationship between organizational climate and a language/interaction factor of the ECERS-R. The level of education of the director was related to higher quality administrative practices and not-for-profit centers scored significantly better than for-profit centers did on the PAS.