The Home Inventory: Review and Reflections: Robert

THE HOME INVENTORY: REVIEW
AND REFLECTIONS
Robert H. Bradley
CENTER FOR RESEARCH ON TEACHING AND LEARNING
UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT L I m E ROCK
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72204
I. INTRODUCTION
11. TECHNICAL ATTRIBUTES OF THE HOME INVENTORY
111. INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT

A. INFANCY THROUGH MIDDLE CHILDHOOD
B. SOCIAL CLASS, SOCIOCULTURAL GROUP, AND GENDER AS
MODERATOR VARIABLES
IV. LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT
V. STUDIES OF HIGH-RISK CHILDREN

A. LOW BIRTH WEIGHT CHILDREN
B. CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES
VI. CONDITIONS AFFECTING THE HOME ENVIRONMENT-COGNITIVE

DEVELOPMENT RELATIONSHIP
A. MEDIATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THROUGH
COGNITIVE PROCESSES
B . SPECIFICITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
C. CHILD’S EFFECT ON THE HOME ENVIRONMENT
D. HOME ENVIRONMENT IN CONTEXT
E. PHENOTYPE-ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION
VII. SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL DEVELOPMENT

A. TEMPERAMENT
B. CLASSROOM BEHAVIOR
C. SOCIAL COMPETENCE
VIII. HEALTH-RELATED OUTCOMES

A. MALTREATMENT
B. LEAD BURDEN
IX. PARENTAL CORRELATES
24 I
ADVANCES IN CHILD DEVEWPMEM Copyright 0 1994 by Academic R e s s , Inc.
AND BEHAVIOR, VOL. 25 All rights of repduction in any form reserved.
242 Robert H.Bradley
X. CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
I. Introduction
The 1960s ushered in a new era of concern about children’s environments and
the impact they have on children’s development. The scholarship of that era
introduced an array of new concepts to the field concerning the linkage between
environment and development, including Hunt’s (1961) concept of the “match”
between developmental needs and environmental opportunities, Bloom’s (1964)
concept of the “powerful environment,” the concepts of sensitive, responsive
caregiving that flowed from Bowlby’s (1958) work, and general concepts such as
the “deprived” environment. These works, especially Bloom’s, also impelled
efforts to develop measures of the environment. These measures were concrete
ways of attempting to consolidate a potentially significant set of empirical and
clinical findings and to operationalize a potentially rich montage of scientific
concepts. Such was the goal of Bettye Caldwell and her colleagues at the Syr-
acuse Early Learning Center as they constructed the first version of the Home
Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME) Inventory (Caldwell,
Heider, & Kaplan, 1966).
HOME is intended to measure the quality and quantity of stimulation and
support available to a child in the home environment. Information needed to
score the Inventory is obtained during a 45-90-min home visit. The target child
and the primary caregiver must be present and awake. The procedure involves
semistructured observation and an interview conduced to minimize obtrusiveness
and to allow family members to act normally. The focus is on the child in the
environment; the child as a recipient of inputs from objects, events, and transac-
tions occurring in the family surroundings. The initial version of the inventory
was intended for use during the infant-toddler (birth to age 3 yr) period. It
contains 45 binary-choice items clustered into 6 subscales: (a) Acceptance of
Child, (b) Learning Materials, (c) Parental Involvement, (d) Parental Respon-
sivity, (e) Variety in Experience, and (f) Organization of the Environment. The
Early Childhood HOME is for use between 3 and 6 yr of age. It contains 55 items
clustered into eight subscales: (a) Acceptance of Child, (b) Learning Materials,
(c) Parental Responsivity, (d) Physical Environment, (e) Variety in Experience,
(f) Language Stimulation, (g) Learning Stimulation, and (h) Modeling of Social
Maturity. The Middle Childhood HOME is for use between 6 and 10 yr. It
contains 59 items clustered into eight subscales: (a) Learning Materials, (b)
Parental Involvement, (c) Parental Responsivity, (d) Physical Environment, (e)
HOME Inventory: Review and Refections 243
Active Stimulation, (f) Emotional climate, (g) Encouraging Maturity, and (h)
Family Participation. Early Adolescent HOME is for use from 10 to 15 yr of age.
11. Technical Attributes of the HOME Inventory

The purpose of this review is to use HOME as a marker to help identify
consistencies in patterns of relations between home environment and children’s
development and health. Psychometric properties of the inventory are discussed
in the test manual (Caldwell & Bradley, 1984) and in several review articles
(Bradley, 1982; Bradley & Caldwell, 1988; Elardo & Bradley, 1981). For all
items, a “yes” rating indicates the presence of a condition that theory or research
indicates is conducive to socially desired developmental outcomes. Items on
HOME generally have moderate to high endorsement (yes) rates (30 to 90%).
Thus, scores tend to show a negative skew. Reliability for the HOME has been
estimated using three procedures: (a) internal consistency, (b) interobserver
agreement, and (c) cross-time stability. Alpha coefficients for each subscale and
the total scale score are reported for all three versions of HOME (Billings,
Jacobson, Jacobson, & Brummitt, 1989; Caldwell & Bradley, 1984; Park, Ra-
dan, Wolf, & Lozoff, in press; Parks & Smeriglio, 1986; Reis, Barbera-Stein, &
Bennett, 1986; Reis & Herz, 1987). As a rule, the estimates of internal consisten-
cy have been greater than .80 for the total scores. Coefficients for subscales range
from about .30 to .80. When percentage agreement has been used to estimate
consistency across raters, levels have always been at least 85% (Adams, Camp-
bell, & Ramey, 1984; Andrews et al., 1982; Bates, Olson, Pettit, & Bayles,
1982; Caldwell, 1967; Caldwell & Bradley, 1984; Coll, Vohr, Huffman, & Oh,
1986; Gottfried & Gottfried, 1988; Kurtz, Borkowski, & Deshmukh, 1988;
Parks & Smeriglio, 1986; Ragozin, Landesman-Dwyer, & Streissguth, 1980;
Ramey, Farran, & Campbell, 1979; Starr, 1982; Wilson & Matheny, 1983;
Wulbert, Inglis, Kriegsmann, & Mills, 1975). Using raw percentage agreement
does not correct for item base rates. In all cases, when a coefficient (intraclass,
Kappa, Pearson) was calculated to estimate interobserver agreement, the coeffi-
cient was at least .80 (Affleck, Allen, McGrade, & McQueeney, 1982; Allen,
Affleck, McGrade, & McQueeney, 1984; Belsky, Garduque, & Hmcir, 1984;
Hollenbeck, 1978; Miller & Ottinger, 1983).
111. Intellectual Development

A. INFANCY THROUGH MIDDLE CHILDHOOD
Correlations between the Infant-Toddler HOME and measures of infant devel-

opmental status (usually the Bayley Scales) rarely exceed .40 during the first year
244 Robert H . Bradley
of life (Adams et al., 1984; Allen et al., 1984; Bakeman & Brown, 1980; Bee,
Mitchell, Barnard, Eyres, & Hammond, 1984; Carlson, Labarba, Sclafani, &
Bowers, 1986; Coll et al., 1986; Cooney, Bell, McBride, & Carter, 1989; Elar-
do, Bradley, & Caldwell, 1975; Eyres, Barnard, & Gray, 1979; Johnson,
Breckenridge, & McGowan, 1984; Moore, Bushnell, & Goldberg, 1989; Park et
al., in press; Parks & Smeriglio, 1986; Pederson, Evans, Chance, Bento, & Fox,
1988; Siegel, 1984; Stevenson & Lamb, 1979; Wilson & Matheny, 1983). How-
ever, the strength of the relation increases during the second year of life, with
correlations generally ranging from .20 to S O (Bergeman & Plomin, 1988;
Consullo, 1992; Henderson, 1975; Palti, Otrakul, Belmaker, Tamir, & Tepper,
1984). Although the upward trend in correlations may partially reflect the fact
that infant tests contain a larger proportion of language-oriented items by age 2,
research by Belsky and his colleagues (1984) suggests that the higher correla-
tions are not mere artifacts of the changing content of infant tests. They obtained
correlations between HOME scores and children’s performance (.64 to .73),
competence (.51 to .63), and executive capacity (.27 to .46) during play at 12,
15, and 18 months. Exceptions to the generally upward trend for correlations
during the second year of life included poor Hispanics and poor Blacks (Adams
et al., 1984; Johnson et al., 1984). These two exceptions may reflect a more
restricted range of scores on the HOME. They may also reflect chronic condi-
tions of poverty that are prevalent in these minority groups (McLoyd, 1990).
Most studies showed low to moderate correlations (.20 to .60) between
HOME scores during the first two years of life and later tests of intelligence and
achievement (Bee et al., 1982; Bradley & Caldwell, 1976b, 1984b; Bradley,
Caldwell, & Rock, 1988; Bradley & Rock, 1985; Coons, Fulker, DeFries, &
Plomin, 1990; Eyres et al., 1979; Elardo et al., 1975; Gottfried & Gottfried,
1984, 1988; Hammond, Bee, Barnard, & Eyres, 1983; Johnson & Brecken-
bridge, 1981; Park et al., in press; Siegel, 1982b; Stevens & Bakeman, 1985;
vanDoominck, Caldwell, Wright, & Frankenburg, 1981; Wilson & Matheny,
1983). However, in a study of Mexican-American children (Johnson &
Breckenridge, 198l), correlations were negligible; for lower middle-class Costa
Ricans, they were somewhat lower than correlations observed in most other
groups, but still significant. The results from these two studies may indicate that
different relationships are obtained for Latin populations; but the differences are
difficult to interpret given that neither HOME nor the measures of intellectual
competence was originally constructed using Hispanics (Super & Harkness,
1986). The norm of the HOME Inventory was derived from an economically
diverse group of White and Black American families (Caldwell & Bradley,
1984). The Mexican-American samples were all poor and varied substantially in
level of acculturation. Some were long-term residents of the United States,
others were recent immigrants, making unclear the contributions of culture,
social status, and recency of immigration to the observed disparate results.
HOME Inventory: Review and Reflections 245
The magnitude of correlations between HOME and measures of children’s

competence seems to be a function of the timing of the HOME assessment, the
socioeconomic status (SES), and sociocultural mix of the sample, and the dis-
tance between the HOME assessment and the assessment of competence. Stron-
ger correlations generally emerge for HOME scores obtained after age 1 for
socioeconomically diverse and non-Hispanic groups, and when child measures
are less distant in time from the HOME measure. No firm conclusion is possible
because of the limited number of instances for any particular discrepant result
(e.g., the differences obtained for Mexican-Americans) make it difficult to deter-
mine if the differences represent instances of a “specificity of effect” as discussed
by Wachs and Gruen (1982) or differential validities of measures as applied to
different groups. However, the studies did not contain the kind of information
needed to determine whether either explanation was likely. The results appear
consistent with the “scoop” model of early intellectual development promulgated
by McCall (1981). According to the scoop model, low correlations between
environmental measures and children’s mental test scores during the first year or
so of life reflect the canalized (i.e., biologically protected) nature of intellectual
development early in life. As this protection wanes, differences in children’s
experiences with the environment begin to be reflected in correlations of higher
magnitude.
Although results involving the HOME Inventory are consistent with McCall’s
“scoop” model, the model is not the only plausible explanation for the differen-
tial findings in the first year of life versus later years. The content of mental
measures changes rapidly during the first three years of life, as do children’s
cognitive and language capabilities. Also, mental test scores are markedly unsta-
ble across the first two years of life (Bornstein & Krasnegor, 1989). Thus, the
increasing magnitude of correlations from birth to age 3 reflects to unknown
extents early biological protection, the changing content of mental tests, and the
timing of measurement for particular children. What does seem inaccurate to
conclude from these studies is that the quality of the environment during the first
year does not influence the course of mental development (i.e., is unrelated to
continuity of developmental function). In this regard, the findings of Belsky and
his colleagues ( 1 984) on the relation between HOME scores and competence
during play at 12 months seem instructive. The correlation with competence
during elicited play was .46, and with performance during free play, .64.
HOME scores obtained when children were between 3 and 5 yr old showed
moderate correlations (.30 to .60) with contemporaneous measures of children’s
intellectual and academic performance (Billings et al., 1989; Bradley & Cald-
well, 1984b; Bradley, Caldwell, & Rock, 1988; Chua, Kong, Wong, & Yoong,
1989; Eyres et al., 1979; Hammond et al., 1983; Hawk, Shroeder, Robinson,
Otto, Mushak, Kleinbaum, & Dawson, 1986; Gottfried & Gottfried, 1988;
McMichael et al., 1988; Sahu & Devi, 1982).The more restricted the SES range,
the more attenuated the correlations. Higher correlations were obtained when the
sample included both developmentally delayed and normally developing chil-
dren. (Wulbert, Inglis, Kriegsman, & Mills, 1975). Full-term children had high-
er correlations than premature, low birth weight children (Hayes, 1980). How-
ever, no difference was found between farm and nonfarm children who otherwise
had a similar diversity in SES (Jacobson et al., 1987).
Hayes’s study (1980) of low birth weight children provides a useful contrast to
the studies involving normally developing children. Despite both socioeconomic
and racial diversity in the Hayes sample, correlations between 3-yr HOME and
3-yr General Cognitive Index scores from the McCarthy Scales of Children’s
Abilities were generally less than .30. One plausible explanation of the lower
correlations may be found in a transactional or general systems view of develop-
ment (Lerner, 1986; Sameroff, 1983). Specifically, if these views are correct,
development is a joint function of both what the environment affords a person by
way of experiences and what the person brings to the environment by way of
capabilities and behavioral tendencies. Thus, as actually found, the HOME alone
should account for less variance in IQ scores for children whose capabilities are
less similar to parental capabilities and social status than is commonly the case.
Bradley, Caldwell, Rock, Casey, and Nelson (1987) found that for low birth
weight infants, home environment in combination with child medical status
predicted 18-month Bayley scores better than either did alone.
A study of language delay, Down’s syndrome, and normally developing chil-
dren by Wulbert and her colleagues (1975) offers yet another view of the associa-
tion between HOME and child competence. A high correlation (.76) was ob-
tained in the combined sample, attesting to the impact that extreme scores can
have on correlations, especially when the number of extreme scores is dispropor-
tionately large. The correlation is ambiguous with respect to direction of causali-
ty. It could result as much from the effects of the children’s low capabilities on
the richness of their environment as from effects on the children’s capabilities by
an environment in which stimulation and support for development are far below
average. The use of the Down’s syndrome group as a contrast to both normal and
language-delayed children is revealing in this regard. HOME scores for the
Down’s syndrome group were nearly identical to those of the normally develop-
ing group, whereas the HOME scores for the language delayed group were a
standard deviation lower, suggesting that the language delay may result at least
partly from a poor home environment.
Correlations between Early Childhood HOME scores and academic achieve-
ment were generally low to moderate (Bradley & Caldwell, 1979b; Gottfried &
Gottfried, 1988; Hammond et al., 1983;Jordan, 1976). In one study involving 55
Black and 30 White children, HOME scores were correlated with SRA Achieve-
ment Test scores obtained when the children were 6 to 10 yr old (Bradley &
Caldwell, 1978). HOME shared about 25% of variance with each achievement
domain. Moderate correlations were obtained for both Black males and Black
females; but significant residual correlations remained for males only when SES
and 3-yr IQ were partialled out (Bradley & Caldwell, 1980a).
Only a few studies included use of the HOME during middle childhood. Low
to moderate correlations were obtained between HOME subscale scores and
school performance among 11-year olds (Bradley, Caldwell, Rock, Hamrick, &
Harris, 1988). Responsivity, Learning Materials, Active Stimulation, and Physi-
cal Environment showed the strongest relations. A separate analysis of 8- to 10-
yr old Black students (Bradley, Rock, Caldwell, Harris, & Hamrick, 1987)
revealed that Responsivity and Emotional Climate had the most consistent
relationships,
Kurtz, Borkowski, and Deshmukh (1988) examined the relationship between
HOME, metamemory, and learning among 30 first graders and 30 third graders
from Nagpur, India. Metamemory was the strongest predictor of recall, with
HOME approaching significance. Neither child IQ nor maternal IQ was a signifi-
cant predictor. Metamemory was not highly correlated with HOME, but HOME
was correlated .46 with school achievement.
Information on the HOME-achievement relationship, though scanty, indicates
that children’s achievement during early and middle childhood is related to the
preschool home environment during early and middle childhood. Results from
studies by Bradley and Caldwell (1981) and by Jordan (1976) indicate that the
relation is strong for both Blacks and Whites. However, the sex, race, and SES
differences obtained in those investigations suggest a complex relationship. Of
particular importance are findings that indicate that neither maternal nor child IQ,
neither recurring nor traumatic events, neither structural nor status family charac-
teristics by themselves account for children’s achievement (Bradley & Caldwell,
1981; Jordan, 1976). Rather elaborate models such as those suggested by Wal-
berg and Marjoribanks ( 1976) are needed.
B. SOCIAL CLASS, SOCIOCULTURAL GROUP, AND GENDER

AS MODERATOR VARIABLES
A question of particular concern is whether relations between HOME and

mental test scores are similar for boys and girls, and for children from different
social classes and sociocultural groups. Few direct comparisons between groups
have been made; and rarely have researchers controlled for other relevant demo-
graphic factors so that a meaningful test of moderation was possible. One of the
most comprehensive efforts made to examine such differences was a collabora-
tive study involving 11 investigators from six sites in North America (Bradley,
Caldwell, Rock, Barnard, Gray, Hammond, Mitchell, Siegel, Ramey, Gottfried,
& Johnson, 1989). The sample consisted of Mexican-American, Anglo-
American, and African-American children representing a diverse social class and
geographic distribution. For the combined sample, correlations between 1-yr

HOME scores and 2-yr Bayley scores were low; correlations with 2-yr Bayley
scores and 3-yr IQ were moderate. Correlations during the first 2 yr of life were
highest for Whites. A notable exception was correlations involving the Organiza-
tion subscale. By age 3 there were no differences in correlations for Blacks and
Whites, save for Responsivity. For the Responsivity subscale, correlations for
Blacks were higher. The pattern of correlations for Mexican-Americans was
different from other groups. Correlations with social status and mental test scores
were very low, a finding reminiscent of results for poor children in rural Mexico
(Cravioto & DeLicardie, 1986). The patter of correlations between HOME and
developmental scores for males was not substantially different from the pattern
for females. Most of the differences in coefficients were less than .lo.
Regression analyses were performed on data from the six-site collaborative
study to determine the relative importance of HOME and SES in predicting 3-yr
IQ. SES contributed significantly to the regression model even when HOME was
entered first. However, the increase in R2 was only .04. HOME improved the fit
of the regression model significantly (from .30 to .47) when it was’entered after
SES. Few gender differences were obtained; but some notable sociocultural
group differences were obtained. For Blacks, SES did not add a significant
amount of variance to the regression model, but HOME increased the R2 from
.01 to .34. For the Mexican-American group, none of the regression models was
significant.
Studies of middle-class, predominantly White children from North America
and Australia reveal a fairly consistent pattern of relations between HOME and
children’s intellectual performance (Barnard, Bee, & Hammond, 1984b; Bee et
al., 1982; Billings et a]., 1989; Cooney et al., 1989; Gandour et al., 1982;
Gottfried & Gottfried, 1984, 1988; Henderson, 1975; Peters-Martin & Wachs,
1984; Plomin, Loehlin, & DeFries, 1985; Stevenson & Lamb, 1979). Correla-
tions tend to be marginal in the first year of life (Cooney et a]., 1989; Peters-
Martin & Wachs, 1984; Stevenson & Lamb, 1979), increasing to about .40or S O
by age 2 yr and remaining at that level through age 8 (Gandour et al., 1982;
Gottfried & Gottfried, 1984, 1988; Henderson, 1975; Magyary, Brandt, Ham-
mond, & Boward, 1992). Even “advantaged” children from India showed moder-
ate correlations between Early Childhood HOME scores and mental test scores
(Sahu & Devi, 1982). Within middle-class groups, HOME scores tend to be
moderately correlated with both maternal IQ and family SES (Billings et al.,
1989; Brummitt & Jacobson, 1989; Plomin et al., 1985). Thus, the pattern of
correlations observed between HOME and children’s developmental status in the
middle class may be reflective of several ecological and organismic factors.
Conclusions about specific HOME subscales must be made more tentatively.
Correlations for specific subscales were not routinely reported, and tests of
significant differences in correlations for subscales were almost never reported.
However, two subscales from the Infant-Toddler HOME (Learning Materials

and Involvement) consistently showed at least moderate correlations with mental
tests. Such findings are consistent with Wach’s (1990) observations regarding
audiovisually responsive objects. They are also consistent with findings from the
Fels Longitudinal study, which showed that parental pressure for developmental
advance was associated with increasing IQ profiles over the first 17 yr of life
(McCall, Appelbaum, & Hogarty, 1973). Data from the Early Childhood HOME
are scarcer but results were similar. Subscales such as Learning Materials and
Variety showed consistent moderate relations with intellectual and academic
performance (see also Bradley 13Tedesco, 1982; Kagan, 1984).
Considerable diversity was found in the types and amounts of support and
stimulation offered children by lower class and lower middle-class parents. Find-
ings from studies done on these two groups are hard to summarize because of the
variety of participants both within and across studies, and because a large num-
ber of risk factors are differentially confounded with social status across studies.
For both Black and White children from North America and Europe, correlations
between HOME and measures of behavioral development through age 8 range
from moderate to strong, depending on the child’s age (Bradley, Caldwell, Rock,
Barnard, Gray, Hammond, Mitchell, Siegel, Ramey, Gottfried, & Johnson,
1989; Carlson et al., 1986; Coll et al., 1986; Fowler & Swenson, 1975; Gershen-
son, 1982; Stevens & Bakeman, 1985; vanDoorninck et al., 1981; Wasserrnan et
al., in press; Wasserman, Rauh, Shrout, & Brunelli, 1993). In contrast, Johnson
et al. (1984) observed just a few low correlations with 2-yr Bayley and 3-yr IQ
among low-income Mexican-Americans. These latter results may partially reflect
recency of immigration for some of the participants (Coll, 1990; Laosa, 1983).
Several studies involved adolescent mothers, mostly of lower SES and unmar-
ried. In two studies involving White samples, moderate correlations emerged
between HOME and Bayley scores in the first year of life (Coll et al., 1986;
Gershenson, 1982). HOME was also moderately related to maternal age, mater-
nal education, social support, and life stress. Carlson et al. (1986) examined the
relation between HOME and Bayley Mental Development Index scores at 6 and
12 months among mostly poor teenage mothers (50% Black, 50% White). Six-
month Bayley Mental Development Index was correlated .58 with Responsivity,
.48 with Learning Materials, and .60 with the HOME total score at 6 months.
Twelve-month Bayley Mental Developmental Index correlated .50 with 12-
month Responsivity and .70 with 12-month HOME total score. A study of
mostly low-income adolescent mothers (1 12 African-American, 52 Cuban-
American) revealed a number of differences in parenting: (a) cultural differences,
with Cuban-American mothers scoring higher, and (b) differences in terms of
whether the teen was the primary or the secondary caregiver; but (c) no differ-
ences as a function of family constellation (Field, Widmayer, Adler, & DeCubas,
1990). Bradley, Caldwell, Rock, Barnard, Gray, Hammond, Mitchell, Siegel,
Ramey, Gottfried, & Johnson, (1989) reported generally low correlations be-
tween HOME and mental test scores for lower class children through age 3, and
moderate correlations for lower middle-class children.
Strauss, Lessen-Firestone, Chavez, and Stryker (1979) used the Early Child-
hood HOME in a study of 31 methodone-treated mothers and 27 matched moth-
ers who were not drug dependent. Children with higher scores on the McCarthy
Scales at age 5 came from homes with higher scores on Learning Stimulation and
Responsivity.
Interpreting findings pertaining to the relationship between HOME scores and
developmental status of low SES children is difficult because low income tends
to be confounded with family demographic and family structural factors. Espe-
cially in minority families where structural arrangements (e.g., composition of
the household) can often differ from the traditional middle-class household,
HOME scores may not as accurately reflect the quality of care a child receives. In
a study of poor Black and Hispanic families, Wasserman and her colleagues
(1993) found that HOME was correlated .44with Bayley Mental Development
Index scores in father-present households but only .17 in father-absent
households.
IV. Language Development
Closely related to studies of HOME and intelligence are studies of HOME and
language competence. Elardo, Bradley, and Caldwell (1977) obtained moderate
correlations between 6-month HOME and 37-month scores on the Illinois Test of
Psycholinguistic Abilities (ITPA). Variety, Learning Materials, Involvement, and
Responsivity shared between 18 and 21% common variance with ITPA subtests.
Two-year HOME displayed an even stronger association with the ITPA (up to
.62). Substantial correlations between 24-month HOME and 37-month ITPA was
observed for both Blacks (R = .57) and Whites (R = .72), but 6-month HOME
scores were significant only for Whites.
Low to moderate correlations were obtained between HOME and language
measures for children ages 2 through 8 (Bee et al., 1982; Gottfried & Gottfried,
1984; Siege], 1981a,b). These include children living in India (Sahu & Devi,
1982) and Israel (Palti et al., 1984) as well as North America. Although low to
moderate correlations were common in these studies, differences were found as a
function of race, gender, and social class. Even among hearing-impaired chil-
dren, whose language competence might be expected to be delayed, moderate
correlations were observed (Character-Murchinson, 1988). Somewhat higher
correlations were observed in the Israeli sample, perhaps due to the diverse
nature (including recent immigration) of the sample. Extraordinarily high cor-
relations were observed in two Indian samples and they are more difficult to
HOME Inventory: Review and Rejections 25 1
explain. High correlations were obtained for both economically advantaged and
economically disadvantaged groups.
One of the most elaborate studies of language competence involved a birth
cohort of 407 children from St. Louis, diverse by social class and race (Jordan,
1978). Five-year performance on the Vocabulary scale of the Wechsler Preschool
and Primary Scale of Intelligence was regressed on somatotype, biological risk,
sex, race, social risk, parental authoritarianism, home density, and 3-yr HOME.
Three variables (HOME, social risk, race) were significantly correlated with
vocabulary. Jordan used an interaction regression analysis to show that HOME
accounted for most of the variance in 5-yr vocabulary scores.
A somewhat different approach to the HOME-language proficiency relation-
ship was used by Wulbert et al. (1975). They examined differences in HOME
scores of language-delayed, normal, and language-disabled children (Down’s
syndrome-where no psychosocial causation was suspected). The language-
delayed children lived in homes that were lower on most subscales of the Infant-
Toddler HOME.
In many respects, findings from studies of the relation between HOME and
language competence replicate findings on the relation between HOME and
intelligence. Much about the relation between home environment and language
development is not revealed in the studies reviewed. Too few studies exist and
most of those involved rather simple correlational designs. The study by Jordan
(1978), the studies done outside North America, and the studies on hearing-
impaired and language-delayed children suggest a complex relation between
home environment and language competence, one in which both child factors
and broader ecological factors moderate-perhaps even mediate-the relation
(see Belsky, 1984).
V. Studies of High-Risk Children

A. LOW BIRTH WEIGHT CHILDREN
Sameroff and Chandler (1975) convincingly established that development in

low birth weight children is closely tied to the socioeconomic circumstances in
which the children live. They marshaled evidence in support of the position that a
child’s family milieu was more often implicated in poor developmental outcomes
than was any particular biologic problem or medical complication. Sameroff and
Chandler acknowledged exceptions in such cases as severe trauma and low birth
weight accompanied by coincident severe cognitive or sensory impairment. Even
in such cases, however, the actual pace of development appears to be a function
of the transactions between child and environment across time. Three key no-
tions about development in low birth weight children presented in the Sameroff
and Chandler article have subsequently gained ascendancy among researchers in

human development: (a) the plasticity of development itself, (b) the central role
played by the environment in the course of development, and (c) the belief that
the course of development results from a dynamic, ongoing interplay between
person and environment (see also Lerner, 1985).
Several researchers who used the HOME with families of low birth weight
children have investigated the relationship between environment and develop-
ment in such children. Siege1 (1981, 1982a, 1984) reported one of the most
extensive studies involving 148 infants from Canada. The infants, mostly from
lower middle-class backgrounds, were administered the HOME at 1 and 3 yr.
One-year HOME showed low correlations with Bayley scores at 1 to 2 yr (up to
.40), and low to moderate correlations with IQ and language comprehension
score at age 3 (up to .66). Even with SES and Bayley scores partialled out, most
of the correlations remained significant. Correlations between 3-yr HOME and
5-yr McCarthy scores were also low to moderate. For preterm infants, Accep-
tance showed especially strong relations with the McCarthy General Cognitive
Index (.61). Findings from studies of low birth weight children in the United
States-studies that involved both Black and White children-essentially mirror
findings from Siegel’s studies through age 3 (Bakeman & Brown, 1980; Bradley,
Caldwell, Rock, Casey, & Nelson, 1987; Consullo, 1992; Hayes, 1980; Riccuiti
& Thomas, 1992).
Results from the Infant Health and Development Program (1990), a multisite
clinical trial for 985 premature low birth weight children, are especially valuable
because of the diversity of the sample and the breadth of data available on
participants. Children were enrolled in this study at birth. The study included
administration of the HOME at age 1 and the HOME, the Stanford-Binet Intel-
ligence Scale, the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist, and the Adaptive Social
Behavior Inventoy’ at age 3. Table I displays correlations between HOME scores
and the child measures for White, Black, and Hispanic children separately. As
can be seen in the table, the correlations were low to moderate for Whites and for
Blacks; but they were generally low for Hispanics.
Data from the Infant Health and Development Program were also used to
examine whether the quality of care premature children living in poverty receive
affords them some measure of protection against the generally deleterious conse-
quences of poverty combined with prematurity (Bradley, Whiteside, Mundfrom,
Casey, Kelleher, & Pope, 1994). Of the 243 premature children living in poverty
(i.e., at both biological and environmental risk), only 26 were functioning within
the normal range on intellectual, social, growth, and health measures at age 3.
Six percent of those who came from homes having less than three “protective”
caregiving factors (a combination of scores on the HOME plus residential crowd-
edness) were functioning in the normal range on all four measures, compared to
20% of children with three or more “protective” factors present in their
environments.
TABLE I
Correlations of the HOME Inventory at I and 3 Yr with Maternal IQ, and Child Behavior
and Development Measures for Premature, Low Birth Weight Children
Anglo- American African-American Hispanic-American

HOME HOME HOME
Age 1 Age 3 Age 1 Age 3 Age 1 Age 3
Maternal IQ” .45 .54 .33 .35 .28 .40

Child IQ” .34 .52 .24 .33 .06 .21
Externalizing behaviorh -.30 - .47 -.I7 - .23 - .26 - .20
Internalizing behaviorb -.33 - .47 -.21 -.31 -.I9 -.31
Expressivenessc .39 .42 .23 .42 .20 .01
a Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test.

Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist.
Adaptive Social Behavior Inventoly.
Magyary et al. (1992) followed a group of preterm children from birth through
age 8. They found that the HOME, measured at age 2 yr, was correlated with
children’s performance on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children and the
Peabody Individual Achievement Test. Regression analyses showed that both IQ
and academic achievement were best predicted using a combination of infant
status, family interactive quality, and family context variables.
Results for low birth weight children are similar to results for other children,
including the finding that HOME and child competence are not as highly associ-
ated in Hispanics as in Whites and Blacks, perhaps indicative of differences in
how child-care responsibilities are distributed across family members in the three
groups. HOME generally predicted developmental status as well as or better than
medical risk and other environmental factors. The quality of the home environ-
ment also tended to have predictive power beyond what was predictable from
early developmental status. However, results in the studies by Bradley Caldwell,
Rock, Casey, & Nelson (1987) and by Magyary and her colleagues (1992)
indicate that the course of development is better predicted by a combination of
environmental and medical factors than by the HOME alone, a finding consistent
with Belsky’s (1984) parenting process model of development.
B. CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES
Because of the presumed fragility of children with disabilities and children at

risk for developmental problems that accompany serious medical conditions,
several teams of investigators have concentrated on disabled populations to deter-
mine whether the relationship between home environment and children’s compe-
tence is different for children with disabilities. Most transactional and general
systems models of development portray the home environment both as reflecting

a child’s competence and as influencing the course of development (Sameroff,
1983). Allen, Affleck, McGrade, and McQueeney (1982) studied the relationship
in a group of 46 high-risk children (35 based on perinatal medical status, 11
based on genetic disorder). At age 9 months children’s scores on the Comprehen-
sive Developmental Evaluation Chart correlated .53 with the Learning Materials
subscale but did not correlate with any others. At 18 months, developmental
scores correlated .66 with Learning Materials, and .53 with Variety.
Several other researchers investigated the relation between HOME and compe-
tence during infancy and early childhood, including studies of children with
mental retardation, visual impairment, hearing impairment, language delay, and
orthopedic impairment (Bradley, Rock, Caldwell, & Brisby, 1989; Character-
Murchinson, 1988; LaVeck, Hammond, Tezrow, & LaVeck, 1983; Piper &
Ramsey, 1980; Shonkoff, Hauser-Cram, Krauss, & Upshur, 1992; Wulbert et al.,
1975). Low to moderate correlations generally emerged between HOME and
measures of intellectual and social development, albeit correlations during infan-
cy were minimal. The subscales showing the most consistent relations with child
competence were Learning Materials, Language Stimulation, and Variety, all of
which tap aspects of stimulation available to children. Aspects of the home
environment indicative of socioemotional support (e.g., Acceptance and Re-
sponsivity) showed weaker, less consistent relations with child competence. In
fact, in one study (Bradley, Rock, Caldwell, & Brisby, 1989) low negative
correlations were obtained between the Acceptance subscale and subtests from
the Scales of Independent Behavior. These apparently discrepant findings may
indicate that parents of more competent children (i.e., children whose disabilities
are less severe) tend to use more control techniques, including negative tech-
niques such as punishment and restriction. In effect, mildly handicapped children
can act on exploratory motivations or assert independence to a greater extent than
more severely impaired children. In response, their parents may engage in more
limit-setting behaviors. Such an interpretation is consistent with a view of the
home environment-behavioral development relation as bidirectional. Further
indications of “child effects” on the environment were observed in a later study
by Bradley and his colleagues (Bradley, Rock, Whiteside, Caldwell, & Brisby,
1991) in which HOME was found to be associated with the severity of a child’s
disability even after controlling for family structural and ecological factors.
Despite the fact that HOME scores did seem to reflect the severity of a child’s
disability, however, mean scores on the HOME were not significantly lower for
families including children with disabilities.
A study of 154 children with minor congenital anomalies provides a revealing
look at how home-environment factors and children’s characteristics may inter-
act in their impact on development (LaVeck et al., 1983). At age 4 children were
split into high-HOME and low-HOME groups. In the low-HOME group, having
minor anomalies was consistently related to decreased activity level and de-
HOME Inventory: Review and Rejections 255
creased motor and language development-but not in the high-HOME group.

Notable sex differences were found in the low-HOME group, with males show-
ing much greater vulnerability in expressive language at 4 yr and disturbed
behavior at 3 yr.
Bradley Rock, Caldwell, and Brisby (1989) reported the only study of school
children. The four subscales from the Middle Childhood HOME showing the
strongest relationships with child competence were Responsivity (.34 to .48),
Encouragement (.46 to .76), Learning Materials (.29 to .50), and Family Partici-
pation (.38 to .50).
One should not conclude from the rather consistent pattern of moderate cor-
relations observed for children with disabilities that the correlations are indepen-
dent of biologic factors. Research on medically fragile children and children with
disabilities implicate the role of biologic factors in the relationship. Rqsearch on
families with disabled children clearly reveals that parents are reactive to chil-
dren’s limitations and make what they consider appropriate adjustments (Fewell
& Vadasy, 1986). The designs of studies in which HOME was used to study
relations between home environment and behavioral development relations
among children with disabilities do not provide an adequate base from which to
understand the complexities of environmental action in a group where the course
of development is often quite atypical. Future studies in this area will almost
certainly need to involve larger samples, more complex ecological designs, and
multiple measures of the child’s caregiving milieu (Landesman, Simeonsson, &
Krauss, 1989).
VI. Conditions Affecting the Home Environment-

Cognitive Development Relationship
Several factors contribute to the difficulty of parceling out the relationship

between home environment and the development of cognitive and communica-
tive competence. First, much about continuity of development itself is not well
understood (Bomstein & Krasnegor, 1989). Second, environmental factors tend
to be substantially intercorrelated, undermining efforts to determine which par-
ticular factors are functionally related to development. Third, the environment is
moderately stable, undermining efforts to determine whether observed correla-
tions at particular points in the life span represent independent contributions of
environmental factors at a particular point, cumulative effects over time, or
spurious effects. Fourth, developmental status is moderately stable, undermining
efforts to determine whether observed correlations between environment and
development represent the independent contribution of environment to develop-
ment at a particular point in time, the reaction of environment to individual
differences, or the interaction of environment and development over time. The
purpose of this section is to describe results from studies where analyses involv-
ing the HOME were directed at exploring aspects of the complex interaction of
ecologic and organismic factors that seem to influence the course of
development.
A. MEDIATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THROUGH

COGNITIVE PROCESSES
Yarrow and his colleagues (1975) argued that certain classes of cognitive
variables such as attention, foresight, and goal orientation may be the essential
mediators through which the environment has an impact on development.
Bradley and Caldwell (1980b) identified three clusters of items from the Bayley
that measure the kinds of cognitive functions described by Yarrow et al. (1975):
goal directedness, social responsiveness, and language use. Path analyses pro-
vided no evidence that these three processes measured at 6 months mediate the
HOME-IQ relation. When 12-month scores on the three cognitive process vari-
ables were analyzed, an “indirect” effect for both goal-directedness and language
use was detected. These results do not allow strict causal interpretations because
they cannot rule out a mutually facilitative effect between environment and
cognitive processes. Interpretations are also complicated because estimates of
indirect effects in causal models are often a function of the timing and spacing of
measurements (Gollob & Reichardt, 1991).
B. SPECIFICITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
For years, developmental psychologists have disagreed about the nature of

environmental action, that is, how a person’s experience with the environment
influences the course of development (Wachs & Gruen, 1982). At one extreme,
environmental action is viewed as holistic: children react to the environment as a
composite of many factors, the impact of the environment is recorded in multiple
developmental systems simultaneously, and the impact of the environment is
cumulative. Others see environmental action as highly specific: Particular as-
pects of the environment effect change in particular domains of development at
certain critical points in time or over short periods of time. Unfortunately, the
few studies completed do not permit a determination of which view is most
plausible; thus, one is left with the dilemma of how to interpret inconsistencies
across studies.
I . The Contribution of Specific Environmental Components

and Their Interactions
Bradley and Caldwell (1 982) examined the question of whether 6-month and
12-month HOME subscale scores provide independent prediction of 3-yr IQ.
They regressed 3-yr IQ on 6-month HOME, 12-month HOME, and 12-month
cognitive-processing scores. For boys, little additional variance in IQ could be

accounted for once 12-month Learning Materials, 6-month Learning Materials,
and language use were entered into the model (R2 = .61). For girls, little
additional variance could be accounted for once 12-month scores on Learning
Materials and Responsivity were included (R2 = .49). Results showed that
although each HOME subscale is related to IQ, most subscales do not provide
independent contributions. Only certain specific subscales do, and the particular
ones vary as a function of gender.
Parks and Bradley (1991) examined the joint relation of Learning Materials
and Involvement on early development (6-month scores on the Griffiths) for 155
children in Maryland. Results showed a main effect for each variable plus a
significant interaction. Analysis of residual cell means showed that children with
high scores on both HOME variables had developmental scores higher than
expected, as did children with low scores on both. Children high on one HOME
subscale but low on the other had lower developmental scores than expected. The
same interaction was observed again at 18 months (Parks & Bradley, 1992).
2 . Early versus Later Experience

In studies of environment-development relations, a correlation is commonly
found between Infant-Toddler HOME scores obtained during infancy and chil-
dren’s competence later in life; but the reason such a correlation occurs is un-
clear. Such a correlation can occur if early environment makes a unique contribu-
tion to later competence; or it might simply reflect the fact that early environment
is highly correlated with later environment. Bradley and Caldwell (1982) per-
formed a series of partial correlations to address the question. Six-month HOME
was correlated with 3-yr IQ, controlling for 12-month HOME. Then the proce-
dure was reversed. A similar set of partial correlation was done comparing 12-
month versus 24-month HOME scores. In general, the results indicated that 3-yr
IQ was related more strongly to 24-month HOME than to 12-month HOME, and
3-yr IQ is more strongly associated with 12-month HOME IQ than 6-month
HOME. However, some notable exceptions involved the Learning Materials and
Variety subscales for White boys and the Organization subscale for Black boys.
None of the groups yielded substantial evidence that environment at any one
particular point in the first 2 yr is “most salient” for development. Some support
was obtained for the “specificity of effects” argument put forth by Wachs (1992),
in that some relations observed between particular environmental processes and
intellectual development appear unique to a particular group at a particular mo-
ment in development. A major contributing factor to differences in patterns of
correlations across groups may well be differences in stability of the home
environment for different groups. When the environment was more stable (as was
the casefor Whitefemales), the pattern of relationships between environment and
development exhibited greater consistency across time. These findings are only
258 Robert H. Bradley
suggestive of “specific environmental effects” because the requirements for es-

tablishing specificity of effect were not fully satisfied (Wachs, 1992).
Bradley, Caldwell, and Rock (1988) also examined the issue of early versus
later experience in a study in which 41 children were assessed from 6 months to
11 yr of age. Specifically, they compared three models of environmental action.
Model I, rooted in psychoanalytic, ethological, and attachment theories, asserts
the primacy of the early environment on children’s development. Model 11,
articulated by Kagan (1984), claims predominance of the contemporary environ-
ment. Model 111, evolving from Bloom’s (1964) notion about the importance of
constancy in environments, gives significant weight to the stability of environ-
ments across time. Results provided some support for each mode of environmen-
tal action.
Model I seemed to provide the best explanation of results for three relation-
ships between HOME scores and child performance at age 11: (a) 6-month
Responsivity and considerate classroom behavior; (b) 6-month Variety and con-
siderate classroom behavior; and (c) 2-yr Learning Materials and achievement
test scores.
Model I1 received strongest support in the case of 10-yr scores on Active
Involvement. Partial correlations between this HOME subscale and most child
measures at age 11 remained significant even when HOME scores at both 6
months and 2 yr were controlled. Some support for Model I1 also emerged in the
case of the HOME subscale, Family Participation. Partial correlations with most
child measures (controlling for early HOME scores) were significant. Model I1
also received some support in the case of the relationship of 11-yr Responsivity
and both Language Arts achievement and overall school adjustment.
Model 111 was more difficult to evaluate, given that relatively few home
environment dimensions remained highly stable over the first 10 yr of life. A
dimension called “Parental Involvement in Child’s Development” seems the most
likely candidate to offer support to the stable environments hypothesis. The
stability of this dimension seems to account for relationships with Language Arts
achievement, Considerate classroom behavior, and overall School Adjustment.
Results from these analyses have some technical limitations, but nevertheless
indicate that all three models of environmental action may play a role in the
development of competence. Barnard et al. (1984b) examined similar models of
environmental action. Their results did not provide convincing support for any
model as predominant.
C. CHILD’S EFFECT ON THE HOME ENVIRONMENT
Research in child development emphasizes that children affect their environ-

ments just as the environment affects the development of competence (Bell,
1969; Samemff & Chandler, 1975). Scarr and McCartney (1983) argued that the
way children influence the environment changes with increasing capabilities.

When they are young, children’s influence is mostly passive; that is, through
their actions or their characteristics children elicit different actions from their
caregivers. With increasing age, children become more active; they seek out
environments that more fully meet their needs. Despite the significance of these
propositions for explaining environment-development relations, few researchers
have used HOME to examine child effects. Bradley, Caldwell, and Elardo (1979)
examined the reciprocal influence of infant and environment using cross-lag
panel analysis. Results for Learning Materials indicated that the primary direc-
tion of effect is from intellectual status to Learning Materials in the first year of
life, followed by a period of mutual influence during the second year. For
Parental Involvement, results indicate that from 6 months to 1 yr more capable
children elicit more encouragement and attention from parents; but, during the
second year of life parents who consciously encourage and challenge children
tend to produce children whose relative level of competence increases. Rogosa
(1980) has criticized cross-lag panel analysis as potentially misleading with
respect to direction of causality. However, the results obtained by Bradley and
his colleagues suggest that the issue of mutual influence bears careful scrutiny
because the primary direction of causal influence may evolve throughout
childhood.
Bell (1969) contended that the probability that a child’s characteristics will
influence parental behavior increases as the child’s behavior falls outside the
parents’ “comfort zone” or tolerance. As the behavior or characteristic becomes
more extreme, parents are more likely to move from a self-imposed behavioral
agenda to an agenda driven by the demands, concerns, and limitations imposed
by the child. For example, Bradley et al. (1991) found that the more severe a
child’s disability, the less likely parents were to provide age-appropriate mate-
rials, enriching experiences, and facilitative communication. This finding,
though it illustrates how child characteristics at extreme levels may influence the
quality of experience a child receives, should not be overgeneralized. Children
whose characteristics are not extreme may have little impact on the type or
quality of experience received. That is, they do not cause parents to reverse
judgment regarding what the child needs.
D. HOME ENVIRONMENT IN CONTEXT
Ecological-developmental models of human development (e.g., Belsky,

1980; Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Lerner, 1985; Sameroff, 1983) depict development
as occurring within a multilevel environment. Early development is viewed as a
function of the quality of parenting and the child’s own characteristics. Quality of
parenting, in turn, is shaped by broader cultural, community, and familial fac-
tors. Bradley, Caldwell, Rock, Casey, & Nelson (1987) looked at the relation of
early environment to early mental competence with respect to the following five
categories of ecological and organismic factors: (a) Health: Apgar score, days in
hospital, pregnancy problems, delivery complications, neonatal complications,
long-term medical problems, acute medical problems; (b) family status, father
presence, income, mother’s education, occupational status, SES; (c) family con-
text: physical environment, stressful life events, satisfaction with living arrange-
ments, stability with spouse, paternal emotional support, relations with parents,
social support, social network, parental attitude; (d) family process: Moos’ Fami-
ly Environment Scale; and (e) parenting: HOME. A series of regression analyses
indicated that two HOME subscales (Variety and Organization) plus the Apgar
score as accounting for most of the variance in 18-month Bayley scores. These
findings, together with those of Wasserman and her colleagues (1993), would
seem to support Belsky’s (1984) parenting process model, which depicts child
development as most directly influenced by the child’s own characteristics and
the quality of parenting received. More distal ecologic factors seem to be medi-
ated through the home environment.
Bradley and his colleagues (1990) used a different approach to examine the fit
of ecological-developmental models of early intellectual development. %o ba-
sic questions were addressed: (a) To what extent do the “use of negative control”
(the Acceptance subscale) and “cognitive stimulation” (Learning Materials and
Parental Involvement) influence 3-yr IQ? (b) To what extent to negative control
and cognitive stimulation mediate the SES-child IQ relation? Researchers occa-
sionally have found negative control to be associated with SES and IQ. Yet, little
theory indicates the negative control mediates the relation-perhaps at extreme
levels it might sufficiently reduce exploratory and mastery motivation to have an
impact. By contrast, theory suggests that SES is linked to the amount of stimula-
tion children receive and that cognitive stimulation is linked to IQ. Researchers
have consistently observed an association between cognitive stimulation and
both SES and IQ (Bradley & Tedesco, 1982; Kagan, 1984; McCall et al., 1973;
Wachs & Gruen, 1982). Analyses using structural equations indicated that the
link between family social status and child IQ is perhaps most directly mediated
through active parental encouragement of attainment and the availability of ap-
propriate physical objects. Likewise, Wasserman and her colleagues (1993)
found that in father-present families, HOME mediated the relation between ma-
ternal education and 2-yr scores on the Bayley. In father-absent families both
HOME and paternal support mediated the relation. These findings are in line
with models presented by a number of researchers suggesting that the direction of
influence on developmental systems is from distal structural and contextual fac-
tors through proximal environmental processes (Belsky, 1984; Bloom, 1964;
Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Scarr, 1985; Walberg & Marjoribanks, 1976). Negative
control was not found to be directly related to intellectual development. Support
for ecological-developmental models was also presented in a report by Jordan
HOME Inventory: Review and Reflections 26 1
(1979). HOME accounted for 70 to 0% of the variance attributable to a full

family model for social and cognitive measures at 4.5 to 5.5 yr.
E. PHENOTYPE-ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION
A variation on the long-standing nature versus nurture debate is whether

observed correlations between home environment and intellectual development
represent the environmental contribution or whether they at least partially mask
actual genetic influence (Longstreth, 1978; Wilson & Matheny, 1983). To exam-
ine this issue, Plomin and his colleagues (Plomin & Bergeman, 1991; Plomin et
al., 1985) compared 185 adoptees and a matched set of nonadopted children. For
adoptive and nonadoptive families, the researchers compared correlations be-
tween Infant-Toddler HOME and child scores in four developmental domains at
age 1 yr (behavioral problems, temperament, mental development, and language
development). For both behavioral problems and temperament, the mean correla-
tion with environmental measures was higher in nonadoptive than adoptive fami-
lies. For the mental development and language development domains, only small
differences were found in adoptive and nonadoptive families-indicating little
genetic influence. However, HOME correlated .44with Bayley Mental Develop-
ment Index and S O with Sequenced Inventory of Communication Development
scores in nonadoptive families at age 2. The corresponding correlations in adop-
tive families were .29 and .32, indicating a modest genetic influence.
Plomin and his colleagues provided more detailed information regarding ge-
netic mediation of home environment-IQ correlations by factor analyzing items
for the HOME. They rotated four factors: Variety of Experience (mostly items
from the Learning Materials subscale), Maternal Involvement (mostly items from
the Responsivity subscale), Restriction-Punishment (mostly items from the Ac-
ceptance subscale), and Encouraging Advance (mostly items from the Involve-
ment subscale). Neither Variety of Experience nor Maternal Involvement showed
evidence for a genetic effect, and Restriction-Punishment was unrelated to IQ.
However, Encouraging Advance showed evidence for a modest genetic effect.
Braungart, Fulker, and Plomin (1992) found that about 40% of the variance in
HOME scores was attributable to genetic effects.
Yeates and his colleagues (Yeates, MacPhee, Campbell, & Ramey, 1983)
approached the issue of the contribution of genes and environment to IQ in a very
different manner. They studied 57 low-income Black children at “high risk” for
mental retardation due to low SES, low parental IQ, family instability, or a
family history of social or emotional problems. Results from the study appear to
indicate the HOME scores are significantly associated with children’s intel-
ligence even when maternal intelligence is included in the prediction equation.
Additionally, the relation of HOME to child IQ seems to depend on the age of the
child and whether the child attends day care. Similar findings emerged in several
studies of White families in the United States during infancy and early childhood
(Brummitt & Jacobson, 1989; Gottfried & Gottfried, 1984) and for first grade
and third grade Maharashtrian children from Nagpur, India (Kurtz et al., 1988).
In the latter study, scores on the Middle Childhood HOME predicted achieve-
ment, but neither maternal IQ nor child IQ did. These results suggest cultural
differences.
Bradley et al. (1993) explored the relation between maternal IQ, home envi-
ronment, and child IQ among 608 premature children. The multiple regression
procedures outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986) for testing mediation were
followed. Variables included maternal IQ, child IQ at age 3, cognitive home
environment at age 1 (sum of Play Materials and Parental Involvement sub-
scales), and cognitive home environment at age 3 (sum of Learning Materials,
Language Stimulation, and Academic Stimulation subscales). Separate analyses
were done for 1-yr home environment and 3-yr home environment variables.
Results indicated a small, but significant, “indirect” effect through HOME at 1
yr, and a stronger effect at 3 yr. LISREL analyses provided confirmation of the
regression findings.
The concept of mediation through home environmental processes is not anti-
thetical to the concept of genetically mediated home environmental “influences”
(see Plomin & Bergeman, 1991, for an extended treatment of this issue). Both
notions can be subsumed and integrated within a framework of an interactionist
perspective on human development (Johnston, 1987). Neither the structural
equation methods used in our analyses nor the statistical techniques used by
behavioral geneticists to decompose variance establishes anything more than
probabilistic statements about relationships occurring under a certain range of
conditions (i.e., the relations are neither inevitable nor even truly dominant).
Both DNA and experience set certain things in motion, but, neither can guaran-
tee any particular outcome (Gottlieb, 1991). Such is the nature of interaction in
complex, open systems (Ford & Lerner, 1992). Another important consideration
is that most studies of “causal influences” on developmental systems are done
within a single culture. As such, they offer no way to assess the impact of
culture, but they may inadvertently imply that the “effects” observed are isolata-
ble from cultural and historical constraints (Super & Harkness, 1986).
Studies of the relation between HOME and intellectual-academic attainment,
though limited, reveal a complex, dynamic, moderately strong relation. The
relation appears to strengthen rapidly over the first 2 yr of life, remaining essen-
tially stable through middle childhood. No one model of environmental action
(early effects, contemporary effects, cumulative effects) seems adequate to ex-
plain the relation, although each model seems useful in describing some ob-
served relations. The pattern of relations varies somewhat across groups with
disparities for Hispanics being the most notable. Differences for Hispanics are
difficult to interpret however, given the limited number of studies available and
the fact that data are available only for poor Hispanics, some of whom were
recent immigrants. Patterns of relations also vary for children with disabilities
and for biologically vulnerable children: The more extreme the disability, the
more disparate the results. Some evidence indicates bidirectional effects and
mediated effects. HOME appears to mediate the relation between SES and child
IQ and between parental IQ and child IQ. Also some evidence suggests that the
observed relation between HOME and child IQ may result from the interaction of
genes and environment. Some evidence is consistent with Wachs and Gruen’s
(1982) concept of organismic specificity and age specificity, but gender differ-
ences are limited and almost no age differences in relations appear after age 2.
These latter findings do not refute Scarr and McCartney’s (1982) hypothesis that
as children become older (i.e., more competent), they seek out and produce their
own environments to a greater degree. However, the results do not offer much
support for the propositions that increasing competence contributes substantially
to the general pattern of relations observed for children in early and middle
childhood. Findings from HOME studies suggest that parents respond rather
early to individual differences in children’s competence and that their responses
are more predictable if the child’s characteristics are at extremes of the distribu-
tion. Findings do not contradict the basic idea that the child in the environment
constitutes an “open, dynamic system,” only that the pattern tends to be set rather
early. Very likely the potential for further change in the series of transactions is
somewhat circumscribed by broader familial, ecological, and parental person-
ality factors that tend toward stability of environmental action. Changes in a
child’s basic pattern of experiences in the home (apart from normative age-
related changes) tend to be atypical later in childhood (e.g., they occur in
response to serious disruptions such as divorce, the implementation of interven-
tions, or the gradual adjustment of expectations toward some societal norm like
racial bias or away from a familial norm, as when expectations are diminished
for a child who is discovered to have a disability after infancy). Thus, correla-
tions do not increase because microenvironments remain under the influence of
broad sets of factors other than individual child differences. Children’s efforts to
avail themselves of opportunities they deem more suited to their needs and
interests are increasingly likely to be focused on environments other than the
home.
VII. Social and Behavioral Development
A . TEMPERAMENT
Seven studies have dealt with the relation of HOME to infant temperament
(Affleck et al., 1982; Consullo, 1992; Daniels & Plomin, 1985; Daniels, Plomin,
& Greenhaugh, 1984; Gandour, 1989; Houldin, Fullard, & Heverly, 1989; Math-
eny, Wilson, & Thoben, 1987; Medcoff-Cooper & Schraeder, 1982; Schraeder &
Cooper, 1983). No evidence of a relation was found in four studies. In the other
three, significant correlations were observed, reaching as high as .72. Stronger
associations were observed for children (low birth weight, disabled) or families
(low SES) at risk or samples heterogeneous with respect to demography. Al-
though generalizing the findings from so few studies is risky, they seem to
indicate that when infant characteristics put a strain on the family or when
families have fewer internal resources to deal with normal strains, the association
between parenting practice and child behavior may become more pronounced.
When children are nearer average or when families have adequate resources,
parenting practices may tend to follow the parents’ own proclivities (i.e., person-
ality attributes, personal history, cultural prescriptions, etc.). In her study of 93
middle-class mothers with healthy babies, Consullo (1992) found that the moth-
ers of preterm infants did not perceive their infant to be any more fussy than the
mothers of full-term infants. Mothers of both groups of children were providing
very high-quality care, as measured by the HOME and ratings of mother-child
interaction. These well-supported mothers of preterms did not allow tempera-
ments of their children to interfere with providing sensitive, responsive care.
B. CLASSROOM BEHAVIOR
In a follow-up of the Syracuse sample on which the initial versions of HOME

were developed, vanDoorninck et al. (1981) found that 1-yr HOME scores were
related to teacher ratings of classroom behavior during the primary grades. The
strongest correlations were for Responsivity (.38), Organization (.29), and
Learning Materials (.37). Several other studies have also dealt with the relation
between HOME and classroom behavior during early and middle childhood.
Bradley, Rock, Caldwell, and Brisby (1989) examined the relation of both
Infant-Toddler HOME and Middle Childhood HOME to classroom behavior at
10 to 11 yr of age as assessed with the Classroom Behavior Inventory (CBI)
(Schaeffer & Aaronson, 1977). A few significant correlations emerged between
Infant-Toddler HOME and the three dimensions tapped by the CBI. Many more
emerged between the Middle Childhood HOME and classroom behavior. Both
Active Involvement and Family Participation were moderately correlated with
consideration, task orientation, and school adjustment. Responsivity was also
correlated with consideration and adjustment. The researchers also used the data
to examine three models of environmental action: Model I (primacy of early
experience), Model I1 (predominance of contemporary environment), and Model
III (cumulative effects in stable environments). Though all three models received
some support, the strongest support was for Model 11. The importance of the
early environment was supported in terms of significant partial correlations be-
tween Responsivity and considerate classroom behavior, even with the interven-
ing environment controlled. Similar results were obtained for Variety. The sa-
lience of the contemporary environment received greatest support in the case of
the Family Participation and Active Involvement subscales and classroom behav-
ior (task orientation, consideration, adjustment). The relation of Involvement to
considerate behavior seems largely a function of the cumulative effects of paren-
tal involvement.
Results from four longitudinal studies indicate low to moderate correlations
between HOME and classroom behavior for a diverse group of children living in
the United States (Bradley & Caldwell, 1980a; Bradley, Rock, Caldwell, Harris,
& Hamrick, 1987; Gottfried & Gottfried, 1988; Hammond et al., 1983). Though
most results do not appear to be spurious (i.e., due to broader ecological factors
such as SES or to broad maladaptive traits), such conclusions cannot yet be
clearly drawn. More theory-driven cross-age studies are needed. For example,
the relation between 6-month Parental Responsivity scores and considerate be-
havior in the classroom at age 11 observed in the study by Bradley Caldwell, and
Rock (1988) is consistent with attachment theory. Topics that particularly need
investigation are (a) how early behavioral differences in children in combination
with particular sets of experience in the home relate to children’s later behavior in
another context such as the peer group, and (b) how sociocultural and gender
groups differ in patterns of relations between home environment and classroom
behavior. Findings by Bradley, Rock, Caldwell, Harris, and Hamrick (1987)
indicate both race and gender differences.
C . SOCIAL COMPETENCE
A few studies-not highly interrelated-have been done on the relation be-

tween home environment and social competence. A major component of social
competence is the ability to enter into and to sustain relationships. Bakeman and
Brown (1980) followed 2 1 preterrn and 22 full-term Black, low-income children
from 9 months to 3 yr of age. The child’s social participation (involvement with
others) was assessed using videotapes at camp sessions at age 3. Children’s
social competence (ability to navigate the social world smoothly, gaining both
material and emotional goods from others in socially acceptable ways) was also
rated. The combination of infant’s birth status and the Responsivity subscale
from HOME best predicted social participation. As for social competence, the
best prediction (35.7% of the variance) was provided by a combination of Re-
sponsivity and infant’s early behavioral responsiveness. Other studies also indi-
cate that the quality of the home environment in general, and Responsivity in
particular, are related to adaptive social competence during early and middle
childhood (Jordan, 1979;Tedesco, 1981). A good example is a study of behavior
problems in very low birth weight Dutch children (Weiglas-Kaperus, Koot,
Baerts, Fetter, & Sauer, 1993). They found that HOME scores at ages 1 and 3.5
yr were correlated with clinician ratings of behavior problems. Scores on the
HOME at 3.5 yr was also correlated with the total problems score on the Child
Behavior Checklist.
Consistent with ecological-developmental models, such as Belsky’s (1984)
process model of parenting, Lamb and his colleagues (1988) found that early
development of a socially competent personality was a complex function of both
child and family characteristics as well as the general level of social support
available to parents. Specifically, they found that a composite measure of child
personality, consisting of scores on field independence, ego resiliency, and ego
control, was best predicted by a combination of early child temperament,
HOME, family SES, and support from maternal grandparents.
Although not actually an index of social competence per se, having an internal
locus of control is considered salient for good mental health and adaptive func-
tioning (Rotter, Chance, & Phares, 1972). Bradley and Caldwell (1979a) report-
ed low correlations between the Early Childhood HOME and locus of control
orientation at ages 6 to 8 yr. Analyses indicated gender differences in the pattern
of relations; but the sample size was so small that the coefficients are somewhat
suspect.
One of the most intensive investigations of the relation between HOME and
children’s social and behavioral competence was a prospective longitudinal study
involving 267 mothers from Minnesota who were considered at risk for caretak-
ing problems by health officials due to low income, low education, and having an
unplanned pregnancy (Erickson, Sroufe, & Egeland, 1985). Among securely
attached children who later showed behavior problems, mothers provided less
support and encouragement during problem solving and families had lower
scores on the Learning Materials and Involvement subscales from HOME.
Among anxiously attached infants who later showed no behavior problems,
mothers were more supportive, provided clearer structure and better instruction
during instructional tasks, and had better social support and better relationships,
and families scored higher on the Learning Materials and Involvement subscales.
Families of the children were administered the Middle Childhood version of
HOME when children were 6 yr old; and the children were rated on peer compe-
tence and emotional health by their teachers through third grade (Sroufe, Ege-
land, & Kreutzer, 1990). The ratings were then averaged. This mean rating was
then regressed on 6-yr HOME, 2.5-yr HOME, kindergarten rank, child function-
ing at preschool, and infant attachment classification. All variables in the model,
save attachment classification, made significant contributions to the model. In
general, the findings tend to support Bowlby’s general model of development in
which both the total developmental history and current circumstances are given
important roles.
In sum, evidence from the small number of studies available indicates that
more responsive parents who actively model and encourage social maturity are
likely to have children with greater adaptive social functioning. Correlations are
mostly low to moderate, but seem theoretically plausible for the most part.
However, HOME factors such as Learning Materials and Physical Environment
also showed significant relations with adaptive competence, suggesting the pos-
sibility of a more complex relationship in which broader ecological factors play a
part. A good example of the potential complexity of the relation between home
environment and adaptive social behavior can be found in a multisite study of
549 low birth weight children by Bradley et al. (1992). This study, involving
HOME at 1 and 3 yr plus three measures of adaptive social behavior at 2.5 to 3 yr
showed that (a) correlations between 3-yr HOME and social competence tended
to be higher than correlations with 1-yr HOME, though not uniformly so; (b)
different HOME subscales were related to different aspects of adaptive social
functioning; (c) there was little evidence that parental nurturance (e.g., Accep-
tance, Responsivity) during infancy was more strongly associated with 3-yr
adaptive social behavior than was parental nurturance around age 3, but appar-
ently cognitive stimulation (e.g., Learning Materials, Variety) at age 3 was more
important than at age 1; and (d) social behavior was predicted better by a
combination of nurturant and stimulation factors than with either alone.
Findings by Bakeman and Brown (1980), by Lamb, Hwang, Bookstein, Bro-
berg, Hult, and Frodi (1988), and by Erickson et al. (1985) suggest that particu-
lar parenting practices may interact with both particular child characteristics
(e.g., quality of attachment, difficult temperament) and broader ecological fac-
tors (e.g., marital quality, support from extended family) to affect the course of
social development. Moreover, the study by Plomin et al. (1985) showing little
relation between HOME and behavior problems in adopted children but a
significant-yet small (.23)-relation for nonadopted children suggests that
even genetic factors may play a role.
Children with disabilities present different (often greater) caregiving demands
on parents than do other children. Parents of disabled children frequently per-
ceive their children as having different needs; thus, they treat the differently
(Fewell & Vadasy, 1986). In effect, the parents are reactive to what they see as
their own child’s particular needs. As a result, correlations between home envi-
ronment measures may as often reflect the influence of the child on the parent as
the influence of the parent on the child.
Three teams of investigators have used the HOME in studies of adaptive
behavioral functioning among children with disabilities. Bradley, Rock, Cald-
well, and Bnsby (1989) observed low to moderate correlations between HOME
and performance on the Scales of Independent Behavior from infancy through
middle childhood. These scales measure adaptive functioning such as self-care,
communicative skills, social skills, and behavior problems. Nihira, Mink, and
Meyers (198 1) also observed significant correlations between Early Childhood
HOME and school adjustment among 104 trainable mentally retarded children.
Mink and Nihira (1987) clustered families into three types: (a) cohesive-
harmonious; (b) control-oriented, somewhat unharmonious; and (c) child-
oriented, expressive. Cross-lag panel analysis indicated that for cohesive fami-
lies, parental use of Language Stimulation influenced child self-esteem. For
control-oriented families, child psychological adjustment affected parental Re-
sponsivity. For child-oriented families, child personal-social responsibility influ-
enced Physical Environment and Variety.
Nihira, Tomiyasu, and Oshio (1987) compared results of 88 trainable mentally
retarded children in California to those of 103 similar children in Japan. For
Japanese children, psychological adjustment was related to Learning Materials,
Responsivity, and Learning Stimulation; social adjustment to Learning Materials
and Responsivity. For California children, psychological adjustment was unre-
lated to HOME; but social adjustment was related to all Early Childhood HOME
subscales except Variety. Behavior Problems were essentially unrelated to all
HOME subscales for both groups.
The third team of investigators (Shonkoff et al., 1992) examined relations
between Infant-Toddler HOME scores and behavioral competence for three
groups of infants with disabilities. They observed little relation between HOME
scores and adaptive functioning in these very young children, although HOME
scores were related to parental stress.
The total number of studies dealing with HOME and adaptive behavioral
competence relations among children with disabilities is insufficient to support
strong conclusions. However, findings from the study of Bradley, Rock, Cald-
well, and Brisby (1989) suggest that a few home factors (e.g., Acceptance) may
operate differently in families with handicapped children and families with nor-
mal children. Relatedly, the study by Nihira and his colleagues suggests that
relations may be different in different types of families. The latter study dealt
with an area rarely investigated: levels of specific home environment variables
within a matrix of an overall family style.
A troublesome aspect of correlational approaches to causal modeling is to
interpret findings that a child’s characteristics (e.g., level of personal-social
responsibility) “influence” the physical environment. Parents may capitulate to
hard-to-manage children by having a messier home; but both the child’s behavior
and the messier home may also stem from a third factor (i.e., an unspecified
exogenous variable in the model).
VIII. Health-Related Outcomes

HOME has been used in a variety of studies that deal with health issues. The
majority of these studies have dealt either with child maltreatment or lead bur-
den, both of which are environmentally based health problems (Harvey, 1991).
A . MALTREATMENT
1. Malnutrition
The HOME was used in three studies of malnutrition, two in the United States
and one in Mexico. As part of a study of early intervention for high-risk Black
children, Zeskind and Ramey (1978, 1981) examined the impact of fetal malnu-
trition. For children without intervention, a low ponderal index was associated
with lower scores on the Involvement subscale (the only subscale reported) at 6,
18, and 30 months. For children with intervention, no significant associations
were found. HOME scores of children identified as clinically malnourished were
lower than for nonmalnourished children from similar SES backgrounds through
age 4 yr (Chase & Martin, 1970; Cravioto & DeLicardie, 1972, 1986).
In general, the environmental characteristics measured appear to provide a
kind of early warning system for the eventual development of malnourishment.
However, the relation between malnutrition and child growth and development
does not reflect only their joint relation with stimulation in the home environ-
ment. Grantham-McGregor, Powell, Stewart, and Schofield (1982) compared 18
malnourished to 15 adequately nourished Jamaican children from the same SES
backgrounds, none of whom was handicapped, had chronic disease, or had a
history of acute disease linked to brain damage. Mean differences on both growth
and development parameters between the two groups remained significant after
controlling for both HOME and maternal IQ.
2 . Failure-to-Thrive
An area closely associated with malnutrition is the growth retardation syn-
drome referred to as failure-to-thve (FTT). In an effort to obtain a fuller delinea-
tion of the psychiatric basis for the syndrome, Pollitt, Eichler, and Chan (1975)
employed HOME together with other measures of the child’s family environment
for 19 FTT children and matched normal children. The results showed that
mothers of FIT children, relative to mothers of normal children, displayed less
physical and verbal interaction with their children, were less likely to praise or
caress their children, but were more likely to express annoyance or slap their
children. These differences reveal a distinguishable pattern of behavior for moth-
ers of FIT children. A second study involving matched groups of 156 FTT
children and normally growing children also showed that 1-yr HOME scores
were lower for m T children (Kelleher et al., 1993). Specifically, they were
lower on the Learning Materials, Involvement, and Responsivity subscales.
Bradley, Casey, and Wortham (1984) reported a study of low-income non-
organic FIT children in Arkansas. Twenty-three nonorganic FIT infants were
matched with 23 children with normal growth on age, race, and sex, maternal
education, family income, and household crowding. In matching, no attempt
was made to exclude children who were below average in weight for age but not
low enough to be classified as nonorganic FIT children. This decision was made
to avoid the observed association between family environment and nonorganic

FTT children by curtailing the natural continuum of growth in the population.
Differences between nonorganic FTT and companion families were noted for
three of the HOME subscales (Responsivity, Acceptance, and Organization).
Multiple discriminant analysis was also performed using the six HOME sub-
scales and the Coddington (1972) Life Events Record to differentiate between
nonorganic FIT and matched companion children. Of the 23 nonorganic FTT
children, 15 were placed in the nonorganic FIT group with a probability of 60%
or higher using their discriminant function scores. Four other nonorganic FTT
infants were placed in the nonorganic FIT category with probabilities between
50 and 59% (i.e., borderline). All four of the nonorganic FTT children whose
discriminant scores placed them in the borderline category had low scores on
Variety of Stimulation, only one had a mother who had completed high school,
three had high life stress scores, three had at least three siblings, and two had no
fathers living in the home. f i o of the four assigned to borderline status had low
scores on Acceptance, but were not low enough to be placed in the nonorganic
FTT category with 60% probability. The results from this analysis are question-
able due to the small sample size. They suggest that, although one pattern of
home environment factors may be associated with the majority of nonorganic
FIT cases, other patterns may characterize a smaller number of cases. Undesir-
able developmental outcomes, such as nonorganic FIT, may result for more than
one complex of ecological conditions. Nonorganic l T T itself may represent a
spectrum of related conditions (Drotar, 1985). Thus, it is not surprising that age
of onset and duration of FIT were not related to HOME scores at age 3 (Drotar &
Sturm, 1989).
A study by Budd and her colleagues (1992) makes clear why researchers who
study environment-development relations in risk populations must take care in
identifying and combining study populations. Budd et al. studied FIT children
and children who had feeding disorders (of multiple types, only some of which
had a clear organic basis). They found that HOME did not differentiate among
the various subtypes of feeding disorders even though HOME was related to the
severity of the parent's emotional distress. Studies with small samples composed
of children of mixed ages and mixed types of problems may have too little
statistical power to sort out key relationships between environment and
development.
3. Child Abuse
One study dealt directly with the relation of HOME scores to child abuse. Starr
(1982) examined 87 matched pairs of abused and hospitalized nonabused chil-
dren from Michigan. Mothers of abused children were more alienated, less
socially conforming, and more likely to deny the emotional complexity of child
rearing. They also scored lower on Acceptance and Involvement.
HOME Inventory: Review and Reflections 27 1
4 . Summary
Although few studies have dealt with relations of HOME scores to maltreat-
ment, the findings form a consistent pattern. Indicators of maltreatment such as
malnutrition, nonorganic FIT, abuse, and neglect are associated with parents
who are unresponsive, nonsupportive, disorganized and nonaccepting. Maltreat-
ment also seems to occur more frequently where there is chronic understimula-
tion. Such negative home factors do not inevitably result in a bad outcome for the
affected children many times the factors seem to interact with other ecological
and organismic factors to produce undesirable outcomes. However, attachment
and social learning theories suggest that such poor parenting behaviors, espe-
cially if experienced in combination, are likely to result in multiple poor health
and behavior outcomes (Bandura, 1986; Bretherton & Waters, 1985; Rohner,
1986). Longitudinal studies with large samples are needed to determine the
impact of multiple, sustained deficits in these areas of parenting.
B . LEAD BURDEN
The studies of malnutrition inaugurated a series of studies involving HOME

and health variables, most notably, studies of lead burden. Milar, Schroeder,
Mushak, Dolcourt, & Grant (1980) examined the relation between HOME and
lead burden among children 1 to 6 yr. The children included 26 matched pairs
(high-lead burden vs. low-lead burden). Children with high-lead burden had
lower scores on two subscales, Responsivity and Involvement. Hawk et al.
(1986) found HOME related to blood lead level among 80 Black children (ages 3
to 7 yr) from rural North Carolina. By contrast, in an Australian sample with
generally low-lead exposure, Cooney et al. (1989) reported that HOME was
unrelated to lead level at any point from 6 months to 3 yr of age.
Results from the few available studies seem to indicate that HOME is related
to lead level in populations where exposure to lead is significant, but, is unrelated
in populations where exposure tends to be small. In either case, HOME seems
related to child cognitive development (Cooney et al., 1989; McMichael et al.,
1988; Moore et al., 1989; Schroeder, 1989; Wasserman, Gruziano, Factor-
Litvak, et al., in press). However, in populations with high-lead exposure, lead
level contributes to cognitive decrement beyond what is contributed by under-
stimulation in the home. In high-exposure children, such factors as birth weight
and gestational age also seem to be predictive of cognitive attainment.
IX. Parental Correlates

Many of the items on the HOME Inventory index objects and parenting prac-
tices more common to better educated, wealthier families. Most investigatorshave
found low to moderate correlations between HOME and social status variables
(Adams et al., 1984; Allen et al., 1983; Barnard et al., 1984b; Bradley, Cald-
well, Rock, Barnard, Gray, Hammond, Mitchell, Siegel, Ramey, Gottfried, and
Johnson, 1989, 1991; Brummitt & Jacobson, 1989; Caldwell, 1967; Gottfried &
Gottfried, 1984; Hollenbeck, 1978; Honig & Mayne, 1982; Kurtz et al., 1988;
Nihira et al., 1981, 1987; Noll, Zucker, Curtis, & Fitzgerald, 1989; Parks &
Smeriglio, 1986; Pascoe, Loda, Jeffries, & Earp, 1981; Ragozin, Landesman-
Dwyer, & Streissguth, 1978; Sahu & Devi, 1982; Saxon & Witriol, 1976). How-
ever, the strength of association can sometimes be quite modest (.24), as a study
of working mothers from Italy attests (Fein, Gariboldi, & Boni, 1993). Results
indicate that in cultures with a highly defined class structure such as India, the
link between social status and parenting practice is likely to be tight. By compari-
son, in societies with more mobility across classes and more nearly universal
access to education (but not employment), the association may be weaker.
Studies show that scores on HOME reflect many factors in addition to parental
social status (Bradley & Caldwell, 1978), including parental personality (Allen,
Affleck, McQueeney, & McGrade, 1982; Bergerson, 1989; Crockenberg, 1987;
Fein et al., 1993; Pederson et al., 1988; Reis et al., 1986), parental substance
abuse (Fried, O’Connell, & Watkinson, 1992; Noll, Zucker, Curtis, &
Fitzgerald, 1989; Ragozin et al., 1978), parental IQ (Longstreth et al., 1981;
Plomin & Bergemon, 1991), family structure (Bradley et al., 1982), parental
knowledge about child development and attitudes toward child rearing (Hender-
son, 1975; Lerner, 1979; Parks & Smeriglio, 1986; Reis et al., 1986), social
support (Bradley, Caldwell, Rock, Casey, & Nelson, 1987; Bradley, Rock, Cald-
well, & Brisby, 1989, 1991; Wandersman & Unger, 1983), psychosocial climate
of the home (Bradley et al., 1987; Gottfried & Gottfried, 1984; Nihira et al.,
1980, 1981, 1983; Wandersman & Unger, 1983), presence of traumatic events
(Bradley, Caldwell, Rock, Casey, & Nelson, 1987), and a variety of other com-
munity and cultural factors.
A study that reveals something of the complexity of the relation between
parenting and family ecology was conducted by Wandersman and Unger (1983).
It was designed to determine whether adolescent mothers with good social sup-
port networks whose first babies had perinatal complications or difficult tempera-
ments are better able to adjust to motherhood and provide a more adequate caregiv-
ing environment than analogous mothers with less supportive networks. Among
mothers who had few obstetric complications, HOME was not correlated with
maternal resources or social support. Among the mothers with multiple obstetric
complications, HOME was significantly related to age of mother (.66), feelings
about pregnancy (.64), preparation for childbirth (.44), knowledge about babies
(.57), the availability of relatives (.48), support from the baby’s father (SO),and
support from friends (.44). For babies rated as producing little caregiving stress,
HOME was related to age of mother (.50) and feelings about pregnancy (.49).
For babies rated as producing high caregiving stress, HOME was related to age
of mother (.70), knowledge about pregnancy (.73), knowledge about babies

(.57), social support from baby’s father (.43), and having relatives nearby (.42).
Bradley and Caldwell (1982) conducted a detailed study of the relation be-
tween the Infant-Toddler HOME and several major demographic variables. Mul-
tivariate regression analyses were performed using HOME subscales as criteria
and model variables entered in the following order: degree of crowding, birth
order, social status, sex, race, sex X social status, race X social status, sex X
race. For 1-yr HOME, only the degree of crowding showed a significant overall
multivariate effect. For 2-yr HOME, significant overall multivariate effects were
noted for birth order, social status, and sex X race. Ragozin et al. (1980) also
observed a birth order effect on Involvement and Variety.
A few researchers have also observed mean differences in HOME scores
across sociocultural groups (Bradley & Caldwell, 1982; Bradley, Caldwell,
Rock, Barnard, Gray, Hammond, Mitchell, Siegel, Ramey, Gottfried, and John-
son, 1989; Nihira et al., 1987; Reis & Herz, 1987). Where comparisons have
been made, Whites have tended to score higher on the HOME than non-Whites,
although some interesting exceptions have occurred, such as the study of low
SES Spanish-speaking mothers by Finello and Baron (1992). In a recent study,
Field, Widmayer, Adler, and DeCubas (1990) also found that Cuban-Americans
scored higher than Blacks even though most participants from each group were
lower class. The problem is ethnicity tends to be confounded with both social
status and family configuration, preventing any clear-cut determination of the
precise reason for any observed differences between groups. Samples from Chile
(Bulnes, Cajdler, Edwards, & Lira, 1979), Costa Rica (Park, Radan, Wolf, &
Lozoff, in press), and Singapore (Chua et al., 1989) were compared to the
normative samples with varying outcomes. Unfortunately, none of the samples
was identical to the United States sample in all respects save country of origin.
Neither was the Japanese sample used by Nihira and his colleagues (1987) fully
comparable to the California sample they used.
A further difficulty in interpreting mean differences across sociocultural
groups is that the factor structure of HOME may not be the same for all groups.
Most factor analyses done on the HOME scales have been done either on a single
cultural group or on a combination of sociocultural groups (Billings et al., 1989;
Caldwell & Bradley, 1984; Mitchell & Gray, 1981; Mundfrom, Bradley, &
Whiteside, 1993; Plomin, Loehlin, & DeFries, 1985; Stevens & Bakeman,
1985). The exception was Bradley, Mundfrom, Whiteside, Banett, and Casey
(1994). They determined that the factor structures for Whites and Blacks were
similar on the Infant-Toddler and Early Childhood HOME. However, the factor
structures for Hispanics were different in several respects, calling somewhat into
question the meaning of direct comparisons with Hispanics. However, the use of
factor analysis with measures like the HOME creates some difficulties. Bollen
(1989) makes the distinction between measures composed of “cause” indicators
and measures composed of “effect” indicators. Most measures of psychological
traits (e.g., intelligence, depression, extraversion) contain a set of indicators that

are the assumed “effects” of the trait being measured (e.g., depression causes
loss of appetite, sleeplessness, etc.) By comparison, most measures of the envi-
ronment would appear to be composed of “cause” indicators (e.g., toys produce
stimulation for the child). Unlike indicators that result from a common cause
(e.g., the many indicators of depression), indicators which produce a common
effect may themselves be unrelated. Thus, the underlying structure of environ-
mental measures may be difficult to define and factor analysis results may vary
from one population to another.
HOME scores also vary as a function of maternal age (Coll et al., 1986, Coll,
Hoffman, Houten, & Oh, 1987, Coll, Hoffman, & Oh, 1987; Field et al., 1990;
Luster & Rhoades, 1989; Reis, Barbera-Stein, & Bennett, 1986; Schilmoeller &
Baranowski, 1985; vonwindeguth & Urbano, 1989). Reis and Herz (1987) even
found that younger teens (1 3 to 16 yr old) had lower scores than older teens (16
to 19). Coll and her colleagues found that even with total child-care support and
stress controlled, older mothers scored higher on HOME.
MacKinnon, Brody, and Stoneman (1982) did a careful study of the effects of
divorce and maternal employment on HOME scores. Even when they matched
groups on sex and age of target child, maternal education, and number of chil-
dren in the family, single parents scored lower on most subscales. Bradley,
Elardo, Rosenthal, and Friend (1984) observed differences at 6 and 24 months on
the HOME favoring intact families in a matched sample of Black families (see
also Allen, Affleck, McGrade, & McQueeney, 1982). The total number of inves-
tigations relating HOME scores to other ecological variables remains low-too
low to warrant strong generalizations. Nonetheless, several patterns are begin-
ning to emerge, such as moderate to strong (.3 to .7) correlations between
HOME and several key demographic measures and evidence that HOME scores
reflect family structural characteristics and the amount of support available to
families. These are findings in keeping with most ecological models of human
development. Additionally, mounting evidence indicates that HOME factors
such as Responsivity may be consistently associated with parental depression.
However, too few studies have been done on the relation of HOME to measures
of stress to permit a clear statement about the relationship; and too few studies
involving HOME and measures of social support have been done to delineate the
nature of the relationship. Similarly, the literature contains too few studies of the
relation between family style measures such as the family Environment Scale to
make clear the relation, especially because SES has not been factored out in most
studies.
X. Conclusions
The HOME Inventories have been widely used in studies of child behavior and
development. Nonetheless, its actual value as a measure of the quality of stimu-
lation, support, and structure available to children in their home environments

rests on its validity as applied in a wide array of studies. Thus, several aspects of
validity need to be evaluated as they apply to HOME after 25 yr of use in many
different contexts.
With respect to construct validity, one must ask: Is the pattern of relations
obtained between HOME and other variables in line with theoretical expecta-
tions? In general, the answer appears to be yes. HOME scores tend to reflect a
family’s socioeconomic conditions, but HOME reflects SES most closely when
opportunities for education, housing, and employment are equally circumscribed
(e.g., the correlation between HOME and occupational status among Black
Americans is quite low). However, marked variability in HOME scores has been
found within social classes. HOME scores also show expected relations with
other parental characteristics (e.g., IQ, age, mental health, substance abuse) and
other ecological factors (e.g., social support, crowding, stressful life events).
Gradually emerging is a set of findings showing theoretically meaningful links
between HOME and various measures of children’s health and development.
These findings appear to be corroborating the subscale structure of HOME as
well. For example, the homes of FTT children are characterized by parents who
are unresponsive, restrictive, and disorganized, nor by parents who provide too
few toys or enriching experiences. The link between parent IQ and child IQ is
mediated by the kinds of toys parents provide and their encouragement of devel-
opment, nor by the control techniques they use. Clearly, more work needs to be
done to establish the construct validity of HOME, especially work in other
cultures.
Although items on the HOME appear to be related in theoretically meaningful
ways to many ecological and developmental measures, the issue of validity has
to be addressed with respect to the particular uses to which HOME is put. HOME
is probably not appropriate for use with all sociocultural groups, and it is proba-
bly not useful when applied to families with children whose characteristics are
markedly different from those of most children. For instance, “growth fostering
materials and experiences” for a 9-yr-old severely multiply handicapped child
probably do not include having a suitable place for reading or being allowed to
visit a friend on one’s own. Studies of extremely impoverished families in Latin
America call into question whether the content of the HOME covers a sufficiently
broad range of indicators in the domains tapped (many homes have no toys at
all): does HOME go low enough? Similarly, studies of upper middle-class fami-
lies call into question whether the HOME can usefully discriminate between
those who have above-average stimulation and support from those who have very
high levels: does HOME go high enough? In addition to questions concerning
whether the HOME covers a sufficient range in each domain, another question is
whether the HOME covers with sufficient intensify the range it does cover (In a
study of maternal responsiveness, are 11 binary-choice items good enough?). In
essence, establishing the validity of a measure means not only determining
whether items in the measure are drawn from the appropriate domain but whether
they fit one’s goals for the measure in the population being measured. In lieu of
having enough information to make a determination in particular cases, some
researchers have adopted the strategy of using HOME and supplementing it with
additional items or measures that together may afford the best likelihood of
appropriate coverage.
Studies of children’s health and development involving the HOME reveal a
consistent, somewhat defined picture, particularly in areas like intellectual devel-
opment. For reasons cited above, the potential of HOME as a marker measure is
limited. Nonetheless, it may be one of the most useful home environment mea-
sures for certain types of investigations, including cross-cultural studies and
large-scale longitudinal studies where multiple aspects of children’s health and
development are investigated. Because HOME assesses several aspects of the
environment (aspects with theoretically different linkages to components of chil-
dren’s health and development), using it in large-scale studies may help to
delineate the relations and to determine the accuracy of various theories. Signifi-
cant in this regard is the fact that children do not constantly experience the
environment as separable dimensions, though at times they may experience some
dimensions as isolated. Responsive parents do other things in regard to their
children than act responsively; children encounter other things in the environ-
ment than a responsive parent (i.e., experience is a composite). Delineating the
complex pattern of relations between environment and development will require
examining multiple aspects of the environment and following them over time in a
child’s life with a goal of determining which dimensions are functional for
different aspects of development. Components of health and development are
also interconnected: bad outcomes in one area can lead to bad outcomes in a
second; strength in one area can help buffer weakness in another.
The many low to moderate correlations observed in the studies reviewed call
into question whether the most appropriate measures have been selected for
examining the relationship between aspects of the family ecology and children’s
development, including whether the HOME itself was always the best choice.
Illuminating in this regard is a study by O’Brien, Johnson, and Anderson-Goetz
(1989). In their study the quality of mother-infant interaction was assessed under
three settings: two home settings and one laboratory setting. The HOME was
also used. Significant differences were found across the three settings on all ten
dimensions of maternal behavior rated. Correlations between HOME and the ten
rating scales vaned considerably across the three settings. The ratings of mater-
nal interaction quality were highly similar in the lab and at home when the same
set of age-appropriate toys was provided in both settings. The results make clear
how difficult it is to define and measure “typical” or “representative” behavior in
parents. It becomes incumbent upon researchers to define the conditions under
which particular home environmental characteristics are expected to influence
particular aspects of development, then design or select measures to capture

those critical aspects of the environment.
Finally, a word should be said about some common methodological shortcom-
ings of the studies reviewed. The samples used in most studies were far from
ideal. Often the sample sizes were too small to permit reliable estimates of
population parameters, especially in studies where such multivariate techniques
as discriminant analysis, multivariate analysis of variance, and structural equa-
tion modeling were executed. Most of the samples were also convenience sam-
ples, drawn from a single neighborhood, hospital, agency, or school. These do
not appear to have been drawn in such a way that a convincing test of hypotheses
could be made. As a result, the generalizability and interpretability of findings
are open to question. There were even studies where disparate groups were
combined to form a sample that does not seem to represent any meaningful
population. In a few of these studies, the results appear to be misleading as a
direct function of the sampling flaws.
As the samples used in the studies reviewed often appeared to be ones of
convenience, so too did choices of measures used in the examination of home
environment-child development relations and in the examination of home
environment-family ecology relations. That is, the measures selected to opera-
tionalize key constructs in these studies were often not adequate as indicators of
the constructs. They were not driven by clearly relevant theory and they did not
possess adequate psychometric properties. These limitations were particularly
notable in studies where the primary stated purpose of the study was not to test
hypotheses concerning the home environment.
Many of the studies had significant data analysis flaws. In over half the
studies, the approach to data analysis did not derive from a developmental or
family systems theory, a clearly specified developmental model, or even a care-
fully integrated review of empirical studies (i.e., there were no clearly justified
hypotheses driving the analyses). In some studies, a large number of statistical
tests were performed; but rarely were appropriate corrections made in p-values to
take account of the large number of statistical tests. When correlation coefficients
were compared across groups, between-group differences were often inferred
despite the fact that statistical tests for differences in pairs of correlations were
seldom performed. Relatedly, on the basis of observing a few between-group
differences in bivariate correlations, inferences were made regarding patterns
that distinguished one group from another. Only once was an omnibus test of
between-group differences in correlation matrices actually reported.
Regression analysis was frequently used in the studies reviewed. However, its
use was characterized by several common mistakes: (a) variables were included
in the regression model for which no justification was offered; (b) models in-
cluded sets of highly colinear measures and measures where distributional prop-
erties can lead to unusual findings; (c) stepwise procedures were used to “select”
a most efficient set of predictors when the order of inclusion would have been
better determined a priori, based on theoretical propositions or logical analysis;
and (d) the regression results were not cross-validated. Thus, there is a high
likelihood that many of the findings are chance findings. It is not surprising that
most of the specific findings from these analyses have not been replicated.
REFERENCES
Adams, J. L., Campbell, F. A., & Ramey, C. T (1984). Infants’ home environments: A study of
screening efficiency. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 89, 133- 139.
Affleck, G.,Allen, D. A., McGrade, B. J., & McQueeney, M. (1982). Home environments for
developmentally disabled infants as a function of parent and infant characteristics. American
Journal of Mental Deficiency, 5 , 445-452.
Allen, D. A., Affleck. G.,McGrade, B. I., & McQueeney, M. (1984). Effects of single parent status
on mothers of their high-risk infants. Infant Behavior and Development, 7 , 347-359.
Allen, D. A., Affleck, G.,McQueeney, M., & McGrade, B. J. (1982). Validation of the Parent
Behavior Progression in an early intervention program. Mental Retardation, 20, 159-163.
Allen, D. A., McGrade, B. J., Affleck. G.,& McQueeney, M. (1982). The predictive validity of
neonatal intensive care nurses’ judgements of parent-child relationships: A nine-month follow-up.
Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 7 , 125-134.
Andrews, S. R., Blumenthal, J. B., Johnson, D. L., Kahn, A. J., Ferguson, M. J., Lasater, T. M.,
Malone, P. E., & Wallace, D. B. (1982). The skills of mothering: a study of parent child
development centers. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 47 (No.
198). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Bakeman, R., & Brown, J. V. (1980). Early interaction: Consequences for social and mental devel-
opment at three years. Child Development, 51, 437-447.
B a n d m , A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social - cognitive theory. En-
glewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Barnard, K. E., Bee, H. L., & Hammond, M. A. (1984a). Developmental changes in maternal
interactions with term and preterm infants. Infanr Behavior and Development. 7 , 101-1 13.
Barnard, K. E., Bee, H. L., & Hammond, M. A. (1984b). Home environment and cognitive
development in a healthy, low-risk sample: The Seattle study. In A. Gottfried (Ed.), Home
environment and early cognitive development (pp. 117- 149). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 51 1173-1 182.
~
Bates, J. E., Olson, S. L., Pettit, G.S., & Bayles, K. (1982). Dimensions of individuality in the
mother-infant relationship at six months of age. Child Development, 53,446-461.
Bee, H. L., Barnard, K. E., Eyres, S. J., Gray, C. A., Hammond, M. A., Spietz, A. L., Snyder, C.,
& Clark, B. (1982). Prediction of IQ and language skill from perinatal status, child performance,
family characteristics, and mother-infant interaction. Child Development, 53, I 134- 1156.
Bee, H. L., Mitchell, S., Barnard, K., Eyres, S. J., & Hammond, M. A. (1984). Predicting
intellectual outcomes: Sex differences in response to early environmental stimulation. Sex Roles,
10, 783-803.
Bell, R. (1969). A reinterpretation of the direction of effects in studies of socialization. Psychological
Bulletin, 75, 81-95.
Belsky, J. (1980). Child maltreatment: An ecological integration. American Psychologisr, 35, 320-
335.
Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development, 55, 83-96.
Belsky, J., Garduque, L., & Hmcir, E. (1984). Assessing performance, competence and executive
capacity in infant play: relations to home environment and security of attachment. Developmental
Psychology, 20, 406-417.
Bergeman, C. S. & Plomin, R. (1988). Parental mediators of the genetic relationship between home
environment and infant mental development. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 6 ,
11-19.
Bergerson, S. (1989). Personality characteristics of mothers whose infants are referred to early inrer-
vention programs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Billings, R., Jacobson, S.,Jacobson, J., & B ~ m i t tG.
, (1989, April). Preschool HOME: Dimensions
and predictive validity. Presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Develop-
ment, Kansas City, MO.
Bloom, B. S . (1964). Stability and change in human characteristics. New York: Wiley.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Strucrural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
Bornstein, M. H., & Krasnegor, N. A. (1989). Sfability and conrinuity in mental development.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bowlby, I. (1958). The nature of the child’s tie to his mother. International Journal of fsycho-
anulysis, 39. 350-373.
Bradley, R. H. (1982). The HOME Inventory: A review of the first 15 years. In W. Frankenburg,
N. Anastasiow, & A. Fandal (Eds.), Identifying the developmentally delayed child. Baltimore:
University Park Press.
Bradley, R. H.,& Caldwell, B. M. (1976a). Early home environment and changes in mental test
performance in children from six to thirty-six months. Developmental Psychology, 12, 93-97.
Bradley, R. H.,& Caldwell, B. M. (1976b). The relationship of infants’ home environment to mental
test performance at fifty-four months: A follow-up study. Child Development. 47, I 172-1 174.
Bradley, R. H., & Caldwell, B. M. (1979a). Home environment and locus of control. Journal of
Clinical Child Psychology, 8, 107- 110.
Bradley, R. H., & Caldwell, B. M. (1979b). Home Observation for Measurement of the Environ-
ment: A revision of the preschool scale. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 84, 235-244.
Bradley, R. H., & Caldwell, B. M. (1980a). Home environment, cognitive competence and IQ
among males and females. Child Devetopmenr, 51, 1140-1 148.
Bradley, R. H., & Caldwell, B. M. (1980b). Home environment, cognitive processes and intel-
ligence; A path analysis. In M. Friedman, J. Das, & N. O’Connor (Eds.), Intelligence and
learning (pp. 509-514). New York: Plenum.
Bradley, R. H., & Caldwell, B. M. (1981). The HOME Inventory: a validation of the preschool scale
for black children. Child Development, 52, 708-710.
Bradley, R. H., & Caldwell, B. M. (1982). The consistency of the home environment and its relation
to child development. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 5 , 445-465.
Bradley, R. H., & Caldwell, B. M. (1984a). The HOME Inventory and family demographics.
Developmental Psychology, 20, 3 15-320.
Bradley, R. H., & Caldwell, B. M. (1984b). The relation of infants’ home environments to achieve-
ment test performance in first grade: A follow-up study. Child Development, 55, 803-809.
Bradley, R. H., & Caldwell, B. M. (1988). Using the HOME inventory to assess the family
environment. Pediatric Nursing, 14(2), 97- 102.
Bradley, R. H., Caldwell, B. M., & Elardo, R. (1979). Home environment and cognitive develop-
ment in the first two years of life: A cross-lagged panel analysis. Developmental Psychology, 15,
246-250.
Bradley, R. H., Caldwell, B. M., Rock, S. L.. Hamrick, H. M., & Harris,P. T. (1988). Home
observation for measurement of the environment: Development of a HOME inventory for use
with families having children 6 to 10 years old. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13, 58-
71.
Bradley, R. H., Caldwell, B. M., &Rock, S. L. (1988). Home environment and school performance:
A ten-year follow-up and examination of three models of environmental action. Child Develop-
ment, 59, 852-867.
Bradley, R. H., Caldwell, B. M., Rock, S. L., Barnard, K. E., Gray, C., Hammond, M. A.,
Mitchell, S., Siegel, L., Ramey, C. T., Gottfried, A. W., & Johnson, D. L. (1989). Home
environment and cognitive development in the first 3 years of life: A collaborative study involving
six sites and three ethnic groups in North America. Developmental Psychology, 28, 217-235.
Bradley, R. H., Caldwell, B. M., Rock, S. L., Casey, P. H., & Nelson, J. (1987). The early
development of low-bilthweight infants: Relationship to health, family status, family context,
family processes, and parenting. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 10, 1- 18.
Bradley, R. H., Casey, P. H., & Wortham, B. (1984). Home environments of low SES non-organic
failure-to-thrive infants. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 30, 393-402.
Bradley, R. H., Elardo, R., Rosenthal, D., & Friend, J. H. (1984). A comparative study of the home
environments of infants from single-parent and two-parent black families. Acta Paedologica, 1 ,
33-46.
Bradley, R. H., Mundfrom, D. J., Whiteside, L. A., Banett, K., & Casey, P. H. (1994). A factor
analytic study of the infant-toddler and early childhood versions of the HOME Inventory for
white, black, and Hispanic Americans. Child Development, 65, 880-888.
Bradley, R. H., & Rock, S. L. (1985). The HOME Inventory: Its relation to school failure and
development of an elementary-age version. In W. Frankenburg, R. Emde, & J. Sullivan (Eds.),
Early identiJcation of children at risk: An international perspective (pp. 159-174). New York:
Plenum.
Bradley, R. H., Rock, S. L., Caldwell, B. M., & Brisby, J. A. (1989). Uses of the HOME inventory
for families with handicapped children. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 94, 3 13-330.
Bradley, R. H., Rock, S. L., Caldwell, B. M., Hanis, P. T., & Hamrick, H. M. (1987). Home
environment and school performance among black elementary school children. Journal of Negro
Education, 56, 499-509.
Bradley, R. H., Rock, S. L., Caldwell, B. M., & Whiteside, L. (1990, April). Home environment
and intellectual development in the first three years: A structural analysis. Presented at the 7th
International Conference on Infancy Studies. Montreal, Canada.
Bradley, R. H., Rock, S. L., Whiteside, L., Caldwell, B. M., & Brisby, J. A. (1991). Dimensions of
parenting in families having children with disab es. Exceptionality, 2, 41-61.
Bradley, R. H., & Tedesco, L. (1982). Environmental correlates of mental retardation. In J. Lachen-
meyer & M. Gibbs (Eds.), The psychology of the abnormal child (pp. 155-189). New York:
Gardner Press.
Bradley, R. H., Whiteside, L. A., Caldwell, B. M., Blevins-Knabe, B., Casey, P. H., Kelleher,
K. M., Pope, S., & Barrett, K. (1992). Home environment and adaptive social behavior:
Alternative models of environmental action. Unpublished manuscript. University of Arkansas at
Little Rock, Center for Research on Teaching and Learning, Little Rock, AR.
Bradley, R. H., Whiteside, L. A., Caldwell, B. M., Casey, P. H., Kelleher, K. M., Pope, S.,
Swanson, M., Barrett, K.,& Cross, D. (1993). Maternal IQ, the home environment, and child
IQ. International Jgurnal of Behavioral Development, 16, 61-74.
Bradley, R. H., Whiteside, L., Mundfrom, D. J., Casey, P. H., Kelleher, K. J., & Pope, S. K.
(1994). Early indications of resilience and their relation to experiences in the home environments
of low birthweight, premature children living in poverty. Child Development, 65, 346-360.
Braungart, J. M., Fulker, D. W., & Plomin, R. (1992). Genetic mediation of home environment
during infancy: A sibling adoption study of HOME. Developmenzal Psychology, 28, 1048- 1055.
Bretherton, I., & Waters, E. (1985). Growing points of attachment theory and research. Monographs
of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50, (1-2, Serial No. 209).
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-
sity Press.
HOME Inventory: Review and Refections 28 1
Brumitt, G. A., & Jacobson, J. L. (1989, April). The infuences ofhome environment and socio-
economic status on cognitive performunce at 4 years. Paper presented at the meeting of the
Society for Research in Child Development. Kansas City, MO.
Budd, K., McGraw, T., Farbisz, R., Murphy, T., Hawkins, D., Heilman, N., & Werle, M. (1992).
Psychosocial concomitants of children’s feeding disorders. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, f7,
81-94.
Bulnes, B., Cajdler, B., Edwards, M., & Lira, L. (1979). Inventario para Evaluur el Ambrente
Familiar: (HOME). Estudio explorotorio en una muestra de nivel socioeconomicao bajo. Centro
de Estudios de Desumllo y Estamacion psicosocial, Santiago, Chile.
Caldwell, B. M. (1967). Descriptive evaluations of child development and of developmental settings.
Pediarrics, 40, 46-54.
Caldwell, B. M., & Bradley, R. H. (1984). Home Observationfor Measuremenr ofthe Environment.
Little Rock: University of Arkansas at Little Rock.
Caldwell, B. M., Heider, J., & Kaplan, B. (1966, September). The inventory ofhome stimularion.
Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C.
Carlson, D. B., Labarba, R. C., Sclafani, J. D., & Bowers, C. A. (1986). Cognitive and motor
development in infants of adolescent mother: A longitudinal analysis. International Journal of
Behuvioral Development, 9, 1- 13.
Character-Murchinson, I. (1988). Family and environmental churacrerisrics as they relate to the
language development of young hearing-impaired children. Unpublished master’s thesis, Utah
State, Logan.
Chase, H. P., & Martin, H. P.(1970). Undernutrition and child development. New England Journal
of Medicine, 282, 933-939.
Chua, K. L., Kong, D. S., Wong, S. T., & Yoong, T. (1989). Quality of the home environment of
toddlers: A validation study of the HOME Inventory. Journal ofthe Singapore faediatric Sociery,
31, 38-45.
Coddington, R. D. (1972). The significance of life events as etiological factors in the diseases of
children-11. A study of a normal population. Journal ofPsychosomutic Research, 16. 205-213.
Coll, G. C. (1990). Developmental outcome of minority infants: A process oriented look into our
beginnings. Child Development, 61, 270-289.
Coll, C. G., Hoffman, J., Houten, L., &Oh, W. (1987). The social context of teenage childbearing:
Effects on the infants care-giving environment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 345-360.
Coll, C. G., Hoffman, I., & Oh, W. (1987). The social ecology and early parenting of Caucasian
adolescent mothers. Child Development, 58, 955-963.
Coll, C. G., Vohr,0.. Hoffman, J., & Oh, W. (1986). Maternal and environmental factors affecting
developmental outcomes of infants of adolescent mothers. Developmental and Behavioral Pedi-
atrics, 7,230-236.
Consullo, M. (1992, May). Relationship of early responsiveness to one-year outcomes inpreterm and
full-term infants. Paper presented at the International Conference on Infancy Studies, Miami, FL.
Cooney, G. H., Bell, A,, McBride, W., & Carter, C. (1989). Neurobehavioral consequences of
prenatal low level exposure to lead. Neurotonicology and Teratology, f f , 95-104.
Coons, H., Fulker, D. W., DeFries, J. C., & Plomin, R. (1990). Home environment and cognitive
ability of 7-year-old children in the Colorado Adoption Project: Genetic and environment eti-
ologies. Developmental Psychology, 26, 459-468.
Cravioto. J., & DeLicardie, E. R. (1972). Environmental correlates of severe clinical malnutrition
and language development in survivors from kowashiorkor or marasmus. Nutrition: The nervous
sysrem and behavior (Scientific Publication No. 251). Washington, D.C.: Pan-American Health
Organization.
Cravioto, J., & DeLicardie, E. R. (1986). Microenvironmental factors in severe protein-calorie
malnutrition. In N. Scrimshaw & M. Behar (Eds.), Nutrition and agriculrural development
(pp. 25-36). New York: Plenum.
Crockenberg, S. (1987). Predictors and correlates of anger toward and punitive control of toddlers by
adolescent mothers. Child Development, 58. 964-975.
Daniels, D., & Plomin, R. (1985). Origins of individual differences in infant shyness. Developmental
PSyChology, 21, 1 18- 121 .
Daniels, D., Plomin, R., & Greenhaugh, J. (1984). Correlates of difficult temperament in infancy.
Child Development, 55. 1184- 1194.
Drotar, D. (1985). Environmentally based failure-to-thrive: Diagnostic subtypes and early prognosis.
In B. Stables & L. E. Underwood ( U s . ) , Slow grows the child psychosocial aspects of growth
data (pp. 151-167). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Drotar, D., & Sturm, L. (1989). Influences on the home environment of preschool children with
early histories of nonorganic failure-to-thrive. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 5,
229-235.
Elardo, R., & Bradley, R. H. (1981). The Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment:
A review of research. Developmental Review, 1 , 113- 145.
Elardo, R., Bradley, R. H., & Caldwell, B . M. (1975). The relation of infants’ home environments to
mental test performance from six to thirty-six months: A longitudinal analysis. Child Develop-
ment, 45, 71-76.
Elardo, R., Bradley, R. H., & Caldwell, B. M. (1977). A longitudinal study of the relation of infants’
home environment to language development at age three. Child Development. 48, 595-603.
Erickson, M. F., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (1985). The relationship between quality of attach-
ment and behavior problems in a high risk sample. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing
points of attachment theory and research. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 50 (Serial No. 209, pp. 147-166).
Eyres, S . J., Barnard, K. E., & Gray, C. A. (1979). Child health assessment: Part 11, 2-4 years
(Final report of project supported by Grant R02-NU-00559). Division of Nursing, Bureau of
Health Manpower, Health Resources Administration, DHEW.
Fein, G. G., Gariboldi, A., & Boni, R. (1993). Antecedents of maternal separation anxiety. Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly, 39, 48 1-495.
Fewell, R . , & Vadasy, P. (1986). Families of handicapped children. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Field, T.M., Widmayer, S . M., Adler, S . , & DeCubas, M. (1990). Teenage parenting in different
cultures, family constellations, and caregiving environments: Effects on infant development.
Infant Mental Health Journal. 11, 158-174.
Finello, K., & Baron, J. (1992, May). Use of the HOME Inventory in a very low SES Spanish
speaking sample. Presented at the International Conference on Infancy Studies, Miami, FL.May.
Ford, D. M., & Lerner, R. M. (1992). Developmental systems theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Fowler, W., & Swenson, A. (1975). The influence of early stimulation on language development.
Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Department of Applied Psychology.
Fried, P. A., O’Connell, C. M.. & Watkinson, B. (1992). 60-and 72-month follow-up of children
prenatally exposed to marijuana, cigarettes, and alcohol: Cognitive and language assessment.
Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics. 13, 383-391.
Gandour, M. 1. (1989). Activity level as a dimension of temperament in toddlers: Its relevance for the
organismic specificity hypothesis. Child Development. 60, 1092- 1098.
Gandour, M. J., et al. (1982, May). Cognitive-intellectual development at two ages: When does the
environment influence early intelligence? Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwestern
Psychological Association, Minneapolis, MN.
Gershenson, H. P. (1982, April). Child rearing environment and family stability in households with
adolescent mothers. Paper presented at the Southeastern Conference on Human Development,
Baltimore, MD.
Gollob, H. E., & Reichardt, C. S. (1991). Interpreting and estimating indirect effects assuming time
lags really matter. In L. M. Collins & J. L. Horn (Eds.), Best methods for the analysis of change
(pp. 243-263). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Gottfried, A. W., & Gottfried, A. E. (1984). Home environment and cognitive development in young
children of middle-socioeconomic status families. In A. W. Gottfried (Ed.), Home environment
and early cognitive development (pp. 329-342). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Gottfried, A. E., & Gottfried, A. W. (1988). Maternal employment and children's development:
Longitudinal research. New York: Plenum.
Gottlieb, G. (1991). Experimental canalization of behavioral development: Theory. Developmental
Psychology. 27, 4-13.
Grantham-McGregor, S. M., Powell, C., Stewart, M., & Schofield, W. N. (1982). Longitudinal
study of growth and development of young Jamaican children recovering from severe protein-
energy malnutrition. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 24, 321-331.
Hammond, M. A., Bee, H. L., Barnard, K. E., & Eyres, S. J. (1983). Child health assessment: Part
IV Followup at second grade. (ROI NU 00816). U.S. Public Health Service.
Harvey, B. (1991). Presidential address: Why we need a national child health policy. Pediatrics, 87,
1-6.
Hawk, B. A., Schroeder, S. R., Robinson, G., Otto, D., Mushak, P., Kleinbaum, D., & Dawson,
G. (1986). Relation of lead and social factors to IQ of low-SES children: A partial replication.
American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 91, 178- 183.
Hayes, J. S. (1980). Premature infant development: An investigation of the relationship of neonatal
stimulation, birth condition, and home environment to development at age three years. Pediatric
Nursing, 6(6), 33-36.
Henderson, M. L. (1975). Home environment, maternal attitudes. marital adjustment, and SES:
Their association wirh mental and motor development of two-year-old children. Unpublished
master's thesis, Kansas State University, Manhattan.
Hollenbeck, A. R. (1978). Early infant home environments: validation of the Home Observation for
Measurement of the Environment Inventory. Developmental Psychology, 14, 416-41 8.
Honig, A. S., & Mayne, G. (1982). Black fathering in three social class groups. Ethnic Groups, 4 ,
229-238.
Houldin, A. G., Fullard, W., & Heverly, M. A. (1989). Toddler temperament and quality of the
child-rearing environment. Pediatric Nursing, 15, 491-496.
Hunt, J. M. (1961). Intelligence and experience. New York: Ronald.
Infant Health & Development Program.(1990). Enhancing outcomes of low-birth-weight, premature
infants. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 3035-3070.
Johnson, D. L., & Breckenridge, J. N. (1981, April). The impact of aparenr education program on
the home environment and cognitive development of Mexican-Americanchildren. Presented at the
biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development. Boston, MA.
Johnson, D. L., Breckenridge, J. N., & McGowan, R. (1984). Home environment and early cogni-
tive development in Mexican-American children. In A. Gottfried (Ed.), Home environment and
early cognitive development (pp. 151-196). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Johnston, T. (1987). The persistence of dichotomies in the study of behavioral development. Devel-
opmental Review, 7 , 149- 182.
Jordan, T. E. (1976, April). Measurement of the environment for learning and its effects on educa-
tional and cognitive attainment. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Jordan, T. E. (1978). Influences on vocabulary attainment: A five-year prospective study. Child
Deve6opment, 49, 1096-1 106.
Jordan, T. E. (1979). Old man river's children. New York: Academic Press.
Kagan, J. (1984). The nature of the child. New York: Basic Books.
Kelleher, K., Casey, P. H., Bradley, R. H., Pope, S., Whiteside, L., Barrett, K., Swanson, M., &
Kirby, R. S. (1993). Understanding failure-to-thrive in low birth weight preterm infants. Pedi-
atrics. 91. 941-948.
Kurtz, B. C., Borkowski, J. G., & Deshmukh, K. (1988). Metamemory and learning in Ma-
harashtrian children: Influences from home and school. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 149, 363-
376.
Lamb, M. E., Hwang, C., Bookstein, F. L., Broberg, A., Hult, G., & Frodi, M. (1988). Determi-
nants of social competence in Sweedish preschoolers. Developmental Psychology, 24, 58-70.
Landesman, S., Simeonsson, R., & Krauss, M. (1989). Research on families: Current assessment
and future opportunities. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 94,ii-iv.
Laosa, L. M. (1983). Parent education, cultural pluralism, and public policy: The uncertain connec-
tion. In R. Haskins & D. Adams (Eds.), Parent education & public policy (pp. 331-345).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
LaVeck, B., Hammond, M. A,, Telzrow, R., & LaVeck, G. D. (1983). Further observations on
minor anomalies and behavior in different home environments. Journal of Pediatric Psychology,
8 , 171-179.
Lerner, R. M. (1985). On the nature of human plasticiy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Longstreth, L. E. (1978). A comment on “Race, IQ, and the middle class” by Trotman: Rampant
false conclusions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 464-472.
Longstreth, L., Davis, B., Carter, L.. Flint, D., Owen, J., Rickert, M., & Taylor, E. (1981).
Separation of home intellectual environment and maternal IQ as determinants of child IQ.
Developmental Psychology, 17, 532-541.
Luster, T. E., & Rhoades, K. (1989). The relation of child-rearing beliefs and the home environment
in a sample of adolescent mothers. Family Relations, 38, 317-322.
MacKinnon, C., Brody, G., & Stoneman, Z. (1982). The effects of divorce and maternal employ-
ment on the home environments of preschool children. Child Developmenf. 53, 1392- 1399.
Magyary, D., Brandt, P. A., Hammond, M., & Bamard, K. (1992). School age follow-up of the
development of preterm infants: Infant and family predictors. In S . L. Friedman & M. D. Sigman
(Eds.), The psychological development of low birthweight children (pp. 215-237). Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Matheny, A. P., Wilson, R. S., & Thoben, A. S . (1987). Home and mother: Relations with infant
temperament. Developmental Psychology, 23, 323-331.
McCall, R. B (1981). Nature-nurture and the two realms of development: A proposed integration
with respect to mental development. Child Development. 52, 1-12.
McCall, R. B., Appelbaum, M. I., & Hogarty, P. S. (1973). Developmental changes in mental per-
formance. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 38 (3, Serial No. 150).
McLoyd, V. C. (1990). The impact of economic hardship on black families and children: Rychologi-
cal distress, parenting, and socioeconomic development. Child Development, 61, 31 1-346.
McMichael, A. I., Baghurst, P. A., Wigg, N. R., Vinpani, G. V.,Robertson, E. F., & Roberts, R. J.
(1988). Port Pine cohort study: Environmental exposure to lead and children’s abilities at the age
of four years. New England Journal of Medicine. 319. 468-475.
Medcoff-Cooper, B., & Schraeder, B. D. (1982). Developmental trends and behavioral styles in very
low birthweight infants. Nursing Research, 31, 68-72.
Milar, C. R., Schroeder, S . R., Mushak, P., Dolcourt, J. L., & Grant, L. D. (1980). Contributions of
the caregiving environment to increased lead burden of children. American Journal of Mental
Deficiency. 84, 339-394.
Miller, M. D., & Ottinger, D. R. (1983, May). Examination of the eficacy of a mother-completed
questionnaire form of the Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. Paper pre-
sented at the Midwestern Rychological Association meeting, Chicago, IL.
Mink, I. T.,& Nihira, K. (1987). Direction of effects: Family life styles and behavior of TMR
children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 92, 57-64.
Mitchell, S. K., & Gray, C. A. (1981). Developmental generalizability of the HOME Inventory.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41, 1001- 1010.
Moore, M. R., Bushnel, W. R., & Goldburg, S . A. (1989). A prospective study of the results of
changes in environmental lead exposure in children in Glasgow. Lead exposure and child devel-
opmenr. An international assessment. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Mundfrom, D. J., Bradley, R. H., & Whiteside, L. A. (1993). A factor analytic study of the Infant/
Toddler and Early Childhood versions of the HOME Inventory. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 53, 479-489.
Nihira, K., Meyers, C. E., & Mink, I. T. (1980). Home environment, family adjustment, and
development of mentally retarded children. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, I , 5-24.
Nihira, K., Meyers, C. E., & Mink, I. T. (1983). Reciprocal relations between home environment
and development in TMR adolescents. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 88, 139-149.
Nihira, K., Mink, 1. T.,& Meyers, C. E. (1981). Relationship between HOME environment and
school adjustment of TMR children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 86, 8-15.
Nihira, K., Tomiyasu, Y., & Oshio, C. (1987). Homes of TMR children: Comparison between
American and Japanese families. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 91, 486-495.
Noll, R. B., Zucker, R. A,, Curtis, W. J., & Fitzgerald, H. E. (1989). Young male offspring of
alcoholic fathers: Early developmental and cognitive findings. Paper presented at the meeting of
the Society for Research in Child Development, Kansas City, MO.
O’Brien, M., Johnson, J. M., & Anderson-Goetz, D. (1989). Evaluating quality in mother-infant
interaction: Situational effects. Infant Behavior and Development. 12, 45 1-464.
Palti, H., Otrakul, A,, Belmaker, E., Tamir, D., & Tepper, D. (1984). Children’s home environ-
ments: Comparison of a group exposed to a stimulation intervention program with controls. Early
Child Developmenr and Care. 13, 193-212.
Park, A,, Radan, A., Wolf, A.. & Lozoff, B. (in press). Using the HOME Inventory with infants in
Latin America. Early Educarion and Developmenr.
Parks, P. L., & Bradley, R. H. (1991). Interaction of home environment features and their relation to
infant competence. Infant Mental Health Journal, 12, 3-16.
Parks, P. L., & Bradley, R. H. (1992, July). The persistence of interaction affects in home environ-
mentlbehavioral development relations. Presented at the meeting of the International Society for
the Study of Behavioral Development, Minneapolis, MN.
Parks, P. L., & Smeriglio, V. L. (1986). Relations among parenting knowledge, quality of stimula-
tion in the home and infant development. Family Relations, 35, 41 1-416.
Pascoe, J. M., Loda, F. A,, Jeffries, V., & Earp, J. (1981). The association between mothers’ social
support and provision of stimulation to their children. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics,
2, 15-19.
Pederson, D. R., Evans, B., Chance, G. W., Bento, S . , & Fox, A. M. (1988). Predictors of one-year
developmental status in low birthweight infants. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics. 9,
287-292.
Peters-Martin, P., & Wachs, T. (1984). A longitudinal study of temperament and its correlates in the
first 12 months. Infant Behavior and Development, 7, 288-298.
Piper, M. C . , & Ramsey, M. K. (1980). Effects of early home environment on the mental develop-
ment of Down’s Syndrome infants. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 85, 39-44.
Plomin, R., & Bergeman, C. (1991). The nature of nurture: Genetic influence on “environmental”
measures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 373-427.
Plomin, R., LoeNin, J., & DeFries, J. (1985). Genetic and environmental components of “environ-
mental” influences. Developmental Psychology. 21, 391-402.
Pollitt, E., Eichler, A. W., & Chan, C. (1975). Psychosocial development and behavior of mothers
on failure-to-thrive children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 45, 525-537.
Ragozin, A. S., Landesman-Dwyer, S., & Streissguth, A. P. (1978). The relationship between
mothers’ drinking habits and children’s home environments. In F. Seixas (Ed.), Currents in
alcoholism: IV Psychiatric, psychological, social and epidemiological srudies. New York: Grune
& Stratton.
Ragozin, A. S., Landesman-Dwyer, S., & Streissguth, A. P. (1980). The relationship berween
mothers’ drinking habits and children’s home environments (Report #77- 10). Seattle: University
of Washington, Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Institute.
Ramey, C. T.,Farran, D. C., & Campbell, F. A. (1979). Predicting IQ from mother-infant interac-
tion. Child Development, 50, 804-814.
Reis, J. S., & H e n , E. J. (1987). Correlates of adolescent parenting. Adolescence, 22, 599-609.
Reis, J. S., Barbera-Stein, L., & Bennett, S. (1986). Ecological determinants of parenting. Family
Relations, 35, 547-554.
Ricciuti, H., & Thomas, M. (1992, May). Biological and environmental predictors of 18 month
Bayley MDI. Presented at the International Conference on Infancy Studies. Miami, FL.
Rogosa, D. A. (1980). A critique of cross-lagged correlation. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 245-258.
Rohner, R. P. (1986). The warmth dimension. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Rotter, J., Chance, J., & Phares, E. (1972). Applications of a social learning theory of personalify.
New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston.
Sahu, S., & Devi, B. (1982). Role of home environment in psycholinguistic abilities and intelligence
of advantaged and disadvantagedpreschool children. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Utkal Univer-
sity, Orissa, India.
Sameroff, A. M. (1983). Developmental systems: Contexts and evolution. In W. Kessen (Ed.),
History, theories, and methods (pp. 237-294). Volume I of P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of
child psychology. New York: Wiley.
Sameroff, A., & Chandler, M. (1975). Reproductive risk and the continuum of caretaking casualty.
In F. D. Horowitz, M. Hetherington, S. Scarr-Salapatek, & S. Siegel (EMS.), Review of child
development research (Vol. 4, pp. 187-244). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Saxon, S . A,, & Witriol, E. (1976). Down’s Syndrome and intellectual development. Pediatric
PSyChology, I , 45-47.
Scarr, S. (1985). Constructing psychology: Making facts and fables for our time. American Psycholo-
gist, 40, 499-512.
Scarr, S . , & McCartney, K. (1983). How people make their own environments: A theory of
genotype-environment effects. Child Development, 54, 424-435.
Schaefer, E., & Aaronson, M. (1977). Classroom behavior inventory. Unpublished manuscript,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Schilmoeller, G. L., & Baranowski, M. D. (1985). The effects of knowledge of child development
and social-emotional maturity on adolescent attitudes toward parenting. Adolescence, 20, 805-
822.
Schraeder, B. D., & Cooper, B. (1983). Development and temperament in very low birth weight
infants-The second year. Nursing Research, 32, 331-335.
Schroeder, S . D. (1989). Child-caregiver environmental factors related to lead exposure and IQ. In
M. Smith, L. Grant, & A. Sars (Eds.), Lead exposure and child development (pp. 166-182).
London: Kluwer.
Shonkoff, J., Hauser-Cram, P., Krauss, M., & Upshur, C. (1992). Development of infants with
disabilities and their families. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 57,
(Serial No. 230).
Siegel, L. S. (1981a. April). Home environmental influences on cognitive and language development
in preterm and fullterm infants. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in
Child Development, Boston.
Siegel, L. S. (1981b). Infant tests as predictors of cognitive and language development at two years.
Child Development, 52, 545-557.
Siegel, L. S. (1982a). Early cognitive and environmental correlates of language development at 4
years. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 5 , 433-444.
Siegel, L. S. (1982b). Reproductive, perinatal, and environmental factors as predictors of the
cognitive and language development of preterm and full term infants. Child Development, 53,
963-973.
Siegel, L. S. (1984). Home environmental influences on cognitive development in preterm and full-
term children during the first five years. In A. W. Gottfried (Ed.), Home environment and early
cognitive development (pp. 197-234). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Sroufe, L. A., Egeland, B., & Kreutzer, T. (1990). The fate of early experience following develop-
mental change: Longitudinal approaches to individual adaptation in childhood. Child Develop-
ment, 61. 1363-1373.
Starr, R. H. (1982). A research-based approach to the prediction of child abuse. In R. S t m (Ed.),
Child abuse prediction: Policy implications (pp. 1- 12). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Stevens, J. H., & Bakeman, R. (1985). A factors analytic study of the HOME scale for infants.
Developmental Psychology, 21, I 196- 1203.
Stevenson, M. B., & Lamb, M. E. (1979). Effects of infant sociability and the caretaking environ-
ment on infant cognitive performance. Child Development, 50, 340-34.
Straws, M. E., Lessen-Firestone, J. K., Chavez, C. J., & Stryker, J. C. (1979). Children of
methadone-treated women at five years of age. Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior, 2
(SUPPI.), 3-6.
Super, C. M., & Harkness, S. (1986). The developmental niche: A conceptualization at the interface
of child and culture. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 9, 545-569.
Tedesco, L. ( 1981). Early home experience. classroom social competence. and academic achieve-
ment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York, Buffalo.
von Windequth, B. J., & Urbano, R. C. (1989). Teenagers and the mothering experience. Pediatric
Nursing, IS, 517-520.
vanDoorninck, W. J., Caldwell, B. M., Wright, C., & Frankenburg, W. K. (1981). The relationship
between twelve-month home stimulation and school achievement. Child Development, 52, 1080-
1083.
Wachs, T. D. (1990). The nature of the physical micro-environment: An expanded classification
system. Merriil-Palmer Quarterly, 35, 399-402.
Wachs, T. D. (1992). The nature of nurture. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Wachs, T. D., & Gruen, G. (1982). Early experience and human development. New York: Plenum.
Walberg. H. J., & Marjoribanks, K. (1976). Family environment and cognitive development: lbelve
analytic models. Review of Educational Research. 45, 5 17-552.
Wandersman, L. P., & Unger, D. G. (1983, April). lnteraction of infant dificulty and social support
in adolescent mothers. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in
Child Development, Detroit, MI.
Wasserman, G. A,, Gruziano, J. H., Factor-Liktvak, P., Popovac, D., Morina, N., Musabegovic,
A , , Vrenzi, N., Capuni-Paracka, S., Lekic, V., Preteni-Redjepi, E., Hadzialjevic, S., Slav-
kovich, V., Kline, J., Shrout, P., & Stein, Z. (in press). Consequences of lead exposure and
iron supplementation on childhood development at age four years. Neurotoxicology and Tera-
rology.
Wasserman, G. A,, Rauh, V. A., Shrout, P.. & Brunelli, S. A. (1993). Family and maternal
predictors of behavioral and developmental problems in inner-city toddlers. Unpublished manu-
script. Columbia University, New York State Rychiatric Institute, New York.
Weiglas-Kuperus, N., Koot, H. M., Baerts, W., Fetter, W. P., Sauer, P. J. (1993). Behaviour
problems of very low-birthweight children. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 35,
406-416.
Wilson, R. S., & Matheny, A. P. (1983). Mental development: Family environment and genetic
influences. Intelligence. 7, 195-215.
Wulbert, M., Inglis, S., Kriegsmann, E., & Mills, B. (1975). Language delay and associated
mother/child interactions. Developmental Psychology, 2, 61-70.
Yarrow, L., Rubenstein, .I.& , Pederson, F. (1975). Infant and environment. Washington, D.C.:
Hemisphere Pub. Corp.
Zeskind, P., & Ramey, C. T. (1978). Fetal malnutrition: An experimental study of its consequences
on infant development in two caregiving environments. Child Development, 49, 1155- 1162.
Zeskind, P., & Ramey, C. T. (1981). Preventing intellectual and interactional sequelae of fetal
malnutrition: A longitudinal, transactional, and synergistic approach to development. Child De-
velopment, 52, 213-218.
Yeates, K.,MacPhee, D., Campbell, F., & Ramey, C. T.(1983). Maternal 1Q and home environment
as determinants of early childhood intellectual competence: A developmental analysis. Develop-
mental Psychology, 19, 731-739.

The Home Inventory: Review and Reflections: Robert

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Home Inventory: Review and Reflections: Robert

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE HOME INVENTORY: REVIEW

11. TECHNICAL ATTRIBUTES OF THE HOME INVENTORY

111. INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT

IV. LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

V. STUDIES OF HIGH-RISK CHILDREN

VI. CONDITIONS AFFECTING THE HOME ENVIRONMENT-COGNITIVE

VII. SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL DEVELOPMENT

VIII. HEALTH-RELATED OUTCOMES

IX. PARENTAL CORRELATES

11. Technical Attributes of the HOME Inventory

111. Intellectual Development

Correlations between the Infant-Toddler HOME and measures of infant devel-

The magnitude of correlations between HOME and measures of children’s

B. SOCIAL CLASS, SOCIOCULTURAL GROUP, AND GENDER

A question of particular concern is whether relations between HOME and

geographic distribution. For the combined sample, correlations between 1-yr

However, two subscales from the Infant-Toddler HOME (Learning Materials

IV. Language Development

V. Studies of High-Risk Children

Sameroff and Chandler (1975) convincingly established that development in

and Chandler article have subsequently gained ascendancy among researchers in

Anglo- American African-American Hispanic-American

Age 1 Age 3 Age 1 Age 3 Age 1 Age 3

Maternal IQ” .45 .54 .33 .35 .28 .40

a Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test.

B. CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES

Because of the presumed fragility of children with disabilities and children at

systems models of development portray the home environment both as reflecting

creased motor and language development-but not in the high-HOME group.

VI. Conditions Affecting the Home Environment-

Several factors contribute to the difficulty of parceling out the relationship

A. MEDIATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THROUGH

B. SPECIFICITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

For years, developmental psychologists have disagreed about the nature of

I . The Contribution of Specific Environmental Components

cognitive-processing scores. For boys, little additional variance in IQ could be

2 . Early versus Later Experience

suggestive of “specific environmental effects” because the requirements for es-

C. CHILD’S EFFECT ON THE HOME ENVIRONMENT

Research in child development emphasizes that children affect their environ-

way children influence the environment changes with increasing capabilities.

D. HOME ENVIRONMENT IN CONTEXT

Ecological-developmental models of human development (e.g., Belsky,

(1979). HOME accounted for 70 to 0% of the variance attributable to a full

A variation on the long-standing nature versus nurture debate is whether

VII. Social and Behavioral Development

In a follow-up of the Syracuse sample on which the initial versions of HOME

A few studies-not highly interrelated-have been done on the relation be-

VIII. Health-Related Outcomes

to avoid the observed association between family environment and nonorganic

The studies of malnutrition inaugurated a series of studies involving HOME

IX. Parental Correlates

of mother (.70), knowledge about pregnancy (.73), knowledge about babies

traits (e.g., intelligence, depression, extraversion) contain a set of indicators that

lation, support, and structure available to children in their home environments

particular aspects of development, then design or select measures to capture

You might also like