Journal of Children and Poverty

ISSN: 1079-6126 (Print) 1469-9389 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjcp20

A structural model of early indicators of school

readiness among children of poverty

Dominic F. Gullo

To cite this article: Dominic F. Gullo (2017): A structural model of early indicators of
school readiness among children of poverty, Journal of Children and Poverty, DOI:
10.1080/10796126.2017.1401899

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10796126.2017.1401899

Published online: 12 Nov 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 69

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjcp20

Download by: [University of Florida] Date: 10 January 2018, At: 08:19

 JOURNAL OF CHILDREN AND POVERTY, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/10796126.2017.1401899

A structural model of early indicators of school readiness

among children of poverty
Dominic F. Gullo
School of Education, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Factors that affect children’s school readiness potential are evident Early childhood longitudinal
even from birth. Structural equation modeling was used to test the study-birth cohort (ECLS-B);
hypotheses that certain factors related to gender, approaches to structural equation
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 08:19 10 January 2018

modeling; quantitative
learning, age at school entry, family income, and the health status
methods; early childhood;
of the child at birth have an effect on low-socioeconomic status school readiness
(SES) children’s readiness for school. Data from the Early Childhood
Longitudinal Study – Birth Cohort (ECLS-B) was used to test the
hypotheses. Included in the sample were 1700 children of diverse
racial/ethnic backgrounds. All the children were in the lowest SES
quintile of the children making up the ECLS-B cohort. The
hypothesized model suggested that there were both direct and
indirect influences on children’s school readiness performance.
Potential risk factors and implications for ameliorating negative
influences were identified.

Socioeconomic status (SES) is one of the most widely studied issues among those deter-
mined to understand the differences that exist in the educational and developmental tra-
jectories of young children (Isaacs 2012; Janus and Duku 2007). At the same time, school
readiness1 constructs are among the most widely studied structures for those interested in
understanding the long-range potential of young children for school adjustment and aca-
demic performance. Studies have shown that literacy and mathematical skills at school
entry are the best predictors of higher levels of academic achievement in later grades
(Duncan et al. 2007). It has also been shown that attention-related skills upon entering
school were predictors of later academic performance.
Together, SES and school readiness dynamics synergistically provide a comprehensive,
multifaceted portrait of the complex factors that influence school readiness. Most typi-
cally, a full understanding is grounded in research that seeks to identify SES differences
among children and families, thus providing an explanation for the gaps that exist in
school readiness potential. These studies often use metrics that gauge children’s develop-
ment, academic performance, and/or social competence as the defining attributes of
school readiness. Findings have shown that children from low-SES environs do not
perform as well on these measures of school readiness as children from middle- or
upper-SES circumstances (Reardon 2011). Because of a paucity of research in this area,
educators have not fully identified the within-group differences among children from

CONTACT Dominic F. Gullo dfg28@drexel.edu

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 2 D. F. GULLO

low-SES backgrounds. Better understanding would help ameliorate risk factors and poten-
tially diminish SES gaps in school readiness.
In this investigation, the academic and socio-behavioral performance of a group of low-
SES preschool children was studied. To identify potential ameliorating strategies for
deficiencies in performance, structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to analyze
the predictive paths of variables that have been shown in previous investigations to
affect school readiness potential. SEM is regarded as second-generation regression mod-
eling, allowing for complex analyses beyond the ability of regression and analysis-of-var-
iance methods. Additional advantages of SEM include the ability to estimate a model with
multi-layers of interrelated dependent variables, modeling second order constructs, defin-
ing formative constructs as well as reflective ones, and estimating non-linear relationships
(Byrne 2016). SEM engages both latent constructs and measured variables. Latent con-
structs are variables that are not directly observed but inferred through a mathematical
model from a cluster of other observed variables. Measured variables can be observed
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 08:19 10 January 2018

directly and measured. Together, these SEM functions are particularly important for
understanding the complexity of the confluence of factors influencing school readiness
and for identifying strategies that may offset the negative influences of risk often prevalent
among low-SES children.
A multivariate system perspective such as this places emphasis on how children’s biotic
or behavioral dispositions converge with environmental forces to shape their developmen-
tal and academic trajectories. According to High (2008), when the determination of school
readiness is reliant exclusively on children’s skills, the focus of whether or not a child is
‘ready’ for school is placed fully on the child. High goes on to assert that this practice is
unfair due to the diversity and inequities of the economic, experiential, and cultural con-
texts in which children in our society reside.

School readiness and poverty

The effects of poverty on children’s development and academic performance are well
documented in the literature (Engle and Black 2008; Isaacs 2012). The negative effects
of poverty can be seen as early as the second year of life and extend through elementary
school and into high school (Entwisle, Alexander, and Olsen 2005). When risk factors
associated with poverty are present during the preschool years, they shape school readi-
ness trajectories. In turn, it has been demonstrated that school readiness potential sets
the path for future school performance and success (Zigler, Gilliam, and Jones 2006)
and is predictive of most education benchmarks, including test scores, grade retention,
special education placement, and dropout rates. Researchers have found that children
who start school developmentally and academically behind their age-mates can almost
never close the readiness gap; instead, the gap widens as they progress through their
years in school (Lee and Burkam 2002).
There are a number of biotic influences related to behavioral outcomes that previous
research has associated with school readiness risk factors, particularly for low-SES chil-
dren. One such influence is the sex of the child. Evidence suggests that girls outperform
boys on school readiness measures of academic performance (Isaacs 2012; Janus and
Duku 2007). Isaacs found that girls scored 16 percentage points higher than boys on
average, and this gender gap remains constant, even when statistical controls for family
 JOURNAL OF CHILDREN AND POVERTY 3

background are applied. Furthermore, it was found that being a low-SES male, coupled
with suboptimal health, contributes most strongly to wide-ranging levels of vulnerability
at school entry (Janus and Duku 2007).
The effect of chronological age on school readiness has been the focus of considerable
research (Crosser 1991; Gullo and Burton 1992; Janus and Duku 2007; NICHD 2007;
Spitzer, Cupp, and Parke 1995; Stipek 2002; Uphoff and Gilmore 1985). The research indi-
cates that children who enter kindergarten at younger ages score lower on academic per-
formance measures than older classmates. These differences were found to be maintained
into the third grade (NICHD 2007) and sixth grade (Crosser 1991).
Children’s health status can affect academic performance in various ways. The effects of
being medicated can have a negative impact on both academic and social competence
(Naude and Pretorius 2003). Children who often miss school due to chronic illness
have less opportunity to participate in school activities. Chronic health problems may
also be predictive of behavioral difficulties in children (Barlow and Ellard 2006). In
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 08:19 10 January 2018

addition, children who are unhealthy have a greater risk of school failure, grade retention,
and dropping out (Shaw et al. 2015).
Early indicators of a child’s health status have potent influences on later learning and
school behavior. One such indicator is the child’s APGAR (Appearance, Pulse, Grimace,
Activity, Respiration) score. The APGAR was developed to quickly summarize the health
status of a newborn. Research has shown that children with APGAR scores of three or less
had significantly increased risk for developing a variety of neurodevelopmental impair-
ments and learning difficulties that were present as they entered school (Moster, Lie,
and Markestad 2002). The child’s health status can affect academic performance in
many ways. According to Lynch (2011, 499), ‘ … infant health is an equal opportunity
offender across social groups as children with poor health are equally disadvantaged in
terms of early cognitive development … ’.
Gestational age and birth weight are other early indicators of child health status shown
to impact school readiness performance. Regarding gestational age, one study found that
risk for developmental delay or disability was significantly higher among preterm infants
than term infants (Morse et al. 2009). This study also found that preterm infants were at
greater risk for having identified special needs by the time they reached prekindergarten
age and being suspended or retained in kindergarten. In another investigation (Bhutta
et al. 2002), researchers found that children who are born preterm were at greater risk
for reduced cognitive performance at school age. In this study, children’s cognitive test
scores were directly proportional to their immaturity at birth.
Low birth weight has also been associated with negative school readiness outcome
measures (Isaacs 2012). Children born under 2500 grams or 5.5 pounds are considered
low birth weight. Deleterious effects are compounded if the child is also low SES. Conco-
mitantly, low birth weight frequently results in lower academic performance, higher inci-
dence of school-identified disabilities, and behavioral problems associated with
inattentive, aggressive, and hyperactive behaviors (Anderson and Doyle 2003; Avchen,
Scott, and Mason 2001; Bhutta 2002). The consequences of low birth weight affect
school readiness as well as long-range academic and behavioral performance.
SES alone is not sufficient to predict the developmental and achievement discrepancies
that children exhibit as they enter school. Duncan and Magnuson (2005) found that
increasing the economic resources of families with preschool children who reside in
 4 D. F. GULLO

low-SES homes by even modest amounts reduces the likelihood of development and
achievement gaps between these children and those of more substantial economic
means. Duncan and Magnuson conclude that boosting the family incomes of low-SES
children, while not eliminating their poverty status, may prove to be a promising interven-
tion for reducing school readiness gaps.

Conceptualizing school readiness

According to the National Center for Children in Poverty and Abt Associates (2008, 6), ‘In
theory, a definition of school readiness should identify the foundational skills, content
knowledge, and concepts that children need when they enter school in order to achieve
academic success in early elementary school and beyond’. Readiness implies that children
become proficient in appropriately managing certain skills and abilities that enable them
to effectively function both academically and socially in school settings (Hair et al. 2006).
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 08:19 10 January 2018

School readiness includes a broad set of characteristics and skills that affect the child’s
ability to learn in academic environments. These include such things as physical health
and well-being, motor skills, behavioral and emotional self-regulation, social and com-
munication skills, pre-academic skills, attention, curiosity, and motivation to learn
(Pianta and Cox 1999). According to Meisels (1999, 44), school readiness is a relative
term; ‘One child’s readiness may be another child’s long-ago accomplishment or
another child’s yet-to-be-achieved success. Because children’s development is highly vari-
able and erratic at early ages, a major concern is developing a single standard of what it
means to be ‘ready for school’’. Arriving at consensus on indicators of school readiness,
including metrics to measure it, poses a significant problem for early childhood educators
and researchers alike (Gullo and Hughes 2011; Hughes and Gullo 2010).
Conceptual frameworks and definitions of school readiness vary depending on the cir-
cumstance of their use. Definitions of school readiness vary according to the purpose for
defining it–as well as by who is doing the defining. Nuances in school readiness definitions
may influence such factors as when children start school or approaches to curriculum and
instruction (Cross and Conn-Powers 2011). From one definitional perspective, school
readiness is explained through the developmental traits that are said to determine if chil-
dren are ready to start kindergarten. If it is ascertained that they do not have the requisite
developmental traits and thus are not ready for kindergarten, parents of these children are
often counseled to delay school entry. From yet another perspective, children are ready to
start kindergarten if they meet certain age requirements, and consequently, the teacher
develops appropriate curriculum and teaching strategies to meet their individual needs
(Cross and Conn-Powers 2011).
Despite the underlying complications of defining school readiness, experts agree that
school readiness frameworks are multidimensional (Hair et al. 2006). There is also agree-
ment that school readiness is contingent on the personal attributes the child brings to the
learning experience and reliant on the contexts in which learning occurs. Contexts include
home, school, and the broader community (Hair et al. 2006). A far more comprehensive
view of school readiness has emerged, reflecting interactions between the attributional
traits of the child and past and present cultural and environmental contexts (Carlton
and Winsler 1999; May and Kundert 1997). The structure for the multi-dimensional defi-
nition of school readiness was first articulated by the National Educational Goals Panel
 JOURNAL OF CHILDREN AND POVERTY 5

(NEGP) (Kagan, Moore, and Bredekamp 1995). Three components of school readiness
were identified:

(1) The child’s readiness for school as reflected in his or her ability to participate in aca-
demic experiences and learn from them
(2) The school’s readiness to receive children as reflected in their ability to provide mean-
ingful and relevant learning experiences
(3) Family supports and community services that ultimately contribute to the child’s
school readiness

The present study will focus on the first component of school readiness: the child’s readi-
ness for school. There are five dimensions associated with this component of school readi-
ness, according to the NEGP: physical health, social/emotional development, approaches
to learning, language development, and cognitive development/general knowledge. Each
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 08:19 10 January 2018

dimension is an important and necessary element of school readiness, but not sufficient
in and of itself (Kagan, Moore, and Bredekamp 1995).

Physical health
Physical health encompasses physical well-being and motor development. Included in this
dimension are rate of growth, physical fitness, fine and gross motor skills, and health
status. The physical health of the child can influence his or her readiness for school as
well as later school performance (High 2008; Janus and Duku 2007; Shaw et al. 2015).
Studies indicate that children who do not experience good physical health are more
likely to enter school with limited knowledge, skills, and social behaviors necessary for
doing well in group learning experiences.

Social/emotional development
Social/emotional development includes such things as the ability to form positive relation-
ships with peers and teachers as well as elements of self-concept and self-efficacy.
Additionally, this dimension includes the ability to express one’s feelings in an appropriate
manner and being sensitive to the feelings of others. Research indicates that social com-
petence is a necessary component in children’s ability to adjust to early school routines
(Elias and Haynes 2008). Research has shown that increasing early social-emotional com-
petencies in children led to increases in academic performance (McCormick et al. 2015).

Approaches to learning
Approaches to learning includes being open to and curious about tasks and challenges, as
well as being persistent, flexible, imaginative, and attentive. It has been shown that this is a
critical element that plays an important role in defining school readiness policy (Barbu
et al. 2015). Research has found that children’s early approaches to learning enhance
their ability to adapt to the demands they experience with the start of formal schooling
(Li-Grining et al. 2010), such as completing work independently, adhering to strict time
schedules, and acquiring basic skills.
 6 D. F. GULLO

Language development
Language development includes both verbal language and emergent literacy. Verbal
language is reflected in children’s ability to listen, use language effectively, and effectively
manage the social conventions of language. Emergent literacy skills are the prerequisite
competencies necessary for reading and writing development. These include such attri-
butes as interest in books and stories, print awareness, and emergent writing. The impor-
tance of linguistic competency for early academic performance is well documented in the
literature (Kastner and May 2001; Walker et al. 1994). Research has shown that differences
in language development are predictive of differences in academic achievement as
measured by standardized assessments from kindergarten through third grade.

Cognitive development/general knowledge

Finally, cognitive development and general knowledge are expressed in the child’s under-
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 08:19 10 January 2018

standing of the concepts and properties of objects as well as acquisition of the conventions
of school-learned knowledge (Kagan, Moore, and Bredekamp 1995). Research examining
the impact of cognitive processes and domain specific skills on school readiness shows that
growth in these specific areas resulted in increases in emergent literacy and numeracy
during the prekindergarten year (Welsh et al. 2010). Increases in these cognitive processes
and skills similarly contributed to the prediction of math and reading achievement in kin-
dergarten among a group of low-SES kindergarten children.

Present study
The present study used SEM to examine the association among latent and measured school
readiness constructs. The hypothesized model was proposed to explain the mechanisms by
which family income, health status of the child at birth, and the age and sex of the child influ-
enced early cognitive performance and school readiness (as reflected in motor development
and academic performance, including measures of general knowledge and language devel-
opment, social competence, and approaches to learning). By using SEM, a simultaneous
analysis of the entire system of variables is conducted (Byrne 2016). While prior research
has shown that many of the variables tested in this study independently affect school readi-
ness, it is not known how the synergistic relationships among them can mediate school
readiness factors related to academic performance, approaches to learning, and social com-
petence. The school readiness factors in this study were assessed one year prior to children’s
entrance into kindergarten. The hypothesized model, shown in Figure 1, displays both the
direct and indirect effects among the constructs described below.
Specifically, it was hypothesized that:

(1) Health status of the child at birth predicts performance on a nine-month cognitive
measure, motor development and approaches to learning
(2) Approaches to learning would, in turn, predict academic achievement and social
competence
(3) Family income and sex of the child predicts approaches to learning, academic achieve-
ment, and health status at birth
(4) Age of the child predicts motor development and academic achievement
 JOURNAL OF CHILDREN AND POVERTY 7
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 08:19 10 January 2018

Figure 1. Hypothesized relationships between risk factors and school readiness for low-SES preschool
children.

Method
Sample
This study analyzed un-weighted data from waves 1 and 3 of the ECLS-B cohort. The
ECLS-B tracked a nationally representative sample of children born in 2001 (U.S. Depart-
ment of Education 2008). Un-weighted data were used due to the limitations of weighting
the data when more complex statistical analyses are applied (Gelman 2007). Furthermore,
Hahs-Vaughn and Lomax (2006) suggest that sampling weights had negligible effects on
parameter estimates. Moreover, since the weights for the ECLS-B were computed from the
full data set and this study analyzed a subset of these data, the calculated weights may no
longer be appropriate.
The first wave of data was collected when the children were nine months of age and
included birth certificate data. The third wave of data was collected about a year before
the children entered kindergarten. The ECLS-B sample was selected from among birth cer-
tificates maintained at the National Center for Health Statistics vital statistics system. The
birth certificate data included information collected from 46 states and the District of
Columbia. Approximately 11,000 children were included in the initial sample, represent-
ing diverse socioeconomic and racial/ethnic backgrounds. The data set includes an over-
sampling of Asian and Pacific Islanders, American Indians and Alaska Natives, Chinese,
twins, and low and very low birth weight children. This was done to assure appropriate
numbers of children in these categories for data analysis. Data for the ECLS-B were col-
lected from multiple sources of information including children, their parents, their child-
care providers, their teachers, and their school administrators.
The present study analyzed ECLS-B data on children from families designated as low-
SES who had participated in waves 1 and 3. In the ECLS-B, SES was a composite variable
 8 D. F. GULLO

and was computed at the individual household level. SES included the following elements:
father/male guardian’s education level; mother/female guardian’s education level; father/
male guardian’s occupation status; mother/female guardian’s occupation status; and
household income. Both continuous and categorical SES composite variables were
derived. For the present study the categorical SES variable was used to select out from
the full sample those children who belonged to the low-SES group. Quintiles were com-
puted using the continuous SES variable data. Only children who were in the quintile
representing the lowest SES group (Quintile 1) were included in the study.
At wave 1 there were 1700 children in SES Quintile 1: 49% were male and 51% were
female. The mean age of children during the third wave of data collection was 53
months (SD = 4.3). Ethnic and racial breakdowns were as follows: 20% White, non-Hispa-
nic; 31% Black, non-Hispanic; 20% Hispanic, race specified; 12% Hispanic, no race speci-
fied; 3% Asian, non-Hispanic; 1% Native Hawaiian, other Pacific Islander; 6% American
Indian, or Alaska Native; 6% more than one race, non-Hispanic (U.S. Department of Edu-
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 08:19 10 January 2018

cation 2008). Percentages do not equal 100% due to rounding as required by the ECLS-B
restricted data-set usage policies. There were no significant differences in the numbers of
children among the groups as indicated by the Pearson Chi-Square (X 2 = 9.70, p = .21).

Latent construct variables

Health status of the child at birth: Birth certificates were used to obtain data associated with
the latent construct health status of the child at birth. Health status of the child at birth
included the following measured variables: birth weight, five-minute APGAR score, and
number of weeks of gestation. The birth weight of infants was a continuous measure
and reported in grams. Gestational age was also a continuous measure and reported in
weeks. The APGAR (Appearance, Pulse, Grimace, Activity, Respiration) score is a posi-
tively ranked assessment that ranges from 0 to 10 and is a measure of infant health
immediately after childbirth. Each of the five factors comprising the APGAR is given a
ranking of 0, 1, or 2, with 2 being the highest and most desirable score. The five scores
are totaled; therefore, a total score ranging from of 0 to 10 is possible. The APGAR is
scored twice; once right after birth, and again five minutes later. The latter APGAR
score was used for analysis in this study.
Prekindergarten academic performance: Prekindergarten academic performance, a
latent construct, included the following measured variables: literacy performance, math-
ematical performance, and receptive vocabulary score.
Literacy performance was assessed using a 37-item protocol representing the following
content areas derived from the Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print
Processing (Pre-CTOPP) (Lonigan et al. 2002): letter recognition in both receptive and
expressive modes (eight items); letter sounds (six items); recognition of simple words
(four items); phonological awareness (10 items); knowledge of print conventions (eight
items); and matching words (one item). Item response theory (IRT) scale scores from
the ECLS-B were used for analysis. IRT scale scores make it possible to compare scores
regardless of which second-stage assessment form children were administered. The IRT
scores represent estimates of the number of items children would have answered correctly
had they received all the scored questions in each content area. Using IRT scale scores to
identify differences among subgroups in achievement that correlate with demographic and
status variables, such as those used in this investigation, is recommended. IRT modeling
 JOURNAL OF CHILDREN AND POVERTY 9

was used in the ECLS-B to select items from longer assessments in order to administer a
subset of items from a given assessment that would yield scores comparable to full admin-
istration of the assessment.
Mathematical performance was assessed using three forms derived from the Test of
Early Mathematics Ability (TEMA-3) (Ginsburg and Baroody 2003): a core test of 28
items (administered to all children) and two alternative supplementary forms adminis-
tered only if required. To avoid a floor effect, for children who did not perform well on
the core test of 28 items (less than 10 correct), a supplemental basal form of the test
was administered that contained nine items. In addition, for children who correctly
answered 21 or more items correctly on the core assessment, an eight-item supplemental
assessment was given to preclude a ceiling effect. The preschool mathematics assessment
included items in the following content areas: number sense (10 items); geometry (nine
items); counting (14 items); operations (eight items); and patterns (four items). IRT
scale scores were also used for the purposes of analysis.
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 08:19 10 January 2018

IRT procedures were also utilized in assessing receptive vocabulary. A set of 16 voca-
bulary items were used from the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – 3rd Edition
(PPVT-3). The child’s ability to understand the meanings of words was tested by
asking them to point to a picture in response to a word spoken by the test administrator.
Prekindergarten social competence: Prekindergarten social competence, also a latent
construct, was comprised of measured variables derived from data collected on children’s
socio-emotional development from a number of sources, including prekindergarten tea-
chers or caregivers. A subset of items from the Preschool and Kindergarten Behavior
Scales (PKBS-2) (Merrell 2003) was chosen for study with the ECLS-B group of children.
The BKBS-2 measured pro-social behavior, friendship, and emotional knowledge. Using
the items chosen from the BKBS-2, prekindergarten teachers were asked to rate children
on a scale of 1–5 in response to how often particular instances of socio-emotional beha-
viors occurred. The ratings were: (1) never; (2) rarely; (3) sometimes; (4) often; (5) very
often. The four items that were included in this study for analysis as a measure of
social competence were ‘accepted by other children,’ ‘makes friends easily’, ‘child shares
with others’, and ‘child tries to understand others’.
Motor development: The latent construct of motor development was comprised of two
fine motor assessments. Fine motor skills were assessed using a subset of items from the
Early Screening Inventory-Revised (ESI-R) (Meisels et al. 1997) and included items from
the ‘Building Block’ and ‘Copy Forms’ tasks.
The Building Block tasks involved the use of blocks to build a tower and a gate For the
‘build a tower’ task, the child was presented with a set of wooden blocks and instructed to
build a tower with 10 blocks. The child received a point for each block correctly positioned
to make a tower. A maximum score of 10 could be achieved. The child was given two
chances to build a tower and the highest score was retained. For the ‘build a gate’ task,
the child was asked to build a gate with five wooden blocks, matching the gate that the
assessor had built with an identical set of five blocks. The child received a passing score
if the resulting structure looked like the one constructed by the assessor. The child was
permitted only one trial for the gate item but was allowed to work until satisfied that
his or her gate resembled the model presented to them.
The Copy Forms tasks consisted of a series of items in which the child was asked to
copy a drawing. They were provided with a pencil and blank piece of paper with which
 10 D. F. GULLO

to complete the tasks. Seven items from the ESI-R were used: a vertical line, horizontal line,
circle, square, triangle, asterisk, and circle-square. Children were allowed multiple
attempts and only the final attempt was scored. Each item was scored on a pass or fail
basis. In addition, children were asked to draw a line following a curved path. The item
was scored as either a full or partial pass (1 or 2 points), depending on how often the
child’s line was within the one-half-inch path borders. Two points were awarded if the
child stayed totally within the path borders; one point was awarded if the child fell
outside the path once or twice; no points were awarded if the line fell outside the path
more than twice.
As previously described, approaches to learning includes being open to and curious
about tasks and challenges and being persistent, flexible, imaginative, and attentive. For
the present study, this was a latent construct and included the following measured vari-
ables: shows eagerness to learn, pays attention well, and works until finished. These
three variables were a subset of items from the Preschool and Kindergarten Behavior
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 08:19 10 January 2018

Scales (PKBS-2) (Merrell 2003). Prekindergarten teachers were asked to rate children
on a scale of 1–5 in response to how often instances of these behaviors occurred. The
ratings were: (1) never, (2) rarely, (3) sometimes, (4) often, (5) very often.

Measured variables
Sex: The sex of the child, a measured variable, was also obtained from birth certificate data.
The sex of the child was later verified during the nine-month parent interview. If there was
a discrepancy between the birth certificate data and the parent report, the parent report
was considered most valid.
Age: The following two procedures were used to determine the child’s age. If the parent
agreed with the child’s date of birth on the birth certificate, then age was calculated by
determining the number of days between the date when the child completed the direct
child assessment and the date of birth on the birth certificate. If the parent determined
that the birthdate on the birth certificate was incorrect, the age was calculated by deter-
mining the number of days between the date the child completed the child assessments
and the date of birth reported on the parent interview. The total number of days was
divided by 30 to calculate the child’s age in months.
Mental Scale Score: Another measured variable was the mental scale score. Data for this
variable were collected during wave 1 (nine months). The Bayley Short Form-Research
Edition (BSF-R) was used as a measure of children’s cognitive, gross, and fine motor
skills, as well as their receptive and expressive language skills. The BSF-R was specifically
designed for use with the ECLS-B. It is comprised of a subset of items from the Bayley
Scales of Infant Development, Second Edition (BSID-II) and included items of increasing
developmental difficulty. The BSF-R was designed to retain all of the psychometric prop-
erties of the BSID-II. The BSF-R consisted of 31 mental items and 35 motor items that
could be used for children between the ages of eight and 11 months. The BSF-R for
nine-month-olds consisted of three parts (a mental scale, a motor scale, a set of spon-
taneous vocalization items). The BSF-R was designed for use in a home setting and admi-
nistered by field staffers with basic knowledge of child development.
The mental scale included items that assessed early cognitive and language ability
reflected in memory, habituation, preverbal communication, problem solving, and
concept attainment. The core set for the BSF-R mental scale consists of 11 items. In
 JOURNAL OF CHILDREN AND POVERTY 11

addition, a basal set of nine items was created that covered a range of younger ages and a
ceiling set of nine items that covered a range of older ages. The motor scale contained a set
of 14 core items, a basal set of 11 items, and a ceiling set of 10 items. The motor scale was
designed to assess children’s gross motor, fine motor, perceptual-motor integration, and
problem-solving.
The vocalization scale was scored by observing children’s spontaneous verbalizations
and communication. The vocalization items provided information about children’s pre-
linguistic skills and early language development.
Responses to the BSF-R were weighted to adjust for oversampling. To equate the BSF-R
scores with the BSID-II scores, Item Response Theory (IRT) was used. This made it poss-
ible to compare BSF-R scores to those obtained using the full set of items from the BSID-II.
The IRT reliability of the BSF-R scale scores for the mental scale is 0.80 and 0.93 for the
motor scale.
Income: Household income was a categorical variable and was determined using the
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 08:19 10 January 2018

parent computer-assisted personal interview (CAPI). The CAPI consisted of interview

questions focused on family socio-demographic characteristics that included family house-
hold income. For Quintile 1 of the SES variable, six annual income categories were
represented: 1 = $5000 or less (N = 550); 2 = $5001–$10,000 (N = 500); 3 = $10,001–
$15,000 (N = 400); 4 = $15,001–$20,000 (N = 200); 5 = $20,001–$25,000 (N = 50); and
6 = $25,001–$30,000 (N = 12).

Data analysis
The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences AMOS 23 (Arbuckle 2014) was used to test
the goodness of fit of the hypothesized model. The goal of this study was to evaluate a
specific hypothesized model; therefore, no modifications to the model were made.
Missing data were handled using a full information maximum likelihood method
within the SEM context. This method has been found to be superior to other regularly
used methods of handling missing data, such as likewise deletion and pattern response
imputation (Enders and Bandalos 2001).

Goodness of fit
The Chi-Square (Χ 2) value was not used to assess the goodness of fit of the model in this
study due to extensive criticism of the sensitivity of Χ 2 to small and large sample sizes
(Bentler 1990; Tabachnick and Fidell 2007). The Chi-Square statistic almost always
rejects the model when the sample size is large. Instead, three other fit indices were
used as recommended by Hu and Bentler (1999) and Hooper, Coughlan, and Mullen
(2008) to determine how well the hypothesized model fit the data: RMSEA (root mean
square error of approximation), NFI (normed-fit index), and CFI (comparative fit
index). These fit indices do not have a statistically significant test that identifies the
correct model considering the sample data (Amorim et al. 2010). Customarily, RMSEA
values of less than 0.08 indicate the model’s good fit (Amorim et al. 2010; MacCallum,
Browne, and Sugawara 1996). More recently, a RMSEA cut-off value of close to .06
with a stringent upper limit of .07 appears to be the general consensus among SEM auth-
orities (Hu and Bentler 1999; Steiger 2007). For NFI and CFI, values greater than 0.90 are
 12 D. F. GULLO

considered a good fit. R2 was calculated to ascertain the strength of the relationships
between the predictor variables and the outcome variables. R2 indicates the percentage
of variance of the outcome variables accounted for by the predictor variables.

Results
The effects of the two latent predictor constructs (health status at birth and approaches to
learning) and four measured variables (mental scale score at nine months, household
income, age, and gender) on prekindergarten academic performance, prekindergarten
social competence, and motor development were examined. The variables in the hypoth-
esized model reflect the research on school readiness and those factors affecting it.
Figure 2 shows the standardized estimates of the full model. The Chi-square for the
model was Χ 2 (127, N = 1700) = 754.08, p < .000, therefore rejecting the null hypothesis.
As stated before, the Chi-square was not used to assess the goodness of fit of the model
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 08:19 10 January 2018

due to the large sample size. Instead alternative fit indices were used as described
above. All three of the fit indices indicated an acceptable fit of the model to the data.
The RMSEA fit statistic obtained was .054 below the desired .06 cutoff for good fit. The
NFI and CFI were .911 and .925, respectively, indicating acceptable fit of the model to
the data and providing verification that the new model was supported by the relationships
among the latent and measured variables in the second model.
As indicated by the R 2, 42% of the variance in prekindergarten academic performance
was accounted for by health status at birth, mental scale score at nine months, household
income, approaches to learning, and gender. For prekindergarten social competence, 48%
of the variance was accounted for by health status at birth, mental scale score at nine
months, household income, approaches to learning, and gender. Predictor variables for
motor development were gender, health status at birth, and mental scale score at nine
months. This combination of predictor variables accounted for 31% of the variance in

Figure 2. Standardized estimates of the relationships between risk factors and school readiness for low-
SES preschool children.
 JOURNAL OF CHILDREN AND POVERTY 13

motor development. In Figure 2, the standardized parameter estimates shown display both
the magnitude and direction of relationships among the variables in the predicted model.
Tables 1 and 2 contain the inter-correlations and descriptive statistics for all the vari-
ables in the study used to construct the latent variables tested in the model. As can be seen
in Table 1, each group of indicators used as a measure of a latent variable was significantly
correlated in the expected direction. Prekindergarten academic achievement items were
highly correlated, ranging from r = .46 to r = .66. Social competence items were moderately
to highly correlated, ranging from r = .34 to r = .60. The dimensions of approaches to
learning were moderately to highly inter-correlated, ranging from r = .42 to r = .60. The
health status at birth indicators were moderately to highly correlated, ranging from
r = .50 to r = .77. All the correlations were significant at the .01 level. These relationships
provide evidence to support their use as indicators of the latent variables of which they
were a part, in subsequent structural analyses. Also of significant mention was that the
measured variable ‘mental score at nine months’ was significantly related to all latent vari-
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 08:19 10 January 2018

able indicators.

Gender
Gender was related to prekindergarten academic performance as seen in previous research
(β = .06, p < .05). Females tended to have higher prekindergarten academic performance
scores as measured by the indicator variables than males in this study. Gender was also
related to health status at birth (β = −.07, p < .01) and approaches to learning (β = .11,
p < .001).

Age
Age was related to both motor development (β = .51, p < .01) and academic achievement
(β = .12, p < .05). As in previous research, children who were older scored higher on motor
development and academic achievement than did their younger classmates.

Household income
Household income was related to approaches to learning (β = .09, p < .001). As household
income increased, children showed a greater eagerness to learn, had higher rates of paying
attention, and completed tasks at higher rates.

Approaches to learning
Approaches to learning was related to prekindergarten academic performance in the
expected manner (β = .12, p < .001). Children who showed eagerness to learn, had
higher rates of paying attention, and completed tasks at higher rates scored higher on pre-
kindergarten academic performance. Approaches to learning was also related to prekin-
dergarten social competence (β = .69, p < .001). More positive scores across indicator
variables for approaches to learning were associated with more positive reports of prekin-
dergarten social competence.

Health status at birth

Health status of the child at birth contributed to the variance accounted for in the motor
development outcome variable and prekindergarten achievement, as mediated by mental
scale score at nine months. Children who weighed more, scored higher on the APGAR test,
 14
D. F. GULLO
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 08:19 10 January 2018

Table 1. Correlations among the measured variables in the model.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
1 Child Sex 1.00
2 RecLang .11** 1.00
3 Literacy .09** .46** 1.00
4 Math .08** .52** .66** 1.00
5 FineMotBB .02 .22** .18** .31** 1.00
6 FineMotCF .13** .24** .27** .39** .30** 1.00
7 Gestation −.02 .04 −.02 .08** .09** .10** 1.00
8 APGAR .02* .04 .01 .09** .06** .10** .52** 1.00
9 BirthWt −.11** .04 .01 .10** .14** .12** .77** .50** 1.00
10 Accepted .03 .05* .03 .03 .04 .13** .02 .03 .01 1.00
11 Friends .03 .13** .06* .10** .05 .12 .05* .04 .03 .60** 1.00
12 Shares .09** .09** .07** .10** .05* .14** .03 .03 .03 .34** .38** 1.00
13 Eager .08** .13** .12** .15** .10** .16** .02 .02 .04 .31** .47** .28** 1.00
14 PayAttn .08** .09** .13** .15** .05* .16** .05* .03 .06* .31** .40** .46** .50** 1.00
15 Persist .09** .09** .12** .15** .09** .22** .06** .06** .07** .30** .30** .46** .42** .60** 1.00
16 Age .02 .24** .28** .37** .22** .33** −.03 .00 −.00 .01 .03 .05* .04 .04 .05* 1.00
17 Income .02 −.07** −.03 .02 .03 .09** .02 .03 .07** −.01 .00 .03 .09** .09** .07** .05* 1.00
18 MentalSc .03 .11** .07** .13** .08** .10** .31** .23** .30** .07** .10** .09** .08** .08** .08** .10** .01 1.00
Notes: Child Sex (sex of the child); RecLang (receptive language score); Literacy (literacy IRT score); Math (math IRT score); FineMotBB(fine motor building blocks score); FineMotCF (fine motor copy
forms score); Gestation (number of weeks of gestation); APGAR (5 min APGAR score); BirthWt (child birth weight in grams); Accepted (accepted by other children); Friends (makes friends easily);
Shares (shares with others); Eager (eagerness to learn); PayAttn (pays attention well); Persist (keeps working until finished); Age (child’s assessment age in months); Income (household income);
MentalSc (mental scale score at 9 months).
*Correlation is significant at the .05 level.
**Correlation is significant at the .01 level.
 JOURNAL OF CHILDREN AND POVERTY 15

Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and range of all variables by sex.a

Variable Mean SD Range Mean SD Range
Age in Months 53.27 3.78 44.30–64.90 53.44 3.76 44.5–65.10
Household Income 2.22 1.14 1–6 2.28 1.18 1–6
Mental Scale Score 74.31 9.92 32.04–118.18 74.84 10.64 34.33–115.99
Health Status at Birth
Gestation Age 37.24 4.11 18–47 37.04 4.43 17–47
APGAR Score 8.75 0.85 2–10 8.71 0.95 0–10
Birth Weight 2926.54 903.15 227–5190 2735.23 866.54 425–4621
Achievement
Rec. Language 7.30 1.39 4.64–12.89 7.61 1.54 4.62–13.63
Literacy 8.96 3.58 3.63–34.67 9.69 4.28 3.65–33.49
Math 17.22 5.31 5.57–39.24 18.09 5.75 5.59–38.98
Motor Development
Building Blocks 1.10 0.61 0–2 1.12 0.61 0–2
Copy Form 2.73 1.23 0–7 3.05 1.17 0–7
Social Competence
Accepted 4.31 0.49 1–5 4.34 0.45 1–5
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 08:19 10 January 2018

Makes Friends 4.08 0.60 1–5 4.11 0.53 1–5

Shares 3.64 0.62 1–5 3.75 0.57 1–5
Approach to Learning
Eager to Learn 3.88 0.63 1–5 3.98 0.56 1–5
Pay Attention 3.46 0.63 1–5 3.56 0.59 1–5
Persistence 3.46 0.66 1–5 3.57 0.61 1–5
a
Total N = 1712, Male = 844, Female = 868.

and had a greater gestational age were more likely to have higher scores on motor devel-
opment tasks (β = .22, p < .001) and a higher mental scale score at nine months (β = .35,
p < .001). Additionally, children with a stronger health status at birth were more likely
to use beneficial approaches to learning (β = .10, p < .001). Health status at birth served
as an intervening variable between gender and mental scale score at nine months.

Mental scale score at nine months

The mental scale score at nine months did not contribute significantly to prekindergarten
academic performance (β = .03, p = NS). The nine-month mental scale score was therefore
removed from the model as a predictor of academic performance.

Discussion and implications

The purpose of this investigation was to examine the academic and socio-behavioral per-
formance of low-SES prekindergarten-aged children using factors associated with school
readiness potential. While much is known about SES differences in school readiness, little
is known about the variations of school readiness potential within the low-SES strata of
children. In this study, school readiness was reflective of variables related to academic per-
formance and social competence. Using SEM, it was predicted that the health status of the
child at birth would be predictive of nine-month cognitive outcomes, motor development,
and approaches to learning. In turn, approaches to learning would be predictive of both
school readiness academic achievement and social competence. It was also predicted
that family income and sex of the child would mediate approaches to learning, school
readiness academic achievement, and health status of the child at birth. Finally, it was pre-
dicted that the age of the child would mediate motor development and school readiness
academic achievement.
 16 D. F. GULLO

Overall, this study validates the understanding that developmental and learning trajec-
tories begin early in children’s lives and are influenced by internal and external factors.
This study’s findings also confirm that school readiness should be reconceptualized
from earlier definitions to include socio-emotional contexts in addition to narrow
applied skill sets as was previously conjectured (Janus and Duku 2007).
The findings from this study also confirm and extend earlier research findings that the
environment contributed substantially to cognitive readiness and that biological factors
had an influence on core abilities underlying school readiness (Lemelin et al. 2007).
Biological factors in conjunction with these environmental factors may account for the
predictive association between school readiness and early school achievement. The
results of this study contribute to a better understanding of the early determinants of
school readiness. Appropriate intervention and family education can thus be planned
that may ameliorate early negative influences on school readiness.
Concomitantly, the findings from this study further the understanding of the effects of
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 08:19 10 January 2018

social class on children’s learning and development trajectories. While comparative

studies of SES have shown that there are significant differences between social class
groups of children regarding early learning, development, and school readiness, the find-
ings from this study have demonstrated that within a low-SES group of children, similar
differences exist. Therefore, one cannot regard low-SES children as a homogeneous group.
Understanding the factors that positively affect early learning, development, and school
readiness among low-SES children can inform intervention strategies that may diminish
the gaps that presently exist in these areas among SES groups. There were several signifi-
cant findings related to within-SES differences that may impact children’s school
readiness.

Infant health status

In this study, negative factors associated with infant health status at birth were linked to
decreased cognitive outcomes at nine months, approaches to learning, and motor devel-
opment at preschool age. Children who come from low-SES backgrounds are more
likely to experience higher rates of morbidity and mortality in almost every disease cat-
egory (Chen, Matthews, and Boyce 2002). Increased health risk is associated with
decreases in SES for children. Significantly, this study found that those children who
had a higher health status at birth reflected higher levels of cognitive development at
nine months, as well as higher motor development and higher levels of approaches to
learning prior to entering kindergarten. The implication of this finding is that if interven-
tions are in place that increase the likelihood that low-SES children achieve a higher health
status, the negative effects of decreased health status may be decreased as well. Also sig-
nificant is that finding showed that as early as at birth, health status is predictive of
later developmental and behavioral outcomes. In earlier studies, the relationship
between health status and development and academic performance reflected the health
status of children who were school age (Janus and Duku 2007). Since low-SES children
are more likely to experience decreased health status at birth as indicated by lower
birth-weight, among other variables (Strully, Rehkopf, and Xuan 2010), prenatal interven-
tion strategies might prove effective in ameliorating decreased health status, which in turn
may have a positive impact on school readiness outcomes and potential.
 JOURNAL OF CHILDREN AND POVERTY 17

Household income
In this study, differentiated household income levels within the low-SES group studied
were used as predictor variables. Most studies that examined SES differences in school
readiness potential used SES alone as a predictor variable, the implication being that indi-
viduals within the SES group were viewed as undifferentiated regarding income levels. The
findings in the present investigation showed that even slight increases in household
income within the low-SES group could decrease the negative outcomes for children
related to health status at birth, school readiness achievement performance, and
approaches to learning. This result substantiates and expands upon findings that
showed that changes in Earned Income Tax Credits for low-SES families increased
birth weights for infants born to these families (Strully, Rehkopf, and Xuan 2010), thus
reducing risk factors for the children. Likewise, Duncan and Magnuson (2005) found
that economic resource differences among families accounts for about half of the standard
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 08:19 10 January 2018

deviation reflected in achievement gaps.

In the present study, the findings show that differences in economic resources also
account for differences among children’s approaches to learning, with children whose
families have higher levels of income showing more positive approaches to learning.
Positive approaches to learning has been associated with increased school readiness
potential (Barbu et al. 2015). A major policy implication of this finding is the need
for a focus on strategies that increase income for low-SES pregnant women in efforts
to increase birth weights. This would generate long-term benefits for all concerned
and is critical, as lower family incomes are correlated with other potentially confounding
risk factors (mother’s early-life exposures, maternal education and attitudes, maternal
preferences)–all of which may negatively impact prenatal development and young chil-
dren’s school readiness learning potential (Duncan 2005). Austin and Lemon (2004)
describe several strategies that could be used to accomplish a goal such as this. These
include policies that encourage employment programs, place-based programs that
target employment services for an entire community, and work incentives and supports.
In addition, Austin and Lemon (2004) describe asset development programs targeted at
low-income families such as promoting banking accounts and low-income home
ownership.

Age and gender

Both age and gender were predictive of school readiness performance variables. As in the
general population, older children scored higher on academic achievement than did their
younger classmates. Girls scored higher than boys on academic achievement and
approaches to learning. In addition, girls were more likely to have a more positive
health status at birth, which might account for their higher academic achievement
and approaches to learning, as health status is related to these two variables (Strully,
Rehkopf, and Xuan 2010). Significantly, the overall pattern of differences for gender
and age seen in the general population also emerge for low-SES children. This has
important implications for closely examining the nuances that exist among low-SES
groups of children and for designing appropriate strategies for instruction and
intervention.
 18 D. F. GULLO

Study strengths, limitations, and future directions

The interpretation of the findings from this study should be considered in light of both
strengths and limitations. A primary strength of the study was the structural equation fra-
mework within which the data were analyzed. This investigative approach allowed the
researchers to take advantage of the longitudinal nature of the data. In addition, SEM
was highly functional in elucidating both the direct effects of risk and the mediating
effects of factors contributing to risk. SEM also revealed the complexity of the relationships
among variables that contribute to or negatively affect school readiness. In previous
studies the factors studied here have individually been shown to impact indicators
of school readiness in children. In this investigation, the identified factors are elements
of a predictive model that elucidates the synergistic impact of these factors in
combination.
While particular pathways to school readiness were drawn from the findings in this
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 08:19 10 January 2018

study, other pathways have yet to be constructed. While the biotic and ecological frame-
work that guided the design of the investigation could be considered a strength, it may also
be a limitation. Factors not identified in this study may positively or negatively affect
school readiness among diverse groups of children, and further investigations should be
undertaken to elucidate the direct and indirect effects of other variables. In addition,
school readiness factors not examined in this study should also be the focus of future
research.
While this was one of the first studies to examine the within-group differences in school
readiness among a group of low-SES preschool-aged children, there are still more ques-
tions that need to be answered. Future investigations should specifically pursue under-
standing SES in this regard. What are the complexities of SES and its relationship to
school readiness? What are individual differences among children who are members of
the same social class group that might further explain risk factors, resiliency, and protec-
tive factors? What characteristics, factors, or situations lead to accomplishment among
some children, while others who seem similar have difficulty? This will require a decidedly
more extensive longitudinal approach using a latent growth curve analysis approach.
Limiting the interpretation of the findings was the fact that the data were not weighted.
This limits the generalizability to the sample studied rather than to the population at large.
While the unweighted data yielded a sample size smaller than that of the weighted data,
the sample was large enough and representative enough to allow for generalizable con-
clusions. This is evidenced by the fact that the findings from this study corroborated
the findings of similar studies that examined comparable variables.
Another potential limitation of this study is that race was not used as an independent
variable. While race was not the focal point of this study, extant research indicates that
race is a potentially influencing factor on school readiness (Coley 2002; Magnuson and
Waldfogel 2005). Those studies also show that race as a variable is confounded by both
SES and differences in formal learning experiences. Future research should focus on the
impact of race, keeping in mind the aforementioned confounding variables.
To conclude, results from this study have shown that understanding the factors that
affect school readiness are complex. There are factors that directly affect school readiness
and factors that have a mediating effect on school readiness. A better understanding of
these factors and the relationships among them can inform both practice and policy.
 JOURNAL OF CHILDREN AND POVERTY 19

Note
1. School readiness and kindergarten readiness are often used interchangeably. In this manu-
script the term ‘school readiness’ will be used consistently and is meant to refer to that
time just prior to entering formal schooling, which in most cases is kindergarten.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor
Dominic F. Gullo is a professor of early childhood education at Drexel University in Philadelphia.
His research emphases are risk and resiliency among young children who live in poverty and who
reside in urban areas. He is particularly interested in factors that affect school readiness.
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 08:19 10 January 2018

References
Amorim, L. D. A. F., R. L. Fiaccone, C. A. S. T. Santos, T. N. dos Santos, L. T. L. P. de Moraes, N. F.
Oliveira, S. O. Barbosa, et al. 2010. “Structural Equation Modeling in Epidemiology.” Cadernos de
Saúde Pública 26 (12): 2251–2262.
Anderson, P., and L. Doyle. 2003. “Neurobehavioral Outcomes of School-age Children Born
Extremely Low Birth Weight or Very Preterm in the 1990s.” Journal of the American Medical
Association 289 (24): 3264–3272.
Arbuckle, J. L. 2014. IBM SPSS Amos 23 Users Guide. Mount Pleasant, SC: AMOS Development
Corportation.
Austin, M., and K. Lemon. 2004. Promising Programs to Serve Low-income Families in Poverty
Neighborhoods. Berkeley, CA: Bay Area Social Services Consortium, School of Social Welfare,
University of California, Berkeley.
Avchen, R. N., K. Scott, and C. Mason. 2001. “Birth Weight and School-age Disabilities: A
Population-based Study.” American Journal of Epidemiology 154 (10): 895–901.
Barbu, O. C., R. W. Marx, D. B. Yaden, and D. Levine-Donnerstein. 2015. “Measuring Approaches
to Learning in Preschoolers: Validating the Structure of an Instrument for Teachers and
Parents.” Education 3-13. doi:10.1080/03004279.2015.1024273.
Barlow, H. J., and D. R. Ellard. 2006. “The Psychosocial Well-being of Children with Chronic
Disease, their Parents and Siblings: An Overview of the Research Evidence Base.” Children:
Care, Health and Development 32: 19–31.
Bentler, P. M. 1990. “Comparative Fit Indices in Structural Models.” Psychological Bulletin 107:
238–246.
Bhutta, A. T. 2002. “Cognitive and Behavioral Outcomes of School-aged Children Who Were Born
Preterm: A Meta-analysis.” Journal of the American Medical Association 288 (6): 228–237.
Bhutta, A., M. Cleves, P. Casey, M. Cradock, and K. Anand. 2002. “Cognitive and Behavioral
Outcomes of School-aged Children Who Were Born Preterm.” Journal of the American
Medical Association, 288: 728–737.
Byrne, B. M. 2016. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Application, and
Programming. New York, NY: Routledge.
Carlton, M. P., and A. Winsler. 1999. “School Readiness: The Need for a Paradigm Shift.” School
Psychology Review, 28: 338–352.
Chen, E., K. A. Matthews, and W. T. Boyce. 2002. “Socioeconomic Differences in Children’s Health:
How and Why Do These Relationships Change with Age?” Psychological Bulletin 128 (2): 295–
329.
Coley, R. 2002. An Uneven Start: Indicators of Inequality in School Readiness. Princeton, NJ:
Educational Testing Service.
 20 D. F. GULLO

Cross, A. F., and M. Conn-Powers. 2011. “A Working Paper: New Information on School
Readiness.” http://www.iidc.indiana.edu/styles/iidc/defies/ECC/New20Info20School%
20Readiness.pdf.
Crosser, S. L. 1991. “Summer Birth Date Children Kindergarten Entrance Age and Academic
Achievement.” The Journal of Educational Research 84 (3): 140–146.
Duncan, G. 2005. Income and Child Wellbeing. Dublin: Geary Lecture, The Economic and Social
Research Institute.
Duncan, G., C. Dowsett, A. Claessens, K. Magnuson, A. Huston, P. Klebanov, L. Pagani, et al. 2007.
“School Readiness and Later Achievement.” Developmental Psychology 43 (6): 1428–1446.
Duncan, G. J., and K. A. Magnuson. 2005. “Can Family Socioeconomic Resources Account for
Racial and Ethnic Test Score Gaps?” Future of Children 15: 35–53.
Elias, M., and N. Haynes. 2008. “Social Competence, Social Support, and Academic Achievement in
Minority, Low-income, Urban Elementary School Children.” School Psychology Quarterly 23 (4):
474–495.
Enders, C. K., and D. L. Bandalos. 2001. “The Relative Performance of Full Information Maximum
Likelihood Estimation for Missing Data in Structural Equation Models.” Educational Psychology
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 08:19 10 January 2018

Papers and Publications, Paper 64. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/edpsychpapers/64.

Engle, P. L., and M. M. Black. 2008. “The Effect of Poverty on Child Development and Educational
Outcomes.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1136: 243–256.
Entwisle, D., K. Alexander, and L. Olsen. 2005. “First Grade and Educational Attainment by Age 22:
A New Story.” American Journal of Sociology 110: 1458–1502.
Gelman, A. 2007. “Struggles with Survey Weighting and Regression Modeling.” Statistical Science
22 (2): 153–164.
Ginsburg, H. P., and A. J. Baroody. 2003. Test of Early Mathematics Ability–Second Edition. Austin,
TX: Pro-Ed.
Gullo, D. F., and C. Burton. 1992. “Age of Entry, Preschool Experience, and Sex as Antecedents of
Academic Readiness in Kindergarten.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7: 175–186.
Gullo, D. F., and K. Hughes. 2011. “Reclaiming Kindergarten: Part I. Questions About Theory and
Practice.” Early Childhood Education Journal, 38: 323–328.
Hahs-Vaughn, D. L., and R. G. Lomax. 2006. “Utilization of Sample Weights in Single-level
Structural Equation Modeling.” The Journal of Experimental Education 74 (2): 161–190.
Hair, E., T. Halle, E. Terry-Humen, B. Lavelle, and J. Calkins. 2006. “Children’s School Readiness in
the ECLS-K: Predictions to Academic, Health, and Social Outcomes in First Grade.” Early
Childhood Research Quarterly 21: 431–454.
High, P. C. 2008. “School Readiness.” Pediatrics 121 (4): e1008–e1015. doi:10.1542/peds.2008-0079.
Hooper, D., J. Coughlan, and M. Mullen. 2008. “Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for
Determining Model Fit.” Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods 6 (1): 53–60.
Hu, L. T., and P. M. Bentler. 1999. “Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis:
Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives.” Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal 6 (1): 1–55.
Hughes, K., and D. F. Gullo. 2010. “Joyful Learning and Assessment in Kindergarten.” Young
Children 65 (3): 57–59.
Isaacs, J. 2012. Starting School at a Disadvantage: The School Readiness of Poor Children.
Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Janus, M., and E. Duku. 2007. “The School Entry Gap: Socioeconomic, Family, and Health Factors
Associated with Children’s School Readiness to Learn.” Early Education and Development 18 (3):
375–403.
Kagan, S. L., E. Moore, and S. Bredekamp, eds. 1995. Reconsidering Children’s Early Learning and
Development: Toward Shared Beliefs and Vocabulary. Washington, DC: National Education
Goals Panel.
Kastner, J., and W. May. 2001. “Relationship between Language Skills and Academic Achievement
in First Grade.” Perceptual and Motor Skills 92: 381–390.
Lee, V. E., and D. T. Burkam. 2002. Inequality at the Starting Gate: Social Background Differences in
Achievement as Children Begin School. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
 JOURNAL OF CHILDREN AND POVERTY 21

Lemelin, J., M. Boivin, N. Forget-Dubois, G. Dionne, J. R. Seguin, M. Brendgen, F. Vitaro, R. E.

Tremblay, and D. Perusse. 2007. “The Genetic-environmental Etiology of Cognitive School
Readiness and Later Academic Achievement in Early Childhood.” Child Development 78 (6):
1855–1869.
Li-Grining, C. P., E. Votruba-Drzal, C. Maldonado-Carreño, and K. Haas. 2010. “Children’s Early
Approaches to Learning and Academic Trajectories Through Fifth Grade.” Developmental
Psychology 46 (5): 1062–1077.
Lonigan, C. J., R. K. Wagner, J. K. Torgesen, and C. A. Rashotte. 2002. Preschool Comprehensive Test
of Phonological and Print Processing. Austin, TX: ProED.
Lynch, J. L. 2011. “Infant Health, Race/Ethnicity, and Early Educational Outcomes Using the ECLS-
B.” Sociological Inquiry 81 (4): 499–526.
MacCallum, R. C., M. W. Browne, and H. M. Sugawara. 1996. “Power Analysis and Determination
of Sample Size for Covariance Structure Modeling.” Psychological Methods 1 (2): 130–149.
Magnuson, K., and J. Waldfogel. 2005. “Early Childhood Care and Education: Effects on Ethnic and
Racial Gaps in School Readiness.” The Future of Children 15 (1): 169–196.
May, D., and D. Kundert. 1997. “School Readiness Practices and Children at-Risk: Examining the
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 08:19 10 January 2018

Issues.” Psychology in the Schools, 34: 73–84.

McCormick, M., E. Cappella, E. O’Connor, and S. McClowry. 2015. “Social-emotional Learning and
Academic Achievement: Using Causal Methods to Explore Classroom-level Mechanisms.” AERA
Open 1 (3): 1–26.
Meisels, S. J. 1999. “Assessing Readiness.” In The Transition to Kindergarten, edited by R. C. Pianta,
39–66. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Meisels, S. J., D. B. Marsden, M. S. Wiske, and L. W. Henderson. 1997. The Early Screening
Inventory–Revised (ESI-R). New York: Pearson Early Learning.
Merrell, K. W. 2003. Preschool and Kindergarten Behavior Scales. 2nd ed.Austin, TX: PROED.
Morse, S., H. Zheng, Y. Tang, and J. Roth. 2009. “Early School-age Outcomes of Late Preterm
Infants.” Pediatrics 123 (4): e622–e629.
Moster, D., R. T. Lie, and T. Markestad. 2002. “Joint Association of Apgar Scores and Early
Neonatal Symptoms with Minor Disabilities at School Age.” Archives of Disease in Childhood
- Fetal and Neonatology Edition 86 (1): 16F–121.
National Center for Children in Poverty & Abt Associates. 2008. Proceedings from a Working
Meeting on Recent School Readiness Research: Guiding the Synthesis of Early Childhood
Research. Washington, DC. http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/10/SchoolReeadiness/index.pdf.
Naude, H., and E. Pretorius. 2003. “Investigating the Effects of Asthma Medication on the Cognitive
and Psychosocial Functioning of Primary School Children with Asthma.” Early Child
Development and Care 173: 699–709.
NICHD (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development). 2007. “Age of Entry to
Kindergarten and Children’s Academic Achievement and Socioemotional Development.”
Early Education and Development, 18 (2): 337–368.
Pianta, R., and M. Cox. 1999. Transition to Kindergarten. Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks Publishing Co.
Reardon, S. F. 2011. The Widening Academic Achievement Gap between Rich and Poor: New
Evidence and Possible Explanations. Palo Alto, CA: National Partnership for Educational
Access Research Brief.
Shaw, S., P. Gomes, A. Polotskaia, and A. Jankowska. 2015. “The Relationship between Student
Health and Academic Performance: Implications for School Psychologists.” School Psychology
International 36 (2): 115–134.
Spitzer, S., R. Cupp, and R. D. Parke. 1995. “School Entrance Age, Social Acceptance, and Self-per-
ceptions in Kindergarten and 1st Grade.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 10: 433–450.
Steiger, J. H. 2007. “Understanding the Limitations of Global Fit Assessment in Structural Equation
Modeling.” Personality and Individual Differences, 42 (5): 893–898.
Stipek, D. 2002. “At What Age Should Children Enter Kindergarten? A Question for Policy Makers
and Parents.” Society for Research in Children Development Social Policy Report 16: 1–16.
 22 D. F. GULLO

Strully, K. W., D. H. Rehkopf, and Z. Xuan. 2010. “Effects of Prenatal Poverty on Infant Health:
State Earned Income Tax Credits and Birth Weight.” American Sociological Review 75 (4):
534–562.
Tabachnick, B., and L. Fidell. 2007. Using Multivariate Statistics. 5th ed.Boston, MA: Allyn and
Bacon.
U.S. Department of Education. 2008. Preschool: First Findings from the Third Follow-up of the Early
Childhood Longitudinal Study, Birth Cohort (NCES No. 2008-025).
Uphoff, J. K., and J. Gilmore. 1985. “Pupil age at School Entrance – How Many are Ready for
Success?” Educational Leadership 43: 86–90.
Walker, D., C. Greenwood, B. Hart, and J. Carta. 1994. “Prediction of School Outcomes Based on
Early Language Production and Socioeconomic Factors.” Child Development 65 (2): 606–621.
Welsh, J., R. Nix, C. Blair, K. Bierman, and K. Nelson. 2010. “The Development of Cognitive Skills
and Gains in Academic School Readiness for Children from Low-income Families.” Journal of
Educational Psychology 102 (1): 43–53.
Zigler, E., W. Gilliam, and S. Jones. 2006. A Vision for Universal Preschool Education. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 08:19 10 January 2018