Quality of Both Parents Cognitive Guidance and Quantity of Early Childhood

192
British Journal of Educational Psychology (2018), 88, 192–215

© 2018 The British Psychological Society
www.wileyonlinelibrary.com
Special Issue Article

Quality of both parents’ cognitive guidance and
quantity of early childhood education: Influences
on pre-mathematical development
Anne Sorariutta* and Maarit Silven
Department of Teacher Education, University of Turku, Finland
Background. Only a handful of longitudinal studies have explored the effects of both
parents in early parenthood on children’s cognitive development, and no study has
controlled for simultaneous early childhood education and care (ECEC) experiences.
Aims. To examine the similarity of each parent’s cognitive guidance and contribution to
children’s pre-mathematical outcomes across parent gender while controlling for amount
of ECEC.
Sample. A longitudinal study on 66 Finnish two-parent families and their children.
Methods. Both parents’ autonomy support and scaffolding behaviour were observed
during play interactions with the child at 2;0. Children’s numerical and spatial skills were
tested at 3;0 and 4;0. Parental reports on amount of ECEC in months were collected at
2;0, 3;0, and 4;0.
Results. The two parenting constructs were conceptually similar across parent gender
as demonstrated by fairly strong measurement equivalence. While mothers on average
showed more scaffolding and equal amounts of autonomy support compared to fathers
during play interaction, they displayed less variability in the former and more variability in
the latter behaviour. The contribution of mothers’ and fathers’ cognitive guidance was
more similar for children’s numerical than spatial development. Both parents’ education
positively predicted autonomy support but not amount of ECEC exposure, which was
positively related to numerical development. As expected, parents’ education did not
predict ECEC exposure, and child gender was not related to child outcomes.
Conclusions. The findings are discussed in relation to measurement invariance and
gender-neutral parenting in the context of early childhood.
As the roles of mothers and fathers are rapidly changing and becoming more similar in
western industrialized countries (e.g., Fagan, Day, Lamb, & Cabrera, 2014), an increasing
number of children grow up with parents who share caretaker and breadwinner
responsibilities, as well as attend educationally oriented out-of-home care early in their
development. According to the basic tenets of Bronfenbrenner’s theory (1986), various
early ecological systems contribute to children’s later developmental outcomes. Yet, the
majority of observational studies in early parenthood have concentrated on the quality of
mothering when predicting cognitive outcomes (e.g., NICHD ECCRN, 2006). Studies on
*Correspondence should be addressed to Anne Sorariutta, Department of Teacher Education, University of Turku, Turku 20014,
Finland (email: anne.sorariutta@utu.fi).
DOI:10.1111/bjep.12217
20448279, 2018, 2, Downloaded from https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjep.12217 by University College Dublin Libr, Wiley Online Library on [13/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Social contexts and early mathematical development 193
both parents have mainly focused on selected samples of children from low socio-
economic status (SES) families enrolled in high-quality early childhood education and care
(ECEC; e.g., Ryan, Martin, & Brooks-Gunn, 2006; Tamis-LeMonda, Shannon, Cabrera, &
Lamb, 2004), and therefore, the unique roles specific for each parent and ECEC remain
unresolved. The goal of our study on Finnish families was to explore how each parent’s
cognitive guidance in toddlerhood and time spent in ECEC contribute to children’s
mathematical development at preschool age.
Development of pre-mathematical skills from infancy to preschool age

From birth onwards, infants can relate spatial, temporal, and numerical information (de
Hevia, Izard, Coubart, Spelke, & Streri, 2014). These early perceptual experiences
influence brain development and form the foundation of memory representations and
core concepts, which shape later perception of spatial and quantitative relations between
objects (e.g., Goswami, 2008). Research beyond infancy provides evidence, mainly based
on a cross-sectional design, that children’s representations become gradually enriched,
and their earliest receptive and productive vocabulary, including specific words for spatial
and numerical concepts and relations, is a reflection of their growing understanding of the
concepts these words represent (Cannon, Levine, & Huttenlocher, 2007; Sarnecka,
Goldman, & Slusser, 2014). Children’s spatial knowledge and skills improve during the
preschool period as shown by their deeper understanding of various basic spatial
concepts such as size and shape (Aslan & Arnas, 2007; Smith, 1984). Also with regard to
numerical development, children learn to use number words always in the same order
when counting a set of objects, and to produce the accurate cardinal number word for a
set of one to four items (e.g., Colome & No€el, 2012; Sarnecka et al., 2014; for the
principles of counting skills, see Gelman & Gallistel, 1978).
Sex differences in spatial and numeracy processes have been reported in infancy,
but the interplay between biological and social influences on gender development is
not yet well known (for a review, see Alexander & Wilcox, 2012). So far, the findings
regarding a gender gap in pre-mathematical skills around the preschool period are
inconsistent within and across societies. No child gender differences in spatial and
numerical skills appeared among 3-year-olds from the United States and Hong Kong
(Verdine et al., 2014; Zhang, 2016), nor in numerical skills among 5-year-olds from
England and the People’s Republic of China (Aunio, Aubrey, Godfrey, Yuejuan, & Liu,
2008). Evidence on older children (age range from 5 to 7 years) from the United
States and Germany suggests that boys outperform girls on spatial tasks (Levine,
Huttenlocher, Taylor, & Langrock, 1999) and numerical tasks (Lonnemann,
Linkersd€orfer, Hasselhorn, & Lindberg, 2013). It is typical in North European societies
with high gender equality that the average gender gap in mathematics is minimal or
even reversed as in Iceland and Finland among adolescents (Guiso, Monte, Sapienza,
& Zingales, 2008; Lindberg, Hyde, Linn, & Petersen, 2010; OECD, 2014, 2016). Some
studies suggest that the gender gap in favour of Finnish girls emerges already before
school entry, for numerical skills it is present at kindergarten age (Aunio et al., 2008;
see also Hannula & Lehtinen, 2005).
Early social predictors of children’s pre-mathematical development

Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory (1978) states that all higher forms of cognition originate
from social interactions with knowledgeable others who provide appropriate guidance
194 Anne Sorariutta and Maarit Silven
during interactions and support the novice learners’ autonomous activities within the
zone of proximal development of their cognitive skills. As put forward in the self-
determination theory (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 1985; Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013), to promote
intrinsic motivation and achievement from infancy onwards, it is important for parents to
support children’s interest and enjoyment in play and exploratory activities, and thereby
satisfy their basic needs for autonomy and competence. To date, studies focusing on
autonomy and competence support have resulted in divergent approaches to how to
conceptualize and operationalize these two major dimensions of cognitive guidance. The
research on the concept of scaffolding (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976), rooted in the
Vygotskian theory, shows that parental verbal and non-verbal guidance predicts language
development, self-regulated learning, and other cognitive outcomes (for reviews, see
Mermelshtine, 2017; Pino-Pasternak & Whitebread, 2010). Even though young children
are initially dependent on scaffolding within the zone of proximal development, they
become increasingly competent and independent.
Children learn to act more autonomously when the parents gradually reduce their
support, as they allow and encourage the novice learners to act independently. A
recent meta-analysis found that mothers and fathers use similar levels of autonomy-
supportive behaviour with girls and boys (Endendijk, Groeneveld, Bakermans-
Kranenburg, & Mesman, 2016). Moreover, parents’ autonomy support at school age
had a positive relation with a variety of desirable academic outcomes and that the
relationship was stronger when the prediction included both parents (Vasquez, Patall,
Fong, Corrigan, & Pine, 2016). The influence of parents’ autonomy support has not
been explored thoroughly in infancy, when children are on the cusp of learning their
first words. In one of the few existing studies, mothers’ autonomy support and
scaffolding have been shown to differently predict later mathematical performance at
preschool and school age (Sorariutta, Hannula-Sormunen, & Silven, 2017; Sorariutta &
Silven, 2017). Other studies on mothers’ cognitive guidance have demonstrated that
multifaceted constructs (or composite scores) such as autonomy support including
scaffolding (Bernier, Carlson, & Whipple, 2010) and scaffolding including autonomy
support (Mermelshtine & Barnes, 2016) relate to variation in children’s cognitive
outcomes in toddlerhood. Taken together, based on the way cognitive guidance has
been assessed, it can be argued that the construct seems to represent a broad
dimension which varies in structural complexity.
A current review on parent gender influences has highlighted growing evidence of
children being similarly affected by the same types of parenting behaviours (Fagan et al.,
2014; see also Endendijk et al., 2016). Mothers’ and fathers’ parenting in toddlerhood has
been positively related to children’s mathematical outcomes at kindergarten age (Martin,
Ryan, & Brooks-Gunn, 2007; for cognitive outcomes, see Cabrera, Shannon, & Tamis-
LeMonda, 2007; Ryan et al., 2006; Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2004). According to Adamsons
and Buehler (2007), researchers have presupposed similarity across parenting behaviours
(or, alternatively, assumed qualitative gender differences), but very few studies have
actually tested whether the constructs developed for and used with mothers validly assess
fathers’ parenting. They pointed out that measurement equivalence should be routinely
explored before reliable conclusions can be drawn about the contribution of each parent.
Thus far, only Mills-Koonce et al. (2015) have demonstrated that the mothers’ and fathers’
parenting constructs were highly similar and that children were affected in similar ways by
each parent.
It is less likely that estimates of parenting impact are biased if the study includes other
developmental contexts influencing child outcomes (Duncan, Magnuson, & Ludwig,
2004). A meta-analysis on EU countries has indicated positive relationships between

quantity and quality of ECEC and children’s literacy and mathematical outcomes (Ulferts,
Anders, Leseman, & Melhuish, 2016; for a large-scale prospective longitudinal US study,
see NICHD ECCRN, 2003, 2006). Most of the NICHD studies have actually compared
mothers with other caregiving adults as a group without differentiating the effects of
relatives and early childhood professionals. Thus far, no study on both parents has
controlled for simultaneous ECEC experiences.
Higher level of maternal education has been related to higher quality cognitive
guidance in infancy (e.g., Mermelshtine & Barnes, 2016; Sorariutta et al., 2017), and
amount of time children spend in out-of-home care (NICHD Early Child Care Research
Network, 2006). In Finland, maternal education has not been associated with ECEC
attendance, but level of education has been shown to affect children’s mathematical
outcomes through quality of cognitive guidance (Sorariutta & Silven, 2017), whereas in
US studies on both parents, either parent’s education has been directly related to cognitive
outcomes (Mills-Koonce et al., 2015; Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2004). Hence, it seems
justifiable to explore whether cognitive guidance mediates the association between each
parent’s education and child outcomes.
The present study

This is the first study to address how each parent’s cognitive guidance, as well as amount
of ECEC experience, both directly and indirectly influences children’s pre-mathematical
development in a North European context with high gender equality in access to
education and affordable high-quality childcare services for all families. We first tested
measurement invariance to explore whether qualitatively similar parenting constructs
can be applied in both groups of parents because the two parenting constructs have been
detected in studies on mothers (e.g., Sorariutta et al., 2017). On the ground of recent
evidence (Endendijk et al., 2016; Fagan et al., 2014; Mills-Koonce et al., 2015), we
expected that Autonomy Support and Scaffolding would be assessed in similar ways
across parent gender, as shown by (at least weak) factorial invariance (hypothesis 1), but
that mothers’ and fathers’ parenting would show some quantitative differences in factor
means and factor variances (hypothesis 2), because Finnish mothers typically are the
primary caretakers in infancy. Moreover, we expected each parent to contribute similarly
to girls and boys pre-mathematical outcomes during the preschool period (hypothesis 3)
and also anticipated age-specific contributions due to parent gender differences in early
caregiving experiences (hypothesis 4). In line with longitudinal research reporting
positive effects of quantity of ECEC (Ulferts et al., 2016), we predicted that more time
spent in ECEC beyond infancy to preschool age would foster children’s later outcomes
(hypothesis 5). As it is not yet known how amount of time spent in ECEC relates to pre-
mathematical skills after controlling for the influence of both parents, we could not
propose any specific hypothesis regarding the joint additive effects of these early
contexts.
We expected to find developmental continuity from early to late preschool age in
pre-mathematical skills assessed with the same tasks and procedure (hypothesis 6)
(Sorariutta & Silven, 2017; see also Merz et al., 2015), but on the basis of prior
evidence (e.g., Verdine et al., 2014; see also Hannula & Lehtinen, 2005), we
anticipated no child gender differences as early as at preschool age (hypothesis 7).
Finally, in line with studies on Finnish mothers (Sorariutta & Silven, 2017), we
expected that parents’ education would not be directly related to ECEC attendance
(hypothesis 8) or child outcomes (hypothesis 9), but instead, we predicted that more
years of education would associate with higher quality parent–child interaction
among mothers, as well as among fathers, which in turn would indirectly affect
children’s pre-mathematical outcomes (hypothesis 10).
Method
Participants
We report longitudinal data on Finnish-speaking families (N = 66) recruited from the files
of the Population Registration Centre, Helsinki (see Silven, Poskiparta, Niemi, & Voeten,
2007). The sampling criteria were two-parent families of firstborn children living in
southern Finland. At the start of the study, the mothers’ age ranged from 21 to 37 years
(M = 27.88, SD = 4.15) and the fathers’ age from 22 to 46 years (M = 30.20, SD = 4.77)
(for parents’ education, see Tables 1 and 2). The sample at age 2;0 consisted of 66
mothers, 53 fathers, and 66 children. The number of girls (40) and boys (26) did not differ
from the expected gender distribution (p = .06, Fisher Exact test).
Assessments
Cognitive guidance during play interactions in toddlerhood
Mother–child and father–child dyads were videotaped in a laboratory playroom at
2;0 (1 week). During the semi-structured play sessions, the child and the parent
sat in their own chairs side by side. The examiner put a set of small plastic toys
representing, for example, animals, people, and furniture on the table and instructed
the partners to play just as they would normally do with the toys. The 10-min
recordings of the dyads were assessed using the Parent’s Interactional Sensitivity
with the Child (Silven, Niemi, & Voeten, 2002). The coding system was determined
by a theory-driven approach based on sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978; see also
Wood et al., 1976) and attachment theory (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall,
1978). The initial coding system was further developed as recent principal
component analyses (PCAs) of the data identified two separate constructs, autonomy
support and scaffolding (Sorariutta & Silven, 2017), in line with the basic
assumptions of the self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Vansteenkiste &
Ryan, 2013).
The recordings were coded on three scales of autonomy support and four scales of
scaffolding (see Table 3) by running each tape several times from second to second to
mark every change in on- and offsets of the activities described by the scales. The score of
each scale ranged from 1 to 3 (1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, and 3), which represents the relative
frequency of activities during the entire play time. A score of 3 on all scales describes a
parent who consistently provides cognitive guidance in a highly sensitive and responsive
manner, a score of 2 was assigned to a parent who every now and then provides cognitive
guidance in such a manner, and a score of 1 to a parent who rarely provides cognitive
guidance to the child (for more details, see Sorariutta et al., 2017). One trained observer
rated all maternal and another all paternal play sessions. Two other trained observers
independently rated a sample of 20 maternal and 20 paternal dyads. The observer
agreement was fairly high as shown by the intraclass correlation statistics in the Note to
Table 3. The levels of the coefficients for mothers and fathers varied from good to
excellent (see Cicchetti, 1994).
Table 1. Maternal scales of autonomy support (Auto1–Auto3) and scaffolding (Scaf1–Scaf4), education, early childhood education and care (ECEC), and pre-
mathematical skills: means, standard deviations, and Pearson correlations
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. .13 .14
1. Auto1 –
2. Auto2 .72 –
3. Auto3 .71 .88 –
4. Scaf1 .67 .80 .75 –
5. Scaf2 .49 .71 .61 .75 –
6. Scaf3 .42 .67 .60 .69 .82 –
7. Scaf4 .48 .74 .66 .71 .84 .85 –
8. Education .20 .31 .30 .31 .29 .31 .35 –
9. ECEC .11 .03 .13 .04 .02 .15 .08 .05 –
to 3;0
10. ECEC .13 .08 .13 .09 .05 .11 .04 .11 .93 –
to 4;0
11. Size–Shape .22 .23 .09 .27 .34 .35 .28 .15 .06 .04 –
at 3;0
12. Number .40 .38 .34 .36 .31 .31 .32 .28 .29 .31 .47 –
at 3;0
13. Size–Shape .23 .23 .16 .31 .36 .30 .24 .14 .05 .10 .22 .28 –
at 4;0
14. Number .29 .24 .19 .31 .38 .31 .32 .19 .03 .003 .34 .47 .37 –
at 4;0
M 2.01 2.07 2.02 1.89 1.74 1.87 1.89 14.08 11.64 17.81 – – – –
SD 0.63 0.64 0.60 0.60 0.56 0.58 0.59 3.15 8.91 11.79 – – – –
Range 1–3 1–3 1–3 1–3 1–3 1–3 1–3 9–23 0–26 0–38 2.46 to 2.09 2.16 to 2.21 1.72 to 3.31 2.66 to 1.88
Social contexts and early mathematical development
Note. The italicized variables represent principal components with mean 0 and variance 1. Parameter estimates in bold face are statistically significant, p < .05.
197
198
Table 2. Paternal scales of autonomy support (Auto1–Auto3) and scaffolding (Scaf1–Scaf4), education, early childhood education and care (ECEC), and pre-
mathematical skills: means, standard deviations, and Pearson correlations
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. .13 .14
1. Auto1 –
2. Auto2 .59 –
3. Auto3 .63 .70 –
4. Scaf1 .38 .67 .63 –
5. Scaf2 .25 .64 .55 .83 –
6. Scaf3 .18 .63 .48 .79 .83
Anne Sorariutta and Maarit Silven
–
7. Scaf4 .21 .63 .52 .85 .82 .85 –
8. Education .19 .31 .35 .33 .19 .24 .46 –
9. ECEC .01 .01 .02 .07 .001 .06 .02 .09 –
to 3;0
10. ECEC .11 .07 .05 .15 .07 .11 .03 .10 .93 –
to 4;0
11. Size–Shape .12 .17 .01 .06 .002 .15 .06 .07 .06 .04 –
at 3;0
12. Number .12 .20 .20 .23 .11 .24 .23 .41 .29 .31 .47 –
at 3;0
13. Size–Shape .30 .31 .45 .39 .31 .40 .41 .32 .05 .10 .22 .28 –
at 4;0
14. Number .15 .34 .23 .26 .26 .28 .25 .34 .03 .003 .34 .47 .37 –
at 4;0
M 2.01 2.10 1.95 1.57 1.57 1.71 1.74 14.08 11.64 17.81 – – – –
SD 0.56 0.48 0.54 0.56 0.50 0.52 0.57 3.15 8.91 11.79 – – – –
Range 1–3 1–3 1–3 1–3 1–3 1–3 1–3 8–26 0–26 0–38 2.46 to 2.09 2.16 to 2.21 1.72 to 3.31 2.66 to 1.88
Note. The italicized variables represent principal components with mean 0 and variance 1. Parameter estimates in bold face are statistically significant, p < .05.
Table 3. Scales of cognitive guidance: autonomy support (auto1–auto3) and scaffolding (scaf1–scaf4)
Scale Definition Example
auto1 The child mainly sets the goals for the activities The child puts the boy to sleep inside the animal
even during moments of joint play between pen with the cow
the child and the parent
auto2 The parent allows the child’s independent When the child makes the girl drive the car, the
activities parent supports the child’s activities
auto3 The parent controls and restricts the child’s The parent takes the spade from the child who
cognitive processes and occasionally even feeds the boy and puts it in the wheelbarrow
interrupts the child’s activities in order to
achieve her/his own goal. (scale reversed)
scaf1 The parent provides subtle guidance which The child puts the girl in bed and the parent
respects and promotes the child’s goals gives a blanket
scaf2 If the parent seeks to influence the child’s goals, The child bangs the man with the car, the parent
she/he sets the new goal slightly above the suggests putting the man in the car
child’s current goal and level of performance
scaf3 The parent assists and guides the child when When the child tries to make the girl ride the
necessary by dividing the problem into smaller horse, the parent suggests first sitting the girl
more manageable tasks or breaking it up step on the horse and then riding the horse
by step into smaller sub-problems
scaf4 The parent adjusts her/his guidance to the The parent uses simple vocabulary and suggests
child’s level of cognitive development familiar activities, such as feeding and sleeping
Note. The intraclass correlation coefficients among the maternal and paternal dyads for Autonomy Support
varied between .79–.80 and .70–.75 and for Scaffolding .76–.81 and .72–.79, respectively.
Pre-mathematical skills at early and late preschool age

Children’s spatial and numerical skills were tested during laboratory visits at 3;0
(1 week) and 4;0 (1 week) by two trained female examiners, one for each age level.
The Early Language Test (Silven et al., 2002) consisted of six sets of four objects, which
were used to assess children’s understanding of spatial and number concepts. All items
were toy replicas of real-world objects such as animals, people, furniture, and familiar to
children from everyday routines. After being presented with a set, the child was allowed to
play with the objects for 10–20 s. Thereafter, the examiner presented a number of
standard questions to the child about the objects (see Table 4). If the child’s response was
wrong, the examiner did not provide the correct answer. The child’s answers and
reactions to the size, shape, and number tasks were analysed from the 15- to 20-min-long
videotapes (see Table 4). One trained observer rated all testing sessions, and another
trained observer independently rated a sample (20 children) of the sessions. As shown in
the Note to Table 4, the inter-rater reliabilities were very high. Even though the task
reliabilities were somewhat low due to the number of tasks, the upper limits of validity
ranged from .68 to .80.
Two separate PCAs on the within-age correlations between the two spatial variables at
early and late preschool age showed that size and shape resulted in one-component
solutions with eigenvalue larger than 1. The Spatial Skills variables explained 55% of the
original variance at 3;0, and 59% at 4;0. Again, the second set of PCAs on the two numerical
variables resulted in one-component solutions. The Numerical Skills variables explained
63% of the original variance at age 3;0 and 54% at age 4;0. The range of the component
Table 4. Assessment of pre-mathematical skills: size, shape, and number tasks
Task Set up Production Comprehension
Large-Small The examiner placed two The examiner pointed at The examiner asked
large and two small the large objects and the child to put the
animals of different asked how the horse is large ones (the horse
colours side by side on similar to the cow and the cow) inside
the table (about 4 9 7 cm in the empty animal pen.
size), and then pointed After placing all
at the small objects and animals in the pen, she
asked how the dog is asked the child to take
similar to the cat (about out the small ones
2 9 4 cm in size) (the dog and the cat)
Scoring (max. = 4) One score was assigned One score was assigned
for each correct verbal for each correct
response requested action
Tall-Short The examiner placed two The examiner pointed at The examiner asked
tall and two short the two tall objects and the child to give her
people side by side on asked how the woman the tall ones (the
the table is similar to the man woman and the man)
(about 8 cm), and then and then, after placing
pointed at the two all the toy-people on
short objects and asked the table, she asked
how the girl is similar to for the short ones
the boy (about 5 cm) (the girl and the boy)
Scoring (max. = 4) One score was assigned One score was
for each correct verbal assigned for each
response correct requested
action
Round-Square The examiner placed a The examiner showed a The examiner asked
ball, a building block, a ball to the child and the child to give her a
car, and a doll side by asked what shape it is. round object and then
side on the table Next, she showed a a square object
building block and
asked what shape it is
Scoring (max. = 4) Round and square were Giving or pointing at
scored as the correct the ball and the
answers building block were
scored as the
accurate actions
“How Many Items” The examiner The examiner posed the
introduced a baby doll child questions about
to the child and dressed the number of the baby
the doll in trousers, doll’s body parts
shirt, hat, and shoe
Scoring (max. = 4) One score was assigned
for each accurate verbal
response: one for head,
two for legs, three for
head and hands, and
four for legs and hands
Continued
Table 4. (Continued)
Task Set up Production Comprehension
“Give Me 9 Items” The examiner placed The examiner gave the

four animals, four child three
people, and four pieces instructions: (1) give
of furniture side by side me one person, (2)
on the table give me two animals,
and (3) give me three
pieces of furniture
Scoring (max. = 3) One score was
assigned for each
accurate action
Note. The alpha coefficients at 3;0 and 4;0 were .47 and .62 for the size and shape tasks and .46 and .53 for
the number tasks. The inter-rater reliability coefficients varied at 3;0 from .82 to .96, and at 4;0 from .97 to
1.00.
scores, z-scores, are presented in Tables 1 and 2 (for other descriptive statistics, see
Sorariutta et al., 2017).
Early childhood care and education

During laboratory visits at 2;0, 3;0, and 4;0, the parents were asked to fill in questionnaires
about childcare arrangements such as type and amount of care during the previous year
(s). They assessed how many months the child had been cared for at home with mother,
father, or relative and/or outside the home in family day care and/or in a childcare centre.
A higher number on the ECEC variables represent more months in family day-care and/or
in a childcare centre during the child’s first 3 and 4 years of life, whereas a lower number
on the variables imply more home care in months during the same two time periods (see
Tables 1 and 2).
Results
Analytic strategy
Structural equation modelling (SEM) was applied to explore the longitudinal predictive
relations depicted in the hypothetical model (Figure 1). To test measurement invariance
of Autonomy Support and Scaffolding, we first ran confirmatory factor analyses using one
pair of each construct at a time (see Table 5). In the second step, we entered ECEC and
pre-mathematical skills into the constrained measurement models. In this way, we could
separately test the validity and similarity of each pair of maternal and paternal latent
constructs before using them to predict child outcomes. Due to the small sample size, we
entered the covariates, child gender and parent education, in the final models (retaining
only the significant effects) as a third step.
The measurement and structural models were estimated with Mplus 7.11 (Muthen &
Muthen, 2010). The maximum-likelihood robust estimation was chosen because it is
robust to non-normality and the distributions of the variables were not normal throughout
(West, Finch, & Curran, 1995). In evaluating the goodness-of-fit of the theoretical models
Mothers’ M. Cognitive Child

Education Guidance at 2;0 Gender
Mathematics Mathematics
ECEC
at 3;0 at 4;0
Fathers’ F. Cognitive
Education Guidance at 2;0
Figure 1. Hypothetical model illustrating recursive relations between mother and father cognitive
guidance, ECEC, and child pre-mathematical development, and background variables. The straight lines
represent the parameter estimates tested in the second step; the dashed lines represent the parameter
estimates tested in the third step.
Table 5. Measurement invariance of autonomy support and scaffolding constructs: factor loadings,
intercepts, variances, and means
2(a) Autonomy support 2(b) Scaffolding
v2 (df) Dv2 (df), p v2 (df) Dv2 (df), p
Configural 9.93 (8) 27.72 (19)

Metric 11.57 (10) 1.64 (2), .44 30.22 (22) 2.50 (3), .48
Scalar 14.20 (12) 2.63 (2), .27 38.93 (25) 8.71 (3), .03
Partial scalar 30.73 (24) 0.51 (2), .77
Factor means 14.16 (13) 0.04 (1), .53 34.96 (25) 4.23 (1), .04
Factor variances 19.46 (14) 5.30 (1), .02 35.11 (26) 4.38 (1), .04
Mothers Fathers Mothers Fathers
Factor .76 .94 .94 .73 .83 .87 .78 .91 .91 .93 .91 .80 .91 .93
loadings
Intercepts 2.01 2.07 2.02 2.01 2.10 1.95 1.89 1.74 1.87 1.89 1.57 1.57 1.71 1.74
Factor 2.01 2.01 1.89 1.57
means
Factor 0.22 0.17 0.22 0.26
variances
to the sample data, we used three indicators suggested in the literature (Browne &
Cudeck, 1989; Hu & Bentler, 1995): the chi-square p-value >.05, the comparative fit index
(CFI) ≥ .95, and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) < .10. Nested
likelihood ratio tests were applied to explore degradation of model fit.
There were missing values in the data, a total of 5.2% (13 fathers at 2;0, one child
at 3;0, and five children at 4;0). Little’s test confirmed that the pattern of missing data
was completely random. The values were imputed using the expectation
maximization algorithm (Muthen & Muthen, 2010), given that the deletion methods
would discard a great deal of potentially usable data and cause biased estimates
(Allison, 2002; Schafer, 1999). All statistical analyses were performed with imputed
data (reported here) and data with missing values. No differences appeared in the
estimated relationships, suggesting that the imputation served to increase statistical
power.
Means, standard deviations, and correlations between each parent’s autonomy
support and scaffolding scales, years of education, and children’s pre-mathematical
outcomes are presented in Tables 1 and 2. Moreover, girls and boys did not significantly
differ on any of the main study variables, t(64) = 1.29 to 1.80, all ps > .05.
Measurement models
We explored three levels of measurement equivalence regarding the two parenting
constructs for mothers and fathers: configural, metric, and scalar, which, according to
Adamsons and Buehler (2007), reflect increasingly restrictive levels of similarity across
groups. One pair of each construct was used at a time with the same observed parenting
behaviours. As shown by the test of configural invariance in Table 5, the one-factor model
of Autonomy Support, as well as Scaffolding fit the data well for each parent (which is in
line with PCAs conducted on the maternal scales, see Sorariutta et al., 2017). All the
standardized factor loadings of each pair of latent factors were statistically significant and
high. The models were then re-estimated to test metric invariance by constraining the
factor loadings of each pair of constructs to be equal. The constrained models continued
to fit the data well and did not statistically differ from the previous models as suggested by
the nested likelihood ratio tests. Metric invariance indicates that the observed maternal
and paternal behaviours were equally strong indicators of the latent constructs. The
configural and metric tests can be taken as evidence of weak factorial invariance for both
parenting constructs (Little, 2013).
Adding constraints to the intercepts provides a strong factorial invariance test. As
confirmed by the scalar invariance test for Autonomy Support (see Table 5), the
intercepts of every observed autonomy-supportive behaviour were at similar levels,
indicating that the construct was not biased systematically in favour of either parent.
Further, the scalar invariance test for Scaffolding revealed that one intercept (scaf1)
of the four observed scaffolding behaviours differed in favour of fathers. In order to
improve model fit, this indicator was allowed to take different values for each
parent.
After testing the invariance of the measurement models at the level of observed
variables, the next step was to explore the equality of the latent factors. The models were
re-estimated, imposing equality constraints first on the means and then on the variances of
each pair of constructs. As indicated by the nested likelihood ratio tests in Table 5, the
significant decrement to model fit (compared to the scalar invariance model) suggested
differences in the latent factor means and variances, except for the means of Autonomy
Support. Taken together, the findings demonstrated that mothers displayed, on average,
higher levels of scaffolding behaviours than fathers, but equal levels of autonomy-
supportive behaviours during joint play in toddlerhood. In addition, mothers showed
more variability in autonomy support and less variability in scaffolding compared to
fathers.
Structural models
The invariance tests of the measurement models demonstrated strong factorial invariance
for the Autonomy Support factor and fairly strong invariance for the Scaffolding factor,
which is an essential prerequisite for comparing the functional invariance across each
parent (Adamsons & Buehler, 2007; Little, 2013). Due to the sample size, the structural
models were separately run for spatial and numerical development. In order to specify
how each parent relates to later differences in development, we started with a recursive
model in which the influences of each pair of parental predictors and ECEC were
simultaneously estimated. Next, in the context of the freely estimated unconstrained
structural models, we explored the contributions of each parent (functional equivalence)
by adding equality constraints to the parallel maternal and paternal paths on child
outcomes at 3;0 and then at 4;0 (see Table 6). The end results of the model-fitting process
are presented in Figures 2 and 3. These models include amount of ECEC experience in
months during the first 3 years, because the amount of ECEC during the first 4 years was
not related to child outcomes.
Spatial development
As shown by the unconstrained structural model 2(a) in Table 6, when using each
parent’s Autonomy Support as predictor, fathers who were more supportive of their
child’s autonomous activities during joint play in toddlerhood tended to have children
who performed better on spatial tasks 2 years later. Mothers’ autonomy-supportive
activities were not related to children’s spatial outcomes. To test functional invariance
across parents, that is, whether the effects were significantly different from one another,
we imposed an equality constraint on the parental paths at 4;0 because neither parent had
an effect at 3;0. As demonstrated by the nested likelihood ratio tests in Table 6, the
constrained model differed from the unconstrained model, confirming that the magnitude
of the paternal effect shown in Figure 2a is higher than the maternal effect at late
preschool age.
When using each parent’s Scaffolding as predictors, the unconstrained structural
model 2(b) in Table 6 showed that mothers who provided more guidance during joint
play tended to have children who performed better on spatial tasks 1 year later, whereas
fathers’ effect occurred 2 years later. Re-estimation of the model with added equality
constraint on parental paths at 3;0 resulted in degradation of model fit. This confirmed, as
depicted in Figure 2b, that only mothers’ scaffolding contributed to child outcomes at
early preschool age. A model with equality constraint at 4;0 continued to provide a good fit
and did not differ from the unconstrained structural model. This evidence indicates that
the magnitude of the effects is similar across parent gender, revealing that when both
parents provided more scaffolding they were likely to have children who performed
better on spatial tasks at late preschool age.
The models indicated no developmental continuity in spatial skills across age, nor was
amount of ECEC experience related to spatial outcomes. The Autonomy Support and the
Scaffolding models explained 22% and 24% of the variance, respectively, in spatial skills at
late preschool age.
Numerical development
The unconstrained structural model, 3(a) in Table 6, suggests that when using Autonomy
Support as predictor, both parents’ autonomy-supportive activities predicted children’s
Table 6. Freely estimated unconstrained structural models and functional invariance of parenting constructs for spatial and numerical development: structural path
estimates and fit statistics
Spatial development Numerical development
2(a) Autonomy support 2(b) Scaffolding 3(a) Autonomy support 3(b) Scaffolding
Unconstrained models b (SE) 95% CI b (SE) 95% CI b (SE) 95% CI b (SE) 95% CI
Mother?Child at 3;0 .16 (.17) [0.11, 0.43] .38 (.13) [0.16, 0.59] .36 (.14) [0.13, 0.59] .34 (.14) [0.11, 0.56]
Father?Child at 3;0 .02 (.18) [0.28, 0.31] .08 (.13) [0.30, 0.14] .03 (.14) [0.20, 0.26] .13 (.11) [0.06, 0.32]
Mother?Child at 4;0 .06 (.17) [0.34, 0.22] .18 (.12) [0.01, 0.37] .07 (.12) [0.27, 0.14] .20 (.10) [0.04, 0.37]
Father?Child at 4;0 .45 (.14) [0.22, 0.67] .37 (.11) [0.20, 0.55] .25 (.11) [0.07, 0.44] .14 (.11) [0.04, 0.32]
v2 (df) Dv2 (df), p v2 (df) Dv2 (df), p v2 (df) Dv2 (df), p v2 (df) Dv2 (df), p
Unconstrained 34.00 (28) 60.05 (45) 26.49 (28) 59.91 (45)

Functional at 3;0 – – 64.97 (46) 4.92 (1), .03 27.62 (29) 1.13 (1), .29 60.21 (46) 0.30 (1), .58
Functional at 4;0 37.87 (29) 3.87 (1), .049 61.85 (46) 1.80 (1), .18 29.90 (30) 1.28 (1), .26 60.43 (47) 0.22 (1), .64
Note. Parameter estimates in bold face are statistically significant, p < .05. In all estimated models, CFI ranged from .96 to 1.00, RMSEA from .00 to .07, and the
v2 > .05.
Social contexts and early mathematical development
205
(a)
.40 auto1
.77
.92
.15 auto2 M. Autonomy
.94 Support at 2;0
.11 auto3 ns
ns .97 .78
ns Spatial Skills ns Spatial Skills

.54 ECEC at 3;0 at 4;0
ns
.52 auto1 .44
.69
.86 F. Autonomy
.26 auto2
Support at 2;0
.84
.30 auto3
(b)
.35 scaf1
.81
.17 scaf2 .91

.90 M. Scaffolding
at 2;0
.19 scaf3 .92
.29
.38 .86 .76
.15 scaf4
ns Spatial ns Spatial
.26 ECEC Skills at 3;0 Skills at 4;0
.19 scaf1
.90 ns
.28
.18 scaf2 .90
F. Scaffolding
.92 at 2;0
.16 scaf3 .93
.14 scaf4
Figure 2. Cognitive guidance and early childhood education and care (ECEC) as predictors of spatial
development. Standardized regression coefficients (N = 66 families). The fit statistics for Autonomy
Support (a): v2(29) = 34.11, p = .24, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .05 and Scaffolding (b): v2(46) = 61.85,
p = .06, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .07. The parameter estimates are statistically significant, p < .05.
numerical skills, mothers at 3;0 and fathers at 4;0. The re-estimated model with an equality
constraint at 3;0 indicates that the magnitude of the effects is similar across parent gender.
Adding an equality constraint at 4;0 led to non-significant coefficients and a decrease in
(a)
.40 auto1
.77
.13 .93 M. Autonomy

auto2
.94 Support at 2;0
ns
.12 auto3
.23 .80 .72
.27 Numerical .43 Numerical

.54 ECEC
Skills at 3;0 Skills at 4;0
.17
.54 auto1 .25
.68
.21 .89 F. Autonomy

auto2
Support at 2;0
.81
.35 auto3
(b)
.35 scaf1
.81
.18 scaf2 .91

.90 M. Scaffolding
at 2;0
.19 scaf3 .93
.17
.24 .77 .71
.14 scaf4
.30 Numerical .37 Numerical

.26 ECEC Skills at 3;0 Skills at 4;0
.19 scaf1
.90 .23
.17
.19 scaf2 .90
F. Scaffolding
.92 at 2;0
.16 scaf3 .93
.14 scaf4
Figure 3. Cognitive guidance and early childhood education and care (ECEC) as predictors of numerical
development. Standardized regression coefficients (N = 66 families). The fit statistics for Autonomy
Support (a): v2(29) = 27.62, p = .54, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00 and Scaffolding (b): v2(47) = 60.43,
p = .09, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .07. The parameter estimates are statistically significant, p < .05.
explained variance, even though the model fit the data and did not differ from the
previously constrained model. As illustrated by Figure 3a, mothers as well as fathers who
were more supportive of autonomous activities in toddlerhood tended to have children
who performed better on numerical tasks at early preschool age, in addition to fathers’
contribution at late preschool age. Moreover, mothers’ and fathers’ Autonomy Support
had indirect effects on Numerical Skills at 4;0 through Numerical Skills at 3;0 (b = .10,
SE = .04, p = .01 and b = .08, SE = .03, p = .01, respectively).
When using parents’ Scaffolding as predictors, the unconstrained structural model, 3
(b) in Table 6, suggests that only mothers’ scaffolding was related to variation in
numerical skills at 3;0 and 4;0. Again, the constrained models, first at 3;0 and then at 4;0,
with imposed equality constraints on the parallel parental paths resulted in good-fit
indices and did not statistically differ from the previous models. This evidence indicates
that both parents predict to a similar magnitude: Mothers, as well as fathers, who provided
more cognitive guidance to their child’s activities in toddlerhood were likely to have
children who performed better on numerical tasks at early and late preschool age.
Mothers’ and fathers’ Scaffolding had indirect effects on Numerical Skills at 4;0 through
Numerical Skills at 3;0 (b = .09, SE = .04, p = .02; b = .09, SE = .04, p = .02).
More ECEC experiences during the first 3 years were directly associated with better
numerical skills at 3;0 in the Autonomy Support and Scaffolding models and indirectly at
4;0 through numerical skills at 3;0 (b = .11, SE = .05, p = .01; b = .10, SE = .05, p = .01,
respectively). The models indicated developmental continuity in numerical skills during
the preschool period. The Autonomy Support and Scaffolding models explained 28% and
29% of the variance, respectively, in numerical skills at late preschool age.
Covariates
To explore the effects of covariates as predicted by the hypothetical model (see Figure 1),
we progressed stepwise, due to the small sample size, and entered simultaneously one
pair of covariates, first child gender and then each parent’s education in years. Only the
Autonomy Support models in Tables 2a and 3a continued to provide good fit to the data
after the inclusion of the covariates (Table 7). As expected, child gender was not related to
numerical or spatial outcomes at preschool age (b = .11 to .02, ps > .1) and, as shown
by Table 7, more highly educated mothers and fathers provided more autonomy support
Table 7. Direct effects from each parent’s education to cognitive guidance, pre-mathematical skills, and
early childhood education and care (ECEC): standardized regression coefficients and fit statistics (N = 66
families)
Mother Father Fit Statistics

Direct effects b (SE) b (SE) v2 (df), p, CFI, RMSEA
Model (2a)
Education?Autonomy Support .20 (.08) .31 (.14) 63.63 (48), .06, .95, .07
Education?Spatial Skills at 3;0a – – –
Education?Spatial Skills at 4;0 n.s. .27 (.11) 59.01 (46), .09, .95, .07
Education?ECEC to 3;0 n.s. n.s. 57.69 (42), .05, .94, .08
Model (3a)
Education?Autonomy Support .20 (.08) .31 (.14) 58.10 (46), .11, .96, .06
Education?Numerical Skills at 3;0 n.s. .29 (.14) 51.77 (44), .20, .97, .05
Education?Numerical Skills at 4;0 n.s. n.s. 50.28 (42), .18, .97, .06
Education?ECEC to 3;0 n.s. n.s. 49.39 (40), .15, .97, .06
Notes. Parameter estimates are statistically significant, p < .05.

a
The effects of education on Spatial Skills at 3;0 were not explored because of the absent relation between
cognitive guidance and Spatial Skills at 3;0.
during joint play (no indirect effects on child outcomes reached significance,
ps = .06–.13). In addition, fathers’ education had direct effects on numerical skills at
3;0 and spatial skills at 4;0. Finally, parents’ education was not related to variation in ECEC
experiences during the child’s first 3 years of life. Adding the effects of covariates did not
change the relations between the main predictors and child outcomes.
Discussion
This longitudinal study on Finnish families confirms and extends the scarce evidence on
both parents’ contribution to children’s early mathematical development. Reliable and
valid comparisons across parent gender require measurement equivalence of the
parenting constructs, but few studies have hitherto applied such methodological rigour
(but see Adamsons & Buehler, 2007; Mills-Koonce et al., 2015). To our knowledge, this is
the first study demonstrating, and providing further support for Bronfenbrenner’s theory
(1986), that each parent’s autonomy support and scaffolding behaviour as well as the
amount of ECEC experience during the child’s first 3 years of life additively influenced
children’s later mathematical development. As would be expected in a society with high
gender equality, we found little evidence for unique parent gender or child gender
influences, which is in concordance with the new wave of studies that draw upon a
general model of gender-neutral parenting (Fagan et al., 2014).
Similarity of cognitive guidance across parent gender

It has become increasingly important, as posited out by Fagan et al. (2014), to include
tests of measurement invariance before comparing parenting across parent gender, and
exploring the contribution of each parent to later child outcomes. In line with the
challenge to establish gender-neutral parenting constructs, special care was taken to
operationalize mothers’ and fathers’ parenting in the same way, to collect comparable
observational data across parents, and to explore the measurement invariances of the
maternal and paternal constructs.
We drew on the sociocultural approach to successful learning and development
(Vygotsky, 1978). Compared to studies based on a somewhat different operationalization
of the multifaceted dimension of cognitive guidance (e.g., Martin et al., 2007; Mills-
Koonce et al., 2015; see studies including only mothers: Bernier et al., 2010;
Mermelshtine & Barnes, 2016), we kept apart two separate (albeit related) components
as suggested by PCA of Finnish mothers’ cognitive guidance (Sorariutta et al., 2017). In
line with hypothesis (1) drawn from the model of gender-neutral parenting (Fagan et al.,
2014), the two parenting constructs met three increasingly stringent levels of invariance,
which demonstrated that the observed autonomy support and scaffolding behaviours
were to a fairly high degree similar across mothers and fathers. The only exception to the
strong invariance was one intercept difference in the Scaffolding construct which does
not prevent us from investigating or drawing reliable conclusions about equality in factor
means and factor variances (Little, 2013). It is interesting that while mothers on average
used more scaffolding compared to fathers during play interactions in toddlerhood, we
found no parent gender group differences in autonomy support, a finding consistent with
the literature (Endendijk et al., 2016). There was also less heterogeneity in scaffolding and
more heterogeneity in autonomy support among mothers compared to fathers. One
plausible explanation for these differences in magnitude and variability, also suggested by
hypothesis (2), is that most Finnish mothers compared to fathers have probably more
experience in scaffolding the infant because of paid maternity leave during the first
9 months of the child’s life.
Functional equivalence across parent gender

With regard to functional equivalence of parenting, the effects of cognitive guidance on
children’s pre-mathematical outcomes were more similar in magnitude across parent
gender in the constrained compared to the unconstrained structural models. The
unconstrained models showed that the maternal effect mainly occurred 1 year earlier
than the paternal effect, thus supporting hypothesis (4) that the parent-gender effect may
be age-specific. This evidence is not surprising given that fathers typically become more
involved in childcare and play activities as children become older. When an effect was
significant for one parent and the magnitudes of the association were constrained to be
equal across parents, in the same way as carried out by Mills-Koonce et al. (2015), the age-
specific hypothesis was no longer supported because of the overlapping confidence
intervals of the effects.
In fact, the constrained models revealed that in line with hypothesis (3), children’s
numerical outcomes were similarly affected by both parents’ cognitive guidance, whereas
the contribution of each parent to spatial development was more age-specific (hypothesis
4). The similar indirect influences of each parent’s cognitive guidance on numerical
outcomes at late preschool age are partly due to continuity in development, as maintained
by hypothesis (6), during the preschool period (for numerical continuity, see Aunola,
Leskinen, Lerkkanen, & Nurmi, 2004; Hannula & Lehtinen, 2005; for spatial development,
see Aslan & Arnas, 2007; Smith, 1984). The pattern of symmetrical direct and indirect
parental influences provides critical support for the general model of gender-neutral
parenting (Fagan et al., 2014).
Interestingly, only fathers’ autonomy support and level of education predicted
variation in children’s spatial performance 2 years later in the absence of corresponding
maternal effects. This pattern of findings might reflect a male advantage in spatial
cognition (e.g., Moore & Johnson, 2008; Silverman, Choi, & Peters, 2007), as well as
socialization practices (Endendijk et al., 2016). It is possible that the more highly
educated fathers are, the more they treat their daughters and sons similarly and display
autonomy-supportive behaviours with both, which in turn would reduce gender
differences in spatial cognition. This explanation would be in accordance with studies
that fathers are more involved with gender-differentiated parenting and have a stronger
influence on children’s gender development than mothers (Endendijk et al., 2016). In
fact, no child gender differences in spatial or numerical skills appeared as early as at
preschool age which is consistent with hypothesis (7) and evidence from Finland and
other societies (Hannula & Lehtinen, 2005; Verdine et al., 2014; Zhang, 2016). It is likely
that the reported gender differences in favour of Finnish girls arise later at kindergarten
age and beyond (Aunio et al., 2008; OECD, 2016).
So far the studies on both parents reviewed in the introduction have not controlled or
been able to tease apart influences specific for each parent and ECEC. As in a recent
European meta-analysis (Ulferts et al., 2016), quantity of ECEC experiences predicted pre-
mathematical proficiency among Finnish children (hypothesis 5). Furthermore, our study
is the first to demonstrate that more time spent in ECEC beyond infancy to preschool age
made a contribution, over and above the quality of each parent’s cognitive guidance, to
numerical outcomes. The lack of association between ECEC and spatial outcomes could
be due to the overrepresentation of females involved in care and education of young

children in the Finnish society. Another related issue may be that mathematics is often
understood as dealing with knowledge of numbers and number operations, and therefore,
spatial skills have to some extent been ignored in the curriculum of ECEC (see also
Clements & Sarama, 2011).
Because of the equal educational opportunities across gender and affordable high-
quality childcare services for all families in Finland, it was not surprising that neither
parent’s educational background was related, as stated in hypothesis (8), to how much
time children spend in ECEC during their first years. In other societies, for example, in the
United Kingdom (Eryigit-Madzwamuse & Barnes, 2014) and the United States (NICHD
Early Child Care Research Network, 2006), childcare attendance associates with maternal
education and socio-economic characteristics of the family. The other gender-neutral
finding, in support of hypothesis (10), that both parents’ education positively predicted
autonomy-supportive activities expands prior evidence and can improve our under-
standing of the intergenerational transmission of education. This evidence is in line with
the basic assumptions of the self-determination theory guiding our research (Deci & Ryan,
1985; Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013): Parents who support feelings of autonomy and
competence boost their child’s motivation and achievement across early childhood. Even
though the expected indirect effects from each parent’s education on child outcomes at
preschool age (hypothesis 10) did not reach significance in contrast to prior maternal
evidence (Sorariutta et al., 2017), such effects may become more pronounced at
kindergarten age or during primary grades. The finding that only fathers’ education
directly influenced children’s later mathematical outcomes converges with US evidence
(Mills-Koonce et al., 2015), as opposed to the gender-neutral hypothesis (9) that parents
would have similar effects in the Finnish context.
Methodological considerations and conclusions

As the findings reflect the realities of families living in a North European context, they can
be generalized across other similar societies. In the light of the existing literature, the
major strength of the study design was that we established the equivalency of parenting
constructs by testing their psychometric properties. SEM was used to explore the long-
term predictions of the parenting constructs, while controlling for amount of simulta-
neous ECEC experience. Including observations of ECEC quality, which have been found
to predict variations in cognitive outcome (NICHD ECCRN & Duncan, 2003; Ulferts et al.,
2016), would have strengthened the findings reported here. Since the sample was drawn
from the register of the total population in Finland, we could tap into a wide range of
family SES and childcare arrangements. All data are based on direct observations of play
interactions with each parent and testing interactions with unfamiliar adults rather than
questionnaire or interview data. Although the small sample size is a limitation, it is typical
for laborious microlevel coding of interaction and for estimating regression models for
dyadic data in longitudinal studies (Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006). A further limitation is
that we were unable to examine gender-differentiated parenting due to the small number
of children, and especially boys.
This study provides new knowledge about optimal early parenting practices that can
be applied to develop ECEC curriculums and to foster collaboration between childhood
educators and parents. The knowledge can be implemented in academic early childhood
teacher education programmes to improve students’ pedagogical training. The challenge
for future research is to examine the process by which the family and ECEC contexts
support and advance children’s earliest mathematical development in other societies and
cultural contexts.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Eero Laakkonen for statistical advice and Jaqueline V€alim€aki for revision of
the English language. We also thank Tiina Kankaanp€a€a, Marika Kouki, Maarit Lastunen, Mia
Nieminen, and Minna Vienola for reliability coding. Special thanks are due to the families that
participated in the study.
References
Adamsons, K., & Buehler, C. (2007). Mothering versus fathering versus parenting: Measurement
equivalence in parenting measures. Parenting: Science and Practice, 7, 271–303. https://doi.
org/10.1080/15295190701498686
Ainsworth, M. D. A., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A
psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Alexander, G. M., & Wilcox, T. (2012). Sex differences in early infancy. Child Development
Perspectives, 6, 400–406. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2012.00247.x
Allison, P. D. (2002). Missing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/
9781412985079
Aslan, D., & Arnas, Y. A. (2007). Three- to six-year-old children’s recognition of geometric shapes.
International Journal of Early Years Education, 15, 83–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09669760601106646
Aunio, P., Aubrey, C., Godfrey, R., Yuejuan, P., & Liu, Y. (2008). Children’s early numeracy in
England, Finland, and People’s Republic of China. International Journal of Early Years
Education, 16, 203–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760802343881
Aunola, K., Leskinen, E., Lerkkanen, M.-K., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2004). Developmental dynamics of math
performance from preschool to grade 2. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 699–713.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.699
Bernier, A., Carlson, S. M., & Whipple, N. (2010). From external regulation to self-regulation: Early
parenting precursors of young children’s executive functioning. Child Development, 81, 326–
339. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01397.x
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research
perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723–742. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.
22.6.723
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1989). Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance
structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24, 445–455. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15327906mbr2404_4
Cabrera, N., Shannon, J. E., & Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (2007). Fathers’ influence on their children’s
cognitive and emotional development: From toddlers to pre-K. Applied Developmental Science,
11, 208–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888690701762100
Cannon, J., Levine, S., & Huttenlocher, J. (2007). A system for analyzing children and caregivers’
language about space in structured and unstructured contexts. Spatial Intelligence and
Learning Center (SILC) technical report.
Cicchetti, D. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and
standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6, 284–290.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2011). Early childhood teacher education: The case of geometry.
Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14, 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-
011-9173-0
Colome, A., & No€el, M.-P. (2012). One first? Acquisition of the cardinal and ordinal uses of numbers
in preschoolers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 113, 233–247. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jecp.2012.03.005
de Hevia, M. D., Izard, V., Coubart, A., Spelke, E. S., & Streri, A. (2014). Representations of space,
time, and number in neonates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 4809–
4813. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1323628111/-/DCSupplemental
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behaviour. New York, NY: Plenum. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7
Duncan, G. J., Magnuson, K., & Ludwig, J. (2004). The endogeneity problem in developmental
studies. Research in Human Development, 1, 59–80. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15427617rhd
0101&2_5
Endendijk, J. J., Groeneveld, M. G., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & Mesman, J. (2016). Gender-
differentiated parenting revisited: Meta-analysis reveals very few differences in parental
control of boys and girls. PLoS One, 11, 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.
0159193
Eryigit-Madzwamuse, S., & Barnes, J. (2014). Patterns of childcare arrangements and cognitive
development. Journal of Child and Adolescent Behavior, 2, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.4172/jcalb.
1000165
Fagan, J., Day, R., Lamb, M. E., & Cabrera, N. J. (2014). Should researchers conceptualize differently
the dimensions of parenting for fathers and mothers? Journal of Family Theory & Review, 6,
390–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12044
Gelman, R., & Gallistel, C. (1978). The child0 s understanding of number. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Goswami, U. (2008). Cognitive development: The learning brain. Hove, UK and New York, NY:
Psychology Press.
Guiso, L., Monte, F., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2008). Culture, gender, and math. Science, 320,
1164–1165. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1154094
Hannula, M. M., & Lehtinen, E. (2005). Spontaneous focusing on numerosity and mathematical skills
of young children. Learning and Instruction, 15, 237–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lea
rninstruc.2005.04.005
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural
equation modeling. Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76–99). London, UK: Sage.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford.
Levine, S. C., Huttenlocher, J., Taylor, A., & Langrock, A. (1999). Early sex differences in spatial skill.
Developmental Psychology, 35, 940–949. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.35.4.940
Lindberg, S. M., Hyde, J. S., Linn, M. C., & Petersen, J. L. (2010). New trends in gender and
mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 1123–1135. https://
doi.org/10.1037/a0021276
Little, T. D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Lonnemann, J., Linkersd€ orfer, J., Hasselhorn, M., & Lindberg, S. (2013). Gender differences in both
tails of the distribution of numerical competencies in preschool children. Educational Studies
in Mathematics, 84, 201–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-013-9488-0
Martin, A., Ryan, R. M., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2007). The joint influence of mother and father parenting
on child cognitive outcomes at age 5. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22, 423–439.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.07.001
Mermelshtine, R. (2017). Parent–child learning interactions: A review of the literature on
scaffolding. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 241–254. https://doi.org/10.
1111/bjep.12147
Mermelshtine, R., & Barnes, J. (2016). Maternal responsive–didactic caregiving in play interactions
with 10-month-olds and cognitive development at 18 months. Infant and Child Development,
25, 296–316. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.1961
Merz, E. C., Zucker, T. A., Landry, S. H., Williams, J. M., Assel, M., Taylor, H. B., . . . School Readiness
Research Consortium (2015). Parenting predictors of cognitive skills and emotion knowledge in
socioeconomically disadvantaged preschoolers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,

132, 14–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2014.11.010
Mills-Koonce, W. R., Willoughby, M. T., Zvara, B., Barnett, M., Gustafsson, H., Cox, M. J., & The
Family Life Project Key Investigators (2015). Mothers’ and fathers’ sensitivity and children’s
cognitive development in low-income, rural families. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 38, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2015.01.001
Moore, D. S., & Johnson, S. P. (2008). Mental rotation in human infants: A sex
difference. Psychological Science, 19, 1063–1066. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.
2008.02200.x
Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (2003). Does quality of child care affect child outcomes
at age 4 1⁄2? Developmental Psychology, 39, 451–469. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.39.
3.451
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (2006). Child-care effect sizes for the NICHD Study of
early child care and youth development. American Psychologist, 61, 99–116. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0003-066X.61.2.99
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, & Duncan, G. J. (2003). Modeling the impacts of child
care quality on children’s preschool cognitive development. Child Development, 74, 1454–
1475. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00617
OECD. (2014). PISA 2012 results: What students know and can do – student performance in
mathematics, reading and science (Volume I, Revised edition, February 2014), PISA. Paris,
France: PISA, OECD. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264201118-en
OECD (2016). PISA 2015 results (Volume I): Excellence and equity in education. Paris, France:
PISA, OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en
Pino-Pasternak, D., & Whitebread, D. (2010). The role of parenting in children’s self-regulated
learning. Educational Research Review, 5, 220–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.
07.001
Ryan, R. M., Martin, A., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2006). Is one good parent good enough? Patterns of
mother and father parenting and child cognitive outcomes at 24 and 36 months. Parenting:
Science and Practice, 6, 211–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2006.9681306
Sarnecka, B. W., Goldman, M. C., & Slusser, E. B. (2014). How counting leads to children’s first
representations of exact, large numbers. In R. Kadosh & A. Dowker (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of numerical cognition (pp. 291–308). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642342.001.0001
Schafer, J. L. (1999). Multiple imputation: A primer. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 8, 3–
15. https://doi.org/10.1191/096228099671525676
Silverman, I., Choi, J., & Peters, M. (2007). The hunter-gatherer theory of spatial sex differences: Data
from 40 countries. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 261–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-
006-9168-6
Silven, M., Niemi, P., & Voeten, M. J. M. (2002). Do maternal interaction and early language predict
phonological awareness in 3- to 4-year-olds? Cognitive Development, 17, 1133–1155. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2014(02)00093-X
Silven, M., Poskiparta, E., Niemi, P., & Voeten, M. J. M. (2007). Precursors of reading skill from
infancy to first grade in Finnish: Continuity and change in a highly inflected language. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99, 516–531. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.516
Sorariutta, A., Hannula-Sormunen, M. M., & Silven, M. (2017). Maternal sensitivity in responding
during play and children’s pre-mathematical skills: A longitudinal study from infancy to
preschool age. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 14, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.
1080/17405629.2016.1140641
Sorariutta, A., & Silven, M. (2017). Maternal cognitive guidance and early education and care as
precursors of mathematical development at preschool age and in 9th grade. Infant and Child
Development, Advanced Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.2069
Smith, L. B. (1984). Young children’s understanding of attributes and dimensions: A comparison of

conceptual and linguistic measures. Child Development, 55, 363–380. https://doi.org/10.2307/
1129949
Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Shannon, J. D., Cabrera, N., & Lamb, M. E. (2004). Fathers and mothers at play
with their 2- and 3-year olds: Contributions to language and cognitive development. Child
Development, 75, 1806–1820. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00818.x
Ulferts, H., Anders, Y., Leseman, P., & Melhuish, E. (2016). CARE. Curriculum Quality Analysis and
Impact Review of European ECEC. Effects of ECEC on academic outcomes in literacy and
mathematics: Meta-analysis of European longitudinal studies. Retrieved from http://ecec-ca
re.org/resources/publications
Vansteenkiste, M., & Ryan, R. M. (2013). On psychological growth and vulnerability: Basic
psychological need satisfaction and need frustration as a unifying principle. Journal of
Psychotherapy Integration, 23, 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032359
Vasquez, A. C., Patall, E. A., Fong, C. J., Corrigan, A. S., & Pine, L. (2016). Parent autonomy support,
academic achievement, and psychosocial functioning: A meta-analysis of research. Educational
Psychology Review, 28, 605–644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9329z
Verdine, B. N., Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Newcombe, N. S., Filipowicz, A. T., & Chang, A.
(2014). Deconstructing building blocks: Preschoolers’ spatial assembly performance relates to
early mathematics skills. Child Development, 85, 1062–1076. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.
12165
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with non-normal variables:
Problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling. Concepts, issues,
and applications (pp. 56–75). London, UK: Sage.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
Zhang, X. (2016). Linking language, visual-spatial, and executive function skills to number
competence in very young Chinese children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 36, 178–
189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.12.010
Received 31 May 2017; revised version received 4 February 2018

Quality of Both Parents Cognitive Guidance and Quantity of Early Childhood

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Quality of Both Parents Cognitive Guidance and Quantity of Early Childhood

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Quality of Both Parents Cognitive Guidance and Quantity of Early Childhood

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

192

British Journal of Educational Psychology (2018), 88, 192–215

Special Issue Article

Development of pre-mathematical skills from infancy to preschool age

Early social predictors of children’s pre-mathematical development

2004). A meta-analysis on EU countries has indicated positive relationships between

The present study

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. .13 .14

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. .13 .14

Scale Definition Example

Pre-mathematical skills at early and late preschool age

Table 4. Assessment of pre-mathematical skills: size, shape, and number tasks

Task Set up Production Comprehension

Task Set up Production Comprehension

“Give Me 9 Items” The examiner placed The examiner gave the

Early childhood care and education

Mothers’ M. Cognitive Child

2(a) Autonomy support 2(b) Scaffolding

v2 (df) Dv2 (df), p v2 (df) Dv2 (df), p

Configural 9.93 (8) 27.72 (19)

Mothers Fathers Mothers Fathers

Spatial development Numerical development

Unconstrained 34.00 (28) 60.05 (45) 26.49 (28) 59.91 (45)

ns Spatial Skills ns Spatial Skills

.17 scaf2 .91

.13 .93 M. Autonomy

.27 Numerical .43 Numerical

.21 .89 F. Autonomy

.18 scaf2 .91

.30 Numerical .37 Numerical

Mother Father Fit Statistics

Notes. Parameter estimates are statistically significant, p < .05.

Similarity of cognitive guidance across parent gender

Functional equivalence across parent gender

be due to the overrepresentation of females involved in care and education of young

Methodological considerations and conclusions

socioeconomically disadvantaged preschoolers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,

Smith, L. B. (1984). Young children’s understanding of attributes and dimensions: A comparison of

Received 31 May 2017; revised version received 4 February 2018

You might also like