Self-Report QRIS: Challenges with Validation

Autor/inn/en	Esplin, Jacob A.; Neilson, Brionne G.; Berghout Austin, Ann M.; Fronk, Alexander
Titel	Self-Report QRIS: Challenges with Validation
Quelle	In: Early Education and Development, 30 (2019) 6, S.817-834 (18 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	ORCID (Esplin, Jacob A.)
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1040-9289
DOI	10.1080/10409289.2019.1591045
Schlagwörter	Validity; Child Care Centers; Measurement Techniques; Rating Scales; Early Childhood Education; Educational Quality; Accuracy; Institutional Characteristics; Differences; Administrator Characteristics; Utah; Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Gültigkeit; Child care facilities; Child care services; Kinderzentrum; Kinderbetreuung; Messtechnik; Rating-Skala; Early childhood; Education; Frühkindliche Bildung; Frühpädagogik; Quality of education; Bildungsqualität; Unterscheiden
Abstract	Research Findings: The current study looks at the validity of a voluntary self-report Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS) and the characteristics of participating childcare centers. The self-reported quality indicators are compared to external ratings of quality Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Revised ([ECERS-R]) and correlated with variables such as size of center and number of state subsidy clients. ECERS-R scores were unrelated to capacity but significantly lower for centers with a large percentage of state-supported clients. Regarding self-reported quality, centers frequently under-reported their quality and what was claimed was not always externally validated, suggesting a self-report QRIS may not be an accurate assessment of quality. Additionally, no significant differences in quality were found between centers participating and those not participating in the self-report QRIS. Practice or Policy: Self-reported childcare quality was not accurate in this study. Although providers over-reported some quality, they frequently under-reported quality, by claiming fewer indicators than external validators found. When centers are unmotivated to participate in a voluntary, self-report QRIS, when items reported are the easiest to report, and when existing quality indicators are unreported, a self-reported QRIS cannot validly reflect quality. Because providers over-reported and under-reported quality criteria, it is doubtful the system truly incentivizes desired quality changes. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2020/1/01