Skip to main content
Log in

Multiple Determinants of Interaction Quality among Childcare Providers

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Child & Youth Care Forum Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 31 October 2022

This article has been updated

Abstract

Background

Improving childcare quality is an important goal in South Korea as many infants attend childcare centers. The quality of teacher–child interactions is a common and crucial predictor of childcare quality. Thus, it is imperative to identify the relative contributions of the variables associated with improving the interaction quality of childcare providers.

Objective

This study explored predictors of interaction quality among childcare providers. This study hypothesized that multiple variables in each domain impact the interaction quality of childcare providers. These variables include childcare providers’ background, psychological well-being, classroom characteristics, and work environment.

Methods

Survey data were collected from 803 childcare providers who were responsible for classes comprising children aged 0 to 2 years. A factor analysis of the dependent variable, correlation, and hierarchical regression were performed in this study.

Results

Among the predictors of each domain that influence interaction quality, the happiness of childcare providers included in the psychological well-being domain emerged as the strongest variable. Subsequently, the variables belief, expectation, value, distress and loneliness, teacher-director relationship, and children’s age in the professional work environment domain followed.

Conclusion

Future studies and interventions should explore diverse ways to mitigate the negative emotions experienced by childcare providers. Furthermore, ongoing professional development should be emphasized as a cost-effective way to improve interaction quality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

Notes

  1. The term youngah describes both infants (0–24 months) and toddlers (24–36 months), and refers to children aged < 3 years in the national childcare curriculum and Infant Care Act in South Korea.

  2. The bifactor model consists of a general factor on which every item loads and a set of group factors that account for the residual covariance of items that cannot be explained by a general factor. The bifactor model assumes that the group factors are uncorrelated with one another and with the general factor (Colwell et al., 2013). The total scores are recommended for use over the subscale scores in the bifactor model (Thege et al., 2014).

  3. Since 3 infants per provider at age 0 and mixed-age 0 with 1 classes were permitted, a score of 10, which is a criterion score, was given to 1:3 ratio classes. Then, if the ratio exceeds the standard, we subtracted one score from the 10 score. For example, a 9 score was given to 1:3.5 ratios and 1:4 ratios were converted into an 8 score. Reversely, if the ratio was below the standard, we added one score from the criterion score.

References

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all the childcare providers who participated in this study. We sincerely appreciate the grant support from the National Research Foundation of Korea for this work.

Funding

This work was supported by the Global Ph.D. fellowship award for the first author from the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF- 2018H1A2A1062267-Global Ph.D. Fellowship Program).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jihyun Sung.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.

Ethics approval

All procedures in this study were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the Sungkyunkwan University Institutional Review Board (IRB No. 2019-03-008-003).

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This paper is based on the first author’s doctoral dissertation.

Appendices

Appendices

Appendix A.

Socio-Demographic Features of Childcare Providers (N = 803)

Variables

Categories

N (%)

Variables

Categories

N (%)

Age

20–25

65 (8.1)

Marital status

Married

596 (74.2)

26–30

79 (9.8)

Single

198 (24.7)

31–35

89 (11.1)

No response

9 (1.1)

36–40

122 (15.2)

Work experience (years)

< 1

27 (3.4)

41–45

176 (21.9)

1–5

257 (32.0)

46–50

185 (23.0)

5–9

244 (30.4)

51–55

52 (6.5)

9–13

163 (20.3)

56–60

10 (1.2)

13–17

57 (7.1)

No response

25 (3.1)

> 17

42 (5.2)

No response

13 (1.6)

Educational level

Credit banking

system

46 (5.7)

Province where teachers work

Seoul

133 (16.6)

Busan

41 (5.1)

Teacher

training center

114 (14.2)

Daegu

34 (4.2)

3-year cyber university

4 (0.5)

Incheon

44 (5.5)

2- or 3-year college

345 (43.0)

Gwangju

27 (3.4)

4-year cyber university

23 (2.9)

Daejeon

29 (3.6)

4-year university

223 (27.8)

Ulsan

17 (2.1)

Graduate

37 (4.6)

Sejong

7 (0.9)

No response

11 (1.4)

Gyeonggi

227 (28.3)

Type of childcare centers

Public

65 (8.1)

Gangwon

21 (2.6)

Social

Welfare Organization

27 (3.4)

Chungbuk

24 (3.0)

Chungnam

35 (4.4)

Corporation

19 (2.4)

Jeonbuk

29 (3.6)

Private

317 (39.5)

Jeonnam

24 (3.0)

Family Home

Carea

335 (41.7)

Gyeongbuk

40 (5.0)

Workplace

40 (5.0)

Gyeongnam

59 (7.3)

Jeju

12 (1.5)

  1. Note. aFamily home care = childcare center where a director and childcare teachers take care of more than five and less than 20 children in the home environment

Appendix B.

Final Confirmative Factor Analyses Results of Caregiver Interaction Scale

Items

General factor:

Sensitivity

Group factor:

Negative interaction

8. Encourages the children to try new experiences

0.789

 

19. Encourages children to exhibit prosocial behavior

0.700

 

14. Pays positive attention to the children as individuals

0.694

 

11. Seems enthusiastic about the children’s activities and efforts

0.675

 

3. Listens attentively when children speak to her

0.667

 

6. Seems to enjoy the children

0.659

 

1. Speaks warmly to the children

0.651

 

16. Talks to the children on a level they can understand

0.648

 

7. When children misbehave, explain the reason for the rule they are breaking

0.612

 

25. When talking to children, kneel, bend, or sit at their level to establish better eye contact

0.527

 

9. Does not try to exercise much control over the children

0.400

 

20. Finds fault easily with the children

 

0.593

26. Seems unnecessarily harsh when scolding or prohibiting children

 

0.576

10. Speaks with irritation or hostility to the children

 

0.557

12. Threatens children in trying to control them

 

0.557

4. Places high value on obedience

 

0.521

21. Does not seem interested in the children’s activities

 

0.515

22. Seems to prohibit many of the things the children want to do

 

0.509

2. Seems critical of the children

 

0.503

5. Seems distant or detached from the children

 

0.455

23. Does not supervise the children very closely

 

0.401

Internal reliability

0.85

0.72

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, J.Y., Sung, J. Multiple Determinants of Interaction Quality among Childcare Providers. Child Youth Care Forum 52, 955–982 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-022-09713-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-022-09713-w

Keywords

Navigation