Adult/child ratio and group size in early childhood education or care to promote the development of children aged 0-5 years: A systematic review.
Journal
Campbell systematic reviews
ISSN: 1891-1803
Titre abrégé: Campbell Syst Rev
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9918227275506676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2022
Jun 2022
Historique:
entrez:
13
3
2023
pubmed:
14
3
2023
medline:
14
3
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Worldwide, a large number of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers are enroled in formal non-parental early childhood education or care (ECEC). Theoretically, lower adult/child ratios (fewer children per adult) and smaller group sizes are hypothesised to be associated with positive child outcomes in ECEC. A lower adult/child ratio and a smaller group size may increase both the extent and quality of adult/child interactions during the day. The objective of this review is to synthesise data from studies to assess the impact of adult/child ratio and group size in ECEC on measures of process characteristics of quality of care and on child outcomes. Relevant studies were identified through electronic searches of bibliographic databases, governmental and grey literature repositories, Internet search engines, hand search of specific targeted journals, citation tracking and contact to experts. The primary searches were carried out up to September 2020. Additional searches were carried out in February 2022. The intervention was changes to adult/child ratio and group size in ECEC with children aged 0-5 years old. All study designs that used a well-defined control group were eligible for inclusion. The total number of potential relevant studies constituted 14,060 hits. A total of 31 studies met the inclusion criteria and were critically appraised by the review authors. The 31 studies analysed 26 different populations. Only 12 studies analysing 8 different populations ( The meta-analysis using measures of process quality as the outcome included 84 effect sizes, 5 studies, and 6256 observations. The weighted average effect size was positive but not statistically significant (effect size [ES] = 0.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [-0.07, 0.27]) using robust-variance estimation. The adjusted degrees of freedom were below 4 ( The main finding of the present review is that there are surprisingly few quantitative studies exploring the effects of changes to adult/child ratio and group size in ECEC on measures of process quality and on child outcomes. The overall quality of the included studies was low, and only two randomised studies were used in the meta-analysis. The risk of bias in the majority of included studies was high, also in studies used in the meta-analysis. Due to the limited number of studies that could be used in the data synthesis, we were unable to explore the effects of adult/child ratio and group size separately. No study that examined the effects of changes of the adult/child-ratio and/or group size on socio-emotional child outcomes could be included in the meta-analysis. No high quality study examined the effects of large changes in adult/child ratio and group size on measures of process quality, or explored effects for children younger than 2 years. We included few studies (3) in the meta-analysis that investigated measures of language and literacy and results for these outcomes were inconclusive. In one specification, we found a small statistically significant effect on process quality, suggesting that fewer children per adult and smaller group sizes do increase the process quality in ECEC. Caution regarding the interpretation must be exerted due to the heterogeneity of the study designs, the limited number of studies, and the generally high risk of bias within the included studies. Results of the present review have implications for both research and practice. First, findings from the present review tentatively support the theoretical hypothesis that lower adult/child ratios (fewer children per adult) and smaller group sizes beneficially influence process quality in ECEC. This hypothesis is reflected in the existence of standards and regulation on the minimum requirements regarding adult/child ratios and maximum group size in ECEC. However, the research literature to date provides little guidance on what the appropriate adult/child ratios and group sizes are. Second, findings from the present review may be seen as a testimony to the urgent need for more contemporary high-quality research exploring the effects of changes in adult/child ratio and group size in ECEC on measures of process quality and child developmental and socio-emotional outcomes.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Worldwide, a large number of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers are enroled in formal non-parental early childhood education or care (ECEC). Theoretically, lower adult/child ratios (fewer children per adult) and smaller group sizes are hypothesised to be associated with positive child outcomes in ECEC. A lower adult/child ratio and a smaller group size may increase both the extent and quality of adult/child interactions during the day.
Objectives
UNASSIGNED
The objective of this review is to synthesise data from studies to assess the impact of adult/child ratio and group size in ECEC on measures of process characteristics of quality of care and on child outcomes.
Search Methods
UNASSIGNED
Relevant studies were identified through electronic searches of bibliographic databases, governmental and grey literature repositories, Internet search engines, hand search of specific targeted journals, citation tracking and contact to experts. The primary searches were carried out up to September 2020. Additional searches were carried out in February 2022.
Selection Criteria
UNASSIGNED
The intervention was changes to adult/child ratio and group size in ECEC with children aged 0-5 years old. All study designs that used a well-defined control group were eligible for inclusion.
Data Collection and Analysis
UNASSIGNED
The total number of potential relevant studies constituted 14,060 hits. A total of 31 studies met the inclusion criteria and were critically appraised by the review authors. The 31 studies analysed 26 different populations. Only 12 studies analysing 8 different populations (
Main Results
UNASSIGNED
The meta-analysis using measures of process quality as the outcome included 84 effect sizes, 5 studies, and 6256 observations. The weighted average effect size was positive but not statistically significant (effect size [ES] = 0.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [-0.07, 0.27]) using robust-variance estimation. The adjusted degrees of freedom were below 4 (
Authors' Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
The main finding of the present review is that there are surprisingly few quantitative studies exploring the effects of changes to adult/child ratio and group size in ECEC on measures of process quality and on child outcomes. The overall quality of the included studies was low, and only two randomised studies were used in the meta-analysis. The risk of bias in the majority of included studies was high, also in studies used in the meta-analysis. Due to the limited number of studies that could be used in the data synthesis, we were unable to explore the effects of adult/child ratio and group size separately. No study that examined the effects of changes of the adult/child-ratio and/or group size on socio-emotional child outcomes could be included in the meta-analysis. No high quality study examined the effects of large changes in adult/child ratio and group size on measures of process quality, or explored effects for children younger than 2 years. We included few studies (3) in the meta-analysis that investigated measures of language and literacy and results for these outcomes were inconclusive. In one specification, we found a small statistically significant effect on process quality, suggesting that fewer children per adult and smaller group sizes do increase the process quality in ECEC. Caution regarding the interpretation must be exerted due to the heterogeneity of the study designs, the limited number of studies, and the generally high risk of bias within the included studies. Results of the present review have implications for both research and practice. First, findings from the present review tentatively support the theoretical hypothesis that lower adult/child ratios (fewer children per adult) and smaller group sizes beneficially influence process quality in ECEC. This hypothesis is reflected in the existence of standards and regulation on the minimum requirements regarding adult/child ratios and maximum group size in ECEC. However, the research literature to date provides little guidance on what the appropriate adult/child ratios and group sizes are. Second, findings from the present review may be seen as a testimony to the urgent need for more contemporary high-quality research exploring the effects of changes in adult/child ratio and group size in ECEC on measures of process quality and child developmental and socio-emotional outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36911342
doi: 10.1002/cl2.1239
pii: CL21239
pmc: PMC9066244
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
e1239Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. Campbell Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Campbell Collaboration.
Références
Child Dev. 2008 May-Jun;79(3):732-49
pubmed: 18489424
J Child Lang. 1990 Feb;17(1):101-14
pubmed: 2312635
Child Dev. 1996 Apr;67(2):606-20
pubmed: 8625731
BMJ. 2016 Oct 12;355:i4919
pubmed: 27733354
Psychol Methods. 2002 Mar;7(1):105-25
pubmed: 11928886
Dev Psychol. 2019 Dec;55(12):2587-2602
pubmed: 31657587
Res Synth Methods. 2010 Jan;1(1):39-65
pubmed: 26056092
Stat Med. 2003 Sep 15;22(17):2693-710
pubmed: 12939780
Psychol Methods. 2003 Dec;8(4):448-67
pubmed: 14664682
Sem Hop. 1950 Jun 26;26(47):2271-3
pubmed: 15442375
Am J Community Psychol. 1992 Feb;20(1):25-51
pubmed: 1562002
Am J Orthopsychiatry. 1980 Oct;50(4):718-721
pubmed: 6775538
Res Synth Methods. 2013 Dec;4(4):324-41
pubmed: 26053946
Res Synth Methods. 2014 Mar;5(1):13-30
pubmed: 26054023
Psychol Methods. 2015 Sep;20(3):375-93
pubmed: 24773356
Child Dev. 1996 Aug;67(4):1528-39
pubmed: 8890498
Stat Med. 2002 Jun 15;21(11):1559-73
pubmed: 12111920
Psychol Sci. 2002 May;13(3):199-206
pubmed: 12009038
PLoS One. 2017 Jan 19;12(1):e0170256
pubmed: 28103288
Lancet. 2011 Oct 8;378(9799):1339-53
pubmed: 21944378
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2001 Nov;40(11):1337-45
pubmed: 11699809
Prev Hum Serv. 1981 Fall-Winter;1(1-2):59-86
pubmed: 10257637
J Genet Psychol. 2005 Sep;166(3):280-96
pubmed: 16173672
Child Dev. 2006 Jul-Aug;77(4):861-74
pubmed: 16942494
BMJ. 2011 Oct 18;343:d5928
pubmed: 22008217
Am J Orthopsychiatry. 1979 Jul;49(3):518-521
pubmed: 474737
Psychol Bull. 2013 Jul;139(4):735-65
pubmed: 23231534
J Genet Psychol. 2008 Dec;169(4):360-85
pubmed: 19069584
Front Psychol. 2013 Nov 26;4:863
pubmed: 24324449
Ann Dyslexia. 2009 Dec;59(2):115-31
pubmed: 19834812
Child Dev. 1992 Apr;63(2):449-60
pubmed: 1611946
Campbell Syst Rev. 2020 Feb 25;16(1):e1079
pubmed: 37131975
J Econom. 2010 May 1;156(1):27-37
pubmed: 20440375
Res Synth Methods. 2019 Mar;10(1):83-98
pubmed: 30067315
J Genet Psychol. 2002 Mar;163(1):112-25
pubmed: 11952260
Campbell Syst Rev. 2022 May 04;18(2):e1239
pubmed: 36911342
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2010 Apr;53(2):490-507
pubmed: 20360468
Dev Psychol. 2014 Dec;50(12):2559-71
pubmed: 25437755
BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557-60
pubmed: 12958120