Search
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Panel
Browse By Session Type
Browse By Topic Area
Search Tips
Register for SRCD21
Personal Schedule
Change Preferences / Time Zone
Sign In
X (Twitter)
Within the United States, 18% of children, under the age of 18, are living in poverty (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017). The adversity faced by children in impoverished communities is widely studied with attention to numerous risk factors and the development of behavioral and emotional difficulties (Reiss, 2013). Children in rural, low-income communities are particularly at risk for toxic stress compared to their urban counterparts (National Survey of Children’s Health, 2015) with higher rates of developmental concerns, caregiver mental health distress, and poor living conditions (Whiteside-Mansell et al., 2019). Resilience literature, however, is instrumental in moving beyond maladaptive behavioral patterns, turning instead to an investigation of adaptive outcomes in the face of adversity.
The purpose of this study was to examine protective factors among low-income, preschool children in rural areas. Teacher reported Devereux Early Childhood Assessments for Preschoolers (DECA-P2; LeBuffe & Naglieri, 2012) were completed for 182 Head Start children from seven rural, Midwest communities. Specific research questions and findings included: Question 1: What is the prevalence of with-in child protective factors (i.e., initiative, self-regulation, attachment/relationship, total protective factors) and behavioral concerns among rural Head Start children? The majority of children were in the typical range for each protective factor and for behavioral concerns at Time 1. Question 2: How do protective factors and behavioral concerns differ by gender and age? When T-scores were compared in a fixed model, females had statistically significantly higher scores for initiative, self-regulation, attachment/relationship, and total protective factors, while having lower behavioral concerns. When examining age differences, 4 year-olds had statistically significant higher T-scores for initiative than 3 year-olds. Question 3: How do protective factors and behavioral concerns differ among rural Head Start children and a standardized sample? Cohen’s d values indicated that the rural children had lower mean T-scores for all protective factors than the standardized sample, within the range of medium to large effect sizes. Behavioral concerns among rural children were similar to the standardization sample (see Table 1). Question 4: What are the relationships among protective factors and behavioral concerns among rural Head Start children? There were statistically significant positive correlations among all protective factor T-scores (i.e., initiative, self-regulation, and attachment/relationship) at time 1 for both genders. Conversely, statistically significant negative correlations were found between behavior concerns and each protective factor. The strongest negative correlation for both genders was between behavioral concerns and self-regulation. Question 5: What changes occurred in total protective factors from Fall to Spring among rural Head Start children? Figure 1 provides a summary of negative, positive, and no changes in children’s total protective factors from Time 1 (Fall) to Time 2 (Spring).
This study adds to existing literature by further delineating the prevalence of with-in child protective factors among preschool children in rural, low-income communities and identifying areas in which these children are most in need of additional support. Adopting a resiliency model allows us to importantly move beyond pathologizing young children, focusing instead on how to promote positive outcomes in the face of adversity.
Christin L. Carotta, South Dakota State University
Presenting Author
Staci Born, South Dakota State University
Non-Presenting Author
Cynthia Elverson, South Dakota State University
Non-Presenting Author
Alicen Hauck, South Dakota State University
Non-Presenting Author
Katelyn M Hillerud, South Dakota State University
Non-Presenting Author