See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/295755001

Family risk profiles and school readiness: A

person-centered approach

Article in Early Childhood Research Quarterly · September 2016

DOI: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2016.01.017

CITATIONS READS

0 74

4 authors, including:

Megan Pratt Megan M Mcclelland

Arizona State University Oregon State University
9 PUBLICATIONS 52 CITATIONS 62 PUBLICATIONS 2,537 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Shannon Tierney Lipscomb

Oregon State University
25 PUBLICATIONS 208 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Developing a Measure of Self-Regulation for Children at Risk for School Difficulty View
project
Red Light, Purple Light! Developing a Self-Regulation Intervention for Children at Risk for
School Difficulty View project
All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Megan Pratt
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 03 November 2016
 Early Childhood Research Quarterly 36 (2016) 462–474

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Early Childhood Research Quarterly

Family risk profiles and school readiness: A person-centered

approach夽
Megan E. Pratt a,∗ , Megan M. McClelland b , Jodi Swanson a , Shannon T. Lipscomb c
a
Arizona State University, United States
b
Oregon State University, United States
c
Oregon State University—Cascades, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: With cumulative risk and latent class risk profile models, this study explored how multiple family risk
Received 11 February 2015 factors experienced during the first three years of life predicted children’s school readiness at age four,
Received in revised form 25 January 2016 within a geographically and economically diverse U.S. sample. Using data from the National Institute on
Accepted 29 January 2016
Child Health and Development Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development, family risk experiences
were best captured by three distinct profiles: (a) low risk (78%), (b) low resourced: single-parent, minority
Keywords:
(12%), and (c) low resourced: parental harshness, depressed (10%). Findings indicated that early risk
Family risk
experiences could be described in terms of family risk profiles characterized by both sociodemographic
School readiness
Cumulative risk
and family processes. Cumulative risk model results suggested that a greater number of risks across
Latent class analysis infancy, toddlerhood, and early preschool years significantly predicted poorer school readiness outcomes
in the prekindergarten year (i.e., lower self-regulation, early math, early literacy, and more behavior
problems). Latent class risk profile results provided a similar, yet more nuanced, understanding of the
relation between multiple risk and subsequent child outcomes. Specifically, children characterized by the
low risk profile exhibited stronger school readiness than children characterized by the low resourced:
single, minority profile who in turn exhibited stronger school readiness than those characterized by
the low resourced: parental harshness, depressed profile. Results support a dual-approach to modeling
family risks through both cumulative and profile analyses, and can inform efforts to integrate services to
better identify the co-occurring needs of families with young children most likely to struggle with early
school readiness skills.
© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Children’s earliest experiences within the family context shape
many aspects of school readiness before the kindergarten year
(Masten & Coatsworth, 1998; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). School
readiness is a broad set of behaviors and skills that enable children
to effectively engage and learn at school, establishing a founda-
tion for long-term achievement outcomes (Duncan et al., 2007).
Exposure to multiple, or cumulative, family risk factors (e.g., low
household income, maternal depression, parental harshness) dur-
ing the first three years of life is negatively related to aspects of
school readiness, including self-regulation and early math and lit-
eracy skills (Duncan, Brooks-Gunn, & Klebanov, 1994; Rhoades,
夽 This article is based on a dissertation submitted by Megan Pratt to Oregon State
University under the direction of Megan McClelland and Shannon Lipscomb. We
thank Alan Acock for his helpful comments on previous versions of the manuscript.
∗ Corresponding author at: T. Denny Sanford School of Social and Family Dynamics,
Arizona State University, Tempe, 85287-3701 AZ, United States.
E-mail address: megan.pratt@asu.edu (M.E. Pratt).
Greenberg, Lanza, & Blair, 2011; Sektnan, McClelland, Acock, &
Morrison, 2010) and is positively related to adjustment challenges,
such as behavioral problems (Appleyard, Egeland, van Dulmen,
& Sroufe, 2005; Deater-Deckard, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1998).
Cumulative risk modeling illustrates that the greater number of
contextual risks children experience is more detrimental to school
readiness than any single risk on its own (e.g., Lengua, Honorado,
& Bush, 2007). This would suggest that having fewer risks is bet-
ter overall. Nonetheless, children do not often experience the same
combinations of risks, and those differential combinations may have
important implications for developmental outcomes, regardless of
the total number.
Recent person-centered approaches (e.g., latent class analysis
[LCA]) have begun to address the issue of how distinct patterns of
risk factors may help explain variation in school readiness (Rhoades
et al., 2011; Roy & Raver, 2014), but only among low-income sam-
ples. Whether distinct risk combinations influence development
differentially in more economically diverse samples (e.g., families

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2016.01.017
0885-2006/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 M.E. Pratt et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 36 (2016) 462–474
living below and above the poverty line), or how family process
risks (e.g., parenting) co-occur with other risk factors to predict
school readiness, remains largely unknown. With the present study,
we examined how early exposure to combinations of family pro-
cess and sociodemographic risks intersect, with implications for
children’s school readiness outcomes during the prekindergarten
year (ages 4–5 years), using data from the National Institute of
Child Health and Human Development Study of Early Child Care
and Youth Development (NICHD SECCYD).
1. Family risks and school readiness skills
Understanding variability in school readiness skills is important
because the early childhood years signify a major developmental
and social transition for young children (Denham, Warren-Khot,
Bassett, Wyatt, & Perna, 2012). The current study focuses on three
distinct aspects of school readiness skills during prekindergarten
known to have long-term importance for social and academic func-
tioning: early math and literacy achievement, self-regulation, and
behavioral adjustment (Duncan et al., 2007; McClelland, Acock,
Piccinin, Rhea, & Stallings, 2013). Risky family contexts can com-
promise children’s emerging development in these areas.
Cumulative, co-occurring family risk factors are particularly
problematic for school success (Family Life Project (FLP) Key
Investigators, 2013; Swanson, Valiente, & Lemery-Chalfant, 2012).
Children develop within dynamic contexts where they experience
contextual risk at different levels (i.e., distal sociodemographic
risks, proximal family process risks) and in complex ways
(Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Lerner, 2006). Nuances in com-
binations of risks may exacerbate the negative influence of
low-income households. Specifically, family process risks, such
as parenting and home environmental factors, are often concep-
tualized as mechanisms that explain how multiple, co-occurring
sociodemographic risk factors impede children’s developmental
well-being (Morales & Guerra, 2006; Lengua et al., 2007); how-
ever, risk within the family process domain may magnify other
risk experiences in a child’s life, given particular risk combina-
tions. For example, when children experience family process risk
factors in addition to low-income and other contextual risk fac-
tors (i.e., household structure, race/ethnic minority status), they
are more likely to experience challenges spanning developmen-
tal domains (Evans, Kim, Ting, Tesher, & Shannis, 2007; Schleider,
Chorpita, & Weisz, 2013; Swanson et al., 2012). Further, cumulative
risk evidence suggests that specific combinations of risk factors that
cut across multiple domains (e.g., social and family risk factors)
better explain the relation between early risk and academic and
behavioral well-being than any single risk factor, or one domain
of influence, on its own (e.g., Burchinal, Roberts, Hooper, & Zeisel,
2000; Corapci, 2008).
Moreover, although children living in low-income households
disproportionately experience adverse conditions across risk types
(Evans, 2004), low family income does not influence child well-
being in isolation, but is interrelated with other risk experiences.
Thus, in the current study, we strategically selected three sociode-
mographic risks (i.e., family income, single-parent status, and
racial/ethnic-minority status) and three family process risks (i.e.,
low cognitive stimulation in the home, parental harshness, and ele-
vated maternal depressive symptoms) that are robust predictors of
school readiness (e.g., Nesbitt, Baker-Ward, & Willoughby, 2013;
Rank & Hirschl, 1999; Sektnan et al., 2010). We chose these specific
risk factors for the current study in response to a critique regard-
ing the difficulty of translating LCA research into practical uses
because of common use of a the large number of indicators that
may not be accessible for policy-makers and practitioners (Cook,
Roggman, & D’zatko, 2012). Whether and how these risk factors
463
combine to jointly predict academic, self-regulatory, and behavioral
aspects of school readiness is unclear, demonstrating the impetus
for this study.
1.1. Sociodemographic risks
Household structure and family income tend to be interrelated,
with members of single-parent households more likely to live in
poverty than those in dual-parent households (Rank & Hirschl,
1999); however, single-parent status appears to have unique neg-
ative implications for development across domains (Thomson,
Hanson, & McLanahan, 1994). For example, compared to house-
holds with two parents, children raised in single-parent families
struggle more with social and academic adjustment (Astone &
McLanahan, 1991), perhaps because of fewer economic and psycho-
logical resources to support school readiness (Carlson & Corcoran,
2001).
Racial/ethnic-minority status, accounting for the effects of low-
income, has predicted school readiness challenges across domains
(Blair et al., 2011; Nesbitt et al., 2013) for a number of reasons.
Greater proportions of U.S. families who identify as a racial/ethnic
minority (i.e., Black, Latino) live in and experience deeper or
more chronic poverty than White or Asian children (Burchinal &
Willoughby, 2013; US Census Bureau, 2004; Wight, Chau, & Aratani,
2011). Additionally, racial/ethnic-minority status increases the
likelihood that families face intergenerational discrimination and
additional social inequalities that can inhibit access to early child-
hood education; these factors likely overtax children’s underlying
physiology through stressed family processes, undermining critical
skills for school readiness (Contrada et al., 2000; Farkas, 2003).
1.2. Family process risks
Family process risks, including parenting and home environ-
mental factors, are often conceptualized as proximal process
mechanisms that explain how multiple, co-occurring distal
sociodemographic risk factors impede developmental well-being
(Lengua et al., 2007; Morales & Guerra, 2006); however, there is
also the potential for family processes to exacerbate the effects of
other sociodemographic risks in a child’s life on school readiness
competencies (Schleider et al., 2013; Swanson et al., 2012). In addi-
tion, although children in low-income homes are more likely to
also experience more family-process risks than children in middle-
or high-income homes, this is not always the case; there is het-
erogeneity in risk experiences. In recent years, investigators have
started to document the influences of unique and disparate com-
binations of sociodemographic and family process risks on school
readiness skills (Choe, Olson, & Sameroff, 2013; Crosnoe, Leventhal,
Wirth, Pierce, & Pianta, 2010). Thus, in addition to modeling fam-
ily processes within a mediational framework, it is also important
to understand how different combinations of family process risks
may co-occur with sociodemographic risk factors to differentially
predict school readiness.
Cognitive stimulation within the home environment facilitates
school readiness skills through cognitively stimulating and chal-
lenging activities (McLoyd, 1998; Morrison & Cooney, 2002);
conversely, the lack of stimulating activities and learning mate-
rials available in the home—particularly among low-income
households—acts as a risk factor related to lower self-regulatory
skills (Downer & Pianta, 2006; Evans, 2003), and social and aca-
demic achievement difficulties (Dubow & Ippolito, 1994; Duncan
et al., 1994). This may be attributed to fewer opportunities to
engage with books or learning activities that encourage paying
attention, critical thinking, and appropriate behaviors.
Parental harshness, marked by a punitive or intrusive inter-
action style, also has negative implications for school readiness,
464 M.E. Pratt et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 36 (2016) 462–474
but operates differently than lower cognitive stimulation (Bradley
& Corwyn, 2007; Coleman, Hardy, Albert, Raffaelli, & Crockett,
2006). Harshness reduces opportunities to engage in respon-
sive parent-child interactions (Crossley & Buckner, 2012) and
stresses children’s stress response physiology (e.g., HPA axis func-
tioning) and brain activity, resulting in more reactive and less
reflective responses to daily experiences, with implications for
underlying self-regulatory skills (Blair & Raver, 2012). Compared to
other dimensions of parenting (e.g., sensitivity), harsh interactions
appear most strongly related to early behavioral and regulatory
development (Karreman, van Tuijl, van Aken, & Dekovic, 2006;
Weiss, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1992), perhaps because harshness
models and encourages reactive and maladaptive behavioral pat-
terns (Smith et al., 2014).
Finally, parent mental health broadly, and elevated maternal
depressive symptoms specifically, within family contexts in early
childhood, are detrimental to an array of school readiness skills,
such as increased behavior problems (measured as externaliz-
ing; Shaw, Kennan, & Vondra, 1994), lower academic achievement
(Petterson & Albers, 2001), and lower self-regulation (Choe et al.,
2013). Mothers with higher depressive symptoms have more
inconsistent, unpredictable household routines and harsher par-
enting practices (Choe et al., 2013; Crossley & Buckner, 2012),
and they struggle with their own self-regulation, modeling dys-
regulated and inconsistent coping strategies that children may
internalize (Blandon, Calkins, Keane, & O’Brien, 2008; Eisenberg,
Cumberland, & Spinrad, 1998).
2. Approaches to examining family risk and school
readiness
Children’s development is embedded within a dynamic and
holistic process (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Lerner, 2006).
A key challenge for risk researchers is to develop analytic
models that can accommodate multiple, co-occurring risks on
development (Parra, DuBois, & Sher, 2006). Researchers typi-
cally take one of two different approaches to capture these
complex relations—cumulative approaches and person-centered
approaches.
The most common approach is the cumulative model, which
has demonstrated that the accumulation of multiple, co-occurring
family risks are more detrimental to childhood functioning than
any single risk (Family Life Project Key Investigators, 2013; Lengua,
2002; Morales & Guerra, 2006). These models provide valuable
insight regarding the phenomenon that, on average, growing levels
of adversity impede children’s development, holding other aspects
of a child’s life constant (Dearing, Berry, & Zaslow, 2006; Luthar,
1993). On the one hand, this approach can inform intervention
efforts by pointing to the importance of efforts to reduce the num-
ber of risk factors to which a child is exposed. On the other hand,
these models make the necessary statistical assumption that each
risk factor in the model holds the same weight for each child; it
follows then, that risks are considered interchangeable (Flaherty
& Kiff, 2012; Lanza & Rhoades, 2013), regardless of the proximity,
severity, or chronicity of a given risk.
A person-centered approach, such as LCA, is a complementary
approach to cumulative modeling by unpacking the total number
to examine the nature of combinations of risks. LCA can capture
the nuanced complexity of risk experiences by inferring underlying
subgroups (i.e., profiles) of children who experience similar com-
binations of risk characteristics (Lanza & Rhoades, 2013; Laursen &
Hoff, 2006). A growing body of person-centered work suggests risk
profiles comprised of risks that span multiple domains (e.g., social
risks, family risks, child risks) have distinct negative repercussions
for social well-being (e.g., behavior problems, social competence;
Lanza, Rhoades, Nix, & Greenberg, 2010; Parra et al., 2006) and can
account for potential higher-order interactions that are extremely
complex in variable-oriented frameworks (Lanza et al., 2010). In
this way, risk profiles offer unique insight into potential points of
intervention, especially for multicomponent interventions (Lanza
et al., 2010). This is a particularly valuable facet for policy and early
intervention efforts working toward targeting subgroups of fam-
ilies with young children at greatest risk (Magnuson & Duncan,
2004). Notably, though, profile models are limited to the size
and characteristics of the study sample, as well as to researchers’
selection of risk factors, precluding broad generalizability of an
individual study’s results (Masyn, 2013). Thus, identifying common
patterns of risk profiles using diverse study samples and various
risk factors contributes to a body of evidence from which common
patterns can emerge, toward generalizations across populations.
This was a focus of the present study.
3. The present study
Using both cumulative risk and LCA approaches, we examined
associations among children’s experiences of multiple family risks
during the first three years of life and their subsequent school readi-
ness during the four-year-old year, among a sample of families
living both above and below the poverty line. Whereas quite a bit
of work has established significant relations between cumulative
family risks and skills important for school readiness (e.g., Lengua
et al., 2007), to date less is known about the implications of risk
profiles for academic, self-regulatory, and behavioral competen-
cies. We build upon and extend existing research (Rhoades et al.,
2011; Roy & Raver, 2014), which is outlined below.
In one study, six distinct family risk profiles measured during
early infancy (i.e., 2 and/or 7 months) predicted executive function
at 36 months (i.e., the cognitive underpinnings of self-regulation;
Rhoades et al., 2011). Children characterized by profiles reflect-
ing elevated demographic risks exhibited significantly poorer
36-month executive function compared to children described by
lower-risk profiles; and these relations were partially mediated by
maternal intrusiveness and engagement. More recently, Roy and
Raver (2014) compared risk profiles to a cumulative risk model
among Head Start-enrolled families living below the poverty line
to examine how early risk relates to children’s social and academic
functioning in third grade. Four distinct LCA profiles emerged: a
lower-risk profile and three higher-risk profiles reflecting vari-
ous combinations of deep poverty, single-parent status, household
stress, and household crowdedness. Compared to the cumulative
risk model, paralleling results emerged, with children in the low
risk profile demonstrating stronger functioning in third grade than
children in the higher-risk profiles; however, compared to the
cumulative risk models, the profiles provided a more nuanced view
of how different patterns of risk related to child outcomes. For
example, children in a deep poverty and household crowding pro-
file demonstrated greater levels of behavioral dysregulation than
children in the low risk profile and in the single and stressed pro-
file. A different pattern emerged for literacy, with the deep poverty,
single and deep poverty and household crowding profiles demon-
strating significantly lower literacy performance than the low risk
profile; significant differences in literacy were not detected among
the profiles reflecting elevated risks.
The current study builds upon this past work in three impor-
tant ways. First, as noted, previous work has evaluated risk profiles
within study populations characterized by poverty (i.e., families
from high poverty regions of U.S.: Rhoades et al., 2011; Head Start
enrolled families: Roy & Raver, 2014, respectively), whereas we
aim to understand common risk experiences among a nationally-
recruited, economically-diverse sample. This is significant, for the
 M.E. Pratt et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 36 (2016) 462–474
prevalence of children experiencing at least one risk is relatively
high among all families with young children in the U.S. (Sacks,
Murphey, & Moore, 2014). For example, nationally, it is estimated
that more than one in three children lives in a single-parent family
(Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2015). Moreover, one in four children
has been exposed to economic hardship during early childhood
(Sacks et al., 2014). For families to be economically self-sufficient,
their incomes should be above 200% of the federal poverty level
(Bernstein, Brocht, & Spade-Aguilar, 2000). As such, families with
incomes around 200% of the poverty line still struggle to make
ends meet and provide resources to support children’s healthy
development. Thus, it is important to understand how risk profiles
operate across economic brackets, as well as in cases of extreme
poverty.
Second, unlike prior work, we incorporated family process
risks within the profiles, based on evidence that the combina-
tion of family-process risks tend to co-occur and may intersect
with sociodemographic family risks in complex ways, unable to be
gleaned from previous variable-centered research efforts (Dearing
et al., 2006; Evans et al., 2007). By identifying the intersection
of socioeconomic risks (e.g., income, single-parenting) and daily
family process risks (e.g., parental harshness), results may inform
initiatives focused on integrating early childhood systems to meet
the co-occurring needs of families with young children (e.g., dual-
generational programs, service integration policy efforts within
states).
Third, toward incorporating child-elicitation effects, we
included difficult temperament, defined as negative emotionality,
high reactivity, and fearfulness, as a covariate across all analyses
(Rothbart & Ahadi, 1994). Children with more difficult temper-
aments are more likely to evoke parents’ frustration and stress,
which spur insensitive parenting (Eisenberg et al., 1999) and
increased maternal depressive symptoms (Beck, 1996). Moreover,
difficult temperaments during infancy tend to be associated
with poor achievement (Stright, Gallagher & Kelley, 2008), self-
regulation (Blair, 2002), and behavior problems (Lawson & Ruff,
2004) later, especially in conjunction with other contextual risks
(Bradley & Corwyn, 2008). Thus, including temperament during
infancy allows for the potential relation between difficult temper-
ament and family processes, as well as the role of temperament on
school readiness skills.
In line with past evidence, in the current study we expected
that children facing a greater accumulation of family risks would
struggle more with school readiness (Family Life Project Key
Investigators, 2013; Morales & Guerra, 2006) than those with fewer
risks. Guided by past studies of U.S. samples, we expected that a
low-risk profile characterized by low levels of family risk factors
would be most prevalent. We also expected that the higher-risk
profile(s) would be similarly characterized by low-income sta-
tus, but that they would be distinguished from one another by
varying levels of the other risk factors (i.e., single-parent house-
hold, racial/ethnic-minority status, cognitive stimulation, parental
harshness, and maternal depressive symptoms). We expected that
children characterized by a low-risk profile would exhibit the
strongest school readiness skills at 54 months, whereas children
estimated to belong to the higher risk profiles would exhibit lower
school readiness. Finally, we compared the utility of the risk pro-
files to the cumulative risk approach to test whether the risk profile
results may provide complementary, additional information about
the how distinct patterns of risk relate to school readiness. Chil-
dren’s difficult temperament was included as a covariate in all
analyses.
465
4. Method
4.1. Participants and procedure
Families were recruited into the longitudinal NICHD SECCYD
in 1991 from 24 hospitals in 10 recruitment sites across the U.S.
(N = 1364; 52% male). When children were one month old, 22% of
families were living at the poverty level, and 23% of families were
living near poverty (i.e., between 100% and 200% of the poverty
level). Additionally, although maternal education was fairly high
(i.e., about 69% of mothers reported at least some college) a sub-
stantial portion of the mothers reported relatively low educational
attainment (i.e., 31% had a high school diploma or less). Seventy-six
percent of children were identified by mothers as White, 13% Black,
6% Hispanic, and 5% other races/ethnicities.
We analyzed data from Phase I and Phase II, including 1-, 6-
, 15-, 24-, 36-, and 54-month waves. At each wave, mothers were
interviewed during home visits to gather information about house-
hold demographics, family-life, and the target child’s development.
Additionally, at 6-, 15-, and 36-month waves, researchers con-
ducted in-home 30-min observations of parenting practices and
learning materials.
4.2. Measures
4.2.1. Family risk factors
Sociodemographic family risk factors, derived from mothers’
reports, included family income-to-needs, single-parent house-
hold, and racial/ethnic-minority status. Family process risk factors
were derived from observed cognitive stimulation in the home,
observed parental harshness in the home, and self-reported mater-
nal depressive symptoms. To create the cumulative risk index, we
reverse-coded family income-to-needs and cognitive stimulation
and summed the standardized scores of all risk indicators, such that
larger scores indicated greater risk burden. Such an index simul-
taneously accounts for accumulated risks and protective factors
(Luthar, 1993).
4.2.1.1. Sociodemographic family risk factors. Mothers reported
family income and the total number of individuals in their house-
holds during parent interviews conducted at 1-, 6-, 15-, 24-, and
36-month waves. At each wave, we calculated an income-to-needs
ratio by dividing the total family income by the number of indi-
viduals in the home. Because incomes fluctuate, we averaged these
scores across all five time-points to obtain an overall measure of
family income-to-needs during the first three years. Children were
defined as low-income if the income-to-needs ratio was less than
2 (2 = 200% of the poverty line; 1 = federal poverty line). This vari-
able was treated as continuous and log-transformed to adjust for
non-normality. Higher scores indicated higher family incomes.
To measure single-parent household from mothers’ reports of
number of adults in the household at the 1-, 6-, 15-, 24-, and 36-
month waves, we created a variable to represent the proportion of
waves that a mother was single during a child’s first 36 months of
life by taking the mean of five dichotomous variables (1 = single par-
ent during given wave) over the five waves. Six percent of mothers
reported single-parent status at all five waves (100% of waves sin-
gle), 3% at four waves (80% of waves single), 3% at three waves (60%
of waves single), 4% at two waves (40% of waves single), and 7%
at one wave (20% of waves single). The majority of mothers (77%)
reported dual-parent households across all five waves.
466 M.E. Pratt et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 36 (2016) 462–474
Mothers reported children’s race/ethnicity at the 1-month
interview. Children rated as White/Caucasian were considered a
non-minority, and others were considered a minority. This variable
was coded 1 = minority and 0 = non-minority.
4.2.1.2. Family process risk factors. To measure cognitive stimu-
lation at home, trained research assistants observed and rated
parent-child interactions and the availability of learning materi-
als using the infant/toddler (6- and 15-months waves) and early
childhood (36-months wave) versions of the HOME inventory, as
age-appropriate, during home visits (Caldwell & Bradley, 1984).
Cognitive stimulation was indicated by (a) a 9-item observed
enrichment composite of learning materials (e.g., toys and books)
and parent-child interactions (e.g., parent facilitated learning) at
6 months, (b) a 6-item home enrichment composite of learning
materials and parent-child interactions at 15 months, and (c) an
aggregate of both an 11-item learning materials composite (e.g.,
availability of puzzles in the home), and a 4-item academic stimu-
lation composite (e.g., learning numbers encouraged) at 36 months.
An aggregate of the standardized total scores across the three time
points indexed overall exposure to cognitive stimulation in the
home during the first three years of life (˛ = .72; r = .46–.50, p < .001).
Higher scores indicated more cognitive stimulation in the home.
Parental harshness was also measured during home observa-
tions of parent-child interactions at 6-, 15-, and 36-month waves
using the infant/toddler- and early childhood-versions of the HOME
inventory (Caldwell & Bradley, 1984). This subscale was originally
labeled as a measure of acceptance, yet given the emphasis on
harsh or punitive parenting behaviors (e.g., parent does not shout at
child; parent does not scold or criticize child during visit), the sub-
scale was reverse-coded such that higher values reflected greater
parental harshness. The original subscales, as defined by the HOME
inventory developers, demonstrated low internal reliability (i.e.,
<.60). To improve internal consistency we examined each item and
inter-item correlations; the one item from each wave with weaker
associations than the rest of the items (r = .06–.23) was trimmed
(i.e., at 6 and 15 months, dropped “parent doesn’t interfere”; at 36
months, dropped “no physical punishment”). Then, refined scale
scores were standardized before aggregating to allow for com-
parability between waves and to represent the average parental
harshness in the home during early childhood (˛ = .74).
Maternal depressive symptoms were self-reported at 1-, 6-,
15-, 24-, and 36-month waves with the My Feelings Question-
naire (˛ = .90), adapted from the Center for Epidemiological Studies
Depression Scale (Radloff, 1977). A sum-composite score was com-
puted at each wave (range 0–20); a score of 16 of 20 indicates
clinical levels of depressive symptoms (Radloff, 1977). To capture
mothers’ average degree of depressive symptoms, sum scores at
each wave were converted to z-scores and averaged across five
waves. Mothers with higher scores had higher average levels of
depressive symptoms during children’s first 36 months of life.
4.2.2. School readiness
4.2.2.1. Early math and literacy achievement. Achievement at 54
months was measured using subtests from the widely utilized
Woodcock–Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery—Revised (WJ–R;
Woodcock & Johnson, 1989). Early literacy was assessed with W
scores from the Letter-Word Identification subtest (˛ = .84), and
early math was assessed with W scores from the Applied Problems
subtest (˛ = .84). Higher scores indicated higher achievement.
4.2.2.2. Self-regulation. Self-regulation at 54 months was mea-
sured using a mean composite of the attention focusing and
inhibitory control subscales from the Child Behavior Question-
naire (CBQ; Rothbart, Ahadi, Hershey, & Fisher, 2001). Items were
rated on a scale of 1 (extremely untrue) to 7 (extremely true). Atten-
tion focusing consists of eight items that capture adults’ reports
of children’s ability to maintain attention on task-related activi-
ties, including how well children complete a task or how easily
they become distracted (˛ = .75). Inhibitory control consists of 10
items that capture children’s ability to plan and inhibit inappro-
priate responses when instructed and in novel situations (˛ = .74).
Higher scores reflected higher levels of self-regulation.
4.2.2.3. Behavior problems. The sum of the externalizing and inter-
nalizing subscales from the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS;
Gresham & Elliott, 1990) assessed behavior problems at 54 months
(˛ = .69). Mothers reported on the frequency of problem behav-
iors on 10 statements reflecting externalizing problems, such as
aggressive behavior, and internalizing problems, such as anxiety,
on a frequency scale of 0 (never) to 2 (very often). Higher scores
indicated more behavior problems.
4.2.2.4. Difficult temperament. Mothers reported on children’s
temperament at 6 months using the total battery composite of
the adapted Infant Temperament Questionnaire (Carey & McDevitt,
1978). The composite was the mean of the 55 scale items, rated
1 (almost never) to 6 (almost always), with appropriate reflection
of items so that numerically larger scores consistently reflected
more difficult temperament (including approach, activity, inten-
sity, mood, and adaptability subscales; ˛ = .81). Example items are
“My baby appears bothered (cries, squirms) when first put down
in a different sleeping place” (approach subscale) and “My baby
is still wary or frightened of strangers after 15 min” (adaptability
subscale). Higher scores reflected more difficult temperament.
4.3. Analytic plan
We first examined descriptive analyses and interrelations
among family risk indicators and school readiness outcomes for
the overall sample. We computed multiple regression models to
test whether the cumulative risk index was significantly associated
with each of the four child outcomes at 54 months using the struc-
tural equation modeling (SEM) package in Stata 13.0 (StataCorp,
2013), including a full information maximum likelihood (FIML)
estimator to deal with missing data.
Then, we used a LCA approach to identify the optimal num-
ber of family risk profiles using Mplus 7.1 (Muthén & Muthén,
1998–2012), in which we compared several models with varying
number of profiles—or latent classes—by evaluating statistical mea-
sures of model fit and theoretical interpretability. When specifying
a LCA model, no single model fit index determines the most appro-
priate number of latent classes. Thus, based on best-practices, we
compared statistical indices simultaneously (Masyn, 2013; Nylund,
Asparouhov, & Muthén, 2007), evaluating models according to the
Bayesian Information Criteria (BIC), Lo–Mendell–Rubin Likelihood
Ratio Test (LMR-LRT; Lo, Mendell, & Rubin, 2001), and Bootstrap LRT
(BLRT; McLachlan & Peel, 2000). The BIC simultaneously accounts
for model fit, sample size, and number of model parameters. The
model with the lowest BIC is considered to have the most opti-
mal fit. The LMR-LRT and BRLT are used to compare nested models
and are both alternatives to the traditional LRT. For both the LMR-
LRT and BRLT, a significant p-value suggests that the given solution
has a significantly better fit than the solution with one fewer class
(Nylund et al., 2007). Additionally, entropy, or the precision of clas-
sification for the whole sample across all latent classes, describes
the extent of separation between classes (Ramaswamy, DeSarbo,
Reibstein, & Robinson, 1993). Entropy values range between 0 and
1, with higher values suggesting better separation between classes.
Dramatic shifts in entropy across different models are an indication
of potential model misspecification (Masyn, 2013). It is not uncom-
mon for fit indices to conflict or support multiple model solutions
 M.E. Pratt et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 36 (2016) 462–474
during model comparisons; in these cases, researchers must con-
sider the conceptual interpretability of each solution alongside
model fit statistics, with preference for the most parsimonious,
conceptually sound model solution (Muthén, 2014; Nylund et al.,
2007).
In this study, four potential candidate models were established
through the evaluation of fit indices. We determined the final
risk profile model by closely comparing the substantive inter-
pretation of the risk profiles, along with the statistical indicators
of fit and class separation indicators. After determining a final
solution for family risk profiles, we tested how the risk pro-
files differentially predicted early achievement, self-regulation, and
behavior problems according to children’s probabilities of member-
ship in each risk profile. We used Lanza’s model-based approach
in Mplus using the DCON command (Lanza, Tan, & Bray, 2013;
Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2012), which overcomes limitations of
the traditional classify-analyze approach by treating latent-class
membership as unknown and reducing or eliminating biased esti-
mates resulting from classification error (Asparouhov & Muthén,
2013; Lanza et al., 2013).
4.4. Missing data
Variables with missing data included parental harshness (4%
missing), cognitive stimulation (5% missing), difficult tempera-
ment (6% missing), and all four outcome variables (self-regulation,
early math, early literacy, and behavior problems; 22–23% miss-
ing). Compared to families without missing data, those missing
data had, on average, significantly lower incomes (p <.001, Cohen’s
d =.36–.39), lower levels of stimulation in the home (p < .001,
Cohen’s d = .28–.30), higher levels of parental harshness (p < .001,
Cohen’s d = −1.44 to −1.53), and were more likely to identify as a
racial/ethnic minority (OR = 1.65–1.76, p < .01). Families with miss-
ing data did not differ from those without missing data on parental
harshness, or across a range of potential auxiliary variables not
included in the model (e.g., child gender, life stress, maternal educa-
tion). To reduce potential bias that could result from using listwise
deletion and account for missingness, we used full information
maximum likelihood estimation for all modeling (Acock, 2012).
5. Results
5.1. Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations
Table 1 contains descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations
among study variables. The variability among risk-factor indicators
appeared sufficient for the detection of distinct family risk pro-
files. For example, although the average family income-to-needs
for the sample as a whole was three times the federal poverty line
(M = 3.27), 25% of families reported an average income-to-needs
ratio < 1.5. Mothers reported moderate levels depressive symp-
toms, and 35% of the overall sample reported clinical levels of
maternal depressive symptoms (i.e., score of 16–20) during at least
one wave. Further, on average, children spent less than one wave in
a single-parent household, and 23% lived in a single-parent house-
hold during at least one wave.
Associations suggested that, although risks significantly covar-
ied across the overall sample, relations were modest enough to
be combined into profiles (i.e., no associations greater than .50).
Specifically, living in a single-parent household, identifying as a
racial/ethnic minority, parental harshness, and maternal depres-
sive symptoms were all negatively associated with achievement
and self-regulation, and positively related to behavior problems.
Similarly, family income-to-needs and cognitive stimulation were
both positively related to self-regulation and achievement, and
467
negatively related to behavior problems. The cumulative risk index
was significantly moderately associated with lower self-regulation
and achievement, and modestly associated with higher levels of
behavior problems.
5.2. Cumulative risk and school readiness
To estimate the relation between cumulative risk and school
readiness at 54 months, we estimated regression models with
cumulative risk index predicting each child outcome, control-
ling for difficult temperament at 6 months. The cumulative risk
index significantly negatively predicted early math (ˇ = −.45,
SE = .03, p < .001), early literacy (ˇ = −.27, SE = .03, p < .001), and
self-regulation (ˇ = −.29, SE = .03, p < .001), and positively pre-
dicted behavior problems (ˇ = .13, SE = .03, p < .001). A higher
accumulation of risks was negatively associated with achievement
performance and self-regulation and positively associated with
behavior problems.
5.3. Family risk profiles
Results from LCA analyses were used to determine the final
family risk profile solution, accounting for the influence of diffi-
cult temperament at 6 months. Both 3- and 4-class solutions were
well identified, with high precision of classification for both models
(e.g., entropy values > .98; see Table 2). To consider the substantive
interpretability of the candidate model solutions, we compared the
class results for both 3- and 4-class solutions. The 4-class model was
comprised of a low-risk class and three elevated-risk classes. Three
of the classes closely aligned with the 3-class model; however, the
fourth class appeared to be a slight variation of one of the elevated-
risk profiles from the 3-class model, suggesting that meaningfully
distinct differences between the fourth class and its similar coun-
terpart may not exist. For example, the fourth class and a similar
elevated-risk class were generally similar with the exception of a
slightly lower rate of single-parent status in the fourth class. To
test whether the 4-class solution added substantive value beyond
the 3-class solution, we tested each solution’s utility in differen-
tially predicting school readiness outcomes at 54 months. The two
similarly-patterned classes in the 4-class solution did not differ-
entially predict any of the child outcomes; thus, we retained the
3-class model based on a combination of model fit, parsimony, and
substantive interpretability of the classes (Masyn, 2013).
Three distinct family risk profiles best captured risk experiences
across early childhood for this study sample (see Table 3 and Fig. 1).
The first and largest profile, labeled low risk (78% of the sample),
was comprised of families with relatively few risks across all risk
indicators accounted. Members of the low risk profile reported an
average income-to-needs ratio about four times the poverty thresh-
old value of 1 (estimated income-to-needs ratio among low risk
members = 4.19). Relative to the overall study sample, this profile
was characterized by low parental harshness and high cognitive
stimulation in the home. The low risk profile also demonstrated
lower single-parent household status and depressive symptomol-
ogy, and low probability of reporting racial/ethnic-minority status.
Compared to the low risk profile, the other two family risk
profiles were both marked by a similar number of—but concep-
tually distinct—elevated risk experiences, labeled low-resourced:
single-parent, minority (12% of the sample) and low-resourced:
parental harshness, depressed (10% of the sample), respectively. Both
elevated-risk profiles were characterized by low levels of cogni-
tive stimulation in home (both estimated averages near −1; overall
sample average = 0) and family incomes substantially lower than
the low risk group. Both profiles were characterized by low-income
status (defined as around 200–250% of the poverty line), although
neither reported incomes below the federal poverty line. The low-
468 M.E. Pratt et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 36 (2016) 462–474

Table 1
Descriptive statistics and correlations for all study variables (N = 1364).

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

Continuous risk indicators

1. Income-to-needs ratio –
2. Single-parent status −.35*** –
3. Cognitive stimulation −.39*** −.35*** –
4. Parental harshness −.23*** .07* −.24*** –
5. Depressive symptoms −.29*** .25*** −.28*** .24*** –

Dichotomous risk indicator

6. Racial/ethnic minority −.25*** .37*** −.39*** .15*** .18*** –

Predictor of interest
7. Cumulative risk −.64*** .67*** .72*** .49*** .61*** .60*** –

Covariate
8. Difficult temperament −.16*** .12*** −.16*** .11*** .23*** .19*** .26*** –

School readiness outcomes

9. Math achievement .33*** −.23*** .37*** −.21*** −.23*** −.28*** −.44*** −.13*** –
10. Literacy achievement .35*** −.16*** .34*** −.14*** −.18*** −.15*** −.35*** −.10** .55*** –
11. Self-regulation .27*** −.13*** .24*** −.16*** −.29*** −.13*** −.32*** −.19*** .29*** .28*** –
12. Behavior problems −.06* .04 −.07* .09** .31*** .04 .16*** −.15*** −.05 −.07* −.38*** –

Percentage coded 1 – – – – – 19.57 – – – –

Percentage coded 0 – – – – – 80.43 – – – –
M 3.27 .13 0 0 0 – −.61 3.18 425.05 369.99 4.68 5.8
SD 2.78 .28 .89 .81 .77 – 3.63 .40 19.49 21.98 .71 2.51
Minimum value 0 0 −4.76 −.46 −1.13 – −7.13 1.54 332 316 2.33 0
Maximum value 18.76 1 1.27 2.81 3.72 – 12.35 4.72 477 501 6.54 16

Note: racial/ethnic-minority status was coded 1 = minority and 0 = non-minority; income-to-needs ratio is an aggregate across data collection at 1-, 6-, 15-, 24-, and 36-month
waves and was log-transformed prior to analyses. Maternal depressive symptoms and both parental harshness and cognitive stimulation scores represent the aggregate of
standardized observational variables from 1-, 6-, 15-, 24- and 36-month waves, and 6-, 15-, and 36-month waves; respectively.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.

Table 2
Model fit indices for latent class analysis of family risk variables (N = 1364).

Number of BIC Sample-size Entropy LMR-LRT BLRT Estimated proportion of Estimated number of
classes adjusted BIC p-value p-value children in smallest class children in smallest class

1 15260.85 15219.56 – – – – –
2 13027.01 12960.31 .981 .000 .000 .129 177
3 11855.35 11763.23 .981 .000 .000 .102 139
4 10991.90 10874.37 .986 .000 .000 .072 98
5 10450.79 10307.84 .992 .012 .000 .057 78

Note: the null hypotheses for the LMR-LRT and BLRT p-values indicate that a solution with the given number of classes provides the same fit to the data as a solution with
one less class. BIC = Bayesian information criterion; BLRT = Bootstrapped likelihood ratio test; LMR LRT = Lo–Mendell–Rubin likelihood ratio test.

Table 3
Item response probabilities (dichotomous indicators), class averages (continuous indicators), and prevalence rates for the 3-class model (N = 1364).

Risk factor Risk profile

Low risk Low resourced: single Low resourced: parental harshness

Continuous indicators
Income-to-needs ratio (log value) 4.19 (1.43) 1.69 (.53) 2.18 (.78)
Single-parent status .03 .84 .10
Cognitive stimulation .14 −.79 −.66
Parental harshness −.27 .03 2.04
Maternal depressive symptoms −.09 .44 .89

Dichotomous indicator
Racial/ethnic minority (1 = minority) .12 .59 .33

Prevalence rates (%) 78 12 10

Note: Wald tests of parameter constraints showed significant differences between classes among all class means. Income-to-needs ratio is an aggregate across 1-, 6-, 15-, 24-,
and 36-month waves and was log-transformed for analyses (log values in parentheses); estimates were exponentiated for tabling, with log values in parentheses. Parental
harshness and cognitive stimulation scores represent the aggregate of standardized observational variables from 6-, 15-, and 36-month waves.
 M.E. Pratt et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 36 (2016) 462–474
2.5
1.5
0.5
-0.5
-1
Income-to-needs Single-parent Racial/ethnic
ratio (log) status minority
Low risk (n = 1065)
Low resourced: Single, minority (n = 139)
Low resourced: Parental harshness, depressed (n = 161)
Fig. 1. Final 3-class risk profile solution (N = 1364). Income-to-needs ratio is presented in log format; when exponentiated, the income-to-need ratios are low risk = 4.19, low
resourced: single, minority = 1.69, and low resourced: parental harshness, depressed = 2.18.
resourced: single-parent, minority profile had an estimated income
at 218% of the poverty line, and the low-resourced: parental harsh-
ness, depressed profile had estimated income at 169% of the poverty
line. A Wald test of parameter constraints detected significant
differences between all estimated parameters across the three pro-
files, with the exception of cognitive stimulation, the means for
which did not differ significantly across the two elevated-risk pro-
files (Wald test[1] = .710, p = .40).
Despite similarities in income and stimulation levels in the
home, multiple differences between the two elevated-risk profiles
emerged. The low-resourced: single, minority profile characterized
children with a higher probability of identifying as a racial/ethnic
minority compared to both the low risk and low-resourced: parental
harshness, depressed profiles. This profile was also distinctly char-
acterized by single-parent status across nearly all waves (i.e.,
88% of waves single). In contrast, the other elevated-risk profile,
low-resourced: parental harshness, depressed was characterized by
dual-parent households, with parents reporting less than 10% of
waves as a single parent—slightly higher than the low risk profile.
Children characterized by the low resourced: parental harshness,
depressed profile were distinctly characterized by higher levels of
parental harshness, with an average estimated harshness score of
just over 2 (vs. overall sample average = 0 and low-resourced: single-
parent, minority average = .033). This profile was also characterized
by significantly higher elevated levels of maternal depression
symptoms than both the low risk and low-resourced: single, minority
profiles.
5.4. Family risk profiles and school readiness
Results from outcome analyses indicated that children most
likely to be in the low risk profile exhibited significantly higher lev-
els of math achievement, literacy achievement, and self-regulation,
and significantly lower levels of behavior problems, at 54 months
than children characterized by both elevated-risk profiles (see
Table 4), accounting for difficult temperament at 6 months. Next,
children in the low-resourced: single-parent, minority profile exhib-
ited higher achievement and self-regulation and lower behavior
problems than children in the low-resourced: parental harshness,
depressed profile.
469
Cognitive Parental Maternal
stimulation harshness depression
6. Discussion
This study explored how multiple family risk factors experi-
enced during the first three years of life predicted children’s school
readiness at age four, within a geographically and economically
diverse U.S. sample. Cumulative risk model results revealed that
an accumulation of risks was significantly related to lower early
achievement, lower self-regulation, and higher behavior problems.
Those risk experiences were best captured by three distinct pro-
files: (a) low risk; (b) low resourced: single, minority; and (c) low
resourced: parental harshness, depressed. The risk profile model
results provided the details of the story regarding relations between
multiple risk and lower school readiness: Specifically, children
in the low risk profile exhibited stronger school readiness than
those characterized by the two elevated-risk profiles, and the low-
resourced: single-parent, minority profile predicted stronger school
readiness than the low resourced: parental harshness, depressed pro-
file. Overall, risk profile results unpack and extend cumulative risk
model results by providing a more nuanced picture of distinct com-
binations of the same risk factors and their relations to school
readiness.
6.1. Understanding distinct combinations of multiple family risks
The person-centered risk profile results complement a variable-
centered cumulative risk approach to understand the influence
of multiple family risks by illuminating nuanced complexities of
children’s risk experiences (Laursen & Hoff, 2006). A cumulative
risk perspective and model is inherently an elevated risk perspec-
tive, yet the qualitative differences between the two elevated-risk
profiles in the present study suggest LCA is an alternative way to
examine the intersection of sociodemographic and family process
risks experienced during early childhood and to obtain qualitatively
different and meaningful information. Results provide insights
into the heterogeneity of multiple risk experiences unable to be
gleaned from linear mediational models, such that the negative
relation between sociodemographic risk on child outcomes may
be explained through (or moderated by) family processes, such
as harshness. Indeed, profile results suggest that, although both
elevated-risk profiles were characterized by low-income levels
and low cognitive stimulation in the home (i.e., low resourced),
470 M.E. Pratt et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 36 (2016) 462–474
Table 4
Child school readiness means (standard errors) by latent risk profile.
Risk profile
Low risk (1) Low resourced: single, minority (2)
Self-regulation 4.80 (.02) 4.44 (.07)
Math achievement 429.84 (.53) 414.18 (2.00)
Literacy achievement 374.18 (.74) 361.77 (1.76)
Behavior problems 5.68 (.09) 6.21 (.23)
Note: Cohen’s d effect sizes are provided for each mean difference.
*
p < .05.
***
p < .001.
there were also detectable patterns of distinct combinations of risk
experiences. For example, although elevated depressive symptoms
characterized both the low resourced profiles, the prevalence of this
variable was notably higher in one of the profiles than the other.
Specifically, families characterized by the low resourced: parental
harshness, depressed profile demonstrated significantly higher lev-
els of both harshness and depression symptomology, compared
to the other profiles. The combination of risk experiences aligns
with past evidence, suggesting that maternal depression is often
associated with harsher and more intrusive parenting (Choe et al.,
2013; Crossley & Buckner, 2012). In contrast, parental harshness
and depression symptoms did not align with single-parent and
minority statuses, the two risks that uniquely characterized the
second elevated-risk profile. These differentiating combinations of
risk experiences indicate variation in how lower-resourced families
function with regard to a handful of sociodemographic and family
process risks.
In terms of school readiness outcomes, although both elevated-
risk profiles were characterized by limited resources (low income
and low cognitive stimulation), children best characterized by
the low resourced: parental harshness, depressed profile exhibited
weakest school readiness among all three profiles, across all three
outcomes (achievement, self-regulation, and behavior problems).
Although living in a single-parent household and identifying as
a racial/ethnic minority (i.e., the primary identifiers of the other
elevated-risk profile) have the potential to exacerbate the influence
of low-income on school readiness, when examined in the con-
text of multiple risks, children characterized by the low-resourced:
single-parent, minority profile did not appear at as great of risk,
in terms of school readiness, as children characterized by families
marked by high levels of parental harshness and maternal depres-
sive symptoms.
Parental harshness during the early childhood period is par-
ticularly concerning because harshness (i.e., physical punishment,
intrusiveness, yelling) reduces children’s opportunities to engage
with their environments in ways that facilitate the gradual self-
regulation development process underlying much of cognitive and
behavioral development (Karreman et al., 2006). Parents who are
consistently punitive and critical with young children negatively
influence children’s physiology, such that children tend to engage
in more reactive rather than reflective responses to their envi-
ronments (Blair & Raver, 2012). Thus, it is not surprising that
these children often struggle to regulate their behavior (Eisenberg
et al., 1998), exhibit high externalizing behavior problems (Calkins,
2002), and experience more negative interpersonal interactions
(Cicchetti & Rogosch, 2009), which impede critical school readiness
skill development. Overall, from our risk profile model findings, we
suspect that parental harshness and depressive symptoms, in com-
bination with indicators of low resources (i.e., low-income and low
cognitive stimulation) during a child’s first three years of life, may
be especially detrimental for school readiness during the four-year-
old year compared to other co-occurring risk experiences.
Contrasts between classes
Low resourced: parental harshness, depressed (3) 1 vs. 2 1 vs. 3 2 vs. 3
4.23 (.06) .46*** .74*** .27*
407.44 (2.10) .84*** 1.22*** .27*
352.22 (1.65) .52*** .92*** .46***
6.84 (.25) −.19*** −.41*** −.21*
6.2. Comparing cumulative risk model to latent class analysis in
predicting school readiness
Finally, we compared the utility of both the cumulative risk
model and LCA approaches to understand how multiple early fam-
ily risks influence subsequent school readiness. Cumulative risk
results provide evidence that the accumulation of risk factors neg-
atively predicts school readiness outcomes, such that an increasing
number of risk experiences strongly predicted math achievement
(effect size −.45), moderately predicted lower self-regulation and
early literacy achievement (effect size just under −.30), and mod-
estly predicted increased behavior problems (effect size .13).
The LCA results largely paralleled the cumulative risk results:
children characterized by the low risk profile, reflecting no or low
levels of risk, exhibited the strongest school readiness skills at 54
months, whereas children who experienced some risks exhibited
less positive school readiness outcomes. The LCA results also pro-
vide unique information about the intersection of multiple risks
that is not possible to observe from a cumulative risk model: Only
with the unpacking possible with LCA can one discern differences
between the two elevated-risk profiles and that the largest dif-
ferences in school readiness skills emerged between the low risk
and the low resourced: parental harshness, depressed profile (see
Table 4). That is, a person-centered approach provides information
about which risks—and not just that more risks—are significantly
deleterious to school readiness skills.
Quantitatively, the risk profiles demonstrated variability in
effect size of multiple risk on school readiness outcomes not
observed from the cumulative risk analyses (i.e., effects were larger
between some combinations of risk than others; see contrasts
between classes in Table 4). By identifying heterogeneity in fam-
ily risk experiences in this study, we have documented a couple of
possible combinations of risks that help explain child outcomes at
the transition to school. Our findings suggest that risk profile work
has added-value to an understanding of multiple contextual and
process risks in families and school readiness beyond cumulative
risk modeling.
Nonetheless, in LCA analyses it is not uncommon for the major-
ity of individuals in a study sample to fall into one of the several
profiles. In the current study, 78% of the sample was characterized
by the low risk profile, with the remaining profiles comprising the
final 10% and 12%. It is possible that the profile analyses are only
detecting an average group from those who are high or low on a
group of risk factors (Chazan-Cohen, Halle, Barton, & Winsler, 2012;
McWayne, Hahs-Vaughn, Cheung, & Wright, 2012). It may also be
that the higher-risk profiles are only different in the degree or sheer
number of risks. In this case, the profiles can be interpreted as a
single population following a normal distribution (McWayne et al.,
2012). In these cases, a variable-centered approach (i.e., cumula-
tive risk modeling) may be more appropriate, as it allows for more
variability in the risk factors of interest and can be interpreted in
terms of the implications of low, medium, and high levels of risk
(McWayne et al., 2012). Thus, in light of the complex and dynamic
 M.E. Pratt et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 36 (2016) 462–474
nature of child development and family functioning, there is a place
for both variable- and person-centered perspectives when striving
to understand how examine multiple risks relate to school readi-
ness.
6.3. Practical implications
Results highlight the need for intervention efforts designed to
promote school readiness by addressing multiple family risks expe-
rienced by families with young children living both below and
above the federal poverty line (e.g., including low-income fami-
lies who are living between 100% to 200% of the federal poverty
line; 100% = federal poverty line). For example, dual-generational
programming, such as Early Head Start and the Nurse-Family Part-
nership, are designed to target both children’s development and
family well-being through tailored supportive services (e.g., finan-
cial resources, mental health services for parents; Ayoub et al.,
2009; Olds, 2006), but most programming targets families living
at or below the federal poverty line. Our findings demonstrate that
there is heterogeneity in risk experiences, and young children face
unique combinations of co-occurring family risks, with implica-
tions for a wide range of school readiness skills, including academic,
self-regulatory, and behavioral development.
Additionally, supportive services directed toward young chil-
dren and their families in the U.S. are largely siloed and
uncoordinated. This disconnect has sparked a number of policy
initiatives focused on fostering more coordinated systems within
early childhood programming. For example, LAUNCH (Linking
Actions for Unmet Needs in Children’s Health), a federal program,
provides funding to 35 sites across the U.S. (i.e., states, tribal
nations, and communities) to support the integration of physical
and behavioral health services for families (Goodson, Mackrain,
Perry, O’Brien, & Gwaltney, 2013; US DHHS, 2010). Further, policy-
makers are integrating existing programs to create coordinated
early learning systems at the state level (i.e., early care and edu-
cation, health, mental health, and nutrition series, and services to
strengthen and engage families in children’s learning; US DHHS,
2011). Given present study findings, continued policy efforts to
create systems that integrate early childhood and family services
would aid providers to effectively identify and meet the multiple
developmental well-being needs of a larger proportion of at-risk
children and families than in the past.
6.4. Limitations and future research
A limitation of all person-centered work is that profiles are sen-
sitive to the size and characteristics of the study sample (Masyn,
2013). The NICHD SECCYD, though including families from diverse
U.S. geographic regions, was not designed to be nationally repre-
sentative and was predominantly Caucasian (NICHD ECCRN, 1996).
Thus, specific combinations of risks and prevalence rates identified
here may not generalize across groups. The salience and impact
of risk factors have sometimes differed depending on racial/ethnic
background (Hatch & Dohrenwend, 2007; Rhoades et al., 2011),
but not in every case (Roy & Raver, 2014). Moreover, as with all
secondary data analysis, we were limited to the data as previously
collected, including variables with poor reliability, such as those
for some home observations; we attempted to overcome this lim-
itation by utilizing the best combination of items and composite
reliabilities. Replications of family risk profile analyses with repre-
sentative samples, specific process indicators of race-related risks,
and observational indicators with stronger evidence of internal reli-
ability would extend and enhance this line of inquiry.
Nonetheless, we identified co-occurring family process risks
among economically diverse families. Moreover, we found that
elevated-risk profiles were both marked by low-income status, but
471
with a range from 100 to 250% of the federal poverty line. Results
parallel and extend Roy and Raver’s (2014) findings, where risk pro-
files were, in part, differentiated by depth of poverty (i.e., above or
below 50% of federal poverty threshold): Our findings showed that
family income also differentiates profiles in a less economically at-
risk study sample (i.e., average income was 300% of poverty line).
Future work should continue investigating the degree of economic
hardship when considering the developmental implications of mul-
tiple risks. Additionally, although the elevated risk groups were
substantially smaller than the low risk group, they demonstrated
predictive validity by differentially predicting all four school readi-
ness outcomes. It will be important next to examine whether this
predictability holds across various study samples, providing addi-
tional evidence that LCA is a valid and holistic approach that holds
the potential to reveal relationships within the data that could not
be discovered otherwise (McWayne et al., 2012).
The fact that self-regulation and behavior problems were mea-
sured by mother-report is both a limitation and a strength. Parents’
reports may be susceptible to reporter-bias when compared to
direct child measures of early behavioral development (Goodman
& Gotlib, 1999), but these may provide better assessments of gen-
eral patterns of behavior across time, settings, and situations with
varying social complexity (Lengua, 2002). In contrast, direct or
observational measures are restricted to short-term assessments
in more controlled environments. Thus, parent-reported assess-
ments may tap a different, global set of skills than direct measures
of discrete behaviors. Further, potential shared method variance
bias may have resulted from frequent use of mothers’ reports. A
variety of assessment tools to understand how risk profiles relate to
school readiness from multiple perspectives would support current
findings.
The current study focused on a strategically selected handful
of factors known to be robust predictors of school readiness that
could also be relatively easily measured in future research and
application settings (Cook et al., 2012). A number of facets of the
present study address a renewed call to increase within-study
robustness checks to give added meaning to observed associa-
tions (Duncan, 2015)—of particular relevance when conducting LCA
and other mixture model analyses, given the influences of sam-
ple and variable nuances. Specifically, we compared models with
different variable constructions, utilized multiple estimation tech-
niques to test hypotheses, and replicated (and extended) prior
work (i.e., Rhoades et al., 2011; Roy & Raver, 2014). Future work
examining multiple risks through both risk composites and pro-
file analyses will benefit from the inclusion of additional facets
of family risk that were beyond the scope of the current study.
For example, profile work would benefit from including house-
hold risk factors reflecting the instability in the home known
to undermine school readiness, such as partnership and housing
instability (Cooper, Osborne, Beck, & McLanahan, 2011; Ziol-Guest
& McKenna, 2014). Further, although we included two distinct
aspects of parenting (parental harshness and cognitive stimula-
tion), future risk profile work would benefit from inclusion of
additional, more nuanced, aspects of parent-child relationships,
gathered through observational measures, such as mothers’ (in)
sensitivity to distress (Leerkes, Blankson, & O’Brien, 2009).
7. Conclusion
Children exposed to relatively low risk in the first years of
life exhibited significantly greater school readiness at 54 months
than those whose early environments were characterized by both
a greater number of multiple, co-occurring risks (i.e., variable-
centered approach), as well as qualitatively different risk profiles
(i.e., person-centered approach). Differences in the patterns of spe-
472 M.E. Pratt et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 36 (2016) 462–474
cific risk profiles further differentiated school readiness outcomes,
providing complementary information to more traditional cumula-
tive risk models. Creating and analyzing profiles of family risk offers
unique insight into how early family risks intersect across sociode-
mographic and family process dimensions, with implications for
children’s subsequent school readiness skills.
References
Acock, A. C. (2012). What to do about missing values. In H. Cooper (Ed.), APA
handbook of research methods in psychology. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Annie E. Casey Foundation (2015). Kids count data book: state trends in child
well-being. Baltimore, MD. Retrieved from http://www.aecf.org/m/databook/
aecf-2015kidscountdatabook-2015-em.pdf.
Appleyard, K., Egeland, B., Dulmen, M. H., & Alan Sroufe, L. (2005). When more is
not better: the role of cumulative risk in child behavior outcomes. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 235–245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-
7610.2004.00351.x
Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2013). Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: a
3-step approach using Mplus. Mplus Web Notes, 15.
Astone, N. M., & McLanahan, S. S. (1991). Family structure, parental practices and
high school completion. American Sociological Review, 309–320. http://www.
jstor.org/stable/2096106
Ayoub, C., O’Connor, E., Rappolt-Schlictmann, G., Vallotton, C., Raikes, H., &
Chazan-Cohen, R. (2009). Cognitive skill performance among young children
living in poverty: risk, change, and the promotive effects of Early Head Start.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24, 289–305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
S0954578406060432
Beck, C. T. (1996). A meta-analysis of predictors of postpartum depression. Nursing
Research, 45, 297–303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00006199-199609000-00008
Bernstein, J., Brocht, C., & Spade-Aguilar, M. (2000). How much is enough? In Basic
family budgets for working families. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
Blair, C. (2002). School readiness: integrating cognition and emotion in a
neurobiological conceptualization of children’s functioning at school entry.
American Psychologist, 57, 111–127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.2.
111
Blair, C., & Raver, C. C. (2012). Child development in the context of adversity:
experiential canalization of brain and behavior. American Psychologist, 67,
309–318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027493
Blair, C., Granger, D. A., Willoughby, M., Mills-Koonce, R., Cox, M., Greenberg, M. T.,
et al. (2011). Salivary cortisol mediates effects of poverty and parenting on
executive functions in early childhood. Child Development, 82, 1970–1984.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01643.x
Blandon, A. Y., Calkins, S. D., Keane, S. P., & O’Brien, M. (2008). Individual
differences in trajectories of emotion regulation processes: the effects of
maternal depressive symptomatology and children’s physiological regulation.
Developmental Psychology, 44, 1110–1123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-
1649.44.4.1110
Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2007). Externalizing problems in fifth grade:
relations with productive activity, maternal sensitivity, and harsh parenting
from infancy through middle childhood. Developmental Psychology, 43,
1390–1401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1390
Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2008). Infant temperament, parenting, and
externalizing behavior in first grade: a test of the differential susceptibility
hypothesis. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 124–131. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01829.x
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human
development. In R. M. Lerner, W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook on
child psychology: theoretical models of human development (Vol. 1) (6th ed., Vol.
1, pp. 793–828). Hokoken, NJ: Wiley.
Burchinal, M., & Willoughby, M. (2013). IV. Poverty and associated social risks:
toward a cumulative risk framework. Monographs of the Society for Research in
Child Development, 78, 53–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/mono.12050
Burchinal, M. R., Roberts, J. E., Hooper, S., & Zeisel, S. A. (2000). Cumulative risk and
early cognitive development: a comparison of statistical risk models.
Developmental Psychology, 36, 793–807. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.
36.6.793
Caldwell, B. M., & Bradley, R. H. (1984). Home observation for measurement of the
environment. Little Rock, AR: University of Arkansas Press.
Calkins, S. D. (2002). Origins and outcomes of individual differences in emotional
regulation. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59,
250–283. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1166138
Carey, W. B., & McDevitt, S. C. (1978). Revision of the infant temperament
questionnaire. Pediatrics, 61, 735–739.
Carlson, M. J., & Corcoran, M. E. (2001). Family structure and children’s behavioral
and cognitive outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 779–792. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00779.x
Chazan-Cohen, R., Halle, T. G., Barton, L. R., & Winsler, A. (2012). Supporting
optimal child development through Early Head Start and Head Start programs:
reflections on secondary data analyses of FACES and EHSREP. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 27, 708–715. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.09.
002
Choe, D. E., Olson, S. L., & Sameroff, A. J. (2013). Effects of early maternal distress
and parenting on the development of children’s self-regulation and
externalizing behavior. Development and Psychopathology, 25, 437–453. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579412001162
Cicchetti, D., & Rogosch, F. A. (2009). Adaptive coping under conditions of extreme
stress: multilevel influences on the determinants of resilience in maltreated
children. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 124, 47–59.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cd.242
Coleman, R. A., Hardy, S. A., Albert, M., Raffaelli, M., & Crockett, L. (2006). Early
predictors of self-regulation in middle childhood. Infant and Child Development,
15, 421–437. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/icd.469
Cook, G. A., Roggman, L. A., & D’zatko, K. (2012). A person-oriented approach to
understanding dimensions of parenting in low-income mothers. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 27, 582–595. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.
2012.06.001
Cooper, C. E., Osborne, C. A., Beck, A. N., & McLanahan, S. S. (2011). Partnership
instability, school readiness, and gender disparities. Sociology of Education, 84,
246–259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0038040711402361
Contrada, R. J., Ashmore, R. D., Gary, M. L., Coups, E., Egeth, J. D., Sewell, A., et al.
(2000). Ethnicity-related sources of stress and their effects on well-being.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 136–139. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1111/1467-8721.00078
Corapci, F. (2008). The role of child temperament on Head Start preschoolers’ social
competence in the context of cumulative risk. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 29, 1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2007.10.003
Crosnoe, R., Leventhal, T., Wirth, R. J., Pierce, K. M., & Pianta, R. C. (2010). Family
socioeconomic status and consistent environmental stimulation in early
childhood. Child Development, 81, 972–987. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8624.2010.01446.x
Crossley, I., & Buckner, J. (2012). Maternal-related predictors of self-regulation
among low-income youth. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 21, 217–227.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10826-011-9465-0
Dearing, E., Berry, D., & Zaslow, M. (2006). Poverty during early childhood. In K.
McCartney, & D. Phillips (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of early childhood
development (pp. 399–423). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1998). Multiple risk
factors in the development of externalizing behavior problems: group and
individual differences. Development and Pgsychopathology, 10, 469–493. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579498001709
Denham, S. A., Warren-Khot, H. K., Bassett, H. H., Wyatt, T., & Perna, A. (2012).
Factor structure of self-regulation in preschoolers: testing models of a
field-based assessment for predicting early school readiness. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 111, 386–404. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.
2011.10.002
Downer, J. T., & Pianta, R. C. (2006). Academic and cognitive functioning in first
grade: associations with earlier home and child care predictors and with
concurrent home and classroom experiences. School Psychology Review, 35,
11–30.
Dubow, E. F., & Ippolito, M. F. (1994). Effects of poverty and quality of the home
environment on changes in the social and academic adjustment of elementary
school-age children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 23, 401–412. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp2304 6
Duncan, G. J. (2015). Toward an empirically robust science of human development.
Research in Human Development, 12, 255–260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
15427609.2015.1068061
Duncan, G. J., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Klebanov, P. K. (1994). Economic deprivation and
early childhood development. Child Development, 65, 296–318. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994.tb00752.x
Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P.,
et al. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental
Psychology, 43, 1428–1446. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1428
Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., & Spinrad, T. L. (1998). Parental socialization of
emotion. Psychological Inquiry, 9, 241–273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
s15327965pli0904 1
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S. A., Guthrie, I. K., Murphy, B. C., & Reiser, M.
(1999). Parental reactions to children’s negative emotions: longitudinal
relations to quality of children’s social functioning. Child Development, 70,
513–534. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00037
Evans, G. W. (2003). The built environment and mental health. Journal of Urban
Health, 80, 536–555. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jurban/jtg063
Evans, G. W. (2004). The environment of childhood poverty. American Psychologist,
59, 77–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.2.77
Evans, G. W., Kim, P., Ting, A. H., Tesher, H. B., & Shannis, D. (2007). Cumulative risk,
maternal responsiveness, and allostatic load among young adolescents.
Developmental Psychology, 43, 341–351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.
43.2.341
Family Life Project Key Investigators (2013). Cumulative risk and its relation to
parenting and child outcomes at 36 months. In: L. Vernon-Feagans, M. Cox, &
the FLP Key Investigators (Eds.), The Family Life Project: An epidemiological
and developmental study of young children living in poor rural communities.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 78, 66–91.
Farkas, G. (2003). Racial disparities and discrimination in education: what do we
know, how do we know it, and what do we need to know? The Teachers College
Record, 105, 1119–1146.
Flaherty, B. P., & Kiff, C. J. (2012). Latent class and latent profile models. In H.
Cooper, P. M. Camic, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook
 M.E. Pratt et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 36 (2016) 462–474
of research methods in psychology: data analysis and research publication (Vol. 3)
(pp. 391–404). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/13621-019
Goodman, S. H., & Gotlib, I. H. (1999). Risk for psychopathology in the children of
depressed mothers: a developmental model for understanding mechanisms of
transmission. Psychological Review, 106, 458–490. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0033-295x.106.3.458
Goodson, B. D., Mackrain, M., Perry, D. F., O’Brien, K., & Gwaltney, M. K. (2013).
Enhancing home visiting with mental health consultation. Pediatrics, 132,
S180–S190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-1021S
Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social skills rating system: manual. American
Guidance Service.
Hatch, S. L., & Dohrenwend, B. P. (2007). Distribution of traumatic and other
stressful life events by race/ethnicity, gender, SES and age: a review of the
research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 40, 313–332. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9134-z
Karreman, A., van Tuijl, C., van Aken, M. A. G., & Deković, M. (2006). Parenting and
self-regulation in preschoolers: a meta-analysis. Infant and Child Development,
15, 561–579. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/icd.478
Lanza, S. T., & Rhoades, B. L. (2013). Latent class analysis: an alternative perspective
on subgroup analysis in prevention and treatment. Prevention Science, 14,
157–168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11121-011-0201-1
Lanza, S. T., Rhoades, B. L., Nix, R. L., & Greenberg, M. T. (2010). Modeling the
interplay of multilevel risk factors for future academic and behavior problems:
a person-centered approach. Development and Psychopathology, 22, 313–335.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579410000088
Lanza, S. T., Tan, X., & Bray, B. C. (2013). Latent class analysis with distal outcomes:
a flexible model-based approach. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 20, 1–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2013.
742377
Laursen, B. P., & Hoff, E. (2006). Person-centered and variable-centered approaches
to longitudinal data. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 52, 377–389. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1353/mpq.2006.0029
Lawson, K. R., & Ruff, H. A. (2004). Early attention and negative emotionality predict
later cognitive and behavioural function. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 28, 157–165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01650250344000361
Leerkes, E. M., Blankson, A. N., & O’Brien, M. (2009). Differential effects of maternal
sensitivity to infant distress and nondistress on social-emotional functioning.
Child Development, 80, 762–775. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.
01296.x
Lengua, L. J. (2002). The contribution of emotionality and self-regulation to the
understanding of children’s response to multiple risk. Child Development, 73,
144–161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00397
Lengua, L. J., Honorado, E., & Bush, N. R. (2007). Contextual risk and parenting as
predictors of effortful control and social competence in preschool children.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28, 40–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.appdev.2006.10.001
Lerner, R. M. (2006). Developmental science, developmental systems, and
contemporary theories of human development. In R. M. Lerner, W. Damon, & R.
M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: theoretical models of human
development (Vol. 1) (6th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 1–17). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Lo, Y., Mendell, N. R., & Rubin, D. B. (2001). Testing the number of components in a
normal mixture. Biometrika, 88, 767–778. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/biomet/88.
3.767
Luthar, S. S. (1993). Methodological and conceptual issues in research on childhood
resilience. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 34, 441–453. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1993.tb01030.x
Magnuson, K. A., & Duncan, G. J. (2004). Parent-versus child-based intervention
strategies for promoting children’s well-being. In A. Kalil, & T. Deleire (Eds.),
Family investments in children’s potential: resources and parenting behaviors that
promote success (pp. 209–231). New York, NY: Psychological Press.
Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1998). The development of competence in
favorable and unfavorable environments: lessons from research on successful
children. American Psychologist, 53, 205–220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-
066X.53.2.205
Masyn, K. E. (2013). Latent class analysis and finite mixture modeling. In T. D. Little
(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of quantitative methods: statistical analysis (Vol. 2)
(pp. 551–611). New York: Oxford University Press.
McClelland, M. M., Acock, A. C., Piccinin, A., Rhea, S. A., & Stallings, M. C. (2013).
Relations between preschool attention span-persistence and age 25
educational outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28, 314–324. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.07.008
McLachlan, G. J., & Peel, D. (2000). Robust mixture modeling using the t
distribution. Statistics and Computing, 10, 335–344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/
A:1008981510081
McLoyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development.
American Psychologist, 53, 185–204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.53.2.
185
McWayne, C. M., Hahs-Vaughn, D. L., Cheung, K., & Wright, L. E. G. (2012). National
profiles of school readiness skills for Head Start children: an investigation of
stability and change. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27, 668–683. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.10.002
Morales, J. R., & Guerra, N. G. (2006). Effects of multiple context and cumulative
stress on urban children’s adjustment in elementary School. Child
Development, 77, 907–923. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00910
473
Morrison, F. J., & Cooney, R. R. (2002). Parenting and academic achievement:
multiple pathways to early literacy. In J. Borkowski, S. Ramey, & M.
Bristol-Power (Eds.), Parenting and the child’s world: influences on academic,
intellectual, and social-emotional development (pp. 141–160). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Muthén, B. O. (2014). Re: Selecting the number of classes [electronic list message].
Retrieved from http://www.statmodel.com/discussion/messages/13/458.
html?1393998215.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide (Version 7.1). Los
Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care
Research Network (NICHD ECCRN). (1996). Characteristics of infant child care:
factors contributing to positive caregiving. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
11, 269–306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(96)90009-5
Nesbitt, K. T., Baker-Ward, L., & Willoughby, M. T. (2013). Executive function
mediates socio-economic and racial differences in early academic
achievement. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28, 774–783. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2013.07.005
Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of
classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: a Monte Carlo
simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14,
535–569. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575396
Olds, D. L. (2006). The nurse-family partnership: an evidence-based preventive
intervention. Infant Mental Health Journal, 27, 5–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
imhj.20077
Parra, G. R., DuBois, D. L., & Sher, K. J. (2006). Investigation of profiles of risk factors
for adolescent psychopathology: a person-centered approach. Journal of
Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 35, 386–402. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
s15374424jccp3503 4
Petterson, S. M., & Albers, A. B. (2001). Effects of poverty and maternal depression
on early child development. Child Development, 72, 1794–1813. http://www.
jstor.org/stable/3654379f
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: a self-report depression scale for research in
the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/014662167700100306
Ramaswamy, V., Desarbo, W. S., Reibstein, D. J., & Robinson, W. T. (1993). An
empirical pooling approach for estimating marketing mix elasticities with
PIMS data. Marketing Science, 12, 103–124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.12.
1.103
Rank, M. R., & Hirschl, T. A. (1999). The likelihood of poverty across the American
adult life span. Social Work, 44, 201–216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sw/44.3.
201
Rhoades, B. L., Greenberg, M. T., Lanza, S. T., & Blair, C. (2011). Demographic and
familial predictors of early executive function development: contribution of a
person-centered perspective. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108,
638–662. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2010.08.004
Rothbart, M. K., & Ahadi, S. A. (1994). Temperament and the development of
personality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 55–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1037/0021-843X.103.1.55
Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., Hershey, K. L., & Fisher, P. (2001). Investigations of
temperament at three to seven years: The Children’s Behavior Questionnaire.
Child Development, 72, 1394–1408. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00355
Roy, A. L., & Raver, C. C. (2014). Are all risks equal? Early experiences of
poverty-related risk and children’s functioning. Journal of Family Psychology,
27, 391–400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036683
Sacks, V., Murphey, D., & Moore, K. (2014). Adverse child experiences: national and
state level prevalence (Research Brief). Retrieved from http://www.
childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Brief-adverse-childhood-
experiences FINAL.pdf.
Schleider, J., Chorpita, B., & Weisz, J. (2013). Relation between parent psychiatric
symptoms and youth problems: moderation through family structure and
youth gender. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 42, 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s10802-013-9780-6
Sektnan, M., McClelland, M. M., Acock, A., & Morrison, F. J. (2010). Relations
between early family risk, children’s behavioral regulation, and academic
achievement. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25, 464–479. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.02.005
Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: the science of
early childhood development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Shaw, D. S., Keenan, K., & Vondra, J. I. (1994). Developmental precursors of
externalizing behavior: ages 1 to 3. Developmental Psychology, 30, 355–364.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.30.3.355
Smith, J. D., Dishion, T. J., Shaw, D. S., Wilson, M. N., Winter, C. C., & Patterson, G. R.
(2014). Coercive family process and early-onset conduct problems from age 2
to school entry. Development and Psychopathology, 26, 917–932.
StataCorp. (2013). Stata Statistical Software: Release 13. College Station, TX:
StataCorp LP.
Stright, A. D., Gallagher, K. C., & Kelley, K. (2008). Infant temperament moderates
relations between maternal parenting in early childhood and children’s
adjustment in first grade. Child Development, 79, 186–200.
Swanson, J., Valiente, C., & Lemery-Chalfant, K. (2012). Predicting academic
achievement from cumulative home risk: the mediating roles of effortful
control, academic relationships, and school avoidance. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 58, 375–408. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00640.x
474 M.E. Pratt et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 36 (2016) 462–474
Thomson, E., Hanson, T. L., & McLanahan, S. S. (1994). Family structure and child
well-being: economic resources vs. parental behaviors. Social Forces, 73,
221–242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sf/73.1.221
US Census Bureau (2004). Current populations survey. Annual Demographic
Survey: March Supplement (Pov2).
US Department of Health and Human Services (2010). Project LAUNCH: Promoting
wellness in early childhood. Retrieved from http://www.samhsa.gov/
samhsanewsletter/Volume 18 Number 3/PromotingWellness.aspx.
US Department of Health and Human Services (2011). State issues and innovations
in creating integrated early learning and development systems: a follow-up to
early childhood 2010: innovations for the next generation. Retrieved from
http://store.samhsa.gov/product/State-Issues-and-Innovations-in-Creating-
Integrated-Early-Learning-and-Development-Systems/SMA11-4661.
Weiss, B., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1992). Some consequences of early
harsh discipline: child aggression and a maladaptive social information
processing style. Child Development, 63, 1321–1335.
Wight, V. R., Chau, M., & Aratani, Y. (2011). Who are America’s Poor Children? The
Official Story. National Center for Children in Poverty, Columbia University
Mailman School of Public Health. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10022/
AC:P:10741.
Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1989). Woodcock–Johnson tests of achievement.
DLM Teaching Resources.
Ziol-Guest, K. M., & McKenna, C. C. (2014). Early childhood housing instability and
school readiness. Child Development, 85, 103–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
cdev.12105