790854

research-article2018
EER0010.1177/1474904118790854European Educational Research JournalKluczniok and Mudiappa

General submission

European Educational Research Journal

Relations between socio-economic

2019, Vol. 18(1) 85­–104
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
risk factors, home learning sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1474904118790854
https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904118790854
environment and children’s journals.sagepub.com/home/eer

language competencies: Findings

from a German study

Katharina Kluczniok
University of Bamberg, Institute of Education, Germany

Michael Mudiappa
Leibniz Institute for Educational Trajectories, Germany

Abstract
This paper focuses on the influence of socio-economic risk factors and different aspects of the
home learning environment in early childhood on children’s language competencies (vocabulary
and grammar skills). The assumption is that children with more risk factors have lower
competencies, but the home learning environment (measured by everyday activities at home
and cultural activities) acts as a protective factor against risk. The data (n = 2406 children) are a
sample of the German National Educational Panel Study (NEPS), which collects longitudinal data
on a sample of four-year-old children starting in preschool. The regression models show higher
levels of vocabulary and grammar skills for children with fewer socio-economic risk factors.
This influence persists even after adding both indicators of the home learning environment.
However, there is an additional small effect of the home learning environment on children’s
language competencies. Practical and policy implications of the study are discussed, especially
against the background of the reduction of social disparities in Germany.

Keywords
Cultural capital, cumulative risk, early childhood, grammar skills, home learning environment,
vocabulary

Corresponding author:
Katharina Kluczniok, University of Bamberg, Institute of Education, Markusstrasse 8a, Bamberg, 96047, Germany.
Email: katharina.kluczniok@uni-bamberg.de
86 European Educational Research Journal 18(1)

Introduction
Various studies have highlighted the social disparities in children’s competencies in western coun-
tries (Becker, 2004; OECD, 2014), and, from early childhood on, children already differ in their
language, mathematical and basic academic skills (Aunio et al., 2015; Biedinger, 2011; Weinert
et al., 2010) – this is especially true for Germany. Different explanations for those findings can be
found, including socio-economic risk factors (e.g. poverty, migration background), that might
influence children’s competencies (Laucht et al., 2000; Miller et al., 2016; Mistry et al., 2010;
Sammons et al., 2008). During early childhood the relationships between socio-economic risk fac-
tors and children’s reading and mathematics achievement are more pronounced (Duncan et al.,
1998). Current research discusses cumulative risk models, first proposed by Rutter (1987), that
take into account the high likelihood of co-occurrence of risk factors for children’s development
such as poverty, low parental education and unemployment (Burchinal et al., 2000; Dearing et al.,
2009; Rathbun and West, 2004). Moreover, studies in line with the bioecological theory by
Bronfenbrenner and Morris (2006) mention the proximal processes of the home learning environ-
ment (e.g. low cognitively stimulating parenting such as rare joint book reading or rare board game
play, low maternal sensitivity, for example no prompt responses to children’s needs, or rare physi-
cal affection) as a reason for the relationships between social disparities and children’s competen-
cies (Anders et al., 2013; Ebert et al., 2013; Lehrl et al., 2012; NICHD ECCRN, 2003). Other
research according to Bourdieu (1983, 1984) focuses more on cultural practice within the families
(e.g. visits to the theatre, cultural materials such as literature, artwork, poetry) as reasons for differ-
ences in children’s competencies (Dumais and Ward, 2010; Schlee et al., 2009). So far, the relation-
ships between risk factors and children’s competencies have been addressed from different
perspectives or disciplines. A combined approach integrating these different perspectives is still
lacking. Thus, Hasselhorn et al. (2015) advocate for more transdisciplinary discussions on issues
surrounding children at risk of poor educational outcomes in western European societies (in par-
ticular, in Germany). They provide a theoretical framework including individual (e.g. language
skills, genetic makeup such as gender), contextual factors (e.g. home learning environment, famil-
ial activities, preschool quality) and societal circumstances as well as political context (e.g. educa-
tional system, beliefs) to disentangle important mechanisms that are related to poor educational
outcomes. We follow this framework because it adequately frames the current German discussion
concerning the relationships between socio-economic risk factors, home learning environment and
children’s competencies.
Empirical evidence regarding the relationships between early socio-economic risk factors,
aspects of the home learning environment and children’s competencies is, however, limited. For
pedagogues and policy makers it is of special interest to know which aspects of early childhood
might boost or dampen children’s competencies, particularly with regard to language skills.
Language skills, as coding and communication systems, are needed to support children’s acquisi-
tion of knowledge in various other domains (Weinert, 2006). Thus, social disparities in later school
achievement have – at least partially – been attributed to differences in (German) language skills
(Stanat, 2006). Consequently, the purpose of the present study is to investigate the influences of
early socio-economic risk factors and different aspects of the home learning environment in early
childhood on children’s vocabulary and grammar competencies (as the key components of lan-
guage acquisition) at preschool. The data are a sample of the National Educational Panel Study
(NEPS; for an overview, see Strietholt et al., 2013) in Germany that focuses on the development of
children starting in preschool.
The current paper is structured as follows: the next section introduces the current state of
research concerning the relationships between socio-economic risk factors, different aspects of the
Kluczniok and Mudiappa 87

home learning environment, and children’s language skills. Following this, the research questions,
methods and results of the current study are presented. Finally, the findings are discussed.

Current state of research

There are various explanations for the differences in child outcomes, some of which are high-
lighted in the following sections.

Relationships between socio-economic risk factors and language skills

Risk factors are often defined as biological and environmental conditions that increase the likeli-
hood of negative outcomes (Klebanov and Brooks-Gunn, 2006). Typical socio-economic risk fac-
tors are, for example, low income, low socio-economic status (SES), low educational level and no
occupation; each factor correlates with children’s language competencies (e.g. Burchinal et al.,
2000; Niklas et al., 2017; Rathbun et al., 2005). Large longitudinal studies combine multiple
dichotomous risk factors with each other and analyze the influence of this cumulative risk index on
language skills, including the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K)
study (e.g. Rathbun and West, 2004; Rathbun et al., 2005), the National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development (NICHD) Study of Early Child Care (e.g. Dearing et al., 2009), the
National Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project (e.g. Mistry et al., 2010) as well as
further research (e.g. Burchinal et al., 2006; Cadima et al., 2010; Niklas et al., 2017; Oliver et al.,
2014; Rouse and Fantuzzo, 2009). The main result of this research is that multiple disadvantaged
children had poorer language outcomes than other non- or less-disadvantaged children (for an
overview, see Evans et al., 2013). However, the diversity among risk factors (e.g. number of
included risk factors, measures) makes it difficult to compare results across studies.

Relationships between home learning environment and language skills

The home learning environment represents the amount and variability of stimulation that a child
receives, including the availability of educational resources such as books at home, and the nature
of everyday activities such as reading to the child, using complex language, playing with numbers
and counting (e.g. Hart and Risley, 1995; Melhuish et al., 2008). The general assumption is that the
home learning environment directly influences children’s competencies. There are many studies
using different measures of the home learning environment and assessing its effects on language
skills during the preschool phase (Boyce et al., 2013; Ebert et al., 2013; Lehrl et al., 2012; Melhuish
et al., 2008; Niklas and Schneider, 2017; for an overview, see Kluczniok et al., 2013). For instance,
findings of the German longitudinal study BiKS (Educational Processes, Competence Development
and Selection Decisions at Preschool and School Age) indicate that the home learning environment
(measured as home literacy, e.g. frequency of shared book reading, number of children’s books) is
positively associated with children’s vocabulary at age three (Ebert et al., 2013) as well as to other
emerging literacy skills at the end of preschool (e.g. grammar, knowledge of letters; Lehrl et al.,
2012). Moreover, Melhuish et al. (2008), drawing on data of the Effective Provision of Preschool
Education Project (EPPE) from the UK, show the importance of the home learning environment
(measured by frequency of everyday activities, e.g. playing with letters/numbers) for literacy
achievement at age five. In this context, it is important to emphasize that the influence of the home
learning environment was over and above that of the standard proxy measures of parental educa-
tion and SES (also defined as risk factors). Sylva et al. (2004) summarize this EPPE finding as
follows: there is a difference between ‘what people are and what people do’ (Sylva et al., 2004:
88 European Educational Research Journal 18(1)

164), indicating that proximal processes are more important than distal factors for child outcomes.
Niklas and Schneider (2017) found long-term effects of the early home learning environment
(measured by 11 items, e.g. number of books in the household, visits to libraries, playing dice
games) on children’s competence development at the end of elementary school in a German study
called ‘School-ready Child‘. In sum, these studies all conclude that the home learning environment
matters for preschool-aged children.
Furthermore, another aspect of the home learning environment can be differentiated – the cul-
tural activities in families (e.g. visits to the theatre, museums, opera or cultural courses). Cultural
activities are a part of Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1983, 1984). Cultural capi-
tal is an explanation of the reproduction of social inequalities in western European societies. The
transmission of cultural capital in families and schools is a central mechanism of this reproduction.
The educational system reflects the predominant culture and the corresponding cultural capital of
parents with high status. Intermediate family behavior is in line with institutional expectations
(Jungbauer-Gans, 2004). In addition, teachers’ expectations of the pupils are shaped by their own
social status. As a consequence, children achieve better performance ratings than children of fami-
lies with lower cultural capital (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1990). The theory of cultural capital is
tested in different studies (Prieur et al., 2008; Rössel and Beckert-Zieglschmid, 2002; Xu and
Hampden-Thompson, 2012). The results show that cultural capital in western European societies
is an important factor for status preservation, academic achievement and school career. Since the
1950s and 1960s there has been a change in the German educational system: school achievement
became more important for higher education than the status of the families. To offset the decline of
status, investments in the cultural capital of children increased. Parents invest early in their chil-
dren’s skills in order to improve their later educational success (Becker, 2010; Mudiappa and
Kluczniok, 2015). Thus, cultural activities can be seen as a special indicator of the home learning
environment because they are different from the everyday activities of the family (e.g. role playing,
picture book reading), take place outside the families, and require financial and time resources.
Moreover, such activities are an expression of specific lifestyle as well as cultural taste and prac-
tice, and are an investment in the cultural capital of the children (Kraaykamp and Nieuwbeerta,
2000; Pellerin and Stearns, 2001).
Empirical references to the effects of cultural activities on children’s language competencies in
the early years are very rare. Thus, we also refer to studies focusing on other child outcomes (e.g.
mathematics, general cognitive skills) and children at elementary school age to underline the
importance of cultural capital for educational success. Based on a German and Turkish sample with
preschool-aged children, Becker (2011) reported that activities (measured as an additive index of
eight items, e.g. visiting a library or museum with the child) have a significant positive relationship
with children’s cognitive skills and children’s vocabulary, controlling for child background factors
(e.g. education, income, gender). Drawing on the same sample, Klein and Becker (2017) found no
significant influence of the parental cultural activities (e.g. visiting the museum) on vocabulary, but
a significant positive relationship between parent–child activities (e.g. telling stories or playing
board and card games) and children’s vocabulary. More empirical references are reported for chil-
dren at elementary school age. Dumais (2006) analyzed the data from the ECLS-K from the USA
concerning first- to third-graders’ participation in cultural and leisure activities (e.g. dancing or
drawing lessons) and their impact on school performance (reading performance and teachers’
assessments of linguistic abilities). She found significant positive effects between reading develop-
ment between first and third grade and the number of children’s activities. Dumais concluded that
cultural and leisure activities are significant for school performance and that disadvantaged chil-
dren especially benefit from such activities. Mühler and Spiess (2008) reported similar results for
preschoolers in Germany. They found a positive connection between informal early education
Kluczniok and Mudiappa 89

activities (e.g. music and painting lessons) and adaptive behavior (everyday skills); a positive link
to language, motoric and social skills was not found. Schlee et al. (2009) examined the influence
of cultural resourcing and social capital on school performance in reading at the elementary school
by using the ECLS-K data. Better performance in reading is affected by reading to children, in
particular reading daily and visiting libraries. Chiu et al. (2015) analyzed the effects of cultural
capital in the family (e.g. cultural activities, audiovisual technologies) and reading motivation on
reading behavior in elementary school. The results showed no significant direct effect of family
cultural capital on reading behavior. However, family cultural capital had a significant indirect
effect on reading behavior through reading motivation. The authors concluded that if children lack
reading motivation, they do not develop good reading behaviors, even when cultural capital in the
family is available. Kloosterman et al. (2010) used panel data from a Dutch educational survey.
The authors analyzed the effects of parental reading practice (e.g. frequency of reading a newspa-
per, reading aloud to the child) and school involvement (e.g. education-related activities such as
attending parents’ evening) on children’s academic performance (language and arithmetic) during
primary school. They found that parental reading practice and involvement impacted children’s
language performance, while the arithmetic competence is only influenced by the parental
involvement.
In summary, there is a lack of studies in early childhood assessing the relationship between
cultural activities and children’s language competencies. Therefore, the present study tries to fill
this research gap and to generate new knowledge.

Research questions
There is little empirical evidence concerning the interplay between socio-economic risk factors,
home learning environment and children’s competencies. Consequently, the present study exam-
ines the relationships between early socio-economic risk experiences, aspects of the home learning
environment (everyday activities at home, cultural activities) and children’s competencies in
vocabulary and grammar at preschool in Germany, testing if the influences of the home learning
environment exist after controlling for risk experiences. In particular, we analyze the additional
impact of the home learning environment on vocabulary and grammar skills. The question is
whether both aspects of the home learning environment act as protective factors against socio-
economic risk.

Method
Sample
This paper uses data from the NEPS Starting Cohort Kindergarten (Blossfeld et al., 2011). From 2008
to 2013, NEPS data were collected as part of the Framework Program for the Promotion of Empirical
Educational Research funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. As of
2014, NEPS is carried out by the Leibniz Institute for Educational Trajectories at the University of
Bamberg in cooperation with a nationwide network. The Starting Cohort Kindergarten collects lon-
gitudinal data on a starting sample of four-year-old children and their parents in preschool (wave 1:
2010/2011) over the preschool and elementary school phase.
A two-stage sample design was employed to select a nationally representative sample of children
attending German preschools in 2011. The primary sampling unit was a random sample of German
elementary schools. Then, a sample of preschools related to the selected participating schools was
drawn. Out of these preschools, the participating preschools were determined by random sampling.
90 European Educational Research Journal 18(1)

Questionnaires and tests are conducted in these preschools. All four-year-old children from the
selected preschools were invited to participate. This two-stage method ensures that a high number
of four-year-olds in preschool will also be included in the sample of first graders.
In the present study, the sample size at wave 1 was 2406 preschool-aged children with valid data
for vocabulary and grammar skills.

Measures
All measures used in the analyses are described in the following sections. Additionally, Table 1
provides the summary descriptive information for all variables used.

Outcome measures
Receptive vocabulary.  Receptive vocabulary is one of the best indicators of language competencies
(Weinert, 2010). The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) is an international, widely used
instrument for measuring receptive vocabulary over a wide age spectrum, and is also easy to carry
out and evaluate. The PPVT displays an adequate convergent validity indicating high correlations
with other language subtasks (e.g. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children or the Oral and Written
Language Scales). In NEPS, an adapted German version of the PPVT (Dunn and Dunn, 1981) is
used. The adapted version for NEPS is based on the data of the European Child Care and Education
Study (ECCE) and BiKS Study (ECCE Study Group, 1997; Rossbach et al., 2005). In this indi-
vidual test at preschool, the child is presented by a well-trained test administrator with one lexical
item at a time in German, and his or her task is to select the picture out of four pictures that the
word refers to (77 items in total; Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.86). Items were presented in order of
increasing difficulty. In order to avoid overstraining of the children in case of poor performance,
the test is stopped after six consecutive wrong answers. Each correct response was scored as one
point. For the analyses, we used the outcome measure at wave 1 (preschool) as the dependent
variable.

Receptive grammar.  Together with vocabulary knowledge, grammatical skills are a good predictor
of measures of reading comprehension later in elementary school (Ebert and Weinert, 2013). The
TROG-D (Fox, 2006) is the German version of the Test for Reception of Grammar (TROG; Bishop,
1989). In this test, the child has to listen to a German sentence (using a CD player and headsets)
and must choose the picture that fits that sentence (generally out of four options). The grammatical
structure of the sentences varies systematically while the words used in the sentences – that is, the
vocabulary – are held rather constant and easy. The TROG is an economical and suitable approach
for assessing the listening comprehension of grammatical structures in large-scale studies such as
the NEPS (Lorenz et al., 2017). The preschool version comprises 48 items (Cronbach’s Alpha =
0.74). Children were tested individually by a well-trained test administrator. Items were presented
in order of increasing difficulty. In order to avoid overstraining of the children in case of poor per-
formance, the test is stopped after five consecutive sets have been classified as wrong. For the
analyses, the correct answers of each child were added up, resulting in a sum score between 0 and
48 for wave 1 as the dependent variable.

Predictors
Socio-economic risk factors.  Six indicators are included representing socio-economic risk condi-
tions. The items are selected on a theoretical basis and based on prior research (Burchinal et al.,
2000; Hanson et al., 2011; Laucht et al., 2000; McCartney et al., 2007; Mistry et al., 2010; Sameroff
Table 1.  Descriptive statistics.

N M SD Min. Max.
Receptive vocabulary (PPVT) 2406 48.19 13.92 0 73
Kluczniok and Mudiappa

Receptive grammar skills (TROG-D) 2406 31.73 7.17 2 47

Risk index (0–6) 2265 0.62 0.94 0 5
Mother’s school education 1982 0.16 0.37 0 1
(no school-leaving qualification/low school education)
Father’s school education 1700 0.23 0.42 0 1
(no school-leaving qualification/low school education)
Mother’s vocational education 2144 0.15 0.36 0 1
(no vocational education)
Father’s vocational education 1724 0.05 0.21 0 1
(no vocational education)
Father’s employment 1859 0.09 0.29 0 1
(unemployed/not working)
Income 1953 0.06 0.23 0 1
(< 1.160 Euro)
Home learning environment: child’s everyday activities (1 = never, 8 = several times daily) 2268 6.24 0.80 2.5 8.0
Home learning environment: high cultural activities (3–15) 2267 5.39 2.41 3 15
Age of child at study entry (in months) 2406 59.92 4.25 48.00 73.00
Sex of child (female) 2406 0.50 0.50 0 1
Linguistic background (German as additional language, not mother tongue) 2265 0.23 0.42 0 1
Child care experiences (in months) 2238 29.40 11.73 1.00 69.00
Settlement area (country) 2406 0.07 0.26 0 1

M: mean; SD: standard deviation; PPVT: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test; TROG-D: German version of the Test for Reception of Grammar.
91
92 European Educational Research Journal 18(1)

et al., 1987, 1993; Sammons et al., 2008). They relate to factors concerning the SES experienced
by children during early childhood. Furthermore, given the co-occurrence of risk factors, this
cumulative risk approach adequately treats the problem of multicollinearity in multivariate regres-
sion analyses to assess risk–child outcome relations (Mistry et al., 2010). All items are measured
through the parent interview or questionnaire at the beginning of the study (wave 1). The risk index
was computed as a count risk score assessing the number of socio-economic risk factors reflecting
children’s risk experiences, because it is the accumulation of these risk factors that has been found
to be most associated with children’s outcomes (Rutter, 1987). Like other structural aspects of the
family, the risk factors often covary and interrelate and are usually represented by a cumulative
risk index reflecting the risk exposure (Rathbun et al., 2005). For each indicator, families received
a score of one if they met or exceeded the risk threshold described for each indicator and a score
of zero if they fell below it. The total risk score ranges from zero to six and indicates the extent of
early socio-economic risks in the families. The following items were used.

•• Mother’s school education: no school-leaving qualification/low school education (‘second-

ary modern school qualification’) = 1; middle/high school education (‘secondary school
certificate’/’higher education entrance qualification’) = 0.
•• Father’s school education: no school-leaving qualification/low school education (‘second-
ary modern school qualification’) = 1; middle/high school education (‘secondary school
certificate’/‘higher education entrance qualification’) = 0.
•• Mother’s vocational education: no vocational education = 1; completed vocational educa-
tion = 0.
•• Father’s vocational education: no vocational education = 1; completed vocational education
= 0.
•• Father’s employment: unemployed/not working = 1; employed/working = 0.1
•• Income: < 1.160 Euro = 1; > 1.160 Euro = 0.2

For the analyses, we used the risk index measured at wave 1 as an independent variable.

Home learning environment: everyday activities at home.  The scale contains 10 items representing
the frequency of a plethora of the child’s everyday activities at home (e.g. role-play, making music,
picture books). These items have been used successfully in previous studies (Linberg, 2016; Mel-
huish et al., 2008). The parents were asked how often the child is engaged in these activities. The
scale ranges from 1 (never) to 8 (several times daily). Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.68. For the analyses,
we used the scale measured at wave 1 as the independent variable.

Home learning environment: cultural activities.  To measure the cultural activities of the families we
developed a scale representing family’s participation in different activities including three items
(visiting a museum or an art exhibition; visiting an opera, a ballet or a classical concert; visiting the
theatre). These items have been used successfully in other studies before (Becker, 2011; Mudiappa
and Kluczniok, 2015). The parents were asked how often they participated in these activities in the
past 12 months (1 = never, 5 = more than 5 times). Based on these three items an additive scale was
built. For the analyses, we used the scale measured at wave 1 as the independent variable.

Control variables.  Some variables influence child outcomes. Based on the literature (Hartas,
2011) and after careful preliminary analyses, we selected the following set of variables as predic-
tors (covariates) with potential influence on children’s competencies: age of the child at entry to the
study (in months), the child’s gender (0 = male, 1 = female), linguistic background (measured by
Kluczniok and Mudiappa 93

the mother tongue: 0 = German as mother tongue, 1 = German as additional language),3 children’s
experiences in child care (duration in months) at wave 1 as well as an indicator for the settlement
area of the family (0 = town, 1 = country) to control for regional effects.

Data analysis
In the first step of the analytic process, descriptive data for all considered variables were com-
pared to get an impression of the sample’s composition. Next, bivariate Pearson correlations
were conducted to show the intercorrelations of the variables used. Third, stepwise regression
analyses using AMOS were chosen to examine the relation of early socio-economic risk experi-
ence and both aspects of the home learning environment on children’s vocabulary and grammar
skills. The stepwise procedure used to test our hypotheses involved five steps: first, a null
model (model 1) was specified, considering child’s age at assessment at wave 1, child’s gender,
child’s linguistic background, child’s experience in child care and settlement area as predictors
of vocabulary and grammar skills. Next (model 2) we tested the influence of children’s early
socio-economic risk experience on predicting vocabulary and grammar skills, controlling for
age, gender, linguistic background, child care experiences and settlement area. In models 3 and
4 the additional influence of both aspects of the home learning environment were analyzed,
controlling for child background factors. Thus, we can test whether there is an additional effect
of the home learning environment on vocabulary and grammar skills beyond the potential influ-
ence of risk experience. The overall model (model 5) includes both of the home learning envi-
ronment indicators simultaneously. All continuous variables were z-standardized before being
included in the multivariate analyses.
In social science research, missing values are a particular challenge. For the multivariate analy-
ses, the multiple imputation of missing values is proposed (Rubin, 1987; Schafer, 1997), which is
sufficiently demonstrated. Thus, multiple imputation procedures provide more valid results than
analysis with non-imputed data, which are highly distorted (Allison, 2001; Rubin, 1996). In our
study, missing data ranged from 0% to 7% for the analyses of variables (see Table 1). To deal with
missing data in our analyses, we chose the full information maximum likelihood approach
(Arbuckle, 1996) that is implemented in AMOS and uses valid information of all observations for
model estimation. Model fit was evaluated by the amount of explained variance.

Results
Descriptive findings
Table 1 presents the descriptive information for the sample. The sample consists of 50% girls. The
children at the beginning of the study are, on average, five years old; 23% of the children have
another linguistic background than German. The children have, on average, 29 months of experi-
ence in early child care, with a wide range. Only 7% of the sample lives in rural areas.
Children show a mean (M) of 48.19 (standard deviation (SD) = 13.92) in vocabulary and a mean
of 31.73 (SD = 7.17) for grammar skills. With regard to the socio-economic risk index, the total
score at wave 1 is, on average, M = 0.62 (SD = 0.94; possible range: 0–6). The risk index displays
sufficient variance, as can be seen from the minimum and maximum (min. = 0, max. = 5), indicat-
ing a broad variety of risk exposure in the families. More than one third of the children (38.1%)
have at least one risk factor present (not tabled).
Children do everyday activities such as puzzles, role play, picture books or singing several times
a week (M = 6.24, SD = 0.80). The scale ‘cultural activities’ displays a mean of 5.39 (SD = 2.41),
94 European Educational Research Journal 18(1)

indicating that the families have done one of the three cultural activities more than five times in the
past 12 months.
Moreover, it can be seen that the sample is well distributed. For example, the sample consists of
children with high-risk experiences and lots of everyday activities at home or cultural activities in
the family and vice versa (cross-tables not displayed).

Bivariate correlations
Table 2 presents the bivariate Pearson correlations of children’s vocabulary, grammar skills, the
socio-economic risk index, both indicators of the home learning environment (everyday activities
at home, cultural activities) and the covariates. Both language outcomes highly correlate, indicat-
ing similar aspects of language competencies. The risk index negatively correlates with the quality
of the home learning environment (everyday activities at home, cultural activities) as well as with
the children’s language competencies. Consistent with our expectations, the more socio-economic
risk factors in early childhood there are, the worse the quality of the home learning environment
and the worse the language competencies are. Both scales measuring the quality of the home learn-
ing environment (everyday activities at home, cultural activities) display a low correlation, indicat-
ing different aspects of the home learning environment. Most of the covariates are related to
children’s vocabulary, grammar skills, socio-economic risk factors and both indicators of the home
learning environment.

Multivariate regression analyses

The main research question addressed the relationships between early socio-economic risk experi-
ences, different aspects of the home learning environment and children’s competencies in vocabu-
lary and grammar at preschool, testing if the influences of home learning environment exist after
controlling for risk experiences.
In Table 3 the unstandardized as well as standardized coefficients are displayed for the depend-
ent variable vocabulary. The results of model 1 show that child’s age, linguistic background and
child care experience are highly predictive for vocabulary. In model 1 and in all other models, older
children, children with German as mother tongue and children with more child care experience
display a larger vocabulary. In model 2 the risk factor is added and shows a significant effect: chil-
dren with higher risk exposure in early childhood display lower scores on the vocabulary test tak-
ing child background factors into account. In the subsequent models (3 and 4) the additional effects
of both aspects of the home learning environment are tested. Model 3 displays an additional posi-
tive (even if small) effect of the everyday activities. Children with more frequent everyday activi-
ties at home show a larger vocabulary, controlling for child background factors and risk exposure.
Model 4 shows an additional (even if small) influence of cultural activities taking child back-
ground factors and risk exposure into account. Children from families who participate in cultural
activities more often show better competencies in vocabulary. In the overall model (model 5) it can
be seen that the influence of cultural activities remains significant, whereas the influence of every-
day activities loses impact. The explained variance of the models ranges between 24% and 29%.
In Table 4 the unstandardized as well as standardized coefficients are displayed for the depend-
ent variable grammar skills reporting similar results to those for vocabulary. Solely, the child’s
gender also shows a significant positive influence on grammar skills in favor of girls. The explained
variance of the models ranges between 16% and 20%.
To sum up, both aspects of the home learning environment show additional (even if small) influ-
ences on vocabulary and grammar skills beyond the influence of risk experience and other child
Table 2.  Bivariate correlations.
Kluczniok and Mudiappa

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 Vocabulary –  
2 Grammar skills 0.71*** –  
3 Socio-economic risk index −0.37*** −0.32*** –  
4 HLE: child’s everyday activities 0.10*** 0.09*** −0.08*** –  
(1 = never, 8 = several times daily)
5 HLE: high cultural activities (3–15) 0.21*** 0.19*** −0.27*** 0.20*** –  
6 Age of child (in months) 0.21*** 0.21*** 0.05* −0.04 −0.03 –  
7 Child’s gender (0 = male, 1 = female) −0.01 0.03 0.04 0.11*** −0.00 −0.03 –  
8 Linguistic background −0.45*** −0.34*** 0.23*** −0.12*** −0.12*** 0.01 0.01 –  
(0 = German mother tongue, 1 = non-German)
9 Child care experiences (in months) 0.20*** 0.20*** −0.14*** −0.04 0.11*** 0.37*** −0.03 −0.11*** –
10 Settlement area (0 = town, 1 = country) 0.03 0.00 −0.01 0.03 −0.05* −0.01 −0.00 −0.06** −0.07**

HLE: home learning environment.

*p < 0.05.
**p < 0.01.
***p < 0.001.
95
 96

Table 3.  Results of regression analyses to predict vocabulary.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

  B/Beta SE (B) B/Beta SE (B) B/Beta SE (B) B/Beta SE (B) B/Beta SE (B)

Age of child (in months) 0.59/0.18*** 0.02 0.68/0.21*** 0.02 0.68/0.21*** 0.02 0.69/0.22*** 0.02 0.69/0.22*** 0.02
Child’s gender (0 = male, 0.08/0.00 0.02 0.35/0.01 0.02 0.22/0.01 0.02 0.33/0.01 0.02 0.25/0.01 0.02
1 = female)
Linguistic background −14.75/–0.45*** 0.02 −12.74/–0.39*** 0.02 −12.58/–0.39*** 0.02 −12.56/–0.39*** 0.02 −12.48/–0.39*** 0.02
(0 = German mother
tongue, 1 = non-German)
Child care experiences (in 0.10/0.09*** 0.02 0.05/0.04* 0.02 0.05/0.05* 0.02 0.04/0.04* 0.02 0.04/0.04* 0.02
months)
Settlement area (0 = town, 0.30/0.01 0.02 0.21/0.00 0.02 0.17/0.00 0.02 0.48/0.01 0.02 0.44/0.01 0.02
1 = country)
Socio-economic risk index – – −4.22/–0.29*** 0.02 −4.17/–0.29*** 0.02 −3.87/–0.27*** 0.02 −3.86/–0.27*** 0.02
HLE: everyday activities – – – – 0.74/0.04* 0.02 – – 0.45/0.03 0.02
at home
HLE: cultural activities – – – – – – 0.56/0.10*** 0.02 0.53/0.10*** 0.02
R2 0.24 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.28

HLE: home learning environment; Beta: standardized coefficients; B: unstandardized coefficients; SE: standard error.
*p < 0.05.
***p < 0.001.
European Educational Research Journal 18(1)
 Kluczniok and Mudiappa

Table 4.  Results of regression analyses to predict grammar.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

  B/Beta SE (B) B/Beta SE (B) B/Beta SE (B) B/Beta SE (B) B/Beta SE (B)

Age of child (in months) 0.29/0.18*** 0.02 0.34/0.20*** 0.02 0.34/0.20*** 0.02 0.34/0.21*** 0.02 0.34/0.21*** 0.02
Child’s gender (0 = male, 1 = female) 0.58/0.04* 0.02 0.71/0.05** 0.02 0.65/0.05* 0.02 0.70/0.05** 0.02 0.66/0.05* 0.02
Linguistic background (0 = German −5.74/–0.34*** 0.02 −4.77/–0.28*** 0.02 −4.70/–0.28*** 0.02 −4.69/–0.28*** 0.02 −4.65/–0.28*** 0.02
mother tongue, 1 = non-German)
Child care experiences (in months) 0.06/0.10*** 0.02 0.03/0.06** 0.02 0.04/0.06** 0.02 0.03/0.05* 0.02 0.03/0.05** 0.02
Settlement area (0 = town, 1 = country) −0.34/–0.01 0.02 −0.38/–0.01 0.02 −0.39/–0.02 0.02 −0.25/–0.01 0.02 −0.26/–0.01 0.02
Socio-economic risk index – – −2.00/–0.27*** 0.02 −1.98/–0.27*** 0.02 −1.83/–0.25*** 0.02 −1.83/–0.25*** 0.02
HLE: everyday activities at home – – – – 0.34/0.04* 0.02 – – 0.20/0.02 0.02
HLE: cultural activities – – – – – – 0.27/0.09*** 0.02 0.25/0.09*** 0.02
R2 0.16 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20

HLE: home learning environment. Beta: standardized coefficients; B: unstandardized coefficients; SE: standard errora.
*p < 0.05.
**p < 0.01.
***p < 0.001.
97
98 European Educational Research Journal 18(1)

background factors. Analyzing both aspects of the home learning environment simultaneously,
only the influence of cultural activities remains significant, indicating a higher importance of cul-
tural practice on children’s language skills compared to everyday activities.

Discussion
The present study examines the relationships between early risk experiences, different aspects of
the home learning environment and children’s competencies in vocabulary and grammar at pre-
school in Germany, testing if the influences of both aspects of home learning environment (eve-
ryday activities at home, cultural activities) exist after controlling for risk experiences. In
particular, we were interested in the additional effect of the home learning environment on chil-
dren’s language skills. The results show a larger vocabulary and better grammar skills for children
with fewer socio-economic risk factors. This result is in line with the findings of other studies
analyzing the effects of cumulative risk factors on children’s language skills (Burchinal et al.,
2006; Dearing et al., 2009; Mistry et al., 2010; Rathbun et al., 2005). Moreover, the present study
shows that this influence persists even after indicators for the home learning environment were
taken into account. This indicates a strong impact of early risk experiences on receptive vocabu-
lary and grammar skills. However, we found an additional (even if only small) effect of both
aspects of the home learning environment on children’s language competencies, indicating that
children from families with stimulating everyday activities as well as rich cultural opportunities
display slightly better language competencies. Given such small effect sizes, it should also be
noted that we controlled for risk experiences and other child background factors. Thus, the pre-
sent study can be linked to previous research that highlights the importance of a stimulating home
learning environment on children’s language competencies at preschool (Boyce et al., 2013;
Burchinal et al., 2006; Ebert et al., 2013; Lehrl et al., 2012; Melhuish et al., 2008). Additionally,
our study helps to fill the previously mentioned research gap concerning the importance of cul-
tural capital in early childhood on children’s language skills at preschool. In particular, previous
research is limited to older children (e.g. elementary school, secondary school; Baumert et al.,
2003; Szczesny and Watermann, 2011). Thus, the present study highlights that investments in
cultural capital should start in early childhood by carrying out cultural activities in order to build
a ‘cultural basis’ (Georg, 2004). Our results show that this cultural basis positively influences
children’s language competencies. It can be assumed that a frequent engagement with cultural
activities (e.g. visiting museums) promotes sensomotor, affective and cognitive abilities (Fuchs,
2005). This process can be seen as an active transmission of cultural capital from parents to their
children. Therefore, children from families with high cultural capital show better competencies
than children from families with lower cultural capital.
Altogether, our findings indicate that the home learning environment sets an important (even if
small) starting point for child development by influencing the language skills of preschool-aged
children.
In sum, we find social disparities in early childhood represented by risk exposure and both
aspects of the home learning environment, which influence children’s language skills. Children
with more socio-economic risk experiences and low-stimulating home learning environments in
early childhood display a smaller vocabulary and worse grammar skills. Moreover, our results
provide an initial indication of the theoretical framework by Hasselhorn et al. (2015) which high-
lights the contextual factors (e.g. familial activities) that are related to poor educational outcomes.
Hence, our results also point out that more interdisciplinary studies in early childhood are neces-
sary for analyzing the relationship of risk factors and educational outcomes, and to get more
information on the impacts of different risk conditions in early childhood. In this regard,
Kluczniok and Mudiappa 99

differential effects should also be analyzed to find out whether specific groups of children (e.g.
low or high home learning environment) are more or less impacted by risk factors in their lan-
guage development.
In order to reduce social disparities, two points for policy and practice seem to be meaningful:
first, parents should be reminded that the ways that they interact with their children are important
for child development. In this context, the quality of the home learning environment and participa-
tion in cultural activities in early childhood are important issues in family education programs. For
policy, it seems to be important to make such offers low-threshold and easily accessible, in order
to reach as many families as possible, in particular families with children at risk. Moreover, local
partnerships (e.g. between preschools, elementary schools, libraries) might be an excellent oppor-
tunity to provide low-threshold access to familial and cultural activities. Although preschool is not
mandatory in Germany, nearly all children in Germany attend a preschool in the year before school
enrolment. At the age of three only 89% of children in this age group attend a preschool
(Autorengruppe Bildungsberichtersttatung, 2018). When focusing on children at risk (with
German as a second language and low SES) it can be even 10% lower (Autorengruppe
Bildungsberichterstattung, 2014). Preschool, therefore, seems to be a great opportunity for chil-
dren and their parents to come in contact with cultural education at an early age (e.g. joint visit to
a museum), especially for children at risk. Second, it seems necessary that parental investments
start early in childhood. The participation of cultural practice forms attitudes, knowledge and
behavior (e.g. abilities of social communication) and will give children an edge in school perfor-
mance (Mudiappa, 2014). Thus, a strong foundation for children’s further educational careers
could be provided and social disparities will be weakened.
Although the present study has a number of important findings, there are also limitations. First,
all analyses were cross-sectional and tests of association, not causation. This does not allow us to
make causal inferences. Second, we used a cumulative risk index (e.g. Rutter et al., 1997) which
enables the simultaneous consideration of multiple socio-economic risk factors within a single
variable. The motivation for this approach was that children experience different risk factors as
whole risk in their early lives, which influences their development. So, a simultaneous considera-
tion of multiple risk factors within a single variable seems to be more appropriate. Moreover, the
cumulative risk index avoids the problem of multicollinearity of the risk factors (Mistry et al.,
2010). However, the unique effects of each risk factor could not be analyzed. Third, a change of
cultural activities in western European societies should be considered. Thus, new forms of activi-
ties or technical innovations (e.g. e-books) should be discussed concerning the measurement.
Furthermore, general statements of the influence of cultural capital are limited. As Kingston (2001)
argued, the influence of cultural capital on school success depends on the current context of socie-
ties. For example, the necessity of cultural habits in school varies between the USA and Germany.
In Germany, these habits are a part of high school education and schools spend a lot of time facili-
tating these experiences. Moreover, the impact of cultural capital in school is not clear. Natriello
and Dornbusch (1983) reported that students with good (cultural) behavior in the classroom (e.g.
good manners) impact teachers’ perception of the students’ performance (see also Borg, 2015).
This raises the question of whether a student’s cultural capital impacts the judgement of or is a
cognitive bias of the teacher. In addition, everyday communication practice should also be taken
into account. The results of Baumert et al. (2003) showed that stimulating (cultural) communica-
tion between parents and their adolescent children (e. g. discussion about current political topics,
news and cultural events) impacts children’s competencies. For preschool-aged children it might
be assumed that growing up in a highly stimulating learning environment at home with many com-
municative activities might influence the early competence development. And, last but not least,
our analyses are limited to the German context and the outcome variables represent a limited
100 European Educational Research Journal 18(1)

measure of the German language skills of preschool-aged children. Both indicators focus only on
receptive vocabulary and receptive grammar as two important parts of language skills. Consequently,
our results cannot be transferred to language competencies in a comprehensive sense or other
developmental domains. Although there were good reasons for using the German versions of the
PPVT and TROG-D, another limitation needs to be discussed. The total scores of both instruments
substantially correlate with linguistic background, indicating lower language skills for children
with German as an additional language. This finding corresponds with the results of other (German)
studies, showing that receptive vocabulary and grammar skills are highly sensitive to indicators of
social background (e.g. Becker, 2010; Ebert et al., 2013).
Future research should analyze the long-term associations of early risk factors and child devel-
opment during elementary and secondary school. Furthermore, other learning environments of
children (e.g. instructional quality in elementary school) should be included as mediators for the
relationship between socio-economic risk factors and child development. Finally, further develop-
mental domains (e.g. math, socio-emotional skills) should be considered to generate more compre-
hensive knowledge in this field.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes
1. Mother’s employment could not be included in the analyses due to low variance in the data. In Germany,
most mothers are on parental leave for the first years of a child’s life. Thus, the unemployment of moth-
ers in these first years is not regarded as a risk.
2. The threshold of 1160 Euros corresponds to the federal definition of relative poverty, which is 60% of
the median of income in the sample.
3. We also tested the influence of migration background measured by country of birth on children’s vocabu-
lary and grammar skills. The results are very similar. The linguistic background measured by mother
tongue would be better suited for our research question. Thus, we decided to include this indicator in our
models.

References
Allison PD (2001) Missing Data. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Anders Y, Grosse C, Rossbach HG, et al. (2013) Preschool and primary school influences on the development
of children’s early numeracy skills between the ages of 3 and 7 years in Germany. School Effectiveness
and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research Policy and Practice 24(2): 195–211.
Arbuckle JL (1996) Full information estimation in the presence of incomplete data. In: Marcoulides GA and
Schumacker RE (eds) Advanced structural equation modelling. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp.243–277.
Aunio P, Heiskari P, van Luit JEH, et al. (2015) The development of early numeracy skills in kindergarten in
low-, average- and high-performance groups. Journal of Early Childhood Research 13(1): 3–16.
Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung (2014) Bildung in Deutschland 2014: Ein indikatorengestützter
Bericht mit einer Analyse zur Bildung von Menschen mit Behinderung [Education in Germany 2014: An
indicator-based report including an analysis of the situation of people with special educational needs
and disabilities]. Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmann Verlag.
Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung (2018) Bildung in Deutschland 2018: Ein indikatorengestützter
Bericht mit einer Analyse zu Wirkungen und Erträgen von Bildung [Education in Germany 2018: An
Kluczniok and Mudiappa 101

indicator-based report including an analysis of the effects and benefits of education]. Bielefeld: W.
Bertelsmann Verlag.
Baumert J, Watermann R and Schümer G (2003) Disparitäten der Bildungsbeteiligung und des
Kompetenzerwerbs [Disparities in Educational Participation and Attainment]. Zeitschrift für
Erziehungswissenschaft 6(1): 46–71.
Becker R (2004) Soziale Ungleichheit von Bildungschancen und Chancengerechtigkeit [Social inequality of
educational opportunities and equal opportunities]. In: Becker R and Lauterbach W (eds) Bildung als
Privileg? Erklärungen und Befunde zu den Ursachen der Bildungsungleichheit. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag
für Sozialwissenschaften, pp.161–195.
Becker B (2010) Who profits most from early parental investments? The effects of activities inside and out-
side the family on German and Turkish children’s language development. Child Indicators Research
3(1): 29–46.
Becker B (2011) Cognitive and language skills of Turkish children in Germany: A comparison of the second
and third generation and mixed generational groups. International Migration Review 45(2): 426–459.
Biedinger B (2011) The influence of education and home environment on the cognitive outcomes of pre-
school children in Germany. Child Development Research 2: 1–10.
Bishop DVM (1989) Test for Reception of Grammar (TROG). Oxford: Medical Research Council.
Blossfeld HP, Rossbach HG and von Maurice J (eds) (2011) Education as a lifelong process – The German
National Educational Panel Study (NEPS). Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, Special Issue 14.
Borg E (2015) Classroom behavior and academic achievement: How classroom behavior categories relate to
gender and academic performance. British Journal of Sociology of Education 36(8): 1127–1148.
Bourdieu P (1983) Ökonomisches Kapital, kulturelles Kapital, soziales Kapital [Economic capital, cul-
tural capital, social capital]. In: Kreckel R (ed) Soziale Ungleichheiten, Soziale Welt – Sonderband 2.
Göttingen: Schwarz & Co, pp.183–198.
Bourdieu P (1984) Die feinen Unterschiede: Kritik der gesellschaftlichen Urteilskraft [Distinction: A social
critique of the judgement of taste]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Bourdieu P and Passeron J (1990) Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. London: SAGE.
Boyce LL, Gillam SL, Innocenti MS, et al. (2013) An examination of language input and vocabulary develop-
ment of young Latino dual language learners living in poverty. First Language 33(6): 572–593.
Bronfenbrenner U and Morris PS (2006) The biological model of human development. In: Lerner RM (ed)
Handbook of Child Psychology. Theoretical Models of Human Development. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley
and Sons, pp.793–828.
Burchinal MR, Roberts JE, Hooper S, et al. (2000) Cumulative risk and early cognitive development: A com-
parison of statistical risk models. Developmental Psychology 36(6): 793–807.
Burchinal M, Roberts JE, Zeisel SA, et al. (2006) Social risk and protective child, parenting and child care
factors in early elementary school years. Parenting: Science and Practice 6(1): 79–113.
Cadima J, McWilliam RA and Leal T (2010) Environmental risk factors and children’s literacy skills during
the transition to elementary school. International Journal of Behavioral Development 34(1): 24–33.
Chiu SI, Hong FY and Hu HY (2015) The effects of family cultural capital and reading motivation on reading
behavior in elementary school students. School Psychology International 36(1): 3–17.
Dearing E, McCartney K and Taylor BA (2009) Does higher quality early child care promote low-income
children’s math and reading achievement in middle childhood? Child Development 80(5): 1329–1349.
Dumais S (2006) Elementary school students’ extracurricular activities: The effects of participation on
achievement and teachers’ evaluations. Sociological Spectrum 26(2): 117–147.
Dumais SA and Ward A (2010) Cultural capital and first-generation college success. Poetics 38(3): 117–147.
Duncan GJ, Yeung WJ, Brooks-Gunn J, et al. (1998) How much does childhood poverty affect the life chances
of children? American Sociological Review 63(3): 406–423.
Dunn LM and Dunn LM (1981) Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – Revised (PPVT-R). Manual for forms L
and M. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Ebert S and Weinert S (2013) Predicting reading literacy in primary school: The contribution of vari-
ous language indicators in preschool. In: Pfost M, Artelt C and Weinert S (eds) The Development of
Reading Literacy from Early Childhood to Adolescence. Bamberg, Germany: Otto-Friedrich-Universität
Bamberg, pp.93–149.
102 European Educational Research Journal 18(1)

Ebert S, Lockl K, Weinert S, et al. (2013) Internal and external influences on children’s language develop-
ment during preschool. School Effectiveness und School Improvement 24(2): 138–154.
European Child Care and Education (ECCE) Study Group (1997) European Child Care and Education
Study. Cross national analyses of the quality and effects of early childhood programmes on children’s
development. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin, Fachbereich Erziehungswissenschaft, Psychologie und
Sportwissenschaft, Institut für Sozial- und Kleinkindpädagogik.
Evans GW, Li D and Whipple SS (2013) Cumulative risk and child development. Psychological Bulletin
139(6): 1342–1396.
Fox A (2006) Test zur Überprüfung des Grammatikverständnisses (TROG-D) [Test of grammar comprehen-
sion]. Idstein: Schulz-Kirchner.
Fuchs M (2005) Aufbaukurs Kulurpädagogik in vier Bänden: Bd. 3: Kulturelle Bildung und die Bildungsreform
[Advanced course in cultural pedagogy in four volumes: Vol. 3: Cultural education and educational
reform]. Remscheid: RATdigital.
Georg W (2004) Cultural capital and social inequality in the life course. European Sociological Review 20(4):
333–344.
Hanson MJ, Miller AD, Diamond K, et al. (2011) Neighborhood community risk influences on preschool
children’s development and school readiness. Infants & Young Children 24(1): 87–100.
Hart B and Risley TR (1995) Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experiences of Young American
Children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Hartas D (2011) Families’ social backgrounds matter: Socio-economic factors, home learning and young
children’s language, literacy and social outcomes. British Educational Research Journal 37(6): 893–
914.
Hasselhorn M, Andresen S, Becker S, et al. (2015) Children at risk of poor educational outcomes. Child
Indicators Research 8(2): 425–438.
Jungbauer-Gans M (2004) Einfluss des sozialen und kulturellen Kapitals auf die Lesekompetenz. Ein
Vergleich der PISA 2000-Daten aus Deutschland, Frankreich und der Schweiz [Influence of social
and cultural capital on reading literacy. A comparison of PISA 2000 data from Germany, France and
Switzerland]. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 33(5): 375–397.
Kingston PW (2001) The unfulfilled promise of cultural capital theory. Sociology of Education, Special Issue
74: 88–99.
Klebanov P and Brooks-Gunn J (2006) Cumulative, human capital, and psychological risk in the context
of early intervention. Links with IQ at ages 3, 5, and 8. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
1094(1): 63–82.
Klein O and Becker B (2017) Preschools as language learning environments for children of immigrants.
Differential effects by familial language use across different preschool contexts. Research in Social
Stratification and Mobility 48: 20–31.
Kloosterman R, Notten N, Tolsma J, et al. (2010) The effects of parental reading socialization and early
school involvement on children’s academic performance: A panel study of primary school pupils in the
Netherlands. European Sociological Review 27(3): 291–306.
Kluczniok K, Lehrl S, Kuger S, et al. (2013) Quality of the home learning environment during preschool age
– Domains and contextual conditions. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 21(3):
420–438.
Kraaykamp G and Nieuwbeerta P (2000) Parental background and lifestyle differentiation in eastern Europe:
Social, political, and cultural intergenerational transmission in five former socialist societies. Social
Science Research 29(1): 92–122.
Laucht M, Esser G and Schmidt MH (2000) Entwicklung von Risikokindern im Schulalter: Die langfris-
tigen Folgen frühkindlicher Belastungen [Developmental outcome of at-risk children at school age:
Long-term sequelae of early risk factors]. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische
Psychologie 32(2): 59–69.
Lehrl S, Ebert S, Rossbach HG, et al. (2012) Die Bedeutung der familiären Lernumwelt für Vorläufer schrift-
sprachlicher Kompetenzen im Vorschulalter [Effects of the home learning environment on children’s
emerging literacy]. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung 24(2): 115–133.
Linberg T (2016) Kind und Kontext [Child and Context]. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien.
Kluczniok and Mudiappa 103

Lorenz C, Berendes K and Weinert S (2017) Measuring Receptive Grammar in Kindergarten and Elementary
School Children in the National Educational Panel Study (NEPS Survey Paper No. 24). Bamberg,
Germany: Leibniz Institute for Educational Trajectories, National Educational Panel Study.
McCartney K, Dearing E, Taylor BA, et al. (2007) Quality child care supports the achievement of low-income
children: Direct and indirect pathways through caregiving and the home environment. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology 28(5–6): 411–426.
Melhuish EC, Phan MB, Sylva K, et al. (2008) Effects of the home learning environment and preschool center
experience upon literacy and numeracy development in early primary school. Journal of Social Issues
64(1): 95–114.
Miller EB, Farkas G and Duncan GJ (2016) Does Head Start differentially benefit children with risks targeted
by the program’s service model? Early Childhood Research Quarterly 34(1): 1–12.
Mistry RS, Benner AD, Biesanz JC, et al. (2010) Family and social risk, and parental investments during
the early childhood years as predictors of low-income children’s school readiness outcomes. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly 25(4): 432–449.
Mudiappa M (2014) Ausmaß und Bedingtheit von kulturellem Kapital und seine Auswirkungen im Kontext
Familie und Schule [The extent and conditionality of cultural capital and its effects in the family and
school context]. Berlin: Logos.
Mudiappa M and Kluczniok K (2015) Visits to cultural learning places in the early childhood. European
Early Childhood Education Research Journal 23(2): 200–212.
Mühler G and Spiess KC (2008) Informelle Förderangebote: Eine empirische Analyse ihrer Nutzung in
der frühen Kindheit [The attendance of informal early education activities – an empirical analysis].
Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 11: 29–46.
Natriello G and Dornbusch SM (1983) Bringing behavior back in: The effects of student characteristics
and behavior on the classroom behavior of teachers. American Educational Research Journal 20(1):
29–43.
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (ECCRN) (2003) Does quality of childcare affect child out-
comes at age 4½? Developmental Psychology 39(3): 451–469.
Niklas F and Schneider W (2017) Home learning environment and development of child competencies from
kindergarten until the end of elementary school. Contemporary Educational Psychology 49: 263–274.
Niklas F, Tayler C and Gilley T (2017) Vulnerable children in Australia: Multiple risk factor analyses to pre-
dict cognitive abilities and problem behavior. Australian Journal of Education 61(2): 105–123.
OECD (2014) PISA 2012 results: What students know and can do – Student performance in mathematics,
reading and science. Paris: PISA, OECD Publishing.
Oliver BR, Kretschmer T and Maughan B (2014) Configurations of early risk and their association with
academic, cognitive, emotional and behavioral outcomes in middle childhood. Social Psychiatry and
Psychiatric Epidemiology 49(5): 723–732.
Pellerin LA and Stearns E (2001) Status honor and the valuing of cultural and material capital. Poetics 29(1):
1–24.
Prieur A, Rosenlund L and Skjott-Larsen J (2008) Cultural capital today: A case study from Denmark. Poetics
36(1): 45–71.
Rathbun A and West J (2004) From kindergarten through third grade: Children’s beginning school experi-
ences. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Rathbun A, West J and Walston J (2005) Relationships between family risk and children’s reading and math-
ematics growth from kindergarten through third grade. In: Presentation at the Annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada, 11–15 April.
Rössel J and Beckert-Zieglschmid C (2002) Die Reproduktion kulturellen Kapitals [The reproduction of cul-
tural capital]. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 31(6): 497–513.
Rossbach HG, Tietze W and Weinert S (2005) Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (German research version
of the PPVT-test developed by Dunn LM and Dunn LM 1981). Bamberg: Otto-Friedrich-Universität
Bamberg.
Rouse HL and Fantuzzo JW (2009) Multiple risks and educational well being: A population-based investiga-
tion of threats to early school success. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 24(1): 1–14.
Rubin DB (1987) Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
104 European Educational Research Journal 18(1)

Rubin DB (1996) Multiple imputation after 18+ years. Journal of the American Statistical Association
91(434): 473–489.
Rutter M (1987) Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry
57(3): 316–331.
Rutter M, Dunn J, Plomin R, et al. (1997) Integrating nature and nurture: Implications of person-environment
correlations and interactions for developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology
9(2): 335–364.
Sameroff AJ, Seifer R, Baldwin A, et al. (1993) Stability of intelligence from preschool to adolescence: The
influence of social and family risk factors. Child Development 64(1): 80–97.
Sameroff AJ, Seifer R, Zax M, et al. (1987) Early indicators of developmental risk: Rochester longitudinal
study. Schizophrenia Bulletin 13(3): 383–394.
Sammons P, Sylva K, Melhuish E, et al. (2008) Effective Pre-school and Primary Education 3-11 Project
(EPPE 3-11): Influences of children’s attainment and progress in key stage 2: Cognitive outcomes in
year 6, Research Report DCSF-RR048. London: University of London, DfE/Institute of Education.
Schafer JL (1997) Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data. London: Chapman and Hall.
Schlee B, Mullis A and Shriner M (2009) Parents social and resource capital: Predictors of academic achieve-
ment during early childhood. Children and Youth Services Review 31(2): 227–234.
Stanat P (2006) Schulleistungen von Jugendlichen mit Migrationshintergrund: Die Rolle der
Zusammensetzung der Schülerschaft [School achievements of young people with a migration back-
ground: The role of the composition of the student body]. In: Baumert J, Stanat P and Watermann R (eds)
Herkunftsbedingte Disparitäten im Bildungswesen: Differenzielle Bildungsprozesse und Probleme der
Verteilungsgerechtigkeit. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, pp.189–219.
Strietholt R, Naujokat K, Mai T, et al. (2013) The National Educational Panel Study (NEPS) in Germany.
An overview of design, research options, and access with a focus on lower secondary school. European
Educational Research Journal 12(4): 568–579.
Sylva K, Melhuish E, Sammons P, et al. (2004) The effective provision of pre-school education project – Zu
den Auswirkungen vorschulischer Einrichtungen in England. In: Faust G, Götz M, Hacker H, et al.
(eds) Anschlussfähige Bildungsprozesse im Elementar- und Primarbereich. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt,
pp.154–167.
Szczesny M and Watermann R (2011) Differenzielle Einflüsse von Familie und Schulform auf Leseleistung
und soziale Kompetenzen [Differential influences of family and school type on reading and social skills].
Journal für Bildungsforschung Online 3(1): 168–193.
Weinert S (2006) Sprachentwicklung [The development of language]. In: Schneider W and Sodian B (eds)
Enzyklopädie der Psychologie 2 [Encyclopaedia of psychology]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe, pp.609–
719.
Weinert S (2010) Erfassung sprachlicher Fähigkeiten [The assessment of language skills]. In: Walther E,
Preckel F and Mecklenbraeuker S (eds) Befragung von Kindern und Jugendlichen. Göttingen, Germany:
Hogrefe, pp.227–262.
Weinert S, Ebert S and Dubowy M (2010) Kompetenzen und soziale Disparitäten im Vorschulalter
[Competencies and social disparities in early childhood]. Zeitschrift für Grundschulforschung 3(1):
32–45.
Xu J and Hampden-Thompson G (2012) Cultural reproduction, cultural mobility, cultural resources, or trivial
effect? A comparative approach to cultural capital and educational performance. Comparative Education
Review 56(1): 98–124.

Author biographies
Katharina Kluczniok is senior researcher and lecturer at the Chair for Early Childhood Education, University of
Bamberg. Her research interests are the impact of educational quality in preschool settings and families on chil-
dren’s cognitive and socio-emotional development as well as the transition from preschool to primary school.
Michael Mudiappa is senior researcher and lecturer at the Leibniz-Institute for Educational Trajectories at the
University of Bamberg. His research interests are longitudinal analyses in the field of educational inequality,
epecially, he focuses on the cultural capital in the context of family and school.