1. Laura D. Pittman, Adeya Richmond, Jillian M. Wickery, Suzanne G. Venteau, Danielle M. Baran, & Marcos D. López Parenting and School Readiness among Low-Income Preschoolers Results Methods At Time 1, 2,402 families were recruited and completed interviews as part of Welfare, Children and Families: A Three-City Study. At Time 2, 88% of families were retained and interviewed on average 16 months later. Both waves of the main survey included caregiver interviews and direct academic assessments of focal children. During both time points, families with a 2- to 4-year-old focal child at Time 1 were asked to participate in an Embedded Developmental Study (EDS). Of those eligible, 82% and 88% agreed to participate during Times 1 and 2, respectively. Those who participated at both time points of the EDS were used in the current study (N = 458). During each wave of the EDS, mother-child dyads participated in a 5-minute Block Free Play and a 10-minute Puzzle Task (Chase-Lansdale et al., 1989) and the child participated in several tasks to assess self regulation (adapted from Kochanska et al., 1996). Measures Reading and quantitative achievement were assessed via subtests from the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-educational Achievement Battery- Revised (Woodcock & Mather, 1989). Self regulation was assessed using a composite score based on behaviors during multiple self regulation tasks (i.e., Snack Delay, Gift Wrap, Turtle-Rabbit, and Shapes; see Li-Grining, in press). Children’s internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors were assessed via the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach,1991; 1992) Maternal reports of children’s social competence were assessed using the Positive Behaviors Scale (Quint, Bos, & Polit, 1997). Parenting dimensions (i.e., autonomy granting, cognitive stimulation, connectedness, and emotional responsiveness; Pittman, Wickery, & Richmond, 2006; Wakschlag & Keenen, 2001) were coded based on behaviors observed during the videotaped mother-child interactions. Analysis Plan Regression analyses were conducted examining whether the four observed parenting dimensions predicted child outcomes at Time 2, controlling for the corresponding outcomes at Time 1 as well as multiple demographic characteristics. To examine the possible moderating influence of children’s age on the link between parenting and child outcomes, four interaction terms were added to the above models (i.e., child’s age x each of the four parenting variables). Introduction Due to recent educational policy changes, school readiness (i.e., being prepared to enter kindergarten across multiple domains) has been a focus of research (e.g., Pianta & Cox, 1999). Evidence abounds that children from low-income families often are not ready to enter kindergarten, lagging behind their more affluent peers in terms of pre-reading and mathematical skills, self-regulatory behaviors, and emotional adjustment (e.g., Duncan & Brooks-Gunn, 1997). Parents play an important role in preparing their children for kindergarten. Although there is much research linking specific aspects of parenting to child outcomes (e.g., Bornstein, 2002), rarely are multiple aspects examined simultaneously to compare their importance in predicting different indicators of school readiness. This poster will examine how maternal warmth, autonomy-granting, and cognitive stimulation influence school readiness over time among a sample of ethnically diverse, low-income children. Sample Characteristics Age of child at time 1: M=42.42 months; SD=10.74 months Age of caregiver at time 1: M=30.5; SD=10.73 Biological mother to child: 83% Descriptives and Correlations among Parenting Variables N=451; *p<.05; **p<.01 Longitudinal Regressions Predicting Time 2 Academic Achievement and Self Regulation Longitudinal Regressions Predicting Time 2 Internalizing, Externalizing and Positive Behaviors Younger children as compared to older children had decreasing levels of internalizing behaviors over time when maternal emotional responsiveness was higher (B=.15, p<.01). However, older children as compared to younger children had decreasing levels of internalizing behaviors at higher levels of mother-child connectedness (B=-.16, p<.05). Note. *p <.05; **p <.01; ***p <.001. The following covariates are not shown in table: Time 1 child outcome, child’s age, gender, and race; mothers’ age, education and marital status; family income-to-needs ratio; and language used in the observation. Older children as compared to younger children benefited from increased levels of autonomy granting in the development of academic achievement (B=-.11, p=.06 for quantitative achievement; B=-.20, p<.01 for reading achievement). Discussion Parenting behaviors seem to make some difference in the development of children’s school readiness, but sometimes not in expected ways. Mothers who actively tried to cognitively stimulate their children during the block free play had children who had lower rates of change in quantitative achievement and self regulation over time. Perhaps these mothers emphasize cognitive stimulation too much, stifling their child’s natural intellectual curiosity. Maternal warmth and responsiveness seem to benefit children in both their development of academic achievement and social competence over time. Thus, showing affection and responding to children in a supportive manner may be important to emphasize to parents in intervention programs among low-income families. The influence of various parenting behaviors appears to be moderated by child’s age. Older children, and not younger children, have greater increases in academic achievement over time when their parents allow for more autonomy in their interactions. Further exploration of the moderating effect of child’s age on the link between warmth and responsiveness and children’s internalizing problems is needed as the findings were contradictory. Further investigation of how these one-time observations of parenting are linked to ongoing parenting behaviors is warranted to better understand their link to child outcomes. References Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior. Checklist/4-18 and 1991 Profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry. Achenbach, T. M. (1992). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/2-3and 1992 Profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry. Bornstein, M. H. (Ed.). (2002). Handbook of parenting (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Chase-Lansdale, P. L., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Zamsky, E. (1989). Manual for scoring the Puzzle Task for the Baltimore Study. Chicago: University of Chicago. Duncan, G. J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (Eds.). (1997). Consequences of growing up poor. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Kochanska, G., Murray, K., Jacques, T. Y., Koenig, A. L., & Vandegeest, K. A. (1996). Inhibitory control in young children and its role in emerging internalization. Child Development, 67, 490- 507. Li-Grining, C. P (in press). Effortful control among low-income preschoolers in three cities: Stability, change, and individual differences. Developmental Psychology. Pianta, R. C., & Cox, M. J. (1999). The transition to kindergarten. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Pittman, L. D., Wickery, J. M, & Richmond, A. (2006). Block free play coding manual. Unpublished manuscript. Department of Psychology, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL. Quint, J. C., Bos, J. M., & Polit, D. E. (1997). New Chance: Final Report on a Comprehensive Program for Young Mothers in Poverty and Their Children. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation. Wakschag, L. S., & Keenan, K. (2001). Clinical significance and correlates of disruptive behavior in environmentally at-risk preschoolers. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 262-275. Woodcock, R.W., & Mather, N. (1989). WJ-R Tests of Achievement Examiner’s Manual. In R.W. Woodcock & M.B. Johnson, Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised. Itasca, IL: Riverside. All analyses were weighted using probability weights, making the findings generalizable to our population of inference, children in the three cities with household incomes less than 200% of the poverty line. Note. *p <.05; **p <.01; ***p <.001. The following covariates are not shown in table: Time 1 child outcome, child’s age, gender, and race; mothers’ age, education and marital status; family income-to-needs ratio; and language used in the observation.