Cover: Assessing the Validity of the Qualistar Early Learning Quality Rating and Improvement System as a Tool for Improving Child-Care Quality

Assessing the Validity of the Qualistar Early Learning Quality Rating and Improvement System as a Tool for Improving Child-Care Quality

Published Jun 10, 2008

by Gail L. Zellman, Michal Perlman, Vi-Nhuan Le, Claude Messan Setodji

Download

Download eBook for Free

Full Document

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.8 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

Summary Only

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.2 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

Download Support Files

Appendices

This zipped archive contains a combination of PDF files and Microsoft Word 2004 files.

FormatFile SizeNotes
zip file 1.7 MB

The file(s) provided above are ZIP-formatted archives, which most modern systems can natively unpack. If your computer does not unpack the archive when you double-click it, you may need to use a separate decompression program such as UnZip.

Purchase

Purchase Print Copy

 Format Price
Add to Cart Paperback128 pages $32.50

As a result of the generally low quality of child care in the United States and the increased emphasis on accountability in education policy, quality rating systems (QRSs) are proliferating in the child-care arena. QRSs assess child-care providers on multiple dimensions of quality and integrate these assessments into an easily understood summary rating (such as from 0 to 4 stars). These ratings are intended to help parents, funders, and other stakeholders make more informed choices about child care and to encourage providers to improve. Most QRSs are actually QRISs — quality rating and improvement systems — since they include feedback and technical assistance to help providers improve the quality of their care. However, there has been very little empirical examination of the validity of these systems — how reliable their multiple components are, how effective they are in helping providers to improve the quality of care they provide, and how much children benefit from such improvement. This study assesses the QRIS developed by Qualistar Early Learning, a nonprofit organization based in Colorado that was one of the first organizations to create a QRIS. Zellman et al. set out to validate the Qualistar QRIS by assessing approximately 100 child-care providers and, at the outset, over 1,300 children over three waves of data collection. The study relied on two other, established measures of child-care quality on which to rate providers, as well as a number of direct child assessments. The design allowed for both cross-sectional and time-lagged analyses. The authors analyzed the five components of the Qualistar system separately, then examined how they related to each other; compared the Qualistar measures to the other measures of quality; assessed change in provider quality over time; and examined whether quality improvements as measured by the Qualistar QRIS were associated with better child outcomes.

The research described in this report was prepared for Qualistar Early Learning and was conducted by RAND Education, a unit of the RAND Corporation.

This report is part of the RAND monograph series. RAND monographs present major research findings that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND monographs undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.