Lay with the child/sing songs/take outside, 1 = mother read books/ told stories/named, counted, drew/played with the child/sang songs/took outside. Two questions about leaving children alone in the last week were recoded into a single question with values 0 = child was left alone or in care of another child, 1 = child was not left alone or in care of another child. Caregiving scales–Because 5 countries did not ask questions about leaving children alone, we investigated whether the remaining 6 items formed cohesive scales of MirogabalinMedChemExpress DS5565 cognitive and socioemotional caregiving. Reading books, telling stories, and naming, counting, and drawing were the cognitive caregiving items, and playing with the child, singing songs, and taking the child outside were the socioemotional caregiving items. Kuder-Richardson 20 reliabilities were satisfactory (DeVellis, 2003) at .68 for the cognitive caregiving scale and . 64 for the socioemotional caregiving scale. Therefore, we summed the items to order Mirogabalin create two scales, which were moderately correlated, r(123,983) = .47, p < .001.Child Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 January 01.Bornstein and PutnickPageHuman Development Index--The Human Development Index (HDI; UNDP, n.d.) was developed by the United Nations as a measure of the social and economic status of a country. It serves as a proxy for standard of living and is associated with the general level of purchasing power present within a country. The HDI ranges from 0 to 1 and has three major indices: life expectancy, education (comprised of the adult literacy rate and combined gross enrollment in primary, secondary, and tertiary school), and gross domestic product (GDP). Countries with an HDI of .80 or greater are considered high, .50 to .79 medium, and .00 to . 49 low. The countries in our study draw from high, medium, and low ranges of the HDI. (Additional information about the HDI is available in Bornstein et al., 2012.)NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptResultsFollowing the analytic plan in Bornstein et al. (2012), the caregiving scales and the 7 individual items were explored with analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for the scale and logistic regression for the items. For logistic regression models, we report Cox and Snell's and Nagelkerke's pseudo-R2 values as estimates of the percentages of variance accounted for by country. Caregiving scales and items were then correlated with the country Human Development Index and its 3 indices. Covariates We considered child age, child gender, family crowding, and number of children under 5 in the family as potential covariates. Child age and number of children under 5 in the family varied across countries, F(27, 127,319) = 52.94, p < .001, 2p = .01, and F(27, 127,319) = 359.47, p < .001, 2p = .07, respectively, and were significantly associated with the caregiving items, rs = -.11 to .26, ps < .001, for child age, and rs = -.03 to -.10, ps < .001, for the number of children under 5. Household crowding and the number of children under 5 in the family showed the same patterns of relations with the dependent variables; therefore, we chose to use number of children under 5 as a proxy for household crowding. Child gender was not used as a covariate or factor because there were very similar percentages of girls and boys in each country and across countries, 2(27, N=127,347) = 60.11, p < .001, R2 = .000?001, Odds ratios = .90 to 1.10, and child gender was unrelated to the caregiving.Lay with the child/sing songs/take outside, 1 = mother read books/ told stories/named, counted, drew/played with the child/sang songs/took outside. Two questions about leaving children alone in the last week were recoded into a single question with values 0 = child was left alone or in care of another child, 1 = child was not left alone or in care of another child. Caregiving scales--Because 5 countries did not ask questions about leaving children alone, we investigated whether the remaining 6 items formed cohesive scales of cognitive and socioemotional caregiving. Reading books, telling stories, and naming, counting, and drawing were the cognitive caregiving items, and playing with the child, singing songs, and taking the child outside were the socioemotional caregiving items. Kuder-Richardson 20 reliabilities were satisfactory (DeVellis, 2003) at .68 for the cognitive caregiving scale and . 64 for the socioemotional caregiving scale. Therefore, we summed the items to create two scales, which were moderately correlated, r(123,983) = .47, p < .001.Child Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 January 01.Bornstein and PutnickPageHuman Development Index--The Human Development Index (HDI; UNDP, n.d.) was developed by the United Nations as a measure of the social and economic status of a country. It serves as a proxy for standard of living and is associated with the general level of purchasing power present within a country. The HDI ranges from 0 to 1 and has three major indices: life expectancy, education (comprised of the adult literacy rate and combined gross enrollment in primary, secondary, and tertiary school), and gross domestic product (GDP). Countries with an HDI of .80 or greater are considered high, .50 to .79 medium, and .00 to . 49 low. The countries in our study draw from high, medium, and low ranges of the HDI. (Additional information about the HDI is available in Bornstein et al., 2012.)NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptResultsFollowing the analytic plan in Bornstein et al. (2012), the caregiving scales and the 7 individual items were explored with analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for the scale and logistic regression for the items. For logistic regression models, we report Cox and Snell's and Nagelkerke's pseudo-R2 values as estimates of the percentages of variance accounted for by country. Caregiving scales and items were then correlated with the country Human Development Index and its 3 indices. Covariates We considered child age, child gender, family crowding, and number of children under 5 in the family as potential covariates. Child age and number of children under 5 in the family varied across countries, F(27, 127,319) = 52.94, p < .001, 2p = .01, and F(27, 127,319) = 359.47, p < .001, 2p = .07, respectively, and were significantly associated with the caregiving items, rs = -.11 to .26, ps < .001, for child age, and rs = -.03 to -.10, ps < .001, for the number of children under 5. Household crowding and the number of children under 5 in the family showed the same patterns of relations with the dependent variables; therefore, we chose to use number of children under 5 as a proxy for household crowding. Child gender was not used as a covariate or factor because there were very similar percentages of girls and boys in each country and across countries, 2(27, N=127,347) = 60.11, p < .001, R2 = .000?001, Odds ratios = .90 to 1.10, and child gender was unrelated to the caregiving.
