Attachment relationships as predictors of language skills for at-risk bilingual preschool children

Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 48(7), 2011 C© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pits DOI: 10.1002/pits.20583

ATTACHMENT RELATIONSHIPS AS PREDICTORS OF LANGUAGE SKILLS FOR AT-RISKBILINGUAL PRESCHOOL CHILDREN

GERALDINE V. OADES-SESE

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

YIBLING LI

Tufts University

Parental attachment and close teacher–child relationships offer a protective mechanism to promotelanguage development among bilingual preschool children from economically disadvantaged back-grounds. Research has shown that language skills are an integral part of resilience for young chil-dren. This is the first study to examine parental acculturation, parent–child attachment, and teacher–child relationships as predictors of English and Spanish oral language skills. Participants consistedof 468 Hispanic American preschool children, aged 3 to 5 years, from low-income families of anurban public school district in the Northeast. Findings suggest that children’s relationships with par-ents and teachers significantly contribute to their bilingual language skills. Higher quality teacher–child relationships were associated with higher levels of language skills over and above qualityparental attachments. The implications of the findings are discussed. C© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

A key way to foster resilience in young children is to build their competence to succeed despitestressful circumstances that adversely affect their school adjustment. This is especially importantfor young immigrant children who are exposed to poverty, learning a second language, acculturationstress, and other potential stressors that place them at risk for social–emotional, communication, andlearning difficulties in school.

For preschool children, competence is measured by their ability to communicate wants andneeds, establish and maintain relationships, solve problems, and demonstrate school readiness, allof which are interrelated with and rooted in social–emotional development (Bergin & Bergin, 2009).In turn, attachment relationships provide a strong foundation for the development of competencein preschool. Moreover, language serves as a bonding agent between children and their attachmentfigures, and culture influences communication styles and the quality of affect in attachment relation-ships (Schieffelin & Eisenberg, 1984). Simultaneously, the development of preschoolers’ languageskills is enhanced by the nature of these attachment interactions (Piker & Rex, 2008; Saunders &O’Brien, 2006).

In school, preschoolers’ adaptive coping and success are influenced through parent–child attach-ments and by attachment-like relationships with teachers. Language serves as an operative measureof school readiness and preschool success. Therefore, it is essential that school psychologists under-stand the “impact of early social–emotional relationships on cognitive–linguistic–affective structuresused by the child to construct views of the world, self, and others” (Kennedy & Kennedy, 2004,p. 247). In particular, building immigrant children’s competence to succeed in school requires anunderstanding of their attachment relationships with their parents and teachers within the context oflanguage and cultural factors.

Developing language skills to its full potential is challenging when children live in impov-erished environments (NICHD Early Childhood Research Network, 2005). This challenge is fur-ther exacerbated when the growth in an immigrant child’s first language is hindered by English-only instructional classrooms. Preschool children are still mastering their first language, and first

Correspondence to: Geraldine V. Oades-Sese, Rutgers, The State University, GSAPP–Applied Psychology, 152Frelinghuysen Road A340, Piscataway, NJ 08854. E-mail: [email protected]

707

708 Oades-Sese and Li

language mastery is essential to successfully learning a second language (Cummins, 1979). Re-search suggests, however, that close and trusting relationships with teachers may attenuate the poorsocial and academic outcomes resulting from poverty-related factors (Baker, 2006). The underlyingpremise is that language-rich verbal interactions lie within these teacher–child relationships, andthese interactions scaffold children’s language development. Therefore, teacher–child relationshipsprovide a protective mechanism for these children.

There is insufficient research examining attachment relationships and language developmentamong low-income Hispanic American children. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to under-stand how significant attachment relationships of low-income, bilingual preschool children contributeto their English and Spanish language skills. We also examined how parental acculturation level,given that stressors are related to adjusting to another culture, may affect parent–child social inter-actions, which, in turn, may impact a child’s language development. This study used theories ofattachment and resilience as a framework for understanding important developmental outcomes forthis sample of children.

ATTACHMENT THEORY AND INTERNAL WORKING MODELS

Attachment is an enduring and affectionate bond between two people across time and space(Ainsworth, 1973; Bowlby, 1969). Attachment can be categorized into two types: secure and insecure.Insecure attachment can be further subdivided into three types: avoidant, resistant, and disorganized-disoriented (for a comprehensive review, see Bergin & Bergin, 2009). Secure attachment is the resultof sensitive and responsive caregivers. Sensitive caregivers are attuned to children’s needs and wants.Securely attached children display positive interactions with others, greater ego-resiliency, bettercoping skills, and academic success (Kennedy & Kennedy, 2004). In contrast, insecurely attachedchildren are more socially isolated, lack self-confidence, become easily frustrated, and are likely toshow lower academic outcomes. Attachment classification tends to be stable over time, except whenthere is a change in responsiveness from the caregiver (Bergin & Bergin, 2009).

Internal working models, whether positive or negative, are outgrowths of attachment relation-ships between parent and child. The internal working models children have of expectations andbeliefs about relationships will guide their approach or avoidance behaviors in future relationships(Bowlby, 1969). These behaviors are accompanied by positive or hostile emotions toward others(Bretherton & Munholland, 1999). Children with positive working models view others as trust-worthy and view themselves as valuable and effective during social interactions (Bergin & Bergin,2009).

Preschool children’s internal working models can be extended and recreated in the teacher-child relationship using attachment theory as a framework to describe high-quality teacher–childrelationships (Howes & Hamilton, 1992; Justice, Cottone, Mashburn, & Rimm-Kaufman, 2008).Accumulating evidence suggests that when they occur, deep and enduring relationships are predictiveof positive outcomes (O’Connor & McCartney, 2007; Pianta, Nimetz, & Bennett, 1997). Attachmentto teachers promotes feelings of security that enable children to explore freely and learn effectively(Bergin & Bergin, 2009). The quality of these relationships either confirms or disproves preschoolchildren’s internal working models. High-quality teacher–child relationships are characterized byhigh levels of closeness and low levels of conflict, and appear to be stable from kindergarten into firstgrade (Ladd & Burgess, 2001). Some gender differences are evident in that relationships betweenboys and teachers tend to have more conflict than relationships between girls and their teachers(Hughes, Cavell, & Wilson, 2001; Justice et al., 2008). High-quality teacher–child relationships inearly childhood are associated with later social and academic success (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Hamre& Pianta, 2001) and explain more of the variance in children’s success than teacher–child ratio,curriculum type, class size, and classroom environment (Mashburn et al., 2008).

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Preschool Attachments 709

A secure and nurturing relationship with one caretaker may ameliorate negative relation-ships with other caretakers and function as a protective factor (Baker, 2006). Attachment-liketeacher–child relationships may also provide a compensatory mechanism in the absence of positiveor secure attachments with parents, particularly with regard to preschoolers’ developing prosocialbehaviors and social competence (Mitchell-Copeland, Denham, & DeMulder, 1997). Therefore,high-quality relationships with teachers may be influential in restructuring or expanding negativeinternal working models of children.

ATTACHMENT AND LANGUAGE

The strengthening agents of parent–child and teacher–child relationships are communicationand language. Parents and teachers use:

high-quality communication that is open, direct, coherent, and fluent in attachment-related situations.[Attachment figures] with secure children use warm, positive statements to direct their children and areless controlling, use less corporal punishment, and report more positive moods and enjoyment of theirchildren than [attachment figures] with insecure children. (Bergin & Bergin, 2009, p. 143)

Consistent responsiveness from attachment figures promotes secure attachments, enhancingcommunication and language abilities in children (Gersten, Coster, Schnieider-Rosen, Carlson &Cicchetti, 1986) and predicts receptive and expressive language skills in young children (Murray&Yingling, 2000).

Children who are securely attached are more likely to communicate and explore language thaninsecurely attached children who engage less often in prolonged conversations. Insecure childrentend to be withdrawn and reticent, which results in few opportunities to build and practice lan-guage skills and inadvertently creates environments that are less language rich (van IJzendoorn,Dijkstra, & Bus, 1995). As a result, insecure children demonstrate lower verbal ability and academicunderachievement (Pianta & Harbers, 1996).

The amount of language stimulation that parents provide determines language competencein children, regardless of socioeconomic status (Hart & Risely, 1995). However, cultural beliefsabout the status and role of children as conversational partners influence the quality of parent−childverbal interactions (Schieffelin & Eisenberg, 1984). Western cultures view infants and children asconversational partners, resulting in a back and forth exchange of words that builds language com-petence. In contrast, other cultures believe that children learn language by conversing with siblingsand peers and by passively observing and listening to adults. In some Hispanic families, parentsdo not discuss ongoing events with their children, repeat facts to them, or ask about their feelingsabout events (Brice, 2002). Children are not considered active participants in adult conversations. Insome cultures, parents do not emphasize basic concepts important for school readiness (e.g., colors,letters, and numbers) during conversations with their children, believing that teachers are responsiblefor instructing children (Kayser, 1999). Variations in socio–cultural and socio–linguistic beliefs areimportant considerations when examining the development of bilingual children (Nicoladis, 1997).

Similar to findings with parent–child relationships, preschool teacher–child relationships predictgrowth in language skills and conceptual knowledge (Pianta et al., 1997). The nature of verbalinteractions between teachers and bilingual children has been shown to be more important thanexposure to English in promoting children’s language competence (Piker & Rex, 2008; Saunders &O’Brien, 2006). Also, teacher–child closeness was a stronger predictor of language skills for ethnicminority children than for White children (Ewing & Taylor, 2009). Social interaction within closerelationships has a significant impact on oral language skills in young children, and oral languageskills are critical to short- and long-term reading, academic, and social–emotional development(Fujiki, Brinton, Morgan & Hart, 1999; Hart, &Risely, 1995; Oades-Sese, Esquivel, Kaliski, &



Maniatis, 2011). In sum, parent and teacher attachments represent protective mechanisms that canameliorate the negative developmental trajectory for children at risk of poor school success. Thepositive quality of these attachments can further promote and build resilience.

PARENTAL ACCULTURATION AND ATTACHMENT RELATIONSHIPS

Acculturation is “negotiating the accommodation of a new culture into the existing one [and]by definition, threatens cultural/family stability, particularly in those cases where the boundaries be-tween the host culture and the culture of origin provide for distinct group rules, values, and customs”(Sanchez, 2001, p. 675). Consequently, changes in cognition, affect, and behavioral functioningoccur during acculturation (Cuellar, Arnold, & Maldonado, 1995). These changes affect language,customs, cultural expressions, gender roles, attitudes, and basic values.

Most studies of the effects of acculturation on parenting behaviors have been conductedwith parents of adolescents (Dinh, Roosa, Tein, & Lopez, 2002; Smokolowski & Bacallao, 2006;Smokolowski, Rose, & Bacallao, 2008). However, these studies’ descriptions of the relations be-tween acculturation and parenting behaviors have been inconsistent. Higher maternal acculturationlevels were associated with lower levels of hostile parenting in older, economically disadvantaged,Mexican American children (Parke et al., 2004). Lower levels of conflict and higher levels of com-mitment and support were found for families who have successfully integrated their native andhost cultures (i.e., bicultural families; Miranda, Estrada, & Firpo-Jimenez, 2000). Still, anotherstudy found that close and emotionally supportive Hispanic family relationships (familismo) wereconsistent regardless of the families’ levels of acculturation (Santisteban & Mitrani, 2003).

There is limited research describing the acculturation levels and experiences of Hispanicpreschool children (Pawliuk et al., 1996), and findings have been inconsistent. Acculturation levelis related to warmth and involvement in parent–child relationships, especially among young PuertoRican girls (Calzada & Eyberg, 2002). In a sample of Puerto Rican and Dominican infants (Fracasso,Busch-Rossnagel, & Fisher, 1994), boys were found to have more secure attachments than girls.However, acculturation level did not have an effect on maternal behaviors or attachment classifi-cation in this study. These studies’ inconsistent findings were probably due to differences in howacculturation was being measured. Little is known, however, about the effects of acculturation andparenting on children’s oral bilingual skills.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

Given the relative importance of language development on the social−emotional competenceand academic success of bilingual preschoolers, the current study examined the contribution ofimportant adult–child attachment relationships and the impact of parental acculturation in promotinglanguage competence. The study addressed the following research questions:

1. Are parental acculturation, parent–child attachment, and teacher–student relationships pre-dictors of English language competence in low-income bilingual preschool children?

2. Are parental acculturation, parent–child attachment, and teacher–student relationships pre-dictors of Spanish language competence in low-income bilingual preschool children?

3. Are there gender differences in the relative importance of these relationships on children’slanguage development?

Given the critical importance of parental attachment and teacher–child relationships on the lan-guage development of children, it was expected that both relationships would contribute significantlyto children’s language competence. Because boys are relatively less verbal than girls, it was hypoth-esized that these relationships would be particularly important for boys. It was also hypothesized



that higher levels of parental acculturation would be related to better English oral language skills forpreschool children, and lower levels of parental acculturation would be related to greater Spanishlanguage competence.

METHOD

Participants

Participants in this study were part of Project Resilience, a 3-year longitudinal study examiningthe social–emotional and academic resilience of Hispanic American preschool children. Participantsincluded 468 3- to 5-year-old children (M = 4.42, SD = .60). Of these, 48.2% were boys. Participantswere from an urban public school district in the Northeast composed of three early childhood centersand four daycare centers. Among the 549 school districts in the state, this school district was oneof 39 identified by the state department of education as having the lowest socioeconomic levelbased on (a) percentage of adults without a high school diploma, (b) percentage of adults withsome college education, (c) occupational status, (d) employment rate, (e) percentage of individualsin unemployment, and (f) median family income. Data were collected in spring 2008 and 2009.Demographic characteristics of the participants are presented in Table 1. Eligibility for free orreduced-fee lunch indexed their low socioeconomic status.

Measures

Parent–Child Relationship. The Attachment and Relational Frustration subscales of the Par-enting Relationship Questionnaire (PRQ; Kamphaus & Reynolds, 2006) measured parent–childrelationships. The Attachment subscale (11 items) measures attachment, closeness, empathy, andunderstanding as rated by the parent for the child. The Relational Frustration subscale (14 items)measures parental stress and frustrations related to controlling child affect and behaviors. For thisstudy’s sample, the alpha coefficients for the Attachment subscale, according to the gender of therater, were .76 for females and .73 for males. The alpha coefficients for the Relational Frustrationsubscale were .68 for females and .70 for males. Raters comprised 94% mothers and 6% fathers.Higher scores on either subscale indicate higher levels of that dimension.

Parental Acculturation. The Bidimensional Acculturation Scale for Hispanics (BAS; Marin &Gamba, 1996) is a 24-item measure that assesses the behavioral dimension of acculturation. The itemsare scored on a 4-point Likert scale. The three subscales of the BAS are Language Use, LinguisticProficiency, and Electronic Media. Total scores consist of one score for the Hispanic domain andanother for the non-Hispanic domain. The possible total score for each domain ranges from 1 to 4. Inthe Hispanic domain, a total score of ≥25 and a score of <2.5 in the non-Hispanic domain indicatelow acculturation. A score of ≥2.5 in the non-Hispanic domain and a score of <2.5 in the Hispanicdomain indicate high acculturation. Scores of ≥2.5 in both domains indicate biculturality. BASsubscales and the total scores were validated by analyzing subjects’ scores on seven proxy variablesfor acculturation criteria: generational status, length of residence in the United States, proportion ofthe respondent’s life lived in the United States, age of arrival in the United States, years of education,ethnic self-identification, and correlation with the unidimensional acculturation score of the ShortAcculturation Scale for Hispanics (Marın, Sabogal, Van Oss Marın, Otero-Sabogal, & Perez-Stable,1987). The alpha coefficients for this sample were .98 for the non-Hispanic domain and .93 for theHispanic domain.

Teacher–Child Relationships. The Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; Pianta, 2001)measures teachers’ perceptions of their relationship with a student. The STRS comprises 28 itemsand uses a 5-point Likert scale. Only the Closeness and Conflict subscales were used in this studybecause the third subscale (Dependency) had a very low alpha coefficient for this sample (α = .34),



Table 1Demographic Characteristics of Participants

N % % Missing M SD

Child CharacteristicsAge 468 4.42 0.60Gender

Female 242 51.10Male 226 47.70

WMLS-R Language SkillsEnglish Oral Language 359 90.85 15.32Spanish Oral Language 393 82.83 16.02

Parent CharacteristicsCountry of Origin 311 33.5

Dominican Republic 25.10Mexico 13.90South America 9.80Puerto Rico 7.70United States 6.40Central America 2.00Other Caribbean Islands 0.80Africa 0.20Spain 0.20

Education Level 227 51.4Grades 1-6 2.80Grades 7-8 7.00High School, Grades 9-12 17.00Some College 16.40College Grad and Higher 4.90

Generation Status 319 32.0First 57.80Second 6.80Third 1.50Fourth 1.10Fifth 0.90

Acculturation Level 330 30.3High 5.70Bicultural 30.20Low 33.80

Note: WMLS-R = Woodcock-Munoz Language Survey-Revised.

which had also been the case for Latino students in the STRS standardization sample. The Closenesssubscale (11 items) measures the degree to which a teacher experiences affection, warmth, and opencommunication with a student. The Conflict subscale (12 items) measures the degree to which theteacher perceives the relationship with a student as negative and conflictual. The alpha coefficientsfor this sample were .84 for Closeness and .89 for Conflict. High scores in a subscale indicate higherlevels in that dimension.

Language. The Broad English Ability and Broad Spanish Ability clusters of the Wood-cock Munoz Language Survey-Revised English and Spanish forms (WMLS-R; Woodcock, Munoz-Sandoval, Ruef, & Alvarado, 2005a, 2005b) provided samples of listening, speaking, reading, and



writing skills in each language. Each ability cluster included the Picture Vocabulary, Verbal Analo-gies, Letter-Word Identification, and Dictation subtests. The median internal consistency reliabilitiesin the test manual were .95 for age 4 and .96 for age 5.

Procedures

Letters describing Project Resilience and teacher and parental consent forms were distributedto preschool classrooms to send home. Criteria for child participation included: coming from aHispanic background, eligible for free or reduced-fee lunch, and not referred or classified for specialeducation. During spring 2008, each child was administered an English and Spanish oral languageproficiency test in two separate testing sessions (approximately two weeks apart) to minimizefatigue factors. Administration of language tests was counterbalanced. Children received stickers tomaintain their motivation during testing and school supplies at the end of testing. As part of ProjectResilience, parents were given a package of rating scales to complete regarding their relationshipwith their children, child behaviors, and acculturation level. These rating scales were used in thisstudy. Teachers also completed rating scales that measured children’s behaviors.

RESULTS

Analyses were conducted to understand the influences of parent–child and teacher–child re-lationships, as well as parental acculturation patterns, on children’s English and Spanish languageabilities. Additional analyses were conducted to describe any gender differences on these two out-come variables.

Preliminary Analyses

As a preliminary step, we examined the distributions of the dependent and independent vari-ables. These analyses suggested that the distributions of most variables were fairly normal, exceptfor the STRS Conflict subscale. Accordingly, square root transformations were performed on STRSConflict. However, subsequent regression analysis suggested that results were similar whether usingraw or transformed data. Thus, the untransformed STRS Conflict scores were used in descriptivestatistics and as a predictor in regression analyses.

The means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations for all continuous variables arepresented in Table 2. As shown, children’s WMLS-R Broad English ability was concurrently asso-ciated with both PRQ Attachment and STRS Closeness. Children’s WMLS-R Broad Spanish abilitywas correlated with both STRS subscales but was not correlated with either PRQ subscale. Resultsof the t tests indicated that girls have higher scores on WMLS-R Broad Spanish ability, t(391) =−2.92, p < .01, but there were no gender differences in WMLS-R Broad English ability.

Given that the present study’s data were from children and teachers nested in classrooms, weconducted preliminary variance analyses by testing unconditional multilevel models separately forEnglish and Spanish abilities. The two intraclass correlation coefficient estimates (WMLS-R BroadEnglish ability: 0.033; WMLS-R Broad Spanish ability: 0.040) were below 0.05, suggesting thatthere were no significant classroom-clustering effects. Thus, we concluded that it was not necessaryto use multilevel modeling to analyze these data.1

1 Hierarchical linear models were conducted as additional analysis. The average teacher–child closeness withineach classroom was included as a level-2 (classroom) predictor. Similar to hierarchical regression models, gender,parent–child and teacher-child relationship variables and parent acculturation dummy variables were included aslevel-1 (individual) variables. Results of HLM analysis and hierarchical regression analysis were not substantiallydifferent.



Table 2Zero-Order Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations for All Study Variables

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. WMLS-R Broad English –2. WMLS-R Broad Spanish .12∗ –3. PRQ Attachment .27∗∗ 0.00 –4. PRQ Relational Frustration −.17∗∗ −.066 −.025 –5. STRS Conflict −.026 −.11∗ 0.021 0.067 –6. STRS Closeness .28∗∗ .20∗∗ 0.10 −.062 −.37∗∗ –

Mean 90.85 82.83 50.96 50.5 19.96 44.25SD 15.32 16.022 10.56 11.63 8.35 7.28

Note. ∗p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01.

Hierarchical Linear Regression Analyses

Hierarchical linear regression analyses were conducted in two four-step models, with WMLS-RBroad English and WMLS-R Broad Spanish abilities as respective outcome variables. The mod-els included gender, parent–child relationship variables (PRQ Attachment and PRQ RelationalFrustration), teacher–child relationship variables (STRS Closeness and STRS Conflict), and parentacculturation (coded as high, bicultural, and low) as predictors, as well as four interaction terms ofgender with both PRQ and both STRS subscales. The initial model to predict English and SpanishBroad Language abilities included gender as a single predictor. Parental acculturation derived fromthe BAS, PRQ Attachment, and PRQ Relational Frustration were entered in the second model. Thethird model included STRS Closeness and STRS Conflict as indicators of teacher–child relation-ships, in addition to gender and PRQ Attachment and Relational Frustration. The four interactionterms were entered in the last model.

The three parent acculturation patterns (low, bicultural, and high) were coded as dummyvariables, using the “high” group as a reference group. The two teacher-child relationship variableswere centered at the classroom mean scores to account for possible clustering effects at the classroomlevel. The interaction terms were calculated based on classroom-centered teacher–child relationshipvariables. Listwise deletion of cases was used to account for missing data in the analyses. Missingdata were due to a number of factors, such as time limitations to test all children and low return rateof parental rating scales.

Associations Between Predictors and English Ability

Results of hierarchical linear regression analysis for WMLS-R Broad English language abilityare reported in Table 3. No gender effect was detected for scores on the WMLS-R Broad Englishlanguage ability. The amount of variance explained by the gender-only model was less than 1%and was not significant. After PRQ (Attachment and Relational Frustration) and BAS acculturationvariables were entered, model 2 explained an additional 21.6% of the variance, R2 = .22, F (5, 218)= 12.34, p < .001. Children whose parents exhibited a low or a bicultural acculturation patternhad significantly lower scores on English language ability than children whose parents were highlyacculturated (B = −18.61 and B = −11.78, respectively). Comparison of betas suggested thatthe difference between children whose parents reported a low acculturation pattern and childrenof highly acculturated parents were stronger than the difference between children of bicultural and



Tabl

e3

Ass

ocia

tion

sA

mon

gPa

rent

–Chi

ldan

dTe

ache

r–C

hild

Rel

atio

nshi

psan

dE

ngli

shL

angu

age

Abi

lity

Mod

el1

Mod

el2

Mod

el3

Var

iabl

eB

SE95

%C

IB

SE95

%C

IB

SE95

%C

I

Con

stan

t90

.51∗

∗∗1.

45[8

7.65

–93.

56]

100.

49∗∗

∗6.

73[8

7.22

,113

.77]

99.7

0∗∗∗

6.47

[86.

95–1

12.4

6]G

ende

r(1

=fe

mal

e)2.

071.

97[−

1.81

–5.9

5]1.

891.

81[−

1.67

,5.4

5]0.

971.

76[−

2.49

,−4.

43]

Pare

ntV

aria

bles

Low

Acc

ultu

ratio

n−1

8.61

∗∗∗

3.35

[−25

.21,

−12.

01]

−17.

01∗∗

∗3.

25[−

23.4

2,−1

0.60

]B

icul

tura

l−1

1.78

∗∗3.

39[1

8.45

,−5.

10]

−10.

54∗∗

3.28

[−17

.01,

−4.0

8]A

ttach

men

t0.

26∗∗

0.08

[.10

,.43

]0.

25∗∗

0.08

[.09

,−.4

1]Fr

ustr

atio

n−0

.18*

0.08

[−.3

3,−.

03]

−0.1

7∗∗

0.07

[−.3

2,−.

03]

Teac

her–

Chi

ldR

elat

ions

hip

STR

SC

onfli

ct0.

110.

13[−

.15–

.38]

STR

SC

lose

ness

0.67

∗∗∗

0.15

[.37

−.97

]G

ende

rX

Clo

sene

ssG

ende

rX

Con

flict

Mod

elR

2.0

05.2

21.2

87C

hang

ein

R2

–.2

16∗∗

∗.0

66∗∗

∗

F1.

1112

.34

12.4

2df

(Res

idua

l)22

2.00

218.

0021

6.00

Not

e.M

odel

4w

aste

sted

butn

otpr

esen

ted

inth

ista

ble

beca

use

inte

ract

ion

term

sw

ere

nots

igni

fican

t.∗ p

<.0

5.∗∗

p<

.01.

∗∗∗ p

<.0

01.



highly acculturated parents. Attachment was positively associated whereas frustration was negativelyassociated with WMLS-R Broad English language ability. An additional 6.6% of the variance wasexplained with the addition of two STRS variables (Closeness and Conflict), R2 = .29, F (7, 216)= 12.42, p < .01. After controlling for the effect of BAS acculturation and PRQ Attachment andRelational Frustration, STRS Closeness was positively associated with WMLS-R Broad Englishlanguage ability (B = 0.67, p < .01), but there was no significant relation between STRS Conflictand English language ability. Four interaction terms were entered in Model 4. The addition ofthese four variables only accounted for another 0.7% of the variance, R2 = .29, F (11, 212) =8.08, p < .01. The interaction terms were not significant, suggesting that the “effect” of parent–child attachment and teacher–child relationships on children’s English language ability was notmoderated by children’s gender.

Associations Between Predictors and Spanish Ability

Table 4 describes results of the hierarchical linear regression analysis for WMLS-R BroadSpanish ability. Gender was a significant predictor of Spanish language ability when no othervariables were included in the model. The gender-only model explained 3.2% of the variance, F (1,236) = 7.88, p < .01. When BAS acculturation and PRQ Attachment and Relational Frustrationwere entered in Model 2, an additional 9.5% of the variance was explained. The gender effectswere retained (B = 4.31, p < .05) after the acculturation and parent-child relationship variableswere entered in the model. The results suggested that children whose parents reported “low” or“bicultural” acculturation styles had higher levels of Spanish ability than children with “high”acculturation parents (B = 14.74, p < .01, and B = 7.22, p < .05, respectively). Neither PRQAttachment nor PRQ Relational Frustration significantly predicted children’s Broad Spanish ability.With the addition of the STRS Closeness and Conflict scales, a total of 18.5% of variance wasexplained. In this model, gender was not significant. Parent acculturation patterns (BAS) continued tobe significant predictors. After the effects of the BAS and PRQ Attachment and Relational Frustrationwere controlled for, STRS Closeness was significantly associated with children’s WMLS-R BroadSpanish language ability, but STRS Conflict was not. Adding the four interactions to the model didnot increase the model’s explanatory power and were not significant.

Summary of the Findings

Ordinary least square regressions were computed with WMLS-R Broad English and BroadSpanish language abilities as the outcome variables. The models included gender, two PRQ subscales(Attachment and Relational Frustration), two STRS subscales (Closeness and Conflict), and parentalacculturation levels (BAS), as well as four interaction terms.

For English language ability, gender was not a significant predictor. Children whose parentsreported “low” or “bicultural” acculturation styles had significantly lower levels of English languageskills than children whose parents were classified as “high” on acculturation. Attachment waspositively associated with English language skills, whereas parental frustration was negativelyassociated with English language skills. With regard to teacher-child relationship variables, teachercloseness was significantly associated with English language skills, but the association betweenteacher conflict and the outcome was not significant. The results of hierarchical regressions showedthat there were no gender differences, even when gender was the only variables in the model.The difference between “low” and “high” acculturation was stronger than the difference between“bicultural” and “high” acculturation.

For Spanish language ability, children whose parents reported “low” or “bicultural” accultura-tion styles described higher levels of Spanish language skills than children with “high” acculturated



Table 4Associations Among Parent–Child and Teacher–Child Relationships and Spanish Language Ability

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Variable B SE 95% CI B SE 95% CI B SE 95% CI

Constant 81.35∗∗∗ 1.43 [78.54, 84.16] 72.74∗∗∗ 7.14 [58.66, 86.81] 72.47∗∗∗ 6.93 [58.82, 86.13]Gender (1 = Female) 5.44∗∗ 1.94 [1.62, 9.26] 4.31∗ 1.90 [0.57, 8.06] 3.29 1.87 [−.399, 6.97]

Parent VariablesLow Acculturation 14.74∗∗∗ 3.63 [7.59, 21.90] 16.41∗∗∗ 3.55 [9.42, 23.40]Bicultural 7.22∗ 3.66 [.01, 14.43] 8.48∗ 3.57 [1.45, 15.52]PRQ Attachment 0.06 0.09 [−.11, .24] 0.03 0.09 [−.14, .20]PRQ Frustration −.09 0.08 [−.25, .07] −0.07 [0.08 [−.23, .08]Teacher–Child RelationshipSTRS Conflict 0.09 0.14 [−.19, .37]STRS Closeness 0.65∗∗∗ 0.17 [.33, .98]InteractionGender X ClosenessGender X ConflictModel R2 0.032 0.127 0.185Change in R2 – .94∗∗∗ .059∗∗∗

F 7.88 6.73 7.48df (Residual) 236 232 230

Note. Model 4 was tested but not presented in this table because interaction terms were not significant.∗p < .05;.∗∗p < .01. ∗∗∗p < .001.

parents. Neither parent–child relationship variables were significant. For the two teacher–childvariables, closeness was the only positive predictor. Compared with “high” acculturation, havingparents who reported “low” acculturation was positively associated with higher levels of Spanishlanguage skills, and the difference was stronger than the difference between “high” and “bicultural”acculturation. The results of hierarchical regressions showed that girls had higher levels of Spanishlanguage skills than boys when gender was the sole predictor in the model. Such gender differenceswere retained after acculturation and parent-child relationship variables were entered, but were notsignificant after teacher−child relationship variables were entered. For both English and Spanishlanguage abilities, the influences of parent–child and teacher–child relationships were not moderatedby gender.

DISCUSSION

When immigrant bilingual children live in impoverished environments, it is important to identifyresilience factors that promote their academic success. Social–emotional competence promotes socialand academic resilience among bilingual Hispanic preschool children (Oades-Sese et al., 2011). Thesocial–emotional factors that enhance school success include temperament, emotion regulation,social competence, and competence in either English or Spanish oral language skills—all of whichare associated with or rooted in attachment relationships. This study focused on the primary skillof linguistic communicative competence, a skill that contributes in important ways to the positiveattachment relationships needed for children’s academic success. Vocabulary, expressive languageskills, and conceptual knowledge are developed during quality verbal interactions between adults



and children. These relationships are even more crucial in high-risk environments that providechildren with lower levels of warmth, closeness, and maternal responsiveness (Bolger, Patterson, &Thompson, 1995; Brooks-Gunn, Klebanov, & Liaw, 1995; McLeod & Shanahan, 1993; McLoyd,1998). Thus, attachment relationships are one of the most sensitive predictors of children’s resilienceto stressful life events (Wyman et al., 1999) and are particularly important for children living inimpoverished environments that are associated with poor language skills (Whitehurst, 1997). Schoolenvironments that do not strengthen bilingual preschoolers’ emerging first language place thesechildren at further risk for social−emotional and academic failure.

This is the first study to examine the influence of parent-child attachment and close teacher–child relationships on the English and Spanish language competence of low-income, Hispanicpreschoolers. This study also examined the role of parental acculturation level on children’s lan-guage competence. Findings of this study indicate that parent–child attachment and close teacher-child relationships are associated with higher English language skills and that children from highacculturated families demonstrate higher English language skills compared with children from bi-cultural and low acculturated families. This association was expected, given that parents’ languageusage and proficiency were components of the BAS measure of parental acculturation.

Consistent with past studies, the affective components of attachment relationships foster positiveverbal interactions, which are likely to be of higher quality, of higher frequency, more elaborate,and longer in duration. Parents in this study who rated their attachment level as high reported thatthey were attuned to their child’s feelings and thoughts. They also reportedly enjoyed spending timetogether and felt that they were able to calm their children when distressed. Close teacher–childrelationships in this study were characterized as warm and affectionate. Teachers were also attuned tothe child’s feelings and perceived that the child was able to spontaneously share information, feelings,and experiences. In this study, parental frustration was associated with lower English language skills.This was expected, because negative adult-child relationships generally result in withdrawal of verbalinteraction and brief conversations, limiting opportunities to advance language skills. The affectivecomponents within attachment relationships are necessary as underlying mechanisms to scaffoldlanguage competence.

Results also showed that children of low acculturated families demonstrated higher Spanishlanguage skills and that parent–child attachment was not associated with children’s Spanish lan-guage competence. This may confirm a cultural difference that parents do not view children asconversational partners. Comprehensible experience in Spanish may be provided more frequentlyduring conversations with extended family members who take on parental roles as defined by themainstream culture (Valdes, 1996). “Mother-child dyadic formations may not be an archetype in theLatino family as it is in the Anglo society. . . . [They] coexist with sibling-child dyad, the comadre-child dyad, the aunt-child dyad, or grandparent-child dyad” (Madding, 2002, p. 73). Beyond the rolethat familismo (emphasis on family ties) plays in fostering language interaction between extendedfamily members and children, there is also exposure to Spanish television programs and Latin musicat home. An alternate hypothesis may be that the items measuring parental attachment may not reflectthe cultural view of attachment among Hispanic families. Items may be missing the nuances thatbest describe family bonds, such as respeto (respect), affection, intimacy accompanied by physicalaffection such as abrazos (hugs), and besos (kisses) (Rodriquez, 1999).

Close teacher–child relationships significantly predicted preschoolers’ English and Spanish lan-guage competence above parent–child relationships. This is consistent with research that has shownthat positive, close relationships with teachers result in high-quality verbal communication. Sur-prisingly, children’s relationships with teachers were also associated with higher Spanish languageskills. It is possible that, even when provided with English-only instruction, the children were ableto transfer some English vocabulary and concepts to Spanish (Lopez & Greenfield, 2004). Children



were also exposed to Spanish with Spanish-speaking teacher assistants and peers. This associationbetween teacher–child relationships and Spanish language skills may not persist as children progressto subsequent grade levels, because Spanish is not generally supported in these schools. The com-bination of nurturing children’s native language and access to close teacher–child relationships hasthe potential to advance children’s language skills toward bilingualism. Bilingualism has importantcognitive advantages (e.g., flexibility, meta-cognitive awareness) for the child (Bialystok, 1997) andis a valuable resource in the United States as the country competes in a global marketplace withmany countries whose primary language is not English.

This study had a number of limitations that should be mentioned. Methodologically, this wasa cross-sectional study, and, therefore, these results cannot predict whether these relationships willpersist over time. However, longitudinal studies have indicated that early parent–child and teacher–child relationships impact children’s later social–emotional and academic development (Bergin &Bergin, 2009; Birch & Ladd, 1997; Hamre & Pianta, 2001). Nonetheless, longitudinal studies onattachment relationships of low-income preschool children are urgently needed to understand thedevelopmental and educational needs of these children. Also, missing data were addressed usingthe listwise deletion method. Alternative techniques for accounting for missing data might be ap-propriate and could prevent a loss in sample size during analyses. Also, instruments that integrateproficiency in both Spanish and English are greatly needed and would allow for a greater under-standing of the development of bilingualism.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Findings of this study highlight the important role of parents or caregivers in mediating languageexperiences for children and providing comprehensible language stimulation for children in dailylife. Given cultural differences in viewing children as conversational partners, it is important todesign interventions and develop recommendations that account for cultural family values (vanKleeck, 1994). Recommendations generally used for mainstream parents can be extended to includeolder siblings or extended family members. For example, parents can engage in regular discussionswith children about events of the day or what was learned in school during mealtime (Beals, 2001),on the way to school or the supermarket, or before bedtime. These discussions should be in the child’shome language, which allows him or her to connect emotionally, cognitively, and linguistically withcaregivers (Kohnert, Yim, Nett, Kan, & Duran, 2005). The emphasis is on the quality of theseverbal interactions such that children are excited about talking, inquiring, building vocabulary, andexpanding their knowledge base (Dickinson & Tabors, 2001). All of these experiences should occurwithin a “secure base” of positive and caring relationships.

Classrooms that create positive learning and caring environments use humor and relate personalexperiences within the academic context (Roseberry-McKibbin, 2002). During morning meetings,snack time, or lunch, children can discuss an exciting family event or situation or share somethingnew that they have learned outside of the classroom (Cote, 2001). Extended discourse during freeplay or choice time offers opportunities to build language and teacher-child relationships (Dickinson& Tabors, 2001). Given that the nature of teacher–child relationships and the quality of verbalinteraction have predicted oral language skills and literacy, reading books that represent children’slives and interests helps teachers connect with their students (Baker, 2001). Creating a positiveand safe environment where children’s culture and language is validated promotes self-esteem,competence, and effective learning (Baker, 2001).

Future studies should examine the nature of children’s relationships with older siblings andextended family members. It would be interesting to see how these relationships contribute tochildren’s language competence and academic success. Understanding the mechanism through which



attachment relationships influence bilingual skills as well as social competence is also important.Longitudinal studies that track the developmental trajectory of these relationships’ influence onchildren’s social–emotional competence would help in developing culturally relevant interventions.Recording and deconstructing narrative discourse to its components may explain the nature of verbaldiscourse within these relationships. Moreover, future studies should incorporate other factors thatinfluence adult–child relationships, such as temperament, social competence, teacher emotionalintelligence, teacher cultural competence, and parent attachment classifications. Also, it is importantto examine the directionality between the relationship of attachment and language. It may be thatgood language skills facilitate the quality of attachment relationships.

In conclusion, this study emphasizes the importance of parent–child attachment and closeteacher–child relationships in building competence in English and Spanish. These relationshipsbecome even more important for children from impoverished environments, which have been as-sociated with more conflicting attachment relationships and lower language skills. However, thefinding that teacher–child relationships influence language skills over and above those of parentattachment relationships highlights the importance of creating close relationships in schools. De-veloping early intervention programs or providing professional development for early childhoodteachers that foster positive teacher–child relationships and language-rich environments is an im-portant endeavor for the success of young learners and is especially important for English languagelearners. To the literature on resilience and early childhood, this study contributes an understandingof the cultural and linguistic factors that enhance the development of young Hispanic preschoolchildren from low-income families.

REFERENCES

Ainsworth, M. (1973). The development of infant-mother attachment. In B. Caldwell & H. Ricciuti (Eds.), Review of childdevelopment research (Vol. 3, pp. 1 – 94). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Toronto, Canada: Multilingual Matters.Baker, J. A. (2006). Contributions of teacher-child relationships to positive school adjustment during elementary school.

Journal of School Psychology, 44, 211 – 229.Beals, D. E. (2001). Eating and reading: Links with family conversation with preschoolers and later language and literacy. In

D. K. Dickenson & P. O. Tabors (Eds.), Beginning literacy with language: Young children learning at home and school(pp. 75 – 92). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Bergin, C., & Bergin, D. (2009). Attachment in the classroom. Educational Psychological Review, 21, 141 – 170.Bialystok, E. (1997). Effects of bilingualism and biliteracy on children’s emerging concepts of print. Developmental Psy-

chology, 33, 429 – 440.Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1997). The teacher-child relationship and children’s early school adjustment. Journal of School

Psychology, 35, 61 – 79.Bolger, K. E., Patterson, C. J., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1995). Psychosocial adjustment among children experiencing persistent

and intermittent family economic hardship. Child Development, 66, 1107 – 1129.Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss I: Attachment. London: Hogarth Press.Bretherton, I., & Munholland, K. (1999). Internal working models in attachment relationships: A construct revisited. In J.

Cassidy & P. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 89 – 111). NewYork: Guildford.

Brice, A. E. (2002). The Hispanic child: Speech, language, culture, and education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Brooks-Gunn, J., Klebanov, P. K., & Liaw, F. (1995). The learning, physical, and emotional environment of the home in

the context of poverty: The Infant Health and Development Program. Children and Youth Services Review, 17, 251 –276.

Calzada, E. J., & Eyberg, S. M. (2002). Self-reported parenting practicing in Dominican and Puerto Rican mother of youngchildren. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 31, 354 – 363.

Cote, L. R. (2001). Language opportunities during mealtimes in preschool classrooms. In D. K. Dickenson and P. O. Tabors(Eds.), Beginning literacy with language: Young children learning at home and school (pp. 205 – 221). Baltimore: PaulH. Brookes.



Cuellar, I., Arnold, B., & Maldonado, R. (1995). Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans II: A revision of theoriginal ARSMA Scale. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 17, 275 – 304.

Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question, andsome other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19, 121 – 129.

Dickinson, D. K., & Tabors, P. O. (2001). Beginning literacy with language: Young children learning at home and school.Baltimore: Brookes Publishing.

Dinh, K. T., Roosa, M. W., Tein, J. K., & Lopez, V. A. (2002). The relationship between acculturation and problem behaviorproness in Hispanic youth sample: A longitudinal mediation model. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 295 –309.

Ewing, A. R., & Taylor, A. R. (2009). The role of child gender and ethnicity in teacher-child relationship quality and children’sbehavioral adjustment in preschool. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24, 92 – 105.

Fracasso, M. P., Busch-Rossnagel, N. A., & Fisher, C. B. (1994). The relationship of maternal behavior ad acculturation tothe quality of attachment in Hispanic infants living in New York City. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 16,143 – 154.

Fujiki, M., Brinton, B., Robinson, L., & Watson, V. (1999). Withdrawn and social behavior of children with specific languageimpairment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 30, 183 – 195.

Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher-child relationships and the trajectory of children’s school outcomesthrough eighth grade. Child Development, 72, 625 – 638.

Hart, B., & Risely, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in everyday experiences of young American children. Baltimore: PaulH. Brooks.

Howes, C., & Hamilton, C. E. (1992). Children’s relationships with caregivers: Mothers and child care teachers. ChildDevelopment, 63, 859 – 866.

Hughes, J. N., Cavell, T. A., & Wilson, V. (2001). Further support for the developmental significance of the quality of theteacher-student relationship. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 289 – 301.

Justice, L. M, Cottone, E. A., Masburn, A., & Rimm-Kaufman, S. E. (2008). Relationships between teachers and preschoolerswho are at risk: Contribution of children’s language skills, temperamentally based attributes, and gender. Early Education& Development, 19, 600 – 621.

Kamphaus, R. W., & Reynolds, C. R. (2006). Parenting Relationship Questionnaire. Minneapolis, MN: Pearson Assessments.Kayser, H. (1998). Assessment and intervention resource for Hispanic children. San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing.Kennedy, J. H., & Kennedy, C. E. (2004). Attachment theory: Implications for school psychology. Psychology in the Schools,

41(2), 247 – 259.Kohnert, K., Yim, D., Nett, K., Kan, P. F., & Duran, L. (2005). Intervention with linguistically diverse preschool children: A

focus on developing home language(s). Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 251 – 263.Ladd, G. W., & Burgess, K. (2001). Do relational risks and protective factors moderate the linkages between childhood

aggression and early psychological and school adjustment? Child Development, 72(5), 1579 – 1601.Lopez, L. M., & Greenfield, D. B. (2004). University of Miami: Cross-language transfer of phonological skills of Hispanic

Head Start children. Bilingual Research Journal, 28, 1 – 18.Madding, C. C. (2002). Socialization practices of Latinos. In A. E. Brice (Ed.), The Hispanic child: Speech, language, culture,

and education (pp. 68 – 84). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Marın, G. S., & Gamba, R. J. (1996). A new measurement of acculturation for Hispanics: Bidimensional Acculturation Scale

for Hispanics (BAS). Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 18(3), 297 – 316.Marın, G., Sabogal, F., Van Oss Marın, B., Otero-Sabogal, F., & Perez-Stable, E. J. (1987). Development of a short

acculturation scale for Hispanics. Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 9, 183 – 205.Mashburn, A. J., Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B., Downer, J. T., Barbarin, O. A., Bryant, D., et al. (2008). Measures of classroom

quality in prekindergarten and children’s development of academic, language, and social skills. Child Development,79(3), 732 – 749.

McLeod, D., & Shanahan, M. J. (1993). Poverty, parenting, and children’s mental health. American Sociological Review, 58,351 – 366.

McLoyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American Psychologist, 53, 185 – 204.Miranda, A., Estrada, D., & Firpo-Jimenez, M. (2000). Differences in family cohesion, adaptability, and environment among

Latino families in dissimilar stages of acculturation. Family Journal, 8, 341 – 350.Mitchell-Copeland, J., Denham, S. A., & DeMulder, E. K. (1997). Q-Sort assessment of teacher-child attachment relationships

and social competence in the preschool. Early Education & Development, 8, 27 – 39.Murray, A. D., & Yingling, J. L. (2000). Competence in language at 24 months: Relations with attachment security and home

stimulation. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 161(2), 133 – 140.NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2005). Pathways to reading: The role of oral language in the transition to

reading. Developmental Psychology, 41, 428 – 442.



Nicolandis, E. (1997). Language development in preschool bilingual children. Journal of Speech-Language Pathology andAudiology, 21(4), 258 – 270.

Oades-Sese, G. V., Esquivel, G. B., Kaliski, P. K., & Maniatis, L. (2011, January 10). A longitudinal study of the social and aca-demic competence of economically disadvantaged bilingual preschool Children. Developmental Psychology. Advanceonline publication. doi:10.1037/a0021380

O’Connor, E., & McCartney, K. (2007). Examining teacher-child relationships and achievement as part of an ecologicalmodel of development. American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 340 – 369.

Parke, R. D., Coltrane, S., Duffy, S., Buriel, R., Dennis, J., Powers, J., et al. (2004). Economic stress, parenting, and childadjustment in Mexican American and European American families. Child Development, 75, 1632 – 1656.

Pawliuk, N., Grizenko, N., Chan-Yip, A., Gantous, P., Matthew, J., & Nguyen, D. (1996). Acculturation style and psychologicalfunctioning in children of immigrants. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 66, 111 – 121.

Pianta, R. C. (2001). Student-Teacher Relationship Scale. Lutz, FL: PsychologicalAssessmentResources.Pianta, R. C., & Harbers, K. (1996). Observing mother and child behavior in problem-solving situation at school entry:

Relations with academic achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 67, 307 – 322.Pianta, R. C., Nimetz, S., & Bennett, E. (1997). Mother-child relationships, teacher-child relationships, and school outcomes

in preschool and kindergarten. Early Research Quarterly, 12, 263 – 280.Piker, R. A., & Rex, L. A. (2008). Influences of teacher-child social interactions on English language development in Head

Start classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36, 187 – 193.Rodriquez, G. (1999). Raising nuestrosninos: Bring up children in a bicultural world. New York: Fireside.Roseberry-McKibbin, C. (2002). Principles and strategies in intervention. In A. E. Brice, The Hispanic child: Speech,

language, culture, and education (pp. 199 – 233). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Sanchez, A. R. (2001). Multicultural family counseling: Toward cultural sensibility. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A.

Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (2nd ed., pp. 672 – 700). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Santisteban, D. A., & Mitrani, V. B. (2003). The influence of acculturation processes on the family. In K. M. Chun, P. B.Organista, & G. Marin (Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in theory, measurement, and applied research (pp. 121 – 135).Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Saunders, W. M., & O’Brien, G. (2006). Oral language. In F. Genesee, K. Lindholme-Leary, W. Sauders, & D. Christian(Eds.), Educating English language learners (pp. 14 – 57). New York: NY: Cambridge University Press.

Schieffelin, B. B., & Eisenberg, A. R. (1984). Cultural variation in children’s conversations. In R. L. Schiefelbusch & A.Pickar (Eds.), The development of communicative competence (pp. 237 – 266). Baltimore: University Park Press.

Smokowski, P. R., & Bacallao, M. L. (2006). Acculturation and aggression in Latino adolescents: A structural model focusingon cultural risk factors and assets. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34, 657 – 671.

Smokowski, P. R., Rose, R., & Bacallao, M. L. (2008). Acculturation and Latino family processes: How cultural involvement,biculturalism, and acculturation gaps influence family dynamics. Family Relations, 57, 295 – 308.

Valdes, G. (1996). Con respeto: Bridging the distances between culturally diverse families and schools. New York: TeachersCollege Press.

van IJzendoorn, M. H., Dijkstra, J., & Bus, A. G. (1995). Attachment, intelligence, and language: A meta-analysis. SocialDevelopment, 4(2), 115 – 128.

van Kleeck, A. (1994). Metalinguistic development. In G. Wallach & K. Butler (Eds.), Language learning disabilities inschool-age children and adolescents (pp. 53 – 98). New York: Merrill.

Whitehurst, G. J. (1997). Language processes in context: Language learning reared in poverty. In L. B. Adamson &M. A. Romski (Eds.), Communication and language acquisition: Discoveries from atypical development (pp. 233 –265). Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks.

Woodcock, R. W., Munoz-Sandoval, A. F., Ruef, M. L., & Alvarado, C. G. (2005). Woodcock-Munoz Language Survey-Revised, English. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

Woodcock, R. W., Munoz-Sandoval, A. F., Ruef, M. L., & Alvarado, C. G. (2005). Woodcock-Munoz Language Survey-Revised, Spanish Form. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

Wyman, P. A., Cowen, E. L., Work, W. C., Hoyt-Meyers, L., Magnus, K. B., & Fagan, D. B. (1999). Caregiving anddevelopmental factors differentiating young at-risk urban children showing resilient versus stress-affected outcomes: Areplication and extension. Child Development, 70, 645 – 659.


Documents

Attachment relationships as predictors of language skills for at-risk bilingual preschool children