














































Template Journals Hipatia Press


 

 

 
Instructions for authors, subscriptions, and further details: 

http://ijep.hipatiapress.com/ 

Exploring Teacher-Family Partnerships in Infant Center-based 

Care: A Comparative Study of Teachers' and Mothers' 

Perspectives and Influential Factors 

 

Vera Coelho1,2, Sílvia Barros3,4, Carla Peixoto1,4 , Manuela Pessanha3,4, 

Joana Cadima2,5 , & Donna Bryant6 

 

1) University of Maia, Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences 
2) Center for Psychology at University of Porto 

3) School of Education, Polytechnic Institute of Porto 

4) Center for Research and Innovation in Education (inED), School of Education, 

Polytechnic Institute of Porto 

5) Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences of Porto University   

6) University of North Carolina 

 

Date of publication: June 24th, 2023  

Edition period: February 2023 – June 2023 

 

To cite this article: Coelho, V., Barros, S., Peixoto, C., Pessanha, M., Cadima, J., & 

Bryant, D. (2023). Exploring Teacher-Family Partnerships in Infant Center-based 

Care: A Comparative Study of Teachers' and Mothers' Perspectives and Influential 

Factors. International Journal of Educational Psychology, 12(2), pp. 178-205. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.17583/ijep.10638 

 

To link this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.17583/ijep.10638 

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE 

The terms and conditions of use are related to the Open Journal System and to 

Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY)

https://hipatiapress.com/hpjournals/index.php/ijep/index
http://dx.doi.org/10.17583/ijep.10638
http://dx.doi.org/10.17583/ijep.10638
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


IJEP – International Journal of Educational Psychology Vol. 12 No.2 

June 2023 pp. 178-205. 

2023 Hipatia Press 
ISSN: 2014-3591 

DOI: 10.17583/ijep.10638 

The Exploring Teacher-Family Partnerships 

in Infant Center-based Care: A 

Comparative Study of Teachers' and 

Mothers' Perspectives and Influential 

Factors 
Vera Coelho                                                        Sílvia Barros 

University of Maia                                     Polytechnic Institute of Porto 

Center for Psychology at University of Porto 

Carla Peixoto                Manuela Pessanha  
University of Maia                   Polytechnic Institute of Porto 

Joana Cadima                                 Donna Bryant  
University of Porto                   University of North Carolina 

Abstract 

Teacher-family partnerships are crucial elements of high-quality early childhood education. 

The factors influencing these partnerships, particularly for children under age 3, are not 

well known. This study compares teachers' and mothers' perspectives on their partnership 

and the ideal practices they would like to see implemented. Additionally, it investigates 

child, family, and program-level factors predictive of partnership practices. Participants 

were mothers and teachers of 90 infants who completed the Real-Ideal Teacher-parents 

Partnership Scale; mothers rated child’s temperament, and classroom quality was observed 

6-months after infants entered childcare. Home environment was assessed before infants 

entered childcare. Both mothers and teachers reported a medium-high number of practices 

being implemented, but ideally, would like more practices to be implemented. The 

frequency of mother and teacher reports of real and ideal practices were significantly 

associated, although teacher reports were higher. Findings from the regression analyses 

showed that teacher level of education (having a Master) was uniquely and positively 

associated with both teachers' and mothers' reports of real partnership practices, and was 

significantly associated with teachers' reports of ideal partnership practices. Mothers' 

education level predicted their ideal partnership practices. Findings highlight the 

importance of teacher education for partnerships, especially considering the variability in 

legal requirements regarding qualifications for teaching infants across Europe. 

Keywords: teacher-family partnerships, infant care, teacher qualification, partnership, 
childcare  



IJEP – International Journal of Educational Psychology Vol. 12 No.2 

June 2023 pp. 178-205. 

2023 Hipatia Press 
ISSN: 2014-3591 

DOI: 10.17583/ijep.2023.10638 

Exploración de la colaboración entre 

maestros y familias en los centros de 

atención infantil: Un estudio comparativo de 

las perspectivas de maestros y madres y los 

factores influyentes   
Vera Coelho                                                        Sílvia Barros 

University of Maia                                     Polytechnic Institute of Porto 

Center for Psychology at University of Porto 

Carla Peixoto                Manuela Pessanha  
University of Maia                   Polytechnic Institute of Porto 

Joana Cadima                                 Donna Bryant  
University of Porto                   University of North Carolina 

Resumen 

La colaboración entre maestros y familias es un elemento crucial de la educación infantil 

de alta calidad. No se conocen bien los factores que las influyen, especialmente en el caso 

de los niños pequeños. Este estudio compara las perspectivas de maestros y madres sobre 

sus prácticas ideales y reales de colaboración. Investiga los factores a nivel de niño, familia 

y programa que predicen la colaboración. Participan madres y maestros de 90 niños que 

rellenaron la Escala de colaboración real-ideal familias-maestros; las madres valoraron el 

temperamento del niño; la calidad del aula se observó 6 meses después de que los niños 

entraran la educación infantil. Tanto madres como maestros informaron de un número 

medio-alto de prácticas aplicadas, pero, idealmente, desearían que se aplicaran más. La 

frecuencia de los informes de madres y maestros sobre prácticas reales e ideales se asoció 

significativamente, aunque los maestros fueron más elevados. El nivel educativo de los 

maestros (tener un máster) se asociaba única y positivamente con los informes de los 

maestros y de las madres sobre las prácticas reales de asociación, y se asociaba 

significativamente con los informes de los maestros sobre las prácticas ideales de 

colaboración. El nivel educativo de las madres predijo sus prácticas ideales de colaboración. 

Los resultados apuntan a la importancia de la cualificación para mejorar la colaboración, 

especialmente si se tiene en cuenta la variabilidad de los requisitos legales relativos a la 

cualificación de los maestros en las aulas de educación infantil en Europa. 

 

Palabras clave: relaciones maestro-familia, cuidado de niños, cualificación del 
profesorado, relaciones, cuidado de niños  





    Coelho et al. – Infant Center-based Care 

  

 

180 

artnerships between families and teachers of young children play an 

important role in fostering children’s development and well-being 

(e.g., Castro et al., 2004; Swartz & Easterbrooks, 2014). The teacher-

family partnership has been identified as a key component of high-

quality programs for early childhood education and care (ECEC), and its 

associations with children’s positive outcomes are highlighted (e.g., Castro et 

al., 2004; Cottle & Alexander, 2014; Lang et al., 2020). However, most 

literature about teacher-family partnerships focuses on preschool or school-

aged children, leaving a need to better understand what the teacher-family 

partnership involves when the child is an infant or toddler (Coelho et al., 2019; 

Elicker et al., 1997). Understanding teacher-family partnership in infant centre-

based programs can be particularly important as parents with infants are mostly 

dependent on teachers to know what the child experienced and how the child 

behaved during the out-of-home care. Consequently, parents’ feelings of 

anxiety and their levels of security and satisfaction with their infant care 

arrangements are largely dependent on the relationship with the teacher. This 

study documents perceptions of mothers and teachers about the real (i.e., 

implemented) and ideal (i.e., desired) partnership practices in centre-based 

infant childcare, and explores associations between these practices and 

characteristics of the child, family and childcare program.  

The teacher-family partnership is defined as a collaboration between families 

and teachers, aiming to achieve common goals in the process of child education 

and care (e.g., Owen et al., 2000). Partnership enhances families’ and teachers’ 

knowledge about the child in both home and centre, thus allowing valuable 

connections between children’s experiences in each context (Dunst & 

Dempsey, 2007; Leavitt, 1995; Owen et al., 2000). Thus, successful 

partnerships between parents and teachers require that both can collaborate 

from an equal position, sharing responsibility for the child’s care (Rouse & 

O’Brien, 2017). 

Strong and supportive connections between family and educational contexts 

have been described as essential for children’s development and wellbeing 

(Drugli & Undheim, 2012; Jeon et al., 2021; Lang et al., 2020; Owen et al., 

2008; Shpancer, 1998; White et al., 2020).  

Even though it is broadly recognized – by researchers, educators and 

policymakers – that partnership between families and childcare centres is 

important (e.g.,; National Association for the Education of Young Children 

[NAEYC], n.d.; Swartz & Easterbrooks, 2014), several authors (e.g., Drugli & 

P 



       IJEP – International Journal of Educational Psychology, 12(2) 

 

 

181 

Undheim, 2012; Owen et al., 2000; Perlman & Fletcher, 2012; Shpancer, 2002) 

underline the scarceness of studies on family-childcare partnerships, especially 

in the infant and toddler years. Stronger partnerships are particularly relevant 

in infant ECEC programs for several reasons. Infants depend mostly on 

teachers or other adults to have their basic needs ensured, with responsive and 

sensitive interactions being pivotal for infants to feel secure and accomplish 

positive developmental outcomes (Cadima et al., 2020; Pinto et al., 2019; 

White et al., 2020). Importantly, families are dependent on those same adults 

to get information about their child’s care in ECEC. Reciprocally, practices in 

ECEC can further attend to each child when parents are engaged, and thus the 

development of positive partnerships for families’ satisfaction with childcare 

services and continuity of care between settings.     

Predictors of Teacher-Family Partnerships  

Several family, child, teacher and program characteristics have been studied in 

relation to teacher-family partnerships in early education, Regarding family 

characteristics, Pirchio and colleagues (2011) found that the frequency of 

teacher-family communication for children under age 3 was negatively 

associated with maternal age, education level and family income, indicating 

that teachers tended to communicate more often with younger mothers, less 

educated mothers, and mothers from lower income families. Contradictory 

findings have been also found, with more partnership activities being positively 

associated with parents’ education level and family income (Shpancer, 1998; 

Swartz & Easterbrooks, 2014). Murray and colleagues (2015) reported less 

teacher-family involvement in preschool among families from low-

socioeconomic status.  

Larger family size and more traditional childrearing beliefs have been 

related to fewer family-childcare interactions (Shpancer,1998). Additionally, 

Bradley (2010, p. 136) noted that families characterized by “chaos at home” 

(e.g., more disorganized family environments, absence of family routines, 

overpopulated family environments, nuclear family members’ instability) are 

more likely to have less productive and efficient relations and to communicate 

less with their children’s teachers. On the other hand, more stimulating home 

environments were positively associated with better teacher-family 

communication during preschool (Murray et al., 2015). 



    Coelho et al. – Infant Center-based Care 

  

 

182 

Considering child-level variables, gender, age and temperament seem to be 

related to teacher-family partnerships, particularly for school-age children. For 

ECEC, studies shown that teachers and parents communicate more when 

children are younger (e.g., Rimm-Kaufman & Pianta 1999), when comparing 

communication in infant/toddler classrooms with preschool classrooms (e.g., 

Endsley & Minish, 1989). However, results are inconsistent. Swartz and 

Easterbrooks (2014) found that children’s age was related to the perceived 

quality of teacher-family-partnerships, as reported by families and teachers. 

Child temperament has been studied as, particularly for children with more 

difficult temperaments, good communication between families and teachers 

has the potential of buffering the challenges faced in their education and care. 

In a study involving children under the age of 3, more positive temperament 

characteristics were positively associated with stronger teacher-family 

partnerships, whereas more difficult temperament was associated with less 

teacher-family communication (Pirchio et al., 2011). This may indicate that 

both teachers and families may not feel confident or may not have the adequate 

competencies for approaching and discussing with each other the most difficult 

aspects of children´s behaviour in childcare.  

Among center-level variables, literature shows that high-quality classrooms 

and positive partnerships are usually valued by parents, particularly during the 

ECEC (Coelho et al., 2015; Leavi, 1995). Overall, high-quality centers are 

characterized by more positive teacher-family partnerships (e.g., Elicker et al., 

1997; Endsley & Minish, 1989; Owen et al., 2000; Perlman & Fletcher, 2012); 

with stronger teacher-family partnerships observed when more sensitive and 

supportive teacher-child interactions in ECEC exist (Owen et al., 2000). 

Teacher level of education has been highlighted as an important feature of the 

quality of childcare settings, being key for ensuring teachers have the necessary 

knowledge and competence to provide infants with the care and high-quality 

interactions they need (Barros et al., 2018; Cadima et al., 2020; Ward, 2018). 

Some studies point to the positive effects of a university-level degree compared 

to lower education levels regarding the quality of infant care (Cadima et al., 

2020). Not only, but particularly in countries such as Portugal where teachers 

in infant classrooms are not required to have a specialized training or 

qualification, studies have indicated that lower teacher educational levels are 

associated with lower childcare quality and less communication between 

teachers and families (e.g., Barros et al., 2018; Coelho et al., 2019; NICHD 

Early Child Care Research Network, 1996; Phillips et al., 2000). Possible 



       IJEP – International Journal of Educational Psychology, 12(2) 

 

 

183 

associations between teacher level of education and teacher-family 

partnerships requires further exploration. 

Infant Childcare Services in Portugal 

Portugal has a split system regarding the education of young children, one for 

children younger than age 3 and one for children aged 3-6. Childcare centers 

for under-3sare regulated by the Ministry of Solidarity, Employment and Social 

Security, with a low level of involvement by the Ministry of Education 

(Portaria n. º 262/2011, de 31 de Agosto), regardless of the recognition that 

childcare goals include both social support and a pedagogical dimension. 

According to the Portuguese law, it is not mandatory to have a teacher with a 

higher education degree in center-based infant classrooms. As such, in Portugal 

the minimum requirement to work in infants’ classrooms is to have completed 

compulsory education in force, what may vary according to the person’s age1. 

The lack of training in ECEC may reduce a teacher’s ability to intentionally 

support infant development and learning and has also been a factor negatively 

associated with childcare quality (e.g., NICHD Early Child Care Research 

Network 1996; Phillips et al., 2000).  

Recent data shows that about 20% of Portuguese children enter childcare 

during their first year of life, a number that is almost twice the European 

average (OECD, 2019); and those infants spend a high number of hours in 

childcare (Coelho et al., 2019), with childcare being mostly attended by 

children of working families.  

In this context, it is particularly critical to understand how to support parents 

who do have to and want to place their infants in childcare centers. Because 

infants cannot tell their parents what happens in their classroom, or their 

teachers what happens at home, parent-teacher partnership is the primary (or 

even the only) way that both parents and teachers have to know what the child 

does in each setting to better respond to child needs. Literature is scarce on 

partnerships during infant care (Cadima et al., 2020). So, the present study was 

designed for analyzing parents and infant teachers’ perspectives about the 

partnership practices being implemented as well as the partnerships idealized.  

 

 



    Coelho et al. – Infant Center-based Care 

  

 

184 

The Current Study 

Earlier work suggests that both families and teachers need to have knowledge, 

skills, and dispositions for partnering with each other (Chiu et al., 2017), with 

several barriers influencing the effective implementation of partnership 

practices during infant care (e.g., Bang et al., 2021. Thus, knowing the 

relationship between teachers’ and families’ perceptions of the relevant 

partnership practices is important, as well as what would be the characteristics 

of an ideal partnership for them. Therefore, the goals of this study were to: (a) 

describe and compare teachers’ and mothers’ reports regarding real and ideal 

partnership practices, and (b) explore the associations between teacher and 

mother reports of partnerships and characteristics of the child (i.e., 

temperament, gender), family (i.e., home environment, mother education), and 

childcare program (i.e., quality of teacher-child interaction, teacher education). 

Method 

 

Participants 

This study is part of a broader project about infants’ transition and adjustment 

to childcare (FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER-029509; FCTDC PTDC/MHC-

CED/4007/2012). Participants were 90 mothers of infants attending centre-

based childcare, and the 90 lead teachers in the classrooms attended by these 

families’ children. All ECEC centres from the greater metropolitan area of 

Porto, Portugal, registered at the Ministry of Solidarity, Employment and 

Social Security website, were randomly sequenced and contacted until 90 

institutions that met the criteria for the broader study (i.e., having a list of 

infants registered to start attending childcare at the first school-year semester) 

agreed to participate. Only one infant classroom per centre participated. 

Among all families that had their infant registered to start attending the centre, 

one family in each center was randomly selected. 

The study recruited 90 of the 232 programs that met the criteria. Ninety-one 

percent were private non-profit and 8.9% were private for-profit centers. 

Classrooms had, on average, 6.38 children enrolled (SD = 2.34, range =1 - 12). 

Infant:adult ratio ranged from 1:1 to 8:1 (M = 3.38, SD = 1.49). All lead-

teachers were female. Their age ranged from 20 to 64 years old (M = 42.5, SD 

= 9.97). Note that lead-teachers are the adults responsible for the infant 



       IJEP – International Journal of Educational Psychology, 12(2) 

 

 

185 

classrooms. Lead-teacher education level ranged from elementary school (four 

years of formal education) to a higher education degree (Master in ECEC). 

Overall, 92.5% had no higher degree in ECEC. Professional experience in 

childcare varied between 1 month and 37 years (M = 8.36 years, SD = 6.5).   

Regarding family characteristics, mothers were, on average, 30 years old 

(SD = 3.55), with high educational levels. Fifty-nine percent of mothers had a 

university degree, 38% had a high-school degree (12 years of formal 

education), and 3% had less than the basic level of education (less than 9 years 

of education). Ninety three percent of mothers were married; the number of 

family members ranged between 2 and 6 (M = 3.67, SD = 0.68). Thirteen 

percent of mothers were unemployed, while 86.8% were working. Mothers 

employed spent, on average, 38 hours (SD = 16.6) in out-of-home tasks related 

to their jobs (e.g., working hours, traveling to work). Family income was on 

average 1640 euros (SD = 678). 

Measures 

Real and ideal teacher-family partnership practices were assessed with the 

Real-Ideal Teacher-parents Partnership Scale: childcare (Gaspar, 1996). The 

questionnaire has two versions: the parent version and the teacher version. It 

includes 41 partnership practices. For each practice, parents and teachers were 

asked to report if it was being implemented (real practice) and if they would 

like it to be implemented for a good teacher-family partnership (ideal practice; 

Figure 1). So, for each of the 41 practices, respondents could mark it was being 

implemented and they thought that ideally it should be implemented; the 

practice was being implemented but ideally this would not be necessary; the 

practice was not being implemented and, ideally, it should be done; or the 

practice was not being implemented and, ideally, they believe it was not 

necessary. A total score (sum) is calculated for real practices being 

implemented (maximum of 41) and for practices that respondents think would 

be ideal (maximum of 41). 

 

 

 

 

 

 



    Coelho et al. – Infant Center-based Care 

  

 

186 

Figure 1  

Example from the Real-Ideal Teacher-parents Partnership Scale: childcare 

(Gaspar, 1996) – parent version 

 

Both dimensions of the parent and teacher questionnaires – real and ideal 

practices – presented good reliability in this study (Cronbach’s alphas of .70 

and .74 for teachers real and ideal practices, respectively; and .84 and .81 for 

mothers real and ideal practices, respectively).  

Classroom quality was observed with the Classroom Assessment Scoring 

System - Infants (CLASS-Infants; Hamre et al., 2014). The CLASS-Infants 

assesses the quality of interactions between teachers and infants in ECEC, 

comprising one overall construct composed by four dimensions (relational 

climate, teacher sensitivity, facilitated exploration, and early language 

support). For this study, all observers received certified training and reached 

the authors’ training standards through a certified test.  During data collection, 

a gold standard observer made 25.6% of observations with another observer. 

The exact agreement average was 68.8%, within-one point agreement was 

98.9%, and weighted kappa was 0.72. In this study, the global score was used 

(α=.94).  

Childcare structural characteristics were documented through the Infant 

Classrooms’ Structural Characteristics Questionnaire. This questionnaire 

collects structural indicators such as number of teachers in the classroom, 

teachers’ education level, experience in childcare, number of children per 

classroom. Regarding education level, a dichotomic variable was created: 1 = 

no degree in ECEC; 2 = higher-education degree in ECEC. 

Child temperament was assessed using the Infant Behavior Questionnaire – 

Short Version (IBQ-R; Rothbart, 1981). This is a widely used measure of 

infants’ temperament. Evidence of its adequacy, reliability and validity is 

shown in several studies (e.g., Clark et al., 1997; Klein et al., 2009; Rothbart, 

A  B 

In the crèche, I have 

been informed 

about: 

 I think it would be a 

good idea that the crèche 

informs me about: 

YES NO YES NO 

  My child progresses.   

  My child behavior.   

  The childcare regulation.   



       IJEP – International Journal of Educational Psychology, 12(2) 

 

 

187 

1981). Three broad factors can be computed (Gartstein & Rothbart, 2003): 

Surgency/Extraversion, Negative Affectivity, and Orienting/Regulation. In this 

study, all factors presented good reliability (α = .82 for Surgency/Extraversion; 

α = .89 for Negative Affectivity; and α = .81 for Orienting/Regulation). In this 

study, only the Negative Affectivity factor was used considering previous 

literature identifying that a more difficult temperament can affect teacher-

family partnership (e.g., Pirchio et al., 2011).   

Home environment was documented with the Home Observation for 

Measurement of the Environment Inventory (HOME; Caldwell & Bradley, 

1984). This inventory captures both the quality and quantity of support and 

stimulation provided to the child in home environment. The Infant-toddler 

version of the HOME includes 45 items organized in six subscales: 

responsiveness, acceptance, organization, play/learning materials, 

involvement, and variety of experience. Items are scored based on direct 

observation of parenting behaviour and on a semi-structured interview. All 

observers received training in the measure.  In this study, a HOME Global score 

was computed by combining all the items from the scale. Cronbach’s alpha for 

the global HOME environment score was acceptable (α = .69).  

Procedures 

The Portuguese National Data Protection Authority approved all measures, 

data collection and confidentiality procedures. Informed consents were 

obtained from the centres’ directors, the teachers responsible for the infant 

classrooms, and parents. Data was collected in two moments. The first moment 

– before infant transition to ECEC– the HOME measure was completed during 

a home visit. Home visits lasted, on average, 2 hours; all families considered 

mothers as the main respondents. Mothers completed a socio-demographic 

questionnaire.  

The second moment was 6 months after infants entered centre based ECEC. 

This time frame was chosen to ensure that mothers and teachers had time to 

establish a partnership. At this moment, each classroom was observed during a 

full morning with the CLASS-Infant. Teachers completed a questionnaire on 

structural and socio-demographic data. Teachers’ and mothers’ reports on real 

and ideal partnerships were collected. Mothers completed the IBQ-R. 

 



    Coelho et al. – Infant Center-based Care 

  

 

188 

Data Analyses 

Analyses were conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 

(SPSS) 26. Analysis began by exploring measuring reliability and examining 

all measures descriptively. Pearson correlations were conducted for exploring 

associations between mothers and teachers reports on real and ideal practices. 

Then, variance analyses were conducted. Paired t-tests were used to compare 

mother and teacher reports. Effect sizes were estimated as Cohen’s d (Cohen, 

1992) to interpret significant associations. Finally, linear regression analyses 

were performed to understand child, family and childcare level predictors of 

teacher-family partnership practices. Kolmogorov–Smirnov test for dependent 

and independent variables show that the distributions were normal for all 

variable except for: Real Partnership - Mother Report, Ideal Partnership - 

Mother Report, Maternal Education; Teacher-child Interactions and Teacher 

Degree in ECEC. For these variables, data was visually explored through 

histograms and P-Plots. Graphics showed the variables´ distribution was not 

extremely asymmetric. Additionally, the behaviour of the sample was further 

analysed trough the exploration of means, standard deviation, skewness, and 

kurtosis for the variables to be included in the regression analysis. Means and 

SD showed the data presented some variability; skewness, and kurtosis were 

between –1 and +1 for all variables, except for teacher education (skewness = 

3.207; kurtosis = 8.47). Thus, considering the reasonable sample size (N = 90), 

and the information above, we can consider that no major violations of 

normality were found (Field, 2009). However, we underline that our results 

may be interpreted carefully considering this. Four models were tested for 

predicting: mothers’ reports on real practices; mothers’ reports on ideal 

practices; teachers’ reports on real practices; teachers’ reports on ideal 

practices. For models predicting mothers’ reports, child gender and 

temperament, home environment, maternal education, quality of teacher-child 

interactions and teacher qualification/degree in ECEC were included as 

predictors. In models predicting teachers’ reports, only ECEC characteristics 

were entered as predictors, namely quality of teacher-child interactions and 

teacher qualification/degree in ECEC. 

 

 



       IJEP – International Journal of Educational Psychology, 12(2) 

 

 

189 

Results 
 

Real and Ideal Partnerships: Mothers and Teachers Reports 

Teachers reported that about 48.8% (M = 20.5, SD = 4.39) of the practices listed 

in the Real-Ideal Teacher-parent Partnership Scale were implemented for 

meeting infants’ needs, while mothers reported, on average, the 

implementation of about 37.4% of practices (M = 15.7, SD = 6.32; Table 1).  

Among the partnership practices mentioned as being implemented by most of 

teachers (above 90%) were: giving information to families about the centre’s 

attendance rules, child’s progress, difficulties and behaviour, using informal 

conversations with parents during pick-up and drop-off moments, and inviting 

parents to celebrations at the centre (e.g., Christmas, family day).  

On the other hand, most teachers did not involve parents in defining the 

global activities planning (92%), did not discuss the planned activities with 

parents (85.6%), or send a written plan of activities for families´ information 

(86.7%). On their ideal practices’ reports, only 14% of teachers agreed that, 

ideally, it was a good idea to have a partnership practice that promotes the 

involvement of families in defining the activities plan and 18% reported that it 

would be a good idea to discuss the activities plan with families. Regardless, 

83.9% agreed that, ideally, families should receive a written plan of activities 

for being informed about the child activities in childcare. The same practices 

that were identified by most teachers were also mentioned by most mothers. 

For example, a high percentage of mothers reported that the centre shared with 

them information about attendance rules (100%), child progress (94.4%), child 

behaviour (91.1%), and child difficulties (95.6%), and families were invited to 

celebrations at the centre (e.g., Christmas celebrations, family day; 82.2%). 

Among the practices that were seldom used, 88.9% of mothers reported that 

families were not involved in planning childcare activities; 75% of mothers 

reported that families did not participate in the childcare evaluation, 77.8% 

mentioned that families were not invited to individual meetings, and 77.5% 

mentioned that they were not invited by the childcare teachers to participate in 

sessions about relevant themes (e.g., about child development and/or parental 

practices). 

 

 

 



    Coelho et al. – Infant Center-based Care 

  

 

190 

Table 1  

Mean, Standard Deviation, Minimum and Maximum Values for Real an Ideal 

Teacher-Family Partnership Practices, Family, Child, and Childcare 

Variables 

 

 

Particularly for these seldom used practices as perceived by mothers, we 

note that mothers believe such practices are important. Thus, 80% of mothers 

would like (ideal practices report) to be invited for sessions about relevant 

themes, 81% would like to participate in the childcare evaluation, and 76% 

would like to be invited for individual meetings with teacher. Regarding the 

participation in defining the childcare activities plan, only 41% of mothers 

would like this practice to be implemented; however, 87.1% mention that they 

would like to receive information about the activities plan, with 70% reporting 

that receiving a written document with the activities plan would be a good 

partnership practice.  

Despite the similarities between teacher and parent responses, there was 

high variability across informants, with a minimum of 4 practices (out of 41), 

 N M (SD) Min. – Max.  Scale  

Teacher-family partnership  

  Real Partnership – Mother Report 90 15.7 (6.32) 4-35 0-41 

  Ideal Partnership – Mother Report 90 24.8 (5.19) 11-35 0-41 

  Real Partnership – Teacher Report 90 20.5 (4.39) 12 -31  0-41 

  Ideal Partnership – Teacher 

Report 

90 21.6 (4.59) 13-34 0-41 

Family level variables     

  Maternal Education 90 14.4 (3.57) 4-22  

  Global HOME Environment 90 32.8 (4.16) 23-42 0-45 

Child level variables     

  Negative Affectivity 90 3.89 (0.79) 1.99-5.91 1-7 

ECEC level variables  

  Teacher-child Interactions  90 3.25 (0.82) 1.63-5.75 1-7 

  Teacher Degree in ECEC 1 

  (no; %) 

90 92.5%   

Note. 1 = no degree in ECEC; 2 = degree in ECEC. 



       IJEP – International Journal of Educational Psychology, 12(2) 

 

 

191 

and a maximum of 35 practices as reported by mothers. The same variability 

was present in teachers’ reports, although the minimum number of reported 

implemented practices was higher (12) for this group of participants (Table 1). 

Overall, teachers tended to identify and report more partnership practices, 

when compared to mothers, t(89) = 6.84, p < .001, d = 0.88.  

Reports of mothers and teachers were significantly associated both for real 

and ideal partnership practices (r = .27, p < .001 for real practices; r = .21, p < 

.05 for ideal practices), pointing to some attunement regarding the importance 

of partnerships. Moreover, both mothers and teachers reported that partnerships 

during infant care would, ideally, include greater number of practices (M = 

21.6, SD = 4.59 for teachers’ report; M = 24.8, SD = 5.19 for mothers’ report) 

than what was implemented (real practices vs. ideal practices: t(89) = -3.69, p 

< .001, d = 0.26 for teachers’ reports; t(89) = -13.9, p < .001, d = 1.56 for 

mothers’ reports). When comparing the number of ideal partnership practices 

for teachers and mothers, mothers showed the desire for a greater number of 

partnership practices, t(89) = -4.86, p < .001, d = 0.68.  

Predictors of Real and Ideal Partnership Practices  

Regarding the childcare level predictors included in the model, descriptive data 

(Table 1) showed that the quality of the classrooms was moderate, with a 

CLASS-Infant mean of 3.25 (SD = 0.82) for teacher-infant quality of 

interactions. Concerning the family level predictors, the quality of the home 

environment (Caldwell & Bradley, 1984) was, on average, moderate (M = 32.8, 

SD = 4.16), and showed a wide range, from 23 to 42. Overall, mothers rated 

low Negative Affectivity values (M = 3.89, SD = 0.79) regarding child 

temperament, indicating that most mothers did not perceive their infants as 

temperamentally difficult. In models predicting teachers’ real and ideal 

practices only ECEC characteristics were entered as predictors. Four models 

were tested (Table 2) to identify relevant factors affecting real and ideal 

teacher-family partnership practices. 

 

 

 

 

 

 



    Coelho et al. – Infant Center-based Care 

  

 

192 

Table 2  

Family, Child and Childcare Predictors of Mother and Teacher Real and Ideal 

Reports of Partnership Practices 

 

Teachers having a university degree in ECEC was the only significant 

predictor of real partnership practices reported by teachers (β  

=.24, SE = 0.92, p =.023), as well as their perceptions about ideal practices (β 

=.29, SE = 1.04, p =.007). The percentage of variability of teacher reports on 

real and ideal practices explained by the variables included in the model ranged 

between 26% and 29%. Models for the mothers’ reports on real practices 

showed that teachers with a university degree in ECEC was the only significant 

predictor, although the R2 coefficient is weak. Mothers’ reports on ideal 

practices were only predicted by the mothers’ educational level (Table 2).  

  
Mother Teacher 

  Real 

Partnership 

Ideal 

Partnership 

Real 

Partnership 

Ideal 

Partnership 

 R2 .18** .09 .26* .29* 

Family level variables   

 Global HOME 

Environment 

β 

(SE) 

-0.01(0.16) -0.08(0.13)   

 Maternal 

Education  

β 

(SE) 

-0.13(0.19) 0.28(0.17) *   

Child level 

variables 

     

 Negative 

Affectivity 

β 

(SE) 

0.19(0.87) 0.21(0.76) ϯ   

 Gender (male = 

1; female = 2) 

β 

(SE) 

-0.20(1.27) ϯ -0.11(1.10) ϯ    

ECEC level variables   

  Teacher-child 

Interactions  

β 

(SE) 

0.06(0.16) 0.09(0.68) 0.07(0.67) 0.02 (0.58) 

  Teacher Degree 

in ECEC 

β 

(SE) 

0.27(1.39)* 0.06(1.20) ϯ 0.24(0.99)* 0.29(1.04)* 

Note. ϯ p < .08.* p < .05. ** p < .01. 

 

  



       IJEP – International Journal of Educational Psychology, 12(2) 

 

 

193 

Discussion 

The importance of teacher-parent partnerships for children’s positive 

developmental outcomes is widely recognized, although information about 

such partnerships in infant centre-based care is limited. The present study 

showed that mothers and teachers of infants in center based childcare reported 

a moderate number of partnership practices being implemented (real); and 

seemed to be aligned regarding the need for more partnership practices than 

the ones currently being implemented. This is in line with finding from 

previous studies conducted in preschools (e.g., Einarsdottir & Jónsdótti, 2019). 

Our study also showed that mothers’ and teachers’ reports on partnership 

practices were similar, in line with other studies reporting that teachers’ and 

parents’ rates of centre-related aspects tend to be correlated (e.g., Drugli & 

Undheim, 2012; Leavitt, 1995), and that teachers and parents tend to agree on 

the factors that contribute to positive partnerships (Galinsky et al., 1994).  

Examples of the most reported practices by both teachers and families 

suggest that most practices involve communication whereas families’ 

involvement practices in daily ECEC activities is seldom. For example, very 

few teachers and very few mothers mentioned that parents were involved in the 

definition and discussion of the ECEC activities or that parents visited or spent 

time in the classroom on a regular basis.  

The teacher-family partnership in ECEC implies a collaborative process in 

which frequent and bidirectional communication, opportunities for families’ 

involvement in ECEC activities and a shared decision-making process are 

pivotal (Owen et al., 2000; Weiss et al., 2014). Our results highlight that 

teacher-family partnership practices considered in infant centre-based care are 

especially those related to informational communication, pointing to the need 

to further expand these practices to other dimensions. The training of ECEC 

professionals for a broader understanding of what partnerships with families 

mean and how they can be achieved, could be delivered in coursework or in-

service professional development. It is noteworthy that teacher education level, 

namely, having a degree in ECEC, was found to be a significant predictor of 

more implemented partnership practices as reported by teachers and mothers. 

This can suggest that teacher qualification in ECEC has the potential to affect 

practices and can be pivotal in improving partnership practices in centre-based 

infant care.  As mentioned, in Portugal there are no legal requirements 

regarding levels of education for   teachers working in infant classrooms 



    Coelho et al. – Infant Center-based Care 

  

 

194 

(Cadima et al., 2022; Portaria n. º 262/2011, 31 de Agosto), with no specific 

guidelines regarding educational practices for infant classrooms. This study 

contributes to the understanding that teacher qualifications are important for 

both teachers’ and mothers’ communication and collaboration, particularly 

regarding the identification of the desire of more partnership practices.  

Teachers and mothers generally agreed on which real partnerships practices 

were being implemented, although teachers reported implementing a 

significantly higher number of partnership practices compared to mothers. 

These different perceptions are possibly related to the fact that parents and lead 

teachers do not always have compatible schedules and time to communicate is 

often scarce. Drugli and Undheim (2012) analyzed teacher-family 

communication during the pick-up and drop-off situations and reported that, 

although most parents and teachers were satisfied with their daily 

communication, parents more than teachers felt that the quality of 

communication could be improved, particularly during the pick-up moments. 

In addition, although both teachers and mothers reported that, ideally, more 

partnership practices could be implemented, mothers reported the desire for a 

significantly greater number of partnership practices compared to teachers. 

This is in line with previous research involving preschoolers, which identified 

that, although teachers and families both value partnership and communication 

as a way of collaborating with each other, mothers tend to report the need for 

more communication than teachers (Cantin et al., 2012; Owen et al., 2000). 

Similarly, some studies highlight that families often feel a general lack of 

knowledge of what happens in ECEC, pointing out that the partnership 

practices being implemented are not ideal or are not responding to all family 

needs (Drugli & Undheim, 2012; Leavitt, 1995). For example, parents working 

for longer hours tend to report a higher desire for the continuity of practices in 

family and centre-based settings, as well as the desire for better partnerships 

(Baumgartner et al., 2017). Thus, we underline that this desire for more 

partnership practices can also be related to the parents´ working situation.  

In Portugal in 2020, 75% of mothers and 87.2% of fathers with children 

under 6 years old were employed, and only 9.4 of mothers and 4.8 of fathers 

worked part-time (Eurostat, 2022). This situation probably increases the 

number of hours children, including infants, spend in childcare, as well as the 

need of closer partnerships with their infants’ teachers. Note that in Portugal 

most childcare centers work for long hours: 84% open between 7:00 and 8:00 

a.m. and close between 6:00 and 7:00 p.m. (56%) or between 7:00 and 8:00 



       IJEP – International Journal of Educational Psychology, 12(2) 

 

 

195 

p.m. (40%) (Gabinete de Estratégia e Planeamento / Ministério da 

Solidariedade, Emprego e Segurança Social, 2021). Previous studies 

highlighted that parent, more than teachers, felt, that the quality of 

communication could be improved, particularly during the pick-up moments 

(Drugli & Undheim, 2012).  

Literature also suggests that socioeconomic status (SES) may play a role in 

families’ and teachers’ ideas and practices regarding continuity of care and 

childcare quality (e.g., Baumgartner, 2005). Although SES is not known for 

families in this study, we highlight the fact that a relatively high proportion of 

mothers participating in this study had university degree, a factor that may 

contribute to their desire for more partnership practices. Studies show that 

higher maternal education and higher family SES tend to be associated with 

increased use of ECEC in infancy (Petitclerc et al., 2017) and with the selection 

of higher-quality ECEC (e.g., Vandenbroeck et al., 2008).   

In this study, child temperament was not related with either teacher or 

mother reports. Previous studies found mixed results concerning the relations 

between child temperament and teacher-family partnership in childcare 

(Pirchio et al., 2011; Swartz & Easterbrooks, 2014). In our study, we underline 

that low levels of negative affect regarding child temperament were reported, 

which may have hindered the study’s ability to capture relations. Additionally, 

the few studies on relations between temperament and teacher-family 

partnerships in childcare were conducted with older chidren, and not infants. 

Thus, the lack of associations between child temperament and teacher-family 

partnership may be related to child age. Particularly for children under 12 

months, it is possible that the implementation and desire of partnership 

practices may be more associated with the characteristics or challenges of this 

developmental period (for parents and caregivers), namely the fact that parents 

with infants are mostly dependent on teachers to have information about how 

their child fared during the childcare day, than related to children´s 

characteristics such as temperament. Indeed, previous studies have reported 

that teachers and parents communicate more when caring for infants and 

toddlers than when caring for preschoolers (e.g., Endsley & Minish, 1989; 

Rimm-Kaufman & Pianta, 1999). Regardless, the mentioned studies did not 

considered temperament. More research is needed for better understand how 

child temperament affects partnerships, particularly during infant care.  

Childcare teachers with a university degree in ECEC were more likely to 

implement more partnership practices as evidenced by the teachers’ reports on 



    Coelho et al. – Infant Center-based Care 

  

 

196 

the number of practices being implemented, as well as by the mothers’ 

corroborating reports. Considering the importance of connecting early 

education centres and families, frequently stated in early education and 

development literature, governmental guidelines, and legislation (e.g., Drugli 

& Undheim, 2012; Portaria n.º 262/2011, 31de Agosto; Owen et al., 2008), our 

results have important implications for teacher initial training and teacher 

recruitment for infant classrooms. Specifically in Portugal and other countries 

where legislation requirements for infant ECEC classrooms do not mandate 

that teachers have a specific qualification; these results highlight that teachers 

who are well prepared are able to implement more partnership practices and 

ideally would like to implement even more. These findings add to previous 

studies highlighting the importance of teacher initial education for ECEC 

quality (Barros et al., 2018; Barros & Aguiar, 2010), showing that teacher 

qualifications are not only relevant for high quality practices but also for 

stronger partnerships with families. Teacher qualifications can potentially play 

a role in shaping teacher ideas or practices in partnering with families. Thus, 

the relevance of both initial qualification and on-the-job training, particularly 

for building positive partnerships between infants’ teachers and families, 

requires further examination and research. 

In this study, the quality of teacher-child interactions was not related to 

mothers’ or teachers’ reports about real and ideal partnership, contrary to 

previous research in childcare. We note that previous research focused on 

partnerships in infant classrooms is scarce, so more studies are needed to better 

understand such partnerships. In this scope, we highlight that our study focuses 

exclusively on infant classrooms and registers low variability regarding 

teacher-infant interactions quality, which may have influenced the ability to 

capture significative relations between teacher-infant interactions and 

implemented partnership practices. Additionally, the lack of significant 

associations may be related with the method for data collection, as teacher-

child interactions were assessed through observation by trained researchers and 

partnership was assessed using a self-report measure. Future studies collecting 

data through observation both for quality and partnerships practices are needed 

to clarify such relations in infant centre-based childcare.  

Some limitations of this study must be acknowledged. First, we point out 

than the use of a self-report questionnaire to assess teacher-family partnerships 

might have captured some social desirability answers, reflected in a greater 

number of practices being reported as implemented both by teachers and 



       IJEP – International Journal of Educational Psychology, 12(2) 

 

 

197 

mothers. Regarding study participants, on average mothers who participated 

had a relatively high education level, which may not be representative of the 

Portuguese population. This bias in the mothers’ level of education may be due 

to the criteria for participation in the broader study in which these data were 

gathered. In the scope of the larger project, childcare professionals were asked 

to present the study to mothers who had registered for their infant to enter the 

centre in advance, i.e., mothers who had planned their infant’s entrance in 

childcare in due time. This might have led to the selection of more educated 

working mothers who, besides planning this moment in advance, were also 

sensitive to the relevance of partnerships with the professionals caring for their 

child at the centre. Some variability was registered in mothers’ educational 

level, with 3% of mothers in the study having a basic level of education. 

Nonetheless, this study was not able to further explore if patterns of 

associations were different for mothers with higher or lower levels of 

education. Future studies are thus needed to address this issue. Educational 

level was a significant predictor of mothers’ report on ideal practices, showing 

that more educated mothers are eager of more partnership practices in the scope 

on their infant care arrangements.  

Although this study was conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic in 

2020, we are aware that the pandemic contributed to an increase in the 

challenges faced by ECEC professionals in communicating and establishing 

strong and positive partnerships with families. A recent study in ECEC 

(Otero‑Mayer et al., 2021) found that families believe they don´t have the tools 

and time for educating their children at home, underlining the need for 

improving school-family cooperation at the start of the child’s education, i.e., 

beginning with attendance in infant centre-based childcare. It is noteworthy 

that, in many countries, both mothers and fathers of young children return to 

work during their infant’s first 6 weeks to 12 months of life and, thus, the need 

to place the child in centre-based care is becoming more prevalent. At the same 

time, the role played by the quality of centre-based care in fostering children’s 

social and cognitive development from an early age, while providing a caring 

and safe environment for parents to leave their children when they are at work, 

is emphasized (e.g., Castro et al., 2004; Swartz & Easterbrooks, 2014). 

Therefore, future studies are needed, particularly about how the pandemic 

affected the partnership between teachers and families caring for and educating 

infants. 



    Coelho et al. – Infant Center-based Care 

  

 

198 

Conclusion 

Teacher-family partnerships are crucial for the development of young children 

who attend out-of-home ECEC settings. This study is among the first to 

document the various forms of teacher-family partnerships in infant classrooms 

and to examine the at onement between mothers' and teachers' perspectives on 

ideal and real practices. Results underline the need for greater investment in 

continuous opportunities for family involvement in childcare, and effective 

participation. Finally, it highlights the importance of teacher education for 

partnerships, suggesting the need of further studies for a broader 

characterization of teacher-family practices in infant care.  

Conflict of Interest 

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any 

commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential 

conflict of interest. 

Author Contributions 

VC, SB, MP, JC, DB and CP made substantial contributions on (a) to the 

conception and design of the study; (b) to the acquisition, analysis, and 

interpretation of data; (c) in the drafting process of the manuscript; and (d) in 

ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the 

manuscript were appropriately addressed.  

Funding 

This paper was funded by National Funds through the FCT - Fundação para a 

Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P., under the scope of the project UIDB/05198/2020 

(Centre for Research and Innovation in Education, inED). The author Vera 

Coelho was also supported by national funding from the Portuguese 

Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) under UIDB/00050/2020 

(Center for Psychology at Porto University). 

 

 

 



       IJEP – International Journal of Educational Psychology, 12(2) 

 

 

199 

Notes 
 
1 For parsimony we refer to professionals working in infant classrooms as “teachers”, although 

they may only have a basic level of education (elementary school). 

References 

 

Bang, Y., Jang, H., & Jung, J. (2021). Understanding Korean early childhood 

teachers’ challenges in parent–teacher partnerships: beyond individual 

matters. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 

49(10), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.10764  

Barros, S., & Aguiar, C. (2010). Assessing the quality of Portuguese child 

care programs for toddlers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25(4), 

527-535. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.12.003 

Barros, S., Cadima, J., Pinto, A., Bryant, D., Pessanha, M., Peixoto, C., & 

Coelho, V. (2018). The quality of caregiver–child interactions in infant 

classrooms in Portugal: The role of caregiver education. Research 

Papers in Education, 33(4), 427-451. 

http://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2017.1353676 

Baumgartner, J. (2005). Parent-childcare provider partnerships: Exploring 

beliefs about overlap [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Illinois]. 

ProQuest. 

https://www.proquest.com/openview/29561f372e4b1d6ca6b2c297fe49f

db8/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y  

Baumgartner, J., McBrideb, B., Otac, C., & DiCarlo, C. (2017). How much 

do they need to be the same? What parents believe about continuity 

between home and childcare environments. Early Child Development 

and Care, 187(7), 1184-1193. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2016.1160387 

Cadima, J., Barros, S., Bryant, D., Peixoto, C., Coelho, V., & Pessanha, M. 

(2022).  Variations of quality of teacher-infant interactions across play 

and care routine activities. Early Education and 

Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2021.2023791 

Cadima, J., Nata, G., Barros, S., Coelho, V., & Barata, C. (2020). OECD 

Education Working Papers No. 243: Literature review on early 

childhood education and care for children under the age of 3. OECD 

Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/a9cef727-en 

https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.10764
http://dx.doi.org/101016/j.ecresq.2009.12.003
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2017.1353676
https://www.proquest.com/openview/29561f372e4b1d6ca6b2c297fe49fdb8/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
https://www.proquest.com/openview/29561f372e4b1d6ca6b2c297fe49fdb8/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2016.1160387
https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2021.2023791
https://doi.org/10.1787/a9cef727-en


    Coelho et al. – Infant Center-based Care 

  

 

200 

Caldwell, B., & Bradley, R. (1984). Administration manual: Home 

Observation for Measurement of the Environment (Revised edition). 

University of Arkansas. 

Cantin, G., Plante, I., Coutu, S., & Brunson, L. (2012). Parent-caregiver 

relationships among beginning caregivers in Canada: A quantitative 

study. Early Childhood Education Journal, 40(5), 265-274. 

http://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-012-0522-0 

Castro, D., Bryant, D., & Peisner-Feinberg, E. (2004). Parent involvement in 

Head Start programs: The role of parent, teacher and classroom 

characteristics. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19(3), 413-430. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2004.07.005 

Chiu, S., Chen, P., Chou, Y., & Chien, L. (2017). The Mandarin Chinese 

version of the Beach Centre Family Quality of Life Scale: Development 

and psychometric properties in Taiwanese families of children with 

developmental delay. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 61(4), 

373–384. https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.12356  

Clark, R., Hyde, J., Essex, M., & Klein, M. (1997). Length of maternity leave 

and quality of mother-infant interactions. Child Development, 68(2), 

364-383. http://doi.org/10.2307/1131855 

Coelho, V., Barros, S., Burchinal, M., Cadima. J., Pessanha, M., Pinto, A., 

Peixoto, C., & Bryant, D. (2019). Predictors of parent-teacher 

communication during infant transition to childcare in Portugal. Early 

Child Development and Care, 189(3), 2126-2140. 

http://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2018.1439940 

Coelho, V., Barros, S., Pessanha, M., Peixoto, C., Cadima, J., & Pinto, A. 

(2015). Parceria família-creche na transição do bebé para a creche 

[Family-Teacher partnership during infant transition from home to 

childcare]. Análise Psicológica, 33(3), 373-389. 

http://doi.org/10.14417/ap.1002  

Cohen, J. (1992). Statistical power analysis. Current directions in 

psychological science, 1(3), 98-101. 

Cottle, M., & Alexander, E. (2014). Parent partnership and ‘quality’ early 

years services: Practitioners’ perspectives. European Early Childhood 

Education Research Journal, 22(5), 637–659. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2013.788314  

Drugli, M., & Undheim, A. (2012). Relationships between young children in 

full-time day care and their caregivers: A qualitative study of parental 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10643-012-0522-0
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.ecresq.2004.07.005
https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.12356
http://doi.org/10.2307/1131855
http://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2018.1439940
http://doi.org/10.14417/ap.1002
https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2013.788314


       IJEP – International Journal of Educational Psychology, 12(2) 

 

 

201 

and caregiver perspectives. Early Child Development and Care, 182(9), 

1155-1165. http://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2011.602190  

Dunst, C., & Dempsey, I. (2007). Family-professional partnerships and 

parenting competence, confidence, and enjoyment. International 

Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 54(3), 305-318. 

http://doi.org/10.1080/10349120701488772 

Einarsdottir, J., & Jónsdóttir, A. (2019). Parent-preschool partnership: many 

levels of power. Early Years: An International Journal of Research and 

Development, 39(2), 175–89. 

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib

&db=eric&AN=EJ1214746&lang=pt-pt&site=ehost-live&scope=site. 

Elicker, J., Noppe, I., Noppe, L., & Fornter-Wood, C. (1997). The parent-

teacher relationship scale: Rounding out the relationship system in 

infant child care. Early Education and Development, 8(1), 83-100. 

http://doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed0801_7  

Endsley, R., & Minish, P. (1989). Parent-staff communication in day care 

centers during morning and afternoon transitions. Research Technical 

Report. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED308980  

Eurostat (2020). Labour Force Survey. Available at 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/lfs/data/database (accessed on 23 April 

2022).  

Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage. 

Gabinete de Estratégia e Planeamento / Ministério da Solidariedade, Emprego 

e Segurança Social. (2021). Carta social – Rede de serviços e 

equipamentos 2020. 

https://www.cartasocial.pt/documents/10182/13834/csocial2020.pdf/54b

90a92-0a88-4d78-b99a-c53b7061fd0e 

Galinsky, E., Howes, C., Kontos, S., & Shinn, M. (1994). The study of 

children in family care and relative care: Highlights of findings. 

Families and Work Institute.  

Gartstein, M., & Rothbart, M. (2003). Studying infant temperament via the 

revised infant behavior questionnaire. Infant Behavior and 

Development, 26(1), 64-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-

6383(02)00169-8  

Gaspar, M. (1996). A escala real-ideal de cooperação pais-jardim de infância 

(ERI). Revista Portuguesa de Pedagogia, 30(2), 69 - 194. 

http://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2011.602190
http://doi.org/10.1080/10349120701488772
https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=eric&AN=EJ1214746&lang=pt-pt&site=ehost-live&scope=site
https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=eric&AN=EJ1214746&lang=pt-pt&site=ehost-live&scope=site
http://doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed0801_7
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED308980
https://www.cartasocial.pt/documents/10182/13834/csocial2020.pdf/54b90a92-0a88-4d78-b99a-c53b7061fd0e
https://www.cartasocial.pt/documents/10182/13834/csocial2020.pdf/54b90a92-0a88-4d78-b99a-c53b7061fd0e
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-6383(02)00169-8
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-6383(02)00169-8


    Coelho et al. – Infant Center-based Care 

  

 

202 

Giovacco-Johnson, T. (2009). Portraits of partnership: The hopes and dreams 

project. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37(2), 127-135. 

http://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-009-0332-1   

Hamre, B., La Paro, K, Pianta, R., & LoCasale-Crouch, J. (2014). Classroom 

Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) manual: Infant. Brookes.  

Jeon, H., McCartney, C., Richard, V., Johnson, S., & Kwon, K (2021). 

Associations between parent-teacher and teacher-child relationships and 

children’s socioemotional functioning. Early Child Development and 

Care, 191(15), 2407-2421. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2020.1711747 

Klein, C., Putnam, S, & Linhares, M. (2009). Assessment of temperament in 

children: Translation of instruments to Portuguese (Brazil) language. 

Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 43(3), 552-557. 

https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/284/28412903015.pdf  

Lang, S., Jeon, L., Schoppe-Sullivan, S., & Wells, M. (2020). Associations 

between Parent-Teacher Cocaring Relationships, Parent-Child 

Relationships, and Young Children’s Social Emotional 

Development. Child & Youth Care Forum, 49(4), 623-646. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-020-09545-6  

Leavitt, R. (1995). Parent-provider communication in family day care homes. 

Child and Youth Care Forum, 24(4), 231-245. 

http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02128590  

Murray, E., McFarland-Piazza, L., & Harrison, L. (2015). Changing patterns 

of parent–teacher communication and parent involvement from 

preschool to school. Early Child Development and Care, 185(7), 1031–

1052. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2014.975223 

National Association for the Education of Young Children (n.d.). 

https://www.naeyc.org/ 

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (1996). Characteristics of infant 

child care: factors contributing to positive caregiving. Early Childhood 

Research Quarterly, 11(3), 269-306. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-

2006(96)90009-5 

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2019). Education 

at a Glance: OECD Indicators: Portugal. 

https://www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-

glance/EAG2019_CN_PRT.pdf  

http://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-009-0332-1
https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2020.1711747
https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/284/28412903015.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-020-09545-6
http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02128590
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/03004430.2014.975223
https://www.naeyc.org/
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/S0885-2006(96)90009-5
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/S0885-2006(96)90009-5
https://www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance/EAG2019_CN_PRT.pdf
https://www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance/EAG2019_CN_PRT.pdf


       IJEP – International Journal of Educational Psychology, 12(2) 

 

 

203 

Otero-Mayer, A., González-Benito, A., Gutiérrez-de-Rozas, B., & Vélaz-de-

Medrano, C. (2021). Family-school cooperation: An online survey of 

parents and teachers of young children in Spain. Early Childhood 

Education Journal, 18(21), 11710. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-021-

01202-4 

Owen, M., Klausli, J., Mata-Otero, A., & Caughy, M. (2008). Relationship-

focused child care practices: Quality of care and child outcomes for 

children in poverty. Early Education and Development, 19(2), 302-329. 

http://doi.org/10.1080/10409280801964010 

Owen, M., Ware, A., & Barfoot, B. (2000). Caregiver-mother partnership 

behavior and the quality of caregiver-child and mother-child 

interactions. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(3), 413-428. 

http://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(00)00073-9  

Perlman, M., & Fletcher, B. (2012). Hellos and how are yous: Predictors and 

correlates of communication between staff and families during morning 

drop-off in child care centers. Early Education and Development, 23(4), 

539-557. http://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2010.548766 

Petitclerc, A., Côté, S., Doyle, O., Burchinal, M., Herba, C., Zachrisson, H., 

Boivin, M., Tremblay, R. E., Tiemeier, H., Jaddoe, V., & Raat, H. 

(2017). Who uses early childhood education and care services? 

Comparing socioeconomic selection across five western policy contexts. 

International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 11(3), 1-24. 

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40723-017-0028-8 

Phillips, D., Mekos, D., Scarr, S., McCartney, K., & Abbott-Shim, M. (2000). 

Within and beyond the classroom door: Assessing quality in child care 

centers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(4), 475-496. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(01)00077-1  

Pinto, A., Cadima, J., Coelho, V., Bryant, D., Barros, S., Pessanha, M., 

Peixoto, C., & Burchinal, M. (2019). Quality of infant child care and 

early infant development in Portuguese childcare centers. Early 

Childhood Research Quarterly, 48(3), 246-255. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.04.003  

Pirchio, S., Taeschner, T., & Volpe, E. (2011). The role of parent-teacher 

involvement in child adjustment and behaviour in child-care centres. 

International Journal about Parents in Education, 5(2), 56-64.  

Portaria n.º 262/2011, August 31st. Diário da República n.º167 – I Série. 

Ministério da Solidariedade e da Segurança Social. https://www.seg-

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-021-01202-4
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-021-01202-4
http://doi.org/10.1080/10409280801964010
http://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(00)00073-9
http://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2010.548766
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40723-017-0028-8
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(01)00077-1
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.04.003
https://www.seg-social.pt/documents/10152/20178013/Portaria+262_2011_CRECHES.pdf/3db3b654-2cd8-4f75-9bef-e224ee93623f


    Coelho et al. – Infant Center-based Care 

  

 

204 

social.pt/documents/10152/20178013/Portaria+262_2011_CRECHES.p

df/3db3b654-2cd8-4f75-9bef-e224ee93623f  

Rimm-Kaufman, S., & Pianta, R. (1999). Patterns of family-school contact in 

preschool and kindergarten. School Psychology Review, 28(3), 426-438. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.1999.12085975 

Rothbart, M. (1981). Measurement of temperament in infancy. Child 

Development, 52(2), 569-578. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129176 

Rothbart, M., & Gartstein, M. (2013). Infant Behavior Questionnaire – 

Revised (Original translation to Brazilian Portuguese by Klein and 

Linhares, 2006, adapted to European Portuguese by M. Pessanha, V. 

Coelho, & S. Barros, 2013). 

http://www.bowdoin.edu/~sputnam/rothbart-temperament-

questionnaires/ (Original from 2000). 

Rouse, E., & O’Brien, D. (2017). Mutuality and reciprocity in parent-teacher 

relationships: Understanding the nature of partnerships in early 

childhood education and care provision. Australasian Journal of Early 

Childhood, 42(2), 45–52. https://doi.org/10.23965/AJEC.42.2.06 

Shpancer, N. (1998). Caregiver-parent relationships in daycare: A review and 

re-examination of the data and their implications. Early Education and 

Development, 9(3), 239-259. 

http://doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed0903_3 

Shpancer, N. (2002). The home-daycare link: Mapping children's new world 

order. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17(3), 374-392. 

http://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(02)00170-9 

Swartz, M., & Easterbrooks, M. (2014). The role of parent, provider, and 

child characteristics in parent–provider relationships in infant and 

toddler classrooms. Early Education and Development, 25(4), 573-598. 

http://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2013.822229  

Vandenbroeck, M., De Visscher, S., Van Nuffel, K., & Ferla, J. (2008). 

Mothers’ search for infant child care: The dynamic relationship between 

availability and desirability in a continental European welfare state. 

Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(2), 245-258. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.09.002  

Ward, U. (2018). How do early childhood practitioners define 

professionalism in their interactions with parents? European Early 

Childhood Education Research Journal, 26(2), 274–84. 

https://10.1080/1350293X.2018.1442043  

https://www.seg-social.pt/documents/10152/20178013/Portaria+262_2011_CRECHES.pdf/3db3b654-2cd8-4f75-9bef-e224ee93623f
https://www.seg-social.pt/documents/10152/20178013/Portaria+262_2011_CRECHES.pdf/3db3b654-2cd8-4f75-9bef-e224ee93623f
https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.1999.12085975
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.2307/1129176
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~sputnam/rothbart-temperament-questionnaires/
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~sputnam/rothbart-temperament-questionnaires/
https://doi.org/10.23965/AJEC.42.2.06
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed0903_3
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(02)00170-9
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2013.822229
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.09.002
https://10.0.4.56/1350293X.2018.1442043


       IJEP – International Journal of Educational Psychology, 12(2) 

 

 

205 

Weiss, H., Lopez, M., Kreider, H., & Chatman-Nelson, C. (2014). Preparing 

educators to engage families: Case studies using an ecological systems 

framework (3rd ed.). Sage.  

White, E., Rutanen, N., Marwick, H., Amorim, K., Karagiannidou, E. & 

Herold, L. (2020). Expectations and emotions concerning infant 

transitions to ECEC: International dialogues with parents and teachers. 

European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 28(3), 363–

374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2020.1755495   

 

 

Vera Lúcia Coelho: University of Maia, Department of Social and 

Behavioral Sciences; Center for Psychology at University of Porto                  

ORCID : https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3741-0885  

 

Carla Peixoto: University of Maia, Department of Social and 

Behavioral Sciences; Center for Research and Innovation in 

Education (inED), School of Education, Polytechnic Institute of 

Porto 

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3927-3818 

 

Manuela Pessanha: School of Education, Polytechnic Institute of 

Porto; Center for Research and Innovation in Education (inED), 

School of Education, Polytechnic Institute of Porto 

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6446-0845  

 

Joana Cadima: Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, 

University of Porto; Center for Psychology at University of Porto 

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8814-8899  

 

Donna Bryant: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute 

at The University of North Carolina 

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9539-7386  

  

Contact Address: vcoelho@umaia.pt 

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3741-0885
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3927-3818
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6446-0845
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8814-8899
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9539-7386

