My da|ra Login

Detailed view

metadata language: English

The Family Life Project, Phase I, United States, September 2003-January 2008

Resource Type
Dataset : clinical data, observational data, survey data
  • Vernon-Feagans, Lynne
  • Crouter, Ann C. (Nan)
  • Cox, Martha J.
Other Title
  • Version 3 (Subtitle)
Publication Date
Publication Place
Ann Arbor, Michigan
  • Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research
Funding Reference
  • United States Department of Health and Human Services
Free Keywords
Schema: ICPSR
child care; child development; childhood; children; emotional development; family life; poverty; rural population
  • Abstract

    The purpose of this project is to study the early development of a group of children who are at risk regarding later successful adjustment and for whom we have little information: children living in rural, largely poor communities. A birth cohort of 800 children in three rural counties of North Carolina and 600 children in three rural counties of Pennsylvania were studied over the first 3 years of life. A multidisciplinary team investigated multiple levels of influences affecting the early development of these children. The research emphases of the component research projects include the following: Project I: Temperament: Emphasizes the development of child-related factors and how they predict preschool social-emotional and cognitive competence; Project II: School Readiness: Emphasizes the pathways to and precursors of school readiness; Project III: Family Process: Emphasizes how family processes mediate or moderate the effects of rural poverty on children; Project IV: Work and Family: Emphasizes the impact of parents' occupational conditions on parenting, and, in turn, children's social, cognitive, emotional and linguistic development; Project V: Ethnography: Emphasizes two components:; an in-depth contextual appraisal of community characteristics; a family ethnography with 72 families developmentally ahead of the cohort above to provide input to design and measurement; This project used a cumulative risk model to examine the relation between social risk and children's executive functioning, language development and behavioral competence at 36 months. Using both the Family Process Model of development and the Family Investment Model of development, observed parenting was examined over time in relation to child functioning at 36 months. Different aspects of observed parenting were examined as mediators/moderators of risk in predicting child outcomes. Results suggested that cumulative risk was important in predicting all three major domains of child outcomes and that positive and negative parenting and maternal language complexity were mediators of these relations. Maternal positive parenting was found to be a buffer for the most risky families in predicting behavioral competence. In a final model using both family process and investment measures, there was evidence of mediation but with little evidence of the specificity of parenting for particular outcomes. Results demonstrate the importance of cumulative risk and parenting in understanding child competence in rural poverty and the implications for possible intervention strategies that might be effective in maximizing the early development of these children.
  • Abstract

    About 20 percent of children in the United States have been reported to live in rural communities, with child poverty rates higher and geographic isolation from resources greater than in urban communities. There have been surprisingly few studies of children living in rural communities, especially poor rural communities. The Family Life Project helped fill this gap by using an epidemiological design to recruit and study a representative sample of every baby born to a mother who resided in one of six poor rural counties over a one year period, oversampling for mothers living in poverty and African American mothers. 1,292 children were followed from birth to 36 months of age.
  • Methods

    All families living in the six target counties who have given birth to a child during the recruitment period (1 year) were eligible to participate in the project. Mothers were screened in the hospital and selected according to their income status in Pennsylvania and race/income status in North Carolina. Data collection consisted of a series of home visits, child care visits, and phone calls. Families were visited when the infant was 2, 6, 15, 24, and 36 months of age. The 2- and 15-month assessments consisted of a single home visit that involved the primary caregiver and the target child. If available and willing, the secondary caregiver was also included at the 15-month assessment. The 6-, 24-, and 36-month assessments consisted of two separate home visits that involved the primary (and, when possible, the secondary) caregiver, as well as the target child. A majority of home visitors resided in the counties in which the families lived. In North Carolina, African American home visitors were selected to make sure all home visits to African American families included a home visitor of the same race. Two home visitors visited the families at each time point in order to collect the data in a timely fashion and to ensure that all tasks were completed successfully. At the 6-, 15-, 24-, and 36-month assessments, visits were made to the children's most-used child care setting if the child was in any form of child care for a total of 10 hours a week or more. Phone calls were made to each family approximately every four months between designated assessments, in order to gather updated information about family moves. Home visits lasted approximately 2-3 hours and consisted of a variety of interviews, questionnaires, videotaped interactions between the primary caregiver and the child, the secondary caregiver and the child, and direct child assessments. Questionnaire, interview, and direct assessment data were collected on laptops. To ascertain reading levels, all primary and secondary caregivers completed the KFAST literacy screener (Kaufman and Kaufman, 1994) during their first visit. Participants who read at an 8th grade reading level or above were given the opportunity to complete questionnaires on their own (86 percent sample), whereas those who read below an 8th grade reading level had questionnaires read to them by one of the interviewers. For confidential information, informants were given a key pad so that the interviewer would not know the answer to the question. Child care visits were conducted after contacting families to obtain the name and address of the child care person and to get written permission to visit the child care setting. We visited 72 percent of the child care settings over the course of the first three years. The setting could be in the child's home or another home or formal child care. The caregiver could be a relative, babysitter, biological non-residential father, residential grandmother who was not a primary or secondary caregiver, and other related or non-related adults. Child care visits were completed by interviewing the caregiver about the setting and her/his background characteristics and through observations of the setting over about a one and a half hour time period.
  • Methods

    Information from home visits, childcare visits, and phone calls was collected on the following domains of interest: Attention; Adult Literacy and Cognition; Adult Relationships; Child Behavioral Measures; Child Cognitive Measures; Child Temperament; Child Care Information; Community and Neighborhood Environment; Demographics; Emergent Literacy; Executive Functioning; Genotyping Data; Home Environment; Income and Assistance; Language Development; Parent Mental Health; Parenting; Physical Health; Rurality; Stress; Support; Work and Job Characteristics;
  • Methods

    ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Performed consistency checks.; Created variable labels and/or value labels.; Standardized missing values.; Created online analysis version with question text.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes..
  • Methods

    Presence of Common Scales: In most cases, each data file represents individual responses on a scale. Some data files contain responses from individuals on the same scale at multiple time points. In some instances, there are separate data files for the same scale at different time points.
  • Methods

    Response Rates: The Family Life Project enrolled 1200 families total. In Pennsylvania, 320 of these families were low income, while 160 were not low income, for a total of 480 families. In North Carolina, 540 families were low income (380 of these were African American), while 180 were not low income (100 of these were African American) for a total of 720 families (480 African American families). Overall, there were 860 families that were low income and 340 families that were not low income. Given successful retention efforts, a low attrition rate of 6.19 percent was maintained through 36 months of age of the target child.
  • Abstract


    • DS0: Study-Level Files
    • DS1: Month 2 Interview Grid Data
    • DS2: Month 2 Respondent Interview Data
    • DS3: Month 6 Interview Grid Data
    • DS4: Month 6 Child Care Interview Data
    • DS5: Month 6 Primary Respondent Interview and Assessment Data
    • DS6: Month 6 Secondary Respondent Interview and Assessment Data
    • DS7: Month 10.5 Mini Tracking Phone Call Data
    • DS8: Month 15 Interview Grid Data
    • DS9: Month 15 Child Care Interview Data
    • DS10: Month 15 Primary Respondent Interview and Assessment Data
    • DS11: Month 15 Secondary Respondent Interview and Assessment
    • DS12: Month 19 Mini Tracking Phone Call Data
    • DS13: Month 24 Interview Grid Data
    • DS14: Month 24 Child Care Interview Data
    • DS15: Month 24 Primary Respondent Interview and Assessment Data
    • DS16: Month 24 Secondary Respondent Interview and Assessment Data
    • DS17: Month 27 Mini Tracking Phone Call Data
    • DS18: Month 31 Mini Tracking Phone Call Data
    • DS19: Month 35 Interview Grid Data
    • DS20: Month 35 Child Care Interview Data
    • DS21: Month 35 Primary Respondent Interview and Assessment Data
    • DS22: Month 35 Secondary Respondent Interview and Assessment Data
    • DS23: ADHD Retrospective Report Data
    • DS24: ADHD Current Target Child Report Data
    • DS25: Adaptive Language Inventory (ALI) Data
    • DS26: Backward Word Span Task Data
    • DS27: Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID) Data
    • DS28: Body Mass Index (BMI) for Analysis Use Data
    • DS29: Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) Data
    • DS30: Childcare Health and Safety Checklist Data
    • DS31: Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) Data
    • DS32: Confusion, Hubbub, and Order Scale (CHAOS) Data
    • DS33: Cortisol Data
    • DS34: Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales Developmental Profile (CSBS DP) Infant-Toddler Checklist Data
    • DS35: Child Free Play Observation Coding Data
    • DS36: Early Attention to Reading Situations (EARS) Coding Data
    • DS37: Early Childhood Behavior Questionnaire (ECBQ) Data
    • DS38: Vagal Tone and Vagal Tone Suppression Data
    • DS39: Executive Functioning: Operations Span Data
    • DS40: Executive Functioning: Pig Game Data
    • DS41: Executive Functioning: Something's the Same Data
    • DS42: Executive Functioning: Spatial Conflict Data
    • DS43: Occupational Information Network (O*NET) Occupation Coding Data 6.0
    • DS44: Executive Functioning: Silly Sounds Data
    • DS45: Executive Functioning Summary Scores Data
    • DS46: Parents' Beliefs about Feelings Questionnaire (PBAF) data
    • DS47: Child Empathy Data
    • DS48: Family Activities Questionnaire Data
    • DS49: Future Orientation Scale Data
    • DS50: Gender Role Attitudes Scale Data
    • DS51: GIS: Block Group and Tract-level Contextual Data
    • DS52: GIS: GIS Coding Data
    • DS58: Head Start Competency Scale Data
    • DS59: Infant/Toddler and Preschool Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME) Inventory Data
    • DS60: Infant Behavior Questionnaire (IBQ) Data
    • DS61: Infant Behavior Record (IBR) Data
    • DS62: Income to Needs Ratio Data
    • DS63: Jobs Data: Flexible Work Arrangements, Job Satisfaction and Security, Occupational Self-Direction, Traditional Fringe Benefits, Work Environment, and Work-Family Spillover
    • DS64: Occupational Information Network (O*NET) Occupation Coding Data 10.0
    • DS65: Kaufman Functional Academic Skills Test (K-FAST) Data
    • DS66: Knowledge of Infant Development Inventory (KIDI) Data
    • DS67: Lab Tasks - Reactivity: Barrier and Mask Task Data
    • DS68: Lab Tasks - Regulation Data (6 months)
    • DS69: Lab Tasks - Regulation Data (15 and 24 months)
    • DS70: Lab Tasks - Toy Removal Task Data
    • DS71: Life Events Checklist Data
    • DS72: Mastery Data
    • DS73: Neighborhood Questionnaire Data
    • DS74: Observation of Child Temperament Scale (OCTS) Data
    • DS75: Optimism Questionnaire Data
    • DS76: Parent-Child Interaction Coding Data: Parent Codes
    • DS77: Parent-Child Interaction Coding Data: Child Codes
    • DS78: Preschool Language Scale (PLS) Data
    • DS79: Questionnaire of Social Support (QSS) Data
    • DS80: Race: Racial Discrimination Data
    • DS81: Race: Racial Socialization Data
    • DS82: Race: Race-Related Stressful Events Data
    • DS83: Relationships Data - Conflict Tactics, Marital Instability, Social Reflections, and Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships (PAIR)
    • DS84: Religiosity Data
    • DS85: Resources Support Data - Economic Strain, Family Resource Scale, Religious Social Support, and Role Overload
    • DS86: Russell Keeping Children Safe Scale Data
    • DS87: Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT) Data
    • DS88: Brief Sleep Habits Questionnaire Data
    • DS89: Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire Data
    • DS90: Toy Reach Task Data
    • DS91: Windshield Survey Data
    • DS92: Woodcock Johnson III: Passage Comprehension Data
    • DS93: Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence III (WPPSI) Data
    • DS94: Research Assistant Ratings of Hyperactivity Data
    • DS95: Weights
Temporal Coverage
  • Time period: 2003-09-15--2008-01-31
  • 2003-09-15 / 2008-01-31
  • Collection date: 2003-09-15--2008-01-31
  • 2003-09-15 / 2008-01-31
Geographic Coverage
  • North Carolina
  • Pennsylvania
  • United States
Sampled Universe
Rural children living in poverty in eastern North Carolina and central Pennsylvania. Smallest Geographic Unit: State
Sampling was done to obtain a representative sample (i.e., a birth cohort) of children born in one of six targeted counties between September 2002 and September 2003. Low-income families and African American families (North Carolina only) were over-sampled. A broad definition of rural was used, which included counties with small to medium sized towns with little access to large metropolitan areas and the resources those areas might provide. There are four areas of the United States that have been previously identified as having high rates of rural poverty (Dill, 1999) and this study sampled from two of these areas, Appalachia and the African American South. County inclusion criteria was: counties with no town with a population of greater than 50,000 and counties where nearly half the elementary age children were eligible for free and/or reduced lunch (children would be within 180 percent of the national poverty line). Counties that were adjacent to large metropolitan areas were excluded, so that target counties could not be considered suburban. Counties that were remote and completely rural were also excluded. Using this definition, 28 counties in Pennsylvania and 40 in North Carolina met our definition of "rural" and poor, with Beale codes of 3, 4, and 6. Within these counties, geographic clusters were identified to reduce data collection and recruitment costs. Demographic factors (poverty and African American race) were also considered. Six counties meeting the above criteria were chosen.Next, families were sampled from hospitals. In the Pennsylvania counties, there were seven hospitals that delivered babies. Given prior hospital administrative data regarding the number of births expected to occur, four of the seven hospitals were randomly selected to participate. In the North Carolina counties, there were only three hospitals that delivered babies so further sampling was not needed. There were additional considerations for sampling of the families including representative sampling for high-risk births, and attention towards the number of days a week and which days a week families were sampled. Three criteria were used to exclude families from participation: non-English speaking families, families intending on moving within the next three years (such as, military enlistment), and families where the state had terminated parental rights (such as, women in prison) were all excluded. Families were classified into low income status based on self-reports including social service use, highest education achieved, and household income, which served as inclusion criteria. In North Carolina, race was also considered as inclusion criteria due to the oversampling of African American babies, whose race was designated by mothers.
Collection Mode
  • computer-assisted personal interview (CAPI)
  • coded on-site observation
  • coded video observation
  • cognitive assessment test
  • telephone interview
2018-06-27 This study was updated to include public ddi files for datasets 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, 15, 16, 21, 22, 51, and 52.2015-02-26 Restricted-use data files for household tracking information, child care interviews, and summary demographic information were released. Public codebooks listing variables and variable descriptions for files containing geographic information and detailed household-level information were also released.2014-10-13 Update to drop a variable and make a labelling correction to the weights file. Funding institution(s): United States Department of Health and Human Services (PHS 398).
One or more files in this study are not available for download due to special restrictions; consult the study documentation to learn more on how to obtain the data.
Alternative Identifiers
  • 34602 (Type: ICPSR Study Number)
  • Is previous version of
    DOI: 10.3886/ICPSR34602.v4
  • Is new version of
    DOI: 10.3886/ICPSR34602.v2
  • Reynolds, Elizabeth, Vernon-Feagans, Lynne, Bratsch-Hines, Mary, Baker, Claire E.. Mothers' and fathers' language input from 6 to 36 months in rural two-parent-families: Relations to children's kindergarten achievement. Early Childhood Research Quarterly.2018.
    • ID: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.09.002 (DOI)
  • Reynolds, Jamila Evans. Predictors of Ethnic-Racial Socialization Profiles in Early Childhood among African American Parents. Dissertation, Florida State University. 2017.
  • Camerota, Marie, Bollen, Kenneth A.. Birth weight, birth length, and gestational age as indicators of favorable fetal growth conditions in a US sample. PLOS One.11, (4), e01538002016.
    • ID: 10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0153800 (DOI)
  • Camerota, Marie, Willoughby, Michael T., Cox, Martha, Greenberg, Mark T.. Executive function in low birth weight preschoolers: The moderating effect of parenting. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology.43, (8), 1551-1562.2015.
    • ID: 10.1007/s10802-015-0032-9 (DOI)
  • Pancsofar, Nadya, Vernon-Feagans, Lynne, Odom, Erika C.. Work characteristics and fathers' vocabulary to infants in African American families. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology.34, (2), 73-81.2013.
    • ID: 10.1016/j.appdev.2012.11.005 (DOI)
  • Woodcock, Richard, Mather, Nancy, McGrew, Kevin, Schrank, Frederick. Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III). Riverside Publishing Company, instruments. 2001.
    • ID: (URL)
  • Radloff, Lenore S.. Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D). Applied Psychological Measurement.1, (3), 385-401.1977.
    • ID: 10.1177/014662167700100306 (DOI)

Update Metadata: 2020-02-20 | Issue Number: 2 | Registration Date: 2018-06-27

Vernon-Feagans, Lynne; Crouter, Ann C. (Nan); Cox, Martha J. (2014): The Family Life Project, Phase I, United States, September 2003-January 2008. Version 3. Version: v3. ICPSR - Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research. Dataset.