Family and Child Characteristics, Child-Rearing Factors, and Cognitive Competence of Young Children

1. ISSN 0300-4430 print; ISSN 1476-8275 online/03/020323-17 © 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/0300443031000071879
Early Child Development and Care, 2003, Vol. 173(2–3), pp. 323–339
*Corresponding author. Tel: + 31 24 365 35 45; Fax: + 31 24 365 35 99; E-mail: g.driessen@its.kun.nl
Family and Child Characteristics,
Child-Rearing Factors, and Cognitive
Competence of Young Children
GEERT W. J. M. DRIESSEN*
ITS – Institute for Applied Social Sciences, University of Nijmegen, P.O. Box 9048, 6500 KJ Nijmegen,
The Netherlands
(Received 20 October 2002)
In this paper, the contribution of a number of family, child, and parental child-rearing characteristics to the
explanation of differences in the cognitive competencies of young children are considered. A model is
formulated with not only clear attention to the ethnic and linguistic characteristics of the family, but also such
factors as the child-rearing behavior of the parents, parent–child interactions, and the child-rearing
competence of the parents. The model is then evaluated with the aid of data from a recent large-scale Dutch
study of six-year-old children (n = 10,774). The results of the LISREL analyses show the parental level of
education to play a central role in the explanation of differences in the cognitive competencies of the children.
The ethnic origin of the family, the use of Dutch in the home, and the parental level of mastery of the Dutch
language are also found to be of influence. Parental child-rearing factors, however, do not affect the children’s
cognitive competence.
Key words: Child-rearing; Cognitive competence; The Netherlands; Large-scale research; Parents; Six year
olds
INTRODUCTION
A number of theoretical models are currently available to explain numerous different aspects
of child-rearing and the influence of different child-rearing factors on the psychological,
social, and cognitive development of children (O’Connor, 2002). Many of these models
pertain to a clinical setting, problem behavior, problem situations, prevention or intervention
in the home, professional child care, and school setting (Hermanns, 1998).
An example of such a model is the ecological model of Bronfenbrenner (1979). Within this
model, larger social systems are assumed to play an important role in the development of the
child and different levels of environmental influences are distinguished – “distal” (e.g.,
neighborhood cohesion) or “proximal” (e.g., parent–child relations) – together with the
interactions between the different levels. For each level of environmental influence, a number
of risk factors with a potentially negative impact on the development of the child can be
identified. A closely related model is Belsky’s (1984) ecological model of the determinants
of parental child-rearing behavior. Within this model, three general sources of possible
influence are identified: the characteristics of the parent, the child, and the context with the

2. 324 G. W. J. M. DRIESSEN
latter encompassing increasingly more distant levels such as the marriage and family, work,
and social networks. The personal psychological characteristics of the parents constitute,
according to Belsky, the most important determinants of growth-promoting child-rearing
behavior.
While such theoretical models vary with regard to perspective, emphasis, actors,
developmental phase, and scope, they also show considerable similarities. The similarities lie
in the fact that each model distinguishes the child, the family, and the environment or context,
and also speaks of mutual influence and development. And despite the fact that the
environment is allowed to play a prominent role within the models, the child-rearing situation
within the family is taken to constitute the core of child-rearing – particularly when it comes
to young children (Peeters and Woldringh, 1993).
THEORETICAL MODEL AND VARIABLES
On the basis of the aforementioned theoretical perspectives, we have formulated a model
with the explanation of differences in cognitive competence standing central. This is in
marked contrast to other research, which typically takes social behavior as the final variable
to be explained. Other differences are that we use a very extensive sample (n = 10,774),
consider a specific age (six year olds), and clearly take a number of social-ethnic and cultural
factors into consideration. In Figure 1, the relevant model is presented. As can be seen, three
blocks of variables are distinguished: namely, family and child characteristics (i.e., structural,
cultural, and situational characteristics), child-rearing characteristics (i.e., behavior, inter-
actions, competence), and developmental characteristics (i.e., social and cognitive compe-
tence). It is assumed, in principle, that the direction of causality is from left to right. In the
following, further theoretical explication of these characteristics with attention to the relation
to, particularly, the cognitive development of the child will be undertaken.
Family and Child Characteristics
Family Structural Characteristics
When speaking of family structural characteristics, “social milieu” and “ethnicity” are
usually mentioned first (Bradly, Corwyn, Burchinal, Pipes [??004] and Garc´ıa Coll, 2001;
Okagaki and Frensch, 1998). That a relation exists between child-rearing values and behavior
is clear (O’Connor, 2002). In The Netherlands, lower educated ethnic minority parents, for
example, tend to consider conformity and achievement more important child-rearing
objectives than non-minority parents and also try to realize such objectives to a much
stronger degree via authoritarian control than non-minority parents (Pels, 2000). This
situation can create problems within a society where alternative opinions regarding the
objectives of child-rearing and education prevail. Not only in the family situation, but also
in the neighborhood situation, the child-care situation, and the school situation, conflict can
arise in the interactions with non-minority peers and their parents (Smit and Driessen, 2002).
Discrepancies with regard to values, norms, and behavior can be construed as stress factors
– with stress defined as a discrepancy between the demands of the environment and the
potential of the individual to meet these demands. An accumulation of stress can then be
viewed as a risk factor and threat to the healthy development of the child (Peeters, 1995). In
other words, there is not only a relation between social milieu and ethnic origin on the one
hand and child-rearing behavior of the parents on the other hand, but also between milieu and
ethnicity and the behavior of the individual child. In addition to this, indirect effects of the

3. COGNITIVECOMPETENCEOFYOUNGCHILDREN325
FIGURE 1 Theoretical model for the explanation of cognitive competence.

4. 326 G. W. J. M. DRIESSEN
social milieu and ethnic origin on the school skills of children are often observed. And these
indirect effects have been found to be mediated by various cultural, linguistic, and financial
resources (Driessen, 2001).
Child Structural Characteristics
Both the social behavior and cognitive skills of children differ according to sex. Girls score
more favorably in the domains of social and linguistic skills; boys score better in the domain
of mathematics (Bae, Choy, Geddes, Sable and Snyder, 2001). The observed sex differences
are often explained in terms of a number of inborn capacities and gender-specific
socialization. And within the context of traditional ethnic-minority families, socialization
appears to play a particularly important role (Pels, 2000).
In a review study by Steelman and Powell (1985) on the effects of “birth order”, it appears
that the youngest children perform better with respect to the social aspects of development
(e.g., popularity), and the oldest children better with respect to educational results and
leadership qualities. Steelman and Powell interpret these findings as indicating that the
youngest children are forced to interact with older siblings while the oldest children are given
greater autonomy. When there is just one child, the child is automatically the oldest, but the
research on only-child families reveals conflicting results (Blake, Richardson and
Bhattacharya, 1991). One idea is that only children have a strong bond with their parents and
therefore less of a need for contact with peers. Given that the child is an only child, moreover,
the parents may have more time for him/her, be more motivated to interact with the child, and
also interact with the child in a manner that is presumed to produce the desired type of
development. In addition, parents with only one child generally have greater financial
resources and one need not speak of “resource dilution”.
Family Cultural Characteristics
Family cultural characteristics are often defined in terms of cultural and linguistic resources
(Driessen, 2001). Indicators of family cultural characteristics are “reading behavior”, “home
language”, “mastery of Dutch language”, and “cultural participation”. A number of the
presuppositions regarding the influence of such characteristics can be traced back to
Bourdieu (1986) and Coleman (1988). The idea is that the effects of the social milieu and
ethnic origin on school skills are mediated by a number of cultural and linguistic resources.
With regard to ethnic minorities in particular, linguistic resources are assumed to be of
essential importance. And in this connection, not only the language spoken in the home and
the level of Dutch language mastery on the part of the parents are relevant, but also whether
books and magazines are read and various cultural institutions and events are visited
(Carrington and Luke, 1997; White & Kaufman, 1997).
Family Situational Characteristics
Research on “family composition” shows the children of one-parent families to not only
manifest behavior and emotional problems more frequently than the children of two-parent
families, but also greater problems with their school careers (Bianchi and Robinson, 1997;
Downey, 1995). In order to explain these differences, an appeal is often made to the
aforementioned resources approach of Bourdieu and Coleman. The quality of the cognitive
and social-emotional home climate, and thus the support for children, is assumed to be

5. COGNITIVE COMPETENCE OF YOUNG CHILDREN 327
relatively lower in a one-parent family because the opportunities for interaction are
presumably more limited, the material circumstances less favorable, the quality of various
child-rearing processes lower, and the child-rearing competence of the parents generally
weaker than in a two-parent family.
Every family is presumably confronted with problematic circumstances or life events at
some point. One can think of difficult financial circumstances, health problems, or the
vicissitudes of divorce (Veerman and ten Brink, 1993). The sum of such events then provides
an indication of the degree of “family stress”. Stress situations can influence parents, and thus
the child-rearing situation and family interactions, but also the behavior of the individual
child directly at school, for example (Murray-Harvey and Slee, 1998). As Veerman and ten
Brink (1993) point out, however, it is often difficult to separate cause and effect: does a
stressful family environment lead to behavior and learning problems or do behavior problems
lead to family stress? It is generally assumed that one can speak of mutual influence. Stressful
family situations need not lead to problems, and one can often speak of protective factors that
allow a child to develop more or less unhampered by otherwise stressful circumstances
(Hermanns, 1998).
Child-Rearing Characteristics
Child-Rearing Behavior
Child-rearing behavior concerns the concrete behavior of parents with regard to the rearing
of their children and is typically guided by the ideologies of the parents (cf. Hermanns,
1992). Considerable differences exist in the child-rearing ideologies of different ethnic
groups and also between the ideologies of different social milieus. One can think of
obedience and conformity versus autonomy and self-determination, which clearly relate to
the extent to which an emphasis is placed upon the collective versus the individual
(Okagaki and Frensch, 1998). The differences relating to ethnicity and milieu can be
characterized along a continuum ranging from traditional to modern (Leseman, sijsling,
Jap-A-Joe and Sahin, 1995). In the translation of these ideologies into concrete child-
rearing practice, a number of divergent styles can be distinguished – such as authoritative
and authoritarian. Indicators of each style concern, among other things, the manner in
which parents and children communicate with each other, parents monitor and discipline a
child, and parents trust, support, and give the child freedom (van Bakel and Riksen-
Walraven, 2002). Socialization in the family and at school is, in principle, aimed at the
acquisition of those skills that enable children to function adequately within society and
thus predominantly social and cognitive competencies. In Western middle-class society,
autonomy and self-determination are primary objectives. When deviant objectives are
aspired to within certain subcultures, situations of conflict between the child-rearing
practices at home and professional child-care or educational practices can arise. And in the
end, more traditional child rearing has been found to be associated with relatively lower
school success (Leseman et al., 1995; Peeters, 1995).
Parent–Child Interactions
Considerable attention has recently been paid to the parent–child interactions within the
family (Smit and Doesborgh, 2001). Of particular interest, of course, are the joint activities
undertaken by the parent and child, and the communication between the parent and child.
Both quantitative and qualitative aspects of such interactions are often distinguished; that is,

6. 328 G. W. J. M. DRIESSEN
not only the frequency, but also the quality of the interactions are of importance. In addition,
Leseman and van den Boom (1998) have found social-ethnic groups to clearly differ with
regard to parent–child interactions and the effects of these interactions on the cognitive skills
of the children involved. For families in the most favorable social-ethnic situation (i.e., Dutch
middle-class families) no effects of various quantitative and qualitative aspects of interaction
have been detected, while the same variables have been clearly shown to affect the families
in the least favorable situation (i.e., Turkish families in The Netherlands).
Parental Child-Rearing Competence
Children greatly differ with regard to temperament, and parents can handle these differences
in a variety of manners (Rothbart, Akadi, Hersey and Fisher, 2001; van Bakel and Riksen-
Walraven, 2002). The skill with which one handles differences in temperament is an
indication of child-rearing competence. Research shows such competence on the part of
parents to promote cooperation, secure attachment behavior, and achievement on the part of
children, while the absence of such competence on the part of parents tends to lead to
uncooperative and problematic behavior on the part of children (Bogenschneider, Small and
Tsay, 1997). The children of competent parents tend to be socially more competent, maintain
better relations with peers, and receive more positive behavioral evaluations at school than
the children of less competent parents. Child-rearing competence is thus bi-directional: the
temperament and personality characteristics of the child clearly influence the behavior of the
parents and vice versa. Stated differently: child-rearing competence is a not a stable factor,
but rather a dynamic factor that reflects the capacity of parents to adapt to the changing
demands arising in connection with the development of the child and the child’s growth
towards autonomy (cf. O’Connor, 2002).
Developmental Characteristics
Social Competence of Child
According to van Aken (1992), competence refers to a person’s capacity to handle
environmental demands and opportunities in an active and effective way. A cognitive-
motivational aspect and a behavioral aspect of competence can be distinguished. The
cognitive-motivational aspect pertains to the child’s ideas concerning his/her control over the
environment. The behavioral aspect can be further divided into mastery of the skills needed
to solve problems in general and the skills needed to solve specific developmental tasks. The
latter thus concerns domain-specific competencies such as social, cognitive, emotional, and
physical competence (Denham, Mason, Caverly, Schmidt, Hackney, Caswell and DeMulder,
2001). And such competencies are the product of genetically determined child characteristics
and the socialization of the child within the home, the neighborhood, the professional child-
care situation, and the school environment.
Cognitive Competence of Child
At school and in the field of education, cognitive competence stands central. The most
important indicators of such competence are the academic skills in the domains of language
and mathematics. Given that we are concerned with fairly young children here, cognitive
competence refers to the level of preparatory language and mathematics skills, which
constitute the prerequisites for successfully learning to read and do arithmetic.

7. COGNITIVE COMPETENCE OF YOUNG CHILDREN 329
BASIC RESEARCH QUESTION AND HYPOTHESES
The question motivating the present study is: how do various child, family, and parental
child-rearing characteristics contribute to the explanation of the differences observed in
the social and cognitive competencies of young children? On the basis of the research
results already summarized, a number of hypotheses could be formulated with regard to
the cognitive competence in particular. It is hypothesized that a higher level of parental
education will positively influence the language and mathematics skills of the children
and that belonging to an ethnic minority group will negatively influence particularly the
language skills of the children. With respect to the sex of the child, it is hypothesized
that girls will tend to score higher than boys on language and somewhat lower on
mathematics. The oldest/only children are hypothesized to show higher academic
achievement than the other children. It is also hypothesized that the influence of the
social-ethnic characteristics of the family will be largely mediated by various linguistic
and cultural characteristics. Parental reading behavior, use of Dutch within the home,
parental mastery of the Dutch language, and parental cultural participation are all
hypothesized to positively influence particularly the language skills of the children. It is
also hypothesized that children from traditional two-parent families will achieve better
than children from alternative family forms. Family stress is hypothesized to produce
lower levels of achievement. With regard to the influence of the parental child-rearing
factors, the social competence of the children is expected to be affected in particular.
With the exception of hostile behavior on the part of the parent, it is hypothesized that
the influence of the other child-rearing behaviors will be positive. In addition, joint
parent–child activities are hypothesized to directly and positively influence the cognitive
competence of the children and their language skills in particular. Finally, the social
competence of the children can be expected to influence their own cognitive competence
but only to a limited extent.
METHOD
The data for the present study come from a Dutch cohort study entitled Primary
Education (PRIMA). As part of this research project, test and questionnaire data have
been collected from primary school students, parents, teachers, and school administrators
since the 1994/1995 school year. The project involves seven hundred primary schools,
which is almost ten percent of the total number of Dutch primary schools, and some
65,000 kindergarten, Grade 2, Grade 4, and Grade 6 students. The PRIMA project has an
overrepresentation of schools with a relatively large number of minority group students,
which permits reliable estimates of the systematic effects of factors pertaining to ethnicity
and social background. The present analyses are based on the results of the fourth
PRIMA measurement during the 2000/2001 school year (Driessen, van Langen and
Vierke, 2002). The analyses involve 10,774 kindergarten students from 563 primary
schools; the average age of the students was six years.
The information reported on here comes from two tests used to measure the children’s
cognitive competence and a questionnaire administered to the parents to obtain information
on the family and child characteristics, child-rearing factors and children’s social
competence. On the basis of this information, the following blocks of variables could be
distinguished.

8. 330 G. W. J. M. DRIESSEN
Family and Child Characteristics
Family Structural Characteristics
Parental ethnicity. The mother’s birth place was used to determine ethnicity: (1) Dutch, (2)
Surinamese or Antillean (i.e., former Dutch colonies), (3) Turkish or Moroccan (i.e., labor
immigrants), or (4) other non-Dutch (i.e., Western or non-Western immigrants).
Parental Education. On the basis of the highest level of education completed by the mother,
seven categories of parental education ranging from a maximum of (1) primary school to (7)
university were distinguished.
Child Structural Characteristics
Sex. Whether the child was a boy (1) or a girl (2) was coded.
Oldest/Only Child. The oldest child may also simultaneously be the only child in a family,
so the following distinction was made: (1) not oldest/only child or (2) oldest/only child.
Family Cultural Characteristics
Reading Behavior. For both parents, the total number of hours spent per week reading
books, newspapers, and magazines was calculated. Five categories were then distinguished,
ranging from (1) zero to four hours per week to (5) more than sixteen hours per week.
Home Language. This variable indicates the language that the parents speak most with each
other in the home. Three categories were identified: (1) Dutch, (2) a Dutch dialect, or (3) a
foreign language.
Dutch Language Mastery. The average scores of the mother for four aspects of language
mastery were collapsed together to determine the level of Dutch language mastery. For the
mother’s ability to comprehend Dutch, speak Dutch, read Dutch, and write Dutch, the scores
could vary from (1) poor to (4) very good.
Cultural Participation. For both parents, the number of times per year that they visited a
concert, the cinema, the theater, the ballet, or a museum was calculated. Four levels were then
distinguished, ranging from (1) one to four times per year to (4) more than twelve times per
year.
Family Situational Characteristics
Family Composition. The parents were asked to indicate their current situation: (1) married
or living together with the parent of the child; (2) married or living together with someone
other than the parent of the child; (3) single, divorced; or (4) single, never married or partner
deceased.
Family Stress. The parents were presented a list of fifteen potentially distressing situations
and asked to indicate which applied to the present family situation. Examples are: tensions
at work, conflict with the neighbors, illness, financial problems, divorce, and housing

9. COGNITIVE COMPETENCE OF YOUNG CHILDREN 331
situation. The number of stress situations was then summed to obtain a total score for family
stress.
Child-Rearing Characteristics
Child-Rearing Behavior
The parents were asked to indicate along a five-point scale, ranging from (1) certainly not to
(5) strongly, the extent to which a particular statement applies to their child-rearing behavior
and ideas. With the aid of factor analyses, the following three factors have been
distinguished.
᭹ Informative behavior encompasses eight items of the type “I try to explain things to my
child when he or she is upset or afraid” (Cronbach’s ␣ = 0.83).
᭹ Hostile behavior encompasses three items. An example is “I am often angry at my child”
(Cronbach’s ␣ = 0.63).
᭹ Provision of autonomy encompasses three items. An example is: “When my child is
confronted with a problem, I encourage him/her to solve it on his/her own” (Cronbach’s
␣ = 0.57). The averages of the original scores were next calculated for each factor.
Parent–Child Interactions
Joint Activities Outside the Home. The parents were asked to indicate how often they take
the child somewhere with them. Four categories of activity were then presented: (1) zoo or
children’s farm; (2) carnival, fair, or amusement park; (3) theater; and (4) museum. On the
basis of the responses, the total number of times that the parents and child undertake joint
activities outside the home in the form of instructive trips were calculated and then coded in
terms of four categories, ranging from (1) ≤ 4 times per year to (4) > 12 times per year.
Joint Activities in the Home. The parents were asked to indicate how often they do
something together with their child within the home. The following activities were then
mentioned: (a) do a puzzle; (b) play a thought or memory game; (c) build something; (d) play
with dolls, store, or toy cars; (e) draw or color; (f) watch television; and (g) play with the
computer. The total number of activities were then calculated and coded in terms of four
categories, ranging from (1) < 1 time per day to (4) ≥ 4 times per day.
Parental Child-Rearing Competence
The parents were asked how easy or difficult they find things with the child. The response
categories were: (1) (very) difficult; (2) average, with the normal problems; or (3) easy. This
self-evaluation is taken to provide an indicator of the pedagogical competence of the
parents.
Developmental Characteristics
Social Competence of Child
A series of questions regarding the behavior of the children was presented to the parents. The
parents had to indicate the extent to which a particular statement applied to their child along
a five-point scale ranging from (1) certainly not to (5) strongly. On the basis of factor
analyses, the following two factors have been distinguished.

10. 332 G. W. J. M. DRIESSEN
᭹ Moody, negative behavior encompasses eight items of the following type: “My child is
easily upset” (Cronbach’s ␣ = 0.72).
᭹ Positive, social behavior includes three items. An example is: “My child is considerate of
others” (Cronbach’s ␣ = 0.74).
By averaging the original item scores, scale scores were calculated for the two factors.
᭹ Number of friends was taken as a third indicator of social competence. For this purpose,
the parents were asked how many “real” friends the child has.
Cognitive Competence of Child
᭹ Language proficiency was measured using the Concepts Test developed by the CITO (i.e.,
the Dutch National Institute for Educational Measurement). This test provides an
indication of the student’s achievement level in the domain of pre-reading skills. The test
consists of sixty multiple-choice items, and the reliability (K-R 20) has been found to be
0.96.
᭹ Math proficiency was measured using the Ordering Test also developed by the CITO. This
test provides an indication of the student’s achievement level in the domain of pre-
mathematics skills. The test contains a total of forty-two multiple-choice items, and the
reliability (K-R 20) has been found to be 0.90.
RESULTS
Correlational Analysis
To gain insight into the distributions of the different variables within the model, the means
and standard deviations are outlined in Table I. In addition, the correlations between the
different variables are also presented. The nominal characteristics were coded using dummy
variables. For ethnicity, Dutch constitutes the reference category; for sex, male constitutes the
reference category; for oldest/only children, not oldest/only child constitutes the reference
category; and for family composition, parents who are married/living together constitutes the
reference category.
Inspection of the results presented in Table I shows relatively few high correlations for the
variables within a block and also the variables across blocks. When we consider only the
strongest associations and thus a correlation of 0.40 or higher, the following is found to be
the case. A higher level of parental education tends to be associated with a higher level of
parental mastery of the Dutch language (0.42) and a stronger degree of cultural participation
(also 0.42). Membership in the ethnic category of Turkish/Moroccan is associated with
speaking a foreign language at home (0.71) and poorer parental mastery of the Dutch
language (–0.48). Speaking a foreign language is similarly associated with poorer parental
mastery of the Dutch language (–0.58). Finally, a strong association (0.58) exists between the
language and mathematics skills of the children, which indicates some overlap in the two
tests and is not surprising in light of the fact that the Ordering Test contains a number of
linguistic elements and the Concepts Test examines knowledge that is also of importance for
mathematics.
It can be further noted that very few relations exist for the three blocks of variables
measuring child-rearing factors and the block measuring the social competence of the child.
A weak relation exists between hostile child-rearing behavior and child-rearing competence
(–0.38), on the one hand, and moody behavior on the part of the child (0.36), on the other
hand. A similar weak relation is also detected for informative child-rearing behavior and

11. COGNITIVECOMPETENCEOFYOUNGCHILDREN333
TABLE I Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations Between the Child, Family, and Child-Rearing Characteristics, and Social and Cognitive Competence
Mean
Standard
deviation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1 Education 3.5 1.7 1.00
2 Surinamese/Antilleana
4.2% –0.03 1.00
3 Turkish/Moroccana
11.6% –0.35 –0.07 1.00
4 Other minoritya
8.4% –0.01 –0.06 –0.10 1.00
5 Boy 51.0% –0.01 –0.01 0.02 0.00 1.00
6 Not oldest/only child 58.1% 0.08 –0.01 –0.07 –0.01 0.00 1.00
7 Reading behavior 2.8 1.3 0.32 –0.01 –0.18 –0.01 –0.01 –0.01 1.00
8 Dutch dialectb
13.0% –0.02 –0.04 –0.13 –0.05 –0.01 –0.00 –0.02 1.00
9 Foreign languageb
17.7% –0.30 0.04 0.71 0.32 0.01 –0.07 –0.18 –0.17 1.00
10 Language mastery 3.4 .8 .42 –0.01 –0.48 –0.31 –0.02 0.09 0.23 0.01 –0.58 1.00
11 Cultural participation 3.1 1.4 0.42 0.01 –0.23 –0.02 –0.01 0.00 0.37 –0.05 –0.22 0.29 1.00
12 Married, not parentc
3.3% –0.03 0.02 –0.03 0.07 0.00 0.00 –0.02 –0.01 –0.00 –0.02 0.02 1.00
13 Single, divorcedc
5.3% –0.07 0.06 0.00 0.02 –0.01 –0.01 –0.13 –0.03 0.00 –0.02 –0.08 –0.04 1.00
14 Single, never marriedc
3.2% –0.06 0.17 –0.04 0.03 0.00 0.05 –0.12 –0.03 0.00 –0.01 –0.07 –0.03 –0.04 1.00
15 Family stress 1.5 1.5 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.02 –0.04 –0.01 0.09 –0.05 –0.01 0.08 0.11 0.05 1.00
16 Informative behavior 4.4 0.5 0.06 –0.01 –0.10 –0.06 0.00 0.10 0.08 –0.00 –0.12 0.22 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.02 1.00
17 Hostile behavior 2.2 0.7 –0.05 0.01 0.04 0.01 –0.03 0.05 –0.10 0.00 0.04 –0.08 –0.10 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.15 –0.21 1.00
18 Provision of autonomy 3.3 0.7 0.24 –0.04 –0.09 –0.02 –0.01 0.00 0.14 –0.00 –0.11 0.16 0.15 –0.00 –0.03 –0.03 0.04 0.06 0.07 1.00
19 Activities outside home 2.6 1.0 0.11 –0.01 –0.00 0.01 0.00 0.06 0.14 –0.07 –0.00 0.06 0.27 0.01 0.00 –0.00 0.01 0.08 –0.05 0.05 1.00
20 Activities in the home 2.6 1.1 –0.13 0.02 0.11 0.01 –0.00 0.13 0.04 –0.01 0.10 –0.07 –0.00 –0.02 0.00 0.03 –0.00 0.10 –0.04 –0.03 0.16 1.00
21 Child-rearing competence 2.2 0.5 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.05 –0.05 0.08 –0.00 0.05 0.01 0.08 –0.03 –0.02 –0.02 –0.11 0.10 –0.38 0.00 0.03 0.04 1.00
22 Moody, negative behavior 2.7 .6 –0.25 0.06 0.16 0.06 –0.06 0.09 –0.16 –0.02 0.17 –0.20 –0.19 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.14 –0.11 –0.36 –0.03 –0.05 0.06 –0.30 1.00
23 Positive, social behavior 4.1 0.5 0.06 0.00 –0.07 –0.04 0.09 0.06 0.08 –0.00 –0.09 0.13 0.07 –0.02 –0.01 0.00 –0.01 0.28 –0.21 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.19 –0.15 1.00
24 Number of friends 2.8 1.1 –0.05 0.02 0.12 0.02 0.04 –0.00 0.05 –0.04 0.12 –0.06 0.03 –0.02 –0.01 –0.00 0.04 0.04 –0.08 –0.01 0.07 0.11 0.10 –0.05 0.11 1.00
25 Language proficiency 48.4 7.6 0.29 –0.06 –0.31 –0.15 0.06 0.05 0.15 0.05 –0.38 0.35 0.18 –0.03 –0.03 –0.05 –0.05 0.10 –0.07 0.11 0.01 –0.10 0.04 –0.22 0.09 –0.01 1.00
26 Mathematics proficiency 56.1 14.1 0.27 –0.03 –0.21 –0.07 0.01 0.03 0.12 0.02 –0.23 0.24 0.17 –0.02 –0.03 –0.03 –0.03 0.05 –0.05 0.11 0.03 –0.10 0.06 –0.22 0.05 0.01 0.58 10.00
Reference category:a
Dutch (75.8%), b
Dutch language (69.3%), c
married, parents (88.2%).
Note: Correlations ≥ 0.20 printed bold.

12. 334 G. W. J. M. DRIESSEN
positive social behavior on the part of the child (0.28). The language and mathematics skills
of the children are found to correlate with the parental mastery level of education, ethnicity,
use of predominantly a foreign language in the home, parental mastery of the Dutch
language, and moody behavior on the part of the child. The use of predominantly a foreign
language in the home and a poorer mastery of Dutch by the parents tend to be associated with
lower language achievement on the part of the child (–0.38 and 0.35, respectively).
Structural Equation Modeling
To determine the effects of the various child, family, and child-rearing characteristics on the
social and cognitive competence of the child, structural equation modeling was undertaken
with the aid of the LISREL program. In doing this, a two-step exploratory strategy was
adopted. To start with, a model in which the paths between the different variables within the
model were left free to vary was tested. In such a manner, all of the paths between a particular
variable and all of the variables coming thereafter are calculated; a fully recursive model is
thus employed. The results of this analysis produce a matrix of path coefficients. The most
parsimonious model is then sought. In other words, it is attempted to find that model with the
smallest number of paths and still a good fit. This model is calculated by fixing all of the
paths below a certain level to 0 or all of the path coefficients < 0.10 in the present case. The
path coefficients presented in Table II then remain, and this model is found to have a very
good fit: ␹2
= 193, degrees of freedom = 224, p = 0.936, AGFI = 0.954. In the first column
of the table under %R2
, the percentages variance explained for each of the variables after the
first block are also presented. This information indicates just how good the relevant variable
is predicted by the preceding variables.
As can be seen, nine percent of the variance in parental reading behavior is explained by
the preceding variables. However, one characteristic in particular can be seen to substantially
contribute to this, namely the parental level of education (0.30). It is obvious that speaking
a foreign language in the home is determined by membership in an ethnic minority group. For
the mastery of the Dutch language by the parents, forty-two percent of the variance is
explained by the ethnic origin and educational level of the parents. The cultural participation
of the parents is also explained to an important extent by their level of education. The type
of family composition involving “single, never married or partner deceased” is strongly
determined by membership in the category of Surinamese/Antillean. It is well known that
few mothers within this ethnic category choose to marry or live together with a man.
Within the block of child-rearing characteristics, the variable informative behavior is
primarily determined by parental mastery of the Dutch language. To the extent that the
parents are more proficient in Dutch, they tend to communicate and interact more with the
child. Hostile behavior towards the children is explained most by the degree of family stress:
the greater number of stressful situations that occur within the family, the more hostile the
attitude of the parents towards the children. The provision of autonomy relates most to the
parental level of education: higher educated parents provide greater autonomy. For the
number of activities undertaken together with the children, one can speak of two different
patterns. The number of activities jointly undertaken outside the home is largely determined
by the degree of cultural participation on the part of the parents, which does not come as a
surprise as they are partly the same. The number of activities jointly undertaken within the
home is determined by a different set of factors and mainly the parental level of education
with higher educated parents undertaking fewer activities together with their children in the
home than other parents. In addition, the position of the child in the sequence of children
within a family appears to play a role with a greater number of activities undertaken with
oldest/only children and by parents who read more. The pedagogical competence of the

13. COGNITIVECOMPETENCEOFYOUNGCHILDREN335
TABLE II Path Coefficient Parsimonious Model for the Explanation of Cognitive Competence.
To . . . %R2
Path from . . .
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
1 Education
2 Surinamese/Antilleana
3 Turkish/Moroccana
4 Other minoritya
5 Boy
6 Not oldest/only child
7 Reading behavior 9 0.30
8 Dutch dialectb
2 –0.14
9 Foreign languageb
69 0.13 0.77 0.42
10 Language mastery 43 0.26 –0.44 –0.36
11 Cultural participation 18 0.38 –0.08
12 Married, not parentc
0
13 Single, divorcedc
0
14 Single, never marriedc
3 0.18
15 Family stress 0
16 Informative behavior 4 0.21
17 Hostile behavior 3 0.16
18 Provision of autonomy 6 0.25
19 Activities outside home 7 0.26
20 Activities in the home 5 –0.18 0.13 0.10
21 Child-rearing competence 2 –0.12
22 Moody, negative behavior 21 –0.23 0.29 –0.18
23 Positive, social behavior 11 0.25 –0.11 0.12
24 Number of friends 0
25 Language-proficiency 16 0.17 –0.20 0.09 –0.13
26 Mathematics proficiency 10 0.23 –0.16
Reference category: a
Dutch, b
Dutch language, c
married, parents.

14. 336 G. W. J. M. DRIESSEN
parents is predominantly explained by family stress: the more stress, the worse the parents get
along with their children. To conclude, it should be noted that the child-rearing variables are
only explained to a very limited extent by the preceding variables in the model – between two
and seven percent of the variance.
The social competence of the child is typically better explained than the child-rearing
factors. Some twenty-one percent of whether a child displays moody negative behavior is
explained by the hostile behavior on the part of the parents and also by the parental
educational level and child-rearing competence. Given that the parents estimate their own
child-rearing competence, however, it is possible that this measure represents an attempt on
the part of the parents to justify the hostile behavior of the child or even a reversed causal
relation: that is, the parents become hostile because the child is difficult and displays moody
negative behavior. Positive social behavior is not explained as well, with only eleven percent
The greatest degree of explanatory power stems from informative behavior on the part of the
parents: the more parents tend to communicate with their children, the more their children are
social towards others. It is striking that the number of friends is not explained by any of the
child or family characteristics that precede this variable.
It can be seen, in closing, that the variance in the language scores is explained by the
preceding variables all working together (16%) rather than a small number of specific
variables and effects. Of the multitude of contributions, using predominantly a foreign
language in the home (–0.20) and the parental level of education (0.17) appear to be the
strongest. The mathematics scores of the children are explained to a lesser extent (10%) by
the variables included in the model. Parental level of education (0.23) and moody negative
behavior on the part of the child (–0.16) explain a significant amount of the variance in the
children’s mathematics scores. Finally, it is striking that one aspect of social competence in
particular (i.e., moody negative behavior on the part of the child) negatively affects both the
language and mathematics skills of the children although the coefficients are not very
strong.
In connection with these results, the following should be pointed out. Within the model,
ethnicity has been represented with a total of four dummy variables. By including ethnicity
as an exogenous variable, the associations found in the remainder of the model are
determined with ethnicity held constant. This means that, for instance, within each of the
ethnic minority categories, not speaking predominantly Dutch at home negatively affects the
language skills of the child, and that the parental level of education influences the degree of
cultural participation reported by the parents. These findings were also tested in a separate
multi-sample LISREL analysis, which produced a very good fit: ␹2
= 135, degrees of
freedom = 585, p = 0.999, GFI = 0.98. On the basis of this information, it can be concluded
that the associations found for the entire sample using the present model also hold for each
of the categories of ethnicity independently. Similar comments can be made with regard to
the other exogenous variables, namely level of education, sex, and oldest/only child.
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of the theoretical model constructed on the basis of an extensive review of the
relevant research literature, a number of hypotheses were formulated with regard to the
explanation of differences in cognitive competency. When the results of the present empirical
evaluation of the model are inspected, the central position of particularly the family structural
characteristics stands out. Parental level of education (i.e., social milieu) can be seen to exert
both direct and indirect effects on the family cultural characteristics, child-rearing factors,
and both the social and cognitive competence of the child. In addition, indirect effects of

15. COGNITIVE COMPETENCE OF YOUNG CHILDREN 337
belonging to the Turkish/Moroccan or other non-Dutch categories of ethnicity on the social
and cognitive competence of the children were observed. These effects operate via the
variables home language choice, parental level of mastery of the Dutch language, and child-
rearing behavior. The present findings are in line with previous research results from, for
example, Jencks and Mayer (1990) and Rossi and Montgomery (1994), who emphasize the
importance of social milieu and ethnic origin. With regard to the question of which of the two
factors predominates, there is considerable debate. In a review study by Driessen (1995),
milieu was found to be more dominant than ethnicity, although ethnicity clearly made its own
contribution. Similarly, in research by Leseman et al. (1995), it is concluded that the
educational chances of ethnic minority children cannot be completely traced to their lower
social-economic milieu; independent effects of ethnicity, separate from milieu, are also
detected. Once again, the effects of ethnicity operate primarily via the linguistic
characteristics of the family such as the home language and the language interactions
between parents and children. These are exactly the relations detected in the present research,
which therefore provides additional evidence for the notion of linguistic capital (Carrington
and Luke, 1997; Driessen, 2001), and the influence of social milieu, ethnic origin, and
linguistic factors as formulated within the context of the present research on the cognitive
competence of children.
Counter to our expectation, no effect was found of the position of a child within the
sequence of children (cf. Blake, Richardson and Bhattacharya, 1991; Steelman and Powell,
1985). It is striking that this variable has no effect whatsoever on the child-rearing behavior
of the parents or the social and cognitive competence of the child. The same holds for family
composition: whether a child grows up in a one-parent or two-parent family and whether one
can speak of divorce or not apparently makes no difference (Amato, 1993; Caldas and
Bankston, 1999). Quite unexpected is the finding of no effects of family stress (Murray-
Harvey and Slee, 1998). The original assumption was that a greater degree of family stress
might characterize ethnic minority families with low educated parents. While such families
appear, indeed, to have a somewhat higher level of stress, there are no effects of such family
stress on any of the child-rearing factors or developmental characteristics. One explanation
for the absence of such stress effects may lie in the presence of protective factors in the child
himself herself and the child’s surroundings, which can compensate for any negative effects
of the stress (Hermanns, 1998; Peeters, 1995). One can think of the intelligence and so-called
ego-resilience of the child and the social support provided by parents, siblings, extended
family, and peers. In the present research, it is not possible to determine whether one can
speak of protective or preventive factors, although it can, in this connection, be observed that
the ethnic minority families are generally larger with a greater number of and stronger family
ties than the non-minority families, and that the number of friends is also higher for the ethnic
minority families. An alternative explanation is that family stress is determined by not only
the quantity of stress, but also the quality of the stress (Hermanns, 1992) and that the exact
nature of the family stress can differ across ethnic groups and thereby the effects of such. In
future research, this possibility should be examined.
It was hypothesized that the parental child-rearing factors would particularly influence the
social competence of the child and also the cognitive competence. This hypothesis proved
true to only a very limited extent. In previous research, the importance of parent–child
interactions and jointly undertaken activities has been emphasized (Leseman and van den
Boom, 1998; van Bakel and Riksen-Walraven, 2002). The present research shows only
informative behavior on the part of the parents to contribute to the occurrence of positive
social behavior on the part of the child and hostile behavior on the part of the parents to
moody negative behavior on the part of the child. This finding suggests that, to the extent that
parents communicate more with their children, the more social their children are towards

16. 338 G. W. J. M. DRIESSEN
others; conversely, the more hostile parents are towards their children, the more negative
behavior the children display. One point should nevertheless be added here. The information
on the aforementioned characteristics comes from the parents themselves. And as O’Connor
(2002) and Peeters and Woldringh (1993) have pointed out, there is the very real problem of
causality. That is, bi-directional effects cannot be excluded, and the extent to which such
effects actually occur can only be examined adequately in longitudinal research. With regard
to jointly undertaken activities, no effects were found. In the present research, the number of
activities was summed. In future research, whether or not an effect of jointly undertaking
activities is found when a more qualitative perspective is taken on the issue (i.e., the exact
nature of the activities is taken into consideration) should be examined.
In closing, it can be observed that the parental level of education (i.e., social milieu)
occupies a central position in the explanation of differences in the cognitive competence of
six-year-old children. In addition, ethnic origin and – in relation to this – the use of Dutch as
the home language and the parental mastery of the Dutch language appear to be very relevant
characteristics (cf. Driessen, 2000). Yet another important finding is that the observed effects
hold for not only the total sample, but also for each of the ethnic groups separately.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank J. Doesborgh for his help with the analyses. The Netherlands
Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) is gratefully acknowledged for funding the
project on which this paper is based. The research was supported by grant #411–20–005 from
NWO’s Social Science Research Council.
References
Amato, P. (1993) Children’s adjustment to divorce: theories, hypotheses, and empirical findings, Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 55, 23–38.
Bae, Y., Choy, S., Geddes, C., Sable, J. and Snyder, T. (2001) Trends in Educational Equity of Girls & Women.
Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
Belsky, J. (1984) The determinants of parenting: a process model, Child Development, 55, 83–86.
Bianchi, S. and Robinson, J. (1997) What did you do today? Children’s use of time, family composition, and the
acquisition of social capital, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 332–344.
Blake, J., Richardson, B. and Bhattacharya, J. (1991) Number of siblings and sociability, Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 53, 271–283.
Bogenschneider, K., Small, S. and Tsay, J. (1997) Child, parent, and contextual influences on perceived parenting
competence among parents of adolescents, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 345–362.
Bourdieu, P. (1986) The forms of capital, In: Richardson, J. (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the
Sociology of Education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood Press.
Bradley, R., Corwyn, R., Burchinal, M., Pipes McAdoo, H. and Garc´ıa Coll, C. (2001) The home environments of
children in the United States. Part II: Relations with behavioral development through age thirteen, Child
Development, 72, 1868–1886.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979) The Ecology of Human Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Caldas, S. and Bankston, C. (1999) Multilevel examination of student, school, and district-level effects on academic
achievement, The Journal of Educational Research, 93, 91–100.
Carrington, V. and Luke, A. (1997) Literacy and Bourdieu’s sociological theory: a reframing, Language and
Education, 11, 96–112.
Coleman, J. (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital, American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95–120.
Denham, S., Mason, T., Caverly, S., Schmidt, M., Hackney, R., Caswell, C. and DeMulder, E. (2001) Preschoolers
at play: co-socialisers of emotional and social competence, International Journal of Behavioral Development,
25, 290–301.
Downey, D. (1995) When bigger is not better: family size, parental resources, and children’s educational
performance, American Sociological Review, 60, 746–761.
Driessen, G. (1995) Het relatieve belang van sociaal milieu en etnische herkomst voor de verklaring van
onderwijsachterstanden. Een overzicht van kwantitatief-empirische studies; bevindingen en problemen,
Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsresearch, 20, 341–362.
Driessen, G. (2000) The limits of educational policy and practice? The case of ethnic minority pupils in the

17. COGNITIVE COMPETENCE OF YOUNG CHILDREN 339
Netherlands, Comparative Education, 36, 55–72.
Driessen, G. (2001) Ethnicity, forms of capital, and educational achievement, International Review of Education, 47,
513–538.
Driessen, G., van Langen, A. and Vierke, H. (2002) Basisonderwijs: Veldwerkverslag, leerlinggegevens en
oudervragenlijsten. Basisrapportage PRIMA-cohortonderzoek. Vierde meting 2000/2001. Nijmegen: ITS.
Hermanns, J. (1992) Het sociale kapitaal van jonge kinderen. Jonge kinderen, opvoeders en opvoedingsondersteun-
ing. Utrecht: SWP.
Hermanns, J. (1998) Family risks and family support: an analysis of concepts, In: Hermanns, J. and Leu, H. (Eds.),
Family Risks and Family Support. Theory, Research and Practice in Germany and in The Netherlands (pp.
9–37) Delft: Eburon.
Jencks, C. and Mayer, S. (1990) The social consequences of growing up in a poor neighborhood, In: Lynn Jr., L. and
McGeary, M. (Eds.), Inner-City Poverty in the United States (pp. 111–186). Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Leseman, P. and van den Boom, D. (1999) Effects of quantity and quality of home proximal processes on Dutch,
Surinamese-Dutch and Turkish-Dutch pre-schoolers’ cognitive development, Infant and Child Development, 8,
19–38.
Leseman, P., Sijsling, F., Jap-A-Joe, S. and Sahin, S. (1995) Gezinsdeterminanten van de cognitieve ontwikkeling
van vierjarige Nederlandse, Surinaamse en Turkse kleuters, Pedagogische Studi¨en, 72, 186–205.
Murray-Harvey, R. and Slee, P. (1998) Family stress and school adjustment: predictors across the school years, Early
Child Development and Care, 145, 133–149.
O’Connor, T. (2002) Annotation: the “effects” of parenting reconsidered: findings, challenges, and applications,
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43, 555–572.
Okagaki, L. and Frensch, P. (1998) Parenting and children’s school achievement: a multiethnic perspective,
American Educational Research Journal, 35, 123–144.
Peeters, J. (1995) Gezinsfactoren, competentie en persoonlijkheid van basisschoolkinderen. Nijmegen: ITS.
Peeters, J. and Woldringh, C. (1993) Leefsituatie van kinderen tot 12 jaar in Nederland. Nijmegen: ITS.
Pels, T. (Ed.) (2000) Opvoeding en integratie. Een vergelijkende studie van recente onderzoeken naar
gezinsopvoeding en de pedagogische afstemming tot gezin en school. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Rossi, R. and Montgomery, A. (Eds.) (1994) Educational Reforms and Students at Risk. A Review of the Current
State of the Art. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
Rothbart, M., Ahadi, S., Hersey, K. and Fisher, P. (2001) Investigations of temperament at three to seven years: the
Children’s Behavior Questionnaire, Child Development, 72, 1394–1408.
Smit, F. and Doesborgh, J. (2001) De onderhandelmores in opvoedend Nederland. Nijmegen: ITS.
Smith, F. and Driessen, G. (2002) Allochtone ouders en de pedagogische functie van de basisschool. Nijmegen:
ITS.
Steelman, L. and Powell, B. (1985) The social and academic consequences of birth order: real, artifact, or both?,
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, 117–124.
van Aken, M. (1992) The development of general competence and domain-specific competencies, European Journal
of Personality, 6, 267–282.
van Bakel, H. and Riksen-Walraven, M. (2002) Parenting and development of one-year-olds: links with parental,
contextual, and child characteristics, Child Development, 73, 256–273.
Veerman, J. and ten Brink, L. (1993) Het meten van de opvoedingsomgeving met de Vragenlijst Meegemaakte
Gebeurtenissen. Theoretische achtergronden en onderzoeksgegevens, Tijdschrift voor Orthopedagogiek, 32,
426–443.
White, M. and Kaufman, G. (1997) Language usage, social capital, and school completion among immigrants and
native-born ethnic groups, Social Science Quarterly, 78, 385–398.