Father Involvement During Early Childhood and Its Association with Children's Early Learning: A Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Research Findings: In the present meta-analysis, information from 21 studies (representing 22 separate samples) was pooled across a 10-year period (1998–2008). Across 2 primary dimensions of direct father involvement (frequency of positive engagement activities and aspects of parenting quality) and 5 dimensions of children's early learning (representing social and cognitive domains), findings revealed small to moderate associations. Among group differences tested to further explain the relationships between these constructs, residential status and the ethnic/racial identification of fathers' surfaced as significant moderators, whereas income status was only meaningful at the trend level. Practice or Policy: In recent years, national attention has increased concerning the important influence of fathers on children's development. Concurrently, national interest has turned to the early childhood period as marking a major transition for young children, during which children are confronted with new and diverse developmental challenges that require emotional, social, and cognitive competence across their home and school environments. Although there is a growing body of research on fatherhood and father involvement, this literature has not been examined systematically to determine the strength of associations between specific dimensions of father involvement and young children's early learning that could inform the efforts of early childhood practitioners and family engagement programming decisions.

Notes

¹The term early learning here reflects recent thinking about school readiness (i.e., Blair, 2002; Kagan, 1990; Ladd, Birch, & Buhs, 1999; Snow, 2006), taking into account both academic/cognitive and social/behavioral competencies in a holistic view of the developing child. It also reflects the broader notion of school readiness, reflected in recent national thinking, which focuses attention on the sensitive period from ages 3–8 years (Bogard & Takanishi, 2005).

Note. Results may not always total 100%: for one or more of the following reasons: the majority of studies included more than one comparison, rounding error, and/or missing data. For certain study characteristics, the “not available” category was only used when the information was not explicitly reported and could not be deduced from the information provided.

Note. All significance tests are two-tailed. Boldface type signifies a statistically significant result.

†signifies a trend (i.e., p < .10).

Note. N = 22 studies. Mixed effects analysis was used. A significant Q-between (measure of homogeneity between groups) indicates a significant moderator. Numbers in bold reflect statistically significant findings. ES = effect size; CI = confidence interval.

†signifies a trend-level finding (i.e., p < .10).

²In ancillary analyses, in order to examine whether results varied according to study quality, we created a summary index to reflect various study characteristics bearing on quality, with higher summary values indicating higher methodological quality along the following dimensions: (a) reliability of early learning indicators, (b) reliability of father involvement indicators, (c) whether comparisons were based on the same or different sources of information, and (d) study design (e.g., cross-sectional, short-term predictive, longitudinal). We omitted sample size from the index, because effect sizes were already weighted by sample size prior to analysis. Quality ratings across studies ranged from 3 to 8 (M = 5.13). Moderation was not statistically significant for study quality, Q(2) = 2.57, p = .28.