Journal of Educational Psychology © 2014 American Psychological Association

2015, Vol. 107, No. 2, 502–516 0022-0663/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037457

Teacher–Child Relationship Quality and Academic Achievement in

Elementary School: Does Gender Matter?
Meghan P. McCormick and Erin E. O’Connor
New York University

Using data from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Study of Early Child Care
and Youth Development (N ⫽ 1,364) and 2-level hierarchical linear models with site fixed effects, we
examined between- and within-child associations between teacher– child relationship closeness and conflict
and standardized measures of children’s math and reading achievement from 1st through 5th grades. In
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

addition, we tested whether longitudinal effects varied by gender. Results revealed a between-child effect of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

conflict and a within-child effect of closeness on reading achievement for the full sample. In addition, there
were moderated between- and within-child effects of conflict on math achievement: Girls with more
conflictual relationships showed lower overall levels of math achievement and less growth in math achieve-
ment than did boys with similar levels of conflict. Implications are discussed.

Keywords: teacher– child relationships, gender, achievement, middle childhood

A robust body of research has identified associations between
high-quality teacher– child relationships in prekindergarten and ele-
mentary school and children’s academic achievement in middle child-
hood (Hamre & Pianta, 2001; O’Connor, 2010; O’Connor & McCart-
ney, 2007; Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004; Roorda, Koomen, Spilt, & Oort,
2011; Rudasill, 2011). This work has found that children who have
early relationships with teachers characterized by high levels of close-
ness and low levels of conflict are more likely to exhibit concurrent
and prospective academic achievement (e.g., Baker, 2006; Hamre &
Pianta, 2001; Pianta & Nimetz, 1991). Such literature suggests that
interventions designed to boost academic achievement during middle
childhood (i.e., ages 5–10 years) should consider targeting teacher–
child relationship quality. Recent studies have used rigorous longitu-
dinal designs to identify positive effects of teacher– child relationship
quality on achievement (Maldonado-Carreño & Votruba-Drzal, 2011;
Pianta et al., 2008; Spilt, Hughes, Wu, & Kwok, 2012). Yet, empirical
research has yet to distinguish how effects due to changes in chil-
dren’s relationships with different teachers over time (i.e., within
child) differ from variations in relationships different children have
with teachers (i.e., between child).
Furthermore, the extent to which the associations between within-
and between-child relationships and achievement differ by gender
have yet to be examined. Multiple studies have noted that, on average,
This article was published Online First August 11, 2014.
Meghan P. McCormick, Department of Applied Psychology, New York
University; Erin E. O’Connor, Department of Teaching and Learning, New
York University.
The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education
Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305A080512 to
New York University. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and
do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Meghan
P. McCormick, New York University, Department of Applied Psychology,
246 Greene Street, New York, NY 10003. E-mail: meghan.mccormick@
nyu.edu
girls tend to have higher quality relationships with teachers than boys
do (Ewing & Taylor, 2009; Hamre & Pianta, 2001). This trend is
somewhat expected given that elementary-aged boys are more likely
to engage in disruptive behaviors (Hibel, Farkas, & Morgan, 2010).
Such findings have led some researchers to theorize that there is a
female advantage in classroom-based education, perhaps related to
girls’ ability to form high-quality relationships with teachers (Legewie
& DiPrete, 2012). Indeed, girls tend to score higher than boys on
teacher assessments of academic competence and exhibit higher
scores on standardized measures of reading achievement (Robinson &
Lubienski, 2011). Yet, boys continue to outperform girls on standard-
ized assessments of math across elementary school (Robinson &
Lubienski, 2011). Thus, an academic risk perspective (e.g., Hamre &
Pianta, 2001; Silver, Measelle, Armstrong, & Essex, 2005) argues that
it is important to examine the benefits of high quality teacher– child
relationships differently for boys and girls when considering math and
reading achievement separately. Because boys are at higher risk for
lower reading achievement, they may have the most to gain from a
high-quality teacher– child relationship in terms of reading outcomes
and the most to lose from a low-quality relationship. In contrast, girls’
math achievement might have more to gain from a high-quality
relationship and more to lose from a low-quality relationship (Hamre
& Pianta, 2001; Silver et al., 2005).
Using a longitudinal framework, this study builds on previous
research and examines between- and within-child effects of
teacher– child closeness and conflict on reading and math achieve-
ment across elementary school. In addition, this study will help
elucidate whether there are gender differences in associations
between dimensions of teacher– child relationship quality and stan-
dardized assessments of math and reading achievement.
Teacher–Child Relationships and Academic
Achievement in a Longitudinal Framework
Teacher– child relationships are bidirectional, interpersonal ex-
changes that take place in proximal microsystems (Bronfenbrenner
& Morris, 1998; Pianta, 1999). Conceptual studies, based in at-

502
 TEACHER–CHILD RELATIONSHIPS, ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
tachment theory, propose that children who experience positive
teacher– child relationships, characterized by low levels of conflict
and high levels of closeness, are able to rely on teachers as a secure
base and a resource for actively exploring the school environment
(Howes, Phillipsen, & Peisner-Feinberg, 2000; J. N. Hughes,
Cavell, & Willson, 2001). Thus, high-quality teacher– child rela-
tionships may boost students’ learning by creating a supportive
environment in which children are motivated to actively and
appropriately engage in the classroom (Ladd & Burgess, 1999).
Although the correlational research base linking teacher– child
relationships and academic achievement initially seems quite ro-
bust (e.g., Roorda et al., 2011), many of these studies have been
done on samples of children in preschool and early elementary
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
school (e.g., kindergarten through second grade). Using longitu-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
dinal designs, research conducted in preschool and the first years
of elementary school has found links between teacher– child rela-
tionship quality and contemporaneous development of academic
skills (Pianta, Nimetz, & Bennett, 1997; Pianta & Stuhlman,
2004), as well as subsequent development on occasion (Burchinal
et al., 2002). Many studies that do focus on children in later middle
childhood (e.g., ages 8 –10 years) typically use measures of
teacher– child relationship quality from early childhood (e.g.,
Hamre & Pianta, 2001) or the previous academic year (e.g., J. N.
Hughes, Luo, Kwok, & Loyd, 2008) to estimate prospective
achievement, which leaves questions regarding concurrent effects
of teacher– child closeness and conflict on achievement.
Although limited, there is some preliminary evidence for the
causal effect of teacher– child relationship quality on achievement.
For example, a number of existing studies attempt to increase
causal inference by using a range of demographic variables to
control for between-child differences that may influence selection
into high-quality teacher– child relationships and subsequent aca-
demic achievement (e.g., Hughes, 2011; J. N. Hughes et al., 2008;
Ladd et al., 1999). In addition, a recent study by McCormick,
O’Connor, Cappella, and McClowry (2013) used a propensity
score matching approach to identify a positive effect of teacher–
child relationship quality on math achievement, in a sample of
low-income racial and ethnic minority kindergarten and first grad-
ers. Still, when studying teacher– child relationships and achieve-
ment, it may be important to use longitudinal models that both use
covariates to address selection bias and allow one to examine
change across critical periods of development.
Specifically, it is important to use longitudinal analyses to
consider concurrent effects of teacher– child closeness and conflict
because children will likely experience varying levels of relation-
ship quality with teachers as they move through elementary school
(Maldonado-Carreño & Votruba-Drzal, 2011). For example, as
children age and transition to the later elementary school grades
(e.g., third through fifth grades), they may change teachers for
different subjects, experience larger class sizes, and have fewer
opportunities for one-to-one interactions with teachers (Rimm-
Kaufman & Pianta, 2000). Indeed, empirical evidence suggests
that teacher– child relationship quality declines over time in ele-
mentary school (Jerome, Hamre, & Pianta, 2009; O’Connor &
McCartney, 2007; Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004). In addition, as
children move through middle childhood, additional factors, such
as relationships with peers, become increasingly important for
children’s development (Brechwald & Prinstein, 2011). Thus,
503
questions remain about the continuing power of the teacher– child
relationship across the course of middle childhood.
One challenge in using longitudinal study designs, however, is
the importance of decomposing between-child effects from within-
child effects. Between-child effects describe mean differences
between individuals. For example, an examination of between-
child effects provides information about whether the overall level
of teacher– child closeness and conflict predicts average levels of
academic achievement in middle childhood (Fitzmaurice, Laird, &
Ware, 2004). Within-child effects, in contrast, describe intraindi-
vidual changes and can better test whether changes in one’s own
teacher– child conflict and closeness predict future changes in
achievement (Singer & Willett, 2003). Such an approach has
methodological benefits as it can help address threats to the inter-
nal validity of longitudinal study designs posed by omitted vari-
able bias (Gelman & Hill, 2007; Shadish, Cook, & Campbell,
2002). That is, for between-child effects, the association between
teacher– child conflict and closeness and academic outcomes may
be explained by omitted variables. Examining within-child effects
can reduce the threat posed by omitted variables by eliminating
bias associated with unobserved characteristics that are constant
over time (Dearing, McCartney, & Taylor, 2006; Maldonado-
Carreño & Votruba-Drzal, 2011). Although there remains a threat
of omitted variables bias, testing within-child associations between
teacher– child relationships and achievement can strengthen causal
arguments about the importance of teacher– child relationship
quality for academic achievement.
Previous studies have typically addressed the threat of omitted
variables by adjusting for a host of demographic variables at the
child, teacher, and school levels instead of examining within-child
associations (Ly, Zhou, Chu, & Chen, 2012; Spilt, Hughes, Wu, &
Kwok, 2012). A recent study by Maldonado-Carreño and Votruba-
Drzal (2011), however, did examine within-child associations in
teacher– child relationships and achievement, aiming to limit the
threat of omitted variable bias. Using data from the National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development Study of Early
Child Care and Youth Development (NICHD SECCYD) from
kindergarten to fifth grade, which is the same data set we used in
the current study, the authors found positive within-child associ-
ations between overall teacher– child relationship quality and
teacher reports of math and reading achievement. However, they
detected no significant within-child effects of teacher– child rela-
tionship quality on standardized achievement scores in elementary
school (e.g., first, third, and fifth grades).
The authors theorized that observed associations between
teacher– child relationship quality and achievement may be more
of an artifact of a tendency for teachers to develop higher quality
relationships with students who are more engaged in the classroom
or who have better academic skills and less of an effect of teacher–
child relationship quality on student achievement. Although this
conclusion requires further examination by future research, the
Maldonado-Carreño and Votruba-Drzal (2011) study is notable
because it built on previous work by considering within-child
effects and controlling for initial levels of achievement when
predicting later outcomes (Burchinal, Peisner-Feinberg, Pianta, &
Howes, 2002; Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004). It is important to extend
this research using methods that address the problem posed by
omitted variable bias when estimating effects of teacher– child
relationships on academic achievement (Shadish et al., 2002).
 504 MCCORMICK AND O’CONNOR
Measurement of Teacher–Child Relationships and
Achievement Outcomes
In addition to needing to address concerns related to lack of
longitudinal models, additional research should unpack the effects
of teacher– child relationships on separate dimensions of teacher–
child relationships and academic achievement. First, it is critical to
examine how the closeness and conflict dimensions of teacher–
child relationships uniquely contribute to math and reading
achievement. In their study discussed earlier, Maldonado-Carreño
and Votruba-Drzal (2011) combined closeness and conflict into a
single measure of relationship quality. Closeness and conflict,
however, are two distinct dimensions of teacher– child relationship
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
quality (e.g., K. Hughes, Bullock, & Coplan, 2014; Rudasill,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Niehaus, Buhs, & White, 2013), and it may be important to
examine them separately to identify nuanced effects of teacher–
child relationships on achievement (Birch & Ladd, 1997). Re-
search examining associations between teacher– child conflict and
closeness and behaviors has shown that these dimensions do have
differential effects (Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Howes & Hamilton,
1993). For instance, Baker et al. (2008) found that although close-
ness in the teacher– child relationship during middle childhood was
only associated with concurrent adjustment, conflict in the
teacher– child relationship during middle childhood was associated
with concurrent and prospective adjustment.
Moreover, in addressing the dimensionality of constructs, there
is growing evidence for the importance of distinguishing between
math and reading achievement when predicting academic achieve-
ment in elementary school (e.g., Spilt et al., 2012). A recent study
by McCormick et al. (2013) using a multilevel propensity score
matching procedure found that teacher– child relationships had an
impact on math but not reading achievement for a high-risk sample
of kindergarten and first grade children. Using three waves of data
collected from academically at-risk students, Hughes (2011) found
that student reports of teacher– child conflict positively predicted
math achievement. However, there were no unique associations
between teacher– child closeness or conflict and reading achieve-
ment. Additionally, recent research suggests that math achieve-
ment in early elementary school is the stronger predictor of sub-
sequent achievement, school completion, and college enrollment
(Duncan, 2011). Such results suggest that it may be particularly
critical to examine math separately from reading in studies of
effects on academic achievement.
In addition to considering the multidimensionality of both
teacher– child relationships and academic achievement, it is im-
portant to address biases posed by using a teacher report of
relationship quality to predict a teacher report of a child achieve-
ment outcome (Shadish et al., 2002). In such an analytic frame-
work, a significant finding may actually reflect rater effects or
monomethod bias (Shadish et al., 2002) For example, because
teachers are more likely to have high-quality relationships with
children who are behaviorally regulated, they may perceive those
children to have higher levels of academic skills than less behav-
iorally regulated children do (O’Connor & McCartney, 2007;
Rudasill, Reio, Stipanovic, & Taylor, 2010). Indeed, in their study,
Maldonado-Carreño and Votruba-Drzal (2011) found effects of
teacher– child relationship quality on teacher reports on academic
achievement but null effects of teacher– child relationships on
standardized measures of achievement. Moreover, it should be
noted that previous studies have shown small to negligible effects
of teacher reports of student–teacher relationship quality on stan-
dardized achievement test results in nonrisk samples (e.g., Baker,
2006; Buyse, Verschueren, Verachtert, & Van Damme, 2009).
Further studies using standardized or observed achievement mea-
sures are thus needed.
Teacher–Child Relationships, Gender,
and Academic Achievement
In addition, little is known about whether there are gender
differences in associations between teacher– child relationships
and academic achievement. Boys, relative to girls, tend to have
lower quality relationships with teachers (Ewing & Taylor, 2009;
Hamre & Pianta, 2001). However, differences in overall levels of
relationship quality between boys and girls may moderate effects
on academic achievement over time. Indeed, gender socialization
theory hypothesizes that teachers’ differential treatment of boys
and girls may reinforce behaviors in children that reflect traditional
relational styles (Koch, 2003). More specifically, girls are social-
ized to be compliant and behave responsibly, whereas compliant
and responsible boys can be regarded as nonmasculine (Morris,
2011). Girls, relative to boys, are expected to assume a more
traditional role as student, following teachers’ directions, paying
attention, and completing schoolwork (Mickelson, 2003).
On the basis of this theory, a teacher– child relationship that is
consistent with gender-based relational styles and traditional gen-
der role expectations (i.e., one high in closeness and low in
conflict) should be a positive support for girls. However, in cases
where girls break with traditional gender norms and develop less
close and more conflictual relationships with teachers, the conse-
quences for girls’ achievement may be more negative than they
would be for boys (Ewing & Taylor, 2009; Roorda et al., 2011).
Indeed, even if boys do have low quality teacher– child relation-
ships, it may be less consequential for them given that the tradi-
tional school setting does not necessarily expect them to form
strong personal bonds with teachers (Ewing & Taylor, 2009).
There is some preliminary evidence for the differential effect of
teacher– child relationship quality on achievement and related out-
comes for boys and girls. Indeed, Baker (2006) found that a
positive teacher– child relationship made a stronger contribution to
the academic and behavioral outcomes of girls than of boys. In
another study of Head Start children, Ewing and Taylor (2009)
found stronger effects of teacher– child closeness on school com-
petence for girls. And in a cross-sectional study of Chinese Amer-
ican students in first and second grades, Ly et al. (2012) found that
teacher ratings of teacher– child conflict were negatively associ-
ated with girls’ math achievement. Thus, there is some empirical
research to suggest that academically, girls benefit most from close
teacher– child relationships and are harmed more by conflictual
relationships.
A separate theory, however, labeled the academic risk perspec-
tive, argues that boys are most likely to benefit academically from
high-quality teacher– child relationships (e.g., Hamre & Pianta,
2001; Silver et al., 2005). Boys tend to have higher levels of
academic and behavior problems at school entry and are at higher
risk for referrals and placements for special education services
compared with girls (Cooper & Farran, 1988; Silver et al., 2005).
As argued by Hamre and Pianta (2001), because boys are at higher
 TEACHER–CHILD RELATIONSHIPS, ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
risk for school failure, they will have more “to gain, or lose,
through their ability to adapt to the social environment of the
classroom” (Hamre & Pianta, 2001, p. 627). In their study, Hamre
and Pianta (2001) established some support for this perspective,
finding that boys rated high in conflict in kindergarten had more
problem behaviors later in school, whereas girls’ early teacher
conflict was not related to behavioral outcomes. In addition,
teacher– child conflict was more predictive of disciplinary prob-
lems in the upper elementary grades for boys than girls. However,
effects of teacher– child conflict translated only to behavioral
outcomes in this study and did not extend to academic outcomes.
In addition, differences by type of academic outcome were not
examined differently by gender. Although boys are thought to be
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
at risk for poorer achievement generally, they actually continue to
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
outperform girls on standardized assessments of math achieve-
ment. Thus, girls are actually at somewhat higher risk for poor
math achievement, whereas boys are at higher risk for poor reading
achievement (Robinson & Lubienski, 2011).
Moreover, to date, there are no known studies examining
between- and within-child effects of teacher– child closeness and
conflict on academic achievement, differentiated by gender, in a
national sample of elementary school students. However, in a
longitudinal study of recently immigrated Latin American youth
(ages 9 –14 years at enrollment), gender was found to moderate
associations between perceived school support and youth aca-
demic engagement. Specifically, youth-perceived staff support
was positively related to girls’ initial engagement levels and pos-
itively related to changes in boys’ engagement levels over time
(Green, Rhodes, Hirsch, Suárez-Orozco, & Camic, 2008). Because
this study was conducted with one ethnic group, generalizability of
findings is limited. Work using rigorous longitudinal models to
examine heterogeneity of effects of teacher– child closeness and
conflict on academic achievement in broader samples is needed.
Current Study
In the current study, we use data from the NICHD SECCYD to
examine developmental trajectories of closeness and conflict in
teacher– child relationships across the elementary school years and
within-child and between-children associations between closeness
and conflict and achievement. We also investigate the moderating
role of child gender in predicting achievement trajectories in
middle childhood. Specifically, we ask the following research
questions:
1. Do higher levels of teacher– child closeness and conflict
relate to higher levels of math and reading achievement
in elementary school? Similarly, are changes in teacher–
child closeness and conflict associated with changes in
math and reading achievement in elementary school?
2. Do associations between teacher– child closeness and
conflict and math and reading achievement in elementary
school vary by gender?
By engendering understanding of how teacher– child relation-
ships directly relate to achievement across time and gender, this
empirical knowledge can inform training for teachers and may
help develop programming focused on providing emotional sup-
port to students.
505
Method
Participants
We conducted this study with data from the first two phases of
the NICHD SECCYD, a prospective study of children from birth
through adolescence. Study participants were selected using a
conditional sampling plan from 10 American cities, referred to as
sites throughout this study: Little Rock, Arkansas; Irvine, Califor-
nia; Lawrence, Kansas; Boston, Massachusetts; Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Charlottesville, Virginia;
Morganton, North Carolina; Seattle, Washington; and Madison,
Wisconsin. The conditional random sampling plan was designed to
include families from diverse ethnic groups, economic back-
grounds, and geographic regions, with varying plans for maternal
employment during the child’s first year of life. Please refer to
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (ECCRN; NICHD
ECCRN, 1997) for additional information related to the sampling
procedure used to recruit study participants. A total of 1,364
mothers and children at ten separate sites enrolled in the study
(NICHD ECCRN, 1997).
Because we were primarily interested in middle childhood in the
current study, our analyses relied on outcomes collected in the
first, third, and fifth grades. Data on school type (e.g., elementary,
middle) were not available in the current study. However, given
research showing that over 95% of elementary schools include
fifth grade, we assume that the large majority of students in fifth
grade continued to attend an elementary school (Snyder, Dillow, &
Hoffman, 2001). We restricted the sample to the 1,118 children
and families who had data for the outcomes for at least one time
point.1 About half of the sample (⬃48%) was female. Most of the
children enrolled in the study were White (⬃80%); 13% of the
study sample was Black, 6% was Hispanic, and 5% was Asian or
Pacific Islander. Levels of maternal education among children
enrolled in the study were fairly diverse: 10% of mothers had less
than a high school diploma, 21% graduated from high school, 33%
attended some college, and 36% graduated from a 4-year college.
About three quarters of the sample (77%) had mothers who were
married, and 12% of children had mothers who reported receiving
public assistance. Ninety-six percent of first grade teachers were
women; information on teacher gender was not available in third
and fifth grades. Across grades, the large majority of teachers were
White (92%).
Measures
Teacher– child relationships. We used the 15-item Student
Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; Pianta, 1992) to assess teacher
perceptions of the quality of the teacher– child relationship in first,
third, and fifth grades. Using a 5-point Likert scale that ranged
from 1 ⫽ definitely does not apply to 5 ⫽ definitely applies,
1
Data on teacher– child relationship quality were also available in kin-
dergarten and fourth grade but not in second grade. Because the achieve-
ment outcomes were only available in first, third, and fifth grades, we used
teacher– child relationship quality data from first, third, and fifth grades as
the main predictors in the study. However, we do incorporate the kinder-
garten and fourth grade information when creating lags for a future sensi-
tivity check.
 506 MCCORMICK AND O’CONNOR
teachers rated how applicable statements were to their current
relationship with a particular child. The items are based on attach-
ment theory and the Attachment Q-Set (Waters & Deane, 1985).
The STRS has been widely used in studies with preschool and
elementary school children. It is associated with children’s and
teachers’ classroom behaviors and correlates with observational
measures of teacher– child relationship quality (e.g., Birch & Ladd,
1997; Howes & Hamilton, 1992; Howes & Ritchie, 1999). Addi-
tionally, STRS scores correlate with Attachment Q-Set ratings of
teachers and students such that higher STRS scores are associated
with more secure relationships (Howes & Ritchie, 1999). The
test–retest reliabilities reported by Pianta (2001) were .88 for
closeness and .92 for conflict across a 4-week period.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This scale contains two subdimensions: closeness and conflict.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
The Closeness subscale consists of eight items and is an index of
the amount of warmth and open communication present in the
relationship (e.g., “I share an affectionate, warm relationship with
this child”). The Conflict subscale consists of seven items and
measures the extent to which the relationship is marked by antag-
onistic, disharmonious interactions (e.g., “This child and I always
seem to be struggling with each other”). Cronbach’s alphas were
.94 for conflict at all three time points and ranged from .88 to .91
for closeness. To operationalize the variables for closeness and
conflict, we calculated a sum of the individual items for each
subscale (for closeness scores, 8 – 40; for conflict scores, 7 – 35).
The correlations observed between closeness and conflict in the
current study were low to moderate (r ⫽ ⫺.28 for first grade;
r ⫽ ⫺.38 for third grade, and r ⫽ ⫺.34 for fifth grade). Notably,
teachers completed the teacher– child relationship scale 1–1.5
months, on average, prior to children being assessed for achieve-
ment.
Math and reading achievement. Reading and math achieve-
ment were measured with the Woodcock–Johnson Psycho-
Educational Battery (WJ–R; Woodcock & Johnson, 1989), admin-
istered in first, third, and fifth grades by field interviewers. We
used W ability scores for two subscales: Letter–Word Identifica-
tion (reading achievement) and Applied Problems (math achieve-
ment). W scores are a special transformation of the Rasch Ability
Scale with mathematical properties that facilitate the interpretation
of test performance and make it easier to document change over
time. W scores provide a common scale of equal-interval mea-
surement that represents both a person’s ability and the task
difficulty. The W scale for each test is centered on a value of 500,
which has been set to approximate the average performance at age
10 years 0 months. The W score for any cluster is the average W
score for the tests included in the cluster. The developers of the
WJ–R argue that the W score can be considered a growth scale.
The Letter–Word Identification subscale consists of 57 items, with
higher values indicating better reading identification skills and
word decoding. The Applied Problems subscale includes 60 items
with higher scores indicating better skills to analyze and solve
mathematical problems. The WJ–R is a nationally normed and
widely used achievement test with demonstrated internal consis-
tency. Average internal consistency from first through fifth grades
in the NICHD sample is .90 for Letter–Word Identification and .83
for Applied Problems (NICHD Early Child Care Research Net-
work, 2007). Original test–retest reliability ranged from .60 to .90
across individual subscales.
Covariates. Given that a number of child, family, and teacher
factors are theoretically related to both the quality of the teacher–
child relationship and children’s achievement, we controlled for a
large number of covariates in this study. Each of the covariates we
chose has demonstrated associations with either of the main pre-
dictors and/or math and reading achievement during middle child-
hood. For example, we controlled for the quality of the home
environment when children were 54 months old given research
showing that children raised in homes with lower Home Observa-
tion for Measurement of the Environment (HOME) scores are
more likely to exhibit low academic achievement, relative to
children raised in contexts with higher HOME scores (McCartney,
Dearing, Taylor, & Bub, 2007). Including these covariates in
models allows us to more precisely estimate the effects of teacher-
child conflict and closeness on academic achievement.
Child characteristics. We included several child-level demo-
graphic characteristics as covariates in models. We used child
grade at the time of assessment as a proxy for age given that age
and grade were highly correlated (r ⫽ .97). We included gender as
a dummy variable such that female ⫽ 1, male ⫽ 0. Child race was
operationalized with dummy variables indicating whether the child
was White, Black, or other race (referent group). We chose these
racial categories given that there was quite a large proportion of
White students (⬃80%) and Black students made up the second
largest contingent of students (13%). The other category, made up
of Asians, Pacific Islanders, and others was much smaller (⬃6%).
In addition, because Hispanic designation is an ethnicity and is not
mutually exclusive from race, a separate dummy variable was
included to indicate whether the child was Hispanic.
Maternal characteristics. We also considered a number of
maternal characteristics in models as covariates. Mother’s educa-
tion when the child was 1 month old was represented by dummy
variables indicating less than a high school degree (omitted group),
a high school or vocational degree, some college, or a bachelor’s
degree or more. Maternal employment was reported in first, third,
and fifth grades and was represented continuously as the number
of hours that mothers worked during the week. Finally, maternal
scores on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test—Revised (Dunn
& Dunn, 1981) when children were 36 months old were included
as continuous variables in predictive models to account for the
possible confounding of maternal cognitive competence on chil-
dren’s own achievement. Split-half correlations for reliability on
this scale ranged from .80 to .83 in a standardization sample (Dunn
& Dunn, 1981).
Household characteristics. Household income was repre-
sented by an income-to-needs ratio when the child was 54 months
old, calculated by dividing the family income by the poverty
threshold for the household. Poverty status, measured at first, third,
and fifth grades, reflected whether mothers reported receiving food
stamps or assistance from Aid to Families With Dependent Chil-
dren or the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children (receipt of aid ⫽ 1; no receipt of aid ⫽ 0).
Mother’s caregiving burden was represented by the number of
children living in the household at first, third, and fifth grades.
Finally, a measure of developmental stimulation and support avail-
able in the home was provided by the HOME at 54 months
(Caldwell & Bradley, 1984). Higher scores indicate a home envi-
ronment characterized by higher levels of child stimulation and
support. There are 55 total items in the scale and raters use a
 TEACHER–CHILD RELATIONSHIPS, ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
yes–no checklist during scoring. Thus, possible HOME scores in
the current study ranged from 18 to 55. Every 4 months, each
HOME observer coded videotaped visits, and the coding was
compared with global standard codes. All observers were required
to maintain a criterion of scoring like the master coder on 90% of
the items. This measure has been validated via correlations with
family social status and maternal IQ (Caldwell & Bradley, 1984).
Further, the measure has demonstrated excellent reliability (␣ ⫽
.93; Caldwell & Bradley, 1984). Test–retest reliability, assessed
across 18 months, has been demonstrated to be moderate.
Teacher characteristics. Information about teacher experi-
ence was collected once a year in first, third, and fifth grades and
was measured continuously as the total number of years of teach-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ing experience.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Analytic Approach
Missing data. As discussed earlier, analyses for the current
study relied on outcomes collected in the first, third and fifth
grades. As such, we included the 1,099 children and families (of
the original 1,364 enrolled in the study) who had data for the
outcomes for at least one time point. In the sample consisting of
nonattriting participants, missingness was low to moderate for both
predictors and outcomes, ranging from 0 to 16%. Because there
were 1,118 participants and we use data from three time points,
there were a maximum of 3,354 cases (person periods) in the
absence of missing data. However, not all participants answered at
each time point. To recover these lost participants and cases, we
used multiple imputation (Rubin, 1987), imputing 10 separate data
sets by chained equations using SAS PROC MI in SAS Version
9.3 (Royston & White, 2011; Van Buuren, Boshuizen, & Knook
1999). All of the predictor and outcome variables used in predic-
tive models were included in the imputation procedure. Proper
inference for the likelihood-based models relies on the assumption
that data were missing at random (Little & Rubin, 1987). We
examined the research questions for the current study using both a
listwise deletion procedure and the findings aggregated from the
multiply imputed samples for the sample of 1,118 participants.2
We present the findings from the multiple imputation procedure, as
they did not differ substantially from the results of the listwise
deletion analysis.
Hierarchical linear modeling. We used hierarchical linear
modeling to examine the main research questions for the current
study. Hierarchical linear modeling allows one to model change
over time in an outcome with repeated measures (Raudenbush &
Bryk, 2002; Singer & Willett, 2003). We fitted all models with
SAS PROC MIXED and used grade as a metric of time (Singer,
1998), centering the grade variable in first grade so that the
intercept would represent the math and reading achievement levels
when children were beginning full-day elementary school.3 All
models adjusted for the level of the outcome variable measured
when children were 54 months old (i.e., pre-elementary school).
This allowed us to examine how teacher– child closeness and
conflict related to math and reading adjustment in elementary
school, adjusting for the level of academic skills children had when
they began school. For ease of interpretation, we centered the level
of the outcome at 54 months, which was time invariant, around the
sample mean.
507
In all analyses used to answer the main research questions for
the study, repeated measures were nested in students, who were
nested in sites. The intraclass correlation indicating the level of
between-child variance was substantial: 65.27% for math achieve-
ment and 64.63% for reading achievement. In contrast, the
between-site variation was quite small: 0.49% for math achieve-
ment and 0.38% for reading achievement, consistent across study
years. We used a likelihood ratio test to compare a two-level
unconditional growth model (Level 1 ⫽ repeated measures; Level
2 ⫽ students) with a three-level unconditional growth model
(Level 1 ⫽ repeated measures; Level 2 ⫽ students; Level 3 ⫽ site)
and found a significant improvement in model fit (␹2 ⫽ 908.12,
p ⬍ .01). However, we then compared the three-level model to a
two-level model with site fixed effects (N ⫽ 10 sites) and observed
an additional statistically significant improvement (␹2 ⫽ 14.64,
p ⬍ .05). Thus, given the complexity of the model, we decided to
use the more parsimonious two-level model with site fixed effects
to account for potential site level differences in the outcomes. We
used restricted maximum-likelihood estimation (REML) in models
estimating fixed effects parameters and variance components.
REML is similar to maximum-likelihood estimation but uses an
unbiased estimator considered to be more conservative (Fitzmau-
rice, Laird, & Ware, 2011). In addition, we included a random
slope for time (Grade) and allowed for a correlation between the
random intercept and random slope (␳). The unconditional growth
model is as follows:
Level 1: Y ti ⫽ ␤0i ⫹ ␤1i(Grade ⫺ 1)ti ⫹ ␧ti
Level 2: ␤0ji ⫽ ␥0 ⫹ ai ⫹ r0i
␤1ij ⫽ ␥1i ⫹ r1i
In the Level 1 model, Yti is the achievement at time t of student
i. ␤0i is the achievement score in first grade for student i. ␤1i is the
growth trajectory for student i and εti is a random error term that
represents the residual (or unexplained) variation in the outcome.
In the Level 2 model, the students’ achievement score in first grade
is modeled as a function of the mean achievement score in first
grade (␥0), a vector for the dummy-coded site fixed effects (ai) that
adjust for time-invariant characteristics related to site membership,
and a random effect (r0i) that allows the intercept to vary randomly
around the student (Level 2) mean. The growth rate in achievement
for student i is modeled as a function of the mean growth in
achievement (␥1i) and a random effect that allows students’ tra-
jectories to vary randomly around the student mean trajectory (r1i).
These analyses assume that the residuals at Level 1 and Level 2 are
identically distributed normal random variables with a mean equal
to zero and a variance of ␴2. In addition, because tests of model
specifics provided empirical support for a correlation between the
random slope and random intercept, we allowed those random
effects to covary in all models. For significant outcomes, we
calculated effect sizes using Feingold’s (2009) framework for
identifying effect sizes in multilevel models.
2
We do not include participants lost to attrition prior to elementary
school in any analyses.
3
Of the children in the study sample, 84% attended half-day kindergar-
ten so their full-day elementary school began in first grade.
 508 MCCORMICK AND O’CONNOR
Research questions. To examine the between-child effects of
teacher– child closeness and conflict on achievement, we created
time-invariant student means of closeness and conflict. These
variables represented students’ average level of closeness and
conflict across elementary school. We centered the time-invariant
student means around the sample mean and included those vari-
ables as predictors at Level 2. Because we found that the correla-
tion between the average levels of closeness and conflict was low
to moderate (average r ⫽ ⫺.35), we decided to include both
closeness and conflict as predictors in the same model. Such an
approach allows us to isolate the effect of one dimension of
teacher– child relationship quality, over and above the effect of the
remaining dimension. In addition to controlling for the level of
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
math or reading achievement at 54 months, we also adjusted for
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
child, parent, and teacher characteristics that have been previously
linked to teacher– child relationships and/or academic achievement
and listed above.
To examine the within-child effects of teacher– child closeness
and conflict on achievement (or whether changes in closeness and
conflict predict changes in academic achievement), we included
time-varying measures of closeness and conflict as predictors in
the Level 1 models. We centered the time-varying predictors for
closeness and conflict around the individual students’ mean across
the full study (i.e., person-centered means). As such, a positive
effect of this time-varying predictor represents an increase over
and above a student’s average level of closeness or conflict across
elementary school being associated with higher achievement. Be-
cause we found that the correlation between the average levels of
closeness and conflict was low to moderate (r ⫽ ⫺.28 in first
grade, r ⫽ ⫺.38 in third grade, and r ⫽ ⫺.34 in fifth grade), we
decided to include both closeness and conflict as predictors in the
same model. In addition to controlling for the level of math or
reading achievement at 54 months, models also adjusted for all
child, parent, and teacher covariates identified above. The multi-
level equation for testing Research Question 1, which builds on the
original specification from the unconditional growth model, is
listed below
Level 1: Y ti ⫽ ␤0i ⫹ ␤1i(Grade ⫺ 1)ti ⫹ ␤2i(TCClosness)ti
⫹ ␤3i(TCConflict)ti ⫹ ␪ti ⫹ ␧ti
Level 2: ␤0ij ⫽ ␥0 ⫹ ␤4i共TCClosness兲i ⫹ ␤5i共TCConflict兲i
⫹ ␦i ⫹ ai ⫹ r0i
␤1ij ⫽ ␥1i ⫹ r1i
In this model, ␤2 and ␤3 are the within-child effects for teacher–
child closeness and conflict. ␤4 and ␤5 represent the between-child
effects for teacher– child closeness and conflict, ␪ is a vector
representing time-varying covariates, and ␦ is a vector representing
time-invariant covariates (including the dummy variable for fe-
male).
Finally, we tested whether between- and within-child effects of
teacher– child closeness and conflict on math and reading achieve-
ment differed by gender. We included interactions between female
and teacher– child closeness and conflict in the Level 2 model.
Then, to examine whether the within-child effect of teacher– child
closeness and conflict on achievement varied by gender, we in-
cluded a cross-level interaction of female (Level 2) and closeness
and conflict (Level 1) predicting math and reading achievement.
The multilevel equation for testing Research Question 2, which
builds on the model from Research Question 1, is as follows:
Level 1: Y ti ⫽ ␤0i ⫹ ␤1i(Grade ⫺ 1)ti ⫹ ␤2i(TCClosness)ti
⫹ ␤3i(TCConflict)ti ⫹ ␪ti ⫹ ␧ti
Level 2: ␤0ij ⫽ ␥0 ⫹ ␤4i共TCClosness兲i ⫹ ␤5i共TCConflict兲i
⫹ ␤6i共TCClosnessxFemale兲I
⫹ ␤7i共TCConflictxFemale兲i ⫹ ␦i ⫹ ai ⫹ r0i
␤1ij ⫽ ␥1i ⫹ r1i
␤2ij ⫽ ␤8i共Female兲i
␤3ij ⫽ ␤9i共Female兲i
In this model, ␤6 and ␤7 are the Level 2 interactions testing
gender differences in average associations between teacher– child
conflict and closeness. ␤8i and ␤9i represent the cross-level inter-
actions testing gender differences in within-child effects of close-
ness and conflict on achievement across time.
Effect sizes. Given the complexity of interpreting the outcome
in the current study, we used procedures originally outlined by the
NICHD ECCRN and Duncan (2003) to calculate effect sizes of the
predictors’ associations with the math and reading achievement W
score outcomes. Effect sizes were calculated when the teacher–
child closeness and conflict were significant predictors of aca-
demic achievement at either the within- or the between-child level.
Effect sizes were computed to show the anticipated difference in
standard deviation units of the outcome measure between children
with differing levels of teacher– child relationship quality that
differed by one standard deviation (Belsky et al., 2007). Effect
sizes were calculated as the product of the estimated teacher– child
relationship quality coefficient and the average standard deviation
of the teacher– child relationship quality variable divided by the
standard deviation for the outcome measure. The effect sizes can
be interpreted like a correlation. For example, the average standard
deviation for teacher– child relationship conflict is 5.65; therefore,
the effect size compared predicted achievement scores for children
whose teacher– child conflict differed by 5.65 points on the overall
scale (that ranged from 7 to 35). Previous studies that have used
this calculation have also examined growth models.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Means and standard deviations for study variables for the full
sample and by gender are displayed in Table 1. In general, study
participants’ reading and math achievement scores increased over
time. Teacher– child closeness, in general, decreased over time. In
contrast, teacher– child conflict increased between first and third
grades and then decreased in fifth grade by a nominal amount.
Relative to girls, boys had significantly higher levels of conflict
with teachers across time: In first grade, t(1124) ⫽ 5.40, p ⬍ .01;
in third grade, t(1124) ⫽ 6.21, p ⬍ .01; in fifth grade, t(1124) ⫽
5.40, p ⬍ .01. Girls, on average, had closer relationships with
 TEACHER–CHILD RELATIONSHIPS, ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 509

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables

Full sample Male Female

Variable M SD M SD M SD

Outcome
Reading achievement at 54 months 369.98 21.98 367.86 21.07 372.10 22.66
Reading achievement in first grade 452.95 24.13 451.45 25.22 454.47 22.90
Reading achievement in third grade 493.84 18.73 493.33 19.65 494.25 17.78
Reading achievement in fifth grade 510.11 17.52 509.92 510.29 510.29 16.78
Math achievement at 54 months 425.04 19.48 422.62 21.60 427.45 16.78
Math achievement in first grade 470.97 15.74 472.12 16.39 469.82 14.99
Math achievement in third grade 497.32 13.19 497.85 13.80 496.79 12.55
Math achievement in fifth grade 509.82 12.85 510.24 13.73 509.40 11.91
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Predictor
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Teacher–child closeness in first grade 33.96 5.04 33.11 5.08 34.81 4.87
Teacher–child closeness in third grade 33.08 5.16 31.94 5.50 34.21 4.53
Teacher–child closeness in fifth grade 31.85 5.37 30.96 5.53 32.73 5.06
Teacher–child conflict in first grade 10.92 5.17 11.79 5.51 10.06 4.66
Teacher–child conflict in third grade 11.63 6.03 12.81 6.54 10.46 5.24
Teacher–child conflict in fifth grade 11.33 5.75 12.44 6.20 10.44 5.06
Maternal characteristic
Mother’s IQ at 36 months 98.98 18.33
Mother’s work hr/week at first grade 26.49 19.01
Mother’s work hr/week at third grade 26.79 19.06
Mother’s work hr/week at fifth grade 27.69 18.98
Household characteristics
Income to needs ratio at 54 months 3.59 3.17
HOME observation at 54 months 46.00 5.46
Number of children in HH in first grade 2.39 0.95
Number of children in HH in third grade 2.41 0.98
Number of children in HH in fifth grade 2.48 1.04
Public assistance status in first grade 0.06
Public assistance status in third grade 0.07
Public assistance status in fifth grade 0.06
Teacher characteristics
Teacher years of experience in first grade 14.53 9.48
Teacher years of experience in third grade 13.97 10.44
Teacher years of experience in fifth grade 14.61 10.68
Note. HOME ⫽ Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment; HH ⫽ household.

teachers than boys did at all three time points: In first grade,
t(1124) ⫽ ⫺5.41, p ⬍ .01; in third grade, t(1124) ⫽ ⫺7.07, p ⬍
.01; in fifth grade, t(1124) ⫽ ⫺5.07, p ⬍ .01. And although boys
had higher levels of math and reading achievement than girls
in first grade—math, t(1124) ⫽ ⫺4.05, p ⬍ .01; reading,
t(1124) ⫽ ⫺2.02, p ⫽ .02—those differences were not statistically
significant in third and fifth grades.
Unconditional growth model. The results of the two-level
unconditional growth models showed a significant random inter-
cept in first grade for math achievement (␥ ⫽ 473.04, p ⬍ .01) and
reading achievement (␥ ⫽ 456.87, p ⬍ .01). Findings indicated
that scores increased on average 9.81 (p ⬍ .01) points in every
grade for math achievement and 14.36 points (p ⬍ .01) for reading
achievement. Furthermore, variance component estimates demon-
strated significant variation around the Level 2 intercept (for math
achievement, ␶ ⫽ 175.13, p ⬍ .01; for reading achievement, ␶ ⫽
495.59, p ⬍ .01). There was also variation in the slope for both the
math (␶ ⫽ .56, p ⬍ .01) and reading (␶ ⫽ 2.83, p ⬍ .01)
achievement models and significant correlations between the ran-
dom slope and intercept in both models (math, ␶ ⫽ ⫺9.88, p ⬍
.01; reading, ␶ ⫽ ⫺37.42, p ⬍ .01).
Research Question 1. Below, we report the results of the
Level 2 models (between-child effects), followed by results from
the Level 1 (within-child effects) models. Results (see Table 2)
suggest a between-child effect of teacher– child conflict on reading
achievement (␥ ⫽ ⫺0.25, SE ⫽ 0.12, p ⫽ .03; effect size (ES) ⫽
.06). This effect can be interpreted such that, on average, a 1-unit
increase in average teacher– child conflict over and above the
sample mean level is associated with a .25-unit decrease in reading
achievement, adjusting for child, family, and teacher covariates as
well as site fixed effects. However, the between-child effect of
teacher– child conflict was nonsignificant for math achievement
(␥ ⫽ ⫺0.07, SE ⫽ 0.08, p ⫽ .31; ES ⫽ .01). In addition, the
between-child effect of teacher– child closeness was nonsignificant
for math (␥ ⫽ ⫺0.04, SE ⫽ 0.08, p ⫽ .61; ES ⫽ .02) and reading
achievement (␥ ⫽ ⫺0.21, SE ⫽ 0.13, p ⫽ .22; ES ⫽ .05).
Results of the within-child effects of teacher– child conflict and
closeness and math and reading achievement (see Table 2) re-
vealed a statistically significant within-child effect of teacher–
child closeness on reading achievement (␥ ⫽ 0.17, SE ⫽ 0.08, p ⫽
.04; ES ⫽ .09). This finding suggests that, on average, a 1-unit
increase in teacher– child closeness over and above one’s own
average teacher– child closeness is associated with a 0.17 unit
higher score in reading achievement. We found that the within-
child effects of teacher– child closeness were nonsignificant for
math achievement (␥ ⫽ 0.03, SE ⫽ 0.06, p ⫽ .57; ES ⫽ .02). In
 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

510

Table 2
Growth Models Predicting Academic Skill Development From Teacher–Child Closeness and Conflict

Unconditional model Main effects model Moderated model

Math Reading Math Reading Math Reading
Fixed effects ␥ SE ␥ SE ␥ SE ␥ SE ␥ SE ␥ SE

Between-child estimates
Intercept 473.04ⴱⴱ 0.47 456.87ⴱⴱ 0.71 439.77ⴱⴱ 9.92 412.26ⴱⴱ 15.53 440.35ⴱⴱ 9.89 412.60 15.66
Grade 9.81ⴱⴱ 0.10 14.36ⴱⴱ 0.15 9.85ⴱⴱ 0.11 14.67ⴱⴱ 0.17 9.84ⴱⴱ 0.11 14.67ⴱⴱ 0.17
Teacher–child closeness ⫺.04 .08 ⫺.21 .13 .01 .11 ⫺.20 .17
Teacher–child conflict ⫺.07 .08 ⫺.25ⴱ .12 .06 .10 ⫺.19 .15
Female ⫺3.72ⴱⴱ 0.62 ⫺0.98 0.97 ⫺3.88ⴱⴱ 0.62 ⫺1.03 0.97
Female ⫻ Teacher–Child Closeness ⫺.07 .16 ⫺.02 .25
Female ⫻ Teacher–Child Conflict ⫺.30ⴱ .14 ⫺.16 .22
Within-child estimates
Teacher–child closeness .03 .06 .17ⴱ .08 .08 .07 .15 .11
Teacher–child conflict .01 .06 ⫺.03 .09 .10 .08 .03 .11
Female ⫻ Teacher–Child Closeness ⫺.10 .11 .05 .16
Female ⫻ Teacher–Child Conflict ⫺.21ⴱ .10 ⫺.13 .17
Covariates
Reading achievement, 54 months .34ⴱⴱ .02 .34ⴱⴱ .02
Math achievement, 54 months .31ⴱⴱ .02 .31ⴱⴱ .02
Child Black ⫺5.04ⴱⴱ 1.69 ⫺1.03 2.63 ⫺4.99ⴱⴱ 1.69 ⫺1.04 2.63
Child White ⫺2.49 1.34 0.62 2.10 ⫺2.51† 1.33 0.59 2.10
Child Hispanic ⫺1.32 1.34 0.96 2.11 ⫺1.28 1.34 0.96 2.11
Maternal ed., high school graduate 3.13ⴱⴱ 1.35 5.80ⴱⴱ 2.12 3.12ⴱ 1.34 5.81ⴱⴱ 2.12
Maternal ed., some college 2.61ⴱⴱ 1.37 5.84ⴱⴱ 2.16 2.71ⴱ 1.36 5.91ⴱⴱ 2.16
MCCORMICK AND O’CONNOR

Maternal ed., college degree 4.42ⴱⴱ 1.52 6.52ⴱⴱ 2.40 4.42ⴱⴱ 1.52 6.56ⴱⴱ 2.40
Maternal employment .01 .02 ⫺.02 .03 .01 .02 ⫺.02 .03
Mother’s IQ .04ⴱ .02 .16ⴱⴱ .04 .04ⴱ .02 .16ⴱⴱ .03
Income to needs ratio .21ⴱ .11 .03 .17 .21ⴱ .11 .03 .17
Poverty status ⫺0.15 1.16 ⫺3.51ⴱⴱ 1.75 ⫺0.15 1.16 ⫺3.51ⴱ 1.75
Mother’s caregiving burden ⫺.34 .34 ⫺.97† .54 ⫺.31 .34 ⫺.94† .54
HOME observation ⫺.17ⴱ .08 .16 .12 .17ⴱ .08 .16 .12
Teacher years experience .07 .04 .05 .07 .07 .04 .05 .07

Random effects and fit statistics

Intercept, r0 175.13ⴱⴱ 14.5 495.59ⴱⴱ 31.2 69.81ⴱⴱ 6.52 227.93ⴱⴱ 18.27 69.27ⴱⴱ 6.49 227.68ⴱⴱ 18.24
Time slope, r4 0.56ⴱⴱ 0.18 2.83ⴱⴱ 0.52 0.52ⴱⴱ 0.19 2.81ⴱⴱ 0.65 0.52ⴱⴱ 0.19 2.81ⴱⴱ 0.65
ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ
Covariance, slope and intercept ⫺9.88ⴱⴱ 1.87 ⫺37.42 4.46 ⫺6.05 1.33 ⫺25.29ⴱⴱ 3.74 ⫺6.02ⴱⴱ 1.33 ⫺25.28ⴱⴱ 3.74
Level 1, e 70.30ⴱⴱ 2.82 149.2728ⴱⴱ 4.84 69.64ⴱⴱ 2.62 147.69ⴱⴱ 5.61 69.43ⴱⴱ 2.62 147.65ⴱⴱ 5.60
AIC 23,509.78 25,847.26 17,600.65 19,627.75 17,601.04 19,634.35
Note. Coefficients displayed adjust for site fixed effects. HOME ⫽ Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment; ed. ⫽ education; AIC ⫽ Akaike’s information criterion.
†
p ⬍ .10. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.
 TEACHER–CHILD RELATIONSHIPS, ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 511

addition, the within-child effects of teacher-child conflict were

nonsignificant for both math (␥ ⫽ 0.01, SE ⫽ 0.06, p ⫽ .71; ES ⫽
.01) and reading achievement (␥ ⫽ ⫺0.03, SE ⫽ 0.09, p ⫽ .73;
ES ⫽ .02).
For math achievement, the main effects model showed signifi-
cant between-student variation (␶ ⫽ 69.81, SE ⫽ 6.52, p ⬍ .01).
The within-person random effect remained significant in this
model (␶ ⫽ 69.64, SE ⫽ 2.62, p ⬍ .01), suggesting additional
unexplained variation in within-person changes in math achieve-
ment. An examination of the fit statistics for these models suggests
a statistically significant improvement in the log likelihood for the
main effects model compared with the unconditional growth
model, ␹2(21) ⫽ 5,999.12, p ⬍ .01.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

For reading achievement, the main effects model showed sig-

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

nificant between-student variation (␶ ⫽ 22.93, SE ⫽ 18.27, p ⬍

.01). However, the within-person random effect remained signifi-
cant in this model (␶ ⫽ 147.69, SE ⫽ 5.61, p ⬍ .01), suggesting
additional unexplained variation in within-person changes in read-
ing achievement. An examination of the fit statistics for these
models suggests a statistically significant improvement in the log
likelihood for the main effects model compared with the uncon-
ditional growth model, ␹2(21) ⫽ 6,300.24, p ⬍ .01.
Research Question 2. Finally, we tested whether between-
and within-child effects of teacher– child closeness on math and
reading achievement differed by gender. As shown in Table 2,
there was a significant negative between-child effect of teacher–
child conflict on math achievement for girls, relative to boys (␥ ⫽
0.30, SE ⫽ 0.14, p ⫽ .03; ES ⫽ .12). In addition, growth in math
achievement was slower for girls with conflictual teacher– child
relationships, relative to girls with nonconflictual relationships and
boys with conflictual relationships (␥ ⫽ 0.21, SE ⫽ 0.10, p ⫽ .04;
ES ⫽ .17). Figure 1 graphs the effects of teacher– child conflict on
math achievement, by gender, for girls and boys whose teachers
report high (1 standard deviation) and low (⫺1 standard deviation)
levels of conflict. Both between- and within-child effects of
teacher– child closeness and conflict on math and reading achieve-
ment did not differ by gender. In addition, there were no gender
differences in the between- and within-child effects of teacher–
child closeness on reading achievement.
Post hoc analyses. Given the relatively large number of sta-
tistical tests examined, we also ran the models with a Bonferroni
correction to account for the possibility that there was a multiple
comparisons problems. Results were consistent although the stan-
dard errors for most variables of interest were a bit inflated after
including the Bonferroni correction. A second concern with anal-
yses is that given the relatively small period of time between when
teachers reported on their relationships with children and when the
children were assessed for achievement, we cannot necessarily be
sure that the effect of the teacher– child relationship on achieve-
ment is concurrent. Additionally, because achievement is accumu-
lated over time, there may be a lagged effect of teacher– child
relationship quality. To correct for this possibility, we also tested
models that included the previous year’s teacher– child relation-
ship quality as lagged effects in predictive models. Given the
availability of data, we used the kindergarten teacher– child rela-
tionship as the lag for first grade, the first grade relationship as the
lag for third grade, and the fourth grade relationship as the lag for
fifth grade achievement. Again, we found that results were con-
Figure 1. Between-child effects of teacher– child conflict predicting math
achievement in elementary school, by gender. The graph adjusts for all
covariates. High teacher– child conflict was operationalized as 1 standard
deviation above the mean; low teacher– child conflict was operationalized
as 1 standard deviation below the mean.
sistent across models when including the lagged effects, although
the effect sizes were a bit smaller.
Discussion
Results of this study advance the understanding of the longitu-
dinal connections between teacher– child relationships and aca-
demic development during elementary school. Using a large lon-
gitudinal database, this study is the first to examine both between-
and within-child associations between teacher– child closeness and
conflict and children’s standardized measures of math and reading
achievement across elementary school. In addition, by testing
whether these associations varied by gender, we were able to
identify differential effects that may have important implications
for practitioners. Results revealed that overall, higher levels of
teacher– child conflict are related to lower levels of reading
achievement in elementary school, over and above a host of child,
family, and teacher control variables. In addition, improvements in
teacher– child closeness across elementary school were related to
gains in reading achievement. After testing whether effects dif-
fered by gender, we also found that girls who had conflictual
relationships with teachers experienced lower average levels of
math achievement than did boys with conflictual relationships with
teachers. In addition, girls with conflictual relationships with
teachers showed slower growth in math achievement across time
than did boys with conflictual teacher– child relationships. Exam-
ination of the effect sizes by gender suggest that these associations
are small (ranging in effect size from .06 to .17). However, they
are similar in size if not larger to studies that have identified
significant associations between key predictors of math and read-
ing achievement such as child care quality (Belsky et al., 2007;
 512 MCCORMICK AND O’CONNOR
Vandell, Belsky, Burchinal, Steinberg, & Vandergrift, 2010), par-
ent involvement (El Nokali, Bachman, & Votruba-Drzal, 2010),
and academic engagement (Dotterer & Lowe, 2011).
The results of the main between-child analyses confirm prior
research that identified longitudinal associations between teacher–
child relationships and reading achievement (Hughes, 2011; Koni-
shi, Hymel, Zumbo, & Li, 2010). For example, Maldonado-
Carreño and Votruba-Drzal (2011), using the same sample as in
the current study, found beneficial effects of positive teacher– child
relationships on teacher reports of reading achievement across
elementary school. Our findings are somewhat unique, however,
and extend prior work, as we were able to differentiate between-
and within-child effects specific to teacher– child closeness and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
conflict. Although we did find that overall, having a conflictual
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
teacher– child relationship was associated with poorer reading
achievement, we did not find that increases in conflict were asso-
ciated with decreases in reading achievement over time. Rather, it
was closeness that seemed to matter more for reading development
across elementary school. Within a close relationship, teachers are
able to provide children with positive supports and reinforcement
that encourage children to develop emotional and behavioral reg-
ulation (Howes & Hamilton, 1993). This type of closeness may be
particularly important for developing reading competencies
wherein children must maintain continued engagement in the
academic material and practice those competencies outside of the
school context.
The finding relating teacher– child closeness to changes in read-
ing achievement is in line with previous research that considered
multiple dimensions of teacher– child relationships. For example,
in their meta-analysis examining studies of teacher– child relation-
ships on overall achievement levels, Roorda et al. (2011) had
initially expected to find stronger associations for negative (e.g.,
conflict) components of teacher– child relationships, relative to
positive dimensions of teacher– child relationships (e.g., close-
ness). Although this expectation was based in prior research (e.g.,
Baker, 2006; Hamre & Pianta, 2001), the meta-analysis actually
revealed that closeness was just as important as conflict for aca-
demic outcomes. Moreover, as children became older, closeness
seemed to matter more than conflict for academic outcomes (Ro-
orda et al., 2011). Initially, it seems that closeness would be more
important for younger children’s development, given how critical
emotional support is for students transitioning to elementary
school (Rimm-Kaufman & Pianta, 2000). However, it may be that
teacher– child closeness is also vital for older students’ develop-
ment, perhaps because they need to feel supported in the classroom
to take the academic risks necessary to continually develop more
advanced reading skills. It may be that because the current study
examined effects throughout middle childhood, rather than focus-
ing on younger children specifically, the effect of closeness was
particularly critical for reading achievement outcomes.
Similarly surprising is the fact that we did not find any overall
effects of teacher– child closeness or conflict on math achieve-
ment. There is growing research suggesting that teacher relation-
ships may matter more for the development of math competencies
than reading skills (Crosnoe, Leventhal, Wirth, Pierce, & Pianta,
2010; McCormick et al., 2013). However, after examining differ-
ential associations between teacher– child relationships and
achievement by gender, we did find both between- and within-
child effects of teacher– child conflict on math achievement for
girls. Although boys had higher overall levels of conflict with
teachers, this conflict appeared to matter less for boys than for girls
in terms of math achievement. This is a notable finding, given that
girls tend to perform worse than boys do on standardized assess-
ments of math achievement (Robinson & Lubienski, 2011).
Consistent with a gender socialization perspective (e.g., Baker,
2006), having conflictual relationships with teachers may exacer-
bate girls’ difficulties in learning math. For example, because girls
are expected to be model students, when they do experience
conflict with teachers, it is more likely to make them internalize
feelings of depression and anxiety and perhaps decrease self-
esteem, academic efficacy, and engagement. In contrast, because
boys are not necessarily expected to be model students, experienc-
ing a lower quality relationship with the teacher may not lead to
this series of internalizing behaviors. Thus, girls’ math achieve-
ment suffers because of a conflictual relationship with a teacher,
whereas boys’ math achievement is less affected. One possible
implication for this finding concerns teachers’ differential treat-
ment of students (McKown & Weinstein, 2008). Indeed, teachers
are somewhat inclined to base relationships with students on
gender stereotypes (e.g., Baker, 2006; Ewing & Taylor, 2009).
Using a national sample of children in elementary and middle
school, Lubienski, Robinson, Crane, and Ganley (2013) found that
teachers consistently underrated girls’ math abilities, relative to
their standardized math scores. Teachers should be attuned to their
role in using emotionally supportive strategies when teaching girls
math. This is especially important given rigorous research indicat-
ing that math achievement is the single most powerful predictor of
future educational attainment (Duncan et al., 2007).
In addition, although boys are generally thought to be at risk for
low overall achievement (Hamre & Pianta, 2005), the academic
risk perspective may help explain the significant effect of teacher–
child conflict on girls’ math achievement. Research has shown that
girls, relative to boys, are more likely to perform lower on stan-
dardized assessments of math (Robinson & Lubienski, 2011).
Thus, by experiencing a conflictual teacher– child relationship,
girls may be at heightened risk for less than optimal math achieve-
ment specifically. Originally, we expected that boys would be at
higher risk for poor reading achievement, thus standing to benefit
most from closer, nonconflictual teacher– child relationships.
However, in contrast to this expectation, our data suggested that
boys had slightly higher initial reading achievement than girls and
did not differ in reading scores from girls across later elementary
school. Thus, the nonsignificant difference in reading achievement
by gender across time may explain the lack of a moderated effect
for relationship quality by gender. Overall, findings suggest that
one may need to align the academic risk perspective with the
specific academic outcome of interest rather than group all aca-
demic outcomes together in future studies.
Strengths and Limitations
The current study has a number of strengths that help to build
the research base on teacher– child relationships and achievement.
First, this study used a series of rigorous longitudinal models,
incorporating data from three time points in elementary school to
model effects of teacher– child closeness and conflict on achieve-
ment. As such, we were able to examine both within- and between-
child effects on achievement. In addition, we examined closeness
 TEACHER–CHILD RELATIONSHIPS, ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
and conflict as separate dimensions of teacher– child relationship
quality and included both dimensions as independent variables in
predictive models. This was an important consideration, given that
we did identify differential effects of these dimensions on achieve-
ment outcomes and are thus able to interpret the effects on
achievement as being over and above the remaining dimension of
teacher– child relationship quality.
Third, we operationalized academic achievement using a stan-
dardized assessment rather than relying on teacher reports of
achievement. This approach allowed us to limit threats to the
internal validity of the study posed by rater effects. Notably, we
examined math and reading achievement separately by gender in a
large national data set. The academic achievement trends we
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
identified by gender are important to consider given that the data
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
were collected for the purpose of examining developmental tra-
jectories and children were randomly selected to participate in the
study before educational differences emerged. Next, we were able
to model trajectories of teacher– child closeness and conflict and
achievement differentially by gender. These moderated models
provided insight into how dimensions of teacher– child relation-
ship quality differentially predicted a standardized assessment of
achievement. Finally, we used a large national sample to examine
these effects and controlled for a host of demographic, home-, and
school-based covariates. The use of the national sample is critical,
as we now have the ability to generalize results related to the
gender socialization perspective that had previously been identi-
fied only in within-group samples (e.g., Green et al., 2008; Ly et
al., 2012).
However, even given these strengths, the current study has a
number of limitations. First, we used a teacher report of teacher–
child relationship quality to operationalize the main predictor for
the study. Relatedly, the teachers who were reporting changed at
each time point, thus potentially introducing additional measure-
ment error. We were only able to account for teacher experience as
a potential teacher-level confounding covariate. Because of the
data collection, children were not nested within teachers, thus
limiting our ability to include teacher fixed effects in models to
account for teacher-level time-invariant differences. Future studies
in which children are nested in teachers should consider adjusting
for teacher-level differences and should extend this research and
consider child-reported and observed measures of teacher– child
relationship quality to reduce possible biases posed by using
teacher reports (Hughes, 2011). Second, we did not account for the
possibility that closeness and conflict might have additive or
interactive effects on achievement. A future study, however, will
use a person-centered approach to model patterns of closeness and
conflict to determine differential trajectories in achievement. Next,
we were unable to examine mechanisms linking teacher– child
closeness and conflict and achievement and were also unable to
test whether mechanisms differed by gender. Although having
conflictual relationships with teachers may affect girls’ internaliz-
ing behaviors (e.g., depression, anxiety), boys may be more likely
to engage in externalizing behaviors if they experience conflictual
teacher– child relationships. Thus, future research examining
mechanisms should consider how effects differ by gender. Third,
there are certain limitations to our findings as a result of recruit-
ment and enrollment methods of the NICHD SECCYD. Specifi-
cally, children with disabilities, children who lived in dangerous
areas, and children whose mothers did not speak English were
513
excluded. The current sample may contain relatively few high-risk
children, thus reducing the magnitude of associations between
teacher– child relationships and academic outcomes. Moreover, we
must caution readers that the NICHD SECCYD is a low-risk
sample and may not generalize to populations (e.g., low income,
immigrant, racial or ethnic minority) that are increasingly coming
to represent the broad population of U.S. school children.
Next, we only had three time points of academic achievement
data for this study. Although we were able to examine longitudinal
growth models, we could not test nonlinearity with three time
points of data. Future studies should consider how the form of the
relationship may vary across time. For example, it might be that
teacher– child relationships are most important in third grade but
become less important as children begin to transition into adoles-
cence at the end of elementary school. It may also be important for
future studies to consider the gender match between the teacher
and child. We were unable to explicitly test differences by gender
match because the overwhelming majority of teachers in the sam-
ple were female. Finally, although the longitudinal models allowed
us to examine average effects and within-child effects over time,
this study is still correlational in interpretation and we cannot infer
causality from the longitudinal design. Specifically, we still cannot
be fully certain about the direction of effects in the current study.
Assuming selection bias, it is possible that achievement could
actually be driving the observed levels of teacher– child closeness
and conflict. Indeed, there was variation in the data collection
process regarding when the teacher reports of relationship quality
were collected relative to when the WJ–R assessments were done.
It will be important for researchers conducting future studies to
consider methods for examining the causal effects of teacher– child
closeness and conflict on reading and math achievement in ele-
mentary school and examine how those effects differ by gender.
For example, researchers conducting random assignment studies
that aim to improve relational and emotional supports in the
classroom should consider examining treatment effects on math
and achievement and test whether those effects differ by gender.
Implications
This study may have important implications for teacher training
and professional development. First, teachers’ role in promoting an
emotionally supportive context and creating warm, respectful re-
lationships with all students should not be overlooked because of
concerns about curriculum and direct instruction. Indeed, we found
that although closeness tended to decline across elementary school,
the associations between a close teacher relationship and reading
achievement remained constant across time. Results suggest the
potential need to emphasize formation and maintenance of close
relationships with students across the course of elementary school.
Given the findings from this study combined with extant literature
on social-emotional learning, it may be important to embed rela-
tionships into instructional practice to successfully promote aca-
demic competencies in reading and math. It may also be beneficial
for teachers to be trained on how gender differences and their
implicit differential reactions to behaviors engaged in by boys and
by girls are associated with student achievement. As work on
teacher expectations has shown (e.g., McKown & Weinstein,
2008), teachers are rarely aware of implicit biases they have
toward students. As such, it may be critical to share this informa-
 514 MCCORMICK AND O’CONNOR
tion with teachers and provide them with training on how best to
support boys’ and girls’ successful academic development.
This study also has implications for policy development and
implementation. Educational policy has put increased emphasis on
teacher accountability systems that use student outcomes to gauge
teacher quality. However, this study provides preliminary evidence
that teachers who create emotionally supportive relationships with
their students may also be successful at developing academic
competencies. Thus, it may be important for policymakers to
consider teachers’ emotionally supportive practices when creating
and refining teacher evaluation systems. When teachers are pro-
vided with information about their teaching practices and relation-
ship building, they can reflect on their practice to improve this
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
relational component. Studies continue to show that accountability
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
systems alone are unsuccessful in boosting overall levels of aca-
demic achievement in the United States (e.g., Reardon, 2011). By
considering the importance of within-school social processes—
teacher– child relationships specifically—future policies may be
able to address a new direction for raising overall achievement and
improving outcomes for American children.
References
Baker, J. A. (2006). Contributions of teacher– child relationships to posi-
tive school adjustment during elementary school. Journal of School
Psychology, 44, 211–229. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.02.002
Baker, J. A., Grant, S., & Morlock, L. (2008). The teacher–student rela-
tionship as a developmental context for children with internalizing or
externalizing behavior problems. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(1),
3–15.
Belsky, J., Vandell, D. L., Burchinal, M., Clarke-Stewart, K. A., McCart-
ney, K., & Owen, M. T. (2007). Are there long-term effects of early
child care? Child Development, 78, 681–701. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624
.2007.01021.x
Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1997). The teacher– child relationship and
children’s early school adjustment. Journal of School Psychology, 35,
61–79. doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(96)00029-5
Brechwald, W. A., & Prinstein, M. J. (2011). Beyond homophily: A decade
of advances in understanding peer influence processes. Journal of Re-
search on Adolescence, 21, 166 –179. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010
.00721.x
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental
processes. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & R. M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.),
Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human
development (5th ed., pp. 993–1028). New York, NY: Wiley.
Burchinal, M. R., Peisner-Feinberg, E., Pianta, R., & Howes, C. (2002).
Development of academic skills from preschool through second grade:
Family and classroom predictors of developmental trajectories. Journal
of School Psychology, 40, 415– 436. doi:10.1016/S0022-
4405(02)00107-3
Buyse, E., Verschueren, K., Verachtert, P., & Van Damme, J. (2009).
Predicting school adjustment in early elementary school: Impact of
teacher– child relationship quality and relational classroom climate. The
Elementary School Journal, 110, 119 –141. doi:10.1086/605768
Caldwell, B. M., & Bradley, R. H. (1984). Home observation for measure-
ment of the environment. Little Rock: University of Arkansas at Little
Rock.
Cooper, D. H., & Farran, D. C. (1988). Behavioral risk factors in kinder-
garten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 3, 1–19. doi:10.1016/
0885-2006(88)90026-9
Crosnoe, R., Leventhal, T., Wirth, R. J., Pierce, K. M., & Pianta, R. C.
(2010). Family socioeconomic status and consistent environmental stim-
ulation in early childhood. Child Development, 81, 972–987. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01446.x
Dearing, E., McCartney, K., & Taylor, B. A. (2006). Within-child associ-
ations between family income and externalizing and internalizing prob-
lems. Developmental Psychology, 42, 237–252. doi:10.1037/0012-1649
.42.2.237
Dotterer, A. M., & Lowe, K. (2011). Classroom context, school engage-
ment, and academic achievement in early adolescence. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 40, 1649 –1660. doi:10.1007/s10964-011-9647-5
Duncan, G. J. (2011, January). The importance of academic skills for
preK–3rd [Report]. Retrieved from Foundation for Child Development
website: http://fcd-us.org/resources/importance-academic-skills-prek-
3rd
Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C.,
Klebanov, P., . . . Japel, C. (2007). School readiness and later achieve-
ment. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1428 –1446. doi:10.1037/0012-
1649.43.6.1428
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1981). Peabody Picture Test—Revised
manual for Forms L and M. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance
Service.
El Nokali, N. E., Bachman, H. J., & Votruba-Drzal, E. (2010). Parent
involvement and children’s academic and social development in elemen-
tary school. Child Development, 81, 988 –1005. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8624.2010.01447.x
Ewing, A. R., & Taylor, A. R. (2009). The role of child gender and
ethnicity in teacher– child relationship quality and children’s behavioral
adjustment in preschool. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24, 92–
105. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2008.09.002
Feingold, A. (2009). Effect sizes for growth-modeling analysis for con-
trolled clinical trials in the same metric as for classical analysis. Psy-
chological Methods, 14, 43–53.
Fitzmaurice, L., Laird, N. M., & Ware, J. H. (2004). Applied longitudinal
analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Fitzmaurice, G., Laird, N. M., & Ware, J. (2011). Applied longitudinal
analysis (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience.
Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multi-
level/hierarchical models. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge
University Press.
Green, G., Rhodes, J., Hirsch, A. H., Suárez-Orozco, C., & Camic, P. M.
(2008). Supportive adult relationships and the academic engagement of
Latin American immigrant youth. Journal of School Psychology, 46,
393– 412. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2007.07.001
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher– child relationships
and the trajectory of children’s school outcomes through eighth grade.
Child Development, 72, 625– 638. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00301
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional
support in the first-grade classroom make a difference for children at risk
of school failure? Child Development, 76, 949 –967.
Hibel, J., Farkas, G., & Morgan, P. L. (2010). Who is placed into special
education? Sociology of Education, 83, 312–332. doi:10.1177/
0038040710383518
Howes, C., & Hamilton, C. E. (1992). Children’s relationships with child
care teachers: Stability and concordance with parental attachments.
Child Development, 63, 867– 878. doi:10.2307/1131239
Howes, C., & Hamilton, C. E. (1993). The changing experience of child
care: Changes in teachers and in teacher– child relationships and chil-
dren’s social competence with peers. Early Childhood Research Quar-
terly, 8, 15–32. doi:10.1016/S0885-2006(05)80096-1
Howes, C., Phillipsen, L. C., & Peisner-Feinberg, E. (2000). The consis-
tency of perceived teacher– child relationships between preschool and
kindergarten. Journal of School Psychology, 38, 113–132. doi:10.1016/
S0022-4405(99)00044-8
 TEACHER–CHILD RELATIONSHIPS, ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
Howes, C., & Ritchie, S. (1999). Attachment organizations in children with
difficult life circumstances. Development and Psychopathology, 11,
251–268. doi:10.1017/S0954579499002047
Hughes, J. N. (2011). Longitudinal effects of teacher and student percep-
tions of teacher–student relationship qualities on academic adjustment.
The Elementary School Journal, 112, 38 – 60. doi:10.1086/660686
Hughes, J. N., Cavell, T. A., & Willson, V. (2001). Further support for the
developmental significance of the quality of the teacher–student rela-
tionship. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 289 –301. doi:10.1016/
S0022-4405(01)00074-7
Hughes, J. N., Luo, W., Kwok, O.-M., & Loyd, L. K. (2008). Teacher–
student support, effortful engagement, and achievement: A 3-year lon-
gitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 1–14. doi:
10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.1
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Hughes, K., Bullock, A., & Coplan, R. J. (2014). A person-centred analysis
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
of teacher– child relationships in early childhood. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 84, 253–267. doi:10.1111/bjep.12029
Jerome, E. M., Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2009). Teacher– child
relationships from kindergarten to sixth grade: Early childhood predic-
tors of teacher-perceived conflict and closeness. Social Development, 18,
915–945. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00508.x
Koch, J. (2003). Gender issues in the classroom. In W. M. Reynolds &
G. E. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (pp. 259 –281). Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley. doi:10.1002/0471264385.wei0712
Konishi, C., Hymel, S., Zumbo, B. D., & Li, Z. (2010). Do school bullying
and student–teacher relationships matter for academic achievement? A
multilevel analysis. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 25, 19 –39.
Ladd, G. W., & Burgess, K. B. (1999). Charting the relationship trajecto-
ries of aggressive, withdrawn, and aggressive/withdrawn children during
early grade school. Child Development, 70, 910 –929. doi:10.1111/1467-
8624.00066
Legewie, J., & DiPrete, T. A. (2012). School context and the gender gap in
educational achievement. American Sociological Review, 77, 463– 485.
doi:10.1177/0003122412440802
Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (1987). Statistical analysis with missing
data (1st ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
Lubienski, S. T., Robinson, J. P., Crane, C. C., & Ganley, C. M. (2013).
Girls’ and boys’ mathematics achievement, affect, and experiences:
Findings from ECLS-K. Journal for Research in Mathematics Educa-
tion, 44, 634 – 645. doi:10.5951/jresematheduc.44.4.0634
Ly, J., Zhou, Q., Chu, K., & Chen, S. H. (2012). Teacher– child relationship
quality and academic achievement of Chinese American children in
immigrant families. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 535–553. doi:
10.1016/j.jsp.2012.03.003
Maldonado-Carreño, C., & Votruba-Drzal, E. (2011). Teacher– child rela-
tionships and the development of academic and behavioral skills during
elementary school: A within- and between-child analysis. Child Devel-
opment, 82, 601– 616. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01533.x
McCartney, K., Dearing, E., Taylor, B. A., & Bub, K. L. (2007). Quality
child care supports the achievement of low-income children: Direct and
indirect pathways through caregiving and the home environment. Jour-
nal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28, 411– 426. doi:10.1016/j
.appdev.2007.06.010
McCormick, M. P., O’Connor, E. E., Cappella, E., & McClowry, S. G.
(2013). Teacher– child relationships and academic achievement: A mul-
tilevel propensity score model approach. Journal of School Psychology,
51, 611– 624. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2013.05.001
McKown, C., & Weinstein, R. S. (2008). Teacher expectations, classroom
context, and the achievement gap. Journal of School Psychology, 46,
235–261. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2007.05.001
Mickelson, R. A. (2003). Gender, Bourdieu, and the anomaly of women’s
achievement redux. Sociology of Education, 76, 373–375. doi:10.2307/
1519873
515
Morris, E. W. (2011). Bridging the gap: ‘Doing gender,’ ‘hegemonic
masculinity,’ and the educational troubles of boys. Sociology Compass,
5, 92–103. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9020.2010.00351.x
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (1997). The effects of infant
child care on infant–mother attachment security: Results of the NICHD
Study of Early Child Care. Child Development, 68, 860 – 879.
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2007). Age of entry to
kindergarten and children’s academic and socioemotional development.
Early Education & Development, 18, 337–368.
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network & Duncan, G. J. (2003).
Modeling the impacts of child care quality on children’s preschool
cognitive development. Child Development, 74, 1454 –1475.
O’Connor, E. (2010). Teacher– child relationships as dynamic systems.
Journal of School Psychology, 48, 187–218. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2010.01
.001
O’Connor, E., & McCartney, K. (2007). Examining teacher– child relation-
ships and achievement as part of an ecological model of development.
American Educational Research Journal, 44, 340 –369. doi:10.3102/
0002831207302172
Pianta, R. C. (1992). The Student Teacher Relationship Scale. Charlottes-
ville: University of Virginia.
Pianta, R. C. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teach-
ers. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:
10.1037/10314-000
Pianta, R. C. (2001). STRS: Student–Teacher Relationship Scale: Profes-
sional Manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Pianta, R. C., Belsky, J., Vandergrift, N., Houts, R., Morrison, F., & the
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2008). Classroom effects
on children’s achievement trajectories in elementary school. American
Educational Research Journal, 45, 365–397. doi:10.3102/
0002831207308230
Pianta, R. C., & Nimetz, S. L. (1991). Relationships between children and
teachers: Associations with classroom and home behavior. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 12, 379 –393. doi:10.1016/0193-
3973(91)90007-Q
Pianta, R. C., Nimetz, S. L., & Bennett, E. (1997). Mother– child relation-
ships, teacher– child relationships, and school outcomes in preschool and
kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 263–280. doi:
10.1016/S0885-2006(97)90003-X
Pianta, R. C., & Stuhlman, M. W. (2004). Teacher– child relationships and
children’s success in the first years of school. School Psychology Re-
view, 33, 444 – 458.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Reardon, S. F. (2011). The widening academic achievement gap between
rich and poor: New evidence and possible explanations. In G. J. Duncan
& R. J. Murnane (Eds.), Whither opportunity? Rising inequality,
schools, and children’s life chances (pp. 91–115). New York, NY:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Pianta, R. C. (2000). An ecological perspective
on the transition to kindergarten: A theoretical framework to guide
empirical research. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21,
491–511. doi:10.1016/S0193-3973(00)00051-4
Robinson, J. P., & Lubienski, S. T. (2011). The development of gender
achievement gaps in mathematics and reading during elementary and
middle school examining direct cognitive assessments and teacher rat-
ings. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 268 –302. doi:
10.3102/0002831210372249
Roorda, D. L., Koomen, H. M. Y., Spilt, J. L., & Oort, F. J. (2011). The
influence of affective teacher–student relationships on students’ school
engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic approach. Review of
Educational Research, 81, 493–529. doi:10.3102/0034654311421793
 516 MCCORMICK AND O’CONNOR
Royston, P., & White, I. R. (2011). Multiple imputation by chained
equations (MICE): Implementation in Stata. The Journal of Statistical
Software, 45(4), 1–20.
Rubin, D. B. (1987). A noniterative sampling/importance resampling al-
ternative to the data augmentation algorithm for creating a few imputa-
tions when fractions of missing information are modest: The SIR algo-
rithm. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82, 543–546.
Rudasill, K. M. (2011). Child temperament, teacher– child interactions, and
teacher– child relationships: A longitudinal investigation from first to
third grade. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26, 147–156. doi:
10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.07.002
Rudasill, K. M., Niehaus, K., Buhs, E., & White, J. M. (2013). Tempera-
ment in early childhood and peer interactions in third grade: The role of
teacher– child relationships in early elementary grades. Journal of
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
School Psychology, 51, 701–716. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2013.08.002
Rudasill, K. M., Reio, T. G., Jr., Stipanovic, N., & Taylor, J. E. (2010). A
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
longitudinal study of student–teacher relationship quality, difficult tem-
perament, and risky behavior from childhood to early adolescence.
Journal of School Psychology, 48, 389 – 412. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2010.05
.001
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and
quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Indepen-
dence, KY: Cengage Learning.
Silver, R. B., Measelle, J. R., Armstrong, J. M., & Essex, M. J. (2005).
Trajectories of classroom externalizing behavior: Contributions of child
characteristics, family characteristics, and the teacher– child relationship
during the school transition. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 39 – 60.
doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2004.11.003
Singer, J. D. (1998). Using SAS PROC MIXED to fit multilevel models,
hierarchical models, and individual growth models. Journal of Educa-
tional and Behavioral Statistics, 23, 323–355. doi:10.2307/1165280
Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis:
Modeling change and event occurrence. Oxford, England: Oxford Uni-
versity Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195152968.001.0001
Snyder, T. D., Dillow, S. A., & Hoffman, C. M. (2001). Digest of
education statistics, 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Edu-
cation, National Center for Education Statistics.
Spilt, J. L., Hughes, J. N., Wu, J. Y., & Kwok, O. M. (2012). Dynamics of
teacher–student relationships: Stability and change across elementary
school and the influence on children’s academic success. Child Devel-
opment, 83, 1180 –1195. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01761.x
Van Buuren, S., Boshuizen, H. C., & Knook, D. L. (1999). Multiple
imputation of missing blood pressure covariates in survival analysis.
Statistics in Medicine, 18, 681– 694. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-
0258(19990330)18:6⬍681::AID-SIM71⬎3.0.CO;2-R
Vandell, D. L., Belsky, J., Burchinal, M., Steinberg, L., & Vandergrift, N.
(2010). Do effects of early child care extend to age 15 years? Results
from the NICHD study of early child care and youth development. Child
Development, 81, 737–756. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01431.x
Waters, E., & Deane, K. E. (1985). Defining and assessing individual
differences in attachment relationships: Q-methodology and the organi-
zation of behavior in infancy and early childhood. Monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development, 50, 41– 65. doi:10.2307/
3333826
Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1989). Woodcock–Johnson Psycho-
Educational Battery—Revised. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
Received November 25, 2013
Revision received June 18, 2014
Accepted June 23, 2014 䡲