Socioeconomic and attitudinal differences between service users of private and public early childhood education and care in the Finnish context

Ruutiainen, Ville; Räikkönen, Eija; Alasuutari, Maarit

doi:10.1186/s40723-023-00119-2

International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy

Table 7 EFA solution based on 13 items of parental attitudes towards provision and quality of ECEC (N = 1401)

From: Socioeconomic and attitudinal differences between service users of private and public early childhood education and care in the Finnish context

Items	Loadings				Residual variance
	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3	Factor 4
	Preference for municipal ECEC	Cost-free ECEC	Individual attention	Individual utility
Cronbach’s alpha	0.71	0.78	0.75	0.61
1.2. Municipal ECEC is of higher quality than private provision	0.76	0.00	− 0.05	− 0.10	0.45
1.3. Private ECEC services should be more readily available	− 0.44	0.19	− 0.10	− 0.10	0.74
1.4. Private ECEC offers a more diverse range of activities than municipal services	− 0.51	0.05	0.04	− 0.11	0.69
1.5. Municipalities should invest more in municipal ECEC provision than in subsidising private service	0.46	0.03	0.23	0.09	0.72
1.6. Municipal ECEC providers are better in meeting children’s special needs than private providers	0.68	0.04	− 0.01	− 0.15	0.57
1.7. ECEC should be free of charge for all children	− 0.00	0.82	− 0.02	− 0.02	0.32
1.8. ECEC should be free for a 5-year-old	0.01	0.77	0.04	0.06	0.39
2.1. Children do not receive sufficient individual attention in ECEC	− 0.04	0.04	0.67	− 0.13	0.46
2.2. The child’s need for support is adequately considered in ECEC	0.07	− 0.00	− 0.46	0.17	0.70
2.3. Day care group sizes are too large	0.07	− 0.01	0.58	0.17	0.70
2.5. ECEC is unable to secure lasting relationships	− 0.04	− 0.01	0.56	− 0.08	0.65
2.8. Adults cannot spend enough time with children and/or listen to them in the ECEC	0.04	− 0.03	0.74	0.01	0.46
2.4. ECEC provides the stimulation that children need	− 0.03	− 0.010	− 0.07	0.65	0.55
2.6. Children learn necessary social skills in ECEC	0.01	0.07	− 0.02	0.60	0.62

Factor correlations	F1	F2	F3	F4
F1 Preference for municipal ECEC	1
F2 Cost-free ECEC	− 0.03	1
F3 Individual attention	− 0.04	0.03	1
F4 Individual utility	0.25*	− 0.00	− 0.32*	1

Statistically significant results are bolded

Back to article page