Parents` Perceptions on Quality of Early Childhood Education Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to clarify the key factors which influence parents` school choice for their children. This study explored three things: (1) What components of quality in early childhood education parents identify as key factors and indicators of a good program, (2) how parents prioritize these factors and indicators, and (3) whether there is any difference between parents` perception and actual school choice, To identify the components of quality in early childhood education and to evaluate the relative importance among the components, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) survey was conducted with 57 parents, The findings of this study indicate that the components of structural quality influence parents school choice for their children more significantly than the components of process quality. Among structural quality factors, parents placed group size (student:teacher ratio), physical environment, curriculum, and teacher quality in the order of relative priority. Among process quality factors, parents weighed children`s experiences more than teacher`s behaviors. The findings also show that there is a discrepancy between parents` perception and actual school choice. Limitations of the study and suggestions for future study are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".