Next Article in Journal
Boosting Sustainable Action: Co-Designing Interactive Visualizations to Bridge Awareness Gaps in Universities
Previous Article in Journal
Comparing the Effects of GenAI and Traditional Search on Scientific Concept Understanding in a Simulation-Based Video Lecture: An Eye-Tracking Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 16
Issue 5
10.3390/educsci16050770
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Assessing Transition Practices from Home to Early Childhood Education and Care: Development and Validation of the Early Childhood Transition Practices Scale

by
Theodora Margaritopoulou
*,
Eleni Tympa
,
Eleni Zisopoulou
and
Maria Tsitiridou-Evangelou
Department of Early Childhood Education and Care, International Hellenic University, 57400 Thessaloniki, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2026, 16(5), 770; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16050770
Submission received: 17 March 2026 / Revised: 8 May 2026 / Accepted: 11 May 2026 / Published: 13 May 2026
(This article belongs to the Section Early Childhood Education)
Versions Notes

Abstract

Transition from home to Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) settings represents a critical developmental period for children and their families, yet research lacks validated instruments that capture transition practices from both parent and educator perspectives. This study aimed to develop and validate the Early Childhood Transition Practices Scale (ECTPS), two parallel forms designed to assess parents’ and educators’ views of child- and parent-centered transition practices. Data were collected from a convenience sample of 242 parents and 333 educators in Greece. Exploratory factor analyses were conducted separately for parent and educator forms to examine construct validity. Results supported a two-factor structure for the Parent Form (parent-centered practices before and during transition; child-centered practices during transition) and a three-factor structure for the Educator Form (child-centered practices during transition; parent-centered practices before transition; parent-centered practices during transition). Descriptive findings indicated that both parents and educators reported high implementation of child-centered practices, while parent-centered practices—particularly those implemented before transition—were less frequently reported. Educators who had participated in transition-related professional development reported significantly higher implementation of both child- and parent-centered practices. These findings provide evidence for the reliability and validity of the ECTPS and underscore the importance of professional development and proactive family engagement in supporting early childhood transitions.

1. Introduction

The transition from home to Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) settings represents a pivotal developmental milestone for young children. In the present study, transition refers specifically to children’s first entry from home into center-based ECEC settings (preschool classrooms), including children between approximately 8 months and 4 years of age. This transition involves not only physical relocation but also profound emotional, relational, and social adjustments, as children encounter new routines, relationships, and expectations (Revilla et al., 2022; White et al., 2020). Research consistently characterizes this period as “critical” in children’s developmental trajectory (Cook & Coley, 2021; Welchons & McIntyre, 2017). Importantly, transition experiences are not shaped by the child alone but emerge from interactions among children, families, educators, and community (Rimm-Kaufman & Pianta, 2000). Consequently, transition is a shared, relational process requiring coordinated efforts between families and educators.
Within this framework, educators play a crucial role not only in supporting children in adapting to new routines and relationships, but also in establishing collaboration with parents (Garpelin, 2014; Raittila et al., 2024). During the transition period, parents often experience heightened stress regarding their children’s safety and well-being (Wildenger & McIntyre, 2011). Educators are called upon to recognize the increased stress experienced by parents and children, and to support them in reducing possible insecurity, to strengthen their self-confidence, to inform them and to build a network of cooperation and communication with them (Puccioni et al., 2020). Parents, in turn, are faced with both their own concerns and those of their children. They are called upon to strengthen the responsibility and independence of children, so that they can adapt to the new environment and at the same time manage possible changes that may be caused in their relationship with the child (Kang et al., 2017). Consequently, transition is best conceptualized as a shared process that begins before children’s formal entry into ECEC settings and extends beyond the formal entry into ECEC settings (Rutanen & Hännikäinen, 2017).
Despite the acknowledged importance of early childhood transitions, research specifically examining the transition from home to center-based preschool settings remains limited (Dockett et al., 2016), with comparatively greater attention given to later educational transitions, such as the move from kindergarten to primary school and to later educational stages (Evangelou et al., 2008; Puccioni et al., 2020; Vorkapić, 2019). Research examining transition practices, especially from both perspectives of both parents and educators, remains scarce. The absence of validated instruments further constrains the systematic study of transition processes and limits the development of evidence-based interventions that can support children’s transition.
To address these gaps, the present study aimed to develop and validate two parallel forms of an instrument designed to capture parents’ and educators’ views of transition practices from home to ECEC settings. By mapping current practices and identifying potential gaps, this research seeks to inform future intervention design and contribute to the broader international literature on early childhood transitions.

2. Early Childhood Transitions as an Ecological and Relational Process

The conceptualization of early childhood transition in this paper draws primarily on ecological and relational theories of development, which emphasize the interconnected systems influencing children’s experiences. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory or bio-ecological model (Bronfenbrenner, 1986) conceptualizes transition as an “ecological transition”, occurring when a child moves between microsystems, such as from home to Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) settings. From this perspective, the transition to ECEC constitutes a shift in the child’s microsystem, accompanied by changes in relationships and roles (Rimm-Kaufman & Pianta, 2000) that require coordination across systems. Transitions are therefore not isolated events but dynamic processes unfolding over time, before, during, and after children enter ECEC settings (Klasnić et al., 2022).
Complementing the ecological perspective, attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969) offers important insights into children’s emotional experiences during transitions. Young children’s sense of a secure relationship with a primary caregiver strengthens the child’s capacity to adapt to new environments. Research indicates that children with secure attachment demonstrate better social adjustment during transition periods (Ahnert et al., 2006). Educators’ responsiveness to individual children’s needs functions as a protective factor, supporting children’s sense of security and adjustment (Waters & Waters, 2015).
Additionally, continuity theory highlights the importance of consistency between the home and ECEC setting. Continuity is achieved through shared routines, communication, and collaboration (Dockett & Perry, 2007). Similarly, the family transition model conceptualizes transition as a collective process involving the entire family rather than the child alone (Cook & Coley, 2021; Pianta & Cox, 1999).
Grounded in these theoretical frameworks, transition practices can be understood along two intersecting dimensions: the primary target of support (child-focused vs. parent-focused), and the temporal phase of implementation (before and during entry into ECEC). Collectively, ecological theory emphasizes coordination across home and educational contexts (Bronfenbrenner, 1986; Rimm-Kaufman & Pianta, 2000), while transition scholarship highlights the temporal unfolding of this process (Klasnić et al., 2022). Attachment theory foregrounds emotionally responsive practices during children’s adaptation to new settings (Bowlby, 1969), whereas continuity and family transition models stress sustained family–educator collaboration (Cook & Coley, 2021; Dockett & Perry, 2007; Pianta & Cox, 1999). Accordingly, transition practices are conceptualized as targeting both children and families across different phases of entry into ECEC settings.

2.1. Child-Focused Transition Practices

Child-centered transition practices primarily aim to support children’s emotional security, regulation, and social integration within the new setting. Consistent with attachment theory, emotionally responsive behaviors, such as warm verbal interaction and physical proximity, contribute to children’s sense of safety (White et al., 2022b).
The quality of educator-child and peer relationships during transition is closely associated with children’s autonomy, exploratory behavior, and engagement (White et al., 2020, 2022a). Encouraging peer interaction through play and small-group participation supports social development during the transition period (Berry et al., 2016; Ukkonen-Mikkola, 2018; White et al., 2020).
Additionally, play functions as a key mechanism for emotional regulation during transition. Children typically display more positive emotions during play compared to routine activities, and educators often use play-based strategies to ease anxiety and promote engagement (White et al., 2023). Predictable daily routines similarly provide stability, supporting children’s sense of security in unfamiliar environments (Singer, 2017).
Finally, the key person approach is widely applied in early childhood settings to create stable and secure relationships. Grounded in attachment theory, this approach serves as an important framework for understanding child development and shaping appropriate pedagogical practices, offering benefits for children, educators, and parents (Evangelou et al., 2009; McDermott, 2016; Woods et al., 2022).

2.2. Parent—Focused Transition Practices

Parent-focused transition practices are grounded in ecological, family and continuity perspectives, which emphasize the interdependence between home and educational contexts. Research indicates that children experience lower anxiety when high-quality relationships are established between families and educators (Ahnert et al., 2023).
Practices implemented before enrollment, such as home visits, information exchange, and early appointments of a key educator, promote mutual familiarity and trust-building (Gath et al., 2024). Additional practices, such as the use of transition-illustrated books, facilitate a shared framework of understanding for children and parents and serve as a bridge for communication (Cutler & Slicker, 2020; Phillips & Sturm, 2013). Parent groups offer emotional support and foster a sense of community (Lee et al., 2024; Postma et al., 2024).
Special attention is required during arrival and departure routines, as well as during the gradual reduction in parental presence. Trust-building, stable relationships, and active parental involvement are key factors in supporting a smooth transition (Andersson Søe et al., 2023; Aspden et al., 2021). Overall, effective transition practices are characterized by the integration of child-focused and parent-focused support across different phases of the transition process.

2.3. Measurement Gaps and the Need for Informant Tools

Although the literature highlights the importance of early childhood transitions, there is a notable lack of validated instruments designed to capture transition practices from both parent and educator perspectives, particularly in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) settings. Studies that assess transition practices from the perspectives of parents or educators often rely on single-informant questionnaires, such as the Family Experiences and Involvement in Transition measure (McIntyre et al., 2007); Transition Practices Survey (NCEDL, 1996). Although these instruments provide useful information about individual experiences, they do not allow for the examination of perceptual convergence or divergence between parents and educators within a shared conceptual framework.
Additionally, research on the transition from home to ECEC settings has relied on qualitative and observational approaches, including video-recorded observations, field notes, and interviews with parents and educators (e.g., Vuorisalo et al., 2025). While such approaches offer valuable insights into everyday pedagogical processes, they are limited in scope, focus primarily on short timeframes, and do not allow for systematic measurement or comparison of stakeholders’ perspectives.
Overall, the literature reveals a clear measurement gap in the field of early childhood transitions. Specifically, there is a dearth of validated instruments designed to capture both parental and educator perspectives on home-to-ECEC transition practices through parallel measurement approaches. Considering transition practices from both perspectives is particularly important, as empirical evidence suggests that parents’ and educators’ views of parent–teacher collaboration may differ (Zulauf-McCurdy & Loomis, 2023). Addressing this measurement gap is essential for advancing research and for informing the design of evidence-based interventions aimed at supporting children and families during this critical transition period.

2.4. Role of Educators and Professional Development

During children’s transition to Early Childhood Education and Care settings, educators shape the material and social environment, support the child in new routines and relationships, and strengthen communication and trust with parents, reducing anxiety and enhancing children’s confidence (Garpelin, 2014; Raittila et al., 2024). International research identifies professional development as a key factor influencing the quality of transition practices implemented (Early et al., 2001; LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2008; Pianta & Kraft-Sayre, 2003). Research evidence demonstrates that educators who receive targeted training implement a greater number of transition practices (Rous et al., 2010). Given that professional development has been consistently associated with the implementation of transition practices, examining educators’ training background constitutes an important contextual variable in understanding variation in transition practices.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Goals and Research Questions

The aim of this study is to develop a tool for assessing the views of parents and educators on the issue of the transition from home to Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) settings. This leads to the following research questions:
RQ1: What is the factor structure and internal validity of the Early Childhood Transition Practices Scale (ECTPS)–Parent Form?
RQ2: What is the factor structure and internal validity of the ECTPS–Educator Form?
RQ3: What are the views of parents and educators regarding the children’s transition from home to ECEC settings?
RQ4: Are there any significant differences in educators’ transition practices based on participation in professional development related to early childhood transitions?

3.2. Research Design

Data for the current study stems from the pilot of a wider research design that evaluates the parents’ and educators’ views about children’s transition from home to Early Childhood Education and Care settings in Greece.

3.3. Sampling and Participants

A convenience sample of 242 parents and 333 educators from various regions across Greece participated in this study. The parent group consisted primarily of mothers, while the educator sample was predominantly female and largely employed in public Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) settings. In both cohorts, the majority of participants were over 30 years of age. Table 1 summarizes these demographic characteristics.

3.4. Procedure

Ethical approval for the research was obtained from the Ethical Committee of the International Hellenic University (REF.4/29.9.2021). Prior to participation, all participants received detailed information regarding the study’s aims, procedures, voluntary nature, and confidentiality measures. The anonymity of participating parents and educators was ensured, and all data was handled with strict confidentiality. Every effort was made to prevent potential harm to participants, in accordance with established ethical guidelines (Bell & Bryman, 2007).
Data was collected using an online questionnaire administered through a secure survey platform. The survey was administered via Google Forms and widely distributed through email and social media channels between September 2025 and November 2025, as this period corresponds to the timeframe during which children typically begin the school transition process in Greek preschool settings, especially for children aged 6 months to 4 years old. Participants accessed the questionnaire via a unique link and provided informed consent before proceeding. To ensure data quality, responses were screened for completeness, and only questionnaires with all mandatory items completed were included in the analyses. A total of 242 fully completed parent questionnaires and 333 fully completed educator questionnaires were included in the analyses. Parents were asked to complete the questionnaire regarding transition practices implemented by their child’s educator. Educators completed the corresponding questionnaire focusing on transition practices implemented for children and families within their educational setting.

3.5. Development of Early Childhood Transition Practices Scale (ECTPS)

The Early Childhood Transition Practices Scale (ECTPS) was developed to assess parents’ and educators’ views of transition practices supporting children’s transition from home to Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) settings. The instrument consists of two distinct forms, a Parent Form and an Educator Form. A mixed method was used to develop the ECTPS, comprising the following three steps:
(1)
Theoretical Framework. The development of the ECTPS was grounded in ecological, attachment, continuity, and family transition perspectives on early childhood transitions. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory provided the overarching framework, conceptualizing transition as a process involving coordination between home and ECEC settings. Attachment theory informed the inclusion of practices supporting children’s emotional security during transition, while continuity theory emphasized consistency in routines, communication, and expectations across settings. The family transition model further framed transition as a collective process involving both children and families. Together, these perspectives guided the identification of two dimensions of transition practices: (a) target of support (child-focused vs. parent-focused) and (b) temporal phase (before and during entry into ECEC settings).
(2)
Item Generation and Item Pool Development. Based on the theoretical framework, an initial item pool was generated using a deductive approach. Items were designed to reflect transition practices occurring (a) for children and families and (b) before and during the transition period. Selected items were adapted from existing studies, including McIntyre et al. (2007), which assessed family experiences and involvement during the transition to kindergarten. These items were revised to ensure relevance to the Greek ECEC context. Additional items were newly constructed. All items were adapted for use in both the Parent and Educator forms to capture perspectives from both stakeholders. The item pool was reviewed by the research team to ensure clarity, relevance, and alignment with the theoretical dimensions of the scale.
(3)
Pilot Study. The first part of the pilot study was carried out with 20 participants (10 parents and 10 educators) to assess the content validity and verify the item’s wording. During the second part of the pilot study, the psychometric properties of the initial version of the ECTPS-Parent Form and ECTPS–Educator Form were checked. The ECTPS-Parent form consisted of 25 items and the ECTPS–Educator Form comprised 23 items. After employing Exploratory Factor Analysis (described in the results of the present study), 10 of the initial ECTPS–Parent Form items were dropped and 7 of the initial ECTPS–Educator Form items were excluded because they did not have a salient factor loading or they loaded to more than one factor almost equally. The ECTPS is a self-reported measure, which was completed by both parents and educators during the pilot study. All items are scored on a five-point Likert scale from 0 (“not at all”) to 4 (“extremely”). Both forms also include demographic questions relevant to the study objectives. The ECTPS is designed as a self-report instrument suitable for use in research and practice to assess transition practices from both parent and educator views. While the ECTPS features parallel forms for parents and educators, both versions functioned as independent instruments in this phase. This enabled the psychometric properties to be evaluated separately for each group.

3.6. Data Analyses

Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows Version 26. To address the first two research questions (RQ1 & RQ2), the construct validity of the instruments was examined using exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Separate EFAs were conducted for parents’ and educators’ datasets to examine the underlying structure of the Early Childhood Transition Practices Scale (ECTPS) for each group. Measurement invariance across the two groups was not tested in this initial phase, and no cross-informant comparisons were conducted, as the primary aim was the development of the instrument. Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy were used to evaluate the strength of the relationships among the items for the ECTPS. Principal axis factor analysis was employed. Multiple criteria were considered to determine the number of factors to retain. Initially, factors were selected based on eigenvalues greater than one and an inspection of the scree plot (Williams et al., 2010). In instances where these criteria diverged, the final decision was guided by the scree plot alongside the conceptual interpretability of the factor structure. Specifically, solutions were retained based on their theoretical coherence and the meaningful grouping of items, consistent with best practices in EFA.
The oblique rotation method used was direct oblimin rotation because factors were expected to be linked. For evaluating the factor loadings, the rotated factor matrices were examined. Items with factor loadings of ≤0.30 were considered to be “low loading” items and dropped. All items were positively worded, and no reverse coding was applied prior to analysis. Negative factor loadings observed in the results reflect the directionality of the factor solution rather than reverse item wording. The internal consistency for each retained factor was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients.
To address the third research question (RQ3), descriptive statistics were calculated to explore parents’ and educators’ views regarding transition practices. Data normality was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test for the three dependent variables examined in RQ4: child-centred practices during transition, parent-centred practices before transition, and parent-centred practices during transition. Results indicated statistically significant departures from normality for all three variables (all p < 0.05; Table 2). Consequently, non-parametric tests were employed. To address the fourth research question (RQ4), a Mann–Whitney U test was used to examine differences in educators’ perceptions of the ECTPS–Educator Form based on their professional characteristics—specifically, whether they had participated in training related to ECTP. Effect sizes were interpreted according to Cohen’s (1988) guidelines.

4. Results

4.1. Factor Structure and Reliability of Early Childhood Transition Practices Scale (ECTPS)-Parent Form (RQ1)

Parallel exploratory factor analysis (EFAs) was carried out to determine the number of factors in the initial 25 items of the ECTPS-Parent form. Results showed that 10 items were excluded because they did not have a salient factor loading (factor loading greater than 0.30) or they loaded to more than one factor almost equally. An example of the excluded items is “The educator suggested book titles related to the transition”. After examining the possible solutions as provided by the exploratory analysis, the eigenvalue greater than 1.0 indicated that two factors should be retained (ΚΜO = 0.905, χ2 = 1659.270, df = 105, p < 0.001), whereas the scree-plot indicated a two-factor solution, and it was considered the most appropriate one. The two-factor model explained 47.92% of the variance.
The first factor included 10 items, such as “The educator sent you a message (letter, email, phone call) to discuss your child”, “The educator held an open day at the daycare center with family, children, and educators”, so it was labeled as the Parent-centered transition practices before and during transition dimension. All items yielded significant loadings, ranging from 0.810 to 0.480.
The second factor included 5 items, such as “The educator demonstrated behavior that suited the child (either decisive or flexible, depending on the child’s needs)”, “The educator welcomed the child with gentle speech, hugs, caresses, and positive interaction”, so it was labeled as Child-centered practices during transition. The items yielded significant loadings, ranging from −0.889 to −0.500. The negative loadings reflect the mathematical directionality of the factor solution rather than reversed item wording. Since all items were positively phrased, these loadings do not alter the conceptual interpretation of the factor structure.
Table 3 presents the factor solution for the ECTPS-Parent form. The descriptive statistics, reliability, and the intercorrelation matrix are presented in Table 4.

4.2. Factor Structure and Reliability of Early Childhood Transition Practices Scale (ECTPS)–Educator Form (RQ2)

As in the ECTPS-Parent Form, parallel exploratory factor analyses were carried out to determine the number of factors in the initial 23 items of the ECTPS–Educator Form. Results showed that 7 items were excluded because they did not have a salient factor loading (factor loading greater than 0.30) or they loaded to more than one factor almost equally (above 0.30). One of the excluded items was “You suggested book titles related to the transition”. After examining the possible solutions as provided by the exploratory analysis, the eigenvalue greater than 1.0 indicated that three factors should be retained (ΚΜO = 0.882, χ2 = 1754,924, df = 120, p < 0.001), as well as the scree-plot. The three-factor model explained 42.95% of the variance.
The first factor included eight items such as “You distracted the child from the transition with various practices, e.g., friendly talk, changing the setting, or engaging the child in favorite activities (singing, playing, reading)”, so it was labeled as Child-centered practices during transition. The eight items yielded significant loadings, ranging from 0.794 to 0.415.
The second factor included four items, such as “You organized meetings with specialists to inform families and daycare center staff about the transition,” so it was labeled as Parent-centered practices before transition. The four items yielded significant loadings, ranging from 0.665 to 0.551.
The third factor contained four items, such as “You encouraged families to actively participate in the transition process”, so it was labeled as Parent-centered practices during transition. These four items displayed statistically significant loadings, ranging from −0.749 to −0.428. The negative loadings reflect the mathematical directionality of the factor solution rather than reversed item wording. Since all items were positively phrased, these loadings do not alter the conceptual interpretation of the factor structure.
Table 5 presents the factor solution for the ECTPS–Educator Form. The descriptive statistics, reliability, and the intercorrelation matrix are presented in Table 6.

4.3. Parents’ and Educators’ Views of Early Childhood Transition Practices (RQ3)

Results revealed that parents perceived a high level of support for children during the transition (Mean = 3.17); however, parent-centered practices, both before and during the transition, received lower evaluations (Mean = 2.22). From the educators’ perspective, practices centered on the child during the transition received the highest ratings (Mean = 3.56), followed by those addressing the parent during the transition period (Mean = 3.39). Conversely, practices directed toward the parent before the transition were reported as the least frequently implemented (Mean = 1.82).

4.4. Differences in Educators’ Transition Practices Based on Whether They Have Received Professional Development Related to Early Childhood Transitions (RQ4)

The data indicated that educators who participated in transition-related professional development implemented child-centered practices during the transition to a greater extent (U = 10364.000, z = −2.63, p = 0.009, η2 = 0.02). Additionally, educators who participated in transition-related professional development implemented parent-centered practices, both before (U = 7860.500, z = −5.611, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.094) and during (U = 9979.500, z = −3.107, p = 0.002, η2 = 0.028) the transition, at a significantly higher rate than their untrained peers (Table 7). Effect sizes ranged from small (η2 = 0.02) to moderate (η2 = 0.094). According to Cohen’s (1988) guidelines, η2 values of 0.01, 0.06 and 0.14 represent small, medium, and large effects, respectively. Thus, the observed effects are interpreted as predominantly small to moderate in terms of practical significance.

5. Discussion

5.1. Psychometric Properties of the Early Childhood Transition Practices Scale (ECTPS) (RQ1 & RQ2)

The present study aimed to examine the psychometric properties of the Early Childhood Transition Practices Scale (ECTPS), a newly developed instrument designed to capture parents’ and educators’ views of early childhood transition practices. Using data from a national Greek sample of parents and educators, this study is the first to provide empirical evidence regarding the factor structure and reliability of ECTPS scores. The identified structures and patterns of transition practices align with prior research emphasizing the central role of child- and family-focused approaches (Cook & Coley, 2021; Pianta & Cox, 1999). However, the distinct patterns of emphasis observed across the two forms extend the existing literature, offering a more nuanced, multi-informant perspective on how transition practices are conceptualized and experienced in practice.

5.1.1. ECTPS-Parent Form

Exploratory factor analysis of the ECTPS–Parent Form supported a two-factor structure comprising Parent-Centered Practices Before and During Transition and Child-Centered Practices During Transition. The Parent-Centered Practices Before and During Transition encompassed a broad range of practices, including the provision of information, communication with families, organization of meetings with parents and specialists, open-day and orientation activities, preparation of the welcoming environment, collaboration in transition planning, and encouragement of positive parent–child communication about the transition to early childhood education and care. Notably, practices originally conceptualized as occurring either before or during the transition converged into a single factor. This finding suggests that parents tend to perceive the transition process as a continuous and holistic experience, rather than as a sequence of discrete temporal phases. These findings are consistent with previous research suggesting that transition is a continuous process (Rutanen & Hännikäinen, 2017). The inclusion of the item referring to suggested home-based activities, “Educator discussed with you and suggested activities you could continue at home”, within the parent-centered factor further supports this interpretation. Although initially intended to reflect child-centered support, parents may primarily experience such practices as guidance directed toward themselves, highlighting how parental views of transition practices are shaped by the relational and communicative aspects of parent-educator interactions. The emphasis on communication, guidance, and relational support aligns with previous research highlighting the critical role of parent–educator collaboration in mitigating parental stress (Puccioni et al., 2020).
The second factor, Child-Centered Practices During Transition, captured direct practices aimed at supporting children’s emotional security and adjustment, including personal welcoming routines, gentle and positive interactions, adaptation of educator behavior to individual child needs, gradual increases in attendance time, and the use of activities to reduce separation-related distress. The internal consistency of both factors was satisfactory, supporting the reliability of the ECTPS–Parent Form.

5.1.2. ECTPS–Educator Form

In contrast to the parent form, EFA of the ECTPS–Educator Form yielded a three-factor structure: Child-Centered Practices During Transition, Parent-Centered Practices Before Transition, and Parent-Centered Practices During Transition. This more differentiated structure suggests that educators conceptualize transition practices in a more temporally segmented and role-specific manner, consistent with their professional responsibilities and systematic engagement in transition planning.
The Child-Centered Practices During Transition factor included practices focused on creating a safe, predictable, and emotionally supportive environment for children, combining care, social facilitation, and individualized attention. One item originally intended to capture parent-centered practices loaded on this factor, likely reflecting educators’ perception of the practice as primarily facilitating the child’s adjustment rather than family engagement per se.
The two parent-centered factors distinguished between preparatory practices implemented prior to children’s entry (e.g., informational meetings) and collaborative practices enacted during the transition period (e.g., ongoing communication and parental guidance). The distinction between pre-transition and during-transition practices aligns with theoretical frameworks that conceptualize transitions not as isolated events, but as dynamic, longitudinal processes (Klasnić et al., 2022). The relocation of the item encouraging active family participation (“Encouraged the family to actively participate in the transition process”) to the during-transition factor suggests that educators view such engagement as occurring mainly once the transition process is actively underway. Reliability estimates for the educator form ranged from acceptable to satisfactory, which is considered appropriate for a newly developed multidimensional instrument.

5.1.3. Comparison of Parent and Educator Forms

Although the two forms differed in the number and organization of factors, both reflected shared conceptual domains, namely child-focused practices and parent-focused practices. This highlights the central role of both child and family in early childhood transitions, reflecting the shared and relational nature of transition processes among children, families, educators, and community (Rimm-Kaufman & Pianta, 2000). This convergence should be interpreted at the conceptual level rather than as evidence of agreement between informants, as parent and educator data were derived from independent samples rather than matched dyads.
Differences in factor structure between parents and educators highlight distinct group-level patterns in how transition practices are conceptualised. Parents tended to experience parent-focused practices as a unified and continuous process, whereas educators differentiated these into temporally distinct phases. These differences reflect comparisons between two independent cohorts and should not be interpreted as evidence of perceptual convergence or divergence between specific parent–educator pairs.
Importantly, as this study did not include matched parent–educator dyads, the comparative results reflect broad group-level patterns rather than direct agreement or disagreement on specific transition events. Because the samples were independent, the data should be viewed as a cross-sectional comparison of two distinct cohorts. Future studies incorporating dyadic designs would offer deeper insight into how individual parent and educator perspectives converge or diverge.

5.2. Parents’ and Educators’ Views of Transition Practices (RQ3)

Descriptive findings revealed a consistent pattern across informant groups. Parents reported relatively high levels of child-centered practices during the transition, while rating parent-centered practices before and during the transition at a moderate level. This suggests that, from the parental perspective, educators place stronger emphasis on supporting children’s immediate adjustment than on systematic collaboration with families. This pattern stands in contrast to conceptualizations of early childhood transition as a shared process that begins before children’s formal entry into Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) settings and extends beyond the point of entry (Rutanen & Hännikäinen, 2017). The limited implementation of parent-centered practices prior to enrollment may help explain why parents often experience heightened stress during transition periods (Wildenger & McIntyre, 2011).
Educators’ self-reports mirrored this pattern. Child-centered practices during transition were reported as highly implemented, whereas parent-centered practices prior to the transition received the lowest ratings. In contrast, parent-centered practices during the transition were rated highly, indicating that family engagement tends to intensify once children have already entered the preschool setting. Collectively, these findings suggest that transition practices are reactive rather than proactive, with greater attention devoted to child adjustment and family involvement after the transition has begun. This aligns with the findings from the Early et al. (2001) study who found that the most commonly used practices were those that take place after the beginning of the school year.
It should be noted that direct correspondence between parent and educator views could not be examined due to the absence of matched dyads. Future research employing matched parent–educator samples would allow for a more precise examination of perceptual alignment and potential discrepancies.

5.3. Professional Development About Transition and Transition Practices (RQ4)

The study further examined whether educators’ transition practices differed based on participation in professional development related to early childhood transitions. Results indicated that educators who had received transition-related training reported significantly higher implementation of both child-centered and parent-centered practices, with effect sizes ranging from small to moderate. These findings underscore the importance of targeted professional development in supporting effective transition practices. Educators who engage in relevant training may be better equipped to implement structured, developmentally appropriate strategies that address both children’s emotional needs and families’ informational and collaborative needs. The findings align with existing literature emphasizing the role of professional learning of educators in implementing transition practices during critical educational transitions (Early et al., 2001; Rous et al., 2010).

6. Implications

The findings of this study offer significant implications for both research and practice within Greek Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC). As this study was conducted exclusively in Greece—where institutional structures and cultural expectations may be distinct—caution is warranted when generalizing these results internationally. Consequently, the Early Childhood Transition Practices Scale (ECTPS) should be viewed as a contextually grounded instrument requiring further validation across diverse cultural and policy environments before its broader application can be assumed.
From a research perspective, the ECTPS serves as a promising tool for assessing the multidimensionality of transition practices. However, future research should prioritize cross-cultural validation, specifically testing for measurement invariance to determine if the factor structure remains stable across different sociocultural contexts. Furthermore, employing matched parent–educator dyads in subsequent studies would enhance the instrument’s utility by enabling a direct examination of perceptual convergence and divergence.
Regarding policy and practice, these results highlight the need for more structured and proactive transition planning. The identified gap in pre-transition, parent-centered practices underscores the importance of formalizing pre-enrollment strategies. Such initiatives might include institutional transition plans, scheduled orientation meetings, home visits, and the distribution of standardized informational materials. At the policy level, these findings advocate for ECEC standards that formally integrate transition practices, emphasizing early family engagement. Finally, the link between professional development and practice implementation underscores the necessity of targeted educator training to enhance the quality of transition experiences for children and families.

7. Limitations and Future Directions

Several limitations should be acknowledged. The reliance on self-report measures may introduce social desirability bias. Additionally, the study was conducted within the Greek early childhood education context, which may constrain generalizability to other cultural or policy environments. The cross-sectional design precludes conclusions regarding causal relationships. Future research should employ longitudinal and mixed-methods designs and extend validation efforts to diverse cultural contexts. Observational methods could further complement self-report data and enhance understanding of how transition practices are enacted in everyday educational settings.
An additional limitation concerns the composition of the parent sample, which was heavily skewed toward mothers; fathers represented only a small proportion of participants. While this imbalance aligns with participation patterns common in early childhood research, it may limit the generalizability of the findings—specifically regarding paternal perspectives on transition practices. Future studies should strive for more balanced parental representation to capture a more comprehensive range of family experiences.
Furthermore, the absence of matched parent–educator dyads remains a limitation. Although the ECTPS utilizes parallel forms for both groups, the data were collected from independent samples. This precluded the examination of perceptual congruence or discrepancy between parents and educators within the same educational context or regarding the same child. Future research should employ dyadic designs to facilitate direct comparisons and further validate the instrument as a robust multi-informant measure.

8. Conclusions

This study provides compelling preliminary evidence validating the reliability and internal structure of the Early Childhood Transition Practices Scale (ECTPS). The findings underscore the multidimensionality of early childhood transitions and demonstrate that professional development is a critical catalyst for fostering effective child- and parent-centered practices. By providing a robust framework for multi-informant assessment, the ECTPS represents a significant advancement for researchers, educators, and policymakers aiming to optimize the transition experience. Nevertheless, extensive cross-cultural validation remains essential before the ECTPS can be established as a universally applicable instrument.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.T.-E.; methodology, E.T.; validation, T.M.; formal analysis, T.M.; investigation, E.Z.; data curation, T.M.; writing—original draft preparation, T.M., M.T.-E., E.T., E.Z.; writing—review and editing, T.M. & M.T.-E.; project administration, E.Z. & T.M.; funding acquisition, M.T.-E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Research Committee (Special Account for Research Funds) of the International Hellenic University, grant number 81701. The APC was funded by the Research Committee (Special Account for Research Funds) of the International Hellenic University.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of the International Hellenic University (protocol code 4/29.9.2021; date of approval: 9 January 2023).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are not publicly available as they contain information that could compromise research participants privacy and consent.

Acknowledgments

The first author used the Sci Space (Basic User) for tracking references and Chat GPT (version 5.5) for language editing for the Introduction and Discussion sections. The authors have reviewed and edited the output and take full responsibility for the content of this publication.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
ECECEarly Childhood Education and Care
ECTPSEarly Childhood Transition Practices Scale
EFAExploratory Factor Analysis

References

  1. Ahnert, L., Eckstein-Madry, T., Datler, W., Deichmann, F., & Piskernik, B. (2023). Stress during transition from home to public childcare. Applied Developmental Science, 27(4), 320–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  2. Ahnert, L., Pinquart, M., & Lamb, M. E. (2006). Security of children’s relationships with nonparental care providers: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 77(3), 664–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  3. Andersson Søe, M., Schad, E., & Psouni, E. (2023). Transition to preschool: Paving the way for preschool teacher and family relationship-building. Child and Youth Care Forum, 52(6), 1249–1271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  4. Aspden, K., McLaughlin, T., & Clarke, L. (2021). Specialized pedagogical approaches to enhance quality for infants and toddlers in ECE: Some thoughts from Aotearoa New Zealand. In Quality improvement in early childhood education: International perspectives on enhancing learning outcomes (pp. 1–19). Springer International Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bell, E., & Bryman, A. (2007). The ethics of management research: An exploratory content analysis. British Journal of Management, 18(1), 63–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  6. Berry, D., Blair, C., & Granger, D. (2016). Child care and cortisol across infancy and toddlerhood: Poverty, peers, and developmental timing. Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Science, 65(1), 51–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  7. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss, vol. 1. Attachment. Basic Books. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22(6), 723–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power and analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
  10. Cook, K. D., & Coley, R. L. (2021). Using multiple methods to describe supports for the transition from head start to kindergarten. Early Childhood Education Journal, 49, 425–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  11. Cutler, L., & Slicker, G. (2020). Picture book portrayals of the transition to kindergarten: Who is responsible? Early Childhood Education Journal, 48(6), 793–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  12. Dockett, S., & Perry, B. (2007). Starting school: Effective transitions. Early Childhood Australia. [Google Scholar]
  13. Dockett, S., Perry, B., & Davies, J. (2016). Contexts of influence: Australian approaches to early years curriculum. In N. Ballam, B. Perry, & A. Garpelin (Eds.), Pedagogies of educational transitions: European and antipodean research (pp. 183–202). Springer. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  14. Early, D. M., Pianta, R. C., Taylor, L. C., & Cox, M. J. (2001). Transition practices: Findings from a national survey of kindergarten teachers. Early Childhood Education Journal, 28(4), 199–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  15. Evangelou, M., Sylva, K., Kyriacou, M., Wild, M., & Glenny, G. (2009). Early years learning and development literature review. Department for Children, Schools and Families. [Google Scholar]
  16. Evangelou, M., Taggart, B., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E. C., Sammons, P., & Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2008). What makes a successful transition from primary to secondary school? Department for Children, Schools and Families. [Google Scholar]
  17. Garpelin, A. (2014). Transition to school: A rite of passage in life. In B. Perry, S. Dockett, & A. Petriwskyj (Eds.), Transitions to school—International research, policy and practice (pp. 117–128). Springer. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  18. Gath, M. E., Herold, L., Hunkin, E., McNair, L. J., Redder, B., Rutanen, N., & White, E. J. (2024). Infants’ emotional and social experiences during and after the transition to early childhood education and care. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 22(1), 88–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  19. Kang, J., Horn, E. M., & Palmer, S. (2017). Influences of family involvement in kindergarten transition activities on children’s early school adjustment. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45, 789–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  20. Klasnić, I., Đuranović, M., & Vragović, A. (2022). A critical incidents analysis—Children’s school readiness. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 17(6), 2061–2075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  21. Lee, J. D., Terol, A. K., Yoon, C. D., & Meadan, H. (2024). Parent-to-parent support among parents of children with autism: A review of the literature. Autism, 28(2), 263–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  22. LoCasale-Crouch, J., Mashburn, A. J., Downer, J. T., & Pianta, R. C. (2008). Pre-kindergarten teachers’ use of transition practices and children’s social and academic outcomes. Early Education and Development, 19(1), 124–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  23. McDermott, M. (2016). The key person approach: Positive relationships with children in the early years. Barnardos. [Google Scholar]
  24. McIntyre, L. L., Eckert, T. L., Fiese, B. H., DiGennaro, F. D., & Wildenger, L. K. (2007). Transition to kindergarten: Family experiences and involvement. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35(1), 83–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  25. National Center for Early Development and Learning. (1996). Transitions practices survey. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. [Google Scholar]
  26. Phillips, E. C., & Sturm, B. W. (2013). Do picture books about starting kindergarten portray the kindergarten experience in developmentally appropriate ways? Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(6), 465–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  27. Pianta, R. C., & Cox, M. J. (1999). The transition to kindergarten. Brookes Publishing Co. [Google Scholar]
  28. Pianta, R. C., & Kraft-Sayre, M. (2003). Successful kindergarten transition: Your guide to connecting families, schools, & communities. Brookes Publishing Co. [Google Scholar]
  29. Postma, A., Ketelaar, M., van Nispen tot Sevenaer, J., Downs, Z., van Rappard, D., Jongmans, M., & Zinkstok, J. (2024). Exploring individual parent-to-parent support interventions for parents caring for children with brain-based developmental disabilities: A scoping review. Child: Care, Health and Development, 50(3), e13255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  30. Puccioni, J., Froiland, J. M., & Moeyaert, M. (2020). Preschool teachers’ transition practices and parents’ perceptions as predictors of involvement and children’s school readiness. Children and Youth Services Review, 109, 104742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  31. Raittila, R., Vuorisalo, M., & Rutanen, N. (2024). Constructing the space of transition within the early childhood education and care pedagogical environment: A child’s resources and positions. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 26(3), 412–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  32. Revilla, Y. L., Rutanen, N., Harju, K., Sevón, E., & Raittila, R. (2022). Relational approach to infant–teacher lap interactions during the transition from home to early childhood education and care. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research, 11(1), 253–271. [Google Scholar]
  33. 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(5), 491–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  34. Rous, B., Hallam, R., McCormick, K., & Cox, M. (2010). Practices that support the transition to public preschool programs: Results from a National Survey. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25(1), 17–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  35. Rutanen, N., & Hännikäinen, Μ. (2017). Care, upbringing and teaching in ‘horizontal’ transitions in toddler day-care groups. In E. J. White, & C. Dalli (Eds.), Under-three year olds in policy and practice (pp. 57–72). Springer. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  36. Singer, E. (2017). Emotional security and play engagement of young children in Dutch child centres: A story of explorative research, experiments and educators testing hypotheses. In L. Li, G. Quiñones, & A. Ridgway (Eds.), Studying babies and toddlers: Relationships in cultural contexts (pp. 207–223). Springer. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  37. Ukkonen-Mikkola, K. A. T. (2018). Käsiteanalyysistä varhaiskasvatuksenpedagogiikan määrittelyyn [Concept analysis of the definition of early childhood education and care pedagogy]. Kasvatus, 49(1), 75–81. [Google Scholar]
  38. Vorkapić, S. T. (2019, March 11–13). Children’s well-being during transition periods in Croatia: The proposal of empirical validation of Ecological-dynamic model. INTED2019 Proceedings, 13th International Technology, Education and Development Conference, Valencia, Spain. [Google Scholar]
  39. Vuorisalo, M., Peltoperä, K., & Lucas Revilla, Y. (2025). Pedagogical practices for the infant-toddler’s first day of transition from home care to early childhood education and care. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 34(2), 227–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  40. Waters, H. S., & Waters, E. (2015). Attachment, security, and the development of the self. In L. A. Sroufe, & R. Thompson (Eds.), Attachment theory: Progress and future directions (pp. 247–267). Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  41. Welchons, L. W., & McIntyre, L. L. (2017). The transition to kindergarten: Predicting socio-behavioral outcomes for children with and without disabilities. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45, 83–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  42. White, E. J., Marwick, H., Rutanen, N., Amorim, K. S., & Herold, L. K. M. (Eds.). (2022a). First transitions to early childhood education and care: Intercultural dialogues across the globe. Springer. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  43. White, E. J., McNair, L., Redder, B., da Costa, N. M. S., Amorim, K. S., Harju, K., Westbrook, F., Herold, L. K. M., Revilla, Y. L., & Marwick, H. (2022b). Enacted pedagogies in first transitions. In E. J. White, H. Marwick, N. Rutanen, K. S. Amorim, & L. K. M. Herold (Eds.), First transitions to early childhood education and care: Intercultural dialogues across the globe (pp. 109–135). Springer. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. White, E. J., Rutanen, N., Marwick, H., Amorim, K. S., Karagiannidou, E., & Herold, L. K. M. (2020). Expectations and emotions concerning infant transitions to ECEC: International dialogues with parents and teachers. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 28(3), 363–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  45. White, E. J., Westbrook, F., Hawkes, K., Lord, W., & Redder, B. (2023). (In)visible perceptions of objects (‘things’) during early transitions: Intertwining subjectivities in ECEC. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 24(4), 376–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  46. Wildenger, L. K., & McIntyre, L. L. (2011). Family concerns and involvement during kindergarten transition. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 20(4), 387–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  47. Williams, B., Onsman, A., & Brown, T. (2010). Exploratory factor analysis: A five-step guide for novices. Australasian Journal of Paramedicine, 8, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  48. Woods, A., Mannion, A., & Garrity, S. (2022). Implementing aistear–the early childhood curriculum framework across varied settings: Experiences of early years educators and infant primary school teachers in the irish context. Child Care in Practice, 28(4), 671–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  49. Zulauf-McCurdy, C. A., & Loomis, A. M. (2023). Parent and teacher perceptions of the parent–teacher relationship and child self-regulation in preschool: Variations by child race. Early Childhood Education Journal, 51(4), 765–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of parents and educators participating in the study.
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of parents and educators participating in the study.
Background VariablesParents
(n = 242)		Educators
(n = 333)
Gender n (%) female218 (90.1%)331 (99.4%)
n (%) male24 (9.9%)2 (0.6%)
Age (years)20–253 (1.2%)2 (0.6%)
26–3024 (9.9%)13 (3.9%)
31–3577 (31.8%)35 (10.5%)
36–4080 (33.1%)35 (10.5%)
41+58 (24.0%)248 (74.5%)
ECEC setting Public —290 (87.1%)
Private—43 (12.9%)
Training on transitionYes—115 (34.5%)
No—218 (65.5%)
Table 2. Shapiro–Wilk Tests of Normality for Educator Dependent Variables.
Table 2. Shapiro–Wilk Tests of Normality for Educator Dependent Variables.
VariableWdfp-Value
F1. Child-centered practices during transition0.887333<0.001
F2. Parent-centered practices before transition0.966333<0.001
F3. Parent-centered practices during transition0.897333<0.001
Note. W = Shapiro–Wilk statistic.
Table 3. ECTPS-Parent Form items loadings for the EFA and item descriptive statistics
Table 3. ECTPS-Parent Form items loadings for the EFA and item descriptive statistics
ItemsF1F2MeanSD
The educator
9. Encouraged the family to actively participate in the transition process0.810 2.441.326
8. Organized meetings with specialists to inform the family about the transition0.715 1.861.529
3. Provided you with informational material about the transition process0.708 2.501.391
1. Sent you a message (letter, email, phone call) to discuss your child0.650 2.141.438
6. Organized family meetings with other parents to get to know each other0.600 1.451.443
24. Discussed with you and suggested activities that you could continue at home to support your child’s transition0.597 2.121.354
12. Properly arranged the reception area to facilitate your arrival0.589 2.561.281
11. Collaborated with you to organize the transition plan0.578 2.451.326
7. Held an open day at the daycare center with family, children, and educators0.552 2.121.571
17. Encouraged you to speak positively to your child about the daycare center and the transition process0.480 2.461.339
22. Demonstrated behavior that suited the child (either decisive or flexible, depending on the child’s needs) −0.8893.130.959
21. Distracted the child from the separation/transition by, for example, engaging in friendly talk, changing the setting, or suggesting favorite activities (e.g., singing, playing, reading a book) −0.8483.200.935
20. Welcomed the child with gentle speech, hugs, caresses, and positive interaction −0.7773.390.772
18. Gradually increased the child’s time spent at the daycare center −0.5313.350.817
19. The child was welcomed in person every day by the same educator −0.5002.791.255
Percentage of explained variance (%)39.468%8.452%
Note: F1 = Parent-centered transition practices before and during transition. F2 = Child-centered practices during transition.
Table 4. Descriptive statistics, internal consistency and intercorrelations of the factors-ECTPS-Parent Form.
Table 4. Descriptive statistics, internal consistency and intercorrelations of the factors-ECTPS-Parent Form.
MmMeanSDαF1F2
F1. Parent-centered transition practices before and during transition402.220.980.878-
F2. Child-centered practices during transition40.603.170.740.8280.555 **-
Ν = 242
Note. ** p < 0.01. M = Maximum. m = Minimum.
Table 5. ECTPS–Educator Form items loadings for the EFA and item descriptive statistics.
Table 5. ECTPS–Educator Form items loadings for the EFA and item descriptive statistics.
ItemsF1F2F3MeanSD
18. You welcomed the child with gentle speech, hugs, caresses, and positive interaction.0.794 3.750.465
17. You distracted the child from the transition with various practices, e.g., friendly talk, changing the setting, or engaging the child in favorite activities (singing, playing, reading).0.736 3.630.537
23. You created a pleasant and safe atmosphere with predictable routines.0.703 3.690.476
20. You gradually increased the child’s time at the daycare center.0.681 3.690.556
19. You demonstrated behavior appropriate to each child during separation from their parent (decisive or flexible, according to the child’s needs).0.668 3.640.512
22. You supported the child’s relationships with other children.0.523 3.530.573
21. You organized the participation of children in small groups from the first month0.428 3.120.954
16. You properly organized the reception area of the preschool to facilitate the transition.0.415 3.390.782
8. You organized meetings with specialists to inform families and daycare center staff about the transition. 0.665 1.481.482
4. You organized meetings for families to meet other parents. 0.610 1.471.434
5. You organized an open day at the daycare center with families, children, and educators. 0.575 2.091.537
3. You provided informational material about the transition process. 0.551 2.271.404
12. You demonstrated through your behavior within the family how important it is to work together. −0.7493.680.534
13. You informed parents about the child’s reactions and specificities, as well as the practices you applied. −0.6663.470.613
9. You encouraged families to actively participate in the transition process. −0.5153.110.911
14. You asked parents to speak positively to their child about the daycare center. −0.4283.340.925
Percentage of explained variance (%)29.187%10.083%3.689%
Note: F1 = Child-centered practices during transition. F2 = Parent-centered practices before transition. F3 = Parent-centered practices during transition.
Table 6. Descriptive statistics, internal consistency and intercorrelations of the factors–ECTPS–Educator Form.
Table 6. Descriptive statistics, internal consistency and intercorrelations of the factors–ECTPS–Educator Form.
MmMeanSDαF1F2F3
F1. Child-centered practices during transition41.753.560.420.824-
F2. Parent-centered practices before transition401.8210.7140.227 **-
F3. Parent-centered practices during transition413.390.540.6750.535 **0.356 **-
N = 333
Note. ** p < 0.01. M = Maximum. m = Minimum.
Table 7. Differences in Child- and Parent-Centered Transition Practices by Educators’ Training.
Table 7. Differences in Child- and Parent-Centered Transition Practices by Educators’ Training.
Educators’ Training
YesNo
ΔδUzpη2
F13.75 (n = 115)3.63 (n = 218)10,364.000−2.630.0090.02
F22.50 (n = 115)1.50 (n = 218) 7860.500 −5.6110.0010.094
F33.75 (n = 115)3.38 (n = 218)9979.500−3.1070.0020.028
Note. F1 = Child-centered practices during transition. F2 = Parent-centered practices before transition. F3 = Parent-centered practices during transition. δ = Median.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Margaritopoulou, T.; Tympa, E.; Zisopoulou, E.; Tsitiridou-Evangelou, M. Assessing Transition Practices from Home to Early Childhood Education and Care: Development and Validation of the Early Childhood Transition Practices Scale. Educ. Sci. 2026, 16, 770. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16050770

AMA Style

Margaritopoulou T, Tympa E, Zisopoulou E, Tsitiridou-Evangelou M. Assessing Transition Practices from Home to Early Childhood Education and Care: Development and Validation of the Early Childhood Transition Practices Scale. Education Sciences. 2026; 16(5):770. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16050770

Chicago/Turabian Style

Margaritopoulou, Theodora, Eleni Tympa, Eleni Zisopoulou, and Maria Tsitiridou-Evangelou. 2026. "Assessing Transition Practices from Home to Early Childhood Education and Care: Development and Validation of the Early Childhood Transition Practices Scale" Education Sciences 16, no. 5: 770. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16050770

APA Style

Margaritopoulou, T., Tympa, E., Zisopoulou, E., & Tsitiridou-Evangelou, M. (2026). Assessing Transition Practices from Home to Early Childhood Education and Care: Development and Validation of the Early Childhood Transition Practices Scale. Education Sciences, 16(5), 770. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16050770

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop