ethics

Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1862–1867

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Children and Youth Services Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth

The relationship among deficiency needs and growth needs: An empirical investigation of Maslow's theory

Amity Noltemeyer ⁎, Kevin Bush, Jon Patton, Doris Bergen Miami University, United States

⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: anoltemeyer@muohio.edu (A. Nolte

0190-7409/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.05.021

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history: Received 6 February 2012 Accepted 24 May 2012 Available online 1 June 2012

Keywords: Maslow Hierarchy of needs Achievement Health care Family

Maslow's (1954) influential theory suggests that children's ability to be motivated by “growth needs” (e.g., academic achievement) first requires satisfaction of “deficiency needs” (e.g., safety needs, love/belonging needs). Given the vast number of children experiencing deficiency needs, a better understanding of these rela- tionships can serve as a prerequisite for establishing conditions that maximize learning outcomes. In this study, we examined Maslow's model by testing the relationship between deficiency needs variables and growth needs variables. Our sample was comprised of 390 economically disadvantaged students attending more than 40 schools in a Midwestern state in the U.S. Deficiency needs were measured using factors derived from a parent survey and growth needs were measured using factors derived from a parent survey and results from an individually-administered norm-referenced achievement test. Regression analyses were conducted to deter- mine the relationship between a set of two deficiency needs variables (i.e., safety needs and love/belonging needs) and four academic achievement outcome variables. All four regression models were significant, revealing a positive relationship between deficiency needs and growth needs. The factor most significantly related to achievement outcomes was access to health and dental care (a safety need). Implications for research and prac- tice are discussed.

© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

An expansive body of literature has proposed a positive relation- ship between unmet basic needs (e.g., poverty) and detrimental aca- demic outcomes for children in schools. In fact, one influential theory (Maslow, 1954) suggests that children's ability to be motivated by “growth needs” (e.g., academic achievement) first requires satisfaction of “deficiency needs” (e.g., physiological needs, safety needs, and love/ belonging needs). Unfortunately, many children attending school in the United States experience a high level of one or more deficiency needs. For example, poverty, food insecurity, and parental unemploy- ment have all risen among United States school-age children in recent years (Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2010).

Concurrent with this increase in student deficiency needs that has the potential to interfere with learning, schools are being held responsi- ble for achieving increasingly high academic standards (see Zigler & Finn-Stevenson, 2007). For example, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) (2001) has required schools to demonstrate accountability for the outcomes of all students by making adequate yearly progress to- wards the goal of having all students proficient in reading and math by the 2013–2014 school year. Given the pressures schools are facing to ensure the academic competency of all students — coupled with an

meyer).

rights reserved.

increasing proportion of the student population faced with “deficiency needs” — it is important to better understand the relationship between deficiency needs and student academic outcomes. Such an understand- ing could inform prevention, intervention, and policy efforts. This study sought to provide preliminary findings on this issue using data collected as part of a large holistic case management program designed to help families meet deficiency needs.

2. Maslow's theory

Abraham Maslow is a preeminent 20th century psychologist whose most enduring contribution to the field was his “hierarchy of needs” the- ory. Maslow initially proposed that five basic needs — arranged in a hier- archy from lower-order to higher-order — are essential to optimal human existence. The lower-order needs, also called “deficiency needs,” include physiological, safety, and love/belonging needs. Higher-order needs, or growth needs, include esteem and self-actualization needs. School achievement is considered an esteem need that falls within this growth needs category. Maslow (1943) proposed that only when defi- ciency needs were sufficiently met could an individual gradually and fully progress to the achievement of growth needs:

It is quite true that man lives by bread alone — when there is no bread. But what happens to man's desires when there is plenty of bread and when his belly is chronically filled?At once other (and “higher”) needs emerge and these, rather than physiological hungers,

1863A. Noltemeyer et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1862–1867

dominate the organism. And when these in turn are satisfied, again new (and still “higher”) needs emerge and so on. This is what we mean by saying that the basic human needs are organized into a hierarchy of relative prepotency. (p. 375)

Maslow further postulated that although one level of need may take precedence at a particular time, it is possible for an individual to be motivated by multiple needs simultaneously. For example, a child experiencing low levels of belongingness may still be able to attend to esteem needs, though likely not as sufficiently as if belongingness needs were fully met. In addition, Maslow suggested that even after deficiency needs have been satisfied, they may again become motivating if threat- ened at a later point. For example, a parent who suddenly loses his job may find himself temporarily sacrificing growth needs (e.g., achievement or self-esteem) in order to devote cognitive and emotional resources to ensuring the satiation of deficiency needs (e.g., food security for her or his family). Only when an individual has satisfied deficiency and growth needs would Maslow suggest that he or she has reached an optimal level of functioning.

If it is valid, Maslow's theory would have implications for schools, since all children are expected to achieve academically regardless of the degree to which deficiency needs have been fulfilled. It is extremely popular as an explanatory theory, full of intuitive appeal. However, the research base supporting the theory has remained weak. In 1976, Wahba and Bridwell discussed its “uncritical acceptance” despite the lack of empirical evidence, and they reviewed 14 studies that found only partial acceptance of the hierarchical model. Subsequently, limited or conflicting empirical research has been conducted to verify the theory's validity (e.g., Michaels, 1988; Neher, 1991).

Despite the limited breadth of research on the topic and some find- ings to the contrary, there have been several investigations conducted across a variety of disciplines that provide limited evidence for portions of Maslow's theory. One early study indicated that respondents from different socioeconomic levels identified needs at different levels of the hierarchy, and that individuals from lower socioeconomic back- grounds were more concerned with deficiency needs while individuals from middle socioeconomic backgrounds were more concerned with growth needs (Gratton, 1980). However, the researchers did not find that a cluster analysis showed the concepts were unitary.

Using survey methodology, Acton and Malathum (2000) also docu- mented a relationship between the levels of Maslow's hierarchy. Specif- ically, they discovered that individuals with higher levels of physical, love/belonging, and self-actualization need satisfaction made better decisions regarding health-promoting and self-care behaviors. Studies on college-age populations have documented similar results. Lester, Hvezda, Sullivan, and Plourde (1983), for example, tested a measure of the degree of satisfaction of Maslow's proposed needs on a sample of 166 undergraduate college students. Consistent with Maslow's theo- ry, the researchers found that the level of basic needs satisfaction was related to psychological health.

When considering our specific topic of interest, we saw one limitation of these previous investigations was their focus on college or adult populations. We found only one study that had examined Maslow's the- ory in the context of children in schools. Smith, Gregory, and Pugh (1981) developed the Statements about Schools (SAS) inventory to assess how well students' needs were being met across four levels of Maslow's hier- archy (security, love/belonging, esteem, and self-actualization) in tradi- tional and alternative schools. The researchers found that both students attending alternative schools and their teachers reported greater levels of student need fulfillment related to friendship and belonging, achieve- ment, self-actualization, and personal growth. However, this study did not specifically examine the causal pathways between deficiency needs and academic achievement or whether achievement of lower- level needs was a prerequisite for achievement of higher-level needs.

Overall, the extant research base has focused more on the growth need outcomes of happiness and psychological adjustment rather

than on academic achievement. In addition, existing literature is out- dated and focuses much more heavily on adult rather than on child populations. Although not specifically focused on Maslow's theory (i.e., on the premise that lower-level needs must be fulfilled before higher-level needs), there has been research supporting the link be- tween deficiencies in basic needs (e.g., poverty) and risk for academic failure in school children. A sampling of this research helps to better de- fine and understand the scope of deficiency needs in American children today.

3. Deficiency needs in America's schools

As previously mentioned, children are increasingly entering school with unmet physiological needs. For example, almost 1 in 5 children lived in poverty in 2008, the highest rate since 1998, and this rate is even higher for Black and Hispanic children (FIFCFS, 2010). In addition, secure parental employment, at 75%, has reached its lowest levels since 1996 (FIFCFS, 2010). Perhaps not surprisingly considering these statistics, 22% of children live in homes with food insecurity (lack of access at all times to enough food), the highest percentage recorded since monitoring began in 1995 (FIFCFS, 2010). These figures are of concern, given that children living in poverty are at an increased risk for academic failure. For example, Smith, Brooks-Gunn, and Klebanov (1997) found that fam- ily poverty exerted significant effects on child cognitive abilities and aca- demic achievement, even after controlling for family structure. Although many explanations have been posed (for a review see Bhattacharya, 2010; West, 2007), some research has suggested that this effect of family poverty may be caused at least in part by less cognitively stimulating and emotionally supportive home environments (e.g., Eamon, 2002). Addi- tionally, findings that students attending high-poverty schools have lower achievement levels than those who attend low-poverty schools (see Orfield, Frakenberg, & Lee, 2002), suggest that school factors (e.g., fewer resources, lower expectations, less experienced staff) may also contribute to this phenomenon.

Love and belonging needs are also a concern for children in schools. In 2008, the rate of substantiated reports of child maltreatment was 10 per 1000 children through age 17 (FIFCFS, 2010). However, this issue goes far beyond overt maltreatment to also encompass effective parent- ing and general feelings of parent–child warmth, closeness, positive regard, and bonding. Research has indicated that above and beyond poverty and physiological needs, family characteristics can and do influ- ence child academic and cognitive development. Bean, Bush, McKenry, and Wilson (2003), for example, found that parental support positively predicted adolescents' academic achievement. Similarly, Anderson, Lindner, and Bejinion (1992) found that parent warmth, monitoring, support, involvement, and absence of conflict are consistently related to high levels of academic and social competence. The important role of parental emotional support in the development of child academic skills was also documented by Eamon (2002).

Safety is another type of deficiency need that can have an impact on child academic and cognitive competence. Although a variety of safety needs have the potential to influence achievement, one impor- tant safety need is access to quality health and dental care. This is a relevant issue in the United States, considering 7.5 million children (10% of all children) do not have health insurance, and uninsured children are less likely to access needed health care and dental ser- vices (FIFCFS, 2010). Although there has been limited research on the topic, some effects of health and dental care on academic achieve- ment have been documented. For example, Kitzman et al. (2010) con- ducted a randomized control trial in which they examined the effect of prenatal and infancy home visits by nurses to parents on their 12-year-old children's academic achievement. They found that the chil- dren of parents who had been visited by nurses, compared to a control group, scored higher on individually-administered reading and math achievement tests and scored higher on group-administered reading and math standardized tests during their first six years of school. Lack

1864 A. Noltemeyer et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1862–1867

of access to health care has been speculated to affect achievement in multiple ways. For example, it may result in increased absences from school, failure to address vision needs, the development of chronic ill- ness or disability, and difficulty concentrating due to illness or injury (see Coles, 2003).

It is clear that a sizeable proportion of the school-age population experiences one or more of the aforementioned deficiency needs. Two things missing are a clearer understanding of (1) how physiological needs, safety needs, and love/belonging needs relate to each other and to academic achievement, and (2) whether or not Maslow's hierarchy can be an explanatory factor that is empirically supported in a school-age sample.

One school-focused initiative that addresses issues related to Maslow's hierarchy has the potential to lead to further understanding of these issues: the Butler County Success Program (BCSP). BCSP was designed to assist students in grades K-6 (and their families) who qualify for Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF). The BCSP follows a holistic case management approach centered around 15 liaisons assigned to work in one or more of the 40 participating schools across 8 school districts (rural, suburban, and urban settings) in one county lo- cated in a state in the Midwestern part of the U.S., in order to assess and help families meet basic deficiency needs (e.g., parental involvement/ supervision, access to health care, childcare, healthy food, transporta- tion and service utilization, and financial services/resources).

Results of a recent evaluation study suggest that the BCSP has been effective at increasing children's positive outcomes (e.g., children's cognitive/academic and social competence), families' access to basic needs (e.g., healthy food, transportation, and medical care) and positive parenting and parental involvement in school (Bush & Bergen, 2011). Despite the importance of these findings, this study focused holistically on whether or not participating students experienced more positive ac- ademic outcomes when deficiency needs were addressed. Research has not yet examined the relationships between particular deficiency needs (e.g., physiological, safety, and love/belonging needs) and specific growth needs (e.g., academic and cognitive outcomes). Examination of this issue could have implications beyond the BCSP to serve as one piece of empir- ical evidence to support, refute, or further clarify Maslow's (1954) theory while concurrently suggesting which needs might have the most cost effective impact in terms of improving academic outcomes. The latter contribution potentially could serve as useful information for programs with limited resources trying to determine which needs to address with initial supportive efforts.

4. Purpose of the study

Maslow's (1954) influential theory suggests that children's ability to be motivated by growth needs (e.g., academic achievement) first re- quires satisfaction of deficiency needs (e.g., safety needs, love/belonging needs). Given the vast number of children experiencing deficiency needs, a better understanding of these relationships can serve as a pre- requisite for establishing conditions that maximize learning outcomes. In this study, we examined Maslow's model by testing the relationship between deficiency needs variables and growth needs variables. We were interested in learning more about the relationship between phys- iological needs, safety needs, love/belonging needs, and three academic student outcomes.

5. Methodology

5.1. Participants

Participants in the study included all students in the BCSP for whom data on each of the variables were collected during the 2009–2010 school year. This equated to 389 students in kindergarten through sixth grade attending 43 schools in one county of a Midwestern U.S. state. All

participants live in families qualifying for Temporary Aid to Needy Fami- lies (TANF) and would be considered economically disadvantaged.

5.2. Measures

5.2.1. Parent surveys The parent survey included 81 items answered using a 4-point Likert

scale response format (See Bush & Bergen, 2011, for more details). The response options for each item ranged from strongly agree (4 points) to strongly disagree (1 point). Survey items designed to assess a variety of basic physiological and safety needs were created by the research team for the purpose of evaluating the BCSP initiative. In addition to these items, parenting behavior was assessed with seven items from the Parenting Behavior Measure (Peterson, Rollins, & Thomas, 1985); fam- ily togetherness was assessed with two items derived from the Family Adaptation and Cohesion Scale (Olson, 2000); parental optimism was assessed with five items from the Life Orientation Test — Revised (LOT-R, Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994); and children's social, cognitive, reading and behavioral competence were assessed with a total of 17 items from Harter's (1982) Perceived Competence Scales.

5.2.2. Mini Battery of Achievement (MBA) The MBA (Woodcock, McGrew, & Werder, 1994) is an abbrevi-

ated version of the Woodcock–Johnson Tests of Achievement. It is an individually-administered assessment designed for individuals ages 4 through adult. The MBA screens in four areas: Reading, Writing, Mathe- matics, and Factual Knowledge. A Basic Skills combined standard score is derived from the first three of those areas. The test was normed with a 6026 randomly selected stratified subject sample from 100 diverse geo- graphic communities. It has demonstrated reliability and concurrent va- lidity with similar tests.

5.3. Procedures

All data were collected between September 2009 and February of 2010. Data were obtained for each student upon their referral to the BCSP. BCSP liaisons explained the opportunity to participate in the evaluation study to all eligible participants upon the first home visit. If the parent agreed, the informed consent process took place, and the pre-test surveys were administered either by the BCSP liaisons (90%) or a trained research assistant (10%).

The MBA was administered to the participating children in the school setting by either the BCSP liaison or the trained research assis- tant. After training on administering and scoring the instrument, the examiners were also provided feedback on their administration and scoring by an external, trained graduate assistant. Testing procedures were conducted in accordance with the protocol specified by the test designers.

5.4. Independent variables

An exploratory factor analysis was conducted using the items from the parent survey, in an effort to identify the latent constructs that un- derlie the observed variables (Leech, Barrett, & Morgan, 2008). Principal axis factor analysis with varimax rotation was conducted to assess the underlying structure for the items on the survey. In addition to the as- sumptions of normality, linearity, and independence, several additional assumptions of factor analysis were tested and found to be tenable. First, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure value of .774 was greater than the recommended .70, indicating sufficient items for each factor (Leech et al., 2008). Also, the Bartlett test was significant at b.001, indi- cating that the variables are correlated at a high enough level to provide a solid basis for using factor analysis (Leech et al., 2008).

The eigenvalues (>1.0) support that the items can be reduced to 16 factors. However, examination of the screen plot suggests that after the first two components, differences between the eigenvalues decline

Table 1 Items for each of the two predictor variables.

Factor name Items loading on the factor Love/belonging needs

29) I tell _______(insert child's name) how much I love him/her. 32.) I explain to _______(insert child's name) how good he/she should feel when he/she does what is right. 41) I enjoy doing things with _______(insert child's name). 42) I share many activities with _______(insert child's name). 44) I feel close to _______(insert child's name). 45) I know where _______(insert child's name) is after school. 46) I know where _______(insert child's name) is at all times during the day. 53) I make _______(insert child's name) feel that I will be there if he/she needs me. 54) I am satisfied being the parent of _______(insert child's name).

Safety needs 17) _______(insert child's name) can see a doctor easily when he/ she is sick. 19) I have either private or state medical insurance to provide for _______(insert child's name) health needs. 21) _______(insert child's name) receives poor dental care.a

64) _______(insert child's name) sees a dentist when he/she needs dental care. 66) I am able to get medical care for _______(insert child's name) at a medical clinic or hospital.

a Items were reverse coded.

1865A. Noltemeyer et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1862–1867

substantially (see Fig. 1). This finding, coupled with the fact that the first two factors corresponded to deficiency needs on Maslow's hierarchy, led us to focus only on them. These two factors, which together account for approximately 30.35% of the variance, were titled Safety Needs (“SAFETY”) and Love/Belonging Needs (“LOVE”). SAFETY represents only one of many safety needs. Specifically, this variable was the aver- age score from a five-item factor on the parent report scale that mea- sures access to health and dental care. The LOVE variable measures love, warmth, positive regard, and closeness between the parent and child. It represents the average score of the 11 items that comprise that factor. Reliabilities of these two scales were within an acceptable range (Chronbach's alpha=.70 for SAFETY and .93 for LOVE). See Table 1 for the items comprising each independent variable. The third factor, which assessed physiological needs (PHYSIO) was also considered for inclusion in the study. However, we decided not to use it given the substantial decline in eigenvalue coupled with the low mean value, low reliability (Chronbach's alpha=.66), and low correlation of the factor to other factors.

5.5. Dependent variables

There were four dependent variables investigated in this study, all of which are indicators of growth needs.

5.5.1. MBA reading score This variable, “MBAread” is a standard score from the previously

described MBA achievement test (Woodcock et al., 1994). The stan- dard score has a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of ten. The score assesses reading achievement.

5.5.2. MBA basic score This variable, “MBAbasic” is also a standard score from the MBA

achievement test (Woodcock et al., 1994). This score, which also has a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 10, is designed to assess a broad spectrum of academic skills such as reading, writing, and mathematics.

5.5.3. Harter scale cognitive This is a five-item factor (alpha coefficient of 0.57 within the cur-

rent data), referred to as “COG,” from the parent report Harter (1982). This factor assesses parent perceptions of their child's cognitive com- petence. See Table 2 for the items comprising this scale.

5.5.4. Harter scale reading This is a three-item factor (alpha coefficient of 0.67 within the current

data) from the parent report Harter (1982). Referred to as “READ,” this

Fig. 1. Scree plot.

factor assesses parent perceptions of their child's reading competence. See Table 2 for the items comprising this scale.

5.6. Analysis

After the factors were identified, the composite variable scale, corresponding to each factor of interest, was obtained by averaging the nonmissing values of the items making up that factor. Four regression analyses were conducted. The purpose of these analyses was to deter- mine the relationship between each of the four academic achievement outcome variables (i.e., MBAread, MBAbasic, COG, and READ) and the two deficiency needs variables (i.e., LOVE and SAFETY). Specifically, we wanted to know how well the combination of the deficiency needs vari- ables predicted each of the outcome variables. To this end, four separate models were analyzed. Each model used LOVE and SAFETY as predictor variables; however, Model 1 used READ as the outcome variable, Model 2 used MBAread as the outcome variable, Model 3 used MBAbasic as the outcome variable, and Model 4 used COG as the outcome variable.

Multicollinearity was not an issue that would be expected to impact the results of these analyses since the independent variables are factor scales. Even after varimax rotation, their original orthogonality between other factors would not be greatly compromised. However, as a check, we calculated the variance inflation factor (VIF) for each variable in each regression. VIF values were between 1.2 and 1.5. Because only

Table 2 Items on the COG and READ factors.

Factor Items loading on the factor

Parent-reported child cognitive abilities (COG)

15) _______(insert child's name) has trouble figuring out the answers in school 18) _______(insert child's name) has difficulty understanding what he/she reads.a

55) _______(insert child's name) is pretty slow at finishing his/her school work.a

57) _______(insert child's name) is very good at his/ her homework 59) _______(insert child's name) is just as smart as other kids his/her age.

Parent-reported child reading abilities (READ)

26) I believe that _______(insert child's name) reads at or above his/her grade level. 62) _______(insert child's name) needs a lot of help with reading. a

69) _______(insert child's name) reads poorly for his/ her grade level. a

a Items were reverse coded.

Table 4 Regression analysis summary for SAFETY and LOVE predicting READ.

Variable DF Parameter estimate Standard error t value Pr>t

Intercept 1 1.72 0.35 4.97 b.0001 LOVE 1 0.04 0.10 0.40 0.69 SAFETY 1 0.25 0.08 2.94 0.004

1866 A. Noltemeyer et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1862–1867

VIF values greater than 10 indicate that multicollinearity is severe enough to be a problem, we determined this was not a concern.

6. Results

See Table 3 for means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations for each of the variables. When analyzed with regression, Model 1 revealed that READ had a significant relationship with the predictor variables, F(2, 358)=6.26, pb .01. Specifically, parent-reported child reading abil- ities were significantly associated with SAFETY (see Table 4). Increases in health and safety need fulfillment were associated with increases in parent-reported child reading skills. The adjusted R squared value was .03, indicating that approximately 3% of the variance in READ was explained by the overall model.

Model 2 also revealed a significant relationship between COG and the predictors, F(2, 362)=11.41, pb.0001. In this model, however, the relationship was significant when considering both LOVE and SAFETY (see Table 5). Overall, the model explained approximately 5.41% of the variation in COG. Increases in LOVE and SAFETY need ful- fillment were associated with increases in parent-reported child cog- nitive competence.

In the third model, a significant relationship between the two de- ficiency needs and MBAbasic was also documented, F(2, 274)=7.28, pb.001. The overall model explained 4.35% of the variation in MBAbasic. This relationship was significant only when considering SAFETY (see Table 6). Increases in health and safety need fulfillment were associated with increases in performance on the MBA basic skills assessment.

Finally, a significant relationship between MBAread and the predic- tors also emerged, F(2, 274)=7.78, pb .001. However, this relationship was significant only when considering SAFETY (see Table 7). Higher health and safety need fulfillment was associated with higher perfor- mance on the MBA reading test. The overall model explained 4.68% of the variance in reading scores on the MBA test.

7. Discussion

7.1. Summary

This study provides some support for Maslow's assertion that growth needs such as academic progress may be positively related to improve- ments in deficiency needs such as safety and love/belonging. The signifi- cant positive relationships among these variables also indicates that programs such as the BCSP, which attempt to diminish deficiency needs of students, can have an indirect effect on their academic growth. This is consistent with the call from Zigler and Finn-Stevenson (2007) that to improve learning outcomes, “…we believe that educators must address not only cognition and academics, but other developmental pathways (e.g., physical and mental health, social–emotional behaviors) that strongly contribute to school performance (p. 175).”

Specifically, results indicated that access to health and dental care — a safety need — evidenced a consistently significant relationship with each of the four academic outcome variables. As access to health and dental care increased, higher levels of academic and cognitive perfor- mance were found on both parent-reports and direct skill assessments. It is possible that having access to health and dental care allows students

Table 3 Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations for children's reading/cognitive skills and

Variable N Mean Standard deviation 1

1. MBAbasic 291 92.02 17.49 – 2. MBAread 291 100.05 17.76 .9 3. COG 381 2.74 0.39 .1 4. READ 375 2.65 0.72 .2 5. HEALTH 381 3.17 0.51 .2 6. LOVE 365 3.54 0.40 .1

⁎pb .05, ⁎⁎pb.001.

to miss less instruction due to major medical or dental issues, since pre- vention and early intervention care can be provided to address issues before they become severe enough to warrant absence from school. Also, it is possible that students who do not have access to medical or dental care may have medical issues that could directly affect their ability to learn. For example, untreated vision and hearing problems can result in difficulties processing the input of learning. In addition, children with untreated allergies, asthma, Attention Deficit Disorder, and other condi- tions may have more difficulty attending to school instruction. These re- lationships are particularly concerning given the alarming proportion of children who do not have medical insurance coverage (FIFCFS, 2010).

Interestingly, love and belonging need fulfillment was less consis- tently related to the child academic outcomes. When considering the unique relationship of love and belonging needs with each outcome variable, only one significant relationship was found, and that was with parent-reported child cognitive abilities. Although it is interesting that more significant relationships were not found, it should be noted that this variable had the highest mean score and the lowest standard deviation of all of the factors. Consequently, it is possible that variations in outcomes were not found because there was no sufficient variation — or deficits — in the love and belonging needs variable itself.

7.2. Limitations

There are several limitations that should be considered when inter- preting these findings. First, and foremost, it is important to note that causal conclusions cannot be drawn. Although we would intuitively as- sume that lack of access to health and dental care would negatively im- pact academic performance, it is possible that the safety needs variable served as a proxy for some other construct. For example, it is possible that lack of health care access is an indicator of family stress or some un- known economic variable. This is unlikely, however, given non-significant correlations between the safety needs variable and the physiological needs variable, as well as between the safety needs variable and family cohesion.

A second limitation is that fidelity of data collection was not checked. Although the research assistants and liaisons were provided with high quality training, inter-rater agreement for administration and scoring was not conducted. Consequently, it is possible there could be some error in the scores. In addition, the reliability of the COG and READ scales was questionable, revealing the need to interpret these results with cau- tion as well as the need for further research on these constructs.

Finally, there were limitations with the sample that should be ac- knowledged. For example, all participants had economic needs and came from one region of the U.S. Consequently, the degree to which the results can be generalized to more heterogeneous samples is un- known. Although participants came from 43 different schools in one

parent-reported predictor variables.

2 3 4 5 6

1⁎⁎ – 2⁎ .13⁎ – 6⁎⁎ .27⁎⁎ .56⁎⁎ – 2⁎⁎ .22⁎⁎ .24⁎⁎ .20⁎⁎ – 3⁎ .15⁎ .20⁎⁎ .10 .46⁎⁎ –

Table 7 Regression analysis summary for SAFETY and LOVE predicting MBAread.

Variable DF Parameter estimate Standard error t value Pr>t

Intercept 1 64.85 9.83 7.00 b.0001 LOVE 1 1.61 3.21 0.50 0.62 SAFETY 1 7.94 2.65 3.00 0.003

Table 5 Regression analysis summary for SAFETY and LOVE predicting COG.

Variable DF Parameter estimate Standard error t value Pr>t

Intercept 1 1.94 .177 10.95 b.0001 LOVE 1 0.13 0.05 2.38 0.02 SAFETY 1 0.11 0.04 2.60 0.01

1867A. Noltemeyer et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1862–1867

county, including rural, urban and suburban settings, structural effects of schools were not considered (because of the relatively small sample sizes across the 43 settings). Also related to the sample, it is possible that the proportion of variability (r2) explained by each independent variable might be low because the sample was large and there was quite a bit of variability between people in the study.

7.3. Implications

These limitations inform several implications for research. For ex- ample, future research with more sophisticated analysis techniques (e.g., structural equation modeling) could be used to look more closely at the causal paths between variables. Although this study provides some support for Maslow's theory, this type of research could more pre- cisely examine the degree to which the fulfillment of deficiency needs is a prerequisite to the fulfillment of growth needs. Also, researchers could consider using a randomized control trial where the treatment group is given intervention on safety/health needs and the control group is not. After exploring the impact of the intervention on academic and cognitive outcomes, we would be more certain about the nature of the relationship and the potential for intervention to improve learning outcomes.

However, despite the study's limitations, several implications for practice also emerged. Although more research is clearly needed, it appears that there may be a relationship between deficiency needs and learning outcomes. Most notably, it seems wise to assume that efforts to improve health/safety needs and those to improve belonging- ness would have an impact on students' abilities to attend to — and profit from — instruction. There is already initial support for this notion (e.g., Kitzman et al., 2010). Schools are an ideal place to connect families with these services, given the fact that all families access schools in some way. Therefore, schools should consider intensifying their rela- tionships with various social service and medical agencies, and investi- gate how they may be able to partner and connect families with the services they need to promote children's well-being.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the director of the Butler County Success Program for her unwavering support of this evaluation study. We would also like to thank the Butler County Educational Service Center, Butler County Job and Family Services, schools and personnel in par- ticipating school districts for their support of and involvement in the Butler County Success Program and this evaluation. We are very grate- ful for the invaluable assistance of the school-community Liaisons and Miami University graduate and undergraduate students in collecting and coding data. Most importantly, we would like to thank all the chil-

Table 6 Regression analysis summary for SAFETY and LOVE predicting MBAbasic.

Variable DF Parameter estimate Standard error t value Pr>t

Intercept 1 64.57 9.66 6.68 b.0001 LOVE 1 0.36 3.15 0.12 0.91 SAFETY 1 8.12 2.59 3.13 0.002

dren, parents, and teachers for their time and participation in this eval- uation study.

References

Acton, G. J., & Malathum, P. (2000). Basic need status and health promoting self-care behavior in adults. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 22, 796–811.

Anderson, E. R., Lindner, M. S., & Bejinion, L. D. (1992). The effect of family relationships on adolescent development during family reorganization. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 57, 178–199.

Bean, R. A., Bush, K. R., McKenry, P. C., & Wilson, S. M. (2003). The impact of parental support, behavioral control, and psychological control on the academic achieve- ment and self-esteem of African American and European American adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 18, 523–541.

Bhattacharya, A. (2010). Children and adolescents from poverty and reading development: A research review. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 26, 115–139.

Bush, K., & Bergen, D. (2011). Evaluation of an holistic case management intervention program for low-income families of K-6 grade children: The Butler County Success Program (BCSP). International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 5.

Coles, A. (2003). Healthy students learn best. NEA Today, 21(5), 18–19 (February). Eamon, M. K. (2002). Effects of poverty on mathematics and reading achievement of

young adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 22, 49–74. Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics (2010). America's children in

brief: Key national indicators of well-being. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Print- ing Office.

Gratton, L. C. (1980). Analysis of Maslow's need hierarchy with three social class groups. Social Indicators Research, 7, 463–476, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00305612.

Harter, S. (1982). The Perceived Competence Scale for Children. Child Development, 53(1), 87–97, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.ep8587568.

Kitzman, H. J., Olds, D. L., Cole, R. E., Hanks, C. A., Anson, E. A., Arcoleo, K. J., et al. (2010). Enduring effects of prenatal and infancy home visiting by nurses on children: Follow-up of a randomized trial among children at age 12 years. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 164, 412–418.

Leech, N. L., Barrett, K. C., & Morgan, G. A. (2008). SPSS for intermediate statistics: Use and interpretation (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.

Lester, D., Hvezda, J., Sullivan, S., & Plourde, R. (1983). Maslow's hierarchy of needs and psychological health. The Journal of General Psychology, 109, 83–85.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370–396. Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Collins. Michaels, D. (1988). The myth of self-actualization. Journal of Humanistic Psychology,

28, 32–38. Neher, A. (1991). Maslow's theory of motivation: A critique. Journal of Humanistic Psychology,

31, 89–112. No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) (2001). Public Law Number 107–110. Olson, D. H. (2000). Circumplex model of marital and family systems. Journal of Family

Therapy, 22, 144–167. Orfield, G., Frakenberg, E. D., & Lee, C. (2002). The resurgence of school segregation.

Educational Leadership, 16–20 (December). Peterson, G. W., Rollins, B. C., & Thomas, D. L. (1985). Parental influence and adolescent

conformity: Compliance and internalization. Youth and Society, 16, 397–420. Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neu-

roticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A re-evaluation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1063–1078.

Smith, J. R., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Klebanov, P. K. (1997). Consequences of living in poverty for young children's cognitive and verbal ability and early school achievement. In G. J. Duncan, & J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), Consequences of growing up poor. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Smith, G. R., Gregory, T. B., & Pugh, R. C. (1981). Meeting student needs: Evidence for the superiority of alternative schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 62, 562–564.

Wahba, M. A., & Bridwell, L. G. (1976). Maslow reconsidered: A review of research on the need hierarchy theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15(2), 212–240.

West, D. (2007). Poverty and educational achievement: Why do children from low-income families tend to do less well at school? The Policy Press, 15, 283–297.

Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Werder, J. K. (1994). Woodcock–McGrew–Werder Mini-Battery of Achievement. Chicago, IL: Riverside Publishing.

Zigler, E., & Finn-Stevenson, M. (2007). From research to policy and practice: The school of the 21st century. The American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77(2), 175–181.