Printer Friendly

Examining a brief measure of parent involvement in children's education.

Over a number of years, researchers have found substantial evidence showing positive relations between parent involvement, child development, and positive academic outcomes (Coll et al., 2002; Jeynes, 2005; Voyandoff & Donnelly, 1999). Specifically, parent involvement has been associated with higher grade attainment, engagement in school, and increased on-time high school completion (Benzies & Mychasiuk, 2009). Research has also shown positive influences of parent involvement on children's academic outcomes as early as preschool (Campbell, Ramey, Pungello, Sparking & Miller-Johnson, 2002). This has sparked an increased interest by schools to get parents more involved in their children's education as early as possible (Michigan Department of Education, 2001; No Child Left Behind, 2004).

While there is general consensus among researchers and educators regarding the positive influence of parent involvement (Chen & Gregory, 2010; Fishel & Ramirez, 2005), there seems to be some ambiguity regarding the specific impact of parent involvement on specific outcomes for children. Some of the issues that contribute to this gap relate to the considerable variation in how parent involvement is operationally defined and measured (Jeynes, 2005; Chen & Gregory, 2010), making it difficult to generalize findings across studies. The variation in how parent involvement is defined and measured can impact the way schools understand parent involvement. Educators are highly encouraged to promote parent involvement by national policymakers such as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) (2004) and the U.S. Department of Education. While parent involvement is often encouraged by federal and local education agencies and policies, consensus regarding how parent involvement should be defined remains unclear.

Currently, schools are inundated with a number of tasks, and developing parent involvement policies and programs are among one of the many challenges schools are facing. Needless to say, school personnel are often pressed for time and need to be efficient with how they expend their energy and resources. Thus, the current study is a preliminary investigation of a brief parent involvement measure that could be used in schools, specifically focused on the measure's psychometric properties and relations with theoretically relevant constructs, such as familial factors and student achievement. Such a measure would be useful for schools in that it would allow for more efficient and theoretically accurate measurement of levels of parent involvement which could be used to inform the development and evaluation of programs designed to increase parents' involvement in their children's education.

Parent Involvement

Parent involvement has been examined in several different ways within various contexts (Jeynes, 2005; Coll et al., 2002). In a general sense, parents can be involved in their children's lives in many different ways, including involvement with extracurricular activities (Ortiz, 2004), and socio-emotional development (Burchinal, Roberts, Zeisel, Hennon, & Hooper, 2006; Cantalano, Mazza, Harachi, Abbott, Haggerty, & Fleming, 2003). While each of these aspects of involvement may be significant for various reasons, in the current study the term parent involvement is used in reference to parental beliefs, behaviors, and/or actions that are focused on their children's education (Coll et al., 2002; Epstein, 1995). Within this area, parent involvement includes both home- and school-based activities that indicate an investment in their children's education, including helping with schoolwork, communicating with teachers and attending school sponsored events (Griffith, 1998; Hill, Castellino, Lansford, Nowlin, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 2004).

A review of previous research examining parents' involvement in their children's education revealed potentially important variations in how involvement has been defined (Farver, Xu, Eppe, & Longian, 2006; Fishel & Ramirez, 2005; Gordon & Nocon, 2008). Coll et al. (2002) developed a framework, particularly focused on defining the actual behaviors that constitute parent involvement along with parenting beliefs. These included (a) Values or parents' perceptions of their role in children's formal educational pursuits, (b) School-based Involvement which included exemplars of parental contact with and participation in their children's school, (c) Home-based Involvement defined as the environmental and social practices put in place by the parent in the home as it relates to education, and (d) Provision of Material Resources which was focused on whether parents put forth efforts into creating an environment that would optimize the child's experience with learning and homework.

Measurement of Parent Involvement

In addition to definitional variations, research investigating parent involvement has measured it from multiple perspectives (teacher, parent, student) using various methods, including self-report surveys, interviews, and observations (Burchinal et al., 2006; Catalano et al., 2003; Fishel & Ramirez, 2005; Lien & Carlson, 2009; Ogg, Brinkman, Dedrick, & Carlso, 2010). While self-report surveys are the most commonly used method for assessing parent involvement, the actual content and number of questions used varies widely. A review of published measures revealed inconsistencies regarding how parent involvement is defined and measured. The lack of consistency across measures makes it difficult to accurately interpret findings across studies.

One inconsistency across available parent involvement measures relates to the length. Some have up to 125 questions (Epstein & Salinas, 1993), while others have only one or two questions (Chen & Gregory, 2010; Harper and Pelletier, 2010). Measures that are too lengthy may be cumbersome especially for schools to administer considering the limited time available to gather and analyze such information. However, those that are too short may not adequately measure the construct of parent involvement. There seems to be a need for brief and efficient measures of parent involvement for schools that still adequately capture the construct of parent involvement.

Purpose of the Current Investigation

The purpose of the current study is to examine the Parent Involvement Scale (PIS), a theoretically sound, brief and efficient measure of parent involvement as developed by the researcher. Additionally, this study examined the psychometric functioning of the PIS. This included an introspective examination of the scale's factor structure, as well as, an external examination of how the measure relates to other theoretically relevant factors, such as familial factors and student achievement. The items on the survey were derived using Coll et al.'s (2002) parent involvement framework as a foundation.

Benson's (1998) framework for evaluating the construct validity of a scale was used to design the investigation of the psychometric function of the researcher-developed parent involvement scale. From Benson's perspective, a construct is an "attribute of people, assumed to be reflected in test performance." As such, when attempting to establish construct validity, scale developers must engage in the process of evaluating the theory of a construct in developing items and continuously refining and improving measures based upon relevant results. Benson's framework focuses on three main aspects of construct validation: (1) Substantive--how the construct has been defined theoretically, and empirically (via the observed variables used to measure the construct), (2) Structural--the internal consistency of the observed variables, and (3) External--how the constructs relates to different constructs that it should (or not be) related to theoretically. Benson's (1998) framework guided the construct and test validation process of the parent involvement survey of the present study.

The Parent Involvement Survey (PIS) was administered along with a survey that measured familial factors, called the "Protective Factors Survey (2008)" (PFS) in the current study. The PFS measures family functioning and resiliency, social emotional support, concrete support and nurturing and attachment. Research has shown parent involvement to demonstrate a significant relationship with the familial factors measured on the PFS (Burchinal, Roberts, Zeisel, Hennon and Hooper, 2006; Cantalano, Mazza, Harachi, Abbott, Haggerty and Fleming, 2003; Griffith, 1998; Riggs and Medina, 2005). Therefore, the familial factors on the PFS are used as a criterion validity measure with the parent involvement items added in the current study.

The current study is a preliminary examination of the psychometric properties of a brief parent involvement measure as developed by the researchers of the project. The specific research questions are outlined below:

* Do the parent involvement items on the PIS function as a unidimensional latent trait?

* Is the PIS significantly related to other familial factors that have been theoretically linked to parent involvement?

* Does the PIS demonstrate a significant relationship with children's academic achievement?



Participants in the current study included (7V=182) parents of children who attended two kindergarten programs and three preschool programs in central California. Forty percent (N=72) of the participating parents completed the survey in English and 60% (7V=110) completed the Spanish version. Of the parents that completed the survey, 67% (N=122) were mothers and 12% (N=22) were fathers. Regardless of who completed the parent surveys, the rater was asked to indicate the highest level of education completed by the mother and father. From these responses, approximately 54% had at most a high school diploma or less, and 32% had some college education or beyond. The primary language spoken at home was English for 33% of parents; Spanish for 48% of parents and 2% did not identify the primary language spoken at home. Approximately 40% of the children of the parents who filled out the surveys were enrolled in a preschool program with a low SES eligibility requirement, which was defined as a family of four earning $20,000/year or less. Additionally, there were (7V=102) children who completed the academic achievement measures used in the current study. Approximately 40% were girls, and 60% were boys. The children were in the pre-kindergarten (N=38) or kindergarten (7V=64) level at the time of the study.


Parent Involvement. The Parent Involvement Survey (PIS) is a self-report measure completed by parents to assess their current levels of involvement in their children's education. Using the theoretical framework outlined by Coll et al. (2002), the survey aimed to address three main areas of parent involvement: (a) Values in education (items 1, 2, & 5), (b) School-based involvement (items 4 & 6), and (c) Home-based involvement (items 3 & 7). The original survey had a total of seven items (see Appendix A). Items 1-5 were rated on a seven-point scale, but with different response options. Item 1 ranged from 1 = not important at all to 7= very important, item 2 ranged from 1= nothing, 4= a moderate amount, to 7 = a great deal, items 3-5 ranged from 1= strongly disagree to 7= strongly agree, and items 6 and 7 varied in relation to the question being asked (see Appendix A). A composite score was calculated by taking the mean of the sum across all seven items. The PIS was available in English and Spanish.

The primary purpose of developing the PIS was to provide schools with a survey that measures parents' actual level of involvement. Coll et al.'s (2002) framework was used because it allowed for the development of a concise list of items, while covering several domains of parent involvement. The questions developed to measure parents' value in education were aimed to assess their perceptions of their role and ability to impact their child's education. For the home- and school-based involvement questions, the goal was to differentiate between behaviors in which parents engage to foster their child's education within the home environment versus the school setting. There was a focus on these domains of parent involvement because they have been commonly cited throughout the relevant literature as the most influential on children's educational outcomes.

Familial Factors. Various familial factors were measured using The Protective Factors Survey (PFS) (2004). The PFS was originally developed by the FRIENDS National Resource Center for Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention Program. The Institute for Educational Research & Public Service (n.d.) conducted a series of factor analyses and found four familial factors that were statistically valid: family functioning and resiliency, social emotional support, concrete support and nurturing and attachment. The reliability of each subscale and a description of each are as follows: (1) Family functioning and resiliency ([alpha]=.89), defined as the family's ability to openly share positive and negative experiences, (2) Social emotional support ([alpha]=.89) is understood as perceived informal support that helps provide for emotional needs, (3) Concrete support ([alpha]=.76) is defined as perceived access to tangible goods and services that help families cope in times of need, and (4) Nurturing and attachment ([alpha]=.81) consists of items assessing the emotional bond shared with the parents' child along with a pattern of positive interaction between the parent and child that develops over time (Protective Factors Survey, 2008).

Receptive Vocabulary. Children's receptive vocabulary was measured using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Fourth Edition (PPVT-4). Receptive vocabulary has been found to be a critical early academic skill and is highly related to children's later academic achievement (Dunn & Dunn, 2007). The PPVT-4 scale is a norm-referenced, wide-range instrument that examines the knowledge of an individual's English vocabulary, and is available in two forms to allow for test-retest (Dunn & Dunn, 2007). Developers of the PPVT-4 cite research that shows a strong relationship of vocabulary to reading comprehension (Dunn & Dunn, 2007). The PPVT-4 manual states that vocabulary knowledge is a form of achievement, which represents the words and word meanings an individual has learned through interaction with their environment. The internal consistency coefficient for both forms was .97.


The current study was conducted within the context of a broader community-based effort to examine the academic and social-emotional well being of children from birth through Grade 3. The parent surveys were administered by the primary researcher and trained research assistants in the middle of the school year at school-wide functions. Parents had the opportunity to complete the parent surveys before, during, or after the school events. At each administration, a Spanish-speaking research assistant was present to assist the Spanish-speaking parents with any questions or concerns. The PPVT-4 academic assessment was also administered to preschool and kindergarten students at the end of the school year by the primary researcher and trained research assistants. The teachers of the students were notified of the test administrations, and collaborated with the research team. Every assessment administration with each individual child took place in a quiet room free from as many distractions as possible.


Data analysis was conducted in two phases. First, a series of exploratory factor analyses (EFA) were used to examine the factor structure of the seven experimenter-developed items on the PIS. Two separate EFA analyses were conducted to examine the Spanish and English versions of the scale separately. Separate analyses were conducted on the English and Spanish versions because the PIS has not been previously validated in either language. Then, bivariate correlation analyses and a hierarchical multiple regression was conducted to examine the relation between the PIS, students' receptive vocabulary skills, and other familial factors.

Determination of the number of factors to retain was evaluated by using the Kaiser greater than 1 criterion (K1), which retains factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 (Hayton, Allen & Scarpello, 2004). "Goodness of fit" of the EFA models was evaluated by examining multiple indices based upon recommendations in Brown (2006). The following indices were utilized: Chi-square ([chi square]), where no significant values are preferred; the comparative fit index (CFI), where values close to .95 or greater indicate good model fit; the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), values close to .06 or below and its 90% confidence interval; and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), with values close to .08 or below that indicate good model fit between the target model and the observed data.


Factor Structure of the PIS

Two exploratory factor analyses were conducted to examine the English (N=72) and Spanish (N=110) versions of the researcher developed parental involvement items using oblique rotation. Prior to conducting the factor analyses, data was screened to ensure item-level normality. This analysis revealed that two of the items demonstrated potential normality violations for both the English and Spanish versions. However, the maximum likelihood estimation method has been shown to be robust to minor violations of normality (Brown, 2006); therefore, all seven items were retained for these analyses. A preliminary examination of the bivariate correlations among the seven items on the English version revealed that all items were significantly and positively correlated, with item seven demonstrating a slightly lower correlation among the other six items. For the Spanish version, Item 1 and 7 demonstrated nonsignificant correlations among the other five items (see Table 1).

Results from the EFA of the English PIS suggested a two-factor model to explain the observed data. The one-factor solution for the English PIS indicated poor model fit to the observed data, [X.sup.2] (14)=29.11, p<.01, RMESA=.12 (90% CI [.06-.18]), CFI=.82, SRMR=.08. While a two-factor model was recommended, the two-factor model was not provided (Muthen & Muthen, 2008) due to the number of iterations exceeded; indicating an issue with convergence possibly due to a poor model (Muthen & Muthen, 2007).

Results from the EFA of the Spanish PIS recommended up to a two-factor model for the observed data. The one-factor solution indicated poor model fit to the observed data, [X.sup.2] (14)=32.40, p<.00, RMESA=.11 (90% CI [.06-.16]), CFI=.79, SRMR=.08. The two-factor solution indicated adequate model fit to the observed data, [X.sup.2] (8)=12.18, p<.14, RMESA=.07 (90% CI [.00-.14]), CFI=.95, SRMR=.05.

The English EFA did not provide a two-factor solution, indicating a possibility of a poor model fit. For the two-factor solution with the Spanish EFA, item 1 constituted a factor by itself and items 2-6 constituted the second factor, however item 7 demonstrated lower loadings compared with items 2-6. After examining the model fit indices of the one-factor model, the factor loadings of the two-factor model and the correlation matrix for the Spanish version, the researcher decided to run a modified EFA. In order to keep the English and Spanish factor structure similar, items 1 and 7 were dropped from the scale for the modified EFA. Both of these items also demonstrated low inter-item correlation with the other five items and the loadings implied that items 2 through 6 would hold as one factor for both the English and Spanish versions of the PIS.

Results from the modified EFA for both the English and Spanish version recommended a one-factor solution. The modified EFA of the English PFS for the one-factor solution indicated adequate model fit to the observed data, [X.sup.2] (5)=8.2, p<.15, RMESA=.08 (90% CI [.00-.17]), CFI=.94, SRMR=.05. Similar results derived from the modified EFA of the Spanish PFS for a one-factor solution, indicating adequate model fit to the observed data, [X.sup.2] (5)=5.0, p<.41, RMESA=.00 (90% CI [.00-.16]), CFI=1.0, SRMR =.04. As demonstrated, the model fit indices improved significantly after removing item 1 and 7 from the model for both the English and Spanish version of the PFS. A final decision was made to retain items 2 through 6 to constitute a unidimensional parental involvement factor.

Relations between the PIS, Familial Factors, and Children's Receptive Vocabulary

Bivariate correlation analyses were used to examine the relations between parent involvement and the familial factors. The results of these analyses revealed that three of the four familial factors (Family Functioning and Resiliency, Social Support and Nurturing and Attachment) demonstrated a significant relationship with the five-item PIS. The PIS was the most significantly related to Nurturing and Attachment, with Concrete Support being the only familial factor that was not significantly related to the PIS (see Table 2).

A hierarchical multiple regression was used to examine if parent involvement predicted students' receptive vocabulary on the PPVT-4, while controlling for the other four familial factors. Results of the regression indicated that the four familial factors explained 36% of the variance ([R.sup.2]=.359, F (4, 86)=12.04, p<.000) in students' PPVT-4 scores. Controlling for these factors, the PIS explained an additional 1% of the variance ([R.sup.2]=.369, F (5, 85)=9.94, p<.000) in children's receptive vocabulary.


Parent involvement has consistently been found to be a positive influence to children's academic achievement and development (Benzies & Mychasiuk, 2009; Wooley and Grogon-Kaylor, 2006). However, there is a lack of readily available, brief and efficient parent involvement measures, thus highlighting a need for statistically sound measures that meet both criteria (Coll et al., 2002; Hill et al., 2004). The central goal of the current study was to provide psychometric evidence for a brief researcher-developed parent involvement survey and examine the relationship of parent involvement with familial factors and children's receptive vocabulary, which is a critical academic enabler (Dunn & Dunn, 2007).

Item Development of Parental Involvement Survey

Results of this study clearly showed that the items on the PIS represented a unidimensional parent involvement factor. Item 1 was developed to measure one's values with parental involvement (along with item 2 and 5) (see Appendix A). For item 1, it was found that Spanish-speaking parents were more likely to indicate that it was very important to know what was going on in their child's school, which resulted in a positively skewed mean score overall. One possible explanation for this result is research have found that Spanish-speaking parents demonstrate high expectations and beliefs for their child's educational attainment, especially throughout the elementary years but have low levels of involvement (Goldenberg et al., 2001; Ryan et al., 2010).

In an attempt to measure home-based parental involvement with item 7 (along with item 3), results found the item results to be normally distributed but the least correlated with the other six items; again, particularly with the Spanish-speaking parents. Item 7 specifically asked parents how often they read to their child per week. One possible explanation for this result is parents without English as their primary language do not read to their child as often as they would like because they do not have access to enough reading material in their primary language (Ryan et al., 2010). Also, parents who completed the survey had children still enrolled in preschool and kindergarten, therefore the need to start reading to their children may not have been as much of a concern (Levine & Trickett, 2000).

Parent Involvement Relation between Familial Factors and Children's Receptive Vocabulary

As predicted, the results indicated that parent involvement was significantly related to Family Functioning and Resiliency, Social Support, and Nurturing and Attachment. Furthermore, it was found that parent involvement and the four familial factors explained a significant amount of variance in the students' academic achievement scores. When examining parent involvement and controlling for the familial factors, it was found that parent involvement only demonstrated a 1% increase in significance. This 1% increase does not seem significant, and it appears that parent involvement has the most influence on student's receptive vocabulary skills when other familial factors are also significant.


The results of the current study have significant implications for school psychologists. It is important to note that the researcher developed subscale of parental involvement is only one indicator of overall parental involvement. As demonstrated from previous research and theoretical frameworks, there are other areas of involvement that can be useful to address. In order to effectively assess for parental involvement, one should consider the demographic profile of the target population. This should include gathering external information regarding one's education level, gender, role in the family, level of access to community resources, SES, language status, ethnicity, minority status and migrant/transient status. Additional characteristics not listed as determined by the assessor may be necessary and encouraged if it would provide a more holistic understanding of the parent. Once the demographic profile of the parent is established, it is important to identify culturally appropriate measures/questions used to assess for parental involvement and other parenting factors useful to understand in relation to the goal at hand (in the case of a school psychologist, the child's social/emotional and academic success).

A final important implication is that the definition of parental involvement can depend upon the context. The context in which parental involvement was examined in the current study was related to parental values, school- and home-based involvement. Additionally, perhaps the way we understand parental involvement implies the key factor contributing to students' success lies within the parents. There may be a need to consider change within several systems, specifically with the school and the community in which the parents reside (Ryan et al., 2010). The strongest and most consistent predictor of parental involvement both at school and home are the school programs and teacher practices that encourage parental involvement (Michigan Department of Education, 2001). A few suggestions include: increase parents' beliefs about their significant role in their child's learning (Drummond & Stipek, 2004) and provide culturally sensitive services including language instruction for parents or interpreters (Farver et al., 2006). Ultimately, it is important to consider the various factors (such as cultural factors) that may influence our understanding of parental involvement.


Results from the current study provide preliminary evidence supporting the psychometric functioning of the PIS. However, there were several limitations to the current study that deserve mention. One of the primary limitations relates to the generalizability of the results. First, the education level of the parents also consisted primarily of a high school education or less, and more mothers than fathers filled out the parent survey. Therefore, the results may not generalize to other language status, education level of parents and gender of parent. There is also the need to differentiate between culture and language status. While one's language status may imply the culture of the individual, this is not necessarily a significant relationship. Additionally, measurement invariance tests were not conducted between the Spanish- and English version of the PIS. This would have provided further evidence if the measure was invariant across the two groups, and measuring the same construct. Parent involvement has been found to imply different meanings particularly for Spanish-speaking families (Goldenberg et al., 2001; Ortiz, 2004; Zayas & Solari, 1994). However, we were limited in our sample size and could not conduct this statistical analysis, which is one recommendation for future studies. Lastly, in using a data reduction (factor analysis) design, it is likely the researcher could have determined significant loadings of items on the factor parental involvement but another researcher may have differing opinions. Finally, future research is needed to examine the use of the research developed parental involvement items across various settings, populations and demographic profiles which address the areas of concern discussed previously.

Appendix A

Parent Involvement Survey
Instructions: Please circle the number that best describes how much
you agree or disagree with the statement.

                              Not                      Somewhat
                              Important                Important
                              at All

1. How important is it
   for parents to know           1         2      3        4
   what goes on in their
   child's school?

                              Nothing                  A Moderate

2. How much do you know
   about what goes on in         1         2      3        4
   your child's school?


1. How important is it
   for parents to know           5      6         7
   what goes on in their
   child's school?

                                               A Great

2. How much do you know
   about what goes on in         5      6         7
   your child's school?

                             Strongly    Mostly    Slightly   Neutral
                             Disagree   disagree   disagree

3. I am actively involved
   in helping my child          1          2          3          4
   succeed in school
4. My family is regularly
   involved in activities
   in the community             1          2          3          4
   (sports, clubs, religious
5. Parents can take
   actions to help their        1          2          3          4
   child reach
   educational goals
6. Since the school year
   has started, about how
   many times have you         None       1-2        3-5        5-7
   talked to your child's
7. How often do you read      Never     1-2 days   3-6 days   Everyday
   to your child per week?

                                Slightly   Mostly   Strongly
                                 Agree     Agree     Agree

3. I am actively involved
   in helping my child             5         6         7
   succeed in school
4. My family is regularly
   involved in activities
   in the community                5         6         7
   (sports, clubs, religious
5. Parents can take
   actions to help their           5         6         7
   child reach
   educational goals
6. Since the school year
   has started, about how
   many times have you            7-9       10 +
   talked to your child's
7. How often do you read
   to your child per week?


Benson (1998). Developing a strong program of construct validation: A test anxiety example. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(1), 10-17.

Benzies, K. & Mychasiuk, R. (2009). Fostering family resiliency: A review of the key protective factors. Child and Family Social Work, 14, 103-114. doi:10.1111/j.13652206.2008.00586.x

Brown, T.A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY. The Guilford Press.

Burchinal, M., Roberts, J.E., Zeisel, S.A., Hennon, E.A. & Hooper, S. (2006). Social risk and protective child, parenting and child care factors in early elementary school years. Parenting: Science and Practice, 6(1), 79-113. doi:10.1207/s15327922par0601_4

Campbell, F.A., Ramey, C.T., Pungello, E., Sparking, J., & Miller-Johnson, S. (2002). Early childhood education: Young adult outcomes from the abecedarian project. Applied Developmental Science, 6(1), 42-57. doi:10.1207/ S1532480XADS0601_05

Cantalano, R.F., Mazza, J.J., Harachi, T.W., Abbott, R.D., Haggerty, K.P. & Fleming, C.B. (2003). Raising healthy children through enhancing social development in elementary school: Results after 1.5 years. Journal of School Psychology, 41, 143-164. doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(03)00031-1

Chen, W-B. & Gregory, A. (2010). Parental involvement as a protective factor during the transition to high school. The Journal of Educational Research, 103, 53-62. doi:10.1080/00220670903231250

Coll, C.G., Akiba, D., Palacios, N., Bailey, B., Silver, R., DiMartino, L., & Chin, C. (2002). Parental involvement in children's education: Lessons from three immigrant groups. Parenting: Science and Practice, 2(3), 303-324. doi:10.1207/S15327922PAR0203_05

Drummond, K.V. & Stipek, D. (2004). Low-Income parents' beliefs about their role in children's academic learning. The Elementary School Journal, 104(3), 197-213. doi: 10.1086/499749

Dunn, L.M., & Dunn, D.M. (2007). Peabody picture vocabulary test, fourth edition (PPVT-4).

Epstein, J.L. & Salinas, K.C. (1993) Surveys and Summaries: Questionnaires for Teachers and Parents in the Elementary and Middle Grades. Baltimore: Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships, Johns Hopkins University.

Epstein, J.L. (May, 1995). School/family community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 701-712.

Farver, J.M., Xu, Y., Eppe, S., & Longian, C.J. (2006). Home environments and young Latino children's school readiness. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 196-212. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.04.008

Fishel, M. & Ramirez, L. (2005). Evidence-Based parental involvement interventions with school-aged children. School Psychology Quarterly, 20(4), 371-402. doi:10.1521/scpq.2005.20.4.371

Goldenberg, C., Gallimore, R., Reese, L., & Garnier, H. (2001). Cause or effect? A longitudinal study of immigrant Latino parents' aspirations and expectations, and their children's school performance. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 547-582. doi:10.3102/00028312038003547

Gordon, V. & Nocon, H. (2008). Reproducing segregation: Parent involvement, diversity, and school governance. Journal of Lations and Education, 7(4), 320-339. doi:10.1080/15348430802143634

Griffith, J. (1998). The relation of school structure and social environment to parent involvement in elementary schools. The Elementary School Journal, 99(1), 53-80. doi:10.1086/461916

Hango, D. (2007). Parental investment in childhood and educational qualifications: Can greater parental involvement mediate the effects of socioeconomic disadvantage? Social Science Research, 36, 1371-1390. doi:10.1016/j. ssresearch.2007.01.005

Harper, S.N. & Pelletier, J. (2010). Parent involvement in early childhood: A comparison of English language learners and English first language families. International Journal of Early Years Education, 18(2), 123-141. do i:10.1080/09669760.2010.496162

Hayton, J.C., Allen, D.G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention decision in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7(2), 191-205. doi:10.1177/1094428104263675

Heppener, P.P., Wampold, B.E., & Kivlighan, D.M. (1999). Research design in counseling: 3rd Edition. Belmont, CA. Thomas Higher Education.

Hill, N.E., Castellino, D.R., Lansford, J.E., Nowlin, P., Dodge, K.A., Bates, J.E. & Pettit, G.S. (2004). Parent academic involvement as related to school behavior, achievement, and aspirations: Demographic variations across adolescence. Child Development, 75(5), 1491-1509. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00753.x

Institute for Educational Research & Public Service. (2006). The development and validation of the protective factors survey: A self-report measure of protective factors against child maltreatment phase IV report. University of Kansas.

Jeynes, W.H. (2005). A Meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to urban elementary school student academic achievement. Urban Education, 40(3), 237-269. doi:10.1177/0042085905274540

Levine, E.B. & Trickett, E.J. (2000). Toward a model of Latino parent advocacy for educational change. Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the Community, 20(1), 121-137. doi:10.1300/J005v20n01_09

Lien, M.T. & Carlson, J.S. (2009). Psychometric properties of the Devereux early childhood assessment in a head start sample. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 27(5), 386-396. doi:10.1177/0734282909331754

Lingard, H.C., & Rowlinson, S. (n.d.). Sample size in factor analysis: Why size matters. Retrieved on December 4, 2009 from

Michigan Department of Education (2001). What research says about parent involvement in children's education in relation to academic achievement. Michigan.

Muthen, L.K., & Muthen, B.O. (2007). Mplus: Statistical Analysis with Latent Variables User's Guide. Los Angeles, CA.

Muthen, L.K., & Muthen, B.O. (2008). Mplus 5.21 [Computer Software]. Los Angeles: Author.

No Child Left Behind Act (2004). NCLB Action Briefs: Parental Involvement. Retrieved from

Ogg, J.A., Brinkman, T.M., Dedrick, R.F., & Carlson, J.S. (2010). Factor structure and invariance across gender of the Devereux early childhood assessment protective factor scale. School Psychology Quarterly, 25(2), 107-118. doi:10.1037/a0020251

Ortiz, R.W. (2004). Hispanic/Latino fathers and children's literacy development: Examining involvement practices from a sociocultural context. Journal of Latinos and Education, 3(3), 165-180. doi:10.1207/s1532771xjle0303_3

Protective Factors Survey. (2008). Retrieved December 1, 2009, from

Riggs, N.R. & Medina, C. (2005). The "Generacion Diez" After-school program and Latino parent involvement with schools. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 26(6), 471-484. doi:10.1007/s10935-005-0009-5

Ryan, C.S., Casas, J.F., Kelly-Vance, L. & Ryalls, B.O. (2010). Parent involvement and views of school success: The role of parents' Latino and White American cultural orientations. Psychology in the Schools, 47(4), 391-405.

The Institute for Education Research & Public Service. (n.d.). The development and validation of the protective factors survey: A self-report measure of protective factors against child maltreatment: Phase IV report. Kansas: U.S. FRIENDS National Resource Center for Community-Based Child Abuse.

U.S. Department of Education: National Center for Education Statistics. (2008). Parent and family involvement in education 2006-2007 school year, from the national household education surveys program of 2007: First look. (NCES Publication no. 2008-050). Retrieved from

Zayas, L. & Solari, F. (1994). Early childhood socialization in Hispanic families: Context, ulture, and practice implications. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 25(2), 200-206. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.25.3.20

Won-Fong K. Lau

University of California, Santa Barbara

Correspondence may be sent to Won-Fong K. Lau, Department of Counseling, Clinical, and School Psychology, Gevirtz Graduate School of Education, Bldg. 275, Room 2102, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9490. Email:

Won-Fong Lau, M.Ed., is a doctoral candidate with the Department of Counseling, Clinical, and School Psychology at the University of California, Santa Barbara. She is currently completing her pre-doctoral internship at the Franciscan Hospital for Children in Boston, Massachusetts. Her research and professional interests focus on multicultural issues in school psychology, the impact of parent involvement in children's development, and examining the psychometric properties of assessments used in schools.
TABLE 1. Correlation Matrix, Means and Standard Deviations for
Measured Variables Used in Parental Involvement Survey

                                  1.        2.        3.        4.

1. How important is it for
  parents to know what goes on
  in their child's school?                  .36 **    .51 **    .16
2. How much do you know about
  what goes on in your
  child's school?                 32 **               .38 **    .39 **
3. I am actively involved
  in helping my child
  succeed in school               .25 **    .539 **             .34 **
4. My family is regularly
  involved in activities in
  the community (sports,
  clubs, religious
  organizations)                  .03       .23       .18
5. Parents can take actions
  to help their child reach
  educational goals               .60 **    .35 **    .32 **    .22
6. Since the school year has
  started, about how many
  times have you talked to
  your child's teachers?          .22       .41 **    .29 *     .35 **
7. How often do you read to
  your child per week?            .25 *     .27 *     .13       .03
Sample Mean English               6.80      5.93      6.55      5.50
Sample SD English                 .51       1.02      .73       1.65
Sample Mean Spanish               6.90      5.80      6.26      4.93
Sample SD Spanish                 .40       1.28      .89       1.61

                                  5.        6.        7.

1. How important is it for
  parents to know what goes on
  in their child's school?        -.01      .06       -.05
2. How much do you know about
  what goes on in your
  child's school?                 .14       .20       -.03
3. I am actively involved
  in helping my child
  succeed in school               .37 **    .13       .03
4. My family is regularly
  involved in activities in
  the community (sports,
  clubs, religious
  organizations)                  .28 **    .19       .03
5. Parents can take actions
  to help their child reach
  educational goals                         .25 *     .01
6. Since the school year has
  started, about how many
  times have you talked to
  your child's teachers?          .33 **              .20
7. How often do you read to
  your child per week?            .16       .26 *
Sample Mean English               6.90      3.86      2.48
Sample SD English                 .30       1.30      .71
Sample Mean Spanish               6.41      3.18      2.36
Sample SD Spanish                 .96       1.25      .76

Note. English scores are presented on the bottom left and Spanish
scores are presented on the top right.

* p< .05.


TABLE 2. Correlation Table of Parent Involvement with Familial

                           Family        Social    Concrete
                           Functioning   Support   Support

Social Support             .430 **
Concrete Support           .214 **       .199 **
Nurturing & Attachment     .496 **       .275 **   .230 **
Parent Involvement         .251 **       .243 **   -.026
Mean                       5.26          5.67      4.3 2
SD                         1.17          1.24      1.15
N                          182           170       169

                           Nurturing &   Parent        PPVT-4
                           Attachment    Involvement

Social Support                                         .293 **
Concrete Support                                       .444 **
Nurturing & Attachment                                 .370 **
Parent Involvement         .386 **                     .298 **
Mean                       6.13          6.09          95.44
SD                         .75           .66           20.16
N                          172           177           102

Note: * p< .05.

COPYRIGHT 2013 California Association of School Psychologists
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2013 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Lau, Won-Fong K.
Publication:Contemporary School Psychology
Article Type:Report
Date:Jan 1, 2013
Previous Article:The role of school psychologists in meeting the mental health needs of children and youth.
Next Article:A comprehensive model for promoting resiliency and preventing violence in schools.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2022 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |