J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:523–535 DOI 10.1007/s10826-013-9865-4
ORIGINAL PAPER
Motivations for Involvement: A Preliminary Investigation of Parents of Students with Disabilities Callen E. Fishman • Amanda B. Nickerson
Published online: 10 January 2014 Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract Parents of students in special education have greater barriers to parental involvement than parents of students in general education. Little is known, however, about the factors that facilitate or impede involvement practices for this group. This preliminary study investigated the extent to which the motivational factors from Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s (2005) Model of Parent Involvement (i.e., Parent Role Activity Beliefs, Parent Efficacy, General School Invitations, Specific Teacher Invitation, Specific Child Invitations, Perceived Knowledge and Skills, and Perceived Time and Energy) predicted the Home-Based, School-Based, and Special Education Involvement of 137 parents of elementary school students in special education from two suburban school districts in upstate New York. Family structure, race/ethnicity, and family socioeconomic status (SES) were also examined. Parents in the current study reported being more involved in both home and school-based activities when children specifically requested their involvement. School-Based Involvement was also predicted by parents’ perceptions of their time and energy and their level of responsibility in supporting their child’s education, as well as their reported level of education (an indication of SES). An interesting and counterintuitive inverse relationship was found between general school invitations and parents’ HomeBased Involvement. Lastly, the only significant predictor C. E. Fishman (&) New York State Office of Mental Health, Albany, NY 12208, USA e-mail:
[email protected] A. B. Nickerson Department of Counseling, School, and Educational Psychology, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY 14260, USA
for Special Education Involvement was specific teacher invitations. These findings are discussed and suggestions are made for how to increase involvement for this specific group of parents. Keywords Parent involvement Parental involvement Special education Model of involvement Educational
Introduction It is widely recognized that parent involvement should be viewed as a multidimensional phenomenon rather than a unitary concept (Fan and Chen 2001). Researchers have defined various dimensions of parent involvement including parental attitudes toward education (Fan and Chen 2001; Grolnick and Slowiaczek 1994; Keith et al. 1993; Trivette and Anderson 1995); parental academic aspirations and expectations (Fan and Chen 1999, 2001; Keith et al. 1993; Trivette and Anderson 1995); communications between the parent and child (Fan and Chen 1999, 2001; Trivette and Anderson 1995); and the development of a home structure that supports student learning, intellectual stimulation, and academic success (Keith et al. 1993). Most of the parent involvement definitions, however, categorize parents’ behavior discretely as either home-based (i.e., activities that take place between the parent and the child outside of school) or school-based (i.e., child-focused activities that are typically accomplished at school; Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler 2005; Walker et al. 2005). Overall trends indicate a positive effect of parent involvement on student outcomes (Henderson and Mapp 2002). Home-based involvement has been related to both academic achievement (Izzo et al. 1999) and school
123
524
orientation (Shurnow and Miller 1999). School-based involvement has been shown to positively impact student behavior (e.g., reduce student absences), school engagement (Izzo et al. 1999), early childhood development, mastery of school readiness skills (Marcoon 1999), academic grade point average, and children’s’ enjoyment of school (Shurnow and Miller 1999). Parents who are involved in their child’s schooling report improved communication with their child about schoolwork, more involvement in educational activities at home (Christenson 1995b), satisfaction in their relationships with teachers, appreciation for the commitment of teachers, and increased parenting efficacy (Swap 1990). When teachers actively involve parents, they report greater job satisfaction and request fewer transfers, and principals rate them higher on teacher performance indicators (Christenson 1995a, b). Research also indicates that school climate is enhanced considerably when parents are involved in school-based planning and decision-making activities (Haynes et al. 1989). There are numerous factors that impact parents’ motivation to become involved. Specific child characteristics (e.g., age, level of needs, and academic abilities) have been indicated to either facilitate or inhibit parent involvement activities (Deslandes and Cloutier 2002; McWilliam et al. 1999). Teachers’ skills and attitudes impact their willingness to engage families, which, in turn may impact a parent’s desire to become involved (Garcia 2004; Morris and Taylor 1998). Additionally, school characteristics (e.g., structure of classrooms, school procedures, communication, staff commitment) have been shown to impact parent involvement (Mannan and Blackwell 1992; National Center for Education Statistics 1998). A number of parent and family variables also have been associated with parents’ involvement in their child’s schooling including: socioeconomic status (Davies 1993; Ritblatt et al. 2002); marital status (Arnold et al. 2008; Kohl et al. 2000); parental beliefs in the value of education (Baker et al. 2007; Waanders et al. 2007); and racial/ethnic identification (Patrikakou and Weisserg 2009; Wong and Hughes 2006). The culture and interpersonal interactions within the community in which a child has been raised have also been shown to impact parents’ motivation to become involved in their child’s schooling (Sheldon and Epstein 2002; Waanders et al. 2007). Parents of students with disabilities face greater barriers to involvement and are less involved than parents of typically developing children in school (Coots 1998; Dyson 1997). These parents also report typical interactions as less family-centered than educators and other families (McWilliam et al. 1999). The importance of empowering parents of students with special needs to advocate for their children has been well documented in
123
J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:523–535
the literature (Wang et al. 2004). Although parents of students with disabilities generally view advocacy as their obligation, the process is viewed as a life-long adversarial battle, which results in a great amount of stress for these families (Wang et al. 2004). As such, special education professionals have been encouraged to focus not only on improving the quality of life for students with disabilities, but also for the entire family. Professionals may do this by acknowledging realistic family participation given their time, energy, and resources and by encouraging collaborative decision-making (Van Haren and Fiedler 2008). Nevertheless, due to the aforementioned complications and obstacles for this group of parents, they may require more support and individualized attention to get them involved than parents of typically developing children. Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995, 2005) established a comprehensive theoretical model of parent involvement, which addresses why parents become involved in their child’s education and how this involvement impacts educational performance. It encompasses three categories of motivational variables that may influence parents’ involvement decisions: parents’ motivational beliefs, parents’ perceptions of invitations from others, and family/life context variables (see Fig. 1). Parent Motivational Beliefs includes parent activity beliefs and parent efficacy. Parent activity beliefs are parents’ views and behaviors regarding their role in supporting their child’s education (Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler 1995, 1997; Walker et al. 2005). Research indicates that parents who hold ‘‘active’’ role activity beliefs are more likely to participate in home-based and school-based activities than parents who have ‘‘passive’’ role activity beliefs (Deslandes and Bertrand 2005; Green et al. 2007; Hoover-Dempsey et al. 2005; Sheldon and Epstein 2002). However, the direct influence of this variable on parent involvement appears to become more inconsistent once meditational variables, such as the teacher’s invitation to get involved, are added (e.g., Anderson and Minke 2007) or once the child’s grade level is controlled (e.g., Deslandes and Bertrand 2005). Parent efficacy is defined as a parent’s beliefs that he or she is able to positively influence his or her child’s academic outcomes (Bandura 1986, 1997). Research suggests that parents with a higher sense of efficacy are more willing to engage in their child’s education, more likely to persist through obstacles (Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler 1997), and also tend to be more invested (Grolnick et al. 1997). However, there is some discrepancy in the literature regarding the extent to which parent efficacy may predict specific forms of parent involvement (e.g., home-based vs. school based; Anderson and Minke 2007; Coots 1998; Deslandes and Bertrand 2005; Sheldon and Epstein 2002; Waanders et al. 2007).
J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:523–535
525
Fig. 1 Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s (2005) Model of Parent Involvement. Reprinted with permission in HooverDempsey et al. (2005)
Parents’ Perceptions of Invitations for Involvement from Others refers to general invitations for involvement from the school, specific invitations from the child, and specific invitations from the teacher. Although theory suggests that general school invitations (e.g., a positive school climate, parent-friendly newsletter, clear suggestions for homebased involvement) might be a significant predictor for parents’ involvement, the research to date is mixed. Some researchers have found that schools that promote a positive climate report fewer barriers to involvement and more school-based and home-based involvement practices (Griffith 1998; Smith et al. 1997). Nevertheless, Green et al. (2007) found no evidence of a predictive relationship. Child invitations for involvement refers to a child’s specific and explicit requests for parental help with learning, assistance with homework, and/or participation in schoolbased events. Although there is limited evidence to date,
the available research suggests that specific child invitations are consistently significant predictors of parental involvement in both home-based and school-based activities (Balli et al. 1998; Green et al. 2007). The link between specific teacher invitations (e.g., requests for assisting with home-based learning or participating in activities at school) and parental involvement has been more mixed. Most of the available research suggests that teacher practices that encourage parent involvement are one of the strongest and consistent predictors of school-based and home-based participation (Anderson and Minke 2007; Smith et al. 1997). Nevertheless, Green et al. (2007) found that specific teacher invitations predicted school-based but not homebased involvement. Parents’ Perceived Life Context encompasses parents’ perceptions of their knowledge and skills as well as time and energy. Parents’ skills refer to supervising and
123
526
explaining homework and communicating effectively with the child and the teacher. Knowledge pertains awareness about school events, volunteer opportunities, and teacher contact information, as well as an understanding of schoolbased material. Some research has indicated that parents’ knowledge and skills positively predict activities directed by both the parent and activities managed by others (Coots 1998). Green et al. (2007), however, did not find parents’ self-perceived knowledge and skills to predict school-based or home-based involvement, although the variables were positively correlated. The second component of this category is parents’ perceptions of time and energy demands (Hoover-Dempsey et al. 2005). Perceived time and energy for involvement has been shown to predict both parents’ school-based involvement and home-based involvement (Green et al. 2007). Further, parents’ reports of having ‘‘no time’’ to devote to their child’s education due to work and other family priorities is noted as a common barrier to parent involvement (Dwyer and Hecht 1992). In fact, a study conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (1998) found that 87 % of the surveyed schools indicated a perceived lack of time on the part of parents to be a ‘‘great’’ or ‘‘moderate’’ barrier to parent involvement. Green et al. (2007) conducted the first major study to test the Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (2005) Model of Parent Involvement. Participants included 853 parents of first through sixth grade children enrolled in an urban public school system in the mid-South. Slight differences were found between involvement practices of elementary and middle school parents. For elementary school parents, perceptions of invitations from children, self-efficacy, role activity beliefs, and perceived time and energy for involvement predicted home-based involvement. Each of the aforementioned motivational variables, with the exception of role activity beliefs, also predicted homebased involvement for middle school parents. In terms of school-based involvement, the predictors were the following: invitations from teachers and children, perceived time and energy, and role activity beliefs. Related to parents of students in special education, one study compared the involvement practices of parents of children with and without Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Parents of children with ADHD reported feeling less efficacious in helping their children with academics, feeling less welcome in their child’s school, receiving more involvement requests from their child’s teacher, and having less time and energy to be involved in their child’s schooling (Rogers et al. 2009). There were no significant differences between the parent involvement behaviors of mothers of children with and without ADHD. However, the findings indicated that fathers of children with ADHD reported significantly lower participation in
123
J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:523–535
their child’s learning and more academic pressure than fathers of children without ADHD (Rogers et al. 2009). More recently, the Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (2005) model was tested among parents of junior and senior high school students in Israel (Lavenda 2011). The findings revealed that Israeli parents’ level of involvement was comparable to American parents as reported in previous studies (e.g., Green et al. 2007), suggesting the wide-ranging applicability of the model. Further, Lavenda (2011) found that the school’s general invitations and the child’s invitations for involvement directly influenced parents involvement practices but also had a slight meditational effect on the parents’ role activity beliefs. Teachers’ invitations for involvement, however, had a positive direct effect on parental involvement, but a negative effect when adding parents’ role activity beliefs as a mediating factor. Lavenda (2011) posits that teachers may only invite parents to become involved if their child is in trouble, which in turn may cause parents to resent the responsibility forced upon them. Another explanation may be that teachers may tend to invite parents who naturally have a lower sense of responsibility and that this encouragement is what drives those parents to increase their participation. Taken as a whole, it is evident that a parent’s decision to become involved in his or her child’s schooling is complex and is influenced by a multitude of different variables. Each of these variables does not exist in solitude, but rather interact and contribute to an intricate picture of the parent’s situational and motivational attributes that influences his or her involvement decision. Although Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s (2005) Model of Parent Involvement does not encompass all potential influencing variables, it provides a unique, interactional framework from which to investigate parents’ involvement decisions. Given the significant barriers that face parents of students with disabilities and the fact that this group has not yet been studied using the Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s (2005) Model, further examination is warranted. The specific purpose of this study was to investigate whether various involvement choices of parents of students in special education including: (a) school-based activities; (b) home-based activities; and (c) special education activities were predicted by the motivational variables in Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s (2005) Model of Parent Involvement (i.e., perceived role construction, perceived efficacy, perceptions of general school invitations, perceptions of specific teacher invitations, perceptions of specific child invitations, perceived knowledge and skills, perceived time and energy). Also under investigation were various demographic variables that research has identified as potentially influential (i.e., family structure, and race/ethnicity, SES).
J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:523–535
Method Participants A total of 137 parents of special education students in elementary school completed the survey. There were some returned surveys that were completed on students in middle or high school; however due to the scope of this study, these surveys were not included. Participant demographic information is reported in Table 1. Most of the students in the sample were identified under the classifications of Speech or Language Impairment, Other Health Impairment, Autism, and Specific Learning Disability. The statistics from the U.S. Department of Education (2006) illustrate a similar distribution except for lower percentages of Autism (3.53 %) and Other Health Impairment (7.79 %). Most students were reported to receive related services, consultant teacher, and/or resource room. A majority reported that their family consisted of two biological parents and reported obtaining a college or a graduate/professional school education. Additionally, 85 % of parent participants indicated that their child was not eligible for free or reduced lunch. According to the respective New York State District Report Cards (New York State Education Department 2010), 94 % of the population in District #1 and 88 % of the population in District #2 were not eligible for free or reduced lunch. The slightly lower percentage obtained for the current study may, in part, be due to the restricted sample (i.e., parents of students in special education). In terms of the participants’ race/ethnicity status, a large majority of individuals in the current study identified as being White (not Hispanic; 89 %). This number is comparable to the participant districts with 89 % of District #1 and 82 % of District #2 identifying as White. Instruments
527 Table 1 Demographic Information Variable
Total sample (N = 137) n
%
School district District #1 District #2 IDEIA classification Autism
35
25.5
102
74.5
23
16.9
Deaf-blindness
0
n/a
Deafness
0
n/a
Emotional disturbance
2
1.5
Hearing impairment
0
n/a
Mental retardation
1
.7
Multiple disabilities
5
3.7
Orthopedic impairment
3
2.2
Other health impairment
21
15.4
Specific learning disability
23
16.9
Speech or language impairment
37
27.2
1
.07
Traumatic brain injury Visual impairment
0
n/a
20
14.7
Just related services
88
64.2
Consultant teacher or specialized instruction
21
37.2
Resource room or integrated special class
53
38.7
Self-contained classroom or special class
9
6.6
Not sure
2
1.5
Male
94
68.6
Female
43
31.4
Yes
16
11.7
No
113
Not sure Type of service received
Gender of child
Eligibility for free or reduced lunch
Not sure
82.5 5.8
Current family situation
The Parent Involvement Survey was comprised of eight scales, which were independently developed and refined by Walker et al. (2005) to assess the motivational variables of Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s (2005) Model of Parent Involvement. These scales included: Role Activity Beliefs, Efficacy, Perceptions of General School Invitations, Perceptions of Specific Child Invitations, Perceptions of Specific Teacher Invitations, Perceptions of Personal Knowledge and Skills, Perceptions of Time and Energy, and Parent Choice of Involvement Activities. A demographics section was also designed to collect information regarding: the child’s special education classification; the types of services the child receives; the gender of the child; the child’s grade; the approximate socioeconomic status of the family (identified through items related to the parent’s
Two-biological-parent family
108
78.8
Stepfather family Stepmother family
1 1
Mother only family
13
9.5
Father only family
2
1.5
12
8.8
Other
.7 .7
Grade Kindergarten
18
13.1
First
23
16.8
Second
16
11.7
Third
26
19.0
Fourth
30
21.9
Fifth
11
8.0
Sixth
13
9.5
123
528
J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:523–535
Table 1 continued Variable
Total sample (N = 137) n
%
Highest level of education earned Less than high school
3
2.2
High school graduate or equivalent
4
2.9
Vocational/technical education After high school or some college
3 16
2.2 11.7
College graduate
50
36.5
Graduate or professional school
60
43.8
American Indian/Alaska Native
2
1.5
Asian/Pacific Islander
3
2.2
Race/ethnicity
Black (not Hispanic)
6
4.4
Hispanic
3
2.2
White (not Hispanic) Other
120 3
87.6 2.2
educational attainment and whether the child is eligible for free or reduced lunch); the child’s current family structure; relationship of the participant to the child; and race/ethnicity that best describes the participant. Additionally, items were added to the involvement choices scale to assess parents’ involvement choices related to special education. The total parent involvement survey was comprised of 65 items. Procedure Three professionals with expertise in special education reviewed the Parent Involvement Survey and the cover letters explaining the study and the terms of participation. These professionals were asked to examine the documents to ensure that the instructions on the cover letter and the questions in the survey were clear, appropriate, and easyto-understand. Revisions to the cover letter and survey were made according to the professionals’ recommendations (e.g., making wording more parent-friendly, shortening the cover letter, adding ‘‘not sure’’ options to the demographics section). No alterations were made to the scale items constructed and refined by Walker et al. (2005). Parent Involvement Surveys were disseminated to 744 parents across two suburban school districts in the northeastern region of the United States after university Institutional Review Board (IRB) permission was obtained. The first district serves about 5,100 students in kindergarten through grade 12 and contains six elementary schools serving students in grades 1 through 5. The second district serves approximately 5,600 students in kindergarten
123
through grade 12 and has seven elementary schools serving students in grades 1 through 6. Participants for the current study had to be parents or legal guardians of elementary school children who were classified with a special education disability according to the 13 categories in NYS, Part 200 (New York implementation of IDEIA). Additionally, the children had to be receiving special education services at the time of the survey distribution. The surveys were mailed to parents and included a pre-paid return address envelope to return the survey directly to the primary investigator’s university address. Parents were instructed to complete the items based on their experiences with their child with a disability in the school year when the surveys were distributed. Surveys were distributed in May 2010 and were collected through August 2010. One hundred eighty participants completed and returned the surveys (25 % response rate). The sample size is consistent with those from other studies that have tested constructs from the Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (2005) Model.
Results Preliminary Analyses Reverse coded items on the efficacy scale were re-coded before conducting the primary data analyses. The data were also screened for out of range values, missing variables, and normality of distribution. Skewness and Kurtosis statistics were used to check the deviation of the data from a normal distribution (i.e., symmetry and peakedness). According to Heppner and Heppner (2004), no firm guideline exists for determining acceptable distribution values. The general rule, however, is that the numbers should be less than the absolute value of two, and closer to zero is better. All of the scales on the Parent Involvement Survey met the Skewness criteria. Two of the dependent variable scales (i.e., School-Based Involvement, and Home-Based Involvement) were over the Kurtosis criteria. One way to handle a non-normal distribution of data is to ‘‘transform’’ or mathematically modify the variables to make the distribution more normal. There is considerable controversy, however, regarding this approach (e.g., Pallant 2010). Due to the aspiration of the current study—to provide information regarding a unique sub-population— the authors decided to explore the non-normalities through further analysis of the descriptive data. Remarks from several of the participants in the margins of the survey and in the comments section at the end of the survey revealed concerns about the distribution of the Likert items on the Parent Choice of Involvement Activities Scale, which included items measuring School-Based Involvement
J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:523–535
529
Two missing data techniques were compared for this study: the item-mean method and the mean of available items or sometimes called the person-mean imputation method. The authors first attempted the item-mean technique where the group mean is substituted for the missing data (Heppner and Heppner 2004). A frequency analysis was performed to identify nonrandom missing variables (i.e., items with more than 5 % missing data, Heppner and Heppner 2004). Fifteen items met this criterion (11 on the Parent Choice of Involvement Activities scale, one on the Role Activity Beliefs scale, one on the Perceptions of Specific Child Invitations scale, and two on the Perceptions of Specific Teacher Invitations scale). Eleven out of 15 (73 %) of the items were noted to be problematic on the Parent Choice of Involvement Activities scale; however, the scale could not be deleted, as it was essential for the study and the data analysis.
and Home-Based Involvement. A frequency analysis confirmed the truncated distribution of participant responses, thus contributing to the peakedness in the data. To account for this, the grouping of items for each of the dependent variables (i.e., Home-Based, School-Based, and Special Education Involvement) was recoded to reflect the participant response distribution. Home-Based involvement items were recoded into once a week or less (original Likert items 1 thru 4), a few times a week (item 5), and daily (item 6). School-Based involvement items were recoded into never (item 1), sometimes (item 2), as much as possible (items 3 thru 6). Lastly, Special Education Involvement items were recoded into low (items 1 and 2), medium (item 3), and high (items 4 thru 6). A reanalysis of the data reflected normal Kurtosis. Means, standard deviations, ranges, skewness, kurtosis, and alpha reliabilities are reported in Table 2; zeroorder correlations are displayed in Table 3.
Table 2 Descriptive Statistics for Subscales of Parent Involvement Survey N
Range
M
SD
Skewness
Kurtosis
a
Role activity beliefs
124
2.50
5.30
.46
-.86
.21
.78
Efficacy
130
1.71
4.59
.44
-.33
.21
.62
General School Invitations
134
4.00
5.14
.79
-1.62
.21
.86
Specific Child Invitations
128
5.00
3.52
1.04
-.09
.21
.77
Specific Teacher Invitations Personal Knowledge and Skills
119 132
4.33 3.00
2.84 5.19
1.18 .55
.23 -1.06
.21 .21
.82 .83
Time and Energy
132
3.67
4.85
.80
-.69
.21
.87
Home-Based Involvement
115
1.60
2.50
.44
-.51
.21
.66
School-Based Involvement
107
2.00
2.27
.44
-.29
.21
.77
Special Education Involvement
109
2.00
1.91
.53
.37
.21
.81
Subscale Ns vary because missing data was not replaced due to the mean of available items being used
Table 3 Zero-order correlations among scales RAB RAB
EF
GSI
SCI
STI
PKS
TE
HBI
1.00
SBI
SEI
1.00
EF
.42**
1.00
GSI
.40**
.23**
SCI
.34**
.25**
.16
STI
.22*
.04
.07
.26**
1.00
PKS
.41**
.53**
.45**
.35**
.17
TE HBI
.52** .28**
.51** .13
.41** -.05
.38** .36**
.21* .26**
.68** .20*
1.00 .29**
SBI
.48**
.31**
.28**
.36**
.31**
.30**
.46**
.25**
SEI
.27**
.15
.25**
.32**
.10
.17
.39**
1.00
-.02
1.00 1.00
1.00 .33**
1.00
RAB Role Activity Beliefs, EF Efficacy, GSI Perceptions of General School Invitations, SCI Perceptions of Specific Child Invitations, STI Perceptions of Specific Teacher Invitations, PKS Perceptions of Personal Knowledge and Skills, TE Perceptions of Time and Energy, HBI HomeBased Involvement, SBI School-Based Involvement, SEI Special Education Involvement * p \ .05; ** p \ .01
123
530
J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:523–535
and Sandler 2005) followed the order delineated in Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s (2005) Model. The imputed blocks were as follows: (a) Block 1, control variables (family composition, race/ethnicity, SES); (b) Block 2, motivational beliefs related to involvement (role activity beliefs and efficacy); (c) Block 3, perceptions of invitations to involvement (general invitations from the school, specific teacher invitations, specific child invitations); and (d) Block 4, perceived life context variables (skills and knowledge, time and energy). SES variables (i.e., parent’s educational attainment and whether the child is eligible for free or reduced lunch) were entered separately, consistent with some researchers’ (e.g., Duncan and Magnuson 2003) indications that aggregating SES measures ignores the complexity that may characterize the components of family SES.
We used the mean of available items technique instead of the item-mean method to avoid overmanipulating the data. This technique substitutes the mean of a participant’s completed items for items that were not completed on a specific scale. By using this method, different substitutions are made for each person with missing items; thus, retaining the scale’s natural variability (Bono et al. 2007). Instead of totaling the item responses on each of the respective scales, means of the completed items were computed (provided more than half of the item responses were completed). This allowed for all of the data to remain in the dataset, regardless of the amount of missing data. Due to this, sample sizes used in the analyses differed (see Table 2).
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Home-Based Involvement A series of three hierarchical multiple regressions were conducted to assess the extent to which the IVs (i.e., perceived role construction, perceived efficacy, perceptions of general school invitations, perceptions of specific teacher invitations, perceptions of specific child invitations, perceived knowledge and skills, perceived time and energy) predicted the dependent variables (DVs; i.e., home-based, school-based, and special education involvement). No issues with multicolinearity were detected. Relevant information is summarized in Tables 4, 5, and 6, respectively. The IVs were entered into the blocks in accordance with previous studies (e.g., Green et al. 2007; Hoover-Dempsey
The first model, which accounted for demographic variables, was not significant. The second model added parent motivational beliefs and explained 6 % of the variance: F (2, 120) = 2.4, p \ .05, Adjusted R2 = .06. Role activity beliefs, specifically, contributed in the positive direction (p \ .01). The third model added perceptions of invitations to involvement and accounted for 17 % of the variance: F (3, 117) = 3.87, p \ .001, Adjusted R2 = .17. The inclusion of these variables slightly decreased the significance of role activity beliefs (p \ .05). Specific child invitations contributed significantly in the positive direction (p \ .01) and general school invitations contributed
Table 4 Summary of home-based involvement hierarchical regression analyses Variable
Model 1
Model 2
B
SE B
b
Race/Ethnicity
.03
.05
Family Composition Parent Education Level
.02 .05
.03 .04
Free or Reduced Lunch
.15
.11
Model 3
B
SE B
b
-.05
.03
.05
.06 .13
.02 .05
.02 .04
-.14
.17
.10
Role Activity Beliefs
.27
.09
Efficacy
.01
.10
Model 4
B
SE B
b
-.05
.04
.05
.06 .13
.00 .05
.02 .04
-.16
.17
.10
.24
.10
.29** -.01
B
SE B
b
-.06
.05
.05
-.08
.01 .13
.01 .05
.02 .04
.04 .12
-.16
.13
.10
-.13
.18
.10
.19
.25*
.00
.09
.00
.07
.10
-.07
General School Invitations
.13
.05
-.22*
.14
.06
-.24**
Specific Child Invitations
.11
.04
.25**
.09
.04
.21*
Specific Teacher Invitations
.05
.03
.15
.05
.03
.14
Personal Knowledge and Skills
.01
.11
-.02
Time and Energy
.13
.07
.23
Adjusted R Square
.00
.06**
.17**
.18**
R Square Change
.03
.08**
.12**
.23**
SE, standard error; b, beta * p \ .05; ** p \ .01
123
J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:523–535
531
Table 5 Summary of School-Based Involvement hierarchical regression analyses Variable
Model 1 B
Model 2
SE B
b
B
Model 3
SE B
b
B
Model 4
SE B
b
B
SE B
b
Race/Ethnicity
.03
.05
.05
.02
.04
.04
.03
.04
.06
.02
.04
.03
Family Composition
.03
.02
.09
.02
.02
.09
.02
.02
-.07
.02
.02
-.06
Parent Education Level
.08
.04
.20*
.08
.03
.21**
.08
.03
.20*
.09
.03
.22**
Free or Reduced Lunch
.12
.10
.11
.12
.09
.09
.08
.12
.09
.12
.12
.09
Role Activity Beliefs
.41
.08
.43**
.28
.09
.29**
.22
.09
.23**
Efficacy
.11
.08
.11
.09
.08
.09
.08
.09
.08
General School Invitations Specific Child Invitations
.05 .09
.05 .03
.09 .22**
.06 .09
.05 .03
.11 .20**
Specific Teacher Invitations
.05
.03
.13
Personal Knowledge and Skills Time and Energy
.05
.03
.13
.16
.09
-.20
.16
.06
.27*
Adjusted R Square
.06*
.30**
.36**
.38*
R Square Change
.09*
.24**
.08**
.03*
SE, standard error; b, beta * p \ .05; ** p \ .01
Table 6 Summary of Special Education Involvement hierarchical regression analyses Variable
Model 1 B
SE B
Model 2 b
B
Model 3
SE B
b
B
SE B
Model 4 b
B
SE B
b
Race/Ethnicity
.11
.06
.17
.11
.06
.17
.11
.06
.17
.09
.06
.15
Family Composition
.03
.03
.09
.03
.03
.10
.03
.03
.09
.03
.03
.09
Parent Education Level
.01
.05
.02
.00
.04
.01
.01
.04
.02
.00
.04
.00
Free or Reduced Lunch
.10
.12
.08
.08
.12
.06
.08
.12
.07
.07
.12
.06
Role Activity Beliefs
.26
.11
.24*
.18
.12
.16
.16
.12
.14
Efficacy
.08
.11
.07
.09
.11
.08
.10
.12
.09
General School Invitations
.03
.06
.04
.01
.07
-.02
Specific Child Invitations
.05
.05
.10
.05
.05
.10
Specific Teacher Invitations Personal Knowledge and Skills
.12
.04
.26**
.12 .12
.04 .13
.26** -.13
.08
.09
Time and Energy
.12
Adjusted R Square
.01
.07**
.14**
.13
R Square Change
.04
.07**
.09**
.01
SE, standard error; b beta * p \ .05; ** p \ .01
significantly in the negative direction (p \ .05). Model 4 accounted for all of the independent variables and accounted for 18 % of the variance: F (2, 115) = 3.53, p \ .001, Adjusted R2 = .18. The inclusion of parents’ perceptions of their life context variables appeared to suppress the effect of role activity beliefs and lowered the influence of perceived child invitations (p \ .05). Conversely, it contributed to the significance of general school invitations (p \ .01).
School-Based Involvement The first model contributed significantly to parents’ schoolbased involvement and accounted for 6 % of the variance: F (4, 123) = 3.12, p \ .05, Adjusted R2 = .06. Specifically, parents’ level of educational attainment contributed in the positive direction (p \ .05). The second model added an additional 24 % to the variance: F (2, 121) = 9.12, p \ .001, Adjusted R2 = .30. Parents’ level
123
532
of educational attainment became more significant (p \ .01); role activity beliefs was also significant at this level. The addition of specific invitations in the third model accounted for an additional 6 % in the variance: F (3, 118) = 8.94, p \ .001, Adjusted R2 = .36. Parents’ level of educational attainment was slightly less significant (p \ .05), while role activity beliefs and specific child invitations were significant at the .01 level. Model 4 accounted for 38 % of the total variance: F (2, 116) = 8.15, p \ .001, Adjusted R2 = .38. Parents’ level of educational attainment, role activity beliefs, and specific child invitations were significant at the .01 level and perceived time and energy was significant at the .05 level. Special Education Involvement The first model, which accounted for the demographic variables, was not significant. Model 2, however, was significant and explained 7 % of the variance F (2, 115) = 2.4, p \ .05, Adjusted R2 = .07; parent role activity beliefs demonstrated significance at the .05 level. The addition of perceptions of invitations to (i.e., model 3) contributed an additional 7 % to the variance: F (3, 112) = 3.09, p \ .01, Adjusted R2 = .14. The inclusion of these variables appeared to suppress the effect of role activity beliefs, as it became insignificant. Perceptions of specific teacher invitations demonstrated significance at the .01 level. The addition of perceptions of life context did not add significantly to the model.
Discussion The purpose of this study was to investigate whether various involvement choices of parents of elementary school students in special education were predicted by the motivational variables in Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s (2005) Model of Parent Involvement, when controlling for potentially influential demographic variables. Parents indicated being less involved at home when they perceived the school to be more welcoming, communicative, and informative. Although counterintuitive, this finding suggests that parents who feel as though the school is not reaching out may become even more motivated to participate at home to supplement their child’s education. Another hypothesis is that general school invitations may be targeted to the general school population, and parents of students in special education may not perceive them as applicable. On the other hand, it may be that parents who find their school to be exceptionally welcoming and communicate may feel as though the school is taking good care of their child, thus they may not feel as inclined to participate in educational activities at home. Although the research on general school
123
J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:523–535
invitations has been mixed, this inverse relationship is particularly unique; it is possible that this is due to the distinct needs of parents of students in special education. In general, the finding highlights the importance of direct, targeted communication with this group of parents. Pupil personnel services, special educators, and/or general education teachers may coordinate this type of correspondence depending on the unique needs of the child. Parents in the current study reported being more involved in both home and school-based activities when children specifically requested their involvement. Specific child invitations are posited to influence parent involvement decisions by encouraging the parent to become involved and by shaping the parents’ choice of involvement forms (Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler 1995). As such, it may be beneficial to encourage students to ask for help with homework and to request time to talk about the school day with their parent(s)/guardian(s). A child’s ability to do this will vary depending on their level of disability as well as their age; teachers and staff may need to provide children with direct instruction and practice before the child can extend these invitations. Some suggestions are for teachers to review and role-play various ways children can talk to their parents about school and homework. To encourage students to talk to their parent(s)/guardian(s), teachers may assign the requests as part of their homework. Parents’ beliefs about their level of responsibility in supporting their child’s education predicted school-based involvement only. Feelings of responsibility typically develop from parent’s own experiences, information provided by the school, the media, and informal parent networks (Russell 2003). As such, parents’ comprehension of their school-based responsibilities may be more clearly defined by their school’s expectations for involvement. Parents, particularly those who have not had experience parenting a child with special needs, do not have these same guidelines or comparisons for their home-based involvement. Consequently, teachers may need to convey a sense of parent responsibility when requesting various types of parental involvement. This may include, for example, an explicit and direct statement of the expected parent roles and duties related to communication, homework, and awareness of activities. Since students in special education often work with a variety of individuals within the school including but not limited to school psychologists and special education teachers, it may be beneficial for all school personnel to send this same message to parents to reinforce their responsibility to their child’s education. The parents in this study reported higher levels of school-based involvement when their perceptions of time and energy were greater. It has been suggested that parents with relatively strong perceptions of their role and a strong sense of self-efficacy for helping their child will select
J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:523–535
forms of involvement that fit within the demands on their time and energy (Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler 1995). Parents of students in special education may choose to devote their time and energy to school-based participation to advocate for their child’s needs, to obtain information about their child’s performance, and to ensure the school’s support of their child. It is also plausible that parents of students with disabilities may engage in home-based activities, regardless of their perceived time and energy. School-based activities require parents to take time off of work or necessitate parents coming to the school after work hours. To support these parents in their school-based participation, it may be helpful for teachers and school psychologists to learn about parents’ perceptions of their time and energy and to help brainstorm ways for the parents to be involved in a way that will work for them. This may include, for example, the preparation and coordination of materials for field trips or activities as well as communication and coordination with other parents via the phone or Internet. Parents’ reported level of education—an indication of SES level—also predicted school-based involvement. This finding is consistent with previous research (i.e., Davies 1993; Ritblatt et al. 2002), and suggests that parents from higher SES are more likely to participate at school regardless of the other motivational variables. The relationship between SES and parent involvement may have been limited, in part, to school-based activities because of conflicting teacher-parent perceptions. Educators and school personnel have sometimes reported that parents from low SES groups are hard-to- reach (Davies 1993). Research also suggests that some teachers believe that parents from low SES backgrounds do not value education (Davies 1993). This conflict may create a potential barrier to successful school-based involvement. This highlights the importance of directly supporting and encouraging parents of students in special education who come from lower SES backgrounds. School psychologists may play a unique role by providing psychoeducation to educators regarding the obstacles these parents face as well as information about how to successfully communicate with them. The only significant predictor for special education involvement was specific teacher invitations. The research regarding the extent to which specific teacher invitations predict specific forms of involvement is somewhat mixed. Most of the research suggests that supportive teacher practices are one of the strongest predictors of involvement (Anderson and Minke 2007; Smith et al. 1997). The finding in the current study suggests that specific and direct communication from a child’s teacher is important and influential when encouraging parents to participate in meetings, contribute to educational planning, and to reciprocate communication efforts. It might be beneficial for school districts to
533
provide teachers with pre-service training to teach skills in engaging parents, especially given that 48 % of teachers have reported a ‘‘lack of staff training in working with parents’’ (National Center for Education Statistics 1998). Limitations and Future Research The current study has some limitations regarding the population studied and the methodology. One notable limitation is the generalizability of the findings to other groups of parents. The participants in this study were recruited from two similar suburban school districts in upstate New York, and the demographic data reflected a fairly homogenous population. Parents’ educational values and expectations have been shown to have the strongest relationship to student achievement when compared to other parent involvement dimensions (Fan and Chen 2001; Jeynes 2005). Because of their educational status, the parents in the current study may have been sending their children specific messages regarding the importance of education. Future research may increase the ability to generalize to other groups by surveying different demographic populations (e.g., rural or urban) or school districts with more diversity. Future researchers might also consider extending the recruitment criteria to allow for an empirical test of differences between other unique participant subgroups. Some suggestions for group comparisons include: (a) parents of students with disabilities in elementary grades vs. parents of students with disabilities in secondary grades, (b) parents of students with high incidence disabilities versus parents of students with low incidence disabilities, and (c) mothers of students with disabilities versus fathers of students with disabilities. This information would provide practitioners with knowledge regarding how to effectively support parents with various needs. As for the Parent Involvement Survey, parents’ comments suggested frustration regarding the restrictiveness of the Likert options for some of the items, particularly on the Parent Involvement Activities scale. This was most troublesome for events that occurred one time per year or as needed. It may be helpful to add another quantitative choice (e.g., one time per month or year) to more accurately reflect these involvement practices. Another limitation of the Parent Involvement Survey was the self-report format, as there was no validation of the parents’ level of participation. Researchers would likely benefit from surveying other individuals (i.e., teacher, child) regarding the parent’s level of participation. It might also be beneficial to supplement the Parent Involvement Survey with measures of academic achievement to test whether or not parent involvement indeed leads to higher educational outcomes for students with disabilities as the Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (2005) Model of Parent Involvement predicts.
123
534
Lastly, it is noteworthy that the category of special education is quite diverse and includes individuals with both low and high-incidence disabilities. The current study assessed the participation of parents of students with any IDEIA classification and did not parse out individual disabilities or look at low versus high-incidence disabilities. This was, in part, due to the limited range of disability categories represented by the identified sample. Nevertheless, future studies may benefit from breaking down this category even further (e.g., by disability or groupings of disabilities). Researchers might also assess the differences between the participation practices of different groups of parents (e.g., parents of students with low vs. high-incidence disabilities).
Conclusion The Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (2005) Model of Parent Involvement considers a dynamic process between a parent’s motivations for involvement and student achievement. Although it does not include all of the possible motivational variables that may contribute to a parent’s involvement practices, it provides a framework for understanding the active relationship between parents’ motivation and their actual participation. The current study adds to the growing literature base for this model and provides information regarding a unique group of parents. Taken as a whole, the findings suggest that parents of students in special education are influenced by multiple, complex factors when making decisions about their involvement practices. As such, these parents may require more than general invitations for involvement and a welcoming school environment. School-based practitioners may help to increase parent involvement for this group by sending specific, direct invitations for involvement and by encouraging children to do the same.
References Anderson, K. J., & Minke, K. M. (2007). Parent involvement in education: Toward and understanding of parents’ decision making. The Journal of Educational Research, 100, 311–323. doi:10.3200/JOER.100.5.311-323. Arnold, D. H., Zeljo, A., Doctoroff, G. L., & Ortiz, C. (2008). Parent involvement in preschool: Predictors of involvement to preliteracy development. School Psychology Review, 37(1), 74–90. Baker, J., Denessen, E., & Brus-Laven, M. (2007). Socio-economic background, parental involvement and teacher perceptions of these in relation to pupil achievement. Educational Studies, 33, 177–192. doi:10.1080/03055690601068345. Balli, S. J., Demo, D. H., & Wedman, J. F. (1998). Family involvement with children’s homework: An intervention in the middle grades. Family Relations, 47, 149–157. doi:10.2307/ 585619.
123
J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:523–535 Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman. Bono, C., Ried, D. L., Kimberlin, C., & Vogel, B. (2007). Missing data on the center for epidemiologic studies depression scale: A comparison of 4 imputation techniques. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 3(1), 1–27. Christenson, S. L. (1995a). Best practices in supporting home-school collaboration. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology III (pp. 253–267). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists. Christenson, S. L. (1995b). Families and schools: What is the role of the school psychologist? School Psychology Quarterly, 10, 118–132. doi:10.1037/h0088315. Coots, J. J. (1998). Family resources and parent participation in schooling activities for their children with developmental delays. The Journal of Special Education, 31, 498–520. doi:10.1177/ 002246699803100406. Davies, D. (1993). Benefits and barriers to parent involvement: From Portugal to Boston to Liverpool. In N. F. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and schools in a pluralistic society (pp. 205–216). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Deslandes, R., & Bertrand, R. (2005). Motivation of parent involvement in secondary-level schooling. The Journal of Educational Research, 98, 164–175. doi:10.3200/JOER.98.3.164-175. Deslandes, R., & Cloutier, R. (2002). Adolescents’ perception of parental involvement in schooling. School Psychology International, 23, 220–232. doi:10.1177/0143034302023002919. Duncan, G. J., & Magnuson, K. A. (2003). Off with Hollingshead: Socioeconomic resources, parenting, and child development. In M. H. Bornstein & R. H. Bradley (Eds.), Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development (pp. 83–106). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Dwyer, D. J., & Hecht, J. B. (1992). Minimal parent involvement. The School-Community Journal, 2, 53–66. Dyson, L. L. (1997). Fathers and mothers of school-age children with developmental disabilities: Parental stress, family functioning, and social support. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 102, 267–269. doi:10.1352/0895-8017(1997)102\0267: FAMOSC[2.0.CO;2. Fan, X., & Chen, M. (1999). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 1–22. doi:10.1023/A:1009048817385. Garcia, D. C. (2004). Exploring connections between the construct of teacher efficacy and family involvement practices: Implications for urban teacher preparation. Urban Education, 39, 290–315. doi:10.1177/00420854904263205. Green, C. L., Walker, J. M. T., Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. (2007). Parents’ motivations for involvement in children’s education: An empirical test of a theoretical model of parental involvement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 532–544. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.532. Griffith, J. (1998). The relation of school structure and social environment to parent involvement in elementary schools. The Elementary School Journal, 99, 53–80. doi:0013-5984/99/99010003. Grolnick, W. S., Benjet, C., Kurowski, C. O., & Apostoleris, N. H. (1997). Predictors of parent involvement in children’s schooling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 538–548. doi:10.1037/ 0022-0663.99.3.532. Grolnick, W. S., & Slowiaczek, M. L. (1994). Parents’ involvement in children’s schooling: A multidimensional conceptualization and
J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:523–535 motivational model. Child Development, 64, 237–252. doi:10. 2307/1131378. Haynes, N. M., Comer, J. P., & Hamilton-Lee, M. (1989). School climate enhancement through parent involvement. Journal of School Psychology, 27, 87–90. doi:0022-4405/89. Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Heppner, P. P., & Heppner, M. J. (2004). Writing and publishing your thesis, dissertation, and research. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Thompson. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1995). Parent involvement in children’s education: Why does it make a difference? Teachers College Record, 97, 310–331. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their children’s education? Review of Educational Research, 67, 3–42. Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., & Sandler, H.M. (2005). Final performance report for OERI: The social context of parental involvement: A path to enhanced achievement. Presented to Project Monitor, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, March 22, 2005. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M. T., & Sandler, H. M. (2005). Parents’ motivations for involvement in their children’s education. In E. N. Patrikakou, R. P. Weisberg, S. Redding, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), School–family partnerships for children’s success (pp. 40–56). New York: Teachers College Press. Izzo, C. V., Weissberg, R. P., Kasprow, W. J., & Fendrich, M. (1999). A longitudinal assessment of teacher perceptions of parent involvement in children’s education and school performance. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 817–839. doi:0091-0562/99/1200-0817. Jeynes, W. H. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to urban elementary school student academic achievement. Urban Education, 40, 237–269. doi:10.1177/ 0042085905274540. Keith, T. Z., Keith, P. B., Troutman, G. C., Bickley, P. G., Trivette, P. S., & Singh, K. (1993). Does parental involvement affect eighthgrade student achievement? Structural analysis of national data. School Psychology Review, 22, 474–496. Kohl, G. O., Leguna, J. L., & McMahon, R. J. (2000). Parent involvement in school conceptualizing multiple dimensions and their relations with family and demographic risk factors. Society for the Study of School Psychology, 38, 501–523. Lavenda, O. (2011). Parental involvement in school: A test of Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s model among Jewish and Arab parents in Israel. Children and Youth Services, 33, 927–935. Mannan, G., & Blackwell, J. (1992). Parent involvement: Barriers and opportunities. The Urban Review, 24, 219–226. doi:10.1007/ BF01108494. Marcoon, R. A. (1999). Positive relationships between parent school involvement and public school inner-city preschoolers’ development and academic performance. School Psychology Review, 28, 395–412. McWilliam, R. A., Maxwell, K. L., & Sloper, K. M. (1999). Beyond ‘‘involvement’’: Are elementary schools ready to be family centered? The School Psychology Review, 28, 378–394. Morris, V. G., & Taylor, S. I. (1998). Alleviating barriers to family involvement in education: The role of teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 219–231. doi:0742051X/98. National Center for Education Statistics. (1998). Parent involvement in children’s education: Efforts by public elementary schools,
535 NCES 98-032. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://nces.ed. gov/pubs98/98032.pdf. New York State Education Department. (2010). New York State report cards. Retrieved from https://reportcards.nysed.gov/coun ties.php?year=2010. Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS (4th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. Patrikakou, E. N., & Weisserg, R. P. (2009). Parents’ perceptions of teacher outreach and parent involvement in children’s education. Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the Community, 20, 103–119. doi:10.1300/J005v20n01_08. Ritblatt, S. N., Bearry, J. R., Cronan, T. A., & Ochoa, A. M. (2002). Relationships among perceptions of parent involvement, time allocation, and demographic characteristics: Implication for policy formation. Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 519–549. Rogers, M. A., Wiener, J., Marton, I., & Tannock, R. (2009). Parental involvement in children’s learning: Comparing parents of children with and without Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Journal of School Psychology, 47, 167–185. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2009.02.001. Russell, F. (2003). Expectations of parents of disabled children. British Journal of Special Education, 30, 144–149. Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2002). Improving student behavior and school discipline with family and community involvement. Education and Urban Society, 35, 4–26. doi:10.1177/001312402237212. Shurnow, L., & Miller, J. (1999). Parents’ at-home and at-school academic involvement with young adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 21, 68–91. Smith, E. P., Connell, C. M., Wright, G., Sizer, M., Norman, J. M., Hurley, A., et al. (1997). An ecological model of home, school, and community partnerships: Implications for research and practice. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 8, 339–360. doi:10.1207/s1532768xjepc0804_2. Swap, S. (1990). Schools reaching out and success for all children: Two case studies. Boston: Institute for Responsive Education. Trivette, P., & Anderson, E. (1995). The effects of four components of parent involvement on eighth-grade student achievement: Structural analysis of NELS:88 data. School Psychology Review, 24, 299–317. doi:02796015. U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Twenty-eighth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/ about/reports/annual/osep/2006/parts-b-c/28th-vol-2.pdf. Van Haren, B., & Fiedler, C. R. (2008). Support and empower families of children with disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43, 231–235. doi:10.1177/1053451208314908. Waanders, C., Mendez, J. L., & Downer, J. T. (2007). Parent characteristics, economic stress, and neighborhood context as predictors of parent involvement in preschool children’s education. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 619–636. doi:10.1016/j. jsp.2007.07.003. Walker, J. M., Wilkins, A. S., Dallaire, J., Sandler, H. M., & HooverDempsey, K. V. (2005). Parental involvement: Model revision through scale development. Elementary School Journal, 106, 85–104. doi:10.1086/499193. Wang, M., Mannan, H., Psoton, D., Turnbull, A. P., & Summers, J. A. (2004). Parents’ perceptions of advocacy activities and their impact on family quality of life. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 29, 144–155. Wong, S. W., & Hughes, J. N. (2006). Ethnicity and language contributions to dimensions of parent involvement. School Psychology Review, 35, 645–666.
123
