This article was downloaded by: [North Carolina State University]

On: 16 April 2015, At: 22:22

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer
Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Educational Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjer20

Parent Involvement in Education: Toward an Understanding of

Parents' Decision Making
a b
Kellie J. Anderson & Kathleen M. Minke
a
Anne Arundel County, Maryland, Public Schools
b
University of Delaware
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Kellie J. Anderson & Kathleen M. Minke (2007) Parent Involvement in Education: Toward an Understanding of Parents'
Decision Making, The Journal of Educational Research, 100:5, 311-323, DOI: 10.3200/JOER.100.5.311-323

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOER.100.5.311-323

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications
on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever
as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this
publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy
of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor
and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the
use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,
redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 311-323 Anderson M_J 07 5/8/07 10:59 AM Page 311
Parent Involvement in Education:
Toward an Understanding of
Parents’ Decision Making
KELLIE J. ANDERSON
Anne Arundel County, Maryland, Public Schools
KATHLEEN M. MINKE
University of Delaware
Downloaded by [North Carolina State University] at 22:22 16 April 2015
ABSTRACT Parent involvement (PI) in education is associ-
ated with positive outcomes for students; however, little is
known about how parents decide to be involved in children’s
education. On the basis of the K. V. Hoover-Dempsey and H.
M. Sandler (1995, 1997) model of parent decision making,
the authors examined the relationship among 4 parent vari-
ables (role construction, sense of efficacy, resources, and per-
ceptions of teacher invitations) with PI activities at home and
school. The authors surveyed parents of elementary students
from an urban district. Specific invitations from teachers had
the largest effect on the 3 types of parent involvement. Par-
ents’ sense of efficacy and level of resources were less influ-
ential than anticipated. The authors discuss implications of
the findings for teacher and school practices, policy develop-
ment, and future research.
Keywords: parent involvement and decision making, teacher
practices, teacher training
P arent involvement (PI) in education has been asso-
ciated with a variety of positive academic out-
comes, including higher grade-point averages
(Gutman & Midgley, 2000) increased achievement in
reading (e.g., Senechal & LeFevre, 2002), writing (Epstein,
Simon, & Salinas, 1997), and mathematics (Izzo, Weiss-
berg, Kasprow, & Fendrich, 1999). Other academic benefits
include lower dropout rates (Rumberger, 1995), fewer
retentions, and special education placements (Miedel &
Reynolds, 1999). Positive behavioral outcomes associated
with PI include increased ability to self-regulate behavior
(Brody, Flor, & Gibson, 1999) and higher levels of social
skills (McWayne, Hampton, Fantuzzo, Cohen, & Sekino,
2004). Although most of those findings are correlational,
there is also evidence of causal relationships.
For example, when families participate in specific pro-
grams aimed at increasing their involvement, improvements
are seen in overall achievement (Shaver & Walls, 1998):
reading, writing, and mathematics skills (Epstein et al.,
1997; Jordan, Snow, & Porche, 2000; Starkey & Klein,
2000); homework completion (Cancio, West, & Young,
2004); statewide assessment scores (Sheldon, 2003); and
behavior (e.g., Kratochwill, McDonald, Levin, Bear-Tib-
311
betts, & Demaray, 2004; Pantin et al., 2003). Recent meta-
analyses support moderate effect sizes for the effects of PI on
achievement (Fan & Chen, 2001), with even larger effect
sizes demonstrated among urban students (Jeynes, 2005).
The literature on parent involvement is not uniformly
positive, however. For example, evidence shows that par-
ents and educators define involvement differently; parents
take a more community-centric view that includes keeping
their children safe and getting them to school, whereas
teachers define involvement primarily as parental presence
at school. When the different definitions are not recog-
nized, miscommunications can occur that lead teachers to
blame families for child difficulties and parents to feel
unappreciated for their efforts (Lawson, 2003). The ability
of families to comply with teacher expectations also differs
because of varying levels of resources. Middle-class families
tend to have more flexible work schedules and easier access
to transportation than do working-class families (Lareau,
1989), making it easier for them to be present at school and
to receive acknowledgment. When trying to understand
parents’ involvement choices, one should consider that
lower resource families may respond differently than do
families with greater resources. In addition, parent involve-
ment must be defined broadly to include home- and school-
based elements.
Much information remains unknown about how parents
decide to be involved in their children’s education,
although researchers have proposed several models (e.g.,
Eccles & Harold, 1996; Grolnick, Benjet, Kurowski, &
Apostoleris, 1997; Smith, Connell, Wright, Sizer, & Nor-
man, 1997). The number and types of variables addressed
in those models differ; some include status (e.g., ethnicity,
family structure) and process (e.g., teacher and parent
beliefs) variables. With respect to the influence of status
variables, research has been mixed. For example, some
researchers reported that African American parents are
Address correspondence to Kellie J. Anderson, Anne Arundel County
Public Schools, Office of Psychological Services, 1681 Millersville Road,
Millersville, MD 21108. (E-mail: kjanderson@aacps.org)
Copyright © 2007 Heldref Publications
 311-323 Anderson M_J 07 5/8/07 10:59 AM Page 312
312
involved at school less often than are Caucasian parents
(Griffith, 1998), whereas others have reported no differ-
ences in involvement between the two groups (Ho &
Willms, 1996). Mixed results are not surprising because
such studies generally do not address process variables that
differ within particular status groups. Furthermore, the
influence of status variables is often attenuated when
process variables are considered. For example, by consider-
ing teacher-outreach practices in conjunction with parents’
marital status and education level, Epstein (1990) found
that teacher practices accounted for more variance in PI
than either status variable did.
The Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler Model of PI
Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995, 1997) proposed a
Downloaded by [North Carolina State University] at 22:22 16 April 2015
relatively parsimonious process variable model that exam-
ines PI from parents’ perspectives. The model delineates
five levels that link parents’ initial decisions to become
involved in their children’s education with student out-
comes (see Figure 1). The first two levels of the model
address parents’ decision-making processes, and the upper
levels of the model (Levels 3–5) outline the ways in which
PI may positively affect student achievement. Walker,
Wilkins, Dallaire, Sandler, and Hoover-Dempsey (2005)
published a revised version of the model, but it was
unavailable at the time we conducted this study. Here, we
focused on the first two levels of the model as it was out-
lined originally; differences between the original and
revised models are highlighted in the following paragraphs.
According to the original model, parents make an initial
decision to be involved in their children’s education accord-
ing to their beliefs (i.e., role construction, sense of efficacy)
and the general opportunities and demands for involvement
from the school and their children (Level 1). Role construc-
tion means parents’ ideas about what they should do in rela-
tion to their children’s schooling (i.e., their job as a parent).
Parents with high role construction support a high level of
involvement in their children’s education.
Parents’ sense of efficacy is based on Bandura’s (1997)
theory of self-efficacy and refers to parents’ beliefs that
their involvement in their children’s schooling will posi-
tively affect their children’s learning and school success.
Furthermore, parents with a high sense of efficacy for PI
believe that they can enact the behaviors that will result in
these positive outcomes.
General opportunities and demands are characterized
as generic invitations from the child and the school,
which indicate that parents’ involvement is desirable and
valued. Those general invitations (Level 1) were differen-
tiated from specific invitations from the child and
teacher, which appeared in Level 2 of the original model.
General opportunities included children sharing their
enthusiasm about their schoolwork with their parents or
schools being perceived as being inviting to parents, as
evidenced by the welcoming attitude of the office staff.
The Journal of Educational Research
Overall, general opportunities represented nonspecific
invitations for participation.
Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995) presumed that the
Level 1 variables were the most important variables in the
model with respect to parents’ general decision to be
involved. The authors hypothesized that the specific ways
in which parents became involved were influenced by Level
2 variables: (a) parents’ specific knowledge and skills (e.g.,
knowledge of a subject area), (b) competing demands on
their time (e.g., family demands, employment demands),
and (c) specific invitations from their children and their
children’s teachers. Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995)
assumed that parents choose to be involved in activities in
which they are skilled (e.g., a parent volunteering as a
speaker on a career day). However, parent choices may be
constrained by employment demands (e.g., job schedule,
flexibility in taking time off) and family demands (e.g.,
childcare and competing activities) that limit the amount
of parents’ time and energy. For instance, parents with work
schedules that prohibit their participation during school
hours might choose to be involved at home instead. In their
original model, Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995)
asserted that when role construction and efficacy are high,
parents will be involved regardless of the level of competing
demands. The third component of the second level was spe-
cific invitations and demands from the school and the
child. Those invitations are characterized by distinct
requests from the school or child, and include such things
as a child’s request for help with homework or a teacher’s
request for a chaperone for a field trip.
In the revised model (Walker et al., 2005), most of the
Level 1 and Level 2 variables were retained; however, they
were collapsed to represent a single level. That is, the
revised model no longer distinguishes between the initial
decision to be involved (as a dependent variable) and the
forms of involvement. Role construction and self-efficacy
are now conceptualized as interrelated aspects of parents’
motivational beliefs. Walker et al. deleted the “general
invitations from the child” variable because of poor inter-
nal consistency and limited predictive power. The invita-
tions variables are now conceptualized as aspects of percep-
tions of invitations for involvement from others (general
school invitations, specific school invitations, and specific
child invitations). The time and energy and skills and
knowledge variables are conceptualized as aspects of par-
ents’ perceived life context.
One advantage to the model (in its original and revised
forms) is that it is comprehensive and relatively parsimo-
nious, which lends it readily to hypothesis testing. Also,
the model captures several important processes that have
been at least partially supported in the qualitative and
quantitative literature (see Anderson, 2005, for detailed
review). To date, relatively few empirical tests of the model
have been published. Reed, Jones, Walker, and Hoover-
Dempsey (2000) showed that role construction, efficacy,
and perceptions of teacher invitations accounted for 35%
 311-323 Anderson M_J 07 5/8/07 10:59 AM Page 313

May/June 2007 [Vol. 100 (No. 5)] 313

Level 5
Child/Student Outcomes

Skills and Knowledge

Efficacy for Doing Well in School

Level 4
Tempering/Mediating Variables

Parents’ Use of Developmentally Fit between Parents’ Involvement

Appropriate Involvement Strategies Actions & School Expectations
Downloaded by [North Carolina State University] at 22:22 16 April 2015

Level 3
Mechanisms through Which Parental Involvement Influences Child/Student Outcomes

Instructions
Modeling Reinforcement
Closed-Ended Open-Ended

Level 2
Parents’ Choice of Involvement Forms
Influenced by:

Mix of Demands on Total Specific Invitations and Demands for

Specific Domains Time & Energy from: Involvement from:
of Parents’ Skills &
Other Family Employment
Knowledge Child(ren) School/Teacher(s)
Demands Demands

Level 1
Parental Involvement Decision
(The Parent’s Positive Decision to Become Involved) Influenced by:

General Opportunities and

Parents’ Construction of
the Parental Role
Parents’ Sense of
Demands for Parental Involvement
Efficacy for Helping
Presented by:
Child(ren) Succeed
The Parent’s Child(ren)
in School
Child(ren)’s School(s)

FIGURE 1. From “Parental involvement in children’s education: Why does it make a difference?” by K. V. Hoover-Dempsey
and H. M. Sandler, 1995, Teachers College Record, 97, pp. 310–331; “Why do parents become involved in their children’s
education?” Review of Educational Research, 67, pp. 3–42.

of the variance in parent-involvement behavior. Similarly, the model may stimulate additional research (Hoover-
Hoover-Dempsey, Bassler, and Brissie (1992) reported pos- Dempsey et al., 2005; Walker et al., 2005).
itive associations between efficacy and parents’ involve- We simultaneously examined four variables from what
ment behaviors at home and school. The recent revision of is now the first level of the revised model (parents’ role
 311-323 Anderson M_J 07 5/8/07 10:59 AM Page 314
314
construction, sense of efficacy, time and energy demands,
and specific invitations and demands from teachers) for
their effects on three parent-involvement variables (par-
ent involvement at home and two types of parent
involvement at school). The independent variables tap at
least some aspects of each of the three main areas from
Level 1 of the revised model (i.e., motivational beliefs,
perceptions of invitations, and perceived life context).
However, we also investigated the relationship among the
variables in a mediational model. Hoover-Dempsey and
Sandler’s (1995, 1997) original model speculated that
parents’ motivational beliefs, when sufficiently high,
would result in involvement despite substantial limita-
tions in time and energy and knowledge and skills. Other
researchers asserted that such life context variables may
interfere with involvement choices (e.g., Lopez, 2001;
Downloaded by [North Carolina State University] at 22:22 16 April 2015
Smrekar & Cohen-Vogel, 2001).
To investigate the relationship among the variables, we
hypothesized that the relationship between parents’ role con-
struction and sense of efficacy and their involvement behav-
iors would be mediated by their perceptions of time and ener-
gy demands and specific teacher invitations. Furthermore, we
hypothesized that the mediators would be differentially relat-
ed to parents’ involvement behaviors and be more strongly
related to parents’ involvement at school and less strongly
related to their involvement at home (see Figure 2). Because
we examined all of the variables simultaneously, we provide
implications for understanding both the original and revised
versions of the Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler model.
Method
Participants
Parents of students attending three elementary schools
in a large, urban school district in the Southwest partici-
Role Resources
Sense of Efficacy Specific Invitations
FIGURE 2. Proposed path model.
The Journal of Educational Research
pated in the study. The district contained 286 schools, 185
of which were elementary schools (pre-K–5). Because of its
size, the district was divided into 13 administrative subdis-
tricts; the three elementary schools were located in the
same subdistrict. Students were approximately 49%
African American, 39% Latino, 8% Caucasian, 4% Asian,
and < 1% Native American; 77% of students received free
and reduced-price lunches. Each school reported similar
parent-involvement practices caused in part by district
mandates. For example, each school communicated with
parents on a regular basis through newsletters, agenda
books, and other written communications.
Procedures
The principals of three elementary schools participated
in this study. School 1 permitted only the parents of 4th-
and 5th-grade students to be surveyed because of concerns
about overburdening staff. Schools 2 and 3 agreed to have
all parents in their schools surveyed. All schools preferred
the surveys to be sent home with the students in keeping
with their traditional communication practices. The three
principals expressed a preference that parents be surveyed
only once; consequently, we distributed a single round of
surveys. We used forward and backward translation to cre-
ate Spanish-language forms of the measures. We distributed
surveys in the language that the school typically used to
communicate with each family. Only the English-language
survey results are reported here.
Measures
Role construction. We measured role construction with an
18-item scale developed by Sheldon (2002). We chose that
scale because, unlike other role-construction measures that
Involvement at
School–Events
(PI-SE)
Involvement at
School–Ongoing
(PI-SO)
Involvement at
Home (PIH)
 311-323 Anderson M_J 07 5/8/07 10:59 AM Page 315
May/June 2007 [Vol. 100 (No. 5)]
include a mix of beliefs and behaviors, items are limited
exclusively to parents’ beliefs about the role that they
should play in their children’s education. Scale items were
prefaced with the sentence stem, “It is parents’ responsibil-
ity to,” followed by a variety of responsibilities (e.g., help
with homework, attend parent–teacher conferences). We
rated items on a 5-point, Likert-type scale, ranging from (1)
strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. We summed responses
to create a total score (ranging from 18 to 90); higher scores
indicated that parents believed more strongly that it is their
responsibility to help the school educate their children.
Sheldon reported a standardized alpha of .90 for the scale.
Sense of efficacy. We assessed parents’ sense of efficacy
with a scale developed by Hoover-Dempsey et al. (1992).
The scale consisted of seven items focused on parents’ per-
ceived ability to influence their children’s school out-
Downloaded by [North Carolina State University] at 22:22 16 April 2015
comes, such as, “I know how to help my child do well in
school” and “I feel successful about my efforts to help my
child learn.” We rated items with a 6-point, Likert-type
scale, ranging from (6) strongly agree to (1) strongly dis-
agree. We reverse scored negatively worded items and
summed responses (total score range 7–42). High scores
represented parents who feel highly efficacious in relation
to helping influence school outcomes. The scale has
demonstrated acceptable reliability (Cronbach’s α = .78;
Hoover-Dempsey, Sandler, & Walker, 2002).
Resources. We used the Family Resource Scale (FRS;
Dunst & Leet, 1987) as a proxy for the “time and energy
demands” variable in the Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler
model. The 30-item scale includes items related to parents’
time and energy (e.g., “time to get enough sleep/rest,” “time
to be with children”) but also includes parents’ perceptions
of the adequacy of their financial resources (e.g., “money to
pay monthly bills,” “food for two meals a day”) that
researchers have shown to influence parents’ involvement
(Baker, 1997; Lopez, 2001; Ramirez, 2001). Parents
responded with a 5-point, Likert-type scale, ranging from
(1) not at all adequate to (5) almost always adequate. In addi-
tion, a “does not apply” response was available. Responses
were summed to obtain a global score—higher scores indi-
cated higher perceived resources. Researchers have report-
ed adequate reliabilities of .95 (Dunst & Leet) and .85
(McGrath & Sullivan, 1999).
Specific teacher invitations. Of the three invitations variables
retained in the revised model, we were most interested in spe-
cific teacher invitations because this variable has the greatest
potential for control by individual teachers. We used 11 items
to assess parents’ perception of specific teacher invitations.
We drew 6 of the items from the “Parent’s Perception of Spe-
cific Teacher/School Demands/Invitations for Involvement”
created by Hoover-Dempsey, Sandler et al. (2002). The orig-
inal scale contained six items and requested that parents use
a 6-point response stem, ranging from (1) never to (6) daily to
rate how often specific teacher invitations for involvement
occurred. However, a single-response stem set did not appear
to adequately capture possible responses to the items. Some
315
items reflected events for which a teacher could send only
one or a few invitations (e.g., “Back to School” night), where-
as invitations for other activities could be sent far more fre-
quently (e.g., help with homework). Consequently, we adapt-
ed the original scale.
We initially subdivided teacher invitations into two cat-
egories to recognize that some opportunities at school are
ongoing (e.g., helping with homework, helping at school),
whereas others are more time-limited events (e.g., attending
an Open House, Parent–Teacher Association meeting,
fundraising event). For items that were related to ongoing
activities (e.g., “My child’s teacher asked me or expected me
to help my child with homework”) we revised the original
6-point scale and used a 5-point scale: (1) never, (2) a few
times this year, (3) a few times each month, (4) a few times each
week, (5) almost every day. For items that related to limited
events (e.g., “My child’s teacher asked me to attend an open
house or back to school night”), we developed a 3-point
scale: (1) never, (2) once, (3) more than once. We wrote five
additional items to correspond with parent involvement
practices items (described in the following paragraph). We
then collapsed items into a single scale; higher scores indi-
cated more frequent perceived invitations.
Parent involvement practices. We drew items to measure
parent involvement at home and at school from several
preexisting scales, including the Family Involvement Ques-
tionnaire (FIQ; Fantuzzo, Tighe, & Childs, 2000), Early
Childhood Longitudinal Survey (1998), Epstein and Sali-
nas (1993), and Hoover-Dempsey, Sandler et al. (2002).
Again, a single response stem set did not appear adequate
because of some activities that parents engage in on a reg-
ular basis (e.g., spend time working on number skills) and
some that occur relatively infrequently (e.g., attending a
parent–teacher conference). To resolve the difficulty, we
differentiated items related to involvement at school into
two categories: Parent Involvement at School Ongoing (PI-
SO), which encompassed those activities that parents
could possibly do every day, and Parent Involvement at
School Events (PI-SE), which were those activities that
occur only one or fewer times during a school year.
We assigned a 3-point response stem: (1) never, (2) once,
and (3) more than once to the six items involving infrequent
events at school (e.g., “gone to a parent–teacher confer-
ence or meeting”) and a 5-point response scale (1) never,
(2) a few times this year, (3) a few times each month, (4) a few
times each week, and (5) almost every day to the 15 items
involving ongoing activities (e.g., “helped in my child’s
classroom”). We considered all of the items that were
included on the Parent Involvement at Home (PIH) scale
to be activities that parents could do every day; conse-
quently, we used the PI-SO response stems for this scale.
Preliminary Analyses
We conducted a multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) with the total scale scores to determine
 311-323 Anderson M_J 07 5/8/07 10:59 AM Page 316
316
whether parents’ survey responses differed considerably by
school. We calculated Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for
each of the scales, as a measure of internal consistency
and reliability. We screened the measured variables for
outliers, skewness, and kurtosis recommended by Ullman
(2001) and explored the assumptions for path analysis
(Kaplan, 2000).
Primary Analyses
We calculated zero-order correlations among all the
scales to examine the bivariate relationships among the
measures (see Table 1). We tested all correlations at the .05
level of significance, with two-tailed tests.
We analyzed a recursive path model (Figure 2) with six
degrees of freedom with AMOS software (1999). We used
Downloaded by [North Carolina State University] at 22:22 16 April 2015
the asymptotically distribution-free estimation method and
two-tailed tests. We hypothesized that parents’ resources
and specific invitations from the teacher would mediate the
relationship between the exogenous variables of role con-
struction and sense of efficacy and the endogenous variables
(i.e., PIH, PI-SO, PI-SE). To test the adequacy of the model,
we examined three types of fit indexes. Chi-square tests the
null hypothesis that the model fits the data exactly; a non-
significant chi-square statistic is required to reject the null
hypothesis. Root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) tests the null hypothesis that the model fits the
data approximately; again, a nonsignificant statistic is
required to reject the hypothesis. The Tucker-Lewis index
(TLI), a non-normed fit index, tests the model against a
baseline model in which the variables are completely unre-
lated to each other. The value of that statistic should be
very close to 1 to reject the hypothesis. Each fit index is
based on specific assumptions (e.g., χ2 assumes multivariate
normality); consequently, examining multiple fit indexes
from multiple classes is recommended rather than using a
single measure of fit (Mueller, 1996). We undertook model
modification only if the modifications were supported by
theory and added to the overall fit of the model.
TABLE 1. Zero-Order Correlations Among Scales
Scale 1 2
1. Role Construction 1.00
2. Efficacy .27**
3. Resources .27**
4. Specific Teacher Invitations .34**
5. PI-SE .21**
6. PI-SO .19**
7. PIH .33**
Note. N = 203. PI-SE = Parent Involvement at School Events; PI-SO = Parent Involvement at School Ongo-
ing; PIH = Parent Involvement at Home.
**p < .01.
The Journal of Educational Research
Finally, we tested mediation by using the Sobel test
(Sobel, 1982). For this study, mediation occurred if four
conditions were met: (a) the independent variable has a
significant effect on the mediator, (b) the independent
variable has a significant effect on the dependent variable
in the absence of the mediator, (c) the mediator has a sig-
nificant unique effect on the dependent variable, and (d)
the effect of the independent variable on the dependent
variable shrinks when the mediator is included in the
model. All tests of significance were two-tailed, and the
alpha level was .05.
Results
Survey response rates were as follows: School 1 = 28.6%;
School 2 = 23.8%; School 3 = 35.9%. Of the 431 surveys
received, we retained 351 (81.4%) following elimination of
spoiled surveys. We considered surveys to be spoiled if they
had one or more scales incomplete or had an obvious
response bias (e.g., all items on the efficacy scale were
scored the same, despite having negatively and positively
worded items). SPSS Missing Values Analysis (SPSS Ver-
sion 12.0.1) indicated no statistically significant relation-
ships among the missing data on any of the scales. There-
fore, we imputed missing data values with the expectation
maximization method because it produced realistic esti-
mates of variance and avoided overfitting the data
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). We created scales by sum-
ming the relevant items.
Preliminary Analyses
The preliminary MANOVA showed only small differ-
ences between schools at the multivariate and univariate
levels (i.e., accounted for less than 7% of the variance).
Consequently, we considered individual responses an appro-
priate unit of analysis, and school groups were collapsed.
Table 2 shows demographic information about the sam-
ple. Respondents were primarily mothers (79.3%) and
3 4 5 6 7
1.00
.25** 1.00
.02 –.04 1.00
.00 .03 .43** 1.00
–.07 –.02 .50** .44** 1.00
.24** .11 .44** .23** .25** 1.00
 311-323 Anderson M_J 07 5/8/07 10:59 AM Page 317

May/June 2007 [Vol. 100 (No. 5)] 317

moment correlations among all variables with two-tailed

TABLE 2. Demographic Characteristics of Final Sample tests, p < .05 (see Table 1). All correlations were positive,
and we found most of the expected relationships.
Variable n %
Path Analyses
Gender
Female 181 89.2 The initial model did not demonstrate adequate fit for
Male 21 10.3 two of the three fit indexes, χ2(7, N = 203) = 19.72, p <
Race
African American 137 67.5 .01; TLI = .65), even though the RMSEA was adequate
Asian 21 10.3 (.10, p = .06). Consequently, we examined modification
Latino 19 9.4 index (MI) and expected change (EC) statistics. The
Native American 1 0.5 revised path model (see Figure 3) included a direct path
White 14 6.9 from efficacy to PIH; the addition of this path improved
Relationship to child
Mother or stepmother 164 80.8 the fit of the model considerably, χ2(6, N = 203) = 8.34,
Father 20 9.9 p = .215; RMSEA = .04, p = .488; TLI = .93. Furthermore,
Grandparent 8 3.9 the Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) decreased
Downloaded by [North Carolina State University] at 22:22 16 April 2015

Foster parent or guardian 6 3.0 from .306 in the initial model to .259 in the final model,
Education indicating that the model would cross-validate in a similar
Did not complete high school 13 6.4
Completed high school or General 46 22.7 sample of the same size (Kaplan, 2000). An examination of
Educational Development Test the direct effects (see Figure 3) indicated that not all paths
Some college or training 82 40.4 in the revised model were significant. The paths from role
College degree 59 29.1 construction to resources (β = .24, p < .01) and role con-
Employment status struction to specific invitations (β = .39, p < .001) were sig-
Employed full time 119 58.6
Employed part time 29 14.3 nificant, as was the path from efficacy to resources (β = .16,
Not employed now 50 24.6 p < .05). The direct paths from specific invitations to PI-SE
Child's grade (β = .43, p < .001), PI-SO (β = .49, p < .001), and PIH
Pre-K or kindergarten 19 9.4 (β = .42, p < .001) were also significant, and were the
Grade 1 26 12.8 largest effects in the model. In addition, the direct path
Grade 2 26 12.8
Grade 3 24 11.8 from efficacy to PIH was significant (β = .23, p < .001).
Grade 4 34 16.7 Finally, an examination of the squared multiple correla-
Grade 5 61 30.0 tions indicated that the revised model accounted for 18.9%
Enrolled in special education of the variance in parent involvement at school events (PI-
No 164 80.8 SE), 24.3% of the variance in parent involvement at
Yes 28 13.8
Not sure 8 3.9 school-ongoing (PI-SO), and 25.5% of the variance in par-
How child is doing in school ent involvement at home (PIH). Results of the Sobol
Top student 31 15.3 (1982) test indicated that specific invitations mediated the
Good student 92 45.3 relationship between role construction and PI-SO, z =
OK or average student 46 22.7 4.31, p < .01, role construction and PI-SE, z = 3.84, p < .01,
Fair student 21 10.3
Poor student 3 1.5 and role construction and PIH, z = 3.80, p < .01) We did
Not sure 2 1.0 not find any other significant mediational effects.

Note. Missing data were not included. Discussion

Our study represents one of a handful of studies in which

African American (67.5%). They had completed some col-
lege or more (69.1%) and were employed full time
(58.6%). Most respondents reported that their child was a
“good/top” student (60.6%) and not enrolled in special
education.
Scale reliabilities (Cronbach’s α) for the surveys ranged
from .75 (PI-SE) to .93 (resources). Table 3 shows scale
means, standard deviations, and reliabilities. Means for
most variables were high, indicating that respondents tend-
ed to report strong role beliefs, high levels of efficacy and
resources, and moderate-to-high levels of involvement at
home and at school. We calculated Pearson product-
researchers explore parents’ decision making as it relates to
parent involvement. In addition, our sample included a
high percentage of minority parents, who are traditionally
underrepresented in research.
Multidimensionality of PI
Present results support other recent literature (e.g., Fan
& Chen, 2001; Hong & Ho, 2005) in emphasizing the
importance of measuring PI as a multidimensional con-
struct. Parents reported differences in their involvement
across types; respondents reported considerably more
 311-323 Anderson M_J 07 5/8/07 10:59 AM Page 318

318 The Journal of Educational Research

TABLE 3. Scale Descriptive Statistics

Scale
Scale reliabilitya Range Midpoint M SD

Role Construction 0.91 18.00–90.00 54.00 80.68 7.90

Efficacy 0.81 7.00–42.00 24.50 33.30 6.01
Resources 0.93 25.00–125.00 75.00 102.68 16.49
Specific Invitations 0.87 11.00–43.00 27.00 27.39 8.51
PI-SE 0.75 6.00–18.00 12.00 11.60 3.26
PI-SO 0.85 7.00–35.00 21.00 14.51 5.11
PIH 0.84 8.00–40.00 24.00 34.87 4.82

Note. PI-SE = Parent Involvement at School Events; PI-SO = Parent Involvement at School Ongoing; PIH =
Parent Involvement at Home.
a
Cronbach’s alpha was used as measure of scale reliability.
Downloaded by [North Carolina State University] at 22:22 16 April 2015

.19

Involvement at
.10 School–Events
(PI-SE)
.23***

Role Construction Resources .29

*** .24
.39

Involvement at
.27 School–Ongoing .04
***
.14* .45 (PI-SO)
.49***
.14

.09
Sense of Efficacy .22*** Specific Invitations .25
.45***

Involvement at
Home (PIH)

FIGURE 3. Final path model. Nonsignificant paths removed. Root mean square error of approximation = .04, p = .488.
χ2 (6, N = 203) = 8.34. Tucker-Lewis Index = .93. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

involvement at home than at school. Parents’ involvement
at school was at or below the midpoint, whereas parents’
involvement at home was well above the midpoint. That
finding is important because parents’ involvement at
school is much more visible to school personnel than is par-
ents’ home involvement; schools may be underestimating
parents’ involvement if they consider only those activities
that occur at school (e.g., attending conferences and vol-
unteering). The finding also echoes the concerns of other
researchers (e.g., Jackson & Remillard, 2005; Lawson,
2003) who reported that the contributions of minority par-
ents are often overlooked because their involvement occurs
primarily away from school grounds. Furthermore, given
that various types of PI have differential influences on stu-
dents’ academic achievement (e.g., Hong & Ho), measur-
ing PI as a multidimensional construct is critical.
Role Construction and Sense of Efficacy
Consistent with Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s (1995,
1997; Walker et al., 2005) model, we found that parents’
role construction was related positively to their involve-
 311-323 Anderson M_J 07 5/8/07 10:59 AM Page 319
May/June 2007 [Vol. 100 (No. 5)]
ment behaviors; however, the effect of role construction was
more limited than expected. Although role construction
was correlated with all of the variables in the study, it had
no direct effects on parent involvement behaviors at home
or at school when the mediational variables were included
in the model. Those findings are similar to Deslandes and
Bertrand’s (2005) analysis, in which they found an incon-
sistent influence of role construction on parent behavior,
depending on the child’s grade level. In both studies, role
construction was relatively high; stronger effects for role
construction would possibly emerge if a greater range of role
construction beliefs were available for analysis.
The influence of parents’ sense of efficacy on involve-
ment decisions was also limited; we found only a direct
effect on parents’ involvement at home. Efficacy was not
related to parents’ involvement at school. Although that
Downloaded by [North Carolina State University] at 22:22 16 April 2015
finding is consistent with other research showing a lack of
support for efficacy (e.g., Deslandes & Bertrand, 2005; Reed
et al., 2000), it is puzzling given that other researchers (e.g.,
Hoover-Dempsey, et al., 1992; Shumow & Lomax, 2002)
demonstrated that efficacy is an influential variable. Effica-
cy may be a more complex construct than has been assessed
to date; a more comprehensive measure of efficacy may
allow relationships between efficacy and parents’ involve-
ment behaviors to emerge. In the revised model (Walker et
al., 2005), role construction and efficacy are conceptualized
as aspects of parents’ motivational beliefs. Our data suggest
that those variables appear to operate differently. Although
they may be related constructs, researchers should continue
to measure the variables separately.
Influence of Specific Invitations and Resources
The most notable findings were related to the addition of
resources and specific teacher invitations to the model.
Specific teacher invitations had the strongest relationship
with parents’ involvement behaviors and were associated
relatively equally with the three PI variables across home
and school. Specific invitations also played a mediational
role between involvement behaviors and role construction.
That is, for the parents, two thirds of whom were African
American, the ways in which their beliefs about involve-
ment (role construction) affected their involvement
behaviors at home and at school varied according to their
perceptions of being invited specifically to participate. The
importance of teacher invitations as an influence on PI is
consistent with other research (e.g., Deslandes & Bertrand,
2005; Overstreet, Devine, Bevans, & Efreom, 2005; Simon,
2004; Walker et al., 2005; Watkins, 1997). Given that
schools are often interested in increasing parents’ involve-
ment, the support for the importance of teacher invitations
is encouraging and noteworthy. Because the findings come
from a cross-sectional, nonexperimental study, direct cau-
sation cannot be assumed. However, invitations are likely
influential in encouraging parents to participate. Further-
more, the perception of being invited may be particularly
319
important for low-income parents (e.g., Overstreet et al.)
because they are often viewed as having the lowest levels of
participation.
Another finding that emerged was that parents’
resources did not influence their involvement decisions;
parents’ self-reported level of resources was unrelated to all
types of involvement. Those findings were somewhat unex-
pected because researchers indicated previously that
resource concerns such as time, transportation, and child
care are major barriers to participation (e.g., Gettinger &
Guetschow, 1998; Lopez, 2001; Ramirez, 2001; Smrekar &
Cohen-Vogel, 2001), especially at school. One notable
aspect of our study is our examination of the influence of
resources and invitations simultaneously; although parents
experience resource constraints, perhaps when they per-
ceive that their participation is desired by teachers, they
find ways to be involved regardless of their resources.
Caution should be used so that one does not interpret
the finding too broadly. Although the overall characteris-
tics of the district indicated high poverty levels in each of
the schools, parents’ self-reports of resources were relative-
ly high. Perhaps resources operate as a moderator variable
(Walker et al., 2005). That is, when parents perceive that
resources are at least moderately adequate, no relationship
exists, but below a certain threshold, resources are influen-
tial in PI decisions. It is also possible that the lack of sup-
port for resources is caused by an inadequate measure of the
construct (e.g., relying on parents’ self-report as a measure
of their resources). The limited role of resources in PI deci-
sions documented here should be considered preliminary
and should be replicated in future research.
Model Specification
The variables included from the first two levels of the
original Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995, 1997) model
of parent involvement explained modest amounts of the
observed variance in parent involvement. Therefore, one
should consider how a greater proportion of variance could
be explained. One possibility is that the variables in the
model should be rearranged. For example, parents’ percep-
tions of specific invitations may influence their role beliefs
and sense of efficacy that, in turn, influence their involve-
ment behaviors. That formulation is plausible because par-
ents may look to the school to define the expectations for
involvement, which subsequently shapes their beliefs. That
rearrangement is consistent with the revised Hoover-
Dempsey and Sandler (Walker et al., 2005) model, in
which all of the variables are collapsed to a single level and
perceptions of life context (time and energy demands and
knowledge and skills) are hypothesized to act as moderators.
A second possibility is that additional variables should
be included in the model. The models tested here did not
include all of the variables that Hoover-Dempsey and San-
dler (1995, 1997) hypothesized as influential on PI deci-
sions. A test that includes (a) general opportunities from
 311-323 Anderson M_J 07 5/8/07 10:59 AM Page 320
320
school, (b) specific invitations from the child, and (c) par-
ents’ skills and knowledge may increase the model’s
explanatory power. Specific invitations from the child may
be a particularly important variable; recently researchers
found that it was the most powerful predictor for parents’
involvement at home across three grade levels, accounting
for approximately 25% of the variance at each grade (Des-
landes & Bertrand, 2005). Furthermore, Walker et al.
(2005) reported that specific invitations from the child was
the strongest predictor of parents’ home-based involve-
ment. Those findings underscore the importance of being
invited; whether it comes from the child or the teacher and
school, feeling welcomed and invited appears to be a criti-
cal variable for parents.
Other variables not included in the original Hoover-
Dempsey and Sandler model (1995, 1997) may be influen-
Downloaded by [North Carolina State University] at 22:22 16 April 2015
tial as well. For example, parents’ educational aspirations for
their children appear to be related to their school involve-
ment (Overstreet et al., 2005); parents who have higher
educational aspirations for their children may choose to be
more involved. In addition, parents’ beliefs about the value
of particular educational activities should be considered.
Parents tend to be more involved with their child’s issues
rather than with general and school issues (Ritblatt, Beatty,
Cronan, & Ochoa, 2002) and rate their child’s perfor-
mances at school as “must see” activities (Baker, 1997).
Thus, when parents perceive that the involvement activity
has direct relevance to their child, they may be more
inclined to participate, especially at school.
Parents’ previous school experiences may be an impor-
tant factor. Parents’ own successful school experiences
may predispose them to feel confident and competent
when communicating with school personnel (Manz, Fan-
tuzzo, & Power, 2004). In addition, parents with negative
school experiences view their children’s school experi-
ences more negatively (Raty, 2002), which could influ-
ence their involvement choices. In their revised model,
Walker et al. (2005) added a component to the role con-
struction variable that addresses parents’ valence toward
school according to their own experiences as students.
Parents may also need to consider their prior experiences
with their child’s schools, including the quality of the
parent–teacher relationships.
Although we did not address parent–teacher relation-
ships directly, we included an open-ended question on the
surveys that asked parents to make additional observations
about parent involvement. A number of parent responses
alluded to concerns about the caring of the teacher and how
valued parents felt. Those comments were consistent with
findings relating to the importance of a high-quality rela-
tionship between parents and educators. For example,
Adams and Christenson (2000) found that trust is an essen-
tial element in family–school relationships, and quality of
the family–school interaction is a better predictor of trust
than is frequency of contact. Consequently, examining
parental trust in schools may also increase the explanatory
The Journal of Educational Research
power of the model and shed additional light on the role of
valence toward schools in parents’ involvement decisions.
Limitations of the Study
One should weigh several limitations when considering
results of this study. Participants were from very low-
income, urban schools. The majority of students in each
school (ranging from 76%–98%) participated in free and
reduced-price lunch programs. The sample was ethnically
diverse, and the majority of respondents were African
American. Although the nature of this sample provided
insight into the involvement decisions of parents who are
less often studied, the extent to which these findings gener-
alize to others (e.g., suburban parents, parents of middle or
high school students) is not known. Also, we based the data
on self-reports and did not corroborate it by other sources;
therefore, results represent only parents’ perceptions of their
involvement. Examining whether parents’ self-reports of
behaviors corresponded to estimates from other sources
(e.g., direct observation or permanent products such as vol-
unteer sign-in sheets) would have contributed to scale
validity but was beyond the scope of this study.
In addition, response rates for this survey were low, in
part because the district did not allow follow-up contacts
with the families to increase the number of surveys
returned. The obtained rates were consistent with or bet-
ter than those typical for the district. Nonetheless, the
results may not be typical of the larger population in the
district. Furthermore, we used a written survey, which
meant that parents had to be literate to participate. Com-
pleting the survey may also have been viewed as a form of
parent involvement. Perhaps parents who do not get
involved in their children’s education also do not complete
research surveys about parent involvement. Overall, the
sample is most accurately characterized as parents who
were willing to respond to surveys, who filled them out
completely, and whose children brought them back to
school. The differences between those parents and other
parents may be significant, but are unknown.
Implications for Research
Research that seeks to explain parents’ involvement deci-
sions is limited. Researchers should continue to explore and
test this model and other models that explain parents’
involvement decisions. The construct of specific invitations
from teachers and schools is worthy of continued attention.
Little is known about parents’ perceptions of specific forms
of communication, which types of communication are most
effective (e.g., written, telephone contact, individual notes
from teachers versus school-wide flyers), and the relative
value of quantity versus quality of invitations. Some evi-
dence suggests that personal, casual contacts are preferred
by parents over institutional contacts (e.g., newsletters;
Halsey, 2005). Moreover, researchers could explore the rela-
 311-323 Anderson M_J 07 5/8/07 10:59 AM Page 321
May/June 2007 [Vol. 100 (No. 5)]
tionship between parents’ perceptions of invitations and the
actual invitations that teachers send to parents and how
both of these variables relate to parents’ behaviors.
One likely scenario is that principals and teachers may
believe that they have invited parents because they sent
home an invitation; however, parents may not receive and
read the invitation and therefore report that they were not
invited (Simon, 2004). Teachers’ perceptions of an invita-
tion, even when received and read by parents, may not be
interpreted as an actual invitation. One of the parents in
Halsey’s (2005) study described his reaction to a newsletter
invitation as follows: “Just saying, ‘This event is happening,’
doesn’t tell parents that teachers want them to be involved”
(p. 61). Thus, understanding how frequently parents
receive, read, and comprehend school personnel’s attempts
to communicate with them may be critical. In addition,
Downloaded by [North Carolina State University] at 22:22 16 April 2015
researchers should explore the relative power of teacher-
versus-child invitations, along with the processes by which
children decide to ask their parents for involvement.
Another area for exploration is improved knowledge of
parents who report low levels of involvement. As was true
in this study, parents who complete surveys tend to report
high levels of involvement; however, the literature related
to “uninvolved parents” has been qualitative in nature,
with very small sample sizes (e.g., Jackson & Remillard,
2005; Lawson, 2003). Consequently, there is a gap between
quantitative studies, which tend to show high levels of
involvement, and qualitative studies, which include partic-
ipants with low levels of involvement at school but have
small samples. Parents with low levels of school involve-
ment are difficult to study because of the very nature of
their uninvolvement, but if researchers make considerable
efforts to increase response rates, patterns specific to par-
ents reporting lower levels of involvement may emerge.
Alternative methods of data collection, including tele-
phone recruitment strategies (e.g., Carlson, 1993), commu-
nity members soliciting parent participation (e.g., Gutman
& McLoyd, 2000; Overstreet et al., 2005), and telephone
interviews (e.g., Drummond & Stipek, 2004) may be help-
ful. Another possibility is that there are very few unin-
volved parents. Particularly given the finding that parents
reported much higher levels of the less visible involvement
at home, a disparity possibly exists between parents’ and
teachers’ perceptions of parent involvement. Given the
importance that schools and policy makers have attributed
to PI, that is an important area for future exploration. Fur-
thermore, fully understanding the ways in which parents
view themselves as being involved is essential because
many parents, particularly minority parents, are involved
in ways that are outside the narrow range of traditional
involvement behaviors (Lopez, 2001).
Implications for Policy and Practice
The importance of teacher efforts to invite parents was
a critical finding in this study; however, teachers report
321
that they receive little training in working effectively with
families (Graue & Brown, 2003; Katz & Bauch, 1999).
Research has documented several initiatives that have
successfully increased teachers’ parent involvement prac-
tices for preservice (Katz & Bauch) and inservice teachers
(Hoover-Dempsey, Walker, Jones, & Reed, 2002). Thus,
attention to teacher training is warranted, including fos-
tering effective communication and conflict resolution
skills (e.g., Christenson & Sheridan, 2001; Minke &
Anderson, 2003).
We focused on understanding parents’ decisions to
become involved, an important process that is just begin-
ning to be explored and understood. The emergence of spe-
cific invitations from teachers as the single most influential
variable on parents’ involvement choices is significant
because schools are able to influence teacher practices
more so than any other variable. Although much about
encouraging parent involvement remains to be understood,
we added to the research that emphasizes the importance of
related teacher and school practices.
REFERENCES
Adams, K. S., & Christenson, S. L. (2000). Trust and the family-school
relationship: Examination of parent-teacher differences in elementary
and secondary grades. Journal of School Psychology, 38, 477–497.
Anderson, K. J. (2005). Understanding parents’ decisions to become
involved in their children’s education. Dissertation Abstracts Internation-
al, 66(7), 2490A. (UMI No. 3181878)
Baker, A. J. L. (1997). Improving parent involvement programs and prac-
tice: A qualitative study of teacher perceptions. School Community Jour-
nal, 7(1), 9–35.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York:
Freeman.
Brody, G. H., Flor, D. L., & Gibson, N. M. (1999). Linking maternal effi-
cacy beliefs, developmental goals, parenting practices and child compe-
tence in rural single-parent African American families. Child Develop-
ment, 70, 1197–1208.
Cancio, E. J., West, R. P., & Young, K. R. (2004). Improving mathemat-
ics homework completion and accuracy of students with EBD through
self-management and parent perception. Journal of Emotional and Behav-
ioral Disorders, 12(1), 9–22.
Carlson, C. (1993). The family-school link: Methodological issues in stud-
ies of family processes related to children’s school competence. School
Psychology Quarterly, 8, 264–276.
Christenson, S. L., & Sheridan, S. M. (2001). Schools and families. Creat-
ing essential connections for learning. New York: Guilford.
Deslandes, R., & Bertrand, R. (2005). Motivation of parent involvement
in secondary-level schooling. The Journal of Educational Research, 98,
164–175.
Drummond, K. V., & Stipek, D. (2004). Low-income parents’ beliefs
about their role in children’s academic learning. Elementary School Jour-
nal, 104, 197–213.
Dunst, C. J., & Leet, H. E. (1987). Measuring the adequacy of resources
in households with young children. Child: Care, Health & Development,
13(2), 111–125.
Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey. (1998). National Center for Edu-
cation Statistics. Retrieved July 20, 2003, from http://nces.ed.gov/ecls/
Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1996). Family involvement in children’s
and adolescents’ schooling. In A. Booth & J. F. Dunn (Eds.), Family-
school links: How do they affect educational outcomes? (pp. 3–34). Hills-
dale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Epstein, J. L. (1990). Single parents and the schools: Effects of marital sta-
tus on parent and teacher interactions. In M. T. Hallinan, D. M. Klein,
& J. Glass (Eds.), Change in societal institutions (pp. 91–121). New York:
Plenum.
Epstein, J. L., & Salinas, K. C. (1993). School and family partnerships:
 311-323 Anderson M_J 07 5/8/07 10:59 AM Page 322
322
Surveys and summaries. Baltimore: Center on School, Family and Com-
munity Partnerships, Johns Hopkins University.
Epstein, J. L., Simon, B. S., & Salinas, K. C. (1997). Involving parents in
homework in the middle grades. Research Bulletin (No.18). Blooming-
ton, IN: Phi Delta Kappan/Center for Evaluation, Development and
Research.
Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ acade-
mic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13,
1–22.
Fantuzzo, J., Tighe, E., & Childs, S. (2000). Family Involvement Ques-
tionnaire: A multivariate assessment of family participation in early
childhood education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 367–376.
Gettinger, M., & Guetschow, K. W. (1998). Parental involvement in
schools: Parent and teacher perceptions of roles, efficacy and opportu-
nities. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 32, 38–52.
Graue, E., & Brown, C. P. (2003). Preservice teachers’ notions of families
and schooling. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 719–735.
Griffith, J. (1998). The relation of school structure and social environ-
ment to parent involvement in elementary schools. Elementary School
Journal, 99, 53–80.
Grolnick, W. S., Benjet, C., Kurowski, C. O., & Apostoleris, N. H.
Downloaded by [North Carolina State University] at 22:22 16 April 2015
(1997). Predictors of parent involvement in children’s schooling. Jour-
nal of Educational Psychology, 89, 538–548.
Gutman, L. M., & McLoyd, V. C. (2000). Parents’ management of their
children’s education within the home, at school and in the community:
An examination of African American families living in poverty. Urban
Review, 32, 1–24.
Gutman, L. M., & Midgley, C. (2000). The role of protective factors in
supporting the academic achievement of poor African American stu-
dents during the middle school transition. Journal of Youth and Adoles-
cence, 29, 233–248.
Halsey, P. A. (2005). Parent involvement in junior high schools: A failure
to communicate. American Secondary Education, 34, 57–69.
Ho, E. S., & Willms, J. D. (1996). Effects of parental involvement on
eighth-grade achievement. Sociology of Education, 69, 126–141.
Hong, S., & Ho, H. (2005). Direct and indirect longitudinal effects of par-
ent involvement on student achievement: Second-order latent growth
modeling across ethnic groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97,
32–42.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Bassler, O. C., & Brissie, J. S. (1992). Explo-
rations in parent-school relations. The Journal of Educational Research,
85, 287–294.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1995). Parental 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., & Walker, J. M. (2002). Parent
Involvement Project (PIP) parent and teacher questionnaires: Study 2.
Unpublished scale, Family-School Partnership Lab, Vanderbilt Univer-
sity, Nashville, TN.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M., Jones, K. P., & Reed, R. P. (2002).
Teachers Involving Parents (TIP): Results of an in-service teacher edu-
cation program for enhancing parental involvement. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 18, 843–867.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M. T., Sandler, H. M., Whetsel, D.,
Green, C. L., Wilkins, A. S., et al. (2005). Why do parents become
involved? Research findings and implications. Elementary School Jour-
nal, 106, 105–130.
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.
Jackson, K., & Remillard, J. T. (2005). Rethinking parent involvement:
African American mothers construct their roles in the mathematics
education of their children. School Community Journal, 15, 51–73.
Jeynes, W. H. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental involve-
ment to urban elementary school student academic achievement.
Urban Education, 40, 237–269.
Jordan, G. E., Snow, C. E., & Porche, M. V. (2000). Project EASE: The
effect of a family literacy project on kindergarten students’ early litera-
cy skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 524–546.
Kaplan, D. (2000). Structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
The Journal of Educational Research
Katz, L., & Bauch, J. P. (1999). The Peabody family involvement initia-
tive: Preparing preservice teachers for family/school collaboration.
School Community Journal, 9(1), 49–69.
Kratochwill, T. R., McDonald, L., Levin, J. R., Bear-Tibbetts, H. Y., &
Demaray, M. K. (2004). Families and schools together: An experimen-
tal analysis of a parent-mediated multi-family group program for Amer-
ican Indian children. Journal of School Psychology, 42, 359–383.
Lareau, A. (1989). Home advantage: Social class and parental intervention in
elementary education. Philadelphia: Falmer Press.
Lawson, M. A. (2003). School-family relations in context. Parent and
teacher perceptions of parent involvement. Urban Education, 38,
77–133.
Lopez, G. R. (2001). The value of hard work: Lessons on parent involve-
ment from an (im)migrant household. Harvard Educational Review, 71,
416–437.
Manz, P. H., Fantuzzo, J. W., & Power, T. J. (2004). Multidimensional
assessment of family involvement among urban elementary students.
Journal of School Psychology, 42, 461–475.
McGrath, M. M., & Sullivan, M. C. (1999). Medical and ecological fac-
tors in estimating motor outcomes of preschool children. Research in
Nursing & Health, 22, 155–167.
McWayne, C., Hampton, V., Fantuzzo, J., Cohen, H. L., & Sekino, Y.
(2004). A multivariate examination of parent involvement and the
social and academic competencies of urban kindergarten children. Psy-
chology in the Schools, 41, 363–377.
Miedel, W. T., & Reynolds, A. J. (1999). Parent involvement in early
intervention for disadvantaged children: Does it matter? Journal of
School Psychology, 37, 379–402.
Minke, K. M., & Anderson, K. J. (2003). Restructuring routine parent-
teacher conferences: The family-school conference model. Elementary
School Journal, 104, 49–69.
Mueller, R. O. (1996). Basic principles of structural equation modeling. New
York: Springer.
Overstreet, S., Devine, J., Bevans, K., & Efreom, Y. (2005). Predicting
parental involvement in children’s schooling within an economically
disadvantaged African American sample. Psychology in the Schools, 42,
101–111.
Pantin, H., Coatsworth, J. D., Feaster, D. J., Newman, F. L., Briones, E.,
Prado, G., et al. (2003). Familias unidas: The efficacy of an interven-
tion to promote parental investment in Hispanic immigrant families.
Prevention Science, 4, 189–201.
Ramirez, A. Y. (2001). “Parent involvement is like apple pie.” A look at
parental involvement in two states. High School Journal, 85(1), 1–9.
Raty, H. (2002). The significance of parents’ evaluations of their own
school for their educational attitudes. Social Psychology of Education,
6(1), 43–60.
Reed, R. P., Jones, K. P., Walker, J. M., & Hoover-Dempsey, K. V. (2000,
April). Parents’ motivations for involvement in children’s education: Testing
a theoretical model. Paper presented at the annual conference of the
American Educational Research Association, New Orleans. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED444109)
Ritblatt, S. N., Beatty, J. R., Cronan, T. A., & Ochoa, A. M. (2002). Rela-
tionships among perceptions of parent involvement, time allocation,
and demographic characteristics: Implication for policy formation. Jour-
nal of Community Psychology, 30, 519–549.
Rumberger, R. W. (1995). Dropping out of middle school: A multilevel
analysis of students and schools. American Educational Research Journal,
32, 583–625.
Senechal, M., & LeFevre, J. (2002). Parental involvement in the devel-
opment of children’s reading skill: A five-year longitudinal study. Child
Development, 73, 445–460.
Shaver, A. V., & Walls, R. T. (1998). Effects of Title I parent involvement
on student reading and mathematics achievement. Journal of Research
and Development in Education, 31(2), 90–97.
Sheldon, S. B. (2002). Parents’ social networks and beliefs as predictors of
parent involvement. Elementary School Journal, 102, 301–316.
Sheldon, S. B. (2003). Linking school-family-community partnerships in
urban elementary schools to student achievement on state tests. The
Urban Review, 35, 149–165.
Shumow, L., & Lomax, R. (2002). Parental efficacy: Predictor of parent-
ing behavior and adolescent outcomes. Parenting: Science and Practice,
2, 127–150.
Simon, B. S. (2004). High school outreach and family involvement. Social
Psychology of Education, 7, 185–209.
 311-323 Anderson M_J 07 5/8/07 10:59 AM Page 323

May/June 2007 [Vol. 100 (No. 5)] 323

Smith, E. P., Connell, C. M., Wright, G., Sizer, M., & Norman, J. M.
(1997). An ecological model of home, school and community partner-
ships: Implications for research and practice. Journal of Educational and
Psychological Consultation, 8, 339–360.
Smrekar, C., & Cohen-Vogel, L. (2001). The voices of parents: Rethink-
ing the intersection of family and school. Peabody Journal of Education,
76(2), 75–100.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structur-
al equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982
(pp. 290–312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Starkey, P., & Klein, A. (2000). Fostering parental support for children’s
mathematical development: An intervention with Head Start families.
Downloaded by [North Carolina State University] at 22:22 16 April 2015
Early Education and Development, 11, 659–680.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (Eds.). (2001). Using multivariate statis-
tics (4th ed.) Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Ullman, J. B. (2001). Structural equation modeling. In B. G. Tabachnick
& L. S. Fidell (Eds.), Using multivariate statistics (4th ed., pp. 653–771).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Walker, J. M. T., Wilkins, A. S., Dallaire, J. R., Sandler, H. M., & Hoover-
Dempsey, K. V. (2005). Parental involvement: Model revision through
scale development. Elementary School Journal, 106, 85–104.
Watkins, T. J. (1997). Teacher communications, child achievement, and
parent traits in parent involvement models. The Journal of Educational
Research, 91, 3–14.

-ÕLÃVÀˆLiÊ /œ`>ÞÊ >˜`Ê

VViÃÃÊ
œ˜Ìi˜ÌÊ "˜ˆ˜it
4HE*OURNALOF%DUCATIONAL2ESEARCHISAWELL KNOWNANDRESPECTEDPERIODICALTHATREACHESAN
INTERNATIONALAUDIENCEOFEDUCATORSANDOTHERSCONCERNEDWITHCUTTING EDGETHEORIESANDPROPOSALS
&ORMORETHANYEARSTHEJOURNALHASCONTRIBUTEDTOTHEADVANCEMENTOFEDUCATIONALPRACTICE
INELEMENTARYANDSECONDARYSCHOOLSBYJUDICIOUSSTUDYOFTHELATESTTRENDSEXAMINATIONOFNEW
PROCEDURESEVALUATIONOFTRADITIONALPRACTICESANDREPLICATIONOFPREVIOUSRESEARCHFORVALIDATION
4HEJOURNALISANINVALUABLERESOURCEFORTEACHERSCOUNSELORSSUPERVISORSADMINISTRATORSCURRICULUM
PLANNERSANDEDUCATIONALRESEARCHERSASTHEYCONSIDERTHESTRUCTUREOFTOMORROWSCURRICULA3PECIALISSUES
EXAMINEMAJOREDUCATIONISSUESINDEPTH2ECENTTHEMETOPICSINCLUDEMETHODOLOGYMOTIVATIONANDLITERACY
"IMONTHLY)33. 
2EGULAR!NNUAL3UBSCRIPTION2ATES
)NDIVIDUALONLINEONLYPRINTANDONLINE
)NSTITUTIONALONLINEONLYPRINTONLYPRINTANDONLINE
!DDFORPOSTAGEOUTSIDETHE53
 %IGHTEENTH 3TREET .7

Ê",Ê6-/Ê1-Ê
7AS H IN GTON  $ #         
0           N &           "  Ê/"Ê-1 -
, t
0           N WWWH ELD REFORG ,IBRARIESMAYORDERTHROUGHSUBSCRIPTIONAGENTS