Parents' Involvement in Children's Schooling: A Multidimensional Conceptualization and

Motivational Model
Author(s): Wendy S. Grolnick and Maria L. Slowiaczek
Source: Child Development, Vol. 65, No. 1 (Feb., 1994), pp. 237-252
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the Society for Research in Child
Development
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1131378
Accessed: 19/08/2010 13:15

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Blackwell Publishing and Society for Research in Child Development are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Child Development.

http://www.jstor.org
Parents' Involvement in Children's Schooling:
A Multidimensional Conceptualization and
Motivational Model

Wendy S. Grolnick
Clark University

Maria L. Slowiaczek
New York University

GROLNICK, WENDYS., and SLOWIACZEK, MARIAL. Parents' Involvement in Children's Schooling:

A Multidimensional Conceptualization and Motivational Model. CHILDDEVELOPMENT, 1994,65,
237-252. This study had 2 goals. The first was to examine a multidimensional conceptualiza-
tion of parent involvement in children's schooling, defined as the allocation of resources to the
child's school endeavors. A second goal was to evaluate a model in which children's motivational
resources (i.e., perceived competence, control understanding,and self-regulation)are mediators
between parent involvement and children's school performance. 300 11-14-year-old children
and their teachers participated. Factor analyses of a set of parent involvement measures sup-
ported the hypothesized 3 dimensions of parent involvement: behavior, intellectual/cognitive,
and personal. Path analyses revealed indirect effects of mother behavior and intellectual/cogni-
tive involvement on school performancethroughperceived competence and control understand-
ing, and indirect effects of fatherbehavior on school performancethroughperceived competence.
The results argue against a unidimensional understanding of parent involvement and support
the view of the child as an active constructorof his or her school experience.

There is increasing recognition within background factors, such as parent educa-

developmental, educational, and sociologi-
cal theories that both school and home are
important institutions that socialize and edu-
cate children. While theorists have identi-
fied inherent conflicts and lack of comple-
mentarity between these two institutions
(e.g., Parsons, 1959; Waller, 1932), most cur-
rent theories stress the need for connections
between families and schools (e.g., Epstein
1990). Within the framework of home-school
connections, much of the specific debate and
hope for change focuses on parents' involve-
ment in their children's schooling. Several
committees reporting on the nation's schools
have, in fact, listed parent involvement as
a significant goal and target for educational
reform (National Commission on Excellence
in Education, 1983).
Within research, the history of interest
in parent involvement stems from sociologi-
cal theories noting the importance of family
tion, in predicting school achievement
(Coleman et al., 1966; Heyns, 1978). Moving
from such findings, theorists began to ex-
plore processes through which background
factors might exert their effects. Exposure to
school-related materials (Spaeth, 1976) and
family press toward achievement (Marjori-
banks, 1972) were among such processes.
These views of process variables linking
background and achievement represented
home and school as separate and the parent
as passive with respect to the child's school-
ing (Stevenson & Baker, 1987). A more ac-
tive view of the parent is inherent in the
notion of parent involvement, and research-
ers have recently focused on it as a key me-
diator between background factors and
achievement. For example, Stevenson and
Baker (1987) found that the relation between
parent education and school performance
was mediated almost entirely by parents'

We would like to thank the children, teachers, principals, and superintendent of the Saddle
Brook, New Jersey, school district for their cooperation in this project. We are also grateful to
the following individuals for their contributions: LauraWeiss, Jeffrey Wrightman,Laura Katz,
and MargaretSewell for their help in data collection; Lee and Michael McKenzie for graphics;
and James Connell, Diane Ruble, and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments
on the manuscript. Reprint requests should be sent to Wendy S. Grolnick, Frances L. Hiatt
School of Psychology, Clark University, 950 Main Street, Worcester, MA 01610-1477.
[Child Development, 1994, 65, 237-252. ? 1994 by the Society for Researchin Child Development,Inc.
All rights reserved. 0009-3920/94/6501-0019$01.00]
238 Child Development
levels of involvement. Several studies have
demonstrated the positive effects of parent
involvement in children's schooling across a
wide range of populations and ages (Ep-
stein, 1983; Fehrmann, Keith, & Reimers,
1987; Reynolds, 1989).
While there is evidence of the potency
of parent involvement, there has been less
attention devoted to understanding the pro-
cesses through which it affects children's de-
velopment. First, what aspects of parent
involvement actively affect children?
Though some theorists have attended to spe-
cific dimensions of parent involvement
(Baker & Stevenson, 1986; Epstein, 1990;
Lareau, 1987), most have used global mea-
sures as their intent was to establish parent
involvement as a mediator rather than to as-
sess its specific effects. Second, how does
involvement affect children's school perfor-
mance-through what psychological pro-
cesses? The advantages of examining such
processes are many. First, concrete recom-
mendations can be made to schools and fam-
ilies about schools' and parents' behavior
that can be targeted in interventions. Sec-
ond, the boundaries of parent involvement
can be broadened from traditional notions of
a parent helping with homework, which may
be restricted to few families. Moving from
theoretical explanation to intervention can
generate new notions of involvement and
expand our understanding of school-family
relations.
This study thus had two goals. The first
is to present and assess a multidimensional
representation of parent involvement. The
second is to examine processes through
which parent involvement may be associ-
ated with school performance. A motiva-
tional model (Grolnick, Ryan, & Deci, 1991)
specifying children's "inner motivational re-
sources" as mediators between parents' be-
havior and children's school performance is
examined and tested.
Having outlined the goals of the study,
research pertaining to each will be re-
viewed, beginning with the structure of par-
ent involvement. Parent involvement is de-
scribed in the child development literature
as the degree to which a parent is "commit-
ted to his or her role as a parent and to the
fostering of optimal child development"
(Maccoby & Martin, 1983, p. 48). It typically
concerns the amount of effort put into child-
oriented versus other activities (Pulkkinen,
1982). Studies have shown positive conse-
quences of involvement in relation to ego
development (Block & Block, 1980) and self-
esteem (Gordon, Nowicki, & Wichern,
1981).
In the educational domain, parent
involvement has typically focused on one
specific activity, such as going to school ac-
tivities and events (e.g., Becker & Epstein,
1982; Stevenson & Baker, 1987), helping
with homework, or number of contacts be-
tween families and schools (Iverson,
Brownlee, & Walberg, 1981).
We suggest a conceptualization of par-
ent involvement in children's schooling that
integrates developmental and educational
constructs and includes both a general defi-
nition as well as specific dimensions. Parent
involvement, in our framework, is defined as
the dedication of resources by the parent to
the child within a given domain. Such a
definition recognizes that there is a differ-
ence between parents' overall involvement
with the child and involvement in the
child's education. Because of parents' val-
ues, time commitments, and availability of
resources, they may choose to, or be forced
to, devote their time and energies to do-
mains differentially (i.e., to school, social ac-
tivities, athletics). Second, it stresses the
multidimensional nature of parent involve-
ment in that several resources can be consid-
ered (Cone, DeLawyer, & Wolfe, 1985; Ep-
stein, 1990). This study focuses specifically
on dedication of resources within the educa-
tional domain.
What sorts of resources might parents
make available to children? In identifying
dimensions of parent involvement, we stress
the child's phenomenological experience.
We suggest that the child must experience
the resources for them to have their influ-
ence. Such a viewpoint represents the child
as an active processor of information rather
than a passive recipient of inputs.
The parent can overtly manifest in-
volvement through his or her behavior by
going to the school, and participating in ac-
tivities such as open houses. If the child ex-
periences this behavior, the parent may be
modeling the importance of school. Further,
such behavior may provide the parent with
information so that she can help the child
manage his or her schooling (Baker & Ste-
venson, 1986). Finally, if the teacher sees
the parent as involved, she may be the con-
duit for effects. For example, she may attend
to the child more. Support for the impor-
tance of this resource is provided in a study
by Epstein and Becker (1982) in which, con-

trolling for parent education, high school
students whose parents attended open
school or college night earned higher grades
than those of parents who did not.
While parents' overt behavior is one
way in which children experience parents'
resources, children may also have a more af-
fective experience of the parent as providing
resources to him or her, and this effect may
be separate from that described above. Par-
ents' personal involvement includes the
child's affective experience that the parent
cares about school, and has and enjoys inter-
actions with them around school. Such a per-
ception may convey a positive feeling to-
ward school and the child.
A third category of involvement, cogni-
tive/intellectual, which involves exposing
the child to cognitively stimulating activities
and materials such as books and current
events, represents a historically new role for
parents in promoting their children's cogni-
tive development (Lareau, 1987). Exposure
to cognitively stimulating materials would,
presumably, bring home and school closer
together and help the child practice skills
useful for school. Kurdek and Sinclair (1988)
found that the extent to which the family en-
gaged in intellectual activities at home ac-
counted for a significant amount of variance
in eighth graders' grades, beyond that ex-
plained by family structure, gender, and
family conflict. Keeves (1972) demonstrated
a relation between intellectual interests and
activities in the home and children's
achievement.
Thus, in this study, these three types of
involvement-behavior, personal, and cog-
nitive/intellectual-are assessed. Foci of
analyses are the unitary versus multidimen-
sional nature of parent involvement, and re-
lations between the types of involvement.
Further, in assessing involvement, multiple
raters are used since different raters may be
more or less qualified to evaluate certain as-
pects of involvement. Also, if rater effects
are apparent (e.g., only the teachers' ratings
are related to child outcomes) this will help
to clarify how aspects of involvement are re-
lated to school performance. We examine
both mothers and fathers separately. Though
mothers are more involved than fathers (e.g.,
Cone et al., 1985), both may play a role in
children's school performance.
The second goal of this study is to exam-
ine processes through which parent involve-
ment might be associated with school perfor-
mance. Though little empirical work on such
Grolnick and Slowiaczek 239
processes is available, researchers have
speculated on possible mechanisms. Ep-
stein (1988) suggested that the parent's
involvement may convey to the child the im-
portance of education, which might lead to
more responsible and independent behavior
in school. Another possible impact may be
through the child's attitudes toward him- or
herself. For example, a child who perceives
a parent as involved might also feel more
competent (Patterson, 1986). Involvement
might also have direct effects on achieve-
ment through assistance with studies and
stimulation of greater competence per se.
Grolnick et al. (1991) suggested that par-
ents' behavior does not affect the child
through skill building, as has been tradition-
ally assumed, but through its impact on chil-
dren's attitudes and motivations related to
school. This theory represents the child as
an active processor of information and a con-
structor of schemas about him- or herself. As
suggested earlier, this theory opens the pos-
sibility that all three types of involvement,
not just cognitive activities, can have a posi-
tive impact on children.
Drawing on motivation theory, we test
possible indirect links of parent involve-
ment to school performance through chil-
dren's motivational qualities. Recent work
has identified a set of motivational "inner
resources" necessary for school success
(Grolnick et al., 1991). Three resources have
been theorized to be crucial to intentional
behavior. First, if an individual is to act in-
tentionally, he or she must know how out-
comes are linked to his or her behavior; this
is the issue of control understanding (Skin-
ner, Wellborn, & Connell, 1990). Second,
children must perceive themselves as hav-
ing the capacity or competence to execute
necessary actions to achieve success (Ban-
dura, 1977; Harter, 1982). Finally, children
must experience their behavior as autono-
mous or choiceful (Ryan & Connell, 1989),
an issue separate from either perceived com-
petence or control. For example, one could
know how to achieve outcomes and feel
competent to do so but feel pushed or com-
pelled into behaving. Thus, self-regulation
is a third key resource for school compe-
tence. These three motivational resources-
control understanding, perceived compe-
tence, and self-regulation-are measured in
this study. It is hypothesized that parent
involvement will have its strongest relations
with school performance through its rela-
tions with children's inner resources.
240 Child Development
In an earlier study, Grolnick et al. (1991)
examined effects of children's perceptions of
their parents' general involvement and au-
tonomy support on their achievement. It was
hypothesized that inner resources would
mediate the relation between children's per-
ceptions and performance in school. This
hypothesis was supported by the data.
It is also possible that there might be
direct links between the components of par-
ent involvement and children's school per-
formance.In the Grolnick et al. (1991) study,
in addition to the indirect effects through
motivational processes, a direct negative
path from maternal involvement to perfor-
mance was also identified. This link sug-
gested a feedback mechanism whereby
mothers respond to their children's school
performance by becoming more involved.
Thus, direct relations between involvement
and children's achievement may suggest re-
ciprocal effects. These results highlight the
issue of direction of effects. While the par-
ent-to-child effects model may be plausible,
equally plausible is the model whereby par-
ent involvement follows student competen-
cies. Parents may react to their children's
motivation in school by becoming more or
less involved. This study builds on the pre-
vious study by examining the mediational
model using the differentiated, school-
specific conceptualization of involvement,
and by considering reciprocal effects.
In summary, in this study we examined
the structure of parent involvement using
multiple measures of and reporters of
mother and father involvement. We also ex-
amined pathways through which parent
involvement might affect school perfor-
mance and, in particular, tested a model in
which children's motivational resources act
as mediators between parent involvement
and children's school performance. In this
study we focused on children between sixth
and eighth grade. This age group has re-
ceived less attention than other periods, but
is a key transitional time (Baker & Steven-
son, 1986) in which educational pathways
are crystallizing. Though children's age is
linearly associated with parent involvement
(Cone et al., 1985; Stevenson & Baker,
1987), we did not expect to see develop-
mental differences within our age range.
Method
Subjects
Subjects were 302 11-14-year-old chil-
dren (100 sixth, 99 seventh, and 102 eighth
graders) from four schools in a predomi-
nantly middle-class, largely Caucasian(98%)
school district. Boys constituted 46.8%of the
sample. Parents of the participatingchildren
varied in educational level, with 5.8% (n =
17) of the mothers attaining less than a high
school education, 39% (n = 114) completing
high school, 23.2% (n = 68) complet-
ing some college, 24.2%(n = 71) completing
college, and 7.8% (n = 23) obtaining an ad-
vanced degree. The distribution for fathers'
education was similar. Seventy-five percent
of the children (n = 223) were from intact
two-parent families, 9% (n = 25) from step-
families, and 16% (n = 48) lived in single-
parent families. Maternal work patterns
were variable: 41% of the mothers (n = 121)
worked full-time, 34.7% (n = 102) worked
part-time,and 24.1% (n = 71) were at home
full-time.
Procedure
Data on parent involvement were col-
lected from students (n = 302) and teachers
(n = 18) early in the spring. This time period
was chosen to assure that teachers had an
opportunityto become familiar with the stu-
dents and their parents. For sixth-grade stu-
dents, regular classroom teachers completed
teacher ratings. In the participating school
district, seventh- and eighth-grade students
(in the same schools as sixth graders) spend
half their time with each of two teachers. For
these students, one of the two teachers com-
pleted ratings. Students provided informa-
tion on gender, parental education, family
structure, and parent work status. Children
also completed questionnaires concern-
ing their motivational qualities (perceived
competence, control understanding, self-
regulation). Year-end school grades were
provided by teachers.
Measures
Parent involvement was assessed by
teacher reportsand student reportmeasures.
Questionnaires were used to assess stu-
dents' motivational resources. School com-
petence was indicated by student grades and
teacher ratings of competence.
Parent Involvement Indices
The parent involvement indices used to
assess each of the three aspects of parent
involvement are described below. The indi-
ces are presented within the three categories
of resources: behavior, personal, intellec-
tual/cognitive.
Parent Behavior
Parent-School Interaction Question-
naire-Teacher Report.-Teachers cornm-

pleted a questionnaire for mothers and fa-
thers of all students. Four specific questions
about parent-school interaction were in-
cluded. Items asked about the frequency of
the parent's attendance at parent-teacher
conferences, open school night, and school
activities and events, such as the PTO. Each
item was rated by the teacher on a scale from
1 (never) to 5 (regularly).
Parent-School Interaction Question-
naire-Child Report.-This questionnaire
assessed mothers' and fathers' frequency of
interaction with the school on items also
rated by teachers (e.g., open school night,
parent-teacher conferences). Items were
rated by students on a three-point scale (al-
ways, sometimes, never). Students also des-
ignated whether or not their parent had ever
met his or her teacher this school year.
Parent Personal
Parenting Context Questionnaire (Well-
born & Grolnick, 1988).-The 40-item Par-
enting Context Questionnaire is a self-report
ratingscale assessing children's perceptions
of their mothers and fathers on three dimen-
sions: involvement, autonomy support to
control, and structure.Only the involvement
subscale scores were included in the present
analyses. Involvement on this scale is de-
fined as the dedication of psychological re-
sources in the context of positive affect. Sam-
ple items are "My mother knows a lot about
what happens to me in school." "My father
asks me about what I do in school." Each
item is rated on a scale from 1 (not at all true)
to 4 (very true). The scale was validated on
over 1,100 children in grades 3 through 12
in three samples (Grolnick & Wellborn,
1988). In each sample, internal consistency
(Cronbach'salpha) was over .80.
Parent Involvement Measure (Keith, Re-
imers, Fehrmann, Pottebaum, & Aubey,
1986).-Items on this measure, which were
originally included in the High School and
Beyond Longitudinal Study of the National
Center for Education Statistics (1985), assess
the extent to which students perceive their
parents as involved with their academic and
social lives. The questionnaire used by
Keith et al. (1986) was revised to include
items for both mothers and fathers for all
items. In addition, items were rated on four-
point ratherthan true-false scales. Examples
of items include, "My mother keeps close
trackof how well I am doing in school" and
"My father always knows where I am and
what I am doing." The internal consistency
of the original questionnaire was .80.
Grolnick and Slowiaczek 241
Parent Intellectual/Cognitive
Parent involvement in intellectual/cul-
tural activities.-Two checklists, developed
for this study, asked students to designate
how often his or her mother and father en-
gaged in nine activities at home. These in-
cluded reading the newspaper and talking
about current events. Students designated
how often his or her mother and father en-
gaged in the activity on a scale from 1
(never) to 4 (a lot).
Family Environment Scale (Moos &
Moos, 1981).-The nine-item intellectual-
cultural orientation subscale of the 90-item
Family Environment Scale was completed
by students. Items tap the extent of the fam-
ily's engagement in intellectual and cultural
activities such as lectures, music, and art. A
sample item is "We often talk about political
and social problems." Each item is pre-
sented in a true-false format.
Motivational Questionnaires
Self-Perception Profile for Children
(Harter, 1985).-This self-report scale as-
sesses perceived competence in two do-
mains (scholastic and athletic), and self-
adequacy with regard to behavior,
appearance, and social spheres. In this
study, we were interested in the scholastic
(academic) competence scale, although the
social and general self-worth scales were
also administered. The academic subscale
contains six items. All items are scored on
a scale from 1 to 4 (low to high perceived
competence).
Self-Regulation Questionnaire (Con-
nell & Ryan, 1987; Ryan & Connell,
1989).-This 26-item scale assesses chil-
dren's styles of regulating their academic be-
havior. Each item represents a reason why
the student performsactivities such as doing
homework and classwork, followed by a
four-pointscale on which the child indicates
how true that reason is for his or her behav-
ior. Four subscales varying from less to more
autonomousself-regulation are included: ex-
ternal (activities engaged in to avoid exter-
nal consequences or to obey rules), intro-
jected (behavior oriented to obtaining adult
approvalor to avoid guilt or anxiety), identi-
fied (to achieve a self-valued goal), and in-
trinsic (for the inherent enjoyment of the ac-
tivity). Subscales were combined to form the
Relative Autonomy Index, which describes
the degree of autonomy students exhibit in
regulating their school behavior.
Multidimensional Measure of Chil-
dren's Perceptions of Control (MMCPC)
242 Child Development
(Connell, 1985).-This questionnaire mea-
sures children's perceptions of the sources
of control of their successes and failures in
three domains (cognitive, social, and physi-
cal) and generally. Three sources are in-
cluded (internal, powerful others, and un-
known). Items are worded as statements
about the control of a success or failure to
which children indicate their agreement or
disagreement on a four-point scale. In this
study we were interested in whether or not
the child reported understanding the
sources of control (rather than what source
they believed controlled outcomes). Thus,
while the entire scale was administered,
only the unknown subscale in the academic
domain was a focus. For consistency with
the other measures, we reversed children's
scores for unknown control and refer to them
as control understanding.
School Competence Outcomes
Grades.-Teachers reported end-of-
year grades (averaged across subjects).
Grades were converted to numbers (1 = F
to 13 = A +) and standardized within school
grade.
Teacher Rating Scale.-This brief rat-
ing scale contains four items assessing chil-
dren's levels of academic and social compe-
tence. The two items relevant to the
academic domain were "How competent is
this student in school?" and "How good is
this student at schoolwork?" Teachers rated
each item on a 4-point scale ranging from 1
(not at all) to 4 (very).
Results
Preliminary Analyses-Parent Involvement
Measures
In order to examine levels and variances
of items designed to assess parent involve-
ment and to put the sample into a context in
terms of their degree of involvement, means,
standard deviations, and ranges of the parent
involvement items from the various mea-
sures were examined (for the Parenting Con-
text Scale and the Parent Involvement Mea-
sure only statistics for summary scores are
presented, given their previous use and the
nature of the items) (see Table 1). For parent
behavior, both children and teachers rated
parents, especially mothers, as relatively in-

TABLE 1
MEAN RATINGS FOR MOTHER AND FATHER INVOLVEMENT ITEMS

MOTHERS FATHERS

Actual Actual
PARENT
INVOLVEMENT M SD Range M SD Range
Behavior:
Child report:
Has met teacher ..................................... 1.93 .25 1-2 1.54 .50 1-2
Participates in school events ..................... 1.95 .69 1-3 1.43 .60 1-3
Attends parent-teacher conferences 2.71 .54 1-3 1.92 .75 1-3
Attends open houses ................................... ............. 2.39 .71 1-3 1.84 .77 1-3
Summary score ..................................... 2.24 .40 1-2.75 1.69 .48 1-2.75
Teacher report:
Participates in school events ..................... 3.28 1.5 1-5 2.30 1.42 1-5
Attends parent-teacher conferences 4.12 .91 1-5 2.83 1.65 1-5
.............
Attends open houses ...................................... 2.82 1.57 1-5
3.95 .81 1-5
Summary score 3.91 1.0 1-5 2.63 1.37 1-5
Personal: ........................................
Parenting context questionnaire ................... 3.13 .60 1-4 2.81 .87 1-4
Parent involvement measure ........................ 3.21 .66 1-4 2.77 .88 1-4
Cognitive/intellectual:
Reads books ........... 3.06 .93 1-4 2.53 1.11 1-4
.......................
...................
Reads newspaper ........................................ 3.25 .84 1-4 3.73 .65 1-4
Talks about current events ............................ 2.89 .90 1-4 2.95 .98 1-4
Takes courses 1.82 1.01 1-4 1.63 .93 1-4
Goes to library ...............................................
...................................... 2.23 .95 1-4 1.85 .99 1-4
Goes to museum 1.87 .88 1-4 1.77 .90 1-4
Goes to concert or ...........................................
play ................................. 2.04 .94 1-4 1.86 .93 1-4
Buys a book for you ....................................... 2.38 1.04 1-4 1.91 1.01 1-4
Looks up words in dictionary .................... 2.65 1.01 1-4 2.28 1.03 1-4
Summary score ........................................ 22.13 4.58 10-34 20.44 5.42 9-34
volved. Parents were rated as highest in at-
tending parent-teacher conferences, lower
in attending open houses, and lowest at at-
tending school events. The means for chil-
dren's ratings of parents' personal involve-
ment were also on the high end. In general,
then, the sample was relatively involved,
more so in terms of their behavior and per-
sonal resources, less so for cognitive/intel-
lectual activities, though there was variabil-
ity and the full range of possible ratings for
all measures.
Because the measures of parent involve-
ment were designed to assess the same con-
struct, interrelations of the items within and
across measures were of interest, as were re-
lations between summary scores. Further,
since some of the involvement measures
were constructed for this study, their valid-
ity is specifically addressed.
Correlations among items of the
teacher-rated measure and the child-report
measures indicated that for each measure,
within-measure items were more highly cor-
related than were between-measure items.
Cronbach's alphas, computed for sums of the
standardized items for each of the measures,
indicated alphas within the .6 to .8 range,
with the exception of two measures-the
Keith et al. (1986) measure for mothers and
the intellectual/cultural orientation subscale
of the Family Environment Scale, which
were in the .5 range. Given these results,
items for each of the scales were combined
to form summary scores, and item level data
are no longer discussed.
Mother-FatherDifferences
A series of pairwise t tests indicated that
mothers were more involved than fathers on
each of the summary indices of involvement
(p's < .001 for all measures). There were
significant correlations between mother and
father involvement indices (r's = .26-.60,
all p's < .001), indicating that, according to
both teachers and children, children with in-
volved mothers also tended to have involved
fathers.
Relations among Involvement Indices
Correlations among mother involve-
ment measures were moderate, but varied
from r = .05 (teacher-rated parent-school in-
teraction and child-rated parent involve-
ment on the Keith et al. measure) to r = .53
(child-rated intellectual activities and intel-
lectual/cultural orientation on the Family
Environment Scale). Correlations among fa-
ther involvement measures showed a similar
pattern; they ranged from r = .10 (parent-
school interaction rated by the teacher and
the intellectual-cultural orientation subscale
of the Family Environment scale) to r = .73
(parent involvement on the child-reported
Parenting Context Questionnaire and on the
Keith et al. scale).
The correlations among the measures
for mothers and fathers indicate significant
overlap in some but not all of the measures.
The pattern of correlations suggests multiple
dimensions of involvement rather than one
overall construct. Given this, factor analysis
of the measures was conducted.
Factor Analyses of Involvement Indices
In order to examine the structure of the
parent involvement indices and to see
whether dimensions of involvement were
consistent with the three types of involve-
ment conceptualized a priori, factor analyses
were performed for mothers and fathers. A
principal components procedure with pre-
liminary varimax rotation followed by pro-
max rotation (thus providing an oblique
solution) was utilized. For mothers and fa-
thers, three factors with eigenvalues greater
than 1.0 emerged (see Table 2). A loading of
.5 (Wackwitz & Horn, 1971) was used as the
criterion that a scale belonged to a given fac-
tor. For mothers, the first factor was repre-
sented by strong loadings of the two chil-
dren's reports designed to measure parents'
personal involvement: the Parenting Con-
text Questionnaire and the Keith et al. (1986)
scale. The first factor was thus labeled Per-
sonal. The second factor includes the two
variables associated with the intellectual
context of the family and was labeled Intel-
lectual/Cognitive. The final factor is com-
posed of the two parent-school interaction
reports, from child and teacher, and is
termed Behavior. Children's reports of their
mothers' interaction with the school cross-
loaded on the first and third factors. The
cross-loading of the child's report of parent-
school interaction suggests a more objective
element of this rating (i.e., as indicated by
the correlation with teacher reports of the
same behaviors), as well as a more affective
element. Because its strongest loading was
on the Behavior factor and it met the crite-
rion of .5 only for that factor, it was retained
only on the Behavior factor.
For fathers, as for mothers, Personal, In-
tellectual/Cognitive, and Behavior factors
emerged. The Intellectual Activities scale
exhibited a cross-loading on the Personal
factor (in addition to the Intellectual/Cogni-
tive) but, because it met the criterion only
244 Child Development
TABLE 2
FACTOR ANALYSES OF PARENT INVOLVEMENTMEASURES (Factor Loadings--Standard
Regression Coefficients)
Intellectual/
Personal Cognitive Behavior

Mother-eigenvalue .................................. ........ 2.38 1.26 1.01

Parent-schoolinteraction (teacher report) ............... -.21 .06 .97
Parent-schoolinteraction (child report) ................... .46 -.13 .61
Parenting context questionnaire ................................ .77 .17 .05
Parent involvement scale ...................................... ..94 -.05 -.17
Intellectual activities ....................... .............. .05 .86 .02
Cultural/intellectual orientation .................................. -.01 .88 - .01
Father-eigenvalue ......................................... 3.02 1.07 1.02
Parent-schoolinteraction (teacher report) ............... -.13 -.07 .99
Parent-schoolinteraction (child report) ................... .32 .12 .58
Parenting context questionnaire .................................. .87 .01 .06
Parent involvement scale ........................................ 1.02 -.15 -.09
Intellectual activities ....................... .............. .46 .56 - .06
Cultural/intellectual orientation ............................... -.15 1.03 -.01

NOTE.--Underscore indicates that the scale was included in a given factor.

for the Intellectual/Cognitive factor, and to
maintain comparability with the mother fac-
tors, it was not included on the Personal
factor.
Factor scores were created using a unit
weighting procedure suggested by Wack-
witz and Horn (1971). Alphas for the three
factors--Personal, Intellectual/Cognitive,
and Behavior-were, respectively, for moth-
ers, .78, .75, and .74, and for fathers, .90, .82,
and .78.
Correlations among the factors for moth-
ers and fathers (see Table 3) indicate moder-
ate relations. For mothers, values ranged
from r = .16 to .37, while for fathers the
factors were more highly correlated ranging
from r = .34 to .54.
Relations between Demographic Variables
and Parent Involvement Factors
Relations between parent education (a
summary score composed of five categories
from less than eighth grade to advanced de-
gree), marital status (two biological parents,
step-families, single-parent families), mater-
nal work status (full-time, part-time, and full-
time in home), and child grade and gen-
der were examined using correlations and
ANOVAs (for categorical variables).
Child grade and gender and maternal
work status were unrelated to any of the
involvement factors. Marital status was, on
the other hand, significantly associated with
the Behavior (F = 8.82, p < .01) and Intel-
lectual/Cognitive (F = 4.64, p <. 05) factors
for mothers, and all three involvement fac-
tors-Behavior (F = 4.73, p < .05), Personal
(F = 4.50, p < .05), and Intellectual/Cogni-
tive (F = 3.75, p < .05)-for fathers. Post-
hoc Scheff6 tests indicated that mothers and
fathers who lived in intact, two-parent
homes were most involved.
Maternal education was significantly re-
lated to the Intellectual/Cognitive (r = .27,
p < .01) and Personal (r = .12, p < .05) fac-
tors but unrelated to Behavior. Father edu-
cation was significantly associated with the
Intellectual/Cognitive factor (r = .32, p <
.01) and weakly, though significantly, with
the Behavior (r = .17, p < .05) and Personal
(r = .18, p < .05) factors.
Correlations among Involvement Factors,
Motivation, and Performance Variables
Zero-order correlations between in-
volvement, motivation, and performance in-
dices were computed. Patterns of correla-
tions between boys and girls were highly
consistent. Given this and the fact that no
mean level differences in involvement were
found for boys and girls, correlations were
examined across gender. Similarly, correla-
tions between key variables within the three
different types of family structures were ex-
amined. Patterns of correlations within the
groups were variable. Given this and due to
the low sample sizes for the single-parent
and step-family groups, only the intact, two-
parent families are examined in further
analyses.
 ?*
- * 00
00

I
C?
*
**

0) .?
C ) li
* **

0 1",
0
o

to 1 ,
C-),4 -

.*
00 * *

*.• •.t ? ..
q- ---- cqcqCO)
•**

V)
C) 0
.0t
C o000t o r-

- 0 0)- *t-00**

3 . O, CO,
c. cQ
Z OC
.0
CC
.I. *: *.. :. .P.
**
~9 z *3
**
D nc ~3 ~o
F0 > * O1 CO0 C0 0

"4o c o
--C; (0-r O,-- cO ~- 00 t~-
t~-C;1 0l l-
C;1cO cO
~ 1.2

C ' ~bC 00C00

Q) C x

0 00 "
N
* ** O00 0r~r ~~~~0
- C;1 -r -rc

0 >
.P.4
Cd ~ t 0)

CiCd
I oo

.. ) CC> -
:v
0 uk0
) CD 0 ")
~O EI 0

000 C (?

~~r, OO OO~ aaoc ---

i
246 Child Development
Table 3 presents zero-order correlations
between the six involvement factors, the
three motivation variables, and the two per-
formance outcomes for the 223 two-parent
families. Correlations between the parent
involvement factors and the indices of moti-
vation and school performance ranged
greatly but were generally in the moderate
range. The three mother and three father
involvement factors were each significantly
correlated with each of the motivation and
outcome measures, with the exception of
personal resources and control understand-
ing for both mothers and fathers. Of particu-
lar interest in the pattern of correlations is
the fact that father indices tended to be as
highly correlated with outcomes as mother
indices.
Models of the Relations between
Involvement, Motivation, and Performance
The final set of analyses examined a the-
oretical model specifying motivational re-
sources as mediators between parent
involvement and children's performance in
school.' Path analysis was used to examine
the model. The hypothesized model (see
Fig. 1) included the involvement and moti-
vation variables as well as parent education,
which was found to be related to parental
involvement in previous analyses (see Table
3 for correlations among all variables in the
model). Paths in a recursive model such as
that specified can be estimated by beta
weights from ordinary least-squares stan-
dard simultaneous multiple regression
analyses.
The three-step procedure for testing a
mediational model, suggested by Judd and
Kenny (1981), was followed. First, to estab-
lish mediation, the independent variable
must be shown to effect the dependent vari-
able. We thus regressed the dependent vari-
able (grades) on the independent variables
(parentinvolvement factors)for mothers and
fathers. Parent education was included as a
control variable. For mothers, the Behavior
(t = 3.80, p < .0001) and Intellectual/Cogni-
tive (t = 2.04, p < .05) factors each uniquely
predicted school grades. For fathers, the Be-
havior factor independently predicted
school grades (t = 1.92, p < .05).
1 There was a strong relation between school grades and teacher ratings of competence
(r = .88). Because of this overlapping variance and the fact that ratings of competence are likely
to be somewhat confounded with teacher ratings of involvement, it was decided to use school
grades as the dependent variable in all further analyses. However, the results of analyses pre-
dicting school performance were similar using school grades, teacher ratings of competence, or
a variable combining the two.
Next, regressions were performed to ex-
amine relations between the mediator (moti-
vational variables) and the independent
variables (parent involvement factors).First,
each of the parent involvement factors was
regressed onto parent education (mother or
father). Next, the motivational indices were
each regressed on the three involvement fac-
tors and parent education. For mothers (see
Fig. 2), Behavior was positively associated
with perceived competence and control un-
derstanding. The Intellectual/Cognitive fac-
tor predicted perceived competence. The
Personal factor was marginally significantly
associated with self-regulation. These find-
ings indicate a link between the indepen-
dent variables and the mediators, a second
condition necessary for the mediational
model. For fathers (see Fig. 3), there were
also links from parent involvement to the
motivational variables. The Behavior factor
significantly predicted both self-regulation
and perceived competence. The Intellec-
tual/Cognitive factor marginally signifi-
cantly predicted perceived competence.
In a final step, school performance
was regressed onto parent education, the
involvement factors, and the motivational
variables. In order to establish mediation,
links between the independent and depen-
dent variables should be absent or substan-
tially reduced, controlling for the me-
diational variables. Results for mothers
revealed significant paths from perceived
competence and control understanding to
school grades. In addition, a marginally sig-
nificant direct path from Behavior to school
grades emerged. Relative to the strength of
the path described in step 1 (regressing
school grades on involvement without con-
trolling for the motivational variables), the
strength of this path was much reduced.
Thus, the results indicate that, for moth-
ers, two of the involvement factors-
Behavior and Intellectual/Cognitive-were
uniquely indirectly associated with school
grades through their relations with per-
ceived competence and control understand-
ing. A marginally significant direct pathway
between mother Behavior and performance,
without motivational mediation, was also ev-
 Grolnick and Slowiaczek 247

Parent Behavior Self-Regulation

Education ParentPersonal SchoolGrades

Perceived
Competence

Parent
Control
Intellectual/
Understanding
Cognitive

FIG.1.-Hypothetical model of relations between dimensions of parent involvement, motivational

variables, and school grades.

ident, suggesting that this type of parent Discussion

involvement may be both indirectly and di-
rectly associated with grades. For fathers, an
indirect relation of Behavior with school
performance through perceived competence
was evident, but there were no direct associ-
ations between involvement and perfor-
mance. Parent involvement was also associ-
ated with children's self-regulation, though
the mediational hypothesis for self-regu-
lation was not supported.
This study had two major goals. The first
was to investigate the structure of parent
involvement using a tripartite conceptual-
ization of parent involvement conceived of
as the provision of various parenting re-
sources. Specifically, it was suggested that
parents can manifest their involvement in
their children's schooling in at least three
ways: through their behavior with regard to

.12*

Mother
Behavior Self-Regulation

.15*

.29***

Education .10
.22** Competence
R2=.40
SchoolGrades
PersonalEducation .44*
10
Mo2her

.21** .14* .12**

Mother UndControl
Intellectual/
Cognitive Understanding

FIG. 2.-Path diagram of relations between maternal involvement factors, motivational variables,
and school grades.
248 Child Development
Father
Behavior
.13***
Education .15** rsCompetence
PersonalCopetence
.28***
Father
Intellectual/
Cognitive
FIG.3.-Path diagram of relations between paternal involvement factors,motivational variables,
and school grades.
school, through the child's perception of
their affective and personal availability, and
by exposing the child to cognitive and intel-
lectual activities. A second goal was to ex-
plore relations between parent involvement
and children's school motivation and perfor-
mance, and to test a model in which chil-
dren's motivational resources are mediators
between parent involvement and children's
school performance.
With regard to the first goal, the results
supporta multidimensional model and, gen-
erally, indicate the usefulness of distin-
guishing among multiple components of par-
ent involvement. Factor analyses of parent
involvement measures were consistent with
the a priori three-dimensional model. The
three factors were only moderately corre-
lated, supporting the view that parents can
display their involvement in multiple ways.
Children do not seem, for example, to derive
their experiences of parents' personal avail-
ability solely from their behavior or level of
intellectual/cognitive activities. Since most
studies have used only one measure of par-
ent involvement, it is importantfor research-
ers to clarify the type of parent involvement
of interest and, where possible, to include
multiple indices.
Importantly, the derived factors cut
across rater (i.e., factors could not be ac-
counted for by raterperception alone). Thus,
for example, teachers' and children's ratings
of parents' school-related behavior com-
bined to create one overall parent behavior
.31**
Self-Regulation
.25**
R2=.39
. 46 ** School Grades
.10* .21**
Control
Understanding
factor. There was some unique variance in
children's and teachers' perceptions, and
this is not surprising given that teachers and
children may have differential access to par-
ents' behavior. In addition, general feelings
toward the parent may color raters' percep-
tions. Nevertheless, the factor analyses sup-
port the validity of using raters as sources of
informationabout parents' behavior.
Another advantage of using multiple
measures and raters of parent involvement
is to increase reliability. In this study, some
of the lowest internal consistencies were
found for measures used in previous studies
(which typically employed only one mea-
sure of involvement). Since low reliability
has been a problem in previous studies, ag-
gregation of individual measures based
on theoretically determined dimensions is
recommended (Schwarz, Barton-Henry, &
Pruzinsky, 1985).
One especially interesting finding was
the differential relations of the involvement
factors with background variables. For ex-
ample, parent education was strongly re-
lated to the Intellectual/Cognitive factor, as
might be expected, but unrelated to parent
Behavior for mothers and weakly, though
significantly, related for fathers. These re-
sults are consistent with other studies (Her-
man & Yeh, 1983; Hoover-Dempsey, Bas-
sler, & Brissie, 1987) in which background
variables distinguished between some, but
not all, measures of parent involvement. If
this is true, the stereotype of the low in-
 Grolnick and Slowiaczek 249

volved, less educated parent may not hold tion in, intellectual/cognitive activities may
true for all types of involvement. Since atti- bring school and home closer for the child
tudes teachers hold about parents can have and make such activities feel more con-
important ramifications for how they treat querable. It follows that children who have
them, and, in particular for whether or not such experiences at home may feel better
they try to involve them (Becker & Epstein, able to master and control activities in
1982), these results have important implica- school.
tions. The results suggest that the ways in
which parents get involved in their chil- While such parent-to-childpathways are
one way in which the results could be ex-
dren's school experiences may vary ac-
cording to their background, and indicate plained, they may also reflect child-to-parent
that involving parents is not a strategy re- effects. Children who are confident in school
and feel in control of school outcomes may
stricted to highly educated families.
actually push parents to become actively in-
The second goal of the study was to ex- volved in school. Cognitive/Intellectual ac-
amine a model in which children's motiva- tivities and motivation may also follow such
tional resources are mediators between pathways. It is not inconceivable that more
involvement and school performance. The motivated children may suggest activities
results were generally consistent with the such as going to the library to their parents.
model; there were indirect associations be- If the results represent such child-to-parent
tween parent involvement and performance effects, it is also likely that relations be-
through the motivational resources, yet tween involvement, motivation, and perfor-
these pathways were only in evidence for mance indicate circular pathways in which
some types of motivational resources and motivation fuels parent involvement, and
some types of involvement. Specifically, for involvement fuels motivation, which fuels
mothers, two of the involvement factors, Be- performance. Another interesting explana-
havior and Cognitive/Intellectual, uniquely tion for the results is that, early in schooling,
predicted two of the motivational resources, parent involvement affects motivation, and
perceived competence and control under- later in schooling, both parent involvement
standing, which predicted school perfor- and motivation independently and perhaps
mance. The finding that these motivational even interactively fuel performance.
resources mediate the relations between the
Interestingly, there was one marginally
environment and outcomes supports emerg- significant direct association for mothers-
ing literatures in which children's attitudes that between behavior (which also showed
and beliefs about themselves in school are indirect effects) and school performance.
powerful determinants of school success This association is consistent with the fact
(e.g., Grolnick, 1990). that studies that define parent involvement
One can speculate about how behavior as mothers' levels of activity with school
and intellectual/cognitive involvement (e.g., Stevenson & Baker, 1987) have more
uncovered positive findings
might relate to perceived competence and consistently
control understanding. With regard to be- than those looking at other aspects of
havior, parents who go to school and engage involvement (e.g., Keith et al., 1986). Several
in school activities may be modeling both explanations, which should be considered
the importanceof school and a way to handle speculative given the weakness of the find-
situations-a way that involves actively ings, are available. Epstein (1988) suggested
that who come to the school and
finding out about and confronting issues and meetparents
with teachers make it more likely that
problems. Such behavior may affect motiva-
tion in several ways. First, children whose the school will take an interest in counseling
the children than those who do not come to
parents behave as if school is importantmay the school. Parents who
feel that they do so because they, the chil- get to know the
are the teachers may also have more realistic per-
dren, important.Second, parent may about the of the teacher for
be conveying a strategy for dealing with ceptions goals
school to the child-a strategy in which the the child and thus may be better able to help
individual, in this case, the parent, has the the child. An alternative explanation is that
power to control outcomes and create the direct effect represents the mother's re-
change. When such a message is conveyed sponse to the child's school performance, in
to the child, he or she may see school out- other words, mothers may become more in-
comes as more controllable. volved in their children's schooling as a re-
sult of their children's good grades. Such a
Children's exposure to, and participa- feedback loop suggests a cycle in which par-
250 Child Development
ent support maintains the ongoing perfor-
mance of children and is consistent with the
relative stability of children's school perfor-
mance.
While the above described relations of
involvement with motivation were in evi-
dence, some of the predicted relations did
not hold up. For example, there were no
unique effects of Personal involvement in
the obtained model (though there were zero-
order relations with motivation and out-
comes). One possible reason for this is the
overlapping variance between the Personal
factor and the other two involvement factors.
Feelings of Personal involvement may be at
least in part derived from the types of behav-
iors tapped by the other two factors. In addi-
tion, such lack of relations may be the result
of low variance in some of the measures. In
general, this sample, by both teacher and
child report, exhibited relatively high levels
of involvement, and this was especially the
case for children's ratings of their parents'
Personal involvement.
Also contrary to prediction, although
self-regulation was predicted by parent
involvement indices, the path from self-
regulation to school performance was not
significant. This contradicts another study
(Grolnick et al., 1991) in which direct paths
from the three inner resources significantly
predicted a latent school competence vari-
able. However, even in the previous study,
the link between self-regulation and school
grades was the weakest. It may be that chil-
dren can achieve for many reasons, even
ones that are nonautonomous, while percep-
tions of competence and control may more
directly interfere with achievement behav-
iors per se. Because of its motivational com-
ponent, self-regulation may be a better pre-
dictor of other school outcomes such as
adjustment and drop-out, especially at criti-
cal points where students have more choice
about the path of their educational futures.
Further, it is likely that other aspects of the
parenting context may be associated with
self-regulation. In particular, Grolnick and
Ryan (1989) found that the degree to which
parents value and use techniques that sup-
port autonomy and responsibility in their
children rather than control their children's
initiations was associated with greater self-
regulation.
A number of limitations of this study
merit consideration. Most notably, the data
are correlational, and thus the direction of
causality for obtained findings cannot be de-
termined. Second, the mediational model is
only one possible way in which the variables
of interest could be related. Third, the as-
pects of involvement that were measured
were not exhaustive, and the factors should
only be conceived of as an example of ways
in which a set of individual measures could
be aggregated. Fourth, the measures of
school outcomes were limited. Effects of
involvement might be importantly demon-
strated for children's behavior, educational
attainment, and school attendance. Finally,
given that this sample was relatively in-
volved, the results can only be generalized
to a middle-class, involved sample and may
be less applicable to different groups. De-
spite these limitations, this study provides
impetus for multidimensional studies of par-
ent involvement that might help parents and
schools to make use of a key resource for
children's school success, their parents.
References
Baker, D. P., & Stevenson, D. L. (1986). Mothers'
strategies for children's school achievement:
Managing the transition to high school. Soci-
ology of Education, 59, 156-166.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unified
theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84, 191-215.
Becker, H. J., & Epstein, J. L. (1982). Parent
involvement: A study of teacher practices. El-
ementary School Journal, 83, 85-102.
Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1980). The role of ego-
control and ego-resiliency in the organization
of behavior. In W. A. Collins (Ed.), Develop-
ment of cognitive affect and social relations.
Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology
(Vol. 13). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J.,
McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D.,
& York, R. L. (1966). Equality of educational
opportunity (2 vols.). Washington, DC: Gov-
ernment Printing Office.
Cone, J. D., DeLawyer, D. D., & Wolfe, V. V.
(1985). Assessing parent participation: The
parent/family involvement index. Excep-
tional Children, 51, 417-424.
Connell, J. P. (1985). A new multidimensional
measure of children's perceptions of control.
Child Development, 6, 281-293.
Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in
the classroom: A theory and assessment of
children's self-regulatory styles in the aca-
demic domain. Unpublished manuscript,
University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.
Dornbusch, S. M., & Ritter, P. L. (1988). Parents
of high school students: A neglected resource.
Educational Horizons, 66, 75-77.
Epstein, J. L. (1983). Longitudinal effects of fam-
ily-school-person interactions on student out-

comes. In A. Kerckhoff (Ed.), Research in so-
ciology of education and socialization (Vol.
4). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Epstein, J. L. (1988). How do we improve pro-
grams for parent involvement? Educational
Horizons, 66, 75-77.
Epstein, J. L. (1990). School and family connec-
tions: Theory, research, and implications for
integrating sociologies of education and fam-
ily. Marriageand Family Review, 15, 99-126.
Epstein, J. L., & Becker, H. J. (1982). Teachers'
reported practices of parent involvement:
Problems and possibilities. Elementary
School Journal, 83, 103-113.
Fehrmann, P. G., Keith, T. Z., & Reimers, T. M.
(1987). Home influence on school learning:
Direct and indirect effects of parent involve-
ment on high school grades. Journal of Edu-
cational Research, 80, 330-337.
Gordon, D., Nowicki, S., & Wichern, F. (1981).
Observed maternal and child behavior in a
dependency-producing task as a function of
children's locus of control orientation. Mer-
rill-Palmer Quarterly, 27, 43-51.
Grolnick, W. S. (1990). Targeting children's moti-
vational resources-in early childhood educa-
tion. Educational Policy, 4, 267-282.
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent
styles associated with children's self-reg-
ulation and competence in school. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 81, 143-154.
Grolnick, W. S., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1991).
The inner resources for school achievement:
Motivational mediators of children's percep-
tions of their parents. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 83, 508-517.
Grolnick, W. S., & Wellborn, J. S. (1988, April).
Parent influences on children's engagement
and disaffection in school. Paper presented at
American Educational Research Association,
New Orleans, LA.
Harter, S. (1982). The Perceived Competence
Scale for Children. Child Development, 53,
87-97.
Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the Self-Perception
Profile for Children. Unpublished manu-
script, University of Denver.
Herman, J. L., & Yeh, J. P. (1983). Some effects
of parent involvement in schools. Urban Re-
view, 15, 11-17.
Heyns, B. (1978). Summer learning and the
effects of schooling. New York: Academic
Press.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Bassler, O. C., & Brissie,
J. S. (1987). Parent involvement: Contribu-
tions of teacher efficacy, school socioeco-
nomic status, and other school characteristics.
American Educational Research Journal, 24,
417-435.
Iverson, B. K., Brownlee, G. D., & Walberg, H. J.
(1981). Parent-teacher contacts and student
Grolnick and Slowiaczek 251
learning. Journal of Educational Research,
74, 394-396.
Judd, C. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1981). Process analy-
sis: Estimating mediation in evaluation re-
search. Evaluation Research, 5, 602-619.
Keeves, J. (1972). Educational environment and
school achievement. Stockholm: Almquist &
Wiksell.
Keith, T. Z., Reimers, T. M., Fehrmann, P. G.,
Pottebaum, S. M., & Aubey, L. W. (1986). Pa-
rental involvement, homework, and TV time:
Direct and indirect effects on high school
achievement. Journal of Educational Re-
search, 78, 373-380.
Kurdek, L. A., & Sinclair, R. J. (1988). Relation of
eighth graders' family structure, gender, and
family environment with academic perfor-
mance and school behavior.Journalof Educa-
tional Psychology, 80, 90-94.
Lareau, A. (1987). Social class differences in fam-
ily-school relationships: The importance of
cultural capital. Sociology of Education, 60,
73-85.
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socializa-
tion in the context of the family: Parent-child
interaction. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), P.
H. Mussen (Series Ed.), Handbook of child
psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personal-
ity, and social development (pp. 1-102). New
York: Wiley.
Marjoribanks, K. (1972). Ethnic and environmen-
tal influences on mental abilities. Journal of
Sociology, 78, 323-337.
Moos, R. G., & Moos, B. S. (1981). Family Envi-
ronment Scale manual. Palo Alto, CA: Con-
sulting Psychologists Press.
National Center for Education Statistics (1985).
The relationship of parental involvement to
high school grades (NCES No. 85-20506).
Washington, DC: Department of Education.
National Commission on Excellence in Education
(1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office.
Parsons, T. (1959). The school class as a social
system: Some of its functions in American so-
ciety. Harvard Educational Review, 129,
297-318.
Patterson, G. R. (1986). Performance models for
antisocial boys. American Psychologist, 41,
432-444.
Pulkkinen, L. (1982). Self-control and continuity
from childhood to adolescence. In P. B. Baltes
& O. G. Brim (Eds.), Life span development
and behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 63-105). New York:
Academic Press.
Reynolds, A. J. (1989). A structural model of first-
grade outcomes for an urban, low socioeco-
nomic status, minority population. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 81, 594-603.
Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived
locus of causality and internalization: Exam-
252 Child Development
ining reasons for acting in two domains.Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57,
749-761.
Schwarz,J. C., Barton-Henry,M. L., & Pruzinsky,
T. (1985). Assessing child-rearing behaviors:
A comparison of ratings made by mother, fa-
ther, child and sibling on the CRPBI. Child
Development, 56, 462-479.
Skinner, E. A., Wellborn, J. G., & Connell, J. P.
(1990). What it takes to do well in school and
whether I've got it: A process model of per-
ceived control and children's engagement
and achievement in school. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 82, 22-32.
Spaeth, J. L. (1976). Cognitive complexity: A di-
mension underlying the socioeconomic
achievement process. In W. H. Sewell, R. M.
Hauser, & D. L. Featherman (Eds.), School-
ing and achievement in American society (pp.
103-131). New York:Academic Press.
Stevenson, D., & Baker, D. (1987). The family-
school relation and the child's school perfor-
mance. Child Development, 58, 1348-1357.
Wackwitz, J. H., & Horn, J. L. (1971). On ob-
taining the best estimates of factor scores
within an ideal simple structure.Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 6, 389-408.
Waller,W. (1932). The sociology of teaching. New
York:Russell & Russell.
Wellborn,J. P., & Grolnick,W. S. (1988). The Par-
enting Context Questionnaire. Unpublished
manual, University of Rochester.