See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257288847

Measuring Children’s Perceptions of Parental Involvement in Conjoint

Behavioral Consultation: Factor Structure and Reliability of the Parental
Support for Learning Scale

Article  in  Assessment for Effective Intervention · July 2013

DOI: 10.1177/1534508413493110

CITATIONS READS
10 3,684

5 authors, including:

Maria A Rogers Jonathan D. Midgett

University of Ottawa United States Consumer Product Safety Commission
40 PUBLICATIONS   940 CITATIONS    18 PUBLICATIONS   617 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Rosemary Tannock
University of Toronto
285 PUBLICATIONS   25,487 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Reading Disabilities and Remediation View project

The Ripple Effect of Adolescent ADHD View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Maria A Rogers on 18 December 2013.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

493110
research-article2013
AEIXXX10.1177/1534508413493110Assessment for Effective InterventionRogers et al.

Article
Assessment for Effective Intervention

Measuring Children’s Perceptions

XX(X) 1–12
© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2013
Reprints and permissions:
of Parental Involvement in Conjoint sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1534508413493110

Behavioral Consultation: Factor Structure aei.sagepub.com

and Reliability of the Parental Support for

Learning Scale

Maria Rogers, PhD1, Clarisa Markel, MA2, Jonathan D. Midgett, PhD3, Bruce A.
Ryan, PhD4, and Rosemary Tannock, PhD5

Abstract
Practitioners of Conjoint Behavioral Consultation rely on several sources of information to assist in planning and evaluation
of consultation efforts. Parental involvement in the home is an important aspect in Conjoint Behavioral Consultation,
yet there are few questionnaires available to practitioners to assess this important construct, particularly those that
target children’s self-report. This study examined the factor structure and reliability of a new questionnaire to measure
children’s perceptions of their parental involvement in learning. The Parental Support for Learning Scale: Child Form (PSLS) was
administered to a sample of 231 children (aged 10–13 years). Exploratory factor analysis supported a four-factor structure
representing parental involvement behaviors and emotional tone: (a) Parental Management of the Learning Environment,
(b) Parental Participation With Homework, (c) Controlling Parental Involvement, and (d) Supportive Parental Involvement.
Analysis showed satisfactory reliability coefficients. The four factors are discussed in relation to the relevant literature and
Conjoint Behavioral Consultation, and future directions for further validation of the PSLS are discussed.

Keywords
Conjoint Behavioral Consultation, parental involvement, measurement, scale development, educational consultation,
parental support, parental control, homework

Conjoint Behavioral Consultation (Sheridan, Kratochwill,
& Bergan, 1996) is an evidence-based consultation model
of service delivery wherein parents, educators, and service
providers work collaboratively to jointly identify and
address child-related difficulties (Guli, 2005; Sheridan,
Eagle, Cowan, & Mickelson, 2001; Sheridan & Kratochwill,
2008). According to Sheridan and Kratochwill (2008), this
model is guided by three goals: addressing the child’s needs,
promoting parental involvement in learning, and building
partnerships across the family and school. Conjoint
Behavioral Consultation is a particularly useful model for
school psychologists and special education personnel as it
draws on the well-validated, structured approach of school-
based behavioral consultation with knowledge of the bene-
fits of home–school partnerships and parental involvement
in children’s learning (Guli, 2005). A key component of this
model is the identification of contextual factors in the home
and school settings, from the perspectives of different peo-
ple in the child’s environment, which may be altered to
enhance children’s functioning. However, there exists a
paucity of psychometrically sound measurement tools in
the extant literature aimed at assessing children’s own per-
ceptions of the home learning environment—an important
element to assess when planning Conjoint Behavioral
Consultation interventions. This article presents the psy-
chometric properties of a new questionnaire, the Parental
Support for Learning Scale (PSLS), aimed at assessing chil-
dren’s perceptions of their parents’ educational involvement
in the home by assessing perceptions of parents’ behaviors
and emotional tone. Implications for research and practice
within the context of Conjoint Behavioral Consultation are
discussed.
1
University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
2
University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
3
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Bethesda, MD, USA
4
University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada
5
University of Toronto and Neurosciences & Mental Health Research
Program, The Hospital for Sick Children, Ontario, Canada
Corresponding Author:
Maria Rogers, University of Ottawa, 136 Jean-Jacques-Lussier, Vanier
Hall, Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5, Canada.
Email: maria.rogers@uottawa.ca

Downloaded from aei.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OTTAWA LIBRARY on November 26, 2013

2 Assessment for Effective Intervention XX(X)
Conjoint Behavioral Consultation
In 2002, a national survey in the United States found that
school psychologists spend 16% of their time in a consulta-
tion role (Bramlett, Murphy, Johnson, Wallingsford, & Hall,
2002). Recent reports suggest that this rate is on the rise as
more traditional emphasis on assessment-based activities is
shifting to a more consultation-based, problem-solving par-
adigm (Wilkinson, 2006). Canadian and American school
psychologists, as well as parents, rate Conjoint Behavioral
Consultation as the preferred intervention modality for aca-
demic, behavioral, and social–emotional problems (Freer &
Watson, 1999; Sheridan & Steck, 1995; Sladeczek, Madden,
Illsley, Finn, & August, 2006).
Conjoint Behavioral Consultation is a model of indirect
service delivery that integrates ecological systems and
behavioral theory (Garbacz et al., 2008). In this model, par-
ents, teachers, and other supportive adults join as consultees
who share the responsibility in the identification of needs
for the child, and in developing, implementing, and evaluat-
ing interventions to address those needs (Sheridan &
Kratochwill, 2008). Multiple positive outcomes have been
associated with Conjoint Behavioral Consultation, includ-
ing improvements in homework completion (Galloway &
Sheridan, 1994), social skill development (Colton &
Sheridan, 1998), compliance (Ray, Skinner, & Watson,
1999), and internalizing and externalizing behavior prob-
lems (Illsley & Sladeczek, 2001).
The overall goal of Conjoint Behavioral Consultation is
to address identified needs for the child in a collaborative,
strength-based manner, and it is implemented via four
stages: needs (problem) identification, needs analysis, plan
development, and plan evaluation. During the needs-identi-
fication stage, consultants work with parents, teachers, and
other relevant adults to identify and prioritize the child’s
needs across the home and school settings with the ultimate
goal of selecting a target concern that will lead to the great-
est benefit to the child (Sheridan & Kratochwill, 2008).
Once priorities have been established and agreed upon by all
consultees, the target concern is defined in measurable and
manageable terms. The next step is to establish procedures
for collecting baseline data. Ideally, Conjoint Behavioral
Consultation collects data from multiple sources to provide
a comprehensive account of a child’s functioning across set-
tings and contexts (Sheridan & Kratochwill, 2008).
Multisource procedures enable consultants to obtain
information from a variety of sources, including teachers,
parents, peers, and the child him/herself. Assessment consists
of direct and indirect means; direct measures refer to those
that measure behavior directly through live observation or
skills assessment, and indirect measures are those that mea-
sure behavior indirectly (i.e., using rating scales, checklists,
or interviews). In indirect measurement, the informants are
the child’s parents and teachers, other adults who know the
Downloaded from aei.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OTTAWA LIBRARY on November 26, 2013
child well, the child’s peers, and the child him/herself.
Children’s self-reports are important when the child is the
only person with certain data relevant to the situation, such as
cognition, feelings, and other personal experiences.
Although Conjoint Behavioral Consultation argues in
favor of the inclusion of self-report measures, few studies
in the published literature have targeted the child’s percep-
tions of their environment. A review of the published stud-
ies on Conjoint Behavioral Consultation revealed only two
studies that explicitly state that children’s self-reports were
obtained. Weiner, Sheridan, and Jenson (1998) gathered
information about homework performance via interviews
with middle school students, and Sheridan, Kratochwill,
and Elliot (1990) used self-report data on children’s social
behavior. However, the vast majority of studies primarily
use the consultants’ (usually parents and teachers) percep-
tions of the child’s functioning.
Parental Involvement in the Home
Parental involvement in the home environment has been
linked to key outcomes in children’s development. Benefits
of parental involvement in the home include higher aca-
demic achievement (Bogenschneider, 1997; Fan & Chen,
2001; Gutman & Midgley, 2000; Pelletier & Brent, 2002),
increased achievement in reading (Evans & Shaw, 2008;
Evans, Shaw, & Bell, 2000; Gest, Freeman, Domitrovich, &
Welsh, 2004; Raikes et al., 2006; Sénéchal, 2006; Sénéchal
& LeFevre, 2002), writing (Epstein, Simon, & Salinas,
1997; Reutzel, Fawson, & Smith, 2006), and mathematics
(Izzo, Weissberg, Kasprow, & Fendrich, 1999; LeFevre
et al., 2009). Other academic benefits include lower dropout
rates (Rumberger, 1995), fewer retentions and special edu-
cation placements (Miedel & Reynolds, 1999), and a more
positive attitude toward school (Gonzalez-DeHass, Willems,
& Holbein, 2005). Moreover, parents themselves (Grolnick,
Benjet, Kurowski, & Apostoleris, 1997; Gutman & McLoyd,
2000; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995, 2005; Watkins,
1997), teachers (Becker & Epstein, 1982), and schools as a
whole (Lombana & Lombana, 1982) all report benefits from
effective parental involvement in the home.
The research on parents’ educational involvement in the
home has examined school-focused parent–child interac-
tions from two perspectives: parental behaviors and parental
emotional tone. Regarding parenting behaviors, parents can
influence their children’s academic outcomes through active
participation in and management of learning in the home.
This can involve activities such as helping with homework
(Cooper, Lindsay, & Nye, 2000), engaging in cognitively
stimulating tasks, such as reading together (Evans, 1998),
and managing children’s school-related behaviors, such as
organizing and monitoring children’s time (Finn, 1998).
Active parental involvement behaviors in the home environ-
ment can support children’s educational endeavors and
Rogers et al.
provide motivation to learn (Seginer, 2006). As would be
expected, parental involvement behaviors tend to decline as
children progress through school. Early in children’s school-
ing experience, parental involvement tends to be directive
and hands-on (Hokoda & Fincham, 1995), but as children
progress through higher grades and presumably develop the
cognitive foundations and study skills to support more
autonomy in their schoolwork, parents’ instrumental
involvement tends to decrease (McCullough, 2002).
Longitudinal research suggests that parental involvement in
the home in the elementary years may predict academic suc-
cess in high school (Barnard, 2004).
The second stream of research examining parental
involvement in the home has focused on the style or emo-
tional tone of parent–child interactions regarding school
issues. Broadly speaking, this research has focused on
parental support and control (Grolnick, 2003). Supportive
parental involvement refers to parenting behaviors that lead
children to experience a sense of initiative and confidence
in relation to their learning, and it has been associated with
higher school achievement (see, for example, Callahan,
Rademacher, & Hildreth, 1998; Martinez-Pons, 1996;
Pomerantz, Moorman, & Litwack, 2007; Seginer, 1986).
For example, parents’ use of positive reinforcement, such as
rewarding learning-related behaviors with encouragement
and praise, is associated with higher school achievement
(see, for example, Martinez-Pons, 1996; Seginer, 1986). In
a homework intervention study, parents who were coached
in how to involve their children in decision making and in
the use of positive reinforcement had children whose home-
work completion, quality, and math achievement improved
posttreatment (Callahan et al., 1998). Ginsburg and
Bronstein (1993) found that parental punishment and criti-
cism in reaction to children’s grades was related to lower
academic performance, and parents who are intrusive in
their children’s homework tend to have lower-achieving
children (Niggli, Trautwein, Schnyder, Ludtke, & Neumann,
2007; Pomerantz & Eaton, 2001). Grolnick, Gurland,
DeCourcey, and Jacob (2002) found that mothers who were
more controlling and exerted pressure during interactive
academic tasks had children who performed more poorly on
the tasks compared with mothers who used more supportive
involvement. Pomerantz et al. (2007) suggest that support-
ive parental involvement influences children’s achievement
by enhancing skill development and by improving chil-
dren’s intrinsic motivation for learning, whereas controlling
involvement may deprive children of feeling that they are
autonomous and effective learners and lead to low motiva-
tion to learn.
The vast majority of the parental involvement literature
has examined only mothers’ involvement; fathers have been
largely neglected in the extant parental involvement
research (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 2005; Patrikakou &
Weissberg, 2000; Ringenberg, Funk, Mullen, Wilford, &
Downloaded from aei.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OTTAWA LIBRARY on November 26, 2013
3
Kramer, 2005). The limited research does suggest, however,
that fathers can have an influence on child outcomes above
and beyond maternal involvement (Greif & Greif, 2004).
For instance, fathers’ educational involvement has been
linked to increased levels of academic achievement
(McBride, Schoppe-Sullivan, & Moon-Ho, 2005), more
positive school attitudes (Flouri, Buchanan, & Bream,
2002), literacy development (Gadsden & Bowman, 1999),
and enhanced teacher–child relationships in aggressive
children (Ang, 2006). Thus, an assessment of paternal
involvement in children’s learning within the home envi-
ronment appears to be important for children’s school out-
comes, and thus is an important domain to investigate in
school-based consultation.
Although parental involvement in the home has a strong
research record, a relatively small number of measurement
tools that measure children’s perceptions can be found in
the published literature. A review of the parental involve-
ment literature shows that the majority of studies only look
at one respondent, typically the mother or teacher (see, for
example, Dwyer, 2000; Fantuzzo, Tighe, & Childs, 2000;
Kohl, Lengua, & McMahon, 2000; Patrikakou & Weissberg,
2000; Ringenberg et al., 2005). Because differences in
family member responses may reflect actual differing per-
ceptions of the family environment, examining the chil-
dren’s perceptions of parental involvement is important
and allows the child to convey his or her own viewpoint
(Achenbach, 1995; Loeber, Green, & Lahey, 1990; Ritchie
& Fitzpatrick, 1990). Walker, Hoover-Dempsey, Whetsel,
and Green (2004) suggest that children’s own invitations to
parents for involvement are influential in predicting par-
ents’ involvement behaviors. It follows then that under-
standing children’s views of their parents’ involvement in
their academic lives may be important when planning and
implementing family or school-based interventions aimed
at targeting these areas.
In a review of 17 parental involvement data collection
instruments, Westmoreland, Bouffard, O’Carroll, and
Rosenberg (2009) identified only three that assess chil-
dren’s self-reports. The existing parental involvement
instruments that offer parents’ and children’s reports are
limited in that they often assess a single dimension of paren-
tal involvement, such as homework involvement (Hoover-
Dempsey, Bassler & Burow, 1995), tap into a very general
parenting construct (Beckert, Strom, Strom, Yang, & Singh,
2007; R. Strom & Strom, 1998), or focus on the assessment
of partnership practices between families and schools
(Epstein, Connors-Tadros, & Salinas, 1993). More compre-
hensive home-based observational measures are often not
feasible for school-based consultants in that they require at
least 1 hr to be completed by a trained observer (Bradley &
Caldwell, 1984).
Using tools that assess children’s own perceptions of paren-
tal involvement may help ensure maximum effectiveness
4 Assessment for Effective Intervention XX(X)
of a Conjoint Behavioral Consultation intervention. That is, for
this approach to be successful at helping children, practitioners
require a thorough understanding of the family and school situ-
ation. Although acquiring information from parents about the
home environment is crucial, perceptions vary among family
members. For instance, parents may feel that they provide an
emotionally supportive learning environment at home, but the
child perceives their behaviors as controlling. If a goal of
Conjoint Behavioral Consultation is to foster positive school-
focused interactions between parents and children, such a dis-
crepancy in perceptions would be important to acknowledge
and address, not just when conducting needs assessments, but
also when planning effective home-based interventions.
Objectives of the Present Study
Children’s perceptions of their mother’s and father’s educa-
tional involvement is an important element to address when
attempting to understand and ameliorate problems in chil-
dren’s learning. Despite this, there are few psychometri-
cally sound measurement tools available to researchers and
practitioners of Conjoint Behavioral Consultation to assess
this important construct in a reliable and time-efficient
manner. Understanding children’s perceptions of the home
learning environment is important for those engaged in
Conjoint Behavioral Consultation, given its systems frame-
work in which the home and school are inextricably linked
and jointly influence children’s outcomes. Making use of
instruments that assess children’s own perceptions of their
mother’s and father’s involvement would likely benefit
Conjoint Behavioral Consultation efforts, as well as add
something novel to the literature on children’s perceptions
of family relationships and patterns.
This article is intended to present psychometric informa-
tion about a promising new measurement tool, the Parental
Support for Learning Scale (PSLS), for assessing children’s
perceptions of the home learning environment, namely, their
mother’s and father’s involvement in their learning.
Consistent with the aforementioned literature, this scale was
developed to assess two components of parental involve-
ment: parental behaviors and parental emotional tone, as
both are seen as critical components of parental involvement.
This manuscript presents factor analytic and reliability data
and discusses possible uses for this instrument in the context
of Conjoint Behavioral Consultation research and practice;
however, it is important to note that this study was not carried
out within a Conjoint Behavioral Consultation context.
Method
Participants
A community sample of 110 fifth-grade (47 males, 63
females) and 121 sixth-grade (63 males, 58 females)
Downloaded from aei.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OTTAWA LIBRARY on November 26, 2013
children in a small Canadian city was used for this study.
The sample represented a mix of middle to upper class fam-
ilies. The sample was homogeneous ethnically, consisting
of White participants. The children ranged in age from 10 to
13 years, with a mean age of 11.5 years.
Procedure
Children were recruited by sending home information
sheets and consent forms to parents of students in 5 fifth-
grade classrooms and 6 sixth-grade classrooms for a total of
292 parents. A response rate of 79% was achieved.
Participating parents completed consent forms for their
child and returned them to their children’s teacher within 1
week. The researchers then collected the forms and com-
piled a list of participating students with permission to par-
ticipate. Arrangements were then made with teachers and
principals to allow the children time to participate during
their normal school day.
The administration of the questionnaires to the students
was done in groups of 10 to 15 and took approximately 20
min to complete for each group, although students were
allowed as much time as they needed. Two researchers who
were familiar with the questionnaire supervised the admin-
istration and the children were encouraged to ask questions
about vocabulary or procedures at any time. The same pro-
cedure was used for each group of participating students. It
is important to note again that this study was not conducted
within the context of a Conjoint Behavioral Consultation
intervention.
Measurement
The PSLS, formerly called the Family School Questionnaire
(Midgett, 2000) was developed to allow researchers to
assess mothers’ and fathers’ educational involvement in the
home. In particular, the scale was developed to assess two
dimensions of parental involvement in the home: parental
involvement behaviors and parental involvement emo-
tional tone. The overarching goal in creating the scale was
to provide researchers and eventually clinicians with valid
behavioral factors based on the Family–School
Relationships Model (Ryan & Adams, 1995). This scale
was developed to assess parents’ and children’s percep-
tions; however, only the children’s self-report form was
examined in this study. The reading level of the scale was
developed and assessed for use with children in Grade 3
and above. This range was selected because children at this
grade level typically have adequate reading comprehension
skills to complete self-report questionnaires, and after ele-
mentary school, parental involvement tends to decline
(Adams & Christenson, 2000).
To create the PSLS, items were developed based on per-
tinent parental involvement literature, as well as selecting
Rogers et al.
and modifying items from two existing measures: the
Inventory of Parental Influence (IPI; Campbell, 1994) and
the Perceiving Parental Behavior Inventory (PPBI; Mboya,
1993). These two measures were selected because they both
were designed specifically to assess parental involvement
in the home. Although they both possess acceptable degrees
of reliability and validity, they have some limitations for
researchers or practitioners interested in assessing school-
focused parent–child interactions. For instance, neither
form was designed to assess mothers’ and fathers’ involve-
ment separately, but these measures rather refer to parents
in general. The PSLS addressed this weakness by using two
separate forms for children’s perceptions of each parent.
Second, both the IPI and PPBI were created for child self-
report only and do not include a parent version. Therefore,
the PSLS includes a parallel version for parents as well
(although not included in the present analyses). Moreover,
previous research on the IPI indicates high cross-loading
items (Midgett, Belsito, Ryan, & Adams, 1997); thus, these
unstable items were not included in the PSLS. Finally, as
outlined in the aforementioned literature review, we were
primarily interested in children’s perceptions of parental
involvement behaviors and emotional tone in the home;
therefore, only items from the IPI and PPBI reflecting those
constructs were selected for the PSLS. Finally, some items
from these scales were modified to improve readability for
elementary school–aged children and to be more specific to
learning-focused interactions (e.g., PPBI item “My mother
supports me in the things I do.” was modified to read “My
mother supports me in the things I do at school.”)
The resultant version of the PSLS is a short self-report
questionnaire that contains 46 items that assess children’s
reports of their mothers’ and fathers’ behaviors in the home
that are specifically aimed at helping them succeed at
school. It uses a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Children responded
to two versions of the PSLS: one relating to interactions
with their mothers (PSLS-M), and one to interactions with
their father (PSLS-F).
Data Analysis
An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed on the
full 46-item set of the PSLS. The criterion chosen to deter-
mine that an extracted factor accounted for a reasonably
large proportion of the total variance was based on an eigen-
value greater than 1 and an evaluation of scree plots. An EFA
using oblique rotations was chosen as it was expected that
extracted factors were likely to be correlated. The determi-
nation of a significant item-factor loading was set at a coef-
ficient level of .30 or higher. This level is consistent with the
other literature and accepted statistical wisdom (Tabachnick
& Fidell, 1996), and is based on the rationale of generating a
more complete psychological interpretation of the data.
Downloaded from aei.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OTTAWA LIBRARY on November 26, 2013
5
Results
Preliminary Analyses
The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling ade-
quacy and the Bartlett test of sphericity (BTS) were con-
ducted on the data prior to factor extraction to ensure that the
characteristics of the dataset were suitable for the EFA to be
conducted. For the PSLS-M, KMO analyses indicated an
index of .80, consistent with a highly significant BTS (χ2 =
3611.16, p < .001. For the PSLS-F, KMO analyses indicated
an index of .84, consistent with a highly significant BTS (χ2
= 2443.64, p < .001). Significantly skewed items were elimi-
nated from the questionnaire. These preliminary analyses
satisfied the psychometric criteria for factor analysis to be
performed based on data distribution characteristics.
Factor Analysis
Following extraction and oblique rotation, four factors with
eigenvalues greater than 1 emerged from analysis of the
PSLS-M and PSLS-F. Responses to the items tended to com-
bine into similar factors with low to moderate interitem cor-
relations. Both versions of the scale resulted in similar factor
structures but with slight variations in the number of items
per factor and the strength of each factor loading. Each scale
had two factors representing parental behaviors, and two fac-
tors representing parental emotional tone. For the PSLS-M,
the factors accounted for 32% of the variance and included:
(a) Parental Management of the Learning Environment
(behavior, 14 items), (b) Parental Participation With
Homework (behavior, 7 items), (c) Supportive Parental
Involvement (emotional tone, 6 items), and (d) Controlling
Parental Involvement (emotional tone, 8 items). The PSLS-F
accounted for 36% of the variance and resulted in a similar
four-factor structure: (a) Parental Management of the
Learning Environment (behavior, 12 items), (b) Parental
Participation With Homework (behavior, 14 items),
(c) Supportive Parental Involvement (emotional tone, 6 items),
and (d) Controlling Parental Involvement (emotional tone, 10
items). Factor loadings of the PSLS-M items in relation to the
four-factor solution are shown in Table 1 and the factor loading
of the PSLS-F items for the four factors are shown in Table 2.
The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients for each factor
were moderate to high and are shown in Table 3.
Discussion
The overall objective of this study was to present research-
ers and practitioners with preliminary evidence of a psycho-
metrically sound tool for assessing mother’s and father’s
involvement in children’s learning, from the perspective of
the child, for use in Conjoint Behavioral Consultation prac-
tice and research. Factor analyses were performed on the
PSLS and four factors emerged for the mother and father
6 Assessment for Effective Intervention XX(X)

Table 1. Items in PSLS-M Factors and Associated Factor Loadings.

Item Factor name and item descriptions Factor loadings

Parental Management of the Learning Environment
35 My mother provides different kinds of things to read, such as magazines, stories, and nonfiction. .73
38 My mother talks to me about things I read. .60
10 My mother often brings home educational activities for our family. .60
34 My mother helps me plan my time for getting my work done. .57
17 My mother decides how much TV I can watch on school days. .53
23 My mother and I like to read together sometimes. .50
30 My mother sets rules about the kinds of TV shows I can watch. .47
15 My mother takes me to special places, such as museums and fairs, where I can learn new things. .47
33 My mother makes me do homework at a certain time. .47
12 My mother suggests things I might like to read. .45
7 My mother encourages me to read before I go to sleep. .45
3 My mother loves to learn new things. .43
18 When I do my homework, my mother does not allow other things to interfere with it. .43
28 My mother does not encourage me to read books. .36
Controlling Parental Involvement
46 If my grades are not good enough, my mother will restrict my free time. .63
25 My mother punishes me if I do poorly in school. .58
39 My mother is very strict when it comes to my schoolwork. .52
45 My mother tries to make me feel guilty when I do poorly in school. .52
43 My mother expects a lot from me in school. .47
8 My mother pushes me to be the best in my class. .47
21 My mother wants me to work harder at school. .46
40 My mother does not feel I am doing my best at school. .35
Parental Participation With Homework
32 My mother checks my homework before I hand it in. .75
11 My mother always keeps track of what homework I have to do. .69
16 Most of the time, my mother looks at my homework. .65
22 My mother often helps me study before a test. .55
41 I do much better at school because of my mother’s help. .42
31 My mother always knows how much time I spend on homework. .37
2 My mother often tells me to spend some time reading. .34
Supportive Parental Involvement
44 My mother is still pleased, even when I do not make top of the class. .57
20 My mother tries to make me feel confident in my schoolwork. .53
29 My mother tries to make me feel smart in my schoolwork. .53
5 My mother is very patient when it comes to my education. .45
4 My mother supports me in the things I do in school. .45
24 My mother likes me to go to her for help with homework. .44

Note. PSLS-M = Parental Support for Learning Scale–Mother.

Table 2. Items in PSLS-F Factors and Associated Factor Loadings.

Item Factor name and item descriptions Factor loadings

Parental Management of the Learning Environment
35 My father provides different kinds of things to read, such as magazines, stories, and nonfiction. .70
38 My father talks to me about things I read. .67
23 My father and I like to read together sometimes. .58
30 My father sets rules about the kinds of TV shows I can watch. .58
2 My father often tells me to spend some time reading. .57
(continued)

Downloaded from aei.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OTTAWA LIBRARY on November 26, 2013

Rogers et al. 7

Table 2. (continued)

Item Factor name and item descriptions Factor loadings

10 My father often brings home educational activities for our family. .56
7 My father encourages me to read before I go to sleep. .54
12 My father suggests things I might like to read. .50
17 My father decides how much TV I can watch on school days. .49
6 My father tells me stories about when he was in school. .45
19 My father makes me read. .39
15 My father takes me to special places, such as museums and fairs, where I can learn new things. .37
Controlling Parental Involvement
39 My father is very strict when it comes to my schoolwork. .63
25 My father punishes me if I do poorly in school. .63
45 My father tries to make me feel guilty when I do poorly in school. .60
46 If my grades are not good enough, my father will restrict my free time. .60
8 My father pushes me to be the best in my class. .49
40 My father does not feel I am doing my best at school. .49
21 My father wants me to work harder at school. .44
13 My father is never satisfied with my grades. .43
37 My father thinks I am lazy when it comes to schoolwork. .41
43 My father expects a lot from me in school. .34
Parental Participation With Homework
16 Most of the time, my father looks at my homework. .78
32 My father checks my homework before I hand it in. .76
11 My father always keeps track of what homework I have to do. .72
31 My father always knows how much time I spend on homework. .68
1 My father likes to know what I am studying in school. .63
34 My father helps me plan my time for getting my work done. .60
24 My father likes me to come to him for help with homework. .60
22 My father often helps me study before a test. .59
4 My father supports me in the things I do in school. .57
33 My father makes me do homework at a certain time. .54
41 I do much better at school because of my father’s help. .54
9 My father helps me with schoolwork I do not understand. .52
18 When I do my homework, my father does not allow other things to interfere with it. .49
5 My father is very patient when it comes to my education. .43
Supportive Parental Involvement
29 My father tries to make me feel smart in my schoolwork. .69
20 My father tries to make me feel confident in my schoolwork. .58
42 My father encourages me to use my ideas in school activities. .51
3 My father loves to learn new things. .44
28 My father does not encourage me to read books. .42
44 My father is still pleased, even when I do not make top of the class. .36

Note. PSLS-F = Parental Support for Learning Scale–Father.

Table 3. Cronbach’s Alphas for PSLS-M and PSLS-F Subscales.

Parental Management of Controlling Parental Parental Participation Supportive Parental

Measure the Learning Environment Environment With Homework Involvement
PSLS-M .82 .75 .60 .65
PSLS-F .89 .71 .77 .83

Note. PSLS-M = Parental Support for Learning Scale–Mother; PSLS-F = Parental Support for Learning Scale–Father.

Downloaded from aei.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OTTAWA LIBRARY on November 26, 2013

8 Assessment for Effective Intervention XX(X)
forms. Two factors representing parental involvement
behaviors emerged: Parental Management of the Learning
Environment and Parental Participation With Homework.
In addition, the analyses resulted in two factors representing
the emotional tone of parental involvement: Supportive
Parental Involvement and Controlling Parental Involvement.
PSLS Factors
Parental involvement behaviors. The PSLS factor of Parental
Management of the Learning Environment focuses on the
characteristics of the parents’ home-based involvement that
foster children’s intellectual development, for example,
engaging children in intellectual activities, not directly
related to school, such as reading books, visiting the library,
or taking them to museums. This dimension of parental
involvement is believed to promote learning at home and
reinforce or supplement learning that occurs during the
school day (McWayne, Hampton, Fantuzzo, Cohen, &
Sekino, 2004) and is positively associated with children’s
grades (Grolnick & Slowiaczek, 1994) and with reading
skill development (Evans et al., 2000; Evans & Shaw, 2008;
Raikes et al., 2006; Sénéchal, 2006).
The PSLS factor of Parental Participation With
Homework focuses on how parents use modeling, rein-
forcement, and instruction in the homework process.
Parents often become involved in children’s learning
through participation in homework by helping with school-
work or arranging for appropriate study time and space. In
the literature, this factor has been positively associated with
better homework performance, and, perhaps even more
importantly, with student attributes proximally related to
achievement, such as more student attention to homework
(see, for example, Balli, Demo, & Wedman, 1998; Callahan
et al., 1998; Forgatch & Ramsey, 1994; Hutsinger, Jose, &
Larson, 1998), more positive student behavior at school
(see, e.g., Sanders, 1998), perceptions of personal compe-
tence (see, for example, Ames, 1993; Frome & Eccles,
1998; Shumow, 1998), and sense of mastery as well as ten-
dency to trust one’s own judgments (see, for example,
Ginsburg & Bronstein, 1993).
Parental involvement emotional tone. The Supportive Paren-
tal Involvement factor of the PSLS focuses on children’s
perceptions of their parents as supportive and encouraging
when it comes to their learning. Research suggests that par-
ents of high-achieving students have more supportive con-
versations of encouragement and praise with their children
than parents of low achievers (see, for example, Callahan
et al., 1998; Gutman & McLoyd, 2000; Martinez-Pons,
1996; Midgett, Ryan, Adams, & Corville-Smith, 2002;
Simpkins, Weiss, McCartney, Kreider, & Dearing, 2006).
Parents who support their children’s autonomy and allow
them to take initiative may lead children to feel that they are
Downloaded from aei.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OTTAWA LIBRARY on November 26, 2013
in charge and capable of influencing their surroundings
(see, for example, Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ginsburg & Bron-
stein, 1993; Grolnick, Deci, & Ryan, 1997; Grolnick, Price,
Beiswenger, & Sauck, 2007; Moorman & Pomerantz, 2008;
Pomerantz et al., 2007).
The other end of the support–control continuum was
assessed on the PSLS Controlling Parental Involvement
factor. This factor focuses on children’s perceptions of their
parents’ use of commands, punishment, or coercive interac-
tions regarding school issues. Research suggests that par-
ents can exert detrimental influences by setting
unrealistically high expectations and punishing the child if
these expectations are not met (Grolnick, 2003). For
instance, parental punishment, intrusion, and criticism in
reaction to children’s schoolwork are related to lower aca-
demic performance (e.g., Niggli et al., 2007; Pomerantz &
Eaton, 2001). It is plausible that parents who are controlling
may deprive children of feeling that they are autonomous,
effective agents.
Future Research
The present study provides preliminary evidence that the
PSLS may be a promising tool for assessing children’s per-
ceptions of parental involvement. However, the develop-
ment of this scale is in its infancy and would benefit greatly
from further research. For instance, testing the scale with
more diverse populations would provide further informa-
tion about the factor structure and utility of this question-
naire. In particular, studies with additional samples ranging
in age, socioeconomic status, and ethnic diversity are war-
ranted. Further scale development should also include
examining the child and parent versions of the PSLS simul-
taneously to examine differences in response patterns
between mother, father, and child. Validation studies that
examine how the PSLS factors relate to other pertinent vari-
ables, such as academic outcomes, children’s motivation,
and other aspects of family functioning, would be helpful as
well. Studies that test the scale more broadly would allow
for the eventual development of age- or grade-relevant
norms that would provide users of the scale with more con-
fidence to use the PSLS clinically.
Limitations and Potential Implications
The overarching goal of this research was to assess the fac-
tor structure and reliability of a new measure of parental
involvement in children’s learning that may serve as a use-
ful assessment tool for consultants engaged in Conjoint
Behavioral Consultation. In considering this goal, it is
important to note some key limitations. First, this study did
not collect data in the context of a Conjoint Behavioral
Consultation intervention; therefore, the utility of the PSLS
in Conjoint Behavioral Consultation interventions has not
Rogers et al.
yet been established and needs further exploration within
pre-post designs. Second, it is important to consider that
this is not a standardized measure, so there are no standard-
ized scoring norms for the clinician to follow. As such,
clinical judgment is necessary on a case-by-case basis when
examining this measure for response patterns.
Notwithstanding, we believe that with additional research
this measure may be useful as one tool in providing practi-
tioners with crucial information about a specific child and
his or her home learning environment.
Regardless of the referral reason for Conjoint Behavioral
Consultation, children’s perceptions of their mothers’ and
fathers’ involvement in their learning is important given the
critical role it plays in numerous facets of children’s aca-
demic development (see, for example, Anderson & Minke,
2007; Eccles & Harold, 1993; Epstein, 1992; J. L. Epstein
et al., 1997; Green, Walker, Hoover-Dempsey, & Sandler,
2007; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005; Izzo et al., 1999). This
study offers preliminary evidence for a sensitive and easy-
to-administer measure that may prove useful in the context
of Conjoint Behavioral Consultation and as a tool for
researchers evaluating its effectiveness. When direct home
observation is not available (which is often the case due to
clinicians’ time constraints), the PSLS may offer a time-
and cost-effective means of assessing parental involvement
in children’s learning and provide important information
about the child’s perception of the home learning environ-
ment. The PSLS has the potential to assist Conjoint
Behavioral Consultation practitioners in collecting data to
assess the child’s home-based needs.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest
with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article: In the past 3 years, Rosemary Tannock has received hono-
raria as a consultant for Purdue and Janssen–Cilag, all of which
were donated to the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, for
ADHD research. In addition, Pearson–Cogmed Canada has pro-
vided software licenses free of charge for her externally funded
randomized controlled trials of working memory training for stu-
dents with ADHD.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Achenbach, T. M. (1995). Diagnosis, assessment, and comorbid-
ity in psychosocial treatment research. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 23, 45–65. doi:10.1007/BF01447044
Adams, K. A., & Christenson, S. L. (2000). Trust and the fam-
ily school relationship: Examination of parent-teacher differ-
ences in elementary and secondary grades. Journal of School
Psychology, 38, 477–497.
Downloaded from aei.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OTTAWA LIBRARY on November 26, 2013
9
Ames, C. (1993). How school-to-home communications influence
parent beliefs and perceptions. Equity and Choice, 9, 44–49.
Anderson, K. J., & Minke, K. M. (2007). Parent involvement in
education: Toward an understanding of parents’ decision
making. Journal of Educational Research, 100, 311–323.
doi:10.3200/JOER.100.5.311-323
Ang, R. P. (2006). Fathers do matter: Evidence from an Asian
school-based aggressive sample. American Journal of Family
Therapy, 34, 79–93.
Balli, S. J., Demo, D. H., & Wedman, J. F. (1998). Family involve-
ment with children’s homework: An intervention in the middle
grades. Family Relations, 47, 142–146. doi:10.2307/585619
Barnard, W. M. (2004). Parent involvement in elementary school
and educational attainment. Children and Youth Services
Review, 26, 39–62. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2003.11.002
Becker, H. J., & Epstein, J. L. (1982). Parent involvement: A
survey of teacher practices. Elementary School Journal, 83,
85–102. doi:10.1086/461297
Beckert, T. E., Strom, R. D., Strom, P. S., Yang, C. T., & Singh,
A. (2007). Parent success indicator: Cross-cultural develop-
ment and factorial validation. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 67, 311–327. doi:10.1177/0013164406292039
Bogenschneider, K. (1997). Parent involvement in adolescents’
schooling: A proximal process and trans-contextual valid-
ity. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 718–733.
doi:10.2307/353956
Bradley, R. H., & Caldwell, B. M. (1984). The HOME Inventory
and family demographics. Developmental Psychology, 20,
315–320. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.20.2.315
Bramlett, R. K., Murphy, J. J., Johnson, J., Wallingsford, L., & Hall,
J. D. (2002). Contemporary practices in school psychology: A
national survey or roles and referral problems. Psychology in
the Schools, 39, 327–335. doi:10.1002/pits.10022
Callahan, K., Rademacher, J. A., & Hildreth, B. L. (1998). The effect
of parent participation in strategies to improve the homework
performance of students who are at risk. Remedial and Special
Education, 19, 131–141. doi:10.1177/074193259801900302
Campbell, J. R. (1994). Developing cross-cultural/cross-national
instruments: Using cross-national methods and procedures.
International Journal of Educational Research, 21, 675–684.
Colton, D. L., & Sheridan, S. M. (1998). Conjoint behavioral
consultation and social skills training: Enhancing the play
behaviors of boys with attention deficit hyperactivity disor-
der. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation,
9, 3–28. doi:10.1207/s1532768xjepc0901_1
Cooper, H., Lindsay, J. J., & Nye, B. (2000). Homework in the
home: How student, family, and parenting-style differences
relate to the homework process. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 25, 464–487. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1036
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-
determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.
Dwyer, M. C. (2000). The parenting education profile. Family
Literacy Forum, 1, 5–8.
Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1993). Parent-school involvement
during the early adolescent years. Teachers College Record,
94, 568–587.
Epstein, J. L. (1992). School and family partnerships. In
M. Aiken (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research (6th ed.,
pp. 1139–1151). New York, NY: MacMillan.
10
Epstein, J. L., Connors-Tadros, L., & Salinas, K. C. (1993). High
school and family partnerships: Surveys for teachers, par-
ents, and students in high school. Baltimore, MD: Center on
School, Family, and Community 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). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappan/Center for
Evaluation, Development and Research.
Evans, M. A. (1998). Parental involvement in beginning read-
ing: Preliminary report from a three year longitudinal study.
Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 14, 11–20.
Evans, M. A., & Shaw, D. (2008). Home grown for reading:
Parental contributions to young children’s emergent literacy
and word recognition. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie
canadienne. Special Issue: Literacy Development in Canada,
49, 89–95. doi:10.1037/0708-5591.49.2.89
Evans, M. A., Shaw, D., & Bell, M. (2000). Home literacy activi-
ties and their influence on early literacy skills. Canadian
Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de
psychologie expérimentale, 54, 65–75. doi:10.1037/h0087330
Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and stu-
dents’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational
Psychology Review, 13, 1–22. doi:10.1023/A:1009048817385
Fantuzzo, J. W., Tighe, E., & Childs, S. (2000). Family involve-
ment questionnaire: A multivariate assessment of family par-
ticipation in early childhood education. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 92, 367–376. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.2.367
Finn, J. D. (1998). Parental engagement that makes a difference.
Educational Leadership, 55, 20–24.
Flouri, E., Buchanan, A., & Bream, V. (2002). Adolescents’ per-
ceptions of their fathers’ involvement: Significance to school
attitudes. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 575–582.
Forgatch, M. S., & Ramsey, E. (1994). Boosting homework: A vid-
eotape link between families and schools. School Psychology
Review, 23, 472–484.
Freer, P., & Watson, T. S. (1999). A comparison of parent and
teacher acceptability ratings of behavioral and conjoint behav-
ioral consultation. School Psychology Review, 28, 672–684.
Frome, P. M., & Eccles, J. S. (1998). Parents’ influence on chil-
dren’s achievement-related perceptions. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 74, 435–452. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.74.2.435
Gadsden, V. L., & Bowman, P. (1999). African American males
and the struggle toward responsible fatherhood. In V. Polite
& J. Davis (Eds.), A continuing challenge in times like these:
African American males in schools and society. New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
Galloway, J., & Sheridan, S. M. (1994). Implementing scientific
practices through case studies: Examples using home-school
interventions and consultation. Journal of School Psychology,
32, 385–413.
Garbacz, S. A., Woods, K. E., Swanger-Gagné, M. S., Taylor, A.
M., Black, K. A., & Sheridan, S. M. (2008). The effectiveness
of a partnership-centered approach in conjoint behavioral
consultation. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 313–326.
doi:10.1037/1045-3830.23.3.313
Gest, S. D., Freeman, N. R., Domitrovich, C. E., & Welsh, J. A.
(2004). Shared book reading and children’s language
Downloaded from aei.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OTTAWA LIBRARY on November 26, 2013
Assessment for Effective Intervention XX(X)
comprehension skills: The moderating role of parental dis-
cipline practices. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19,
319–336. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2004.04.007
Ginsburg, G. S., & Bronstein, P. (1993). Family factors related
to children’s intrinsic/extrinsic motivational orientation and
academic performance. Child Development, 64, 1461–1474.
doi:10.2307/1131546
Gonzalez-DeHass, A. R., Willems, P. P., & Holbein, M. F. D.
(2005). Examining the relationship between parental involve-
ment and student motivation. Educational Psychology
Review, 17, 99–123. doi:10.1007/s10648-005-3949-7
Green, C. L., Walker, J. M. T., Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler,
H. M. (2007). Parents’ motivations for involvement in chil-
dren’s education: An empirical test of a theoretical model of
parental involvement. Journal of Educational Psychology,
99, 532–544. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.532
Greif, J. L., & Greif, G. L. (2004). Including fathers in school
psychology literature: A review of four school psychology
journals. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 575–580.
Grolnick, W. S. (2003). The psychology of parental control: How well-
meant parenting backfires. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence-Erlbaum.
Grolnick, W. S., Benjet, C., Kurowski, C. O., & Apostoleris, N.
H. (1997). Predictors of parent involvement in children’s
schooling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 538–548.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.538
Grolnick, W. S., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1997). Internalization
within the family: The self-determination theory perspective.
In J. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and children’s
internalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory
(pp. 135–161). New York, NY: Wiley.
Grolnick, W. S., Gurland, S. T., DeCourcey, W., & Jacob, K.
(2002). Antecedents and consequences of mothers’ auton-
omy support: An experimental investigation. Developmental
Psychology, 38, 143–155. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.38.1.143
Grolnick, W. S., Price, C. E., Beiswenger, K. L., & Sauck, C. C.
(2007). Evaluative pressure in mothers: Effects of situation,
maternal, and child characteristics on autonomy supportive
versus controlling behavior. Developmental Psychology, 43,
991–1002. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.4.991
Grolnick, W. S., & Slowiaczek, M. L. (1994). Parents’ involve-
ment in children’s schooling: A multidimensional concep-
tualization and motivational model. Child Development, 65,
237–252. doi:10.2307/1131378
Guli, L. (2005). Evidence-based parent consultation with school-
related outcomes. School Psychology Quarterly. Special Issue:
Evidence-Based Parent and Family Interventions in School
Psychology, 20, 455–472. doi:10.1521/scpq.2005.20.4.455
Gutman, L. M., & McLoyd, M. C. (2000). Parents’ manage-
ment 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.
doi:10.1023/A:1005112300726
Gutman, L. M., & Midgley, C. (2000). The role of protective
factors in supporting the academic achievement of poor
African American students during the middle school tran-
sition. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29, 233–248.
doi:10.1023/A:1005108700243
Hokoda, A., & Fincham, F. D. (1995). Origins of children’s help-
less and mastery achievement patterns in the family. Journal
Rogers et al.
of Educational Psychology, 87, 375–385. doi:10.1037/
0022-0663.87.3.375
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Bassler, O. C., & Burow, R. (1995).
Parents’ reported involvement in students’ homework:
Strategies and practices. Elementary School Journal, 95,
435–450. doi:10.1086/461854
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1995). Parental
involvement in children’s education: Why does it make a dif-
ference? Teachers College Record, 97, 310–331.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (2005, March 22). Final
performance report for OERI Grant # R305T010673: The
social context of parental involvement: A path to enhanced
achievement. Final report submitted to Institute of Education
Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.
Retrieved from http://www.vanderbilt.edu/Peabody/family-
school/Reports.html
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M. T., Sandler, H., Whetsel,
D. M., Green, C. L., Wilkins, A. S., & Closson, K. (2005).
Why do parents become involved? Research findings and
implications. Elementary School Journal, 106, 105–130.
doi:10.1086/499194
Hutsinger, C. S., Jose, P. E., & Larson, S. L. (1998). Do parent
practices to encourage academic competence influence the
social adjustment of young European American and Chinese
American children? Developmental Psychology, 34, 747–756.
Illsley, S. D., & Sladeczek, I. E. (2001). Conjoint behavioral con-
sultation: Outcome measures beyond the client level. Journal
of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 12, 397–404.
doi:10.1207/S1532768XJEPC1204_06
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 per-
formance. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27,
817–839. doi:10.1023/A:102226262598
Kohl, G. O., Lengua, L. J., & McMahon, R. J. (2000). Parent
involvement in school: Conceptualizing multiple dimensions
and their relations with family and demographic risk factors.
Journal of School Psychology, 38, 501–523. doi:10.1016/
S0022-4405(00)00050-9
LeFevre, J., Skwarchuk, S., Smith-Chant, B., Kamawar, D., Bisanz,
J., & Fast, L. (2009). Home numeracy experiences and chil-
dren’s math performance in the early school years. Canadian
Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sci-
ences du comportement, 41, 55–66. doi:10.1037/a0014532
Loeber, R., Green, S. M., & Lahey, B. B. (1990). Mental health
professionals’ perception of the utility of children, mothers,
and teachers as informants on childhood psychopathology.
Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 19, 136–143.
Lombana, J. H., & Lombana, A. E. (1982). The home-school part-
nership: A model for counselors’. Personnel and Guidance
Journal, 61, 35–39.
Martinez-Pons, M. (1996). Test of a model of parental induce-
ment of academic self-regulation. Journal of Experimental
Education, 64, 213–227.
Mboya, M. M. (1993). Development and initial validation of a per-
ceived parental behavior inventory for African adolescents.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76, 1003–1008.
McBride, B. A., Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., & Moon-Ho, H. (2005).
The mediating role of fathers’ school involvement on
Downloaded from aei.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OTTAWA LIBRARY on November 26, 2013
11
student achievement. Applied Developmental Psychology, 26,
201–216.
McCullough, J. R. (2002). Developmental changes in the relation-
ship between parent involvement in education and children’s
academic achievement. Dissertation Abstracts International:
Section B. Sciences and Engineering, 63, 567.
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 kinder-
garten children. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 363–377.
Midgett, J. D. (2000). Exploring parental school-focused behav-
iors: A factor analysis of parents’ and children’s reports
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Guelph,
Ontario, Canada.
Midgett, J. D., Belsito, L., Ryan, B. A., & Adams, G. R. (1997).
Children’s and parents’ perceptions of parental attitudes and
behaviors pertaining to academic achievement. In C. Violato,
E. Oddone-Paolucci & M. Genuis (Eds.), The changing fam-
ily and child development (pp. 162–175). London, England:
Ashgate Publishing.
Midgett, J. D., Ryan, B. A., Adams, G. R., & Corville-Smith,
J. (2002). Complicating achievement and self-esteem:
Considering the joint effects of child characteristics and
parent-child interactions. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 27, 132–143. doi:10.1006/ceps.2001.1083
Miedel, W. T., & Reynolds, A. J. (1999). Parent involvement in
early intervention for disadvantaged children: Does it mat-
ter? Journal of School Psychology, 37, 379–402. doi:10.1016/
S0022-4405(99)00023-0
Moorman, E. A., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2008). Mothers’ cogni-
tions about children’s self-control: Implications for mothers’
responses to children’s helplessness. Social Development, 17,
960–979. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00469.x
Niggli, A., Trautwein, U., Schnyder, I., Ludtke, O., & Neumann,
M. (2007). Parental homework support can be beneficial, but
parental intrusion is detrimental: Family background, parental
homework supervision, and performance gains. Psychologie
In Eziehung und Unterricht, 54, 1–14.
Patrikakou, E. N., & Weissberg, R. P. (2000). Parents’ percep-
tions of teacher outreach and parent involvement in chil-
dren’s education. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the
Community, 20, 103–119. doi:10.1300/J005v20n01_08
Pelletier, J., & Brent, J. M. (2002). Parent participation and chil-
dren’s school readiness: The effects of parental self-efficacy,
cultural diversity and teacher strategies. International Journal
of Early Childhood, 34, 45–60.
Pomerantz, E. M., & Eaton, M. M. (2001). Maternal intrusive
support in the academic context: Transactional socializa-
tion processes. Developmental Psychology, 37, 174–186.
doi:10.1037/0012-1649.37.2.174
Pomerantz, E. M., Moorman, E. A., & Litwack, S. D. (2007).
The how, whom, and why of parents’ involvement in chil-
dren’s academic lives: More is not always better. Review
of Educational Research, 7, 373–410. doi:10.3102/
003465430305567
Raikes, H., Pan, B., Luze, G., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S.,
Brooks-Gunn, J., Constantine, J., & Rodriguez, E. T.
(2006). Mother-child book reading in low-income fami-
lies: Correlates and outcomes during the first three years of
12
life. Child Development, 77, 924–953. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8624.2006.00911.x
Ray, K. P., Skinner, C. H., & Watson, T. S. (1999). Transferring
stimulus control via momentum to increase compliance in a
student with autism: A demonstration of collaborative consul-
tation. School Psychology Review, 28, 622–628.
Reutzel, D. R., Fawson, P. C., & Smith, J. A. (2006). Words to
go!: Evaluating a first-grade parent involvement program for
“making” words at home. Reading Research and Instruction,
45, 119–159.
Ringenberg, M., Funk, V., Mullen, K., Wilford, A., & Kramer,
J. (2005). Test-Retest Reliability of the Parent and School
Survey (PASS). School Community Journal, 15, 121–134.
Ritchie, L. D., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1990). Family communica-
tion patterns: Measuring intrapersonal perceptions of interper-
sonal relationships. Communication Research, 17, 523–544.
Rumberger, R. W. (1995). Dropping out of middle school: A mul-
tilevel analysis of students and schools. American Educational
Research Journal, 32, 583–625. doi:10.2307/1163325
Ryan, B. A., & Adams, G. R. (1995). The family-school relation-
ships model. In B. Ryan, G. R. Adams, T. P. Gullotta, R. P.
Weissberg & R. L. Hampton (Eds.), The family-school con-
nection: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 3–28). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sanders, M. G. (1998). The effects of school, family, and com-
munity support on the academic achievement of African
American adolescents. Urban Education, 33, 385–409.
Seginer, R. (1986). Mothers’ behavior and sons’ performance: An ini-
tial test of an academic achievement path model. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly: Journal of Developmental Psychology, 32, 153–166.
Seginer, R. (2006). Parents’ educational involvement: A develop-
mental ecology perspective. Parenting: Science and Practice,
6, 1–48. doi:10.1207/s15327922par0601_1
Sénéchal, M. (2006). Testing the home literacy model: Parent
involvement in kindergarten is differentially related to
Grade 4 reading comprehension, fluency, spelling, and read-
ing for pleasure. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 59–87.
doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr1001_4
Sénéchal, M., & LeFevre, J. (2002). Parental involvement in
the development of children’s reading skill: A five-year
longitudinal study. Child Development, 73, 445–460.
doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00417
Sheridan, S. M., Eagle, J. W., Cowan, R. J., & Mickelson, W.
(2001). The effects of conjoint behavioral consultation: Results
of a four-year investigation. Journal of School Psychology,
39, 361–385. doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(01)00079-6
Sheridan, S. M., & Kratochwill, T. R. (2008). Conjoint behavioral
consultation: Promoting family-school connections and inter-
ventions (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.
Downloaded from aei.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OTTAWA LIBRARY on November 26, 2013
View publication stats
Assessment for Effective Intervention XX(X)
Sheridan, S. M., Kratochwill, T. R., & Bergan, J. R. (1996).
Conjoint behavioral consultation: A procedural manual.
New York, NY: Plenum.
Sheridan, S. M., Kratochwill, T. R., & Elliot, S. N. (1990).
Behavioral consultation with parents and teachers: Delivering
treatment for socially withdrawn children at home and school.
School Psychology Review, 19, 33–52.
Sheridan, S. M., & Steck, M. C. (1995). Acceptability of conjoint
behavioral consultation: A national survey of school psychol-
ogists. School Psychology Review, 24, 633–647.
Shumow, L. (1998). Promoting parental attunement to chil-
dren’s mathematical reasoning through parent education.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 19, 109–127.
doi:10.1016/S0193-3973(99)80031-8
Simpkins, S. D., Weiss, H. B., McCartney, K., Kreider, H. M.,
& Dearing, E. (2006). Mother-child relationship as a mod-
erator of the relation between family educational involvement
and child achievement. Parenting: Science and Practice, 6,
49–57. doi:10.1207/s15327922par0601_2
Sladeczek, I. E., Madden, L., Illsley, S. D., Finn, C., & August, P. J.
(2006). American and Canadian perceptions of the acceptabil-
ity of conjoint behavioural consultation. School Psychology
International, 27, 57–77. doi:10.1177/0143034306062815
Strom, R., & Strom, S. (1998). Parent success indicator. Chicago,
IL: Scholastic Testing Services.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate sta-
tistics (3rd ed.). New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Walker, J. M. T., Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Whetsel, D. R., &
Green, C. L. (2004). Parental involvement in homework: A
review of current research and its implications for teachers,
after school program staff, and parent leaders. Retrieved from
www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/projects/fine/resources/research/
homework.html
Watkins, T. (1997). Teacher communications, child achievement
and parent traits in parent involvement models. Journal of
Educational Research, 91, 3–14.
Weiner, R. K., Sheridan, S. M., & Jenson, W. R. (1998). The
effects of conjoint behavioral consultation and a structured
homework program on math completion and accuracy in
junior high students. School Psychology Quarterly, 13,
281–309.
Westmoreland, H., Bouffard, S., O’Carroll, K., & Rosenberg,
S. (2009). Data collection instruments for evaluating fam-
ily involvement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research
Project.
Wilkinson, L. A. (2006). Monitoring treatment integrity: An alter-
native to the “Consult and Hope” Strategy in school-based
behavioural consultation. School Psychology International,
27, 426–438. doi:10.1177/0143034306070428