annotated bibliography

Family Involvement and Parent–Teacher Relationships for Students With Autism Spectrum Disorders

S. Andrew Garbacz, Laura Lee McIntyre, and Rachel T. Santiago University of Oregon

Family educational involvement and parent–teacher relationships are important for supporting student outcomes and have unique implications for families of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). However, little research has examined child and family characteristics among families of children with ASD as predictors of family involvement and parent–teacher relationships. The present study examined child and family variables that may affect family involvement and parent–teacher relationships for families of children with ASD. Findings suggested (a) parents of children with higher developmental risk reported less family involvement and poorer relationships with their child’s teacher and (b) family histories accessing services predicted family involvement and parent–teacher relationships. Limitations of the current study and implications for science and practice are discussed.

Keywords: autism spectrum disorder, family involvement, parent–teacher relationships

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neuro- developmental disorder characterized by perva- sive and sustained impairments in social inter- action and communication, and restricted, repetitive behaviors, interests, or activities (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Re- cent prevalence rate estimates of ASD in the United States indicated 1 in 68 children are affected (Centers for Disease Control & Preven- tion, 2014). The course, symptom severity, and behaviors can vary widely among individuals with ASD (C. L. Chang, Lung, Yen, & Yang, 2013). Services children with ASD may benefit from include supports for adaptive behavioral needs (Konst, Matson, Goldin, & Rieske, 2014), including social and communication skills (Na- tional Research Council, 2001), as well as for hyperactivity and inattention (Kingston, Hib-

berd, & Ozsivadjian, 2013; Konst et al., 2014; Ozonoff & Rogers, 2003).

Service Histories

Services for children with ASD often take place in multiple settings, frequently at home and at school (Matson, Mahan, & Matson, 2009). Many families of children with ASD begin to receive services when their child is younger than 3 years old (Friend, 2014). Thus, these families may be involved with the service delivery system for a number of years before their child enters kindergarten. Early interven- tion services play a critical role in supporting children with ASD (e.g., MacDonald, Parry- Cruwys, Dupere, & Ahearn, 2014), and family involvement is critical (National Research Council, 2001). Services often continue into elementary school. Compared to children with non-ASD diagnoses, school-age children with ASD are four times more likely to receive ser- vices (Mandell, Walrath, Manteuffel, Sgro, & Pinto-Martin, 2005). Given the lifelong course of ASD, individuals with ASD and their fami- lies may be involved in one or more service delivery systems for the entirety of the individ- ual’s life (Colver et al., 2013; Marcus, Kunce, & Schopler, 2005).

Parents of children with ASD often consider themselves to be the primary care coordinators

S. Andrew Garbacz, Laura Lee McIntyre, and Rachel T. Santiago, Department of Special Education and Clinical Sciences, University of Oregon.

This research was funded in part by a grant from the Fairway Foundation and the National Institutes of Health (R01 HD059838) awarded to Laura Lee McIntyre.

Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- dressed to Laura Lee McIntyre, Department of Special Education and Clinical Sciences, 5208 University of Ore- gon, Eugene, OR 97403-5208. E-mail: llmcinty@uoregon .edu

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an Ps

yc ho

lo gi

ca l

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or on

e of

its al

lie d

pu bl

is he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

School Psychology Quarterly © 2016 American Psychological Association 2016, Vol. 31, No. 4, 478–490 1045-3830/16/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/spq0000157

478

for their children, and they face many respon- sibilities as they navigate the service delivery system (Carbone, Behl, Azor, & Murphy, 2010). For example, many parents implement interventions at home (Knoche et al., 2012). In addition, through interfacing with educators and other professionals, parents form relationships with service providers (Carbone et al., 2010).

Family Involvement

The importance of family involvement in ser- vices is supported by ecological systems theory. Ecological systems theory identifies the impor- tant influence the home and other microsystems have on a child (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). Just as children are influenced by their microsystems, they are similarly affected by the interactions between microsystems, in the mesosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). As children with ASD begin elementary school, two forms of meso- system interactions, family educational involve- ment (hereinafter referred to as family involve- ment) and parent–teacher relationships may have an important impact on outcomes for stu- dents with ASD. Minke, Sheridan, Kim, Ryoo, and Koziol (2014) defined family involvement as “a multidimensional construct that encom- passes parenting behaviors that support chil- dren’s learning” (p. 528). Clarke, Sheridan, and Woods (2009) defined parent–teacher relation- ships as “a child-centered connection between individuals in the home and school settings who share responsibility for supporting the growth and development of children” (p. 61).

Family involvement has been associated with a number of positive outcomes for children without ASD, including higher levels of aca- demic achievement (Fan & Chen, 2001; Jeynes, 2011; Kohl, Lengua, & McMahon, 2000; Manz, Fantuzzo, & Power, 2004), lower levels of child problem behavior (Domina, 2005), and in- creased social– emotional skills (Sheridan, Ryoo, Garbacz, Kunz, & Chumney, 2013). This involvement is unique for families of children with ASD (Zablotsky, Boswell, & Smith, 2012). Given the cross-setting nature of support for children with ASD and the potential for lifelong involvement with service providers, family involvement is likely to increase the effectiveness of treatments (Matson et al., 2009).

Parent–Teacher Relationships

Parent–teacher relationships have been stud- ied for years (Minke et al., 2014), particularly with regard to areas of relationship tension (Ka- plan, 1950). Recently, research has established that quality parent–teacher relationships can support children’s academic and behavioral out- comes (Garbacz, Sheridan, Koziol, Kwon, & Holmes, 2015; Minke et al., 2014) and can be strengthened through family school partnership collaborations (e.g., Garbacz & McIntyre, 2015). For families of children with ASD, par- ent–teacher relationships are particularly impor- tant during the transition from early childhood education to kindergarten, which includes the shift from individual family service plans to individualized education programs (Stoner et al., 2005). Thus, it is important to identify fac- tors that predict family involvement and parent– teacher relationships for families of children with ASD.

Factors Associated With Family Involvement and Parent–Teacher

Relationships

A number of factors influence family in- volvement and parent–teacher relationships, in- cluding child characteristics, maternal educa- tion, sources of support, and satisfaction with services. Conceptual work on family involve- ment suggests that parent beliefs about their role in their child’s education, including decisions about whether to become involved in their ed- ucation, can include a consideration of their child’s needs (Walker, Wilkins, Daillaire, San- dler, & Hoover-Dempsey, 2005). Indeed, child characteristics (e.g., child behavior) can influ- ence parenting (Marshall, Tilton-Weaver, & Bosdet, 2005; Wang, Dishion, Stormshak, & Willett, 2011). Children with ASD frequently encounter difficulty with developing language and communication skills (National Research Council, 2001) and hyperactivity (Konst et al., 2014). The scope of the child’s adaptive behav- ior support needs may influence the degree to which families are involved in educational pro- gramming. In addition, severity of behavior dif- ficulties (Benson, Karlof, & Siperstein, 2008) and social interaction difficulties (Kasari & Sig- man, 1997) among children with ASD may in- fluence family involvement. For example, par-

479SCHOOL RELATIONSHIPS FOR CHILDREN WITH ASD

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an Ps

yc ho

lo gi

ca l

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or on

e of

its al

lie d

pu bl

is he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

ents of children who exhibit behavior problems may be more likely to seek out support from school staff. One parent factor that has been consistently identified as a predictor of family involvement is maternal education, with higher levels of maternal education predicting more family involvement (e.g., Fantuzzo, Tighe, & Childs, 2000).

Beyond parent and child characteristics, sources of support and satisfaction with services are important to consider and may influence parent willingness to partner with school pro- fessionals in the care of the child. For example, sharing information about ASD may act as a form of social support for families of children with ASD (Dunst, Trivette, & Cross, 1986). With regard to satisfaction, satisfaction with services often differs between families of indi- viduals with ASD and families of individuals with other disabilities (Bitterman, Daley, Misra, Carlson, & Markowitz, 2008), suggesting satis- faction with services is important to consider in children’s education. Satisfaction with the spe- cial education eligibility process has been asso- ciated with parental collaboration with profes- sionals, a key component of family involvement (Moh & Magiati, 2012). More work is needed to examine the relations between these factors, and family involvement and parent–teacher rela- tionships for families of children with ASD.

The Present Study

Children with ASD have needs that entail home- and school-based services, rendering co- ordination and communication across settings as critical. To date, research has not examined child and family characteristics among families of children with ASD as predictors of family involvement and parent–teacher relationships. Furthermore, research is needed that uncovers the influence family histories accessing services has on family involvement and parent–teacher relationships.

The present study aims to address those gaps by examining child and family variables that may influence family involvement and parent– teacher relationships. This study is unique in that the sample was recruited when children with ASD were in early childhood (Time 1) and has followed them into elementary school (Time 2). The following research questions are examined: (1) Do child characteristics and fam-

ily histories accessing services in early child- hood predict family involvement in elementary school? (2) Do child characteristics and family histories accessing services in early childhood predict the parent–teacher relationship in ele- mentary school? (3) What are the relations among maternal education, child characteris- tics, family histories accessing services, family involvement, and the parent–teacher relation- ship?

Method

This study is part of a larger investigation examining child, family, and community vari- ables associated with early identification and treatment of ASD in the northwestern United States. Data for the current study represent a subsample of children and families (N � 31) who participated in data collection at two time points (Time 1 � early childhood; Time 2 � elementary school).

At Time 1, eligible children (a) were 6 years old or younger, (b) had a prior diagnosis of an ASD, and (c) lived with their primary caregiver for 1� years. Recruitment of children and fam- ilies at Time 1 occurred via early intervention and early childhood education programs and developmental evaluation clinics. Interested caregivers responded to invitation letters and contacted the research office. Participants were screened by telephone for eligibility. Approxi- mately 3 years later, families were recontacted and invited to participate in a second interview. We were successful in reaching 60% of the original sample. Of those who could be reached, 86% (n � 31) agreed to participate in Time 2 data collection. Four declined to participate (n � 2 out-of-state; n � 2 too busy). Those who declined to participate did not significantly dif- fer from those who participated at Time 2 on child or family demographic variables collected at Time 1, with the exception of gross annual income. Those who declined to participate at Time 2 reported significantly lower incomes than those chose to participate at Time 2 (t � �2.06, p � .04).

The 31 children and their caregivers who participated at both time points comprise the sample for the current study. Data at both time points were collected via in-person interviews with parents in the family homes and through a mail-home packet of questionnaires. This study

480 GARBACZ, MCINTYRE, AND SANTIAGO

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an Ps

yc ho

lo gi

ca l

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or on

e of

its al

lie d

pu bl

is he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

was approved by the authors’ institutional re- view board, and participating caregivers pro- vided their informed consent. Caregivers were provided with a small honorarium for their par- ticipation ($25 gift card at Time 1 and $50 gift card at Time 2).

Participants

Children were an average of 4.80 years old (SD � 1.10) at Time 1 and an average of 8 years old (SD � 1.46) at Time 2. The majority of children (87%) were boys. Approximately 60% of caregivers (n � 18) reported their child was White/Caucasian, with the remaining children identified as more than one race/ethnicity (n � 12; 38.7%), or Latino/Hispanic (n � 1; 3.2%). The child’s mother served as primary caregiver in 97% of families. Table 1 provides demo- graphic data collected at Time 2.

Measures

Demographics and service history. A family demographics and service history ques- tionnaire was created for this study and com-

pleted as an interview with the primary care- giver at Time 1 and Time 2. A range of child and family demographic questions were in- cluded as well as the child’s current educational and therapeutic services. Parents used a 5-point Likert-type scale to report on satisfaction with the child’s current services (1 � very dissatis- fied; 3 � neutral; 5 � very satisfied). At Time 1 parents also identified the number of sources of information that they had about autism by endorsing items from a list of nine sources (teachers/school, therapists, pediatrician/ physician, Internet, books/magazines, confer- ences, autism parent support groups, family members/friends, other parenting groups) plus an additional “other” source. A total sources of information about autism was created by sum- ming the number of sources (possible range 0–10).

Adaptive behavior. Research assistants administered the Survey Interview Form of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (2nd ed.; Vineland-II; Sparrow, Cicchetti, & Balla, 2005) with the primary caregiver to assess the child’s adaptive functioning in the areas of communi- cation, daily living skills, socialization, and mo- tor skills at both Times 1 and 2. These domains are combined to yield an overall Adaptive Be- havior Composite standard score, with a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15. Strong evidence of reliability and validity exist for this widely used measure of adaptive behavior (Sparrow et al., 2005).

Autism symptomatology. Research assis- tants administered the Childhood Autism Rat- ing Scale (2nd ed.; CARS 2; Schopler, Van Bourgondien, Wellman, & Love, 2010) to rate children’s autism symptoms in 15 areas. Rat- ings on the CARS-2 are made on a 7-point scale reflecting numerical values of 1 to 4 (higher scores indicate greater impairment). Scores re- flect the degree to which the child’s behavior deviates from that of a typically developing child of the same age. Scores on the 15 items are summed to form an overall score ranging from 15 to 60. Internal consistency reliability for the CARS-2 in the present sample was � � .87.

Problem behavior. Caregiver informants completed the Strengths and Difficulties Ques- tionnaire (SDQ; Goodman, 1997) to assess problem behavior and prosocial behavior of their child with ASD. The SDQ is a 25-item

Table 1 Child and Family Demographics of Elementary Sample

Demographic N %

Child age in years, M (SD) 8.00 (1.46) Sex (male) 27 87.10 Race

White/Caucasian 18 58.10 Hispanic/Latino 1 3.23 Multiple 12 38.71

Grade Kindergarten to 2nd grade 12 38.71 3rd to 5th grade 17 54.84 Other 2 6.45

Currently receive special education 28 90.32 Educational setting

Regular class 1 3.23 80% or more regular class 12 38.71 40%–79% regular class 1 3.23 Less than 40% regular class 8 25.81 Private special school 1 3.23 Parentally placed at home 8 25.81

Vineland-II standard score, M (SD) 74.39 (10.91) Mother’s employment,

% employed 16 51.61 Household median income/year in

US$ $53,000 Receive state Medicaid program 15 48.39

481SCHOOL RELATIONSHIPS FOR CHILDREN WITH ASD

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an Ps

yc ho

lo gi

ca l

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or on

e of

its al

lie d

pu bl

is he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

measure assessing both positive and negative attributes. Items form four problem scales: emo- tional symptoms (5 items), conduct problems (5 items), hyperactivity/inattention (5 items), and peer relationship problems (5 items), and one prosocial behavior scale (5 items). Respondents rate statements about their child on a 3-point scale (0 � not true; 1 � somewhat true; 2 � certainly true). There is strong evidence of re- liability and validity for this instrument, and it has been used with a variety of clinical and nonclinical samples worldwide (e.g., Goodman, 1997, 2001; Janssens & Deboutte, 2009), in- cluding children with autism spectrum disorders (Iizuka et al., 2010; Jones, Hastings, Totsika, Keane, & Rhule, 2014). In this study we used the overall mean for the hyperactivity/inatten- tion scale (� � .56 current sample).

Parent–teacher relationship. Parent per- ceptions of the parent–teacher relationship were examined using the parent version of the Par- ent–Teacher Relationship Scale—II (PTRS-II; Vickers & Minke, 1995). The PTRS-II includes 24 items (e.g., “We cooperate with each other”) rated on a 5-point scale (1 � almost never; 5 � almost always). Two subscales, Joining (n � 19 items) and Communication (n � 5), comprise the total score. The PTRS-II total score was used in the present study as an overall mean. Previous investigations have found strong evi- dence for internal consistency reliability (e.g., � � .93; Minke et al., 2014). The internal consistency reliability for the current sample was � � .69.

Family involvement in education. The Family Involvement Questionnaire—Elemen- tary version (FIQ-E; Manz et al., 2004) was used to measure parents’ involvement in their elementary-aged child’s education. The FIQ-E is a 46-item (e.g., “I volunteer in my child’s classroom”) parent-report of school-based in- volvement, home-based involvement, and home–school communication. All items are rated on a 4-point scale (1 � rarely; 4 � al- ways), indicating the frequency with which par- ents engage in each behavior or activity. The FIQ-E total score was used in the current sam- ple as an overall mean. Evidence for FIQ-E internal consistency reliability is strong across international samples (e.g., Garbacz, McDow- all, Schaughency, Sheridan, & Welch, 2015; Manz et al., 2004). The internal consistency reliability for the current sample was � � .94.

Data Analysis

IBM SPSS Statistics 21 was used for data review and analysis. Descriptive statistics were examined and data were screened and evaluated for common assumptions of multiple linear re- gression (e.g., normality). In addition, multicol- linearity diagnostics were run and examined. Data were deemed acceptable to answer the study research questions. To address Research Question 1, multiple regression was used to examine the prediction of family involvement from child characteristics and family histories accessing services. To address Research Ques- tion 2, multiple regression was used to examine the prediction of parent–teacher relationship from child characteristics and family histories accessing services. Multiple regressions for Re- search Questions 1 and 2 were conducted using an iterative model-building strategy based on Hosmer and Lemeshow (2000) that included considering bivariate correlations (p � .20) and significant predictors. For Research Question 3, Pearson product–moment correlation coeffi- cient analyses were conducted to examine the relation among maternal education, child char- acteristics, family histories accessing services, family involvement, and the parent–teacher re- lationship. The value set for statistical signifi- cance testing was p � .05.

Results

Table 2 presents descriptive statistics for study variables. On average, parents reported fairly favorable relationships with their child’s teacher, and moderate involvement with educa- tional activities. Most parents reported high sat- isfaction with early childhood services and the special education eligibility process.

Table 3 presents results for the final multiple regression model that examined the prediction of family involvement. All child characteristic variables (e.g., ASD symptoms) and family his- tories accessing services (e.g., early childhood satisfaction) were included in the first model. Following the iterative model-building ap- proach, communication, the number of sources of information about ASD, and satisfaction with early childhood services were predictors in the final model. The model was statistically signif- icant, F(3, 21) � 12.63, p � .05, and accounted for approximately 64% of the variance in family

482 GARBACZ, MCINTYRE, AND SANTIAGO

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an Ps

yc ho

lo gi

ca l

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or on

e of

its al

lie d

pu bl

is he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

involvement scores (R2 � .643). Child commu- nication, the number of sources of information about ASD, and satisfaction with early child- hood services all significantly predicted family involvement. Standardized beta coefficients, as seen in Table 3, reflect the relative influence of the variables in the model. Satisfaction with early childhood services had the strongest ef- fect, followed by communication, and then the number of sources of information about ASD. All predictors had positive effects, indicating that higher scores on the predictors (e.g., more

sources of information about ASD) predicted higher family involvement scores.

Table 4 presents results for the final multiple regression model that examined the prediction of parent–teacher relationship. As with the fam- ily involvement model, all child characteristics and family histories accessing services were included in the first model. Following the mod- el-building approach, child hyperactivity and satisfaction with the educational eligibility pro- cess were predictors in the final model. The model was statistically significant, F(2, 22) � 8.68, p � .05, and accounted for approximately 44% of the variance in parent–teacher relation- ship scores (R2 � .441). Child hyperactivity and

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables

Variable M (SD) or % Skewness Kurtosis Data wave

Maternal educationa 15.13 (2.32) .62 �.71 2 Autism spectrum disorder symptomsb 35.85 (6.22) �.61 �.15 2 Child communicationc 76.94 (18.13) .43 .63 2 Child hyperactivityd 1.39 (.42) �.45 �.18 2 Total sources of information about

autism spectrum disorder 5.19 (1.70) �.19 �.73 1 Education eligibility satisfactione 3.73 (1.23) �.52 �.91 1 Satisfied or very satisfied 60% Early childhood services satisfactionf 3.77 (1.31) �.79 �.27 1 Satisfied or very satisfied 58% Family involvementg 2.66 (.47) �.58 �.40 2 Parent–teacher relationshiph 4.24 (.68) �.66 �.29 2

a Maternal education measured in total years of education. b Autism spectrum disorder symptoms (measured on the Childhood Autism Rating Scale, 2nd ed.) sum scores range from 15 to 60. c Communication (measured by the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales) is a standard score (M � 100, SD � 15). d Hyperactivity (measured on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, Hyperactivity factor) was rated on a 1 (not true) to 3 (certainly true) scale. e Educational eligibility satisfaction was rated on a 1 (dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied) scale. f Early childhood services satisfaction was rated on a 1 (dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied) scale. g Family involvement (measured on the Family Involvement Ques- tionnaire—Elementary version) was rated on a 1 (rarely) to 4 (always) scale. h Parent– teacher relationships (measured on the Parent–Teacher Relationship Scale—II) was rated on a 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always) scale.

Table 3 Results of the Multiple Regression Predicting Family Involvement

Variable B SE � t

Child communication .008 .003 .315 2.31�

Total sources of information about autism spectrum disorder .085 .038 .300 2.25�

Early childhood services satisfaction .201 .051 .537 3.96�

� p � .05.

Table 4 Results of the Multiple Regression Predicting Parent–Teacher Relationship

Variable B SE � t

Child hyperactivity �1.116 .298 �.674 �3.74�

Education eligibility satisfaction .385 .115 .604 3.36�

� p � .05.

483SCHOOL RELATIONSHIPS FOR CHILDREN WITH ASD

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an Ps

yc ho

lo gi

ca l

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or on

e of

its al

lie d

pu bl

is he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

satisfaction with the educational eligibility pro- cess significantly predicted parent–teacher rela- tionship. Child hyperactivity had a stronger ef- fect than satisfaction with the educational eligibility process. The child hyperactivity ef- fect was negative, indicating that higher child hyperactivity scores predicted lower parent– teacher relationship scores. In contrast, educa- tional eligibility process satisfaction had a pos- itive effect, indicating that higher satisfaction scores predicted higher parent–teacher relation- ship scores.

Table 5 presents Pearson product–moment correlation coefficients for maternal education, child characteristics, family histories accessing services, family involvement, and the parent– teacher relationship. Child communication, in- formation about ASD, and satisfaction with early childhood services were significantly pos- itively correlated with family involvement. This indicates that as scores on child communication, information about ASD, and satisfaction with early childhood services increase, so did family involvement scores. ASD symptoms was signif- icantly negatively correlated with parent– teacher relationship while child communication was significantly positively correlated with the parent–teacher relationship. This indicates that as children’s ASD symptoms increase, parent report of the parent–teacher relationship de- creases. In contrast, as child communication scores increase, parent report of the parent– teacher relationship increases. Maternal educa- tion was not significantly correlated with family involvement or the parent–teacher relationship.

In addition to relations with family involve- ment and the parent–teacher relationship, sev- eral other important associations emerged. Ma-

ternal education was significantly positively correlated with child communication, indicating that more years of maternal education was asso- ciated with higher ratings of child communication. In addition, ASD symptoms was significantly pos- itively correlated with child hyperactivity, which suggests children with more ASD symptoms may also be viewed by parents as having higher hyper- activity. Finally, child ASD symptoms was not significantly correlated with the number of sources of information about ASD that parents reported having.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to advance the understanding of school experiences and sup- port services for children with ASD through examining child and family variables that may influence family involvement and parent– teacher relationships in elementary school. Children with ASD were first assessed in early childhood, and then approximately 3 years later when they were in elementary school. Thus, snapshots of child and family experiences in early childhood and in early elementary school were ascertained. The majority of children in the sample were boys. On average, children in the sample had mild-to-moderate symptoms of ASD based on the CARS-2. Children’s commu- nication was, on average, nearly 1 standard de- viation below the mean. Most parents reported that they were satisfied or very satisfied with their child’s early childhood services. On aver- age, in the present study, parents reported fa- vorable relationships with their child’s teacher (M � 4.24). This finding is comparable to other descriptive findings with the PTRS-II. For ex-

Table 5 Correlations Among Study Variables

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Maternal education — 2. Autism spectrum disorder symptoms �.00 — 3. Child communication .45� �.25 — 4. Child hyperactivity �.14 .38� �.35 — 5. Information about autism spectrum disorder .05 .22 .13 .17 — 6. Education eligibility satisfaction .07 .28 �.06 .41� �.10 — 7. Early childhood satisfaction .02 .07 .23 .12 .16 .09 — 8. Family involvement .00 �.13 .51� �.19 .43� �.24 .66� — 9. Parent–teacher relationship .10 �.46� .45� �.39 �.04 .29 .18 .23 —

� p � .05.

484 GARBACZ, MCINTYRE, AND SANTIAGO

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an Ps

yc ho

lo gi

ca l

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or on

e of

its al

lie d

pu bl

is he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

ample, a sample of parents who had a child referred for behavioral consultation reported av- erage ratings from 4.41 to 4.43 (Sheridan et al., 2012). While the current study was small in scope, findings may inform implications and directions for future research. The sections that follow include a discussion of the study’s main findings in terms of implications for science and practice.

Implications for Science

Findings from the present study revealed child and family variables significantly pre- dicted family involvement and the parent– teacher relationship. Findings for child factors indicated that parents of children with higher developmental risk reported less family in- volvement and poorer relationships with their child’s teacher. Specifically, parents of children with lower communication skills reported less family involvement and parents of children with higher hyperactivity reported poorer relation- ships with their child’s teacher as compared to parents of children with higher communication skills and lower hyperactivity. This pattern of findings is consistent with other studies that examine the influence of child characteristics. For example, Goldberg and Smith (2014) found that parents who reported negative school con- tacts (e.g., about child behavior concerns) also reported lower school satisfaction.

Family histories accessing services revealed several important findings. Satisfaction with early childhood services and satisfaction with the special educational eligibility process, both assessed at Time 1 in early childhood, explained unique variance on parent report of family in- volvement and the parent–teacher relationship, respectively. In addition, parent-report of the sources of information they accessed about ASD significantly predicted family involve- ment. These findings may suggest that a fami- ly’s history accessing services and with service providers in early childhood can influence their educational involvement and perceptions of the parent–teacher relationship in elementary school. Prior research has found that parents can play a key role in their young child’s develop- ment (Knoche et al., 2012) and form positive relationships with service providers (Carbone et al., 2010). Thus, it may be that a family’s ex- perience with services and service providers in

early childhood can prepare them to support their children and develop positive relationships with their teachers into elementary school by educating them on the importance of supportive cross-setting connections. Furthermore, a pa- rent’s competence for supporting their child may improve through these early experiences (cf. Sheridan, Ryoo, Garbacz, Kunz, & Chum- ney, 2013), which may in turn increase their capability or confidence to partner with their child’s elementary school teachers.

The association between maternal education and family involvement and parent–teacher re- lationship was examined, but no statistically significant findings emerged. This nonsignifi- cant finding is in contrast to a large body of literature that identifies parent education as a potent predictor of family involvement (e.g., Fantuzzo et al., 2000; Kohl et al., 2000; Manz et al., 2004). This may suggest that for parents of children with ASD there are other parent or family factors that are more salient for family involvement. However, the range in the mater- nal education variable for this sample was somewhat restricted given that 55% of mothers were reported to have between 13 and 15 years of education. Furthermore, the sample size in the current sample is small which may have limited power to detect significance.

In addition to the relation between maternal education and family involvement, an interest- ing finding was observed between ASD symp- toms and the total number of sources of infor- mation about ASD. In particular, the relation between ASD symptoms and the total number of sources of information was nonsignificant. Al- though the sample size is small, so these findings are preliminary, this finding is interesting as it could be expected that parents of children with more ASD symptoms would have more sources of information about ASD either provided to them by a provider or independently retrieved as this may serve as a form of social support (Dunst et al., 1986). Alternatively, it may be that they type of information is more important than the total num- ber of sources of information. In the current study all sources of information were treated equally and summed to form a total score.

Implications for Practice

In this study, parents of children with lower communication skills and higher hyperactivity

485SCHOOL RELATIONSHIPS FOR CHILDREN WITH ASD

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an Ps

yc ho

lo gi

ca l

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or on

e of

its al

lie d

pu bl

is he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

reported less family involvement and poorer parent–teacher relationships than children with higher communication skills and lower hyper- activity. These skills and behaviors are mallea- ble targets for intervention (Goldingay et al., 2015). Family histories accessing services also emerged as significant predictors of family in- volvement and parent–teacher relationships. Children’s skills and behaviors, and family his- tories accessing services can be addressed to- gether in two ways. First, parents and early childhood service providers can discuss a fam- ily’s interests and needs at the outset of their work and tailor the approach in a manner that addresses the family’s needs to increase overall satisfaction. Second, families of elementary schoolchildren can be engaged in their child’s education in an authentic manner that is linked with their needs. In fact, it has been recom- mended that school staff reach out to families to lay the foundation of open and trusting family school relationships that serve as the basis for academic and behavior supports for children (Christenson & Reschly, 2009). In turn, these open and trusting relationships can influence family involvement (Santiago et al., 2015).

A best practice for addressing children’s be- havior and engaging families in educational supports is to use a tiered system of support (McIntyre & Garbacz, 2014). In this manner, children and families are linked with the tier of support for their needs. Findings from the pres- ent study have specific implications for Tiers I and III. At Tier I, school behavior support teams, of which school psychologists can be a key member, can engage families in systems- level planning, and school staff can offer fam- ilies scoped and sequenced plans for supporting their child’s behavior at home in a manner that is linked with school systems (Garbacz, McIn- tosh, et al., 2016). In addition, a multiple gating assessment strategy (Dishion & Patterson, 1993) can be embedded at Tier I, but reordered so that families report on child behavior at Gate 1 (Moore et al., in press). School staff could use information obtained from families at Gate 1 to make proactive positive contacts to families. When concerns arise for children, school staff would have information about a broad range of their strengths and needs, as reported by fami- lies, which they could use to inform their dis- cussion to address child needs and facilitate collaboration across home and school. This as-

sessment approach could increase the quantity of contacts and quality of family school inter- actions. High-quality interactions have been highlighted as particularly important for healthy family school relationships (Adams & Christen- son, 1998).

Families of children with ASD benefit from cross-setting supports (Garbacz & McIntyre, 2015). In the present study, parent-report of information about ASD explained unique vari- ance on family involvement. At Tier I, school teams or school psychologists can identify re- sources for families who have a child with ASD and make them available at the school or at community night events. In this way, school staff can be brokers of information and serve as a clearinghouse for sources of information that can provide access to empirically validated sup- ports in the community. In a climate of thin resources and lean economic times, school staff cannot provide individual support to all families that may benefit. A tiered approach that empha- sizes linking home systems with the school and connecting families with community resources can be an efficient and effective way to address the needs of children with ASD and their fam- ilies.

Findings from the present study speak to the important role family histories accessing ser- vices can have on family involvement and par- ent–teacher relationships. Families of children with ASD are involved in their child’s services from a young age (Friend, 2014). Moreover, children with ASD are in need of supports across settings (National Research Council, 2001). Family school partnership interventions can increase parent competence about how to support their child (Sheridan et al., 2013), im- prove child behavior and parenting skills (Dish- ion et al., 2008), and enhance the home–school connection (Sheridan et al., 2013). School psy- chologists are well equipped to use family school partnership interventions for children with ASD who are in need of Tier III support.

One family school partnership intervention, the Family Check-Up (FCU; Dishion & Storm- shak, 2007), shows particular promise for use with families who have children with ASD. The FCU is a school-based intervention that targets behavior problems, parenting skills, and school skills in students with or at-risk for adjustment or behavioral problems and is informed by an ecological systems perspective. An ecological

486 GARBACZ, MCINTYRE, AND SANTIAGO

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an Ps

yc ho

lo gi

ca l

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or on

e of

its al

lie d

pu bl

is he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

model of school adjustment suggests the need for a comprehensive framework of conditions that supports the child during elementary school, including parents and teachers (Mash- burn & Pianta, 2006). The FCU has been shown in numerous studies to increase parenting skills and improve academic and social success for typically developing high-risk students across early childhood and adolescence (e.g., H. Chang, Shaw, Dishion, Gardner, & Wilson, 2014; Fosco, Stormshak, Dishion, & Winter, 2012). In brief, the FCU is an assessment driven model that uses family observations, ecological assessments, and tailored strength-based feed- back to motivate caregivers to make changes in parenting and engage in family school partner- ing activities (Dishion & Stormshak, 2007). Al- though the FCU was not developed for use with families with children ASD, the model seems appropriate for use with this population given its flexible nature and menu of intervention op- tions that can be tailored according to family need. The FCU, one example of family–school partnership intervention, provides a framework for engaging families and schools together as partners and is compatible with other multit- iered systems of support (McIntyre & Garbacz, 2014).

Limitations and Future Research Directions

There were several important findings in the present study, which revealed critical implica- tions for science and practice. These findings and implications should be considered within study limitations, which point to important fu- ture research directions. A strength of this study is that data were considered from two different time points. Snapshots in early childhood and 3 years later in elementary school were used. However, this study design precluded an exam- ination of change or growth over time. Future research should seek to use a strong longitudinal design to track growth. In addition, the sample for this study was relatively small. Thus, these findings may not generalize to a large and di- verse sample of children and families. Future research should aim to include larger samples of families of children with ASD. Next, parent perceptions were the basis for measurement the study variables. For many of the variables (e.g., satisfaction with early childhood services), this is appropriate. However, future research should

include multisource assessments, such as direct observations of child behavior at home and school.

Conclusion

Family involvement and parent–teacher rela- tionships hold unique importance for families of children with ASD. The present study examined child and family characteristics for families of children with ASD as predictors of family in- volvement and parent–teacher relationships. Limitations notwithstanding, findings indicated developmental risk and family histories access- ing services predicted family involvement and parent–teacher relationships. Findings from the present study underscore the importance of fam- ily histories accessing services and child devel- opmental risk when examining and intervening on family involvement and parent–teacher rela- tionships.

References

Adams, K. S., & Christenson, S. L. (1998). Differ- ences in parent and teacher trust levels: Implica- tions for creating collaborative family-school rela- tionships. Special Services in the Schools, 14, 1–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J008v14n01_01

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnos- tic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Pub- lishing.

Benson, P., Karlof, K. L., & Siperstein, G. N. (2008). Maternal involvement in the education of young children with autism spectrum disorders. Autism: An International Journal of Research and Prac- tise, 12, 47– 63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 1362361307085269

Bitterman, A., Daley, T. C., Misra, S., Carlson, E., & Markowitz, J. (2008). A national sample of pre- schoolers with autism spectrum disorders: Special education services and parent satisfaction. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38, 1509 –1517. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10803- 007-0531-9

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psy- chologist, 32, 513–531. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0003-066X.32.7.513

Carbone, P. S., Behl, D. D., Azor, V., & Murphy, N. A. (2010). The medical home for children with autism spectrum disorders: Parent and pediatrician perspectives. Journal of Autism and Developmen- tal Disorders, 40, 317–324. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1007/s10803-009-0874-5

487SCHOOL RELATIONSHIPS FOR CHILDREN WITH ASD

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an Ps

yc ho

lo gi

ca l

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or on

e of

its al

lie d

pu bl

is he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2014). Prevalence of autism spectrum disorder among children aged 8 years—Autism and Developmen- tal Disabilities Monitoring Network, 11 sites, United States, 2010. MMWR: Surveillance Sum- maries, 63, 1–21.

Chang, C. L., Lung, F.-W., Yen, C. F., & Yang, P. (2013). Adaptive behaviors in high-functioning Taiwanese children with autism spectrum disor- ders: An investigation of the mediating roles of symptom severity and cognitive ability. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43, 1347– 1355. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10803-012- 1684-8

Chang, H., Shaw, D. S., Dishion, T. J., Gardner, F., & Wilson, M. N. (2014). Direct and indirect effects of the family check-up on self-regulation from toddlerhood to early school-age. Journal of Abnor- mal Child Psychology, 42, 1117–1128. http://dx .doi.org/10.1007/s10802-014-9859-8

Christenson, S. L., & Reschly, A. L. (Eds.). (2009). Preface. Handbook of school-family partnerships (pp. xiii–xvii). New York, NY: Routledge.

Clarke, B. L., Sheridan, S. M., & Woods, K. E. (2009). Elements of healthy family–school rela- tionships. In S. L. Christenson & A. L. Reschly (Eds.), Handbook of school-family partnerships (pp. 61–79). New York, NY: Routledge.

Colver, A. F., Merrick, H., Deverill, M., Le Couteur, A., Parr, J., Pearce, M. S., . . . the Transition Collaborative Group. (2013). Study protocol: Lon- gitudinal study of the transition of young people with complex health needs from child to adult health services. BMC Public Health, 13, 675–685. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-675

Dishion, T. J., & Patterson, G. R. (1993). Antisocial behavior: Using a multiple gating strategy. In M. I. Singer, L. T. Singer, & T. M. Anglin (Eds.), Hand- book for screening adolescents at psychosocial risk (pp. 375–399). New York, NY: Lexington.

Dishion, T. J., Shaw, D., Connell, A., Gardner, F., Weaver, C., & Wilson, M. (2008). The family check-up with high-risk indigent families: Prevent- ing problem behavior by increasing parents’ posi- tive behavior support in early childhood. Child Development, 79, 1395–1414. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01195.x

Dishion, T. J., & Stormshak, E. A. (2007). Interven- ing in children’s lives: An ecological, family- centered approach to mental health care. Wash- ington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/11485-000

Domina, T. (2005). Leveling the home advantage: Assessing the effectiveness of parental involve- ment in elementary school. Sociology of Educa- tion, 78, 233–249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 003804070507800303

Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Cross, A. H. (1986). Mediating influences of social support: Personal, family, and child outcomes. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 90, 403–417.

Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A meta- analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 1–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1009048817385

Fantuzzo, J., Gadsden, V., Li, F., Sproul, F., McDer- mott, P., Hightower, D., & Minney, A. (2013). Multiple dimensions of family engagement in early childhood education: Evidence for a short form of the Family Involvement Questionnaire. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28, 734– 742. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2013.07 .001

Fantuzzo, J., Tighe, E., & Childs, S. (2000). Family Involvement Questionnaire: A multivariate assess- ment of family participation in early childhood education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 367–376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92 .2.367

Fosco, G. M., Stormshak, E. A., Dishion, T. J., & Winter, C. E. (2012). Family relationships and parental monitoring during middle school as pre- dictors of early adolescent problem behavior. Jour- nal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 41, 202–213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15374416 .2012.651989

Friend, M. (2014). Special education: Contemporary perspectives for school professionals. Upper Sad- dle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Garbacz, S. A., McDowall, P. S., Schaughency, E., Sheridan, S. M., & Welch, G. W. (2015). A mul- tidimensional examination of parent involvement across child and parent characteristics. Elementary School Journal, 115, 384–406. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1086/680325

Garbacz, S. A., McIntosh, K., Eagle, J. W., Dowd- Eagle, S. E., Ruppert, T., & Hirano, K. (2016). Family engagement within school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Chil- dren and Youth, 60, 60–69. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1080/1045988X.2014.976809

Garbacz, S. A., & McIntyre, L. L. (2015). Conjoint behavioral consultation for children with autism spectrum disorder. School Psychology Quarterly. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1037/spq0000114

Garbacz, S. A., Sheridan, S. M., Koziol, N. A., Kwon, K., & Holmes, S. R. (2015). Congruence in parent–teacher communication: Implications for the efficacy of CBC for students with behavioral concerns. School Psychology Review, 44, 150– 168. http://dx.doi.org/10.17105/spr-14-0035.1

Goldberg, A. E., & Smith, J. Z. (2014). Predictors of school engagement among same-sex and hetero-

488 GARBACZ, MCINTYRE, AND SANTIAGO

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an Ps

yc ho

lo gi

ca l

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or on

e of

its al

lie d

pu bl

is he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

sexual adoptive parents of Kindergarteners. Jour- nal of School Psychology, 52, 463–478. http://dx .doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.08.001

Goldingay, S., Stagnitti, K., Sheppard, L., McGilli- vray, J., McLean, B., & Pepin, G. (2015). An intervention to improve social participation for ad- olescents with autism spectrum disorder: Pilot study. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 18, 122–130. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/17518423 .2013.855275

Goodman, R. (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 38, 581–586. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610 .1997.tb01545.x

Goodman, R. (2001). Psychometric properties of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psy- chiatry, 40, 1337–1345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ 00004583-200111000-00015

Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000). Applied logistic regression (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wi- ley. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/0471722146

Iizuka, C., Yamashita, Y., Nagamitsu, S., Yamashita, T., Araki, Y., Ohya, T., . . . Matsuishi, T. (2010). Comparison of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) scores between children with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder (HF- ASD) and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (AD/HD). Brain & Development, 32, 609–612. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.braindev.2009.09.009

Janssens, A., & Deboutte, D. (2009). Screening for psychopathology in child welfare: The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) compared with the Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA). European Child and Ado- lescent Psychiatry, 18, 691–700. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s00787-009-0030-y

Jeynes, W. H. (2011). Parental involvement and ac- ademic success. New York, NY: Routledge.

Jones, L., Hastings, R. P., Totsika, V., Keane, L., & Rhule, N. (2014). Child behavior problems and parental well-being in families of children with autism: The mediating role of mindfulness and acceptance. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 119, 171–185. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-119.2.171

Kaiser, A. P., & Hancock, T. B. (2003). Teaching parents new skills to support their young chil- dren’s development. Infants and Young Chil- dren, 16, 9 –21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ 00001163-200301000-00003

Kaplan, L. (1950). Tensions in parent–teacher rela- tionships. Elementary School Journal, 51, 190– 195. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/459228

Kasari, C., & Sigman, M. (1997). Linking parental perceptions to interactions in young children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Dis-

orders, 27, 39 –57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A: 1025869105208

Kingston, C., Hibberd, C., & Ozsivadjian, A. (2013). Parent experiences of a specialist intervention ser- vice for mental health difficulties in children with autistic spectrum disorder. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 18, 109–115. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1111/j.1475-3588.2012.00667.x

Knoche, L. L., Edwards, C. P., Sheridan, S. M., Kupzyk, K. A., Marvin, C. A., Cline, K. D., & Clarke, B. L. (2012). Getting ready: Results of a randomized trial of a relationship-focused inter- vention on the parent–infant relationship in rural early head start. Infant Mental Health Journal, 33, 439–458. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/imhj.21320

Kohl, G. O., Lengua, L. J., McMahon, R. J., & the Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2000). Parent involvement in school: Conceptual- izing multiple dimensions and their relations with family and demographic risk factors. Journal of School Psychology, 38, 501–523. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/S0022-4405(00)00050-9

Konst, M. J., Matson, J. L., Goldin, R., & Rieske, R. (2014). How does ASD symptomology correlate with ADHD presentations? Research in Develop- mental Disabilities, 35, 2252–2259. http://dx.doi .org/10.1016/j.ridd.2014.05.017

MacDonald, R., Parry-Cruwys, D., Dupere, S., & Ahearn, W. (2014). Assessing progress and out- come of early intensive behavioral intervention for toddlers with autism. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35, 3632–3644. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1016/j.ridd.2014.08.036

Mandell, D. S., Walrath, C. M., Manteuffel, B., Sgro, G., & Pinto-Martin, J. (2005). Characteristics of children with autistic spectrum disorders served in comprehensive community-based mental health settings. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 35, 313–321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s10803-005-3296-z

Manz, P. H., Fantuzzo, J. W., & Power, T. J. (2004). Multidimensional assessment of family involve- ment among urban elementary students. Journal of School Psychology, 42, 461– 475. http://dx.doi .org/10.1016/j.jsp.2004.08.002

Marcus, L. M., Kunce, L. J., & Schopler, E. (2005). Working with families. In F. R. Volkmar, P. Rhea, A. Klin, & D. R. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of autism and pervasive developmental disorders (pp. 1055–1086). New York, NY: Wiley. http://dx.doi .org/10.1002/9780470939352.ch16

Marshall, S. K., Tilton-Weaver, L. C., & Bosdet, L. (2005). Information management: Considering ad- olescents’ regulation of parental knowledge. Jour- nal of Adolescence, 28, 633–647. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.08.008

Mashburn, A. J., & Pianta, R. C. (2006). Social relationships and school readiness. Early Educa-

489SCHOOL RELATIONSHIPS FOR CHILDREN WITH ASD

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an Ps

yc ho

lo gi

ca l

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or on

e of

its al

lie d

pu bl

is he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

tion and Development, 17, 151–176. http://dx.doi .org/10.1207/s15566935eed1701_7

Matson, M. L., Mahan, S., & Matson, J. L. (2009). Parent training: A review of methods for children with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Au- tism Spectrum Disorders, 3, 868–875. http://dx .doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2009.02.003

McIntyre, L. L., & Garbacz, S. A. (2014). Best prac- tices in systems-level organization and support for effective family–school partnerships. In P. Harri- son & A. Thomas (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology: Systems-level services (pp. 455–465). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Minke, K. M., Sheridan, S. M., Kim, E. M., Ryoo, J. H., & Koziol, N. A. (2014). Congruence in parent–teacher relationships: The role of shared perceptions. Elementary School Journal, 114, 527–546. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/675637

Moh, T. A., & Magiati, I. (2012). Factors associated with parental stress and satisfaction during the process of diagnosis of children with autism spec- trum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Dis- orders, 6, 293–303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j .rasd.2011.05.011

Moore, K. J., Garbacz, S. A., Dishion, T. J., Gau, J. M., Brown, K. L., Stormshak, E. A., & Seeley, J. R. (in press). Proactive parent engagement in public schools: Using a brief strengths and needs assessment in a multiple gating risk management strategy. Journal of Positive Behavior Interven- tions.

National Research Council. (2001). Educating chil- dren with autism. In C. Lord & J. P. McGee (Eds.), Committee on Educational Interventions for Chil- dren with Autism, Division of Behavioral and So- cial Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: Na- tional Academy Press.

Ozonoff, S., & Rogers, S. (2003). From Kanner to the millennium: Scientific advances that have shaped clinical practice. In S. J. Ozonoff, S. J. Rogers, & R. L. Hendren (Eds.), Autism spectrum disorders: A research review for practitioners (pp. 3–33). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publish- ing.

Santiago, R. T., Beattie, T., Moore, C., Suarez- Pedraza, S., Rich, L., Brandel, D., . . . Garbacz, S. A. (2015, February). Parent–teacher relation- ships in elementary school: An examination of parent–teacher trust. Poster presented at the an- nual meeting of the National Association of School Psychologists, Orlando, FL.

Schopler, E., Van Bourgondien, M. E., Wellman, G. J., & Love, S. R. (2010). Childhood Autism Rating Scale (2nd ed.; CARS-2). Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.

Sheridan, S. M., Bovaird, J. A., Glover, T. A., Gar- bacz, S. A., & Witte, A. W. (2012). A randomized trial examining the effects of conjoint behavioral consultation and the mediating role of the parent– teacher relationship. School Psychology Review, 41, 23–46.

Sheridan, S. M., Ryoo, J. H., Garbacz, S. A., Kunz, G. M., & Chumney, F. L. (2013). The efficacy of conjoint behavioral consultation on parents and children in the home setting: Results of a random- ized controlled trial. Journal of School Psychol- ogy, 51, 717–733. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp .2013.09.003

Sparrow, S. S., Cicchetti, D. V., & Balla, D. A. (2005). Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (2nd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Ser- vice.

Stoner, J. B., Bock, S. J., Thompson, J. R., Angell, M. E., Heyl, B. S., & Crowley, E. P. (2005). Wel- come to our world: Parent perceptions of interactions between parents of young children with ASD and education professionals. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20, 39–51. http://dx.doi .org/10.1177/10883576050200010401

Vickers, H. S., & Minke, K. M. (1995). Exploring parent–teacher relationships: Joining and commu- nication to others. School Psychology Quarterly, 10, 133–150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0088300

Walker, J. M., Wilkins, A. S., Dallaire, J. R., Sandler, H. M., & Hoover-Dempsey, K. V. (2005). Parental involvement: Model revision through scale devel- opment. Elementary School Journal, 106, 85–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/499193

Wang, M. T., Dishion, T. J., Stormshak, E. A., & Willett, J. B. (2011). Trajectories of family man- agement practices and early adolescent behavioral outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1324– 1341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024026

Zablotsky, B., Boswell, K., & Smith, C. (2012). An evaluation of school involvement and satisfaction of parents of children with autism spectrum disor- ders. American Journal on Intellectual and Devel- opmental Disabilities, 117, 316–330. http://dx.doi .org/10.1352/1944-7558-117.4.316

Received October 29, 2015 Revision received January 27, 2016

Accepted February 27, 2016 �

490 GARBACZ, MCINTYRE, AND SANTIAGO

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an Ps

yc ho

lo gi

ca l

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or on

e of

its al

lie d

pu bl

is he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.