research proposal for phd

O R I G I N A L P A P E R

Motivations for Involvement: A Preliminary Investigation of Parents of Students with Disabilities

Callen E. Fishman • Amanda B. Nickerson

Published online: 10 January 2014

� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Abstract Parents of students in special education have

greater barriers to parental involvement than parents of

students in general education. Little is known, however,

about the factors that facilitate or impede involvement

practices for this group. This preliminary study investi-

gated the extent to which the motivational factors from

Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s (2005) Model of Parent

Involvement (i.e., Parent Role Activity Beliefs, Parent

Efficacy, General School Invitations, Specific Teacher

Invitation, Specific Child Invitations, Perceived Knowl-

edge and Skills, and Perceived Time and Energy) predicted

the Home-Based, School-Based, and Special Education

Involvement of 137 parents of elementary school students

in special education from two suburban school districts in

upstate New York. Family structure, race/ethnicity, and

family socioeconomic status (SES) were also examined.

Parents in the current study reported being more involved

in both home and school-based activities when children

specifically requested their involvement. School-Based

Involvement was also predicted by parents’ perceptions of

their time and energy and their level of responsibility in

supporting their child’s education, as well as their reported

level of education (an indication of SES). An interesting

and counterintuitive inverse relationship was found

between general school invitations and parents’ Home-

Based Involvement. Lastly, the only significant predictor

for Special Education Involvement was specific teacher

invitations. These findings are discussed and suggestions

are made for how to increase involvement for this specific

group of parents.

Keywords Parent involvement � Parental involvement � Special education � Model of involvement � Educational

Introduction

It is widely recognized that parent involvement should be

viewed as a multidimensional phenomenon rather than a

unitary concept (Fan and Chen 2001). Researchers have

defined various dimensions of parent involvement

including parental attitudes toward education (Fan and

Chen 2001; Grolnick and Slowiaczek 1994; Keith et al.

1993; Trivette and Anderson 1995); parental academic

aspirations and expectations (Fan and Chen 1999, 2001;

Keith et al. 1993; Trivette and Anderson 1995); commu-

nications between the parent and child (Fan and Chen

1999, 2001; Trivette and Anderson 1995); and the

development of a home structure that supports student

learning, intellectual stimulation, and academic success

(Keith et al. 1993). Most of the parent involvement defi-

nitions, however, categorize parents’ behavior discretely

as either home-based (i.e., activities that take place

between the parent and the child outside of school) or

school-based (i.e., child-focused activities that are typi-

cally accomplished at school; Hoover-Dempsey and San-

dler 2005; Walker et al. 2005).

Overall trends indicate a positive effect of parent

involvement on student outcomes (Henderson and Mapp

2002). Home-based involvement has been related to both

academic achievement (Izzo et al. 1999) and school

C. E. Fishman (&) New York State Office of Mental Health, Albany, NY 12208,

USA

e-mail: [email protected]

A. B. Nickerson

Department of Counseling, School, and Educational Psychology,

University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo,

NY 14260, USA

123

J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:523–535

DOI 10.1007/s10826-013-9865-4

orientation (Shurnow and Miller 1999). School-based

involvement has been shown to positively impact student

behavior (e.g., reduce student absences), school engage-

ment (Izzo et al. 1999), early childhood development,

mastery of school readiness skills (Marcoon 1999), aca-

demic grade point average, and children’s’ enjoyment of

school (Shurnow and Miller 1999). Parents who are

involved in their child’s schooling report improved com-

munication with their child about schoolwork, more

involvement in educational activities at home (Christenson

1995b), satisfaction in their relationships with teachers,

appreciation for the commitment of teachers, and increased

parenting efficacy (Swap 1990). When teachers actively

involve parents, they report greater job satisfaction and

request fewer transfers, and principals rate them higher on

teacher performance indicators (Christenson 1995a, b).

Research also indicates that school climate is enhanced

considerably when parents are involved in school-based

planning and decision-making activities (Haynes et al.

1989).

There are numerous factors that impact parents’ moti-

vation to become involved. Specific child characteristics

(e.g., age, level of needs, and academic abilities) have been

indicated to either facilitate or inhibit parent involvement

activities (Deslandes and Cloutier 2002; McWilliam et al.

1999). Teachers’ skills and attitudes impact their willing-

ness to engage families, which, in turn may impact a par-

ent’s desire to become involved (Garcia 2004; Morris and

Taylor 1998). Additionally, school characteristics (e.g.,

structure of classrooms, school procedures, communica-

tion, staff commitment) have been shown to impact parent

involvement (Mannan and Blackwell 1992; National Cen-

ter for Education Statistics 1998). A number of parent and

family variables also have been associated with parents’

involvement in their child’s schooling including: socio-

economic status (Davies 1993; Ritblatt et al. 2002); marital

status (Arnold et al. 2008; Kohl et al. 2000); parental

beliefs in the value of education (Baker et al. 2007; Wa-

anders et al. 2007); and racial/ethnic identification (Patri-

kakou and Weisserg 2009; Wong and Hughes 2006). The

culture and interpersonal interactions within the commu-

nity in which a child has been raised have also been shown

to impact parents’ motivation to become involved in their

child’s schooling (Sheldon and Epstein 2002; Waanders

et al. 2007).

Parents of students with disabilities face greater barri-

ers to involvement and are less involved than parents of

typically developing children in school (Coots 1998;

Dyson 1997). These parents also report typical interac-

tions as less family-centered than educators and other

families (McWilliam et al. 1999). The importance of

empowering parents of students with special needs to

advocate for their children has been well documented in

the literature (Wang et al. 2004). Although parents of

students with disabilities generally view advocacy as their

obligation, the process is viewed as a life-long adversarial

battle, which results in a great amount of stress for these

families (Wang et al. 2004). As such, special education

professionals have been encouraged to focus not only on

improving the quality of life for students with disabilities,

but also for the entire family. Professionals may do this

by acknowledging realistic family participation given

their time, energy, and resources and by encouraging

collaborative decision-making (Van Haren and Fiedler

2008). Nevertheless, due to the aforementioned compli-

cations and obstacles for this group of parents, they may

require more support and individualized attention to get

them involved than parents of typically developing

children.

Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995, 2005) established

a comprehensive theoretical model of parent involvement,

which addresses why parents become involved in their

child’s education and how this involvement impacts edu-

cational performance. It encompasses three categories of

motivational variables that may influence parents’

involvement decisions: parents’ motivational beliefs, par-

ents’ perceptions of invitations from others, and family/life

context variables (see Fig. 1).

Parent Motivational Beliefs includes parent activity

beliefs and parent efficacy. Parent activity beliefs are par-

ents’ views and behaviors regarding their role in supporting

their child’s education (Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler

1995, 1997; Walker et al. 2005). Research indicates that

parents who hold ‘‘active’’ role activity beliefs are more

likely to participate in home-based and school-based

activities than parents who have ‘‘passive’’ role activity

beliefs (Deslandes and Bertrand 2005; Green et al. 2007;

Hoover-Dempsey et al. 2005; Sheldon and Epstein 2002).

However, the direct influence of this variable on parent

involvement appears to become more inconsistent once

meditational variables, such as the teacher’s invitation to

get involved, are added (e.g., Anderson and Minke 2007)

or once the child’s grade level is controlled (e.g., Deslan-

des and Bertrand 2005). Parent efficacy is defined as a

parent’s beliefs that he or she is able to positively influence

his or her child’s academic outcomes (Bandura 1986,

1997). Research suggests that parents with a higher sense

of efficacy are more willing to engage in their child’s

education, more likely to persist through obstacles (Hoo-

ver-Dempsey and Sandler 1997), and also tend to be more

invested (Grolnick et al. 1997). However, there is some

discrepancy in the literature regarding the extent to which

parent efficacy may predict specific forms of parent

involvement (e.g., home-based vs. school based; Anderson

and Minke 2007; Coots 1998; Deslandes and Bertrand

2005; Sheldon and Epstein 2002; Waanders et al. 2007).

524 J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:523–535

123

Parents’ Perceptions of Invitations for Involvement from

Others refers to general invitations for involvement from

the school, specific invitations from the child, and specific

invitations from the teacher. Although theory suggests that

general school invitations (e.g., a positive school climate,

parent-friendly newsletter, clear suggestions for home-

based involvement) might be a significant predictor for

parents’ involvement, the research to date is mixed. Some

researchers have found that schools that promote a positive

climate report fewer barriers to involvement and more

school-based and home-based involvement practices

(Griffith 1998; Smith et al. 1997). Nevertheless, Green

et al. (2007) found no evidence of a predictive relationship.

Child invitations for involvement refers to a child’s specific

and explicit requests for parental help with learning,

assistance with homework, and/or participation in school-

based events. Although there is limited evidence to date,

the available research suggests that specific child invita-

tions are consistently significant predictors of parental

involvement in both home-based and school-based activi-

ties (Balli et al. 1998; Green et al. 2007). The link between

specific teacher invitations (e.g., requests for assisting with

home-based learning or participating in activities at school)

and parental involvement has been more mixed. Most of

the available research suggests that teacher practices that

encourage parent involvement are one of the strongest and

consistent predictors of school-based and home-based

participation (Anderson and Minke 2007; Smith et al.

1997). Nevertheless, Green et al. (2007) found that specific

teacher invitations predicted school-based but not home-

based involvement.

Parents’ Perceived Life Context encompasses parents’

perceptions of their knowledge and skills as well as time

and energy. Parents’ skills refer to supervising and

Fig. 1 Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s (2005) Model of

Parent Involvement. Reprinted

with permission in Hoover-

Dempsey et al. (2005)

J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:523–535 525

123

explaining homework and communicating effectively with

the child and the teacher. Knowledge pertains awareness

about school events, volunteer opportunities, and teacher

contact information, as well as an understanding of school-

based material. Some research has indicated that parents’

knowledge and skills positively predict activities directed

by both the parent and activities managed by others (Coots

1998). Green et al. (2007), however, did not find parents’

self-perceived knowledge and skills to predict school-based

or home-based involvement, although the variables were

positively correlated. The second component of this cate-

gory is parents’ perceptions of time and energy demands

(Hoover-Dempsey et al. 2005). Perceived time and energy

for involvement has been shown to predict both parents’

school-based involvement and home-based involvement

(Green et al. 2007). Further, parents’ reports of having ‘‘no

time’’ to devote to their child’s education due to work and

other family priorities is noted as a common barrier to

parent involvement (Dwyer and Hecht 1992). In fact, a

study conducted by the National Center for Education

Statistics (1998) found that 87 % of the surveyed schools

indicated a perceived lack of time on the part of parents to

be a ‘‘great’’ or ‘‘moderate’’ barrier to parent involvement.

Green et al. (2007) conducted the first major study to

test the Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (2005) Model of

Parent Involvement. Participants included 853 parents of

first through sixth grade children enrolled in an urban

public school system in the mid-South. Slight differences

were found between involvement practices of elementary

and middle school parents. For elementary school parents,

perceptions of invitations from children, self-efficacy, role

activity beliefs, and perceived time and energy for

involvement predicted home-based involvement. Each of

the aforementioned motivational variables, with the

exception of role activity beliefs, also predicted home-

based involvement for middle school parents. In terms of

school-based involvement, the predictors were the fol-

lowing: invitations from teachers and children, perceived

time and energy, and role activity beliefs.

Related to parents of students in special education, one

study compared the involvement practices of parents of

children with and without Attention Deficit Hyperactivity

Disorder (ADHD). Parents of children with ADHD repor-

ted feeling less efficacious in helping their children with

academics, feeling less welcome in their child’s school,

receiving more involvement requests from their child’s

teacher, and having less time and energy to be involved in

their child’s schooling (Rogers et al. 2009). There were no

significant differences between the parent involvement

behaviors of mothers of children with and without ADHD.

However, the findings indicated that fathers of children

with ADHD reported significantly lower participation in

their child’s learning and more academic pressure than

fathers of children without ADHD (Rogers et al. 2009).

More recently, the Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler

(2005) model was tested among parents of junior and

senior high school students in Israel (Lavenda 2011). The

findings revealed that Israeli parents’ level of involvement

was comparable to American parents as reported in pre-

vious studies (e.g., Green et al. 2007), suggesting the

wide-ranging applicability of the model. Further, Lavenda

(2011) found that the school’s general invitations and the

child’s invitations for involvement directly influenced

parents involvement practices but also had a slight med-

itational effect on the parents’ role activity beliefs.

Teachers’ invitations for involvement, however, had a

positive direct effect on parental involvement, but a

negative effect when adding parents’ role activity beliefs

as a mediating factor. Lavenda (2011) posits that teachers

may only invite parents to become involved if their child

is in trouble, which in turn may cause parents to resent

the responsibility forced upon them. Another explanation

may be that teachers may tend to invite parents who

naturally have a lower sense of responsibility and that this

encouragement is what drives those parents to increase

their participation.

Taken as a whole, it is evident that a parent’s decision to

become involved in his or her child’s schooling is complex

and is influenced by a multitude of different variables.

Each of these variables does not exist in solitude, but rather

interact and contribute to an intricate picture of the parent’s

situational and motivational attributes that influences his or

her involvement decision. Although Hoover-Dempsey and

Sandler’s (2005) Model of Parent Involvement does not

encompass all potential influencing variables, it provides a

unique, interactional framework from which to investigate

parents’ involvement decisions. Given the significant bar-

riers that face parents of students with disabilities and the

fact that this group has not yet been studied using the

Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s (2005) Model, further

examination is warranted. The specific purpose of this

study was to investigate whether various involvement

choices of parents of students in special education includ-

ing: (a) school-based activities; (b) home-based activities;

and (c) special education activities were predicted by the

motivational variables in Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s

(2005) Model of Parent Involvement (i.e., perceived role

construction, perceived efficacy, perceptions of general

school invitations, perceptions of specific teacher invita-

tions, perceptions of specific child invitations, perceived

knowledge and skills, perceived time and energy). Also

under investigation were various demographic variables

that research has identified as potentially influential (i.e.,

family structure, and race/ethnicity, SES).

526 J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:523–535

123

Method

Participants

A total of 137 parents of special education students in

elementary school completed the survey. There were some

returned surveys that were completed on students in middle

or high school; however due to the scope of this study,

these surveys were not included. Participant demographic

information is reported in Table 1. Most of the students in

the sample were identified under the classifications of

Speech or Language Impairment, Other Health Impair-

ment, Autism, and Specific Learning Disability. The sta-

tistics from the U.S. Department of Education (2006)

illustrate a similar distribution except for lower percentages

of Autism (3.53 %) and Other Health Impairment

(7.79 %). Most students were reported to receive related

services, consultant teacher, and/or resource room. A

majority reported that their family consisted of two bio-

logical parents and reported obtaining a college or a

graduate/professional school education. Additionally, 85 %

of parent participants indicated that their child was not

eligible for free or reduced lunch. According to the

respective New York State District Report Cards (New

York State Education Department 2010), 94 % of the

population in District #1 and 88 % of the population in

District #2 were not eligible for free or reduced lunch. The

slightly lower percentage obtained for the current study

may, in part, be due to the restricted sample (i.e., parents of

students in special education). In terms of the participants’

race/ethnicity status, a large majority of individuals in the

current study identified as being White (not Hispanic;

89 %). This number is comparable to the participant dis-

tricts with 89 % of District #1 and 82 % of District #2

identifying as White.

Instruments

The Parent Involvement Survey was comprised of eight

scales, which were independently developed and refined by

Walker et al. (2005) to assess the motivational variables of

Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s (2005) Model of Parent

Involvement. These scales included: Role Activity Beliefs,

Efficacy, Perceptions of General School Invitations, Per-

ceptions of Specific Child Invitations, Perceptions of Spe-

cific Teacher Invitations, Perceptions of Personal

Knowledge and Skills, Perceptions of Time and Energy,

and Parent Choice of Involvement Activities. A demo-

graphics section was also designed to collect information

regarding: the child’s special education classification; the

types of services the child receives; the gender of the child;

the child’s grade; the approximate socioeconomic status of

the family (identified through items related to the parent’s

Table 1 Demographic Information

Variable Total sample

(N = 137)

n %

School district

District #1 35 25.5

District #2 102 74.5

IDEIA classification

Autism 23 16.9

Deaf-blindness 0 n/a

Deafness 0 n/a

Emotional disturbance 2 1.5

Hearing impairment 0 n/a

Mental retardation 1 .7

Multiple disabilities 5 3.7

Orthopedic impairment 3 2.2

Other health impairment 21 15.4

Specific learning disability 23 16.9

Speech or language impairment 37 27.2

Traumatic brain injury 1 .07

Visual impairment 0 n/a

Not sure 20 14.7

Type of service received

Just related services 88 64.2

Consultant teacher or specialized instruction 21 37.2

Resource room or integrated special class 53 38.7

Self-contained classroom or special class 9 6.6

Not sure 2 1.5

Gender of child

Male 94 68.6

Female 43 31.4

Eligibility for free or reduced lunch

Yes 16 11.7

No 113 82.5

Not sure 5.8

Current family situation

Two-biological-parent family 108 78.8

Stepfather family 1 .7

Stepmother family 1 .7

Mother only family 13 9.5

Father only family 2 1.5

Other 12 8.8

Grade

Kindergarten 18 13.1

First 23 16.8

Second 16 11.7

Third 26 19.0

Fourth 30 21.9

Fifth 11 8.0

Sixth 13 9.5

J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:523–535 527

123

educational attainment and whether the child is eligible for

free or reduced lunch); the child’s current family structure;

relationship of the participant to the child; and race/eth-

nicity that best describes the participant. Additionally,

items were added to the involvement choices scale to

assess parents’ involvement choices related to special

education. The total parent involvement survey was com-

prised of 65 items.

Procedure

Three professionals with expertise in special education

reviewed the Parent Involvement Survey and the cover

letters explaining the study and the terms of participation.

These professionals were asked to examine the documents

to ensure that the instructions on the cover letter and the

questions in the survey were clear, appropriate, and easy-

to-understand. Revisions to the cover letter and survey

were made according to the professionals’ recommenda-

tions (e.g., making wording more parent-friendly, short-

ening the cover letter, adding ‘‘not sure’’ options to the

demographics section). No alterations were made to the

scale items constructed and refined by Walker et al. (2005).

Parent Involvement Surveys were disseminated to 744

parents across two suburban school districts in the north-

eastern region of the United States after university Insti-

tutional Review Board (IRB) permission was obtained. The

first district serves about 5,100 students in kindergarten

through grade 12 and contains six elementary schools

serving students in grades 1 through 5. The second district

serves approximately 5,600 students in kindergarten

through grade 12 and has seven elementary schools serving

students in grades 1 through 6.

Participants for the current study had to be parents or

legal guardians of elementary school children who were

classified with a special education disability according to

the 13 categories in NYS, Part 200 (New York imple-

mentation of IDEIA). Additionally, the children had to be

receiving special education services at the time of the

survey distribution. The surveys were mailed to parents and

included a pre-paid return address envelope to return the

survey directly to the primary investigator’s university

address. Parents were instructed to complete the items

based on their experiences with their child with a disability

in the school year when the surveys were distributed.

Surveys were distributed in May 2010 and were collected

through August 2010. One hundred eighty participants

completed and returned the surveys (25 % response rate).

The sample size is consistent with those from other studies

that have tested constructs from the Hoover-Dempsey and

Sandler (2005) Model.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Reverse coded items on the efficacy scale were re-coded

before conducting the primary data analyses. The data were

also screened for out of range values, missing variables,

and normality of distribution. Skewness and Kurtosis sta-

tistics were used to check the deviation of the data from a

normal distribution (i.e., symmetry and peakedness).

According to Heppner and Heppner (2004), no firm

guideline exists for determining acceptable distribution

values. The general rule, however, is that the numbers

should be less than the absolute value of two, and closer to

zero is better. All of the scales on the Parent Involvement

Survey met the Skewness criteria. Two of the dependent

variable scales (i.e., School-Based Involvement, and

Home-Based Involvement) were over the Kurtosis criteria.

One way to handle a non-normal distribution of data is to

‘‘transform’’ or mathematically modify the variables to

make the distribution more normal. There is considerable

controversy, however, regarding this approach (e.g., Pal-

lant 2010). Due to the aspiration of the current study—to

provide information regarding a unique sub-population—

the authors decided to explore the non-normalities through

further analysis of the descriptive data.

Remarks from several of the participants in the margins of

the survey and in the comments section at the end of the

survey revealed concerns about the distribution of the Likert

items on the Parent Choice of Involvement Activities Scale,

which included items measuring School-Based Involvement

Table 1 continued

Variable Total sample

(N = 137)

n %

Highest level of education earned

Less than high school 3 2.2

High school graduate or equivalent 4 2.9

Vocational/technical education 3 2.2

After high school or some college 16 11.7

College graduate 50 36.5

Graduate or professional school 60 43.8

Race/ethnicity

American Indian/Alaska Native 2 1.5

Asian/Pacific Islander 3 2.2

Black (not Hispanic) 6 4.4

Hispanic 3 2.2

White (not Hispanic) 120 87.6

Other 3 2.2

528 J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:523–535

123

and Home-Based Involvement. A frequency analysis con-

firmed the truncated distribution of participant responses,

thus contributing to the peakedness in the data. To account

for this, the grouping of items for each of the dependent

variables (i.e., Home-Based, School-Based, and Special

Education Involvement) was recoded to reflect the partici-

pant response distribution. Home-Based involvement items

were recoded into once a week or less (original Likert items 1

thru 4), a few times a week (item 5), and daily (item 6).

School-Based involvement items were recoded into never

(item 1), sometimes (item 2), as much as possible (items 3

thru 6). Lastly, Special Education Involvement items were

recoded into low (items 1 and 2), medium (item 3), and high

(items 4 thru 6). A reanalysis of the data reflected normal

Kurtosis. Means, standard deviations, ranges, skewness,

kurtosis, and alpha reliabilities are reported in Table 2; zero-

order correlations are displayed in Table 3.

Two missing data techniques were compared for this

study: the item-mean method and the mean of available

items or sometimes called the person-mean imputation

method. The authors first attempted the item-mean tech-

nique where the group mean is substituted for the missing

data (Heppner and Heppner 2004). A frequency analysis

was performed to identify nonrandom missing variables

(i.e., items with more than 5 % missing data, Heppner and

Heppner 2004). Fifteen items met this criterion (11 on the

Parent Choice of Involvement Activities scale, one on the

Role Activity Beliefs scale, one on the Perceptions of

Specific Child Invitations scale, and two on the Perceptions

of Specific Teacher Invitations scale). Eleven out of 15

(73 %) of the items were noted to be problematic on the

Parent Choice of Involvement Activities scale; however,

the scale could not be deleted, as it was essential for the

study and the data analysis.

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics for Subscales of Parent Involvement Survey

N Range M SD Skewness Kurtosis a

Role activity beliefs 124 2.50 5.30 .46 -.86 .21 .78

Efficacy 130 1.71 4.59 .44 -.33 .21 .62

General School Invitations 134 4.00 5.14 .79 -1.62 .21 .86

Specific Child Invitations 128 5.00 3.52 1.04 -.09 .21 .77

Specific Teacher Invitations 119 4.33 2.84 1.18 .23 .21 .82

Personal Knowledge and Skills 132 3.00 5.19 .55 -1.06 .21 .83

Time and Energy 132 3.67 4.85 .80 -.69 .21 .87

Home-Based Involvement 115 1.60 2.50 .44 -.51 .21 .66

School-Based Involvement 107 2.00 2.27 .44 -.29 .21 .77

Special Education Involvement 109 2.00 1.91 .53 .37 .21 .81

Subscale Ns vary because missing data was not replaced due to the mean of available items being used

Table 3 Zero-order correlations among scales

RAB EF GSI SCI STI PKS TE HBI SBI SEI

RAB 1.00

EF .42** 1.00

GSI .40** .23** 1.00

SCI .34** .25** .16 1.00

STI .22* .04 .07 .26** 1.00

PKS .41** .53** .45** .35** .17 1.00

TE .52** .51** .41** .38** .21* .68** 1.00

HBI .28** .13 -.05 .36** .26** .20* .29** 1.00

SBI .48** .31** .28** .36** .31** .30** .46** .25** 1.00

SEI .27** .15 -.02 .25** .32** .10 .17 .39** .33** 1.00

RAB Role Activity Beliefs, EF Efficacy, GSI Perceptions of General School Invitations, SCI Perceptions of Specific Child Invitations, STI

Perceptions of Specific Teacher Invitations, PKS Perceptions of Personal Knowledge and Skills, TE Perceptions of Time and Energy, HBI Home-

Based Involvement, SBI School-Based Involvement, SEI Special Education Involvement

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01

J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:523–535 529

123

We used the mean of available items technique instead

of the item-mean method to avoid overmanipulating the

data. This technique substitutes the mean of a participant’s

completed items for items that were not completed on a

specific scale. By using this method, different substitutions

are made for each person with missing items; thus,

retaining the scale’s natural variability (Bono et al. 2007).

Instead of totaling the item responses on each of the

respective scales, means of the completed items were

computed (provided more than half of the item responses

were completed). This allowed for all of the data to remain

in the dataset, regardless of the amount of missing data.

Due to this, sample sizes used in the analyses differed (see

Table 2).

Hierarchical Regression Analysis

A series of three hierarchical multiple regressions were

conducted to assess the extent to which the IVs (i.e., per-

ceived role construction, perceived efficacy, perceptions of

general school invitations, perceptions of specific teacher

invitations, perceptions of specific child invitations, per-

ceived knowledge and skills, perceived time and energy)

predicted the dependent variables (DVs; i.e., home-based,

school-based, and special education involvement). No

issues with multicolinearity were detected. Relevant

information is summarized in Tables 4, 5, and 6,

respectively.

The IVs were entered into the blocks in accordance with

previous studies (e.g., Green et al. 2007; Hoover-Dempsey

and Sandler 2005) followed the order delineated in Hoo-

ver-Dempsey and Sandler’s (2005) Model. The imputed

blocks were as follows: (a) Block 1, control variables

(family composition, race/ethnicity, SES); (b) Block 2,

motivational beliefs related to involvement (role activity

beliefs and efficacy); (c) Block 3, perceptions of invitations

to involvement (general invitations from the school, spe-

cific teacher invitations, specific child invitations); and

(d) Block 4, perceived life context variables (skills and

knowledge, time and energy). SES variables (i.e., parent’s

educational attainment and whether the child is eligible for

free or reduced lunch) were entered separately, consistent

with some researchers’ (e.g., Duncan and Magnuson 2003)

indications that aggregating SES measures ignores the

complexity that may characterize the components of family

SES.

Home-Based Involvement

The first model, which accounted for demographic vari-

ables, was not significant. The second model added parent

motivational beliefs and explained 6 % of the variance:

F (2, 120) = 2.4, p \ .05, Adjusted R2 = .06. Role activity beliefs, specifically, contributed in the positive

direction (p \ .01). The third model added perceptions of invitations to involvement and accounted for 17 % of the

variance: F (3, 117) = 3.87, p \ .001, Adjusted R2 = .17. The inclusion of these variables slightly decreased the

significance of role activity beliefs (p \ .05). Specific child invitations contributed significantly in the positive direc-

tion (p \ .01) and general school invitations contributed

Table 4 Summary of home-based involvement hierarchical regression analyses

Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

B SE B b B SE B b B SE B b B SE B b

Race/Ethnicity .03 .05 -.05 .03 .05 -.05 .04 .05 -.06 .05 .05 -.08

Family Composition .02 .03 .06 .02 .02 .06 .00 .02 .01 .01 .02 .04

Parent Education Level .05 .04 .13 .05 .04 .13 .05 .04 .13 .05 .04 .12

Free or Reduced Lunch .15 .11 -.14 .17 .10 -.16 .17 .10 -.16 .13 .10 -.13

Role Activity Beliefs .27 .09 .29** .24 .10 .25* .18 .10 .19

Efficacy .01 .10 -.01 .00 .09 .00 .07 .10 -.07

General School Invitations .13 .05 -.22* .14 .06 -.24**

Specific Child Invitations .11 .04 .25** .09 .04 .21*

Specific Teacher Invitations .05 .03 .15 .05 .03 .14

Personal Knowledge and Skills .01 .11 -.02

Time and Energy .13 .07 .23

Adjusted R Square .00 .06** .17** .18**

R Square Change .03 .08** .12** .23**

SE, standard error; b, beta

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01

530 J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:523–535

123

significantly in the negative direction (p \ .05). Model 4 accounted for all of the independent variables and

accounted for 18 % of the variance: F (2, 115) = 3.53,

p \ .001, Adjusted R2 = .18. The inclusion of parents’ perceptions of their life context variables appeared to

suppress the effect of role activity beliefs and lowered the

influence of perceived child invitations (p \ .05). Con- versely, it contributed to the significance of general school

invitations (p \ .01).

School-Based Involvement

The first model contributed significantly to parents’ school-

based involvement and accounted for 6 % of the variance:

F (4, 123) = 3.12, p \ .05, Adjusted R2 = .06. Specifi- cally, parents’ level of educational attainment contributed

in the positive direction (p \ .05). The second model added an additional 24 % to the variance: F (2,

121) = 9.12, p \ .001, Adjusted R2 = .30. Parents’ level

Table 6 Summary of Special Education Involvement hierarchical regression analyses

Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

B SE B b B SE B b B SE B b B SE B b

Race/Ethnicity .11 .06 .17 .11 .06 .17 .11 .06 .17 .09 .06 .15

Family Composition .03 .03 .09 .03 .03 .10 .03 .03 .09 .03 .03 .09

Parent Education Level .01 .05 .02 .00 .04 .01 .01 .04 .02 .00 .04 .00

Free or Reduced Lunch .10 .12 .08 .08 .12 .06 .08 .12 .07 .07 .12 .06

Role Activity Beliefs .26 .11 .24* .18 .12 .16 .16 .12 .14

Efficacy .08 .11 .07 .09 .11 .08 .10 .12 .09

General School Invitations .03 .06 .04 .01 .07 -.02

Specific Child Invitations .05 .05 .10 .05 .05 .10

Specific Teacher Invitations .12 .04 .26** .12 .04 .26**

Personal Knowledge and Skills .12 .13 -.13

Time and Energy .08 .09 .12

Adjusted R Square .01 .07** .14** .13

R Square Change .04 .07** .09** .01

SE, standard error; b beta

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01

Table 5 Summary of School-Based Involvement hierarchical regression analyses

Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

B SE B b B SE B b B SE B b B SE B b

Race/Ethnicity .03 .05 .05 .02 .04 .04 .03 .04 .06 .02 .04 .03

Family Composition .03 .02 .09 .02 .02 .09 .02 .02 -.07 .02 .02 -.06

Parent Education Level .08 .04 .20* .08 .03 .21** .08 .03 .20* .09 .03 .22**

Free or Reduced Lunch .12 .10 .11 .09 .09 .08 .12 .09 .12 .12 .09 .12

Role Activity Beliefs .41 .08 .43** .28 .09 .29** .22 .09 .23**

Efficacy .11 .08 .11 .09 .08 .09 .08 .09 .08

General School Invitations .05 .05 .09 .06 .05 .11

Specific Child Invitations .09 .03 .22** .09 .03 .20**

Specific Teacher Invitations .05 .03 .13 .05 .03 .13

Personal Knowledge and Skills .16 .09 -.20

Time and Energy .16 .06 .27*

Adjusted R Square .06* .30** .36** .38*

R Square Change .09* .24** .08** .03*

SE, standard error; b, beta

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01

J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:523–535 531

123

of educational attainment became more significant

(p \ .01); role activity beliefs was also significant at this level. The addition of specific invitations in the third model

accounted for an additional 6 % in the variance: F (3,

118) = 8.94, p \ .001, Adjusted R2 = .36. Parents’ level of educational attainment was slightly less significant

(p \ .05), while role activity beliefs and specific child invitations were significant at the .01 level. Model 4

accounted for 38 % of the total variance: F (2,

116) = 8.15, p \ .001, Adjusted R2 = .38. Parents’ level of educational attainment, role activity beliefs, and specific

child invitations were significant at the .01 level and per-

ceived time and energy was significant at the .05 level.

Special Education Involvement

The first model, which accounted for the demographic

variables, was not significant. Model 2, however, was

significant and explained 7 % of the variance F (2,

115) = 2.4, p \ .05, Adjusted R2 = .07; parent role activity beliefs demonstrated significance at the .05 level.

The addition of perceptions of invitations to (i.e., model 3)

contributed an additional 7 % to the variance: F (3,

112) = 3.09, p \ .01, Adjusted R2 = .14. The inclusion of these variables appeared to suppress the effect of role

activity beliefs, as it became insignificant. Perceptions of

specific teacher invitations demonstrated significance at the

.01 level. The addition of perceptions of life context did not

add significantly to the model.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether various

involvement choices of parents of elementary school stu-

dents in special education were predicted by the motivational

variables in Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s (2005) Model

of Parent Involvement, when controlling for potentially

influential demographic variables. Parents indicated being

less involved at home when they perceived the school to be

more welcoming, communicative, and informative.

Although counterintuitive, this finding suggests that parents

who feel as though the school is not reaching out may

become even more motivated to participate at home to sup-

plement their child’s education. Another hypothesis is that

general school invitations may be targeted to the general

school population, and parents of students in special edu-

cation may not perceive them as applicable. On the other

hand, it may be that parents who find their school to be

exceptionally welcoming and communicate may feel as

though the school is taking good care of their child, thus they

may not feel as inclined to participate in educational activ-

ities at home. Although the research on general school

invitations has been mixed, this inverse relationship is par-

ticularly unique; it is possible that this is due to the distinct

needs of parents of students in special education. In general,

the finding highlights the importance of direct, targeted

communication with this group of parents. Pupil personnel

services, special educators, and/or general education teach-

ers may coordinate this type of correspondence depending on

the unique needs of the child.

Parents in the current study reported being more

involved in both home and school-based activities when

children specifically requested their involvement. Specific

child invitations are posited to influence parent involve-

ment decisions by encouraging the parent to become

involved and by shaping the parents’ choice of involve-

ment forms (Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler 1995). As such,

it may be beneficial to encourage students to ask for help

with homework and to request time to talk about the school

day with their parent(s)/guardian(s). A child’s ability to do

this will vary depending on their level of disability as well

as their age; teachers and staff may need to provide chil-

dren with direct instruction and practice before the child

can extend these invitations. Some suggestions are for

teachers to review and role-play various ways children can

talk to their parents about school and homework. To

encourage students to talk to their parent(s)/guardian(s),

teachers may assign the requests as part of their homework.

Parents’ beliefs about their level of responsibility in

supporting their child’s education predicted school-based

involvement only. Feelings of responsibility typically

develop from parent’s own experiences, information pro-

vided by the school, the media, and informal parent net-

works (Russell 2003). As such, parents’ comprehension of

their school-based responsibilities may be more clearly

defined by their school’s expectations for involvement.

Parents, particularly those who have not had experience

parenting a child with special needs, do not have these

same guidelines or comparisons for their home-based

involvement. Consequently, teachers may need to convey a

sense of parent responsibility when requesting various

types of parental involvement. This may include, for

example, an explicit and direct statement of the expected

parent roles and duties related to communication, home-

work, and awareness of activities. Since students in special

education often work with a variety of individuals within

the school including but not limited to school psychologists

and special education teachers, it may be beneficial for all

school personnel to send this same message to parents to

reinforce their responsibility to their child’s education.

The parents in this study reported higher levels of

school-based involvement when their perceptions of time

and energy were greater. It has been suggested that parents

with relatively strong perceptions of their role and a strong

sense of self-efficacy for helping their child will select

532 J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:523–535

123

forms of involvement that fit within the demands on their

time and energy (Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler 1995).

Parents of students in special education may choose to

devote their time and energy to school-based participation

to advocate for their child’s needs, to obtain information

about their child’s performance, and to ensure the school’s

support of their child. It is also plausible that parents of

students with disabilities may engage in home-based

activities, regardless of their perceived time and energy.

School-based activities require parents to take time off of

work or necessitate parents coming to the school after work

hours. To support these parents in their school-based par-

ticipation, it may be helpful for teachers and school psy-

chologists to learn about parents’ perceptions of their time

and energy and to help brainstorm ways for the parents to

be involved in a way that will work for them. This may

include, for example, the preparation and coordination of

materials for field trips or activities as well as communi-

cation and coordination with other parents via the phone or

Internet.

Parents’ reported level of education—an indication of

SES level—also predicted school-based involvement. This

finding is consistent with previous research (i.e., Davies

1993; Ritblatt et al. 2002), and suggests that parents from

higher SES are more likely to participate at school

regardless of the other motivational variables. The rela-

tionship between SES and parent involvement may have

been limited, in part, to school-based activities because of

conflicting teacher-parent perceptions. Educators and

school personnel have sometimes reported that parents

from low SES groups are hard-to- reach (Davies 1993).

Research also suggests that some teachers believe that

parents from low SES backgrounds do not value education

(Davies 1993). This conflict may create a potential barrier

to successful school-based involvement. This highlights the

importance of directly supporting and encouraging parents

of students in special education who come from lower SES

backgrounds. School psychologists may play a unique role

by providing psychoeducation to educators regarding the

obstacles these parents face as well as information about

how to successfully communicate with them.

The only significant predictor for special education

involvement was specific teacher invitations. The research

regarding the extent to which specific teacher invitations

predict specific forms of involvement is somewhat mixed.

Most of the research suggests that supportive teacher prac-

tices are one of the strongest predictors of involvement

(Anderson and Minke 2007; Smith et al. 1997). The finding

in the current study suggests that specific and direct com-

munication from a child’s teacher is important and influential

when encouraging parents to participate in meetings, con-

tribute to educational planning, and to reciprocate commu-

nication efforts. It might be beneficial for school districts to

provide teachers with pre-service training to teach skills in

engaging parents, especially given that 48 % of teachers

have reported a ‘‘lack of staff training in working with par-

ents’’ (National Center for Education Statistics 1998).

Limitations and Future Research

The current study has some limitations regarding the

population studied and the methodology. One notable

limitation is the generalizability of the findings to other

groups of parents. The participants in this study were

recruited from two similar suburban school districts in

upstate New York, and the demographic data reflected a

fairly homogenous population. Parents’ educational values

and expectations have been shown to have the strongest

relationship to student achievement when compared to

other parent involvement dimensions (Fan and Chen 2001;

Jeynes 2005). Because of their educational status, the

parents in the current study may have been sending their

children specific messages regarding the importance of

education. Future research may increase the ability to

generalize to other groups by surveying different demo-

graphic populations (e.g., rural or urban) or school districts

with more diversity. Future researchers might also consider

extending the recruitment criteria to allow for an empirical

test of differences between other unique participant sub-

groups. Some suggestions for group comparisons include:

(a) parents of students with disabilities in elementary

grades vs. parents of students with disabilities in secondary

grades, (b) parents of students with high incidence dis-

abilities versus parents of students with low incidence

disabilities, and (c) mothers of students with disabilities

versus fathers of students with disabilities. This informa-

tion would provide practitioners with knowledge regarding

how to effectively support parents with various needs.

As for the Parent Involvement Survey, parents’ com-

ments suggested frustration regarding the restrictiveness of

the Likert options for some of the items, particularly on the

Parent Involvement Activities scale. This was most trou-

blesome for events that occurred one time per year or as

needed. It may be helpful to add another quantitative

choice (e.g., one time per month or year) to more accu-

rately reflect these involvement practices. Another limita-

tion of the Parent Involvement Survey was the self-report

format, as there was no validation of the parents’ level of

participation. Researchers would likely benefit from sur-

veying other individuals (i.e., teacher, child) regarding the

parent’s level of participation. It might also be beneficial to

supplement the Parent Involvement Survey with measures

of academic achievement to test whether or not parent

involvement indeed leads to higher educational outcomes

for students with disabilities as the Hoover-Dempsey and

Sandler (2005) Model of Parent Involvement predicts.

J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:523–535 533

123

Lastly, it is noteworthy that the category of special

education is quite diverse and includes individuals with

both low and high-incidence disabilities. The current study

assessed the participation of parents of students with any

IDEIA classification and did not parse out individual dis-

abilities or look at low versus high-incidence disabilities.

This was, in part, due to the limited range of disability

categories represented by the identified sample. Neverthe-

less, future studies may benefit from breaking down this

category even further (e.g., by disability or groupings of

disabilities). Researchers might also assess the differences

between the participation practices of different groups of

parents (e.g., parents of students with low vs. high-inci-

dence disabilities).

Conclusion

The Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (2005) Model of Parent

Involvement considers a dynamic process between a par-

ent’s motivations for involvement and student achieve-

ment. Although it does not include all of the possible

motivational variables that may contribute to a parent’s

involvement practices, it provides a framework for under-

standing the active relationship between parents’ motiva-

tion and their actual participation. The current study adds

to the growing literature base for this model and provides

information regarding a unique group of parents. Taken as

a whole, the findings suggest that parents of students in

special education are influenced by multiple, complex

factors when making decisions about their involvement

practices. As such, these parents may require more than

general invitations for involvement and a welcoming

school environment. School-based practitioners may help

to increase parent involvement for this group by sending

specific, direct invitations for involvement and by

encouraging children to do the same.

References

Anderson, K. J., & Minke, K. M. (2007). Parent involvement in

education: Toward and understanding of parents’ decision

making. The Journal of Educational Research, 100, 311–323.

doi:10.3200/JOER.100.5.311-323.

Arnold, D. H., Zeljo, A., Doctoroff, G. L., & Ortiz, C. (2008). Parent

involvement in preschool: Predictors of involvement to prelit-

eracy development. School Psychology Review, 37(1), 74–90.

Baker, J., Denessen, E., & Brus-Laven, M. (2007). Socio-economic

background, parental involvement and teacher perceptions of

these in relation to pupil achievement. Educational Studies, 33,

177–192. doi:10.1080/03055690601068345.

Balli, S. J., Demo, D. H., & Wedman, J. F. (1998). Family

involvement with children’s homework: An intervention in the

middle grades. Family Relations, 47, 149–157. doi:10.2307/

585619.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A

cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York:

W. H. Freeman.

Bono, C., Ried, D. L., Kimberlin, C., & Vogel, B. (2007). Missing

data on the center for epidemiologic studies depression scale: A

comparison of 4 imputation techniques. Research in Social and

Administrative Pharmacy, 3(1), 1–27.

Christenson, S. L. (1995a). Best practices in supporting home-school

collaboration. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices

in school psychology III (pp. 253–267). Washington, DC:

National Association of School Psychologists.

Christenson, S. L. (1995b). Families and schools: What is the role of

the school psychologist? School Psychology Quarterly, 10,

118–132. doi:10.1037/h0088315.

Coots, J. J. (1998). Family resources and parent participation in

schooling activities for their children with developmental delays.

The Journal of Special Education, 31, 498–520. doi:10.1177/

002246699803100406.

Davies, D. (1993). Benefits and barriers to parent involvement: From

Portugal to Boston to Liverpool. In N. F. Chavkin (Ed.),

Families and schools in a pluralistic society (pp. 205–216).

Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Deslandes, R., & Bertrand, R. (2005). Motivation of parent involve-

ment in secondary-level schooling. The Journal of Educational

Research, 98, 164–175. doi:10.3200/JOER.98.3.164-175.

Deslandes, R., & Cloutier, R. (2002). Adolescents’ perception of

parental involvement in schooling. School Psychology Interna-

tional, 23, 220–232. doi:10.1177/0143034302023002919.

Duncan, G. J., & Magnuson, K. A. (2003). Off with Hollingshead:

Socioeconomic resources, parenting, and child development. In

M. H. Bornstein & R. H. Bradley (Eds.), Socioeconomic status,

parenting, and child development (pp. 83–106). Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Dwyer, D. J., & Hecht, J. B. (1992). Minimal parent involvement. The

School-Community Journal, 2, 53–66.

Dyson, L. L. (1997). Fathers and mothers of school-age children with

developmental disabilities: Parental stress, family functioning,

and social support. American Journal on Mental Retardation,

102, 267–269. doi:10.1352/0895-8017(1997)102\0267: FAMOSC[2.0.CO;2.

Fan, X., & Chen, M. (1999). Parental involvement and students’

academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Arlington, VA:

National Science Foundation.

Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’

academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychol-

ogy Review, 13, 1–22. doi:10.1023/A:1009048817385.

Garcia, D. C. (2004). Exploring connections between the construct of

teacher efficacy and family involvement practices: Implications

for urban teacher preparation. Urban Education, 39, 290–315.

doi:10.1177/00420854904263205.

Green, C. L., Walker, J. M. T., Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler,

H. (2007). Parents’ motivations for involvement in children’s

education: An empirical test of a theoretical model of parental

involvement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 532–544.

doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.532.

Griffith, J. (1998). The relation of school structure and social

environment to parent involvement in elementary schools. The

Elementary School Journal, 99, 53–80. doi:0013-5984/99/9901-

0003.

Grolnick, W. S., Benjet, C., Kurowski, C. O., & Apostoleris, N. H.

(1997). Predictors of parent involvement in children’s schooling.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 538–548. doi:10.1037/

0022-0663.99.3.532.

Grolnick, W. S., & Slowiaczek, M. L. (1994). Parents’ involvement in

children’s schooling: A multidimensional conceptualization and

534 J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:523–535

123

motivational model. Child Development, 64, 237–252. doi:10.

2307/1131378.

Haynes, N. M., Comer, J. P., & Hamilton-Lee, M. (1989). School

climate enhancement through parent involvement. Journal of

School Psychology, 27, 87–90. doi:0022-4405/89.

Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence:

The impact of school, family, and community connections on

student achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Devel-

opment Laboratory.

Heppner, P. P., & Heppner, M. J. (2004). Writing and publishing your

thesis, dissertation, and research. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole

Thompson.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1995). Parent involve-

ment in children’s education: Why does it make a difference?

Teachers College Record, 97, 310–331.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do parents

become involved in their children’s education? Review of

Educational Research, 67, 3–42.

Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., & Sandler, H.M. (2005). Final performance

report for OERI: The social context of parental involvement: A

path to enhanced achievement. Presented to Project Monitor,

Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education,

March 22, 2005.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M. T., & Sandler, H. M. (2005).

Parents’ motivations for involvement in their children’s educa-

tion. In E. N. Patrikakou, R. P. Weisberg, S. Redding, & H.

J. Walberg (Eds.), School–family partnerships for children’s

success (pp. 40–56). New York: Teachers College Press.

Izzo, C. V., Weissberg, R. P., Kasprow, W. J., & Fendrich, M. (1999).

A longitudinal assessment of teacher perceptions of parent

involvement in children’s education and school performance.

American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 817–839.

doi:0091-0562/99/1200-0817.

Jeynes, W. H. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental

involvement to urban elementary school student academic

achievement. Urban Education, 40, 237–269. doi:10.1177/

0042085905274540.

Keith, T. Z., Keith, P. B., Troutman, G. C., Bickley, P. G., Trivette, P.

S., & Singh, K. (1993). Does parental involvement affect eighth-

grade student achievement? Structural analysis of national data.

School Psychology Review, 22, 474–496.

Kohl, G. O., Leguna, J. L., & McMahon, R. J. (2000). Parent

involvement in school conceptualizing multiple dimensions and

their relations with family and demographic risk factors. Society

for the Study of School Psychology, 38, 501–523.

Lavenda, O. (2011). Parental involvement in school: A test of

Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s model among Jewish and Arab

parents in Israel. Children and Youth Services, 33, 927–935.

Mannan, G., & Blackwell, J. (1992). Parent involvement: Barriers and

opportunities. The Urban Review, 24, 219–226. doi:10.1007/

BF01108494.

Marcoon, R. A. (1999). Positive relationships between parent school

involvement and public school inner-city preschoolers’ devel-

opment and academic performance. School Psychology Review,

28, 395–412.

McWilliam, R. A., Maxwell, K. L., & Sloper, K. M. (1999). Beyond

‘‘involvement’’: Are elementary schools ready to be family

centered? The School Psychology Review, 28, 378–394.

Morris, V. G., & Taylor, S. I. (1998). Alleviating barriers to family

involvement in education: The role of teacher education.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 219–231. doi:0742-

051X/98.

National Center for Education Statistics. (1998). Parent involvement

in children’s education: Efforts by public elementary schools,

NCES 98-032. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.

gov/pubs98/98032.pdf.

New York State Education Department. (2010). New York State

report cards. Retrieved from https://reportcards.nysed.gov/coun

ties.php?year=2010.

Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data

analysis using SPSS (4th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Patrikakou, E. N., & Weisserg, R. P. (2009). Parents’ perceptions of

teacher outreach and parent involvement in children’s education.

Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the Community, 20,

103–119. doi:10.1300/J005v20n01_08.

Ritblatt, S. N., Bearry, J. R., Cronan, T. A., & Ochoa, A. M. (2002).

Relationships among perceptions of parent involvement, time

allocation, and demographic characteristics: Implication for

policy formation. Journal of Community Psychology, 30,

519–549.

Rogers, M. A., Wiener, J., Marton, I., & Tannock, R. (2009). Parental

involvement in children’s learning: Comparing parents of

children with and without Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Dis-

order (ADHD). Journal of School Psychology, 47, 167–185.

doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2009.02.001.

Russell, F. (2003). Expectations of parents of disabled children.

British Journal of Special Education, 30, 144–149.

Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2002). Improving student behavior and

school discipline with family and community involvement. Educa-

tion and Urban Society, 35, 4–26. doi:10.1177/001312402237212.

Shurnow, L., & Miller, J. (1999). Parents’ at-home and at-school

academic involvement with young adolescents. The Journal of

Early Adolescence, 21, 68–91.

Smith, E. P., Connell, C. M., Wright, G., Sizer, M., Norman, J. M.,

Hurley, A., et al. (1997). An ecological model of home, school,

and community partnerships: Implications for research and

practice. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consulta-

tion, 8, 339–360. doi:10.1207/s1532768xjepc0804_2.

Swap, S. (1990). Schools reaching out and success for all children:

Two case studies. Boston: Institute for Responsive Education.

Trivette, P., & Anderson, E. (1995). The effects of four components

of parent involvement on eighth-grade student achievement:

Structural analysis of NELS:88 data. School Psychology Review,

24, 299–317. doi:02796015.

U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Twenty-eighth annual report

to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/

about/reports/annual/osep/2006/parts-b-c/28th-vol-2.pdf.

Van Haren, B., & Fiedler, C. R. (2008). Support and empower

families of children with disabilities. Intervention in School and

Clinic, 43, 231–235. doi:10.1177/1053451208314908.

Waanders, C., Mendez, J. L., & Downer, J. T. (2007). Parent

characteristics, economic stress, and neighborhood context as

predictors of parent involvement in preschool children’s educa-

tion. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 619–636. doi:10.1016/j.

jsp.2007.07.003.

Walker, J. M., Wilkins, A. S., Dallaire, J., Sandler, H. M., & Hoover-

Dempsey, K. V. (2005). Parental involvement: Model revision

through scale development. Elementary School Journal, 106,

85–104. doi:10.1086/499193.

Wang, M., Mannan, H., Psoton, D., Turnbull, A. P., & Summers, J. A.

(2004). Parents’ perceptions of advocacy activities and their

impact on family quality of life. Research & Practice for

Persons with Severe Disabilities, 29, 144–155.

Wong, S. W., & Hughes, J. N. (2006). Ethnicity and language

contributions to dimensions of parent involvement. School

Psychology Review, 35, 645–666.

J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:523–535 535

123

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.