Mccormick 2013

PARENT INVOLVEMENT, EMOTIONAL
SUPPORT, AND BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS
An Ecological Approach

We examined relations between parent involvement and Meghan P. McCormick
kindergarten students’ behavior problems in classrooms Elise Cappella
with varying levels of teacher emotional support. Multi- Erin E. O’Connor
informant data were collected on n ⫽ 255 low-income Sandee G. McClowry
Black and Hispanic students, and n ⫽ 60 kindergarten   
classrooms in the baseline year of an intervention trial.
Hierarchical linear models revealed a moderated nega-
tive effect between parents’ home-school communica-
tion and teacher emotional support on student behavior
problems in kindergarten, as well as negative associa-
tions between school-based involvement and behavior
problems. For children in classrooms with less teacher
emotional support, greater communication between
home and school was related to higher levels of behavior
problems. Among children in classrooms with more
teacher emotional support, this negative relationship
was attenuated. Results illuminate the need to consider
parent involvement within the context of classroom
practices.
P
O L I C Y M A K E R S and practitioners agree that parent involvement in ele-
mentary education, defined broadly as parents’ activities and behaviors re-
lated to children’s schooling, enhances the academic, socioemotional, and
behavioral outcomes of low-income students who are at risk for poor
achievement (Sheldon & Epstein, 2005). With the passing of the No Child Left Be-
hind Act, the federal government has mandated that elementary and secondary
     ,  

© 2013 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0013-5984/2013/11402-0006 $10.00
This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on July 25, 2016 19:29:38 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 䡠      
schools promote parental involvement in education (NCLB, 2002). Although en-

couraging parent involvement is politically neutral and rhetorically popular, much
of the research informing policy formation is occurring in the absence of clarity
around the dimensions of parent involvement that predict child outcomes, and the
role of classrooms in that predictive relation, especially among schools serving high-
need families (Duch, 2005; Sheldon & Epstein, 2005).
Ecological perspectives maintain that the interaction between home and school is
critical for supporting positive child outcomes (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998;
Nzinga-Johnson, Baker, & Aupperlee, 2009). The ecological framework posits that
there is an independent influence of each setting on the child, and an interactive
influence of the home and school settings that operates in a unique way to further
affect the child’s development (El Nokali, Bachman, & Votruba-Drzal, 2010). How-
ever, parent involvement is rarely examined in the context of teacher practices with
students in their classrooms. This is a notable oversight, given that it is likely that
teachers play a significant role in determining the frequency and quality of parent
involvement in elementary education (e.g., Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997;
Hoover-Dempsey, Walker, & Sandler, 2005). Similarly, although a body of research
on classroom climate finds that emotionally supportive teacher practices are associ-
ated with a range of positive socioemotional outcomes for children (Carson & Tem-
plin, 2007; Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Jennings & Greenberg, 2009), little research has
examined the interactive influence of teachers’ emotional support and parent in-
volvement on children’s in-school behavior problems. In the current study, we aim
to address these limitations in the extant literature by examining the interactive effect
of distinct dimensions of parent involvement and teachers’ classroom emotional
support in explaining urban students’ behaviors in kindergarten.
Parent Involvement and Behavior Problems

Past research on parent involvement has identified a generally positive association
between parents’ engagement in their children’s education and students’ outcomes
(Fan & Chen, 2001; Hill & Tyson, 2009). Similarly, school intervention studies show
that efforts to improve student outcomes can be more effective when the family is
involved (Brown, Benkovitz, Muttillo, & Urban, 2011). Previous work, however, has
largely focused on academic achievement outcomes rather than student behaviors
(Fantuzzo, McWayne, & Perry, 2004; Gonzalez-DeHass, Willems, & Holbein, 2005).
Yet, a recent longitudinal examination of parent involvement across a nationally
representative sample of first, third, and fifth graders found that while involvement
did not predict increases in academic achievement, it did predict declines in problem
behaviors (El Nokali et al., 2010).
A key limitation of this literature has been the operationalization of parent in-
volvement as a count of contacts between parents and school personnel within a
given time frame (Epstein, 2001; Hill & Tyson, 2009). More recent scholarship has
begun to identify conceptually and empirically distinct dimensions of parent in-
volvement in elementary school, including home-based learning activities (e.g.,
helping with homework, maintaining study routines), school-based involvement
(e.g., volunteering at school events, fundraising), and home-school communication
(e.g., attending parent-teacher conferences, writing notes to teacher) (Manz, Fan-
tuzzo, & Power, 2004; McWayne, Hampton, Fantuzzo, Cohen, & Sekino, 2004;

 ,  ,  䡠 
Webster-Stratton, Reid, & Stoolmiller, 2008). Studies that examine distinct dimen-
sions of parent involvement frequently demonstrate positive relations with chil-
dren’s behaviors (e.g., El Nokali et al., 2010; Kohl, Lengua, McMahon, & the CPPRG,
2000). For example, using time-lagged growth models, Domina (2005) found that
parent involvement activities like homework help and school volunteering predicted
lower levels of future behavior problems for elementary school children, relative to
parents who did not engage in these activities. In addition, McWayne and colleagues
(2004) identified multiple dimensions of involvement (school based, home based,
and home school) related to young children’s positive socioemotional outcomes in a
cross-sectional study of urban, ethnic minority children.
As reviewed by McNeal (2012), one dimension of parent involvement— direct
interactions between teachers and parents— has been related to poor behavioral
outcomes. Such evidence has given rise to the reactivity hypothesis (e.g., Catsambis,
1998; Epstein, 1988), or the theory that frequency of parent involvement increases
when students act out in school. For example, controlling for initial behavior prob-
lems, Izzo, Weissberg, Kasprow, and Fendrich (1999) found that direct communica-
tion between teachers and parents in first grade predicted increases in student be-
havior problems in third grade. The authors noted that parents may have waited
until serious problems occurred at school before becoming involved.
Other studies suggest variation in the effects of parent involvement by racial-
ethnic background and socioeconomic (SES) status (Crosnoe et al., 2010; McNeal,
2012). For example, McNeal (1999) argued that the cultural capital possessed by
affluent European-American families may magnify the positive effects of parents’
involvement on changes in academic and behavioral outcomes from eighth through
twelfth grade. Moreover, Lareau (1989) contends that the parents of high-SES
underachieving children are the most involved in their children’s schooling. Given
this mixed research, additional work is needed to understand relations between dif-
ferent types of parent involvement and children’s behaviors as they operate within
samples of urban students and schools (El Nokali et al., 2010; Fan & Chen, 2001;
McWayne et al., 2004).
Although parent involvement has been studied at various stages (e.g., Crosnoe,
2009; Hill & Tyson, 2009; Kuperminc, Darnell, & Alvarez-Jimenez, 2008), it is critical
to examine the construct at the start of formal schooling because early experiences
may influence future involvement activities (Izzo et al., 1999). A great deal of empha-
sis in kindergarten is placed on helping children regulate their behavior in order to
benefit from academic instruction and succeed in social interactions (Blair, 2002;
Ponitz, McClelland, Matthews, & Morrison, 2009). Despite the importance of parent
involvement at the beginning of formal schooling, few studies have examined par-
ents’ engagement on student behaviors in kindergarten.
This lack of research is notable, given that children’s classroom behavior in kin-
dergarten is closely related to their overall adjustment to school (Ladd & Burgess,
2001) and is an important determinant of academic progress. School-related prob-
lem behaviors in kindergarten such as inattentiveness or oppositional behavior are
negatively associated with school readiness (Fantuzzo et al., 2007). In addition, eco-
logical theories suggest that children’s behavior in kindergarten classrooms may have
immediate consequences for the classroom environment and teachers’ instructional
efforts, thus influencing classroom peers in the process (Bronfenbrenner & Morris,
1998; El Nokali et al., 2010). Disruptive behavior problems (e.g., not paying attention,

 䡠       
hitting other children, teasing other children, yelling, crying, complaining) in early
childhood are of special concern to practitioners and researchers due to their asso-
ciation with later delinquency and school failure (Caspi, Moffitt, Newman, & Silva,
1996).
Parent Involvement and Classroom Emotional Support in Urban

Schools
A separate set of studies has found links between effective classroom practices—
specifically, teachers’ level of emotional support to students—and students’ positive
in-school behaviors and socioemotional adjustment (Carson & Templin, 2007;
Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Pianta, Belsky, Vandergrift, Houts, & Morrison, 2008). In one
widely used classroom observational measure (Classroom Assessment Scoring Sys-
tem: CLASS; Pianta, La Paro, & Hamre, 2008), classroom emotional support is op-
erationalized as an aggregate factor that involves teachers’ responsiveness to student
needs, regard for student perspectives, absence of negativity, and presence of safety
and enjoyment (Hamre et al., 2013; Hamre, Pianta, Mashburn, & Downer, 2007). The
CLASS measure is consistent with scholarship on the emotional, organizational, and
instructional components of schooling (e.g., Eccles & Roeser, 1999) and rooted in
theory and research on classroom processes (e.g., Brophy, 1999; Pressley et al., 2003).
Building on this framework, Hamre and colleagues (2007, 2013) argue for a multi-
level, latent structure in which teacher practices are organized into a wide range and
large number of teacher behaviors, which are then broken down into emotional,
organizational, and instructional components.
In the CLASS framework, the emotional support component includes overall
climate (presence of positive climate and lack of negative climate), teacher sensitiv-
ity, and regard for student perspectives. Teachers who are emotionally supportive
demonstrate positive emotion that is shared by students, are aware of and responsive
to student needs, and consider children’s views in teaching and learning opportuni-
ties (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009). Such emotional support may be particularly ben-
eficial for children at risk for in-school behavior problems (Hamre & Pianta, 2005).
For example, in a cross-sectional study, Pianta, La Paro, Payne, Cox, and Bradley
(2002) found that children in more emotionally supportive kindergarten classrooms
exhibited fewer externalizing behavior problems and were more on task and academ-
ically engaged than students in less supportive classrooms.
Given ecological theories and empirical work demonstrating that families and
schools together are the critical influences in the lives of young children (Nzinga-
Johnson, Baker, & Aupperlee, 2009; Thelen & Smith, 2006), it is surprising that
research has yet to examine the interactive effect of parent involvement and teacher
emotional support on children’s behaviors. Teachers who are emotionally support-
ive in the classroom can be expected to interact with and engage with parents in
qualitatively different ways than teachers who are less emotionally supportive. For
example, emotionally supportive teachers may be collaborative and respectful, cre-
ating a space where parents feel comfortable voicing their concerns. Such teacher-
directed actions may help parents better understand their children’s school chal-
lenges and monitor their problematic behaviors (Lasky, 2000). In contrast, less
emotionally supportive teachers may be more directive and dominant in their inter-

 ,  ,  䡠 
actions with parents (Walker & MacLure, 2005), possibly leading to less positive and
productive communication about the child’s problems and progress.
Examining the interactive effect of classroom emotional support and parent in-
volvement on children’s behaviors may be particularly important in low-income
urban communities where parents typically experience less than optimal collabora-
tion with schools. In an interview study of urban parents and teachers, McDermott
and Rothenberg (2000) noted that teachers reported frustration with a lack of pa-
rental involvement in literacy and math activities. In turn, parents expressed distrust
toward schools because of perceived faculty bias against Black and Hispanic families.
Given these findings, it may be particularly important to examine teacher emotional
support when considering the role of parent involvement on children’s behaviors in
urban schools. For example, it is possible that parent involvement—particularly
home-school communication—may be positively related to children’s problem-
atic behaviors if such involvement is in reaction to problematic behaviors at
school (McNeal, 2012). However, in cases in which teachers are more emotionally
supportive, such an association may be less likely. Thus, examining dimensions
of parent involvement in the context of emotionally supportive teacher practices
may yield nuanced information about how the effects of parent involvement on
student behaviors are differentiated by classrooms and teachers.
Research Questions
The aim of the current study is to extend past research by characterizing the preva-
lence of parent involvement behaviors in an urban sample, and examining relations
between three dimensions of parent involvement, observed classroom emotional
support, and student behavior problems at the beginning of kindergarten. In this
study, we will answer the following research questions: (1) What is the frequency with
which a sample of low-income Black and Hispanic parents engages in three distinct
types of parent involvement in education: home-based learning, home-school com-
munication, and school-based involvement? (2) After controlling for a number of
family and student characteristics, do these three dimensions of parent involvement
relate to teacher reports of student behavior problems? and (3) Does teachers’ ob-
served classroom emotional support moderate relations between three dimensions
of parent involvement and student outcomes, controlling for student, family, and
classroom characteristics? In answering these questions, we aim to provide a more
nuanced understanding of the interactive roles of parent involvement and classroom
emotional climate on urban kindergarten students’ behaviors.
When answering these questions, it is important to control for factors that have
the potential to confound relations between parental involvement and child behav-
iors. As such, our analyses include variables for classroom (classroom organization,
instructional support), child (child math and reading skills, age, gender), and family
(parent work status, education, marital status) characteristics associated with school
behavior problems (Amato & Cheadle, 2008; Cote, Borge, Geoffroy, Rutter, & Trem-
blay, 2008; Pomerantz, Moorman, & Litwack, 2007; Webster-Stratton et al., 2008).
Including these predictors as control variables in analyses can help ensure that the
hypothesized direct and moderated relations between dimensions of parent involve-
ment, classroom emotional support, and behavior problems are not spurious.

 䡠       
Method
Participants and Setting
The participants are derived from baseline data from the efficacy trial of
INSIGHTS into Children’s Temperament (see O’Connor et al. [2011] for informa-
tion about the intervention). This analysis includes n ⫽ 255 children (48% girls)
recruited in late September to early November during kindergarten. Children are
nested in n ⫽ 60 kindergarten classrooms and n ⫽ 22 schools. Three consecutive cohorts
were recruited from 2008 to 2010. The majority of students enrolled in the study were
Black, non-Hispanic (72.03%), and a smaller percentage of students were Hispanic
(18.85%). Nearly all students (85.44%) were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.
Most parents completing research measures were biological mothers (80.72%), with
a nominal group of fathers (8.51%), grandmothers (3.44%), and foster or adoptive
mothers (2.1%).
Sixty teachers participated (97% female). Most teachers identified as Black, non-
Hispanic (55.4%), with smaller percentages identifying as Hispanic (12.3%) and
White (26.3%). According to public school records, the overall percentage of chil-
dren eligible for free or reduced-price lunch in the participating school districts
ranged from 82% to 96%. The districts serve approximately 60,000 kindergarten
children each year (New York City Department of Education, 2011).
Procedures
Participant recruitment. Schools serving predominantly low-income students
(⬎50% eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch) in three urban school districts
were targeted for participation (McClowry, O’Connor, Cappella, & McCormick,
2011). The principal investigator and project staff contacted principals over the sum-
mer months and informed them of the INSIGHTS intervention, the purpose of the
study, and data-collection procedures. Twenty-three principals agreed to participate
over three waves; one school dropped out of the study during baseline data collection
due to a change in school leadership. In September, the study was explained to the
kindergarten teachers. Ninety-six percent of kindergarten teachers (⬃2 to 4 teachers
per school) in the 22 schools provided informed consent. All children enrolled in
kindergarten at baseline in the participating schools were invited to take part in the
study. However, given resource limitations, recruitment at each school stopped once
the target number of students was recruited and those students were assessed to be
representative of the school as a whole. Chi-square tests indicated that there were no
significant differences between the children enrolled in the study and children in the
school as a whole in terms of percentage female, Black, Hispanic, and eligible for free
or reduced-price school lunch. As such, team members enrolled 4 –10 students per
classroom, or approximately 27% of the children attending kindergarten at the tar-
geted schools.
A racially and ethnically diverse team of field staff recruited parents from the
participating teachers’ classrooms during September and October. Parents were in-
formed of study goals and procedures in individual meetings at the school when
parents were present (e.g., conference days, before or after school). Written materials
were sent home with students, and interested parents contacted researchers for more
information. Children enrolled in the study were demographically similar to the

  ,  ,  䡠 
larger population of children at each school in terms of racial and ethnic background
and eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch.
Data collection. Parents completed measures at their child’s school via audio-
enhanced, computer-assisted self-interviewing software (Audio-CASI). This tech-
nology facilitates data collection for respondents with low literacy levels, limits so-
cially desirable responses, and standardizes data-collection procedures (Cooley et al.,
1996; Couper, Singer, & Tourangeau, 2003). Parents took approximately 30 minutes
to complete measures and received $20 for their time. Teachers completed paper
questionnaires for each consented student. The reports took teachers 1 to 2 hours to
complete (approximately 15 minutes per student). The teachers received $50 gift
cards upon completion to purchase classroom supplies.
Child assessments. Data collectors conducted individual child assessments with
all children participating in the study. An outside consultant trained data collectors
to administer the Applied Problems subtest of the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of
Achievement, Form B (WJ-III) (Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001) over a one-
day training session in the fall of each year of the study (2008 –2010). A graduate
research assistant conducted a field reliability test with all data collectors before they
were permitted to assess children and collect data.
Measures
Demographic characteristics. Parents reported on parental demographic char-
acteristics, including parent racial-ethnic background, education (in years), marital
status, full- and part-time work status, employment, and age (in years). Parents also
provided information on child characteristics, including child age (in years), racial-
ethnic background, and gender. Analyses presented in the current study will include
child gender, child age, parent education, parental work status (full- and part-time
work status), parent age, and parent marital status as covariates to control for hy-
pothesized associations between these variables and child behavior problems
(Amato & Cheadle, 2008; Cote et al., 2008; Dubow, Boxer, & Huesmann, 2009;
Green, Walker, Hoover-Dempsey, & Sandler, 2007; Pomerantz et al., 2007).
Parent involvement. Parent involvement in children’s education was assessed
with the Family Involvement Questionnaire for Elementary School (FIQ-E), an ad-
aptation of a questionnaire originally developed for early childhood (FIQ-EC)
(Manz et al., 2004). Consisting of 44 parent-reported items, the FIQ-E was developed
for lower-income urban families and validated with a large sample of Black families.
The measure asks parents to report on the frequency with which they engage in a
range of behaviors related to their child’s schooling on a 4-point frequency scale in
which 1 ⫽ never, 2 ⫽ rarely, 3 ⫽ sometimes, and 4 ⫽ all the time. All items are worded
positively, but do not ask about whether the school or parent initiated a given be-
havior.
The Home-School Communication subscale of the FIQ-E includes items pertain-
ing to contact between family members and school personnel, including attendance
at conferences, phone contact, and note writing (current study ␣ ⫽ 0.91). Sample
items include “I talk to the teacher about how my child gets along with his/her
classmates in school” and “I talk with my child’s teacher on the telephone.” The
Home-Based Involvement subscale includes family activities outside of school that
encourage learning, such as maintaining routines, securing places for study in the

 䡠      
home, visiting educational settings in the community, and talking to children about
personal school experiences (current study ␣ ⫽ 0.88). Sample items include “I read
with my child” and “I share stories with my child about when I was in school.” The
School-Based Involvement subscale comprises conventional activities in the school
setting, for example, volunteering, attending workshops, and participation in fund-
raising (current study ␣ ⫽ 0.81). Sample items include “I attend parent workshops or
training offered by my child’s school” and “I pick my child up from school in the
afternoon.”
Student behavior problems. Behavior problems were measured with the 36-item
Sutter-Eyberg Student Behavior Inventory (SESBI), the teacher version of the Eyberg
Child Behavior Inventory (Eyberg & Pincus, 1999). On a frequency scale ranging
from 1 to 7 (1 ⫽ never, 3 ⫽ seldom, 5 ⫽ sometimes, 7 ⫽ always), teachers reported on
the frequency with which each consented child engaged in a range of disruptive
behaviors, such as “acts defiant when told to do something,” “has temper tantrums,”
“verbally fights with other students,” and “is overactive and restless.” Teachers also
reported on whether each of the disruptive behaviors posed a problem for them
when teaching. Because we were interested in examining an overall score of disrup-
tive in-school behavior problems, we used the full 36-item scale as an outcome mea-
sure. Cronbach’s alpha in the current study was 0.97.
Classroom climate. Trained data collectors conducted classroom observations to
assess three dimensions of classroom climate using the observational tool, the Class-
room Assessment Scoring System (Pianta, La Paro, & Hamre, 2008). Classrooms
were observed by a single coder who was trained following standard procedures
(Pianta, La Paro, & Hamre, 2008): (a) two-day training with a certified trainer, (b)
scoring within one point of “gold-standard” codes (scored by CLASS developers) on
80% of CLASS dimensions across four videos, and (c) completion of a live observa-
tion with a master coder. For all observers, initial codings yielded overall interrater
reliabilities of .90. Interrater reliability for the classroom practices subscales was .92
for Emotional Support (.85–.96 for each dimension), .87 for Classroom Organization
(.82–.93 for each dimension), and .91 for Instructional Support (.88 –.92 for each
dimension). As recommended in the CLASS manual (Pianta, La Paro, & Hamre,
2008), researchers observed for 15 minutes and recorded scores in the final 10 min-
utes. This procedure was repeated four times across the morning for 100 minutes of
observations and coding.
The CLASS examines 10 dimensions associated with expected classroom charac-
teristics (Pianta, La Paro, & Hamre, 2008) and related to young children’s academic
and social development (Burchinal et al., 2008; Howes et al., 2008). Using a diverse
range of study samples, Hamre and colleagues (2007) reviewed the factor structure of
the CLASS across 4,035 classrooms in the preschool and elementary school grades.
Results of these analyses provided evidence that the CLASS three-factor latent struc-
ture provided a better fit to observational data than alternative one- and two-domain
models of classroom interactions. Moreover, results of the three-domain structure
were generalizable from preschool through fifth grade.
The current study focuses on emotional support, which comprises the following
dimensions of teacher practice: Positive Climate, Negative Climate (reverse coded),
Teacher Sensitivity, and Regard for Student Perspectives (see Table 1 for additional
information on the dimensions of emotional support). While a factor analysis of the
CLASS finds support for a three-factor structure, it is important to note that the

  ,  ,  䡠 
Table 1. Description of Dimensions of Classroom Emotional Support
Dimension Description
Positive climate Reflects the overall emotional tone of the classroom and the connection
between teachers and students.
Negative climate Reflects the overall level of expressed negativity in the classroom
between teachers and students (e.g., anger, aggression, irritability).
This dimension is reverse coded so that a high score indicates a low
level of negative climate.
Teacher sensitivity Encompasses teachers’ responsivity to students’ needs, and awareness
of students’ level of academic and emotional functioning.
Regard for student perspectives The degree to which the teacher’s interactions with students and
classroom activities place an emphasis on students’ interests,
motivations, and points of view, rather than being solely
teacher-driven.
Source.—Copyright 2008 by Pianta, La Paro, and Hamre.
emotional support factor may be moderately to highly correlated with the remaining
factors: classroom organization and instructional support (Hamre et al., 2007). In
order to isolate the effect of emotional support, analyses include classroom organi-
zation and instructional support as covariates.
Child academic achievement. Reading and math achievement were assessed us-
ing the Letter-Word ID and Applied Problems subtests of the Woodcock-Johnson III
Tests of Achievement, Form B (WJ-III) (Woodcock et al., 2001). The Letter-Word ID
subtest assesses letter naming and word decoding skills by asking children to identify
a series of letters and words. The Applied Problems subtest assessed children’s simple
counting skills and the ability to analyze and solve mathematical word problems. The
WJ-III typically correlates with measures of cognitive ability (r ⫽ .66 to .73 with the
Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence—Revised; Wechsler, 1989) and
has good internal consistency (alphas range from 0.8 to 0.9 in the literature). Re-
search suggests that academic achievement and behavior problems in elementary school
are interrelated (Duncan et al., 2007; Webster-Stratton et al., 2008). Because the behavior
problems measure included in the current study—reported by teachers—may be con-
founded with students’ academic abilities, we include student reading and math achieve-
ment as covariates in analyses.
Results
In this section, we first outline analyses performed to handle missing data. Then we
present the results of the confirmatory factor analyses we conducted on the FIQ-E.
To address our first research question, we present descriptive analyses about the
variables of interest. And, finally, we detail the results of the models run to answer our
second and third research questions.
Missing-Data Analyses
There were no missing data for the classroom-level variables. For the child-level
variables, there was 0%–10% missing data across study variables. In order to achieve
maximum power given the sample size (n ⫽ 255), individual students who were

 䡠      
missing data points were compared to students who were not missing data points on
a series of baseline characteristics: school, teacher, cohort, parent education, parent
work status, parent marital status, parent age, child age, child gender, and child
mathematical ability. Little’s MAR test (Little & Rubin, 1987) was used to determine
that data were missing at random.
With less than 10% missingness among study variables, we determined that we
could achieve 97% efficiency by imputing 10 separate data sets (Rubin, 1987; Yuan,
2010, 2011). As such, a multiple data imputation method was employed, and 10 sep-
arate data sets were imputed by chained equations, using SAS PROC MI in SAS
version 9.2. All conditional analyses were subsequently imported into HLM 7
(Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong, Congdon, & du Toit, 2011) and run 10 separate times.
Final parameter estimates were generated by calculating the mean of these 10 esti-
mates.
Conﬁrmatory Factor Analysis

We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis using full information maximum
likelihood estimation (FIML) in MPLUS version 5.21 to assess the construct validity
of the FIQ-E (Muthén & Muthén, 2009). Interfactor correlations between the three
latent constructs were specified. This three-factor model fit well statistically (␹2(168,
n ⫽ 255) ⫽ 682.42) and descriptively (CFI ⫽ .97, RMSEA ⫽ .04). Thus, the current
study replicates the three-factor structure proposed by Manz and colleagues (2004).
Descriptive Analyses
Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations for the variables included
in study analyses are included in Table 2. Findings indicate that the average student
demonstrated a low level of behavior problems. However, the standard deviation is
notable, given that the items on the SESBI ask about particularly problematic and
disruptive behaviors. In addition, on average, teachers reported that 5.75 (SD ⫽ 8.78)
of these behaviors posed problems for them when teaching, suggesting that these
disruptive behaviors had notable implications for kindergarten classrooms.
Parents reported engaging in home-based learning activities at a point between
“sometimes” and “all of the time” (M ⫽ 3.31; SD ⫽ .42). Parents reported less fre-
quent home-school communication (between “rarely” and “sometimes”: M ⫽ 2.58;
SD ⫽ .76) and school-based involvement (M ⫽ 2.26; SD ⫽ .62). Subsequent paired
samples t-tests suggested significant differences between home-based learning and
school-based involvement (t(254) ⫽ ⫺27.84, p ⬍ .01), home-based learning and
home-school communication (t(254) ⫽ ⫺17.41, p ⬍ .01), and school-based involve-
ment and home-school communication (t(254) ⫽ 7.30, p ⬍ .01). In terms of class-
room teacher practices, emotional support scores were moderately high, while in-
structional support scores were low.
As anticipated, zero-order correlations between home-based learning and school-
based involvement, home-based learning and home-school communication, and
school-based involvement and home-school communication were positive and of
moderate strength. However, only one dimension of parent involvement— home-
school communication—showed evidence of a moderate and positive relation with
student behavior problems. In addition, there was a strong, positive correlation be-

Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations between Variables of Interest
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. Home-school communication 2.58 .76

2. Home-based learning 3.31 .42 .49 **
3. School-based involvement 2.26 .62 .42 ** .38 **
4. Child behavior problems 2.25 1.13 .28 ** .06 ⫺.03
5. Emotional support 4.77 .94 ⫺.03 ⫺.09 .02 ⫺.24 **
6. Classroom organization 4.22 1.06 ⫺.04 ⫺.08 .02 ⫺.16 * .71 **
7. Instructional support 2.79 1.01 .04 ⫺.01 .04 .06 .57 ** .68 **
8. Child age (in years) 5.32 .62 ⫺.04 .02 ⫺.05 ⫺.06 .21 ** .20 * .25 **
9. Child math achievement 14.65 4.96 ⫺.19 ** ⫺.04 ⫺.07 ⫺.17 ** .11 * .07 .09 .21 **
10. Child reading achievement 17.31 6.98 ⫺.20 ** ⫺.11 ⫺.13 * ⫺.18 ** .09 .07 ⫺.05 .09 .50 **
11. Child female .49 – ⫺.09 ⫺.06 ⫺.01 ⫺.19 ** ⫺.01 .01 ⫺.06 ⫺.16 * .02 .04
12. Single-parent family .53 – .14 * .03 ⫺.05 .13 * ⫺.04 .06 .06 .03 ⫺.08 ⫺.09 ⫺.08
13. Parent education 12.95 2.55 .08 ⫺.15 * ⫺.01 .11 * .17 ** .12 * .22 ** ⫺.06 .18 ** .08 ⫺.03 ⫺.15
14. Parent works full/part-time .52 – ⫺.01 ⫺.06 ⫺.12 .04 .06 .12 * .09 ⫺.05 .05 ⫺.07 ⫺.07 .01 .26 **
Note.—n ⫽ 255 students, n ⫽ 60 classrooms, n ⫽ 22 schools.

* p ⬍ .05.
** p ⬍ .01.

 䡠        
tween classroom emotional support and classroom organization, and a moderately

strong positive correlation between emotional support and instructional support.
Hierarchical Linear Models

Due to the nested nature of the data (i.e., children in classrooms in schools), we
did not anticipate the observations would meet the OLS regression assumption of
independence (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2004; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). To
simultaneously examine predictors at the individual and classroom levels, analyses
for the current study were conducted within a multilevel modeling framework using
hierarchical linear modeling (HLM 7; Raudenbush et al., 2011). In order to accu-
rately estimate the contextual effect of classroom predictors on student behav-
iors, all continuous predictors at the classroom and student levels were centered
around their grand mean (i.e., between-person centering; Raudenbush, 2009).
Gender, single-parent status, and parent work status (full- or part-time)—the
three binary predictors—were not centered.
Preliminary analyses consisting of three-level unconditional models were run for
children’s behavior problems in order to determine whether there was significant
between-classroom and between-school variation in these predictors. Then, to ad-
dress the substantive questions proposed in this study, four models were tested. For
ease of presentation, the models, which build on one another, are referred to as
Models 1– 4. Results are presented in Table 3.
First, an unconditional baseline model (Model 1) with no predictors was run for
behavior problems to determine the proportion of variance attributed to individual,
classroom, and school level factors. Based on these estimates, intraclass (ICC) cor-
relations were computed. The unconditional means model revealed significant vari-
ability in between-classroom (intraclass correlation: 0.25) and between-school dif-
ferences (intraclass correlation: 0.07) in student behavior problems. As such, a
random effect was included at both level 2 and level 3 in all models to allow the
intercept to vary for these two levels of nesting (Raudenbush, 2009). Based on the
unconditional models, a pseudo R2 was calculated for all subsequent analyses to
examine the increase in variance in behavior problems explained in each successive
step (see Singer & Willett, 2003). In addition, Akaiki Information Criterion (AIC)
values were calculated for nested models to allow for comparison of fit improvement
(see Table 3).
Second, a conditional model (Model 2; see Equation 1, App. A) was run in which
the three dimensions of parent involvement—(1) home-school communication, (2)
school-based involvement, and (3) home-based learning—were simultaneously
added to the unconditional model. By entering the three dimensions of involvement
as a block in the model, we were able to unpack the unique relations between each
dimension of involvement and student behavior problems (see Equation 1; App. A).
In addition, level 1 covariates were entered into the model to control for student-level
confounders. Child gender (boys: 0; girls: 1), child age (in years), child math achieve-
ment (0 – 64), child reading achievement (0 –76), parent age (in years), parent edu-
cation (in years), single-parent status (married: 0; single: 1), and parent work status
(parent does not work full- or part-time: 0; parent works full- or part-time: 1) were
added as level 1 predictors to account for between-child variation in behavior prob-
lems. No adjustments were made for race/ethnicity or eligibility for free or reduced-

 ,  ,  䡠 
Table 3. Hierarchical Linear Models of Parent Involvement and Classroom Emotional Support
Predicting Student Behavior Problems
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Fixed Effects b SE b SE b SE b SE
Behavior problems intercept 2.25 ** .10 2.36 ** .16 2.38 ** .16 2.37 ** .15
Individual level (level 1):
Child age ⫺.06 .11 ⫺.06 .11 ⫺.06 .11
Child female ⫺.37 ** .13 ⫺.35 ** .13 ⫺.37 ** .13
Child math achievement ⫺.02 .02 ⫺.02 .02 ⫺.02 .02
Child reading achievement ⫺.02 .01 ⫺.01 .01 ⫺.02 .02
Single-parent family .25 ⫹ .13 .20 .13 .20 .13
Parent works full/part-time ⫺.13 .13 ⫺.09 .14 ⫺.09 .13
Parent education ⫺.04 .03 .04 .03 .05 .03
Home-school communication .41 ** .11 .42 ** .11 .40 ** .11
School-based involvement ⫺.28 * .12 ⫺.27 * .12 ⫺.26 * .12
Home-based learning ⫺.14 .18 ⫺.17 .18 ⫺.15 .18
Classroom level (level 2):
Classroom emotional support ⫺.36 * .16 ⫺.35 * .16
Classroom organization ⫺.03 .16 ⫺.04 .16
Classroom instructional support .24 ⫹ .12 .23 ⫹ .12
Classroom emotional support ⫻
home-school communication ⫺.26 * .09
school-based involvement .07 .13
home-based learning ⫺.03 .22
Random effects:
Classroom-level variance .19 * .09 .18 .09 .09 .07 .09 .07
School-level variance .06 .07 .05 .07 .03 .05 .03 .05
Residual variance 1.02 ** .10 .81 ** .08 .80 ** .08 .80 ** .08
Fit statistics:
AIC 726.84 698.70 687.97 685.00
Pseudo R2 .07 .09 .10
Note.—n ⫽ 255 students, n ⫽ 60 classrooms, n ⫽ 22 schools. Model 1 df ⫽ 251; Model 2 df ⫽ 241; Model 3 df ⫽ 43; Model 4 df ⫽ 34.
⫹
p ⬍ .10.
* p ⬍ .05.
** p ⬍ .01.
price lunch given the composition of the sample (i.e., the large majority of students
were Black and eligible for free/reduced-price lunch).
Results from Model 2 revealed that parental engagement in home-based learning
activities was not significantly related to student behavior problems. However, par-
ent reports of home-school communication were positively and significantly associ-
ated with teacher reports of student behavior problems. As such, this analysis sug-
gests that home-school communication is associated with higher rates of student
behavior problems, net of the remaining dimensions of involvement and child and
parent characteristics. In contrast, school-based involvement practices were signifi-
cantly and negatively associated with student behavior problems. This finding indi-
cates that higher rates of parents’ school-based involvement practices are associated
with lower levels of teacher-reported behavior problems, controlling for the remain-
ing two dimensions of involvement as well as child and parent characteristics.
Next, the three domains of classroom teacher practices—(1) classroom emotional
support, (2) classroom organization, and (3) instructional support—were simulta-

 䡠      
neously added to the level 2 model to account for between-classroom variation in

student behavior problems (Model 3). Although we are particularly focused on un-
derstanding the main and interactive effects of classroom emotional support, we did
find that emotional support was correlated with the remaining domains of teacher
practices. By simultaneously including classroom organization and instructional sup-
port to the models, we were able to unpack the unique relation between classroom emo-
tional support and student behavior problems. Other classroom-level variables— class
size, teacher racial-ethnic background, and teachers’ years teaching—were tested in this
step and subsequently dropped because they did not significantly predict the outcome.
The results of Model 3 indicated that classroom emotional support was negatively
related to student behavior problems, net of dimensions of parent involvement,
family and student characteristics, teacher practices, and random classroom and
school-level effects. Because this study focuses on the effect of emotional support, we
do not discuss the findings related to instructional support and classroom organiza-
tion in detail. In this model, however, we do find that instructional support is a
significant predictor of behavior problems, whereas classroom organization does not
significantly predict behavior problems.
Finally, a fourth model (Model 4) was run in which cross-level interactions be-
tween classroom emotional support and the three dimensions of parent involvement
were examined (see Equation 2; App. A). Significant cross-level interactions would
indicate that the association between dimensions of parent involvement and student
behavior problems varies as a function of classroom emotional support, or given the
correlational data, the relations between emotional support and behavior problems vary
as a function of parent involvement. The results of Model 4 (see panel 4, Table 3) revealed
that the interaction between home-school communication and classroom emotional
support was a significant predictor of student behavior problems, net of fixed and
random effects. Given the theory for the current study, the interaction term is inter-
preted such that in classrooms with high levels of emotional support, the relation
between home-school communication and student behavior problems is attenuated,
as opposed to classrooms with low levels of emotional support, where the relation
between home-school communication and student behavior problems remains pos-
itive (see Fig. 1).
Follow-up calculations of simple slopes and regions of significance were con-
ducted according to standard procedures (Aiken & West, 1991; McCartney, Burchi-
nal, & Bub, 2006) using the interaction utility described by Preacher, Curran, and
Bauer (2006). These analyses yielded slopes representing the relations between the
level 1 independent variable (home-school communication) and dependent variable
(behavior problems) at low (1 SD below the mean), average, and high (1 SD above the
mean) levels of the level 2 moderator (emotional support). In addition, regions of
significance were computed to identify values of the moderator at which a significant
association between the predictor and dependent variable exists (Preacher et al.,
2006). Results are conditional on control dichotomous variables being equal to zero
and mean-centered levels of the continuous control variables. The positive relation
between home-school communication and behavior problems was nonsignificant
for students who experienced high levels of classroom emotional support (b ⫽ 0.16,
p ⫽ ns). The positive association between home-school communication and behav-
ior problems was significant for students in classrooms that exhibited emotional
support scores less than 0.66 standard deviations above the mean.

 ,  ,  䡠 
Figure 1. Home-school communication and student behavior problems as moderated by classroom

emotional support. Low classroom emotional support ⫽ 1 SD below the mean; high classroom
emotional support ⫽ 1 SD above the mean; low home-school communication ⫽ 1 SD below the
mean; high home-school communication ⫽ 1 SD above the mean; estimated effect includes all
covariates (child gender, child age, child math achievement, child reading achievement, parent
education, parent works full- or part-time, single-parent family, organization, classroom instruc-
tional support) and the remaining dimensions of parent involvement (school-based involvement
and home-based learning).
The interaction terms between classroom emotional support and school-based

involvement and classroom emotional support and home-based learning did not
significantly predict student behavior problems over and above the remaining inde-
pendent variables included in the model. Results also revealed nonsignificant cross-
level interactions between three dimensions of parent involvement and classroom
organization and instructional support. To maintain parsimony of this final model,
these interactions were excluded from the analysis.
Discussion
Within an ecological framework, this study examined rates of parent involvement in
low-income urban schools, associations between three dimensions of parent in-
volvement and student behavior problems, and interactive effects of emotionally
supportive teacher practices and parent involvement on student behavior problems.
Low-income urban parents reported engaging in home-based learning activities
quite often. Participation in home-school communication and school-based in-
volvement, however, was less frequent. Although similar to the findings identified by
Manz and colleagues (2004), this pattern is more pronounced, and differences in
frequency of behaviors were statistically significant. Multilevel analyses, controlling
for several child and family covariates, initially revealed a positive relation between
home-school communication and behavior problems and a negative relation be-
tween school-based involvement and behavior problems. No association was found
between home-based learning and behavior problems. When considering effects of
parent involvement in varying classrooms, teacher emotional support moderated
the relation between home-school communication and student behavior problems
but not the associations between the remaining parent involvement dimensions and

 䡠       
student behavior problems. Specifically, significant relations between home-school

communication and behavior problems were attenuated in classrooms with higher
levels of observed teacher emotional support.
It is notable that although much research finds benefits of family involvement for
children’s school adjustment (e.g., Adams & Christenson, 2000; Drake, 2000; James,
Jurich, & Estes, 2001; Rimm-Kauffman, 1999), we initially found a positive relation
between home-school communication and behavior problems. This result may re-
flect an important aspect of the high-need study sample. In higher stress and lower
resource communities, family outreach may not occur until teachers identify a stu-
dent problem (Gutman & McLoyd, 2000; Izzo et al., 1999). This phenomenon may be
important to consider, given recent research by McNeal (2012) demonstrating that
“reactive” parent involvement in adolescence predicts lower levels of future involve-
ment.
Findings examining interactive effects, however, suggest that there may be a qual-
itative difference in how teachers engage with urban parents, depending on their
observed level of classroom emotional support. For example, emotionally supportive
teachers may be more likely to show sensitivity to parents’ needs and identify the
strengths that their child has displayed as a student (Nzinga-Johnson et al., 2009).
The quantitative findings from the current study support the contention that teach-
ers’ emotionally supportive qualities are important for understanding how parent
involvement activities influence individual children. This moderation finding pro-
vides insight into the mixed body of research regarding the relation between parent-
teacher communication and child behaviors (e.g., McNeal, 2012). For example, al-
though some research contends that home-school communication may be a reaction
to behavior problems that arise at school (Catsambis, 1998; Epstein, 1988), the cur-
rent findings suggest the need to consider ecological factors— classroom teacher
practices—when examining complex interactions between teachers and parents.
A second possible explanation for this interactive effect is that parent involvement
activities may benefit high-need students most when children simultaneously expe-
rience the influence of an emotionally supportive classroom. Much of the previous
research identifying risk and protective processes associated with parent involve-
ment has focused on individual factors, such as parental work status (Lucas-
Thompson, Goldberg, & Prause, 2010) and socioeconomic status (Cooper, 2010).
However, the current study suggests that the protective or additive influence of the
classroom context may be important to consider as well.
The study also revealed that school-based involvement practices, characterized by
behaviors like volunteering at school and engaging with fundraising, are associated
with lower levels of student behavior problems. Social cognitive theory may facilitate
understanding of the link between school-based involvement and behavioral prob-
lems (Bandura, 1977). When young children observe their parents modeling respect
for school officials, and investing their time in the school, children may internalize
the message that school is a natural extension of family, a place where they are
expected to behave appropriately (Bandura, 1988; Grolnick & Slowiaczek, 1994).
Alternatively, parents who are involved in school-based activities are likely to have
positive relationships with teachers. Teachers, in turn, may be less likely to perceive
problematic behaviors among the children of highly involved parents (McDermott
& Rothenberg, 2000).

 ,  ,  䡠 
However, there is limited extant research examining relations between school-

based involvement and behavior problems during early elementary school. Because
early disruptive behavior problems are largely predictive of future socioemotional
disorders (Bulotsky-Shearer, Dominguez, Bell, Rouse, & Fantuzzo, 2010), it may be
important to consider the positive influence of parents’ school-based involvement
practices as children begin kindergarten. More research, however, is needed to as-
certain the direction of this finding and the mechanisms underlying the association
between school-based involvement and in-school behaviors.
We found no relation between home-based learning practices, such as maintain-
ing stable routines and helping with homework, and teacher-reported student be-
haviors in kindergarten. This may be surprising given research showing that children
who are engaged in home learning with parents demonstrate greater levels of behav-
ioral regulation (Domina, 2005; McNeal, 1999). However, such studies have not
examined children’s in-school behaviors as an outcome and have instead relied on
parental reports of child behaviors. Thus, it may be that home-based learning prac-
tices have more influence on academic than behavioral outcomes in the classroom
(Galindo & Sheldon, 2012). In addition, the activities included in home-based learn-
ing do not explicitly require that parents engage with teachers and school personnel.
Effects may thus influence at-home behaviors, but may not spill over to the class-
room. It should be noted, however, that frequency reports of home-based involve-
ment were quite high, with little variation among reporters. As such, these analyses
may be limited by the measurement of this parent involvement dimension. Another
important consideration is that findings from the current study are robust to a num-
ber of child-, family-, and classroom-level control characteristics.
Study Limitations
This study has four key limitations. First, the data used in the study are cross-
sectional and offer a descriptive snapshot of these relations at one time point. Al-
though this study offers possible explanations for the associations observed, due to
the correlational nature of the analyses, we are unable to infer causality from the
tested models. Moreover, the cross-sectional data do not allow for directional infer-
ences. Although the sample sizes at level 1 and level 2 are consistent with those
suggested by Snijders (2005), the study may be underpowered for the number of
predictors included in the models (Babyak, 2004). Additionally, it is possible that
there are unobserved variables confounding the results. An important direction for
future research is to use repeated measures to examine growth trajectories and better
identify the directionality of the associations examined in these analyses.
Second, the current study used frequency scales to operationalize dimensions of
parent involvement. Although quantity is critical in conceptualizing the role of par-
ent involvement, scales focused on the quality of parent involvement are important
to consider. In addition, parents were not asked to provide information on whether
they initiated involvement activities. Future surveys should include questions that
ask parents to report on their reactivity to issues that arise at school. In order to
address measurement issues and further examine how teaching practices relate to
parents’ home-school communication, future research may use observational meth-
ods to assess parent-teacher interactions (e.g., parent-teacher conferences). This en-

 䡠      
ables examination of associations between teachers’ classroom emotional support

and the quality of their communication with parents.
Third, the outcome measure is a teacher report of behaviors, and findings may
reflect reporter bias. Teachers may differ in their tolerance of problematic behaviors
and may be more likely to report a student’s behaviors as positive if that student’s
parent is involved at school. Although we triangulate the data sources by including a
parent report of involvement and an observed measure of teacher practice in the
analyses, future studies would benefit from an observed measure of behavior prob-
lems. Such an approach would be able to consider internalizing and externalizing
behavior problems separately, as there may be differences in associations between
types of parent involvement and dimensions of classroom behaviors.
Finally, most child participants are Black (with a small proportion of Hispanic)
kindergarten students in urban public elementary schools. This relative homogene-
ity precludes between-group comparisons and generalizations to other ages and
socioeconomic groups. The nonrandom sampling used in the current study may
limit the generalizability of findings as the study participants may not be represen-
tative of their schools. Future studies that apply an ecological framework of parent
involvement may consider the importance of diverse and representative samples of
parents, students, and schools.
Implications and Directions for Future Research

A number of interventions designed to enhance student outcomes by increasing
parent involvement have been ineffective (Marcon, 1999). The current study points
toward the classroom context—specifically, teacher emotional support—as a poten-
tial barrier to program efficacy. There is a clear need to continue to assess parent
involvement as a multidimensional process that operates in conjunction with
teacher practices in early elementary school. Research examining the mechanisms
underlying observed associations would provide information applicable to interven-
tion development.
These findings mirror other recent studies (e.g., Brown, Jones, LaRusso, & Aber,
2010; Raver et al., 2008) suggesting the need for teacher training in emotionally
supportive practices. Although current education reform movements are largely fo-
cused on improving classroom instruction, this study demonstrates possible benefits
of enhanced teacher emotional support that extend beyond the classroom. For ex-
ample, reflective teachers who develop more emotionally supportive teacher prac-
tices may be better able to influence children’s positive behaviors in the classroom—
both directly, and through more positive interactions with students’ parents. In
addition, it may be helpful for school leaders to identify whether the strategies emo-
tionally supportive teachers use when engaging with students’ parents differ quali-
tatively from teachers who are observed to be less emotionally supportive. Such
reflection may help teachers communicate with parents, a part of their job for which
they may receive little support.
Future research should use this ecological paradigm to examine parent in-
volvement not only to replicate the current findings, but also to examine mech-
anisms linking parent involvement and emotionally supportive classrooms using
models that allow for causal inference. This research may be used to develop and
inform interventions targeting classroom emotional support—in addition to

 ,  ,  䡠 
other important factors—that effectively serve the needs of schools, parents, and
students.
Appendix A
Equations
Equation 1
In equation 1, included here in the mixed-model format, i represents students, j repre-
sents classrooms, and k represents schools. ␤0 is the individual-level intercept for behav-
ior problems; ␤1ijk, ␤2ijk, ␤3ijk, ␤4ijk, ␤5ijk, ␤6ijk, ␤7ijk, ␤8ijk, ␤9ijk, and ␤10ijk are level 1 slopes for
relations between child individual characteristics, parent involvement dimensions, and
behavior problems; u0jk is the group level residual, or the unique effect of classroom j on
mean behavior problems holding all predictors constant; ␷k is the variance term that
represents the group-level residual, or the unique effect of classroom k on mean behavior
problems, holding all predictors constant; and rijk is the individual-level residual. This
model assumes that rijk is normally distributed around a mean of 0, and that the variance
components are homogenous and independent of one another:
Yijk ⫽ ␤0 ⫹ ␤1 (female)ijk ⫹ ␤2 (child age)ijk ⫹ ␤3 (child math achievement)ijk ⫹ ␤4

(single parent)ijk ⫹ ␤5 (child reading achievement)ijk ⫹ ␤6 (parent education)ijk ⫹
␤7 (parent works full- or part-time)ijk ⫹ ␤7 (home-school communication)ijk ⫹ ␤8
(school-based involvement)ijk ⫹ ␤9 (home-based learning)ijk ⫹ ujk ⫹ ␷k ⫹ rijk.
Equation 2
Equation 2 builds on equation 1 and includes main effects, ␤10jk, ␤12jk, ␤13jk, ␤14jk, for class-
room emotional support, classroom organization, instructional support, and class size,
as well as three cross-level interactions, ␤15ijk, ␤16ijk, ␤17ijk, between the three dimensions of
parent involvement and classroom emotional support. A random slope, ␤18u, was in-
cluded for classroom emotional support as well.
Yijk ⫽ ␤0 ⫹ ␤1 (female)ijk ⫹ ␤2 (child age)ijk ⫹ ␤3 (child math achievement)ijk ⫹ ␤4

(single parent)ijk ⫹ ␤5 (child reading achievement)ijk ⫹ ␤6 (parent education)ijk ⫹
␤7 (parent works full- or part-time)ijk ⫹ ␤8 (home-school communication)ijk ⫹ ␤9
(school-based involvement)ijk ⫹ ␤10 (home-based learning)ijk ⫹ ␤11 (classroom
emotional support)jk ⫹ ␤12 (classroom organization)jk ⫹ ␤13 (instructional sup-
port)jk ⫹ ␤14 (classroom emotional support)jk ⫻ (home-school communica-
tion)ijk ⫹ ␤15 (classroom emotional support)jk ⫻ (home-based learning)ijk ⫹ ␤16
(classroom emotional support)jk ⫻ (school-based involvement)ijk ⫹ ujk ⫹ ␷k ⫹ rijk.
Note
The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department
of Education, through grants R305B080019 and R305A080512 to New York University. The opin-
ions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S.
Department of Education.

 䡠        
References
Adams, K. C., & Christenson, S. L. (2000). Trust and the family-school relationship: Examination
of parent-teacher differences in elementary and secondary grades. Journal of School Psychology,
38, 477– 497.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Amato, P. R., & Cheadle, J. (2008). Parental divorce, marital conflict, and children’s behavior
problems: A comparison of adopted and biological children. Social Forces, 86, 1139 –1161.
Babyak, M. A. (2004). What you see may not be what you get: A brief, nontechnical introduction to
overfitting in regression-type models. Psychosomatic Medicine, 66(3), 411– 421.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. In B. B. Wolman & L. R. Pomroy (Eds.), International
encyclopedia of psychiatry, psychology, psychoanalysis, and neurology (Vol. 10, pp. 126 –129). New
York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Bandura, A. (1988). Perceived self-efficacy: Exercise of control through self-belief. In J. P. Dauwal-
der, M. Perrez, & V. Hobi (Eds.), Annual series of European research in behavior therapy (Vol. 2,
pp. 27–59). Lisse, NL: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Blair, C. (2002). School readiness: Integrating cognition and emotion in a neurobiological concep-
tualization of children’s functioning at school entry. American Psychologist, 57, 111–127.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In W. Damon
(Series Ed.) & R. M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of
human development (5th ed., pp. 993–1028). New York: Wiley.
Brophy, J. (1999). Perspectives of classroom management: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. In H. J.
Freiberg (Ed.), Beyond behaviorism: Changing the classroom management paradigm (pp. 43–56).
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Brown, J. L., Jones, S. M., LaRusso, M. D., & Aber, J. L. (2010). Improving classroom quality:
Teacher influences and experimental impacts of the 4Rs program. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 102(1), 153–167.
Brown, K. M., Benkovitz, J., Muttillo, A. J., & Urban, T. (2011). Leading schools of excellence and equity:
Documenting effective strategies in closing achievement gaps. Teachers College Record, 113(1), 57–96.
Bulotsky-Shearer, R. J., Dominguez, X., Bell, E. R., Rouse, H., & Fantuzzo, J. W. (2010). Relations
between behavior problems in classroom social and learning situations and peer social competence
in Head Start and kindergarten. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 18(4), 195–210.
Burchinal, M., Howes, C., Pianta, R., Bryant, D., Early, D., Clifford, R., & Barbarin, O. (2008).
Predicting child outcomes at the end of kindergarten from the quality of pre-kindergarten
teacher-child interactions and instruction. Applied Developmental Science, 12(3), 140 –153.
Carson, R. L., & Templin, T. J. (2007). Emotion regulation and teacher burnout: Who says that the
management of emotional expression doesn’t matter? Paper presented at the American Education
Research Association Annual Convention, Chicago.
Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Newman, D. L., & Silva, P. A. (1996). Behavioral observations at age three
years predict adult psychiatric disorders: Longitudinal evidence from a birth cohort. Archives of
General Psychiatry, 53, 1033–1039.
Catsambis, S. (1998). Expanding knowledge of parent involvement in secondary education: Effects
on high school academic success (Report 27). Retrieved from http://www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/
techReports/Report27.pdf
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S., & Aiken, L. S. (2004). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis
for the behavioral sciences. New York: Erlbaum.
Cooley, P. C., Turner, C. F., O’Reilly, J. M., Allen, D. R., Hamill, D. N., & Paddock, R. E. (1996).
Audio-CASI: Hardware and software considerations in adding sound to a computer-assisted
interviewing system. Social Science Computer Review, 14(2), 197–204.
Cooper, C. E. (2010). Family poverty, school-based parental involvement, and policy-focused pro-
tective factors in kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25, 480 – 492.
Cote, S. M., Borge, A. I., Geoffroy, M., Rutter, M., & Tremblay, R. E. (2008). Nonmaternal care in
infancy and emotional/behavioral difficulties at 4 years old: Moderation by family risk charac-
teristics. Developmental Psychology, 44, 155–168.

 ,  ,  䡠 
Couper, M. P., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2003). Understanding the effects of Audio-CASI on
self-reports of sensitive behavior. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67(3), 385–395.
Crosnoe, R. (2009). Family-school connections and the transitions of low-income youth and Eng-
lish language learners from middle school into high school. Developmental Psychology, 45(4),
1061–1076.
Crosnoe, R., Leventhal, T., Wirth, R. J., Pierce, K. M., Pianta, R. C., & NICHD Early Child Care
Research Network. (2010). Family socioeconomic status and consistent environmental stimu-
lation in early childhood. Child Development, 81(3), 972–987.
Domina, T. (2005). Leveling the home advantage: Assessing the effectiveness of parental involve-
ment in elementary school. Sociology of Education, 78, 233–249.
Drake, D. D. (2000). Parents and families as partners in the education process: Collaboration for
the success of students in public schools. ERS Spectrum, 18(2), 34 –39.
Dubow, E. F., Boxer, P., & Huesmann, L. R. (2009). Long-term effects of parents’ educational and
occupational success: Mediation by family interactions, child aggression, and teenage aspira-
tions. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 55(3), 224 –249.
Duch, H. (2005). Redefining parent involvement in Head Start: A two-generation approach. Early
Child Development and Care, 175(1), 23–35.
Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P., . . ., Japel,
C. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1428 –1446.
Eccles, J., & Roeser, R. (1999). School and community influences on human development. In M. H.
Bornstein & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Developmental psychology: An advanced textbook (4th ed., pp.
503–554). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
El Nokali, N. E., Bachman, H. J., & Votruba-Drzal, E. (2010). Within- and between-child parent
involvement and academic and social skills in elementary school. Child Development, 81, 988 –
1005.
Epstein, J. (1988). Homework practices, achievements, and behaviors of elementary school students
(Report No. 26). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on Elementary and
Middle Schools.
Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving
schools. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Eyberg, S. M., & Pincus, D. (1999). Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory and Sutter-Eyberg Student
Behavior Inventory: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Fan, X. T., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A
meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 1–22.
Fantuzzo, J., Bulotsky-Shearer, R., McDermott, P. A., McWayne, C., Frye, D., & Perlman, S. (2007).
Investigation of dimensions of social-emotional classroom behavior and school readiness for
low-income urban preschool children. School Psychology Review, 36, 44 – 62.
Fantuzzo, J., McWayne, C., & Perry, M. A. (2004). Multiple dimensions of family involvement and
their relations to behavioral and learning competencies for urban, low-income children. School
Psychology Review, 33, 467– 480.
Galindo, C., & Sheldon, S. B. (2012). School and home connections and children’s kindergarten
achievement gains: The mediating role of family involvement. Early Childhood Research Quar-
terly, 27(1), 90 –103.
Gonzalez-DeHass, A. R., Willems, P. P., & Holbein, F. D. (2005). Examining the relationship
between parental involvement and student motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2),
99 –122.
Green, C. L., Walker, J. M., Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. W. (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.
Grolnick, W., & Slowiaczek, M. (1994). Parents’ involvement in children’s schooling: A multidi-
mensional conceptualization and motivational model. Child Development, 65, 237–252.
Gutman, L. M., & McLoyd, V. C. (2000). Parents’ management of their children’s education within
the home, at school, and in the community: An examination of African-American families
living in poverty. Urban Review, 32, 1–24.
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher-child relationships and the trajectory of chil-
dren’s school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72(2), 625– 638.

 䡠      
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first grade
classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure? Child Development, 76(5),
949 –967.
Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C., Downer, J. T., Hakigami, A., Mashburn, A. J., Jones, S., Brown, J.,
Cappella, E., Atkins, M. S., Rivers, S. E., & Brackett, M. A. (2013). Teaching through Interac-
tions: Testing a developmental framework of teacher effectiveness in over 4,000 classrooms.
Elementary School Journal, 113, 561–587.
Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C., Mashburn, A. J., & Downer, J. T. (2007). Building a science of classrooms:
Application of the CLASS framework in over 4,000 U.S. early childhood and elementary classrooms.
New York: Foundation for Child Development.
Hill, N. E., & Tyson, D. F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A meta-analytic assess-
ment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45(30), 740 –763.
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., Walker, J. M. T., & Sandler, H. M., (2005). Parents’ motivations for
involvement in their children’s education. 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.
Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Pianta, R., Bryant, D., Early, D., Clifford, R., & Barbarin, O. (2008).
Ready to learn? Children’s pre-academic achievement in pre-kindergarten programs. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(1), 27–50.
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.
James, D. W., Jurich, S., & Estes, S. (2001). Raising minority academic achievement: A compendium
of education programs and practices. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum.
Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional
competence in relation to child and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79, 491–
525.
Kohl, G. O., Lengua, L. J., McMahon, R. J., & the Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group.
(2000). Parent involvement in school: Conceptualizing multiple dimensions and their relations
with family and demographic risk factors. Journal of School Psychology, 28, 501–523.
Kuperminc, G. P., Darnell, A. J., & Alvarez-Jimenez, A. (2008). Parent involvement in the academic
adjustment of Latino middle and high school youth: Teacher expectations and school belong-
ings as mediators. Journal of Adolescence, 31(4), 469 – 483.
Ladd, G. W., & Burgess, K. B. (2001). Do relational risks and protective factors moderate the
linkages between childhood aggression and early psychological and school adjustment? Child
Development, 72, 1579 –1601.
Lareau, A. (1989). Home advantage. London: Falmer.
Lasky, S. (2000). The cultural and emotional politics of teacher–parent interactions. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 16, 843– 860.
Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (1987). Statistical analysis with missing data. New York: Wiley.
Lucas-Thompson, R. G., Goldberg, W. A., & Prause, J. (2010). Maternal work early in the lives of
children and its distal associations with achievement and behavior problems: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 136, 915–942.
Manz, P. H., Fantuzzo, J. W., & Power, T. J., (2004). Multidimensional assessment of family
involvement among urban elementary students. Journal of School Psychology, 42(6), 461– 475.
Marcon, R. A. (1999). Positive relationships between parent school involvement and public school
inner-city preschoolers’ development and academic performance. School Psychology Review,
28(3), 395– 412.
McCartney, K., Burchinal, M., & Bub, K. L. (2006). Selection, detection, and reflection. In K. McCart-
ney, M. Burchinal, & K. L. Bub (Eds.), Best practices in quantitative methods for developmentalists.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 71(3). Boston: Blackwell.
McClowry, S. G., O’Connor, E., Cappella, E., & McCormick, M. (2011, March). A preliminary
examination of the efficacy of INSIGHTS in enhancing the academic learning context. Paper pre-
sented at the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness Conference, Washington, DC.

 ,  ,  䡠 
McDermott, P., & Rothenberg, J. (2000). Why urban parents resist involvement in their children’s
elementary education. Qualitative Report. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/˜QR/QR5-3/
mcdermott.html
McNeal, R. B. (1999). Parental involvement as social capital: Differential effectiveness on science
achievement, truancy, and dropping out. Social Forces, 78(1), 117–144.
McNeal, R. B. (2012). Checking in or checking out? Investigating the parent involvement reactive
hypothesis. Journal of Educational Research, 105(2), 79 – 89.
McWayne, C., Hampton, V., Fantuzzo, J., Cohen, H. L., & Sekino, Y. (2004). A multivariate
examination of parent involvement and the social and academic competencies of urban kin-
dergarten children. Psychology in the Schools, 41(3), 363–377.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2009). Mplus 5.21: Statistical analysis with latent variables. Los
Angeles.
New York City Department of Education. (2011). New York City Department of Education 2010 –
2011 updated class size report. Retrieved from http://schools.nyc.gov/AboutUs/data/
classsize/classsize.htm
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002). Retrieved from http://
www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02/
Nzinga-Johnson, S., Baker, J., & Aupperlee, J. (2009). The quality of teacher-parent relationships in
fostering school involvement among racially and educationally diverse parents at kindergarten.
Elementary School Journal, 110, 81–91.
O’Connor, E. E., Rodriguez, E., Cappella, E., Morris, J., Collins, A., & McClowry, S. (2011). Child
disruptive behavior and parenting sense of competence: A comparison of the effects of two
models of INSIGHTS. Journal of Community Psychology, 40, 555–572.
Pianta, R. C., Belsky, J., Vandergrift, N., Houts, R., & Morrison, F. J. (2008). Classroom effects on
children’s achievement trajectories in elementary school. American Educational Research Jour-
nal, 45, 365–397.
Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., & Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom Assessment Scoring System manual.
Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., Payne, C., Cox, M. J., & Bradley, R. (2002). The relation of kinder-
garten classroom environment to teacher, family, and school characteristics and child out-
comes. Elementary School Journal, 102, 225 – 238.
Pomerantz, E. M., Moorman, E. A., & Litwack, S. D. (2007). The how, whom and why of parents’
involvement in children’s academic lives: More is not always better. Review of Educational
Research, 77(3), 373– 410.
Ponitz, C. C., McClelland, M. M., Matthews, J. S., & Morrison, F. J. (2009). A structured observa-
tion of behavioral self-regulation and its contribution to kindergarten outcomes. Developmen-
tal Psychology, 45, 605– 619.
Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interaction
effects in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of
Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437– 448.
Pressley, M., Roehrig, A., Raphael, L., Dolezal, S., Bohn, C., Mohan, L., Wharton-McDonald, R.,
Bogner, K., & Hogan, K. (2003). Teaching processes in elementary and secondary education. In
W. Reynolds & G. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Vol 7. Educational psychology (pp.
153–176). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Raudenbush, S. W. (2009). Adaptive centering with random effects: An alternative to the fixed
effects model for studying time-varying treatments in school settings. Journal of Education,
Finance and Policy, 4(4), 468 – 491.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., Congdon, R. T., & du Toit, M. (2011). HLM 7:
Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Raver, C. C., Jones, S. M., Li-Grining, C. P., Metzger, M., Champion, K. M., & Saldin, L. (2008).
Improving preschool classroom processes: Preliminary findings from a randomized trial im-
plemented in Head Start settings. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(1), 10 –26.
Rimm-Kauffman, S. (1999). Patterns of family-school contact in preschool and kindergarten.
School Psychology Review, 28, 426 – 438.

 䡠      
Rubin, D. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York: Wiley.
Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2005). School programs of family and community involvement to
support children’s reading and literacy development across the grades. In J. Flood & P. Anders
(Eds.), The literacy development of students in urban schools: Research and policy (pp. 107–138).
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Methods for studying change
and event occurrence. New York: Oxford University Press.
Snijders, T. (2005). Power and sample size in multilevel linear models. In B. S. Everitt & D. C.
Howell (Eds.), Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science (Vol. 3, pp. 1570 –1573). Chicester:
Wiley.
Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (2006). Dynamic systems theories. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.),
Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 258 –271). New York: Wiley.
Walker, M., & MacLure, M. (2005). Home-school partnerships in practice. In G. Crozier & D. Reay
(Eds.), Activating participation: Parents and teachers working towards partnerships (pp. 97–110).
Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.
Webster-Stratton, C., Reid, M. J., & Stoolmiller, M. (2008). Preventing conduct problems and
improving school readiness: Evaluation of the incredible year teacher and child training pro-
grams in high risk schools. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(5), 471– 488.
Wechsler, D. (1989). Manual for the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence—Revised.
San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Examiner’s manual. Woodcock-Johnson III
Tests of Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
Yuan, Y. C. (2010). Multiple imputation for missing data: Concepts and new development. Proceed-
ings of the SAS Users Group International Conference, Paper No. 267-25.
Yuan, Y. C. (2011). Multiple imputation using SAS software. Journal of Statistical Software, 45(6),
1–25.


Mccormick 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mccormick 2013

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mccormick 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PARENT INVOLVEMENT, EMOTIONAL

SUPPORT, AND BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS

     ,  

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on July 25, 2016 19:29:38 PM

schools promote parental involvement in education (NCLB, 2002). Although en-

Parent Involvement and Behavior Problems

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on July 25, 2016 19:29:38 PM

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on July 25, 2016 19:29:38 PM

Parent Involvement and Classroom Emotional Support in Urban

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on July 25, 2016 19:29:38 PM

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on July 25, 2016 19:29:38 PM

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on July 25, 2016 19:29:38 PM

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on July 25, 2016 19:29:38 PM

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on July 25, 2016 19:29:38 PM

Table 1. Description of Dimensions of Classroom Emotional Support

Source.—Copyright 2008 by Pianta, La Paro, and Hamre.

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on July 25, 2016 19:29:38 PM

Conﬁrmatory Factor Analysis

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on July 25, 2016 19:29:38 PM

1. Home-school communication 2.58 .76

Note.—n ⫽ 255 students, n ⫽ 60 classrooms, n ⫽ 22 schools.

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on July 25, 2016 19:29:38 PM

tween classroom emotional support and classroom organization, and a moderately

Hierarchical Linear Models

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on July 25, 2016 19:29:38 PM

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on July 25, 2016 19:29:38 PM

neously added to the level 2 model to account for between-classroom variation in

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on July 25, 2016 19:29:38 PM

Figure 1. Home-school communication and student behavior problems as moderated by classroom

The interaction terms between classroom emotional support and school-based

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on July 25, 2016 19:29:38 PM

student behavior problems. Specifically, significant relations between home-school

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on July 25, 2016 19:29:38 PM

However, there is limited extant research examining relations between school-

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on July 25, 2016 19:29:38 PM

ables examination of associations between teachers’ classroom emotional support

Implications and Directions for Future Research

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on July 25, 2016 19:29:38 PM

Yijk ⫽ ␤0 ⫹ ␤1 (female)ijk ⫹ ␤2 (child age)ijk ⫹ ␤3 (child math achievement)ijk ⫹ ␤4

Yijk ⫽ ␤0 ⫹ ␤1 (female)ijk ⫹ ␤2 (child age)ijk ⫹ ␤3 (child math achievement)ijk ⫹ ␤4

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on July 25, 2016 19:29:38 PM

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on July 25, 2016 19:29:38 PM

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on July 25, 2016 19:29:38 PM

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on July 25, 2016 19:29:38 PM

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on July 25, 2016 19:29:38 PM

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on July 25, 2016 19:29:38 PM

You might also like