Parents’ motivations for involvement 1
Running head: PARENTS’ MOTIVATIONS FOR INVOLVEMENT
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
This is a final draft of the manuscript:
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.
Please see APA for a final version of the paper.
Parents’ motivations for involvement in children’s education: An empirical test of a
theoretical model of parental involvement
Christa L. Green
Vanderbilt University
Joan M. T. Walker
Long Island University
Kathleen V. Hoover-Dempsey and Howard M. Sandler
Vanderbilt University
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Parents’ motivations for involvement 2
Abstract
This study examined the ability of a theoretical model to predict types and levels
of parental involvement during the elementary and middle school years. Predictor
variables included parents’ motivational beliefs about involvement, perceptions of
invitations to involvement from others, and perceived life context variables. Analyses of
responses from 853 parents of 1st through 6th grade students enrolled in an ethnically
diverse metropolitan public school system in the mid-South of the United States revealed
that model constructs predicted significant portions of variance in parents’ home- and
school-based involvement even when controlling for family SES. The predictive power
of specific model constructs differed for elementary and middle school parents. Results
are discussed in terms of research on parental involvement and school practice.
Keywords: Parental Involvement, Parents’ Motivation for Involvement, Age-related
Differences
Parents’ motivations for involvement 3
Parents’ motivations for involvement in children’s education: An empirical test of a
theoretical model of the parental involvement process
Parental involvement has long been believed to be associated with a range of
enhanced school outcomes for elementary, middle and high school students, including
varied indicators of achievement and the development of student attributes that support
achievement, such as self-efficacy for learning, perceptions of personal control over
school outcomes, and self-regulatory skills and knowledge (Bandura, Barbaranelli,
Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996; Brody, Flor & Gibson, 1999; Epstein & Van Voorhis, 2001;
Fan & Chen, 2001; Frome & Eccles, 1998; Grolnick, Kurowski, Dunlap & Hevey, 2000;
Grolnick & Slowiaczek, 1994; Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Hill & Craft, 2003; Jeynes,
2003; Xu & Corno, 2003). Although parental involvement is an important contributor to
children’s positive school outcomes, much less is known about the factors that motivate
parents’ involvement practices.
A model by Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995, 1997, 2005) provides a strong
theoretical framework from which to examine specific predictors of parental involvement
(see Figure 1). Grounded primarily in psychological literature, the Hoover-Dempsey and
Sandler Model of the Parental Involvement Process proposes three major sources of
motivation for involvement (Figure 1). The first is parents’ motivational beliefs relevant
to involvement including parental role construction and parental self-efficacy for helping
the child succeed in school. The second is parents’ perceptions of invitations to
involvement including general invitations from the school (e.g., positive school climate),
and specific invitations from teachers and children. The third source is personal life
context variables that influence parents’ perceptions of the forms and timing of
Parents’ motivations for involvement 4
involvement that seem feasible, including parents’ skills and knowledge for involvement,
and time and energy for involvement. In this paper we report findings from an empirical
examination of the relative contributions of model constructs, described in more detail
below, to parents’ home- and school-based involvement activities. In addition, we
consider the influence of student age-related differences in the model’s ability to predict
parents’ involvement.
The Model Constructs
Parents’ Motivational Beliefs
Parental role construction. Role activity for involvement incorporates parents’
beliefs about what they should do in relation to their children’s education (HooverDempsey & Sandler, 1995; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005). Parents’ beliefs about child
rearing and child development and about appropriate home support roles in children’s
education influence role construction. Parental role construction also grows from parents’
experiences with individuals and groups related to schooling, and is subject to social
influence over time (Biddle, 1986; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997). Studies of diverse
groups of elementary and middle school students provide empirical support for the power
of role construction to influence and shape parental involvement (e.g., Chrispeels &
Rivero, 2001; Drummond & Stipek, 2004; Grolnick, Benjet, Kurowski, & Apostoleris,
1997; Hoover-Dempsey, et al., 2005). In general, parents who hold an active role
construction are more involved in their children’s education than parents who hold less
active role beliefs (Deslandes & Bertrand, 2005; Gutman & McLoyd, 2000; HooverDempsey et al., 2005; Sheldon, 2002).
Parents’ motivations for involvement 5
Parental self-efficacy for helping the child succeed in school. Self-efficacy is
defined as a person’s belief that he or she can act in ways that will produce desired
outcomes; it is a significant factor shaping the goals an individual chooses to pursue and
his or her levels of persistence in working toward those goals (Bandura, 1997). Applied
to parental involvement, self-efficacy theory suggests that parents make involvement
decisions based in part on their thinking about the outcomes likely to follow their
involvement activities (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997; Walker et al, 2005). Like role
construction, self-efficacy is socially constructed: it is influenced by personal experiences
of success in parental involvement, vicarious experience of similar others’ successful
involvement experiences, and verbal persuasion by others (Bandura, 1997). Positive
personal beliefs about efficacy for helping one’s children succeed in school are associated
with increased parental involvement among elementary, middle and high school students
(e.g., Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara & Pastorelli, 1996;Grolnick et al., 1997; HooverDempsey, Bassler, & Brissie, 1992; Seefeldt, Denton, Galper, & Younoszai, 1998;
Shumow & Lomax, 2002).
Parents’ Perceptions of Invitations to Involvement from Others
General school invitations. Several qualities of school environments (e.g.,
structure, climate, management practices) are associated with enhanced parental
involvement (e.g., Griffith, 1998). Invitations are manifest, for example, in the creation of
a welcoming and responsive school atmosphere, school practices that ensure that parents
are well informed about student progress, school requirements, and school events; they
are also reflected in school practices that convey respect for and responsiveness to
parental questions and suggestions. Several investigators’ findings underscore the
Parents’ motivations for involvement 6
importance of positive school invitations and a welcoming, trustworthy school climate to
in supporting parental involvement (e.g., Christenson, 2004; Comer & Haynes, 1991;
Griffith, 1998; Lopez, Sanchez, & Hamilton, 2000; Simon, 2004; Soodak & Erwin,
2000).
Specific teacher invitations. Specific invitations to involvement from teachers
have been identified as motivators of parental involvement in elementary through high
school student populations (e.g., Epstein, 1986; Kohl, Lengua, & McMahon, 2002;
Simon, 2004). Teacher invitations are influential in part because they underscore the
teacher’s valuing of parent contributions to students’ educational success (Adams &
Christenson, 2000; Kohl et al., 2002; Patrikakou & Weissberg, 2000). Responding to
many parents’ expressed wishes to know more about how they can be helpful in their
children’s learning (Corno, 2000; Hoover-Dempsey, Bassler & Burow, 1995), developers
of varied intervention programs have reported notable success in increasing the incidence
and effectiveness of parents’ involvement activities through teachers’ invitations to
participate in specific involvement activities (e.g., Balli, Demo, & Wedman, 1998;
Epstein & Van Voorhis, 2001; Shaver & Walls, 1998; Shumow, 1998; Simon, 2004).
Specific child invitations. Student invitations can be powerful in prompting
parental involvement, in part because parents generally want their children to succeed
and are motivated to respond to their children’s needs (e.g., Grusec, 2002; HooverDempsey et al, 1995). Implicit invitations to involvement may emerge as students
experience difficulties in school or with aspects of schoolwork (Hoover-Dempsey et al.,
2001; Xu & Corno, 1998). Explicit requests or invitations from children also often result
in increased parental involvement (e.g., Balli et al., 1998; Deslandes & Bertrand, 2005;
Parents’ motivations for involvement 7
Shumow, 1997). As true of all types of invitations to involvement, invitations from the
child may be increased by school actions to enhance family engagement in children’s
schooling (e.g., Balli et al., 1998; Epstein & Van Voorhis, 2001; Gonzalez, Andrade,
Civil, & Moll, 2001; Simon, 2004).
Parents’ Perceptions of Life Context Variables
Skills and knowledge for involvement. Parents’ perceptions of personal skills and
knowledge shape their ideas about the kinds of involvement activities they might
undertake (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 1995, 2005). Skills and knowledge are combined in
the model because they form a “set” of personal resources that theoretically impact a
parent’s decisions about varied involvement opportunities in a similar manner. For
example, a parent who feels more knowledgeable in math than in social studies may be
more willing to assist with math homework; a parent who feels comfortable and effective
in public-speaking may be more likely than a parent who does not believe he or she has
such skills to agree to talk about his or her occupation in front of a class of students
(Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995). Although skills and knowledge are related to selfefficacy for involvement, they constitute a theoretically and pragmatically distinct
construct; individuals with the same level of skills and knowledge may perform
differently given variations in personal efficacy beliefs about what one can do with that
set of skills and knowledge (Bandura, 1997). Consistent with related empirical work
(e.g., Dauber & Epstein, 1993; Delgado-Gaitan, 1992; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 1995;
Kay, Fitzgerald, Paradee, & Mellencamp, 1994), inclusion of skills and knowledge in the
model suggests that parents are motivated to engage in involvement activities if they
Parents’ motivations for involvement 8
believe they have skills and knowledge that will be helpful in specific domains of
involvement activity.
Time and energy for involvement. Parents’ thinking about involvement is also
influenced by their perceptions of other demands on their time and energy, particularly in
relation to other family responsibilities and varied work responsibilities or constraints
(Hoover-Dempsey et al., 1995; Lareau, 1989). For example, parents whose employment
is relatively demanding and inflexible tend to be less involved than parents whose jobs or
life circumstances are more flexible (Garcia Coll et al., 2002; Weiss et al., 2003), and
parents with multiple child-care or extended family responsibilities may also be less
involved, particularly in school-based activities (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005)
Socioeconomic Status
Although not included in the model, we wished to evaluate the predictive power
of the model’s constructs relative to the influence of socioeconomic status (SES). SES
has often been a variable of interest in studies of parental involvement, and the results
have been mixed (Fan & Chen, 2001). On the one hand, some researchers have found
SES and parental involvement to be positively related (Brody & Flor, 1998; Fan & Chen,
2001; Lareau, 1989; Stevenson & Baker, 1987). In fact, this connection has often served
as a rationale for many intervention programs (e.g., Balli, 1996; Reynolds, 1994;
Reynolds, Ou, & Topitzes, 2004), which assume that positive parenting behaviors – the
target of interventions - may serve as a protective factor against the negative impact that
stressors associated with low SES often have on children’s school achievement (McLoyd,
1998). On the other hand, other researchers have noted that SES variables do not directly
explain the often large variability found in levels and effectiveness of involvement within
Parents’ motivations for involvement 9
SES groups (Bornstein, Hahn, Suwalsky, & Haynes, 2003; Delgado-Gaitan, 1992;
Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997; Scott-Jones, 1987). Some researchers have argued
that such findings indicate that SES variables are not as important as contextual processes
that motivate parents’ involvement, such as school invitations to involvement and
parents’ social networks (e.g., Sheldon, 2003). Thus, we tested not only model constructs
but also the continued ability of model constructs to predict parental involvement
practices when controlling for socioeconomic status.
Outcome: Parents’ Home-Based and School-Based Involvement Practices
Parental involvement has been defined in a variety of ways in the literature
(Epstein, 1986; Fan & Chen, 2001). Although involvement is a complex process that
often transcends geographic boundaries, researchers have often characterized
involvement in two sub-types, home-based and school-based (e.g., Christenson &
Sheridan, 2001). Such categories are useful because they are representative of relatively
common but distinct activities expected of families in many large, urban public school
systems.
While more comprehensive measures of involvement activities are available and
quite useful for varied purposes (e.g., Epstein, 1986; Epstein & Salinas, 1993; Garcia,
2004), this study offers an examination of a targeted range of involvement activities
commonly used by parents of 1st – 6th grade children. Home-based involvement is
generally defined in the literature as interactions taking place between the child and
parent outside of school (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 2005). These parental behaviors
generally focus on the individual child’s learning-related behaviors, attitudes, or
strategies, and include parental activities such as helping with homework, reviewing for a
Parents’ motivations for involvement 10
test, and monitoring the child’s progress. School-based involvement activities generally
include activities typically undertaken by parents at school which are generally focused
on the individual child, such as attending a parent-teacher conference, observing the child
in class, and watching the child’s performance in a school club or activity. School-based
involvement behavior may also focus on school issues or school needs more broadly,
such as attending a school open house and volunteering to assist on class field trips.
Age-Related Differences in Parental Involvement
A second goal of this study was to examine levels and types of parental
involvement across the elementary and middle school years. Parental involvement has
consistently been shown to decrease as children age, both by grade level and by
differences in school structures or school transitions (Eccles & Midgley, 1990; Grolnick,
Kurowski, Dunlap, & Hevey, 2000; Grolnick & Slowiaczek, 1994). There are
developmental reasons supporting decreases in parental involvement as the child moves
from early to middle childhood and again into adolescence, including children’s
increasing needs for independence and increasing focus on peer relationships (Matza,
Kupersmidt & Glenn, 2001; Steinberg, Lamborn, Dornbusch, & Darling, 1992).
However, appropriate parental involvement practices have been shown to increase
positive student outcomes throughout children’s schooling, including the high-school
years (Bogenschneider, 1997; Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987;
Fehrmann, Keith & Reimers, 1987; Hill & Taylor, 2004; Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg &
Dornbusch, 1991; Steinberg, Elman, & Mounts, 1989). Despite the number of studies that
have found the continued positive influence of developmentally appropriate parental
involvement on children’s academic achievement, few studies have documented age-
Parents’ motivations for involvement 11
related changes in parental involvement from early elementary through middle school
grades or the impact of child age or grade level on parents’ motivation for involvement.
In a cross-sectional examination of parenting style and homework help, Cooper, Lindsey
and Nye (2000) noted that although parents were less likely to be directly involved with
homework in high-school than in elementary school, high-school parents were more
likely to give autonomy support in relation to their children’s homework activities.
Stevenson and Baker (1987), with a cross-sectional sample, and Izzo, Weissberg,
Kasprow, and Fendrich, (1999), with a longitudinal examination of 1st – 3rd grade
students, both noted that parent-teacher interactions and parent participation at school
decreased with each grade level. While these studies noted that involvement generally
decreases, discussions about how child age may be related to different facets of parental
involvement motivators were not examined. In the results reported below, we examine
the influence of child age-related differences on model constructs and parental
involvement practices.
Summary
This study examined the capacity of hypothesized constructs (role construction,
personal self-efficacy for involvement, general invitations from the school, specific
invitations from the teacher and child, self-perceived skills and knowledge, and selfperceived time and energy) to predict parents’ self-reported involvement in educationrelated activities based at home (e.g., helping with homework) and at school (e.g.,
attending school functions). Although our theoretical focus was on the modelhypothesized contributions of constructs that are subject to change by school and family
action, indicators of family SES were included as a test of the model’s ability to predict
Parents’ motivations for involvement 12
parents’ involvement activities when controlling for SES. The influence of child age on
parents’ involvement was also examined, with specific attention to the model’s ability to
predict levels and types of involvement among parents of elementary and middle school
students.
Method
Participants
Participants were 853 parents of 1st through 6th grade children enrolled in a socioeconomically and ethnically diverse metropolitan public school system in the mid-South
of the United States. Parents were recruited at two time points (labeled Sample 1 and
Sample 2) at different schools through questionnaire packets sent home with, and
returned by, children from participating schools. Participants at the two time points were
independent. Only one parent filled out a questionnaire per child; if the family had more
than one child, they were asked to fill out a questionnaire only for the oldest child at the
school. Information on participant demographic variables at each time point is
summarized in Table 1. Overall demographic characteristics of participants at the two
time points were slightly different; specifically, parents in the first sample had a slightly
lower mean education (high-school or equivalent rather than some college), slightly
lower mean family income (between $20,000-$30,000 rather than $30,000-$40,000), and
the sample contained a slightly higher percentage of Hispanic families. Both samples are
more diverse than typically seen in the regional population, with income levels that are
grouped around the average per capita income of the region.
To ensure that participants in both samples were from the same population and
that generalization error based on resampling was minimized, a cross-validation analysis
Parents’ motivations for involvement 13
was conducted. First, a developmental sample (Sample 1) was used to find a regression
equation for predicting an aggregate parental involvement measure using model
constructs. Score estimates were then found for study participants in the cross-validation
sample (Sample 2) using the regression equation developed in Sample 1. A correlation
was obtained by comparing the predicted cross-validation sample score estimates to the
actual scores found in Sample 2. Despite small changes in scales between samples and
the number of variables tested, the correlation obtained was considered acceptable (rY’Y =
.57, p < .01).
Measures
Study measures were developed and refined during the course of a long-term
project (see Walker et al., 2005 for scale development information); thus, there were
slight differences in length and specific items included in the measures used in the two
samples. Although we keep the two samples separate when discussing measures, the
samples are later combined for analyses and results. All measures (at both time points)
underwent face and content validity evaluations by a panel of five persons who had
expert knowledge of the constructs being evaluated. All model measures employed a sixpoint Likert-type response scale. Measures of predictor constructs used an ‘agreedisagree’ response scale, whereas the measure of parental involvement practices used a
‘never-to-daily’ response scale. Reliability scores are noted for measures as used in each
sample.
Parents’ Motivational Beliefs
Parental Role Activity Beliefs. Parental role activity beliefs included parents’
beliefs about what they should do and how active they should be in relation to their
Parents’ motivations for involvement 14
children’s education (e.g., “It’s my job to explain tough assignments to my child;” “I
believe it is my responsibility to volunteer at the school”: Sample 1, seven items,  = .67;
Sample 2, 10 items,  = .83). Factor analysis in previous work indicated that role activity
is a single construct (Walker et al., 2005), incorporating parental beliefs about both
home- and school-based involvement.
Parental Self-Efficacy for Helping Child Succeed in School. Parental sense of
efficacy included parents’ beliefs about their personal ability to make a difference in the
child’s educational outcomes through their involvement (e.g., “I feel successful about my
efforts to help my child learn”; Sample 1, seven items,  = .78); Sample 2, five items, 
= .80.
Parents’ Perceptions of Invitations to Involvement from Others
Perceptions of General School Invitations to Involvement. These items tap
parents’ perceptions that school staff and the school environment make the parent feel
like a valued and welcomed participant in the child’s education (e.g., “I feel welcome at
this school”: Sample 1 and 2, six items,  = .88 and .79, respectively).
Perceptions of Specific Teacher Invitations to Involvement. Grounded in part on
work by Epstein and Salinas (1993), these items ask parents to report direct requests from
the teacher for involvement at home or in school-based activities (e.g., “My child’s
teacher asked me or expected me to supervise my child’s homework”: Sample 1, six
items,  = .81; Sample 2, five items,  = .67).
Perceptions of Specific Child Invitations to Involvement. This scale measured
parents’ perceptions of child requests for parental help or engagement in school-related
Parents’ motivations for involvement 15
activities at home or at school (e.g., “My child asked me to help explain something about
his or her homework”: Sample 1, six items  = .70; Sample 2, five items,  = .64).
Parents’ Perceptions of Life Context Variables
Skills and Knowledge. The scale assessed parents’ perceptions of personal skills
and knowledge relevant to involvement in the child’s education (e.g., “I know enough
about the subjects of my child’s homework to help him or her”; Sample 1, nine items,  =
.83; Sample 2, six items,  = .82). Although these constructs could be separated, they are
conflated here into one construct because, theoretically, they influence parental
involvement practices in a similar manner.
Time and Energy. This construct included parents’ perceptions of demands on
their time, especially those related to employment and family needs that may influence
parents’ thinking about the possibilities of involvement (e.g., “I have enough time and
energy to attend special events at school”: Sample 1, eight items,  = .84; Sample 2, five
items,  = .81). Again, although these constructs could be separated, they are combined
because, theoretically, they affect parental involvement practices similarly.
Socioeconomic Status
SES generally refers to a measure of an individual or family’s relative economic
and social ranking and can be constructed based on father’s education level, mother’s
education level, father’s occupation, mother’s occupation, and family income (Bornstein
et al., 2003; National Center for Education Statistics’ Glossary, n.d.). We assessed SES
with seven separate variables: parent’s highest level of education completed (eight
choices, from less than high school to doctoral degree), parent’s occupation (14 choices,
from unemployed/retired/student to professional/executive), and number of hours worked
Parents’ motivations for involvement 16
per week; the same items were used to assess the spouse’s or partner’s standing in each
area. In addition, family income was assessed (seven choices, from less than $5,000 to
over $50,000). These variables were entered separately into a single block in regression
analyses, consistent with some researchers’ (e.g., Duncan & Magnuson, 2003)
suggestions that aggregating or simplifying SES measures ignores the complexity and
fluctuations that may characterize the components of family SES.
Outcome: Parental Involvement Practices
This scale assessed how frequently parents report that they engage in a sample of
home-based and school-based involvement activities. Home-based items included
statements such as “I kept an eye on my child’s progress” and “Someone in this family
talks with this child about the school day” (Sample 1, four items,  = .70; Sample 2, five
items,  = .79). School-based involvement items included statements such as “Someone
in this family attends PTA meetings” (Sample 1, six items,  = .82; Sample 2, five items,
 = .71).
Age-related Differences
Age-related differences in parental involvement were assessed in two sets of
analyses described in more detail below; in the first set, age-related differences were
assessed by separating each grade level (grades 1st – 6th); in the second set, age-related
differences were assessed by separating elementary school grades (grades 1st – 4th) from
middle school grades (grades 5th and 6th) in accordance with school structures in the
participating school district.
Results
Parents’ motivations for involvement 17
The two samples were combined for all analyses. Table 2 summarizes descriptive
statistics and correlations for all model variables. Multiple hierarchical regressions were
conducted to test hypotheses focused on the power of model constructs to predict parents’
home-based and school-based involvement. SES variables were then added to the
multiple hierarchical regressions to test the model’s ability to predict involvement when
controlling for SES. Finally, age-related differences were examined with ANOVAs
comparing 1st-6th grade levels; multiple hierarchical regressions were used with
elementary (1st-4th grades) and middle (5th and 6th grades) school parents to test the
predictive power of the model.
Predictors of Involvement
Home-Based Involvement. Multiple hierarchical regressions were conducted using
factors in the following blocks to predict parental home involvement: Block 1,
motivational beliefs related to involvement (role activity and parental self-efficacy);
Block 2, perceptions of invitations to involvement (general invitations from the school,
specific teacher invitations, specific child invitations); Block 3, perceived life context
variables (skills and knowledge, time and energy). Table 4 summarizes the results. The
constructs accounted for a significant portion of the variance (F[7, 852] = 78.32, p < .01;
Adj. R2 = .39). Specifically, parental role activity beliefs, parental self-efficacy, specific
child invitations, and parental perceptions of time and energy predicted significant
amounts of variance. General invitations to involvement from the school, specific teacher
invitations, and self-perceived skills and knowledge were not significant predictors,
although all three constructs were significantly correlated with home-based involvement
(see Table 2).
Parents’ motivations for involvement 18
School-Based Involvement. Multiple hierarchical regressions were conducted as
described above. Table 4 summarizes the results. The model constructs accounted for a
significant 48.8% of the variance (F[7, 852] = 117.09, p < .01) in parents’ reports of
school-based involvement; specifically, parental role activity beliefs, parental selfefficacy, specific teacher invitations, specific child invitations, and parental reports of
time and energy for involvement were significant predictors. General invitations for
involvement from the school and skills and knowledge were not significant predictors,
although both constructs were significantly correlated with school-based involvement
(see Table 2).
Considering SES
Table 3 summarizes descriptive statistics and correlations for all SES variables.
The multiple hierarchical regressions above were repeated with SES variables added as
the first block (motivational beliefs related to involvement in block 2, perceptions of
invitations to involvement in block 3, and self-perceived life context in block 4). The SES
variables were not significant in predicting variance in parents’ reported home-based
involvement, demonstrating that the model constructs continued to be significant
predictors of parental involvement even after controlling for SES. However, in
predicting school-based involvement, one SES predictor remained significant:
spouse/partner’s education ( = .09, t[573] = 3.01, p < .01), although the zero-order
correlation between school-based involvement and spouse/partner’s education was not
significant (r = .06, ns; see Table 3).
Predicting Age-Related Differences in Parental Involvement Activities
Parents’ motivations for involvement 19
Differences by Grade Level. To examine the hypothesis that patterns of parental
involvement activities are related to child grade level, the sample was first divided into
individual grade levels, and the means for each type of involvement were examined.
Involvement generally decreased at each grade level across the elementary and early
middle school years (Figure 2); home-based involvement was higher than school-based
involvement at all grade levels. To determine if differences in involvement between
individual grade levels were significant, omnibus significance tests were conducted. We
conducted two separate one-way ANOVAs and found significant differences for both
types of involvement (Home-based involvement, F[5, 843] = 19.30, p < .01; 2 = .10:
School-based involvement, F[5, 843] = 35.91, p < .01; 2 = .18). Although ANOVA
analyses indicate differences between grade levels, they do not indicate how the groups
differ. Because we had no specific hypotheses about significant differences between
grade levels beyond those based on elementary and middle school differences, and
because sample sizes differed widely across groups (n = 1st grade: 84; 2nd grade: 85; 3rd
grade: 75; 4th grade: 157; 5th grade: 200; 6th grade: 243), planned complex contrasts to
determine between-grade-level differences were not conducted. Post-hoc Tukey
comparisons indicated that first through third grade significantly differed from fifth and
sixth grade on home-based and school-based involvement. This led us to further explore
differences based on school type.
Differences by School Type: Elementary v. Middle School. To test the hypothesis
that involvement decreases from elementary (1st – 4th grade) to middle (5th and 6th grade)
school, independent sample t-tests with unequal variances were conducted (Table 5).
Parents of elementary school students reported significantly more home-based and
Parents’ motivations for involvement 20
school-based involvement than parents of middle school students. A general linear model
was conducted on the interactions between school type and all study variables to see if
differences in study variables existed for elementary and middle school parents when we
predicted home and school involvement (Table 6). Significant differences were found
between school type and all study variables (except skills and knowledge) in either homebased or school-based involvement.
Hierarchical multiple regressions were then used to explore how well the model
fit elementary school parental involvement behaviors and middle school parental
involvement behaviors. Although involvement decreased between elementary and middle
school, the predictive power of the model was sustained. In elementary school parents
(Table 7), model constructs accounted for 27% of the variance of home-based
involvement and 47% of the variance of school-based involvement. In the middle school
group (Table 8), involvement trends differed: 48% of the variance was accounted for in
home-based involvement and 36% of the variance was accounted for in school-based
involvement.
These differences between home- and school-based involvement among middle
and elementary school parents led to further analyses to determine if the differences were
significant and to explore possible causes of these differences. Significance tests of the R2
for home- and school-based involvement revealed differences between the two groups:
for home-based involvement, the difference between the R2 was .20, (SERsquare1-Rsquare2 =
.05), significant at the 95% confidence interval (0.10 to .30); for school-based
involvement, R21 – R22 = .11 (SERsquare1-Rsquare2 = .05), which was significant at the 95%
confidence interval (.01 to .21). Further examination of regression coefficients suggested
Parents’ motivations for involvement 21
that one construct in particular (specific child invitations) was responsible for the high
amount of variance predicted in home-based involvement for the middle school group (
= .60 versus .32).
Discussion
While evidence generally suggests that parental involvement is beneficial for
children’s academic success, less is known about parental motivations for involvement
and how these motivations influence specific involvement decisions. This study
examined the relative contributions of three major psychological constructs (parents’
motivational beliefs, perceptions of invitations to involvement from others, and perceived
life context) hypothesized to predict parental involvement decisions, We also examined
the model’s continued ability to predict involvement when controlling for SES, and
assessed the model’s ability to predict age-related patterns of involvement despite
anticipated decreases in parents’ participation across the elementary and middle school
years.
Findings for a relatively large and diverse set of parents whose children were
enrolled in a metropolitan public school system suggest that the model offers a useful
framework for understanding what prompts parents’ home-based and school-based
involvement. Supporting the value of examining intrapersonal (i.e., parents’ personal
beliefs) and interpersonal factors (e.g., perceptions of others’ invitations) in concert, both
forms of involvement were predicted by parents’ perceptions of invitations to
involvement from others, motivational beliefs, and perceived life context, respectively.
Specifically, parents’ home-based involvement was predicted by perceptions of specific
child invitations, self-efficacy beliefs, and self-perceived time and energy for
Parents’ motivations for involvement 22
involvement. These same constructs, along with perceptions of specific teacher
invitations, predicted parents’ school-based involvement. It is interesting to note that selfefficacy beliefs are a strong positive predictor of home-based involvement, but a small
negative predictor of school-based involvement; this may be because parents who are
strongly motivated to be involved but do not feel efficacious in their involvement efforts
are likely to reach out to the school for assistance.
The contributions of these psychological constructs are robust even when family
status variables such as parents’ income and level of education are included in the
analyses. Consistent with previous research (e.g., Delgado-Gaitan, 1992; Scott-Jones,
1987; Sheldon, 2003), these findings suggest that parental involvement is motivated
primarily by features of the social context, especially parents’ interpersonal relationships
with children and teachers, rather than by SES (even when broadly defined.) Finally, they
suggest that the model may be reasonably applied to parents from a wide variety of
socioeconomic backgrounds.
The relative contributions of model constructs varied according to child age. As
expected, involvement decreased as child age increased. Interestingly, motivations for
elementary and middle school parents’ involvement at home and school differed. For
elementary school parents, home-based involvement was predicted by perceptions of
invitations from children, motivational beliefs (i.e., self-efficacy and role activity beliefs),
and perceived time and energy for involvement, respectively. This same order of
constructs predicted the home-based involvement of middle school parents with the
exception of role activity beliefs. This was counter to our expectation that role beliefs
would contribute to maintaining home-based involvement during middle school, a period
Parents’ motivations for involvement 23
when children typically press for greater independence and schoolwork becomes
increasingly difficult. However, these findings may also indicate that parents’ role beliefs
about home-based involvement change as children assert greater independence. This
possibility is supported by the fact that the majority of variance in middle-school parents’
home-based involvement is accounted for by perceptions of child invitations.
For both groups of parents, school-based involvement was predicted most notably
by invitations from teachers and children. Other predictors included perceived time and
energy and role activity beliefs, although these constructs appeared most salient to
parents of middle school children. In contrast to its importance for many parents’ homebased involvement, self-efficacy did not appear to contribute uniquely to school-based
participation.
Two constructs, parents’ self-perceived skills and knowledge and perceptions of
general school invitations, were significantly correlated with outcome variables but did
not predict involvement. Multicollinearity may have played a suppressing role; for
example, intercorrelations between parental self-efficacy and self-perceived knowledge
and skills may have obscured the specific contributions of each. The failure of general
school invitations to predict involvement may be related to the correlation with specific
teacher invitations, suggesting that general school invitations may generally influence
parental involvement only through specific teacher invitations. The failure of general
school invitations to predict involvement may also be due to limited variability in school
climate across varied schools in the district, although the researchers view this as unlikely
given the apparent uniqueness of school climate across many of the participating schools.
Other limitations include the potential ‘halo-effect’ bias of parental self-report. Future
Parents’ motivations for involvement 24
studies might use multiple methods (e.g., parent interviews in addition to parent survey
responses) and acquire information from multiple sources (e.g., teacher, child, and parent
reports for some variables). Also, it is important to keep in mind that claims in this study
about declines in parental involvement between elementary and middle school are based
on cross-sectional rather than longitudinal data.
Implications for Research and Practice
This study has two specific implications for research in parental involvement.
First, when the contributions of SES, parents’ personal beliefs, perceptions of invitations
from others, and perceived life context are compared, parents’ interpersonal relationships
with children and teachers emerge as the driving force behind their involvement in
children’s education. This finding is important because it highlights the reciprocal nature
of parent-child and family-school relationships. Second, the model’s differential ability to
explain levels of home-based and school-based involvement suggests the importance of
carefully defining types of parental involvement. Moreover, distinguishing between
parents’ home- and school-based involvement revealed important information about how
parents’ participation in children’s education changes and may be sustained across the
transition to middle school. Construct definition and developmentally related differences
in parents’ thinking and behavior related to parental involvement are issues of increasing
concern as the body of research on parental involvement continues to grow.
To test the model’s generalizability, a logical next step is to examine its predictive
power across cultural groups, school types, and developmental levels. We are currently
examining the model’s ability to explain the involvement practices of Latino American
and Anglo American parents. Other examinations have compared the model’s capacity to
Parents’ motivations for involvement 25
predict the involvement of parents who choose to home-school rather than participate in
traditional formal schooling (Green & Hoover-Dempsey, 2007).
Although socioeconomic status was included in this study to assess the validity of
empirically testing the Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler Model of Parental Involvement, we
understand that the contributions of SES to parental involvement and students’ school
outcomes are the subject of much discussion in the literature and some disagreement
among varied theoretical perspectives. We recommend that future research continue to
examine the specific contributions of SES variables to parental involvement decisions.
Future research, for example, might examine whether SES variables moderate the
relationship between model constructs and parents’ involvement decisions. Although the
low correlations between our SES measures and involvement suggests that a moderating
effect is unlikely, some researchers (e.g., Desimone, 1999; Lareau, 1989; Spera, 2005;
Stevenson & Baker, 1987) have noted that SES (or specific components thereof, e.g.,
parental education level) is likely an important contributor to understanding parents’
involvement.
In addition, it was the goal of this paper to examine the Hoover-Dempsey and
Sandler Model of the Parental Involvement Process and to test the model’s ability to
predict parental involvement practices. The model suggests that psychological constructs
directly impact parental involvement practices, so we have examined the main effects of
these variables. Other researchers may be interested in various interactions between the
variables; for example, life context may better serve as a moderator rather than as a direct
contributor (influencing the degree or type of involvement rather than whether the parent
becomes involved; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995, 1997). Such interactions may
Parents’ motivations for involvement 26
provide an interesting area for future research. In addition, researchers may be interested
in employing statistical modeling techniques (such as structural equation modeling) to
replicate model findings suggested in this study and to further explore the complexities
and relationships of model constructs. If such techniques are used, care should be taken;
the Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler model of the parental involvement process was not set
up to be investigated as a structural equation model (for the evolution of the model, see
Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995; 1997; Walker et al., 2005). Certain graphical
representations in the model may not represent efforts to capture latent variables with
manifest variables. For example, we do not necessarily believe that an increase in
parent’s perceptions of general invitations from the school will also coincide with an
increase in parent’s perceptions of child invitations or teacher invitations. Rather, the
model is set up to examine specific questions (why do parents become involved and how
does their involvement influence child achievement) in order to make sense of a wide
area of research and provide guidance for future empirical investigation. Results from
this study may assist researchers interested in applying these techniques to statistical
models informed by the Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler model of parental involvement
process.
Findings also suggest potentially fruitful next steps for school practice. For
example, given that home- and school-based involvement relied heavily on specific
invitations from teachers and children, parental involvement programs might consider
emphasizing in-service teacher training for parental involvement (e.g., Hoover-Dempsey,
Walker, Jones & Reed, 2002) and initiatives to increase parent’s school-related
interactions with children at home (e.g., Balli, Demo & Wedman, 1998; Epstein & Van
Parents’ motivations for involvement 27
Voorhis, 2001; Gonzalez, Andrade, Civil & Moll, 2001; Shumow, 1998). These
programs may, in turn, enhance parents’ positive, active engagement at both home and
school because they are targeted at increasing parents’ active role construction (e.g., “It’s
my job to be involved in my child’s education”) and self-efficacy (e.g., “I can make a
positive difference in my child’s education”). Schools might also implement programs
that help parents overcome challenges posed by contextual variables, such as time and
energy (e.g., offer flexible teacher-parent conference times, give specific time-limited
suggestions for how to participate in the child’s homework), and work with families to
discern existing involvement practices that may not be well-recognized by the school
(e.g., Gonzalez et al., 2001; Trevino, 2004).
Consistent with previous findings, we found that parental involvement decreased
as children grew older. Yet, at all ages, specific invitations from the child and from the
teacher were vital for parental involvement. The contribution of other model constructs
varied as a function of age. Future research and parental involvement interventions
should continue to examine the impact of development on parental involvement
motivations and should take special care to target constructs most vital and appropriate to
parents and families at each grade level. Future research and practice should particularly
attend to the importance of invitations for parent’s involvement decisions.
Parents’ motivations for involvement 28
References
Adams, K. S., & Christenson, S. L. (2000). Trust and the family-school relationship: An
examination of parent-teacher differences in elementary and secondary grades.
Journal of School Psychology, 38, 447-497.
Balli, S. J. (1996). Family diversity and the nature of parental involvement. The
Educational Forum, 60, 149-155.
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.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Multifacted impact
of self-efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Development, 67, 12061222.
Biddle, B. J. (1986). Recent developments in role theory. Annual Review of Sociology,
12, 67-92.
Bogenschneider, K. (1997). Parental involvement in adolescent schooling: A proximal
process with transcontextual validity. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 59,
718-733.
Bornstein, M. H., Hahn, C., Suwalsky, J. T. D., & Haynes, O. M. (2003). Socioeconomic
status, parenting, and child development: The Hollingshead Four-Factor Index of
Social Status and the Socioeconomic Index of Occupations. In M. H. Bornstein
& R. H. Bradley (Eds.), Socioeconomic status, parenting and child development.
(pp. 29-82). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brody, G. H., & Flor, D. L. (1998). Maternal resources, parenting practices, and child
Parents’ motivations for involvement 29
competence in rural, single-parent African American families. Child
Development, 69, 803-16.
Brody, G. J., Flor, D. L., & Gibson, N. M. (1999). Linking maternal efficacy beliefs,
developmental goals, parenting practices, and child competence in rural singleparent African American families. Child Development, 70, 1197-1208.
1197-1208.
Chrispeels, J., & Rivero, E. (2001). Engaging Latino families for student success: How
parent education can reshape parents’ sense of place in the education of their
children. Peabody Journal of Education, 76, 119-169.
Christenson, S. L. (2004). The family-school partnership: An opportunity to promote the
learning competence of all students. School Psychology Review, 33, 83-104.
Christenson, S. L., & Sheridan, S. M. (2001). School and families: Creating essential
connections for learning. New York: The Guilford Press.
Comer, J. P., & Haynes, N. M. (1991). Parent involvement in schools: An ecological
approach. Elementary School Journal, 91, 271-277.
Cooper, H., Lindsay, J. L., & Nye, B. (2000). Homework in the home: How student,
family, and parenting-style differences relate to the homework process.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 464-487.
Corno, L. (2000). Looking at homework differently. Elementary School Journal, 100,
529-548.
Dauber, S. L., & Epstein, J. L. (1993). Parents’ attitudes and practices of involvement in
inner-city elementary and middle schools. In N. F. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and
schools in a pluralistic society (pp. 53-71). Albany: SUNY.
Parents’ motivations for involvement 30
Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1992). School matters in the Mexican-American home: Socializing
children to education. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 495-513.
Desimone, L. (1999). Linking parent involvement with student achievement: Do race and
income matter? Journal of Educational Research, 93, 11-30.
Deslandes, R. & Bertrand, R. (2005). Motivation of parent involvement in secondarylevel schooling. Journal of Educational Research, 98, 164-75.
Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, P. H., Roberts, D. F., & Fraleigh, M. J.
(1987). The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child
Development, 58, 1244-57.
Drummond, K. V., & Stipek, D. (2004). Low-income parents’ beliefs about their role in
children’s academic learning. Elementary School Journal, 104, 197-213.
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. 83106). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1990). Changes in academic motivation during adolescence.
In R. Montemayor, G. R. Adams, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), From childhood to
adolescence (pp. 134-155). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Epstein, J. L. (1986). Parents’ reactions to teacher practices of parent involvement. The
Elementary School Journal, 86, 277-294.
Epstein, J. L., & Salinas, K. C. (1993). School and family partnerships: Surveys and
summaries. Baltimore, MD : Johns Hopkins University, Center on Families,
Communities, Schools and Children's Learning.
Parents’ motivations for involvement 31
Epstein, J. L., & Van Voorhis, F. L. (2001). More than minutes: Teachers’ roles in
designing homework. Educational Psychologist, 36, 181-193.
Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement:
A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 1-22.
Fehrmann, P. G., Keith, T. Z., & Reimers, T. M. (1987). Home influence on school
learning: Direct and indirect effects of parental involvement on high school
grades. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 330-337.
Frome, P. M., & Eccles, J. S. (1998). Parents' influence on children's achievement-related
perceptions. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology.74, 435-452.
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.
Garcia Coll, C., Akiba, D., Palacios, N., Bailey, B., Silver, R., DiMartino, L., & Chin, C.
(2002). Parental involvement in children’s education: Lessons from three
immigrant groups, Parenting: Science & Practice, 2, 303-324.
Gonzalez, N., Andrade, R., Civil, M., & Moll, L. (2001). Bridging funds of distributed
knowledge: Creating zones of practice in mathematics. Journal of Education of
Students Placed at Risk, 6, 115-132.
Green, C. L., & Hoover-Dempsey, K. V. (2007). Why do parents home-school?
A systematic examination of parental involvement. Education & Urban Society,
39, 264-285.
Griffith, J. (1998). The relation of school structure and social environment to parent
involvement in elementary schools. Elementary School Journal, 99, 53-80.
Parents’ motivations for involvement 32
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.
Grolnick, W. S., Kurowski, C. O., Dunlap, K. G. & Hevey, C. (2000). Parental resources
and the transition to junior high. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 10, 465488.
Grolnick, W. S., & Slowiaczek, M. L. (1994). Parents' involvement in children's
schooling: a multidimensional conceptualization and motivational model.
Child Development, 65, 237-252.
Grusec, J. E. (2002). Parenting socialization and children’s acquisition of values. In M.
H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 5: Practical issues in parenting
(pp. 143-167). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
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. The Urban Review, 32, 1-24.
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 Laboratory.
Hill, N. E., & Craft, S. A. (2003). Parent-school involvement and school performance:
Mediated pathways among socioeconomically comparable African American and
Euro-American families. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 74-83.
Hill, N. E., & Taylor, L. C. (2004). Parental school involvement and children's
Parents’ motivations for involvement 33
academic achievement. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 161164.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Bassler, O. C., & Brissie, J. S. (1992). Explorations in parentschool relations. Journal of Educational Research, 85, 287-294.
Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., Bassler, O.C., & Burow, R. (1995). Parents’ reported
involvement in students’ homework: Parameters of reported strategy and practice.
Elementary School Journal, 95, 435-450.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Battiato, A. C., Walker, J. M. T., Reed, R. P., DeJong, J. M., &
Jones, K. P. (2001). Parental involvement in homework. Educational
Psychologist, 36, 195-210.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Closson, K. E., Wilkins, A. S., & Sandler, H. M. (April, 2004).
Crossing Cultural Boundaries: Latino Parents' Involvement in Their Children's
Education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V. & Sandler, H. M. (1995). Parental involvement in children’s
education: Why does it make a difference? Teachers College Record, 97, 310331.
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
Grant # R305T010673: 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.
Parents’ motivations for involvement 34
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M. T., Jones, K. P., & Reed, R. P. (2002). Teachers
Involving Parents (TIP): An in-service teacher education program for enhancing
parental involvement. Teaching & Teacher Education, 18, 843-867.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M. T., Sandler, H. M., Whetsel, D., Green, C. L.,
Wilkins, A. S. & Closson, K.E. (2005). Why do parents become involved?
Research findings and implications. Elementary School Journal. 106, 105-130.
Izzo, C. V., Weissberg, R. P., Kasprow, W. J., & Fendrich, M. (1999). A longitudinal
assessment of teacher perceptions of parental involvement in children’s education
and school performance. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 817839.
Jeynes, W. H. (2003). A meta-analysis: The effects of parental involvement on minority
children's academic achievement. Education and Urban Society, 35, 202-218.
Kay, P. J., Fitzgerald, M., Paradee, C., & Mellencamp, A., (1994). Making homework
work at home: The parents’ perspective. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27,
550-561.
Kohl, G. W., Lengua, L. J., & McMahon, R. J. (2002). Parent involvement in school:
Conceptualizing multiple dimensions and their relations with family and
demographic risk factors. Journal of School Psychology, 38, 501-523.
Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Patterns of
competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian,
indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 62, 1049-1065.
Lareau, A. (1989). Home advantage: Social class and parental involvement in elementary
education. New York: Basic Books.
Parents’ motivations for involvement 35
Lopez, L. C., Sanchez, V. V., & Hamilton, M. (2000). Immigrant and native-born
Mexican-American parents’ involvement in a public school: A preliminary study.
Psychological Reports, 86, 521-525.
Matza, L. S., Kupersmidt, J. B., & Glenn, D. M. (2001). Adolescents' perceptions and
standards of their relationships with their parents as a function of sociometric
status. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11, 245-272.
McLoyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American
Psychologist, 53, 185–204.
National Center for Education Statistics’ Glossary. (n.d.). Retrieved November 1, 2005,
from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/glossary/s.asp
Patrikakou, E. N. & Weissberg, R. P. (2000). Parents’ perceptions of teacher outreach
and parent involvement in children’s education. Journal of Prevention &
Intervention in the Community, 20, 103-119.
Reynolds, A. J. (1994). Effects of a preschool plus follow-on intervention for children
at risk. Developmental Psychology, 30, 787-804.
Reynolds, A. J, Ou, S., & Topitzes, J. W. (2004). Paths of effects of early childhood
intervention on educational attainment and delinquency: A confirmatory analysis
of the Chicago Child-Parent Centers. Child Development, 75, 1299–1328.
Scott-Jones, D. (1987). Mother-as-Teacher in the families of high- and low-income black
first-graders. Journal of Negro Education, 56, 21-34.
Seefeldt, C., Denton, K., Galper, A., & Younoszai, T. (1998). Former Head Start parents'
characteristics, perceptions of school climate, and involvement in their children's
education. The Elementary School Journal, 98, 339-351.
Parents’ motivations for involvement 36
Shaver, A.V., & Walls, R.T. (1998). Effect of Title I parent involvement on student
reading and mathematics achievement. Journal of Research and Development in
Education, 31, 90-97.
Sheldon, S. B. (2002). Parents’ social networks and beliefs as predictors of parent
involvement. Elementary School Journal, 102, 301-316.
Sheldon, S. B. (2003). Linking school-family-community partnerships in urban
elementary schools to student achievement on state tests. The Urban Review, 35,
149-165.
Shumow, L. (1997). Daily experiences and adjustments of gifted low-income urban
children at home and school. Roeper Report, 20, 35-38.
Shumow, L. (1998). Promoting parental attunement to children’s mathematical reasoning
through parent education. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 19,
109-127.
Shumow, L., & Lomax, R. (2002). Parental efficacy: Predictor of parenting behavior
and adolescent outcomes. Parenting: Science & Practice, 2, 127-150.
Simon, B. S. (2004). High school outreach and family involvement. Social Psychology of
Education, 7, 185-209.
Soodak, L. C., & Erwin, E. J. (2000). Valued member or tolerated participant: Parents’
experiences in inclusive early childhood settings. Journal of the Association for
Persons with Severe Handicaps, 25, 29-41.
Spera, C. (2005). A review of the relationship among parenting practices, parenting
styles, and adolescent school achievement. Educational Psychology Review, 17,
125-146.
Parents’ motivations for involvement 37
Steinberg, L., Elman, J., & Mounts, N. (1989). Authoritative parenting, psychosocial
maturity, and academic success among adolescents. Child Development, 60,
1424-1436.
Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Dornbusch, S. M., & Darling, N. (1992). Impact of
parenting practices on adolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting, school
environment, and encouragement to succeed. Child Development, 63, 1266-1281.
Stevenson, D. L., & Baker, D. P. (1987). The family-school relation and the child's
school performance. Child Development, 58, 1348-1357.
Trevino, R. E. (2004). Against all odds: Lessons from parents of migrant high-achievers.
In C. Salinas & M. E. Fránquiz (Eds.), Scholars in the field: The challenges of
migrant education. Charleston, WV: AEL.
Walker, J. M. T., Wilkins, A. S., Dallaire, J. P., Sandler, H. M., & Hoover-Dempsey,
K.V. (2005). Parental involvement: Model revision through scale development.
Elementary School Journal, 106, 85-104.
Weiss, H. B., Mayer, E., Kreider, H., Vaughan, M., Dearing, E., Hencke, R., & Pinto, K.
(2003). Making it work: Low-income working mothers’ involvement in their
children’s education. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 879-901.
Xu, J., & Corno, L. (1998). Case studies of families doing third grade homework.
Teachers College Record, 100, 402-436.
Xu, J., & Corno, L. (2003). Family help and homework management reported by middle
school students. The Elementary School Journal, 103, 503-536.
Parents’ motivations for involvement 38
Table l
Demographic Information on Participants
Sample 1
Sample 2
Date of data collection
Fall 2002
Fall 2003
Participating public schools
3 elementary
5 elementary
2 middle
4 middle
Parent participants
Grades 1-6
Grades 4-6
Number
495
358
Mean parent education
High school or equivalent
Some college
Mean family income
$20,000-30,000
$30,000-40,000
16.5%
27.4%
5.6%
3.9%
Race (% of total participants)

African American

Asian American

Hispanic American
24.5%
6.4%

White
30.5%
57.3%

Other
7.7%
4.2%
15.2%
0.8%
Male
18.5%
17.3%
Female
66.8%
82.1%
Missing Value
14.7%
0.6%
Missing Value
Gender, parents (% of total
participants)
Parents’ motivations for involvement 39
Table 2
Summary of Zero-Order Correlations and Descriptive Statistics for Model Variables (N = 853).
Variable
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Psychological Motivators
1. Role Activity Beliefs
-
2. Parental Self-Efficacy
.16***
-
3. General School Invitations
.54**
.11**
-
4. Specific Teacher Invitations
.34**
-.07*
.39**
-
5. Specific Child Invitations
.30**
-.08*
.21**
.59**
-
6. Skills and Knowledge
.45**
.54**
.45**
.19**
.14**
-
7. Time and Energy
.47**
.36**
.36**
.19**
.23**
.66**
-
8. Home-based Involvement Behavior
.30**
.24**
.21**
.33**
.54**
.32**
.37**
-
9. School-based Involvement Behavior
.35**
-.04
.31**
.61**
.59**
.25**
.34**
.36**
-
4.86
0.67
1-6
- 0.66
1.03
4.65
0.87
1-6
- 0.45
- 0.50
4.82
0.84
1-6
-1.15
1.91
2.54
1.15
1-6
0.64
- 0.43
3.20
0.93
1-6
0.38
0.16
4.64
0.79
1-6
- 0.71
0.68
4.45
0.9
1-6
- 0.75
0.63
4.95
0.99
1-6
-1.17
1.24
2.17
0.94
1-6
1.28
1.47
Invitations to Involvement
Life Context
Involvement Behaviors
Mean
SD
Possible Range
Skewness
Kurtosis
*p < .05, **p < .01
Parents’ motivations for involvement 40
Table 3
Summary of Descriptive Statistics for Socioeconomic Variables, and Zero-Order
Correlations between Socioeconomic Variables and Home Involvement and School
Involvement (N = 853).
Parent occupation
7.38
5.01
1 – 14
r with
Home
Involve.
-.03
Number of hours worked per week
30.21
16.26
0 – 90
-.07*
-.09*
Parent’s highest level of education
2.77
1.27
0–7
-.07
-.10**
Spouse/partner occupation
5.60
4.96
1 – 14
-.04
-.03
Number of hours spouse/partner worked per week
31.19
17.56
0 – 90
-.01
-.07
Spouse/partner’s highest level of education
3.26
2.25
0–7
.02
.06
Family Yearly Income
4.48
1.92
1–7
-.09**
-.19**
Variable
*p < .05, **p < .01
M
SD
Range
r with
School
Involve.
-.09*
Parents’ motivations for involvement 41
Table 4
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Variables Predicting Home and
School Involvement, final model (N = 853).
B
SE B

Role Activity Beliefs
.08
.05
.05
Parental Self-Efficacy for Involvement
.23
.04
.20**
General School Invitations
-.02
.04
-.02
Specific Teacher Invitations
.00
.03
.00
Specific Child Invitations
.54
.04
.51**
Skills and Knowledge
.05
.05
.04
Time and Energy
.14
.04
.13**
Role Activity Beliefs
.08
.04
.06*
Parental Self-Efficacy for Involvement
-.08
.03
-.08**
General School Invitations
.00
.04
.01
Specific Teacher Invitations
.29
.03
.36**
Specific Child Invitations
.31
.03
.31**
Skills and Knowledge
.05
.05
.05
Time and Energy
.18
.04
.17**
Variable
Dependent Variable: Home Involvement
Dependent Variable: School Involvement
* p < .05, ** p < .01
F
Adj. R2
78.32**
.39
117.09**
.49
Parents’ motivations for involvement 42
Table 5
Involvement Means and T-Test Results by School Type
Home-based Involvement
School-based Involvement
School type
n
M (SD)
Elementary
401
5.22 (.87)
2.50 (1.07)
443
4.69 (1.02)
1.86 (.66)
(1, 787.65) = 10.07*
(1, 656.46) = 10.30*
.70
.73
(1st – 4th grade)
Middle
(5th – 6th grade)
t - test (unequal variances)
d
*p < .05
Parents’ motivations for involvement 43
Table 6
Interaction Terms between School Type and Study Variables Predicting Home
Involvement and School Involvement
F - values
Variable
Home Involvementa School Involvementb
Role Activity Beliefs
28.82**
7.59**
Parental Self-Efficacy for Involvement .00
26.39**
General School Invitations
9.18**
3.48
Specific Teacher Invitations
9.22**
73.67**
Specific Child Invitations
62.75**
6.90**
Skills and Knowledge
.10
.40
Time and Energy
3.77*
6.85**
*p < .05, **p<.01
Note: In this GLM model, a: F [7, 568] = 22.80**, Adj. R2 = .21, b: F [7, 568] =
29.23**, Adj. R2 = .26.
Parents’ motivations for involvement 44
Table 7
Summary of Elementary School Students (Grades 1st -4th) Hierarchical Regression
Analyses for Variables Predicting Home and School Involvement, final model (N = 401).
B
SE B

Role Activity Beliefs
.25
.07
.18**
Parental Self-Efficacy for Involvement
.22
.05
.22**
General School Invitations
-.04
.07
-.04
Specific Teacher Invitations
.02
.04
.03
Specific Child Invitations
.29
.04
.32**
Skills and Knowledge
.04
.08
.04
Time and Energy
.11
.04
.12*
Role Activity Beliefs
.04
.08
.02
Parental Self-Efficacy for Involvement
-.08
.05
-.07
General School Invitations
.04
.08
.03
Specific Teacher Invitations
.30
.04
.35**
Specific Child Invitations
.35
.05
.32**
Skills and Knowledge
.08
.08
.06
Time and Energy
.23
.06
.19**
Variable
Dependent Variable: Home Involvement
Dependent Variable: School Involvement
* p < .05, ** p < .01
F
Adj. R2
21.77**
.27
51.01**
.47
Parents’ motivations for involvement 45
Table 8
Summary of Middle School Students (Grades 5th and 6th) Hierarchical Regression
Analyses for Variables Predicting Home and School Involvement, final model (N = 443).
B
SE B

Role Activity Beliefs
-.01
.06
-.00
Parental Self-Efficacy for Involvement
.25
.05
.21**
General School Invitations
-.01
.05
-.01
Specific Teacher Invitations
-.02
.05
-.02
Specific Child Invitations
.76
.05
.60**
Skills and Knowledge
.07
.07
.04
Time and Energy
.15
.05
.13**
Role Activity Beliefs
.11
.05
.11*
Parental Self-Efficacy for Involvement
-.04
.04
-.05
General School Invitations
-.05
.04
-.07
Specific Teacher Invitations
.23
.03
.32**
Specific Child Invitations
.23
.04
.27**
Skills and Knowledge
.05
.05
.07
Time and Energy
.11
.04
.15**
Variable
Dependent Variable: Home Involvement
Dependent Variable: School Involvement
* p < .05, ** p < .01
F
Adj. R2
57.51**
.48
36.28**
.36
Parents’ motivations for involvement 46
Figure Captions
Figure 1. The first level of Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s revised theoretical model of
the parental involvement process (adapted from Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 2005;
Walker et al., 2005).
Figure 2: Home-based and school-based involvement means by grade level. Error bars
show the 95% confidence interval of the mean.
Parents’ motivations for involvement 47
Parents’ Involvement Forms
Home Involvement
Parents’ Motivational
Beliefs
Parental
Role
Construction
Parental
SelfEfficacy
School Involvement
Parents’ Perceptions of Invitations
for Involvement from Others
Parents’ Perceived Life
Context
General
Specific
Specific
Skills and
School
Teacher
Child
Knowledge
Invitations Invitations Invitations
Time and
Energy
Parents’ motivations for involvement 48
6.00
5.50
5.00
4.50
Home-based
Involvement
3.50
School-based
Involvement
Means
4.00
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1
2
3
4
Grade level
5
6