Table 5.
B (SE)
|
|||
---|---|---|---|
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |
Focal Main Effects | |||
Wave I college preparatory index | .60*** (.01) |
.60*** (.01) |
.50*** (.01) |
Parent education (college graduate) | .10*** (.02) |
.88** (.30) |
−1.60* (.61) |
Wave I grade level | −.26*** (.02) |
−.23*** (.03) |
−.33** (.03) |
Prop. coursemates with college-educated parents | .03 (.08) |
.08 (.63) |
−1.12 (.90) |
Two-Way Interactions | |||
Parent education × grade level | −.09** (.03) |
−.16* (.06) |
|
Coursemates × grade level | −.01 (.06) |
.12 (.09) |
|
Parent education × coursemates | .15 (.11) |
4.86** (1.38) |
|
Three-Way Interaction | |||
Parent education × coursemates × grade | −.47** (.13) |
||
Intercept | 3.02*** (.39) |
2.78*** (.44) |
3.60*** (.48) |
n = 7,481 (students), 72 (schools)
Δ −2 Res Log Likelihood = −1 (Model 1 vs. 2), −746 (Model 2 vs. 3)
Note: Both models included a random intercept to account for cross-school variation in the outcome. Both models controlled for full set of family, sociodemographic, and school factors (family income to needs, family structure, gender, race/ethnicity, immigration status, school mean parent education level, school mean g.p.a., proportion of seniors in school in college track, school enrollment based on testing, school use of tracking, and school math/science academy status). PVT score and Wave I g.p.a. were also controlled.