Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 May 2.
Published in final edited form as: J Early Adolesc. 2017 Jan 30;38(5):629–660. doi: 10.1177/0272431616687670

Parent Educational Involvement in Middle School: Longitudinal Influences on Student Outcomes

S Andrew Garbacz, Argero A Zerr, Thomas J Dishion, John R Seeley, Elizabeth A Stormshak
PMCID: PMC5931399  NIHMSID: NIHMS836605  PMID: 29731534

Abstract

The present study examined influences of 6th grade student-reported parent educational involvement on early adolescent peer group affiliations at 7th and 8th grade. In addition, student gender and ethnicity were explored as possible moderators. Drawn from a large effectiveness trial, participants in this study were 5,802 early adolescents across twenty middle schools in the Northwest region of the United States. Findings suggested that specifically parent’s educational involvement in 6th grade predicted increases in positive peer affiliation, when controlling for a general score of parent monitoring practices. The relation between parent educational involvement and peer affiliation varied by student ethnicity but not by gender. Findings suggest the social benefits of parent’s engagement with the school context on early adolescent development.

Keywords: family, parenting, parent-adolescent relationships, peer groups, peer relationships

Adolescents in middle school navigate a period of time in their lives characterized by biological, social, and environmental changes (Eccles, 1999; Eccles et al., 1993; Erikson, 1963, Steinberg & Sheffield Morris, 2001). Environmentally, the landscape of middle schools is markedly different than that of elementary schools (Eccles & Harold, 1996) and schooling during adolescence has a unique impact on multiple facets of a youth’s life (e.g., student and peer influences; Eccles & Roeser, 2011). These changes position the middle school time period as a critical developmental window for adolescents. Indeed, problem behavior (Dishion & Patterson, 2006), substance use (Wang, Dishion, Stormshak, & Willett, 2011), and deviant peer affiliations (Dishion & Owen, 2002) can increase during middle school. Due to the negative implications for these problem behaviors (e.g., adult psychopathology; Reef, Diamantopoulou, van Meurs, Verhulst, & van der Ende, 2011), it is critical that we identify factors that can decrease adolescents’ engagement in these activities and set a positive trajectory.

One important point of intervention is through early adolescent’s peer relationships. During middle childhood, more than 30% of youth social interactions involve peers (Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 2006). There are two primary kinds of peer affiliations: positive and deviant. Positive peer affiliations occur when youth associate with peers who are involved with positive activities, are well-behaved (Dishion, Kim, & Stormshak, 2014) and endorse conventional norms (Gifford-Smith & Brownell, 2003). In contrast, deviant peer affiliations refer to instances in which youth associate with peers who engage in antisocial behavior (Capaldi, Dishion, Stoolmiller, & Yoerger, 2001), misbehave, or break rules (Dishion et al., 2014). Positive peer affiliations are linked with several positive outcomes (Gifford-Smith & Brownell, 2003). When youth have stable and positive peer affiliations they may be better equipped to handle transitions competently (Berndt, Hawkins, & Jiao, 1999). In addition, members of positive peer groups encourage adaptive and prosocial behavior among each other (Brendgen, Bowen, Rondeau, & Vitaro, 1999).

Children and youth social contexts are important contributors of problem behavior (Dishion, Forgatch, VanRyzin, & Winter, 2012; Dodge, 1983). In deviant peer groups, it is common for youth to engage in deviancy training wherein deviant behaviors are reinforced such that discussion of rule-breaking behavior is linked with a positive consequence (e.g., affirmation; Dishion, Spracklen, Andrews, & Patterson, 1996). Youth association with deviant peers is associated with many problematic outcomes (e.g., drug use, violence; Dishion, Eddy, Haas, Li, & Spracklen, 1997; Dision, Capaldi, Spracklen, & Li, 1995; Dishion & Patterson, 2006). Reviews of the literature on the social context of youth behavior have indicated the importance of identifying developmental changes in social network affiliations (Gifford-Smith & Brownell, 2003). One important social context is the family (Bronfenbrenner, 1977), and corresponding family practices. Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) ecological model identifies that adolescents reside in several microsystems (e.g., home, school), but it is within the mesosystem that microsystems interact to support youth development. For example, parents may communicate with teachers about how to support adolescents within and across settings. Furthermore, parent monitoring and family management practices, at home (i.e., in the microsystem) and in collaboration with school staff (in the mesosystem), contribute to youth outcomes (Duncan, Duncan, Biglan, & Ary, 1998; Stormshak et al., 2011).

Studies examining parenting practices have yielded important implications for children and adolescents. There are myriad ways parents support their children’s appropriate peer group affiliations. One particularly important predictor of peer affiliations and problem behavior in middle school is parent monitoring (i.e., parent knowledge of, attention to, and tracking child behavior; Dishion & McMahon, 1998; Fosco, Stormshak, Dishion, & Winter, 2012), which is often measured as the parent’s knowledge of the youth’s activities and whereabouts (e.g., Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Stattin & Kerr, 2000). However, parent educational involvement is important and often examined in middle school relative to student outcomes (Hill & Tyson, 2009), but to date has not been examined with regard to peer group affiliations. Parent educational involvement is a multidimensional construct (Epstein, 1995; Fantuzzo, Tighe, & Childs, 2000; Manz, Fantuzzo, & Power, 2004) that refers to specific ways parents support their children and map onto Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) ecological model. Factor analysis has identified three parent educational involvement factors: school-based involvement, home-based involvement, and home-school communication (Fantuzzo et al., 2000; Manz et al., 2004). These dimensions of parent educational involvement are relevant across international samples (Garbacz & Sheridan, 2011; Garbacz, McDowall, Schaughency, Sheridan, & Welch, 2015) underscoring their salience and relevance. School involvement reflects activities that occur at school (e.g., volunteering, attending activities). Home involvement refers to activities parents do outside of school to support education (e.g., help with homework). Home-school communication occurs when parents and school staff interact (e.g., talking with a school principal). The focus of this study is on the global parent educational involvement construct as well as these three dimensions while covarying parent monitoring knowledge.

Empirical support for the impact of parent educational involvement on child outcomes is derived from correlational studies, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials investigating the efficacy of intervention models that test parent educational involvement. Parent educational involvement has been found to positively influence academic achievement (overall d = .30; Jeynes, 2012). In addition, parent educational involvement is negatively associated with school drop-out (Barnard, 2004) and behavior problems (Domina, 2005). When dimensions of parent educational involvement have been examined separately, several important findings have emerged. For example, home involvement is associated with improved attention and task persistence, and reduced conduct problems (Fantuzzo, McWayne, Perry, & Childs, 2004) as well as improved social skills and play interaction at school (McWayne, Hampton, Fantuzzo, Cohen, & Sekino, 2004). Home-school contact and partnering activities between parents and teachers positively related to student achievement (Jeynes, 2012) and social skills (r = .20 – .23; McWayne et al., 2004). The efficacy of intervention models that engage parents have frequently been linked with improving student adaptive behavior and social skills Sheridan et al., 2012), and decreasing problem behavior Dishion, Kavanagh, Schneiger, Nelson, & Kaufman, 2002). This body of research identifies parent educational involvement and its dimensions as important constructs to promote student academic achievement and social skills and reduce behavior problems.

The influence of parent educational involvement on student academics, social skills, and behavior problems is important; however, less is known about how parent educational involvement during the middle school years impacts students’ social peer connections in a longitudinal fashion. Theoretical models position family interactions and family management as critical for understanding peer affiliations, and the development of aggression and delinquency (Patterson, 1982; Patterson & Dishion, 1985). Several studies have found empirical support for these theoretical links (Dishion, 1990; Dishion, Patterson, Stoolmiller, & Skinner, 1991; Hoeve et al., 2009; Patterson, Dishion, & Bank, 1984; Rodgers-Farmer, 2000; Véronneau & Dishion, 2010; Wang et al., 2011). For example, Dishion et al. (1991) found that parent discipline and monitoring were significantly and positively related to involvement with antisocial peers at ages 10 and 12. In addition, Véronneau and Dishion (2010) demonstrated that parent monitoring knowledge at grade 6 was significantly and negatively related to student problem behavior (grades 6 and 8) and friends’ problem behavior (grade 6). Theoretical underpinnings and empirical findings acknowledge that ecological systems are interconnected and important to understand the context for peer affiliations and the development of delinquency. Conceptually, parent educational involvement is a family management activity, but to date its impact on peer affiliations has not been investigated, despite calls for research investigating ecological factors that influence peer affiliation, including school and family contexts (Dishion et al., 1991) and the mesosystem (Véronneau & Dishion, 2010). Families who engaged in a family-centered intervention, demonstrated a less severe trajectory in deviant peer involvement (Van Ryzin, Dishion, & Stormshak, 2012). By extending research on predictors of peer affiliations to parent educational involvement, a broader ecology of youth development is considered that includes two microsystems (i.e., home and school) as well as mesosystemic interactions of key social agents in a child’s life (Reid, 1993). This research would have important implications for cross-setting interventions.

Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) theoretical model as well as empirical findings (Sheridan et al., 2012) demonstrate the importance of examining factors like home-school communication, school involvement, and home involvement. Sheridan, Buhs, and Warnes (2003) set a foundation for how parent educational involvement can promote prosocial behaviors and social interactions. For example, when communicating with teachers, parents may be able to coordinate their support of children’s peer affiliations. In addition, through school and activities involvement, parents may have the opportunity to observe peer affiliations and interactions. Home involvement provides an opportunity for parents to interact with their child, which can include modeling prosocial behaviors, prompting adaptive interpretations for experiences with peers, coaching appropriate responses, and reinforcing student efforts to appropriately engage with positive peers. Research is needed that examines the link between parent educational involvement and peer affiliations.

When considering how parent and family factors may be associated with student outcomes, it is important to take into account student ethnicity and gender. The influence of parent educational involvement on student outcomes has in some instances been found to vary by ethnicity (Fan, Williams, & Wolters, 2012; Hill et al., 2004; Keith et al., 1998). Fan and colleagues (2012) examined high school student motivation and found similar findings across parents and students from different ethnic groups in addition to noting differences. For example, parent participation in school activities only affected motivation only for Caucasian and African American students. Hill and colleagues (2004) found that the relation between parent educational involvement and middle school achievement was stronger for African American families than for European American families. Keith and colleagues (1998) examined the influence of parent educational involvement on high school student grades and found that findings were particularly strong for Native American students. These findings suggest a need for research on parent educational involvement in secondary school settings that examines social activities and peer group affiliation.

Similar to examinations of ethnicity, it is important to consider gender when examining the influence of parenting practices or parent educational involvement. Examinations of differences in parent educational involvement for boys and girls have found that parents report more home-school communication for boys relative to girls (Manz et al., 2004). Keith et al.’s (1998) investigation of parent educational involvement on academics found that parent educational involvement had the same influence on the grades of boys and girls. However, Muller (1995) found that examinations of parent educational involvement and academics yielded findings that were similar and different for boys and girls. In addition, research suggests differences in peer group affiliations for boys and girls, which has implications for studies examining parent educational involvement (Nebbitt, Lombe, & Lindsey, 2007) and peer group affiliations. These studies suggest research is needed that considers gender, particularly for parent educational involvement research on social behaviors and peer group affiliations. There is a dearth of research in this area, but the existing research points to important implications for parent educational involvement.

Study Purpose

The purpose of this study was to extend previous longitudinal parent educational involvement investigations in elementary school (Dearing, Kreider, Simpkins, & Weiss, 2006) and middle school (Hill et al., 2004; Hill & Tyson, 2009; Wang et al., 2011) and address gaps in the literature by examining longitudinal associations between parent educational involvement and early adolescent peer group affiliations in middle school while covarying another important parenting variable in middle school: parent monitoring knowledge. This study contributes to the existing body of literature in two primary ways: (1) it examines subtypes of parent educational involvement and (2) it examines peer affiliation as an outcome of parent educational involvement. Specifically, parent educational involvement at 6th grade was targeted as the primary predictor in order to examine the influence of a malleable factor in an adolescent’s life at the beginning of the critical middle school years (e.g., Eccles, 1999) on specific time points during middle school.

The following specific research questions were examined: (1) Does 6th grade student-reported parent educational involvement predict student positive and deviant peer group affiliations at 7th and 8th grade? It was hypothesized that parent educational involvement would be positively associated with positive peer affiliations and negatively associated with deviant peer affiliations, based on the pattern of findings in prior students (Dishion et al., 1991; Fantuzzo et al., 2004; Jeynes, 2012; McWayne et al., 2004). However, specific hypotheses regarding how dimensions of parent educational involvement would predict peer affiliations were not made due to the dearth of prior research. (1b) Does 6th grade student-reported parent educational involvement predict student positive and deviant peer group affiliations at 7th and 8th grade above and beyond parent monitoring knowledge? Based on the importance of parent monitoring knowledge for peer affiliations in middle school, monitoring knowledge was included as a covariate to examine the specificity of parent educational involvement in the context of another important aspect of parenting. It was hypothesized that parent educational involvement would be associated with peer affiliations, but that some associations would be reduced after including monitoring knowledge as a covariate. (2) Does student gender moderate the relation between parent educational involvement and student peer group affiliations? Due to the equivocal findings examining student gender as a moderator in examinations of parent educational involvement and student outcomes and minimal research examining these variables with peer group affiliations (Keith et al., 1998; Muller, 1995; Nebbitt et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2011), a hypothesis was not made for this research question. (3) Does student ethnicity moderate the relation between parent educational involvement and student peer group affiliations? It was hypothesized that student ethnicity would moderate the relation between parent educational involvement and student peer affiliations, based on significant findings in prior related studies (e.g., Fan et al., 2012; Hill et al., 2004).

Method

Participants and Setting

Participants in this study were part of a larger effectiveness trial of a multi-tiered family-centered service delivery model in middle schools (author name(s) withheld for purposes of masked review). Only participants in control/comparison schools were included in this study. Participants were 5,802 students attending twenty middle schools in the Northwest region of the United States. Approximately 48% of students were female; 50% were male (gender was missing for 2% of students). At sixth grade, student mean age was 11.67 (SD = 0.55). Approximately 47% of students reported their race/ethnicity as Caucasian, 22% as Hispanic or Latino, 5% as African American or Black, 7% as Asian or Pacific Islander, 8% as American Indian or Native American and 8% as Other (ethnicity was missing for 4% of students).

Procedure

Data collection occurred across waves and cohorts aligned with the larger effectiveness trial. Student data were collected in 6th, 7th, and 8th grades. Data collection began in 2009–2010 and concluded in 2012–2013. Students completed assessments in the fall/winter.

Measures and Variables

Student-reported parent educational involvement

Students reported their perceptions of their parents’ involvement using an adapted version of the Parent Involvement Scale (CPPRG, 1991). Specifically, the frequency with which students perceived their parents to engage in specific involvement activities were rated on a 5-point scale from Not at all to Weekly or More with the following question stem: During this school year, how often have your parents done the following? Three items assessed school and activity involvement (e.g., Attended a special event at your school), and three items assessed home-school communication (e.g., Called your teacher). Internal consistency at sixth grade was acceptable for school and activity involvement (α = .63) and home-school communication (α = .59). Homework involvement was assessed with adapted items from the Caretaking and Routines Scale (Metzler et al., 1998). The frequency with which students perceived their parents’ engaging in homework involvement activities (e.g., How often does at least one of your parents help you with your schoolwork?) was rated on a 4-point scale from Never or Almost Never to Always or Almost Always. Internal consistency at sixth grade was acceptable (α = 0.63). A sum was computed for the three dimensions of parent educational involvement. A composite parent educational involvement scale was calculated by summing the standardized items of each these 3 subscales, and also had acceptable internal consistency (α = 0.63). Generally, a scale with an alpha of .70 or above is considered to have very good internal reliability, whereas scales with alphas above .60 are considered to be fair but acceptable (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010), and scales with alpha coefficients below .5 are considered poor and unacceptable (George & Mallery, 2003).

Alpha estimates in the present study are considered fair as the three-item scales likely underpowered our calculation of alpha (Cortina, 1993; Schmitt, 1996). Reliability estimates in this range are consistent with those observed in other studies of parent education involvement (Dauber & Epstein, 1993; Walker, Wilkins, Dallaire, Sandler, & Hoover-Dempsey, 2005). For example, Dauber and Epstein (1993) reported that the total parent education involvement scale yielded an alpha of .81, the communication scale an alpha of .65, and the home learning scale an alpha of .73. Alpha coefficients below .7 could also be due to item irrelevance, item heterogeneity, respondents’ error, item ambiguity, and sample variance (McCrae, Kurtz, Yamagata, & Terracciano, 2011). In terms of item relevance and heterogeneity, across-time correlations for the subscales demonstrated significant and moderate to large relationships (see Table 2) and confirmatory factor analyses supported the use of a 3-factor structure. Examination of the scale construction indicated that deleting any items would substantially decrease alphas, indicating that lower reliability estimates were not a result of a single poor item. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported the use of the 3-subscale structure. Items loaded onto the 3 components as expected, with high varimax-rotated factor loadings (> .8), no cross-loadings (<.2) and moderate communalities (> .5). We further evaluated internal consistency via inter-item correlation for the subscales. Inter-item correlations were moderate (.27 to .46), suggesting acceptable internal consistency for scales with few items (Cortina, 1993; Nunnally, 1978).

Table 2.

Correlations for Parent Educational Involvement, Monitoring Knowledge, and Peer Affiliation Variables at 6th, 7th, and 8th Grade

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Total Parent Educational Involvement at 6th grade —
 2. Homework Involvement at 6th grade .56** —
 3. School and Activity Involvement at 6th grade .76** .21** —
 4. Home-School Communication at 6th grade .70** .07** .26** —
5. Monitoring Knowledge at 6th grade .42** .64** .25** .03* —
6. Positive Peer Affiliation at 6th grade .22** .30** .20** −.02 .41** —
7. Deviant Peer Affiliation at 6th grade −.03 −.18** −.05** .13** −.26** −.38** —
8. Positive Peer Affiliation at 7th grade .20** .23** .18** .01 .37** .42** −.25** —
9. Positive Peer Affiliation at 8th grade .19** .18** .19** .02 .26** .36** −.20** .49** —
10. Deviant Peer Affiliation at 7th grade −.09** −.18** −.07** .03 −.24** −.27** .33** −.43** −.27** —
11. Deviant Peer Affiliation at 8th grade −.06** −.11** −.06** .02 −.17** −.19** .31** −.32** −.39** .44** —
Open in a new tab
**

p < .01,

*

p < .05

Peer group affiliation

Students reported about their peer group affiliation using an adapted version of the Peer Affiliation and Social Acceptance (PASA; Dishion et al., 2014). Students rated how many of their peers engage in specific activities on a 5-point scale from None or Very Few to Most or All with the following stem: The following questions are about people with whom you spend time. Three items assessed positive peer group affiliation (e.g., How many of your friends are involved in positive school or community activities?), and three items assessed deviant peer group affiliation (e.g., How many of your friends misbehave or break rules?). The PASA has been found to be reliable and valid for measuring peer affiliation (Dishion et al., 2014). To compute positive and deviant peer group affiliation, a sum of the three affiliation items was computed separately for positive and deviant peer group affiliation. Internal consistency for positive and deviant peer group affiliations were acceptable at sixth (α = .74, .68), seventh (α = .76, .75), and eighth grades (α = .77, .73), respectively.

Ethnicity and Gender

Child ethnic minority status was based on youth self-report of ethnicity. To test basic cross-ethnic moderation, ethnicity was dichotomized 2 ways. First, we explored for initial ethnic minority differences by coding Caucasian youth as “0;” and all other youth (e.g., African American, Hispanic/Latino, etc.) as “1” for ethnic minority status. We also explored for additional ethnic differences between the two largest ethnic groups, by coding Caucasian youth as “0” and Hispanic/Latino youth as “1”. Child gender was based on youth self-report and coded as “1” for male and “0” for female.

Covariates

Each model controlled for 6th grade levels of the outcomes (i.e., positive or deviant peer affiliation); therefore, models are predicted change above and beyond initial levels of these outcomes. Models also controlled for two items that served as proxy indicators of SES. Youth were asked, “How many rooms do you have where you live (e.g., house, apartment, trailer) not including bathrooms or hallways?” Items were rated on a scale from 1 room to 7 or more rooms. Youth were also asked a question about perceived financial security, “How much money does your family have?” Items were rated on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (Not enough to get by) to 4 (We never have to worry about money).

Parent monitoring knowledge

Parent monitoring knowledge reflects parent knowledge and tracking of child behavior (Dishion & McMahon, 1998; Stattin & Kerr, 2000). Student report of monitoring knowledge was measured at sixth grade with six items from the Monitoring Scale (Metzler, Biglan, Ary, & Li, 1998) and five items from a modified version of Caretaking and Family Routines (Metzler et al., 1998). Items were rated on a 4-point scale from Never or Almost Never to Always or Almost Always and summed to calculate a Monitoring Knowledge scale. The two measures were used to capture the knowledge and tracking components of monitoring (Dishion & McMahon, 1998; Stattin & Kerr, 2000). For example, the Monitoring Scale included items such as, “How often does at least one of your parents know where you go if you are out with friends?”. Items from Caretaking and Routines measured tracking components of monitoring such as, “How often does at least one of your parents make sure that you are in bed on time?”. Internal consistency of monitoring knowledge a sixth grade was acceptable (α = .88).

Data Analysis Plan

Preliminary analyses examined initial properties of the data, including mean-level differences and correlations between all predictor and outcome variables of interest. Since students were nested across 20 schools, initial examinations also estimated the effect of clustering on the data. The need for multilevel modeling (MLM) was based on two indices: the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the design effect (DE). The ICC provides a standardized estimate of the magnitude of the clustering effect, with values ranging from 0 (indicating complete independence) to 1 (indicating complete dependence). However, even when ICC values are small (i.e., .01 or .05), standard errors may be dramatically inflated within nested datasets (Cohen, Cohen, Aiken, & West 2003). The ICC is calculated based on estimates of the between-cluster and within-cluster variance: ICC = τ00/ (τ00 + σ2). The design effect also provides an estimate of the nesting related biases. More specifically, the design effects represent the degree to which the standard errors would be underestimated if nesting were not accounted for (e.g., DE = 2 would imply that standard errors would need to be doubled; Muthen & Satorra, 1995). The design effect is calculated using estimates of the ICC and the average cluster size (in this case, average sample size per school): DE = 1 + (nj−1) ICC.

Analyses included students who had data on at least one measure of interest for at least one grade point (N = 5,802), as such, participation rates were lower for each individual grade (n = 4,174 at 6th grade; n = 4,190 at 7th grade; and n = 3,774 at 8th grade). Missingness was not significantly related to gender, ethnicity, 6th grade home-school communication or 6th grade homework involvement. However, missingness was related to higher levels of deviant peer affiliation and lower levels of: proxy SES, total parent educational involvement at 6th grade, school and activity involvement at 6th grade, and positive peer affiliation. Missing data were treated using multiple imputation (Little & Rubin, 2002; Rubin, 1987; Schafer, 1999) using WinMICE and SAS. The three-step multiple imputation procedure first involves creating imputed datasets, then running the analyses on each imputed dataset and pooling the results. WinMICE (Jacobusse, 2005) was used to produce 20 sets of imputed data, each with 200 multilevel iterations. WinMICE uses chained equations to estimate missing values and is designed specifically for multilevel missing data. SAS was used to analyze each of the imputed data sets (using the multilevel procedures described below) and pool the results using PROC MIANALYZE. Results from the multilevel models are based on these multiple imputation procedures. Intercepts and parent educational involvement variables (i.e., total parent educational involvement and 3 subtypes) were modeled as random effects in all multilevel models.

Primary analyses included 2 sets of multilevel models to test the effect of parental involvement on child outcomes at 7th grade and at 8th grade. In order to address research question 1, the first set of multilevel models examined the effect of total student-reported parent educational involvement on positive and deviant peer affiliation at 7th and 8th grades. The Level 1 equation for the first set of MLM models is as follows: Yij = β0j + β1j(Baselineij) + β2j(Roomsij) + β3j(Securityij) + β4j(Genderij) + β5j(Ethnicity) + β6j(Involvementij) + rij. Effect sizes (ES) were calculated for individual predictors of interest using a method which involves multiplying the coefficient by 2 times the standard deviation, and dividing by the outcome variable’s standard deviation (Schagen & Elliott, 2004). The resulting ES values represent the expected change on the outcome measure as a result of a one standard deviation change in the predictor variable. In order to address research questions 2 and 3, moderation was tested using the approach suggested by Aiken, West and Reno (1991) with centered variables, interaction terms and simple slopes. Because the analytic focus was on Level 1 predictors, variables were centered within class (i.e., within each school) and two interaction terms were created and added to the primary model: a gender by total parental involvement interaction term and an ethnic minority status by total parent educational involvement interaction term.

In order to further address research question 1, a second and parallel set of MLM models separated parent educational involvement into three subtypes: home-school communication, school and activity involvement, and homework involvement. These models examined the effect of three parent educational involvement subtypes on positive and deviant peer affiliation at 7th and 8th grade. The Level 1 equation for the second set of MLM models is as follows: Yij = β0j + β1j(Baselineij) + β2j(Roomsij) + β3j(Securityij) + β4j(Genderij) + β5j(Ethnicity) + β6j(Communicationij) + β7j(Activityij) + β8j(Homeworkij) + rij. To further address research questions 2 and 3, three gender by parental involvement interactions and three ethnicity by parent educational involvement interactions were added to the models using the Aiken and West (1991) approach previously described.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for parent educational involvement (total and each subtype), parent monitoring knowledge, and peer affiliation (positive and deviant) across each grade. Correlations across each grade are presented in Table 2.

Table 1.

Descriptives for Parent Educational Involvement, Monitoring Knowledge and Peer Affiliations

Min Max M SD N
6th Grade Total Educational Involvementa −8.89 20.56 −0.08 4.19 3649
 Homework Involvementb   2.00   8.00   5.88 1.73 3967
 Home-School Communicationb   3.00 15.00   5.01 2.07 3921
 School and Activity Involvementb   3.00 15.00   6.26 2.63 3874
Monitoring Knowledgeb 11.00 44.00 34.07 7.28 3790
Positive Peer Affiliation   3.00 15.00   9.53 2.99 3845
Deviant Peer Affiliation   3.00 15.00   4.35 1.90 3753
7th Grade Positive Peer Affiliation   3.00 15.00   9.39 2.98 3864
Deviant Peer Affiliation   3.00 15.00   4.63 2.22 3900
8th Grade Positive Peer Affiliation   3.00 15.00   9.42 2.93 3535
Deviant Peer Affiliation   3.00 15.00   4.84 2.29 3576
Open in a new tab
a

Due to the difference in response scales, items were standardized before summing this scale

b

For ease of interpretation, raw scores were used to calculate the sum scales here, although standardized items were used for subsequent analyses

Preliminary analyses also examined variance between and within schools on parent educational involvement ratings. Findings showed significant variance in the 6th grade total parent educational involvement means across schools at (τ00 = .73, p < .01), as well significant within-school variance (σ2 = 18.63, p < .001). Based on these indices, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated as 0.04 and the design effect as 11.94. Although this ICC was only slightly greater than zero, there was still a potential for inflated standard errors (Cohen, Cohen, Aiken, & West 2003). The design effects also implied that standard errors would be dramatically underestimated if nesting was not accounted for (Muthen & Satorra, 1995). As such, subsequent analyses were conducted using an MLM rather than standard regression approach.

Primary Findings

(1) Does 6th grade student-reported parent educational involvement predict positive and deviant peer group affiliations at 7th and 8th grade?

Table 3 presents the results of four multilevel models with total parent educational involvement predicting changes in positive and deviant peer affiliation from 6th to 7th grade and from 6th to 8th grade, controlling for 6th grade levels of peer affiliation. Total involvement predicted increased in 7th grade positive peer affiliation (ES = .25) and 8th grade positive peer affiliation (ES = .26). Table 4 presents the results of four multilevel models with total parent educational involvement predicting changes in positive and deviant peer affiliation from 6th to 7th grade and from 6th to 8th grade, controlling for 6th grade levels of peer affiliation and parent monitoring knowledge. Total involvement predicted increased positive peer affiliation at 7th grade (ES = .17) and 8th grade (ES = .20).

Table 3.

Results of Multilevel Models with Total Parent Educational Involvement Predicting Positive and Deviant Peer Affiliation at 7th and 8th Grade

7th Grade
8th Grade
Positive Peer Affiliation Deviant Peer Affiliation Positive Peer Affiliation Deviant Peer Affiliation
B SE B SE B SE B SE
Intercept 6.33** 0.55 2.36** 0.39 7.38** 0.55 2.87** 0.39
Outcome at 6th grade 0.37** 0.03 0.44** 0.05 0.29** 0.03 0.37** 0.04
Number of rooms in home −0.02 0.06 0.06 0.05 −0.03 0.06 0.02 0.05
Perceived financial security −0.21 0.13 0.02 0.10 −0.22 0.13 0.10 0.11
Child Gender (1 = Male, 0 = Female) −0.05 0.20 0.17 0.16 0.11 0.20 0.05 0.16
Ethnic Minority Status (1 = Ethnic Minority, 0 = Caucasian) 0.19 0.21 0.20 0.17 −0.14 0.20 0.13 0.17
Total Parent Educational Involvement 0.09** 0.03 −0.04 0.02 0.09** 0.03 −0.01 0.02
Open in a new tab
**

p < .01,

*

p < .05

Table 4.

Results of Multilevel Models with Total Parent Educational Involvement Predicting Positive and Deviant Peer Affiliation at 7th and 8th Grade Controlling for Monitoring Knowledge

7th Grade
8th Grade
Positive Peer Affiliation Deviant Peer Affiliation Positive Peer Affiliation Deviant Peer Affiliation
B SE B SE B SE B SE
Intercept 5.73** 0.70 2.68** 0.53 6.40** 0.68 3.03** 0.53
Outcome at 6th grade 0.31** 0.04 0.42** 0.05 0.26** 0.04 0.36** 0.05
Number of rooms in home −0.01 0.06 0.05 0.05 −0.01 0.06 0.01 0.05
Perceived financial security −0.18 0.13 0.00 0.10 −0.21 0.13 0.06 0.11
Child Gender (1 = Male, 0 = Female) 0.01 0.20 0.13 0.16 0.17 0.20 −0.01 0.17
Ethnic Minority Status (1 = Ethnic Minority, 0 = Caucasian) 0.27 0.21 0.10 0.17 −0.19 0.21 0.12 0.17
Monitoring Knowledge 0.06** 0.02 −0.06** 0.01 0.04* 0.02 −0.03* 0.01
Total Parent Educational Involvement 0.06* 0.03 −0.01 0.02 0.07* 0.03 −0.01 0.02
Open in a new tab
**

p < .01,

*

p < .05

Table 5 present the results of four models examining 3 subtypes of parent educational involvement as predicting changes in positive and deviant peer affiliation from 6th to 7th grade and from 6th to 8th grade, controlling for 6th grade levels of peer affiliation. Home-school communication did not significantly predict affiliation changes at 7th grade or 8th grade. School and activity involvement predicted increases in positive peer affiliation at 7th grade (ES = .21) and 8th grade (ES = .18). Homework involvement predicted increases in positive peer affiliation at 7th grade (ES = .27) and 8th grade (ES = .27), and decreases in deviant peer affiliation at 7th (ES = .28) and 8th grade (ES = .21).

Table 5.

Results of Multilevel Models with Parent Educational Involvement Dimensions Predicting Positive and Deviant Peer Affiliation at 7th and 8th Grade

7th Grade
8th Grade
Positive Peer Affiliation Deviant Peer Affiliation Positive Peer Affiliation Deviant Peer Affiliation
B SE B SE B SE B SE
Intercept 6.56** 0.55 2.58** 0.39 7.56** 0.55 3.03** 0.39
Outcome at 6th grade 0.34** 0.03 0.41** 0.05 0.26** 0.03 0.35** 0.04
Number of rooms in home −0.01 0.06 0.06 0.05 −0.03 0.06 0.01 0.05
Perceived financial security −0.21 0.13 0.02 0.10 −0.22 0.13 0.10 0.10
Child Gender (1 = Male, 0 = Female) −0.01 0.20 0.13 0.16 0.15 0.20 0.02 0.16
Ethnic Minority Status (1 = Ethnic Minority, 0 = Caucasian) 0.19 0.21 0.18 0.17 −0.12 0.20 0.10 0.17
Home-School Communication −0.04 0.05 0.06 0.04 −0.01 0.05 0.06 0.04
School and Activity Involvement 0.12* 0.05 −0.04 0.04 0.10* 0.05 0.01 0.04
Homework Involvement 0.23** 0.06 −0.18** 0.05 0.23** 0.06 −0.14** 0.05
Open in a new tab
**

p < .01,

*

p < .05

Table 6 presents similar findings as Table 5, but Table 6 includes parent monitoring knowledge as a control variable. Home-school communication did not significantly predict affiliation changes at 7th grade or 8th grade. School and activity involvement predicted increased positive peer affiliation at 7th grade (ES = .21) and 8th grade (ES = .18). Homework involvement predicted increased positive peer affiliation at 8th grade (ES = .24).

Table 6.

Results of Multilevel Models with Parent Educational Involvement Dimensions Predicting Positive and Deviant Peer Affiliation at 7th and 8th Grade Controlling for Monitoring Knowledge

7th Grade
8th Grade
Positive Peer Affiliation Deviant Peer Affiliation Positive Peer Affiliation Deviant Peer Affiliation
B SE B SE B SE B SE
Intercept 6.77** 0.56 2.74** 0.40 7.60** 0.56 3.12** 0.40
Outcome at 6th grade 0.31** 0.04 0.41** 0.05 0.25** 0.04 0.35** 0.05
Number of rooms in home −0.02 0.06 0.05 0.05 −0.02 0.06 0.01 0.05
Perceived financial security −0.17 0.13 −0.01 0.10 −0.21 0.13 0.06 0.11
Child Gender (1 = Male, 0 = Female) 0.06 0.20 0.10 0.16 0.20 0.20 −0.02 0.17
Ethnic Minority Status (1 = Ethnic Minority, 0 = Caucasian) 0.26 0.21 0.10 0.17 −0.18 0.21 0.10 0.17
Monitoring Knowledge 0.05* 0.02 −0.05** 0.02 0.02 0.02 −0.01 0.01
Home-School Communication −0.04 0.05 0.06 0.04 −0.01 0.05 0.05 0.04
School and Activity Involvement 0.12* 0.05 −0.03 0.04 0.10* 0.05 −0.01 0.04
Homework Involvement 0.13 0.08 −0.06 0.06 0.20* 0.08 −0.11 0.06
Open in a new tab
**

p < .01,

*

p < .05

(2) Does gender moderate the relation between parent educational involvement and peer group affiliations?

We tested for interactions between gender and parent educational involvement, however none of the interactions were significant, thus they were removed from final analyses.

(3) Does ethnicity moderate the relation between parent educational involvement and peer group affiliations?

No significant interactions emerged when comparing ethnic minority and Caucasian students. A post hoc analysis compared the two largest ethnic groups in our sample (i.e., Caucasian and Hispanic/Latino), we found a small significant interaction between Hispanic/Latino status and school and activity involvement when predicting 7th grade positive peer affiliation (B = −.10, p < .05; see Figure 1). These findings suggest that the relation between school and activity involvement and positive peer affiliation at 7th grade is moderated by ethnicity, with a small and non-significant effect for Hispanic/Latino youth (B = .01, ns) compared to larger and significant effect for Caucasian youth (B = .11, p < .05).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Depicts the influence of student ethnicity (i.e., Hispanic/Latino and Caucasian) on the relation between school and activity involvement on 7th grade positive peer affiliations. The relation between school and activity involvement and positive peer affiliation is stronger for Caucasian students than it is for Hispanic/Latino students.

Discussion

The purpose of the present study was to examine 6th grade student-reported parent educational involvement on early adolescent peer group affiliations at 7th and 8th grade while controlling for initial 6th grade levels of peer affiliations and covarying parent monitoring knowledge. In addition, student gender and student ethnicity were explored as possible moderators. Although previous research has examined (a) parent educational involvement in middle school, and (b) peer group affiliation in middle school, research has not investigated the influence of parent educational involvement on peer group affiliation during middle school. Thus, this study extends previous longitudinal parent educational involvement studies during elementary school (Dearing et al., 2006) and middle school (Hill et al., 2004; Wang et al., 2011) and studies examining peer affiliations (Dishion, 1990; Patterson et al., 1984, 1991). In addition, this study responds to calls for research to investigate ecological factors that influence peer affiliation across school and family contexts (Dishion et al., 1991; Véronneau & Dishion, 2010) by exploring the influence of 6th grade student-reported parent educational involvement on early adolescent peer group affiliations at 7th and 8th grade in the context of parent monitoring knowledge.

Main Findings

Findings from the present study relative to the prediction of parent educational involvement on student positive and deviant peer affiliations in the context of parent monitoring knowledge are generally consistent with our hypotheses. Specifically, they point to a main finding that parenting is important yet complex. With monitoring knowledge, composite educational involvement remained a significant predictor of 7th and 8th grade positive peer affiliation suggesting an important and unique contribution of educational involvement for positive peer affiliations. Monitoring knowledge was significantly associated with positive and deviant peer affiliations at 7th and 8th grade, which affirms its importance for peer affiliations in established in prior work (Dishion et al., 1991; Fosco et al., 2012). Educational involvement’s prediction of positive peer affiliation is important because affiliating with positive peers has myriad advantages over affiliating with deviant peers. For example, positive peers encourage appropriate behaviors (Brendgen et al., 1999) whereas deviant peers reinforce delinquent behaviors (Dishion et al., 1996). This may suggest that parent educational involvement, in terms of overall involvement and school and activity involvement, is better considered as a promotive process in that it is more likely to promote adaptive skills rather than decrease maladaptive behaviors. Indeed, the finding that parent educational involvement programs may be more associated with promoting adaptive characteristics rather than decreasing maladaptive characteristics has been found by others (Sheridan et al., 2012).

Without monitoring knowledge included, an examination of parent educational involvement subscales point to several important associations, including homework involvement on positive and deviant peer affiliations, and school and activities involvement on positive peer affiliations. With monitoring knowledge included with educational involvement subscales, school and activities involvement remained a significant predictor of positive peer affiliations at 7th and 8th grade. This finding points to school and activities involvement as particularly relevant for positive peer affiliations and underscores educational involvement as a promotive process, which has identified by others investigating home-school interventions for student behavior (cf. Sheridan et al., 2012). Homework involvement remained a significant predictor of positive peer affiliations at 8th grade. This suggest homework involvement may have an important contribution, even in the context of monitoring knowledge, for positive peer affiliations at 8th grade.

The examination of gender as a moderator on relations between parent educational involvement and peer group affiliations revealed an important finding. The relation between parent educational involvement and changes in peer affiliation were similar for boys and girls. The finding that gender did not moderate the relation between parent educational involvement and peer affiliation adds to the literature examining the influence of gender when examining parent educational involvement and parenting on outcomes. Due to equivocal findings in the literature, we did not make a hypothesis for this research question. Other studies that have examined the influence of gender on parent educational involvement in secondary school levels have primarily examined its influence on academic achievement (e.g., Keith et al., 1998). This study’s focus on peer group affiliation adds to the literature by suggesting student gender may not influence the relation between parent educational involvement and peer group affiliation in middle school. Heretofore, no studies have investigated this relation with this population and peer group affiliation. This finding indicates that efforts to engage families in middle school may not need to be differentiated based on gender.

In addition to gender, student ethnicity was examined as a moderator on the relation between parent educational involvement and positive and deviant peer affiliations. A significant finding emerged: the relation between school and activity involvement and positive peer affiliation at 7th grade is smaller for Hispanic/Latino students as compared to Caucasian students. This finding is consistent with our hypothesis and adds to the literature that suggests student ethnicity influences relations between parent educational involvement and certain outcomes (Fan et al., 2012; Keith et al., 1998).

Contributions of this Study

Findings from this study contribute in four primary ways to literature examining parent educational involvement and student peer affiliations. First, heretofore, examinations of parent educational involvement in middle school have not addressed student peer group affiliations. The importance of social contexts as contributors to problem behavior is well-documented (Dishion et al., 2012; Dodge, 1983). This study extends parent educational involvement research in middle school (e.g., Hill & Tyson, 2009) by examining relations between student-reported 6th grade parent educational involvement and 7th and 8th grade positive and deviant peer affiliations while covarying parent monitoring knowledge. Calls from scholars to investigate ecological home and school factors that may influence peer affiliations (Dishion et al., 1991) are supported by findings from this study and suggest parent educational involvement is associated with positive peer affiliations while including parent monitoring knowledge.

Second, in addition to examining total parent educational involvement, this study demonstrated the importance of particular dimensions of parent educational involvement. Specifically, school and activity involvement emerged as a significant predictors of later positive peer affiliations in the context of monitoring knowledge. Although it is useful to know whether overall levels of parent educational involvement are related to student outcomes, identifying specific dimensions of parent educational involvement is particularly useful when planning interventions and developing programs (e.g., Dishion et al., 2003; Sheridan et al., 2012). As suggested by Sheridan and colleagues (2003), parents can serve a valuable role in the development of social skills and positive peer relationships. In school and activity involvement, parents may have the opportunity to view peer affiliations and suggest appropriate affiliations.

Third, parent educational involvement in this study was based on student report of their parents’ involvement. Thus, findings may suggest that it is important for students to feel supported by their parents when they make decisions about peer affiliations. Indeed, the family system provides proximal social support to children (Boyce, 1985), which serve “as the central, enduring source of supportive social interaction” (Boyce, 1985, p. 153).

Fourth, this study adds to the extant literature on parent educational involvement by providing information about ethnicity as a moderator of parent educational involvement on student peer affiliations. Specifically, at low levels of school and activity involvement, Hispanic/Latino and Caucasian students have similar levels of positive peer affiliation. As school and activity involvement increases, Caucasian students have higher levels of positive peer affiliation. These findings augment the growing body of literature examining the influence of ethnicity (Fan et al., 2012; Hill et al., 2004) on the relation between parent educational involvement and outcomes. Interestingly, this finding was unique to involvement in school activities, and does not pertain to home involvement or home-school communication. This difference could be due to cultural differences in the value, expectation and norms tied to extracurricular and volunteer activities and events. Specifically, extant findings suggest Hispanic parents place greater importance on academics than extracurricular activities (Scribner et al., 1999, Trumball et al., 2007; Zarate, 2007). Researchers have also suggested that lower participation in extracurricular activities among Hispanic/Latino students may be partly due to the time away from home and family participating in extracurricular activities requires, which goes against cultural values of familismo (Feldman & Matjasko, 2005; Feldman & Matjasko, 2007, Lisella & Serwatka, 2009; Steidel & Contreras, 2003, Velez & Saenz, 2001). It could also be the case that Hispanic/Latino parents are more likely to face barriers to participating in school activities (e.g., language, transportation, economic, work schedules) in ways that may be reduced across other forms of parent involvement (e.g., De Gaetano, 2007; Hussain-Gambles, Atkin, & Leese, 2004; Ladky & Peterson, 2008).

Limitations and Future Research Directions

Despite the important findings and contributions of the present study, there are several limitations that must be considered when making interpretations. These limitations have implications for future research in this area. In this study students reported on all variables examined. Future research should seek to use multiple reporters across methods to measure variables of interest. Similarly, when measuring student peer affiliations, it would be useful to use thorough assessments of a youth’s social network. Although some research has suggested general correspondence between self-report and other methods of identifying peer social networks, social cognitive maps may be one tactic that could offer a more thorough assessment (Cairns et al., 1998) than only relying on self-reports. In addition, in this study ethnicity was included as a dichotomous variable. Reducing ethnicity to a dichotomous variable misses many important features of family culture that are important to consider when examining parent involvement and student peer affiliations. Future research should investigate student identification with ethnic groups, family culture, and values to precisely assess the role of ethnicity. Next, parent educational involvement and parent monitoring knowledge are two aspects of parenting. Future research should seek to compare the influence of various domains of parenting (e.g., parental warmth, parental control) when examining the relative impact of parent educational involvement and monitoring knowledge as parenting is a complex and multifaceted process.

Identifying appropriate and robust measures of parent educational involvement should be targeted in future research. For example, based on findings from the present study, internal consistency of parent educational involvement measures could be improved. Future studies could seek feedback from parents, teachers, and students about relevant and salient aspects of parent educational involvement in middle school, which could inform the development and iterative refinement of robust parent educational involvement measures for middle school.

The timing of assessments in this study should also be considered a limitation. In this study assessments were completed in the fall/winter. Students may be better able to approximate parent educational involvement in the spring, after a full school year. Future research should seek to examine parent educational involvement when it is assessed in the spring. Relatedly, the school-based administration of measures necessitated the use of abbreviated measures in order to reduce administration time, participant burden, and participant fatigue. Although our parent educational involvement measure is consistent with the empirically derived constructs of parent educational involvement, a longer measure may be more robust and internally consistent. Findings from the present study regarding dimensions of parent educational involvement should be interpreted as an initial and novel attempt to examine dimensions of parent educational involvement and peer affiliations.

Finally, the importance of parent educational involvement as a predictor is well-established (Barnard, 2004; Dearing et al., 2006; Jeynes, 2012). However, forms of parent participation that reflect authentic partnerships between parents and educators (e.g., Sheridan et al., 2012) have not been as consistently examined as has parent educational involvement. Future research is needed that explores the influence of family-school partnerships on student outcomes in middle school.

Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to examine influences of 6th grade parent educational involvement on early adolescent peer group affiliations at 7th and 8th grade in the context of parent monitoring knowledge and affirmed the importance of monitoring knowledge for peer affiliations in middle school. Student gender and ethnicity were explored as moderators. Findings revealed that overall parent educational involvement as well as school and activity involvement were statistically significant predictors of peer group affiliations while covarying monitoring knowledge. Whereas student gender did not emerge as a significant moderator, student ethnicity did. This study emphasizes the important role parents play in the social lives of middle school students.

References

  1. Aiken LS, West SG, Reno RR. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage Publication; 1991. [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker DP, Stevenson DL. Mothers’ strategies for children’s school achievement: Managing the transition to high school. Sociology of Education. 1986;59:156–166. doi: 10.2307/2112340. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Barnard WM. Parent involvement in elementary school and educational attainment. Children and Youth Services Review. 2004;26:39–62. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2003.11.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Berndt TJ, Hawkins JA, Jiao Z. Influences of friends and friendships on adjustment to junior high school. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 1999;45:13–41. [Google Scholar]
  5. Brendgen M, Bowen F, Rondeau N, Vitaro F. Effects of friends’ characteristics on children’s social cognitions. Social Development. 1999;8:41–51. doi: 10.1111/1467-9507.00079. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bronfenbrenner U. Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist. 1977;32:513–531. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cairns R, Xie H, Leung MC. The popularity of friendship and the neglect of social networks: Toward a new balance. In: Bukowski W, Cillessen A, editors. Sociometry then and now: Building on six decades of measuring children’s experiences with the peer group. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1998. pp. 25–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cohen J, Cohen P, West SG, Aiken LS. Applied multiple correlation/regression analysis for the behavioral sciences. Chicago: 2003. [Google Scholar]
  9. Cohen S, Syme SL. Social support and health. San Francisco, CA: Academic Press; 1985. [Google Scholar]
  10. Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. Parent-teacher Involvement Questionnaire: Parent Version. 1991 Retrieved from http://www.fasttrackproject.org.
  11. Cortina JM. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1993;78:98–104. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Dauber SL, Epstein JL. Parents’ attitudes and practices of involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools. Families and schools in a pluralistic society. 1993:53–71. [Google Scholar]
  13. Dearing E, Kreider H, Simpkins S, Weiss HB. Family involvement in school and low-income children’s literacy: Longitudinal associations between and within families. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2006;98:653–664. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.653. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. De Gaetano Y. The role of culture in engaging Latino parents’ involvement in school. Urban Education. 2007;42:145–162. doi: 10.1177/0042085906296536. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Dishion TJ. The family ecology of boys’ peer relations in middle childhood. Child Development. 1990;61:874–892. doi: 10.2307/1130971. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Dishion TJ, Capaldi D, Spracklen KM, Li F. Peer ecology of male adolescent drug use. Development and Psychopathology. 1995;7:803–824. doi: 10.1017/S0954579400006854. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Dishion TJ, Eddy JM, Haas E, Li F, Spracklen K. Friendships and violent behavior during adolescence. Social Development. 1997;6:207–223. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.1997.tb00102.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Dishion TJ, Forgatch M, VanRyzin M, Winter C. The nonlinear dynamics of family problem solving in adolescence: The predictive validity of a peaceful resolution attractor. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences. 2012;16:331–352. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Dishion TJ, Kavanagh K, Schneiger A, Nelson S, Kaufman NK. Preventing early adolescent substance use: A family-centered strategy for the public middle school. Prevention Science. 2002;3:191–201. doi: 10.1023/A:1019994500301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Dishion TJ, Kim H, Stormshak EA, O’Neill M. A Brief Measure of Peer Affiliation and Social Acceptance (PASA): Validity in an Ethnically Diverse Sample of Early Adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2014;43(4):601–612. doi: 10.1080/15374416.2013.876641. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Dishion TJ, McMahon RJ. Parental monitoring and the prevention of child and adolescent problem behavior: A conceptual and empirical formulation. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review. 1998;1:61–75. doi: 10.1023/A:1021800432380. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Dishion TJ, Nelson SE, Kavanagh K. The family check-up with high-risk young adolescents: Preventing early-onset substance use by parent monitoring. Behavior Therapy. 2003;34:553–571. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7894(03)80035-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Dishion TJ, Owen LD. A longitudinal analysis of friendships and substance use: Bidirectional influence from adolescence to adulthood. Developmental Psychology. 2002;38:480–491. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.38.4.480. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Dishion TJ, Patterson GR. The development and ecology of antisocial behavior in children and adolescents. The development and ecology of antisocial behavior in children and adolescents. In: Cicchetti D, Cohen D, editors. Developmental psychopathology, Vol 3: Risk, disorder, and adaptation. 2nd. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2006. pp. 503–541. [Google Scholar]
  25. Dishion TJ, Patterson GR, Stoolmiller M, Skinner ML. Family, school, and behavioral antecedents to early adolescent involvement with antisocial peers. Developmental Psychology. 1991;27:172–180. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.27.172. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Dishion TJ, Spracklen KM, Andrews DW, Patterson GR. Deviancy training in male adolescents friendships. Behavior Therapy. 1996;27:373–390. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7894(96)80023-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Dodge KA. Behavioral antecedents of peer social status. Child Development. 1983;54:1386–1399. doi: 10.2307/1129802. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Domina T. Leveling the home advantage: Assessing the effectiveness of parental involvement in elementary school. Sociology of Education. 2005;78:233–249. doi: 10.1177/003804070507800303. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Duncan SC, Duncan TE, Biglan A, Ary D. Contributions of the social context to the development of adolescent substance use: A multivariate latent growth modeling approach. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 1998;50:57–71. doi: 10.1016/S3076-87(98)00006-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Eccles JS. The development of children ages 6 to 14. The Future of Children. 1999;9:30–44. doi: 10.2307/1602703. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Eccles JS, Harold RD. Family involvement in children’s and adolescent’s schooling. In: Booth A, Dunn JF, editors. Family school links: How do they affect educational outcomes? Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 1996. pp. 3–34. [Google Scholar]
  32. Eccles JS, Midgley C, Wigfield A, Miller Buchanan C, Reuman D, Flanagan C, Mac Iver D. Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist. 1993;48:90–101. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.48.2.90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Eccles JS, Roeser RW. Schools as developmental contexts during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence. 2011;21:225–241. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00725.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Epstein JL. School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. The Phi Delta Kappan. 1995;76:701–712. [Google Scholar]
  35. Erikson EH. Children and society. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc; 1963. [Google Scholar]
  36. Fan W, Williams C. Effects of parental involvement on students’ academic self-efficacy, engagement, and intrinsic motivation. Educational Psychology. 2010;30:53–74. doi: 10.1080/01443410903353302. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Fan W, Williams CM, Wolters CA. Parental involvement in predicting school motivation: Similar and differential effects across ethnic groups. The Journal of Educational Research. 2012;105:21–35. doi: 10.1080/00220671.2010.515625. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Fantuzzo J, McWayne C, Perry MA, Childs S. Multiple dimensions of family involvement and their relations to behavioral and learning competencies for urban, low-income children. School Psychology Review. 2004;33:467–480. [Google Scholar]
  39. Fantuzzo J, Tighe E, Childs S. Family involvement questionnaire: A multivariate assessment of family participation in early childhood education. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2000;9:367–376. doi: 10.1037//0022-0663.92.2.367. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Feldman AF, Matjasko JL. The role of school-based extracurricular activities in adolescent development: A comprehensive review and future directions. Review of Educational Research. 2005;75:159–210. [Google Scholar]
  41. Garbacz SA, McDowall PS, Schaughency E, Sheridan SM, Welch GW. A multidimensional examination across child and parent characteristics. The Elementary School Journal. 2015;115:384–406. doi: 10.1086/680325. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Fosco GM, Stormshak EA, Dishion TJ, Winter CE. Family relationships and parental monitoring during middle school as predictors of early adolescent problem behavior. 2012;41:202–213. doi: 10.1080/15374416.2012.651989. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Garbacz SA, Sheridan SM. A multidimensional examination of New Zealand family involvement in education. School Psychology International. 2011;32:600–615. doi: 10.1177/0143034311403034. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. George D, Mallery M. Using SPSS for Windows step by step: a simple guide and reference. Boston, MA: 2003. [Google Scholar]
  45. Grolnick W, Slowiaczek M. Parents’ involvement in children’s schooling: A multidimensional conceptualization and motivational model. Child Development. 1994;65:237–252. doi: 10.2307/1131378. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Gifford-Smith ME, Brownell CA. Childhood peer relationships: Social acceptance, friendships, and peer networks. Journal of School Psychology. 2003;41:235–284. doi: 10.1016/S0022-4405(03)00048-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Hair JF, Jr, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate data analysis. 7th. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  48. Hill NE, Castellino DR, Lansford JE, Nowlin PN, Dodge KA, Bates JE, Pettit GS. Parent academic involvement as related to school behavior, achievement, and aspirations: Demographic variations across adolescence. Child Development. 2004;75:1491–1509. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00753.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Hill NE, Tyson DF. Parental Involvement in middle school: A meta-analytic assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology. 2009;45:740–763. doi: 10.1037/a0015362. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Hoeve M, Dubas JS, Eichelsheim VI, van der Laan PH, Smeenk W, Gerris JRM. The relationship between parenting and delinquency: A meta-analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2009;37:749–775. doi: 10.1007/s10802-009-9310-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Hussain-Gambles M, Atkin K, Leese B. Why ethnic minority groups are under-represented in clinical trials: A review of the literature. Health & Social Care in the Community. 2004;12:382–388. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2524.2004.00507.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Jacobusse G. WinMICE user’s manual for WinMICE prototype version 0.1. The Netherlands: TNO; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  53. Jeynes W. A meta-analysis of the efficacy of different types of parental involvement programs for urban students. Urban Education. 2012;47:706–742. doi: 10.1177/0042085912445643. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Keith TZ, Keith PB, Quirk KJ, Sperduto J, Santillo S, Killings S. Longitudinal effects of parental involvement on high school grades: Similarities and differences across gender and ethnic groups. Journal of School Psychology. 1998;36:335–363. doi: 10.1016/S0022-4405(98)00008-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Kerr M, Stattin H. What parents know, how they know it, and several forms of adolescent adjustment: Further support for a reinterpretation of monitoring. Developmental Psychology. 2000;36:366–380. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.36.3.366. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Kim EM, Sheridan SM, Kwon K, Koziol N. Parent beliefs and children’s social-behavioral functioning: The mediating role of parent-teacher relationships. Journal of School Psychology. 2013;51:175–185. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2013.01.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Ladky M, Peterson SS. Successful practices for immigrant parent involvement: An Ontario perspective. Multicultural Perspectives. 2008;10:82–89. doi: 10.1080/15210960801997932. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Larson R, Richards MH. Daily companionship in late adolescence: Changing developmental contexts. Child Development. 1991;62:284–300. doi: 10.2307/1131003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Larson RW, Richards MH, Moneta G, Holmbeck G, Duckett E. Changes in adolescents’ daily interactions with their families from ages 10 to 18: Disengagement and transformation. Developmental Psychology. 1996;32:744–754. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.32.4.744. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  60. Little RJA, Rubin DB. Statistical analysis with missing data. Hoboken: Wiley-Interscience; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  61. Lisella LC, Serwatka TS. Extracurricular participation and academic achievement in minority students in urban schools. The Urban Review. 1996;28:63–80. [Google Scholar]
  62. Manz PH, Fantuzzo JW, Power TJ. Multidimensional assessment of family involvement among urban elementary students. Journal of School Psychology. 2004;42:461–475. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2004.08.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Metzler CW, Biglan A, Ary DV, Li F. The stability and validity of early adolescents’ reports of parenting constructs. Journal of Family Psychology. 1998;12:600–619. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.12.4.600. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. McCrae RR, Kurtz JE, Yamagata S, Terracciano A. Internal consistency, retest reliability, and their implications for personality scale validity. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2011;15:28–50. doi: 10.1177/1088868310366253. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. McNeal RB. Parental involvement as social capital: Differential effectiveness on science achievement, and dropping out. Social Forces. 1999;78:117–114. doi: 10.2307/3005792. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  66. McWayne C, Hampton V, Fantuzzo J, Cohen H, Sekino Y. A multivariate examination of parent involvement and the social and academic competencies of urban kindergarten children. Psychology in the Schools. 2004;41:363–377. doi: 10.1002/pits.10163. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  67. Minke KM, Sheridan SM, Kim EM, Ryoo J, Koziol NA. Congruence in parent-teacher relationships: The role of shared perceptions. The Elementary School Journal. 2014;114:527–546. doi: 10.1086/675637. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  68. Muller C. Maternal employment, parent involvement, and mathematics achievement among adolescents. Journal of Marriage and Family. 1995;57:85–100. doi: 10.2307/353818. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  69. Muthen B, Satorra A. Complex sample data in structural equation modeling. In: Marsden PV, editor. Sociological methodology. Oxford, England: Blackwell; 1995. pp. 267–316. [Google Scholar]
  70. Nebbitt VE, Lombe M, Lindsey MA. Perceived parental behavior and peer affiliations among urban African American adolescents. Social Work Research. 2007;31:163–169. doi: 10.1093/swer/31.3.163. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  71. Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory. 2nd. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978. [Google Scholar]
  72. Paikoff RL, Brooks-Gunn J. Do parent-child relationships change during puberty? Psychological Bulletin. 1991;110:47–66. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.110.1.47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Patterson GR. Coercive family process. Eugene, OR: Castalia Publishing Company; 1982. [Google Scholar]
  74. Patterson GR, Dishion TJ. Contributions of families and peers to delinquency. Criminology. 1985;23:63–79. [Google Scholar]
  75. Patterson GR, Dishion TJ, Bank L. Family interaction: A process model of deviancy training. Aggressive Behavior. 1984;10:253–267. [Google Scholar]
  76. Reef J, Diamantopoulou S, van Meurs I, Verhulst FC, van der Ende J. Developmental trajectories of child to adolescent externalizing behavior and adult DSM-IV disorder: Results of a 24-year longitudinal study. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. 2011;46:1233–1241. doi: 10.1007/s00127-010-0297-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Reid JB. Prevention of conduct disorder before and after school entry: Relating interventions to developmental findings. Development and Psychopathology. 1993;5:311–319. [Google Scholar]
  78. Rodgers-Farmer AY. Parental monitoring and peer group association: Their influence on adolescent substance use. Journal of Social Service Research. 2000;27:1–8. doi: 10.1300/J079v27n02_01. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  79. Rubin DB. Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. J. Wiley & Sons; New York: 1987. [Google Scholar]
  80. Rubin KH, Bukowski WM, Parker JG. Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In: Eisenberg N, Damon W, Lerner R, editors. Social, emotional, and personality development. 6th. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2006. pp. 571–645. [Google Scholar]
  81. Schafer JL. Multiple imputation: A primer. Statistical Methods in Medical Research. 1999;8:3–15. doi: 10.1177/096228029900800102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Schagen I, Elliot K, editors. But What Does It Mean? The Use of Effect Sizes in Educational Research. Slough: NFER; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  83. Schmitt N. Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment. 1996;8:350–353. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.8.4.350. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  84. Scribner JD, Young MD, Pedroza A. Building collaborative relationships with parents. In: Reyes P, Scribner JD, Paredes-Scribner A, editors. Lessons from high-performing Hispanic schools: Creating learning communities. New York, NY: Teachers College Press; 1999. pp. 36–60. [Google Scholar]
  85. Sheridan SM, Bovaird JA, Glover TA, Garbacz SA, Witte A, Kwon K. A randomized trial examining the effects of conjoint behavioral consultation and the mediating role of the parent–teacher relationship. School Psychology Review. 2012;41:23–46. [Google Scholar]
  86. Shumow L, Miller JD. Parents’ at-home and at-school academic involvement with young adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence. 2001;21:68–91. doi: 10.1177/0272431601021001004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  87. Stattin H, Kerr M. Parental monitoring: A reinterpretation. Child Development. 2000;71:1072–1085. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00210. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Steidel AGL, Contreras JM. A new familism scale for use with Latino populations. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences. 2003;25:312–330. doi: 10.1177/0739986303256912. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  89. Steinberg L, Morris AS. Adolescent development. Annual Review of Psychology. 2001;52:83–110. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  90. Stormshak EA, Connell AM, Véonneau M-H, Myers MW, Dishion TJ, Kavanagh K, Caruthers AS. An ecological approach to promoting early adolescent mental health and social adaptation: Family-Centered Intervention in Public Middle Schools. Child Development. 2011;82:209–225. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01551.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  91. Trumbull E, Greenfield PM, Rothstein-Fisch C, Quiroz B. Bridging Cultures in parent conferences: Implications for school psychology. In: Esquival G, Lopez E, Nahari S, editors. Handbook of Multicultural School Psychology: An interdisciplinary approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2007. pp. 615–636. [Google Scholar]
  92. Van Ryzin MJ, Dishion TJ, Stormshak EA. Engaging parents in the family check-up in middle school: Longitudinal effects on family conflict and problem behavior through the high school transition. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2012;50:627–633. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.10.255. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Velez W, Saenz R. Toward a comprehensive model of the school leaving process among Latinos. School Psychology Quarterly. 2001;16:445–467. [Google Scholar]
  94. Véronneau M, Dishion TJ. Predicting change in early adolescent problem behavior in the middle school years: A mesosystemic perspective on parenting and peer experiences. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2010;38:1125–1137. doi: 10.1007/x10802-010-9431-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  95. Walker JM, Wilkins AS, Dallaire JR, Sandler HM, Hoover-Dempsey KV. Parental involvement: Model revision through scale development. The Elementary School Journal. 2005;106:85–104. doi: 10.1086/499193. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  96. Wang MT, Dishion TJ, Stormshak EA, Willett JB. Trajectories of family management practices and early adolescent behavioral outcomes. Developmental Psychology. 2011;47:1324–1341. doi: 10.1037/a0024026. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  97. Zarate ME. Understanding Latino Parental Involvement in Education: Perceptions, Expectations, and Recommendations. Tomas Rivera Policy Institute; 2007. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES