Parental Academic Support: A Validity Report Joseph P. Mazer & Blair Thompson

This study offers validity evidence for the Parental Academic Support Scale, a 16-item multidimensional measure that assesses support related to a child’s academic performance, classroom behavior, preparation, hostile peer interactions, and health. Confirmatory factor analysis of the Parental Academic Support Scale (PASS) revealed a close model fit and replicated prior confirmatory factor analysis tests, and ultimately provided additional evidence for content validity. Correlations between parental academic support and the Teacher–Parent Contact Scale provided concurrent validity evidence. More importantly, associations between parental academic support and a child’s success in school suggest that the PASS construct is related to other theoretically similar constructs, providing initial evidence for construct validity. Implications and recommendations for future research are discussed.

Keywords: Parental Academic Support; Success in School; P-12 Level; Confirmatory Factor Analysis; Validity

Prior research suggests a positive association between parental involvement and student academic outcomes (Chen, Yu, & Chang, 2007; Cutrona, Cole, Colangelo, Assouline, & Russell, 1994; Fantuzzo, McWayne, Perry, & Childs, 2004; Rodriguez, 2002; Seitsinger, Felner, Brand, & Burns, 2008). Following this line of research, the government began a sustained drive to increase parental involvement in K-12 edu- cation through increased school funding and the implementation of parent-oriented initiatives and national policies (e.g., The No Child Left Behind Act; Epstein, 1996). As a result, over the past decade the landscape of parental involvement has changed, generated the oft-noted “helicopter parent” (Jayson, 2007; Klein, 2008), and led some school districts to even score parents on their level of involvement (Jacobson, 2003). One component of parental involvement, parent–teacher

Joseph P. Mazer is an Associate Professor at the Department of Communication Studies, Clemson University. Blair Thompson is an Associate Professor at the Department of Communication, Western Kentucky University. Correspondence to: Joseph P. Mazer, Department of Communication Studies, Clemson University, 407 Strode Tower, Clemson, SC 29634, U.S.A. Email: [email protected].

Communication Education Vol. 65, No. 2, April 2016, pp. 213–221

ISSN 0363-4523 (print)/ISSN 1479-5795 (online) © 2015 National Communication Association http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2015.1081957

mailto:[email protected]
communication, has also dramatically changed at the P-12 level (Jacobson, 2003; Rogers, 2006; Seitsinger et al., 2008; Thompson, 2008). Advances in technology have transformed parent–teacher communication from interactions at parent– teacher conferences to, in some cases, weekly contact via e-mail (Thompson, 2008) and through smartphones (Thompson, Mazer, & Grady, 2015). In light of recent changes in how parents and teachers communicate and increased

expectations for parental involvement, Thompson and Mazer (2012) developed the Parental Academic Support Scale (PASS) to assess parent–teacher communication at the P-12 level. The PASS is a multidimensional 16-item measure that assesses the frequency of parent–teacher communication across five dimensions: academic per- formance (e.g., inquiring about how the child can improve a grade), classroom behav- ior (e.g., communication about students’ behavior), preparation (e.g., communication about a child’s academic or social preparation), hostile peer interactions (e.g., com- munication about aggressive encounters between students), and health (e.g., com- munication about medical issues affecting a child’s work). Across a series of studies (Thompson & Mazer, 2012), the PASS demonstrated strong reliability and compiled initial validity evidence, specifically evidence for content validity. Absent from this line of research is a study that examines the relationship between parental academic support and other important outcomes such as a child’s success in school. The present study addresses this gap in the literature and offers important validity evidence for the PASS by examining it in relation to similar existing measures.

Concurrent Validity

DeVellis (2003) argued that concurrent validity is achieved when a measure correlates well with a previously validated instrument that assesses the same construct or a differ- ent, but related, construct. Similar to, but different from, the PASS which measures actual communication behaviors, the Teacher–Parent Contact Scale assesses how fre- quently a parent has contact with a teacher either in writing, by telephone, or face-to- face (Seitsinger et al., 2008). It seems reasonable to argue that parents who communi- cate academic support for their children through a teacher would also maintain contact with that teacher.

H1: Parents’ scores on the Teacher–Parent Contact Scale are positively related to their scores on the Parental Academic Support Scale.

Construct Validity

Construct validity addresses how well a construct fits expected relationships with other constructs (Suen & Ary, 1989). Through existing theory and research, which serve as guidelines for expected relationships, assessment of construct validity requires that the correlations of a particular measure be evaluated in relation to measures for variables that are known to be related to the construct (DeVellis, 2003). Research suggests a positive association between perceived parental involvement and student achievement

214 J. P. Mazer and B. Thompson

(Chen et al., 2007; Cutrona et al., 1994; Fantuzzo et al., 2004; Rodriguez, 2002; Seit- singer et al., 2008). That is, greater perceived parental involvement tends to lead to greater academic successes for students and more positive perceptions of students’ success in school on the part of parents. Prior research has revealed that parents of children with borderline grades (e.g., children are close to an A or B) are just as likely to communicate with teachers as parents whose children are truly struggling (e.g., on the verge of failing; Thompson & Mazer, 2012; Thompson et al., 2015). This research also indicates that parents of underperforming students (e.g., failing, below average, or improving from a B to A grade) are likely to provide greater aca- demic support to the children. Therefore,

H2: Parental academic support is inversely related to parents’ perceptions of their child’s success in school.

Method

Participants and Procedures

The participants were 445 parents of students at the elementary, junior high, and high school levels from a school district in the Midwestern United States. The sample con- sisted of 90 fathers and 353 mothers (two no reports) with an average age of 40.4 (SD = 8.1). The sample was primarily Caucasian (94.3%). The majority of parents contin- ued their education at the college/university level: 10.8% earned an associate’s degree, 38.5% earned a bachelor’s degree, 25% earned a master’s degree, and 6.5% earned a doctoral degree. Fifteen and one-half percent completed some college, 3.2% possessed high school diplomas, and .5% completed elementary school. Their children (239 males, 204 females, two no reports) were enrolled in first through 12th grades (elemen- tary school: N = 169; junior high school: N = 148; high school: N = 128). Many parents (38.8%) reported that their children were exceptional students (A), 42% indicated above average (B), 16.3% reported average (C), 2.7% indicated below average (D), and .2% indicated deficient (F). The researchers obtained institutional review board and school board approval to survey parents within the district. A list of parent e-mail addresses was secured from the participating school district. Participants received the online survey after completing an online informed consent form.

Measurement

Parental Academic Support Parental academic support was assessed using Thompson and Mazer’s (2012) 16-item measure (see Table 1). Participants indicated how often each type of support occurred over the past month by responding on a 5-point Likert-type scale (not at all, once or twice, about once a week, several times a week, about every day). The scale was reliable: academic performance ? = .88 (M = 9.2, SD = 3.1); classroom behavior ? = .77 (M = 3.4, SD = 1.1); preparation ? = .84 (M = 2.2, SD = .5); hostile peer interactions ? = .84 (M = 2.2, SD = .6); and health ? = .84 (M = 2.4, SD = .7). The overall structure of the

Communication Education 215

PASS was tested via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). All CFA procedures were conducted using LISREL 8.80, and three popular indices assessed model fit: (a) the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), (b) the nonnormed fit index (NNFI), and (c) the comparative fit index (CFI). Model fit is generally considered acceptable if CFI and NNFI values are above .90 (and preferably above .95) and the RMSEA statistic does not exceed .08 (and preferably .05; Kline, 2005). Following advice to test multiple theoretically relevant models (Holbert & Grill, 2015; Kline, 2005), we first computed a model comprising the five lower-order latent variables (academic performance, classroom behavior, preparation, hostile peer interactions, and health), consistent with prior research in this area. This model demonstrated close fit, df = 94, RMSEA = .054[90% CI = .047:.063], NNFI = .96, CFI = .97. We then computed a second model containing a single higher-order latent variable with five lower-order latent variables. This model produced poor fit, df = 99, RMSEA = .110[90% CI = ?.017:.089], NNFI = .93, CFI = .94, with a chi-square difference test indi- cating a significant decline in fit relative to the initial model, ??2(5) = 15.05, p < .05, suggesting the initial model was appropriate. We also computed a third model con- taining a single latent variable with 16 indicators. This model also yielded poor fit, df = 103, RMSEA = .120[90% CI = ?.017:.089], NNFI = .93, CFI = .94, with a chi-square difference test indicating a significant decline in fit relative to the initial model, ??2(9) = 19.58, p < .05, suggesting the initial model was appropriate. Teacher–Parent Contact Teacher–parent contact was assessed using Seitsinger et al.’s (2008) 12-item scale. This measure assesses how frequently a parent has contact with a teacher either in writing, Table 1 Parental Academic Support Scale Items This past month, I communicated with my child’s teacher about… 1.…my child’s grades in the class. [AP] 2.…why my child has a missing assignment. [AP] 3.… how my child can improve his/her grade. [AP] 4.…why my child received the grade he/she did. [AP] 5.…why my child was not completing assignments. [AP] 6.… learning more about homework assignments. [AP] 7.… a question I had about an assignment. [AP] 8.… solutions to address my child’s behavior in class. [CB] 9.…my child talking back to the teacher. [CB] 10.…my child goofing off in class. [CB] 11.…my child’s ability to make/maintain friendships with peers. [P] 12.… how my child was not bringing materials to class. [P] 13.…my child being picked on by his/her classmates. [HPI] 14.… a major classroom behavioral incident (fight, racial slur). [HPI] 15.… a temporary health issue that my child is experiencing. [H] 16.… a major physical health issue that my child is experiencing. [H] Note. AP = Academic Performance; CB = Classroom Behavior; P = Preparation; HPI = Hostile Peer Interactions; H = Health. 216 J. P. Mazer and B. Thompson by telephone, or face-to-face. Participants responded using a 7-point bipolar scale (1 = never to 7 = daily). Alpha reliability was estimated at .92 (M = 30.2, SD = 12.6). Success in School Parents responded to a three item, 7-point bipolar scale to indicate their perceptions of their child’s success in school: very unsuccessful/very successful; doing poorly/doing well; low achieving/high achieving. Reliability was estimated at ? = .92 in prior research (Thompson & Mazer, 2012). In the present study, ? = .90 (M = 18; SD = 3.3). Results Pearson correlations evaluated the associations between parental academic support and the Teacher–Parent Contact Scale (H1) and parents’ perceptions of their child’s success in school (H2). All correlations were corrected for attenuation (see Table 2). Academic performance (r = .26, p < .01, R2 = .07), classroom behavior (r = .27, p < .01, R2 = .07), preparation (r = .22, p < .01, R2 = .05), hostile peer inter- actions (r = .27, p < .01, R2 = .07), and health (r = .20, p < .01, R2 = .04) were positively related to scores on the Teacher–Parent Contact Scale, supporting H1. Pearson correlations revealed inverse associations between academic performance (r =?.22, p < .01, R2 = .05), classroom behavior (r =?.26, p < .01, R2 = .07), preparation (r = ?.16, p < .01, R2 = .03), hostile peer interactions (r =?.18, p < .01, R2 = .03), and health (r =?.11, p < .05, R2 = .01) and parents’ perceptions of their child’s success in school. Therefore, H2 was supported. Discussion The present study offers validity evidence for Thompson and Mazer’s (2012) Parental Academic Support Scale. Confirmatory factor analysis of the PASS revealed close model fit, replicated prior CFA tests (Thompson & Mazer, 2012), and ultimately pro- vided additional evidence for content validity. Correlations between parental academic support and the Teacher–Parent Contact Scale provided concurrent validity evidence. More importantly, inverse associations between parental academic support and parents’ perceptions of a child’s success in school suggest that the PASS construct is related to other theoretically similar constructs, providing initial evidence for con- struct validity. This finding supports prior research that demonstrates linkages between parental involvement and student achievement (Chen et al., 2007; Cutrona et al., 1994; Fantuzzo et al., 2004; Rodriguez, 2002; Seitsinger et al., 2008). The results indicate that parents of children who are struggling academically tend to com- municate with the teacher more frequently than parents of children who perceive their children are excelling in school. The results also indicate moderate relationships between the five types of parental academic support, suggesting that parents made appropriate distinctions between the forms of support. In light of the connections between parental support and perceived student achieve- ment, the PASS represents an effective tool for teachers, counselors, and Communication Education 217 Table 2 Descriptive Statistics and Pearson Product-moment Correlations for all Variables M SD Academic Performance Classroom Behavior Preparation Hostile Peer Interactions Health Teacher–Parent Contact Scale Academic Performance 9.2 3.1 – Classroom Behavior 3.4 1.1 .36 (.44)** – Preparation 2.2 .5 .47 (.55)** .50 (.62)** – Hostile Peer Interactions 2.2 .6 .21 (.24)** .40 (.50)** .41 (.49)** – Health 2.4 .7 .15 (.23)** .12 (.15)* .18 (.21)** .33 (.39)** – Teacher–Parent Contact Scale 30.2 12.6 .26 (.29)** .27 (.32)** .22 (.25)** .27 (.31)** .20 (.23)** – Success in School 18 3.3 ?.22 (?.25)** ?.26 (?.31)** ?.16 (?.18)** ?.18 (?.21)** ?.11 (?.13)* ?.08 (?.09) Note. Disattenuated correlations appear in parentheses. *Correlations are significant at p < .05. **Correlations are significant at p < .01. 218 J.P.M azer and B .T hom pson administrators to assist both parents and their children in the elementary through sec- ondary school levels. Heeding Seitsinger et al.’s (2008) call for constructing and vali- dating such a scale, the PASS can assist P-12 administrators in identifying effective communication topics and behaviors for parents and teachers and, in the end, better support students. The measure can be used within a school district to identify the types of parental academic support that are most prevalent and those that are deficient. School officials can offer practical advice to parents and teachers as well as potentially implement proactive programs to increase parent–teacher communi- cation to ultimately enhance parental academic support. Research in this vein can lead to data-driven parental support initiatives that seek to academically assist P-12 students. Each study must be interpreted within the limitations imposed by the research design. First and foremost, the sample primarily consisted of mothers responding about their female children. Although parents offer the broadest perspective in terms of the frequency of parent–teacher communication, the fact that the PASS measures parents’ perceptions of supportive interactions also represents a limitation. While parents provide the most accurate perspective of parental academic support, they only offer one perspective; student perspectives are also needed to obtain a fuller picture of the parental academic support process and establish a more direct connection between parental academic support and student learning outcomes. This limitation is especially relevant to the parent-perceived measure of school success uti- lized in the present study, as a positivity bias might have influenced parents’ percep- tions of their child’s success in school. Researchers can examine direct connections between student learning and parental academic support by assessing relationships between specific types of parental academic support and specific measures of cognitive and affective learning, student motivation, and student engagement. However, the self- report nature of these measures can pose data collection challenges for researchers seeking to study young students, particularly those in elementary school. While parents’ participation added a unique dimension to the study, their involvement in the research omitted the opportunity for common student-centered instructional communication measures (motivation, affective learning) to be utilized. Future research should seek to couple the participation of parents and students to better understand the effects of parental academic support on students. Duration represents another limitation of this study. A one-month time period pro- vides only a snapshot of the role parental academic support plays in students’ edu- cational experiences. As Thompson (2008) suggested, parent–teacher communication differs in terms of frequency across the semester. Longitudinal research using the PASS can provide a more accurate explanation of the frequency of parental academic support and offer an opportunity to track students across their academic experience. Research indicates a positive relationship between academic support and relation- ship satisfaction (Mazer & Thompson, 2011). Similarly, parents who regularly com- municate with their child’s teacher might experience feelings of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the degree of support received from the teacher. For instance, Communication Education 219 parents who routinely communicate with a teacher about their child’s academic per- formance might feel satisfied with the amount and nature of the support received. On the other hand, parents may experience feelings of frustration with the quality of com- munication received from the teacher. Additionally, parents offering academic support to their children may also experience a stronger relationship with their child through the support process. Future research can extend our knowledge in these areas. The PASS measures five dimensions of academic support communicated between parents and teachers. Although three of those factors contain a relatively small number of items, the resulting factor-analytic solutions from a series of studies yielded a concise and well-balanced scale (Thompson & Mazer, 2012). These findings further confirm the dimensionality of the PASS and offer important validity evidence; however, future research might explore the relationship between parental academic support, social support measures (e.g., Barrera, Sandler, & Ramsay, 1981), and par- ental involvement scales to further validate the PASS. This can provide useful insight into the important and potentially long-term benefits of academic support and establish additional validity evidence that supports the PASS as a reliable and valid tool to assess supportive communication between parents and teachers at the P-12 level. References Barrera, M.Jr., Sandler, I. N., & Ramsay, T. B. (1981). Preliminary development of a scale of social support: Studies on college students. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9, 435–447. Chen, H., Yu, C., & Chang, C. (2007). E-homebook system: A web-based interactive education inter- face. Computers and Education, 49, 160–175. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.05.003 Cutrona, C. E., Cole, V., Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Russell, D. W. (1994). Perceived parental social support and academic achievement: An attachment theory perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 369–378. doi:10.1037/00223514.66.2.369 DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Epstein, J. L. (1996). Perspectives and previews on research and policy for school, family, and com- munity partnerships. In A. Booth, & J. F. Dunn (Eds.), Family-school links: How do they affect educational outcomes (pp. 209–246). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Fantuzzo, J., McWayne, C., Perry, M. A., & Childs, S. (2004). Multiple dimensions of family involve- ment and their relations to behavioral and learning competencies for urban, low-income chil- dren. School Psychology Review, 33, 467–480. Holbert, R. L., & Grill, C. (2015). Clarifying and expanding the use of confirmatory factor analysis in journalism and mass communication research. Journalism &Mass Communication Quarterly, 92, 292–319. doi:10.1177/1077699015583718 Jacobson, L. (2003). Phila. parents to receive marks for “home support” of students. Education Week, 23, 4. Jayson, S. (2007, April 4). “Helicopter” parents appear to defy socioeconomic pegging. USA Today, 5D. Klein, A. (2008, January 8). Hovering “helicopter parents” go on interfering as children start at uni- versity. The Western Mail, 16. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford. 220 J. P. Mazer and B. Thompson http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.05.003 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00223514.66.2.369 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077699015583718 Mazer, J., & Thompson, B. (2011). The validity of the Student Academic Support Scale: Associations with social support and relational closeness. Communication Reports, 28(3), 214–224. doi:10. 1080/08824096.2011.586075 Rodriguez, J. L. (2002). Family environment and achievement among three generations of Mexican American high school students. Applied Developmental Science, 6, 88–94. doi:10.1207/ S1532480XADS0602_4 Rogers, J. (2006). Forces of accountability? The power of poor parents in NCLB. Harvard Educational Review, 76, 611–641. Seitsinger, A. M., Felner, R. D., Brand, S., & Burns, A. (2008). A large-scale examination of the nature and efficacy of teachers’ practices to engage parents: Assessment, parental contact, and student-level impact. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 477–505. doi:10.1016/j/ jsp.2007.11.001 Suen, H. K., & Ary, D. (1989). Analyzing quantitative behavioral observation data. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Thompson, B. (2008). Characteristics of parent–teacher e-mail communication. Communication Education, 57, 201–223. doi:10.1080/03634520701852050 Thompson, B., & Mazer, J. P. (2012). Development of the parental academic support scale: Frequency, importance, and modes of communication. Communication Education, 61, 131– 160. doi:10.1080/03634523.2012.657207 Thompson, B., Mazer, J. P., & Grady, E. F. (2015). The changing nature of parent–teacher communi- cation: Mode selection in the smartphone era. Communication Education, 64, 187–207. doi:10. 1080/03634523.2015.1014382 Communication Education 221 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2011.586075 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2011.586075 http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S1532480XADS0602_4 http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S1532480XADS0602_4 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j/%20jsp.2007.11.001 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634520701852050 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2012.657207 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2015.1014382 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2015.1014382 Copyright of Communication Education is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. Abstract Concurrent Validity Construct Validity Method Participants and Procedures Measurement Parental Academic Support Teacher–Parent Contact Success in School Results Discussion References Applied Sciences Architecture and Design Biology Business & Finance Chemistry Computer Science Geography Geology Education Engineering English Environmental science Spanish Government History Human Resource Management Information Systems Law Literature Mathematics Nursing Physics Political Science Psychology Reading Science Social Science Home Homework Answers Blog Archive Tags Reviews Contact twitterfacebook Copyright © 2021 SweetStudy.com