J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:523535

DOI 10.1007/s10826-013-9865-4

ORIGINAL PAPER

Motivations for Involvement: A Preliminary Investigation

of Parents of Students with Disabilities
Callen E. Fishman Amanda B. Nickerson

Published online: 10 January 2014

Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Abstract Parents of students in special education have

greater barriers to parental involvement than parents of
students in general education. Little is known, however,
about the factors that facilitate or impede involvement
practices for this group. This preliminary study investigated the extent to which the motivational factors from
Hoover-Dempsey and Sandlers (2005) Model of Parent
Involvement (i.e., Parent Role Activity Beliefs, Parent
Efficacy, General School Invitations, Specific Teacher
Invitation, Specific Child Invitations, Perceived Knowledge and Skills, and Perceived Time and Energy) predicted
the Home-Based, School-Based, and Special Education
Involvement of 137 parents of elementary school students
in special education from two suburban school districts in
upstate New York. Family structure, race/ethnicity, and
family socioeconomic status (SES) were also examined.
Parents in the current study reported being more involved
in both home and school-based activities when children
specifically requested their involvement. School-Based
Involvement was also predicted by parents perceptions of
their time and energy and their level of responsibility in
supporting their childs education, as well as their reported
level of education (an indication of SES). An interesting
and counterintuitive inverse relationship was found
between general school invitations and parents HomeBased Involvement. Lastly, the only significant predictor
C. E. Fishman (&)
New York State Office of Mental Health, Albany, NY 12208,
USA
e-mail: callen.fishman@gmail.com
A. B. Nickerson
Department of Counseling, School, and Educational Psychology,
University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo,
NY 14260, USA

for Special Education Involvement was specific teacher

invitations. These findings are discussed and suggestions
are made for how to increase involvement for this specific
group of parents.
Keywords Parent involvement
Parental involvement

Special education
Model of involvement
Educational

Introduction
It is widely recognized that parent involvement should be
viewed as a multidimensional phenomenon rather than a
unitary concept (Fan and Chen 2001). Researchers have
defined various dimensions of parent involvement
including parental attitudes toward education (Fan and
Chen 2001; Grolnick and Slowiaczek 1994; Keith et al.
1993; Trivette and Anderson 1995); parental academic
aspirations and expectations (Fan and Chen 1999, 2001;
Keith et al. 1993; Trivette and Anderson 1995); communications between the parent and child (Fan and Chen
1999, 2001; Trivette and Anderson 1995); and the
development of a home structure that supports student
learning, intellectual stimulation, and academic success
(Keith et al. 1993). Most of the parent involvement definitions, however, categorize parents behavior discretely
as either home-based (i.e., activities that take place
between the parent and the child outside of school) or
school-based (i.e., child-focused activities that are typically accomplished at school; Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler 2005; Walker et al. 2005).
Overall trends indicate a positive effect of parent
involvement on student outcomes (Henderson and Mapp
2002). Home-based involvement has been related to both
academic achievement (Izzo et al. 1999) and school

123

524

orientation (Shurnow and Miller 1999). School-based

involvement has been shown to positively impact student
behavior (e.g., reduce student absences), school engagement (Izzo et al. 1999), early childhood development,
mastery of school readiness skills (Marcoon 1999), academic grade point average, and childrens enjoyment of
school (Shurnow and Miller 1999). Parents who are
involved in their childs schooling report improved communication with their child about schoolwork, more
involvement in educational activities at home (Christenson
1995b), satisfaction in their relationships with teachers,
appreciation for the commitment of teachers, and increased
parenting efficacy (Swap 1990). When teachers actively
involve parents, they report greater job satisfaction and
request fewer transfers, and principals rate them higher on
teacher performance indicators (Christenson 1995a, b).
Research also indicates that school climate is enhanced
considerably when parents are involved in school-based
planning and decision-making activities (Haynes et al.
1989).
There are numerous factors that impact parents motivation to become involved. Specific child characteristics
(e.g., age, level of needs, and academic abilities) have been
indicated to either facilitate or inhibit parent involvement
activities (Deslandes and Cloutier 2002; McWilliam et al.
1999). Teachers skills and attitudes impact their willingness to engage families, which, in turn may impact a parents desire to become involved (Garcia 2004; Morris and
Taylor 1998). Additionally, school characteristics (e.g.,
structure of classrooms, school procedures, communication, staff commitment) have been shown to impact parent
involvement (Mannan and Blackwell 1992; National Center for Education Statistics 1998). A number of parent and
family variables also have been associated with parents
involvement in their childs schooling including: socioeconomic status (Davies 1993; Ritblatt et al. 2002); marital
status (Arnold et al. 2008; Kohl et al. 2000); parental
beliefs in the value of education (Baker et al. 2007; Waanders et al. 2007); and racial/ethnic identification (Patrikakou and Weisserg 2009; Wong and Hughes 2006). The
culture and interpersonal interactions within the community in which a child has been raised have also been shown
to impact parents motivation to become involved in their
childs schooling (Sheldon and Epstein 2002; Waanders
et al. 2007).
Parents of students with disabilities face greater barriers to involvement and are less involved than parents of
typically developing children in school (Coots 1998;
Dyson 1997). These parents also report typical interactions as less family-centered than educators and other
families (McWilliam et al. 1999). The importance of
empowering parents of students with special needs to
advocate for their children has been well documented in

123

J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:523535

the literature (Wang et al. 2004). Although parents of

students with disabilities generally view advocacy as their
obligation, the process is viewed as a life-long adversarial
battle, which results in a great amount of stress for these
families (Wang et al. 2004). As such, special education
professionals have been encouraged to focus not only on
improving the quality of life for students with disabilities,
but also for the entire family. Professionals may do this
by acknowledging realistic family participation given
their time, energy, and resources and by encouraging
collaborative decision-making (Van Haren and Fiedler
2008). Nevertheless, due to the aforementioned complications and obstacles for this group of parents, they may
require more support and individualized attention to get
them involved than parents of typically developing
children.
Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995, 2005) established
a comprehensive theoretical model of parent involvement,
which addresses why parents become involved in their
childs education and how this involvement impacts educational performance. It encompasses three categories of
motivational variables that may influence parents
involvement decisions: parents motivational beliefs, parents perceptions of invitations from others, and family/life
context variables (see Fig. 1).
Parent Motivational Beliefs includes parent activity
beliefs and parent efficacy. Parent activity beliefs are parents views and behaviors regarding their role in supporting
their childs education (Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler
1995, 1997; Walker et al. 2005). Research indicates that
parents who hold active role activity beliefs are more
likely to participate in home-based and school-based
activities than parents who have passive role activity
beliefs (Deslandes and Bertrand 2005; Green et al. 2007;
Hoover-Dempsey et al. 2005; Sheldon and Epstein 2002).
However, the direct influence of this variable on parent
involvement appears to become more inconsistent once
meditational variables, such as the teachers invitation to
get involved, are added (e.g., Anderson and Minke 2007)
or once the childs grade level is controlled (e.g., Deslandes and Bertrand 2005). Parent efficacy is defined as a
parents beliefs that he or she is able to positively influence
his or her childs academic outcomes (Bandura 1986,
1997). Research suggests that parents with a higher sense
of efficacy are more willing to engage in their childs
education, more likely to persist through obstacles (Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler 1997), and also tend to be more
invested (Grolnick et al. 1997). However, there is some
discrepancy in the literature regarding the extent to which
parent efficacy may predict specific forms of parent
involvement (e.g., home-based vs. school based; Anderson
and Minke 2007; Coots 1998; Deslandes and Bertrand
2005; Sheldon and Epstein 2002; Waanders et al. 2007).

J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:523535

525

Fig. 1 Hoover-Dempsey and

Sandlers (2005) Model of
Parent Involvement. Reprinted
with permission in HooverDempsey et al. (2005)

Parents Perceptions of Invitations for Involvement from

Others refers to general invitations for involvement from
the school, specific invitations from the child, and specific
invitations from the teacher. Although theory suggests that
general school invitations (e.g., a positive school climate,
parent-friendly newsletter, clear suggestions for homebased involvement) might be a significant predictor for
parents involvement, the research to date is mixed. Some
researchers have found that schools that promote a positive
climate report fewer barriers to involvement and more
school-based and home-based involvement practices
(Griffith 1998; Smith et al. 1997). Nevertheless, Green
et al. (2007) found no evidence of a predictive relationship.
Child invitations for involvement refers to a childs specific
and explicit requests for parental help with learning,
assistance with homework, and/or participation in schoolbased events. Although there is limited evidence to date,

the available research suggests that specific child invitations are consistently significant predictors of parental
involvement in both home-based and school-based activities (Balli et al. 1998; Green et al. 2007). The link between
specific teacher invitations (e.g., requests for assisting with
home-based learning or participating in activities at school)
and parental involvement has been more mixed. Most of
the available research suggests that teacher practices that
encourage parent involvement are one of the strongest and
consistent predictors of school-based and home-based
participation (Anderson and Minke 2007; Smith et al.
1997). Nevertheless, Green et al. (2007) found that specific
teacher invitations predicted school-based but not homebased involvement.
Parents Perceived Life Context encompasses parents
perceptions of their knowledge and skills as well as time
and energy. Parents skills refer to supervising and

123

526

explaining homework and communicating effectively with

the child and the teacher. Knowledge pertains awareness
about school events, volunteer opportunities, and teacher
contact information, as well as an understanding of schoolbased material. Some research has indicated that parents
knowledge and skills positively predict activities directed
by both the parent and activities managed by others (Coots
1998). Green et al. (2007), however, did not find parents
self-perceived knowledge and skills to predict school-based
or home-based involvement, although the variables were
positively correlated. The second component of this category is parents perceptions of time and energy demands
(Hoover-Dempsey et al. 2005). Perceived time and energy
for involvement has been shown to predict both parents
school-based involvement and home-based involvement
(Green et al. 2007). Further, parents reports of having no
time to devote to their childs education due to work and
other family priorities is noted as a common barrier to
parent involvement (Dwyer and Hecht 1992). In fact, a
study conducted by the National Center for Education
Statistics (1998) found that 87 % of the surveyed schools
indicated a perceived lack of time on the part of parents to
be a great or moderate barrier to parent involvement.
Green et al. (2007) conducted the first major study to
test the Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (2005) Model of
Parent Involvement. Participants included 853 parents of
first through sixth grade children enrolled in an urban
public school system in the mid-South. Slight differences
were found between involvement practices of elementary
and middle school parents. For elementary school parents,
perceptions of invitations from children, self-efficacy, role
activity beliefs, and perceived time and energy for
involvement predicted home-based involvement. Each of
the aforementioned motivational variables, with the
exception of role activity beliefs, also predicted homebased involvement for middle school parents. In terms of
school-based involvement, the predictors were the following: invitations from teachers and children, perceived
time and energy, and role activity beliefs.
Related to parents of students in special education, one
study compared the involvement practices of parents of
children with and without Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder (ADHD). Parents of children with ADHD reported feeling less efficacious in helping their children with
academics, feeling less welcome in their childs school,
receiving more involvement requests from their childs
teacher, and having less time and energy to be involved in
their childs schooling (Rogers et al. 2009). There were no
significant differences between the parent involvement
behaviors of mothers of children with and without ADHD.
However, the findings indicated that fathers of children
with ADHD reported significantly lower participation in

123

J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:523535

their childs learning and more academic pressure than

fathers of children without ADHD (Rogers et al. 2009).
More recently, the Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler
(2005) model was tested among parents of junior and
senior high school students in Israel (Lavenda 2011). The
findings revealed that Israeli parents level of involvement
was comparable to American parents as reported in previous studies (e.g., Green et al. 2007), suggesting the
wide-ranging applicability of the model. Further, Lavenda
(2011) found that the schools general invitations and the
childs invitations for involvement directly influenced
parents involvement practices but also had a slight meditational effect on the parents role activity beliefs.
Teachers invitations for involvement, however, had a
positive direct effect on parental involvement, but a
negative effect when adding parents role activity beliefs
as a mediating factor. Lavenda (2011) posits that teachers
may only invite parents to become involved if their child
is in trouble, which in turn may cause parents to resent
the responsibility forced upon them. Another explanation
may be that teachers may tend to invite parents who
naturally have a lower sense of responsibility and that this
encouragement is what drives those parents to increase
their participation.
Taken as a whole, it is evident that a parents decision to
become involved in his or her childs schooling is complex
and is influenced by a multitude of different variables.
Each of these variables does not exist in solitude, but rather
interact and contribute to an intricate picture of the parents
situational and motivational attributes that influences his or
her involvement decision. Although Hoover-Dempsey and
Sandlers (2005) Model of Parent Involvement does not
encompass all potential influencing variables, it provides a
unique, interactional framework from which to investigate
parents involvement decisions. Given the significant barriers that face parents of students with disabilities and the
fact that this group has not yet been studied using the
Hoover-Dempsey and Sandlers (2005) Model, further
examination is warranted. The specific purpose of this
study was to investigate whether various involvement
choices of parents of students in special education including: (a) school-based activities; (b) home-based activities;
and (c) special education activities were predicted by the
motivational variables in Hoover-Dempsey and Sandlers
(2005) Model of Parent Involvement (i.e., perceived role
construction, perceived efficacy, perceptions of general
school invitations, perceptions of specific teacher invitations, perceptions of specific child invitations, perceived
knowledge and skills, perceived time and energy). Also
under investigation were various demographic variables
that research has identified as potentially influential (i.e.,
family structure, and race/ethnicity, SES).

J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:523535

Method
Participants
A total of 137 parents of special education students in
elementary school completed the survey. There were some
returned surveys that were completed on students in middle
or high school; however due to the scope of this study,
these surveys were not included. Participant demographic
information is reported in Table 1. Most of the students in
the sample were identified under the classifications of
Speech or Language Impairment, Other Health Impairment, Autism, and Specific Learning Disability. The statistics from the U.S. Department of Education (2006)
illustrate a similar distribution except for lower percentages
of Autism (3.53 %) and Other Health Impairment
(7.79 %). Most students were reported to receive related
services, consultant teacher, and/or resource room. A
majority reported that their family consisted of two biological parents and reported obtaining a college or a
graduate/professional school education. Additionally, 85 %
of parent participants indicated that their child was not
eligible for free or reduced lunch. According to the
respective New York State District Report Cards (New
York State Education Department 2010), 94 % of the
population in District #1 and 88 % of the population in
District #2 were not eligible for free or reduced lunch. The
slightly lower percentage obtained for the current study
may, in part, be due to the restricted sample (i.e., parents of
students in special education). In terms of the participants
race/ethnicity status, a large majority of individuals in the
current study identified as being White (not Hispanic;
89 %). This number is comparable to the participant districts with 89 % of District #1 and 82 % of District #2
identifying as White.
Instruments

527
Table 1 Demographic Information
Variable

Total sample
(N = 137)
n

School district
District #1
District #2
IDEIA classification
Autism

35

25.5

102

74.5

23

16.9

Deaf-blindness

n/a

Deafness

n/a

Emotional disturbance

1.5

Hearing impairment

n/a

Mental retardation

.7

Multiple disabilities

3.7

Orthopedic impairment

2.2

Other health impairment

21

15.4

Specific learning disability

23

16.9

Speech or language impairment

37

27.2

.07

Traumatic brain injury

Visual impairment

n/a

20

14.7

Just related services

88

64.2

Consultant teacher or specialized instruction

21

37.2

Resource room or integrated special class

53

38.7

Self-contained classroom or special class

6.6

Not sure

1.5

Male

94

68.6

Female

43

31.4

Yes

16

11.7

No

113

Not sure
Type of service received

Gender of child

Eligibility for free or reduced lunch

Not sure

82.5
5.8

Current family situation

The Parent Involvement Survey was comprised of eight

scales, which were independently developed and refined by
Walker et al. (2005) to assess the motivational variables of
Hoover-Dempsey and Sandlers (2005) Model of Parent
Involvement. These scales included: Role Activity Beliefs,
Efficacy, Perceptions of General School Invitations, Perceptions of Specific Child Invitations, Perceptions of Specific Teacher Invitations, Perceptions of Personal
Knowledge and Skills, Perceptions of Time and Energy,
and Parent Choice of Involvement Activities. A demographics section was also designed to collect information
regarding: the childs special education classification; the
types of services the child receives; the gender of the child;
the childs grade; the approximate socioeconomic status of
the family (identified through items related to the parents

Two-biological-parent family

108

78.8

Stepfather family
Stepmother family

1
1

Mother only family

13

9.5

Father only family

1.5

12

8.8

Other

.7
.7

Grade
Kindergarten

18

13.1

First

23

16.8

Second

16

11.7

Third

26

19.0

Fourth

30

21.9

Fifth

11

8.0

Sixth

13

9.5

123

528

J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:523535

Table 1 continued
Variable

Total sample
(N = 137)
n

Highest level of education earned

Less than high school

2.2

High school graduate or equivalent

2.9

Vocational/technical education
After high school or some college

3
16

2.2
11.7

College graduate

50

36.5

Graduate or professional school

60

43.8

American Indian/Alaska Native

1.5

Asian/Pacific Islander

2.2

Race/ethnicity

Black (not Hispanic)

4.4

Hispanic

2.2

White (not Hispanic)

Other

120
3

87.6
2.2

educational attainment and whether the child is eligible for

free or reduced lunch); the childs current family structure;
relationship of the participant to the child; and race/ethnicity that best describes the participant. Additionally,
items were added to the involvement choices scale to
assess parents involvement choices related to special
education. The total parent involvement survey was comprised of 65 items.
Procedure
Three professionals with expertise in special education
reviewed the Parent Involvement Survey and the cover
letters explaining the study and the terms of participation.
These professionals were asked to examine the documents
to ensure that the instructions on the cover letter and the
questions in the survey were clear, appropriate, and easyto-understand. Revisions to the cover letter and survey
were made according to the professionals recommendations (e.g., making wording more parent-friendly, shortening the cover letter, adding not sure options to the
demographics section). No alterations were made to the
scale items constructed and refined by Walker et al. (2005).
Parent Involvement Surveys were disseminated to 744
parents across two suburban school districts in the northeastern region of the United States after university Institutional Review Board (IRB) permission was obtained. The
first district serves about 5,100 students in kindergarten
through grade 12 and contains six elementary schools
serving students in grades 1 through 5. The second district
serves approximately 5,600 students in kindergarten

123

through grade 12 and has seven elementary schools serving

students in grades 1 through 6.
Participants for the current study had to be parents or
legal guardians of elementary school children who were
classified with a special education disability according to
the 13 categories in NYS, Part 200 (New York implementation of IDEIA). Additionally, the children had to be
receiving special education services at the time of the
survey distribution. The surveys were mailed to parents and
included a pre-paid return address envelope to return the
survey directly to the primary investigators university
address. Parents were instructed to complete the items
based on their experiences with their child with a disability
in the school year when the surveys were distributed.
Surveys were distributed in May 2010 and were collected
through August 2010. One hundred eighty participants
completed and returned the surveys (25 % response rate).
The sample size is consistent with those from other studies
that have tested constructs from the Hoover-Dempsey and
Sandler (2005) Model.

Results
Preliminary Analyses
Reverse coded items on the efficacy scale were re-coded
before conducting the primary data analyses. The data were
also screened for out of range values, missing variables,
and normality of distribution. Skewness and Kurtosis statistics were used to check the deviation of the data from a
normal distribution (i.e., symmetry and peakedness).
According to Heppner and Heppner (2004), no firm
guideline exists for determining acceptable distribution
values. The general rule, however, is that the numbers
should be less than the absolute value of two, and closer to
zero is better. All of the scales on the Parent Involvement
Survey met the Skewness criteria. Two of the dependent
variable scales (i.e., School-Based Involvement, and
Home-Based Involvement) were over the Kurtosis criteria.
One way to handle a non-normal distribution of data is to
transform or mathematically modify the variables to
make the distribution more normal. There is considerable
controversy, however, regarding this approach (e.g., Pallant 2010). Due to the aspiration of the current studyto
provide information regarding a unique sub-population
the authors decided to explore the non-normalities through
further analysis of the descriptive data.
Remarks from several of the participants in the margins of
the survey and in the comments section at the end of the
survey revealed concerns about the distribution of the Likert
items on the Parent Choice of Involvement Activities Scale,
which included items measuring School-Based Involvement

J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:523535

529

Two missing data techniques were compared for this

study: the item-mean method and the mean of available
items or sometimes called the person-mean imputation
method. The authors first attempted the item-mean technique where the group mean is substituted for the missing
data (Heppner and Heppner 2004). A frequency analysis
was performed to identify nonrandom missing variables
(i.e., items with more than 5 % missing data, Heppner and
Heppner 2004). Fifteen items met this criterion (11 on the
Parent Choice of Involvement Activities scale, one on the
Role Activity Beliefs scale, one on the Perceptions of
Specific Child Invitations scale, and two on the Perceptions
of Specific Teacher Invitations scale). Eleven out of 15
(73 %) of the items were noted to be problematic on the
Parent Choice of Involvement Activities scale; however,
the scale could not be deleted, as it was essential for the
study and the data analysis.

and Home-Based Involvement. A frequency analysis confirmed the truncated distribution of participant responses,
thus contributing to the peakedness in the data. To account
for this, the grouping of items for each of the dependent
variables (i.e., Home-Based, School-Based, and Special
Education Involvement) was recoded to reflect the participant response distribution. Home-Based involvement items
were recoded into once a week or less (original Likert items 1
thru 4), a few times a week (item 5), and daily (item 6).
School-Based involvement items were recoded into never
(item 1), sometimes (item 2), as much as possible (items 3
thru 6). Lastly, Special Education Involvement items were
recoded into low (items 1 and 2), medium (item 3), and high
(items 4 thru 6). A reanalysis of the data reflected normal
Kurtosis. Means, standard deviations, ranges, skewness,
kurtosis, and alpha reliabilities are reported in Table 2; zeroorder correlations are displayed in Table 3.

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics for Subscales of Parent Involvement Survey

N

Range

SD

Skewness

Kurtosis

Role activity beliefs

124

2.50

5.30

.46

-.86

.21

.78

Efficacy

130

1.71

4.59

.44

-.33

.21

.62

General School Invitations

134

4.00

5.14

.79

-1.62

.21

.86

Specific Child Invitations

128

5.00

3.52

1.04

-.09

.21

.77

Specific Teacher Invitations

Personal Knowledge and Skills

119
132

4.33
3.00

2.84
5.19

1.18
.55

.23
-1.06

.21
.21

.82
.83

Time and Energy

132

3.67

4.85

.80

-.69

.21

.87

Home-Based Involvement

115

1.60

2.50

.44

-.51

.21

.66

School-Based Involvement

107

2.00

2.27

.44

-.29

.21

.77

Special Education Involvement

109

2.00

1.91

.53

.37

.21

.81

Subscale Ns vary because missing data was not replaced due to the mean of available items being used

Table 3 Zero-order correlations among scales

RAB
RAB

EF

GSI

SCI

STI

PKS

TE

HBI

1.00

SBI

SEI

1.00

EF

.42**

1.00

GSI

.40**

.23**

SCI

.34**

.25**

.16

STI

.22*

.04

.07

.26**

1.00

PKS

.41**

.53**

.45**

.35**

.17

TE
HBI

.52**
.28**

.51**
.13

.41**
-.05

.38**
.36**

.21*
.26**

.68**
.20*

1.00
.29**

SBI

.48**

.31**

.28**

.36**

.31**

.30**

.46**

.25**

SEI

.27**

.15

.25**

.32**

.10

.17

.39**

1.00

-.02

1.00
1.00

1.00
.33**

1.00

RAB Role Activity Beliefs, EF Efficacy, GSI Perceptions of General School Invitations, SCI Perceptions of Specific Child Invitations, STI
Perceptions of Specific Teacher Invitations, PKS Perceptions of Personal Knowledge and Skills, TE Perceptions of Time and Energy, HBI HomeBased Involvement, SBI School-Based Involvement, SEI Special Education Involvement
* p \ .05; ** p \ .01

123

530

J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:523535

and Sandler 2005) followed the order delineated in Hoover-Dempsey and Sandlers (2005) Model. The imputed
blocks were as follows: (a) Block 1, control variables
(family composition, race/ethnicity, SES); (b) Block 2,
motivational beliefs related to involvement (role activity
beliefs and efficacy); (c) Block 3, perceptions of invitations
to involvement (general invitations from the school, specific teacher invitations, specific child invitations); and
(d) Block 4, perceived life context variables (skills and
knowledge, time and energy). SES variables (i.e., parents
educational attainment and whether the child is eligible for
free or reduced lunch) were entered separately, consistent
with some researchers (e.g., Duncan and Magnuson 2003)
indications that aggregating SES measures ignores the
complexity that may characterize the components of family
SES.

We used the mean of available items technique instead

of the item-mean method to avoid overmanipulating the
data. This technique substitutes the mean of a participants
completed items for items that were not completed on a
specific scale. By using this method, different substitutions
are made for each person with missing items; thus,
retaining the scales natural variability (Bono et al. 2007).
Instead of totaling the item responses on each of the
respective scales, means of the completed items were
computed (provided more than half of the item responses
were completed). This allowed for all of the data to remain
in the dataset, regardless of the amount of missing data.
Due to this, sample sizes used in the analyses differed (see
Table 2).

Hierarchical Regression Analysis

Home-Based Involvement
A series of three hierarchical multiple regressions were
conducted to assess the extent to which the IVs (i.e., perceived role construction, perceived efficacy, perceptions of
general school invitations, perceptions of specific teacher
invitations, perceptions of specific child invitations, perceived knowledge and skills, perceived time and energy)
predicted the dependent variables (DVs; i.e., home-based,
school-based, and special education involvement). No
issues with multicolinearity were detected. Relevant
information is summarized in Tables 4, 5, and 6,
respectively.
The IVs were entered into the blocks in accordance with
previous studies (e.g., Green et al. 2007; Hoover-Dempsey

The first model, which accounted for demographic variables, was not significant. The second model added parent
motivational beliefs and explained 6 % of the variance:
F (2, 120) = 2.4, p \ .05, Adjusted R2 = .06. Role
activity beliefs, specifically, contributed in the positive
direction (p \ .01). The third model added perceptions of
invitations to involvement and accounted for 17 % of the
variance: F (3, 117) = 3.87, p \ .001, Adjusted R2 = .17.
The inclusion of these variables slightly decreased the
significance of role activity beliefs (p \ .05). Specific child
invitations contributed significantly in the positive direction (p \ .01) and general school invitations contributed

Table 4 Summary of home-based involvement hierarchical regression analyses

Variable

Model 1

Model 2

SE B

Race/Ethnicity

.03

.05

Family Composition
Parent Education Level

.02
.05

.03
.04

Free or Reduced Lunch

.15

.11

Model 3

SE B

-.05

.03

.05

.06
.13

.02
.05

.02
.04

-.14

.17

.10

Role Activity Beliefs

.27

.09

Efficacy

.01

.10

Model 4

SE B

-.05

.04

.05

.06
.13

.00
.05

.02
.04

-.16

.17

.10

.24

.10

.29**
-.01

SE B

-.06

.05

.05

-.08

.01
.13

.01
.05

.02
.04

.04
.12

-.16

.13

.10

-.13

.18

.10

.19

.25*

.00

.09

.00

.07

.10

-.07

General School Invitations

.13

.05

-.22*

.14

.06

-.24**

Specific Child Invitations

.11

.04

.25**

.09

.04

.21*

Specific Teacher Invitations

.05

.03

.15

.05

.03

.14

Personal Knowledge and Skills

.01

.11

-.02

Time and Energy

.13

.07

.23

Adjusted R Square

.00

.06**

.17**

.18**

R Square Change

.03

.08**

.12**

.23**

SE, standard error; b, beta

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01

123

J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:523535

531

Table 5 Summary of School-Based Involvement hierarchical regression analyses

Variable

Model 1
B

Model 2

SE B

Model 3

SE B

Model 4

SE B

SE B

Race/Ethnicity

.03

.05

.05

.02

.04

.04

.03

.04

.06

.02

.04

.03

Family Composition

.03

.02

.09

.02

.02

.09

.02

.02

-.07

.02

.02

-.06

Parent Education Level

.08

.04

.20*

.08

.03

.21**

.08

.03

.20*

.09

.03

.22**

Free or Reduced Lunch

.12

.10

.11

.12

.09

.09

.08

.12

.09

.12

.12

.09

Role Activity Beliefs

.41

.08

.43**

.28

.09

.29**

.22

.09

.23**

Efficacy

.11

.08

.11

.09

.08

.09

.08

.09

.08

General School Invitations

Specific Child Invitations

.05
.09

.05
.03

.09
.22**

.06
.09

.05
.03

.11
.20**

Specific Teacher Invitations

.05

.03

.13

Personal Knowledge and Skills

Time and Energy

.05

.03

.13

.16

.09

-.20

.16

.06

.27*

Adjusted R Square

.06*

.30**

.36**

.38*

R Square Change

.09*

.24**

.08**

.03*

SE, standard error; b, beta

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01

Table 6 Summary of Special Education Involvement hierarchical regression analyses

Variable

Model 1
B

SE B

Model 2
b

Model 3

SE B

SE B

Model 4
b

SE B

Race/Ethnicity

.11

.06

.17

.11

.06

.17

.11

.06

.17

.09

.06

.15

Family Composition

.03

.03

.09

.03

.03

.10

.03

.03

.09

.03

.03

.09

Parent Education Level

.01

.05

.02

.00

.04

.01

.01

.04

.02

.00

.04

.00

Free or Reduced Lunch

.10

.12

.08

.08

.12

.06

.08

.12

.07

.07

.12

.06

Role Activity Beliefs

.26

.11

.24*

.18

.12

.16

.16

.12

.14

Efficacy

.08

.11

.07

.09

.11

.08

.10

.12

.09

General School Invitations

.03

.06

.04

.01

.07

-.02

Specific Child Invitations

.05

.05

.10

.05

.05

.10

Specific Teacher Invitations

Personal Knowledge and Skills

.12

.04

.26**

.12
.12

.04
.13

.26**
-.13

.08

.09

Time and Energy

.12

Adjusted R Square

.01

.07**

.14**

.13

R Square Change

.04

.07**

.09**

.01

SE, standard error; b beta

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01

significantly in the negative direction (p \ .05). Model 4

accounted for all of the independent variables and
accounted for 18 % of the variance: F (2, 115) = 3.53,
p \ .001, Adjusted R2 = .18. The inclusion of parents
perceptions of their life context variables appeared to
suppress the effect of role activity beliefs and lowered the
influence of perceived child invitations (p \ .05). Conversely, it contributed to the significance of general school
invitations (p \ .01).

School-Based Involvement
The first model contributed significantly to parents schoolbased involvement and accounted for 6 % of the variance:
F (4, 123) = 3.12, p \ .05, Adjusted R2 = .06. Specifically, parents level of educational attainment contributed
in the positive direction (p \ .05). The second model
added an additional 24 % to the variance: F (2,
121) = 9.12, p \ .001, Adjusted R2 = .30. Parents level

123

532

of educational attainment became more significant

(p \ .01); role activity beliefs was also significant at this
level. The addition of specific invitations in the third model
accounted for an additional 6 % in the variance: F (3,
118) = 8.94, p \ .001, Adjusted R2 = .36. Parents level
of educational attainment was slightly less significant
(p \ .05), while role activity beliefs and specific child
invitations were significant at the .01 level. Model 4
accounted for 38 % of the total variance: F (2,
116) = 8.15, p \ .001, Adjusted R2 = .38. Parents level
of educational attainment, role activity beliefs, and specific
child invitations were significant at the .01 level and perceived time and energy was significant at the .05 level.
Special Education Involvement
The first model, which accounted for the demographic
variables, was not significant. Model 2, however, was
significant and explained 7 % of the variance F (2,
115) = 2.4, p \ .05, Adjusted R2 = .07; parent role
activity beliefs demonstrated significance at the .05 level.
The addition of perceptions of invitations to (i.e., model 3)
contributed an additional 7 % to the variance: F (3,
112) = 3.09, p \ .01, Adjusted R2 = .14. The inclusion of
these variables appeared to suppress the effect of role
activity beliefs, as it became insignificant. Perceptions of
specific teacher invitations demonstrated significance at the
.01 level. The addition of perceptions of life context did not
add significantly to the model.

Discussion
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether various
involvement choices of parents of elementary school students in special education were predicted by the motivational
variables in Hoover-Dempsey and Sandlers (2005) Model
of Parent Involvement, when controlling for potentially
influential demographic variables. Parents indicated being
less involved at home when they perceived the school to be
more welcoming, communicative, and informative.
Although counterintuitive, this finding suggests that parents
who feel as though the school is not reaching out may
become even more motivated to participate at home to supplement their childs education. Another hypothesis is that
general school invitations may be targeted to the general
school population, and parents of students in special education may not perceive them as applicable. On the other
hand, it may be that parents who find their school to be
exceptionally welcoming and communicate may feel as
though the school is taking good care of their child, thus they
may not feel as inclined to participate in educational activities at home. Although the research on general school

123

J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:523535

invitations has been mixed, this inverse relationship is particularly unique; it is possible that this is due to the distinct
needs of parents of students in special education. In general,
the finding highlights the importance of direct, targeted
communication with this group of parents. Pupil personnel
services, special educators, and/or general education teachers may coordinate this type of correspondence depending on
the unique needs of the child.
Parents in the current study reported being more
involved in both home and school-based activities when
children specifically requested their involvement. Specific
child invitations are posited to influence parent involvement decisions by encouraging the parent to become
involved and by shaping the parents choice of involvement forms (Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler 1995). As such,
it may be beneficial to encourage students to ask for help
with homework and to request time to talk about the school
day with their parent(s)/guardian(s). A childs ability to do
this will vary depending on their level of disability as well
as their age; teachers and staff may need to provide children with direct instruction and practice before the child
can extend these invitations. Some suggestions are for
teachers to review and role-play various ways children can
talk to their parents about school and homework. To
encourage students to talk to their parent(s)/guardian(s),
teachers may assign the requests as part of their homework.
Parents beliefs about their level of responsibility in
supporting their childs education predicted school-based
involvement only. Feelings of responsibility typically
develop from parents own experiences, information provided by the school, the media, and informal parent networks (Russell 2003). As such, parents comprehension of
their school-based responsibilities may be more clearly
defined by their schools expectations for involvement.
Parents, particularly those who have not had experience
parenting a child with special needs, do not have these
same guidelines or comparisons for their home-based
involvement. Consequently, teachers may need to convey a
sense of parent responsibility when requesting various
types of parental involvement. This may include, for
example, an explicit and direct statement of the expected
parent roles and duties related to communication, homework, and awareness of activities. Since students in special
education often work with a variety of individuals within
the school including but not limited to school psychologists
and special education teachers, it may be beneficial for all
school personnel to send this same message to parents to
reinforce their responsibility to their childs education.
The parents in this study reported higher levels of
school-based involvement when their perceptions of time
and energy were greater. It has been suggested that parents
with relatively strong perceptions of their role and a strong
sense of self-efficacy for helping their child will select

J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:523535

forms of involvement that fit within the demands on their

time and energy (Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler 1995).
Parents of students in special education may choose to
devote their time and energy to school-based participation
to advocate for their childs needs, to obtain information
about their childs performance, and to ensure the schools
support of their child. It is also plausible that parents of
students with disabilities may engage in home-based
activities, regardless of their perceived time and energy.
School-based activities require parents to take time off of
work or necessitate parents coming to the school after work
hours. To support these parents in their school-based participation, it may be helpful for teachers and school psychologists to learn about parents perceptions of their time
and energy and to help brainstorm ways for the parents to
be involved in a way that will work for them. This may
include, for example, the preparation and coordination of
materials for field trips or activities as well as communication and coordination with other parents via the phone or
Internet.
Parents reported level of educationan indication of
SES levelalso predicted school-based involvement. This
finding is consistent with previous research (i.e., Davies
1993; Ritblatt et al. 2002), and suggests that parents from
higher SES are more likely to participate at school
regardless of the other motivational variables. The relationship between SES and parent involvement may have
been limited, in part, to school-based activities because of
conflicting teacher-parent perceptions. Educators and
school personnel have sometimes reported that parents
from low SES groups are hard-to- reach (Davies 1993).
Research also suggests that some teachers believe that
parents from low SES backgrounds do not value education
(Davies 1993). This conflict may create a potential barrier
to successful school-based involvement. This highlights the
importance of directly supporting and encouraging parents
of students in special education who come from lower SES
backgrounds. School psychologists may play a unique role
by providing psychoeducation to educators regarding the
obstacles these parents face as well as information about
how to successfully communicate with them.
The only significant predictor for special education
involvement was specific teacher invitations. The research
regarding the extent to which specific teacher invitations
predict specific forms of involvement is somewhat mixed.
Most of the research suggests that supportive teacher practices are one of the strongest predictors of involvement
(Anderson and Minke 2007; Smith et al. 1997). The finding
in the current study suggests that specific and direct communication from a childs teacher is important and influential
when encouraging parents to participate in meetings, contribute to educational planning, and to reciprocate communication efforts. It might be beneficial for school districts to

533

provide teachers with pre-service training to teach skills in

engaging parents, especially given that 48 % of teachers
have reported a lack of staff training in working with parents (National Center for Education Statistics 1998).
Limitations and Future Research
The current study has some limitations regarding the
population studied and the methodology. One notable
limitation is the generalizability of the findings to other
groups of parents. The participants in this study were
recruited from two similar suburban school districts in
upstate New York, and the demographic data reflected a
fairly homogenous population. Parents educational values
and expectations have been shown to have the strongest
relationship to student achievement when compared to
other parent involvement dimensions (Fan and Chen 2001;
Jeynes 2005). Because of their educational status, the
parents in the current study may have been sending their
children specific messages regarding the importance of
education. Future research may increase the ability to
generalize to other groups by surveying different demographic populations (e.g., rural or urban) or school districts
with more diversity. Future researchers might also consider
extending the recruitment criteria to allow for an empirical
test of differences between other unique participant subgroups. Some suggestions for group comparisons include:
(a) parents of students with disabilities in elementary
grades vs. parents of students with disabilities in secondary
grades, (b) parents of students with high incidence disabilities versus parents of students with low incidence
disabilities, and (c) mothers of students with disabilities
versus fathers of students with disabilities. This information would provide practitioners with knowledge regarding
how to effectively support parents with various needs.
As for the Parent Involvement Survey, parents comments suggested frustration regarding the restrictiveness of
the Likert options for some of the items, particularly on the
Parent Involvement Activities scale. This was most troublesome for events that occurred one time per year or as
needed. It may be helpful to add another quantitative
choice (e.g., one time per month or year) to more accurately reflect these involvement practices. Another limitation of the Parent Involvement Survey was the self-report
format, as there was no validation of the parents level of
participation. Researchers would likely benefit from surveying other individuals (i.e., teacher, child) regarding the
parents level of participation. It might also be beneficial to
supplement the Parent Involvement Survey with measures
of academic achievement to test whether or not parent
involvement indeed leads to higher educational outcomes
for students with disabilities as the Hoover-Dempsey and
Sandler (2005) Model of Parent Involvement predicts.

123

534

Lastly, it is noteworthy that the category of special

education is quite diverse and includes individuals with
both low and high-incidence disabilities. The current study
assessed the participation of parents of students with any
IDEIA classification and did not parse out individual disabilities or look at low versus high-incidence disabilities.
This was, in part, due to the limited range of disability
categories represented by the identified sample. Nevertheless, future studies may benefit from breaking down this
category even further (e.g., by disability or groupings of
disabilities). Researchers might also assess the differences
between the participation practices of different groups of
parents (e.g., parents of students with low vs. high-incidence disabilities).

Conclusion
The Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (2005) Model of Parent
Involvement considers a dynamic process between a parents motivations for involvement and student achievement. Although it does not include all of the possible
motivational variables that may contribute to a parents
involvement practices, it provides a framework for understanding the active relationship between parents motivation and their actual participation. The current study adds
to the growing literature base for this model and provides
information regarding a unique group of parents. Taken as
a whole, the findings suggest that parents of students in
special education are influenced by multiple, complex
factors when making decisions about their involvement
practices. As such, these parents may require more than
general invitations for involvement and a welcoming
school environment. School-based practitioners may help
to increase parent involvement for this group by sending
specific, direct invitations for involvement and by
encouraging children to do the same.

References
Anderson, K. J., & Minke, K. M. (2007). Parent involvement in
education: Toward and understanding of parents decision
making. The Journal of Educational Research, 100, 311323.
doi:10.3200/JOER.100.5.311-323.
Arnold, D. H., Zeljo, A., Doctoroff, G. L., & Ortiz, C. (2008). Parent
involvement in preschool: Predictors of involvement to preliteracy development. School Psychology Review, 37(1), 7490.
Baker, J., Denessen, E., & Brus-Laven, M. (2007). Socio-economic
background, parental involvement and teacher perceptions of
these in relation to pupil achievement. Educational Studies, 33,
177192. doi:10.1080/03055690601068345.
Balli, S. J., Demo, D. H., & Wedman, J. F. (1998). Family
involvement with childrens homework: An intervention in the
middle grades. Family Relations, 47, 149157. doi:10.2307/
585619.

123

J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:523535

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A
cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York:
W. H. Freeman.
Bono, C., Ried, D. L., Kimberlin, C., & Vogel, B. (2007). Missing
data on the center for epidemiologic studies depression scale: A
comparison of 4 imputation techniques. Research in Social and
Administrative Pharmacy, 3(1), 127.
Christenson, S. L. (1995a). Best practices in supporting home-school
collaboration. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices
in school psychology III (pp. 253267). Washington, DC:
National Association of School Psychologists.
Christenson, S. L. (1995b). Families and schools: What is the role of
the school psychologist? School Psychology Quarterly, 10,
118132. doi:10.1037/h0088315.
Coots, J. J. (1998). Family resources and parent participation in
schooling activities for their children with developmental delays.
The Journal of Special Education, 31, 498520. doi:10.1177/
002246699803100406.
Davies, D. (1993). Benefits and barriers to parent involvement: From
Portugal to Boston to Liverpool. In N. F. Chavkin (Ed.),
Families and schools in a pluralistic society (pp. 205216).
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Deslandes, R., & Bertrand, R. (2005). Motivation of parent involvement in secondary-level schooling. The Journal of Educational
Research, 98, 164175. doi:10.3200/JOER.98.3.164-175.
Deslandes, R., & Cloutier, R. (2002). Adolescents perception of
parental involvement in schooling. School Psychology International, 23, 220232. doi:10.1177/0143034302023002919.
Duncan, G. J., & Magnuson, K. A. (2003). Off with Hollingshead:
Socioeconomic resources, parenting, and child development. In
M. H. Bornstein & R. H. Bradley (Eds.), Socioeconomic status,
parenting, and child development (pp. 83106). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Dwyer, D. J., & Hecht, J. B. (1992). Minimal parent involvement. The
School-Community Journal, 2, 5366.
Dyson, L. L. (1997). Fathers and mothers of school-age children with
developmental disabilities: Parental stress, family functioning,
and social support. American Journal on Mental Retardation,
102,
267269.
doi:10.1352/0895-8017(1997)102\0267:
FAMOSC[2.0.CO;2.
Fan, X., & Chen, M. (1999). Parental involvement and students
academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Arlington, VA:
National Science Foundation.
Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students
academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 122. doi:10.1023/A:1009048817385.
Garcia, D. C. (2004). Exploring connections between the construct of
teacher efficacy and family involvement practices: Implications
for urban teacher preparation. Urban Education, 39, 290315.
doi:10.1177/00420854904263205.
Green, C. L., Walker, J. M. T., Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler,
H. (2007). Parents motivations for involvement in childrens
education: An empirical test of a theoretical model of parental
involvement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 532544.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.532.
Griffith, J. (1998). The relation of school structure and social
environment to parent involvement in elementary schools. The
Elementary School Journal, 99, 5380. doi:0013-5984/99/99010003.
Grolnick, W. S., Benjet, C., Kurowski, C. O., & Apostoleris, N. H.
(1997). Predictors of parent involvement in childrens schooling.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 538548. doi:10.1037/
0022-0663.99.3.532.
Grolnick, W. S., & Slowiaczek, M. L. (1994). Parents involvement in
childrens schooling: A multidimensional conceptualization and

J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:523535

motivational model. Child Development, 64, 237252. doi:10.
2307/1131378.
Haynes, N. M., Comer, J. P., & Hamilton-Lee, M. (1989). School
climate enhancement through parent involvement. Journal of
School Psychology, 27, 8790. doi:0022-4405/89.
Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence:
The impact of school, family, and community connections on
student achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Heppner, P. P., & Heppner, M. J. (2004). Writing and publishing your
thesis, dissertation, and research. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole
Thompson.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1995). Parent involvement in childrens education: Why does it make a difference?
Teachers College Record, 97, 310331.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do parents
become involved in their childrens education? Review of
Educational Research, 67, 342.
Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., & Sandler, H.M. (2005). Final performance
report for OERI: The social context of parental involvement: A
path to enhanced achievement. Presented to Project Monitor,
Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education,
March 22, 2005.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M. T., & Sandler, H. M. (2005).
Parents motivations for involvement in their childrens education. In E. N. Patrikakou, R. P. Weisberg, S. Redding, & H.
J. Walberg (Eds.), Schoolfamily partnerships for childrens
success (pp. 4056). New York: Teachers College Press.
Izzo, C. V., Weissberg, R. P., Kasprow, W. J., & Fendrich, M. (1999).
A longitudinal assessment of teacher perceptions of parent
involvement in childrens education and school performance.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 817839.
doi:0091-0562/99/1200-0817.
Jeynes, W. H. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental
involvement to urban elementary school student academic
achievement. Urban Education, 40, 237269. doi:10.1177/
0042085905274540.
Keith, T. Z., Keith, P. B., Troutman, G. C., Bickley, P. G., Trivette, P.
S., & Singh, K. (1993). Does parental involvement affect eighthgrade student achievement? Structural analysis of national data.
School Psychology Review, 22, 474496.
Kohl, G. O., Leguna, J. L., & McMahon, R. J. (2000). Parent
involvement in school conceptualizing multiple dimensions and
their relations with family and demographic risk factors. Society
for the Study of School Psychology, 38, 501523.
Lavenda, O. (2011). Parental involvement in school: A test of
Hoover-Dempsey and Sandlers model among Jewish and Arab
parents in Israel. Children and Youth Services, 33, 927935.
Mannan, G., & Blackwell, J. (1992). Parent involvement: Barriers and
opportunities. The Urban Review, 24, 219226. doi:10.1007/
BF01108494.
Marcoon, R. A. (1999). Positive relationships between parent school
involvement and public school inner-city preschoolers development and academic performance. School Psychology Review,
28, 395412.
McWilliam, R. A., Maxwell, K. L., & Sloper, K. M. (1999). Beyond
involvement: Are elementary schools ready to be family
centered? The School Psychology Review, 28, 378394.
Morris, V. G., & Taylor, S. I. (1998). Alleviating barriers to family
involvement in education: The role of teacher education.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 219231. doi:0742051X/98.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1998). Parent involvement
in childrens education: Efforts by public elementary schools,

535
NCES 98-032. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.
gov/pubs98/98032.pdf.
New York State Education Department. (2010). New York State
report cards. Retrieved from https://reportcards.nysed.gov/coun
ties.php?year=2010.
Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data
analysis using SPSS (4th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Patrikakou, E. N., & Weisserg, R. P. (2009). Parents perceptions of
teacher outreach and parent involvement in childrens education.
Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the Community, 20,
103119. doi:10.1300/J005v20n01_08.
Ritblatt, S. N., Bearry, J. R., Cronan, T. A., & Ochoa, A. M. (2002).
Relationships among perceptions of parent involvement, time
allocation, and demographic characteristics: Implication for
policy formation. Journal of Community Psychology, 30,
519549.
Rogers, M. A., Wiener, J., Marton, I., & Tannock, R. (2009). Parental
involvement in childrens learning: Comparing parents of
children with and without Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Journal of School Psychology, 47, 167185.
doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2009.02.001.
Russell, F. (2003). Expectations of parents of disabled children.
British Journal of Special Education, 30, 144149.
Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2002). Improving student behavior and
school discipline with family and community involvement. Education and Urban Society, 35, 426. doi:10.1177/001312402237212.
Shurnow, L., & Miller, J. (1999). Parents at-home and at-school
academic involvement with young adolescents. The Journal of
Early Adolescence, 21, 6891.
Smith, E. P., Connell, C. M., Wright, G., Sizer, M., Norman, J. M.,
Hurley, A., et al. (1997). An ecological model of home, school,
and community partnerships: Implications for research and
practice. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 8, 339360. doi:10.1207/s1532768xjepc0804_2.
Swap, S. (1990). Schools reaching out and success for all children:
Two case studies. Boston: Institute for Responsive Education.
Trivette, P., & Anderson, E. (1995). The effects of four components
of parent involvement on eighth-grade student achievement:
Structural analysis of NELS:88 data. School Psychology Review,
24, 299317. doi:02796015.
U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Twenty-eighth annual report
to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/
about/reports/annual/osep/2006/parts-b-c/28th-vol-2.pdf.
Van Haren, B., & Fiedler, C. R. (2008). Support and empower
families of children with disabilities. Intervention in School and
Clinic, 43, 231235. doi:10.1177/1053451208314908.
Waanders, C., Mendez, J. L., & Downer, J. T. (2007). Parent
characteristics, economic stress, and neighborhood context as
predictors of parent involvement in preschool childrens education. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 619636. doi:10.1016/j.
jsp.2007.07.003.
Walker, J. M., Wilkins, A. S., Dallaire, J., Sandler, H. M., & HooverDempsey, K. V. (2005). Parental involvement: Model revision
through scale development. Elementary School Journal, 106,
85104. doi:10.1086/499193.
Wang, M., Mannan, H., Psoton, D., Turnbull, A. P., & Summers, J. A.
(2004). Parents perceptions of advocacy activities and their
impact on family quality of life. Research & Practice for
Persons with Severe Disabilities, 29, 144155.
Wong, S. W., & Hughes, J. N. (2006). Ethnicity and language
contributions to dimensions of parent involvement. School
Psychology Review, 35, 645666.

123

Copyright of Journal of Child & Family Studies is the property of Springer Science &
Business Media B.V. 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.