View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Effects of Consultation-Based Family-School Engagement on Student and Parent Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Effects of Consultation-Based Family-School Engagement on Student and Parent Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis
Language: English
Authors: Smith, Tyler E. (ORCID 0000-0003-1611-9666), Holmes, Shannon R. (ORCID 0000-0001-8719-9224), Sheridan, Susan M. (ORCID 0000-0001-5255-5364), Cooper, Jennifer M. (ORCID 0000-0003-0509-1653), Bloomfield, Bradley S., Preast, June L. (ORCID 0000-0001-8759-3221)
Source: Grantee Submission. 2020.
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 41
Publication Date: 2020
Sponsoring Agency: Institute of Education Sciences (ED)
Contract Number: R305A120144
Document Type: Information Analyses
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Preschool Education
Elementary Secondary Education
Descriptors: Family School Relationship, Meta Analysis, Intervention, Consultation Programs, Interpersonal Competence, Social Emotional Learning, Mental Health, Child Behavior, Academic Achievement, Parent Attitudes, Educational Benefits, Parenting Styles, Parent Child Relationship, Child Development, Documentation, Preschool Education, Elementary Secondary Education
DOI: 10.1080/10474412.2020.1749062
Abstract: Given that consultation has consistently yielded benefits for clients and consultees, it is likely an effective method of promoting family-school engagement. Thus, this meta-analysis examined the effects of consultation-based family-school engagement on child and parent outcomes, and complementary intervention methods used in conjunction with consultation. This study also sought to advance consultation research via a contemporary meta-analytic technique, robust variance estimation (RVE). Analyses yielded significant effects of consultation-based family-school engagement on children's social-behavioral competence ([delta] = 0.34), mental health ([delta] = 0.37), and academic achievement ([delta] = 0.27). Significant effects for parent practices ([delta] = 0.53), parent attitudes ([delta] = 0.49), and relational outcomes ([delta] = 0.37) were also found. Complementary intervention methods revealed significant effects across various child, parent, and relational outcomes. Results indicate benefits of consultation-based family-school engagement for key outcomes and have implications for utilizing complementary methods to augment the net effects of consultation for valuable stakeholders. [This paper will be published in "Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation."]
Abstractor: As Provided
IES Funded: Yes
Entry Date: 2021
Accession Number: ED611789
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFNXMqz-lLKltPXB5HiXE3zAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDB9CP8Q5t1z1i7Gf9QIBEICBmoBuieUOpdoiK1skxWgTD0vBhMB_0lTRRqjCjC6BtP3VXJgir3g9eZZX2gky4ifBUTpoxFT-uTu9YKe7nInxGbbZEcCpkshoMKOZ4LjMKQ4NRGXPek1gghwzGC1BXDJUI7G5e1K7fH4upifIdIYJOW0zVE_yKjpOZM6f9UUIh4vu-OQuYgNLQPySOrLqSwhtbz7PCrHeUrUAilQ=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0151455465;7ma01jul.21;2021Jul20.02:22;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0151455465-1">The Effects of Consultation-based Family-school Engagement on Student and Parent Outcomes: A Meta-analysis </title> <sbt id="AN0151455465-2">Introduction</sbt> <p>Given that consultation has consistently yielded benefits for clients and consultees, it is likely an effective method of promoting family-school engagement. Thus, this meta-analysis examined the effects of consultation-based family-school engagement on child and parent outcomes, and complementary intervention methods used in conjunction with consultation. This study also sought to advance consultation research via a contemporary meta-analytic technique, robust variance estimation (RVE). Analyses yielded significant effects of consultation-based family-school engagement on children's social-behavioral competence (δ = 0.34), mental health (δ = 0.37), and academic achievement (δ = 0.27). Significant effects for parent practices (δ = 0.53), parent attitudes (δ = 0.49), and relational outcomes (δ = 0.37) were also found. Complementary intervention methods revealed significant effects across various child, parent, and relational outcomes. Results indicate benefits of consultation-based family-school engagement for key outcomes and have implications for utilizing complementary methods to augment the net effects of consultation for valuable stakeholders.</p> <p>Families and school personnel share responsibility for promoting student academic success and helping students develop social-emotional competencies (Sheridan & Kratochwill, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref1">79</reflink>]). Families are the first source of influence in a child's life; through interactions with family members, children experience opportunities to form relationships, receive nurturance, and seek guidance (Weiss, Caspe, & Lopez, [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref2">104</reflink>]). Schools provide a second socializing context where students learn to acquire information formally and interact socially with peers (Sheridan, Smith, Kim, Beretvas, & Park, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref3">71</reflink>]). Bridging efforts across these essential systems through family-school engagement practices are instrumental to optimally support child development (Coutts, Sheridan, Sjuts, & Smith, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref4">17</reflink>]). Decades of research have highlighted the benefits of espoused for children when families are engaged in their education. Positive effects have been demonstrated across the elementary and middle school (Smith, Reinke, Herman, & Huang, [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref5">88</reflink>]), for children in rural (Sheridan et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref6">84</reflink>]) and urban (Jeynes, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref7">40</reflink>]) settings, and for students who are racially diverse (Jeynes, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref8">39</reflink>]). Many of these findings have been replicated across large-scale studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. For instance, recent meta-analytic work has demonstrated the positive impact of family-school interventions on children's academic, social-behavioral, and mental health outcomes (Sheridan et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref9">71</reflink>]; Smith, Sheridan, Kim, Park, & Beretvas, [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref10">90</reflink>]).</p> <p>Key intervention components that contribute to family-school engagement intervention effects are becoming clear. Recent meta-analyses found that three primary components of family-school interventions are related to student benefits across academic and social-behavioral outcomes: communication, home-based involvement, and behavioral support (Sheridan et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref11">71</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref12">90</reflink>]). When exploring partnership-based interventions, communication from school to home, bi-directional communication, and collaboration (i.e., relational components) – alone or together – predict student outcomes most consistently (i.e., academic achievement, social-behavioral competence, mental health). Despite an understanding of their effective components, little is known about <emph>how</emph> evidence-based family-school interventions are delivered. Consultation, as an indirect form of service delivery wherein a consultant works with one or more parent and/or teacher consultee(s) to address student concerns (Bergan & Kratochwill, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref13">6</reflink>]; Kratochwill & Bergan, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref14">44</reflink>]), may be an important process to enhance connections between families and schools and promote a shared responsibility for student development. Thus, the purpose of the current study was to evaluate the impact of consultation-based family-school engagement interventions on child, parent, and relational outcomes. Furthermore, this study introduced into the consultation meta-analysis literature an advanced analytic approach, robust variance estimation (RVE). This approach accounts for issues with effect size dependence previously unaccounted for in many meta-analytic models. In subsequent sections, we discuss in greater detail the relevant literature to the central topics of our study – both in terms of content (i.e., family-school engagement, consultation) and methodology (i.e., meta-analysis).</p> <hd id="AN0151455465-3">Family-school engagement</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0151455465-4">Definition</hd> <p>It is widely acknowledged that child development is optimally supported when families are engaged in their children's education. Family-school engagement is a complex, multi-faceted construct with varying definitions. Terms such as parent involvement, family engagement, and family–school partnership are common (Sheridan, Holmes, Smith, & Moen, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref15">75</reflink>]). <emph>Family-school engagement</emph> is a broad term that includes both <emph>parent involvement</emph> (i.e., wherein significant caregivers [including parents, grandparents, foster parents, etc.] partake in activities to promote children's educational efforts; Fishel & Ramirez, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref16">25</reflink>]) and <emph>family–school partnerships</emph> (i.e., child-focused efforts wherein families and schools collaboratively aim to enhance opportunities and success across developmental domains; Albright & Weissberg, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref17">2</reflink>]; Lines, Miller, & Arthur-Stanley, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref18">49</reflink>]). Parent involvement typically includes parent actions that align with and support what is being done at school (Sheridan et al., [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref19">76</reflink>]). Storytelling for the Home Enrichment of Language and Literacy Skills (SHELLS; Boyce, Innocenti, Roggman, Norman, & Ortiz, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref20">9</reflink>]) is an example of a parent involvement intervention, wherein parents support children's early language and literacy through language elicitation strategies (e.g., encouraging active participation). Distinct from parent involvement, family–school partnerships emphasize relationships between families and schools in order to support child development via cross-system approaches that facilitate continuities between settings. One example of a family–school partnership intervention, Conjoint Behavioral Consultation (CBC; also known as Teachers and Parents as Partners [TAPP]; Sheridan, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref21">73</reflink>]), involves collaborative planning and problem-solving between parents and teachers to solve children's behavioral and academic challenges. For purposes of the current study, the term <emph>family-school engagement</emph> will be used in reference to both parent involvement and family–school partnerships.</p> <hd id="AN0151455465-5">Theoretical framework</hd> <p>In theory, successful family-school engagement involves multiple key stakeholders (e.g., families and schools) that contribute to child development within numerous proximal and distal environments (Weiss, Kreider, Lopez, & Chatman-Nelson, [<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref22">105</reflink>]). Bronfenbrenner's ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref23">10</reflink>]) ecological model is useful for conceptualizing family-school engagement. In particular, this framework recognizes direct and indirect systems influencing children's academic, social, and behavioral development. Within an ecological systems framework, family-school engagement involves (a) families and teachers directly interacting with children in their respective settings in ways that influence development at the microsystemic level (e.g., home and school); (b) indirect influences based on relationships among families and teachers at the mesosystemic level (e.g., home with school); (c) social structures impacting children indirectly through the influence they exert on parents, teachers, and environments at the exosystemic level (e.g., school policy focused on family-school communication); and (d) overarching patterns of the culture or subculture that may influence family-school engagement at the macrosystemic level (e.g., governmental mandates focused on family-school engagement such as the Every Student Succeeds Act [ESSA, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref24">23</reflink>]] and No Child Left Behind [NCLB, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref25">58</reflink>]]).</p> <hd id="AN0151455465-6">Empirical support</hd> <p>Family-school engagement is consistently associated with a plethora of benefits for children including decreased disruptive behaviors (Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref26">88</reflink>]; Thompson, Herman, Stormont, Reinke, & Webster-Stratton, [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref27">98</reflink>]), improved academic achievement (Fan & Chen, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref28">24</reflink>]), increased academic competence (Marchant, Paulson, & Rothlisberg, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref29">51</reflink>]), and better social skills (Sheridan et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref30">85</reflink>]). Further, the positive impact of family-school engagement on academic outcomes has been revealed for both boys and girls (Jeynes, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref31">40</reflink>]) and students from racially diverse backgrounds (Jeynes, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref32">39</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref33">40</reflink>]). Benefits have also been noted across writing, reading, and math competencies (Sénéchal & Young, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref34">69</reflink>]; Sheldon & Epstein, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref35">72</reflink>]), and for students at various developmental levels (Reinke, Smith, & Herman, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref36">65</reflink>]). Both parent involvement (e.g., using home literacy practices to support reading achievement; Dixon et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref37">19</reflink>]) and family–school partnership (e.g., utilizing parent-teacher collaborative teams to improve student engagement; Mortier, Hunt, Desimpel, & Van Hove, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref38">56</reflink>]) interventions have been found to be efficacious at improving students' academic outcomes.</p> <p>Our recent meta-analytic work has demonstrated the importance of interventions intended to increase parent involvement and family–school partnerships in supporting children's academic, behavioral, and social-emotional development. In one meta-analysis, family-school engagement interventions were found to significantly improve children's mental health and social-behavioral outcomes (Sheridan et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref39">71</reflink>]). In a second meta-analysis, studies exclusively using collaborative family–school partnership approaches were also found to benefit children's mental health and social-behavioral outcomes, in addition to gains in academic achievement and academic behaviors (e.g., engagement/persistence, attendance; Smith et al.,[<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref40">90</reflink>]).</p> <p>Within the context of family-school engagement research, it is also important to consider <emph>how</emph> family-school engagement interventions are delivered. Our recent meta-analyses have identified key intervention components that significantly influence the effects of family-school interventions on child outcomes (e.g., home-based involvement, collaboration, school-to-home communication, parent–teacher relationship; Sheridan et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref41">71</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref42">90</reflink>]). However, research to date has not systematically considered the processes by which family-school interventions are delivered. In particular, consultation, as an indirect form of service delivery, is a feasible and potentially efficacious method by which family–school interventions can be delivered.</p> <hd id="AN0151455465-7">Utilizing consultation to deliver family-school engagement interventions</hd> <p>A number of past meta-analyses and research reviews have linked school consultation to improved outcomes for clients and consultees. For example, Reddy, Barboza-Whitehead, Files, and Rubel ([<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref43">64</reflink>]) found that behavioral consultation was effective at promoting positive changes in children (as clients) and parents and teachers (as consultees). Further, consultation was found to be especially effective for students with externalizing concerns and academic problems (Reddy et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref44">64</reflink>]). Other research reviews have found consultation to be generally effective at improving client academic and behavioral outcomes, in addition to consultee practices and attitudes (Mannino & Shore, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref45">50</reflink>]; Medway, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref46">54</reflink>]; Medway & Updyke, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref47">55</reflink>]; Sheridan, Welch, & Orme, [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref48">83</reflink>]). In a more recent meta-analysis of 19 studies from 1986 to 2009 focused on school-based problem-solving consultation, Davis ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref49">18</reflink>]) found that consultation had significant indirect effects on the learning, behavior, and functioning of students (e.g., academic achievement, disruptive behaviors), and system-level outcomes (e.g., special education evaluations placements, and/or referrals).</p> <p>Given that consultation consistently has been shown to positively influence both clients and consultees, it may be a viable and effective method of promoting family-school engagement. This idea is further supported by exemplar consultation-based family–school engagement interventions, such as CBC, which have demonstrated improvements for children's academic, behavioral, and social-emotional outcomes across a number of randomized controlled trials (e.g., Sheridan, Ryoo, Garbacz, Kunz, & Chumney, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref50">82</reflink>]). That said, the consultation-based family-school engagement interventions on child outcomes have not been assessed meta-analytically.</p> <p>Further, based on the important role parents play in supporting their children's development, it is imperative to understand critical parenting practices (e.g., behavior/emotion management), attitudes (e.g., beliefs about teacher/school), and relational outcomes (e.g., bi-directional communication, parent–teacher relationships) that may be influenced by consultation-based family-school engagement. For example, parental expectations regarding their children's education are positively associated with children's academic achievement (Weinstein, [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref51">103</reflink>]). Additionally, relationships between parents and teachers have been found to mediate the impact of consultation-based family-school engagement on children's social-behavioral competence (Sheridan et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref52">74</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref53">84</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref54">85</reflink>]). Despite their importance, no meta-analyses have explored the effects of consultation-based family–school engagement on a parent or relational outcomes.Additionally, previous meta-analyses have not considered complementary intervention methods that may be used to support consultation services. Family-school engagement is multidimensional and may involve multiple systems in isolation (i.e., home and school) and interactions between systems (i.e., home with school) to support child development. As an indirect intervention, consultation approaches exert their influence on children via strategies implemented by parents and teachers. Because a stated goal of consultation is to build parents' and teachers' skills and competencies at supporting children's development, parent, and teacher training and specific adult–child interactions are sometimes included in conjunction with consultation interventions. Consultant home visits to encourage fidelity of parents' practices may also be included. Past research has indicated that directly training consultees (e.g., modeling, role-playing, and/or rehearsals) leads to higher treatment integrity of interventions developed through consultation services (Sterling-Turner, Watson, & Moore, [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref55">92</reflink>]). Teacher training, including professional development, has also been shown to increase teachers' family engagement attitudes, practices, and knowledge when it includes consultation (Smith, [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref56">87</reflink>]). Further, researchers involving parent training within consultation services have noted the importance of direct instruction and specific feedback for consultees to support child behaviors (Serketich & Dumas, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref57">70</reflink>]). That said, these complementary strategies have not been assessed in school consultation meta-analyses.</p> <hd id="AN0151455465-8">Advances in meta-analysis</hd> <p>Meta-analyses are often considered the highest level of evidence available in a given area of study or practice (Ackley, Ladwig, Swan, & Tucker, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref58">1</reflink>]; Hoffman, Bennett, & Del Mar, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref59">35</reflink>]). By synthesizing data across studies, meta-analyses allow researchers to determine if certain treatment effects exist beyond individual studies alone. Evidence resulting from meta-analyses are derived from effect size estimates, which provide a standard metric that is interpretable across studies (Maxwell & Delaney, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref60">53</reflink>]). Meta-regression models are often utilized to synthesize and compare effect size estimates (Fisher & Tipton, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref61">26</reflink>]). Unfortunately, commonly used meta-regression models assume effect size independence, which can lead to misleading or incorrect results (Cheung, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref62">13</reflink>]). Thus, it is important to yield consideration of issues related to effect size dependence.</p> <p>Dependence issues in meta-analyses often occur in two forms: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref63">1</reflink>) correlated estimation errors and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref64">2</reflink>) correlated effect size parameters (Fisher & Tipton, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref65">26</reflink>]; Hedges, Tipton, & Johnson, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref66">33</reflink>]). Dependence issues based on correlated estimation errors can occur when studies provide multiple effect size estimates. There are three situations in which this can be problematic. First, the same participants may be assessed at multiple time points using the same measure, with an effect size calculated at each time point (e.g., pre-, post, and follow-up assessment). Second, the same participants may be assessed using various assessments (e.g., different measures of child disruptive behavior), with an effect size calculated from data on each of the various measures. Third, studies may involve multiple groups in which effect sizes are calculated by making several comparisons between the various treatment groups and the same control group (Hedges et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref67">33</reflink>]). Dependence based on correlated effect size parameters often occurs when a hierarchical relationship is present due to common settings, methods, or study level characteristics that are "systematically related to effect size" (Hedges et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref68">33</reflink>], p. 40). For example, a single research group may produce a large proportion of the effect size estimates analyzed in a meta-analysis.</p> <p>One recent approach to addressing dependence issues in effect size estimates is robust variance estimation (RVE; Hedges et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref69">33</reflink>]). The RVE approach expands previous work on cluster (Liang & Zeger, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref70">48</reflink>]) and heteroskedasticity-robust (Huber, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref71">36</reflink>]; White, [<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref72">107</reflink>]) standard errors in the general linear model, in order to address forms of dependence and weighting that frequently occur in meta-analyses (Fisher & Tipton, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref73">26</reflink>]). The RVE model is increasingly being utilized within the social sciences, as it addresses key limitations of previous meta-analytic approaches. Within meta-regression, RVE obtains consistent estimates of the underlying population parameters under a broad set of conditions including non-normality. The results do not need the predictor variables to be fixed, as is required with traditional regression methods utilized in meta-analyses (Hedges, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref74">32</reflink>]). Further, when effect sizes are non-independent, RVE provides valid standard errors and significance tests, without needing to model the precise nature of this dependence (Fisher & Tipton, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref75">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>To our knowledge, no past meta-analyses of school consultation have applied this advanced approach of RVE to analyses. This is no fault to many of the previously discussed meta-analyses (e.g., Reddy et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref76">64</reflink>]), as RVE is a recently introduced approach (Hedges et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref77">33</reflink>]). This also speaks to the datedness of large-scale reviews and meta-analyses on school consultation, as very few have been conducted in recent years. Erchul and Sheridan ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref78">22</reflink>]) previously drew attention to this issue, but unfortunately, it does not appear that much had changed since then. That said, conducting a meta-analysis using RVE offers an important and novel contribution to the school consultation literature.</p> <hd id="AN0151455465-9">Study purpose</hd> <p>The purposes of the current study were to (a) identify the effects of consultation-based family-school engagement interventions on child (i.e., social-emotional, academic), parent (i.e., attitudes, practices), and relational (i.e., parent–teacher relationship, bi-directional communication) outcomes; and (b) determine if particular intervention methods (i.e., teacher/administrator training, parent–child activities, parent training, home visits) used in conjunction with consultation were related to significant positive intervention effects. To do so, we applied RVE as an advanced meta-analytic technique to address previously discussed research gaps from the family-school engagement and school consultation literature. Our research was guided by the following research questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What are the effects of consultation-based family-school engagement interventions on children's social-emotional (i.e., social-behavioral competence and mental health) and academic (i.e., academic achievement and academic behavior) outcomes?</item> <p></p> <item> What are the effects of consultation-based family-school engagement interventions on parent attitudes, practices, and relational outcomes?</item> <p></p> <item> When utilized in conjunction with consultation, what intervention methods (i.e., parent training, parent–child activities, teacher training, home visits) are effective at improving child, parent, and relational outcomes?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0151455465-10">Method</hd> <p>The present study was part of a larger, comprehensive meta-analysis focused on the effects of family-school engagement interventions on children's academic, behavioral, and social-emotional outcomes (see Sheridan et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref79">71</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref80">90</reflink>]). For purposes of this study, consultation-based family-school engagement interventions were identified and analyzed to answer our research questions. In the following section, we first describe methods and procedures from our larger, comprehensive meta-analysis, followed by the selection and analyses of studies that involved consultation-based family-school engagement interventions.</p> <p>Construction of the larger meta-analytic database involved three steps: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref81">1</reflink>) literature search, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref82">2</reflink>) study identification, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref83">3</reflink>) study coding.</p> <hd id="AN0151455465-11">Literature search</hd> <p>Three approaches were utilized within our literature search process: reference databases, hand searches of journals, and cited references. Family-school engagement intervention literature spans several content areas across education, psychology, and sociology. Thus, multiple databases were searched in an attempt to yield relevant literature from each of these fields. Specifically, the following databases were searched: Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts, and Dissertation & Theses Abstracts. Reference database searching involved using multiple search terms in combination (e.g., "parent*" or "famil*" with "involve*" or "engag*" with "school" or "educat*"). Parameter limitations to searches included searching keywords for each online database, as well as limiting results to studies reported in English and occurring between 2001 and 2014. The year 2001 was chosen due to the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act requiring parent involvement programming for all schools receiving Title 1 funding (NCLB, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref84">58</reflink>]). Second, hand searches of relevant journals in the areas of education (i.e., <emph>School Psychology Quarterly, Journal of Educational Psychology, School Community Journal, Journal of School Psychology, School Psychology Review</emph>), psychology (i.e., <emph>Child Development, Developmental Psychology, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Early Education and Development, Journal of Child and Family Studies)</emph>, and sociology (i.e., <emph>Sociology of Education</emph>) published between 2001 and 2014 were conducted. Lastly, cited reference searching of previously published meta-analyses (e.g., Fan & Chen, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref85">24</reflink>]; Hill & Tyson, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref86">34</reflink>]) was performed.</p> <hd id="AN0151455465-12">Study identification</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0151455465-13">Abstract screening</hd> <p>Comprehensive literature search procedures yielded 19,183 journal articles, book chapters, and dissertations/theses. In particular, 18,442 were identified through reference databases and 741 were found through hand searches and reviewing prior meta-analyses and systematic reviews; see Figure 1 for a breakdown of screening and inclusion procedures at each stage of our study. Abstracts of each study were reviewed by trained doctoral students and postdoctoral fellows to determine if they met two criteria for inclusion in the larger study. First, studies must have involved a family-school intervention including <emph>parental involvement</emph> defined as the participation of significant caregivers (e.g., parents, grandparents, stepparents, foster parents, etc.) in the educational process of their children (Fishel & Ramirez, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref87">25</reflink>]); or <emph>family–school partnership approaches</emph> wherein families and professionals cooperate, coordinate, and collaborate (Albright & Weissberg, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref88">2</reflink>]; Christenson & Sheridan, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref89">14</reflink>]). Second, studies must have focused on academic, behavioral, or social-emotional outcomes for school-aged children (i.e., PreK through 12th grade). Approximately 20% of abstracts were double-coded, and disagreements among coders were discussed until consensus was reached during bi-weekly meetings. To assess interrater reliability, a Fleiss' Kappa (Orwin & Vevea, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref90">60</reflink>]) was computed. Results revealed a Kappa estimate of 0.65, indicating a fair to good level of agreement beyond chance (Fleiss, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref91">28</reflink>]). In total, 1,032 studies were retained upon abstract coding.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 1. Flowchart of the search and screening processes</p> <hd id="AN0151455465-14">Full-text screening</hd> <p>For remaining studies, full-text copies were retrieved and their methods sections were reviewed for five inclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria were more extensive at this stage because full-text screening allowed coders to search relevant information often unavailable in an abstract alone. Inclusion criteria were as follows:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> The study presented the results of a family-school engagement intervention focused on parental involvement or family–school partnerships.</item> <p></p> <item> The study involved students in preschool through Grade 12.</item> <p></p> <item> The study presented outcomes involving children's academic, behavioral, and/or social-emotional functioning.</item> <p></p> <item> The study occurred within the context of a naturalistic setting (i.e., not a contrived or laboratory setting).</item> <p></p> <item> The study used any of the following research designs:</item> <p></p> <item> An experimental or quasi-experimental design that compared groups receiving one or more parent involvement or family–school partnership interventions with one or more control groups, with both pretest and posttest measures on at least one qualifying outcome variable.</item> <p></p> <item> A pre-/posttest design with measures on at least one relevant outcome using the same participants, including one- and multiple-group designs involving parent involvement and/or family–school partnership interventions (Wilson, Lipsey, & Derzon, [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref92">108</reflink>]).</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0151455465-15">Study coding</hd> <p>After full-text methods sections were reviewed, 392 family–school engagement intervention studies were included in the final sample of our larger family–school engagement intervention database. Six doctoral students and postdoctoral fellows with expertise in family-school engagement interventions coded the studies, with 15% double-coded. Similar to abstract reviewing, weekly meetings occurred that allowed coders to discuss and address disagreements and discrepancies. Fleiss' generalized kappa ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref93">28</reflink>]) was utilized as an estimate of interrater reliability. Results revealed a Fleiss' generalized kappa of 0.61, indicating a fair to good level of agreement across studies in the larger meta-analysis (Green, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref94">30</reflink>]).</p> <p>All family-school engagement intervention studies were coded for children's social-emotional (i.e., social-behavioral competence, mental health) and academic outcomes (i.e., achievement, academic behaviors), parent outcomes (i.e., attitudes, practices), and relational outcomes (i.e., parent–teacher relationship, bi-directional communication; see Table 1), and intervention method (i.e., consultation, parent training, teacher/administrator training, home visits, and parent child-activities). For the current study, all group-design studies coded as using consultation (i.e., "an indirect service delivery model wherein a consultant works with one or more parent and/or teacher consultee(s) to address concerns for a student") were included. Our final sample was comprised of 31 consultation-based family-school engagement studies with 277 effect sizes.</p> <p>Table 1. Coding scheme for present study</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody><tr><td>Child outcomes</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Social-behavioral competence</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Social skills (e.g., prosocial behavior)</p></list-item><list-item><p>Bullying</p></list-item><list-item><p>Peer relationships</p></list-item><list-item><p>Behavioral regulation (e.g., compliance, hyperactivity)</p></list-item><list-item><p>Externalizing concerns (e.g., aggression, conduct problems)</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Mental health</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Internalizing/emotional concerns (e.g., anxiety, worrying, fears)</p></list-item><list-item><p>Self-esteem/self-worth (e.g., self-regard, belief in oneself)</p></list-item><list-item><p>Emotion regulation (e.g., coping skills)</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Academic</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Achievement (e.g., test scores, grades)</p></list-item><list-item><p>Behaviors (e.g., engagement/persistence, truancy)</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Parent outcomes Parent practices</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Home-based involvement (e.g., helping with homework)</p></list-item><list-item><p>School-based involvement (e.g., attending parent-teacher conferences)</p></list-item><list-item><p>Parent–child involvement quality (e.g., encouragement, sharing positive affect, family cohesion)</p></list-item><list-item><p>Behavioral/emotion management (e.g., delivering concrete reinforcers, executing time out)</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Parent attitudes</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Attitudes about self (e.g., parental empowerment, reducing feelings of parental stress)</p></list-item><list-item><p>Beliefs about teacher/school</p></list-item><list-item><p>Cognitions about children (e.g., attitudes, beliefs, expectations, and aspirations toward children)</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Relational outcomes</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Bi-directional communication (e.g., two-way sharing of information through home-school notes)</p></list-item><list-item><p>Parent–teacher relationship (e.g., trust building, creating joint perspectives)</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Intervention methods Consultation</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Indirect service delivery model wherein a consultant works with one or more parent and/or teacher consultee(s) to address concerns for a student</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Parent/caregiver training</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Systematically presenting information to parents in order to support their efforts and abilities to promote child development (Kaiser & Mahoney, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr42">1999</xref>)</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Teacher/administrator training</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Training, in-service, or professional development focused on parent involvement and/or family–school partnership for teachers/administrators</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Home visits</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Visitation of a child's home by school personnel</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Parent-child activities</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Specific, planned activity provided to families intended for parents and children to complete/work on together</p></list-item></list></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0151455465-16">Data analysis</hd> <p>We used RVE to answer all research questions. RVE was an appropriate choice for our analyses given that many studies reported multiple outcomes within the same study. Hedges ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref95">31</reflink>]) standardized mean difference effect was used as a summary for each intervention effect. Our final data set included 277 effect sizes across 31 studies. Fisher, Tipton, and Zhipeng ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref96">27</reflink>]) robumeta R package was utilized to estimate a random-effects model when calculating each pooled effect size estimate. Further, we incorporated Tipton's ([<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref97">99</reflink>]) small-sample bias correction due to the limited number of studies and effects present for some of our analyses. As recommended by Tanner-Smith, Tipton, and Polanin ([<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref98">95</reflink>]), we used a more stringent <emph>p</emph>-value (i.e., <emph>p</emph> <.01 rather than <emph>p</emph> <.05) and adjusted the degrees of freedom when our <emph>t</emph>-test statistics were less than four to control for Type I error. To analyze main effects, we calculated the overall pooled effect size,</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mover><mi>δ</mi><mo accent="false">‾</mo></mover><mo>.</mo></math> </ephtml> , for each type of child (i.e., academic, social-emotional), parent (i.e., attitudes, practices), and relational (i.e., parent–teacher relationship, bi-directional communication) outcome. We also calculated pooled effect sizes for each outcome associated with each complementary strategy (i.e., parent/caregiver training, teacher/administrator training, parent–child activities, home visits).</p> <hd id="AN0151455465-17">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0151455465-18">Final sample characteristics</hd> <p>Our final sample included 31 total group-design studies with 277 effect sizes (i.e., approximately nine effects per study). Child social-emotional outcomes were assessed in 80.65% of included studies and academic outcomes were assessed in 67.74%. Parent practices were assessed in 38.71% and parent attitudes were assessed in 19.35% of the final sample. Further, relational outcomes (i.e., parent–teacher relationship and bi-directional communication) were assessed in 22.58% of the included studies. Consultation was a requirement for study inclusion; thus, 100% of studies were coded as such. Other intervention methods utilized within studies were: parent/caregiver training (used in 65.63% of included studies), teacher/administrator training (22.58%), parent-child activities (41.93%), and home visits (16.13%). Child participant sample sizes within studies ranged from 12 to 440 (<emph>M</emph> = 93.63). Five studies (i.e., 16.13%) were dissertations/theses and 26 (i.e., 83.87%) were published articles that appeared in a range of educational, psychological, and developmental journals (e.g., <emph>School Psychology Review, Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, Autism, International Journal of Special Education</emph>).</p> <hd id="AN0151455465-19">Child outcomes</hd> <p>Our first research question explored the effects of consultation-based family-school engagement interventions on children's social-emotional (i.e., social-behavioral competence and mental health) and academic (i.e., academic achievement and academic behavior) outcomes. For children's <emph>social-behavioral competence</emph>, 107 outcomes were reported across 18 studies. Results revealed that consultation-based family-school engagement interventions had a significant positive effect on children's social-behavioral competence (</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mover><mi>δ</mi><mo accent="false">‾</mo></mover><mo>.</mo></math> </ephtml> = 0.34, <emph>t</emph>[15.10] = 4.69, <emph>p</emph> <.01; see Table 2). Regarding children's <emph>mental health</emph>, 14 outcomes were reported across seven studies. Consultation-based family-school engagement interventions had a significant positive impact on children's mental health (</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mover><mi>δ</mi><mo accent="false">‾</mo></mover><mo>.</mo></math> </ephtml> = 0.37, <emph>t</emph>[5.92] = 2.45**, <emph>p</emph> <.05 see Table 2).</p> <p>Table 2. Pooled effect sizes of family–school interventions by children's social-emotional outcomes</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Outcome</td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td><italic>k</italic></td><td><p id="ilm0004"><graphic href="hepc_a_1749062_ilm0004.gif" content-type="Graph" /><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mover xmlns=""><mi>δ</mi><mo accent="false">‾</mo></mover><mo xmlns="">.</mo></math></p></td><td><italic>SE</italic></td><td><italic>t</italic></td><td><italic>df</italic></td><td><italic>p</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Social-behavioral competence</td><td>107</td><td>18</td><td>0.34</td><td>0.07</td><td>4.69**</td><td>15.10</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Mental health</td><td>14</td><td>7</td><td>0.37</td><td>0.15</td><td>2.45*</td><td>5.92</td><td>0.00</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 We used an alpha level of.05 to test each statistic, except when <emph>df</emph> was less than 4, in which cases we used an alpha level of.01. <emph>n</emph> = number of effect size estimates; <emph>k</emph> = number of studies; <emph>df </emph>= degrees of freedom; <emph>SE </emph>= standard error; * = <emph>p</emph> < 0.05; ** = <emph>p</emph> < 0.01</p> <p>Children's <emph>academic achievement</emph> was reported across 48 outcomes and 13 studies. Consultation-based family-school engagement interventions had a significant positive effect on children's academic achievement (</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mover><mi>δ</mi><mo accent="false">‾</mo></mover><mo>.</mo></math> </ephtml> = 0.27, <emph>t</emph>[8.69] = 4.35**, <emph>p</emph> <.01; see Table 3). For children's <emph>academic behaviors</emph>, 17 outcomes were reported across eight studies. Results revealed that consultation-based family-school engagement interventions did not have a significant positive impact (</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mover><mi>δ</mi><mo accent="false">‾</mo></mover><mo>.</mo></math> </ephtml> = 0.42, <emph>t</emph>[6.89] = 1.32, <emph>p</emph> =.23; see Table 3).</p> <p>Table 3. Pooled effect sizes of consultation-based family–school engagement interventions by children's academic outcomes</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Outcome</td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td><italic>k</italic></td><td><p id="ilm0007"><graphic href="hepc_a_1749062_ilm0007.gif" content-type="Graph" /><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mover xmlns=""><mi>δ</mi><mo accent="false">‾</mo></mover><mo xmlns="">.</mo></math></p></td><td><italic>SE</italic></td><td><italic>t</italic></td><td><italic>df</italic></td><td><italic>p</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Academic achievement</td><td>48</td><td>13</td><td>0.27</td><td>0.06</td><td>4.35**</td><td>8.69</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Academic behaviors</td><td>17</td><td>8</td><td>0.42</td><td>0.32</td><td>1.32</td><td>6.89</td><td>0.23</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 We used an alpha level of.05 to test each statistic, except when <emph>df</emph> was less than 4, in which cases we used an alpha level of.01. <emph>n</emph> = number of effect size estimates; <emph>k</emph> = number of studies; <emph>df </emph>= degrees of freedom; <emph>SE </emph>= standard error; * = <emph>p</emph> < 0.05; ** = <emph>p</emph> < 0.01</p> <hd id="AN0151455465-20">Parent outcomes</hd> <p>For <emph>parent practices</emph>, 46 outcomes were reported across 12 studies. Results indicated that consultation-based family-school engagement interventions had a significant positive impact on parent practices (</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mover><mi>δ</mi><mo accent="false">‾</mo></mover><mo>.</mo></math> </ephtml> = 0.53, <emph>t</emph>[10.71] = 3.97, <emph>p</emph> <.01; see Table 4). Regarding <emph>parent attitudes</emph>, 17 outcomes were reported across six studies. Results revealed that consultation-based family-school engagement interventions had a significant positive impact on parent attitudes (</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mover><mi>δ</mi><mo accent="false">‾</mo></mover><mo>.</mo></math> </ephtml> = 0.49, <emph>t</emph>[3.13] = 10.23, <emph>p</emph> <.01; see Table 4).</p> <p>Table 4. Pooled effect sizes of consultation-based family–school engagement interventions by parent outcomes</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Outcome</td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td><italic>k</italic></td><td><p id="ilm0010"><graphic href="hepc_a_1749062_ilm0010.gif" content-type="Graph" /><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mover xmlns=""><mi>δ</mi><mo accent="false">‾</mo></mover><mo xmlns="">.</mo></math></p></td><td><italic>SE</italic></td><td><italic>t</italic></td><td><italic>df</italic></td><td><italic>p</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Parent practices</td><td>46</td><td>12</td><td>0.53</td><td>0.06</td><td>3.97**</td><td>10.71</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Parent attitudes</td><td>17</td><td>6</td><td>0.49</td><td>0.14</td><td>10.23**</td><td>3.13</td><td>0.00</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 We used an alpha level of.05 to test each statistic, except when <emph>df</emph> was less than 4, in which cases we used an alpha level of.01. <emph>n</emph> = number of effect size estimates; <emph>k</emph> = number of studies; <emph>df </emph>= degrees of freedom; <emph>SE </emph>= standard error; * = <emph>p</emph> < 0.05; ** = <emph>p</emph> < 0.01</p> <hd id="AN0151455465-21">Relational outcomes</hd> <p>Relational (i.e., parent–teacher relationship, bi-directional communication) outcomes were reported across 24 outcomes and seven studies. Consultation-based family-school engagement interventions had a significant positive impact on relational outcomes (</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mover><mi>δ</mi><mo accent="false">‾</mo></mover><mo>.</mo></math> </ephtml> = 0.37, <emph>t</emph>[5.42] = 3.56, <emph>p</emph> <.05; see Table 5).</p> <p>Table 5. Pooled effect sizes of consultation-based family-school engagement interventions by relational outcomes</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td><italic>n</italic></td><td><italic>k</italic></td><td><p id="ilm0012"><graphic href="hepc_a_1749062_ilm0012.gif" content-type="Graph" /><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mover xmlns=""><mi>δ</mi><mo accent="false">‾</mo></mover><mo xmlns="">.</mo></math></p></td><td><italic>SE</italic></td><td><italic>t</italic></td><td><italic>df</italic></td><td><italic>p</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Relational outcomes</td><td>46</td><td>12</td><td>0.53</td><td>0.11</td><td>3.56*</td><td>5.42</td><td>0.01</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 We used an alpha level of.05 to test each statistic, except when <emph>df</emph> was less than 4, in which cases we used an alpha level of.01. <emph>n</emph> = number of effect size estimates; <emph>k</emph> = number of studies; <emph>df </emph>= degrees of freedom; <emph>SE </emph>= standard error; * = <emph>p</emph> < 0.05; ** = <emph>p</emph> < 0.01</p> <hd id="AN0151455465-22">Complementary intervention methods</hd> <p>Analyses of each complementary method used in conjunction with consultation are organized by child, parent, and relational outcomes and displayed below in Tables 6–8. For studies that included <emph>parent training</emph> with consultation, significant effects were revealed for children's academic achievement (</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mover><mi>δ</mi><mo accent="false">‾</mo></mover><mo>.</mo></math> </ephtml> = 0.31, <emph>t</emph>[6.99] = 3.87, <emph>p</emph> <.01; see Table 6), social-behavioral competence (</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mover><mi>δ</mi><mo accent="false">‾</mo></mover><mo>.</mo></math> </ephtml> = 0.39, <emph>t</emph>[11.15] = 5.95, <emph>p</emph> <.01; see Table 7), and mental health (</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mover><mi>δ</mi><mo accent="false">‾</mo></mover><mo>.</mo></math> </ephtml> = 0.37, <emph>t</emph>[5.92] = 2.45, <emph>p</emph> <.05; see Table 7). Consultation with parent training was also found to significantly impact intervention effects for parent practices (</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mover><mi>δ</mi><mo accent="false">‾</mo></mover><mo>.</mo></math> </ephtml> = 0.62, <emph>t</emph>[8.86] = 3.98, <emph>p</emph> <.01; see Table 8) and relational outcomes (</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mover><mi>δ</mi><mo accent="false">‾</mo></mover><mo>.</mo></math> </ephtml> = 0.47, <emph>t</emph>[2.98] = 4.75, <emph>p</emph> <.01; see Table 8). When consultation interventions included <emph>parent–child activities</emph>, significant effects were found for children's academic achievement (</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mover><mi>δ</mi><mo accent="false">‾</mo></mover><mo>.</mo></math> </ephtml> = 0.33, <emph>t</emph>[5.63] = 3.32, <emph>p</emph> <.05; see Table 6) and social-behavioral competence (</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mover><mi>δ</mi><mo accent="false">‾</mo></mover><mo>.</mo></math> </ephtml> = 0.31, <emph>t</emph>[7.29] = 4.14, <emph>p</emph> <.05; see Table 7). Parent–child activities implemented with consultation also significantly impacted parent practices (</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mover><mi>δ</mi><mo accent="false">‾</mo></mover><mo>.</mo></math> </ephtml> = 0.82, <emph>t</emph>[4.94] = 3.34, <emph>p</emph> <.05; see Table 8). Regarding studies including <emph>teacher training</emph> with consultation, significant effects were found for children's social-behavioral competence (</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mover><mi>δ</mi><mo accent="false">‾</mo></mover><mo>.</mo></math> </ephtml> = 0.49, <emph>t</emph>[1.97] = 3.84, <emph>p</emph> <.01; see Table 7) and relational outcomes (</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mover><mi>δ</mi><mo accent="false">‾</mo></mover><mo>.</mo></math> </ephtml> = 0.76, <emph>t</emph>[2.77] = 17.54, <emph>p</emph> <.01; see Table 8). No significant effects were revealed for any child or parent outcomes when <emph>home visits</emph> were included with consultation.</p> <p>Table 6. Pooled effect sizes of complementary strategy by children's academic outcomes</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Complementary Strategy</td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td><italic>k</italic></td><td><p id="ilm0023"><graphic href="hepc_a_1749062_ilm0023.gif" content-type="Graph" /><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mover xmlns=""><mi>δ</mi><mo accent="false">‾</mo></mover><mo xmlns="">.</mo></math></p></td><td><italic>SE</italic></td><td><italic>t</italic></td><td><italic>df</italic></td><td><italic>p</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Academic achievement</td></tr><tr><td>Parent training</td><td>40</td><td>10</td><td>0.31</td><td>0.08</td><td>3.87**</td><td>6.99</td><td>0.01</td></tr><tr><td>Parent–child activities</td><td>37</td><td>8</td><td>0.33</td><td>0.09</td><td>3.32*</td><td>5.63</td><td>0.02</td></tr><tr><td>Teacher training</td><td>15</td><td>3</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.15</td><td>1.86</td><td>1.74</td><td>0.22</td></tr><tr><td>Home visits</td><td>20</td><td>5</td><td>0.20</td><td>0.08</td><td>2.53</td><td>3.16</td><td>0.08</td></tr><tr><td>Academic behaviors</td></tr><tr><td>Parent training</td><td>14</td><td>7</td><td>0.45</td><td>0.36</td><td>1.25</td><td>5.92</td><td>0.26</td></tr><tr><td>Parent–child activities</td><td>11</td><td>4</td><td>0.94</td><td>0.61</td><td>1.54</td><td>3.01</td><td>0.22</td></tr><tr><td>Teacher training</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>0.43</td><td>0.15</td><td>1.66</td><td>1.00</td><td>0.35</td></tr><tr><td>Home visits</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>5 We used an alpha level of.05 to test each statistic, except when <emph>df</emph> was less than 4, in which cases we used an alpha level of.01. <emph>n</emph> = number of effect size estimates; <emph>k</emph> = number of studies; <emph>df </emph>= degrees of freedom; <emph>SE </emph>= standard error; * = <emph>p</emph> < 0.05; ** = <emph>p</emph> < 0.01</p> <p>Table 7. Pooled effect sizes of complementary strategy by children's social-emotional outcomes</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Complementary Strategy</td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td><italic>k</italic></td><td><p id="ilm0024"><graphic href="hepc_a_1749062_ilm0024.gif" content-type="Graph" /><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mover xmlns=""><mi>δ</mi><mo accent="false">‾</mo></mover><mo xmlns="">.</mo></math></p></td><td><italic>SE</italic></td><td><italic>t</italic></td><td><italic>df</italic></td><td><italic>p</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Social-behavioral competence</td></tr><tr><td>Parent training</td><td>86</td><td>13</td><td>0.39</td><td>0.07</td><td>5.95**</td><td>11.15</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Parent–child activities</td><td>58</td><td>9</td><td>0.31</td><td>0.08</td><td>4.14**</td><td>7.29</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Teacher training</td><td>33</td><td>3</td><td>0.49</td><td>0.10</td><td>3.84**</td><td>1.97</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Home visits</td><td>20</td><td>5</td><td>0.20</td><td>0.08</td><td>2.53</td><td>3.16</td><td>0.08</td></tr><tr><td>Mental health</td></tr><tr><td>Parent training</td><td>14</td><td>7</td><td>0.37</td><td>0.15</td><td>2.45*</td><td>5.92</td><td>0.04</td></tr><tr><td>Parent–child activities</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>0.16</td><td>0.07</td><td>2.25</td><td>1.00</td><td>0.27</td></tr><tr><td>Teacher training</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Home visits</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>6 We used an alpha level of.05 to test each statistic, except when <emph>df</emph> was less than 4, in which cases we used an alpha level of.01. <emph>n</emph> = number of effect size estimates; <emph>k</emph> = number of studies; <emph>df </emph>= degrees of freedom; <emph>SE </emph>= standard error; * = <emph>p</emph> < 0.05; ** = <emph>p</emph> < 0.01</p> <p>Table 8. Pooled effect sizes of complementary strategy by parent and relational outcomes</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Complementary Strategy</td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td><italic>k</italic></td><td><p id="ilm0025"><graphic href="hepc_a_1749062_ilm0025.gif" content-type="Graph" /><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mover xmlns=""><mi>δ</mi><mo accent="false">‾</mo></mover><mo xmlns="">.</mo></math></p></td><td><italic>SE</italic></td><td><italic>t</italic></td><td><italic>df</italic></td><td><italic>p</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Parent practices</td></tr><tr><td>Parent training</td><td>40</td><td>10</td><td>0.62</td><td>0.16</td><td>3.98**</td><td>8.86</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Parent–child activities</td><td>28</td><td>6</td><td>0.82</td><td>0.25</td><td>3.34*</td><td>4.94</td><td>0.02</td></tr><tr><td>Teacher training</td><td>8</td><td>3</td><td>0.77</td><td>0.37</td><td>2.06</td><td>2.02</td><td>0.18</td></tr><tr><td>Home visits</td><td>7</td><td>2</td><td>0.26</td><td>0.05</td><td>5.04</td><td>1.00</td><td>0.13</td></tr><tr><td>Parent attitudes</td></tr><tr><td>Parent training</td><td>12</td><td>3</td><td>0.45</td><td>0.17</td><td>2.67</td><td>1.95</td><td>0.12</td></tr><tr><td>Parent-child activities</td><td>7</td><td>2</td><td>0.32</td><td>0.20</td><td>1.64</td><td>1.00</td><td>0.35</td></tr><tr><td>Teacher training</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Home visits</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Relational</td></tr><tr><td>Parent training</td><td>12</td><td>4</td><td>0.47</td><td>0.10</td><td>4.75**</td><td>2.98</td><td>0.01</td></tr><tr><td>Parent–child activities</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Teacher training</td><td>8</td><td>4</td><td>0.76</td><td>0.04</td><td>17.54*</td><td>2.77</td><td>0.03</td></tr><tr><td>Home visits</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>7 We used an alpha level of.05 to test each statistic, except when <emph>df</emph> was less than 4, in which cases we used an alpha level of.01. <emph>n</emph> = number of effect size estimates; <emph>k</emph> = number of studies; <emph>df </emph>= degrees of freedom; <emph>SE </emph>= standard error; * = <emph>p</emph> < 0.05; ** = <emph>p</emph> < 0.01</p> <hd id="AN0151455465-23">Discussion</hd> <p>The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the impact of consultation-based family-school engagement interventions on child, parent, and relational outcomes. Furthermore, this study utilized, thereby introducing, an advanced analytic approach, robust variance estimation (RVE), into the consultation meta-analysis literature. Results augment previous meta-analyses conducted on both school-based consultation (e.g., Reddy et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref99">64</reflink>]) and family-school interventions (e.g., Sheridan et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref100">71</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref101">90</reflink>]). Overall, findings suggest that consultation-based family-school engagement interventions enhanced the majority of child, family, and relational outcomes. Interestingly, consultation-based family-school engagement did not significantly impact children's academic behaviors. Both our expected and unexpected findings are discussed in more detail below.</p> <p>The results of this study suggest that consultation-based family-school engagement interventions positively impact children's social-behavioral competence, mental health, and academic achievement. Each of these areas is critical to children's functioning. Social-behavioral skills, mental well-being, and academic achievement are comprised of multiple skillsets that are associated with long-term outcomes, including meaningful peer relationships (Wentzel, [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref102">106</reflink>]), school completion (Barry & Reschly, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref103">3</reflink>]), and healthy physical development (Boehm & Kubzansky, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref104">7</reflink>]). Indeed, family-school engagement interventions delivered through consultation provide comprehensive supports across home and school that set the stage for children to develop long-term competencies.</p> <p>Consistent with the practice of consultation, results from this meta-analysis also indicated that consultation-based family-school engagement interventions improved parent practices and attitudes, as well as relational outcomes between parents and teachers (i.e., parent–teacher relationship, bi-directional communication). Consultation is an indirect approach within which child-directed strategies are developed and delivered by teachers and parents (Sanetti, Kratochwill, & Long, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref105">67</reflink>]). Thus, by definition, the effects of consultation-based family-school engagement interventions are contingent on changes in adult practices, attitudes, and relationships. For example, CBC research has consistently found that the quality of the relationship between parents and teachers mediates the effects of CBC on children's social-behavioral outcomes (Sheridan et al., 2012b; Sheridan et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref106">84</reflink>]). The results of this meta-analysis suggest that family-school interventions delivered through consultation can enhance proximal parenting practices and attitudes, as well as the relational outcomes that may be needed to enhance shared (parent-teacher) responsibilities and support children's social, emotional, and academic functioning.</p> <hd id="AN0151455465-24">Complementary strategies in consultation</hd> <p>Many consultation-based family-school engagement interventions include unique strategies designed to augment the consultation process. Common to many consultation approaches is the use of complementary strategies, including didactic instruction (i.e., parent and teacher training), specific parent–child activities, and home visits. In the present study, these complementary strategies were explored to enhance our understanding of their role in consultation-based family-school engagement interventions.</p> <p>Taken together, complementary strategies used in conjunction with consultation enhanced child, parent, and relational outcomes; however, the impact of the strategies was varied. Parent training within consultation-based family-school engagement interventions appeared to have the broadest impact, with improvements noted in children's academic achievement, social-behavioral competence, and mental health, as well as parent practices and relational outcomes (i.e., parent–teacher relationship, bidirectional communication). The inclusion of parent–child activities also impacted multiple outcomes, namely children's academic achievement and social-behavioral competence, and parent practices. Other complementary strategies appeared to have a more specific influence. For example, teacher training within consultation positively impacted social-behavioral competence and relational outcomes between parents and teachers. These findings shed light on methods that can add precision to consultation-based interventions and potentially bolster their efficacy. Understanding the impact of complementary strategies on desired outcomes allows consultants to tailor their consultation practices to maximize benefits for children, parents, and teachers.</p> <hd id="AN0151455465-25">Unexpected findings</hd> <p>Some of our analyses yielded results that were contrary to our hypotheses. For example, consultation-based family-school engagement interventions did not significantly impact children's academic behaviors (e.g., academic engagement, truancy). It may be that consultation-based family-school interventions tend to focus on social and emotional enablers of academic achievement (e.g., social skills, behavioral regulation) rather than specific academic behaviors (e.g., attendance). Indeed, researchers targeted academic behaviors with less frequency than other academic and social-behavioral targets. The limited prevalence of studies targeting academic behaviors as an outcome (<emph>n</emph> = 8) may have influenced this result, thereby making it difficult to make conclusive statements regarding its efficacy on this important outcome. Additional research is needed to discern the effect of consultation-based family-school engagement interventions on academic behaviors.</p> <p>Similarly, no significant effects were revealed for the use of home visits as a complementary strategy to consultation-based family-school engagement interventions. It is possible that this strategy provides other benefits to the process not measured in the current study, such as parents' problem-solving skills (Thomas & Zimmer-Gembeck, [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref107">97</reflink>]) or social support (Sweet & Appelbaum, [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref108">94</reflink>]). It is also not clear that teachers were involved in home visits, and effects of home visits on relationships with other school personnel who may have been responsible for delivering this program component (e.g., family specialists, consultants) is unknown. It is important to note that home visits were included in only five studies, none of which had outcome data available for children's academic behaviors or mental health, or parent attitudes or parent-teacher outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0151455465-26">Implications</hd> <p>The results of this meta-analysis support and extend previous meta-analyses in the fields of consultation and family–school intervention (e.g., Sheridan et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref109">71</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref110">90</reflink>]). The findings may have potential implications for the practice and study of consultation. Overall, our results indicate that consultation-based family-school engagement interventions are effective to foster and improve child, parent, and relational outcomes. Beyond simply demonstrating the benefits of consultation in family–school intervention, results revealed specific complementary intervention methods that can be used to effectively augment the effects of the consultation process.</p> <p>These findings make important contributions to the practice of consultation. For consultants implementing family-school interventions, the results may help to guide the use of adjunct strategies to augment the consultation process. For example, consultants may consider incorporating parent training as a universal strategy integrated into the consultation process because it had broad positive effects on child and parent outcomes. Indeed, the empirical support for parent education and training programs suggests these are effective strategies to improve a host of child and parent outcomes (e.g., Cedar & Levant, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref111">11</reflink>]). Other complementary strategies examined may be used more strategically by consultants. For example, consultants may supplement consultation with specific teacher training when improvements in relationships and communication between parents and teachers are needed. Indeed, many teachers are tasked with establishing communication and relationships with parents, but often feel unprepared to do so (Epstein & Sanders, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref112">21</reflink>]; Weisset al., 2014). However, when teachers are provided training in family-school engagement, they report improved practices, knowledge, and attitudes toward working and collaborating with families (Smith, [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref113">87</reflink>]; Smith & Sheridan, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref114">89</reflink>]).</p> <p>The study also extends and advances consultation research by using contemporary meta-analytic techniques. Meta-analyses provide a high level of evidence in a given area because of the synthesis of data across studies and their ability to determine if treatment effects exist beyond individual studies (Ackley et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref115">1</reflink>]; Hoffman et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref116">35</reflink>]). Moreover, meta-analytic techniques allow researchers to identify various components that represent an intervention or consultation process. This is salient to the study of consultation because these models are often comprised of multiple elements that are implemented as a single process. Meta-analysis can help begin the process of empirically deriving the operative features of consultation. By highlighting RVE as a meta-analytic approach, the current study provides further support for the positive, indirect effects consultation can have on child, parent, and relational outcomes. Further, this study is perhaps the most up-to-date meta-analysis in the area of school consultation, as there have been very few meta-analyses or large-scale reviews conducted in recent decades.</p> <hd id="AN0151455465-27">Study limitations</hd> <p>Although our study revealed interesting and important findings, it is not without limitations. First, our study relied on a broad definition of consultation (i.e., indirect service delivery model wherein a consultant works with one or more parent and/or teacher consultee(s) to address concerns for a student). Thus, it is likely that our sample included studies that utilized various consultative approaches and models (e.g., CBC, mental health consultation) within family-school engagement interventions. Future research should delineate the effects of different models of consultation-based family-school engagement interventions to determine if particular models are especially effective in improving child, parent, and relational outcomes.</p> <p>Second, although this study identified effective strategies that can be used to complement and augment consultation-based family-school engagement interventions, it is not possible to isolate the impact of these characteristics of consultation. Further, consultation is characterized by structural and relational features that are embedded within and inherent to the process (e.g., Sheridan, Rispoli, & Holmes, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref117">81</reflink>]). For example, problem-solving consultation (Bergan & Kratochwill, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref118">6</reflink>]) is comprised of dual processes that represent both the problem-solving procedures undertaken by the consultant and the consultee(s), as well as the development and implementation of a behavior intervention plan designed to remediate the children's concerns. It is likely that there are several elements, in isolation and together, that either drive (i.e., mediate) or impact (i.e., moderate) the effectiveness of said processes. One variable, parent–teacher relationship, appears to consistently mediate the effects of consultation-based family engagement on child outcomes (Sheridan et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref119">74</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref120">84</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref121">85</reflink>]). That said, more research intent on empirically deriving the elements that are responsible for consultation's effects is necessary. The significant findings related to parent practices and relational variables suggest the need to explore their role in mediating the efficacy of consultation on child outcomes. Other ingredients that may be active in producing desired child outcomes (mediators) but not included in this study, such a teacher practices or attitudes, should also be explored. Likewise, a greater understanding of the core components of consultation-based family-school engagement interventions (i.e., components that augment the efficacy of interventions, or moderate the strength of their impact) is also necessary.</p> <p>Third, this meta-analysis only included studies using group designs. Several consultation-based family-school intervention studies have utilized single-case experimental designs (e.g., Bellinger, Lee, Jamison, & Reese, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref122">5</reflink>]; Lees & Ronan, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref123">47</reflink>]; Sheridan, Kratochwill, & Elliott, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref124">80</reflink>]; Weiner, Sheridan, & Jenson, [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref125">102</reflink>]), and their lack of inclusion in the current study resulted in a limited and incomplete sample. Future meta-analytic work is needed to synthesize research on the effects of consultation-based family-school engagement interventions using single-case methodologies.</p> <p>Fourth, Kappa was not particularly high (i.e., 0.61) for studies coded by more than one reviewer. This may be due to limitations associated with conducting such a large-scale review. First, the larger meta-analysis from which the current study was drawn included a high number of studies and codes, and thus required multiple coders. The use of multiple coders responsible for extracting data across a high number of categories creates the potential for disagreements (Sim & Wright, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref126">86</reflink>]). Disagreements most often occurred when coders were required to make fine-grained differentiations between comparable constructs (e.g., differentiating peer relationships from social skills), which other researchers have previously indicated as a frequent source of coding disagreement (e.g., Krippendorff, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref127">45</reflink>]). Fine-grained differentiations were particularly difficult when studies lacked definitional clarity, thus leaving some interpretation to study coders. As we mentioned previously, we took appropriate steps to reduce these disagreements via biweekly meetings where consensus was reached. Thus, although disagreements occurred and our study was quite large in scale, we ultimately trust the accuracy of our results.</p> <p>Finally, data were very limited in regard to certain complementary strategies reported in studies. Thus, we were limited in our ability to draw conclusions about their contributions to consultation. For example, none of the consultation-based studies targeting children's academic behaviors or parent attitudes used complementary strategies. Additional research is needed to understand the full impact of these strategies across a broad set of outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0151455465-28">Conclusion</hd> <p>Meta-analyses are conducted to rigorously identify and synthesize the available evidence for an identified topic, in this case, the current study included consultation-based family-school engagement interventions. Uniquely, this study utilized RVE as a meta-analytic approach to address the limitations of other approaches including the dependency of identified effect size estimates. Generally, consultation has been found to be effective for improved outcomes for clients and consultees, and this meta-analysis augments the literature by indicating that consultation is effective for family-school engagement interventions as well. In many cases, complementary intervention components are often used to support the effects of consultation, with evidence that they enhance the child, parent, and relational outcomes. Future research should continue to evaluate various components and outcomes in support of consultation-based family-school engagement interventions, including novel methodologies, to support clients and consultees at home and school.</p> <hd id="AN0151455465-29">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.</p> <ref id="AN0151455465-30"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref58" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Ackley, B. J., Ladwig, G., Swan, B. A., & Tucker, S. J. (2008). Evidence-based nursing care guidelines : Medical-surgical interventions. St Louis, MO: Mosby Elsvier.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref17" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Albright, M. I., & Weissberg, R. P. (2010). School-family partnerships to promote social and emotional learning. In S. L. Christenson & A. Reschly (Eds.), Handbook of school-family partnerships for promoting student competence (pp. 246 – 265). New York, NY : Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref83" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Barry, M., & Reschly, A. L. (2012). Longitudinal predictors of high school completion. School Psychology Quarterly, 27 (2), 74 – 84. doi: 10.1037/a0029189</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> *Baxendale, J., & Hesketh, A. (2003). Comparison of the effectiveness of the Hanen parent programme and traditional clinic therapy. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 38 (4), 397 – 415. doi: 10.1080/1368282031000121651</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref122" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bellinger, S. A., Lee, S. W., Jamison, T. R., & Reese, R. M. (2016). Conjoint behavioral consultation: Community–school collaboration and behavioral outcomes using multiple baseline. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 26 (2), 139 – 165. doi: 10.1080/10474412.2015.1089405</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref13" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bergan, J. R., & Kratochwill, T. R. (1990). Behavioral consultation and therapy. New York, NY: Plenum Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref104" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Boehm, J. K., & Kubzansky, L. D. (2012). The heart's content: The association between positive psychological well-being and cardiovascular health. Psychological Bulletin, 138 (4), 655 – 691. doi: 10.1037/a0027448</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> *Bogle, K. E. (2008). Evaluation of a brief group parent training intervention in the context of an after-school program for middle-school students (Publication No: AAI32996643) [Doctoral dissertatoin, University of South Carolina]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref20" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Boyce, L. K., Innocenti, M. S., Roggman, L. A., Norman, V. K. J., & Ortiz, E. (2010). Telling stories and making books: Evidence for an intervention to help parents in migrant head start families support their children's language and literacy. Early Education and Development, 21 (3), 343 – 371. doi: 10.1080/10409281003631142</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32 (7), 513 – 531. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cedar, B., & Levant, R. F. (1990). A meta-analysis of the effects of parent effectiveness training. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 18 (4), 373 – 384. doi: 10.1080/01926189008250986</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Chao, P.-C., Bryan, T., Burstein, K., & Ergul, C. (2006). Family-centered intervention for young children at-risk for language and behavior problems. Early Childhood Education Journal, 34 (2), 147 – 153. doi: 10.1007/s10643-005-0032-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cheung, M. W. L. (2019). A guide to conducting a meta-analysis with non-independent effect sizes. Neuropsychology Review, 29 (4), 387-396.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Christenson, S., & Sheridan, S. M. (Eds.). (2001). Schools and families: Creating essential connections for learning. New York, NY: Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Ciccone, N., Hennessey, N., & Stokes, S. F. (2012). Community‐based early intervention for language delay: A preliminary investigation. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 47 (4), 467 – 470. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-6984.2012.00149.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Connell, A. M., Dishion, T. J., Yasui, M., & Kavanagh, K. (2007). An adaptive approach to family intervention: Linking engagement in family-centered intervention to reductions in adolescent problem behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75 (4), 568 – 579. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.75.4.568</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coutts, M. J., Sheridan, S. M., Sjuts, T. M., & Smith, T. E. (2014). Home-school collaboration for intervention planning. In J. T. Mascolo, V. C. Alfonso, & D. P. Flanagan (Eds.), Essentials of planning, selecting and tailoring interventions for unique learners (pp. 92 – 119). Hoboken, NJ : Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davis, C. (2012). A meta-analysis of school-based problem-solving consultation outcomes: A review from 1986 to 2009 [Doctoral dissertation, Texas A & M University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dixon, L. Q., Zhao, J., Shin, J.-Y., Wu, S., Su, J.-H., Burgess-Brigham, R., ... Snow, C. (2012). What we know about second language acquisition: A synthesis from four perspectives. Review of Educational Research, 82 (1), 5 – 60. doi: 10.3102/0034654311433587</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Drew, A., Baird, G., Baron-Cohen, S., Cox, A., Slonims, V., Wheelwright, S., ... Charman, T. (2002). A pilot randomised control trial of a parent training intervention for pre-school children with autism. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 11 (6), 266 – 272. doi: 10.1007/s00787-002-0299-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Epstein, J. L., & Sanders, M. G. (2006). Prospects for change: Preparing educators for school, family, and community partnerships. Peabody Journal of Education, 81 (2), 81 – 120. doi: 10.1207/S15327930pje8102_5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Erchul, W. P., & Sheridan, S. M. (2008). The state of scientific research in school consultation. Handbook of Research in School Consultation (1st Edition), 3 – 12. New York, NY: Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Every Student Succeeds Act. (2015). Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Pub. L. 114 – 95 C.F.R.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students' academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13 (1), 1 – 22. doi: 10.1023/A:1009048817385</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fishel, M., & Ramirez, L. (2005). Evidence-based parent involvement interventions with school-aged children. School Psychology Quarterly, 20 (4), 371 – 402. doi: 10.1521/scpq.2005.20.4.371</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fisher, Z., & Tipton, E. (2015). Robumeta: An R-package for robust variance estimation in meta-analysis. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.02220">http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.02220</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fisher, Z., Tipton, E., & Zhipeng, H. (2017). Robumeta: Robust variance meta-regression (Version 2.0) [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=robumeta</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fleiss, J. L. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 76 (5), 378 – 382. doi: 10.1037/h0031619</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Gerzel-Short, L. (2013). Response to intervention, family involvement, and student achievement at Tier 2: A mixed methods study of K–1 students and their families (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest, LLC. (Accession No. ED554427).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Green, A. M. (1997). Kappa statistics for multiple raters using categorical classifications. Paper presented at the SAS User Group International Conference, San Diego, CA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hedges, L. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass's estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6 (2), 107 – 128. doi: 10.3102/10769986006002107</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hedges, L. V. (1983). A random effects model for effect sizes. Psychological Bulletin, 93 (2), 388 – 395. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.93.2.388</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hedges, L. V., Tipton, E., & Johnson, M. C. (2010). Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Research Synthesis Methods, 1 (1), 39 – 65. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hill, N. E., & Tyson, D. F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A meta-analytic assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45 (3), 740 – 763. doi: 10.1037/a0015362</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoffman, T., Bennett, S., & Del Mar, C. (2013). Evidence-based practice: Across the health professions (2nd ed.). Chatswood, NSW : Elsevier.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huber, P. (1967). The behavior of the maximum likelihood estimates under nonstandard conditions. Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, 10, 221 – 233.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Hughes, J. N., Hasbrouck, J. E., Serdahl, E., Heidgerken, A., & McHaney, L. (2001). Responsive systems consultation: A preliminary evaluation of implementation and outcomes. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 12 (3), 179 – 201. doi: 10.1207/S1532768XJEPC1203_01</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Ingersoll, B. R., & Wainer, A. L. (2013). Pilot study of a school-based parent training program for preschoolers with ASD. Autism, 17 (4), 434 – 448. doi: 10.1177/1362361311427155</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jeynes, W. H. (2003). A meta-analysis: The effects of parental involvement on minority children's academic achievement. Education and Urban Society, 35 (2), 202 – 218. doi: 10.1177/0013124502239392</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jeynes, W. H. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to urban elementary school student academic achievement. Urban Education, 40 (3), 237 – 269. doi: 10.1177/0042085905274540</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Jones, B. A., & Gansle, K. A. (2010). The effects of a mini-conference, socioeconomic status, and parent education on perceived and actual parent participation in individual education program meetings. Research in the Schools, 17, 23.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaiser, A., & Mahoney, G. (1999). Rejoinder: Toward a contemporary vision of parent education. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 19, 173 – 177. doi: 10.1177/027112149901900309</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Kim, N. H., & Park, J. (2012). The effects of the family-involved SDLMI on academic engagement and goal attainment of middle school students with disabilities who exhibit problem behavior. International Journal of Special Education, 27, 117 – 127.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kratochwill, T. R., & Bergan, J. R. (1990). Applied clinical psychology. Behavioral consultation in applied settings: An individual guide. New York, NY: Plenum Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krippendorff, K. (2008). Systematic and random disagreement and the reliability of nominal data. Communication Methods and Measure, 2 (4), 323 – 338. doi: 10.1080/19312450802467134</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Lavelle-Lore, M. D. (2014). Parent-child home numeracy intervention and the mathematics scores of first grade students in urban catholic schools. Philadelphia, PA : Saint Joseph's University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lees, D. G., & Ronan, K. R. (2008). Engagement and effectiveness of parent management training (Incredible Years) for solo high-risk mothers: A multiple baseline evaluation. Behaviour Change, 25 (2), 109 – 128. doi: 10.1375/bech.25.2.109</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liang, K. Y., & Zeger, S. L. (1986). Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika, 73 (1), 13 – 22. doi: 10.1093/biomet/73.1.13</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lines, C., Miller, G., & Arthur-Stanley, A. (2012). The power of family-school partnering (FSP): A practical guide for school mental health professionals and educators. New York, NY: Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mannino, F. V., & Shore, M. F. (1975). The effects of consultation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 3 (1), 1 – 21. doi: 10.1007/BF01101416</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marchant, G. J., Paulson, S. E., & Rothlisberg, B. A. (2001). Relations of middle school students' perceptions of family and school contexts with academic achievement. Psychology in the Schools, 38 (6), 505 – 519. doi: 10.1002/pits.1039</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Mautone, J. A., Marshall, S. A., Sharman, J., Eiraldi, R. B., Jawad, A. F., & Power, T. J. (2012). Development of a family-school intervention for young children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. School Psychology Review, 41 (4), 447 – 466.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maxwell, S. E., & Delaney, H. D. (2004). Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison approach (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA : Wadsworth.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Medway, F. J. (1979). How effective is school consultation?: A review of recent research. Journal of School Psychology, 17 (3), 275 – 282. doi: 10.1016/0022-4405(79)90011-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Medway, F. J., & Updyke, J. F. (1985). Meta-analysis of consultation outcome studies. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13 (5), 489 – 505. doi: 10.1007/BF00923263</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mortier, K., Hunt, P., Desimpel, L., & Van Hove, G. (2009). With parents at the table: Creating supports for children with disabilities in general education classrooms. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 24 (4), 337 – 354. doi: 10.1080/08856250903223021</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Murray, D. W., Rabiner, D., Schulte, A., & Newitt, K. (2008). Feasibility and integrity of a parent-teacher consultation intervention for ADHD students. Child & Youth Care Forum, 37 (3), 111 – 126. doi: 10.1007/s10566-008-9054-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Oosterling, I., Visser, J., Swinkels, S., Rommelse, N., Donders, R., Woudenberg, T., ... Buitelaar, J. (2010). Randomized controlled trial of the focus parent training for toddlers with autism: 1-year outcome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40 (12), 1447 – 1458. doi: 10.1007/s10803-010-1004-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Orwin, R. G., & Vevea, J. L. (2009). Evaluating coding decisions. The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-analysis, 2, 177 – 203.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Owens, J. S., Richerson, L., Beilstein, E. A., Crane, A., Murphy, C. E., & Vancouver, J. B. (2005). School-based mental health programming for children with inattentive and disruptive behavior problems: First-year treatment outcome. Journal of Attention Disorders, 9 (1), 261 – 274. doi: 10.1177/1087054705279299</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Pfiffner, L. J., Mikami, A. Y., Huang-Pollock, C., Easterlin, B., Zalecki, C., & McBurnett, K. (2007). A randomized, controlled trial of integrated home-school behavioral treatment for ADHD, predominantly inattentive type. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 46 (8), 1041 – 1050. doi: 10.1097/chi.0b013e318064675f</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Ralph, A., & Sanders, M. R. (2003). Preliminary evaluation of the group teen triple p program for parents of teenagers making the transition to high school. Australian E-Journal for the Advancement of Mental Health, 2 (3), 169 – 178. doi: 10.5172/jamh.2.3.169</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reddy, L. A., Barboza-Whitehead, S., Files, T., & Rubel, E. (2000). Clinical focus of consultation outcome research with children and adolescents. Special Services in the Schools, 16 (1–2), 1 – 22. doi: 10.1300/J008v16n01_01</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reinke, W. M., Smith, T. E., & Herman, K. C. (2019). Family-school engagement across child and adolescent development. School Psychology, 34 (4), 346 – 349. doi: 10.1037/spq0000322</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Rönnau-Böse, M., & Fröhlich-Gildhoff, K. (2009). The promotion of resilience: A person-centered perspective of prevention in early childhood institutions. Person-Centered and Experiential Psychotherapies, 8, 299 – 318. doi: 10.1080/14779757.2009.9688495</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sanetti, L. M. H., Kratochwill, T. R., & Long, A. C. J. (2013). Applying adult behavior change theory to support mediator-based intervention implementation. School Psychology Quarterly, 28 (1), 47 – 62. doi: 10.1037/spq0000007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Schertz, H. H., Odom, S. L., Baggett, K. M., & Sideris, J. H. (2013). Effects of joint attention mediated learning for toddlers with autism spectrum disorders: An initial randomized controlled study. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28 (2), 249 – 258. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.06.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sénéchal, M., & Young, L. (2008). The effect of family literacy interventions on children's acquisition of Reading From kindergarten to grade 3: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 78 (4), 880 – 907. doi: 10.3102/0034654308320319</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Serketich, W. J., & Dumas, J. E. (1996). The effectiveness of behavioral parent training to modify antisocial behavior in children: A meta-analysis. Behavior Therapy, 27 (2), 171 – 186. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7894(96)80013-X</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sheridan, S. M., Smith, T. E., Kim, E. M., Beretvas, S. N., & Park, S. (2019). A meta-analysis of family-school interventions and children's social-emotional functioning: Child and community influences and components of efficacy. Review of Educational Research, 89, 296-332.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2005). Involvement counts: Family and community partnerships and mathematics achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 98 (4), 196 – 207. doi: 10.3200/JOER.98.4.196-207</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sheridan, S. M. (2014). The tough kid teachers and parents as partners: The power of partnerships. Eugene, OR: Pacific Northwest Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Sheridan, S. M., Bovaird, J. A., Glover, T. A., Garbacz, S. A., Witte, A., & Kwon, K. (2012b). A randomized trial examining the effects of conjoint behavioral consultation and the mediating role of the parent-teacher relationship. School Psychology Review, 41, 23 – 46.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sheridan, S. M., Holmes, S. R., Smith, T. E., & Moen, A. L. (2016). Complexities in field-based partnership research: Exemplars, challenges, and an agenda for the field. In S. M. Sheridan & E. M. Kim (Eds.), Research on family-school partnerships: An interdisciplinary examination of state of the science and critical needs (Vol. 3, pp. 1 – 23). New York, NY : Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sheridan, S. M., Kim, E. M., Coutts, M. J., Sjuts, T. M., Holmes, S. R., Ransom, K. A., & Garbacz, S. A. (2012a). Clarifying parent involvement and family-school partnership intervention research: A preliminary synthesis (CYFS Working Paper No. 2012-4). Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Center for Research on Children, Youth, Families, and Schools.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Sheridan, S. M., Knoche, L. L., Edwards, C. P., Kupzyk, K. A., Clarke, B. L., & Kim, E. M. (2014). Efficacy of the getting ready intervention and the role of parental depression. Early Education and Development, 25 (5), 746 – 769. doi: 10.1080/10409289.2014.862146</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Sheridan, S. M., Knoche, L. L., Kupzyk, K. A., Edwards, C. P., & Marvin, C. A. (2011). A randomized trial examining the effects of parent engagement on early language and literacy: The getting ready intervention. Journal of School Psychology, 49 (3), 361 – 383. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2011.03.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sheridan, S. M., & Kratochwill, T. R. (2008). Conjoint behavioral consultation: Promoting family-school connections and interventions (2nd ed.). New York, NY : Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sheridan, S. M., Kratochwill, T. R., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Behavioral consultation with parents and teachers: Delivering treatment for socially withdrawn children at home and school. School Psychology Review, 19, 33 – 52.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sheridan, S. M., Rispoli, K., & Holmes, S. (2014). Treatment integrity in conjoint behavioral consultation: Active ingredients and potential pathways of influence. In L. Sanetti & T. Kratochwill (Eds.), Treatment integrity: A foundation for evidence-based practice in applied psychology (pp. 255 – 278). Washington, DC : American Psychological Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Sheridan, S. M., Ryoo, J. H., Garbacz, S. A., Kunz, G. M., & Chumney, F. L. (2013). The efficacy of conjoint behavioral consultation on parents and children in the home setting: Results of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of School Psychology, 51 (6), 717 – 733. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2013.09.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sheridan, S. M., Welch, M., & Orme, S. F. (1996). Is consultation effective? A review of outcome research. Remedial and Special Education, 17 (6), 341 – 354. doi: 10.1177/074193259601700605</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sheridan, S. M., Witte, A. L., Holmes, S. R., Wu, C., Bhatia, S. A., & Angell, S. R. (2017a). The efficacy of conjoint behavioral consultation in the home setting: Outcomes and mechanisms in rural communities. Journal of School Psychology, 62, 81 – 101. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2017.03.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sheridan, S. M., Witte, A. L., Holmes, S. R., Coutts, M. J., Dent, A. L., Kunz, G. M., & Wu, C. (2017b). A randomized trial examining the effects of conjoint behavioral consultation in rural schools: Student outcomes and the mediating role of the teacher–parent relationship. Journal of School Psychology, 61, 33 – 53. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2016.12.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sim, J., & Wright, C. (2005). The Kappa statistic in reliability studies: Use, interpretation and sample size requirements. Physical Therapy, 85 (3), 257 – 268. doi: 10.1093/ptj/85.3.257</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, T. E. (2019). The impact of training on teachers' family-school engagement practices, attitudes, and knowledge: Exploring conditions of efficacy. The School Psychologist, 73, 21 – 32.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, T. E., Reinke, W. M., Herman, K. C., & Huang, F. (2019). Understanding family-school engagement across and within elementary and middle school contexts. School Psychology, 34 (4), 363 – 375. doi: 10.1037/spq0000290</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, T. E., & Sheridan, S. M. (2019). The effects of teacher training on teachers' family engagement practices, attitudes, and knowledge: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 29 (2), 128 – 157. doi: 10.1080/10474412.2018.1460725</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, T. E., Sheridan, S. M., Kim, E. M., Park, S., & Beretvas, S. N. (2019). The effects of family-school partnership interventions on academic and social-emotional functioning: A meta-analysis exploring what works for whom. Educational Psychology Review, 1-37.Authors.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Ştefan, C. A., & Miclea, M. (2014). Effectiveness of the social-emotional prevention program as a function of children's baseline risk status. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 22 (1), 14 – 44. doi: 10.1080/1350293X.2013.865359</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sterling-Turner, H. E., Watson, T. S., & Moore, J. W. (2002). The effects of direct training and treatment integrity on treatment outcomes in school consultation. School Psychology Quarterly, 17 (1), 47 – 77. doi: 10.1521/scpq.17.1.47.19906</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Stormshak, E. A., Connell, A., & Dishion, T. J. (2009). An adaptive approach to family-centered intervention in schools: Linking intervention engagement to academic outcomes in middle and high school. Prevention Science, 10 (3), 221 – 235. doi: 10.1007/s11121-009-0131-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sweet, M. A., & Appelbaum, M. I. (2004). Is home visiting an effective strategy? A meta-analytic review of home visiting programs for families with young children. Child Development, 75 (5), 1435 – 1456. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00750.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tanner-Smith, E. E., Tipton, E., & Polanin, J. R. (2016). Handling complex meta-analytic data structures using robust variance estimates: A tutorial in R. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 2 (1), 85 – 112. doi: 10.1007/s40865-016-0026-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Taylor, H. L. (2010). A school-based parent intervention program to improve student behavior problems and the school-family relationship during the transition to kindergarten (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California – Los Angeles, Los Angeles.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thomas, R., & Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J. (2007). Behavioral outcomes of parent-child interaction therapy and triple P—positive parenting program: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35 (3), 475 – 495. doi: 10.1007/s10802-007-9104-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thompson, A. M., Herman, K. C., Stormont, M. A., Reinke, W. M., & Webster-Stratton, C. (2017). Impact of incredible years on teacher perceptions of parental involvement: A latent transition analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 62, 51 – 65. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2017.03.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tipton, E. (2015). Small sample adjustments for robust variance estimation with meta-regression. Psychological Methods, 20 (3), 375 – 393. doi: 10.1037/met0000011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Van Tuijl, C., Leseman, P. P., & Rispens, J. (2001). Efficacy of an intensive home-based educational intervention programme for 4-to 6-year-old ethnic minority children in the Netherlands. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25 (2), 148 – 159. doi: 10.1080/01650250042000159</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Wayland, L. A. L. (2003). Treatment of children with problem behaviours: The efficacy of conjoint behavioural consultation versus videotape therapy and the impact on parent–teacher collaboration. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 64 (1–B), 404.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weiner, R. K., Sheridan, S. M., & Jenson, W. R. (1998). The effects of conjoint behavioral consultation and a structured homework program on math completion and accuracy in junior high students. School Psychology Quarterly, 13 (4), 281 – 309. doi: 10.1037/h0088986</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weinstein, R. S. (2002). Reaching higher: The power of expectations in schooling. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weiss, H. B., Caspe, M., & Lopez, M. E. (2006). Family involvement makes a difference: Family involvement in early childhood education. Cambridge, MA : Harvard Family Research Project.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weiss, H. B., Kreider, H., Lopez, M. E., & Chatman-Nelson, C. M. (2014). Preparing educators to engage families: Case studies using an ecological framework. Thousand Oaks, CA : SAGE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wentzel, K. R. (2009). Peers and academic functioning at school. In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Social, emotional, and personality development in context. Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 531 – 547). New York, NY : The Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> White, H. (1980). A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica, 48 (4), 817 – 838. doi: 10.2307/1912934</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson, S. J., Lipsey, M. W., & Derzon, J. H. (2003). The effects of school-based intervention programs on aggressive behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71 (1), 136. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.71.1.136</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Zembat, R., & Kuday, F. S. (2010). A comparison of the cognitive development of 3–6 year-old children who receive family-supported preschool education, institutional education and no education. Gifted Education International, 26 (1), 61 – 73. doi: 10.1177/026142941002600109</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Tyler E. Smith; Shannon R. Holmes; Susan M. Sheridan; Jennifer M. Cooper; Bradley S. Bloomfield and June L. Preast</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Tyler E. Smith , PhD, is a Senior Research Associate with the Missouri Prevention Science Institute and the Department of Educational, School, and Counseling Psychology at the University of Missouri.</p> <p>Shannon R. Holmes , PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational, School and Counseling Psychology at the University of Missouri.</p> <p>Susan M. Sheridan , PhD, is a George Holmes University Professor and Willa Cather Emeritus Professor of Educational Psychology at the University of Nebraska, where she is also the director of the Nebraska Center for Research on Children, Youth, Families, and Schools.</p> <p>Jennifer M. Cooper , PhD, is a faculty member in the School Psychology program, Department of Student Development, at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.</p> <p>Bradley S. Bloomfield , Ph.D., BCBA-D, NCSP, LBA is an Assistant Professor and Program Coordinator in School Psychology at the University of Alabama.</p> <p>June L. Preast , PhD, NCSP, is an Assistant Professor in the School Psychology at the University of Alabama.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib104" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib105" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib103" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib107" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib108" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib106" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref127"></nolink>
CustomLinks:
  – Url: https://eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED611789
    Name: ERIC Full Text
    Category: fullText
    Text: Full Text from ERIC
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: ED611789
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Report
PubTypeId: report
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Effects of Consultation-Based Family-School Engagement on Student and Parent Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Smith%2C+Tyler+E%2E%22">Smith, Tyler E.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1611-9666">0000-0003-1611-9666</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Holmes%2C+Shannon+R%2E%22">Holmes, Shannon R.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8719-9224">0000-0001-8719-9224</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sheridan%2C+Susan+M%2E%22">Sheridan, Susan M.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5255-5364">0000-0001-5255-5364</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cooper%2C+Jennifer+M%2E%22">Cooper, Jennifer M.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0509-1653">0000-0003-0509-1653</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bloomfield%2C+Bradley+S%2E%22">Bloomfield, Bradley S.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Preast%2C+June+L%2E%22">Preast, June L.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8759-3221">0000-0001-8759-3221</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Grantee+Submission%22"><i>Grantee Submission</i></searchLink>. 2020.
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 41
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: Institute of Education Sciences (ED)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: R305A120144
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Information Analyses
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Preschool+Education%22">Preschool Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Secondary+Education%22">Elementary Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Family+School+Relationship%22">Family School Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Meta+Analysis%22">Meta Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Consultation+Programs%22">Consultation Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interpersonal+Competence%22">Interpersonal Competence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Emotional+Learning%22">Social Emotional Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mental+Health%22">Mental Health</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Behavior%22">Child Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Achievement%22">Academic Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Attitudes%22">Parent Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Benefits%22">Educational Benefits</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parenting+Styles%22">Parenting Styles</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Child+Relationship%22">Parent Child Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Development%22">Child Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Documentation%22">Documentation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Education%22">Preschool Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+Secondary+Education%22">Elementary Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/10474412.2020.1749062
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Given that consultation has consistently yielded benefits for clients and consultees, it is likely an effective method of promoting family-school engagement. Thus, this meta-analysis examined the effects of consultation-based family-school engagement on child and parent outcomes, and complementary intervention methods used in conjunction with consultation. This study also sought to advance consultation research via a contemporary meta-analytic technique, robust variance estimation (RVE). Analyses yielded significant effects of consultation-based family-school engagement on children's social-behavioral competence ([delta] = 0.34), mental health ([delta] = 0.37), and academic achievement ([delta] = 0.27). Significant effects for parent practices ([delta] = 0.53), parent attitudes ([delta] = 0.49), and relational outcomes ([delta] = 0.37) were also found. Complementary intervention methods revealed significant effects across various child, parent, and relational outcomes. Results indicate benefits of consultation-based family-school engagement for key outcomes and have implications for utilizing complementary methods to augment the net effects of consultation for valuable stakeholders. [This paper will be published in "Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation."]
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: CodeSource
  Label: IES Funded
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Yes
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: ED611789
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=ED611789
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/10474412.2020.1749062
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 41
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Family School Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Meta Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Consultation Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interpersonal Competence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Emotional Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mental Health
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Academic Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parent Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Benefits
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parenting Styles
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parent Child Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Documentation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary Secondary Education
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Effects of Consultation-Based Family-School Engagement on Student and Parent Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Smith, Tyler E.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Holmes, Shannon R.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sheridan, Susan M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cooper, Jennifer M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bloomfield, Bradley S.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Preast, June L.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 04
              Type: published
              Y: 2020
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Grantee Submission
              Type: main
ResultId 1