View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Parent Involvement, Socioeconomic Status and Reading Performance

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Parent Involvement, Socioeconomic Status and Reading Performance
Language: English
Authors: Andersen, Simon Calmar, Gregersen, Maria Koch, Nielsen, Helena Skyt (ORCID 0000-0003-2577-4734), Thomsen, Mette Kjaergaard
Source: Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. 2021 65(7):1279-1294.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 16
Publication Date: 2021
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Elementary Education
Grade 2
Primary Education
Descriptors: Parent Participation, Parent Child Relationship, Interaction, Young Children, Grade 2, Elementary School Students, Socioeconomic Status, Correlation, Reading Achievement, Performance Factors, Time Management, Foreign Countries
Geographic Terms: Denmark
DOI: 10.1080/00313831.2020.1840429
ISSN: 0031-3831
Abstract: The aim of this paper was to understand whether and to what extent parenting behaviors mediated the association between parental socioeconomic status (SES) and 8-year old children's reading performance. The study used video recordings of parent-child interactions in Danish public schools while the child was assigned a difficult reading task (N = 122). Results showed that low-SES parents tended to get involved in their children's problem-solving activities in unconstructive ways and that this type of involvement mediated one-third of the association between parental SES and reading performance after controlling for prior measures of children's academic skills. These results may have important implications for understanding how parents can best assist -- or not assist - children in developmental activities such as homework tasks and for interventions aimed at increasing the quality of the time low SES parents spend with their children.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2021
Accession Number: EJ1316248
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHg70E5v6hDs54BLcDjowknAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDGYm2K9wO3ipjLQc6gIBEICBmhF4EDTy4q8uUpwzSKc32XNaBvghzaeyt4xtA42KiWqYH-Dlyefiro2gch0vdp3zx7v_OhJZ4joHhqRjssVbsuBqrDVRyEnVxUvD8l9lOU-y_DB_YCIElfVyWdSXl-o4uE_jArz8kL_P2_jSCbSb6aweqoXAEcDkkPfB1hZToiz0nIraUTdg0Vq-EkeM6GVVIBwzOs1ah0UlicU=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0153183492;55b01dec.21;2021Oct26.06:37;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0153183492-1">Parent Involvement, Socioeconomic Status and Reading Performance </title> <p>The aim of this paper was to understand whether and to what extent parenting behaviors mediated the association between parental socioeconomic status (SES) and 8-year old children's reading performance. The study used video recordings of parent–child interactions in Danish public schools while the child was assigned a difficult reading task (N = 122). Results showed that low-SES parents tended to get involved in their children's problem-solving activities in unconstructive ways and that this type of involvement mediated one-third of the association between parental SES and reading performance after controlling for prior measures of children's academic skills. These results may have important implications for understanding how parents can best assist – or not assist - children in developmental activities such as homework tasks and for interventions aimed at increasing the quality of the time low SES parents spend with their children.</p> <p>Keywords: Parent-child interactions; socioeconomic inequality; time use; reading performance</p> <p>Differences in how parents' level of education affect how they spend time with their children may be an important component in understanding the continued low levels of upwards mobility observed in many settings (Heckman & Landersø, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref1">17</reflink>]). Although the importance of the total amount of time parents spend with their children is disputed (Kalil & Mayer, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref2">24</reflink>]; Nomaguchi et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref3">30</reflink>]; Waldfogel, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref4">42</reflink>]), there seems to be a consensus that the quality of that time is crucial for children's academic achievement (Heckman & Mosso, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref5">18</reflink>]; Hsin & Felfe, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref6">19</reflink>]; Huston & Aronson, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref7">21</reflink>]). However, what constitutes high-quality interaction with children, and, especially, how that differs between parents with different socioeconomic status (SES), is much less certain.</p> <p>Many studies on parental time use distinguish between <emph>developmental</emph> and <emph>non-developmental</emph> care in order to account for the quality of parent–child interactions (Bonke, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref8">6</reflink>]; Sayer et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref9">33</reflink>]; Stafford & Yeung, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref10">38</reflink>]). Developmental care consists of activities that deliberately stimulate children's cognitive skills such as talking, reading, teaching and playing with the child and is thus considered to be high-quality interaction. In contrast, non-developmental care entails activities that fulfill more basic needs associated with childcare or recreational activities. A number of time use studies have demonstrated marked differences in the amount of developmental time parents of different educational levels spend with their children (Guryan et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref11">16</reflink>]; Sayer et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref12">34</reflink>]) and that this relates to children's academic performance (Del Bono et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref13">9</reflink>]; Hsin & Felfe, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref14">19</reflink>]; Thomsen, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref15">39</reflink>]). However, simply encouraging parents to spend time on developmental activities may be premature, because even during these activities, differences in how parents interact with their children may be of great importance.</p> <p>Fomby and Musick ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref16">13</reflink>]) suggest that the effect of developmental activities may depend on the home learning environment, including access to stimulating toys and games, shared meals and play, potential punitive responses to bad report cards, and positive emotional support. Contrary to their expectations, they did not find that the home learning environment moderates the impact of the time parents spent with their children. Relatedly, Kalil et al. ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref17">25</reflink>]) found that the relevant types of developmental activities depend on the needs of children at different developmental stages.</p> <p>A literature on parental involvement as reviewed by Pomerantz and Grolnick ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref18">31</reflink>]) seem to have developed separately from research on parental time spent with children. Building on self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref19">7</reflink>]) and mindset theory (Dweck, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref20">10</reflink>]) research on parental involvement suggests that "constructive" involvement motivates children to engage in learning and conveys the message that practicing will enhance their abilities (Moorman & Pomerantz, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref21">28</reflink>]; Ng et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref22">29</reflink>]). Constructive involvement includes (a) mastery-oriented teaching, where parents focus on children practicing rather than their performance. This focus may convey a growth mindset (Dweck, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref23">10</reflink>]) to the children indicating that abilities are not fixed but can be improved by practicing (Moorman & Pomerantz, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref24">28</reflink>]); (b) autonomy support, where parents let children decide how to approach the task, may enhance children's motivation (Deci & Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref25">7</reflink>]); and (c) positive affect, which is parents' directed encouragement and kindness towards their children. In contrast, "unconstructive" involvement is characterized by (a) performance-oriented teaching; (b) control; and (c) negative affect. In a literature review, Pomerantz et al. ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref26">32</reflink>]) showed that constructive modes of parental involvement during developmental activities seemed to enhance children's engagement and motivation for learning. In a meta-analysis, Vasquez et al. ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref27">41</reflink>]) showed that autonomy support was generally found to predict increased performance in school, whereas Silinskas and Kikas ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref28">36</reflink>]) further emphasize that key is the support as perceived by the child. The literature on parent involvement is based on studies using a variety of different children's tasks (not only reading comprehension). Future research should examine whether parent involvement matters differently for different types of tasks.</p> <p>The aim of this paper was to understand whether and to what extent parenting behaviors mediate the association between SES and children's reading performance, as illustrated in Figure 1. To study this, we used video recordings of parent–child interactions while the child was assigned a difficult reading task (<emph>N</emph> = 122) in a unique combination with detailed administrative data on the child's performance in reading tests about six months later, parents' background information, and controlling for a measure of child academic skills at the time of the video recordings. Specifically, we compare constructive and unconstructive modes of parental involvement in order to examine how low and high SES parents engage in each of them, and how they each predict the children's reading performance. The overarching research question is whether and to what extent constructive and unconstructive modes of involvement mediate the association between SES and reading performance.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Conceptual Framework.</p> <hd id="AN0153183492-2">Materials and Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0153183492-3">Sample and Data</hd> <p>The initial study population for this study consisted of 755 parents and 8-year old children enrolled in second grade in Aarhus in Denmark. The city has about 350,000 inhabitants. The study population was recruited among Danish speaking families from 16 schools (40 classes) out of a total of 28 schools (72 classes) who participated in a large research project on reading in 2013/14 (for details see Andersen & Nielsen, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref29">2</reflink>]). The families received an invitation by letter sent home by the Municipality and Aarhus University. The letter stated that the aim of the project was to gain more knowledge about how parents may help their children learn to read and that the parent and child had to participate in some reading tasks while being video-taped. 126 families signed up to take part in the subproject using videotape. Four videos could not be used leaving us with 122 recordings (16%).</p> <p>Trained research assistants were in charge of the sessions, which took place in the children's school environment late in the afternoon in Sep-Oct 2013. The assistants followed a script to instruct the participating families before, during and after the tasks. Upon arrival, the parent and child were reminded that the aim of the project was to help parents become better at reading with their child. The child had to do the first task on their own, telling a story based on a wordless picture book. The first task was supposed to make the parent and child feel comfortable in the situation and their behaviors were not coded. The parents were told that they were allowed to help with the second and third tasks. Parents were not given any further information about when and how to help their child. This was done in order to ensure that parents were not induced to behave in a certain way.</p> <p>The second and third tasks were reading tasks. The second task tested the child's reading comprehension, as the child had to read a text and then find the right picture among four choices. The third task consisted of a variety of smaller tasks from the national reading test in second grade, which are designed to test children's reading comprehension, language comprehension and decoding (Beuchert & Nandrup, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref30">4</reflink>]; cf. the "simple model of reading", Gough & Tunmer, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref31">15</reflink>]). These two types of reading tasks were chosen because parents and children are familiar with such tasks. After having completed the reading tasks the children were praised for their effort.</p> <p>The difficulty level of tasks 2 and 3 increased as the child moved forward to ensure that the parent had to work with the child on some of the tasks. The coding of behavior was initiated from the beginning of the second task. The recordings of tasks 2 and 3 lasted roughly 20 min. They were divided into intervals of 30 s, and then behavior within each interval was coded. Two coders double coded 35 of the videos. 11 videos were used to develop and fine-tune the coding scheme. 24 videos were used to assess the inter-rater reliability (see results below).</p> <p>We combined data from the video recordings with information on children's reading and writing skills and administrative records of parental background.</p> <p>Table 1 shows descriptive statistics for our study population. Table A1 shows additionally four comparison groups. As one would expect, the sample was positively selected but there was still variation in child background. The sample was quite representative of natives in regular classes in Aarhus, but not of the nationwide population. In our study population 34% of mothers had less than a college degree, while among the mothers of native students in regular classes in Aarhus 46% had less than a college degree compared to 57% in the nationwide population.</p> <p>Table 1. Descriptive Statistics.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td><italic>N</italic> = 122</td><td><italic /></td><td><italic /></td></tr><tr><td>Variable</td><td>Mean</td><td>SD</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><italic>Child</italic></td><td char="."><italic /></td><td char="."><italic /></td></tr><tr><td>Boy (1/0)</td><td char=".">0.53</td><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Children's Age in 2013</td><td char=".">8.11</td><td char=".">0.34</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Parent Assisting in the Video</italic></td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Education<College (1/0)</td><td char=".">0.33</td><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Mom/Stepmom Assisted the Child(1/0) <sup>a</sup></td><td char=".">0.85</td><td char="." /></tr><tr><td><italic>Child's Home Environment</italic></td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Low SES(1/0)<sup>b</sup></td><td char=".">0.19</td><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Living with both Parents(1/0)</td><td char=".">0.83</td><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Parents' Disp. Inc. in 1000 DKK (2012 prices)</td><td char=".">614.96</td><td char=".">310.11</td></tr><tr><td>Parents' Disp. Inc.<30th Percentile(1/0)</td><td char=".">0.16</td><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Mom's Education<College(1/0)</td><td char=".">0.34</td><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Dad's Education<College(1/0)</td><td char=".">0.48</td><td char="." /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Table reports means and std.dev. Variables are measured in 2012. <sups>a</sups>In few cases (≤5), stepmom assisted the child. <sups>b</sups>"Low SES = 1" if at least two of the following conditions held true: (i) Assisting parent had no college, ii) Parents' Disp. Inc.<30th percentile, and (iii) Child did not live with both biological parents.</p> <hd id="AN0153183492-4">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0153183492-5">Parental Involvement</hd> <p>Following Moorman and Pomerantz ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref32">28</reflink>]), we created two subscales for parental involvement, constructive and unconstructive involvement, each of which consisted of three aspects (see Figure 1; Ng et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref33">29</reflink>]; Moorman & Pomerantz, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref34">27</reflink>]).</p> <p> <emph>Constructive involvement</emph> contained three aspects:</p> <hd id="AN0153183492-6">Mastery-oriented Teaching</hd> <p>The extent to which the parent encouraged the child to master the core principles of the task regardless of how he/she performed. This included such practices as teaching the child steps to solve the problems and askhing guiding questions.</p> <hd id="AN0153183492-7">Autonomy Support</hd> <p>The extent to which the parent encouraged or allowed the child´s initiative or choice. This included practices such as permitting the child to complete the task on his/her own, waiting for the child to correct his/her own mistakes and providing silent nods of approval <emph>without</emph> directly expressing an opinion. The coders were told to be aware of whether the child requested that the parent did not interfere.</p> <hd id="AN0153183492-8">Positive Affect</hd> <p>Included encouragement and positive feedback. The parent could both express that something was correct or that something was good. Warmth could also be expressed non-verbally, e.g., if the parent put their arm around the child as a reaction to the child´s behavior.</p> <p> <emph>Unconstructive involvement</emph> contained three aspects:</p> <hd id="AN0153183492-9">Performance-oriented Teaching</hd> <p>The extent to which the parent told the child how to get the right answer, regardless of whether he/she learned how to do the task. This included such practices as demonstrating how to solve the problem but not teaching the child how to do so, and telling the child that an answer was incorrect without providing a rationale.</p> <hd id="AN0153183492-10">Control</hd> <p>The extent to which the parent pressured the child in an intrusive manner, including attempts to regulate the child´s behavior through such practices as directives, commands and orders and taking over. The coders were told to be aware of whether the child requested that the parent took over or provided assistance.</p> <hd id="AN0153183492-11">Negative Affect</hd> <p>The extent to which the parent directed frustration, annoyance, hostility (could be expressed <emph>non-verbally</emph> and <emph>verbally</emph>) toward the child. This included negative feedback.</p> <hd id="AN0153183492-12">Rating Scale</hd> <p>All subdimensions were coded on a 5-point scale taking both frequency and intensity of behavior into account (1 = <emph>extremely low intensity or never occurs</emph>; 5 = <emph>extremely high intensity or very frequently occurs</emph>), see coding scheme in Table B1. A type of behavior that only had a low frequency in an interval could get a high score if this type of behavior showed a high degree of strength and/or duration.</p> <hd id="AN0153183492-13">Inter-rater Reliability and Validity</hd> <p>In accordance with similar studies coding behavior from videos, gamma values were used as a measure of inter-rater reliability as recommended for ordinal data (Goodman & Kruskal, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref35">14</reflink>]). The coding scheme was gradually developed until the two coders coded alike both in terms of gamma values and in terms of the total number of disagreements. The remaining double coded videos were coded following the procedure in Moorman and Pomerantz ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref36">28</reflink>]), such that coders met every second week to discuss all disagreements larger than one point. Gamma values were calculated for doubled coded videos after fine-tuning (24 videos in total) and were in the range 0.97–0.99, see Table B2.</p> <p>To examine external validity of our measures, we computed the mean level for each parent and constructed a correlation matrix, see Table B3. The correlations of the subdimensions generally had same signs (and reasonable magnitudes) compared to existing studies (Moorman & Pomerantz, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref37">27</reflink>]; Ng et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref38">29</reflink>]). However, autonomy support correlated differently with the other subdimensions compared to these studies. Autonomy support is hard to measure in educational settings because it requires that the child is self-regulated (Deci & Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref39">7</reflink>]), and we indeed observed little variation in this subdimension (see Table 2).</p> <p>Table 2. Descriptive Statistics of Parents' Involvement.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td><italic>N</italic> = 122</td><td>Mean Level<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">a</xref></td><td>Share Involvement>1<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Variable</td><td>Average</td><td>SD</td><td>Average</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Any Involvement>1</td><td char=".">–</td><td char=".">–</td><td char=".">.80</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Constructive Involvement</italic></td><td char="."><italic>1.51</italic></td><td char="."><italic>0.22</italic></td><td char="."><italic>.74</italic></td></tr><tr><td>Mastery-Oriented Teaching</td><td char=".">2.04</td><td char=".">0.47</td><td char=".">.64</td></tr><tr><td>Autonomy Support</td><td char=".">1.02</td><td char=".">0.04</td><td char=".">.02</td></tr><tr><td>Positive Affect</td><td char=".">1.47</td><td char=".">0.28</td><td char=".">.39</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Unconstructive Involvement</italic></td><td char="."><italic>1.14</italic></td><td char="."><italic>0.16</italic></td><td char="."><italic>.27</italic></td></tr><tr><td>Performance-Oriented Teaching</td><td char=".">1.24</td><td char=".">0.25</td><td char=".">.19</td></tr><tr><td>Control</td><td char=".">1.16</td><td char=".">0.31</td><td char=".">.11</td></tr><tr><td>Negative Affect</td><td char=".">1.01</td><td char=".">0.03</td><td char=".">.01</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>2 Table shows descriptive statistics for the composite score for parental involvement as well as the two subscales constructive and unconcstructive involvement and the underlying aspects (2x3).</item> <item>3 "Mean Level" refers to the average level of a certain type of involvement throughout the entire video session: 1 = <emph>extremely low intensity or never occurs</emph>; 5 = <emph>extremely high intensity or very frequently occurs</emph>. <sups>b</sups>"Share Involvement>1" refers to the share of the 30 s intervals throughout the entire video session where the parent engaged in a certain type of involvement.</item> </ulist> <p>Due to the magnitude of some of our correlations and the small sample size, results of the factor analysis should be interpreted with caution (Fabrigar et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref40">12</reflink>]). When we followed Moorman and Pomerantz ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref41">28</reflink>]) and conducted a principal component factor analysis with a promax rotation, we found two eigenvectors larger than one accounting for 62% of the total variation. Autonomy support loaded on the first factor together with performance-oriented teaching, control and negative affect, whereas mastery-oriented teaching and positive affect loaded on the second factor (loadings were in the range.53-.90, cross loadings were below the.40 cut-off). The two factors had a close to zero correlation (<emph>ρ</emph> =.02). This analysis suggested that autonomy support behaved differently in our setup. In retrospect, we suspect that it has been hard for coders to distinguish between no involvement and types of autonomy support such as <emph>waiting for the child to correct his own mistakes</emph> and <emph>providing silent nods of approval</emph>. Omitting autonomy support and running a principal axis factor analysis to reveal underlying latent structure gave results in accordance with expectations (results are available upon request).</p> <hd id="AN0153183492-14">Calculation of Parental Involvement</hd> <p>Following Moorman and Pomerantz ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref42">28</reflink>]), we calculated (i) a composite score for parent involvement, (ii) two subscales for constructive and unconstructive involvement, and (iii) scores for six (2 × 3) aspects (see Figure 1). The composite score and the two subscales were calculated as averages of the underlying aspects. Excluding autonomy support from the analyses did not change our results.</p> <p>All measures of parental involvement were calculated both as a mean level and as a share of total behavior. The share of involvement measured the frequency without taking the intensity of behaviors into account. The mean level assumed that the underlying behavior was continuous whereas the share measure distinguished more strictly between the occurrence and absence of a certain type of behavior.</p> <p>Table 2 summarizes types of parental involvement throughout the video session. Consistent with Moorman and Pomerantz ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref43">28</reflink>]), constructive involvement was more common (recorded in 74% of intervals on average) than unconstructive involvement (27% of intervals). The two most frequent types of involvement were mastery-oriented teaching (64%) and positive affect (39%), whereas the least frequent type was negative affect (1%). The descriptive statistics of constructive and unconstructive involvement were comparable with Moorman and Pomerantz ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref44">28</reflink>]), even though they put parents under more pressure by telling them that a task designed to be challenging for older children was age-appropriate and that the child needed to get through the whole task in 15 min. We primarily present results using the share of involvement. However, all analyses have been performed with both measures.</p> <hd id="AN0153183492-15">Parents' SES</hd> <p>We measured low SES as a dummy equal to one if at least two out of the following three conditions were met in 2012: (i) the assisting parent had no college education, (ii) the total disposable income of parents was below the 30th percentile in the population of parents with a second grader in Aarhus, (iii) the child did not live with both biological parents. The two first conditions were essentially like Deckers et al. ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref45">8</reflink>]), but due to the high rate of single-parent households in Denmark combined with high degree of involvement of fathers in broken families, we decided to use an alternative income measure and added a third condition. We defined total disposable income as the sum of the mother's and father's income, regardless of whether they lived together or not (like Humlum et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref46">20</reflink>]). Disposable income was measured as a three year average over the years 2010–2012 using 2012 as the base year. Based on this definition, children living with a college educated single mother (e.g., a nurse or a teacher) were only classified as low SES if the sum of parents' incomes was also low.</p> <p>In total 23 children were categorized as low SES (19%). As a robustness check, we considered the three indicators for each condition (i)-(iii) as alternative measures of "disadvantage". No college education for the assisting parent classified 40 children as disadvantaged, whereas parents not living together and disposable income below the 30th percentile classified 20 and 21 children.</p> <hd id="AN0153183492-16">Pre-test</hd> <p>As a measure of children's initial academic skills, we used children's scores on a writing task measured in the beginning of the school year 2013/14. The writing task was scored on a scale ranging from 0 to 36 using the Narrative Assessment Protocol (NAP) (Justice et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref47">22</reflink>]), which has recently been validated as a measure of writing skills for children in primary school (Andersen et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref48">1</reflink>]); sample mean 12.60 (SD 6.89). It was measured in the same period as the video sessions, but independently of the video sessions. Justice et al. ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref49">22</reflink>]) highlighted the importance of young children's language abilities in predicting later reading abilities and academic performance. This measure was available for 95 of the children in the video sample; and an indicator variable was included for missing values.</p> <hd id="AN0153183492-17">Children's Reading Performance</hd> <p>To measure reading performance half a year later, we used a national reading test in spring 2014 that was mandatory for second graders. Beuchert and Nandrup ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref50">4</reflink>]) concluded that the test scores generally were valid and highly correlated with children's final exam marks in grade 9. A few students had missing test scores corresponding to normal rates of absence. We use the population standardized test score; sample mean 0.56 (SD 0.91). The raw correlation between the written NAP measure and the reading test score was 0.47 for the 95 children where both measures were available.</p> <hd id="AN0153183492-18">Control Variables</hd> <p>We include child's gender, gender of the assisting parent and an indicator for late recording as control variables. "Late-recording" indicates that the video recording was taped shortly after initialization of the first part of the large scale reading intervention, which this study was part of. The variable may capture any potential effect on parents' awareness of good reading practices.</p> <hd id="AN0153183492-19">Empirical Strategy</hd> <p>In the first part of our empirical analyses we examined how parents' SES predicted their involvement by using the following regression model estimated by OLS (and SUREG (Zellner, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref51">43</reflink>]) when considering the different subdimensions separately):</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mi>P</mi><mi>a</mi><mi>r</mi><mi>e</mi><mi>n</mi><mi>t</mi><mi>I</mi><mi>n</mi><mi>v</mi><mi>o</mi><mi>l</mi><mi>v</mi><msub><mi>e</mi><mi>i</mi></msub><mo>=</mo><msub><mtext fontfamily="times">β</mtext><mn>0</mn></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mtext fontfamily="times">β</mtext><mn>1</mn></msub><mi>L</mi><mi>o</mi><mi>w</mi><mspace width="thickmathspace" /><mi>S</mi><mi>E</mi><msub><mi>S</mi><mi>i</mi></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mtext fontfamily="times">β</mtext><mn>2</mn></msub><mi>S</mi><mi>t</mi><mi>d</mi><mo>.</mo><mspace width="thickmathspace" /><mi>W</mi><mi>r</mi><mi>i</mi><mi>t</mi><mi>t</mi><mi>e</mi><mi>n</mi><mspace width="thickmathspace" /><mi>N</mi><mi>A</mi><msub><mi>P</mi><mi>i</mi></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mtext fontfamily="times">β</mtext><mn>3</mn></msub><mi>M</mi><mi>i</mi><mi>s</mi><mi>s</mi><mi>i</mi><mi>n</mi><mi>g</mi><mspace width="thickmathspace" /><mi>N</mi><mi>A</mi><msub><mi>P</mi><mi>i</mi></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mrow><mi mathvariant="bold-italic">X</mi></mrow><mi>i</mi></msub><mrow><mi mathvariant="bold-italic">δ</mi></mrow><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>ϵ</mi><mi>i</mi></msub></math> </ephtml> </p> <p>where</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mi>P</mi><mi>a</mi><mi>r</mi><mi>e</mi><mi>n</mi><mi>t</mi><mi>I</mi><mi>n</mi><mi>v</mi><mi>o</mi><mi>l</mi><mi>v</mi><msub><mi>e</mi><mi>i</mi></msub></math> </ephtml> refers to the different measures of parents' involvement, and</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mrow><mi mathvariant="bold-italic">X</mi></mrow><mi>i</mi></msub></math> </ephtml> is a vector of the control variables described above.</p> <p>In the second part of the analyses, we examined how parents' SES and involvement predicted children's reading performance using the following model:</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mtable columnalign="right left" rowspacing=".5em" columnspacing="thickmathspace"><mtr><mtd><mi>S</mi><mi>t</mi><mi>d</mi><mo>.</mo><mspace width="thickmathspace" /><mi>r</mi><mi>e</mi><mi>a</mi><mi>d</mi><mi>i</mi><mi>n</mi><mi>g</mi><mspace width="thickmathspace" /><mi>S</mi><mi>c</mi><mi>o</mi><mi>r</mi><mi>e</mi><msub><mi>s</mi><mi>i</mi></msub></mtd><mtd><mo>=</mo><msub><mtext fontfamily="times">β</mtext><mn>0</mn></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mtext fontfamily="times">β</mtext><mn>1</mn></msub><mi>L</mi><mi>o</mi><mi>w</mi><mspace width="thickmathspace" /><mi>S</mi><mi>E</mi><msub><mi>S</mi><mi>i</mi></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mtext fontfamily="times">β</mtext><mn>2</mn></msub><mi>S</mi><mi>t</mi><mi>d</mi><mo>.</mo><mspace width="thickmathspace" /><mi>W</mi><mi>r</mi><mi>i</mi><mi>t</mi><mi>t</mi><mi>e</mi><mi>n</mi><mspace width="thickmathspace" /><mi>N</mi><mi>A</mi><msub><mi>P</mi><mi>i</mi></msub></mtd></mtr><mtr><mtd /><mtd><mo>+</mo><msub><mtext fontfamily="times">β</mtext><mn>3</mn></msub><mi>M</mi><mi>i</mi><mi>s</mi><mi>s</mi><mi>i</mi><mi>n</mi><mi>g</mi><mspace width="thickmathspace" /><mi>N</mi><mi>A</mi><msub><mi>P</mi><mi>i</mi></msub><mo>+</mo><mo>...</mo><mo>...</mo><mo>+</mo><msub><mrow><mi mathvariant="bold-italic">X</mi></mrow><mi>i</mi></msub><mrow><mi mathvariant="bold-italic">δ</mi></mrow><mo>+</mo><mrow><mi mathvariant="bold-italic">P</mi><mi>a</mi><mi>r</mi><mi>e</mi><mi>n</mi><mi>t</mi><mi>I</mi><mi>n</mi><mi>v</mi><mi>o</mi><mi>l</mi><mi>v</mi></mrow><msub><mrow><mi mathvariant="bold-italic">e</mi></mrow><mi>i</mi></msub><mrow><mi mathvariant="bold-italic">θ</mi></mrow><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>ϵ</mi><mi>i</mi></msub></mtd></mtr></mtable></math> </ephtml> </p> <p>where</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><mi mathvariant="bold-italic">P</mi><mi>a</mi><mi>r</mi><mi>e</mi><mi>n</mi><mi>t</mi><mi>I</mi><mi>n</mi><mi>v</mi><mi>o</mi><mi>l</mi><mi>v</mi></mrow><msub><mrow><mi mathvariant="bold-italic">e</mi></mrow><mi>i</mi></msub></math> </ephtml> is a vector of the parent involvement measures. Different subsets of the parent involvement measures were included in different specifications. The model was estimated by OLS.</p> <p>To assess whether parental involvement partially mediated the relationship between parental SES and children's reading performance in the national test, we used Baron and Kenny ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref52">3</reflink>])'s method. To test whether the strength of the relationship between predictor and the outcome was reduced significantly when the mediator was added, we evaluated Sobel ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref53">37</reflink>])'s test statistic against the bias-corrected 95% bootstrap confidence interval as recommended by Shrout and Bolger ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref54">35</reflink>]) for small samples. Analyses were conducted in STATA.</p> <hd id="AN0153183492-20">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0153183492-21">What Predicted Parental Involvement?</hd> <p>First, we examined how parents' SES predicted their involvement and the different aspects of involvement. In Table 3, Models 1–2, we see that low-SES parents got involved in 11 percentage point more of the intervals than other parents even when controlling for the full vector of covariates. As expected parents generally got involved less when their child had higher initial academic skills as measured by the written NAP, though this was not statistically significant.</p> <p>Table 3. Parental Involvement.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td><italic>N</italic> = 122</td><td>Involvement (%)</td><td>Constructive (%)</td><td>Unconstructive (%)</td></tr><tr><td /><td>(1)</td><td>(2)</td><td>(3)</td><td>(4)</td><td>(5)</td><td>(6)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Low SES(1/0)</td><td char=".">13.88**</td><td char=".">11.49**</td><td char=".">7.16*</td><td char=".">6.02</td><td char=".">24.10**</td><td char=".">17.19**</td></tr><tr><td char=".">(3.00)</td><td char=".">(3.44)</td><td char=".">(3.35)</td><td char=".">(3.89)</td><td char=".">(6.45)</td><td char=".">(6.49)</td></tr><tr><td>Child is a Boy(1/0)</td><td char=".">2.63</td><td char=".">1.70</td><td char=".">1.62</td><td char=".">1.14</td><td char=".">6.21†</td><td char=".">3.37</td></tr><tr><td char=".">(3.08)</td><td char=".">(3.13)</td><td char=".">(3.14)</td><td char=".">(3.25)</td><td char=".">(3.66)</td><td char=".">(3.34)</td></tr><tr><td>Std. Written NAP</td><td char="." /><td char=".">−3.07</td><td char="." /><td char=".">−1.53</td><td char="." /><td char=".">−9.18**</td></tr><tr><td><bold /></td><td char="." /><td char=".">(1.94)</td><td char="." /><td char=".">(2.05)</td><td char="." /><td char=".">(2.21)</td></tr><tr><td>NAP Missing(1/0)</td><td char="." /><td char=".">1.34</td><td char="." /><td char=".">0.12</td><td char="." /><td char=".">1.03</td></tr><tr><td><bold /></td><td char="." /><td char=".">(4.06)</td><td char="." /><td char=".">(4.41)</td><td char="." /><td char=".">(4.61)</td></tr><tr><td>Mom/Stepmom(1/0)</td><td char=".">−1.42</td><td char=".">−0.53</td><td char=".">−0.71</td><td char=".">−0.27</td><td char=".">−3.25</td><td char=".">−0.61</td></tr><tr><td char=".">(4.86)</td><td char=".">(4.98)</td><td char=".">(4.94)</td><td char=".">(5.08)</td><td char=".">(5.24)</td><td char=".">(5.16)</td></tr><tr><td>Late Recording(1/0)<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn5">a</xref></td><td char=".">3.45</td><td char=".">3.05</td><td char=".">4.85</td><td char=".">4.70</td><td char=".">−6.41†</td><td char=".">−7.33*</td></tr><tr><td><bold /></td><td char=".">(3.17)</td><td char=".">(3.23)</td><td char=".">(3.26)</td><td char=".">(3.35)</td><td char=".">(3.38)</td><td char=".">(3.25)</td></tr><tr><td>Constant</td><td char=".">75.79**</td><td char=".">74.66**</td><td char=".">71.43**</td><td char=".">70.97**</td><td char=".">23.97**</td><td char=".">21.17**</td></tr><tr><td char=".">(4.72)</td><td char=".">(4.96)</td><td char=".">(4.85)</td><td char=".">(5.05)</td><td char=".">(4.76)</td><td char=".">(4.91)</td></tr><tr><td>Mean % Involvement</td><td char=".">79.62</td><td char=".">74.47</td><td char=".">27.16</td></tr><tr><td>Adj. R-Squared</td><td char=".">.08</td><td char=".">.09</td><td char=".">.01</td><td char=".">-.01</td><td char=".">.22</td><td char=".">.31</td></tr><tr><td>Chi-Squared</td><td char=".">23.62**</td><td char=".">31.88**</td><td char=".">5.63</td><td char=".">7.12</td><td char=".">23.58**</td><td char=".">42.69**</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>4 Table shows OLS coefficient estimates. Bootstrapped standard errors in parentheses (1000 repetitions). †<emph>p</emph>-value <.10 *<emph>p</emph>-value <.05 **<emph>p</emph>-value <.01.</item> <item>5 "Late recording = 1" if the parent-child pairs were part of the treatment group and the video recording was taped after the initialization of the first part of the treatment.</item> </ulist> <p>Models 3–6 in Table 3 broke down the overall involvement into constructive and unconstructive involvement. Parents with a low SES had a higher percentage of constructive involvement, but it was not statistically significant when we controlled for children's NAP score. Generally, we could not properly explain the variation in constructive involvement with our covariates. Looking at unconstructive involvement, there were clear statistically significant differences across SES: parents with a low SES had a higher percentage of unconstructive involvement. Additionally, children's initial skills were also strongly associated with less unconstructive involvement.</p> <p>In Table 4 we regressed the subdimensions of involvement on covariates to see what types of behavior drove the differences across parental SES found in Table 3. The estimates were obtained using a small sample version of SUREG, which yielded the same coefficient estimates as OLS but allowed for correlation of error-terms within individuals across subdimensions by estimating the six equations simultaneously (Zellner, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref55">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>Table 4. Parental Involvement – Subdimensions (%).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td><italic>CONSTRUCTIVE</italic></td><td><italic>UNCONSTRUCTIVE</italic></td></tr><tr><td><italic>N</italic> = 122</td><td><italic>Mastery Oriented</italic></td><td><italic>Autonomy Support</italic></td><td><italic>Positive Affect</italic></td><td><italic>Performance Oriented</italic></td><td><italic>Control</italic></td><td><italic>Negative Affect</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Low SES(1/0)</td><td char=".">4.41</td><td char=".">1.60*</td><td char=".">−0.14</td><td char=".">8.64*</td><td char=".">13.10**</td><td char=".">1.85**</td></tr><tr><td char=".">(4.52)</td><td char=".">(0.75)</td><td char=".">(5.03)</td><td char=".">(3.77)</td><td char=".">(3.92)</td><td char=".">(0.69)</td></tr><tr><td>Child is a Boy(1/0)</td><td char=".">3.11</td><td char=".">1.12*</td><td char=".">−2.96</td><td char=".">1.90</td><td char=".">2.71</td><td char=".">−0.00</td></tr><tr><td char=".">(3.33)</td><td char=".">(0.55)</td><td char=".">(3.70)</td><td char=".">(2.77)</td><td char=".">(2.88)</td><td char=".">(0.51)</td></tr><tr><td>Std. Written NAP</td><td char=".">−3.74†</td><td char=".">0.17</td><td char=".">1.73</td><td char=".">−5.74**</td><td char=".">−5.01**</td><td char=".">−0.32</td></tr><tr><td><bold /></td><td char=".">(1.98)</td><td char=".">(0.33)</td><td char=".">(2.21)</td><td char=".">(1.66)</td><td char=".">(1.72)</td><td char=".">(0.30)</td></tr><tr><td>NAP Missing(1/0)</td><td char=".">2.46</td><td char=".">−0.52</td><td char=".">0.95</td><td char=".">4.48</td><td char=".">−4.11</td><td char=".">−0.83</td></tr><tr><td><bold /></td><td char=".">(3.83)</td><td char=".">(0.64)</td><td char=".">(4.26)</td><td char=".">(3.19)</td><td char=".">(3.32)</td><td char=".">(0.58)</td></tr><tr><td>Mom/Stepmom(1/0)</td><td char=".">1.85</td><td char=".">0.53</td><td char=".">3.12</td><td char=".">3.50</td><td char=".">−5.68</td><td char=".">−0.73</td></tr><tr><td char=".">(4.51)</td><td char=".">(0.75)</td><td char=".">(5.01)</td><td char=".">(3.76)</td><td char=".">(3.91)</td><td char=".">(0.69)</td></tr><tr><td>Late Recording(1/0)<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">a</xref></td><td char=".">2.78</td><td char=".">−0.15</td><td char=".">4.63</td><td char=".">−6.14*</td><td char=".">−2.54</td><td char=".">−0.12</td></tr><tr><td><bold /></td><td char=".">(3.57)</td><td char=".">(0.59)</td><td char=".">(3.97)</td><td char=".">(2.98)</td><td char=".">(3.10)</td><td char=".">(0.54)</td></tr><tr><td>Constant</td><td char=".">56.74**</td><td char=".">0.55</td><td char=".">37.06**</td><td char=".">11.88**</td><td char=".">11.72**</td><td char=".">1.51*</td></tr><tr><td char=".">(4.62)</td><td char=".">(0.77)</td><td char=".">(5.13)</td><td char=".">(3.85)</td><td char=".">(4.01)</td><td char=".">(0.70)</td></tr><tr><td>Mean % Involvement</td><td char=".">63.56</td><td char=".">1.68</td><td char=".">39.05</td><td char=".">18.82</td><td char=".">10.99</td><td char=".">1.13</td></tr><tr><td>R-Squared</td><td char=".">.08</td><td char=".">.11</td><td char=".">.03</td><td char=".">.27</td><td char=".">.27</td><td char=".">.12</td></tr><tr><td>F-Statistic</td><td char=".">1.75</td><td char=".">2.26</td><td char=".">0.65</td><td char=".">6.93**</td><td char=".">7.02**</td><td char=".">2.62†</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>6 Table shows SUREG coefficient estimates to allow for correlations between the same individuals across the different sub-dimensions. We use a small sample version of SUREG and the dfr-adjustment to make estimates comparable with OLS. Standard errors in parentheses. †<emph>p</emph>-value <.10 *<emph>p</emph>-value <.05 **<emph>p</emph>-value <.01.</item> <item>7 "Late-recording" = 1 if the parent-child pairs were part of the treatment group and the video recording was taped after the initialization of the first part of the treatment.</item> </ulist> <p>As expected, the results showed that low-SES parents were more involved in unconstructive ways: performance-oriented teaching, control and negative affect. More surprisingly, they were also observed to provide more autonomy support, but because we worried we might not measure this dimension correctly (as discussed earlier), this should not be given too much emphasis.</p> <p>We obtained similar results when constructive and unconstructive involvement and the subdimensions were measured as the standardized mean level rather than as a fraction of intervals characterized by this type of involvement (results available on request). The only difference was that the SES difference in constructive involvement was no longer statistically significant in the specification excluding the NAP measure. Interestingly, this indicated that low-SES parents must have had a lower intensity of constructive involvement, when they did get involved in a constructive way.</p> <hd id="AN0153183492-22">Parental Involvement and Children's Reading Performances</hd> <p>As a next step, we examined how parents' SES and involvement predicted the reading performance of their children. Results in Table 5 confirmed the existence of a strong SES gradient as found in other studies: Children with low SES performed 0.82 of a standard deviation worse than children with high SES (Model 1). Controlling for the measure for children's prior skills reduced the coefficient slightly, but it remained statistically significant (Model 2).</p> <p>Table 5. Std. Reading Score 2014.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td><italic>N</italic> = 122<sup>a</sup></td><td>(1)</td><td>(2)</td><td>(3)</td><td>(4)</td><td>(5)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Low SES(1/0)</td><td char=".">−0.82**</td><td char=".">−0.69**</td><td char="." /><td char=".">−0.49*</td><td char=".">−0.41†</td></tr><tr><td char=".">(0.24)</td><td char=".">(0.25)</td><td char="." /><td char=".">(0.21)</td><td char=".">(0.22)</td></tr><tr><td>Share Parental Involvement>1</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">−2.99**</td><td char=".">−2.51**</td><td char=".">−2.42**</td></tr><tr><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">(0.34)</td><td char=".">(0.35)</td><td char=".">(0.33)</td></tr><tr><td>Child is a Boy(1/0)</td><td char=".">−0.45**</td><td char=".">−0.41*</td><td char="." /><td char=".">−0.37**</td><td char=".">−0.35*</td></tr><tr><td char=".">(0.15)</td><td char=".">(0.16)</td><td char="." /><td char=".">(0.14)</td><td char=".">(0.14)</td></tr><tr><td>Std. Written NAP</td><td char="." /><td char=".">0.14*</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">0.08</td></tr><tr><td><bold /></td><td char="." /><td char=".">(0.09)</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">(0.08)</td></tr><tr><td>Missing NAP(1/0)</td><td char="." /><td char=".">−0.30</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">−0.26</td></tr><tr><td char="." /><td char=".">(0.20)</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">(0.16)</td></tr><tr><td>Mom/Stepmom(1/0)</td><td char=".">−0.02</td><td char=".">−0.07</td><td char="." /><td char=".">−0.05</td><td char=".">−0.08</td></tr><tr><td /><td char=".">(0.20)</td><td char=".">(0.20)</td><td char="." /><td char=".">(0.17)</td><td char=".">(0.16)</td></tr><tr><td>Late Recording(1/0)<sup>b</sup></td><td char=".">0.18</td><td char=".">0.21</td><td char="." /><td char=".">0.25†</td><td char=".">0.28*</td></tr><tr><td /><td char=".">(0.15)</td><td char=".">(0.14)</td><td char="." /><td char=".">(0.14)</td><td char=".">(0.13)</td></tr><tr><td>Constant</td><td char=".">0.91**</td><td char=".">0.95**</td><td char=".">2.93**</td><td char=".">2.80**</td><td char=".">2.78**</td></tr><tr><td><bold /></td><td char=".">(0.19)</td><td char=".">(0.19)</td><td char=".">(0.24)</td><td char=".">(0.27)</td><td char=".">(0.27)</td></tr><tr><td>Adj. R-Squared</td><td char=".">.22</td><td char=".">.24</td><td char=".">.31</td><td char=".">.42</td><td char=".">.43</td></tr><tr><td>Chi-Squared<sup>c</sup></td><td char=".">39.44**</td><td char=".">49.01**</td><td char=".">78.08**</td><td char=".">120.66**</td><td char=".">120.50**</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>8 Table shows OLS coefficient estimates. Bootstrapped standard errors in parentheses (1000 repetitions). †<emph>p</emph>-value <.10 *<emph>p</emph>-value <.05 **<emph>p</emph>-value <.01<emph>.</emph><sups>a</sups>A few children have missing test score (≤5). <sups>b</sups>"Late-recording" = 1 if the parent-child pairs were a part of the treatment group and the video recording was taped after the initialization of the first part of the treatment. <sups>c</sups>Based on a Wald test using the replication based covariance matrix from bootstrapping.</p> <p>Model 3 showed that overall parental involvement negatively predicted the child's reading score. Model 4 showed that including parental involvement in the model reduced the coefficient for low SES by 40% compared to Model 1. This was more than twice the reduction when including the NAP measure. These results indicated that parental involvement could be a potential mechanism behind the strong SES gradient in reading scores. This was further supported by the fact that overall parental involvement was negatively correlated with children's academic performance even when controlling for prior skills (NAP) in Model 5.</p> <p>In Table 6, we examined the two components of involvement separately. Models 1–2 were identical to Models 1–2 in Table 5 and merely presented for comparison. As expected, unconstructive involvement was negatively related to test scores (Model 3) and reduced the coefficient of low SES (Model 1 vs. 4) substantially—about 40%— and more so than did constructive involvement (Model 1 vs. 7; 18%). Thus, the reduction of the coefficient of low SES when including overall involvement was driven by unconstructive involvement. This result was consistent with the results in Table 3 showing that SES correlated the most with unconstructive involvement. More surprisingly, we see that constructive involvement was also negatively and significantly correlated with test scores (Model 6)—also when controlling for parents' SES and children's skills (Model 8). One explanation could be that both types of parental involvement were reactions to children's low skills – in ways that are not accounted for by our measure of prior writing skills. Yet, when including constructive involvement, our coefficient of the NAP score only declined from 0.14–0.12 and the dummy for missing NAP score was statistically significant at the 10% significance level. In comparison, the inclusion of unconstructive involvement reduced the coefficient of NAP to 0.02 and both the NAP score and the dummy for missing NAP score were statistically insignificant. This suggests that constructive involvement was not strongly correlated with children's skills, and that the type of constructive parental involvement we studied was not so helpful for children's reading performance. However, it is still possible that constructive involvement is correlated with some dimensions of children's initial skills not captured by the NAP score but relevant for the national test and the task. Remember that a part of the task was based on problems similar to the ones used in the national test and it is thus likely that the task is more closely related to the national test than the NAP. We return to the discussion of the interpretation.</p> <p>Table 6. Std. Reading Score 2014.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td><italic>N</italic> = 122<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td /><td>(1)</td><td>(2)</td><td>(3)</td><td>(4)</td><td>(5)</td><td>(6)</td><td>(7)</td><td>(8)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Low SES(1/0)</td><td char=".">−0.82**</td><td char=".">−0.69**</td><td char="." /><td char=".">−0.49*</td><td char=".">−0.46*</td><td char="." /><td char=".">−0.67**</td><td char=".">−0.55*</td></tr><tr><td char=".">(0.24)</td><td char=".">(0.25)</td><td char="." /><td char=".">(0.22)</td><td char=".">(0.22)</td><td char="." /><td char=".">(0.22)</td><td char=".">(0.23)</td></tr><tr><td>Share Unconstructive Involvement>1</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">−2.08**</td><td char=".">−1.51**</td><td char=".">−1.45**</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">(0.33)</td><td char=".">(0.37)</td><td char=".">(0.40)</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Share Constructive Involvement>1</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">−2.51**</td><td char=".">−2.24**</td><td char=".">−2.20**</td></tr><tr><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">(0.39)</td><td char=".">(0.37)</td><td char=".">(0.37)</td></tr><tr><td>Child is a Boy(1/0)</td><td char=".">−0.45**</td><td char=".">−0.41*</td><td char="." /><td char=".">−0.35*</td><td char=".">−0.35*</td><td char="." /><td char=".">−0.40**</td><td char=".">−0.37*</td></tr><tr><td /><td char=".">(0.15)</td><td char=".">(0.16)</td><td char="." /><td char=".">(0.14)</td><td char=".">(0.15)</td><td char="." /><td char=".">(0.14)</td><td char=".">(0.15)</td></tr><tr><td>Std. Written NAP</td><td char="." /><td char=".">0.14*</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">0.02</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">0.12</td></tr><tr><td char="." /><td char=".">(0.09)</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">(0.09)</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">(0.08)</td></tr><tr><td>Missing NAP(1/0)</td><td char="." /><td char=".">−0.30</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">−0.28</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">−0.29†</td></tr><tr><td char="." /><td char=".">(0.20)</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">(0.19)</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">(0.16)</td></tr><tr><td>Mom/Stepmom(1/0)</td><td char=".">−0.02</td><td char=".">−0.07</td><td char="." /><td char=".">−0.04</td><td char=".">−0.05</td><td char="." /><td char=".">−0.04</td><td char=".">−0.08</td></tr><tr><td><bold /></td><td char=".">(0.20)</td><td char=".">(0.20)</td><td char="." /><td char=".">(0.20)</td><td char=".">(0.19)</td><td char="." /><td char=".">(0.16)</td><td char=".">(0.16)</td></tr><tr><td>Late Recording(1/0)<sup>b</sup></td><td char=".">0.18</td><td char=".">0.21</td><td char="." /><td char=".">0.07</td><td char=".">0.10</td><td char="." /><td char=".">0.27†</td><td char=".">0.30*</td></tr><tr><td char=".">(0.15)</td><td char=".">(0.14)</td><td char="." /><td char=".">(0.14)</td><td char=".">(0.14)</td><td char="." /><td char=".">(0.14)</td><td char=".">(0.14)</td></tr><tr><td>Constant</td><td char=".">0.91**</td><td char=".">0.95**</td><td char=".">1.11**</td><td char=".">1.25**</td><td char=".">1.29**</td><td char=".">2.42**</td><td char=".">2.51**</td><td char=".">2.52**</td></tr><tr><td /><td char=".">(0.19)</td><td char=".">(0.19)</td><td char=".">(0.10)</td><td char=".">(0.20)</td><td char=".">(0.20)</td><td char=".">(0.27)</td><td char=".">(0.28)</td><td char=".">(0.28)</td></tr><tr><td>Adj. R-Squared</td><td char=".">.22</td><td char=".">.24</td><td char=".">.26</td><td char=".">.33</td><td char=".">.33</td><td char=".">.22</td><td char=".">.39</td><td char=".">.41</td></tr><tr><td>Chi-Squared<sup>c</sup></td><td char=".">39.44**</td><td char=".">49.01**</td><td char=".">38.70**</td><td char=".">55.30**</td><td char=".">50.97**</td><td char=".">40.79**</td><td char=".">102.34**</td><td char=".">106.00**</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>9 Table shows OLS coefficient estimates. Bootstrapped standard errors in parentheses (1000 repetitions). †<emph>p</emph>-value <.10 *<emph>p</emph>-value <.05 **<emph>p</emph>-value <.01<emph>.</emph><sups>a</sups>A few children have missing test score (≤5). <sups>b</sups>"Late-recording" = 1 if the parent-child pairs were a part of the treatment group and the video recording was taped after the initialization of the first part of the treatment. <sups>c</sups>Based on a Wald test using the replication based covariance matrix from bootstrapping.</p> <p>In Table 7, the different subdimensions were included separately and simultaneously with our full vector of control variables. All subdimensions were negatively associated with children's reading performance when included separately, but autonomy support and negative affect were not statistically significant. Both these types of parental involvement showed only little variation (cf. Table 2), which might explain the statistical insignificance. This suggested that it was all and not only a few types of parental involvement that were negatively associated with children's reading performance. When all six subdimensions were included simultaneously, positive affect and performance-oriented teaching survived as statistically significant. Measuring the different types of involvement as the standardized mean did not change the results in Tables 6 and 7.</p> <p>Table 7. Std. Reading Score 2014.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td><italic>N</italic> = 122<sup>a</sup></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>(1)</td><td>(2)</td><td>(3)</td><td>(4)</td><td>(5)</td><td>(6)</td><td>(7)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Low SES(1/0)</td><td char=".">−0.59*</td><td char=".">−0.62**</td><td char=".">−0.69**</td><td char=".">−0.52*</td><td char=".">−0.56*</td><td char=".">−0.68**</td><td char=".">−0.44*</td></tr><tr><td char=".">(0.24)</td><td char=".">(0.24)</td><td char=".">(0.24)</td><td char=".">(0.25)</td><td char=".">(0.22)</td><td char=".">(0.26)</td><td char=".">(0.22)</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Constructive Involvement</italic></td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Share Mastery Oriented>1</td><td char=".">−1.89**</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">−0.69</td></tr><tr><td char=".">(0.45)</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">(0.57)</td></tr><tr><td>Share Autonomy Support>1</td><td char="." /><td char=".">−4.67</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">−3.91</td></tr><tr><td /><td char="." /><td char=".">(2.98)</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">(2.50)</td></tr><tr><td>Share Positive Affect>1</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">−1.65**</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">−1.25**</td></tr><tr><td /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">(0.33)</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">(0.37)</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Unconstructive Involvement</italic></td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Share Performance Oriented>1</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">−1.82**</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">−1.12*</td></tr><tr><td /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">(0.61)</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">(0.56)</td></tr><tr><td>Share Control>1</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">−1.23*</td><td char="." /><td char=".">−0.55</td></tr><tr><td /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">(0.63)</td><td char="." /><td char=".">(0.80)</td></tr><tr><td>Share Negative Affect>1</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">−0.55</td><td char=".">0.24</td></tr><tr><td /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">(3.15)</td><td char=".">(3.81)</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Background Variables</italic></td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Child is a Boy(1/0)</td><td char=".">−0.33*</td><td char=".">−0.35*</td><td char=".">−0.45**</td><td char=".">−0.36*</td><td char=".">−0.38*</td><td char=".">−0.41*</td><td char=".">−0.33*</td></tr><tr><td /><td char=".">(0.16)</td><td char=".">(0.16)</td><td char=".">(0.15)</td><td char=".">(0.15)</td><td char=".">(0.16)</td><td char=".">(0.17)</td><td char=".">(0.15)</td></tr><tr><td>Std. Written NAP</td><td char=".">0.09</td><td char=".">0.15†</td><td char=".">0.18*</td><td char=".">0.05</td><td char=".">0.09</td><td char=".">0.14</td><td char=".">0.07</td></tr><tr><td char=".">(0.09)</td><td char=".">(0.09)</td><td char=".">(0.08)</td><td char=".">(0.09)</td><td char=".">(0.09)</td><td char=".">(0.09)</td><td char=".">(0.08)</td></tr><tr><td>Missing NAP(1/0)</td><td char=".">−0.25</td><td char=".">−0.33</td><td char=".">−0.28†</td><td char=".">−0.22</td><td char=".">−0.35†</td><td char=".">−0.31</td><td char=".">−0.25</td></tr><tr><td char=".">(0.16)</td><td char=".">(0.20)</td><td char=".">(0.17)</td><td char=".">(0.18)</td><td char=".">(0.20)</td><td char=".">(0.20)</td><td char=".">(0.16)</td></tr><tr><td>Mom/Stepmom(1/0)</td><td char=".">−0.06</td><td char=".">−0.04</td><td char=".">−0.01</td><td char=".">−0.02</td><td char=".">−0.09</td><td char=".">−0.07</td><td char=".">0.02</td></tr><tr><td><bold /></td><td char=".">(0.15)</td><td char=".">(0.20)</td><td char=".">(0.17)</td><td char=".">(0.18)</td><td char=".">(0.20)</td><td char=".">(0.20)</td><td char=".">(0.17)</td></tr><tr><td>Late Recording(1/0)<sup>b</sup></td><td char=".">0.25†</td><td char=".">0.21</td><td char=".">0.29*</td><td char=".">0.09</td><td char=".">0.18</td><td char=".">0.21</td><td char=".">0.19</td></tr><tr><td><bold /></td><td char=".">(0.14)</td><td char=".">(0.14)</td><td char=".">(0.13)</td><td char=".">(0.13)</td><td char=".">(0.15)</td><td char=".">(0.14)</td><td char=".">(0.14)</td></tr><tr><td>Constant</td><td char=".">2.07**</td><td char=".">0.97**</td><td char=".">1.54**</td><td char=".">1.22**</td><td char=".">1.08**</td><td char=".">0.96**</td><td char=".">2.04**</td></tr><tr><td /><td char=".">(0.28)</td><td char=".">(0.19)</td><td char=".">(0.19)</td><td char=".">(0.19)</td><td char=".">(0.20)</td><td char=".">(0.19)</td><td char=".">(0.27)</td></tr><tr><td>Adj. R-Squared</td><td char=".">.36</td><td char=".">.26</td><td char=".">.36</td><td char=".">.32</td><td char=".">.27</td><td char=".">.24</td><td char=".">.44</td></tr><tr><td>Chi-Squared<sup>c</sup></td><td char=".">88.98**</td><td char=".">46.97**</td><td char=".">71.77**</td><td char=".">47.27**</td><td char=".">49.17**</td><td char=".">47.73**</td><td char=".">117.19**</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>10 Table shows OLS coefficient estimates. Bootstrapped standard errors in parentheses (1000 repetitions). †<emph>p</emph>-value <.10 *<emph>p</emph>-value <.05 **<emph>p</emph>-value <.01<emph>.</emph><sups>a</sups>A few children have missing test score (≤5). <sups>b</sups>"Late-recording" = 1 if the parent-child pairs were a part of the treatment group and the video recording was taped after the initialization of the first part of the treatment. <sups>c</sups>Based on a Wald test using the replication based covariance matrix from bootstrapping.</p> <p>Taken together these results indicated that low-SES parents were more engaged in unconstructive involvement and that this could explain some of the relationship between SES and children's academic performance (even after controlling for prior skills). In Table 8 we formally test whether unconstructive involvement was a partial mediator between SES and children's academic performance using Sobel ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref56">37</reflink>])'s test. Models 1–4 showed that unconstructive involvement seemed to partially mediate the relationship between parents' SES and children's reading performance. After controlling for NAP, unconstructive involvement mediated one-third of the association between parental SES and reading performance. The results in Tables 4 and 7 further suggested that performance-oriented teaching and controlling behavior were the main drivers behind this result (see also Table C1).</p> <p>Table 8. Sobel's Test of Mediation.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td><italic>N</italic> = 122<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Is Low SES Mediated by Unconstructive Involvement?</td></tr><tr><td /><td>(1)</td><td>(2)</td><td>(3)</td><td>(4)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>% Mediated</td><td>42.48</td><td>42.07</td><td>40.72</td><td>33.34</td></tr><tr><td>Mediator Effect</td><td>−0.42**</td><td>−0.37**</td><td>−0.34**</td><td>−0.23†</td></tr><tr><td><bold /></td><td>(0.13)</td><td>(0.13)</td><td>(0.12)</td><td>(0.12)</td></tr><tr><td>Bootstrap 95% CI (BC)</td><td>[−0.75;−0.22]</td><td>[−0.7;−0.15]</td><td>[−0.66;−0.13]</td><td>[−0.54;−0.07]</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Controlling for</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Child Gender</td><td>NO</td><td>YES</td><td>YES</td><td>YES</td></tr><tr><td>Parent Gender & Late Recording</td><td>NO</td><td>NO</td><td>YES</td><td>YES</td></tr><tr><td>Std. NAP Score</td><td>NO</td><td>NO</td><td>NO</td><td>YES</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>11 Table shows Sobel's test of mediation. Only observations with info about the children's test score were used. Bootstrapped standard errors in parentheses. Bootstrapped bias-corrected confidence intervals in squared parentheses (1000 repetitions). <emph>P</emph>-values created using bootstrapped standard errors but evaluated at the standard normal distribution. Confidence intervals emerged from resampling from the empirical distribution. †<emph>p</emph>-value <.10 *<emph>p</emph>-value <.05 **<emph>p</emph>-value <.01<emph>.</emph><sups>a</sups>A few children have missing test score (≤5).</p> <p>We did not find that the level of constructive involvement was significantly different between low- and high-SES parents when controlling for the NAP measure (see Table 3) or when measuring constructive involvement as the standardized mean, so that mode of involvement did not seem to be a mediator between SES and child performance. Yet, we found that constructive involvement also predicted children's readings skills. We discuss the implications of these results in the final section.</p> <hd id="AN0153183492-23">Robustness Analyses</hd> <p>As a first set of robustness checks, we replicated our analyses with alternative measures of low SES. In Tables C2–5, we applied the three indicators used to construct low SES as separate measures of disadvantage: low education, parents not living together and parents' income below 30th percentile. Table C2 replicates the results from Table 3 and shows that each of the alternative measures of disadvantage were associated with more involvement and in particular more unconstructive involvement, although coefficients were not always statistically significant when we controlled for children's NAP scores. Tables C3–5 replicate the results from Table 6 and show that unconstructive involvement reduced the coefficients to the indicators for disadvantage substantially (Model 1 vs. 4), and more so than constructive involvement did (Model 1 vs. 7). Including unconstructive involvement reduced the coefficient to the disadvantaged group more (Model 1 vs. 4) than when including the NAP measure (Model 1 vs. 2), however the estimated coefficients for income below the 30th percentile were not statistically or practically significant when including the NAP measure. To conclude, results were largely robust when using cruder measures of disadvantage relying on less information about children's background. It appeared that low education and parents not living together were the main drivers behind the findings for the low SES measure in our main results.</p> <p>As a second set of robustness checks, we reran all baseline specifications including different sets of additional control variables. One concern was children's skills not captured by the NAP. Therefore, we added a dummy for late school start as an additional measure of children's academic skills (sample mean 0.11). The test score regressions were largely unchanged but not parental involvement. Late school start was statistically significant and positive indicating that additional dimensions of children's academic skills or children's maturity might be important in explaining why some parents were more unconstructively involved than others (Table C6). Other concerns were systematic differences across research assistants, time of the day, parents' age and number of siblings. When these additional control variables were added, significant mediation effects persisted indicating that between 33%-42% of the total effect of low SES on children's reading performance was mediated by unconstructive involvement (Table C7).</p> <hd id="AN0153183492-24">Discussion</hd> <p>It is well established that there is a strong SES gradient in children's academic performance (Beuchert & Nandrup, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref57">4</reflink>]; Magnuson et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref58">26</reflink>]). Research has also demonstrated a relationship between parental involvement and children's motivation and performance (e.g., Moorman & Pomerantz, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref59">28</reflink>]). However, it is yet unclear what high-SES parents do differently compared to low-SES parents (if anything) and what role parental involvement and parent–child interactions play for the SES gradient. Previous research suggests that high-educated parents spend more time with their children, they spend more high-quality time and more time on developmental activities (such as teaching, reading and playing), which are related to children's outcomes (Guryan et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref60">16</reflink>]). However, even during these activities, differences in how parents interact with their children may be of great importance.</p> <p>The current study adds to the literature by studying differences in how low- and high-SES parents interact with their children during a developmental activity (reading task), and how that predicts children's reading performance six months later controlling for prior academic skills.</p> <p>Our results not only confirm the substantial SES gradient in academic performance, but also show that this gradient is more closely linked to parental involvement than to children's prior academic skills. Thus, our findings are consistent with basic stylized facts but also extend this knowledge by examining the role of differences in parental involvements across SES.</p> <p>It is especially worth highlighting that low-SES parents appear to exert more - particularly unconstructive but also constructive – involvement compared to high-SES parents, and that either of these types of involvement are negatively associated with reading scores six months later. Thus, parental involvement per se appears to be related to lower academic performance in this particular context which resembles real-life homework tasks.</p> <p>This could indicate that the best form of support during such activities is non-intrusive support. Ng et al. ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref61">29</reflink>]) exemplify autonomy support as mothers "sitting on hands" while attending children's progress and providing silent nods of approval without directly expressing an opinion (p. 766). We cannot rule out that parents primarily get involved when their child has difficulties, i.e., both types of parental involvement are demand-driven and basically reflect reading skills. More generally, the theoretical relationship between subscales used by Moorman and Pomerantz ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref62">28</reflink>]) (i.e., mastery vs. performance orientation, autonomy vs. control, positive vs. negative affect), may need to be reconsidered and integrated as suggested by Elliot and colleagues (see e.g., Elliot & Harackiewicz, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref63">11</reflink>]; Vansteenkiste et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref64">40</reflink>]). Especially, the ideal parental involvement may depend on the individual child's combination of goal orientation and affective temperament (see Bjørnebekk, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref65">5</reflink>]).</p> <p>Nevertheless, one limitation of our study is that the results reflect associations between parental involvement and performance and not necessarily causal relations. The primary concern is the existence of omitted variables such as aspects of child skills or teacher competences that are not captured by written NAP and that correlate with parental involvement and reading scores.</p> <p>Another limitation of our study is that we only measure two dimensions of parental involvement – constructive and unconstructive involvement. Other more literacy focussed dimensions, such as adult scaffolding, dialogic reading or print referencing, may also be relevant for this age group (Justice & Pullen, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref66">23</reflink>]). Finally, the study looks at one isolated occasion in the context of the Danish public school system, and furthermore, the study population is positively selected and may not be representative of children from low SES families. Some aspects of parent–child interaction are most likely universal, whereas other aspects may be context- or country-specific with limited external validity.</p> <p>With these caveats in mind, our results show that the relationship between parental SES and children's reading skills is not a simple matter of the amount of parents' involvement. The type of involvement should be taken into account when designing educational interventions involving parents. Unconstructive involvement characterized by control, performance focus and negative affect may be detrimental, but even more constructive involvement may be too much in some situations. More theoretical and empirical work is needed to understand the dynamic interactions between parents and children. Sometimes more involvement may be helpful for the child, whereas in other situations it may be better to sit on the hands. Understanding these mechanisms is only becoming more important for policy makers and practitioners in a world of rising inequality between children from low and high SES families.</p> <hd id="AN0153183492-25">Disclosure Statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0153183492-26"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref48" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Supplemental data for this article can be accessed https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2020.1840429</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0153183492-27"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Andersen, S. C., Christensen, M. V., Nielsen, H. S., Thomsen, M. K., Østerbye, T., & Rowe, M. L. (2018). How reading and writing support each other across a school year in primary school children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 55, 129 – 138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.09.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref29" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Andersen, S. C., & Nielsen, H. S. (2016). Reading intervention with a growth mindset approach improves children's skills. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113 (43), 12111 – 12113. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1607946113</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref52" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6), 1173 – 1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref30" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Beuchert, L. V., & Nandrup, A. B. (2018). The Danish national tests at glance. Nationaløkonomisk Tidsskrift, 2, 1 – 37. https://<ulink href="http://www.djoef-forlag.dk/publications/noet/files/2018/article/2018%5f1%5f2.pdf">www.djoef-forlag.dk/publications/noet/files/2018/article/2018%5f1%5f2.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref65" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bjørnebekk, G. (2008). Positive affect and negative affect as modulators of cognition and motivation: The rediscovery of affect in achievement goal theory. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 52 (2), 153 – 170. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830801915788</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref8" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bonke, J. (2009). Forældres brug af tid og penge på deres børn. Syddansk Universitetsforlag.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref19" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53 (6), 1024 – 1037. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1024</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref45" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Deckers, T., Falk, A., Kosse, F., Pinger, P., & Schildberg-Hörisch, H. (forthcoming). Socio-economic status and inequalities in children's IQ and economic preferences. Journal of Political Economy.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref13" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Del Bono, E., Francesconi, M., Kelly, Y., & Sacker, A. (2016). Early maternal time investment and early child outcomes. The Economic Journal, 126 (596), F96 – F135. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12342</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70 (3), 461 – 475. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.461</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4 (3), 272 – 299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fomby, P., & Musick, K. (2018). Mothers' time, the parenting package, and links to healthy child development. Journal of Marriage and Family, 80 (1), 166 – 181. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12432</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodman, L. A., & Kruskal, W. H. (1972). Measures of association for cross classifications, IV: Simplification of asymptotic variances. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 67 (338), 415 – 421. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1972.10482401</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7 (1), 6 – 10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guryan, J., Hurst, E., & Kearney, M. (2008). Parental education and parental time with children. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22 (3), 23 – 46. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.22.3.23</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heckman, J. J., & Landersø, R. K. (2017). The scandinavian fantasy: Sources of intergenerational mobility in Denmark and the US. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 119 (1), 178 – 230. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjoe.12219</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heckman, J. J., & Mosso, g. S. (2014). The economics of human development and social mobility. Annual Review of Economics, 6 (1), 689 – 733. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-080213-040753</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hsin, A., & Felfe, C. (2014). When does time matter? Maternal employment, children's time with parents, and child development. Demography, 51 (5), 1867 – 1894. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-014-0334-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Humlum, M. K., Nandrup, A. B., & Smith, N. (2019). Closing or reproducing the gender gap? Parental transmission, social norms and education choice. Journal of Population Economics, 32 (2), 455 – 500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-018-0692-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huston, A. C., & Aronson, S. R. (2005). Mothers' time with infant and time in employment as predictors of mother–child relationships and children's early development. Child Development, 76 (2), 467 – 482. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00857.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Justice, L. M., Bowles, R., Pence, K., & Gosse, C. (2010). A scalable tool for assessing children's language abilities within a narrative context: The NAP (Narrative Assessment Protocol). Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25 (2), 218 – 234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.11.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Justice, L. M., & Pullen, P. C. (2003). Promising interventions for promoting emergent literacy skills: Three evidence-based approaches. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 23 (3), 99 – 113. https://doi.org/10.1177/02711214030230030101</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kalil, A., & Mayer, S. E. (2016). Understanding the importance of parental time with children: Comment on Milkie, Nomaguchi, and Denny (2015). Journal of Marriage and Family, 78 (1), 262 – 265. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12261</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kalil, A., Ryan, R., & Corey, M. (2012). Diverging destinies: Maternal education and the developmental gradient in time with children. Demography, 49 (4), 1361 – 1383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-012-0129-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Magnuson, K., Waldfogel, J., & Washbrook, E. (2012). SES gradients in skills during the school years. Chap. 10. In J. Ermisch, M. Jännti, & T. M. Smeeding (Eds.), From parents to children: The intergenerational transmission of advantage (pp. 235 – 261). Russel Sage Foundation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moorman, E. A., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2008). Mothers' cognitions about children's self-control: Implications for mothers' responses to children's helplessness. Social Development, 17 (4), 960 – 979. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00469.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moorman, E. A., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2010). Ability mindsets influence the quality of mothers' involvement in children's learning: An experimental investigation. Developmental Psychology, 46 (5), 1354 – 1362. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020376</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ng, F. F. Y., Kenney-Benson, G. A., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2004). Children's achievement moderates the effects of mothers' use of control and autonomy support. Child Development, 75 (3), 764 – 780. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00705.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nomaguchi, K., Milkie, M. A., & Denny, K. E. (2016). Quantity of maternal time and child and adolescent development: Response to Kalil and Mayer (2016) and to Waldfogel (2016). Journal of Marriage and Family, 78 (1), 270 – 275. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12258</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pomerantz, E. M., & Grolnick, W. S. (2017). The role of parenting in children's motivation and competence: What underlies facilitative parenting? In Elliot, Dweck, and Yeager (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (2nd Edition): Theory and application (pp. 566 – 585). Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pomerantz, E. M., Moorman, E. A., & Litwack, S. D. (2007). The how, whom, and why of parents' involvement in children's academic lives: More is not always better. Review of Educational Research, 77 (3), 373 – 410. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430305567</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sayer, L. C., Bianchi, S. M., & Robinson, J. P. (2004a). Are parents investing less in children? Trends in mothers' and fathers' time with children. American Journal of Sociology, 110 (1), 1 – 43. https://doi.org/10.1086/386270</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sayer, L. C., Gauthier, A. H., & Furstenberg, F. F. (2004b). Educational differences in parents' time with children: Cross-national variations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66 (5), 1152 – 1169. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00084.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7 (4), 422 – 445. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silinskas, G., & Kikas, E. (2019). Parental involvement in math homework: Links to children's performance and motivation. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 63 (1), 17 – 37. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2017.1324901</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290 – 312. https://doi.org/10.2307/270723</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stafford, F., & Yeung, W. J. (2005). The distribution of children's developmental resources. In Hamermesh, & Pfann (Eds.), The Economics of time Use (pp. 289 – 313). Elsevier.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thomsen, M. K. (2015). Parental time investments in children: Evidence from Denmark. Acta Sociologica, 58 (3), 249 – 263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699315572159</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., Elliot, A. J., Soenens, B., & Mouratidis, A. (2014). Moving the achievement goal approach One step forward: Toward a systematic examination of the autonomous and controlled reasons underlying achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 49 (3), 153 – 174. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.928598</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vasquez, A. C., Patall, E. A., Fong, C. J., Corrigan, A. S., & Pine, L. (2016). Parent autonomy support, academic achievement, and psychosocial functioning: A meta-analysis of research. Educational Psychology Review, 28 (3), 605 – 644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9329-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Waldfogel, J. (2016). How important is parental time? It depends: Comment on Milkie, Nomaguchi, and Denny (2015). Journal of Marriage and Family, 78 (1), 266 – 269. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12259</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zellner, A. (1962). An efficient method of estimating seemingly unrelated regressions and tests for aggregation bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 57 (298), 348 – 368. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1962.10480664</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Simon Calmar Andersen; Maria Koch Gregersen; Helena Skyt Nielsen and Mette Kjærgaard Thomsen</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref66"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1316248
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Parent Involvement, Socioeconomic Status and Reading Performance
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Andersen%2C+Simon+Calmar%22">Andersen, Simon Calmar</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gregersen%2C+Maria+Koch%22">Gregersen, Maria Koch</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Nielsen%2C+Helena+Skyt%22">Nielsen, Helena Skyt</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2577-4734">0000-0003-2577-4734</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Thomsen%2C+Mette+Kjaergaard%22">Thomsen, Mette Kjaergaard</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Scandinavian+Journal+of+Educational+Research%22"><i>Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research</i></searchLink>. 2021 65(7):1279-1294.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 16
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– 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="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+2%22">Grade 2</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Primary+Education%22">Primary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Participation%22">Parent Participation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Child+Relationship%22">Parent Child Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interaction%22">Interaction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Young+Children%22">Young Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+2%22">Grade 2</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Socioeconomic+Status%22">Socioeconomic Status</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Correlation%22">Correlation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Achievement%22">Reading Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Performance+Factors%22">Performance Factors</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Time+Management%22">Time Management</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Denmark%22">Denmark</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/00313831.2020.1840429
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0031-3831
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The aim of this paper was to understand whether and to what extent parenting behaviors mediated the association between parental socioeconomic status (SES) and 8-year old children's reading performance. The study used video recordings of parent-child interactions in Danish public schools while the child was assigned a difficult reading task (N = 122). Results showed that low-SES parents tended to get involved in their children's problem-solving activities in unconstructive ways and that this type of involvement mediated one-third of the association between parental SES and reading performance after controlling for prior measures of children's academic skills. These results may have important implications for understanding how parents can best assist -- or not assist - children in developmental activities such as homework tasks and for interventions aimed at increasing the quality of the time low SES parents spend with their children.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1316248
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1316248
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/00313831.2020.1840429
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 16
        StartPage: 1279
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Parent Participation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parent Child Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interaction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Young Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 2
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Socioeconomic Status
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correlation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Performance Factors
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Time Management
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Denmark
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Parent Involvement, Socioeconomic Status and Reading Performance
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Andersen, Simon Calmar
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gregersen, Maria Koch
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Nielsen, Helena Skyt
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Thomsen, Mette Kjaergaard
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2021
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0031-3831
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 65
            – Type: issue
              Value: 7
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research
              Type: main
ResultId 1