THESI'

’7

r: ’\"\

ztt'l

 

LIBRARY ,
Michlgan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
SELECTED CHILDREN'S PERCEPTIONS 0F MATERNAL
ACCEPTANCE AND THEIR READING ACHIEVEMENT

presented by

James R. Anderson

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degreein Family and Child Ecology

 

 

   

AMJEMMMW

J7 ,. . , ' /
0/ Major professor-x

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

“11L 0 8 2003

 

‘

m 2154 90%;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11m Woes-9.14

1"
l '1
‘

 

«M n
'i

a. nov'

f.”
' >-
Vol

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELECTED

CHILDREN’S PERCEPTIONS OF MATERNAL ACCEPTANCE

AND THEIR READING ACHIEVEMENT

by

James R. Anderson

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Family and Child Ecology

2000

'A
a bi.“

 

ABSTRACT

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF SELECTED
CHILDREN'S PERCEPTIONS OE MATERNAL ACCEPTANCE

AND READING ACHIEVEMENT
by

James R. Anderson

The purpose of this study was to examine the way in
which 4th and 5th grade children perceived their mother's
warmth in relation to their academic achievement while also
considering individual and family factors that may also
affect their achievement. Understanding children’s
perceptions of mother’s warmth particularly in relationship
to that same childs’ academic achievement is important.
Understanding more about this critical relationship would
provide some insights into that linkage between home and
school. Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Theory (1979) and
Rohner's Parental Acceptance Rejection Theory (PART) (1985)
provide the theoretical foundations for a study of
perceived mother's warmth and academic achievement.

Rohner's child version of the Parental Acceptance
Rejection Questionnaire (PARQ) was administered to 100
fourth and fifth grade students. The PARQ is comprised of
four sub-scales with a total of 60 Likert scaled items to
answer. Two individual and four family factors were also

ineasured for each student. The 4th grade Michigan Education

'1 1

.‘SESST:€T.I

 

c .
2959.129 C; a.

D "V41”
u'e L&-r.

varieties us:
.e:.er.:ary s

R NA... H F
Her. .5 u
0

P
n...

ofie ‘k

n
'“ 5H \5

I ‘
'E‘FA'. Q A“ q
tabby. L¢L¢'uod-
' o

' \
.IU‘ '. " 01
sglde“-s -¢ I

an.“ “A 1' .
:."'"“ec ‘hc

s..~

9-;

C- "'\H

wv.~»‘au-v..s

a... .

‘i;~:"“~ H;
I .T‘“: U.

‘v‘\‘ .

F It“: .
‘vuuvd C a“.
“

V-
.
'AW:'C-“ o.
v ‘ n

s “V
s'.‘ v. V
\

nu“ 3-3 Q ‘

..‘
“‘u “.
Ia:

‘Yva I
‘
-iw“ 1‘ a
u
W.
~5.al
5‘.
{on
‘a.e C, .
‘.
5A ,
9
\1',K..“ .
W“.a ‘ A“
V“
r
I
Q t
‘~I:’lyn‘c
U
“‘5 A“,
n..‘
:\
.
MN
“elf-n-“
yu‘q'
‘ h

Assessment Program (MEAP) reading test was used as the
measure of academic achievement.

Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the
variables used in the study. The 97 fourth and fifth grade
elementary students indicated a less that thought amount of
perceived mother’s warmth. The sample also scored high on
the 4th grade MEAP reading test. The sample was
proportional with boys and girls who participated. Most
students lived with intact families and did not qualify for
free or reduced lunch. Similar proportions were evident in
the groups with respect to how long the student had
attended the school where they took the 4th grade MEAP.

Data analysis using t—tests and Pearson product-moment
correlations resulted in few significant findings when
comparing both family and individual variables with
academic achievement as well as those same variables
compared to perceived mother’s warmth. One family variable
that did show significance (.000) with academic achievement
was “help with homework.” It is worthwhile to note that
perceived mother’s warmth was significant at the (.14)
level.

The findings from this study lend support to the
combination of ecological and parental acceptance-rejection
theories and the continuation of research regarding

elementary children and academic achievement.

 

w 'I

.TE 2315!:

"‘I“fiAv‘. AA “A
human. 6...”...

‘ v
.z n .n e
I A
V. :7 yr-
Q
‘I'A-woo F

oils..’ U

VAA. ”N’D‘ V

‘
”Viv-o. .Ilb.‘ -
R--.~Q.'~a “"7-
".U‘a-Ub' .‘u‘
. ~
_~..,. 6 “'1‘
Ifie‘fiuu- ..‘

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The task of finishing this project is not complete
without acknowledging considerable support from a variety
of people. I want to thank my committee members, Dr. June
Youatt, Dr. Joanne Keith, Dr. Dennis Keefe and Dr. Arden
Moon. Their individual and collective understanding,
guidance, nurturing, patience and tolerance has been
admirable and very much appreciated.

I want to thank the Superintendent, Mr. Thomas
Gilstad, for his continued support and allowing me to
conduct this study. I also want to recognize the Assistant
Superintendent, Dr. David Chapin, for his support
throughout the project. Teachers and support staff, that I
work with daily, have also helped me a great deal in the
completion of this project. I am indebted to Dr. Ira
Washington for his statistical consultation and my niece,
Karin Allor, for recommending him to me. I am very
appreciative of the last minute pressures that Jean Massey
endured in order to prepare this dissertation for print.

I would also like to acknowledge the contributions of
nw mom, Lucille W. Anderson, who has always supported me
and believed in me. My three sons, Corey, Jeremy, and
Jimmy have also endured the long process and continued to
IsuPport and love me even though I was not always in close

proximity to them.

iv

a ‘ . ‘
by~ p“ p“ l
.‘EOEHMS I‘M .

737v In?” 4".
0‘... ‘vuu ..
I J a

Finally, I would like to thank all of my other
friends and family members who tolerated me during this

very long journey.

coma at 'F"'

~.'. U. onto—.—
90 9 "'f‘"’
. 2' at r _‘ I
nova V‘ .v\.

'g-v‘ .--fi 1
- I

...-.:...:l I

. . .
DOyAAnAO ~ 5"
.ubsVUdvuobvo-

9-0” ‘
‘—°"‘ 0.

UvUan-l ‘1‘,

C I

J'WW‘ce A.‘ o h

~uobv~ \J. 5.-
D

a

\'~"“F‘FA°
”.3u¢sov my»

 

9'. ‘- ‘ ‘
is"? ca. E

NOE...

F
H“W‘f\ A.
ldflouc‘. LV‘
ha ‘
y V‘ "A
t c.9.;~c‘

ca w
“6.. ]
mun; p.ua‘ r."

£l05a~|~ ‘c

in -~

taml‘y so
i

n

\

U

n;
*1
D
1
9

I.

(I)
l')
(I)

"1 6)
(D

. : ,
L).

1

"1

DJ
1
I

. f“
r r
-<; ‘C
I: (p 01

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . .
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . .

CHAPTER 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Statement of Problem .

Purpose of the Study . . . . . . .

Significance of the Study . . . . . .

Theoretical Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Human Ecology Theory . . .
Parental Acceptance Rejection Theory .
Relationships Between the Human Ecology
and PAR Theories . . . . .

Research Questions and Hypotheses

Conceptual and Operational Definitions
Reading achievement .

Parenting behavior
Perceptions . . . . .
Family composition . . . .
Intact family . . . . . . .
Family stability/mobility
Socio- -economic status (SES . . . . . . . . . . . .
Help with homework
Limitations . .

CHAPTER 2
Review of Literature . .
Parental Warmth and Control . . . . .
Parental Acceptance- Rejection (PAR) Theory
Warmth Dimension
Control Dimension . . .
Parenting by Mother and Fathers
MEAP Test and Academic Achievement
Parental Involvement in Schooling
SES and Academic Achievement
Gender and Academic Achievement .
Family Composition and Academic Achievement

Family Mobility-Stability and Academic Achievement.

CHAPTER 3

Methodololy . . . . .
The Setting and Sample
Data Collection

vi

. 22

. 33

. 42

. 50

viii

ix

11
12
12
13

16
19

. 21

. 21
21

22

. 22

22
23
23
24

. 25
. 25
28
28

. 34
35

47
. 52
57

61
61

. 62

 

n"
" inflame-

.n u

' cnar

A\ .rvl.

IRA""
va‘3I‘

Annuapsfi PR
Atrium...» av

\ . 4.
'- ‘bi‘-

’t)

)

I

9 - I ‘
‘Flhn. qua
oulgl ‘uua-

252a kalys”

‘TTTV‘IFF 1 vi
-=:v..~5A |
O

 

(f)
9

 

. ‘ n
."~r;ro. q \,
Auobywdtb‘a- ~ ‘

o . .

q
. u

C n q ”I A..,.

1 vi! a UI~5-V..

 

bu
o
. . ‘ ‘
'N'TT‘fl-w-‘ r-“.
.“""cdu s G-
. Q
F.

"I" " hanvavc
um«..} bav.v.u
.
1:“;“clr IT-y; -
foquatg ' a- ‘ c
I
Ec‘QFN ‘A' 2".
. b ‘

'.H’ ‘b- .-

‘A v“ iii-let. \

w‘
1

‘2‘.‘-‘ '
U . R
I-“
‘HAI U
QVCA..~~ A
'0 \\ .“
§VV~ ‘ ‘
VA . .
‘V
"VDAQC- h‘
‘1‘, b.
"J
No. .
Q .1‘ F.
U‘HV‘SD‘V.
”H ‘;,.‘ >
‘ V“ ..
QU§b§l:“'
‘
Q ~ .
F \
Qt“... ‘A;“ r
A “‘\
.
V .
‘1’: T"~o..
t. '
s “Vd ‘
\
9
”I.
\
“Wu“ah .
o v “\
R
A. .
Uv“ V~"‘.‘ ‘
~u-‘
I
. n
"5».- ‘V‘ .
' ‘0 V~1
n‘l _ . ‘.
I‘s~ ‘Vu‘ A
n b.‘ K 4 h
s
A
‘ o t u
L‘ h '-
‘~‘E.“‘t a
.. Isu‘x 4 T'h.
\ J. .
A“. . ' Vv.
4?.:.‘~‘?
. ‘ A
‘ F
I o 4. UL-
-‘.“u ‘ “.|
‘u‘: H. c
. .m‘x 2' _
V. ~.
§_..
\
.~.o~
u“. ‘A
Q‘v

Study Participants . .
Instrumentation—The Parental Acceptance Rejection
Questionnaire . . .

Response Format . . . . . . . .

Scoring System . .
Academic Achievement- the 4U‘Grade MEAP Reading Test

Validity . . . . . . . . . .
P- Value . . . . . . . . . .
Differential item functioning . . . . .

Item discrimination

Reliability . .
Individual and Family Factors
Data Analysis . .
Descriptive Statistics
Inferential Statistics

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS . .

Data Reduction . .
Descriptive Statistics of Data
Individual Factors

Family Factors

Dependent Variables .
Testing for Proportional Differences
Research Questions and Hypotheses
Multivariate Analysis

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION . . . .
Purpose of This Study
Discussion of Findings
Multivariate Analysis
Implications . .
Implications for Research
Implications for Practice
Contributions of This Study

.Appendix 1. Parent Permission Form .
.Appendix 2. School District Approval Letter
.Appendix 3. UCRIHS Approval Letter
.Appendix 4. PARQ Script

Appendix 5. PARQ Instrument

Bibliography

vfi

. 90
. 93
. 94
. 94

. 67

68

. 76

76
78
80
82
82
83
83
84
85

. 86
. 86

90

97

. . 98
. 106
. 133

136
138

. 139

145

. 149

151
151
153

157

. 159

161

. 163
. 166

173

‘V A n. ”A
""e z. e

.3...

-‘0\ '-

finale Nznr‘ r

:MU was. a

I U \ r
"‘"*'-<:.a.i
I

. . “a~-
. u
7-1:.» 0 U».- v
C

 

’ n
.:"A s
A“.. J.

I A
:AAIAQn,‘ \‘z
.viq-UM--b U ‘ u

, h ‘
A. ‘. ~AV‘ A-
V. ':~euv--uao
a

- I

«I ‘ A~A~‘

q
nan-.6 u. u:h‘~‘.
.
.‘M‘r‘F'B “*nfiisc
~vvuv.._‘-' U 5 u b .
fl

1.
d-v~a’.‘~ -'..
”NT'WGVES d...

1

H\ ' 1.
‘ FV.

q
"“QC‘ESI I I
. . .

..i H

. A , -A~‘
Q‘~‘b '. Mt. ‘VH.

d

a

a. .

\ A. ‘“‘
uv-bvv ‘Vt‘ a..‘
‘

'a'a.‘

l“
D FI
locq:~.es .
C
. ' s
:" a Q ‘
Q‘~ I ~
a» ho UELOZ:
~ O
- Qu."fih
a. -F’
U "“9“ a...
.
'5. ._'.‘
.' h -
~"""33‘5‘5 :fi.
-, ‘ ‘ ‘
V-‘ .
1" ~F
0‘ ~ es, .
O
‘ ' n
I: -
n~§e IG~A~
O U»..
~ a
\‘.’ ‘ v
5'. a * I
w‘..‘y a‘fi
I ..“
-~,~‘.
.‘s in ‘~
~.‘.: g I‘f'
U
.. ‘ '~S a”
II’Q‘ . \
C
‘«I~‘es
U

 

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Fourth and
Fifth Graders in the Study Sample

Table 2. Demographic Characteristics of Male and

Female MEAP Reading Scores (Frequencies, Percentages

and Chi—square Values of Categorical Variables) .

Table 3. Demographic Characteristics of Male and
Female PARQ Scores (Frequencies, Percentages and
Chi-square Values of Categorical Variables)

Table 4. Demographic Characteristics of Age and
PARQ Scores (Frequencies, Percentages and Chi-
Square Values of Categorical Variables)

Table 5. Demographic Characteristics of Socio-
Economic Status and MEAP Reading Scores
(Frequencies, Percentages and Chi-square Values
of Categorical Variables)

Table 6. Demographic Characteristics of Socio-
Economic Status and PARQ Scores (Frequencies,
Percentages and Chi-square Values of Categorical
Variables) . . . . . . . . . . .

Table 7. Demographic Characteristics of Family
Composition and MEAP Reading Scores (Frequencies,
Percentages and Chi-square Values of Categorical
Variables) .

Table 8. Demographic Characteristics of Family
Composition and PARQ Scores (Frequencies,
Percentages and Chi-square Values of Categorical
Variables) . . . . . . . . . .

Table 9. Demographic Characteristics of Mobility/
Stability and MEAP Reading Scores (Frequencies,
Percentages and Chi-square Values of Categorical
Variables) . . . .

Table 10. Demographic Characteristics of Mobility/
Stability and PARQ Scores (Frequencies, Percentages
And Chi-square Values of Categorical Variables)

viii

66

99

. 100

. 100

. 101

101

102

103

103

. 104

I ' ' 9‘ Pg
niece ii. HIE

nfi
{13.19 'OIK ....

Percentages

'iariaues .

 

.. ., -
Tame .1. Le.
worn as:

' A1 I \ q
‘ H F‘ _ In H
and Nul$ ‘1‘“

I
' 7“ F “fir
. 3...; 5 vv.
P. ' 1

.J‘ g 4 _
.‘~“’ ‘ 0 A

I.
3? a 5 tr-
.‘~-‘ C'- o
11-.
”mi. IF “rn
H“! “‘I -v

is..." N ‘f‘;“
a. Aneau‘A.‘
.
mu; .
”A
N L SCSI

7'1

” n-

--~-e II. ;-
A" V .
(he...

with TA“
anU‘5‘V‘.
VA ,

‘aVDCY‘~n“‘.
. b‘v“:‘

I. 9

‘I‘ 'F

:-

.‘~l H ~
.6 M” ..

:w ‘

~‘_:C

-
¢
Q.‘
P n
‘5‘. :4“ "
. \
‘ V‘ 5“ I
luv A
‘~c, Vs;
~ fiv- ‘
.v‘ ‘VAJE
~
I. \
A
.-
"‘~‘Q “A n-
» (b. ‘
:0’ '5 s
W: .
~~~ _
‘T'
5.
A
.:”¢e 2‘
n _ ‘. ‘
"N N o
“C is l
“ ‘ '~. ‘
\ .“‘v', ,
: ‘v- ‘ .4 ‘
cu: O
s. SNA‘
\yv‘
‘ |
‘ V
.D
l.‘ G A
~ '\
‘5
H (4. I».
Iz‘ix ‘
\ i,
s “V c“.-
’ . ‘ .31.“
o ”D” '
“4 $
1 \ Q“
v

Table 11. Demographic Characteristics of Help with
Homework and MEAP Reading Scores (Frequencies,

Percentages and Chi-square Values of Categorical

Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

Table 12. Demographic Characteristics of Help with
Homework and PARQ Scores (Frequencies, Percentages
and Chi-square Values of Categorical Variables) . . . . 105

Table 13. T-test and Crosstabulation for Gender
And MEAP Reading Achievement (n, Proportional Mean,
F and t score) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Table 14. T-test and Crosstabulations for Gender
and PARQ (n, Proportional Mean, F and t score) . . . . 110

Table 15. T-test and Crosstabulations for Age and
PARQ (n, Proportional Mean, F and t score) . . . . . . 112

Table 16. T-test and Crosstabulations for SES and
MEAP Reading Achievement (n, Proportional Mean,
F and t score) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Table 17. T-test for Crosstabulations Family
Composition and MEAP Reading Achievement (n,
Proportional Mean, F and t score) . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Table 18. T-test and Crosstabulations for Family
Stability/Mobility and MEAP Reading Achievement
(n, Proportional Mean, F and t score) . . . . . . . . . 119

Table 19. T-test and Cross tabulations for Help
With Homework and MEAP Reading Achievement (n,
Proportional Mean, F and t score) . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Table 20. T-test and Crosstabulations for PARQ
and SES (n, Proportional Mean, F and t score) . . . . . 123

Table 21. T-test and Cross tabulations for PARQ
and Family Composition (n, Proportional Mean,
F and t score) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

YTable 22. T-test and Crosstabulations for PARQ and

Fandly Stability/Mobility (n, Proportional Mean,
F and t score) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

ix

 

.aw

.U

'2'-

J. C

N.)

. H ‘
Inn

rah“ :e-p H1.

F . n O AA!
I
Gnu \- va-

v Q
P."

«Shoe 24. T-

nyAt“‘R'-VA~ “
roVUHVu .nvn-IC

I i
A q~n~ Ab ~
otzadoatj twang,

' .

. ‘Ffl ‘ Afiy.
I 3.0.4 5 VV.
0 « I A

 

Table 23. T-test and C5rosstabulations for PARQ
And Help with Homework (n, Proportional Mean,
F and t score) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Table 24. T-test, Crosstabulations and Pearsons
Product-Moment Correlations for PARQ and MEAP

Reading Achievement (n, Proportional Mean,

F and t score) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

Table 25. Multinominal Logistic Regression . . . . . . 134

 

or V V‘-
.~~--v I n,
..~Ja. .0 .4
4
I A
rm 2 ,
A 3‘. O V-

r‘t'"? 3 -r
0.:‘Qe O A.’

F

a n Y ..
p‘ “ 'A.
toduae 4. 5:

9 > .
“NS'DIA‘A'Q .
"“bfi'vndvu .. u
.

 

Figure
Figure
Figure

Figure

l.

2.

3.

4.

LIST OF FIGURES

Warmth Dimension of Parenting
Conceptual Map
Theoretical Model

Beta and significance levels of

Independent variables

. 10

15

. 135

 

I“ =~~

AA vvv-

““3 run 7-;
Hv-ouhonto o0.»

‘ ' V ~ r. 0
fl VA v
:- " .- C a
‘vu‘b I '.,.v.- ‘-

. ‘ .
o>:9 anp.‘:,,‘3”
cum. I v:

V.“\,

I)!

 

.‘F‘;~-‘

 

r....
A
.onoo-“‘. fi-H‘v
a
P" i
“A” 'IA-
ho
Udv.‘ '»
a

:h'.,‘ ‘ "

' v... F
u..u...l¥ “‘46..
O

C. A - A‘
""“~e D“ ‘2‘—
- y“
I ~.
‘A
~'. T‘: *h. ‘
Q‘s 5‘oa.
:atH‘t T
.‘ A
VI§5. hymn?
wv‘
~D
w...
“Nd; CAR-2Q
' Va.._~,
~~u

”~-
. v
Q
.»:~ n7: “ ‘
”5“, c
‘&
”:5'.
“~‘~ ‘A‘
‘ Q
\v~' d'fi
.‘,‘
.
n“\
3".:"A.‘_‘ ‘
ALIV“ S ‘ c
Q
s
A
5‘
D‘ q: l
‘
A
"‘w‘a‘
c h
~.
.a...

A.
Q..-

Chapter 1

Introduction

In society today, academic achievement is of major
concern. The public has a limited view of the academic
achievement that is occurring in public education, often as
that achievement is defined by the news media. In Michigan,
the predominant measure of academic achievement is the

Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) test.

Each year, public schools are subject to media
scrutiny when MEAP test scores are published in local
newspapers. Attention has focused on how schools can
become better at what they are doing. There is a widespread
belief that if schools improve, better test scores will
result. According to Lezotte (1999), the push for school
change comes from all directions. Parents, taxpayers,
media, state and federal legislators, administrators, and
teachers all agree that change must occur at local,
district, and state levels. Change in public education is
paramount if schools are going to succeed at increasing
edtmational credibility, as measured by students' academic
.achievement. Parents and the role of the family also

.should be included as a partner in any change.

 

O ‘fil F.
Sundeuu I

    
 

OK! v;޴;~sr

nu «gov-0“: I.

52331:; Ass: -

IESLiIEJ

n i
u

*1.

P'M‘yw . ..

Ub‘vv». '65.

o a

”I |
.Rv‘fla.‘fih . y-
vidv:».\/la 39‘

(h

..
I~“-.

‘
cm 1::

 

V
"3"”9'" o: A
bu‘ '-

.quh.- ~‘~
A .
:~:C;V~h ' ‘
vvvk‘blav‘ I -

. Q
‘Av. F1. .
Lub'.e\‘;e ans.“

“AVA -

“ Gee.

.‘fiv I h

. '2'" NS.
Irvh F

I .A R

“‘6 ~:S:..

K

'i-

V A,
a S»;
~‘~'
'- h
.
IVA. r°:4~ '
“‘I‘H‘V Q
V
d ~
\.
.
1 -"§
"‘:~lC's n‘
“ on.
H‘c‘
I
L$:‘ '
“k“: fPA
VW‘ ‘-

The MEAP tests, which are designed to measure the
student's grasp of Michigan’s core curriculum, are
administered to 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, and 10th grade
students. The 4th Grade MEAP reading test was reviewed by
the Michigan Department of Education (MDE) and the Michigan
Reading Association (MRA) in the 19805. This review
resulted in an updated definition of reading and revised
objectives. The Essential Goals and Objectives for Reading
Education were adopted by the Michigan State Board of
Education in 1986. The objectives describe the
characteristics of a good reader, as determined by reading
researchers, in three categories: construction of meaning,
knowledge about reading, and attitudes and self-

perceptions.

The Essential Skills Reading Test was first
administered statewide in grades 4, 7, and 10 in 1989. For
this assessment, students read two reading selections, one
a story and the other an informational passage from a
science or social studies textbook. Upon completion of
each reading selection, students answer a series of
questions designed to determine how well they constructed

meaning from that particular section.

Rese ::

revealed .7. r.

1"”: toe, W.
3854‘ i on A‘bl

‘.
lama-ufl‘ Q ~ I:
vii-unatoU‘IA‘ --

‘
I

. ., . ‘
Ifiq97ynfl.‘ h
OOIUO'lUu ‘ \u

1 .
'AB‘ '7 p n. .
:9”; le...e.. 5 I

  
   

13.6 SCCLC'ECCI

M’ior ‘ Alp‘ ‘
3"“‘h Cs uni}.

 

- Q

\nq

.1 p nfi-v—nv
nun eQE¢vIEAt ya- V

In: , F ‘
r’a’ee' ~~‘..~
V
b H ‘a..... V
‘

"po; ‘

I F‘\

UH. ‘ a? -h
‘ "H“ ‘I G

‘p “A.
~sn.G‘., :1":
c.“ '.
I o
.45 I ness & :1.
I.
v I. Ak 1 A
V..~‘s\a¢‘ J:
"'a
a
\‘ .

Research in the area of academic achievement has
revealed many variables associated with academic
achievement. Of these variables the role of family is
commanding increasing attention. Several family and
individual variables are thought to influence academic
achievement; these include parental involvement, parenting
styles, home environment, educational level of parent(s),
the socio-economic status (SES) of the family, age, and
gender of children. A growing body of research on preschool
and elementary-age children has indicated relationships
between family variables, parent relationships in
particular, and academic achievement (Dornbusch, Ritter,
Leiderman, Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987; Dornbusch et. al.,
1987; Hess & Holloway, 1984; Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, &
Dornbusch, 1991; Steinberg, Dornbusch and Brown, 1992a;
Steinberg, Elmen, & Mounts, 1989; Steinberg, Lamborn,

Dornbusch, and Darling, 1992; Maccoby & Martin, 1983).

Hess and Halloway (1984) identified five parenting
characteristics linking family and school achievement: (a)
verbal interaction between mother and child, (b) parental
expectations for achievement, (c) positive affective
relationships between parents and children, (d) parental
beliefs and attributions about the child, and (e)

discipline and control strategies. Dornbusch et. al. (1987)

 

“q
,,
f:-€

- 9‘
~0-0 n v-n
.0‘--‘\—nn\n

‘1’
m
l 9

1'
(D
(7'

8..
A .
‘ ‘
‘tf‘ A
‘V
‘u
. F
‘I b
rS‘As .
a VCR.
&‘i k
A
k
V
a
n“.
‘ ~
‘ Ch;
» A

'-

ac

stated that, among these family variables, discipline and
control strategies of parents appeared to have a major

influence on children’s academic achievement.

Parenting styles (Baumrind, 1978) are believed to
influence young children's academic achievement by
facilitating the development of cognitive skills that serve
as the basis for school success. Researchers on family-
school linkages have explored parenting styles as they
relate to the quality of parent—child interactions
(Baumrind, 1973, 1991; Steinberg, 1990). Baumrind(l978)
identified parenting styles as authoritarian, authoritative
and permissive. More recently, Baumrind (1991) included
rejecting-neglecting parenting in her parenting paradigm.
Rejecting-neglecting parents are neither demanding nor
responsive. They do not structure and monitor, and are not
supportive, but they may be actively rejecting or else
neglecting their child-rearing responsibilities altogether.
Baumrind (1967, 1971, 1973, 1978, 1989, 1991) postulated
that these four parenting styles have consequences for

children's cognitive and social competence.

Previous research has indicated that the authoritative
approach to parenting has the strongest relationship to

academic achievement (Steinberg, 1990). Authoritative

 

 

O;'Ifi F
“.3" " ‘ b
y... uu‘u ‘1
I

 

fl'.
rise: of .~.

M-Oanaran :
aUth.Uu-L~A n.
'3‘; PI"?
.1 v, 0 “‘5‘.

. w ‘
OI; fly, 7 r;
uni; Vban . “v

:‘L‘; Oveihcv- 6

um.» I my”; .

2““‘V: ”A
“an“.-“u

 

'.... Mr F. ‘
"" r=‘€..-s c:

u

'. ‘ Ry...‘

no»... A y‘-
b-

In

.LD

. e'AA"
0“, ‘
h .Vv

AP

0. Chg

‘Q‘

' 3-»

“V5,“. ”‘56
‘ v

,

§ ‘.

v .a

‘C.~ ”GA“.
A \I’VLI ‘
t ‘\
,“
I“ 2 ‘

‘1
:i
I‘-
“b. Cy-
'\ Nu
\. .
“‘E ‘
‘-
h.
-'~\§-\_
5' e
.‘ y“
| "
re,

parenting can be characterized as a rational and logical
manner of dealing with children. It supports both
autonomous self-will and disciplined conformity (Baumrind,
1978). Authoritarian and permissive parenting styles, on
the other hand, have not been found to support academic

achievement.

Baumrind’s parenting styles are typed by the nature of
how parents act in specific ways in given situations over
time. A critical dimension formed by the parent-child dyad
is the perception of the child's feelings based on how he
or she is parented. Specifically, perceived parental
acceptance and rejection were explored by Rohner 1986), who
developed the theory of Parental Acceptance and Rejection
(PAR). PAR is a theory of socialization that Rohner used to
explain and predict major antecedents, correlates, and

consequences of parental acceptance and rejection.

Rohner postulated that individuals everywhere
experience more or less warmth and affection at the hands
of the people who are most important to them as they grow
up (Rohner & Rohner, 1981). Rohner called these people
"parents," although they are not necessarily mother and
father. The warmth and affection (or its withdrawal) each

person experienced as a child can be placed on a continuum

 

    

.
'QAfl‘Orl ‘«$ O

.vh'..-n mu

b’El’ZZh dime

' . -
site: end 1:

‘
fi‘vnnf-‘ A,
H:.»..~:& v“
.

 

EXPIESS‘ "‘4: '

cvu- .

F") ’ w -
-‘n..5.. a““ a

n.

from a great deal to virtually none. Rohner called this
continuum the warmth dimension of parenting. One end of the
warmth dimension is marked by parental acceptance and the
other end is marked by rejection. As shown in Figure 1,
parental acceptance, which refers to the warmth, affection,
and love parents can give their children, has two principal
expressions: physical and verbal. Physical expressions of
warmth and affection include hugging, fondling, caressing,
giving approving glances, kissing, smiling, and other such
indications of endearment, approval or support. Expressions
of verbal warmth and affection include praising,
complimenting, saying nice things to or about the child,
and perhaps singing songs or telling stories to the
youngster. Children in most accepting families experience
a combination of all these behaviors. Even the warmest of
parents, however, are apt to get angry and impatient, or

display other elements of rejection from time to time.

 

h'.‘
'="...:.
....

 

 

 

 

'7
N: ..
rv;»
use-
0
.,.
...,, Q",
N" v“.
i...‘ ."'
avail. ..“I
”F c. -,
:EV. UV ‘-
h~ .
by...
:...., ' '5':
......., ., -:... _
:Avy'.‘ o 9."ar
"‘"e' no.....-l
H ‘
‘V‘Mcv ,
‘V.£‘I»‘ I
‘ Q
’~. 1 F
‘ I".
r
b... H. ra.e
n’. ‘. ‘ ~ '
:nd ""‘Ap
(nay ,I’ 0‘.-~‘.
A...
:b‘:s:‘:“ A
by ."AV‘9LS v
“A l
75“ ‘
v- "
r5~v:“'g“‘ “2‘.
5‘ k
t Ԥ

warmth Dinnnnion of Parenting

 

 

 

 

Parental Acceptance Parental Rejection
Hostility/ Indifference Undifferentiated
Aggression Rejection

jihysical Verbal Physical Verbal

Itiss praise hit curse physical and child’s feeling
tiug say nice bite say psychological being unloved
flandle things kick cruel unavailability unappreciated or
(etc. to or scratch things of parent uncared for etc.
about about
Figure 1.

Efiigure 1. Warmth Dimensin of Parenting
Source: Rohner, 1986, p. 20.

Rohner (1977) developed a self—report questionnaire
tritled: Parental Acceptance-Rejection Questionnaire
(IRARQ), which was designed to elicit respondents’
atssessments of their childhood experiences in terms of
Exerceived parental “warmth”. In the Child PARQ, children
are asked to reflect on the way their primary caregiver

(usually mother) now treats them.

 

 

‘5

q"
,1

.v-‘»&u‘.U-.

v:

S

5
AVG",

6'07
s--.-€S

.

. ’fi

nn°
v.0--u-\—“

‘

Q

$I

Va- 3'.'e-

soy

“NRA
sin-”v

ya
§

‘

‘
V l-‘:

6"

~
H~
UH

a-

 

Statuuont of tho Problcn

A review of literature revealed many studies of the
:relationships of home environment, SES, and parenting
:styles as related to the academic achievement of school—age
c:hildren (Baumrind, 1973, 1991; Bloom, 1986; Bradley &
(Caldwell, 1987; Luster & Dubow, 1990; Steinberg, 1990).

Parental rejection, which is defined conceptually as
tJne absence or significant withdrawal of warmth, affection,
(3: love by parents toward their children lies at the
cupposite end of the warmth dimension (Rohner, 1975a,
15975b). Only a few studies have looked at whether school-
atge children’s perceptions of specific parenting behaviors
ruave a relationship to their academic achievement (Morrow,

‘1983; Schachter, 1965).

Links between parenting and academic achievement have
been established (Baumrind, 1973, 1978, 1991; Steinberg,
1990). There is empirical evidence that the nature of the
home environment can modify a child’s cognitive competence

(Bloom, 1986; Bradley & Caldwell, 1987).

Previous researchers have concentrated on types of
Parenting styles as reported by parents and investigators

as related to academic achievement. Therefore, it is

 

 

y_ u. t I
AFQ hr 9‘
Vat“¥-€al s

, . .
«I re «‘~Ar
.u . ac».v...

 

'Qi‘es C
I
D. Q
a. I n
“xv-Cre
.LA
\
Va: y,:A\
(8:... I a
I
g
L: :9 ‘
~

VT‘:
t‘\~ ' .
“ ‘eac"‘~
s. H
I,
.
.:~.
~
nyglvrs
5
I, ‘-
a- ‘
R
g}: a,
1"-V‘e
“
C..~“y" I
u -' :‘l c
s
q
\ A
\u

In

necessary to extend an investigation beyond the simple
classification of parenting styles and examine school-age
<3hildren's perceptions of parental acceptance and rejection

:in relationship to their academic achievement.

Purpose of the Study F

The purpose of this study was to explore the possible

 

I "

rwelationships between selected fourth and fifth graders'
pnerceptions of maternal acceptance or rejection and their
achievement on the MEAP reading test. The specific

objectives of the study were to:

1.. Explore to what degree mother’s warmth measured with

time (PARQ) and MEAP reading scores vary.

2. Explore the variance in mother's warmth (PARQ) and

‘MEAP reading scores as a function of individual and family

factors.

3. Explore the relationship of mother's warmth (PARQ),

individual factors, family factors, and MEAP reading

scores.

 

 

'7" .-
1255‘:

. .
filAvvvl q“ .
“b“. ‘o.

R
I-

 

Che-Q

.flrm

 

 

 

These objectives are depicted in the conceptual map

shown in Figure 2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

anfly
Characteristics
1. $138
2.1nmwtor
not intact
3. Help with
homework
4. mefly
stability-
mobility
D
Academic
Mothers Achlevernent
—p warmth-rejection —p 4th Grade
MEAP
Reading Score
1. Gender
2. Age +
Individual
Characteristics

 

 

 

Figure 2. Conceptual Map

10

 

exfianb fi‘he e

bunt» LA. -

wingfi‘u T 5L

.A'vli ‘ b..

e;pa Q-Le ‘;

e-¢ny 5..

 

 

 

V 'C “
yfi.‘ ~"ov.’ 6
l...y.,‘-‘_). .1 S -.

LA~

IO‘ED‘e we: K a V’

.
‘
~
‘91.; l‘ififla“‘q
‘-v:r...-u_ —-

I91

I
{/7
I')

Family and individual characteristics are important
variables in every child's life. A student's family has the
potential to be very supportive in their education. To what
extent the family is able to provide (SES) for the child,
whether the family remains together (intact), how many
times the family moves during the child’s education
(mobility/stability) and how often the child is helped with
home work are all critical factors in a child's life. For
developmental reasons, individual factors of age and gender

are also important in a child's education.

Significance of the Study

This study has practical significance for school-
fanuly linkages in every community across the nation. This
:atudy will add to the growing understanding of the
relationship between academic achievement and parenting.
Resudts of this study can be used in parenting programs,
teacher inservice programs, and teacher preparation
OMirses, as well as providing other family agencies with

Possible intervention strategies.

11

 

 

The th

;',ar:;~6; fi"
.‘..\,-UVU‘V“

v

evaneqej C"

a..»v~ V
a I ‘

\ Q

gave: AFFAV"

H5 ' u.v~n--c.- 5
e

O'N! 'A'tppv-O -
Cac'QQVAu..yaa 'u

a Ovefi nee;
t. .Iv

A..-

 

3"" Vina-hp“.
V~.'§‘ V9.0”... ‘5

e
a.~:“ ‘7‘ A

at.“ "'
:.a°“' C.
e. ‘
w' ' 1‘1" '-
.
“‘“~» a-"
\

a
' .'
. .‘A'Q‘hwn
‘V""H-~S
.

A
~ 2
b.‘

~e‘ ~
u“e
‘Vy {She
E‘.~ ‘
.‘ .
l“h;
~. ". “
‘e.. H
L. Q 1‘
‘y
u

Theoretical Frenework

The theoretical framework for this study involves the
interaction of two theories. The ecological theory
proposed by Bronfenbrenner (1979) asserts that human-
development research should include an awareness of the
environmental systems within which people are operating.
The two environments on which the researcher focused were
the home and school. The interaction of those two
environments was the focus of this research. Parental
acceptance and rejection theory (PAR) (Rohner,1986) helps
to illustrate the dynamics of parent and child

relationships.

Human Ecology Theory

 

Bronfenbrenner (1979) described the individual’s
environment as “a set of nested structures, each inside the
next, like a set of Russian dolls” (p. 87). The four layers
Bronfenbrenner established through his research on human
development explain the dynamics of how humans develop
within the different environments or systems in which they

live. These four layers of environment that can influence

12

 

'I‘.pen de"'e
“w“ H

v ' W
85:51'Sbebfl

a'ararrs 6v-

~OVIUMAA ..

 

i"'fi.vr 0-h-
l ‘e

euuvg. 5“

' ' Q
"V"Ae" A
is...

w.
'Ohct
. .

 

V
F‘aV‘AQ
A
.uvve.‘-‘
§ . v
:Il‘ “'AA‘ H'
“U VHVV‘ y.

”mas; ;‘
.I‘...“er

2"! .‘Q ‘
end ‘y GA. era
a
‘u.
r v-
M.-'.;3 ch‘.h‘
4 Vy.~‘.h

‘«
.‘QA‘t"
"”319": .
..,V
\r
.' ‘
e. 1
en“ 'lt‘.“ ‘ .
“ C '1
¢ 4
H

 

e: ‘
N. v-
u “R‘A
Vuvaa‘
‘b
. V.
..D .
3.: ~

human development are the microsystem, mesosystem,

exosystem and macrosystem.

These four systems evolve from small to large. The
family constitutes a small microsystem that contains
elements of an individual’s immediate environment. These
elements include activities, roles, and relationships that —
involve the developing individual. The family is the

principle microsystem in which development takes place.

 

1....

Another is day-care center or school.

Interactions between the two microsystems of family
and school create yet another system, which Bronfenbrenner
identified as a mesosystem. A mesosystem involves the
relationship among various microsystems of the individual
and is an extension of these microsystems. The interactions
among settings now affect the developing individual.
Bronfenbrenner suggested that positive linkages in the
mesosytems of developing children facilitate their positive

individual development.

Parental Acceptance Rejection Theory

 

Parental acceptance-rejection theory, or PAR theory,
is a concept of socialization that attempts to explain and

predict major antecedents, correlates, and consequences of

13

 

pare:

‘53":

-Vv-‘V

has A
Lens:

...,
np‘.~

-1
Ca;

880

v- v‘
(I-
e
‘e h
tee ‘-

vo-oeu-\—éa
nA ' '

\ ."D “"‘
~v.u\. b“--
F 4A.. '

‘0 p ‘ R.
'. Vb-L-n
‘ ‘ -
p"~ ~A'O. ,
‘Ie‘ es-‘5‘
’c‘g~‘ ‘
.VJc‘bea

parental acceptance and rejection (warmth). The theory
focuses on four classes of issues. One class concerns the
consequences of parental acceptance and rejection (warmth)
for the behavioral, cognitive, and emotional development of
children. Another component of PAR theory deals with how
children cope with rejection. The ability to cope allows
some children the resilience they need with day-to-day
rejection without developing persbnality, social-cognitive,
and emotional impairments to the same degree that most
rejected children do. In addition to these issues
concerning the consequences of parental acceptance and
rejection, PAR theory predicts major psychological,
environmental antecedents of parental acceptance-rejection.
Finally, PAR theory is concerned with social culture and
expressive correlates of parental acceptance and rejection.
The majority of work done with PAR theory has focused
primarily on the warmth dimension of parenting (Rohner,

1986).

The theoretical model for this study is illustrated in
Figure 3. This researcher explored the microsystems and
mesosystems of school-age children and the possible
relationship of those systems to the children's academic
achievement. The independent variables for the study were

mother's perceived acceptance and rejection (warmth),

14

 

er

‘ 1
Dcfefltai A- -

Q
CSDCiS at:

 

n‘ ‘ '.-
.39 39.9853:

L,
53.5.9'367283'.

 

 

 

parental involvement with homework, mobility (number of
schools attended), SES, family make-up, age, and gender.
The dependent variable was the children’s academic

achievement as measured by the fourth grade MEAP reading

test.

 

  
  
   
  

   
  
 
   
 
 
 
   
 
   
    

home-school interaction

Inesoeysuun
Eamnmmdway

 

 

perceived maternal acceptance
PmmMflaaanwe

"*mmmflnmy

home microsystem

   
 
 
 
  

reading achievement

 

child and family
characteristics
Eamnbmdmay

home microsystem

l

home-school interaction

rnesoeysuun
Eamnmmunmy

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3.
Theoretical Model

15

 

' I-
Pe.at'.o..s..
____.__._

Lung» 4.376 -

..‘.a¢uu UV

o'eA “" *k

rut :e‘e‘ 5|-

B'AO'C‘A Qu-
b..«I-u V‘H
0 U

v-n u ’
‘5‘ Hr ‘- s
"-ooUe van

 

.

O
“:Va' ‘Hfi
V“.'Uv.gn\j
e

" u -
R ‘7‘.—
egc boat

 

uequ‘fl" "
veeua..v..s -

h. " -
.. ”Va“,
'6|."“

V“ 5 Ce
fi

‘
..~ '
n a ‘_ ‘
in“ 5 av CFA
xrb“\'.“
“but‘fl‘y ;
~'-l~‘»G (1-..:
.A.~
:4“.
A \
~‘~ t ,‘e,'c "
v- 1
Q.‘
‘ug

..‘v~
u.
t..‘v.“‘l 9"
-

n
‘ a
M ,
id;
‘V
e-.‘ ‘4-.‘~ '
H G‘s
\
Q
~.
v. ,.
.ls‘Cr‘“ CF‘
.."“~
‘1
.‘.
e §
‘v. \‘n
.‘.c A'
5‘ .
VHS 2
‘1
‘e
.
‘5~A"' t
N's‘ Wu‘.

Relationships Between the Human Ecology and PAR Theories

 

No one theory describes or explains all aspects of
human development and socialization. Ecological theory and
the PAR theory are compatible; therefore they were used to
provide guidance in developing this investigation of -
children’s academic achievement in relationship to

parenting behaviors.

The theories are dependent on the environment, which
is an essential component of both the human ecology, and
PAR theories. It is necessary to focus on the contexts and
situations in which children live and work because
children’s perceptions are based on what they see, hear,
and experience in the world around them. Besides having
physical dimensions, environments, to human ecologists, are
“subjectively experienced....[People] perceive, interpret,
and create their meaning” (Bubolz & Sontag, 1993, p. 23).
Environments are meaningful not only for what they actually
contain, but also for the meaning that is created within
them. Social contexts have a wide-ranging influence on
individuals' academic achievement. The theories concur that
“environments do not determine human behavior but pose
limitations and constraints as well as possibilities and

opportunities” (Bubolz & Sontag, 1993).

16

 

 

    

in ..' RAF.
‘5‘. ya: \rvan»

‘
,.
“re: are
. U

VeeU' \r

' I
5"" ran-var- .-

Ivu'.o\r.....~... 5

 

.AA‘
‘UI4“ “A.- A
eaJvI. ‘Vb \—
eha :04.‘,~'~‘ .
tang

Que“- . -u‘

I

C=Cal~‘l“.’ :A‘.
u‘ we.) .V-
5:5 or"; q.
«H Vt.--“ c-‘
‘DA ,3

u D
L._~ b..eO:;EQ
‘v\.‘ ‘I .
.‘Du .“ .

-
”‘Cu 5

v
.ap‘ve

’fu- ‘ej CO.»
e \-..

7'“
”y
a
'\ s
.5;- '
v. y
V§Ie CE'QV
‘5
:n‘
“.‘ .
s

‘h‘V'A
‘

An important interaction takes place between person
and environment. Development is not something that just
happens to children. Rather, they are active participants
in the contexts in which development occurs. People can
“respond, change, develop, act on, and modify their
environment” (Bubolz & Sontag, 1993). Thus, individuals are
the producers of their own development (Bronfenbrenner,
1993). Not only do these theories recognize the ability of
the individual to respond to new information and
experiences, but they emphasize that people have the
capacity for forethought. The interaction between parent
and child also supports the dynamic-interaction portion of
the theories. Parental acceptance and rejection is based on
just that interaction and can be captured through self-

reported perceptions.

Perceptions of parental acceptance and rejection
evolve over time. Thus examining specific life transitions
and also the cumulative effects of these changes over time
is necessary. One needs to consider not only the
development that occurs throughout the life span of an
individual, but also the mediating effect of the past on
current and future behavior. Bronfenbrenner's concept of
chronosystem and Rohner’s warmth dimension both are

measures of sustained effects over time. Not only does

17

o .
b a

I .

F e

L I ‘

estiga-

Q

e-a:1::s

.00.
'
n

4r"!

, ‘
1 1“
-G-

1
1‘
-U

v

V
‘ IN ‘
...U-

'0:
.oau

25:8

R
V

BCEGEKL

:rr‘r C
ed‘v.“
Aw
V.-
‘g
VA
‘s.': :k
ea

academic development begin early, it is part of the larger
lifelong process of human development. In this
investigation, the two theories were blended to study the
relationship that may exist between the characteristics of
individuals and families in their environments, perceived
maternal acceptance or rejection, and school-age children's fl
academic achievement, as measured by their fourth grade

MEAP reading achievement scores.

 

Bronfenbrenner’s findings have far-reaching effects on
the effort to bring homes and schools together. Garbarino
(1997) concluded that the most important aspect of policy
intervention is the “personal commitment to improving the
lives of children and their families” (p. 37). MEAP
assessments are not likely to change at the state level in
true near future. PAR theory has indicated that a
Italationship exists between students’ academic achievement
arud parental acceptance or rejection (warmth). The findings
frxbm this study will assist parents and schools with their
CCfiLlaborative efforts to better meet the needs of school

8963 children and their academic quest.

18

 

t
”h
6th

I-I'ncltneses

  
   

A

Q
nere fort...

1"- e‘yl. e.._‘
on ...‘ s

("'fli-c4 H

9*;
u.uu.~u .5- ‘-

.'...,"_A ‘,
dl.:...c: "a

 

V ‘Qe; ‘..

. .Hu"¢cua

.

‘5. ,‘fl :“
vb ...__-‘:v

Rnsoarch Quantions and Hypothosas

The research questions posed in this study and
specific hypotheses related to them are presented below.
Hypotheses were advanced in the areas in which previous
research has indicated relationships. Other questions were
considered exploratory in nature: therefore, no hypotheses
were formulated for them. Individual variables considered
in this study were child’s gender and age. Family variables
studied were stability/mobility, help with homework,

whether the family was intact or not intact, and SES.

Research Question and Hypotheses

1. Do MEAP reading achievement scores vary as a function
of individual factors?

1a. Do MEAP reading achievement scores vary as a function
of gender?

Hypothesis: MEAP reading achievement will vary as a
function of gender.

2. Do PARQ scores vary as a function of individual
factors?

2a. Do PARQ scores vary as a function of gender?

Hypothesis: PARQ scores will not vary as a function of
gender.

2b. Do PARQ scores vary as a function of age?

Hypothesis: PARQ scores will not vary as a function of
age.

19

 

 

; : "Q. ‘ v
3" ‘ausgé
‘ n

.A "
3a. yU ho.—
n‘ CFC?
It UHU‘

.0 ‘ '
.e,-.M~ec~ c
”Vt-v-50 a-»
46

:tufihl‘; p f
.uuvv. 4; b

A; ‘afiw‘ v

N ! .
~'~\A’F ,

n'b‘v ’0.
no

t“...- ., A
‘Iadv‘... ‘. »

 

 

.
. .

‘.‘~""R A;
“‘Nv.‘v‘-‘ U.

V‘

-'~\A"'~ .
.0 ' ~
‘.:"\- wues‘

(I)

.
on, .
A“
¢...L, .on A :
.‘V‘o
V-

3. Do MEAP reading achievement scores vary as a function
of family factors?

3a. Do MEAP reading achievement scores vary as a function
of SES?

Hypothesis: MEAP reading achievement will vary as a
function of SES

3b. Do MEAP reading achievement scores vary as a function
of family composition? (intact/ not intact family)

Hypothesis: MEAP reading achievement will vary as a
function of family composition.

3c. Do MEAP reading achievement scores vary as a function
of family stability/mobility?

Hypothesis: MEAP reading achievement will vary as a
function of family stability / mobility.

3d. Do MEAP reading achievement scores vary as a function
of help with homework?

Hypothesis: MEAP reading achievement will vary as a
function of help with homework.

4. Do PARQ scores vary as a function of family factors?
4a. Do PARQ scores vary as a function of SES?

Hypothesis: PARQ scores will not vary as a function of
SES.

4b. Do PARQ scores vary as a function of family
composition (intact/ not intact)?

Hypothesis: PARQ scores will vary as a function of
family composition.

4c. Do PARQ scores vary as a function of family stability/
mobility?
No hypothesis stated

4d. Do PARQ scores vary as a function of help with
homework?

No hypothesis stated.

20

 

5. Is t:
Ham“ Cf

.u'upu

 

achieve-met

P p ‘I .
CI 65 user.

"rfi-fik A; -.
Gnu... U. .

‘- o, ..
.=:»Orsl C.

3132:3365; s:
. , ‘
zczne: 5 ha

{Pu-u‘onfirs P"

V'I‘HVI‘L “

 

I‘
. Ar.“ ‘
VV.‘Ve:
3""; \
V‘fi.
S'VQH‘A‘g ?‘
5|
3‘ '“Au,
“o ‘4}. ,‘
‘4v! .
u
“i
,"\A
Lycra...
h.
"# ‘
‘ ‘.~.“\
V
5.16 ‘C""‘
Ԥ
\‘R' |
"V | A
I -
e “en‘C‘
O
“H
. CV‘; 97‘.
"\.’Q 5"
a: ‘ '

5. Is there a relationship between student’s perceived
warmth of mother (PARQ) and student's MEAP reading
achievement?

Hypothesis: There is a positive relationship between
.MEAP reading achievement and student’s perceived warmth of
mother (PARQ).

6. Is there a relationship between student's perceived
warmth of mother (PARQ), individual factors, family
factors, and student's MEAP reading achievement?

Hypothesis: There is a positive relationship between
mother’s warmth, individual factors, family factors, and
student’s MEAP reading achievement.

Conceptual and Operational Definitions

Reading achievement

Conceptual-the degree to which a person is ranked
according to his or her scholarly work (Dornbusch, S., et
al. 1987).

Operational-the average score on both reading sections
of the fourth grade MEAP test score of 315 or greater (cut
score) demonstrating proficiency.

 

 

Parenting behavior

Conceptual-the behavior demonstrated by a parent in
daily family activities (Hazzard, 1983).

 

Operational-the indicators identified and measured as
sub categories on the PARQ (warmth, rejection, aggression—
hostility, neglect-indifference).

 

21

 

 

"a.
gov h

‘ f‘
huh cab pg ,

neasu: :1 5;.

 

Emily

hhfif‘ep
VV..~.. ,_

on B‘VI‘y‘Q‘

“““Q~ ‘H‘:

.UV.¢..‘U‘(
e. . . ‘
~.e h‘y‘h I

LI“-

.‘*‘
A
Utcvi.
, y‘
t. \
.Q‘e QAFA ‘

Peroeptiona

Conceptual-a person’s conscious awarenesses derived
from his or her senses and experiences (Hazzard, 1983).

 

Operational—the responses of each participant to the
sub categories of parental acceptance and rejection as
measured by the PARQ.

 

linily composition

Conceptual-social group regulated by norms of the
institution of marriage and the family.

 

Operational-whether a family is intact or not intact.

 

Intact.£ani1y

Conceptual-households in which individuals who are the
responsible adults in the family have lived together since
the birth of the child (Scanzoni, 1988).

Operational-households in which biological parents
still live together.

 

 

Family stability/nobility

Conceptual-frequency of geographic relocation of a
family unit.

 

Qperational-number of years the child was enrolled at
the school where the child took the 4th grade MEAP test.

 

22

SOCl‘

n. c

n-”

A c o
C U]

”.4
.5”..-

p
be

-e-}~
-~‘l

Help
w

H

L i
uie-U
i

I
C

.e

Q\ ‘5‘

L.
N. \Q

Socio-eoonouic statue ($38)

Conceptual-the monthly or annual income level for the

 

family.
Operational-family eligibility for free lunch under
federal guidelines.

 

Help with homework

Conceptual-how often a student indicated they received

help with homework.

Operational-the response given by each participant to
the question “Does your parent help you with homework?”

 

 

Reaearoh.haaunptiona

The researcher made the following assumptions in
conducting this study:
1. More than one dimension of a child's ecology affects
his or her reading achievement.
2. School-age children's reading achievement differs due
to out-of-school influences including parenting behaviors.
3- Perceptions of school-age children can be used to
measure maternal warmth.
4- The MEAP test is an accurate indicator of reading

achievement.

23

 

 

'7'}, v
34‘ .L

1 F-

p
3...».6' 5..

I
fi‘h A1 fin;-
Seuss; -3u:
‘I’ 1' A; C
O' “as M..

4

P. V. ’
.here has \

 

 

 

u, fifi‘-‘- A“
.‘“‘"G‘sgv£;

Y
c
e

N
‘ e
I.‘Vrr.a“ A.
-‘V
I
“A
~3F
2" “9.35;“
Vw. l.“
§ ‘V‘.‘
a”?
b gm .
‘ ‘ 1C. .
vi“: ‘k
5“!
z «4 .

Limitations

The potential limitations of the study concern the
sample, the data collection instrument, and perceptions of
school—age students. The sample was not a random sample and
it was difficult to find relationships between variables.

There was only one measure for academic achievement (MEAP

test).

To gather data regarding school-age children’s
perceptions of parental acceptance or rejection, a self-
reporting questionnaire (the PARQ) was used. A potential
limitation is how accurate the perceptions of school-age
children are regarding parental acceptance or rejection
(warmth). However, the PARQ has been validated on thousands
of children in studies worldwide (Rohner & Rohner 1981).
Previous researchers have relied on self-reported
information from parents or adolescents regarding their
perceptions of parenting behaviors. Rohner and others have
pursued the perceptions of school-age children in numerous

Social science investigations.

24

€738?

V?
I

x

:Rh‘
bye-fi

V
‘

«e; an
yb‘beb'

e

a.

:

 

S ... Z

I u. e

X L a . .L
e .3 a a
I an . . a.
.3 J. e T.
. . v. n.
... .3 :
.Nl. u" C» .:
GB in: .H.~ hie

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

Over the years, studies concerning children's academic
achievement and their social-emotional development have
focused on the socializing influences of parents. In this
section, relevant literature pertaining to school-age
children’s perceptions of maternal acceptance or rejection
and individual characteristics of those children that may

be related to academic achievement are reviewed.

Parental Warmth and Control

 

Parental warmth and parental control have been found
to be two major dimensions of parenting in all human
societies (Rohner & Rohner, 1981). Schaefer (1959)
analyzed data from observations of maternal behaviors,
which were described as social and emotional interactions
between mother and child. Factor analyses revealed that
mothers’ disciplinary techniques could be clustered into
two variables: warmth-hostility and control-autonomy.

Becker (1964) proposed two similar variables: warmth versus

25

Ln“ ". 1 -' "t'
.‘w ..--»

series of
parents ;

.‘F‘.‘ 89:
QLCLAose -u

-eau-

$.I
" ‘1.
* ‘y‘
.-v---“s'
.
.-
e =“~.‘

§
"“3 erfe:
2‘?” ~

hostility, and restrictive versus permissive based on a
series of factor analyses. Typically, factor analyses of
parents' behavior have yielded two dimensions, which are
manifestations of responsiveness and demandingness (Maccoby

& Martin, 1983).

Individually and together, parental warmth and control
are significantly associated with many child outcomes, such
as positive relations with siblings and parents and
adolescents’ problem behaviors (Amoto, 1990; Barnes &
Farrell, 1992; Baumrind, 1965; Kim, 1994: Peterson &
Rollins, 1987; Rohner, 1975a, 1975b, 1991; Rohner &
Pettengil, 1985). Kim argued that any attempt at studying
the effect of parental behavior on the socialization of
children could profit by beginning with attempts at
describing and analyzing parental warmth and control, and
then endeavoring to relate them to outcomes for children.
Amoto did just that in his investigation of the dimensions
of support and control in the family environment as
perceived by children (n = 201). Children who perceived
high levels of support reported positive relations with
siblings and parents, and felt good about their families,
whereas children who perceived high levels of control

reported a high level of parental decision making, parental

26

‘
J59 34» CC”

3539.135.
0

 

5ch

bUbllb

a '6: 1
vr‘ h:' a
eoufibu‘ H

41-

Q:~v~‘.e RC

‘1‘“... - \4 ‘
D

«V\

' a
HA9. AFC!
- e
«C‘e‘vb.l.er‘ ,_
b

. a.
'Avl
D

’1
r:
’ a.
rt
(1
'1

L‘

b ~~ . av!“

. ‘ ..q
i';‘;fi e‘... ~
‘5‘. g‘. ‘3:
(flau‘q

use of coercive punishment, and little use of induction by

parents.

Barnes and Farrell (1992) confirmed that parental
support and monitoring are important predictors of
adolescent outcomes, even after taking into account
critical demographic family factors. In their study, a
sample of 699 adolescents was interviewed on the
development of problem behaviors, such as drinking, use of
illicit drugs, and misconduct in school. High levels of
support and monitoring by mother and father were associated
with the lowest levels of regular drinking, drug use,
deviance, and misconduct in school. These results provided
strong evidence that high parental support and monitoring
are key socialization factors in the prevention of

adolescents’ alcohol abuse and more generalized deviance.

Paulson (1994) explored (a) the influence of parental
demandingness, responsiveness, and involvement on
achievement of early adolescents; and (b) the differential
influence of adolescents’ and their parents’ perceptions of
parenting on the adolescents’ achievement. Subjects were
247 ninth-grade boys and girls and their parents.
Adolescents’, but not parents’, reports of parenting

Significantly predicted their achievement outcome.

27

Specflca

 

I 4"“!‘7
367’)?"

.uh‘be .sailv
c

CCICCZE. .
4""o‘ ‘vg-qgr

éad'k‘ bulb.-

1"'.~ w- n5
blbir [we V-

respcn we:

 

 

 

l
drone.‘ u
“‘§».:.

.
“FA
P~3....:f

‘ A A
‘¥a¢.le:! 1 u-
-.y _
a,“
r “
‘ru‘. hcfiv"
L“\-V‘ I

\u GA "
-u
R
n_ “a“
‘Hbguyar‘fi
‘9
:{AMVF‘I -
v.“ s '

V

V‘\
e Hp

 

.
a?
“\
1‘.“
C
s. .
‘4‘ .t‘
v‘ a
a. "c
N
'-
.-‘:‘
' H
“U. ‘5'.
«jg-t"
"v

Specifically, adolescents’ reports of maternal and paternal
demandingness, responsiveness, and involvement were
positively and significantly related to achievement
outcome. The author further suggested that parental
involvement may be more important to the achievement
outcome of adolescents than are parental demandingness and

responsiveness.

Parental Acceptance-Rejection (PAR) Theory

 

Rohner (1975a, 1975b, 1980, 1986, 1991; Rohner and
Rohner, 1981; Rohner, Saavedra, & Granum, 1977) described
PAR theory as a theory of socialization that attempts to
explain and predict major consequences of parental
acceptance and rejection for children's behavioral,
cognitive, and emotional development and for the
personality functioning of adults everywhere. Together,

parental acceptance and rejection form the warmth dimension

of parenting.

Egrmth Dimension

The warmth dimension of parenting is a bipolar
<dimension of acceptance and rejection (Rohner, 1975a,

1975b, 1980, 1986, 1991). Rohner defined parental

28

 

AA n.“
65% r‘. ans.

 

 

ctr" "

and ‘$‘
0% lAvv
be;

ed 3V

I I
.A'I‘vfl Oh:
._
.v'dsu ea...

:: :ne abs

.9,
0"

6...”!
five-fidu-

.LDAV'E' a:.

buy...
‘I

a::epta*~ -

nib

 

t‘l

.
~‘
... R or ...,,

y: ”:VP‘~‘ ‘

‘\
.‘~‘Q C;
Q.‘
« ‘eeren:

I.
A's-w

Fc‘
q‘_ C
dVV‘ A“ .
U.‘
e
o‘-
‘
“‘2‘: H“
rare'
1
s
§
~55“-
. ”L r”,
‘H
-’
I==~
se‘eC‘ '
s e~
«
Q
‘
:Vzv-
.“

acceptance and rejection as follows. Parental acceptance
stands in opposition to parental rejection and refers to
the love, affection, and concern that parents express
toward their children. Rejection, on the other hand, refers
to the absence or significant withdrawal of warmth and
affection on the part of the parent toward the child. In
theory, all humans can be placed somewhere along the

acceptance-rejection continuum.

According to PAR theory (Rohner, 1975a, 1975b, 1980,
1986, 1991), parental affection may be expressed physically
in such ways as fondling, hugging, kissing, and caressing,
or verbally through complimenting, praising, or saying nice
things to or about one’s child. Parental rejection (i.e.,
the absence or significant withdrawal of warmth and
affection), on the other hand, seems to be expressed
universally in forms of aggression-hostility, neglect-
indifference, or “undifferentiated” rejection in which
Parents withdraw warmth from the child. Undifferentiated
rej‘ection refers to conditions where children perceive
thEir parents to be unloving and uncaring (i.e.,
rejecting), but where such rejection does not clearly
reflect either parental coldness/lack of affection,

aggression/hostility, or neglect/indifference, per se.

29

V
-

,

raae ;

 

a

CO
v»

ren'

.H 1 ~'
.000-“

fa O?”
Aev“

‘

37.3

as

.A

p

StCIES, ES

ital:

.: C'
vԤ

a»
EU.
fi‘h

'6318 :2

I-
,-

U

0“

5“

Jaye:

‘
e
‘\

Starkey (1980) investigated the relationship between
children’s perceptions of parental acceptance or rejection
and their academic performance using data from 220 fourth
and fifth grade boys and girls. Scores on the PARQ
represented children’s perceptions of parental acceptance
or rejection. Measures of academic performance included
Science Research Associate (SRA) achievement test scores
and grade point averages (GPA). Children’s achievement test
scores, as well as their GPAs, varied directly with their
perceptions of parental acceptance or rejection.
Specifically, the more accepting children perceived their
parents to be, the better those children performed on both
measures of academic success. This relationship continued
to be significant after controlling for of parents’ level

of education and occupation, and children’s IQ.

Estrada, Arsenio, Hess and Holloway (1987) used
longitudinal data to support the link between the affective
quality of the mother-child relationship and school-
cognitive performance. A relationship rating was used to
assess global categories of positive and negative affective
expressions that indicated the emotional quality of the
relationship between mother and child. Sixty-seven mothers
and their children participated in the first (preschool)

Phase of the study: 47 were included in a follow-up study

30

v'* H .ke

'1. 4‘ 5“

that the

N‘s-en rho

.ta beov

Q
:crreiate

This ass:

'F‘Ah‘y" ‘7‘.".
sto-“~ “

' - Q
.'.4 Ah‘ .—
Gnu yu‘-‘

-' 1
h‘ q‘..,
“.- ~~u\
. -‘
‘v-e “Rh"
...‘-‘:aavl
I‘I‘ ‘
\ ht. q

C L} c
t” "‘H
a» .*‘¢\4

when the children were 12 years old. The researchers found
that the affective quality of the mother-child relationship
when the child was 4 years of age was significantly
correlated with the child’s school achievement at age 12.
This association remained significant when the
contributions of maternal IQ, socio-economic status (S38),
and children’s mental ability were taken into account.
This study suggested that the affective relationship
influenced children’s cognitive development in three ways:
(a) by affecting parents’ tendency to support children in
solving problems, (b) by affecting children’s social
competence, and (c) by affecting children's willingness to

persist in tasks.

Hahn (1980) examined relations among perceived
parental acceptance or rejection, self-evaluation, and
academic achievement of Korean American children. In her
study, a nationwide sample of 171 Korean American children
responded to the PARQ and the Personality Assessment
Questionnaire (PAQ). The results of this study indicated
positive inter—correlations among the three variables.
Specifically, a positive correlation was found between
perceived parental acceptance and children’s self—
evaluations. In addition, positive self-evaluation was

associated with higher academic achievement. Moreover,

31

f A

«G
D;

.d
fl y
l.’

«44
nfia

‘

e-c;:e

n H
.8.

Q»
a.»

V O

perceived parental acceptance or rejection was related

significantly to children’s academic achievement.

Parental warmth is important because it provides an
atmosphere in the home in which children are likely to
learn certain values that parents want to teach them (Kim,
1994). Clausen (1980) further argued that parental warmth
and parental control are essential ingredients in the
development of competent children. If the parent—child
relationship is close and affectionate, parents can
exercise the necessary control without having to apply

heavy disciplinary pressure (Maccoby, 1980,1992).

Hess and Halloway (1984) identified five processes
linking family and school achievement: (a) verbal
interaction between mother and children, (b) parents’
expectations for achievement, (c) positive affective
relationships between parents and children, (d) positive
parental beliefs and attributions about the child, and (e)
effective and rational discipline and control strategies.
According to Dornbusch et. A1. (1987), among these family

variables, parents’ discipline and control strategies

appear to have a major influence on children’s academic

achievement.

32

Av
rs

”AP*
ovu'

v.

a.» .

OV‘I F'Fe

Sup--V".

8,
y.
b

e R"

.4 V
2“”
«run»;

\
I

nAv-‘Vf'\"
bye-5“!“

ro‘
-v‘

C02:

SECS

r.
.3

C
~

~
e.‘

\.
.ie

Control Dimension

 

Parental control is a bipolar continuum ranging from
strictness to permissiveness (Schachter, 1965, Rohner,
1975a, 1975b, 1980, 1991). In her studies of parenting,
Baumrind (1965, 1967, 1971, 1973, 1978, 1989, 1991)
distinguished between authoritative control (firm/shared
control) and authoritarian control (restrictive/coercive
control). Although both authoritative and authoritarian
parents set limits on their children, their methods of
control differ. Authoritative parents use both reason and
power to persuade and confront their children. In contrast,
parents who are high in authoritarian control constrain and
constrict their children’s activities, preventing age-
appropriate exploration. They demand their children to
follow the rules without explaining the reasons for setting
up those rules. Baumrind (1973, 1978, 1989) indicated
several problems associated with authoritarian control.
Specifically, children who experience authoritarian control
are withdrawn, dependent, disinterested in school, and
often hostile with peers. Baumrind further recognized
problems associated with parents’ failure to control.
Children who are least pro-social tend to have permissive
parents who are low in parental control (Baumrind, 1973,

1978, 1989).

33

 

 

 

 

ILIIII ,. n5!
a. 5» nu 9
ad S .a; 9
J. e 1
t in I
an e I

a: ‘ a a A
7. re . Aiu
Ac ,. . n31
“Vs .fiu Q. 5

‘J:F\~f\
..---.by E

'73"
'5-

av s~u
S a.
e .3
huxa mu
7.

a.

n..

no

A.»

Parenting by Mother and Fathers

 

Researchers have argued that mothers and fathers
differ in their parenting styles (e.g. Becker, 1964; Lamb,
1981, 1997; Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Rohner, 1997). Mothers
and fathers may differ in their positions on the two major

dimensions of parenting but each may make unique a

contributions to children’s development (Lamb, 1981, 1997;

Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Rohner, 1997). Fewer researchers

 

have examined the unique characteristics of mothering

versus fathering in the child-rearing process.

Researchers Lamb (1997), and Pleck (1997) have
concluded that children with highly involved fathers tend
to be more cognitively and socially competent, less
inclined toward gender stereotyping, more empathic and
psychologically better adjusted than those whose fathers
are less involved (Rohner, 1997). Young, Miller, Norton,
and Hill (1995) also suggested that perceived paternal love
and caring are as predictive of sons’ and daughters’ life
satisfaction-~including their sense of well—being--as are
maternal love and caring. The authors used the data from a
sample of adolescents from the National Survey of Children.
Three facets of parental support--intrinsic, extrinsic, and

closeness-~were identified, and their effects on children’s

34

.' g ,.
sa:ls;a\r~

0'

mcthers
predictor

map

.AAV

:~~'.Ler Q04

5.
e..- -A‘

'7'.“ v- a
35......“ “j

~.‘...' "Eva"
a'val.e 1 lL-y. ‘

 

 

 

AA':;Ҥ

\
V 4‘
vy‘.' C-g

~ntcy1V5-‘ ‘.
“"5. ' ya. -‘\

b.‘
.
sq
.
”Vi: “QC;
‘\'~-
..
V. a ..
C‘ a
‘
:«A
‘

ne'er ‘
s' a A
V
a...‘
w” v“,
e‘.
“ ET: :
V.“ .
uh '1.
“ Gk
u
«~‘. 3
a
‘
U
Q

satisfaction were examined. Intrinsic support by both
mothers and fathers emerged equally as the strongest

predictor of life satisfaction of adolescent offspring.

The Rohner and others work substantiates the need for
further study into the possible relationships between
warmth and academic achievement. In Michigan, academic 3
achievement is measured by the Michigan Educational

Assessment Program (MEAP) test. There is widespread belief

 

that academic achievement needs to improve. Others have
considered how to do that through curriculum revision,
intervention services, and new teaching methodologies
(Lezotte, 1999). This study focused on Michigan students
and their families. It explored individual and family
factors possible effect on academic achievement as measured

by the 4th grade MEAP reading test.

MEAP Test and Academic Achievement

MEAP scores have always served as a measure of
accountability for Michigan schools, but now more than
ever, a lot is riding on the MEAP. Parents want their
children to perform well on this test so that their
children may qualify for state funding for college tuition.

Parents expectations and the public’s increasing interest

35

 

 

La: eve
O

- I \
Ohga r chr-

vuvé. news-

and this

VAA‘y‘ak ”-

..v'v¢-bu¢ 5‘3.

 

:Am C: L‘

eU.u; ..‘-

~9- .‘ ‘ -
iue‘u Hand:
‘ ‘ c
35.8 c- 1
Ar‘ah"
-‘":'V‘b=.$\.€

[A“
v A?
“'5 my-
5
‘5
""?‘R
‘o in n
\.r Q“Q
‘»
.A
5283: A
‘Vr‘s
‘
‘w
. .V ‘5
“‘Q I ‘

in MEAP scores have influenced school administrators to
place even more importance on MEAP scores. Principals want
their school to fare well in comparison to other schools,
and this expectation is passed along to teachers (Van
Moorlehem & Newman, 1998). While most teachers accept this
form of high-stakes testing as a way of life and most
reading experts agree that tests such as the MEAP are more
valid than the multiple choice language arts and reading
tests of the past, many are worried about the growing
importance of.the MEAP due to the fact that an individual
student’s proficiency in the language arts cannot be fairly
assessed by a single instrument, despite its validity

(Allington & Cunningham, 1996).

Teachers also voice concern over the effects that
pressure to perform well on the MEAP has on students.
Among teachers' complaints are that some students get so
nervous on test day their performance is hindered. At the
other extreme, some students become “desensitized” to the
MEAP due to the days and sometimes weeks of MEAP practice
sessions carried out in the classroom (Van Moorlehem &

Newman, 1998).

The reliability and validity of the Michigan

Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) has been studied.

36

o
‘r
‘9
.e
1"
aLAV
4

r
.

SCIES
087.6
J

estiflg

urns (1

a
5
b

S

. JIIII \FA. Nu. FL. . q .
»~ 0. § e a
: . a . an a t a .v. . a. . .0. . .
c. S C Q. . i 3 e \4 u. e a. Li
C T. ... ‘3 .. X f a. C t A
AHV '5 AH» e «a a“ .~ ‘ a «nu a.‘ S
‘ I Av e ‘hu .Hu re s :1 mu .3! Q»
.L t C .L e t . . .. i o.. 3. -2. E
a . Au .1 .t .u S S . . p. a. .3 E
a: fix. r; .J nm a: e .C 2a A . flu . .. .3
r I .6 at p n (no .J. t. . . a- .3 .: a 2.

Burns (1998) investigated the properties of Michigan's
testing tool. Reliability studies have indicated that the
scores from the MEAP, ranging from 0.654 to 0.949, are
generally acceptable. The State Department of Education
(SDB) offered supporting evidence for the tests’ criterion
and construct validity and further concluded that no
criterion evidence could be offered, since no other test
matched the purpose of the MEAP. An independent evaluation
by the Saginaw public schools (Michigan) suggested a
generally low criterion validity for the story selection
test and poor validity for Hispanic students. The remaining
tests fell below an acceptable level for criterion
validity. Burns (1998) concludes that overall the MEAP has
some advantages, but its tests have not demonstrated
adequate reliability or validity to make decisions about
individual students, asses writing skills adequately,
assess Hispanic students, or make decisions about district

or teacher effectiveness.

Rosen (1987) conducted a study to consider factors in
conjunction with the improvement or non-improvement of
grade 4 MEAP in reading. She selected four schools in
southeastern Michigan: (1) teachers and principals
attitudes, (2) school climate, (3) specific teaching on the

MEAP objectives, (4) curriculum policy and practices, (5)

37

 

 

  
    
 

emohasis

1

factors.

Pair

nannyda' pl!

\avVU. ‘10:!

'9 A,"
5149' (L)
SCCIES lf‘;

Vt.“ Oeqfi

v‘
. sens-XL 5

U.
R:‘ '
flu.-. .
n
’7"
A uh!
.

A
v

. . ;
"W‘s: -
$u \
K 1'“
.u.a‘ VSls
o
D: AA.
~ asSVIM.
R
5‘°a..aa ‘
d
E.
£4"? 2““.
d “~‘c‘
9
n.:"e a
‘e‘ .
Q as .
“‘94::

emphasis on compensatory education, and (6) community

factors.

Pairs of schools from two districts were selected
according to the following criteria: (1) similar school
size, (2) similar low level scores on the 1975 MEAP test
scores in reading, and (3) significant differences in the
MEAP test scores in reading by 1978 in one school of each

pair.

A questionnaire was administered to participating
teachers in grades K-3 and the principal in each selected
school, followed by a personal interview with each one.
Analysis of the data collected suggests these factors may
be associated with improving scores: (1) A more positive
change in school faculty toward their student’s progress
may affect improved scores. (2) When teachers feel they
have a positive effect on student achievement, this
attitude may affect achievement. (3) More “time on task”
may contribute to higher MEAP scores. (4) Higher teacher
morale may have a positive effect on student achievement.
(5) Less use of teacher aides may have a positive effect
student achievement. (6) When parents are satisfied with

their child’s academic curricula, it may affect the child

38

on

’s

 

 

 

.«m at My” eat. I a: a. C :1 a» «u.
e F. “u 8 AV Va Qw We. a: 4‘ fig. s s a:
O n» e .. a no. \nu at C. e a an RV C; :m kg Va
q“ ‘nh s. e o. s r. e. .vfl .u... .7. 4“ M. ‘d
s. A. .efl. a .fiu .3 e u .4. V. g «a A u ‘1‘ a H. ~. .5“
~ 3 a :4 Q . Q. “(I Pu .flu e 5 a: 4 e a: NH. Q» be ‘k
G. v . at e u u a o . .. a. a. DC at 4. .h .. .3 . e
v . «a; r. e . a» .e a .4 .1a e . n. v a n5 eL - “I

pas

e
V
e
:1

9

p
\

\\e

A
‘

my 6

5

level of achievement. (7) Parental involvement may have a

positive effect on student achievement and MEAP scores.

A study by Garland (1980) identified factors that are
related to above and below average achievement of fourth
grade students on the Reading test of the MEAP. The
relationships among student achievement on the MEAP reading
tests and compensatory programs, school climate, home
environment and parental values were investigated. Ninety
fourth grade students from four elementary schools in a
mid-western public school system were the subjects. The
data for the study were obtained from parents’ and
teachers’ responses on self-administered questionnaires, as
well as school records of students’ performance on the MEAP

reading test.

Data analysis revealed that there were statistically
Significant relationships between student achievement on
the MEAP reading test and the following: (1) family related
Variables; (2) teachers perceptions of parents expectations
with regard to education: (3) teachers of high achievers
Perceptions of parents’ values related to education,
expectations parents have for their child’s education, and
the effect parents, teachers and peers have on student

aChievement; (4) teachers of low achievers perceptions of

39

parent '

have f or

 

ugh ash;

‘
1833.”. IS

 

'5"? v..-
E':~e~u-s W:

parents’ values related to education, expectations parents
have for their child’s education, and the effect parents,
teaches and peers have eon student achievement. Teachers of
high achievers reported the following more often than
teachers of low achievers: (1) parents attended parent-
teacher conferences, (2) parents asked for feedback, (3)
parents expect child to make mostly A’s and 8’5, (4)

parents would object to child's passing with “D” average.

The results indicated that family background, parental
values, and teachers’ perceptions of parents’ values,
expectations, and the effect parents, and teachers have on
achievement had a significant impact on student

achievement.

Quality of a school district, as determined by the
general public, is often based on student performance and
community wealth. The primary purpose of Vanvalkenburg’s
study (1990) was to determine if there was a relationship
between school district performance on the MEAP and the
wealth of the residents of the school district. The average
adjusted gross income of district residents and the value
of residential property in the districts of Wayne County,
Michigan were compared to the MEAP scores of fourth,

seventh, and tenth-grade students in the areas of math and

40

C
\

-r
d
a.
we
Lu

.-A
”Cue--
one-xv
.auV
Q

56.6

p: 9‘!

v.

Q

.U
U

V

 

.4 .u. n. .\ v. 9 I». 1.- ? 4!. .ue —. u. .u .e

.9» .fiu .. 4n e 4 a .2 .«u .3 . ‘ .~s
3 e .v o. ”a .... ... r. L“ S n. . . x... a. . .
L1 1... a. .... . . . t . t at . t . . a . a. a t . . .4 ..
o t . . f . a . S .6 .3 ..l a C. S u . z. y .. .3

reading for 1984 and 1985. The secondary purpose of this
study was to determine if there was a relationship between
selected in-school characteristics and student achievement
on the MEAP. Per pupil expenditures, the racial composition
of the student population, the student/teacher ration in
the district, and the size of the district were compared to

the MEAP scores.

The findings of this study indicated that the income
level of the residents of the school district, the value of
the homes in the school district, and the low minority
student counts had the greatest affect on student
achievement on MEAP scores. Per pupil expenditures,
student/teacher ratios, and the size of the school district
were found to have little or no affect on student

achievement in these areas.

Another study by Snyder (1995) also investigated the
possible relationship between financial consideration and
student achievement. The purpose was to investigate if a
relationship existed between per pupil funding levels and
achievement levels of students in Michigan. The study asked
the question whether a correlation existed between student
achievement as measured by MEAP and the amount of per pupil

funding in the student’s school district. The findings

41

.

A
4' .A 0"
ob iv"

in

' we
eun
50.5.53.»

an. ‘

ug'af‘

edgy-.5 -
c~ ~

U5 ‘

n;rev~‘ . “q
u“ ”V‘s.“
. d

 

. e
e .8 “Fr;-
“ ‘5 5..‘~

_ .
:PV;R‘~ 7‘”
.Ucb...‘.‘u

a

e
4

-:t . " ~
5. ~‘
wUS & 9‘3-
‘. In-“
a“ ‘d/s
e, “L,
p
~5595r~;6v
e».-
‘
e'
v‘ Barafl‘-
‘ - F
..~~
e
‘ 1
a
I

indicated little, if any, correlation existed between
student achievement as measured by MEAP and the amount of

per pupil funding.

Parental Involvement in Schooling

 

Steinberg, Lamborn, et. al. (1992) argued that
parenting styles have concrete behavioral manifestations.
It is through these concrete parenting behaviors that a
parenting style influences the child’s behavior. Parents’
involvement in schooling is seen as a particular parenting
practice with specific educational goals (Epstein, 1987;
Hess & Halloway, 1984; Keith, 1991; Steinberg, Lamborn et.
al. 1992; Stevenson & Baker, 1987). Educational
researchers especially have been interested in the effect
of parental involvement in schooling on student academic

achievement (Christenson, Rounds & Gorney, 1992; Steinberg,

Lamborn, et. al., 1992).

The term “parental involvement” has multiple meanings.
According to Keith et. a1. (1993), it appears that most
definitions of parental involvement focus on: (a) parents’
academic aspirations and expectations for their children,
(b) participation in school activities and programs, (c) a

home structure that supports learning, or (d) communication

42

,.
eetween ,

 

‘ v
‘ ‘0' R
1313’ . vane.

have been

4 b
-2231- use
.

 

 

 

 

e.e:.entary

ll)
(It
5"
(D
H

\O
(n

8:43.4ch, s n

' Q
"--‘a S“
t‘Nyfi‘ :
~:._‘E-e CL

‘- w .
V.“ ‘q’en
s H‘5“ ‘
BA
“wife
22:1“ .
“&‘:Q 51‘.
5:
:‘N'..‘-
“"a EV,
e‘ VC~Q_
V“
'9.
5-. ‘1
‘34., 1
d
Viz-u. ,
a~\.le: ‘
\
:-'~<
~" fife
{y'e‘cu
.t

between parents and children about school. Keith (1991)
concluded that the effects of parental involvement may vary
with the age of children, the definition of parental
involvement, and the definition of learning. Researchers
have been relatively consistent in suggesting the
importance of parental involvement for preschoolers and
elementary-age students (Epstein, 1987, 1991: Stevenson &
Baker, 1987), but findings have been more uncertain as

students grow older (Keith et. al., 1993).

Stevenson and Baker (1987) examined the relationship
between parental involvement in school activities and the
child’s school performance with a nationally representative
sample of 179 school-aged children ranging in age from 5 to
17 years. Children of parents who were more involved in
school activities did better in school than children whose
parents were less involved. Also, parents of younger

children were more involved in school activities.

Home environments in which academic achievement is
valued appear to be related to better grades and better
achievement test scores among middle school students (Keith
et. al., 1993; Kurdeck & Sinclair, 1988). Keith et. a1.
examined the effects of parental involvement on the

achievement of eight-grade students, using data from a

43

 

 

:'r.e s

:cn~r

ugh-Q-
n

. I.

60-: n

is. ea

M- n'n~

1
was y..‘

u»
)
n
)

S‘”"sv
U“¥‘

‘s-
2" f
be.‘.‘ H

(I)

v- “A.
e.‘ ' (1

e‘-

«A‘-

nationally representative sample of 21,814 students and
their parents. The definition of parental involvement in
the study included components of parents’ educational
aspirations, parent-child communication, the structure of
the home (e.g., family rules about how many hours children
were allowed to watch television, how often parents checked
on children’s homework), and parents’ participation in
school activities. Parents’ involvement in students’
academic lives was found to be a powerful influence on
eighth-grade students’ achievement. The effect held for all
academic areas and appeared to result in part because
students with more involved parents completed more homework

than those whose parents were less involved.

Steinberg, Dornbusch, and Brown (1992) studied the way
in which family contexts affected adolescents’ behavior,
schooling and development. A survey questionnaire with a
series of standardized psychological inventories,
attitudinal indices, and demographic items was administered
to a large sample of high school students (n = 15,000).
Adolescents whose parents were warm, firm, and democratic
achieved better scores on measures of school performance
than did their peers. Furthermore, parents were the most

prominent influence on adolescents’ long-term educational

 

puns,%fi

youths’

Ste;

ado.es: ..

sosio-ecor

 

12 terns :
:~:effln f

any» .

..‘ . ‘

”its.“ : ._ A
nab. ‘~ |l
“Ow‘

0.

5... A“...

D
1

plans, whereas peers were the most potent influence on

youths’ day-to-day behaviors in school.

Steinberg, Lamborn, et. a1. (1992) examined the effect
of parenting style and parental involvement in schooling on
adolescents’ academic achievement in an ethnically and
socio-economically heterogeneous sample of 14 to 18 year
olds (n = 6,400). Adolescents reported on their parents'
child-rearing practices, as well as on their parents’
involvement in schooling. Academic achievement was assessed
in terms of GPAs across math, English, social sciences, and
science. The researchers found that parental involvement
was much more likely to promote adolescents' school success
when it occurred in the context of an authoritative home
environment. It was also reported that non
authoritativeness diluted the beneficial effect on
adolescents of parents’ involvement in schooling. Findings
such as these suggest that large gains in achievement can
be realized through programs that give parents concrete
information about parenting styles, teaching methods, and

school curricula (Sui-Chu & Wilms, 1996).

Early school success also is influenced by parent
involvement. Marcon (1993) examined the academic

achievement of an original sample of 168 inner-city

45

BE
1

r
g

w

'0

tut“

a‘
3.

.F

Der-e;€

HI‘
“U

!
‘,~V’ '3.
“-8e

9"-

M‘

M: .
ed.“

GVGKGX

‘
~~h .
1-..-

u
a-

Q.

e
-

~ F
“-e a a

eve

Here

‘A
55‘

children who were making the transition from the primary to
upper-elementary grades. Responses from interviews that had
previously been conducted with the children’s pre-
kindergarten, kindergarten, and first-grade teachers
provided information on the involvement of the children’s
parents in the youngsters’ education. At each grade level,
children were categorized into two groups based on whether
their parents were or were not involved with the school.
Measures of school competence included grade retention and
special education placement. Measures of student
achievement included grades, scores on standardized
achievement tests, and attainment of reading and math
objectives. Results indicated that children whose parents
were not involved with the school during pre-kindergarten
were more likely than children whose parents were involved
to be retained before their fifth year in school. Children
whose parents had been involved with the school during
their children’s second year in school had higher grades
and higher achievement test scores at the end of their
fifth year in school than did children whose parents were

not involved.

46

 

 

 

fit

5 t

.3 E a
a“ Q. a .
«a 9‘
I
Cu 5
Fl. Ac

nKv

 

.9» 1P“ 25‘
ML. Ru; 9»
3 .l t
O h S
I 4 .
4 .. Rm 5
V 0 a.”
nu r . C
e t i C

171

31

schoe

WE

u&:s

V 0“.
.65

t‘.

Y‘“
§$¢&c‘

be.

SES and Academic Achievement

 

SES and academic achievement have long been associated
as related variables. Kruse (1996) conducted a study to
determine whether students from low socio-economic
environments had lower academic achievement than students
from higher socio-economic environments. The sample
consisted of 66 6th-grade science students from a middle
school in Texas. Students were divided into a low-income
group and a non low-income group. Midterm and final grade
averages were determined for each group. When t-test
results were analyzed, the significance of the relationship
between academic achievement and socio-economic environment
was apparent (P = .011 for the midterm grade and .000 for

the final semester grade).

Another Texas study concerned itself with the
relationship between SES and academic achievement
(Matuszek, 1978). Interviews were conducted with 533
parents across the Austin Independent School District to
obtain information on job status, age, income, education,
attitude toward education, amount of reading in the home,
mobility, time spent watching television, and preschool
experiences. In summary, the survey indicated that, for the

school district, the most consistent indicators of children

47

y
-

a

ext
3 4S

818$
:72"
A» V:-

q

with lOV'
achie»

.1.

e.

‘6‘}.
wo‘aema

Ia

med 2

‘

rgv-
e V64.“ #

:6

my.
2‘
NJ.

with lower achievement were those most “traditionally” used

for SES-—parental income, education, and job status.

The difference between reading and mathematics
achievement were studied in 10 high and 10 low SES
elementary schools in an urban district in the Midwest.
The schools representing the top and bottom quartiles from
among 40 schools were classified as high or low SES. The
gap of almost one standard deviation in mean reading and
mathematics achievement levels between these quartiles
remained nearly constant as the students progressed from
grade 2 through grade 6. The achievement gap was
consistently larger for reading than for mathematics.
Associated with the achievement gap was a student behavior
gap, reflected in attendance and suspension rates. The

achievement and behavior gaps were highly correlated.

Shakiba-Nejad (1981) examined the SES, parent
participation, teacher awareness, and academic achievement
of 76 elementary school students. Results were obtained
through interpretation of data and review of relevant
literature. A strong positive correlation was found between
a students’ SES and their academic achievement. Some
findings attribute poor academic achievement in part to the

fact that lower SES students have very poor attendance

48

 

 

rt
I»
("V
fl
(0
Ch

'3 HARM V‘
AR-eva-uI-eaa

are” n“

I! L- a.»
.

1""fl“ 1'?“ new
“nu; vi...‘

.‘haq'r A}; ‘

"‘Ve- yo.-.

 

pm‘ '10- - C
5"“ ‘0‘- Gs.

’ n

F.~ “. ’

‘..-\'.“‘abi'~

-

’ s

p

“9:5 Cf .w
a.

..“‘ ‘ I
’1'! e-
N“-:“§ bale C

‘

V“‘e,' .
.aifib‘p&e ‘
Q

~.‘~
h
In 6,. .
' 'Oo Qfi
‘buec
t, a.
ususv s ‘.v
'e .
‘a
5‘ ‘.
“:49 SA;
Vx
*. a
Q a -
i as u‘ '
" v
o “‘\l‘; s-
..‘
.
~
QV~
‘1 N
\ In
2». p.f\,.‘
V‘
s
.
A
fl’e e
\~'E

records. The literature reviewed and study data indicated
that teachers’ attitudes toward low SES students were not
overly positive in regard to student achievement.
Recommendations for improving the training and in-school
experiences of teachers of low SES students included
involving parents with the school and in the education of

their children.

Guskey (1997) investigated the relationship between
selected contextual and socio-economic variables and
school-level results from a statewide performance-based
student assessment; The Kentucky Instructional Results
Information System (KIRIS) uses student performance in the
areas of mathematics, science, social studies, arts and
humanities, practical living and vocational skills.
Multiple regression analyses were conducted using data
gathered~over a 3-year period (1993 to 1995) from 49
schools in one school district. Results indicated that a
single socio-economic variable, the percentage of students
qualifying for free or reduced-cost lunch, explained a
large portion of the variance in scores at all school

levels.

49

Sender and Aca‘
__________

 

National

  
  
  

the evidence ct
scares reporte:
differences ove
were difference
Results general‘
In general, the
achievement were

41::
«nerences

1

F4.
D

.—

A

relatively Sm ;

R

”6'4 .
to.-ng hLCE‘e r

ceznutat a
‘ ‘

on up

y “Le“
9'.._ ‘
“uvlgu 5. G4 Y“
a“
a .
2:506 4
C
1.4"“ h
HLaHEyv a

9“ st‘de
‘H “k ,
I. S l“
‘4
‘C
”3:th
' - TH
he C!'\.“
CH
’v‘.
H nfi
v‘qu 5
tests . T'—

Gender and Academic Achievement

National standardization data were used to reexamine
the evidence of gender differences in achievement test
scores reported in previous studies (Han, 1994). Changes in
differences over time, from 1963 to 1992, were examined, as
were differences across all grade and achievement levels.
Results generally agreed with those from previous studies.
In general, the nature and magnitude of differences in
achievement were similar over the years. Average
differences in achievement between males and females were
relatively small in most subject areas, with females
scoring higher in reading, language skills, and mathematics
computation up to age 15, when the opposite occurred in
mathematics. Kaiser (1994) studied the effects of gender on
academic achievement in 239 latchkey children in grades 3
through 5. Girls scored higher than boys in reading in

grade 4.

Dulaney and Banks (1994) investigated the relationship
between level of academic achievement and gender and race
of students in North Carolina’s Wake County public school
system. The comparison was conducted using 1993 end-of-

grade tests. The results indicated that white females were

50

the most suc<

:~‘r ‘-
...a. affect

:ecause you

the most successful group, whereas black males were the

least successful group.

Soderman and Phillips (1986) discussed four
significant areas in which there are gender differences
that affect children’s approach to formal education. -
Because young males lag in psychosocial development,
teachers must learn to assess children's developmental
abilities and plan suitable curricular activities for both

sexes .

Sex-stereotyping attitudes and behaviors of educators
have been cited as particularly important influences on the
development of gender differences in children and
adolescents. Because teachers’ attitudes, beliefs, and
perceptions about gender differences may influence the
formation of students' confidence in academic subjects and
school in general, the perceptions that educators have of
real or imagined gender differences can be used as one
indicator of the conditions that may influence elementary

and secondary school students.

Parker-Price (1996) examined K-12 teachers’
classifications of selected characteristics as more typical
of males or females in their classrooms. In addition to

evaluating the teachers’ agreement with scientific evidence

51

.-
hr

,-

d f

in; t6
arch s
n

are

C

gender
ease

for
re;
iereas som

Sit”

v.
.Q

‘1
‘&

sin'

ié

.
‘

erent

 

444C

for gender differences, the researcher examined perceptions
regarding teacher gender. It was found that some teacher
perceptions of student gender differences agreed with
psychological research findings, and some with myths,
whereas some favored no sex differences even when the
research stated otherwise. Parker-Price also found that
male and female teachers had different perceptions of the
prevalence of some characteristics in boys and girls. In a
similar study Bradley & Caldwell (1987) investigated the
possibilities that young children’s gender elicits
differential academic expectations from aspiring teachers,
and that aspiring teachers’ gender and SES affect their
academic expectations for young children. In this study,
103 university students majoring in education were
surveyed. Results indicated that participants expected boys
to have greater interest in physical education than girls,
and girls to have greater interest in music and higher

marks in reading than boys.

Family Composition and Academic Achievement

 

For decades families have been experiencing change in
their composition and the divorce rate has risen to an all-

time high. The collateral effects of divorce on families

52

effect of

E-CELE‘.’€IT.€I

children ‘

d

divorced ;

and children frequently have been studied. In the present
study the effects of family stability on children and their

academic achievement was of concern.

Dawson (1981) conducted a literature review on the
effect of single-parent families on the academic
achievement of children from such households. She argued
that, historically, society has discriminated against
children from single-parent families, especially those of
divorced parents. Dawson cited research indicating that:

(a) children from one-parent households have lower levels
of socio-emotional development and academic achievement
than do those from two-parent families; (b) students from
two-parent families have higher reading comprehension than
do students from one-parent families; (c) academic
achievement of black children in one-parent families is
lower than that of white children from similar families;

(d) boys are more affected by divorce and manifest more
“acting out” behavior than girls; (e) low income, which is
characteristic of one-parent families, is a factor in the
probability of girls dropping out of high school; (f) the
female head of household is often less skilled and educated
than the average male who has custody of his children; and
(g) the father’s role makes a difference in the behavior of

children, especially boys.

53

$th
:1 C

Gu
"dre

r5!"
vb“

ad 1011181“

1b.;

resholds
Can 1
ffect chi

a

C.

.‘iECtiu

1‘.

0

aren‘t Stu
1;; .
‘ 'LS-‘LVCCC

I-

Guttmann (1987) examined whether there is a difference
in the threshold of withdrawal from schoolwork between
children of divorced parents and children from intact
families. Results showed that children of divorced parents
had lower levels of achievement and lower withdrawal

thresholds than did those from intact families.

Can living in a single-parent household adversely
affect children’s school achievement? This question was the
central theme of a study conducted in rural Washington
state (Shreeve, 1985). The researcher surveyed a
homogeneous population of 201 7th through 12th grade
students by administering California Achievement Tests and
collecting GPA data. In every instance but one, single-
parent students scored lower than did their two-parent
counterparts. These results and the homogeneous nature of
the population suggested that family composition may be the

deciding factor in many students' school success.

Parents’ separation and divorce can have an adverse
effect on adolescents’ academic performance and achievement
(Nisivoccia, 1997). Nisivoccia pointed out that the ensuing
psychological and social disadvantages can significantly
interfere with students’ reaching their full potential for

success in school. Nisivoccia's review of the literature

54

yielded a number of insights: (a) marital dissolution has
been found to have potentially grave consequences and
negative results for many children; (b) family structure
has been identified as the main cause of lower GPAs among
children of divorce; and (c) research also has suggested
that reduced income may be responsible for some differences

in children of divorce.

In an analysis of national survey data Thompson (1994)
found that, compared to those from other types of families,
children living with both biological or both original
adoptive parents had the best academic and behavioral
outcomes. Economic disadvantage accounted for many of the

poor outcomes of children in single-mother families.

In a 1986 study, Chalker tested the hypothesis that
there is no significant difference in reading achievement
among children in grades 2 through 5 related to family
structure. Researchers administered the Stanford
Achievement Test to 119 students in a suburban school
system in Alabama. Of the sample, 69 children lived in
intact families and 50 lived in either single-parent or
“blended” families. A blended family was defined as a child
living with a stepfather or stepmother as well as one

biological parent. In addition to the test, pupils

55

'M

Tothesis

V
l

‘-

i

' W

in
other faml

CS

jec

ub

C
d

vatchke

‘
-

q

‘T
I

.
‘Fv
a

"‘447-lenc
se

‘IRC‘

completed a demographic data sheet. The data upheld the
hypothesis for children in grades 2 through 4; however
subjects in grade 5 who were in intact families exhibited
higher scores in reading achievement than did those from

other family types.

Another researcher looked at the effects of family
configuration, family income, and gender on children’s
academic achievement (Kaiser, 1994). The sample comprised
239 latchkey children in grades 3 through 5. Kaiser found
that children of single parents scored lower on reading and
language measures in grade 4 than did youngsters in two-
parent families. Girls scored higher than boys in reading

in grade 4.

Leunj (1993) studied family configuration as a factor
influencing students’ perceptions of parental behaviors
that support schoolwork. A total of 439 public school and
399 parochial school students in grades 6 through 12 were
surveyed. Results indicated that students from intact, two-
parent homes perceived greater parental concern and support
for and help with their schoolwork than did students from
single-mother or stepfather families. Consistent with those
of other researchers who found that school performance was

related to family configuration, these results suggested

56

'-

res a-.

rf
-\
atilv ”"7”"

eq\‘;
‘5‘
P

at top

?
L

V
oh
.4;

e
44

nu
T.

\—
‘e‘
\-

A
H

' o.
“Sum
no.
H

J \4

we

e’feme

.QN

;Pf‘ '
lxtIEES
4*;

L

that to promote the development of school achievement
values and behaviors among children from non intact homes
requires an increased emphasis on parental concern and
support for schoolwork and parental help with that

schoolwork.

Family Mobility-Stability and Academic Achievement

In view of the statistics on the high degree of
mobility in the student population across the United
States, it is surprising that so little definitive research
is available on the effects of mobility on the achievement
and adjustment of students and so few suggestions for
schools about how best to provide educational services to
an increasingly transient student population. Mobility
studies that have been undertaken have indicated that
correlations were found between mobility and poor
achievement in language, reading and mathematics (Newman,

1988).

Water’s (1996) studied mobility and reading
achievement by considering the effects of geographic
mobility on elementary school students’ achievement.
Although such mobility, which requires students to make

multiple moves among schools, can have a negative effect on

57

as

e

a
Q

a.
v

e

not a 09
ed those 1

q
a
He.

were 157 f
in read

academic a

p...
n\u

A

7
{1'36
-
V
in“
an.

.iCV
., I

w

e
‘
-23

Y .

atte

'-
'c

9

I‘
“7"

.iGu
we

Le.

academic achievement, Waters hypothesized that mobility was
not a determining factor in reading achievement. Subjects
were 157 fourth and fifth grade students, who were a
representative sample of a multiethnic, diverse socio—
economic group in a suburban elementary school district-in
New Jersey. Results indicated that, although the difference
in reading scores between pupils who had moved only once
and those who had attended the same school was relatively
small, significant differences were found between those who
had attended one or two schools and those who had attended

three or more schools.

Mao (1997) examined the magnitude of student mobility
in the Texas public schools by reporting how many students
were moving, when and where they were moving, and who was
moving, and by clarifying the relationships between
mobility and academic performance at the individual
student, campus, and district levels. The primary focus of
the study was on within-year student mobility. Issues also
were examined longitudinally by following students who were
in grade 1 in 1991-92 through the 1995-96 school year.
Results led Mao to conclude that there were significant
relationships between mobility, and academic performance
and school accountability. Mobile students scored lower on

the state required tests than did students who did not

58

move, and

schools wi‘

student no}
factors, 8‘

\v .

C‘ *' '
vuabhs’ wa

atnl‘Ev 'n
A48? #-
the
‘ SOusa
“clkYQ

move, and this negative relationship was strongest in
schools with high student turnover rates or high

percentages of economically disadvantaged students.

Wright (1999) reviewed studies on the effect of
student mobility on achievement test scores. Other risk
factors, such as low family income and ethnic minority
status, were found to influence mobility equally. Data were
collected from students in selected grade levels in an
urban, Midwestern school district, using nationally normed
standardized tests and state assessments in reading and
math. Low achievement scores were associated more highly
with internal mobility than with external mobility.
However, mobility was determined to be confounded with
family income and ethnic-category membership and to have

less effect than either of those two factors.

The effect of student mobility on the academic
achievement of a population of sixth-grade students from
the southwest side of Chicago was generally consistent with
other findings from other research (Evans, 1996). Reading
and math scores from the Iowa Test of Basic Skills were
compared for two groups. The analysis did show slight gains
for students who had attended the school 5 to 6 or 3 to 4

years versus 1 to 2 years.

59

St

:5
Lg

q

relatio;

Epste

of

”:7
.‘Al haV!

It is clear from this review that perceptions of
children concerning parental behaviors as well as other
factors associated with individuals and families have an
effect on children’s academic achievement. The
relationships that exist between individual, family
factors, and academic achievement has a large impact on

public education.

The finds from this study did not support the research
cited in the areas of: age, gender, family composition,
stability/mobility, SES, and mother’s warmth. Help with
homework was a significant finding that supports the work
of Epstein and others. Continued efforts in partnerships
between parents and schools is a worthwhile effort that

will have a positive effect on academic achievement.

The sang;

 

 

 

are fifth-ore:

v ‘ ‘ ‘
HE same H-3‘3

d;strzct has a

€18fl€“‘

...ary sc‘:

.ne schools a

Chapter 3

Methodology

The Setting and Sample

The sample (n=94) for this study was drawn from fourth
and fifth-grade students in three elementary buildings in
the same mid-Michigan public school district. The K-12
district has an enrollment of 2,000 students in three
elementary schools, one middle school and one high school.
The schools are in both rural and suburban settings. Of the
2,000 students enrolled in the district, 92% are Caucasian,
3% Native American, 2% Hispanic, 2% African American, and
less than 1% other races. More than 30% of the district’s
elementary students come from families which report an
annual or monthly income that is below the published
Federal income guidelines. Because of that, those students
qualify for a free or reduced lunch provided by public

schools.

The community in which the study was conducted is from
a conservative mid-Michigan area. The school community is
influenced by a large global chemical company which is
located in the adjoining urban school district, although

the district under study does not benefit financially from

61

that company. During the 1998-99 school year, 50 (2.5%)
students entered the K-12 district, 20 (1%) students left

the district.

There are six fourth-grade classrooms and six fifth-
grade classrooms. The sample used in the study was
comprised of those fourth and fifth-grade students who
returned a signed parental consent form (Appendix 1). In
order to obtain the parental consent the researcher first
had to obtain permission from the school district.
Permission was obtained from the Superintendent (Appendix
2) to conduct the study within the school district. At an
administrative council meeting the researcher explained the
study and procedures to building principals. The researcher
attended staff meetings at the elementary buildings where
the study would be conducted and explained the study and

procedures that would be used to obtain the data.

Data Collection

 

The researcher obtained permission from the school
district to administer the research instrument in the three
elementary buildings (Appendix 2). Permission also was

granted by the Michigan State University Committee on

62

Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) to conduct the

study (Appendix 3).

A letter informing parents of the research project was
signed by all three building principals and sent home with
all fourth and fifth grade students. A consent form was
located at the bottom of the letter (Appendix 1). Parents
were asked to sign and return the consent form if they were
willing to have their student participate in the study. An
opportunity was offered at each elementary building for
parents to meet with the researcher and ask questions
concerning the study or its’ procedures. No one attended
any of the three scheduled meetings. The data were

collected during a 1 week period in June 1999.

After students returned their consent forms to the
school office each building principal compiled an
alphabetical list of the fourth and fifth graders who would
be participating. Each building principal maintained the
list of students participating. Each student on the list
was assigned an identification number. The number
identified each student and the school he/she attended.

The identification number was placed both on the PARQ
instrument and on the outside of the envelope containing

the instrument. When the instrument was administered, the

63

 

 

(I

n
\v

‘1

‘a

 

,-
h“:

researcher handed each student his or her envelope. There
were no names on the instrument or the enveIOpe containing
the instrument. At the conclusion of the data gathering,
each building principal relinquished the building's data
(PARQ surveys and list of participants with identification

numbers) to the researcher.

The researcher contacted building principals and
classroom teachers to arrange an appropriate time and place
to administer the survey instrument in each of the three
elementary schools. Coordination with each building
principal and teacher allowed the researcher to plan the
best time and day to administer the PARQ survey. The day
the survey was administered the identified students left
their classrooms and joined the researcher in a separate
room within the school where the PARQ was administered.

The researcher introduced himself to the study participants
and explained what they were going to be doing (Appendix

4).

The Parental Acceptance Rejection Questionnaire (PARQ)
(Appendix 5) was the instrument used for data collection.
The researcher explained what the project was about and why
the research was being conducted and students were asked to

respond honestly. They were reassured that the information

they provided would be kept confidential and that their
responses would be used only by the researcher and not

shared with anyone else.

LaGreca (1990) stressed the importance of wording
instructions carefully to decrease the possibility of -
students' giving responses they deem socially desirable.
The researcher emphasized to the students the difference
between a survey questionnaire and a test, stressing that
the questionnaire was not a test, and therefore there were
no right or wrong answers. He explained that he was
interested only in what the students thought or felt about
each question. The researcher also pointed out that it did
not matter if students responded differently from the
others in the group. They were to choose the best answer
for their situation. Students were assured that no one else
would read their answers, and that their names would not be
used when information about the research project was

shared.

The researcher first asked the students to complete
sample questions to familiarize them with the response
format and with how to mark their answers. He then read the
survey items aloud to facilitate reading comprehension.

The total survey took approximately 30 to 40 minutes.

65

Even though the researcher was known by many of the
community, the number of parents allowing their child to
participate was limited n = 100 (31.6%). Students were
allowed to participate from a population of 316 fourth and
fifth grade students. The community has limited ethnic
diversity. There are less than 9% Hispanic, Asian, African
American or Native Americans living in the community.

These are limitations on the study.

Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Fourth and Fifth
Graders in the Study Sample.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

School Participants Gender
Population
4th/5th M
School 1 92 28 (30%) 12 16
School 2 56 21 (38%) ll 10
School 3 168 51 (30%) 21 30
Totals 316 100 44 56

 

 

Study Participants

The sample was comprised of 33 (33%) fourth graders
and 67 (67%) fifth graders, of whom 56 (56%) were females
and 44 (44%) were males. Twenty-two (22%) members of the
sample qualified for free lunch (low SES). Seventy-one
(71%) lived in intact households, and twenty-nine (29%)
students lived in not intact families. The participants

were between 10 and 12 years of age.

The sample reported some mobility. Thirteen (13%)
reported that they were new to the school the same year
they took the MEAP test. Five (5%) said they had been
students in the school in which they took their 4th-grade
MEAP for 2 before taking the test. Twenty-one (21%)
indicated they had been in the school in which they took
the MEAP for 3 years before taking the test. The largest
group in the sample, sixty-one (61%), had been students in
the school in which they took the MEAP for three or more

years.

67

Instrumentation-~The Parental Acceptance Rejection
Questionnaire

For more than 50 years researchers in the United
States and internationally have investigated possible
relationships associated with parental acceptance and
rejection (Rohner, 1986). PAR theory represents a
distillation and structuring of that work around a coherent
theoretical framework. Unlike other efforts in the area of
parental acceptance and rejection that drew from clinical
and other disturbed populations, Rohner's research has
drawn primarily naturally occurring ranges of variation, in
presumably “normal and healthy” families and children in

the United States and cross-culturally (Rohner, 1986).

The PARQ was constructed on a rational—theoretical
basis (Goldberg, 1981). Several theoretically pertinent
factors were taken into account as the questionnaire was
constructed. First, cross-cultural evidence has shown that
all children experience more or less acceptance and
rejection at the hands of the people most important to
them, usually their parents. Parental acceptance and
parental rejection are expressed in four principal ways the
world over, as warmth-affection, or as aggression-
hostility, neglect—indifference, and undifferentiated

rejection-~either as experientially perceived by the child

68

or as “objectively” determined by the investigator. Each of
these expressions may, in turn be expressed verbally or
physically. In recognition of this fact, items on the PARQ
scales were constructed to measure these various

manifestations of the perceived-warmth dimension.

Because the PARQ was constructed for use cross-
culturally, three additional considerations guided the
development of the instrument. First, the scales had to
have universal applicability; second, the terms used each
scale had to have common international referents; and
third, the phraseology of the items had to be decentered

from standard American English.

Previous work on the cross-cultural survey using a
sample of 101 societies showed that verbal and physical
forms of warmth-affection, aggression-hostility, neglect-
indifference, and undifferentiated rejection were the
principal manifestations of acceptance and rejection the
world over (Rohner, 1975, 1986). In 1971 the test items
were screened and decentered from idiomatic American
English with the help of two Turkish anthropologists in
collaboration with three American English speakers. Over
the next 2 years, the child and adult versions of the PARQ

were pilot tested on small samples of English-speaking

69

children and adults in New England to detect any further
problems with the test instrument, test items, and response
format. Troublesome areas in the questionnaire were

corrected.

Validity and reliability of the Child PARQ were tested
with a sample of fourth and fifth-grade students in three
metropolitan Washington, D.C., elementary schools. The
final sample consisted of 220 respondents, 118 of whom were
female and 102 were male. There were no significant age or
sex differences in children’s responses to the instrument

(Rohner, 1991).

The validity-study version of the PARQ was the
modified version of the instrument produced for assessing
the concurrent validity of the PARQ scales. The
modification was created by inserting items in cyclical
order from two already validated instruments. Three scales
from Schaefer’s (1959) Child’s Report of Parent Behavior
Inventory (CRPBI) and one scale from Bronfenbrenner’s
Parental Behavior Questionnaire (Siegelman,1965b) were used
as external measures of concurrent validity for the four
PARQ scales. Internal reliabilities of the Child PARQ
scales assessed in United States ranged from .86 to .95.

Factor analysis of items tended strongly to yield the

70

1"

r?

'r1

’f1

'1

'T’

I):

f).

expected factors, thus providing further evidence regarding

the instrument’s construct validity (Rohner, 1986).

Three versions of the PARQ have been developed
(Rohner, et. al., 1977): (a) the Mother PARQ, to which
mothers respond according to their perceptions of the way
they treat their own children; (b) the Adult PARQ in which
adults are asked to reflect on the way they were treated
when they were about 7 through 12 years old; and (c) the
Child PARQ in which children are asked to reflect on the
way their primary care-giver (usually the mother) now
treats them. In all three versions, respondents assess
parental behavior in terms of four scales: (a) perceived
warmth and affection, (b) perceived hostility and
aggression, (c) perceived neglect and indifference, and (d)
perceived undifferentiated rejection. (Undifferentiated
rejection refers to conditions in which parents are

perceived as withdrawing love from a child.)

Validity and reliability of the Child PARQ were
assessed on a sample of 220 boys and girls ranging in age
from 9 to 12 years and living in the metropolitan
Washington, D.C., area. Subjects were approximately evenly
distributed between middle and working-class backgrounds,

and they were about evenly divided by gender and ethnic

71

group. Results showed no significant differences among
subjects with regard to age, gender, social class, or
ethnic group on any of the Child PARQ scales. The internal
reliabilities (coefficient alpha) of the scales on the
Child PARQ ranged from .72 to .90. Additional information
given in Rohner, Saavedra and Granum (1977) concerned the
convergent, discriminant, and construct validities of these

instruments.

All versions of the PARQ contain four scales: (a)
perceived warmth and affection, (b) perceived aggression
and hostility, (c) perceived neglect and indifference and
(d) perceived undifferentiated rejection. The perceived
parental warmth and affection scale refers to parent-child
relationships in which parents are perceived to give love
or affection without qualification, but not necessarily
with great demonstrativeness. Accepting parents generally
are seen as liking their children, as approving of their
personalities and as taking an interest in their activities
and well-being. Warmth and affection may be manifested by
showing approval of the children; playing with them,
enjoying, fondling, comforting or consoling, cuddling, and
praising them, singing lullabies to them, kissing,
caressing, and hugging them; and demonstrating love in

words or other actions.

72

Perceived parental aggression and hostility, perceived
neglect and indifference and perceived undifferentiated
rejection are all forms of behavior falling at the negative
(i.e., rejecting) end of the warmth dimension. Perceived
parental rejection refers to the perceived absence or
significant withdrawal of warmth and affection. Parents who
are perceived to be rejecting seem not to like their
children; they seem to disapprove of or resent them, and
they are often seen as viewing the children as a burden
rather than a pleasure. Many rejecting parents are seen to
be cold and unsympathetic, and as comparing their children
unfavorably with other youngsters. As indicated earlier,
parental rejection is expressed in three principal forms:
(a) as perceived or “objectively” determined hostility
which typically is manifested as overt or disguised
aggression; (b) as perceived or “objectively” determined
indifference, which is often manifested behaviorally as

neglect; and (c) as perceived undifferentiated rejection.

The perceived undifferentiated rejection scale refers
to conditions in which the child sees the parents as
withdrawing warmth from him or her (i.e., they are seen as
rejecting the child), but in which such rejection does not
clearly reflect either perceived aggression-hostility or

perceived neglect-indifference. An example is item 4 in the

73

duld PARQ which states, “My mother does not really love
me.” This item does not reveal either perceived parental

aggression-hostility or perceived parental neglect-
indifference.

The perceived neglect and indifference scale refers to
conditions in which the child sees the parents as
unconcerned or uninterested in him or her. Such parents are
seen by the child as paying little attention to the
youngster, and they are apt to be viewed as spending a
minimum amount of time with the child. When such parents
are together with their child, they may be perceived to
ignore the child’s requests for help, attention or
comfort. Further, they may be seen as forgetting promises
made to the child, and they are often regarded as failing
to attend to other details or needs important to the
child’s happiness or well—being. Neglecting or indifferent
parents are not necessarily seen to be hostile, however;

they simply may be viewed as cold, distant, or unconcerned
about their child.

The perceived undifferentiated rejection scale refers
to (a) conditions in which the child sees the parents as

angry, bitter, or resentful of him or her (perceived

hostility), or (b) conditions in which the child believes

74

the parents intend to hurt him or her physically or
verbally (perceived aggression). Parents who are seen as
being “aggressive" are often viewed as being critical,
impatient, irritable, or antagonistic toward the child
(Baumrind, 1965). Such parents may be seen to make
disapproving or derogatory remarks to and about the child.
Apparently aggressive, hostile parents may be viewed as
nagging, scolding, and ridiculing their child; they may
comment that the child gets on their nerves or express
their frustration and irritation at the child’s behavior in
other ways (Rohner, 1975b). Other expressions of perceived
undifferentiated aggression may include handling the child
abruptly and roughly, hitting the child, cursing the child,
and speaking to the child in what is perceived as a harsh,

deprecating tone of voice.

One scale (warmth-affection) in the PARQ contains 20
items, two scales (aggression-hostility, and neglect-
indifference) each contain 15 items, and the fourth scale
(undifferentiated rejection) contains 10 items, for a total
of 60 items in all three versions of the questionnaire.

.All items are arranged in a cyclical order.

75

Response Format

All versions of the PARQ use the same response format
and scoring system. Respondents to the Child PARQ are
instructed to ask themselves whether an item is basically
true or untrue about the way their mothers treat them. If
the statement is basically true, they are instructed to ask
themselves, “Is it almost always true?” or “Is it only
sometimes true?" Or, if an item is basically untrue about
the way their mothers treat them, they are instructed to
ask themselves; “Is it rarely true?” or “Is it almost never

true?”

Scoring System

The items on the PARQ are scored as follows: almost
always true = 4; sometime true = 3; rarely true = 2; almost

never true = 1:

Seven items in the neglect-indifference scale (items
7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42 and 49) must be reverse scored. That
is, all of the scales including this one, are designed so
'that a high score indicates maximum warmth-affection,
xmaximum aggression-hostility, maximum neglect-indifference,

cmr maximum undifferentiated rejection. A high score on the

76

above mentioned neglect-indifference items indicated above

however indicates a minimum of neglect-indifference.

Before arriving at a total (composite) score for the
PARQ-—a score indicating the overall level of acceptance or
rejection perceived by a respondent--all items in the
warmth-affection scale must be reverse scored. The
rationale for reverse scoring the warmth-affection scale
parallels the rationale just given for reverse scoring
certain items on the neglect—indifference scale. That is,
all of the scales are designed so that a high score
indicates a maximum perceived warmth-affection, maximum
perceived aggression/hostility, and so forth. Three of the
four scales (perceived aggression-hostility, perceived
neglect-indifference and perceived undifferentiated
rejection) are measures of perceived rejection. Thus, to
make the meaning of the perceived warmth-affection scale
consistent with that of the perceived rejection scales, the
perceived warmth-affection scale must be reverse scored so
that a high score indicates minimum perceived warmth and
.affection (i.e., maximum perceived rejection). Since the
‘warmth.dimension of parenting is a measure of all the sub
scales of the PARQ or a total PARQ score, this study used a
'total PARQ score to determine the participant's perception

of mother’ s warmth .

77

Mad-sic Achievement-the 4th Grade MEAP Reading Test

The sample of students in this study had taken the
Fourth Grade Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP)

reading test. Their test scores were used in this study as

a measure of academic achievement.

The Michigan Revised School Code and the State School
Aid Act (1979) require that educational standards be
established and that students’ academic achievement be
assessed. The MEAP tests were developed to determine what
students know and what they are able to do, as compared to

these standards, at key checkpoints during their academic
careers.

The MEAP tests were developed to measure what Michigan
educators believe all students should know and be able to
achieve in five content areas: mathematics, reading,
science, social studies, and writing (MDE, 1998). The MEAP
tests have been recognized nationally as sound, reliable,
and valiclneasurements of academic achievement. Students
who scoreehigh on these tests have demonstrated significant
achievenEHHLin.valued knowledge and skills. Further, the
tests pnxyvide a common denominator with which to measure

how we11.:students are doing, and to ensure that all

78

Michigan students are measured on the same skills and

knowledge, in the same way, at the same time.

The MEAP tests can:

1. Measure academic achievement as compared to

expectations, and whether achievement is improving over’
time.

2. Determine whether school improvement programs and

policies are having the desired effect.
3. Target academic help where it is needed.

The test results paint a picture of how well Michigan
students and Michigan schools are doing when compared to
standards established by the State Board of Education. MEAP
serves as a measure of accountability for Michigan schools.
Michigan’s MEAP tests are based on the Model Core
Curriculum Outcomes and the Content Standards approved by
the Michigan State Board of Education. No other published

tests match Michigan’s outcomes and standards.

Most MEAP test questions have been written by Michigan
educators. Also, Michigan’s MEAP tests are criterion
referenced, meaning that the results are reported in terms
of performance against a standard. These standards have set
by Michigan educators and approved by the Michigan State

Board of Education.

79

Student performance is judged according to whether or
not each student meets the achievement standard. If a
student meets the standard, it means he or she meets
expectations set by the State Board of Education on the

recommended curriculum.

W

Validity pertains to whether a test measures what it
is supposed to measure. It refers to the degree of
appropriateness, meaningfulness, and usefulness of the
specific inferences made from test scores. Three kinds of
validity are addressed: content validity, criterion

validity, and construct validity.

The current generation of MEAP assessments is based on
the Michigan Essential Goals and Objectives for Mathematics
Education, Reading Education, Science Education, and
Writing Education, which were approved by the State Board
of Education in 1988, 1986, 1991, and 1985, respectively.
Because the current MEAP assessments are achievement tests,
which are used to assess what students have learned and
should be able to achieve in specific content areas by the
end of a certain grade, the type of validity of greatest

concern is content validity. To verify Content validity,

80

test items must match the specified objectives given in the

test blueprint or assessment framework.

Like all published achievement tests, the MEAP
assessments have a blueprint that indicates the objectives
to be tested in each content area. There is an infinite
number of ways to write test items to measure each
objective, and multiple forms are composed for each test.
Not all objectives are tested in any given form of a test.
Both "easy" and "difficult" items are used in every form to
balance the difficulty of the items, and to equate the
different forms to one another. The sample of items chosen
for a test represents the domain of all possible test items
that fit the blueprint. For a student to do well on a test,

he or she must have mastered the entire domain, not simply

bits and pieces of it.

Personnel in the MEAP office look at data in many ways
to ensure that items are measuring what they are intended
to measure. One of the first criteria is whether an item
appropriately tests the content. It is difficult for
Content Committees to know with certainty that an item
adequately addresses content simply by looking at the item.

ITuns the data from tryouts and pilots offer invaluable

insights.

81

P-Value. The first piece of data that the Content
Committee examined is the p—value. It indicates the
percentage of students who answered the item correctly. The
MEAP staff also look at the percentage of students who
chose each distracter (incorrect answers on a multiple-
choice test). Staff pay particular attention when less than
30% of students select the correct answer. Because all
multiple-choice items on the MEAP tests have four options,
by chance alone 25% of students should mark the correct
answer. Even if the content is appropriate, the item may
not be measuring well. The final decision on an item is not
based solely on p-values. They are simply used to indicate

the need for further review.

Differential item functioning. This is a way of
describing an item as potentially biased, or that it may
function differently for one group than it does for
another. If an item is identified as being potentially
biased, it is returned to the Bias Review Committee.
Sometimes the content of an item is really a curricular
issue, meaning that one group of students did not do as
well as another because they had not been taught the

material.

82

Again, items usually are allowed to remain, are
revised, or are discarded based on the decisions of the
review committees. Changes to an item necessitate that it
be pilot tested again before it may appear on an

operational test.

Item discrimination. Item discrimination is used to

 

compare the performance of students who score high on the
test with that of students who score low. If an item
discriminates poorly, it means that low-scoring students
did as well as or better than high-scoring students on that
item. This often occurs on very easy items that practically
everyone answers correctly. As long as an item is measuring
good content, even if the item discriminates poorly it is
kept. However, if low-scoring students do as well as or
better than high-scoring students on a moderately difficult
or difficult item, MEAP staff give the item a closer look.
The MEAP staff also look at the distracters to ensure they

are not misleading students unintentionally.

Reliability. For the MEAP tests, reliability is

 

deternuned by using internal-consistency formulas, which
indicate how homogeneous the test items are, or the degree
to which students’ responses to each item correlate with

their total test scores. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha, a

83

measure of internal consistency reliability, usually is
used when constructed response items appear on a test. It
can also be used when there are solely multiple-choice
items, or when combinations of item types are used.
Typically, the more lengthy the test, the higher its
reliability. The reliability indices for the MEAP story and
informational sub-tests are: .814 (story) and .809

(informational).

The district, for the preceding 3 years, tried to
measure students’ perceptions of parent involvement. As
part of the MEAP test students were asked, “Does your
parent help you with homework?” The study sample indicated
a strong tendency toward parents helping with homework;
only 4 (4%) of the 94 students who responded to this

question answered other than “often” or “after I ask.”

Individual and Family Factors

The researcher used both individual and family factors
as independent variables. Each participant’s chronologic
age was calculated from the date the PARQ was administered
(June 6, 1999). The range of ages were 10-12 years with a

Inean age of 10.89 years.

84

In order to determine intact or not-intact families
each participant’s school entry data card and the personal
knowledge of school personnel was used to make the
determination. There were 68% of participants living with

intact families in this study.

Family stability data were taken from the school
records (CA-60). The CA-6O document is prepared when a
student enters a Michigan public school. One piece of data
in the CA-60 is the number of times a student moves from
one school to another. Data was gathered that indicated the
number of years the participant was actually a student at

the school where they took their fourth grade MEAP test.

The mean average for the number of years the participants

were students in the school in which they took their fourth

grade MEAP test was 2.5 years.

Data Analysis

The PARQ questionnaires were each assigned an
identification number, which corresponded to the same
number assigned to the student responding to the
questionnaire. Data were entered into the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS,1997) using the

85

student identification numbers. Before the data analysis,

each variable was examined for missing values, skewness and

accuracy of data entry.

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics (frequency, mean, standard
deviation, range) were used to to describe the
characteristics of the sample. Cross tabulations illustrate

the demographics of the variables.

Inferential Statistics

Correlations were computed to examine the
relationships among the variables. T tests and Pearson
Product-Moment Test for Correlation were used to test for
significant differences between individual and family
variables, perceived mother’s warmth, and academic
achievement. T tests were used to determine if there were
significant relationships between the categorical data
variables used in the study: gender, age, SES, family
composition, stability/mobility, help with homework, MEAP

reading and PARQ scores. The Pearson product-moment

86

correlation test was used to explore any possible
significant relationship between MEAP reading and PARQ
scores. A multinominal regression model was used to

determine main effects of all variables.

A summary of the research question that guided the
study, hypothesis to be tested, and the planned statistical

analysis is as follows:

1. Do MEAP reading achievement scores vary as a function
of individual factors?

1a. Do MEAP reading achievement scores vary as a function
of gender?

Hypothesis: MEAP reading achievement will vary as a
function of gender.

Data analysis of questions 1., 1a. and hypothesis: t-tests

2. Do PARQ scores vary as a function of individual
factors?

2a. Do PARQ scores vary as a function of gender?

Hypothesis: PARQ scores will not vary as a function of
gender.

2b. Do PARQ scores vary as a function of age?

Hypothesis: PARQ scores will not vary as a function of
age.

Data analysis of questions 2., 2a., 2b., and hypothesis:
t-tests

3. Do MEAP reading achievement scores vary as a function
of family factors?

3a. Do MEAP reading achievement scores vary as a function
of SES?

Hypothesis: MEAP reading achievement will vary as a
function of SES

87

 

3b. Do MEAP reading achievement scores vary as a function
of family composition? (intact/ not intact family)

Hypothesis: MEAP reading achievement will vary as a
function of family composition.

3c. Do MEAP reading achievement scores vary as a function
of family stability/mobility?

Hypothesis: MEAP reading achievement will vary as a
function of family stability / mobility.

3d. Do MEAP reading achievement scores vary as a function
of help with homework?

Hypothesis: .MEAP reading achievement will vary as a
function of help with homework.

Data analysis of questions 3., 3a., 3b., 3c., 3d., and
hypothesis: t-tests

4. Do PARQ scores vary as a function of family factors?
4a. Do PARQ scores vary as a function of SES?

Hypothesis: PARQ scores will not vary as a function of
SES.

4b. Do PARQ scores vary as a function of family
composition (intact/ not intact)?

Hypothesis: PARQ scores will vary as a function of
family'composition.

4c. Do PARQ scores vary as a function of family stability/
mobility?
No hypothesis stated

4d. Do PARQ scores vary as a function of help with
homework?

No hypothesis stated

Analysis of questions 4., 4a., 4b., 4c., 4d., and
hypothesis: t-tests

5. Is there a relationship between student’s perceived
warmth of mother (PARQ) and student’s MEAP reading
achievement?

Hypothesis: There is a positive relationship between
MEAP reading achievement and student’s perceived warmth of
mother (PARQ).

88

Analysis of question 5. and hypothesis: t-test and Pearson
Correlation.

6. Is there a relationship between student’s perceived
warmth of mother (PARQ), individual factors, family
factors, and student’s MEAP reading achievement?

Hypothesis: There is a positive relationship between
mother’s warmth, individual factors, family factors, and
student’s MEAP reading achievement.

Analysis of question 6. and hypothesis: Multinominal
regression.

Variables were ordered to test possible relationships
of individual and family factors on both MEAP reading
achievement and PARQ scores. Nominal regression was used to
test for main effects of all the variables on MEAP reading

achievement.

89

Chapter 4
RESULTS

This chapter focuses on the results of the data
analysis. The purpose of the study was to determine if
there is a relationship between 4th and 5th grade students
perceived warmth of mother and MEAP reading achievement.
Independent variables for this study were individual
factors, family factors and perceived mother's warmth.
The dependent variable for the study was MEAP reading

achievement.

The first section of the chapter uses descriptive
statistics to describe the sample data. The remainder of
the chapter is organized in the same manner as the research

questions were proposed.

Data Reduction

Babbie (1991) states that scientific analysis involves
the reduction of data from unmanageable details to
manageable summaries. Initial review of the data set
revealed concerns for the lack of normal distribution in
several of the interval level variables. It was determined
that data reduction was necessary in order to provide a
:more normal distribution within several of the variables

used in the study.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The v
achievemen
homework.
in either a

allow for v

In orde

frequencies

 

the data was
data analysi

the variable

MEAP re
average Scorn
PEA? reading
deteminatin
as the State
determine su.
data Set, pr
“”9 of 300
the data set
informationa.
reductiOn th1

We °f 315

TOtal P}

only had 3 s1

The variables affected where: MEAP reading
achievement, total PARQ, mobility/stability, and help with
homework. In each case the variable frequency was skewed
in either a positive or negative direction and did not

allow for variance within the variable.

In order to normalize each of the skewed variables the
frequencies of each were examined and a natural break in
the data was used to create the new parameters used in the
data analysis. An explanation of data reduction for each of

the variables will explain the new parameters.

MEAP reading achievement was defined originally as the
average score for both reading sub-tests of the 4th grade
MEAP reading test. A cut score of 300 was originally the
determinating factor which was based on the same criteria
as the State of Michigan Department of Education uses to
determine success proficiency (academic achievement). The
data set, prior to data reduction, for the MEAP average cut
score of 300 only had 3 females (3%) and 7 males (7%) of
the data set falling below the cut score for both the
informational and story selection of 300. After data
reduction the number of females below the adjusted MEAP cut

score of 315 was 17 females (42.5%) and 23 males (57.5%).

Total PARQ - the data set prior to data reduction,

only had 3 students (3%) who scored below the cut scored of

91

 

 

150 suggeS‘

 

1
After data

scoring be]

Mobili
reduction ,

been in the

 

test only 1
were 5 studs
at the schoc
Years or leg
at the scho<
or less and
StUdents at
811109 they

150 suggested by Rohner as a measure of mother's warmth.
After data reduction the sample had 44 students (44%)

scoring below the new cut score of 200 for total PARQ.

Mobility/Stability - the data set prior to data
reduction, indicated there were 8 students (8%) who had
been in the school where he/she took the 4th grade MEAP
test only 1 year or less prior to taking the test. There
were 5 students (5%) who indicated they had been a student
at the school where they took the 4th grade MEAP test for 2
years or less. Twenty-one students (21%) had been students
at the school they took the 4th grade MEAP test for 3 years
or less and 60 students (60%) indicated they had been
students at the school they took the 4th grade MEAP test
since they started as a kindergartner in the same school.
After data reduction, 34 students (34%) were in the group
‘who had been in the school they took the 4th grade MEAP
test for 3 years or less prior to taking the MEAP test.
Sixty (60) students (60%) had been students in the same
building they took the 4th grade MEAP test for three years

or more since they took their 4th grade MEAP test.

Help with Homework - Prior to data reduction, there
'were no students who indicated they never receive help from
their parent(s) with homework and only 3 students (3%)

indicated they received help sometimes. Ninety-one

92

 

 

students (
their home
reduction
with their
Forty-six 5

received he

The s
that sample
a response
who did not
who did not
researcher w
Were going t
entered the
entries that
are differen
that range f

to the feet

mlSSing Entr

IndiVidu

d
Dd age . Th
e

4
“males (48%

students (91%) indicated they either received help with
their homework when they asked or often. After data

reduction 48 students (48%) indicated they received help
with their homework never, sometimes or when they asked.
Forty-six students (46%) were in the group which often

received help from their parent(s) with their homework.
Descriptive Statistics of data

The sample contained 100 participants (n=100). Within
that sample 6 students did not have MEAP reading scores nor
a response for the help with homework question. Students
who did not take the MEAP test were also the same students
who did not answer the homework question. Since the
researcher was the only one who knew how the various data
were going to be used these 6 students incomplete data
entered the data set. There were a limited number of data
entries that were missing for MEAP and PARQ scores. There
are different numbers of cases within the same data set
that range from 91 to 100 used in the data analysis. Due
to the fact SPSS will not include the data if there is any

missing entries, some of the analysis vary per case.
Individual Factors

Individual variables for the study were student gender
and age. The sample was comprised of 54 females (59%) and

44 males (48%) (Table 2.) Their mean age for the sample

93

 

participa
the PARQ ‘
older or yl
were 45 st:
the time oi
(53.6%) whc
data collec

T-tEStS WEI

b01751 girls

 

participants is 10.89 years as of the date they completed
the PARQ questionnaire. The participants were grouped as
older or younger than the mean age of 10.89 years. There
were 45 students (48.9%) who were less than 10.89 years at
the time of the PARQ data collection and 52 students
(53.6%) who were older than the mean at the time of the
data collection (Table 4). Both are categorical data and
T-tests were used to determine significant variance for

boys, girls and age of the participants.
Family Factors

Family variables for the study were SES ( qualify or
not qualified for free or reduced lunch), family
composition (intact and not intact families), family
mobility/stability (number of years the student attended
the school prior to taking the 4th grade MEAP test, 1= more
than 3 years, 0: less than 3 years) and help with homework
(O=sometime, when I ask or never, 1=often). T-tests were
used to determine significant differences between the
proportional means of the number of cases between the

dependent and independent variables.

The 838 variable used the Federal guidelines for
qualification of free and reduced school lunches.
Participants were coded either 0 if they qualified or 1 if

they did not qualify. There were 19 participants (20.8%)

94

 

 

 

who did ((11
qualify un
were used
proportion
qualified a

4th grade I

Family
the student
biological ;
(divorced, s

25 students

 

and 55 Studei
7" T-tests
between the 1
living in in-
“? reading
in not intac'

sCOre.

F3111in :

.nto account

who did qualify and 72 participants (79.1%) who did not
qualify under the Federal guidelines (Table 5). T-tests
were used to determine significant differences between the
proportionate means of the numbers of students who
qualified and didn't qualify for free and reduced and the

4th grade reading MEAP cut score of 315.

Family composition was determined by whether or not
the student was living in a family that was intact (two
biological parents still in the home) or not intact
(divorced, single parent, blended or foster). There were
25 students (27.5%) who were living in not intact families
and 66 student (72.5%) living with intact families (Table
7). T-tests were used to determine significant differences
between the proportionate means of the group of students
living in intact families and scoring above the 4th grade.
MEAP reading cut score of 315 as compared to group living
in not intact families and scoring above the MEAP 315 cut

score.

Family stability/mobility was a variable that took
into account how many years the student had been a student
at the school where they took the 4th grade MEAP test.
Thirty-three students (36.3%) (Table 9). were students who
had been in the school where they took the 4th grade MEAP

test 3 years of less. Fifty-eight students (63.7%) (Table

95

 

 

9.) of the
the 4th 91‘
T—tests we}

between the

 

 

 

the group

in the sch
compared to
for less th

SCOIE.

Help w'
how often t
Their respon
reduction thc
were helped 1

43 students ‘

114 T‘tests

groups Who in
hOmGVOrk and

9.) of the students had been in the school where they took
the 4th grade MEAP test since they began as kindergartners.
T-tests were used to determine significant differences
between the proportionate means the number of students in
the group scoring above 315 on the MEAP and being a student
in the school for 3 years or more before taking the MEAP as
compared to those who had been students in the same school
for less than 3 years and scored above the 315 MEAP cut

score .

Help with homework gathered student's perception of
how often their parent(s) helped them with their homework.
Their responses ranged from never to often. After data
reduction there were 48 students (52.7%) who reported they
were helped never, sometimes or when they asked for help.
43 students (47.3%) indicated they were helped often (Table
11.) T-tests were used to determine significant
differences between the proportionate means between the two
groups who indicated different amounts of help with
homework and also scored above the 4th grade MEAP reading

cut score of 315.
Dependent Variables

The 4th grade MEAP reading test was used as a
dependent variable in the study. The variable was used to

measure academic achievement as determined by the average

96

 

of raw 5
selectio
Departme:
better, :
student <
grade lex
for the 5
Prior to
300 avera
(40%) sec
(51%) see

reading t

c>15 raw scores from both sub-tests, informational and story
selection, of the 4th Grade MEAP test. The Michigan
Department of Education has set a raw score of 300 or
tpeytter, for both sub-tests, to establish whether or not the
student demonstrated proficiency in reading at the 4th
grade level. The mean average score for the sample was 319
:fcar'the 94 students who were part of the study sample.
Prior to data reduction only 10 students scored below the
300 average cut score. After data reduction 40 students

( 40%) scored below the new cut score of 315 and 51 students

(51%) scored above the new cut score on the 4th grade MEAP

reading test (Table 11.)

Total PARQ scores were used to measure mother's
“9Eirmth. Rohner(1991) suggests using all four of the PARQ
E511b scales (warmth/affection, aggression/hostility,
Fleeglect/indifference, and rejection) since the perception
C>1E the child's warmth is a combination of all those sub
Scales. Rohner(1991) reports that a total score of 150 or
Ileess reflects the child's perception of feeling more warmth
'tllan those whose total PARQ score is 150 or greater. The
djLstribution of total PARQ scores ranged from 138 to 233.
Trae sample mean score for total PARQ was 201. After data
rEéduction, where the total PARQ score for mother's warmth

was changed from 150 to 200, there were 52 students (56%)

 

 

whose to‘
students

(less war

When

significar

 

the mean
In this st
used in th
difference:
Variable g]
°f the perc
tabl-llatiOng
Participant
Categories

SCores for

whose total PARQ was less than 200 (more warmth) and 40

students (43%) whose total PARQ scores were higher than 200

( less warmth) (Table 12).

Testing for Proportional Differences

When data do not have to be normalized t-tests measure
significance between mean differences. In other words, do
the mean scores for the two variables vary significantly?
In this study data reduction was necessary. The t-tests
used in the data analysis are measuring proportional
clifferences for the number of participants in each of the
\rariable groups. Proportional differences are a comparison
C>f the percentage of cases in each of the variables. Cross
tabulations are a reflection of the mean percentage of
participants differences in each of the nominal data

Categories as opposed to the mean differences of the raw

Scores for the variable.

Table 2: Demographic Characteristics of Hale and Female
MEAP Reading Scores (Frequencies, Percentages and Chi-
square Values of Categorical Variables)

  

  

96 within
96 within MEAP cut

 
 
 
 

  

96 within
within MEAP

 
 
    

96 within Gender
within cut

 
  

Table 3: Demographic Characteristics of Male and Female
PARQ Scores (Frequencies, Percentages and Chi-square Values
of Categorical Variables)

 

 

table 4
Scores
Categor;

[.__

issthan 10E
ofage

 

 

greater than
10.9

Total

 

Table 5:
Status E
“6 Chi-

 

/ l / 7

Table 4: Demographic Characteristics of Age and PARQ
Scores (Frequencies, Percentages and Chi-square Values of
Categorical Variables)

 
   

  

less than 10.89
of age

 
  

  

greater than
1 0.9

 
 
 

Total

 
 

Table 5: Demographic Characteristics of Socio-econemic
Status and MEAP Reading Scores (Frequencies, Percentages
and Chi-square Values of Categorical Variables)

  

cut> 1
1.

 
      
 
    
 
 

  

0 Count
96 within
96 within MEAP out

  
   

'i

 
     

96 within
96 within

 
 
   
 

96

100

 

fable
Statu

squat

 

iSES

 

Table
and in
“man

 

 

Table 6 :

Demographic Characteristics of Socio-economic

Status and PARQ Scores (Frequencies, Percentages and Chi-
square Values of Categorical variables)

     
  
 
  
  
 
 
  
 

 
  
  

0
96 within
96 within P
1 Count
96 within
96 within P

   
 

  

96 within
96 within P

Table 7 :

Demographic Characteristics of Family Composition

and MEAP Reading Scores (Frequencies, Percentages and Chi-
square Values of Categorical Variables)

 

MEAP Avera e Cut 315

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.00 1.00 Total Chi-square

Family Not Count 1 1 14 25 0.996
Composition Intact 96 within Famigll group 44 56 100
96 within MEAP out 27.5 27.5 27.5
Intact Count 29 37 66
96 within Family group 43.9 56.1 100
96 within MEAP cut 72.5 72.5 72.5
Total Count 40 51 91
96 within Family group 44 56 100
96within MEAPcut 100 100 100

 

 

101

Table 8: Demographic Characteristics of Family Composition
and PARQ Scores (Frequencies, Percentages and Chi-square
Values of Categorical Variables)

  
   
 
 

      
 

Family Not
composition Intact 96
96 within

  
    

Intact

    
  

96 within
96 within

 
 
  

96 within
96 within

  
   

Table 9: Demographic Characteristics of Mobility/Stability
and MEAP Reading Scores (Frequencies, Percentages and Chi-
square Values of Categorical Variables)

   

  

i

  
 

96 within
96 within

   
  
 

 

2

    
  

96 within
96 within MEAP cut

 
 
  

96 within
96 within MEAP cut

  
   

102

Table 10: Demographic Characteristics of Mobility/Stability
and PARQ Scores (Frequencies, Percentages and Chi-square
Values of Categorical Variables)

 
  
 

  

l

   

%Mmm
wmmmp

 
 
 
  
 
  
 

96 within
%wmmp

 
    
  

2

   

96 within
96 within P

 

Table 11: Demographic Characteristics of Help with Homework
and MEAP Reading Scores (Frequencies, Percentages and Chi-
square Values of Categorical Variables)

     
 
  
 

> 1

 

MEAP

     
 
  
 
  
 

Help with 1
Homework-never

sometimes, when

    
     
 
   
  

  

96 within
within

 
 

2

    

within
96 within

often

 

Total

 
 

103

Table 12: Demographic Characteristics of Help with Homework
and PARQ Scores (Frequencies, Percentages and Chi-square
Values of Categorical Variables)

 
 
  

    

Help with l
Homework-never 96within
sometimes, when ask 96 within P

2

   
 

  
 
 
 

  
  
 
  

  
  

96within
96 within P

often

    
  
 

Total

   

96within
96 within P

 

104

Research Questions and Hypothesis

Due to data reduction that was necessary to normalize
'the skewed data for several variables, the t-tests are

testing for significance between proportions of the newly
created variable categories .
The first question of the study was concerned with the

individual characteristic of gender.

 

1a. Do MEAP reading achievement scores vary as a function
of gender?

The MEAP reading achievement cut score was 315 or
ggreater. Twenty-six females (26) and twenty-one (21) males
scored above the MEAP reading cut score of 315 or
g;reater(Table 2). There were twenty-eigth (28) and twenty-
t:hree (23) males who scored below the cut score (Table 2).
flPhe mean score for for the proportionate number of males in
‘t:he group who scored above the MEAP reading test cut score
ic>f 315 was .477 (Table 13.) The mean score for for the
proportionate number of females in the group who scored
above the MEAP reading test cut score of 315 was
- 6383(Table 13). Levene's test for equality of variance

was used which resulted in an F=3.25 at the .073
8ignificance level and equal variance of the means was
ElSsumed (Table 13). Further consideration for

Significance of mean differences for gender, when equal

105

variance was assumed resulted in t = -1.550 at .125 level
of significance (Table 13). Even though the proportionate
number of females in the group scoring above 315 was higher
than that of the males, there was not a significant

difference for gender and academic achievement.

106

 

Table 13:

T-test and Crosstabulation for Gender and MEAP

Reading Achievement (n, Proportional Mean, F and t score)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group statistics
Gender n Mean Std. Deviation

MEAP average cut>315 m 44 0.4773 0.5063

f 47 0.6383 0.4857
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances

F Srg' .
[MEAP average cut>315 3.285 0.07
t-test for Fqulity of Means

t df S'g. (Z-tailed)
[MEAP average cut>315 Equal Variances assumed -I .550 89 0.125
Equal Variances not assumed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cross Tabulation

MEAP Average cut
Gender <3 14 >3l5 Total
rials 23 21
proportionate percentage 0.477 44
rams 17 3O
proportionate percentage 0.638 51

 

 

 

 

 

107

The next set of research questions dealt with how

individual factors of gender and age affected PARQ scores.
2a. Do PARQ scores vary as a function of gender?

The PARQ cut score was 200 or less. The results
indicated a total PARQ score mean for females was 200 and
for males were 203. There were twenty-eight (28) females n
who scored below the PARQ cut score of 200 and twenty-five i

(25) boys (Table 3). There were twenty-six females who

 

scored above the PARQ cut and eighteen boys(18) (Table 3). V
The mean difference for the proportionate group of males
who scored 200 or less on the PARQ was .4186 (Table 14).
The mean difference for the group of females who scored 200
or less was .4815 (Table 14). Levene's Test for the
Equality of Variance indicated an F= 1.214 at .273 level
of significance (Table 14). Equal variance of the means
was assumed. A t-test for Equality of Means reported total
PARQ score t=-.613 at a .542 level of significance (2-
tailed) (Table 14). Females averaged a lower total PARQ
score (200) than males (203) which indicates they reported
more mother warmth than boys. The proportionate number of
females scoring a lower PARQ than boys was not significant

which supported the hypothesis.

108

Table 14;

(n, Proportional Mean, F and t score)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

T-test and Crosstabulations for Gender and PARQ

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group statistics
Gender n Mean Std. Deviation
PARcht <200 m 43 0.4186 7.612
f 54 0.4815 6.863
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances
F Sig.
PARQ cut <200 1.214 0.273
t-test for Equlity of Means
L 1 df $3. (Z-tailed)
PARQ cut <200 Equal Variances assumed -0.613 95 -6.280
Equal Variances not assumed
Cross Tabulation
Total PARQ
Gender >200 <200 Total
males 25 18 43
0.4186
females 28 26 54
0.481 S

 

 

 

 

91

109

 

 

2b. Do PARQ scores vary as a function of age?

The mean age for the students was 10.89 years. There
were twenty-two (22) students who were 10.89 years and
younger and scored below the PARQ cut score of 200 (Table
4). There were also twenty-two (22) students who were
10.90 years and older and scored below the PARQ 200 cut
score (Table 4). The mean average for the percentage of
students who scored less than 200 on the PARQ and were less
than 10.89 years was .4889 The mean average for the
percentage of students who scored less than 200 on the PARQ
and were 10.90 and older was .4231 (Table 15). Levene's
Test for the Equality of Variance indicated an F= 1.006 at
.318 level of significance (Table 15). Equal variance of
the means was assumed. A t-test for Equality of Means
reported total PARQ score t=-.644 at a .521 level of

significance (2-tailed) (Table 15).

The number of younger students (22) who scored below
the PARQ cut score of 200 was the same as the number of
older students (22). Comparing proportionate means of the
two groups did not result in a significant difference. The
hypothesis for age not being a factor for PARQ scores was

supported.

110

 

Table 15 :

Proportional Mean, F and t score)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

T-test and Crosstabulations for Age and PARQ (n,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group statistics
n Man fidflMmMI
PARQ cut <200 <10.89leas 45 0.4889 0.5055
>10.90yeas 52 0.4231 0.4989
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances
F fig
PARcht <200 1.006 0.318
t-test for Equlity of Means
l 1 df Sig. (Z-tailed)
PARcht <200 Equal Variances assumed 0.644 95 0.521
Equal Variances not assumed

Cross Tabulation

Total

Total PARQ
>200 <200 Total
less that 10.89 years 23 22 45
grationate percentage 0.488
greater than 10.90 ysas 30 22 52
cmnhmmmnmmgvi
97

111

 

 

The next section of results pertain to the family
factors of SES, intact and not intact families,
stability/mobility and help with homework, that the study
considered. Research question 3a. considered MEAP reading

achievement and SES.

3a. Do MEAP Reading achievement scores vary as a function
of SES? 1

The cut score for MEAP reading achievement was >315.

 

There were eight (8) students who qualified for free or
reduced lunch and scored above the MEAP cut score (Table
5). There were forty-three (43) students who scored above
the MEAP cut score who did not qualify for free or reduced
lunch (Table 5). The mean average for the proportion of
students who scored an average of 315 of greater on the
reading sub-tests of the 4th grade MEAP reading test was
.4211 (Table 16). The mean average for the proportion of
students who scored an average of 315 or greater on the
reading sub-tests of the 4th grade MEAP reading test and
did not qualify for free or reduced lunch was .5972 (Table
16). Levene's Test for the Equality of Variance reported
F=.072 at a .789 level of significance (Table 16). Equal
variance was assumed which resulted in a t=-1.375 at the
.172 level of significance (2-tailed) (Table 16). The

number of students who qualified for free or reduced lunch

112

and scored 315 or higher on the 4th grade MEAP reading test
was 8. Those students who did not qualify for free or
reduced lunch and scored 315 or higher on their MEAP
reading test numbered 43. Even though it seems to be a
significant difference, comparing proportionate means did
not support the hypothesis regarding SES being a factor of

reading achievement.

113

 

Table 16:

T-test and Crosstabulations for 888 and MEAP

Reading Achievement (n, Proportional Mean, F and t score)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group statistics -

SE5 n Mean Std. Deviation
MEAP average cut>315 0.00 19 0.421 0.5073

1.00 72 0.5972 0.4939
Levene‘s Test for Equality of Variances

F Sig.
MEAP average cut>315 0.072 0.789
t-test for Equity of Means
l t df sag. (Z-tailed)
MEAP average cut>315 Equal Variances assumed -1.375 89 0.172
Equal Variances not assumed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cross Tabulation
MEAP cut
<314 >31 5 Total
quahfy for has or reduced 1 1 8 1 9
proportionate percentages 0.421 1
notqualified forfroeorreducod 29 43 72
oportionate percentages 0.5972

 

 

 

 

 

91

114

 

Research questions 3b. considered family composition

as a factor of MEAP reading achievement.

3b. Do MEAP reading achievement scores vary as a function
of family composition?

There were fourteen students (14) who scored above the
MEAP cut score of 315 and lived in not intact families
(Table 7). There were thirty-seven students (37) who

scored above the MEAP cut score of 315 and lived with

m:-

intact families (Table 7). The mean score for the
proportion of students who scored an average of 315 of
greater on the reading sub-tests of the 4th grade MEAP
reading test and were from not intact families was .5600
(Table 17). The mean score for the proportion of students
who scored an average of 315 on the reading sub-tests of
the 4th grade MEAP reading test and were from intact
families was .5606 (Table 17). Levene's Test for Equality
of Variance resulted in an F=.000 at the .992 level of
significance (Table 17). Equal variances were assumed in
the t test of equality of means. t=-.005 at the .996
significance level (2-tailed) (Table 17). There were 14
students who were from not intact families and scored 315
or higher on the MEAP reading tests. Thirty-seven (37)
students were from intact families and scored an average of

315 or higher on their MEAP reading tests. Proportionately

115

each group represents 56% of total number of students in
each category. There was not a significant relationship
between family composition and MEAP reading achievement

scores .

Table 17: T—test for and Crosstabulations Family
Composition and MEAP Reading Achievement (n, Proportional
Mean, F and t score)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

consume; .1
mnemmmi n Inn magnum fl
MEAPaverage wt>315 not intact 25 0.56 0.5066
intact 66 0.5606 0.5001
Leveie's Test for [mt Vsiarces
F 519
IIEAP average cut>315 0 0.992
t-test for Equity of Means
l 1 41 $19 IZ-talfll
IIEAP average cut>315 Equal Variances assumed 41.005 89 0.996
Equal Variances not assumed
CmsTfldflm
MNRm
Family Compmition <314 >315 Total
rMhhd 11 14 25
’ epmMm 0%
Inuwt 29 37 66
101mm 0.5606

 

 

 

 

 

91

116

Research question 3c. considered family

stability/mobility as a factor of MEAP reading achievement.

3c. Do MEAP reading achievement scores vary as a function
of family stability/mobility?

There were twenty (20) students who scored above the
MEAP reading cut score of 315 who had been a student at the
school were they took their 4th grade MEAP test for three
(3) years or less (Table 9). There were and thirty-one
(31) students who scored above the 315 MEAP reading cut
score and had been students in the school where they took
their 4th grade MEAP test for four (4) years or more (Table
9). The mean score for the proportion of students who
scored an average of 315 of greater on the reading sub-
tests of the 4th grade MEAP reading test and had been in
the school where they took their 4th grade MEAP 3 years or
less was .6061 Table 18). The mean score for the
proportion of students who scored an average of 315 or
greater on the MEAP reading tests and had been students in
the school where they took their 4th grade MEAP Reading
test for more than four (4) years or more was .5345 (Table
18). Levene's Test for Equality of Variance resulted in an
F= 1.791 at the .184 level of significance Table 18).
Equal variances were assumed in the t test of equality of

means. t=-.656 at the .514 significance level (2-tailed)

117

 

(Table 18). Family mobility/stability was not a significant
factor of MEAP reading achievement when proportionate means

were compared. The hypothesis for family mobility/stability

was not supported.

Table 18:

T-test and Crosstabulations for Family

Stability/Mobility and MEAP Reading Achievement (n,
Proportional Mean, F and t score)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group statistics
Mobility n Mean Std. Deviation

MEAP average cut>31 5 1.00 33 0.6061 0.496

2.00 58 0.5345 0.5032
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances

F Sig.
MEAP average cut>315 1.791 0.184
t-test for Equlity of Means
I t df Sig. (2-tailed)
MEAP average cut>315 Equal Variances assumed 0.656 89 0.514
Equal Variances not assumed
Cross Tabulation
MEAP cut

Mobility/stability (314 >31 5 Total
three years or hes 1 3 20 33
prepormte percentage 0.6061
for: or rim years 27 31 58
proportionate parentage 0.5345

 

 

 

 

 

M

118

Research question 3d. concerned itself with whether or
not help with homework was a factor for MEAP reading

achievement.

3d. Do MEAP reading achievement scores vary as a function
of how often children get help with homework?

There were eighteen students (18) who scored above the
MEAP reading out average of 315 and indicated they were .

never, sometimes or when they asked helped with homework

 

(Table 11). There were thirty-three (33) students who k
scored above the MEAP reading out average of 315 and
indicated they were helped with their homework often (Table
11). The mean score for the proportion of students who
scored an average of 315 of greater on the reading sub-
tests of the 4th grade MEAP reading test and indicated they
were helped with their homework never, sometimes or when
they asked was .375 (Table 19). The mean score for the
proportion of students who scored an average of 315 or
greater on the reading sub-tests of the 4th grade MEAP
reading test and indicated they were helped often with
their homework was .7674 (Table 19). Levene's Test for
Equality of Variance resulted in an F= 8.704 at the .004
level of significance (Table 19). Equal variances were not
assumed in the t-test of equality of means. t=-4.083 at

the .000 significance level (2-tailed) (Table 19). There

119

was a significant difference between how often students

were helped with homework and MEAP reading achievement.

This significant difference did support the hypothesis for

help with homework having a significant effect on MEAP

reading achievement.

Table 19 :

T-test and Crosstabulations for Help with

Homework and MEAP Reading Achievement (n, Proportional
Mean, P and t score)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gmmunmbms ,
Help homework n Mean Std. Deviation
MEAP averan cut >315 1.00 48 0.375 0.4892
2.00 43 0.7674 0.4275
Levene's Test for Equally of Variance:
F 8g
{MEAP average cut >315 8.704 0.004
t-test for Equfiy of Means
I t a ngbmkn)
Equal Variances assumed
MEAP average cut >315 Equal Variances not assumed 4.083 89.95 0.000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cross Tabulation
MEAP cut
Help with homework <314 >315
never, summaries, when asked 30 18
oportionate percentages 0.375
often 1 0 33
oportionate percentages 0.7674

 

 

 

 

 

120

Total
48

43

91

 

The next set of research questions considered family
factors in regard to PARQ scores. Research question

4a.considered PARQ and SES.
4a. Do PARQ scores vary as function of SES?

There were eleven (11) students who scored below the
PARQ cut score of 200 and qualified for free or reduced
lunch (Table 6). There were thirty-three (33) students who

scored below the PARQ cut score of 200 and did not qualify

 

for free or reduced lunch (Table 6). The mean difference
for the group of students who scored less than 200 on the
PARQ and qualified for free or reduced lunch was .5789
(Table 20). The mean difference for the group of students
who scored less than 200 on the PARQ and did not qualify
for free or reduced lunch was .4231 (Table 20). Levene's
Test for the Equality of Variance indicated an F= .001 at
.975 level of significance (Table 20). Equal variance of
the means was assumed. A t-test for Equality of Means
reported total PARQ score t=-.1.221 at a .225 level of
significance (Z-tailed) (Table 20). SES did not have a
significant effect on PARQ scores. Three times as many
students who did not qualify for free or reduced lunch
scored a lower PARQ score than those in the group who did
qualify for free or reduced lunch and scored a PARQ score

of less than 200. Comparison of proportionate means for

121

 

the two groups was not significant.

There was support for

the hypothesis that SES would not have a significant effect

on PARQ scores.

Table 20: T-test and Crosstabulations for PARQ and 888 (n,
Proportional Mean, F and t score)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Groupstatistics

SES n Mean Std. Deviation
PARcht <200 0.00 19 0.5789 0.5073

1.00 78 0.4972 5.63
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances

F Sig.
PARcht <200 0.001 0.975
t-test for Equlity of Means .
t df Sig. (Z-tailed)
PARQ cut <200 Equal Variances assumed 1.220 95 0.225
Equal Variances not assumed
Cross Tabulation
PARQ cut
SES >200 <200 Total
Qualified for freeorrerirwd 8 11 19
proportionate percentage 0.5789
Not malilied for freeorremoed 45 33 78
Manteperoentage 0.4231

 

 

 

 

122

97

 

Research question 4b. considered whether family

composition was a factor of PARQ scores.

4b. Do PARQ scores vary as a function of family
composition?

There were nine (9) students who scored below the PARQ
cut score of 200 and were living in non intact families
(Table 8). There were thirty-five (35) students who scored
below the PARQ cut score of 200 and were living with intact
families (Table 8). The mean difference for the group of
students who scored less than 200 on the PARQ and were from
not intact families was .3462 Table 21). The mean
difference for the group of students who scored less than
200 on the PARQ and were from intact families was .4930
(Table 21). Levene's Test for the Equality of Variance
indicated an F= 7.196 at .009 level of significance (Table
21). Equal variance of the means was not assumed. A t-
test for Equality of Means reported total PARQ score t= -
1.307 at a .198 level of significance (2-tailed) (Table
21). Nine (9) students were from not intact families and
had a PARQ score lower than 200. Thirty-five (35) students
were from intact families and had a PARQ score lower than
200. Four times as many students from intact families
scored lower than a 200 than those students from not intact

families. Levene's Test for Equality of Variances did

123

 

 

 

report a significant level (.009) for the two groups mean
difference Table 21). Equal variance for the variance of
those means could not be assumed. Further analysis
resulted in t=.198 which did not support the hypothesis

that family composition would effect PARQ scores.

Table 21: T-test and Crosstabulations for PARQ and Family
Composition (n, Proportional Mean, F and t score)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group statistics
Fm conposiuon n Mean Std. Deviation
PARQ out <200 not intact 26 0.3462 0.4852
intact 71 0.493 0.5035
Levene's Test for Equality of Varimces
F Sig.
PARQ out <200 7.196 0.009

 

 

 

 

 

t-test for Equlity of Means

 

l t df Sig. (Z-tailed)
Equal Varimoas assumed
PARQ out <200 Equal Variances not assumed -1.307 46.05 -0.147

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cross Tabulation

PARQ cut
Family composition >200 <200 Total
not met 1 7 9 26
proportionate percentage 0.3462
mm 36 35 71
proportionate percentage 0.493

 

 

 

 

 

97

124

Research question 4c. considered family

stability/mobility as a factor for PARQ scores.

4c. Do PARQ scores vary as a function of family
stability/mobility?

There were seventeen (17) students who scored below
the PARQ cut score of 200 and had been students where they
took their 4th grade MEAP reading test for three (3) years
or less (Table 10). There were twenty-seven students (27)
who scored below the PARQ cut score of 200 and had been
students in the school where they took their 4‘h grade MEAP
reading test for four (4) years or more (Table 10). The
mean difference for the group of students who scored less
than 200 on the PARQ and had been in the school where they
took their 4th grade MEAP for three (3) years of less was
.4359 (Table 22). The mean difference for the group of
students who scored less than 200 on the PARQ and had been
students in the school where they took their 4th grade MEAP
for four (4) years or more was .4655 Table 22). Levene’s
Test for the Equality of Variance indicated an F=.334 at
.565 level of significance Table 22). Equal variance of
the means was assumed. A t-test for Equality of Means
:reported total PARQ score t= -.284 at a .777 level of
significance (2-tailed) (Table 22). The amount of time

sstudents attended the same school and mother's warmth were

125

not significant. Proportionately the same number of
students scored lower than 200 on PARQ regardless how long
they had attended the same school. No hypothesis was

stated for this question.

Table 22: T-test and Crosstabulations for PARQ and Family
Stability/Mobility (n, Proportional Mean, P and t score)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group statistics
Mobility n Mean Std. Deviation
PARQ cut <200 1.00 39 0.4359 0.5024
2.00- 58 0.4655 0.5032

 

 

 

 

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F 5g
PARcht <200 0.334 0.565
t-test for Equlity of Means
- 1 1: df Sig. (Z-tailed)
PARQ cut <200 Equal Variances assumed -0.284 95 0.777
Equal Variances not assumed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cross Tabulation
PARQ cut
Stability/ Mobility >200 <200 Total
3 years or less 22 l 7 39
oportionate gemtaL 0.4359
4 yams or more 31 27 58
proportionate percentage 0.4655

 

 

 

 

97

126

Research question 4d.considered help with homework as

a factor for PARQ scores.

4d. Do PARQ scores vary as a function of “help with
homework"?

There were twenty-one (21) students who scored below
the PARQ cut score of 200 and reported they were helped
with their homework never, sometimes, or when they asked

(Table 12). There were nineteen (19) students who scored

 

below the PARQ cut score of 200 and indicated they were 1
helped with their homework often (Table 12). The mean
difference for the group of students who scored less than
200 on the PARQ and indicated they were never, sometimes or
when they asked, helped with homework was .4565 (Table 23).
The mean difference for the group of students who scored
less than 200 on the PARQ and indicated they were helped
often with their homework was .4130 (Table 23). Levene's
Test for the Equality of Variance indicated an F=.8.704

at .004 level of significance (Table 23). Equal variance
of the means was not assumed. A t-test for Equality of
Means reported total PARQ score t= -.416 at a .678 level
of significance (2-tailed) (Table 23). Help with homework
did not have the same significant relationship on mother's
warmth as it did with MEAP reading achievement. No

hypothesis was stated for this question.

127

Table 23 :

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

T-test and Crosstabulations for PARQ and Help
with Homework (n, Proportional Mean, P and t score)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group statistics
Homework n Mean Std Deviation
PARQ cut <200 1.00 46 0.4565 0.5036
2.00 46 0.413 0.4978
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances
F Sig" . ,
PARcht <200 0.629 0.4
t-test for Equlity of Means
t df Sig. (Z-tailed)
PARQ cut <200 Equal Variances assumed 0.416 90 0.678
Equal Variances not assumed
Cross Tabulation
PARQ cut
>200 <200 Total
never, sometine, Mien asked 25 21 40
proportionate percentage 0.4565
often 27 19 40
prrportionate percentage 0.41 3

 

 

 

 

92

 

Research question 5. considered whether there was any
relationship between the student’s perceived warmth of
their mother(PARQ) and their 4th grade MEAP reading
achievement. In order to consider the perceived warmth of
mother's the researcher considered both the total PARQ
score (less than 200) as well as the average for the two
sub-tests (315 or greater) for the 4th grade MEAP reading

test .

5. Is there a relationship between student's perceived
warmth of mother (PARQ) and student’s MEAP reading
achievement?

There were twenty-six (26) students who scored below
the PARQ cut of 200 and received a MEAP reading score above
the cut score of 315 (Table 24). There were twenty-five
(25) who scored below the PARQ cut score of 200 and below
the 4th grade MEAP reading out score of 315 (Table 24). The
mean difference for the proportion of students in the
group that scored 200 or less on the PARQ and had a 315 or
greater average on the two MEAP reading sub-tests was .520
(Table 24). The mean difference for the proportion of
students in the group who scored 200 or less on the PARQ
and had a 314 or lower average on the two MEAP reading sub-
tests was .6410 (Table 24). Levene's test for Equality of

variances resulted in F= 3.946 at a .05 level of

129

significance (Table 24). When equal variance was not
assumed a t-test for Equality of Means resulted in t= -
1.146 at the .255 level of significance (2-tailed) (Table

24).

Pearson Product-moment correlation test resulted in
identical correlations for both the total PARQ score (200
or less) and an average for the two 4th grade MEAP reading
sub-tests (315 or greater). PARQ to MEAP was .121 at .257
level of significance and MEAP to PARQ was .121 at .257
level of significance (Table 24). Proportionately there was
no significant difference in MEAP Reading achievement
between the group of students who reported more mother's
warmth than those who reported less mother's warmth. The
lack of support for the hypothesis that mother's warmth
would have a positive effect on MEAP reading achievement

was contrary to the literature.

130

Table 24: T-test, Crosstabulations and Pearsons Product-
Moment Correlations for PARQ and MEAP Reading Achievement
(n, Proportional Mean, P and t score)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group statistics

PARQ n Mean Std. Deviation
MEAP avgage cut >31 5 0.00 50 0.52 0.5047

1 .00 39 0.641 0.486

 

 

Levene's Test for Equdi of Variances

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F Sig.
MEAP average cut >315 3.946 0.05
t-test for Equity of Means
l t or Si . 2-tailed
Equd Variances assumed
MEAP avgge cut >315 Equd Variances not assumed -1.146 83.17 0122
Cross Tabulation
PARQ wt
MEAP scores >200 <200 Total
MEAPcut315> 24 26 50
proportionate pecentage 0.52
MEAPcut<314 14 25 39
oportionate percentage 0.641

 

 

 

 

 

89

Pearson Product Moment

 

131

Multivariate Analysis

The final analysis was to create a model which considered
all the variables interaction with the dependent all the

variables to determine main effects.

6. Is there a relationship between student's perceived
warmth of mother (PARQ), individual factors, family
factors, and student’s MEAP reading achievement?

In order to accomplish this a multinominal logistic
regression model was used which considered all the
independent variables effect on 4th grade MEAP reading
achievement (Table 25). This analysis was selected because
it allows the researcher to classify subjects based on
values of a set of predictor variables. This type of
regression is general because the dependent variable is not
restricted to two categories. This analysis also confirmed

the results of the individual t-tests already reported.

The regression model analysis resulted in a
multivariate consideration of all the independent variables
effects on the dependent variable. As in the bivariate
analysis, ”help with homework" was a significant
relationship at the .000 level of significance (Table 25).
Mother's warmth was also worth mentioning. Perceived
mother warmth was significant at the .140 level (Table 25).

In comparison to the other individual and family factors,

132

perceived mother's warmth was a significant finding in this
study. An illustration of the significance level and beta
value for each independent variable helps to see the
strength of the relationship to academic achievement
(Figure 4.). This study can report that in a multivariate
analysis help with homework did show a significant
relationship (.000) with academic achievement and mother's
warmth did not show a significant relationship with

academic achievement (.146).

 

It is worthy to note that mother's perceived warmth did
have a positive relationship (B=+.743) and a significance
level much lower that the other independent variables

measured in the study (Figure 4).

133

Table 25: Multinominal Logistic Regression

  
   

MEAP cut 31 5>

  
  

Standard Error

 

1

intact

134

 

 

 

 

 

Help with
Homework
.000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8158 Family
.464 Stability
\ B=+1.965
B=+.469 I
4"I grade MEAP Reading
Academic Achievement
_ BT03“ 13:-0.14
B=+.743 \
Gender Family
.438 Composition
.811
Mother’s
Warmth
.146
Figure 4.

Beta and significance levels
independent variables

135

of

Chapter 5

DISCUSSION

Parental Acceptance Rejection (PAR) (Rohner, 1986) and
Ecological (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1993) theories provided
the theoretical foundations for a study of mother’s warmth
and academic achievement. The relationship between
perceived mother’s warmth and MEAP reading achievement of
100 fourth and fifth grade students were studied. These
beliefs were examined in relation to individual and family

variables. Gender, age, SES, family composition, stability/

mobility, perceived warmth, and help with homework were
examined. The Michigan 4th grade MEAP reading test was the

measure used to determine academic achievement.

Rohner’s (1977) Parental Acceptance Rejection
Questionnaire (PARQ) was administered to 94 4th and 5th
grade students who had previously completed the 4th grade

MEAP reading tests.

Ten hypotheses were investigated by means of eleven
research questions. Exploratory analyses were conducted in
cases where no hypotheses were stated. Descriptive
statistics were used to summarize the variables. Bivariate

analyses consisted of cross tabulations, t-tests,

136

chi-square and Pearson correlations. Individual and family
variables were analyzed in relationship to both MEAP and
PARQ scores. None of the individual factors were
significantly related to academic achievement. The only
family variable that did have a significant relationship to

academic achievement was “help with homework.”

Data reduction was used to normalize the data. The

data were skewed in many variables which did not allow the

 

researcher to analyze the data given the data did not meet 1
the basic assumption of normal distribution. After
completing data reduction, variables that were expressed as
inferential data were changed to categorical data. All
independent and dependent variables were expressed as
categorical data. In order to consider the main effects of
the independent variables on the dependent variable and
given the fact that all the variables were now categorical
data, a nominal regression model was used for that
analysis. Again, “help with homework” was the only variable
that had a significant relationship to academic

achievement.

137

Purposo of This Study

The overall purpose of this study was to explore the
possible relationship of 4th and 5th graders perceived
mother's warmth, and individual and family factors
relationship with academic achievement. Other studies in
the literature had reported relationships in somewhat
similar studies (Starkey, 1980). Specifically, this study

was designed to accomplish the following goals:

1. Explore to what degree mother’s warmth had an affect

on academic achievement.

2. Explore the variance in mother’s warmth and the
relationship to academic achievement as a function of

individual and family factors.

3. Explore the relationship of mother’s warmth (PARQ),
individual factors, family factors, and MEAP reading

scores .

The results of the study are discussed in relation to
these purposes. The research questions and hypotheses
tested will be summarized. Implications for theory,

research, and practice will be considered.

138

Discussion of Findings

In this study only help with homework was found to be
statistically significant at the .05 level of significance.
It is of importance to mention that mother’s warmth was not
significantly related to reading achievement at the .05
level, but was more significant (.14) than the other

individual and family factors measured.

The first research question focused on gender and
academic achievement. More females (47) scored higher on
the 4th grade MEAP reading tests than did males (44). This
does support findings from previous studies (Han, 1994;
Dulaney and Banks, 1994). The hypothesis was not accepted
because there was not a statistically significant

difference in the two groups.

Next, both gender and age were examined to determine
any possible relationship with mother’s warmth. A larger
percentage of males (58.1%) reported more mother’s warmth
than females (51.9%). Similar to this study, previous
studies by others did not report significant differences in
gender and mother's warmth. Older students (57.7%) reported
.more mother's warmth than did younger students (51.1%).
.Again, similar to this study, others have not found

:significant differences in age and mother’s warmth (Macoby

139

and Martin, 1983; Rohner, 1997). Individual factors of age
and gender did not have significant relationships to
mother’s warmth and the hypotheses were supported. The
results from this study support the fact that worldwide
gender and age do not have an effect on perceived mother's

warmth.

Family factors were examined to determine effects, if
any, on academic achievement. Only-19 students, of the 91
cases reported, qualified for free or reduced lunch (SES)
for families their size under Federal Guidelines. This was
a small number and does not reflect the differences in the
individual schools within the district the sample was draw
from. Eight of those who qualified scored above the 4th
grade cut score for the 4th grade MEAP reading test.
Forty-three students, who did not qualify, scored above the
cut score for the 4th grade MEAP reading test. It would
appear that those who did not qualify for free or reduced
lunch did better than those who did qualify. Proportionate
comparisons did result in significant differences and the
hypothesis was not supported. This is contrary to the
literature (Kruse, 1996) and it can only be assumed that

due to the small sample size significance did not result.

140

 

 

Another family variable, family composition, was
examined for relationships with academic achievement.
Twenty-five students in the sample were living in not
intact families as compared to sixty—six students living
with intact families. Almost identical percentages of
students living in both situations scored above the 4th
grade MEAP reading cut score. The literature supported the
hypothesis that students from intact families would have
higher academic achievement than those living in not intact
families (Dawson, 1981), but the hypothesis was not

supported for this study.

Disruption to families, due to geographic relocation,
has been shown to have a negative effect on academic

achievement. In this study stability/mobility was explored.

The researcher’s personal knowledge of the school
district's degree of transient population was not captured
in the data sample. Hence, the study did not support the
previous findings (Newman, 1988; Waters, 1996) for family
stability/mobility and academic achievement. There were
only 33 students who attended the school where they took
their 4th grade MEAP test for 3 years or less. There were
60.6% of the students who had attended the same school

where they took their 4th grade MEAP reading test for 3

141

years or less and scored above the cut score for reading
proficiency. Students who attended the same school where
they took their MEAP test for 3 years or more and scored
above the cut score for reading proficiency represented
53.4%. The data analysis did not support the hypothesis_for

family stability/mobility and academic achievement.

“Help with homework” is a form of parent involvement E.

that the literature strongly supports as having a positive

 

effect on academic achievement (Steinberg, 1990; Epstein, @
1987). In this study students who reported they were helped
with their homework often and scored above the MEAP reading
proficiency cut score represented 76.7%. Those reporting
they are never, sometimes or when they asked for help with
homework and scored above the MEAP reading proficiency cut
score represented 37.5%. Data analysis for both chi-square
and t-tests resulted in a .000 significant level for help
with homework and academic achievement. This study’s
findings support the stated hypothesis and supports the
increased need for all types of parent involvement in

school.

In this study the findings for possible relationships
.for family variables: SES, mobility/stability and family

<:omposition were not significant. “Help with homework” was

142

a family variable that did have a significant positive
effect on academic achievement. Microsystems within the
family, in particular, parents helping students with
homework, did have a positive relationship with elementary

students academic achievement.

Mother’s warmth and family factors were also explored
in this study. SES and mother’s warmth resulted in students
who did qualify for free and reduced lunch (42.1%)
reporting less mother's warmth than those who did not
qualify for free and reduced lunch (57.7%). Previous
studies did not show any significance with socio—economic
level (SES) and perceived mother’s warmth (Rohner, 1975a,

Barnes and Farrell, 1992).

Family composition would lend itself to possibly
having an effect on perceived mother’s warmth. Broken
homes, remarriages, and single parent households are all
factors that elementary students must contend with in
today’s society. In this study 26 students represented the
group living in not intact families and 71 students lived
with intact families. Seventeen students living in not
intact families reported more warmth than the other nine
students living in the same family composition. Thirty-six

students living with intact families reported more warmth

143

than the other thirty-five students living with intact
families. Data analysis comparisons did not show
significance between family composition and mother's

warmth. The stated hypothesis was not supported.

Two other family variables: stability/mobility and
help with homework were explored. Neither reported
significance and no hypotheses were stated for either of
those family factors. In this study none of the family
variables reported significant relationships to mother's

warmth.

Starkey (1980) found a relationship between perceived
mother’s warmth and academic achievement. It was a major
focus of this study to replicate Starkey's findings. The
group that scored above the 4th grade MEAP reading
proficiency cut score and reported the more warmth were 26
students as compared to those (24) who scored above the
MEAP reading proficiency cut score and reported less
warmth. A t—test of the mean variance between the two
groups resulted in t=-1.148 at a .255 level of
significance. Pearson Product moment test of correlations
between the two variables also showed similar results
r=.121 at a .257 level of significance. The researcher

believes that due to the small sample size and limited

144

measure for academic achievement Starkey’s (1890) findings
were not replicated in this study. It is worth mentioning
that a nominal regression (Table 25) mother's warmth did
have a relationship at the .14 level of significance. The

stated hypothesis was not supported in this study.

Multivuists Analysis

Up to now, the possible relationships between academic
achievement and individual and family factors have been
discussed as bivariate possibilities. It was the intent of
the researcher to look at the main effects of all the
family and individual factors simultaneously. In order to
do this a nominal regression model was used. Is there a way
to predict students academic achievement from the
individual and family variables used in this study? “Help
with homework” did have a significant relationship with
academic achievement when considered in the multivariate
analysis. The support from this study for the influence
that help with homework has on academic achievement
supports previous work by others. The dynamics of the
microsystem that is created during the time students are
working with their parent(s) on their homework is an

influential component for schools to nurture.

145

It was hypothesized that MEAP reading achievement
would vary as a function of gender. There were no
significant differences and the hypothesis was not
supported. 0f the ninety-one male and female scores
analyzed, there were only three (3) females who scored
better than males. For those who did not meet the MEAP cut
score there was a fewer number of females (17) who fell
below the cut score of 314 as compared to twenty-three (23)
males. Females did score better on the MEAP reading test.
The findings support the need to continue efforts to
determine why there are apparent differences between gender

and reading achievement.

It was hypothesized that PARQ scores would not vary as
a function of individual factors (age, gender). The study
supported the previous work of Rohner in that mother’s
warmth is not influenced by individual characteristics of
age or gender (Rohner, 1980). More investigations of
perceived mother’s warmth are warranted in a continuing
effort to measure the effects of mother's influences on

their children.

MEAP scores were hypothesized to vary as a function of
each of the family factors considered. The findings did not

support those hypothesizes except in one area. “Help with

146

homework” was a significant factor in academic achievement.
This is a good bit of news to me as an educator and parent.
This study provides support for the continuation of such
efforts. Providing more knowledge in this area is an
important contribution to schools and families. It is the
researcher’s belief that due to the small sample size for
the other family factors there wasn’t sufficient data
collection to provide a significant variance to support the
hypothesis for the three other family hypothesis. There is
still reason to consider further work in this area. Others
continue to find significance in the influence of family
variable. Schools need to address the implications of those
studies and they can use the findings to improve academic

achievement.

PARQ scores were hypothesized to not vary as a
function of either SES or family composition. The study
results confirmed both of those hypotheses. It is
interesting to note that three times as many students, who
did not qualify for free or reduced lunch, perceived more
mother’s warmth than did those who did qualify for free or
reduced lunch. There is reason to be concerned about SES
and mother’s which supports the need for more study of this
important relationship. The data for this study illustrated

a very small number of students who were able to

147

 

 

participate actually qualified for free or reduced lunch
(19). This limitation may have influenced the findings for
significance of the possible relationship. Similar to
Rohner's studies, this study did not find SES nor the
composition of families to effect perceived mother’s
warmth. There is reason to believe, regardless of whether a
family is intact or not intact, children are still

perceiving mother’s warmth in similar proportions.

Finally, it was hypothesized that there would be a
relationship between perceived mother's warmth and MEAP
reading achievement. The previous findings of Rohner
(1985), Starkey (1980), and Hahn (1980) were not supported
in this study at the .05 level of significance. It is
worthy to note that in a multivariant analysis mother’s
warmth relationship to academic achievement was significant
at the .14 level. Other family and individual factors in
the same multivariant regression analysis were reported at
significantly higher levels of significance (greater than
.40). Further analysis did not support the hypothesis.
Further investigation into this relationship would be

warranted.

In summary, this research extended the findings of

previous studies concerned with improving academic

148

achievement by investigating perceived mother's warmth,
individual and family factors. One family variable, “help
with homework” reported significance in both bivariate and
multivariate data analysis in the study. Since “help with
homework” did explain a small portion of the variance in

academic achievement, additional research is needed.

Implications

The findings of this study have implications for
future research. One general implication is that the design
of the study was guided by ecological theory. The measure
of mother’s warmth, which in this study quantified a
relationship rather than just acknowledge it existed,
provided insight to measure a child’s perceptions. Rohner’s
PARQ instrument provides researchers the ability to capture

the perceptions of children and quantify them for analysis.

The Michigan MEAP test has earned credibility over
its' existence to become the measure of academic
achievement in Michigan. The credibility it has earned
provides parents and community members a way to assess how
their school is doing in relationship to other schools

within the state. The MEAP test is something that the

149

public in Michigan understands and reporting academic
achievement based on the merits of the MEAP test results is

worthy of future consideration.

A limitation reported earlier in the study was the
concern about how accurate children's responses would be
concerning their assessment of perceived mother's warmth.
Future research using the PARQ instrument needs to be sure
to take any precautions in order to avoid socially
desirable responses. All considerations of privacy need to
be ensured in order to gain the confidence of young
children in ascertaining their private perceptions of

perceived mother’s warmth.

To explore future considerations of mother's warmth,
individual and family factors and replicate this study, the
researcher needs to make sure they avoid intruding on
personal feelings of students and their families. In order
to accomplish this they need to have access to the staff
who knows the children in order to gather some of the
student data (i.e., family composition, SES) from personal

knowledge.

150

Implications for Ros-arch

The findings of this study have several implications
for future research. In future studies the researcher
should make every attempt to gain the confidence of the
community and explain the purpose and procedure. Avoiding,
what might be considered intrusive means by families, to
gather data for individual and family variables is
critical. In this study the small sample size is believed
to be caused from the lack of understanding and trust the
parents of 4th and 5th graders had for this study. More
emphasis on public and private informational meetings with
parents, prior to conducting the research, should help
gaining trust and result in larger numbers of parents

allowing their child to participate in the future studies.

Implications for Practice

The need to learn more about how to improve academic
achievement is a strong desire that both school officials
and parents share. An implication of this research is the

continued need to foster home-school relationships.

The findings from this study and others reinforce that

parent involvement has an important relationship to

151

 

 

academic achievement. Schools need to provide
opportunities for parents and children to work together at
home. It would not be a recommendation of this researcher
to suggest teachers take the results from this study and
make sure they are assigning homework frequently. Instead,
teachers and parents together should collaborate to
determine the best way(s) to foster the parent-child
interaction that takes place when children and parents are
working together on academic things. Parent involvement can
be defined in various ways and increasing those ways will

result in improved academic achievement.

Even though this study did not find significance with
other family, individual, or perceived mother’s warmth
variables they should not be forgotten. It could be implied
that the district where the data was gathered is doing an
effective job addressing individual and family factors that
others studies have supported. Due to the small and non—
representative sample, the researcher is not convinced the
findings of this study are indicative of the school
district where the study was conducted nor other Michigan
school communities. The literature is strongly in support
of the effects selected individual and family factors have
on academic achievement. Only considering the issues to

improve academic achievement within the confines of schools

152

is restrictive. Other factors in the lives of elementary
students and their families need to be explored. Exploring
parent child relationships is important to finding possible
ways to improve academic achievement. The intrusive nature
of this type of research is easier to avoid than explore.
Parents and communities need to be educated about their
role as partners in education, and the positive or negative
effects that result on the academic achievement of their
child, from their taking that responsibility or avoiding

it.

Contributions of This Study

The study made theoretical and practical contributions
to the body of knowledge related to improving academic
achievement. Ecological and Parent Acceptance Rejection
theories, together, provided a strong theory base from
which to design the study and carry out the investigation.
The study provided more knowledge about 4th and 5th graders

academic achievement and their perceived mother's warmth.

The findings of this study lend support to aspects of
ecological and the warmth dimension of parental acceptance-

rejection theories. Differences, in all but one of the

153

 

 

study’s independent variables, were not significant. Help
with homework as well as the potential differences that the
other individual and family variables have need to be
studied further. The degree of significance for the
variables effects on academic achievement is worthy of
further investigation of the possible microsystem dynamics
that exist. The study data did not provide explanations for
the variances, ecological and parental acceptance rejection
theories provide ways to conceptualize and explore them in

future studies.

154

APPENDICES

155

APPENDIX 1 .

PARENT PERMISSION FORM

156

Dear Parent / Guardian,

Over three hundred 4th and 5th grade students in Bullock Creek Schools have
an opportunity to take part in a study being carried out by myself. Jim Anderson. in
conjunction with Michigan State University. The study will look at the possible
relationships between children's perceptions of their mother’s parenting behaviors
and children’s academic achievement as measured by 4th grade reading scores on
the MEAP test. The purpose of the study is to identify mother's parenting behaviors
that are associated with school achievement. Knowledge gained from this study will
benefit continuing efforts between home and school collaborations and provide
direction for future programming. When the project is finished results will be available-
to parents, school officials and others interested in home school relationships.

I would like your child to participate in the study. Your child will be asked to
answer a 60 question survey about their perceptions of mother’s parenting behaviors.

You should know that everything your child reports on the survey will be
confidential. No one will have access to this information except me. My interest is in
understanding how a sample of 4th and 5th graders perceive their mother's parenting
behaviors and not in identifying specific children or their families.

I hope very much that your child will be able to participate in this study by
completing the survey. Of course, all of this is voluntary. The survey should take
between 25 and 35 minutes to complete. Students will be surveyed before the end of
this school year at a time designated by their teacher that is the least disrupting to their
academic day. At the conclusion of the survey session, each child's survey will be put
into a sealed envelope. In order to maintain confidentiality a number will appear on
the survey and not your childs’ name. Your child will be told that he or she may quit
any time they want. They will also be assured that no one. including parents, will have
direct access to his / her responses. You should know that this study has been
approved by the Bullock Creek Board of Education.

If you will allow your child to participate in this study please sign and return the
consent form below to the office.

Thank you for your support and I appreciate your willingness to allow your
childs’ participation.

 

 

 

 

 

Sincerely.
r . ' U) ' I J
on )7 10m v. , . .

im Anderson, Principal Ron Main, Principal Anthony Falsetta‘Principal
Floyd Elementary Pine River Elementary Bullock Creek Elementary
Yes. is allowed to participate in this study.

student's name
date parent signature

Return this form to the school office before waning. M“ fgth

157

APPENDIX 2 .

SCHOOL DISTRICT APPROVAL LETTER

158

)2

KW BULLOCK CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT
Administrative Offices 1420 S. Badour Rd. Midland. MI 48640 (517) 631-9022 FAX (517) 631-2882

\

‘1

J5.

JX‘ Thomas E Gama 5mm Davida Chop-n. WWW
so
. . . ‘>
/s
April 12, 1999
UCHRIS - Michigan State University
225 Administration Building
East Lansing, MI 488244046
To Whom It May Concern:
I am aware of the research project (An Exploratory Study of 4" and 5'h Graders
Perceptions of Their Mother's Parenting Behaviors in Relationship to Academic
Achievement) Jim Anderson would like to conduct with 4'“ and 5 grade students in our
school district. I have discussed the project and implications of conducting this type of
research with elementary students.
Mr. Anderson has reassured me that all the necessary measures involving
confidentiality and anonymity have been considered. Systems are in place which
protect both confidentiality and anonymity of the students whose parents will consent to
their child participating.
Bullock Creek Schools support Mr. Anderson’s efforts to conduct his research project
which has the potential to gain new knowledge in the area of home and school
connections.
Sincerely, E g E é
Thomas E. Gilstad
Superintendent
ii"
BULLOCK CREEK HIGH SCNOOL BULLOCK CREEK MIDDLE SCHOOL
Phone 631-2340 Phone 63‘ ~9260
BULLOCK CREEK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FLOYD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PINE RIVER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Phone 032-0691 Phone 032-208! Phone ear-5121

159

APPENDIX 3 .

UCRIHS APPROVAL LETTER

160

 

OFFICE OF
RESEARCH
A!!!)
GRADUATE
STUDIES

University Committee on
Research Involving
Human Subjects
(UCRIHS)

Michloal‘ Stale UniveISIIj
246 Administration Building
East Lansing MICR'Qafl
48824-1046

517355-2180
FA) 51.7/353-2976

W uric?" 5:2? U'IMP'Sifi
.65: s Nitrite/u. Diversi'i
(IIWE‘TE ir Ari-or

MSLI is an lfli'=TJI’v‘P‘XI'LI"
ritual OOFIWU’NW ii’ISIiIJIon

   
  
  

MICHIGAN STATE

UNIVERSITY

 

June 7, 1999

TO; Dr.June Pierce YOUATT
Unit #3. Paolucci Bldg.
Room 233

RE: IRB# 99291 CATEGORY: FULL REVIEW
APPROVAL DATEzdune 7. 1999 -

TITLEIAN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF 4th AND 51h GRADERS PERCEPTIONS OF
THEIR MOTHER'S PARENTING BEHAVIORS IN RELATIONSHIP TO
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

The Universrty Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review of this
prOject is complete and I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare Of the human
subjects appear to be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are
appropriate. Therefore. tne UCRIHS approved this project.

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with the approval
date shown above. Projects continumg beyond one year must be renewed wrth the green
renewal form. A maximum of four such expedited renewals possible. Investigators wishing to
continue a prOject beyond that time need to submit it again for a complete reVIew.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involvmg human subjects.
prior to initiation of the change. If this is done at the time of renewal. please use the green
renewal fprm. TO rewse an approved protoc0l at any other time during the year, send your
written request tO the UCRIHS Chair, requesting revised approval and referencing the prOject's
lRB# and title Include in your request a description of the change and any revrsed
instruments. consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.

PROBLEMSICHANGES: Should either of the followrng arise during the course of the work,
notify UCRIHS promptly: 1) problems (unexpected srde effects, complaints. etc.) involvmg
human subjects or 2) changes in the research environment or new information indicating
greater risk to the human subjects than existed when the protoc0l was prewously reviewed and
approved

If we can be of further assistance. please contact us at 517 355-2180 or via email:
UCRIHS@piIOt.msu.edu. Please note that all UCRIHS forms are located on the web:
http://wwwmsu.edu/unit/vprgs/UCRIHS/

Li

J

Sincerely.

an E Wright, Ph D.
UCRIHS Chair

DEW'

CC James Anderson

161

APPENDIX 4 .

PARQ SCRIPT

162

 

Questionnaire script

Before assembling the participants, whose parents had already signed and returned
the consent form, the students would be informed that they were going to leave their
classroom and participate in answering the PARQ. Even if their parent had given
permission the participants would now be afforded the Option as to whether or not
they wanted to join the group and be included in the research.

Good morning / afternoon
My name is Jim Anderson

The reason you are with me today is so you can answer some questions which are
part of a study being conducted by myself and Michigan State University. Each Of you
took a letter home explaining what we would be doing today and your parent or
guardian has given permission for you to participate. After I read the instructions for
completing the research questionnaire you may decide you would not like to
participate. That will be your choice and I will provide an Opportunity after the
instructions and before we begin the questionnaire for you to make that choice.

For the next 30 - 40 minutes you will be answering questions on a form called:

Parental Acceptance Rejection Questionnaire. There are no right or wrong answers to
any of these questions. It is important for you to know that each question is measuring
what you think or how you feel about the question and not whether your answer is right
or wrong. Would someone tell me what a questionnaire is? How is it different from a
test? Since we now have discussed the difference between a questionnaire and a test
you should also know that your results from the PARQ will be compared to your 4th
grade MEAP reading score. This is done in order to determine and relationships
between the two measures.

There are 60 questions that will ask how you feel about your mother's parenting
behaviors. Please answer truthfully. Your answers will not be shared with anyone
and nO one will have access to your answers. In fact, as soon as you have completed
the questionnaire an identification number will be assigned to your questionnaire and
from that point On you will only be identified by that assigned number. Your answers to
the questions will be entered. by identification number not your name, into a computer
program for analysis. Results from the study will not be reported by name.

You may ask questions anytime while you are answering the questionnaire. I will read
each of the 60 questions and you will have four (4) choices to pick from. The choices
are: (1 )almost always true; (2)sometimes true; (3)rarely true; (4)almcst never true.
You will indicate your answer with an X on the line under the choice you would like to
make for each question.

163

Do you have any questions?

At this time please open the brown envelope in front of you and remove the
questionnaire. Please put your name on the front of the questionnaire. Follow along
as I read the directions on the front cover. Any questions? Please turn the page.

Read with me as I read the three (3) practice questions. DO you see where the four
lines are that correspond to the answer choices? Please make an X on the line that
best describes how you feel or think about each of the three practice questions.

The next four pages contain the 60 questions. At anytime you may quit answering
questions. You may also choose to not answer a particular question. I will not be
looking to see if everyone is answering the questions nor will I ask anyone if they have
stopped. It is completely your choice.

Are there any questions? At this time does anyone wish to not participate?
Let’s begin with question #1 ......................

164

APPENDIX 5 .

pang Ins-ram

165

CHILD PARQ

 

 

Name (or ID. number) Date

Herearesome statementsaboutthewaymothersacttowardtheirchfldren. Iwantyoutothinkabouthow
eachoneofthesefitsthewayyommotherueatsyou.

Fourlinesare drawn aftereach sentence. Ifthe statement isbasicallytrueaboutthewayyommotherueats
you then ask yourself. '1: it almost abvays true?’ or '1: it only sometimes true? If you think your mother almost
always treats you that way, put an Xon the line ALMOST ALWAYS TRUE; ifthe statement is sometimes true
about the way your mother treats you then mark SOMETIMES TRUE. If you feel the statement is baricafly
untrue about the way your mother treats you then ask yourself. '15 it rarelv true?‘ or 'Is it almost never true?’ If
it is rarely true about the way your mother treats you put an X on the line RARELY TRUE; if you feel the
statement is almost never true then mark ALMOST NEVER TRUE.

Remember, there is no right or wrong answer to any statement, so be as honest as you can. Answer each
statement the way you feel your mother really is rather than the way you might like her to be. For example. if
your mother almost always hugs and kisses you when you are good. you should mark the item as follows:

TRUE OF MY NOT TRUE 0F
MOTHER MY MOTHER
Almost Almost
Always Sometimes Rarely Never
True True True True
1. My mother hugs and
kisses me me when
I am good ............ _X_.. ......

Copyright Ronald P. Rohner, 1976

166

 

39

O.l(., now let’s try three more to make sure you know how to answer these questions.

TRUE OF MY

MOTHER
Almost

Always Sometimes

True True
M l’ MOTHER
l. Thinks it is my own
fault if 1 get into
trouble ...............

2. Likes for me to bring
friends home ............

3. Spends as much time
with me as she can ......

i\'OW GO TO NEXT PAGE AND BEGIN

NOT TRUE OF
MY MOTHER

Almost
Rarely Never

True True

Remember, there are no right or wrong answers, so answer each sentence the way you really feel.

*‘J
03

‘4

 

TRUE OF MY NOT TRUE OF

MOTHER MY MOTHER
Almost Almost
Always Sometimes Rarely Never
True True True True
M Y MOTHER
1. Says nice things about me.. .. ......
2. Nags or scolds me when
I am bad ............... _.. __ ...... __
3. Totally ignores me ...... .. __ ...... _
4. Does not really love me. _.. ____ - ......
5. Talks to me about our
plans and listens to
what 1 have to say ..... .. ......
6. Complains about me to
others when I do not
listen to her .......... . .. ......
7. Takes an active interest
in me ................... .. ......
8. Encourages me to bring
my friends home, and
tries to make things
pleasant for them ....... .. ......
9. Ridicules and makes fun
of me .................. .. ......
10. Ignores me as long as I
do not do anything to
bother her .............. .. ......
11. Yells at me when she
is angry ............... .. ......
12. Makes it easy for me to
tell her things that .
are important to me ..... .' .. ......
l3. Treats me harshly ....... .. ......
14. Enjoys having me around her... .. ......
15. Makes me feel proud
when I do well .......... .. ......

168

 

TRUE OF MY NOT TRUE OF

MOTHER MY MOTHER
Almost Almost
Always Sometimes Rarely Never
True True True True
M Y M OTHER
16. Hits me. even when I do
not deserve it..........
17. Forgets things she is
supposed to do for me... .. ......
18. Sees me as a big bother. .. ......
l9. Praises me to others... .. ......
20. Punishes me severely
when she is angry ....... .. ......
21. Makes sure I have the right
kind of food to eat ..... .. ......
21 Talks to me in a warm
and loving way .......... .. ......
23. Gets angry at me easily. .. ......
24. Is too busy to answer my
questions ............... .. ......
225. Seems to dislike me ..... .. ......
26. Says nice things to me
when I deserve them ..... .. ......
27. Gets mad quickly and
picks on me ............. .. ......
28. Is concerned who my
friends are ............. .. ......
29. Is really interested
in what I do ............ . .. ......
30. Says many unkind things
to me ................... .. ......
31. Ignores me when I ask
for help ................ .. ......

169

 

TRUE OF MY NOT TRUE OF

MOTHER MY MOTHER
Almost Almost
Always Sometimes Rarely Never
True True True True
M Y MOTHER
32. Thinks it is my own
fault when I am .
having trouble ....... ..

33. Makes me feel wanted
and needed.............. .. ......

34. Tells me that I get on
her nerves ............. .. ......

35. Pays a lot of attention
to me .................... ..

36. Tells me how proud she
is of me when I am good... .. ... ......

37. Goes out of her way to
hurt my feelings ....... .. ......

38. Forgets important things
I think she should
remember................. .. ......

39. Makes me feel I am not
loved any more if I
misbehave .............. .. ......

40. Makes me feel what I do
is important............. .. ......

41. Frightens or threatens
me when I do something
wrong....................

42. Likes to spend time
with me ............... .. ......

43. Tries to help me when 'I
am scared or upset...... .. ......

44. Shames me in front of
my playmates when I
misbehave................ .. ......

45. Tries to stay away from me... .. ......

170

 

M Y MOTHER
46. Complains about me”.-.

47. Cares about what I think.
and likes me to talk about it.

48. Feels other children are
better than I am no
matter what I do ......

49. Cares about what I would
like when she makes plans.

50. Lets me do things I
think are important.
even if it is
inconvenient for her....

51. Thinks other children
behave better than I do.

52. Makes other peOple take
care of me (for example,
a neighbor or relative).

53. Lets me know I am not
wanted .................

54. Is interested in the
things I do .............

55. Tries to make me feel
better when I am hurt
or sick ................

56. Tells me how ashamed she
is when I misbehave .....

57. Lets me know she loves me.

58. Treats me gently and
with kindness...........

59. Makes me feel ashamed
or guilty when I
misbehave ...............

60. Tries to make me happy..

TRUE OF MY

MOTHER

Almost
Always
True

Sometimes

171

NOT TRUE OF
MY MOTHER

Rarely
True

000000

......

......

Almost
Never

True

43

BIBLIOGRAPHY

172

 

Bibliography

Allington, R. & Cunningham, P. (1996) Schools that work:
where all children read and write. New York: Harper
Collins.

 

 

Amoto, P. (1990). Dimensions of the family environment as
perceived by children: A multidimensional scaling
analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 52, 613-620.

 

Babbi, E. (1991). The Practice of Social Research.
California: Wadsworth Publishing Co.

 

Barnes , G. & Farrell, M. (1992). Parental support and
control as predictors of adolescent drinking,
delinquency, and related problem behaviors. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 54. 763-779.

 

 

Baumrind, D. (1965). Parental control and parental love.
Children 12 (6), 230-234.

 

Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three
patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology
Monograph, 75, 43-88.

 

 

Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental
authority, Developmental Psychology Monographs, 4 (1,
Part 2).

Baumrind, D. (1973). The development of instrumental
competence through socialization. Minnesota Symposia
on Child Development, 7, 3-46.

 

 

Baumrind, D. (1978). Parental disciplinary patterns and
social competence in children. Youth and Society, 9
(3), 239-275.

 

I73

 

Baumrind, D. (1989). Rearing competent children. In W.
Demon (Ed.), Child development today and tomorrow (pp.
349-378). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Baumrind, D. (1991). Parenting style and adolescent
development, In Lerner, R.M. Peterson, & Brooks-Gunn
(Eds), Encyclopedia of Adolescence, 2.

 

Beattie, C. (1970). Entrance age to kindergarten and first
grade: its effect on cognitive and affective
development of students. Principal, 44 pp. 6—10.

 

Becker, W. (1964). Consequences of different kinds of
parental discipline. In M. Hoffman & L. Hoffman
(Eds)., Review of child development research. New
York: Russell Sage Foundation.

 

Bloom, B. (1986). What we’re learning about teaching and
learning: A summary of recent research. Principal, 66
pp. 6-10.

 

Bradley, R., & Caldwell, B. (1987). Early environment and
cognitive competence: The Little Rock study
(Longitudinal observation and intervention study),
Early Child Development and Care, 27, 307—410.

 

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human
development: Experiments by nature and design.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

 

 

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1993). The ecology of cognitive
development: Research models and fugitive findings.
In R.H. Wozniak & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Development in
context: Acting and thinking in specific environments
(pp. 3-44). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

 

 

I74

 

Bubolz, M.M., & Sontag, M.S. (1993). Human ecology theory.
In P.G. Boss, W.J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm,
& S.K. Steinmetz (Eds), Sourcebook of family theories
and methods: A contextual approach (Pp. 419-448). New
York: Plenum.

 

 

Burns, M. (1998). Interpreting the reliability and validity
of the MEAP, Report to standing committee for the
Michigan Association of School Psychologists.

Chalker, R. N. (1986). Family status and school
achievement. Horns, Virginia. U.S.; Alabama. Alabama
Stanford Achievement tests.

Clausen (1980). American research on the family and
socialization. In P. Mussen, J. Conger, & J. Kagan
(Eds.), Readings in child and adolescent psychology
(pp. 145-149). New York: Harper & Row.

 

Christenson, 8., Rounds, T., & Gorney, D. (1992). Family
factors and student achievement: An avenue to increase
students” success. School Psychology Quarterly, 7 (3),
pp. 178-206.

 

Dawson, P. (1981). The effect of the single-parent family
on academic achievement. A review of related
literature. U.S.; Illinois.

Dornbusch, S., Ritter, P., Leiderman, P., Roberts, D., &
Fraleigh, M. (1987) The relation of parenting style to
adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58.
1244-1257.

 

Dulaney, C. & Banks, K. (1994). Racial and gender gaps in
academic achievement. 0.3.; North Carolina.

 

Epstein, J. (1987). Parental involvement: What research
says to administrators. Education and Urban Society,
19(2), 119-136.

 

175

Epstein, J. (1991). Effects on student achievement of
teachers’ practices of parent involvement. Advances in
reading/language research: Literagy through family,
community and school interaction (Vol. 5, pp. 261-276)
Greenwich, CT: Jai Press.

 

Estrada, P., Arsenio, W., & Halloway, S. (1987). Affective
quality of the mother-child relationship:
Longitudinal consequences for children’s school
relevant cognitive functioning. Developmental
Psychology, 23, pp. 210-215.

 

 

Evans, D.A. (1996, 30 July). The effect of student mobility
on academic achievement. U.S.; Illinois 1996.

 

Freberg, L. (1991, January). Relationships between
chronological age, developmental age, and standardized
achievement tests in kindergarten. Psychology in the
Schools, 28, 77-81.

 

 

Garbarino, J. (1997). Educating children in a socially
toxic environment. Educational Leadership, 54. 12-16.

 

Garland, N. (1980). The relationship between high and low
achievers on the MEAP. Dissertation, University of
Michigan.

Goldberg, L. (1972). Language and individual differences:
the search for universals in personality lexicons, in
L. Wheeler (ed.) Review of Personality and Social
Psychology (Vol. 2). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

 

 

Guskey, T.(1997). The relationship between socioeconomic
characteristics and school-level performance
assessment results. Educational Leadership, 51. 6-9.

 

Guttmann, J. (1987). Threshold of withdrawal from
schoolwork among children of divorced parents.

International Journal of Experimental Educational
Psychology 7 (4), 295-302.

 

 

176

 

Hahn, B. (1980). Relationships among perceived parental
acceptance-rejection, self-evaluation, and academic
achievement performance of Korean-American children.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Connecticut.

 

 

 

Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. & Black, W.C.
(1995). Multivariate data analysis (4th ed.)
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

 

Han, L. (1994). Gender differences in achievement test
scores. U.S. Iowa; 1994.

Hedges, W.D. (1976, Fall). When should parents delay entry
of their child into the first grade? Florida
Educational Research and Development Council Research
Bulletin; 7 27-39.

 

 

Hess, R., & Halloway, S. (1984). Family and school as
educational institutions. In R. Parke (Ed.), Review of
research in child development (Vol. 7, pp. 179-222).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

 

 

Kaiser, J. (1994). The role of family configuration,
income, and gender in the academic achievement of
young self-care children. Early Child Development and
Care, 97, 91-105.

 

 

Keith, T. (1991). Parent involvement and achievement in
high schools. In S. Silvern (Ed.), Advances in
reading/language research: Literacy through family,
community, and school interaction (Vol. 5, pp. 125-
141). Greenwich, CT:JAI Press.

 

 

Keith, T., Keith, P., Troutman, G., Bickley, P., Trivette,
P., & Singh, K. (1993). Does parental involvement
affect eighth-grade student achievement? Structural
analysis of national data. School Psychology Review,
22 (3), Pp. 474-496.

 

177

 

Kim, S. (1994). Effects of parental acceptance on socio-
emotional development for children and adolescents: A
review of American literature. Korean Journal of
Psychology, 13 (1), 90-128.

 

 

Kruse, K. (1996). The effects of low socioeconomic
environment on a student’s academic achievement. U.S.
Texas: 1996-08-00.

Kurdeck, L., & Sinclair, R. (1988). Relation of eighth
graders’ family structure, gender, and family
environment with academic performance and school
behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 90-
94.

 

LaGreca, A. (1990). Issues and perspectives on the child
assessment process. In A.M. LaGreca (Ed.), Through the
eyes of the child: Obtaining self-reports from
children and adolescents (pp. 3-17). Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.

Lamb, M. (1981). Fathers and child development: An
integrative overview. In M.E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of
father in child development (2nd edition, pp. 1-70)
New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Lamb, M. (1997). Fathers and child development: An
introductory overview and guide. In M. Lamb (Eds.),
The role of the father in child development(3rd
edition), New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Lamborn, S., Mounts,N., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S.
(1991). Patterns of competence and adjustment among
adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian,
indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development,
62, 1049-1065.

 

Leung, J. (1993). Family configurations and children's
perception of parental behaviors that support
schoolwork. U.S; Wisconsin.

I78

Lezotte, L. (1999) The effective schools process: A proven
path to learning for all. Okemos, MI: Effective
Schools Products.

 

Luster, T., & Dubow, E. (1990). Predictors to the quality
of the home environment that adolescent mothers
provide their school-age children. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 19, 475-494.

 

Maccoby, E. (1980). Social development: Psychological
growth and thepparent-child relationship. New York:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Maccoby, E. (1992). The role of parents in the
socialization of children: An historical overview.
Developmental Psychology, 28(6), 1006-1017.

 

Maccoby, E., & Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in the
context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In
E.M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child
psychology. Vol 4: Socialization, personality and
social development (pp 1-101). New York: John Wiley &
Sons.

 

 

 

Mao, M. (1997). Student mobility, academic performance, and
school accountability. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association (Chicago, IL, March 24-28, 1997).

Marcon, R. (1993). Parent Involvement and Early School
Success: Following the Class of 2000 at Year Five.
Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society
for Research in Child Development. (60 th, New
Orleans, LA, March 25-28, 1993).

Matuszek, P., (1978). Who are the disadvantaged and what
should we do for them? The relationship of family
variables to achievement and some implications for
educational programming. Publication no. 77.40.

179

Michigan Department of Education.(1998, March). Michigan
Curriculum Frameworks. Lansing, MI: Author.

 

 

Michigan Revised School Code and State School Aid Act
(1979). Legislative Service Bureau. Lansing, MI:
Author.

Morrow, L. (1983). Home and school correlates of early
interest in literature. Journal of Educational
Research, 76, 221-230.

 

 

Newman, J. (1988, May). What should we do about the highly
mobile student? A research brief. Educational service
district 189 Mt. Vernon Washington.

Nisivoccia, J.D. (1997). The influence of parental
separation and divorce on adolescent academic
achievement: Developmental issues. U.S.; New Jersey
1997.

Paris, 3. G., Lawton, T.A., & Turner, J.C. (1992).
Reforming achievement testing to promote students'
learning. In C. Collins, & J.N. Mangieri (Eds),
Teaching thinking: An agenda for the twenty-first
century. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Parker—Price, S. (1996). Teachers’ perceptions of gender
differences in students. U.S.; Kansas 1996, pp. 1-11.

Paulson, S. (1994). Relations of parenting style and
parental involvement with ninth-grade students'
achievement. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14 (2),
pp. 250-267.

Peterson, G. & Rollins, B. (1987) Parent-child
socialization. In m. Sussman & S. Steinmetz (Eds).
Handbook of marriage and the family (pp 471-507). NY:
Plenum Press

180

Pleck, J. (1997). Paternal involvement: Level, sources,
and consequences. In M. Lambs (Ed.), The role of the
father in child development. (3rd ed. pp. 66-103).
New York: John Wiley & Sons.

 

Rohner, R. (1975a). Parental acceptance-rejection and
personality development: A universalist approach to
behavior science. In R. Brislin, W. Lonner, & S.
Bochner (Eds), Cross-cultural perspective on Learning
(pp.251-269). Beverly Hills: Sage.

Rohner, R. (1975b). They love me they love me not: A
worldwide study of the effects of parental acceptance
and rejection. New Haven: HRAF Press.

Rohner, R. (1980). Worldwide tests of parental acceptance-
rejection theory: An Overview. Behavioral Science
Research 15, 1-21.

 

Rohner, R. (1986). The warmth dimension: Foundations of
parental acceptance-rejection theory: Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.

Rohner, R. (1991). Handbook for the study of parental
acceptance and rejection. Center for the Study of
Parental Acceptance and Rejection, University of
Connecticut, Storrs, CT.

 

Rohner, R. (1997). The importance of father love: History
and contemporary evidence. Child Development, 87, 67-
74.

 

Rohner, R., & Pettengill, A. (1985). Perceived parental
acceptance-rejection and parental control among Korean
adolescents. Child Development, 56, 524-528.

 

Rohner R., & Rohner E. (1981). Parental acceptance-
rejection and parental control: Cross-cultural codes.
Ethnology, 20, 245-260.

 

181

Rohner, R. Saavedra, J., & Granum, E. (1977). Development
and validation of the Parental Acceptance-Rejection
Questionnaire: Test manual. JSAS Catalog of Selected
Documents in Psychology, 8, 1-19.

 

 

Rosen, J. (1987). Factors associated with improving or non-
improving scores in reading on the Michigan
educational assessment program test. Dissertation,
University of Michigan

 

 

Scanzoni, J. (1988). Families in the 1980's. Journal of
Family Issues, 8, 394-421.

 

 

Schachter, E. (1965). Children’s reports of parental
behavior: An inventory. Child Development, 36, 413-
424.

 

Schaefer, E. (1959). A circumplex model for maternal
behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
59, 226-235.

 

Schaefer, E. (1987). Parental modernity and child academic
competence: Toward a theory of individual and societal
development. Early Child Development and Care, 27,
373-389.

 

Shavelson, R.J. (1988). Statistical reasoningpfor the
behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

 

 

Shakiba-Nejad (1981). Socioeconomic status, academic
achievement and teacher response. U.S.; Oklahoma 1981.

Shreeve, W. (1985). Single parents and student
achievement--a national tragedy. U.S.; Washington
1985.

Siegelman, M. (1965a). College student personality
correlates of early parent-child relationships.
Journal of Consulting Psychology 29: 558-564.

 

182

Snyder, D. (1995). A study of the correlation between per
pupil funding and student achievement in the state of
Michigan. Dissertation, Western Michigan University.

Soderman, A. & Phillips, M. (1986). The early education of
males: Where are we failing them? Educational
Leadership, 44,70-72.

 

SPSS. (1997). SPSS base 7.5 for Windows: User's guide.
Chicago: Author.

Starkey, S. (1980). The relationship between parental
acceptance-rejection and the academic performance of
fourth and fifth graders. Behavior Science Research,
15, pp. 67-80.

 

Steinberg, A. (1990). Kindergarten: Predicting early
failure? Principal, 69, 6-11.

 

Steinberg, L., Dornbusch, S., & Brown, B. (1992a). Ethnic
differences in adolescent achievement: An ecological
perspective. American Psychologist, 47, 723-729.

 

Steinberg,L. Lamborn, S. Dornbusch, S. & Darling, N.
(1992) Impact of parenting practices on adolescent
achievement: Authoritative parenting, school
improvement, and encouragement to succeed. Child
Development, 63, 1266-1281.

 

Steinberg, L., Elmen, J., & Mounts, N. (1989).
Authoritative parenting, psychosocial maturity, and
academic success among adolescents. Child Development,

 

g9, 1424 -l436.

Stevenson, H. & Baker, D. (1987). The family-school
relation and the child's school performance. Child
Development, 58, 1348-1357.

 

183

Sui-Chu, E., & Wilms, J. (1996). Effects of parental
involvement on eight-grade achievement. Sociolggy of
Education, 69, 126-141.

 

 

Thomson, E. (1994, September). Family structure and child
well-being: Economic resources vs. parental behaviors.
Social Forces, 73, 221-42.

 

Van Moorlehem T. & Newman, H. (1998). Testing MEAP scores,
A Free Press Special Report. Detroit Free Press,
January 19, 1998.

 

 

Vanvalkenburg, L. (1990). Relationship between community
wealth and student performance on the Michigan
Educational Assessment Program (income).
Dissertation, University of Toledo.

Waters, T. (1996,April). Mobility and reading achievement.
April 1996. Iowa tests of basic skills; New Jersey.

Wright, D. (1999 July/August). Student mobility: A
negligible and confounded influence on student
achievement. The Journal of Educational Research 92,

347-53.

 

Young, M., Miller, 8., Norton, M., & Hill, J. (1995). The
effect of parental supportive behaviors on life
satisfaction of adolescent offspring. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 57, 813-822.

 

 

184