' mwum ~ "

«03me

 

it
E . ..

.2 .

d. “I in: .

‘ 5. incl“.

$1.91?!
.15. r l.

«hawfimn
..
. .1?
V t . 01.! I.
«9nd. .n.
1.. .2 .5 z. in"
3...? .. a.

.“IJ‘tln-lm‘m

352.!

1.. €533...

Il‘n‘\.§v, d.
pl."

Its-is
to... v11};-
...pv;n...::£‘.l ,
‘3..‘..l.. I

I \
Silk-{3.
‘ L,\.

i. ‘Li 11...:th

lazvilsi

51.x. .01)...

t . . ‘2!
57.3.3... . \. 1.
ll in! .35.. .r ..(| ..
_ 21.17 1.I.Iv‘ {Air}. 4:?
. . ‘n . §.€.‘|‘..voll

:1! l....1.\ Ma

 

 

WEST:

”lo

01/

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Participation and Satisfaction of
Latino Parents in Parent Education Programs

presented by
Stephanie Ann Eddy

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Master of Artfiegree in Psychology

 

 

WALW

Major professor

Date 5-7 -02 (75/742

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

_ LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

!
‘ 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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/CIFIC/DateDua.p65-p.15

PARTICIPATION AND SATISFACTION OF LATINO PARENTS IN PARENT
EDUCATION PROGRAMS

By

Stephanie Ann Eddy

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Psychology

2002

ABSTRACT

PARTICIPATION AND SATISFACTION OF LATINO PARENTS IN PARENT
EDUCATION PROGRAMS

By

Stephanie Ann Eddy

Parents may parent differently due to their cultural values, socioeconomic status,
and minority status. Culturally competent programs for Latino parents are needed, as
generic programming can be inappropriate and ineffective. This study tested the effect of
program characteristics mentioned in the literature on parent satisfaction with programs
and on parent retention level in programs. Personalismo of staff predicted greater parent
satisfaction, and one measure of culture-specific program content predicted less
satisfaction. Bilingual staff, in-home programming, and personalismo of others in
programs predicted greater program retention; while cultural competence and
personalismo of staff predicted less retention. Acculturation moderated the effect of
bilingual staff on satisfaction, such that bilingual staff was more related to satisfaction
with more highly acculturated parents. Overall, findings suggest that satisfaction and
retention of Latino parents are not correlated in a straightforward way and are predicted

by different program characteristics.

This work is dedicated to my God and friend Jesus Christ and to His Spirit,
who kept me company during the four long years in which it was created; to my parents
Rick and Susan Jacobson, who helped me start, encouraged me to continue, and on
whose love I could always depend; and to my “other parents,” Randy and Elaine Eddy,
who provided me with a safe place away from home.

Finally, I dedicate this work to my husband Jason, whose partnership is the
ultimate fruit of this season in my life and whose friendship has enabled me to cross this

finish line. In you I am deeply blessed!

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the generous financial support of the National
Alliance for Children’s Trust and Prevention Funds under the leadership of David Mills
and Dr. Bob Caldwell, and also of the Michigan State University Department of
Psychology. I also want to thank the Alliance for giving me their list of programs to
contact for data collection.

I want to thank my thesis chairman and friend, Dr. Bob Caldwell, for spending
countless hours reading and commenting on drafts, and being so generous with his office
time. I also want to thank Dr. Rose Colon and Dr. David Hofmann for being always
available and for responding so quickly with their expertise and encouragement whenever
it was needed. I

I want to acknowledge the prayers and support of my husband Jason; my
parents, Rick and Susan Jacobson and Randy and Elaine Eddy; my grandparents, Robert
and Eda Jacobson, Dick and Betty Schurman, Bob and Marge Eddy, Grandma June
Reese, and so many other dedicated family members. In addition to support, Morn
(Susan) and “Mom E” made many phone calls and faxes in search of programs from
which to collect data. “Dad and Mom E”; Troy, and Michelle Eddy; Jamie, Denise, and
Katelyn Lane; Grandma June; and Jackie and Rebecca Reese all helped with the mailing.

I want to thank Ruth Hill and Elizabeth Meisch, two students who worked
tirelessly on the project, from set-up to data entry. Finally, I want to acknowledge
Rosemary Faiver who did the Spanish translation of the questionnaires and cover sheets,

and who was extremely flexible to meet our deadlines.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................. vii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................ viii
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1
Culture and parenting ................................................................... 1
Socioeconomic status (SES), minority status, and parenting values ............. 4

Context, culture, and parenting style ................................................. 5

The system’s inadequacy to serve minority populations ........................... 9

Parent education and minority populations ........................... 11

Ineffectiveness of universal parent education programs .......................... 12

Culturally specific programs ......................................................... 13

Cultural competence of parent support and education programs ................ 15

Bilingual and culturally competent staff ............................ I ............... 16

In-home setting for parenting program ............................................. 17
Experienced personalismo ............................................................ 17

Content of a culturally appropriate program ....................................... 18
Acculturation ........................................................................... 20

Endeavors of this study ............................................................... 22
METHOD ............................................................................................ 24
Sample .................................................................................. 24

Feasibility study and sample recruitment ............................. 24

Procedures .............................................................................. 25

Measures ................................................................................ 28
Retention of Latino parents ............................................. 28

Satisfaction of Latino parents .......................................... 28
Acculturation scale ....................................................... 28

Program content .......................................................... 29

Bilingual staff ............................................................. 31

Culturally competent staff ............................................... 31

Program setting ........................................................... 31

Experienced personalismo .............................................. 31

Translation of questionnaires ........................................... 32

RESULTS ............................................................................................ 33
Sample ................................................................................... 33

Power analysis ............................................................ 33

Program demographics .................................................. 33

Parent demographics ..................................................... 33

Scale reliabilities ......................................................... 34

Aggregation of program level variables .............................. 36

Tests of hypotheses ....................................................... 38

DISCUSSION ....................................................................................... 41
Predictors of satisfaction .............................................................. 41
Predictors of retention ................................................................. 42
Acculturation effects .................................................................. 44
Limitations .............................................................................. 45
CONCLUSION ...................................................................................... 47
APPENDICES ....................................................................................... 48
Appendix A. Program Administrator Questionnaire .............................. 48
Appendix B. Program Participant Questionnaire .................................. 52
Appendix C. Letter to Parent Education Programs ................................ 56
Appendix D. Letter to State Trust Funds ........................................... 57
Appendix E. Postcard Questionnaire ................................................ 58
Appendix F. Formulas for J ustifying Aggregation ................................ 59
REFERENCES ...................................................................................... 60

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Number of programs by state ............................................................ 27
Table 2. Inter-item correlations of the Warmth (Personalismo) of Staff subscale. . . . ......35

Table 3. Inter-item correlations of the Warmth (Personalismo) of Other Parents subscale..

......................................................................................................... 36
Table 4. Viability of program level variables ................................................... 37
Table 5. Parent retention regression results ...................................................... 39

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. A simplified cultural—ecological model of childrearing (adapted from Ogbu,
1981) ................................................................................................... 3

viii

Participation and Satisfaction of Latino

Parents in Parent Education Programs

Ethnographic research and documentation has provided solid evidence that
childrearing behaviors differ from one culture, or one nation, to another (DeMause,
1998). It is no surprise to most people that parents in Kenya raise their children
differently than parents in the United States. Of more pressing national interest, however,
is the way in which childrearing varies between different groups occupying the same
nation. Because various groups occupy the same space and utilize the same child welfare
system, clashing childrearing values can complicate the creation of intervention programs
aimed at promoting “good” parenting.

The most common parenting models were originally designed to describe the
white majority population, but programs based on these models can be ineffective and
irrelevant to other populations. This is because minority groups may parent differently
due to their cultural values, socioeconomic status (SES), and minority status (Garcia C011,
1990; Harrison, Wilson, Chan, Pine & Buriel, 1990).

Culture and parenting values

Ogbu (1981) is one much-cited source on the contribution of culture to
childrearing. According to Ogbu, the childrearing habits of a group result in large part
from the group’s cultural values. One specific category of cultural values is called
competencies, and these are defined as the set of characteristics that make an individual
able to survive and thrive in a given culture (Ogbu, 1981). These are determined by the

culture’s theory or definition of success. For example, in an agricultural culture, survival

itself may be the ultimate goal, the definition of success. If this is the case, then skill in
crop-cultivating is the crucial competency to have, because it ensures survival. Parents in
such a culture will prioritize teaching their children to cultivate crops. In contrast, in the
United States, some groups or families place a high value on monetary success acquired
by succeeding in corporate business. In this type of group, which could also be called a
“culture,” individuals with ambition and independence achieve success, so these are
qualities that parents work to instill in their children. The qualities that predict
occupational success contribute to the total set of competencies, or values, held by
parents.

Multiple cultures exist within the United States, and each culture has its own
values and preferred competencies. While some groups value success in corporate
business or academia, and thus the competencies of ambition and independence,
occupational success for other groups is defined differently. If a group has more access to
employment in a factory than a business firm, they may value competencies of
conformity and dependability, qualities more likely to predict success in a factory or at a
worksite that requires compliance with authority (Kohn, 1969). Furthermore,
occupational values define only one set of competencies. A culture may value some
things other than, or even more highly than, occupational success, such as respect for
family.

All these competencies affect parenting because, as parents’ values vary, so do
their childrearing techniques. For example, if parents in a working-class population value
the conformity that predicts occupational success in that sub-culture, their parenting is

likely to be more obedience-oriented and less democratic than that of parents who value

self-direction in their children (Kohn, 1969; Ogbu, 1981).

Harrison et al. (1990) introduced another model whereby culture influences
parenting. Harrison et al. described a model where “adaptive strategies,” or strategies of
living that are determined to be adaptive for a population, lead to “socialization goals” (p.
347). These goals are similar to Ogbu’s “competencies”. Harrison et al. (1990) agree with
Ogbu (1981) that culture provides the context within which parenting goals are formed,
and these goals in turn predict parenting behavior. Figure 1 is a simplified version of

Ogbu’s cultural-ecological model of childrearing, incorporating some of the language

from Harrison et al.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cultural . Cultural Cultural
definition competencies child—
of E (socialization $ rearing ’
success goals) values
Cultural Dominant
child- cultural child
rearing ———> types and
techniques competencies

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1. A simplified cultural—ecological model of childrearing (adapted from Ogbu,
1981).

Based on this understanding that parenting goals predict parenting behavior, and
that parenting behaviors impact child development (see Figure 1), Ogbu (1981) argues
that most children grow up to be what the child’s culture defines as a competent man or
woman. Therefore, it could be said that the vast majority of youth in any nation,

including the United States, are competent and successful. If this does not appear self-

evident it may be because, even within the United States, there are varied definitions of
success and competence.

Definitions of success may vary according to cultural values or other population
characteristics, such as socioeconomic status (SES). Speaking of low-income urban
families, Ogbu (1981) argues that self-reliance, resourcefulness, and mistrust of authority
(p. 424) are appropriate, adaptive child competencies because they make a child more
likely to survive and thrive in the culture of the street. To instill these competencies in
their children, urban poor parents may use parenting techniques that include physical
punishment and what Ogbu calls “inconsistent demands for obedience.” These techniques
contrast the nurturing, warm parenting skills highlighted in the parenting literature.
However, as Ogbu argues, they may be appropriate for developing this mix of adaptive
competencies in children.

Socioeconomic status (SES), minority sgrtus, and parentingvalues .

As just mentioned, population characteristics other than culture, such as SES and
minority status, also contribute to the parenting values its members hold (Harrison et al.,
1990; Inkeles, 1968; Ogbu, 1981). First of all, Garcia C011 (1990) argues that
socioeconomic factors contribute largely to child development, and specifically minority
child development, as minority children are more likely to live in poverty. For example,
parents of low SES often raise their children in neighborhoods where there are a greater
number of dangers, and this makes strictness a more adaptive parenting trait, in terms of
their children’s safety.

Another example of how SES affects competencies and parenting values is

evident in the differing reward systems for working-class and middle-class citizens. Jobs

held by working-class citizens promote workers who exhibit conformity and respect for
authority. White-collar workers, in contrast, are more likely to be promoted or rewarded
for exhibiting self-direction and innovation (Kohn, 1969; Ogbu, 1981). Therefore, it
makes more sense for working-class parents to raise their children to value conformity
and respect for authority, and for white-collar parents to promote independence and
innovation in their children.

Apart from SES, the minority status of a population also has an effect on
parenting. Minority status in the United States may involve educational disadvantage, and
generally involves some degree of social stigma and discrimination (Harrison et al.,
1990). For this reason, ethnic minority parents find themselves raising their children to
deal with a different set of issues and obstacles than white parents. Self-esteem and an
appreciation for culture of origin are important qualities for parents to instill in their
children. This has been addressed clearly in the literature on African-American parenting
education (Alvy, 1994). Thus, minority status, along with SES and cultural beliefs,
contribute to the parenting values of minority parents.

Context, culture, and garenting style

Unfortunately, most early parenting research was conducted with white parents. It
therefore follows that the typology of parenting styles developed from this research best
describes and explains white parenting.

Parenting style in the psychological literature has generally been described in
terms of two continuums: parental control and parental warmth (accepting versus
rejecting). Four parenting styles are commonly distinguished from these two parent

characteristics: authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglecting parenting styles

(Lambom, Mounts, Steinberg, & Dombusch, 1991; Maccoby & Martin, 1983). An
authoritative parenting style, characterized by warmth, supervision and yet promotion of
autonomy, has been shown to be predictive of the best outcomes on a variety
psychological, psychosocial, behavioral, and academic scales (Lambom et al., 1991;
Radziszewska, Richardson, Dent, & Flay, 1996). In contrast, other parenting styles have
been shown to impede certain aspects of social and psychosocial development
(Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987; Lambom et al., 1991;
Maccoby & Martin, 1983).

One of these other parenting styles, authoritarian parenting, is characterized by a
high level of control, an emphasis on obedience and order, and a discouragement of
“verbal give and take” between parent and child (Maccoby & Martin, 1983, p. 40).
Authoritarian parenting is generally considered detrimental to child development, and
this is of particular interest because when tested on these parenting measures, minority
populations have often scored higher on the authoritarian scale than white parents
(Baumrind, 1972; Chao, 1994; Dornbusch et al., 1987; Steinberg, Dornbusch, & Brown,
1992). Furthermore, in the realm of academic development and achievement, where
much parenting style research has been conducted, some minority children and
adolescents have less success. This could lead researchers to conclude that indeed an
authoritarian parenting style is detrimental to child development, as these children of
more authoritarian parents are having less academic success. .

However, the parenting typology described above was not created to predict
minority child development, or describe minority parenting. Bronfenbrenner (1979)

argued that in his ecological theory of human development that child development must

always be understood in the context of the family and culture. Indeed, as researchers have
considered context and culture, the picture changes somewhat. For example, while
research shows that an authoritative parenting style predicts academic success in children,
a closer look reveals that the statistical relationship is strongest for white middle-class
children. Culture changes the nature of the effect at least to some degree, perhaps because
parenting varies by culture and context, which make the picture more complex than a
simple cause and effect.

How might culture and context make the picture more complex? Consider for
example of a family of low SES that makes economic survival, or the ability to pay the
rent and the utilities, its first priority. To this family a child’s ability to supplement the
family income may be considered more important than her report card, so the child may
spend her time after school working an extra job rather than doing homework. These
parents might also score high on an authoritarian. scale of parenting style as described
above, perhaps because they have cultural values requiring a high level of respect for
parents, or because they live in a dangerous neighborhood where obedience can be the
difference between a child’s safety and harm. This does not mean that the child receives
low grades because she has parents with poor parenting skills; rather, the grades of the
child reflect the life circumstances of the family.

This child may indeed have poor academic performance, and it may be correlated
with ‘authoritarian’ parenting; however, the picture is much more complex than the initial
analysis might suggest. Parenting in this case is influenced by the larger context within
which the family lives, a context including culture that helps to determine the family’s

priorities, values, and thus parenting behaviors.

Because of the complexity of parenting and the contributing factors, it would be
expected that the traditional parenting typology does not always accurately predict the
outcomes of minority groups, and this has been found to be true. For example, some
immigrant groups have excelled in the United States school system despite not being
raised according to the authoritative model of development and parenting. Specifically,
Asian immigrants consistently excel in school (Chao, 1994; Ogbu, 1981) although Asian
parenting behaviors are consistently described in the literature as more authoritarian than
those of white parents (Dombusch et al., 1987; Steinberg, Dombusch, & Brown, 1992).
Furthermore, while authoritarian parenting is considered a risk factor for poor self-esteem
(Lambom et al., 1991), it has actually been shown to predict self-assertiveness in Black
preschool girls (Baumrind, 1972). Overall, the parenting typology described at the
beginning of this section is most consistently found to be predictive of developmental
outcomes for white children (Dombusch et al., 1987; Steinberg, Dombusch, & Brown,
1992; Steinberg, Lambom, Dombusch, & Darling, 1992).

Some researchers have tried to create parenting measures that take into account
some of the complexity of parenting across cultures. One piece of this complexity is
differing parenting values or belief systems. Parenting, as any human interaction,
involves many subtle interpersonal characteristics and great depth. Chao (1994) did a
study of Chinese immigrant versus white US mothers and found that, although Chinese
mothers did appear to be more controlling and authoritarian, Chinese parenting involved
many more nuances than the traditional measures acknowledged.

Chao (1994) developed a new parenting measure, one which measured a Chinese

parenting construct called chiao shun, or “training”. Chiao shun is a Confucian-based

understanding of parenting which includes a strong belief in parental control, but in the
context of extreme devotion on behalf of the mother, and a very close, supportive
relationship with her. Chao tested Chinese and white mothers on both the traditional
Western typology, and on the measure that tested chiao shun ideology. As expected, the
Chinese mothers scored more authoritarian on the traditional measure. But the Chinese
mothers also scored higher than white mothers on the “training” ideology, which
measures a parenting ideology including a large degree of warmth in the mother-child
relationship. Cultural differences in how this warmth is acted out or understood may have
precluded the traditional Western parenting typology from picking it up.

In any case, although words such as authoritarian, strict, and demanding have
been used to describe Asian parenting, they do not paint a complete or accurate picture. It
is then no surprise that Asian parenting characterized in the literature as “authoritarian”
fails to have the negative developmental outcomes predicted by the typology. As
mentioned, Asian imrrrigrant children actually excel academically (Chao, 1994).

It is evident for these reasons, both because parenting values differ and because a
construct as complex as parenting style cannot be measured without being understood,
that generic parenting constructs are inadequate for the cross-cultural study of parenting
(Florsheim, Tolan & Gorman-Smith, 1996). Likewise, generic parenting behaviors are
not necessarily relevant to multiple groups of people, and parenting education should also
not be generic, but rather reflect the diversity of the population with different assets,
needs and beliefs. Historically, however, this has not been the case.

The system’s irgdmrchto serve minority powtions

The child welfare system in the US has historically slow to provide services for

minority populations. This is first evident in the history of policy toward African-
Americans in the social service system, as described by Hogan and Sin (1988), who
illustrated the national progression from blatant oppression to more subtle forms of
discrimination, which still exist today. According to them, in the 1700s, 18008 and a good
portion of the early twentieth century, African-American children and families were
excluded from white social service institutions. After the Civil War the federal
government began to take upon itself the social welfare of its citizens, and this included
some services to African-American children, such as reuniting former slave children with
their parents. However, these children continued to be largely excluded by the
mainstream child welfare system until the post-World War H era, when increasing
urbanization and prevalence of poverty among minority populations made it necessary to
include them. (Hogan & Sin, 1988).

The trend of white control in the social services has continued to a large extent,
and minority populations such as Latinos still endure discrimination in the realm of
government-sponsored social services. Protective services offices are one place that this
type of discrimination continues to exist. Herrerias (1988) described the experiences of
Spanish-speaking families who were suspected of child maltreatment in one protective
services office. First, a lack of bilingual staff made any communication difficult. This
prevented family history from being sufficiently explored in some cases. In one case, a
social worker actually forbid a mother to speak in Spanish, threatening that if she
continued to do so, “future mother-children visitation would be jeopardized (p. 106).”

Secondly, in this same protective services office, a lack of understanding cultural

values led to misunderstandings and misdirected services. For example, one social

10

worker chose to use a child from the family to interpret for the mother. This elevated the
child to a power position over the parent, undermining the role of the parent as the
authority in the home. This is an offense in Latino culture, and possibly put the child at
greater risk for future harm (Herrerias, 1988). The social worker apparently did not have
enough cultural background or training to recognize this risk.

Overall, As Hogan and Sin (1988) put it:

The system responds more slowly to crises in minority families; such families

have less access to support services. . .black and Hispanic children receive less

comprehensive service plans; and parents of color have been viewed as less able

to profit from support services. (p. 493)

_P_arent education and minority populations. When parent education programs
operate under assumptions made by the traditional parenting typology, a consequence of
this would be that minority parents are expected to conform to a white, middle-class
parenting model. Ogbu (1981) describes this as it occurred in the proliferation of
preschool programs for “disadvantaged children” that started in the 19605. These were
accompanied by educational programs for parents to correct what was thought to be
“missing” in minority childrearing. Thus, parents were taught how to stimulate and train
their children to develop the skills and competencies that would make up for perceived
“developmental deficits” which were being exhibited by their children (p.415). Not
surprisingly, Ogbu stated these programs were unsuccessful in their attempts to adjust the
behaviors of minority students and parents to fit a white middle-class standard.

According to Bronfenbrenner and Weiss (1983), a deficit model pervades the

social service system in our nation, and regarding welfare services specifically, they state:

11

To qualify for help, potential recipients must first prove that they and their

families are inadequate — they must do so in writing, a dozen times over, with

corroborating documentation, so that there can be little doubt that they, and their

children, are in fact the inadequate persons they claim to be. (p. 395)
Bronfenbrenner and Weiss go on to note that individuals and families entering the realm
of social service provision become categorized and referenced according to the
“problem,” or “problems,” they exhibit.

Given this broad trend of deficit orientation in the social services, which is also
true in protective services offices, minority participants who come to parent education
programs may have already dealt with this at several levels. First, if they are being
investigated for suspected abuse and neglect, they are likely already considered
dysfunctional in some way. Secondly, if agency staff is not culturally competent, or is
unaware of families’ values and cultural practices, the behaviors of these families might
well seem foreign and suspect, leading protective service staff to be even more
suspicious.

Ineffectiveness of universal parent education progra__m§

As was just mentioned, services that are not culturally competent are not only
offensive and alienating, they may also be ineffective. Programs serving minority
populations have been ineffective in many cases. In 1981 Ogbu noted that, overall, parent
support and education programs were having little outcome success with minority
populations. One of their main failures was to attract and retain participants. A study that
illustrates this was conducted by Holden, Lavigne, and Cameron (1990). They studied a

project aimed at teaching mothers behavioral techniques to control their toddlers, which

12

was administered across ethnic groups. Holden, Lavigne, and Cameron mentioned no
specific cultural considerations in the description of the program. This is common in the
parent education literature (Miller, 1997).

Among the outcomes studied by Holden, Lavigne, and Cameron (1990) were
completion of the intervention, and length of time it took those who completed it to do so.
Criterion for completion was that mothers would be able to elicit the desired behavior
from their toddlers. Minority participants and those of lower social classes were less
likely to complete the training. Furthermore, if minority participants did complete the
intervention, they were more likely to be in the group which took a longer time to do so.

Another study that illustrates the difficulty of retaining minority participants was
conducted by Danoff, Kemper, and Sherry (1994). They studied a parenting education
program in Seattle, Washington that utilized the Systematic Training for Effective
Parenting (STEP) curriculum, a curriculum that is used widely across the nation. Danoff,
Kemper, and Sherry looked specifically at risk factors for dropping out of the program
across three different sites, and found in their univariate analyses that ethnicity was a
factor, with African-American parents most likely to drop out.

Culturally specific progra_rr_1§

Those in the field of parenting education have become increasingly aware of these
problems, and examples of culturally appropriate programs have been developed for
certain Hispanic-American (Herrerr’as, 1988), African—American, (Miller, 1997; Myers,
Alvy, Arrington, Richardson, Marigna, Huff, Main & Newcomb, 1992) and Native-
American populations (Cheng Gorman & Balter, 1997). Some outcomes of these

programs are encouraging, but the fact remains that parent education sanctioned by the

13

government usually takes a generic form with little consideration for cultural issues
(Miller, 1997).

Furthermore, many of the attempts that have been made to develop culturally
appropriate curriculum have been too shallow in their adaptation. These programs may
translate an existing program to a new language, or even adapt it to include cultural
traditions and values. However, very few programs actually create a parent training
framework which is based on the “different ways of being and acting” that make up a
specific minority culture (Cheng Gorman & Balter, 1997, p. 342). Cheng Gorman and
Balter (1997) refer to this as a “culturally specific” program. The importance of having
the unique perspective of a specific culture as a foundation for program and curriculum
development cannot be understated. Without doing so, differences between the rrrinority
culture practices and mainstream practices are generally interpreted as deficits on the
behalf of the minority group.

Despite these inadequate examples, there are a handful of culturally specific
programs that have been developed for Latino parents, although the evaluation data is
limited. Two programs were identified and reviewed by Cheng Gorman and Balter
(1997). One program was developed by Alvy (1994) at the Center for the Improvement
of Child Caring, and is entitled Los Nifios Bien Educados. Cheng Gorman and Balter
(1997) were unable to access and review any numerical evaluation data on this program,
although Alvy (1994) does report qualitatively on the evaluations he conducted.

The other culturally specific program reviewed by Cheng Gorman and Balter
(1997) was the Houston Parent-Child Development Center (PCDC) program. There was

published evaluation data on this program that Cheng Gorman and Balter found to be

methodologically sound. However, the effect sizes in the evaluations of this program
were mixed, and the magnitude of change in parents as a result of the program is
uncertain.

Thus, it is evident that there has been very little evaluation to date on programs
that serve Latino parents. Furthermore, the evaluation data that exist are not conclusive.
In the literature, many program characteristics are suggested to make programs more
relevant to the needs and parenting beliefs of Latino families, but there is little evidence
to support these recommendations. To clarify what factors of a program truly make it
more accessible and relevant to Latino parents, research is needed which measures the
direct impact of the specific program characteristics, to see if they do indeed have the
intended effect. Furthermore, it would be useful to compare these characteristics to
determine which have the greatest effect on minority participants’ experience. These are
the endeavors of the current study.

Cultural competence of parent support and education progm

Dana (1998b) has studied cultural competence in the field of mental health care in
particular. About the field he stated that “primarily Euro-Americans have been
responsible for definitions or descriptions of psychopathology, development of
interventions, styles of service delivery, and decisions as to which patient or client
received what services (p. 284).” For this reason, Dana, Behn, and Gonwa (1992)
compiled literature on culturally relevant social service programming, and from that have
identified a checklist of important characteristics for agencies that serve minority
populations, to assess their level of cultural competence. The checklist has been tested on

human service agencies known to be culturally competent and has held up well (Dana,

15

1998a)

The checklist itself includes several sections: (1) staff and policy attitudes,
including bilingual and bicultural staff, flexible hours, indigenous intake, and agency
environment; (2) culturally relevant services at all levels (e. g., assessment, intervention,
prevention, crisis); (3) relationship to minority community; (4) training for minority and
nonminority staff; and (5) evaluation (Dana, 1998a). The current study applied some
aspects of this checklist, particularly the first two aspects, to parent education
programming that serves Latino families nationally.

Five program characteristics that fall within the first two aspects of Dana’s
checklist (1998a) were chosen for this study because the literature talks about them with
regard to Hispanic and Latino groups, and specifically with regard to parent education.
The five program characteristics are as follows: bilingual staff, culturally competent staff,
in-home programming, experienced personalismo (warmth) within a program, and parent
education program content.

Bilingaal and culturalchompetent stafl

The first two program characteristics, which fit within Dana’s first aspect (1998a),
are staff members who are bilingual and culturally competent. Programs that neglect to
offer this are inaccessible to Latino families, as was discussed earlier. The presence of
bilingual staff in a program is necessary for even basic communication, and culturally
competent staff members are necessary to a program that truly incorporates an
understanding of Latino parents’ stated and implicit values. Dana, Behn, and Gonwa
(1992) describe cultural competence of mental health practitioners as follows: “. . .a

cognitive basis for practice with each cultural group is necessary. This knowledge

16

includes history and experiences with prejudice, discrimination, and racism as well as
culture-specific beliefs about health or illness, culturally unique symptoms, and
interventions (p. 221).” In this study, culture-specific beliefs about parenting and family
relationships are more relevant.
In-home settirifor parentiag program

The third program characteristic fits within the second aspect on Dana’s checklist
(1998a) regarding cultural relevance of service at all levels. It has been suggested in the
literature that the setting in which parent education takes place can make it more
accessible and approachable for Latino parents. The Houston PCDC program cites a
“cultural expectation” that mothers of infants should not leave the home except to visit
relatives and do necessary shopping (Johnson, 1989). For this reason, the program uses
in-home sessions for a good deal of its program, which may be most suited to Latino
mothers of infants. Other places in the literature suggest that this natural setting is less
threatening (Herrerias, 1988).
Experienced personalismo

Fourthly, a personalized format for programs is extremely important due to
cultural emphasis on positive relations (Sue & Sue, 1990), and this fits again within
Dana’s first aspect of cultural competence (1998a). Important elements of personalismo,
as conceptualized in the literature on Latino interpersonal relations, are trust and warmth.
It has been suggested that the extent to which a parent feels personally engaged in a
program with a professional he/she trusts and has a warm relationship with, will be
particularly important to his/her experience with the program.

Personalismo is an important Latino cultural construct, defined by Paniagua

17

(1994) as “an orientation toward people rather than toward impersonal relationships
(Cuéllar, Arnold, & Gonzalez, 1995, p. 342).” According to Cuéllar, Arnold, and
Gonzalez (1995) people who value personalismo respond favorably to items such as “I
like to greet people in a friendly manner when I see them,” “I try to get to know everyone
I meet,” “I enjoy being with people,” and “I can trust many people to do me favors.”
Content of a cultufllliappropriate program

Finally, given that childrearing values and behaviors differ according to culture,
and because parent education programs provide information with the intent of changing
or improving the parenting beliefs and skills of their clients, the actual content and/or
curriculum of parent education programs should reflect the cultural beliefs and values of
participants. This fits under Dana’s second aspect of cultural competence (1998a).

It must be cautioned that there is a great deal of diversity among and between
Latino populations. All Latin-American nations have a culture unique to themselves.
Further, these nations are themselves multi-cultural as they are composed of the original
indigenous populations, descendents of the European (primarily Spanish) colonialists and
African population brought by the Europeans. It would naive to combine this
heterogeneous group of people and cultures and assume that the parenting issues among
them were identical.

However, the resources to create culturally appropriate programs and evaluations
for each of these populations individually are not currently available, and are clearly
beyond the scope of this paper. In fact, this is a problem faced repeatedly in the literature
on the topic. The approach taken here is the same one taken by Alvy (1994) in his

development of the Los Nin'os Bien Educados program. Because the research hypothesis

18

and the program characteristics studied are still quite general, it is still useful to conduct
this study across multiple Latino populations.

Latino parents do share the Spanish language as well as immigrant and minority
status, and so the same shared experience of marginalization in the social services
system. They also share some aspects of culture and beliefs. One of the most prominent
common cultural characteristics shown in the literature, and the most relevant to this
study, is familism, which suggests the significant role played by the family unit in the
lives of Latinos (Marin & Marin, 1991; Vargas & Busch-Rossnagel, 2000).

The literature contains suggestions of some specific characteristics of Latino
populations that must be part of relevant programrrring content. These characteristics
center on family roles and issues of acculturation (Alvy, 1994). In the most traditional
families, sex roles and the differing roles of children and parents are very rigid. The
rigidity of these roles varies among Latino families living in the United States as a result
of their level of acculturation and the type of community in which they live (Spiwack,
1982)

One particularly interesting occurrence related to acculturation is that children
acculturate at a faster rate than parents. They may learn the language more quickly as a
result of being in school, and they may also be more likely to pick up US. customs. This
may lead to more progressive and less traditional understandings of family roles among
the children, which creates a potential for intergenerational conflict. Furthermore Santos,
Bohon, and Sénchez-Sosa (1998) showed that families who have migrated recently are
already involved in redefining roles within the family.

Brim (1959) explains that an important function of parent education can be to

19

bring these topics to a level of consciousness. Because assumptions of appropriate family
functioning and status relationships are largely determined by culture, they are also likely
to be preconscious. Parents and children may be experiencing conflict over issues they do
not even understand to be issues.

For this reason, Alvy (1994) has incorporated consciousness-raising related to
family roles and acculturation in the parenting curriculum developed by the Center for
the Improvement of Child Caring. What this means is that in parenting sessions parents
talk about their expectations for their children, making these explicit, and also talk about
the potential conflicts caused by differing expectations. It is clear that the purposes of this
conversation do not include judgment of parents’ values, but are primarily concerned
with making these values explicit so they can be discussed and examined.

Thus, literature on culturally competent parent programming has suggested the
importance of raising the topics of family roles and acculturation in parenting programs
for Latino families. However, it has not been shown empirically that just talking about
these issues makes parents more likely to participate and be satisfied with programs, or to
perceive a benefit from these programs.

Likewise, the four other components of programs are described in the literature as
appropriate and necessary for culturally competent programming, but they have not been
tested as to their direct impact on parents in parent education programs. That is the
endeavor of this study. '

Acculturation
Acculturation was mentioned above as a relevant aspect of the lives of Latino and

Hispanic individuals living in the US, and thus something that should be addressed in

20

program curriculum and content. A closer look at acculturation reveals that it may have a
relationship to the other variables in this study as well.

Acculturation has been described as “the process of adaptation or assimilation by
an ethnic or racial group to a host culture (Berry, 1989, in Dana, 1996, p.317).” A study
by Cuéllar, Arnold, and Gonzalez (1995) showed that acculturation is related to change in
various cognitive beliefs. They measured acculturation in 379 Mexican and Mexican-
American individuals and found that adherence to several cultural belief sets (Familism,
Fatalism, Folk Illness Beliefs, and Machismo) decreased as the level of acculturation
increased.

For this reason, acculturation was included in this study as a potential moderator,
expected to change the degree to which the program variables mattered to the parents.
Specifically, the importance a Latino individual placed on the five program
characteristics (bilingual staff, culturally competent staff, culturally competent program
content, in-home programrrring, and personalismo of staff and others in the program) was
expected to decrease as his/her acculturation level increased. Therefore, the program
characteristics should have had less of a predictive effect on parent satisfaction as
acculturation increased.

Past research such as a study by Spiwak (1982) has indicated that acculturation
level changes Latino parenting beliefs over time (Spiwak, 1982). It follows, therefore,
that the importance of focusing content of a parenting program on traditionally Latino
issues would lessen as acculturation increases. Further, as English language proficiency is
a significant part of the acculturation measure that will be used (Marin & Gamba, 1996),

the importance of bilingual staff should decrease with increasing acculturation levels.

21

Endeavors of this study

This study examined the described characteristics of parent education and support
programs targeted at child abuse and neglect prevention, to evaluate their influence on
Latino parent participation in the programs. This evaluation study was a cross-sectional
design, utilizing a national sample of parent education programs and program
participants.

The research questions of the study were as following: Does the presence of
consciousness-raising discussion about family roles and acculturation increase the
participation and satisfaction of Latino parents in parenting programs? Do bilingual and
culturally competent staff, setting of program, and level of personalismo within programs
predict the participation and satisfaction of Latino parents in parenting programs?

Because measuring actual parenting outcomes was beyond the scope of this study,
common proxies were used: retention rates of Latino participants and the satisfaction of
these same participants with the program in which they are enrolled. Specifically,
satisfaction was hypothesized to mediate the relationship between program characteristics
and retention rates.

Thus, the hypotheses were as follows:

Hypothesis 1 : It was predicted that culturally appropriate content, bilingual staff;

culturally competent staff, in-home programming, and experienced personalismo

would increase satisfaction of Latino parents in parenting education programs,

and increased satisfaction would lead to higher retention rates.

Hypothesis 2: It was predicted that acculturation would moderate the

22

relationships between the five program characteristics (between culturally
appropriate content, bilingual stafi‘, culturally competent stafi’, in-home
programming, and experienced personalismo) and parent satisfaction, and
specifically, that higher levels of acculturation would decrease the effect of

program characteristics on satisfaction.

23

Method

Sample

These research questions were investigated by surveying a national sample of
parent education administrators and Latino parent participants. One administrator and
some Latino parent participants, as few as 2 and as many as 60, participated from each
program. Fifty-one programs participated total.

Egraibility study and sample recruitment. Sample recruiting began with a national
database of 276 child abuse and neglect prevention programs that included parent
education participants. This database was obtained with cooperation from the National
Alliance of Children’s Trust and Prevention Funds.

To identify the programs in this database that serve Latino participants, and to
assure the adequacy of the sample size, a prequestionnaire postcard was sent to these 276
parent education programs. A cover letter was sent to each program (see Appendix C)
along with a self-addressed stamped postcard to be returned. The postcard asked the
number of Latino participants served by the program, as well as general contact
information (see Appendix E). Of the programs that returned postcards, 62 indicated that
they served 10 or more Latino parents. If they said they served 10 or less, they were not
included in the study.

In addition, a mailing was sent to 10 state Children’s Trust Funds in states known
to have large Latino populations. Each trust fund was sent a letter (see Appendix D) and
five packets identical to the ones sent to the 276 programs individually. Trust funds were

asked to distribute these to programs they believed to serve large numbers of Latino

24

participants, and were encouraged to ask for more. One state did request 10 more
postcards and they were sent the additional 10 accordingly. In all, this process yielded an
additional 22 postcards from programs indicating they served 10 or more Latino parents.

To again increase the number of programs, the researcher contacted more
Children’s Trust Funds in states not represented on the list so far, as well as other states
known to have large Latino populations. Trust Funds were asked for contact information
of parent education programs serving Latino parents. This yielded contact information for
48 programs in 8 states.

Additionally, the Children’s Trust Fund of New Mexico sent two agency
directories including some parent education programs. Twenty-three programs were
noted in these directories and added to the list, now totaling 156. Finally, the Texas
Children’s Trust Fund referred the researcher to the website of the University of North
Texas, which houses a parent education database for the state of Texas. An additional 44
programs were randomly selected from this database and included in the list, increasing
the total to 200.

Procedures

Phone calls were made to programs starting with the first on the list, to confirm
that they did conduct parent education for Hispanic or Latino parents, and to ask if they
would be willing to participate in the study. The researcher sent a packet of
questionnaires to each of the parenting programs that agreed to participate. Each packet
contained one Program Administrator Questionnaire (Appendix A) and between 5 and 40
Parent Questionnaires (Appendix B). These two questionnaires measured all of the

constructs in the study. English and Spanish translations of each were available.

25

Questionnaires for administrators and program participants were sent together in
one packet directly to each participating program. One staff contact person within each
organization was identified, and the researcher directed all correspondence to this
individual. Each packet contained a personalized cover letter with instructions to the
administrator.

To maximize completion rate of participant questionnaires, the researcher
requested that for parenting programs operating in groups or classes, the administrator
allow for completion of parent questionnaires during program time, rather than sending
them home with participants to complete independently.

In addition to the cover letter in the packets, contacts were made, in the form of a
phone call or e-mail message, with each participating program administrator one week
after their packet was put in the mail. The purpose of this contact was to check that the
packet had arrived, that the instructions made sense, and to see if there were any
questions. The programs were told in the letter that they should send the packets back
within six weeks. At the six-week mark, the researcher made follow up phone calls to the
programs that had not returned their questionnaires.

In total the researcher and team made attempts at contacting 219 programs. One
hundred and eighty-one of these were from the original list, and the additional 38 were
referrals given by those on the list with whom the researcher or team member spoke. One
hundred and eighty-four programs were actually contacted, 124 agreed to participate (and
were eligible), and 128 program packets were sent out because a couple administrators
asked for additional packets because they oversaw more than one program. Of those, 51

complete packets were returned; another 9 were returned but incomplete.

26

The distribution of returned packets by US. state is included in Table 1. Twenty-
three states were represented in the sample of returned complete packets. The most
packets were returned from Massachusetts, Texas, and New Mexico. These states
accounted for 16%, 14%, and 12% of the complete returned packets, respectively. This
sample is approximately representative of the original list of 200 programs, in which the
largest numbers of programs serving Latino parents were found in the same three states:
Texas, New Mexico, and Massachusetts. The numbers of programs from each of these

states are also included in Table 1.

Table 1. Number of programs by state.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number of , Number of
programs that programs on
returned complete original list of
packets 200 programs
Massachusetts 8 . . 22
Texas 7 58
New Mexico 6 27
Arizona 3 3
California 2 4
Colorado 2 8
Florida 2 4
Idaho 2 2
Nebraska 2 3
North Carolina 2 6
Oklahoma 2 2
Washington 2 5
Alabama 1 5
Arkansas 1 2
Connecticut 1 1
Georgia 1 3
Michigan 1 1
Minnesota 1 3
New York 1 5
Ohio 1 8

 

 

 

 

27

Table 1 (cont’d).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oregon 1 2
Pennsylvania

South Dakota 1 1
Measures

Retention of Latino parents. Retention rate of Latino participants was measured
on the program administrator questionnaire (see Appendix A). A multi-part question
asked administrators the number of Latino parents that had participated since the
beginning of the year 2000, and the number who completed the program (or had
completed it thus far). Retention was calculated by dividing the number of those who had
completed the program (question 6b) by the number of those who had participated
(question 6a). _

Sagisfaction of Latino parents. The satisfaction of Latino parents was asked of the
parents in 3 items on the program participant questionnaire. The first question asked for
an overall satisfaction rating, and responses were on a 5-point Likert-type scale, with
responses ranging from Extremely satisfied to Not satisfied at all. The second question
asked how helpful the program had been for the participants’ parenting and parent-child
relationships, and responses were again on a 5-point Likert-type scale, with responses
ranging from Extremely helpful to Not helpful at all. The third question was whether the
parent would recommend the program to other parents, and required a Yes or No answer
(see Appendix B).

Acculturation scale. The program participant questionnaire included a short 4-

item acculturation scale to be filled out by the parent (see Appendix B, questions 7

28

through 10). Responses to these items were on a 5-point scale. Acculturation scores were
calculated by averaging the scores on these four items.

Because there are insufficient direct comparative data to show which
acculturation measures are most useful (Dana, 1996), measures must each be evaluated
according to their characteristics and matched to the needs of the study at hand. The scale
that was used is a shortened version of a published acculturation scale by Marin, Sabogal,
Marin, Otero-Sabogal, and Perez-Stable (1987). It was chosen for several reasons.

First, this scale is short enough (4 items) to be included in the larger measure
without taking an extraordinary amount of the participants’ time. Because acculturation is
not the main focus of the study, the amount of information provided by these 4 items is
sufficient. Second, this scale has beentested and found to correlate with commonly used
validity criteria; for example, respondents’ generational status (r = .69), length of
residence in the United States (if foreign-born) (r = .76), and age at arrival in the United
States (r = -.72) (Marin & Marin, 1991).

Thirdly, this shortened scale works equally well with different Latino subgroups
(Marin & Marin, 1991). Many scales are only tested on one specific Latino subgroup. For
example, a common scale is the Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans-II
(ARSMA-II), but as the name suggests, it was designed and tested on Mexicans and
Mexican-Americans only (and White non-Hispanics) (Cuéllar, Arnold, & Maldonado,
1995). Equal usefulness for multiple Latino subgroups is important for this study because
the sample was not limited to one subgroup.

_Pr_pgram content. Administrators were asked three sets questions on the program

administrator questionnaire regarding the content of parent programming (see Appendix

29

A, questions 8 through 10). Specifically, they were asked how many program hours are
spent discussing Latino-specific family roles (male/female roles and adult/child roles)
and general acculturation issues, or “adapting to US. culture.”

These questions each consist of several parts. Question eight has two parts. The
first asks “what ways of adapting to US. culture discussed in your parenting program.”
Programs were given a score of 1 if they answered that the “topic is raised only if
parent(s) bring it up in discussion,” and a score of 2 if they answered that the parent
educator raises the topic (whether or not it is part of the curriculum). Question 8a goes on
to ask how many hours are spent addressing this topic. “Less than one hour” received a
score of 1, “between 1 and 2 hours” received a score of 2, and so on, with “more than
four hours” receiving a score of 5. Both 8 and 8a were included as separately as measures
of program content.

Questions 9 and 10 each had four parts. The first part of the question asked if the
topic in question was addressed (the two topics being “male/female family roles” and
“adult/child rules”). If they answered yes, they were asked whether this topic was
addressed generally or in a manner specific to Latino culture. A score of zero was given
to generally addressing the topic, and a score of 1 was given to those who addressed the
topic in a culturally specific manner. This latter score was used as a measure of program
content (questions 9a and 10a), because it reflects the culturally specific nature of
program content, and it was answered by virtually every program, which was not true of
the last two segments of questions 9 and 10 (questions 9b, 9c, 10b, and ICC ask about the

nature and extent of the discussion on each of these two topics, similar to questions 8 and

30

8a that are described above). Therefore, there were four 4 measures of program content
used in the analysis: questions 8, 8a, 9a, and 10a.

Bilingual staff. Program administrators were asked on the administrator
questionnaire how many program staff members were bilingual, speaking English and
Spanish (see Appendix A). A score was calculated as a percentage by dividing the
number of staff speaking both English and Spanish (question 2) by the total number of
staff (question 1)

Culturajvcormietent sta_fL Parents were asked two questions on the program
participant questionnaire (see Appendix B) that describe the cultural competence of
agency staff, as described by Dana, Behn, and Gonwa (1992). First, parents were asked
how well staff appear to understand their family relationships, an indicator of staff
competence related to culture-specific beliefs that are relevant to these parent programs.
Second, parents were asked how well staff seem to understand living as a Latino in the
U.S., an indicator of staff awareness of issues of prejudice and discrimination. Responses
to these questions were on a 5-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from Very well
to Not at all. A score for cultural competence of staff was calculated by averaging the
responses on the two questions (questions 14 and 15).

Progpam setting. Administrators were asked on the administrator questionnaire
what percentage of program time is spent in the homes of participants (see Appendix A,
question 7). This was scored on a 6-point scale (“less than 10” was scored as one point,
“91 to 100” was scored as six).

Experienced firsonalismo. Experienced personalismo of the program was

measured by six Likert-type items on the program participant questionnaire (see

31

Appendix B). Response stems vary by question.

The questions asked participants about three qualities that have been included in
previous conceptualizations of personalismo (Cuéllar, Arnold, & Gonzalez, 1995; Sue &
Sue, 1990): friendliness, enjoyment of being with people, and level of trust. Parents were
asked about how much these characteristics describe their relationships with (a) agency
staff (questions 20 through 22) and (b) the other parents who utilize the program
(questions 17 through 19). Responses were scored as two separate measures,
personalismo of agency staff and of others at the program. Each was scored as an average
of the responses of the three related items.

_'T_n_ar1slation of questionnaires. Straight translation was the method used to
translate those portions of the questionnaires not already existing in Spanish forms (the
acculturation sub-questionnaire already has a Spanish version). While this is not the
optimal method of translation (Marin & Marin, 1991), the financial and temporal

restrictions of the current study made it the only feasible method.

32

Results

Sample

Power analysis. The final number of programs participating in this study was 51.
A power analysis conducted using Cohen’s criteria (1988) showed that responses from 93
programs (alpha = .05) would be necessary to detect an effect of a medium size (.15 for
multiple regression) at a power level of .80 (recommended by Cohen for exploratory
power analysis). Because there were not enough programs in this study to detect a
medium effect at a power level of .80, none of the results should be considered
conclusive, but rather suggestive.

Mm demographics. The sample of programs ranged in size from 12 to 3000.
The number of parents participating in this study from the each program ranged from 2 to
60; the mean was 11.88. One program actually returned 234 parent questionnaires, but for
purposes of not over-representing that program in the overall sample, a random sample of
36 parent questionnaires was selected from that program. 36 was chosen because aside
from the program with 234 parents, and one other outlier with 60, 36 was the largest
number of parents from one program in the sample, and much closer to the average of
1 1.88.

The number of parent education staff at programs in this sample ranged from 1 to
49, with a mean of 8.16. The mean percentage of staff that spoke English and Spanish
was 52.28%, and it ranged from 0 to 100%.

Mm demagrpphics. The parents in the sample programs were all of age 18 or

older; the mean age was between 22 and 30. The sample was mostly female, with a mean

33

household income between $10,000 and $19,999.

The average level of acculturation was 1.94 on a scale of l to 5, with 1 meaning
least acculturated and 5 meaning the most. The mean level of generational status was
1.42 on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 meaning first generation and 5 meaning fifth.

Scale reliabilities

Several subscales were included in the parent questionnaire. A four-item
acculturation scale, developed and published by Marin, Sabogal, Marin, Otero-Sabogal,
and Perez-Stable (1987), was included to measure the acculturation level of Latino parent
participants. The scale is found in items 7 through 10in the parent questionnaire
(Appendix B). (The merits and validity of this scale were described in the methods
section, p. 24.) One commonly used validity criteria of acculturation scales is their
correlation with respondents’ generational status (Marin & Marin, 1991). In this study its
correlation with generational status was equal to .68, which was significant at the 0.01
level (2-tailed). The reliability value of the scale in this study was found to be .96 (0 ).

Three other subscales were written by the researcher of this study and have no
published reliability data, so the reliability values for the scales in this study are reported
below.

Satisfaction of Latino parents was measured by 3 items on the parent
questionnaire, items 11 through 13 (Appendix B). On the Spanish version of the
questionnaire, the labels of two values of the Likert scale on item 11 were inadvertently
switched in translation (values 2 and 3, “Very Satisfied” and “Satisfied,” were labeled

backward). In order to use this item, values 2 and 3 were both scored as 2.5 on both the

34

English and Spanish questionnaires, making the item essentially a 4-point scale ranging
from 1 to 5. Item 12 was the 5-point Likert scale, and item 13 was a yes or no question,
with “yes” scored as a “1” and “no” scored as a “5.”

A correlation analysis revealed that item 13 correlated with item 12 significantly,
but barely (.10, p<.05). It did not correlate significantly with item 11. In contrast, items
11 and 12 correlated at .55 (p<.01). For this reason, just items 11 and 12 were used as the
satisfaction subscale.

Three other new subscales were included in the questionnaire. The first included 2
items measuring the cultural competence of staff, items 14 and 15 in Appendix B. The
inter-correlation of these two items was also significant (.63, p < .01).

The other two subscales each included 3 items and were included to measure the
experience personalismo or inter-personal warmth 'of the program, both the warmth
(personalismo) of program staff (items 20 through 22) and other parent participants

(items 17 through 19). The inter-item correlation values for warmth of program staff are

Table 2. Inter-item correlations of the Warmth (Personalismo) of Staff subscale.

 

 

 

 

 

Item 20 Item 21 Item 22
Item 20 1.000
Item 21 .650* 1.000
Item 22 .635* 590* 1.000

 

 

 

 

* Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

in Table 2; inter-item correlations for warmth of other parents in the program are in Table

35

 

3. All of the inter-item correlations were significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Both

scales were found to be reliable as well (0 = .83 and .82, respectively).

Table 3. Inter-item correlations of the Warmth (Personalismo) of Other Parents subscale.

 

 

 

 

 

Item 17 Item 18 Item 19
Item 17 1.000
Item 18 .604* 1.000
Item 19 .579* .643* 1.000

 

 

 

 

* Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Aggregation of progpam level Lariables

Three variables: cultural competence of staff, warmth of program staff, and
warmth of other parents in programs (the last two being components of the personalismo
construct), were calculated by averaging the parent values in each program to get one
average score for each program. Because this variable was measured at the individual-
level and we have aggregrated it to the program level for analysis, it is necessary to
justify the aggregation by first demonstrating that there is reasonable within group
agreement. I

These three variables are really measures of how parents perceive these qualities
of their program, how adept the program is at relating to their culture, as well as the
warmth they experience at the program. Because these are perception measurements, in
multilevel research these variables are representative of what Hofmann (2000) calls

shared constructs, or constructs that are valid only when individuals within the group

36

 

share similar perceptions. It is therefore necessary to investigate the degree to which
these perceptions are shared within each program.

Multilevel researchers disagree as to the best method of justifying this
aggregation, or verifying shared perceptions. For this reason, Hofmann (2002) advises
researchers to use a variety of the most respected procedures. If these procedures yield
the same conclusion, this lends greater confidence to the aggregation.

Two of the respected procedures in the field were used for this analysis, and they
are called ICC(l) and ICC(2) (see formulas in Appendix F). The values for ICC(l) and
ICC(2), as shown in Table 4, are reasonable for both variables, similar to values used by
Hofmann and Stetzer to justify aggregation in their 1996 article. This indicates that there

is adequate within group agreement to justify aggregation of these three variables.

Table 4. Viability of program level variables.

 

 

 

 

 

ICC(l) ICC(2)
Cultural competence .063 .44
of staff

Personalismo or

warmth of program .13 .64
staff

Personalismo or

warmth of other .097 .56
parents in program

 

 

 

 

37

Tests of hypotheses

Hypothesis 1: Culturally appropriate content, bilingual staff, culturally
competent staff, in-home programming, and experienced personalismo will increase
satisfaction of Latino parents in parenting education programs, and increased
satisfaction leads to higher retention rates.

A linear regression analysis was done to determine the effects of the program
variable predictors on parent satisfaction. The only two significant predictors of parent
satisfaction were perceived personalismo of the program staff (p < .01) and whether or
not “differing roles of adults and children in the family” were discussed “in a way that
[addressed] the traditional emphasis on respeto and strict dominance of elders in Latino
culture,” (p<.05). This is question 10a on the program administrator questionnaire (see
Appendix A), and it was significantly related to satisfaction in a negative direction.

A linear regression analysis was also done to determine the effects of these
program predictors, as well as parent satisfaction, on program retention rates as a
dependent variable. Satisfaction was not a significant predictor of program retention,
although bilingual staff, in-home programming, cultural competence of staff, and
personalismo of program staff and others in the program, were all significant predictors.
Bilingual staff, in-home programming, and personalismo of others in the program were
related positively to parent retention; cultural competence of staff and personalismo of
program staff were actually predictive of retention in a negative direction (see Table 5).
The value of R square in this model was .43.

Therefore, the hypothesis was partially supported and partially unsupported.

Personalismo of staff was indeed predictive of satisfaction, but the other program

38

Table 5. Parent retention regression results.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Standardized t-values Significance
Model Beta values
Coefficients“

(Constant) -2.58 .010

Bilingual staff .53 l 1.02 .000

In-home programming .30 5.44 .000

Content: adapting to US culture part of .041 .85 .40
curriculum

Content: adapting to U.S., amount of -.057 -.94 .35
time spent discussing

Content: roles of men and women -.068 -1.02 .31
discussed in culture specific manner

Content: roles of adults and children -.11 -1.41 .16
discussed in culturally specific manner

Cultural competence of staff" .17 2.09 .038

Personalismo of others in prgram -.12 -2.23 .026

Personalismo of progam staff .27 2.90 .004

Parent Satisfaction .031 .70 .48

 

* Dependent variable: retention
**Variables in bold are negatively scored, relative to retention.

characteristics were not and one program content variable was predictive in the opposite
direction. Additionally, satisfaction did not mediate a relationship between program
characteristics and retention (satisfaction did not predict retention). Bilingual staff, in-
home programming and personalismo of others in the program predicted parent retention
in a positive direction, but others (staff cultural competence and personalismo of staff)
were predictive in a negative direction.

Hypothesis 2: Acculturation will moderate the relationships between the five
program characteristics (between culturally appropriate content, bilingual staff,
culturally competent staff, in-home programming, and experienced personalismo)
and parent satisfaction, and specifically, higher levels of acculturation will decrease

the effect of program characteristics on satisfaction.

39

 

Linear regression was used with each program characteristic individually, and
then including interaction terms, to determine if acculturation changed the relationship
between each characteristic and parent satisfaction. Acculturation only moderated one
effect, and that was the effect of bilingual staff on parent satisfaction. The moderation
effect was in the opposite direction of the one hypothesized. For parents at higher
acculturation levels, bilingual staff appeared to be more important to parent satisfaction.
Therefore, the second hypothesis was not supported by these findings; acculturation did
not moderate any effects but one, and it moderated that in the opposite direction than
hypothesized.

One other serendipitous finding of these analyses relates to the aggregation of
variables. The first time running the interaction tests above, the individual level variables
of three program characteristics: personalismo of staff, of others, and staff cultural
competence, were used instead of the aggregated variables. While personalismo of others
and staff cultural competence were not predictive of parent satisfaction in the original
regression using aggregated (program level) variables, they both predicted satisfaction at
the individual level, as was found in these regression analyses (p<.01).

When the regression and interaction analysis was run again with the aggregated
variables, personalismo of others in the program was not a significant predictor, matching
the original regression analysis of Hypothesis 1 including that variable; however, this
time the aggregated variable for cultural competence of staff DID predict satisfaction
(p<.01), although it had not when it was included with all the other variables in the

original analysis.

40

Discussion

Predictors of satisfaction

Of the five program characteristics expected to predicted parent satisfaction
(bilingual staff, culturally competent staff, in-home programming, program content, and
experienced personalismo), the experienced personalismo of program staff is the one that
actually did predict increased satisfaction. This suggests that the warmth of staff is more
important to Latino parents than even other staff characteristics, such as bilingual ability
or cultural awareness.

The one other significant effect in this analysis was from one of the measures of
program content, specifically whether or not “differing roles of adults and children in the
family” were discussed “in a way that [addressed] the traditional emphasis on respeto and
strict dominance of elders in Latino culture,” as opposed to addressing it in a “general
way” (p<.05). This is question 10a on the program administrator questionnaire (see
Appendix A), and 47 out of 51 programs responded to this question. This response
significantly predicted satisfaction in a negative direction, meaning parents from
programs where this topic was addressed in a Latino culture-specific way reported being
LESS satisfied.

The reason for this is uncertain, but one explanation is that the programs including
this, a discussion of adult versus child roles in the context of traditional. dominance of
elders in Latino culture, did not have culturally competent staff presenting or facilitating
this discussion, and that this had a negative effect on parents’ experience. Responses to

question 10a were not correlated at all with cultural competence of staff. It is possible

41

that programs including this discussion do not discuss it in a culturally competent
manner, regardless of whether they make the effort. This result may suggest that culture-
specific program curriculum or content is not enough; moreover, it is possible that if it
not facilitated by a culturally competent staff person, this discussion may decrease Latino
parent satisfaction with a parent education program.

Predictors of retention

In this analysis, parent satisfaction was not a significant predictor of parent
retention in program, thus the mediating hypothesis is not supported. At first glance it is
difficult to explain why a retention rate would increase without the satisfaction increasing
as well, but there are some possibilities. For example, in-home programming is one of the
variables that did predict retention. It may be that if a program is taking place in home
setting, it is more difficult for a parent to drop out of it. Perhaps a parent can more easily
choose not to attend a class or support group, than tell a parent educator to stop coming to
his or her home. This may be especially true if warm personal interactions are important
to a parent, and this is traditionally an important value in Latino culture (Cuéllar, Arnold,
& Gonzalez, 1995).

In addition to in-home programming, bilingual staff and personalismo of others in
the program were also predictors of parent retention. These could be additional reasons
that parents may remain in programs even if they are not satisfied with the program itself.
They may be less likely to leave even if they want to, because of the increased
accountability that comes with closer personal relationship to the program, and closer
relationships are likely facilitated by bilingual staff and warmth of other parents. Or it

could also be the case that it is relationships that attract some Latino parents to programs,

42

or keep them satisfied with them, but perhaps the quality of relationships is not reflected
in their satisfaction scores, as the satisfaction questions in this study asked about the
programming in general. More research should be done to determine the effect that
quality of interpersonal relationships within a program might have upon Latino parents’
satisfaction with different aspects of that program.

The above explanations presuppose that satisfaction is in some way related to
people wanting to leave programs, but either the satisfaction measure in this study did not
capture the entire construct, or that parents wanted to leave but found it difficult. Another
explanation altogether has to do with the fact that Latino parents may have some
underlying mistrust of social programs related to past experience, which may affect their
satisfaction scores in this study.

Historically, health and social programs such as mental health programs have
been inappropriate and led to dissatisfaction as a result of not being culture-specific with
regard to Latino individuals (Dana, 1998b). Some parents may come to parent education
programs not knowing what to expect, or even expecting poor treatment. For this reason,
it may take a long time for a Latino parent to feel good about a program. Even if they
have good initial experiences, they may be suspicious of what may happen in the future.
Therefore, they may stay in programs because they have not yet had a bad experience,
but they may still not feel satisfied by the program or they may be fearful of what is to
come.

Two program variables, personalismo of staff members and cultural competence
of staff, significantly predicted parent retention in programs, but in a negative direction.

This means that warmth of staff members and cultural competence of staff predicted

43

lower levels of retention in programs. This does not support Hypothesis 1. Explanations
for this are uncertain, but one thing it seems to solidify is that satisfaction and retention
are not related in a simple positive correlation, at least not as they are measured in this
study. The complexity of this relationship has been alluded to in previous paragraphs, but
given that personalismo of staff significantly predicts satisfaction in a positive direction
and retention in a negative direction, it is clear that there is something going on that we
have not predicted. More research is needed to pull apart the complexity of these
constructs.

It is worth noting that the only program characteristic found to have no effect on
either satisfaction or retention was the program content. According to this study, the
degree to which culture-specific topics are addressed in the program content is not a
significant predictor of Latino parents remaining in a parent education program.
Acculturation effects

Acculturation did not have the effects that were hypothesized, but it did moderate
the effect of bilingual staff on parent satisfaction. Unexpectedly, however, the amount of
bilingual staff seemed to be more important to more highly acculturated parents than to
parents at lower acculturation levels. One reason for this might be the aforementioned
skepticism that may be associated with having more experience with the system. Perhaps
Latino parents newer to the US. are more na‘r‘ve about what they might experience in
such programs, while parents who have been in the US. for a longer time have less
patience for those who do not speak their own language or understand and respect their
culture because they have had more negative experiences in the past. Further study in this

matter is needed.

It is interesting that none of the other program variables were affected by
acculturation. Cuéllar, Arnold, and Gonzalez (1995) have demonstrated that acculturation
is related to change in various cognitive beliefs, but Cuéllar, Arnold, and Maldonado
(1995), call it a “faulty assumption (. . .) that there has to be corresponding reduction in
one of two cultures for a person to acculturate (p. 277).” Perhaps, although cognitive
beliefs may change as individuals acculturate, these beliefs do not affect the tendency of
Latino parents to appreciate certain aspects of a program. Perhaps those tendencies and
preferences are at an even deeper level than cognitive beliefs. This is an area requiring
more research to pull apart the complexities of this phenomenal process and its effects.

Finally, this study revealed some different results when the analysis was run with
individual level variables. These alternate findings suggest that the way in which the
analysis is run can affect the results in dramatic ways. While the findings reported in this
study reflect the analyses that were deemed most appropriate for this study, the results
could be affected by conducting an analysis at the individual level, et cetera.

Limitations

There were two significant limitations to the methodology of this study. First, the
sample size was much lower than power analysis indicated it should be, 51 in comparison
to 93. This may be the greatest reason that so few effects were detected.

Second, straight translation is not the optimal method of translation. It is possible
that the meaning of the questions answered on the measures will be less clear in the
Spanish versions than in the English. In the future, preferable methods such as back
translation should be used to improve the preciseness of the meaning of parent responses

(Marin & Marin, 1991). Most of the parent questionnaires, 450 of 606, were completed in

45

Spanish. This was really not an important factor on the program administrator
questionnaires; only one program administrator questionnaire out of 51 was completed in

Spanish.

46

Conclusions

In conclusion, this study includes important findings and suggests even more
future questions for study. Personalismo of program staff predicts satisfaction; and
personalismo of others in the program, in-home programming, and bilingual staff predict
retention of parents in the program. However, most program characteristics did not
predict satisfaction, and some program variables predicted satisfaction and retention in a
negative direction.

These surprising findings suggest that we do not entirely understand the reasons
Latino parents are satisfied with programs, the reasons Latino parents stay in programs,
or how satisfaction and retention are related. New studies should be conducted asking
parents directly what they like about programs and why they continue to come.
Qualitative data on this topic may yield insight into why program characteristics that
increases in parent satisfaction are not necessarily instrumental in predicting retention in

programs.

47

APPENDIX A

Program Administrator Questionnaire

1. How many staff members do you have that provide direct parent education services?

2. How many of the staff members noted in Question 1 are fluent in:
Spanish and English
English only
Spanish only
Other

 

Specify:

 

3. How many participants are served by your parent education programs?

4. What percentage of participants are of Latino origin?
Less than 10
11 to 25
26 to 50
51 to 75
76 to 90
91 to 100

5. What percentage of the Latino parent participants are legally mandated to be in the
program?

Less than 10

11 to 25

26 to 50

51 to 75

76 to 90

91 to 100

6a. How many Latino participants came at least once to your service program since the
beginning of the year 2000?

6b. Of this number, how many...

A. ...completed the program they entered (or have completed it so
far?)

Considering both the participants who have completed the program in the year 2000 and
those who are currently in the program, how many would you say...

B. ...have shown signs of significant parenting change?

48

C ...have shown signs of small parenting adjustments?

D. . . .have shown no signs of change, but show differences in their
attitude toward parenting or toward their children?

E. . . .have shown no signs of change and do not show differences in
attitude?

(The numbers in B through B should total to the number given in 6a)

7. What percentage of your programming takes place in the homes of program
participants?
Less than 10
11 to 25
26 to 50
51 to 75
76 to 90
91 to 100

8. In what ways are issues of adapting to U.S. culture discussed in your parenting
program? (Check all that apply.)
Topic is raised only if parent(s) brings it up in discussion
Topic is raised by parent educator but is not part
of curriculum
Topic is intentionally addressed in the curriculum

a. Check the number of hours addressing topic of adapting to U.S. culture:
Less than one hour
Between one and two hours
Between two and three hours
Between three and four hours
More than four hours

 

9. Are the differing roles of men and women in the family discussed in your program?
_ Yes _ No

If you answered yes, go to question (a) below. If you answered no, skip to
question 10.

a. Is the topic discussed in a general way or in a way that addresses the
traditional dominance of males in Latino culture? (Check all that apply.)

_ General
_ Addresses traditional Latino culture

49

If you answered “addresses traditional Latino culture” answer
questions (b) and (c) below related to how much you talk about that
Latino topic. Otherwise, skip to question 10.

b. In what way(s) is the topic addressed? (Check all that apply.)
Topic is raised only if parent(s) brings it up in discussion
Topic is raised by parent educator but is not part
of curriculum
Topic is intentionally addressed in the curriculum

c. Check the number of hours addressing topic of male/female family roles:
Less than one hour
Between one and two hours
Between two and three hours
Between three and four hours
More than four hours

 

10. Are the differing roles of adults and children in the family discussed in your program?
_ Yes _ No

If you answered yes, go to question (a) below. If you answered no, skip
to question 11.

a. Is the topic discussed in a general way or in a way that addresses the
traditional emphasis on respeto and strict dominance of elders in Latino
culture? (Check all that apply.)

_ General
_ Addresses traditional Latino culture

If you answered “addresses traditional Latino culture” answer
questions (b) and (c) below related to how much you talk about that
Latino topic. Otherwise, skip to question 11.

b. In what way(s) is the topic addressed? (Check all that apply.)
Topic is raised only if parent(s) brings it up in discussion
Topic is raised by parent educator but is not part
of curriculum
Topic is intentionally addressed in the curriculum

c. Check the number of hours addressing topic of adult/cth family roles:
Less than one hour
Between one and two hours
Between two and three hours
Between three and four hours
More than four hours

 

50

11. What are the most important ways your program is culturally relevant to the Latino
parents you serve?

51

APPENDIX B

Program Participant Questionnaire
Please do not put your name on this questionnaire.

Demographics
1. What is your age?
_ 18 to 21
__ 22 to 25
_ 26 to 30
_ 31 to 40
_ 41 or older

2. What is your gender?
_ Male
_ Female

3. What is your national heritage? (Check all that apply)
_ Central American (specify)

 

_ Cuban
_ Mexican American

_ Puerto Rican

_ South American (specify)
_ Other (specify)

 

 

4. (a) Last grade you completed in school:
_ Elementary-6
_ 7-8
_ 9-12
_ 1-2 years of college
_ 3-4 years of college
_ College graduate or higher

(b) In what country?

 

5. What is your household’s annual income?
_ Less than $10,000
_ $10,000 to 14,999
_ $15,000 to 19,999
_ $20,000 to 24,999
_ $25,000 to 29,999
_ $30,000 to 34,999
_ $35,000 to 39,999

52

_ $40,000 or greater
6. Circle the generation that best applies to y_o_u. Circle only one.
A. First generation = You were born in other country.

B. Second generation = You were born in USA; either parent born in other
country.

C. Third generation = You were born in USA, both parents born in USA and all
grandparents born in other country.

D. Fourth generation = You and your parents born in USA and at least one
grandparent born in other country with remainder born in USA.

E. Fifth generation = You and your parents born in the USA and all grandparents

born in the USA.

For questions 7 through 10, fill the appropriate number in the blank on the left.

1 = Only Spanish
2 = Spanish better than English
3 = Both equally

4 = English better than Spanish
5 = Only English

_ 7. In general, what language do you read and speak?

_ 8. What language do you usually speak at home?

_ 9. In which language do you usually think?

_ 10. What language do you usually speak with your friends?

Program experience
For the following questions, circle the number that most closely corresponds to the

COITCCI answer.

11. Overall, how satisfied are you with your parent education program?

Extremely Very Somewhat Not satisfied
satisfied satisfied Satisfied satisfied at all
1 2 3 4 5

 

12. Overall, how helpful is the program for your parenting or your relationship(s) with
your child(ren)?

Extremely Very Somewhat Not helpful
helpful helpful Helpful helpful at all
1 2 3 4 5

 

-

13. Would you recommend the program to other parents you know?

53

Yes No

14. Overall, how well do you feel that agency staff members understand your family
relationships?

Extremely good Very good Good Some No understanding
understanding understanding understanding understanding at all
1 2 3 4 5

 

15. Overall, how well do you feel that agency staff members understand what it’s like to
live in the U.S. as a Latino?

Extremely good Very good Good Some No understanding
understanding understanding understanding understanding at all
1 2 3 4 5

 

16. Is your only contact with this agency through a home visit program?
__ Yes _ No

If you answered yes to question 16, please skip to question 20. If you answered no,
please continue with question 17.

[17. How friendly are the other parents who use the agency?]

Extremely Very Somewhat Not friendly
friendly friendly Friendly friendly at all
1 2 _ 3 4 5

 

[18. Overall, how much do you think the other parents who use the agency enjoy being
with people?]

Enjoy it Enjoy it Enjoy it Do not enjoy
very much quite a bit Enjoy it somewhat it at all
1 2 3 4 5

 

[19. Overall, how much do you trust the other parents who use the program?]

Trust them Trust them Trust them Do not trust
very much quite a bit Trust them somewhat them at all
1 2 3 4 5

 

20. How friendly are the staff members at the agency?

Extremely Very Somewhat Not friendly

54

friendly friendly Friendly friendly at all
1 2 3 4 5

21. Overall, how much do you think the agency staff members enjoy being with people?

Enjoy it Enjoy it Enjoy it Do not enjoy
very much quite a bit Enjoy it somewhat it at all
1 2 3 4 5

 

22. Overall, how much do you trust the agency staff members?

Trust them Trust them Trust them Do not trust
very much quite a bit Trust them somewhat them at all
1 2 3 4 5

 

55

APPENDIX C

Letter to Pjarent Education Progpams

April 20, 2000

ATTN: Parent Education Program Director
RE: Latino parent participants

Dear Program Director:

My name is Stephanie Jacobson, and I am a graduate student at Michigan State
University. I am working with the National Alliance of Children’s Trust and Prevention
Funds to study the provision of preventive parent education programming to Latino
parents.

In order to assure that there are a sufficient number of programs serving Latinos to make
the survey worthwhile, I am sending out a preliminary postcard questionnaire. It has two
questions, and will take approximately two minutes to complete.

Please check the appropriate boxes and return the self-addressed stamped postcard by
May 17. Thank you for your cooperation!

Sincerely,

Stephanie Jacobson, PhD. Candidate
Department of Psychology

Michigan State University

Psychology Research Building

East Lansing, MI 48824-1117

Phone: (517) 353-6617

Fax: (517) 432-2022

Email: jacobs48@msu.edu

56

APPENDIX D

Letter to State Trust Funds

April 12, 2000

Director, Children’s Trust Fund

RE: Programs serving Latino parents
Dear Trust Fund Director:

The National Alliance of Children’s Trust and Prevention Funds and researchers in the
Psychology department at Michigan State University are planning to study the provision
of preventive parent education programming offered to Latino parents.

In order to assure that there are a sufficient number of programs serving a sufficient
number of Latinos to make the research worthwhile and valid, we are contacting
programs to find out how many Latino parents they serve.

We need your help to identify programs that serve Latinos. Enclosed are five letters with
self-addressed, stamped postcards to be returned to us. We would greatly appreciate it if
you would distribute these to programs within your state that you know serve a
significant number of Latino parents.

If you are aware of more than five programs that could be included in this research and
are interested in receiving more letters, please contact Stephanie Jacobson in one of the
ways offered below. Thank you very much for your assistance.

Sincerely,

David Mills, Executive Director Stephanie Jacobson
National Alliance of Children’s Phone: (517) 353-6617
Trust and Prevention Funds Fax: (517) 432-2022
Phone: (517) 432-5096 Email: jacobs48@msu.edu.

Fax: (517) 432-2476
Email: millsda@msu.edu

Department of Psychology

Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824-1 117

57

APPENDIX E

Postcard Questionnaire

Our parent education programming serves the following number of
Latino parents at the current time:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_<10 _11-15 _16-20 _ 21-25 _ 26+
Other minority populations we serve in significant numbers:
African American (Number)
Program Name
Agency Name
Address
Phone Fax

 

 

Contact Person

 

58

APPENDIX F

Formulas for J ustifyirrg Aggggation

ICC(l) MSB-MSW
{MSB + [(k-1)MSW]}
MSB = between-group mean square

MSW = within-group mean square

k = average group size

ICC(2) (MSB-MSW)
MSB

59

REFERENCES

Alvy, K. T. (1994). Parent training todaLA social necessity. Studio City, CA: Center for
the Improvement of Child Caring.

Barber, J. G. (1992). Evaluating parent education groups: Effects on sense of competence
and social isolation. Research on Social Work Practice, 2, 28-38.

Barona, A., & Miller, J. A. (1994). Short acculturation scale for Hispanic youth (SASH-
Y): A preliminary report. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 16, 155-162.

Baumrind, D. (1972). An exploratory study of socialization effects on black children:
Some black-white comparisons. Child Development, 43, 261—267.

Berry, J. W. (1989). Psychology of acculturation. Nebraska Syrrpaosium on Motivation,
3_9_, 201 -234. '

Brim, O. 6., Jr. (1959). Education for child rearing. Philadelphia, PA: Russell Sage
Foundation.

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

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Weiss, H. B. (1983). Beyond policies without people: An
ecological perspective on child and family policy. In E. F. Zigler, S. L. Kagan, &
E. Klugman (Eds), Children, families and government: Perspectives on America_n
social policy (pp. 393-414). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Canning, S. S. (1994). Empowered parent education: An empirical investigation of
empowerment concepts. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania,
1994). Dissertation Abstracts International, 55, A1222.

Chao, R. K. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style:
Understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child
Development, 65, 1111-1119.

Cheng Gorman, J., & Balter, L. (1997). Culturally sensitive parent education: A critical
review of quantitative research. Review of Educational ResearclL 6L 339-369.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behaviqal sciences (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cuéllar, 1., Arnold, B., & Gonzalez, G. (1995). Cognitive referents of acculturation:
Assessment of cultural constructs in Mexican Americans. Journg of Community

60

Pj/chologv. 23. 339-356.

Cuéllar, 1., Arnold, B., & Maldonado, R. (1995). Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican
Americans-II: A revision of the original ARSMA scale. Hispanic J ourmrj of the
Behavioral Sciences, 17, 275-304.

Dana, R. H. (1996). Assessment of acculturation in Hispanic populations. Hispanic
Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 18, 317-328.

Dana, R. H. (1998a). Cultural competence in three human service agencies.
Psychological Reports, 83, 107-112.

Dana, R. H. (1998b). Problems with managed mental health care for multicultural
populations. Psychological Reports, 83, 283-294.

Dana, R. H., Behn, J. D., & Gonwa, T. (1992). A checklist for the examination of cultural
competence in social service agencies. Research on Social WorlLPractice, 2, 220-
233.

Danoff, N. L., Kemper, K. J ., & Sherry, B. (1994). Risk factors for dropping out of a
parenting education program. Child Abuseand Neglact, 18, 599-606.

DeMause, L. (1998). The history of child abuse. J 01ml of Psychohistory, 25, 216-236.

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

Florsheim, P., Tolan, P. H., & Gorman-Smith, D. (1996). Family processes and risk for
externalizing behavior problems among African American and Hispanic boys.

Joumpal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 64, 1222-1230.

Garbarino, J. (1976). A preliminary study of some ecological correlates of child abuse:
The impact of socioeconomic stress on mothers. Child Development, 47, 178-185.

Garcia Coll, C. T. (1990). Developmental outcome of minority infants: A process-
oriented look into our beginnings. Child Development, 61. 270-289.

Harrison, A. 0., Wilson, M. N ., Pine, C. J ., Chan, S. Q., & Buriel, R. (1990). Family
ecologies of ethnic minority children. Child Development, 61, 347-362.

Harwood, R. L., & Miller, J. G. (1991). Perceptions of attachment behavior: A
comparison of Anglo and Puerto Rican mothers. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 37,
583-599.

Herrerr’as, C. (1988). Prevention of child abuse in the Hispanic community: The MADRE

61

parent education program. Journal of Primary Prevention, 9, 104-119.

Hofmann, D. A. (in press). Issues in multilevel research: Theory development,
measurement and analysis. To appear in S. Rogelberg (Ed.), Handbook of
research methods in industrial and organizational psycholgyp Oxford: Blackwell.

Hofmann, D. A., & Stetzer, A. (1996). A cross-level investigation of factors influencing
unsafe behaviors and accidents. Personnel psychology, 49, 307-339.

 

Hogan, P. T., & Siu, S. (1988). Minority children and the child welfare system: An
historical perspective. Socig Work,33, 493-498.

Holden, G. W., Lavigne, V. V., & Cameron, A. M. (1990). Probing the continuum of
effectiveness in parent training: Characteristics of parents and preschoolers.
Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 19, 2-8.

Inkeles, A. (1968). Society, social structure, and child socialization. In J. A. Clausen
(Ed.), Socialization and society (pp. 73-129). Boston: Little, Brown and
Company.

Johnson, D. L. (1989). The Houston Parent-Child Development Center project:
Disserninating a viable program for enhancing at-risk families. In R. P. Lorion
(Ed.), Prevention in human services: Vol. 7(1). Protecting the children: Strategies
for optimizinLemotional and behavioral development (pp. 89-108). New York:
Haworth Press.

Kohn, M. L. (1969). Social class and parent-child relationships: An interpretation. In R.
L. Coser (Ed.), Life cycleard achievement in Amerm (pp. 21-42). New York:
Harper & Row.

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

Lieh-Mak, F., Lee, P. W. H., & Luk, S. L. (1984). Problems encountered in teaching
Chinese parents to be behavior therapists. PsychologiaL27, 56-64.

Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-
child interaction. In P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.) & E. M. Hetherington (V 01. Ed.),
Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Soaialization, personality, and social
development (4‘h ed., pp. 1-101). New York: Wiley.

Marin, G., & Marin, B. V. (1991). Research with Hispanic populations. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.

Marin, G., Sabogal, E, Marin, B. V., Otero-Sabogal, R., & Perez-Stable, E. J. (1987).

62

Development of a short acculturation scale for Hispanics. Hisa)an_ic Journal of
Behavioral Sciences, 9, 183-205.

Miller, D. B. (1997). Parenting against the odds: African-American parents in the child
welfare system - A group approach. Social Work with Groups, 20(1), 5-17.

Myers, H. F., Alvy, K. T., Arrington, A., Richardson, M. A., Marigna, M., Huff, R.,
Main, M., & Newcomb, M. D. (1992). The impact of parent training program on

inner-city African-American families. Journal of Community Psychology, 20,
1 32-147.

Ogbu, J. U. (1981). Origins of human competence: A cultural-ecological perspective.
Child Development, 52, 413—429.

Okagaki, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1993). Parental beliefs and children’s school
performance. Child Development, 64, 36-56.

Paniagua, F. A. (1994). Assessing and treating culturally diverse clients: A practical
guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Radziszewska, B., Richardson, J. L., Dent, C. W., & Flay, B. R. (1996). Parenting style
and adolescent depressive symptoms, smoking, and academic achievement:
Ethnic, gender, and SES differences. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 19(3), 289-
305.

Rosenberg, M. S., & Reppucci, N. D. (1983). Abusive mothers: perceptions of their own
and their children’s behavior. Journal of Coasaltiag and Clinical Psychology, 51,
674-682.

Santos, S. J ., Bohon, L. M., & sanchez-Sosa, J. J. (1998). Childhood family relationships,
marital and work conflict, and mental health distress in Mexican immigrants.
Journal of Comqu Psychology, 26, 491-508.

Spiwak, A. M. (1982). Child rearingattitudes yd practices of Mexifican-Americap
parents: Effects of social class and acculturation. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, California School of Professional Psychology, Los Angeles.

Steinberg, L., Dombusch, S. M., & Brown, B. B. (1992). Ethnic differences in adolescent
achievement. American Psychologist, 47, 723-729.

Steinberg, L., Lambom, S. D., Dombusch, S. M., & Darling, N. (1992). Impact of
parenting practices on adolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting, school
involvement, and encouragement to succeed. Child Development, 63, 1266-1281.

Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (1990). Counseling the culturaflxdifferent: Theory and practice.
New York: Wiley.

63

Vargas, M., & Busch-Rossnagel, N. A. (2000). Authority plus affection: Latino parenting
during adolescence. In M. Montero-Sieburth & F. A. Villarruel (Eds), Making
invisible Latino adolescents visible: A critical approach to Latino diversity. New
York: Falmer Press.

Walker, T. B., Rodriguez, G. G., Johnson, D. L., & Cortez, C. P. (1995). Avance parent-
child education program. In S. Smith (Ed.), Advances in applied developmental
psychology: Volume 9. Two generation programs for families in poverty: A new
intervention strategy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

ll

ll