THE ROLE OF CULTURAL FACTORS AND PERCEIVED DISCRIMINATION ON PARENTING STYLE AND CHILDREN’S SCHOOL READINESS SKILLS AMONG LATINOS By Ruth Funk A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of School Psychology—Doctor of Philosophy 2017 ABSTRACT THE ROLE OF CULTURAL FACTORS AND PERCEIVED DISCRIMINATION ON PARENTING STYLE AND CHILDREN’S SCHOOL READINESS SKILLS AMONG LATINOS By Ruth Funk Recent research suggests that parenting styles such as authoritative and authoritarian approaches may not completely capture parenting among Latinos (Domenech Rodriguez, et al., 2009). Examining the parenting style of Latinos is important because it has been found to play a role in children’s school readiness and achievement, but research is limited among Latinos. Cultural values and acculturation have been shown to be related to Latino’s parenting practices and further study may help to better understand the role of parenting on child outcomes (Calzada, Fernandez, & Cortes, 2010; Chavez, 2008; Donovick, 2010; Dornbusch et al., 1987). The context in which families live also plays an important role in the type of parenting behaviors that are displayed (Cruz-Santiago & Ramirez Garcia, 2011; Coatsworth, Patin, & Szapocznik, 2002). Given the limited research addressing all of these factors, it is difficult to determine how these constructs may be uniquely related among Latino parents. The current study examined parenting among Latina female caregivers to identify the parenting styles that best described parenting approaches among Latinos. This research also studied whether cultural factors, such as acculturation and cultural values, predicted parenting style among Latinos. Finally, the study also examined how parents’ contextual demands were related to parenting style and whether parenting style predicted children’s literacy skills, children’s self-regulation skills, and children’s social-emotional competence among Latinos. A sample of 116 Latina female caregivers and their second or third grade children participated in this study. Female caregivers completed self-report measures assessing their parenting, cultural values, acculturation, perceived discrimination and children's social-emotional competence. Children completed two tasks to examine their literacy skills and self-regulation. Findings indicated that authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles did not fully reflect the parenting approach of Latinas. Instead, Latina female caregivers were found to display authoritative and protective parenting styles, with most female caregivers being characterized by authoritative parenting. There was no evidence of authoritarian parenting among Latina female caregivers. Parenting style and parenting dimensions did not differ based on child’s gender. Cultural factors were found to play an important role in parenting among Latina mothers. Contextual demands, as measured through perceived discrimination, did not predict parenting style among this sample of Latina female caregivers. In contrast, when parenting was examined at the dimension level, perceived discrimination was found to significantly predict nonsupportive demandingness. Finally, parenting style predicted children’s social-competence, but not self-regulation or early literacy skills. Implications and suggestions for future research are discussed. Copyright by RUTH FUNK 2017 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my appreciation and gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Evelyn Oka, for supporting me throughout my time in the program and investing in my development as a researcher and school psychologist. I would also like to thank my committee members, Drs. Sara Witmer, Cary Roseth, and José Rubén Parra-Cardona, who, along with Dr. Oka, provided critical feedback and thought-provoking suggestions that allowed me to deepen my understanding of parenting among Latinos. My thanks also goes to Michigan State University College of Education and Graduate School for providing fellowships that allowed me to conduct my research. I would also like to thank Tatyana Li, who provided guidance as I analyzed my data. I am profoundly grateful to the Latina mothers and children who participated in this study. This study would not have been possible without their contribution. I would also like to thank the churches and community organizations who allowed me to recruit participants and the research assistants who supported me in recruitment and data collection. My research would have been impossible without the aid and support of my family. To my parents, David and Myriam, sisters, Christy and Guisselle, and brothers-in-law, Steven and Mark, thank you for your patience and support over the years. A special thanks goes to my parents who taught me to value learning and were there every step of the way as I worked toward my goals. To my husband, Ryan, words cannot express how much your love and encouragement have helped me through this process. Thank you for spending countless hours driving me to research locations across the Midwest and sitting by my side as I wrote this dissertation. Finally, I want to thank God for His strength and wisdom and for providing me the opportunity to pursue this degree and to use the gifts He has given me to serve others. v TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ………………….……………………………………………………. viii LIST OF FIGURES ………………………………………………………………………. x CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ….……..……………………………………………… Purpose ….………………..………………………………………………………….. Theoretical Framework …………………..…………………………………..……… Research Questions ………………………………………………………………….. 1 6 7 12 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ..………………..……………………………… Latinos …………………..………………..…………………………………………… Parenting Style ………….………………..…………………………………………… Cultural Differences in Parenting Style …………………………………………… Parenting Style and Child Outcomes ……………………………………………… Parenting Style and Early Literacy …………………………………………….. Ethnic Differences in Parenting Style and Early Literacy ………………….. Parenting Style and Self-Regulation …………………………………………… Ethnic Differences in Parenting Style and Self-Regulation ………………… Parenting Style and Social-Emotional Competence …………………………… Ethnic Differences in Parenting Style and Social-Emotional Competence … Summary ……………………………..…………………………………………… Cultural Factors …………………………..…………………………………………… Latino Cultural Values …………………………………………..………………… Familismo ..…………………………………………………………………….. Respeto ………………………………………………………………………… Latino Cultural Values and Parenting ………………………………..…………… Acculturation ………………………..………………………………..…………… Acculturation and Parenting …….………………………………………………… Acculturation and Cultural Values ………………………………………………… Summary ……………………………..…………………………………………… Contextual Demands ..………………..…………………………………………… Cultural Factors, Parenting, and Child Outcomes ………………………….………… The Current Study …..………………..………………………………………….…… Research Questions and Hypotheses ……………………………………………….… 13 13 15 17 22 25 26 28 31 31 33 34 36 36 36 37 38 40 42 43 44 45 49 50 51 vi CHAPTER 3: METHODS ……………………………..…………………..…………….. Participants …………………….……………………………………………………… Measures …………………………..…………..………………………………..……. Parental Measures …………………………..…………………………………….. Parenting Style …………………………..…………………………………….. Parental Acculturation ………………………………………………………….. Perceived Discrimination ………………………………………………………. Familismo ………………………………………………………………………. Respeto …………………………………………………………………………. Child Measures …………………..……………………………………………….. Literacy Skills ………………………………………………………………….. Self-Regulation ………………………………………………………………… Social-Emotional Competence …………………………………………………. Procedure ………………………………………………………………………….. 54 54 58 58 58 61 62 62 63 63 63 65 66 67 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ..…………………..…………………………………………… Research Question 1 ………………………………………………………………….. Question 1a …………………………..…………………………………………… Questions1b and 1c …………………………..…………………………………… Question 1d …………………………..…………………………………………… Research Question 2 ………………………………………………………………….. Question 2a …………………………..…………………………………………… Question 2b …………………………..…………………………………………… Research Question 3 ………………………………………………………………….. Research Question 4 ………………………………………………………………….. 70 74 74 76 84 87 87 90 95 98 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION ………………..…………………………………………… Parenting Style among Latinos ……………………………………………………….. Parenting Style, Acculturation, and Cultural Values ………………………………….. Parenting Style and Perceived Discrimination ……………………………………….. Parenting Style and Child Outcomes …………………………………………………. Limitations …………………………..……………………………………………….. Summary and Future Research ……………………………………………………….. 105 106 113 119 121 124 128 APPENDIX ………………..…………………………………………………………….. 133 REFERENCES ………………..………………………………………………………….. 148 vii LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Female Caregiver Demographics ….……………………………..…………..…. 55 Table 2: Child Demographics …..…………………………..…………………………… 58 Table 3: Correlation Matrix …………………………..…………………………………. 72 Table 4: Correlation Matrix by Child’s Gender ...……..…………………………………. 73 Table 5: Parenting Dimensions Descriptive Statistics ……………………..……………. 75 Table 6: Percentage of Parenting Dimensions by Level …………………………………. 75 Table 7: Summary of Monte Carlo Analysis ………………..………………………….. 77 Table 8: Skewness for Parenting Dimensions ………………..…………………………. 79 Table 9: Model Fit Criteria ………………..…………………………………………….. 82 Table 10: Summary of Latent Classes …………………..……………………………….. 83 Table 11: Tests of Normality for MANOVA ………………....………………………….. 86 Table 12: Box’s Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices for MANOVA ...…………….. 86 Table 13: Multivariate Tests for MANOVA …………..………………………………… 87 Table 14: Descriptive Statistics for Cultural Factors ……..…………………………….. 87 Table 15: Latent Profile Analysis including Covariates ………………………………… 90 Table 16: Familismo Mediation Analysis ……………………………………………….. 92 Table 17: Respeto Mediation Analysis ………………………………………………….. 94 Table 18: Tests of Normality for Multivariate Regression ………..…………………….. 95 Table 19: Descriptive Statistics for Multivariate Regression ………..………………….. 96 Table 20: Multivariate Tests for Multivariate Regression ……..……………………….. 97 viii Table 20: Multivariate Tests for Multivariate Regression ……..……………………….. 97 Table 21: Test of Between-Subjects Effects for Multivariate Regression …..………….. 97 Table 22: Parameter Estimates for Multivariate Regression …..……………………….. 98 Table 23: Descriptive Statistics for Child Outcomes …..……………………………….. 99 Table 24: Correlations for Child Outcomes ……..………………………………………. 100 Table 25: Skewness for Child Outcomes ……………………….……..…………………. 100 Table 26: Skewness for Child Outcomes by Parenting Style ..…..………………………. 101 Table 27: Tests of Normality by Parenting Style …..……………………………………. 101 Table 28: DESSA-mini Means and Standard Deviations ………………………………… 102 Table 29: DESSA-mini ANOVA ………………………………………………..……… 102 Table 30: Reading Composite Means and Standard Deviations ..……..………………… 103 Table 31: Reading Composite ANOVA ………………..……………………………….. 103 Table 32: HTKS Means and Standard Deviations …....………………………………….. 104 Table 33: HTKS ANOVA ……………………………………..………………………… 104 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Latino Parenting Framework ……..…………………………………..………. 11 Figure 2: Estimates for the relationship between culture of origin cultural identity and parenting style as mediated by familismo ……………………………..……………….. 93 Figure 3: Estimates for the relationship between culture of origin cultural identity and parenting style as mediated by respeto …………..……………………..………………. 94 x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The Latino population in the United States, comprised of both immigrants and those born in the United States, is growing swiftly and is expected to comprise nearly one third of the U.S. population by 2060 if current immigration trends continue (Coatsworth, Maldonado-Molina, Patin, & Szapocznik, 2005; Colby & Ortman, 2015; U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). The promise of a better life, however, has not been realized for many Latino children and youth. Research on Latino students reveals a marked disparity in the educational experiences and outcomes compared with non-Latino White students (Arellano & Padilla, 1996). For example, Latino students have a higher high school dropout rate than non-Latino White students. This disparity is found from an early age as well, when Latino students are more likely to enter school with significantly lower math and English literacy skills than non-Latino White students (Reardon & Galindo, 2009). Latino kindergarteners have been found to also enter school with smaller vocabularies, a weaker understanding of print materials, and poorer comprehension of math concepts when compared to non-Latino White students (Kohler & Lazarin, 2007; Reardon & Galindo, 2009). Minority children, including Latinos, have been found to continue to perform at lower levels in reading after first grade compared to non-Latino White children even when controlling for mothers’ education and family income (Stevenson, Chen, & Uttal, 1990). Latino children may also be characterized by risk factors, such as limited English proficiency, attending schools of varying quality, family immigrant status, and low socioeconomic status, that make it likely for them to enter school behind in areas such as literacy, language, mathematics, social, emotional, and physical health (Reardon & Galindo, 2009; U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). These findings suggest that some Latino students may not be entering school “ready to learn” and may 1 continue to be behind in elementary school when more academic demands begin to be placed on children. Research on school readiness indicates that academic skills, self-regulation, and socialemotional capacity are qualities that are necessary for children to be learn (High, 2008; RimmKaufman, Pianta, & Cox, 2000). Research has also demonstrated that early academic skills in early math concepts, language, reading, and attention are powerful predictors of later learning and grades (Duncan et al., 2007). Specifically focusing on Latino children, poor academic performance in kindergarten forecasts difficulty in middle school, high school, and college (Reardon & Galindo, 2009). Academic achievement, beginning in elementary school, has also been found to be a powerful predictor of high school status at age 19 and whether students drop out or graduate (Jimerson, Egeland, Sroufe, & Carlson, 2000). Although poor academic skills are a source of difficulty for children, teachers note that problems with self-regulation are the main cause of children’s lack of school readiness (McClelland et al., 2007). Self-regulation is made up of working memory, inhibitory control, and attentional focusing (Cameron Ponitz, McClelland, Matthews & Morrison, 2009). Self-regulation is a vital process that enables children to follow directions and maintain attention (McClelland et al., 2007). Self-regulation also predicts children’s adaptation to school and subsequent achievement. Research on self-regulation and its development is limited with Latino children (LeCuyer, Swanson, Cole, & Kitzman, 2011). Social-emotional competence is also important for school readiness and is linked to positive school attitudes, successful early adjustment in school, and improved grades and achievement (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Ladd, Birch, & Buhs, 1999; Pianta, & Cox, 2000). Limited research has examined social-emotional competence among young Latino children and findings 2 have been mixed in terms of the level of social-emotional competence with which these children enter school (Galindo & Fuller, 2010). In summary, early academic performance, self-regulation, and social-emotional competence are predictive of later achievement and school success. Exploring the development of these key competencies may help to identify ways to address the disparities in education for Latino students. Parents are an important factor to consider when examining ways to address educational disparities in Latino students’ early school years (Baker, 2010; Landry, Smith, Swank, Assel, & Vellet, 2001; Magill-Evans & Harrison, 2001). Parents play a crucial and important role in children’s development and their early school performance by promoting skills and motivation to succeed in school. Children with authoritative parents, who are warm, firm, and democratic, have been found to be more likely to develop positive attitudes toward achievement, to be well adjusted, and to do better in school (Steinberg, Dornbusch, & Brown, 1992; Steinberg, Mounts, Lamborn, & Dornbusch, 1991). Warm parent-child interactions have also been found to positively predict early school performance (Baker, 2010). In addition, parental support of children’s autonomy positively predicts children’s self-regulation and social-emotional competence (Grolnick & Ryan, 1989; NICHD, 2006). It is important to note, however, that parenting styles as well as their relation to positive developmental outcomes may differ among different populations (Grolnick, Friendly, & Bellas, 2009). There have been mixed results in studies among racial minority students of the outcomes associated with parenting styles such as the relationship between authoritative parenting and academic performance (Park & Bauer, 2002; Spera, 2005; Steinberg et al., 1992). First generation Latino parents have been found to most commonly exhibit a “protective” parenting 3 style which is characterized by high warmth, high supportive demandingness, and low autonomy granting (Domenech Rodriguez, Donovick, & Crowley, 2009). Among Spanish-speaking Mexican Americans, maternal warmth and acceptance was found to be positively correlated with hostile control, an aspect of non-supportive demandingness, and was negatively related to conduct problems in children, suggesting that this combination of parenting may be adaptive for these parents and their children (Hill, Bush, & Roosa, 2003). Research has suggested that culture plays a critical role not only in the type of parenting that is exhibited, but also in how parenting is related to child functioning. Cultural factors, such as cultural values and acculturation, have been found to be related to parenting practices (Calzada, 2010; Whiteside-Mansell, Bradley, & McKelvey, 2009). Two important values for Latinos are familismo and respeto. Research has found that aspects of authoritative and authoritarian parenting are associated with both familismo and respeto (Calzada, 2010; Donovick, 2010). Similarly, level of acculturation has been found to be correlated with parenting style, particularly among immigrants (Acevedo, 2000). The social context in which parenting is situated also matters. Contextual stressors and challenges, such as perceived discrimination, have also been reported to be related to parenting among Latinos (Cruz-Santiago & Ramirez Garcia, 2011; Parra-Cardona, Cordova, Holtrop, Villarruel, & Weiling, 2008). Therefore, it may be important to consider these factors to obtain a more accurate understanding of Latino parents’ role in their children’s functioning. Examining these variables may add to the understanding of Latino parenting and how the relation of parenting to children’s self-regulation, social-emotional competence, and academic skills may vary depending on parental acculturation levels, cultural values, and contextual risk factors. 4 Although not the focus of this study, it is important to note that schools play an important role in addressing disparities in educational outcomes. Research suggests that students with a history of poor academic outcomes do best in an environment that combines high challenge and high support, while also including supports that are differentiated and targeted based on student needs (Athanases, 2012). Diverse students, such as Latinos, may have unique needs, and may thrive and overcome initial disparities when taught by teachers who are trained and prepared to teach a diverse student population (Banks et al, 2005). Along with understanding the role of parents, it is important to recognize the vital influence that schools and teachers can have when equipped with knowledge about the cultural, social, and language backgrounds of students in choosing curricula and designing instruction. It is particularly important to examine these variables in early elementary school, when children experience an increase in academic demands, such as during second and third grade. Achievement, self-regulation and social emotional competence in these early elementary school years have been found to be predictive of later achievement and grades (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Duncan et al., 2007; Ladd et al., 1999; McClelland et al., 2007; Stevenson et al., 1990) and whether students drop out or graduate high school (Jimerson et al., 2000). Additionally, parental expectations among Latino parents shift as children grow older, becoming more stable in elementary school (Calzada & Eyberg, 2002). This shift has been related to greater academic expectations in third grade being associated with greater parental involvement (Calzada & Eyberg, 2002; Englund, Luckner, Whaley, & Egeland, 2004). A final reason for the importance of examining these variables among children in second and third grade is that this is when challenging behaviors such as disengagement from school often begin to emerge, putting students at-risk for poor grades, delinquency, and school dropout (Hirschfield & Gasper, 2011). 5 Purpose The purpose of this study was to better understand the developmental outcomes of Latino children by examining cultural factors that may help to uniquely explain the relation of Latino parenting to child outcomes. Specifically, one goal of this study was to better understand parenting among Latinos by examining whether parenting among Latinos aligns with the traditional parenting styles or is better represented by other approaches to parenting. The purpose of this study was also to better understand the variables that may predict parenting among Latinos, including acculturation, cultural values, and perceived discrimination. Finally, after gaining a better understanding of parenting among Latinos, this study examined the relation between parenting and child outcomes. Given that self-regulation, social-emotional competence, and early academic skills are important factors for children to be ready to learn, these will be used as measures of learning outcomes (High, 2008; Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2000). This is especially important to examine during early elementary school given that early academic skills, behavioral self-regulation, and social-emotional competence are powerful predictors of later achievement and grades particularly in the elementary grades (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Duncan el al., 2007; Ladd et al., 1999; McClelland et al., 2007). Given that Latino parents may be characterized by a different style of parenting than parents of other races, it would be beneficial to examine parenting style among Latinos. Additionally, examining cultural values, acculturation, and contextual demands, such as perceived discrimination, can add to the understanding of Latino parenting and how certain aspects of parenting may play a different role in children’s functioning than they would in families of other cultures. Limited research has been done examining these relationships. Once parenting or cultural factors that influence children’s functioning among Latinos are better 6 understood, researchers can design more effective intervention programs and guide efforts to benefit students (Plunkett & Bamaca-Gomez, 2003). Theoretical Framework Success in school is important to an individual’s future success and contribution to society (Henry et al., 2008). Compared to students of other races, Latino students have greater difficulty in completing high school and advanced degrees. They have a higher school dropout rate (U.S. Department of Education, 2011) and are not as well represented in higher education (Ceballo, 2004). These educational disparities are longstanding and to address these concerns, attention needs to be paid to the early years of schooling. Achievement, self-regulation, and social-emotional competence in early elementary school are predictive of later academic success (Birch & Ladd, 1997; High, 2008; Jimerson et al., 1999; Ladd et al., 1999; McClelland et al., 2007; Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2000). Parental involvement in their children’s education during the first three years of school is particularly critical as it is associated with initial academic achievement and continues to influence academic outcomes through high school (Jimerson et al., 1999). This is of particular importance in regards to Latinos because current population growth trends suggest that nearly one in three U.S. residents will be Latinos by the year 2060 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). To address this issue and to close this achievement gap between Latino students and students of other ethnicities, students’ literacy skills, self-regulation, and social-emotional competence should be targeted and specifically addressed. This study examined parenting style, contextual demands, cultural values, and acculturation in relation to students’ school readiness skills through the lens of García Coll et al.’s (1996) model of developmental competencies in 7 minority children and through Calzada, Fernandez, and Cortes’ (2010) culturally informed model of Latino parenting and child functioning. García Coll et al.’s (1996) integrative model addresses diversity and strengths of minority populations in the understanding of developmental competencies of children. Social position and social stratification are considered to be at the core of children’s development. This model proposes that attention needs to be paid to unique ecological circumstances to understand the normal developmental process of minority children. The integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children, therefore, includes constructs that may contribute unique variance to the developmental process of these minority children. Constructs that are relevant to the developmental process in general and that are based on individual factors are included as well. Overall, eight constructs are included in the model that are hypothesized to influence the process of development for minority children. The first construct is social position, which includes race, social class, gender, and ethnicity. Social position factors are considered the primary concern in this model, however they are not viewed as directly affecting children’s developmental outcomes or the immediate environments in which they grow. Instead, social mechanisms such as prejudice, discrimination, racism, and oppression, the second construct, are thought to mediate the effect of social position. The third construct is segregation, which is created through social mechanisms and can be residential, economic, social, and psychological. Segregation is thought to directly influence the environments that minority children experience and whether they are promoting or inhibiting. The fourth construct includes these promoting or inhibiting environments which can include schools, neighborhoods, and health care. These environments can directly influence adaptive culture, the fifth construct. Adaptive cultures include traditions and cultural legacies, economic and political histories, migration and 8 acculturation, and current contextual demands. The sixth construct includes child characteristics such as age, biological factors, temperament, health status, and physical characteristics. The seventh construct is family. Important variables included in this construct are family values, beliefs and goals, socioeconomic status, structure and roles, and racial socialization. The fourth and the fifth constructs both directly influence family processes and interact with child characteristics. Finally, developmental competence is the eighth construct which includes competencies that include cognitive, social, emotional, linguistic, biculturalism, and coping with racism. These developmental competencies are directly influenced by individual contributions of adaptive culture, child characteristics, and family processes. Rather than studying each of these constructs, this research focused selectively on processes that are salient to Latino parenting and learning in childhood. Given that family processes are proposed to directly influence developmental competencies, this is one of the constructs that were examined among Latinos. Adaptive culture variables, including acculturation and contextual demands, were included as well due to their theorized direct influence on family processes. Finally, social position variables (race, gender, and ethnicity), and discrimination were included because social position variables have a primary role in this model, and discrimination is a social mechanism which is thought to mediate the effect of social position variables. The role of cultural factors in parenting style and child functioning has been increasingly recognized. Calzada et al. (2010) proposed a model that incorporates cultural factors as essential components of Latino parenting and child functioning. This model demonstrates how attention to specific cultural factors may help to explain the effects of Latino parenting on behavioral, social, emotional, and academic child outcomes. This framework proposes that Latino parents engage in specific parenting practices that reflect their cultural values. For example, they may use corporal 9 punishment to teach children behavioral expectations that reflect cultural values such as respeto. When conducting focus groups with Dominican and Mexican mothers, Calzada et al. (2010) found that some parents said that harsh parenting practices were necessary in order for children to learn respeto. In relation to this, however, it has been found that, if exposed to other methods of parenting, Latino parents may be less likely to adopt harsh parenting behaviors such as corporal punishment (Parra-Cardona et al., 2008). This culturally informed model of Latino parenting and child functioning proposes that parents select the parenting practices that will be the most effective at teaching children about behavioral expectations which reflect respeto. Given that parents from different cultures may differ in their cultural values, this model helps in understanding why there may be incongruence between Latino and mainstream U.S. American parenting. In addition to respeto, familismo, is another cultural value that has been found to be important to Latina mothers (Calzada et al., 2010). Familismo is a value that focuses on interdependence, family closeness, and cohesion (Halgunseth et al., 2006). It also places an emphasis on feelings of loyalty and reciprocity toward the family and strong identification with the family (Lugo-Steidel & Contreras, 2003). Parental acculturation is also a key determinant of how parents are able to balance often opposing values (i.e., Latino cultural values and mainstream U.S. cultural values) and practices. This study will examine part of this framework by exploring whether acculturation informs Latino cultural values (respeto and familismo) and in turn, is related to parenting practices that shape children’s functioning (Figure 1). Contextual demands are added to this framework based on their importance in Garcia Coll’s model to examine whether these demands, as measured by perceived discrimination, predict parenting among Latinos. 10 Contextual Demands Acculturation Status Cultural Values Parenting Style Child Functioning Figure 1. Latino Parenting Framework. This figure illustrates the parenting framework used in this study, which was adapted from Calzada, Fernandez & Cortes’ (2010) culturally informed model of Latino parenting. In sum, using the lens of García Coll et al.’s (1996) integrative model and Calzada et al.’s (2010) culturally informed model of Latino parenting, this study aimed to understand the developmental competencies of Latino children by examining unique ecological circumstances and specific cultural factors, such as acculturation, cultural values, and contextual demands, that may help to explain the effects of Latino parenting on child outcomes. First, this study identified the kinds of parenting styles used by Latino parents and whether the conventional styles adequately capture their practices. Secondly, this research examined the role of cultural values and acculturation in predicting parenting styles and whether cultural values mediate the effects of acculturation on parenting practices. Third, the study explored whether the characteristics of the context in which parenting is situated, i.e., experiences of perceived discrimination, predict parenting styles. Finally, the study examined the role of parenting style in predicting children’s literacy skills, self-regulation, and social-emotional competence. The study addressed the following research questions: 11 Research Questions 1) What types of parenting styles do Latino parents use? 1a) How is parenting style among Latino parents characterized in terms of the dimensions of warmth, supportive demandingness, non-supportive demandingness, and autonomy granting? 1b) To what extent do Latino parents display authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles? 1c) Is there evidence for protective parenting style among Latino parents? 1d) Does the parenting style of Latino parents differ by child’s gender? 2) Does parenting style differ by acculturation status among Latino parents? 2a) Do acculturation status and Latino cultural values predict parenting style among Latino parents? 2b) If acculturation is predictive of parenting style, is that effect mediated by the importance of/commitment to cultural values (familismo and respeto)? 3) What role does the parenting context play in parenting style? Does perceived discrimination predict parenting style? 4) Does parenting style predict children’s self-regulation, early literacy, and social-emotional development? 12 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW To promote school readiness among Latino children in early elementary school and to better inform programs focused on improving learning outcomes, such as academic skills, selfregulation, and social-emotional competence, it is important to examine factors, such as parenting, that help children experience early success in school (Plunkett & Bamaca-Gomez, 2003). Based on García Coll and colleagues’ (1996) integrative model for developmental competencies in minority children, adaptive cultural factors such as contextual demands and acculturation, and aspects of family processes are crucial in understanding development. Family values and racial socialization also play a key role in relation to children’s developmental competencies. Additionally, Calzada et al.’s (2010) culturally informed model of Latino parenting incorporates acculturation status and Latino cultural values in understanding the role of parenting in child development. Examining these constructs among Latino parents of young children can aid in understanding the effects of Latino parenting on children’s learning outcomes in early childhood, while taking important cultural and contextual factors into account. Latinos Prior to examining the relation between parenting, cultural factors, and children’s learning outcomes among Latino students in the United States, it is important to consider who belongs to the Latino group. There is debate in the literature as to whether the term Latino or Hispanic should be used when referring to this group of people (Alcoff, 2005; Granados, 2000). A consensus has yet to be reached on this issue and people continue to argue for the term that they most prefer. This study will be using Latino, because it restricts the term to include only 13 individuals in the Western Hemisphere whose heritage culture is from Latin American countries (Hayes-Bautista & Chapa, 1987). Latinos are a diverse group of people and represent various nations, races, cultures, and language abilities (De Von Figueroa-Moseley, Ramey, Keltner, & Lanzi, 2006). One factor that has been identified in relation to the Latino identity is the use of Spanish, as opposed to English (Krilanovich, 2006). Although this may be a factor related to being identified as Latino, there are differences in how this characteristic is used to define Latinos based on a person’s generational status. For example, Bedolla (2003) found that first generation Latinos define Latino as a person who speaks Spanish. Second generation Latinos, on the other hand, define Latino as a person who speaks both Spanish and English. Finally, third generation Latinos define Latino as person of Latin American descent and do not include language ability in their definition. Within these definitions it is clear that solely examining language does not make the term Latino completely clear, making it difficult to determine whether someone would fit into the Latino population. Another problem with using the Spanish language as a defining feature is that some individuals who have been considered Latinos may speak a language other than Spanish, such as Portuguese or another language native to their country (Hayes-Bautista & Chapa, 1987). Instead of focusing on language, race, or culture, researchers have suggested that the term Latino is one that reflects nationality (Hayes-Bautista & Chapa, 1987). A commonality among Latinos is that they all have ancestral ties in a Latin American country in the Western Hemisphere. Latinos in the United States may also have common experiences in the U.S. through immigration and assimilation, as well as a common set of cultural values. Another commonality found among Latinos that was identified through focus groups of U.S.-born and immigrant Latinos, is the commitment to being a good parent (Parra-Cardona et al., 2008). 14 Although a commonality between Latinos is their Latin American origin, there may still be differences among these individuals depending on their experiences in the United States. For example, some differences that may exist include the type of adversity and discrimination experienced, gender roles, and resilience. The above findings suggest that although Latinos may have ancestral ties in a Latin American country in the Western Hemisphere (Hayes-Bautista & Chapa, 1987), Latinos may experience life differently in United States. For the purposes of this study, results will not be separated based on country of birth, but it is important to be aware that although the term Latino will be used to describe the larger group, there is likely within group variability. Parenting Style The research on parenting style has typically recognized three types of styles: authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive (Baumrind, 1966; Baumrind, 1968; Baumrind, 1978). Parents who are authoritative are viewed as valuing autonomous self-will and disciplined conformity. They also focus on directing child activities in a rational manner, while providing warmth and affection. Authoritarian parenting, on the other hand, is characterized by high levels of control or structure. These parents attempt to shape, control, and evaluate their children’s behaviors and attitudes. Authoritarian parents believe in having the final say in decisions and therefore, do not encourage a verbal give-and-take when interacting with their children. Finally, permissive parenting consists of affirmative, acceptant, non-punitive parenting behaviors, where children are allowed to be self-regulated. Parenting styles are typically conceptualized as comprising two dimensions: warmth/responsiveness, and demandingness/control (Baumrind, 1996; Baumrind, 2005; Steinberg et al., 1991). The dimension of warmth/responsiveness ranges from parents who are 15 characterized by attachment, clear communication, and reciprocity (Baumrind, 1996; Baumrind, 2005) to those who are characterized by providing limited nurturance and positive feedback. Parents who are responsive focus on supporting and being attuned to their child’s needs and demands. Parents who are at the high end of the dimension of demandingness/control are characterized by consistent contingent discipline, direct confrontations, and monitoring. In contrast, parents at the low end of the dimension of demandingness/control are characterized by non-punitive parenting behaviors, inconsistent discipline, and enforcing minimal rules or standards of behavior. High demandingness/control can be broken down into two types, supportive demandingness and non-supportive demandingness; although they have been referred to in various ways in the literature (e.g., behavioral and coercive control, high expectations/supportive and high expectations/ non-supportive) (Baumrind, 2012; Domenech Rodriguez et al., 2009; Hart, Newell, & Olsen, 2003). Supportive demandingness uses reasoning, limit setting, and is goal oriented and firm. In contrast, non-supportive demandingness is harsh and punitive. It implies directive control and insistence on strict obedience (Weiss & Schwartz, 1996). Parenting characteristics that are often associated with non-supportive demandingness include corporal punishment, verbal hostility, and lack of reasoning (Nelson & Crick, 2002). A third dimension of parenting, autonomy granting, has also been found in the literature and describes the way in which parents let their children express themselves in the family by giving children choices, allowing child input in decision making, and permitting children to express their ideas (Hart et al., 2003; Steinberg et al., 1991). This can include allowing the child to express his or her opinions or concerns related to the family. Research characterizes authoritative parents as having high levels of warmth, demandingness, and autonomy granting, authoritarian parents as having high demandingness, low warmth, and low autonomy granting, and permissive 16 parents as having high levels of warmth, high levels of autonomy granting, and low levels of demandingness (Baumrind, 1996; Baumrind, 2005; Steinberg et al., 1991). Although many of these studies have not specifically referred to the two types of demandingness, research generally links supportive demandingness (e.g., outcome oriented, reasoned, negotiable) to authoritative parenting, and non-supportive demandingness (arbitrary discipline, verbal hostility, physical discipline) to authoritarian parenting (Baumrind, 2012). Cultural Differences in Parenting Style. Researchers have generally found that authoritative parenting is associated with positive child outcomes and this type of parenting style has been widely promoted (Steinberg, Elmen, & Mounts, 1989; Steinberg et al., 1991; Silva, Dorso, Azhar, & Renk, 2007). Despite the fact that research typically suggests that this may be the style of parenting that leads to the most adaptive outcomes, there have been mixed findings with parents from certain ethnic minority groups. Research on parenting style among parents of Mexican-decent has been mixed in terms of the most common parenting style, with some researchers suggesting that the most common parenting style is permissive parenting, some suggesting it is authoritative parenting, and yet others suggesting that it is authoritarian parenting (Chavez, 2008). Chavez (2008) found that parents of Mexican-decent in the United States had higher levels of authoritative parenting style than authoritarian or permissive parenting. In addition, they found that when comparing authoritarian and permissive parenting, these parents were more likely to agree with items that described authoritarian parenting. In contrast, when examining Mexican parents living in Mexico City and parents of Mexican-decent living in the United States (including both MexicanAmerican and Mexican immigrant parents), research has found that parents in the U.S. of Mexican-descent reported more authoritarian parenting than Mexican parents in Mexico and 17 Caucasian-Non-Hispanic parents in the U. S. (Varela, Vernberg, Sanchez-Sosa, Riveros, Mitchell, & Mashunkashey, 2004). No significant differences were found, however, in authoritarian parenting style between Mexican and Caucasian-Non-Hispanic parents. Varela et al. (2004) suggested that these findings raise the possibility that ethnic minority status, as opposed to affiliation with Mexican culture, may relate to the use of a more authoritarian parenting style for families of Mexican descent in the United States. Similarly, although Mexican parents living in Mexico have been found to use authoritarian parenting styles, research suggests that children of Mexican parents rated their parents as being less strict than children of Mexican immigrants living in the United States (Reese, 2002). For these families, it was suggested that the level of perceived danger in the U.S. environments may explain Mexican immigrant parents’ higher levels of control and protective strategies (e.g., limiting children’s friendships and activities, controlling who children played with and where they went) than Mexican parents in Mexico. Studies focusing on Latino parents from other countries have suggested that authoritative parenting practices are found among these parents. Calzada and Eyberg (2002) examined parenting among Dominican and Puerto Rican mothers and found that these mothers reported high levels of positive parenting practices, in line with authoritative parenting, while avoiding harsh and punitive parenting practices. Similarly, in a sample of low income Mexican American, African American, and White American families in Early Head Start programs, results showed that Mexican mothers with high and low levels of acculturation engaged in more parental control, a construct similar to supportive demandingness, during a play task with their 15 monthold children compared to White American and African American mothers (Ispa et al., 2004). 18 Despite this lack of consensus, compared to White parents, Latino parents have been found to use more authoritarian methods of parenting (Julian et al., 1994). As noted above, although authoritative parenting is commonly associated with positive outcomes in children, some have found that this style is not commonly used by Latino parents and other ethnic minorities. For example, in Latino and Asian-American households, authoritative parenting is especially infrequent, with only 12% of Latino and 10% of Asian-American households in a sample exhibiting authoritative parenting (Steinberg et al., 1992). Instead, Latino, Asian, and African American families have been found to be higher on an authoritarian index (Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987), and some research suggests that this type of parenting may be more beneficial for some children, particularly poor minority youth (Baldwin & Baldwin, 1989 as cited in Steinberg, Dornbusch, & Brown, 1992). When conceptualizing authoritarian parenting it is important to note that harsh parenting, such as corporal punishment, an aspect of non-supportive demandingness, may be used as a method of parenting, however, this may be because some Latino parents have not been exposed to other methods of parenting (Parra-Cardona et al., 2008). For example, in a qualitative study with Latino immigrant parents, interest was expressed in learning about and using appropriate forms of limit setting as opposed to corporal punishment. The use of limit setting could still characterize parents as being high in demandingness, as it is related to supportive demandingness. Therefore, when exposed to other methods and forms of parenting, Latino parents may be less likely to adopt harsh parenting behaviors characteristic of non-supportive demandingness. Some research also suggests that the parenting style that is exhibited by parents is dependent on the age of the child (Calzada & Eyberg, 2002; Halgunseth et al., 2006). Specifically, Latino parents may shift from a permissive parenting style with little discipline 19 when children are toddlers to a more authoritarian style when they are older and more cognitively able to adjust to this behavior. Thus, research has shown a positive correlation between mother’s use of corporal punishment and child’s age. This shift in parenting style may begin as early as preschool (Calzada & Eyberg, 2002), but is likely more evident when children are in elementary school. It would be important to examine parenting after this shift, as this is the approach that may characterize parenting during the child’s school years. Early elementary school is also important because of the shift in expectations as children grow older and its relation to other aspects of parenting. Parents with higher expectations of children in terms of their educational attainment in third grade have been found to be more likely to be involved in their children’s school and education (Englund et al., 2004). Even after controlling for prior achievement, children in third grade have been found to have higher achievement when their parents were more involved in their education in third grade. Recent research on Latino families, however, suggests that Latino parents more commonly exhibit a different parenting style that is neither authoritarian nor authoritative (Domenech Rodriguez et al., 2009; Donovick, 2006). In fact, research on first generation Latinos found that the traditional parenting categories only accounted for one third of the parenting styles for these families, with authoritative parenting being exhibited by 31% of the families, authoritarian exhibited by 0% of families and permissive exhibited by 1% of the families (Domenech Rodriguez et al., 2009). These studies specifically examined parenting among Spanish speaking Latino families with a child between the ages of 4 and 9. These families were recruited from a rural area in Utah and included at least one parent who was a first generation immigrant. The majority of the families were of Mexican origin and were two-parent families. Parenting in these studies was examined through observational data in which parents and 20 children participated in four interaction tasks while researchers coded the interactions using the Parenting Style Observation Rating Scale. This coding scheme examined the parenting dimensions of warmth, demandingness, and autonomy granting. The results of these studies suggest that the three traditional categories may not be fully capturing Latino parenting styles, making it important to examine parenting style in terms of the specific dimensions of parenting. Supportive and non-supportive demandingness were both examined in this study, but only the supportive demandingness scale was used to categorize parents into each parenting style. Researchers noted that supportive demandingness better aligned with the conceptualizations of the parenting styles in the literature. When examining the separate dimensions, it was found that the most common style of parenting among this sample of Latinos was protective parenting (61%). This type of parenting is characterized by high warmth, high supportive demandingness, and low autonomy granting. This finding is supported by the fact that other researchers have found that Latino parents are warm and affectionate towards their children despite the fact that they place a strong emphasis on obedience (Julian et al., 1994). Similarly, Mexican-American, Spanish-speaking mothers were found to exhibit a combination of strict or hostile control and acceptance which did not fit within the traditional authoritative model of parenting (Hill et al., 2003). Based on a study that used data from the National Head Start/Public School Early Childhood Transition Demonstration Study, Latino immigrant parents exhibited more responsiveness, nurturance, consistency, and higher parental control than U.S.-born parents (Kelley, 2010). It has also been found that Latino parents demonstrate low non-supportive demandingness and high supportive demandingness (Donovick, 2010). These findings suggest that Latino parents exhibit dimensions of parenting that are characteristic of both authoritative 21 parenting (high warmth, high supportive demandingness, low non-supportive demandingness) and authoritarian parenting (low autonomy granting). Levels of warmth, supportive demandingness, and autonomy granting were similar when comparing Latina mothers and fathers (Domenech Rodriguez et al., 2009). Some differences were found, however, in the dimensions of parenting used with sons and daughters. For example, parents displayed higher levels of supportive demandingness and lower autonomy granting with daughters than sons, although these parent by child gender interactions were not statistically significant. Other researchers have also found gender differences in relation to parenting, however, findings have varied among different populations. For example, when examining Dominican and Puerto Rican mother-child dyads, it was found that Dominican mothers of girls scored significantly higher on democratic parenting while Puerto Rican mothers of girls scored significantly higher on warmth and involvement (Calzada & Eyberg, 2002). Parenting Style and Child Outcomes. Given that Latino parents may not always exhibit authoritative parenting, which is generally regarded as most beneficial for child outcomes, it is important to gain a better understanding of common Latino parenting styles and the relation to child outcomes. Research suggests that parenting styles are related to various child outcomes, including broad measures of school performance and success. For example, authoritative parenting, in general, has been found to positively correlate with adolescent adjustment, academic success, and behavioral and psychological advantages (Silva et al., 2007; Steinberg et al., 1989; Sternberg et al., 1991). Additionally, children and adolescents who described their parents as being authoritative reported greater school engagement, more positive attitudes toward achievement, and doing better in school (Steinberg et al., 1992a; Steinberg, et al., 1992b) than youth with parents having authoritarian or permissive styles. Preschoolers whose parents 22 exhibited supportive demandingness were more likely to display competent and well-adjusted behavior after ten years (Baumrind, 2012). Supportive demandingness also predicted decreased externalizing symptoms and increased achievement among children (Fletcher, Steinberg, & Williams-Wheeler, 2004; Wang et al., 2007). Specific parenting practices that reflect warmth and responsiveness, such as parents providing academic encouragement and talking with their children about important life issues have been found to promote greater school success through more frequent homework completion (Martinez, DeGarmo, & Eddy, 2004). Children and adolescents with authoritarian parents, on the other hand, displayed more maladaptive strategies such as passive behavior and task-irrelevant behavior (Aunola, Stattin, & Nurmi, 2000). Similarly, children who had mothers that exhibited coercive control, or non-supportive demandingness, were more likely to display physical and relational forms of aggression (Nelson & Crick, 2002). Further, non-supportive demandingness has been found to be inversely significantly related to social and cognitive indices of school readiness in low income samples of kindergartners in Head Start (Kleisner Walker & McPhee, 2011). Research findings have been mixed when examining the relation between parenting style and child outcomes among Latinos. In some cases, researchers have found that both White and Latino children were more likely to do better with authoritative parenting on outcomes such as schooling, behavior problems, psychological distress, and psychosocial adjustment (Steinberg et al., 1992a). It was also found that for White and Latino adolescents who perceived their parents to be authoritative, authoritative parenting had a positive association with school achievement. Other research suggests, however, that authoritative parenting does not always mean positive outcomes for ethnic minority populations. For example, a review of the literature indicates that authoritative parenting is associated with student achievement, but that this relation 23 has not been consistent for families of other ethnicities, with various studies finding no associations between these factors (Spera, 2005). Specifically, a relation was found between authoritative parenting and GPA for White families, but not for Latinos, Asian Americans, or African Americans (Dornbusch et al., 1987). Similarly, parental support did not show a direct or indirect relationship with GPA among Latino adolescents (Henry et al., 2008). Additionally, some aspects of authoritative parenting, such as responsiveness and involvement at home, have been found to have some negative effects on achievement test scores among African American elementary school children (Wu & Qi, 2006). Similarly, warmth was found to have a slightly negative influence when predicting change in Latino children’s achievement (Davis-Kean & Sexton, 2009). Additionally, although research has generally found authoritarian parenting behaviors, such as harshness, associated with maladaptive child outcomes, some research suggests that this may not be the case among Latino and Asian American families (Henry et al., 2008; Dumka, Gonzalez, Bonds, & Millsap, 2009; Steinberg, Lamborn, Darling, Mounts, & Dornbusch, 1994). For example, authoritarian parenting was found to be correlated with higher grade point averages (GPA) and academic self-conceptions for Asian-American youth, but with lower scores for White youth (Steinberg et al., 1994). Among Latino immigrant families, parental monitoring showed a direct relationship with academic motivation, which mediated GPA (Henry et al., 2008). When children viewed their parents as exhibiting greater monitoring and control they reported greater academic motivation and higher GPA. Given these mixed findings regarding parenting style and child outcomes among Latino families, it is important to specifically examine how parenting style is related to outcomes that have been found to be important in early childhood. Three areas that are important for school 24 success and school readiness are literacy skills, self-regulation, and social-emotional competence (High, 2008; Eisenberg, Valiente, & Eggum, 2010; Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2000). Early literacy skills, behavioral self-regulation, and social-emotional capacity in elementary school are predictive of later achievement, grades, and school adaptation and attitudes (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Duncan et al., 2007; Ladd et al., 1999; McClelland et al., 2007; Reardon & Galindo, 2009). Research suggests that children who are poorly regulated are at a greater risk for emotional and conduct problems, low achievement, and school dropout (Blair & Diamond, 2008; Duncan et al., 2007). These school readiness skills are important to examine and promote among Latinos because Latino students have been found to lag behind their peers in those areas (Reardon & Galindo, 2009). Latino students often have a weaker understanding of literacy and math concepts and mixed patterns of social-emotional competence compared to White children in early elementary school (Galindo & Fuller, 2010; Reardon & Galindo, 2009). The following sections will examine how literacy skills, self-regulation, and social-emotional competence are each related to parenting styles, and how these relations may differ based on ethnicity, as some research suggests (Crosnoe, 2007; Davis-Kean & Sexton, 2009; Dumka et al., 2009; Henry et al., 2008). Parenting Style and Early Literacy. Maternal warmth and acceptance have been found to be positively related to pre-reading and pre-math performance in a sample of African American and White American children (Hill, 2001). Similarly, in a low-income sample of prekindergarteners, letter word scores and vocabulary were found to be higher when parents used more supportive parenting during play at 14 months (Chazan-Cohen et al., 2009). Higher vocabulary scores were also associated with increasingly supportive parenting over time. This study included a sample with ethnic variability but did not examine whether there were ethnic 25 differences in these findings. Research focusing on authoritarian aspects of parenting found that hostile parenting and socialization strategies were associated with lower pre-reading and premath scores (Hill, 2001). Overall, these findings suggest that when examining parenting style and literacy skills without taking ethnicity into account, aspects of authoritative parenting, such as warmth, acceptance, and support are associated with higher early literacy skills in children while aspects of authoritarian parenting, such as hostile parenting, are associated with lower early literacy skills. Ethnic Differences in Parenting Style and Early Literacy. Research on the effects of parenting style on literacy skills are limited, particularly when examining the role of ethnicity. The majority of studies in this area have examined academic achievement and GPA and have not focused on literacy skills. In general, research suggests that there may be ethnic differences in the effects of parenting practices on academic achievement (Hong & Ho, 2005). This was found when aspects of involvement were examined among a sample of 8th grade students and their families. Aspects of involvement included in this study were communication, parental educational aspiration, parental participation, and parental supervision. Among Asian American students, parental participation had positive effects on student learning and growth. These effects were also found at follow-up, two and four years later. Parental participation was not found to be related to student learning or achievement among individuals from other ethnic groups. Findings also showed that parental educational aspiration was positively related to student achievement for African American, Asian American, and White students. These findings persisted at two and four year follow-ups among White students. For African Americans, it was also found that parental supervision was positively related to student achievement at two and four year follow ups. Finally, parental communication was positively associated with achievement for White, 26 Asian American, and Latino students, but this persisted over time only for White students. These findings suggested that the specific aspects of parenting that were positively related to achievement varied by ethnicity. Research that specifically focuses on parenting style and academic achievement among Latinos is mixed. Specifically examining warmth, some research reports a positive relation between warmth and academic outcomes among Latinos. Warmth predicted early school performance in Latino students, similar to findings among White students (Baker, 2010). Specific parenting practices that reflect warmth and responsiveness, including parent support and encouragement, and home involvement in school, have also been found to predict higher academic achievement among Latinos (Arellano & Padilla, 1996; Ceballo, 2004; Ruiz, 2009). Having at least one parent who is involved in a child’s schooling and who supports education is related to Latino students’ higher academic achievement (Ruiz, 2009). Similarly, parental engagement in a Latino student’s academic life was found to predict higher reading and math scores in youth (Eamon, 2005). Contrary to the above findings, however, warmth has also been found to negatively predict Latino children’s achievement (Davis-Kean & Sexton, 2009). Some research has even suggested that certain aspects of parenting were not related to children’s academic outcomes among Latinos. For example, parental school involvement was not related to academic outcomes among Mexican adolescents (Dumka et al., 2009). Similarly, Henry et al. (2008) found that parent support had neither a direct nor indirect relationship with GPA. Finally, examining authoritarian parenting practices and adolescent academic outcomes in Mexican adolescents, Dumka et al. (2009) found that there was a positive association between mothers’ harshness and girls’ higher school grades. 27 Overall, research on academic outcomes that takes ethnicity into account suggests that there are ethnic differences in the aspects of parenting that are related to positive academic outcomes among children. Additionally, although authoritative parenting is traditionally associated with positive outcomes, findings are mixed when examining Latino children. Authoritarian parenting is traditionally associated with negative outcomes in children, however some studies suggest that there may be positive outcomes for some Latinos. Findings that examine early literacy skills are very limited. Parenting Style and Self-Regulation. Self-regulation is a vital process that enables children to follow directions and maintain attention and can be defined as the ability to control and monitor behavior, emotions, or thoughts and to make changes based on situational demands (Kopp, 1982; McClelland et al., 2007). It involves various components of executive function that may include working memory, inhibitory control, and attentional focusing (Cameron Ponitz et al., 2009). Working memory consists of maintaining and manipulating information cognitively. Inhibitory control is a component that helps children prevent or modify incorrect responses. Finally, attentional focusing involves selecting and attending to relevant information. Selfregulation is an important school readiness factor because self-regulation overall, and each of the components that make up self-regulation positively predict achievement (Blair & Razza, 2007; McClelland et al., 2007). Given that self-regulation plays an important role in school adaptation and later academic achievement, it is crucial to examine the role that parents play in the development of children’s self-regulation. Overall, research suggests that self-regulation is related to parent’s autonomy support (Pino-Pasternak & Whitebread, 2010; Grolnick & Ryan, 1989). In a meta-analysis that examined parenting practices and the role of these practices on children’s self-regulated learning, 28 it was found that challenge, contingency, and autonomy were especially important in children’s development of self-regulated learning (Pino-Pasternak & Whitebread, 2010). Specifically, it was found that challenge, which referred to parents’ encouragement of metacognitive talk, was related to aspects of children’s self-regulation including more sophisticated planning behaviors and approaches to problem-solving. Contingency referred to parental attentiveness to children’s cognitive and emotional needs. This parenting behavior has been associated with the development of adaptive motivational patterns in children. With respect to autonomy, in a sample of elementary school White American students, Grolnick & Ryan (1989) found that autonomy support was consistently related to self-regulation, competence, and adjustment. High autonomy support, which is one of the key features of an authoritative parenting style, was found to positively predict children’s self-regulation in students from intact two-parent families. Additionally, autonomy support was inversely related to acting out and learning problems. Some research however, suggests that parental autonomy support may not be related to self-regulation. In a sample of mainly White preschoolers, no significant relationships were found between parental autonomy support and self-regulation, when self-regulation was measured in terms of behavioral inhibition and emotional self-management (Hindman & Morrison, 2012). When examining supportive parenting, which is also associated with authoritative parenting, research has shown that supportive parenting is positively correlated with emotional regulation. Specifically, in a sample of low-income children, higher levels of emotional regulation were found to be associated with higher ratings of supportive parenting during play at 14 months (Chazan-Cohen et al., 2009). Other aspects of authoritative parenting have also been examined in relation to self-regulation. Children’s perceptions of their parents being loving, responsive and involved were found to be the most important aspects of parenting with respect to 29 self-regulation in a sample of Australian adolescents, when compared to parental autonomy granting and strictness (Purdie, Carroll, and Roche, 2004). When looking specifically at dimensions of authoritative parenting, including acceptance/involvement, strictness/supervision, and autonomy granting, it was found that involvement behaviors predicted the academic and non-academic self-regulation of Australian adolescents (Purdie, Carroll, & Roche, 2004). Structure, which can be associated with both authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles, has also been studied in relation to children’s self-regulation. When structure was measured by whether parents had consistent guidelines and expectations, it was not related to children’s self-regulation (Grolnick & Ryan, 1989). When examining structure in terms of parent’s management and discipline, however, these aspects of parenting were positively correlated to preschool children’s self-regulation and cooperation (Hindman & Morrison, 2012). The correlation between parent’s management and discipline and children’s self-regulation suggests that children are able to internalize techniques to manage their own actions when they have rules that give them opportunities to consider their actions. Similarly, through a metaanalysis of self-regulation and parenting, it was found that parental control was also correlated with the development of motivational aspects of self-regulation (Pino-Pasternak & Whitebread, 2010). Taken together, research regarding self-regulation and parenting style indicates that autonomy supportive parenting is generally associated with better self-regulation skills, with some exceptions. Additionally, findings were mixed as to whether parental structure and discipline are related to self-regulation, with some studies finding no direct relationship and others finding a significant relationship. 30 Ethnic Differences in Parenting Style and Self-Regulation. The development of selfregulation has primarily been studied in White samples (LeCuyer et al., 2011). Therefore, there is limited research that examines the role that ethnicity plays in the relation between parenting style and self-regulation. Some of the existing research suggests that there are ethnic differences in this relationship. When examining the effect of maternal attitudes and limit setting strategies on three-year-old’s self-regulation among African American and White mothers, some ethnic differences were found (LeCuyer et al., 2011). First, African American mothers reported significantly more authoritarian attitudes than White mothers. Additionally, ethnicity was found to moderate the relation between maternal authoritarian attitudes and children’s committed compliance, a measure of self-regulation. Specifically, among White families, increased authoritarian attitudes predicted decreased self-regulation, but increased authoritarian attitudes predicted greater self-regulation among African American families. In sum, although authoritative parenting has been found to be related to greater self-regulation in general, these findings suggest that authoritarian parenting may be positively associated with greater selfregulation for African American samples compared to other racial or ethnic groups. Research on this is limited, however, and additional studies are needed. Parenting Style and Social-Emotional Competence. Research suggests that aspects of parenting style, such as harsh parenting, control strategies, and autonomy support, are related to children’s social-emotional competence (Gordon & Rinaldi, 2010; Stack et al., 2010; Walker & MacPhee, 2008). A meta-analysis that examined the effect of parenting on children’s emotional development found that most research in this area focused on negative parenting which was defined as harsh and hostile parenting practices (Stack et al., 2010). Findings generally suggested that aggressive and negative parenting practices were related to negative behavior and aggressive 31 expressions of emotions in children. Examining another aspect of authoritarian parenting, parents’ use of coercive behavioral control strategies was found to inversely and significantly relate to social domains of school readiness in two separate studies that included ethnically diverse populations (Walker & MacPhee, 2008). Specifically, control was negatively related to social skills and cooperation for children from kindergarten to second grade. Parental control strategies were also found to be positively related to aggression and internalizing behavior whereas parental autonomy supportive strategies were negatively related to internalizing behavior. Similar findings were reported when examining parents and 2-4 year old children except that only mothers’ control and fathers’ autonomy support related to children’s socialemotional competence (Gordon & Rinaldi, 2010). Results suggested that mother’s negative control uniquely predicted children’s social-emotional competence. Specifically, mother’s negative control was positively related to negative child outcomes. Although the above findings suggest that high levels of maternal control are associated with negative social-emotional child outcomes, some research suggests that if low parental control encourages autonomy it can promote children’s social competence because preschooler’s autonomy has been found to be an important characteristic that is related to social adaptive functioning in children (García Coll et al., 1996; NICHD, 2006). Longitudinal data examining parenting behaviors including autonomy support, showed that mothers and teachers rated children as being more socially competent and exhibiting fewer externalizing problem behaviors if they had mothers who were supportive of their autonomy (NICHD, 2006). Additionally, father’s autonomy support has been found to be related to positive child outcomes among parents and their 2-4 year old children (Gordon & Rinaldi, 2010). Mother’s responsiveness, another aspect of authoritative parenting, has also been found to be related to positive social-emotional 32 outcomes in young children (Landry, Smith, & Swank, 2006). Specifically, observations of mother-infant pairs revealed that when mothers received an intervention to increase responsiveness, infants displayed improvements in social, affective, and communication skills with moderate to strong effect sizes. Infants were also found to be more cooperative as mother’s responsive caregiving increased. Similar to findings on parenting style and literacy skills, when ethnicity is not taken into account, the findings on social-emotional competence suggest that aspects of authoritative parenting, such as autonomy support and responsiveness, are related to positive social-emotional outcomes in children, while aspects of parenting typically associated with authoritarian parenting, such as negative and aggressive parenting are related to negative social-emotional outcomes. Ethnic Differences in Parenting Style and Social-Emotional Competence. Findings regarding the associations between authoritarian parenting and social-emotional outcomes in children of various ethnicities has been mixed (Gershoff, 2002; Gonzalez, Pitts, Hill, & Roosa, 2000; Whiteside-Mansell et al., 2009). Results from a meta-analysis suggest that in some studies, corporal punishment was positively associated with aggression for White children, but negatively or not significantly associated with aggression for African American children (Gershoff, 2002). Similarly, hostile control was not correlated with children’s conduct problems or depression in a sample of mainly Latino and African American children (Gonzalez et al., 2000). Other studies cited in the meta-analysis, however, suggest that the effects of corporal punishment on children may not be moderated by race or ethnicity, with corporal punishment predicting more antisocial behavior among White and minority children, for example (Gershoff, 2002). Similarly, in a study of 3-5 year old children from various ethnic backgrounds, parenting behaviors were found to be 33 similar for White Americans and African Americans in how they predicted children’s social development (Whiteside-Mansell et al., 2009). For White American and African American families, the use of corporal punishment was related to lower social skills and more child problem behaviors. For Latino families, the use of corporal punishment was also found to have a link to developmental outcomes, however compared to the other ethnicities it had the weakest link with developmental outcomes. In sum, the findings are mixed when examining authoritarian parenting style and social-emotional outcomes in children while taking ethnicity into account. When examining aspects of authoritative parenting, research suggests that authoritative parenting practices are associated with positive social-emotional outcomes for children of various ethnicities. For example, maternal responsiveness was found to be an important predictor of greater social skills and fewer externalizing problem behavior among White and African American families (Whiteside-Mansell et al., 2009). These results are similar to previously cited findings that suggest that aspects of authoritative parenting are related to positive socialemotional outcomes. Examining aspects of both authoritative and authoritarian parenting, Spanish-speaking Mexican Americans have been found to use a combination of hostile control and acceptance, aspects of both authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles (Hill et al., 2003). This study found that maternal acceptance was negatively related to conduct problems in children and hostile control was positively associated with maternal acceptance for Spanish-speaking Mexican Americans. Findings suggested that high levels of acceptance may mitigate the negative effects of hostile control on conduct problems. Summary. Taken together, these findings suggest that there may be ethnic differences in parenting style as well as in the relations between parenting style and child outcomes. First, the 34 parenting style exhibited by Latino parents may be better understood if the parenting dimensions of warmth, demandingness, and autonomy granting are taken into consideration. Examining parenting style among Latinos in this way suggests that an alternative parenting style, protective parenting, may capture parenting among Latinos more appropriately. Second, although authoritative parenting is typically linked to positive child outcomes, research that includes Latino families has been mixed and indicates that aspects of both authoritative and authoritarian parenting may be associated with positive academic outcomes in children. Further, research examining the relation between protective parenting, which includes characteristics of both authoritative and authoritarian parenting, and child outcomes has not been found. Additionally, ethnic differences have been found in the relations between parenting styles and self-regulation, early literacy skills, and social-emotional competence, however findings that include Latino families in relation to these ethnic differences are limited. It is important to further examine these variables among Latinos because self-regulation, early literacy skills, and social-emotional skills are predictors of later school achievement (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Ladd et al., 1999; McClelland et al., 2007). Additionally, limited research examines ethnic differences in the relationship between parenting style and children’s school readiness outcomes. Considering that parents play a crucial role in children’s development and early school performance it would be beneficial to further examine the relationship between these variables among Latino families. Given that the type of parenting style that characterizes Latino parents seems to differ from that of other racial/ethnic groups and that research suggests that there may be ethnic differences in the relation of parenting style to school readiness skills, it may be beneficial to consider aspects unique to Latinos that may account for these differences. In order to better capture parenting styles among Latinos and better understand the effect of Latino parents on 35 school readiness outcomes in children, specific cultural factors that may characterize these individuals may help to explain the effects of these parenting approaches. Cultural Factors Considering relevant cultural factors is one way to obtain a more accurate understanding of the role of Latino parents in their children’s learning. Cultural factors that are associated with parenting and that are particularly relevant for Latinos are Latino cultural values and acculturation. Research suggests that Latinos have unique cultural values and that these values may influence parenting practices and the way in which parents socialize their children (Halgunseth et al., 2006). For example, Latina mothers have been found to value loyalty, obedience, and respect more than White American mothers, who tend to value independence, autonomy, and assertiveness in young children (Gonzalez, Ramos, Zayas, & Coehn, 1998; Julian et al, 1994). Because of these differences in values, it is likely that the normative parenting practices and optimal child outcomes that have been found for White American children may not be generalizable to Latinos (Calzada, et al. 2010). These differences suggest that it is important to examine parenting behaviors and their effects of child outcomes from a cultural perspective (Calzada & Eyberg, 2002). Latino Cultural Values. As stated at the beginning of the literature review, there is much within group variability among Latinos, but research suggests that Latinos share a common set of values (Bernal & Domenech Rodriguez, 2009; Raffaelli & Ontai, 2004). These cultural values may be relevant to the differences found in parenting and child outcomes. Two important values for Latinos are familismo and respeto. Familismo. Familismo focuses on interdependence, family closeness, and cohesion (Halgunseth et al., 2006). It is a value that places an emphasis on feelings of loyalty and 36 reciprocity toward the family and strong identification with the family (Lugo-Steidel & Contreras, 2003). Two types of familismo have been identified in the research. Attitudinal familismo refers to feelings of solidarity, loyalty, and reciprocity toward family members (Whiteside-Mansell et al., 2009). Attitudinal familismo is made up of four components, including belief in family reciprocity, belief in familial honor, belief that family comes before the individual, and familial interconnectedness (Calzada, 2010). A second type of familismo, behavioral familismo, is made up of behaviors that reflect these beliefs such as shared finances, shared daily activities, shared living, shared childrearing, and immigration. Studies suggest that familismo is a protective factor for Latinos (Donovick, 2010). Ethnographies of 12 Latina mothers were examined in relation to familismo. The majority of these mothers were foreign-born and spoke Spanish. Qualitative data revealed support for the four components of attitudinal familismo as well as behavioral familismo (Calzada, 2010). Five themes emerged from these data in relation to how familismo manifests in everyday life among Latinos. The five themes included shared finances, shared living, shared daily activities, shared childrearing, and immigration. These findings suggest that familismo is found in everyday life of Latinos and that it can affect family functioning. Familismo is also important because it has been associated with higher academic achievement, lower levels of alcohol and substance abuse among Latinos in the US, and positive health outcomes (Chavez, 2008). Additionally, familismo is associated with increased parental monitoring, increased peer social relationships, less highrisk behavior, and less adolescent depression (Donovick, 2010). Respeto. Respeto is another value that has been found to be shared among Latinos. It emphasizes respect for authority, hierarchy in social relationships, and obligation (Phinney, Ong, & Madden, 2000; Raffaelli & Ontai, 2004). Respeto is also based on obedience toward authority 37 and helps in maintaining harmony within an extended family. Further, respeto can be thought of as the maintenance of interpersonal relationships that are harmonious (Halgunseth et al., 2006). This is done through respect for self and others. Respeto can be seen among Latino parents through their high expectations for obedience from their children (Ortiz & Plunkett, 2003). Examining respeto, Calzada et al. (2010) conducted focus groups with 48 Dominican and Mexican mothers of children between the ages of 2 and 6. The mothers in this study indicated that they viewed Americans as being more independent and giving their children greater independence. This included letting children do what they want, being more child-centric, and being more liberal in their thinking. These Latina mothers, however, viewed themselves as granting less independence and not communicating as openly with their children. Instead of promoting independence, these mothers emphasized the importance of family and the role of extended family serving as social and emotional support. Specifically focusing on respeto, behavioral manifestations of respeto were reflected in four domains including, obedience/conformity to authority, decorum, deference, and public behavior. For these mothers, expecting their children to follow and accept rules without question is an important aspect of obedience. Expectations are also held of their children, for appropriate behaviors for social interaction, for behavior in public situations, and for courtesy that is offered to elders. Latino Cultural Values and Parenting. Familismo and respeto are important values for Latino families and have been examined in relation to parenting (Donovick, 2010). Latino cultural values have been found to play a role in shaping parenting practices and predicting parenting behaviors among Latinos (Cruz-Santiago & Ramirez Garcia, 2011; Whiteside-Mansell et al., 2009). Research has found that aspects of authoritative and authoritarian parenting are associated with familismo (Calzada, 2010; Donovick, 2010). Examining non-supportive 38 demandingness, which is characterized by control and insistence on strict obedience, it was found that non-supportive demandingness has a significant positive relationship with familismo for foreign-born Latina mothers (Donovick, 2010). It was suggested that this finding may indicate that Latino families with strong familismo may be trying to preserve their Latino cultural values. Because of this, they may engage in parenting practices that are directive and emphasize child obedience and parental authority. Other studies report that familismo was related to aspects of supportive demandingness such as parental monitoring and increased limit setting (Ramirez et al., 2004; Romero & Ruiz, 2007). Examining warmth and responsiveness, Dominican and Puerto Rican mothers were found to exhibit high levels of parental warmth and responsiveness with their young children (Calzada, 2010). It was suggested that this positive mother-child relationship may reflect familismo because of the reciprocity and reciprocal relationship between family members. This study included both foreign-born and U.S.-born mothers. Similarly, research suggests that the types of parenting behaviors that are exhibited by Latino parents are associated with their level of respeto (Calzada et al., 2010; Calzada, 2010). Puerto Rican and Dominican mothers described discipline as consistent and firm, using strict parenting strategies (Calzada, 2010). This study suggests that these parenting strategies may be used to teach young children respeto. In support of this idea research suggests that when strategies that reflect an authoritarian parenting style are examined through the lens of Latino culture, these strategies seem to reflect the goal of teaching children the value of respeto (Dornbusch et al., 1987). Similar results were found in focus groups with Dominican-born, Mexican-born, and U.S.-born Dominican mothers. Findings suggested that Latino parents select specific parenting practices to teach children behavioral expectations that reflect cultural values (Calzada et al., 2010). For example, some mothers indicated that harsh parenting practices, such 39 as corporal punishment, were necessary for their children to learn respeto and to reinforce socialization messages related to obedience without asking questions, instead of choosing another parenting practice like reasoning. Some research shows, however, that harsh parenting practices may be used because Latino parents have not been exposed to other methods of parenting (Parra-Cardona et al., 2008), and suggest that these parents are less likely to adopt harsh parenting practices when provided with alternative methods of authoritarian parenting. Other research related to cultural values found that Puerto Rican mothers placed greater emphasis on childrearing strategies that directly guided their children’s learning experience, and thus emphasizing a sense of interpersonal obligation (Harwood, Schoelmerich, Schulze, & Gonzalez, 1999). On the other hand, White American mothers placed greater emphasis on strategies that indirectly structured children’s learning experiences, in turn optimizing the child’s personal choice and sense of autonomy. Acculturation. Another cultural factor that may help explain the effects of Latino parenting on children’s learning outcomes is acculturation (Glass & Owen, 2010). Acculturation is the change that people go through when they are part of or are in contact with another culture (Williams & Berry, 1991). In the past, acculturation was usually viewed as a unidimensional construct in which individuals either identify with their own culture or with the host culture (Pawliuk et al., 1996; Schwartz, Zamboanga, Hernandez Jarvis, 2007). It was conceptualized as a continuum ranging from retaining the values of the culture of origin to acquiring the values of the receiving-culture (Schwartz et al., 2007). This conceptualization, however, did not leave any room for identifying with both cultures. Therefore, as opposed to a linear process in which an individual has to give up their culture of origin and assimilate to a new culture, a twodimensional process provides a better understanding of the process of acculturation (Berry 1997, 40 Pawliuk et al., 1996; Phinney, Horenczyk, Liebkind, & Vedder, 2001). Through the twodimensional process, individuals can identify with components of their own ethnic cultures as well as with the host culture. When using this view, identifying with one culture does not mean that one cannot identify with the other. Instead, the two dimensions can vary independently. As part of the two-dimensional process of acculturation, there are four acculturation strategies that have been used to categorize individual’s acculturation status (Berry 1997; Berry, Kim, Minde & Mok, 1987; Gamst et al., 2002). The first style is assimilation, which suggests that individuals may reject their original culture and only accept participation in larger society. Integration, on the other hand, allows for retention of the identity of the culture of origin along with participation in larger society. This style may also be referred to as bicultural. The third type of acculturation, separation, involves having an individual retain their own cultural identity and reject the host culture. Finally, marginalization involves rejecting both the culture of origin and the host culture. Some research suggests that there are problems with this two-dimensional approach to the process of acculturation (Schwartz, Unger, & Zamboanga, 2010). One problem with the approach is that it seems to have an arbitrary cut point between high and low levels of each dimension that is used to create the four categories. Another problem is that in some populations or samples, some of the categories may not exist or may have multiple subtypes. Finally, another issue with the bi-dimensional approach is that the marginalization category has been questioned in terms of its validity. Recent research also suggests that it is important to understand the context in which acculturation occurs in order to fully understand acculturation. An expanded multidimensional model of acculturation that includes demographic and contextual forces that may play a role in the acculturation process has been described by Schwartz et al. (2010). This 41 integrative approach suggests that acculturation represents changes in cultural identity, which is represented by cultural practices, values, and identifications. Acculturation would have different components for these dimensions for both heritage and receiving cultures, making acculturation more complex than a singular process. The six components of acculturation proposed for this model include practices, values, and identifications of both the heritage and receiving culture. Each of these processes may change at different rates, if at all. This integrative approach to acculturation will be used for this study. Acculturation and Parenting. Research on acculturation and aspects of parental engagement has found that fathers who retained their native culture and had high heritage acculturation, reported that they were more involved with their children’s lives (Glass & Owen, 2010). When only measuring linguistic acculturation, which is an aspect of cultural practices, fathers who spoke some or mostly English and had higher acculturation to the receiving culture in terms of cultural practices, had more positive perceptions of their child’s school as well as more positive contact with their teachers when compared to fathers who only spoke Spanish (Lopez, 2007). Fathers who were less acculturated to the receiving culture in terms of cultural practices and only spoke Spanish had lower levels of direct school involvement than fathers who had more language acculturation to the receiving culture. Regardless of linguistic acculturation status, however, fathers were found to be involved in home activities. These findings suggest that the way a father is involved in his child’s education may differ based on acculturation level. Studies directly examining parenting style have found that level of acculturation is correlated with parenting style, particularly among immigrants (Acevedo, 2000). These studies do not typically examine the three components of acculturation of practices, values, and identifications, with some using a uni-dimensional view of acculturation and others using the 42 two-dimensional approach. Among parents of Mexican descent, high levels of warmth and low levels of control, also known as permissive parenting, were associated with higher levels of acculturation to the U.S. culture (Chavez, 2008). In this study, acculturation to the U.S. culture was not found to significantly predict authoritative or authoritarian parenting styles. Parents who were acculturated to Mexican culture, however, were found to be more likely to endorse an authoritarian parenting style. Calzada and Eyberg (2002) only examined warmth and involvement and found that Puerto Rican and Dominican mothers with high acculturation to American culture, as measured by language use, media, and ethnic social relations, displayed more warmth and involvement with children. Although many of these studies divide acculturation by receiving and heritage culture, they do not examine the six specific components of the acculturation process that were included in the expanded multidimensional model of acculturation suggested by Schwartz et al. (2010). More research, therefore, is needed on acculturation using this model, as well as more research examining the relationship between acculturation, parenting, and cultural values using this model of acculturation. Acculturation and Cultural Values. Research suggests that not only are cultural values and acculturation related to parenting styles, but they are also related to each other. Specifically related to respeto, some research suggests that the extent to which respeto is valued depends on one’s level of acculturation (Delgado-Gaitan, 1993; Phinney et al., 2000). Supporting this idea, it was found that U.S.-born Mexican American mothers and immigrant Mexican mothers promoted different behaviors related to cultural values (Okagaki & Sternberg, 1993). Specifically, immigrant mothers favored rule following, a characteristic of obedience and respeto, whereas U.S.-born Mexican American mothers favored autonomous behavior, a mainstream U.S. American value. Similarly, among Mexican college students with young children, those with a 43 strong Mexican identity and low levels of acculturation to the receiving culture were more likely to promote Latino cultural values such as respeto, obediencia, and simpatia (Romero, Cuellar, & Roberts, 2000). Contrary to the previous findings, however, parents who were less acculturated to the receiving culture also emphasized values from both Latino and US. American culture, not just from the Latino culture. Also, contrary to the above findings, based on qualitative data from focus groups, respeto was found to be important for immigrant Mexican, immigrant Dominican, and U.S.-born Dominican mothers, even though there were acculturation differences (Calzada et al., 2010). All mothers were found to have high heritage acculturation. Immigrant mothers had moderate to low acculturation to the receiving culture and U.S.-born mothers were high in both. Focusing on familismo, some research has found that familismo was high among Mexican families regardless of level of acculturation (Rueschenberg & Buriel, 1989; Whiteside-Mansell et al., 2009). Specifically, research suggests that acculturation has been found to have little effect on familismo, with this value being important despite acculturation differences (WhitesideMansell et al., 2009). When assessed through language usage, emphasis on familismo as measured by familial support was also unrelated to acculturation (Sabogal et al., 1987). Additionally, attitudinal familismo was found to be common among Latinos from various backgrounds. When measuring other aspects of familismo, however, such as, using family as referents, making sacrifices for family members, and emphasizing obligation, there was a negative association between familismo and acculturation. Summary. Overall, research suggests that the Latino cultural values of familismo and respeto are values that are common among the Latino population (Bernal & Domenech Rodriguez, 2009; Raffaelli & Ontai, 2004). The extent to which parents emphasize these cultural values, however, may depend on the level of parent’s acculturation (Delgado-Gaitan, 1993; 44 Phinney et al., 2000). Some studies find that Latino parents highly value familismo and respeto regardless of acculturation status, while other studies suggest that immigrant mothers and mothers with lower acculturation to the receiving culture and higher acculturation to the heritage culture place more emphasis on familismo and respeto (Romero et al., 2000; Sabogal et al., 1987; Whiteside-Mansell et al., 2009). Taken together, research shows that cultural values and acculturation are related to parenting practices (Chavez, 2008; Donovick, 2010; Dornbusch et al., 1987). Latino parents seem to exhibit parenting practices to teach their children important Latino cultural values. Additionally, parents with lower acculturation to the receiving culture in the United States may be involved with their children at home, but less involved in their children’s school, whereas those with higher acculturation to the receiving culture may be more involved in their children’s school. Parents with higher acculturation to the heritage culture have been found to display more authoritarian parenting styles in contrast to those with higher acculturation to the receiving culture, who exhibit either permissive or authoritative parenting styles. Additional research should further examine these relations among Latinos using Schwartz et al.’s (2010) multidimensional model of acculturation. Examining these cultural factors will aid in the understanding of parenting and its role on child outcomes, however, as García Coll et al.’s model of the development of competencies in minority children suggests, there are other variables that are crucial to examine in order to get a more complete picture. Contextual Demands. The above findings suggest that cultural values and acculturation play a role in shaping parenting styles and dimensions, however in some cases there have been mixed findings regarding the extent to which cultural values are emphasized, and the relations between cultural values and parenting, and parenting and acculturation (Calzada, 2010; Chavez, 45 2008; Donovick, 2010; Dornbusch et al., 1987; Delgado-Gaitan, 1993; Parra-Cardona et al., 2008; Phinney et al., 2000). Another important variable from García Coll et al.’s (1996) model, contextual demands, may be important to examine to understand these differences and can help to describe why parents may emphasize certain parenting practices and cultural values, in relation to their acculturation status. Specifically, the context in which a family lives has been found to shape the behavioral expression of cultural values (Falicov, 1998). Additionally, as minority families experience ecological challenges and contextual demands, their cultural values and beliefs may play a role in how they respond to these challenges and be associated with parenting practices that are used to meet those challenges (García Coll et al., 1996). Therefore, examining contextual influences can help in understanding the relationship between parenting, cultural factors, and child outcomes. Various contextual challenges or stressors among Latinos have been found to be related to parenting. In a qualitative study examining low-income Mexican-American immigrants, two contextual challenges identified through focus groups were gangs and neighborhood violence (Cruz-Santiago & Ramirez Garcia, 2011). These contextual challenges affected parenting behaviors, by, for example, increasing the importance of parents strictly monitoring their children’s outdoor activities, particularly in the evening. Examining the context in which a family lives, including neighborhood challenges, allows for the study of the adaptive nature of parenting (Brody & Flor, 1998). For example, a mother may insist on strict obedience to rules if her family lives in a dangerous neighborhood and she believes that her child’s safety is threatened (Kelley, Power, & Wimbusch, 1992). Research that has focused on African American families suggests that parents in these families may adopt parenting practices called “no nonsense parenting” (Brody & Flor, 1998). This type of parenting falls between authoritative and 46 authoritarian parenting styles, with the level of control being greater than in authoritative parenting and the level of warmth being greater than authoritarian parenting. This style is similar to “protective parenting” found among Latinos (Domenech Rodriguez et al., 2009). No nonsense parenting, according to Brody & Flor (1998), is a parenting style that has adapted to contexts that may be dangerous. Parenting styles that have high levels of control and high levels of warmth have been hypothesized to protect children and adolescents from dangerous environments and surroundings as well as involvement in antisocial activities. This type of parenting has also been hypothesized to promote the development of self-regulation. Positive associations have been found between high levels of parental control and vigilance and moderate family openness and academic performance among African American youth (Lee, 1984, 1985). Other contextual stressors that Latino parents, particularly immigrants, may face include acculturation stress and stress related to immigrant status (Parra-Cardona et al., 2012; White, Roosa, Weaver, & Nair, 2009). Acculturative stress, which has also been referred to as "culture shock," refers to the range of effects that may be experienced during acculturation and can include both the positive and adverse effects of acculturation (Berry, 2006). Positive aspects may include new available opportunities, while adverse effects may include anxiety, depression, and discrimination. Latino parents have also indicated that they experienced high levels of stress in relation their immigrant status (Parra-Cardona et al., 2012). During culture-specific sessions that were part of a study involving culturally adapting an intervention, parents reported stressors associated with being an immigrant, including experiences of racial discrimination, being unable to visit their home countries for extended periods of time, work exploitation, and intense economic difficulties. Some of these stressors were related to parenting behaviors, such as less parental involvement in school. Latinos have also been found to experience challenges in relation 47 to language barriers, lack of familiarity with social service systems and school systems, long and stressful working conditions, and fear of immigration authorities, which can play a role in how these parents approach parenting and care for their children (Parra-Cardona et al., 2008). One aspect of context that is important to examine in relation to parenting among Latinos is perceived discrimination because it has been found to play a negative role in parenting (Brody, Chen, Kogan, & Murry, 2008; Gassman-Pines, 2015; Murry et al., 2001; Parra-Cardona et al., 2008; Riina & McHale, 2010). For example, some Latinos report having experienced racial discrimination in the workplace and in educational settings, which has been associated with poorer family functioning and negative parent-child interactions such as less parental warmth, monitoring, communication and reasoning, as well as higher levels of anger, sadness and nervousness (Brody et al., 2008; Murry et al., 2001; Tran, 2014). Studies have found that when Latino fathers experience perceived workplace discrimination, fathers and their children report a more negative parent-child relationship (Riina & McHale, 2010). According to Whitbeck et al., 1997, working conditions and economic stress affect fathers’ parenting, which can also influence children’s sense of self-efficacy. Fathers who have more autonomy and self-direction at work are more likely to display parenting practices that are flexible and allow their children to exchange ideas and opinions. One of the highest reported forms of discrimination however, is discrimination in areas that contribute to socioeconomic status, such as employment hiring and promotion (Kessler et al., 1999), which would relate to negative working conditions and greater economic stress for Latino parents. Perceived discrimination among Mexican-origin adults has also been found to increase generalized distress, depressive symptoms, and psychiatric problems (Gassman-Pines, 2015). Among African Americans, poorer psychological functioning and parent-child relationships were 48 found to be more adversely affected when caregivers reported higher levels of discrimination (Brody et al., 2008; Murry et al., 2001). An association was found between poorer psychological functioning and less nurturant mother-child relationships. For African American mothers, it was also found that perceived discrimination contributed to declines in their use of competencepromoting parenting (Brody et al., 2008). In addition to the negative effect that perceived discrimination may have on parenting, children may be indirectly affected by their parents’ experiences of discrimination through changes in the family context (Bronfenbrenner, 1986). For example, mother’s perceived discrimination has been found to have a negative effect on a child’s health within the first 14 months of the child’s life (Halim, Yoshikawa, & Amodio, 2012). Further, young children’s display of negative behavior is related to parents’ work environments and experiences of discrimination (Gassman-Pines, 2015). Specifically, on days when perceived discrimination was reported by fathers, parents reported higher externalizing behaviors displayed by their children. When mothers experienced discrimination, mothers reported more externalizing and fathers reported more internalizing behaviors by their children. This research suggests that perceived discrimination plays a role in parenting and child outcomes, making it important to examine specifically among Latinos. Given that contextual factors, such as discrimination, were also found to be important as part of García Coll et al.’s (1996) model of development of competencies in minority children, it is important to include contextual stressors when examining Latino children’s school readiness outcomes. Cultural Factors, Parenting and Child Outcomes Research suggests that parenting is associated with children’s school readiness and that Latino cultural values, acculturation, and contextual demands play a role in parenting among 49 Latinos. García Coll et al.’s model of developmental competencies among minority children proposes that these are all important variables to examine in relation to development. Similarly, the culturally informed model of Latino parenting suggests that these constructs are related, however child outcomes were not directly evaluated and this model also does not include contextual demands (Calzada, Fernandez, & Cortes, 2010). It is important to incorporate child outcomes and contextual demands into the study of this framework to better understand how cultural values, acculturation, and contextual demands play a role in the relationship between parenting on child outcomes. No studies have been conducted that concurrently examined cultural values, acculturation, contextual demands, parenting styles, and child outcomes among Latinos. The Current Study Overall, research suggests that the traditional parenting styles may not accurately completely capture parenting among Latinos (Domenech Rodriguez, et al., 2009). Research also indicates that parenting style and dimensions play a role in children’s school readiness, although research is limited among Latinos. Cultural values and acculturation are related to the type of parenting practices displayed among Latinos, which may help to better understand the role of parenting in child outcomes among Latinos (Calzada et al., 2010; Chavez, 2008; Donovick, 2010; Dornbusch et al., 1987). Not only have cultural factors been found to relate to parenting among Latinos, but the context in which these families live also plays an important role in the type of parenting behaviors that are used (Cruz-Santiago & Ramirez Garcia, 2011; Coatsworth, Patin, & Szapocznik, 2002). Given the scarce research addressing all of these constructs, it is difficult to determine how these factors may be uniquely related among Latino parents and the role that Latino parents play in children’s outcomes. Therefore, the current study examined 50 parenting among Latinos to understand whether the conventional styles adequately reflect their practices. Specifically, the dimensions of parenting, warmth, supportive demandingness, nonsupportive demandingness, and autonomy granting, were assessed to obtain a more accurate representation of parenting among Latinos. This study also examined specific cultural factors, such as acculturation, cultural values, and contextual demands, through the lens of García Coll et al.’s (1996) integrative model and Calzada, Fernandez, and Cortes’ (2010) culturally informed model of Latino parenting. These factors were examined because they may help to explain the effects of Latino parenting on child outcomes. Specifically, the current study examined the role of acculturation and cultural values in predicting parenting styles and whether cultural values mediate the effects of acculturation on parenting practices. Additionally, the study explored whether the characteristics of the context in which parenting is situated, i.e., perceived discrimination, predict parenting styles. Finally, the role of parenting style in predicting children’s important learning outcomes (literacy skills, self-regulation, and social-emotional competence) was examined. The specific research questions that were addressed and hypotheses related to each question are found below. Research Questions and Hypotheses 1) What types of parenting styles do Latino parents use? 1a) How is parenting style among Latino parents characterized in terms of the dimensions of warmth, supportive demandingness, non-supportive demandingness and autonomy granting? Hypothesis: Latino parents are expected to be high in warmth, high in supportive demandingness, and medium to low in autonomy granting. They are also expected to be low in non-supportive demandingness. 51 1b) To what extent do Latino parents display authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles? Hypothesis: Latino parents are expected to be characterized by aspects of both authoritative and authoritarian parenting. Specifically, Latino parents will have high levels of warmth and supportive demandingness (authoritative parenting), and medium to low levels of autonomy granting (authoritarian parenting). In contrast to authoritarian parenting, Latino parents are not expected to have high levels of non-supportive demandingness. Therefore, Latino parents are not expected to be fully captured by either authoritative or authoritarian parenting styles. 1c) Is there evidence for protective parenting style among Latino parents? Hypothesis: Protective parenting style, characterized by high warmth, high supportive demandingness, and medium to low autonomy granting, is expected to be found among Latino parents. 1d) Does the parenting style of Latino parents differ by child’s gender? Hypothesis: It is hypothesized that Latino parents will be characterized by protective parenting and will exhibit higher levels of supportive demandingness and lower autonomy granting with daughters than sons. 2) Does parenting style differ by acculturation status among Latino parents? 2a) Do acculturation status and Latino cultural values predict parenting style among Latino parents? Hypothesis: Acculturation status and cultural values are expected to predict parenting style among Latino parents. Latino parents who have high U.S. cultural identity, English competence, and U.S. cultural competence and low culture of origin cultural identity, Spanish competence, and culture of origin cultural competence, are expected to have high warmth, supportive 52 demandingness, and autonomy granting (authoritative parenting). Latino parents with high culture of origin cultural identify, Spanish competence, and culture of origin cultural competence and low U.S. cultural identity, English competence, and U.S. cultural competence are expected to have high warmth, high supportive demandingness, and medium to low autonomy granting (protective parenting). Additionally, Latino parents with high levels of familismo and respeto are expected to be characterized by protective parenting. 2b) If acculturation is predictive of parenting style, is that effect mediated by the importance of/commitment to cultural values (familismo and respeto)? Hypothesis: Familismo and respeto are expected to partially mediate the relation between acculturation (as measured by cultural identity, language competence, and cultural competence) and parenting style. 3) What role does the parenting context play in parenting style? Does perceived discrimination predict parenting style? Hypothesis: Parents who experienced high levels of perceived discrimination are expected to be characterized by authoritarian parenting and exhibit high levels of non-supportive demandingness and low levels of autonomy granting and warmth. 4) Does parenting style predict children’s self-regulation, early literacy, and social-emotional development? Hypothesis: Latino parents with protective parenting (high warmth, moderate to low autonomy granting, and high supportive demandingness) will be associated with higher literacy skills, selfregulation, and social-competence. 53 CHAPTER 3 METHODS Participants Latina mothers or grandmothers (116) and their 6 to 9 year old child (47 girls, 69 boys) participated in the study. The sample was recruited from several community centers and churches that provide services primarily to the Latino community in the Midwest. Leaders (e.g., directors, priests, pastors) at these organizations were contacted by the researcher and invited to support the study by allowing recruitment to take place in their communities. The majority of the individuals who participate in these organizations are Spanish speaking and have the opportunity to be involved in activities with the Latino community through the churches or organizations. For this study, recruitment was restricted to Latina mothers or primary caregivers, and their second or third grade children. Only one mother-child dyad per family was included. To recruit participants, short presentations describing the study took place at community organizations and local churches. Flyers and phone calls were also involved in the recruitment process. After learning about the study, individuals who expressed interest in participating were given the consent form to read and sign. The researcher and/or research assistants were also available to answer questions about the study at the end of the presentations. A total of 116 female caregivers completed and returned the parent questionnaire packet and attended the appointment to complete the child portion of the study. The demographic information reported by these participants is found on Table 1. Of these female caregivers, 2 identified themselves as grandmothers, while the rest (114) identified themselves as mothers. All female caregivers identified as being Latino. Some mothers also identified as European American (1.7%) and (0.9%) African American. The majority of the participants in this study 54 were born outside of the United States (85.3%), with a large number of the participants (69.8%) being from Mexico. Of the mothers who were not born in the United States, most mothers (41.4%) immigrated to the United States when they were 21 or older or between 18 and 20 years old (19.8%). In regards to their generation status, most female caregivers (85.3%) reported that they were 1st generation (not born in the U.S.). The majority of female caregivers (90.5%) also reported that their primary language was Spanish and chose to complete the questionnaire in Spanish (83.6%). Most caregivers (88.8%) completed the questionnaire using the paper version. Of the 116 female caregivers, over half (62.9%) were between 30 and 39 years old. The highest level of education was elementary and/or middle school for 20.7% of caregivers, while 25% completed some high school, 21.6% completed high school or GED, and 17.2% completed some college. The majority of the participants indicated that their religious affiliation was Catholic (67.2%), while 27.6% identified as Protestant. 70.7% reported that they were married. Table 1 Female Caregiver Demographics Characteristics of participants n % Racial/Ethnic group Latino Latino and European American Latino and African American 113 2 1 97 2 1 Highest level of education Elementary School Some High School High School/GED Some College College Post College Courses Graduate Degree Missing 24 29 25 20 12 1 4 1 21 25 22 17 10 1 3 1 55 Table 1 (cont’d) Characteristics of participants n % Country of Birth Mexico U.S. Other Missing 81 17 14 4 70 15 12 3 Age came to US 0-2 3-5 6-10 11-13 14-17 18-20 21+ Born here Missing 1 1 3 4 14 23 48 17 5 1 1 3 3 12 20 41 15 4 Generational Status First Second Third Fourth 99 11 4 2 85 10 3 2 Primary Language Spanish English 105 11 90 10 Age 22-23 24-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 Missing 2 11 32 41 19 7 2 2 2 9 28 35 16 6 2 2 Religious Preference Catholic Protestant Buddhist None Other Missing 78 32 1 2 2 1 67 27 1 2 2 1 56 Table 1 (cont’d) Characteristics of participants n % Marital Status Single Married Separated Divorced Widowed Missing 21 82 6 3 2 2 18 71 5 2 2 2 With respect to child characteristics, 63.8% were currently in or had just completed second grade, while 36.2% were in or had recently finished third grade. Child participants ranged in age from 6 to 9 with a mean age of 7.65 years old. Based on parent report, 59.5% of the children were male and 40.5% were female. The majority of the children (92.2%) were born in the United States. All female caregivers indicated that their children were Latino. 3.4% were also identified as European American and 1.7% as African American. The majority of children (78.4%) completed the reading assessment in English. Over half of the children (67.2%) chose to complete the assent form and the self-regulation task in English. A full breakdown of the demographic information of the child participants is found in Table 2. 57 Table 2 Child Demographics Characteristics of Child Participants Second Grade n % Third Grade % n Grade 74 42 Age Six Seven Eight Nine 1 43 30 0 1.4 58.1 40.5 0 0 1 36 5 0 2.4 85.7 11.9 Gender Male Female 42 32 56.8 43.2 27 15 64.3 35.7 Country of Birth U.S. Mexico Cuba Venezuela 68 5 1 0 91.9 6.8 1.4 0 39 2 0 1 92.9 4.8 0 2.4 Age came to US 0-2 3-5 6-10 Born here 4 1 1 68 5.4 1.4 1.4 91.9 0 0 3 39 0 0 7.1 92.9 Racial/Ethnic group Latino Latino and European American Latino and African American 69 3 2 93.2 4.1 2.7 41 1 0 97.6 2.4 0 Measures Parental Measures. Parenting Style. To measure parenting style and dimensions of parenting, parents and caregivers were administered the Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire (PSDQ). The PSDQ is a measure that allows parents to rate how applicable statements are that describe parenting behaviors (Robinson, Mandleco, Frost Olsen, & Hart, 58 1995). A shortened version of the PSDQ was used for this study that included 27 items focusing on mother’s behaviors (Calzada & Eyberg, 2002). The questions use a 5-point Likert scale format, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). The original PSDQ has 11 subscales whereas the 27-item version included the six subscales that measured specific dimensions of parenting, including: warmth and support, regulation, autonomy granting, physical coercion, verbal hostility, and non-reasoning/punitive (Robinson et al. 2001). The dimensions of warmth and support and autonomy granting were used to assess the parenting dimensions of warmth and autonomy granting discussed in the literature (Baumrind, 2012). When comparing the remaining subscales, the items from the regulation dimension aligned well with the parenting dimension of supportive demandingness. The subscales that fell into the Authoritarian scale (physical coercion, verbal hostility, and non-reasoning/punitive) aligned well with non-supportive demandingness (Baumrind, 2012; Donovick, 2010). Therefore, to measure non-supportive demandingness, a composite score was created based on the mean of those three subscales. This measure had a Cronbach’s alpha of .91 for the Authoritative scale and .86 for the Authoritarian scale for the English version (Robinson et al., 2001). This measure has been translated into Spanish and backtranslated by two pairs of translators (Calzada & Eyberg, 2002). The Spanish scale has a Cronbach’s alpha of .79 for the Authoritative scale and .69 for the Authoritarian scale. The Authoritative scale was not used for this study, rather the subscales that make up the scale were used to measure three dimensions of parenting, and the Authoritarian scale was used to measure the fourth dimension of parenting. Cronbach’s alpha for this study was .71 for the dimension of warmth, .73 for the dimension of supportive demandingness, .78 for the dimension of non-supportive demandingness, and .69 for the dimension of autonomy granting. 59 The scales and subscales were developed through factor analyses with items retained in the scales if they had a loading near or greater than .30 (Robinson, Mandleco, Frost Olsen, & Hart, 1995). This factor analysis was conducted with a sample of mainly White American parents, however. Therefore, the patterns of these items and how they fit into subscales and scales is not clear among Latinos. Consequently, the dimensions of parenting were examined to identify patterns of parenting that characterize Latinos. The subscales yielded composite scores that are the means of the items that comprise each subscale. To examine high, moderate, and low levels of each parenting dimension, the data were split based on the Likert scale ratings. Dichotomizing or trichotomizing data is in line with previous parenting research (Baumrind, 1991; Donovick, 2006; Schaefer, 1965, Steinberg et al., 1992a; Monaghan Horn, Alvarez, Cogen, & Streisand, 2012) in which parents are placed into categories for each dimension of parenting. In order to do this, a new variable was created for each dimension of parenting that classified parents as high, moderate, or low based on the subscale score for each dimension. Classifications corresponded to score ranges on the Likert scale on the PSDQ. Specifically, mean scores on each dimension of 1 to 2, which corresponded with ratings of “never” and “once in a while,” were considered low, scores between 3 and 4, which corresponded with ratings of “about half the time,” were considered moderate, and scores between 4 and 5, which corresponded with ratings of “very often” and “always,” were considered high. For example, if a female caregiver's subscale score on warmth was 4.78, she would be classified as “high” in warmth. This split data were solely used to determine the frequency of high, moderate, and low levels of parenting dimensions and were not used for subsequent analyses. 60 Parental Acculturation. The Abbreviated Multidimensional Acculturation Scale (AMAS) was used to measure parental acculturation. This scale measures U.S. American culture and the individual’s culture of origin (Zea, Asner-Self, Birman, & Buki, 2003). Three factors associated with acculturation were measured for both American culture and culture of origin: identity, language competence, and cultural competence. These factors align well with the integrative approach to acculturation that breaks acculturation down into six components that make up cultural identity, including cultural practices, values, and identifications (Schwartz et al., 2010). Identity includes items that appear to measure cultural identifications, language competence appears to measure an aspect of cultural practices, and cultural competence is a measure of cultural values. The AMAS is a 42-item Likert scale with responses ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (4) on items 1-12 and from not at all (1) to extremely well (4) on items 12-42. Item scores were averaged to create subscale scores that ranged from 1 to 4. These subscales correspond to the six dimensions of acculturation introduced by Schwartz et al., (2010). Higher scores on these subscales indicated greater U.S. or heritage culture acculturation in each specific area. The AMAS is available in English and in Spanish. The Cronbach’s alpha for the AMAS ranges from .90-.97 for the subscales. Typically, U.S. and heritage culture dimensions, as well as the interaction between U.S. and heritage culture orientation are computed as separate dimensions (Rudmin, 2006). For this study, however, only the six subscales were used as they are best aligned with an integrative approach to acculturation. The reliability for these subscales in the current study was .945 for U.S. cultural identity, .940 for culture of origin cultural identity, .985 for English competence, .940 for Spanish competence, .929 for U.S. cultural competence, and .911 for culture of origin cultural competence. 61 Perceived Discrimination. As a measure of the contextual demands that parents face, perceived discrimination was assessed. The Everyday Discrimination Scale (EDS) was used to measure perceived discrimination (Williams, Yu, Jackson, & Anderson, 1997). The EDS is a 9item scale that examines chronic experiences of unfair treatment that happen day to day. This measure asks participants how often each item happens to them, on a six-point Likert scale with response categories ranging from never (1) to almost every day (6). Responses were summed to form a composite ranging from 9 to 54, with higher scores reflecting more frequent discrimination. This measure has been used with individuals of various ethnic backgrounds, including Latinos and has shown high levels of validity and reliability in diverse sample (Taylor, Kamarck, & Shiffman, 2004). In a sample of African Americans internal consistency on the EDS was .80 (Taylor et al., 2004; Krieger, Smith, Naishadham, Hartman, & Barbeau, 2005). The EDS was found to be significantly associated with the Diary of Ambulatory Behavioral States which examines emotional activation, environmental stressors, and social interactions. In particular, it was associated with mean reports of Negative Affect (r=.37) and Social Conflict (r=.30). The Everyday Discrimination Scale was also found to be significantly associated with the Perceived Stress Scale (r=.39), which measures global reports of perceived stress, and Beck’s Depression Inventory (r=.35). When examining discrimination among African American and Latino participants, statistically significant correlations were found between the EDS and the Experiences of Discrimination scale (r=.56) (Krieger et al., 2005). It was also reported that the EDS had a Cronbach’s alpha of .88. For this sample, the reliability was .882. Familismo. The strength of parents’ value of familismo were measured with the Familismo Scale (Lugo-Steidel & Contreras, 2003). This 18-item, 10-point Likert self-report scale is available in both English and Spanish. This 10-point Likert scale ranged from strongly 62 disagree (1) to strongly agree (10). A total familismo score was obtained by averaging the 18 items with resulting scores ranging from 1 to 10. The Familismo Scale measured attitudinal values in relation to cohesion and family loyalty. The overall Cronbach's alpha been reported as .83 (Lugo-Steidel & Contreras, 2003). In this study, the reliability was .78. Respeto. The strength of parents’ value of respeto was measured using the Respeto Scale (Donovick, 2010). The Respeto Scale was designed for parents with children between the ages of 4 and 9. This 10-item 6-point Likert scale was developed from theoretical constructs in the literature and was adapted from existing measures of respeto. The Cronbach's alpha reported in previous studies was .84 and in this study was .82. The scale ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (6). A total respeto score was obtained by calculating the mean of the 10 items, with scores ranging from 1 to 6. This scale is available in both English and Spanish. Child Measures. Literacy Skills. Three reading subtests from the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement (WJ-III) (Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001) were administered to each child as a measure of literacy skills. The WJ-III ACH is a norm-referenced standardized assessment for individuals from 2.0 to 90+ years old that measures academic abilities (Schrank, McGrew, Woodcock, 2001). The first subtest, Letter-Word Identification, measured reading decoding, or the ability to identify letters and read a list of words. Reading Fluency measured reading speed and the ability to quickly read simple sentences and judge whether or not the statement was true. The final subtest was Passage Comprehension, which measured the ability to identify a missing word in the written passage based on the context of the passage. Each subtest takes about 5 minutes to administer. Standard scores are provided for each subtest and can be combined to form a Broad Reading composite. The Broad Reading composite is a comprehensive measure of the child’s reading achievement. Standard scores are based on grade 63 based norms and have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. Scores between 85 and 115 are considered to be average, with scores above 115 ranging from high average to very superior, and scores below 85 ranging from low average to very low. Median test reliability statistics for the Broad Reading composite was .94. The median standard error of measurement for standard scores was found to be 3.67. The criterion validity correlation for the Broad Reading composite of the WJ-III and the Reading composite of the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement was found to be .76. When compared to the Reading composite of the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test the criterion validity correlation was .67. The Cronbach’s alpha for this study was .80. To assess broad reading for children who have primarily received instruction in Spanish, subtests from the Bateria III Woodcock-Munoz: Pruebas de aprovechamiento (Bateria III APPROV) (Munoz-Sandoval, Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2005) were used. This assessment is a parallel Spanish version of the Woodcock-Johnson III (Woodcock et al., 2001). The Bateria III includes the Spanish versions of all of the WJ III tests. The original WJ III in English was translated or adapted to develop the Bateria III tests. Three subtests were used for Spanish-speaking children that are similar to those administered to English-speaking children. The first subtest was Identificacion de letras y palabras (Schrank, et al., 2005). This subtest measured the identification of words and letters, focusing on reading decoding. Fluidez en la lectura examined reading speed and the ability to read simple sentences quickly. Finally, Comprension de textos measured a child’s ability to understand what is being read while reading, particularly focused on verbal (printed) language comprehension. The composite of these three subtests, Amplia Lectura, is similar to the Broad Reading composite. This composite is made up of reading decoding, reading speed, and comprehending connected discourse while reading. The 64 grade based standard score for the reading composite was used, which has a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. Internal consistency reliability for the Amplia Lectura composite for children ages 6 to 13 was .99 based on Spanish calibration data. The standard error of measurement for standard scores for this composite was found to be 1.50. Criterion-related validity of the Amplia Lectura composite with the Fluidez en la Lectura Oral subtest of the Indicadores Dinamicos del Exito en la Lectura (IDEL) was found to be .79 (Watson, 2004). Self-Regulation. The Head-Toes-Knees-Shoulders (HTKS) task was administered to each child to measure his or her behavioral self-regulation. The HTKS is a structured observation of behavioral self-regulation that consists of 30 trial commands and was designed for early elementary students up to 8 years of age (Cameron Ponitz et al., 2009). Children were given two oral commands (i.e. “touch your head, touch your toes”) to habituate them to the oral commands. Children first completed six practice items and were then asked to respond in unnatural ways to two types and four types of paired behavioral commands. The two type combination and the four type combination each consisted of 10 trials. For example, when asked to “touch your toes” the correct response would be to touch their head, or when asked to “touch your knees” the correct response would be to touch their shoulders. If children responded correctly they were given 2 points. Zero points were given for incorrect responses and one point was given when children self-corrected to correctly respond. The final score was obtained by adding the scores on the 30 test items. Scores range from 0 to 60 (Ponitz et al, 2008). Commands were also available in Spanish. Significant construct validity was found for the HTKS with parent ratings of attentional focusing (r=.25) and inhibitory control (r=.20) and teacher ratings of behavioral self-regulation (r=.20) in kindergarten, with modest correlations (Cameron Ponitz et al., 2009). Children with higher scores on the HTKS had higher parent ratings of attentional focusing and inhibitory 65 control, components that make up behavioral self-regulation. The Cronbach’s alpha reported in previous studies was .76 (Storksen, Ellingsen, Wanless, & McClelland, 2014) and was .791 for the current study. Social-Emotional Competence. The Devereux Student Strengths Assessment (DESSA) mini was used to measure children’s social-emotional competencies that serve as protective factors (Devereux Center, 2012). This assessment is a standardized, norm-referenced behavior rating scale that was designed for children from kindergarten through eighth grade. The full DESSA was standardized from a representative sample of 2,500 children in the U.S. This assessment is strengths-based and can be completed by parents/guardians, teachers, school staff and other child-serving agencies. For this study, it was filled out by parents. The full DESSA is made up of 72 items and measures eight key social-emotional competencies. These competencies include self-awareness (7 items), social awareness (9 items), self-management (11 items), relationship skills (10 items), goal-directed behavior (10 items), personal responsibility (10 items), decision-making (8 items), and optimistic thinking (7 items). The DESSA-mini is similar to the full DESSA and provides a summary of overall social-emotional competence but only includes eight items. These items were taken from the scales on the full DESSA. The DESSAmini is typically used to screen for and monitor progress in relation to social-emotional competence. The DESSA-mini takes 1-2 minutes to complete. The full DESSA is typically used with students who are thought to be at risk based on the DESSA-mini results. The DESSA-mini provides a similar overall score to the full DESSA but is faster to administer, therefore it was used for this study. Each item on the DESSA-mini was rated using a 5-point Likert scale that ranged from never (0) to very frequently (4) (Devereux Center, 2012). One score was obtained from the 66 DESSA-mini, which is the Social-Emotional Total (SET). This score provides an indication of the strength of a child’s social-emotional competence. This score is in the form of a T-score. Tscores above 60 are considered strengths and T-scores below 40 are areas that need improvement. For the full DESSA, the Total Protective factor (Social-Emotional Composite) and sub-scales had significant, moderate-to-high correlations with the Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scales-2 (BERS-2) Strength Index and subscales (r= .41-.77) and the Behavior Assessment System for Children-2 (BASC-2) Adaptive Skills Composite and subscales, both of which measure similar constructs (r=.77) (Nickerson & Fishman, 2009). Convergent validity has been found for parents and teachers and across measures as well as divergent validity for the full DESSA. The DESSA-mini has a strong positive relationship (r=.87) with the composite on the full DESSA (Hughes, 2010). Additionally, 91% concordance was found between scores on the DESSA and the DESSA-mini with the DESSA-mini accurately predicting results of the full DESSA 91% of the time. These findings provide evidence for concurrent-criterion validity and predictive validity of the DESSA-mini. The median alpha reliability coefficients from the DESSA-mini ranged from .915 to .924 for the four forms of the DESSA-mini (Naglieri, LeBuffe, & Shapiro, 2011). The Cronbach’s alpha for this study was .86. Procedure Mothers were asked to complete questionnaires either on paper or online and the researcher collected data directly with each child. Research assistants assisted in participant recruitment and parent data collection. The research assistants were fluent in Spanish and English, allowing them to work with Spanish and English speaking families. Once consent was obtained, the female caregivers indicated their preferred method for filling out the questionnaire. They were given the option of completing the paperwork at home 67 (paper or online version) or individually with the researcher at the community center or church. Parents who chose to complete the questionnaire at home were given a questionnaire packet (in the language of their choice) or a link to the online questionnaire (also available in Spanish or English). When meeting individually with the researcher, some mothers chose to have the questionnaire read aloud to them, while others read the questionnaire independently and asked questions when necessary. The questionnaires took approximately 30 to 60 minutes to complete. In order to complete the child portion of the study, parents were contacted (in person or by phone or email) to set up a time to bring their child on site at the community organization or church. During this appointment, the parent returned their completed packet or proof of online submission was reviewed. The researcher reviewed the packet with each parent to minimize the amount of missing data. Parents received a $20 gift card for their participation in the study once the packet was submitted. Additionally, parents completed the Devereux Student Strengths Assessment-mini (DESSA-mini) while their child worked individually with the researcher. Each child first signed an assent form if they agreed to participate in the study. Once that was obtained, each child completed a standardized, norm-referenced reading assessment made up of three subscales. Each subscale took approximately 5 minutes to complete. This reading assessment was available in English or Spanish. It was administered to children based on the language in which they have received the majority of their reading instruction, per parent report. Finally, the child completed a self-regulation task that took about 5-7 minutes to complete. This task was completed in English or Spanish, depending on the child’s preference. Each child received a small token (e.g., book, toy or school supply) for their participation in the study once all activities were completed. Data collection with each child took 20-25 minutes. 68 Participants who were recruited through flyers and phone calls followed a similar procedure to the one mentioned above. Specifically, if interest was expressed in participating in the survey, the researcher explained the study and consent procedure either in person or by phone. Participants who chose to complete the questionnaires online signed the consent form online at the beginning of the questionnaire. Those participants who chose to complete the paper versions were given the consent form with the questionnaires. If the mother preferred to complete the questionnaire in person, the researcher set up a time to meet with the participant on site at the community center or church to complete the consent form and questionnaire. 69 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The purpose of this study was to better understand the developmental outcomes of Latino children by examining unique cultural factors that may help to explain the effects of Latino parenting on child outcomes. The analyses, therefore, focused on examining the types of parenting styles and dimensions used by Latina female caregivers, differences in parenting style based on child's gender, acculturation status, Latino cultural values, and perceived discrimination, and differences in children's self-regulation, early literacy, and social-emotional development based on parenting style. There was very little missing data for the variables of interest in this study. Specifically, only four items in the parenting questionnaire contained missing data. Three of these items had less than 1% of data missing and one consisted of 1.7% missing data. Correlations among predictors and outcome variables are presented in Table 3. Table 4 shows the correlations among these same variables taking into account the child's gender. The first set of analyses involved examining the means and standard deviations of each dimension of parenting, as well as the percentage of female caregivers at each level (high, moderate, low) for the four dimensions of parenting. A Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) was then used to determine if participants were characterized by authoritative, authoritarian, and/or protective parenting styles. Child's gender, acculturation, Latino cultural values, and perceived discrimination were added to the LPA as covariates to determine if parenting style differed based on any of those factors. Child's gender and perceived discrimination were further examined through MANOVA and multivariate regression, respectively, to determine if the four dimensions of parenting differed based on child's gender or perceived discrimination. Mediation analyses were conducted to examine whether cultural values mediated the relation between acculturation 70 and parenting style. Last, ANOVAs were used to examine whether parenting style predicted child outcomes. Table 3 shows the correlations among the cultural factors, parenting dimensions, and child outcomes. The parenting dimensions were all significantly associated with one another, with the exception of supportive and non-supportive demandingness. Familismo was significantly and positively correlated to respeto, supportive demandingness, and culture of origin cultural competence, and negatively correlated to English competence. Respeto was significantly and positively associated with non-supportive demandingness and negatively associated with autonomy granting. Several of the parenting dimensions were associated with the components of acculturation. Specifically, non-supportive demandingness was significantly and negatively associated with Spanish competence, autonomy granting was negatively associated with U.S. cultural identity and positively associated with Spanish competence and culture of origin cultural competence, supportive demandingness was positively associated with culture of origin cultural competence, and warmth was negatively associated with U.S. cultural identity and positively associated with culture of origin cultural competence. Further the DESSA-mini was significantly correlated to Spanish competence, culture of origin cultural competence, warmth, supportive demandingness, and autonomy granting. Reading composite was significantly associated with English composite and U.S. cultural competence. HTKS total was not significantly associated with any cultural or parenting variable. All correlations were weak to moderate, with the exception of the correlation between U.S. cultural competence and English competence, which had a strong correlation. 71 Table 3 Correlation Matrix Table 4 shows that some differences were found when examining correlations separately for boys and girls. Non-supportive demandingness was not found to be significantly associated with any dimension of parenting for girls but was significantly and negatively associated with warmth and autonomy granting for boys. Familismo was significantly and positively correlated to respeto for both boys and girls. In contrast, familismo and supportive demandingness were only significantly and positively related for boys, and familismo and culture of origin cultural competence were only significantly and positively related for girls. Familismo was not significantly correlated to English competence for either gender. Respeto was significantly and positively associated with non-supportive demandingness for boys, but not girls, and not significantly associated with autonomy granting for either gender. Respeto was significantly and negatively related to culture of origin cultural identity, U.S. cultural competence, and culture of origin cultural competence for boys, but not girls. For girls, respeto was significantly and 72 negatively associated with Spanish competence. With respect to the dimensions of parenting and acculturation, there were no significant correlations for girls. For boys, warmth and autonomy granting were negatively associated with U.S. cultural identity and positively associated with Spanish competence and culture of origin cultural competence. When examining child outcomes, for girls, the DESSA-mini was significantly and positively associated with warmth and supportive demandingness and reading composite was negatively associated with non-supportive demandingness. For boys, the DESSA-mini was positively associated with Spanish competence, culture of origin cultural competence, warmth, and autonomy granting. Reading composite was positively and significantly correlated with English competence and U.S. cultural competence. HTKS total was not significantly associated with any cultural or parenting variable for either boys or girls. Table 4 Correlation Matrix by Child's Gender 73 Research Question 1: What types of parenting styles do Latino parents use? Question 1a. How is parenting style among Latino parents characterized in terms of the dimensions of warmth, supportive demandingness, non-supportive demandingness and autonomy granting? To examine parenting style based on the dimensions of parenting, the means and standard deviation of the four dimensions were examined to determine if the overall sample of female caregivers was characterized by high, moderate, or low levels of each dimension. In parenting research examining the dimensions of parenting, it is common to dichotomize or trichotomize data to determine levels of the parenting dimensions (Baumrind, 1991; Donovick, 2006; Schaefer, 1965; Steinberg, et al., 1992a) by splitting the data based on the Likert scale scores (Spriggs, Iannotti, Nansel, & Haynie, 2007). Research suggests that splitting data in this way can have negative consequences on analyses, including loss of effect size and power and loss of information about individual differences, and can lead to misleading results (Iacobucci et al., 2015; MacCallum, Zhang, Preacher, & Rucker, 2002). Therefore, this was only used in this study to identify the percentage of parents at each level (high, moderate, or low) on the four dimensions of parenting, and not for any further analyses. In order to do this, a new variable was created for each dimension of parenting that classified parents as high, moderate, or low based on the subscale score for each dimension. The score on each dimension was computed by finding the mean score based on the PSDQ items that corresponded with that dimension. As shown in Table 5, the means of warmth and supportive demandingness were found to be high among the total sample of female caregivers, with warmth having the highest mean. The mean for autonomy granting was also moderately high and non-supportive demandingness was low. When divided into high, moderate, and low groups based on the mean score on each dimension (Table 6), the 74 majority of female caregivers were characterized by high levels of warmth (84.5%) and supportive demandingness (81.9%). Over half of the mothers were high (34.5%) or moderate (46.6%) in autonomy granting. Female caregivers were low in non-supportive demandingness (96.6%). Table 5 Parenting Dimensions Descriptive Statistics Mean Standard Deviation Range Mean for sons Mean for daughters Warmth 4.4707 0.53096 2.60 4.4667 4.4766 Supportive Demandingness 4.3931 0.59735 3.00 4.3884 4.4000 Non-supportive Demandingness 1.8043 0.48088 2.25 1.8587 1.7228 Autonomy Granting 3.5879 0.76365 3.20 3.6986 3.4255 Table 6 Percentage of Parenting Dimensions by Level High Moderate Low Warmth 84.5% 14.7% 0.9% Supportive Demandingness 81.9% 16.4% 1.7% 0% 2.6% 96.6% 34.5% 46.6% 19% Non-supportive Demandingness Autonomy Granting 75 Questions 1b and 1c. To what extent do Latino parents display authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles? Is there evidence for protective parenting style among Latino parents? To examine the dimensions of parenting and determine whether authoritative, authoritarian, and protective parenting styles were found among Latina female caregivers, a Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) was conducted given that it allows for the classification of individuals based on observed continuous variables as indicators of a latent variable (Muthén, 2004). In order to run an LPA, a Monte Carlo analysis was done to ensure that the sample size was appropriate for an LPA. Using a Monte Carlo analysis on Mplus, it was determined that 111 participants were required to complete the Latent Profile Analysis (Muthén & Muthén, 2002). Specifically, 10,000 replications were conducted to determine if a sample size of 111 would produce a moderate effect size. Population values were determined based on hypothesized values for the indicators. The examination of multiple criteria is recommended to determine the appropriate sample size (Muthén & Muthén, 2002). First, the parameter and standard error biases should not exceed 10% for the parameters in the model. Parameter bias is found by subtracting the population value by the parameter estimate average and dividing by the population value. Second, the standard error bias for the parameter should not exceed 5%. This is calculated similarly to the parameter estimate bias, but using the standard deviation and the average of the estimated standard errors. Third, the estimation of confidence intervals, or coverage, needs to be examined. Coverage is affected when the standard errors are overestimated or underestimated. Coverage gives the proportion of replications that include the true parameter value in the 95% confidence interval. Coverage should be between 0.91 and 0.98. Finally, power should be close to 0.80. Table 7 shows that all of the criteria were met when using a sample size of 111. 76 Table 7 Summary of Monte Carlo Analysis Population Parameter Parameter Value Estimate Bias % Average SD SD Standard 95% % Average Error Cover Sig Bias % Coeff Latent Class 1 Means V1 4.00 4.00 -0.07 0.08 0.08 -1.12 0.94 1.000 V2 4.00 4.00 -0.02 0.07 0.07 1.49 0.94 1.000 V3 2.90 2.90 -0.02 0.08 0.08 2.19 0.94 1.000 V4 2.00 2.00 0.09 0.08 0.08 -0.27 0.94 1.000 V1 0.25 0.24 -2.72 0.04 0.04 -0.75 0.91 0.998 V2 0.25 0.24 -2.48 0.04 0.04 -1.13 0.92 1.000 V3 0.25 0.25 -1.60 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.91 0.996 V4 0.25 0.24 -2.08 0.04 0.04 -4.10 0.91 0.999 V1 4.80 4.80 0.09 0.08 0.08 1.02 0.94 1.000 V2 4.50 4.50 0.02 0.07 0.07 0.27 0.95 1.000 V3 4.00 4.00 0.03 0.08 0.08 3.05 0.94 1.000 V4 1.50 1.50 0.01 0.08 0.07 -0.93 0.94 1.000 V1 0.25 0.24 -2.72 0.04 0.04 -0.75 0.91 0.998 V2 0.25 0.24 -2.48 0.04 0.04 -1.13 0.92 1.000 V3 0.25 0.25 -1.60 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.91 0.996 V4 0.25 0.24 -2.08 0.04 0.04 -4.10 0.91 0.999 Variances Latent Class 2 Means Variances 77 Latent Profile Analysis (LPA), which is a latent class model with continuous outcomes (Muthén, 2004), was used to examine whether authoritative, authoritarian, and protective parenting styles were found among Latina female caregivers. LPA is a type of analysis that identifies groups of individuals using observed continuous variables as indicators of a latent variable (Muthén, 2004). In this case, the dimensions of parenting were used as the indicators of parenting style. LPA is the appropriate analysis as an assumption of LPA is that the indicators are continuous variables (Muthén, 2004). If they were categorical, a Latent Class Analysis (LCA) would be used instead. LPA also assumes that there are unobserved subgroups in the population that are referred to as latent profiles (Vermunt, 2004). Another assumption of LPA is that the indicators that are included in an LPA have conditional distributions which are normal (University of Kansas, 2006; Vermunt, 2004), however this assumption has changed with new software updates. Prior to these updates, Muthén (2012) recommended that the maximum likelihood estimator (MLR) be used to deal with non-normality, as it is robust with data that are not normally distributed. Table 8 indicates that autonomy granting, warmth, and supportive demandingness were negatively skewed, and non-supportive demandingness was positively skewed. When examining the descriptive statistics, the skewness for autonomy granting was between -0.5 and 0.5, suggesting that it is fairly symmetrical (SPC, 2016). In contrast, nonsupportive demandingness had a skewness that was between 0.5 and 1, indicating that it has a moderate positive skew. The skewness for warmth and supportive demandingness was greater than -1, indicating that these variables were highly negatively skewed. Despite the skewness found in some of these variables, recent versions of Mplus (7.2 and later) allow for modeling mixtures of non-normal distributions (Morgan, Hodge, & Baggett, 2015). To this effect, Muthén (2016) indicated that non-normal outcomes are expected with mixtures and are taken into 78 account in the determination of classes. Therefore, although some of the dimensions of parenting were found to be skewed, LPA was an appropriate analysis to use because the version of Mplus used (7.4) allowed for non-normal distributions and the MLR estimator was applied. Table 8 Skewness for Parenting Dimensions Skewness Std. Error Warmth -1.193 0.226 Supportive Demandingness -1.035 0.226 Non-supportive Demandingness 0.672 0.226 Autonomy Granting -0.263 0.226 A three-step LPA was conducted using Mplus 7.4 to answer question 1b, 1c, and 1d, as well as research questions 2 and 3. A three-step LPA allowed for the latent class variables to be estimated independently of one another and to ensure that the classes were based solely on the latent class indicators (Asparouhov & Muthén, 2014, Vermunt, 2010). A three-step approach built the latent class model first, prior to relating it to any covariates of interest (Vermunt, 2010). The first step of the three-step LPA was to estimate the LPA model with the indicator variables (Asparouhov & Muthén, 2014, Vermunt, 2010). For this study, four indicator variables were used to represent the four dimensions of parenting (warmth, non-supportive demandingness, supportive demandingness, and autonomy granting). For the second step, measurement error was determined for the most likely class variable. This also involved assigning cases to latent classes and saving that classification information. In the final step, the auxiliary model, which included any relevant covariates, was estimated and the latent class variable was measured based on the most likely classes that were computed in the second step. The third step allowed for research questions 1d, 2, and 3 to be examined while keeping the latent class model the same. 79 As noted above, as part of the 3-step LPA, the most likely class solution needed to be determined. Determining the most appropriate solution for the number of classes is often done using a combination of criteria such as the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), Lo-MendellRubin (LMR), bootstrap likelihood ratio test (BLRT), and agreement with substantive theory (Nylund, Asparouhov, & Muthén, 2007). There is currently no commonly accepted criteria that is viewed as the best way to determine the number of classes, however, Nylund et al. (2007) examined multiple criteria and found that the BLRT was the most consistent indicator for determining the correct number of classes. Although the BLRT generally outperformed the LMR, both were found to have the capability of identifying the correct model. Preliminary results from that study also indicated that a good indication to stop increasing the number of classes is the first time the p-value of the LMR is nonsignificant. When comparing various Information Criteria (e.g., Akaike Information Criterion, BIC, adjusted BIC), Nylund et al. (2007) found the BIC to be the best Information Criteria. Therefore, the BIC, LMR, and BLRT were all used in the present study to determine the best model fit for number of classes. Table 9 shows the criteria that were examined to determine whether a 1-class, 2-class, 3-class, or 4-class solution would provide the best model fit. In addition to the previously mentioned criteria, Entropy should be considered, which indicates how well the classification model fits the data. Higher values, which are closer to 1 (> .80), suggest that there is confidence in the classification of individuals and the separation between latent classes (Ram & Grimm, 2013). For this data, the 2-, 3-, and 4- class solutions all have an Entropy value that would meet the minimum threshold. The BLRT estimates the distribution of the log likelihood difference test statistics by using bootstrap samples (Nylund et al., 2007). The p-value that is provided by the BLRT is used to determine whether adding an additional class to the model would increase the model fit. A 80 significant p-value would suggest that the null (k-1) should be rejected in favor of the alternative model (k). The BLRT was significant (p = 0.000) for both the 2- and 3- class solution. The LMR test is interpreted in a similar way, where the null is rejected when the p-value is significant. The LMR test compared the improvement in fit between class models (Nylund et al., 2007). It was found that the LMR was significant (p = 0.0220) for the 2-class solution, indicating that the 2class solution is a better fit than the 1-class solution. In contrast, it was not significant (p = 0.3778) for the 3-class solution, suggesting that the 3-class solution was not a better fit than the 2-class solution. For the Bayesian information criteria (BIC), an index of model fit, the lowest value is considered to indicate the best fitting model. Based on the BIC, the 3-class solution would be the best fit given that it represents the lowest value (Table 9). Given the results above, the criteria were mixed in regard to the best model fit, with some supporting the 2-class and some the 3-class solution. When considering agreement with substantive theory, the 2-class solution would be the best fit because the means of the indicators, or dimensions of parenting, better align with known parenting styles than the 3-class solution. The 3-class solution did not provide enough distinction between two of the classes to determine which two separate parenting styles would fit with those classes. Further, the BLRT and LMR, which were both recommended by Nylund et al. (2007), both also support a 2-class solution. Therefore, of the four models estimated, the 2-class solution seemed to be the most appropriate solution and was chosen as the best model fit for this study. 81 Table 9 Model Fit Criteria 1-Class 2-Class 3-Class 4-Class 850.584 786.079 777.198 785.953 BLRT (p-value) x 0.000 0.0000 0.3333 LMR (p-value) x 0.0220 0.3778 0.2983 Entropy x 0.805 0.856 0.876 BIC Having found that a 2-class solution was the best fit for the data, the classes were examined to determine to what extent Latina female caregivers displayed authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles, and if there was evidence for protective parenting among these parents. Table 10 shows the means of each parenting dimension for Latent Class 1 and Latent Class 2. Based on the Likert scale of the PSDQ, scores below 3 were considered low, scores between 3 and 4 were considered moderate, and scores above 4 were considered high. Parents who fit into Latent Class 1 were found to have moderate-high warmth and supportive demandingness. Autonomy granting was low-moderate and non-supportive demandingness was low. In contrast, warmth and supportive demandingness were high in Latent Class 2. Autonomy granting was moderate-high and non-supportive demandingness was found to be low. Research suggests that authoritative parents are high in warmth and autonomy granting. They are also high in demandingness that involves reasoning (supportive demandingness) and low in demandingness that is harsh and punitive (non-supportive demandingness) (Baumrind, 2012). Authoritarian parents, on the other hand, are low in warmth and low in autonomy granting. They are also characterized as having high demandingness, which generally is considered to be punitive and nonreasoning. Comparing these definitions of authoritative and authoritarian 82 parenting, the results suggest that the female caregivers in this sample are not characterized as having an authoritarian parenting style, as both Latent classes had high or moderate-high warmth and moderate-high or low-moderate autonomy granting. Both latent classes also had high or moderate-high supportive demandingness and low non-supportive demandingness, which does not support an authoritarian parenting style. Latent Class 2 appears to be aligned to authoritative parenting style based on the four dimensions of parenting. Latent class 1 was compared to protective parenting, which is high in warmth and moderate to low in autonomy granting. Research also suggests that protective parenting is characterized by high supportive demandingness (Domenech Rodriguez et al., 2009). When examining Latino parents, they have been found to display high supportive demandingness and low non-supportive demandingness (Donovick, 2010). Latent Class 1 has similar characteristics and is moderate-high in supportive demandingness and low in non-supportive demandingness. This latent class appears to be closely aligned with protective parenting. When examining the proportions and counts of parents in each class, it was found that 68.3% of female caregivers were in Latent Class 2 (authoritative), and 31.7% were in Latent Class 1 (protective). Table 10 Summary of Latent Classes Latent Class 1 Latent Class 2 Warmth 3.879 4.746 Supportive Demandingness 3.863 4.639 Autonomy Granting 2.976 3.872 Non-supportive Demandingness 1.950 1.736 Class Counts 36.79509 79.20491 Class Proportions 0.31720 0.68280 83 Question 1d. Does the parenting style of Latino parents differ by child’s gender? To examine any differences in parenting style based on child’s gender, child’s gender was included in the 3-step LPA as a covariate in Mplus. The regression coefficients (estimate) are on a logit scale, therefore they need to be interpreted in terms of log odds. In order to do so, the exponent of the coefficient was found (odds ratio). In this case, the comparison is examining the log odds of having parents who display protective parenting (class 1) versus authoritative parenting (class 2). Gender was coded as male = 0, female = 1, with 0 being the reference category. Table 15 shows the odds ratio and p-value. It was found that females were less likely to have parents who displayed protective parenting versus authoritative parenting as compared to males, however, these results were not significant (p = 0.375). Since the coefficient is negative and the odds ratio is less than 1, this can also be interpreted by examining males compared to females (1/0.556)=1.80. In other words, males are 1.8 times more likely to have parents with a protective parenting style than authoritative parenting style, but as noted, these findings were not significant. A MANOVA was performed in SPSS 23 to examine whether parenting style was moderated by child’s gender by testing for differences in warmth, autonomy granting, supportive demandingness, and non-supportive demandingness as a function of child’s gender. 69 boys and 46 girls were included in the analysis. Prior to conducting the MANOVA, several assumptions were reviewed to ensure that a one-way MANOVA would produce valid results. The variables of interest included four continuous dependent variables and one categorical independent variable, with independence of observations, and weak to moderate correlations (Table 3), making MANOVA an appropriate test (Laerd, 2013b). Another important assumption for MANOVA is that there must be multivariate normality. As noted in Table 8, the distribution for autonomy 84 granting was fairly symmetrical, non-supportive demandingness had a moderate positive skew, and warmth and supportive demandingness were highly negatively skewed. Due to these findings, warmth and supportive demandingness did not meet the normality assumption required to perform a MANOVA, therefore log transformations were done on those two variables. New variables were created by applying the following log transformation to make the variables approximately normal (LG10 (5+1- VARIABLE) for warmth and supportive demandingness. This specific transformation was done to account for values of 0 in the data and because the variables were negatively skewed. After the log transformation, warmth (0.558) and supportive demandingness (0.361) were no longer highly skewed. Given that MANOVA is robust to violations of normality, despite the moderate negative skewness of non-supportive demandingness and the moderate positive skewness of warmth, a MANOVA was performed with all four parenting dimensions, using the transformed warmth and supportive demandingness variables (O’Brien & Kaiser, 1985). Unstandardized residuals were saved to further check for normality assumptions after running the model (Garson, 2012). The univariate normality of each dependent variable was assessed, given that it is a necessary condition for multivariate normality. To do this, the residuals from the fitted model were used. Table 11 shows the results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests of normality. These tests were both significant for warmth, supportive demandingness, and non-supportive demandingness, however, the Q-Q plots and histograms showed that these variables were approximately normal. Additionally, they were only moderately skewed and other assumptions (equality of covariance matrices) were met, therefore the variables continued to be included in the MANOVA. The Shapiro-Wilk test of normality was not significant for autonomy granting, indicating normality, however the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was significant. 85 Table 11 Tests of Normality for MANOVA Kolmogorov-Smirnov Shapiro-Wilk Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig. Residual for Log Warmth 0.157 115 0.000 0.915 115 0.000 Residual for Log Supportive Demandingness 0.162 115 0.000 0.922 115 0.000 Residual for Non-supportive Demandingness 0.095 115 0.013 0.965 115 0.004 Residual for Autonomy Granting 0.091 115 0.019 0.984 115 0.197 The result of the Box’s M Test of equality of covariance matrices (Table 12) was not significant (p=.305) (Laerd, 2013b). Given that this was not significant, the assumption of equality of covariance matrices across the two groups is satisfied. Table 13 indicates that all of the multivariate tests were not significant, suggesting that there were no statistically significant differences in parenting dimensions based on child’s gender. Due to these findings, further univariate tests were not conducted. These findings indicated that child’s gender did not predict the dimensions of parenting. Table 12 Box’s Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices for MANOVA Box’s M 12.210 F df1 1.172 10 df2 43542.544 Sig. 0.305 86 Table 13 Multivariate Tests for MANOVA Child’s Gender Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Pillai’s Trae 0.069 2.053 4 110 0.092 Wilks’ Lambda 0.931 2.053 4 110 0.092 Hotelling’s Trace 0.075 2.053 4 110 0.092 Roy’s Largest Root 0.075 2.053 4 110 0.092 Research Question 2: Does parenting style differ by acculturation status among Latino parents? Question 2a. Do acculturation status and Latino cultural values predict parenting style among Latino parents? Table 14 provides the means and standard deviations for each component of acculturation as well as the other cultural factors of interest for questions 2 and 3. For the six components of acculturation, the minimum score was 1 and the maximum was 4. The maximum score was 10 for familismo and 6 for respeto, with the lowest being 1 for both. Finally, response options for perceived discrimination ranged from 9 to 54. Table 14 Descriptive Statistics for Cultural Factors N Range Mean Std. Deviation U.S. Cultural Identity 114 1-4 2.34 1.01 Culture of Origin Cultural Identity 116 1-4 3.78 0.51 English Competence 116 1-4 2.37 0.89 Spanish Competence 116 1.56-4 3.67 0.52 87 Table 14 (cont’d) N Range Mean Std. Deviation U.S. Cultural Competence 116 1-3.83 2.00 0.66 Culture of Origin Cultural Competence 116 1-4 2.58 0.70 Familismo 114 3.94-9.67 7.40 1.03 Respeto 116 1.4-6 4.04 0.88 Perceived Discrimination 116 9-48 16.84 6.38 As noted in the literature review, acculturation status in this study was examined based on Schwartz et al.’s (2010) expanded multidimensional model of acculturation which includes six components of acculturation including practices, values, and identifications of both the heritage and receiving culture. Therefore, the six different components measured (U.S. cultural identity, culture of origin cultural identity, English competence, Spanish competence, U.S. cultural competence, and culture of origin cultural competence) were each included in the 3-step LPA as covariates. Similar to question 1d, the regression coefficients were on a logit scale, therefore they need to be interpreted in terms of log odds by finding the exponent of the coefficient. Table 15 includes the estimates, p-value, and odds ratio for each component of acculturation. For U.S. cultural identity, it was found that a unit increase in the score would make it 1.86 times more likely for the parent to display protective parenting than authoritative parenting, but this change was not statistically significant (p = 0.071). In contrast, for culture of origin cultural identity, a one point increase made it 8.89 times more likely for parents to be characterized by protective parenting than authoritative parenting. This was a statistically significant difference (p = 0.028), indicating that cultural identity for mother’s culture of origin predicts parenting style. The odds ratio is a common way to examine the effect size for logistic 88 regression (Monahan, McHorney, Stump, & Perkins, 2007). According to Haddock, Rindskopf, & Shadish (1998), generally odds ratios close to 1.0 suggest weak relationships. In contrast, odds ratios over 3.0 indicate strong relationships. Therefore, a large effect size was found for culture of origin cultural identity predicting parenting style. No other component of acculturation was statistically significant. Although not statistically significant, for English competence and Spanish competence, a unit increase made it 1.105 and 1.58 times more likely, respectively, for parents to display protective parenting than authoritative parenting. Also, not statistically significant, for every one point increase in U.S. cultural competence, parents were 0.57 times less likely to display protective parenting than authoritative parenting. Similarly, when compared to authoritative parenting, the probability of parents displaying protective parenting decreases as culture of origin cultural competence increases, however, findings were not statistically significant. Specifically, for every unit increase in culture of origin cultural competence, parents were 0.74 times less likely to display protective parenting than authoritative parenting, but these differences were not statistically significant. The mean differences in the six acculturation dimensions between the two parenting styles were also examined and it was found that there were no statistically significant differences. Results for both familismo and respeto were found to be statistically significant (p =0.012 and 0.036, respectively) indicating that cultural values predicts parenting style. When compared to authoritative parenting, the probability of being characterized by protective parenting decreases as familismo increases. Specifically, for every unit increase in familismo, parents were 0.391 times less likely to display protective parenting than authoritative parenting. Given that the odds ratio is less than 1, this can also be interpreted by comparing protective parenting to 89 authoritative parenting (1/0.391)=2.56. In other words, parents were 2.56 times more likely to be characterized by authoritative parenting than protective parenting, for every one unit increase in familismo. In contrast, for every unit increase in respeto, parents were 2.735 times more likely to be characterized by protective parenting than authoritative parenting. Both respeto and familismo had moderate effect sizes based on the odds ratios (Haddock et al., 1998). Table 15 Latent Profile Analysis including Covariates Estimate S.E. P-Value Odds Ratio Gender of Child -0.587 0.662 0.375 0.556 U.S. Cultural Identity 0.623 0.345 0.071 1.86 Culture of Origin Cultural Identity 2.185 0.997 0.028* 8.89 English Competence 0.100 0.538 0.853 1.105 Spanish Competence 0.459 0.699 0.512 1.58 U.S. Cultural Competence -0.562 0.658 0.393 0.570 Culture of Origin Cultural Competence -0.301 0.503 0.550 0.740 Familismo -0.938 0.375 0.012* 0.391 Respeto 1.006 0.481 0.036* 2.735 Perceived Discrimination 0.005 0.046 0.920 1.005 *Authoritative Parenting was used as a reference category Question 2b. If acculturation is predictive of parenting style, is that effect mediated by the importance of/commitment to cultural values (familismo and respeto)? A mediation analysis was performed in Mplus to determine if cultural values mediated the relation between acculturation and parenting style. There are four steps that are necessary to establish mediation (Kenny, 2016). The first is that the causal variable must be correlated with the outcome, indicating that there is an effect that can be mediated. The second step states that the causal variable needs to be correlated to the mediator. For the third step, the mediator has to 90 affect the outcome variable, with the mediator and causal variable both treated as predictors. Finally, in the fourth step, the effect of the causal variable on the outcome variable controlling for the mediator should be zero. Based on the results from question 2a, it was determined that only culture of origin cultural identity was predictive of parenting style; therefore, only this measure of acculturation was examined for this question. Both familismo and respeto were found to predict parenting style. Separate mediation analyses were conducted with these cultural values as mediators. Table 16 shows the direct and indirect effects of the variables of interest. The first two estimates and p-values provide the direct effects of familismo and culture of origin cultural identity on parenting style (class membership), controlling for culture of origin cultural identity and familismo, respectively. The results indicate that for every one unit increase in familismo, female caregivers are 1.264 times more likely to display protective parenting compared to authoritative parenting, controlling for culture of origin cultural identity. This estimate is statistically significant (p = 0.042). In contrast, for every unit increase in culture of origin cultural identity, female caregivers were found to be 0.434 times less likely to be characterized by protective parenting than authoritative parenting, controlling for familismo, however, this estimate was not statistically significant (p = 0.059). The next estimate and p-value show the estimated effect of culture of origin cultural identity on familismo. Given the nonsignificant pvalue (p = 0.584), culture of origin cultural identity does not have a direct effect on familismo. Based on the steps required for mediation, this indicates that the effect cannot be mediated (Figure 2). This is supported by the estimated indirect effect, which provides the indirect effect of culture of origin cultural identity on parenting style via familismo. The p-value (p = 0.590) shows that the indirect effect is not statistically significant. The bootstrapped 95% confidence 91 interval for the indirect effect supports this finding as well, given that “0” is within the interval, the indirect effect is not significant (Tofihi & Thoemmes, 2014). Table 16 Familismo Mediation Analysis Estimate S.E. P-Value Odds Ratio Familismo 0.234 0.116 0.042 1.264 Culture of Origin Cultural Identity -0.835 0.442 0.059 0.434 0.128 0.219 0.584 1.137 Familismo 6.917 0.847 0.000 Classmem$1 -2.001 1.912 0.295 Familismo 1.057 0.147 0.000 0.030 0.056 0.590 Bootstrapped 95% Confidence Interval Class Membership ON Familismo ON Culture of Origin Cultural Identity Intercepts Thresholds Residual Variances New/Additional Parameters Indirect Effect *Authoritative Parenting was used as a reference category 92 1.030 -0.038 - 0.211 Familismo .13 Culture of Origin Cultural Identity .23* Parenting Style -.84 (.03) Figure 2. Estimates for the relationship between culture of origin cultural identity and parenting style as mediated by familismo. * p < .05 Results were similar when using respeto as the mediator variable. Table 17 and Figure 3 show that for every one unit increase in respeto, female caregivers are 0.787 times less likely to be characterized by protective parenting than authoritative parenting, controlling for culture of origin cultural identity, however, the estimate was not statistically significant (p = 0.076). For every unit increase in culture of origin cultural identity, female caregivers were found to be 0.423 times less likely to display protective parenting than authoritative parenting, controlling for respeto, but this was also not statistically significant (p = 0.056). Culture of origin cultural identity was not found to have a direct effect on respeto (p = 0.209). The estimated indirect effect of culture of origin cultural identity on parenting style via respeto indicated that the indirect effect was not statistically significant (p = 0.344). The bootstrapped 95% confidence interval for the indirect effect supports this finding as well, given that “0” is within the interval, the indirect effect is not significant (Tofihi & Thoemmes, 2014). 93 Respeto -.23 -.24 Culture of Origin Cultural Identity Parenting Style -.86 (.06) Figure 3. Estimates for the relationship between culture of origin cultural identity and parenting style as mediated by respeto. * p < .05 Table 17 Respeto Mediation Analysis Estimate S.E. P-Value Odds Ratio Respeto -0.240 0.135 0.076 0.787 Culture of Origin Cultural Identity -0.861 0.451 0.056 0.423 -0.233 0.186 0.209 0.792 Respeto 4.920 0.721 0.000 Classmem$1 -4.804 1.876 0.010 0.761 0.110 0.000 0.056 0.059 0.344 Bootstrapped 95% Confidence Interval Class Membership ON Respeto ON Culture of Origin Cultural Identity Intercepts Thresholds Residual Variances Respeto New/Additional Parameters Indirect Effect *Authoritative Parenting was used as a reference category 94 1.058 -0.029-0.202 Research Question 3: What role does the parenting context play in parenting style? Does perceived discrimination predict parenting style? Perceived discrimination was not found to predict parenting style (Table 15). For every one unit increase in discrimination, parents were no more likely to be characterized by protective parenting than authoritative parenting, but this was not statistically significant (p=0.920). Additional tests were conducted to determine if perceived discrimination predicted the dimensions of parenting. Specifically, a multivariate regression was done in GLM on SPSS. The assumptions of multivariate regression are similar to those of a MANOVA and include that there is multivariate normality and that there is no or little multicollinearity (UCLA, 2017). These assumptions were discussed for the dimensions of parenting in the MANOVA conducted for question 1d, where it was noted that the variables are only weakly to moderately correlated, and steps were taken to account for distributions that were not normal. The same log transformations were used for this analysis. Unlike a MANOVA, for the multivariate regression the predictor of interest is a continuous variable instead of a categorical variable. Table 18 Tests of Normality for Multivariate Regression Kolmogorov-Smirnov Shapiro-Wilk Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig. Residual for Log Warmth 0.139 115 0.000 0.921 115 0.000 Residual for Log Supportive Demandingness 0.099 115 0.008 0.946 115 0.000 Residual for Non-supportive Demandingness 0.066 115 0.200 0.962 115 0.003 Residual for Autonomy Granting 0.093 115 0.016 0.970 115 0.012 95 Table 19 Descriptive Statistics for Multivariate Regression N Mean Std. Deviation Log of Warmth 115 0.1617 0.13863 Log of Supportive Demandingness 115 0.1796 0.15238 Non supportive Demandingness 115 1.8043 0.48088 Autonomy Granting 115 3.5930 0.76499 Table 20 indicates that all of the multivariate tests are statistically significant. This suggests that there are statistically significant differences in parenting dimensions based on parent’s perceived discrimination. Due to these significant results, further follow up tests were conducted. Table 21 shows the Tests of Between Subjects Effects. This table provides information regarding each dependent variable and its relation with perceived discrimination. For non-supportive demandingness, it was found that there were significant differences based on female caregiver’s perceived discrimination. Perceived discrimination was found to be significant (p = 0.000) in predicting the non-supportive demandingness. Results regarding statistical significance were interpreted using Bonferroni corrected alpha significance level of p < 0.0125 (=0.05/4) (O’Brien & Kaiser, 1985). Perceived discrimination was not found to be significant in predicting warmth, supportive demandingness, or autonomy granting. Table 22 provides the estimated difference in parenting dimensions with every one-unit change in the score of perceived discrimination. For non-supportive demandingness, on average, there was a 0.025 increase in non-supportive demandingness per one-unit increase in perceived discrimination. As noted above, these results were statistically significant and, per the eta squared, explained 11% of the variance in non-supportive demandingness based on parent’s perceived discrimination. Research regarding effect sizes based on eta squared indicate that a 96 small effect size can range from .01 to .08 and a moderate effect size can range from .06 to .18 (Bakeman, 2005; Morris & Fritz, 2013). Autonomy granting scores were found to increase by 0.015 with every unit increase in discrimination, but results were not statistically significant. Warmth and supportive demandingness are interpreted somewhat differently since log transformations were used. Specifically, although results were not significant, warmth had a higher arithmetic mean and supportive demandingness had a lower arithmetic mean for every one-unit increase in perceived discrimination. Table 20 Multivariate Tests for Multivariate Regression Discrimination Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Pillai’s Trace 0.158 5.156 4 110 0.001 Wilks’ Lambda 0.842 5.156 4 110 0.001 Hotelling’s Trace 0.187 5.156 4 110 0.001 Roy’s Largest Root 0.187 5.156 4 110 0.001 Table 21 Test of Between-Subjects Effects for Multivariate Regression Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Log of Warmth 0.001 1 0.001 0.057 0.811 Log of Supportive Demandingness 0.049 1 0.049 2.110 0.149 Non-supportive Demandingness 2.900 1 2.9 13.967 0.000 Autonomy Granting 1.060 1 1.06 1.825 0.179 97 Table 22 Parameter Estimates for Multivariate Regression Parameter B Std. Error t Sig. Intercept 0.170 0.037 4.639 0.000 Discrimination 0.000 0.002 -0.239 0.811 Intercept 0.234 0.040 5.860 0.000 Discrimination -0.003 0.002 -1.453 0.149 Intercept 1.285 0.120 11.553 0.000 Discrimination 0.025 0.007 3.737 0.000 Intercept 3.340 0.201 16.650 0.000 Discrimination 0.015 0.011 1.351 0.179 Log of Warmth Log of Supportive Demandingness Non-supportive Demandingness Autonomy Granting Research Question 4: Does parenting style predict children’s self-regulation, early literacy, and social-emotional development? Table 23 provides a summary of the N, mean, and standard deviation of the three child outcome variables. Only 99 child participants were included in the analyses for the HTKS Total because some children exceeded the age limit for this task and others had scores that were outliers. The HTKS measure has only been utilized with children up to 8 years old (Lowenstein et al., 2014) and five of the 116 participants were 9 years old, therefore, these scores were not included. Additionally, several significant outliers were removed for the HTKS variable. Four outliers were also removed for Reading Composite. The means of the DESSA-mini and Reading Composite indicate that the means for both were within the average range, with 50 being average for the DESSA-mini and 100 being average for the Reading Composite. The HTKS is not a standardized assessment but can range between 0 and 60. The mean for the children in this study was 52.85. 98 Table 23 Descriptive Statistics for Child Outcomes N Range Mean Std. Deviation Mean for males Mean for females DESSA-mini 116 36-71 53.74 7.996 52.13 56.11 Reading Composite 112 76-127 103.09 10.495 102.20 104.32 HTKS Total 99 37-60 52.85 6.14 52.56 53.31 Three separate one-way ANOVAs were performed using SPSS to determine whether parenting style, as measured by protective and authoritative parenting, predicted children’s social-emotional development, early literacy skills, and self-regulation by seeing if there were differences between parenting style on the DESSA-mini, Reading Composite, and HTKS Total, respectively. A MANOVA was not conducted because the three variables were conceptually distinct and weakly correlated (Table 24). Prior to conducting the ANOVAs, several assumptions were reviewed to ensure that a one-way ANOVA would produce valid results. The variables of interest included three continuous dependent variables and one categorical independent variable with two groups, with independence of observations, making an ANOVA an appropriate test (Laerd, 2013a). Furthermore, significant outliers were removed from the sample for the HTKS Total and Reading Composite prior to conducting analyses. Specifically, twelve significant outliers were removed for the HTKS Total and four were removed for the Reading Composite. Another important assumption for ANOVA is that the dependent variable should be normally distributed in each group. When examining descriptive statistics, the HTKS Total was found to be moderately negatively skewed (Table 25) (SPC, 2016), but was close to -1, which would make it highly skewed. Due to these findings, the HTKS Total variable did not meet the 99 normality assumption required to perform an ANOVA, therefore a log transformation was done on the HTKS Total variable. A new variable was created by applying the following log transformation to make the variables approximately normal (LG10 (60+1- HTKS TOTAL). This specific transformation was done to account for values of 0 in the data and because the variable was negatively skewed. The transformed variable was used in subsequent analyses to determine if the dependent variable was normally distributed in each group. Table 24 Correlations for Child Outcomes 1 1 DESSA-mini 2 3 1 2 Reading Composite 0.082 1 3 HTKS Total 0.040 -0.004 1 Table 25 Skewness for Child Outcomes Skewness Std. Error DESSA-mini 0.170 0.225 Reading Composite -0.173 0.228 HTKS Total -0.938 0.243 Table 26 shows the skewness for each dependent variable in each group. Slight skewness was found for all variables, with the DESSA-mini protective parenting group being moderately skewed. Table 27 shows the results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests of normality. These tests were both significant for authoritative parenting for the Log transformation of HTKS total. However, the Q-Q plot and histogram showed that this variable is approximately normal. Additionally, it was only moderately skewed and ANOVA is robust to 100 violations of normality (Laerd, 2013a), therefore the HTKS variable was included in the ANOVA. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests of normality were not significant for the DESSA-mini and Reading composite, indicating normality. Table 26 Skewness for Child Outcomes by Parenting Style Skewness Std. Error DESSA-mini Protective Parenting Authoritative Parenting 0.631 0.092 0.403 0.269 Reading Composite Protective Parenting Authoritative Parenting 0.146 -0.274 0.421 0.271 HTKS Total Protective Parenting Authoritative Parenting -0.277 -0.485 0.456 0.281 Table 27 Tests of Normality by Parenting Style Kolmogorov-Smirnov Shapiro-Wilk Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig. DESSA-mini Protective Parenting Authoritative Parenting 0.122 0.091 34 80 0.200 0.095 0.955 0.979 34 0.178 80 0.202 Reading Composite Protective Parenting Authoritative Parenting 0.089 0.087 31 79 0.200 0.200 0.991 0.980 31 0.995 79 0.240 HTKS Total Protective Parenting Authoritative Parenting 0.112 0.111 26 73 0.200 0.026 0.949 0.944 26 0.217 73 0.003 The final assumption of ANOVA is that there is homogeneity of variance. This was examined with Levene’s test of homogeneity of variance for each dependent variable. Levene’s test of homogeneity of variance was not significant for the DESSA-mini (p=.886), indicating that the variances within each group were not significantly different from each other. Table 29 shows the ANOVA results, which determine how the dependent variable differed by parenting style. 101 There were significant mean differences between the two parenting styles in terms of the DESSA-mini score. Parenting style was found to be statistically significant (p = 0.001) in predicting the DESSA-mini score. Results regarding statistical significance were interpreted using Bonferroni corrected alpha significance level of p < 0.017 (=0.05/3) (O’Brien & Kaiser, 1985) to account for performing multiple ANOVAs. Table 28 provides the means for the two groups, which suggest that, on average, children with parents characterized by protective parenting were found to have a DESSA-mini score that was 5.15 units lower than those with parents characterized by authoritative parenting. Effect size was examined using eta squared, which is a ratio of the effect to total variance (Bakeman, 2005). The eta squared indicates that 9% of the variance in DESSA-mini scores was explained by class membership, which would be considered a small to moderate effect size. Table 28 DESSA-mini Means and Standard Deviations N Mean Std. Deviation Protective Parenting 34 50.00 7.793 Authoritative Parenting 80 55.15 7.578 Total 114 53.61 7.967 Table 29 DESSA-mini ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Eta Squared Between Groups 632.818 1 632.818 10.837 0.001 0.09 Within Groups 6540.200 112 58.395 Total 7173.018 113 102 Similar to the DESSA-mini, Levene’s test of homogeneity of variance was not significant for the Reading Composite. This indicated that the variances within each group were not significantly different from each other (p=.324). The ANOVA (Table 31) showed that there were no mean differences between the two parenting styles in terms of the Reading Composite. Therefore, parenting style was not statistically significant in predicting the Reading Composite (p = 0.781). Table 30 provides the mean and standard deviations for each group. Table 30 Reading Composite Means and Standard Deviations N Mean Std. Deviation Protective Parenting 31 103.61 9.834 Authoritative Parenting 79 102.99 10.890 Total 110 103.16 10.563 Table 31 Reading Composite ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 8.712 1 8.712 0.077 0.781 Within Groups 12152.342 108 112.522 Total 12161.055 109 Between Groups Levene’s test of homogeneity of variance was not significant for the HTKS Total, suggesting that the variances within each group were not significantly different from each other (p=.635). The ANOVA (Table 33) indicates that there were no mean differences between the two parenting styles for the HTKS and parenting style was not significant in predicting the HTKS (p = 0.538). Table 32 indicates that children who had parents who were characterized by protective parenting had a higher arithmetic mean of the log-transformed reversed HTKS than 103 children with parents who displayed authoritative parenting, however, as discussed above, this difference was not statistically significant. Table 32 HTKS Means and Standard Deviations N Mean Std. Deviation Protective Parenting 26 0.8104 .3622 Authoritative Parenting 73 0.7568 .3859 Total 99 0.7709 .3788 Table 33 HTKS ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 0.055 1 0.055 0.382 0.538 Within Groups 14.006 97 0.144 Total 14.061 98 104 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of school readiness and developmental outcomes of Latino children by examining cultural factors that may be unique to Latinos and that may help to explain the relation of Latino parenting to child outcomes. To accomplish this goal, this study examined parenting among primarily first generation, Catholic, Latina mothers and female caregivers from suburban areas in the Midwest to understand whether the conventional styles of parenting adequately captured their parenting practices. In addition, the study examined unique cultural factors which may help to explain Latino parenting, such as acculturation, cultural values, and contextual demands, through the lens of Garcia Coll et al.’s (1996) integrative model and Calzada et al.’s (2010) culturally informed model of Latino parenting. Further, the relation between parenting and child school readiness outcomes was examined to gain a better understanding of parenting styles that promote school readiness (e.g., academic skill, self-regulation, and social-emotional development). Overall, this study found that Latina mothers’ parenting is characterized by both authoritative (high warmth, high supportive demandingness, low non-supportive demandingness, and moderate-high autonomy granting) and protective (moderate-high warmth, moderate-high supportive demandingness, low nonsupportive demandingness, and low-moderate autonomy granting) parenting styles. The findings did not find evidence of an authoritarian parenting style. No significant differences were found in the type of parenting style (authoritative or protective) or in the separate parenting dimensions by child’s gender. Of the six dimensions of acculturation, only culture of origin cultural identity predicted parenting style where female caregivers with higher scores on culture of origin cultural identity were more likely to exhibit a protective parenting style. Both familismo and respeto 105 predicted parenting style among Latina mothers. Specifically, female caregivers with higher scores on familismo were more likely to be characterized by authoritative parenting. In contrast, Latina caregivers with higher scores on respeto were more likely to be characterized by protective parenting. Neither of these cultural values were found to mediate the relationship between culture of origin cultural identity and parenting style among Latina female caregivers. The results from the current study also revealed that perceived discrimination did not predict parenting style (authoritative or protective). However, when examining the separate parenting dimensions, perceived discrimination predicted greater non-supportive demandingness. Finally, with respect to school readiness skills, parenting style significantly predicted social-competence in Latino children, but not children’s self-regulation or literacy skills. Parenting Style among Latinos Research Question 1a: How is parenting style among Latino parents characterized in terms of the dimensions of warmth, supportive demandingness, non-supportive demandingness and autonomy granting? It was hypothesized that Latina female caregivers would have high levels of warmth and supportive demandingness, medium to low levels of autonomy granting, and low levels of non-supportive demandingness. This hypothesis was partially supported. When mean scores on each parenting dimension were classified based on the Likert scale on the PSDQ (i.e., scores below 3 were considered low, scores between 3 and 4 were considered moderate, and scores between 4 and 5 were considered high), 84.5% of female caregivers were characterized by high warmth, 81.9% by high supportive demandingness, and 96.6% by low non-supportive demandingness, as hypothesized. In contrast to the hypothesis, there were more caregivers displaying higher levels of autonomy granting than expected with 34.5% of female caregivers characterized as high, 46.6% characterized as moderate, and 19% as low autonomy granting. 106 These findings were partially consistent with recent research on parenting among Latinos. Latino parents have been found to display high supportive demandingness and low nonsupportive demandingness (Donovick, 2010), which was supported by the current findings. Some variability has been found in terms of warmth and autonomy granting for Latino parents, with some research indicating that parents display high warmth and medium to low autonomy granting or high warmth and autonomy granting (Domenech Rodriguez et al., 2009; Donovick, 2006), while other research suggests that Latino parents are characterized by medium-high warmth and autonomy granting (Donovick, 2010). In contrast to prior studies, the current study did not solely include first generation Latinos and included only mothers. Therefore, differences in findings may be due to characteristics of the sample given that prior research also included fathers and focused only on foreign-born Latinos. The setting also differed from past studies; the current sample was recruited from suburban areas in the Midwest, whereas prior research has examined mothers living in rural towns in Utah. The current findings suggest that, when examining foreign and U.S.-born, Catholic, Latina caregivers from suburban areas in the Midwest, a large percentage of female caregivers were found to be high in warmth and had high or moderate levels of autonomy granting. As noted in García Coll et al.’s (1996) integrative model, migration and acculturation are aspects of adaptive culture that directly influence family processes, such as parenting. Specifically, the length of settlement of a particular community and patterns of acculturation can impact parenting styles. According to García Coll et al.’s (1996) model, minority parents who are living in the U.S. have to determine which aspects of parenting related to their country of origin they will retain and which U.S. parenting practice they will adopt. Therefore, it may be the case that both high and moderate levels of autonomy granting were found in the current study because Latina mothers who have been in the U.S. for a varying 107 number of years (i.e., have been here their entire lives or recently immigrated) and who may have varying levels of acculturation were represented in this study. These mothers may vary in the parenting practices they have retained from their culture of origin and those they have adopted from U.S. culture, and consequently may display different levels of autonomy granting. Research Questions 1b and 1c: To what extent do Latino parents display authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles? Is there evidence for protective parenting style among Latino parents? Parenting among Latinos was further examined in this study through a Latent Profile Analysis. As hypothesized, Latino parenting was not characterized by an authoritarian parenting style. Although some parents displayed low-moderate levels of autonomy granting, they also had low levels of non-supportive demandingness and high or moderate-high levels of warmth, which are inconsistent with an authoritarian approach. The second hypothesis was not fully supported, however. Latino parents were characterized by high warmth and high supportive demandingness as hypothesized, but some parents also exhibited moderate-high levels of autonomy granting, which is similar to authoritative parenting. Two classes of parenting were found based on the LPA. One type of parenting was well aligned with authoritative parenting (high warmth and supportive demandingness, moderate-high autonomy granting and low non-supportive demandingness), while the other was similar to protective parenting (moderate-high warmth and supportive demandingness, low-moderate autonomy granting, and low non-supportive demandingness). Of the female caregivers, 68% were found to fit into the parenting class that was identified as authoritative, while 32% fit into the protective parenting class. These findings supported the existence of a protective parenting style among Latina caregivers, but contrary to expectations, most parents exhibited an authoritative rather than a protective parenting style. These findings vary from past research that 108 has found that the most common style of parenting among a sample of Latinos was protective parenting, followed by authoritative parenting (Domenech Rodriguez et al., 2009). However, findings are consistent with prior research with respect to Latino parents not being characterized by authoritarian parenting style. Past research suggests that Latina mothers rely more on authoritative than authoritarian parenting practices (Calzada, Huang, Anicama, Fernandez, & Brotman, 2012). When interpreting the differences found between past research and the current study, it is important to note that the majority of mothers in this study have been living in the U.S. for several years, given that 92% of the children in the current study were born in the U.S. and considering mothers' current age and the age at which they came to the U.S. if they were not born in the U.S. This may play a role in the context in which these mothers are parenting, as they may be influenced by mainstream U.S. culture, their surrounding environments, and by their children's experiences, which may help to explain why more mothers in the current study were found to display authoritative parenting. This is in line with García Coll et al.’s (1996) integrative model which suggests that promoting/inhibiting environments, such as schools and neighborhoods, have a direct influence on both adaptive culture and family processes. Therefore, the interactions that these female caregivers have in their neighborhoods and their children’s schools may be directly influencing their parenting and aspects of adaptive culture, such as acculturation. For example, Mexican-American immigrant parents have been found to change their parenting practices after participating in a community program that supported families in addressing school-related issues (García Coll et al., 1996). Being exposed to different ways of communicating with their children in order to help them academically made it more likely for parents who participated in this program to adopt these child-rearing practices. Thus, if the 109 environments in which the mothers in the current study live encourage the exposure to and influence of U.S. mainstream culture practices, it may play a role in the parenting practices these mothers encounter and choose to display and help to explain why authoritative parenting was found to be the most common parenting style. It should also be noted that parenting style may differ between ethnic groups in the U.S. and within ethnic groups in the U.S. due to the unique demands of the specific environments in which children are raised. In the context of parenting among Latinos, research suggests that ethnic minority status may relate to the use of specific parenting styles among Latinos in the U.S. (Varela et al., 2004). For example, stress related to immigrant status, such as racial discrimination, work exploitation, language barriers, economic difficulties, and fear of immigration authorities have been found to be related to parenting behaviors, such as less involvement in school (Parra-Cardona et al., 2008; Parra-Cardona et al., 2012). Further, level of perceived danger in the environment may also affect the level of control and protective strategies exhibited by immigrant parents (Reese, 2002). Research suggests that the context in which parents raise children as an ethnic minority in the U.S. may be particularly important in relation to parenting, as it has been found that parents of Mexican decent living in the U.S. were more likely to display authoritarian parenting practices and to have higher levels of control and protective strategies than Mexican parents in Mexico (Reese, 2002; Varela et al., 2004). Additionally, there is evidence of cultural differences in parenting between subgroups of Latinos (Calzada & Eyberg, 2002). Factors such as gang and neighborhood violence, belonging to a Latino community, and area of residence may help to explain the differences found in parenting between different subgroups of Latinos United States. Therefore, the fit between parenting, 110 children, and environmental demands may also explain why some mothers in the current study exhibited protective, while others exhibited authoritative parenting styles. Current findings also align with findings related to biculturalism. Specifically, biculturalism has been found to be an emerging protective factor that has been linked to positive outcomes, including enhanced socio-cognitive functioning (Bacallao & Smokowski, 2005). Bicultural individuals are those who retain their cultural identity while developing a positive relationship with the host culture. In contrast to biculturalism, assimilation theories suggest that individuals have to lose their cultural identity of their heritage culture to identify with the host culture. Assimilation that involves adopting the host culture identity at the expense of one’s heritage culture has been found to be associated with negative mental health outcomes and behaviors. Bicultural individuals, on the other hand, have the ability to navigate between both cultures, which allows them to affiliate with values that are present in their own culture, as well as those of the U.S. culture. The emerging research on biculturalism and the negative outcomes related to assimilation suggest that research and interventions related to immigrants should place less of an emphasis on moving toward being acculturated to the host culture and away from the heritage culture, and instead, focus on promoting bicultural skills. Given the positive outcomes related to biculturalism, bicultural skills training programs have been created and been the focus of intervention research (Bacallao & Smokowski, 2005; Smokowski & Bacallao, 2008; Scapocznik, Santisteban, Rio, Perez-Vidal, & Kurtines, 1989). These programs focus on promoting bicultural skills and have demonstrated improvements in family functioning, reduction in risk factors (Scapocznik et al., 1989), as well as improvement in family adaptability, bicultural identity integration, and bicultural support (Smokowski & Bacallao, 2008). In relation to the results of the current study, it may be the case that mothers who were characterized by 111 authoritative parenting are bicultural and, have developed a positive relationship with U.S. culture, which promotes more authoritative parenting practices. Research Question 1d: Does the parenting style of Latino parents differ by child’s gender? In addition to the characteristics of parenting dimensions and parenting style among Latinos, this study examined whether there were differences in parenting style based on a child’s gender. Contrary to the hypotheses, results showed that sons were more likely to have parents characterized by protective parenting than girls, although, this difference was not significant. Therefore, the hypothesis that Latina female caregivers would be more likely to be characterized by protective parenting with daughters than sons was not supported. Similarly, when examining differences between the dimensions of parenting and child’s gender, it was found that child’s gender did not predict the specific dimensions of parenting. This was also contrary to the hypothesis that Latina female caregivers would exhibit higher levels of supportive demandingness and lower levels of autonomy granting with daughters than with sons. Although some prior research has also found no statistically significant differences between parenting style and child’s gender (Domenech Rodriguez et al., 2009; Douglas, 2011), others report that Dominican mothers of girls had significantly higher supportive demandingness while Puerto Rican mothers of girls had significantly higher warmth (Calzada & Eyberg, 2002). As noted in the discussion regarding the Latino population, there are many intragroup differences among Latinos, as this population is made up of individuals from various countries and backgrounds. Similarly, Calzada & Eyberg (2002) noted that there is evidence of cultural differences in parenting between subgroups of Latinos. Therefore, the differences in the specific subgroups of Latinos represented in current and prior research may help to explain differences in results. Specifically, the majority of the participants in the current study were from Mexico, as opposed 112 to Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic, which may help to explain the differences found when examining the relation between parenting style and child's gender when comparing the current study to prior research. Another important factor to consider is the child's age. Some of the prior research that found significant differences between parenting dimensions and child's gender examined the differences in mothers with children who were 2-6 years old. In contrast, the current study included mainly 7-8 year old children. Given that research suggests that Latino's parenting style may shift as children get older (Calzada & Eyberg, 2002; Halgunseth et al., 2006), it may be important to further examine whether the relation between parenting style and child's gender is also dependent on the age of the child. As Calzada et al.’s (2010) culturally informed model of Latino parenting highlights, Latino parents engage in specific parenting practices that reflect their cultural values. Although not focused on child’s gender, this culturally informed model of Latino parenting and child functioning proposes that parents select the parenting practices that will be the most effective at teaching children about specific expectations related to cultural values. Considering the finding that child’s gender was not found to predict parenting style or parenting dimensions through this lens, it may be the case that, at the ages included in the current study, parents are teaching daughters and sons similar cultural values, therefore they engage in similar parenting practices for both boys and girls. Parenting Style, Acculturation, and Cultural Values Research Question 2a: Do acculturation status and Latino cultural values predict parenting style among Latino parents? It was hypothesized that acculturation would predict parenting style among Latino parents. Specifically, examining acculturation through a multidimensional model of acculturation, Latino parents with high culture of origin cultural identity, Spanish competence, and culture of origin cultural competence were expected to be 113 characterized by protective parenting (high warmth, high supportive demandingness, medium to low autonomy granting, low non-supportive demandingness). In contrast, Latino parents characterized by authoritative parenting (high warmth, supportive demandingness, and autonomy granting, and low non-supportive demandingness) were expected to have high U.S. cultural identity, English competence, and U.S. cultural competence. This hypothesis was partially supported. Results showed that only culture of origin cultural identity predicted parenting style. As culture of origin cultural identity increased, female caregivers were 8.89 times more likely to be characterized by protective parenting than authoritative parenting. These had a large effect size based on the odds ratio. Research is limited examining acculturation through the integrative model of acculturation and its relation to parenting, therefore no studies examining the specific variables of focus for this study were found. However, these current findings were not consistent with prior research indicating that parents who were acculturated to Mexican culture were characterized by authoritarian parenting style (Chavez, 2008). Further, those with high warmth and low demandingness were associated with higher acculturation to U.S. culture. When examining acculturation through acculturation to the heritage culture and the receiving culture, prior research indicated that mothers with high acculturation to the receiving culture were found to display higher warmth with children (Calzada & Eyberg, 2002), and fathers with higher acculturation to their heritage culture were more involved in their children’s lives (Glass & Owen, 2010). The differences in some of these findings may be due to the way in which acculturation was measured, as the current study examined separate dimensions of acculturation, while previous studies have focused on acculturation to either the heritage or receiving culture. As noted with respect to other findings, differences in the relation between acculturation and parenting style between the current study and prior research may also be related to differences in 114 the sample of participants (e.g., primarily Mexican, solely mothers, majority foreign-born but included other generations). Further, the female caregivers that participated in this study were recruited from Spanish speaking churches or organizations which generally have a strong sense of community. As noted above, García Coll et al.’s (1996) integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children suggests that one’s environment has a direct influence on both adaptive culture and family processes. This context, therefore, may play a role in Latina mothers’ cultural identity and in their parenting style. Specifically, involvement and participation in an environment that promotes one’s heritage culture may encourage mothers to identify with their culture and to retain parenting practices that are in line with that culture. That could help to explain why mothers who identified more with their culture of origin were more likely to be characterized by protective parenting. With respect to Latino cultural values, both familismo and respeto were found to predict parenting style. It was hypothesized that female Latino caregivers with higher Latino cultural values would be more likely to display protective parenting. This hypothesis was partially supported. As hypothesized, female caregivers were more likely to be characterized by protective parenting as their respeto scores increased. In contrast, as familismo scores increased, Latina female caregivers were more likely to be characterized by authoritative parenting. Both of these findings had moderate effect sizes based on the odds ratios. Prior research suggests that parenting behaviors are associated with Latino parents’ level of respeto, however, inconsistent with current findings, these parents were generally characterized by strict, harsh, parenting strategies (Calzada et al., 2010; Calzada, 2010). Despite these findings, some research shows that harsh parenting practices may be used because Latino parents have not been exposed to other methods of parenting (Parra Cardona et al., 2008), and suggest that Latino parents are less likely 115 to adopt harsh parenting practices when provided with alternative methods parenting. Although the current study did not examine this, it could be possible that some of the parents in the current sample have been exposed to other methods of parenting that encourage supportive versus nonsupportive demandingness. Therefore, these mothers may still be selecting specific parenting practices that reflect respeto, as is noted in Calzada et al.’s (2010) culturally informed model of Latino parenting, but they have found a more effective way to do so. Additionally, respeto focuses on high expectations of obedience from children (Ortiz & Plunkett, 2003), which may relate to the lower levels of autonomy granting that are characteristic of protective parenting and not authoritative parenting. In relation to findings discussed above, prior research suggests that Mexican mothers with a strong Mexican identity were more likely to promote Latino cultural values, such as respeto (Romero, Cuellar, & Roberts, 2000). This is in line with Calzada et al.’s (2010) culturally informed model of Latino parenting which proposes that parental level of acculturation is a key determinant related to cultural values and practices. Level of acculturation relates to socialization messages that promote specific values and determine parenting practices that are selected. Given that mothers in the current study were found to be more likely to exhibit protective parenting when they had higher culture of origin cultural identity, this may help to explain why mothers who had higher respeto were also more likely to display protective parenting practices. In regard to familismo, past studies show that familismo is associated with aspects of both authoritative and authoritarian parenting (Donovick, 2010; Calzada, 2010). Familismo has also been found to be related to aspects of supportive demandingness, which is characteristic of both authoritative and protective parenting (Romero & Ruiz, 2007; Ramirez et al., 2004). Unlike current findings, non-supportive demandingness, a characteristic associated with authoritarian 116 parenting, has been found to have a significant positive relationship with familismo when examining foreign-born Latina mothers (Donovick, 2010). The context of the participants in the current sample may help to explain some of these differences. As noted previously, the majority of mothers in this study have been in the U.S. for several years, which may have exposed them to a more authoritative parenting style through the environments they have encountered. However, these mothers also continue to be part of a Latino community that provides a sense of community and often encourages interdependence, family closeness, and cohesion, which is characteristic of familismo (Halgunseth et al., 2006). Experiencing this unique context made up of multiple environments may explain why mothers in the current study with higher scores on familismo were more likely to exhibit an authoritative parenting style. Specifically, examining this finding through the lens of García Coll et al.’s (1996) integrative model, it may be the case that mothers who have experienced both of these environments were more likely to retain practices that promote familismo and adopt authoritative parenting practices. This finding is also in line with research on biculturalism that suggests that bicultural individuals are able to retain their cultural identity and values as well as values of the dominant culture (Bacallao & Smokowski, 2005). When examining familismo, intervention research promoting biculturalism has found that providing support for maintaining high levels of familismo was found to lower the likelihood of parent-adolescent conflicts in families, which is often related to intercultural and intergenerational conflicts (Bacallao & Smokowski, 2005). Therefore, families may retain high levels of familismo and adopt authoritative parenting practices as a way to reduce intercultural conflict in families. It should also be noted that the analysis used to examine this relation controlled for all other cultural factors, including acculturation and respeto. When analyses were conducted for a 117 subsequent question that only controlled for culture of origin cultural identity, it was found that for every one unit increase in familismo, female caregivers were more likely to be characterized by protective parenting compared to authoritative parenting. This finding contradicts the finding discussed above and makes it important to take into account the other variables that were controlled for when examining results and comparing them to prior research. Research Question 2b: If acculturation is predictive of parenting style, is that effect mediated by the importance of/commitment to cultural values (familismo and respeto)? Given that both acculturation and cultural values have been found to be related to parenting, it was hypothesized that cultural values would partially mediate the relationship between acculturation and parenting style. For this portion of the study, only culture of origin cultural identity was examined as a measure of acculturation as it was the only dimension of acculturation that predicted parenting style. Two separate mediation analyses examining familismo and respeto were performed. Contrary to hypotheses, mediation analyses indicated that both indirect effects were not statistically significant. Additionally, culture of origin cultural identity was not found to have a direct effect on either cultural value, also suggesting that mediation was not possible. Research is very limited in examining whether the relationship between acculturation and parenting styles is mediated by the importance of cultural values. However, prior research does indicate that, for Mexican and Dominican immigrant mothers, culture of origin and U.S. cultural identity and cultural competence, and Spanish language competence were positively related to respeto (Calzada, Huang, Anicama, Fernandez, & Brotman, 2012). Additionally, the socialization of respeto was found to be related to the use of authoritarian parenting practices. Further, Calzada et al.’s (2010) culturally informed model of Latino parenting and child functioning suggests that parent’s level of acculturation is related to socialization messages 118 reflecting cultural values, which in turn influence the type of parenting style exhibited by parents. As noted in the discussion above, differences in findings were present based on which other cultural factors were controlled for in the analyses. Therefore, that may help to explain why some studies have found Latino cultural values to predict parenting style, while others have not. Further, in contrast to other studies, the current study only included one aspect of acculturation in the mediation analysis, given that it was the only aspect found to predict parenting. Calzada et al.’s (2010) model of Latino parenting includes both parental enculturation and acculturation when examining acculturative status. It also indicates that enculturation and acculturation influence one another and both influence the socialization messages that reflect cultural values. In relation to this, biculturalism research also suggests that it is beneficial to identity with one’s culture of origin and have a positive relationship with the dominant culture (Bacallao & Smokowski, 2005). Therefore, it may be important to include all aspects of acculturation, not solely one aspect of it, in order to fully capture the acculturation status of Latino parents and determine if cultural values mediate the relation between acculturation and parenting style. Parenting Style and Perceived Discrimination Research Question 3: What role does the parenting context play in parenting style? Does perceived discrimination predict parenting style? It was hypothesized that perceived discrimination would predict parenting style. Specifically, parents who reported that they experienced more perceived discrimination were expected to be characterized by authoritarian parenting. This hypothesis was not supported. First, female caregivers in this study were not found to be characterized by authoritarian parenting. Additionally, results indicated that parents with higher perceived discrimination were more likely to be characterized by protective parenting, but these differences were not statistically significant. Similarly, when parenting was 119 examined at the dimension level, perceived discrimination did not predict warmth or autonomy granting. This finding did not support the hypothesis that parents with higher perceived discrimination would have lower levels of autonomy granting and warmth. In contrast, when parenting was examined at the dimension level, perceived discrimination was found to significantly predict non-supportive demandingness. Specifically, there was a 0.025 increase in non-supportive demandingness per one-unit increase in perceived discrimination. Based on the eta squared for this finding, 11% of the variance in non-supportive demandingness was based on female caregiver’s perceived discrimination. This finding supported the hypothesis that parents who experienced high levels of perceived discrimination would exhibit higher levels of nonsupportive demandingness. Similar to the hypothesis, prior research indicates that Latinos who experience racial discrimination at work and in educational settings are more likely to display less parental warmth, monitoring, communication and reading and have higher levels of anger (Brody et al., 2008; Murry et al., 2001; Tran, 2014). Further, Latino fathers who experience perceived discrimination at work report more negative parent-child relationships (Riina & McHale, 2010). This is an important finding from the current study, as it supports García Coll et al.’s (1996) integrative model which states that contextual demands that are placed by promoting/inhibiting environments, such as rates of unemployment and employment discrimination, contribute to the development of one’s adaptive culture which has been found to directly influence family processes, including parenting and the role of parents. Similarly, current findings suggest that the context in which parenting is situated a key factor to include when examining the relation between parenting and child outcomes. Contextual stressors and challenges, in this case perceived discrimination, could help to explain why certain types of 120 parenting, such as harsh parenting practices, are found among groups of people who may experience more discrimination. Prevention research on underserved ethnic minorities suggests that ethnic minorities need to learn adaptive strategies for coping with discrimination (Unger, 2015). Specifically, Unger (2015) urges researchers to explicitly address issues of discrimination and to teach ethnic minorities to be more resilient to discrimination. In line with this research, studies on culturally adapted parenting interventions suggest that there is a positive impact of overtly addressing discrimination in parenting interventions (Parra-Cardona et al., 2017). Specifically, based on randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of two different culturally adapted versions of a parenting intervention, it was found that mothers and fathers in both adapted versions experienced significant improvements on their parenting skills, compared to a wait-list control group. These findings highlight the importance of culturally adapting parenting interventions and addressing salient experiences for ethnic minority parents, such as discrimination. Parra-Cardona et al. (2017) also indicated that parents attributed high relevance to culture-specific components that were included in one of the culturally adapted interventions, which included an enhanced focus on cultural and contextual issues, such as discrimination. The current findings are in line with this research and suggest that, when working with Latino families, it may be important to explicitly address and support contextual stressors (e.g., perceived discrimination) and provide a promoting environment for parents in order to help to decrease stress, which may make it less likely that harsh parenting practices would be adopted. Parenting Style and Child Outcomes Research Question 4: Does parenting style predict children’s self-regulation, early literacy, and social-emotional development? When examining child outcomes, it was expected that parenting style would predict child outcomes and that parents who displayed protective 121 parenting practices would have children with higher literacy skills, self-regulation, and socialcompetence. This hypothesis was partially supported in that parenting style did predict one of the child outcomes. However, in contrast to the hypothesis, children with higher social-competence were found to be more likely to have authoritative parents. The eta squared suggests that 9% of the variance in DESSA-mini scores is explained by parenting style, which would be considered a small to moderate effect size. Although overall findings have been mixed, this is consistent with prior research that has found that aspects of authoritative parenting are associated with positive social-emotional outcomes (Hill et al., 2003; Whiteside-Mansell et al., 2009). Specifically, research suggests that, for Spanish-speaking Mexican mothers, high levels of acceptance were negatively related to conduct problems in children (Hill, Bush, & Roosa, 2003). Research in this area with Latino families is limited, but similar results have been found among children of other ethnicities, such as maternal warmth predicting greater social skills and fewer externalizing problem behavior among White and African American families (Whiteside-Mansell et al., 2009). This finding supports prior research and theory on parenting that indicates that authoritative parenting is beneficial for child outcomes (Silva et al., 2007; Steinberg et al., 1989; Sternberg et al., 1991). Current findings are similar to those found for White parents when examining parenting and social-emotional development. They suggest that authoritative parenting may be beneficial in promoting social-emotional development in children regardless of ethnicity. Therefore, it may be that authoritative parenting is universally an adaptive form of parenting. Findings can also be understood by considering the context of the current sample of Latina mothers. As noted previously, the majority of these mothers have been living in the U.S. for several years, which may play a role in the context in which they are parenting and in the promoting/inhibiting environments that they have encountered (García Coll et al., 1996). Their 122 parenting practices may have evolved or may be evolving due to the influence of mainstream U.S. culture and their children’s experiences of being born in the U.S in relation to these environments, as well as the development of a bicultural identity (Bacallao & Smokowski, 2005). Supporting this idea, it was found that U.S.-born Mexican American mothers who were acculturated to U.S. culture, and immigrant Mexican mothers who were less acculturated to U.S. culture, promoted different behaviors related to cultural values (Okagaki & Sternberg, 1993). Specifically, immigrant mothers favored rule following, a characteristic of obedience and respeto, whereas U.S.-born Mexican American mothers favored autonomous behavior, a mainstream U.S. American value. Therefore, the mothers in the current study may have adopted U.S. values that view individual autonomy and self-direction to be important, which in turn could result in these mothers promoting higher social-emotional development in their children. In contrast to what was hypothesized, the current study found that parenting style did not predict children’s self-regulation or early literacy skills. This is not consistent with past research. Although research examining parenting style and self-regulation and early literacy skills is very limited among Latino families, previous research typically suggests that aspects of authoritative parenting are related to these child outcomes. Specifically, warmth has been found to predict early school performance (Baker, 2010) and contribute to higher academic achievement among Latino students (Arellano & Padilla, 1996; Ceballo, 2004; Ruiz, 2009). In contrast, other studies indicate that warmth has a slightly negative influence when predicting achievement in Latino children (Davis-Kean & Sexton, 2009). When examining self-regulation, studies were not found that included primarily Latino families. However, ethnic differences have been found among White and African American families, with increased authoritarian attitudes predicting greater self-regulation among African Americans, but decreasing self-regulation among White families 123 (LeCuyer et al., 2011). It is unclear why significant differences were found between parenting style and social competence, but not academics and self-regulation. Examining this finding through the lens of García Coll et al.’s integrative model, family processes, such as parenting, are not the only factors that directly influence developmental competencies. Adaptive culture and child characteristics also directly influence these child outcomes. Therefore, there may be factors related to adaptive culture and child characteristics that are crucial to examine in relation to child outcomes and that may be more predictive of literacy skills and self-regulation. Additionally, differences in the way these outcomes have been measured in the literature may play a role in the differences found between current and previous findings. For academics, much of the research measures academics through academic achievement and GPA and research is limited examining literacy skills specifically. Further, some studies have examined separate dimensions of parenting in relation to these child outcomes instead of parenting style as a whole. For example, some research suggests that self-regulation is related to parent’s autonomy support (PinoPasternak & Whitebread, 2010; Grolnick & Ryan, 1989). Therefore, given that parenting style did not predict self-regulation or literacy skills in the current study, it might be important to examine the dimensions of parenting in relation to these child outcomes instead of parenting style as a whole. Limitations This study is an important first step in understanding unique cultural factors that may help to explain the effects of Latino parenting on child outcomes, but there were also several limitations in this study. First, the study used a relatively small sample of convenience. The sample population only included female caregivers from suburban areas in the Midwest, many of whom were recruited through local Catholic and Protestant churches. This is important to 124 consider when interpreting the results, as religion may have also played a role in parenting among the Latina mothers and in the cultural factors examined as part of this study. Additionally, recruiting participants at churches and organizations that primarily focus on Latinos may have reduced the variance in the sample. For example, a majority of mothers were foreign born, most being from Mexico, and chose to complete the survey in Spanish. The sample of convenience and limited variance in the population in terms of nativity, religion, and language preference reduces the generalizability of the results to other Latino families. Therefore, due to sample effects, caution should be used in generalizing findings beyond first generation Latina Catholic mothers from suburban areas in the Midwest. An additional limitation in relation to the sample is that the sample may not be representative of Latinos in the United States. For example, only 34.5% of the Latino population in 2015 indicated that they were foreign-born, while the current study consisted of 85.3% of mothers who were born outside of the U.S. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016). Similar to the current study, in which 71% of the sample were married, in 2015, 66.8% of Latino families included two parents. Given that some differences were found between the current sample and the demographics of the Latino population in the U.S., there is the possibility of sampling bias in the current study. This further reduces the generalizability of the results to other Latino families. Second, the current study relied heavily on the use of self-report measures, which could be subject to bias and social desirability. The sensitive nature of some of the questions that focused on parenting practices and cultural factors may have resulted in female caregivers not fully disclosing their practices. Additionally, a small number of mothers chose to complete the survey with the researcher, which could have led to these mothers being more conscious about how they were being perceived and therefore not fully disclosing their practices. In addition to 125 being subject to social desirability, these measures could have been subject to response style bias. When examining the latent classes that were found through the Latent Profile Analysis, one class appeared to have more extreme scores, while the other had less extreme and more moderate scores. Although the two latent classes that were found were in line with theory on parenting styles, response style bias could also account for the responses and the latent classes that were found, given the possibility that some individuals may tend to be more extreme in responding, while others tend to be more moderate. Another limitation in relation to the measures that were used is that common method variance could have been present and could have been influenced the results. This is particularly important with regards the findings related to the relationship between parenting style and children’s social-emotional competence, as the variance that was found could be attributed to the measurement method that was used rather than the constructs that are represented by the measures. Specifically, measures of parenting style and children’s social-emotional competence were both self-report measures that were rated by the same individual and that could be subject to social desirability. A third limitation was that intragroup differences were not examined among this sample of Latina female caregivers. Although Latinos consist of a large group of people from many different countries and with varying backgrounds, the small sample size did not allow for further analyses that examined the intragroup differences. Participants in this study may not be a homogenous group, therefore these differences may be important in relation to the results that were found. Specifically, although the majority of the female caregivers were of Mexican origin, participants from Guatemala, El Salvador, Colombia, Cuba, Venezuela, Costa Rica, Honduras, and Ecuador were also represented. Additionally, the Latina mothers in this study have different 126 backgrounds due their country of birth, the amount of time they have been in the U.S., and their language preference. A fourth limitation is that there could be third variables that were not measured in the current study that could also influence parenting style. For example, parents who live in a certain neighborhood or who live in poverty may display a specific parenting style because of the context in which they are parenting. Additionally, child effects can play an important role in parenting, as child characteristics (e.g., having a difficult temperament, having experienced trauma), may make it more likely for parents to be characterized by certain parenting styles. There could also be reciprocal effects of these third variables, where it would be important to consider the parenting style that is displayed in relation to the child characteristics in a particular context. A fifth limitation is that the Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire was used differently than it is typically used in research. Instead of using the preexisting dimensions to come up with scales for authoritative and authoritarian parenting, some of the dimensions were used separately and some were combined to make the dimension of non-supportive demandingness. Given that this is not how the measure was intended to be used, the current use may reduce the validity of the measure. Sixth, the relatively small sample was not large enough to conduct more complex analyses, such as Structural Equation Modeling, that could test the relationship between cultural factors, parenting, and child outcomes. Lastly, a secondary limitation was that fathers were not included in this study. The majority of mothers in this study were married, however, data was only collected from the mothers. Limited studies focus on Latino fathers, making this an area that requires further research in terms of parenting and child outcomes. 127 Summary and Future Research This study found that Latina female caregivers who were primarily first generation, Catholic, and from suburban areas in the Midwest, displayed authoritative and protective parenting styles, with most mothers being characterized by authoritative parenting. Overall, female caregivers exhibited low non-supportive demandingness, high or moderate-high warmth and supportive demandingness, and low-moderate to moderate-high autonomy granting. Parenting style and parenting dimensions did not differ based on child’s gender. In line with García Coll et al.’s (1996) integrative model and Calzada et al.’s (2010) culturally informed model of Latino parenting, cultural factors were found to play an important role in parenting among Latina mothers. Specifically, culture of origin cultural identity, familismo, and respeto predicted parenting style. Contextual demands, as measured through perceived discrimination, did not predict parenting style among this sample of Latina female caregivers. However, perceived discrimination did predict non-supportive demandingness. Finally, parenting style was found to predict social-emotional competence, but did not predict self-regulation or early literacy skills among Latino children. The current findings suggest that parenting among Latinos is not fully captured by the conventional parenting styles. Although many mothers were found to exhibit authoritative parenting, some also displayed protective parenting. Cultural factors are also important factors related to parenting among Latina mothers, as they predicted whether mothers displayed protective or authoritative parenting. These cultural factors should be taken into account when providing interventions for parents and when exposing Latino parents to different approaches to parenting. Given that limited research has examined protective parenting, additional research is needed. It may be particularly helpful to examine differences in parenting style among foreign- 128 born and U.S. born parents due to the differences in the current findings and those that solely examined foreign-born mothers (Domenech Rodriguez, et al., 2009). Additionally, the length of time mothers have been in the U.S. and the country of birth of their children may play a role in the context in which these mothers are parenting due to the influence of mainstream U.S. culture and the experiences of their children. Religious affiliation and belonging to a Latino community through church may also change the context of parenting for Latina mothers. Therefore, these factors should also be considered in future research on differences in parenting and should be considered when examining differences in parenting based on child’s gender and cultural factors. Including these factors would allow for parenting and child outcomes to be examined more thoroughly through García Coll et al.’s (1996) integrative approach as additional factors, such as prohibiting/inhibiting environments would be added to the model. Further, it may be important to examine whether the relation between parenting style and child’s gender is dependent on the age of the child due to prior research that suggests that Latino’s parenting style may shift as children get older (Calzada & Eyberg, 2002; Halgunseth et al., 2006) and the differences between prior research and current findings. Examining this in relation to cultural values and through the lens of Calzada et al.’s (2010) culturally informed model of Latino parenting would also allow for a better understanding of whether Latino parents engage in similar parenting practices for boys and girls at certain ages because parents may be teaching daughters and sons similar cultural values at those ages. Researchers examining acculturation in the future should also consider doing additional studies examining acculturation through the integrative approach of acculturation due to limited research in this area. Examining these dimensions in relation to biculturalism is also encouraged given the positive outcomes that have been found in the literature on biculturalism. 129 Finally, it may be important to examine how controlling for certain cultural factors may change how these factors predict parenting among Latinos. Another important area for future research based on the findings of this study would be to further examine contextual demands among Latinos and their impact on parenting. Although the current study did not find any significant results for parenting style, it was found that perceived discrimination predicted non-supportive demandingness. Prior research, which has primarily been conducted with fathers, also indicates that the parenting context is crucial to understand. Conducting additional research including both mothers and fathers examining perceived discrimination and other contextual demands would provide an important contribution to the literature. In line with García Coll et al.’s (1996) integrative model, it would also be important to examine the promoting/inhibiting environments that place these contextual demands on minority families. Given the sensitive nature of some of the questions, particularly those that focused on perceived discrimination and non-supportive demandingness (e.g., harsh parenting practices), future researchers should also consider using additional sources for data collection to examine both parenting and cultural factors. Further, due to potential limitations related to common method variance, future researchers should include a more direct measure of social-emotional competence or use varied respondents instead of using the same respondent in order to allow for greater objectivity. Doing so may help to reduce any bias, social desirability, or common method bias that may have resulted from only using self-report measures. Finally, current findings suggest that parenting is an important factor for social-emotional competence, an aspect of school readiness. Given that prior research suggests that parenting is also critical in relation to other aspects of school readiness, such as literacy skills and selfregulation, it may be helpful to further examine these relationships among Latinos to obtain a 130 better understanding of this relationship and better understand styles of parenting that promote school readiness in young children. In further examining these variables, it may be beneficial to examine parenting at the dimension level in addition to looking at parenting style and to include other factors that directly influence children’s developmental competencies, such as adaptive culture and child characteristics (García Coll et al., 1996). One of the purposes of this study was to better understand parenting and cultural factors that influence children’s functioning and school readiness among Latinos in order to support researchers in designing more effective intervention programs and to guide efforts to benefit students (Plunkett & Bamaca-Gomez, 2003). There are several implications of the current findings that are important to consider for practice and in providing interventions for parents. First, cultural factors should be taken into account and incorporated, when appropriate, when providing interventions for parents and when exposing Latino parents to different approaches to parenting. Cultural factors were found to predict whether mothers displayed protective or authoritative parenting, therefore, considering these factors may help interventionists to understand parenting practices that Latino parents may exhibit and the importance of these practices in relation to parents’ culture. Additionally, given that mothers with higher perceived discrimination were found to be more likely to display non-supportive demandingness, parenting interventions should explicitly address and support contextual demands, such as perceived discrimination. This is in line with prevention research that highlights the importance of focusing on and explicitly addressing contextual stressors (Parra-Cardona et al., 2017; Unger, 2015). Doing so may help to decrease stress related to discrimination and provide ways for parents to be more resilient to discrimination. This may make it less likely that harsh parenting practices would be adopted by Latino parents. Finally, parents should be exposed to parenting practices 131 that are in line with authoritative parenting (i.e., warmth, autonomy granting, supportive demandingness), as these were found to be predict higher social-emotional competence among Latino children, which is an important aspect of school readiness and has been found to be linked to positive school attitudes, successful early adjustment in school, and improved grades and achievement (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Ladd, Birch, & Buhs, 1999; Pianta & Cox, 2000). 132 APPENDIX 133 Consent/Assent and Parent Questionnaire Packets Research Participant Information and Consent Form Michigan State University, College of Education Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology and Special Education Acculturation, Cultural Values, Discrimination, Parenting, and Child Outcomes among Latinos You and your child are being asked to participate in a research project studying how cultural values and experiences of Latino parents are related to children’s learning and development. Researchers are required to provide a consent form to inform you about the study, to inform you that participation is voluntary, to explain risks and benefits of participation, and to allow you to make an informed decision. You should feel free to ask the researchers any questions you may have. Researchers: Ruth del Salto, M.A, Doctoral Candidate in School Psychology Evelyn R. Oka, Ph.D., Associate Professor, School Psychology & Educational Psychology Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Special Education Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI PURPOSE OF RESEARCH: Parents can play an important role in their child’s success in school. In this study, the researchers hope to learn how parenting behaviors relate to children’s academic and social skills and how parents’ experiences and cultural values are related to parenting behaviors. Mothers and their second or third grade child who are of Latino heritage are invited to participate in this research study. Your participation in the study will take about 45 to 60 minutes and your child’s participation will take about 15 to 20 minutes. WHAT YOU AND YOUR CHILD WILL DO: You will complete a brief background information form and six questionnaires. These questionnaires will ask about your parenting behaviors, your level of acculturation, your cultural values, your experiences with discrimination, and your child’s social-emotional development. Your child will complete a short reading assessment in your child’s preferred language, either English or Spanish. Your child will also complete a task to examine his or her self-regulation. POTENTIAL BENEFITS: You or your child will not directly benefit from participation in this study, but may help to increase the understanding of parenting practices among Latinos and find ways to promote positive academic, social-emotional and self-regulation outcomes in children. POTENTIAL RISKS: This study involves minimal risk for you and your child. You will complete a survey that includes questions about acculturation, cultural values, and discrimination that may cause you to experience some momentary discomfort. Your child will complete a reading measure and a self-regulation task. These are brief tasks, similar to activities in school, but there is a risk that children may be uncomfortable if they have difficulty with reading or following simple commands. The self-regulation task is an activity that children typically enjoy. PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY: Your and your child’s responses and these data will be kept confidential to the maximum extent possible according to law. Only the researchers and Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection Program will have access to these data. After you and your child complete the survey, an identification number will be assigned to the survey and no names will be attached to the survey. The consent form containing names will be kept separately from the surveys in a locked cabinet. Completed surveys will also be kept in a locked file cabinet. All documents will be destroyed ten years after completion of the study. The results of this study may be published 134 or presented at professional meetings, but the identities of all research participants will be kept confidential. It will not be possible for readers to know who participated in the study. YOUR RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE, SAY NO, OR WITHDRAW: Participation in this research project is completely voluntary. You and your child have the right to say no. You or your child may change your minds at any time and withdraw from the study. You and your child may also choose not to answer specific question or to stop participating at any time. COSTS AND COMPENSATION FOR BEING IN THE STUDY: There are no costs to participate in this study. In appreciation of your time, you will be given a $20 gift card. Also, children who participate in this study will receive a small token of appreciation (for example, small toy, pencils, or story book). CONTACT INFORMATION FOR QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS: If you have concerns or questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part of it, or to report an injury (i.e. physical, psychological, social, financial, or otherwise), please contact the researchers, Ruth del Salto, by phone: 872-356-1890; email: delsalto@msu.edu or Dr. Evelyn Oka, by phone: 517-432-9615; email: evoka@msu.edu; 439 Erickson Hall, East Lansing, MI, 48824. If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection Program at 517-355-2180, Fax 517-4324503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail at 207 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824. DOCUMENTATION OF INFORMED CONSENT Acculturation, Cultural Values, Discrimination, Parenting and Child Outcomes among Latinos If you agree to participate in the research study, please fill in the information below and sign. I voluntarily agree to participate in this study and give permission for, my child _____________________________________ to participate in this research study. Please Print Child’s Name ________________________________________ Parent/Legal Guardian Signature _____________________________ Date Please provide your contact information in order for the researchers to contact you about your child’s portion of the study. _____________________________ Printed Parent/Legal Guardian Name Circle One: Mother ______________________________ Email Address Father Other____________ ______________________________ Phone Number You will be given a copy of this form to keep. 135 Verbal Assent Script Hi. My name is _____. I go to school at Michigan State University. I’m trying to learn about how children read and learn. We are going to be doing two things today. First, I will ask you to read some words or stories for me. I will explain each part as we get to it. After that, we are going to play a game where I will ask you to follow directions. By reading these words and stories and playing this game, you will help me learn about how boys and girls your age read and follow directions. This will take about 15 or 20 minutes. You will also get to choose a small gift to take home when we are done. We will remove your name from your responses and I will only share them with the researchers doing the study. Do you understand? Do you have any questions so far? Your Mother/Father/Guardian says it’s okay for you to do this, but you can stop at any time. If you have any questions while we are reading or playing the game, you can ask me. Do you have any questions for me now? Are you ready to begin? NOTES TO RESEARCHER: The child should answer “Yes” or “No.” Only a definite “Yes” may be taken as assent to participate. Name of Child: _________________ ◻ Yes Parental Consent on File: (If “No,” do not proceed with assent or research procedures.) ◻ Yes Child’s Voluntary Response to Participation: Signature of Researcher: _____________________________ 136 ◻ No ◻ No Date: __________________ Información para los participantes en la investigación y formulario de consentimiento Michigan State University, College of Education Department of Counseling Educational Psychology and Special Education Aculturación, Valores Culturales, Discriminación, Crianza y Desarrollo de los niños entre Latinos Se ha solicitado su participación y la de su niño/a en un proyecto de investigación que está estudiando la manera como los valores culturales y las experiencias de los padres latinos se relacionan con el aprendizaje y el desarrollo de los niños. Los investigadores deben proveerle un formulario de consentimiento que le da información acerca del estudio, le recuerda que su participación es voluntaria, le explica los riesgos y beneficios de su participación, y deja que usted haga una decisión informada. Debe sentirse libre de hacer cualquier pregunta a los investigadores. Investigadores: Ruth del Salto, M.A, Doctoral Candidate in School Psychology Evelyn R. Oka, Ph.D., Associate Professor, School Psychology & Educational Psychology Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Special Education Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI PROPOSITO DE LA INVESTIGACION: Los padres cumplen un rol importante en el éxito de sus hijo(a)s en la escuela. Este estudio busca descubrir cómo la crianza de los niños afecta sus habilidades académicas y sociales, y la manera como las experiencias y valores culturales de sus padres se relacionan con la crianza de los hijos. Las madres latinas, junto con sus hijos/as de segundo o tercer grado están invitados a participar en esta investigación. Su participación tomará apenas 45 a 60 minutos, y la participación de su hijo/a tomará unos 15 a 20 minutos. QUE HARAN USTED Y SU HIJO/A: Usted completará un formulario breve de información demográfica y seis cuestionarios. Estos cuestionarios le preguntaran acerca de su comportamiento relacionado con la crianza de sus hijos, nivel de aculturación, sus valores culturales, sus experiencias con la discriminación, y el desarrollo social y emocional de su hijo/a. Su hijo/a completará una prueba de lectura en el idioma de su preferencia, inglés o español. Su hijo/a también completará una actividad para determinar su nivel de autorregulación. BENEFICIOS POSIBLES: Usted o su hijo/a no tendrán un beneficio directo por la participación en esta investigación, sin embargo ayudará a mejorar el conocimiento sobre las prácticas en la crianza de los hijos entre Latinos, a fin de encontrar mecanismos para promover un desarrollo académico, social y emocional positivo, y de autorregulación en nuestros niños. RIESGOS POSIBLES: Este estudio contiene un riesgo mínimo para usted y su hijo/a. Usted llenará un cuestionario que incluye preguntas acerca de su nivel de aculturación, sus valores culturales, y discriminación que le podrán hacer que sienta algo de incomodidad momentánea. Su hijo/a completará un ejercicio de lectura y una actividad de autorregulación. Estas actividades son breves, similares a las actividades de la escuela; sin embargo, si su niño tiene dificultad con la lectura o con el cumplimiento de instrucciones sencillas, puede que se sienta algo incómodo. De cualquier modo, la actividad de autorregulación es una actividad que los niños normalmente disfrutan. PRIVACIDAD Y CONFIDENCIALIDAD: Sus respuestas y las de su hijo/a son confidenciales de acuerdo a la ley. Solo los investigadores y el Programa de Protección de Derechos Humanos de Michigan State University tendrán acceso a esta información. El cuestionario y las actividades que usted y su niño/a completen recibirá un número de identificación de modo que su nombre no sea ligado al cuestionario. El formulario de consentimiento será guardado separado de las encuestas en un archivo con candado. Las encuestas que han sido completadas también serán guardadas en un archivo con candado. Todos 137 los documentos serán destruidos diez años después de haber sido llenados. Los resultados de esta investigación posiblemente serán publicados y presentados en una reunión profesional, pero las identidades de los participantes serán anónimas. No será posible que los lectores sepan quien participó en este estudio. SU DERECHO A PARTICIPAR, A DECIR NO, O RETIRARSE: La participación en este proyecto de investigación es completamente voluntaria. Usted y su hijo/a tienen el derecho de decir no. Usted o su hijo/a pueden cambiar de opinión y retirarse del estudio. Usted y su hijo/a también pueden decidir no responder a ciertas preguntas o dejar de participar en cualquier momento. COSTOS Y COMPENSACION POR PARTICIPAR EN EL ESTUDIO: No hay costos por participar en este estudio. En agradecimiento por su tiempo, se le dará una tarjeta de $20. A su hijo/a también se le dará una pequeña muestra de aprecio (por ejemplo, un libro, un juguete pequeño, o lápices). INQUIETUDES E INFORMACION ADICIONAL: Si usted tiene inquietudes o preguntas acerca de este estudio, sean problemas científicos o problemas con los cuestionarios, o incluso para reportar un problema físico, psicológico, social o financiero, por favor contacte vía telefónica a las investigadoras, Ruth del Salto: 872-356-1890; por correo electrónico: delsalto@msu.edu o Dra. Evelyn Oka: 517-432-9615; correo electrónico: evoka@msu.edu; 439 Erickson Hall, East Lansing, MI, 48824. Si tiene preguntas o preocupaciones acerca de su papel y sus derechos como participante en la investigación, y quisiera obtener información o dar alguna sugerencia, o quisiera registrar una queja acerca de este estudio, puede contactar anónimamente, si quiere, al Programa de Protección de Derechos Humanos de Michigan State University llamando al teléfono 517-355-2180, Fax 517-432-4503, o enviando un correo electrónico a irb@msu.edu o correo regular a 207 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824. DOCUMENTACIÓN DE CONSENTIMIENTO INFORMADO Aculturación, Valores Culturales, Discriminación, Crianza de los Niños y Desarrollo de los Niños entre Latinos Si usted acepta participar en esta investigación, por favor llene la siguiente información y firme. Acepto voluntariamente participar en este estudio y doy permiso para que mi hijo/a _____________________________________ Nombre del niño/a ________________________________________ Firma de Padre/Guardián Legal participe en esta investigación. _____________________________ Fecha Por favor deje sus datos para que las investigadoras puedan contactarle para que su hijo/a complete su porción del estudio. _____________________________ Nombre de Padre/Guardián Legal Circule Uno: Madre ______________________________ Correo Electronico Padre Otro____________ ______________________________ Numero de Telefono Se le dará una copia de este formulario para que lo guarde. 138 Guión Verbal de Consentimiento Hola. Mi nombre es _____. Soy estudiante de la Michigan State University. Estoy tratando de aprender como los niños leen y aprenden. Vamos a hacer dos cosas hoy. Primero, te voy a pedir que leas unas palabras e historias para mi. Te explicaré cada parte cuando empecemos. Después de eso vamos a hacer un juego donde yo te voy a pedir que sigas instrucciones. Por medio de las lectura y del juego, me ayudarás a entender cómo leen y siguen instrucciones los niños y niñas de tu edad. Esto nos tomará unos 15 a 20 minutos. Luego podrás escoger un regalo pequeño para llevarte a la casa. No pondré tu nombre en tus respuestas, y sólo los investigadores podrán mirar las respuestas. ¿Está claro? ¿Tienes alguna pregunta? Tu Madre/Padre/Guardián dice que esta bien que participes, pero puedes parar en cualquier momento. Si tienes alguna pregunta mientras estemos leyendo o jugando, me la puedes hacer. ¿Tienes alguna pregunta? ¿Estas listo/a para empezar? NOTES TO RESEARCHER: The child should answer “Yes” or “No.” Only a definite “Yes” may be taken as assent to participate. Name of Child: _________________ ◻ Yes Parental Consent on File: (If “No,” do not proceed with assent or research procedures.) ◻ Yes Child’s Voluntary Response to Participation: Signature of Researcher: _____________________________ 139 ◻ No ◻ No Date: __________________ Parent Questionnaire Packet- English Part 1 We remove all identifying information and assign an anonymous identification code. Directions: These questionnaires are to be completed by the child’s Mother. To help us in our research, please answer the following questions as honestly as possible. 1. Relationship to child: If you are not the child’s Mother, but you are the legal guardian and primary caregiver, please indicate your relationship to the child (for example, step-mother, grandmother, aunt, guardian): Your Gender if not the child’s Mother : ◻ Male ◻ Female 2. Which racial/ethnic group(s) best describe(s) you? Check all that apply. ◻ African American ◻ American Indian/Alaskan Native ◻ Arab American ◻ Asian American ◻ European American ◻ Hispanic or Latino ◻ Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander ◻ Other_______________________ 3. Child’s Current Grade: ◻ Grade 2 ◻ Grade 3 4. Child’s Birth Date: Month _____Year _____ Current Age _____ 5. Child’s Gender: ◻ Male ◻ Female 6. Child’s Name: ___________________ 7. Were you born in the United States? ◻ Yes ◻ No (If you answered No, please answer 7a and 7b.) 140 a. At what age did you come to the United States? ◻ 0-2 ◻ 3-5 ◻ 6-10 ◻ 11-13 ◻ 14-17 ◻ 18-20 ◻ 21 or older b. Country of birth: ________________________ 8. What generation best describes you? ◻ 1st generation (you were NOT born in the U.S.) ◻ 2nd generation (you were born in the U.S., but at least 1 parent was not born in the U.S.) ◻ 3rd generation (you were born in the U.S., and at least 1 grandparent was not born in the U.S.) ◻ 4th generation (you were born in the U.S. and at least 1 great-grandparent was not born in the U.S.) ◻ Greater than 4th generation (parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents were all born in the U.S.) 9. What is your primary language? ____________________ 10. Your Age: ◻ 18-19 ◻ 20-21 ◻ 22-23 ◻ 24-29 ◻ 30-34 ◻ 35-39 ◻ 40-44 ◻ 45-49 ◻ 50-54 ◻ 55-59 ◻ 60 or older 141 11. Highest level of education: ◻ Completed elementary and/or middle school ◻ Some high school ◻ Completed high school or GED ◻ Some college ◻ Completed college ◻ Post college coursework ◻ Graduate degree or beyond 12. What is your religious preference? ◻ Catholic ◻ Protestant ◻ Jewish ◻ Buddhist ◻ Hindu ◻ Muslim ◻ Agnostic ◻ Atheist ◻ None ◻ Other _________________ 13. What is your marital status? ◻ Single ◻ Married ◻ Separated ◻ Divorced ◻ Widowed 14. Was your child born in the United States? ◻ Yes ◻ No (If you answered No, please answer 14a and 14b.) a. At what age did your child come to the United States? ◻ 0-2 ◻ 3-5 ◻ 6-10 ◻ 11-13 ◻ 14-17 142 b. Child’s country of birth: ________________________ 15. Which racial/ethnic group(s) best describe(s) your child? Check all that apply. ◻ African American ◻ American Indian/Alaskan Native ◻ Arab American ◻ Asian American ◻ European American ◻ Hispanic or Latino ◻ Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander ◻ Other_______________________ 143 Parent Questionnaire Packet- Spanish: Parte 1 Omitimos toda información personal. Su información será identificada por medio de un código de identificación anónimo. Instrucciones: Los cuestionarios deben ser completados por la madre del niño(a). Para ayudarnos con nuestra investigación, por favor responda con honestidad las siguientes preguntas. 1. Su relación con el niño(a): Si usted no es la madre del niño(a), pero es la guardián legal y principal cuidadora, por favor indique su relación con el niño(a) (por ejemplo, madrastra, abuela, tía, guardián): Su Sexo si no es la madre del niño(a): ◻ Hombre ◻ Mujer 2. ¿Qué grupo(s) racial/étnico la describe mejor? Marque todos los que apliquen. ◻ Afroamericano ◻ Nativo de American/Nativo de Alaska ◻ Árabe Americano ◻ Asiático Americano ◻ Europeo Americano ◻ Hispano o Latino ◻ Nativo de Hawái u otro lugar de la Polinesia ◻ Otro_______________________ 3. ¿En que grado está en este momento su hijo/a? ◻ Segundo grado ◻ Tercer grado 4. Fecha de Nacimiento de su hijo/hija: Mes ______ Año _____ Edad Actual ______ 5. Sexo de su hijo/a: ◻ Hombre ◻ Mujer 6. Nombre de su hijo/a: _______________ 7. ¿Nació usted en los Estado Unidos (EEUU)? ◻ Si ◻ No (Si respondió No, por favor responda a las preguntas 7a y 7b) 144 a. ¿A qué edad vino a los EEUU? ◻ 0-2 ◻ 3-5 ◻ 6-10 ◻ 11-13 ◻ 14-17 ◻ 18-20 ◻ 21 o mayor b. País de nacimiento: ________________________ 8. ¿A qué generación de inmigrantes pertenece usted? ◻ 1era generación (Usted NO nació en los EEUU) ◻ 2nda generación (Usted nació en los EEUU, pero al menos uno de sus padres no nació en los EEUU) ◻ 3era generación (Usted nació en los EEUU, pero al menos uno de sus abuelos no nació en los EEUU) ◻ 4ta generación (Usted nació en los EEUU, pero al menos uno de sus bisabuelos no nació en los EEUU) ◻ Más de la 4ta generación (sus padres, abuelos, y bisabuelos nacieron en los EEUU) 9. ¿Cuál es su idioma principal? ________________ 10. Su edad: ◻ 18-19 ◻ 20-21 ◻ 22-23 ◻ 24-29 ◻ 30-34 ◻ 35-39 ◻ 40-44 ◻ 45-49 ◻ 50-54 ◻ 55-59 ◻ 60 o más 145 11. Nivel de educación: ◻ Educación primaria completa ◻ Ciertos estudios de secundaria y/o preparatoria ◻ Escuela secundaria (preparatoria) (o GED) completa ◻ Ciertos estudios universitarios ◻ Estudios universitarios completos ◻ Ciertos estudios de postgrado ◻ Título de postgrado 12. ¿Cuál es su afiliación religiosa? ◻ Católico ◻ Protestante (evangélico) ◻ Judío ◻ Budista ◻ Hindú ◻ Musulmán ◻ Agnóstico ◻ Ateo ◻ Ninguno ◻ Otro _________________ 13. Estado civil ◻ Soltera ◻ Casada ◻ Separada ◻ Divorciada ◻ Viuda 14. ¿Nació su hijo/a en los Estados Unidos (EEUU)? ◻ Si ◻ No (Si respondió No, por favor responda a las preguntas 14a and 14b.) a. ¿A qué edad vino su hijo/a los EEUU? ◻ 0-2 ◻ 3-5 ◻ 6-10 ◻ 11-13 ◻ 14-17 146 b. ¿En qué país nació su hijo/a: ________________________ 15. ¿Qué grupo(s) racial/étnico describe mejor a su hijo/a. Marque todos los que apliquen. ◻ Afroamericano ◻ Nativo de Americano/Nativo de Alaska ◻ Árabe Americano ◻ Asiático Americano ◻ Europeo Americano ◻ Hispano o Latino ◻ Nativo de Hawái u otro lugar de Polinesia ◻ Otro_______________________ 147 REFERENCES 148 REFERENCES Acevedo, M. C. (2000). The role of acculturation in explaining ethnic differences in the parental health risk behaviors, mental health, and parenting beliefs of Mexican American and European-American at-risk women. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24, 111-127. Alcoff, L. M. (2005). Latino vs. Hispanic: The politics of ethnic names. Philosophy Social Criticism, 31, 395- 407. Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2014). Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: Three-step approaches using Mplus. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21, 329-341. Arellano, A. R., & Padilla, A. M. (1996). Academic invulnerability among a select group of Latino university students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 18, 485-507. Athanases, S. (2012). Maintaining high challenge and high support for diverse learners. Leadership, 42, 18-22. Aunola, K., Stattin, H., & Nurmi, J. (2000). Parenting styles and adolescents’ achievement strategies. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 205-222. Bacallao, M. L., & Smokowski, P. R. (2005). “Entre dos mundos” (Between two worlds): Bicultural skills training with Hispanic immigrant families. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 26, 485-509. Bakeman, R. (2005). Recommended effect size statistics for repeated measures designs. Behavior Research Methods, 37 (3), 379-384. Baker, C. E. (2010). Family and sociodemographic predictors of school readiness in Hispanic kindergarteners. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. Banks, J., Cochran-Smith, M., Moll, L., Richert, A., Zeichner, K., LePage, P., ... & McDonald, M. (2005). Teaching diverse learners. Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do, 2005, 232-274. Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child Development, 37, 887-907. Baumrind, D. (1968). Authoritarian vs. authoritative parental control. Adolescence, 3, 255-272. Baumrind, D. (1978). Parental disciplinary patterns and social competence in children. Youth and Society, 9, 239-276. 149 Baumrind, D. (1996). The discipline controversy revisited. Family Relations, 45, 405-414. Baumrind, D. (2005). Patterns of parental authority and adolescent autonomy. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2005, 61-69. Baumrind, D. (2012). Differentiating between confrontative and coercive kinds of parental power-assertive disciplinary practices. Human Development, 55, 35-51. Bedolla, L. G. (2003). The identity paradox: Latino language, politics and selective dissociation. Latino Studies, 1, 264-283. Bernal, G., & Domenech Rodriguez, M. (2009). Advances in Latino family research: Cultural adaptations of evidence-based interventions. Family Process, 48, 169-178. Berry, J. (1997). Immigration, acculturation and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46, 5-68. Berry, J., Kim, U., Minde, T., & Mok, D. (1987). Comparative studies of acculturative stress. International Migration Review, 21, 491-511. Birch, S. H., Ladd, G. W. (1997). The teacher-child relationship and children’s early school adjustment. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 61-79. Blair, C., & Diamond, A. (2008). Biological processes in prevention and intervention: The promotion of self-regulation as a means of preventing school failure. Developmental Psychopathology, 20, 899-911. Blair, C., & Razza, R. P. (2007). Relating effortful control, executive function, and false belief understanding to emerging math and literacy ability in kindergarten. Child Development, 78, 647-663. Brody, G. H., & Flor, D. L. (1998). Maternal resources, parenting practices, and child competence in rural, single-parent African American families. Child Development, 69, 803-816. Brody, G. H., Chen, Y., Kogan, S. M., Murry, V., Logan, P., Luo, Z. (2008). Linking perceived discrimination to longitudinal changes in African American Mothers’ parenting practices. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 319-331. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32, 513–531. Calzada, E. J. (2010). Bringing culture into parent training with Latinos. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 17, 167-175. 150 Calzada, E. J., & Eyberg, S. M. (2002) Self-reported parenting practices in Dominican and Puerto Rican mothers of young children, Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 31, 354-363. Calzada, E. J., Fernandez, Y., & Cortes, D. E. (2010). Incorporating the cultural value of respeto into a framework of Latino parenting. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16, 77-86. Calzada, E. J., Huang, K.-Y., Anicama, C., Fernandez, Y., & Brotman, L. M. (2012). Test of a Cultural Framework of Parenting With Latino Families of Young Children. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 18(3), 285–296. Cameron Ponitz, C., McClelland, M. M., Jewkes, A. M., Connor, C. M., Farris, C. L., & Morrison, F. J. (2008). Touch your toes! Developing a direct measure of behavioral regulation in early childhood. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 141-158. Cameron Ponitz, C., McClelland, M. M., Matthews, J. S., & Morrison, F. J. (2009). A structured observation of behavioral self-regulation and its contribution to kindergarten outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 45, 605-619. Ceballo, R. (2004). From barrios to Yale: The role of parenting strategies in Latino families. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 46 (2), 171-186. Chavez Duenas, N. Y. (2008). The relationship between acculturation parenting style and parental adherence to traditional cultural values among padres Mexicanos. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. Chazan-Cohen, R., Raikes, H., Brooks-Gunn, J., Ayoub, C., Pan, B., Kisker, E. E., Roggman, R., & Fuligni, A. S. (2009). Low-income children’s school readiness: Parent contributions over the first five years. Early Education and Development, 20, 958-977. Coatsworth, J. D., Maldonado-Molina, M., Patin, H., & Szapocznik, J. (2005). A person-centered and ecological investigation of acculturation strategies in Hispanic immigrant youth. Journal of Community Psychology, 33, 157-174. Coatsworth, J. D., Pantin, H., & Szapocznik, J. (2002). Familias unidas: A family-centered ecodevelopmental intervention to reduce risk for problem behavior among Hispanic adolescents. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 5(2), 113-132. Colby, S. L., & Ortman, J. M. (2015). Projections of the size and composition of the U.S. population: 2014 to 2060. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/ library/publications/2015/demo/p25-1143.pdf Crosnoe, R. (2007). Early child care and the school readiness of children from Mexican immigrant families. International Migration Review, 41, 152-181. 151 Cruz-Santiago, M., & Ramirez Garcia, J. I. (2011). “Hay que ponerse en los zapatos del joven”: Adaptive parenting of adolescent children among Mexican-American parents residing in a dangerous neighborhood. Family Process, 50, 92-114. Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to non normality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1, 16-29. Davis-Kean, P. E., & Sexton, H. R. (2009). Race differences in parental influences on child achievement: Multiple pathways to success. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 55, 285-318. Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1993). Parenting in two generations of Mexican American families. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 16, 409-427. Devereux Center for Resilient Children. (2012). The Devereux Student Strengths Assessment (DESSA) Kit. Retrieved from http://www.centerforresilientchildren.org/school-age/ assessments-resources/the-devereux-student-strengths-assessment-dessa-kit De Von Figueroa-Moseley, C., Ramey, C. T., Keltner, B., & Lanzi, R. G. (2006). Variations in Latino parenting practices and their effects on child cognitive developmental outcomes. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 28, 102-114. Domenech Rodriguez, M. M., Donovick. M. R., & Crowley, S. L. (2009). Parenting style in a cultural context: Observations of “protective parenting” in first-generation Latinos. Family Process, 48, 195-210. Donovick, M. R. (2006). Predicting child outcomes from parenting styles of Spanish-speaking families. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. Donovick, M. R. (2010). Parenting practices and child mental health among Spanish-speaking Latino families: Examining the role of parental cultural values. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. Dornbusch, 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. Douglas, S. T. (2011). The relationship between parenting styles, dimensions of parenting, and academic achievement of African American and Latino students. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. Dumka, L. E., Gonzalez, N. A., Bonds, D. D., & Millsap, R. E., (2009). Academic success of Mexican origin adolescent boys and girls: The role of mothers’ and fathers’ parenting and cultural orientation. Sex Roles, 60, 588-599. 152 Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Hutson, A. C., Klebanov, P., . . . Japel, C. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1428-1446. Eamon, M. K. (2005). Social-Demographic, school, neighborhood, and parenting influences on the academic achievement of Latino young adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34, 163-174. Englund, M. M., Luckner, A. E., Whaley, G. J. L., & Egeland, B. (2004). Children’s achievement in early elementary school: Longitudinal effects of parental involvement, expectations, and quality of assistance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 723-730. Eisenberg, N., Valiente, C., & Eggum, N. D. (2010). Self-regulation and school readiness. Early Educational Development, 21, 681-698. Fletcher, A. C., Steinberg, L., & Williams-Wheeler, M. (2004). Parental influences on adolescent problem behavior: Revisiting Stattin and Kerr. Child Development, 75, 781–796. Galindo, C., & Fuller, B. (2010). The social competence of Latino kindergartners and growth in mathematical understanding. Developmental Psychology, 46, 579-592. Gamst, G., Dana, R. H., Der-Karabetian, A., Aragon, M., Arellano, L. M., & Kramer, T. (2002). Effects of Latino acculturation and ethnic identity on mental health outcomes. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 24, 479-504. García Coll, C., Lamberty, G., Jenkins, R., Pipes McAdoo, H., Crnic, K., Hanna Wasik, B., Vazquez Garcia, H. (1996). An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children. Child Development, 67, 1891-1914. Garson, G. D. (2012). Testing statistical assumptions. Retrieved from http:// www.statisticalassociates.com/assumptions.pdf Gassman-Pines, A. (2015). Effects of Mexican immigrant parents’ daily workplace discrimination on child behavior and family functioning. Child Development, 86, 1175-1190. Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 539-579. Glass, J., & Owen, J. (2010). Latino fathers: The relationship among machismo, acculturation, ethnic identity, and paternal involvement. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 11, 251-261. 153 Gonzalez, N. A., Pitts, S. C., Hill, N. E., & Roosa, M. W. (2000). A mediational model of the impact of inter parental conflict on child adjustment in a multiethnic, low-income sample. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 365-379. Gonzalez-Ramos, G., Zayas, L., & Cohen, E. (1998). Child rearing values of low income, urban Puerto Rican mothers of preschool children. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 29, 377-382. Gordon, J., & Rinaldi, C. M., (2010). Parents’ autonomy-supportive strategies and preschoolers’ social-emotional competence [American Psychological Association 2010 Convention Presentation handout]. Retrieved from http://www.proquest.com Granados. C. (2000). Hispanic vs. Latino. Hispanic, 12, 40-42. Grolnick, W. S., Friendly, R. W., & Bellas, V. M. (2009). Parenting and children’s motivation at school. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wingfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school, 279-300. New York & London: Routledge. Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with children’s self-regulation and competence in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 143-154. Kleisner Walker, A., & MacPhee, D. (2011) How home gets to school: Parental control strategies predict children’s school readiness. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26, 355-364. Krilanovich, M. (2006). Latino ethnic identity development, self-esteem & literacy. Retrieved from http://mjkrilanovich.com Kohler, A., & Lazarin, M. (2007). Hispanic education in the United States. Washington, DC: National Council of La Raza. Kopp, C. B. (1982). Antecedents of self-regulation: A developmental perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, 199-214. Haddock, C. K., Rindskopf, D., Shadish, W. R. (1998). Using odds ratios as effect sizes for meta-analysis of dichotomous data: A primer on methods and issues. Psychological Methods, 3(3), 339-353. Halgunseth, L.C., Ispa, J. M., & Rudy, D. (2006). Parental control in Latino families: An integrated review of the literature. Child Development, 77, 1282-1297. Halim, M. L., Yoshikawa, H., & Amodio, D. M. (2012). Cross-generational effects of discrimination among immigrant mothers: Perceived discrimination predicts child’s healthcare visits for illness. Health Psychology, 32, 203-211. 154 Hart, C. H., Newell, L. D., & Olsen, S. F. (2003). Parenting skills and social-communicative competence in childhood. Handbook of communication and social interaction skills, 753-797. Harwood, R., Schoelmerich, A., Schulze, P. A., & Gonzalez, A. (1999). Cultural differences in maternal beliefs and behaviors: A study of middle-class Anglo and Puerto Rican mother-infant pairs in four everyday situations. Child Development, 70, 1005-1016. Hayes-Bautista, D. E., Chapa, J. (1987). Latino terminology: Conceptual bases for standardized terminology. American Journal of Public Health, 77, 61-68. Henry, C. S., Merten, M. J., Plunkett, S. W., & Sands, T. (2008). Neighborhood, parenting, and adolescent factors and academic achievement in Latino adolescents from immigrant families. Family Relations, 57. 579-590. High, P. C., (2008). School Readiness. American Academy of Pediatrics. 121. 1008-1015. Hill, N. E. (2001). Parenting and academic socialization as they relate to school readiness: The roles of ethnicity and family income. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 686-697. Hill, N. E., Bush, K. R., Roosa, M. W. (2003). Parenting and family socialization strategies and children’s mental health: Low-income Mexican-American and Euro-American mothers and children. Child Development, 74, 189-204. Hindman, A. H. & Morrison, F. J. (2012). Differential contributions of three parenting dimensions to preschool literacy and social skills in a middle-income sample. MerrillPalmer Quarterly, 58, 191-223. Hirschfield, P. J., & Gasper, J. (2011). The relationship between school engagement and delinquency in late childhood and early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 3-22. Hong, S., & Ho, H. (2005). Direct and indirect longitudinal effects of parental involvement on student achievement: Second-order latent growth modeling across ethnic groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 32-42. Iacobucci D., Posavac S. S., Kardes F. R., Schneider M. J., Popovich D. L. (2015). Toward a more nuanced understanding of the statistical properties of a median split. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25, 652–665. Ispa, J. M., Fine, M. A., Halgunseth, L. C., Harper, S., Robinson, J., Boyce, L., … Brady-Smith, C. (2004), Maternal intrusiveness, maternal warmth, and mother toddler relationship outcomes: Variations across low income ethnic and language groups. Child Development, 74, 189-204. 155 Jain, A., & Belsky, J. (1997). Fathering and acculturation, Immigrant Indian families with young children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 873-883. Jimerson, S., Egeland, B., & Teo, A. (1999). A longitudinal study of achievement trajectories: Factors associated with change. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 116-126. Julian, T. W., McKerney, P.C., & McKelvey, M. W. (1994). Cultural variations in parenting: Perceptions of Caucasian, African-American, Hispanic, & Asian-American parents. Family Relations, 43, 30-37. Kelley, E. M. N. (2010). Early academic outcomes and social skills of Latino children: Exploring the immigrant paradox in a young cohort. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. Kelley, M. L., Power, T. G., & Wimbush, D. D. (1992). Determinants of disciplinary practices in low-income black mothers. Child Development, 63, 573-582. Kenny, D. A. (2016). Mediation. Retrieved from http://davidakenny.net/cm/mediate.htm Ladd, G. W., Birch, S. H., & Buhs, E. S. (1999). Children’s social and scholastic lives in kindergarten: Related spheres of influence? Child Development, 70, 1373-1400. Laerd Statistics. (2013a). One-way ANOVA in SPSS Statistics. Retrieved from https:// statistics.laerd.com/spss-tutorials/one-way-anova-using-spss-statistics.php Laerd Statistics. (2013b). One-way MANOVA in SPSS Statistics. Retrieved from https:// statistics.laerd.com/spss-tutorials/one-way-manova-using-spss-statistics.php Landry, S. H., Smith, K. E., & Swank, P. R. (2006). Responsive parenting: Establishing early foundations for social communication, and independent problem-solving skills. Developmental Psychology, 42, 627-642. Landry, S. H., Smith, K. E., Swank, P. R., Assel, M. A., & Vellet, S. (2001). Does early responsive parenting have a special importance for children’s development or is consistency across early childhood necessary? Developmental Psychology, 37, 387-403. LeCuyer, E. A., Swanson, D. P., Cole, R., & Kitzman, H. (2011). Effects of African- and European-American maternal attitudes and limit-setting strategies on children’s selfregulation. Research in Nursing and Health, 34, 468-482. Lee, C. C. (1984). An investigation of psychosocial variables related to academic success for rural Black adolescents. Journal of Negro Education, 53, 424-434. Lee, C. C. (1985). Successful rural Black adolescents: A psychosocial profile. Adolescence, 20(77), 129-142. 156 Lopez, V. (2007). An exploratory study of Mexican-origin fathers’ involvement in their child’s education: The role of linguistic acculturation. The School Community Journal, 17, 61-76. Lowenstein, A. E., Altman, N., Chou, P. M., Faucetta, K., Greeney, A., Gubits, D., … Nguyen, V. Q. (2014). A Family-Strengthening program for low-income families: Final impacts from the supporting healthy marriage evaluation, Technical Supplement. Retrieved from http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/shm_30_month_technical_supplement.pdf Lugo-Steidel A. G., & Contreras, J. M. (2003). A new familism scale for use with Latino populations. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 25, 312-330. MacCallum, R. C., Zhang, S., Preacher, K. J., & Rucker, D. D. (2002). On the practices of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological Methods, 7, 19-40. Magill-Evans, J., & Harrison, M. J. (2001). Parent-child interactions, parenting stress, and developmental outcomes at 4 years. Children’s Health Care, 30, 135-150. Martinez, C. R., DeGarmo, D. S., & Eddy, J. M. (2004). Promoting academic success among Latino youths. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 26, 128-151. McClelland, M. M., Cameron, C. E., Connor, C. M., Farris, C. L., Jewkes, A. M., & Morrison, F. J. (2007). Links between behavioral regulation and preschoolers’ literacy, vocabulary, and math skills. Developmental Psychology, 43, 947-959. Monaghan, M., Horn, I. B., Alvarez, V., Cogen, F. R., & Streisand, R. (2012). Authoritative Parenting, Parenting Stress, and Self-Care in Pre-Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 19(3), 255–261. Monahan, P. O., McHorney, C. A., Stump, T. E., & Perkins, A. J. (2007). Odds ratio, delta, ETS classification, and standardization measures of DIF magnitude for binary logistic regression. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 32(1), 92-109. Morgan, G. Hodge, K. J., & Baggett, A. R. (2015). Latent profile analysis with non normal mixtures: A Monte Carlo examination of model selection using fit indices. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 93, 1-16. Morris, P. E., & Fritz, C. O. (2013). Effect sizes in memory research, Memory, 21(7), 832-842. Muthén, B. O. (2004). Latent variable analysis. The Sage Handbook of Quantitative Methodology for the Social Sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 345-368. Muthén, B. O. (2016). LPA with covariates/Multiple group LPA. Retrieved from http:// www.statmodel.com/discussion/messages/13/325.html?1482456926 157 Muthén, L. K. (2012). Latent profile analysis. Retrieved from http://www.statmodel.com/ discussion/messages/13/115.html Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2002). How to use a monte carlo study to decide on sample size and determine power. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9, 599-620. Murry, V., Brown, P., Brody, G. H., Cutrona, C. E., & Simons, R. L. (2001). Racial discrimination as a moderator of the links among stress, maternal psychological functioning and family relationships, Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 915-926. Naglieri, J. A., LeBuffe, P., Shapiro, V. B. (2011). Universal screening for social-emotional competencies: A study of the reliability and validity of the DESSA-mini. Psychology in the Schools, 48, 660-671. Nelson, D. A., Crick, N. R. (2002). Parental psychological control: Implications for childhood physical and relational aggression. Intrusive parenting: How psychological control affects children and adolescents,161-189. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (2006). Infant-Mother attachment classification: Risk and protection in relation to changing maternal caregiving quality. Developmental Psychology, 42, 38-58. Nickerson, A. B., & Fishman, C. (2009). Convergent and divergent validity of the Devereux Student Strengths Assessment. School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 48-59. Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A monte carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14, 535-569. O’Brien, R. G., & Kaiser, M. K. (1985). MANOVA Method for analyzing repeated measures designs: An extensive primer. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 316-333. Okagaki, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1993). Parental beliefs and children’s school performance. Child Development, 64, 36-56. Ortiz, H. J., & Plunkett, S. W. (2003). Assessing cultural dimensions of the Los Ninos Bien Educados Parenting Program. Journal of Extension, 41, 1-7. Park, H. & Bauer, S. (2002). Parenting practices, ethnicity, socioeconomic status and academic achievement in adolescents. School Psychology International, 23(4). 386-396. Parra-Cardona, J. R., Bybee, D., Sullivan, C. M., Domenech-Rodriguez, M. M., Dates, B., Tams, L., & Bernal, G. (2017). Examining the impact of differential cultural adaptation with Latina/o immigrants exposed to adapted parent training interventions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 85, 58-71. 158 Parra-Cardona, J. R., Cordova, D., Holtrop, K., Villarruel, F. A., & Wieling, E. (2008). Shared ancestry, evolving stories: Similar and contrasting life experiences described by foreign born and U.S. born Latino parents. Family Processes, 47, 157-172. Parra-Cardona, J. R., Domenech Rodríguez, M., Forgatch, M.S., Sullivan, C., Bybee, D., Tams, L., … Dates, B. (2012). Culturally adapting an evidence-based parenting intervention for Latino immigrants: The need to integrate fidelity and cultural relevance. Family Process, 51, 56-72. Pawliuk, N., Grizenko, N., Chan-Yip, A., Gantous, P., Matthew, J., & Nguyen, D. (1996). Acculturation style and psychological functioning in children of immigrants. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 66, 111-121. Pino-Pasternak, D., &Whitebread, D. (2010). The role of parenting in children’s self-regulated learning. Educational Research Review, 5, 220-242. Phinney, J. S., Horenczyk, G., Liebkind, K., & Vedder, P. (2001). Ethnic identity, immigration, and well-being: An interactional perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 493-510. Phinney, J., Ong, A., & Madden, T. (2000). Cultural values and intergenerational value discrepancies in immigrant and non immigrant families. Child Development, 71, 528-539. Plunkett, S. W., & Bamaca-Gomez, M. Y. (2003). The relationship between parenting, acculturation, and adolescent academics in Mexican-origin immigrant families in Los Angeles. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 25(2), 222-239. Purdie, N., Carroll, A., & Roche, L. (2004). Parenting and adolescent self-regulation. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 663-676. Raffaelli, M., & Ontai, L. L. (2004). Gender socialization in Latino/a families: Results from two retrospective studies. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 50, 287-299. Ram, N., & Grimm, K. J. (2009). Growth Mixture Modeling: A Method for Identifying Differences in Longitudinal Change Among Unobserved Groups. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 33(6), 565–576. Ramirez, J. R., Crano, W. D., Quist, R., Burgoon, M., Alvero, E. M., & Grandpre, J. (2004). Acculturation, familism, parental monitoring, and knowledge as predictors of marijuana and inhalant use in adolescents. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18, 3-11. Reardon, S. F., & Galindo, C. (2009). The Hispanic-White achievement gap in math and reading in the elementary grades. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 853-891. Reese, L. (2002). Parental strategies in contrasting cultural settings: Families in Mexico and “El Norte.” Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 33, 30-59. 159 Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Pianta, R., & Cox, M. (2000). Teachers’ judgments of success in the transition to kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 147-166. Riina, E. M., & McHale, S. M. (2010). Parents’ experiences of discrimination and family relationship qualities: The role of gender. Family Relations, 59, 283-296. Robinson, C. C., Mandleco, B., Frost Olsen, S., & Hart, C. H. (1995). Authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting practices: Development of a new measure. Psychological Reports, 77, 819-830. Roehrig, A. D., Petscher, Y., Nettles, S. M., Hudson, R. F., & Torgesen, J. K. (2007). Accuracy of the DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency measure for predicting third grade reading comprehension outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 1-24. Romero, A. J., Cuellar, I., & Roberts, R. E. (2000). Ethnocultural variables and attitudes toward cultural socialization of children. Journal of Community Psychology, 12, 79-89. Romero, A. J., & Ruiz, M. (2007). Does familism lead to increased parental monitoring?: Projective factors for coping with risky behaviors. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16, 143-154. Rueschenberg, E., & Buriel, R. (1989). Mexican American family functioning and acculturation: A family systems perspective. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 11, 232-244. Ruiz, Y. (2009). Predictors of academic achievement for Latino middle schoolers. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 19, 419-433. Sabogal, F., Marin, G., & Otero-Sabogal, R. (1987). Hispanic familism and acculturation: what changes and what doesn't? Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 9, 397-412. Schaefer, E. S. (1965). A configurational analysis of children’s reports of parent behavior. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 29, 552-557. Schwartz, S. J., Unger, J. B., Zamboanga, B. L., & Szapocznik, J. (2010). Rethinking the Concept of Acculturation: Implications for Theory and Research. The American Psychologist, 65(4), 237–251. Schwartz, S. J., Zamboanga, B. L., & Hernandez Jarvis, L. (2007). Ethnic identity and acculturation in Hispanic early adolescents: Mediated relationships to academic grades, prosocial behaviors, and externalizing symptoms. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 4, 364-373. Silva, M., Dorso, E., Azhar, A., & Renk, K. (2007). The relationship among parenting styles experienced during childhood, anxiety, motivation, and academic success in college students. Journal of College Student Retention, 9(2), 149-167. 160 Smokowski, P. R., & Bacallao, M. L. (2008). Entre dos mundos/ between two words: Youth violence prevention for acculturating Hispanic families. Research on Social Work Practice, 19, 165-178. SPC. (2016). Are the skewness and kurtosis useful statistics? Retrieved from https:// www.spcforexcel.com/knowledge/basic-statistics/are-skewness-and-kurtosis-usefulstatistics Spera, C. (2005). A review of the relationship among parenting practices, parenting styles, and adolescent school achievement. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 125-146. Spriggs, A. L., Iannotti, R. J., Nansel, T. R., & Haynie, D. L. (2007). Adolescent bullying involvement and perceived family, peer and school relations: Commonalities and differences across race/ethnicity. The Journal of Adolescent Health : Official Publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine, 41(3), 283–293. Stack, D. M., Serbin, L. A., Enns, L. N., Ruttle, P. L., & Barrieau, L. (2010). Parental effects on children’s emotional development over time and across generations. Infants & Young Children, 23, 52-69. Steinberg, L., Dornbusch, S. M., & Brown, B. B. (1992a). Ethnic differences in adolescent achievement. American Psychologist, 47, 723-729. Steinberg, L., Elmen, J. D., and Mounts., N. S. (1989). Authoritative parenting, psychosocial maturity, and academic success among adolescents. Child Development, 60, 1424–1436. Steinberg, L., Mounts, N. S., Lamborn, S. D., and Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Authoritative parenting and adolescent adjustment across varied ecological niches. Journal of Adolescent Research, 1, 19–36. Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Darling, N., Mounts, N. S., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1994). Overtime changes in adjustment and competence among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 65, 754-770. Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Dornbusch, S. M., & Darling, N. (1992b). Impact of parenting practices on adolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting, school involvement, and encouragement to succeed. Child Development, 63, 1266-1281. Stevenson, H. W., Chen, C., & Uttal, D. H. (1990). Beliefs and achievement: A study of Black, White, and Hispanic children. Child Development, 61, 508-523. Storksen, I., Ellingsen, I. T., Wanless, S.B., McClelland, M. M. (2014). The influence of parental socioeconomic background and gender on self-regulation among 5-year-old children in Norway. Early Education Development, 26, 663-684. 161 Szapocznik, J., Santisteban, D., Rio, A., Perez-Vidal, A., & Kurtines, W. M. (1989). Family Effectiveness Training: An intervention to prevent drug abuse and problem behaviors in Hispanic adolescents. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 11(1), 4-27. Tofihi, D., & Thoemmes, F. (2014). Single-level and multilevel mediation analysis. Journal of Early Adolescence, 34, 93-119. Tran, A. G. T. T. (2014). Family contexts: Parental experiences of discrimination and child mental health. American Journal of Community Psychology, 53, 37-46. UCLA Institute for Digital Research and Education. (2017). SAS library multivariate regression in SAS. Retrieved from http://stats.idre.ucla.edu/sas/library/sas-librarymultivariateregression-in-sas/ Unger, J. B. (2015). Preventing substance use and misuse among racial and ethnic minority adolescents: Why are we not addressing discrimination in prevention programs? Substance Use & Misuse, 50, 952-955 University of Kansas. (2006). Latent profile analysis lecture. Retrieved from http:// jonathantemplin.com/files/clustering/psyc993_15.pdf U.S. Census Bureau (2012). U.S. Census Bureau projections show a slower growing, older, more diverse nation a half century from now. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/ newsroom/releases/archives/population/cb12-243.html U.S. Census Bureau (2016). FFF: Hispanic Heritage Month 2016. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/newsroom/facts-for-features/2016/cb16-ff16.html U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). The Condition of Education 2011 (NCES 2011-033). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ fastfacts/display.asp?id=16 Varela, R. E., Vernberb, E. M., Sanchez-Sosa, J. J., Riveros, A., Mitchell, M., & Mashunkashey, J. (2004). Parenting style of Mexican, Mexican American, and Caucasian-Non-Hispanic families: Social context and cultural influences. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 651657. Vanderwood, M. L., Linklater, D., Healy, K. (2008). Predictive accuracy of nonsense word fluency for English Language Learners. School Psychology Review, 37, 5-17. Vermunt, J. (2004). Latent profile model. Retrieved from http://members.home.nl/jeroenvermunt/ermss2004f.pdf Vermunt, J. K. (2010). Latent class modeling with covariates: Two improved three-step approaches. Political Analysis, 18, 450-469. 162 Walker, A. K., MacPhee, D. (2008). How home gets to school: Parental control strategies predict children’s school readiness. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26, 355-364. Wang, Q., Pomerantz, E. M., & Chen, H. (2007). The role of parents’ control in early adolescents’ psychological functioning: A longitudinal investigation in the United States and China. Child Development, 78, 1592–1610. Weiss, L. H., & Schwartz, J. C. (1996). The relationship between parenting types and older adolescents’ personality, academic achievement, adjustment, and substance use. Child Development, 67, 2101-2114. White, R. M. B., Roosa, M. W., Weaver, S. R., & Nair, R. L. (2009). Cultural and contextual influences on parenting in Mexican American families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 71(1), 61. Whitbeck, L. B., Simons, R. L., Conger, R. D., Wickrama, K.A.S., Ackley K. A., & Elder Jr., G. H. (1997). The effects of parents’ working conditions and family economic hardship on parenting behaviors and children’s self-efficacy. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60, 291-303. Whiteside-Mansell, L., Bradley, R. H., & McKelvey, L. (2009). Parenting and preschool child development: Examination of three low-income U.S. cultural groups. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18, 48-60. Williams, C. L., & Berry, J. W. (1991). Primary prevention of acculturative stress among refugees. American Psychologist, 46, 632-641. Wu, F., & Qi, S. (2006). Longitudinal effects of parenting on children’s academic achievement in African American families. The Journal of Negro Education, 75, 415-429. Zea, M. C., Asner-Self, K. K., Birman, D., & Buki, L. P. (2003). The abbreviated multidimensional acculturation scale: Empirical validation with two Latino/Latino samples. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 9, 107-126. 163