Psychology in the Schools, Vol.

53(9), 2016 
C 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pits DOI: 10.1002/pits.21953

EXTENDING THE VALIDITY OF THE FAMILY INVOLVEMENT

QUESTIONNAIRE–SHORT FORM FOR CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE
FAMILIES FROM LOW-INCOME BACKGROUNDS
REBECCA J. BULOTSKY-SHEARER, JOHAYRA BOUZA, KRYSTAL BICHAY, VERONICA A. FERNANDEZ,
AND PATRICIA GAONA HERNANDEZ
University of Miami

The construct validity of the Family Involvement Questionnaire–Short Form (FIQ-SF) was exam-
ined in an independent sample of ethnically and linguistically diverse low-income families (N =
498) enrolled in an urban Head Start program in the Southeast. A series of exploratory and con-
firmatory factor analyses replicated the three-factor structure identified in initial validation studies
with Northeast samples: home-school conferencing, home-based involvement, and school-based
involvement. Findings from multiple group confirmatory factor analyses provided evidence that the
three-factor structure was invariant across family ethnicity. multivariate analyses of variance also
confirmed hypothesized mean differences on FIQ-SF dimension scores across family demographic
variables such as caregiver ethnicity, primary home language, caregiver education, employment,
and marital status. Findings replicate and extend prior construct validity evidence to support the use
of the FIQ-SF by early childhood education programs such as Head Start serving diverse families
from low-income backgrounds. Implications for future research, practice, and policy applications
in early childhood are discussed.  C 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

More than one in five children under 6 years of age in the United States lives in a low-income
household, with poverty disproportionately affecting children from ethnic minority backgrounds
(Jiang, Ekono, & Skinner, 2015; U.S. Census Bureau, 2015). As early as preschool, children living
in poverty show gaps in multiple domains of kindergarten readiness, such as emergent literacy, early
mathematics, and social–emotional skills in comparison to their more economically advantaged
peers (Aber, Jones, & Raver, 2007; National Center for Education Statistics, 2014). To address these
gaps researchers and policymakers have searched for malleable factors that can be promoted within
early learning contexts such as the home and school settings (Crosnoe, Leventhal, Wirth, Pierce,
& Pianta, 2010; Duncan & Murnane, 2011). One important malleable factor and opportunity for
intervention within early childhood education programs is family involvement (Castro et al., 2015;
Jeynes, 2003; National Research Council [NRC], 2006).
Family involvement in children’s education is defined as the participation of parents at home
and at school in interactions that support children’s cognitive and social–emotional development
(Epstein, 2001). Parent’s support of children’s learning begins very early on during infancy within
the home context and is one of the most important predictors of children’s social–emotional and
academic outcomes (Sheridan, Marvin, Knoche, & Edwards, 2008). As children transition into
preschool settings, opportunities for family involvement at home and at school continue to benefit
children. Findings from a cumulative body of studies and meta-analytic work suggest that when
families are more engaged in their children’s educational experiences, such as practicing the names
and sounds of letters in the home or volunteering in the classroom, children learn more and are
better prepared for school (Dearing, McCartney, Weiss, Kreider, & Simpkins, 2004; Jeynes, 2012;
Rimm-Kaufman, Pianta, Cox, & Bradley, 2003).
The federal Head Start program, one of the earliest mechanisms for intervention for low-
income children and families has had from its inception a comprehensive, two-generation model

Correspondence to: Rebecca J. Bulotsky-Shearer, Child Division, Department of Psychology, University of

Miami, 5665 Ponce de Leon Blvd, Coral Gables, FL 33146. E-mail: rshearer@miami.edu

911
912 Bulotsky-Shearer et al.

that prioritizes family involvement in children’s learning. Head Start programs are mandated to
support both parents’ well-being in addition to encouraging parents’ involvement in children’s
education and development (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [DHHS], Performance
Standards, 1304.50 and 1304.52, 2015). Recently, the Administration for Children and Families
published the Parent, Family, and Community Engagement Framework (PFCE), providing programs
with a research-based guide for implementing Head Start Program Performance Standards specific
to family involvement (U.S. DHHS, 2011). However, few validated measures currently exist to
measure and monitor Head Start programs’ progress toward meeting these family involvement
mandates (Advisory Committee on Head Start Research and Evaluation, 2012).
To guide implementation efforts validated measurement tools are needed. Head Start and other
early childhood programs serving low-income communities face challenges because of the lack of
available validated measures to assess family involvement, particularly for programs serving ethnic
minority families (Advisory Committee on Head Start Research and Evaluation, 2012). To address
this current need, Fantuzzo and colleagues (2013) developed a shortened form of a well-validated
measure of family involvement for use with families attending prekindergarten and School District
Head Start programs in the Northeast: The Family Involvement Questionnaire–Short Form (FIQ-
SF; Fantuzzo et al., 2013). The FIQ-SF was developed to lessen the burden on families due to
time and cost constraints in Head Start programs (Fantuzzo et al., 2013). Given that the shortened
form could be useful in early childhood programs serving more diverse low-income families in
other geographic regions of the United States, the purpose of the present study was to examine the
construct validity of the FIQ-SF with an independent sample of ethnically and linguistically diverse
families, participating in an urban Head Start program in the southeastern region of the United
States.

Theoretical Framework
The bioecological model provides a useful framework for understanding the importance of
family involvement in children’s learning. The model recognizes both the influence of prox-
imal microsystem contexts, such as the family and preschool on children’s early development
(Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Downer & Myers, 2010). In addition, the model recognizes the
influence of the mesosystem (i.e., the interactions among proximal contexts) to support children’s
development. Mesosystem interactions that include positive communication and shared partnerships
among children, family, and schools can promote early learning opportunities for children (Sheri-
dan, Knoche, Edwards, Bovaird, & Kupzyk, 2010). Such interactions are critical for families from
racial, ethnic, linguistic minority, or immigrant backgrounds living in poverty where discontinuities
between home and school often are present as a result of cultural or linguistic differences (Garcia
Coll et al., 2002; Mendez, 2010).

Family Involvement in Early Childhood Education

In alignment with the bioecological model, over the past two decades conceptualizations of
family involvement have shifted to recognize family involvement as a multidimensional and bidi-
rectional construct during early childhood (McWayne, Campos, & Owsianik, 2008; Sheridan et al.,
2010). Family involvement has been conceptualized as comprising three dimensions: home-based
involvement, school-based involvement, and home-school conferencing (Epstein, 2001; Fantuzzo,
Tighe, & Childs, 2000). Home-based involvement describes specific ways in which families meet
their children’s most basic needs (e.g., food, shelter, and safety), establish nurturing relationships,
and engage with their child in positive learning experiences at home and in the community (Gads-
den, 2013). Examples of home-based involvement include providing a setting where there is space

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Validity of Family Involvement Questionnaire 913

and materials for homework, visiting the library, and educational activities at home such as book
reading together (Fantuzzo et al., 2000). School-based involvement includes both parents’ involve-
ment at school involving active participation in activities in the school setting such as volunteering
at school, communicating with teachers, participating in school events, and attending parent–teacher
meetings (Hill & Taylor, 2004). Home-school conferencing describes communication between home
and school, for example, with school personnel about a child’s academic and school progress and/or
difficulties (e.g., parent–teacher conferences; Fantuzzo et al., 2013).

Diverse Families and Family Involvement

Aligned with the bioecological model, it is important to understand variability in the unique
ecological context of racial and ethnic minority families as this influences parental cultural values
and expectations about their involvement within home and school settings. These cultural values
influence parents’ beliefs about their role in children’s early learning and subsequently their actual
involvement in educational activities (Barrueco, Smith, & Stephens, 2015; Calzada et al., 2015;
Castro et al., 2015; McWayne, Melzi, Schick, Kennedy, & Mundt, 2013). Among families living
in poverty, several demographic variables including race and ethnicity, home language and im-
migrant/acculturation status, parental education, employment status, and marital status have been
associated with differences in parent and teacher reports of family involvement. In samples of low-
income families, African American parents self-report lower school-based involvement, and are
rated by teachers lower on parental involvement than Caucasian and Latino parents (Fantuzzo et al.,
2013; Wong & Hughes, 2006).
A growing number of studies have examined family involvement in immigrant and non-native
English-speaking low-income families, and have found that involvement varies by home language
and immigrant background. In a sample of families whose children were enrolled in the Philadel-
phia Head Start program, Fantuzzo and colleagues (2013) found that primarily English-speaking
parents reported higher home-based activities and home-school conferencing than non-English-
speaking parents. However, in other studies, Latino families who primarily spoke Spanish, reported
higher home involvement relative to school involvement compared to English monolingual and
bilingual Latino families (McWayne & Melzi, 2014; Wong & Hughes, 2006). In another recent
study immigrant Afro-Caribbean and Latino parents were reported by teachers to be more involved
in home-based than school-based activities compared to nonimmigrant, English-speaking parents
(Calzada et al., 2015).
Researchers have suggested that these differences in family involvement may be a result of
language barriers between home and school settings (Fantuzzo et al., 2013; Garcia Coll et al., 2002;
Park & McHugh, 2014) or distrust of or lack of comfort interacting with public programs such
as U.S. school systems (Barrueco et al., 2015). Finally, lower school involvement or home-school
conferencing may be a result of parental cultural values as they view their role in their child’s
education (Fuller & Garcia Coll, 2010; McWayne et al., 2008; McWayne & Melzi, 2014). For
example, some Latino immigrant families may view their role as teacher at home, but not at school,
and may feel that it is “not their place” to be involved at school. Involvement at school might show
disrespect to the teacher who is considered the “expert” in their child’s learning at school (Calzada,
Fernandez, & Cortes, 2010).
Variability in parent reports of involvement also has been found across demographic vari-
ables such as parental education, employment status, and marital status. Most findings suggest that
formal education is associated with higher family involvement (Schaller, Rocha, & Barshinger,
2007). In Head Start studies, parents with higher formal education (e.g., who have earned a high
school diploma or above) reported greater involvement in educational activities in both the home

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

914 Bulotsky-Shearer et al.

and school context (Fantuzzo et al., 2000, 2013; Fantuzzo, McWayne, Perry, & Childs, 2004;
McWayne et al., 2008). Findings from studies that examine parent employment and marital sta-
tus are much less consistent. For example, Fantuzzo et al. (2013) found that parents who were
unemployed communicated more with their children’s teachers and were more likely to partic-
ipate in school events. Whereas, other studies with low-income families have not found that
family involvement varies by parent employment (Fantuzzo et al., 2000, 2004; McWayne et al.,
2008). In terms of relationship status, Head Start studies have found that married parents re-
port higher home-based involvement (Fantuzzo et al., 2000; McWayne et al., 2008), and higher
home-school conferencing with teachers than nonmarried parents (Fantuzzo et al., 2000). How-
ever, in other samples, single, divorced, or widowed parents report higher involvement in home-
based activities than married parents (Fantuzzo et al., 2013). More research is needed to better
understand family involvement among diverse families using validated, multidimensional measures
(McWayne, 2015).

Development of the FIQ-SF

In response to the need for validated multidimensional measures of family involvement,
Fantuzzo and colleagues (2000) developed a 42-item Family Involvement Questionnaire (FIQ)
in partnership with school administrators, teachers, and parents from Head Start preschool cen-
ters, kindergarten, and first grade programs. The 42-item FIQ consisted of three reliable and valid
dimensions: home-based involvement, school-based involvement, and home-school conferencing
(Fantuzzo et al., 2000). Recently, to reduce the burden on families and to address cost and time con-
straints of early childhood programs, Fantuzzo and colleagues (2013) validated a short 21-item form
of the FIQ, called the FIQ-SF (Fantuzzo et al., 2013). The FIQ-SF is a 21-item measure consisting
of the same three reliable and valid dimensions of the longer form. Initial evidence was established
for convergent and divergent validity of the three dimension scores with measures of parent satisfac-
tion and assessments of children’s literacy and mathematics skills (Fantuzzo et al., 2013). Findings
provide initial validity evidence for the use of the FIQ-SF with low-income families. However,
the initial study validated the measure for use with families from predominantly English-speaking,
African American backgrounds, in the Northeast. Although the original validation sample included
a small percentage of Latino families, to incorporate the use of the FIQ-SF in programs serving
ethnically and linguistically diverse populations, in other geographic regions, additional validation
of the FIQ-SF is warranted.
Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to replicate and extend initial validity evidence
to support the use of the FIQ-SF in a diverse sample of families participating in Head Start. We
examined the construct validity of the FIQ-SF in a large Head Start program serving ethnically and
linguistically diverse families, in an urban region in the Southeastern United States. Our study was
guided by the following research questions: (a) Is there a psychometrically sound latent structure to
the FIQ-SF in an independent sample of ethnically and linguistically diverse Head Start families? (b)
Is the latent structure invariant across ethnic group? (c) Are there mean differences among resultant
dimensions on family demographic variables?
Based on prior research, we hypothesized that a three-factor structure validated by Fantuzzo
et al. (2013) would be replicated in this sample and that it would be invariant across ethnic group. We
also predicted mean-level differences among family demographic variables, such as caregiver race
and ethnicity, home language, parental education, employment status, and marital status. We ex-
pected to find that African American families would report lower family involvement as compared
to non-African American families (Fantuzzo et al., 2013). Additionally, we predicted that non-
English-speaking parents would report higher home-based, but lower school-based involvement and

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Validity of Family Involvement Questionnaire 915

home-school conferencing than families who spoke English at home, due to language or cultural
differences across home and school (McWayne et al., 2008; McWayne & Melzi, 2014). Finally,
we expected that higher levels of formal education would relate to higher home and school-based
involvement (Calzada et al., 2015; Fantuzzo et al., 2004, 2013; McWayne & Melzi, 2014). We
predicted that in this low-income sample, unemployed parents would report higher school involve-
ment than employed parents, and that married parents would report higher school involvement and
home-school conferencing than unmarried parents (Fantuzzo et al., 2000, 2004).

M ETHOD
Participants
Children. As part of a larger University-Head Start research partnership project, 498 children
participated, across eight centers and 52 classrooms. Centers were chosen that were geographically
representative of the neighborhoods served by the Head Start program located in a large urban area
in the Southeastern United States. All children came from families that met the federal poverty
criteria for enrollment in the Head Start program. In the fall, children ranged in age from 34 to
66 months (M = 48.04, SD = 6.86), with 53% boys. With respect to race/ethnicity, 58% were
African American (non-Latino), 36% were Latino, and 6% other race/ethnicity.
Families. In the fall, this sample included 498 primary caregivers whose children were enrolled
within the Head Start program. The primary caregivers who participated ranged in age from 19 to
65 years old (M = 30.89, SD = 6.85) with the majority of the primary respondents being mothers
(92%), 6% fathers, and 2% other (e.g., grandmother, aunt). The majority of the caregivers were
African American (57%), with 40% Latino; 72% reported that English was the primary language
spoken in the home. About 25% of primary caregivers (n = 124) reported having been born outside
of the United States, and reported a range of 1–30 years living in the United States (M = 15.21,
SD = 6.58). See Table 1 for detailed family demographic information.

Procedures
Approval for this project was obtained from the University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB),
from the Director of the local Head Start Program, and from the Head Start Program’s Parent Policy
Council. Consent was obtained from each of the participating Head Start Center’s director, curriculum
specialist, teachers, and teacher assistants. Parental consent was obtained for participating children
with the assistance of teaching staff. In the fall (October 2009), primary caregivers completed the
FIQ and a family demographic form. In the late spring (May 2010), the same caregivers were asked
to complete the FIQ a second time. Primary caregivers were given a choice to complete the measure
in English or Spanish and only those who chose to complete the measure in English were included
in the present study. The demographic form included basic information about the child, caregiver(s),
and household (e.g., race, ethnicity, primary language spoken with child at home, immigrant status
and recency of immigration, marital status, and highest educational degree).

Measures
Family Involvement. The FIQ-SF (Fantuzzo et al., 2013) consists of 21 Likert-type items
indicating the nature and extent to which parents are involved in their children’s education. For
this study, parents (or the primary caregiver) completed the FIQ-SF in the fall and spring of their
children’s Head Start year. Parents rated their involvement by endorsing “rarely,” “sometimes,”
“often,” or “always” in response to each of the 21 items. Initial construct validation studies of
the FIQ-SF with Head Start families in the Northeast yielded three reliable dimensions of family

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

916 Bulotsky-Shearer et al.

Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of Participating Families

Caregiver Demographic Characteristics Percentage of Sample

Relationship to child
Mother 92.2
Father 5.7
Other 2.1
Race/ethnicity
African American (non-Latino) 57.0
White (Latino) 40.5
Other 2.5
Primary language
English 72.0
Spanish 24.0
Other 4.0
Highest educational degree
Less than high school 10.2
High school 29.3
College and above 25.1
Did not report 35.4
Employment
Full time 19.1
Part time 10.8
Unemployed 33.9
Did not report 36.2
Relationship status
Married 23.9
Single / never married 32.5
Separated 5.8
Divorced 2.6
Did not report 35.2

N = 498.

involvement: home-based, school-based, and home-school conferencing with Cronbach’s alphas

of .83, .87, and .91, respectively (Fantuzzo et al., 2013). Criterion-related validity evidence was
supported through correlations with direct assessments of children’s academic skills and parent-
reported satisfaction with school contact (Fantuzzo et al., 2013).

Data Analysis
Examination of the Latent Structure of the FIQ-SF. To determine the latent structure of the
English form of the FIQ-SF in our Head Start sample, a series of exploratory and confirmatory
factor analyses were conducted using the fall time point collected from primary caregivers. The
overall sample (N = 498) was bifurcated (randomly split into two mutually exclusive subsamples),
with an index sample used for exploratory factor analyses (n = 249), and a reserve sample used for
confirmatory factor analyses (n = 249).
A series of common factor analyses in SAS Version 9.3 was conducted using squared multiple
correlations as initial communality estimates, given the small number of items as per Snook and
Gorsuch (1989). Retained factors were rotated using orthogonal (varimax and equamax) rotations.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Validity of Family Involvement Questionnaire 917

The final orthogonal solution was subjected to a series of oblique (promax) rotations at variable
levels of power. The most parsimonious factor solution was evaluated based upon multiple criteria
that: (a) satisfied the constraints of tests for the number of factors (e.g., Cattell’s scree test [Cattell,
1966], minimum-average partialing [Velicer, 1976], and parallel analysis [Buja & Eyuboglu, 1992;
Horn, 1965]); (b) retained at least four items per factor with salient loadings, where loadings >.40
are considered salient (Gorsuch, 1983); (c) yielded acceptable internal consistency for each factor,
with alpha coefficients >.70; (d) held simple structure; (e) yielded the highest hyperplane count
(Gorsuch, 1983); and (f) comported with prior findings and early childhood research.
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to determine the fit of the resultant exploratory
factor structure, using the remaining bifurcated sample in Mplus version 6.10 (Muthén & Muthén,
1998–2011). Due to the categorical nature of these data, the items were specified as categorical and a
robust weighted least squares (WLSMV) estimator was employed, with mean and variance adjusted
χ 2 . To assess the fit of the overall model to our data, the following fit statistics were examined;
the comparative fit index (CFI > .95 representing good fit and CFI > .90 representing adequate fit,
and the Tucker-Lewis Reliability Index (TLI) greater than .90 considered acceptable fit; Bentler,
1990; Hu & Bentler, 1999) and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA < .06 repre-
senting close fit and RMSEA < .08 representing reasonable fit; Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Steiger,
1990). Finally, the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) was used with values < .08
consider adequate fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

Examination of Structure Invariance. Given the ethnic diversity of the families in our sam-
ple, it was important to test for factorial invariance across ethnic group. To test for the most basic
form of invariance across family ethnicity, configural invariance was examined (whether the same
factor structure was manifested equivalently across two ethnic groups: African American (non-
Hispanic) and Hispanic. To test for configural invariance, the established latent structure for the
FIQ-SF was simultaneously fitted to the covariance structure of the African American and Hispanic
ethnic groups. When the initial form of invariance, configural invariance, was achieved, a test for a
stronger form for invariance, metric invariance (whether the latent construct explained the indicators
in the same way across groups) was conducted. The following fit statistics were examined: the
comparative fit index (CFI > .95 representing good fit and CFI > .90 representing adequate fit)
and the Tucker-Lewis Reliability Index (TLI) greater than .90 considered acceptable fit; Bentler,
1990; Hu & Bentler, 1999) and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA < .06 repre-
senting close fit and RMSEA < .08 representing reasonable fit; Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Steiger,
1990). Given the categorical nature of the data and the robust WLS estimators that were employed,
the weighted root mean square residual (WRMR < 1; Yu and Muthén, 2002) was also considered.

Examination of Family Demographic Differences among Resultant Dimensions. To examine

mean differences on the FIQ-SF by family demographic variables, a series of one-way multivariate
analyses of variance (MANOVA) were conducted. The significance of the overall Wilk’s lambda was
examined prior to examining each univariate F test (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). If the assumption
of homogeneity of variance–covariance matrices was violated as indicated using the Box test, then
Pillai’s trace criteria was used as the omnibus test of significance of the model prior to examining
the significance of each univariate F test. Mean differences on FIQ-SF scores were examined for the
following family demographic variables (e.g., caregiver sex, age, ethnicity, primary home language,
education, employment status, and marital status). Tukey’s post hoc comparisons were conducted to
examine pairwise comparisons.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

918 Bulotsky-Shearer et al.

Table 2
Mean and Standard Deviation for FIQ-SF Scores

n Mean SD Range
Family involvement (fall)
Home based 492 50.85 10.26 19–65
School based 474 48.53 10.34 31–70
Home-school conferencing 485 60.54 7.14 31–70
Family involvement (spring)
Home-based involvement 496 50.35 10.53 19–65
School-based involvement 477 51.34* 9.91 31–70
Home-school conferencing 459 61.44** 6.40 41–70

Note.
* p < .01.
** p < .001 indicates the means of fall and spring scores are significantly different from each other.

R ESULTS
Descriptive Statistics
Table 2 includes the sample size, mean, standard deviation, and range for each dimension of
the FIQ-SF. Data were examined for outliers, homoscedasticity, and kurtosis to ensure that the data
were normally distributed. No violations of these assumptions were found.

Latent Structure of the FIQ-SF

Exploratory factor analyses replicated the three-factor solution identified by Fantuzzo et al.
(2013). The three-factor varimax solution was selected as the final solution because it produced the
most useful and parsimonious solution that satisfied the central criteria for retention. Table 3 presents
the item content and factor loadings for the three factors: home-school conferencing, school-based
involvement, and home-based involvement. Each factor demonstrated adequate internal consistency,
with Cronbach’s alpha of .88, .82, and .89, respectively. Home-school conferencing included seven
items measuring communication between teachers and parents. School-based involvement included
seven items describing activities such as volunteering in the classroom and going on field trips.
Home-based involvement consisted of seven items endorsed by parents indicating activities at home
to promote learning with their children.
Confirmatory factor analyses resulted in adequate fit of the factor structure to our data, χ 2 (185)
= 608.90, p ࣙ .001; CFI = .914, TLI = .902, RMSEA = .068, SRMR = .060. Values for both the TLI
and CFI were greater than .90 and values for the RMSEA of .08 or less were considered acceptable
(Browne & Cudeck, 1993) and indicated adequate model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Following the
CFA, unit-weighted factor scores were created for each of the three scales by summing each of the
items loading on their respective subscales, to create an overall raw score total. Total raw scores
for each of the three dimensions were transformed into standardized T scores using area conversion
based on our overall sample (Thorndike, 1982). These resulting scores were used in subsequent
MANOVA analyses.

Invariance of the Latent Structure

Tests of invariance of the three-factor structure provided evidence for the invariance of the
structure across caregiver ethnicity. For configural invariance, a multiple group CFA applied the same
factor structure to both (non-Latino) African American and Latino ethnic groups while allowing
all parameters to be estimated freely (Horn & McArdle, 1992). This model resulted in adequate

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Validity of Family Involvement Questionnaire 919

Table 3
Exploratory Factor Structure for English FIQ-SF

Varimax Loading Promax Loading

Factor 1: Home based (α = .88)

I take my child places in the community to learn special things .46 .48
I talk with my child about how much I love learning new things .64 .65
I bring home learning materials for my child .72 .68
I spend time with my child working on reading/writing skills .79 .76
I spend time with my child working on creative activities .80 .78
I spend time with my child working on number skills .69 .67
I talk about my child’s learning efforts in front of relatives and .46 .49
friends
Factor 2: School based (α = .82)
I participate in planning classroom activities with teacher .80 .77
I attend parent workshops or training offered by school .72 .69
I participate in planning school trips for my child .85 .81
I volunteer in my child’s classroom .73 .73
I go on class trips with my child .80 .75
I participate in parent and family social activities at school .66 .67
I talk with other parents about school meetings and events .63 .63
Factor 3: Home-school conferencing (α = .89)
I attend conferences with the teacher to talk child learning .44 .48
I talk to my child’s teacher about daily school routine .79 .74
I talk to my child’s teacher about the classroom rules .65 .64
I talk to the teacher about how child gets along with classmates .90 .80
I talk to my child’s teacher about my child’s accomplishments .80 .75
I talk to my child’s teacher about his/her difficulties at school .70 .68
I talk with my child’s teacher about school work .67 .67

Note. Final factor solution used varimax orthogonal rotation, using the randomly bifurcated subsample, n = 249, for
exploratory factor analyses.

fit, χ 2 (411) = 584.10, p ࣙ .001, CFI = .963, TLI = .96, RMSEA = .051, WRMR = 1.45. To
test for metric invariance, the same three-factor structure was applied to both groups and all of the
unstandardized factor loadings and thresholds were constrained equal across the two groups (Horn
& McArdle, 1992). This constrained model resulted in adequate fit, χ 2 (450) = 609.10, p ࣙ .001,
CFI = .966, TLI = .968, RMSEA = .046, WRMR = 1.56, providing evidence for metric invariance.

Family Demographic Differences across FIQ Dimensions

FIQ-SF scores varied across several caregiver demographic variables: ethnicity, home language,
education, and relationship status (see Table 4). A significant difference was found for caregiver
ethnicity (Pillai’s trace test of significance, F(3,320) = 6.41, p < .001, η2 = .057). Latino parents
reported higher involvement in school-based activities (F(1,322) = 11.47, p = .001) and home-school
conferencing (F(1,322) = 9.41, p = .002) than African American parents. FIQ scores also varied across
primary language spoken in the home. By Pillai’s trace criteria test (F(3,317) = 9.04, p < .001, η2 =
.079), parents speaking a language other than English in the home (mostly Spanish in our sample)
reported higher school-based involvement (F(1,319) = 19.98, p < .001) and home-school conferencing
(F(1,319) = 9.64, p = .002) than predominantly English-speaking parents. Significant differences on
FIQ-SF scores were found for caregiver’s education (Wilk’s lambda test of significance, F(6,588) =

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

920 Bulotsky-Shearer et al.

Table 4
Mean (Standard Deviations) for FIQ-SF Scores by Family Demographic Characteristics

Home-Based School-Based Home-School

Involvement Involvement Conferencing
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Caregiver sex
Mother (n = 297) 50.71 (10.25) 49.47 (10.58) 60.66 (7.31)
Father (n = 20) 50.70 (7.53) 52.45 (8.62) 62.90 (5.51)
Caregiver age
Under 30 (n = 155) 50.74 (9.70) 48.15b (10.53) 59.91 (7.35)
Over 30 (n = 131) 50.79 (10.79) 51.10a (10.29) 61.58 (7.63)
Caregiver ethnicity
African American (n = 201) 50.61 (10.54) 48.02b (10.92) 59.77 b (7.96)
Hispanic (n = 123) 50.48 (9.65) 52.03 a (9.31) 62.31 a (5.84)
Caregiver education
Less high school (n = 47) 46.43 b (11.29) 47.21 (9.89) 58.60 b (8.82)
High school (n = 135) 51.79 a (9.67) 50.26 (11.05) 60.33 (7.53)
College and above (n = 117) 51.68 b (9.79) 49.64 (9.83) 61.97 a (6.64)
Caregiver employment status
Unemployed (n = 158) 50.36 (10.43) 49.72 (11.52) 60.24 (8.01)
Employed (n = 138) 51.45 (9.84) 49.12 (9.05) 61.12 (6.87)
Caregiver relationship status
Married (n = 112) 49.39 (10.21) 53.52 a (10.25) 62.13a,** (6.46)
Single (n = 147) 51.90 (10.23) 47.02 b (9.81) 59.98b,** (7.73)
Divorced/ separated (n = 41) 51.37 (9.27) 48.56 b (9.70) 60.05 (8.09)
Caregiver primary language
English (n = 233) 50.57 (10.36) 47.95 b (10.75) 59.93 b (7.68)
Spanish or other (n = 88) 50.43 (9.94) 53.67 a (8.71) 62.74 a (5.90)

N = 498.
Note. Superscripts indicate the means of each group are significantly different from each other, *p < .05. **p = .05.

3.10, p = .005, η2 = .031). Parents with less than a high school education reported lower involvement
in home-based activities (F(2,296) = 5.60, p = .004) and home-school conferencing activities (F(2,296)
= 3.79, p = .024) than parents with a high school degree or above. FIQ-SF scores also differed
by caregiver relationship status (Wilk’s lambda, F(6,590) = 7.77, p < .001, η2 = .073). Parents who
were married reported higher school-based involvement (F(2,297) = 13.81, p < .001) than single and
divorced parents.

D ISCUSSION
The primary purpose of this study was to replicate and extend the construct validity of the
FIQ-SF (Fantuzzo et al., 2013) with an independent sample of ethnically and linguistically diverse
families from low-income backgrounds. Our study was motivated by the current need for validated
measures of family involvement in early childhood programs such as Head Start, serving families
from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Results from exploratory and confirmatory factor
analyses replicated the three-factor latent structure derived by Fantuzzo et al. (2013). The three
factors demonstrated configural and metric invariance across caregiver ethnicity. Additional validity
was supported by mean differences across family demographic variables. Together, findings extend
the validity of the FIQ-SF for use with low-income families from diverse backgrounds.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Validity of Family Involvement Questionnaire 921

Latent Structure of the FIQ-SF

In our independent sample, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses replicated the three
factor latent structure derived in the original study conducted by Fantuzzo et al. (2013) with a
Northeast sample. Our findings provide evidence for a reliable three-factor structure of the FIQ-SF,
measuring three dimensions of family involvement: home-based, school-based, and home-school
conferencing. Results extend prior research by documenting that the construct of family involvement
is best represented by multiple dimensions and that these dimensions can be meaningfully derived
in an independent sample of diverse families participating in Head Start in another geographic
region of the United States. These dimensions are theoretically and empirically supported (Epstein,
2001; Fantuzzo et al., 2000, 2013; Sheridan et al., 2010) suggesting that families engage in positive
ways in their children’s early education and learning through activities in the home, school, and
through bidirectional communication with teachers and schools. In addition, invariance of the factor
structure suggested that these dimensions of family involvement were robust in our sample, regardless
of family ethnic background.

Mean Differences across Family Demographic Variables

We also found evidence that the FIQ-SF scores were sensitive to detecting differences in family
involvement across family demographic variables. Overall, our hypotheses were supported in that
family involvement as measured by the FIQ-SF differed depending upon caregiver ethnicity, home
language, education, employment status, and marital status.
With respect to race and ethnicity, Latino parents reported higher school-based involvement and
home-school conferencing than (non-Latino) African American parents. Despite the fact that our
sample of African American families was diverse in terms of cultural and immigrant background,
findings were comparable to studies conducted in the Northeast (Fantuzzo et al., 2013). Researchers
suggest that lower school involvement reported by African American parents especially those living
in highly concentrated areas of urban poverty may be due to fewer opportunities for involvement
and fewer outreach efforts to engage parents in early childhood programs within these communities
(Abdul-Adil & Farmer, 2006; Fantuzzo et al., 2013). However, more research is needed to explore
these program challenges in future studies.
Additionally, in our sample, parents speaking a language other than English in the home (mostly
Spanish) reported higher levels of school-based involvement and home-school conferencing than
English-speaking parents. This finding did not comport with our hypotheses or with prior research
conducted with low-income families (e.g., McWayne & Melzi, 2014; Wong & Hughes, 2006). We
had expected that non-native English-speaking parents would report greater home involvement and
lower school-based involvement, compared to native English-speaking parents, due to linguistic
or cultural barriers. One explanation for this unexpected finding is that in our Head Start program,
centers are often geographically segregated by ethnicity and home language. It could be that primarily
Spanish-speaking families in our sample were enrolled in centers where the teachers and staff
spoke Spanish and created a culture of support and encouragement of family involvement. In
fact, Calzada et al. (2015) in their study of school and home involvement for Spanish-speaking
immigrant families in New York City found that when teachers reported higher levels of school-wide
support for Spanish-speaking immigrant families, then parents reported higher levels of school-based
involvement.
With respect to parental education, consistent with prior research and our hypotheses, we found
that parents with less formal education (relative to parents in our sample with a high school education
or above) reported lower home involvement, such as bringing home learning materials for their child,
or spending time reading, writing, or in creative activities. They also reported lower home-school

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

922 Bulotsky-Shearer et al.

conferencing, such as fewer back-and-forth interactions with their child’s teacher. These findings are
supported by research suggesting that higher levels of formal education are associated with greater
parent involvement at home and school (Calzada et al., 2015; Castro et al., 2015; Fantuzzo et al.,
2004, 2013; McWayne et al., 2008).
With respect to parental employment, we did not find mean differences on any of the three
family involvement dimensions. Findings from prior research with low-income families are mixed,
with some suggesting that employment is associated with family involvement (Fantuzzo et al., 2013)
while other studies do not find these associations (Fantuzzo et al., 2000, 2004). Our findings and
prior research suggest that the relationship between employment and family involvement is complex
for low-income families, and certainly that more research is warranted to examine the reasons why
mean levels of parent-reported involvement on measures like the FIQ-SF are not differentiated by
parent employment status.
Partially supporting our hypotheses, however, we did find that family involvement differed
by marital status. As expected, married parents were more likely to report higher school-based
involvement than single or divorced parents. However, contrary to our hypotheses and prior research
in low-income samples (Fantuzzo et al., 2000; Grolnick, Benjet, Kurowski, & Apostoleris, 1997)
in our sample married parents did not report higher home-based or home-school conferencing as
compared to single or divorced parents. Importantly, other studies have not found a consistent
association between family involvement and marital status (Fantuzzo et al., 2013; McWayne et al.,
2008; Smock & McCormick, 1995). Again, given the ethnic and cultural diversity among the
samples of low-income families in these studies to date, as well as differences in the percentage
of married parents across these samples, it is likely that these differences are sample specific and
warrant further investigation. Future studies should examine these complex relationships, considering
perhaps qualitative methods to study in more depth, how and why marital status relates to parent
involvement at home and school (McWayne, 2015).

Limitations and Future Directions

The present study extends prior research by providing additional validity evidence for the
use of the FIQ-SF with diverse families from low-income backgrounds; however, there are several
limitations that should be acknowledged. First, this study is limited to a sample of families whose
preschool children participated in a Head Start program, located in an urban area in the Southeastern
United States. Future research should examine the generalizability of the latent structure of the FIQ-
SF in other geographic regions, with other diverse families across different types of early childhood
programs and elementary grades.
Another important step is to extend external criterion-validity evidence for the FIQ-SF scores
by examining associations between parent report and outside ratings of teachers or program admin-
istrative records of parent participation. Unfortunately these were not available for our current study.
Examining whether parent report is concordant with teacher reports of involvement or actual counts
of their program participation would strengthen validity evidence for the use of the measure in our
sample. In addition, examining the extent to which parents’ ratings on the FIQ-SF relate to children’s
school readiness (academic and social–emotional) outcomes would be important. Longitudinal stud-
ies to examine relationships between the FIQ-SF as measured in preschool and elementary school
outcomes could help to identify which dimension is most strongly associated with outcomes across
the transition to kindergarten.
In addition, given Head Start’s comprehensive, two-generation intervention focus, it would
be important to examine those predictors of change in parent-reported family involvement across a
school year. As suggested in Table 2, FIQ-SF scores for school-based and home-school conferencing

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Validity of Family Involvement Questionnaire 923

in our sample increased from fall to spring. This is an important finding and future research could
examine the child, family, and program-level contributors to those dimensions of family involvement
most likely to change (Calzada et al., 2015; Jeynes, 2012). Early childhood programs can then apply
these findings to targeted interventions during the preschool years.

Implications for Policy and Practice

Our study addresses a call from the field for the validation of measures that can be used
to assess family involvement in early childhood programs serving ethnically diverse, low-income
populations. The FIQ-SF provides a means to measure three important dimensions in a continuous,
multidimensional way. This is an improvement over the use of unidimensional, frequency counts,
or unreliable checklists of parent participation in either home- or school-based activities often used
in the past (Fantuzzo et al., 2013). The FIQ-SF in its shortened form, also minimizes the burden
on families, and could be incorporated easily into early childhood programs as a tool to assess and
monitor family involvement.
The use of the FIQ-SF in early childhood programs provides a means to identify both the needs
and the strengths of families. Front line workers such as family service workers in Head Start pro-
grams can incorporate the FIQ-SF into their initial family assessments, to identify where intervention
efforts are needed, use findings to create opportunities for parent involvement, and monitor progress.
The FIQ-SF can be used as a starting place to initiate conversations about challenges for family
involvement, for individual families and schools. In particular, this can be effective for programs
serving families facing the greatest demographic risk factors and barriers to family involvement
(Jeynes, 2012). For example, if the family support staff is aware that families are not engaging
children in learning at home then they could conduct a workshop about how to use picture books as
a resource for children to learn. They can recommend to programs affordable educational activities
enjoyable for children and parents to engage in the home and community. In addition, family support
staff could use these data to provide individualized resources to families (e.g., assisting parents to en-
roll in community colleges or General Education Development or high school equivalency diploma
GED programs to complete their educational degree). Beyond merely using assessments like the
FIQ-SF for program compliance and accountability, the FIQ-SF could be used to support on-going
continuous improvement and intervention efforts that increase involvement (U.S. DHHS, 2011).
In summary, considerable research and public policy attention, as well as federal funding, has
been directed toward supporting family involvement, particularly for low-income children, partici-
pating in early childhood programs. Beyond merely meeting program accountability mandates, tools
are needed to help enhance parent involvement in home and school, and the quality of the interactions
between family and school personnel. Findings from our study support the use of the FIQ-SF in early
childhood programs serving diverse families. The FIQ-SF can be used to improve family engage-
ment, advocacy and support to parents through bidirectional communication, and ultimately set the
stage for parents’ active participation in their children’s education and development in the long term.

R EFERENCES
Abdul-Adil, J. K., & Farmer, A. D. (2006). Inner-city African American parental involvement in elementary schools: Getting
beyond urban legends of apathy. School Psychology Quarterly, 21(1), 1–12.
Aber, J. L., Jones, S. M., & Raver, C. C. (2007). Poverty and child development: New perspectives on a defining issue. In J.
L. Aber, S. J. Bishop-Josef, S. M. Jones, K. T. McLearn, & D. A. Phillips (Eds.), Child development and social policy:
Knowledge for action (pp. 149–166). Washington, DC: APA Press.
Advisory Committee on Head Start Research and Evaluation. (2012). Advisory Committee on Head Start Research
and Evaluation, Final Report. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/eval_final.pdf

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

924 Bulotsky-Shearer et al.

Barrueco, S., Smith, S., & Stephens, S., (2015). Supporting parent engagement in linguistically diverse families to promote
young children’s learning: Implications for early care and education policy. New York, NY: Child Care & Early
Education Research Connections. Retrieved from http://www.researchconnections.org/childcare/resources/30185/pdf
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook
of child development: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (6th ed- p. 793–828). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing
structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Buja, A., & Eyuboglu, N. (1992). Remarks on parallel analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 27, 509–540.
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(1), 77–86. doi: 10.1037/a0016071
Calzada, E. J., Huang, K., Hernandez, M., Soriano, E., Francoise Acra, C., Dawson-McClure, S., . . . Brotman, L. (2015).
Family and teacher characteristics as predictors of parent involvement in education during early childhood among
Afro-Caribbean and Latino immigrant families. Urban Education, 50(7), 870–896.
Castro, M., Expósito-Casas, E., López-Martı́n, E., Lizasoain, L., Navarro-Asencio, E., & Gaviria, J. L. (2015). Parental
involvement on student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 14, 33–46.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Crosnoe, E., Leventhal, T., Wirth, R. J., Pierce, K. M., Pianta, R. C., & NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2010).
Family socioeconomic status and consistent environmental stimulation in early childhood. Child Development, 81,
972–987.
Dearing, E., McCartney, K., Weiss, H. B., Kreider, H., & Simpkins, S. (2004). The promotive effects of family educational
involvement for low-income children’s literacy. Journal of School Psychology, 42, 445–460.
Downer, J. T., & Myers, S. S. (2010). Application of a developmental/ecological model to family-school partnerships. In S.
Christenson & A. Reschly (Eds.), Handbook of school-family partnerships (pp. 3–29). New York, NY: Routledge.
Duncan, G. J., & Murnane, K. (Eds.) (2011). Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances.
New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Fantuzzo, J., McWayne, C., Perry, M. A., & Childs, S. (2004). Multiple dimensions of family involvement and their relations
to behavioral and learning competencies for urban, low-income children. School Psychology Review, 33(4), 467–480.
Fantuzzo, J. W., Gadsden, V., Li, F., Sproul, F., McDermott, P., Hightower, D., & Minney, A. (2013). Multiple dimensions of
family engagement in early childhood education: Evidence for a short form of the Family Involvement Questionnaire.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28(4), 734–742. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2013.07.001
Fantuzzo, J. W., Tighe, E., & Childs, S. (2000). Family Involvement Questionnaire: A multivariate assessment of family
participation in early childhood education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 367–376.
Fuller, B., & Garcia Coll, C. (2010). Learning from Latinos: Contexts, families, and child development in motion. Develop-
mental Psychology, 46(3), 559–565.
Gadsden, V. L. (2013). Evaluating family and neighborhood context for PreK-3. Report commissioned by the Foundation for
Child Development. Foundation for Child Development: New York, NY.
Garcia Coll, C., Akiba, D., Palacios, N., Silver, R., DiMartino, L., Chin, C., & Bailey, B. (2002). Parental involvement in
children’s education: Lessons from three immigrant groups. Parenting: Science and Practice, 2, 303–324.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Grolnick, W. S., Benjet, C., Kurowski, C. O., & Apostoleris, N. (1997). Predictors of parent involvement in children’s
schooling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 538–548.
Hill, N. E., & Taylor, L. C. (2004). Parental school involvement and children’s academic achievement: Pragmatics and issues.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 161–164.
Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185.
Horn, J. L., & McArdle, J. J. (1992). A practical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Experimental Aging
Research, 18(3), 117–144.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus
new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
Jeynes, W. (2012). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of different types of parental involvement programs for urban students.
Urban Education, 47(4), 706–742.
Jeynes, W. H. (2003). A meta-analysis the effects of parental involvement on minority children’s academic achievement.
Education and Urban Society, 35(2), 202–218.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Validity of Family Involvement Questionnaire 925

Jiang, Y., Ekono, M., & Skinner, C. (2015). Basic facts about low-income children: Children under 6 years, 2013. New York,
NY: National Center for Children in Poverty, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University. Retrieved from
http://www.nccp.org/publications/pdf/text_1097.pdf
McWayne, C. (2015). Family-school partnerships in a context of urgent engagement: Rethinking models, measurement,
and meaningfulness. In S. M. Sheridan & E. Moorman Kim (Eds.), Foundational aspects of family-school partnership
research (pp. 105–124). Switzerland: Spring International Publishing.
McWayne, C., Campos, R., & Owsianik, M. (2008). A multidimensional, multilevel examination of mother and fa-
ther involvement among culturally diverse Head Start families. Journal of School Psychology, 46(5), 551–573.
doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2008.06.001
McWayne, C. M., & Melzi, G. (2014). Validation of a culture-contextualized measure of family engagement in the early
learning of low-income Latino children. Journal of Family Psychology, 28(2), 260.
McWayne, C. M., Melzi, G., Schick, A. R., Kennedy, J. L., & Mundt, K. (2013). Defining family engagement among Latino
Head Start parents: A mixed-methods measurement development study. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28(3),
593–607.
Mendez, J. L. (2010). How can parents get involved in preschool? Barriers and engagement in education by ethnic minority
parents of children attending Head Start. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16(1), 26.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2011). Mplus User’s Guide, Version 6. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). School composition and the black-white achievement gap (from Na-
tional Assessment of Educational Progress Report). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/
studies/pdf/school_composition_and_the_bw_achievement_gap_2015.pdf
National Research Council (NRC). (2006). Multiple origins, uncertain destinies: Hispanics and the American future. Panel
on Hispanics in the United States. In M. Tienda, & F. Mitchell, (Eds.) Committee on population, division of behavioral
and social sciences and education. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
Park, M., & McHugh, M. (2014). Immigrant parents and early childhood programs: Addressing barriers of literacy, culture,
and systems knowledge. National Center on Immigrant Integration Policy, Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.
Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Pianta, R. C., Cox, M. J., & Bradley, R. H. (2003). Teacher-rated family involvement and children’s
social and academic outcomes in kindergarten. Early Education and Development, 14(2), 179–198.
Schaller, A., Rocha, L. O., & Barshinger, D. (2007). Maternal attitudes and parent education: How immigrant mothers support
their child’s education despite their own low levels of education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 34(5), 351–356.
Sheridan, S., Knoche, L., Edwards, C., Bovaird, J., & Kupzyk, K. (2010). Parent engagement and school readiness: Ef-
fects of the Getting Ready Intervention on preschool children’s social–emotional competencies. Early Education and
Development, 21(1), 125–156.
Sheridan, S. M., Marvin, C. A., Knoche, L. L., & Edwards, C. P. (2008). Getting ready: Promoting school readiness through
a relationship-based partnership model. Early Childhood Services, 3, 149–172.
Smock, S. M., & McCormick, S. M. (1995). Assessing parent’s involvement in their children’s schooling. Journal of Urban
Affairs, 17(4), 395–411.
Snook, S. C., & Gorsuch, R. L. (1989). Component analysis versus common factor analysis: A Monte Carlo study. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 106(1), 148–154.
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioural
Research, 25, 173–180.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Thorndike, R. L. (1982). Applied psychometrics. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
U.S. Census Bureau (2015). Income and poverty in the United States: 2014 Current population reports. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/
content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p60-252.pdf.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). (2011). The Head Start parent, family, and community engage-
ment framework (PFCE): Promoting family engagement and school readiness from prenatal to age 8. Administra-
tion for Children and Families, Office of Head Start. Head Start Resource Center: Arlington, VA. Retrieved from
http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/standards/im/2011/pfce-framework.pdf.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). (2015). Program performance standards for the operation of
Head Start programs by grantee and delegate agencies, 45 C.F.R. Part 1304, Federal Register, 80, 35430-35563.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-06-
19/pdf/2015-14379.pdf.
Velicer, W. F. (1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika, 41,
321–327.
Wong, S. W., & Hughes, J. N. (2006). Ethnicity and language contributions to dimensions of parent involvement. School
Psychology Review, 35(4), 645–662.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits