See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281631753

1594-5422-1-PB

Data · September 2015

CITATIONS READS
0 311

1 author:

Sivanes Phillipson
Swinburne University of Technology
86 PUBLICATIONS   587 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Stereotypes in HPE View project

Parent-School Partnership: Perspectives of Australian school career and pathway transition leaders on parental involvement in student subject choice View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sivanes Phillipson on 10 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 19:2 (2010), pp. 229-250

Parental role in relation to students’ cognitive

ability towards academic achievement
in Hong Kong
Sivanes Phillipson
Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong
sivanesp@hkbu.edu.hk

The Vygotskyan perspective to school achievement suggests that parents play a role in mediating
the relationship between students’ ability and their achievement. This study investigated parental
influence on students’ cognitive ability which affected mathematics and language achievement within
four primary schools in Hong Kong. The participants were 215 upper primary students, and their
parents. Students were administered a working memory assessment and their achievement scores in
mathematics and language were obtained from school records. Parents completed a questionnaire
which profiled their cultural factors and SES. Data was Rasch analyzed and subjected to structural
equation modeling. Findings showed that students’ cognitive ability was mediated by parental
expectations and beliefs, as moderated by parental SES, in predicting mathematics and language
achievement. This finding demonstrated that parental influence in students’ academic achievement
extended to their cognitive ability, especially within the context of the four schools in Hong Kong,
in line with the Vygotskyan supposition that parents are the significant other that frame, filter and
interpret information to promote their children’s learning and development.

Keywords: parental expectations, parental beliefs, students’ cognitive ability, structural equation
modeling, mediation

Vygotsky (1978) stated that all human activities
should be explored and understood within a socio-
cultural context. Exploration of socio-cultural
context and its processes in relation to academic
achievement assists in our understanding of
students’ psychological development. Within
this framework, parents are viewed as the
significant other that frame, filter and interpret
information to promote their children’s learning
and development.
Many studies have found that there is a positive
linear relationship between parents’ expectations,
beliefs, attributions and involvement, as defined
by their cultural values and socio-economic status,
with the resulting academic achievement (H. Chen
& Lan, 1998; Dandy & Nettelbeck, 2002a, 2002b;
Hao & Bonstead-Bruns, 1998; Ji, Jiao, & Jing,
1993; Phillipson & Phillipson, 2007; Stevenson,
Lee, Chen, Lummis et al., 1990; Stevenson, Lee,
Chen, Stigler et al., 1990; Stevenson & Stigler,
1992). However, none of these studies looked at the
impact that these parental values have on students’
cognitive ability within specific achievement
contexts. This gap in research probably exists due

Copyright © 2010 De La Salle University, Philippines

230 THE ASIA-PACIFIC EDUCATION RESEARCHER
to the controversial nature of the hypothesis
that parental values do influence students’
cognitive ability which predicts their academic
achievement. The primary aim of this study,
hence, is to attempt to close this gap in research
by investigating how parental values and SES
influenced students’ cognitive ability in affecting
students’ mathematics and language achievement
within the Hong Kong context.
Hong Kong parents
and education
In Hong Kong, parents and family are the
basis of the cultural growth in children where
filial piety is central to the upbringing of children,
as inspired by the Neo-Confucian tradition in
the Chinese society (Lee, 1996). Furthermore,
parents and extended family play a large role in
their children’s education and well being (Shek,
2008). It is crucial for children in a family to excel
in education, not only for economic purposes but
also for the good name of themselves, their parents
and extended family (Lau, 1996).
The pressure to excel starts from birth (Salili,
1996). Throughout childhood, parents are very
much concerned about their children’s abilities
to perform academically. Chinese parents
stress the importance of “family-related” and
“academic-related” attributes which reflect
Hong Kong parental expectations of their
children’s academic achievement (Shek &
Chan, 1999, p. 300). Academic-related attributes
include working hard to achieve excellence in
academic related achievement, and these kinds
of values are usually conveyed through parental
expectations (Wang, 2004; Watkins, 1995). The
busy working and social life in Hong Kong
leaves less time for parents to be totally involved
in their children’s education, but the tenacity and
enthusiasm of parents who are involved reflect
the extent of their commitment and responsibility
towards their children’s motivational level and
performance in academic work (Postiglione &
Lee, 1997).
VOL. 19 NO. 2
In 1997, Hong Kong became the Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region (HK SAR)
under China’s rule after 150 years of British
colonisation. The British era had left some of its
influences in the education system in Hong Kong
(Y.-y. Hong, Morris, Chiu, & Benet-Martinez,
2000), creating an idiosyncratic education system
with “…pragmatism … rather than tradition as
its key value” as well as a society that reflected
and practiced such pragmatism (Kennedy, Fok,
& Chan, 2006, p. 112).
Three academic subjects, Mathematics, Chinese
and English are emphasized in the curriculum
(Hong Kong Education Commission, 2004).
Mathematics is given priority by many parents
because it is seen as the traditional marker of
success in academia which embodies the Chinese
cultural heritage of hard work and memorization
(Leung, 2001, 2002). On the other hand languages
such as Cantonese, Mandarin and English are
seen as pragmatic subjects for future employment
and generation mobility (Cheung, 2008; Lai &
Byram, 2003).
Parental factors
An early study suggested that when parents
interact with their children, they do so with
prior beliefs about how the latter act or perform
(Miller & Turnbull, 1986). The prior beliefs
include parents’ perception of their children’s
ability and the factors they infer influence their
children’s achievement. These beliefs have
also been suggested to affect Chinese parents’
expectations of their children’s academic
achievement (Stevenson, Lee, Chen, Lummis et
al., 1990). For example, it has been shown that
parents’ perceptions of their children’s ability
affect their expectations of their children’s
academic achievement (Furnham & Petrides,
2004; Furnham, Rakow, & Mak, 2002). A
recent study in Hong Kong found that parents’
expectation is a consistent predictor of their
children’s achievement (Phillipson & Phillipson,
2007). This finding is suggested to explain the
effect of parents’ perception of their children’s
ability as a result of past performance as asserted
Parental role in relation to students’ cognitive ability
by Graham (1991) and Pomerantz and Dong
(2006).
Additionally, H. Chen and Lan (1998) found
that students’ willingness to fulfill parental
expectations in academic achievement varied
across cultures, showing that American
students were less willing than Chinese
students to fulfill parental expectations. In a
similar vein, Hao and Bonstead-Bruns (1998)
highlighted the importance of agreement
of expectations on academic achievement
between parent and child. They provided
further evidence that although parent-child
agreement in expectations predicted higher
academic achievement of children, differences
in expectations were related to lower academic
performance. These studies demonstrated
that parental expectations are paramount to
determining how students worked towards their
goals in achievement. They did not, however,
demonstrate that parental expectations influenced
students’ cognitive ability which in turn affected
their achievement.
Chinese parents who have higher expectations
of their children’s academic performance rate
effort as the main causal attribution. As a result,
Chinese students work harder to achieve better
outcomes to meet their parent’s expectations
(Salili, Chiu, & Lai, 2001). Studies have also
proposed that how well parents’ expectations are
communicated to their children depends upon the
nature and extent of involvement they had in their
children’s lives (Epstein, 1990; S. Hong & Ho,
2005). These studies show that parents who have
lower academic expectations of their children are
less involved in their children’s schooling. These
studies have only looked at parental variables
in relation to other parental variables or their
children’s academic achievement, and not in
relation to students’ cognitive ability. Therefore,
the current study’s aim to investigate the role
parental variables have on students’ cognitive
ability in relation to their achievement is apt to
fill the gap in research.
Phillipson, S. 231
Parental socio-economic status
Parental socio-economic status (SES) as
reflected by income, education, and other social
markers, has been noted to relate to academic
achievement (Dandy & Nettelbeck, 2002b;
Hung, 2005, 2007; Hung & Marjoribanks, 2005;
Marjoribanks, 2002, 2005; Martin et al., 2007; Tsui,
2005). In some studies, parental income did not
seem to contribute to student achievement (Colom
& Flores-Mendoza, 2007), whereas in others it
has been shown that parental income is positively
correlated with mathematics achievement (Martin
et al., 2007; Tsui, 2005). Hence, it is important to
determine whether similar findings could be found
in the Hong Kong context, extending the influence
to students’ cognitive ability.
Furthermore, having a higher income that
facilitates greater access to educational
resources such as tutoring was also cited as a
reason for Chinese students’ academic success
(Chow, 2000). Access to home resources
and educational facilities, resulting in higher
achievement, was not only determined by
parental income but were also seen by Hung
(2007) as being related to parental educational
level. Hung theorized that parents with higher
educational level could bring about better
psychological support while their children are
pursuing their studies, and hence, promote higher
achievement.
Similarly, a research conducted on Hong Kong
Chinese students’ mathematics achievement and
its relationship to a number of factors including
parental education, home resources and parental
expectations, concluded that parental education
did not play a role in predicting students’
mathematics achievement (Wang, 2004). Instead
parental expectations and home resources were
important predictors of Hong Kong students’
mathematics achievement. However, it must
be noted that none of these studies looked at
how parents’ educational level and income
influenced students’ cognitive ability towards
their achievement.
232 THE ASIA-PACIFIC EDUCATION RESEARCHER
Working Memory as a Cognitive Variable
The ability to remember facts and past events
are important aspects of human cognition. This
study takes working memory as a basis for
cognitive ability. Swanson (2000, p. 72) stated
a rationale for measuring working memory for
students’ cognitive ability, writing that “…all
major information processing models on skill
acquisition and learning include the component
of working memory because it was highly
correlated with performance on several academic
and language-related tasks.” In several studies,
Swanson found that components of working
memory highly correlated with many cognitive
variables of everyday tasks such as reading and
language related tasks, reasoning and problem
solving, mathematics task and academic related
tasks (Swanson, 1995, 1996, 2000).
Furthermore, Chinese parents are said to place
greater value on particular facets of cognitive
ability namely, memory and analytic (M. Bond,
1991). The type of cognitive ability that Chinese
parents value are consistent with their cultural
expectations (Shek & Chan, 1999; Watkins &
Biggs, 2001). This observation suggests that an
appropriate measure of cognitive ability in the
Hong Kong context could be one that is based
on memory.
Student cognitive ability and achievement
Studies which specifically looked at cognitive
ability variables (without the socio-cultural
element) found it to be a significant predictor
of achievement (Gagné & St Pere, 2002; Kytala
& Lehto, 2008; Naglieri & Rojahn, 2001; Taub,
Keith, Floyd, & Mcgrew, 2008). A study in
Brazil also showed that student ability predicted
their scholastic achievement regardless of social
background (Colom & Flores-Mendoza, 2007).
When studied as a factor in relation to academic
achievement within a cultural context, students’
cognitive ability was found to be influenced
by other environmental factors (Stevenson,
Lee, Chen, Lummis et al., 1990; Stevenson,
Lee, Chen, Stigler et al., 1990). Stevenson and
VOL. 19 NO. 2
colleagues found that, although there were no
marked differences in the general cognitive
ability of students of different cultures from
comparable backgrounds (social background, age
and gender), their performances in mathematics
were different. The authors suggested that the
higher mathematical achievement of the Chinese
students was not only the result of their natural
ability but also their hard work, reflecting the
cultural expectations of their parents. This
study thus hinted that socio-cultural variables
are influential in students’ ability to achieve, but
failed to show proof of such an influence.
Blount and Schwanenflugel (1993) submitted
that factors affected classification systems and
terms within a specific domain. Carroll (1993)
also concluded that language (a cultural specific)
shapes and conceptualizes spaces in memory.
She supported this claim with her study on
German speakers and English speakers whom
she found to have different perspectives on
cognitive processing. The former group, she
claimed, took a subjective perspective, in
contrast to the latter which took an objective
perspective. This claim was supported by Mishra
(2001), and Schliemann and Carraher (2001),
who found that different cultural groups processed
and remembered different contextually relevant
information.
On the other hand, M. J. Chen (1993) in
her Chinese and English language processing
comparison study found that there were no
differences in the development of reading
skills across languages. Hedden et al. (2002),
nonetheless, concluded that cultural and linguistic
factors influenced performance levels in verbal
tasks whereas visuospatial measures provide
culture-invariant estimates of cognitive processes
in East Asian and Western cultures.
Rosselli and Ardila (2003), however,
found evidence to support the hypothesis that
performance on non-verbal tests (e.g. copying
figures, drawing maps or listening to tones) can
be significantly affected by an individual’s culture.
This can mean that psychological tools within a
cultural context may affect the mediation process
Parental role in relation to students’ cognitive ability
that takes place between a child’s cognition and
the social processes, somewhat influencing the
child’s thinking process but not the basic mental
structure. If this statement is true, can we then
use this assumption to provide evidence for a
particular dimension of cognitive process as
a predictor of academic achievement within a
cultural context?
Conceptual achievement model
This study built a conceptual achievement
model based on the literature reviewed and
the aim of this study. The conceptual model
include the following variables: Parental Factors,
Parental SES and Students’ Cognitive Ability.
These variables were seen as affecting academic
achievement in Mathematics and Language in
upper primary school students within Hong Kong
as shown in Figure 1.
In summary, this study proposed to test the
conceptual model which hypothesized that:
Parental
Factors
Students’
Cognitive
Ability
Parental
SES
Figure1. A conceptual model of Parental Factors mediating Students’ Cognitive Ability, as moderated
by Parental SES, that affected students’ Mathematics Achievement and Language Achievement.
Phillipson, S. 233
• Students’ Cognitive Ability indirectly
affected their Mathematics Achievement
and Language Achievement. Parental
Factors and Parental SES are seen as latent
factors that influenced Students’ Cognitive
Ability in affecting academic achievement;
hence, extending previous studies (Dandy
& Nettelbeck, 2002a, 2002b; Hung, 2007;
Hung & Marjoribanks, 2005; Leung,
2002; Marjoribanks, 2005; Phillipson &
Phillipson, 2007; Stevenson, Lee, Chen,
Lummis et al., 1990; Stevenson, Lee,
Chen, Stigler et al., 1990; Tsui, 2005) that
merely suggested that parental factors
affected students’ achievement.
• By itself, Students’ Cognitive Ability
would significantly predict Mathematics
Achievement and Language
Achievement.
• However, when parental variables are
added to the model, Students’ Cognitive
Ability would no longer significantly
predict the achievement variables.
Mathematics
Achievement
Language
Achievement
234 THE ASIA-PACIFIC EDUCATION RESEARCHER
• Parental SES is seen as moderating
both Students’ Cognitive Ability
and Parental Factors in predicting
Mathematics Achievement and Language
Achievement.
• Parental Factors are suggested to mediate
Students’ Cognitive Ability in predicting
Mathematics Achievement and Language
Achievement.
Analysis
The conceptual model was built with structural
equation modeling (SEM) (Bollen, 1989; Joreskog,
1993) using transformed scores resulting from
Rasch analysis (Rasch, 1960, 1980, 1993). The
data obtained in this study were ordinal, hence,
violating one fundamental assumption of SEM
that the data should be interval or ratio. Rasch
measurement offers a unique mathematical means
of transforming ordinal responses to linear interval
data for meaningful interpretations (T. G. Bond
& Fox, 2007; Fischer & Molenaar, 1995). Rasch
analysis also provided a means for interpreting and
reporting validity and reliability of instruments
used in this study. Using WINSTEPS Version
3.61.2 (Linacre, 2006), Rasch analysis was
performed separately on each instrument’s data
and the transformed scores were used for SEM
of this study’s conceptual model.
SEM takes on a confirmatory approach to
the analysis of complex relationships between
variables within a hypothesized situation (Byrne,
2001). AMOS 5.0.1 (Analysis of Moment
Structures) (Arbuckle, 2003) was used to perform
SEM on the conceptual model of this study
using a maximum likelihood estimation method.
Established criteria for specifying suitable
empirical models that tested mediation and
moderation effect set out by Baron and Kenny
(1986), and Holmbeck (1997), and later revised
by MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, and
Sheets (2002), and Shrout and Bolger (2002),
were followed.
As a result, three models were built. The first
model built was a basic student model linking
paths between Students’ Cognitive Ability and
VOL. 19 NO. 2
achievement dependent variables. The second
model was a fully saturated model, combining
all direct, indirect, and total pathways between
parental variables and student variables as
hypothesized in this study. This model determined
the fit of the model that included parental latent
variables and direct pathways between Students’
Cognitive Ability with Mathematics Achievement
and Language Achievement. The third model
was a version of the second model with no direct
pathways between Students’ Cognitive Ability
with Mathematics Achievement and Language
Achievement in order to deduce the occurrence
of mediation as hypothesized by this study. If
removal of the direct pathways between predictor
student variable and dependent student variables
did not significantly affect the fit of the overall
empirical model, this finding would fulfil the
key mediation analysis criterion that supports
the hypothesized indirect effect in the conceptual
achievement model of this study (MacKinnon,
Krull, & Lockwood, 2000; Shrout & Bolger,
2002).
Method
Participants
Primary 5 and 6 students from four Hong
Kong schools (two public Chinese-medium of
instructions schools and two private English-
medium of instructions schools) participated in
this study. From a total of 640 students that were
invited to join the research, 237 students and
their parents (37%) participated as fully informed
and consenting volunteers. The moderately small
sample size was noted in interpreting the results
of this study only to the specific context of this
sample in Hong Kong.
Of the 237 students, a total of 119 students
came from Primary 5, and 118 students came
from Primary 6, and there were a total of 114
male students and 123 female students. The mean
age (SD) of the students in the sample was 10.7
(.87) years and their ages ranged from 8.8 to 13.8
years old.
Parental role in relation to students’ cognitive ability
Measures
Two instruments were used in this study: the
Parents’Attributions and Perception Questionnaire
(PAPQ) (Phillipson, 2006; Phillipson & Phillipson,
2007) and the Swanson’s Cognitive Processing
Test (S-CPT) (Swanson, 1996). Year-end students’
achievement results in mathematics and a
language subject (either Cantonese or English)
were obtained from the students’ respective
schools.
Parents’Attributions and Perception Questionnaire
(PAPQ)
The PAPQ (Phillipson, 2006; Phillipson &
Phillipson, 2007) is a five sectioned questionnaire
consisting of 54 items for parents. In sections I to
IV, parents are asked about their attributions and
expectations in connection with their children’s
academic related activities, their beliefs of their
children’s ability, and their degree of involvement
in their children’s everyday lives.
The responses for parental attributions were
grouped in four dimensions of attributions
commonly used in Hong Kong (Chan & Moore,
1997, 2006) namely effort, ability, strategy
and luck, and each group was Rasch analyzed
separately. Four person estimates, one for
each dimension, were then used for SEM. The
responses for parental beliefs, expectations and
involvement were Rasch analyzed individually
and produced as a single person estimate for each
of the construct for further use in SEM.
Section V asked parents to provide
demographical information that included their
educational background and family income. The
responses to these items were used as categorical
data in the SEM.
Swanson-Cognitive Processing Test (S-CPT)
In this study, the S-CPT (Swanson, 1996) was
used to measure students’ working memory as
their cognitive ability variable. Five subtests were
used: Visual Matrix, Auditory Digit Sequence,
Mapping and Directions, Story Retelling, and
Phillipson, S. 235
Spatial Organization. These subtests assessed
verbal and spatial/logical processes in conjunction
with the language and mathematics achievement
levels. For each subtest, initial scores and gain
scores were obtained. Initial scores represented
the static scores of the students’ ability to complete
the subtests in the first instance, and the gain
scores were a result of a dynamic process of
encouragement and probing by the examiner. The
responses were Rasch analyzed and produced as
a single estimate of students’ cognitive ability for
use in SEM.
The S-CPT initial scores appeared to correlate
with intelligence (as measured with Kaufman-
ABC, r = .80; with Raven Progressive Matrices
Test, r = .60) and achievement (as measured
with WRAT, .53 < r < .57; PIAT, .55 < r <
.66). Cronbach’s Alpha analysis of the S-CPT
composite scores yielded a high internal reliability
(r = .96) (Swanson, 1996).
Achievement results
Two subject areas, language (English and
Cantonese, depending on the schools’ medium
of instruction) and mathematics were chosen to
depict academic achievement in this study. These
choices reflect the importance given in schools
as a result of the curriculum implemented by the
Hong Kong government (Hong Kong Education
Commission, 2004).
Procedures
The S-CPT was individually administered to
students over a maximum period of one hour by
a team of four examiners, following a uniform
format of procedure as outlined in the S-CPT
manual (Swanson, 1996). A total of 217 of
237 (91.6%) students completed the S-CPT.
The final number of student cases for analysis
was 216 (91.1%), after deleting missing data.
Each student’s previous year’s un-standardized
final grades in language and mathematics were
obtained from their school.
236 THE ASIA-PACIFIC EDUCATION RESEARCHER
Parents from the four schools were sent the
PAPQ through the schools. Parents were expected
to take about 15 minutes in total to complete the
PAPQ, and they were given a week to return
the questionnaires to the school. All returned
questionnaires were collected after a week
and checked for non-returns. Follow-up phone
calls were made for those parents who had not
returned the questionnaires within three weeks
of distribution. Of the 237 parents, 217 (91.6%)
parents returned completed questionnaires, and
this return rate was considerably high compared
to other similar research (Dandy & Nettelbeck,
2002b). However, only 216 parent data were used
for analysis as parents’ data were matched with
valid students’ data.
Of the 216 parents, there were 177 mothers,
38 fathers and one grandmother. A total of 49.3%
of parents had the highest income (above HK$70
000.00 per month). The remaining 51.7% of
parents were spread out in the income scale
below HK$70 000.00 per month, with the highest
proportion (18.1%) being in the income bracket of
HK$5 000 to HK$15 000.00 per month. A total of
3.7% of parents reported a take-home pay of below
HK$5 000.00. Furthermore, a total of 44.7% of
parents were university graduates. On the other
hand,11.2% parents had completed primary and
34.4% of parents completed secondary education.
A total of 9.8% parents had attained a vocational
qualification.
Results
Rasch analysis
The fit statistics for Rasch analysis of the
first four sections of the PAPQ and S-CPT were
obtained. The measurement units are expressed
in units of logits, the logarithm of the odds of
success, providing an estimate of item difficulty
or person ability on the same measurement scale
(T. G. Bond & Fox, 2007). Along with the mean
responses (and standard deviations), Rasch
output reports two chi-square ratios in the form
of infit and outfit mean square statistics. The fit
VOL. 19 NO. 2
statistics in Rasch are comparable to construct
validity in classical theory terms (Linacre,
2004b).
The data consisting of 216 cases were Rasch
analyzed and checked for outliers. One student
with severely misfitting measures was found
where the t values departed far from the acceptable
value of zero and the logit range of -2 and +2. This
student’s data were treated as an outlier, and both
the student and the corresponding parent data were
removed from the data set, resulting in 215 valid
cases for further analysis.
The infit and outfit mean squares found for
each instrument’s items’ and persons’ measure for
215 cases showed good fits overall. The values
were close to +1 for both items and persons
measures. Similarly, the infit and outfit t values
showed spreads of close to zero and within the
stipulated range of +2 and -2, indicating good
construct validity for both instruments within the
population of this study.
Another indicator of good-fitting data to the
Rasch model is the reliability index. A reliability
index of close to 1 is needed to diagnose a
conforming and viable model. The reliability
index reported for items of each instrument used
in this study ranging from the lowest .90 to .99, are
accepted as high values indicative of good-fitting
data to the estimated Rasch model (T. G. Bond &
Fox, 2007). Person reliability indexes were lower,
ranging from .51 to .82, but are still considered
acceptable for most social educational research
(Linacre, 2004a).
A normality test conducted on the Rasch person
estimates obtained showed very small skewness
and kurtosis. This result suggested a very small
departure from normality, which is expected in
educational research (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).
The person estimates for each section of PAPQ
and S-CPT were then used in the SEM.
Structural Equation Modeling
A number of goodness of fits, including
traditional and non-traditional fit values, was
reported in this study as evidence of model fits. A
non-significant χ2 (p > .001) is preferred as it shows
Parental role in relation to students’ cognitive ability Phillipson, S. 237

a small discrepancy between the hypothesized Inter-correlations

model and the population. Ratio values of less
than 2.00 in a χ2/df indicate a good-fitting model
and ratio values less than 1.00 indicate an over-
fitting model (Bollen, 1989; Ullman, 2001). Other
goodness of fits that are reported in this study
include the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) (Joreskog
& Sorbom, 1986), Comparative Fit Index (CFI)
(Bentler, 1990 as cited in Byrne, 2001, p. 83) and
the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
(RMSEA) (Bollen, 1989). These indexes were
chosen as they provide stringent measures of fit in
consideration of sample variances and have been
frequently quoted as the sufficient indicators of
fit along with the traditional chi-squares (Bollen
& Long, 1993; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Joreskog,
1993).
The inter-correlations, means, and standard
deviations of variables used in the models are
presented in Table 1. Correlations showed that
Mathematics Achievement was highly and
positively connected with Language Achievement,
Parental Expectations, Parental Education and
Parental Income. Mathematics Achievement
was also moderately and positively correlated
with Parental Involvement and Parental Beliefs.
Language Achievement was moderately and
positively correlated with Parental Beliefs,
Parental Education and Parental Income, but
highly and positively correlated with Parental
Expectations.

Table 1.
Inter-correlations, means and standard deviations of variables in this study

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Mathematics 1
Achievement
2. Language .59** 1
Achievement
3. Students’ Cognitive .35** .32** 1
Ability
4. Parental Attributions .01 -.02 -.12 1
- Effort
5. Parental Attributions .02 .09 -.07 .28** 1
- Ability
6. Parental Attributions -.05 .00 -.07 .40** .29** 1
- Strategy
7. Parental Attributions -.07 .00 -.05 -.12 .29** -.01 1
- Luck
8. Parental Involvement .17* -.09 -.03 .17* -.09 -.06 -.19** 1
9. Parental Beliefs .18** .27** .29** .15* .00 .-.03 -.10 20** 1
10. Parental Expectations .45** .51** .34** .08 .03 .01 -.14* .06 .21** 1
11. Parental Education .40** .19** .21** .03 -.06 .01 -.13 .43** .21** .26** 1
12. Parental Income .47** .17* .24** .13 -.14* -.03 -.15* .53** .17* .28** .71** 1
Mean 78.04 78.68 -0.08 0.68 -0.34 0.33 -2.86 0.89 1.31 0.13 3.88 3.50
SD 15.33 14.33 0.58 1.14 1.06 1.05 2.40 1.06 0.96 0.22 1.11 1.74
** p < .01; * p < .05
238 THE ASIA-PACIFIC EDUCATION RESEARCHER
Furthermore, Students’ Cognitive Ability
was moderately and positively correlated with
Mathematics and Language Achievement.
Moderate positive correlations were also
found between Students’ Cognitive Ability
and Parental Beliefs, Expectations, Parental
Education and Parental Income, suggesting low
incidents of multicolinearity needed to infer
mediation and moderation effect (MacKinnon
et al., 2002).
Parental Attributions to Effort was moderately
and positively correlated with Parental
Attributions to Ability, Parental Involvement and
Parental Beliefs, highly and positively correlated
with Parental Attributions to Strategy. Parental
Attributions to Ability was moderately, and
positively correlated with Parental Attributions
to Strategy and Parental Attributions to Luck.
However, Parental Attributions to Ability was
moderately but negatively correlated with
Parental Income. Parental Attributions to Luck
was moderately and negatively correlated with
Parental Involvement, Parental Expectations
and Parental Income. Parental Beliefs were
moderately and positively correlated with
Parental Expectations, Parental Education and
Parental Income. Similarly Parental Expectations
were moderately and positively correlated with
Parental Education and Parental Income. As
.35
Students’
Cognitive
Ability .32
Figure 2. Basic student model, with direct path effects between Students’ Cognitive Ability in
predicting Mathematics Achievement and Language Achievement.
VOL. 19 NO. 2
expected, Parental Education had a very high and
positive correlation with Parental Income.
Basic Student Model
The student model, as presented in Figure 2,
shows an over identified recursive model where
χ2 (1, N = 215) = 71.83, p < 0.05. The χ2/df =
71.83, was not within the acceptable value of less
than 2.00. The GFI was a moderate value of 0.84
but the CFI was a low value of 0.41. The RMSEA
value was poor at 0.56. The parsimonious indexes
were also poor. All these values showed a poor
fitting model.
The model accounted for 12 % of variance in
mathematics achievement and 11% of variance
in language achievement. Students’ cognitive
ability was found to significantly predict both
mathematics and language achievement. Students’
cognitive ability had a significant path estimate of
0.35 leading to mathematics achievement, with p <
.05 (c.r of >1.96). Students’ cognitive ability also
had a significant path of 0.32 linking to language
achievement, with p < .05 (c.r of >1.96).
This model, though not well fitting, showed
that the relationship between students’ cognitive
ability and the dependent achievement variables
had fulfilled the first criterion of the presumption
of mediation effect analysis. This model also
.12
Mathematics ermath
Achievement
.10
Language
erlang
Achievement
Parental role in relation to students’ cognitive ability Phillipson, S. 239

Parental
Beliefs

Parental Mathematics
Factors Achievement

Parental
Expectations

Language
Achievement
Students’
Cognitive
Ability

Parental
Education
Parental
SES
Parental
Income

Figure 3. Fully saturated empirical model, showing student variable in relation to parental latent
variables in predicting dependent achievement variables, with standardized path estimates and
squared multiple correlations of factors.

confirmed that students’ cognitive ability
directly affected mathematics and language
achievement.
Empirical Fully Saturated Model
The empirical fully saturated model was
built with two parental latent variables,
Parental Factors and Parental SES. Parental
Factors was indicated by observable parental
variables of expectations, beliefs, involvement,
attributions to effort, attributions to ability,
attributions to strategy and attributions to luck
and Parental SES was indicated by parental
variables of education and income. An over
identified recursive model was achieved.
However, the model showed indications
of being mis-specified. Error variances for
Parental Involvement showed up as linked with
many of the variables in the model and parental
attributions variables had poor loading to
Parental Factors. These variables were removed
from the model, and the fully saturated model
was built again with trimmed Parental Factors
and Parental SES.
Figure 3 shows an over identified recursive
model was achieved where χ2 (8, N = 215) =
7.33, p > .05. The χ2/df = 0.92, was within the
acceptable value of less than 2.00. The GFI
and the CFI were excellent values of .99 and
1.00 respectively. The RMSEA value was at an
excellent value of .00. The fit values indicated an
over-fitting model.
The model accounted for 54% of variance in
Mathematics Achievement and 90% of variance
in Language Achievement. The model also
showed that 54% of variance in Parental Factors
was explained by Students’ Cognitive Ability
and Parental SES, whilst only 7% of variance
in Students’ Cognitive Ability was explained by
Parental SES.
Table 2 shows the summary of standardized path
estimates in the model. The direct effect between
Students’ Cognitive Ability and Mathematics
240 THE ASIA-PACIFIC EDUCATION RESEARCHER VOL. 19 NO. 2

Table 2.
Summary table of standardized path estimates in the empirical fully saturated model

Total Direct Indirect

Regression paths effect effect effect
Mathematics Achievement <--- Students’ Cognitive Ability 0.23 -0.14 0.37
Language Achievement <--- Students’ Cognitive Ability 0.29 -0.39 0.68
Mathematics Achievement <--- Parental Factors 0.71 0.71 0.00
Mathematics Achievement <--- Parental SES 0.51 0.17 0.34
Language Achievement <--- Parental Factors 1.31 1.31 0.00
Language Achievement <--- Parental SES 0.20 -.40 0.60
Students’ Cognitive Ability <--- Parental SES 0.27 0.27 0.00
Parental Factors <--- Parental SES 0.54 0.40 0.14
Parental Factors <--- Students’ Cognitive Ability 0.52 .0.52 0.00
Parental Beliefs <--- Parental Factors 0.35 0.35 0.00
Parental Expectations <--- Parental Factors 0.59 0.59 0.00
Parental Education <--- Parental SES 0.78 0.78 0.00
Parental Income <--- Parental SES 0.91 0.91 0.00

Achievement was non-significant with a path
estimate of -0.14, p > .05 (c.r < 1.96). Similar
result was found for the direct effect between
Students’ Cognitive Ability and Language
Achievement. It must be noted though that the
significant path estimate of 1.31, p < .05 (c.r <
1.96), between Parental Factors and Language
Achievement could be problematic as Byrne
(2001, p. 75) stressed that a path estimate with
r > 1.00 clearly signifies “a wrong model or the
input matrix lacks sufficient information.” The
model, hence, could not be accepted as the final
model.
The Empirical Achievement Model
The empirical achievement model, which was
a version of the empirical fully saturated model
without the direct pathways between the student
variable and the dependent variables, was built
next. Figure 4 shows that an over identified
recursive model was achieved where, χ2 (10, N
= 215) = 15.22, p > .05. The χ2/df = 1.52, was
within the acceptable value of less than 2.00. Both
the GFI and the CFI were good values at .98 and
.99 respectively. The RMSEA value was also a
good value of .05. All these values indicated a
good-fitting model.
The model accounted for 58% of variance in
Mathematics Achievement and 74% of variance
in Language Achievement, signaling large effect
sizes for the relationships in the model. The
model also showed that a moderately large 37%
of variance in Parental Factors was explained
by Students’ Cognitive Ability and Parental
SES, whilst only 7% of variance in Students’
Cognitive Ability was explained by Parental
SES.
The still acceptable fit values of the empirical
achievement model showed that the removal of the
direct paths between Students’ Cognitive Ability
and the achievement variables did not affect the
overall fit of the empirical model. A chi-square
difference test was not conducted to compare this
model with the fully saturated model as the latter
showed some form of mis-specifications (Yuan
& Bentler, 2004). Hence, it was decided that the
empirical achievement model was an acceptable
Parental role in relation to students’ cognitive ability Phillipson, S. 241

Parental
Beliefs
Mathematics
Achievement
Parental
Factors

Parental
Expectations Language
Achievement

Students’
Cognitive
Ability

Parental
Education

Parental
SES
Parental
Income

Figure 4. The empirical achievement model showing student variable in relation to parental
latent variables in predicting dependent achievement variables, without the direct pathways between
student variable and achievement variables, including standardized path estimates and squared
multiple correlations of factors.

model matching the hypothesized conceptual
model of this study.
Table 3 shows the summary of the standardized
path estimates in the empirical achievement
model. The standardized indirect effect between
Students’ Cognitive Ability and Mathematics
Achievement was a non-zero estimate of 0.22.
The non-significant direct effect of this path as
found in the empirical fully saturated model
(refer to Figure 3) suggested that Parental Factors
mediated Students’ Cognitive Ability in affecting
Mathematics Achievement. A bias corrected
bootstrap 95% confidence interval (MacKinnon,
Lockwood, & Williams, 2004; Shrout & Bolger,
2002) estimate on 10,000 empirical sample of
the indirect effect produced a significant non-
zero interval of 0.11 to 0.33, p < .05, which
provided evidence that the mediation effect was,
in fact, reliable and significant. This meant that
Students’ Cognitive Ability was mediated by
Parental Factors, as moderated by Parental SES,
in predicting Mathematics Achievement.
Similarly, the standardized indirect effect
between Students’ Cognitive Ability and
Language Achievement was a non-zero estimate
of 0.32. The non-significant direct effect of this
path as found in the empirical fully saturated
model (refer to Figure 3) suggested that Parental
Factors also mediated Students’ Cognitive
Ability in affecting Language Achievement. A
bias corrected bootstrap 95% confidence interval
(MacKinnon et al., 2004; Shrout & Bolger,
2002) estimate on 10,000 empirical sample of
the indirect effect produced a significant non-
zero interval of 0.20 to 0.44, p < .05, which
provided evidence that the mediation effect
again was reliable and significant. This meant
that Students’ Cognitive Ability was mediated by
Parental Factors, as moderated by Parental SES,
in predicting Language Achievement.
242 THE ASIA-PACIFIC EDUCATION RESEARCHER VOL. 19 NO. 2

Table 3.
Summary table of standardized path estimates in the empirical achievement model

Direct Indirect
Regression paths Total effect effect effect
Mathematics Achievement <--- Students’ Cognitive Ability 0.22 0.00 0.22
Language Achievement <--- Students’ Cognitive Ability 0.32 0.00 0.32
Mathematics Achievement <--- Parental Factors 0.66 0.66 0.00
Mathematics Achievement <--- Parental SES 0.51 0.17 0.34
Language Achievement <--- Parental Factors 0.98 0.98 0.00
Language Achievement <--- Parental SES 0.20 -0.31 0.51
Students’ Cognitive Ability <--- Parental SES 0.27 0.27 0.00
Parental Factors <--- Parental SES 0.52 0.43 0.09
Parental Factors <--- Students’ Cognitive Ability 0.33 .0.33 0.00
Parental Beliefs <--- Parental Factors 0.33 0.33 0.00
Parental Expectations <--- Parental Factors 0.62 0.62 0.00
Parental Education <--- Parental SES 0.77 0.77 0.00
Parental Income <--- Parental SES 0.92 0.92 0.00

Parental Factors was mainly attributed by
Parental Expectations that had a loading of .39
with a significant and substantial path estimate
of 0.62. Parental Beliefs loaded significantly
with a path estimate of 0.33 but a lower effect
size of .11. On the other hand, Parental SES had
two substantial variables with large loadings and
significant path estimates.
Parental SES also seemed to play a bigger role
in moderating Parental Factors than Students’
Cognitive Ability as the path estimates show,
though both pathways were significant. The path
estimate between Parental SES and Parental
Factors were larger (r = .43) than the path
estimate between Parental SES and Students’
Cognitive Ability (r = .27). Parental SES did not
significantly predict Mathematics Achievement
although it significantly but negatively predicted
Language Achievement (r = -.31). Parental
SES, however, had a bigger indirect effect on
Mathematics Achievement (r = .34) and Language
Achievement (r = .51).
Parental Factors, on the other hand, significantly
predicted Mathematics Achievement (r = .66) and
Language Achievement (r = .98). The large path
estimates, especially between Parental Factors
and Language Achievement, would explain the
mediation effect that Parental Factors play in this
model (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Shrout & Bolger,
2002). In sum, Parental Factors play a large
role in influencing Students’ Cognitive Ability,
as moderated by Parental SES, in predicting
Mathematics Achievement and Language
Achievement.
Discussion
The empirical achievement model provided
a whole view of the socio-cultural processes to
achievement within the four Hong Kong schools’
context. A substantial 58% of mathematics
achievement and an even larger 74% of language
achievement was explained by the paths and
processes in the model. Hence, the model provided
Parental role in relation to students’ cognitive ability
significant support for this study’s investigation
of parental role in relation to students’ cognitive
ability towards academic achievement within
specific socio-cultural context of Hong Kong.
This model demonstrated that parents played
an important role in students’ achievement by
influencing students’ cognitive ability within the
sample of this study in Hong Kong. This finding
stood apart from all other previous findings as
parental expectations and beliefs influence was
shown in a mediatory role and that the influence
impacted upon students’ cognitive ability in
ways that affected achievement. The empirical
achievement model also showed parental factors
as a separate construct to SES within a model,
where each latent variable played a different
role in influencing students’ cognitive ability
in mathematics and language achievement. The
following discussion will highlight the key aspects
of these findings in relation to the current study’s
theoretical framework and research questions.
Students’ Cognitive Ability and Achievement
In the absence of any other intervening variable,
this study found that students’ cognitive ability
directly and significantly predicted mathematics
and language achievement, in agreement with
previous studies that reported similar conclusions
in terms of achievement in general (Gagné & St
Pere, 2002; Kytala & Lehto, 2008; Naglieri &
Rojahn, 2001; Taub et al., 2008). The relationship
between students’ cognitive ability as measured
by the S-CPT (Swanson, 1996), and mathematics
achievement and language achievement were
moderately high at .35 and .32 respectively.
However, the effect sizes were less convincing.
Nevertheless, good fits and reliabilities of the
S-CPT to the sample in this study indicated that
the measure of working memory as a cognitive
variable within the Hong Kong context was apt
with the postulation that Chinese parents placed
greater value on memory and analytic skills (M.
Bond, 1991).
It must be noted though that at least one
subtest in the S-CPT depended upon opportunities
afforded by SES background. Subtest 5 – Story
Phillipson, S. 243
Retelling required students to have been exposed
to verbal ability which has been found to correlate
with story reading (Hewison & Tizard, 1980;
Morgan & Goldstein, 2004). Moderate and
significant correlations were found between
students’ cognitive ability and parental income
(r = .24) and parental education (r = .21). Such
a finding suggested that the S-CPT could be
socially variant, but it could also mean that
social background moderated students’ cognitive
ability in this study. From the latter perspective,
it would seem then a moderately high correlation
between students’ cognitive ability and parental
beliefs (r = .29) and parental expectations (r =
.34) indicated that students’ cognitive ability was
influenced by parental beliefs and expectations
in this study. This finding thus supports studies
that have found different cognitive processing
and classifications especially in memory skills
due to different cultural influences (Blount &
Schwanenflugel, 1993; Carroll, 1993; Mishra,
2001; Schliemann & Carraher, 2001). Stevenson
and colleagues, on the other hand, stopped short
at claiming that differences in students’ academic
performance was influenced by cultural and social
factors (Stevenson, Lee, Chen, Lummis et al.,
1990; Stevenson, Lee, Chen, Stigler et al., 1990).
The current study, however, showed that there was
a relationship between students’ cognitive ability
and the socio-cultural background, and that the
interactions between the two variables contributed
to students’ achievement.
When parental variables were added into
the empirical fully saturated model, students’
cognitive ability no longer predicted mathematics
and language achievement. This result did not
support a finding from Brazil by Colom and
Flores-Mendoza (2007) where student ability
was found to predict their scholastic achievement
regardless of their social background. Instead,
the current study suggests that the socio-cultural
processes provided by these students’ parents
who had different expectations and beliefs, and
social background, played a role in influencing
students’ ability and their achievement. This
finding extends studies (Dandy & Nettelbeck,
244 THE ASIA-PACIFIC EDUCATION RESEARCHER
2002a, 2002b; Stevenson, Lee, Chen, Lummis
et al., 1990; Stevenson, Lee, Chen, Stigler et al.,
1990) which have suggested that parents’ attitudes
and beliefs, and the home environment of the
family play an important role towards students’
achievement. The current finding, however, went
one step further by showing that parents’ values
and practices influenced students’ cognitive
ability in predicting achievement. The current
study focused on parental influence on students’
cognitive ability that led to their achievement
whereas previous studies only demonstrated
parents’ influence on achievement alone without
showing their influence on students’ cognitive
ability, hence setting this study apart from the
rest in the field.
Parental Factors and Achievement
In this study, students’ cognitive ability
that affected their mathematics and language
achievement was found to have been influenced
by parental factors. In other words, parental
expectations and beliefs significantly mediated
students’ cognitive ability which affected
students’ mathematics and language achievement.
This finding extends past studies where
parental expectations and beliefs were found to
influence students’ achievement alone (Dandy
& Nettelbeck, 2002a, 2002b; Phillipson &
Phillipson, 2007; Stevenson, Lee, Chen, Lummis
et al., 1990; Stevenson, Lee, Chen, Stigler et
al., 1990; Stevenson & Stigler, 1992). These
studies also found that students’ performance
at school reflected their parents’ thresholds of
expectations. Nonetheless, these studies did
not exhibit a mediatory relationship between
parental expectations and beliefs in influencing
students’ cognitive ability that affected their
mathematics and language achievement, which
the current study’s empirical achievement model
demonstrated.
Although such a finding might be seen as
unprecedented in most contexts, in the context
of this study’s sample such a finding is possible
since Hong Kong parents have been known to
have beliefs and expectations that influenced their
VOL. 19 NO. 2
children’s own thinking towards their achievement
(Postiglione & Lee, 1997; Salili, Chiu, & Hong,
2001; Watkins & Biggs, 2001). The influence
Hong Kong parents in this study had on their
children included the children’s cognitive ability
towards their achievement.
Communicated expectations are usually seen
as agreed expectations between parent and child
that results in the desired academic achievement
(Hao & Bonstead-Bruns, 1998). Such implicit
agreement of expectations between parent and
child seemed evident in the overall context of
all the schools in this study, where the empirical
achievement model showed parental factors as
indicated strongly by parental expectations as a
factor in influencing students’ cognitive ability
towards their achievement. This study’s empirical
model showed the mediatory component of
parental expectations and beliefs as imperative
in shaping students’ cognitive ability in relation
to their achievement, setting the current study
apart from Hao and Bonstead-Bruns who relied
on reciprocal interactions of expectations between
parent and child as a factor that impacted on
achievement.
Although parental involvement could not be
included in the empirical model, a significant
and positive correlation was found between
mathematics achievement and involvement,
which suggests that mathematics achievement is
related to parental involvement. This finding could
be explained by the fact that mathematics is given
priority by many Hong Kong parents because it
is seen as the traditional marker of success in
academia which embodies the Chinese cultural
heritage of hard work and memorization (Leung,
2001, 2002).
Furthermore, parental involvement was also
significantly and positively correlated with
parental attributions to effort, and significantly
and negatively correlated to luck. This finding
extends previous studies which have proposed that
how well parental expectations are communicated
to their children depends upon the nature and
extent of involvement they had in their children’s
lives (Epstein, 1990; S. Hong & Ho, 2005). These
Parental role in relation to students’ cognitive ability
studies showed that parents who have lower
academic expectations of their children are less
involved in their children’s schooling. The current
finding, however, further demonstrates that parents
who attributed their children’s achievement to
effort are more involved whereas parents who
attributed their children’s achievement to luck
were less involved.
It has been suggested that Chinese parents
who have higher expectations of their children’s
academic performance rate effort as the main
causal attribution (Wang, 2004; Watkins, 1995).
A correlation between parental expectations
and parental attributions to effort did not exist
in this study. What was evident though was that
parental attributions to effort were associated with
parental beliefs and their attributions to ability
and use of strategy. However, it seemed that these
attributes could have been formed on the basis
of the children’s past performance as asserted by
Graham (1991) and Pomerantz and Dong (2006).
Furthermore, when parents had high expectations,
they did not attribute their children’s achievement
to luck, which seemed to suggest that this study’s
parents expected their children to live up to their
academic responsibility (Shek, 2008; Shek &
Chan, 1999), and not merely rely on chance.
Parental SES and Achievement
Independently, parental income and education
that formed parental SES in this study, were
positively correlated with mathematics and
language achievement, hence extending studies
that shown that parental income was positively
correlated with mathematics achievement
(Martin et al., 2007; Tsui, 2005). Parental SES
on the whole is also important in moderating
both students’ cognitive ability and parental
factors that affect mathematics and language
achievement. This finding extends previous
studies that found parental income (Tsui, 2005)
and parental education (Dandy & Nettelbeck,
2002b; Hung, 2007) as important determinants of
achievement. Again as found for parental factors,
the previous studies looked at the influence SES
had on achievement per se, and did not address
Phillipson, S. 245
the issue of how such performance in achievement
was influenced. The current study, however, went
beyond these studies’ boundaries by looking
at the influence the opportunities that parental
SES created onto students’ cognitive ability
and influenced parental factors in producing
mathematics and language achievement.
The empirical achievement model further
shows that the paths between parental SES in
predicting achievement are a lot smaller than
those of parental factors. In fact, parental SES
did not predict mathematics achievement at
all whereas it had a negative relationship with
language achievement. Such a finding, firstly,
lends support to the argument that parental factors
of expectations and beliefs were more important
than parental SES in determining mathematics and
language achievement in Hong Kong, as found in
Wang (2004) and Tsui (2005). Wang submitted
that parental expectations instead of parental
education play a role in predicting Hong Kong
students’ mathematics achievement. Similarly,
Tsui suggested that access to parental income
which created educational opportunities for
mathematics achievement, did not matter much
in a Chinese context.
The finding that parental SES had a significant
and negative relationship with language
achievement showed that less SES support was
given for those who achieved highly in language.
Perhaps this finding could be explained by
Cheung’s (2008), and Lai and Byram’s (2003)
assertion that Hong Kong parents’ expectations in
language usage and achievement were pragmatic
and imperative in connection with future mobility.
This explanation was further supported by the
negative relationship found in the current study
between parental attributions to ability and
parental income, which suggests that the more
parents attributed their child’s achievement to
ability, the less their income was used in the
educational process.
This current finding demonstrates that the
commonly accepted submission (Sirin, 2005)
that SES is an important and straightforward
determinant of achievement in general, cannot
246 THE ASIA-PACIFIC EDUCATION RESEARCHER
be accepted in all contexts. More importantly in
the current socio-cultural context, the empirical
achievement model demonstrates that parental
SES played an indirect role as a moderator of
parental beliefs and expectations, and students’
cognitive ability towards students’ academic
achievement.
Conclusion
Within the Vygotskyan framework, parents are
viewed as the significant other that frame, filter
and interpret information to promote students’
learning and development. This study showed
that in line with this supposition, Hong Kong
parents in this study, through their socio-cultural
values and practices, played a large and significant
role in relation to their children’s cognitive
ability towards their achievement. Parental
expectations and beliefs were shown to mediate
their children’s cognitive ability which in turn
affected mathematics and language achievement.
Parental SES was found to influence more of
parental expectations and beliefs than students’
cognitive ability towards students’ achievement.
Hence, this finding supports a mediation structure
within the immediate surrounding of parent-child
interaction where communication of beliefs and
expectations could be effectively transferred from
parent to child in shaping the child’s cognitive
ability that affects their achievement.
A number of limitations placed constraints on
this study. The small and convenient sample meant
that the results of this study must be cautiously
interpreted against the backdrop of Hong Kong
as the bigger context of this study. Repeatedly,
readers are reminded that the interpretation of
the result were specific to the context of the four
schools that participated in this study. Caution
was exercised when interpreting the models in
this study due to the use of the un-standardized
achievement scores. Prior achievement data
could also have been important as a variable
for consideration in the models in the light of
associations between parental attributions and
VOL. 19 NO. 2
their beliefs.
In association with the limitations of this
study, future research could include standardized
achievement tests, prior achievement scores and
sample that are larger in size that encompasses
different context within Hong Kong and outside
of Hong Kong. Moreover, a future research could
extend the current study to include an exploration
into parental role in influencing students’ cognitive
ability of different gender and developmental
growth in relation to their achievement. Students
and parents could be interviewed and observed
to provide evidence for the mediation structure
that includes a communication of beliefs and
expectations, which exist within an achievement
context.
References
Arbuckle, J. L. (2003). AMOS 5.0.1. Chicago:
Smallwaters Corp.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The
moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual,
strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51(6), 1173-1182.
Blount, B. G., & Schwanenflugel, P. (1993).
Cultural bases of folk classificational systems.
In J. Altarriba (Ed.), A cross-cultural approach
to psychology (pp. 3-22). New York: Elsevier
Science Publishers B.V.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with
latent variables. New York: John Wiley &
Sons Inc.
Bollen, K. A., & Long, S. J. (1993). Introduction.
In K. A. Bollen & S. J. Long (Eds.), Testing
structural equation models (pp. 1-9). Newbury
Park: SAGE Publications.
Bond, M. (1991). Beyond the Chinese face. Hong
Kong: Oxford University Press.
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the
Rasch Model: Fundamental measurement in
the human sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Parental role in relation to students’ cognitive ability
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling
with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications
and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Carroll, M. (1993). Deitic and instrinsic orientation
in spatial descriptions: A comparison between
English and German. In J. Altarriba (Ed.),
Cognition and culture: A cross-cultural
approach to psychology (pp. 23-44). New
York: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
Chan, L. K. S., & Moore, P. J. (1997, December).
Development of attributional beliefs and
strategic knowledge in Years 5 to 9: A
longitudinal analysis. Paper presented at
the Australian Association for Research in
Education Annual Conference, Brisbane,
Australia.
Chan, L. K. S., & Moore, P. J. (2006). Development
of attributional beliefs and strategic knowledge
in years 5-9: A longitudinal analysis.
Educational Psychology, 26(2), 161-185.
Chen, H., & Lan, W. (1998). The adolescents’
perceptions of their parents’ academic
expectations: Comparison of American,
Chinese-American, and Chinese high school
students. Adolescence, 33(130), 385-390.
Chen, M. J. (1993). A comparison of Chinese and
English language processing. In J. Altarriba
(Ed.), Cognition and culture: A cross-cultural
approach to psychology (pp. 97-117). New
York: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
Cheung, R. (2008). A flexible approach for policy
on teaching language. South China Morning
Post - Education, p. E4.
Chow, H. P. H. (2000). The determinants of
academic performance: Hong Kong immigrant
students in Canadian schools. Canadian Ethnic
Studies, 32(3), 105-110.
Colom, R., & Flores-Mendoza, C. E. (2007).
Intelligence predicts scholastic achievement
irrespective of SES factors: Evidence from
Brazil. Intelligence, 35, 243-251.
Dandy, J., & Nettelbeck, T. (2002a). The
relationship between IQ, homework, aspirations
and academic achievement for Chinese,
Vietnamese and Anglo-Celtic Australian
Phillipson, S. 247
school children. Educational Psychology,
22(3), 267-275.
Dandy, J., & Nettelbeck, T. (2002b). Research
note: A cross-cultural study of parents’
academic standards and educational aspirations
for their children. Educational Psychology,
22(5), 621-627.
Epstein, J. L. (1990). School and family
connections: Theory, research and implications
for integrating sociologies of education and
family. Marriage and Family Review, 15(1/2),
99-126.
Fischer, G. H., & Molenaar, I. W. (1995). Rasch
models: Foundations, recent developments, and
applications. New York: Springer Verlag.
Furnham, A., & Petrides, K. V. (2004). Parental
estimates of five types of intelligence. Australian
Journal of Psychology, 56(1), 10-17.
Furnham, A., Rakow, T., & Mak, T. (2002). The
determinants of parents’ beliefs about the
intelligence of the children: A study from Hong
Kong. International Journal of Psychology,
37(6), 343-352.
Gagné, F., & St Pere, F. (2002). When IQ is
controlled, does motivation still predict
achievement? Intelligence, 30, 71-100.
Graham, S. (1991). A review of attribution
theory in achievement contexts. Educational
Psychology Review [H.W. Wilson - EDUC],
3, 5-39.
Hao, L., & Bonstead-Bruns, M. (1998). Parent-
child differences in educational expectations
and the academic achievement of immigrant
and native students. Sociology of Education,
71(3), 175-198.
Hedden, T., Park, D. C., Nisbett, R., Ji, L. J.,
Jing, Q., & Jiao, S. (2002). Cultural variation
in verbal versus spatial neuropsychological
function across the life span. Neuropsychology,
16(1), 65-73.
Hewison, J., & Tizard, J. (1980). Parental
involvement and reading attainment. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 50, 209-
215.
Holmbeck, G. N. (1997). Toward terminological,
conceptual, and statistical clarity in the study
248 THE ASIA-PACIFIC EDUCATION RESEARCHER
of mediators and moderators: Examples from
the child-clinical and paediatric psychology
literatures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 65, 599-610.
Hong Kong Education Commission. (2004).
Progress report on the education reform (3).
Retrieved October 6, 2005 from http://www.
e-c.edu.hk/eng/reform/index_e.html.
Hong, S., & Ho, H.-z. (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(1),
32-42.
Hong, Y.-y., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C. Y., & Benet-
Martinez, V. (2000). Multicultural minds: A
dynamic constructivist approach to culture
and learning. American Psychologist, 55,
709-720.
Hu, L.-t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff
criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new
alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55.
Hung, C.-l. (2005). Family background, parental
involvement and environmental influences on
Taiwanese children. The Alberta Journal of
Educational Research, 51(3), 261-276.
Hung, C.-l. (2007). Family, schools and Taiwanese
children’s outcomes. Educational Research,
49(2), 115-125.
Hung, C.-l., & Marjoribanks, K. (2005). Parent’s,
teacher’s and children’s school outcomes: A
Taiwanese study. Educational Studies, 31(1),
3-13.
Ji, G., Jiao, S., & Jing, Q. (1993). Expectancy
of Chinese parents and children’s cognitive
abilities. International Journal of Psychology,
28(6), 821-830.
Joreskog, K. G. (1993). Testing structural
equation models. In K. A. Bollen & S. J.
Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation
models (pp. 294-316). Newbury Park: SAGE
Publications.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1986). LISREL VI:
Analysis of linear structural relationships by
VOL. 19 NO. 2
maximum likelihood and least square methods.
Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.
Kennedy, K. J., Fok, P. K., & Chan, K. S. J. (2006).
Reforming the curriculum in a post-colonial
society: The case of Hong Kong. Planning and
Changing, 37(1/2), 111-130.
Kytala, M., & Lehto, J. E. (2008). Some factors
underlying mathematical performance: The
role of visuospatial working memory and
non-verbal intelligence. European Journal of
Psychology of Education, 23(1), 77-94.
Lai, P.-S., & Byram, M. (2003). The politics of
bilingualism: A reproduction analysis of the
policy of mother tongue education in Hong
Kong after 1997. Compare, 33(3), 315-330.
Lau, S. (Ed.). (1996). Growing up the Chinese
way. Hong Kong: The Chinese University
Press.
Lee, W. O. (1996). The cultural concept for
Chinese learners: Conceptions of learning in
the Confucian tradition. In D. A. Watkins & J.
B. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural
psychological and contextual influences (pp.
25-41). Hong Kong: CERC & ACER.
Leung, F. K. S. (2001). In search of an East Asian
identity in mathematics education. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 47, 35-51.
Leung, F. K. S. (2002). Behind the high achievement
of East Asian students. Educational Research
and Evaluation, 8(1), 87-108.
Linacre, J. M. (2004a). Estimation methods for
Rasch measures. In E. V. Smith & R. M. Smith
(Eds.), Introduction to Rasch Measurements:
Theory, models and application (pp. 25-47).
Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.
Linacre, J. M. (2004b). Test validity and Rasch
Measurement: Construct, contect, etc.
Rasch Measurement Transactions, 18(1),
970-971.
Linacre, J. M. (2006). WINSTEPS: Rasch Model
computer program (version 3.61.2). Chicago:
Winstep.com.
MacKinnon, D. P., Krull, J. L., & Lockwood,
C. M. (2000). Equivalence of the mediation,
confounding and suppression effect. Prevention
Science, 1(4), 173-181.
Parental role in relation to students’ cognitive ability
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman,
J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A
comparison of methods to test mediation
and other intervening variable effects.
Psychological Methods, 7(1), 83-104.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams,
J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect
effect: Distribution of the product and
resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 39(1), 99-128.
Marjoribanks, K. (2002). Family and school
capital: Towards a context theory of students’
school outcomes. Dordrecht, Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Marjoribanks, K. (2005). Family environment and
children’s outcomes. Educational Psychology,
25(6), 647-657.
Martin, S., Meyer, J., Nelson, L., Baldwin, V.,
Ting, L., & Sterling, D. (2007). Locus of
control, self control, and family income as
predictors of young children’s mathematics
and science scores. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 104, 599-610.
Miller, D. T., & Turnbull, W. (1986). Expectancies
and interpersonal processes. Annual Review of
Psychology, 37, 233-256.
Mishra, R. C. (2001). Cognition across culture. In
D. Matsumoto (Ed.), The handbook of culture
and psychology (pp. 119-135). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Morgan, L., & Goldstein, H. (2004). Teaching
mothers of low socioeconomis status to use
decontextualized language during storybook
reading. Journal of Early Intervention, 26,
235-252.
Naglieri, J. A., & Rojahn, J. (2001). Intellectual
classification of black and white children in
special education programs using the WISC-III
and the cognitive assessment system. American
Journal on Mental Retardation, 106(4), 359-
367.
Phillipson, S. (2006). Cultural variability in parent
and child achievement attributions: A study
from Hong Kong. Educational Psychology,
26(5), 625-642.
Phillipson, S. 249
Phillipson, S., & Phillipson, S. N. (2007).
Academic expectation, belief of ability and
involvement by parents as predictors of child
achievement: A cross-cultural comparison.
Educational Psychology, 27(3), 329-348.
Pomerantz, E. M., & Dong, W. (2006). Effects of
mothers’ perceptions of children’s competence:
The moderating role of mothers’ theories
of competence. Developmental Psychology,
42(5), 950-961.
Postiglione, G. A., & Lee, W. O. (Eds.). (1997).
Schooling in Hong Kong: Organization,
teaching and social context. Hong Kong: Hong
Kong University Press.
Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some
intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen,
Denmark: Danmarks Paedagogiske Institut.
Rasch, G. (1980). Probabilistic models for some
intelligence and attainment tests (Expanded
ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rasch, G. (1993). Probabilistic models for some
intelligence and attainment tests (Reprint ed.).
Chicago: MESA Press.
Rosselli, M., & Ardila, A. (2003). The impact
of culture and education on non-verbal
neuropsychological measurements: A critical
review. Brain and Cognition, 52(3), 326-
333.
Salili, F. (1996). Accepting personal responsibility
for learning. In D. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs
(Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural
psychological and contextual influences (pp.
85-105). Hong Kong: CERC & ACER.
Salili, F., Chiu, C.-y., & Hong, Y.-y. (2001). The
culture and context of learning. In F. Salili,
C.-y. Chiu & Y.-y. Hong (Eds.), Student
motivation: The culture and context of learning
(pp. 1-14). New York: Kluwer Academic /
Plenum Publishers.
Salili, F., Chiu, C.-y., & Lai, S. (2001). The
influence of culture and context on students’
motivational orientation and performance. In F.
Salili, C.-y. Chiu & Y.-y. Hong (Eds.), Student
motivation: The culture and context of learning
(pp. 221-247). New York: Kluwer Academic /
Plenum Publishers.
 250 THE ASIA-PACIFIC EDUCATION RESEARCHER
Schliemann, A. D., & Carraher, D. W. (2001).
Everyday cognition: Where culture, psychology,
and education come together. In D. Matsumoto
(Ed.), The handbook of culture and psychology
(pp. 137-150). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Shek, D. T. L. (2008). Perceived parental control
and parent-child relational qualities in early
adolescents in Hong Kong: Parent gender,
child gender and grade differences. Sex Roles,
58(9/10), 666-681.
Shek, D. T. L., & Chan, L. K. (1999). Hong Kong
Chinese parents’ perceptions of the ideal
child. The Journal of Psychology, 133(3),
291-302.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in
experimental and nonexperimental studies:
New procedures and recommendations.
Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422-445.
Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and
academic achievement: A meta-analytic review
of research. Review of Educational Research,
75(3), 417-453.
Stevenson, H. W., Lee, S.-y., Chen, C.-s.,
Lummis, M., Stigler, J., Fan, L., et al. (1990).
Mathematics achievement of children in China
and the United States. Child Development, 61,
1053-1066.
Stevenson, H. W., Lee, S.-y., Chen, C.-s.,
Stigler, J. W., Hsu, C.-c., & Kitamura, S.
(1990). Contexts of achievement: A study of
American, Chinese, and Japanese children.
Monographs of the Society for Research in
Child Development, 55(1-2).
Stevenson, H. W., & Stigler, J. W. (1992). The
learning gap: Why our schools are failing
and what we can learn from Japanese and
Chinese education. New York, NY: Summit
Books.
Swanson, H. L. (1995). Using the Cognitive
Processing Test to assess ability: Development
of a dynamic assessment measure. School
Psychology Review, 24, 672-693.
Swanson, H. L. (1996). Swanson-Cognitive
Processing Test: Examiner’s manual. Austin,
TX: PRO-ED.
View publication stats
VOL. 19 NO. 2
Swanson, H. L. (2000). Swanson-cognitive
processing test: Review. In C. Lidz & J. G.
Elliot (Eds.), Dynamic assessment: Prevailing
models and applications (Vol. 6, pp. 71-107).
NY: Elsevier Science.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using
multivariate statistic (4th ed. ed.). New York,
NY: Allyn and Bacon.
Taub, G. E., Keith, T. Z., Floyd, R. G., &
Mcgrew, K. S. (2008). Effects of general
and broad cognitive abilities on mathematics
achievement. School Psychology Quarterly,
23(2), 187-198.
Tsui, M. (2005). Family income, home
environment, parenting, and mathematics
achievement of children in China and the
United States. Education and Urban Society,
37(3), 336-355.
Ullman, J. B. (2001). Structural equation
modeling. In B. G. Tabachnick & L. S. Fidell
(Eds.), Using multivariate statistics. New York,
NY: Allyn and Bacon.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society:
The development of higher mental process.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Wang, D. B. (2004). Family background factors
and mathematics success: A comparison of
Chinese and US students. International Journal
of Educational Research, 41(1), 40-54.
Watkins, D. A. (1995). Student self esteem. In J.
B. Biggs & D. A. Watkins (Eds.), Classroom
learning: Educational psychology for the
classroom teacher (pp. 69-81). Hong Kong:
Prentice Hall.
Watkins, D. A., & Biggs, J. B. (2001). The
paradox of the Chinese learner and beyond. In
D. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), Teaching
the Chinese learner: Psychological and
pedagogical perspective (pp. 1-23). Hong
Kong: CERC and ACER.
Yuan, K.-H., & Bentler, P. M. (2004). On chi-
square difference and z tests in mean and
covariance structure analysis when the base
model is misspecified. Educational and
Psychology Measurement, 64, 737-757.