Developmental Psychology Copyright 2008 by the American Psychological Association

2008, Vol. 44, No. 3, 840 – 854 0012-1649/08/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0012-1649.44.3.840

Discerning Direct and Mediated Effects of Ecological Structures and

Processes on Adolescents’ Educational Outcomes

Aprile D. Benner Sandra Graham and Rashmita S. Mistry

University of Texas at Austin University of California, Los Angeles

This short-term longitudinal study examined the relations among family and school characteristics,
family-level processes (youth perceptions of parent–adolescent interactions), school-level processes
(youth perceptions of school belonging, school climate), adolescents’ school engagement, and later
academic performance. Participants were an ethnically diverse, urban sample of 1,120 9th-grade students
(M age ⫽ 14.6 years). The structural characteristics of families and schools influenced the proximal
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

processes that occurred therein, and these proximal processes, in turn, influenced students’ proximal (i.e.,
engagement) and distal educational outcomes (i.e., grades in school). Moreover, the structural charac-
teristics of families and schools influenced proximal and distal outcomes indirectly through their
influence on the proximal processes. The multimediated ecological model suggested that intervening at
the process level may be a successful means of improving both adolescents’ engagement in school and
their subsequent school performance.

Keywords: adolescence, family influences, school influences, academic performance, ecological theory

There is a growing recognition among developmentalists that
environmental contexts, such as families, schools, and neighbor-
hoods, affect numerous developmental domains, including mental
health, socioemotional functioning, academic performance, and
risk behaviors (Chung & Steinberg, 2006; Cook, Herman, Phillips,
& Settersen, 2002; Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000). One theo-
retical lens for understanding these contextual effects is ecological
theory, which posits that human development is driven by proxi-
mal processes (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Bronfenbrenner & Morris,
1998). Proximal processes are increasingly complex interactions
between the individual and the environment that occur throughout
the numerous ecological systems in which individuals are embed-
ded. For example, within the family microsystem, parental moni-
toring of adolescents’ activities would be a proximal process,
while within schools, one proximal process could be the extent to
which teachers and other school personnel treat students fairly.
While ecological theory poses as fundamental the interplay
between the structural characteristics of ecological contexts and
the processes that occur therein, researchers sometimes conflate
the two, developing models that do not differentiate between
structure and process. This results in two unfortunate conse-
quences: First, structure and process are conceptualized as coequal
rather than interrelational; and second, possible interactions that
may have implications for intervention are ignored. A primary goal
Aprile D. Benner, Department of Human Ecology, University of Texas
at Austin; Sandra Graham and Rashmita S. Mistry, Department of Educa-
tion, University of California, Los Angeles.
This work was supported by grants from the National Science Founda-
tion and the Linguistic Minority Research Institute awarded to Sandra
Graham.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Aprile D.
Benner, Department of Human Ecology, University of Texas at Austin,
Austin, TX 78712. E-mail: abenner@prc.utexas.edu
of the current study is to determine whether structures (i.e., char-
acteristics of families and schools) influence adolescents’ educa-
tional outcomes either directly or indirectly through their effects
on proximal processes (i.e., the interactions that occur within
families and schools). Examination of the differential effects of
structure and process may provide insights into how best to inter-
vene to support adolescents’ academic success. In particular, if we
identify more consistent effects of family and school processes,
findings would have important implications for intervention design
and implementation, particularly given that processes within sys-
tems are generally more amenable to change than structural char-
acteristics.
In the current study, we link survey data from a multiethnic,
urban sample with school records data and school-level data drawn
from the California Department of Education (CDE). These com-
bined data sources enable us to examine the direct influences of
family and school structural characteristics on family-level pro-
cesses (youth perceptions of parent–adolescent interactions) and
school-level processes (youth perceptions of school belonging,
fairness, academic climate, and interracial climate). We also ex-
amine the direct influence of structural characteristics on adoles-
cents’ academic characteristics (school engagement). More impor-
tantly, we explore the indirect effects of these structural
characteristics through the proximal processes that occur within
each context. While numerous studies have examined direct links
between either family or school characteristics and academic char-
acteristics, few investigate multiple microsystems simultaneously.
By including both systems in a single model, we are able to
account for one system when examining influences within the
other. Relatedly, few studies have examined mesosystemic influ-
ences on academic outcomes, linking the effects of structural
characteristics in one microsystem to the processes occurring in
another, and how this relationship might affect both proximal and
distal educational performance. Identification of mesosystemic

840
 ECOLOGICAL CONTEXTS AND EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES
influences would suggest that future interventions should target
not only the individual microsystems of families and schools but
also the intersection of these systems. For example, encouraging
family involvement in schools can promote proximal processes
within families (e.g., parental monitoring of youth homework) and
within schools (e.g., improving school climate).
A second goal of the current study is to examine whether
proximal processes within families and schools have a direct
influence on later educational outcomes or whether these processes
influence distal outcomes through their effects on adolescents’
academic characteristics (i.e., engagement in school). Ecological
theory posits that both individual characteristics and contextual
processes influence developmental outcomes, yet few studies have
simultaneously explored the effects of these on adolescents’
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
achievement. To this end, we examine how family and school
proximal processes and adolescents’ school engagement influence
later academic performance. Moreover, although there are a grow-
ing number of studies examining the effects of school climate on
youth outcomes (e.g., Kuperminc, Leadbeater, & Blatt, 2001;
Loukas, Suzuki, & Horton, 2006), most do not use an ecological
approach. Additionally, there continues to be a large number of
studies examining effects of family processes on youth outcomes
(see Parke & Buriel, 2006); however, few studies examine the
effects of both ecological contexts simultaneously in a single
model, a contribution of this current work. Finally, given the
importance that ecological theory places on individual character-
istics, this research focuses particular attention on how modeled
relationships may differ for boys and girls or for students of
different races– ethnicities.
We explored these relationships with a multiethnic, urban sam-
ple of adolescents who had recently experienced the transition to
high school (i.e., 9th grade). The selection of 9th grade was
purposeful and driven by ecological theory, which posits that life
transitions, such as moving from middle to high school, affect the
processes that occur within microsystems such as families and
schools (Bronfenbrenner, 1986; Elder, 1985). By choosing the
9th-grade transition, we were able to examine how students engage
in processes within a new microsystem (i.e., students as active
participants who react to and interact within their new environ-
ment) and how these processes, in turn, affected their later perfor-
mance in school.
Influences of Families on Adolescent Academic
Achievement
The influence of structural characteristics of families on youth
achievement is well documented in the extant literature. Youth in
two-parent families tend to perform better on standardized
achievement tests and earn higher grades, and they are more likely
to graduate high school (Lee & Croninger, 1994; Roscigno, 2000).
Similarly, parental education is also associated with achievement
test results, grades in school, and high school completion (Felner
et al., 1995; Roscigno, 2000). In addition to the influence of
familial structural characteristics, the processes that occur within
families also influence adolescent outcomes. Adolescents whose
parents are more involved in their education, both at home and at
school, earn higher grades in school (Gutman & Midgley, 2000;
Woolley & Grogan-Kaylor, 2006) and have higher reading and
math achievement (Eamon, 2005; Lee & Croninger, 1994; Parcel
841
& Dufur, 2001). Parental monitoring and regulation are associated
with better grades in school for boys (Stolz et al., 2004), stronger
reading achievement (Parcel & Dufur, 2001), and positive growth
in mathematics achievement across high school (Gregory & Wein-
stein, 2004). Less parental psychological control (i.e., more auton-
omy granting) predicts better grades in school (Stolz et al., 2004).
Few studies, however, have attempted to parse apart the effects
of the structural characteristics of families from the processes that
occur therein. One exception is Felner and colleagues (1995), who
adopted an ecological–mediational model to examine the effects of
structural characteristics (e.g., parent education) on proximal en-
vironmental processes (e.g., family climate, support) and the pos-
sible mediating influence of these processes on youth adjustment.
Their findings suggest that parent education influences the proxi-
mal processes that occur within families— households in which
neither parent graduated from high school exhibited poorer family
climate and social support, as reported by youth. While parent
education also exerted a significant influence on youth’s academic
adjustment, as measured by grades in school and academic com-
petence, proximal family processes partially mediated this rela-
tionship. The current study further builds on this parsing apart of
the influences of family structure and family process. More spe-
cifically, the current study uses a larger and more diverse urban
sample to explore multiple family structural characteristics and
family processes and the influence of these, both direct and indi-
rect, on adolescents’ academic performance.
School Structure and Process and Adolescent
Achievement
The relationship between school structural characteristics and
adolescents’ performance is well established. Students in high-
poverty schools (generally measured by the percentage of students
qualifying for the federal school lunch program) and schools with
high percentages of minority students generally experience more
academic difficulties than their peers attending more affluent
schools and schools with fewer racial– ethnic minority students
(Caldas, 1993; Lee, 2000; Lee & Croninger, 1994; McNeal, 1997;
Roscigno, 2000). Students at large schools tend to perform more
poorly on standardized tests and exhibit less growth in achieve-
ment across time (Lee, Smith, & Croninger, 1997) and have higher
dropout rates (Baker et al., 2001). Similar academic difficulties
emerge for students in schools with high student-to-teacher ratios
(Baker et al., 2001; McNeal, 1997). Just as school structural
characteristics influence youth outcomes, so too do the processes
that occur within schools. Adolescents who express more positive
perceptions of their school climate tend to earn higher grades in
school (Stone & Han, 2005) and perform better on standardized
achievement tests (Eamon, 2005). Positive evaluations of schools’
interracial climates also positively affect adolescents’ grades in
school (Stone & Han, 2005). More positive perceptions of rela-
tionships with teachers are associated with higher grades in school
(Crosnoe, 2004; Gutman & Midgley, 2000; Stolz et al., 2004;
Woolley & Grogan-Kaylor, 2006) and stronger achievement test
performance (Gregory & Weinstein, 2004). While researchers
know a fair amount about the link between schools’ structural
characteristics and adolescents’ academic performance and the
link between school processes and performance, little is known
 842 BENNER, GRAHAM, AND MISTRY
about the mechanisms by which school structural characteristics
and processes affect adolescents’ outcomes.
The Current Study
Using an ecological framework, this study seeks to examine the
links between structural characteristics, processes, and academic
outcomes in two microsystems—schools and families. Through
this examination, we seek to highlight the mechanisms by which
structural characteristics and microsystem processes exert their
influence on adolescents’ academic performance. Figure 1 presents
the conceptual model that guided our research. Using longitudinal
data on a sample of multiethnic, urban adolescents, we addressed
five primary research questions:
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
1. How do the structural characteristics of families and
schools affect the processes that occur therein, and how
do these microsystem structures and processes affect
adolescents’ proximal and distal outcomes? So, for ex-
ample, might living in a two-parent household affect the
extent of family involvement in academics, and might
this family involvement, in turn, affect adolescents’
school engagement and their later grades in school?
2. Is the relationship between structural characteristics of
microsystems and proximal academic outcomes medi-
ated by the processes that occur within microsystems?
Thus, for example, might family involvement in academ-
ics mediate the relationship between a two-parent house-
hold and school engagement?
3. Is the relationship between microsystem processes and
distal academic outcomes mediated by proximal aca-
demic outcomes? So, might school engagement mediate
the relationship between family academic involvement
and later grades in school?
4. Are there cross-system interactions (i.e., mesosystem in-
fluences)? In other words, might school size, a school-
level structural characteristic, influence family involve-
ment in academics, a family-level process?
Family Family
Structure Processes
School School
Structure Processes
9th Grade Fall
Figure 1. Hypothesized model of family and school effects on adolescents’ grades in school.
5. Does the strength of association between model con-
structs differ by adolescent gender or race– ethnicity?
The placement of constructs in our model and hypotheses re-
lated to our model were both research driven and theory driven.
We hypothesized that direct relationships would emerge between
microsystem structural characteristics and processes, between pro-
cesses and proximal academic outcomes, and between proximal
and distal academic outcomes. We also expected mesosystemic
influences, with school structural characteristics predicting family
academic involvement, and family structural characteristics pre-
dicting youth’s perceptions of their school climate. Further, we
expected that microsystem processes would mediate the relation-
ship between structural characteristics and proximal academic
outcomes. Finally, we anticipated that proximal outcomes would
mediate the relationship between microsystem processes and distal
academic outcomes. In the absence of a strong empirical basis for
making predictions about whether the model would function dif-
ferently for boys or girls or for adolescents from different ethnic
groups, we treated the gender and race– ethnicity analyses as
exploratory.
Method
Participants
Participants were 1,120 9th-grade students (484 boys and 636
girls, M age ⫽ 14.6 year) who had participated in a larger longi-
tudinal study of social adjustment from 6th to 10th grade (Bell-
more, Witkow, Graham, & Juvonen, 2004). Students were initially
recruited at the beginning of 6th grade from 11 middle schools in
metropolitan Los Angeles, with schools chosen from among those
of comparable size in demographically similar low-income/
working-class neighborhoods. All schools were eligible for Title I
compensatory funding and were carefully selected to represent a
continuum of ethnic diversity (e.g., from primarily Latino or
African American to ethnically diverse). Students were re-
recruited the fall of 9th grade to take part in a new study of the
transition to high school. We were able to successfully follow
more than 80% of the 8th-grade sample, enrolled in 140 high
Student
GPA
Beliefs/Behaviors
9th Grade Spring
 ECOLOGICAL CONTEXTS AND EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES
schools in 9th grade. In total, 57 students were excluded from the
high school portion of the study because either they or their parents
refused to provide consent or assent. Attrition from the study was
generally due to student mobility and school drop out or chronic
absence.
According to students’ self-reported ethnic affiliation, the sam-
ple for the current study was 48% Latino (n ⫽ 532), 15% African
American (n ⫽ 167), 13% Asian (n ⫽ 142), 11% Caucasian (n ⫽
124), and 14% biracial–multiethnic (n ⫽ 153). More than 90% of
Latino and Asian youth were at least second generation (U.S.-born
children of immigrants), and all were sufficiently proficient in
English to complete written questionnaires.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Procedure
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Each school year, students with both parental consent and stu-
dent assent completed confidential questionnaires during the mid-
dle of both the fall and the spring semesters. This study specifically
draws on student survey data from the fall of 9th grade. Trained
research assistants (graduate and undergraduate students) visited
high schools to administer student surveys. During each question-
naire administration, students were generally surveyed during elec-
tive classes; administration typically occurred in empty rooms on
the school campus (e.g., library, cafeteria, classroom). Research
assistants read all items aloud as small groups of students provided
their responses on a computerized survey. When high schools
enrolled fewer than 5 study participants, research assistants con-
ducted phone surveys. Students were mailed the questionnaire
materials, and research assistants contacted each student by phone,
reading all items aloud as the student provided individual re-
sponses on their questionnaires. Students then returned the ques-
tionnaires in a postage-paid envelope. Questionnaires took approx-
imately 40 min to complete, and students received small monetary
compensation for their participation.
In addition to student surveys, each student participant’s English
teacher was asked to complete a student engagement questionnaire
during the fall and spring semester of each year. In the rare case in
which an English teacher was unable to participate in the teacher
survey, a teacher in one of the student’s other core-content classes
(e.g., mathematics, science, social studies) was asked to partici-
pate. Students participating in phone surveys were mailed a sealed
teacher questionnaire packet and were asked to give the packet to
their English teachers. The packet included a cover letter describ-
ing the study, the teacher questionnaire, and a postage-paid return
envelope. The teacher questionnaire took approximately 5 min to
complete, and teachers received a small monetary compensation
for their participation, with rates varying based on the number of
surveys completed. Teacher survey data were available for 793
students (71% of the sample).1
School record data (i.e., grades) were collected for all partici-
pating students each semester. School records data for this study
were drawn specifically from spring of 9th grade. School demo-
graphic data were downloaded from the CDE website (www.cde
.ca.gov) for each student’s high school.
Measures
Family structural characteristics. We used three measures of
family structure, all procured through the student survey. Students
843
identified their mothers’ highest educational attainment using the
following categories: (a) did not finish high school, (b) high school
graduate, (c) vocational school or community college, or (d) 4-year
college graduate or beyond. Students also identified, using a
checklist, the adults who lived in their homes—the checklist in-
cluded biological parents, stepparents, grandparents, other rela-
tives, and foster parents. Additionally, students could indicate
living in a group home or another living arrangement. We created
two household structure variables based on their responses to these
items. First, if students lived with both a mother (biological or
step) and a father (biological or step), they were identified as living
in a two-parent home (coded as 1). All other living arrangements
were coded as 0. Additionally, we created a dichotomous variable
indicating whether nonparental family members resided in the
home. Students who reported living with grandparents or other
relatives received a score of 1, while students who lived with
neither grandparents nor other relatives received a score of 0.
School structural characteristics. We used five individual
measures of school structure from the CDE that have been linked
to adolescents’ educational beliefs and academic outcomes: aver-
age school socioeconomic status (SES), average school achieve-
ment, school size, student–teacher ratio, and school diversity.
These school structural characteristics were analyzed at the indi-
vidual level because we were interested in relationships between
structural characteristics and students’ perceptions of their schools.
Our analytical methods account for the nested nature of school
structural characteristics (see Overview of Analysis). Average
school SES was calculated by subtracting the percentage of stu-
dents qualifying for the federal free and reduced-price lunch pro-
gram from 100%, such that higher scores indicated that fewer
students qualified for the program. School achievement data were
drawn from schools’ Academic Performance Index (API) base
scores. Schools’ API base scores are determined by school-level
performance on California’s statewide assessment program, in-
cluding results on the California Standards Tests, the California
Alternate Performance Assessment, and the California High
School Exit Examination. API scores range from 200 to 1,000,
with the state’s target API performance score set at 800 for all
schools. School enrollment was converted from a continuous vari-
able into an ordinal, seven-category variable due to the high
variance of the continuous variable, with the following school size
groupings: (a) less than 2,000 students, (b) 2,001 to 2,500 students,
(c) 2,501 to 3,000 students, (d) 3,001 to 3,500 students, (e) 3,501
to 4,000 students, (f) 4,001 to 4,500 students, and (g) more than
4,500 students. Student–teacher ratio was computed by dividing
total school enrollment by the total number of full-time equivalent
teachers at the school.
School ethnic diversity calculations were based on school-level
race– ethnicity data. The CDE data include school racial– ethnic
1
Cross-tabulation results indicated a difference in missing teacher data
by gender and race– ethnicity. Independent-samples t tests revealed that
students with teacher survey data tended to attend more affluent schools
with fewer students and higher academic performance than those without
these data. These students also rated their climates as more fair and
stronger academically, and they had mothers with more education. The
study’s analysis methods, detailed in the Overview of Analysis to follow,
are able to account and adjust for these missing data.
 844 BENNER, GRAHAM, AND MISTRY
breakdown by the following categories: American Indian–
Alaskan, Asian, Pacific Islander, Filipino, Hispanic, African
American (non-Hispanic), White, and multiethnic–missing. CDE
data were aggregated into four primary racial– ethnic categories—
Latina/o, African American, Asian American, and White—for the
purpose of calculating ethnic diversity for the students’ high
schools.2 School-level ethnic diversity was computed using Simp-
son’s (1949) index of diversity, which has been used in other
studies drawing on the larger longitudinal data for the current
study (Bellmore et al., 2004; Juvonen, Nishina, & Graham, 2006):
冘
g those directly related to students’ interracial interactions). A sam-
DC ⫽ 1 ⫺ p 21 .
i⫽1
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
In this formula, a school’s ethnic diversity (Dc) depends on the
proportion (p) of students in the school who are in each ethnic
group (i). The proportions are squared and summed across the total
number of ethnic groups in the school (g). The index of diversity
accounts for both the relative proportion of each ethnic group in
the school and the number of ethnic groups represented within the
school, providing the probability (ranging from 0 to approximately
1) that 2 students randomly selected from the same school will
belong to different ethnic groups. Higher scores on the diversity
index reflect greater ethnic diversity within the school. For the
high schools in this sample, scores ranged from 0.04 to 0.74 (M ⫽
0.53, SD ⫽ 0.18), indicating good spread along a diversity con-
tinuum.
Family process variables. Students completed a 15-item
global family climate measure adopted from the Family Environ-
ment Scale (Moos & Moos, 1981) and the Parental Bonding
Instrument (Parker, Tupling, & Brown, 1979). Students rated all
items on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (for sure yes) to 5 (no
way). The current study draws specifically from two subscales.
The Family Support for Academics subscale comprises three
items, including “I get help from my family when I have to make
decisions about school.” The Family Monitoring subscale included
four items. A sample item is “I must call home if I’m going to be
late.” Item responses were reverse coded, so that higher ratings
reflected greater family support for academics and family moni-
toring. We used individual items to construct latent family vari-
ables, so alphas are not presented.
School process variables. Students reported on four dimen-
sions of school processes—school belonging, fairness, academic
climate, and interracial climate. School belonging and fairness
were assessed using items adapted from Gottfredson’s (1984)
Effective School Battery. The School Belonging subscale (␣ ⫽
.74) included five items that assessed students’ sense of belonging
to their high schools. A sample item is “I feel like I’m a part of this
school.” Ratings ranged from 1 (no way) to 5 (for sure yes), with
higher mean scores reflecting greater school belonging. The
School Fairness subscale comprised 3 items (␣ ⫽ .73) that asked
about the extent to which students felt that the rules were equitable
and all students were treated the same (e.g., “The principal is
fair”). All items were rated on a 5-point scale, from 1 (always) to
5 (never), with higher scores reflecting greater feelings of school
fairness.
School academic climate was assessed using the Perceived
Social Norms for Schoolwork and Achievement During Adoles-
cence (Witkow, 2006). Students rated six items related to percep-
tions of their classmates’ academic behaviors. A sample item is
“Most of the kids in my classes. . .work hard in school.” Items
were rated on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (hardly true at all)
to 5 (always true). Higher mean scores indicate a stronger aca-
demic climate (␣ ⫽ .75).
Finally, to assess perceptions of the school interracial climate,
students completed a 14-item abridged and slightly modified ver-
sion of the School Interracial Climate Scale (Green, Adams, &
Turner, 1988). We purposefully selected the 11 items that were
specific to the school itself or teachers at the school (as opposed to
ple item is “Teachers here like students of different ethnic groups
to get along.” Students rated items on a 5-point scale ranging from
1 (for sure yes) to 5 (no way). Items were reverse-coded such that
higher scores indicate a more positive interracial climate (␣ ⫽
.85).
Proximal adolescent outcomes—student engagement. Two
measures from different informants were used to assess students’
engagement in school in the fall of 9th grade. Teachers completed
six items from the Short Form of the Teacher Report of Engage-
ment Questionnaire (Wellborn & Connell, 1991) to rate the degree
to which they perceived the student as engaged versus disaffected
from schoolwork. A sample item is “In my class, this student pays
attention.” Teacher ratings range from 1 (never) to 4 (always), with
higher scores reflecting greater student engagement (␣ ⫽ .89).
Students self-reported their school engagement using the Per-
ceived Social Norms for Schoolwork and Achievement During
Adolescence (Witkow, 2006). Students rated six items related to
perceptions of their academic engagement. A sample item is “I pay
attention in class.” Items were rated on a 5-point scale, ranging
from 1 (hardly true at all) to 5 (always true). Higher mean scores
indicate greater academic engagement (␣ ⫽ .78). Although the
teacher-rated and student-rated engagement measures were mod-
erately correlated (r ⫽ .62), we retained the separate assessments
due to the unique perspective of each informant and our expecta-
tions that informant differences might have different effects on
other modeled constructs.
Distal adolescent outcome— grade point average (GPA). In-
formation on students’ grades for spring of 9th grade was collected
from their report cards at the end of the school year. Grades for all
courses were coded on a 5-point scale (A ⫽ 4 and F ⫽ 0) and then
were averaged to create a composite GPA for each student.
Covariates. Analyses included six control variables. Five co-
variates related to adolescents’ sociodemographic characteristics:
ethnicity (separate dummy variables for African American, Latino,
Asian, biracial–multiethnic; White was the omitted reference
group) and gender (0 ⫽ male, 1 ⫽ female). A final covariate, GPA
at the end of 8th grade, controlled for adolescents’ prior academic
achievement.
2
Because the CDE aggregates biracial–multiethnic students with miss-
ing students, we could not use the proportion of biracial–multiethnic
students in calculations of the diversity index.
 ECOLOGICAL CONTEXTS AND EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES
Results
Overview of Analysis
Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test relations
among the study constructs. Using SEM, we assessed the magni-
tude and significance of relations among the model’s exogenous
(i.e., predictors) and endogenous (i.e., mediators and outcomes)
variables. One benefit of using SEM is the ability to simulta-
neously test for direct and indirect (i.e., mediated) effects, which is
not possible with an ordinary least squares regression approach
(Stage, Carter, & Norma, 2004). The model was estimated using
Mplus 4.2 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998 –2006). Mplus was chosen, in
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
part, because the current data set includes some missing data, and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
the Mplus estimation procedure handles missing data through
full-information maximum likelihood imputation, enabling us to
include all available data. Full-information maximum likelihood
does not estimate the missing data, as is the case with mean- or
regression-based imputation techniques. Rather, it fits the covari-
ance structure model directly to the observed (and available) raw
data for each participant. Full-information maximum likelihood
assumes that the missing data are either missing completely at
random or missing at random (MAR). For data MAR, missingness
is a function of the observed variables in the model. The current
data had approximately 50 different missing data patterns, sug-
gesting that there was not one systematic pattern of missingness,
an assumption of MAR. Moreover, as recommended by Widaman
(2006), we also address the assumptions of MAR through our
inclusion of covariates (i.e., gender, race– ethnicity, prior grades in
school), which are related to missing data for our study constructs.
The current data set also contains data from students clustered
within schools, and Mplus is able to account for such clustering
and produce correctly adjusted standard errors in the model esti-
mations. Additionally, the maximum likelihood-robust estimator
in Mplus calculates robust standard errors, which, in turn, allowed
us to determine whether the mediated effects within the model
were significant (see Enders, 2002). We tested two paths for
possible mediation—microsystem processes as mediators of the
relationship between structural characteristics and adolescents’
proximal outcomes, and adolescents’ proximal outcomes as medi-
ators of the relationships between microsystem processes and later
academic achievement. We conducted our mediation analyses in
this way so that we could both establish the relationship between
structure and process on proximal adolescent outcomes and, at the
same, examine the effects of processes on proximal and distal
adolescent outcomes. Inferences for the indirect effects were based
on the Mplus estimation of indirect effects, which estimates indi-
rect effects with delta method standard errors (Muthén & Muthén,
1998 –2006) and Sobel’s (1982) asymptotic z test. Recently, there
has been some critique of Baron and Kenny’s (1986) causal steps
approach for testing mediation (see Dearing & Hamilton, 2006, for
a review), and use of the Sobel test is generally recommended for
studies with larger sample sizes (see Bollen & Stine, 1990; Dear-
ing & Hamilton, 2006; MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, &
Sheets, 2002). All of the mediated relationships we observed
indicated partial mediation with one exception, which is noted in
the Results section.
845
Formation of Latent Variables
In order to investigate processes within families and schools, we
created latent factors representing two domains within each mi-
crosystem: (a) academic support and monitoring within families
and (b) academic climate and general school climate within
schools. Latent variable analysis, akin to factor analysis, is a more
parsimonious representation of the processes under study, allowing
us to better account for the individual contribution of each item
and also to more precisely model measurement error (Bollen,
1989). Adolescents’ responses to the three items on family aca-
demic support composed the family academics latent variable. The
family monitoring factor comprised the four items from the same
scale. For the school microsystem, the six items related to percep-
tions of academic climate composed the school academics latent
variable. And, finally, the mean scores from the three measures of
school climate—school belonging, school fairness, and interracial
climate—were used to create a latent factor of general school
climate. For all four latent factors, individual loadings were gen-
erally comparable, and all were statistically significant at a mini-
mum probability level of .001 (see Table 1).
Intercorrelations, means, and standard deviations for all exoge-
nous and endogenous variables within our model are presented in
Table 2. Figure 2 presents the standardized path coefficients for the
final model, with latent variable path coefficients presented in
Table 1; only significant paths are shown. The overall model fit
was good, ␹2(253, N ⫽ 1,120) ⫽ 727.7, p ⬍ .001 (comparative fit
index ⫽ 0.92, root-mean-square error of approximation ⫽ 0.041),
and the model accounted for a large portion of the variance in the
proximal (R2 ⫽ 0.47 and 0.36 for adolescent- and teacher-reported
engagement, respectively) and distal student (R2 ⫽ 0.60 for GPA)
outcomes. All path coefficients are net all other relationships
within the model, net the influence of covariates, and net the
effects of within-level, within microsystem (e.g., school structures,
family processes, etc.) residual correlations.3
For ease of interpretation, the results to follow are presented
separately for the family and school microsystems; however, it is
important to note that the final model included both microsystems
in a single analysis, as depicted in Figure 2, and results take into
account influences from both microsystems and the set of model
covariates. As such, the results to follow take into account all other
modeled relationships (predictors, mediators, proximal and distal
outcomes, covariates). For each microsystem, we first describe the
direct paths within the model. In these analyses, we examined
whether each system’s structural characteristics predicted the pro-
cesses that occurred therein, whether these processes predicted
adolescents’ proximal outcomes (engagement in school), and
whether these, in turn, predicted the distal outcome of GPA. As
noted earlier, all variables except GPA were assessed in the fall of
9th grade; GPA was assessed at the end of 9th grade.
After describing direct relationships, we then present findings
from mediation analyses. We then highlight findings of analyses
3
Prior GPA was one of the covariates included in the model, and as a
covariate, we adjusted for its influence throughout all modeled parameters.
We also ran models in which prior GPA was a predictor variable (adjusting
for its influence only on 9th-grade GPA) and in which prior GPA was not
included in the model. Results for these models were not substantially
different from the model in which prior GPA was modeled as a covariate.
 846 BENNER, GRAHAM, AND MISTRY

Table 1 two-parent home and adolescent engagement was also mediated by

Unstandardized and Standardized Factor Loadings for Final perceived family academic support. Living with both parents pre-
Model dicted more school engagement to the degree that adolescents
perceived that their parents helped them with their school work.
Factor loadings Family monitoring did not mediate the relationship between family
Family and school latent factor Unstandardized Standardized
structure and adolescents’ engagement.
Concurrent with examining how family processes served as
Family support for academics mediators, we also explored how proximal adolescent outcomes
Help with school decisions 1.00 0.64 might mediate the link between family processes and the distal
Understand classes should take 0.96 0.62
adolescent outcome of spring semester GPA. As shown in Table 3,
Important to do well in school 0.70 0.57
Family monitoring adolescent-reported school engagement mediated the relationship
Rules are strict 1.00 0.30 between family support for academics and adolescents’ GPA, but
Go out as often as want (r) 0.71 0.20 not that between family monitoring and GPA.
Call home if late 2.29 0.72 To summarize, within the family microsystem, higher maternal
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Wants to know who friends are 2.03 0.61

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Academic climate education, residence in a two-parent family, and having other

Get good grades 1.00 0.75 relatives in the home predicted the extent to which families were
Work hard in school 1.09 0.81 involved in their adolescents’ schooling and were monitoring
Do homework 1.10 0.83 adolescents’ activities. These structural characteristics influenced
Pay attention in class 1.09 0.82
adolescents’ engagement in school through their impact on family
School climatea
School belonging 1.00 0.66 processes (specifically, family involvement in adolescents’ school-
School fairness 1.00 0.69 ing). Engagement in school predicted later school performance.
Interracial climate 0.83 0.62

Note. All parameter estimates significant at p ⬍ .001. r ⫽ reverse coded.
a
Based on composite (mean) scores rather than measured items.
that examined cross-system effects (i.e., school structural charac-
teristics’ effects on family processes and vice versa) and finally
discuss moderation analyses that explored possible differences in
modeled relationships by adolescent gender and race– ethnicity.
The Family Microsystem
Testing direct paths. As seen in the upper left portion of Fig-
ure 2, the structural characteristics of families predicted the processes
that occurred therein. Living in a two-parent family was associated
with greater family support for academics and family monitoring.
Higher maternal education predicted greater family support for aca-
demics. Having other relatives in the home was related to family
monitoring. Family processes, in turn, were related to adolescents’
proximal outcomes (upper middle portion of Figure 2). Greater family
support for academics was related to greater self-reported school
engagement. Higher perceived family monitoring was negatively re-
lated to adolescent-reported school engagement, suggesting that ado-
lescents who felt that their parents kept close tabs on their where-
abouts were less invested in school work. Both adolescent- and
teacher-reported engagement were predictive of adolescents’ later
grades in school (right portion of Figure 2); the residuals for the two
engagement measures were correlated (r ⫽ .13, p ⬍ .001).
Testing mediated relations. Results for tests of mediation are
presented in Table 3. One set of mediation analyses examined the
extent to which family processes mediated the relationship be-
tween structural characteristics and adolescents’ school engage-
ment. Family support for academics fully mediated the relationship
between maternal education and adolescent-reported engagement.
That is, as mothers’ level of education increased, adolescents’
engagement in school also increased, and this effect was explained
by the extent to which adolescents felt that their families supported
their academic endeavors. The relationship between living in a
The School Microsystem
Testing direct paths. The structural characteristics of schools,
particularly diversity, average achievement level, and school size,
predicted the processes that occurred within schools (see lower left
panel of Figure 2). Specifically, greater school diversity was
related to poorer perceptions of the academic climate and the
general school climate. School achievement predicted these same
process variables, although in the opposite direction, such that
students in higher performing schools perceived a more positive
academic climate and had greater feelings of belonging and more
positive perceptions about their schools’ fairness and interracial
climate. Like diversity, increasing school size was associated with
more negative perceptions about academic climate and general
school climate. School SES was found to be related only to general
perceptions of school climate, and student-to-teacher ratios did not
predict any of the proximal processes under study.
School processes, in turn, were related to adolescents’ school
engagement. As shown in the lower middle panels of Figure 2,
academic climate and general school climate positively predicted
adolescent-reported academic engagement. General school climate
also was positively related to teacher-rated school engagement.
Unexpectedly, however, students’ ratings of the academic climate
as positive were negatively related to teacher-reported school
engagement. Finally, as noted earlier, greater adolescent- and
teacher-reported school engagement in the fall of 9th grade were
associated with higher grades in the spring of 9th grade.
Testing mediated relations. Mediational analyses examined
the extent to which school processes mediated the relationship
between school structural characteristics and adolescents’ school
engagement and whether school engagement mediated the rela-
tionship between school processes and later grades in school. The
results of these tests of mediation are displayed in Table 4. In
examining school processes as mediators (see top panel of Table
4), we found that general school climate and academic climate
mediated the relationships among structural characteristics and
engagement in school. In particular, some of the effects of school
 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Table 2
Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations Among Modeled Variables

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

1. Mother education —
2. Two-parent home ⫺.06 —
3. Relatives in home ⫺.08* ⫺.13*** —
4. School diversity .26*** ⫺.01 ⫺.11*** —
5. Student–teacher ratio ⫺.08* .09** .02 ⫺.39*** —
6. School size ⫺.18*** .02 .03 ⫺.61*** .38*** —
7. School SES .25*** .00 ⫺.07* .69*** ⫺.30*** ⫺.60*** —
8. School achievement .28*** .04 ⫺.08** .60*** ⫺.11*** ⫺.51*** .63*** —
9. Family academic support .11*** .09** .02 ⫺.01 .01 .01 ⫺.02 .02 —
10. Family monitoring ⫺.02 .10** .05 ⫺.01 .04 .04 ⫺.02 .04 .27*** —
11. School belonging .04 .07* ⫺.03 ⫺.02 ⫺.00 ⫺.03 .03 .14*** .25*** .10*** —
12. Academic climate ⫺.02 .01 .07* ⫺.06* ⫺.01 ⫺.05 ⫺.01 .07* .12*** .07* .24*** —
13. Racial climate .03 .03 .03 ⫺.10** .03 ⫺.01 ⫺.04 .04 .31*** .12*** .42*** .22*** —
14. School fairness ⫺.06 .08 .05 ⫺.09** .08** ⫺.04 ⫺.04 .09** .25*** .08** .44*** .19*** .44*** —
15. School engagement (A) .13*** .08* ⫺.05 .01 ⫺.01 ⫺.03 .05 .11*** .41*** .16*** .38*** .26*** .32*** .17*** —
16. School engagement (T) .13*** .09* ⫺.01 .05 ⫺.01 .04 ⫺.02 .19*** .13*** .12*** .16*** ⫺.03 .13*** .09* .43*** —
17. GPA .20*** .17*** ⫺.10** .08* ⫺.02 ⫺.05 .09** .25*** .20*** .15*** .17*** .00 .13*** .12*** .44*** .62*** —
M 2.47 0.72 0.23 0.53 24.70 3,152 48.10 598.7 4.04 3.52 3.51 3.02 3.56 3.60 3.68 2.63 2.49
SD 1.13 0.45 0.42 0.18 1.89 939 21.16 85.6 0.70 0.68 0.76 0.62 0.67 0.73 0.68 0.76 1.02
N 905 1,110 1,110 1,105 1,111 1,115 1,111 1,110 1,118 1,118 1,119 1,115 1,115 1,119 1,116 793 1,017
ECOLOGICAL CONTEXTS AND EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Note. Total possible N ⫽ 1,120 for student-reported data and 793 for teacher-reported data. All process variables are calculated means and not latent constructs. A ⫽ adolescent-reported engagement;
T ⫽ teacher-reported engagement.
*
p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01. *** p ⬍ .001.
847
 848 BENNER, GRAHAM, AND MISTRY

Structures Processes Proximal Outcomes Distal Outcome

Mother 0.12*
Education Family
FAMILY SYSTEM

Support for 0.40***

Academics
0.11**
Two-Parent
Family
0.13** School
Family -0.13*
Engagement (A)
Other Relatives Monitoring
in Home 0.09* R2 = 0.47
0.08*

School
Diversity -0.16**
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Grades
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

-0.23*** 0.14***
R2 = 0.60
Student- Academic
Teacher Ratio Climate
SCHOOL SYSTEM

-0.12*** 0.31***
0.20***
School
School Engagement (T)
Achievement

0.25*** R2 = 0.36
0.37***

School School
-0.11*
SES Climate 0.17***

-0.10*

School -0.10*
Size

Figure 2. Standardized coefficients for model of family and school effects on adolescents’ grades in school.
N ⫽ 1,120. Structural and process factors within each microsystem (i.e., family, school) were allowed to
correlate with each other. Only significant microsystem paths shown. Comparative fit index ⫽ 0.92, root-mean-
square error of approximation ⫽ 0.041. T ⫽ teacher-reported engagement; A ⫽ adolescent-reported engage-
ment. * p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01. *** p ⬍ .001.

achievement, diversity, size, and SES on students’ engagement
were explained by students’ perceptions of the general school
climate. Additionally, although academic climate also helped to
explicate the relationship between school-level achievement and
school diversity and student engagement, the relationships were
somewhat more complex because of the differential associations
between academic climate and teacher- versus adolescent-rated
engagement.
Concurrent to these analyses, we also explored how school
engagement might mediate the link between school processes and
the distal adolescent outcome of spring semester GPA (see bottom
panel of Table 4). Adolescent-reported engagement mediated the
relationship between academic climate and GPA as well as the
association between general school climate and GPA. The effects
of a positive school climate on students’ academic performance
was in part explained by the degree to which students perceived
themselves as engaged in academically relevant behaviors (e.g.,
paying attention in class). Teacher-reported engagement mediated
the climate–GPA relationship as well, although in the opposite
direction.
In summary, school diversity, school-wide achievement, school
enrollment, and to a lesser extent school SES predicted school
processes, including perceptions of the academic and general
school climate. These school processes predicted school engage-
ment as rated by both adolescents and their teachers, although the
relationships between school processes and engagement were dif-
ferent for the two informant sources. Both student and teacher
engagement, in turn, predicted adolescents’ later GPA.
Testing Cross-System Effects Within the Model
Consistent with the tenets of ecological theory, in addition to
examining how structural characteristics influenced processes
within each microsystem, we also explored the extent to which
structural characteristics within one microsystem might affect pro-
cesses occurring within the other microsystem. For example, does
school-wide average achievement influence parents’ academic in-
volvement in their adolescents’ education? Or might maternal
education influence an adolescent’s sense of the academic climate
of the school? While ecological theory suggested that these cross-
 ECOLOGICAL CONTEXTS AND EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES 849

Table 3
Sobel Tests of Mediation for the Family Microsystem

Mediated pathway Z p

Structure 3 Process 3 Proximal Outcomes

Mother education 3 family academic support 3 engagement (A) 2.21 .027
2-parent home 3 family academic support 3 engagement (A) 2.50 .013
2-parent home 3 family monitoring 3 engagement (A) ⫺1.62 .106
Relatives in home 3 family monitoring 3 engagement (A) ⫺1.51 .130
Process 3 Proximal Outcomes 3 Distal Outcome
Family academic support 3 engagement (A) 3 GPA 2.12 .034
Family monitoring 3 engagement (A) 3 GPA ⫺1.50 .133

Note. A ⫽ adolescent-reported engagement.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

system influences (i.e., mesosystem influences) would exist, re-
sults from our analyses suggest that school structural characteris-
tics did not influence family processes, nor did familial
characteristics generally influence processes within schools. The
only significant cross-system paths were the direct effects of other
relatives in the home on perceived academic climate (␤ ⫽ .07, p ⬍
.05) and school enrollment on family monitoring (␤ ⫽ .07, p ⬍
.05).
Testing Moderation Within the Model
We conducted two sets of moderation analyses to determine
whether the strength of association between model constructs
differed by adolescent gender or race– ethnicity—that is, whether
the model functioned differently for boys versus girls or for
adolescents from different ethnic groups. For moderation analyses
involving ethnicity, we examined differences across three groups:
White and Asian adolescents, African American adolescents, and
Latino adolescents. Due to the complexity of the model and
limitations in subgroup sample sizes, we could not retain all of the
separate ethnic groups in these analyses. As historically margin-
alized groups in American public schools, African American and
Latino students were analyzed as separate ethnic groups. However,
due to their smaller size, White and Asian students were combined
into a single (academically more successful) group, and we ex-
cluded biracial–multiethnic students.
Using methods recommended by Bollen (1989) and Kenny
(2005), we used a stepwise process for the multigroup compari-
sons, whereby we included a series of increasingly restrictive
constraints on the model parameters and observed whether doing
so led to a significant decrease in the overall model fit. Omnibus
tests (e.g., chi-square difference tests and comparisons of compar-
ative fit index and root-mean-square error of approximation val-
ues) were relied on to determine whether introduction of an addi-
tional set of parameter constraints resulted in a significant decrease
in the model fit. The sequencing of the nested models was as
follows. We first estimated a base model in which all model
parameters were freely estimated across groups. Successive mod-
els represented ever more restrictive and nested models within this
larger base model—that is, forcing an increasing number of rela-
tions to be equivalent across groups. Should such impositions
result in a significant decrease in overall model fit, it would
suggest that the more restrictive model does not fit the data as well
as the less restrictive model and, as such, that there are meaningful
differences across the groups in the pattern of associations among

Table 4
Sobel Tests of Mediation for the School Microsystem

Mediated pathway Z p

Structure 3 Process 3 Proximal Outcomes

School achievement 3 academic climate 3 engagement (A) 2.76 .006
School achievement 3 academic climate 3 engagement (T) ⫺2.63 .008
School diversity 3 academic climate 3 engagement (A) ⫺2.35 .019
School diversity 3 academic climate 3 engagement (T) 2.27 .023
School achievement 3 school climate 3 engagement (A) 3.89 .001
School achievement 3 school climate 3 engagement (T) 2.80 .005
School diversity 3 school climate 3 engagement (A) ⫺3.78 .001
School diversity 3 school climate 3 engagement (T) ⫺2.75 .006
School size 3 school climate 3 engagement (A) ⫺2.02 .043
School SES 3 school climate 3 engagement (A) ⫺2.08 .037
Process 3 Proximal Outcomes 3 Distal Outcome
Academic climate 3 engagement (A) 3 GPA 1.99 .047
Academic climate 3 engagement (T) 3 GPA ⫺3.31 .001
School climate 3 engagement (A) 3 GPA 2.25 .024
School climate 3 engagement (T) 3 GPA 3.43 .001

Note. A ⫽ adolescent-reported engagement; T ⫽ teacher-reported engagement. Only significant ( p ⬍ .05)

mediated relationships included.
 850 BENNER, GRAHAM, AND MISTRY

the sets of covariance matrices. For each microsystem these suc-
cessive models involved constraining paths from (a) the measure-
ment model (i.e., loadings of the individual indicators on the latent
variable), (b) structural characteristics to processes, (c) structural
characteristics to proximal outcomes, (d) processes to proximal
outcomes, (e) processes to the distal outcome, and (f) proximal to
distal outcomes. This process allowed us to test where precisely in
our complex model group-related differences existed.
For the multigroup analysis involving gender, our attempts to
estimate the complete model (depicted in Figure 2), which in-
cluded the measurement model within the larger path analysis
model for both microsystem and mesosystem influences simulta-
neously, failed to converge. Moderation analyses by race–
ethnicity proved more fruitful. As shown in Table 5, for multi-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
coefficient failed to reach significance (␤ ⫽ ⫺.14, ns). No group
differences by race– ethnicity emerged in any other model rela-
tionships.
Discussion
This study disentangles the effects of structural characteristics
of families and schools from the processes that occur therein and
explores their effects on adolescents’ school engagement and later
school performance. While previous studies have identified links
between either microsystem structural characteristics or processes,
our study’s contribution to this existing research is the inclusion of
structural characteristics and processes concurrently, as well as
examination of structural characteristics and processes in two

group analyses involving race– ethnicity, results indicated
significant differences across groups in the relationships between
school structures and school processes. Further analyses revealed
that the group differences were specific to the relationship of
school structure to school academic climate. For White and Asian
adolescents, school achievement was strongly associated with per-
ceptions of academic climate, such that higher levels of school-
wide academic achievement were related to more positive percep-
tions of school academic climate (␤ ⫽ .36, p ⬍ .001). The
magnitude of this relationship was substantially smaller for Latino
students (␤ ⫽ .20, p ⬍ .001) and was nonsignificant for African
American students (␤ ⫽ .09, ns). A different pattern of results
emerged for the relationship between school size and perceptions
of academic climate. For White and Asian students, increasing
school size was associated with more positive perceptions of the
academic climate (␤ ⫽ .18, p ⬍ .05). In contrast, for Latino
students, increasing school size was associated with more negative
perceptions of the academic climate (␤ ⫽ ⫺.19, p ⬍ .001); the
same trend was observed for African American youth, although the
separate microsystems—families and schools. The conceptual
framework for the proposed model was ecological theory, and our
results are consistent with its theoretical tenets. Specifically, we
found that the structural characteristics of families and schools
influenced the proximal processes that occur therein, and these
proximal processes, in turn, influenced students’ proximal and
distal outcomes. Moreover, we found that structural characteristics
of families and schools tended to exert their influence on outcomes
indirectly through their influence on the proximal processes.
The Moderating Role of Ethnicity
The multigroup analyses examining the moderating effects of
ethnicity were largely nonsignificant and suggest the generality of
the overall model across adolescents from different ethnic groups
(the same, however, cannot be said for adolescent gender due to
that model’s failure to converge). The one set of analyses that
documented significant ethnicity effects suggested that the rela-
tionship of two school structural variables (achievement level and

Table 5
Moderation Results: Effects of Race–Ethnicity on Model Relationships

Constrained path ␹2 (df) p (for ⌬␹2)

1. None 1,276.2 (677) —

2. Family process measurement model (family 1,287.6 (687) ns
processes)
3. Family structures 3 family processes 1,296.3 (699) ns
4. Family structures 3 proximal outcomes 1,311.1 (711) ns
5. Family processes 3 proximal outcomes 1,326.5 (719) ns
6. Family processes 3 distal outcome 1,328.2 (723) ns
7. School process measurement model (school processes) 1,337.1 (733) ns
8. School structures 3 school processes 1,374.3 (753) .05
School achievement 3 school processes 1,347.9 (737) .05
School achievement 3 general school climate 1,338.8 (735) ns
School achievement 3 academic climate 1,347.9 (737) .05
School size 3 school processes 1,354.8 (739) .01
School size 3 general school climate 1,342.3 (737) ns
School size 3 academic climate 1,354.8 (739) .01
School diversity, ratio, SES 3 school processes 1,357.9 (749) ns
9. School structures 3 proximal outcomes 1,381.2 (769) ns
10. School processes 3 proximal outcomes 1,388.2 (777) ns
11. School processes 3 distal outcome 1,393.1 (781) ns
12. Proximal outcomes 3 distal outcome 1,398.6 (785) ns

Note. Models are nested step-wise such that a given step includes current constraints as well as constraints
imposed in previous steps. Bolded pathways denote differences across racial– ethnic groups. ns ⫽ nonsignificant
difference.
 ECOLOGICAL CONTEXTS AND EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES
size) to perceptions of academic climate (engagement of one’s
classmates) operated differently across racial– ethnic groups. For
White and Asian students, greater school-wide achievement and
larger school size predicted perceptions that classmates were more
academically engaged. For Latino and African American youth, in
contrast, there was no association between school achievement
level and academic climate, and increasing school size predicted
decreases in the climate variable.
We suspect that these findings are due, in part, to the fact that
the academic climate engagement variable tapped participants’
inferences about classmates’ achievement behaviors, and there was
systematic variance by ethnicity in the achievement levels of their
reference group. For example, if White and Asian students used
same-ethnicity peers as the reference group, then it is not surpris-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ing that higher overall school achievement predicted more per-
ceived classmate engagement since White and Asians students in
this sample were doing better in school than their Latino and
African American counterparts. Academic tracking at the high
school level can segregate high- and low-achieving ethnic groups,
which further promotes in-group members as the reference group
(e.g., Oakes, 1995). Latino and African American students in our
sample attended schools with lower average school-wide achieve-
ment (and a more limited achievement range), and their exposure
to highly engaged classmates may have been especially limited in
the largest schools. It is evident that academic tracking, which can
promote or inhibit the mixing opportunities of students of different
ethnic groups, is an important school structural variable that should
be included in process models such as those tested here, especially
when those models involve making inferences about the peers in
one’s ecology.
Student-Versus Teacher-Rated Academic Engagement
We identified an unexpected relationship between adolescents’
perceptions of their academic climate and their teachers’ ratings of
their school engagement. The more academically involved stu-
dents perceive their classmates to be, the less engaged their teacher
perceived them to be. These differential relationships between
academic climate and teacher- versus adolescent-rated engagement
were also evidenced in the directionality of the mediational anal-
yses.
It is not entirely clear why the relationship between academic
climate and self-rated versus teacher-rated engagement was differ-
ent. Students may have rated their classmates as unrealistically
highly engaged, in part to be self-enhancing, since the correlation
between peer-rated and self-rated engagement was high. Also,
even low-achieving classmates can be perceived as relatively en-
gaged if the perceived classroom norm for achievement is low, as
in low-ability classrooms in schools with extreme tracking. Dif-
ferences between students’ perception of being engaged in school,
which is in part determined by subjective comparison to others,
and their teachers’ presumably more objective perceptions, which
elicits a different form of social comparison, is also a topic that
merits further study.
Strengths, Caveats, and Limitations
Several design features contributed to the strength of the current
study. First, our measurement model included multi-informant
851
methods, integrating data from adolescent and teacher reports,
school records, and data from the CDE. Such modeling decisions
were deliberate, driven by concerns with respondent bias as well as
by an interest in taking a multifaceted approach to examining
family and school influences on urban adolescents.
Relatedly, our study examines the links among structural char-
acteristics, contextual processes, and adolescent outcomes in two
distinct microsystems simultaneously and also models mesosys-
temic influences on outcomes. Our results find that, in both sys-
tems, structural characteristics are exerting much of their effects on
adolescent outcomes through their influence on processes that
occur within each system. Moreover, we find that families and
schools have unique contributions to adolescents’ achievement
outcomes—these microsystem influences are not interchangeable,
nor are there any cross-system effects (i.e., mesosystemic of school
structural characteristics influencing family processes or vice
versa). Students in the current study attended large, urban schools
with high percentages of disadvantaged youth. Such schools face
continual challenges to provide students and families with quality
educational opportunities and positive, safe school climates (Ko-
zol, 1991, 2005; Rothstein, 2004). These challenging climates, in
turn, can negatively affect parents’ involvement in their children’s
education (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005), thus limiting the well-
documented benefits of parent involvement (Gutman & Midgley,
2000; Lee & Croninger, 1994). In addition to these school-related
issues, low-income and minority families face other barriers to
educational involvement as well. These families often feel less
efficacious in relation to their children’s education, particularly
linguistic-minority families, which negatively affects their in-
volvement in schooling (see Fuligni & Yoshikawa, 2003; Hoover-
Dempsey et al., 2005, for reviews). This is particularly relevant to
our sample, as most of our Latino students are children of immi-
grants and speak primarily Spanish at home. Additionally, these
families face structural barriers that limit their involvement—for
example, low-income parents are more likely to work at jobs with
inflexible or unpredictable hours, have multiple jobs, or face
financial constraints that create challenges with transportation
(Cooper & Crosnoe, 2007; Garcı́a Coll et al., 2002; Lareau, 2004).
Finding ways to better connect families to schools is imperative for
the educational success of these youth.
While schools and families represent two microsystems in
which adolescents are embedded, future studies should examine
whether the findings reported here can be replicated within other
pertinent microsystems, such as that involving peers. During ad-
olescence, individuals experience differentiated social environ-
ments that shift primary socialization responsibility from the fam-
ily to peers and the school (Harris, 1998). Given the pivotal role
that peers play during adolescence, an examination of the effects of
the structural characteristics of peer groups (e.g., ethnic composi-
tion, age and gender distribution) and the processes that occur
within peer groups (e.g., conflict, support) is warranted. Studies of
the effects of the peer microsystem on academic outcomes are
particularly needed during school transitions when stable peer
affiliations may be disrupted (Reyes, Gillock, & Kobus, 1994;
Roeser, Eccles, & Freedman-Doan, 1999).
While the research reported here contributes to our understand-
ing about how structural characteristics and processes within fam-
ilies and schools influence adolescents’ educational outcomes,
some limitations and caveats should be noted. First, this is a
 852 BENNER, GRAHAM, AND MISTRY
short-term longitudinal study, and thus some of the data are cross-
sectional in nature. Therefore, only limited conclusions about
causality can be made. The contribution lies in our ability to
inform understanding of the pathways by which structural charac-
teristics and microsystem processes influence adolescents’ aca-
demic performance. Future studies should build on the findings
presented here, examining the more distal effects of these micro-
system structure–process relationships. Use of cross-lag, autore-
gressive models would also be an important next step in determin-
ing whether changes in microsystem processes occur across time
and how these changes might affect changes in adolescent out-
comes. Cross-lagged models allow for inferences about the tem-
poral relationships between constructs to be made, and auto-
regression purges much of the intraindividual or omitted error bias,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
inherent in observational data (Mayer & Carroll, 1988; Singer &
Willett, 2003). These techniques allow researchers to better deal
with issues of selection bias, a significant improvement over more
traditional ordinary least squares regression-based analyses.
Second, related to our creation of latent constructs, we recognize
that family monitoring in particular exhibited uneven factor load-
ings across the four items. All loadings, however, were significant
at p ⬍ .001, and we made the decision to retain the four factors
based on past work. Examination of the items and loadings indi-
cates that specific parental monitoring behaviors (requiring ado-
lescent to call home, wanting to know who the adolescent’s friends
are) exhibit higher loadings than items reflecting general parental
laxity or oversight (overall strictness of family rules, permitting
adolescent to go out as often as he or she wants). The differential
loading pattern suggests that concrete parental behaviors around
monitoring drive adolescents’ perceptions of family monitoring
more so than perceptions of the overall family monitoring climate.
Those perceptions of concrete behaviors also appear to relate
differently to academic engagement than what we anticipated on
the basis of family monitoring research. Our latent variable was
negatively related to student reported engagement, and it did not
mediate any of the relations between structural family variables
and academic engagement. Thus, adolescents who are doing less
well in school may perceive their parents as especially vigilant
about where they are and who their friends are. Future studies
should further explore the complexity of perceived family moni-
toring, determining whether assessments of the construct would be
strengthened through an increased focus on concrete monitoring
behaviors.
Third, while we interpret direct effects findings, we recognize
that ecological theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Bronfenbrenner &
Morris, 1998) suggests that the influence of some constructs in our
model may be bidirectional. That is, it may be that adolescents’
engagement in school influences their feelings of school belonging
or their families’ involvement in academics. Future studies should
consider examining these relationships longitudinally to determine
whether this bidirectionality is indeed influencing model results.
Fourth, we acknowledge that in the family microsystem, structure
and process variables were based on student self-report. A stronger
design, not possible with these data, would have included parents
and other family members as informants about family structure
and process, as well as additional family characteristics (i.e.,
family income) shown to be powerful predictors of adolescent
well-being (see review by McLoyd, 1998). Fifth, although our
large and multiethnic sample is noteworthy, we lacked the power
to test for moderating effects in each ethnic group separately,
including biracial participants, as well as for Gender ⫻ Ethnicity
statistical interactions. Moreover, results from our moderation
analyses are somewhat qualified by the fact that the ethnic groups
were not drawn from independent clusters; this would require that
we match schools on the structural characteristics under study and
then select different ethnic groups from each school, which is
beyond the scope of the current study.
And finally, while we identify mediational pathways throughout
our model, we acknowledge that, at times, bivariate correlations
between the structural characteristics of families and schools are
only marginally correlated with student engagement and later
grades in school. The causal steps method for testing mediation
proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986) requires establishing statis-
tically significant, direct relationships between predictors and out-
comes. Other researchers (see Holmbeck, 1997; MacKinnon et al.,
2002) have suggested that models that lack the relationship be-
tween predictor and outcome but establish significant links be-
tween predictor and mediator and mediator and outcomes can be
interpreted but suggest a more conservative label of indirect effect
or intervening effect rather than mediated effect. Recent work,
however, has suggested that the Baron and Kenny approach can be
problematic, both in terms of limited statistical power and limited
adaptation to multimediated models (see Dearing & Hamilton,
2006, for a review). Moreover, Shrout and Bolger (2002) argued
that studies should not necessarily require distal variables to di-
rectly predict outcomes (before taking into account possible prox-
imal mediators), particularly when researchers believe that the
direct effects will be more nuanced (i.e., that effect sizes will be
small). The analyses and results presented here are consistent with
the arguments of this recent scholarship.
Implications for Intervention
The multimediated ecological model documented in this re-
search provides insights into directions for intervention. Findings
suggest that intervening at the process level may be a successful
means of improving both adolescents’ engagement in school and
their subsequent school performance. For example, in the school
microsystem, educators may be able to increase students’ feelings
of belonging and connectedness to schools through interventions
that foster greater involvement in extracurricular activities, includ-
ing participation in sports and school clubs. Research has shown
that participation in extracurricular activities and after-school pro-
grams improves not only student achievement (Mahoney, Cairns,
& Farmer, 2003; Mahoney, Lord, & Carryl, 2005) but intergroup
relations as well (Clotfelter, 2002). Intervening to improve stu-
dents’ feelings of belonging and connectedness to school may be
more amenable (and more cost effective) than trying to change the
structural characteristics of schools that influence academic en-
gagement.
At the family microsystem level, our findings highlight the
importance of intervening to promote greater parental involve-
ment. Previous research has shown that higher levels of parental
involvement are associated with better academic performance,
from grades and achievement test scores to teacher ratings of
students’ academic attitudes (see Fan & Chen, 2001; Henderson,
1987; Jeynes, 2007, for reviews). A number of methods have been
found to improve parental involvement in their children’s educa-
 ECOLOGICAL CONTEXTS AND EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES
tion, including having teachers simply encourage greater involve-
ment (Deslandes & Bertrand, 2005), reducing barriers to parental
involvement (see Eccles & Harold, 1996, for a review), and
instituting more formal parental involvement intervention pro-
gramming (Terrion, 2006). Improving parental involvement, in
turn, has been linked to improvements in students’ academic
achievement (Dearing, Kreider, Simpkins, & Weiss, 2006). As in
the school microsystem, in the long run it may be more beneficial
to focus on changing parent behavior rather than (or in addition to)
the factors that lead to particular family structural characteristics.
Mediational models such as those documented here, therefore,
illuminate the need for distinguishing structure from process and
for better understanding both the proximal and distal antecedents
of healthy adjustment during adolescence.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
References
Baker, J. A., Derrer, R. D., Davis, S. M., Dinklage-Travis, H. E., Linder,
D. S., & Nicholson, M. D. (2001). The flip side of the coin: Under-
standing the school’s contribution to dropout and completion. School
Psychology Quarterly, 16, 406 – 426.
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, 1173–1182.
Bellmore, A. D., Witkow, M. R., Graham, S., & Juvonen, J. (2004).
Beyond the individual: The impact of ethnic context and classroom
behavioral norms on victims’ adjustment. Developmental Psychology,
40, 1159 –1172.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New
York: Wiley.
Bollen, K. A., & Stine, R. (1990). Direct and indirect effects: Classical and
bootstrap estimates of variability. Sociological Methods, 20, 115–140.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experi-
ments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human
development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22,
723–742.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. (1998). The ecology of developmental
processes. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child
psychology (pp. 993–1028). New York: Wiley.
Caldas, S. J. (1993). Reexamination of input and process factor effects on
public school achievement. Journal of Education Research, 86, 206 –
214.
Chung, H. L., & Steinberg, L. (2006). Relations between neighborhood
factors, parenting behaviors, peer deviance, and delinquency among
serious juvenile offenders. Developmental Psychology, 42, 319 –331.
Clotfelter, C. T. (2002). Interracial contact in high school extracurricular
activities. The Urban Review, 34, 25– 46.
Cook, T. D., Herman, M. R., Phillips, M., & Settersen, R. A., Jr. (2002).
Some ways in which neighborhoods, nuclear families, friendship groups,
and schools jointly affect changes in early adolescent development.
Child Development, 73, 1283–1309.
Cooper, C. E., & Crosnoe, R. (2007). The engagement in schooling of
economically disadvantaged parents and children. Youth and Society, 38,
372–391.
Crosnoe, R. (2004). Social capital and the interplay of families and schools.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 267–280.
Dearing, E., & Hamilton, L. C. (2006). Contemporary advances and classic
advice for analyzing mediating and moderating variables. Monographs
of the Society for Research in Child Development, 71(3, Serial No. 285).
Dearing, E., Kreider, H., Simpkins, S., & Weiss, H. B. (2006). Family
involvement in school and low-income children’s literacy: Longitudinal
853
associations between and within families. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 98, 653– 664.
Deslandes, R., & Bertrand, R. (2005). Motivation of parent involvement in
secondary-level schooling. Journal of Education Research, 98, 164 –
175.
Eamon, M. K. (2005). Social-demographic, school, neighborhood, and
parenting influences on the academic achievement of Latino young
adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34, 163–174.
Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1996). Family involvement in children’s and
adolescents’ schooling. In A. Booth & J. F. Dunn (Eds.), Family–school
links: How do they affect educational outcomes? Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Elder, G. H. (1985). Perspectives on the life course. In G. H. Elder (Ed.),
Life course dynamics: Trajectories and transitions, 1968 –1980 (pp.
23– 49). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Enders, C. K. (2002). Applying the Bollen-Stine bootstrap for goodness-
of-fit measures to structural equation models with missing data. Multi-
variate Behavioral Research, 37, 359 –377.
Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic
achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13,
1–22.
Felner, R. D., Brand, S., DuBois, D. L., Adan, A. M., Mulhall, P. F., &
Evans, E. G. (1995). Socioeconomic disadvantage, proximal environ-
mental experiences, and socioemotional and academic adjustment in
early adolescence: Investigation of a mediated effects model. Child
Development, 66, 774 –792.
Fuligni, A. J., & Yoshikawa, H. (2003). Socioeconomic resources, parent-
ing, and child development among immigrant families. In M. H. Born-
stein & R. H. Bradley (Eds.), Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child
development (pp. 107–124). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Garc´ia Coll, C., Akiba, D., Palacios, N., Bailey, B., Silver, R., DiMartino,
L., et al. (2002). Parental involvement in children’s education: Lessons
from three immigrant groups. Parenting: Science and Practice, 2, 303–
324.
Gottfredson, G. (1984). Effective School Battery. Odessa, FL: Psycholog-
ical Assessment Resources.
Green, C. W., Adams, A. M., & Turner, C. W. (1988). Development and
validation of the school interracial climate scale. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 16, 241–259.
Gregory, A., & Weinstein, R. S. (2004). Connection and regulation at home
and in school: Predicting growth in achievement for adolescents. Journal
of Adolescent Research, 19, 405– 427.
Gutman, L. M., & Midgley, C. (2000). The role of protective factors in
supporting the academic achievement of poor African American stu-
dents during the middle school transition. Journal of Youth and Adoles-
cence, 29, 223–248.
Harris, J. (1998). The nurture assumption: Why children turn out the way
they do. New York: Free Press.
Henderson, A. T. (1987). The evidence continues to grow: Parent involve-
ment improves student achievement. Columbia, MD: National Commit-
tee for Citizens in Education.
Holmbeck, G. N. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and statisti-
cal clarity in the study of mediators and moderators: Examples from the
child-clinical and pediatric psychology literatures. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 65, 599 – 610.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M. T., Sandler, H. M., Whetsel, D.,
Green, C. L., Wilkins, A. S., et al. (2005). Why do parents become
involved? Research findings and implications. The Elementary School
Journal, 106, 105–130.
Jeynes, W. H. (2007). The relationship between parental involvement and
urban secondary school student academic achievement: A meta-analysis.
Urban Education, 42, 82–110.
Juvonen, J., Nishina, A., & Graham, S. (2006). Ethnic diversity and
perceptions of safety in urban middle schools. Psychological Science,
17, 393– 400.
 854 BENNER, GRAHAM, AND MISTRY
Kenny, D. A. (2005). Multiple group models. Retrieved April 20, 2006,
from http://davidakenny.net/cm/mgroups.htm
Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. New
York: Harper Perennial.
Kozol, J. (2005). The shame of the nation: The restoration of apartheid
schooling in America. New York: Crown Trade Paperbacks/Crown.
Kuperminc, G. P., Leadbeater, B. J., & Blatt, S. J. (2001). School social
climate and individual differences in vulnerability to psychopathology
among middle school students. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 141–
159.
Lareau, A. (2004). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Lee, V. E. (2000). Using hierarchical linear modeling to study social
contexts: The case of school effects. Educational Psychologist, 35,
125–141.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Lee, V. E., & Croninger, R. G. (1994). The relative importance of home
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
and school in the development of literacy skills for middle-grade stu-
dents. American Journal of Education, 102, 286 –329.
Lee, V. E., Smith, J. B., & Croninger, R. G. (1997). How high school
organization influences the equitable distribution of learning in mathe-
matics and science. Sociology of Education, 70, 128 –150.
Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). The neighborhoods they live in:
The effects of neighborhood residence on child and adolescent out-
comes. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 309 –337.
Loukas, A., Suzuki, R., & Horton, K. (2006). Examining school connect-
edness a mediator of school climate effects. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 16, 491–502.
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, 83–104.
Mahoney, J. L., Cairns, B. D., & Farmer, T. W. (2003). Promoting
interpersonal competence and educational success through extracurric-
ular activity participation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 409 –
418.
Mahoney, J. L., Lord, H., & Carryl, E. (2005). An ecological analysis of
after-school program participation and the development of academic
performance and motivational attributes for disadvantaged children.
Child Development, 76, 811– 825.
Mayer, L. S., & Carroll, S. S. (1988). Measures of dependence for cross-
lagged panel models. Sociological Methods and Research, 17, 93–120.
McLoyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child develop-
ment. American Psychologist, 53, 185–204.
McNeal, R. B., Jr. (1997). High school dropouts: A closer examination of
school effects. Social Science Quarterly, 78, 209 –222.
Moos, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (1981). Family Environment Scale. Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychology Press.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998 –2006). Mplus user’s guide (4th ed.)
[Computer software manual]. Los Angeles: Author.
Oakes, J. (1995). Two cities’ tracking and within-school segregation.
Teachers College Record, 96, 681– 690.
Parcel, T. L., & Dufur, M. J. (2001). Capital at home and at school: Effects
on student achievement. Social Forces, 79, 881–911.
Parke, R. D., & Buriel, R. (2006). Socialization in the family: Ethnic and
ecological perspectives. In N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), W. Damon (Series
Ed.), & R. M. Lerner (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol.
3. Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 429 –
504). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Parker, G., Tupling, H., & Brown, L. B. (1979). A parental bonding
instrument. British Journal of Psychology, 52, 1–10.
Reyes, O., Gillock, K. L., & Kobus, K. (1994). A longitudinal study of
school adjustment in urban, minority adolescents: Effects of a high
school transition program. American Journal of Community Psychology,
22, 341–369.
Roeser, R. W., Eccles, J. S., & Freedman-Doan, C. (1999). Academic
functioning and mental health in adolescence: Patterns, progressions,
and routes from childhood. Journal of Adolescent Research, 14, 135–
174.
Roscigno, V. J. (2000). Family/school inequality and African-American/
Hispanic achievement. Social Problems, 47, 266 –290.
Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and schools: Using social, economic, and
educational reform to close the Black–White achievement gap. Wash-
ington DC: Economic Policy Institute.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and non-
experimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psycho-
logical Methods, 7, 422– 445.
Simpson, E. H. (1949, April 30). Measurement of diversity. Nature, 163,
688.
Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in
structural equation models. Sociological Methods, 13, 290 –312.
Stage, F. K., Carter, H. C., & Norma, A. (2004). Path analysis: An
introduction and analysis of a decade of research. Journal of Education
Research, 98, 5–12.
Stolz, H. E., Barber, B. K., Olsen, J. A., Erickson, L. D., Bradford, K. P.,
Maughan, S. L., et al. (2004). Family and school socialization and
adolescent academic achievement: A cross-national dominance analysis
of achievement predictors. Marriage and Family Review, 36, 7–33.
Stone, S., & Han, M. (2005). Perceived school environments, perceived
discrimination, and school performance among children of Mexican
immigrants. Children and Youth Services Review, 27, 51– 66.
Terrion, J. L. (2006). Building social capital in vulnerable families: Suc-
cess markers of a school-based intervention program. Youth and Society,
38, 155–176.
Wellborn, J. G., & Connell, J. P. (1991). Engagement versus disaffection:
Motivated patterns of action in the academic domain. Rochester, NY:
University of Rochester.
Widaman, K. (2006). Missing data: What to do with or without them.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 71(3,
Serial No. 285).
Witkow, M. R. (2006). Perceived social norms for schoolwork and
achievement during adolescence. Ypsilanti: Eastern Michigan Univer-
sity.
Woolley, M. E., & Grogan-Kaylor, A. (2006). Protective family factors in
the context of neighborhood: Promoting positive school outcomes. Fam-
ily Relations, 55, 93–104.
Received February 26, 2007
Revision received February 22, 2008
Accepted February 26, 2008 䡲