Journal of Child and Family Studies

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-1011-2

ORIGINAL PAPER

Parental Involvement in Primary School Education: its Relationship

with Children’s Academic Performance and Psychosocial
Competence through Engaging Children with School
Rosa Sze Man Wong1 Frederick Ka Wing Ho1 Wilfred Hing Sang Wong1 Keith Tsz Suen Tung1
● ● ● ●

Chun Bong Chow1 Nirmala Rao2 Ko Ling Chan3 Patrick Ip1

● ● ●

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract
The benefits of parental involvement in children’s education have been well established but increasing evidence suggests that
overparenting may have adverse effects on children. The question of whether excessive parental involvement hinders
children’s academic and psychosocial development warrants further investigations. This study examined the associations of
1234567890();,:

parental educational involvement at home and in school with academic performance and psychological health of 507
Chinese Grade 3 schoolchildren in Hong Kong. Parents reported on their level of involvement in children’s schooling and
their children’s psychosocial issues. Children were surveyed to determine their school engagement, and their Chinese
language and mathematics attainment was assessed. We also explored the underlying mechanism by testing children’s
engagement with school as a mediator of the relationships. Our results showed that home-based parental educational
involvement was positively associated with children’s language competence and psychosocial wellbeing, and the
associations were linked through engaging children with school. However, the benefits reached a plateau at higher level of
parental involvement in children’s learning at home. School-based parental involvement had an indirect effect on children’s
prosocial behavior through school engagement. These findings highlight the significance of optimal level of parental
involvement in children’s education at home for children’s development.
Keywords Parental involvement Academic achievement Psychosocial wellbeing School engagement Child
● ● ● ●

development

Introduction children more autonomy as they mature (Locke et al.

In recent years, concerns have arisen about overparenting.
The term “helicopter parenting” has been used in the pop-
ular media (Locke et al. 2012) to refer to the practices of
parents who are very anxious and overinvolved in their
children’s life. Helicopter parents remain reluctant to give
* Patrick Ip
patricip@hku.hk
1
Department of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, The
University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong
2
Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong,
Hong Kong
3
Department of Applied Social Sciences, The Hong Kong
Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, Hong Kong
2012). Such excessive parental control can put children at
higher risk for low self-esteem (Deci et al. 1991) and also
various emotional and behavioral problems in adulthood
(Trzesniewski et al. 2006). The link between overparenting
and problems faced by emerging adults has been estab-
lished (Schiffrin et al. 2014; Segrin et al. 2015). But less is
known about the impact of helicopter parenting on young
children. Hong Kong provides a good setting to study this
topic because many Hong Kong children have helicopter
parents. These children are sent to multiple interest classes
at a very young age which leaves them little time for play
and other recreational activities. Excessive academic bur-
den in turn could weaken these children’s learning moti-
vation. It also increases learning stress and pressure which
are detrimental to the health and wellbeing of children
(Hart et al. 2013). It is therefore imperative to study whe-
ther a dose-response relationship exists between parental

involvement and children’s academic and psychosocial
outcomes.
Parental educational involvement has been considered as
a multidimensional construct that consists of parental
behaviors and beliefs on children’s education at home and in
school (Englund et al. 2004). Previous studies found that
parental support for children’s learning at home such as
monitoring schoolwork and visiting museums is beneficial
for improving children’s academic performance and social
relationships (Parcel and Dufur 2001; Tam and Chan 2009).
During parent-child interactions, children learn from their
parents’ expression of emotions and use these learned
reactions to handle their own issues later in life (S. Denham
and Kochanoff 2002; S. A. Denham et al. 1997). Through
observation of parents’ behaviors, children also acquire
skills to manage emotions which are important for forming
positive social relationships and developing prosocial
behaviors (S. A. Denham 1986). Furthermore, having good
emotional control is important for prevention of mis-
behaviors at home and in school (Izard et al. 2001).
On the other hand, school-based involvement such as
communication with teachers and attending school events
could increase parents’ understanding of children’s perfor-
mance in school. This enables parent-child communication
on school issues which is associated with lower learning
distress and more supportive family interactions at home
(Pomerantz et al. 2007). It can also foster children’s cog-
nitive and vocabulary development by increasing children’s
exposure to adult varied, complex speech (Rodriguez and
Tamis‐LeMonda 2011).
Parental involvement is also positively associated with
children’s perceived competence and relatedness (Gonzalez-
DeHass et al. 2005; Grolnick et al. 1991). Relatedness
represents the extent to which children feel connected to
their parents. In line with the theories of attachment (Furrer
and Skinner 2003). children with high relatedness are able
to internalize parental values and expectations as their own
ones (Marchant et al. 2001). The process of internalization
can increase children’s motivation to learn because good
school performance is a recognized means to repay or honor
parental educational investment and sacrifices (Urdan and
Maehr 1995) as well as to gain relatedness and approval
from parents (Cheung and Pomerantz 2012). A previous
study of 825 American and Chinese children in 7th grade
found that children who perceived high parental support for
their education showed greater motivation to actively par-
ticipate in educational activities (Bempechat and Shernoff
2012; Cheung and Pomerantz 2012). However, this study
used mixed sample which limit the generalizability of the
findings to other populations including Chinese popula-
tions. Chinese parents value high academic achievement,
and the culture places great emphasis on filial piety (Kim
2013). Instead of causing harms, higher levels of parental
Journal of Child and Family Studies
educational involvement might benefit Chinese children by
motivating them to strive toward academic excellence.
Parental involvement not only makes children aware of
parental expectations for schooling, but it also facilitates
children’s learning and engagement in school by sustaining
students’ learning interests across contexts. There is evi-
dence from adolescent research that parental involvement
influences student outcomes through its impact on school
engagement (Wang and Sheikh‐Khalil 2014). School
engagement, defined as “students’ involvement with
schooling, academics, or learning” (Bempechat and Shern-
off 2012), has been found to protect against low achieve-
ment, behavioral disruption, and high dropout rates
(Fredricks et al. 2004; Ladd and Dinella 2009). Active
participation in class and extracurricular activities in turn
can improve students’ affective states, such as increased
positive feelings toward learning, and also lead to better
academic and behavioral outcomes (Voelkl 2012). These
benefits, however, occur only when students experience
intrinsic enjoyment in schoolwork (Bempechat and Shern-
off 2012). Research shows that children who understand
parental expectations for schooling experience greater
intrinsic motivation to stay engaged in school-related tasks
(Bao and Lam 2008). These on-task behaviors are positively
related to student resilience and ability to deal with chal-
lenging problems (Gonzales et al. 2014; Skinner and Pitzer
2012). Engaging in school also indicates students having
less time and energy available for problem behaviors on one
hand and stronger attachment to school and bonding with
teachers on the other hand (Wang and Sheikh‐Khalil 2014).
This, in turn, may foster children’s psychosocial
development.
Parental educational involvement research has been
conducted in western populations. There is scant evidence
on this topic in Chinese populations and school engagement
in childhood (Lau et al. 2011, 2012). The present study
examined the associations of parental involvement with
academic performance and psychosocial behaviors of Chi-
nese children in Hong Kong. This study also explored the
mediator role of children’s school engagement in these
associations. We hypothesized that parental involvement in
children’s education in school and at home were associated
with better academic performance and less psychosocial
difficulties in children. Furthermore, children’s school
engagement mediated these associations.
Method
Participants
This study used the data collected in the Primary School
phase of a longitudinal cohort study of Chinese children
Journal of Child and Family Studies
recruited from randomly selected kindergartens in Hong
Kong in 2012 spring. The original cohort study aimed to
examine the differences in school readiness between chil-
dren from low-income families and those from high-income
families in Hong Kong. Further details of the longitudinal
cohort study can be found in previous publications (Ip et al.
2015). In the year 2015 when most children in the cohort
reached 8 years of age and were studying in the first
semester of Grade 3, the research team invited all families
who participated in the Kindergarten phase with agreement
given to be followed up to take part in this study. To further
increase the sample size, upon completion of the cohort
survey, a list of primary schools where our cohort children
were attending was generated. Each listed primary school
was contacted and invited to assist with the recruitment of
their Grade 3 students. Families with interest and consent
given to join the study were then provided with the same set
of questionnaires as were those provided to our cohort
families.
Procedure
Parents who expressed an interest to join the study
received a formal consent form with an information sheet
about this study, a set of questionnaires, and an addressed
return envelope with postage paid. All the questionnaires
were self-administered. Specifically, children were asked
to complete two standard attainment tests (each for Chi-
nese language and for mathematics) at home within 90 min
under no assistance provided by other members in the
family. In addition, prior to self-administration of the tests,
the child was asked to rate each statement in relation to his/
her level of engagement at school. At the same time,
parents/primary caregivers were surveyed with question
items on family demographics, home-based and school-
based parental involvement, and children’s psychosocial
issues. Completed questionnaires were then returned to
the research team by mail using the addressed return
envelope.
Measures
Tests of Chinese language and mathematics
Chinese language and mathematical abilities were chosen as
the indicators of children’s academic performance in this
study because they are the primary and core academic
subjects in Hong Kong primary schools. These two out-
comes were assessed using the Learning Achievement
Measurement Kit (LAMK) which was piloted in 2006, then
revised and standardized in 2008 by Hong Kong Education
Bureau (Education Bureau 2008, 2012). The LAMK has
been validated in Rasch analysis against students’ grade
with excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s alphas .88
[Chinese language] and .91 [Mathematics]). It is used by the
local education bureau to monitor the basic competencies of
primary school students, identify less able students for
remedial treatment, and guide the allocation of education
resources (Education Bureau 2012). The LAMK has 6
levels from Level A to Level F, with the Level B designed
for students in P.3 first semester. However, to avoid a sig-
nificant ceiling effect, the Level C (Mc and Cc, LAMK 2.0)
was used to assess the Chinese and mathematics skills of the
participating children in this study. Specifically, the Chinese
test paper consists of 2 sections (reading and writing). The
Reading section has 12 questions about two Chinese stories;
the Writing section has 18 questions. Each correct answer is
worth 1 point except the last question of the Writing section
– Chinese composition which is worth 10 points. The total
score of the Chinese test paper is 39. On the other hand, the
mathematics test paper has total 53 questions. A point will
be given to each correct answer, with no extra point
deduction for wrong answer, thereby giving a total score of
53. Children were asked to complete the respective test
paper. The test paper was then graded by a trained research
staff according to the standard answer key and scoring
scheme.
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire
Psychosocial outcomes were assessed with the parent-proxy
version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire
(SDQ) for children aged 4–17 years (R. Goodman 1997).
The SDQ measures five domains, namely conduct problems
(i.e. often has temper tantrums or hot tempers; often fights
with other children), hyperactivity/inattention (i.e. think
things out before acting; constantly fidgeting or squirming),
emotional problems (i.e. often complaints of headaches;
nervous or clingy in new situations), peer relationship
problems (i.e. picked on or bullied by other children; gen-
erally liked by other children), and positive prosocial
behaviors (i.e. considerate of other people’s feelings; shares
readily with other children), with each subscale comprising
five items. The items are therefore categorized into 5 sub-
scale scores, and the four negative behavior subscales can
be summed to an overall total difficulties score (A. Good-
man et al. 2010). This scale has been widely used and
validated in Hong Kong children population with satisfac-
tory validity and reliability (Cronbach’s alpha coefficients
ranging from .45 to .82) (Lai et al. 2010). The tool appears
to have sufficient reliability in the study sample (Cronbach’s
alpha coefficients ranging from .53 to .87). Parents were
asked to rate each item on a scale ranging from 0 = not true
to 2 = certainly true.

Home-based and School-based Parental Educational
Involvement Scales
Two aspects of parental involvement were assessed by
multiple-item indicators adopted from previous parent
report measures: home-based involvement and school-based
involvement (Wang and Sheikh‐Khalil 2014). The items
were slightly modified to better reflect the local Chinese
primary school context, for example, “parent-teacher con-
ference” in the original school-based scale was replaced
with “PTA meeting” which is of similar meaning but more
commonly used in Hong Kong. For home-based scale,
“visiting museums or libraries” in the original scale was
replaced with “discussing about school events and matters”
in our version because Hong Kong parents tend to have
busy work schedule which give them rare opportunities to
visit museums or libraries with children after school.
The School-Based Involvement Scale includes four items
which assess the extent to which parents interact with
school (e.g. “During the current school year, how often did
you or your spouse volunteer at school events?”) on a 5-
point scale, ranging from 0 = never to 4 = six times or
above each year. The Home-Based Involvement Scale
includes four items which assess the extent to which parents
spend time with children in educational activities outside of
school (e.g. “During the current school year, how often did
you or your spouse encourage your child to do homework
independently?” and “How often did you or your spouse
discuss with your child on materials learned in class each
week?”). Items within this home-based scale were rated by
parents on a 4-point scale, ranging from 0 = never to 3 =
five times or above each week. Home-based and School-
based Parental Involvement Scale in this study had accep-
table internal consistency with Cronbach’s alpha coeffi-
cients of 0.71 and 0.74, respectively.
Children’s School Engagement Scale
Children’s school engagement was assessed in two aspects,
namely behavioral and affective dimension, using items
adapted from the existing western and Chinese student
engagement scale (Fredricks et al. 2004; Lam et al. 2014).
The scale has total ten items, with four items measuring
children’s effort and participation in school and six items
assessing children’s attitudes and enjoyment at school. All
the items were rated by child participants on a 5-point scale
ranging from 0 = never to 4 = always. School engagement
was studied as a global/unidimensional construct with
acceptable reliability indicated by Cronbach’s alpha coeffi-
cient of 0.80 for the present study sample.
All these measures were administered in Chinese lan-
guage and have been piloted in several local Grade 3 stu-
dents and their parents to ensure that the items were
Journal of Child and Family Studies
comprehensible and applicable for their age prior to the
main study.
Control variables
Children’s gender, family income, and parental marital
status were controlled in the analyses. These variables were
chosen based on prior knowledge and were also found to be
associated with parental involvement, academic perfor-
mance, and psychosocial wellbeing.
Data Analyses
Descriptive statistics including mean and standard devia-
tions for all key study variables were calculated. Pearson’s
product-moment correlation coefficients among variables
were generated to examine unadjusted bivariate associa-
tions. Multivariate linear regression analyses were per-
formed to examine factors associated with each outcome of
interest, adjusting for confounders including child gender,
family income and parental marital status. Explanatory
variables with a p-value of <0.05 on correlation analyses
were included in the regression analyses. Because the linear
regression analyses assume all relationships are linear,
generalized additive models (GAMs) were used to examine
other possible forms of the relationships between the pre-
dictor and outcomes (Wood 2006).
Mediation analyses were used to test the hypothesized
relationships among study variables. Instead of the Baron
and Kenny (1986) approach, the present study employs a
path analysis as a general framework in analyzing the roles
of potential mediators (Edwards and Lambert 2007). The
path analysis provides a general and consistent modelling
framework for estimating the total, direct, and indirect effect
between the predictor (parental involvement) and the out-
come (academic and psychosocial variables). It is essen-
tially a set of regression models but allows simultaneous
estimation so the results will be more reliable. It also allows
adopting the Huber robust standard errors for deriving
accurate p-values (Huber 1967). Missing data were handled
through full-information maximum likelihood estimation
which allows for the inclusion and use of all available data
to estimate the population parameter values that have the
highest probability of producing the sample data (Baraldi
and Enders 2010). Indirect effects (i.e. mediation) were
estimated with delta method standard errors (MacKinnon
et al. 2002). Rucker et al. (2011) raised concerns about the
use of “partial” and “full” mediation labels because of the
differential statistical power for detecting indirect and total/
direct effects which can give rise to misleading mediation
conclusions (Rucker et al. 2011). Hence, the present study
did not label mediation results full or partial. Variance
inflation factors (VIFs) were used to examine against
Journal of Child and Family Studies

Table 1 Scale properties, mean,

Descriptive Scale properties
and standard deviation of key
statistics
variables
Variable Mean SD Number of items Cronbach’s α Score range

Academic outcomes
Chinese language 27.49 6.05 29 0.88 0–39
Mathematics 44.02 7.66 53 0.91 0–53
Psychosocial outcomes
SDQ: Emotional problems 2.37 2.08 5 0.65 0–10
SDQ: Conduct problems 3.04 1.75 5 0.63 0–10
SDQ: Hyperactivity 6.60 2.50 5 0.78 0–10
SDQ: Peer problems 4.46 1.88 5 0.54 0–10
SDQ: Prosocial behaviors 7.05 2.04 5 0.73 0–10
SDQ: Total difficulties 16.45 5.93 25 0.87 0–40
Parental involvement factors
Home-based parental involvement 1.91 0.61 4 0.71 0–3
School-based parental involvement 1.55 0.82 4 0.74 0–4
Child-level factors
Overall school engagement 2.15 0.42 10 0.80 0–4
Better performance was indicated by higher scores for all variables except the following SDQ subscales:
hyperactivity, emotional problems, conduct problems, peer problems and total difficulties

multicollinearity. All the statistical analyses were performed
using the R statistical package (version 3.20) with package
lavaan (version 0.5–18).
Results
This study recruited total 507 children (age range: 8–9 years
old) in their first semester of Grade 3. 244 (48%) were
males and 20 (3.9%) had single parent status. 28% had
monthly household income of HKD 50,000 (USD 6,410) or
above. Children received an average of 27.49 (SD = 6.05)
out of 39 points in the Chinese language test and 44.02 (SD
= 7.66) out of 53 points in the mathematics test. The mean
of their overall school engagement was 2.15 ± 0.42 on a 5-
point scale. With a maximum score of 10 points, parents’
ratings of their children’s prosocial behaviors, hyperactivity,
emotional and conduct problems were 7.05 (SD = 2.04),
6.60 (SD = 2.50), 2.37 (SD = 2.08) and 3.04 (SD = 1.75),
respectively. In terms of home-based parental involvement,
an average of 1.91 (SD = .61) on a 4-point scale reflects that
parents discussed and did school-related activities with the
child at home 3–4 times each week. For school-based
involvement, an average of 1.55 (SD = .82) on a 5-point
scale reflected that parents engaged with school 1–3 times
yearly.Table 1.
Table 2 shows the inter-correlations among all variables.
Based on Cohen’s effect size classification (Cohen 1992),
children’s school engagement was highly correlated with
school-based (r = .70, p < .001) and home-based parental
involvement (r = .68, p < .001). The correlations between
school engagement and different indicators of academic and
psychosocial development were of medium strength (r
= .27, p < .001, for Chinese language; r = .22, p < .001, for
mathematics; r = .32, p < .001, for prosocial behaviors; r =
−.28, p < .001, for conduct problems; r = −.33, p < .001,
for hyperactivity; r = −.30, p < .001, for total psychosocial
difficulties).
There was a large size of correlation between perfor-
mance in Chinese and mathematics test (r = .67, p < .001).
Only hyperactivity and conduct problems were correlated
with children’s Chinese language test performance (r =
−.30, p < .001, for hyperactivity; r = −.20, p < .001, for
conduct problems) and mathematics test performance (r =
−.27, p < .001, for hyperactivity; r = −.17, p < .01, for
conduct problems). For parental involvement, home-based
and school-based involvement were correlated (r = .37, p
< .001). However, involvement in these two contexts
showed different patterns of correlations with children’s
outcomes. Home-based parental involvement was related to
children’s Chinese language (r = .16, p < .05), mathematics
(r = .15, p < .05), hyperactivity (r = −.25, p < .001), peer
problems (r = −.26, p < .001), prosocial behaviors (r = .31,
p < .001), and total psychosocial difficulties (r = −.25, p
< .001). On the other hand, school-based parental involve-
ment was correlated with children’s prosocial behaviors
only (r = .19, p < .05).
Gender, monthly household income, and single parent
status were correlates of several variables, suggesting that
the subsequent analyses should adjust for their possible
 Journal of Child and Family Studies

confounding effects on the relationship between parental

−0.20**
0.20***

0.19**
−0.11
−0.13

−0.06

−0.16
−0.03
−0.12
−0.06
0.17*
involvement and children’s outcomes.

0.11

0.05
14
To further examine the relationships among the vari-
ables, adjusted regressions were conducted using children’s

−0.24***
−0.20**
−0.20**

0.28***

0.24***
academic and psychosocial outcomes as dependent vari-
0.19**
−0.13

−0.15
0.17*

0.09

0.05

0.00
ables and home-based and school-based parental involve-
13

ment and children’s school engagement as independent

−0.16*
−0.04

−0.08

−0.09

−0.10
variables. As showed in Table 3, after adjusting for gender,
0.02

0.06
0.10
0.06

0.05

0.05
12

monthly household income, and single parent, children’s

school engagement was associated with parental home (B
−0.28***
−0.33***

−0.30*** = .47, p < .001) and school involvement (B = .37, p

0.27***
0.22***

0.32***

0.66***
0.70***
−0.17*
−0.07

< .001). More home-based parental involvement was also

11

associated with higher scores on Chinese language test (B

= 1.32, p < .01) and less behavioral problems (B = −1.79,
0.37***
0.19**
−0.09
−0.09
−0.04

−0.08

p < .001). All VIFs were smaller than 5, indicating a small

0.07
0.05
0.00
10

risk of multicollinearity.
−0.25***
−0.27***

−0.25***

Furthermore, GAMs (see Fig. 1a, b) revealed significant

0.31***
−0.04

−0.11

relationships between home-based parental involvement

0.16*
0.15*

and children’s outcomes but there were ceiling effects on

9

children’s academic performance and psychosocial beha-

−0.27***
−0.24***

−0.36***
0.68***
0.73***
0.78***
0.68***

viors. Figure 1c shows that increasing levels of school-

based parental involvement was associated with more
8

prosocial behaviors and less hyperactivity in children.

−0.33***
−0.32***
−0.31***

Mediation analyses were performed to test whether

−0.10

children’s school engagement mediated the association of

0.09
0.03

parental involvement with children’s academic and psy-

7

chosocial outcomes. Results showed that children’s school

0.41***
0.28***
0.31***
−0.13
−0.10

engagement mediated 74% of the association between

home-based parental involvement and children’s Chinese
6

language performance (Fig. 2a) as well as 71% of the

−0.30***
−0.27***
0.27***
0.57***

association between home-based parental involvement and

children’s psychosocial difficulties (Fig. 2b). In terms of
5

positive psychosocial outcomes, home-based parental

−0.20***
−0.17**

involvement had direct effect on children’s prosocial

0.29***

behaviors and indirect effect through children’s school

engagement Fig. 3a). School-based parental involvement
4

had indirect effect on prosocial behaviors only through

−0.14
−0.10
Table 2 Inter-correlations among all variables (N = 507)

children’s engagement with school (Fig. 3b).

3

0.67***

Discussion
2

School-based parental involvement

Home-based parental involvement

This study explored how parental involvement in children’s

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001

education can be related to psychosocial and academic

Overall student engagement
SDQ: Prosocial behaviours

outcomes among Chinese primary school students. In the

current study, we investigated the associations between two
SDQ: Total difficulty
SDQ: Peer problems
SDQ: Hyperactivity

aspects of parental educational involvement (i.e., home-

SDQ: Emotional

based and school-based involvement) and young children’s

Family income
SDQ: Conduct

Single parent
Mathematics

academic (i.e. Chinese language and Mathematics test

Chinese

scores) and psychosocial outcomes (i.e., behaviors) using

Gender

both objective and subjective measures. We found that

home-based parental educational involvement was asso-
10
11
12
13
14

ciated with children’s language competence and

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Journal of Child and Family Studies

Table 3 Adjusted association analysis for the relationship between parental involvement, children’s school engagement and academic/
psychosocial outcomes (n = 507)
Potential predictor/mediator
Home-based parental involvement School-based parental involvement Student engagement
B (95% CI) p B (95% CI) p B (95% CI) p

Academic outcomes
Chinese language 1.32 (0.33, 2.32) 0.01 ** 0.51 (−0.19, 1.22) 0.15 3.18 (1.90, 4.46) <0.001 ***
Mathematics 1.10 (−0.16, 2.35) 0.09 0.53 (−0.36, 1.42) 0.25 3.39 (1.76, 5.02) <0.001 ***
Psychosocial outcomes
Emotional problems −0.11 (−0.45, 0.22) 0.50 0.04 (−0.19, 0.28) 0.72 −0.35 (−0.83, 0.13) 0.16
Conduct problems −0.53 (−0.81, −0.26) <0.001 *** −0.22 (−0.42, −0.03) 0.03 * −0.91 (−1.30, −0.52) <0.001 ***
Hyperactivity −0.90 (−1.29, −0.52) <0.001 *** −0.34 (−0.62, −0.06) 0.02 * −1.73 (−2.28, −1.18) <0.001 ***
Peer problems −0.17 (−0.47, 0.13) 0.26 −0.07 (−0.28, 0.15) 0.54 −0.53 (−0.96, −0.10) 0.02 *
Prosocial behaviours 0.95 (0.64, 1.26) <0.001 *** 0.47 (0.25, 0.70) <0.001 *** 1.36 (0.91, 1.80) <0.001 ***
Total difficulties −1.73 (−2.74, −0.85) <0.001 *** −0.58 (−1.26, 0.10) 0.10 −3.56 (−4.90, −2.22) <0.001 ***
Potential mediator
Student engagement 0.47 (0.41, 0.52) <0.001 *** 0.37 (0.33, 0.40) <0.001 *** – –
All associations adjusted for gender, family income, and parental marital status
B: unstandardized regression coefficient
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001

psychosocial wellbeing. The benefits reached a plateau
when parents were overinvolved in children’s learning
outside of school. This finding is not counterintuitive
because academic pressure caused by excessive parental
educational involvement can discourage children’s learning
interest and motivation to make scholarly pursuit. More-
over, overly involved parents tend to grant insufficient
autonomy to their children. Autonomy, which refers to self-
governance or rule by the self (Ryan and Deci 2006), is
essential for personal achievement and behavioral adjust-
ment (Inguglia et al. 2015). When parents behave in
autonomy restrictive manners, children are less likely to
explore and develop their genuine interest and more likely
to exhibit behavioral problems (Lansford et al. 2014).
Although exposure to various activities can be devel-
opmentally enhancing, engaging children in activities they
intrinsically like and enjoy is fundamental to the develop-
ment of positive emotions and learning motivation that are
essential for achievement and wellbeing (Perry 2011; Seipp
1991). In addition to quantity, the quality of interactions
between parents and children during school-related activ-
ities are also influential to children’s academic and health
outcomes which warrant further research.
Consistent with previous findings on Hong Kong chil-
dren in kindergartens and secondary schools (Ho 2003; Lau
et al. 2011), parents of primary schoolchildren also reported
higher level of home-based than school-based involvement
in children’s education. Long work hours and inflexible
schedule, which are common among Hong Kong parents,
are key barriers to parental involvement in children’s
education in school. Moreover, perceived lack of compe-
tence, energy, skills and knowledge to develop school
policies may also contribute to parental reluctance to get
involved in school (Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler 1997;
Wang and Sheikh‐Khalil 2014). In particular, Chinese
parents have high respect for teachers and believe that their
teaching methods and materials are adequate for children to
acquire important life skills and knowledge (Chen 2005).
This expectation for teachers as the main and primary
contributor to children’s learning may further hinder par-
ents’ motivation to become involved in school. Moreover,
compared with home-based parental involvement, involve-
ment in school was found to have weaker effects on chil-
dren’s psychosocial outcomes, possibly because the
effectiveness of parental involvement in school is limited
with minimal interactions between parents and children at
school. In Hong Kong, schools usually invite parents to take
part in mainly administrative meetings and occasionally
extracurricular activities (Ho and Kwong 2013) which do
not provide as many one-on-one and direct parent-child
interactions as home activities can offer. To overcome these
difficulties, schools should take initiatives in getting parents
involved in their children’s school lives such as organizing
family events in school and inviting parents to join these
events. Teachers should also regularly speak to parents
about their children’s classroom performance (Epstein and
Salinas 2004) in order to maximize children’s academic
potential and improve their wellbeing.
Interestingly, while the correlations between home-based
parental involvement and children’s conduct problems,
 Journal of Child and Family Studies

Fig. 1 a Relationships between

home-based parental
involvement and academic
outcomes. b Relationships
between home-based parental
involvement and psychosocial
outcomes. c Relationships
between school-based parental
involvement and psychosocial
outcomes

hyperactivity and prosocial behaviors were significant, this is that compared to externalizing behavioral problems
children’s emotional and peer problems were not related to such as hyperactivity and conduct problems, children’s
either type of parental involvement. A possible reason for internalizing problems such as sadness and fears are more
Journal of Child and Family Studies
a b
-0.07 Children’s
Home-based parental
involvement Chinese language
Children’s school 0.29***
0.64***
engagement
Total effect: 0.12**
Indirect effect: 0.18 ***
Percentage mediated: 74%
Fig. 2 Mediation results illustrating the relationships among home-
based parental involvement, children’s school engagement and lan-
guage and psychosocial outcomes after adjusting for child gender,
difficult to be observed by parents and caregivers (Cicchetti
and Toth 2014) and be accurately evaluated through a single
informant method (Gilliom and Shaw 2004). As a result,
this may have masked the true effect of parental involve-
ment on these outcomes. Some researchers also suggest that
children’s internalizing psychopathology involves a com-
plex mechanism that cannot be easily changed through
parental influences (Chen and Liu 2012). Our measure of
parental involvement assessed only the frequency of aca-
demically based involvement strategies which encourage
learning motivation and behaviors but may not be able to
modify inner maladaptive thoughts and feelings. Children’s
internalizing issues should be tackled through non-
academically based involvement strategies such as parent-
child play activities which involve more emotional support
for children to develop positive emotions (Gilliom and
Shaw 2004).
Another interesting result is that home-based parental
involvement was associated with children’s overall beha-
vioral problems and language competence but not mathe-
matic skills, whereas school-based parental involvement
was associated with only a few problem behavior domains
and not with any academic outcomes. Such findings perhaps
are due to the design of our questionnaire, as our ques-
tionnaire items on home-based involvement measured the
frequency of interactions between parents and children at
home, but the items on school-based involvement con-
cerned parents’ participation in schools and their interac-
tions with teachers only. Accordingly, the significant
associations between home-based parental involvement and
better behavioral and language outcomes in children may be
attributed to the socialization experiences involved in home
activities. Socialization is a process in which a child is
taught to develop appropriate behaviors needed for inter-
action with other individuals (Maccoby 2007). Previous
research has documented the benefits of parental socializa-
tion to promotion of positive behaviors (Pettygrove et al.
2013) and prevention of problem behaviors in children (S.
-0.05 Children’s
Home-based parental psychosocial
involvement difficulties
Children’s school -0.20**
0.64*** engagement
Total effect: -0.18***
Indirect effect: -0.13***
Percentage mediated: 71%
family income and parental marital status (n = 507). The numbers are
standardized coefficient estimates. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p <
0.001
A. Denham et al. 2000). In addition to shaping good
behaviors, socialization also increases children’s exposure
to adult’s complex speech which could strengthen children’s
cognitive and vocabulary skills (Rodriguez and Tamis‐
LeMonda 2011). This may explain why home-based par-
ental involvement had stronger association with children’s
language skills than mathematical skills in this study.
We also found that children’s school engagement medi-
ated the association of home-based parental involvement
with children’s language skills and overall behavioral pro-
blems. It also mediated the associations between school-
based and home-based parental involvement and children’s
prosocial behaviors. School engagement is a board concept
concerning children’s behavioral, emotional, and cognitive
experiences in school. Consistent with previous studies
(Voelkl 2012), this study found that student engagement was
associated with better academic performance and fewer
behavioral problems. Student engagement reflects good
student qualities such as following school rules, good self-
regulation, and being interested in school work (Fredricks
et al. 2004), all of which are important for academic
excellence. When children stay on task, they are less likely
to act in disruptive ways. On the other hand, disengaged
students may have a higher chance of failure to develop
positive learning attitudes and behaviors. They also tend to
make ties with other disengaged students which may further
increase their educational risks such as retention and drop-
ping out. Hence school engagement is an important factor
that can protect students from academic failure and problem
behaviors (Finn and Zimmer 2012). To promote student
engagement, parents should get involved in children’s edu-
cation at home and in school. Our study showed that both
types of parental involvement had positive links with student
engagement. Parental educational involvement at home such
as parental guidance on homework and communication with
children on school issues can increase children’s awareness
of parental expectations for schooling which is important for
learning motivation and engagement (Bao and Lam 2008). It

a b
0.17** Children’s prosocial
Home-based parental
behaviors
involvement
Children’s school 0.19***
0.64***
engagement
Total effect: 0.29***
Indirect effect: 0.12**
Percentage mediated: 41%
Fig. 3 Mediation results illustrating the relationships among parental
involvement, children’s school engagement and prosocial behaviors
after adjusting for child gender, family income and parental marital
also promotes children’s perceived support and approval
from parents so children may have stronger desire to use
academic achievement as a way to repay parental educa-
tional investment and sacrifices (Urdan and Maehr 1995).
On the other hand, school-based parental involvement such
as regular communication with teachers can increase tea-
chers’ understanding of children’s background and needs so
the teachers can provide students with better learning sup-
port. Evidence shows that students experiencing greater
teacher support exhibit more engagement behaviors (Klem
and Connell 2004). Future research that explores the extent
to which social and demographic factors such as parental
education affect parental educational involvement, student
engagement, and ultimately, student performance and well-
being will help identify at-risk students who need more
learning support and evidence-based programs to improve
behavior and academic outcomes.
Limitations
Several limitations of this study should be noted. First,
parents’ self-ratings of their own involvement strategies are
subject to response bias. They may have given a more
favorable rating to each involvement scale item. This can
inflate or deflate the strength of the associations reported in
this study. However, compared with previous findings on
parental involvement in Chinese populations (e.g. Lau et al.
2011), our study revealed similar patterns of involvement at
home and in school, suggesting that our parents’ report of
involvement should be generally valid. Similar concerns are
also applied to parents’ report of child psychosocial issues
and child self-report of school engagement but our study
found significant associations between school engagement
and psychosocial well-being which are consistent with
existing theoretical and empirical claims. Therefore, the
parent-proxy and self-reported data should not have sub-
stantially influenced the validity of the findings. Second,
Journal of Child and Family Studies
School-based parental -0.03 Children’s
involvement prosocial behaviors
0.70*** Children’s school 0.32***
engagement
Total effect: 0.19***
Indirect effect: 0.22***
Percentage mediated: 88%
status (n = 507). The numbers are standardized coefficient estimates.
Note. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
given that children completed the attainment tests at home,
although we had asked parents not to provide assistance, we
cannot ascertain how much help children received in com-
pleting the tests. Another limitation is that the present study
used cross-sectional data on parental involvement, chil-
dren’s school engagement, and children’s academic and
psychosocial issues and thus cannot establish casual rela-
tionships. It is therefore important to note that the mediation
models examined in this study are only able to demonstrate
suggestive temporal order among variables of interest. More
advanced research designs such as longitudinal and trial
studies are required to reduce bias and demonstrate causal
relationships (Maxwell and Cole 2007).
Acknowledgements This manuscript is a revision of RMSW MPhil
thesis which was accepted at the University of Hong Kong in
November 2015. We are grateful to the primary schools, the children
and their parents who participated in this study.
Author Contributions RSMW: conceived the study concept, designed
and executed the study, and wrote the manuscript. FKWH: analyzed
and interpreted the data and wrote the manuscript. WHSW: executed
the study, supervised data analyses, and wrote the manuscript. KTST:
executed the study and wrote the manuscript. CBC: conceived the
study concept, designed and executed the study, and revised the
manuscript. NR: conceived the study concept and revised the manu-
script. KLC: conceived the study concept and revised the manuscript.
PI: conceived the study concept, designed and executed the study, and
revised and proofread the manuscript.
Funding This study was supported by a grant from the Research
Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region,
China (Project No. 743413).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflicts of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
Ethical Approval All procedures performed in studies involving
human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of
the Institutional Review Board of the University of Hong Kong/Hos-
pital Authority Hong Kong West Cluster.
Journal of Child and Family Studies
Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual
participants included in the study.
References
Bao, X. H., & Lam, S. F. (2008). Who makes the choice? Rethinking
the role of autonomy and relatedness in Chinese children’s
motivation. Child Development, 79(2), 269–283.
Baraldi, A. N., & Enders, C. K. (2010). An introduction to modern
missing data analyses. Journal of School Psychology, 48(1),
5–37.
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.
Bempechat, J., & Shernoff, D. J. (2012). Parental influences on
achievement motivation and student engagement. Handbook of
Research on Student Engagement (pp. 315–342). New York, NY:
Springer.
Chen, J. J. L. (2005). Relation of academic support from parents,
teachers, and peers to Hong Kong adolescents’ academic
achievement: The mediating role of academic engagement.
Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 131(2),
77–127.
Chen, J. J. L., & Liu, X. (2012). The mediating role of perceived
parental warmth and parental punishment in the psychological
well-being of children in rural china. Social Indicators Research,
107(3), 483–508.
Cheung, C. S. S., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2012). Why does parents’
involvement enhance children’s achievement? The role of parent-
oriented motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3),
820–832.
Cicchetti, D, Toth, S. L. (2014). Internalizing and externalizing
expressions of dysfunction (Vol.2). New York, NY: Psychology
Press.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1),
155–159.
Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991).
Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective.
Educational Psychologist, 26(3-4), 325–346.
Denham, S., & Kochanoff, A. T. (2002). Parental contributions to
preschoolers’ understanding of emotion. Marriage & Family
Review, 34(3-4), 311–343.
Denham, S. A. (1986). Social cognition, prosocial behavior, and
emotion in preschoolers: Contextual validation. Child Develop-
ment, 57(1), 194–201.
Denham, S. A., Mitchell-Copeland, J., Strandberg, K., Auerbach, S., &
Blair, K. (1997). Parental contributions to preschoolers’ emo-
tional competence: direct and indirect effects. Motivation and
Emotion, 21(1), 65–86.
Denham, S. A., Workman, E., Cole, P. M., Weissbrod, C., Kendziora,
K. T., & ZAHN–WAXLER, C. (2000). Prediction of externa-
lizing behavior problems from early to middle childhood: the role
of parental socialization and emotion expression. Development
and Psychopathology, 12(1), 23–45.
Education Bureau. (2008). Learning achievement measurement Kit
2.0: user’s guide. Hong Kong: Education Bureau.
Education Bureau. (2012). The EDB circular (EDBC012/2012) on
learning support. Hong Kong: Education Bureau.
Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating
moderation and mediation: a general analytical framework using
moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1–22.
Englund, M. M., Luckner, A. E., Whaley, G. J., & Egeland, B. (2004).
Children’s achievement in early elementary school: Longitudinal
effects of parental involvement, expectations, and quality of
assistance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 723–730.
Epstein, J. L., & Salinas, K. C. (2004). Partnering with families and
communities. Educational Leadership, 61(8), 12–19.
Finn, J. D., & Zimmer, K. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it?
Why does it matter? Handbook of Research on Student
Engagement (pp. 97–131). New York, NY: Springer.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School
engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence.
Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.
Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in
children’s academic engagement and performance. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 95(1), 148–162.
Gilliom, M., & Shaw, D. S. (2004). Codevelopment of externalizing
and internalizing problems in early childhood. Development and
Psychopathology, 16(02), 313–333.
Gonzales, N. A., Wong, J. J., Toomey, R. B., Millsap, R., Dumka, L.
E., & Mauricio, A. M. (2014). School engagement mediates long-
term prevention effects for Mexican American adolescents. Pre-
vention Science, 15(6), 929–939.
Gonzalez-DeHass, A. R., Willems, P. P., & Holbein, M. F. D. (2005).
Examining the relationship between parental involvement and
student motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2),
99–123.
Goodman, A., Lamping, D. L., & Ploubidis, G. B. (2010). When to
use broader internalising and externalising subscales instead of
the hypothesised five subscales on the Strengths and Difficulties
Questionnaire (SDQ): Data from British parents, teachers and
children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38(8),
1179–1191.
Goodman, R. (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: a
research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38
(5), 581–586.
Grolnick, W. S., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1991). Inner resources
for school achievement: Motivational mediators of children’s
perceptions of their parents. Journal of Educational Psychology,
83(4), 508.
Hart, S. L., Hodgkinson, S. C., Belcher, H. M. E., Hyman, C., &
Cooley-Strickland, M. (2013). Somatic symptoms, peer and
school stress, and family and community violence exposure
among urban elementary school children. Journal of Behavioral
Medicine, 36(5), 454–465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-012-
9440-2.
Ho, E. S. C. (2003). Students’ self-esteem in an Asian educational
system: The contribution of parental involvement and parental
investment. School Community Journal, 13(1), 65–84.
Ho, E. S. C., & Kwong, W. M. (2013). Parental involvement on
children’s education: What works in Hong Kong. Singapore:
Springer.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do parents
become involved in their children’s education? Review of Edu-
cational Research, 67(1), 3–42.
Huber, P. J. (1967). The behavior of maximum likelihood estimates
under nonstandard conditions. Proceedings of the fifth Berkeley
symposium on mathematical statistics and probability (Vol. 1, pp.
221–233). CA: Berkeley.
Inguglia, C., Ingoglia, S., Liga, F., Lo Coco, A., & Lo Cricchio, M. G.
(2015). Autonomy and relatedness in adolescence and emerging
adulthood: relationships with parental support and psychological
distress. Journal of Adult Development, 22(1), 1–13. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10804-014-9196-8.
Ip, P., Rao, N., Bacon-Shone, J., Li, S. L., Ho, F. K.-w, Chow, C.-b, &
Jiang, F. (2015). Socioeconomic gradients in school readiness of
Chinese preschool children: the mediating role of family pro-
cesses and kindergarten quality. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 35(2), 111–123.

Izard, C., Fine, S., Schultz, D., Mostow, A., Ackerman, B., &
Youngstrom, E. (2001). Emotion knowledge as a predictor of
social behavior and academic competence in children at risk.
Psychological Science, 12(1), 18–23.
Kim, S. Y. (2013). Defining tiger parenting in Chinese Americans.
Human Development, 56(4), 217–222.
Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking
teacher support to student engagement and achievement. Journal
of School Health, 74(7), 262–273.
Ladd, G. W., & Dinella, L. M. (2009). Continuity and change in early
school engagement: Predictive of children’s achievement trajec-
tories from first to eighth grade? Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 101(1), 190–206.
Lai, K. Y., Luk, E. S., Leung, P. W., Wong, A. S., Law, L., & Ho, K.
(2010). Validation of the Chinese version of the strengths and
difficulties questionnaire in Hong Kong. Social Psychiatry and
Psychiatric Epidemiology, 45(12), 1179–1186.
Lam, S. F., Jimerson, S., Wong, B. P., Kikas, E., Shin, H., Veiga, F.
H., & Negovan, V. (2014). Understanding and measuring student
engagement in school: The results of an international study from
12 countries. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(2), 213–232.
Lansford, J. E., Laird, R. D., Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., & Dodge, K. A.
(2014). Mothers’ and Fathers’ Autonomy-Relevant Parenting:
Longitudinal Links with Adolescents’ Externalizing and Inter-
nalizing Behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(11),
1877–1889. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-0079-2.
Lau, E. Y. H., Li, H., & Rao, N. (2011). Parental involvement and
children’s readiness for school in China. Educational Research,
53(1), 95–113.
Lau, E. Y. H., Li, H., & Rao, N. (2012). Exploring parental invol-
vement in early years education in China: development and
validation of the Chinese Early Parental Involvement Scale
(CEPIS). International Journal of Early Years Education, 20(4),
405–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2012.743099.
Locke, J. Y., Campbell, M. A., & Kavanagh, D. (2012). Can a parent
do too much for their child? An examination by parenting pro-
fessionals of the concept of overparenting. Australian Journal of
Guidance and Counselling, 22(02), 249–265.
Maccoby, E. E. (2007). Historical overview of socialization research
and theory. In J. E. Grusec & H. P. D (Eds.), Handbook of
socialization: Theory and research (pp. 13–41). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
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.
Marchant, G. J., Paulson, S. E., & Rothlisberg, B. A. (2001). Relations
of middle school students’ perceptions of family and school
contexts with academic achievement. Psychology in the Schools,
38(6), 505–519.
Maxwell, S. E., & Cole, D. A. (2007). Bias in cross-sectional analyses
of longitudinal mediation. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 23–44.
Parcel, T. L., & Dufur, M. J. (2001). Capital at home and at school:
Effects on student achievement. Social Forces, 79(3), 881–911.
Perry, R. P. (2011). The control-value theory of achievement emo-
tions: An integrative approach to emotions in education. In P. A.
Journal of Child and Family Studies
Schutz & R. Pekrun (Eds.), Emotion in education (pp. 13–36).
Amsterdam: Academic Press.
Pettygrove, D. M., Hammond, S. I., Karahuta, E. L., Waugh, W. E., &
Brownell, C. A. (2013). From cleaning up to helping out: Parental
socialization and children’s early prosocial behavior. Infant
Behavior and Development, 36(4), 843–846.
Pomerantz, E. M., Moorman, E. A., & Litwack, S. D. (2007). The
how, whom, and why of parents’ involvement in children’s aca-
demic lives: More is not always better. Review of Educational
Research, 77(3), 373–410.
Rodriguez, E. T., & Tamis‐LeMonda, C. S. (2011). Trajectories of the
home learning environment across the first 5 years: Associations
with children’s vocabulary and literacy skills at prekindergarten.
Child Development, 82(4), 1058–1075.
Rucker, D. D., Preacher, K. J., Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2011).
Mediation analysis in social psychology: Current practices and
new recommendations. Social and Personality Psychology
Compass, 5(6), 359–371.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Self‐regulation and the problem of
human autonomy: does psychology need choice, self‐determina-
tion, and will? Journal of Personality, 74(6), 1557–1586.
Schiffrin, H. H., Liss, M., Miles-McLean, H., Geary, K. A., Erchull,
M. J., & Tashner, T. (2014). Helping or hovering? The effects of
helicopter parenting on college students’ well-being. Journal of
Child and Family Studies, 23(3), 548–557.
Segrin, C., Givertz, M., Swaitkowski, P., & Montgomery, N. (2015).
Overparenting is associated with child problems and a critical
family environment. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(2),
470–479.
Seipp, B. (1991). Anxiety and academic performance: A meta-analysis
of findings. Anxiety Research, 4(1), 27–41.
Skinner, E. A., & Pitzer, J. R. (2012). Developmental dynamics of
student engagement, coping, and everyday resilience. Handbook
of research on student engagement (pp. 21–44). New York, NY:
Springer.
Tam, V. C., & Chan, R. M. (2009). Parental Involvement in Primary
Children’s Homework in Hong Kong. School Community Jour-
nal, 19(2), 81–100.
Trzesniewski, K. H., Donnellan, M. B., Moffitt, T. E., Robins, R. W.,
Poulton, R., & Caspi, A. (2006). Low self-esteem during ado-
lescence predicts poor health, criminal behavior, and limited
economic prospects during adulthood. Developmental Psychol-
ogy, 42(2), 381–390.
Urdan, T. C., & Maehr, M. L. (1995). Beyond a two-goal theory of
motivation and achievement: A case for social goals. Review of
Educational Research, 65(3), 213–243.
Voelkl, K. E. (2012). School identification. Handbook of research on
student engagement (pp. 193–218). New York, NY: Springer.
Wang, M. T., & Sheikh‐Khalil, S. (2014). Does parental involvement
matter for student achievement and mental health in high school?
Child Development, 85(2), 610–625.
Wood, S. (2006). Generalized additive models: an introduction with
R. Boca Raton, FL: CRC press.