Family Factors and Student Outcomes potx

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in
this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only.
Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under
copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research
documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions.
Limited Electronic Distribution Rights
This PDF document was made available from www.rand.org as a public
service of the RAND Corporation.
6
Jump down to document
THE ARTS
CHILD POLICY
CIVIL JUSTICE
EDUCATION
ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
NATIONAL SECURITY
POPULATION AND AGING
PUBLIC SAFETY
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
SUBSTANCE ABUSE
TERRORISM AND
HOMELAND SECURITY
TRANSPORTATION AND
INFRASTRUCTURE
WORKFORCE AND WORKPLACE
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research
organization providing objective analysis and effective
solutions that address the challenges facing the public
and private sectors around the world.

Visit RAND at www.rand.org
Explore Pardee RAND Graduate School
View document details
For More Information
Browse Books & Publications
Make a charitable contribution
Support RAND
This product is part of the Pardee RAND Graduate School (PRGS) dissertation series.
PRGS dissertations are produced by graduate fellows of the Pardee RAND Graduate
School, the world’s leading producer of Ph.D.’s in policy analysis. The dissertation has
been supervised, reviewed, and approved by the graduate fellow’s faculty committee.
PARDEE RAND GRADUATE SCHOOL
Family Factors and
Student Outcomes
Nailing Xia
This document was submitted as a dissertation in December 2009 in
partial fulfillment of the requirements of the doctoral degree in public
policy analysis at the Pardee RAND Graduate School. The faculty
committee that supervised and approved the dissertation consisted of
Richard Buddin (Chair), Sheila Nataraj Kirby, and Vi-Nhuan Le.
To my father
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis
and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors
around the world. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research
clients and sponsors.
R
®
is a registered trademark.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any
electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information

storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from RAND.
Published 2010 by the RAND Corporation
1776 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050
4570 Fifth Avenue, Suite 600, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-2665
RAND URL:
To order RAND documents or to obtain additional information, contact
Distribution Services: Telephone: (310) 451-7002;
Fax: (310) 451-6915; Email:
The Pardee RAND Graduate School dissertation series reproduces dissertations that
have been approved by the student’s dissertation committee.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thisworkwouldnothavebeenbroughttolifewithoutthegeneroussupportof
myhardworkingdissertationcommittee:RichardBuddin,SheilaKirby,andVi‐
NhuanLe.Theirscholarship,expertiseandpatienceguidedmethroughseveral
draftsofthisstudy.IamespeciallyindebtedtoDick,agraciousmentorwho
demonstratesthatrigorousscholarshipcanbeaccessibletoeveryone.Iamalso
gratefultoSheilaforherpersistentattention,gentleencouragement,and
extensiveknowledgeinhelpingmenavigatethefieldofeducationpolicy.
Withouttheopportunitiessheprovidedto“practice”thepolicyanalysistoolson
RANDprojects,mytenureatRANDwouldneverhavebeenthedeeply
influentialexperiencethatitbecame.AthankyoutooisextendedtoVi,whose
insightfulcommentsarecriticaltoconstructingeffectivemeasuresandcrafting
analyticmethods.

Iamthankfultomyexternalreader,JillCannon,forhergenerouscontributionof
knowledgeandtime.AshleshaDatarandRolandSturmhavealsokindlygiven

metimeandsuggestionsduringtheearlystageofthedissertationprocess.A
thankyouisalsoowedtoYangLuandXiaoyanLi,myfriendsandcolleaguesat
PardeeRANDGraduateSchoolwhoalwaysansweredmyquestions,nomatter
howtrivialtheymightbe.

Tomyparents,LieqingXiaandRuifangLing,thankyouforyourlove,support
andunderstandingduringmylongyearsofeducation.Iamalsothankfultomy
husband,XiaoningHuang,whohasalwaysbeenthereformeingoodandbad
times.Finally,tomynewbornson,Xiayang,forbringingjoyanddetermination
inthelaststageof
thisdissertation.




v
TABLEOFCONTENTS

Acknowledgements iii
ListofTables ix
ListofFigures xi
Abstract xiii
ExecutiveSummary xv
Chapter1.FamilyFactorsandStudentAchievement:TheCaseofU.S. 1
PreviousLiteratureonFamilyFactorsandStudentAchievement 2
TheoreticalFrameworksofFamilyProcessFactors 2
EmpiricalLiteratureonFamilyProcessFactorsandStudentAchievement 5
ConceptualModel 7
Data 9
SampleandWeights 9

Measures 10
DescriptiveStatistics 11
Racial/EthnicDifferences 17
DifferencesbySES 20
AnalyticMethods 25
MultipleImputation 25
EffectSizeCalculation 26
RegressionModels 26
MultipleTestingIssues 28
Results 29
BaselineandFamilyProcessModels 29
InteractionModels:BlackVs.Non‐Black 35
InteractionModels:SES 38
Discussion 41
Chapter2.FamilyFactorsandNonacademicOutcomes:ThecaseofU.S. 44
PreviousLiteratureonFamilyFactorsandNonacademicOutcomes 44
Data 49
Measures 49
DescriptiveStatistics 51
Racial/EthnicDifferences 57
DifferencesbySES 59
AnalyticMethods 64
MultipleImputation 64
EffectSizeCalculation 64
RegressionModels 65

vi
MultipleTestingIssues 69
Results 69
BaselineandFamilyProcessModels 69

InteractionModels:BlackVs.Non‐BlackandSES 76
Discussion 80
Chapter3.FamilyFactorsandStudentAchievement:AnInternational
Comparison 82
Data 85
SampleandWeights 86
Measures 88
AnalyticMethods 90
Imputation 90
EffectSizeCalculation 91
AnalysisofDatawithPlausibleValues 91
InternationalComparisonandRegressionModels 93
MultipleTestingIssues 94
Results 95
DescriptiveStatistics 95
DifferencesinAchievementandFamilyFactorsAcrossCountries 98
BaselineandFamilyProcessModels 102
InteractionModels 106
Discussion 109
References 112
Appendix1.A.VariablesMeasuringFamilyProcessFactorsinECLS‐K 132
Appendix1.B.ScaleItemsandReliabilityCoefficients 136
Appendix1.C.DescriptiveStatistics:Waves2‐5 138
Appendix1.D.FamilyProcessFactorsbyRace/Ethnicity:Waves2‐5 142
Appendix
1.E.CorrelationsBetweenSESandReading/MathematicsTestScores
146
Appendix1.F.CorrelationsBetweenSESandFamilyProcessFactors:Waves2‐5
147
Appendix1.G.SESbyFamilyProcessFactors:Waves2‐5 148

Appendix1.H.CoefficientsofUnconditionalModels 152
Appendix1.I.CoefficientsofInteractionModels 153
Appendix2.A.ScaleItemsandReliabilityCoefficients 159
Appendix2.B.CorrelationsBetweenSESandTeacherSRSScaleScores 161
Appendix2.C.CoefficientsofUnconditionalModels 162
Appendix2.D.EducationProductionFunctionandEconometricEstimation
Strategies 163
Appendix2.E.SpecificationTests 173

vii
Appendix2.F.OLSCoefficientsofBaselineandFamilyProcessModels 187
Appendix2.G.TobitCoefficientsofBaselineandFamilyProcessModels 192
Appendix2.H.TobitCoefficientsofInteractionModels 202
Appendix3.A.PISA2006CountriesandEconomies 218
Appendix3.B.VariablesMeasuringFamilyProcessFactorsinPISA2006 219
Appendix3.C.AchievementTestScoresbyCountry 220
Appendix3.D.CoefficientsofUnconditionalModels 221
Appendix3.E.CoefficientsofInteractionModels 222



ix
LISTOFTABLES

Table1.Chapter1:FamilyStatusVariablesinBaselineandFamilyProcess
Models xv
Table2.Chapter1:FamilyProcessVariablesofStatisticalandSubstantive
Importance xvi
Table3.Chapter2:FamilyStatusVariablesinBaselineandFamilyProcess
Models xvii

Table4.Chapter3:FamilyStatusVariables(SES)inBaselineandFamilyProcess
Models xviii
Table5.Chapter3:FamilyProcessVariablesofStatisticalandSubstantive
Importance xviii

Table1.1.DescriptiveStatistics:ReadingandMathematicsTestScores 12
Table1.2.DescriptiveStatistics:ContinuousFamilyProcessVariables 13
Table1.3.DescriptiveStatistics:DichotomousFamilyProcessVariables 14
Table1.4.DescriptiveStatistics:Family,Child,andSchoolCharacteristics–
Continuous 16
Table1.5.DescriptiveStatistics:Family,Child,andSchoolCharacteristics–
Dichotomous 17
Table1.6.ReadingandMathematicsTestScoresbyRace/Ethnicity 17
Table1.7.FamilyProcessFactorsbyRace/Ethnicity 19
Table1.8.ReadingandMathematicsTestScoresbySES 20
Table1.9.CorrelationsBetweenSESandContinuousFamilyProcessFactors 21
Table1.10.SESbyFamilyProcessFactors–ParentalExpectationsandBeliefs 22
Table1.11.SESbyFamilyProcessFactors–LearningStructure 22
Table1.12.SESbyFamilyProcessFactors–ResourceAvailability 23
Table1.13.SESbyFamilyProcessFactors–HomeAffectiveEnvironment 23
Table1.14.SESbyFamilyProcessFactors–ParentingandDisciplinaryPractices
23
Table1.15.SESbyFamilyProcessFactors–ParentalInvolvement 24
Table1.16.CoefficientsofBaselineandFamilyProcessModelsforReading
Achievement 32
Table1.17.CoefficientsofBaselineandFamilyProcessModelsforMathematics
Achievement 34
Table1.18.CoefficientsofInteractionModels:BlackVs.Non‐Black 37
Table1.19.CoefficientsofInteractionModels:SES 39

x
Table2.1.DescriptiveStatistics:TeacherSRSScalesatFallKindergartenand
SpringFifthGrade 51
Table2.2.DescriptiveStatistics:ContinuousFamilyProcessVariables 52
Table2.3.DescriptiveStatistics:DichotomousFamilyProcessVariables 54
Table2.4.DescriptiveStatistics:Family,Child,andSchoolCharacteristics–
Continuous 55
Table2.5.DescriptiveStatistics:Family,Child,andSchoolCharacteristics–
Dichotomous 56
Table2.6.TeacherSRSScaleScoresbyRace/Ethnicity 57
Table2.7.FamilyProcessFactorsbyRace/Ethnicity 58
Table2.8.TeacherSRSScaleScoresbySES 59
Table2.9.CorrelationsBetweenSESandContinuousFamilyProcessFactors 60
Table2.10.SESbyFamilyProcessFactors–ParentalExpectationsandBeliefs 61
Table2.11.SESbyFamilyProcessFactors–LearningStructure 61
Table2.12.SESbyFamilyProcessFactors–ResourceAvailability 61
Table2.13.SESbyFamilyProcessFactors–HomeAffectiveEnvironment 62
Table2.14.SESbyFamilyProcessFactors–ParentingandDisciplinaryPractices
62
Table2.15.SESbyFamilyProcessFactors–ParentalInvolvement 63
Table2.16.TobitResultsofBaselineandFamilyProcessModels 73
Table2.17.TobitResultsofInteractionModels(BlackVs.Non‐Black/SES) 77

Table3.1.DescriptiveStatistics:TestScoresinMathematicsandScience 95
Table3.2.DescriptiveStatistics:FamilyProcessVariables 96
Table3.3.DescriptiveStatistics:FamilyandSchoolCharacteristics–Continuous
97
Table3.4.DescriptiveStatistics:StudentandSchoolCharacteristics
–

Dichotomous 97
Table3.5.FamilyFactorsbyCountry–LearningStructure 99
Table3.6.FamilyFactorsbyCountry–ResourceAvailability 100
Table3.7.FamilyFactorsbyCountry–ParentalInvolvement(TimeonOut‐of‐
SchoolLessons)andFamilyStatus(SES) 102
Table3.8.CoefficientsofBaselineandFamilyProcessModelsforMathematics
Achievement 103
Table
3.9.CoefficientsofBaselineandFamilyProcessModelsforScience
Achievement 105
Table3.10.CoefficientsofInteractionModels 107


xi
LISTOFFIGURES

Figure1.1.ConceptualModel:HowFamilyandSchoolFactorsInfluence
StudentOutcomes 8

Figure3.1.MathematicsandScienceTestScoresbyCountry 98



xiii
ABSTRACT

Thereisconsiderabledebateabouttherelativeimportanceoffamilyversus
schoolfactorsinproducingacademicandnonacademicstudentoutcomes,and
whetherandhowtheirimpactsvaryacrossdifferentstudentgroups.Inaddition
tocriticallyreviewingandsynthesizingearlierwork,thisstudyextendsthe

literatureby(a)usingtheECLS‐K,aU.S.longitudinaldatasetthatfollowsa
nationallyrepresentativesampleofchildrenfromkindergartenthroughfifth
gradetoexaminetheeffectsoftwotypesoffamilyfactors—familyprocess
variables(specificthingsfamiliesdo)andfamilystatusvariables(whofamilies
are)—onstudents’academicachievementandnonacademicoutcomes;and(b)
usingthePISA2006,across‐countrycross‐se
ctionaldatasetthatassesses
academicachievementof15‐year‐oldstudentsinreading,mathematics,and
scienceliteracytocompareU.S.studentswiththeirpeersin20othercountries
andeconomiesintermsoffamilyfactorsandacademicachievement.Specifically,
hierarchicalmodelsareestimatedtoaccountforthenestedstructureofthe
ECLS‐K
data,andinteractionmodelsareusedtoexaminewhetherandhowthe
relationshipsbetweenfamilyprocessfactorsandstudentoutcomesdifferbyrace
andsocio‐economicstatus(SES).UsingPISA2006,hierarchicallinearmodels
withcountryfixedeffectsareestimatedintheinternationalcomparativeanalysis
ofacademiceffectsoffamilyfactors.

Findingsofthisstudysuggestthatfamilyprocessfactorscanhavesignificant
impactsonbothacademicandnonacademicoutcomes.ResultsoftheU.S.data
indicatethatevenaftercontrollingfordemographicsandschoolinputs,student
achievementwasassociatedwithmultipledimensionsoffamilyprocessfactors
including
parentalexpectationsandbeliefs,learningstructure,resources
availability,homeaffectiveenvironment,parentinganddisciplinarypractices,
andparentalinvolvement.Furthermore,severalfamilyprocessvariables
(includingdoinghomeworkmorefrequently,havinghomeInternetaccess,and
owningacommunitylibrarycard)hadhigherreturnsintermsofstudent
achievementforblackchildrenorchildrenfromlowsocio‐economicfamilies
thanfortheircounterparts.Familyprocessfactorsasawholeholdsomevaluein

explainingnonacademicoutcomes.Resultsoftheinternationalcomparative
analysissuggestthatU.S.studentsdidnotfareaswellastheirpeersinother
countriesandeconomies,andthatfamilyprocessvariables,especially
consideredcollectively,wereimportantfactorsinexplainingstudent
achievementinaninternationalsetting.


xv
EXECUTIVESUMMARY

Thisstudydistinguishestwotypesoffactorfactors—familyprocessvariables
(i.e.,specificthingsfamiliesdo)andfamilystatusvariables(i.e.,whofamilies
are),andexaminestheirrespectiveeffectsonstudentoutcomes.Eachofthe
threechaptersinvestigatesthiscentralresearchthemefromadifferentangle.
UsingaU.S.longitudinaldataset,Chapter1looksattheeffectsonacademic
achievementwhileChapter2focusesonnonacademicoutcomes.Chapter3
examinestheacademiceffectsoffamilyfactorsinaninternationalsetting.While
eachchapterstandsaloneasacompleteresearchpaper,thissummarypullsthe
findingstogetherinanattempttoanswertheoverarchingresearchquestion.

Chapter1Findings
ResultsfromtheanalysisofU.S.datasupportthenotionthatfamilyprocess
factorsareimportantpredictorsofstudentachievement.Familyprocess
variablesexplained21percentofthebetween‐childvariationinreadingscores
and18percentofthebetween‐childvariationinmathematicsscores.Asshown
inTable1,theinclusionofthefamilyprocessvariablesintheregressionmodels
resultedinsmallercoefficientsoffamilystatusvariables(inabsolutevalue),
suggestingthatfamilyprocessvariablescollectivelyexplainagoodportionof
theachievementgapsbyrace,SES,andfamilystructure.Moreover,thenegative
associationbetweenthesingle‐parenthouseholdandstudentachievementwas

nolongersignificantaftercontrollingforfamilyprocessvariables.Thisresult
somewhatmirrorsthefindingsinpreviousliteraturethatfamilystructure
(single‐parentversustwo‐parentfamilies)wasstatisticallyinsignificantafter
controllingforotherfamilyfactorssuchasincome,mother’scharacteristics,and
familyresources(Grissmeretal.,1994).
Despitethesharpdecreaseinmagnitude,
mostofthesefamilystatusvariableswerestillstatisticallysignificantandhad
largereffectsizesthanmanyfamilyprocessvariables.

Table1.Chapter1:FamilyStatusVariablesinBaselineandFamilyProcessModels
Reading Mathematics
FamilyStatusVariables
Baseline FamilyProcess Baseline FamilyProcess
Black‐0.410**‐0.358**‐0.915**‐0.780**
Hispanic‐0.173**‐0.147**‐0.337**‐0.265**
Asian 0.443** 0.369** 0.457** 0.429**
Otherrace‐0.192**‐0.134**‐0.395**‐0.302**
SES 0.526** 0.337** 0.585** 0.404**
Single‐parenthousehold‐0.093**‐0.031‐0.070**‐0.013
Othertypeofhousehold‐0.260**‐0.187**‐0.272**‐0.138
NOTE:EffectSizes.*indicatessignificanceat.05level,**indicatessignificanceat.01level.

xvi

Studentachievementwasfoundtobepositivelyassociatedwithanumberof
familyprocessvariablesincludinghighparentalexpectationsandbeliefs;higher
frequencyofdoinghomework,readingbooks,andusinghomecomputers;
accesstomoreresourcessuchasbooks,newspapers,magazines,dictionaries,
encyclopedia,pocketcalculators,homeInternetavailability,andchild’sown
communitylibrarycard;fewernegativesentimentsfromparentstowards

childrenandchild‐rearing;andparentalinvolvementinschoolevents,regular
communicationwithparentsofchild’speers,andinvolvementinartisticor
culturalactivitiesoutsideofschool.Consistentwithpreviousliterature,student
achievementwasshowntobenegativelyassociatedwithfrequenthelpwith
homework(Milneetal.,1986;ShumowandMiller,2001;HendersonandMapp,
2002).Inaddition,achievementwasalsofoundtobenegativelyrelatedwith
frequentinvolvementofchildreninsports‐relatedactivities.

Althoughstatisticallysignificant,manyofthesefamilyprocessvariableshad
smalleffectsizes,suggestingalackofpracticalimportanceintheirinfluenceover
studentachievement.However,severalvariablesshowedaverageorabove
averageeffectsizes,suggestingbothstatisticalandsubstantiveimportancein
theirrelationshipwithstudentachievement(seeTable2).

Table2.Chapter1:FamilyProcessVariablesofStatisticalandSubstantiveImportance
Reading Mathematics
FamilyProcessVariables
Estimate EffectSize Estimate EffectSize
Degreeexpected 3.643** 0.294** 2.927** 0.311**
Beliefinreadingperformance
1
 13.036** 1.054** N/A N/A
Beliefinmathperformance N/A N/A 11.634** 1.238**
HomeInternetaccess 2.556** 0.207** 2.479** 0.264**
Parentsfeelingchildhardertocare‐4.740**‐0.383**‐3.794**‐0.404**
Frequenthelpwithreadinghomework‐6.128**‐0.495** N/A N/A
Frequenthelpwithmathhomework N/A N/A‐5.722**‐0.609**
NOTE:*indicatessignificanceat.05level,**indicatessignificanceat.01level.

Resultsoftheinteractionmodelsrevealedthatintermsofstudentachievement

inreadingandmathematics,blackchildren,comparedwiththeirnon‐blackpeers,
hadlowerreturnstoanumberoffamilyprocessfactors(suchasownershipof
homecomputers,numberofbooksavailableforchilduseathome,and
involvementinartisticorculturalactivities).Only
child’sownershipofa
communitylibrarycardappearedtohaveahigherreturnforblacksthanfor

1
Therelationshipbetweenparentalbeliefaboutchild’sacademicperformanceandstudent
achievementmayindicatereversecausality.

xvii
theirnon‐blackpeers,withaneffectsizeof0.20forreadingandaneffectsizeof
0.22formathematics.Moreover,childrenwithlowSESbackgroundtendedto
havehigherreturnstosuchfactorsasdoinghomeworkmorefrequently,home
Internetaccess,andchild’sownershipofacommunitylibrarycard.Allthese
effectsizesfortheinteractiontermswithSESweresmall,withanexceptionof
interactiontermbetweenhomeInternetaccessandSES,whichshowedaneffect
sizeof‐0.201forreadingachievement.

Chapter2Findings
Chapter2examinestherelationshipbetweenfamilyfactorsandnonacademic
outcomes,andresultsindicatethatfamilyprocessfactorscollectivelyare
importantpredictorsofnonacademicoutcomes.AsshowninTable3,
controllingforfamilyprocessfactorsreducedthemagnitudeoftheeffectsofSES
andfamilystructurealthoughmostcoefficientswerestillstatisticallysignificant.
Thisreductionincoefficientmagnitudesuggeststhatwhilefamilystatusfactors
areimportant,betterfamilyprocessexplainsagoodportionofthedifferencesin
outcomesbySESandfamilystructure.However,therewasnotmuchdifference
intheeffectsofracebetweenthebaselineandfamilyprocessmodels.


Table3.Chapter2:FamilyStatusVariablesinBaselineandFamilyProcessModels
SES Single‐ParentHH OtherTypeHH
NonacademicOutcomes
Baseline
Family
Process Baseline
Family
Process Baseline
Family
Process
Approachestolearning 0.182** 0.123**‐0.093**‐0.076**‐0.261**‐0.253**
Self‐control 0.129** 0.097**‐0.091**‐0.083**‐0.186*‐0.152
Interpersonalskills 0.145** 0.106**‐0.096**‐0.081**‐0.254**‐0.218*
Externalizingproblembehaviors‐0.093**‐0.070** 0.090** 0.084**0.158*0.141
Internalizingproblembehaviors‐0.124**‐0.083** 0.164** 0.157** 0.261** 0.251**
NOTE:Effectsizes.*indicatessignificanceat.05level,**indicatessignificanceat.01level.HH
standsforhousehold.


Whilemanyfamilyprocessfactorswerestatisticallyinsignificant,several
variableswerefoundtobesignificantlyassociatedwithmultipledimensionsof
nonacademicoutcomesevenaftercontrollingfordemographicsandschool
inputs.Higherparentalexpectationswasassociatedwithallfivenonacademic
outcomesincludinghigherratingsinapproachestolearning,self‐control,and
interpersonalskills,andfewerinternalizingandexternalizingproblembehaviors.
Greater
parentalinvolvementinschoolactivitieswascorrelatedwithhigher
ratingsinapproachestolearning,self‐control,andinterpersonalskills,andfewer
internalizingproblembehaviors.Moreover,lessfrequentuseofspankingwas

correlatedwithhigherratingsinapproachestolearning,self‐control, and

xviii
interpersonalskills,andfewerexternalizingproblembehaviors.Although
statisticallysignificant,mostofthesevariablesshowedsmalleffectsizes.

Interactionmodelsshowedthatonlyseveralvariableswerestatistically
significantinboththemaineffectsandinteractiontermsandthatmostofthese
significantvariablesindicatedlowerreturnstononacademicoutcomesforblack
orlowSESchildrenthanfortheircounterparts.Onevariable,child’sownership
ofacommunitylibrarycard,showedasignificantlyhigherreturnintermsof
self‐controlforlowSESchildren,buttheeffectsizewassmall.

Chapter3Findings
Resultsfromtheanalysisofacross‐countrydatasetareconsistentwithfindings
basedontheU.S.datainChapter1.AsshowninTable4,theeffectsofSESon
studentachievementreducedbyonethirdaftercontrollingforfamilyprocess
factors,suggestingtheimportanceoffamilyprocessfactorsinexplaining
achievementcollectively.However,SESremainedstatisticallysignificantinthe
familyprocessmodels.

Table4.Chapter3:FamilyStatusVariables(SES)inBaselineandFamilyProcessModels
Mathematics Science
FamilyStatusVariables
Baseline FamilyProcess Baseline FamilyProcess
SES 0.302** 0.186** 0.290** 0.170**
NOTE:EffectSizes.*indicatessignificanceat.05level,**indicatessignificanceat.01level.

Severalfamilyprocessvariablesappearedtobesignificantlyassociatedwith
achievementevenaftercontrollingfordemographics,schoolinputs,andcountry

fixedeffects.Betterperformanceinmathematicsandsciencewasassociatedwith
ownershipofhomecomputers,homeInternetaccess,andnumberofbooksat
home.Studentswhoreportedspendingnotimeonhomeworkorself‐study
tendedtoscorelower
inbothsubjectsthanthosewhoreportedspendingmore
thanzeroandlessthanfourhoursperweek.Performanceandtimespenton
attendingout‐of‐schoollessonswereinverselyrelated,suggestingthepossibility
thatlessablestudentsrequiredmoreoutsidehelp.AsshowninTable5,several
familyprocessvariablesshowedaverageoraboveaverageeffectsizes.

Table5.Chapter3:FamilyProcessVariablesofStatisticalandSubstantiveImportance
Mathematics Science
FamilyProcessVariables
Estimate EffectSize Estimate EffectSize
Timeonhomework/studying:never‐27.720**‐0.307**‐25.248**‐0.259**
Numberofbooksathome:0‐25books‐20.899**‐0.232**‐26.075**‐0.267**
Numberofbooksathome:101ormore 21.540** 0.239** 23.091** 0.237**

xix
Timeonout‐of‐schoollessons:never 23.609** 0.262** 21.584** 0.221**
Timeonout‐of‐schoollessons:frequent‐13.988**‐0.155**‐25.279**‐0.259**
NOTE:*indicatessignificanceat.05level,**indicatessignificanceat.01level.

TheinternationalcomparisonofstudentachievementindicatesthatU.S.students
scoredsignificantlybelowtheinternationalaverageinbothmathematicsand
science,whichareconsistentwithfindingsfromexistingliterature(Baldietal.,
2007;Juvonenetal.,2004;Lemkeetal.,2004;Milleretal.,2009;Provasnik,
Gonzales,andMiller,2009).U.S.studentsrankedaboveonlyonecountryin
mathematicsandthreeothercountriesinscience.Aftercontrollingforstudent,
family,andschoolfactors,U.S.studentsstillshowedsignificantlyloweraverage

scoresthan17jurisdictionsinmathematicsand16jurisdictionsinscience.

Severalfamilyprocessvariablesshoweddifferentialeffectsonstudent
achievementbetweentheU.S.andtheothertwocountrygroups(Western
countriesandEastAsianeconomies),withmostofthesedifferentialeffects
existingbetweentheU.S.andEastAsianeconomies.

ConclusionsandPolicyImplications
Takentogether,findingsofthisstudysuggestthatfamilyprocessfactorscan
havesignificantimpactsonbothacademicandnonacademicoutcomes.When
consideredcollectively,familyprocessvariablesappearedtobeimportant
factorsinexplainingstudentoutcomes.Oncecontrollingforfamilyprocess
factors,coefficientsofthefamilystatusvariablesbecamesmallerinmagnitude.
Forexample,theblack‐whiteachievementgapreducedby13percentforreading
and15percentformathematicsbasedontheU.S.data.Theinternationaldata
showedthattheachievementgapbySESreducedbyapproximatelyonethird
aftercontrollingforfamilyprocessvariables.Individually,manyfamilyprocess
variablesweresignificantlyassociatedwithstudentachievementandsomewere
associatedwithnonacademicoutcomes,althoughmosthadsmalleffectsizes.

Althoughmostfamilystatusvariablesremainedtobestatisticallysignificantand
haverelativelylargeeffectsizesevenaftercontrollingforfamilyprocessfactors,
itisimperativetounderstandthatfamilystatusfactorsareunchangeable
characteristicsoffamilies.Incontrast,familyprocessfactorsarealterablefeatures
thatcanbeinfluencedthroughprogramsdesignedtoincreaseparental
awarenessoftheimportanceofeducation,toimproveparentingskills,andto
helplow‐incomefamiliesgainaccesstohomeandcommunityresourcesfor
educationalpurposes,amongotherthings.Asthisstudypointsoutthe
importanceoffamilyprocessfactorsinexplainingstudentoutcomesand

xx
achievementgaps,policymakersmayconsiderinvestinginfamilyprocessfactors
asonepromisingalternativeforimprovingeducationaloutcomes.

Despitethepromisingfindings,therearemanyunansweredquestionswith
respecttothedevelopmentofeffectivepolicyinterventions.Here,twoissuesare
raisedintermsofthepolicydesign.First,whilemanyfamilyprocessvariables
werefoundtobesignificantlyassociatedwithstudentoutcomes,itisunclear
whataretheunderlyingcausesthatdrivetheobservedrelationships.Inmost
cases,theindividualfamilyprocessvariablemeasuredinthisstudyinandof
itselfprobablydoesnotcausepositiveresults,andthereismoretowhateach
variableimplies.Forexample,child’sownershipofacommunitylibrarycard
wassignificantlyassociatedwithbothacademicachievementandnonacademic
outcomes,anditsinteractiontermswithrace(blackversusnon‐black)andSES
wereshowntobestatisticallysignificantaswell.However,givingout
communitylibrarycardstochildrenisunlikelytohavemuchaneffecton
improvingstudentoutcomes.Instead,theownershipofcommunitylibrary
cardscanimplymultipleparentalbehaviorssuchasparentalencouragementof
libraryvisits,parentalinvolvementingettingacard,goingtothelibrarytogether,
andsignalingtheenjoymentofreading.Infact,previousliteraturefound
evidencesuggestingthatparentalinvolvementcontributedtobetterstudent
outcomesbutsuchinvolvementappearedtobe“amanifestationofparental
enthusiasmandpositiveparentingstyle”(ZellmanandWaterman,1998,p.370).
Thus,interventionprogramsmightbemoreeffectiveiftheyfocusonsuch
underlyingconstructs.

Asecondissueistowhatextenttheinterventionprogramsshouldfocuson
singlefactorsversussubgroupsoffactors.Forexample,theownershipof
communitylibrarycardsandparentalinvolvementineducationalactivitiesmay
beanissueofparents’availabilityandwillingnesstogetinvolved.Otherfamily

processvariablessuchasownershipofhomecomputersforchild’suseandhome
Internetaccessmayconcernmonetaryresources.Yetothers,suchasparental
expectationsaboutchild’seducationalattai
nmentanddiscipline,maybemore
aboutparentalattitudesandparentingskills.Eachimpliesadifferentwayof
approachingfromapolicyperspective.Moreover,itisunclearwhether
investinginoneaspectofthefactorscanleadtospuriouseffectsonotherfactors.
Forexample,itispossiblethataninterventionprogramaimingatpromoting
positiveparentingskillsandattitudestowardseducationmightincreaseparents’
willingnesstobeinvolvedintheirchildren’seducation.Thus,parentswho
otherwisewouldnothavetimemightmakeadjustmentstofindtimefortheir

xxi
children.Ascurrentresearchfindingsdonotprovideclear‐cutanswerstothese
issues,furtherresearchisneededforeffectivepolicymakinginthisregard.

Futureresearchshouldalsoexaminetheeffectsofexistingparentingprograms
onchangingparentalbehaviorsandstudentoutcomes,andwhetherandto
whichextenttheeffectsonstudentoutcomesaremediatedthroughchangesin
parentalbehaviors.Previousresearchrevealedthatsomeinterventionprograms
(suchascenter‐basedprogramswithaparentingcomponent)appearedtobe
effectiveinimprovingparentingskillsaswellaschildren’scognitiveoutcomes,
andthatsomeoftheprogrameffectsonchildrenweremediatedthrougheffects
onparents(Brooks‐GunnandMarkman,2005;Loveetal.,2002;Reynolds,1994).
However,theseprogramsaretypicallydesignedforat‐riskchildrenintheirearly
yearsandthedevelopmentofparentingskillsisonlyonecomponentofthe
intervention.Recognizingtheimportanceofparentalinvolvementforschool‐age
children,severalurbanschooldistricts,inrecentyears,started“parent
universities”designedtogetparentsmoreinvolvedintheirchildren’s
education.

2
Astheseparentprogramsarestillintheirinfancy,theeffectiveness
ofsuchprogramsarelargelyunclearandremainasaninterestingtopicforfuture
research.


2
Establishedin2005,Miami‐Dade’sParentAcademyoffersmorethan100workshopsthathave
benefitedover120,000participants.ParentUniversitiesinPhiladelphiaandBostonwere
establishedin2009andofferaround30workshops(Cruz,2009).


1
CHAPTER1.FAMILYFACTORSANDSTUDENTACHIEVEMENT:
THECASEOFU.S.

Thereisconsiderabledebateabouttherelativeimportanceoffamilyversus
schoolfactorsinproducingstudentachievement,andwhetherandhowtheir
impactsvaryacrossdifferentstudentgroups.Whilestudieshaveshownthe
importanceoffamilyfactorsinpromotingstudentachievement,decadesof
educationreforminthiscountryhavelargelyfocusedonraisingschooland
teachereffectiveness.Aprimaryreasonforthislimitedfocusliesinthebelief
thatfamilyfactorssuchasraceandethnicity,socio‐economicstatus(SES),
householdincome,andparentaleducationcannotbeeasilyinfluencedbypolicy
interventions.However,childrenspendalargeportionoftheirtimeathome
andareinevitablyinfluencedbytheirfamiliesthroughparentalbeliefs,
expectations,behaviors,andparent‐childinteractions—factorsthatmightbe
amenabletochangewithappropriateinterventions.

Thereisagrowingbodyofliteraturethatdistinguishesalterablefamilyprocess

factorsfromunchangeablefamilystatusfactorsintermsoftheirinfluencesover
academicoutcomes(Christenson,2002;HendersonandBerla,1994;Fanand
Chen,2001).Empiricalfindingsontherelationshipbetweenfamilyprocess
factorsandstudentachievementaregenerallyinconclusive.Whilesomestudies
foundpositiveevidence(BradleyandCaldwell,1984;Cohen,1987;Derrick‐
Lewis,2001;EntwisleandHayduck,1988;Estradaetal.,1987;Hessetal.,1984;
Keithetal.,1993;McWayneetal.,2004;ShumowandMiller,2001;Singhetal.,
1995;StevensonandBaker,1987;Thompson,Alexander,andEntwisle,1988;
Williams,1998),othersreportedinsignificantorevennegativeeffects(Catsambis,
1998;Desimone,1999;FanandChen,2001;Gaddy,1986;Gortmakeretal.,1990;
Hancox,Milne,andPoulton,2005;HendersonandMapp,2002;Keithetal.,1986;
Milneetal.,1986;Sui‐ChuandWillms,1996;ZimmermanandChristakis,2005).

Thischapterusesanationallongitudinaldatasettoexaminehowsixtypesof
familyprocessfactors(i.e.,parentalexpectationsandbeliefs,learningstructure,
resourceavailability,homeaffectiveenvironment,parentinganddisciplinary
practices,andparentalinvolvement)arerelatedtotheacademicachievementof
youngchildren.Itextendspreviousliteraturebyanalyzingacomprehensiveset
offamilyprocessvariablesandexaminingwhethertherelationshipbetween
thesevariablesandachievementdiffersbyraceandSES.Specifically,this
chapteraddressesthefollowingresearchquestions: