The Effects of Parental Self-Efficacy on Parental Involvement and on 
Pre-School Aged Children?s Readiness for the Transition to Kindergarten 
 
by 
 
Victoria Theodille 
  
 
 
 
A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of 
Auburn University 
in partial fulfillment of the 
requirements for the Degree of 
Master of Science 
 
Auburn, Alabama 
May 6, 2013 
 
 
 
 
Keywords: parental self-efficacy, involvement, kindergarteners, transition, social capital 
 
 
Copyright 2013 by Victoria Theodille 
 
 
Approved by 
 
Kristen Bub, Chair, Assistant Professor of Human Development and Family Studies 
Ellen Abell, Associate Professor of Human Development and Family Studies 
Jacquelyn Mize, Professor of Human Development and Family Studies 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ii 
  
Abstract 
 
 Using data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study Kindergarten Class of 1998-99 
(ECLS-K), demographic and parental predictors of parental self-efficacy were identified among 
parents with children transitioning to kindergarten. In addition, the mediating role that parental 
involvement in the home and/or school context may play in the association between parental 
self-efficacy and children?s readiness for kindergarten was examined. Several findings were 
noteworthy. First, analyses indicated that numerous demographic and parental characteristics 
independently predicted parental self-efficacy. When the indicators are examined all together, 
however, only two remained statistically significant (parent education and marital status). 
Second, although parental involvement in the home and school were both significantly 
associated with kindergarten outcomes, only parental involvement at home was found to mediate 
the effects of parental self-efficacy on kindergarten outcomes. Implications of the 
aforementioned findings with respect to interventions to increase parental self-efficacy and 
involvement among parents with children transitioning to kindergarten are discussed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
iii 
  
Acknowledgements 
 
  I would like to sincerely thank my major professor, Dr. Kristen Bub, for her patience, 
invaluable feedback, and continual encouragement. I didn?t always believe in myself but you 
always did. Thanks are also due to my committee members, Dr. Jacquelyn Mize and Dr. Ellen 
Abell, for their guidance and support throughout the development of this thesis. Your kind words 
were always appreciated and remain with me. A special thank you goes to my #1 fan, my 
mother, Anastasia. WE made it, Momma! Please know that I could have never gotten here 
without you! Thank you to my Grams for always believing in me. I love you! Gratitude is 
extended to my aunt, Cynthia, for your never-ending support. You are truly an angel here on 
Earth! ?Love you more!? To my fianc?e, Taurean, I thank you for making the big move with me 
from NJ to AL. It definitely wasn?t easy but nothing that is worthwhile ever is. ?E.O.T?. Last but 
definitely not least, an extra special thank you to my motivation, my son, Jaiden Xavier. Luvey, I 
thank you for teaching me how to be strong. I love you.  
I would like to dedicate this thesis to my uncle, Marcus Ryan Laurent, who left us far too 
soon on December 26, 2011. A wiser man never walked the Earth! Your words of 
encouragement will remain with me forever. Continue to Rest In Peace, Soul Rebal. 
 
 
 
iv 
  
Table of Contents 
 
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................ii  
 
Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................iii 
 
List of Tables..............................................................................................................................vii  
 
List of Figures...........................................................................................................................viii  
 
Introduction..................................................................................................................................1 
 
Literature Review.........................................................................................................................3 
 
School Readiness & Academic Achievement..................................................................3 
 
Parental Involvement........................................................................................................6 
 
Parents? Self-Efficacy.....................................................................................................13 
 
Social Capital???????????????????????????....18 
  
The Present Study...........................................................................................................19 
 
Method........................................................................................................................................22 
 
 Sample.............................................................................................................................22 
 
Procedure.........................................................................................................................23 
 
Measures..........................................................................................................................25 
 
Outcome Variables..........................................................................................................25 
 
Predictors Variables????........................................................................................28 
  
Control Variables............................................................................................................31 
v 
  
Results.......................................................................................................................................33  
  
Analytic Strategy..........................................................................................................33 
 
Exploratory Analyses..???????????????????????...33 
 
Predictive Analyses?????????????????????????34 
 
Preliminary Analyses....................................................................................................35 
 
Measurement Models??????????????????????.??38 
 
Research Question 1.....................................................................................................41 
 
Research Question 2.....................................................................................................43  
 
Discussion.................................................................................................................................47 
 
Limitations and Future Directions................................................................................56 
 
Implications..................................................................................................................58 
 
References.................................................................................................................................60 
 
Appendices................................................................................................................................65 
 
Appendix A...................................................................................................................65 
 
Appendix B...................................................................................................................71 
 
 
 
 
 
 
vi 
  
List of Tables 
 
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for All Study Variables............................................................ 65 
 
Table 2. Correlations for All Study Variables???????????.????..??...68 
Table 3. Regression Model for Predictors of Parental Self-Efficacy??.??????...?69 
Table 4. Regression Model for Mediation???????????.????????...70 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
vii 
  
List of Figures 
 
Figure 1. Fitted Path Diagram for Parental Self-Efficacy Measurement Model?????...71 
Figure 2. Fitted Path Diagram for Parent Involvement at Home Measurement Model?.??72 
 
Figure 3. Fitted Path Diagram for Parent Involvement at School Measurement Model??....73 
 
Figure 4. Fitted Path Diagram for Kindergarten Outcomes Measurement Model??.?...?.74 
 
Figure 5. Hypothesized Regression Model (Predictors of Parental Self-Efficacy)????....75 
Figure 6.1. Hypothesized Direct Effect Model of Parental Self-Efficacy on Kindergarten 
Outcomes?????????????????????????????..???....76 
Figure 6.2. Hypothesized Direct Effect Model of Parental Involvement at Home and at School on 
Kindergarten Outcomes???????????????????????..????..77 
Figure 6.3. Hypothesized Direct Effect Model of Parental Self-Efficacy on Parental Involvement 
at Home and at School????????????????????????.???......78 
Figure 6.4. Hypothesized Mediation Model????????????????.??........79 
 
 
 
1 
  
 
 
 
 
Introduction 
In 1989, the first National Education Summit was held between President Bush and U.S 
governors leading to the development of the National Education Goals Panel [NEGP] based on a 
need to improve the quality of education in America (NEGP, 1999). The formation of this panel 
brought forth eight goals to be met by the year 2000. The first of these goals (the only one 
discussed in this paper as it is most relevant to the current study) stated that all children in 
America would start school ?ready to learn? (NEGP, 1999). That is, children would arrive in 
kindergarten able to recognize all letters of the alphabet, be able to count to 20 or higher, write 
their own name, and read or pretend to read storybooks. They would also be socially skilled. 
School readiness plays a key role in young children?s future academic success (Webster-Stratton, 
Reid, & Stoolmiller, 2009). Research suggests that children who enter school with a basic 
knowledge of reading and math are more likely than their peers to experience later academic 
success (Hair, Halle, Terry-Humen, Lavelle, & Calkins, 2006). Conversely, lack of school 
readiness is associated with early academic failure, misbehavior, and strongly predicts 
criminality and difficulties obtaining employment (Pelletier & Brent, 2002).  
Despite evidence demonstrating the importance of parent involvement, teachers report 
that getting and keeping parents involved is difficult (Eccles & Harold, 1993). Thus, 
understanding barriers to parental involvement is critical.  Parental self-efficacy has been 
identified as one of those barriers (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995). Parents who feel 
2 
  
doubtful about their ability to foster their child?s academic development are less likely to take a 
proactive stance in this domain of development (Bandura et al., 1996). Conversely, when parents 
believe that they are able to effectively influence their children?s academic development, they are 
more willing to become involved in their child?s academic development (Pelletier & Brent, 
2002). There is a need to more fully understand the role that parental self-efficacy plays in 
school readiness. That is, are the effects direct (i.e., parental self-efficacy predicts children?s 
social and academic outcomes) or indirect through parental involvement (i.e., parental self-
efficacy predicts parental involvement, which in turn predicts children?s social and academic 
outcomes). Thus, two goals of the proposed project are to investigate demographic and parental 
characteristics that predict parental self-efficacy among parents of children transitioning to 
kindergarten as well as to examine the mediating role that parental involvement plays in the 
association between parental self-efficacy and school readiness.  
This study used longitudinal data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-
Kindergarten Class of 1998 ? 99 to examine seven possible predictors of parental self-efficacy 
and to determine if parental involvement in the home and school mediated the relationship 
between parental self-efficacy and school readiness. Research questions were addressed using 
measurement and regression models to test for significant associations between the constructs of 
interest.  
 
 
 
 
 
3 
  
 
 
 
Literature Review 
 School Readiness and Academic Achievement 
Despite the NEGP goal that all children start school ready to learn, there has been an 
ongoing debate concerning what it really means to be ready to learn. In most states, age is used 
to determine when children are ready to enter formal schooling, with five being the average age 
of entry (Ackerman & Barnett, 2005). Thus, kindergarten would seem to be a logical point at 
which to assess ?school readiness?. Interestingly, the NEGP (1999) does not focus on age 
specifically but instead describes school readiness as consisting of five elements: the child?s 
health and physical well being and motor development (e.g., health status, growth, and 
disability), emotional and social competence (e.g., turn-taking, cooperation, empathy, and the 
ability to express one?s own emotions ), approaches to learning (e.g., enthusiasm, curiosity, 
temperament, culture, and values), communicative skills (e.g., listening, speaking, vocabulary, 
and literacy skills ), and cognition and general knowledge (e.g., sound-letter association, spatial 
relations, and number concepts ). In the U.S. Census Bureau?s statistical abstract (2012), school 
readiness is broken down into four very specific developmental skills: (1) the ability to recognize 
all letters of the alphabet, (2) the ability to count to 20 or higher, (3) the ability to write own 
name, and (4) reading or pretending to read storybooks. It is worth noting that unlike the NEGP, 
the U.S. Census Bureau did not include social or physical well-being indicators in their definition 
of school readiness, nor do they note age as an indicator of readiness, providing further evidence 
that there is no consensus on what it means to be ?ready to learn?. Although teachers echo the 
4 
  
importance of the skills identified by the U.S. Census Bureau for a successful transition to 
kindergarten, they also highlight the critical role that social and emotional skills (e.g., ability to 
interact with peers, ability to regulate emotions, limited behavior problems, etc.) play in early 
learning. In fact, teachers report that in addition to lack of academic skills, social and behavioral 
problems are one of the primary reasons children experience difficulty during the transition to 
kindergarten. Rimm-Kaufman, Pianta, and Cox (2000) conducted a study using a large, national 
sample of 3,595 teachers in which they examined the teachers? judgments `of common types of 
problems children present upon entering kindergarten. Thirty-six percent (36%) of the teachers 
reported that about half of their class or more lacked academic skills. Twenty percent (20%) 
reported that about half or more of their class had problems with social skills. Thus, while not all 
definitions of school readiness include social and emotional competencies, their central 
importance to teachers as well as their inclusion in the NEGP elements led me to conclude they 
are a critical element of school readiness and will be included in the current study as one index of 
school readiness at the transition to kindergarten. 
Although there is no clear consensus on what constitutes school readiness, there is 
considerable evidence to support its importance in the early academic development of young 
children as well as their later school success (Entwisle & Alexander, 1990; La Paro & Pianta, 
2000; Pelletier & Brent, 2002; Wright, Diener, & Kay, 2000). Specifically, children with poor 
academic and attention skills, problem behavior, and difficulty working in groups tend to 
struggle more as they enter kindergarten than do their peers, supporting the notion that school 
readiness may not just be a function of age (Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2000). Early cognitive and 
language development have been noted as key predictors of future grades, test scores, and grade 
retention (Hair et al., 2006; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). Research suggests that a lack of 
5 
  
mastery of certain skills or abilities that permit a child to function successfully in a school 
setting, both academically and socially, is also associated with early academic failure, 
misbehavior, and strongly predicts criminality and difficulties obtaining employment (Pelletier & 
Brent, 2002). Reynolds, Temple, Robertson, and Mann (2001) conducted a study in which they 
examined the long-term effects of participation in an early childhood intervention. The authors 
used data from the Chicago Longitudinal Study gathered between preschool and adulthood and 
discovered that early academic development was associated with lower rates of special education 
and grade retention and higher rates of school completion, particularly for males.  
 Due to the unique ways in which children develop (Pelletier & Brent, 2002), differences 
in their pre-kindergarten experiences in the home and in pre-school, and widely varying skills, 
knowledge, and levels of preparedness for school, researchers argue that readiness ultimately 
depends on two things: (1) whether or not parents believe their child is mature enough for the 
demands of a formal school setting and (2) the teachers perception of the child?s readiness 
(Ackerman & Barnett, 2005). Indeed, readiness for school is a developmental milestone that 
requires not only the child to adapt to a formal school environment but the parent as well 
(Pelletier & Brent, 2002). Parents who are ready for the transition tend to become more 
educationally involved and conduct activities at home and in early childhood settings to directly 
and indirectly support their children?s transition to a formal school environment (Kreider, 2002). 
Parents are the first and most important teacher in children?s lives and they have the potential to 
provide experiences that foster life skills, abilities, and attitudes that set the stage for school 
readiness and ultimately underlie school success (Pelletier & Brent, 2002). Thus, it is critical that 
we understand why some parents? are more ?prepared? to adapt to the formal school 
6 
  
environment, for example by becoming involved in their child?s leaning at home and at school, 
than others.  
Parental Involvement 
According to Pelletier and Brent (2002), parents are a child's first and most important 
teachers, as they are in a position to provide a multitude of experiences that encourage the 
learning of life skills that will prepare their children for later success. Hyson (1991) refers to 
parents as ?developmental general contractors? who appoint some tasks to others but have the 
most control over the developmental process of learning. Although the school setting is highly 
influential on young children?s academic development, much of early learning is also dependent 
on the home environment provided by the parent (Hair et al., 2006; McWayne, Hampton, 
Fantuzzo, Cohen, & Sekino, 2004). In fact, some teachers believe that they can only be effective 
if they obtain parental assistance on learning activities at home (Epstein, 1986). Epstein (1986) 
conducted a study in which she explored teachers? practices of getting parent?s involved both in 
and outside of the classroom. Teachers who had been identified by the school principal as leaders 
in parent involvement suggest that parents do learning activities at home with the child including 
reading aloud to the child, listening to the child read, playing games that help the child learn, and 
using things at home to help the child learn. These activities prove to be very useful for the 
child?s academic achievement. Parental involvement in the school is equally important. Porter-
DeCusati and Johnson (2004) conducted a study in which they investigated the effects of parent 
involvement in the classroom on the literacy performance of 56 kindergarten children over five 
months. The children were randomly assigned to either the treatment condition (parent input) or 
the comparison condition (no parent input). The authors discovered that the children in the 
7 
  
treatment group outperformed those in the comparison group on word recognition as evidenced 
by post test scores. Clearly it is crucial that parents find ways to become involved in both 
contexts.  
As is the case with school readiness, there is no clear or consistent operational definition 
of parental involvement (Fan, 2001; Fan & Chen, 2001). The term has been used to describe a 
host of parental behaviors, patterns, and practices such as parent?s aspirations for their child?s 
academic achievement, education-related rules in the home, and participation in school activities 
(Fan & Chen, 2001; Kohl, Lengua, & McMahon, 2000). Hill and Tyson (2009) describe it as 
parents? interactions with both their child (e.g., engaging in educational activities at home) and 
the child?s school (e.g., volunteering or involvement in school governance) to promote academic 
success. Similarly, Fishel and Ramirez (2005) define parental involvement as the participation of 
significant caregivers in the educational process of their children with the intentions of 
promoting academic and social well-being.  
Although these definitions give us some sense of what parental involvement might look 
like, they are quite broad. Grolnick et al. (1997) provided a more specific definition of parental 
involvement. They suggested that parental involvement was the dedication of resources by the 
parent to the academic development of the child within one of three types of domains: (1) 
behavior, or parent participation in parent-teacher meetings and other school activities, (2) 
cognitive-intellectual, or exposing the child to stimulating environments, and (3) personal, or the 
parent?s awareness of where the child is pertaining to their academic development. The authors 
found that children whose mothers had high levels of behavioral and cognitive involvement were 
more likely to feel competent in school. Epstein (1995) proposed a framework that included six 
different types of involvement including (1) parenting: supporting, nurturing, and rearing the 
8 
  
child (by providing a secure and loving environment in which a child can focus on learning both 
at home and at school); (2) school-to-home and home-to-school communication: relating with 
and reviewing student?s progress with school staff; (3) volunteering: providing assistance at 
child?s school (i.e., fundraisers, chaperoning, etc.); (4) learning at home: managing, recognizing, 
and rewarding the child; (5) decision making: participation in organizations such as PTA/PTO;  
and (6) collaborating with the community: sharing, giving, and encouraging partnerships with 
community resources and services. The specificity of Grolnick et al.?s definition and Epstein?s 
framework of parental involvement provide an excellent framework in which to investigate how 
parental involvement might be related to children?s school readiness as they transition to 
kindergarten. More specifically, for the current study, I identified a set of behavioral (e.g., 
contact child?s school, attend school or class event, acted as volunteer) and cognitive-intellectual 
(e.g., visited a library, visited a art gallery, museum, or historical site, visited a zoo, aquarium, or 
petting farm) factors that the literature suggests are particularly salient indicators of parental 
involvement in the home or school settings and examined their effects on school readiness. 
These indicators were divided into factors that best reflected involvement in the home or in the 
school. Please see the measures section for more details.    
Parental involvement and child outcomes. Regardless of how parental involvement is 
defined, there is evidence supporting the positive relationship between active parent involvement 
in the home and school context and successful cognitive and academic achievement for all grade 
levels (Barnard, 2004; Eccles & Harold, 1993; Grolnick et al., 1997; McWayne et al., 2004; 
Pelletier & Brent, 2002;). McWayne et al. (2004) conducted a study in which they investigated 
the relationship between parental involvement and children?s social and academic competencies 
in a sample of 307 low-income, ethnic minority kindergarteners and their parents. Parental 
9 
  
involvement was measured using a 40 item self-report scale that assessed three reliable parent 
involvement dimensions: (1) supportive home learning environment characterized by parent 
activities and behaviors that promote learning at home and reinforces learning that occurs during 
the child?s school day, (2) direct school contact comprised of items that described parents? direct 
involvement in school-based activities, and (3) inhibited involvement barriers to parent 
involvement on their children?s education such as time constraints and competing 
responsibilities. The authors discovered that parent?s provision of a supportive and stimulating 
home environment and direct contact with the child?s school were significantly related to 
children?s social and academic functioning. The children of involved parents displayed higher 
levels of academic and social functioning in both the home and school environment in 
comparison to children whose parents were less involved.  Barnard (2004) obtained similar 
findings when she investigated the relationship between parental involvement, defined broadly as 
involvement at home and school, and academic success in high school. Her sample consisted of 
1,165 children from the Chicago Longitudinal Study (CLS) who were growing up in poverty. 
Based on teacher and parent ratings of parents? school involvement and parent?s ratings of their 
home involvement, the author concluded that parental involvement in elementary school 
significantly predicted lower school dropout rates, increased rates of high school completion, and 
more years of school completed overall. Mendez (2010) conducted a study in which she explored 
the effects of an intervention designed to increase parental involvement, defined as a variety of 
behaviors (engagement in intervention program) and attitudes (level of satisfaction with 
intervention program) that families may exhibit that contribute to a child?s school success, on 
school readiness. Her sample included 288 predominantly African American families. The 
results showed that school readiness outcomes, including language development, letter-word 
10 
  
identification, and letter knowledge, were significantly predicted by parental involvement such 
that families with high participation in the program had children with higher levels of school 
readiness abilities. Children whose parents had high levels of participation in the program and a 
strong relationship with the child?s teacher, displayed stronger literacy and social competence 
skills in comparison to children who did not participate in the program. Similarly, in an 
evaluation of the Incredible Years Training Series, a program for teachers designed to promote 
school readiness and develop positive parent-teacher relationships, Webster-Stratton et al. (2008) 
discovered that parent involvement (e.g. reading newsletters, assisting with homework activities, 
etc.) and the ability to work collaboratively with teachers were important predictors of children?s 
school success.  In general, the research suggests that parental involvement, defined in many 
different ways and marked by a wide range of activities, at all grade levels is critical for future 
academic success. 
Although the importance of parental involvement is well-established, teachers report 
struggling to get parents involved (Eccles & Harold, 1993). Research has been conducted to 
determine how and why parents participate in their child?s academic success. It has been found 
that level of parent involvement (i.e., how involved a parent becomes in their child?s education) 
can be dependent on parental self-efficacy (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995). Parents who feel 
confident in their ability to provide their child with efficient academic guidance may be more 
likely to be involved in both the home and school environment. In contrast, parents who do not 
feel as though their contribution will be beneficial to their child?s academic success may not be 
as involved in the home learning environment and even less likely to be involved in the school 
environment (Bandura, 1997). According to Waanders et al. (2007) parents often believe that 
their child?s education is the sole responsibility of the teacher and therefore do not become 
11 
  
involved in educational activities because they view the teacher as the ?experts? in education. 
Similarly, Bandura et al. (1996) reported that parents are not very likely to intrude on learning 
activities within the school context. 
Family and demographic differences. Certain family and demographic factors have also 
been identified as predictors of parent involvement (Kohl, Lengua, & McMahon, 2000). Lower 
SES parents are generally less involved in their children?s schooling in comparison to parents 
who are middle or high SES (Kohl et al., 2000; Waanders et al., 2007). Research suggests that 
single parents tend to be less involved in the academic development of their children than 
married parents (Grolnick et al., 1997; Waanders et al., 2007). In addition, parental education 
may also affect how involved parents become in their own children?s education (Grolnick et al., 
1997; Kohl et al., 2000; Machida et al., 2002). Parents who have higher levels of education are 
more likely to be involved in their children?s learning than are parents with low levels of 
education (Grolnick et al., 1997; Kohl et al., 2000; Machida et al., 2002). Kohl et al. (2000) 
conducted a study in which they explored the relationship between parental involvement in 
school and family and demographic risk factors. The authors examined the strengths and 
weaknesses of parental involvement models used by other researchers and came up with three 
common dimensions of parental involvement which they used in their own model: parent-teacher 
contact to help monitor the child?s progress, parent involvement in school activities and parent 
involvement directly with the child at home. They concluded that parental education was 
significantly related to parental involvement such that parents with a high education level are 
more aware of the importance of being involved in their child?s own academic involvement. 
Contrastingly, parents who obtained less education did not feel confident that they possessed the 
12 
  
skills to foster their child?s academic development and thereby avoided becoming involved in 
their child?s educational development.  
Clearly, not all parents feel comfortable being involved in their child?s education 
(Pelletier & Brent, 2002). According to Bandura et al. (1997), a parent?s decision to become 
involved in their child?s academic development is partly based on their beliefs of how their 
efforts may impact their child?s outcomes. Thus, understanding why parents might not feel 
confident in their abilities to effectively foster their young child?s academic development is 
critical. This is especially true for very young children because we know little about parental 
self-efficacy at the transition to kindergarten. 
Parental Self-Efficacy 
In general, self-efficacy is defined as a person?s belief or perception that he or she can act 
in ways that will produce intended or desired outcomes (Green, Walker, Hoover-Dempsey, & 
Sandler, 2007). When applied to the domain of parenting, the definition of self-efficacy focuses 
on a parent?s perception of their ability to positively impact his/her child?s overall development. 
Parental self-efficacy has emerged as a powerful predictor of specific positive parenting practices 
(Coleman & Karraker, 2000). More specifically, parental self-efficacy has been identified as a 
key determinant of why parents become involved in their child?s academic development in both 
the home (Waanders et al., 2007) and school (Grolnick et al., 1997) contexts. Jones and Prinz 
(2005) define it as a parent?s belief in his/her ability to influence their child as well as the 
environment in ways that foster the child?s positive development and success. Sanders and 
Woolley (2005), define it as parents? beliefs in their ability to effectively manage the varied tasks 
and situations of parenthood.  Hoover-Dempsey, Bassler, and Brissie (1992) define parental self-
efficacy as a parent?s belief about their general ability to influence their child?s developmental 
13 
  
and educational outcomes, their specific effectiveness in influencing the child?s school learning, 
and their own influence relative to that of peers and the child?s teacher. The latter definition will 
be used as a guide for this paper as it focuses most on self-efficacy in relation to educational 
outcomes.  
Parents who are confident in their abilities to effectively parent can be described as 
highly efficacious. Parents with a strong perception of self-efficacy who feel as though they can 
significantly contribute to their child?s educational development will be more likely to become 
involved in their child?s education (Grolnick et al., 1997; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 1992; 
Waanders, Coleman & Karraker, 2000). Coleman and Karraker (2000) conducted a study in 
which they used several measures, one of which is most relevant to the current study, to examine 
parenting self-efficacy among mothers of school-aged children. The authors measured the 
construct with the Parenting Sense of Competence Scale (PSOC; Gibaud-Wallston & 
Wandersman, 1978), which is comprised of an efficacy subscale and a satisfaction subscale. The 
efficacy subscale consists of seven items (e.g., ?Being a parent is manageable and any problems 
are easily solved.? and ?If being a parent of a child were only more interesting, I would be 
motivated to do a better job as a parent) that measure domain-general parenting self-efficacy. 
They concluded that high parental self-efficacy is associated with providing an adaptive, 
stimulating, and nurturing environment for a child. This can include allowing the child 
opportunities to explore their environment or providing play and learning materials. 
Efficacious parents understand the likely effects of their efforts and have great potential 
in fulfilling the role of their child?s primary educator (Seefeldt et al., 1999).When parents 
perceive themselves as highly efficacious and as being their child?s first teacher (?My child has 
learned to do many things with my help?, ?The kinds of toys and experiences I provide for my 
14 
  
child will help him/her to be a successful adult?), they are more involved in cognitive activities 
(Grolnick et al., 1997; Machida et al., 2002). In their study exploring parent-school relations in a 
sample of 390 students of children in kindergarten through first grade, Hoover-Dempsey et al. 
(1992) discovered that high parent self-efficacy, defined as parents? belief and knowledge that 
they can teach their children and that their children can learn what they teach, was related to 
increased parental involvement in their child?s classrooms as well as learning activities outside 
of the home. The authors concluded that parents who feel that their efforts may pay off are more 
likely to feel more confident and become involved. Similarly, in their study on parent 
characteristics that predict parent?s involvement in their preschool children?s education, 
Waanders et al. (2007), who defined self-efficacy as a parent?s belief in his or her own 
competence to achieve a desired parenting outcome, found that of the 154 primarily African 
American parents included in the study, those who reported greater feelings of efficacy regarding 
their child?s education also reported being more involved in the home environment.  
Conversely, low parental self-efficacy is associated with feelings of hopelessness in the 
parenting role (Coleman & Karraker, 2000). Parents who feel doubtful about their ability to 
foster their child?s academic development are less likely to take a proactive stance in their child?s 
development and are easily discouraged when their efforts seem detrimental or when they 
encounter difficulties (Bandura et al., 1996). Coleman and Karraker (1997) report that parents 
with low perceptions of self-efficacy experience significant feelings of doubt and anxiety and 
spend valuable time focusing on failures rather than on successes. This may result in the parent 
distancing him/herself from the responsibility of preparing their child for school. Jones and Prinz 
(2005) conducted a study in which they investigated the role that parental self-efficacy, a 
parent?s beliefs in his/her ability to influence their child as well as the environment in ways that 
15 
  
foster the child?s positive development and success, plays in parent and child adjustment. The 
authors concluded that parents with a lower perception of self-efficacy may experience feelings 
of doubt and frustration in relation to negative perceptions of their performance. These feelings 
of doubt and frustration may, in turn, have a negative impact on their children?s feelings of self-
efficacy. 
It is possible that low efficacious parents may lack adequate parenting skills and 
persistence and as a result, might feel a sense of hardship in their role as a parent. Coleman and 
Karraker (1997) put together a review in which they take a closer look at parental self-efficacy 
and provide a nice framework with which to explore the construct. Broadly speaking, low self-
efficacy beliefs are likely to impact motivation in a variety of domains, including parenting, such 
that low efficacious individuals show minimal effort in the face of a challenging task (Coleman 
& Karraker, 1997). More specifically, when parents do not feel motivated in their parenting role, 
they are not very likely to put forth a tremendous effort towards their child?s academic 
development. In order for parents in particular to feel efficacious, they must first: (a) understand 
appropriate child care responses (e.g., limits to establish and enforce), (b) possess confidence in 
their ability to carry out the task, and (c) believe that their children will respond to their efforts 
and that their efforts will be supported by their family and friends. If parents do not possess these 
feelings or knowledge, they are more likely to feel burdened by the parenting role (Coleman & 
Karraker, 1997; Coleman & Karraker, 2000). Thus, in the current study, four indicators of 
parental hardship were used to measure parental self-efficacy. Although these indicators may not 
be considered classic measures of parental self-efficacy, they all tap into a sense of hardship in 
the parenting role and will serve as a proxy for parental-self-efficacy. 
16 
  
Despite evidence linking parental self-efficacy to child outcomes, little is known about 
what factors predict why some parents feels highly efficacious and why others do not, especially 
among very young children. Further, we do not have a clear understanding of whether the effects 
of parental self-efficacy on children?s outcomes are direct or whether they act through parental 
involvement. Because parental involvement has been a focus of many school interventions (e.g., 
Mattingly, Prislin, McKenzie, Rodriguez, & Kayzar, 2002), understanding barriers to parental 
involvement, particularly parental self-efficacy, is critical. Knowledge of the mechanisms 
through which parental self-efficacy affects child outcomes will help us create more effective 
prevention and intervention programs for parents of young children. 
Social Capital 
 Although Grolnick et al., Epstein, and others (i.e., Green et al., 2007; Hoover-Dempsey et 
al., 1992; Machida et al., 2002) have provided excellent models for describing parental 
involvement and parental self-efficacy, these models do not necessarily offer a theoretical 
framework for why parental involvement and parental self-efficacy might be important for child 
outcomes. Research suggests that an array of community, school, and family resources affects 
children?s school readiness and educational achievement (Beaulieu & Israel, 2005; Roscigno & 
Crowley, 2001). One framework that incorporates these multiple factors that may be particularly 
relevant for the academic development of children is the idea of social capital within the family 
as discussed by Coleman (1988). His perspective implies that parents play a primary role in 
promoting educational attainment of their children. The child?s academic success relies largely 
on the relationship between the parent and the child and also the parents and other adults 
associated with the child (i.e., a spouse, teacher). Coleman (1988) described social capital as 
17 
  
having three components: the obligations and expectations of reciprocity in social relationships, 
norms and sanctions that promote the common good over self-interest, and information channels. 
Social capital is built through a cooperative relationship between parents and teachers or schools. 
This education-related social capital obtained through parental involvement at school will best 
benefit children?s academic achievement if parents are able to continue the support of their 
children?s education at home.  
Israel, Beaulieu, and Hartless (2001) define social capital, with respect to the family, as 
the norms, social networks, and relationships that exist in the family that help to promote 
educational achievement. The authors explain that children need to be able to have access to this 
family social capital. Elements of family social capital, as applied to academic achievement, 
include monitoring and helping children with their homework, having conversations with them 
about important school activities, limiting television viewing, and holding high educational 
aspirations for their children. Elements of family social capital, as applied to the family home 
environment, include a two-parent household and high parental education. Here we can make a 
link to both parental self-efficacy and parental involvement. As previously discussed, parents 
with low feelings of self-efficacy tend to distance themselves from becoming involved with their 
children?s academic achievement due to feelings of doubt (Jones & Prinz, 2005). This distancing 
would undoubtedly limit the access children have to family social capital. Thus, this study is 
guided by the idea that parents and schools foster social capital among children and thus generate 
positive developmental outcomes across the lifespan.  
 
 
18 
  
The Present Study 
Based on the fact that children are continuing to enter kindergarten unprepared despite 
existing policies, as well as the notion that children?s academic success is a function of what 
happens both in the school and at home, there is a need to further explore how and why parents 
become more confident and proactive in their role as their child?s first teacher. It is evident that 
parental involvement in children?s learning in school and at home is a key component of their 
later academic success. Parent?s are in an ideal position to help their children with the 
developmental hurdles they will face in the school context as a result of their intimate awareness 
of their child?s personal needs (Coleman & Karraker, 2000).  Further, when children live in 
families and attend schools with high social capital, they show higher levels of school readiness 
and later success (Beaulieu & Israel, 2005; Durham & Smith, 2006). Thus, fostering strong 
social capital among parents around norms and values as they relate to education is critical. 
However, teacher?s report that getting and keeping parents involved can be very difficult. It is 
possible that the parents? level of self-efficacy may be a primary factor in their decision to 
become involved but we know little about the variables that predict parental self-efficacy in early 
childhood and why some parents feel efficacious while others do not. Importantly, research is 
needed to understand whether parental self-efficacy directly impacts children?s school readiness 
or whether its effects are mediated by parental involvement. If parental self-efficacy is one of the 
primary barriers to parental involvement, prevention and intervention programs designed to 
strengthen parental self-efficacy as well as increase parental involvement may be far more 
effective than programs that target only parental involvement. That is, programs that help parents 
feel more confident in their role as their child?s first teacher may ultimately increase their 
involvement in their child?s learning. Thus, the goals of the present study are to determine what 
19 
  
factors predict parental self-efficacy during the transition to kindergarten by examining a range 
of demographic characteristics as well as responses to questions inquiring about their confidence 
and experiences as a parent. In addition, the possibility of parental involvement as a mediator of 
the relationship between parental self-efficacy and school readiness will be explored. In other 
words, I seek to discover whether parental self-efficacy affects school readiness directly or if it is 
working through parental involvement or some combination of both. The following research 
questions will be addressed: 
1. What demographic and parental characteristics predict parental self-efficacy among 
parents of children transitioning to kindergarten? 
2. Does parental involvement in the home and/or school context mediate the effect of 
parental self-efficacy on children?s readiness for kindergarten? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
20 
  
 
 
 
Method 
Sample 
 In the present study, data from The Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten 
Class of 1998-99 project will be used. The ECLS-K, which is sponsored by the U.S. Department 
of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), is the first longitudinal study that 
has followed a nationally representative cohort of children from kindergarten through the end of 
eighth grade. The ECLS-K provides multifaceted and longitudinal data on children?s physical, 
cognitive, and social-emotional development as well as children?s home and school environment. 
The study focuses on the children?s early learning experiences such as educational quality in the 
home environment that may be related to early development and school readiness (NCES, 2002). 
Using a multi-stage sample design, 1,280 public (85%) and private schools (15%) that offered 
full-day (55%) and part-day (45%) kindergarten programs were selected from 100 counties. In 
the fall of 1998, an average of 23 kindergarteners was selected from each of the sampled schools. 
All kindergarten children in the sampled schools were eligible for the sampling process, 
including language minority and special education students. The resulting sample was diverse 
with respect to gender (51% boys, 49% girls) and ethnicity (18% Hispanic, 15% African 
American, and 6% Asian). Eleven percent (11%) of mothers had not completed high school and 
20% of them were single. Seventeen percent (17%) of the families were below the poverty level 
and 59% were considered to be middle class. For the purpose of the current study, a subsample 
of children with complete data on the outcomes of interest will comprise the analytic sample.  
21 
  
 The current study is based on a sample of 7,748 children who had complete data for the 
child outcomes of interest (school readiness and social competence). The sample is diverse with 
respect to gender (51% male), and ethnicity (64% White, 14% African American, 13% Hispanic, 
and 4% Asian). Ninety-six percent (96%) of the sample were first-time kindergarteners. The 
dataset also includes the children?s primary caregiver and their teachers. Mother?s reports were 
used for all parent variables. Twenty-five percent (25%) of mothers had earned a high school 
diploma or their GED, 28% had attended college but did not obtain a degree, 18% had earned a 
bachelor?s degree, 6% had their masters, and 2% a doctorate degree. Sixty-nine percent (69%) of 
mothers were employed and 29% were unemployed (3% reported they were looking for work). 
Seventy-five percent (75%) of mothers worked between the time the child was born and 
kindergarten entry. Sixty-five percent (68%) of mothers reported that they were married to or 
living with the child?s biological father, 5% reported that they were married to someone other 
than the child?s biological father, and 3% reported that they were living with someone who was 
not the child?s biological father. The 9,134 children who did not have child outcome data in the 
Spring did not vary from those who remained in the study. The mothers were just as likely to be 
employed (67%); were just as likely to have worked between the time the child was born and 
kindergarten entry (74%); and were just as likely to be married (69%). 
Procedure 
 Data were collected from the children, their guardians, and their teachers as well as 
school administrators in fall of 1998 and spring of 1999. Data collection methods included direct 
child assessments, parent interviews, and questionnaires completed by the teachers and school 
administrators. The children were assessed in language and literacy, mathematical thinking, and 
general knowledge. Prior to conducting the assessments, a language-screening assessment, the 
22 
  
Oral Language Development Scale (OLDS), was administered to children who had been 
identified by their school records as coming from a home where the primary language was not 
English. The purpose of this screening test was to determine if a child was able to understand and 
respond to assessment items in English. Children who passed the language screener were given 
the full ECLS-K assessment. Those who did not pass the established cut score received a reduced 
version of the assessments. Children who failed to pass the language screener but spoke Spanish 
were administered a Spanish translated form of the OLDS. For those who failed the language 
screener and whose primary language was not Spanish, data collection was limited to basic 
demographics and height/weight. Children were included in the current study if they had 
complete data for the outcomes of interest. 
Parent interviews were conducted via telephone or using in-person computer-assisted 
interviewing (CAI) for those without a telephone in the home. Non-English speaking parents 
were given the opportunity to complete the interview in their own language. In these interviews, 
parents provided information about their child such as age, gender, race, social skills, and 
behavior of the child. They also provided information about household income, the home 
environment, family structure and characteristics, their level of involvement with the child, and 
educational activities that take place in the home.  
Information from teachers was gathered with the use of self-administered questionnaires, 
which inquired about the teacher?s class, classroom characteristics, and the composition and 
demographics of the children in the class. In addition, teachers responded to questions about each 
child?s skills in areas of language and literacy, mathematical thinking, and general knowledge.  
 
 
23 
  
Measures 
Outcome Variable 
School readiness. During the Fall and Spring of their kindergarten year, children were 
administered a series of direct assessments designed to measure their reading and mathematics 
skills as well as general knowledge. These assessments were created specifically for the ECLS-K 
study. Children were asked reading questions that measured basic skills such as letter 
recognition, ability to determine beginning and ending sounds, ability to recognize common sight 
words, and understand words in context. Children were also asked mathematics questions that 
measured ability to count, identify numbers and shapes, relative size, patterns and sequences, and 
addition and subtraction. For the current study, I used the vertically equated Item Response 
Theory (IRT) scores, which reflect a child?s deviation from a criterion score and are thus 
equitable over time (Rasch, 1960). Higher scores indicate better reading and mathematics skills 
and reflect children?s performance on items with a broad range of difficulty.  
In addition, teachers responded to the Academic Rating Scale (ARS; NCES, [n.d]) in the 
Spring Kindergarten Teacher Questionnaire. The ARS consists of three scales: language and 
literacy, mathematical thinking, and general knowledge.  In the language and literacy section, 
teachers rated each child?s proficiency in speaking, listening, early reading, writing, and 
computer literacy. In the mathematics section, teachers rated each child on five skills: concept of 
numbers, solving number problems, use of math strategies, data analysis, and measurement. In 
the general knowledge section of the ARS, teachers rated each child?s proficiency in social 
studies and science. In all of the aforementioned sections, teachers selected from one of five 
responses: not yet (1), beginning, in progress, intermediate, or proficient (5).  
24 
  
For the current study, a total of four composites were used as indices of children?s school 
readiness. The children?s IRT scores for language and literacy, math, and general knowledge 
were summed to create a single composite score. The remaining three composites were 
comprised of teachers? ARS ratings for language and literacy (9 items), math (7 items), and 
general knowledge (5 items). Reliability of IRT-based scores ranged from .88 - .95. Reliability of 
ARS scores ranged from .87 - .94. 
Social competence. In the Spring of the study child?s kindergarten year, parents 
completed the Social Rating Scale (SRS) which asked a range of questions related to the child?s 
social skills and behaviors in the home environment. The SRS has five scales: (1) approaches to 
learning (six items that rated child?s attentiveness, task persistence, eagerness to learn, learning 
independence, flexibility and organization); ( 2) self-control (four items that rates the frequency 
with which a child fights, argues, throws tantrums, or gets angry); (3) social interaction (three 
items that address children?s ease in joining in play, ability to make and keep friends, and 
positive interactions with peers); (4) impulsive/overactive (two items that ask about children?s 
impulsivity and activity level); and (5) sad/lonely (four items that ask parents about children?s 
problems with being accepted and liked by others, sadness, loneliness, and low self-esteem. 
Parents were asked to select one of four responses (never (1), sometimes (2), often (3), and very 
often (4)) indicating how frequently their child exhibited the behaviors and characteristics 
described. Sample behaviors were ?Show interest in a variety of things?? ?Concentrate on a task 
and ignore distractions?? and ?Creative in work or in play?? For the current study, ratings were 
totaled and a composite variable was created to represent the child?s overall level of social 
competence as rated by their parent across all five scales. Reliability for the parent SRS scores 
ranged from .46 - .75.  
25 
  
Teachers also rated children?s social competence using the teacher version of the SRS. 
The teachers rated the children on five scales: (1) approaches to learning (six items that rated 
child?s attentiveness, task persistence, eagerness to learn, learning independence, flexibility and 
organization), (2) self-control (four items that indicated the child?s ability to control their temper, 
respect property rights of others, accepting peer ideas, and responding appropriately to peer 
pressure), (3) interpersonal skills (five items that rated the child?s skill in forming and 
maintaining friendships, getting along with people who are different, comforting or helping their 
peers, expressing feelings in a positive way, and showing sensitivity to others feelings), (4) 
externalizing problem behaviors (five items that measured frequency with which a child argues, 
fights, gets angry, acts impulsively, and disturbs ongoing activities), and (5) internalizing 
problem behaviors (Four items that ask about apparent presence of anxiety, loneliness, low self-
esteem, and sadness).Teachers were asked to select one of four responses (never (1), sometimes 
(2), often (3), and very often (4)) to indicate how frequently the child exhibited the behaviors and 
characteristics described. Sample behaviors were ?Keeps belongings organized?? ?Works 
independently?? and ?Easily adapts to changes in routine?? For the current study, ratings were 
totaled and a composite variable was used to represent the child?s overall level of social 
competence as rated by their teacher across all five scales.  Reliability for the teacher SRS scores 
ranged from .79 - .90. 
Predictor Variables 
 Parental involvement in the home environment. In the Fall of the study child?s 
kindergarten year, parents completed the ?Home Environment, Activities, and Cognitive 
Stimulation? (HEQ; NCES, [n.d]) section of the Fall Parent Interview Questionnaire, which 
asked a range of questions related to parents? involvement in the home environment. For the 
26 
  
current study, six variables were used to represent parental involvement in the home 
environment. This includes one composite variable, frequency of activities, created by summing 
seven items. Specifically, parents were asked to select one of four responses indicating how often 
they participated in activities with the child in a typical week, not at all (1), once or twice (2), 3 
to 6 times (3), or every day (4). Sample items included read books to child, tell stories to child, 
and sing songs with child, reflecting Grolnick?s (1997) cognitive-intellectual domain, in which 
parents expose the child to a stimulating environment, and Epstein?s (1995) learning at home 
factor, in which parents manage the task of teaching their child. Higher scores on this composite 
indicated more frequent home involvement. Parents also indicated the number of books available 
to the child in the home and number of children?s records, audio-tapes, or CDs in the home. In 
addition, parents were asked to select one of four responses (never (1), once or twice a week (2), 
3 to 6 times a week (3), or every day (4)), regarding how often the child looked at picture books 
outside of school in the past week and how often the child read or pretended to read to 
himself/herself or to others outside of school. Finally, parents responded to a single item asking 
if the child had watched Sesame Street at least once a week for a period of three months or more 
in the year before they started kindergarten (Yes = 1). There was no reliability information 
available for this measure. 
  Parental involvement in the school environment. In the Spring of the study child?s 
kindergarten year, parents completed the ?Parent?s Involvement with Child?s School? (PIQ; 
NCES, [n.d]) section of the Spring Parent Interview Questionnaire. For the current study, five 
items reflecting parents? school involvement, including one composite, will be used. Parents 
were asked if they had ever taken it upon themselves to contact the child?s teacher or school (Yes 
= 1). The composite, frequency of attendance at school events, will be comprised of parents? 
27 
  
responses to seven items inquiring about frequency of involvement in various school activities, 
which reflects Grolnick?s (1997) behavior domain, in which parents participate in school 
activities, and Epstein?s (1995) volunteering factor, in which parents provide assistance at the 
school.  Parents were asked to indicate how many times they (1) attended a school function such 
as an open house or back to school night, (2) attended a PTA meeting, (3) attended a parent 
advisory group or policy council meeting, (4) went to a regularly scheduled parent-teacher 
conference, 5) attended a school or class event, 6) volunteered at the school, and 7) participated 
in a fundraiser. Responses to these seven items were summed to create a total score with higher 
scores indicating greater involvement.  
Teachers? responded to four items from the Spring Kindergarten Teacher Questionnaire. 
They were asked to indicate if the child?s parent (1) attended regularly-scheduled conferences, 
(2) attended parent/teacher informal meeting initiated by the teacher to discuss the child?s 
progress, (3) returned the teachers telephone calls, and (4) volunteered to help in the child?s 
classroom or the school (Yes =  1). There was no reliability information available for this 
measure. 
 Parental self-efficacy. In the Spring of the study child?s kindergarten year, parents 
completed the ?Discipline, Warmth, and Emotional Supportiveness? (DWQ; NCES, [n.d]) 
section of the Spring Parent Interview Questionnaire, which included a range of questions 
addressing parents? feelings and perceptions about their efficacy as a parent. Four variables will 
be used as indices of a single latent construct representing hardship in the role of parenting, 
which will serve as a proxy for parental self-efficacy. More specifically, parents were asked to 
indicate whether the statement describing their feelings and perceptions of parenting was 
completely true (1), mostly true (2), somewhat true (3), or not true at all (4).  Sample statements 
28 
  
were ?Being a parent is harder than I thought it would be,? and ?I feel trapped by my 
responsibilities as a parent.? These four items were used to create a latent construct, parental 
self-efficacy, with lower means indicating lower levels of self-efficacy. There was no reliability 
information available for this measure. 
Control Variables  
Child sex. Parent reports of child sex were collected in the Fall of the study child?s 
kindergarten year. Child sex was represented by a dichotomous variable (Male = 1). 
Parent education. Information on maternal education level was obtained in the Fall of 
the study child?s kindergarten year. Parent education was represented by a continuous variable 
(8
th
 grade or below = 1, 9
th 
- 12
th
 grade = 2, high school diploma/equivalent = 3, voc/tech 
program = 4, some college = 5, bachelor?s degree = 6, graduate/professional school-no degree = 
7, master?s degree = 8, and doctorate or professional degree = 9).  
Single versus dual-parent household. Parent report of spouse or partner living in the 
household was collected in the Fall of the study child?s kindergarten year. This variable was 
represented dichotomously (Spouse/Partner lives in household = 1).  
SES. Data on total income and assets of all persons in the household in the past year were 
collected in the Spring of 1999. SES was represented by a continuous variable  ($5,000 or less=1, 
$5,001 to $10,000=2, $10,001 to $15,000=3, $15,001 to $20,000=4, $20,001 to $25,000=5, 
$25,001 to $30,000=6, $30,001 to $35,000=7, $35,001 to $40,000=8, $40,001 to $50,000=9, 
$50,001 to $75,000=10, $75,001 to $100,000=11, $100,001 to $200,000=12, and $200,001 or 
more=13).  
Barriers to school involvement. A total of eight items from the Spring Parent Interview 
Questionnaire (NCES, [n.d]) were summed to create a composite variable used to measure 
29 
  
barriers to parent involvement in the school environment. Parents were asked to respond ?yes? 
(1) or ?no? (2) to reasons that may have made it harder to participate in activities at the child?s 
school. Sample items were ?Inconvenient meeting times??, ?No child care??, and ?School does 
not make your family feel welcome?? Higher means on the composite variable barriers indicated 
fewer barriers to school involvement. 
Schools? attempt to involve parents. A total of four items from the Fall Parent 
Interview Questionnaire (NCES, [n.d] were summed to create a composite variable used to 
measure how the school attempts to involve parents. Parents were asked to respond on a scale of 
one to three (does this very well = 1, just o.k. = 2, or doesn?t do this at all = 3), how well their 
child?s school: (a) helps them understand what children their child?s age are like, (b) makes them 
aware of chances to volunteer at the school, (c) provides workshops, materials, or advice about 
how to help their child learn at home, and (d) provides information on community services to 
help their family.  Higher means on the composite variable school attempt indicated that the 
school did not attempt to get parents involved. 
Children?s Fall academic IRT scores. Fall IRT-scaled scores for language and literacy, 
mathematics, and general knowledge were used to account for children?s achievement level at 
entry to kindergarten. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
30 
  
 
 
 
Results 
Analytic Strategy 
 Exploratory analyses. I began by conducting descriptive statistics to obtain the means 
and standard deviations of the outcome and predictor variables for the total analytic sample. In 
addition, I examined correlations among the outcome and predictor variables to determine how 
closely related they were to each other. Variables that are too highly related may result in 
collinearity and thus could be excluded from subsequent analyses. To test whether the 
hypothesized indicators of parental self-efficacy (i.e., being a parent is hard, feel trapped by 
responsibilities, sacrifice life to meet child?s needs and parenting is more work than pleasure) 
adequately measure this construct, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was estimated. The 
factor loading for ?being a parent is hard? was fixed to one to provide the scaling unit. I then 
tested whether the hypothesized indicators of parent involvement at home (i.e., frequency of 
home activities, number of books in home, and how often looks at books at home) sufficiently 
measured this construct. The factor loading for the parent frequency of home involvement 
activities composite was fixed to one to provide the scaling unit. Next, I tested whether the 
hypothesized indicators of parent involvement at school (i.e., parent contacted school, teacher 
composite comprised of parent activity) adequately measured this construct. The factor loading 
for the parent frequency of school involvement composite was fixed to one to provide the scaling 
unit. Finally, I tested whether the hypothesized indicators of kindergarten outcomes (i.e., 
children?s Spring IRT scores composite, all three Spring ARS scores, and teachers? Spring SRS 
31 
  
scores) sufficiently measured the construct. The factor loading for the Spring IRT composite was 
fixed to one to provide the scaling unit.  
Predictive Analyses. To address my first research question of what demographic and 
parental characteristics predict parental self-efficacy among parents with children transitioning to 
kindergarten, I fit a model in which I regressed the latent construct for parent self-efficacy on a 
set of demographic factors (e.g., age, race) and parental characteristic variables (e.g., marital 
status). I also included in this model a common set of control variables: child sex, parent 
education, single versus dual parent household, SES, barriers to parent school involvement, study 
children?s Fall IRT scores, and schools? attempts to get parents involved.  
 To address my second research question of whether parental involvement in the home 
and/or school context mediates the effect of parent?s self-efficacy on children?s school readiness 
for kindergarten, I fit a series of nested structural equation models (see Figures 6.1 - 6.4) to test 
the direct effects of parents? self-efficacy on parent involvement at home and at school, the direct 
effects of parent involvement at home and at school (separately and then together) on the latent 
construct representing school readiness, and finally, the direct effects of parents? self-efficacy on 
the latent construct representing school readiness. As a final step, I tested for mediation by 
including all constructs in the same model and then conducting a delta chi square test.  
All analyses were conducted using MPlus version 5.0. Model fit was assessed by Chi-
Square statistic, with smaller and non-significant values considered better, Comparative Fit 
Indices (CFI) between .90 and 1, and a Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) 
that was close to zero with a p-value less than .10. Missing data on the predictor variables were 
handled using Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML), the default in MPlus. 
 
32 
  
Preliminary Analyses  
Descriptive statistics. Sample means and standard deviations for all of the study 
variables are presented in Table 1. The children?s Spring IRT scores in literacy, mathematics, 
and general knowledge were all relatively low, evidenced by their average scores of 40 (possible 
scores ranging from 14 to 124), 33 (possible scores ranging from 7 to 97), and 28 (possible 
scores ranging from 7 to 48), respectively. In contrast, teacher ratings of children?s literacy skills 
using the ARS were relatively high, as evidenced by their average score of 3.5, with possible 
scores ranging from 1 to 5. This was also the case for their ARS score in general knowledge, 3.8 
with possible scores ranging from 1 to 5, and their ARS score in mathematics, 3.7, with possible 
scores ranging from 1 to 5. The children also displayed relatively high social competence scores 
as evidenced by both the average parent (2.6) and teacher (2.5) ratings, with scores ranging from 
1.7 to 3.5 and 1.5 to 3.4, respectively.  
Parents reported low to moderate levels of self-efficacy (represented by the proxy, 
hardship in the parenting role). Thirty-five percent (35%) of parents reported that being a parent 
was harder than expected (average score of 2.4 with possible scores ranging from 1 to 4), 16% 
reported that they find themselves giving up more of their life to meet the child?s needs than they 
ever expected (average score of 3.1 with possible scores ranging from 1 to 4), 2% reported that 
they felt trapped by their responsibilities as a parent (average score of 3.8 with possible scores 
ranging from 1 to 4), and 3% reported that they found taking care of a young child more work 
than pleasure (average score of 3.8 with scores ranging from 1 to 4).  
There was evidence of parental involvement in the home. Specifically, on average, 
parents reported that there were 78 children?s books, and 16 children?s records, tapes or CD?s in 
33 
  
the home. The children were highly likely to look at picture books at home three to six times a 
week. Parents also reported that their child pretended to read at home three to six times a week 
(average score of 3 on a scale of 1 to 4). More than half of the children?s parents (59%) indicated 
that their child had watched Sesame Street prior to their kindergarten year (average score of 1.4 
on a scale of 1 to 3). In contrast, there was less evidence of parental involvement in the school. 
Parents did not attend school functions very often, as evidenced by an average score of 2.9, with 
possible scores ranging from 1 to 99. There appeared to be no barriers (e.g., inconvenient 
meeting times, cannot get off from work) that prevented them from being involved in the child?s 
school (average score of 1.8 with possible scores ranging from 1 to 2). According to teacher 
reports, however, parent involvement was moderate, evidenced by an average score of 1.4 with 
possible scores ranging from 1 to 3.  
Estimated correlations among all of the study variables are presented in Table 2. Parent 
rated social competence and teacher rated competence, two elements of kindergarten outcomes, 
were moderately and positively correlated with parent involvement at home. This suggests that, 
on average, children whose parents were highly involved in the home received higher social 
competency ratings from both their parents and their teachers. Further, there was a moderate 
correlation between parent?s involvement at home and parent?s level of self-efficacy or hardship 
in their parenting role. More specifically, frequency of activities done at home with the child 
(i.e., tell stories to child, sing songs with child) was significantly and positively correlated with 
feeling that being a parent was harder than expected, feeling trapped as a parent, and feeling that 
being a parent was more work than pleasure. This suggests that, on average, parents who were 
highly involved with their children at home were more likely to feel highly efficacious. 
Conversely, parents who are not as involved are likely to feel low feelings of self-efficacy.  
34 
  
There was a correlation between the children?s cognitive outcomes and their parents? 
feelings of self-efficacy. The children?s spring IRT scores were significantly and positively 
correlated with parents feeling that they had to give up more of their life to meet their child?s 
needs and feeling that being a parent was more work than pleasure. In addition, the children?s 
spring ARS scores were significantly and positively correlated with feeling that being a parent 
was more work than pleasure. Last, the children?s spring social competence ratings were 
significantly and positively correlated with feeling that being a parent was harder than expected 
and also with feeling trapped by being a parent. These findings suggest that, on average, children 
have a much better chance at being academically successful when their parents feel efficacious. 
However, children whose parents do not feel as efficacious and who report struggling in their 
role as a parent are not as likely to have a strong early academic advantage.  
Another correlation worth mentioning was the relationship between mother?s level of 
education and involvement at their child?s school. Mother?s education level was negatively and 
statistically correlated with attending conferences, coming to informal meetings with the teacher, 
returning the teacher?s phone calls and volunteering at the school. This suggests that, on average, 
parents who have lower levels of education are not as likely to be involved in the school 
environment in comparison to parents who have attained higher levels of education. This is very 
much in line with previous research that suggests that parents who have higher levels of 
education are more likely to be involved in their children?s learning than are parents with low 
levels of education (Grolnick et al., 1997; Kohl et al., 2000; Machida et al., 2002). 
 
 
35 
  
Measurement Models 
School Readiness. Six composite variables were used to represent the latent construct for 
kindergarten outcomes (see Figure 1): the IRT scores (composite), the ARS language scores 
(composite), ARS math scores (composite), ARS general knowledge scores (composite), parent 
rated social competence (composite), and teacher rated social competence (composite). The 
factor loading for Spring IRT score composite was fixed to one to provide the scaling unit. All 
six variables loaded significantly onto this construct. The children?s spring ARS math scores 
contributed the most to the construct (standardized factor loading of .94).  Their ARS literature 
scores also contributed strongly to the construct (standardized factor loading of .90). Parent rated 
social competence contributed the least to the construct (standardized factor loading of .11). 
Removal of this construct did not improve the fit of the model, however, and thus it was retained 
in subsequent analyses. Based on several fit indices, the model fits the data well (?
2
  =  278.74, df  
= 9,  p  = .00;  RMSEA =  .07,  p  = .00; CFI = .99). Thus, a single latent construct was used to 
represent school readiness at the transition to kindergarten for all subsequent analyses. As 
described earlier in this paper, definitions of school readiness have included indicators of both 
cognitive and social skills (Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2000). Results from this measurement model 
further support this definition and provide additional evidence of the critical role that both 
cognitive and social outcomes play in early learning (Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2000). 
Parental Self-Efficacy. Four observed variables were used to represent the latent 
construct for parents? self-efficacy or sense of hardship in the parenting role: Being a parent is 
harder than I thought it would be, I find myself giving up more of my life to meet my child?s 
needs than I ever expected, I feel trapped by my responsibilities as a parent, and I find taking 
36 
  
care of a young child more work than pleasure (see Figure 2). The factor loading for ?being a 
parent is hard? was fixed to one to provide the scaling unit. Each of the variables significantly 
loaded onto the construct and all moderately contributed to the construct. More specifically, 
giving up more of ones life to meet the child?s needs contributed the most to the construct 
(standardized factor loading of  .58) and taking care of a young child is more work than pleasure 
contributed the least to the construct (standardized factor loading of  .48). Based on several fit 
indices, the model fits the data reasonably well (?
2
  = 165.7,  df   =  2,  p  = .00;  RMSEA  = .11, 
p  = .00; CFI  = .93). Thus, a single latent construct consisting of four observed variables was 
used to represent parents? self-efficacy.  
Parental Involvement at Home. I used six observed variables to represent the latent 
construct parent involvement in the home environment (see Figure 3): Frequency of activities 
done with child in a typical week (composite), number of books in the home, number of audio 
tapes or CDs in the home, how often the child looks at books in the home, how often the child 
pretends to read in the home, and had the child ever watched Sesame Street prior to attending 
kindergarten. The factor loading for frequency of activities done with child in a typical week was 
fixed to one to provide the scaling unit. Each of the variables (with the exception of child 
watched Sesame Street) significantly loaded onto the latent construct representing parent 
involvement in the home, however, model fit was poor (?
2
  =  1049.09,  df   = 9,  p  = .00; 
RMSEA  = .13,  p  = .00; CFI  =  .75) and the contributions of the observed indicators to the 
construct varied considerably. As a result, two items that contributed very little to the overall 
latent construct were removed from the model (number of audio tapes or CDs in the home 
(standardized loading of  .35,  p  = .00) and watched Sesame Street prior to kindergarten entry 
(standardized loading of  .02,  p  = .28), and no longer considered which greatly improved model 
37 
  
fit. How often the child looked at picture books outside of school contributed the most to the 
construct (standardized loading of .68, p = .00). The frequency of activities composite and how 
often the child pretended to read books outside of school also contributed moderately to the 
construct (standardized loading of .54 and .56 respectively). Examination of the fit statistics 
indicates that the model fits the data well (?
2 
 = 102.95,  df  = 2,  p  = .00;  RMSEA = .09,  p = 
.00; CFI  =  .96).  Thus, the latent construct representing parent involvement in the home consists 
of four observed indicators rather than six and was used for all subsequent analyses.  
Parent Involvement in School. Five observed variables (one composite and four items) 
were used to represent the latent construct of parent involvement in the school environment (see 
Figure 4): frequency of school functions attended as reported by the parent (composite), and 
teacher responses to whether or not parents attended regularly-scheduled conferences at the 
school, attended parent/teacher informal meetings that were initiated by the teacher to talk about 
child?s progress, returned the teachers phone calls, and volunteered to help in the school or in the 
teachers classroom. The factor loading for the frequency of attendance at school events 
composite was fixed to one to provide the scaling unit. All five variables loaded statistically 
significantly and contributed greatly and approximately equally (standardized loadings ranging 
from .95 to .99) to this construct. Based on several fit indices, the model provides moderate fit to 
the data (?
2 
 =  979.12,  df  = 5,  p  = .00;  RMSEA  = .17,  p  = .00; CFI  = .99). Thus, a latent 
construct consisting of five indicators was retained for all subsequent analyses. 
What demographic and parental characteristics predict parental self-efficacy 
among parents with children transitioning to kindergarten? Parameter estimates and 
goodness of fit statistics from the models addressing my first research question are presented in 
38 
  
Table 3. When each of the seven possible predictors of parental self-efficacy (represented by the 
proxy, hardship in the parenting role) was regressed on the construct individually, each was 
positively and statistically significantly related to the outcome (R
2
 statistics ranged from 15% - 
22%). More specifically, parents? age, employment status, race, age at the birth of their first 
child, highest level of education achieved, income, and marital status positively and significantly 
predicted parental self-efficacy such that higher values on the predictors were associated with 
greater feelings of efficacy. In other words, an older parent was more likely to feel highly 
efficacious in comparison to a younger parent. Employed parents were more likely to have high 
feelings of self-efficacy when compared to parents who are unemployed. If a parent has a higher 
level of education, they are more likely to have higher feelings of efficacy in comparison to a 
parent with a lower education. Similarly, mothers who were older when they gave birth to their 
first child were more likely to feel highly efficacious in comparison to mothers who gave birth to 
their first child at a younger age. Parent?s who had obtained higher levels of education tended to 
have higher feelings of self-efficacy than those who had not gone as far with their education. 
Likewise, parents who had higher income were more efficacious than their counterparts with low 
income. Last, parents who had a significant other present were more like to feel highly 
efficacious from the extra support that parents who were single and handling the task of 
parenting on their own.  This suggests that on their own each construct plays a role in how 
efficacious a parent feels.  
When the seven predictors of parental self-efficacy were regressed simultaneously on the 
construct, however, only two predictors remained positive and statistically significant: marital 
status and highest level of education achieved (R
2
 = .33). More specifically, being married to the 
child?s biological father positively and significantly predicted parent self-efficacy, suggesting 
39 
  
that parents who live in dual parent households experience higher feelings of parental self-
efficacy in comparison to those who are single parents. Not surprisingly, mother?s level of 
education also positively and significantly predicted the construct parent self-efficacy suggesting 
that parents who have achieved higher levels of education are more likely to feel efficacious as 
opposed to parents with lower levels of education (?
2
 = .00,  df  = 0,  p = .00; RMSEA = .00,  p 
=.00; CFI = 1). The fact that only two predictors remained significant when all were included in 
the model suggests that multicollinearity may have been a problem. Indeed, many of the 
variables were moderately to highly correlated suggesting a need to identify other variables that 
uniquely explain variation in parental self-efficacy. 
 Does parental involvement in the home and/or school context mediate the effect of 
parental self-efficacy on children?s readiness for kindergarten? Parameter estimates and 
goodness of fit statistics from the models addressing my second research question are presented 
in Table 4.  First, the direct effect of parental self-efficacy (represented by the proxy, hardship in 
the parenting role) on kindergarten outcomes was examined. The two significant predictors of 
parental self-efficacy, mother education and marital status, were used as controls on the outcome 
variable. Additionally, child gender was controlled. The path from the latent construct 
representing parental self-efficacy or hardship to the latent construct representing school 
readiness was positive and statistically significant (standardized effect of .62, p = .05). This 
suggests that children whose parents feel highly efficacious tend to have better kindergarten 
outcomes in comparison to children whose parents report low feelings of self-efficacy. Note, 
however, that model fit was not particularly good (?
2
 = 204.04, df = 3, p = .00; RMSEA= .10, p = 
.00; CFI = .60). Nevertheless, because the pathway was significant, thereby satisfying one of the 
criteria for testing mediation (i.e., that the predictor is associated with the outcome), and my 
40 
  
primary interest was in the mediated pathway, I next tested the direct effects of parent 
involvement at home and school on kindergarten outcomes controlling for child gender. The 
model fit the data fairly well (?
2
 = 72.90, df = 3, p = .00; RMSEA= .06, p = .07 CFI = .87). The 
path from home involvement to kindergarten outcomes was positive and statistically significant 
(standardized effect of .24, p = .00). Children whose parents are highly involved and provide a 
stimulating home environment have better kindergarten outcomes than do children whose 
parents are not as involved. Unexpectedly, the path from school involvement to kindergarten 
outcomes was negative and statistically significant (standardized effect of -.07, p = .07). This 
suggests that parental involvement in the school has a negative effect on children?s school 
readiness. Although possible, a more likely explanation is that parents may be speaking with 
their child?s teacher and visiting the school for unfavorable reasons such as poor behavior and/or 
academic struggles.  
Again, the statistically significant pathways from parental involvement in both the home 
and school satisfy the criteria for testing mediation (that the intervening variables are 
significantly associated with the outcome) and thus I proceeded with the next step ? examining 
the direct effects of parental self-efficacy on parental involvement in the home and at school, 
controlling for parent education and marital status. Both paths were positive and statistically 
significant (standardized effect of .04 p = 0 for home and standardized loading of .03, p = .05 for 
school). When parents feel highly efficacious, they are more likely to be involved in both the 
home and school environment. Conversely, parents who are not as efficacious are not likely to be 
as involved within both environments. Note, however, that the model fit the data poorly (?
2
 = 
474.90, df  = 6, p = .00; RMSEA = .13, p = .00; CFI  = .04). Again, because my interest is in the 
41 
  
mediated pathway and because these associations were statistically significant, I proceeded to 
my final model.  
To test my hypothesis that parental involvement in the home and school mediated the 
association between parental self-efficacy and school readiness, all of the direct effects described 
above were examined simultaneously. That is, I fit a model that included the pathways from 
parental self-efficacy to parental involvement in the home and school, the pathways from 
parental involvement in the home and school to school readiness, and the pathway from parental 
self-efficacy to school readiness (see Figure 6.4). Although the pathway from parental self-
efficacy became non-significant when all other pathways were included in the model (? = .05, p 
= 0 in the direct effects model and ? = .02, p = .02 in the mediation model), suggesting full 
mediation, the model did not fit the data well (?
2
 = 835.8, df = 13, p = .00; RMSEA= .12, p = .00; 
CFI = .30). Although parental involvement at home and at school may mediate the effects of 
parental self-efficacy on kindergarten outcomes controlling for child gender and early cognitive 
skills as well as maternal education level and marital status (R
2 
= .33), the poor model fit 
suggests that mediation may not be the best way explain associations between parental self-
efficacy and parental involvement in the home. As in the previous model, parental self-efficacy 
was positively associated with parental involvement in school and parental involvement in 
school was negatively associated with kindergarten outcomes suggesting that parents may be in 
contact with the child?s school for misconduct or cognitive struggles. Parental self-efficacy was 
positively, statistically associated with parental involvement at home and parental involvement at 
home was positively, statistically associated with kindergarten outcomes. This suggests that 
parental involvement in the home is salient for the transition to kindergarten. The role of parental 
self-efficacy in this process remains unclear, however. 
42 
  
 
 
 
Discussion 
For young children transitioning to kindergarten, being ill-prepared can make the 
transition a difficult one (Rimm-Kaufman, et al., 2000) and can lead to a host of problems, 
including lower academic and social outcomes (Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2000). This is especially 
true for children from low SES families (Kohl et al., 2000; Waanders et al., 2007), single parent 
households (Grolnick et al., 1997), and households in which the parent has not obtained a high 
level of education (Kohl et al., 2000; Machida et al., 2002). Parents of low-income children are 
also very likely to be uninvolved in the academic development of their children (Kohl et al., 
2000) and as a result their children frequently struggle with the transition to kindergarten in 
comparison to children whose parents are involved in the academic process (McWayne et al., 
2004; Mendez, 2010). In addition, the social capital that families often accrue by participating in 
school-related activities is likely limited in these households and thus the prospects of children 
from high-risk households may be severely limited (Coleman, 1988). Parental self-efficacy has 
been shown to play a significant role in parental involvement in the academic development of 
children (Coleman & Karraker, 1997; Grolnick et al., 1997; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 1992), but 
we know little about what factors predict why some parents feel highly efficacious and others do 
not. Importantly, we do not have a clear understanding of whether the effects of parental self-
efficacy on children?s outcomes are direct or whether they work through parental involvement.  
The current study was conducted to better understand why some parents lack the 
confidence required to effectively prepare their child for the transition to kindergarten whereas 
43 
  
other parents accept the role of their child?s first teacher head on. I also explored the possible 
mediating role of parental involvement in the home and/or school environment in the association 
between parental self-efficacy and kindergarten outcomes. Many of my findings provide 
additional support for relations that have been previously identified in the literature but my study 
also offers numerous contributions to the existing literature of parental self-efficacy and parental 
involvement.  
First, unlike other studies that examined one or two factors that are related to parental 
self-efficacy, I combined multiple factors and, in doing so, identified key individual and family 
factors that predict parental self-efficacy. It is vital to understand the factors that predict parental 
self-efficacy among parents of transitioning kindergarteners if we are to engage families in 
children?s learning and help children successfully transition to school. This knowledge may help 
to enhance teacher-parent relationships by aiding teachers in identifying parents who might be 
struggling with how to become involved in their child?s academic development and provide 
these parents with useful and empowering information. Second, I examined parental involvement 
activities in the home (e.g., reading books, singing songs) and at school (e.g., attending school 
events, PTA meetings, volunteering in the classroom). Assuming parental involvement is, to 
some extent, a proxy for parental self-efficacy, including both home and school activities 
provided some insight into which environment parents feel most efficacious in. Lastly, this study 
may help facilitate interventions designed to increase parents? confidence in their role as their 
child?s first teacher by targeting not just parental involvement but also parental self-efficacy 
In the current study, I examined critical predictors of parental self-efficacy (parent 
employment status, age of parent, parent?s race, parent?s age at birth of first child, parent 
education, parent income and marital status), discussed throughout the paper as hardship in the 
44 
  
parenting role, and discovered that, individually, all of the factors predict how efficacious a 
parent might feel in their role as a parent. For example, the data suggests that an older parent 
may be more likely to have higher feelings of self-efficacy in comparison to a younger parent 
and vice versa. However, this is contrary to findings from Coleman and Karraker (2000) who 
discovered that age did not significantly correlate with parent self-efficacy. A possible 
explanation for my varying findings could be my use of a proxy, hardship, to represent the 
construct of parent self-efficacy due to the lack of a more ideal measure. However, one can 
speculate that perhaps older parents are more mature or may have gained experience through 
relatives or friends with children which allows them to feel more confident in their abilities to 
guide their child academically. Conversely, a younger parent may not have many examples of 
how to effectively guide their child and therefore do not feel as confident. Further research is 
necessary to determine if age does indeed play a part in how efficacious a parent feels.  
The data also suggest that an employed parent is more likely to feel efficacious than a 
parent who is unemployed. This finding is also inconsistent with the findings of Coleman and 
Karraker (2000). Although the difference in findings is most likely due to a different measure of 
parent self-efficacy, one possible explanation for this is that employed parents may have fewer 
worries when providing for their family is not a pressing issue. Whereas an unemployed parent 
may feel hopeless in their ability to guide their child academically because of their inability to 
provide in other areas, an employed parent?s confidence may spread into other domains which 
may include their ability to impact their child?s academic success. According to Duncan et al. 
(2006), children from struggling families are more likely to enter school with lower mean 
academic skills and higher rates of problems with attention and externalizing behavior.  
45 
  
Only two factors remained statistically significant, however, when all of the predictors 
were combined and included in the model: marital status and parent education level. This 
suggests that parents who live in a dual parent household have higher feelings of self-efficacy in 
the parenting role in comparison to single parents. This finding aligns with previous research that 
suggests that parents feel more efficacious when their efforts are supported (Coleman & 
Karraker, 1997; Coleman & Karraker, 2000). Hoover-Dempsey et al. (1992) used a more ideal 
measure of self-efficacy and discovered that in their sample of 390 parents of kindergarteners, 
marital status was not related to parental self-efficacy. Parent self-efficacy was measured using a 
scale developed by the authors (Parent Perception of Parent Efficacy Scale) which required 
parents to agree or disagree (5-point Likert scale) with statements such as ?I know how to help 
my child do well in school? and ?If I try hard, I can get through to my child when he/she has 
trouble understanding something.? 
Similarly, Coleman and Karraker (2000) reported that marital status was not related to 
self-efficacy for parenting tasks (the most relevant task for the current study was facilitating 
school achievement) in their sample of 145 mothers of elementary school children ages 5 to 12.  
The authors utilized the Self-Efficacy for Parenting Tasks Index (SEPTI), which tapped into five 
categories of parenting tasks: discipline, achievement, recreation, nurturance, and health. Within 
the achievement category, parents were required to agree or disagree (6-point Likert scale) with 
statements such as ?I do an adequate job helping my child with school work,? ?I am good at 
helping my child work through school problems.? And ?I am not involved in my child?s 
education as I think I should be.? It is possible that with a more favorable measure, my findings 
would be more in sync with the findings of previous research. 
46 
  
Parent education also remained significant, suggesting that parents who obtain higher 
levels of education are more likely to feel highly efficacious in their parenting role in comparison 
to parents who have not obtained a high level of education. This finding is consistent with 
previous research that indicates that level of parent education is highly correlated with the 
parent?s belief in their abilities to positively influence their child?s academic development 
(Coleman & Karraker, 2000; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 1992; Seefeldt et al., 1999). In their study 
exploring the relationship between parents? sense of efficacy and parent involvement in a sample 
of 390 parents of children in kindergarten through fourth grade, Hoover-Dempsey et al. (1992) 
discovered that parents with a grade school education had significantly lower efficacy scores 
than did parents with all levels of college education. Further, parents with a high school 
education had significantly lower efficacy scores than parents with some college work beyond 
the bachelor?s degree. Similarly, Coleman and Karraker (2000) discovered that among 145 
mothers of school-aged children, those with more years of education generally reported high 
feelings of self-efficacy in comparison to those with fewer years of education.  
The two key predictors identified, marital status and parent education, tie in nicely with 
Coleman?s (1988) idea of social capital within the family. According to Coleman (1988), the 
presence of two parents in the home is a source of social capital important because it gives 
children access to both parents? human capital (parent education).  Parental education increases 
social capital within the family and gives parents the tools that are required to provide a 
cognitively stimulating environment for the child that aids in learning.  Using this social capital 
framework, the findings of the current study suggest that parents with these social capital assets 
are more likely to feel highly efficacious and thusly, more likely to be involved.  
47 
  
 Further, the two indicators, marital status and parent education, are of high importance 
by societal standards such that a higher level of education is more desirable by employers and 
being a single mother is generally frowned upon. If a parent has both a high level of education 
and the support of a spouse, they may possibly feel highly efficacious overall which may have an 
effect on how confident they are in their ability to positively influence their child?s academic 
development. Further research is needed to explore whether societal status can have an effect on 
how confident a parent will feel in their abilities to prepare their child for academic success. 
Prior research examining the relationship between parental self-efficacy, parental 
involvement, and child outcomes has suggested that there are direct effects of each construct on 
academic outcomes (Coleman & Karraker, 2000; Green et al., 2007; Jones & Prinz, 2004; 
Machida et al., 2002). This was also illustrated in the present study. That is, parental self-efficacy 
and kindergarten outcomes were positively and significantly related, even after controlling for 
predictors of parental self-efficacy. This suggests that parents who feel highly efficacious or who 
are not likely to report feeling hardship in the parenting role will be more likely to have a 
positive impact on the academic and social outcomes of their children in comparison to parents 
who have lower feelings of self-efficacy and who report hardship in the parenting role. 
According to Jones and Prinz (2005), parents who reflect higher feelings of self-efficacy may 
have a direct impact on their child?s academic success through modeling of attitudes and beliefs. 
In other words, the child will take cues from their parents; if the parent is excited about helping 
the child learn and believes in their ability to help the child learn, the child will also find pleasure 
in the experience and may be more successful at learning what it is the parent is teaching. 
Parental involvement in the home was also found to be positively and statistically 
correlated with kindergarten outcomes. This finding supports previous research, which indicates 
48 
  
that parental involvement in the home environment is crucial to positive child academic 
outcomes (Hair et al., 2006; McWayne et al., 2004). Parents who actively promote a home 
environment that is conducive to learning are more likely to have children who thrive 
academically and socially in the early years and beyond in comparison to those who do not 
provide a stimulating home environment (McWayne et al., 2004). Interestingly, the relationship 
between parental involvement in the school environment and kindergarten outcomes was 
negative and statistically significant. This finding suggests that children whose parents? are 
involved in the school environment are likely to have poor social and academic outcomes. This 
differs greatly from previous literature that suggests that parents who are in direct contact with 
the child?s school have children who display higher levels of academic and social functioning 
(McWayne et al., 2004). It is unlikely that parental involvement in the school environment will 
negatively impact a child?s academic outcomes. A more likely explanation for my findings is 
that parent?s may be visiting the school to meet with their child?s teacher for unfavorable reasons 
such as academic struggles or behavioral issues. This is supported by Fantuzzo, McWayne, 
Perry, and Childs (2004) study in which they examined multiple dimensions of family 
involvement and their relations to behavioral and learning competencies in a sample of 144 
urban, Head Start children. The authors discovered that there was a negative but significant 
correlation between school-based involvement and conduct problems. They concluded that 
school-based involvement was associated with decreased behavior problems such that when 
school-based involvement increases, behavior problems in the classroom decrease. This suggests 
that parents are being called to the school to discuss teachers? concerns with their child?s 
behavior and their involvement is making a significant impact. However, this negative but 
significant finding also means that when behavior problems increase, parent school-based 
49 
  
involvement decreases. One possible explanation could be that parents may try to take matters 
into their own hands and try to correct the problematic behavior at home. Fantuzzo et al. (2004) 
posits that this can possibly be explained by the quality and reciprocal nature of the exchanges in 
the teacher-parent relationship. Perhaps the parent feels personally attacked by the teacher for 
their child?s behavior or feels the meetings are pointless. Further research is needed in this area 
to determine why parent school-based involvement decreases when their input is critical to help 
resolve behavior issues. 
Parental self-efficacy was found to be positively and significantly related to parental 
involvement in both the home and school environment. These findings support previous research 
suggesting that parents who are confident in their abilities to guide their child to academic 
success are more likely to feel as though their efforts are worthwhile and therefore are more 
likely to become involved (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 1992; Waanders et al., 2007). Conversely, 
parents who believe that their efforts will be more detrimental to their child?s academic 
development are more likely to shy away from becoming actively involved in either 
environment. It is clear that we must first address parent?s level of confidence in their ability to 
effectively guide their child if we want to see an increase in both types of involvement.   
Many studies (Colman & Karraker, 1997; Coleman & Karraker, 2000; Jones & Prinz, 
2004) discuss the direct effects of parental self-efficacy on various outcomes (e.g., parent and 
child adjustment, parenting quality, and parent satisfaction) among parents of young children but 
there is no discussion of the possible indirect effects of self-efficacy on children?s outcomes 
through parental involvement. The present study addressed this gap by testing to see whether 
parental involvement in the home and/or school environment mediates the relationship between 
parental self-efficacy and kindergarten outcomes. When parental involvement is included in the 
50 
  
model, the direct path between parental self-efficacy and kindergarten outcomes became non-
significant. However, due to poor model fit, there is little support that mediation exists. One 
possible explanation for this finding could be that self-efficacy and parental involvement are 
highly related constructs and thus the inclusion of both in the model resulted in a poorer fit due 
to the overlapping of the constructs. Further it is possible that a more favorable measure of the 
self-efficacy construct could have made this construct look completely different making less 
related to parental involvement.  
Limitations and Future Directions 
 There were numerous limitations of this study. First, because of the nature of secondary 
data analysis, there are limits to the measures and variables available to create constructs. For 
example, it would have been ideal to have a more adequate measure of parental self-efficacy 
rather than using a set of items that served as a proxy for this construct. A more adequate 
measure might require parents to agree or disagree to statements that specifically tap into 
feelings of confidence within the realm of academic learning  (e.g., ?I am my child?s first 
teacher,? ?It is easy for me to teach my child something,? ?I get frustrated when my child does 
not learn something I am trying to teach?). It may be possible for parents to feel efficacious but 
still think parenting is hard and thus report a sense of hardship but also a sense of efficacy. Thus, 
a measure that better reflects parents? feelings of self-efficacy in the academic domain may have 
provided better insight into the role this construct plays in children?s outcomes at the transition to 
kindergarten. Nevertheless, the fact that I found a significant association between my proxy for 
self-efficacy and children?s outcomes in the expected direction suggests that this construct may 
reflect at least one dimension of efficacy. Additionally, because maternal reports were used to 
collect information on most measures, the potential for mono-reporter bias exists.  That is, 
51 
  
parents who report high levels of hardship may also report low levels of involvement simply 
because they do not feel effective. The inclusion of teacher reports of parental involvement 
helped reduce this bias somewhat but objective reports of parental involvement or observations 
of parental efficacy would improve this study greatly. Another issue is presented in the potential 
discord of parent versus teacher reports of parental involvement. Teachers may report that a 
parent is not very involved within the school environment however, that parent may feel 
otherwise. Again, this could be due to the reasons that parents are being requested to come to the 
school. Lastly, it would have been more ideal for assessments to have been completed in the fall 
of the kindergarten year in order to truly reflect the child?s transition. 
Future studies should consider including measures that directly represents parental self-
efficacy as it has much to do with the level of involvement a parent will put forth. In addition, 
although the current study had multiple reporters, it would be interesting to see how children in 
this grade level perceive their parents level of involvement in the home. At this age, children are 
more than capable of reporting if their parent reads to them or other activities that would imply 
that home learning is occurring. Also, teacher questionnaires should allow for differentiation of 
parental involvement. More specifically, the questionnaire should inquire about positive versus 
negative visits. It is possible that parents may not highly regard parental visits to discuss 
unfavorable behavior or academic struggles as involvement as much as they would regard 
chaperoning or PTA attendance. 
Implications 
 It is clear that parental self-efficacy, on its own and also through the mechanism of 
parental involvement at home, is important for a child?s successful transition through 
kindergarten. The current research suggests that parental involvement is an appropriate target for 
52 
  
prevention and intervention efforts. Teachers could be a valuable resource in identifying parents 
who are struggling with their confidence level and provide them with ways in which they can 
help prepare their child. Conversations with the parent prior to kindergarten entry may reveal 
whether a parent feels they are a critical component in their child?s school success. If the parent 
is confident in their abilities to provide a positive learning environment for their child, the 
teacher can support the parents? efforts and provide activities that the parent can implement in 
the home. If the parent lacks confidence, the teacher is then in a position to provide 
empowerment and encourage the parent to step into their role as their child?s first educator by 
providing simple but stimulating tasks (e.g., sorting or pairing socks, counting uncooked 
macaroni) that they can do together with their child. Further, teachers could direct struggling 
parents to intervention programs designed to educate parents about social capital and the 
importance of being involved in their child?s academic development which could ultimately 
enhance parental self-efficacy, thereby strengthening the home learning environment of the 
child. The ultimate goal of these interventions should be to empower parents and show them that 
they can be successful as their child?s first teacher. The take home message should be that any 
effort a parent makes, big or small can be a significant contribution in their child?s academic 
success. Maybe they do not have the skills to teach their child how to read but they are able to 
teach them a song or prayer from the parents? childhood. This can bring about feelings of 
efficaciousness when parents? realize that they are capable of teaching their child something. 
Maybe the parent is not a good reader and was not able to help their child learn lines for their 
part in the class play, but the parent showed up for the play and the smile on their child?s face 
when they spot mom or dad in the crowd is enough to make the parent want to reach out for help. 
The parent has just taken a step towards becoming involved.  The parenting role can seem less 
53 
  
intimidating if parents are encouraged to take it one step at a time and realize that any little 
contributions is important and counts. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
54 
  
 
 
 
References 
Ackerman, D.J., Barnett, W.S. (2005). Prepared for kindergarten: What does ?readiness? mean? 
Preschool Policy Brief, 1-23. 
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G.V., Pastorelli, C. (1996). Multifaceted impact of self-
efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Development, 67, 1206-1222. 
Barnard, W.M. (2004). Parent involvement in elementary school and educational attainment. 
Children and Youth Services Review, 26, 39-62. 
Beaulieu, L.J., Israel, G.D. (2005). It?s more than just schools: How families and communities 
promote student achievement. The role of education: Promoting the economic & social 
vitality of rural America, 44-55. 
Coleman, J.S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of 
Sociology, 94, 95-120.Coleman, P.K., Karraker, K.H. (1997). Self-efficacy and parenting 
quality: Findings and future applications. Developmental Review, 18, 47-85. 
Coleman, P.K., Karraker, K.H. (1997). Self-efficacy and parenting quality: Findings and future 
applications. Developmental Review, 18, 47-85. 
Coleman, P.K., Karraker, K.H. (2000). Parenting self-efficacy among mothers of school-age 
children: Conceptualization, measurement, and correlates. Family Relations, 49, 13-24. 
Connell, C.M., Prinz, R.J. (2002).The impact of childcare and parent-child interactions on school 
readiness and social skills development for low-income african american children. 
Journal of School Psychology, 40, 177-193. 
Duncan, G.J., Dowsett, C.J., Brooks-Gunn, J., Claessens, A., Duckworth, K., Engel, M., 
Feinstein, L., Huston, A.C., Japel, C., Klebanov, P., Magnuson, K., Pagani, L., Sexton, H. 
(2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1428-
1446. 
Durham, R.E., Smith, P.J. (2006). Nonmetropolitan status and kindergarteners? early literacy 
skills: Is there a rural disadvantage? Rural Sociological Society, 71, 625-661.  
Eccles, J.S., Harold, R.D. (1993). Parent-school involvement during the early adolescent years. 
Teachers College Record, 94, 568-587.  
55 
  
Entwisle, D.R., Alexander, K.L. (1990). Beginning school math competence: minority and 
majority comparisons. Child Development, 61, 454-471. 
Epstein, J.L. (1986). Parents? reactions to teacher practices of parent involvement. The 
Elementary School Journal, 86, 277-294. 
Epstein, J.L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. 
Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 701-712. 
Fan, X. (2001). Parental involvement and students? academic achievement: A growth modeling 
analysis. The Journal of Experimental Education, 70, 27-61. 
Fan, X., Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students? academic achievement: A meta-
analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 1-22. 
Fishel, M., Ramirez, L. (2005). Evidence-based parent involvement interventions with school-
aged children. School Psychology Quarterly, 20, 371-402. 
Fitton, L., Gredler, G. (1996). Parental involvement in reading remediation with young children. 
Psychology in Schools, 33, 325-332. 
Green, C.L., Walker, J.M.T., Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., Sandler, H.M. (2007). Parents? 
motivations for involvement in children?s education: An empirical test of a theoretical 
model of parental involvement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 532-544. 
Grolnick, W.S., Benjet, C., Kurowski, C.O., Apostoleris, N.H. (1997). Predictors of parent 
involvement in children?s schooling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 538-548. 
Hair, E., Halle, T., Terry-Humen, E., Lavelle, B., Calkins, J. (2006). Children?s school readiness 
in the ECLS-K: Predictions to academic, health, and social outcomes in the first grade. 
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 431-454. 
Hill, N.E., Tyson, D.F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A meta-analytic 
assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45, 
740-763. 
Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., Bassler, O.C., Brissie, J.S. (1992). Explorations in parent-school 
relations. Journal of Educational Research, 85, 287-294. 
Hyson, M.C. (1991). Building the hothouse: How mothers construct academic environments. 
New Directions for Child Development, 53, 31-37. 
Israel, G.D., Beaulieu, L.J., Hartless, G. (2001). The influence of family and community social 
capital on educational achievement. Rural Sociological Society, 66, 43-68. 
56 
  
Johnson, D.L., Walker, T.B., Rodriguez, G.G. (1996). Teaching low-income mothers to teach 
their children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11, 101-114. 
Jones, T.L., Prinz, R.J. (2004). Potential roles of parental self-efficacy in parent and child 
adjustment: A review. Clinical Psychology Review, 25, 341-363. 
Kohl, G.O., Lengua, L.J., McMahon, R.J. (2000). Parent involvement in school conceptualizing 
multiple dimensions and their relations with family and demographic risk factors. J Sch 
Psychol. 38, 501-523. 
Kreider, H. (2002). Getting parents ?ready? for kindergarten: The role of early childhood 
education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project. Retrieved from 
http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/projects/fine/resources/research/kreider.html. 
La Paro, K.M., Pianta, R.C. (2000). Predicting children?s competence in the early school years: 
A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 70, 443-484. 
Lonigan, C.J., Whitehurst, G.J. (1998). Relative efficacy of parent and teacher involvement in a 
shared-reading intervention for preschool children from low-income backgrounds. Early 
Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 263-290. 
Machida, S., Taylor, A.R., Kim, J. (2002). The role of maternal beliefs in predicting home 
learning activities in head start families. Family Relations, 51, 176-184. 
Mattingly, D.J, Prislin, R., McKenzie, T.L., Rodriguez, J.L., Kayzar, B. (2002). Evaluating 
evaluations: The case of parent involvement programs. Review of Educational Research, 
72, 549-576. 
McWayne, C., Hampton, V., Fantuzzo, J., Cohen, H.L., Sekino, Y. (2004). A multivariate 
examination of parent involvement and the social and academic competencies of urban 
kindergarten children. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 363-377. 
Meidel, W.T., Reynolds, A.J. (1999). Parent involvement in early intervention for disadvantaged 
children: Does it matter? Journal of School Psychology, 37, 379-402. 
Mendez, J.L. (2010). How can parents get involved in preschool? Barriers and engagement in 
education by ethnic minority parents of children attending head start. Cultural Diversity 
and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16, 26-36. 
National Education Goals Panel. (1999). The national education goal report: Building a nation of 
learners. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 
57 
  
Pelletier, J., Brent, J.M. (2002). Parent participation in children?s school readiness: The effects of 
parental self-efficacy, cultural diversity and teacher strategies. International Journal of 
Early Childhood, 34, 45-60. 
Porter-DeCusati, C.L, Johnson, J.E. (2004). Parents as classroom volunteers and kindergarten 
students? emergent reading skills. The Journal of Educational Research, 97, 235-247. 
Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago, IL: 
University of Chicago Press. 
 
Reynolds, A.J., Temple, J.A., Robertson, D.L., Mann, E.A. (2001). Long-term effects of an early 
childhood intervention on educational achievement and juvenile arrest: A 15-year follow-
up of low-income children in public schools. The Journal of the American Medical 
Association, 285, 2339-2346. 
Rimm-Kaufman, S.E., Pianta, R.C., Cox, M.J. (2000). Teachers? judgments of problems in the 
transition to kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 147-166. 
Sanders, M. R., Woolley, M. L. (2005). The relationship between maternal self-efficacy and 
parenting practices: Implications for parent training. Child: Care, Health and 
Development, 31, 65-73. 
Seefeldt, C., Denton, K., Galper, A., Younoszai, T. (1999). The relation between head start 
parents? participation in a transition demonstration, education, efficacy and their 
children?s academic abilities. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 14, 99-109. 
Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S., Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. 
Washington, DC:  National Academy of Sciences.  
Waanders, C., Mendez, J.L., Downer, J.T. (2007). Parent characteristics, economic stress and 
neighborhood context as predictors of parent involvement in preschool children?s 
education. Journal of School Psychology. 45, 619-636. 
Webster-Stratton, C., Reid, J.M., Stoolmiller, M. (2009). Preventing conduct problems and 
improving school readiness: evaluation of the incredible years teacher and child training 
programs in high-risk schools. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 471-488. 
Wright, C., Diener, M., Kay, S.C. (2000). School readiness of low-income children at risk for 
school failure. Journal of children and Poverty, 6, 99-117. 
 
 
58 
  
 
 
 
Appendix A 
Tables 
Table 1. 
 
 Descriptive Statistics for All Study Variables 
  
 
Fall 1998 Spring 1999 
 
Mean/% Mean/% 
Variable (SD) (SD) 
Outcome Variables 
  
School Readiness 
  
      Spring IRT Scores (Composite) 
 
34.12 
  
(9.5) 
      Language ARS Score (Composite) 
 
3.74 
  
(0.94) 
      Math ARS Score (Composite) 
 
3.83 
  
(0.92) 
      Gen. Know. ARS Score (Composite) 
 
3.82 
  
(0.95) 
Social Competence 
  
     Parent Rated Soc. Comp (Composite) 
 
2.6 
  
(0.21) 
     Teacher Rated Soc. Comp (Composite) 
 
2.6 
  
(0.25) 
Predictor Variables 
  
Parental Inv. Home 
  
     Frequency of Activities (Composite) 2.8 
 
 
(0.5) 
 
     Number of books in home 82.03 
 
 
(59.4) 
 
     Looks at books outside of school 3.4 
 
 
(0.78) 
 
     Pretends to read outside of school 3 
 
 
(0.9) 
 
Parental Inv. School 
  
59 
  
     Contacted child's school 
 
1.5 
  
(0.5) 
     How often attend school functions (composite) 
 
2.9 
  
(2.6) 
     Parent attended conferences (teacher) 
 
1.13 
  
(0.39) 
      Parent came for informal meetings (teacher) 
 
1.5 
  
(0.8) 
      Parent returned phone calls (teacher) 
 
1.5 
  
(0.84) 
      Parent volunteered at school or in classroom (teacher) 
 
1.52 
  
(0.62) 
Parent Self-Efficacy 
  
     Being a parent is harder than expected 
 
2.41 
  
(1.2) 
     Sacrifice life to meet child's needs 
 
3.1 
  
(1.1) 
     Feel trapped by being a parent 
 
3.8 
  
(0.51) 
     Parenting is more work than pleasure 
 
3.8 
  
(0.58) 
Control Variables 
  
Child Sex 1.49 
 
 
(0.5) 
 
     Male 51% 
 
     Female 49% 
 
   
Parent Education 4.6 
 
 
(1.75) 
 
     8th Grade or Below 2% 
 
     9th-12th Grade 7% 
 
     H.S. Diploma/Eqiv. 29% 
 
     Voc/Tech Program 5% 
 
     Some College (no degree) 28% 
 
     B.A. Degree 18% 
 
     Grad/Prof School (no degree) 2% 
 
     M.A. Degree 6% 
 
     Doctorate/Prof Degree 2% 
 
   
Single vs. Dual Parent 1.04 
 
60 
  
 
(0.2) 
 
     Spouse 65% 
 
     No Spouse 3% 
 
   
Income 59552.0 
 
 
(57195.0) 
 
Barriers of School Inv. 
  
     Barriers (Composite) 
 
1.84 
  
(0.14) 
Child Fall IRT Scores 
  
     Reading 29 
 
 
(10.8) 
 
     Mathematics 23 
 
 
(9.1) 
 
     General Knowledge 23.5 
 
 
(7.52) 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
61 
  
 
 
Table 2. 
 
 Correlations for All Study Variables
 
                            
 
1.
 
2.
 
3.
 
4.
 
5.
 
6.
 
7.
 
8.
 
9.
 
10.
 
11.
 
12.
 
13.
 
14.
 
15.
 
16.
 
17.
 
18.
 
19.
 
20.
 
21.
 
22.
 
23.
 
24.
 
25.
 
26.
 
27.
 
28.
 
1. Spring IRT Scores (Composite)
 
---
 
                           
2. Language ARS Score (Composite)
 
.61*** ---
 
                          
3. Math ARS Score (Composite)
 
.56**
 
.84**
 
---
 
                         4. Gen. Know. ARS Score (Composite)
 
.51**
 
.79**
 
.84**
 
---
 
                        5. Parent Rated Soc. Comp. (Composite)
 
.07**
 
.11**
 
.10**
 
.10**
 
---
 
                       6. Teacher Rated Soc. Comp (Composite)
 
.29**
 
.45**
 
.45**
 
.45**
 
.07**
 
---
 
                      7. Frequency of Activities (Composite)
 
.12**
 
.09**
 
.08**
 
.08**
 
.19**
 
.06**
 
---
 
                     8. Number of books in home
 
.30**
 
.18**
 
.18**
 
.19**
 
.08**
 
.12**
 
.23**
 
---
 
                    9. Looks at books outside of school
 
.14**
 
.10**
 
.08**
 
.10**
 
.09**
 
.04**
 
.35**
 
.24**
 
---
 
                   10. Pretends to read outside of school
 
.11**
 
.11**
 
.07**
 
.07**
 
.11**
 
.07**
 
.31**
 
.11**
 
.39**
 
---
 
                  11. Contacted child's school
 
-.03*
 
.0
 
.01
 
-.01
 
-.05**
 
.04**
 
-.07**
 
-.10**
 
-.07**
 
-.03*
 
---
 
                 
12. How often attend school functions 
(composite)
 
.14**
 
.09**
 
.08**
 
.10**
 
.02
 
.05**
 
.12**
 
.17**
 
.08**
 
.04**
 
-.02
 
---
 
                
13. Parent attended conferences (teacher)
 
-.10**
 
-.10**
 
-.09**
 
-.11**
 
-.01
 
-.06**
 
-.04**
 
-.11**
 
-.03**
 
.01
 
.02
 
-.06**
 
---
 
               
14. Parent came for informal meetings 
(teacher)
 
-.01
 
-.04**
 
-.03*
 
-.03*
 
-.03*
 
-.05**
 
-.03*
 
-.04**
 
-.04**
 
.01
 
.08**
 
-.08**
 
.10**
 
---
 
              
15. Parent returned phone calls (teacher)
 
-.07**
 
-.04**
 
-.02
 
-.03**
 
-.03*
 
-.05**
 
-.04**
 
-.12**
 
-.05**
 
.01
 
.13**
 
-.09**
 
.12**
 
.38**
 
---
 
             
16. Parent volunteered at school or in 
classroom (teacher)
 
-.26**
 
-.21**
 
-.20**
 
-.20**
 
-.02
 
-.16**
 
-.10**
 
-.25**
 
-.09**
 
.0
 
.08**
 
-.27**
 
.16**
 
.16**
 
.26**
 
---
 
            
17. Being a parent is harder than expected
 
.0
 
.01
 
.0
 
-.0
 
.05**
 
.02
 
.05**
 
-.01
 
.0
 
.02
 
.08**
 
-.0
 
.03
 
.05**
 
.08**
 
.03**
 
---
 
           18. Sacrifice life to meet child's needs
 
.05**
 
.02
 
.03*
 
.02
 
-.04**
 
.02
 
-.0
 
.05**
 
.0
 
-.02
 
.05**
 
.02
 
-.03*
 
.02
 
.0
 
-.02
 
0.35
 
---
 
          19. Feel trapped by being a parent
 
.02
 
.01
 
.01
 
.02
 
.04**
 
.02
 
.08**
 
.05**
 
.04**
 
.03*
 
.02
 
.02
 
-.02
 
-.01
 
-.02
 
-.03*
 
0.22
 
.28**
 
---
 
         20. Parenting is more work than pleasure
 
.09**
 
.07**
 
.07**
 
.08**
 
.06**
 
.06**
 
.09**
 
.12**
 
.06**
 
.01
 
.01
 
.05**
 
-.05**
 
-.02
 
-.05**
 
.-08**
 
0.21
 
.24**
 
.33**
 
---
 
        21. Child Sex
 
0.02
 
.13**
 
.08**
 
.08**
 
.05**
 
.17**
 
-.0
 
.03**
 
.12**
 
.24**
 
.05**
 
-.01
 
.0
 
.05**
 
.04**
 
-.01
 
.01
 
-.0
 
.01
 
.01
 
---
 
       22. Parent highest education
 
.39**
 
.25**
 
.24**
 
.24**
 
.03**
 
.11**
 
.16**
 
.33**
 
.16**
 
.04**
 
-.13**
 
.15**
 
-.12**
 
-.04**
 
-.13**
 
-.26**
 
-.04
 
.02
 
.01
 
.08**
 
.01
 
---
 
      23. Dual Parent Household
 
-.15**
 
-.11**
 
-.13**
 
-.13**
 
-.0
 
-.07**
 
-.01
 
-.12**
 
-.05**
 
-.01
 
.03*
 
-.06**
 
.03*
 
.01
 
.05**
 
.13**
 
.01
 
-.04**
 
-.03
 
-.03*
 
-.02
 
-.15**
 
---
 
     24. Income
 
.29**
 
.16**
 
.17**
 
.15**
 
0.009
 
.08**
 
0.07**
 
.28**
 
.10**
 
.0
 
-.01
 
.15**
 
-.10**
 
-.05**
 
-.11**
 
-.22**
 
.02
 
.07**
 
.03*
 
.08**
 
-.01
 
.42**
 
-.12**
 
---
 
    25. Barriers (Composite)
 
.16**
 
.11**
 
.11**
 
.11**
 
.02
 
.06**
 
.07**
 
.16**
 
.04**
 
-.02
 
.02
 
.16**
 
-.11**
 
-.04**
 
-.07**
 
-.20**
 
.09
 
.09**
 
.11**
 
.11**
 
.01
 
.14**
 
-.09**
 
.14**
 
---
 
   26. Fall IRT Reading Score
 
.80**
 
.51**
 
.45**
 
.40**
 
.06**
 
.22**
 
.10**
 
.24**
 
.14**
 
.16**
 
-.03*
 
.09**
 
-.07**
 
-.01
 
-.05**
 
-.21**
 
-.01
 
.0
 
-.01
 
.04**
 
.07**
 
.34**
 
-.11**
 
.25**
 
.11**
 
---
 
  27. Fall IRT Mathematics Score
 
.82**
 
.53**
 
.50**
 
.45**
 
.05**
 
.26**
 
.10**
 
.28**
 
.10**
 
.07**
 
-.03*
 
.14**
 
-.10**
 
-.01
 
-.06**
 
-.25**
 
.0
 
.04**
 
.01
 
.07**
 
-.02
 
.37**
 
-.12**
 
.29**
 
.15**
 
.72**
 
---
 
 28. Fall IRT General Knowledge Score
 
.69**
 
.42**
 
.42**
 
.41**
 
.06**
 
.22**
 
.14**
 
.37**
 
.13**
 
0.001
 
.06*
 
.16**
 
.13**
 
.03*
 
.12**
 
.29**
 
0.03
 
.06**
 
.04**
 
.13**
 
.04**
 
.40**
 
.16**
 
.32**
 
.17**
 
.50**
 
.62**
 
---
 
62 
  
 
Table 3: Regression Model for Predictors of Parental Self-Efficacy 
       
Variables M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 
Parent Employment .1*** 
      
.03 
 
(.14) 
      
.05 
Parent Age 
 
.10*** 
     
0 
  
(.14) 
     
0 
Parent Race 
  
.10*** 
    
.01 
   
(.13) 
    
.01 
Parent Age Birth of 1st Child 
   
.04*** 
   
.01 
    
(.11) 
   
.01 
Parent Education 
    
.13*** 
  
.10*** 
     
(.15) 
  
.11 
Parent Income 
     
0* 
 
0 
      
(.03) 
 
0 
Partner Status 
      
.03*** .02*** 
       
(.12) .10 
Fit Statistics 
        
?
2
 (df) 0*** 0*** 0*** 0*** 0*** 0*** 0*** 0*** 
 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
? ?
2
 (df) 
        
CFI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 
RMSEA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
R
2
 .20 .20 .17 .12 .22 1 .15 .33 
***p < .001 **p < .01 *p < .05 p < .10 
        
 
       
         
         
63 
  
         
          
Table 4: Regression Model for Mediation  
   
Variables M1 M2 M3 M4 
 
SE ON KO PIH & PIS ON KO PSE ON PIH & PIS Full Mediation Model 
Parental Self-Efficacy .62*** 
  
353.51 
 
(.05) 
  
(.02) 
Parent Involvement (Home) 
 
1.2*** 200.6** 1.1*** 
  
(.24) (.04) (.22) 
Parent Involvement (School) 
 
-42.1*** 1.1* -38.3*** 
  
(.07) (.02) (-.06) 
     
     
Mother Education .12*** 
 
-.01~ -.01~ 
 
(.13) 
 
(-.03) (-.03) 
Marital Status .02*** 
 
-.09* -.09* 
 
(.10) 
 
(-.03) (-.03) 
Child Gender 2213*** 1646*** 
 
1889*** 
 
(.09) (.06) 
 
(.07) 
Fit Statistics 
    
?
2
 (df) 204.04*** 72.9*** 474.9*** 835.8*** 
 
3 3 6 13 
? ?
2
 (df) 
    
CFI .60 .87 .04 .30 
RMSEA .10 .06 .13 .12 
***p < .001 **p < .01 *p < .05 ~p < .10 
    
64 
  
Appendix B 
Figures 
Figure 1. Fitted Path Diagram Kindergarten Outcomes Measurement Model (Unstandardized results in parenthesis)   
 
 
65 
  
Figure 2. Fitted Path Diagram for Parental Self-Efficacy Measurement Model (Unstandardized results in parentheses)   
 
 
 
66 
  
Figure 3. Fitted Path Diagram for Parent Involvement at Home Measurement Model (Unstandardized results in parenthesis)   
 
 
 
67 
  
Figure 4. Fitted Path Diagram for Parent Involvement at School Measurement Model (Unstandardized results in parenthesis)   
 
 
 
 
68 
  
Figure 5. Hypothesized Regression Model for Predictors of Parental Self-Efficacy (Unstandardized results in parenthesis)   
 
69 
  
Figure 6.1 Hypothesized Direct Effect Model of Parental Self-Efficacy on Kindergarten Outcomes (Unstandardized results in 
parenthesis)   
 
 
 
 
70 
  
Figure 6.2 Hypothesized Direct Effect Model of Parental Involvement at Home and at School on Kindergarten Outcomes 
(Unstandardized results in parenthesis)   
 
 
 
71 
  
Figure 6.3 Hypothesized Direct Effect Model of Parental Self-Efficacy on Parental Involvement at Home and at School (Standardized 
results in parenthesis)   
 
 
 
72 
  
Figure 6.4 Hypothesized Mediation Model (Standardized results in parenthesis)