Motivation of Parent Involvement in Secondary-Level Schooling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inspired by K. V. Hoover-Dempsey and H. M. Sandler's (1995, 1997) model of the parent involvement process, the authors examined 4 psychological constructs of parent involvement: (a) relative strength of parents' role construction, (b) parents' self-efficacy for helping adolescents succeed in school, (c) parents' perceptions of teacher invitations to become involved, and (d) parents' perceptions of students' invitations to become involved. The authors obtained survey responses from 770 parents of adolescents in 5 Quebec secondary schools—354 parents of 7th graders, 231 parents of 8th graders, and 185 parents of 9th graders. Results emphasize that it is important that researchers distinguish parent involvement at home and at school when examining the predictive power of the 4 psychological constructs. Findings also provide evidence of grade-level differences in the predictive models of parent involvement at home and at school. Parents' perceptions of students' invitations was the most powerful predictor of parent involvement at home models across the 3 grade levels. Parents' role construction made important contributions to the prediction of their involvement at Grades 7 and 9; parents' perceptions of teacher invitations were associated with parent involvement at school across the 3 grade levels. Whether at home or at school, parents became involved if they perceived that teachers and students expected or desired their involvement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".