Developmental trajectories of conditional parental regard and long-term association with students’ academic functioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To feel unconditional love and acceptance from parents is a need which fundamental character is widely recognized. This article presents the results of a longitudinal study which first objective is to identify trajectories of change in perceived parental support conditional on academic success over a 5-year period. The second objective examines whether students’ gender, mental ability, and parental education predict membership in the trajectories and the third examines whether students’ academic functioning differs according to their membership to different trajectories 1 year later, when they were in Secondary 5. A sample of 776 students (371 males) reported their perception of conditional parental support yearly from grade 6 to Secondary 4. In Secondary 5, they answered a questionnaire on their academic motivation, self-regulation, test anxiety and intention to drop out. Teachers also reported their perceptions of the participating students’ academic motivation and self-regulation and rated their academic performance. Results of latent class growth analysis (LCGA) shows that the most optimal model identified three patterns of change in students’ perceptions of their parents’ conditional support. Students’ gender, mental ability, and parental education do not predict membership in trajectories. Results of the BCH procedure indicate that whether self-reported or teacher-reported, the academic functioning of students in the low perceived conditional support trajectory was superior to that in the other two trajectories. These results add evidence that parents can have a long-term impact on children’s academic functioning and underscore the need to educate parents about the importance of avoiding associating their support and regard with their child’s academic performance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".