parents’ school-related behavior: getting involved with a grade school and college child

Parental Involvement 1

Running Head: PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT

Parents’ School-Related Behavior: Getting Involved with a Grade School and

College Child

Carlo Magno

Janelle Carmela Lynn

Aylsworth Kyler Lee

Robina Marie Ko


School-related Parental Behavior with Children in Grade School

and College

Carlo Magno.Janelle Camela Lynn,Avlsworth Kyler Lee,,Robina Marie Ko

De LaSalle University

Abstract

The present study investigated the parental involvement of the Filipino mothers

and fathers on their child’s school-related behaviors. The study made use of Tan’s

(1989) typology of fathers (procreator, dillitante, determinative, and generative)

and Umali-Razon’s (1981) typology of mothers (permissive, loving, controlling, and

autonomy). These characteristics in their typology were differentiated in the

involvement of school-related activities for a grade school child and a college child.

The pattern of differences was investigated using t-test for two independent

samples, Confirmatory Factor Analysis, and Multidimensional Scaling. The results

showed that mother’s are significantly more loving and permissive for the grade

school child while fathers are significantly more procreator and determinative for

the grade school child, p<.05. The model of Umali-Razon are more fit for

involvement with a grade school child while Tan’s model is more appropriate for a

college child. The characteristics for mothers’ and fathers’ are closely linked for

the involvement of a grade school child and these characteristics separate and

becomes exclusive for the involvement in a college child.


In the past two decades, a great deal of research has shown the

dynamics of parents’ involvement in school (Domina, 2005). Parents’ school

involvement has been linked with a lower likelihood of dropping out of

school (Rumberger, Ghatak, Poulos, Ritter, & Dornbusch, 1990). Also,

studies conducted indicate that parents’ behaviors are predictors of

children’s social adjustment in the transition to school and achievement in

school (Stevenson & Baker, 1987; The National Institute of Child Health

and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network in the United

States, 2004).

Parental Involvement

Parental involvement in education has long been a topic of interest

among those concerned with the optimal developmental and better

educational outcomes for the child. Studies report consistent findings that

increased parental involvement can improve student achievement (Hoover-

Dempsey & Sandler, 1997). In support to this, a study by Jones and Savage

(1972) has shown a positive association between parents' involvement at

school and children's achievement. Jones and Savage (1972) found that


most parents strongly value involvement in their children's learning. Across

a range of studies, there has emerged a strong conclusion that parental

involvement in child and adolescent education generally benefits children's

learning and school success (e.g., Chavkin, 1993; Eccles & Harold, 1993;

Epstein,1989, 1991,1994; Hess & Holloway, 1984; Hobbs et al., 1984; U.S.

Department of Education, 1994 cited in Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997).

The forms of parental involvement has been an important part of the

current effort to understand why parents choose to become involved and

why their involvement often functions to create positive outcomes for their

children of all ages (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997).

Parents’ Role in a Child’s Education

The roles of parents in their child’s education includes both (a) the

expectations (explicit and implicit) that parents and those in their

significant groups hold for their behaviors in relation to children's schooling

and (b) the behaviors they enact in relation to their children's schooling.

Parental role expectations may transcend gender (e.g., parents of both

genders are generally expected to protect children from harm, for example,

on the way to or from school) or may be particular to one gender or the

other (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997); for example, mothers often

experience stronger role expectations than fathers for day-to-day

involvement in children's schooling, such as homework help or signing off

on project completion checklists, while fathers may experience stronger

expectations for involvement in children's athletic activities or "big"

decisions involving such issues as major disciplinary action (e.g., Eccles &


Harold, 1994). This suggests differences in the role expectations of fathers

and mothers.

Despite the evidences on the positive outcome of increased

involvement of parents in their child’s schooling, there are studies that

specifically indicate that parent involvement in schooling decline over the

transition to higher schooling. The decline are in the aspects of parental

monitoring of students’ time (Lee, 1994), direct communications with school

(Epstein, 1995), direct assistance with homework (Epstein & Sanders,

2002), as well as other learning-supportive activities such as school-related

discussions (Lee, 1994).

Filipino Family and Culture

Parents in all cultures draw their parenting practices from the culture

that surrounds them. However, cultures vary in the extent to which parents

are allowed to vary the cultural socialization theme (Arnett, 1995). Specific

to cultural norms associated with young children, Filipino infants are given

constant attention and care, with few demands based on the belief that

infants and toddlers are vulnerable to environmental elements ranging from

infectious diseases to supernatural beings (Santos & McCollum, 2007).

Socialization is not simply a choice parents make but reflects the

expectations of the community to which the parents feel compelled to

conform and the prevailing cultural beliefs (Arnett, 1995). As children

grows older, they develop their own thoughts, decisions, less supervision,

expected to participate in family activities, and conform to family

expectations (Andres & Ilada-Andres, 1987; Medina, 1991; Santos & Chan,


2004). Parenthood places adults in the position of acting as models for their

children, which is likely to cause many of them to exercise impulse control

and because they provide sources of meaning (Arnett, 1995). Filipino child-

rearing practices emphasize the importance of family and community

membership, and these values are taught to Filipino children at an early age

(Santos, & McCollum, 2007).

Fathers

The earliest work on fatherhood was conceptualized solely in terms of

the presence versus absence of fathers and the consequences of a father’s

absence on child development (Crockett, Eggebeen, & Hawkins, 1993). In

addition, McLanahan (1985) provided an explanation that adolescents in

father-absent families were most probable to drop out of high school. On the

other hand, proof those fathers appear to put forth minimal impact or exert

very little effort on their offspring has been presented (Crockett, Eggebeen

& Hawkins, 1993). Also, an association of fathering and marital relations

has also been shown by various investigations. Belsky and Volling (1991)

found that increased levels of marital conflict and ambivalence were related

to less responsive and stimulating fathering.

According to Tan (1989) there are four types of father who vary in

their parenting. These four types are the procreator father, dilettante

father, determinative father, and generative father. Tan then made a grid

characterizing the activity of the father with his child and his affect.

Type of Activity Affect


FatherProcreator Low activity: Doesn’t

spend much time and effort on the responsibility. His idea of fatherhood does not go beyond the biological aspects. Equates fatherhood into just providing for his child and nothing else.

Negative Affect: Supply his child’s needs. He could grant the bare essentials like a first-rate education and definitive favors It serves as a reward when he sees his child become economically stable. He becomes disappointed when his child fails to carry on their family names (especially in the male offspring).

Dilettante Not very active father and participation is positive: Enjoys his position however he does not spend much time and effort in the role. May just be a supporting role for the mother or just a friend that his child can resort to when the main parent is not successful in responding to his needs.

Affective: Gets pleasure from his child’s company. If things do not go as planned he chooses to withdraw. His main frustrations come when he is rejected by his child. Fulfillment comes when his child gives him the companionship that he wants.

Determinative

High activity rating: Spends a great deal of time and effort on being a father. He actively seeks power over his child’s destiny and life, setting goals for his child instead of his child setting goals for himself.

Negative affect: The thoughts of his responsibilities are lucid; e.g. his offspring must be a top student or a distinguish doctor. Only gets concerned whenever he wants to. He gets contentment from the accomplishment of his set goals by his child. His frustration comes when his own child declines to conform to the goals that he has set.

Generative

Level of Activity is high: views parenthood as a defined opportunity for personal growth and a possibility for fulfillment.

Positive Affect: He derives pleasure from personal fulfillment, having dealt with the challenge of the change of supervising the


The meaning of his child is mostly a responsibility. The child symbolizes the future and his nurturance of the future of the family, society, and the world. He sees himself as a custodian.

growth of his child. Experience competition with their wives since they become critical when it comes to their wives’ parenting. Characterized as warm and accepting. Tend to have children who are more socially competent with peers.

Mothers

Although many Filipino families pronounce the belief that child-

rearing is a joint parental responsibility (Licuanan, 1979; Aguiling-Dalisay,

1983), the mother is still ranked as the primary caretaker of her children

(Mendez & Jocano, 1979; Licuanan, 1979; Lagmay, 1983; Mindoza et al.,

1984; UP CHE, 1958). Mothers are usually responsible for many concerns

of the child. The mother does most of the decisions in the child’s daily

routine, schooling, and health (UP CHE, 1985). Sycip (1982) refer to the

infamous “double burden” that women shoulder. Sycip (1982) writes:

Women are traditionally defined as the keepers of the home and… all

kinds of domestic and familial responsibilities are assigned to them.

Today’s economic conditions decree that they also go out and take the

additional load of… [ensuring] the financial security of their families.

At the same time, they have not been relieved of their other duties. It

seems obvious that one set of responsibilities is bond to suffer. (p.6)

A mother’s greater time investment in the care of her children can

be expected to result in greater emotional involvement. Asprer (1980)

describes the Filipino mother’s life as emotionally and psychologically


intimately intertwined with the lives of her children and husband..

Therefore, the mother-child relationship has variously been described as

one of indulgence, nurturance, responsiveness, warmth and closeness. On

the other hand there is also strictness and severity (Lagmay, 1983).

Espina (1996) confirms previous observations (e.g., Razon, 1981) that

overprotection is virtually synonymous with a mother’s love.. Studies have

shown Filipino mothers child-rearing patterns in general as more loving

than hostile, but are more controlling than permissive (Umali-Razon,

1981). Umali-Razon (1981) describe mother’s involvement in four

typologies:

Type of Mother

Description

Control High expectations of compliance to parental rules and directions, an open dialogue about those rules and behaviors, and a child-centered approach characterized by warm, positive affect.

Permissive

Having few behavioral expectations for the child and is characterized by warm affect. Parents are nurturing and accepting, but non-demanding. This type of parent simply wants the child to like him or her at the end of the day and will do anything the child requests to do.

Love Type affinity or natural affection felt among members of a group bound by common ancestry or blood ties, or care. This type of parent shows total support and concern for the child.

Autonomy Typified by immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority. This kind of mother give their children personal independence to have self-direction in life..

Parental Involvement for Grade School and College Children

Parents go through a transition in handling their child from a young

age as their child develops to adolescence (Hagestad, 1987; Van Wel, Ter

Bogt, & Raaijmakers, 2002). This implies that there are marked


differences as to how parents get involved with their children in the grade

school and those in the college level. There are also studies that describe

the pattern of parenting as perceived by the college students (Baldwin,

McIntyre, & Hardaway, 2007; Hoover, 2007; Love, 2008). The role

identity theory (Stryker, 1968) explains that emotional closeness between

children and their parents is positively influenced by life course

transitions. As adolescents develop and mature, their experiences make

them understand their parents better. The Individuation theory also

explains the transformation of the parental involvement from childhood to

adolescence (Buhl, 2000; Smollar & Youniss, 1989). The transition

includes staying at home to leaving the parental home, from being taken

care of to making their own decisions, from dependence to establishing

their financial independence. These theoretical notions of individuation

suggest that the relationship between parents and their children becomes

less close and less important during this phase, as the young adult's

dependence on parents decreases and his or her concerns shift to career

advancement, to romantic relationships, and to career formation.

Purpose of the Study

The study intends to determine whether: (1) the parenting styles of

fathers by Tan (1989) and Umali-Razon (1981) hold true for parents with

children in grade school and college; and whether (2) there is a difference

in the involvement of mothers and fathers for their children in these levels.

(3) The study likewise seeks to determine if the pattern of similarity and


dissimilarity of the parents school-related involvement for a child in grade

school and college.

Method

Participants

There were 1171 parents who participated in the study. There were

335 mothers of a grade school child and the other 251 are mothers of a

college student, 335 fathers of a grade school child and 250 fathers of a

college student. It was made consistent across the participants that both

parents selected are working and have finished at least higher education.

The age of the parents range from 24 to 54 years old.

Instruments

An instrument was constructed to measure mother and fathers’

involvement in their child’s schooling. The items for parental involvement

were based on an interview conducted for 10 mothers and 10 fathers. The

categories developed by Tan (1989) and by Umali-Razon (1981) were used

as basis to construct test items. A four-point Likert Scale was used as a

response format. The items reflect how different parents are involved in

their children’s’ academic lives including giving allowances, allowing to go

to social gatherings, and development of study habits. For the Father’s

School Related Behavior Questionnaire (FSRBQ), the items were classified

into procreator, dilettante, determinative, and generative with 30 items for

each factor and a total of 120 items. For the Mother’s School Related

Behavior Questionnaire (MSRBQ), the items were classified into control,


permissive, love, and autonomy with 30 items for each factor and a total

120 items.

The items were reviewed by experts in studies on parenting whether

the items were relevant, irrelevant, or needs revision. The items were pilot

tested to 450 parents (225 fathers and 225 mothers). The initial internal

consistency of the overall scale using Cronbach’s alpha is .98 for the

MSRBQ and .99 for the FSRBQ. The internal consistency of the subscales

for the MSRBQ (control=.81, permissive=.93, love=.80, and autonomy=.88)

and FSRBQ (procreator=.90, dilettante=.90, determinative=.93, and

generative=.86) were also high. Factor analysis was also conducted for

each scale in a measurement model where each items were cross-loaded for

each of the factors. The placement of the items was based on its significant

paths for a construct.

Procedure

The final form of the FSRBQ and MSRBQ was constructed and it was

administer to 586 parents. Purposive sampling was used where the parents

to be selected should have at least one child studying in grade school or in

college level. Since majority of the parents were working, the parents who

are not working or full time in the household were not included to have a

homogenous sample. When a mother was selected to answer the

questionnaire, the father was also requested as well to answer the

questionnaire. In administering the questionnaire, the parents were

informed that a study was being conducted to construct and test a scale

that is being developed. Once the parent agreed to participate they were


given the scale and most participants answered it for 3o minutes. After

completing the questionnaires, the parents were debriefed about the

purpose of the study.

Data Analysis

t-test for Two Independent Samples. The t-test for two independent

samples was used to compare the parents with a grade school child and

parents with a college child on each of the subscales of the FSRBQ for

fathers and MSRBQ for mothers. The level of significance is set at .05

margin of error.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). The CFA was used to test

whether the subscales of the FSRBQ and MSRBQ are significant

components of parental involvement based on their parameter estimates.

The CFA also enables to test whether the data obtained fits the

measurement model. The goodness of fit indices was compared whether the

data fits better for involvement in grade school or with college students.

The Noncentrality and Single sample Fit Indices were used as goodness of

fit indices.

Multidimensional Scaling (MDS). The MDS was used to determine

the distances of the subscales in a two dimensional plane. The closer the

distance between two subscales mean a similarity on a specific dimension.

Two multidimensional planes were generated each for fathers and mothers

with a total of four MDS analysis: Fathers with a grade school child, fathers

with a college student, mothers with a grade school child, and mothers with

a college student. The distances of the subscales were compared for a grade


school child and a college child to account for further differences in the

patterns of parental involvement. The stress level of the dimensions

produced was also obtained to determine whether the data fits the

dimension produced.

Results

The means for parental involvement for grade school and college

student were compared for each subscale of the MSRBQ and FSRBQ. The

subscales of the two measures were also confirmed through CFA. The

distances of the subscales of the MSRBQ and FSRBQ for grade school and

college student were compared to see developmental trends.

When the mothers involvement were compared for their grade school

child and college child, there were significant differences for permissive,

loving, and indifferent, p<.05, but not for controlling. Permissiveness

(M=2.62) and autonomy (M=2.68) was higher for college and loving

(M=2.81) was higher for grade school.

In comparing fathers involvement for their grade school and college

child, significant difference was found for procreator and determinative,

p<.05, but not for dillitante and generative. The father being procreator

(M=2.40) and determinative (M=2.53) was significantly higher for the

grade school child.

The factors of the MSRBQ and FSRBQ were structured in a

measurement model to determine if they will significantly load in one latent

variable. The goodness of fit of each measurement model for grade school

and high school ere compared to determine the best fitting model.


In the measurement model for mothers’ involvement with their grade

school child, all subscales had a significant paths to one latent variable,

p<.05 (see Figure 1). This means that controlling permissive, loving and

autonomy are valid constructs of the MSRBQ. The same results were

obtained when the scale was tested for mothers’ involvement with their

college child where all paths are significant, p<.05 (see Figure 2). This

means that the subscales for mothers’ involvement hold true for

involvement with grade school and college child.

Figure 1

CFA Mothers of Grade School

Figure 2

CFA Mothers of College Students

When the two measurement model was tested for goodness of fit, the

data for mothers’ involvement for the grade school child fits better as

compared to the mothers’ involvement for the college child. The obtained

chi-square (χ2=43.17), discrepancy function (0.12), Root Mean Square

residual (.092) had smaller values for the mothers’ involvement for a grade

school child. It is also consistent for the noncentrality fit indices where


higher values were obtained for the mothers’ involvement for a grade

school child. The same pattern was observed for the single sample fit

indices (see Appendix A).

When the model for the fathers involvement was tested for the grade

school child, all subscales had significant paths in one latent variable,

p<.05. The same significant paths were obtained for each subscale for the

fathers involvement for a college child, p<.05. This shows that the

susbscales for the FSRBQ holds true for fathers’ involvement for the grade

school and college child.

Figure 3

CFA Fathers of Grade School

Figure 4

CFA Fathers of College Students

The two measurement models for fathers’ involvement when tested

had an adequate goodness of fit. However there is a pattern that the model

favors fathers’ involvement for college students. Lower values for chi-


square (χ2=47.6), discrepancy function (0.143), and Root Mean Square

Residual (.089) were obtained for the fathers in involvement in college child

data. For the noncentrality measures, higher values were consistently

obtained for the fathers’ involvement in college child data. Similar pattern

was observed for the single sample fit indices where fathers’ involvement

for the college child is better (see Appendix B).

The distances of the subscales of the FSRBQ and MSRBQ were

analyzed using Multidimensional scaling. The distances of each subscale

were estimated using Eucledian distances. Higher values in the Eucledian

estimates indicate dissimilarity of the two variables, small values indicates

similarity of the variables. For each MDS analysis, a two dimension plane

was selected because the subscales of Tan (1989) and Umali-Razon (1981)

runs in two dimensions: Activity and affect. This was further proven in the

analysis because stress levels for each MDS model had low values. The

stress level of each MDS model indicates goodness of fit of the data for the

selected configurations that was analyzed: Mothers’ involvement for grade

school child (stress=.000), mothers’ involvement for college child

(stress=.000), fathers’ involvement for grade school child (stress=.000),

fathers’ involvement for college child (stress=.000).


Figure 5

Distances of the Subscales for MSRBQ

Distances for the MSRBQ (Grade School)

Distances for the MSRBQ (College)

For the involvement of mothers for their grade school child, loving

and permissiveness were positioned in the same quadrant (Eucledian

distance=.87). Controlling and autonomy are in two separate dimensions.

The pattern changes for mothers’ involvement for the college child. This


time, all four subscales were separated each in its own quadrant.

Controlling was placed in a higher dimension and permissiveness to a lower

dimension. The subscale on loving separated with permissiveness for the

college data (Eucledean distance=2.09).

Figure 6

Distances of the Subscales for the FSRBQ

Distances for the FSRBQ (grade school)

Distances for the FSRBQ (college)


For the subscales of the FSRBQ for their grade school child, the

procreator and generative are in the same quadrant (Eucleadean

distance=0.96). Dillitante and determinative are in two separate quadrants

each. Procreator, generative and determinative are all positioned in the

lower region while dillitante in the highest region. The pattern completely

changes for when the scale was used for the fathers’ involvement in the

college child. Each subscale separated in their own quadrant. Dillitante was

positioned in the lowest region and procreator moved in a higher position.

Determinative maintained its distance with all other subscales.

Discussion

The study aimed to determine differences in the pattern of paternal

involvement between fathers’ and mothers’ involvement with children in

grade school and college . The mean for the mothers’ involvement

showed a difference only for permissive, loving and autonomy. For fathers,

differences were observed for the procreator type and determinative type. It

was found that mothers tend to be more permissive for the college son or

daughter because they are seen to be more independent in making their

own decisions and choices as compared with the child in grade school

where the mothers still assume more roles for the child (Mendez & Jocano,

1979; Licuanan, 1979; Lagmay, 1983; Mindoza et al., 1984; UP CHE, 1958).

However, the mother exhibits more loving care with the young child

because their increased involvement develops a bond with the child (Asprer,

1980). The mother assumes extended roles to the child at an early age

because of developmental limitations (Sycip, 1982). In this stage, the


mother decides for the personal and general aspects of the child’s life. This

extended role creates a loving connection with the child. However, with

gaining independence the mothers’ involvement lessens and results to

decreased manifestations of loving . On the other hand, fathers seem to opt

for the procreator and determinative style with their child in the grade

school. What is common between procreator and determinative is the

negative affect of the father .attributed to his expectations of the child.. The

father when getting involved with his young child sets distinguished

achievements for the child to accomplish. This ideal expectation on the child

is created because the father lacks an emotional bond with the child (Keller,

2005). To overcome this negative affect the father needs to know the child

more. The father is inconsistent in getting involved with the child as

characterized at times by low activity (for procreator) and low activity (for

determinative).

It was also found in the study that Tan’s fathering styles is better fit

for involvement with a child in the college level, on the other hand Umali-

Razon’s typology is better fit for involvement with a child in grade school..

Tan’s fathering style is very specific which points out negative affect and

low activity which captures exactly how a college child is treated. The low

activity and negative affect are not all characterizations of involvement but

rather giving more autonomy for the child to make decisionsforthemselves.

This kind of involvement is found to be more appropriate in handling a child

in college. For mothers, the characteristics of being controlling, permissive,

loving, and autonomous are more appropriate for the grade school child.


These characteristics emphasize more care, guidance, and nurturance

which are very much applicable for a younger child because these are their

immediate needs from the mother Because the mother provides these

nurturing characteristics, then the mother’s role is deemed important for a

child in the grades.

In the study, the movement of the subscales is further characterized

by analyzing their similarity and dissimilarity in a two dimensional plane.

Mothers’ involvement was found to be permissive and loving for a grade

school child but the subscales all separate for the involvement with a

collegiate child. For fathers involvement, the same pattern is observed

where procreator and generative are more similar for grade school and the

subscales all separate when the involvement is for a college. The pattern

occurring for both mothers and fathers involvement here is that two

subscales are close in proximity (making it more similar) when the

involvement is for a grade school child but all subscales separate when the

involvement is for a college child. This suggests that certain characteristics

overlap in dealing with a grade school child because the approach can be

more complex. This complexity is described as one action related or leading

to another. For example, mothers need to be permissive to their child to

express their love or a father who provides the child’s needs is his way of

fulfillment in supervising the child. However, these characteristics become

independent and exclusive in handling a college child. At this point the

parent is now more experienced in dealing with the child and acts


appropriately on certain occasions which explains exclusivity of the

characteristics.

The pattern of differences for mother’s and father’s found in the study

extends further characterizing the developmental pattern of parental

involvement. Most models stop at identifying key characteristics of mothers

and fathers. The present study was able to establish how these

characteristics change on the involvement for a grade school child and

college child.

Conclusion

It is concluded in the study that mothers and fathers involvement

changes in handling their grade school and college child. Mothers and

fathers school-related involvement are more similar where the

characteristics are more related in handling a grade school child but these

involvement characteristics become exclusive for a college child. This is

explained not only by the child’s development but parents’ changing

perspectives in handling the child.

Recommendations

It is recommended in future studies to investigate the changes in the

parents’ involvement in a larger age range or involvement across a wider

development of the child (ex. Preschool, grade school, high school, college).

Inferring about the changes in parents involvement is explained better if the

behavior is studied in a longitudinal design where parents’ involvement will

assessed as their child progresses in different school or age levels. In terms

of the variables in parental involvement, it is recommended that other


factors be identified by interviewing parents. With this method, more

characteristics of parental involvement can be identified and used as a basis

for developing a scale.

Reference

Andres, T. D., & Ilada-Andres, P. B. (1987). Understanding the Filipino.

Quezon City, Philippines: New Day Publishers.

Arnett, J. J. (1995). Broad and narrow socialization: The family in the

context of a cultural theory. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57,

617-628.

Baldwin, D. R., McIntyre, A., & Hardaway, E. (2007). Perceived parenting

styles on college studnets’ optimism. College Student Journal, 41,

550-558.

Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent

competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence. 11,

56-95

Belsky, J. & Volling, B., . (1991). Multiple determinants of father-

involvement during infancy in dual-earner and single-earner families.

Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 461-474.

Belsky, J., Crnic, K. & Jain, A. (1996). Beyond fathering behaviors: Types of

dads. Journal of Family Psychology, 4, 431-442.

Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1980). The role of ego-control and ego-resiliency in

the organization of behavior. In A. Collins (Ed.), Minnesota Symposia

of Child Psychology, 13 (pp. 39–101). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.


Bornstein, M. H., & Cote, L. R. (2004). Mothers’ parenting cognitions in

cultures of origin, acculturating cultures, and cultures of destination.

Child Development, 75, 221–235.

Buhl, H. M. (2000). Life course transitions and age as determinants of the

adult child-parent relationship. Zeitschrift fur Soziologie der

Erziehung and Soziallsation, 20, 391-409.

Carlson, V. J., & Harwood, R. L. (1999/2000). Understanding and

negotiating cultural differences concerning early developmental

competence: The six-raisin solution. Zero to Three, 20, 19–24.

Crockett, L. J., Eggebeen, D. J., & Hawkins, A. J. (1993). Father's presence

and young children's behavioral and cognitive adjustment. Family

Relations, 14, 355-377.

Domina, T. (2005). Leveling the home advantage: Assessing the

effectiveness of parental involvement in elementary school. Sociology

of Education, 78, 233-249.

Goodnow, J. J. (1988). Parents’ ideas, actions, and feelings: Models and

methods from developmental and social psychology. Child

Development, 59, 286–320.

Greenfield, P. M., Keller, H., Fuligni, A., & Maynard, A. (2003). Cultural

pathways through universal development. Annual Review of

Psychology, 54, 461–490.

Harkness, S., & Super, C. (1995). Culture and parenting. In M. H. Bornstein

(Ed.), Handbook of parenting,: Biology and ecology of parenting (pp.

211–234). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.


Hagestad, G. O. (1987). Parent-child relations in later life: Trends and gaps

in past research. In J. B. Lancaster, J. Altmann, A. S. Rossi, & L. R.

Sherrod (Eds.), Parenting across the life span: Biosocial dimensions

(pp. 405-433). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Hoover, E. (2008). Surveys of students challenge 'Helicopter Parent'

stereotypes. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 54, 22.

Huang, J. & Prochner L. (2004). Chinese parenting styles and children’s

self-regulated learning. Journal of research in childhood education,

18(3), 227-238.

Kochanska G., Aksan N., Penney S.J. & Boldt L.J. (2007). Parental

personality as an inner resource that moderates the impact of

ecological adversity on parenting. Journal of personality and social

psychology, 92, 136-150.

Lagmay, L. (1993). Kruz-na-ligtas: Early socialization in an urbanizing

community. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press.

Licuanan, P. (1979). Some aspects of child-rearing in an urban low-income

community. Philippines Studies. 27, 453-468.

Love, K. M. (2008). Parental attachments and psychological distress among

African American college students. Journal of College Student

Development, 49, 31-41.

McLanahan, S. S. (1985). Family structure and the reproduction of

poverty. American Journal of Sociology, 90, 873-901.

Medina, B. T. G. (1991). The Filipino family: A text with selected readings.

Manila, Philippines: University of the Philippines Press.


Mendez, P. & Jocano, F. (1979). The fillipino adolescent in a rural and an

urban setting: A study in culture and education. Manila: Centro

Escolar University Research and Development Center.

Mindoza, A., Botor, C. & Tablante, I. (1984). Mother-child relationships in

early childhood. Cebu: Cebu Star Press.

Rosenthal, M. K., & Roer-Strier, D. (2001). Cultural differences in mothers’

developmental goals and ethnotheories. Internal Journal of

Psychology, 36, 20–31.

Rudy, D. & Grusec J. E. (2006). Authoritarian parenting in individualistic

and collectivist groups: Association with maternal emotion and

cognition and children’s self-esteem. Journal if family psychology,

20(1), 68-78.

Rumberger, R. W., Ghatak, R., Poulos, G., Ritter, P. L., & Dornbusch, S. M.

(1990). Family influences on dropout behavior in one California high

school. Sociology of Education, 63, 283-299.

Santos, R. M., & Chan, S. (2004). Families with Pilipino roots. In E. W.

Lynch & M. J. Hanson (Eds.), Developing cross-cultural competence: A

guide for working with young children and their families (3rd ed., pp.

299–344). Baltimore: Brookes

Santos, R.M., & McCollum, J.A. (2007). Perspectives of parent-child

interaction in filipino mothers of very young children with and without

disabilities. Journal of Early Intervention. 29, 243-261.


Smollar, J., & Youniss, J. (1989). Transformations in adolescents'

perceptions of parents. International Journal of Behavioral

Development, 12, 71-84.

Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Darling, N., Mounts, N. S., & Dornbusch, S.

M. (1994). Over-time changes in adjustment and competence among

adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and

neglectful families. Child Development, 65, 754–770.

Stevenson, D. L., & Baker, D. P. (1987). The family-school relation and the

child’s school performance. Child Development, 58, 1348-1357.

Stryker, S. (1968). Identity salience and role performance: The relevance of

symbolic interaction theory for family research. Journal of Marriage

and the Family, 30, 558-564.

Sycip, L. (1982). Working mothers: Their problems and coping strategies.

Social Science Information. 10, 1-8.

Tan, A. (1989). Four meaning of fatherhood. Philippines journal of

psychology, 22,51-60.

Umali-Razon, P. (1981). Child rearing practices of Filipino urban mothers:

Relationship to children’s cognitive development. Philippine Journal

of Psychology, 14 (1/2), 8-15.

Up & CHE (1985). Final report on child-rearing practices: The Philippine

setting. Unpublished manuscript. College of Home Economics,

University of the Philippines.

Van der Vorst, H., Engels, R., Meeus, W., & Dekovic, M. (2006). Parental

attachment, parental control, and early development of alcohol use:


A longitudinal study. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 20(2), 107-

116.

Van L., Karla G., &Vermulst , A. (2004). Some Psychometric Properties of

the Ghent Parental Behavior Scale. European Journal of Psychological

Assessment, 20(4), 283-298.

Van Wel, F., Ter Bogt, T., & Raaijmakers, Q. (2002). Changes in the parental

bond and the well-being of adolescents and young adults.

Adolescence, 37, 317-333.

Xie, Q. (1996). Parenting style and only children’s school achievement in

china. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American

educational research association, New York. ERIC Document

Reproduction.

Appendix A

Goodness fit Indices Indices for MSRBQ

Estimates

MSRBQ for Grade

SchoolMSRBQ for

College Discrepancy Function 0.129 0.348 ML Chi-Square 43.178 86.565 Degrees of Freedom 2 2 RMS Standardized Residual 0.092 0.16Noncentrality Indices Population Noncentrality Parameter 0.135 0.363 Steiger-Lind RMSEA Index 0.26 0.426 McDonald Noncentrality Index 0.935 0.834 Population Gamma Index 0.937 0.846 Adjusted Population Gamma Index 0.683 0.232Single Sample Fit Indices Joreskog GFI 0.934 0.843 Joreskog AGFI 0.67 0.217 Akaike Information Criterion 0.177 0.412


Schwarz's Bayesian Criterion 0.269 0.525 Browne-Cudeck Cross Validation Index 0.178 0.413 Independence Model Chi-Square 327.409 282.709 Independence Model df 6 6 Bentler-Bonett Normed Fit Index 0.868 0.694 Bentler-Bonett Non-Normed Fit Index 0.616 0.083 Bentler Comparative Fit Index 0.872 0.694 James-Mulaik-Brett Parsimonious Fit Index 0.289 0.231 Bollen's Rho 0.604 0.081 Bollen's Delta 0.873 0.699

Appendix B

Goodness fit Indices Indices for FSRBQ

Estimates FSRBQ for Grade School FSRBQ for College Discrepancy Function 0.222 0.143 ML Chi-Square 55.213 47.6 Degrees of Freedom 2 2 RMS Standardized Residual 0.104 0.089Noncentrality Fit Indices Population Noncentrality Parameter 0.13 0.187 Steiger-Lind RMSEA Index 0.306 0.254 McDonald Noncentrality Index 0.911 0.937 Population Gamma Index 0.914 0.939 Adjusted Population Gamma Index 0.572 0.696 Single sample Fit Indices Joreskog GFI 0.911 0.937 Joreskog AGFI 0.555 0.683 Akaike Information 0.286 0.19


Criterion Schwarz's Bayesian Criterion 0.282 0.399 Browne-Cudeck Cross Validation Index 0.191 0.287 Independence Model Chi-Square 307.122 345.888 Independence Model df 6 6 Bentler-Bonett Normed Fit Index 0.845 0.84 Bentler-Bonett Non-Normed Fit Index 0.546 0.53 Bentler Comparative Fit Index 0.849 0.843 James-Mulaik-Brett Parsimonious Fit Index 0.282 0.28 Bollen's Rho 0.535 0.521 Bollen's Delta 0.851 0.845

parents’ school-related behavior: getting involved with a grade school and college child

Documents