Journal of Child and Family Studies

, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 627–641 | Cite as

The Development and Validation of the Parental Involvement Survey in their Children’s Elementary Studies (PISCES)

  • P. Cristian GugiuEmail author
  • Mihaiela Ristei Gugiu
  • Michael Barnes
  • Belinda Gimbert
  • Megan Sanders
Original Paper


The purpose of the present study was to (1) examine the internal validity of the Parental Involvement Survey in their Children’s Elementary Studies (PISCES) and (2) illustrate how survey instruments can be validated using modern psychometric techniques. The PISCES was developed by the present authors by adopting items from the Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler Revised Model of Parent Involvement and the Parent Reading Belief Inventory. The PISCES is comprised of 49 new items and 35 modified items that measure parental beliefs about education, reading with children, self-efficacy, and involvement in school activities. Data were collected from 230 parents of kindergarten students enrolled in a major Midwest school district. We utilized modern psychometric techniques to validate the instrument, including ordinal parallel analysis, ordinal exploratory factor analysis (EFA), Rasch modeling, second-order EFA, and reliability analysis. Our findings revealed the PISCES attained a very high level of internal validity although some of its subscales could benefit from the addition of more items. Tables for converting the sum of individual item scores to Rasch scores are provided. We advise readers to use the whole instrument if they want a holistic measure of parental involvement and the individual scales if they are only interested in a particular domain of parental involvement. We also advise readers to adopt our conversion tables to facilitate comparisons across studies. Finally, we recommend that survey researchers utilize ordinal parallel analysis and ordinal EFA to investigate the dimensionality of survey instruments and Rasch modeling to further explore and refine them.


Parental involvement Survey validation Ordinal scales Parallel analysis Factor analysis Rasch modeling Reliability analysis 


Author Contributions

PCG: designed and executed the study, performed the final analyses, and wrote most of the final paper. MRG: collaborated with the design and execution of the study, performed some of preliminary data analysis, and wrote part of the study; MB: collaborated with the design and execution of the study, performed part of the preliminary data analysis, and wrote the first draft of the study; BG: collaborated with the writing of the study; MS: collaborated with the design of the study.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of The Ohio State University and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

10826_2018_1294_MOESM1_ESM.docx (141 kb)
Supplementary Information


  1. Baker, M. (2016). Is there a reproducibility crisis? A Nature survey lifts the lid on how researchers view the ‘crisis rocking science and what they think will help. Nature, 533, 7604.Google Scholar
  2. Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2015). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Boone, W. J., Staver, J. R., & Yale, M. S. (2014). Rasch analysis in the human sciences. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory Factor Analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  5. Castro, M., Exposito-Casas, E., Lopez-Martin, E., Lizasoain, L., Navarro-Asencio, E., & Gaviria, J. (2015). Parental invovlement on student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 14, 33–46.Google Scholar
  6. Chen, H.-F., & Zhu, J. (2017). Optimal items for assessing parental involvement across different groups during middle childhood. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26, 2999–3012.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, R. J., & Swerdlik, M. E. (2002). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement. 5th ed. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  8. Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical & modern test theory. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Group/Thomson Learning.Google Scholar
  9. Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.Google Scholar
  10. Cronbach, L., & Meehl, P. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.Google Scholar
  11. Curenton, S. M., & Justice, L. M. (2008). Children’s preliteracy skills: Influence of mother’s education and beliefs about shared-reading interventions. Early Education and Development, 19(2), 261–283.Google Scholar
  12. Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 16–29.Google Scholar
  13. DeBaryshe, B. D. (1995). Maternal belief systems: Linchpin in the home reading process. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 16(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
  14. DeBaryshe, B., & Binder, J. (1994). Development of an instrument for measuring parental beliefs about reading aloud to young children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, 1303–1311.Google Scholar
  15. Dembe, A., Lynch, M., Gugiu, P., & Jackson, R. (2014). The translational research impact scale: Development, construct validity, and reliability testing. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 37(1), 50–70.Google Scholar
  16. Epstein, J. (1992). School and family partnerships. In M. Aiken ed., Encyclopedia of educational research. 6th ed. (pp. 1139–1151). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  17. Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family and community partnerships. Preparing educators and improving. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  18. Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  19. Flora, D. B., & Curran, P. J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confimatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods, 9(4), 466–491.Google Scholar
  20. Furr, R. M., & Bacharach, V. R. (2008). Psychometrics: An introduction. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Gadermann, A. M., Guhn, M., & Zumbo, B. D. (2012). Estimating ordinal reliability for Likert-type and ordinal item response data: A conceptual, empirical, and practical guide. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 17(3), 1–13.Google Scholar
  22. Gonzalez, J. E., Taylor, A. B., Davis, M. J., & Kim, M. (2013). Exploring the underlying factor structure of the Parent Reading Belief Inventory (PRBI): Some caveats. Early Education and Development, 24(2), 123–137.Google Scholar
  23. Green, C. L., Walker, J., Hoover-Dempsey, K., & Sandler, H. (2007). Parents’ motivations for involvement in children’s education: An empirical test of a theoretical model of parental involvement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 532–544.Google Scholar
  24. Groves, R. M. (2006). Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(5), 646–675.Google Scholar
  25. Gugiu, C., & Gugiu, M. (2018). Determining the minimum reliability standard based on a decision criterion. Journal of Experimental Education, 86(3), 458–472.Google Scholar
  26. Gugiu, P. C. (2011). Summative confidence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI.Google Scholar
  27. Gugiu, P. C., Coryn, C., & Applegate, E. (2010). Structure and measurement propperties of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care instrument. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 16(3), 509–516.Google Scholar
  28. Gugiu, P., Coryn, C., Clark, R., & Kuehn, A. (2009). Development and evaluation of the short-version of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) instrument. Chronic Illness, 5(4), 268–276.Google Scholar
  29. Guzman, G. G. (2017). Household income: 2016. Community Survey Briefs. Washington, DC: US Bureau of the Census. Scholar
  30. Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7(2), 191–205.Google Scholar
  31. Hedges, L. V. (2018). Challenges in building usable knowledge in education. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 11(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
  32. Higgings, S., & Katsipataki, M. (2015). Evidence from meta-analysis about parental involvement in education which support their children’s learning. Journal of Children’s Services, 10(3), 280–290.Google Scholar
  33. Hill, N., & Tyson, D. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A meta-analytic assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45(3), 740–763.Google Scholar
  34. Hoover-Dempsey, K., & Sandler, H. (1995). Parental involvement in children’s education: Why does it make a difference? Teachers College Record, 97(2), 310–331.Google Scholar
  35. Hoover-Dempsey, K., & Sandler, H. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their children’s education? Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 3–42.Google Scholar
  36. Jeynes, W. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between parental involvement to urban elementary school student academic achievement. Urban Education, 40(3), 237–269.Google Scholar
  37. Jeynes, W. (2007). The relationship between parental involvement and urban secondary school student academic achievement. A meta-analysis. Urban Education, 42(1), 82–110.Google Scholar
  38. Jin, R. (2012). Sample size in exploratory factor analysis with ordinal data. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Kalamazoo, MI. University of Florida.Google Scholar
  39. Linacre, M. J. (2002a). Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3(1), 85–106.Google Scholar
  40. Linacre, M. J. (2002b). What do infit and outfit, mean-square and standardized mean? Rasch Measurement Transactions, 16(2), 878.Google Scholar
  41. Linacre, M. J. (2013). Winsteps® Rasch Measurement Computer Program User’s Guide. Beaverton, OR: Scholar
  42. Liu, F., Black, E., Algina, J. C., & Dawson, K. (2010). The validation of one parental involvement measurement in virtual schooling. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(2), 105–132.Google Scholar
  43. Lomax, R. G., & Hahs-Vaughn, D. L. (2012). An introduction to statistical concepts. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Manz, P. H., Gernhart, A. L., Bracaliello, C. B., Pressimone, V. J., & Eisenberg, R. A. (2014). Preliminary development of the Parental Involvement in Early Learning scale for low-income families enrolled in a child-development-focused home visiting program. Journal of Early Intervention, 36(3), 171–191.Google Scholar
  45. McDill, E. L., Rigsby, L. C., & Meyers, E. D. (1969). Educational climates of high schools: Their effects and sources. American Journal of Sociology, 74(6), 567–586.Google Scholar
  46. McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  47. Menheere, A., & Hooge, E. (2010). Parental involvement in children’s education: A review study about the effects of parental involvement on children’s school education with a focus on the position of illiterate parents. Journal of European Teacher Education Network, 6, 144–157.Google Scholar
  48. Mulaik, S. A. (2010). Foundations of factor analysis. 2nd ed New York, NY: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  49. Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  50. Patall, E., Cooper, H., & Robinson, J. (2008). Parent involvement in homework: a research synthesis. Review of Educational Reserach, 78(4), 1039–1101.Google Scholar
  51. Peng, R. (2015). The reproducibility crisis in science: A statistical counterattack. Significance, 12(3), 30–32.Google Scholar
  52. Persch, A., Gugiu, P., Velozo, C., & Page, S. (2015). Rasch analysis of the wrist and hand Fugl-Meyer: Dimensionality and item-level characteristics. Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy, 39, 185–192.Google Scholar
  53. Pomerantz, E. M., Moorman, E. A., & Litwack, S. D. (2007). The how, whom, and why of parents’ involvement in children’s academic lives: More is not always better. Review of Educational Research, 77, 373–410.Google Scholar
  54. Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2011). Introduction to psychometric theory. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  55. Reed, R. P., Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Flynn, C. (2001). Parents’ involvement in children’s education: Testing a mediational model. Minneapolis: Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research on Child Development.Google Scholar
  56. Reese, E., Sparks, A., & Leyva, D. (2010). A review of parent interventions for preschool children’s language and emergent literacy. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 10(1), 97–117.Google Scholar
  57. Sheldon, S., & Epstein, J. (2002). Improving student behavior and school discipline with family and community involvement. Education and Urban Society, 35(1), 4–26.Google Scholar
  58. Sheldon, S., & Epstein, J. (2005). Involvement counts: family and community partnerships and mathematics achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(4), 196–207.Google Scholar
  59. Singer, J. D. (2018). Even more challenges in building usable knowledge in education. Journal of Research in Educational Effectiveness, 11(1), 22–24.Google Scholar
  60. Stevens, S. S. (1946). On the theory of scales of measurement. Science, 103(2684), 677–680.Google Scholar
  61. Sy, S. R., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2005). Parent beliefs and children's achievement trajectories during the transition to school in Asian American and European American families. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29(6), 505–515.Google Scholar
  62. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. 4 ed Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  63. Turney, K., & Kao, G. (2009). Barriers to school involvement: Are immigrant parents disadvantaged? The Journal of Educational Research, 102, 257–271.Google Scholar
  64. Walker, J. M., Wilkins, A. S., Dallaire, J. R., Sandler, H. M., & Hoover-Dempsey, K. V. (2005). Parental involvement: Model revision through scale development. The Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 85–104.Google Scholar
  65. Wong, S. W., & Hughes, J. N. (2006). Ethnicity and language contributions to dimensions of parent involvement. School Psychology Review, 35, 645–662.Google Scholar
  66. Wright, B. (1968). Sample-free test calibration and person measurement. Proceedings of the 1967 invitational conference on testing problems (pp. 85–101). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  67. Wright, B. (1997). A history of social science measurement. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16(4), 33–45.Google Scholar
  68. Wright, B. D., & Stone, M. H. (1979). Best test design. Chicago, ILL: MESA Press.Google Scholar
  69. Wu, C., & Honig, A. (2010). Taiwanese mothers’ beliefs about reading aloud with preschoolers: Findings from the Parent Reading Belief Inventory. Child Development and Care, 180, 647–669.Google Scholar
  70. Zumbo, B. D., Gadermann, A. M., & Zeisser, C. (2007). Ordinal versions of coefficient alpha and theta for Likert rating scales. Journal of Modem Applied Statistical Methods, 6(1), 21–29.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  2. 2.National Registry of Emergency Medical TechniciansColumbusUSA
  3. 3.Colorado School of MinesGoldenUSA

Personalised recommendations