Early Education & Development Direct and Indirect Effects...

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Stanford University]On: 20 February 2011Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 930493184]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Early Education & DevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t775653644

Direct and Indirect Effects of Parenting on the Academic Functioning ofYoung Homeless ChildrenJanette E. Herbersa; J. J. Cutulia; Theresa L. Lafavora; Danielle Vriezea; Cari Leibela; Jelena Obradovićb;Ann S. Mastena

a Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota, b School of Education, Stanford University,

Online publication date: 06 February 2011

To cite this Article Herbers, Janette E. , Cutuli, J. J. , Lafavor, Theresa L. , Vrieze, Danielle , Leibel, Cari , Obradović, Jelenaand Masten, Ann S.(2011) 'Direct and Indirect Effects of Parenting on the Academic Functioning of Young HomelessChildren', Early Education & Development, 22: 1, 77 — 104To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/10409280903507261URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10409280903507261

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t775653644

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10409280903507261

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Direct and Indirect Effects of Parentingon the Academic Functioning of

Young Homeless Children

Janette E. Herbers, J. J. Cutuli, Theresa L. Lafavor,Danielle Vrieze, and Cari Leibel

Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota

Jelena ObradovicSchool of Education, Stanford University

Ann S. MastenInstitute of Child Development, University of Minnesota

Research Findings: Effects of parenting quality on the academic functioning ofyoung homeless children were examined using data from 58 children ages 4 to7 and their parents during their stay at an emergency homeless shelter. Parent-ing quality, child executive function, child intellectual functioning, and riskstatus were assessed in the shelter, and teacher reports of academic functioningwere obtained when the children began kindergarten or 1st grade. As hypothe-sized, parenting quality was associated with children’s academic success, andthis effect was mediated by executive function skills in the child. Parentingquality also had a moderating effect on risk, consistent with a protective roleof high-quality parenting among children with higher risk levels. Concomi-tantly, children with higher risk and lower parenting quality appeared to bemore vulnerable to academic problems. Practice or Policy: In homeless famil-ies, parenting may play an especially important role in academic successthrough multiple pathways, including the development of executive functionskills in their children. Policies and practices to support parents and fosterthe executive function skills of young children in homeless families may be

Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Janette E. Herbers, Institute of

Child Development, University of Minnesota, 51 E. River Parkway, Minneapolis, MN 55455.

E-mail: [email protected]

EARLY EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT, 22(1), 77–104

Copyright # 2011 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1040-9289 print=1556-6935 online

DOI: 10.1080/10409280903507261

77

Downloaded By: [Stanford University] At: 20:04 20 February 2011

important strategies to promote child academic success. Implications forintervention efforts with homeless parents and children are discussed.

Parents in high-risk families can promote the academic success of theiryoung children in a variety of ways. By providing structure and warm, sensi-tive care, parents can support the development of crucial cognitive andself-regulation skills that enable young children to make a smooth transi-tion from home or preschool into the formal school environment (Blair,2002; Harris, Robinson, Chang, & Burns, 2007; Hill, 2001; Morrison,Rimm-Kaufman, & Pianta, 2003; NICHD, 2002; Pianta & Harbers, 1996;Rimm-Kaufman & Pianta, 2000; Supplee, Shaw, Hailstones, & Hartman,2004; Turner & Johnson, 2003). Parents can also communicate to their chil-dren that school is important through imparting positive expectationsregarding achievement, encouraging good attendance, talking with childrenabout school experiences, helping them with homework, and maintainingregular communication with their teachers (Arnold & Doctoroff, 2003;Belsky & MacKinnon, 1994; Hill & Craft, 2003; Pianta, Smith, & Reeve,1991). When children face risks to their academic achievement in the contextof poverty and homelessness, the promotive and protective influences ofparenting and the parent–child relationship may be especially important(Arnold & Doctoroff, 2003; Hill, 2001; Morrison et al., 2003; Raviv,Kessenich, & Morrison, 2004; Supplee et al., 2004). The purpose of thisstudy was to explore several potential pathways through which parentingquality may promote and protect the academic achievement of homelesschildren in the early school years. Specifically, we examined whether effectsof parenting quality were mediated by child executive function (EF) andintellectual functioning and whether parenting quality moderated effectsof risk on homeless children’s early school functioning.

Large numbers of children in the United States experience homelessness.Data from a national survey in 1996 indicated that approximately 8% of allfamilies living in poverty had experienced a period of homelessness in thepast year, with 900,000 of those individuals being children (Burt et al.,1999; Huntington, Buckner, & Bassuk, 2008). In 2008, 20% of homelesspeople in the nation were children. Half of those children were less than 6years old, and families with young children currently represent the largestgrowing segment of the homeless population (U.S. Department of Housingand Urban Development, 2009). Although family homelessness hasincreased over the past several decades in the United States (Haber & Toro,2004), rapid increases in housing foreclosures beginning in 2007 and the cur-rent economic recession in the United States have drawn attention to theneeds of homeless families.

78 HERBERS ET AL.


Homelessness is considered a marker of high adversity and risk, withchildren from homeless families falling at the extreme end of an underlyingcontinuum of poverty (Buckner, 2008; Buckner, Bassuk, & Weinreb,2001; Buckner, Bassuk, Weinreb, & Brooks, 1999; Masten, Miliotis,Graham-Bermann, Ramirez, & Neemann, 1993). Children from familieswho experience homelessness face well-established risks common to otherlow-income children, such as limited parental education, single-parenthouseholds, limited financial resources, poor health care, poor nutrition,and exposure to family and community violence (Huntington et al., 2008;McLoyd, 1998; Rog & Buckner, 2007). In addition, homeless childrenexperience risk factors specific to homelessness, such as frequent residentialmoves with related discontinuities in schooling and relationships, stressfulconditions of emergency shelter living, and disruptions in access to servicesand family support (Buckner, 2008; Masten, 1992; Masten et al., 1997;Torquati, 2002). Although studies comparing homeless children tolow-income, more stably housed children have not consistently found differ-ences in terms of adjustment and health, robust differences have emerged foreducational outcomes (Haber & Toro, 2004; Obradovic et al., 2009;Rescorla, Parker, & Stolley, 1991; Rog & Buckner, 2007; Zima, Wells, &Freeman, 1994). Moreover, it is clear that children in homeless families varysubstantially in terms of their achievement and adjustment in school, withsome children showing resilience and others manifesting serious difficulties(Miliotis, Sesma, & Masten, 1999; Obradovic et al., 2009). Understandingthe nature of the risk and protective processes that may protect child devel-opment in the context of homelessness is important and timely given thegrowing scope of the problem and the current economic crisis.

RISKS TO SCHOOL READINESS AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

A variety of studies indicate that homeless children perform worse on testsof academic achievement than more stably housed children from similarlylow or higher socioeconomic groups (Buckner, 2008; Masten et al., 1997;Obradovic et al., 2009; Rafferty & Shinn, 1991; Rafferty, Shinn, &Weitzman,2004; D. H. Rubin et al., 1996). Furthermore, educational disparities foryoung homeless children begin early and persist (Obradovic et al., 2009).Like other children from disadvantaged families, homeless children enterschool with significantly worse scholastic skills, which predisposes themto academic difficulties early in the school years and beyond (Arnold &Doctoroff, 2003; Belsky & MacKinnon, 1994; Duncan et al., 2007; Howse,Lange, Farran, & Boyles, 2003; Luster & McAdoo, 1996; Ramey &Ramey, 2004; Supplee et al., 2004). In addition to beginning school at

PARENTING AND HOMELESS CHILDREN 79


an academic disadvantage, homeless children are also likely to experiencedisruptions in learning experiences and relationships as they continuechanging schools, residences, and possibly cities throughout their schoolcareers, making it all the more difficult for them to achieve at the samelevels as their non-homeless and non-mobile peers (Obradovic et al.,2009; Rafferty et al., 2004).

Rimm-Kaufman and Pianta (2000) have argued persuasively that the firstyears of school largely set the stage for later academic functioning. Successin the early school years is so vital to later academic achievement that thetransition to school can be considered a sensitive period for promotingschool success. These initial school years provide children not only with fun-damental skills in reading and mathematics but also with the basic tools forlearning and the means to acquire knowledge. Research has demonstratedthe significance of a child’s attentiveness, engagement, motivation, andsocial skills in the early school years for later academic success in gradeschool and middle school (Arnold & Doctoroff, 2003; Blair, 2002; Duncanet al., 2007; Hill & Craft, 2003; Ladd, Birch, & Buhs, 1999; Luster &McAdoo, 1996; Turner & Johnson, 2003).

School readiness may be of particular importance for young childrenat very high socioeconomic risk, including children experiencing home-lessness, because these children enter these important early school yearsalready disadvantaged (McLoyd, 1998; Ramey & Ramey, 2004; Rog &Buckner, 2007). Educators and policymakers who plan to address suchdisparities in achievement need information on the promotive and pro-tective developmental processes that facilitate positive adaptation toschool. This is especially the case for young children experiencing home-lessness and related educational risks. The transition to school and theearly school years represent a window of opportunity for improvingsuccess in school.

THE PROMOTIVE AND PROTECTIVE ROLE OF PARENTS

Effective caregiving represents the most important protective influence forthe healthy development of high-risk children (Luthar, 2006; Masten,Cutuli, Herbers, & Reed, 2009). Investigations of the detrimental influencesof poverty and sociodemographic risk have demonstrated that these distalrisk factors impact child outcomes through more proximal influences suchas parent function and the parent–child relationship (Arnold & Doctoroff,2003; Hill, 2001; Morrison et al., 2003; Pianta et al., 1991; Raviv et al.,2004). Given that the majority of young homeless children are embeddedwithin families (Haber & Toro, 2004) and that many other aspects of the

80 HERBERS ET AL.


children’s lives are in flux, parents in homeless families are likely to play acrucial role in the readiness of their children for the transition to school.

At the same time, parents in homeless families are confronted with manychallenges that could undermine their effectiveness as parents (Buckneret al., 2001; Huntington et al., 2008; Torquati, 2002; Vostanis, Grattan,Cumella, & Winchester, 1997). Risks common in the context of homeless-ness may compromise parenting behavior in caregivers of young children.For example, Torquati found that family stressors predicted negative par-enting in homeless families and noted specific characteristics of living inemergency shelters that may disrupt the parenting process, including need-ing to manage children in unstructured situations, hearing criticisms of theirparenting from others in the shelter, and becoming overwhelmed anddemoralized by the living situation.

In this context, it is not surprising that homeless mothers have been foundto have lower scores on measures of warmth and to provide their childrenwith less cognitive and social stimulation when compared to more stablyhoused low-income mothers (Haber & Toro, 2004). However, relatively fewstudies have examined how differences in parenting within the specific con-text of homelessness relate to differences in child outcomes. In one study of59 African American homeless children and their families, Miliotis et al.(1999) found that parenting quality was related to teacher ratings of later aca-demic achievement and adaptive functioning at school. Parent intellectualfunctioning, education level, and psychological distress did not predict aca-demic outcomes, suggesting that parenting behaviors and the parent–childrelationship may have a particularly important protective role in this context.

Although the mechanisms by which parenting and the parent–childrelationship can promote and protect school functioning in homeless childrenhave yet to be explained, previous research related to parenting and childschool readiness skills in both normative and high-risk samples served as aguide for the current hypotheses. Different aspects of parenting and the par-ent–child relationship have been linked to the concurrent and future academicachievement of young children. Parents who speak to their children moreoften; read books with their children; and specifically teach academic skillssuch as problem solving, counting, andnaming letters have childrenwhobeginschoolwith better verbal andmathematical abilities (Supplee et al., 2004). Par-ents who have higher, more positive expectations for their children’s successhave children who achieve higher grades and ultimately complete more yearsof school (Belsky & MacKinnon, 1994; Luster & McAdoo, 1996). Further-more, parents who are more actively involved with their children’s school interms of communicating with the teacher, attending school functions, andassisting with homework have children who demonstrate better social skillsand experience more academic success (Arnold & Doctoroff, 2003; Hill &



Craft, 2003; Miedel & Reynolds, 1999). Warmth, discipline, and lack ofhostility in the parent–child relationship is related to better child self-esteem,persistence, and motivation in school (Arnold & Doctoroff, 2003; Hill, 2001;Pianta & Harbers, 1996; Turner & Johnson, 2003).

HYPOTHESIZED MEDIATORS OF PARENTING

Parental support, involvement, and instruction help children make successfultransitions to school by supporting the development of child cognitive abili-ties, including general intelligence, math and verbal skills, and EF (Blair,2002; Englund, Luckner, Whaley, & Egeland, 2004; Morrison et al., 2003;Pianta & Harbers, 1996; Supplee et al., 2004). Many experts define intelli-gence differently, though it is commonly conceptualized psychometricallyas the general factor (g) shared by a variety of different IQ tests (Blair,2006; Neisser et al., 1996). IQ has been studied extensively across thelifespan and shows normative increases with age, though age-corrected stan-dardized scores for individuals remain fairly stable over their lives (Neisseret al., 1996). IQ is consistently related to and predictive of math ability, read-ing ability, academic achievement, and school performance (Neisser et al.,1996). Though much of the variance in IQ scores is attributed to geneticinfluences, twin studies have demonstrated evidence for environmental influ-ences that may include parenting practices as well (Neisser et al., 1996). Insamples of low socioeconomic status, environmental factors predict a greatdeal of the variance in IQ scores (Turkheimer, Haley, Waldron, D’Onofrio,& Gottesman, 2003). Meanwhile, some empirical studies have demonstratedeffects of parenting on academic achievement mediated by IQ (Brooks-Gunn& Markman, 2005; Englund et al., 2004; Raviv et al., 2004).

Fostering the development of EF skills is another way that effective parentsmay facilitate successful transitions to school (Blair, 2002). Executive functiongenerally refers to a set of cognitive abilities used in planning, problem solving,and other intentional, goal-directed behaviors, including working memory,attention shifting, detecting errors, and inhibitory control processes (Blair &Razza, 2007;Miyake et al., 2000;Zelazo&Cunningham, 2007).EFskills,whichare fundamental for self-regulatory behavior, involve the conscious control ormodulation of cognitions, behaviors, and emotions (Zelazo & Cunningham,2007). These skills are essential for learning and also for successful function ina school classroom. These skills also develop rapidly during the preschool yearsbecause of thematuration of the brain’s prefrontal cortex and other physiologi-cal systems (Blair & Razza, 2007; Zelazo & Cunningham, 2007).

Kindergarten teachers view EF skills as more important for schoolreadiness than specific academic knowledge, such as knowing letters of the

82 HERBERS ET AL.


alphabet or how to count to 20 (Blair, 2002). As children enter school, theclassroom presents a new context in which specific demands are placed onthe child’s ability to regulate his or her behavior and emotions (Belsky &MacKinnon, 1994). Compared to home and most preschool or day careprograms, kindergarten classrooms have relatively large class sizes and loweradult-to-child ratios (Rimm-Kaufman&Pianta, 2000). In order to learn fromacademic instruction and perform well in kindergarten, children must be ableto remain in their seats, sustain attention over relatively long periods of time,refrain from talking and acting out of turn, and develop harmonious relation-ships with both teachers and peers. EF skills are important in these regards.

EF skills are distinct from general intelligence, although related. Scoreson measures of EF are moderately correlated with performance on IQ tests(Blair & Razza, 2007; Carlson, Moses, & Breton, 2002; Friedman et al.,2006; Mahone et al., 2002). The associations of performance on EF andIQ tests suggest that common factors or processes may be supporting theirdevelopment and function. However, specific aspects of EF relate differen-tially to distinct aspects of intellectual ability. EF measures that involveupdating working memory are highly related to measures of intellectual testperformance (IQ), whereas behavioral inhibition and set-shifting are lessrelated to IQ (Blair & Razza, 2007; Friedman et al., 2006). Similarly, thoughEF skills and general intellectual skills are correlated, they independentlypredict variance in achievement (Blair, 2002; Buckner, Mezzacappa, &Beardslee, 2003; Eisenberg et al., 2004; Englund et al., 2004; Pianta &Harbers, 1996; Valiente, Lemery-Chalfant, Swanson, & Reiser, 2008). Forexample, when a kindergarten child faces a situation in which he or she mustrespond to negative peer behaviors at school, the child must control his orher emotional response and display, which requires an understanding ofemotional experiences and some inhibitory control. The child must alsoshow strategies for problem solving, knowledge of a proper course of action,and confidence in his or her ability to either manage the situation or seekassistance from someone else, such as a teacher. This complex process drawson a variety of skills—intelligence, knowledge, emotion understanding,behavioral control, emotional control, social skills, and problem solving.

Qualities of parenting and theparent–child relationship showconsistent asso-ciations with both EF and IQ as well as with academic achievement (Blair et al.,2008; Calkins,Graziano, Berdan,Keane,&Degnan, 2008; Calkins&Hill, 2007;Diamond & Aspinwall, 2003; Eisenberg et al., 2005; Harrist & Waugh, 2002;Klebanov, Brooks-Gunn, McCarton, & McCormick, 1998; Kochanska,Murray, & Harlan, 2000; Lengua, Honorado, & Bush, 2007; Olson, Bates,Sandy, & Schilling, 2002; Pianta & Harbers, 1996; Raviv et al., 2004;Zelazo & Cunningham, 2007). However, there is limited research on themediating role of EF in the link between parenting quality and academic



achievement in a way that is distinct from general intellectual ability.Given the distinctive links among aspects of EF and IQ, it seems likelythat the mechanisms through which parenting may influence the develop-ment of EF or IQ skills may be overlapping but not identical. Because ofthis, it is informative to consider both IQ and EF as possible mediators.

In summary, the positive effects of parenting on academic functioningmay be mediated through both EF and IQ. Research on young childrenin high-risk populations indicates that the influence of parents on schoolsuccess may be particularly important, functioning in distinct ways to mod-erate risk (Eisenberg et al., 2005; Lengua, 2002; Miliotis et al., 1999; Raver,2004). It is important to study these pathways among families experiencinghigh levels of risk.

CURRENT STUDY

Three potential roles of parenting quality were examined in this study.Parenting quality was expected to relate to both general intellectual (IQ) skillsand EF skills, which in turn were expected to relate to academic achievement,representing a mediated and indirect role of parenting on academic achieve-ment. Parenting quality was also expected to have unique direct effects onacademic achievement not mediated by IQ or EF because parents haveadditional roles that promote school success, as noted earlier, including theirinfluence on attendance and social or emotional behaviors not necessarilycaptured by measures of EF or IQ (Morrison et al., 2003; Pianta & Harbers,1996; Supplee et al., 2004). Finally, parenting was expected to moderate theeffects of varying levels of sociodemographic risk on academic achievement,even when controlling for possible moderating effects of IQ and EF on risk.Though the data were gathered concurrently, mediating and moderatinghypotheses were tested in models based on theoretical expectations.

METHOD

Participants

Participants were part of a larger study of homeless families who had chil-dren between the ages of 4 and 7 years during the summer and fall of 2006,prior to the rapid increase in housing foreclosures a year later. Families wererecruited at a large urban emergency shelter for homeless families. Familiesstaying at this shelter tend to be single mothers with several young children,and demographic characteristics were comparable to national figuresfor urban emergency shelters (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

84 HERBERS ET AL.


Development, 2009). The average stay for a family at this shelter wasapproximately 1 month, with families staying anywhere from 1 night to 2years. Because of limitations of the measures used, five families with limitedEnglish proficiency were not recruited. Families who had been at the shelterfor less than 3 days generally were not recruited in order to allow them timeto acclimate. Two families participated earlier at their request.

The following analyses include only the 58 children who were going intokindergarten (n¼ 20) or first grade (n¼ 38) during the study. The mean ageof these children was 6.1 years (SD¼ 0.5). The majority of the children wereAfrican American (81.0%), with 3.4% Caucasian, 1.7% Native American,and 13.8% multiracial. Moreover, 38 children were male (64.4%) and 21were female (35.6%), reflecting the gender ratio of children this age in theshelter at the time of recruitment. The participation rate of families withchildren entering kindergarten or first grade was approximately 90% basedon counts taken during 1 week of each month.

Of the 58 families, 41 were headed by single parents. Though second par-ents were invited to complete interviews when available, the data presentedin this analysis represent only information from the 58 primary caregivers.The primary caregivers included 54 biological parents, 2 stepparents, and2 grandmothers. Four of the primary caregivers were single fathers. The pri-mary caregivers identified their ethnicities as African American (84.5%),Caucasian (10.3%), Native American (3.4%), and other. These families weredemographically similar to those reported in other studies of urban home-less families in the United States, which tend to include a disproportionatepercentage of African American and other ethnic minority families, withmostly single mothers staying in an emergency shelter with multiple youngchildren (Haber & Toro, 2004; Rog & Buckner, 2007; Toro, 2007). Further-more, these families reported reasons for becoming homeless similar tothose described in other studies, such as eviction, extreme poverty, loss ofbenefits, and domestic violence (Toro, 2007). Thus, the sample was likelya good representation of the population of urban homeless families in 2006.

Procedures

Families were recruited for participation by research staff in the cafeteria orlobby of the homeless shelter or responded to fliers and letters distributed totheir rooms. Families met with research staff on site at the shelter for one90-min session. Once they completed the informed consent process, parentsengaged in a face-to-face interview while their children completed a varietyof tasks, including an abbreviated IQ assessment and a battery of behavioraltasks designed to assess EF. Portions of the parent interview included ques-tions about demographic information used to assess sociodemographic risk



as well as questions about parenting and the parent–child relationship. Inappreciation for their time, parents received $20 gift cards and childrenreceived small bags of toys at the completion of the session.

Once data collection in the shelter was completed, children were locatedin area schools and questionnaires were mailed to their classroom teachers.Teachers reported on several school outcomes, including questions relatedto school engagement and academic competence. Of the 58 children whoparticipated, 54 were located in schools and 4 were presumed to have leftthe state. The teachers of all 54 students who received questionnairesreturned them and received a $10 gift card as an honorarium.

Measures

Parenting. Two strategies were used to assess parenting quality: (a) rat-ings by the parent interviewer and (b) independent ratings by trained judgesreviewing the structured parent interview. Immediately following each par-ent interview, the interviewer completed a set of behavior ratings thatincluded the following five parenting items, each scored on a 5-point scale:how close are this parent and child, how warmly did the parent speak of thechild, how positively did the parent speak of the child, what is the quality ofthe parent–child relationship, and how hostile was the parent in describingthe child (reverse scored). These interviewer ratings were based on generalimpressions of parent behavior in response to the entire 90-min interview,which involved specific self-report questions about parenting as well asquestions about the child’s behavior. Interviewers were also present toobserve how parents interacted with their children during the consent pro-cess, although they were blind to the child’s performance on the IQ andEF tasks. These rating scales were adapted from a set of rating scales index-ing parent–child closeness that showed high interrater agreement as well asstructural and predictive validity in an earlier study of parenting amonghomeless families (Miliotis et al., 1999). The five interviewer ratings of par-enting in the present study also showed strong internal consistency (a¼ .89),and a composite was formed by averaging ratings across the five items. Itwas not possible to assess interrater reliability, as only one researcher waspresent for the entirety of each interview. To further validate these data,however, parenting was assessed with another method by independent raterswho had conducted no interviews, as described next.

At the conclusion of data collection, all of the written responses to thestructured interviews of parents were rated again by a new team. Eachtrained rater completed the same set of parent ratings that the interviewerhad completed as well as additional ratings summarizing parent self-reportof discipline and consistency. The purpose of this set of ratings was to

86 HERBERS ET AL.


validate the interviewer’s behavior ratings and also minimize potential biasfrom the likeability and verbal skills of the parent while interpreting and inte-grating his or her responses. For example, coders were instructed to considerdiscrepancies in the interview questions ‘‘How close do you feel to yourchild?’’ and ‘‘How close does your child feel to you?’’ The following sevenitems were coded based on written information in the interview: parentingcloseness, positive descriptions, quality of the relationship between the parentand child, parent positive expectations, parental discipline, authoritative par-enting style, and overall quality of parenting. Interrater agreement was high,with an average intraclass correlation coefficient of .94 across raters anditems. Therefore, these ratings were averaged across raters and then acrossthe seven items to form a second parenting quality composite (a¼ .92).

The two composite parenting variables, one based on interviewer ratingsand one based on coded written responses to the parent interview, weremoderately correlated (r¼ .46, p< .01), suggesting that the two approachesoffered distinct but congruent perspectives. Interviewers were able to inte-grate impressions from interpersonal interactions and observations, whereasraters were able to closely examine self-reported written information in thecontext of the interview responses. The two scores were standardized andthen combined to form one global composite of parenting quality withscores ranging from �2.7 to 1.3.

Risk. An index of cumulative risk was created to account for differencesin risk status within the high-risk population of currently homeless families(Masten & Sesma, 1999). The cumulative risk index included a sum of indi-cators for the following 6 risk factors selected to represent a lack of physicalresources: family had no income last month, primary caregiver is currentlyunemployed, primary caregiver has less education than a high school degree,child’s family previously lived in an unsafe neighborhood, child’s familycould not afford their rent, and child’s family previously lived in substan-dard or unsafe housing. These indicators of sociodemographic risk werechosen to represent risk factors for academic achievement that are not directmeasures of parenting, although clearly these kinds of risks could be histori-cally related to the general competence and behavior of a parent.

Academic functioning. Teachers of children in the study completed theTeacher version of the Health and Behavior Questionnaire (Armstrong,Goldstein, & the MacArthur Working Group on Outcome Assessment,2003; Lemery-Chalfant et al., 2007), which includes a composite measureof academic functioning based on two subscales of 8 items related to schoolengagement (a¼ .87 in the current sample) and 5 items related to academiccompetence (a¼ .96 in the current sample). Examples of items measuring



school engagement include ‘‘approaches new activities with enthusiasm’’ and‘‘is cheerful in school,’’ whereas examples of items measuring academic com-petence include ‘‘How would you rate this child’s current school performancein math-related skills?’’ and ‘‘How would you evaluate this child’s currentschool performance in reading-related skills?’’ Teachers use 5-point ordinalscales to evaluate children relative to their same-age peers (Armstrong et al.,2003). The two subscales were significantly correlated (r¼ .33, p< .05).

EF. Child EF was measured based on the following four behavioral lab-oratory tasks: Simon Says (Kochanska, Murray, & Coy, 1997; Strommen,1973), Peg-Tapping (Diamond & Taylor, 1996), Computerized PointingStroop (Berger, Jones, Rothbart, & Posner, 2000), and the DimensionalChange Card Sort task (DCCS; Zelazo, 2006). In Simon Says, childrenare asked to perform actions such as clapping their hands and touching theirhead only when the experimenter gives instructions preceded by the phrase‘‘Simon says.’’ The experimenter demonstrates all of the actions, requiringthe child to remember the rules, listen carefully to and understand theinstructions, and inhibit the tendency to mimic the experimenter’s actionson trials that do not begin with ‘‘Simon says.’’ Child performance on SimonSays was coded from video by two trained coders who were blind to childperformance on the other EF tasks. Interrater reliability was calculatedbased on 25% of the sample, with a weighted j¼ .94. In Peg-Tapping, thechild is asked to tap the table with a wooden dowel once when the exper-imenter taps twice and twice when the experimenter taps once. Again, thechild must remember and follow the rules, inhibiting imitation. Scores forPeg-Tapping were based on the percentage of correct taps in response to16 trials. For the Stroop task, children point to one of two pictures of ani-mals presented in consecutive trials on a computer touch screen, first select-ing the animal that makes the sound they hear (dog bark, cat meow, cowmoo, or rooster crow) for a set of congruent trials, then selecting theopposite animal—the one that does not make the sound they hear—for aset of incongruent trials. Performance was computer scored based on thenumber correct out of the 16 incongruent trials. For the DCCS, the childis asked to sort picture cards first by color and then by shape. Performancewas scored by the experimenter as the number out of 6 sorted correctly byshape. Both the Stroop and the DCCS tasks require cognitive flexibility andinhibitory control as well as working memory.

Scores for each of the 4 tasks were standardized and combined to create acomposite of EF with high internal consistency (a¼ .75) and high item-totalcorrelations (r> .70, p< .001). Composite scores ranged from �1.6 to 0.9.For more information on the scoring, reliability, validity, and internalconsistency of these tasks in this particular sample, see Obradovic (in press).

88 HERBERS ET AL.


IQ. Each child’s general intellectual functioning (IQ) was measuredusing the following 3 subscales of the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scaleof Intelligence–Third Edition (WPPSI-III; Wechsler, 2002): Vocabulary,Matrix Reasoning, and Block Design. Raw scores on each of the three subt-ests were transformed to norm-referenced scaled scores adjusted for age. Instandardization samples, each WPPSI-III subtest scaled score has a mean of10 and a standard deviation of 3. Scaled scores from Matrix Reasoning andBlock Design were averaged to create a single score, representing perform-ance IQ (r¼ .38, p< .01), which was then combined with the Vocabularyscaled score, representing verbal IQ (r¼ .49, p< .001), to yield an estimateof overall intellectual functioning.

Missing Data

Complete data for all 58 participants were available for the following vari-ables: age, gender, coded parenting ratings, DCCS, child IQ, and cumulativerisk. Percentages of missing data for other variables were as follows: inter-viewer ratings of parenting (3.4%), Simon Says (13.8%), Peg-Tapping(1.7%), Stroop (6.9%), and academic functioning (8.6%). The Simon Saystask had a higher rate of missingness because a large number of childrenfailed the training trials and the activation trials of the task, indicating thatthe measure was invalid for these children and failed to assess EF. Missing-ness on the Simon Says task was not related to performance on other EFtasks, IQ, or cumulative risk. However, missingness analyses (data not pre-sented) suggest that the data meet assumptions of ‘‘missing at random’’(Fitzmaurice, Laird, & Ware, 2004, Chapter 14).

Missing data were imputed using PROC MI in SAS Version 8.1 with therecommended expectation-maximization algorithm and Markov chainMonte Carlo method to create 10 imputed data sets (Schafer & Graham,2002). Data were imputed at the subscale level and then composited asdescribed earlier. Analyses with the 10 separate imputed data sets were com-bined according to Rubin’s rules (D. B. Rubin, 1987), and results usingimputed data did not differ from results of the same analyses performedon the original, non-imputed data set. The results presented here reflectthe analyses from the multiply imputed data.

RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations

Presented in Table 1 are descriptive statistics on the main variables includedin the analyses as well as the individual items that composed the composite



of parenting quality. On average, parents were rated highest for the close-ness of their relationship with their child by both interviewers and structuredinterview raters. Parents received the lowest scores for warmth according tointerviewers and for discipline and authoritative parenting according tostructured interview raters. Similar to the findings in other studies of home-less children, the sample mean IQ score estimate was approximately 1 SDbelow the normative mean. Scores on the cumulative risk index ranged from0 to 5 out of six risk factors, with a mean score of 2.3 risk factors.Seventy-four percent of the children had scores of 3 or more. The mostcommon risk factors from the index of six described earlier were parentalunemployment and family could not afford rent at their previous residence.

Correlations among the variables included in the analysis are presented inTable 2. The overall composite of parenting quality was significantly corre-lated with EF scores, child IQ, and teacher report of child academic func-tioning. As expected, child IQ was significantly but moderately correlatedwith EF. Age and gender were not significantly related to cumulative risk,parenting quality, or academic functioning. However, age and gender weresignificantly correlated with both EF and IQ, suggesting that older childrenand girls received higher scores than younger children and boys, respect-ively. Both age and gender were included in all analyses as relevant demo-graphic variables. Ethnicity was not related to any variables of interest,

TABLE 1

Descriptive Statistics

Variable M SD Min Max

Parenting quality 0.0 0.9 �2.7 1.3

Positive tone (interviewer) 4.0 1.0 1.0 5.0

Warmth (interviewer) 3.9 1.1 1.0 5.0

Hostility (interviewer) 2.0 1.0 1.0 5.0

Closeness (interviewer) 4.2 0.9 2.0 5.0

Quality of relationship (interviewer) 4.0 1.0 2.0 5.0

Closeness (rater) 4.5 0.6 2.7 5.0

Positive tone (rater) 4.2 0.8 1.7 5.0

Quality of relationship (rater) 4.1 0.7 2.0 5.0

Expectations (rater) 4.3 1.0 1.0 5.0

Discipline (rater) 3.6 1.0 1.0 5.0

Authoritative parenting (rater) 3.7 0.9 1.3 5.0

Overall parenting (rater) 4.8 1.2 1.7 6.7

Academic functioning 3.2 0.7 1.6 4.6

Child age 6.1 0.5 5.0 7.3

Cumulative risk 2.3 1.2 0.0 5.0

Executive function 0.0 0.7 �1.6 0.9

Child IQ 7.4 1.7 3.8 12.3

90 HERBERS ET AL.


perhaps because the vast majority of study participants were AfricanAmerican or multiracial; thus, ethnicity was not included in subsequentanalyses.

Hierarchical Linear Regression Analysis

A hierarchical linear regression analysis was performed to explore the possi-bility of mediation and to test the potential moderating role of parentingquality on different levels of cumulative risk for child academic functioning(see Table 3). The first step showed the total effect of parenting quality onacademic functioning controlling for child age and gender, and the secondstep added the potential mediators of EF and IQ. Cumulative risk wasentered in Step 3 of the model. In Step 4, the interaction term for ParentingQuality�Cumulative Risk score was entered to determine whether parent-ing quality would moderate the effects of cumulative risk on academicachievement, controlling for mediating effects through EF and IQ. Finally,Step 5 of the model included interaction terms based on CumulativeRisk�EF and Cumulative Risk� IQ to test whether a moderating effectof parenting could be accounted for by other potential moderators of risk.All variables included in interaction terms were centered prior to beingmultiplied.

Parenting quality showed a significant main effect for academic function-ing in Step 1 (b¼ .29, p< .05), controlling for age and gender. In Step 2,child EF and IQ accounted for an additional 21% of the variance in academ-ic functioning (b¼ .40, p< .05; b¼ .35, p< .05, respectively). With child EFand IQ included in the model, parenting quality was no longer a significantpredictor of academic functioning (b¼ .08, p¼ .67), consistent with amediating effect of these two variables. A formal test of this mediation ispresented in the following section.

TABLE 2

Bivariate Correlations (N¼58)

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Parenting quality –

2. Academic functioning .28� –

3. Child age .21 .05 –

4. Child gender �.17 .01 �.07 –

5. Cumulative risk �.15 �.33� �.15 �.10 –

6. Executive function .48�� .43�� .54�� .29� �.19 –

7. Child IQ .34�� .41�� .38�� .37�� .31� .56�� –

�p< .05, two-tailed. ��p< .01, two-tailed.



Cumulative risk was not a significant predictor of academic functioningwhen added in Step 3 of the regression analysis. However, the interactionterm entered in Step 4 explained an additional 8% of the variance in

TABLE 3

Hierarchical Linear Regression Demonstrating a Moderating Effect of Parenting Quality

on Cumulative Risk for Teacher-Reported Academic Functioning, Controlling for Age,

Gender, Executive Function, and Child IQ

Step B SE B b

Step 1

Age �.04 .17 �.03

Gender .04 .19 .03

Parenting quality .23� .11 .29�

Step 2

Age �.41� .17 �.33�

Gender .30� .19 .22

Parenting quality .06 .12 .08

Executive function .37�� .15 .40��

Child IQ .14� .06 .35�

Step 3

Age �.41� .18 �.33�

Gender .24 .19 .17


Executive function .36�� .15 .40��

Child IQ .11 .06 .28

Cumulative risk �.10 .07 �.18

Step 4

Age �.50�� .17 �.40��

Gender .23 .18 .16


Executive function .30� .15 .33�

Child IQ .12� .06 .31�


Parenting Quality�Risk .22�� .09 .30��

Step 5

Age �.52�� .17 �.41��

Gender .17 .19 .12


Executive function .29� .15 .32�

Child IQ .10 .06 .26


Parenting Quality�Risk .23�� .10 .31��

Executive Function�Risk .11 .11 .17

IQ�Risk �.13 .11 �.19

Note. R2¼ .09 for Step 1, DR2¼ .21 for Step 2 (p< .01), DR2¼ .02 for Step 3 (ns), DR2¼ .08

for Step 4 (p< .01), DR2¼ .02 for Step 5 (ns).�p< .05, two-tailed. ��p< .01, two-tailed.

92 HERBERS ET AL.


academic functioning, indicating a significant moderating effect of parentingquality on cumulative risk. As depicted in Figure 1, the moderating effect ofparenting quality showed the classic form of a protective=vulnerability fac-tor. Children with higher quality parenting had higher scores on academicfunctioning regardless of their cumulative risk level. Children with lowerquality parenting appeared to do as well as their peers in the sample whenrisk levels were low. When risk was high, however, children with lower qual-ity parenting had much lower academic scores. Thus, children with higherquality parenting appeared to be protected and children with lower qualityparenting appeared to be vulnerable to risk for academic problems. Thefourth step of the model, which included child age and gender, parentingquality, EF and IQ, cumulative risk, and the interaction of parenting qualityand risk, accounted for 46.3% of the variance in child academic functioning,F(7, 50)¼ 6.16, p< .001.

Finally, interaction terms for EF�Risk and for IQ�Risk added in Step5 of the model were not significant predictors of academic functioning. TheParenting Quality�Risk interaction remained significant (b¼ .31, p< .01)even when these other potential moderators of risk were included. Becauseof the relatively small sample size and the large number of terms (nine) in thefinal model, we also tested alternative moderators in different orders. Boththe EF�Risk and IQ�Risk terms were not significant, even when addedindependently in the fourth step in the absence of the Parenting�Riskterm. Thus, we are confident that, when added in Step 5, the alternative

FIGURE 1 Parenting quality moderates the effect of cumulative risk on child academic

functioning.



moderators were not merely suppressed as a result of multicollinearitybut rather did not function as significant moderators of risk on academicfunctioning.

Test of Mediated Effects of Parenting on Child Achievement

The mediated effect of parenting quality on academic functioning throughIQ and EF was tested with the bootstrapping method designed for smallsamples described by Preacher and Hayes (2008). Using their macro forSPSS version 16.0, we tested for the total effect of parenting controllingfor age and gender with both child IQ and child EF as simultaneous med-iators. With 1,000 bootstrap resamples, this model showed evidence formediating effects of parenting through IQ and EF. The total effect of par-enting quality on academic functioning when controlling for child age andgender was significant (.29, p¼ .04). The direct effect of parenting qualityon academic functioning was .07 (p¼ .67). Thus, the indirect effect throughsimultaneous mediators of IQ and EF, calculated as the total effect minusthe direct effect, was .22, with a 95% bootstrap confidence interval of .06to .35. This confidence interval indicates that the difference between thetotal and direct effects, accounted for by indirect effects through the media-tors, was significantly different from zero. The overall model was significantand explained 33.9% of the variance in child academic functioning. Thoughthey produced a significant effect as simultaneous mediators, only EF had asignificant pathway from parenting quality (.35, p< .01). The pathway from

FIGURE 2 Model of indirect effects of parenting quality on academic functioning through IQ

and executive function. Control variables of age and gender were included but are not shown

here. yp< .10, two-tailed. �p< .05, two-tailed. ��p< .01, two-tailed.

94 HERBERS ET AL.


parenting quality to IQ emerged only as a trend (.22, p< .10). These resultsmay indicate that EF has a more pronounced mediating pathway by whichparenting quality influences academic functioning. The mediator model isdepicted in Figure 2.

DISCUSSION

Effective parenting appears to be important for the early academic successof children who enter school during or immediately following an episodeof homelessness. Parenting quality was related to both the intellectual abili-ties and EF skills of the children, which in turn predicted early academicsuccess in kindergarten or first grade. Parenting quality also showed a mod-erating effect on risk with respect to academic success in these children, con-sistent with a protective or vulnerability role. Children with very high-riskfamily backgrounds and higher quality parenting had more academic suc-cess than children with lower quality parenting from similarly high-riskbackgrounds.

Parenting as a Protective Factor

Similar to the findings reported by Miliotis et al. (1999), this study yieldssupport for the protective effects of parenting quality for early school suc-cess in homeless children. From birth and throughout childhood, all chil-dren depend on parents and other caregivers to teach them skills and tomeet their physical and emotional needs (Berger, Kofman, Livneh, & Henik,2007; Blair, 2002; Feldman, Greenbaum, & Yirmiya, 1999; Harrist &Waugh, 2002; Kopp, 1982; Sroufe, 1996). By responding sensitively toinfant cues, supportive caregivers help regulate the child’s physiologicalneeds, level of emotional arousal, and behavioral responses. Supportivecaregivers can also talk to their children more and encourage their learningin problem-solving experiences (Pianta & Harbers, 1996; Supplee et al.,2004). As children develop better cognitive and motor abilities, they becomemore able to act independently and face increasing demands on theircapacity to regulate their own thoughts, behaviors, and emotions.

The results of the current study demonstrate the particular importance ofhigh-quality parenting for children who face extreme sociodemographic riskand adversities associated with homelessness. For these children, thedemands on developing self-regulatory capacities are especially great inthe face of residential instability and inconsistent access to essentialresources such as adequate food and proper health care. With the supportand guidance provided through high-quality parenting, however, children



at extremely high risk can demonstrate positive academic functioningand adaptation to the school context. The same aspects of high-quality par-enting that promote competence in children from lower risk families—specifically warmth, structure, consistent discipline, and positiveexpectations—serve to protect the child against the negative impacts ofrisk and adversity.

Mediated Effects of Parenting Quality on Academic Functioning

The results of this study are also congruent with previous research anddevelopmental theory suggesting that the effects of parenting quality onschool outcomes may be mediated through EF skills that the child bringsto the school context and the tasks of learning. EF skills, indexed here bybehavioral tasks, appeared to have unique mediating effects linking parent-ing to academic success in these young homeless children. Previous researchhas indicated that IQ mediates the association between parenting qualityand academic achievement (Englund et al., 2004; Raviv et al., 2004); how-ever, this work has rarely included EF in the same analysis. In the presentstudy, IQ did not emerge as a significant mediator of parenting quality whenincluded simultaneously with EF. It is possible that limited power affectedthe results of this study and that the mediating role of IQ would emerge witha larger sample size. The results could also reflect better measurement of EFcompared to IQ, although the WPPSI-III subtests included here have a highcorrelation with full scale scores. However, it is also possible that IQ maynot function as a distinct mediator of parenting quality in high-risk popula-tions when the effects of EF are included in the model. This result couldoccur either because unique aspects of EF mediate the effects or becausecommon processes captured in the shared variance of EF and IQ (whichare moderately correlated) play the mediating role. In the very early yearsof schooling, it is possible that success depends on fundamental abilitiesto pay attention, control impulses, follow directions, think flexibly, andcooperate with an adult that are indexed well by a set of EF tasks similarto those used here, as well as by many IQ subtests.

Pathways of Parenting Influence on Early Academic Success

Based on the literature as well as the results of this particular study, we sug-gest several potential pathways through which different aspects of parentingmay relate to different aspects of school adjustment in young, disadvantagedchildren: through IQ, EF, and socioemotional competence. Parentingpractices such as reading and talking with children, teaching strategiesfor problem solving, and providing specific instruction likely support the

96 HERBERS ET AL.


development of intellectual functioning (IQ), which contributes to schoolperformance via math skills and verbal skills. Elements of positive parentingsuch as emotional support, less direct control of behavior, dyadic regulationof child arousal, modeling or actively teaching self-control, and consistentdiscipline likely support the development of EF, enabling children to ignoredistractions, attend to instructions, and keep themselves organized in theschool context. Parental warmth, enthusiasm, and high levels of involve-ment in school are likely to communicate values about the importance ofschool achievement, support child self-confidence, contribute to enthusiasmfor learning, and foster the development of social skills, enabling children toform relationships with teachers and peers, monitor their emotionalresponses, and maintain motivation.

Strengths and Limitations

Because children in families characterized by high risk and high mobility areparticularly challenging to engage in research, this investigation contributesnew findings to a limited literature. The study used information from mul-tiple sources, including parent self-report, teacher report, behavioral mea-sures of child self-regulation, and interviewer and coder ratings ofparenting quality, to minimize shared method variance. Furthermore, thechildren were assessed just prior to school entry in the ecologically validsetting of an emergency homeless shelter with high rates of participationand follow-up.

Still, there are several important limitations to this study. Parenting qual-ity was measured with a composite variable based on both interviewer rat-ings of parent behavior in the absence of the child and coded self-report ofparents from structured interviews. Though this methodology has proveneffective for judging global parenting quality, it may not be sensitive tothe specific parenting behaviors or the dyadic qualities of the parent–childrelationship that contribute most to child EF, general intellectual ability,and child academic functioning. Observational measures of parent–childinteractions may provide a better methodology for explicating the mechan-isms and processes through which parenting and the parent–child relation-ship support the development of child intelligence, EF, and emotionalself-regulation, particularly for the purpose of identifying potential targetsof parenting behavior for intervention.

In addition, parenting quality and child cognitive skills were measuredconcurrently, and thus the mediating effect can only be assumed on the basisof theoretical expectations. It is also possible that genetic factors shared byparents and children were contributing to the relationship between parent-ing quality and child functioning. The current study design cannot inform



questions about any possible effect of shared genetic variance betweenparent and child. However, existing research suggests that shared geneticeffects may be less salient in high-risk samples in which environmentaleffects tend to be more predictive, especially in samples of children fromvery low socioeconomic backgrounds (Turkheimer et al., 2003).

Clearly, more research is needed to understand the developmental pro-cesses that promote school achievement in young homeless children andespecially the promotive and protective processes that may be amenableto intervention. Future investigations should include larger and more rep-resentative samples that can support more complex analytical strategies withappropriate power to detect effects. For example, a larger sample size withsimilar data could use structural equation modeling to combine themediation and moderation of parenting into a single analysis. Researchon parenting in homeless families should also include observational mea-sures that can demonstrate more specific aspects of parent behavior andthe parent–child relationship that predict child outcomes and that may serveto moderate the negative effects of risk on school success. Longitudinal stu-dies with repeated assessments could elucidate the direction and nature ofprocesses linking parent and child behavior.

Conclusion

High-quality parenting functions as a powerful protective factor in younghomeless children’s adjustment to school. Parents in homeless families canfoster resilient functioning with warmth, consistent discipline, structure,and positive expectations in much the same way that parents in other fam-ilies foster competence. An important part of the influence of parentingquality on academic functioning appears to function through its impacton child EF skills. Understanding the parenting behavior of effective par-ents in homeless shelters may be highly informative for developing andimproving programs to support and facilitate parenting in similar difficultsituations.

The results from this study can help inform efforts aimed at improvingthe early academic success of young homeless children. Homelessness andresidential instability are pervasive and important issues that demand atten-tion during periods of economic growth as well as recession. Interventionswith homeless families might focus on encouraging warmth, structure, con-sistent discipline, and positive expectations in the parent–child relationshipas a means of promoting child EF and learning. Bolstering parenting prac-tices related to these aspects of the parent–child relationship is also likely toassist in protecting the development of children experiencing risk andadversity, above and beyond the indirect benefits achieved through

98 HERBERS ET AL.


improved EF. For example, early education programs could prioritize theinclusion of parent components that encourage positive parent–child inter-action as well as parent involvement in learning and school-related activi-ties. In addition, these programs could include parent-only componentsfocused on educating parents about warmth and effective discipline in timesof stress. Improvements in parenting quality during this sensitive period forschool success are likely to show positive effects in terms of both child EFand adjustment to kindergarten for homeless and other highly mobile,high-risk children.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was supported in part by grants to Ann Masten from theCenter for Urban and Regional Affairs at the University of Minnesotaand the National Science Foundation (0745643); by predoctoral fellowshipsawarded to J. J. Cutuli from the Center for Neurobehavioral Developmentat the University of Minnesota and from the National Institute of MentalHealth; and by a predoctoral fellowship awarded to Jelena Obradovic bythe National Institute of Mental Health. Special thanks also to the extra-ordinary support of the staff of People Serving People and the MinneapolisPublic Schools as well as faculty, graduate, and undergraduate students atthe University of Minnesota.

REFERENCES

Armstrong, J. M., Goldstein, L. H., & theMacArthurWorking Group on Outcome Assessment.

(2003). Manual for the MacArthur Health and Behavior Questionnaire (HBQ 1.0).

Pittsburgh, PA: MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Psychopathology and

Development, University of Pittsburgh.

Arnold, D. H., & Doctoroff, G. L. (2003). The early education of socioeconomically disadvan-

taged children. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 517–545.

Belsky, J., & MacKinnon, C. (1994). Transition to school: Developmental trajectories and

school experiences. Early Education and Development, 5, 106–119.

Berger, A., Jones, L., Rothbart, M. K., & Posner, M. I. (2000). Computerized games to study

the development of attention in childhood. Behavioral Research Methods and Instrumen-

tation, 32, 297–303.

Berger, A., Kofman, O., Livneh, U., & Henik, A. (2007). Multidisciplinary perspectives on

attention and the development of self-regulation. Progress in Neurobiology, 82, 256–286.

Blair, C. (2002). School readiness: Integrating cognition and emotion in a neurobiological

conceptualization of children’s functioning at school entry. American Psychologist, 57,

111–127.

Blair, C. (2006). How similar are fluid cognition and general intelligence? A developmental neu-

roscience perspective on fluid cognition as an aspect of human cognitive ability. Behavioral

and Brain Sciences, 29, 109–160.



Blair, C., Granger, D. A., Kivlighan, K. T., Mills-Koonce, R., Willoughby, M., Greenberg,

M. T., . . . Family Life Project Investigators. (2008). Maternal and child contributions

to cortisol response to emotional arousal in young children from low-income, rural

communities. Developmental Psychology, 44, 1095–1109.

Blair, C., & Razza, R. P. (2007). Relating effortful control, executive function, and false belief

understanding in emerging math and literary ability in kindergarten. Child Development,

78, 647–663.

Brooks-Gunn, J., & Markman, L. B. (2005). The contribution of parenting to ethnic and racial

gaps in school readiness. The Future of Children, 15(1), 139–168.

Buckner, J. C. (2008). Understanding the impact of homeless on children: Challenges and future

research directions. American Behavioral Scientist, 51, 721–736.

Buckner, J. C., Bassuk, E. L., &Weinreb, L. F. (2001). Predictors of academic achievement among

homeless and low-income housed children. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 45–69.

Buckner, J. C., Bassuk, E. L., Weinreb, L. F., & Brooks, M. G. (1999). Homelessness and its

relation to mental health and behavior of low-income school-age children. Developmental

Psychology, 35, 246–257.

Buckner, J. C., Mezzacappa, E., & Beardslee, W. R. (2003). Characteristics of resilient youths

living in poverty: The role of self-regulatory processes. Development and Psychopathology,

15, 139–162.

Burt, M. R., Aron, L. Y., Douglas, T., Valente, J., Lee, E., & Iwen, B. (1999). Homelessness:

Programs and the people they serve: Findings of the National Survey of Homeless Assistance

Providers and Clients. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Calkins, S. D., Graziano, P. A., Berdan, L. E., Keane, S. P., & Degnan, K. A. (2008). Predicting

cardiac vagal regulation in early childhood from maternal–child relationship quality dur-

ing toddlerhood. Developmental Psychobiology, 50, 751–766.

Calkins, S. D., & Hill, A. (2007). Caregiver influences on emerging emotion regulation: Biologi-

cal and environmental transactions in early development. In J. J. Gross (Ed.),Handbook of

emotion regulation (pp. 135–158). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Carlson, S. M., Moses, L. J., & Breton, C. (2002). How specific is the relation between executive

function and theory of mind? Contributions of inhibitory control and working memory.

Infant and Child Development, 11(2), 73–92.

Diamond, L. M., & Aspinwall, L. G. (2003). Emotional regulation across the life span: An

integrative perspective emphasizing self-regulation, positive affect, and dyadic processes.

Motivation and Emotion, 27(2), 125–156.

Diamond, A., & Taylor, C. (1996). Development of an aspect of executive control: Develop-

ment of the abilities to remember what I say and to ‘‘do as I say, not as I do.’’ Develop-

mental Psychobiology, 29, 315–334.

Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P., . . .

Japel, C. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43,

1428–1446.

Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., Fabes, R. A., Reiser, M., Cumberland, A., Shepard, S. A., . . .

Thompson, M. (2004). The relations of effortful control and impulsivity to children’s

resiliency and adjustment. Child Development, 75, 25–46.

Eisenberg, N., Zhou, Q., Spinrad, T. L., Valiente, C., Fabes, R. A., & Liew, J. (2005). Relations

among positive parenting, children’s effortful control, and externalizing problems: A

three-wave longitudinal study. Child Development, 76, 1055–1071.

Englund, M. M., Luckner, A. E., Whaley, G. J. L., & Egeland, B. (2004). Children’s achieve-

ment in early elementary school: Longitudinal effects of parental involvement, expecta-

tions, and quality of assistance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 723–730.

100 HERBERS ET AL.


Feldman, R., Greenbaum, C. W., & Yirmiya, N. (1999). Mother-infant affect synchrony as an

antecedent of the emergence of self-control. Developmental Psychology, 35, 223–231.

Fitzmaurice, G. M., Laird, N. M., & Ware, J. H. (2004). Applied longitudinal analysis.

New York, NY: Wiley.

Friedman, N. P., Miyake, A., Corley, R. P., Young, S. E., DeFries, J. C., & Hewitt, J. K.

(2006). Not all executive functions are related to intelligence. Psychological Science, 17,

172–179.

Haber, M. G., & Toro, P. A. (2004). Homelessness among families, children, and adolescents:

An ecological–developmental perspective. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 7,

123–164.

Harris, R. C., Robinson, J. B., Chang, F., & Burns, B. M. (2007). Characterizing preschool chil-

dren’s attention regulation in parent–child interactions: The roles of effortful control and

motivation. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28, 25–39.

Harrist, A. W., & Waugh, R. M. (2002). Dyadic synchrony: Its structure and function in chil-

dren’s development. Developmental Review, 22, 555–592.

Hill, N. E. (2001). Parenting and academic socialization as they relate to school readiness: The

roles of ethnicity and family income. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 686–697.

Hill, N. E., & Craft, S. A. (2003). Parent–school involvement and school performance:

Mediated pathways among socioeconomically comparable African American and

Euro-American families. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 74–83.

Howse, R. B., Lange, G., Farran, D. C., & Boyles, C. D. (2003). Motivational and

self-regulation as predictors of achievement in economically disadvantaged young chil-

dren. Journal of Experimental Education, 71, 151–174.

Huntington, N., Buckner, J. C., & Bassuk, E. L. (2008). Adaptation in homeless children:

An empirical examination using cluster analyses. American Behavioral Scientist, 51, 737–755.

Klebanov, P. K., Brooks-Gunn, J., McCarton, C., & McCormick, M. C. (1998). The contri-

bution of neighborhood and family income to developmental test scores over the first three

years of life. Child Development, 69, 1420–1436.

Kochanska, G., Murray, K. T., & Coy, K. C. (1997). Inhibitory control as a contributor to

conscience in childhood: From toddler to early school age. Child Development, 68,

263–277.

Kochanska, G., Murray, K. T., & Harlan, E. T. (2000). Effortful control in early childhood:

Continuity and change, antecedents, and implications for social development. Develop-

mental Psychology, 36, 220–232.

Kopp, C. B. (1982). Antecedents of self-regulation: A developmental perspective. Developmental

Psychology, 18, 199–214.

Ladd, G. W., Birch, S. H., & Buhs, E. S. (1999). Children’s social and scholastic lives in

kindergarten: Related spheres of influence? Child Development, 70, 1373–1400.

Lemery-Chalfant, K., Schreiber, J. E., Schmidt, N. L., Van Hulle, C. A., Essex, M. J., &

Goldsmith, H. H. (2007). Assessing internalizing, externalizing, and attention problems

in young children: Validation of the MacArthur HBQ. Journal of the American Academy

of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 46, 1315–1323.

Lengua, L. J. (2002). The contribution of emotionality and self-regulation to the understanding

of children’s response to multiple risk. Child Development, 73, 144–161.

Lengua, L. J., Honorado, E., & Bush, N. R. (2007). Contextual risk and parenting as predictors

of effortful control and social competence in preschool children. Journal of Applied Devel-

opmental Psychology, 28, 40–55.

Luster, T., & McAdoo, H. (1996). Family and child influences on educational attainment: A

secondary analysis of the High=Scope Perry Preschool data. Developmental Psychology,

32, 26–39.



Luthar, S. S. (2006). Resilience in development: A synthesis of research across five decades. In

D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology (Vol. 3, 2nd ed.,

pp. 739–795). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Mahone, E. M., Hagelthorn, K. M., Cutting, L. E., Schuerholz, L. J., Peppetier, S. F., Rawlins,

C., . . . Denckla, M. B. (2002). Effects of IQ on executive function measures in children

with ADHD. Child Neuropsychology, 8(1), 52–65.

Masten, A. S. (1992). Homeless children in the United States: Mark of a nation at risk. Current

Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 41–44.

Masten, A. S., Cutuli, J. J., Herbers, J. E., & Reed, M. (2009). Resilience in development. In

C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), The handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed.,

pp. 117–132). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Masten, A. S., Miliotis, D., Graham-Bermann, S. A., Ramirez, M., & Neemann, J. (1993).

Children in homeless families: Risks to mental health and development. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 335–343.

Masten, A. S., & Sesma, A. (1999). Risk and resilience among children homeless in

Minneapolis. Center for Urban and Regional Affairs Reporter, 29, 1–6.

Masten,A.S., Sesma,A., Si-Asar,R.,Lawrence,C.,Miliotis,D.,&Dionne, J.A. (1997).Educational

risks for children experiencing homelessness. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 27–46.

McLoyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American

Psychology, 53(2), 185–204.

Miedel, W. T., & Reynolds, A. J. (1999). Parenting involvement in early intervention for

disadvantaged children: Does it matter? Journal of School Psychology, 37, 379–402.

Miliotis, D., Sesma, A., & Masten, A. S. (1999). Parenting as a protective process for school

success in children from homeless families. Early Education and Development, 10, 111–133.

Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D.

(2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex

‘‘frontal lobe’’ tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 49–100.

Morrison, E. F., Rimm-Kaufman, S., & Pianta, R. C. (2003). A longitudinal study of

mother-child interactions at school entry and social and academic outcomes in middle

school. Journal of School Psychology, 41, 185–200.

Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. J., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., . . . Urbina, S.

(1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51(2), 77–101.

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2002). Early child care and children’s develop-

ment prior to school entry: Results from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care. American

Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 133–164.

Obradovic, J. (2010). Effortful control and adaptive functioning of homeless children: Variable-

and person-focused analyses. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31, 109–117.

Obradovic, J., Long, J. D., Cutuli, J. J., Chan, A., Hinz, E., Heistad, D., & Masten, A. S.

(2009). Academic achievement of homeless and highly mobile children in an urban school

district: Longitudinal evidence on risk, growth, and resilience. Development and Psycho-

pathology, 21, 493–518.

Olson, S. L., Bates, J. E., Sandy, J. M., & Schilling, E. M. (2002). Early developmental precur-

sors of impulsive and inattentive behavior: From infancy to middle childhood. Journal of

Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43, 435–447.

Pianta, R. C., & Harbers, K. L. (1996). Observing mother and child behavior in a

problem-solving situation at school entry: Relations with academic achievement. Journal

of School Psychology, 34, 307–322.

Pianta, R. C., Smith, N., & Reeve, R. E. (1991). Observing mother and child behavior in a

problem-solving situation at school entry: Relations with classroom adjustment. School

Psychology Quarterly, 6(1), 1–15.

102 HERBERS ET AL.


Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and

comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40,

879–891.

Rafferty, Y., & Shinn, M. (1991). The impact of homelessness on children. American Psychol-

ogist, 46, 1170–1179.

Rafferty, Y., Shinn, M., & Weitzman, B. C. (2004). Academic achievement among formerly

homeless adolescents and their continuously housed peers. Journal of School Psychology,

42, 179–199.

Ramey, C. T., & Ramey, S. L. (2004). Early learning and school readiness: Can early inter-

vention make a difference? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50, 471–491.

Raver, C. C. (2004). Placing emotional self-regulation in sociocultural and socioeconomic

contexts. Child Development, 75, 346–353.

Raviv, T., Kessenich, M., & Morrison, F. J. (2004). A mediational model of the association

between socioeconomic status and three-year-old language abilities: The role of parenting

factors. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 528–547.

Rescorla, L., Parker, R., & Stolley, P. (1991). Ability, achievement, and adjustment in homeless

children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61, 210–220.

Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Pianta, R. C. (2000). An ecological perspective on the transition to

kindergarten: A theoretical framework to guide empirical research. Journal of Applied

Developmental Psychology, 21, 491–511.

Rog, D. J., & Buckner, J. C. (2007, March). Homeless families and children. Paper presented at

the National Homelessness Research Symposium, Washington, DC.

Rubin, D. H., Erickson, C. J., Augustin, M. S., Cleary, S. D., Allen, J. K., & Cohen, P. (1996).

Cognitive and academic functioning of homeless children compared with housed children.

Pediatrics, 97, 289–294.

Rubin, D. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for non-response surveys. New York, NY: Wiley.

Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psycho-

logical Methods, 7, 147–177.

Sroufe, L. A. (1996). Emotional development: The organization of emotional life in the early

years. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Strommen, E. A. (1973). Verbal self-regulation in a children’s game: Impulsive errors on

‘‘Simon says.’’ Child Development, 44, 849–853.

Supplee, L. H., Shaw, D. S., Hailstones, K., & Hartman, K. (2004). Family and child influences

on early academic and emotion regulatory behaviors. Journal of School Psychology, 42,

221–242.

Toro, P. A. (2007). Toward and international understanding of homelessness. Journal of Social

Issues, 63, 461–481.

Torquati, J. C. (2002). Personal and social resources as predictors of parenting in homeless fam-

ilies. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 463–485.

Turkheimer, E., Haley, A., Waldron, M., D’Onofrio, B., & Gottesman, I. I. (2003). Socio-

economic status modifies heritability of IQ in young children. Psychological Science, 14,

623–628.

Turner, L. A., & Johnson, B. (2003). A model of mastery motivation for at-risk preschoolers.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 495–505.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2009). The 2008 annual homeless

assessment report to Congress. Retrieved from http://www.hudhre.info/documents/

4thHomelessAssessmentReport.pdf

Valiente, C., Lemery-Chalfant, K., Swanson, J., & Reiser, M. (2008). Prediction of children’s

academic competence from their effortful control, relationships, and classroom partici-

pation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 67–77.



Vostanis, P., Grattan, E., Cumella, S., & Winchester, C. (1997). Psychosocial functioning of

homeless children. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,

36, 881–889.

Wechsler, D. (2002). WPPSI-III administration and scoring manual. San Antonio, TX:

Psychological Corporation.

Zelazo, P. D. (2006). The Dimensional Change Card Sort (DCCS): A method of assessing

executive function in children. Nature Protocols, 1, 1–6.

Zelazo, P. D., & Cunningham, W. A. (2007). Executive function: Mechanisms underlying

emotion regulation. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 135–158).

New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Zima, B. T., Wells, K. B., & Freeman, H. E. (1994). Emotional and behavioral problems and

severe academic delays among sheltered homeless children in Los Angeles County.

American Journal of Public Health, 84, 260–264.

104 HERBERS ET AL.


Early Education & Development Direct and Indirect Effects...

Documents

Transcript of Early Education & Development Direct and Indirect Effects...