School Personnel Perception of Parental Involvement and Students’ Behavior Problems: Practical Implications

Abstract

School is a privileged context to prevent specific behavior problems. Parental involvement in school activities is crucial to promote social functioning. This study aimed to access the Portuguese school personnel perception of parental involvement and students’ behavior problems. A study with 333 school personnel, aged between 29 and 66 (M = 50.84, SD = 7.54), was developed. School personnel’s participants rated parental involvement as low and nearly one in five professionals rated student’s general behavior as bad. A significant association between parental involvement and the perception of students’ general behavior was found. 80% of the professionals rating student’s general behavior as bad also rating parental involvement as poor. Additional research into implications of parental involvement in school activities and school students’ behavior problems is necessary aiming assessment, prevention, and intervention strategies in this area.

Keywords

parental involvement school personnel students’ behavior problems perceptions

Introduction

School and family are social institutions that have experienced numerous changes over time, whether in terms of goals, forms of organization or even in the way they interact. The mutual influence between these two key socialization institutions underlies the need to analyze their dynamics and consequent practical implications for the community and the socioemotional and cognitive development of children and young people (Caridade et al., 2015). As members of the school community, parents play an important role in the school’s learning environment, policies and practices, as well as in students’ performance (Park et al., 2017). In turn, school is an important mirror of society reflecting social changes, but it is also a space where efforts can be made to manage and prevent risky behavior. International research on home-school partnership is quite extensive, demonstrating that parental involvement in school activities is a promising means by which student educational outcomes (Jeyens, 2016), as well as social functioning (El Nokali et al., 2010), can be improved. As found in the qualitative study developed by Farrell and Collier (2010), despite the importance of parental involvement, school personnel lack formal training to it, building their skills based on experience. The importance of teachers’ perception of student behavior, how they deal with it and how can they contribute to change it, has also been the object of research (Antonelli-Ponti et al., 2018).

Portugal is a relatively small south-European country with a population of approximately 10.5 million people. Since the mid-90’s, the public awareness and intolerance to school violence have been on the political and community agenda after some mediatic incidents involving students and teachers. The research produced based on Portuguese schools has been following two major approaches, that is, assessing and monitoring violence in school, and also understanding how and why violent behavior occurs within and outside school, as well as the consequences to individuals and society, covering different fields of study, namely health, education, justice, and human development (Fonseca et al., 2009). In this sense, most Portuguese studies have focused directly on students’ perspectives or on teachers’ experiences only (Carvalho et al., 2017), while the studies focusing on school personnel, teachers and other professionals are scarce (Caridade et al., 2015; Nunes et al., 2015). Despite considerable existing international research on parental involvement in schooling, few studies focus on school personnel perception of parental involvement, notwithstanding the evidence that teacher ratings on parental involvement have strong associations to student outcomes (Thompson et al., 2017). This study aimed to contribute to fill these gaps in the Portuguese literature by conducting a study with school personnel to analyze the perceptions and reasons about parental involvement in schooling, as well as to characterize the main students’ behavior problems in school. Focusing on the perception of school personnel on parental involvement and students’ behavior problems is crucial to improve school instructional and relational practices, perceived to be predictive of successful outcomes, and acting as a mechanism that may benefit struggling students (Thompson et al., 2017). This awareness assessment is particularly important for better outlining school environment intervention measures.

Parental Involvement in School Activities

The literature documents that parental involvement is a multidimensional concept (Epstein & Salinas, 2004), comprising a variety of parental behavioral practices (e.g., parenting style, parental expectations and aspirations, home rules and parental supervision, helping with homework or communicating with teachers) (Lavenda, 2011), aimed at supporting the students educational progress. For the purpose of this study, and in accordance with Farrell and Collier (2010) definition, parental involvement is conceptualized as the participation in school-related activities and communication is simultaneously an involvement and a means to enhance parental involvement.

Parental involvement in students’ schooling has been perceived as having multiple and important benefits (Lavenda, 2011). A growing body of literature has shown the importance of parental involvement in students’ academic achievement (Haskins & Jacobsen, 2017; Kaptich et al., 2019). A meta-analysis involving 42 studies, developed by Jeynes (2016), concluded about a significant relationship between parental involvement and academic achievement and overall outcomes. Accordingly, parental expectations, parental style, and parental participation were the specific components of parental involvement related with higher levels of academic achievement. The parental involvement in students’ schooling has also been associated with increased social and emotional health (Epstein & Salinas, 2004), social functioning (El Nokali et al., 2010), and could yet reduce dropout and substance use (Epstein & Salinas, 2004).

Regarding social functioning, it has been demonstrated that parents’ greater involvement in their children’s education fosters communication with school personnel about the children’s adjustment and school behavior (El Nokali et al., 2010). This higher parental involvement also allows a better understanding of the social difficulties of the children’s in school, subsequently addressing and reinforcing positive behaviors at home. In this sense, family’s interaction with school personnel allows the mediation of students’ difficulties and behavioral problems detected in schools, such as violence situations and indiscipline, reinforcing the importance of school and of all activities that are part of the school curriculum (Epstein, 2010). In turn, the teachers’ perception of parental involvement seems to influence how they conceive the students’ behavior. A study analyzing the impact of the Incredible Years^® Teacher Classroom Management Training (Thompson et al., 2017) on teacher’s perception of parental involvement showed that teachers who felt that parental involvement and bonding were low were also likely to rate students as having more externalizing behaviors, fewer social skills, more attention-deficit symptoms, and disruptive behaviors toward adults and peers, when compared to teachers with more adaptive profiles.

Parental involvement allows linking two crucial contexts, school and family, in the children’s development (El Nokali et al., 2010). The ecological approach of Bronfenbrenner (2005) established multiple levels of influence on child development, in which the home and the school constitute autonomous microsystems with potential influence on the growth of an individual. As microsystems, school and family have characteristics and dynamics affecting communication processes and outcomes. Thus, school factors must consider climate, attitude toward families, staff preparation, institutional resources and communication opportunities, and family factors include cultural traditions, socioeconomic status, education, expectations, and individual factors (Farrell & Collier, 2010). The interaction of these two microsystems through parental involvement, that is, mesosystem, may also act as a unique and combined force (Bronfenbrenner, 2005).

The most widely cited and researched model of school’s parental involvement was developed by Epstein (1987), and its main objective is to create and strengthen the bonds between school, family, and community, thus contributing to the growth of the students’ success in the different domains (e.g., school, social, relational, and behavioral). This Epstein (1987) model established six types of parental involvement, that is, (i) parenting, which involves the development of activities promoting parent-child communication, for example through the use of appropriate language (e.g., in choosing the courses, school); (ii) communicating, establishing effective forms of school-to-home and home-to-school communication about school programs and children’s progress; (iii) volunteering, which requires the voluntary involvement of family members, with available skills and abilities to support students in their learning process, inside and outside school; (iv) learning at home, where teachers are expected to implement activities; (v) decision-making, encouraging parents to participate in decision-making processes concerning their children, and (vi) community collaboration, which involves conducting activities able to promote school-family-community collaboration. Kaptich et al. (2019), guided by this Epstein’s model, specifically type (iii) of the above mentioned six types of parental involvement, investigated the relationship between parental participation in educational activities at school and students’ academic performance, involving 2,404 students and 61 teachers. The same authors concluded that parental involvement in school’s educational activities (e.g., attend school meetings, supervise children’s academic performance, meet student’s basic needs, and provide learning materials) was positively related to academic performance. In their study, based on data from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Study on Early Child Care and Youth Development (N = 1,364), El Nokali et al. (2010) concluded that within-child improvements in parental involvement predict decline in behavior problems and improvements in social skills but do not predict changes in achievement. On the same study, between-child analysis demonstrated that children with highly involved parents presented enhanced social functioning and fewer behavior problems. For the authors of the same study, while parent-teacher communication may also benefit academic development, it is possible that teachers and parents discuss social and behavioral problems more frequently than academic issues.

The behavioral problems of students in school context are, not rarely, another issue raising concern for the school personnel, discussed ahead.

School Behavior Problems

In the daily life of school there is a diversity of practices and dynamics often disturbing the good school functioning, and that can also significantly impact the children’s development (Caridade et al., 2015). Violence and indiscipline are behaviors easily identified as recurring practices in school context, able to cause the breakdown of social attachment through the use of force and aggression (Nunes et al., 2015). Other problems identified in the school environment also involve drug abuse (Nunes et al., 2017; Radliff et al., 2012), antisocial actions including incivilities that violate the daily social harmony (Dupâquier, 2001) and the established norms (Garcia, 2006), and even delinquent acts (Dufur et al., 2015). It has been documented that delinquent, antisocial behaviors, and incivilities occur in the school context or in the space surrounding schools (Nunes et al., 2017). Two Portuguese studies conducted in different schools (Caridade et al., 2015; Nunes et al., 2015) concluded that absenteeism, violence, indiscipline, and incivilities are the major behavior problems identified by the respondent school personnel. According to Dupâquier (2001), incivilities are transgressions in the everyday life of human beings, affecting the learning environment, cooperation and expected harmony. They may be related to reasons such as to express power over the other, to express negative feelings, that is, frustration or anger, about a situation that has not been adequately addressed, and, finally, the need to obtain something of value or some type of pleasure (Nunes et al., 2017). The literature demonstrated that school absenteeism was not only associated with students’ academic achievement, but was also associated with higher levels of behavioral problems internalization and externalization and the likelihood of engaging in risky and sexual behaviors (Ansari & Pianta, 2018). A systematic review produced by Gubbels et al. (2019) revealed that several risk factors involving different children (e.g., negative attitude toward school, substance use, externalizing and internalizing behavior problems, poor physical health), family (e.g., low involvement of parents in school, parental mental or physical problems, low levels of parental support, control or acceptance), school (e.g., negative school attitude, poor teacher-student relationship, low levels of academic achievement, learning difficulties), and peers (e.g., involved in a multicultural peer group, having many friends or being popular) characteristics contribute to the risk for both school absenteeism and school dropout. Many of these problems are often associated with dysfunctional and problematic family experiences and dynamics (e.g., direct or indirect abuse, such as exposure to interparental violence) (Ehrensaft & Cohen, 2012).

The literature has been also establishing the association between behavior problems and negative academic performance and social functioning. Malecki and Elliott (2002) concluded that social skills show positive correlation with levels of academic achievement and behavior problems show negative correlation with academic achievement. Others studies (Algozzine et al., 2011) have been consistently supporting that academic failure and behavior problems are related. In the longitudinal study of Algozzine et al. (2011), with 12,000 students in the south-eastern region of the United States, students with positive behavior were believed to be academically competent because their teachers rated them higher in cooperating with others, asserting themselves and showing more self-control in class. On the other hand, students demonstrating more social problems (e.g., externalizing, internalizing, or hyperactive behaviors) were considered as less competent in academic studies. In addition, it has been demonstrated that teachers and other professionals report that behavior and achievement problems coexist in groups experiencing social or academic problems (e.g., inadequate academic performance, language problems, social maladjustment, socialized delinquency) (cf. Algozzine et al., 2011).

The school plays an important role in the children’s education and personal and social development and should therefore take measures to enhance the students’ social response and to manage behavior problems. It is important that the efforts made by school to intervene in problematic behaviors may involve not only young people but also school personnel, empowering these professionals with the resources and mechanisms for early identification and signaling of problematic situations (Nunes et al., 2017). In this sense, it is imperative to know the school personnel perception about the parental involvement and behavior problems of students in school context.

Objectives of the Study

The present study aims to describe Portuguese school personnel perception about parental involvement in school activities and students’ behavior problems. The specific objectives are: (i) to characterize the parents’ involvement in the children’s school activities and the reasons reported about this parental involvement; (ii) to characterize the general student behavior at school, identifying the major behavioral problems; (iii) to analyze the relationships between parental involvement and students’ behavior problems; and (iv) to analyze the variability in the school personnel perception studied according to two background characteristics, namely: the functions performed by school personnel in the school, and the school geographic location, when comparing three Portuguese areas, namely Lisbon, Porto, and other areas. It is expected that school personnel perception may differ depending on the functions performed at school, with teachers showing a closer knowledge of the degree of parental involvement in the students’ activities, and a negative perception on students’ behavior problems. It is also expected that school personnel in the main Portuguese cities as Lisbon and Porto have a more negative perception about parental involvement and students’ behavior and finally, it is expected that school personnel reporting reduced parental involvement have a more negative perception of students’ behavior.

Method

Procedures

Data collection was carried out during the school years of 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 using an internet-based survey. Recruitment occurred through several means including directly contacting each School Principal by email or phone requesting to forward the questionnaire survey link to the school personnel. Participants received an e-mail with a link to the survey. Prior to completing the questionnaires items, respondents were given a narrative introduction explaining the study and informing of the voluntary nature of participation. This was in accordance with a study protocol approved by the University Fernando Pessoa Institutional Review Board and by Ministry of Education.

Participants

A total of 333 school personnel participants, aged between 29 and 66 years (M = 50.84, SD = 7.54), and nearly one-third female, were included in the study. The majority of participants had higher education, a relevant variable since a substantial percentage of the sample was comprised by teachers, with more than 40% reporting 20 or more years of service and 34.2% under 10 years (Table 1).

Table 1.

Participant Characteristics (N = 333).

Variables	Percentage (n)
Gender
Female	78.7 (262)
Male	20.1 (67)
Education
1st–4th year	2.1 (7)
5th–6th year	1.5 (5)
7th–9th year	5.7 (19)
10th–12th year	18.0 (60)
Higher education	72.7 (242)
School functions
Teacher	70.6 (235)
Non-teacher	38.5 (95)
School geographic location
Lisbon	22.5 (75)
Porto	39.0 (130)
Other areas	38.4 (128)

Participants were recruited from three main areas of Lisbon, Porto, and other Porto adjacent municipalities, Portugal. The option to focus these three school geographic areas relates to the fact that this study follows a research project conducted in the city of Porto (Project LookCrim)¹ in which it is intended to compare the school personnel perception between the two main Portuguese cities, Lisbon and Porto, those with the highest crime rates (SSI, 2019). In addition, and because the research project is a macro study centered on city of Porto, it was also important to compare the Porto reality with the adjacent municipalities. Table 1 provides detailed information about the participants’ characteristics.

Variables and Measures

Parental involvement

School personnel were asked to rate their perceptions about the parental involvement in the school activities, using a five-point Likert-type scale (ranging from 1—very low to 5—very high). They were then asked to justify the given answer, selecting from a predefined checklist (e.g., demotivation/disinterest; lack of time; absence of activity disclosure; motivated and interested parents; proactive parents; parents available for school activities).

Students’ behavior

Participants were requested to rate their perceptions on general student’s behavior, using a five-point Likert-type scale (ranging from 1—very bad to 5—very good), selecting the appropriate reason for the response given (e.g., inappropriate classroom and playground behavior; absence of parental role models; students without respect for authority in the school context; behaviors appropriate to the school context; occasional cases of misbehavior; students respectful of school authority). Similarly, using a five-point Likert-type scale (ranging from 1—very low to 5—very high), participants rated the degree of school absenteeism. Then, based on predefined lists, participants were asked to identify students’ behavior problems at school (i.e., widespread disrespect; disrespect for teachers; disrespect for personnel; disrespect between students; manifestation of aggressive behaviors; tobacco/drug abuse; alcohol consumption), as well as the main incivilities (i.e., scatter/throw trash around the school; destroy/damage equipment; disturbing school functioning; use of inappropriate language).

Background characteristics

School personnel were asked to provide background and demographic information including age, gender, marital status, education, school function, school geographic location, and years of professional experience.

Data Analyzes

At a first step, all five-point Likert scales were recoded in three-point scales, joining the lowest (responses 1 and 2) and the highest (responses 4 and 5) values. Additionally, two indices were created summing: (i) student behavior problems at school (ranging from 0 to 7), and (ii) incivilities (ranging from 0 to 4).

Descriptive univariate analyzes were computed to characterize parents’ involvement in the children’s school activities (objective 1) and general student behavior at school (objective 2). To explore the relationship between parental involvement and students’ behavioral problems (objective 3) and to analyze variability in these variables attending to functions and geographic area as background characteristics (objective 4), bivariate descriptive and inferential statistics were also performed. Chi-square tests were used to explore associations between nominal variables and difference tests were performed to check differences on indices (i.e., student behavior problems at school and incivilities). Regarding difference tests, independent sample t-tests were computed to compare two-groups (e.g., functions), while one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were performed when more than two groups were under comparison (e.g., geographic area). To further clarify the differences identified by ANOVA, post-hoc tests were carried out using Bonferoni correction. Therefore, the critical value for significance used in other analyzes (p < .05) was replaced by 0.0167.

Data were analyzed through the software IBM Statistical Package for Social Sciences (IBM SPSS for Windows, version 25.0, IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA) and G*Power (Faul et al., 2007) to compute effect sizes for difference tests.

Results

Parental Involvement in School Activities

Overall, and as shown in Table 2, more than 40% of the participants rated parental involvement as low, mainly due to disinterest/demotivation and lack of time. Oppositely, only 10% rated parental involvement as high. The majority of respondents justified their answers based on parental interest and motivation.

Table 2.

Frequencies about School Perception of Parental Involvement and Student’s Behavior.

Parental involvement and reasons (N = 333)

Low: 41.7% (n = 139)

Disinterest/demotivation: 86.3% (n = 120)

Parental lack of time: 54.7% (n = 76)

Activities are not properly promoted: 7.2% (n = 10)

Moderate: 48.0% (n =160)

High: 10.2% (n = 34)

Parental interest/motivation: 73.5% (n = 25)

Proactive parents: 47.1% (n = 16)

Parental availability for school activities: 38.2% (n = 13)

Students’ general behavior and reasons (N = 333)

Bad: 19.5% (n = 65)

Inappropriate classroom and playground behavior: 95.4% (n = 62)

Students without respect for authority in the school context: 89.2% (n = 58)

Absence of parental role models: 83.1% (n = 54)

Moderate: 55.6% (n = 185)

Good: 24.9% (n = 83)

Occasional cases of misbehavior: 81.9% (n = 68)

Students respectful of school authority: 51.8% (n = 43)

Behaviors appropriate to the school context: 47.0% (n = 39)

Behavioral problems in school (N = 324)

Disrespect between students: 63.6% (n = 206)

Widespread disrespect: 55.2% (n = 179)

Manifestation of aggressive behaviors: 53.7% (n = 174)

Disrespect for teachers: 48.1% (n = 156)

Disrespect for personnel: 45.4% (n = 147)

Tobacco/drugs abuse: 29.9% (n = 97)

Alcohol consumption: 7.1% (n = 23)

School incivilities (N = 321)

Use of inappropriate language: 82.2% (n = 272)

Disturbing school functioning (noise, running outside the classrooms): 72.5% (n = 240)

Scatter/throw trash around the school: 61.0% (n = 202)

Destroy or damage equipment: 36.0% (n = 119)

General Student Behavior at School

Nearly one in five school personnel rated students’ general behavior as bad and nearly one in four rated it as good (Table 2). For those rating students’ behavior as bad, the main reasons pointed out were: inappropriate classroom and playground behavior, students without respect for authority in the school context and absence of parental role models (all reasons presented frequency values above 80%). Occasional cases of misbehavior were the main reason presented by those assessing students’ behavior as good.

Regarding school absenteeism, 44.8% (n = 147) of the participants rated it as low, 40.9% (n = 134) as moderate, and 14.3% (n = 47) as high. When asked about behavioral problems in school (Table 2), the most prevalent reasons were: disrespect between students, widespread disrespect, and manifestation of aggressive behaviors; oppositely, the least frequent was alcohol consumption. The mean number of behavioral problems in school was 2.96 (SD = 1.76,min = 0, max = 7).

The use of inappropriate language and disturbing school functioning were behavioral problems reported by more than 70% of the participants, as shown in Table 2. Regarding incivilities, the mean number was 2.50 (SD = 1.07, min = 0, max = 4).

Parental involvement and students’ behavior problems

There were a significant association between parental involvement and the perception of students’ general behavior, χ²(4) = 71.40, p < .001, Cramer’s V = .33. More specifically, 80% (n = 52) of the school personnel rating student’s general behavior as bad rated parental involvement as low (vs. moderate: 18.5% (n = 12) vs. high: 1.5% [n = 1]). Oppositely, among those rating students’ general behavior as good, 75.9% (n = 63) assessed parental involvement as moderate or high (vs. low: 24.1% [n = 20]).

There were significant perception differences of parental involvement on the index of behavioral problems at school, F(2,330) = 17.33, p < .001, ƒ = 0.55. As can be seen in Figure 1, those rating parental involvement as low reported the highest mean number of behavioral problems, while those rating parental involvement as high reported the lowest number. Post hoc tests, through the use of Bonferroni correction, indicated that school personnel perceiving parental involvement as low reported a higher number of behavioral problems than professionals perceiving parental involvement as moderate (p < .001) or high (p < .001). Moreover, those rating parental involvement as moderate also reported a high number of behavioral problems than those participants rating parental involvement as high (p = .016).

Figure 1.

Behavior problems means and incivilities by (a) parental involvement, (b) school function, and (c) geographic area.

There were also significant perception differences of parental involvement on the number of incivilities, F(2,330) = 13.68, p < .001, ƒ = 0.30. As can be seen in Figure 1, those rating parental involvement as low reported the highest mean number of incivilities, while those rating parental involvement as high reported the lowest number. Post hoc tests using Bonferroni correction suggested that those professionals rating parental involvement as low reported a higher number of incivilities than those that rating parental involvement as moderate (p = .002) or high (p < .001), but the number of incivilities did not differ significantly between professionals rating parental involvement as moderate and high (p = .020).

Parental Involvement, Students’ Behavior, and Background Characteristics

In Table 3 presented chi-squares for all analyzed variables are presented (associated descriptive data are presented in Tables S1–S5, as supplementary material). There were significant associations between school functions, parental involvement, and some associated reasons. More specifically, almost half of the teachers rated parental involvement as poor (46.8% vs. non-teachers: 30.5%), 90.9% of the teachers pointed out disinterest/demotivation as reason (vs. non-teachers: 69.0%), and 82.8% of non-teachers selected lack of time as a reason (vs. teachers: 47.3%). There were also significant associations between functions and perception of students’ general behavior and associated reasons. When compared to non-teachers, teachers tended to lower rate of students’ behavior (24.7% vs. other: 7.4). Moreover, teachers also often justified their answers based on absence of parental role models (87.9% vs. 42.9%) and on the presence of occasional cases of misbehavior (89.3% vs. 64.0%), respectively, than other professionals. Functions were significantly associated with some specific students’ behavior, namely disrespect for teachers, for personnel, and between students, and teachers tended to report more these behaviors than non-teachers, 51.7% versus 37.9%, 48.7% versus 35.6%, and 67.5% versus 52.9%, respectively. The majority of teachers also reported manifestation of aggressive behaviors (57.7% vs. non-teachers: 42.5%). Similarly, there were associations between functions and incivilities in school, such as disturbing school functioning and use of inappropriate language, with teachers presenting higher values than non-teachers: 78.3% versus 59.1% and 85.1% versus 75.3%, respectively. Oppositely, non-teachers reported more frequently that students scatter/throw trash around the school (76.3% vs. teachers: 54.9%).

Table 3.

Chi-Squares for Parental Involvement and Student Behavior at School by School Functions and Geographic Area.

Variables	School functions	School geographic area
Parental involvement	χ ²(2) = 11.29, p = .004, Cramer’sV = .19	χ ²(4) = 12.27, p = .015, Cramer’s V = .14
Disinterest/demotivation	χ ²(1) = 9.37, p = .002, Fisher = .01, Cramer’s V = .26	a
Parental lack of time	χ ²(1) = 11.66, p = .001, Cramer’sV = .29	χ ²(2) = 34.81, p < .001, Cramer’s V = .50
Activities are not properly promoted	χ²(1) = 0.55, p = .460, Fisher = .44, Cramer’s V = .06	a
Parental interest/motivation	χ²(1) = 1.22, p = .270, Fisher = .38, Cramer’s V = .19	a
Proactive parents	χ²(1) = 1.21, p = .271, Fisher = .41, Cramer’s V = .19	a
Parental availability for school activities	χ²(1) = 3.49, p = .555, Fisher = .68, Cramer’s V = .10	a
Students’ general behavior	χ ²(2) = 13.13, p = .001, Cramer’sV = .19	χ ²(4) = 45.14, p < .001, Cramer’s V = .26
Inappropriate behavior	χ²(1) = 1.67, p = .197, Fisher = .29, Cramer’s V = .16	a
Students without respect for authority	χ²(1) = .947, p = .331, Fisher = 1.00, Cramer’s V = 12	a
Absence of parental role models	χ ²(1) = 9.03, p = .003, Fisher = .01, Cramer’s V = .37	a
Occasional cases of misbehavior	χ ²(1) = 7.32, p = .007, Fisher = .01, Cramer’s V = 30	a
Students respectful of school authority	χ²(1) = 2.04, p = .154, Fisher = .23, Cramer’s V = .16	χ²(2) = 0.70, p =.703, Cramer’s V = .09
Behaviors appropriate to the school	χ²(1) = 0.69, p = .405, Cramer’s V = .09	χ²(2) = 1.32, p =.517, Cramer’s V = .13
School absenteeism	χ²(2) = 2.20, p = .333, Cramer’s V = .08	χ ²(4) = 43.95, p < .001, Cramer’s V = .26
Major behavioral problems in school
Widespread disrespect	χ²(1) = 2.71, p = .100, Cramer’s V = .09	χ ²(2) = 7.60, p = .022, Cramer’s V = .15
Disrespect for teachers	χ ²(1) = 4.82, p = .028, Cramer’s V = .12	χ ²(2) = 7.29, p = .026, Cramer’s V = .15
Disrespect for personnel	χ ²(1) = 4.39, p = .036, Cramer’s V = .18	χ ²(2) = 6.63, p = .036, Cramer’s V = .14
Disrespect between students	χ ²(1) = 5.87, p = .015, Cramer’s V = .14	χ²(2) = 4.69, p = .096, Cramer’s V =.12
Manifestation for aggressive behaviors	χ ²(1) = 5.83, p = .015, Cramer’sV = .02	χ ²(2) = 16.72, p < .001, Cramer’s V = .23
Tobacco/drugs abuse	χ²(1) = 1.19, p = .275, Cramer’s V = .06	χ²(2) = 1.23, p = .540, Cramer’s V = .06
Alcohol consumption	χ²(1) = 0.01, p = .909, Cramer’s V = .01	χ ²(2) = 8.22, p = .016, Cramer’s V = .16
School incivilities
Scatter/throw trash around the school	χ ²(1) = 12.88, p < .001, Cramer’sV = .20	χ²(2) = 0.82, p = .664, Cramer’s V = .05
Destroy or damage equipment	χ²(1) = 0.42, p = .516, Cramer’s V = .04	χ²(2) = 2.27, p = .322, Cramer’s V = .08
Disturbing school functioning	χ ²(1) = 12.37, p <.001, Cramer’sV = .19	χ ² (2) = 12.16, p = .002, Cramer’s V = .19
Use of inappropriate language	χ ²(1) = 4.43, p = .035, Cramer’sV = .17	χ²(2) = 0.07, p = .964, Cramer’s V = .02

Based on independent sample t-tests, professionals differed on the index of behavioral problems at school, t(328) = 3.95, p < .001, d = 0.48, but not on the index of incivilities, t(328) = 0.69, p = .491, d = 0.08. More specifically, teachers reported a higher number of behavioral problems than non-teachers.

As presented in Table 2, there was a significant association between geographic area and parental involvement, namely professionals from Porto rated parental involvement as low (50.0%), more frequently than others (vs. Lisbon: 46.7% vs. other areas: 30.5%). Still regarding parental involvement, professionals from Lisbon explain it through parental lack of time (91.4%), more often than other groups (vs. Porto: 30.8% vs. other areas: 61.5%). Additionally, there were significant associations between geographic area and students’ general behavior and school absenteeism. More specifically, ratings of bad behavior were more frequent in Porto’s professionals (36.2%) than others areas (Lisbon; 12.9%; other areas: 7.0%) and school absenteeism was identified as high, particularly among professionals from Porto (i.e., 29.6% vs. Lisbon: 12.0% vs. other areas: 0.8%). Significant associations were found for geographic area and individual behavioral problems, namely: widespread disrespect (Porto: 62.8% vs. Lisbon: 42.7% vs. other areas: 55.5%), disrespect for teachers (Porto: 57.9% vs. Lisbon: 42.7% vs. other areas: 42.2%), disrespect for personnel (Porto: 54.58% vs. Lisbon: 38.7% vs. other areas: 40.6%), manifestation of aggressive behavior (Porto: 67.8% vs. Lisbon: 40.0% vs. other areas: 48.4%), and alcohol consumption (Porto: 12.4% vs. Lisbon: 4.0% vs. other areas: 3.9%). Overall, the presence of these behaviors was particularly identified by professionals from Porto. Geographic area was also significantly associated with a specific incivility, namely disturbing school functioning, that was specifically mentioned by professionals from Porto (79.7%) and other areas (74.2% vs. Lisbon: 57.3%).

There were geographic significant differences on the index of behavioral problems at school, F(2,330) = 5.88, p = .003, ƒ = 0.32. As shown in Figure 1c, school personnel from Porto presented the highest mean, while professionals from Lisbon presented the lowest. Moreover, post hoc tests using Bonferroni correction, indicated that there was a significant difference on the index of behavioral problems between professionals from Porto and Lisbon (p = .008), but not on the other pairs (Porto vs. other: p = .019; Lisbon vs. other areas: p = 1.00). There were no geographic differences on the index of incivilities, F(2,330) = 2.37, p = .095, ƒ = 0.13.

Discussion

With this research focused on the school personnel perception of about parental involvement in school activities and student’s behaviors problems it is intended to better understand communication and interaction between family and school and the social functioning of students. Few Portuguese studies addressed school personnel perception of parental involvement and students’ behavior problems, although they are relevant for improving school educational and relational practices, considered predictive of successful outcomes according to Thompson et al. (2017).

A considerable percentage of participants (40%) rated parental involvement as low, attributing this to demotivation/disinterest and lack of time. This may be considered a disturbing result given the importance and multiple benefits of parental involvement documented by several studies on student’s achievement (Catalano & Catalano, 2014; Haskins & Jacobsen, 2017; Jeynes, 2016; Kaptich et al., 2019; Park et al., 2017), social emotional health (Epstein & Salinas, 2004) and social functioning (El Nokali et al., 2010). In line with this, the research has highlighted the importance of addressing the multidimensional character of parental involvement at three levels: parental involvement directed toward school improvement, toward children’s own schooling and the parent networking, that is, formation of social networks among parents (Park et al., 2017). This is also corroborated by authors as Catalano and Catalano (2014), who argue that increasing parental involvement in schooling have positive impacts on children, families, and school community.

Another perturbing result is related to the fact that one in five school personnel rated students’ behavior as bad, mainly due to inappropriate classroom and playground behavior, students without respect for authority in the school context and absence of parental role models. Although absenteeism was not identified by 44.8% of school personnel as a dominant problem in the school environment, it is not to be overlooked that 40.9% considered absenteeism to be intermediate and additional 14.3% considered it to be high. These results suggest the need to consider intervention measures in school absenteeism, given that school absence is associated with many different life-course problems (Gubbels et al., 2019), such as the development of internalization and externalization behavioral problems and the probability of engaging in risky and sexual behaviors (Ansari & Pianta, 2018). In addition, low parental involvement has been identified as having a considerable and significant effect on school absenteeism, which should be also addressed by preventive efforts (Gubbels et al., 2019).

Other school behavior problems were perceived by participants as originating some concern. Examples may comprise disrespect between students, widespread disrespect and manifestation of aggressive behaviors, as well as the use of inappropriate language and disturbing social functioning (problems reported by 70% of school personnel). These results partially corroborate what was found in other international and national studies (Caridade et al., 2015; Dufur et al., 2015; Nunes et al., 2015, 2017).

Overall the school personnel participants rating parental involvement as low also rated students’ behavior as bad. Consistently with this, the school personnel participants rating parental involvement as low reported the highest mean number of behavioral problems and the highest mean number of incivilities. The study developed by El Nokali et al. (2010) also shows a significant association between parental involvement and social functioning, concluding that increased parental involvement in children’s education promotes communication with school personnel about the children’s adjustment and behavior. Promoting greater parental involvement is crucial to foster greater understanding of parents about their children’s social difficulties at school, addressing and reinforcing later positive behaviors at home (El Nokali et al., 2010).

As expected, when compared to other school personnel, teachers shown a more negative perception of parental involvement, attributing it mainly to disinterest/demotivation, which may be explained by the fact that they have more direct contact with the students’ parents. Another result deserving further analysis is the marked discrepancy between teachers and other school personnel regarding parental lack of time. Indeed, more than 80% of other professionals justify low parental involvement through lack of time (vs. nearly 48% of the teachers), which can be explained by differences on work scheduling profiles. Although, teachers and other school personnel work the same number of hours per week, only teachers benefit from partial flexible scheduling. As a consequence, teachers could be less sensitive to this issue, being work scheduling the greatest challenge reported by Portuguese individuals when asked about life-work balance (Statistics Portugal, 2018). It was also the group of teachers, when compared to other school personnel, who most negatively rated the students’ general behavior, justifying this perception on the absence of parental role models (57.7% vs. 42.5%, respectively) and on the presence of specific cases of misbehavior (89% vs. 64%). The majority of teachers also reported school more aggressive behaviors (57.7%) and incivilities, that is, disturbing school functioning (78.8%) and use of inappropriate language (85.1%). In the study developed by Thompson et al. (2017) teachers who perceived low parental involvement also pointed out more externalizing behaviors in students, such as disturbing behaviors toward adults and peers.

Finally, and to a certain degree surprisingly, more school personnel from Porto rated parental involvement as low (50%) compared to others: Lisbon (46.7%) and Porto adjacent municipalities (30.5%). Moreover, participants from Porto schools also assessed students’ general behavior lower than other professionals, presenting higher values on the frequency of some specific behavior problems and incivilities. This negative perspective presented by school personnel from Porto should be further addressed and clarified in future studies, nonetheless according to the most recent Porto Educational Charter (Rego et al., 2017), some sociodemographic conditions were pointed out as an influential concern, namely, illiteracy, unemployment rate, or economic difficulties. It should be highlighted that school personnel from Lisbon applied to parental lack of time (91.4%), compared to others (Porto: 30.8% vs. others: 61.5%) to justify low degree of parental involvement. Despite purely speculative, considering Lisbon the Portuguese biggest city, and the single XXL urban center (Dijkstra & Poelman, 2012), it seems reasonable that parents may need more than one job to guarantee additional income, also spending extra time on daily commute, and being particularly socially isolated, and perhaps more burdened not only with children care/education, but also with daily activities.

Limitations and Implications to Practice

The study results suggest that parent-school partnerships could have a considerable influence on children’s development, particularly in terms of the child’s social functioning. School personnel perception of poor parental involvement in school emerged as being associated with increased behavioral problems and incivilities. In addition, teachers presented a poorer favorable perception of parental involvement and children’s behavior in school context, possible due to the greater involvement with students.

Although the present study offers important benefits in understanding parental involvement in schooling in the Portuguese context, several limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings. Firstly, this is an exploratory study centered on the point of view of school personnel, mainly teachers, without considering parental and students’ perception. Second, distributions on some sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., school personnel, school geographic location) can be a potential concern; nonetheless, for instance, 70.6% of the participants were teachers and, indeed, this professional group is the most frequent in Portuguese schools. In addition, the measurement of parental involvement could be strengthened through the exploration of the type of parental involvement and frequency, as proposed by Epstein (2010). Future Portuguese studies on parental involvement should also explore parental behavior supporting children’s achievement. Further exploration of how parents and teachers may be jointly responding to children’s social functioning is necessary. It is also important to understand how school personnel interacts and communicates with families. Considering the highlighted result related to the school behavior problems, specifically school absenteeism, it is important to analyze and explore the risk factors for both school absenteeism and permanent school dropout.

Regarding implications to school practices, a multifactorial approach should be applied in risk and needs assessment, and in interventions aimed at improving school environment. In this sense, some important implications from the results were identified. Considering the association found between teachers’ negative perception of parental involvement and the identification of more behavioral problems, it is crucial to promote the development of strong parent-school partnerships in order to build more accurate teacher perception of parental involvement. The lack of time reported by parents was identified as one of the main reasons for reduced parental involvement. In this sense, and because families do seem to be increasingly burdened with multiple responsibilities, alternative ways of promoting greater parental involvement must be considered. The use of social media and other online platforms, intending to involve parents in the educational constructs of formal schooling are possibilities to be explored. The establishment of a parental education/empowerment program, could contribute to further energize families toward the involvement in school activities, as well as carrying out joint activities with children, inside and outside the school context, aiming to improve students’ behavior.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental_Tables – Supplemental material for School Personnel Perception of Parental Involvement and Students’ Behavior Problems: Practical Implications

Supplemental material, Supplemental_Tables for School Personnel Perception of Parental Involvement and Students’ Behavior Problems: Practical Implications by Sónia Caridade, Vanessa Azevedo, Maria Alzira Pimenta Dinis, Ana Sani and Laura M. Nunes in Education and Urban Society

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

Sónia Caridade is also affiliated with Interdisciplinary Center for Gender Studies (CIEG), Higher Institute of Social and Political Sciences, University of Lisbon, Lisboa, Portugal; and Faculty of Human and Social Sciences, University Fernando Pessoa (UFP), Porto, Portugal; and Permanent Observatory Violence and Crime (OPVC), University Fernando Pessoa (UFP), Porto, Portugal.

Vanessa Azevedo is now affiliated with Permanent Observatory Violence and Crime (OPVC), University Fernando Pessoa (UFP), Porto, Portugal.

Maria Alzira Pimenta Dinis is affiliated with Permanent Observatory Violence and Crime (OPVC), University Fernando Pessoa (UFP), Porto, Portugal; and UFP Energy, Environment and Health Research Unit (FP-ENAS), University Fernando Pessoa (UFP), Porto, Portugal.

Laura M. Nunes is affiliated with Faculty of Human and Social Sciences, University Fernando Pessoa (UFP), Porto, Portugal; and Permanent Observatory Violence and Crime (OPVC), University Fernando Pessoa (UFP), Porto, Portugal.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was financed by National Funds through FCT (Foundation for Science and Technology) under the project LookCrim—Looking at Crime: Communities and Physical Spaces—PTDC/DIR-DCP/28120/2017

ORCID iDs

Sónia Caridade

Vanessa Azevedo

Maria Alzira Pimenta Dinis

Ana Sani

Notes

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Sónia Caridade, PhD in Forensic and Legal Psychology at the School of Psychology, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal. Currently, is an Assistant Professor at Fernando Pessoa University (UFP), Porto. Researcher at the Permanent Observatory on Violence and Crime (OPVC) at UFP (). Investigator integrating the project Looking at Crime: Communities and Physical Spaces (LookCrim), financed by National Funds through Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) under PTDC/DIR-DCP/28120/2017. Her research interests include dating violence and cyber dating violence (adult and youth), delinquency and behavior problems, and has authored several national and international publications on this topic.

Vanessa Azevedo, PhD in applied psychology at the School of Psychology, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal. Currently, is a researcher project Looking at Crime: Communities and Physical Spaces (LookCrim), financed by National Funds through Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) under PTDC/DIR-DCP/28120/2017. Develops research in the areas of Victimology and life experiences, especially in the themes of victimization.

Maria Alzira Pimenta Dinis, PhD, MSc is an associate professor at the Faculty of Science and Technology, University Fernando Pessoa, Porto, Portugal. Researcher at FP-ENAS, UFP Energy, Environment and Health Research Unit. Investigator in Permanent Observatory Violence and Crime (OPVC). Investigator integrating the project Looking at Crime: Communities and Physical Spaces (LookCrim), financed by National Funds through Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) under PTDC/DIR-DCP/28120/2017.

Ana Sani, associate professor, School of Human and Social Sciences, University Fernando Pessoa (UFP); PhD in Justice Psychology from the University of Minho (UM); Coordinator of the Master in Psychology of Justice: Victims of violence and crime; Co-coordinator of the Forensic Psychology Unit of the Pedagogical Psychology Clinic of UFP; External integrated member of the Research Center for Child Studies (CIEC) at UM; Coordinator of the UFP Permanent Observatory on Violence and Crime (); CoPrincipal Investigator in the project Looking at Crime: Communities and Physical Spaces (LookCrim), financed by National Funds through Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) under PTDC/DIR-DCP/28120/2017. Develops research in the areas of Victimology and Forensic Psychology, especially in the themes of victimization and child protection. Author of several national and international publications.

Laura M. Nunes, PhD in Social Sciences / Psychology / Delinquency Research Line. Assistant Professor at Fernando Pessoa University (UFP) of Porto, Portugal. Co-coordinator of the Permanent Observatory on Violence and Crime (OPVC). Principal Investigator in the project Looking at Crime: Communities and Physical Spaces (LookCrim), financed by National Funds through Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) under PTDC/DIR-DCP/28120/2017. Researcher at the Center for Research in Social and Behavioral Sciences (FP B2S) of the same University. Develops research in the areas of Legal Psychology and Criminology.

References

Algozzine

Wang

Violette

A. S.

(2011). Reexamining the relationship between academic achievement and social behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 13(1) 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300709359084

Ansari

Pianta

R. C.

(2018). Teacher–child interaction quality as a function of classroom age diversity and teachers’ beliefs and qualifications. Applied Developmental Science, 23(3), 294–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1439749

Antonelli-Ponti

Versuti

F. M.

Da Silva

J. A.

(2018). Teachers’ perception about genes and behavior. Estudos de Psicologia, 35(4), 421–431. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-02752018000400009

Bronfenbrenner

(2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human development. Sage.

Caridade

Nunes

Sani

(2015). School diagnostic: Perceptions of educational professionals. Psychology, Community & Health, 4(2), 75–85. https://doi.org/10.5964/pch.v4i2.120

Carvalho

Alão

Magalhães

(2017). Da indisciplina ao clima de escola: a voz dos alunos [From indiscipline to school climate: the voice of students]. Revista Portuguesa de Investigação Educacional, 17, 42–60.

Catalano

(2014). The importance of the school-family relationship in the child’s intellectual and social development. Procedia - Social Behavioral Sciences, 128, 406–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.179

Dupâquier

(1999). La violence en milieu scolaire. Presses Universitaires de France.

Dijkstra

Poelman

(2012). Cities in Europe : The new OECD-EC definition. Directorate-general for regional and urban policy, 16. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/focus/2012_01_city.pdf

10.

Dufur

M. J.

Hoffmann

J. P.

Braudt

Parcel

T. L.

Spence

K. R.

(2015). Examining the effects of family and school social Capital on delinquent behavior. Deviant Behavior, 36(7), 511–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2014.944069

11.

Ehrensaft

M. K.

Cohen

(2012). Contribution of family violence to the intergenerational transmission of externalizing behavior. Prevention Science, 13(4), 370–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-011-0223-8

12.

El Nokali

Bachman

Votruba-Drzal

(2010). Parent involvement and children’s academic and social development in elementary school. Child Development, 81(3), 988–1005. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01447.x.

13.

Epstein

J. L.

(1987). Parent involvement: What research says to administrators. Education and Urban Society, 19(2), 119–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124587019002002

14.

Epstein

J. L.

(2010). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(3), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171009200326

15.

Epstein

J. L.

Salinas

K. C.

(2004). Partnering with families and communities. Educational Leadership, 61(8), 12–19.

16.

Farrell

A. F.

Collier

M. A.

(2010). School personnel’s perceptions of family–school communication: A qualitative study. Improving Schools, 13(1), 4–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480209352547

17.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

A. G.

Buchner

(2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146

18.

Fonseca

Moleiro

Sales

(2009). Violence in Portuguese school. National report. International Journal of Violence and School, 57–78. https://repositorio.iscte-iul.pt/bitstream/10071/14359/1/Violence%20in%20Portuguese%20schools.pdf

19.

Garcia

(2006). Indisciplina, incivilidade e cidadania na escola [Indiscipline, incivility and citizenship at school.]. Educação Temática Digital, 8(1), 121–130.

20.

Gubbels

van der Put

C. E.

Assink

(2019). Risk factors for school absenteeism and dropout: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(9), 1637–1667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01072-5

21.

Haskins

A. R.

Jacobsen

W. C.

(2017). School as surveilling institutions? Paternal incarceration, system avoidance, and parental involvement in schooling. American Sociological Review, 82(4), 657–684. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122417709294

22.

Jeynes

W. H.

(2016). A meta-analysis: The relationship between parental involvement and african american school outcomes. Journal of Black Studies, 47(3), 195–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021934715623522

23.

Kaptich

Kiplangat

H. K.

Munyua

(2019). Relationship between parental involvement in pupils’ educational activities at school and their academic performance in Ainabkoi Sub-County, Kenya. IRA-International Journal of Education & Multidisciplinary Studies, 15(1), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.21013/jems.v15.n1.p5

24.

Lavenda

(2011). Parental involvement in school: A test of hoover-dempsey and sandler’s model among jewish and arab parents in Israel. Children and Youth Service Review, 33(6), 927–935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.12.016

25.

Malecki

Elliott

S. N.

(2002). Children’s social behaviors as predictors of academic achievement: A longitudinal analysis. School Psychology Quarterly, 17(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1521/scpq.17.1.1.19902

26.

Nunes

L. M.

Beça

Dinis

M. A. P.

(2017). Drug abuse and trafficking in universities: An emerging social phenomenon. In Jaworski

J. A.

(Ed.), Advances in Sociology Research, Vol. 23 (pp. 179-191). Nova Science Publishers.

27.

Nunes

Caridade

Sani

A. I.

(2015). Avaliação do meio escolar: um estudo exploratório [School evaluation: an exploratory study]. Revista Lusófona de Educação, 30, 141–158.

28.

Nunes

Caridade

Sani

A. I.

(2018). Incivilities and delinquency in schools: An analysis of a social phenomenon. In Jaworaski

J. A.

(Ed.), Advances in sociology research (pp. 193–208). Nova Publishers.

29.

Park

Stone

Holloway

(2017). School-based parental involvement as a predictor of achievement and school learning environment: An elementary school-level analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 82, 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.09.012

30.

Radliff

Wheaton

Robinson

Morris

(2012). Illuminating the relationship between bullying and substance use among middle and high school youth. Addictive Behaviors, 37(4), 569–572.

31.

Rego

Magalhães

A. M.

Costa

B. S.

da Lima

Moura

(2017). Carta educativa do Porto. Uma abordagem multidimensional do sistema educativo: Maior integração, melhores resultados [Porto Educational Charter. A multidimensional approach of the education system: Increased integration, better results]. Câmara Municipal do Porto. http://www.cm-porto.pt/assets/misc/documentos/Educacao/CARTA%20EDUCATIVA%20DO%20PORTO.pdf

32.

SSI - Sistema de Segurança Interna (2020). Relatório Anual de Segurança Interna 2019. Lisboa: Sistema de Segurança Interna [Domestic violence 2019 – Annual Monitoring Report]. Lisboa: SSI. https://www.portugal.gov.pt/download-ficheiros/ficheiro.aspx?v=19cabc8c-e3f1-4cb2-a491-a10c8a3e4bf0

33.

Statistics Portugal (2018). Conciliação da vida profissional com a vida familiar – Módulo ad hoc do Inquérito ao Emprego [Family life-work balance – ad hoc module from Job Survey]. Instituto Nacional de Estatística. https://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=ine_estudos&ESTUDOSest_boui=221720939&ESTUDOSmodo=2&xlang=pt

34.

Thompson

Herman

Stormont

Reinke

Webster-Stratton

(2017). Impact of incredible years® on teacher perceptions of parental involvement: A latent transition analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 62, 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.03.003

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB