Migration background and the measurement of home-based parental involvement in education: a psychometric evaluation of two self-report questionnaires

Figures & data

Table 1. Items and their Endorsement Frequencies Quantitative Home-based Involvement Questionnaire.

		Answer categories
	Items	Never	Less than once a month	Once a month	Once a week	Multiple times a week	Every day	Missing
Original	1. Talks with this child about the school day.	1 (.8%)	–	1 (.8%)	–	17 (13%)	112 (85.5%)	–
Original/adapted	2. Supervises this child’s work for school.	16 (12.2%)	3 (2.3%)	4 (3.1%)	17 (13%)	59 (45.4%)	31 (23.7%)	1 (.8%)
Original/adapted	3. Practices words, numbers, or concepts with this child.	3 (2.3%)	–	1 (.8%)	21 (16%)	72 (55.4%)	33 (25.2%)	1 (.8%)
New	4. Reads to this child.	–	1 (.8%)	3 (2.3%)	9 (6.9%)	41 (31.1%)	77 (58.8%)	–
New	5. Sings with this child.	5 (3.8%)	2 (1.5%)	1 (.8%)	17 (13%)	52 (39.7%)	54 (41.2%)	–
New	6. Plays with this child.	–	1 (.8%)	1 (.8%)	5 (3.8%)	47 (35.9%)	76 (58%)	1 (.8%)
Original	7. Reads with this child.	14 (10.7%)	4 (3.1%)	2 (1.5%)	17 (13%)	44 (33.6%)	48 (36.6%)	2 (1.5%)
New	8. Tells stories to this child.	1 (.8%)	4 (3.1%)	3 (2.3%)	13 (9.9%)	53 (40.5%)	56 (42.7%)	1 (.8%)
New	9. Jokes with this child.	–	–	2 (1.5%)	1 (.8%)	33 (25.2%)	93 (71%)	2 (1.5%)
New	10. Goes to the library with this child.	43 (32.8%)	25 (19.1%)	40 (30.5%)	13 (9.9%)	5 (3.8%)	5 (3.8%)	–
Original/dif. subscale	11. Helps out at this child’s school.	21 (16%)	50 (38.2%)	26 (19.8%)	7 (5.3%)	10 (7.6%)	15 (11.5%)	2 (1.5%)

Table 2. Inter-Item correlations Quantitative Home-based Involvement Questionnaire.

	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
1. Talks with this child about the school day.	.13	.13	.06	.04	.13	.12	.15	.12	−.05	.07
2. Supervises this child’s work for school.	–	.33**	−.03	.01	.05	.16	.30**	.11	.24**	.29**
3. Practices words, numbers, or concepts with this child.	–	–	.12	.14	.13	.19*	.32**	.21*	.05	.31**
4. Reads to this child.	–	–	–	.13	.20*	.21*	.25**	.25**	.18*	.00
5. Sings with this child.	–	–	–	–	.42**	.16	.20*	.25**	.07	.16
6. Plays with this child.	–	–	–	–	–	.23*	.36**	.51**	.06	.05
7. Reads with this child.	–	–	–	–	–	–	.49**	.08	.19*	.18*
8. Tells stories to this child.	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	.41**	.19*	.23**
9. Jokes with this child.	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	.09	.06
10. Goes to the library with this child.	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	.38**
11. Helps out at this child’s school.	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 3. Standardized Component Loadings of the rotated 4-factor solution Quantitative Home-based Involvement Questionnaire.

Item	Component 1	Component 2	Component 3	Component 4
1. Talks with this child about the school day.	.00	.19	.70	.17
2. Supervises this child’s work for school.	.01	.79	−.07	−.08
3. Practices words, numbers, or concepts with this child.	.08	.66	.14	.04
4. Reads to this child.	.14	−.36	−.10	.77
5. Sings with this child.	.72	.08	−.14	−.14
6. Plays with this child.	.81	−.05	.07	.19
7. Reads with this child.	−.21	.31	.02	.62
8. Tells stories to this child.	.43	.25	.05	.54
9. Jokes with this child.	.76	−.00	.07	−.02
10. Goes to the library with this child.	.03	.12	−.73	.30
11. Helps out at this child’s school.	−.00	.52	−.54	.08

Note. Eigenvalues of the components were 2.69, 1.75, 1.24, and 1.03, respectively.

Table 4. Standardized Component Loadings of the rotated 3-factor solution Quantitative Home-based Involvement Questionnaire.

Item	Component 1	Component 2	Component 3
1. Talks with this child about the school day.	.06	.26	.68
2. Supervises this child’s work for school.	.−.11	.73	−.02
3. Practices words, numbers, or concepts with this child.	.03	.66	.17
4. Reads to this child.	.51	−.04	−.20
5. Sings with this child.	.62	−.03	−.06
6. Plays with this child.	.86	−.03	.11
7. Reads with this child.	.04	.57	−.05
8. Tells stories to this child.	.62	.43	.03
9. Jokes with this child.	.72	−.07	.12
10. Goes to the library with this child.	.14	.23	−.75
11. Helps out at this child’s school.	−.03	.54	−.52

Note. Eigenvalues of the components were 2.69, 1.75, and 1.24, respectively.

Table 5. Standardized Component Loadings of the rotated 2-factor solution Quantitative Home-based Involvement Questionnaire.

Item	Component 1	Component 2
1. Talks with this child about the school day.	.13	−.12
2. Supervises this child’s work for school.	−.08	.66
3. Practices words, numbers, or concepts with this child.	.07	.50
4. Reads to this child.	.49	.10
5. Sings with this child.	.61	.04
6. Plays with this child.	.86	−.03
7. Reads with this child.	.06	.54
8. Tells stories to this child.	.63	.40
9. Jokes with this child.	.72	−.08
10. Goes to the library with this child.	.09	.60
11. Helps out at this child’s school.	−.04	.75

Note. Eigenvalues of the components were 2.69 and 1.75, respectively.

Table 6. Items and their Endorsement Frequencies Parenting Questionnaire of Parents with and without a Migration Background.

Factor	Item descriptions	Not at all like me	Not like me	Somewhat like me	Like me	Very much like me	Missing
HLE	1. Encourage to write	NM: 1 (1.4%) M: 2 (3.3%)	NM:6 (8.6%) M: 6 (9.8%)	NM: 16 (22.9%) M: 15 (24.6%)	NM: 26 (37.1%) M: 18 (29.5%)	NM: 21 (30%) M: 20 (32.8%)	NM: - M: -
HLE	2. Encourage to do calculus	NM: 7 (10%) M: 1 (1.6%)	NM: 6 (8.6%) M: 5 (8.2%)	NM: 19 (27.1%) M: 15 (24.6%)	NM: 20 (28.6%) M: 26 (42.6%)	NM: 17 (24.3%) M: 14 (23%)	NM: 1 (1.4%) M: -
HLE	3. Provide workbooks	NM: 20 (28.6%) M: 5 (8.2%)	NM: 10 (14.3%) M: 7 (11.5%)	NM: 21 (30%) M: 19 (31.1%)	NM: 14 (20%) M: 20 (32.8%)	NM: 4 (5.7%) M: 10 (16.4%)	NM: 1 (1.4%) M: -
HLE	4. Play number games	NM: 4 (5.7%) M: -	NM: 5 (7.1%) M: 6 (9.8%)	NM: 14 (20%) M: 10 (16.4%)	NM: 31 (44.3%) M: 27 (44.3%)	NM: 15 (21.4%) M: 18 (29.5)	NM: 1 (1.4%) M: -
AUT	5. Respect child’s opinion	NM: - M: -	NM: 1 (1.4%) M: 2 (3.3%)	NM: 5 (7.1%) M: (%)	NM: 27 (38.6%) M: 22 (36.1%)	NM: 37 (52.9%) M: 32 (52.5%)	NM: - M: -
AUT	6. Encourage exploration	NM: - M: -	NM: - M: 1 (1.6%)	NM: 7 (10%) M: 7 (11.5%)	NM: 19 (27.1%) M: 28 (45.9%)	NM: 44 (62.9%) M: 25 (41%)	NM: - M: -
AUT	7. Encourage child to talk	NM: - M: -	NM: - M: 2 (3.3%)	NM: 3 (4.3%) M: 2 (4.9%)	NM: 20 (28.6%) M: 24 (39.3%)	NM: 47 (67.1%) M: 32 (52.5%)	NM: - M: -
AUT	8. Considerate of others	NM: - M: -	NM: - M: -	NM: 3 (4.3%) M: 1 (1.6%)	NM: 18 (25.7%) M: 24 (39.3%)	NM: 49 (70%) M: 35 (57.4%)	NM: - M: 1 (1.6%)
AUT	9. Spend time with child	NM: - M: -	NM: - M: -	NM: 1 (1.4%) M: 2 (3.3%)	NM: 16 (22.9%) M: 21 (34.4%)	NM: 53 (75.7%) M: 38 (62.3%)	NM: - M: -
AUT	10. Child to be responsible	NM: - M: -	NM: 1 (1.4%) M: -	NM: 2 (2.9%) M: 6 (9.8%)	NM: 26 (37.1%) M: 25 (41%)	NM: 41 (58.6%) M: 30 (49.2%)	NM: - M: -
MD	11. Deal with misbehaviour	NM: - M: -	NM: 1 (1.4%) M: 1 (1.6%)	NM: 17 (24.3%) M: 10 (16.4%)	NM: 25 (35.7%) M: 27 (44.3%)	NM: 27 (38.6%) M: 20 (32.8%)	NM: - M: 3 (4.9%)
MD	12. Sticking with rules	NM: 1 (1.4%) M: 1 (1.6%)	NM: 5 (7.1%) M: 1 (1.6%)	NM: 15 (21.4%) M: 7 (11.5%)	NM: 25 (35.7%) M: 34 (55.7%)	NM: 24 (34.3%) M: 18 (29.5%)	NM: - M: -
MD	13. Threaten to discipline	NM: - M: 4 (6.6%)	NM: 4 (5.7%) M: 7 (11.5%)	NM: 19 (27.1%) M: 16 (26.2%)	NM: 27 (38.6%) M: 19 (31.1%)	NM: 20 (28.6%) M: 14 (23%)	NM: - M: 1 (1.6%)
MD	14. Time passes let it go (reversed-coded)	NM: 13 (18.6%) M: 17 (27.9%)	NM: 19 (27.1%) M: 13 (21.3%)	NM: 23 (32.9%) M: 11 (18%)	NM: 10 (14.3%) M: 14 (23%)	NM: 5 (7.1%) M: 6 (9.8%)	NM: - M: -

Note. HLE = Home Learning Environment; AUT = Autonomy support/expectations; MD = Management/discipline; NM = Non-migration background; M = Migration background.

Table 7. Inter-Item correlations Parenting Questionnaire of Parents with and without a Migration Background.

	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
1. Encourage to write	NM: .82 M: .76	NM: .66 M: .56	NM: .50 M: .65	NM: .34 M: .20	NM: .24 M: .38	NM: .16 M: .29	NM: .03 M: .32	NM: .26 M: .21	NM: .15 M: .36	NM: .05 M: .23	NM: .02 M: .08	NM: -.11 M: .15	NM: .04 M: .05
2. Encourage to do calculus	–	NM: .78 M: .57	NM: .68 M: .67	NM: .33 M: .16	NM: .38 M: .51	NM: .29 M: .46	NM: .19 M: .33	NM: .35 M: .30	NM: .18 M: .43	NM: −.10 M: .13	NM: .11 M: .23	NM: −.14 M: .16	NM: −.09 M: .00
3. Provide workbooks	–	–	NM: .50 M: .69	NM: .07 M: .03	NM: .19 M: .36	NM: −.02 M: .03	NM: −.19 M: .25	NM: .14 M: .18	NM: .01 M: .45	NM: −.01 M: −.03	NM: −.14 M: −.02	NM: −.09 M: .23	NM: −.06 M: −.21
4. Play number games	–	–	–	NM: .25 M: .29	NM: .46 M: .39	NM: .47 M: .39	NM: .34 M: .39	NM: .44 M: .31	NM: .24 M: .38	NM: .17 M: .24	NM: .34 M: .15	NM: .17 M: .09	NM: −.08 M: −.00
5. Respect child’s opinion	–	–	–	–	NM: .49 M: .54	NM: .61 M: .39	NM: .40 M: .55	NM: .54 M: .49	NM: .33 M: .48	NM: .07 M: .46	NM: .01 M: .14	NM: .14 M: .09	NM: −.15 M: .11
6. Encourage exploration	–	–	–	–	–	NM: .96 M: .63	NM: .80 M: .63	NM: .63 M: .58	NM: .66 M: .83	NM: .40 M: .40	NM: .30 M: .26	NM: .31 M: .36	NM: .01 M: .14
7. Encourage child to talk	–	–	–	–	–	–	NM: .92 M: .66	NM: .81 M: .71	NM: .81 M: .69	NM: .37 M: .49	NM: .37 M: .28	NM: .29 M: .21	NM: .05 M: –.06
8. Considerate of others	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	NM: .67 M: .88	NM: .79 M: .76	NM: .26 M: .33	NM: .37 M: .30	NM: .29 M: .19	NM: .05 M: –.01
9. Spend time with child	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	NM: .84 M: .69	NM: .46 M: .37	NM: .33 M: .30	NM: .38 M: .13	NM: −.12 M: .12
10. Child to be responsible	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	NM: .53 M: .34	NM: .34 M: .29	NM: .31 M: .40	NM: .03 M: .07
11. Deal with misbehaviour	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	NM: .66 M: .40	NM: .74 M: .45	NM: −.07 M: −.08
12. Sticking with rules	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	NM: .72 M: .56	NM: −.02 M: .03
13. Threaten to discipline	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	NM: .03 M: .30
14. Time passes let it go (reversed-coded)	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–

Note. NM = Non-migration background; M = Migration background.

Table 8. Measurement Invariance Results for the Parenting Questionnaire in Parents with and without a Migration Background.

	χ²	df	p	RMSEA	CFI	TLI	Δχ²	Δdf	ΔRMSEA	ΔCFI
Configural invariance	145.69	104	.004	.078	.98	.97
Metric invariance	158.23	113	.003	.078	.98	.97	15.12	9	0	.001
Scalar invariance	196.86	140	.001	.079	.97	.97	46.98	27	.001	.006
Strict invariance	177.23	128	.003	.077	.98	.97	22.89	12	.002	.004

Note. χ² = adjusted chi-square test statistic; df = adjusted degrees of freedom; p = p-value; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; Δχ² = Adjusted chi-square difference between the fitted model and the comparison model (configural invariance model); Δdf = Adjusted difference in degrees of freedom between fitted and comparison models; ΔRMSEA = Difference in root mean square error of approximation; ΔCFI = Difference in Comparative Fit Index. RMSEA value smaller than 0.05 good fit, between 0.05 and 0.08 adequate fit, and between 0.08 and 0.10 mediocre fit. Values larger than 0.10 are not acceptable (Van de Schoot, Lugtig, and Hox 2012.; Yu 2002). For CFI and TLI, values larger than 0.95 indicate good fit, values between 0.95 and 0.90 mediocre fit. Values smaller than .90 are not acceptable (Van de Schoot, Lugtig, and Hox 2012.). Changes in RMSEA of .015 and in CFI of -.01 are acceptable (Chen 2007).

Table 9. Parameter estimates From the Two-Group Confirmatory Three-Factor Model fitted to data on the Parenting Questionnaire in Parents with and without a Migration Background.

		Unstandardized factor loadings		Residual variances
Factor	Item description	Non-migration background	Migration background	Non-migration background	Migration background
HLE	1. Encourage to write	1.10	1.10	0.45	0.48
HLE	3. Provide workbooks	0.88	1.07	0.52	0.45
HLE	4. Play number games	1.40	2.27	0.38	0.16
AUT	5. Respect child’ s opinion	0.61	0.74	0.71	0.67
AUT	6. Encourage exploration	3.26	1.62	0.09	0.26
AUT	7. Encourage child to talk	3.26	1.21	0.09	0.40
AUT	8. Considerate of others	3.26	1.91	0.09	0.19
AUT	9. Spend time with child	1.61	1.67	0.26	0.28
AUT	10. Child to be responsible	1.55	2.05	0.28	0.21
MD	11. Deal with misbehaviour	1.71	1.36	0.24	0.39
MD	12. Sticking with rules	1.32	0.75	0.44	0.55
MD	13. Threaten to discipline	1.70	0.85	0.19	0.66

Table 10. Model Fit for All Levels of Measurement Invariance Tested Across Migration Background the thresholds of item 13 not held equal across groups.

	χ²	df	p	RMSEA	CFI	TLI	Δχ²	Δdf	ΔRMSEA	ΔCFI
Configural invariance	145.69	104	.004	.078	.98	.97
Metric invariance	158.23	113	.003	.078	.98	.97	15.12	9	0	.001
Scalar invariance	185.60	137	.003	.074	.98	.98	31.25	24	.004	.002
Strict invariance	171.14	125	.004	.075	.98	.98	171.14	12	0	.001

Note. χ² = adjusted chi-square test statistic; df = adjusted degrees of freedom; p = p-value; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; Δχ² = Adjusted chi-square difference between the fitted model and the comparison model (configural invariance model); Δdf = Adjusted difference in degrees of freedom between fitted and comparison models; ΔRMSEA = Difference in root mean square error of approximation; ΔCFI = Difference in Comparative Fit Index.

Van de Schoot, R., P. Lugtig, and J. Hox. 2012. “A Checklist for Testing Measurement Invariance.” European Journal of Developmental Psychology 9 (4): 486–492. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2012.686740.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yu, C. Y. 2002. Evaluating Cutoff Criteria of Model Fit Indices for Latent Variable Models with Binary and Continuous Outcomes. Los Angeles: University of California.

 Google Scholar

Chen, Fang Fang. 2007. “Sensitivity of Goodness of Fit Indexes to Lack of Measurement Invariance.” Structural Equation Modeling 14 (3): 464–504. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the author, A.M. Willemen, upon reasonable request.