This article was downloaded by: [Stanford University]
On: 20 February 2011
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 930493184]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Early Education & Development
Publication 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 of
Young Homeless Children
Janette 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, Jelena
and Masten, Ann S.(2011) 'Direct and Indirect Effects of Parenting on the Academic Functioning of Young Homeless
Children', Early Education & Development, 22: 1, 77 — 104
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/10409280903507261
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10409280903507261
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
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 or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should 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 directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
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
Downloaded By: [Stanford University] At: 20:04 20 February 2011
Direct and Indirect Effects of Parenting
on 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 Obradović
School of Education, Stanford University
Ann S. Masten
Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota
Research Findings: Effects of parenting quality on the academic functioning of
young homeless children were examined using data from 58 children ages 4 to
7 and their parents during their stay at an emergency homeless shelter. Parenting quality, child executive function, child intellectual functioning, and risk
status were assessed in the shelter, and teacher reports of academic functioning
were obtained when the children began kindergarten or 1st grade. As hypothesized, parenting quality was associated with children’s academic success, and
this effect was mediated by executive function skills in the child. Parenting
quality also had a moderating effect on risk, consistent with a protective role
of high-quality parenting among children with higher risk levels. Concomitantly, children with higher risk and lower parenting quality appeared to be
more vulnerable to academic problems. Practice or Policy: In homeless families, parenting may play an especially important role in academic success
through multiple pathways, including the development of executive function
skills in their children. Policies and practices to support parents and foster
the 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]
77
78
HERBERS ET AL.
Downloaded By: [Stanford University] At: 20:04 20 February 2011
important strategies to promote child academic success. Implications for
intervention efforts with homeless parents and children are discussed.
Parents in high-risk families can promote the academic success of their
young children in a variety of ways. By providing structure and warm, sensitive care, parents can support the development of crucial cognitive and
self-regulation skills that enable young children to make a smooth transition 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 children that school is important through imparting positive expectations
regarding achievement, encouraging good attendance, talking with children
about school experiences, helping them with homework, and maintaining
regular 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 context
of poverty and homelessness, the promotive and protective influences of
parenting 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 this
study was to explore several potential pathways through which parenting
quality may promote and protect the academic achievement of homeless
children in the early school years. Specifically, we examined whether effects
of parenting quality were mediated by child executive function (EF) and
intellectual functioning and whether parenting quality moderated effects
of 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 all
families living in poverty had experienced a period of homelessness in the
past year, with 900,000 of those individuals being children (Burt et al.,
1999; Huntington, Buckner, & Bassuk, 2008). In 2008, 20% of homeless
people in the nation were children. Half of those children were less than 6
years old, and families with young children currently represent the largest
growing segment of the homeless population (U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development, 2009). Although family homelessness has
increased over the past several decades in the United States (Haber & Toro,
2004), rapid increases in housing foreclosures beginning in 2007 and the current economic recession in the United States have drawn attention to the
needs of homeless families.
Downloaded By: [Stanford University] At: 20:04 20 February 2011
PARENTING AND HOMELESS CHILDREN
79
Homelessness is considered a marker of high adversity and risk, with
children from homeless families falling at the extreme end of an underlying
continuum of poverty (Buckner, 2008; Buckner, Bassuk, & Weinreb,
2001; Buckner, Bassuk, Weinreb, & Brooks, 1999; Masten, Miliotis,
Graham-Bermann, Ramirez, & Neemann, 1993). Children from families
who experience homelessness face well-established risks common to other
low-income children, such as limited parental education, single-parent
households, 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 children
experience risk factors specific to homelessness, such as frequent residential
moves with related discontinuities in schooling and relationships, stressful
conditions of emergency shelter living, and disruptions in access to services
and family support (Buckner, 2008; Masten, 1992; Masten et al., 1997;
Torquati, 2002). Although studies comparing homeless children to
low-income, more stably housed children have not consistently found differences in terms of adjustment and health, robust differences have emerged for
educational outcomes (Haber & Toro, 2004; Obradović et al., 2009;
Rescorla, Parker, & Stolley, 1991; Rog & Buckner, 2007; Zima, Wells, &
Freeman, 1994). Moreover, it is clear that children in homeless families vary
substantially in terms of their achievement and adjustment in school, with
some children showing resilience and others manifesting serious difficulties
(Miliotis, Sesma, & Masten, 1999; Obradović et al., 2009). Understanding
the nature of the risk and protective processes that may protect child development in the context of homelessness is important and timely given the
growing 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 tests
of academic achievement than more stably housed children from similarly
low or higher socioeconomic groups (Buckner, 2008; Masten et al., 1997;
Obradović et al., 2009; Rafferty & Shinn, 1991; Rafferty, Shinn, & Weitzman,
2004; D. H. Rubin et al., 1996). Furthermore, educational disparities for
young homeless children begin early and persist (Obradović et al., 2009).
Like other children from disadvantaged families, homeless children enter
school with significantly worse scholastic skills, which predisposes them
to 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
Downloaded By: [Stanford University] At: 20:04 20 February 2011
80
HERBERS ET AL.
an academic disadvantage, homeless children are also likely to experience
disruptions in learning experiences and relationships as they continue
changing schools, residences, and possibly cities throughout their school
careers, making it all the more difficult for them to achieve at the same
levels as their non-homeless and non-mobile peers (Obradović et al.,
2009; Rafferty et al., 2004).
Rimm-Kaufman and Pianta (2000) have argued persuasively that the first
years of school largely set the stage for later academic functioning. Success
in the early school years is so vital to later academic achievement that the
transition to school can be considered a sensitive period for promoting
school success. These initial school years provide children not only with fundamental skills in reading and mathematics but also with the basic tools for
learning and the means to acquire knowledge. Research has demonstrated
the significance of a child’s attentiveness, engagement, motivation, and
social skills in the early school years for later academic success in grade
school and middle school (Arnold & Doctoroff, 2003; Blair, 2002; Duncan
et al., 2007; Hill & Craft, 2003; Ladd, Birch, & Buhs, 1999; Luster &
McAdoo, 1996; Turner & Johnson, 2003).
School readiness may be of particular importance for young children
at very high socioeconomic risk, including children experiencing homelessness, because these children enter these important early school years
already disadvantaged (McLoyd, 1998; Ramey & Ramey, 2004; Rog &
Buckner, 2007). Educators and policymakers who plan to address such
disparities in achievement need information on the promotive and protective developmental processes that facilitate positive adaptation to
school. This is especially the case for young children experiencing homelessness and related educational risks. The transition to school and the
early school years represent a window of opportunity for improving
success in school.
THE PROMOTIVE AND PROTECTIVE ROLE OF PARENTS
Effective caregiving represents the most important protective influence for
the healthy development of high-risk children (Luthar, 2006; Masten,
Cutuli, Herbers, & Reed, 2009). Investigations of the detrimental influences
of poverty and sociodemographic risk have demonstrated that these distal
risk factors impact child outcomes through more proximal influences such
as 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 embedded
within families (Haber & Toro, 2004) and that many other aspects of the
Downloaded By: [Stanford University] At: 20:04 20 February 2011
PARENTING AND HOMELESS CHILDREN
81
children’s lives are in flux, parents in homeless families are likely to play a
crucial role in the readiness of their children for the transition to school.
At the same time, parents in homeless families are confronted with many
challenges that could undermine their effectiveness as parents (Buckner
et al., 2001; Huntington et al., 2008; Torquati, 2002; Vostanis, Grattan,
Cumella, & Winchester, 1997). Risks common in the context of homelessness may compromise parenting behavior in caregivers of young children.
For example, Torquati found that family stressors predicted negative parenting in homeless families and noted specific characteristics of living in
emergency shelters that may disrupt the parenting process, including needing to manage children in unstructured situations, hearing criticisms of their
parenting from others in the shelter, and becoming overwhelmed and
demoralized by the living situation.
In this context, it is not surprising that homeless mothers have been found
to have lower scores on measures of warmth and to provide their children
with less cognitive and social stimulation when compared to more stably
housed low-income mothers (Haber & Toro, 2004). However, relatively few
studies have examined how differences in parenting within the specific context of homelessness relate to differences in child outcomes. In one study of
59 African American homeless children and their families, Miliotis et al.
(1999) found that parenting quality was related to teacher ratings of later academic achievement and adaptive functioning at school. Parent intellectual
functioning, education level, and psychological distress did not predict academic outcomes, suggesting that parenting behaviors and the parent–child
relationship may have a particularly important protective role in this context.
Although the mechanisms by which parenting and the parent–child
relationship can promote and protect school functioning in homeless children
have yet to be explained, previous research related to parenting and child
school readiness skills in both normative and high-risk samples served as a
guide for the current hypotheses. Different aspects of parenting and the parent–child relationship have been linked to the concurrent and future academic
achievement of young children. Parents who speak to their children more
often; read books with their children; and specifically teach academic skills
such as problem solving, counting, and naming letters have children who begin
school with better verbal and mathematical abilities (Supplee et al., 2004). Parents who have higher, more positive expectations for their children’s success
have children who achieve higher grades and ultimately complete more years
of school (Belsky & MacKinnon, 1994; Luster & McAdoo, 1996). Furthermore, parents who are more actively involved with their children’s school in
terms of communicating with the teacher, attending school functions, and
assisting with homework have children who demonstrate better social skills
and experience more academic success (Arnold & Doctoroff, 2003; Hill &
82
HERBERS ET AL.
Craft, 2003; Miedel & Reynolds, 1999). Warmth, discipline, and lack of
hostility 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).
Downloaded By: [Stanford University] At: 20:04 20 February 2011
HYPOTHESIZED MEDIATORS OF PARENTING
Parental support, involvement, and instruction help children make successful
transitions to school by supporting the development of child cognitive abilities, 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 intelligence differently, though it is commonly conceptualized psychometrically
as the general factor (g) shared by a variety of different IQ tests (Blair,
2006; Neisser et al., 1996). IQ has been studied extensively across the
lifespan and shows normative increases with age, though age-corrected standardized scores for individuals remain fairly stable over their lives (Neisser
et al., 1996). IQ is consistently related to and predictive of math ability, reading ability, academic achievement, and school performance (Neisser et al.,
1996). Though much of the variance in IQ scores is attributed to genetic
influences, twin studies have demonstrated evidence for environmental influences that may include parenting practices as well (Neisser et al., 1996). In
samples of low socioeconomic status, environmental factors predict a great
deal of the variance in IQ scores (Turkheimer, Haley, Waldron, D’Onofrio,
& Gottesman, 2003). Meanwhile, some empirical studies have demonstrated
effects 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 parents
may facilitate successful transitions to school (Blair, 2002). Executive function
generally 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). EF skills, which
are fundamental for self-regulatory behavior, involve the conscious control or
modulation of cognitions, behaviors, and emotions (Zelazo & Cunningham,
2007). These skills are essential for learning and also for successful function in
a school classroom. These skills also develop rapidly during the preschool years
because of the maturation of the brain’s prefrontal cortex and other physiological systems (Blair & Razza, 2007; Zelazo & Cunningham, 2007).
Kindergarten teachers view EF skills as more important for school
readiness than specific academic knowledge, such as knowing letters of the
Downloaded By: [Stanford University] At: 20:04 20 February 2011
PARENTING AND HOMELESS CHILDREN
83
alphabet or how to count to 20 (Blair, 2002). As children enter school, the
classroom presents a new context in which specific demands are placed on
the child’s ability to regulate his or her behavior and emotions (Belsky &
MacKinnon, 1994). Compared to home and most preschool or day care
programs, kindergarten classrooms have relatively large class sizes and lower
adult-to-child ratios (Rimm-Kaufman & Pianta, 2000). In order to learn from
academic instruction and perform well in kindergarten, children must be able
to remain in their seats, sustain attention over relatively long periods of time,
refrain from talking and acting out of turn, and develop harmonious relationships with both teachers and peers. EF skills are important in these regards.
EF skills are distinct from general intelligence, although related. Scores
on 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 and
IQ tests suggest that common factors or processes may be supporting their
development and function. However, specific aspects of EF relate differentially to distinct aspects of intellectual ability. EF measures that involve
updating working memory are highly related to measures of intellectual test
performance (IQ), whereas behavioral inhibition and set-shifting are less
related to IQ (Blair & Razza, 2007; Friedman et al., 2006). Similarly, though
EF skills and general intellectual skills are correlated, they independently
predict 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). For
example, when a kindergarten child faces a situation in which he or she must
respond to negative peer behaviors at school, the child must control his or
her emotional response and display, which requires an understanding of
emotional experiences and some inhibitory control. The child must also
show strategies for problem solving, knowledge of a proper course of action,
and confidence in his or her ability to either manage the situation or seek
assistance from someone else, such as a teacher. This complex process draws
on a variety of skills—intelligence, knowledge, emotion understanding,
behavioral control, emotional control, social skills, and problem solving.
Qualities of parenting and the parent–child relationship show consistent associations 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 the
mediating role of EF in the link between parenting quality and academic
Downloaded By: [Stanford University] At: 20:04 20 February 2011
84
HERBERS ET AL.
achievement in a way that is distinct from general intellectual ability.
Given the distinctive links among aspects of EF and IQ, it seems likely
that the mechanisms through which parenting may influence the development of EF or IQ skills may be overlapping but not identical. Because of
this, it is informative to consider both IQ and EF as possible mediators.
In summary, the positive effects of parenting on academic functioning
may be mediated through both EF and IQ. Research on young children
in high-risk populations indicates that the influence of parents on school
success may be particularly important, functioning in distinct ways to moderate risk (Eisenberg et al., 2005; Lengua, 2002; Miliotis et al., 1999; Raver,
2004). It is important to study these pathways among families experiencing
high 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) skills
and EF skills, which in turn were expected to relate to academic achievement,
representing a mediated and indirect role of parenting on academic achievement. Parenting quality was also expected to have unique direct effects on
academic achievement not mediated by IQ or EF because parents have
additional roles that promote school success, as noted earlier, including their
influence on attendance and social or emotional behaviors not necessarily
captured by measures of EF or IQ (Morrison et al., 2003; Pianta & Harbers,
1996; Supplee et al., 2004). Finally, parenting was expected to moderate the
effects 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 moderating
hypotheses were tested in models based on theoretical expectations.
METHOD
Participants
Participants were part of a larger study of homeless families who had children 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 were
recruited at a large urban emergency shelter for homeless families. Families
staying at this shelter tend to be single mothers with several young children,
and demographic characteristics were comparable to national figures
for urban emergency shelters (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Downloaded By: [Stanford University] At: 20:04 20 February 2011
PARENTING AND HOMELESS CHILDREN
85
Development, 2009). The average stay for a family at this shelter was
approximately 1 month, with families staying anywhere from 1 night to 2
years. Because of limitations of the measures used, five families with limited
English proficiency were not recruited. Families who had been at the shelter
for less than 3 days generally were not recruited in order to allow them time
to acclimate. Two families participated earlier at their request.
The following analyses include only the 58 children who were going into
kindergarten (n ¼ 20) or first grade (n ¼ 38) during the study. The mean age
of these children was 6.1 years (SD ¼ 0.5). The majority of the children were
African American (81.0%), with 3.4% Caucasian, 1.7% Native American,
and 13.8% multiracial. Moreover, 38 children were male (64.4%) and 21
were female (35.6%), reflecting the gender ratio of children this age in the
shelter at the time of recruitment. The participation rate of families with
children entering kindergarten or first grade was approximately 90% based
on counts taken during 1 week of each month.
Of the 58 families, 41 were headed by single parents. Though second parents were invited to complete interviews when available, the data presented
in this analysis represent only information from the 58 primary caregivers.
The primary caregivers included 54 biological parents, 2 stepparents, and
2 grandmothers. Four of the primary caregivers were single fathers. The primary caregivers identified their ethnicities as African American (84.5%),
Caucasian (10.3%), Native American (3.4%), and other. These families were
demographically similar to those reported in other studies of urban homeless families in the United States, which tend to include a disproportionate
percentage of African American and other ethnic minority families, with
mostly single mothers staying in an emergency shelter with multiple young
children (Haber & Toro, 2004; Rog & Buckner, 2007; Toro, 2007). Furthermore, these families reported reasons for becoming homeless similar to
those described in other studies, such as eviction, extreme poverty, loss of
benefits, and domestic violence (Toro, 2007). Thus, the sample was likely
a good representation of the population of urban homeless families in 2006.
Procedures
Families were recruited for participation by research staff in the cafeteria or
lobby of the homeless shelter or responded to fliers and letters distributed to
their rooms. Families met with research staff on site at the shelter for one
90-min session. Once they completed the informed consent process, parents
engaged in a face-to-face interview while their children completed a variety
of tasks, including an abbreviated IQ assessment and a battery of behavioral
tasks designed to assess EF. Portions of the parent interview included questions about demographic information used to assess sociodemographic risk
86
HERBERS ET AL.
Downloaded By: [Stanford University] At: 20:04 20 February 2011
as well as questions about parenting and the parent–child relationship. In
appreciation for their time, parents received $20 gift cards and children
received small bags of toys at the completion of the session.
Once data collection in the shelter was completed, children were located
in area schools and questionnaires were mailed to their classroom teachers.
Teachers reported on several school outcomes, including questions related
to school engagement and academic competence. Of the 58 children who
participated, 54 were located in schools and 4 were presumed to have left
the state. The teachers of all 54 students who received questionnaires
returned them and received a $10 gift card as an honorarium.
Measures
Parenting. Two strategies were used to assess parenting quality: (a) ratings by the parent interviewer and (b) independent ratings by trained judges
reviewing the structured parent interview. Immediately following each parent interview, the interviewer completed a set of behavior ratings that
included 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 the
child, how positively did the parent speak of the child, what is the quality of
the parent–child relationship, and how hostile was the parent in describing
the child (reverse scored). These interviewer ratings were based on general
impressions of parent behavior in response to the entire 90-min interview,
which involved specific self-report questions about parenting as well as
questions about the child’s behavior. Interviewers were also present to
observe how parents interacted with their children during the consent process, although they were blind to the child’s performance on the IQ and
EF tasks. These rating scales were adapted from a set of rating scales indexing parent–child closeness that showed high interrater agreement as well as
structural and predictive validity in an earlier study of parenting among
homeless families (Miliotis et al., 1999). The five interviewer ratings of parenting in the present study also showed strong internal consistency (a ¼ .89),
and a composite was formed by averaging ratings across the five items. It
was not possible to assess interrater reliability, as only one researcher was
present for the entirety of each interview. To further validate these data,
however, parenting was assessed with another method by independent raters
who had conducted no interviews, as described next.
At the conclusion of data collection, all of the written responses to the
structured interviews of parents were rated again by a new team. Each
trained rater completed the same set of parent ratings that the interviewer
had completed as well as additional ratings summarizing parent self-report
of discipline and consistency. The purpose of this set of ratings was to
Downloaded By: [Stanford University] At: 20:04 20 February 2011
PARENTING AND HOMELESS CHILDREN
87
validate the interviewer’s behavior ratings and also minimize potential bias
from the likeability and verbal skills of the parent while interpreting and integrating his or her responses. For example, coders were instructed to consider
discrepancies in the interview questions ‘‘How close do you feel to your
child?’’ and ‘‘How close does your child feel to you?’’ The following seven
items were coded based on written information in the interview: parenting
closeness, positive descriptions, quality of the relationship between the parent
and child, parent positive expectations, parental discipline, authoritative parenting style, and overall quality of parenting. Interrater agreement was high,
with an average intraclass correlation coefficient of .94 across raters and
items. Therefore, these ratings were averaged across raters and then across
the seven items to form a second parenting quality composite (a ¼ .92).
The two composite parenting variables, one based on interviewer ratings
and one based on coded written responses to the parent interview, were
moderately correlated (r ¼ .46, p < .01), suggesting that the two approaches
offered distinct but congruent perspectives. Interviewers were able to integrate impressions from interpersonal interactions and observations, whereas
raters were able to closely examine self-reported written information in the
context of the interview responses. The two scores were standardized and
then combined to form one global composite of parenting quality with
scores ranging from 2.7 to 1.3.
Risk. An index of cumulative risk was created to account for differences
in risk status within the high-risk population of currently homeless families
(Masten & Sesma, 1999). The cumulative risk index included a sum of indicators for the following 6 risk factors selected to represent a lack of physical
resources: family had no income last month, primary caregiver is currently
unemployed, primary caregiver has less education than a high school degree,
child’s family previously lived in an unsafe neighborhood, child’s family
could not afford their rent, and child’s family previously lived in substandard or unsafe housing. These indicators of sociodemographic risk were
chosen to represent risk factors for academic achievement that are not direct
measures of parenting, although clearly these kinds of risks could be historically related to the general competence and behavior of a parent.
Academic functioning. Teachers of children in the study completed the
Teacher 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 measure
of academic functioning based on two subscales of 8 items related to school
engagement (a ¼ .87 in the current sample) and 5 items related to academic
competence (a ¼ .96 in the current sample). Examples of items measuring
88
HERBERS ET AL.
Downloaded By: [Stanford University] At: 20:04 20 February 2011
school engagement include ‘‘approaches new activities with enthusiasm’’ and
‘‘is cheerful in school,’’ whereas examples of items measuring academic competence include ‘‘How would you rate this child’s current school performance
in math-related skills?’’ and ‘‘How would you evaluate this child’s current
school performance in reading-related skills?’’ Teachers use 5-point ordinal
scales to evaluate children relative to their same-age peers (Armstrong et al.,
2003). The two subscales were significantly correlated (r ¼ .33, p < .05).
EF. Child EF was measured based on the following four behavioral laboratory tasks: Simon Says (Kochanska, Murray, & Coy, 1997; Strommen,
1973), Peg-Tapping (Diamond & Taylor, 1996), Computerized Pointing
Stroop (Berger, Jones, Rothbart, & Posner, 2000), and the Dimensional
Change Card Sort task (DCCS; Zelazo, 2006). In Simon Says, children
are asked to perform actions such as clapping their hands and touching their
head only when the experimenter gives instructions preceded by the phrase
‘‘Simon says.’’ The experimenter demonstrates all of the actions, requiring
the child to remember the rules, listen carefully to and understand the
instructions, and inhibit the tendency to mimic the experimenter’s actions
on trials that do not begin with ‘‘Simon says.’’ Child performance on Simon
Says was coded from video by two trained coders who were blind to child
performance on the other EF tasks. Interrater reliability was calculated
based on 25% of the sample, with a weighted j ¼ .94. In Peg-Tapping, the
child is asked to tap the table with a wooden dowel once when the experimenter taps twice and twice when the experimenter taps once. Again, the
child must remember and follow the rules, inhibiting imitation. Scores for
Peg-Tapping were based on the percentage of correct taps in response to
16 trials. For the Stroop task, children point to one of two pictures of animals presented in consecutive trials on a computer touch screen, first selecting the animal that makes the sound they hear (dog bark, cat meow, cow
moo, or rooster crow) for a set of congruent trials, then selecting the
opposite animal—the one that does not make the sound they hear—for a
set of incongruent trials. Performance was computer scored based on the
number correct out of the 16 incongruent trials. For the DCCS, the child
is asked to sort picture cards first by color and then by shape. Performance
was scored by the experimenter as the number out of 6 sorted correctly by
shape. Both the Stroop and the DCCS tasks require cognitive flexibility and
inhibitory control as well as working memory.
Scores for each of the 4 tasks were standardized and combined to create a
composite of EF with high internal consistency (a ¼ .75) and high item-total
correlations (r > .70, p < .001). Composite scores ranged from 1.6 to 0.9.
For more information on the scoring, reliability, validity, and internal
consistency of these tasks in this particular sample, see Obradović (in press).
PARENTING AND HOMELESS CHILDREN
89
Downloaded By: [Stanford University] At: 20:04 20 February 2011
IQ. Each child’s general intellectual functioning (IQ) was measured
using the following 3 subscales of the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale
of Intelligence–Third Edition (WPPSI-III; Wechsler, 2002): Vocabulary,
Matrix Reasoning, and Block Design. Raw scores on each of the three subtests were transformed to norm-referenced scaled scores adjusted for age. In
standardization samples, each WPPSI-III subtest scaled score has a mean of
10 and a standard deviation of 3. Scaled scores from Matrix Reasoning and
Block Design were averaged to create a single score, representing performance IQ (r ¼ .38, p < .01), which was then combined with the Vocabulary
scaled score, representing verbal IQ (r ¼ .49, p < .001), to yield an estimate
of overall intellectual functioning.
Missing Data
Complete data for all 58 participants were available for the following variables: age, gender, coded parenting ratings, DCCS, child IQ, and cumulative
risk. Percentages of missing data for other variables were as follows: interviewer ratings of parenting (3.4%), Simon Says (13.8%), Peg-Tapping
(1.7%), Stroop (6.9%), and academic functioning (8.6%). The Simon Says
task had a higher rate of missingness because a large number of children
failed the training trials and the activation trials of the task, indicating that
the measure was invalid for these children and failed to assess EF. Missingness on the Simon Says task was not related to performance on other EF
tasks, IQ, or cumulative risk. However, missingness analyses (data not presented) 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 the
recommended expectation-maximization algorithm and Markov chain
Monte Carlo method to create 10 imputed data sets (Schafer & Graham,
2002). Data were imputed at the subscale level and then composited as
described earlier. Analyses with the 10 separate imputed data sets were combined according to Rubin’s rules (D. B. Rubin, 1987), and results using
imputed data did not differ from results of the same analyses performed
on the original, non-imputed data set. The results presented here reflect
the analyses from the multiply imputed data.
RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations
Presented in Table 1 are descriptive statistics on the main variables included
in the analyses as well as the individual items that composed the composite
90
HERBERS ET AL.
Downloaded By: [Stanford University] At: 20:04 20 February 2011
TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics
Variable
M
SD
Min
Max
Parenting quality
Positive tone (interviewer)
Warmth (interviewer)
Hostility (interviewer)
Closeness (interviewer)
Quality of relationship (interviewer)
Closeness (rater)
Positive tone (rater)
Quality of relationship (rater)
Expectations (rater)
Discipline (rater)
Authoritative parenting (rater)
Overall parenting (rater)
Academic functioning
Child age
Cumulative risk
Executive function
Child IQ
0.0
4.0
3.9
2.0
4.2
4.0
4.5
4.2
4.1
4.3
3.6
3.7
4.8
3.2
6.1
2.3
0.0
7.4
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.6
0.8
0.7
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.2
0.7
0.5
1.2
0.7
1.7
2.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.7
1.7
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.7
1.6
5.0
0.0
1.6
3.8
1.3
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
6.7
4.6
7.3
5.0
0.9
12.3
of parenting quality. On average, parents were rated highest for the closeness of their relationship with their child by both interviewers and structured
interview raters. Parents received the lowest scores for warmth according to
interviewers and for discipline and authoritative parenting according to
structured interview raters. Similar to the findings in other studies of homeless children, the sample mean IQ score estimate was approximately 1 SD
below the normative mean. Scores on the cumulative risk index ranged from
0 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 most
common risk factors from the index of six described earlier were parental
unemployment and family could not afford rent at their previous residence.
Correlations among the variables included in the analysis are presented in
Table 2. The overall composite of parenting quality was significantly correlated with EF scores, child IQ, and teacher report of child academic functioning. As expected, child IQ was significantly but moderately correlated
with EF. Age and gender were not significantly related to cumulative risk,
parenting quality, or academic functioning. However, age and gender were
significantly correlated with both EF and IQ, suggesting that older children
and girls received higher scores than younger children and boys, respectively. Both age and gender were included in all analyses as relevant demographic variables. Ethnicity was not related to any variables of interest,
PARENTING AND HOMELESS CHILDREN
91
TABLE 2
Bivariate Correlations (N ¼ 58)
Variable
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Parenting quality
Academic functioning
Child age
Child gender
Cumulative risk
Executive function
Child IQ
Downloaded By: [Stanford University] At: 20:04 20 February 2011
p < .05, two-tailed.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
–
.28
.21
.17
.15
.48
.34
–
.05
.01
.33
.43
.41
–
.07
.15
.54
.38
–
.10
.29
.37
–
.19
.31
–
.56
–
p < .01, two-tailed.
perhaps because the vast majority of study participants were African
American or multiracial; thus, ethnicity was not included in subsequent
analyses.
Hierarchical Linear Regression Analysis
A hierarchical linear regression analysis was performed to explore the possibility of mediation and to test the potential moderating role of parenting
quality on different levels of cumulative risk for child academic functioning
(see Table 3). The first step showed the total effect of parenting quality on
academic functioning controlling for child age and gender, and the second
step added the potential mediators of EF and IQ. Cumulative risk was
entered in Step 3 of the model. In Step 4, the interaction term for Parenting
Quality Cumulative Risk score was entered to determine whether parenting quality would moderate the effects of cumulative risk on academic
achievement, controlling for mediating effects through EF and IQ. Finally,
Step 5 of the model included interaction terms based on Cumulative
Risk EF and Cumulative Risk IQ to test whether a moderating effect
of parenting could be accounted for by other potential moderators of risk.
All variables included in interaction terms were centered prior to being
multiplied.
Parenting quality showed a significant main effect for academic functioning in Step 1 (b ¼ .29, p < .05), controlling for age and gender. In Step 2,
child EF and IQ accounted for an additional 21% of the variance in academic functioning (b ¼ .40, p < .05; b ¼ .35, p < .05, respectively). With child EF
and IQ included in the model, parenting quality was no longer a significant
predictor of academic functioning (b ¼ .08, p ¼ .67), consistent with a
mediating effect of these two variables. A formal test of this mediation is
presented in the following section.
92
HERBERS ET AL.
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
Downloaded By: [Stanford University] At: 20:04 20 February 2011
Step
Step 1
Age
Gender
Parenting quality
Step 2
Age
Gender
Parenting quality
Executive function
Child IQ
Step 3
Age
Gender
Parenting quality
Executive function
Child IQ
Cumulative risk
Step 4
Age
Gender
Parenting quality
Executive function
Child IQ
Cumulative risk
Parenting Quality Risk
Step 5
Age
Gender
Parenting quality
Executive function
Child IQ
Cumulative risk
Parenting Quality Risk
Executive Function Risk
IQ Risk
B
SE B
b
.04
.04
.23
.17
.19
.11
.03
.03
.29
.41
.30
.06
.37
.14
.17
.19
.12
.15
.06
.33
.22
.08
.40
.35
.41
.24
.05
.36
.11
.10
.18
.19
.11
.15
.06
.07
.33
.17
.06
.40
.28
.18
.50
.23
.03
.30
.12
.10
.22
.17
.18
.11
.15
.06
.07
.09
.40
.16
.04
.33
.31
.18
.30
.52
.17
.03
.29
.10
.10
.23
.11
.13
.17
.19
.11
.15
.06
.07
.10
.11
.11
.41
.12
.04
.32
.26
.17
.31
.17
.19
Note. R2 ¼ .09 for Step 1, DR2 ¼ .21 for Step 2 (p < .01), DR2 ¼ .02 for Step 3 (ns), DR2 ¼ .08
for Step 4 (p < .01), DR2 ¼ .02 for Step 5 (ns).
p < .05, two-tailed. p < .01, two-tailed.
Cumulative risk was not a significant predictor of academic functioning
when added in Step 3 of the regression analysis. However, the interaction
term entered in Step 4 explained an additional 8% of the variance in
Downloaded By: [Stanford University] At: 20:04 20 February 2011
PARENTING AND HOMELESS CHILDREN
93
FIGURE 1 Parenting quality moderates the effect of cumulative risk on child academic
functioning.
academic functioning, indicating a significant moderating effect of parenting
quality on cumulative risk. As depicted in Figure 1, the moderating effect of
parenting quality showed the classic form of a protective=vulnerability factor. Children with higher quality parenting had higher scores on academic
functioning regardless of their cumulative risk level. Children with lower
quality parenting appeared to do as well as their peers in the sample when
risk levels were low. When risk was high, however, children with lower quality parenting had much lower academic scores. Thus, children with higher
quality parenting appeared to be protected and children with lower quality
parenting appeared to be vulnerable to risk for academic problems. The
fourth step of the model, which included child age and gender, parenting
quality, EF and IQ, cumulative risk, and the interaction of parenting quality
and 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 Step
5 of the model were not significant predictors of academic functioning. The
Parenting Quality Risk interaction remained significant (b ¼ .31, p < .01)
even when these other potential moderators of risk were included. Because
of the relatively small sample size and the large number of terms (nine) in the
final model, we also tested alternative moderators in different orders. Both
the EF Risk and IQ Risk terms were not significant, even when added
independently in the fourth step in the absence of the Parenting Risk
term. Thus, we are confident that, when added in Step 5, the alternative
94
HERBERS ET AL.
moderators were not merely suppressed as a result of multicollinearity
but rather did not function as significant moderators of risk on academic
functioning.
Downloaded By: [Stanford University] At: 20:04 20 February 2011
Test of Mediated Effects of Parenting on Child Achievement
The mediated effect of parenting quality on academic functioning through
IQ and EF was tested with the bootstrapping method designed for small
samples described by Preacher and Hayes (2008). Using their macro for
SPSS version 16.0, we tested for the total effect of parenting controlling
for age and gender with both child IQ and child EF as simultaneous mediators. With 1,000 bootstrap resamples, this model showed evidence for
mediating effects of parenting through IQ and EF. The total effect of parenting quality on academic functioning when controlling for child age and
gender was significant (.29, p ¼ .04). The direct effect of parenting quality
on academic functioning was .07 (p ¼ .67). Thus, the indirect effect through
simultaneous mediators of IQ and EF, calculated as the total effect minus
the direct effect, was .22, with a 95% bootstrap confidence interval of .06
to .35. This confidence interval indicates that the difference between the
total and direct effects, accounted for by indirect effects through the mediators, was significantly different from zero. The overall model was significant
and explained 33.9% of the variance in child academic functioning. Though
they produced a significant effect as simultaneous mediators, only EF had a
significant 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. y p < .10, two-tailed. p < .05, two-tailed. p < .01, two-tailed.
PARENTING AND HOMELESS CHILDREN
95
parenting quality to IQ emerged only as a trend (.22, p < .10). These results
may indicate that EF has a more pronounced mediating pathway by which
parenting quality influences academic functioning. The mediator model is
depicted in Figure 2.
Downloaded By: [Stanford University] At: 20:04 20 February 2011
DISCUSSION
Effective parenting appears to be important for the early academic success
of children who enter school during or immediately following an episode
of homelessness. Parenting quality was related to both the intellectual abilities and EF skills of the children, which in turn predicted early academic
success in kindergarten or first grade. Parenting quality also showed a moderating effect on risk with respect to academic success in these children, consistent with a protective or vulnerability role. Children with very high-risk
family backgrounds and higher quality parenting had more academic success than children with lower quality parenting from similarly high-risk
backgrounds.
Parenting as a Protective Factor
Similar to the findings reported by Miliotis et al. (1999), this study yields
support for the protective effects of parenting quality for early school success in homeless children. From birth and throughout childhood, all children depend on parents and other caregivers to teach them skills and to
meet 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 to
infant cues, supportive caregivers help regulate the child’s physiological
needs, level of emotional arousal, and behavioral responses. Supportive
caregivers can also talk to their children more and encourage their learning
in problem-solving experiences (Pianta & Harbers, 1996; Supplee et al.,
2004). As children develop better cognitive and motor abilities, they become
more able to act independently and face increasing demands on their
capacity to regulate their own thoughts, behaviors, and emotions.
The results of the current study demonstrate the particular importance of
high-quality parenting for children who face extreme sociodemographic risk
and adversities associated with homelessness. For these children, the
demands on developing self-regulatory capacities are especially great in
the face of residential instability and inconsistent access to essential
resources such as adequate food and proper health care. With the support
and guidance provided through high-quality parenting, however, children
96
HERBERS ET AL.
at extremely high risk can demonstrate positive academic functioning
and adaptation to the school context. The same aspects of high-quality parenting that promote competence in children from lower risk families—
specifically warmth, structure, consistent discipline, and positive
expectations—serve to protect the child against the negative impacts of
risk and adversity.
Downloaded By: [Stanford University] At: 20:04 20 February 2011
Mediated Effects of Parenting Quality on Academic Functioning
The results of this study are also congruent with previous research and
developmental theory suggesting that the effects of parenting quality on
school outcomes may be mediated through EF skills that the child brings
to the school context and the tasks of learning. EF skills, indexed here by
behavioral tasks, appeared to have unique mediating effects linking parenting to academic success in these young homeless children. Previous research
has indicated that IQ mediates the association between parenting quality
and academic achievement (Englund et al., 2004; Raviv et al., 2004); however, this work has rarely included EF in the same analysis. In the present
study, IQ did not emerge as a significant mediator of parenting quality when
included simultaneously with EF. It is possible that limited power affected
the results of this study and that the mediating role of IQ would emerge with
a larger sample size. The results could also reflect better measurement of EF
compared to IQ, although the WPPSI-III subtests included here have a high
correlation with full scale scores. However, it is also possible that IQ may
not function as a distinct mediator of parenting quality in high-risk populations when the effects of EF are included in the model. This result could
occur either because unique aspects of EF mediate the effects or because
common processes captured in the shared variance of EF and IQ (which
are moderately correlated) play the mediating role. In the very early years
of schooling, it is possible that success depends on fundamental abilities
to pay attention, control impulses, follow directions, think flexibly, and
cooperate with an adult that are indexed well by a set of EF tasks similar
to 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 suggest several potential pathways through which different aspects of parenting
may relate to different aspects of school adjustment in young, disadvantaged
children: through IQ, EF, and socioemotional competence. Parenting
practices such as reading and talking with children, teaching strategies
for problem solving, and providing specific instruction likely support the
Downloaded By: [Stanford University] At: 20:04 20 February 2011
PARENTING AND HOMELESS CHILDREN
97
development of intellectual functioning (IQ), which contributes to school
performance via math skills and verbal skills. Elements of positive parenting
such as emotional support, less direct control of behavior, dyadic regulation
of child arousal, modeling or actively teaching self-control, and consistent
discipline likely support the development of EF, enabling children to ignore
distractions, attend to instructions, and keep themselves organized in the
school context. Parental warmth, enthusiasm, and high levels of involvement in school are likely to communicate values about the importance of
school achievement, support child self-confidence, contribute to enthusiasm
for learning, and foster the development of social skills, enabling children to
form relationships with teachers and peers, monitor their emotional
responses, and maintain motivation.
Strengths and Limitations
Because children in families characterized by high risk and high mobility are
particularly challenging to engage in research, this investigation contributes
new findings to a limited literature. The study used information from multiple sources, including parent self-report, teacher report, behavioral measures of child self-regulation, and interviewer and coder ratings of
parenting quality, to minimize shared method variance. Furthermore, the
children were assessed just prior to school entry in the ecologically valid
setting of an emergency homeless shelter with high rates of participation
and follow-up.
Still, there are several important limitations to this study. Parenting quality was measured with a composite variable based on both interviewer ratings of parent behavior in the absence of the child and coded self-report of
parents from structured interviews. Though this methodology has proven
effective for judging global parenting quality, it may not be sensitive to
the specific parenting behaviors or the dyadic qualities of the parent–child
relationship that contribute most to child EF, general intellectual ability,
and child academic functioning. Observational measures of parent–child
interactions may provide a better methodology for explicating the mechanisms and processes through which parenting and the parent–child relationship support the development of child intelligence, EF, and emotional
self-regulation, particularly for the purpose of identifying potential targets
of parenting behavior for intervention.
In addition, parenting quality and child cognitive skills were measured
concurrently, and thus the mediating effect can only be assumed on the basis
of theoretical expectations. It is also possible that genetic factors shared by
parents and children were contributing to the relationship between parenting quality and child functioning. The current study design cannot inform
Downloaded By: [Stanford University] At: 20:04 20 February 2011
98
HERBERS ET AL.
questions about any possible effect of shared genetic variance between
parent and child. However, existing research suggests that shared genetic
effects may be less salient in high-risk samples in which environmental
effects tend to be more predictive, especially in samples of children from
very low socioeconomic backgrounds (Turkheimer et al., 2003).
Clearly, more research is needed to understand the developmental processes that promote school achievement in young homeless children and
especially the promotive and protective processes that may be amenable
to intervention. Future investigations should include larger and more representative samples that can support more complex analytical strategies with
appropriate power to detect effects. For example, a larger sample size with
similar data could use structural equation modeling to combine the
mediation and moderation of parenting into a single analysis. Research
on parenting in homeless families should also include observational measures that can demonstrate more specific aspects of parent behavior and
the parent–child relationship that predict child outcomes and that may serve
to moderate the negative effects of risk on school success. Longitudinal studies with repeated assessments could elucidate the direction and nature of
processes linking parent and child behavior.
Conclusion
High-quality parenting functions as a powerful protective factor in young
homeless children’s adjustment to school. Parents in homeless families can
foster resilient functioning with warmth, consistent discipline, structure,
and positive expectations in much the same way that parents in other families foster competence. An important part of the influence of parenting
quality on academic functioning appears to function through its impact
on child EF skills. Understanding the parenting behavior of effective parents in homeless shelters may be highly informative for developing and
improving programs to support and facilitate parenting in similar difficult
situations.
The results from this study can help inform efforts aimed at improving
the early academic success of young homeless children. Homelessness and
residential instability are pervasive and important issues that demand attention during periods of economic growth as well as recession. Interventions
with homeless families might focus on encouraging warmth, structure, consistent discipline, and positive expectations in the parent–child relationship
as a means of promoting child EF and learning. Bolstering parenting practices related to these aspects of the parent–child relationship is also likely to
assist in protecting the development of children experiencing risk and
adversity, above and beyond the indirect benefits achieved through
PARENTING AND HOMELESS CHILDREN
99
Downloaded By: [Stanford University] At: 20:04 20 February 2011
improved EF. For example, early education programs could prioritize the
inclusion of parent components that encourage positive parent–child interaction as well as parent involvement in learning and school-related activities. In addition, these programs could include parent-only components
focused on educating parents about warmth and effective discipline in times
of stress. Improvements in parenting quality during this sensitive period for
school success are likely to show positive effects in terms of both child EF
and 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 the
Center for Urban and Regional Affairs at the University of Minnesota
and the National Science Foundation (0745643); by predoctoral fellowships
awarded to J. J. Cutuli from the Center for Neurobehavioral Development
at the University of Minnesota and from the National Institute of Mental
Health; and by a predoctoral fellowship awarded to Jelena Obradović by
the National Institute of Mental Health. Special thanks also to the extraordinary support of the staff of People Serving People and the Minneapolis
Public Schools as well as faculty, graduate, and undergraduate students at
the University of Minnesota.
REFERENCES
Armstrong, J. M., Goldstein, L. H., & the MacArthur Working 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 disadvantaged 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 Instrumentation, 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 neuroscience perspective on fluid cognition as an aspect of human cognitive ability. Behavioral
and Brain Sciences, 29, 109–160.
Downloaded By: [Stanford University] At: 20:04 20 February 2011
100
HERBERS ET AL.
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 during toddlerhood. Developmental Psychobiology, 50, 751–766.
Calkins, S. D., & Hill, A. (2007). Caregiver influences on emerging emotion regulation: Biological 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: Development of the abilities to remember what I say and to ‘‘do as I say, not as I do.’’ Developmental 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 achievement in early elementary school: Longitudinal effects of parental involvement, expectations, and quality of assistance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 723–730.
Downloaded By: [Stanford University] At: 20:04 20 February 2011
PARENTING AND HOMELESS CHILDREN
101
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 children’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 children’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 children. 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 contribution 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. Developmental 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 Developmental 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.
Downloaded By: [Stanford University] At: 20:04 20 February 2011
102
HERBERS ET AL.
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 development prior to school entry: Results from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care. American
Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 133–164.
Obradović, J. (2010). Effortful control and adaptive functioning of homeless children: Variableand person-focused analyses. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31, 109–117.
Obradović, 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 Psychopathology, 21, 493–518.
Olson, S. L., Bates, J. E., Sandy, J. M., & Schilling, E. M. (2002). Early developmental precursors 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.
Downloaded By: [Stanford University] At: 20:04 20 February 2011
PARENTING AND HOMELESS CHILDREN
103
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 Psychologist, 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 intervention 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. Psychological 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 families. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 463–485.
Turkheimer, E., Haley, A., Waldron, M., D’Onofrio, B., & Gottesman, I. I. (2003). Socioeconomic 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 participation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 67–77.
104
HERBERS ET AL.
Downloaded By: [Stanford University] At: 20:04 20 February 2011
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.