A FAMILY-SCHOOL ENGAGEMENT PILOT OF PROYECTO JUNTOS: LATINX IMMIGRANT PARENTING AND YOUTH ACADEMIC SELF-EFFICACY by MAIRA BIRRUETA A DISSERTATION Presented to the Department of Counseling Psychology and Human Services and the Division of Graduate Studies of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy June 2022 DISSERTATION APPROVAL PAGE Student: Maira Birrueta Title: A Family-School Engagement Pilot of Proyecto Juntos: Latinx Immigrant Parenting and Youth Academic Self-Efficacy This dissertation has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Doctor of Philosophy degree in the Department of Counseling Psychology and Human Services by: Leslie Leve Chair Ellen McWhirter Core Member Heather McClure Core Member Geovanna Rodriguez Institutional Representative and Andy Karduna Interim Vice Provost of Graduate Studies Original approval signatures are on file with the University of Oregon Division of Graduate Studies. Degree awarded June 2022. ii © 2022 Maira Birrueta This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (United States) License iii DISSERTATION ABSTRACT Maira Birrueta Doctor of Philosophy Department of Counseling Psychology and Human Services June 2022 Title: A Family-School Engagement Pilot of Proyecto Juntos: Latinx Immigrant Parenting and Youth Academic Self-Efficacy Latinx youth and their immigrant parents experience unique challenges and barriers within the U.S. educational system including language barriers, less teacher- parent communication, and discrimination (Olivos, 2004). Growth in enrollment of Latinx youth in elementary and secondary education exceeds that of non-Latinx youth, yet graduation rates among Latinx youth are lower than non-Latinx youth (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017). Latinx youth’s educational success may be improved by targeted intervention efforts focused on engaging Latinx immigrant parents. This dissertation examined intervention effects of Proyecto Juntos, a family-school engagement intervention, in a sample of 97 Latinx immigrant families. Data were collected longitudinally about parenting practices, parental school-related self-efficacy, parent- youth relationship, and youth self-efficacy. This study examined intervention effects utilizing two-way between subjects ANCOVA analyses and found that there were no significant intervention effects for parenting, parent school-related self-efficacy parent- youth relationship, or youth academic self-efficacy. Analyses to assess moderation effects of acculturation on study condition and parent and youth variables indicated no evidence in support of acculturation as a moderating factor. Last, analyses to assess parent variables as mediating factors between intervention effects and youth academic self- iv efficacy were conducted. Findings did not support parent factors as mediators for study condition and youth academic self-efficacy. Given that there is a need for interventions focused on increasing academic outcomes for Latinx students, this dissertation study presents valuable findings about Latinx immigrant parent-based interventions. Study limitations, future directions, and implications are discussed. v CURRICULUM VITAE NAME OF AUTHOR: Maira Birrueta GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED: University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon Washington State University, Pullman, Washington Yakima Valley Community College, Yakima, Washington DEGREES AWARDED: Master of Science, Counseling, Family and Human Services, 2019, University of Oregon Bachelor of Science, Psychology, 2016, Washington State University Bachelor of Arts, Foreign Languages and Cultures, 2016, Washington State University Associate in Arts, 2013, Yakima Valley Community College AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST: Identity Development Latinx Academic Achievement Underrepresented Student Retention in Higher Education Topics in Counseling Latinx Individuals and Families Family and Child Counseling PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Psychology internship, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, 2021-2022 Counseling services specialist, University of Oregon Counseling Center, Eugene, Oregon, 2020-2021 Counseling extern, Eugene Therapy, Eugene, Oregon, 2019-2020 Teaching instructor and teaching assistant, Department of Counseling and Human Services, University of Oregon, Eugene, 2019-2020 vi Assessment psychometrician, David Northway Private Practice, Eugene, Oregon, 2018-2019 Practicum counselor, Child and Family Center, Eugene, Oregon, 2018-2019 Counseling extern, Lane Community College, Eugene, Oregon, 2018-2019 Family and human services university supervisor, Eugene, Oregon, 2017-2019 Practicum counselor, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, 2017-2018 GRANTS, AWARDS, AND HONORS: Rose Gross Scholarship, College of Education, 2020 Clare Wilkins Chamberlin Award, College of Education, 2020 Alumni Scholarship, College of Education, 2018 Clare Wilkins Chamberlin Memorial Research Award, College of Education, 2017 Promising Scholar Award, Graduate Research Fellowship, 2016 Norma C. Fuentes and Gary M. Kirk Award for Excellence in Undergraduate Research, Washington State University, 2016 Ronald E. McNair Post Baccalaureate Achievement Program, Washington State University, 2015 University of Nebraska-Lincoln Minority Health Disparities Initiative REU, 2015 Opportunity for First & Second Generation immigrant Students Scholarship, Washington State University, 2015 PUBLICATIONS: Kwon, P., Birrueta, M., & Brown, E. R. (2015). The role of hope in preventive interventions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9, 696-704. vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Throughout the writing process, I have received an abundance of support both professionally and personally. I wish to express deep gratitude to the many people who helped to make this dissertation and my education possible. First, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Leslie Leve, for her encouragement, guidance, and growth-oriented feedback throughout my program, and especially throughout my dissertation. I would also like to thank my dissertation committee members Dr. Ellen H. McWhirter, Dr. Heather McClure, and Dr. Geovanna Rodriguez for their expertise and time devoted to helping me improve my dissertation and writing. Additionally, this dissertation would not have been possible without the support of my family and chosen family. I would like to express gratitude to my partner, Jesse, for helping me stay nourished, encouraging me to move my body, and for providing me with endless emotional support and love throughout this process. I would also like to express appreciation to my number one non-human supporter, Karamo, for keeping me company throughout each dissertation writing session, for the barks that let me know I was too focused on my dissertation, and for the multiple walks a day that allowed me to take-in fresh air. You two are a gift and I am grateful for the both of you. I would also like to thank my parents, who inspired this dissertation topic. My mother, my mommarita, for role modeling perseverance in navigating a country that was once foreign to her. I am grateful for the support and trust that my mother exemplified in empowering me to navigate my education. My stepdad, Rafael, for encouraging me to pursue my education and challenging me to stay focused when faced with adversity. Because of the values that that they instilled in me and the sacrifices that they have made, viii I am able to confidently step into unexplored spaces and use the opportunities I have been given to give back to my community. Moreover, I would like to thank my friends who became my chosen family. Kavitha, Kaitlin, and Ariana, thank you for being a phone call and/or a drive away from validation and inspiration. I am grateful for the days and nights we fantasized about the bigger picture that filled me with hope and excitement. Those moments were more meaningful to me than I can possibly express. I would also like to thank Bryan for teaching me to celebrate- and celebrating with me- every milestone. Thank you for encouraging me to step into my power and mentoring me as I navigate an unfamiliar system more authentically with each passing day as a first-generation student and second- generation Mexican immigrant mujer. I would also like to thank Maria, Jacob, and Royce for making many drives to Eugene to help me incorporate weekend-long study breaks and making me laugh so hard my tummy and cheeks felt the happiness. Thank you, Dr. Raymond Herrera, for being the first Latinx person in a position of power that truly believed in me. Furthermore, thank you for the opportunity to be a Ronald E. McNair Scholar and for fostering my curiosity in higher education. Lastly, I would like to thank Maria S. for consultations that encouraged my statistical knowledge. ix Dedicated to my Mexican immigrant mother and Latinx immigrant families. x TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE ........................................................................ 1 Chapter Organization and Literature Search Criteria ...................................................... 4 Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................... 5 Latinx Immigrant Parenting ............................................................................................ 7 Acculturation among Latinx Immigrant Parents ............................................................. 8 Parenting ....................................................................................................................... 10 Positive Parenting .................................................................................................. 10 Parental Monitoring ............................................................................................... 12 Effective Discipline ............................................................................................... 13 Parent-Youth Relationship and Academic Outcomes ................................................... 15 School-Related Latinx Parental Self-Efficacy ............................................................... 16 Latinx Youth’s Academic Self-Efficacy and Academic Outcomes .............................. 17 Evidence of Parenting Practices and Self-Efficacy in Interventions ............................. 18 Current Study’s Research Questions and Hypotheses ................................................... 19 II. METHODS ..................................................................................................................... 22 Sample ........................................................................................................................... 22 Procedures ..................................................................................................................... 22 Intervention .................................................................................................................... 24 Measures ........................................................................................................................ 25 Parenting ................................................................................................................ 25 xiv Chapter Page Parent-Youth Relationship .................................................................................... 27 School-Related Parental Self-Efficacy .................................................................. 27 Youth Academic Self-Efficacy .............................................................................. 28 Acculturation ......................................................................................................... 28 Covariates .............................................................................................................. 29 Analysis Plan ................................................................................................................. 29 III. RESULTS ....................................................................................................................... 31 Preliminary Analyses ..................................................................................................... 31 Missingness Analyses .................................................................................................... 32 Hypothesis Testing ........................................................................................................ 32 Question 1 .............................................................................................................. 32 Question 2 .............................................................................................................. 35 Question 3 .............................................................................................................. 36 Question 4 .............................................................................................................. 39 IV. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................. 46 Testing the Intervention-Related Effects and Parenting Skills ...................................... 47 Proyecto Juntos Intervention Aims ............................................................................... 47 Proyecto Juntos Measures ............................................................................................. 49 Parenting ....................................................................................................................... 50 Parent-Youth Relationship ............................................................................................ 51 xv Chapter Page School-Related Parental Self-Efficacy .......................................................................... 52 Testing the Intervention-Related Effects and Youth Academic Self-Efficacy ............. 53 Moderating Effects of Acculturation on the Relationship Between Study Condition and Parenting and Youth Behavior ............................................................... 55 Testing the Mediating Effects of Parent Practices on Study Condition and Youth Academic Self-Efficacy ...................................................................................... 56 Study Limitations and Future Directions ...................................................................... 57 Sample Characteristics .......................................................................................... 58 Sample Size ........................................................................................................... 59 Measurement ......................................................................................................... 59 Statistical Conclusions ........................................................................................... 60 Practical Implications .................................................................................................... 61 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 62 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................... 64 A. POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT SCALE ........................................................ 64 B. PARENTAL MONITORING SCALE ............................................................. 65 C. CONSISTENCY AND REINFORCEMENT SCALE ..................................... 66 D. PARENT-YOUTH RELATIONSHIP SCALE ................................................ 67 E. SCHOOL-RELATED PARENTAL SELF-EFFICACY SCALE .................... 68 F. YOUTH ACADEMIC SELF-EFFICACY SCALE ......................................... 69 G. PARENT LANGUAGE ACCULTURATION SCALE ................................... 70 H. YOUTH LANGUAGE ACCULTURATION SCALE .................................... 71 REFERENCES CITED ..................................................................................................... 72 xvi LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. The Indirect Influence of Parenting on the Relationship Between Intervention Condition and Youth Academic Self-Efficacy..………………………………………42 2. The Indirect Influence of Parent-Youth Relationship on the Relationship Between Intervention Condition and Youth Academic Self-Efficacy..………………44 3. The Indirect Influence of Parent Self-Efficacy on the Relationship Between Intervention Condition and Youth Self-Efficacy..……………………………………45 xiv LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Bivariate Correlations and Descriptive Statistics of Parent and Youth Variables by Control and Intervention Conditions………………………………33 2. Two-Way Between Subjects ANCOVA Complete Case Results for Intervention Effects on Parent and Youth Variables…………………………….37 3. Moderation Models for Moderating Effects of Acculturation on Intervention Condition and Parent and Youth Variables..…………………………………….40 xiv CHAPTER I BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE The percentage of public elementary and secondary education students who are racially and ethnically diverse has shifted in recent years. From 2000 to 2015, enrollment of White youth decreased by 12% and enrollment of Black youth decreased by 2% (National Center for Education Statistics, 2019). However, enrollment of Asian/Pacific Islander youth increased by 1% and enrollment of Latinx youth increased by 10% during the same time period (National Center for Education Statistics, 2019). Thus, enrollment rates of Latinx youth are growing at a faster rate than non-Latinx youth. Despite these increasing trends in Latinx student enrollment, only 90.1% of Latinx students complete high school prior to the age of 25 compared to 94.6% completion rate for non-Latinxs (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017). High school completion is an achievement that has the potential to impact opportunities for employment, post-secondary education enrollment, income, health, and other critical opportunities and postsecondary outcomes (Belfield & Levin, 2007). Given the large composition of Latinx youth in the U.S. school system and the lower than expected graduation rates, interventions that engage Latinx youth and Latinx parents in the school system in the U.S. are imperative to increasing future educational and employment opportunities for Latinx youth. For the purposes of this study, Latinx is used to identify people of Latin American origin or descent residing in the United States. Latinx describes diverse ethnic cultural groups and may be White, Black, Indian, or Asian (Fontes, 2002), and identifies people in a way that includes all genders including non-binary identifying individuals (Scharrón- del Río & Aja, 2020). The use of the term Latinx is not common practice among the 1 Latin-identifying community, with those who have college experience being most likely to use it (Pew Research Center Hispanic Trends, 2020). Thus, it is important to consider audience and context when using the term Latinx rather than the community accepted term, Latino. The term Latinx may fall short and is not meant to encompass all individuals, but rather to increase inclusivity of diverse identities within Latinx culture and awareness of systemic oppression. Over the last several years, researchers have investigated an array of factors that contribute to Latinx youth’s educational attainment. For instance, researchers have created after-school interventions designed to increase Latinx student retention in high school (McWhirter et al., 2019; Gopalan et al., 2012). Additionally, researchers have created interventions with the inclusion of parent participation and involvement as a way of increasing student academic success and decreasing problem behaviors (Martinez & Eddy, 2005; Prado & Pantin, 2011; Winslow et al., 2016). Among Latinx families, parental involvement in education has been associated with student academic success (Alfaro et al., 2006; Hill & Tyson, 2009; LeFevre & Shaw, 2012). However, Latinx parents are likely to experience certain sociocultural barriers in their ability to fully participate in their youth’s school, including less teacher-parent communication due to language, discrimination, immigration status, and access to resources (Adair, 2012; Olivos et al., 2011; Peterson et al, 2018). Historically, assumptions regarding Latinx parental involvement in schools has been deficit based, with inferences made about Latinx parents not valuing or having little interest in their youth’s education (Valencia & Black, 2002). However, some scholars argue that Latinx parents are not given the avenues necessary to be involved in their youth’s education (Olivos, 2004). 2 An underrepresentation of Latinx parents in their youth’s education highlights the importance of better understanding parent-youth relationships and parent-school relationships as these factors relate to youth success and parental involvement in their youth’s education (Martinez & Eddy, 2005; Stormshak et al., 2009). Moreover, parenting behaviors consistent with Latinx culture and values may be a unique strength to Latinx youth that serves as a protective factor for positive school outcomes. Thus, better understanding how parenting behaviors influences educational outcomes for Latinx youth may further inform future family-based interventions. The purpose of this dissertation is to understand the effects of the Proyecto Juntos intervention (also referred to as Juntos) on Latinx immigrant parenting practices and parental influences on youth academic-self efficacy. In brief, Juntos is an intervention that was first piloted as part of an intervention development project with random assignment at the school level, with pre- and post-intervention data gathered approximately six months apart and follow-up data gathered approximately one year post intervention. The intervention focus was on middle school Latinx youth’s academic success. The intervention intended to support Latinx student success by delivering a Family Component for parents, a School Component for educators, and a Bridge Component intended to connect parents to their youth’s school. This dissertation examines four sets of questions centered around intervention-related effects on parenting practices, intervention-related effects on youth academic self-efficacy, acculturation as a moderator of intervention effects, and mediation effects of parenting practices on the Juntos intervention and youth variable. Study aims include: 1) examine Juntos intervention-related effects on parenting (e.g., positive parenting, parental monitoring, 3 and effective discipline), parent-youth relationships, and school-related parental self- efficacy; 2) examine Juntos intervention-related effects on youth academic self-efficacy; 3) examine intervention related effects on aims 1 and 2 using acculturation as a moderating variable; 4) and examine potential partial mediation effects of parenting practices variables on the relationship between the Juntos intervention and youth academic self-efficacy. Chapter Organization and Literature Search Criteria In the following sections I describe the influence of parenting factors and sociocultural factors on youth academic self-efficacy. I begin by reviewing social learning theory and the ecological model, the theoretical frameworks used in this study, and how they can be used to better understand parenting practices in relation to academic engagement among Latinx parents and youth. Next, I summarize immigrant parenting within the context of acculturation. Additionally, I summarize literature to date discussing Latinx parenting practices that influence youth academic engagement. Further, I discuss the role of youth academic self-efficacy related to academic engagement. Finally, I review evidence of interventions that include components related to parenting factors and parent self-efficacy. I conducted the literature review by entering the following key words and their combinations into the University of Oregon Libraries search, Google Scholar, APA PsychNET, and Psychology & Behavioral Sciences Collection databases: immigrant Latino parents, Latino immigrant parenting, Latino parenting, Latino acculturation, acculturation and parenting, Latino parenting values, Latino parental monitoring, Latino parental discipline, supportive parenting, Latino positive parenting, respeto and Latino 4 parenting, obedencia and Latino parenting, child rearing orientations, parental control and Latino families, parent-child relationships, Latino parent-child relationships, familismo and parenting, Latino family relationships, Latino family cohesiveness, Latino parental involvement, educational involvement, educational expectations, parental self- efficacy, parental self-agency, Latino parenting self-efficacy, Latino child adjustment, self-efficacy and future orientation, academic self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, Latino academic performance, intervention cultural adaptations, Latino interventions, academic success interventions, and Latino after-school programs. Theoretical Framework I drew from two theoretical perspectives in developing the research questions for this dissertation. First, the current study is based in part on Social Learning Theory (SLT; Bandura, 1971). SLT postulates that behavior is learned through a vicarious process in which observations of a modeled behavior are made by an individual and are then acquired based on symbolic representation of a modeled activity (Bandura, 1971). Additionally, Bandura (1971) theorized that emotional responses can also be learned through observational learning. Bandura (1971) highlights the involvement of four processes in SLT, which include: 1) attentional processes, which denotes that the person modeling behavior is an important figure in the observer’s life, 2) retention processes, which states that one must remember the modeled behavior in order to influence later behavior, 3) motoric reproduction processes, in which the observer is motivated to the extent of overt action regarding modeled behavior, and 4) reinforcement and motivational processes, in which the observer is differentially reinforced for observed behavior or 5 emotional response. Thus, these four processes must be involved in behavioral and emotional social learning. Because the Juntos intervention was delivered directly to parents, and not their middle school-aged youth, the use of SLT is intended to help identify how caregiver behavior serves as a model of behavior in which youth are likely to show similar behaviors through modeling and reinforcement of behaviors that align with the caregivers’ behavior. This study will examine parent behavior pre- and post-intervention aimed at increasing culturally sensitive positive parenting behaviors, parent-youth relationships, and school-related parental self-efficacy. This study will also examine youth’s observed learning from parenting behavior pre- and post-intervention within control and intervention conditions. Additionally, the current study utilizes Bronfenbrenner’s (1979; 1989) ecological model to account for interpersonal interactions (e.g., parents) and broader systemic factors (e.g., culture). The ecological model suggests interactions between the individual and their environment using four systems. The first is the microsystem, which refers to the people an individual is in direct contact with which can include immediate family, friends, and school personnel. The second is the mesosystem and it denotes the quality of the relationship between the microsystems, such as the relationship between a youth’s parents and the youth’s school. The third is the exosystem, which highlights the relatedness of policies that do not directly involve the individual, but still impact the individual, such as policies at parents’ work. Last is the macrosystem, which considers broader themes such as culture and belief systems. Across these four systems is the chronosystem, which refers to the effects of these interactions across time. Therefore, the 6 ecological model provides context to the experiences and development of an individual across time. Specifically, the use of the ecological model in this dissertation is intended to facilitate consideration of contextual factors relative to parent and youth adjustment. This study will consider immigrant families’ acculturation process, a macrosystemic factor. Additionally, Juntos is an intervention designed to bridge the parents and school, two central microsystemic factors of a youth, creating a mesosystemic connection. While this study is not examining the Bridge Component of the intervention, the Bridge Component may impact key variables investigated in this study. Latinx Immigrant Parenting Although Latinxs make-up a heterogenous population of various countries of origin, Latinx families share central behaviors rooted in the history of colonization by Spain and influences of the Roman Catholic religion (Falicov, 2016; Leyendecker & Lamb, 1999). Significant to Latinx culture is the narrative of “sociocentrism,” which is described as the interdependence of an individual in relation to another (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Sociocentrism among Latinx families is often emphasized through two common values in child-rearing including familismo and respeto (Calzada, 2010; Cuéllar et al., 1995; Marin, 1993). Familismo, the emotional closeness, reliance, and obligation to immediate and extended family (Cuéllar et al., 1995; Marin, 1993) and respeto, the respect for authority (Calzada et al., 2010), allow Latinx parents the ability to express warmth and cooperative orientation that encourages obedience from their youth. However, it is also recognized that for Latinx immigrant families, an array of factors impacts parenting practices including levels of acculturation (Berry, 2003; Halgunseth et 7 al., 2006; Martinez et al., 2011) and sociocultural factors (Buriel, 1993). The present study primarily focused on Mexican immigrant child-rearing practices due to the geographical location of the intervention study. Acculturation among Latinx Immigrant Parents Latinx immigrant parents and families are faced with a multitude of challenges adjusting to and integrating into the U.S. dominant culture. Over the past several decades, researchers have found that greater levels of acculturation towards a dominant culture, such as U.S. culture, has been associated with a higher likelihood of youth risk-taking behaviors (e.g., substance use; Martinez et al., 2011). Acculturation refers to an on-going process by which contact between individuals and groups from different cultures leads to changes in cultural patterns among groups either unidirectionally or bidirectionally (Berry, 2003). Additionally, acculturation is measured by various factors including behavior, values, language use and proficiency, and ethnic identity (Berry, 2003). While acculturation has traditionally been thought of as a form of assimilation, the multidimensional model of acculturation encompasses ways of maintaining culture of origin while adapting to a new culture dependent on physical and social contexts (Shwartz et al., 2010). The multidimensional model of acculturation also brings awareness to intentional adaptions and ways in which immigrants may or may not choose to adapt to the U.S. culture (Shwartz et al., 2010). Nonetheless, levels of acculturation have been shown to differ among family members as a result of greater or lesser exposure to the U.S. culture, especially among mixed generation immigrant families (Alegría et al., 2007; Martinez, 2006; Martinez et al., 2011; Santisteban et al., 2002). The gap between family members’ levels of 8 acculturation has been referred to as differential acculturation (Berry, 2003), and the literature is inconsistent regarding the influence of differential acculturation on adolescent risky behavior (Marsiglia et al., 2018; Martinez, 2006). For instance, in a cross-sectional study examining 73 first-generation Latino immigrant families, researchers found that differential acculturation was related to higher family stress and lower effective parenting practices, which were associated with future substance use (Martinez, 2006). This study highlights the various aspects in which a family is impacted by differential acculturation and the potential for future adolescent risky behavior. Similarly, Marsiglia and colleagues (2018) investigated acculturation gaps, parenting practices, and risky behavior among 355 parent-adolescent dyads using a longitudinal design. Mediational analyses suggest that the more discordant parents and adolescents were on mainstream cultural orientation, the more likely parents were to monitor and be involved in adolescents’ lives, which was related to a decrease in adolescent risky behavior. However, researchers also found that the more disparate parents and adolescents were on Mexican cultural orientation, the less likely parents were to engage in monitoring and parental involvement, which was associated with increased adolescent risky behavior. This study highlights the complexity in parenting and youth behavior navigating two cultures. While findings have been multifaceted regarding the impact of acculturation on family outcomes, the acculturation process may play a role in parenting practices among Latinx immigrant parents and their youth’s outcomes. Furthermore, while the studies mentioned previously primarily focused on adolescent substance use, it is also imperative 9 to explore specific parenting practices that could potentially serve as protective or risk factors for youth’s academic self-efficacy. Parenting “Parenting” is a broad term that has been operationalized in many ways. Within the current study, parenting refers to three different parenting skills including positive parenting, parental monitoring, and effective discipline. While parenting styles provide general information about parenting beliefs and attitudes, less is known about the specific parenting practices that contribute to certain outcomes (Prevatt, 2003). Thus, focusing on specific parenting practices may provide more information about parenting practices that may be helpful to enact change or guide youth towards adaptive outcomes. This dissertation will focus on whether an aggregate of parenting, as measured by positive parenting, parental monitoring, and effective discipline, is associated with improved youth academic self-efficacy. Previous research on each of these domains of parenting is discussed in the next section. Positive Parenting The first parenting practice within the parenting variable in the current study is positive parenting. Positive parenting behaviors have been described as behaviors that are positive in content (e.g., interpersonal) or affect (e.g., happy; Forgatch & DeGarmo, 1999). Many studies have focused on the impact of unfavorable conditions on youth adjustment. For instance, a plethora of research has studied the impact of economic hardship on parenting behavior and youth outcomes (Forgatch & Patterson, 2010). Latinx families are disproportionately represented in poverty and are likely to live in unsafe neighborhoods with limited resources, experience discrimination, and experience 10 language barriers among other risk factors increasing the stress experienced by Latinx parents and their youth (Hernandez, 2004; Shields & Behrman, 2004). Additionally, circumstances more specifically related to Latinx immigrant families, such as the experience of high immigration-related stress, may add an additional risk factor for decreased positive parental involvement (Leidy, Guerra, & Toro, 2010). However, it has been noted that when families under high stress can maintain positive parenting practices, parenting may serve as a buffer for adaptive youth outcomes (Masten et al., 1988; Forgatch & Patterson, 2010). This study specifically investigates positive interpersonal interactions between parent and youth. Central within the Latinx culture lies the value of familismo and the importance of family cohesion, which may be especially important in promoting positive parenting amongst Latinx families, particularly among immigrant Latinx families. In a focus group study aimed at better understanding how families maintain cohesion under stressful socioenvironmental contexts, researchers found that when parents were able to maintain communication with their youth, youth improved in problem-solving and self-efficacy (Leidy et al., 2010). This study highlights that positive parenting can create a supportive environment for adaptive youth adjustment utilizing parental modeling and reinforcement. Additionally, this study reinforces the use of fostering positive parenting skills within interventions in relation to youth adjustment. These findings are supported in recent studies in which Mexican immigrant parents reported increased positive parental involvement over time when parenting interventions explicitly addressed immigration-related stress (López-Zerón, Parra-Cardon, & Yeh, 11 2020). Consequently, positive parental involvement decreased youth internalizing and externalizing behavior highlighting parental influences on youth adjustment. Parental Monitoring The second parenting practice under the parenting variable in the current study is parental monitoring. Parental monitoring has been defined as parental knowledge of their youth’s whereabouts and who their youth spends time with (Patterson et al., 1989). Empirical evidence suggests that parental monitoring serves as a protective factor for youth behaviors including sexual activity (Ethier et al., 2016), substance use (Lac et al., 2011; Parsai et al., 2010; Wagner et al., 2010), and overall risky behavior (Marsiglia et al., 2018). Additionally, researchers have identified that parental monitoring also plays an important role in youth’s academic persistence (Gilbert et al., 2017; Henry et al., 2011; Mena, 2011). Thus, the current study investigates the extent to which Latinx parents are informed about where and with who their youth spends time with outside of the home. Parental monitoring may serve as a protective factor within Latinx families due to the importance of family cohesion within Latinx cultural values. In a study conducted by Romero and Ruiz (2007), researchers conducted a longitudinal study in which they investigated the associations between familism, parental monitoring, and risky youth behaviors. The researchers surveyed 56 adolescents, primarily of Mexican decent, with data gathered at two timepoints approximately six weeks apart. The authors found that youth who reported spending more time with their families were more likely to report higher parental monitoring at the second time point such that parents knew where and who they were spending time with. Furthermore, researchers found that youth who reported more parental monitoring and parental 12 closeness were less likely to engage in risky behaviors in order to cope with problems, which the researchers attributed to regular parental supervision and discipline (Romero & Ruiz, 2007). In summary, youth who had consistent parental monitoring felt emotionally connected with their parents and had consistent supervision and discipline. These findings have been supported by recent literature in which researchers investigated the association between parental monitoring and youths’ violent peers (Rios et al., 2020). Results from cross-sectional methods indicated that low parental monitoring was associated with increased risk of violence for youth who were highly acculturated. However, parental monitoring served as a protective factor for youth with low levels of acculturation. While parental monitoring has shown to be a protective factor for youth, parents’ ability to implement monitoring may be dependent upon socioenvironmental factors. For instance, parents’ experiences of discrimination and awareness of discrimination may impede on their emotional availability to monitor their youth (Ayón & García, 2019). Researchers found that parents engaged in less parental monitoring if parents experienced and were aware of their experienced discrimination. Thus, it is important to consider how socioenvironmental factors play a role in parenting behavior. Effective Discipline Effective discipline is the third parenting practice included in the overall parenting variable in the current study. While utilizing discipline as a parenting practices exists across diverse populations (Hill et al., 2003), there are unique differences specific to Latinx families. The current study focuses on effective discipline, which is defined as setting appropriate rules and limits and consistently enforcing rule violations in a 13 nonpunitive way (Forgatch & DeGarmo, 2002). However, previous studies have found that Latinx immigrant families are likely to exert an authoritarian parenting style (low responsiveness and high demandingness), which has been associated with the values of respect and obedience within the Latinx culture (Falicov, 1998). Nevertheless, an authoritarian parenting style has been associated with externalizing and internalizing symptoms among Latinx youth (Calzada et al., 2012). Because Latinx parenting has been closely associated with authoritarian style parenting (Falicov, 1998; Fontes, 2002), it may also be important to gain a better understanding of parent and youth behavior when parents exert effective discipline as discipline relates to youth academic self-efficacy. Findings regarding disciplinary practices and the impact on youth has been mixed. Previous research has shown that ineffective discipline strategies predict externalizing behaviors among youth (Gonzales et al., 2012). However, effective parenting practices have also yielded mixed results (Holtrop et al., 2015). In a study conducted by Holtrop and colleagues (2015), researchers investigated the relationship between effective discipline and youth externalizing behaviors among Latinx immigrant families. The authors utilized a longitudinal randomized intervention design in which 83 Latinx couples were assigned to control or experimental conditions of a parenting intervention. They found that increased levels of ineffective discipline were related to increased youth externalizing behavior. Moreover, this study found that increased levels of effective discipline were also associated with increased levels of reported externalizing behavior. These mixed findings highlight a need for continued research investigating disciplinary practices among Latinx immigrant parents and youth behavior. 14 Taken together, parenting practices in the form of positive parenting, parental monitoring, and effective discipline has been extensively researched regarding youth externalizing behavior (Holtrop et al., 2015; Leidy et al., 2010; Romero & Ruiz, 2007). However, limited research has investigated how these parenting practices relate to the parent-youth relationship, school-related parental self-efficacy, and youth-self efficacy. Investigating protective factors among Latinx youth and their immigrant parents may further inform clinical practice for working with Latinx families in educational settings. Parent-Youth Relationship and Academic Outcomes The parent-youth relationship is one of the earliest microsystemic relationships fostered within an individual’s ecology (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The current study characterizes positive parent-youth relationships as encouraging social and emotional relationships between youth and their parents (García-Moya et al., 2014). Affectionate and supportive parent-youth relationships have been associated with several positive outcomes including psychological well-being (Olivia & Parra, 2004) and adolescent adjustment (Parke & Buriel, 2006). While the previously discussed parenting variables focus on parenting skills, the parent-youth relationship variable focuses on the assessment of parent and youth connectedness from the parent perspective. Literature investigating parent-youth relationships has mostly focused on European American families (Qin et al., 2012), however, some researchers have investigated factors that impact parent-youth relationships among Latinx families, which in turn impact academic outcomes. For instance, Schofield et al., (2012) explored the relationships between common language fluency, the impact of language fluency on family processes (e.g., conflict, role reversal, and communication), and the impact of 15 family processes on youth’s school performance among 674 parents and youth from 5th to 7th grade. Researchers found that common language fluency in English or Spanish among parents and youth was associated with improved parent-youth relationships. When investigating family processes within the school context, only communication predicted positive academic outcomes. While Schofield and colleagues (2012) advanced literature examining parent- youth relationships among Latinx families, additional facets of parent-youth relationships (e.g., affection and support) may provide a better understanding of a multitude of factors contributing to the quality of parent-youth relationships. Furthermore, understanding the contributions that affectionate and supportive parent-youth relationships have on youth’s educational outcomes may also further inform intervention research. School-Related Latinx Parental Self-Efficacy Cultural factors and the acculturation process may alter immigrant parents’ self- efficacy when navigating their youth’s education in an unfamiliar country (Mena, 2011). Bandura (1996) defined self-efficacy as the interaction between one’s perceived ability to implement control over their performance and environmental demands and one’s determined outcomes. In the current study, I investigate parental self-efficacy specifically about their youth’s education, referred to as school-related parental self-efficacy. School- related parental self-efficacy covers four domains including the quality of relationship between parent and teacher, parental involvement at school, parental endorsement of their youth’s school, and frequency of parent-teacher contact. Parent-self efficacy within the school context differs from previously mentioned variables such that this construct measures the parents’ interactions and efforts within the school system. While high 16 school-related parental self-efficacy has been associated with increased engagement in youth’s education (Bandura et al., 1996), immigrant families may feel less confident in their ability to be involved in their youth’s education, as this may look different from their country of origin (Mena, 2011; Peña, 2000). For instance, Tang (2015) investigated three antecedents of immigrant parents’ involvement in their youth’s school-based involvement and home-based involvement including role construction, self-efficacy, and opportunities. The researcher found that self-efficacy was positively related to home- based involvement of their youth’s education. However, no association was found between self-efficacy and school-based involvement (Tang, 2015). This study highlights potential parental confidence with at-home educational involvement and perhaps the need to bridge the at-school parental involvement such that systemic support is needed in addition to one’s self-efficacy. While previous research has shown that factors such as parental involvement (Affuso, et al., 2017; Mena, 2011) and language brokering (Weisskirch, 2013; Buriel et al., 1998) are associated with youth academic self-efficacy, little research has examined ways in which school-related parental self-efficacy may be predictive of youth academic self-efficacy. Understanding shifts in parental self-efficacy focused on their youth’s education may be particularly important in understanding how school-related parental self-efficacy potentially influences youth academic self-efficacy. Latinx Youth’s Academic Self-Efficacy and Academic Outcomes A plethora of research suggests that a youth’s academic self-efficacy is linked to academic performance (Affuso et al., 2017; Buriel et al., 1998; Galleguillos & Olmedo, 2017; Llorca et al., 2017). Academic self-efficacy has been defined as the extent to which 17 the youth feels they can complete school-related tasks successfully (Pastorelli et al., 2001). In a longitudinal study examining high and low self-efficacy among junior high school adolescents, researchers found that students with high self-efficacy reported higher levels of effectiveness in managing school activities and received better evaluations and higher grades compared to students who reported low self-efficacy (Bassi et al., 2007). Furthermore, earlier research suggests that academic self-efficacy beliefs influence school and career goals (Bandura et al., 2001; Zimmerman et al., 1992). Thus, it may be important to examine academic self-efficacy among middle school-aged youth such that the earlier self-efficacy is fostered among youth, the more likely youth are to be efficacious in their academic pursuits. Evidence of Parenting Practices and Self-Efficacy in Interventions Numerous studies support the relationship between parenting behavior and youth adjustment (Holtrop et al., 2015; Leidy et al., 2010; Romero & Ruiz, 2007), and the relationship between resilience factors such as self-efficacy (Affuso et al., 2017; Buriel et al., 1998; Galleguillos & Olmedo, 2017; Llorca et al., 2017) in relation to positive adjustment in various populations. Thus, parent behavior and self-efficacy are two constructs that have been incorporated in family and individual interventions as a way of better understanding a number of outcomes. Parenting behavior has been a key factor in a multitude of interventions in order to improve youth development. For example, Parent Management Training (PMT) is an intervention developed for parents to improve an array of parenting skills including parental self-efficacy, monitoring, and discipline (Brestan & Eyberg, 1996; Forgatch & 18 Patterson, 2010). Martinez and Eddy (2005) formulated a cultural adaptation of the PMT intervention called Nuestras Familias, which was informed by SLT (Bandura, 1971), ecodevelopmental theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), and acculturation as a multidimensional construct (Berry, 2003). The researchers randomly assigned 32 families to the control condition and 34 families to the intervention condition, which focused on 12 weeks of parent empowerment. The researchers found medium effect size for improvement in appropriate discipline and trends showed improvement for youth adjustment in the intervention condition compared to the control condition (Martinez & Eddy, 2005). These findings and the creation of a culturally adapted PMT intervention informed the Juntos intervention with a specific focus on school and academic success. Taken together, parenting and self-efficacy have shown improved outcomes for individuals and families (Irvin et al., 2004; Martinez & Eddy, 2005). Focusing on parent behavior and school-related self-efficacy connected to their youth’s education may help inform their youth’s academic self-efficacy related to academic outcomes. Furthermore, investigating intervention related effects within Juntos may provide a better understanding for service providers and components necessary in interventions for Latinx families. Current Study’s Research Questions and Hypotheses This dissertation used data from the Proyecto Juntos Study. Juntos was an intervention designed to support the success of middle-school aged Latinx students by engaging parents and school staff in an intervention. The intervention addressed common challenges experienced by Latinx immigrant families regarding youth educational success by building family-school communication. The goals of the larger study were to 19 increase information accessible to families, educators, schools, and districts about Proyecto Juntos for favorable academic and behavioral outcomes. Using a longitudinal pilot data with random assignment at the school level, a sample of 97 Latinx immigrant families participated, comprising the youth and the primary caregiver. Youth age was not assessed, but baseline assessments were collected when youth were in 6th to 9th grade (M = grade 6.85). Data from Proyecto Juntos was used to guide four dissertation questions. In the event of null findings for main effects of the intervention (research question sets 1 and 2), I will continue with analyses to address the moderating and mediational effects (research question set 3 and 4), because it is theoretically possible that such effects are present even in the absence of main effects of the intervention. 1. Are there Juntos intervention-related effects on parenting (combined measure of positive parenting, parental monitoring, and effective discipline), parent-youth relationships, and school-related parental self-efficacy? 2. Are there Juntos intervention-related effects on youth academic self-efficacy? 3. Are the intervention related effects on parenting variables and youth variable moderated by levels of acculturation? 4. Are the potential Juntos intervention-related effects on youth academic self- efficacy partially mediated by effects on parenting, parent-youth relationships, and school-related parental self-efficacy? I hypothesized that there would be an intervention effect on parental involvement, parent-youth relationships, and school-related parental self-efficacy from T1 to T2, such that there would be greater increases from T1 to T2 in the intervention condition compared to the control condition (research question 1); that there would be intervention- 20 related effects on youth academic self-efficacy, such that there would be greater increases in the intervention condition compared to the control condition (research question 2); that intervention-related effects would be smaller among those with higher levels of acculturation and greater among those with lower levels of acculturation (research question 3); and that effects of parental involvement, parent-youth relationships, and school-related parental self-efficacy would partially mediate the intervention-related effects on youth self-efficacy (research question 4). 21 CHAPTER II METHODS Sample This dissertation used data from a completed study, Proyecto Juntos, that included caregivers (N = 122), their youth (N = 97), and school equity leaders (N = 43) recruited from six schools throughout Lane County, Oregon. The current study utilized only primary caregiver (N = 97) and youth (N = 97) data. Of the primary caregivers, 93% were mothers, 6% were fathers, and 1% was identified as “other.” The Proyecto Juntos sample and design has been fully described by Martinez and colleagues (in preparation). Of the 122 caregivers who participated in the larger study, all but two self- identified as immigrants (98.3%). It was unknown whether the two caregivers who did not self-identify as immigrants were primary or secondary caregivers. Most guardians arrived in the U.S. as young adults (M = 21.7 y.o.; SD = 7.4) and resided in the U.S. for nearly two decades prior to participating in the current study (M = 17.3 years.; SD = 5.7). Regarding education, 2.4% of guardians reported never having attended school, 22.9% reported an elementary school education or less, 16.7% attended school through 8th grade, 20.8% attended high school without completion, 31.2% completed high school or a GED, and 8.3% attended post-secondary education or earned degrees. Of those who participated in the study, youth were in 6th (37.2%), 7th (40.4%), and 8th (22.4%) grade. Slightly more than half of the youth identified as male (54.6%). Procedures After obtaining IRB approval from the University of Oregon, researchers collaborated with school districts in Lane county to recruit participants for the study. 22 Three criteria were considered for participating schools, including schools within Lane county, school leadership willingness to participate in the intervention, and the portion of Latinx families at each district that would allow for successful recruitment of families to pilot Proyecto Juntos. Bilingual personnel at each of the six schools recruited Latinx and Spanish-speaking families to introduce the project and request permission for the study personnel to contact the families to invite their participation. The research team only contacted parents willing to participate in the study, based on the school personnel report, thus data was not collected from families who declined to participate in the study. Participant eligibility was determined through participant self-report of a Latin country of origin, participant’s ability to partake in a Spanish language parenting program, and self- identification as Latino/a or Hispanic. If families consented, the Juntos intervention team called families to further discuss the project and enroll families. This recruitment method yielded 97 families. As is typical in longitudinal studies, sample size was slightly lower at T2 (n = 81) and T3 (n = 85) than it was at T1. Once baseline assessments were completed, interventionists assigned at random one school to the intervention condition per district. Thus, with two schools per district and three districts total, one school per district was selected to partake in the intervention condition and the other school in that district served as the control condition, which received services as usual. Because the study is now completed, the districts currently have access to the intervention. The present study used survey assessments collected at baseline, post intervention, and at a 12-month follow-up post intervention. Assessment data were collected individually from parent and youth through the Juntos intervention bilingual personnel via phone. Participants were compensated at all three assessment timepoints 23 (T1 = $30 parent, $15 youth; T2 = $40 parent, $20 youth; T3 = $50 parent, $25 youth). The student conducting the current study completed the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI), a training required for individuals conducting research with human subjects (CITI program at the University of Oregon, 2020). Intervention Juntos had three main components: A Family Component, a School Component, and a Bridge Component (Center for Equity Promotion, 2017; Conexiones, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon). The Family Component was adapted from the Nuestras Familias intervention (Martinez & Eddy, 2005) and included five, 2.5-hour sessions of evidence-informed, culturally sensitive strategies. The five sessions included skills for home and school communication and collaboration; skills for helping youth succeed in middle and high school, in post-secondary education, and in careers; and problem solving in support of academic success. Sessions took place at the intervention schools, with individual sessions per school. Childcare and dinner were provided for families. The School Component was divided into two levels aimed at introducing the project and addressing equitable practices in schools. The first level’s goal was to introduce the program, which included all of the school staff for a 2-to-3-hour workshop. The second level included selected staff from the schools, which were named the “Equity Leadership Team” (ELT). The highest level of education completed by ELT’s was not collected in the study. However, the Juntos intervention provided a training, which included five 2-to-2.5-hour sessions. The ELT’s sessions focused on the understanding of several concepts including one’s equity leadership lens, Latinx family empowerment, 24 culturally responsive practices for Latinx families, equity scanning, and goals for future success. Lastly, the Bridge Component consisted of three 2-to-2.5-hour sessions with both school staff and parents. The three sessions entailed encouraging parent-teacher communication, identifying mutual goals for students, and setting consistent expectations for students at home and at school. Measures Five variables were measured to collect information about parenting, parent-youth relationship, school-related parental self-efficacy, youth academic self-efficacy, and acculturation. All parent assessments were administered in Spanish and for the purposes of this dissertation, were translated into English. Parent measures relied upon instruments previously used for the Center for Equity Promotion studies. For non-standardized instruments that were previously available only in English, the research team employed a thorough translation process including Spanish translation and back-translation to assure the functional equivalence and understandability of the assessment measures. All of the youth assessments were administered in English. Cronbach’s alpha values were examined for each scale to measure item interrelatedness (Cortina, 1993). If the standard scaling resulted in an alpha value that fell outside of the acceptable range (outside of 0.70 to 0.95; Tavakol & Dennick, 2011), one or more items was removed until the scale alpha feel within the acceptable range. The final Cronbach’s alpha for each measure is listed at the end of each measure description. Parenting. Three parenting scales developed at the Oregon Social Learning Center (OSLC) were used to assess different aspects of parenting (see Capaldi & 25 Patterson, 1989). Bivariate analyses demonstrated that positive reinforcement and parental monitoring (r = .36, p < .01), positive reinforcement and effective discipline (r = .35, p < .01), and parental monitoring and effective discipline (r = .50, p < .01) were significantly correlated. Thus, a composite score of all three parenting practices was calculated to assess “parenting.” Positive reinforcement consisted of a 9-item dichotomous scale of “Yes” or “No” responses. Parents were asked to circle whether they did or did not participate in events with their youth such as, “we worked around the house or patio,” and “we read or talked about a book or story.” Items were scored using a summation of parents’ “Yes” responses at T1 and T2. Monitoring was measured on an 8- item Likert scale of (1) “strongly disagree” to (4) “strongly agree.” Parents were asked to rate themselves on questions such as, “in general I know who my youth is with,” and “I often talk with my youth about their plans for the next day.” An average of parents reported scores were calculated to obtain a score for parental monitoring. Appropriate discipline was measured on a 9-item Likert scale of (1) “strongly disagree” to (4) “strongly agree.” Parents were asked to rate themselves on questions such as, “in our house, we are in agreement with clear rules about what my youth can and cannot do,” and “when my youth challenges me by not doing what I ask, I resign.” Three items were reverse scored and an average score was calculated to obtain a score for appropriate discipline. An overall aggregate score was created using positive reinforcement, parental monitoring, and appropriate discipline for each dyad to create the “parenting” variable (see Table 1 for bivariate correlations). This study used parenting data collected at T1 and T2. One item from the effective discipline scale and one item from the parental 26 monitoring scale were removed to increase Cronbach’s alpha ratings in the current study to acceptable internal consistency levels (final Cronbach ! = .73 - .82). Parent-Youth Relationship. Parent report of the Parent-Adolescent Communication scale was used to assess quality of parent-youth relationships (Barnes & Olson, 1985). The current study used a subset scale, which was measured on a 6-item Likert scale of (1) “strongly disagree” to (4) “strongly agree.” Parents were asked to rate themselves on questions such as, “when my youth asks to speak with me, I listen carefully,” and “my youth and I have a close relationship.” This study used parent-youth relationship data from T1 and T2. Ratings in the current study had high internal consistency (Cronbach ! = .89 - .90). School-Related Parental Self-Efficacy. The Parent-Teacher Involvement Questionnaire: Parent Version was administered to assess school-related parental self- efficacy in their youth’s education (Fast Track Project, 1995). The questionnaire is a 26- item scale with 4 subscales assessing parent-teacher relationship, parental involvement in school, parent endorsement of school, and frequency of parent-teacher contact. This study used a 10-item subset scale based on content pertaining to parent-teacher communication and parental involvement in the school. These items were measured on a Likert scale of (1) “strongly disagree” to (4) “strongly agree.” Parents were asked to rate themselves on questions such as, “in general, I make the effort to understand the educational system in this state,” and “in general, I make the effort to contact other parents to obtain support.” This study utilized school-related parental self-efficacy data from T1 and T2. Ratings in the current study had high internal consistency (Cronbach ! = .89 - .91). 27 Youth Academic Self-Efficacy. The School Engagement Scale was administered to assess youth academic self-efficacy (Fredericks et al., 2005). The School Engagement Scale is a 15-item five-point Likert-type scale assessing behavioral, emotional, and cognitive aspects of school engagement and has good internal reliability (Cronbach ! = .72 - .86). The current study used an 11-item subset scale used to measure youth academic self-efficacy. Youth academic self-efficacy was measured on a Likert scale of (1) “strongly disagree” to (4) “strongly agree.” Youth were asked to rate themselves on questions such as, “I take active steps to ask my parents to help me think about what I want for my future,” and “I know the steps I need to take in order to pursue my educational and/or career goals.” This study used youth academic self-efficacy data from T1 and T3. Ratings in the current study had high internal consistency (Cronbach ! = .87 - .90). Acculturation. The Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans-II (ARSMA-II; Cuellar et al., 1995) was administered to assess parent and youth acculturation. The ARSMA-II scale measures practices (e.g., language use), preferences (e.g., reading material), and cultural identification (e.g., Mexicano/a) with an Anglo Orientation Subscale and a Mexican Orientation Subscale. The subscales reflect cultural practices from the participant’s U.S. host country and their country of origin, both of which have good internal reliabilities (Cronbach ! = .86 and .88; Cuellar et al., 1995). The current study used an 8-item subset scale of the ARSMA-II scale for youth and a 12- item subset scale for parents, which focused on language use across contexts. Responses were measured on a Likert scale of (1) “not at all” to (5) “extremely often or almost always.” Participants were asked to rate themselves on questions such as, “In general, I 28 feel comfortable speaking English” and “In general, I feel comfortable speaking in Spanish at school.” An average score of participant scores was calculated to obtain a score for acculturation. This study utilized acculturation data gathered from T1. Ratings in the current study had acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach ! = .84) for parents and acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach ! = .79) for youth. Covariates. Demographic information collected included grade and self- identified gender. Analysis Plan Preliminary analyses were conducted using SPSS (IBM, 2016) and Hayes (2012) PROCESS procedure on SPSS 26 for Mac. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models, moderation models, and mediation models were conducted using R to address missing data. The data analyses began with descriptive statistics for each variable and a thorough examination of the data for issues of abnormalities. In the case of non-normal distribution, log transformation was utilized (Field, 2013). As is typical in longitudinal studies, sample size was slightly lower at T2 (n = 81) and T3 (n = 85) than it was at T1. Thus, Little’s missing completely at random (MCAR) was conducted to assess data missingness. Data met Little’s MCAR assumptions, therefore, multiple imputations was employed within ANCOVA and moderation models. Full information maximum likelihood (FIML) was employed for missing data within mediation models. Each model in this study was assessed for good fit using Hu and Bentler’s (1999) criteria for good model fit, including the comparative fit index (CFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and its 90% confidence interval, and chi-square (c2). CFI ≥ .95 29 and RMSEA < .05 are evidence for a good fitting model (Hu and Bentler, 1999) and CFI = .92-.94 and RMSEA ≥ .08 are evidence for an adequate fitting model (Kline, 2011). Bivariate correlations were conducted between the independent variables (parenting at T2, parent-youth relationship at T2, school-related parental self-efficacy at T2, parent acculturation at T1, and youth acculturation at T1) and the dependent variables (parenting at T2, parent-youth relationship at T2, school-related parental self-efficacy at T2, parent acculturation at T1, youth acculturation at T1, and youth self-efficacy at T3). Next, analyses were conducted to address each of the research questions. To determine if there were Juntos intervention-related effects on parenting, the parent-youth relationship, and school-related parental self-efficacy, ANCOVAs were conducted. To determine if there were Juntos intervention-related effects on youth academic self-efficacy, an ANCOVA was conducted. To determine whether acculturation moderated intervention- related effects for parent variables and the youth variable, moderation models were conducted, including interaction terms. Last, to determine whether parenting, parent- youth relationships, and parent self-efficacy partially mediate the Juntos intervention- related effects on youth academic self-efficacy, mediation analyses were conducted. 30 CHAPTER III RESULTS Preliminary Analyses Table 1 presents bivariate correlations, means, standard deviations, and number of observations for each study variable. The bivariate correlations among variables differed by control and intervention conditions. Among participants in the control condition, bivariate correlations showed that parenting at T2 was significantly related to parent- youth relationship at T2 (r = .53, p < .01). No other variables were significantly correlated within the control condition. Among participants in the intervention condition, bivariate correlations showed that parenting at T2 was significantly related to parent-youth relationship at T2 (r = .59, p < .01), that parenting at T2 was significantly related to school-related parental self- efficacy at T2 (r = .59, p < .01), that parenting at T2 was significantly related to youth academic self-efficacy at T3 (r = .41, p < .01), that parent-youth relationship at T2 was significantly related to school-related parental self-efficacy at T2 (r = .63, p < .01), that parent-youth relationship was significantly related to youth academic self-efficacy at T3 (r = .41, p < .01), and that school-related parental self-efficacy at T2 was significantly related to youth acculturation at T1 (r = .41, p < .05). No other bivariate correlations within participants in the intervention condition were significant. Data were screened for outliers and violations of statistical analyses assumptions including linearity, normality, and homoscedasticity (Field, 2013). Box plots were used to assess for outliers. No outliers were found at or above the 1.5 interquartile range except for one case for the T2 school-related parental self-efficacy variable. All variables 31 met assumptions of normality except for school-related parental self-efficacy at T2. A log transformation was applied to address non-normality (skewness = -0.27, SE = .27) for T2 school-related parental self-efficacy. Missingness Analyses Each of the variables had missing data. Of the 97 eligible parent-youth participants, 16 parents had missing school-related parental self-efficacy data at T2, 15 youth had missing academic self-efficacy data at T3, 15 parents had missing parenting data at T2, 15 parents had missing parent-youth relationship data at T2, one parent had missing acculturation data at T1, and 7 youth had missing acculturation data at T1. To assess the mechanism for missingness, Little’s missing completely at random (MCAR) test was conducted. Little’s MCAR test was conducted on all data and indicated that data were missing completely at random, c2[58] = 63.87, p = .28. As a result of meeting Little’s MCAR assumptions, multiple imputation was deemed appropriate and was employed to assess ANCOVA and moderation models using R (R Core Team, 2018) and R Studio (RStudio Team, 2018). Full information maximum likelihood (FIML) was used to address missing data in all mediation models due to the ease of incorporating FIML into the SEM modelling approach. In instances in which the results of the complete case analyses did not differ from the multiple imputation analyses, the complete case results were reported. In instances in which comparison of the multiple imputation dataset did differ from the complete case results, both sets of results were reported. Hypothesis Testing Question 1. Question 1a asked, are there Juntos intervention-related effects on parenting? Hypothesis 1a was that there would be greater increases in parenting scores 32 33 from T1 to T2 in the intervention condition compared to the control condition. A two- way between groups ANCOVA was conducted. The model demonstrated that there was a non-significant intervention effect on parenting at T2 when controlling for parenting at T1 and including the interaction between T1 parenting and the intervention condition, F(1, 78) = 0.55, p > .05 (see full results in Table 2). Thus, this hypothesis was not supported. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to compare the robustness of complete case results and the pooled results from 20 multiple imputed datasets. No substantive differences in terms of model estimates or statistical significance were observed. Question 1b asked, are there Juntos intervention-related effects on parent-youth relationships? Hypothesis 1b was that there would be greater increases in parent report of the parent-youth relationship from T1 to T2 in the intervention condition compared to the control condition. A two-way between groups ANCOVA was conducted. The model demonstrated that there was a non-significant intervention effect on parent-youth relationship at T2 when controlling for parenting-youth relationship at T1 and including the interaction between T1 parent-youth relationship and the intervention condition, F(1, 78) = 1.11, p > .05 (see full results in Table 2). Thus, this hypothesis was not supported. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to compare the robustness of complete case results and the pooled results from 20 multiple imputed datasets. No substantive differences in terms of model estimates or statistical significance were observed. Question 1c asked, are there Juntos intervention-related effects on school-related parental self-efficacy? Hypothesis 1c was that there would be greater increases in school- related parental self-efficacy from T1 to T2 in the intervention condition compared to the control condition. A two-way between groups ANCOVA was conducted. The model 34 demonstrated that there was a significant intervention effect on school-related parental self-efficacy at T2 when controlling for school-related parental self-efficacy at T1 and including the interaction between T1 school-related parental self-efficacy and the intervention condition, F(1, 77) = 5.57, p < .05 with partial "! = .09 (see full results in Table 2). A sensitivity analysis was conducted to compare the robustness of complete case results and the pooled results from 20 multiply imputed datasets. Substantive differences were found such that the results from the imputed data showed study condition no longer emerged as a significant predictor of school-related parental self- efficacy at T2, F(1, 94) = 1.24, p > .05 with partial "! = .02. This finding suggests that bias due to missing data or a small sample size may have contributed to the significant intervention effect on T2 school-related parental self-efficacy observed in the complete case analysis. Thus, results from the complete case analysis should be interpreted with caution. Question 2. Question 2 asked, are there Juntos intervention-related effects on youth academic self-efficacy? Hypothesis 2 was that there would be greater increases in youth academic self-efficacy from T1 to T3 in the intervention condition compared to the control condition. A two-way between groups ANCOVA was conducted. No significant intervention effects on youth self-efficacy at T3 were identified, when controlling for youth self-efficacy at T1 and including the interaction between T1 youth self-efficacy and the intervention condition, F(1, 76) = 2.37, p >.05 (see full results in Table 2). Thus, this hypothesis was not supported. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to compare the robustness of complete case results and the pooled results from 20 multiple imputed 35 datasets. No substantive differences in terms of model estimates or statistical significance were observed. Question 3. Although our analyses for research questions 1 and 2 did not identify robust intervention-related effects on parenting or youth outcomes, for the purposes of this dissertation, because it is possible that those with lower levels of acculturation responded to the intervention significantly differently than those with higher levels of acculturation, I proceeded to examine potential moderation effects. Question 3a asked, are intervention-related effects on parenting moderated by acculturation? Hypothesis 3a was that intervention-related effects would be smaller among those with higher levels of acculturation and greater among those with lower levels of acculturation. A moderation model was conducted to test this hypothesis. The model demonstrated that parenting at T1 was significantly related to parenting at T2, b = .56, t = 5.17, p < .001. However, there was no evidence that parent acculturation at T1 moderated the intervention-related effects on parenting at T2, b = .03, t = 0.13, p > .05 (see full results in Table 3). A sensitivity analysis was conducted to compare the robustness of complete case results and the pooled results from 20 multiple imputed datasets. No substantive differences in terms of model estimates or statistical significance were observed. Thus, this hypothesis was not supported. Question 3b asked, are intervention-related effects on the parent-youth relationship moderated by acculturation? Hypothesis 3b was that intervention-related effects would be smaller among those with higher levels of acculturation and greater among those with lower levels of acculturation. A moderation model was conducted to 36 Table 2 Two-Way Between Subjects ANCOVA Complete Case Results for Intervention Effects on Parent and Youth Variables Sum of df F p partial "! Squares Predictor Model 1: Parenting T2 Study condition 0.25 1 0.55 .46 .03 Parenting T1 2.07 1 4.51 .04* .28 Study condition x 0.51 1 1.11 .29 .01 parenting T1 Error 35.87 78 Model 2: Parent-youth relationship T2 Study condition 0.13 1 1.11 .29 .00 Parent-youth relationship 2.33 1 20.21 .00** .03 T1 Study condition x parent- 0.13 1 1.13 .29 .00 youth relationship T1 Error 8.99 78 Model 3: School-related parental self-efficacy T2 Study condition 0.06 1 5.57 .02* .09 School-related parental 0.27 1 23.67 .00*** .31 self-efficacy T1 Study condition x parent 0.05 1 4.27 .04* .05 self-efficacy T1 Error 0.89 77 37 Table 2, Continued Sum of df F p partial "! Squares Predictor Model 4: Youth academic self-efficacy T3 Study condition 0.29 1 2.37 .13 .00 Youth academic self- 0.26 1 2.15 .15 .21 efficacy T1 Study condition x youth 0.28 1 2.33 .13 .03 academic self-efficacy T1 Error 9.23 76 Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 test this hypothesis. The model demonstrated that parent-youth relationship at T1 was significantly related to parent-youth relationship at T2, b = .47, t = 5.83, p < .001. However, there was no evidence that parent acculturation at T1 moderated intervention- related effects on parent-youth relationship at T2, b = .07, t = 0.56, p > .05 with an R2 = .31 (see full results in Table 3) A sensitivity analysis was conducted to compare the robustness of complete case results and the pooled results from 20 multiple imputed datasets. No substantive differences in terms of model estimates or statistical significance were observed. Thus, this hypothesis was not supported. Question 3c asked, are intervention-related effects on school-related parental self- efficacy moderated by levels of acculturation? Hypothesis 3c was that intervention- related effects would be smaller among those with higher levels of acculturation and greater among those with lower levels of acculturation. A moderation model was conducted to test this hypothesis. The model demonstrated that school-related parental self-efficacy at T1 was significantly related to school-related parental self-efficacy at T2, 38 b = .19, t = 5.17, p < .001. However, there was no evidence that parent acculturation at T1 moderated the intervention-related effects on school-related parental self-efficacy at T2, b = .00, t = 0.06, p > .05 (see full results in Table 3). A sensitivity analysis was conducted to compare the robustness of complete case results and the pooled results from 20 multiple imputed datasets. No substantive differences in terms of model estimates or statistical significance were observed. Thus, this hypothesis was not supported. Question 3d asked, are intervention-related effects on youth academic self- efficacy moderated by acculturation? Hypothesis 3d was that intervention-related effects would be smaller among those with higher levels of acculturation and greater among those with lower levels of acculturation. A moderation model was conducted to test this hypothesis. The model demonstrated that youth academic self-efficacy at T1 was significantly related to youth academic self-efficacy at T3 b = .49, t = 4.34, p < .001. However, there was no evidence that youth acculturation at T1 moderated the intervention-related effects on youth academic self-efficacy at T3, b = .23, t = 1.42, p > .05 (see full results in Table 3). A sensitivity analysis was conducted to compare the robustness of complete case results and the pooled results from 20 multiple imputed datasets. No substantive differences in terms of model estimates or statistical significance were observed. Thus, this hypothesis was not supported. Question 4. Although my analyses for research question 1 did not identify robust intervention-related effects, for the purposes of this dissertation, I proceeded to examine potential mediation effects. A non-significant direct intervention effect may yield a significant mediation effect in two instances that are possible in the current study (O’Rourke & MacKinnon, 2018). The first instance is when path a multiplied by path b 39 Table 3 Moderation Models for Moderating Effects of Acculturation on Intervention Condition and Parent and Youth Variables Estimate Std. Error t p Predictor Model 1: Parenting T2 Intercept 1.11 .71 1.57 .12 Study condition 0.13 .88 0.14 .89 Parent acculturation T1 0.18 .16 1.12 .26 Parenting T1 0.56 .11 5.17 .00*** Study condition x parenting 0.03 .24 0.13 .90 T1 Model 2: Parent-youth relationship T2 Intercept 1.94 .38 5.15 .00*** Study condition -0.24 .44 -0.55 .59 Parent acculturation T1 -0.03 .08 -0.37 .72 Parent-youth relationship T1 0.47 .08 5.83 .00*** Study condition x parent- 0.07 .12 0.56 .58 youth relationship T1 Model 3: Parent self-efficacy T2 Intercept 0.50 .13 3.99 .00*** Study condition 0.05 .14 0.41 .69 Parent acculturation T1 -0.00 .03 -0.01 .99 School-related parental self- 0.19 .04 5.17 .00*** efficacy T1 Study condition x Parent self- 0.00 .04 0.06 .95 efficacy T1 40 Table 3, Continued Estimate Std. Error t p Predictor Model 4: Youth self-efficacy T3 Intercept 2.35 .60 3.93 .00*** Study condition -1.01 .70 -1.43 .16 Youth acculturation T1 -0.16 .14 -1.20 .23 Youth self-efficacy T1 0.49 .11 4.34 .00*** Study condition x Youth self- 0.23 .16 1.42 .16 efficacy T1 Note. *** p < .001 equals path c (see Figure 1 for paths), and the second instance is when the direct and mediated models have contradictory signs. Question 4a asked, are the potential Juntos intervention-related effects on youth academic self-efficacy partially mediated by effects on parenting? Hypothesis 4a was that effects of parenting at T2 would partially mediate the intervention-related effects on youth academic self-efficacy at T3 controlling for youth sex and grade. An SEM mediation model was conducted to test this hypothesis. Fit statistics demonstrated the model fit the data well: #!(7) = 8.73, p > .05; CFI = 1.00; RMSEA (90% CI) = 0.00 (0.00, 0.00). The model showed that the association between Juntos intervention and parenting at T2 was non-significant (b = -.0.01, SE = .18, 95% CI = -0.36, 0.34), after controlling for youth sex and grade. Additionally, the model showed that parenting at T2 was significantly related to youth academic self-efficacy at T3 (b = .13, SE = .06, 95% CI = 0.01, 0.24), after controlling for youth sex and grade. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the intervention condition was associated with 41 youth academic self-efficacy at T3 (b = -.02, SE = .09, 95% CI = -0.19, 0.15). Last, the indirect effect of intervention condition on youth academic self-efficacy at T3 through school-related parental self-efficacy at T2 was non-significant (b = -.001 SE = .02, 95% CI = -.05, 0.04). Thus, this hypothesis was not supported (see results in Figure 1). Figure 1 The Indirect Influence of Parenting on the Relationship Between Intervention Condition and Youth Academic Self-Efficacy Note. * p < .05 Question 4b asked, are the potential Juntos intervention-related effects on youth academic self-efficacy partially mediated by the parent-youth relationship? Hypothesis 4b was that effects of the parent-youth relationship at T2 would partially mediate the intervention-related effects on youth academic self-efficacy at T3 controlling for youth sex and grade. An SEM mediation model was conducted to test this hypothesis. Fit statistics demonstrated the model fit the data well: #!(7) = 8.34, p > .05; CFI = 1.00; 42 RMSEA (90% CI) = 0.00 (0.00, 0.00). The model showed that the association between Juntos intervention and the parent-youth relationship at T2 was non-significant (b = - 0.06, SE = .09, 95% CI = -0.24, 0.12), after controlling for youth sex and grade. Additionally, parent-youth relationship at T2 was not significantly related to youth academic self-efficacy at T3 (b = 0.19, SE = .11, 95% CI = -0.03, 0.41), after controlling for youth sex and grade. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the intervention condition was associated with youth academic self-efficacy at T3 (b = -.004, SE = .09, 95% CI = -0.17, 0.16). Lastly, the indirect effect of intervention condition on youth academic self-efficacy at T3 through parent-youth relationship at T2 was non-significant (b = -.01 SE = .02, 95% CI = -0.05, 0.03). Thus, this hypothesis was not supported (see results in Figure 2). Question 4c asked, are the potential Juntos intervention-related effects on youth academic self-efficacy partially mediated by school-related parental self-efficacy? Hypothesis 4c was that effects of school-related parental self-efficacy at T2 would partially mediate the intervention-related effects on youth academic self-efficacy at T3. An SEM mediation model was conducted to test this hypothesis. Fit statistics demonstrated the model fit the data well: #!(7) = 15.00, p < .05; CFI = 1.00; RMSEA (90% CI) = 0.00 (0.00, 0.00). The model showed that the Juntos intervention was significantly associated with school-related parental self-efficacy at T2 (b = .07, SE = .03, 95% CI = 0.01, 0.12), after controlling for youth sex and grade. Additionally, every one unit increase in school-related parental self-efficacy at T2 was associated with a statistically significant increase in youth academic self-efficacy at T3 (b = .73, SE = .36, 95% CI = 0.02, 1.43), after controlling for youth sex and gender. Furthermore, there was 43 Figure 2 The Indirect Influence of Parent-Youth Relationship on the Relationship Between Intervention Condition and Youth Academic Self-Efficacy Note. All interactions were non-significant. no evidence that the study condition was associated with youth academic self-efficacy at T3 (b = -.07, SE = .01, 95% CI = -0.25, 0.10). Lastly, the indirect effect of intervention condition on youth academic self-efficacy at T3 through school-related parental self- efficacy at T2 was non-significant (b = .05, SE = .03, 95% CI = -.01, 0.11). Thus, this hypothesis was not supported (see results in Figure 3) 44 Figure 3 The Indirect Influence of School-Related Parental Self-Efficacy on the Relationship Between Intervention Condition and Youth Academic Self-Efficacy Note. *p < .05 45 CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION With a growing Latinx student population, it is important that equitable resources are available to increase Latinx graduation rates, a milestone with the potential to impact various aspects of one’s future. The middle school-aged period is especially important as the transition to middle school can be difficult for students to navigate, leading to disengagement (Archambault et al., 2009). To increase success rates within primary and secondary education among Latinxs, it is beneficial for schools, teachers, parents, and youth to engage in culturally responsive resources aimed at increasing retention. This dissertation focused on identifying specific parent practices and youth behavior that were theorized to be influenced by the Juntos intervention, with the long-term goal of informing interventionists and schools aiding the effort of increasing retention rates among Latinx students. Better understanding community needs and helpful resources will hopefully support a move toward increased equitable resources and resources that meet the specific needs of Latinx immigrant parents and youth. This dissertation drew from an existing longitudinal dataset from an intervention study called Proyecto Juntos. Juntos was designed to support the academic success of middle school aged Latinx students by engaging Latinx immigrant parents within the school system. The current study gathered data from three districts with two schools per district. The intervention was assigned at random at the school level within each district. Thus, within each district one school received the intervention and one school received services as usual. Across all six schools, 97 Latinx immigrant parents and their youth participated in Juntos. The current study examined the intervention-related effects of 46 Juntos on parenting, the parent-youth relationship, school-related parental self-efficacy, and youth academic self-efficacy. Additionally, this study examined acculturation as a moderating factor among parent and youth variables. Last, this study examined parent variables as potential mediating factors between intervention-related effects and youth academic self-efficacy. I begin this chapter by proposing a rationale for the current study’s findings. Next, I address study limitations, strengths, and future directions. Last, I highlight the implications of this study. Testing the Intervention-Related Effects and Parenting Skills For research question 1, I examined the Juntos intervention-related effects on parenting, parent-youth relationship, and school-related parental self-efficacy. I predicted that those in the intervention condition would have greater increases from T1 to T2 compared to those in the control condition. Contrary to my hypotheses, results from two- way between subjects ANCOVA analyses provided no evidence that parenting, parent- youth relationship, or school-related parental self-efficacy were directly influenced by the Juntos intervention. Drawing from previous literature, I will first propose possible explanations for these findings, with reference to the study aims and measures. Then I will propose reasons specific to each dependent variable investigated in this study. Proyecto Juntos Intervention Aims The purpose of Juntos was to build a school- and community-based intervention designed to address common challenges faced by Latinx students and families regarding school success and build on Latinx cultural assets. Juntos addressed these challenges and assets by bridging a relationship between Latinx immigrant parents and their youth’s 47 school personnel. Juntos also increased cultural sensitivity and knowledge among school personnel by promoting the ELT. In summary, the focus of the intervention was to increase parents’ knowledge of the school system, connect parents and school personnel, and increase school personnel’s cultural sensitivity in working with Latinx families. The original intervention purpose provides one explanation for the null effect that surfaced when examining intervention effects for parenting. Juntos may not have targeted parenting practices within the curriculum to the extent of producing significant differences pre- and post-intervention. Previous interventions that have focused specifically on parenting skills such as PMT-Oregon Model (PMTO; Forgatch & Kjøbli, 2016) and Positive Parenting Program (Triple P; Nowak & Heinrichs, 2008) have shown positive changes in specific parenting skills post-intervention. However, the purpose of the Juntos intervention was to increase academic success. Thus, the educational emphasis and focus may not have aligned with the specific parenting measures and outcomes I examined in this dissertation. This rationale may also hold true for the null effect found when examining intervention effects for the parent-youth relationship, such that the intervention curriculum may not have targeted parent-youth relationships sufficiently. For instance, Ceballos and Bratton (2010) examined the effectiveness of Child Parent Relationship Therapy (CPRT) within school contexts among Latinx immigrant parents and their Head Start-aged children. CPRT was developed with the objective to develop stronger parent- child relationships by encouraging parents to take a child-first approach emphasizing understanding and empathy. This intervention was found to be effective. Thus, the parent-child relationship intervention emphasis within CPRT may have been more 48 successful in producing changes within the parent-child relationship compared to the Juntos intervention, an education-focused intervention. Proyecto Juntos Measures Furthermore, aspects of the measures used in the current study may not have allowed for an adequate assessment of intervention effects. For instance, parental monitoring and effective discipline, which comprised of the parenting variable, were measured on a 4-point Likert scale, a scoring scale that may not allow for sufficient range to assess one’s parenting practices. In a study conducted by Rodríguez and colleagues (2006), positive involvement and parental monitoring involvement were measured on a 7- point Likert scale and discipline was measured on a 5-point Likert scale. The ability to assess parenting practices from scales with a larger range may allow for more variability within responses at pre- and post-intervention. Thus, the measurement of these items in the current study may have impeded on the ability to assess smaller differences and changes across time within parenting practices. Similarly, the current study combined three major parenting skills into one “parenting” variable, whereas previous studies have examined effects separately. Considering three parenting skills as one overall variable may impact the ability to measure intervention effects across a specific parenting variable. It is possible that in the process of measuring school-related parental self-efficacy, nuanced changes were missed within parent perceptions and involvement within their youth’s education. Walker (2016) investigated intervention effects of a parent education program called Realizing the American Dream (RAD) focused on Latinx parents. This study utilized a 32-question survey that measured beliefs, knowledge, and behavior as 49 separate constructs. Walker (2016) found significant changes in parental knowledge, involvement behaviors, and beliefs when comparing pre- and post-intervention effects. This finding could be due to larger instrument used to measure more subtle changes across beliefs, knowledge, and involvement behavior. Juntos used one scale with fewer questions attempting to gain an understanding of parental knowledge, involvement, and beliefs about their youth’s education. Thus, the measure utilized within the current study may have lacked sufficient sensitivity to capture changes. In addition to study aims and study design, null effects pertaining to question 1 could be explained by factors or characteristics specifically related to the Latinx immigrant parents and youth sample investigated in the current study. Parenting The findings from this study indicated that the Juntos intervention did not significantly influence parenting. While surprising and counter to my predictions, other studies corroborate the null finding of the current study (Martinex & Eddy, 2005). It may be that intervention effects when examining parenting may differ depending on group characteristics. For example, Martinez and Eddy (2005) investigated intervention effects of Nuestras Familias, a Latinx culturally adapted intervention of Parent Management Training (PMT). They found non-significant findings when they examined positive parental involvement, parental monitoring, and appropriate discipline. However, they found significant intervention effects when nativity status was included in the analyses. These findings suggest that specific groups or group characteristics may explain differential or null intervention effects. Consequently, there may be Juntos intervention effects for specific groups that were not examined within this study (e.g., child gender). 50 Although intervention effects were not found, bivariate analyses showed a significant correlation between parenting at T2 and youth-academic self-efficacy at T3 within the intervention condition (r = .59, p < .01), but not within the control condition (r = .05, p > .05). These findings may suggest that the intervention helped parents be more consistent in their perceptions of their own and their youth’s behavior, although more rigorous analyses would be needed to test this interpretation. Parent-Youth Relationship The current study did not find parent-youth relationship differences. This null finding was counter to my hypotheses. However, previous studies have reported mixed findings on intervention effects of the parent-youth relationship (Ceballos & Bratton, 2010; Shokoohi-Yekta et al., 2015). The intervention target population and age of youth could explain whether differences are detected or not within the parent-child relationship. For instance, Ceballos and Bratton (2010) examined parent-child relationship changes among children with notable externalizing behaviors engaged in CPRT. Researchers found improved parent-child relationships post-intervention. Thus, it is possible that the parent-child relationship among the population in the Ceballos and Bratton (2010) study was more strained than the parent-youth relationship among the Juntos intervention target population. This would in turn create larger differences detected in the parent-child relationship within the CPRT intervention compared to the Juntos intervention. Moreover, the parent-youth relationship may remain relatively stable over time. Shokoohi-Yekta and colleagues (2015) implemented a parenting education program with the objective of increasing parent-adolescent relationships. While researchers found increases within the parent-adolescent relationship post intervention, findings were non- 51 significant. Therefore, it is possible that parent-youth relationship is a construct that remains relatively stable over the course of time. The current study demonstrated a statistically significant correlation between parent-youth relationship at T1 and T2 for both control (r = .63, p < .01) and intervention (r = .55, p < .01) conditions. Consequently, addressing parent-youth relationship at an early age may play a critical role in long-term effects within the parent-youth relationship. This may also be the effect seen within CRPT (Ceballos & Bratton, 2010), which focused on Head Start-aged children. Accordingly, it may be harder to detect changes in the parent-youth relationship within the middle school age. School-Related Parental Self-Efficacy Findings from the current study did not find school-related parental self-efficacy differences. This null finding was counter to my hypothesis. Though findings did not indicate that the Juntos intervention significantly increased school-related parental self- efficacy, this finding was surprising. Previous interventions focused on parent engagement regarding youth educational success have seemed relatively successful (Caal et al., 2019; Chrispeels and Rivero, 2001; Cox, 2017; Walker, 2016). Null findings within the current study could be explained by cultural factors. Cultural backgrounds can play a large role in parents perceived role of involvement within their youth’s education (Chrispeels and Rivero, 2001). For instance, Latinx parents may perceive their youth’s educational attainment as the responsibility of school personnel (Shan, 2009). For Latinx immigrant parents, this may be particularly true based on experiences of the education system within their home country. Cox’s (2017) study highlighted that Latinx parents perceive parental involvement within the 52 school as associated with disciplinary actions utilized when youth are not meeting school standards. Furthermore, Cox (2017) explains that school involvement is often an unfriendly experience in which parents are responsible for youth’s behavior. Beliefs about parental involvement such as those found in Cox (2017) could indicate that longer interventions are needed in supporting Latinx parents and shifting beliefs about their involvement within their youth’s education. Thus, a more extensive intervention may have been helpful in supporting school-related parental self-efficacy within their youth’s education. Testing the Intervention-Related Effects and Youth Academic Self-Efficacy For research question 2, I examined the Juntos intervention-related effects on youth academic self-efficacy. I predicted that youth whose parent was in the intervention condition would have greater increases in academic self-efficacy from T1 to T3 compared to youth in the control condition. Contrary to my hypotheses, results from two- way between subjects ANCOVA analysis provided no evidence that youth academic self- efficacy was directly influenced by the Juntos intervention. Drawing from previous literature, several reasons for these finds are proposed, including the stability of self- efficacy, the theory informing the Juntos intervention, and individual youth characteristics. It is possible that self-efficacy, an internal characteristic, remains fairly stable across time. Within the Juntos intervention, one year between T2 and T3 may not have allowed sufficient time for youth to acquire significantly higher academic self-efficacy. Academic self-efficacy stability has been corroborated by Niehaus and colleagues (2012) who found that self-efficacy remained relatively constant across the school year and was 53 not impacted by youth’s involvement in an after-school program. However, in a study conducted by Llorca and colleagues (2017), parenting factors significantly predicted youth academic self-efficacy over a period of three years. Thus, one year after parent involvement in the Juntos intervention may not have allowed adequate time for change within youth academic self-efficacy. Additionally, it may be important to include youth in interventions to increase youth academic self-efficacy. Juntos relied on social learning theory as a process by which parents engage in the Juntos intervention and over time and in theory, youth would acquire parent behavior. If academic self-efficacy is a relatively stable construct (Niehaus et al., 2012), to examine increases in academic self-efficacy, it may have been more beneficial for youth to be involved in the intervention. Moreover, the current study did not find significant intervention effects when examining school-related parental self- efficacy, which may explain, in part, why there were also null findings regarding youth academic self-efficacy. Furthermore, crucial individual characteristics that influence youth academic self- efficacy may not have been investigated in the current study. For instance, previous research has found associations between youth self-efficacy and parenting styles (e.g., authoritative and permissive), peer relationships, and individual characteristics (e.g., gender and race; Bondy et al., 2016; Cross et al., 2018; Llorca et al., 2017). However, the current study did not examine group differences when examining intervention effects. Furthermore, the current study only took into consideration the parent perspective, whereas the inclusion of peers may have provided more information about target youth 54 academic self-efficacy. Thus, specific characteristics for youth may exist that were outside of the scope of this study. Moderating Effects of Acculturation on the Relationship Between Study Condition and Parenting and Youth Behavior For research question 3, I examined the moderating effects of acculturation on the relationship between study condition and parent and youth variables. I predicted that intervention-related effects within the parent and youth variables would be smaller as acculturation levels increased, and larger as acculturation levels decreased. Contrary to my hypotheses, results from a moderation analyses provided no evidence that acculturation moderated the association between intervention condition and parent and youth outcome variables. It is important to note that significant intervention effects (questions 1 and 2) were not found, which may decrease the likelihood of significant acculturation moderation effects. Many reasons have been discussed about null findings within the intervention effects, thus this section will primarily focus on acculturation as a moderating factor. Drawing from previous literature, reasons for the current null findings are proposed. Several models of acculturation have been posited, however, there is a consensus in the field that acculturation is multidimensional, including practices, values, and identification and dependent on context (Schwartz et al., 2010). Null findings from the current study could be explained by the specific focus on language as one aspect of acculturation. Acculturation in this study specifically investigated language use across contexts and comfortability of youth and parents in utilizing both English and Spanish. Thus, it may be that competency of language use was not an acculturation factor that 55 impacted intervention effects on parent and youth outcome variables. Previous studies have considered language competency when measuring acculturation in addition to other factors including cultural identification and familismo (Discroll & Torres, 2013; Hale & Kuperminc, 2020). Thus, various additional factors related to acculturation may have highlighted different relationships across intervention and parent and youth variables that were not accounted for in this study. Additionally, it is possible that the use of acculturation within this study did not encompass the acculturation process that immigrants experience over time. Within this study, acculturation was measured at baseline and assessed as a potential moderating factor between intervention condition and parent and youth variables. However, a previous study found that when measuring acculturation of U.S. practices between parents and adolescents over a span of five years, both adolescents and parents reported changes in level of acculturation (Schwartz et al., 2016). This finding supports that one measurement of acculturation may not encompass the complex process under which immigrants are incorporating host country practices and values and maintaining country of origin practices and values. Testing the Mediating Effects of Parent Practices on Study Condition and Youth Academic Self-Efficacy For research question 4, I examined the mediating effects of parenting practices including parenting, parent-youth relationship, and school-related parental self-efficacy on the relationship between the intervention effects and youth academic self-efficacy. I predicted that parenting practices would partially mediate the relationship between study condition and youth academic self-efficacy. Contrary to my hypotheses, results from 56 mediation analyses yielded no evidence that these parenting factors significantly indirectly influenced the relationship between intervention effects and parent and youth variables. It is important to note that significant intervention effects regarding parenting variables were not found (question 1), which may decrease the likelihood of significant parent practices medication effects. Drawing from previous literature, reasons for these findings are proposed. Within question 4a, though evidence did not suggest mediation effects, a significant association between parenting at T2 and youth academic self-efficacy at T3 was found. This finding is consistent with previous literature that suggests parenting and youth academic self-efficacy are significantly associated (Caprara et al., 2005; Llorca et al., 2017). An interesting finding within question 4c, although evidence was not indicative of mediation effects, was a significant association between school-related parental self-efficacy at T2 and youth academic self-efficacy at T3. To my knowledge, school-related parental self-efficacy and youth academic self-efficacy have not been investigated. Thus, it may be important to understand relevant factors for this significant association. While the intervention did not significantly impact school-related parental self-efficacy, these findings may be supported by SLT from the parent and youth perspective only. Study Limitations and Future Directions There are at least four potential study limitations concerning the results of this study, which offer context for the interpretations of study results. I discuss the limitations of this study specifically within sample characteristics, sample size, measurement, and 57 statistical conclusions. Study strengths as well as recommendations for future studies and clinical practice are noted. Sample Characteristics. The families who participated in this study were recruited via school personnel and was based on their knowledge of members of the school who were Latinx and Spanish-speaking. A limitation to this approach is that school personnel may have missed families that fit the criteria, unknowingly recruiting an unrepresentative sample. As a result of recruitment methods, we were unable to gather data of how many families consented to participating in the study compared to how many families declined participation. Given that the intervention study took several weeks to complete, and data were gathered across months, some families may not have had the time to participate in or complete the intervention. Thus, other general differences may exist within families that completed the intervention versus those who did not complete the intervention or declined to participate such as work schedules, time, and other resources. Additionally, 93% of primary caregivers were mothers, 6% were fathers, and 1% was identified as “other.” Representation of other primary caregivers and incorporating secondary caregivers would add a more thorough understanding of parenting practices. Furthermore, careful consideration should be taken when generalizing findings to different groups of people, settings, and other external factors (Heppner et al., 2008). This study focused on Mexican immigrants and families due to geographical location. Hence, findings may differ when looking at these same interactions within other Latinx subpopulations (e.g., Cuban, Puerto Rican, etc.). Despite these sample characteristic challenges, it is noteworthy that this study highlights the parenting experiences of mothers within the Juntos intervention as well as parenting 58 practices specifically related to Mexican immigrant families. The specific focus of this intervention on Mexican immigrant families allows for further refinement within parent interventions related to youth academic achievement in future studies. It may be important for future researchers to investigate group characteristics independently to assess for group differences. Additionally, it may be important for future researchers to focus on involving more than one parent or caregiver within intervention studies. Sample Size. As previously mentioned, 97 parent-youth dyads from Lane County, Oregon completed this study. While we can draw upon many strengths within the longitudinal design of the current study, a plausible threat to internal validity is the small sample size. A small sample size may contribute to the higher likelihood of unusual results by chance. Specifically, within this study, the underpowered sample may only be sufficient for detecting large effects. Thus, results should be interpreted with caution. Additionally, attrition at the different time points at which the measures were administered made for a smaller sample size at T3. As participants dropped out of the study, the participants that remained in the study may not have been as representative of the population as the baseline sample. Despite these sample limitations, an 88% retention rate was achieved which strengthens inferences that can be made from study findings. Future research should focus on study retention rates and assess ways in which intervention studies can maintain a higher percentage of retention. One possible way to do this is to acquire intervention satisfaction surveys to assess reasons for attrition and study continuation. Measurement. The measurement approaches and instruments used in this study establish both a study limitation and strength. First, it should be noted that all measures 59 were based on self-report, which is susceptible to limitations including social desirability and bias favorable ratings (Heppner et al., 2008). Thus, it may be more informative to gather reports from various perspectives on the study measures (e.g., teacher and second parent). Additionally, measures such as parent and youth acculturation scales may not have encompassed the entirety of a multidimensional process and experience (Schwartz et al., 2010). Even so, this study allowed for an in-depth investigation of potential language competency and comfortability when analyzing intervention effects and parent and youth variables. In terms of future research, I suggest gathering a more in-depth measure of the acculturation process for youth and Mexican immigrant parents that assesses behavior, values, and ethnic identity in addition to language use and proficiency (Berry, 2003). Calculating a differential acculturation score for parent and youth participants may also provide further information about how differential acculturation impacts parenting and youth variables. Furthermore, the scale measuring school-related parental self-efficacy may have targeted parent behavioral involvement in their youth’s school rather than the thought process about involvement within their youth’s school. Thus, an alternative scale measuring the thought process related to parent self-efficacy with a focus on youth’s education may be important for future studies. Statistical Conclusions. Moreover, the statistical conclusions drawn from this study must be considered within the context of statistical limitations. First, the small sample size of 97 parent-youth dyads may have reduced statistical power to detect small effects. In other words, although an association between variables may be found, it does 60 not imply that the association truly exists (Type I error). Similarly, if an association is not found, it does not mean the relationship does not truly exist (Type II error; Heppner et al., 2008). Thus, the reduced sample size lowers statistical power, which may impact researchers’ ability to reject or fail to reject the null hypotheses based on the true relationships between the variables. Furthermore, the violation of normality within the parent school-related self-efficacy variable at T2 is important to consider in drawing conclusions of significance. Nevertheless, Little’s MCAR was employed allowing for a statistical analysis of bias in the data in which assumptions were met. Additionally, multiple imputations were employed to compare complete case and multiple imputation dataset analyses as well as FIML when assessing larger models. Practical Implications The current study and its findings have some potential intervention implications for researchers, schools, and clinicians concerned with increasing academic outcomes among Latinx immigrant families and youth. First, intervention curriculum must target specific skills. For instance, if parenting practices are highly related to youth academic outcomes, it may be important for interventions to spend an adequate amount of time focusing on parenting practices that are significantly related to youth academic outcomes (e.g., parent-youth relationships). Second, context is critical when working with underrepresented populations (Burton & Kagan, 2005; Sánchez Carmen et al., 2015), and it is crucial for interventions to consider potential stressors for Latinx immigrant families. For example, interventions focusing on Latinx immigrant families moving forward may take into consideration the 45th presidential administration and how policy and political atmosphere impact families’ ability to devote time, energy, and mental load to youth 61 academics. Interventions considering political atmosphere may be more intentional about including critical consciousness, enculturation, and other protective factors within interventions to support families navigating the U.S. These factors may be particularly important when assessing acculturation. Third, the involvement of youth in interventions with the intent to promote youth academic outcomes may be helpful in targeting the family system rather than one part of the system. For instance, including youth with their parents may impact youth behavior more directly and increase the effects of interventions employed for Latinx immigrant families and youth. Counseling psychologists may hold positions within academic institutions, conduct research, and/or perform clinical practice in various settings. Consequently, counseling psychologists are involved in various systems in which applying psychological sciences and knowledge to social issues is especially important. The current study provides an area of specialization within Latinx immigrant parenting and Latinx youth behavior with the goal of increasing academic outcomes. The various contexts that counseling psychologists occupy increases the likelihood of providing services or instruction to Latinx immigrant families or individuals such as those from the current study. Thus, it is essential for counseling psychologists to be informed by evidence-based research of the various obstacles and strengths experienced by Latinx immigrant families. Conclusion The present research contributes to a growing body of intervention research focused on better understanding intervention outcomes and support for Latinx immigrant families to improve youth academic outcomes. It is the hope of the researcher that 62 interventions are further refined to focus on the needs of Latinx immigrant families. This dissertation is one step towards assessing various components of Proyecto Juntos to better understand which components are most beneficial to families and increase youth academic outcomes. Overall, results from this study did not provide conclusive evidence that Juntos impacted parenting, parent-youth relationship, school-related parental self- efficacy, or youth academic self-efficacy. However, within the complexities that interventionists face in addressing the many challenges that Latinx immigrant families experience in their youth’s education, this dissertation provides further evidence that interdisciplinary teams are needed to develop our understanding of promoting optimal academic outcomes for Latinx immigrant families and youth. 63 APPENDICES APPENDIX A POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT SCALE En la última semana, he hecho lo siguiente junto con mi joven que está participando en este estudio: Trabajamos en un pasatiempo o artesanía. 0 –No 1 – Si Participamos en una actividad al aire libre. 0 –No 1 – Si Leímos o hablamos acerca de un libro o historia. 0 –No 1 – Si Fuimos a un evento de entretenimiento. 0 –No 1 – Si Participamos en otras actividades (Fuimos al parque, nadamos, excursión a pie, etc.). 0 – No 1 – Si Horneamos o cocinamos una comida. 0 –No 1 – Si Hicimos ejercicio o jugamos un juego al aire libre (baloncesto o béisbol, etc.) 0 –No 1 – Si Trabajamos alrededor de la casa o patio. 0 –No 1 – Si Fuimos a la Iglesia, sinagoga, u otro servicio religioso. 0 –No 1 – Si 64 APPENDIX B PARENTAL MONITORING SCALE Supervisión Las siguientes preguntas son sobre los amigos/as de tu joven. Por favor, háganos saber que tan verdad son las siguientes declaraciones para usted. 1= Fuertemente en desacuerdo 2 = En desacuerdo 3 = De acuerdo 4 = Fuertemente de acuerdo A menudo hablo con mi joven acerca de sus planes para el día siguiente____ Hablo con mi joven en muchas ocasiones acerca de lo que él / ella aprendió en la escuela _____ A menudo hablo con mi joven acerca de sus amigos. ____ Conozco muy bien a los amigos de mi joven. _____ Los amigos de mi joven tienen una buena influencia en su vida. ____ Los amigos de mi joven se apoyan positivamente entre sí. ____ Por lo general yo sé con quién está mi joven___ Sé lo que hace mi joven y dónde va cuando no está en casa___ 65 APPENDIX C CONSISTENCY AND REINFORCEMENT SCALE Límites y consecuencias ¿Qué tan ciertas son las siguientes declaraciones para usted acerca de su capacidad para comunicarse positivamente con su joven sobre el establecimiento de límites y consecuencias? 1 = Fuertemente en desacuerdo 2 = En desacuerdo 3 = De acuerdo 4 = Fuertemente de acuerdo En casa, estamos de acuerdo con reglas claras sobre lo que mi joven puede y no puede hacer. ______ Mi joven sabe cómo voy a responder cuando hace algo malo cosas que no me gustan o lo que está en contra las reglas de la casa) _____ Cada vez que mi joven hace algo mal, yo le respondo con una consecuencia específica (por ejemplo, una disciplina específica, quitándole privilegios, etc.) ______ Cuando mi joven hace algo mal, le grito o le insulto ______ Puedo controlar mi enojo y mantenerme calmado/a cuando disciplino o discuto con mi joven cuando él / ella hace algo mal____ Cuando mi joven me desafía al no hacer lo que le pido, yo renuncio ______ Cuando mi joven está aprendiendo un nuevo comportamiento (por ejemplo: ser más responsable, estudioso/a u organizado/a), reconozco su progreso con, por ejemplo, un abrazo, una sonrisa o un pequeño regalo ______ Cuando mi joven se enfrenta a un gran desafío o establece una meta, le ayudo a centrarse en los pequeños pasos para lograr esa meta. _____ Cuando le doy una amenaza o advertencia a mi joven, frecuentemente no lo llevo a cabo_____ 66 APPENDIX D PARENT-YOUTH RELATIONSHIP SCALE Relación con su joven Por favor indique que tan verdadera son las siguientes declaraciones para usted con respeto a su relación actual con su joven. (Escala #6) 1 = Fuertemente en desacuerdo 2 = En desacuerdo 3 = De acuerdo 4 = Fuertemente de acuerdo Cuando mi joven me pide hablar o cuando necesita hablar conmigo, escucho atentamente. ___ Sé escuchar atentamente, aun cuando no esté de acuerdo con lo que dice la otra persona- ___ Con regularidad, mi joven y yo hacemos cosas juntos que ambos disfrutamos____ Mi joven y yo tenemos una relación cercana _____ Hago y digo cosas que le muestran a mi joven que a él / ella me importa y que yo la/lo amo (por ejemplo, diciendo cosas cariñosas, abrazándole/la, etc.) ____ Como madre/padre, es mi trabajo reconocer y apoyar las fortalezas de mi joven ____ 67 APPENDIX E SCHOOL-RELATED PARENTAL SELF-EFFICACY SCALE Esta sección tiene que ver con su relación con la escuela de su joven, el sistema educativo, los maestros, los administradores y el personal. Responda que tan en acuerdo o en desacuerdo esta con cada declaración y si ha tomado medidas activas en estas áreas. (Escala #6) 1 = Fuertemente en desacuerdo 2 = En desacuerdo 3 = De acuerdo 4 = Fuertemente de acuerdo En general, hago un esfuerzo para... conocer el personal y la administración de la escuela ___ conocer al menos uno de los maestros de mi joven ____ entender las reglas y pólizas de la escuela ____ informarme sobre mis derechos como padre ____ aprender sobre el sistema educativo en este estado ____ entender la diferencia entre obtener un GED, graduarse con un diploma estándar de la escuela secundaria, o con un diploma de una secundaria internacional o con un diploma de Bachillerato Internacional.____ involucrarse en las actividades escolares, en el salón de clase, y/u otras maneras (por ejemplo, organizaciones de padres, trabajo voluntario, etc.) tener conversaciones con los otros padres para obtener información o aprender acerca de los recursos en la escuela. ____ contactar los otros padres para obtener apoyo. ____ entender la trayectoria hacia la preparación a la universidad y para una carrera ____ asistir a la conferencia de padres y maestros cuando esté disponible. ___ 68 APPENDIX F YOUTH ACADEMIC SELF-EFFICACY SCALE This section is about the active steps you have, or have not taken in regards to your education this year. Using the scale provided please answer how much you agree or disagree with the statements about yourself. 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Agree 4 = Strongly Agree I take active steps to… understand the difference between earning a high school diploma and earning a GED____ get involved in school activities (homework club, student activities, clubs, etc.) ____ do my best in school so I can reach my future education and career goals____ ask my parents to help me think about what I want for my future ____ seek out educational opportunities after high school ____ I know… the steps I need to take in order to pursue my educational and/or career dreams _____ what it takes to continue my education after high school ____ what the educational and career choices are for me after high school ____ I feel … I am a good student ____ Education is important to me _____ I am making the most of my education and skills to be successful in life after high school 69 APPENDIX G PARENT LANGUAGE ACCULTURATION SCALE El siguiente tiene que ver con que tan cómodo/a, o no, se siente usted hablando español e inglés en diferentes situaciones En una escala de 1 a 5 con 1 significado "nada cómodo" y 5 "muy cómodo”, ¿Qué tan cómodo/a se siente hablando español en las siguientes situaciones? en el HOGAR 1 2 3 4 5 en la ESCUELA (si asiste) 1 2 3 4 5 NA en la ESCUELA de su joven 1 2 3 4 5 en el TRABAJO (si trabaja) 1 2 3 4 5 NA con AMIGOS 1 2 3 4 5 en GENERAL 1 2 3 4 5 ¿Qué tan cómodo/a se siente hablando inglés en las siguientes situaciones? el HOGAR 1 2 3 4 5 en la ESCUELA (si asiste) 1 2 3 4 5 NA en la ESCUELA de su joven 1 2 3 4 5 en el TRABAJO (si trabaja) 1 2 3 4 5 NA con AMIGOS 1 2 3 4 5 en GENERAL 1 2 3 4 5 70 APPENDIX H YOUTH LANGUAGE ACCULTURATION SCALE For this section, we would like to know how comfortable you feel speaking Spanish and English in different settings. Use the scale below for your answers. This scale is 1 to 5 with 1 meaning ‘not at all comfortable’ and 5 ‘very comfortable’ How comfortable do you feel speaking Spanish in the following situations? at HOME 1 2 3 4 5 at SCHOOL 1 2 3 4 5 with FRIENDS 1 2 3 4 5 in GENERAL 1 2 3 4 5 How comfortable do you feel speaking English in the following situations? at HOME 1 2 3 4 5 at SCHOOL 1 2 3 4 5 with FRIENDS 1 2 3 4 5 in GENERAL 1 2 3 4 5 71 REFERENCES CITED Affuso, G., Bacchini, D., & Miranda, M. C. (2017). The contribution of school-related parental monitoring, self-determination, and self-efficacy to academic achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 110(5), 565-574. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2016.1149795 Alegría, M., Shrout, P. E., Woo, M., Guarnaccia, P., Sribney, W., Vila, D., Polo, A., Cao, Z., Mulvaney-Day, N., Torres, M., & Canino, G. (2007). Understanding differences in past year psychiatric disorders for Latinos living in the U.S. Social Science & Medicine, 65(2), 214-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.03.026 Alfaro, E. C., Umaña-Taylor, A. J., & Bámaca, M. Y. (2006). The influence of academic support on Latino adolescents’ academic motivation. Family Relations, 55(3), 279-291. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2006.00402.x Archambault, I., Janosz, M., Fallu, J. S., & Pagani, L. S. (2009). Student engagement and its relationship with early high school dropout. Journal of Adolescence, 32, 651- 670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.06.007 Bandura, A. (1971). Social Learning Theory. New York: General Learning Press. Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Multifaceted impact of self-efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Development, 67(3), 1206-1222. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131888 Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs as shapers of children’s aspirations and career trajectories. Child Development, 72(1), 187-206. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00273 Barnes, H. L., & Olson, D. H. (1985). Parent-adolescent communication and the circumplex model. Child Development, 56(2), 438-447. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129732 Bassi, M., Steca, P., Fave, A. D., & Caprara, G. V. (2007). Academic self-efficacy beliefs and quality of experience in learning. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(3), 301-312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-006-9069-y Belfield, C., & Levin, H. M. (Eds). (2007). The price we pay: Economic and social consequences of inadequate education. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. 72 Berry, J. W. (2003). Conceptual approaches to acculturation. In K. M. Chun, P. B. Organista, & G. Marin (Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in theory, measurement, and applied research (pp. 17-37). Washington, DC: American psychological Association. Bondy, J. M., Peguero, A. A., & Johnson, B. E. (2016). The children of immigrants’ academic self-efficacy: The significance of gender, race, ethnicity, and segmented assimilation. Education and Urban Society, 49(5), 486-517. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124516644049 Bowen, G. L., Richman, J. M., Bowen, N. K., & Broughton, A. (2003). The School Success Profile Online. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 21, 111-138. https://doi.org/10.1300/J017v21n01_06 Brestan, E. V., & Eyberg, S. M. (1998). Effective psychosocial treatments of conduct- disordered children and adolescents: 29 years, 82 studies, and 5,272 kids. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27(2), 180-189. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp2702_5 Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. Annals of Child Development, 6, 187-249. Buriel, R. (1993). Childrearing orientations in Mexican American families: The influence of generation and sociocultural factors. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55(4), 987-1000. https://doi.org/10.2307/352778 Buriel, R., Perez, W., De Ment, T. L., Chavez, D. V., & Moran, V. R. (1998). The relationship of language brokering to academic performance, biculturalism, and self-efficacy among Latino adolescents. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 20(3), 283-297. https://doi.org/10.1177/07399863980203001 Burton, M., Kagan, C. (2005). Liberation social psychology: Learning from Latin America. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 15, 63-78. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.786 Caal, S., Moore, K., Murphy, K., Lawner, E., Rojas, A., & DeMand, A. (2019). Abriendo Puertas: Evaluation of a parent education program for Latinos. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 42(2), 231-249. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0739986319839994 Calzada, E. J., Fernandez, Y., & Cortes, D. E. (2010). Incorporating the cultural value of respeto into a framework of Latino parenting. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16(1), 77-86. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016071 73 Calzada, E. J., Huang, K., Anicama, C., Fernandez, Y., & Brotman, L. M. (2012). Test of a cultural framework of parenting with Latino families of young children. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 18(3), 285-296. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028694 Capaldo, D. M., & Patterson, G. R. (1989). Psychometric properties of fourteen latent constructs from the Oregon Youth Study. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Caprara, G. V., Pastorelli, C., Regalia, C., Scabini, E., & Bandura, A. (2005). Impact of Adolescents' Filial Self-Efficacy on Quality of Family Functioning and Satisfaction. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 15(1), 71–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2005.00087.x Ceballos, P. L., & Bratton, S. C. (2010). Empowering Latino families: Effects of a Culturally responsive intervention for low-income immigrant Latino parents on children’s behaviors and parental stress. Psychology in the Schools, 47(8), 761- 775. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20502 Chrispeels, J. H., & Rivero, E. (2001). Engaging Latino families for student success: How parent education can reshape parents’ sense of place in the education of their children. Peabody Journal of Education, 76(2), 119-169. https://www.jstor.org/stable/193232 CITI program at the University of Oregon. (2018). Federal regulations for protecting research subjects. Retrieved September 12, 2018 from http://www.citiprogram.org/index Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of applied psychology, 78(1), 98-104. https://doi- org.libproxy.uoregon.edu/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98 Cox Jr, R. B. (2017). Promoting resilience with the Unidos Se Puede! program: An example of translational research for Latino families. Family Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Science, 66, 712-728. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12265 Cross, F. L., Marchand, A. D., Medina, M., Villafuerte, A., Rivas-Drake, D. (2019). Academic socialization, parental educational expectations, and academic self- efficacy among Latino adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 56(4), 483-496. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22239 Cuéllar, I., Arnold, B., & González, G. (1995). Cognitive referents of acculturation: Assessment of cultural constructs in Mexican Americans. Journal of Community Psychology, 23(4), 339-356. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520- 6629(199510)23:4<339::AID-JCOP2290230406>3.0.CO;2-7 74 Cuéllar, I., Arnold, B., & Moldonado, R. (1995). Acculturation rating scale for Mexican Americans-II: A revision of the original ARSMA scale. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 17(3), 275-304. https://doi.org/10.1177/07399863950173001 Driscoll, M. W., & Torres, L. (2013). Acculturative stress and Latino depression: The mediating role of behavioral and cognitive resources. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 19(4), 373–382. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032821 Ethier, K. A., Harper, C. R., Hoo, E., & Dittus, P. J. (2016). The longitudinal impact of perceptions of parental monitoring on adolescent initiation of sexual activity. Journal of Adolescent Health, 59(5), 570-576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.06.011 Falicov, C. J. (1998). The cultural meaning of family triangles. In M. McGoldrick (ed..), Re-visiting family therapy: Race, culture, and gender in clinical practice (pp. 37- 49). New York: Guilford Press. Falicov, C. J. (2016). Latino Families in Therapy (2nd ed). New York: The Guildford Press. Fast Track-Parent Teacher Involvement Measure –Parent and Teacher Scales. (1995). “Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group.” Retrieved from: http://www.fasttrackproject.org/ Fontes, L. A. (2002). Child discipline and physical abuse in immigrant Latino families: Reducing violence and misunderstandings. Journal of Counseling & Development, 80(1), 31-40. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2002.tb00163.x Forgatch, M. S., & DeGarmo, D. S. (2002). Extending and testing the social interaction learning model with divorce samples. In J. B. Reid, G. R., Patterson, & J. Snyder (Eds), Antisocial behavior in children and adolescents (pp. 235-256). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Forgatch, M. S., & Kjøbli, J. (2016). Parent management training- Oregon model: Adapting intervention with rigorous research. Family Process, 55(3), 500-513. https://scite.ai/reports/10.1111/famp.12224 Forgatch, M. S., & Patterson, G. R. (2010). Parent Management Training- Oregon Model: An intervention for antisocial behavior in children and adolescents. In J. R. Weisz & A. E. Kazdin (Eds), Evidence-based psychotherapies for children and adolescents (2nd ed., pp. 159-178). New York: Guilford Press. Fredericks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P., Friedel, J., & Paris, A. (2005). School engagement, what do children need to flourish?: Conceptualizing and measuring indicators of positive development, New York, NY: Springer Science and Business Media. 75 Galleguillos, P., & Olmedo, E. (2017). Autoeficacia academia y rendimiento escolar: Un estudio metodológico y correlacional en escolares. Reidocrea, 6(14), 156-169. García-Moya, I., Moreno, C., & Jiménez-Iglesias, A. (2013). Building a composite factorial score for the assessment of quality of parent-child relationships in adolescence. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 10, 642-648. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2012.707781 Gilbert, L. R., Brown, C. S., & Mistry, R. S. (2017). Latino immigrant parents’ financial stress, depression, and academic involvement predicting child academic success. Psychology in the Schools, 54(9), 1202-1215. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22067 Gonzales, N. A., Dumka, L. E., Millsap, R. E., Gottschall, A., McClain, D. B., Wong, J. J., Germán, M., Mauricio, A. M., Wheeler, L., Carpentier, F. D., & Kim, S.Y. (2012). Randomized trial of a broad prevention intervention for Mexican American adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 80(1), 1- 16. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026063 Gopalan, G., Alicea, S., Conover, K., Fuss, A., Gardner, L., Pardo, G., & McKay, M. (2012). Project Step-up: Feasibility of comprehensive school-based prevention program. Journal of Early Adolescence, 33(1), 131-154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431612467536 Hale, K. E., & Kuperminc, G. (2020). The associations between multiple dimensions of acculturation and psychological distress among Latinx youth from immigrant families. Youth & Society, 53(2), 342-368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X19898698 Halgunseth, L. C., Ispa, J. M., Rudy, D. (2006). Parental control in Latino families: An integrated review of the literature. Child Development, 77(5), 1282-1297. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00934.x Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf Henry, C. S., Plunkett, S. W., & Sands, T. (2011). Family structure, parental involvement and academic motivation in Latino adolescents. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 52(6), 370-390. https://doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2011.592414 Heppner, P. P., Wampold, B. E., Kivlighan, D. M. J. (2008). Research design in counseling. 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education. Hernandez, D. J. (2004). Demographic change and the life circumstances of immigrant families. The Future of Children, 14(2), 17-47. https://doi.org/10.2307/1602792 76 Hill, N. E., Bush, K. R., & Roosa, M. W. (2003). Parenting and family socialization strategies and children’s mental health: low income Mexican-American and Euro- American mothers and children. Child Development, 74(1), 189-204. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.t01-1-00530 Hill, N. E., & Tyson, D. F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A meta- analytic assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45(3), 740-763. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015362 Holtrop, K., McNeil Smith, S., & Scott, J. C. (2015). Associations between positive parenting practices and child externalizing behavior in underserved Latino immigrant families. Family Process, 54(2), 359-375. https:doi.org/10.1111/famp.12105 Hu, L.-t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 IBM Corp. Released 2016. IBM SPSS Statistics for Mac, Version 24.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press. Lac, A., Unger, J. B., Basáńez, T., Ritt-Olson, A., Soto, D. W., & Baezconde-Garbanati, L. (2011). Marijuana use among Latino adolescents: Gender differences in protective familial factors. Substance Use & Misuse, 46(5), 644-655. https://doi.org/10.3109/10826084.2010.528121 LeFevre, A. L., & Shaw, T. V. (2012). Latino parent involvement and school success: Longitudinal effects of formal and informal support. Education and Urban Society, 44(6), 707-723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124511406719 Leidy, M. S., Guerra, N. G., & Toro, R. I. (2010). Positive parenting, family cohesion, and child social competence among immigrant Latino families. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(3), 252-260. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019407 Leyendecker, B., & Lamb, M. E. (1999). Latino families, in Lamb, M. (Ed) Parenting the child development in ‘nontraditional’ families (pp. 247-262). Erlbaum, Mahwah, N. J. Llorca, A., Richaud, M. C., & Molanda, E. (2017). Parenting, peer relationships, academic self-efficacy, and academic achievement: Direct and mediating effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02120 77 López-Zerón, G., Parra-Cardona, J. R., & Yeh, H. (2020). Addressing immigration- related stress in a culturally adapted parenting intervention for Mexican-origin immigrants: Initial positive effects and key areas of improvement. Family Process, 59, 1094-1112. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12481 Marin, G. (1993). Influence of acculturation on familialism and self-identification among Hispanics. In M. E. Bernal & G. P. Knight (Eds.) Ethnic identity: Formation and transmission among Hispanics and other minorities (pp. 181-196). New York: State University of New York Press. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224 Marsiglia, F. F., Kiehne, E., & Ayers, S. (2018). Reexamining the acculturation gap: The relationship between the bidimensional parent-adolescent gap and risky behavior among Mexican-Heritage adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 38(5), 581- 605. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431616678991 Martinez, C. R. Jr. (2006). Effects of differential family acculturation on Latino adolescent substance use. Family Relations, 55(3), 306-317. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2006.00404.x Martinez, C. R. Jr., & Eddy, J. M. (2005). Effects of culturally adapted parent management training on Latino youth behavioral health outcomes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(5), 841-851. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 006X.73.5.841 Martinez, C. R. Jr., McClure, H. H., Eddy, J. M., & Wilson, D. M. (2011). Time in U.S. residency and the social, behavioral, and emotional adjustment of Latino immigrant families. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 33(3), 323-349. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986311411281 Masten, A. S., Garmezy, N., Tellegen, A., Pellegrini, D. S., Larkin, K., & Larsen, A. (1988). Competence and stress in school children: The moderating effects of individual and family qualities. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 29(6), 745-764. . https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1988.tb00751.x Matos, M., Torres, R., Santiago, R., Juardo, M. & Rodríguez, I. (2006). Adaptation of parent- child interaction therapy for Puerto Rican families: A preliminary study. Family Process, 45(2), 205-222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545- 5300.2006.00091.x McLoyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American Psychologist, 53(2), 185-204. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.53.2.185 78 McWhirter, E. H., Rojas-Araúz, B. O., Ortega, R., Combs, D., Cendejas, C., & McWhirter, B. (2019). ALAS: An intervention to promote career development among Latina/o immigrant high school students. Journal of Career Development, 46(6), 608-622. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845319828543 Mena, J. A. (2011). Latino parent home-based practices that bolster student academic persistence. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 33(4), 490-506. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986311422897 National Center for Education Statistics (2019). Elementary and Secondary School Enrollment. Retrieved from: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/raceindicators/indicator_rbb.asp Niehaus, K., Rudasill, K., & Adelson, J. (2012). Self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, and academic outcomes among Latino middle school students participating in an after-school program. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 34(1), 118-136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986311424275 Nowak, C., & Heinrichs, N. (2008). A comprehensive meta-analysis of Triple P— Positive Parenting Program using hierarchical linear modeling: Effectiveness and moderating variables. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 11(3), 114– 144. http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/s10567-008-0033-0. Oliva, A., & Parra, Á. (2004). Contexto familiar y desarrollo psicológico durante la adolescencia. In E. Arranz (Ed.), Familia y Desarrollo psicológico (pp. 96-123). Madrid, Spain: Pearson Prentice-Hall. Olivos, E. M. (2004). Tensions, contradictions, and resistance: An activist’s reflection of the struggles of Latino parents in the public school system. The High School Journal, 87(4), 25-35. Olivos, E. M., Jimenez-Castellanos, O., Ochoa, A. (2011). Bicultural Parent Engagement: Advocacy and Empowerment. Teachers College Press. O’Rourke, H. P., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2018). Reasons for testing mediation in the absence of an intervention effect: A research imperative in prevention and intervention research. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 79(2), 171-181. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2018.79.171 Parke, R. D., & Buriel, R. (2006). Socialization in the family: Ethnic and ecological perspectives. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (pp. 429-504). John Wiley & Sons. 79 Parke, R. D., Coltrane, S., Duffy, S., Buriel, R., Dennis, J., Powers, J., French, S., & Widaman, K. F. (2004). Economic stress, parenting, and child adjustment in Mexican American and European American families. Child Development, 75(6), 1632-1656. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00807.x Parsai, M., Kulis, S., & Marsiglia, F. F. (2010). Parental monitoring, religious involvement and drug use among Latino and non-Latino youth in the southwestern United States. The British Journal of Social Work, 40(1), 100-114. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcn100 Pastorelli, C., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Rola, J., Rozsa, S., Bandura, A. (2001). The structure of children’s perceived self-efficacy: A cross-national study. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17, 87-97. https://dx.doi.org/10.1027//1015-5759.17.2.87 Patterson, G. R., Dearyshe, B. D., & Ramsey, E. (1989). A developmental perspective on antisocial behavior. American Psychologist, 44(2), 329-335. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.2.329 Peña, D. C. (2000). Parent involvement: Influencing factors and implications. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(1), 42-54. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670009598741 Pew Research Center: Hispanic Trends. (2020). About one-in-four U.S. Hispanics have heard of Latinx, but just 3% use it. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-in-four-u-s- hispanics-have-heard-of-latinx-but-just-3-use-it/ Prado, G., & Pantin, H. (2011). Reducing substance use and HIV health disparities among Hispanic youth in the USA: The Familias Unidas program of research. Psychosocial Intervention, 20(1), 63-73. https://doi.org/10.5093/in2011v20n1a6 Prevatt, F. F. (2003). The contribution of parenting practices in a risk and resilience model of children’s adjustment. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21(4), 469-480. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151003322535174 Qin, D. B., Rak, E., Rana, M., & Donnellan, B. (2012). Parent-child relations and psychological adjustment among high-achieving Chinese and European American adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 35(4), 863-873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.12.004 R Core Team (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. (Version 3.5.1). Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/. 80 Rios, M., Friedlander, S. Cardona, Y., Flores, G., & Shetgiri, R. (2020). Associations of parental monitoring and violent peers with Latin youth violence. Journal of immigrant and minority health, 22, 240-248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-019- 00894-6 Rodríguez, M., Davis, M., Rodríguez, J., & Bates, S. (2006). Observed parenting practices of first-generation Latino families. Journal of Community Psychology, 34(2), 133-148. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20088 Romero, A. J., & Ruiz, M. (2007). Does familism lead to increased parental monitoring?: Protective factors for coping with risky behaviors. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16, 143-154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-006-9074-5 RStudio Team (2018). RStudio: Integrated development environment for R. (Version 1.2.1335). Retrieved from http://www.rstudio.com/. Ruffenach, C. Worcel, S., Keyes, D., & Franco, R. (2016). Latinos in Oregon: Trends and opportunities in a changing state. The Oregon Community Foundation. Retrieved from: https://oregoncf.org/Templates/media/files/reports/latinos_in_oregon_report_201 6.pdf Sánchez Carmen, S. A., Domínguez, M., Greene, A. C., Mendoza, E., Fine, M., Neville, H. A., & Gutiérrez, K.,D. (2015). Revisiting the collective in critical consciousness: Diverse sociopolitical wisdoms and ontological healing in sociopolitical development. The Urban Review, 47(5), 824-846. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11256-015-0338-5 Santisteban, D. A., Muir-Malcolm, J. A., Mitrani, V. B., & Szapocznik, J. (2002) Integrating the study of ethnic culture and family psychology invention in science. In H.A. Liddle, D. A. Santisteban, R. F. Levant, & J. H. Bray (Eds.), Family psychology: Science-based interventions, (pp. 331-351). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Scharrón-del Río, M., & Aja, A. A. (2020). Latinx: Inclusive language and liberation praxis. Journal of Latinx Psychology, 8(1), 7-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/lat0000140 Schofield, T., Beaumont, K., Widaman, K., Jochem, R., Robins, R., & Conger, R. (2012). Parent and child fluency in a common language: Implications for the parent-child relationship and later academic success in Mexican American Families. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(6), 869-879. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030423 Shan, P. (2009). Motivating participation: The symbolic effect ofLatino representation on parent school involvement. Social Science Quarterly, 90, 212-230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00612.x 81 Shields, M. K., & Behrman, R. E. (2004). Children of immigrant families: Analysis and recommendations. The Future of Children, 14(2), 4-12. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/1602791 Shokoohi-Yekta, M., Malayeri, S. A., Zardkhaneh, S. A., & Mahmoudi, M. (2015). Effectiveness of an intervention program to improve parent-adolescent relationships. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 205, 43-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.09.009 Schwartz, S. J., Unger, J. B., Baezconde‐Garbanati, L., Zamboanga, B. L., Córdova, D., Lorenzo‐Blanco, E. I., Huang, S., Des Rosiers, S. E., Soto, D. W., Lizzi, K. M., Villamar, J. A., Pattarroyo, M., & Szapocznik, J. (2016). Testing the parent– adolescent acculturation discrepancy hypothesis: A five-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 26(3), 567–586. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12214 Schwartz, S. J., Unger, J. B., Zamboanga, B. L., & Szapocznik, J. (2010). Rethinking the concept of acculturation: Implications for theory and research. American Psychologist, 65(4), 237-251. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019330 Stormshak, B., Connell, A., & Dishion, T. J. (2009). An adaptive approach to family- centered intervention in schools: Linking intervention engagement to academic outcomes in middle and high school. Prevention Science, 10(3), 221-235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-009-0131-3 Tang, S. (2015). Social capital and determinants of immigrant family educational involvement. The Journal of Educational Research, 108(1), 22-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2013.833076 Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International journal of medical education, 2, 53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd United States Census Bureau. (2017). School enrollment of the Hispanic population: Two decades of growth. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random- samplings/2017/08/school_enrollmentof.html Valencia, R. R., & Black, M. S. (2002). “Mexican Americans don’t value education!” On the basis of the myth, mythmaking, and debunking. Journal of Latinos and Education, 1(2), 81-103. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532771XJLE0102_2 Wagner, K. D., Ritt-Olson, A., Chou, C., Pokhrel, P., Duan, L., Baezconde-Garbanati, L., Soto, D. W., & Unger, J. B. (2010). Associations between family structure, family functioning, and substance use among Hispanic/Latino adolescents. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 24(1), 98-108. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018497 82 Walker, J. M. (2016). Realizing the American dream: A parent education program designed to increase Latino family engagement in children’s education. Journal of Latinos and Education, 14(4), 344-357. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2015.1134536 Weisskirch, R. S. (2013). Family relationships, self-esteem, and self-efficacy among language brokering Mexican American emerging adults. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 22(8), 1147-1155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-012-9678-x White, R. M. B., Roosa, M. W., Weaver, S. R., & Nair, R. L. (2009). Cultural and contextual influences on parenting in Mexican American families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(1), 61-79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741- 3737.2008.00580.x Winslow, E. B., Poloskov, E., Begay, R., Tein, J., Sandler, I., & Wolchik, S. (2016). A randomized trial of methods to engage Mexican American parents into a school- based parenting intervention. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 84(12), 1094-1107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000140 Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Education Research Journal, 29(3), 663-676. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312029003663 83