Validation of the Family Educational and Learning Capitals Questionnaire: An Australian Perspective

Abstract

There is a growing recognition that parents play an important role in the academic achievement of their children. This role includes both the interactions they have with their children and the management of resources that can contribute to their children’s achievement. To better understand parents’ roles, it is important to understand their perceptions regarding the availability of these resources. This article reports the validation of the Family Educational and Learning Capitals Questionnaire (FELCQ), an instrument that measures parents’ perceptions of educational and learning resources. Based on the Actiotope Model of Giftedness, the FELCQ consists of five educational and five learning capitals plus parental aspirations for their children’s achievement. The responses of 1,917 Australian parents to the 53-item FELCQ were Rasch analyzed and the Rasch person estimates were utilized in a confirmatory factor analysis to confirm the FELCQ as a valid measure of parents’ perceptions of the capitals. The results showed that the FELCQ reflects the underlying theoretical factor structure of the Actiotope Model, including the extension of the model to include parental aspirations as an educational capital for parents in relation to their children’s education. The implications and future use of the FELCQ are discussed.

Keywords

Actiotope Model of Giftedness Australian parents confirmatory factor analysis educational capitals learning capitals Rasch analysis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Arbuckle

J. L.

(2011). IBM SPSS Amos 20.0 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS.

Aunio

Aubrey

Godfrey

Pan

Liu

(2008). Children’s early numeracy in England, Finland and People’s Republic of China. International Journal of Early Years Education, 16, 203–221. doi:10.1080/09669760802343881

Bond

T. G.

Fox

C. M.

(2015). Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Boone

W. J.

Staver

J. R.

Yale

M. S.

(2014). Rasch analysis in the human sciences. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Byrne

B. M.

(2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Daraganova

Mullan

Edwards

(2014). Attendance in primary school: Factors and consequences (Occasional Paper No. 51). Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Available from http://www.aifs.gov.au

Department of Education and Communities. (2016). Annual report 2016. Retrieved from http://www.dec.nsw.gov.au/about-us/how-we-operate/annual-reports

Department of Education and Training Northern Territory. (2014). Review of Indigenous education in the Northern Territory. Retrieved from https://www.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/229016/A-Share-in-the-Future-The-Review-of-Indigenous-Education-in-the-Northern-Territory.pdf

Department of Education and Training Victoria. (2015). Annual report 2015–2016. Retrieved from http://www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/about/department/201516detannualreport.pdf

10.

Edelen

M. O.

Reeve

B. B.

(2007). Applying item response theory (IRT) modeling to questionnaire development, evaluation, and refinement. Quality of Life Research, 16, 5–18. doi:10.1007/s11136-007-9198-0

11.

Gorsuch

R. L.

(1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

12.

Jose

P. E.

Bellamy

M. A.

(2012). Relationships of parents’ theories of intelligence with children’s persistence/learned helplessness: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43, 999–1018. doi:10.1177/0022022111421633

13.

Kubinger

K. D.

(2005). Psychological test calibration using the Rasch model—Some critical suggestions on traditional approaches. International Journal of Testing, 5, 377–394. doi:10.1207/s15327574ijt0504_3

14.

Leana-Taşcilar

M. Z.

(2015). Questionnaire of Educational and Learning Capital (QELC): Turkish language validity and factor structure. College Student Journal, 49, 531–541.

15.

Linacre

J. M.

(2002). What do infit and outfit, mean-square and standardized mean? Rasch Measurement Transactions, 16(2), Article 878.

16.

Linacre

J. M.

(2004). Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. In Smith

R. M.

Smith

E. V. J.

(Eds.), Introduction to Rasch measurement: Theory, models and applications (pp. 258–278). Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.

17.

Linacre

J. M.

(2006). WINSTEPS Rasch measurement computer program. Available from http://www.winsteps.com

18.

Linacre

J. M.

(2015). Facets computer program for many-facet Rasch measurement (Version 3.71.4). Beaverton, OR: Winsteps.com.

19.

Masters

G. N.

(2012). Measuring and rewarding school improvement. Retrieved from http://research.acer.edu.au/policy_analysis_misc/15

20.

Mayo

Siraj

(2015). Parenting practices and children’s academic success in low-SES families. Oxford Review of Education, 41, 47–63.

21.

Melhuish

E. C.

Phan

M. B.

Sylva

Sammons

Siraj-Blatchfor

Taggart

(2008). Effects of the home learning environment and preschool center experience upon literacy and numeracy development in early primary school. Journal of Social Issues, 64, 95–114.

22.

Mulaik

S. A.

(2010). Foundations of factor analysis (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

23.

Pan

Gauvain

Liu

Cheng

(2006). American and Chinese parental involvement in young children’s mathematics learning. Cognitive Development, 21, 17–35. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2005.08.001

24.

Paz-Baruch

(2015). Validation study of the Questionnaire of Educational and Learning Capital (QELC) in Israel. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 57, 222–235.

25.

Phillipson

(2013). Parental expectations: The influence of the significant other on school achievement. In Phillipson

K.Y.L.

Phillipson

S. N.

(Eds.), Constructing educational achievement: A sociocultural perspective (pp. 87–104). New York, NY: Routledge.

26.

Phillipson

S. N.

(2008). The optimal achievement model and underachievement in Hong Kong: An application of the Rasch model. Psychology Science Quarterly, 50, 147–172.

27.

Phillipson

S. N.

(2007). Academic expectations, belief of ability, and involvement by parents as predictors of child achievement: A cross-cultural comparison. Educational Psychology, 27, 329–348. doi: 10.1080/01443410601104130

28.

Phillipson

S. N.

(2012). Children’s cognitive ability and their academic achievement: The mediation effects of parental expectations. Asia Pacific Education Review, 13, 495–508. doi: 10.1007/s12564-011-9198-1

29.

Phillipson

Richards

Sullivan

P. A.

(2017). Parental perceptions of access to capitals and early mathematical learning: Some early insights from Numeracy@Home project. In Phillipson

Gervasoni

Sullivan

P. A.

(Eds.), Engaging families as children’s first mathematics educators: International perspectives (pp. 127–145). Singapore: Springer.

30.

Phillipson

Yick

S. Y. J.

(2013). Parental involvement within the Actiotope Model of Giftedness. In Phillipson

S. N.

Stoeger

Ziegler

(Eds.), Exceptionality in East Asia explorations in the Actiotope Model of Giftedness (pp. 165–187). Hoboken, NJ: Taylor & Francis.

31.

Rasch

(1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests (Expanded ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

32.

Scanlan

J. N.

Lannin

N. A.

Hoffmann

(2015). Can Rasch analysis enhance the abstract ranking process in scientific conferences? Issues of interrater variability and abstract rating burden. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 35, 18–26. doi:10.1002/chp.21263

33.

Smith

E. V. J.

(2004). Detecting and evaluating the impact of multidimensionality using item fit statistics and principal component analysis of residuals. In Smith

R. M.

Smith

E. V. J.

(Eds.), Rasch measurement: Theory, models and applications (pp. 575–600). Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.

34.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

35.

Tennant

Pallant

J. F.

(2006). Unidimensionality matters! (A tale of two Smiths?). Rasch Measurement Transactions, 20, 1048–1051.

36.

Vladut

Liu

Leana-Tascilar

M. Z.

Vialle

Ziegler

(2013). A cross-cultural validation study of the Questionnaire of Educational and Learning Capital (QELC) in China, Germany and Turkey. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 55, 462–478.

37.

Vladut

Vialle

Ziegler

(2015). Learning resources within the Actiotope: A validation study of the QELC (Questionnaire of Educational and Learning Capital). Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 57, 40–56.

38.

Wright

B. D.

Stone

M. H.

(1999). Measurement essentials (2nd ed.). Wilmington, DE: Wide Range.

39.

Ziegler

(2005). The Actiotope Model of Giftedness. In Sternberg

R. J.

Davidson

J. E.

(Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 411–436). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

40.

Ziegler

Baker

(2013). Talent development as adaptation: The role of educational and learning capital. In Phillipson

S. N.

Stoeger

Ziegler

(Eds.), Exceptionality in East Asia: Explorations in the Actiotope Model of Giftedness (pp. 18–39). New York, NY: Routledge.

41.

Ziegler

Phillipson

S. N.

(2012). Towards a systemic theory of gifted education. High Ability Studies, 23, 3–30. doi:10.1080/13598139.2012.679085