Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study involved development and validation of the Family Involvement in Graduate School measure, the first instrument to measure involvement of family in graduate students’ educational process. The measure was originally designed with six subscales. It was developed based on Hoover-Dempsey et al.’s model of parent involvement. Feedback on the measure was given by expert reviewers to refine the measure. The measure was validated with exploratory factor analysis of a sample of 150 family members of graduate students. Data was collected from family members of (a) a program for underprivileged graduate students and (b) graduate students enrolled in two large Western universities. A five-factor solution was supported by the Exploratory Factor Analysis, which was shown to be a good fit with SRMR fit statistics. Future research should validate the measure in other geographic locations and with a more diverse sample.

Keywords

family involvement graduate school graduate students higher education education social sciences student services educational measurement and assessment adult and continuing education

Introduction

Graduate education is a stressful time during which graduate students require many forms of support. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics (2021), there is increasing enrollment in graduate education each year. On average, total graduate enrollment showed an annual increase of 1.9% between Fall 2016 and 2021. Moreover, the average annual growth in total graduate enrollment was 1.1% over the 10-year span from Fall 2011 to 2021. Specifically, Fall 2020 to Fall 2021 saw a 5.4% rise in total graduate enrollment at public institutions and a 4.8% increase at private, not-for-profit institutions (Zhou, 2022). While enrollment increased, high attrition rates have persisted; student retention is a great concern for educational institutions (Aljohani, 2016). Retention of graduate students in their programs can be challenging, especially in doctoral programs. One factor that influences graduate student retention and success in graduate programs, both masters and doctoral, is family involvement in the graduate student’s education. Such involvement can be challenging, particularly for first-generation or underrepresented students whose families are unfamiliar with the education system for advanced degrees. Other critical factors associated with student attrition in graduate programs include low levels of support from family and friends (Baldwin et al., 2021; Breitenbach et al., 2019; Volkert et al., 2018), lack of appropriate socialization experiences (Gardner, 2009; Nettles & Millett, 2006; Nguyen et al., 2022; Sverdlik et al., 2018), feelings of isolation or lack of community (Ali & Kohun, 2006; Lovitts, 2002; Nguyen et al., 2022; Sverdlik et al., 2018), lack of psychological well being (Liu et al., 2019; Nguyen et al., 2022; Patias et al., 2021; Sverdlik et al., 2018), and funding (Gardner, 2009; Gururaj et al., 2010; Nettles & Millett, 2006; Nguyen et al., 2022).

Graduate education is an important site of research and innovation due to the career opportunities, advancement, and access it provides in the United States (U.S.) and around the world. Graduate students, especially first-generation students, face unique challenges when enrolled in graduate programs and higher institutions can support their transition and retention with targeted programs (Ardoin & Erb, 2022; Nguyen et al., 2022). Although student attrition has historically been a major challenge, the theoretical frameworks used in student retention research are relatively new (Aljohani, 2016; A. Burke, 2019). Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1997) provide a model for parent involvement that can be adapted to represent the different aspects of family involvement in graduate school.

Family involvement in education is associated with several positive outcomes, including aspirations for higher education, higher academic achievement (Holcomb-McCoy, 2010; Jeynes, 2007), sense of well-being, school attendance, student and family perceptions of school climate, student willingness to take on academic work, frequency of parent and student interaction, and parent satisfaction with educators (Greenwood & Hickman, 1991; Holcomb-McCoy, 2010) . Parental support is one of the most critical determinants of students’ educational aspirations (Auerbach, 2004; Fann et al., 2009; Hossler et al., 1989, 1998; McDonough, 1999; Stage & Hossler, 1989) and educational aspiration is strongly related to university completion (Wu & Bai, 2015). Family involvement in graduate school also affects educational experiences, and there is a growing need to support graduate student retention and graduate student rates. Despite this need, there is no currently established model of graduate student family involvement in the field of higher education. This study attempts to remedy this deficit by developing a five-scale measure of family involvement in graduate school based on Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s (1995, 1997) model of parent involvement: the Family Involvement in Graduate School (FIGS) measure.

Literature Review

Family Involvement in Higher Education

Positive outcomes such as better adjustment to campus life, reduced academic stress, and higher self-confidence are linked to family involvement (Hiester et al., 2009; Howard et al., 2020). Considering that parents’ expectations substantially influence students’ educational goals and plans (Attinasi, 1989; Auerbach, 2002; Ceja, 2004; Pérez, 1999; Tierney & Auerbach, 2005), it is important that institutions of higher education facilitate family involvement in academics to increase program enrollment, retention, and completion for students from diverse backgrounds and experiences. Parents have unique ways of communicating the value of achieving higher education to their children (Auerbach, 2002; Ceja, 2004) and may be enthusiastic about being equipped with more information to support their children’s academics (Chapleau, 2000; McDonough, 1999; Pérez, 1999; Tierney & Auerbach, 2005). Studies show that students are motivated toward academic work when there is high parental support that encourages them to feel autonomy during their transition to university (T. J. Burke et al., 2018; Howard et al., 2020; Padilla-Walker et al., 2019). That said, parents’ self-efficacy for supporting their children in higher education is affected by parents’ own levels of education and familiarity with the education system (Attinasi, 1989; McDonough, 1997; Oliva, 2008; Tierney & Auerbach, 2005; Torrez, 2004). Families stay involved in graduate students’ education in several ways. Family values, for example, significantly impact students’ pursuit of and retention in graduate school (Tate et al., 2015). Family values proved to be more influential when compared to family expectations, information, and financial support. As a result, the authors suggested that students’ families should be systematically included in programs that support their pursuit of graduate school. By planning for parent involvement, barriers such as lack of guidance in academic and career choices, absence of future-oriented conversations, and lack of a valid network can be overcome (Hirudayaraj & McLean, 2018).

In recent years, technology has increased family involvement in higher education (Ward-Roof et al., 2008). Parents stay involved on a more personal level through phone and email contact to provide advice, emotional support, and financial assistance (Kolkhorst et al., 2010). Research examining family involvement in higher education has highlighted the importance of using methods such as communication through websites, newsletters, and magazines; parent orientations; as well as parent weekends hosted by the university to promote parent involvement (Chapman, 2017; Kiyama & Harper, 2015). Parents and families of students perceive their involvement in campus orientation programs as a partnership with the university (Jacobs & With, 2002). Orientation programs provide parents and families with useful information to support students and should address the assessed needs of the families being engaged, including first-generation, low-income, minoritized or historically underrepresented, as well as single-parent families (Jacobs & With, 2002; Ward-Roof, 2005). Research shows that parents of traditional 18- to 20-year-old students are more likely to attend one- to two-day orientation programs with their students, while families of nontraditional students may prefer to attend a weekend or evening program (Ward-Roof et al., 2008). Regardless of parents’ levels of education, these engagement options allow parents to be involved while becoming familiar with higher education institutions.

Family Involvement in Family of Orientation and Family of Procreation

Studies have revealed that participants experienced high stress due to being away from partners and family (Hockey, 1994; Robinson-Pant, 2009), and graduate students who are also parents face high stress due to balancing work and family responsibilities (Bain et al., 2011). However, productive scholars often draw upon personal support networks to enhance their academic productivity, reflecting the distinct roles of the family of orientation and procreation in supporting post-graduate education. For instance, German scholars Frank Fischer and Alexander Renkl illustrate the role of the family of procreation, as they benefit from their spouses’ contributions in managing family chores. This support, detailed by Flanigan et al. (2018), enables a focused pursuit of scholarly activities. Similarly, female scholars like Rebecca Collie depend on their spouses for an equitable division of household responsibilities, highlighting the critical support from the family of procreation in their academic endeavors. Collie states, “I could not do what I do without his support. I could not be as productive. He does half the drop-offs for the kids and cooks half the meals,” emphasizing this partnership (Kiewra et al., 2021, p. 2007).

In contrast, Capannola and Johnson (2022) underscores the role of the family of orientation, particularly for first-generation college students (FGCS). The study highlights the emotional encouragement from immediate family members, which is essential for FGCS to balance family expectations with academic responsibilities. This contrasts with the practical support provided by the family of procreation, as noted in Pigg’s (2003) focus on spousal support for managing family obligations. Additionally, Alexander and Bodenhorn (2015) emphasize the crucial emotional support and motivation from the family of orientation, specifically the parents of Black female graduate students, aiding them in coping with graduate school pressures. These perspectives collectively demonstrate the unique yet synergistic roles of the family of orientation and the family of procreation in supporting the educational journey of post-graduate students.

Family Involvement in First-Generation and Historically Underrepresented Students’ Education

Family involvement increases the likelihood of enrollment and completion of higher education for historically underrepresented students (O’Donnell & Kirkner, 2014; Sáenz et al., 2018; Yosso, 2005). Increasing evidence indicates that parents of first-generation and historically underrepresented students and their families experience difficulties in accessing needed information and tools to effectively support their children in their educational pursuits (Fann et al., 2009; Harper et al., 2020; Oliva, 2008; Tornatzky et al., 2002; Torrez, 2004). For example, a study carried out by Fann et al. (2009) described the lack of college knowledge, structural barriers, language barriers, and lack of familiarity with the U.S. education system as major obstacles that preventing many Latinx and Chicanx families from effectively supporting their children in college (Auerbach, 2002; Tierney & Auerbach, 2005; Torrez, 2004). Families of historically underrepresented graduate students value educational achievement and aspire for their children to have university degrees (Fann et al., 2009; Pew Hispanic Center/Kaiser Family Foundation, 2004; Tornatzky et al., 2002).

Parents and families, especially from first-generation, low-income, and historically underrepresented racial or ethnic backgrounds, play an invaluable role in the lives of students (Lowe & Dotterer, 2018), and are invested in their higher education (Harper et al., 2012; Kiyama & Harper, 2015). For example, Harper et al. (2020) asserted that families influence students’ attitudes about attending college, where to enroll (Nuñez & Kim, 2012), their expectations about, and experiences in higher education (Hamrick & Stage, 2004; Perna & Titus, 2005). As stated in Kiyama and Harper (2018), historically underrepresented students are positioned in the center of multiple interactive ecologies and will require the involvement, network, and support of parents to navigate their higher education pathways and respond to the ever-changing ecologies.

Doctoral Degree Completion

Doctoral degree completion is an area of intense research interest (Council of Graduate Schools, 2021), and the ability of graduate programs to recruit, retain, and graduate doctoral students from diverse backgrounds and experiences is important. More than 50% of students enrolled in doctoral programs in the U.S. do not complete their degrees, especially first-generation students and those from historically underrepresented groups (Di Pierro, 2012; Dorn & Papalewise, 1997; Nguyen et al., 2022). Research indicates that students mostly drop out of doctoral programs due to difficulties in achieving a balance between work, personal life, schooling, and socialization (Castelló et al., 2017). According to Castelló et al. (2017), the institutional facilitation of doctoral students’ integration into the university community will help improve students’ sense of belonging and increase retention rates in doctoral programs. In supporting doctoral students to complete their programs, research should seek to understand the efficacy of programs, factors, and policies that increase student persistence and completion rates (Lovitts, 2002; Nettles & Millett, 2006).

Family Involvement in Graduate Student Retention

Myriad studies have asserted that social support from family members and friends can substantially help doctoral students in the successful completion of their degrees (Jairam & Kahl, 2012; Mitchall & Jaeger, 2018; Quinn et al., 2019). Conversely, the lack of support from the families of doctoral students can be a “destructive force” in students’ academic pursuits and negatively influence degree persistence (Cohen, 2011; Rockinson-Szapkiw & Herring Watson, 2020; Smith et al., 2006, p. 23). The impacts of family support may vary due to the type of support (see House, 1981; House et al., 1988) as well as the individual needs of students, such as first-generation students and communities, and historically underrepresented populations.

As per Ali and Kohun (2006), doctoral students often experienced exacerbated stress and social isolation, especially during their first year, and family members can uniquely provide love, encouragement, and practical support for them to navigate the doctoral experience. Family support and a sense of balance between academics and family life are associated with doctoral students’ well-being and degree completion (Martinez et al., 2013).

Some studies have revealed that most people, especially the families of first-generation students, do not completely understand the demands of doctoral programs (Jairam & Kahl, 2012; Sternberg, 1981). Historically underrepresented graduate students, such as first-generation doctoral students, are at a higher risk of not completing their programs, and their families may not appropriately support them if they are not adequately oriented to the demands, importance, and economic or professional opportunities of a doctoral degree (). In the present article, we discuss the development and validation of the Family Involvement in Graduate School (FIGS) measure, an adaptation of Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s model of parent involvement.

Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s Parent Involvement Model

The Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler model provides a cognitive perspective on why families get involved in their children’s education and how it affects child outcomes. It has been applied to various grade levels (Calhoun, 2021; Lavenda, 2011; Ochoa, 2021; Walker et al., 2011), but its applications to family involvement at the graduate school level are scarce. The model’s constructs are generally relevant to families, with five sequential levels influencing the involvement process (Whitaker, 2019; Yamauchi et al., 2017). This present study focused on the first level of the model, which has three sub-levels that deal with a family’s belief system, motivations, and cognitive behaviors in decision-making (Walker et al., 2005; Yamauchi et al., 2017). The first phase of the model suggests that family activities’ diversity and frequency are influenced by three primary elements: family motivators, family perceptions of invitation to be involved, and life context variables.

The first factor is the two motivators of family involvement, which Ice and Hoover-Dempsey (2011) argue are (a) parental role construction and (b) a sense of efficacy for assisting the child in succeeding at school. According to Whitaker (2019), role construction for involvement is a belief about what one is expected to do regarding their children’s education. The parent’s personal experiences with education, prior experience with involvement, and ongoing experiences with others related to the student’s education all inform this motivator.

The second family involvement motivator is self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is a term that relates to families’ views about whether or not their involvement in their child’s education is likely to influence them positively (Walker et al., 2011).

Invitations to involvement from school and community members also serve as an essential motivator of involvement. They suggest to the parent that student learning participation is welcome, valuable, and expected by the school and the faculty (Whitaker, 2019). According to Hoover-Dempsey et al. (2005), the most significant invitations to participate come from three different sources: the school as a whole (the school climate), individual teachers, and students. Invitations produced as a result of a positive climate in a school are significant in that parents are welcome at school, their involvement is relevant, and involvement is expected and supported.

Teachers’ invitations to families enhance parents’ participation, knowledge of their children’s learning, and confidence in their involvement efforts. Invitations extended by students allow many parents to fulfill their desire to cater to their children’s evolving requirements (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997) and their desire for their children to succeed in education.

Life context variables are the third factor influencing parents’ decisions regarding their involvement in their child’s education. A parent’s knowledge, skills, time, and energy in terms of involvement opportunities are the most critical aspects of their life context for comprehending the decisions that parents make regarding their involvement (Walker et al., 2005). Parents’ perceptions of their personal skills influence their choices of involvement in activities with a reasonable chance of success (Green et al., 2007). Generally, parents’ self-perceived skills and knowledge play a significant role in their decisions regarding certain kinds of involvement as their student moves to graduate school.

Method

Study Design

We developed the Family Involvement in Graduate School (FIGS) measure as part of the Graduate Acceleration through Innovation and Networking (GAIN) Scholars program, a National Science Foundation-funded two-year doctoral retention program incorporating two three-week-long boot camps and an emphasis on examining family support in graduate school, particularly for historically underrepresented students. Our study took place in the summer and fall of 2021.

Our study involved two Research 1 universities in one Western state. A recruitment email (in English and Spanish) was sent to all graduate students by the Dean of the Graduate School in October 2021 at one university and a reminder email was sent in November 2021. At the other R1 University, a recruitment email was sent in November 2021 to all graduate students by the Dean of the Graduate School.

Graduate students were invited to select one family member to complete in English or Spanish a study survey that contained the FIGS measure and a series of demographic questions. The graduate students were asked to forward the email to a family member. The recruitment email conveyed that participants could be entered into a raffle, which included the opportunity to win a $5.00 gift card and there were potentially 100 winners. Family members answered the survey by clicking on a Qualtrics link received in email. Informed consent was obtained by having survey participants read an information sheet in Qualtrics explaining the study and then clicking that they had read it.

Sample

For the present study of family involvement in graduate education, 150 family members were recruited. A family member was defined as a partner, spouse, sibling or child who was 18 years or older, parent, cousin, aunt, uncle, grandparent, in-law, or fictive kin (Authors, 2021). Family members’ relationships to their student varied: 25% husbands (N = 27), 11.1% wives (N = 12), 12% partners who were living together but not married (N = 13), 29.6% mothers (N = 32), 5.8% fathers (N = 11), and 5.6% siblings (N = 6). Fifty percent of the sample was male (N = 54) and 48.1% was female (N = 52), with 1.8% not responding (N = 2). For race/ethnicity, 73.1% of the sample was White (N = 79), 7.4% was Hispanic/Latino (N = 8), 6.5% was Asian/Pacific Islander (N = 7) and 2.8% was African American/Black (N = 3). The education levels of the respondents were 7.4% high school graduates (N = 8); 22.2% had some college, vocational, or 2-year college (N = 24); 35.2% Bachelor’s degree (N = 38); 21.3% Master’s degree (N = 23); 3.7% doctoral degree (N = 4); and 4.6% professional degree (law or medical) (N = 5). The age range of respondents was 22 to 75 years. The degree programs of students of the family members who were responding were 63.6% Master’s degree (N = 68) and 35.5% doctoral degree (N = 38), with one person reporting “Other” degree.

FIGS Measure Construction and Review

As part of that grant-funded research, we used Walker et al.’s (2005) operationalization of Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s (1995, 1997) model of parental involvement to develop a new measure of family involvement tailored to the graduate school context. Walker et al.’s operationalized scales have previously been adapted for parents of undergraduate college students (McNulty, 2022) but not families of graduate students. The adaptation of the scales for the graduate educational context was informed by existing higher education literature on non-financial family support and involvement in higher education (Authors, 2023; Burt et al., 2019; Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2019).

After we drafted the initial 83 items for the FIGS measure, two reviewers, one a bio-statistician and one an expert in family involvement, independently reviewed the proposed items and provided electronic feedback. Minor adjustments were made. Next, eight expert reviewers provided feedback on the measure using a standardized procedure. We followed Rockinson-Szapkiw’s (2019) expert reviewer procedure. Specifically, the experts reviewed and rated each item using a 3-point scale with “0 for not relevant, 1 for reasonably but not completely relevant, and 2 for relevant” (Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2019, p. 247). Mean scores were computed and ranged from 0.8 to 2.0. The middle range of frequencies seemed like an appropriate cutoff. Thus, 23 items scoring below a mean of 1.5 were removed, which meant there were 60 rating-scale items. Refer to Table 1 for the number of original items for each scale. Experts also provided open-ended comments to promote clarity of items and to reduce redundancy. No further input was requested from reviewers.

Table 1.

Family Involvement in Graduate School (FIGS) Measure.

Scale	Original items	Items	Coefficient alpha
Part I: Family motivational beliefs, family role construction	22	12	.893
Part II: Family motivational beliefs, family self-efficacy for supporting graduate student success	8	7	.834
Part III: Family perceptions of invitations for involvement	12	10	.870
Part IV: Family perceptions of invitations for involvement, graduate student invitations for involvement	21	16	.919
Part V: Families’ perceived life context: skills and knowledge	11	8	.839
Part VI: Families’ perceived life context: time and energy	9	7	.821
Open-ended questions	2	2	N/A

The participants were sent the email link for the survey by a graduate student. They endorsed an information sheet as a form of informed consent. They filled out the survey online in Summer or Fall of 2021. There were 17 demographic items at the end of the FIGS survey for a total of 77 items on the FIGS. The demographic items addressed areas such as relationship to the graduate student, financial support, education level, work type, annual salary and benefits.

The Family Involvement in Graduate School (FIGS) measure also includes two open-ended items regarding the facilitation and barriers that the existing items across six themed sections may not capture, so there were a maximum of 85 items (refer to Table 1).

One item about COVID (six items in total) were added to each scale. There were 12 items in the Family Motivational Beliefs, Family Role Construction for Involvement (Part I) scale (coefficient alpha = .893). The stem was “I believe it is my responsibility…” An example item was “To support the graduate student’s well-being.” We added one item about COVID-19 (i.e., “My responsibilities to support and encourage the graduate student have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic”). There were seven items in the Family Motivational Beliefs, Family Self-Efficacy for Supporting Graduate Student Success (Part II) scale (coefficient alpha = .834). For instance, “I know how to help the graduate student feel supported in graduate school.” We added one item about COVID-19 to this scale. There were 10 items in the Family Perceptions of Invitations for Involvement (coefficient alpha = .870), General Invitations for Involvement from Others (Part III) scale. For instance, “I was provided with a welcome packet (manual or website).” We also added one item about COVID-19, specifically, “Invitations for involvement from campus have been influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic.” In these three sections, response options ranged from [1] disagree very strongly to [6] agree very strongly. There was also a non-applicable option (Table 2).

Table 2.

Rotated Factor Loadings for Family Involvement in Graduate School (FIGS) Measure.

Item	Factor1	Factor2	Factor3	Factor4	Factor5
Scale 1-1	.315	.089	−.091	−.082	.051
Scale 1-2	.882	.001	−.127	−.004	.083
Scale 1-3	.490	.220	.143	.205	.029
Scale 1-4	.745	.124	.032	.061	−.006
Scale 1-5	.917	.041	−.006	−.040	.010
Scale 1-6	.737	.139	.150	.214	−.036
Scale 1-7	.966	−.053	−.004	−.026	.058
Scale 1-8	.773	.119	.129	−.044	−.119
Scale 1-9	.555	.078	.155	.047	.051
Scale 1-10	.866	.106	.047	−.122	−.115
Scale 1-11	.536	−.132	−.030	.124	.290
Scale 1-12	.657	−.179	−.155	.110	.262
Scale 1-13	.433	−.050	.106	.170	−.306
Scale 2-1	.249	.566	.108	.080	−.090
Scale 2-2	.115	.702	.175	−.040	.036
Scale 2-3	.008	.675	−.033	.028	−.029
Scale 2-4	−.097	.861	−.066	.008	−.032
Scale 2-5	.028	.854	−.076	−.193	.114
Scale 2-6	.019	.669	.167	.079	−.148
Scale 2-7	.090	.736	.158	−.059	−.037
Scale 2-8	.010	−.111	.349	.153	−.321
Scale 3-1	.062	.130	.409	−.006	.108
Scale 3-2	.016	−.052	.827	.110	.084
Scale 3-3	.007	.057	.938	−.049	.005
Scale 3-4	−.142	.093	.689	−.030	.078
Scale 3-5	.099	−.042	.865	−.073	.131
Scale 3-6	.230	−.083	.069	.020	.183
Scale 3-7	.010	−.041	.550	.061	.247
Scale 3-8	.183	−.035	.545	.152	.172
Scale 3-9	−.105	.025	.062	.111	.393
Scale 3-10	−.054	−.026	−.073	.014	.476
Scale 3-11	−.089	−.035	.071	.051	.342
Scale 4-1	−.041	.100	.043	.541	.049
Scale 4-2	−.065	.026	.137	.701	.048
Scale 4-3	−.001	.087	.204	.588	−.203
Scale 4-4	.285	−.028	.001	.638	.011
Scale 4-5	.329	−.102	−.115	.511	−.023
Scale 4-6	.122	−.085	−.239	.532	.169
Scale 4-7	.018	.093	−.145	.607	.112
Scale 4-8	.156	−.062	.027	.659	−.208
Scale 4-9	.129	−.072	.206	.507	−.120
Scale 4-10	.144	−.061	.057	.674	−.052
Scale 4-11	−.163	.299	.129	.568	−.166
Scale 4-12	−.320	−.209	−.099	.571	−.051
Scale 4-13	−.251	−.075	.161	.619	−.209
Scale 4-14	.049	.056	−.143	.721	.017
Scale 4-15	.103	−.156	.158	.329	.388
Scale 4-16	−.011	.156	−.092	.563	.337
Scale 5-1	−.075	.230	−.221	.465	.267
Scale 5-2	.063	.368	−.086	.307	.095
Scale 5-3	−.066	.034	.453	.143	.523
Scale 5-4	−.070	.027	.436	.140	.460
Scale 5-5	−.112	.187	.243	.292	.426
Scale 5-6	−.019	.462	−.173	.279	.325
Scale 5-7	−.014	.340	−.162	.267	.244
Scale 5-8	.229	.451	.072	−.030	−.074
Scale 5-9	−.013	.009	.207	.222	.063
Scale 6-1	.164	.440	−.161	.211	.187
Scale 6-2	.345	.471	−.042	.095	−.028
Scale 6-3	.076	.092	.149	−.132	.871
Scale 6-4	.081	−.034	.163	−.068	.907
Scale 6-5	.240	.454	−.108	.216	.140
Scale 6-6	.257	.531	−.202	.205	.150
Scale 6-7	.411	.287	−.036	.076	−.058
Scale 6-8	.003	−.118	.240	.475	−.053
Scale 6-9	.066	.034	−.237	.125	.110

Note. Scale 1 = family role construction for involvement; Scale 2 = family self-efficacy for supporting graduate student success; Scale 3 = general invitations for involvement from others; Scale 4 = graduate student invitations for involvement; Scale 5 = skills and knowledge; and Scale 6 = time and energy. Names for factors: Factor 1: family role construction for involvement; Factor 2: family self-efficacy for supporting graduate student success; Factor 3: general invitations for involvement from others; Factor 4: graduate student invitations for involvement; and Factor 5: events and resources.

All loadings over .3 bolded.

There were 16 items in the Family Perceptions of Invitations for Involvement, Graduate Student Invitations for Involvement (Part IV) scale (coefficient alpha = 0.919). For example, “The graduate student talked with me about financial support for graduate school.” We added one COVID-19 item, specifically, “The graduate student’s need or desire to talk with me about graduate school has been influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic.” There were eight items in the Families’ Perceived Life Context: Skills and Knowledge (Part V) scale (coefficient alpha = 0.839). For instance, “I know about graduate school requirements” and “I have the skills to help the graduate student be successful in graduate school.” We added one COVID-19 item or “My knowledge and skills about graduate school have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.” There were seven items in the Families’ Perceived Life Context: Time and Energy (Part VI) scale plus one item about COVID-19 (coefficient alpha = .821). Response options ranged from [1] never to [6] almost every day, there was also a non-applicable option. An example of a Part VI item included “Communicate effectively with the graduate student about their academics.” The COVID-19 item was “My time and energy to be involved with the graduate student’s work and life have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Before piloting the measure, the researchers received IRB approval to add a seventh rated section to the survey. The seventh section included one item about COVID-19 or “The COVID-19 pandemic has influenced experiences with the person enrolled in graduate school” with ratings from 1 (Disagree very strongly) to 6 (Agree very strongly) and there was also a non-applicable option. Two open-ended items were added to the FIGS measure: (1) “What factors best facilitate your involvement with supporting your graduate student in graduate school?” and (2) “What barriers prevent you from getting involved with supporting your graduate student in graduate school?” These two open-ended questions were asked to capture more thoughts which were not covered by the original items and to understand more facilitation and barriers to getting involved with supporting graduate students.

The recruitment email, information sheet, and FIGS measure were translated into Spanish by a Hispanic research assistant and back-translated by an Hispanic co-author. Thus, there were two versions of the information sheet and survey in Qualtrics, one in English and one in Spanish.

There were 12 participants in the pilot. For the pilot, every family member who wanted a thank you for completing the survey was electronically sent a $5.00 gift card. No changes were made to the measure based on the pilot.

Threats to Validity

Internal Validity

There were no specific confounds/third variables that were relevant to this study, as it tested the relationships between multiple items to form factors rather than an individual correlational or causal relationship between X and Y variables.

External Validity

This study’s generalizability is limited. It was conducted in the Southwest region of the United States, and thus does not have wide applicability to other geographic regions inside and outside the United States. Most participants were White, which limits its generalizability to other ethnic and cultural groups. Gender of subjects was evenly balanced; thus, the results are generalizable to males and females. It contained a large age range of participants, which increases its generalizability across the adult years.

Conclusion Validity

There were no major threats to conclusion validity, as the relationships between variables in each factor were supported by high coefficient alpha values. These values showed overall inter-item correlations between items in the factors. Because coefficient alpha averaged a large number of inter-item correlations for each factor, it does not seem that relationships between items could be explained by any variables other than their relationships to other items in each factor.

Construct Validity

All items on the FIGS measure did measure the construct of family involvement in graduate school. Items were specifically written following Hoover-Dempsey et al.’s theory as applied to graduate students for each subscale so the theoretical foundation for the measure was established in literature. Unfortunately, there is no established measure of family involvement in graduate school to correlate this measure with in order to establish convergent validity. Future work for criterion validity could determine if family members who score high on specific subscales participate in specific types of involvement in graduate school. Discriminant validity studies could address if this measure does not correlate strongly with other measures of family issues, such as parenting in general during early/middle adulthood.

Exploratory Factor Analysis Results and Measure Refinement

An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal axis factoring was conducted in MPlus (Muthén & Muthén, 2017) to determine the factor structure of the FIGS measure. An oblique rotation (direct oblimin) was used, as several authors recommended always using an oblique rotation for social and biomedical sciences as behaviors are interrelated (Abdi, 2003; Kieffer, 1998; Osborne, 2015). MPlus EFA output yielded fit statistics, inter-factor correlations, and rotated loadings. Loadings of 0.3 or higher were considered to substantially load on a specific factor.

Results suggested a five-factor solution, which is inconsistent with the six-scale format of the FIGS as originally written. A six-factor solution was run in MPlus, and there were not enough loadings on the sixth factor to constitute a sixth scale. Most fit statistics were not applicable to be used with the small sample size in this study. However, the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) could be used with a small sample size. The value of the SRMR for a five-factor model was 0.075, which is below 0.08, the value accepted for being a good model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Pinedaa et al., 2022; Shi et al, 2018). Therefore, the EFA ultimately showed a good model fit for five scales. The five scales or factors were revised as follows.

The first factor kept its original scale 1 name, Family Role Construction for Involvement, because it included all of its original items plus two additional items from the original scale 6. Factor loadings for this scale ranged from 0.315 to 0.966. This scale contains items measuring general support and encouragement provided to the graduate student in such areas as finances (“I believe it is my responsibility to provide financial resources to help the graduate student accomplish academic/professional goals”), use of resources (“I believe it is my responsibility to encourage them to use academic resources on campus”), and family life (“I believe it is my responsibility to support them with family life—e.g., healthy relationships, parenting”). The coefficient alpha for this scale was 0.884.

The second factor also kept its original name, Family Self-Efficacy for Supporting Graduate Student Success, because it mainly focused on family self-efficacy for supporting graduate students. The revised scale maintained seven out of eight items plus three items from scale 5 and four items from scale 6. Its factor loadings ranged from 0.340 to 0.861. This scale contained items addressing helping the graduate student feel supported in graduate school (“I know how to help the graduate student feel supported in graduate school”), their personal life (“I know how to help the graduate student feel supported in their personal/family life”), and work-life balance (“I know how to help the graduate student balance their time between graduate school and personal/family life”). The coefficient alpha for this scale was 0.928.

The third factor also kept its original scale 3 name, General Invitations for Involvement from Others, as it contained eight out of 11 items from the original scale plus two items from scale 5. Factor loadings ranged from 0.349 to 0.938. All items reflect being invited to campus events (“Events that I am invited to on campus are family friendly”) or orientation programs (“I was invited to an orientation program for families”) or receipt of welcome packets (“I was provided with a welcome packet – manual or website”), invitations (“Invitations from campus and departments/programs make it clear that the invitation extends to the family”), or other forms of communication (“I have access to a social media network to learn about graduate student happenings”). The coefficient alpha for this scale was 0.889.

The fourth factor also kept its original name, Graduate Student Invitations for Involvement, as it contained all 16 items from the original scale plus two items from scale 5 and one item from scale 6. Factor loadings ranged from 0.307 to 0.721. The scale contained items regarding the graduate student soliciting the family members’ advice and support for academic success (“The graduate student talked with me about their academic success in graduate school”), the decision to enroll in graduate school (“The graduate student talked with me about their decision to enroll in graduate school”), family responsibilities (“The graduate student talked with me about family-related responsibilities”), financial issues (“The graduate student talked with me about financial support for graduate school”), their advisor (“The graduate student talked with me about their advisor in graduate school”), and other issues. The coefficient alpha for this scale was 0.923. Cross-loadings were permitted for this scale due to the increase in coefficient alpha for this configuration of the scale compared with the original scale.

The fifth factor contained a mixture of items from several scales: three items from scale 3, two items from scale 4, four items from scale 5, and two items from scale 6. Factor loadings ranged from 0.325 to 0.907. These items focused mainly on being invited to (“The graduate student invited me to a campus-related event”) or attending events (“I know about graduate school events off campus that include families”). Therefore, this scale was given the name, Invitations to and Attending Events. The coefficient alpha for this scale was 0.853. Cross-loadings were permitted for this scale due to the increase in coefficient alpha for this configuration of the scale compared with the original scale.

Discussion

The first factor, Family Role Construction for Involvement, underlined family’s sense of responsibility in graduate students’ educational success. The findings from this study align with recent research on family integration as a correlate of successful completion of a doctoral degree program (Rockinson-Szapkiw & Herring Watson, 2020; Rockinson-Szapkiw et al., 2016). Studies by Walsh et al. (2021) and Burt et al. (2019) also revealed family support as one of the most endorsed reasons for persisting in graduate school. The point is well documented that parents and families play an important role in their children’s education and are invested in their higher education (Harper et al., 2012; Kiyama & Harper, 2015; Lowe & Dotterer, 2018).

The second factor, Family Self-Efficacy for Supporting Graduate Student Success, accentuated the family’s ability to help the graduate students feel supported in graduate school, their personal life, and work-life balance. This second factor showed that parents high in self-efficacy tended to make positive decisions about active engagement in their child’s education. Some studies have affirmed that parents’ self-efficacy for supporting their children in higher education is affected by parents’ education level and familiarity with the education system (Attinasi, 1989; McDonough, 1997; Oliva, 2008; Tierney & Auerbach, 2005; Torrez, 2004). For example, some scholars showed that parents of first-generation and historically underrepresented students and their families experienced challenges in accessing the required information and tools to adequately support their children’s education (Fann et al., 2009; Harper et al., 2020; Oliva, 2008; Tornatzky et al., 2002; Torrez, 2004). Nevertheless, they could likely persist in facing challenges or difficulties to achieve successful outcomes.

The third factor, General Invitations for Involvement, highlighted the importance of such methods of welcoming family members as websites, family orientations, and other forms of social media. Previous research has noted how websites, magazines, e-newsletters, and newspapers have served as vehicles to engage parents in higher education (Chapman, 2017; Kiyama & Harper, 2015). Kiyama and Harper (2015) also noted that many programs included other types of social media, such as Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, and Pinterest. A 2019 survey of higher education programs reported that fewer colleges and universities surveyed relied on email newsletters, while more universities relied on parent/family websites and Facebook pages (Petree & Savage, 2019).

Jacobs and With (2002) explained that parents viewed orientation programs as partnership-like activities with the university where they gained useful information regarding the school. Orientation programs serve to establish communication with parents and families, educate them regarding campus resources, and provide information concerning campus contacts and policies such as FERPA (Kiyama & Harper, 2015). A focus on family rather than parent engagement is warranted in the field of family involvement in higher education regarding specifically family orientations. As for students from families that are low-income or families of color, parents may not be the most important family member involved in higher education for the student (Kiyama & Harper, 2015).

The fourth factor, Graduate Student Invitations for Involvement, illustrated how graduate students spoke with family members regarding significant life issues, such as family responsibilities, finances, and their decision to enroll in graduate school. Kolkhorst et al. (2010) described family members’ involvement in higher education on a personal level through phone and email to give advice, emotional support, and financial assistance. Parents’ support in higher education enabled students to make positive decisions confidently, set goals, and make plans (Cullaty, 2011). Parental support in higher education was also associated with developmental, academic, and socioemotional outcomes in higher education (Kiyama & Harper, 2015). The fifth factor, Invitations to and Attending Events, focused on general invitations to events at the graduate student’s school and attendance at those events as supporting family involvement. Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1997) noted that parent involvement is related to invitations for involvement. Attendance at events such as parent weekends in addition to the orientations mentioned earlier can facilitate greater involvement with students and the school (Chapman, 2017; Kiyama & Harper, 2015). A 2019 survey noted that parent/family weekends and orientations were the most successful services to engage families in higher education because they provided important information, reached the highest number of parents, and encouraged parent engagement (Petree & Savage, 2019). Other potential events included little sibling weekends, regional send-off events, welcome week activities, educational workshops, and parent social events (Kiyama & Harper, 2015). Outcomes for all these types of events should include helping families establish relationships with the institution, providing resources including academic resources that benefit students, and aiding parents in building relationships with each other such that a support network is built (Kiyama & Harper, 2015).

Implications for Practice

The concept of non-financial family support for graduate students has shown the importance and impact it can have on recruitment and most importantly retention (Sowell et al., 2015). This is the idea that family can provide support by other means aside from financial, which often relates to emotional support amongst others. For graduate students from historically underrepresented backgrounds and first-generation college students, family plays an integral part in students deciding to pursue higher education and ultimately to succeed. We use the term “family” broadly here to include whoever the graduate student considers to be family, which can extend past immediate biological or adoptive kinship to include distant cousins, friends, and fictive kin or chosen family. Higher education institutions have and continue to incorporate family involvement at the beginning of their students’ introduction to campus with family attending orientations and campus tours.

These initiatives should extend to not only undergraduate students, but also graduate students by including more family friendly policies and events. Examples of these practices include implementing family sessions at graduate student orientations in which family members learn more about graduate education’s purpose and what will be expected of their student. In addition, providing resources and tools addressing how the family members can support their students, including providing means of communications between student and family. Examples of communication can be providing graduate students’ family members with tablets that can interact with their student from a distance as some may not have access to technology to do so based on socioeconomic status. Administrators can discuss how family members can have conversations with their students about their studies and how they can motivate them to complete their education. Overall, the more family members feel included in their students’ education by the institution, the more likely they are to engage with them.

Family involvement with campus and their students’ education should not end as soon as orientation initiatives do their first semester, but continue throughout the student’s educational journey. The campus and its various departments can continue to connect with family members of their graduate students by hosting family friendly events in which children are welcome or daycare is provided. These can be in the form of socials, game nights, movie nights, and sporting events. One thing institutions should keep in mind is that families are not all the same and can range from distant relatives, close relatives, friends, peers, and mentors to serve as a student’s family. Furthermore, allowing family members the opportunity to participate in milestone achievements of their graduate students, such as attending their comprehensive exam, thesis or dissertation defense, can also foster greater sense of belonging and involvement. An institution can pilot family involvement by looking to other institutions and what practices are currently in place and even examine what is done at the undergraduate level that could be replicated with their graduate students. These are just a few examples of initiatives that can be created to involve family members into campus dynamics and their graduate student’s education.

Limitations and Future Directions

Several limitations exist in the current research. First, EFA was used to determine the factor structure of the FIGS measures, but the validation of how well the measured items represent the factors should be evaluated. Future studies will recruit more participants in the same population, and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) will be conducted to verify the factor structure. Second, the sample was primarily collected from White participants (73.1%). Future research will examine the measures on more diverse samples and assess if there are any measurement differences across subsamples. Third, the theoretical model was built only based on previous research, and quantitative measures were used to identify the factor structures. Qualitative interviews with dyads (graduate student participants and family members) should be considered in future studies to explore other potential elements associated with involvement in graduate education and to provide more nuanced understandings of these factors. Future research could explore improved means of communication between the graduate student and the family, such as the tablets suggested above. Research could also explore the application of undergraduate models of family involvement to graduate programs. Research could further explore the differences between different family members’ roles in graduate education. Lastly, since family involvement in graduate education is evolving, it is important to note that examples given may not work for all institutions and it is best to survey the graduate student population to meet the needs of their students.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was funded by the National Science Foundation-Innovations in Graduate Education (NSF-IGE), Award No. 1856189.

Ethical Approval

This project was approved by the University of Nevada-Reno IRB 1584067-4.

ORCID iD

Laura Nathans

Data Availability Statement

The data for this study cannot be shared as it is confidential.

References

Abdi

(2003). Factor rotations in factor analyses. In Lewis-Beck

Bryman

Futing

(Eds.), Encyclopedia for research methods for the social sciences (pp. 792–795). Sage.

Alexander

Q. R.

Bodenhorn

(2015). My rock: Black women attending graduate school at a Southern predominantly White University. Journal of College Counseling, 18(3), 259–274. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocc.12019

Ali

Kohun

(2006). Dealing with isolation feelings in IS doctoral programs. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 1, 21–33. http://www.ijds.org/Volume1/IJDSv1p021-033Ali13.pdf

Aljohani

(2016). A comprehensive review of the major studies and theoretical models of student retention in higher education. Higher Education Studies, 6(2), 1. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v6n2p1

Ardoin

Erb

(2022). First-generation graduate students: Reducing barriers with support mechanisms. In Nguyen

D. J.

Yao

(Eds.), A handbook for supporting today’s graduate students. Stylus Publishing.

Attinasi

L. C.

(1989). Getting in: Mexican Americans’ perceptions of university attendance and the implications for freshman year persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 60, 247–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1989.11775035

Auerbach

(2002). “Why do they give the good classes to some and not to others?” Latino parent narratives of struggle in a college access program. Teachers College Record, 104, 1369–1392. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9620.00207

Auerbach

(2004). Engaging Latino parents in supporting college pathways: Lessons from a college access program. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 3, 125–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192703262514

Authors (2021).

10.

Authors (2023).

11.

Bain

Fedynich

Knight

(2011). The successful graduate student: A review of the factors for success. Journal of Academic and Business Ethics, 3, 1–9. https://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/10569.pdf

12.

Baldwin

Miles

L. R.

Boyd

W. D.

Bruner

D. L.

Foote

S. M.

Gutierrez

(2021). An annotated bibliography on first-generation college students: Research from 2008–2019. Center for First-Generation Student Success. https://firstgen.naspa.org/files/dmfile/NASPA_AnnotatedBibliography_landscape_Final_11.pdf

13.

Breitenbach

E. K.

Bernstein

Ayars

Konecny

(2019). The influence of family on doctoral student success. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 14, 761–782. https://doi.org/10.28945/4450

14.

Burke

(2019). Student retention models in higher education: A literature review. College and University, 94(2), 12–21.

15.

Burke

T. J.

Segrin

Farris

K. L.

(2018). Young adult and parent perceptions of facilitation: Associations with overparenting, family functioning, and student adjustment. Journal of Family Communication, 18, 233–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2018.1467913

16.

Burt

B. A.

Williams

K. L.

Palmer

G. J.

(2019). It takes a village: The role of emic and etic adaptive strengths in the persistence of Black men in engineering graduate programs. American Educational Research Journal, 56(1), 39–74. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218789595

17.

Calhoun

(2021). Parental involvement as a moderator for students with learning disabilities aspiring to attend college (Order No. 28771052). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2641840812). https://unr.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/parental-involvement-as-moderator-students-with/docview/2641840812/se-2

18.

Capannola

A. L.

Johnson

E. I.

(2022). On being the first: The role of family in the experiences of first-generation college students. Journal of Adolescent Research, 37, 29–58.

19.

Castelló

Pardo

Sala-Bubaré

Suñe-Soler

(2017). Why do students consider dropping out of doctoral degrees? Institutional and personal factors. Higher Education, 74(6), 1053–1068. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0106-9

20.

Ceja

(2004). Chicana college aspirations and the role of parents: Developing educational resiliency. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 3, 338–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192704268428

21.

Chapleau

R. R.

(2000). College is a family experience: A product development case study analysis of a college access workshop for parents of pre-high school students [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of California.

22.

Chapman

(2017). Using blogging to engage college parents and families–and how that can impact your institution’s bottom line, college and university (ERIC – EJ1137950). Education Resources Information Center. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1137950

23.

Cohen

S. M.

(2011). Doctoral persistence and doctoral program completion among nurses. Nursing Forum, 46, 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6198.2011.00212.x

24.

Council of Graduate Schools. (2021). Ph.D. completion project. https://cgsnet.org/data-insights/diversity-equity-inclusiveness/degree-completion/ph-d-completion-project/

25.

Cullaty

(2011). The role of parental involvement in the autonomy development of traditional-age college students. Journal of College Student Development, 52(4), 425–439. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2011.0048

26.

Di Pierro

(2012). Strategies for doctoral student retention: Taking the roads less traveled. Journal for Quality and Participation, 35(3), 29–32.

27.

Dorn

S. M.

Papalewise

(1997). Improving doctoral student retention [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED406894.pdf

28.

Fann

McClafferty Jarsky

McDonough

P. M.

(2009). Parent involvement in the college planning process: A case study of P-20 collaboration. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 8(4), 374–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192709347847

29.

Flanigan

A. E.

Kiewra

K. A.

Luo

(2018). Conversations with four highly productive German educational psychologists: Frank Fischer, Hans Gruber, Heinz Mandl, and Alexander Renkl. Educational Psychology Review, 30(1), 303–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9392-0

30.

Gardner

S. K.

(2009). Conceptualizing success in doctoral education: Perspectives of faculty in seven disciplines. Review of Higher Education, 32(3), 383–406. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.0.0075

31.

Green

C. L.

Walker

J. M. X.

Hoover-Dempsey

K. V.

Sandier

H. M.

(2007). Parents’ motivations for involvement in children’s education: An empirical test of a theoretical model of parental involvement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 532–544. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.532

32.

Greenwood

G. E.

Hickman

C. W.

(1991). Research and practice in parent involvement: Implications for teacher education. Elementary School Education, 91, 279–288. https://doi.org/10.1086/461655

33.

Gururaj

Heilig

J. V.

Somers

(2010). Graduate student persistence: Evidence from three decades. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 40(1), 31–46. https://doi.org/10.55504/0884-9153.1030

34.

Hamrick

F. A. F. A.

Stage

F. K.

(2004). College predisposition at high-minority enrollment, low-income schools. Review of Higher Education, 27(2), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2003.0058

35.

Harper

C. E.

Sax

L. J.

Wolf

D. S.

(2012). The role of parents in college students’ sociopolitical awareness, academic, and social development. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 49(2), 137–156. https://doi.org/10.1515/jsarp-2012-6147

36.

Harper

C. E.

Zhu

Kiyama

J. M.

(2020). Parents and families of first-generation college students experience their own college transition. Journal of Higher Education, 91(4), 540–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2019.1647583

37.

Hiester

Nordstrom

Swenson

(2009). Stability and change in parental attachment and adjustment outcomes during the first semester transition to college life. Journal of College Student Development, 50(5), 521–538. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0089

38.

Hirudayaraj

McLean

G. N.

(2018). First-generation college graduates. European Journal of Training and Development, 42(1), 91–109. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-06-2017-0055

39.

Hockey

(1994). New territory: Problems of adjusting to the first year of a social science PhD. Studies in Higher Education (Dorchester-on-Thames), 19(2), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079412331382027

40.

Holcomb-McCoy

(2010). Involving low-income parents and parents of color in college readiness activities: An exploratory study. Professional School Counseling, 14, 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X1001400111

41.

Hoover-Dempsey

K. V.

Sandler

H. M.

(1995). Parent involvement in children’s education: Why does it make a difference? Teachers College Record, 97, 310–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/01614681950970

42.

Hoover-Dempsey

K. V.

Sandler

H. M.

(1997). Why do parents become involved in their children’s education? Teachers College Record, 95, 310–331. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543067001003

43.

Hoover-Dempsey

K. V.

Walker

J. M.

Sandler

H. M.

Whetsel

Green

C. L.

Wilkins

A. S.

Closson

(2005). Why do parents become involved? Research findings and implications. Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 105–130. https://doi.org/10.1086/499194

44.

Hossler

Braxton

Coopersmith

(1989). Understanding student college choice. In Smart

(Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 4, pp. 231–288). Agathon.

45.

Hossler

Schmidt

Vesper

(1998). Going to college: How social, economic, and educational factors influence the decisions students make. John Hopkins University Press.

46.

House

(1981). Work stress and social support. Addison-Wesley Educational.

47.

House

Landis

K. R.

Umberson

(1988). Social relationships and health. Science, 241(4865), 540–545. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3399889

48.

Howard

A. L.

Alexander

S. M.

Dunn

L. C.

(2020). Helicopter parenting is unrelated to student success and well-being: A latent profile analysis of perceived parenting and academic motivation during the transition to university. Emerging Adulthood, 10(1), 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696820901626

49.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.

50.

Ice

C. L.

Hoover-Dempsey

K. V.

(2011). Linking parental motivations for involvement and student proximal achievement outcomes in homeschooling and public schooling settings. Education and Urban Society, 43(3), 339–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124510380418.

51.

Jairam

Kahl

Jr. (2012). Navigating the doctoral experience: The role of social support in successful degree completion. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 7, 311–329. https://doi.org/10.28945/1700

52.

Jeynes

(2007). The relationship between parental involvement and urban secondary school student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Urban Education, 42(1), 82–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085906293818

53.

Kieffer

K. M.

(1998). Orthogonal versus oblique factor rotation: A review of the literature regarding the pros and cons. ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED427031

54.

Kiewra

K. A.

Luo

Flanigan

A. E.

(2021). Educational psychology early career award winners: How did they do it? Educational Psychology Review, 33(4), 1981–2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09619-4

55.

Kiyama

J. M.

Harper

C. E.

(2015). Parent and family engagement in higher education. Jossey-Bass.

56.

Kolkhorst

B. B.

Yazedjian

Toews

M. L.

(2010). Students’ perceptions of parental support during the college years. College Student Affairs Journal, 29, 47–63.

57.

Lavenda

(2011). Parental involvement in school: A test of Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s model among Jewish and Arab parents in Israel. Children and Youth Services Review, 33, 927–935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.12.016

58.

Liu

Wang

Jia

Shang

Shao

Zhu

Yan

Chang

Zhao

(2019). Prevalence and associated factors of depression and anxiety among doctoral students: The mediating effect of mentoring relationships on the association between research self-efficacy and depression/anxiety. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 12, 195–208. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S195131

59.

Lovitts

B. E.

(2002). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of departure from doctoral study. Rowman & Littlefield. https://doi.org/10.1086/378426

60.

Lowe

Dotterer

A. M.

(2018). Parental involvement during the college transition: A review and suggestion for its conceptual definition. Adolescent Research Review, 3(1), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-017-0058-z

61.

Martinez

Ordu

Della Sala

McFarlane

(2013). Striving to obtain a school work-life balance: The full-time doctoral student. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 8, 39–59. https://doi.org/10.28945/1765

62.

McDonough

P. M.

(1997). Choosing colleges: How social class and schools structure opportunity. State University of New York Press.

63.

McDonough

P. M.

(1999, April). Doing whatever it takes: Conflict-Based college admissions in the post-affirmative action era [Conference session]. Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

64.

McNulty

M. R.

(2022). Development and initial validation of the parent and family engagement in higher education measure (Order No. 29064987). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2666364544). https://unr.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/development-initial-validation-parent-family/docview/2666364544/se-2

65.

Mitchall

A. M.

Jaeger

A. J.

(2018). Parental influences on low-income, first-generation students’ motivation on the path to college. Journal of Higher Education, 89(4), 582–609. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2018.1437664.

66.

Muthen

L. K.

Muthen

B. O.

(2017). MPlus: Statistical analysis with latent variables: User’s guide (version 8). Los Angeles, CA: Authors.

67.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2021). Postsecondary certificates and degrees conferred. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cts.asp

68.

Nettles

M. T.

Millett

C. M.

(2006). Three magic letters: Getting to PhD. John Hopkins University Press.

69.

Nguyen

D. J.

Yao

C. W.

Austin

A. E.

(2022). A handbook for supporting today’s graduate students. Stylus Publishing.

70.

Nuñez

A. M.

Kim

(2012). Building a multicontextual model of Latino college enrollment: Student, school, and state-level effects. Review of Higher Education, 35(2), 237–263. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2012.0004

71.

Ochoa

E. V. E.

(2021). Patterns of parental involvement and influences on elementary school student STEM efficacy and interests (Order No. 28719825). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (2592343307). https://unr.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/patterns-parental-involvement-influences-on/docview/2592343307/se-2.

72.

O’Donnell

Kirkner

S. L.

(2014). The impact of a collaborative family involvement program on Latino families and children’s educational performance. School Community Journal, 24(1), 211–234. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1032271.pdf

73.

Oliva

(2008). Latino access to college: Actualizing the promise and potential of P-20 partnerships. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 7, 119–130, https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192707313943

74.

Osborne

J. W.

(2015). What is rotating in exploratory factor analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 20(2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.7275/hb2g-m060

75.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Son

Nelson

L. J.

(2019). Profiles of helicopter parenting, parental warmth, and psychological control during emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 35, 1177–1190. http://hdl.lib.byu.edu/1877/8233

76.

Patias

N. D.

Von Hohendorff

Cozzer

A. J.

Flores

P. A.

Scorsolini-Comin

(2021). Mental health and coping strategies in undergraduate and graduate students during COVID-19 pandemic. Trends in Psychology, 29, 414–433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43076-021-00069-z

77.

Pérez

L. X.

(1999). In search of the road to an open college door: The interface of individual, structural, and cultural constructs in Latino parents’ efforts to support their children in planning for college [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of California.

78.

Perna

L. W.

Titus

M. A.

(2005). The relationship between parental involvement as social capital and college enrollment: An examination of racial/ethnic group differences. Journal of Higher Education, 76(5), 485–518. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3838837

79.

Petree

Savage

(2019). 2019 survey of college and university parent/family programs. https://aheppp.memberclicks.net/assets/ParentProgram-Research/2019%20National%20PFP%20Survey%20Report.pdf

80.

Pew Hispanic Center/Kaiser Family Foundation. (2004). National survey of Latinos: Education. Author. Retrieved August 31, 2009, from http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/25pdf

81.

Pigg

S. T. D.

(2003). Spousal support of students attending graduate school (Publication No. 305292126) [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Southern Mississippi]. ProQuest One Academic. https://unr.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/spousal-support-students-attending-graduate/docview/305292126/se-2

82.

Pinedaa

A. J. M.

Mohamadc

A. N.

Solomon

Bircob

C. N. H.

Superioe

M. G.

Cuencof

H. O.

Bognot

F. L.

(2022). Exploring the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) of factors influencing e-book usage among CCA students in the Philippines. Indonesian Journal of Contemporary Education, 4(2), 53–70. https://doi.org/10.33122/ijoce.v4i2.30

83.

Quinn

D. E.

Cornelius-White

MacGregor

Uribe-Zarain

(2019). The success of first-generation college students in a TRIO student support services program: Application of the theory of margin. Critical Questions in Education, 10(1), 44–64. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1203418.pdf

84.

Robinson-Pant

(2009). Changing academies: Exploring international Ph.D. students’ perspectives on “host” and “home” universities. Higher Education Research and Development, 28, 417–429.

85.

Rockinson-Szapkiw

A. J.

(2019). Toward understanding factors salient to doctoral students’ persistence: The development and preliminary validation of the Academic-Family Integration Inventory. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 14, 237–258. https://doi.org/10.28945/4248

86.

Rockinson-Szapkiw

A. J.

Herring Watson

(2020). Academic-family integration: How do men and women in distance education and residential doctoral programs integrate their degree and family? Online Learning, 24(4), 2318. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i4.2318

87.

Rockinson-Szapkiw

A. J.

Spaulding

L. S.

Spaulding

M. T.

(2016). Integration and institutional factors that predict online, doctoral persistence. Internet and Higher Education, 31, 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.07.003

88.

Sáenz

V. B.

García-Louis

de las Mercédez

Rodriguez

S. L.

(2018). Mujeres supporting: How female family members influence the educational success of Latino males in postsecondary education. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 19(2), 169–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192718787291

89.

Shi

Maydeu-Olivares

DiStefano

(2018). The relationship between the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual and model misspecification in factor analysis models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 53(5), 676–694. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2018.1476221

90.

Smith

R. L.

Maroney

Nelson

K. W.

Abel

A. L.

Abel

H. S.

(2006). Doctoral programs: Changing high rates of attrition. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development, 45(1), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1939.2006.tb00002.x

91.

Sowell

R. S.

Allum

Okahana

(2015). Doctoral initiative on minority attrition and completion. Council of Graduate Schools.

92.

Stage

Hossler

(1989). Differences in family influences on college attendance plans for male and female ninth graders. Research in Higher Education, 30, 301–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992606

93.

Sternberg

(1981). How to complete and survive a doctoral dissertation. St. Martin’s Press.

94.

Sverdlik

Hall

N. C.

McAlpine

Hubbard

(2018). The PhD experience: A review of the factors influencing doctoral students’ completion, achievement, and well-being. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 13, 361–388. https://doi.org/10.28945/4113

95.

Tate

K. A.

Fouad

N. A.

Marks

L. R.

Young

Guzman

Williams

E. G.

(2015). Underrepresented first-generation, low-income college students’ pursuit of a graduate education: Investigating the influence of self-efficacy, coping efficacy, and family influence. Journal of Career Assessment, 23(3), 427–441. https://doi.org/ezproxy.lib.utah.edu/10.1177/1069072714547498

96.

Tierney

W. G.

Auerbach

(2005). Toward developing an untapped resource: The role of families in college preparation. In Tierney

W. G.

Corwin

Z. B.

Colyar

J. E.

(Eds.), Preparing for college: Nine elements of effective outreach (pp. 29–48). SUNY Press.

97.

Tornatzky

L. G.

Cutler

Lee

(2002). What Latino parents need to know and why they don’t know it. Tomás Rivera Policy Institute.

98.

Torrez

(2004). Developing parent information frameworks that support college preparation for Latino students. High School Journal, 87, 54–59. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40364296

99.

Volkert

Candela

Bernacki

(2018). Student motivation, stressors, and intent to leave nursing doctoral study: A national study using path analysis. Nurse Education Today, 61, 210–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2017.11.033

100.

Walker

J. M.

Ice

C. L.

Hoover-Dempsey

K. V.

Sandler

H. M.

(2011). Latino parents’ motivations for involvement in their children’s schooling: An exploratory study. Elementary School Journal, 111(3), 409–429. https://doi.org/10.1086/657653.

101.

Walker

J. M.

Wilkins

A. S.

Dallaire

J. R.

Sandler

H. M.

Hoover-Dempsey

K. V.

(2005). Parental involvement: Model revision through scale development. Elementary School Journal, 106, 85–104. https://doi.org/10.1086/499193

102.

Walsh

B. A.

Woodliff

T. A.

Lucero

Harvey

Burnham

M. M.

Bowser

T. L.

Aguirre

Zeh

D. W.

(2021). Historically underrepresented graduate students’ experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. Family Relations, 70(4), 955–972. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12574

103.

Ward-Roof

J. A.

(2005). Parents orientation: Begin with the end in mind. In Keppler

In Mullendore

R. H.

Carey

(Eds.). Partnering with the parents of today’s college students (pp. 29–33). NASPA Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education.

104.

Ward-Roof

J. A.

Heaton

P. M.

Coburn

M. B.

(2008). Capitalizing on parent and family partnerships through programming. New Directions for Student Services, 2008(122), 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.274

105.

Whitaker

M. C.

(2019). The Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler model of the parent involvement process. In Whitaker

M. C.

(Ed.), The Wiley handbook of family, school, and community relationships in education (pp. 419–443). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119083054.ch20.

106.

C. L.

Bai

(2015). From early aspirations to actual attainment: The effects of economic status and educational expectations on university pursuit. Higher Education, 69(3), 331–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9778-1

107.

Yamauchi

L. A.

Ponte

Ratliffe

K. T.

Traynor

(2017). Theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in research on family–school partnerships. School Community Journal, 27(29), 9–34. http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx

108.

Yosso

T. Y.

(2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8, 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006

109.

Zhou

(2022). Graduate enrollment and degrees: 2011 to 2021. Council of Graduate Schools. https://cgsnet.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/CGS_GED21_Report_v1-1.pdf

Development and Validation of the Family Involvement in Graduate School (FIGS) Measure

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review

Family Involvement in Higher Education

Family Involvement in Family of Orientation and Family of Procreation

Family Involvement in First-Generation and Historically Underrepresented Students’ Education

Doctoral Degree Completion

Family Involvement in Graduate Student Retention

Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s Parent Involvement Model

Method

Study Design

Sample

FIGS Measure Construction and Review

Threats to Validity

Internal Validity

External Validity

Conclusion Validity

Construct Validity

Exploratory Factor Analysis Results and Measure Refinement

Discussion

Implications for Practice

Limitations and Future Directions

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Ethical Approval

ORCID iD

Data Availability Statement

References