*5.2.1.4 Importance of reading*

The utility value children attached to being a good reader was measured on a four-point Likert-type scale with a single item ("To be a good reader is important"), also based on an earlier version of the scales published in [65].

#### *5.2.1.5 Self-reported effort*

Three times during the intervention, children reported in a short questionnaire at school on a four-point Likert-type scale the effort which they had put into the last training session (self-constructed item: "I made an effort to participate actively during the training session"). Of the three reported measures, a mean value was built.

#### *5.2.2 Parent characteristics*

### *5.2.2.1 Socio-economic background of parents*

Before the training started, parents reported in a questionnaire the professional occupation of the child's mother and father. Each parent was attributed an index according to a standardized classification of occupations (International Socio-Economic Index, cf., [66]). For analyses, the highest index between the parents was used (HISEI).

### *5.2.2.2 Number of books at home*

In addition to the socio-economic background, parents also provided an estimation of the quantity of books in their home, which allows getting an idea of the cultural capital of the family. In response to the question "How many books do you approximately have at home?", parents could choose among the following four categories: 1 = 0–10, 2 = 11–50, 3 = 51–100, and 4 = more than 100 books (cf., [67]).

#### *5.2.2.3 Parents' expectations*

This measure refers to expectations regarding the child's general reading proficiency and expectations regarding the training success. The first one was assessed by an item adapted from Helmke and colleagues' parent questionnaire [68] ("What expectations do you have toward your child's reading proficiency?") with five possible answers ranging from 1 = "It is sufficient if my child gets by in reading" to 5 = "He/she should be a top reader." Expectations regarding the training success were measured by a self-constructed item ("This PR program helps to improve reading" (four-point Likert scale).

#### *5.2.3 Implementation factors*

#### *5.2.3.1 Training intensity*

The parent tutors provided the total number of training sessions by means of a record book (each training session was noted). About 83.6% of the pairs (children with parent tutors) met the basic requirement of having conducted at least 40 training sessions. Pairs who did not meet this requirement were excluded from the analyses.

**41**

*Benefits and Constraints of Parent Involvement in Children's Reading Promotion: General…*

To measure implementation fidelity, observational process data were used (video tapes). A video of one training session of almost each pair was available (parent tutor condition: *n* = 54 of 67 pairs in total, in the reduced sample for group comparison: *n* = 28 of 37 pairs). Aspects of treatment fidelity were coded by means of low and high inference category systems. Two independent and reliable coders were involved (intercoder agreement: >85.0%; generalizability coefficient: >0.92) [69]. The aspects reported here are core elements of the PR method: guided oral reading (proportional amount of reading together simultaneously), error selfcorrection (proportional amount of error correction with possibility for the child to correct himself/herself), synchronicity speed (high inference coding ranging from 1 = very low synchronicity to 4 = very high synchronicity in reading), and positive feedback (dummy-coded, 0 = no positive feedback at all during training, 1 = parent

In a first step, intercorrelations were calculated to investigate the associations between gains in reading fluency (pretest to posttest) and child and parent characteristics. For this analysis, the sample of children who had trained with parent tutors and conducted at least 40 training sessions was used (*n* = 56). The variables that correlated with *gains in reading* were *reading frequency* (*r* = 0.35, *p* = 0.012), *importance of reading* (*r* = 0.32, *p* = 0.016), and *child's effort* (*r* = 0.35, *p* = 0.009). Other statistically significant correlations were found between the *importance of reading* and *reading frequency* (*r* = 0.46, *p* = 0.001), *importance of reading* and *reading motivation* (*r* = 0.45, *p* = 0.000458), *number of training sessions* and *reading frequency* (*r* = .34, *p* = 0.015), and finally *parents' occupational status* and *number of books at home* (*r* = 0.42, *p* = 0.001). *Parental expectations toward the child's reading* are significantly, but negatively associated with the *amount of guided oral reading* (r = −0.36, *p* = 0.019), the *expectations toward training success*, and the *number of training sessions*

**6.2 Comparative analyses between children with little and big gain in reading** 

with children who showed very little gain (*n* = 20) and very big gain in reading fluency (*n* = 17) (see **Table 3**). The two groups were compared in regard of several characteristics and factors relevant for training success (see Section 3 of this chapter). For this purpose, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney *U* test was applied,

The results presented in **Table 3** show that children with high training success read considerably more during spare time and attached more importance to being a good reader than their counterparts who did not benefit a lot from the training. Furthermore, they reported clearly higher values for the effort they made during the training sessions. The three comparisons represent medium to strong effect sizes. The groups did not differ in the initial reading level or in reading motivation (achievement-oriented). As for the parent characteristics, the two groups differed considerably in the number of books at home. However, no explicit differences were

usually used for variables that are not normally distributed.

In order to address the research questions, comparative analyses were conducted

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93136*

gives one or several times positive feedback).

correlated positively (*r* = 0.30, *p* = 0.027).

**6. Results**

**fluency**

**6.1 Intercorrelations**

*5.2.3.2 Implementation fidelity*

*Benefits and Constraints of Parent Involvement in Children's Reading Promotion: General… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93136*

#### *5.2.3.2 Implementation fidelity*

*Parenting - Studies by an Ecocultural and Transactional Perspective*

also based on an earlier version of the scales published in [65].

The utility value children attached to being a good reader was measured on a four-point Likert-type scale with a single item ("To be a good reader is important"),

Three times during the intervention, children reported in a short questionnaire at school on a four-point Likert-type scale the effort which they had put into the last training session (self-constructed item: "I made an effort to participate actively during the training session"). Of the three reported measures, a mean value was

Before the training started, parents reported in a questionnaire the professional occupation of the child's mother and father. Each parent was attributed an index according to a standardized classification of occupations (International Socio-Economic Index, cf., [66]). For analyses, the highest index between the parents was

In addition to the socio-economic background, parents also provided an estimation of the quantity of books in their home, which allows getting an idea of the cultural capital of the family. In response to the question "How many books do you approximately have at home?", parents could choose among the following four categories: 1 = 0–10, 2 = 11–50, 3 = 51–100, and 4 = more than 100 books

This measure refers to expectations regarding the child's general reading proficiency and expectations regarding the training success. The first one was assessed by an item adapted from Helmke and colleagues' parent questionnaire [68] ("What expectations do you have toward your child's reading proficiency?") with five possible answers ranging from 1 = "It is sufficient if my child gets by in reading" to 5 = "He/she should be a top reader." Expectations regarding the training success were measured by a self-constructed item ("This PR program helps to improve reading"

The parent tutors provided the total number of training sessions by means of a record book (each training session was noted). About 83.6% of the pairs (children with parent tutors) met the basic requirement of having conducted at least 40 training sessions. Pairs who did not meet this requirement were excluded from the

*5.2.1.4 Importance of reading*

*5.2.1.5 Self-reported effort*

*5.2.2 Parent characteristics*

*5.2.2.2 Number of books at home*

*5.2.2.3 Parents' expectations*

(four-point Likert scale).

*5.2.3 Implementation factors*

*5.2.3.1 Training intensity*

*5.2.2.1 Socio-economic background of parents*

built.

used (HISEI).

(cf., [67]).

**40**

analyses.

To measure implementation fidelity, observational process data were used (video tapes). A video of one training session of almost each pair was available (parent tutor condition: *n* = 54 of 67 pairs in total, in the reduced sample for group comparison: *n* = 28 of 37 pairs). Aspects of treatment fidelity were coded by means of low and high inference category systems. Two independent and reliable coders were involved (intercoder agreement: >85.0%; generalizability coefficient: >0.92) [69]. The aspects reported here are core elements of the PR method: guided oral reading (proportional amount of reading together simultaneously), error selfcorrection (proportional amount of error correction with possibility for the child to correct himself/herself), synchronicity speed (high inference coding ranging from 1 = very low synchronicity to 4 = very high synchronicity in reading), and positive feedback (dummy-coded, 0 = no positive feedback at all during training, 1 = parent gives one or several times positive feedback).

## **6. Results**

#### **6.1 Intercorrelations**

In a first step, intercorrelations were calculated to investigate the associations between gains in reading fluency (pretest to posttest) and child and parent characteristics. For this analysis, the sample of children who had trained with parent tutors and conducted at least 40 training sessions was used (*n* = 56). The variables that correlated with *gains in reading* were *reading frequency* (*r* = 0.35, *p* = 0.012), *importance of reading* (*r* = 0.32, *p* = 0.016), and *child's effort* (*r* = 0.35, *p* = 0.009). Other statistically significant correlations were found between the *importance of reading* and *reading frequency* (*r* = 0.46, *p* = 0.001), *importance of reading* and *reading motivation* (*r* = 0.45, *p* = 0.000458), *number of training sessions* and *reading frequency* (*r* = .34, *p* = 0.015), and finally *parents' occupational status* and *number of books at home* (*r* = 0.42, *p* = 0.001). *Parental expectations toward the child's reading* are significantly, but negatively associated with the *amount of guided oral reading* (r = −0.36, *p* = 0.019), the *expectations toward training success*, and the *number of training sessions* correlated positively (*r* = 0.30, *p* = 0.027).

#### **6.2 Comparative analyses between children with little and big gain in reading fluency**

In order to address the research questions, comparative analyses were conducted with children who showed very little gain (*n* = 20) and very big gain in reading fluency (*n* = 17) (see **Table 3**). The two groups were compared in regard of several characteristics and factors relevant for training success (see Section 3 of this chapter). For this purpose, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney *U* test was applied, usually used for variables that are not normally distributed.

The results presented in **Table 3** show that children with high training success read considerably more during spare time and attached more importance to being a good reader than their counterparts who did not benefit a lot from the training. Furthermore, they reported clearly higher values for the effort they made during the training sessions. The three comparisons represent medium to strong effect sizes. The groups did not differ in the initial reading level or in reading motivation (achievement-oriented). As for the parent characteristics, the two groups differed considerably in the number of books at home. However, no explicit differences were


#### **Table 3.**

*Between-group analyses: children with little and big gain in reading fluency (RF).*

found between parents' expectations toward the child's reading skills or success. Also, parents of the two groups did not differ in their occupational status. When it comes to implementation factors, no difference was found between the groups. Thus, none of the investigated aspects of implementation gives explanation for training success.

The conducted analyses are explorative; therefore, no correction for multiple testing was used. Even the difference found for self-reported effort would have, scarcely though, missed the required significance level of *p* < .004. However, in explorative procedures, correction for multiple testing is not systematically requested, but it must be considered that statistical significance could be at random.

Subsequently, we tested whether the variables which showed significant differences would moderate training outcome. For this purpose, we run regression analyses with the total sample (intervention *n* = 56, control *n* = 67) predicting reading fluency at posttest and controlled for initial reading fluency, cognitive abilities, vocabulary, and parents' occupational status (HISEI). Children of the intervention group (training with parent tutors) were compared to the control group (dummy

**43**

*Benefits and Constraints of Parent Involvement in Children's Reading Promotion: General…*

variable). However, when each of the variables (reading frequency, importance of reading, and number of books, except for self-reported effort because no data available of the control group) were introduced separately into the model, and additionally, interaction terms with the intervention group were built, no moderator effect

The here presented explorative investigations about the factors that possibly explain training success in the family context try to scrutinize the benefits of parents acting in reading promotion. For this purpose, aspects of three domains aspects of three domains were examined: child characteristics, parent characteristics (family background), and implementation factors. First of all, the findings indicate that the training success obviously depends on the child's disposition who receives the training (child characteristics). This is not a surprising, but still neglected aspect when the effectiveness of reading programs is investigated—this accounts for any kind of reading program, not only programs involving parents. Thus, it is important that people who deliver a reading program should work on the children's utility values before and during the program (e.g., the study of [51]). Possibly, benefits would be higher if other people than the parent (e.g., program deliverer, teacher, etc.) explain to the child why reading is important for life, unless parents themselves really are committed to this. As the child's effort appeared to be a relevant factor for training success too, it would be worth developing strategies to stimulate effort. One possibility is to adapt training rhythm (e.g., duration of each training session) in order to avoid fatigue and unproductiveness. Another could be to use strategies that motivate the child to make an effort during the training session [21, 70]. The factor "reading frequency" is probably more difficult to address in interventions. High reading frequency probably acts as a precursor and reflects the willingness of spending time with reading, which in turn moderates the gains in reading competence [49]. Though, willingness represents an individual disposition, which is more complex to address. As for the lacking differential effects due to initial reading level, this finding replicates the results found with the total sample of the intervention program (cf., [10]). It can be interpreted that the severity of reading difficulties makes no difference for training success when parents act as tutors, this counts at least for struggling readers such as in our sample. However, the objective of any intervention to foster the most struggling students could not be attained. Thus, this finding raises doubts about the

effectiveness of parents helping their struggling child (cf., [6, 7]).

according to the progress or stagnation of the child's reading skills.

Interestingly, among the parent characteristics, only the number of books at home was clearly different for the children with little and high gain in reading fluency. However, the same result could not be found for parent's occupational status which is also a relevant aspect of family background and was even associated with the quantity of books. Therefore, our findings reflect the discrepancy of the findings of earlier studies about this matter [41]. Nevertheless, it is possible that the number of books expresses a favorable attitude toward reading which in turn is beneficial for training success, whereas this benefit is not necessarily given with a higher occupational status. Furthermore, even though it is widely acknowledged that parents' expectations influence children's academic outcomes, no differential effect of expectations on training success was found. Parents' expectations were equally high in both groups. However, this information was reported by parents before the training started. Presumably, expectations change during the training

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93136*

for any of the four variables could be found.

**7. Discussion of the results**

*Benefits and Constraints of Parent Involvement in Children's Reading Promotion: General… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93136*

variable). However, when each of the variables (reading frequency, importance of reading, and number of books, except for self-reported effort because no data available of the control group) were introduced separately into the model, and additionally, interaction terms with the intervention group were built, no moderator effect for any of the four variables could be found.

#### **7. Discussion of the results**

*Parenting - Studies by an Ecocultural and Transactional Perspective*

*Child characteristics*

Importance of reading T1

*Parent characteristics*

Number of books at home

Expectation toward child's reading T1 (*n* = 31)

Expectation toward the

*Implementation factors* Intensity (no. of training

*HISEI, parents' Highest International Socio-Economic Index.*

*Between-group analyses: children with little and big gain in reading fluency (RF).*

(*n* = 37)

(*n* = 37)

training T1 (*n* = 35)

sessions) (*n* = 37)

*1*

**Table 3.**

1

**Little gain in RF Median (***n* **= 20)**

**Big gain in RF Median (***n* **= 17)**

Reading fluency T1 (*n* = 37) 31.50 36.00 *z* = −0.81, *p* = 0.42 0.13 Reading motivation T1 (*n* = 37) 3.50 3.50 *z* = −0.50, *p* = 0.61 0.08 Reading frequency T1 (*n* = 33) 2.00 3.00 *z* **= −2.24,** *p* **= 0.02 0.39**

Self-reported effort (*n* = 36) 3.33 3.67 *z* **= −2.86,** *p* **< 0.00 0.48**

HISEI (*n* = 37) 52.00 52.00 *z* = −0.95, *p* = 0.34 0.16

**Statistical comparison (Mann-Whitney** *U* **test)**

3.00 4.00 *z* **= −1.98,** *p* **= 0.05 0.33**

3.00 4.00 *z* **= −2.09,** *p* **= 0.04 0.34**

3.00 3.00 *z* = −0.69, *p* = 0.49 0.12

4.00 4.00 *z* = −0.36, *p* = 0.71 0.06

51.00 52.00 *z* = −0.70, *p* = 0.48 0.11

**Effect size (Pearson's** *r***)**

found between parents' expectations toward the child's reading skills or success. Also, parents of the two groups did not differ in their occupational status. When it comes to implementation factors, no difference was found between the groups. Thus, none of the investigated aspects of implementation gives explanation for training success. The conducted analyses are explorative; therefore, no correction for multiple testing was used. Even the difference found for self-reported effort would have, scarcely though, missed the required significance level of *p* < .004. However, in explorative procedures, correction for multiple testing is not systematically requested, but it must be considered that statistical significance could be

Guided oral reading (*n* = 28) 0.73 0.76 *z* = −0.32, *p* = 0.75 0.06 Self-correction (*n* = 28) 0.43 0.45 *z* = −0.25, *p* = 0.80 0.05 Synchronicity speed (*n* = 27) 4.00 3.25 *z* = −0.80, *p* = 0.42 0.15 Positive feedback (*n* = 28) 1.00 1.00 *z* = −0.28, *p* = 0.78 0.05

Subsequently, we tested whether the variables which showed significant differences would moderate training outcome. For this purpose, we run regression analyses with the total sample (intervention *n* = 56, control *n* = 67) predicting reading fluency at posttest and controlled for initial reading fluency, cognitive abilities, vocabulary, and parents' occupational status (HISEI). Children of the intervention group (training with parent tutors) were compared to the control group (dummy

**42**

at random.

The here presented explorative investigations about the factors that possibly explain training success in the family context try to scrutinize the benefits of parents acting in reading promotion. For this purpose, aspects of three domains aspects of three domains were examined: child characteristics, parent characteristics (family background), and implementation factors. First of all, the findings indicate that the training success obviously depends on the child's disposition who receives the training (child characteristics). This is not a surprising, but still neglected aspect when the effectiveness of reading programs is investigated—this accounts for any kind of reading program, not only programs involving parents. Thus, it is important that people who deliver a reading program should work on the children's utility values before and during the program (e.g., the study of [51]). Possibly, benefits would be higher if other people than the parent (e.g., program deliverer, teacher, etc.) explain to the child why reading is important for life, unless parents themselves really are committed to this. As the child's effort appeared to be a relevant factor for training success too, it would be worth developing strategies to stimulate effort. One possibility is to adapt training rhythm (e.g., duration of each training session) in order to avoid fatigue and unproductiveness. Another could be to use strategies that motivate the child to make an effort during the training session [21, 70]. The factor "reading frequency" is probably more difficult to address in interventions. High reading frequency probably acts as a precursor and reflects the willingness of spending time with reading, which in turn moderates the gains in reading competence [49]. Though, willingness represents an individual disposition, which is more complex to address.

As for the lacking differential effects due to initial reading level, this finding replicates the results found with the total sample of the intervention program (cf., [10]). It can be interpreted that the severity of reading difficulties makes no difference for training success when parents act as tutors, this counts at least for struggling readers such as in our sample. However, the objective of any intervention to foster the most struggling students could not be attained. Thus, this finding raises doubts about the effectiveness of parents helping their struggling child (cf., [6, 7]).

Interestingly, among the parent characteristics, only the number of books at home was clearly different for the children with little and high gain in reading fluency. However, the same result could not be found for parent's occupational status which is also a relevant aspect of family background and was even associated with the quantity of books. Therefore, our findings reflect the discrepancy of the findings of earlier studies about this matter [41]. Nevertheless, it is possible that the number of books expresses a favorable attitude toward reading which in turn is beneficial for training success, whereas this benefit is not necessarily given with a higher occupational status. Furthermore, even though it is widely acknowledged that parents' expectations influence children's academic outcomes, no differential effect of expectations on training success was found. Parents' expectations were equally high in both groups. However, this information was reported by parents before the training started. Presumably, expectations change during the training according to the progress or stagnation of the child's reading skills.

Finally, none of the implementation factors turned out to be relevant for explaining training success. Apparently, the technical aspects as much as the intensity of conducting a training seem not to be crucial factors. Even the variable "positive feedback" which is supposed to promote a motivating climate did not reveal a considerable difference between the two groups. The objective to provide evidence for training success in relation with implementation fidelity remains still a big concern of intervention research (see [60]).

Even though differences between the two groups are discussed, it must be remembered that no interaction effects could be found. Thus, the interpretations remain vague. Further investigations are clearly needed. Of course, training success surely does not depend on single factors. Rather, we suppose an entirety of factors leading to training success. To verify this, large sample sizes are needed, which is challenging in intervention studies. Moreover, the initial reading ability of the children (e.g., struggling vs. normal readers) must absolutely be considered; it is supposed that particularly struggling readers at primary school level and above might not benefit from conducting a training with their parents. After all, expectations toward parents' effectiveness should probably be relativized in the light of the current state of research presented above (see also our own study comparing parent and volunteer tutors: [10]).

### **8. Conclusions**

This chapter reviews the existing literature about the effectiveness of reading programs involving parents and investigates explanation for training success within a Swiss Paired Reading study. The chapter shall contribute to gain a better understanding of benefits and constraints to promote reading in the family environment. To date, only few studies investigated differential effects of reading programs that involved parents.

Altogether, research literature presents small, but significant effects of programs that involve parents to promote their child's emergent literacy and/or reading skills. However, the findings must be interpreted with caution because many studies evaluated within meta-analyses show methodological weaknesses and implementation fidelity is often neglected. Hence, there is a need for more research on such kind of reading programs that follow high standards of field research [71] and evaluate programs before, during, and after implementation [72]. Data of our PR study identified some possible factors that explain training success: the importance the child attaches to reading competence, the child's self-reported effort, reading frequency during spare time, and the number of books at the family's home. However, the relevance of these factors still needs to be verified with larger samples.

To sum up, the effectiveness of parents in reading programs is still questionable. Obviously, the direct impact of parental activities on academic outcomes is small, particularly for struggling readers [10]. However, parental activities that offer children a stimulating learning environment and rich literacy experiences *before* entering school can have sustained effects [73–75]. Moreover, reading activities at preschool level are not shaped yet by achievement-oriented objectives, but they are embedded in a more supportive and affective context (e.g., shared book reading), which fits the family context better. Instead, at primary school, parents are more focused on achievement and are likely to exert more pressure in case of low achievement level, which creates unfavorable conditions for learning. By all means, reading programs that involve parents need to carefully examine child characteristics as much as parental aspects, in order to ponder whether the activities could realistically lead to program success.

**45**

**Author details**

Caroline Villiger

University of Teacher Training Bern, Bern, Switzerland

provided the original work is properly cited.

\*Address all correspondence to: caroline.villiger@phbern.ch

© 2020 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,

*Benefits and Constraints of Parent Involvement in Children's Reading Promotion: General…*

statistical support (Loredana Torchetti), and testing and data entry staff.

This research was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (project no. 149560) and the Universities of Teacher Education of Fribourg, Lucerne, and Bern in Switzerland. A special thank goes to the University of Teacher Education Bern for financial support of this publication. The author wishes to thank the parent tutors and students for making this research possible. Gratitude is also expressed to people who were involved in editorial assistance (Nadine Schuler, Anna Hostettler),

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93136*

**Acknowledgements**

*Benefits and Constraints of Parent Involvement in Children's Reading Promotion: General… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93136*
