The Effects of Family-School Partnership Interventions on Academic and Social-Emotional Functioning: a Meta-Analysis Exploring What Works for Whom

  • Tyler E. SmithEmail author
  • Susan M. Sheridan
  • Elizabeth M. Kim
  • Sunyoung Park
  • S. Natasha Beretvas


Family-school partnership (FSP) interventions capitalize on connections between families and schools, as parents and teachers jointly promote child development through activities that bridge both settings. The current meta-analysis assessed the effects of FSP interventions on children’s academic and social-emotional competencies. From initial comprehensive search procedures (i.e., online reference databases, hand searches of relevant journals, and cited references) yielding over 19,000 abstracts, our study sample included 77 FSP intervention studies with 438 effect sizes. Studies including the following comprised our final sample: (1) an FSP intervention, (2) school-aged children, (3) academic and/or social-emotional outcomes, (4) a naturalistic setting, and (5) an experimental or quasi-experimental group design. Utilizing robust variance estimation (RVE), results revealed that FSP interventions significantly and positively impacted children’s academic achievement (δ = .25 ) and behaviors (δ = .30), social-behavioral competence (δ = .32), and mental health (δ = .34). Additionally, particular structural (i.e., home-based involvement) and relational (i.e., school to home communication, collaboration, bi-directional communication) components significantly contributed to FSP intervention effects. Mixed-effects meta-regression analyses were used to assess if effects of FSP intervention components were moderated by children’s grade or race/ethnicity. Results indicated that certain FSP intervention components (i.e., bi-directional communication, behavioral support) were more effective for older students. No significant moderation effects were found race/ethnicity, indicating that FSP intervention components were effective across participants. Overall, findings provide further support for the use of FSP interventions to support youth outcomes. Future meta-analyses should include single-case design studies and explore unique combinations of FSP intervention components.


Family-school partnership Parent involvement Meta-analysis Academic competence Social-emotional functioning 



  1. *August, G., Realmuto, G., Hektner, J., & Bloomquist, M. (2001). An integrated components preventive intervention for aggressive elementary school children: The early risers program. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, 614-626, 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. *Bibby, P., Eikeseth, S., Martin, N. T., Mudford, O. C., & Reeves, D. (2001). Progress and outcomes for children with autism receiving parent-managed intensive interventions. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 22, 425 − 447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. *Bierman, K. L., Cole, J. D., Dodge, K. A., Greenberg, M. T., Lochman, J. E., McMahon, R. J., & Pinderhughes, E. (2010). The effects of a multiyear universal social–emotional learning program: The role of student and school characteristics. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78, 156-168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. *Bogle, K. E. (2008). Evaluation of a brief group parent training intervention in the context of an after-school program for middle-school students (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Dissertation Abstracts International, Section B. (UMI Order No. AAI32996643)Google Scholar
  5. Borenstein, M. (2009). Effect sizes for continuous data. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (pp. 221–235). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  6. Boyce, L. K., Innocenti, M. S., Roggman, L. A., Norman, V. K. J., & Ortiz, E. (2010). Telling stories and making books: Evidence for an intervention to help parents in migrant head start families support their children’s language and literacy. Early Education and Development, 21, 343–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. *Bradshaw, C. P., Zmuda, J. H., Kellam, S. G., & Ialongo, N. S. (2009). Longitudinal impact of two universal preventive interventions in first grade on educational outcomes in high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 926–937. doi:, 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. *Broderick, Z., O’Connor C., Mulcahy C., Heffernan, N., & Heffernan C. 2012. Increasing parent engagement in student learning using an intelligent tutoring system. Journal of Interactive Learning Research. 22, 523-550.Google Scholar
  9. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). Contexts of child rearing: Problems and prospects. American Psychologist, 34, 844–850. Scholar
  10. *Brotman, L. M., Calzada, E., Huang, K. Y., Kingston, S., Dawson-McClure, S., Kamboukos, D., Rosenfelt A., Schwab A. Petkova, E. (2011). Promoting effective parenting practices and preventing child behavior problems in school among ethnically diverse families from underserved, urban communities. Child Development, 82, 258–276., 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. *Brotman, L. M., Dawson-McClure, S., Huang, K. Y., Theise, R., Kamboukos, D., Wang, J., & Ogedegbe, G. (2012). Family intervention in early childhood and long-term obesity prevention among high risk minority youth. Pediatrics, 129, 1621–1628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carlson, C., & Christenson, S. L. (2005). Evidence-based parent and family interventions in school psychology [Special issue]. School Psychology Quarterly, 20(4).Google Scholar
  13. *Carpenter-Aeby, T., & Aeby, V. G. (2001). Family-school-community interventions for chronically disruptive students: An evaluation of outcomes in an alternative school. The School Community Journal, 11, 75–92.Google Scholar
  14. *Chao, P.-C., Bryan, T., Burstein, K., & Ergul, C. (2006). Family-centered intervention for young children at-risk for language and behavior problems. Early Childhood Education Journal, 34, 147–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Christenson, S. L., & Sheridan, S. M. (2001). Schools and families: Creating essential connections for learning. New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
  16. *Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2002). Evaluation of the first 3 years of the Fast Track prevention trial with children at high risk for adolescent conduct problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 19–35.Google Scholar
  17. Coutts, M. J., Sheridan, S. M., Sjuts, T. M., & Smith, T. E. (2014). Home-school collaboration for intervention planning. In J. T. Mascolo, D. P. Flanagan, & V. C. Alfonso (Eds.), Essentials of planning, selecting, and tailoring intervention for the unique learner (pp. 92–119). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  18. *Cross, D., Waters, S., Pearce, N., Shaw, T., Hall, M., Erceg, E., . . . Hamilton, G. (2012). The Friendly Schools Friendly Families programme: Three-year bullying behaviour outcomes in primary school children. International Journal of Educational Research, 53, 394–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. *David, G. M. (2006). Assessing the impact of a visual arts family-focused pre-kindergarten intervention (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from University of North Florida Theses and Dissertations.Google Scholar
  20. Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Bmj, 315(7109), 629–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Epstein, J. L. (1986). Parents' reactions to teacher practices of parent involvement. Elementary School Journal, 86, 277–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Epstein, J. L. (1992). School and family partnerships (Report No. 6). Center on Families, Communities, Schools and Children's Learning. Johns Hopkins University. Baltimore, MDGoogle Scholar
  23. *Evans, S. W., Schultz, B. K., & DeMars, C. E. (2014). High school-based treatment for adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Results from a pilot study examining outcomes and dosage. School Psychology Review, 43, 185–202Google Scholar
  24. *Fabiano, G. A., Vujnovic, R. K., Pelham, W. E., Waschbusch, D. A., Massetti, G. M., Pariseau, M. E., . . . Volker, M. (2010). Enhancing the effectiveness of special education programming for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder using a daily report card. School Psychology Review, 39, 219–223.Google Scholar
  25. Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students' ccademic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 1–22. Scholar
  26. Fishel, M., & Ramirez, L. (2005). Evidence-based parent involvement interventions with school-aged children. School Psychology Quarterly, 20, 371–402. Scholar
  27. Fisher, Z., Tipton, E., & Zhipeng, H. (2017). Robumeta: Robust variance meta-regression, version 2.0. Retrieved from
  28. Fleiss, J. L. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 378–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. *Ford, R. M., McDougall, S. J. P., & Evans, D. (2009). Parent-delivered compensatory education for children at risk of educational failure: Improving the academic and self-regulatory skills of a Sure Start preschool sample. British Journal of Psychology, 100, 773–797. doi:, Pt 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. *Frankel, F., Myatt, R., & Feinberg, D. (2007). Parent-assisted friendship training for children with autism spectrum disorders: Effects of psychotropic medication. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 37, 337–346, 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. *Gerzel-Short, L. (2013). Response to intervention, family involvement, and student achievement at Tier 2: A mixed methods study of K–1 students and their families (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest, LLC. (Accession No. ED554427)Google Scholar
  32. *Giallo, R., Treyvaud, K., Matthews, J., & Kienhuis, M. (2010). Making the transition to primary school: An evaluation of a transition program for parents. Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 10, 1–17.Google Scholar
  33. Green, A. M. (1997). Kappa statistics for multiple raters using categorical classifications. Paper presented at the SAS User Group International Conference. CA: San Diego.Google Scholar
  34. Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.Google Scholar
  35. Hill, N. E. (2009). Culturally-based worldviews, family processes, and family-school interactions. In S. L. Christenson & A. L. Reschly (Eds.), The handbook of school-family partnerships for promoting student competence (pp. 101–127). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor Francis.Google Scholar
  36. Hill, N. E., & Tyson, D. F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A meta-analytic assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45(3), 740–763. Scholar
  37. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1995). Parental involvement in children's education: Why does it make a difference?. Teachers College Record, 97, 310–331.Google Scholar
  38. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their children’s education?. Review of Educational Research, 67, 3–42.Google Scholar
  39. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Bassler, O. C., & Burow, R. (1995). Parent involvement in elementary children's homework: Parameters of reported strategy and practice. Elementary School Journal, 95, 435–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Bassler, O. C., & Brissie, J. S. (1992). Explorations in parentschool relations. Journal of Educational Research, 85, 287–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Battiato, A. C., Walker, J. M. T., Reed, R. P., DeJong, J. M., & Jones, K. P. (2001). Parental involvement in homework. Educational Psychologist, 36(3), 195–209. Scholar
  42. *Humphrey, N., Lendrum, A., Barlow, A., Wigelsworth, M., & Squires, G. (2013). Achievement for all: Improving psychosocial outcomes for students with special educational needs and disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 34, 1210–1225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. *Ingersoll, B. R., & Wainer, A. L. (2013). Pilot study of a school-based parent training program for preschoolers with ASD. Autism, 17, 434–448., 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. *Jagers, R. J., Morgan-Lopez, A. A., & Flay, B. R. (2009). The impact of age and type of intervention on youth violent behaviors. Journal of Primary Prevention, 30, 642–658, 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Jeynes, W. H. (2003). The effects of parental involvement on minority children’s academic achievement. Education and Urban Society, 35(2), 202–218. Scholar
  46. Jeynes, W. H. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to urban elementary school student academic achievement. Urban Education, 40, 237–269. Scholar
  47. Jeynes, W. H. (2007). The relationship between parental involvement and urban secondary school student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Urban Education, 42, 82–110. Scholar
  48. Jones, T. G. (2003). Contribution of Hispanic parents’ perspectives to teacher preparation. School Community Journal, 13, 73–97.Google Scholar
  49. Jüni, P., Holenstein, F., Sterne, J., Bartlett, C., & Egger, M. (2002). Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: Empirical study. International Journal of Epidemiology, 31, 115. Scholar
  50. *Jurbergs, N., Palcic, J. L., & Kelley, M. L. (2010). Daily behavior report cards with and without home-based consequences: Improving classroom behavior in low income, African American children with ADHD. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 32, 177–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. *Kelly-Vance, L. & Schreck, D. (2002). The impact of a collaborative family/school reading program on student reading rate. Journal of Research in Reading, 25, 43-53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. *Kern, L., DuPaul, G. J., Volpe, R. J., Sokol, N. G., Lutz, J. G., Arbolino, L. A., . . . VanBrakle, J. D. (2007). Multisetting assessment-based intervention for young children at risk for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Initial effects on academic and behavioral functioning. School Psychology Review, 36, 237–255.Google Scholar
  53. *Kim, J. S. (2006). Effects of a voluntary summer reading intervention on reading achievement: Results from a randomized field trial. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28, 335−355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. *Kim, N. H., & Park, J. (2012). The effects of the family-involved SDLMI on academic engagement and goal attainment of middle school students with disabilities who exhibit problem behavior. International Journal of Special Education, 27, 117–127.Google Scholar
  55. King, J. E. (2004). Software solutions for obtaining a kappa-type statistics for use with multiple raters. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association. February, 2004; Dallas, TX, USA.Google Scholar
  56. *Kohler, K. M. (2007). An investigation of parent involvement in the child-parent-center program and its influence on the social and emotional development of economically disadvantaged children (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Dissertation Abstracts International, Section A. (UMI Order No. AAI3234669)Google Scholar
  57. *Kratochwill, T. R., Elliott, S. N., Loitz, P. A., Sladeczek, I., & Carlson, J. S. (2003). Conjoint consultation using self-administered manual and videotape parent-teacher training: Effects on children’s behavioral difficulties. School Psychology Quarterly, 18, 269–302. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kratochwill, T. R., McDonald, L., Levin, J. R., Bear-Tibbetts, H. Y., & Demaray, M. K. (2004). Families and schools together: An experimental analysis of a parent-mediated multi-family group program for American Indian children. Journal of School Psychology, 42, 359–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. *Lochman, J. E., & Wells, K. C. (2003). Effectiveness of the coping power program and of classroom intervention with aggressive children: Outcomes at a 1-year follow-up. Behavior Therapy, 34, 493–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. *Lochman, J. E., & Wells, K. C. (2004). The Coping Power Program for preadolescent aggressive boys and their parents: Outcome effects at the one-year follow-up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 571–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. *Lopata, C., Thomeer, M. L., Volker, M. A., Lee, G. K., Smith, T. H., Smith, R. A., . . . Toomey, J. A. (2012). Feasibility and initial efficacy of a comprehensive school-based intervention for high-functioning autism spectrum disorders. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 963–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. *Mantzicopoulos, P. (2003). Academic and school adjustment outcomes following placement in a developmental first-grade program. Journal of Educational Research, 97, 90–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. *Martin, D. & Martin, M. (2007). Implementing a family/school partnership in an urban elementary school to reduce negative behavior and increase academic achievement. The Journal of California Graduate School of Family Psychology, 34(3), 141-152.Google Scholar
  64. Mattingly, D. J., Prislin, R., McKenzie, T. L., Rodriguez, J. L., & Kayzar, B. (2002). Evaluating evaluations: The case of parent involvement programs. Review of Educational Research, 72, 549–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. *Mautone, J. A., Marshall, S. A., Sharman, J., Eiraldi, R. B., Jawad, A. F., & Power, T. J. (2012). Development of a family–school intervention for young children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. School Psychology Review, 41, 447–466, 4.Google Scholar
  66. *McDonald, L., Moberg, D. P., Brown, R., Rodriguez-Espiricueta, I., Flores, N. I., Burke, M. P., & Coover, G. (2006). After-school multifamily groups: A randomized controlled trial involving low-income, urban, Latino children. Children & Schools, 28, 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. *McGoey, K. E., DuPaul, G. J., Eckert, T. L., Volpe, R. J., & Van Brakle, J. (2005). Outcomes of a multi-component intervention for preschool children at-risk for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 27, 33–56. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. *McKinney, M. L. (2004). The effectiveness of a school-based drug and alcohol treatment program (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Dissertation Abstracts International. (UMI Order No. AAI3133479)Google Scholar
  69. *McKinney, J. B. (2012). The evaluation of the effects of school newsletters on parent perceptions in an urban school system (Doctoral dissertation). Rerieved from Temple University Online Theses and Dissertations.Google Scholar
  70. *McTaggart, P., & Sanders, M. R. (2003). The transition to school project: Results from the classroom. Australian e-Journal for the Advancement of Mental Health, 2, 144–155. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. *Mendez, J. L. (2010). How can parents get involved in preschool? Barriers and engagement in education by ethnic minority parents of children attending Head Start. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16, 26–36. doi:, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. *Molina, B. S. G., Flory, K., Bukstein, O. G., Greiner, A. R., Baker, J. L., Krug, V., & Evans, S. W.(2008). Feasibility and preliminary efficacy of an after-school program for middle schoolers with ADHD: A randomized trial in a large public middle school. Journal of Attention Disorders, 12, 207–217, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. *Moon, T. R., & Callahan, C. M. (2001). Curricular modifications, family outreach, and a mentoring program: Impacts on achievement and gifted identification in high-risk primary students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 24, 305-321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Morris, S. B., & DeShon, R. P. (2002). Combining effect size estimates in meta-analysis with repeated measures and independent-groups designs. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 105–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. *Murray, D. W., Rabiner, D., Schulte, A., & Newitt, K. (2008). Feasibility and integrity of a parent–teacher consultation intervention for ADHD students. Child & Youth Care Forum, 37, 111–126., 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. *Niccols, A. (2009). Immediate and short-term outcomes of the “COPEing with Toddler Behaviour” parent group. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 617–626, 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).Google Scholar
  78. *O’Donnell, J. & Kirkner, S.L. (2009). A longitudinal study of factors influencing the retention of title IV-E master’s of social work graduates in public child welfare. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 3, 64–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. *Oosterling, I., Visser, J., Swinkels, S., Rommelse, N., Donders, R., Woudenberg, T., Roos S., van der Gaag R. Buitelaar, J. (2010). Randomized controlled trial of the focus parent training for toddlers with autism: 1-year outcome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40, 1447–1458, 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Orwin, R. G., & Vevea, J. L. (2009). Evaluating coding decisions. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 177–203). Russell Sage Foundation: New York, NY.Google Scholar
  81. *Owens, J. S., Richerson, L., Beilstein, E. A., Crane, A., Murphy, C. E., & Vancouver, J. B. (2005). School-based mental health programming for children with inattentive and disruptive behavior problems: First-year treatment outcome. Journal of Attention Disorders, 9, 261–274, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Robinson, J. C. (2008). Parent involvement in homework: A research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 78, 1039–1101. Scholar
  83. *Peters, R. D., Bradshaw, A. J., Petrunka, K., Nelson, G., Herry, Y., Craig, W. M., . . . Rossiter, M. D. (Eds.). (2010). The Better Beginnings, Better Futures Project: Findings from grade 3 to grade 9. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, i-176.Google Scholar
  84. *Pfiffner, L. J., Mikami, A. Y., Huang-Pollock, C., Easterlin, B., Zalecki, C., & McBurnett, K. (2007). A randomized, controlled trial of integrated home–school behavioral treatment for ADHD, predominantly inattentive type. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 46, 1041–1050, 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Pomerantz, E. M., Moorman, E. A., & Litwack, S. D. (2007). The how, whom, and why of parents' involvement in children's academic lives: More is not always better. Review of Educational Research, 77, 373–410. Scholar
  86. Pustejovsky, J. E., & Rodgers, M. A. (2019). Testing for funnel plot asymmetry of standardized mean differences. Research Synthesis Methods, 10, 57–71.Google Scholar
  87. Ramirez, A. Y. (2003). Dismay and disappointment: Parental involvement of Latino immigrant parents. Urban Review, 35, 93–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. *Reed, P., Osborne, L. A., Makrygianni, M., Waddington, E., Etherington, A., & Gainsborough, J. (2013). Evaluation of the Barnet Early Autism Model (BEAM) teaching intervention programme in a “real world” setting. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 7, 631–638.Google Scholar
  89. *Reglin, G., & Cameron, H. (2012). Effects of a parent support intervention on seventh-grade at-risk students’ reading comprehension scores. Reading Improvement, 49, 17-28.Google Scholar
  90. *Reid, M. J., Webster-Stratton, C., & Beauchaine, T. P. (2001). Parent training in head start: A comparison of program response among African American, Asian American, Caucasian, and Hispanic mothers. Prevention Science, 2, 209–227., 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. *Reid, M. J., Webster-Stratton, C., & Hammond, M. (2007). Enhancing a classroom social competence and problem-solving curriculum by offering parent training to families of moderate- to high-risk elementary school children. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 36, 605–620, 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Reinke, W. M., Smith, T. E., & Herman, K. C. (2019). Family-school engagement across child and adolescent development. School Psychology, 34(4), 346–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. *Reutzel, D. R., Fawson, P. C., & Smith, J. A. (2006). Words to go: Evaluating a first grade parental involvement program for “making” words at home. Research & Instruction, 45, 119-159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. *Rickards, A. L., Walstab, J. E., Wright-Rossi, R. A., Simpson, J., & Reddihough, D. S. (2009). One-year follow-up of the outcome of a randomized controlled trial of a home-based intervention programme for children with autism and developmental delay and their families. Child: Care, Health & Development, 35, 593–602. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. *Roberts, B. (2002). An evaluation of the Missouri Parents as Teachers program on school readiness of at-risk students in a selected Missouri school district. Unpublished Ed D dissertation. An Arbor, Saint Louis UniversityGoogle Scholar
  96. Rodríguez, R. F., & López, L. C. (2003). Mexican-American parental involvement with a Texas elementary school. Psychological Reports, 92(3 Pt 1), 791–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. *Rönnau-Böse, M., & Fröhlich-Gildhoff, K. (2009). The promotion of resilience: A person-centered perspective of prevention in early childhood institutions. Person-Centered and Experiential Psychotherapies, 8, 299–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. *Schulting, A. B. (2010). The Kindergarten Home Visit Project: A kindergarten transition intervention study (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I database. (No. 3397780)Google Scholar
  99. *Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & Marshak, L. (2012). Peer-mediated instruction in inclusive secondary social studies learning: Direct and indirect learning effects. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27, 12-20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Sheridan, S. M. (2014). The tough kid: Teachers and parents as partners. Eugene, OR: Pacific Northwest.Google Scholar
  101. Sheridan, S. M., & Kim, E. M. (Eds.). (2015). Research on family-school partnerships: An interdisciplinary examination of state of the science and critical needs (Vol. II: Processes and pathways of family–school partnerships). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  102. Sheridan, S. M., & Kim, E. M. (Eds.). (2016). Research on family-school partnerships: An interdisciplinary examination of state of the science and critical needs (Vol. III: Contexts of family–school partnerships: Research, practice, and policy). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  103. Sheridan, S. M., & Kratochwill, T. R. (2008). Conjoint behavioral consultation: Promoting family-school connections and interventions (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  104. *Sheridan, S. M., Knoche, L. L., Edwards, C. P., Bovaird, J. A., & Kupzyk, K. A. (2010). Parent engagement and school readiness: Effects of the Getting Ready intervention on preschool children’s social-emotional competencies. Early Education and Development, 21, 125–156, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. *Sheridan, S. M., Knoche, L. L., Kupzyk, K. A., Edwards, C. P., & Marvin, C. (2011). A randomized trial examining the effects of parent engagement on early language and literacy: The Getting Ready Intervention. Journal of School Psychology, 49, 361-383, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. *Sheridan, S. M., Bovaird, J. A., Glover, T. A., Garbacz, S. A., Witte, A., & Kwon, K. (2012). A randomized trial examining the effects of conjoint behavioral consultation and the mediating role of the parent–teacher relationship. School Psychology Review, 41, 23–46.Google Scholar
  107. *Sheridan, S. M., Ryoo, J. H., Garbacz, S. A., Kunz, G. M., & Chumney, F. L. (2013). The efficacy of conjoint behavioral consultation on parents and children in the home setting: Results of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 717–733., 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. *Sheridan, S. M., Knoche, L. L., Edwards, C. P., Kupzyk, K. A., Clarke, B. L., & Kim, E. M. (2014). Efficacy of the Getting Ready intervention and the role of parental depression. Early Education and Development, 25, 746–769., 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Sheridan, S. M., Holmes, S. R., Smith, T. E., & Moen, A. L. (2016). Complexities in fieldbased partnership research: Exemplars, challenges, and an agenda for the field. In S. M. Sheridan & E. M. Kim (Eds.), Research on family-school partnerships: An interdisciplinary examination of state of the science and critical needs, Vol 3 (pp. 1–23). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Sheridan, S. M., Witte, A. L., Holmes, S. R., Wu, C., Bhatia, S. A., & Angell, S. R. (2017a). The efficacy of conjoint behavioral consultation in the home setting: Outcomes and mechanisms in rural communities. Journal of School Psychology, 62, 81–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Sheridan, S. M., Witte, A. L., Holmes, S. R., Coutts, M. J., Dent, A. L., Kunz, G. M., & Wu, C. (2017b). A randomized trial examining the effects of conjoint behavioral consultation in rural schools: Student outcomes and the mediating role of the teacher–parent relationship. Journal of School Psychology, 61, 33–53. Scholar
  112. Sheridan, S. M., Witte, A. L., Kunz, G. M., Wheeler, L. A., Angell, S. R., & Lester, H. F. (2018). Rural teacher practices and partnerships to address behavioral challenges: The efficacy and mechanisms of conjoint behavioral consultation. The Elementary School Journal, 119, 99–121.Google Scholar
  113. Sheridan, S. M., Smith, T. E., Kim, E. M., Beretvas, S. N., & Park, S. (2019). A meta-analysis of family-school interventions and children’s social-emotional functioning: Child and community influences and components of efficacy. Review of Educational Research, 89, 296–332.Google Scholar
  114. *Simington, L. R. (2003). A study of the effects of teacher visits to high school accounting students’ homes on their attitudes and achievement in accounting class. ERS Spectrum, 21, 39–46.Google Scholar
  115. *Sirvani, H. (2007). The effect of teacher communication with parents on students’ mathematics achievement. American Secondary Education, 36, 31-46.Google Scholar
  116. Smith, T. E. (2019). The impact of training on teachers’ family-school engagement practices, attitudes, and knowledge: Exploring conditions of efficacy. The School Psychologist, 73, 21–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Smith, T. E., & Sheridan, S. M. (2019). The effects of teacher training on teachers’ family engagement practices, attitudes, and knowledge: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 29, 128–157. Scholar
  118. Smith, T. E., Reinke, W. M., Herman, K. C., & Huang, F. (2019). Understanding family-school engagement across and within elementary and middle school contexts. School Psychology, 34(4), 363–375. Scholar
  119. *St. Clair, L., Jackson, B., & Zweiback, R. (2012). Six years later: Effect of family involve¬ment training on the language skills of children from migrant families. School Community Journal, 22, 9–19. Retrieved from Google Scholar
  120. *Ştefan, C. A., & Miclea, M. (2013). Effects of a multifocused prevention program on preschool children’s competencies and behavior problems. Psychology in the Schools, 50, 382–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. *Storr, C. L., Ialongo, N. S., Kellam, S. G., & Anthony, J. C. (2002). A randomized controlled trial of two primary school intervention strategies to prevent early onset tobacco smoking. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 66, 51–60, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. *Strain, P. S., & Bovey, E. H. (2011). Randomized, controlled trial of the LEAP model of early intervention for young children with autism spectrum disorders. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 3, 133–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Tipton, E. (2014). Robust variance estimation with dependent effect sizes: Practical considerations including a software tutorial in Stata and SPSS. Research Synthesis Methods, 5(1), 13–30. Scholar
  124. Tanner-Smith, E. E., Tipton, E., & Polanin, J. R. (2016). Handling complex meta-analytic data structures using robust variance estimates: A tutorial in R. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 2, 85–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Tipton, E. (2015). Small sample adjustments for robust variance estimation with meta-regression. Psychological Methods, 20(3), 375–393. Available from. Scholar
  126. *Tolan, P., Gorman-Smith, D., & Henry, D. (2004). Supporting families in a high-risk setting: Proximal effects of the SAFEChildren preventive intervention. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 855–869, 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Trumbull, E., Rothstein-Fisch, C., & Hernandez, E. (2003). Parent involvement in schooling-according to whose values? School Community Journal, 13, 45–72.Google Scholar
  128. van Steensel, R., McElvany, N., Kurvers, J., & Herppich, S. (2011). How effective are family literacy programs? Results of a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 81, 69–96. Scholar
  129. *Van Voorhis, F. L. (2011). Adding families to the homework equation: A longitudinal study of mathematics achievement. Education and Urban Society, 43, 313–338. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. *Webster-Stratton, C., Reid, M. J., & Hammond, M. (2004). Treating children with early-onset conduct problems: Intervention outcomes for parent, child, and teacher training. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 105–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. White, K. R., Taylor, M. J., & Moss, V. D. (1992). Does research support claims about the benefits of involving parents in early intervention programs? Review of Educational Research, 62, 91–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. *Williams, K. L. (2007). Training parents in consequence delivery and to initiate school communication using an electronic home-based reinforcement program to modify students’ classroom behaviors (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Dissertation Abstracts International. (UMI Order No. AAI3245007).Google Scholar
  133. *Williams, K. L., Noell, G. H., Jones, B. A., & Gansle, K. A. (2012). Modifying students’ classroom behaviors using an electronic daily behavior report card. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 34, 269–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Yan, W., & Lin, Q. (2005). Parent involvement and mathematics achievement: Contrast across racial and ethnic groups. The Journal of Educational Research, 99, 116–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational, School, and Counseling PsychologyUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.University of NebraskaLincolnUSA
  3. 3.Emory UniversityAtlantaUSA
  4. 4.California Lutheran UniversityThousand OaksUSA
  5. 5.University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations