View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Role of Parenting- and Employment-Related Variables on Fathers' Involvement in Their Children's Education

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Role of Parenting- and Employment-Related Variables on Fathers' Involvement in Their Children's Education
Language: English
Authors: Vincent Mancini (ORCID 0000-0002-4845-8104), Thom Nevill, Trevor Mazzucchelli, Jasleen Chhabra, Bruce Robinson
Source: British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2024 94(4):1033-1051.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 19
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Parent Role, Employment, Fathers, Parent Participation, Parent Influence, Educational Attainment, Demography, Children, Adolescents, Parent Child Relationship, Financial Literacy, Work Environment
DOI: 10.1111/bjep.12704
ISSN: 0007-0998
2044-8279
Abstract: Background: Parent involvement strongly correlates with children's educational attainment. Sociocultural shifts in parenting roles and shared responsibilities have driven an increase in the need for involvement of fathers in activities to support their children's educational development. Several factors are thought to influence father involvement in children's education; however, the most salient factors remain unclear. Aims: To examine which variables correlate with father involvement in their children's education using a combination of demographic, parent-related and employment-related variance. Sample: A total of 166 fathers of at least one child aged 6-17 years and residing across five industrialized Western countries participated in an online survey. Method: Hierarchical multiple regression analysis (HMRA) was performed to examine the total and incremental variance using regression models including demographic, parenting- and employment-related variables linked to educational involvement. Results and Conclusions: The variables included in the current study could explain a large and statistically significant 34% of the variability in fathers' educational involvement. Of these variables, only four were statistically significant in the final model. Specifically, fathers were more likely to be engaged in their children's education when their children were younger, and when parent self-efficacy, positive work-to-family interface and financial anxiety were high. The study's findings indicate that a positive work environment can help fathers better support their children's education, offering a new focus for future interventions and policies. This includes those focused on targeting work-related constructs to optimize family functioning.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1447773
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwH_dHJvmuXHRBPiwA5zpQwAAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDIRs8cEirtcB19ayAQIBEICBm48yzSs_exjFQE-RCzc8ccIEhg62_HXo0ujPH779B-50S8p7OMCwmt8UkSZujEXKwwNFY8y2a6MLkjA8s2lcFf6GUg-jYzHUPVUixqlOixUpnzR9-bIfQoelhAjxvkWkLvBrMZFccj5_aoOspCedyxB7ZzRk78nr_7nkNHhMTa23YCWFnQGOaCCKifZvyrbK7OOofK9YUoMnwV0A
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0180776564;6kx01dec.24;2024Nov12.04:59;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0180776564-1">The role of parenting‐ and employment‐related variables on fathers' involvement in their children's education </title> <p>Background: Parent involvement strongly correlates with children's educational attainment. Sociocultural shifts in parenting roles and shared responsibilities have driven an increase in the need for involvement of fathers in activities to support their children's educational development. Several factors are thought to influence father involvement in children's education; however, the most salient factors remain unclear. Aims: To examine which variables correlate with father involvement in their children's education using a combination of demographic, parent‐related and employment‐related variance. Sample: A total of 166 fathers of at least one child aged 6–17 years and residing across five industrialized Western countries participated in an online survey. Method: Hierarchical multiple regression analysis (HMRA) was performed to examine the total and incremental variance using regression models including demographic, parenting‐ and employment‐related variables linked to educational involvement. Results and Conclusions: The variables included in the current study could explain a large and statistically significant 34% of the variability in fathers' educational involvement. Of these variables, only four were statistically significant in the final model. Specifically, fathers were more likely to be engaged in their children's education when their children were younger, and when parent self‐efficacy, positive work‐to‐family interface and financial anxiety were high. The study's findings indicate that a positive work environment can help fathers better support their children's education, offering a new focus for future interventions and policies. This includes those focused on targeting work‐related constructs to optimize family functioning.</p> <p>Keywords: employment; father involvement; fathering; parent self‐efficacy; parenting; paternal involvement</p> <hd id="AN0180776564-2">PARENT ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN CHILDREN'S EDUCATIONAL INVOLVEMENT</hd> <p>The global shift towards more equitable parenting roles and responsibilities has facilitated significant cultural shifts in how mothers and fathers (terms inclusive of biological and non‐biological mother and father figures) are involved in caring for their children. Generally, the growing acceptance of women's participation in the paid workforce has been counterbalanced by a growing interest in and acceptance of men's roles in the household (Holmes et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref1">35</reflink>]). This shift challenges older, traditional gender roles that prioritize a father's responsibility as the sole financial provider and a mother's responsibility in raising children and maintaining the family home. Consequently, today's fathers are far more often involved in caring for their children compared to their preceding generational counterparts (Churchill & Craig, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref2">15</reflink>]). In parallel with the above sociocultural shifts, there has been an increase in research on father involvement. Father involvement is defined and conceptualized in a variety of ways (Rollè et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref3">66</reflink>]). In simple terms, father involvement refers to the myriad of ways fathers might be involved and engaged in caregiving, including interactions with the child, performing caregiving responsibilities, supervising children's activities and organizing the household environment (Diniz et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref4">20</reflink>]; Lamb et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref5">49</reflink>]). In a recent systematic review of father involvement in early childhood, Diniz et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref6">20</reflink>]) argues that the different dimensions of fathering are not conceptually equivalent, and instead 'translate into a wide range of fathering, corresponding to different forms of involvement' (p. 89). This paper specifically focuses on one dimension of father involvement, father involvement in education. While related to father involvement in general, father involvement in education centres on how fathers are involved in and support their children's learning and education.</p> <p>It is critical to focus on parental involvement in education because caregivers are the gatekeepers of their children's educational journeys. Important decisions, such as how much emphasis is placed on learning, have lasting implications for children's long‐term educational successes and downstream outcomes (e.g., vocational attainment). Parental involvement in education is a multifaceted concept (Goodall & Montgomery, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref7">29</reflink>]). Early work defined parental involvement as parents' attendance of school‐based events, for example, parent–teacher conferences (Seginer, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref8">68</reflink>]). More recently, researchers have developed a more expansive conceptualization of parent involvement, which incorporates children's daily learning at home such as reading together and supervising homework completion, alongside in‐school forms of involvement (Gonida & Cortina, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref9">28</reflink>]; Goodall & Montgomery, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref10">29</reflink>]). Informed by these broader conceptualizations, in this paper, we conceive parental involvement to involve parents in‐school and at‐home involvement in their children's education, together with general parenting strategies related to schooling including setting educational expectations, structured prompting and descriptive praise (Lowe & Dotterer, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref11">54</reflink>]; Tekin, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref12">75</reflink>]). Research has demonstrated that children's educational attainment flourishes when caregivers are actively involved in their education (Huang et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref13">36</reflink>]; Veas et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref14">78</reflink>]). However, fathers' roles in their children's education have not yet been well studied.</p> <hd id="AN0180776564-3">A FOCUS ON FATHER INVOLVEMENT IN CHILDREN'S EDUCATION</hd> <p>The existing research concerned with understanding the impact of parental involvement on children's educational outcomes remains mostly grounded in mother–child studies (Kim, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref15">42</reflink>]) – an artefact of older research conducted at a time when fathers had less involvement with their children's education. Despite cultural shifts towards more equitable parenting roles and responsibilities, it remains unclear whether these older findings from maternal samples can be meaningfully appropriated to fathers who actively participate in their children's education.</p> <p>It is important to conduct research that specifically examines the role of fathers in their children's education because fathers are increasingly involved in caring for their children and there is evidence that they make unique and important contributions to their children's development. Previous research has highlighted the distinct contributions fathers make to their children's psychological and social development (Cabrera et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref16">12</reflink>]; Paquette, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref17">62</reflink>]). The limited research examining father involvement in education has indicated that fathers play similarly unique and important roles in their children's educational development (Jeynes, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref18">39</reflink>]; Lau, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref19">50</reflink>]; Meuwissen & Carlson, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref20">57</reflink>]). These studies focused on how different dimensions of father involvement, such as fathers' participation in at‐school activities, provision of educational support and the at‐home learning environment, influence children's educational development. For example, Baker ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref21">5</reflink>]) compared the impact of mother and father school involvement, which they conceptualized as parents' participation in school‐based events/activities (e.g., parent–teacher conferences and assemblies), on children's academic and social outcomes. The results showed that father–school involvement predicted better reading and math scores after controlling for the impact of mother–school involvement, the quality of children's home learning environment and other demographic factors. Studies also indicate that fathers' involvement in their children's daily learning at home has a positive impact on children's educational development (Varghese, & Wachen, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref22">77</reflink>]). Duursma ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref23">21</reflink>]) examined the link between the book reading frequency of fathers and mothers and children's cognitive literacy and found that fathers book reading significantly predicted children's language competencies.</p> <p>For two‐parent families, one parent's involvement in their child's education may be enhanced by the other parent's involvement, giving children greater access to positive parental involvement from either parent (McBride et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref24">56</reflink>]). In the case of single‐father families, positive involvement in their child's education may be especially vital considering that any negative involvement is less likely to be buffered by the compensatory behaviour of a co‐parent (Flouri & Buchanan, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref25">25</reflink>]). These findings suggest that fathers make unique contributions to their children's learning enhance the efforts of their partner's involvement in their child's education and may also, therefore, merit further investigation.</p> <hd id="AN0180776564-4">DETERMINANTS OF FATHER INVOLVEMENT IN CHILDREN'S EDUCATION</hd> <p>The mechanisms that shape a father's involvement in their children's education are complex and multifactorial (Cabrera et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref26">11</reflink>]). Seminal work by Lamb, Pleck and colleagues proposed that positive father involvement, across the various domains of their children's life, is possible when there is sufficient motivation, skills, self‐efficacy and social support, in conjunction with an absence of institutional barriers (Lamb, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref27">46</reflink>]; Lamb et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref28">48</reflink>]; Pleck, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref29">65</reflink>]). Studies that enlist multifactorial designs can help to identify how competing factors may uniquely contribute to father involvement in their children's education – helping to identify potential risk and protective mechanisms that could be targeted through advocacy, policies and intervention approaches.</p> <p>The ability to quantify the <emph>entirety</emph> of factors that likely shape a father's involvement in the lives of their children represents a methodological challenge. Thus, the current study examines a subset of factors in a variety of datasets that are particularly compelling given their potential ability to be modified through targeted efforts.</p> <p> <emph>Parenting‐related determinants</emph> of father involvement have proven instrumental in explaining a father's ability to be involved in their children's education. Parent self‐efficacy refers to a parent's beliefs regarding their capability to execute childbearing tasks (de Montigny & Lacharité, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref30">19</reflink>]). Parent self‐efficacy has predominantly been measured in terms of how strongly parents support beliefs about being able to positively impact their children's education and is an important determinant of father involvement (Freeman et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref31">26</reflink>]; Giallo et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref32">27</reflink>]). This literature has reported that parents with higher self‐efficacy exhibit greater involvement in their children's education (Freeman et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref33">26</reflink>]; Jacobs & Kelley, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref34">38</reflink>]; Kwok & Li, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref35">45</reflink>]; Trahan, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref36">76</reflink>]). To date, relatively few studies examining parental self‐efficacy have focused exclusively on father involvement in education (Junttila & Vauras, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref37">41</reflink>]). The limited research in this space indicates there is likely a strong link between high self‐efficacy and father involvement in education (Freeman et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref38">26</reflink>]; Jacobs & Kelley, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref39">38</reflink>]; Kwok & Li, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref40">45</reflink>]; Trahan, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref41">76</reflink>]). For example, in an analysis of surveys completed by fathers, Trahan ([<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref42">76</reflink>]) found that parental self‐efficacy was significantly associated with parental involvement and had a greater effect than other parent‐related factors, including co‐parenting quality. Co‐parenting can be broadly defined as the quality of the coordination between parents caring for a child and the extent to which parents support one another's parenting (Choi & Becher, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref43">14</reflink>]). Literature indicates supportive co‐parenting, characterized by parents respecting, affirming and supporting each other, positively shapes parental involvement in education (Berryhill, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref44">8</reflink>]; Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref45">13</reflink>]).</p> <p>An emerging body of evidence has drawn attention towards the significance of <emph>employment‐related</emph> factors that may influence father involvement in children's education. For fathers, the requirement to meet a family's financial needs can conflict with their desire to be actively engaged in caregiving duties. There is ample evidence that employment‐related factors impact father involvement (Ball, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref46">6</reflink>]; Henwood & Procter, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref47">33</reflink>]). Recently, researchers have developed the concept of <emph>work–family interface</emph> to describe the bidirectional process whereby the transmission of experiences and emotions that occur at work can play out in the family home, and vice versa (Brough et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref48">10</reflink>]). For example, longer work hours, heavier workloads and lack of workplace flexibility are key factors that increase negative work‐to‐family spillover (Hill et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref49">34</reflink>]; Jin et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref50">40</reflink>]; Schieman & Young, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref51">67</reflink>]). By contrast, relationship satisfaction, family role quality and positive child–parent interactions are key factors related to positive family‐to‐work spillover (Pedersen et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref52">63</reflink>]; Stevens et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref53">70</reflink>]).</p> <p>The extent to which the interface between work and family influences fathers' involvement in their children's education has not yet been widely investigated. Of the available literature in this area, there is some evidence that suggests that the related construct of <emph>work–life balance</emph> is predictive of father involvement. In a 2023 systematic review of father involvement during early childhood education, Diniz et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref54">20</reflink>]) concluded that 'The main challenges related to father involvement were related to the difficulty of balancing work and family demands, mostly due to the rigid work schedules and lack of flexibility in labour activities' (p. 12). Lee ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref55">51</reflink>]) reached a similar conclusion in his analysis of the factors associated with Korean father's involvement in their children's education. Closely related to work–life balance is the extent to which parents experience financial concerns. This 'financial anxiety' may skew parents towards greater prioritization of financial earning duties that may come at the expense of other important caregiving duties.</p> <p>Demographic factors of fathers and their families can also impact levels of involvement. Younger fathers, fathers with stable employment, with higher levels of educational achievement and in more affluent socioeconomic positions (including the absence of financial anxiety) are more likely to be positively involved in their children's education (Grossman et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref56">31</reflink>]; Kissman, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref57">44</reflink>]; Matta & Knudson‐Martin, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref58">55</reflink>]). Across developmental periods, fathers tend to be more actively involved when children are in the early stages of schooling, compared to secondary school as children obtain greater educational independence (Wei et al., [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref59">79</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite evidence that highlights the potential importance of several factors thought to predict fathers' educational involvement, there has been limited research that examines the role of these factors in combination.</p> <hd id="AN0180776564-5">STUDY AIMS AND HYPOTHESES</hd> <p>The aim of the present study is to identify the correlates of father involvement in activities pertinent to the educational attainment of their youngest child. We tested the utility of variables spanning <emph>demographic</emph>, <emph>parent‐related</emph> and <emph>employment‐related</emph> domains. It was hypothesized that:</p> <hd id="AN0180776564-6">H1</hd> <p>Father's age, co‐living status, level of education, perceived social standing, number of children, youngest child's age, child gender and financial anxiety will each be correlated with father's involvement in their child's education.</p> <hd id="AN0180776564-7">H2</hd> <p>Parent self‐efficacy and co‐parenting quality will be positively associated with father's involvement in their child's education.</p> <hd id="AN0180776564-8">H3</hd> <p>Positive work–family and family–work interface will be positively associated with father's involvement in their child's education.</p> <hd id="AN0180776564-9">H4</hd> <p>Negative work–family and family–work interface will be negatively associated with father's involvement in their child's education.</p> <hd id="AN0180776564-10">H5</hd> <p>Each of the included variables will account for unique variance in father's involvement in their child's education.</p> <hd id="AN0180776564-11">H6</hd> <p>The inclusion of employment‐related variables will significantly increase the explanatory power of a model including only parent‐related variables after accounting for demographic variables.</p> <hd id="AN0180776564-12">H7</hd> <p>In combination, these variables will account for a statistically significant proportion of variance in father involvement in their child's education.</p> <hd id="AN0180776564-13">METHOD</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180776564-14">Participants</hd> <p>The current study recruited an international sample of 166 fathers aged 27–67 years (<emph>M</emph> = 44.33 years, SD = 7.90 years) spanning 5 Western industrialized countries (the United Kingdom, United States, Australia, New Zealand and Canada) that have previously been shown to share similar beliefs systems regarding father involvement and masculinity (Anderson, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref60">2</reflink>]; Cooke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref61">17</reflink>]). All participants were asked to rate their level of involvement with their youngest school‐aged child, aged 6–17 years (<emph>M</emph> = 10. 82 years, SD = 3.25 years; 43.4% female, 56.6% male). All participants were employed at the time of the study across 10 different industries. Table 1 provides a summary of the demographic characteristics of the present sample.</p> <p>1 TABLE Participant demographic information (N  = 166).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Demographic</th><th align="left"><italic>n</italic> (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Country of residence</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Australia</td><td align="char" char="(">18 (10.8%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Canada</td><td align="char" char="(">3 (1.8%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">New Zealand</td><td align="char" char="(">9 (5.4%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland</td><td align="char" char="(">116 (69.9%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">United States of America</td><td align="char" char="(">20 (12%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Country of birth</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Australia</td><td align="char" char="(">12 (7.2%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">New Zealand</td><td align="char" char="(">5 (3%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland</td><td align="char" char="(">103 (62%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">United States of America</td><td align="char" char="(">17 (10.2%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">India</td><td align="char" char="(">3 (1.8%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Nigeria</td><td align="char" char="(">4 (2.4%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Pakistan</td><td align="char" char="(">2 (1.2%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">South Africa</td><td align="char" char="(">3 (1.8%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Other (=1 participant per country)</td><td align="char" char="(">17 (10.2%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Marital status</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Single</td><td align="char" char="(">3 (1.8%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">In a committed relationship (dating or exclusive partnership)</td><td align="char" char="(">23 (13.9%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Engaged</td><td align="char" char="(">7 (4.2%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Married</td><td align="char" char="(">127 (76.5%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Divorced</td><td align="char" char="(">2 (1.2%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Separated</td><td align="char" char="(">4 (2.4%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Living arrangements</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Living with romantic partner</td><td align="char" char="(">152 (91.6%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Biological children with more than one partner</td><td align="char" char="(">31 (18.7%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Caring for non‐biological children</td><td align="char" char="(">19 (11.4%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Biological children living with an ex‐partner</td><td align="char" char="(">18 (10.8%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Living with non‐family (e.g., flatmates)</td><td align="char" char="(">11 (6.6%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Hours worked per week</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Working 1–39 h per week</td><td align="char" char="(">85 (51.2%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Working 40 or more hours per week</td><td align="char" char="(">81 (48.8%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Area of employment</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Healthcare and medical</td><td align="char" char="(">11 (6.63%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Information technology</td><td align="char" char="(">27 (16.27%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Sales and marketing</td><td align="char" char="(">11 (6.63%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Engineering and technical</td><td align="char" char="(">23 (13.86%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Education and training</td><td align="char" char="(">11 (6.63%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Administrative and management</td><td align="char" char="(">38 (22.89%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Finance and accounting</td><td align="char" char="(">14 (8.43%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Creative and design</td><td align="char" char="(">5 (3.01%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Public service and civil servant</td><td align="char" char="(">15 (9.04%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Manufacturing and production</td><td align="char" char="(">11 (6.63%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Level of education</td></tr><tr><td align="left">High school graduate</td><td align="char" char="(">28 (16.9%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Some college/university</td><td align="char" char="(">32 (19.3%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">University graduate</td><td align="char" char="(">61 (36.7%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Postgraduate</td><td align="char" char="(">41 (24.7%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Doctorate</td><td align="char" char="(">4 (2.4%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Number of children</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="char" char="(">47 (28.3%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2</td><td align="char" char="(">74 (44.6%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">3</td><td align="char" char="(">34 (20.5%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">4</td><td align="char" char="(">10 (6%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">5</td><td align="char" char="(">1 (.6%)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0180776564-15">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180776564-16">Parent involvement in children's education</hd> <p>The parent involvement subscale developed by Sheldon and Epstein ([<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref62">69</reflink>]) was used as a method of measuring parent involvement in education. The scale includes 17 items. Answering on a Likert scale from 1 (never) to 4 (everyday/most days), participants were asked how often they engaged in behaviours related to supporting their children's education. Examples include <emph>reading with your child</emph>, <emph>asking your child how well he or she is doing in school</emph> and <emph>helping your children with their homework</emph>. Internal reliability for the Parent Involvement in Education Scale in the current study was excellent (<emph>α</emph> = .93).</p> <hd id="AN0180776564-17">Parent self‐efficacy</hd> <p>The Brief Parent Self‐Efficacy Scale (BPSES) is a five‐team measure of parental self‐efficacy (Woolgar et al., [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref63">81</reflink>]). The BPSES utilizes a Likert scale (1 = <emph>strongly disagree</emph> to 5 = <emph>strongly agree</emph>) indicating how much a participant agrees or disagrees with statements such as 'I am able to do the things that will improve my children's behaviour'. A high total score indicates strong parental self‐efficacy, while a low score suggests low parental confidence. Internal reliability for the BPSES in the current study was excellent (<emph>α</emph> = .83), consistent with prior research that supports the reliability and validity of this scale as a brief assessment of a parent's perceived sense of self‐efficacy (Woolgar et al., [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref64">81</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0180776564-18">Co‐parenting</hd> <p>The Brief Coparenting Relationship Scale (B‐CRS) was developed by Lee et al. ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref65">52</reflink>]) as an abbreviated form of the Coparenting Relationship Scale, reduced from 35 items to 12. Answering on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (<emph>not true of us</emph>) to 5 (v<emph>ery true of us</emph>), participants responded to statements such as 'My partner and I have the same goals for our child' and 'I believe my partner is a good parent'. Higher scores are indicative of a more adaptive co‐parenting relationship between parents – irrespective of whether they are living in the same household. The scale has good reliability and validity as a brief measure of co‐parenting quality (Lee et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref66">52</reflink>]). Internal reliability for the B‐CRS in the current study was excellent (<emph>α</emph> = .90).</p> <hd id="AN0180776564-19">Financial anxiety</hd> <p>Financial anxiety was measured using the seven‐item Financial Anxiety Scale by Archuleta et al. ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref67">4</reflink>]). Participants respond to a series of statements (e.g., <emph>'I feel anxious about my financial situation'</emph>) using a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 (<emph>strongly disagree</emph>) to 5 (<emph>strongly agree</emph>). The higher the score, the greater the perceived financial anxiety. Internal reliability for the financial anxiety scale was excellent (<emph>α</emph> = .94), and the measure has previously demonstrated good psychometric properties (Archuleta et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref68">4</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0180776564-20">Work–family interface</hd> <p>The interface of work and family demands was assessed using the Work–Family Interface Scale (Kinnunen et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref69">43</reflink>]). The scale consists of 14 items, which measure four distinct theoretical dimensions. These are as follows:</p> <p> <emph>Negative work‐to‐family spillover</emph> (4 items; <emph>α</emph> = .92) – referring to the negative spillover from the workplace into family life (e.g., 'the demands of your job interfere with your home and family life').</p> <p> <emph>Negative family‐to‐work spillover</emph> (4 items; <emph>α</emph> = .93) – refers to the negative spillover from the family home into the workplace (e.g., 'your home life interferes with your responsibilities at work, such as getting to work on time, accomplishing daily tasks or working overtime').</p> <p> <emph>Positive work‐to‐family spillover</emph> (3 items; <emph>α</emph> = .67) – refers to the positive spillover from the workplace into family life (e.g., 'you come home cheerfully after a successful day at work, positively affecting the atmosphere at home').</p> <p> <emph>Positive family‐to‐work spillover</emph> (3 items; <emph>α</emph> = .73) – refers to the positive spillover from the family home into the workplace (e.g., 'after spending time with your spouse/family, you go to work in a good mood, positively affecting the atmosphere at work').</p> <p>Participants are asked to rate the extent to which the 14 statements occur in their lives answering on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (<emph>never</emph>) to 5 (<emph>very often</emph>). The Work–Family Interface Scale demonstrated good internal reliability in the current study – congruent with earlier studies that support the psychometric properties of the measure (Kinnunen et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref70">43</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0180776564-21">Work–life balance</hd> <p>Perceived ability to balance work and life responsibilities was assessed using an eight‐item scale adapted from the <emph>Families and Work Institute Scale</emph> (Anderson et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref71">3</reflink>]). The items included in this scale spanned statements that related to an overall sense of how their workplace values family responsibilities (e.g., 'At my place of employment, employees who put their family or personal needs ahead of their jobs are not looked upon favourably'). Participants responded to each statement using a 4‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 (<emph>strongly disagree</emph>) to 4 (strongly agree), with higher overall scores indicating a more positive work–life balance. Internal reliability for the scale was excellent (<emph>α</emph> = .85).</p> <hd id="AN0180776564-22">Demographic variables</hd> <p>Parent age, child age and gender, number of children in the family, whether fathers were living with a romantic partner and level of education were also measured. The MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status was included as a validated instrument (Moss et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref72">60</reflink>]) assessing self‐reported subjective social status, rated on a 10‐point scale (1 = <emph>worst off</emph> to 10 = <emph>best off</emph>).</p> <hd id="AN0180776564-23">Procedures</hd> <p>Institutional ethical approval to conduct this study was granted by the University of Western Australia Human Research Ethics Committee (2023/ET000147). Prospective participants were recruited via Prolific (<ulink href="http://www.Prolific.co">www.Prolific.co</ulink>), a platform that allows researchers to advertise studies to a repository of existing Prolific users who have completed a rigorous pre‐screening phase. Researchers are then able to distribute the study until a pre‐determined number of 'slots' have been filled by eligible participants. Eligibility criteria to view the recruitment material for the present study were that participants must identify as male, be caring for at least one child aged 6–17 years, be fluent in English and residing in the United Kingdom, United States of America, Australia, New Zealand or Canada. Prospective participants were first directed to a plain language participant information sheet informing them of the study requirements, the nature of their involvement and their rights as participants. The study was only available to those individuals who provided informed consent at the start of the online survey. Participants in the current study were compensated for their participation (approximately £3.50) for completion of the current study.</p> <hd id="AN0180776564-24">Analytic plan</hd> <p>All analyses pertaining to the current study were analysed using version 29.0 of SPSS. One‐way ANOVA adjusted for multiple comparisons was used to ensure no between groups differences on the included variables across country of residence. Descriptive statistics and correlations between study variables were calculated before completing a hierarchical multiple regression analysis (HMRA), following the testing of the relevant statistical assumptions.</p> <p>A priori power analysis using G*Power 3 (Faul et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref73">23</reflink>]) was used to assess the suitability of the present sample size for the planned HMRA to test study hypotheses. This analysis recommended a minimum sample size of 139 to detect a medium‐sized effect (<emph>f</emph><sups>2</sups> = .15) at the conventional alpha level of.05 and power level of.80 in a model containing 15 variables (i.e., the final step of the planned HMRA).</p> <hd id="AN0180776564-25">RESULTS</hd> <p>Descriptive statistics and correlations between variables included in the analyses are presented in Table 2. Level of involvement in children's education – the primary outcome variable – did not significantly differ based on participant country of residence (<emph>p</emph> = .401). Moreover, a similar pattern of non‐significant differences was observed for each of the remaining scale variables included in the current study. The present analyses, therefore, analysed the entire sample and did not employ any statistical procedures to account for the participant's country of residence.</p> <p>2 TABLE Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for study variables (N  = 166).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">Bivariate and point bi‐serial correlations</th><th align="left">Descriptive statistics</th></tr><tr><th align="left">1</th><th align="left">2</th><th align="left">3</th><th align="left">4</th><th align="left">5</th><th align="left">6</th><th align="left">7</th><th align="left">8</th><th align="left">9</th><th align="left">10</th><th align="left">11</th><th align="left">12</th><th align="left">13</th><th align="left">14</th><th align="left">15</th><th align="left">16</th><th align="left"><italic>M</italic> (SD)</th><th align="left">Observed range</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">1. Involvement in Education</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">43.77 (10.31)</td><td align="char" char="–">17–68</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2. Parent age (years)</td><td align="left">−.19*</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">44.33 (7.90)</td><td align="char" char="–">27–67</td></tr><tr><td align="left">3. Living with partner (0 = no; 1 = yes)</td><td align="left">.08</td><td align="left">−.02</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">–</td><td align="char" char="–">0–1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">4. Level of education</td><td align="left">−.09</td><td align="left">.17*</td><td align="left">.09</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">–</td><td align="char" char="–">0–1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">5. Perceived social standing</td><td align="left">−.01</td><td align="left">.20*</td><td align="left">.11</td><td align="left">.28**</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">5.85 (1.52)</td><td align="char" char="–">1–9</td></tr><tr><td align="left">6. Number of children in family</td><td align="left">−.01</td><td align="left">.19*</td><td align="left">−.05</td><td align="left">−.03</td><td align="left">.00</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">2.06 (.89)</td><td align="char" char="–">1–5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">7. Child age</td><td align="left">−.31**</td><td align="left">.50**</td><td align="left">.03</td><td align="left">−.06</td><td align="left">.07</td><td align="left">.06</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">10.82 (3.25)</td><td align="char" char="–">6–17.25</td></tr><tr><td align="left">8. Child gender (0 = female, 1 = male)</td><td align="left">−.04</td><td align="left">.09</td><td align="left">.04</td><td align="left">.05</td><td align="left">−.03</td><td align="left">.10</td><td align="left">.00</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">–</td><td align="char" char="–">0–1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">9. Financial anxiety</td><td align="left">.17*</td><td align="left">−.05</td><td align="left">−.19*</td><td align="left">−.06</td><td align="left">−.16*</td><td align="left">.13</td><td align="left">−.05</td><td align="left">−.02</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">14.69 (6.6)</td><td align="char" char="–">7–31</td></tr><tr><td align="left">10. Co‐parenting</td><td align="left">.03</td><td align="left">.06</td><td align="left">.29**</td><td align="left">.10</td><td align="left">.22**</td><td align="left">−.01</td><td align="left">.07</td><td align="left">−.05</td><td align="left">−.30**</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">56.11 (12.91)</td><td align="char" char="–">17–72</td></tr><tr><td align="left">11. Parent self‐efficacy</td><td align="left">.21**</td><td align="left">−.06</td><td align="left">−.02</td><td align="left">−.18</td><td align="left">.00</td><td align="left">−.04</td><td align="left">.02</td><td align="left">−.07</td><td align="left">−.17*</td><td align="left">.31**</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">4.33 (.51)</td><td align="char" char="–">2.4–5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">12. Negative work‐to‐family spillover</td><td align="left">−.03</td><td align="left">−.02</td><td align="left">−.13</td><td align="left">.06</td><td align="left">.06</td><td align="left">.06</td><td align="left">−.02</td><td align="left">−.09</td><td align="left">.28**</td><td align="left">−.24*</td><td align="left">−.12</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">10.26 (3.45)</td><td align="char" char="–">4–18</td></tr><tr><td align="left">13. Negative family‐to‐work spillover</td><td align="left">.14</td><td align="left">.05</td><td align="left">−.01</td><td align="left">.21**</td><td align="left">.11</td><td align="left">.05</td><td align="left">−.05</td><td align="left">.05</td><td align="left">.35**</td><td align="left">−.35**</td><td align="left">−.32**</td><td align="left">.46**</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">8.55 (3.65)</td><td align="char" char="–">4–20</td></tr><tr><td align="left">14. Positive work‐to‐family spillover</td><td align="left">.36**</td><td align="left">−.07</td><td align="left">.16</td><td align="left">.05</td><td align="left">−.06</td><td align="left">−.07</td><td align="left">−.08</td><td align="left">−.01</td><td align="left">−.06</td><td align="left">.23**</td><td align="left">.24**</td><td align="left">−.17*</td><td align="left">.01</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">8.87 (2.39)</td><td align="char" char="–">3–15</td></tr><tr><td align="left">15. Positive family‐to‐work spillover</td><td align="left">.30**</td><td align="left">.05</td><td align="left">.02</td><td align="left">.06</td><td align="left">.04</td><td align="left">.08</td><td align="left">.02</td><td align="left">.03</td><td align="left">.01</td><td align="left">.29**</td><td align="left">.24**</td><td align="left">−.08</td><td align="left">.03</td><td align="left">.61**</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left">9.77 (2.41)</td><td align="char" char="–">4–15</td></tr><tr><td align="left">16. Work–life balance</td><td align="left">−.08</td><td align="left">.08</td><td align="left">.04</td><td align="left">.01</td><td align="left">.21<sup>**</sup></td><td align="left">.01</td><td align="left">.10</td><td align="left">−.10</td><td align="left">−.27<sup>**</sup></td><td align="left">.21<sup>**</sup></td><td align="left">.33<sup>**</sup></td><td align="left">−.34<sup>**</sup></td><td align="left">−.25<sup>**</sup></td><td align="left">.14</td><td align="left">.04</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">3.22 (.53)</td><td align="char" char="–">1.63–4.00</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>: *<emph>p</emph> < .05. **<emph>p</emph> < .01. Level of education was coded as a binary variable: 0 = below university; 1 = undergraduate degree or higher.</p> <hd id="AN0180776564-26">Hierarchical multiple regression analysis (HMRA)</hd> <p>The statistical assumptions that underpin HMRA were found to be met. Data were free from high‐leverage cases (i.e., those with Cook's distances exceeding 1.00) and multivariate outliers. Tolerance values were all >.20 and variable inflation factor (VIF) values were all <5.00, suggesting the data were free from issues of multicollinearity. Inspection of the relevant plots and histograms also demonstrated that continuous variables in the model were approximately normally distributed and that the assumptions of normality, linearity and homoscedasticity of residuals were also satisfied.</p> <p>The HMRA included three steps. Step 1 of the models added the <emph>demographic variables</emph> – father's age, co‐living status, level of education, perceived social standing, child age, child gender and financial anxiety. The <emph>parent‐related variables</emph> – co‐parenting quality and parent self‐efficacy – were added to step 2 of the model. The <emph>employment‐related</emph> models of work–life balance and the four dimensions of work–family interface and family–work interface were added to the final step of the model. The final model included 15 variables (Table 3).</p> <p>3 TABLE Unstandardized (B), standardized (β) and squared semi‐partial correlation coefficients for regression models accounting for variance in father's involvement in children's education (N  = 166).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">Unstandardized coefficients (<italic>B</italic>) [95% CI]</th><th align="left">SE</th><th align="left">Standardized coefficient (<italic>β</italic>)</th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>sr2</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Step 1: Demographic variables (R<sup>2</sup> = .15, p < .001)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">(Constant)</td><td align="char" char="[">46.14 [34.08, 58.21]</td><td align="left">6.11</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="char" char="."><.001</td><td align="char" char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Parent age (years)</td><td align="char" char="[">.00 [−.24,.23]</td><td align="char" char=".">.12</td><td align="left">.00</td><td align="char" char=".">.985</td><td align="char" char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Living with partner (0 = No; 1 = Yes)</td><td align="char" char="[">4.82 [−.71, 10.34]</td><td align="char" char=".">2.80</td><td align="left">.13</td><td align="char" char=".">.087</td><td align="char" char=".">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Level of education</td><td align="char" char="[">−2.73 [−6.06,.6]</td><td align="char" char=".">1.69</td><td align="left">−.13</td><td align="char" char=".">.107</td><td align="char" char=".">.01</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Perceived social status</td><td align="char" char="[">.41 [−.64, 1.47]</td><td align="char" char=".">.53</td><td align="left">.06</td><td align="char" char=".">.439</td><td align="char" char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Number of children in family</td><td align="char" char="[">−.1 [−1.85, 1.65]</td><td align="char" char=".">.89</td><td align="left">−.01</td><td align="char" char=".">.914</td><td align="char" char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Child age</td><td align="char" char="[">−1.01 [−1.55, −.46]</td><td align="char" char=".">.27</td><td align="left">−.32</td><td align="char" char=".">.000</td><td align="char" char=".">.07</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Child gender (0 = Female, 1 = Male)</td><td align="char" char="[">−.63 [−3.68, 2.42]</td><td align="char" char=".">1.54</td><td align="left">−.03</td><td align="char" char=".">.683</td><td align="char" char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Financial anxiety</td><td align="char" char="[">.28 [.04,.51]</td><td align="char" char=".">.12</td><td align="left">.18</td><td align="char" char=".">.021</td><td align="char" char=".">.03</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Step 2: Parent‐related variables (R<sup>2</sup> = .21, p < .001)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">(Constant)</td><td align="char" char="[">22.52 [4.06, 40.98]</td><td align="char" char=".">9.35</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="char" char=".">.017</td><td align="char" char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Parent age (years)</td><td align="char" char="[">.01 [−.21,.24]</td><td align="char" char=".">.11</td><td align="left">.01</td><td align="char" char=".">.899</td><td align="char" char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Living with partner (0 = No; 1 = Yes)</td><td align="char" char="[">5.34 [−.25, 10.92]</td><td align="char" char=".">2.83</td><td align="left">.14</td><td align="char" char=".">.061</td><td align="char" char=".">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Level of education</td><td align="char" char="[">−1.78 [−5.08, 1.52]</td><td align="char" char=".">1.67</td><td align="left">−.08</td><td align="char" char=".">.288</td><td align="char" char=".">.01</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Perceived social status</td><td align="char" char="[">.37 [−.66, 1.41]</td><td align="char" char=".">.53</td><td align="left">.06</td><td align="char" char=".">.478</td><td align="char" char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Number of children in family</td><td align="char" char="[">−.06 [−1.76, 1.65]</td><td align="char" char=".">.86</td><td align="left">.00</td><td align="char" char=".">.948</td><td align="char" char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Child age</td><td align="char" char="[">−1.03 [−1.55, −.5]</td><td align="char" char=".">.27</td><td align="left">−.32</td><td align="char" char=".">.000</td><td align="char" char=".">.07</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Child gender (0 = Female, 1 = Male)</td><td align="char" char="[">−.35 [−3.33, 2.63]</td><td align="char" char=".">1.51</td><td align="left">−.02</td><td align="char" char=".">.816</td><td align="char" char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Financial anxiety</td><td align="char" char="[">.34 [.11,.58]</td><td align="char" char=".">.12</td><td align="left">.22</td><td align="char" char=".">.005</td><td align="char" char=".">.04</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Co‐parenting</td><td align="char" char="[">−.01 [−.14,.12]</td><td align="char" char=".">.07</td><td align="left">−.01</td><td align="char" char=".">.909</td><td align="char" char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Parent self‐efficacy</td><td align="char" char="[">4.96 [1.85, 8.06]</td><td align="char" char=".">1.57</td><td align="left">.25</td><td align="char" char=".">.002</td><td align="char" char=".">.05</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Step 3: Employment‐related variables (R<sup>2</sup> = .34, p < .001)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">(Constant)</td><td align="char" char="[">22.20 [2.94, 41.46]</td><td align="char" char=".">9.75</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="char" char=".">.024</td><td align="char" char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Parent age (years)</td><td align="char" char="[">.00 [−.21,.21]</td><td align="char" char=".">.11</td><td align="left">.00</td><td align="char" char=".">.989</td><td align="char" char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Living with partner (0 = No; 1 = Yes)</td><td align="char" char="[">3.52 [−1.82, 8.87]</td><td align="char" char=".">2.70</td><td align="left">.10</td><td align="char" char=".">.194</td><td align="char" char=".">.01</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Level of education</td><td align="char" char="[">−2.78 [−5.9,.35]</td><td align="char" char=".">1.58</td><td align="left">−.13</td><td align="char" char=".">.081</td><td align="char" char=".">.01</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Perceived social status</td><td align="char" char="[">.65 [−.36, 1.67]</td><td align="char" char=".">.51</td><td align="left">.10</td><td align="char" char=".">.207</td><td align="char" char=".">.01</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Number of children in family</td><td align="char" char="[">.09 [−1.51, 1.7]</td><td align="char" char=".">.81</td><td align="left">.01</td><td align="char" char=".">.909</td><td align="char" char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Child age</td><td align="char" char="[">−.92 [−1.41, −.43]</td><td align="char" char=".">.25</td><td align="left">−.29</td><td align="char" char="."><.001</td><td align="char" char=".">.06</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Child gender (0 = Female, 1 = Male)</td><td align="char" char="[">−1.08 [−3.89, 1.72]</td><td align="char" char=".">1.42</td><td align="left">−.05</td><td align="char" char=".">.447</td><td align="char" char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Financial anxiety</td><td align="char" char="[">.24 [.00,.47]</td><td align="char" char=".">.12</td><td align="left">.15</td><td align="char" char=".">.046</td><td align="char" char=".">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Co‐parenting</td><td align="char" char="[">−.04 [−.17,.09]</td><td align="char" char=".">.07</td><td align="left">−.05</td><td align="char" char=".">.559</td><td align="char" char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Parent self‐efficacy</td><td align="char" char="[">4.83 [1.69, 7.98]</td><td align="char" char=".">1.59</td><td align="left">.24</td><td align="char" char=".">.003</td><td align="char" char=".">.04</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Negative work‐to‐family spillover</td><td align="char" char="[">−.39 [−.87,.09]</td><td align="char" char=".">.24</td><td align="left">−.13</td><td align="char" char=".">.112</td><td align="char" char=".">.01</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Negative family‐to‐work spillover</td><td align="char" char="[">.48 [−.02,.97]</td><td align="char" char=".">.25</td><td align="left">.17</td><td align="char" char=".">.058</td><td align="char" char=".">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Positive work‐to‐family spillover</td><td align="char" char="[">.91 [.15, 1.68]</td><td align="char" char=".">.39</td><td align="left">.21</td><td align="char" char=".">.020</td><td align="char" char=".">.03</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Positive family‐to‐work spillover</td><td align="char" char="[">.55 [−.21, 1.31]</td><td align="char" char=".">.38</td><td align="left">.13</td><td align="char" char=".">.155</td><td align="char" char=".">.01</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Work–life balance</td><td align="char" char="[">−2.84 [−5.88,.21]</td><td align="char" char=".">1.54</td><td align="left">−.15</td><td align="char" char=".">.068</td><td align="char" char=".">.01</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 <emph>Note</emph>: Significant variables are depicted in bold. Level of education was coded as a binary variable: 0 = below university; 1 = undergraduate degree or higher.</p> <hd id="AN0180776564-27">Demographic variables</hd> <p>The included demographic variables accounted for a statistically significant 15.2% of the variance in father involvement in their child's education, <emph>R</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = .15, adjusted <emph>R</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = .12, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref74">8</reflink>, 157) = 3.54, <emph>p</emph> < .001.</p> <p>Child's age and financial anxiety could uniquely account for variance in father's involvement with their child's education. Fathers were more likely to be involved with their child's education when children were younger (<emph>β</emph> = −.32, <emph>p</emph> < .001) and – unexpectedly – when they were experiencing increased rates of financial anxiety (<emph>β</emph> = .18, <emph>p</emph> = .021).</p> <hd id="AN0180776564-28">Parent‐related variables</hd> <p>Co‐parenting quality and parent self‐efficacy were added to step 2 of the model. The inclusion of these two variables resulted in a statistically significant increase to the explanatory power of the model, explaining an additional 5.5% of the variability in father's involvement in their child's education that could not be otherwise explained by the demographic variables included in step 1, <emph>R</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups><emph>‐change =</emph> .06, <emph>F‐change</emph> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref75">2</reflink>, 155) = 5.42, <emph>p</emph> = .005. In combination, the variables included in step 1 and step 2 of the model collectively accounted for a statistically significant 20.8% of the variability in father's involvement in their child's education, <emph>R</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = .21, adjusted <emph>R</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = .16, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref76">10</reflink>, 155) = 4.07, <emph>p</emph> < .001.</p> <p>Parent self‐efficacy, but not co‐parenting quality, accounted for a statistically significant proportion of the variance in father's involvement in their child's education. Higher levels of parent self‐efficacy were associated with greater educational involvement (<emph>β</emph> = .25, <emph>p</emph> = .002). Children's age (<emph>β</emph> = −.32, <emph>p</emph> < .001) and financial anxiety remained statistically significant correlates of father's involvement in their child's education following the inclusion of the two parent‐related variables into the regression model (<emph>β</emph> = .22, <emph>p</emph> = .005).</p> <hd id="AN0180776564-29">Employment‐related variables</hd> <p>The dimensions of work–family interface (i.e., negative work‐to‐family spillover, negative family‐to‐work spillover, positive work‐to‐family spillover and positive family‐to‐work spillover) and work–life balance were added to the final step of the hierarchical multiple regression analysis. The inclusion of these variables resulted in a 13.2% increase in the overall explanatory power of the model, <emph>R</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups><emph>‐change =</emph> .13, <emph>F</emph>‐change (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref77">5</reflink>, 150) = 6.02, <emph>p</emph> < .001. The variables included in the final regression model accounted for a statistically significant 34% of the variability in father's involvement in their child's education, <emph>R</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = .34, adjusted <emph>R</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = .27, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref78">15</reflink>, 150) = 5.16, <emph>p</emph> < .001 – representing a large effect size (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref79">16</reflink>]).</p> <p>Of these employment‐related variables, positive work‐to‐family spillover (<emph>β</emph> = .21, <emph>p</emph> = .020) accounted for a statistically significant proportion of the variance in education involvement. Higher levels of positive work‐to‐family spillover were associated with higher levels of educational involvement, whereas each of the remaining dimensions of work–life interface and work–life balance did not account for any additional variance. Child's age (<emph>β</emph> = −.29, <emph>p</emph> < .001), financial anxiety (<emph>β</emph> = .15, <emph>p</emph> = .046) and parent self‐efficacy (<emph>β</emph> = .24, <emph>p</emph> = .003) were the only other variables that could account for significant variance in educational involvement.</p> <hd id="AN0180776564-30">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>The overall aim of this study was to identify the variables that were associated with fathers' involvement in their school‐aged child's education. Contrary to predictions, not all included variables were associated with involvement in education. The pattern of bivariate associations revealed that fathers experiencing higher levels of positive work‐to‐family spillover, family‐to‐work spillover, parent self‐efficacy and – unexpected – financial anxiety were more likely to be involved in their children's education. Additionally, fathers who were themselves younger, and had younger children, were more likely to be involved in their children's education. Hypothesis 6 was supported. The inclusion of employment‐related variables significantly improved the explanatory power of the model, compared to a model that only included demographic and parent‐related variables. Four of the 15 variables (child age, financial anxiety, parent self‐efficacy and positive work‐to‐family interface) explained unique variance in father's involvement in education, yet explained 34% of the variability in this outcome variable – representing a large effect size by conventional standards (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref80">16</reflink>]). A comprehensive understanding of the determinants of father's involvement in children's education is therefore unlikely to be achieved without considering important demographic, parent‐related and employment‐related factors that shape this relationship.</p> <p>The benefits of parental involvement in their children's education are well‐established (Tan et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref81">73</reflink>]; Wong et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref82">80</reflink>]). The current study narrowed its focus on fathers' involvement in their children's education to add to the comparatively limited body of evidence that examines the role of fathers in their children's educational journeys. This focus is also timely, when considering broader sociocultural changes across many industrialized nations resulting in broad increases in the amount of time that fathers spend engaged in providing direct forms of care for their children, including practices related to education (Craig & Mullan, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref83">18</reflink>]; Miller et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref84">59</reflink>]). Although it is important to acknowledge the overlapping barriers and facilitators to involvement faced by all parents, it is also vital to recognize those unique mechanisms that influence father's involvement that have previously been identified as important for children, regardless of their socioeconomic status, such as motivation and social support (Cabrera et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref85">11</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref86">12</reflink>]; Lamb, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref87">47</reflink>]; Pleck, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref88">64</reflink>]).</p> <p>The regression‐based approach undertaken in the current study helped to parse particularly important individual differences that may explain variation in how fathers are involved in their children's education. Previous work has identified the interplay of different individual, lifestyle, social and cultural factors that contribute to father's involvement (Cabrera et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref89">11</reflink>]; Lee, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref90">51</reflink>]). Considering this interplay, this study included factors originating from <emph>demographic</emph>, <emph>parent‐related</emph> and <emph>employment‐related</emph> domains to identify how pertinent these factors were in understanding fathers' educational involvement.</p> <p>The results from the final regression model revealed that more than one‐third (34%) of the total variability (a large effect) could be explained by the included variables. However, only four of these variables (i.e., <emph>child age, financial anxiety</emph>, <emph>parent self‐efficacy and positive work‐to‐family interface</emph>) were uniquely associated with fathers' educational involvement.</p> <p>Children's age was negatively associated with father's involvement in education. This finding is congruent with prior longitudinal research on parent involvement (e.g., Izzo et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref91">37</reflink>]). As children progress through their formal education, levels of parental involvement tend to decrease in response to children's emerging independence as students (Epstein, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref92">22</reflink>]). However, it may also be important to acknowledge that parental involvement may not diminish, but manifest as different attitudes and practices over time. For example, involvement in the education of young children might involve more direct interactions and modelling of behaviours (e.g., reading with children), while for older children, educational involvement could be creating a home environment conducive to independent study (e.g., removing distractions and checking to see homework has been completed). Although parent involvement during the early years is important for children's learning, involvement throughout the entire school journey has been shown to be associated with improved educational outcomes (Bogenschneider, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref93">9</reflink>]).</p> <p>Fathers with higher levels of parent self‐efficacy were more likely to be involved in their child's education. This finding is congruent with prior research by Trahan ([<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref94">76</reflink>]) in their study exploring bidirectional associations between parent self‐efficacy and father's involvement. Parent self‐efficacy, but not co‐parenting, was significantly associated with father's involvement – a finding shared by both the Trahan ([<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref95">76</reflink>]) study and the current study. These findings reinforce the relevance of parent self‐efficacy as a key determinant of father's involvement (Lamb, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref96">46</reflink>]). Parent self‐efficacy remains the target of many parenting intervention programmes designed to improve child health and well‐being (Albanese et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref97">1</reflink>]; Fletcher et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref98">24</reflink>]). In the context of the current study, encouraging fathers to recognize their ability to support their children's education may increase their participation in their children's learning. For example, promoting parents' personal confidence can lead to positive parental involvement behaviours like reviewing and helping children with homework, resulting in better academic outcomes (Liu & Leighton, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref99">53</reflink>]). The present findings support ongoing efforts to build parent self‐efficacy to optimize father's involvement.</p> <p>The current study looked beyond parent‐related variables to examine how employment‐related factors may also influence father's involvement, namely work–life interface and work–life balance. The desire held by many fathers to be more involved in raising their children may introduce new challenges for fathers, who may be forced to reconcile the urge to provide financial support with a desire to be more involved in caregiving (Tanquerel, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref100">74</reflink>]). However, work–life balance was not found to be associated with father's involvement in their children's education. This finding departs from past research where working arrangements have been shown to be an important factor in shaping the quality of father's involvement (Stropnik et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref101">71</reflink>]). One potential explanation for this could be related to sampling issues, as fathers who are struggling to maintain a healthy work–life balance are less likely to take part in time‐consuming studies about parenting. Alternatively, the way in which work–life balance was evaluated did not provide the necessary qualitative insights that could better explore what strategies working parents are engaging with to maintain a healthy work–life balance, which remains a necessary area for further investigation.</p> <p> <emph>Positive work‐to‐family</emph> spillover was the only employment‐related dimension associated with fathers' educational involvement. Fathers were more likely to be involved in their children's education when their experience at the workplace was positive and of direct relevance to their involvement (e.g., 'you fulfil your domestic obligations better because of the things you have learned on your job'), engender a more favourable attitude at home ('you come home cheerfully after a successful day at work, positively affecting the atmosphere at home') and/or grants the ability to successfully manage time at home (e.g., 'you manage your time at home more efficiently as a result of the way you do your job'). Prior research has more closely interrogated factors related to <emph>negative work‐to‐family</emph> spillover (e.g., 'your job produces strain that makes it difficult to fulfil your family duties'), which has close conceptual relationships to occupational burnout – a known risk factor for poor parent–child relationship quality (Mikolajczak et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref102">58</reflink>]).</p> <p>Workplace interventions supporting working fathers may benefit from efforts to foster positive work‐to‐family spillover, rather than focusing only on mitigating negative work‐to‐family spillover. A systematic review conducted by Suto et al. ([<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref103">72</reflink>]) on workplace parenting interventions identified several key approaches. These included: employee self‐rostering (flexibility) to manage work schedules, workplace structural, social and cultural changes to better navigate the work–family interface, workplace interventions centred around parenting and work–family dynamics and programmes offering personalized counselling to address personal and professional stressors. Some programmes focus on building positive parenting behaviours (Haslam & Penman, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref104">32</reflink>]), whereas others may offer policy and practice implications for workplaces (Barck‐Holst et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref105">7</reflink>]). For instance, a randomized controlled trial conducted by Barck‐Holst et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref106">7</reflink>]) found that reducing working hours yielded positive effects on negative emotions, the intrusion of work into private life and work–life balance. Implementing these approaches is seldom feasible for families. As a result, it becomes important to explore methods of enhancing positive work‐to‐family spillover to optimize the limited time that fathers can dedicate to supporting their children's education and broader health and well‐being. It is also important to recognize that workplace parenting programmes can benefit workplaces, particularly by increasing efficiency and employee well‐being (Suto et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref107">72</reflink>]).</p> <p>Self‐reported financial anxiety was unexpectedly positively associated with educational involvement in the current sample of fathers. One possible explanation for this finding is that <emph>perceived</emph> financial anxiety may not necessarily correlate with the objective financial circumstances of fathers and their families. Moreover, concerns about finances are perceived by parents as an indication of responsibility (and therefore associated with more positive parenting behaviours), whereas low levels of financial anxiety, objective or perceived, could have been interpreted as being unconcerned, rather than absent because of anxiety. Considering this finding, future studies could ascertain objective measures such as household income and expenditure to determine how financial pressures impact father's involvement.</p> <hd id="AN0180776564-31">Limitations and directions for future research</hd> <p>As participants were recruited through the <emph>Prolific</emph> platform, a high concentration of participants based in Western industrialized nations was consistent with the pool of prospective participants who use <emph>Prolific</emph>. Although education and employment systems across these countries do vary, it is also important to recognize that past studies have found these industrialized Western nations to share similar beliefs and expectations concerning fatherhood and masculinity (Anderson, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref108">2</reflink>]; Cooke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref109">17</reflink>]). This was supported in our current study where levels of father's involvement in their children's education did not differ across countries and were therefore analysed as a full sample. Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge that future studies with a clear aim to generate or evaluate policy and practice implications will likely need to focus on specific jurisdictions (e.g., national, state or local levels).</p> <p>Although congruent with some casual pathways outlined in prior theoretical frameworks of father's involvement, the cross‐sectional nature of this exploratory research limits drawing overall definitive causal conclusions (Cabrera et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref110">11</reflink>]). This study helped to identify the factors that may account for levels of father's involvement in their children's education. However, this approach may limit our understanding of potentially important associations that transpire between hypothesized predictors and their interactions. For example, associations between work–family interface could be moderated by marital status, nature of employment or personal attributes (e.g., resilience, personality or other traits). Such interactions and indirect associations between different factors salient to fathers, families and children are described in Cabrera et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref111">11</reflink>]) ecological model of father's involvement. Future research may wish to explore these complexities by enlisting more sophisticated analyses and methodologies, such as path analysis using longitudinal data, or experimental research.</p> <p>As father's involvement in education may change over a child's life, longitudinal studies can help to identify causal pathways and the trajectories of father's involvement and identify critical periods where this involvement is particularly salient for children's lifelong educational attainment. Objective measures of educational attainment (e.g., school performance) in future studies will consolidate the pre‐supposition that father's involvement in education has observable downstream benefits to educational outcomes. As the current study focused on father's involvement in children's education, our ability to measure households where mothers are responsible for this activity is diminished. Thus, the ability to assess both parent's (in two‐parent families) involvement in children's education is advised. These studies could also explore factors previously related to parental involvement, not within the scope of the current study. This might include parent's mental health and beliefs about the value of education (Goodman et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref112">30</reflink>]; Orazio et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref113">61</reflink>]). The opportunity to gain information from multiple informants can also help to address limitations associated with single‐source, self‐report measures.</p> <p>The significance of the positive work‐to‐family spillover dimension of work–family interface that was observed in the current study could be used to help guide the components of workplace programmes and policies seeking to improve positive family outcomes for employees. This may depart from other approaches which focus on the amelioration of negative work‐to‐family spillover, or approaches that focus on optimizing family‐to‐work interface, which were found to be redundant variables in the final HMRA.</p> <hd id="AN0180776564-32">CONCLUSION</hd> <p>The factors that influence a father's capacity to be involved in their children's education are complex and multifactorial. The results of this study highlight the significance of positive work‐to‐family spillover and parent self‐efficacy as modifiable targets to optimize father's involvement in their children's education.</p> <hd id="AN0180776564-33">AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS</hd> <p> <bold>Vincent Mancini:</bold> Conceptualization; investigation; writing – original draft; methodology; writing – review and editing; formal analysis; project administration; supervision. <bold>Thom Nevill:</bold> Writing – original draft; writing – review and editing. <bold>Trevor Mazzucchelli:</bold> Writing – original draft; writing – review and editing. <bold>Jasleen Chhabra:</bold> Writing – original draft; writing – review and editing. <bold>Bruce Robinson:</bold> Writing – review and editing; writing – original draft; supervision.</p> <hd id="AN0180776564-34">ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS</hd> <p>None. Open access publishing facilitated by The University of Western Australia, as part of the Wiley ‐ The University of Western Australia agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.</p> <hd id="AN0180776564-35">CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT</hd> <p>The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.</p> <hd id="AN0180776564-36">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.</p> <ref id="AN0180776564-37"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref97" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Albanese, A. M., Russo, G. R., & Geller, P. A. (2019). The role of parental self‐efficacy in parent and child well‐being: A systematic review of associated outcomes. Child: Care, Health and Development, 45 (3), 333 – 363. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12661</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref60" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson, E. (2012). Shifting masculinities in AngloAmerican countries. Masculinities and Social Change, 1 (1), 40 – 60. https://doi.org/10.4471/mcs.2012.03</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref71" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson, S. E., Coffey, B. S., & Byerly, R. T. (2002). Formal organizational initiatives and informal workplace practices: links to work–family conflict and job‐related outcomes. Journal of Management, 28 (6), 787 – 810. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149‐2063(02)00190‐3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref67" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Archuleta, K. L., Dale, A., & Spann, S. M. (2013). College students and financial distress: Exploring debt, financial satisfaction, and financial anxiety. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, 24 (2), 50 – 62.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref21" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Baker, C. E. (2016). When daddy comes to school: Father–school involvement and children's academic and social–emotional skills. Early Child Development and Care, 188 (2), 208 – 219. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2016.1211118</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref46" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Ball, J. (2010). Father involvement in Canada: An emerging movement. Childhood Education, 87 (2), 113 – 118. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2011.10521455</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref105" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Barck‐Holst, P., Nilsonne, Å., Åkerstedt, T., & Hellgren, C. (2017). Reduced working hours and stress in the Swedish social services: A longitudinal study. International Social Work, 60 (4), 897 – 913. https://doi.org/10.1177/002087281558004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref44" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Berryhill, M. B. (2017). Coparenting and parental school involvement. Child and Youth Care Forum, 46 (2), 261 – 283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566‐016‐9384‐8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref93" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bogenschneider, K. (1997). Parental involvement in adolescent schooling: A proximal process with transcontextual validity. Journal of Marriage and Family, 59 (3), 718 – 733. https://doi.org/10.2307/353956</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brough, P., Muller, W., & Westman, M. (2018). Work, stress, and relationships: The crossover process model. Australian Journal of Psychology, 70 (4), 341 – 349. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12208</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cabrera, N. J., Fitzgerald, H. E., Bradley, R. H., & Roggman, L. (2014). The ecology of father‐child relationships: An expanded model. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 6 (4), 336 – 354. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12054</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cabrera, N. J., Hennigar, A., Alonso, A., McDorman, S. A., & Reich, S. M. (2021). The protective effects of maternal and paternal factors on children's social development. Adversity and Resilience Science, 2 (2), 85 – 98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42844‐021‐00041‐x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, H.‐H., Liang, Y.‐C., Gapp, S. C., Newland, L. A., Giger, J. T., & Lin, C.‐Y. (2017). Direct and indirect links between the couple relationship and child school outcomes. The Journal of Experimental Education, 85 (4), 658 – 673. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2017.1279115</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Choi, J. K., & Becher, E. H. (2019). Supportive coparenting, parenting stress, harsh parenting, and child behavior problems in nonmarital families. Family Process, 58 (2), 404 – 417. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12373</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Churchill, B., & Craig, L. (2021). Men's and women's changing attitudes towards fatherhood and working fathers in Australia. Current Sociology, 70 (6), 943 – 963. https://doi.org/10.1177/00113921211012737</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen, J. (2016). A power primer. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14805‐018</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cooke, L. P. (2014). Gendered parenthood penalties and premiums across the earnings distribution in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. European Sociological Review, 30 (3), 360 – 372. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcu044</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Craig, L., & Mullan, K. (2010). Parenthood, gender and work‐family time in the United States, Australia, Italy, France, and Denmark. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72 (5), 1344 – 1361. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741‐3737.2010.00769.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Montigny, F., & Lacharité, C. (2005). Perceived parental efficacy: Concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 49 (4), 387 – 396. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐2648.2004.03302.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Diniz, E., Brandão, T., & Veríssimo, M. (2023). Father involvement during early childhood: A systematic review of qualitative studies. Family Relations., 72, 2710 – 2730. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12858</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duursma, A. E. (2014). The effects of fathers' and mothers' reading to their children on language outcomes of children participating in early head start in the United States. Fathering A Journal of Theory Research and Practice about Men as Fathers, 12, 283 – 303.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Epstein, J. L. (1990). School and family connections. Marriage and Family Review, 15 (1–2), 99 – 126. https://doi.org/10.1300/J002v15n01_06</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39 (2), 175 – 191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fletcher, R., Freeman, E., & Matthey, S. (2011). The impact of behavioural parent training on fathers' parenting: A meta‐analysis of the triple P‐positive parenting program. Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice about Men as Fathers, 9 (3), 291 – 312. https://doi.org/10.3149/fth.0903.291</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flouri, E., & Buchanan, A. (2004). Early father's and mother's involvement and child's later educational outcomes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74 (2), 141 – 153. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709904773839806</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Freeman, H., Newland, L. A., & Coyl, D. D. (2008). Father beliefs as a mediator between contextual barriers and father involvement. Early Child Development and Care, 178 (7–8), 803 – 819. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430802352228</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Giallo, R., Treyvaud, K., Cooklin, A., & Wade, C. (2013). Mothers' and fathers' involvement in home activities with their children: Psychosocial factors and the role of parental self‐efficacy. Early Child Development and Care, 183 (3–4), 343 – 359. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2012.711587</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gonida, E. N., & Cortina, K. S. (2014). Parental involvement in homework: Relations with parent and student achievement‐related motivational beliefs and achievement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84 (3), 376 – 396. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12039</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodall, J., & Montgomery, C. (2023). Parental involvement to parental engagement: A continuum. Mapping the Field, 66, 158 – 169.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodman, S. H., Simon, H. F. M., Shamblaw, A. L., & Kim, C. Y. (2020). Parenting as a mediator of associations between depression in mothers and children's functioning: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 23 (4), 427 – 460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567‐020‐00322‐4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grossman, F. K., Pollack, W. S., & Golding, E. (1988). Fathers and children: Predicting the quality and quantity of fathering. Developmental Psychology, 24 (1), 82 – 91. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012‐1649.24.1.82</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haslam, D. M., & Penman, N. (2017). Parenting support in the workplace. In M. R. Sanders & T. G. Mazzucchelli (Eds.), The power of positive parenting: Transforming the lives of children, parents, and communities using the triple P system. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/med‐psych/9780190629069.003.0023</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henwood, K., & Procter, J. (2003). The 'good father': Reading men's accounts of paternal involvement during the transition to first‐time fatherhood. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 42 (3), 337 – 355. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466603322438198</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hill, E. J., Märtinson, V. K., Ferris, M., & Baker, R. Z. (2004). Beyond the mommy track: The influence of new‐concept part‐time work for professional women on work and family. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 25, 121 – 136. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JEEI.0000016726.06264.91</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holmes, E. K., Thomas, C. R., Petts, R. J., & Hill, E. J. (2020). The work‐family interface. In Cross‐cultural family research and practice (pp. 323 – 354). Elsevier.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huang, Q., Zhang, X., Liu, Y., Yang, W., & Song, Z. (2017). The contribution of parent–child numeracy activities to young Chinese children's mathematical ability. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 87 (3), 328 – 344. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12152</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Izzo, C. V., Weissberg, R. P., Kasprow, W. J., & Fendrich, M. (1999). A longitudinal assessment of teacher perceptions of parent involvement in children's education and school performance. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27 (6), 817 – 839. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022262625984</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jacobs, J. N., & Kelley, M. L. (2006). Predictors of paternal involvement in childcare in dual‐earner families with young children. Fathering, 4 (1), 23 – 47. https://doi.org/10.3149/fth.0401.23</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jeynes, W. H. (2014). A meta‐analysis: The relationship between father involvement and student academic achievement. Urban Education, 50 (4), 387 – 423. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085914525789</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jin, J. F., Ford, M. T., & Chen, C. C. (2013). Asymmetric differences in work‐family spillover in North America and China: Results from two teterogeneous samples. Journal of Business Ethics, 113 (1), 1 – 14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551‐012‐1289‐3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Junttila, N., & Vauras, M. (2014). Latent profiles of parental self‐efficacy and children's multisource‐evaluated social competence. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84 (3), 397 – 414. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12040</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, S. W. (2017). How and why fathers are involved in their children's education: Gendered model of parent involvement. Educational Review, 70 (3), 280 – 299. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2017.1311304</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kinnunen, U., Feldt, T., Geurts, S., & Pulkkinen, L. (2006). Types of work‐family interface: Well‐being correlates of negative and positive spillover between work and family. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 47 (2), 149 – 162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐9450.2006.00502.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kissman, K. (2001). Interventions to strengthen noncustodial father involvement in the lives of their children. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 35 (1–2), 135 – 146.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kwok, S. Y. C. L., & Li, B. K. K. (2015). A mediation model of father involvement with preschool children in Hong Kong. Social Indicators Research, 122 (3), 905 – 923. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205‐014‐0708‐5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lamb, M. E. (2010). The role of the father in child development (Vol. 1). John Wiley & Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lamb, M. E. (2013). The father's role: Cross cultural perspectives. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lamb, M. E., Pleck, J. H., Charnov, E. L., & Levine, J. A. (1985). Paternal behavior in humans. American Zoologist, 25, 883 – 894. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/25.3.883</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lamb, M. E., Pleck, J. H., Charnov, E. L., & Levine, J. A. (2017). A biosocial perspective on paternal behavior and involvement. In Parenting across the life span (pp. 111 – 142). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lau, E. Y. H. (2016). A mixed‐methods study of paternal involvement in Hong Kong. British Educational Research Journal, 42 (6), 1023 – 1040. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3248</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, H. (2019). An exploratory analysis of the factors associated with fathers' school involvement in South Korea. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28, 839 – 850.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, J. K., Feinberg, M. E., & Wells, M. B. (2021). The Swedish brief coparenting relationship scale: Psychometrics and concurrent validity among primiparous and multiparous fathers. Family Relations, 70 (3), 823 – 839. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12503</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu, Y., & Leighton, J. P. (2021). Parental self‐efficacy in helping children succeed in school favors math achievement. Frontiers in Education, 6, 657722.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lowe, K., & 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</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Matta, D. S., & Knudson‐Martin, C. (2006). Father responsivity: Couple processes and the coconstruction of fatherhood. Family Process, 45 (1), 19 – 37.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McBride, B. A., Schoppe‐Sullivan, S. J., & Ho, M.‐H. (2005). The mediating role of fathers' school involvement on student achievement. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26 (2), 201 – 216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2004.12.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meuwissen, A. S., & Carlson, S. M. (2018). The role of father parenting in children's school readiness: A longitudinal follow‐up. Journal of Family Psychology, 32 (5), 588 – 598. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000418</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mikolajczak, M., Raes, M.‐E., Avalosse, H., & Roskam, I. (2018). Exhausted parents: Sociodemographic, child‐related, parent‐related, parenting and family‐functioning correlates of parental burnout. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27 (2), 602 – 614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826‐017‐0892‐4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, D. P., Thomas, M. M. C., Waller, M. R., Nepomnyaschy, L., & Emory, A. D. (2020). Father involvement and socioeconomic disparities in child academic outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82 (2), 515 – 533. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12666</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moss, R. H., Kelly, B., Bird, P. K., & Pickett, K. E. (2023). Examining individual social status using the MacArthur scale of subjective social status: Findings from the born in Bradford study. SSM ‐ Population Health, 23, 101463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2023.101463</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Orazio, A., Teodora, B., & Christopher, R. (2022). Parental beliefs about returns to different types of investments in school children. Journal of Human Resources, 57 (6), 1789 – 1825. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.58.2.0719‐10299R1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paquette, D. (2004). Theorizing the father‐child relationship: Mechanisms and developmental outcomes. Human Development, 47 (4), 193 – 219. https://doi.org/10.1159/000078723</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pedersen, D. E., Minnotte, K. L., Kiger, G., & Mannon, S. E. (2009). Workplace policy and environment, family role quality, and positive family‐to‐work spillover. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 30, 80 – 89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834‐008‐9140‐9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pleck, J. (2010). Paternal involvement: Revised conceptualization and theoretical linkages with child outcomes. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (pp. 58 – 93). John Wiley & Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pleck, J. H. (1997). Paternal involvement: Levels, sources, and consequences. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (Vol. 1, pp. 66 – 103). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rollè, L., Gullotta, G., Trombetta, T., Curti, L., Gerino, E., Brustia, P., & Caldarera, A. M. (2019). Father involvement and cognitive development in early and middle childhood: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2405. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02405</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schieman, S., & Young, M. (2015). Who engages in work–family multitasking? A study of Canadian and American workers. Social Indicators Research, 120 (3), 741 – 767. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205‐014‐0609‐7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seginer, R. (2006). Parents' educational involvement: A developmental ecology perspective. Parenting: Science and Practice, 6 (1), 1 – 48. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327922par0601_1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2007). Student survey of family and community involvement in the elementary and middle grades: Parent survey of family and community involment in the elementary and middle grades. Johns Hopkins Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stevens, D. P., Minnotte, K. L., Mannon, S. E., & Kiger, G. (2007). Examining the "neglected side of the work‐family interface" antecedents of positive and negative family‐to‐work spillover. Journal of Family Issues, 28 (2), 242 – 262. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513x06294548</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stropnik, N., Humer, Ž., Kanjuo Mrčela, A., & Štebe, J. (2019). The problem is in practice: Policy support and employer support for fathers' participation in childcare in Slovenia. Community, Work and Family, 22 (1), 77 – 95. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2018.1558175</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Suto, M., Balogun, O. O., Dhungel, B., Kato, T., & Takehara, K. (2022). Effectiveness of workplace interventions for improving working conditions on the health and wellbeing of fathers or parents: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19 (8), 4779. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19084779</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tan, C. Y., Lyu, M., & Peng, B. (2020). Academic benefits from parental involvement are stratified by parental socioeconomic status: A meta‐analysis. Parenting, 20 (4), 241 – 287. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2019.1694836</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tanquerel, S. (2022). French fathers in work organizations: Navigating work‐life balance challenges. In M. Grau Grau, M. l. Heras Maestro, & H. R. Bowles (Eds.), Engaged fatherhood for men, families and gender equality: Healthcare, social policy, and work perspectives (pp. 213 – 229). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐030‐75645‐1_12</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tekin, A. K. (2012). Father involvement in early childhood education. ICER 2012: Challenging Education for Future Change, Thailand.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trahan, M. H. (2018). Paternal self‐efficacy and father involvement: A bi‐directional relationship. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 19 (4), 624 – 634. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000130</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Varghese, C., & Wachen, J. (2016). The determinants of father involvement and connections to children's literacy and language outcomes: Review of the literature. Marriage & Family Review, 52 (4), 331 ‐ 359. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2015.1099587</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Veas, A., Castejón, J. L., Miñano, P., & Gilar‐Corbí, R. (2019). Relationship between parent involvement and academic achievement through metacognitive strategies: A multiple multilevel mediation analysis. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 89 (2), 393 – 411. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12245</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wei, J., Pomerantz, E. M., Ng, F. F.‐Y., Yu, Y., Wang, M., & Wang, Q. (2019). Why does parents' involvement in youth's learning vary across elementary, middle, and high school? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 56, 262 – 274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.12.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wong, R. S. M., Ho, F. K. W., Wong, W. H. S., Tung, K. T. S., Chow, C. B., Rao, N., Chan, K. L., & Ip, P. (2018). Parental involvement in primary school education: Its relationship with children's academic performance and psychosocial competence through engaging children with school. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27 (5), 1544 – 1555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826‐017‐1011‐2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woolgar, M., Beckett, C., Falconer, S., Humayun, S., Marsden, A., Scott, S., & Dadds, M. (2012). A new, brief measure of parental efficacy for parenting practitioners. Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry: National Academy of Parenting Practitioners.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Vincent Mancini; Thom Nevill; Trevor Mazzucchelli; Jasleen Chhabra and Bruce Robinson</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref113"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1447773
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Role of Parenting- and Employment-Related Variables on Fathers' Involvement in Their Children's Education
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Vincent+Mancini%22">Vincent Mancini</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4845-8104">0000-0002-4845-8104</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Thom+Nevill%22">Thom Nevill</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Trevor+Mazzucchelli%22">Trevor Mazzucchelli</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jasleen+Chhabra%22">Jasleen Chhabra</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bruce+Robinson%22">Bruce Robinson</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22British+Journal+of+Educational+Psychology%22"><i>British Journal of Educational Psychology</i></searchLink>. 2024 94(4):1033-1051.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 19
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Role%22">Parent Role</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Employment%22">Employment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Fathers%22">Fathers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Participation%22">Parent Participation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Influence%22">Parent Influence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Attainment%22">Educational Attainment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Demography%22">Demography</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Children%22">Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adolescents%22">Adolescents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Child+Relationship%22">Parent Child Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Financial+Literacy%22">Financial Literacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Work+Environment%22">Work Environment</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/bjep.12704
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0007-0998<br />2044-8279
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Background: Parent involvement strongly correlates with children's educational attainment. Sociocultural shifts in parenting roles and shared responsibilities have driven an increase in the need for involvement of fathers in activities to support their children's educational development. Several factors are thought to influence father involvement in children's education; however, the most salient factors remain unclear. Aims: To examine which variables correlate with father involvement in their children's education using a combination of demographic, parent-related and employment-related variance. Sample: A total of 166 fathers of at least one child aged 6-17 years and residing across five industrialized Western countries participated in an online survey. Method: Hierarchical multiple regression analysis (HMRA) was performed to examine the total and incremental variance using regression models including demographic, parenting- and employment-related variables linked to educational involvement. Results and Conclusions: The variables included in the current study could explain a large and statistically significant 34% of the variability in fathers' educational involvement. Of these variables, only four were statistically significant in the final model. Specifically, fathers were more likely to be engaged in their children's education when their children were younger, and when parent self-efficacy, positive work-to-family interface and financial anxiety were high. The study's findings indicate that a positive work environment can help fathers better support their children's education, offering a new focus for future interventions and policies. This includes those focused on targeting work-related constructs to optimize family functioning.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1447773
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1447773
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/bjep.12704
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 19
        StartPage: 1033
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Parent Role
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Employment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Fathers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parent Participation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parent Influence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Attainment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Demography
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adolescents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parent Child Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Financial Literacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Work Environment
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Role of Parenting- and Employment-Related Variables on Fathers' Involvement in Their Children's Education
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Vincent Mancini
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Thom Nevill
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Trevor Mazzucchelli
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jasleen Chhabra
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bruce Robinson
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0007-0998
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2044-8279
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 94
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: British Journal of Educational Psychology
              Type: main
ResultId 1