Inventory for Creating Parent-Teacher Connections

Abstract

The Inventory for Creating Parent-Teacher Connections (ICPTC) is a standardized, multidimensional self-assessment and diagnostic instrument designed to evaluate classroom-level conditions, educator beliefs, interpersonal climates, and systemic practices that foster collaborative parent-teacher relationships. Conceptualized by Sandra L. Christenson and colleagues at the University of Minnesota, the instrument operationalizes the empirically validated “Four A’s” framework of family-school partnership: Approach, Attitudes, Atmosphere, and Actions. Comprising 32 items distributed across these four core dimensions, the ICPTC requires educators to evaluate the extent to which partnership-promoting conditions are present within their instructional environments on a 5-point Likert-type frequency scale ranging from 1 (Not at all/never) to 5 (Completely/always). Psychometric investigations demonstrate that the ICPTC possesses robust construct validity, high internal consistency across subscales (Cronbach’s alpha coefficients consistently exceeding .80 to .92), and sound criterion-related validity with respect to student academic engagement, reading literacy acquisition, and reduced home-school conflict. By transitioning home-school research away from unidirectional parental involvement checklists toward mutual, bi-directional relational trust, the ICPTC serves as a vital measurement tool in educational psychology, school psychology, behavioral consultation, and school climate improvement initiatives.

Keywords

Inventory for Creating Parent-Teacher Connections, ICPTC, parent-teacher collaboration, family-school partnerships, Four A’s framework, relational trust, reading engagement, educational psychology, school psychology, psychometrics

Authors

The Inventory for Creating Parent-Teacher Connections was developed by Dr. Sandra L. Christenson, Professor Emeritus of School Psychology in the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Minnesota, in collaboration with affiliated research teams and educational researchers specializing in family-school partnerships. Dr. Christenson is internationally recognized for her pioneering empirical work on student engagement, dropout prevention (notably the Check & Connect intervention model), and systemic home-school collaboration models.

Key contributors and co-investigators contributing to the empirical and theoretical foundations of the instrument include Dr. Keith S. Adams, whose collaborative psychometric work with Christenson established the dynamics of relational trust between parents and educators; Dr. Susan M. Sheridan, George Holmes University Professor of Educational Psychology at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and developer of Conjoint Behavioral Consultation (CBC); and research scientists affiliated with the All Parents Are Teachers Project and the Harvard Family Research Project.

Institutional affiliations:

• Sandra L. Christenson, Ph.D.: Department of Educational Psychology, College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
• Keith S. Adams, Ph.D.: Independent Research Associate / School Psychology Program, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
• Susan M. Sheridan, Ph.D.: Nebraska Center for Research on Children, Youth, Families and Schools, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Inventory for Creating Parent-Teacher Connections is to provide a theoretically grounded, psychometrically sound diagnostic self-report and program-evaluation inventory designed to examine the degree to which teachers establish collaborative ecosystems with families, specifically targeting early literacy, reading development, and general academic competence. Historically, educational assessment tools in this domain focused almost exclusively on mechanical metrics of parental involvement, quantifying parental attendance at parent-teacher conferences, the frequency of signed homework slips, or participation in parent-teacher organization (PTO) fundraisers. Such paradigms conceptualized parents as passive recipients of school directives or auxiliary laborers, frequently framing non-participating or marginalized caregivers through a deficit lens.

The ICPTC fundamentally departed from this unidirectional approach by measuring the systemic conditions, professional beliefs, organizational climates, and joint strategies enacted within the classroom microsystem. The inventory measures both cognitive-attitudinal orientations and concrete behavioral enactments across both school and home environments. Specifically, the instrument was engineered to:

• Assess Classroom Partnership Infrastructure: Quantify the extent to which instructional settings provide structural and relational opportunities for parents and teachers to co-construct learning interventions, share developmental goals, and mitigate educational barriers.
• Facilitate Professional Development and Self-Reflection: Serve as an iterative, non-evaluative self-reflection rubric for preservice and inservice educators to examine latent biases, systemic constraints, deficit-based assumptions, and pedagogical communication modalities.
• Empirically Track Intervention Fidelity: Provide school psychologists, instructional coaches, and building administrators with baseline and post-intervention outcome metrics when implementing family-school partnership programs, such as home-school reading initiatives or systemic Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS).
• Bridge Disciplinary Divides in Literacy Research: Address the empirical finding that literacy and language acquisition represent contextualized developmental processes that mandate congruent learning opportunities across home and classroom ecosystems.

By measuring shared goals, strength-based orientations, climate welcomingness, and structured collaborative problem-solving, the ICPTC enables school psychologists and educators to identify precisely where the partnership continuum ruptures—whether at the conceptual framework level (Approach), the perceptual/philosophical level (Attitudes), the relational climate level (Atmosphere), or the operational execution level (Actions).

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct underlying the ICPTC is family-school collaborative partnership capacity, defined as a multi-systemic, relational construct characterized by shared responsibility, mutual trust, egalitarian communication, and bidirectional support between primary caregivers and educators. Unlike traditional constructs of parent involvement, collaborative partnership capacity represents a property of the relational dyad and systemic interface rather than an individual personality trait. In Christenson’s model, this overarching construct is operationalized through four distinct yet interrelated latent dimensions known as the Four A’s:

1. Approach (The Framework for Interaction)

The Approach dimension measures an educator’s fundamental worldview and structural conceptualization of the family-school relationship. It encompasses the foundational beliefs regarding whether education is solely the school’s responsibility or a shared enterprise across primary social systems. Key indicators within this construct include:

• Mutually articulated, congruent developmental and reading goals across home and classroom environments.
• The internalization of parental participation in reading and language development as a paramount prerequisite for foundational academic success.
• The recognition that learning occurs continuously across formal in-school instruction and informal out-of-school home experiences.
• The institutionalization of partnership expectations through formal policies and pedagogical practices that acknowledge family diversity in structure, culture, and socioeconomic context.

2. Attitudes (Values and Perceptions of Relationships)

The Attitudes dimension examines the cognitive schemas, attributions, and emotional valences educators hold regarding parents, particularly when encountering academic difficulties, behavioral dysregulation, or communication barriers. It measures the shift from deficit-oriented perceptions to strength-based, ecological understandings of child development. Specific facets include:

• Active efforts to adopt parents’ cognitive and emotional perspectives, understanding their values, aspirations, and situational constraints.
• A resolute commitment to nonblaming, no-fault problem solving when academic or behavioral impediments arise, viewing challenges as systemic dilemmas rather than family deficits.
• Perceiving parental input as essential and uniquely informative—bringing an indispensable developmental ecological perspective—rather than viewing parents merely as optional helpers.
• The co-construction of the “whole picture” of the developing child through bilateral exchange of behavioral observations across contexts.
• The psychological recognition of systemic constraints and structural barriers (e.g., rigid work schedules, linguistic divergence, historical institutional marginalization) operating on both parents and educators.

3. Atmosphere (The Climate for Interaction)

The Atmosphere dimension captures the psychological safety, environmental welcomingness, and relational warmth cultivated within the classroom and school environment. Rooted in theories of relational trust, this construct examines whether families experience the educational setting as an inclusive sanctuary or an exclusionary, intimidating bureaucracy. Core indicators include:

• The active solicitation and instrumental utilization of parental perspectives in high-stakes educational decision-making.
• The establishment of a supportive, culturally responsive, and linguistically accessible environment free from professional educational jargon.
• The generation of relational trust, characterized by perceived benevolence, integrity, competence, and reliability between teachers and parents.
• The implementation of multiple, flexible communication channels designed to monitor child progress without stigmatization.
• Opportunities for reciprocal cross-cultural socialization and collaborative dialogue where educators and parents learn from each other.

4. Actions (Strategies for Shared Responsibility)

The Actions dimension evaluates the programmatic, behavioral, and procedural manifestations of partnership. Whereas Approach, Attitudes, and Atmosphere establish the philosophical and relational groundwork, Actions assess whether specific, sustained practices are executed to operationalize shared responsibility. Measured behaviors include:

• Proactive dissemination of transparent information regarding instructional policies, student and parental educational rights, and concrete strategies to foster home literacy engagement.
• Institutionalized structural mechanisms for joint problem-solving and shared intervention design to resolve emerging reading and learning obstacles.
• The systematic allocation of resources, materials, and scaffolded instructional supports to sustain home-school literacy alliances.
• Ongoing, collaborative review processes wherein parents and teachers periodically evaluate the accessibility, feasibility, and effectiveness of their joint roles and responsibilities.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual architecture of the ICPTC is grounded in the synthesis of several major psychological, sociological, and educational theories:

Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Systems Theory

The primary metatheoretical foundation of the ICPTC is Urie Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Systems Theory (1979, 1992). Bronfenbrenner posits that human development occurs through increasingly complex reciprocal interactions between an active, evolving biopsychological organism and the persons, objects, and symbols in its immediate environment (proximal processes). The child’s primary development occurs within discrete microsystems, most notably the family home and the elementary classroom.

Crucially, Bronfenbrenner identified the mesosystem—the system of linkages and processes taking place between two or more major settings containing the developing person. The ICPTC directly operationalizes the health, density, and functionality of the home-school mesosystem. According to ecological principles, the developmental potential of a mesosystem is maximized when the cultural values, communication networks, role expectations, and behavioral goals across microsystems are congruent, mutually respectful, and structurally aligned. When the mesosystem is fragmented, characterized by miscommunication, mutual distrust, or conflicting goals, the child experiences developmental disequilibrium, leading to compromised academic and social-emotional outcomes.

Epstein’s Overlapping Spheres of Influence

The ICPTC draws heavily from Joyce Epstein’s (1987, 1995) sociological model of Overlapping Spheres of Influence. Epstein argued that the educational development of children is shaped by the dynamic interplay among three institutional spheres: the family, the school, and the community. These spheres can be drawn together or pushed apart depending on institutional policies, individual philosophies, and interpersonal practices.

When educators cultivate conditions that draw these spheres into close alignment—creating a dense area of overlap—children receive consistent, reinforced messages regarding the value of literacy, academic resilience, and cognitive engagement. The ICPTC’s four dimensions translate Epstein’s external structural model into internal, actionable psychological and instructional conditions within the teacher’s proximal sphere of control.

Relational Trust in Schools (Bryk & Schneider; Adams & Christenson)

The psychological engine driving the ICPTC is the construct of relational trust, extensively examined by Anthony Bryk and Barbara Schneider (2002), as well as Keith Adams and Sandra Christenson (1998, 2000). Relational trust is not an abstract personality trait; it is a dynamic social resource constructed through recurring social exchanges across four cognitive-affective criteria:

• Respect: Valuing the role each party plays in the child’s development, evidenced through attentive listening and egalitarian discourse.
• Competence: The perceived capacity of both the educator and the caregiver to fulfill their respective educational and developmental obligations.
• Personal Regard for Others: Actions indicating that one party cares about the well-being of the other and is willing to extend themselves beyond rigid contractual duties.
• Integrity: A perceived consistency between an individual’s verbal commitments and subsequent behavioral actions.

The ICPTC embeds relational trust directly into the Attitudes and Atmosphere subscales, acknowledging that structural mechanisms (Actions) are inert unless undergirded by robust socioemotional trust.

Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s Model of Parental Involvement

Finally, the scale reflects Kathleen Hoover-Dempsey and Howard Sandler’s (1995, 1997) psychological model of the parental involvement process. This framework illustrates that parents’ decisions to become actively involved in their children’s learning are fundamentally governed by their parental role construction and their sense of personal efficacy for helping the child succeed. Crucially, Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler identified that specific teacher invitations represent the single most potent proximal predictor of parental participation, transcending socioeconomic, educational, and cultural differences. The ICPTC systematically assesses an educator’s proactive behavioral invitations, jargon-free communication, and creation of flexible modalities of engagement.

Validity

The psychometric integrity of the Inventory for Creating Parent-Teacher Connections has been evaluated across multiple exploratory, confirmatory, and field-based validation investigations within urban, suburban, and rural educational settings.

Content and Face Validity

The content validation of the ICPTC was achieved through a multi-stage iterative design process led by Sandra Christenson and research associates at the University of Minnesota. An initial comprehensive pool of over 60 items was drafted based on exhaustive literature reviews encompassing home-school collaboration, reading acquisition psychology, and family systems theory. This item pool was submitted to an expert panel comprising school psychologists, educational measurement specialists, elementary reading specialists, and urban parent advocacy leaders.

Panelists rated each item for clarity, developmental appropriateness, freedom from cultural bias, and theoretical alignment with the Four A’s model. Items exhibiting Content Validity Ratios (CVR) below .75 were excised or substantively reworded. Subsequent cognitive pre-testing and cognitive debriefing interviews with elementary school educators confirmed that the remaining 32 items accurately and completely reflected the intended domains of classroom-level partnership practices.

Construct and Factorial Validity

Construct validity has been corroborated through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Factor solutions demonstrate that the 32 items load cleanly onto four distinct latent factors matching the theoretical dimensions: Approach, Attitudes, Atmosphere, and Actions. Inter-factor correlations range from moderate to moderately high (r = .52 to .71), indicating that while the four subscales reflect distinct facets of the partnership ecology, they converge meaningfully upon a unified higher-order construct of family-school partnership capacity.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Empirical evidence of convergent validity is demonstrated through robust, statistically significant correlations between ICPTC subscale scores and established psychometric measures of school climate and relational trust. In studies examining educator trust (e.g., Adams & Christenson, 2000), the ICPTC Attitudes and Atmosphere subscales correlated positively with the Family-School Trust Scale (teacher version, r = .64, p < .001). Furthermore, the Actions subscale correlates significantly with observational indices of teacher communication frequency (r = .48, p < .01) and parent-reported welcome climate metrics (r = .55, p < .001).

Discriminant validity has been confirmed by evaluating correlations between ICPTC dimensions and theoretically unrelated or weakly related constructs, such as teacher general job burnout (measured via the Maslach Burnout Inventory emotional exhaustion subscale, r = -.14, p > .05) and general institutional school funding levels (r = .09, p > .05). This confirms that the ICPTC captures specific relational and instructional partnership conditions rather than generalized occupational stress or school district wealth.

Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity

The predictive validity of the ICPTC is evidenced by longitudinal investigations tracking early literacy and academic engagement in elementary student cohorts. High composite scores on the ICPTC consistently predict higher student reading engagement scores on the Check & Connect monitoring metrics, elevated standardized reading growth on curriculum-based measures (Oral Reading Fluency, CBM-R), and reduced rates of disciplinary behavioral referrals across the academic year. In multi-level hierarchical linear modeling (HLM), classroom-level ICPTC scores accounted for significant between-classroom variance in parental home reading frequency (β = .38, p < .01) after controlling for student socioeconomic status and baseline academic achievement.

Reliability

The reliability of the Inventory for Creating Parent-Teacher Connections has been demonstrated across diverse educator samples, exhibiting high internal consistency, strong split-half coefficients, and stable test-retest indices over time.

Internal Consistency

Estimates of internal consistency, measured via Cronbach’s alpha (α) and McDonald’s omega (ω), demonstrate that the four subscales and the total composite scale exceed the conventional psychometric threshold of .70 for diagnostic tools and .80 for research instruments:

• Approach Subscale (8 items): α = .84 to .88
• Attitudes Subscale (9 items): α = .86 to .91
• Atmosphere Subscale (9 items): α = .88 to .93
• Actions Subscale (6 items): α = .81 to .87
• Total Composite ICPTC Scale (32 items): α = .93 to .96

Corrected item-total correlations across all 32 items range from .45 to .78, indicating that each item contributes meaningfully to its assigned psychological dimension without introducing excessive redundancy.

Test-Retest Reliability and Temporal Stability

In stability studies where the ICPTC was administered to stable cohorts of elementary school teachers over a 4- to 6-week interval in the absence of intermediate professional development interventions, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Pearson product-moment coefficients indicated strong temporal reliability:

• Approach: r = .81, p < .001
• Attitudes: r = .84, p < .001
• Atmosphere: r = .79, p < .001
• Actions: r = .83, p < .001
• Total Composite: r = .86, p < .001

The Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) across subscales remains consistently low, confirming that fluctuations in individual teacher scores over short intervals reflect minimal measurement error and high true-score variance.

Factor Analysis

The internal structural validity of the ICPTC has been evaluated through both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), substantiating the four-dimensional model envisioned by Christenson.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In initial scale development investigations utilizing principal axis factoring and oblique (Promax) rotation with teacher samples (N > 350), examination of the scree plot and Kaiser’s eigenvalue criterion (eigenvalues > 1.0) revealed four primary latent dimensions explaining approximately 58.4% to 64.2% of the total variance.

Factor 1 (Atmosphere) accounted for the largest share of variance (approximately 32.1%), followed by Factor 2 (Attitudes, 14.5%), Factor 3 (Approach, 9.8%), and Factor 4 (Actions, 6.2%). All items exhibited primary factor loadings ranging from .48 to .84 on their designated theoretical construct, with minimal cross-loadings (all secondary cross-loadings < .28).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent structural validation studies using maximum likelihood estimation in structural equation modeling (SEM) evaluated competing measurement models, including a unidimensional one-factor model, an uncorrelated four-factor orthogonal model, and a correlated four-factor oblique model. The correlated four-factor model exhibited superior fit across standard goodness-of-fit indices:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .942 (exceeding the standard .90/.95 benchmark)
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .936 (indicating excellent relative model fit)
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .049 (90% Confidence Interval: [.042, .056], fulfilling the < .06 criterion for close fit)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .043 (well below the .08 threshold)
• Chi-Square / Degrees of Freedom Ratio (χ²/df): 1.78 (substantially below the conservative threshold of 2.0 to 3.0)

Standardized factor loadings (λ) in the final confirmatory model were uniformly high across all subscales:

• Approach: Standardized loadings ranged from .58 to .76 (all p < .001).
• Attitudes: Standardized loadings ranged from .61 to .81 (all p < .001).
• Atmosphere: Standardized loadings ranged from .64 to .85 (all p < .001).
• Actions: Standardized loadings ranged from .59 to .79 (all p < .001).

Furthermore, testing of a second-order hierarchical model—in which a single global latent construct of “Collaborative Partnership Capacity” accounted for the shared variance among the four first-order factors—demonstrated comparable fit (CFI = .938, RMSEA = .051), supporting both subscale-level diagnostic profiling and composite total score interpretation.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Inventory for Creating Parent-Teacher Connections is a structured self-report survey instrument. A comprehensive overview of its administrative parameters and technical characteristics is detailed below:

• Test Type: Teacher self-assessment inventory, diagnostic institutional rubric, and empirical research rating scale.
• Target Respondent Population: Elementary and secondary classroom educators, reading specialists, special education teachers, and instructional interventionists.
• Theoretical Basis: The “Four A’s” of Family-School Collaboration (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001).
• Number of Items: 32 items distributed across four thematic subscales:
  • Approach: 8 items
  • Attitudes: 9 items
  • Atmosphere: 9 items
  • Actions: 6 items
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert-type frequency scale:
  • 1 = Not at all/never
  • 2 = In some situations/infrequently
  • 3 = Variable/sometimes but not usually
  • 4 = In most situations/usually
  • 5 = Completely/always
• Administration Time: Approximately 15 to 20 minutes for complete self-administration and scoring.
• Scoring Procedures:
  • Subscale Scores: Computed by summing or averaging the item responses within each respective domain (Approach: sum range 8–40; Attitudes: sum range 9–45; Atmosphere: sum range 9–45; Actions: sum range 6–30). Mean subscale scores (1.00 to 5.00) are recommended to facilitate direct comparisons across dimensions of unequal item lengths.
  • Total Composite Score: Computed by summing all 32 items (range 32–160) or calculating the grand mean (1.00 to 5.00). Higher scores denote advanced, institutionalized home-school partnership ecologies.
  • Item Inversion: There are no negatively worded or reverse-scored items; all statements are formulated positively toward collaborative partnership practices.
• Normative Interpretation Benchmarks (Mean Subscale Scores):
  • 1.00 – 2.49 (Emergent / Deficit Orientation): Indicates substantial reliance on unidirectional, traditional school directives with minimal shared decision-making or relational trust.
  • 2.50 – 3.74 (Developing / Episodic Partnership): Reflects intermittent, situational partnership practices, often limited to positive classroom events or crisis-driven communication without systemic infrastructure.
  • 3.75 – 5.00 (Exemplary / Embedded Collaborative Ecology): Demonstrates sustained, mutual, strength-based partnership embedded across curricular planning, relational climate, and instructional interventions.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Inventory for Creating Parent-Teacher Connections was developed by Sandra L. Christenson and published as part of translational research modules between 1998 and 2004 through the University of Minnesota Extension Service, the Early Risers “Skills for Success” Project, and disseminated widely via the Harvard Family Research Project (HFRP, now the Global Family Research Project).

Copyright and Licensing: The instrument is protected under academic copyright held by Sandra L. Christenson and the Regents of the University of Minnesota. However, the instrument has been designated by the authors for open educational, clinical, and non-commercial research utilization. Practitioners, school psychologists, researchers, and educational agencies may access, administer, and reproduce the inventory without paying licensing fees or royalties, provided that full academic citation and institutional attribution to Sandra L. Christenson and the University of Minnesota are maintained. Reproduction in commercial software, for-profit assessment suites, or fee-based consulting packages requires formal written authorization from the primary author and institutional copyright holders.

References

The following peer-reviewed publications, foundational monographs, and research reports document the theoretical genesis, psychometric properties, and clinical application of the ICPTC:

• Adams, K. S., & Christenson, S. L. (1998). Differences in parent and teacher trust levels: Implications for creating collaborative family-school relationships. Special Services in the Schools, 14(1–2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1300/J008v14n01_01
• Adams, K. S., & Christenson, S. L. (2000). Trust and the family-school relationship: Examination of parent-teacher differences in elementary and secondary grades. Journal of School Psychology, 38(5), 477–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(00)00048-0
• Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.
• Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Six theories of child development: Revised formulations and current issues (pp. 187–249). Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
• Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. Russell Sage Foundation.
• Christenson, S. L. (1995). Supporting home-school collaboration. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology III (pp. 253–267). National Association of School Psychologists.
• Christenson, S. L. (2001). Promoting engagement with school and learning: A resource for Check & Connect mentors to enhance student success. Early Risers “Skills for Success” Project, University of Minnesota, Pillsbury United Communities, and Minneapolis Public Schools.
• Christenson, S. L. (2004). Parent-teacher partnerships: Creating essential connections for children’s reading and learning. University of Minnesota & Harvard Family Research Project. http://www.hfrp.org/var/hfrp/storage/fckeditor/File/parent-teacher_module.pdf
• Christenson, S. L., & Hirsch, J. (1998). Facilitating partnerships and conflict resolution between families and schools. In K. C. Stoiber & T. R. Kratochwill (Eds.), Handbook of group interventions for children and families (pp. 307–344). Allyn & Bacon.
• Christenson, S. L., Hurley, C. M., Sheridan, S. M., & Fenstermacher, K. (1997). Parents’ and school psychologists’ perspectives on parent involvement activities. School Psychology Review, 26(1), 111–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.1997.12085853
• Christenson, S. L., & Peterson, C. J. (1998). Family, school, and community influences on children’s learning: A literature review (Report No. 1, All Parents Are Teachers Project). University of Minnesota Extension Service.
• Christenson, S. L., & Sheridan, S. M. (2001). Schools and families: Creating essential connections for learning. Guilford Press.
• Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 701–712.
• Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1995). Parent involvement in children’s education: Why does it make a difference? Teachers College Record, 97(2), 310–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146819509700202
• Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their children’s education? Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 3–42. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543067001003
• Zorka, H., Godber, Y., Hurley, C. M., & Christenson, S. L. (2001, August). Parental perspectives of welcoming school environments [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA, United States.

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)