Running head: DOES FAMILY INVOLVEMENT REALLY MATTER?

Does Family Involvement Really Matter? A Meta-Analytic Review of Family Involvement and Social Emotional Outcomes in Young Children with Disabilities Jody M. Pirtle and Noel A. Card

Author Note Jody M. Pirtle, Department of Disability and Psychoeducational Studies, University of Arizona; Noel A. Card, Family Studies and Human Development, University of Arizona Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jody M. Pirtle, Department of Disability and Psychoeducational Studies, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721

DOES FAMILY INVOLVEMENT REALLY MATTER? Introduction Persistent challenging behaviors in early childhood are associated with problems in socialization, school adjustment, and educational and vocational adaptation (Duda, Clarke, Fox & Dunlap, 2008). Although preschool children may not be diagnosed with specific behavioral disorders, they may still exhibit a number of social and emotional problems that cause concern for their parents and teachers (Gimpel & Holland, 2003). Key elements in reducing conduct problems are prevention and early intervention. The longer a child and family go without treatment, the more challenging it becomes to make changes. Prevention and early intervention

programs generally target parenting skills and childrens social competence (Gimpel & Holland, 2003). For young children, including those with developmental delays as well as those at risk for autism, the most essential context for social and behavioral development is that of the family (Dunlap & Fox, 1999; Erwin, 1996, Singer & Irvin, 1989; Turnbull & Turnbull, 2001 as cited in Duda et al., 2008). Attention has been given to home-based intervention and supports with family members as intervention agents. However, home-based experimentations inevitably leave open important questions regarding the ability of parents to implement procedures under the normally prevailing complexities of everyday living (Duda et al., 2008). The development of social-emotional competence during the early childhood years is an important foundation for childrens later success (Yates, Ostrosky, Cheatham, Fettig, Shaffer, & Santos, 2008). Critical developmental foundations of social-emotional competence begin at birth; early experiences influence how infants, toddlers, and young children begin to comprehend, control, and master their world as well as how they form perceptions of self.

DOES FAMILY INVOLVEMENT REALLY MATTER? Purpose The purpose of this meta-analysis was to systematically examine research to determine

the effect of family involvement on the social and emotional development of young children with disabilities. More specifically, the research question that guided this meta-analysis was: What effect does family involvement during intervention have on the social emotional developmental outcomes of young children with disabilities? Method Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria The a priori inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis was: (a) child participants had to be between the ages of 3 and 8 years old, (b) families (to include parent(s) or guardians) had to be involved in the intervention (to included education programs), (c) the children had to have a diagnosed disability, and (d) the intervention needed to focus on social and emotional (to include behavioral) outcomes for the children. If studies did not meet the criteria, they were not included in this meta-analysis. Literature Search Procedures outlined by Card (2012) were used to identify the corpus of studies included in this meta-analysis. These procedures included electronic searches of: (a) several reference databases for relevant studies, (b) prior reviews, (c) conference proceedings, (d) unpublished works, (e) forward and backward searches, and (f) hand searches of relevant journals. Using EBSCOHost (ERIC only) I searched with keywords: parent involvement and disabilities and young children and social emotional and found 3 studies (none of which could be used); I then changed Boolean phrase to or and had 112,275 results, narrowed to journals only and 21,778 results. I changed search again to parent involvement and disabilities and young children and this

DOES FAMILY INVOLVEMENT REALLY MATTER? yielded 96 results (from 1972 to 2011) with only one study appropriate for this meta-analysis. I broadened the search using EBSCOHost and selected the following databases: ERIC, Academic Search Complete, Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson), PsycARTICLES, and PsycINFO and searched with parent involvement and disabilities and young children and social emotional; this yielded 57 results, none appropriate for the meta-analysis. I changed search terms to: family involvement and early childhood and special education; yielded 1696 studies; added behavior*; 1219 results; narrowed to scholarly (peer-reviewed) = 1037 results; added intervention = 936 results; changed behavior* to social emotional = 351 results; 2 potential studies. I then searched using parent involvement and autism and young children = 6 results and 2 potential studies. Changed to parent participation and autism and young children yielded 1 potential study. Used parent* and autism and young children = 58 results. Autism and parent* and early childhood =

60 studies; 2 potential articles. Autism and home and positive behavioral support (in abstract) = 0 articles; changed to all text = 406 results; added intervention = 395 results; 4 potential studies. Additionally, I searched ProQuest for dissertations related to all of the above keywords. I also hand-searched Exceptional Children (2010-present), Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics (2010-present), Journal of Early Intervention (2010-present), Research and Practices for Persons with Severe Disabilities (2009 present), Journal of Special Education (2010-present), Young Exceptional Children (2009-present), and Educational Researcher (2011). Number of works coded During the literature search, the only change made to the inclusion criteria was one study that included children between the ages of 5 and 12 years old. A total of 7 studies met the inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis, although 14 additional studies could be considered for inclusion in this meta-analysis if additional information were provided in the article. The author

DOES FAMILY INVOLVEMENT REALLY MATTER? intends to contact the researchers of these additional studies to obtain missing data. All seven studies that met inclusion criteria were published in peer-reviewed journals. Coding of Independent Variables A code sheet was allowed for coding of the following independent variables: authors, source of study (journal title), publication year, sample size, type of disability, location of intervention, purpose of the study, measures used, findings, and reported study effect size. Coding of Dependent Variables The effect size r was calculated and reported for each study. Pearsons r represents an appropriate index for reporting associations between two continuous variables (Card, 2012). A

variety of effect sizes (or data from which an effect size could be calculated) were reported in the studies considered for this meta-analysis. Three studies reported r or values, which for the purpose of this meta-analysis were considered synonymous. One study (Calderon, 2000) reported two effect sizes (r) that were combined for this meta-analysis. One single-subject study (Chao et al.) reported mean pre- and post-test scores that were first converted to the standardized mean difference (Cohens d) by subtracting the mean pre-test score from the mean post-test score and dividing by the pooled standard deviation. This effect size was then converted to r using the following calculation: r = d/ d2 + 1/pq. Two studies (Hudson et al. and Fava, et al.) reported the results of a t-test and these were converted to r using the following formula: r = t2/ t2 + df , where t was the reported value of the t-tests and df were the degrees of freedom for each of the tests (Card, 2012). Card (2012) also recommends that because the distribution of sample rs around a given population are skewed, all r effect sizes should be transformed to Zr (known as Fishers transformation). All r effect sizes were transformed using the following formula: Zr = 1/2ln(1 + r/1 - r). Table 1 displays the completed calculations for this meta-analysis.

DOES FAMILY INVOLVEMENT REALLY MATTER? Results Combining of Effect Sizes No artifact correction was conducted for this meta-analysis for two reasons: (a) all measures used demonstrated acceptable reliability and validity and (b) none of the studies contained any artificial dichotomization of variables (Card, 2012). Additionally, because r was the effect size selected for this meta-analysis and all studies were readily converted to r, no advanced or unique effect size computations were needed.

In order to combine the effect sizes (mean effect size) of studies considered for this metaanalysis, several steps were taken: (a) first, the standard error (SE) of each of each Zr score was calculated using the following formula: !"!" = (!!!), (b) next, the weight for each individual study was calculated by ! = !" ! , and (c) finally, the weighted SE for each individual study was calculated using: ! !! . All calculations are displayed in Table 1. All effect sizes were examined using a stem-and-leaf plot. Two potential outliers existed; however due to the small number of studies considered for this meta-analysis, all effect sizes were retained (Figure 1). The mean effect size (MES) was calculated using the following equation: !!" =
!(!! !"! ) !!! ! !

where wi is the weight for study i and ESi is the effect size estimate from study i. The calculated mean effect size for this meta-analysis was .234 and the inferences about the effect size (ESES) was .0424 with confidence intervals of 95% lower Zr = -.8310 and 95% upper Zr = .0831. The mean effect size calculated for this meta-analysis was transformed using Fishers transformation. When converted back to r, Zr = .234 is transformed to r = .234. The significance test for heterogeneity (Q) was calculated as Q = 10.7033 using the following equation:

DOES FAMILY INVOLVEMENT REALLY MATTER?

The critical value for a Chi-Square with df = 6 and p = .05 is 12.592. Since calculated Q was less than 12.592, we reject the null hypothesis of homogeneity. Comparison of Effect Sizes Even though I rejected the null hypothesis of homogeneity, I wanted to identify characteristics of the studies that could be associated with finding higher or lower effect sizes (Card, 2012). More specifically, I was interested to find out if location of the intervention (categorical moderator; home or school) was associated with higher or lower effect sizes. As previously mentioned, Qtotal = 10.7033, and to find Qbetween, I used the equation: Qbetween = Qtotal Qwithin. Qwithin was calculated as Qbetween = 10.7033 (7.4518 + .5499) = 2.6986. The Qbetween is distributed as a chi-square with df = 6 and I must accept the null hypothesis that the groups do not differ in their effect sizes. Visual Display of Effect Sizes All effect size calculations are displayed in Table 1. Consideration of Publication Bias Unfortunately, no unpublished studies were included in this meta-analysis, so I was unable to conduct a moderator analysis to discover if there were a difference between the two. The funnel plot for the studies used in this meta-analysis is presented in Figure 2. Although this meta-analysis included a small number of studies (and two outlying effect sizes), a visual analysis of the funnel plot reveals a somewhat asymmetrical shape; that is, smaller studies had larger effect sizes. The results of the visual analysis of the funnel plot should be interpreted with caution.

DOES FAMILY INVOLVEMENT REALLY MATTER? Additionally, failsafe N was calculated to help evaluate the robustness of [this] metaanalysis finding to the existence of excluded studies (Card, 2012, p. 268). This was done using an alternative approach with the following equation: !!!! !"!!! given ESk = mean effect size
!"!

from k studies and ESc = minimum effect size that is considered meaningful. One assumption of this approach is that k0 = the number of studies with mean ES = 0 to reduce the mean effect size to ESc. Three critical ESc sizes (.10, .30, and .50) were considered. The following Failsafe Ns were found: .10 = 9.38, .30 = -1.54, and .50 = 3.72. The small number of studies in this metaanalysis clearly affects these results and a failsafe N of 9 is much smaller than the suggested tolerance level of 5k + 10 = 45 (Rosenthal, 1979 as cited in Card, 2012). Strong consideration should be given to the paucity of research in the field of special education. Discussion Review of Findings The goal of this meta-analysis was to discover if family involvement during intervention had an effect on the social and emotional outcomes of young children. The findings of this metaanalysis demonstrate family involvement does have a small (but significant) effect on the social and emotional outcomes of young children with disabilities. The moderator variable (location of intervention) used for this study was not associated with higher or lower effect sizes. What matters is that parents (or families) are involved in the intervention, no matter the setting and/or location. Parents should be able to intervene throughout a childs life span (Levy, Kim, & Olive, 2006). Additionally, parents who serve as intervention agents often report increased feelings of competence and support with decreased feelings of depression and stress.

DOES FAMILY INVOLVEMENT REALLY MATTER? Implications of Findings Clearly, there is a paucity of research in the field of special education, particularly family-implemented social and emotional interventions for young children with disabilities that are focused on controlled interventions that produced data suitable for a meta-analysis. With more replication, extension, and controlled studies of the factors that moderate social and emotional development in young children with disabilities, it is like that research studies will coalesce in a way that will provide substantially more confidence in the evidence. Limitations Consideration needs to be given to the strong possibility of publication bias. All studies considered for this meta-analysis were from peer- reviewed journals and the possibility of the file drawer problem is strong. In the field of special education, many small-scale studies are

conducted and quite possibly, several (if not many) studies exist in which significant results were not found. Inclusion of these studies is critical to the fieldunderstanding the gaps in the intervention(s) could lead to more refined, stronger studies. Conclusion This meta-analysis represents a synthesis of 7 studies on the effectiveness of family involvement on the social and emotional developmental outcomes of young children with disabilities. The results of this meta-analysis provided evidence that family involvement during the special education intervention processes for young children with disabilities does matter. While further studies and additional meta-analyses are warranted, this meta-analysis provides a valuable starting point for special education researchers interested in examining factors that influence the developmental outcomes of young children with disabilities.

DOES FAMILY INVOLVEMENT REALLY MATTER? References Studies used in Meta-Analysis:

10

1. Bennett, K. S. & Hay, D. A. (2007). The role of family in the development of social skills in children with physical disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 54(4), 381-397. 2. Benson, P., Karlof, K., & Siperstein, G. N. (2008). Maternal involvement in the education of young children with autism spectrum disorders. Autism, 12, 47-65. 3. Calderon, R. (2000). Parental involvement in deaf childrens education programs as a predictor of childs language, early reading, and social-emotional development. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5(2), 140-155. 4. Chao, P. C., Bryan, T., Burstein, K., Ergul, C. (2006). Family-centered intervention for young children at-risk for language and behavior problems. Early Childhood Education Journal, 34(2), 147-153. 5. Hudson, et al. (2003) Evaluation of an intervention system for parents of children with intellectual disability and challenging behavior. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 47(5), 238-249. 6. Hume, K., Bellini, S., Pratt, C. (2005). The usage and perceived outcomes of early intervention and early childhood programs for young children with ASD. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 25(4), 195-207. 7. Fava, L., Strauss, K., Valeri, G., D'Elia, L., Arima, S., & Vicari, S. (2011). The effectiveness of a cross-setting complementary staff- and parent-mediated EIBI for young children with ASD. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5, 1479-1492.

DOES FAMILY INVOLVEMENT REALLY MATTER? Additional References: Card, N. A. (2012). Applied Meta-Analysis for Social Science Research. New York, NY: Guilford Publications, Inc. Duda, M., Clarke, S., Fox, L. & Dunlap, G. (2008). Implementation of Positive Behavior

11

Support with a Sibling Set in the Home Environment. Journal of Early Intervention, 30, 213-236. Gimpel, G. A. & Holland, M. L. (2003). Emotional and Behavioral Problems of Young Children. New York, NY: Guilford Publications, Inc. Levy, S., K., H-K., Olive, M. L. (2006). Interventions for young children with autism: A synthesis of the literature. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 21(1), 55-62. Yates, T., Ostrosky, M. M., Cheatham, G. A., Fettig, A., Shaffer, L., & Santos, R. M. (2008). Research synthesis on screening and assessing social and emotional competence. Center on the Social Emotional Foundations of Early Learning, Vanderbilt University