Journal of Educational Psychology 2009, Vol. 101, No.

3, 729 739

2009 American Psychological Association 0022-0663/09/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0015084

A Latent Curve Model of Parental Motivational Practices and Developmental Decline in Math and Science Academic Intrinsic Motivation
Adele Eskeles Gottfried
California State University, Northridge

George A. Marcoulides
University of California, Riverside

Allen W. Gottfried and Pamella H. Oliver

California State University, Fullerton
A longitudinal approach was used to examine the effects of parental task-intrinsic and task-extrinsic motivational practices on academic intrinsic motivation in the subject areas of math and science. Parental task-intrinsic practices comprise encouragement of childrens pleasure and engagement in the learning process, whereas task-extrinsic practices comprise parents provision of external rewards and consequences contingent on childrens task performance. A conditional latent curve model was fit to data from the Fullerton Longitudinal Study (A. W. Gottfried, A. E. Gottfried, & D. W. Guerin, 2006), with academic intrinsic motivation in math and science assessed from ages 9 to 17 and parental motivational practices measured when children were age 9. The results indicated that task-intrinsic practices were beneficial with regard to childrens initial levels of motivation at age 9 as well as with regard to motivational decline through age 17. Conversely, parents use of task-extrinsic practices was adverse with regard to childrens motivation both at age 9 and across the 8-year interval. Theoretical implications of the findings with regard to academic intrinsic motivation are discussed. Keywords: parental motivational practices, latent curve modeling, developmental motivational decline, math intrinsic motivation, science intrinsic motivation

Academic intrinsic motivation comprises enjoyment of school learning characterized by an orientation toward mastery; curiosity; persistence; task endogeny; and the learning of challenging, difficult, and novel tasks. This type of academic motivation plays a particularly important role with regard to school learning and achievement because of its inherent relatedness to cognitive processing and mastery (Berlyne, 1971; A. E. Gottfried, 1985; Hunt, 1971; Nolen & Haladyna, 1990; White, 1959). In the realm of academic motivation, intrinsic motivation has had a long-standing presence as a construct in its own right (e.g., Day, Berlyne & Hunt, 1971). It continues to be studied as a distinct motivational construct across the literature such as flow theory (Csikszentmihalyi, Abuhamedeh, & Nakamura, 2005), as a motivation dimension

Adele Eskeles Gottfried, Department of Educational Psychology and Center for Teaching and Learning, California State University, Northridge; George A. Marcoulides, Research Methods & Statistics, University of California, Riverside; Allen W. Gottfried, Department of Psychology, California State University, Fullerton; Pamella H. Oliver, Department of Child and Adolescent Studies, California State University, Fullerton. Portions of this research were supported by grants from the Spencer Foundation, Thrasher Research Fund, and California State University, Fullerton and Northridge. Gratitude is extended to the participants and families of the Fullerton Longitudinal Study. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Adele Eskeles Gottfried, Department of Educational Psychology, California State University, Northridge, Northridge, CA 91330. E-mail: adele.gottfried@csun.edu 729

independent of extrinsic motivation in educational and developmental research (Lepper, Corpus, & Iyengar, 2005; Lepper & Henderlong, 2000), and with regard to developmental change and academic performance (A. E. Gottfried, Marcoulides, Gottfried, Oliver, & Guerin, 2007). Further recognition of the significance of intrinsic motivation to the field of academic motivation is that other contemporary theories incorporate intrinsic motivation in their formulations. For example, in self-determination theory, intrinsic motivation is presented as the prototype of autonomous and self-determined behavior (Ryan & Deci, 2002); in achievement-goal theory, mastery goals incorporate intrinsic motivation processes (Elliot, 2005); and in expectancy-value theory, intrinsic task value is one of four task values, the others being attainment, utility, and cost (Eccles, 2005). Therefore, it is essential that intrinsic motivation be studied as a construct in its own right for continued empirical and conceptual advancement. From childhood through adolescence, across varied populations, those with higher academic intrinsic motivation are more competent in school, evidencing significantly greater academic achievement, more positive perceptions of their academic competency, lower academic anxiety, and less extrinsic motivation. A large body of literature documents significant relationships between academic motivation and achievement, both within populations in the United States and internationally (e.g., A. E. Gottfried, 1985, 1990; A. E. Gottfried, Fleming, & Gottfried, 1994; A. E. Gottfried et al., 2007; Lepper et al., 2005; ODwyer, 2005; Oliver & Simpson, 1988; Shen, 2002; Uguroglu & Walberg, 1979).

730

GOTTFRIED, MARCOULIDES, GOTTFRIED, AND OLIVER

Research on academic intrinsic motivation from elementary through high school has revealed significant developmental declines for school in general and across various subject areas with the steepest decline for mathematics (herein referred to as math) and science (A. E. Gottfried, Fleming, & Gottfried, 2001; A. E. Gottfried et al., 2007). Math and science are of particular concern because developmental decline in math and science motivation and attitudes has been a pervasive phenomenon across the literature (e.g., Anderman & Maehr, 1994; A. E. Gottfried et al., 2001, 2007; Haladyna & Thomas, 1979a, 1979b; Koballa, 1995; Middleton & Spanias, 1999; Simpson & Oliver, 1990; Wigfield, Eccles, Schiefele, Roeser, & Davis-Kean, 2006). Increasing the math and science expertise of children in the United States is recognized as an area of special national need. International comparative assessments, such as those obtained in the third Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, have found that American children are behind those of other countries in both math and science (Gonzales et al., 2004; Tatsuoka, Corter, & Tatsuoka, 2004) even for those of high ability (Callahan, Tomlinson, Reis, and Kaplan, 2000). The critical need to enhance the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) abilities of American children has been acknowledged as a national policy issue. For example, both the National Academy of Sciences (2005) and the National Mathematics Advisory Panel (2008) highlighted the critical need for math skills in our increasingly technological society. Additionally, the private sector is extensively involved in supporting STEM educational programs not only for philanthropic reasons but also because companies have an interest in developing scientific talent for future viability (Mervis, 2008). Such programs are attempting to combat preteens loss of interest in math and science (Mervis, 2008). Early interest and commitment have been found to play a role in selecting STEM fields of study (Lubinski & Benbow, 2006). Russell, Hancock, and McCullough (2007) analyzed the role of undergraduate research experiences for entry into STEM research careers. Students with such experiences were twice as likely to expect to pursue a doctoral degree, and a majority of these students also had been interested in STEM from childhood. They concluded that inculcation of enthusiasm is the key elementand the earlier the better (Russell et al., 2007, p. 549)and recommended that greater attention be paid to fostering STEM interests of elementary and high school students. Early development of positive math (National Mathematics Advisory Panel, 2008) and science (Koballa, 1995) attitudes has been advocated as well. Hence, the mandate is clear if further deterioration regarding math and science motivation is to be prevented, and entry into STEM-related professions is encouraged. Developmental declines in academic motivation have been attributed to a number of school factors. These include (a) a lack of fit between students developmental needs and the school environment (Eccles & Midgley, 1989, 1990); (b) an increase in the controlling and extrinsic atmosphere of classrooms and schools encountered by students as they transition from elementary to middle school (Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1998; Harter, 1981; Lepper, Sethi, Dialdin, & Drake, 1997; Lepper & Henderlong, 2000); (c) an increase in social comparison between students as they develop (Wigfield et al., 2006; Wigfield & Wagner, 2005); (d) an increased emphasis on performance as compared with mastery goals across the grades (Anderman & Maehr, 1994; Eccles

& Midgley, 1989; Lepper & Henderlong, 2000; Wigfield & Wagner, 2005); (e) an absence of optimal challenges and lack of relevance of the curriculum (Lepper & Henderlong, 2000); and (f) decline in math achievement as a significant influence on the developmental decline in math intrinsic motivation, such that initial levels of achievement are significantly related to change in motivation across childhood through adolescence (A. E. Gottfried et al., 2007). Just as important as school-related factors are home-based factors in accounting for motivational decline. This is an area of importance because parental involvement has been found to play a significant role in childrens educational success (e.g., Epstein & Sanders, 2002; Jeynes, 2007; Reynolds & Clements, 2005). Research has shown that parental involvement is related in significant and complex ways to childrens academic motivation, engagement, and achievement (A. E. Gottfried et al., 1994; A. E. Gottfried, Fleming, & Gottfried, 1998; Pomerantz, Grolnick, & Price, 2005; Seginer, 2006; Wigfield et al., 2006;). In addition to favorable consequences of parental involvement, such as through the encouragement of child autonomy, parental involvement may also have adverse relationships to motivation and achievement such as through the use of parental controls (e.g., Grolnick, 2003; Pomerantz et al., 2005; Seginer, 2006) and pressure (Koutsoulis & Campbell, 2001). In the present study, we addressed a specific aspect of parental involvement referred to as parental motivational practices and their relationships to academic intrinsic motivation in a longitudinal study from the elementary through the high school years. On the basis of theory and research concerning the role of home environment in the development of academic intrinsic motivation (A. E. Gottfried, 1986b; A. E. Gottfried et al., 1994, 1998), two dimensions of parental motivational practices were delineated, task intrinsic (i.e., task endogeny) and task extrinsic (A. E. Gottfried et al., 1994). Parental task-intrinsic practices comprise parental encouragement of childrens pleasure in the learning process, curiosity, persistence, and task involvement, whereas parental taskextrinsic practices comprise external control using external rewards and consequences contingent on childrens task performance (A. E. Gottfried et al., 1994). These parental practices were based on a theoretical analysis of home environmental factors expected to stimulate the development of academic intrinsic motivation. Task-intrinsic practices were based on cognitive discrepancy and mastery theories of intrinsic motivation (e.g., Berlyne, 1971; Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 1988; A. E. Gottfried, 1985, 1986b, 1990; Harter, 1981; Lepper, 1983; Nicholls, 1983; Pittman, Boggiano, & Ruble, 1983). Task-extrinsic practices were based on attribution and overjustification theories and evidence that provision of extrinsic consequences is adverse with regard to childrens intrinsic motivation particularly when control rather than autonomy or competence is emphasized (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 2000; A. E. Gottfried, 1986b; Lepper & Greene, 1978; Lepper & Henderlong, 2000). As indicated, the two dimensions of parental motivational practices were previously confirmed by A. E. Gottfried et al. (1994). In that study, parents (mothers) uses of task-intrinsic and taskextrinsic motivational practices were found to be significantly related to childrens academic intrinsic motivation over a short interval from ages 9 to 10. Parents use of task-intrinsic practices was positively, and use of task-extrinsic practices was negatively,

PARENT MOTIVATIONAL PRACTICES

731

related to childrens academic intrinsic motivation. Hence, as predicted, parents use of intrinsic practices was facilitative, and their use of extrinsic practices was adverse, to childrens academic intrinsic motivation. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect parental motivational practices to play a significant role in childrens developmental declines in math and science academic intrinsic motivation over longer periods of time. The purpose of the present study was to investigate longitudinally, over an extensive time period, the contributions of taskintrinsic and task-extrinsic parental motivational practices during elementary school to the math and science academic intrinsic motivational decline of participants from the elementary through the high school years using a latent curve model. We note that latent curve models have also been referred to in the literature under various alternative names such as latent growth models, latent change models, or just growth curve models (A. E. Gottfried et al., 2007; Raykov & Marcoulides, 2008). It was predicted that parental task-intrinsic and task-extrinsic practices in elementary school would be differentially related to both the initial status and developmental change trajectories of math and science academic intrinsic motivation through high school, with task-intrinsic practices being advantageous and task-extrinsic practices being comparatively adverse. Determination of the early contribution of parental motivational practices to contemporaneous and subsequent math and science academic intrinsic motivation is important for theory and research as well as for informing practice regarding early points of intervention.

istics and study design, see A. W. Gottfried and Gottfried (1984), A. W. Gottfried, Gottfried, Bathurst, and Guerin (1994), A. W. Gottfried et al. (2006), and Guerin et al. (2003). At the outset of the investigation, the participants resided typically within 1 hour from the research site. Because geographic mobility is common in the course of development and family life, the study population eventually resided throughout the United States and even abroad (A. W. Gottfried et al., 2006). This is important to note because the developmental findings in the FLS are not confounded with a specific school or school district, teacher, or curriculum, and hence the developmental processes reported below generalize across these factors.

Measures
Academic intrinsic motivation. Academic intrinsic motivation was assessed with the Childrens Academic Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (CAIMI; A. E. Gottfried, 1986a), a psychometrically established and published scale that provides for intrinsic motivation measured in subject area subscales as well as a subscale for school in general (A. E. Gottfried, 1986a). Items were based on the aforementioned definition of the construct of academic intrinsic motivation (A. E. Gottfried, 1985, 1986a). The CAIMI has been used internationally and translated into several languages. The inventory was administered in the FLS as part of the standardized battery of measures administered to each participant individually in the laboratory assessment at ages 9, 10, 13, 16, and 17 years, spanning from middle elementary to high school. These were the specific ages at which the CAIMI was administered. Coefficient alphas for subject area subscales ranged from .89 to .95 across age (A. E. Gottfried, 1986a; A. E. Gottfried et al., 2001). The math and science subscales of the CAIMI were used in the present analyses. The selection of math and science in this study was based on the research and literature discussed above and guided by the following criteria: (a) These subject areas have evidenced pervasive developmental declines from childhood through adolescence; (b) math and science are related academic domains with regard to STEM; and (c) the critical need to stimulate math and science motivation of students in the United States in order to prevent the continued decline on the world stage. Parental motivational practices. Parental motivational practices were assessed with the Parental Motivational Practices Survey (PMPS; A. E. Gottfried et al., 1994), a psychometrically sound instrument consisting of two 10-item subscales, identified as Task Intrinsic and Task Extrinsic. Coefficient alpha was .83 for each subscale (A. E. Gottfried et al., 1994). At the initial assessment of the CAIMI when children were age 9 years, mothers completed the PMPS. All items on the PMPS were responded to using a 6-point Likert scale. The PMPS items do not entail a forced choice between an intrinsic versus extrinsic alternative. Rather, parents respond separately to each of the intrinsic and extrinsic items, providing each parent a total score for both the Task Intrinsic and Task Extrinsic subscales. Measuring parental task-intrinsic and task-extrinsic practices independently of each other enabled investigation of the contribution of both intrinsic and extrinsic motivational practices to childrens academic intrinsic motivation considered in this study. The separation of intrinsic and extrinsic items is consistent with contemporary research on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (e.g., Lepper et al., 2005). Complete details on

Method Participants
The Fullerton Longitudinal Study (FLS; A. W. Gottfried, Gottfried, & Guerin, 2006) furnished the database for the present study. The FLS is an ongoing, contemporary investigation that was initiated in 1979 with 130 infants and their families. All children who entered the study had been term babies of normal birth weight and had no neurological or visual abnormalities. During the course of the study, children were assessed in the university laboratory at 6-month intervals from 1 to 3.5 years and at yearly intervals beginning at age 5 to age 17 years. At each assessment, a battery of standardized measures was administered to examine development across a broad variety of domains. The socioeconomic status of the sample represented a diverse, middle-class range, from semiskilled workers through professionals, as determined by the Hollingshead Four-Factor Index of Social Status (Hollingshead, 1975; see also A. W. Gottfried, 1985; A. W. Gottfried, Gottfried, Bathurst, Guerin, & Parramore, 2003). The mean Hollingshead Social Status Index was 45.6 (SD 11.9) at the initiation of the FLS and 48.6 (SD 11.4) at the 17-year assessment. At the initiation of the study, participants were predominantly European American (90%) and also from other ethnic backgrounds. The percentages of males and females were 52% and 48%, respectively. The retention rate of this sample in the present analysis was substantial, with a range from 82.3% to 87.7% of participants of the original sample returning at any assessment. There was no evidence of attrition bias throughout the course of the study (Guerin & Gottfried, 1994; Guerin, Gottfried, Oliver, & Thomas, 2003). For further details concerning sample character-

732

GOTTFRIED, MARCOULIDES, GOTTFRIED, AND OLIVER

the PMPS items and their factor structure are reported in A. E. Gottfried et al. (1994). Examples of task-intrinsic PMPS items are I encourage my child to be persistent in school work. I encourage my child to enjoy school learning. Examples of task-extrinsic PMPS items are When my child does well in school, I usually reward him/her with money. When my child does not do well on a school task, I usually take away a privilege.

Analysis and Results

The proposed longitudinal model was fit to the data using LISREL 8.8 (Jo reskog & So rbom, 2005), based on full information maximum-likelihood parameter estimation to handle the presence of any missing data1 (Arbuckle, 1996; although identical results should be obtained using other presently available popular structural equation modeling programs; e.g., EQS, Mplus). The descriptive statistics for the total sample on the observed variables used in the study are presented in Table 1. Using Yit (where the index i corresponds to each observed individual in the study and t the time-ordered measurements on the CAIMI) to represent the series of five repeated ordered waves of measurements on math-intrinsic motivation and science-intrinsic motivation (henceforth referred to as math motivation and science motivation in the Results section), a simple longitudinal model equation describing an individuals development over the repeated measurements (also sometimes called a Level 1 or within-person model) can be written separately for each motivational area considered (to simplify matters, we only present a single general form equation, but it should be clear that a separate Equation 1 is needed to model the change process in each subject area considered in this study): Yit yi yi t it, (1)

where yi is the initial status measured at Time 1 (also referred to as the intercept or level) of an individuals change trajectory on either math- or science-intrinsic motivation, and yi is the slope or the shape of the change trajectory (the change in Yi between the consecutive measurements), t corresponds to the measured time points and it to the model residual for each individual. Because yi and yi are random variables, these model parameters are represented by a group mean intercept (y) and mean slope (y) plus the component of individual intercept variation (yi) and slope variation (yi), as indicated by the following so-called Level 2 or between-person model equations for which, as with the abovementioned parameters, sample-based estimates are generally obtained: yi y yi. yi y yi. (2) (3)

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for Math Academic Intrinsic Motivation, Science Academic Intrinsic Motivation, and Parental TaskIntrinsic and Task-Extrinsic Motivational Practices
Variable Math motivation Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Science motivation Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Parental motivational practices Intrinsic Extrinsic Note. FLS Fullerton Longitudinal Study. 49.30 30.58 6.59 8.68 FLS data Math Math Math Math Math at at at at at age age age age age at at at at at 9 10 13 16 17 9 10 13 16 17 M (n 107114) 100.22 96.72 93.38 84.85 85.43 98.82 97.91 92.36 89.50 90.43 SD 16.49 16.48 15.50 16.19 16.56 18.77 17.75 17.61 16.24 16.77

It is usually assumed that there is no covariance structure between the residuals of the longitudinally observed variables, implying that the covariance matrix is diagonal. The Level 2 model is also often called an unconditional model if no other predictors are believed to account for the variation in the individual parameters of the trajectories. Such an unconditional so-called latent curve model for the five repeated measurements on math motivation and science motivation is depicted in Figure 1. As can be seen by examining the model in Figure 1, each observed variable Yi loads on two specific factors, F1 and F2 (which we call below the Level and Shape factors; see Raykov & Marcoulides, 2006). For math motivation, each observed variable corresponds respectively to Y1 Math motivation at age 9, Y2 Math motivation at age 10, Y3 Math motivation at age 13, Y4 Math motivation at age 16, and Y5 Math motivation at age 17, whereas for science motivation, each variable corresponds to Y1 Science motivation at age 9, Y2 Science motivation at age 10, Y3 Science motivation at age 13, Y4 Science motivation at age 16, and Y5 Science motivation at age 17. We note that for Y1 Math motivation at age 9 and Science motivation at age 9, the loading on the second factor is set to 0 also indicated by the dotted line (see further discussion below). Although different approaches to the coding of time can be used in such latent curve modeling analyses that assume the trajectory is constant over time (i.e., is linearfor example, the so-called intercept slope approach), in this study the preference was to use the level and shape (LS) strategy, which does not a priori assume a particular trajectory shape but models the change process regardless of the actual trajectory encounteredlinear, quadratic, cubic, and the like (for more details, see Raykov & Marcoulides, 2006). In the LS modeling strategy, the component of time is coded by fixing the loadings on the second factor as follows (where corresponds to a freely estimated loading):
The amount of missing CAIMI data did not exceed 6.14% across the 9- to 17-year interval. To ensure adequacy of sample size, power, and parameter estimate precision necessary for conducting the various analyses presented in this study, the procedures outlined in Muthe n and Muthe n (2002) and Marcoulides and Saunders (2006) were followed. Results indicated satisfactory evidence with respect to the stability of obtained parameter estimates and sufficient levels of power (well above .80, considered by most researchers as acceptable power).
1

Science Science Science Science Science

age age age age age

PARENT MOTIVATIONAL PRACTICES

733
Y5 Motivation Age 17

Y1 Motivation Age 9

Y2 Motivation Age 10

Y3 Motivation Age 13

Y4 Motivation Age 16

F1 Level (Initial Status)

F2 Shape (Growth Rate)

Figure 1. Unconditional model for academic intrinsic motivation: Applicable for math and science. For Y1 Math motivation at age 9 and Science motivation at age 9, the loading on the second factor is set to 0 also indicated by the dotted line. F Factor.

1 1 1 1 1

0 . 1

(4)

Fixing the loading of the last assessment occasion (i.e., math motivation at age 17 and science motivation at age 17 in each model, respectively) on the second factor to a value of 1 and that of the first assessment occasion on it to a value of 0 ensures that this factor is interpreted as a change factor (i.e., reflecting the shape of the change process studied). Freeing the loadings of the remaining assessment occasions on this factor implies that they denote the part of overall change that occurs between the first and each of these later measurement occasions (Duncan, Duncan, & Strycker, 1999; McArdle & Anderson, 1990). Additionally, the freely estimated loadings between the first and final time points

reflect the cumulative proportion of total change between two time points relative to the total change occurring from the first to the last time point (regardless of the trajectory shape, even if it is nonlinear), and the correlation between the Level and Shape factors simply reflects their degree of overlap (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2006, 2008). The addition of variables that can potentially be used to predict the Level and Shape factors subsequently requires the examination of a so-called conditional latent curve model (Bollen & Curran, 2006). Figure 2 presents a path diagram that corresponds interchangeably to models for math and science motivation in which the two specific predictors of parental task-intrinsic motivation practices (x1) and parental task-extrinsic motivation practices (x2) are now considered in the longitudinal model. In order to fit this conditional model, Equations 2 and 3 must now be specified as follows (once again, we note that separate equations would be

Y1 Motivation Age 9

Y2 Motivation Age 10

Y3 Motivation Age 13

Y4 Motivation Age 16

Y5 Motivation Age 17

F1 Level (Initial Status)

F2 Shape (Growth Rate)

Parental Intrinsic Practices

Parental Extrinsic Practices

Figure 2. Proposed conditional model for academic intrinsic motivation: Applicable for math and science. For Y1 Math motivation at age 9 and Science motivation at age 9, the loading on the second factor is set to 0 also indicated by the dotted line. F Factor.

734

GOTTFRIED, MARCOULIDES, GOTTFRIED, AND OLIVER

needed to model the change process in each subject area considered in this study, but for simplicity we just provide the general form): yi y 1 x1 i 2 x2 i yi. yi y 1 x1 i 2 x2 i yi, (5)

Table 2 Factor Loading Parameter Estimates, Standard Errors, and Critical T Ratios for the LS Model
Factor loading Estimate 0 0.19 0.43 1.04 1 0 0.19 0.73 1.15 1 SE Critical ratio

(6)
Math motivation Y1 Math at age 9 Y2 Math at age 10 Y3 Math at age 13 Y4 Math at age 16 Y5 Math at age 17 Science motivation Y1 Science at age 9 Y2 Science at age 10 Y3 Science at age 13 Y4 Science at age 16 Y5 Science at age 17 Note. LS level and shape. p .05. p .01. 0.10 0.09 0.07 1.91 4.78 15.16

where x1i and x2i are the two predictors (i.e., parental task-intrinsic and task-extrinsic motivation practices) of the Level and Shape factors, and 1, 2, 1, and 2 are the coefficients for the predictors of the Level and Shape factors. These latter coefficients can be interpreted just like regression coefficients and represent the expected change in the outcome variable for a one-unit change in the predictor holding constant the other predictor (Bollen & Curran, 2006; Duncan, Duncan, & Strycker, 2006). The model parameters represented by the group mean intercept (y) and mean slope (y) are the values obtained when x1i and x2i are equal to zero. Finally, the component of individual intercept variation (yi) and slope variation (yi) are now conditional variances. Because it was posited that an LS model be tested, the initial interest was the assessment of model fit. Once the overall model fit is determined, the importance and interpretation of the specific parameter estimates can be more clearly evaluated. Without a good overall model fit, the proposed unconditional and conditional longitudinal models examined might even have to be reconceptualized. To evaluate model fit, a number of indices were inspected. These include the overall chi-square goodness-of-fit test, the comparative fit index (CFI), and the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) along with its associated confidence intervals. These indices were selected because of their widespread use (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2006). Detailed criteria for evaluation of model fit based on these fit indices can be found in Byrne (1998), Hu and Bentler (1999), Marcoulides and Hershberger (1997), and Raykov and Marcoulides (2006, 2008). In summary, it is generally recognized that to support model fit, a consensus among the following is needed: a nonsignificant chi-square goodness-of-fit value; a CFI .90; and an RMSEA below 0.05 and the left endpoint of its 90% confidence interval is markedly smaller than 0.05 (with this interval not excessively wide, Raykov & Marcoulides, 2006). The examined proposed unconditional LS model for math motivation provided the following fit criteria: 2(7, N 114) 4.16, p .762; CFI 1.00; and RMSEA 0.000 (0.000; 0.087), and the unconditional LS model for science motivation provided the following fit criteria: 2(7, N 114) 6.33, p .501; CFI 1.00; and RMSEA 0.000 (0.000; 0.109). An examination of the fit criteria based on the above-outlined guidelines indicates that both the proposed unconditional models for math motivation and science motivation fit the data well. Table 2 presents the LISREL factor loading parameter estimates of the two proposed unconditional LS models tested. These coefficients summarize a number of relevant findings with respect to math and science motivation scores. With respect to math motivation, the estimated coefficients of the Shape factor loadings representing the proportion of change relative to the total change occurring over all time points (i.e., 0, .19, .43, 1.04, 1) reflect a general decline in math motivation.2 The decline of the math motivation scores was somewhat consistent each year and appears

0.09 0.11 0.13

2.11 6.74 8.89

to start leveling off at age 16 (although we are assuming that a somewhat similar trajectory pattern occurred over the years that no assessments were made). Significant variance existed in both the Level (s2 63.53), t(7) 2.64, p .033, and the Shape factors (s2 87.00), t(7) 2.57, p .037, reflecting meaningful individual variability in the average initial and change scores of individuals on math motivation over time. The mean value of the Shape factor was negative and significantly different from zero (y 14.31), t(7) 8.24, p .001, indicating that there has been over time a steady decline in math motivation scores from the initial measured and also a significantly different from zero mean value on the Level factor (y 99.68), t(7) 67.84, p .001. The nonsignificant covariance observed between the Level and Shape factors (cov 27.59), t(7) 1.29, p .238, shows that initial levels of math motivation scores are not related to the decreasing levels of motivation scores over time, and vice versa. There is also evidence of significant change in science motivation scores from age 9 to age 17. The estimated coefficients of the Shape factor loadings representing the proportion of change over time (i.e., 0, .19, .73, 1.15, 1) also reflect a general nonlinear decline in science motivation scores. (See Footnote 2 for explanation on computing the decline.) The mean value of the Shape factor was negative and significantly different from zero (x 8.294), t(7) 4.19, p .004, indicating that overall there has been a decline in science motivation scores from the initial measured mean value on the Level factor (x 98.971), t(7) 55.65, p .001. Significant variance existed in both the Level (s2 190.179), t(7) 4.38, p .003, and the Shape factors (s2 159.940), t(7) 3.04, p .018, reflecting again individual variability in the average initial and change scores of individuals on science motivation over time. Finally, the nonsignificant covariThe specific average decline at any time point can be easily calculated. For example, the decline in math motivation at age 10 is computed by taking the value of the Shape factor loading (.19) at that age and multiplying it by the mean value of the Shape factor (14.31), to produce 2.72. This value is then added to the mean value of the Level factor (99.68) to provide the average math motivation score at age 10 of 96.96.
2

PARENT MOTIVATIONAL PRACTICES

735

ance observed between the Level and Shape factors (cov 72.50), t(7) 1.80, p .114, also again shows that initial levels of science motivation scores are not related to the decreasing levels of motivation scores over time, and vice versa. Next, the fit of the proposed conditional LS model for math and science motivation was examined, presented in Figure 2 using the same criteria described above. The emphasis was that the conditional LS model now includes parental task-intrinsic motivation and parental task-extrinsic motivation practice scores as predictors. The following fit criteria were obtained for each math and science model considered, respectively: (a) 2(13, N 114) 7.23, p .889; CFI 1.00; and RMSEA 0.000 (0.000; 0.051), and (b) 2(13, N 114) 15.88, p .255; CFI 0.984; and RMSEA 0.04 (0.000; 0.11). An examination of the fit criteria based on the previously outlined guidelines indicates that the proposed conditional models also fit the data well. Table 3 presents the conditional coefficient estimates for the Level and Shape factors of math and science motivation regressed on parental task-intrinsic and task-extrinsic practices. These coefficients summarize a number of important findings with respect to the predictive capabilities of parental use of task-intrinsic and task-extrinsic practices. First, parental task-intrinsic practices significantly predicted the Level factor for both math and for science motivation scores ( 0.544 and 0.749, respectively), indicating that, on average, at age 9, children whose parents had higher scores on the Task-Intrinsic Practices subscale had significantly higher initial values of math and science motivation scores. These regressionlike coefficients indicate that a one-unit increase in parental task-intrinsic practices is associated with a specific change in math and science motivation scores, respectively. Second, parental task-extrinsic practices also significantly predicted the Level factor for both math and science motivation scores ( 0.453 and 0.515, respectively). However, these results indicate that, on average, at age 9, children whose parents had higher scores on the Task-Extrinsic Practices subscale of the PMPS had

significantly lower initial values of math and science motivation scores. Consequently, these regressionlike coefficients now indicate that a one-unit increase in parental task-extrinsic practices is associated with a specific change in math and science motivation scores, respectively. Next, we note that parental task-intrinsic practices significantly predicted the Shape factor for both math and science motivation scores ( 0.380 and 0.221, respectively), reflecting that higher values of parental task-intrinsic practices were also associated with lower changes in the shape (i.e., less decline in the slopes or the rates of change) of individuals math and science motivation scores over time. In contrast, the parental task-extrinsic practices did not predict the Shape factors for either math or science motivation scores ( 0.004 and 0.036, respectively). In order to rule out the possibility that a childs initial motivational status in both the math and science subject areas influenced parents use of task-intrinsic and/or task-extrinsic motivational practices, separate competing conditional models were also examined. In these competing models, initial motivational status in each of the math and science subject areas was included as predictors of parental task-intrinsic and task-extrinsic motivational practice scores. Results indicated that the additionally included paths were all nonsignificant and did not contribute to the prediction of parental motivational practice scores (the additional paths ranged in value between 0.04 and 0.11; 0.040 and 0.103 on the Level factor and between 0.042 and 0.110 on the Shape factor, respectively, for the math and science subject areas). Lastly, statistical tests of model invariance revealed no significant differences across gender. The lack of gender differences obtained is consistent with other recently reported research on intrinsic motivation (e.g., Lepper et al., 2005).

Discussion
This investigation demonstrates that parental motivational practices during elementary school are important contributors to developmental changes in math and science academic intrinsic motivation. What occurs in childrens homes at that time relates to their math and science academic intrinsic motivation in childhood and later development through high school. Parents task-intrinsic and task-extrinsic motivational practices were differentially related to childrens initial levels of motivational status as well as to developmental decline. The findings obtained in this study supported the predictions that parental task-intrinsic and task-extrinsic practices are differentially related to both initial math and science academic intrinsic motivation and to their changes throughout school. Task-intrinsic practices were beneficial, whereas taskextrinsic practices, in comparison, were adverse. Furthermore, parents use of either task-intrinsic or task-extrinsic motivational practices were not influenced by their childrens initial motivational status, suggesting that parents practices are not simply a reciprocal response to their childrens initial motivation levels. Both task-intrinsic and task-extrinsic parental motivational practices were significantly related to childrens beginning levels of math and science academic intrinsic motivation, albeit in different ways. Parents use of task-intrinsic practices was positively related to initial academic intrinsic motivation, whereas the opposite pattern was obtained for task-extrinsic practices. As parents use of task-intrinsic practices was higher so was their childrens initial academic intrinsic motivation, and as parents use of task-extrinsic

Table 3 Conditional Coefficient Estimates for Level and Shape Factors Regressed on Parental Task-Intrinsic and Task-Extrinsic Practices
Variable Estimate: unstandardized SE Critical ratio

Math motivation Model to explain level factor Parental intrinsic 0.544 Parental extrinsic 0.453 Model to explain shape factor Parental intrinsic 0.381 Parental extrinsic 0.004 Science motivation Model to explain level factor Parental intrinsic 0.749 Parental extrinsic 0.515 Model to explain shape factor Parental intrinsic 0.221 Parental extrinsic 0.036

0.246 0.186 0.230 0.177

2.207 2.433 1.656 0.024

0.268 0.203 0.121 0.198

2.971 2.532 1.817 0.183

p .05.

p .01.

736

GOTTFRIED, MARCOULIDES, GOTTFRIED, AND OLIVER

practices increased, childrens initial levels of academic intrinsic motivation were lower. With regard to the Shape or Change factor, parents use of task-intrinsic and task-extrinsic practices also resulted in different patterns over time. Parents use of task-intrinsic practices was significantly related to the Shape factor, whereas parents use of task-extrinsic practices was not. When parents use of taskintrinsic practices was higher, there was less of a decline in childrens math and science motivation. Therefore, parental use of task-intrinsic practices at age 9 was a significant predictor of the developmental change in academic intrinsic motivation through adolescence. The lack of significance of task-extrinsic practices for motivational change over time is important to note. Parents use of task-extrinsic consequences for learning is likely due to their beliefs that these practices provide incentives to enhance their childrens motivation. However, these findings indicate that use of extrinsic consequences, as measured on the PMPS, is actually adverse with regard to childrens initial motivational status, which places them at a greater motivational risk. When parents used more task-extrinsic practices, not only were their children found to have lower motivation scores at the initial status, but their use of extrinsic consequences did nothing to reduce developmental decline in academic intrinsic motivation, which was the case for task-intrinsic practices. Therefore, parents use of extrinsic consequences does not have the intended outcome to motivate children. Inasmuch as parents used both intrinsic and extrinsic motivational practices, it may be difficult to ameliorate completely childrens motivational decline in math and science. Theories of intrinsically motivating home environments are supported by these findings (A. E. Gottfried, 1986b, A. E. Gottfried et al., 1998). Parental provision of task-intrinsic practices involves encouragement of childrens curiosity, persistence, mastery, and orientation toward challenge, which predicts higher levels of initial academic intrinsic motivational status and reduced levels of developmental decline. Parents use of task-intrinsic practices during childhood has a long-lasting beneficial contribution to childrens academic intrinsic motivation through high school, and such practices appear to serve as a buffer against motivational decline in both math and science. Conversely, not only does use of task-extrinsic practices have an adverse relationship to childrens initial academic intrinsic motivational status, but it does nothing to ameliorate developmental declines, as do taskintrinsic practices. The patterns obtained were the same for both math and science academic intrinsic motivation scores, indicating the generalization of the findings across the two subject areas. Furthermore, these findings contribute to the parental involvement literature in general. Parental involvement may have favorable as well as adverse relationships to childrens academic motivation and competence. Favorable parental involvement encompasses provision for childrens autonomy and facilitation of their academic intrinsic motivation. However, parental involvement may also have adverse relations to childrens academic motivation and competence such as through the use of parental controls, pressure, and task-extrinsic motivational practices (e.g., Grolnick, 2003; Pomerantz et al., 2005; Seginer, 2006). On the basis of the use of latent curve modeling techniques supporting theoretically based predictions, the findings in this study support the plausibility that early use of parental task-

intrinsic and task-extrinsic practices plays a key role in childrens initial and subsequent academic intrinsic motivational status. Because childrens initial level of academic intrinsic motivation did not significantly relate to their parents use of motivational practices, it may be that parents own understanding and beliefs about motivating their children drive their selection of motivational practices. Parents beliefs have been shown to relate to their involvement in childrens education (Green, Walker, HooverDempsey, & Sandler, 2007). Fredericks and Eccles (2002) examined parental perception of childrens abilities as related to developmental changes in childrens ratings of competence and value beliefs in math and sports using a cohort-sequential design during the school years. Although the present study is vastly different in that we studied childrens academic intrinsic motivation and not expectancy-value theory, parental motivational practices rather than parental perceptions of childrens ability, and math and science (two STEM-related disciplines) not math and sports, both studies contribute to the literature in showing that parental socialization factors during elementary school play a role in developmental aspects of childrens academic motivation. The present research contributes to this literature by elucidating the actual parenting behaviors that relate to developmental decline of math and science academic intrinsic motivation. The present investigation significantly extends beyond previous research conducted in the FLS in the following ways: First, in this investigation we studied two STEM fields, math and science, in academic intrinsic motivation. The role of parental motivational practices showed generalizability across these areas. Second, we examined an extensive age range from elementary through high school, whereas in our earlier research on parental motivational practices we examined only ages 9 and 10 (A. E. Gottfried et al., 1994). The present research contributes to understanding the robust and long-term impact of parental motivational practices on math and science academic intrinsic motivation. Third, the analyses conducted in this investigation examined the contribution of parental motivational practices to academic intrinsic motivational decline over time with latent curve modeling. The results of this investigation indicate a clear need to provide immediate intervention to educate parents about the benefits of using task-intrinsic motivational practices. We suggest that parental motivational practices comprise a motivational curriculum in the home that has important relations to childrens academic intrinsic motivation. In this regard, parents need to learn about the roles of task-intrinsic and task-extrinsic motivational practices in their childrens motivational development. Interventions should be based on the theoretical foundations of promoting academic intrinsic motivation through cognitive discrepancy and mastery experiences (A. E. Gottfried, 1986b, A. E. Gottfried et al., 1998). Such practices emanating from a cognitive discrepancy perspective include provision of experiences and activities that afford optimal challenge to childrens already existing knowledge and motivation in order to stimulate further growth. Practices derived from the mastery approach emphasize developing a positive sense of competency that emerges from childrens success in interacting with their environment and in achievement situations. Parents use of external rewards contingent on childrens performance should be minimized or discouraged, as the present research indicates their adverse outcomes on student-academic intrinsic motivation.

PARENT MOTIVATIONAL PRACTICES

737

Whereas parents may have beneficial intentions by providing rewards for school learning, their use may not have the intended result (see also Grolnick, 2003). The present findings have particular importance in elucidating factors needed to enhance students math and science academic intrinsic motivation. Various factors have been suggested as being responsible for low performance such as inappropriate standards, curriculum, low expectations, and motivational and mastery support on the part of teachers (Callahan et al., 2000; Turner et al., 2002). The promotion of favorable attitudes toward math (National Mathematics Advisory Panel, 2008) and science (Koballa, 1995) are also recognized as goals to promote math and science achievement. To this we add the importance of early parental motivational practices to appropriately stimulate childrens math and science academic intrinsic motivation. Educators need to include parents in efforts to enhance student math and science academic intrinsic motivation, and hence they too need to be aware of these findings. This should begin in the early years of schooling to prevent initial low motivational status as well as possible subsequent motivational decline. Inasmuch as academic intrinsic motivation increases in stability through adolescence (A. E. Gottfried et al., 2001, 2007; Marcoulides, Gottfried, Gottfried, & Oliver, 2008; Wigfield et al., 1997), it becomes critical to educational practice that parents learn appropriate means to motivate their children early.

References
Anderman, E. M., & Maehr, M. L. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle grades. Review of Educational Research, 64, 287309. Arbuckle, J. L. (1996). Full information estimation in the presence of incomplete data. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques (pp. 243277). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Berlyne, D. E. (1971). What next? Concluding summary. In H. I. Day, D. E. Berlyne, & D. E. Hunt (Eds.), Intrinsic motivation: A new direction in education (pp. 186 196). Toronto: Holt, Rinehart & Winston of Canada. Bollen, K., & Curran, P. J. (2006). Latent curve models: A structural equation perspective. New York: Wiley. Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Callahan, C. M., Tomlinson, C. A., Reis, S. N., & Kaplan, S. N. (2000). TIMSS and high-ability students: Message of doom or opportunity for reflection? Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 787790. Csikszentmihalyi, M., Abuhamdeh, S., & Nakamura, J. (2005). Flow. In A. J. Elliott & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation. (pp. 598 608). New York: Guilford Press. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I. S. (1988). Optimal experience. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Day, H. I., Berlyne, D. E., & Hunt, D. E. (1971). Intrinsic motivation: A new direction in education. Toronto: Holt, Rinehart & Winston of Canada. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68 78. Duncan, T. E., Duncan, S. C., Li, F., & Strycker, L. A. (1999). An introduction to latent variable growth curve modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Duncan, T. E., Duncan, S. C., & Strycker, L. A. (2006). An introduction to

latent variable growth curve modeling: Concepts, issues and applications (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Eccles, J. S. (2005). Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of achievement- related choices. In A. J. Elliott & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 105121). New York: Guilford Press. Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage-environment fit: Developmentally appropriate classrooms for young adolescents. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Vol. 3, Goals and cognitions (pp. 139 186). New York: Academic Press. Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1990). Changes in academic motivation and self-perception during early adolescence. In R. Montemayor, G. R. Adams, & T. P. Gulotta (Eds.), From childhood to adolescence: A transitional period? (pp. 134 155). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (5th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 10171095). New York: Wiley. Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In A. J. Elliott & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 5272). New York: Guilford Press. Epstein, J. L., & Sanders, M. G. (2002). Family, school, and community partnerships. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (2nd ed., Vol. 5, pp. 407 437). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Fredricks, J. A., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). Childrens competence and value beliefs from childhood through adolescence: Growth trajectories in two male-sex-typed domains. Developmental Psychology, 38, 519 533. Gonzales, P., Guzma n, J. C., Partelow, L., Pahlke, E., Jocelyn, L., Kastbert, D., & Williams, T. (2004). Highlights from the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2003 (NCES 2005 005). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Gottfried, A. E. (1985). Academic intrinsic motivation in elementary and junior high school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 631 635. Gottfried, A. E. (1986a). Childrens Academic Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (CAIMI). Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Gottfried, A. E. (1986b). Intrinsic motivational aspects of play experiences and play materials. In A. Gottfried & C. Brown (Eds.), Play interactions (pp. 8199). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Gottfried, A. E. (1990). Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 525538. Gottfried, A. E., Fleming, J. S., & Gottfried, A. W. (1994). Role of parental motivational practices in childrens academic intrinsic motivation and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 104 113. Gottfried, A. E., Fleming, J. S., & Gottfried, A. W. (1998). Role of cognitively stimulating home environment in childrens academic intrinsic motivation: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 69, 1448 1460. Gottfried, A. E., Fleming, J. S., & Gottfried, A. W. (2001). Continuity of academic intrinsic motivation from childhood through late adolescence: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 313. Gottfried, A. E., Marcoulides, G. A., Gottfried, A. W., Oliver, P., & Guerin, D. (2007). Multivariate latent change modeling of developmental decline in academic intrinsic math motivation and achievement: Childhood through adolescence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 317327. Gottfried, A. W. (1985). Measures of socioeconomic status in child development research: Data and recommendations. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 31, 8592. Gottfried, A. W., & Gottfried, A. E. (1984). Home environment and cognitive development in young children of middle-socioeconomicstatus families. In A. W. Gottfried (Ed.), Home environment and early

738

GOTTFRIED, MARCOULIDES, GOTTFRIED, AND OLIVER Lepper, M. R., & Henderlong, J. (2000). Turning play into work and work into play: 25 years of research on intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance (pp. 257307). New York: Academic Press. Lepper, M. R., Sethi, S., Dialdin, D., & Drake, M. (1997). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: A developmental perspective. In S. S. Luthar, J. A. Burack, D. Cicchetti, & J. R. Weisz (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Perspectives on adjustment, risk, and disorder (pp. 2350). New York: Cambridge University Press. Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2006). Study of mathematically precocious youth after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of math-science expertise. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 316 345. Marcoulides, G. A., Gottfried, A. E., Gottfried, A. W., & Oliver, P. (2008). Latent transition analysis of academic intrinsic motivation from childhood through adolescence. Educational Research and Evaluation, 14, 411 427. Marcoulides, G. A., & Hershberger, S. L. (1997). Multivariate statistical methods: A first course. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Marcoulides, G. A., & Saunders, C. (2006). PLS: A silver bullet? MIS Quarterly, 30(2), iiiix. McArdle, J. J., & Anderson, E. (1990). Latent variable growth models for research in aging. In J. E. Birren & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (3rd ed., pp. 21 44). New York: Academic Press. Mervis, J. (2008, February 22). A new bottom line for school science. Science, 319, 1030 1033. Middleton, J. A., & Spanias, P. A. (1999). Motivation for achievement in mathematics: Findings, generalizations, and criticisms of the research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 65 88. Muthe n, B. O., & Muthe n, L. K. (2002). How to use a Monte Carlo study to decide on sample size and determine power. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 599 620. National Academy of Sciences. (2005). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Retrieved April 13, 2006, from http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11463.html National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Nicholls, J. G. (1983). Conceptions of ability and achievement motivation: A theory and implications for education. In S. G. Paris, G. M. Olson, & H. W. Stevenson (Eds.), Learning and motivation in the classroom (pp. 211237). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Nolen, S. B., & Haladyna, T. M. (1990). Motivation and studying in high school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 115126. ODwyer, L. M. (2005). Examining the variability of mathematics performance and its correlate using data from TIMSS 95 and TIMSS 99. Educational Research and Evaluation, 11, 155177. Oliver, J. S. T., & Simpson, R. D. (1988). Influences of attitude toward science, achievement motivation, and science self concept on achievement in science: A longitudinal study. Science Education, 72, 143155. Pittman, T. S., Boggiano, A. K., & Ruble, D. N. (1983). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations: Limiting conditions on the undermining and enhancing effect of reward on intrinsic motivation. In J. M. Levine & M. C. Wang (Eds.), Teacher and student perceptions: Implications for learning (pp. 319 340). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pomerantz, E. M., Grolnick, W. S., & Price, C. E. (2005). The role of parents in how children approach achievement: A dynamic process perspective. In A. J. Elliott & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 259 278). New York: Guilford Press. Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2006). A first course in structural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

cognitive development: Longitudinal research (pp. 57115). New York: Academic Press. Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., Bathurst, K., & Guerin, D. (1994). Gifted IQ: Early developmental aspects. New York: Plenum Publishing. Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., Bathurst, K., Guerin, D. W., & Parramore, M. (2003). Socioeconomic status in childrens development and family environment: Infancy through adolescence. In M. Bornstein & R. H. Bradley (Eds.), Socioeconomic status and parenting ( pp. 189 207). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., & Guerin, D. W. (2006). The Fullerton Longitudinal Study: A long-term investigation of intellectual and motivational giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29, 430 450. Green, C. L., Walker, J. M. T., Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (2007). Parents motivations for involvement in childrens education: An empirical test of a theoretical model of parent involvement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 532544. Grolnick, W. (2003). The psychology of parental control: How well-meant parenting backfires. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Guerin, D. W., & Gottfried, A. W. (1994). Developmental stability and change in parent reports of temperament: A ten-year longitudinal investigation from infancy through preadolescence. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 40, 334 355. Guerin, D. W., Gottfried, A. E., Oliver, P. H., & Thomas, C. W. (2003). Temperament: Infancy through adolescence. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Haladyna, T., & Thomas, G. (1979a). The affective reporting system. Journal of Educational Measurement, 16, 49 53. Haladyna, T., & Thomas, G. (1979b). The attitudes of elementary school children toward school and subject matters. Journal of Experimental Education, 48, 18 23. Harter, S. (1981). A model of mastery motivation in children: Individual differences and developmental change. In W. A. Collins (Ed.), Aspects of the development of competence (pp. 215255). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hollingshead, A. B. (1975). Four factor index of social status. Unpublished manuscript. Hu, L., & Benter, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 155. Hunt, J. McV. (1971). Intrinsic motivation and psychological development. In H. M. Schroder & P. Suedfeld (Eds.), Personality theory and information processing (pp. 131177). New York: The Ronald Press Company. Jeynes, W. H. (2007). The relationship between parental involvement and urban secondary school student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Urban Education, 42, 82110. Jo reskog, K. G., & So rbom, D. G. (2005). LISREL8 users reference guide. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International. Koballa, T. R. (1995). Childrens attitudes toward learning science. In S. M. Glynn & R. Duit (Eds.), Learning science in the schools: Research reforming practice (pp. 59 84). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Koutsoulis, M. K., & Campbell, J. R. (2001). Family processes affect students motivation, and science and math achievement in Cypriot high schools. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 108 127. Lepper, M. R. (1983). Extrinsic and intrinsic reward: Implications for the classroom. In J. M. Levine & M. C. Wang (Eds.), Teacher and student perceptions: Implications for learning (pp. 281317). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Lepper, M. R., Corpus, J. H., & Iyengar, S. S. (2005). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations in the classroom: Age differences and academic correlates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 184 196. Lepper, M. R., & Greene, D. (1978). The hidden costs of reward. New York: Wiley.

PARENT MOTIVATIONAL PRACTICES Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2008). An introduction to applied multivariate analysis. New York: Routledge Press. Reynolds, A. J., & Clements, M. (2005). Parental involvement and childrens school success. In E. N. Patrikakou, R. P. Weissberg, S. Redding, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), School-family partnerships for childrens success (pp. 109 127). New York: Teachers College Press. Russell, S. H., Hancock, M. P., & McCullough, J. (2007, April 27). Benefits of undergraduate research experiences. Science, 316, 548 549. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview of self-determination theory: An organismic-dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 333). Rochester, New York: University of Rochester Press. Seginer, R. (2006). Parents educational involvement: A developmental ecology perspective. Parenting: Science and Practice, 6, 1 48. Shen, C. (2002). Revisiting the relationship between students achievement and their self-perceptions: A cross-national analysis based on TIMSS 1999 data. Assessment in Education, 9, 161184. Simpson, R. D., & Oliver, J. S. (1990). A summary of major influences on attitude toward and achievement in science among adolescent students. Science Education, 74, 118. Tatsuoka, K. K., Corter, J. E., & Tatsuoka, C. (2004). Patterns of diagnosed mathematical content and process skills in TIMSS-R across a sample of 20 countries. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 901926. Turner, J. C., Midgley, C., Meyer, D. K., Gheen, M., Anderman, E. M., Kang, Y., & Patrick, H. (2002). The classroom environment and stu-

739

dents reports of avoidance strategies in mathematics: A multimethod study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 88 106. Uguroglu, M. E., & Walberg, H. J. (1979). Motivation and achievement: A quantitative synthesis. American Educational Research Journal, 16, 375389. White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297333. Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Schiefele, U., Roeser, R. W., & Davis-Kean, P. (2006). Development of achievement motivation. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 9331002). New York: Wiley. Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Yoon, K. S., Harold, R. D., Arbreton, A. J. A., Freedman- Doan, C., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (1997). Change in childrens competence beliefs and subjective task values across the elementary school years: A 3-year study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 451 469. Wigfield, A., & Wagner, A. L. (2005). Competence, motivation, and identity development during adolescence. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 222239). New York: Guildford Press.

Received April 28, 2008 Revision received December 8, 2008 Accepted December 17, 2008

Correction to Landry et al. (2009)

In the article Effectiveness of Comprehensive Professional Development for Teachers of At-Risk Preschoolers, by Susan H. Landry, Jason L. Anthony, Paul R. Swank, and Pauline MonsequeBailey (Journal of Educational Psychology, 2009, Vol. 101, No. 2, pp. 448 465), a disclosure statement was incorrectly omitted due to an error during the production process from the author note of the final article. The following statement should have appeared in the author note: The University of Texas Health Science CenterHouston owns intellectual property for the online professional development program and the progress monitoring program and receives remuneration as do Paul Swank and Susan Landry as two of the authors of those programs.
DOI: 10.1037/a0016746