Development and Test of a Summer Family Involvement Questionnaire

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It would be useful at the beginning of the paper to identify in which country in which the study is located. Not every country has a summer break as you describe. In addition (line 29) where you mention the monetary cost, please locate the study to which you refer in time and place.

You claim loss is greater in math than in reading but go on to focus on reading without explaining why you have chosen this over math. You then drop in other curriculum areas in lines 70+. If there is no research on loss for these other areas, you need to make that clear. If there is research, it needs to be included if the study is to have a wider focus than reading.

line 45 you identify parental employment limits parent engagement but 3 lines later you talk about parent volunteers and your theoretical framework leans heavily on extensive parental involvement - please clarify the apparent contradiction

you must have a section on ethics - I see you have one sentence on line 136 but this is not sufficient

In your setting section you need to locate the study in place - and explain how this particular place reflects other places in your country, and ideally how relevant this might be to other countries. If for ethics reasons it is not appropriate to identify the specific setting (and that is likely) you still have to provide enough information about it in general terms to help readers understand the context

To what extent are your participants representative of the broader population in your area/state/country. I assume (but I could be wrong) that if parents are paying for their children to be in a summer programme then they are likely working parents so that makes them different than other families who have one stay at home parent, or families using grandparent or other family care etc. Certainly one might expect a dual income family to have more financial resources than, say a single parent. To what extent then does their circumstances impact on your results?

did you get basic demographic data on the questionnaire? To what extent does the hours parents worked, the types of jobs they did  etc impact on their answers?

you briefly mention one statistic used to evaluate your questionnaire. You need to expand and address at the minimum, validity and reliability tests of the questionnaire

line 234-5 - might this not reflect parental time limits due to employment demands? I see you mention this later

line 243 - what is a reasonable level of expectation of engagement for working parents?

Literature cited is limited. 

Author Response

Thank you for your helpful comments, which improved the paper significantly.

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your helpful comments.  They have enabled us to improve the paper significantly.  Responses to each comment are in italics below.

1. It would be useful at the beginning of the paper to identify in which country in which the study is located. Not every country has a summer break as you describe. In addition (line 29) where you mention the monetary cost, please locate the study to which you refer in time and place.

The study is described at the beginning of the document as being located in the United States.  The study addressing monetary cost is described as applying to the United States on average.

2. You claim loss is greater in math than in reading but go on to focus on reading without explaining why you have chosen this over math. You then drop in other curriculum areas in lines 70+. If there is no research on loss for these other areas, you need to make that clear. If there is research, it needs to be included if the study is to have a wider focus than reading.

An additional sentence has been added to explain that middle- and low-income students experience similar losses in math over the summer.

3. line 45 you identify parental employment limits parent engagement but 3 lines later you talk about parent volunteers and your theoretical framework leans heavily on extensive parental involvement - please clarify the apparent contradiction

A more thorough discussion of how parent involvement is more likely during the evenings with working parents has been added.  Information has been added that working parents can only volunteer for evening or weekend events.  Our theoretical framework is flexible to accommodate working parents’ involvement, as such involvement aspects as creating a space in the home for involvement and learning at home can be accomplished outside of work hours,

4. you must have a section on ethics - I see you have one sentence on line 136 but this is not sufficient

Additional information has been added regarding the consent process that parents were given the opportunity to decline participation or withdraw from the study at any time.

5. In your setting section you need to locate the study in place - and explain how this particular place reflects other places in your country, and ideally how relevant this might be to other countries. If for ethics reasons it is not appropriate to identify the specific setting (and that is likely) you still have to provide enough information about it in general terms to help readers understand the context

Information has been added regarding the fact that the study was located in a large city with a diverse population. 

6. To what extent are your participants representative of the broader population in your area/state/country. I assume (but I could be wrong) that if parents are paying for their children to be in a summer programme then they are likely working parents so that makes them different than other families who have one stay at home parent, or families using grandparent or other family care etc. Certainly one might expect a dual income family to have more financial resources than, say a single parent. To what extent then does their circumstances impact on your results?

It is noted that this study may not be representative of more rural areas.  Additionally, information has been added to address how dual-earner families generally will be involved during evenings and weekends during the summer.  A limitation has been added that the fact that most parents were married in the sample limits the study’s generalizability to other family constellations that may not have access to similar resources.

7. did you get basic demographic data on the questionnaire? To what extent does the hours parents worked, the types of jobs they did  etc impact on their answers?

Demographic data is reported in the Participants section of the Method.  A future research direction is added that exploration of number of work hours and types of jobs and how these variables relate to the extent of summer parent involvement is needed.

8. you briefly mention one statistic used to evaluate your questionnaire. You need to expand and address at the minimum, validity and reliability tests of the questionnaire

Cronbach’s alpha for both versions of the questionnaire is reported as a measure of reliability.  At the end of the paper, future research directions for establishment of validity of the questionnaire are proposed.

9. line 234-5 - might this not reflect parental time limits due to employment demands? I see you mention this later

Yes, parental time limits prevent involvement in such activities as volunteering during the school day, which we discuss in the paper.

10. line 243 - what is a reasonable level of expectation of engagement for working parents?

We added information to the paper that stresses that working parents will generally be engaged in the evenings and on weekends.

11. Literature cited is limited. 

Three new articles have been added that address summer learning loss and parent involvement with summer enrichment programs.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article “An Analysis of Parents’ Involvement During Summer Months for Children’s Development” addresses a highly relevant topic—extracurricular or extra-academic learning and its impact on educational development. However, the article presents numerous weaknesses from the outset that hinder a thorough examination of this phenomenon.

The introduction fails to clearly define or explain the object of study, requiring the reader to infer many of the research premises and the context in which the analysis is conducted. For readers unfamiliar with the American education system, it would have been particularly relevant to provide an explanation of how education is structured in the specific setting under study, both in formal terms and in relation to vacation periods and activities that take place during the summer months.

The theoretical framework is not fully developed. The article exclusively relies on Epstein’s ideas, which are presented in an extremely condensed manner within a single paragraph. This section is disproportionately brief—limited to just 22 lines—including two research questions that are presumably connected to the arguments of the sole author cited in this section.

The methodology is based on an excessively small sample (55 participants), a limitation acknowledged in the final paragraph of the article as potentially introducing significant biases due to various sociodemographic factors. This evidently undermines the study’s validity. Furthermore, the data analysis is overly simplistic. While the treatment of the data is explicitly identified as descriptive, a more sophisticated approach could have provided deeper insights into the research subject.

The results are entirely descriptive. They are neither thoroughly analyzed, and, crucially, they are not critically examined. The key findings are merely presented in bullet points, leaving the interpretation entirely to the reader. The subsequent section, the discussion, offers only a brief summary rather than a substantive engagement with the results. As a whole, these two sections present the findings in a raw, unprocessed manner.

The conclusions reflect the same limitations observed throughout the article. While an interesting objective is articulated—“This study is the first to demonstrate the interrelatedness of different dimensions of summer parent involvement, which suggested that as involvement in one area increases, involvement in another area will increase, such as the correlation between parental involvement in summer reading activities and parental involvement in science and nature activities during the summer”—there is little in-depth exploration of the relationships identified, the variables that explain them, and, most importantly, their broader educational and social implications.

The writing style is excessively schematic and telegraphic, lacking fluidity and failing to facilitate a deeper engagement with the most significant findings presented in the results. Additionally, the article contains typographical errors, such as the one found in line 187. Moreover, the referencing style does not adhere to appropriate academic standards.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The writing style is excessively schematic and telegraphic, lacking fluidity and failing to facilitate a deeper engagement with the most significant findings presented in the results. Additionally, the article contains typographical errors, such as the one found in line 187

Author Response

Thank you for your helpful comments, which improved the paper significantly.

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your helpful comments.  They enabled us to improve our manuscript substantially.  Responses to your comments in italics below.

The article “An Analysis of Parents’ Involvement During Summer Months for Children’s Development” addresses a highly relevant topic—extracurricular or extra-academic learning and its impact on educational development. However, the article presents numerous weaknesses from the outset that hinder a thorough examination of this phenomenon.

1. The introduction fails to clearly define or explain the object of study, requiring the reader to infer many of the research premises and the context in which the analysis is conducted. For readers unfamiliar with the American education system, it would have been particularly relevant to provide an explanation of how education is structured in the specific setting under study, both in formal terms and in relation to vacation periods and activities that take place during the summer months.

A description of how the United States education system is structured in terms of time periods in school and on summer break is added to the beginning of the manuscript.  Summer enrichment programs and the activities they involve are discussed in the Introduction.

2. The theoretical framework is not fully developed. The article exclusively relies on Epstein’s ideas, which are presented in an extremely condensed manner within a single paragraph. This section is disproportionately brief—limited to just 22 lines—including two research questions that are presumably connected to the arguments of the sole author cited in this section.

More details regarding each type of involvement has been added that focuses on additional aspects of each type of involvement.  For example, for type 4, different types of in-home activities the parent can engage in with the child during the summer are described.  Additionally, type 5 is added to the description with an explanation given for why it is not as relevant during the summer.

3. The methodology is based on an excessively small sample (55 participants), a limitation acknowledged in the final paragraph of the article as potentially introducing significant biases due to various sociodemographic factors. This evidently undermines the study’s validity. Furthermore, the data analysis is overly simplistic. While the treatment of the data is explicitly identified as descriptive, a more sophisticated approach could have provided deeper insights into the research subject.

We recognize the small sample size of the study as a limitation.  More sophisticated analyses are needed to determine the structure of the measure, such as exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis.  Factor analyses require a larger sample size than we had available for this study.  This study was a preliminary pilot study upon which to base more sophisticated future studies and analyses to develop the questionnaire.  Inter-item correlations function to determine relationships between items in the absence of a sample size needed for factor analyses.

4. The results are entirely descriptive. They are neither thoroughly analyzed, and, crucially, they are not critically examined. The key findings are merely presented in bullet points, leaving the interpretation entirely to the reader. The subsequent section, the discussion, offers only a brief summary rather than a substantive engagement with the results. As a whole, these two sections present the findings in a raw, unprocessed manner.

The response to reviewer comment 3 addresses our analytic strategy.  The bullet points for highest- and lowest-scoring items were shortened from lists of five to three items for clarity.  The Discussion section was expanded to address all major findings and relationships determined in the Results section.  Potential reasons for these results are given for all major findings.

5. The conclusions reflect the same limitations observed throughout the article. While an interesting objective is articulated—“This study is the first to demonstrate the interrelatedness of different dimensions of summer parent involvement, which suggested that as involvement in one area increases, involvement in another area will increase, such as the correlation between parental involvement in summer reading activities and parental involvement in science and nature activities during the summer”—there is little in-depth exploration of the relationships identified, the variables that explain them, and, most importantly, their broader educational and social implications.

As stated in response to reviewer comment 4, all relationships found in the Results section are now discussed in the Discussion section.  Potential future uses of the questionnaire for educational purposes, such as to improve summer enrichment programs, are discussed.

6. The writing style is excessively schematic and telegraphic, lacking fluidity and failing to facilitate a deeper engagement with the most significant findings presented in the results.

Sentences have been shortened and the document has been edited for greater flow of writing.

7. Additionally, the article contains typographical errors, such as the one found in line 187.

The document has been edited to correct typographical errors.

8. Moreover, the referencing style does not adhere to appropriate academic standards.

The references are now in-text with an alphabetized reference list.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1: I find the following contradictory: "There is generally 38 
greater loss in learning over the summer in math than reading.  Middle-income and low-39 
income students demonstrated similar losses in math over the summer (Hobbs & Overby, 40 
2019).  Students often lose two months of math learning over the summer (1, 3).Cooper 41 
et al.,1996; Munro, 2022). "

2: Does this sentence ("Usually, students had breakfast when they came. ") mean the children had already had breakfast before they arrived or that they had breakfast after they arrived at the programme?

3: There must be an ethics section. You need to provide more detail about the ethical issues involved and how you handled them. You also need to provide the ethics approval number and the awarding agency

4: Line 430 - I can't find the beginning of this sentence

Author Response

Thank you for your comments that continue to improve the paper.

• I find the following contradictory: "There is generally greater loss in learning over the summer in math than reading.  Middle-income and low income students demonstrated similar losses in math over the summer (Hobbs & Overby, 2019).  Students often lose two months of math learning over the summer (Cooper et al.,1996; Munro, 2022)."

These sentences address multiple aspects of the same issue.  The greater learning loss in math is found in both low- and middle-income students.  This loss can be quantified as two months of learning loss.  This issue has been clarified in the paper.

• Does this sentence ("Usually, students had breakfast when they came. ") mean the children had already had breakfast before they arrived or that they had breakfast after they arrived at the programme?

The students at breakfast when they arrived at the program or at home before they arrived.  This fact has been clarified in the paper.

• There must be an ethics section. You need to provide more detail about the ethical issues involved and how you handled them. You also need to provide the ethics approval number and the awarding agency.

The paper was declared Exempt by the University IRB that reviewed it.  Therefore, there is no IRB approval number.  We added that the IRB was obtained from the second author’s university.

• Line 430 - I can't find the beginning of this sentence.

This error has been corrected.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been improved; however, as previously noted, theoretical and methodological issues remain that cannot be addressed without a fundamental restructuring of the research.

The theoretical framework remains grounded in a single study by Epstein. It is unusual that additional authors, rearches, ideas, theories, or concepts have not been incorporated into a section intended to provide a foundation for understanding and further exploring the object of study.

The methodology section includes additional details, but these are largely cosmetic changes, as the fundamental issue remains unresolved: the sample size is excessively small and not representative of the broader population, only of the specific school where the data was collected.

The analysis has been reformatted by removing bullet points but retains the same core content as the initial version. It does not constitute an analysis in the strict sense but rather a descriptive account of the results already presented in the tables. However, the final two sections, discussion and conclusions, have been expanded, offering a more thorough exploration of the findings, which makes this version more satisfactory.

Author Response

Thank you for comments that continue to improve the paper. 

The manuscript has been improved; however, as previously noted, theoretical and methodological issues remain that cannot be addressed without a fundamental restructuring of the research.

• The theoretical framework remains grounded in a single study by Epstein. It is unusual that additional authors, research, ideas, theories, or concepts have not been incorporated into a section intended to provide a foundation for understanding and further exploring the object of study.

We have added a reference that demonstrates that our framework is a field-tested theoretical framework that is supported by over 35 years of evidence.  This theory is the seminal and most frequently used theory in the field of parent involvement.  We also added how our questionnaire aligns with Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory.

• The methodology section includes additional details, but these are largely cosmetic changes, as the fundamental issue remains unresolved: the sample size is excessively small and not representative of the broader population, only of the specific school where the data was collected.

We mention in the limitations that the questionnaire needs to be tested with other ethnicities and in other geographic locations to support its generalizability.  This study was an initial study of the questionnaire that needs further research.

• The analysis has been reformatted by removing bullet points but retains the same core content as the initial version. It does not constitute an analysis in the strict sense but rather a descriptive account of the results already presented in the tables. However, the final two sections, discussion and conclusions, have been expanded, offering a more thorough exploration of the findings, which makes this version more satisfactory.

This study is the first pilot study of the questionnaire.  It will serve as the basis for more sophisticated analyses, such as confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses, once more participants are obtained.  The interitem correlations in this paper serve as a numeric basis to justify the factor analyses, as they suggest relationships between the items.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Questions have been addressed appropriately

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has improved in many aspects. However, there are still some issues, particularly those related to the methodology and, more specifically, the sample, that, as I have noted in previous reviews, cannot be modified or improved at this stage.