Unpacking Key Dimensions of Family Empowerment Among Latinx Parents of Children with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Using Exploratory Graph Analysis: Preliminary Research

Abstract

Family empowerment is a key component of effective family-centered practices in healthcare, mental health, and educational services. The Family Empowerment Scale (FES) is the most commonly used instrument to evaluate empowerment in families raising children with emotional, behavioral, or developmental disorders. Despite its importance, the FES for diverse populations, especially Latinx parents, has rarely been evaluated using innovative psychometric approaches. In this study, we evaluated key dimensions and psychometric evidence of the Family Empowerment Scale (FES) for 96 Latinx parents of children with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) in the United States using an exploratory graph analysis (EGA). The EGA identified a five-dimensional structure, and EGA models outperformed the original CFA 3-factor models for both parents of children with autism and other disabilities. This study identified distinct, meaningful dimensions of empowerment that reflect both shared and unique empowerment experiences across two Latinx parent groups. These insights can inform the design of culturally responsive interventions, instruments, and policies that more precisely capture and boost empowerment in Latinx families. This study contributes to closing a gap in the literature by elevating the voices and experiences of Latinx families by laying the groundwork for more equitable support systems in special education and disability services.

1. Introduction

Family empowerment is a foundational component of effective family-centered practices across healthcare, mental health, and educational settings. It refers to the process by which families gain the knowledge, skills, and confidence to make informed decisions, advocate for their needs, and actively participate in services that impact their lives and the lives of their loved ones [1]. Empowered families are better equipped to navigate complex systems, collaborate with professionals, and support positive outcomes for their children and family members. As such, promoting family empowerment is widely recognized as a best practice in systems of care that aim to be inclusive, equitable, and responsive [1].

Given its significance, reliable and valid tools are needed to assess family empowerment across diverse populations and service contexts. One widely used measure is the Family Empowerment Scale (FES), originally developed by Koren et al. (1992) [2], to assess empowerment among families of children with emotional and behavioral disorders. Since its development, the FES has been adapted for use with various populations, including caregivers of young children in general [3,4], children with disabilities [5], children with chronic illnesses [6], and caregivers of adults with mental health conditions [7].

Previous studies have tended to include a higher proportion of non-Hispanic White and highly educated caregivers compared to national demographic estimates [5,8,9,10]. This raises concerns about the generalizability of the Family Empowerment Scale (FES) and highlights the need to establish the psychometric validity of FES among more diverse caregiver populations, as the construct of empowerment may differ across cultural, linguistic, and educational backgrounds. Prior research has shown that similar measures, like the Family Quality of Life scale, may not perform as well in socially disadvantaged groups [11]. Assessing the psychometric validity and the key features of the FES in diverse populations is important to ensure the measure is appropriate for families from a range of backgrounds, including those who have experienced systemic barriers related to race, ethnicity, language, and disability. This can help improve support for families who have been historically underserved [12].

In that respect, applying the Exploratory Graph Analysis (EGA) approach to the Family Empowerment Scale (FES; [2]) will help identify the core features of family empowerment among 96 Latinx parents of children with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), including a comparative analysis of network structures between parents of children with autism and those with other disabilities in the United States. Accordingly, this study uncovers key dimensions and the psychometric evidence for the FES, including reliability (internal consistency) and validity (structural validity) based on 96 Latinx parents of children with intellectual and developmental disabilities in the United States using exploratory graph analysis.

2. Exploratory Graph Analysis

Exploratory Graph Analysis (EGA) is an emerging psychometric method used to identify the dimensional structure of multivariate data, particularly psychological constructs [13]. Unlike traditional factor analysis, which relies on latent variable modeling and specific assumptions about data structure, EGA employs network analysis to reveal clusters of variables—interpreted as dimensions—based on their partial correlations. In order to determine the number of underlying dimensions, EGA models data as a network of partial correlations or zero-order correlations, which is an advantage over traditional factor analysis techniques. In addition to producing a network plot, a visual aid that indicates the number of dimensions and which items are related to one another, EGA exhibits higher accuracy than many traditional techniques. These networks are estimated using regularized Gaussian graphical models, typically via the graphical LASSO algorithm, and community detection algorithms (e.g., walktrap or Leiden) are applied to identify underlying dimensions [13,14,15].

EGA is especially useful for psychological and behavioral data because it accounts for the complex interplay among observed variables without imposing strong parametric assumptions (Golino et al., 2020 [14]). EGA can perform as well as or better than traditional methods like exploratory factor analysis (EFA), especially in uncovering the correct number of dimensions and providing stable, interpretable structures [16]. Furthermore, EGA allows for visualization of these structures, which enhances interpretability for applied researchers and practitioners [13,14,15].

Recent extensions of EGA include Bootstrap EGA (BootEGA) for assessing structural stability and Confirmatory Network Analysis (CNA) for testing theoretically driven models [17]. The method has been applied in various domains such as personality, psychopathology, cognitive assessment, and resilience, suggesting its versatility for analyzing multidimensional constructs (e.g., [18,19,20]). Given its data-driven nature and robust performance, EGA is well-suited for exploring latent structures in culturally diverse populations and under-studied constructs [13,14,16], such as family empowerment among Latinx parents of children with disabilities.

3. Previous Research on the Family Empowerment Scale

Family empowerment is a key component of effective family-centered practices in healthcare, mental health, and educational services. The Family Empowerment Scale (FES), developed by Koren, DeChillo, and Friesen (1992) [2], has become one of the most widely used tools to assess empowerment in families raising children with emotional, behavioral, or developmental disorders. The FES aims to capture how families perceive their ability to advocate, access services, and influence their child’s development and environment. The original FES includes 34 items and is structured around three dimensions of empowerment: Family domain: confidence and control within the family context; Service system domain: interactions with service providers and systems; Community/political domain: broader civic and policy-related engagement [2].

The original three-factor model proposed by Koren et al. (1992) [2] has been confirmed in several studies using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) [3,4,8]. CFA studies have shown mixed results, with some supporting the four-factor structure [5] and three-bifactor structure and others suggesting overlap or redundancy among items [9,10,21].

A bifactor structure is congruent with the theoretical development of the FES, which specifies empowerment as a two-dimensional construct: one dimension represents the level of empowerment, while the second represents how empowerment is exhibited [2]. A bifactor structure is also suitable when there is a strong correlation among the factors [22], as seen with Family, Services, and Community subscales. Building on these results is necessary to elucidate the FES’s conceptual measurement model and validate it through confirmatory factor analysis [12].

However, the FES has rarely been evaluated using modern psychometric approaches such as Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) or Exploratory Graph Analysis (EGA). EGA, a network-based psychometric technique, offers a promising alternative by empirically uncovering latent structures through data-driven clustering of item relationships [13]. To date, no studies have applied EGA to the FES, representing a critical gap in the literature—particularly given EGA’s ability to reveal culturally specific structures in psychological constructs.

Despite its broad use, the psychometric evaluation of the FES in diverse populations, particularly among Latinx caregivers, remains limited. Latinx families often face unique systemic barriers related to language, immigration status, and cultural expectations surrounding advocacy and care. These contextual factors may shape how empowerment is experienced and expressed—raising questions about the cross-cultural validity of the FES.

Evaluating the FES using EGA in diverse, underrepresented samples such as Latinx caregivers could yield more accurate and culturally relevant insights into the structure of empowerment. Such work is essential for improving the validity and equity of measurement tools used in family-centered interventions, especially for communities historically marginalized by disability, language, and ethnicity.

4. Purpose of the Study

To our knowledge, no prior study has used Exploratory Graph Analysis (EGA) to explore whether and how the structure of family empowerment differs between parents of children with autism and those with other disabilities—an investigation particularly important for Latinx parents, who remain underrepresented in research [5,8,9,10]. This study is the first to apply EGA to the Family Empowerment Scale (FES; [1]) to identify the core features of family empowerment among 96 Latinx parents of children with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), including comparisons between parents of children with autism and those with other disabilities in the United States. Furthermore, we aim to highlight the strengths and limitations of EGA by examining model fit indices and network loadings. This analysis seeks to determine which empowerment traits are most central within the network while also comparing the network structures between the two parent groups.

5. Methods

5.1. Sample

Approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) was secured prior to the study. Participants were selected through purposeful sampling, focusing on 96 Latinx parents of children with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) from two U.S. states. To be included, participants had to identify as Latinx—defined as individuals either born in or with heritage from Latin America—and be enrolled in an advocacy training program. Parents who did not identify as Latinx or were not participating in the program were excluded. The study focused on children between the ages of five and eighteen who lived at home, in order to closely examine parent–child relationships relevant to the research aims.

A power analysis was conducted using the semTools package (0.5-7) in R [23]. The analysis showed that sample sizes of 96 and 54 provided statistical power of 0.995 and 0.85, respectively. For the subgroup of parents of children with autism (n = 42), the power was approximately 0.70, which was considered sufficient for the analyses aligned with the study’s goals.

The participant group was largely female, with 97% (n = 93) identifying as women, and the average parent age was 40.85 years (SD = 6.85). Most of the children were boys (77.1%, n = 74), and over half (58.33%, n = 56) were aged 9 or younger, with a mean age of 9.56 years (SD = 4.72). Parents provided their child’s disability information, with 43.8% (n = 42) reporting a diagnosis of autism. In terms of socioeconomic background, the majority of families reported an annual household income under $49,000 (85%, n = 82). Regarding educational attainment, 28.1% (n = 27) of parents had some high school education, 31% (n = 30) had completed high school, and 22.9% (n = 22) had attended some college. Only 17.7% (n = 17) reported earning a bachelor’s or graduate degree.

5.2. Measure

Koren et al. (1992) [2] developed the Family Empowerment Scale (FES) to measure empowerment across three key areas: within the family, in relation to service systems, and in the broader community. The Family Subscale evaluates how actively parents are involved in their child’s daily life, while the Services Subscale assesses parents’ perceived control and confidence regarding disability-related services. The Community Subscale captures the extent of the parent’s participation in community-based activities. The scale uses a 5-point Likert format, where responses range from 1 (Not at all true) to 5 (Very true), with higher scores reflecting stronger feelings of empowerment. Empowerment scores are calculated by summing individual item responses. Research by Canino et al. (2008) [24] found the FES to be highly reliable when used with Spanish-speaking parents of children with intellectual and developmental disabilities, showing Cronbach’s alpha values of 0.93 for the Family Subscale, 0.89 for Services, and 0.85 for Community.

5.3. Data Analysis

Analyses were conducted in R version 4.3.1 [25]. To identify the communities of family empowerment, we employed exploratory graph analysis (EGA) based on the Gaussian graphical model as determined by the EGAnet package, version 2.3.0 [26]. The walktrap approach, on which EGA is based, uses a sequence of random walks around the network’s nodes to find a discrete number of dense subgraphs, or communities.

Using the bootEGA function, the procedure was repeated over 10,000 parametric bootstrap iterations to estimate both the median number of dimensions and their item composition (Christensen & Golino, 2021 [27]). The stability of these results was assessed based on their consistency across bootstrap samples. Specifically, item replication refers to the proportion of iterations in which each item was assigned to the same dimension; high values indicate that an item is consistently associated with a specific dimension, whereas low values may suggest that the item taps into multiple dimensions. Dimension stability reflects how often the original dimension structure was precisely reproduced across the bootstrap samples [26]. We also conducted confirmatory factor analysis in Mplus 8.10 [28] to compare the model fits between CFA and EGA models.

6. Results

6.1. Descriptive Statistics

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics derived from the Original Three Dimensions of Family Empowerment.

Empowerment for All	Mean: Scale	Mean: Item	SD: Scale	SD: Item	Alpha	Omega
Total Empowerment	114.32	3.36	24.86	0.73	0.951	0.962
Family	41.72	3.48	9.65	0.80	0.903	0.906
Service	41.88	3.49	9.52	0.79	0.894	0.899
Community	30.73	2.56	7.91	0.66	0.833	0.840
Empowerment of Parents of Children with Autism	Mean: Scale	Mean: Item	SD: Scale	SD: Item	Alpha	Omega
Total Empowerment	118.45	3.48	22.93	0.67	0.952	0.963
Family	44.10	3.67	8.14	0.68	0.881	0.883
Service	43.93	3.66	8.85	0.74	0.903	0.910
Community	30.43	2.54	7.95	0.66	0.857	0.863
Empowerment for Parents of Children with Other	Mean: Scale	Mean: Item	SD: Scale	SD: Item	Alpha	Omega
Total Empowerment	111.11	3.27	26.01	1.86	0.951	0.965
Family	39.87	3.99	10.38	1.04	0.909	0.915
Service	40.28	4.03	9.79	0.98	0.887	0.893
Community	30.96	3.10	7.95	0.79	0.823	0.833

presents the descriptive statistics and reliability estimates for empowerment scores derived from the original three dimensions among three groups: all 96 participants combined, 42 parents of children with autism, and 56 parents of children with other disabilities. Empowerment was assessed across three domains—Family, Service, and Community—as well as for Total Empowerment. Means and standard deviations are reported at both the scale and item levels, with internal consistency estimates (Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega) included for each subscale.

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics derived from EGA-Produced Five Dimensions of Family Empowerment.

Empowerment of Parents of Children with Autism	Items	Mean: Scale	Mean: Item	SD: Scale	SD: Item	Alpha	Omega
Foundational Empowerment and Advocacy Beliefs	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 17, 32	29.71	3.71	5.06	0.63	0.780	0.786
Relational Engagement and Supportive Parenting Practices	6, 13, 27, 29, 31	18.79	3.76	4.36	0.87	0.878	0.879
Empowered Action and Collective Advocacy	7, 8, 15, 20, 21, 24, 28, 33, 34	28.76	3.20	6.28	0.70	0.822	0.833
System Knowledge and Collaborative Influence	10, 11, 12, 14, 18, 19, 23, 25	27.98	3.50	7.24	0.90	0.921	0.922
Resource Mobilization and Policy Engagement	16, 22, 26, 30	13.21	3.30	3.71	0.93	0.804	0.811
Empowerment for Parents of Children with Other Disabilities	Items	Mean: Scale	Mean: Item	SD: Scale	SD: Item	Alpha	Omega
Parental Confidence and Advocacy in Navigating Services	1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15	36.52	3.32	7.89	0.72	0.839	0.850
Collaborative Empowerment in Service Decision-Making	3, 12, 13, 18, 19, 21	20.04	3.34	5.26	0.88	0.838	0.852
System-Level and Political Advocacy	8, 20, 22	8.37	2.79	3.42	1.14	0.817	0.833
Parenting Self-Efficacy and Capacity Building	16, 17, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34	29.91	3.32	9.75	1.08	0.950	0.951
Knowledge of Rights and Support Seeking	23, 24, 25, 26, 30	16.28	3.26	5.57	1.11	0.896	0.897

shows the descriptive statistics, and reliability estimates for empowerment scores derived from the EGA-produced five dimensions among two parental groups. As the five dimensions created by EGA differed across two groups, we only discussed item-level means and standard deviations.

6.1.1. Empowerment for All

Across the entire sample, the total empowerment score averaged 114.32 (SD = 24.86) at the scale level, corresponding to a mean item score of 3.36 (SD = 0.73). Among the subdomains, participants reported similar average scores for Family (M = 41.72, SD = 9.65) and Service (M = 41.88, SD = 9.52), while the Community subscale had a lower mean of 30.73 (SD = 7.91). Internal consistency was high across all scales, with alpha coefficients ranging from 0.833 (Community) to 0.951 (Total Empowerment), and omega coefficients closely aligned.

6.1.2. Parents of Children with Autism Based on the Original Three Dimensions of Family Empowerment and EGA-Produced Five Dimensions of Family Empowerment

For the Original Three Dimensions of Family Empowerment, this group reported the higher mean Total Empowerment (M = 118.45, SD = 22.93; item mean = 3.48, SD = 0.67) than parents of children with other disabilities. The Service (M = 43.93, SD = 8.85) and Family (M = 44.10, SD = 8.14) domains were rated particularly high, with the Community domain again showing a lower score (M = 30.43, SD = 7.95). Item-level means varied from 2.54 (SD = 0.66) to 3.67 (SD = 0.68). Reliability estimates remained strong, with alpha values ranging from 0.857 to 0.952, and omega values from 0.863 to 0.963 (See Table 1).

In terms of EGA-produced Five Dimensions of Family Empowerment, this group reported higher levels of item means, ranging from 3.20 to 3.76, slightly higher than the parent group of children with other disabilities. Reliability estimates stayed strong, with alpha values ranging from 0.780 to 0.921, and omega values from 0.786 to 0.922.

6.1.3. Parents of Children with Other Disabilities Based on the Original Three Dimensions of Family Empowerment

This subgroup reported slightly lower Total Empowerment scores (M = 111.11, SD = 26.01; item mean = 3.27, SD = 1.86) compared to parents of children with autism. The Service (M = 40.28, SD = 9.79) and Family (M = 39.87, SD = 10.38) scores were also somewhat reduced, although the Community domain score (M = 30.96, SD = 7.95) was comparable to parents of children with autism. Item-level means ranged from 3.10 (SD = 0.79) to 4.03 (SD = 0.98). Cronbach’s alpha and omega remained robust, with both exceeding 0.82 across all subscales.

According to EGA-derived Five Dimensions of Family Empowerment, item-level means varied from 2.79 (SD = 1.14) to 3.34 (SD = 0.88). Reliability estimates were robust, with alpha values ranging from 0.817 to 0.950, and omega values from 0.833 to 0.951.

6.2. Exploratory Graph Analysis Results for Family Empowerment for Parents of Children with Autism

As shown in Figure 1 and Table 2, for parents of children with autism, EGA produced five dimensions and performed better (CFI = 0.981 and RMSEA = 0.106) than the theoretical confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) three-factor model (CFI = 0.858 and RMSEA = 0.165). We also fitted the hierarchical EGA model, which also generated an excellent model fit (CFI = 0.994 and RMSEA = 0.059) in comparison to the traditional CFA bifactor model (CFI = 0.934 and RMSEA = 0.086). This model consists of a general factor representing the total family empowerment and five group factors.

To assess item stability, we conducted 10,000 bootstrap iterations of the EGA procedure, which yielded five dimensions (95% CI: 2.5–7.3). However, the stability values for items within each dimension ranged from 0.30 to 0.72, indicating that item assignment was relatively unstable. The consistency of item-to-dimension assignments across bootstrap samples was low (see Figure 2), which may be attributed to the limited sample size. We have acknowledged this as a limitation of the current study, recognizing its preliminary nature and emphasizing the need for future replication with a larger and more representative sample.

The EGA graph exhibits each node’s strength and the overall empowerment patterns of Latinx parents of children with autism, and its network loadings display how well items are associated with each dimension (the unique contribution of a variable’s measurement of a factor). The thickness (or weight) of the edges in the network graph represents the strength of the statistical association between two items (nodes). Thicker lines indicate stronger correlations between two items, while thinner lines suggest weaker associations between them. The following subsection provides detailed explanations on each dimension, as displayed in

Table 3. Network Loadings of Family Empowerment for Parents of Children with Autism.

Parents of Children with Autism	1	2	3	4	5
Empower1	0.367
Empower2	0.336
Empower3	0.402
Empower4	0.45
Empower5	0.429
Empower6		0.173
Empower7			0.257
Empower8			−0.323
Empower9	0.386
Empower10				0.236
Empower11				0.459
Empower12				0.525
Empower13		0.262
Empower14				0.386
Empower15			−0.411
Empower16					0.31
Empower17	0.304
Empower18				0.323
Empower19				0.516
Empower20			−0.53
Empower21			0.466
Empower22					0.312
Empower23				0.219
Empower24			−0.296
Empower25				0.307
Empower26					0.64
Empower27		0.467
Empower28			0.432
Empower29		0.504
Empower30					0.214
Empower31		0.327
Empower32	0.27
Empower33			0.506
Empower34			0.393
Mean	0.382	0.347	0.402	0.371	0.369

.

6.2.1. Dimension 1: Foundational Empowerment and Advocacy Beliefs

The first dimension (red nodes—Items 1–5, 9, 17, 32) reflects Foundational Empowerment and Advocacy Beliefs. This factor captures a parent’s core sense of agency, confidence, and belief in their right to participate in service decisions for their child. It also reflects a belief in the collective power of families to influence services, and a sense of control over both family life and professional interactions. This dimension was characterized by moderate to strong item loadings, indicating a cohesive and well-defined construct. The most central item within this factor was item 4 (loading = 0.450), followed closely by item 5 (0.429) and item 3 (0.402). These items demonstrated the strongest associations with the underlying dimension, suggesting they are key indicators of this empowerment domain. Items such as Empowerment 9 (0.386), Empowerment 1 (0.367), and Empowerment 2 (0.336) also contribute meaningfully, albeit with slightly lower loadings. Empower17 (0.304) remained within an acceptable range, while Empowerment 32 showed the weakest loading (0.270), indicating a weaker—but still relevant—connection to the dimension. Together, these results suggest that the dimension is well-supported by its constituent items, with Empowerment 4 through Empowerment 3 serving as the core indicators. Lower-loading items, such as Empowerment 32, may benefit from further evaluation regarding clarity or conceptual alignment.

6.2.2. Dimension 2: Relational Engagement and Supportive Parenting Practices

The second dimension reflects Relational Engagement and Supportive Parenting Practices, with items 6, 13, 27, 29, and 31. This factor represents a parent’s commitment to communicating effectively with professionals while also maintaining a positive, proactive approach to parenting. It reflects empowerment through both external collaboration and internal practices that foster growth and resilience within the parent–child relationship. The analysis revealed varied strengths of association between items and their respective network dimensions. Empowerment 29 showed the strongest loading at 0.504, followed closely by Empowerment 27 (0.467), indicating their strong alignment with the underlying construct in this dimension. Empowerment 31 (0.327) contributed moderately. In contrast, Empowerment 13 (0.262) and especially Empowerment 6 (0.173) demonstrated weak loadings, suggesting limited connection to the latent structure. These items may benefit from further review regarding their wording, conceptual clarity, or relevance.

6.2.3. Dimension 3: Empowered Action and Collective Advocacy

The third factor, in turn, indicates a trait of Empowered Action and Collective Advocacy, with items 7, 8, 15, 20, 21, 24, 28, 33, and 34. This factor represents a parent’s empowerment in influencing policy, legislation, and systemic change. It captures parents’ belief in their ability to communicate effectively with decision-makers, advocate for improved services, and play a role in shaping the broader systems that affect children and families. This dimension revealed both positively and negatively loading items. Empowerment 33 (0.506) and Empowerment 21 (0.466) were among the strongest positive contributors, while Empower20 (−0.530) and Empowerment 15 (−0.411) loaded strongly in the negative direction, suggesting an inverse relationship with the core construct. These contrasting patterns may reflect opposite poles of the same underlying empowerment trait or misalignment due to reverse-coded items, meriting further content review.

6.2.4. Dimension 4: System Knowledge and Collaborative Influence

The fourth factor indicates System Knowledge and Collaborative Influence, with items 10, 11, 12, 14, 18, 19, 23, and 25. This factor represents a parent’s confidence in their ability to understand and support their child, take initiative in seeking services, and actively build knowledge and skills. It reflects a growth-oriented and empowered parenting mindset, with emphasis on learning, self-advocacy, and constructive problem-solving in the family context. Within this dimension, Empowerment 12 (0.525) and Empowerment 19 (0.516) demonstrated the strongest network loadings, highlighting them as core items. Empowerment 11 (0.459) and Empowerment 14 (0.386) also contributed substantially. While Empower10 (0.236) and Empowerment 23 (0.219) were associated more weakly with the construct, their presence suggests they may reflect more peripheral or context-specific aspects of empowerment. These findings suggest a coherent yet multidimensional pattern within the factor.

6.2.5. Dimension 5: Resource Mobilization and Policy Engagement

Finally, the fifth factor, Resource Mobilization and Policy Engagement, with items 16, 22, 26, and 30. This factor reflects a parent’s ability to access, mobilize, and utilize resources and information—whether personal, institutional, or political—to support their child and family. It captures empowerment through knowing where to go for help, how to get information, and how to reach decision-makers when needed. This dimension was anchored by Empowerment 26, which exhibited a high network loading (0.640), suggesting it is a core representation of the underlying trait. Empowerment 22 and Empowerment 16 contributed moderately to the factor, while Empowerment 30 showed a weaker connection and may represent a more nuanced or context-specific aspect of the construct.

6.2.6. Summary of the Five Dimensions for Parents of Children with Autism

Overall, each dimension was effectively captured by items with moderate to high network loadings. Notably, parents of children with autism reported elevated levels of empowerment on Empowerment 26 (Ability to ask for help when needed with family problems), which strongly represents the fifth dimension. The highest network loading was observed for item 26, with other prominent items including Empowerment 12 (Working with professionals to decide on services), Empowerment 19 (Expressing my opinions about services being provided), Empowerment 29 (Focusing on my child’s strengths as well as problems), and Empowerment 33 (Understanding my child’s disorders).

Upon examining the interrelationships among items, we found several notable associations. Strong connections were observed between Empowerment 21 (Confidence in solving problems with my child) and Empowerment 34 (Feeling that I am a good parent); Empowerment 7 (Being aware of what to do when problems arise) and item 13 (Staying in regular contact with service providers); Empowerment 26 (Ability to ask for help when needed with family problems) and Empowerment 16 (Seeking information to better understand my child), Empowerment 22 (Knowing how to get agency administrators or legislators to listen), Empowerment 25 (Belief that my parenting experience can improve services), and Empowerment 30 (Understanding the service system my child is involved in); and Empowerment 28 (Taking initiative to find services for my child and family) with Empowerment 6 (Ensuring professionals understand my views on my child’s service needs), Empowerment 29 (Focusing on my child’s strengths as well as problems), and Empowerment 33 (Understanding my child’s disorders).

Additionally, Empowerment 8 (Contacting legislators about children’s issues) showed strong links with Empowerment 20 (Providing feedback to agencies and government on improving services) and Empowerment 5 (Being aware of the Steps for Concerned Child Services), while Empowerment 12 (Working with professionals to decide on services) was closely related to Empowerment 11 (Making good decisions about what services my child needs). Empowerment 19 (Expressing my opinions about services being provided) was associated with Empowerment 14 (Having ideas about the ideal service system for children) and Empowerment 18 (Valuing my opinion equally with professionals in service decisions).

Interestingly, Empowerment 1 (Parents’ Right to Approve Child Services) demonstrated strong negative associations with Empower 8 (Contacting legislators about children’s issues), Empowerment 10 (Understanding how the children’s service system is organized), and Empowerment 22 (Knowing how to get agency administrators or legislators to listen). Similarly, Empowerment 25 (Belief that my parenting experience can improve services) was negatively related to Empowerment 4 (Confidence in assisting in a child’s growth and development). Empowerment 26 (Ability to ask for help when needed with family problems) had a negative relationship with Empowerment 3 (Feeling capable of enhancing children’s services in my community). Empowerment 3 showed a negative relationship with Empower 21 (Confidence in solving problems with my child) and Empowerment 34 (Feeling that I am a good parent) but a positive relationship with Empowerment 4 (Confidence in assisting in a child’s growth and development) (See Figure 1).

6.3. Exploratory Graph Analysis Results for Parents of Children with Other Disabilities

For parents of children with other disabilities, EGA yielded five dimensions and fit the data better (CFI = 0.990 and RMSEA = 0.086) than the CFA three-factor model (CFI = 0.863 and RMSEA = 0.123). We also fitted the hierarchical EGA model, which also generated an excellent model fit (CFI = 0.994 and RMSEA = 0.068) in comparison to the traditional CFA bifactor model (CFI = 0.917 and RMSEA = 0.099). This model comprises a general factor representing the total family empowerment and five group factors.

To ensure the item stability, we ran the 10,000 bootstrap procedures for EGA (95% CI 2.2–7.2), which generated five dimensions. The majority of the items from each dimension are at or below the range of 0.33–0.75, indicating instability. Some items from dimensions 4 and 5 are stable with values ranging from 0.82 to 0.98. Assignment of single items to communities was not highly repeatable (Figure 3), We cited this as a limitation of our study because it is exploratory research with a limited sample size and there is the chance of replication with a bigger sample size later.

6.3.1. Dimension 1: Parental Confidence and Advocacy in Navigating Services

As shown in

Table 4. Network Loadings of Family Empowerment for Parents of Children with Other Disabilities (n = 54).

Other	1	2	3	4	5
Empower1	−0.189
Empower2	0.112
Empower3		0.156
Empower4	0.27
Empower5	0.476
Empower6	0.308
Empower7	0.519
Empower8			0.4
Empower9	0.311
Empower10	0.434
Empower11	0.518
Empower12		0.403
Empower13		0.468
Empower14	0.301
Empower15	0.439
Empower16				0.362
Empower17				0.401
Empower18		0.374
Empower19		0.561
Empower20			0.379
Empower21		0.281
Empower22			0.745
Empower23					0.499
Empower24					0.59
Empower25					0.254
Empower26					0.446
Empower27				0.451
Empower28				0.699
Empower29				0.325
Empower30					0.276
Empower31				0.396
Empower32				0.196
Empower33				0.424
Empower34				0.332
Mean	0.318	0.374	0.508	0.398	0.413

and Figure 4, the first dimension (red nodes—Items 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, and 15) reflects Parental Confidence and Advocacy in Navigating Services, integrating elements of: Self-efficacy in parenting (Items 2, 4, 7, and 9), service system navigation and decision-making (Items 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, and 14), and advocacy for others (Item 15). Most items had moderate to strong positive associations with the latent construct, with Empowerment 7 and Empowerment 11 showing the strongest loadings (0.519 and 0.518, respectively), indicating they are central items for this dimension. However, Empowerment 1 demonstrated a negative loading (−0.189), suggesting that it may be measuring an opposing construct or may require rewording or removal. Empowerment 2 and Empowerment 4 also had relatively low loadings, indicating they may contribute less to the overall dimension.

6.3.2. Dimension 2: Collaborative Empowerment in Service Decision-Making

The second reflects Collaborative Empowerment in Service Decision-Making with items 3, 12, 13, 18, 19, and 21. This factor reflects a parent’s sense of empowerment through partnership with service providers, including their ability to communicate effectively, share in decisions, solve problems, and influence services for their child and broader community. Within this factor, Empowerment 19 (Expressing my opinions about services being provided) emerged as the most central item (loading = 0.561), indicating a strong relationship with the underlying construct. Empowerment 12 (Working with professionals to decide on services), Empowerment 13, and Empowerment 18 also demonstrated moderate associations (loadings between 0.374 and 0.468), contributing meaningfully to the factor. In contrast, Empowerment 3 had a notably weak loading (0.156), suggesting that it may be less aligned with the construct and should be reviewed for conceptual fit or measurement clarity.

6.3.3. Dimension 3: System-Level and Political Advocacy

The third factor, in turn, indicates a trait of System-Level and Political Advocacy, with items 8, 20, and 22. This factor represents a parent’s empowerment in influencing policy, legislation, and systemic change. It captures their belief in their ability to communicate effectively with decision-makers, advocate for improved services, and play a role in shaping the broader systems that affect children and families. In this third factor, Empowerment 22 displayed a very strong loading (0.745), indicating it is central to the underlying construct and likely serves as the best indicator. Empowerment 8 and Empowerment 20 also showed moderate loadings (0.400 and 0.379), suggesting they contribute meaningfully, though less dominantly, to this factor.

6.3.4. Dimension 4: Parenting Self-Efficacy and Capacity Building

The fourth factor indicates Parenting Self-Efficacy and Capacity Building, with items 16, 17, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, and 34. This factor represents a parent’s confidence in their ability to understand and support their child, take initiative in seeking services, and actively build knowledge and skills. It reflects a growth-oriented and empowered parenting mindset, with emphasis on learning, self-advocacy, and constructive problem-solving in the family context. This factor contains a broad set of items, with Empowerment 28 demonstrating a particularly strong loading (0.699), suggesting it is central to this construct. Several items (Empowerment 27, Empowerment 33, Empowerment 17, and Empowerment 31) have moderate loadings in the 0.39–0.45 range, indicating a cohesive set. Empower 32, however, showed a weak loading (0.196), which may suggest limited alignment with the construct and could benefit from review or potential revision.

6.3.5. Dimension 5: Knowledge of Rights and Support Seeking

The fifth factor, Knowledge of Rights and Support Seeking, with items 23, 24, 25, 26, and 30, reflects a parent’s knowledge of services, rights, and systems, as well as their ability to seek and provide support. It highlights empowerment rooted in being informed, recognizing the value of lived experience, and knowing when and how to ask for help. In this factor, Empowerment 24 emerged as the most prominent item (loading = 0.590), followed by Empowerment 23 and Empowerment 26, which demonstrated moderate to moderately strong associations (0.499 and 0.446). Empowerment 30 and Empowerment 25 had relatively lower loadings (0.276 and 0.254, respectively), suggesting weaker alignment with the underlying construct and potential targets for refinement or further review.

6.3.6. Summary of the Five Dimensions for Parents of Children with Other Disabilities

Overall, each dimension is clearly defined by items with moderate to high network loadings. Particularly, the parents of children with others reported having highest levels of empowerment in Empowerment 22 (Knowing how to get agency administrators or legislators to listen), followed by Empowerment 28 (Taking initiative to find services for my child and family), Empowerment 24 (Awareness of parent and child rights under special education law), Empowerment 19 (Expressing my opinions about services being provided), Empowerment 7 (Being aware of what to do when problems arise), and Empowerment 11 (Making good decisions about what services my child needs).

Reviewing the item interrelationships revealed several significant associations. Strong connections were observed between Empowerment 7 (Being aware of what to do when problems arise) and Empowerment 11 (Making good decisions about what services my child needs); Empowerment 23 (Knowing what services my child needs.) and Empowerment 24 (Awareness of parent and child rights under special education law); Empowerment 12 (Working with professionals to decide on services) and Empowerment 13 (Staying in regular contact with service providers); Empowerment 22 (Knowing how to get agency administrators or legislators to listen), Empowerment 8 (Contacting legislators about children’s issues), and Empowerment 20 (Providing feedback to agencies and government on improving services); Empowerment 16 (Seeking information to better understand my child) and Empowerment 17 (Belief that parents can influence services); and Empowerment 28 (Taking initiative to find services for my child and family) with Empowerment 31 (Taking action when problems arise involving my child) and Empowerment 27 (Learning new ways to help my child grow and develop). Interestingly, Empowerment 1 (Parents’ Right to Approve Child Services) demonstrated negative associations with Empowerment 7 (Being aware of what to do when problems arise) and Empowerment 11 (Making good decisions about what services my child needs). Similarly, Empowerment 8 (Contacting legislators about children’s issues) was negatively related to Empowerment 17 (Belief that parents can influence services), Empowerment 18 (Valuing my opinion equally with professionals in service decisions), and Empowerment 29 (Focusing on my child’s strengths as well as problems).

7. Discussion

This study examined key dimensions and psychometric evidence of FES based on Latinx parents of children with autism versus parents of children with other disabilities using exploratory graph analysis. To our knowledge, no prior studies have specifically examined the structure and core characteristics of family empowerment for Latinx parents of children with autism versus other disabilities using EGA, highlighting a significant gap in the literature that this study begins to address and may serve as a foundation for future investigations aiming to expand and replicate these findings. Given the absence of comparable studies, results should be interpreted with caution.

Results suggest that EGA produced five dimensions of FES for each parental group, inconsistent with previous studies (e.g., [2,3,5,8]). The central traits of each dimension were different between those parents. The EGA models performed better than the traditional CFA models in terms of CFI and RMSEA. Also, the EGA is advantageous in that its network loadings and network plots helped identify the key aspects and relationships of family empowerment in the network for Latinx parents of children with disabilities.

7.1. Key Dimensions of Family Empowerment Scale for Parents of Children with Autism Versus Other Disabilities

Both parent groups share key empowerment dimensions—confidence in navigating services, policy advocacy, and knowledge of rights—demonstrating commonalities in core needs and strengths. However, parents of children with autism showed a more differentiated empowerment structure, including a unique emphasis on relational engagement with professionals and a more integrated view of resource use and policy influence. In contrast, parents of children with other disabilities tended to express empowerment through broader, more integrative themes such as general advocacy and collaborative decision-making.

Only parents of children with autism include a specific factor labeled “Relational Engagement and Supportive Parenting Practices”, highlighting proactive communication with professionals and a nurturing parenting style. This dimension is absent in parents of children with other disabilities.

For the parents of children with autism, the fifth factor is framed as “Resource Mobilization and Policy Engagement,” linking personal/institutional resource use with political empowerment. In contrast, the parents of children with other disabilities’ equivalent (“Knowledge of Rights and Support Seeking”) focus more on information access and social support, with less emphasis on policy engagement.

The parents of children with autism show sharper conceptual separation between types of empowerment (e.g., foundational beliefs, relational engagement, political advocacy), possibly reflecting more differentiated empowerment experiences. The group of parents of children with other disabilities appears to have broader, overlapping categories, possibly suggesting more general or integrative empowerment themes.

Following the effect size guidelines that correspond with traditional factor loading guidelines: small (0.20), moderate (0.35), and large (0.50) network loadings suggested by Golino and Christensen (2025) [26] and Christensen and Golino (2021) [27], each dimension is well represented by moderate to high factor loadings except for Empowerment 2 (0.112). Notably, parents of children with autism reported heightened levels of empowerment on Empowerment 26 (Ability to ask for help when needed with family problems), a powerful representation of the fifth dimension. Empowerment 12 (Working with professionals to decide on services), Empowerment 19 (Expressing my opinions about services being provided), Empowerment 29 (Focusing on my child’s strengths as well as problems), and Empowerment 33 (Understanding my child’s disorders) were also prominent. Strong negative loadings for Empowerment 20 (−0.530; Providing feedback to agencies and government on improving services) and Empowerment 15 (−0.411; Helping other families access needed services) indicate an unfavorable association with the core construct of the third factor (Empowered Action and Collective Advocacy). Further content assessment is warranted since these disparate patterns might be the opposing poles of the same underlying empowering attribute or a misalignment brought on by reverse-coded items.

Particularly, the parents of children with other disabilities reported perceiving the most empowered in Empowerment 22 (Knowing how to get agency administrators or legislators to listen), followed by Empowerment 28 (Taking initiative to find services for my child and family), Empowerment 24 (Awareness of parent and child rights under special education law), Empowerment 19 (Expressing my opinions about services being provided), Empowerment 7 (Being aware of what to do when problems arise), and Empowerment 11 (Making good decisions about what services my child needs). Empowerment 1 (Parents’ Right to Approve Child Services) demonstrated a negative loading (−0.189), indicating that it may be measuring a different concept or may need to be reworded or eliminated.

7.2. Implications for Practice and Research

The findings from this study offer several critical implications for future research and practice in the area of family empowerment, particularly when working with Latinx families of children with disabilities. First, the use of exploratory graph analysis (EGA) yielded stronger model fit indices (e.g., CFI, RMSEA) and provided a more nuanced and interpretable representation of empowerment dimensions compared to traditional confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The use of EGA allowed for the identification of relational and structural differences in how empowerment manifests for Latinx parents of children with autism versus other disabilities. This suggests that network-based modeling may offer a more culturally responsive and flexible framework for capturing the complexity of family empowerment, particularly among culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) populations.

The current study also revealed important differences in the empowerment profiles of Latinx parents of children with autism versus those of children with other disabilities. The autism group demonstrated a more differentiated structure of empowerment, including unique dimensions such as “Relational Engagement and Supportive Parenting Practices” and “Resource Mobilization and Policy Engagement.” This suggests that these parents experience empowerment in more distinct and specialized ways, potentially due to the complexity and intensity of navigating autism-specific services and interventions. In contrast, the group of parents of children with other disabilities showed broader, more integrated themes such as general advocacy and collaborative decision-making, which may reflect their engagement in more established or generalized service systems. These differences emphasize the need for targeted interventions that align with the specific empowerment dimensions relevant to each subgroup. For parents of children with autism, interventions should emphasize skills related to partnership-building with professionals, navigating complex service systems, and engaging in policy advocacy. For parents of children with other disabilities, a focus on general empowerment strategies—such as building confidence in decision-making and awareness of legal rights—may be more appropriate [29].

In terms of future research directions, research is needed to reassess the wording and content validity of certain items within the FES. Substantial differences in factor loadings between these two parental groups warrant closer examination. For example, several items—such as Empowerment 20 (“Providing feedback to agencies and government on improving services”) and Empowerment 15 (“Helping other families access needed services”)—demonstrated strong negative loadings within the autism group, which may reflect either reverse-coded constructs, cultural discomfort with assertive advocacy, or barriers that prevent parents from enacting these behaviors. Likewise, Empowerment 1 (“Parents’ Right to Approve Child Services”) showed a negative loading in the group of parents of children with other disabilities, suggesting that the item may not align well with their conceptualization of empowerment or may need to be reworded for greater clarity. These findings highlight the importance of item-level analysis when using the FES with CLD families and the potential benefit of incorporating qualitative methods, such as cognitive interviews or focus groups, to explore how parents interpret individual items. We also acknowledge that these findings may suggest the need to consider validating an adapted version of the scale that more accurately reflects the unique experiences and needs of families navigating autism-specific services and challenges. This is now emphasized as a potential direction for future research.

From a systems perspective, these findings highlight the need for service providers, educators, and policymakers to adopt culturally responsive approaches that align with the diverse empowerment pathways of Latinx families. Service systems should be designed to support both relational and structural dimensions of empowerment, such as building trust-based communication between parents and professionals, increasing culturally and linguistically accessible resources, and fostering meaningful avenues for policy engagement [30]. For example, offering parent leadership development programs, bilingual advocacy training, and culturally grounded family support groups could enhance empowerment across multiple dimensions. Additionally, attention should be paid to structural barriers—such as immigration status, language access, and institutional discrimination—that may hinder families’ ability to fully engage in empowering actions.

Lastly, longitudinal studies are needed to examine how empowerment develops over time and in relation to specific service contexts (e.g., early intervention, special education, behavioral therapy). It is also important to consider the intersectionality of factors such as socioeconomic status, acculturation, and language use, which may influence how empowerment is experienced and enacted among Latinx families. Further validation studies of the FES should explore its use across various Latinx subgroups (e.g., Mexican, Central American, Puerto Rican) to ensure that it captures the heterogeneity within the broader Latinx population. Finally, integrating both quantitative and qualitative methodologies will be critical for developing culturally valid, strengths-based measures of empowerment that reflect the lived realities of diverse families navigating complex disability systems.

8. Limitations

This study acknowledges several limitations that may influence the interpretation of its findings. Recognizing these constraints is essential to properly contextualize the results and guide future research efforts. A primary limitation is the small sample size, which limits the generalizability of the findings. Although there is no consensus in the literature on the optimal sample size for EGA, it remains a critical consideration. Golino et al. (2020) [14] found EGA performs comparably to traditional factor analysis with samples larger than 150 for small item sets, and better with more than 250. In this study, although a power analysis suggested the sample was statistically sufficient, the sample size of 42 participants falls short of the commonly accepted threshold of 50 to achieve a statistical power of 0.80. This raises the potential for Type II errors, where true effects may go undetected. This also may be the possible reason for unstable EGA bootstrap values. For underrepresented groups, small samples (smaller than 100) can be informative with caution. Given this study’s preliminary nature, this should be acknowledged as a limitation of the study, emphasizing the importance of undertaking future research with a larger and more representative sample.

Another limitation of the study is the overrepresentation of women in the sample, which is likely influenced by traditional caregiving roles commonly assumed by women—particularly in Latinx families raising children with IDD. As mothers are often more involved in their children’s care, they may also be more knowledgeable about their needs, which can be seen as a strength. However, this gender imbalance in the sample may lead to a skewed understanding of family empowerment, potentially misrepresenting the perspectives of male caregivers. Therefore, the findings should be interpreted with caution.

To address this issue, future research should consider strategies to actively recruit more male participants to ensure a more balanced representation. Additionally, it would be valuable for future studies to replicate the modeling procedures used in this study with larger and more diverse samples to assess whether the findings generalize to other populations and measurement tools.

Despite this limitation, the study offers valuable contributions. It identifies novel dimensions and psychometric properties of the Family Empowerment Scale (FES) as applied to Latinx parents of children with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). These insights fill a notable gap in the literature and can help inform future research and targeted interventions aimed at more accurately measuring and supporting family empowerment within this underrepresented population.

9. Conclusions

This study provides a novel contribution to advancing theory in key dimensions and psychometric features of FES for 96 Latinx parents of children with IDD and offers vital insights into the lack of research in this area by applying EGA techniques. This study represents a significant step toward understanding the structure and dimensions of family empowerment among Latinx parents of children with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), including those with autism. By applying Exploratory Graph Analysis (EGA) to the Family Empowerment Scale (FES), the study identified distinct, meaningful dimensions of empowerment that reflect both shared and unique experiences across parent groups.

Despite limitations such as a small sample size and gender imbalance, the findings offer novel psychometric evidence supporting the relevance and applicability of the FES within an underrepresented population. The identification of dimensions such as Foundational Empowerment, Relational Engagement, System-Level Advocacy, and Resource Mobilization deepens our understanding of the nuanced ways in which Latinx parents experience and express empowerment in the context of raising a child with disabilities.

These insights can inform the design of culturally responsive interventions, tools, and policies that more accurately capture and support empowerment in Latinx families. Future research should aim to validate these findings with larger and more diverse samples, include more male caregivers, and explore how these empowerment traits influence service access, family well-being, and child outcomes over time. Ultimately, this study contributes to closing a gap in the literature by centering the voices and experiences of Latinx families—providing a foundation for more equitable support systems in special education and disability services.