THE PARENT INVOLVEMENT NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR SCHOOLS: ITEM DEVELOPMENT, REFINEMENT, AND UTILITY

Parent involvement in education consists of contributions and expectations made by parents regarding their child’s schooling and education. Parent involvement increases student achievement, decreases maladaptive behaviors, reduces the rate of absentees, and contributes to parity in education. Nonetheless, there are facilitators and barriers associated with the promotion of and/or lack of parent involvement in the schools. In addition, there is a paucity of assessment tools to accurately examine facilitators and barriers associated with parent involvement. Such assessments would allow for schools to begin the process of community outreach to promote the family school partnerships. This present study sought to develop a needs-assessment for school use to assess facilitators and barriers to parent involvement in schools. Education professionals evaluated items and gave input into the assessment tool and its utility. Information collected contributed to the development and refinement of the final version of this needs-assessment. Findings from this study are expected to provide school personnel with a parent involvement assessment that can be utilized to assess the facilitators and barriers of parent involvement. With its use, then, stakeholders and education professionals can begin the initial process of increasing the family school partnerships to contribute to improvements in student achievement. .


LIST OF TABLES
Family-school partnership is the collaborative process that is derived from parent involvement with educational professionals. This partnership serves as a joint commitment to students' educational, behavioral, social, and mental health needs (National Association of School Psychologist, 2012). When school staff offer the invitation for parent involvement, this begins the potential for development of familyschool partnerships.
There are two types of mutually exclusive forms of parent involvement. These are home-based and school-based parent involvement (Murray et al., 2014). Home-based parent involvement refers to any education related activities that take place outside the school (Murray et al., 2014). Such practices include parents helping their child with homework, discussing grades and educational practices, and setting educational aspirations and goals. This also includes the practice of cognitive-intellectual involvement, which incorporates parents exposing their children to intellectually stimulating activities such as reading (Hill & Tyson, 2009;LaRocque, Kleiman, & Darling, 2011). School-based parent involvement refers to any instances of parents establishing a direct relationship with the school (Murray et al., 2014). This type of involvement includes attending parent-teacher meetings, volunteering at their child's school, and being involved in school events (Murray et al., 2014). These two types of parent involvement can facilitate learning in children. However, school-based parent involvement requires consistent and continuous contact from school staff to be implemented, while home-based parent involvement requires communication from the school in order to be maintained.
Parents' constructions of their personal roles and efficacy towards helping their children succeed provide the basis of the choice to get involved (Henderson & Mapp, 2002). However, educational professionals' invitations and offered opportunities initiate and cultivate this dyadic relationship (Henderson & Mapp, 2002). The relationship that is then formed becomes the primary method to enhance trust in the family-school partnership (Adams & Christenson, 2000). Parent involvement, both home-and schoolbased, helps improve student achievement (Christenson, Rounds, & Gomey, 1992).

Parent Involvement as Context for Student Achievement
Parent involvement should be an imperative objective of every school in the United States. Research has demonstrated that the most successful schools prioritize the family-school partnership, and that this partnership contributes to students exhibiting higher grades and test scores, more enrollment in higher level courses, regular school attendance, and higher rates of graduation and going onto post-secondary education (Henderson & Mapp, 2002). Parent involvement significantly improves academic achievement (Hill & Tyson, 2009;Jeynes, 2003).
The family-school partnership is seen as an essential component to address disparities in educational outcomes, and parent involvement has been proven to have positive educational impacts on students regardless of race, ethnicity, and gender (Jeynes 2006;National Association School Psychologists, 2012). For example, when schoolbased parent involvement was introduced in schools, the achievement gap in mathematics between girls and boys was reduced (Jeynes, 2006). Some researchers suggest that the current academic achievement gap is partially explained by the differences in the levels of interaction of parent involvement when taking into account different culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (Lee & Bowen, 2006). Gutman and Midgley (2000) found that when the family-school partnership was enacted in a predominately urban African American community, this relationship acted as a protective factor towards lowincome African American students and assisted in their academic achievement compared to students without this level of support. Given this evidence, parent involvement can be seen as one approach to lessening achievement disparities of many types.
Additional research highlights the benefits of family school partnerships with respect to reducing maladaptive behaviors of students in the classroom environment.
School-based and home-based parent involvement elicit better social skills and manners and reduces disruptive behaviors in children and adolescents of all demographic backgrounds (Henderson & Mapp, 2002). When appropriate behavior occurs within the classroom, learning can take place. In addition, parent involvement significantly contributes to student's school adjustment and engagement within the classroom (Machen, Wilson, & Notar, 2005). The agreement between parents and school staff on behavioral expectations and educational values helps students to exhibit suitable behavior within the classroom setting (Lee & Bowen, 2006).
The enhancement of student achievement, through academic success (e.g. grades) and appropriate behavior (i.e. following classroom instructions) showcases the importance of parent involvement (Henderson & Mapp, 2002;Lee & Bowen, 2006).
Through the establishment of family-school partnership, attendance, educational achievement, self-confidence, socio-emotional behavior among students and other forms of student success have been demonstrated to improve (Christenson & Reschly, 2009;Henderson & Mapp, 2002;Tolan & Woo, 2009).

Facilitators and Barriers
Factors that have been shown to facilitate family-school partnership include, for example, parents' reliable transportation, access to technology, and interest in volunteering at the school (Tolan & Woo, 2009). Given the importance of parent involvement, it is important to consider what factors act as catalysts for a successful family-school partnership, as well as assess the factors that impede this process.
Facilitators are factors that contribute to assisting the formation of the family-school partnership (Murray et al., 2014). For example, teachers being able to communicate effectively with parents raises issues of languages spoken, and where these are congruent would be considered a facilitator. Some other efficacious qualities that have been identified about the family-school partnership are parents' reliable transportation, access to technology, and interest in volunteering at the school (Tolan & Woo, 2009). Additional factors may be influenced by parents' personal involvement. Parents' motivation and perceptions of enough time and effort fosters home-based parent involvement (Green, Walker, Hoover-Dempsey, & Sandler, 2007). However, it is also important to consider parents' perceptions of invitation for involvement by the educational systems, which has been shown to increase the prevalence of school-based parent involvement (Green et al., 2007). Furthermore, parent education and training is a type of facilitator that can be introduced. Parent education facilitates the family-school partnership through acts of teaching and increasing parental skills that positively influence the home environment (Christenson & Reschly, 2009). Parent education encourages both home-based and school-based parent involvement through the promotion of social trust between the teacher and parent and cognitive stimulation (i.e. homework help) enacted between the parent and child.
In addition to identifying facilitative factors, research also has demonstrated that several factors detract from the family-school partnership (LaRocque et al., 2011 In one study of parent involvement, predominately African American parents of children in an urban school district perceived that there was negative rapport with teachers of different cultural backgrounds (Murray et al., 2014). In addition, they reported lack of invitation for school-based parent involvement to transpire (Murray et al., 2014). This barrier is particularly concerning given that 83% of public and private school teachers are White and middle class (National Center for Education Statistics, 2012). In addition, a significant number of teachers reported not receiving professional training in how to facilitate the relationship and develop strategies when interacting with parents from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (Murray et al., 2014). Teachers reported that this is hindering factor to the family school partnership (Murray et al., 2014). These issues of communication, cultural competence, and volunteer opportunities exemplify barriers to school-based parent involvement (Murray et al., 2014).
Several factors facilitate parents' decisions to engage within their children's school environment, including several personal factors, in addition to the external facilitators and barriers. Some reasons include parents' education attainment and their personal experiences as students themselves (Henderson & Mapp, 2002). For instance, if a parent performed poorly in school and/or has low educational attainment (such as high school degree or lower), it can be seen as barriers to parents' self-efficacy and motivation to become involved (Henderson & Mapp, 2002). In addition, the lack of technology and cognitively stimulating materials (e.g. children's books) within some low socioeconomic home environments contribute to barriers associated with home-based parent involvement (LaRocque et al., 2011). Cumulative risk factors due to barriers associated with parent involvement can adversely impact children's school performance. For example lack of parent involvement and guidance were considered primary reasons academically-abled adolescents did not enlist in advanced placement courses in high school and postsecondary schooling (Hill & Tyson, 2009). Lack of parental knowledge of school curriculum and necessities for college preparation ultimately hindered these adolescents' educational achievements (Hill & Tyson, 2009) Parents' personal and external barriers and lack of communication on the part of school staff can collectively cause the occurrence of a negative family-school connection. Barriers can widen the gap within the family-school partnerships, inadvertently negatively affecting the potential educational success of students.

Parent Involvement Assessments
Parent involvement has historically been seen as an important part of students' educational success. Given that parent involvement is associated with higher levels of educational success, understanding the factors that contribute to such involvement and consequently family-school partnerships is an important area for research.. For example, research is needed to identify and evaluate assessments that examine these variables. One tool referred to as the "Family Needs Survey " (FNS) was developed to understand functional topics to discuss with families of children with disabilities (Bailey & Simeonson, 1988;Bailey & Blasco, 1990)). For example, an item such as "Locating a doctor who understands me and my child's needs" was used to understand needs of functional resources for children with disabilities (Bailey & Blasco, 1990). Parent responses to all of the items listed in the FNS are indicated based on a yes, no, or not sure, regarding "is this an area in which you need assistance".
A research tool was developed to investigate factors, such as parents' selfefficacy, perception of invitation, and motivation, that predict parent involvement (Green et al., 2007). The researchers used a statistical model to predict and evaluate parent involvement and school practice (Green et al., 2017). Moreover, researchers have developed psychometric questionnaires of parent and teacher reports, which includes disclosing race/ethnicity, eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch programs, parent level of educational attainment, and personal perceptions of schooling (Lee & Bowen, 2006). These measurements were developed in order to predict and explore relationships between parent involvement, teacher reports, student achievement, and parent/family demographics (Lee & Bowen, 2006). The function of these assessments is to establish data based estimates of relationships among variables (for example, between socioeconomic status and parent involvement in education). To date, however, measures assessing strengths and weaknesses of parent involvement in schools to establish schoolbased support initiatives have not been developed.
When researching factors incorporated in parent involvement and its importance, structured and semi-structured interviews have been utilized (Henderson & Mapp, 2002;LaRocque et al., 2011). Researchers rely on this data collection method to explore individual parental relationship and uncover themes. There have been various studies that utilized assessments to determine predictive validity of parenting in relation to student achievement. However, there have been no known idiographically oriented assessments that schoolteachers and schools could utilize to understand the facilitators and barriers of parent involvement so that schools can then work to increase the family-school partnership.

Statement of the Problem
There is a paucity of assessment tools or instruments to help school personnel evaluate, enumerate, and characterize parent involvement facilitators and barriers at a school building or classroom level. Those questionnaires that are available focus primarily on parent-teacher perceptions of each other's involvement and student achievement. Those questionnaires have been developed for the purposes of establishing predictive validity and correlation by examining the relationships between parent involvement and student achievement. These surveys and assessments have been developed primarily to understand parent-teacher relationships, but not necessarily to generate information intended to facilitate parent involvement. For example, an item such as "Teachers and administrators respect my cultural heritage" was used to examine parent's perception of school climate (Elbaum, Blatz, & Rodriguez, 2016). Additionally, the FNS was developed as a preliminary survey to examine topics of discussion for families of children with disabilities for programs outside the school setting.
The need for tools that yield information useful for facilitating parent involvement is especially critical among teachers and parents from low socioeconomic and culturally and linguistically diverse families, backgrounds, schools, and neighborhoods (Gutman & Midgley, 2000;Mapp & Hong, 2009). Thus relaying a great need to initiate a systematic method for school staff to improve and increase parent involvement, especially among underserved populations (LaRocque et al., 2011). There are many indications of the importance of family-school partnership, but not so much pragmatic tools for schools to systematically identify facilitators and barriers at the individual or group level. Such tools are needed to assist school personnel to engage in systematic efforts to improve parent involvement.

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the proposed study is to develop a needs assessment tool to elucidate local facilitators and barriers to parent involvement in children's education, at the individual, class, or grade level within a school, and evaluate its utility when used by school personnel. An idiographic approach to psychometric development will be used, to focus on variables and functional relations that have the potential to maximize the relevance of collected information to an individual school (Haynes, Mumma, & Pinson, 2009). In this study, the assessments will primarily function to determine facilitators and barriers at the individual student, classroom, or elementary school level. Although the presence of parent involvement is imperative at all levels, the study will be conducted at an elementary school level due to the indication of the strongest need and presence for home-based and school-based parent involvement (Gutman & Midgley, 2000;Reynolds & Shlafer, 2009).
The investigation will primarily focus on the development and utility of the needs assessment tool. Previously the armchair method has been used to develop and then disseminate needs-assessment (Brown, Ryan, Loverich, Biegel, & West, 2011). The armchair method is when researchers simply create items based on their expertise. The development of this needs-assessment extends beyond that method. Items will be included based on facilitators and barriers to parent involvement mentioned in past research and literature, and further developed based on feedback from experts in the psychology field and teachers.
The needs assessment tool will be developed to include items within five broad categories: home-based parent involvement, school-based parent involvement, resources and availability, parent perception of school climate, and responsiveness to cultural and linguistic diversity. The development of the needs assessment will involve documenting continuous changes to the questionnaires. Additionally, a version of the Wolf's (1978) social validity questionnaire called the Program Development Utility Questionnaire (PDUQ) will be incorporated and disseminated to parents and education professionals. This investigation will help determine necessary items and degree to which the needsassessment tool will be useful and practical. The objective is for school staff to use the needs-assessment in planning efforts to promote parent involvement in children's education. The needs assessment tool will be referred to as the Parent Involvement Needs-Assessment (PINA).
Given the importance of family-school partnership and the necessity for a tool such as the PINA, the proposed research is intended to address three primary questions: Research Questions: 1. In what ways do the content and wording of the items change as a result of feedback and input from potential consumers?
Hypothesis #1: Documentation of changes and understandability will occur due to feedback from consumers.

2.
To what extent does school staff perceive the PINA as useful for identifying needs in promoting parent involvement at the classroom level?
Hypothesis #2: School staff will positively perceive the utility of the PINA as feasible to use and interpret in school settings.
3. To what extent would the PINA be pragmatic to incorporate at a school building/classroom level? Hypothesis #3a: Having knowledge about parent involvement, barriers, and facilitators will allow schools to increase and prioritize some areas of involvement by promoting facilitators and addressing and reducing barriers.
Hypothesis #3b: School staff will rate the PINA information as relevant for future use.

Introduction
This section begins with an explanation of how participants were recruited. This information is then followed by the measures used and the procedure for this study.
Lastly, the methods used to analyze the given feedback from consumers will be explained.

Participant Recruitment
Electronic copies of flyers were disseminated through listservs (i.e. Psylist), Facebook, and via email to graduate students in the field of psychology, practicing school psychologists, and professors of psychology. Individuals, who expressed interest in completing the assessment either in-person or through email, received the PINA via Google Forms. Google Forms is an online module that allows individuals to create surveys. Participants used Google Forms to anonymously provide feedback on the PINA.
Initially, graduate students of psychology, school psychologists, and professors of psychology were asked to consent to participate in the research study. The informed consent form was sent through email once they expressed interest in the study. All participants received the informed consent form through email prior to receiving the needs-assessment via Google Forms. Consent was documented based on the submission of feedback to the PINA.
An initial review included psychology graduate students, school psychologists, and psychology professors' (14 participants) submitting feedback to the researcher. A second iteration of the PINA was then produced. Recruitment transpired once again to solicit feedback from school-based practitioners, using the updated version of the PINA.
Here, recruitment focused on elementary school staff (e.g. school teachers, paraprofessionals, administrators, principals) serving kindergarten through fifth grader students in a suburban or urban elementary school in the New England region. Again, electronic copies of flyers were disseminated mainly via email to elementary school teachers or professionals affiliated or working with elementary school teachers. From there, school psychologists and professors of psychology reported forwarding the flyers to administrators and school districts. In addition, some professors and school psychologists reported printing the flyer and placing it in the teachers' break room.
Printed copies of flyers were also distributed to graduate students and professors in psychology affiliated or working with elementary schools. School staff that expressed interest in providing feedback to the needs-assessment were sent the materials via Google Forms. School staff also was asked to consent to participate in the research study. After 18 months in total time and the recruitment of an additional eight school-based participants' data collected further recruitment was curtailed. Feedback was obtained from twenty-two participants in total.

Participants and Settings
As noted, participants in the study, who provided feedback and input regarding assessment items, included graduate students in the field of Psychology, practicing school psychologists, and professors of psychology. The focus pertained to school staff of kindergarten through fifth grader students in suburban or urban elementary schools in the New England region of the United States. The project was conducted in university and school settings during the participants' personal time. Participants giving feedback were asked to consent to participate in the research study of aiding in the development and refinement of the PINA. In addition to items pertaining to parent involvement facilitators and barriers, information about parents' race/ethnicity, educational attainment, applicability for free/reduced lunch, and age also were included to help understand the demographical information of communities for school practioners' future use. As a part of this current research study, the PINA was then further developed and refined. The PINA was reviewed by: (1) graduate students in psychology, (2) school psychologists, (3) professors of psychology, and (4) elementary school teachers. The objective was to refine the PINA for actual use in school settings.

Measures
Parent Involvement Needs Assessment. The actual PINA consists of parents indicating their name, gender, age, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, and eligibility for their child to receive free/reduced lunch. This demographic information serves to provide descriptive information of parents in classroom/school being served. The first version of the PINA contained 66 items within five subsections: home-based parent involvement, school-based parent involvement, resources and availability, parent perception of school climate, and responsiveness to cultural and linguistic diversity. Most items are rated using a 5-point Likert-type, ranging from 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neither, 4=agree, or 5=strongly agree, while some items use multiple choice options to gain information based on a time reference. Accuracy checks were incorporated within the PINA, which included pairs of items that queried the same content. For example, one pair of such items, is as follows. "I am active in my child's school-based activities (i.e. academics, athletics, clubs)". And, "I am NOT an active member in my child's school".
Based on participant input, the items on the PINA were revised and refined.

Program Development Utility Questionnaire for Education Professionals.
Eight education professionals (e.g. elementary school teachers) completed the PDUQ, which referenced the usefulness and feasibility of the PINA for school staff. See Appendix B for the PDUQ that was used.

Analysis of Program Development Utility.
Global averages were calculated for responses to the PDUQ that was completed for the PINA by educational professionals (i.e. elementary school teachers). An average of the whole instrument was calculated

Introduction
This section begins with a summary of participant demographic information. This is followed by a presentation of the results organized around the project's research questions. The primary questions centered on the development and refinement of the PINA and its potential usefulness.

Participants' Demographics
A total of 22 individuals participated in this study including seven graduate students in a School Psychology program, four practicing school psychologists, and two school psychology professors, six elementary school teachers, and three support professionals. Among the participants, 27% had one to three years of professional experience, 23% had three to five years of professional experience, 9% had five to ten years of professional experience, 5% had ten to fifteen years of professional experience, and 36% had 15 years or more of professional experience. All of the professionals had obtained at least a Master's degree, with three of the professionals possessing a doctoral degree. In addition, 64% identified as White, 18% identified as Black, 14% identified as Latino/Hispanic and 4% identified as multiracial.

Item Development
As noted in the Methods section, items were initially developed based on the existing literature, including Christenson's and Reschly's (2009) "Handbook of School-Family Partnership" and other previous research studies. The initial PINA instrument contained 66 items. The needs assessment tool was developed to include items within five broad categories: home-based parent involvement, school-based parent involvement, resources and availability, parent perception of school climate, and responsiveness to cultural and linguistic diversity. These themes were chosen based on themes addressed in the literature and researchers' deliberations regarding contemporary issues in schooling and education.

Research Question One
The first research question was stated as: In what ways will the content and wording of the items change as a result of feedback and input from potential users of the PINA?
It was hypothesized that feedback from consumers would result in changes in the items that would increase its understandability and usefulness. The hypothesis was stated as: Documentation of changes and understandability will occur due to feedback from consumers.
As a result of feedback and input from educational professionals, content and wording of the items did indeed change. A summary of the number of changes by category made is provided in Table 1 (Phase 1 changes) and Table 3 (Phase 2 changes).
In addition, complete listings of the changes made to items are included in Table 2 (Phase 1 changes) and Table 4 (Phase 2 changes). The items were simplified, clarified, and further elucidated based on the obtained feedback. Meaning items were given explained for clarity. Changes were made when similar feedback was received from two or more participants, and/or when the researcher and her research supervisor agreed on a change to an item. For example, items were changed to contain less jargon and be more relatable to parents of varying educational levels (e.g. "I am knowledgeable about what is expected of my child at school" to "I know what is expected of my child at school").
Another change involved the amount of time suggested for a parent meeting and communicating with teachers (e.g., "…working in classroom for a school day" changed to "…part of a day"). Other items were changed to include specific examples (e.g. "resources" changed to "knowledge, skill, and materials"). The items were also changed to reflect a more neutral and objective tone (e.g. "I feel I have been treated fairly at my child's school regardless of my race/ethnicity was changed to "My child's school is appropriately responsive to racial and ethnic differences in families."), in which poor ratings would reflect a barrier to parent involvement within the school.
Phase 2 participants were solely elementary school teachers and support staff (e.g. reading specialists and paraprofessional). This phase resulted in significantly fewer changes as compared to the number of changes made in Phase 1. The major changes included adding an item, deleting a few items, and further clarifications to wording. An item was added during the second phase of revision based on a suggestion to address the needs of nontraditional families (e.g. "The child's school is respectful of family makeup regardless of differences in gender roles and sexual orientation"). This was the only item added to the PINA across both Phase 1 and Phase 2. Additionally, some items were omitted to limit redundancy (see Table 1 through 4).
Other changes included removing some items intended as accuracy checks (i.e. I do not read to my child). Accuracy checks were reversed items to ensure that future consumers were accurately indicating their responses. Nevertheless, some accuracy checks were kept in order to serve the original intended purpose of ensuring the consumers are attentive to the task when completing the PINA. Finally, for some items examples were included within the item to ensure clarity of meaning (e.g. "I take my child on outings" was changed to "I take my child on outings (i.e. to the park, to the library, etc."). This item was elucidated due to the term "outings" was unclear. As a result of item changes the PINA went from containing 66 items initially to 59 items in its final version. Overall, the items changed to provide more options to parents, use more explicit and clear wording, increase understandability, decrease jargon, and reflect neutrality. The goal was to improve the items' development by establishing more transparency.

A Comparison of Final Items Relative to Original Items Presented by Category as Result of Phase One Input
Original Item Final Item

Category: Parent Perception of School Climate
My child's teacher makes me feel valued as a parent of a student in her or his classroom.

My child's teacher makes me feel valued as a parent.
My child's principal makes me feel valued as a parent of a student in her or his school.

My child's principal makes me feel valued as a parent.
My child's teacher makes me feel competent to help my child in school activities.

My child's teacher makes me feel competent enough to help my child with schoolwork.
The principal makes me feel competent to help my child in school activities. Omitted I would be interested in assisting my child's teacher for the day.

I would be interested in assisting my child's teacher for the day or part of the day.
The principal supports me to help my child in school activities. Omitted I respect the teacher's comments and concerns about my child.

When it comes to my child, I respect the teacher's comments and concerns.
I act on the teacher's comments and concerns about my child.

I respond to the teacher's comments and concerns about my child.
I feel I have been treated fairly at my child's school regardless of my race/ethnicity.

My child's school is appropriately responsive to racial and ethnic differences in families.
I feel I have been treated fairly at my child's school regardless of my socioeconomic status.

My child's school is appropriately responsive to differences in families' financial resources.
I feel I have been treated fairly at my child's school regardless of my educational background.

My child's school is responsive to cultural and linguistic differences in families.
I feel I have been treated fairly at my child's school regardless of my cultural and language background. I disliked school when I was a student.

My child's school is responsive to cultural and linguistic differences in families.
When I was a student, I disliked school.
I feel intimidated when I am at my child's school.

When I am at my child's school, I feel intimidated.
I feel comfortable when I am at my child's school.

Responsiveness to Cultural and Linguistic Diversity
Teachers work with me regardless of my primary language. Omitted My child is comfortable communicating with his or her teacher in English.

Omitted
My child's school works with me regardless of my culture or primary language. Omitted Note. Items with term "omitted" in final item column indicate that the item was removed.

Category: Parent Perception of School Climate
My child's school is appropriately responsive to differences in families' financial resources.

My child's school is appropriately supportive to differences in families' financial resources.
My child's school is responsive to differences in parents' educational backgrounds.

My child's school is respectful of family makeup regardless of differences in gender roles and sexual orientation.
The school does NOT try to involve me in my child's education. Omitted Note. Items with term "omitted" in final item column indicate that the item was removed.

Summary of Feedback for Research Question One.
In summary, the parent needs assessment was systematically developed through a process of solicitation of feedback and input into the items. The assessment changed in three primary ways. First, wording changes were made to make it more appropriate and clear for its intended audience. Second, some items were deleted based on perceptions of redundancy. And, finally, one item was added to the questionnaire. Wording changes were made for the purposes of improving clarity and appropriateness for parental use. As already note, items that were perceived to be redundant were examined, and in several instances resulted in omission of one of the items. An example includes "I have easy access to email" was omitted due to overlap with "I have easy access to the Internet". This change was based on the assumption that if a respondent has access to the Internet then s/he will have access to email and vice versa. Another reason items were deleted was to reduce the amount of accuracy checks. For example, the item "The school does NOT try to involve me in my child's education" was omitted, which follows the item "The school does try to involve me in my child's education." The last change included a late addition of an item to address sensitivity to nontraditional families (e.g. same-sex parents). The item was "My child's school is respectful of family makeup regardless of differences in gender roles and sexual orientation." Changes to the PINA can be characterized as having been made through a feedback loop process intended to foster clarity and conciseness, limit redundancy, and ensure the needs of all families are addressed as it relates to building home-school connections. A "final" working version of the PINA is provided in Appendix C. The intent is for schools to be able to use this developed CAN assessment to accurately address the facilitators and barriers associated with parent involvement.

Research Question Two
The second research question in this project was stated as: To what extent does school staff perceive the PINA as useful for identifying needs in promoting parent involvement at the classroom level?
The hypothesis was stated as: School staff will positively perceive the utility of the PINA as feasible to use and interpret in school settings.
School staff members were asked to respond to the eight questions contained in the PDUQ (See Appendix B). A summary of the data obtained is provided figures one through eight below. Consumer judgment suggested that school staff in a school setting would be able to use and interpret the PINA in school settings.

Research Question Three
The third research question in this project was stated as: To what extent would the PINA be pragmatic to incorporate at a school building/classroom level?
The first hypothesis was stated as: Having knowledge about parent involvement, barriers, and facilitators will allow schools to increase and prioritize some areas of involvement by promoting facilitators and addressing and reducing barriers.
The second hypothesis was stated as: School staff will rate the PINA information as relevant for future use.
Based on data collected from the Program Development Utility Questionnaire (See Table five and Figures one through eight), school staff rated favorably the CAN Assessment as appropriate to administer in a school setting and highly useful for schools to plan for activities and strategies to promote parent involvement, with minimal variability. Additionally, consumers' judgments suggest that the information gathered would be useful and relevant for program development and future use.         Table 5), school staff ratings suggested the PINA would be useful to promoting parent involvement. For example, all school staff respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the assessment could be utilized to promote parent involvement in the school setting. Nonetheless, school staff responses contained some variability (See Figure 2 and

Introduction
In this section, the findings of this study will be discussed in relation to the research questions and hypotheses. This information is followed by how these particular findings are similar to and different from previous research and related work. Next, the limitations of and future directions for this work are presented, followed by implications of the present findings for school psychology practice and research. Lastly, this section will end with concluding remarks.

Purpose of the Study
The primary purpose of this study was to develop the PINA for use in school settings. The goals of PINA development are (1) to enable school personnel to identify facilitators and barriers of parent involvement in their school, and (2) to facilitate familyschool partnerships. A secondary aim of this study was to begin to examine the potential usefulness and feasibility of the PINA at the individual, classroom, or school level.
Through a two-phase process of item development and solicitation of feedback, a final version of the PINA was developed and refined (See Appendix C).

Research Question One
The first research question in this study focused on how the content and wording of the items changed as a result of feedback and input from potential consumers. As a result of expert feedback, items did indeed become more simplified, clarified, and/or elucidated. For example, "I would like to learn more about school-based meetings to which parents are invited" was edited to "I would like to learn more about parent-school meetings." This finding corroborates the hypothesis, which suggested that an increase in items' understandability and usefulness would occur as a result of the review processes.
With respect to the first research question and hypothesis, documentation of the changes to the items has been examined from both quantitative and qualitative perspectives.
Approximately 50% of the items were changed. Items that remained unchanged through the process were unedited due to unanimous input/feedback that the item was fine or only one expert suggested a necessary change to the item. As a result of the item changes the needs-assessment went from containing 66 initial items to 59 final items. Expert feedback improved item development and refinement over time based on the significant decrease in edits to the items from phase one to phase two (See Tables 2 and 4).

Research Question Two
The second research question examined the usefulness of the PINA in creating awareness of parents' needs in order to promote and support parent involvement. School staff indicated that the information obtained from the PINA would be highly useful. This finding corroborated the hypothesis, which stated that school staff (i.e. elementary school teachers) would positively perceive the utility of this needs assessment. The school staff participants also indicated the PINA can be used and interpreted by professional educators within school settings.

Research Question Three
The third research question investigated how pragmatic it might be to incorporate the PINA assessment in schools. The hypotheses suggested that having knowledge of the information from the PINA would help prioritize strategies to promote parent involvement in schools and that the information collected would be relevant for future use. There was some variability in regard to the challenges associated with disseminating and collecting parent information. Although, most school staff indicated that collecting parent information utilizing this needs-assessment would not be difficult, suggesting that collecting and using information from the PINA would be both helpful and somewhat practical. The collected feedback provided evidence to support the future use of the PINA, as well as help cultivate a final version.

Similarities and Differences Relative to Previous Research
Development of the PINA relied on previously developed assessments/tools regarding parent involvement to guide the development of items for the PINA. For example, items' categories are adopted from previous research in this area by Green et al. (2007) who discussed parent perceptions had an impact on parent involvement. This work suggested that parent perception of school climate was an important aspect to incorporate in the PINA. Thus, "parent perception of school climate" was developed as one of the five subcategories. Further, the terms "home-based parent involvement" and "school-based parent involvement" in the PINA were adopted from previous research such as Murray et al.'s (2014) work. Many of the items in the PINA consist of variations of wording from other scales. Using subcategories and items that have been previously discussed in the literature contributes to the validity of the PINA.
In contrast to previous research, however, the PINA is the first assessment tool of its kind to be developed for practical use by school staff, rather than for research-oriented purposes. While one tool, the FNS, was developed for parental usage in a manner similar to the PINA, the FNS is focused on areas of needed support for families of children with disabilities (Bailey & Blasco, 1990). An example includes "Getting any special equipment my child need." The FNS was developed to help identify needed resources both inside and outside the school setting, In contrast, the PINA was developed to gather information useful for school practioners (i.e. elementary school teachers and administrators) for use in relation to all parents. The PINA also differs from the FNS in using Likert type answer formats (e.g. strongly agree to strong disagree) and response options (e.g., rarely, one time per week, two or three times per week, four to five times per week, and everyday; see Appendix C).
Finally, an open-ended question exists at the end of the PINA, as recommended by Bailey & Blasco (1990) who reported parents preferred and enjoyed items in which open-ended responses can be provided.
Multi-tiered Systems of Support. Another unique feature of the PINA is that it was developed for the potential use in schools, to help inform individual, classroom, and school-wide decision-making. That is to say the PINA can be used based on the principles of three-tiered system of supports. Multi-tiered systems of support are approaches put into place with an objective to ameliorate a chosen problem. In the case of parent involvement, the PINA can serve as an initial catalyst to aid in family-school partnership.
Multi-tiered systems of support are broken down into three tiers. The first tier is the broadest level of support. An example would include using the PINA to implement a universal parent support program to increase school-based parent involvement. The information gathered from the PINA can help understand parental needs. Understanding parental need can help schools implement the correct support. For instance, if parents poorly rate items that consist within the category parent perception of school climate (items such as "My child's teacher makes me feel valued as a parent" or "The school does not try to involve me in my child's education"). Schools can then implement an initiative to improve the school culture and climate to make it more inviting for parents.
Initiatives could include having a monthly "parent day" in which some parents volunteer at the school Another initiative could be increasing the amount of parent-teacher association meetings or varying the time parent-teacher association meetings occur so a multitude of parents can attend.
The second tier is a more intensive tier than tier one. Tier two is a more targeted and in-depth approach to help individuals with more difficulties than average. For example, if several parents of kindergarteners were to rate items that load on understanding resources and availability as a barrier (items such as "I have the resources necessary to help my child succeed at school (i.e. computer, pencils, paper, crayons, etc.)"). Schools can then implement a "Teachers for Kindergarteners' Parents" program to provide additional resources (e.g. books, art supplies, etc.). Thus, learning can continue to take place outside the school and within the home.
The third tier is the most intensive and targeted tier. Tier three is used for individuals who need a tertiary program to intervene on a specific problem. PINA could be used to pinpoint the parents with more barriers than average so schools can provide individualized support. An example would include using the information gathered from the PINA to identify specific parents with more barriers and/or less education. This information can in turn help schools implement a parenting support program to increase home-based parent involvement. Let's pretend that some parents poorly rated "I read with my child to help my child learn." This rating can be viewed a barrier. In addition, let's say the parents who rated that item poorly have attained a high school level of education or lower. In addition, lets add the factor that the children of those parents are not reading at grade level. Based on the information gathered from the PINA, the school can then implement a reading program (such as "Read Together, Talk Together). This reading program could increase learning outside the school, parent participation, and the reading comprehension test scores of children. Without understanding the specific problems and barriers, schools cannot help mitigate them. Schools can use the information gathered from the PINA to create school-wide, grade-level, and individualized supports. As noted, the PINA is the first needs-assessment of its kind. Therefore, the current research contributes to filling a gap in a critical area of concern in education.

Limitations
This study's findings and outcomes are generally positive. The findings and outcomes have lead to the development of a useful needs-assessment tool. Nonetheless, there are limitations regarding the development of the PINA that need to be considered in evaluating the work. The first limitation is the small sample size (22 participants in total).
Recruitment of participants was difficult. For example, over the course of 18 months, the assessment was electronically disseminated to teachers, schools, administrators, and principals. However, only eight elementary school teachers responded. There are several possible explanations. For example, the length of the PINA initially was 66 items. It may be the case that the length made it difficult for people to commit the time to participate.
Further, it should be considered that the length of the PINA might limit its feasibility for future use. Additionally, response time between sending participants the material and the time to receiving participant responses often was lengthy. For example, two participants took three months to provide feedback to the PINA and then complete the PDUQ. One school staff participant completely forgot to respond to the PDUQ entirely. Due to anonymity, tracking that specific participant was not possible.
In addition, response bias may have occurred. It may be the case that the type of participants who completed this study are also more likely to suggest that the PINA was useful and feasible. Another limitation of the current work includes the lack of parent input into the scale development. Parent input would have created the opportunity feedback, especially the intended end user respondents of the PINA. Lastly, not using the PINA in schools to examine issues of social utility and accuracy is an important limitation. The true utility and accuracy of the PINA will be limited until it is disseminated to parents at an individual, classroom, grade, or school level, and the resulting data are used to plan and implement parent involvement support strategies.

Future Directions
The current research produced initial information to suggest school-based personnel viewed the PINA as useful in being able to yield helpful information for school personnel. In future studies using the PINA, there are three important areas in need of attention. The first area is focusing on parents as responders to the PINA. Future research should focus on obtaining parents' input about PINA and its items, and the amount of time it takes to complete the instrument. This crucial area will aid in the process of further item development. Another focus area for future research should be how teachers use and apply the information obtained from the PINA. For example, research should investigate the time and effort it takes to complete the PINA, different methods of distributing the PINA to maximize the amount of parent respondents, methods to organize obtained data, and the decision-making rules for translating PINA information into different initiatives. For example, school practitioners may consider distributing the portions of the PINA deemed most relevant. Doing this action may increase feasibility in dissemination and parent response. The third area for future research consideration is the utility of the PINA. Such work should address if using the PINA does indeed lead to an increase in the family-school partnership, as well as if parents report feeling more supported by their children's schools.
Overall then, future school psychology practice and research involving the PINA need to focus on the use, accuracy, and utility of the PINA by researchers and practitioners with an interest in further understanding and promoting parent involvement in schooling. This work could be facilitated by professionals with established relationships with schools who could enlist the help of school staff members to use and provide feedback on the assessment tool. Further attention should be devoted to assessing and understanding the use of the PINA data at the three intended levels (i.e., individual parents, individual classrooms, and whole schools). In the future, providing incentives to participants may increase participation and decrease response time. Additionally, future researchers should further evaluate the social validity of the PINA assessment.

Conclusion
The family-school partnership has been established as an imperative part of student educational achievement. The intent of the present work was to develop a tool that school personnel can use to assess facilitators and barriers associated with parent involvement at the local level, as well as gather responses in a way that is supportive of parent involvement in their children's education. The initial development of the PINA previous research and scientific literature. Participants included experts by virtue of their professional roles and/or experiences. As a result, while the PINA would benefit from continued development, it can be considered a working product that fills an important gap in our tools for understanding parent involvement in education. The PINA was designed to help identify specific facilitators and barriers that school personnel can address.
Further, asking parents to complete the PINA provides an initial step by teachers to establish communication, and reduce barriers and foster facilitators to parent involvement. Future work will provide further information as to the extent to which this idiographic assessment can be meaningfully utilized by parents and teachers to foster parents' involvement in education.