NIH Public Access

Author Manuscript
J Sch Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2008 June 1.
Published in final edited form as:
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

J Sch Psychol. 2007 June ; 45(3): 333–348.

Assessing Children’s Homework Performance: Development of

Multi-Dimensional, Multi-Informant Rating Scales

Thomas J. Power,
The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia/University of Pennsylvania
Stefan C. Dombrowski,
Rider University
Marley W. Watkins,
The Pennsylvania State University
Jennifer A. Mautone, and
The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia
John W. Eagle
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

University of Kansas

Abstract
Efforts to develop interventions to improve homework performance have been impeded by
limitations in the measurement of homework performance. This study was conducted to develop
rating scales for assessing homework performance among students in elementary and middle school.
Items on the scales were intended to assess student strengths as well as deficits in homework
performance. The sample included 163 students attending two school districts in the Northeast.
Parents completed the 36-item Homework Performance Questionnaire – Parent Scale (HPQ-PS).
Teachers completed the 22-item teacher scale (HPQ-TS) for each student for whom the HPQ-PS had
been completed. A common factor analysis with principal axis extraction and promax rotation was
used to analyze the findings. The results of the factor analysis of the HPQ-PS revealed three salient
and meaningful factors: student task orientation/efficiency, student competence, and teacher support.
The factor analysis of the HPQ-TS uncovered two salient and substantive factors: student
responsibility and student competence. The findings of this study suggest that the HPQ is a promising
set of measures for assessing student homework functioning and contextual factors that may influence
performance. Directions for future research are presented.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Keywords
Homework; scale development; parent ratings; teacher ratings

Family involvement in education is important for children to achieve success in school. Family
involvement has multiple dimensions, including involvement in home-based educational

Address correspondence to: Thomas J. Power, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, CHOP North – 1471, 34th St. & Civic Center
Blvd., Philadelphia, PA 19104. Email: power@[Link].
This study was supported by NIH research grant R01MH068290, awarded to the first author by the National Institute of Mental Health
and Department of Education, National Center for Special Education Research.
Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting
proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could
affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 Power et al. Page 2

activities, involvement in school-based events and activities, and collaboration between family
members and school professionals (Epstein, 1995; Manz, Fantuzzo, & Power, 2004). Although
each dimension of family involvement is supportive of school success, there is evidence that
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

family involvement in educational activities in the home may be the dimension that has the
strongest association with academic performance and outcomes (Fantuzzo, McWayne, Perry,
& Childs, 2004; Izzo, Weissberg, Kasprow, & Frendrich, 1999).

Homework provides ongoing opportunities for parents to become involved in their children’s
education. Homework has been defined as educational tasks assigned by teachers to be
completed by students during non-instructional periods of the day (Cooper, 1989). This
definition acknowledges that homework may be completed in school, in after school programs,
and at home, but for most students it is completed in the home setting.

Although the importance of homework has been disputed by some educators, there is a
consensus among researchers that homework can have many beneficial effects. First,
homework provides students opportunities to practice and master lessons learned in school.
Second, homework may engage students in projects that guide them in the application of
concepts learned in the classroom (Keith & Keith, 2006). Third, it offers students a context to
develop work habits and study skills that will be helpful to them as they mature into adulthood
(Cooper, 2001). Finally, homework provides parents and teachers ongoing, natural ways to
communicate with each other about a student’s education (Olympia, Sheridan, Jenson, &
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Andrews, 1994). In general, research has demonstrated a positive association between

homework and academic performance, when performance is measured by amount of time spent
doing homework and amount of work completed and when academic performance is assessed
using standardized test scores and classroom grades (Cooper, 2001; Cooper, Lindsay, Nye, &
Greathouse, 1998). The extent of the relationship between homework and academic
performance is moderated by grade level, with students in the upper grades demonstrating a
stronger association than those in the lower grades (Cooper, Robinson, & Pattall, 2006).

Despite its potential advantages, homework can present challenges to many students and their
families. Homework that is too difficult or too time consuming can be frustrating and
discouraging for students (Keith & Keith, 2006). Also, it can be a source of tension between
a parent and child and may exacerbate parent-child conflict (Power, Karustis, & Habboushe,
2001). Further, homework issues can be a source of conflict between parents and teachers and
lead to home-school communication problems.

Several intervention strategies have been designed to improve homework performance,

including goal setting and contingency contracting (Miller & Kelley, 1994), conjoint
behavioral consultation (Weiner, Sheridan, & Jenson, 1998), and self-management approaches
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

(Olympia et al., 1994). These strategies have been demonstrated to be efficacious in single-
subject studies. Nonetheless, progress in developing, evaluating, and disseminating homework
interventions has been impeded by limitations in the measures available for assessing
homework performance.

The most commonly used measure for assessing homework performance is the Homework
Problem Checklist (HPC; Anesko, Schoiock, Ramirez, & Levine, 1987), a 20-item, parent
rating scale. This questionnaire was developed to assess the extent to which students display
a broad range of homework problems. Factor analytic studies have revealed that this measure
assesses two broad factors: inattention/work avoidance and poor productivity/nonadherence
with homework rules (Power, Werba, Watkins, Angelucci, & Eiraldi, 2006). This factor
structure emerged with students in general education classes as well as those referred to a
specialty clinic for children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Although
the HPC has been useful in screening for homework problems and assessing outcomes, it has

J Sch Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2008 June 1.

 Power et al. Page 3

several limitations. First, it was developed for students in elementary school and may have less
applicability for students in middle school. Second, many of the items overlap with symptoms
of ADHD, making it difficult to measure ADHD symptoms independent from homework
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

performance. Third, the items assess deficits in functioning and not strengths, which does not
support a strength-based model of practice. Fourth, the HPC does not include a teacher version.
In fact, it does not appear that a standardized, teacher-report measure of homework functioning
has ever been developed, which is a significant limitation given that teachers directly observe
many behaviors related to homework (e.g., recording assignments, completing work, and
turning in assignments on time).

This study focused on the development of parent and teacher ratings scales of homework
performance, which are referred to as the Homework Performance Questionnaire – Parent Scale
(HPQ-PS) and HPQ – Teacher Scale (HPQ-TS). These scales have been developed for students
in grades 1 through 8. A distinguishing feature of the scales is that they were developed in
partnership with parents and teachers through the use of focus groups and interviews. The
scales exclude items directly related to the core symptoms of ADHD. Further, the items on
these measures assess primarily student strengths and not deficits.

The primary purpose of this study was to conduct a preliminary examination of the construct
validity of the HPQ-PS and HPQ-TS by exploring the factor structure of each measure. Also,
this study explored the associations between factors on the parent-report and teacher-report
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

scales. Further, gender and grade level differences on salient factors were examined.

Method
Participants
The sample for the present study was derived from general education classes in two school
districts serving children in kindergarten through eighth grade located within 30 miles of a
large urban center in the Northeast. The sample excluded children in kindergarten. District A
has a first- through eighth- grade student population of 816 students, and District B includes
705 first through eighth graders. Approximately 22% of the first through eighth students in
these school districts were randomly selected for participation in the present study. (See the
procedures section for details about recruitment.)

A total of 163 parents (return rate of 47.8%) across both districts participated in the study; 95
parents participated from District A (58.6% return rate) and 68 from District B (38.0%). The
majority of the respondents were mothers (67.5%); in some cases parents completed the scale
together (17.2%) or fathers (4.3%) and other caregivers (1.8%) completed the ratings.
Respondent information was missing for 9.2% (n = 14) of the cases.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

The sample included 84 boys (51.5%) and 79 girls (48.5%) approximately equally distributed
across grades 1 through 8. Forty-eight (29.4%) of the participants were in first or second grade,
41 (25.2%) were in third or fourth grade, 39 (23.9%) were in fifth or sixth grade, and 35 (21.5%)
were in seventh or eighth grade. Mean number of students per grade was 20.4 (range = 15-26).
The racial/ethnic composition of the sample was 67.5% Caucasian, 25.8% African American,
2.5% Asian, and 4.3% Hispanic; 11.6% of the sample received free or reduced-fare lunch. (See
Table 1 for specific demographic data by district.)

Teachers of students whose parents completed the HPQ-PS were requested to complete the
HPQ-TS. Teachers completed the HPQ-TS for 98.2% of the students for whom parent-report
scales were completed (n = 160). HPQ-TS scales were received for 100% (n = 95) of the
students from District A and 95.6% (n = 65) of the students from District B.

J Sch Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2008 June 1.

 Power et al. Page 4

Table 1 presents demographic data for the sample and population from which it was derived
for each school district. Chi square analyses indicated that there were no significant differences
between the study sample and the school district populations with regard to gender and racial/
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

ethnic group status, with the exception of Hispanic students in District B (x2 = 4.45; p < .05).
Although 13% of students in school District B were Hispanic, only 4.4% of the participants
from this district were Hispanic. Also, the sample from District B underrepresented students
receiving free or reduced fare lunch (x2 = 4.98; p < .05). Although 30% of students in District
B received free or reduced-fare lunch, only 17.6% of the participants from this district received
subsidized lunch.

Scale Development
Scale development occurred in three stages. Stage 1 involved an extensive review of the
homework literature and a review of the only existing measure of homework performance, the
HPC. This review resulted in the identification of several strategies for scale development: (a)
homework measures should include items related to work efficiency, given that this variable
is highly responsive to interventions targeted to improve homework performance (Kahle &
Kelley, 1994); (b) it is important to minimize the overlap in items between measures of ADHD
and indices of homework, given that measures of homework performance are often used to
assess academic impairments related to ADHD or outcomes of interventions for this disorder
(e.g., Lahey et al., 1994; Hinshaw et al., 1997; Power, Soffer, Clarke, & Mautone, 2006); (c)
homework measures should assess whether the assignments are appropriate for the child’s skill
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

level, and are not overly difficult, which may impede learning and frustrate the child (Burns,
2002; Gravois & Gickling, 2002), and (d) there is a strong need for a teacher-report measure
of homework performance (Power et al., 2006).

Stage 2 consisted of a series of focus groups, conducted separately with parents and teachers.
The focus groups were conducted in District B, which consisted of families of diverse
socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds. Separate focus groups were held at the elementary
and middle school levels. Parents and teachers were asked a series of questions regarding
children’s homework functioning. Sample questions included: “What are the challenges you
face with homework?”; “What homework strengths does your child (do your students)
display?”; and “Describe the impact of homework on the parent-teacher relationship.” Each
focus group lasted between 45 and 60 minutes. The group facilitator, a PhD-level psychologist,
consistently asked participants to comment on responses made by other attendees to check for
level of agreement and request elaboration and clarification as a way of establishing the
credibility of the data (Lincoln & Gruba, 1985). The discussions held in these groups were
audiotaped and transcribed. Members of the research team categorized the responses, using a
process known as inductive coding (LeCompte & Schensul, 1999), which consisted of
clustering items referring to similar themes. Subsequently, the investigators collaborated to
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

identify a common set of categories.

During Stage 3, initial versions of the parent and teacher scales were developed. Items were
generated based upon conclusions derived from the literature review and themes that emerged
from the focus groups. These items were further refined through individual interviews with
seven parents and seven teachers associated with elementary and middle schools located in
both suburban and urban settings. Parents and teachers reviewed the questionnaire, which
presented items to be rated on a four-point scale ranging from 0 = rarely/never to 3 = always/
almost always, and provided feedback regarding the clarity and appropriateness of the items
and scaling method used. Based on this feedback, items and response categories were modified.
The following paragraphs include a more detailed description of Stages 2 and 3 in the
development of the HPQ-PS and HPQ-TS.

J Sch Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2008 June 1.

 Power et al. Page 5

Homework Performance Questionnaire – Parent Scale (HPQ-PS)—Three focus

groups were held with parents, which included a total of 12 parents of children in elementary
and middle school. Parent responses addressed three broad themes: (a) child behaviors during
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

homework; (b) family involvement with homework; and (c) teacher approaches to assigning
homework. In general, parent responses focused mostly on the teacher’s role with homework,
including comments about quantity of homework assigned, type of homework assigned (e.g.,
material not covered in class; homework not at the child’s level), and lack of clarity in giving
directions for homework assignments.

The revised version of the HPQ-PS1 consisted of 32 items requesting parents to assess their
child’s homework behavior during the past 4 weeks. A four-point Likert scale response format
was used (0 = rarely/never; 1 = some of the time; 2 = most of the time; 3 = always/almost
always). Items referring to each of the three thematic categories emerging from the focus groups
were included in the scale.

An additional four items (non-Likert) were included to collect background information

regarding a child’s homework behavior. The intent of these items was to identify information
pertinent to a specific child that might assist in the development of interventions to improve
homework performance. These items included: (a) the average amount of time a child spends
doing homework; (b) whether the child has trouble completing homework in any subjects; (c)
whether the child is expected to write homework assignments in a notebook; and (d) what the
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

child does when he or she can not remember what to do for homework (e.g., call a homework
hotline; call a friend). Responses to these additional items were not analyzed in this study.

Homework Performance Questionnaire – Teacher Scale (HPQ-TS)—Two focus

groups were held with teachers, including a total of 18 teachers at the elementary and middle
school levels. Teacher responses to the focus group questions centered on two major themes:
(a) child behaviors during homework; and (b) lack of family involvement with homework (e.g.,
lack of supervision, failure to make homework a priority).

Based on feedback from individual interviews with teachers, the initial version of the HPQ-
TS was revised. Both specific items and response categories were modified. In addition, items
pertaining to family involvement were omitted due to concerns expressed by teachers. Teachers
cautioned that parental knowledge of teacher ratings of family involvement might adversely
affect the quality of the parent-teacher relationship. Further, our research team was concerned
that some teachers might feel uncomfortable reporting their actual perceptions on items
pertaining to family involvement.

The revised version of the HPQ-TS1 consisted of 14 items that referred to student homework
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

behaviors observable by teachers. The 14 items were divided into two categories: (a) homework
behaviors and (b) homework performance. Ten of the items requested teachers to report the
percentage of time that specific homework-related behaviors occurred during the previous four
weeks. An additional four items requested teachers to indicate the percentage corresponding
with the student’s performance or accuracy during the previous four weeks. Teacher responses
were recorded using a five-point Likert scale: 0 = 0% to 39%; 1 = 40% to 69%; 2 = 70% to
79%; 3 = 80% to 89%; 4 = 90% to 100%. Teacher responses used a five-point scale using
percentage values as anchor points, because pilot studies demonstrated their ability to make
these relatively fine discriminations.

The HPQ-TS also included eight (non-Likert) items to collect background information
regarding a student’s homework-related behavior and performance. As with the HPQ-PS, these

1To obtain a copy of the HPQ-PS or HPQ-TS, please contact the corresponding author.

J Sch Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2008 June 1.

 Power et al. Page 6

items were intended to assist in homework intervention development. These items included:
(a) the subject areas in which the teacher instructs the child; (b) the maximum amount of time
children at this grade level should be spending doing homework; (c) whether the child is
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

expected to write homework assignments in a notebook; (d) how often the teacher checks to
see whether the student writes down homework assignments accurately; (e) how often the
teacher checks to see whether the student takes home the materials needed for homework; (f)
suggestions for families when students have difficulty remembering homework assignments;
(g) how often the teacher checks to see that homework has been completed accurately; and (h)
the percentage of the child’s grade that is affected by the amount or quality of homework
completed. Responses to these additional items were not analyzed in this study.

Procedures
For grades 1 through 4, four children (two boys and two girls) were chosen from class lists
using a systematic sampling approach (e.g., selection of the second and tenth boy and the fifth
and eighth girl, as listed alphabetically) for each general education class. For grades 5 through
8, two children (one boy and one girl) were chosen using a similar sampling procedure from
each math class and two children were selected from each language arts class. The selections
were checked to insure that the same child was not selected from each class. District B had a
relatively high percentage of parents who did not speak English fluently. Because an English
language version of the HPQ-PS was used in this preliminary study, a representative from each
of the schools in District B (i.e., teacher of English Language Learning class or building
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

principal) was consulted to identify children whose parents did not speak English. These
children were excluded from the sample.

Parents of the 341 selected students (162 from District A and 179 from District B) were mailed
a packet of information including a letter signed by the principal introducing the study, a
consent form, a copy of the HPQ-PS, and a self-addressed, stamped envelope. Parents were
asked to read the consent form and indicate whether they chose to have their child participate
in the study. Parents who consented to participate in the study were requested to complete the
HPQ-PS. Parents were requested to return the consent form and HPQ-PS by mail, regardless
of whether consent was granted. Approximately 6 weeks after the initial letter was sent, another
packet was mailed to parents who did not respond after the first request. A third request was
made approximately 5 weeks after the second request. The return rates after each of the three
mailings were 25.2%, 36.7%, and 47.8%. Shortly thereafter, teachers were requested to
complete the HPQ-TS for each child whose parent(s) completed the measure.

Data Analyses
Common factor analysis was selected over principal components analysis because the goal of
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

the study was to identify the latent structure of the HPQ scales (Wegener & Fabrigar, 2000).
Additionally, common factor analysis may produce more accurate estimates of population
parameters than does principal components analysis (Widaman, 1993). Given its relative
tolerance of multivariate nonnormality and its superior recovery of weak factors, principal axis
extraction was used (Briggs & MacCallum, 2003). Communalities were initially estimated by
squared multiple correlations and were iterated twice to produce final communality estimates
(Gorsuch, 2003). Following the advice of Velicer, Eaton, and Fava (2000), minimum average
partials (MAP; Velicer, 1976) and parallel analysis (Horn, 1965), supplemented by a visual
scree test (Cattell, 1966), were used to determine the number of factors to retain for rotation.
It was assumed that factors would be moderately correlated. Thus, a Promax rotation with a
k value of 4 was selected (Tataryn, Wood, & Gorsuch, 1999). Pattern coefficients ≥.32 were
predetermined to be salient. If an item demonstrated pattern coefficients ≥.32 on more than
one factor, the highest psychologically meaningful pattern coefficient was deemed salient. A

J Sch Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2008 June 1.

 Power et al. Page 7

priori criteria for determining factor adequacy included a minimum of five salient loadings,
internal consistency reliability ≥.70, and theoretical meaningfulness.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Results
On the HPQ-PS, no cases had to be eliminated because of missing data. As expected for the
content and number of response options, six of the parent items were severely skewed and two
items were severely kurtotic (Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999). On the HPQ-
TS, one case had to be eliminated because of missing data. Eight of the teacher items were
severely skewed and one item was severely kurtotic (Fabrigar et al., 1999).

Factor Analysis of the HPQ-PS

Results from Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (Bartlett, 1954) indicated that the correlation matrix
was not random (χ2 = 1936.27; df = 465; p < .001). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (Kaiser, 1974)
statistic was .825, well above the minimum standard for conducting a factor analysis suggested
by Kline (1994). Measures of sampling adequacy for each variable were also within reasonable
limits. Thus, the correlation matrix was appropriate for factor analysis.

Parallel analysis suggested that six factors be retained, but the MAP criterion recommended
four factors. The visual scree demonstrated two ‘bends,’ one at six factors and another at four
factors. Given that it is better to over-factor than under-factor (Wood, Tataryn, & Gorsuch,
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

1996), six- to four-factor solutions were examined for both substantive and statistical
suitability. Both the six- and five-factor solutions were problematic in that one or more factors
had an insufficient number of salient items. In contrast, the four-factor solution contained
sufficient salient items in each factor and accounted for 39% of the total variance. Factor
intercorrelations ranged from .21 to .46.

Nine items loaded saliently on factor I (see Table 2) with an internal consistency of .799.
However, coefficient alpha would have been .823 if item 5 were deleted, suggesting that only
eight items should be retained. These eight salient items seemed to refer to a student task
orientation/efficiency dimension. Eight items with an alpha coefficient of .805 loaded saliently
on factor II. These items appeared to tap a student competence dimension. Eight salient items
with an internal consistency reliability of .767 loaded on factor III. Factor III seemed to assess
a teacher support dimension. Factor IV, which seemed to assess parent involvement, was
saliently loaded by five items with a coefficient alpha of .716. Unfortunately, responses to the
items on this factor were so severely skewed that there was very little variability in the
distribution of responses. In other words, almost all of the parents rated the items in a way that
demonstrated high levels of parent involvement. The findings indicated that this factor was
problematic and needed to be significantly modified or deleted.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Factor Analysis of the HPQ-TS

Results from Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (Bartlett, 1954) indicated that the correlation matrix
was not random (χ2 = 1507.7; df = 91; p < .001). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (Kaiser, 1974)
statistic was .876, well above the minimum standard suggested by Kline (1994). Measures of
sampling adequacy for each variable were also within reasonable limits. Thus, the correlation
matrix was appropriate for factor analysis.

Both MAP and parallel analysis suggested that two factors be retained, but the visual scree test
indicated three factors. Consequently, both solutions were iteratively evaluated. The three-
factor solution was problematic because the third factor was saliently loaded by only two items.
In contrast, the two-factor solution contained a sufficient number of salient items in each factor
and accounted for 58.6% of the total variance. The factor intercorrelation was .40.

J Sch Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2008 June 1.

 Power et al. Page 8

Eight items loaded saliently on factor I (see Table 3) with an internal consistency of .861.
However, coefficient alpha would have been .878 if item 9 were deleted, suggesting that only
seven items should be retained. These seven salient items seemed to refer to a student
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

responsibility dimension. Six items loaded saliently on factor II with an internal consistency
of .898. Those six salient items appeared to tap a student competence dimension.

Intercorrelations Between Parent and Teacher Factors

Unit-weighted factor scores on the HPQ-PS and HPQ-TS were intercorrelated. Parent factor I
(student task engagement) was significantly correlated with teacher factor I (student
responsibility; r = .28, p < .01) but not significantly correlated with teacher factor II (student
competence; r = .11, p = .19). Also, parent factor II (student competence) was significantly
correlated with teacher factor I (student responsibility; r = .29, p < .01) as well as teacher factor
II (student competence; r = .44, p < .01).

Child Gender and Grade Level Differences

Unit-weighted factor scores were created by summing the responses to the salient and
substantive items in each factor and dividing by the number of items in the factor. On each
scale, higher scores indicated greater levels of adaptive functioning. Grade levels were divided
into two groups, Grades 1 through 5 and Grades 6 through 8, which generally correspond with
elementary versus middle school. The sample sizes for the gender by grade grouping cells
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

ranged from 25 to 54. The cell sizes for middle school students were about 50% the size of the
elementary school cells, which is a sufficient level of balance for conducting a multivariate
analysis of variance (MANOVA). The variances were generally similar across the gender by
grade grouping cells, with the exception of the variances between grade groups for the teacher-
rated student responsibility factor, suggesting that grade effects on this factor be interpreted
with caution. Separate two-way (gender by grade grouping) MANOVAs were conducted for
the parent and teacher factors.

Means and standard deviations by gender and grade grouping for each of the HPQ factors are
reported in Table 4. For the HPQ-PS, MANOVA results showed a significant main effect for
gender (Wilks’ Lambda of .941, F [3, 157] = 3.278, p = .023, partial eta2 = .059) and for grade
grouping (Wilks’ Lambda of .941, F [3,157] = 11.327, p < .001, partial eta2 = .178), but a
nonsignificant interaction effect (partial eta2 = .012). Follow-up univariate analyses
demonstrated that boys received higher ratings than girls on the task engagement/efficiency
factor with a small effect size (F [1,157] = 6.426, p = .012, partial eta2 = .039). A significant
gender effect was not identified on the other factors. There was a significant grade grouping
effect on the teacher support factor only (F [1,157] = 28.453, p < .001, partial eta2 = .152);
students in elementary school were rated higher than those in middle school, with a large effect
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

size.

For the HPQ-TS, MANOVA results showed a significant effect for grade grouping (Wilks’
Lambda of .874, F [2, 154] = 11.062, p < .001, partial eta2 = .126), but a non-significant main
effect for gender (partial eta2 = .023) and a non-significant interaction term (partial eta2 = .
007). Univariate follow-up analyses demonstrated significant results related to grade grouping,
but only on the student responsibility factor; teachers rated elementary students higher than
middle school students, with a moderate effect size, on this factor (F [1,154] = 21.797, p < .
001, partial eta2 = .123).

Discussion
The findings of this study suggest that the HPQ parent and teacher scales are promising
measures of homework performance. In particular, the findings support the presence of three

J Sch Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2008 June 1.

 Power et al. Page 9

substantive factors for the HPQ-PS: student task engagement/efficiency, student competence,
and teacher support. Also, the findings provide evidence for two substantive factors for the
HPQ-TS: student responsibility and student competence. Each of the three factors of the HPQ-
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

PS consisted of eight items, and the internal consistency reliability indices for these factors
were in the moderate to high range. The HPQ-TS factors consisted of at least six items and the
internal consistency reliability indices for these factors were high.

Both the HPQ-PS and HPQ-TS assessed a factor related to student competence, referring to a
student’s ability to complete assignments accurately and independently. The moderate-level
correlation between informants on this factor is similar in magnitude to the correlations
between parents and teachers on other constructs (e.g. inattention, hyperactivity, conduct
problems) using rating scales such as the Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment
(Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001), Behavior Assessment System for Children, Second Edition
(Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004), and the ADHD Rating Scale – IV (DuPaul, Power,
Anastopoulos, & Reid, 1998). The moderate-level correlation between parents and teachers
suggests that the student competence factor of the HPQ-PS is similar to its counterpart on the
HPQ-TS and that each informant provides relatively unique information about a student’s
competence related to homework functioning. The student competence factor could be
interpreted as referring to the degree of match between the difficulty level of homework
assignments and the student’s ability to complete assignments, or the degree of instructional
match. This factor may be useful in assessing the extent to which assignments are at a difficulty
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

level appropriate for the student.

Although the HPQ-PS student task engagement/efficiency factor and the HPQ-TS student
responsibility factor were significantly correlated with each other, they appear to assess
somewhat different dimensions of homework functioning. The parent-reported task
engagement/efficiency factor provides information about student behaviors while preparing
for homework and actually completing the work. In contrast, the teacher-reported student
responsibility factor reflects primarily student productivity and compliance with homework
rules (i.e., behaviors that the teacher can directly observe or at least be in a position to
apprehend).

A unique aspect of the HPQ-PS is that it provides information about the extent to which parents
view teachers as supportive to families in coping with the challenges of homework. The teacher
support factor refers to contextual issues that may have an affect on homework performance
and the quality of the family-school relationship. It is noteworthy that parental ratings of
elementary school children were substantially higher (large effect size) than their ratings of
middle school children, suggesting that parents view teachers as more supportive and helpful
with homework challenges at the elementary level than at the middle school level.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

The HPQ-PS teacher support factor provides potentially valuable information about contextual
factors that may influence homework performance. This factor refers to the extent to which
parents think that teachers understand the challenges parents face in coping with homework
and are able to communicate with parents effectively regarding homework. Although the
teacher support factor appears to have educational utility, the inclusion of these items in some
cases could have adverse effects in that teacher knowledge of parental ratings on these items
could strain the parent-teacher relationship.

Limitations
The school districts included in the study sample represented a diverse range of students both
with regard to ethnic/racial grouping and socioeconomic status. However, the sample
underrepresented the population of Latino children attending one of the school districts targeted
for this study. In this preliminary study an English language version of the HPQ-PS was used,

J Sch Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2008 June 1.

 Power et al. Page 10

which excluded children whose parents spoke limited English. As such, the findings of this
study may not reflect adequately the views of many Latino families from these schools. Also,
the sample underrepresented students of lower socioeconomic status, as indexed by eligibility
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

for free and reduced-fare lunch, which is common in studies conducted through schools
(National Center for Educational Statistics, 2004). Specialized strategies including incentive
systems have been recommended to improve rates of recruitment, particularly in schools
situated in underresourced urban and rural settings (Blom-Hoffman, Leff, Franko, & Power,
2006).

Although the sample was relatively diverse, it includes children from only two districts located
in the Northeast section of the country. In future research, it will be important to include schools
throughout the country that are representative of the diverse ethnic, racial, and socioeconomic
groupings that comprise the United States.

The sample size of this study is relatively small and the external validity of the rating scales
has not yet been established. Because additional research is needed to determine the validity
of the measures and to establish normative parameters, the scales are not yet recommended for
clinical use.

Directions for Research

The version of the HPQ-TS used in this study did not include items referring to teacher
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

perceptions of the extent to which parents are supportive of teachers in their efforts to guide
students through the homework process. In future versions of this measure, it may be useful
to include items referring to parent support, which would serve as a counterpart to factor III
on the HPQ-PS referring to teacher support. However, because the practice of requesting
teachers to rate level of parent support could have adverse effects on the family-school
relationship if parents were to learn about the findings, it is recommended that items pertaining
to a parent support factor be administered only when teacher ratings can be kept confidential,
such as in the context of a research study.

The validity of the HPQ needs to be further established by correlating its factors with various
criterion measures. For example, factor scores for the HPQ-PS could be correlated with factor
scores for the parent-rated HPC, graded samples of children’s homework, and parent ratings
of the quality of the parent-teacher relationship, as assessed by a measure such as the Parent-
Teacher Involvement Questionnaire (Kohl, Lengua, McMahon, & Conduct Problems
Prevention Research Group, 2000). Factor scores on the HPQ-TS could be correlated with
teacher records of homework completion, graded samples of children’s homework, and an
analysis of the completeness and accuracy of students’ homework assignment books.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

For purposes of normative comparison, it is important that the HPQ be standardized with a
sample representing the diverse geographic regions, ethnic and racial groups, and
socioeconomic groupings in the United States. Further, it would be useful to establish cut-
points for universal screening by conducting predictive power analyses to determine the
threshold at which children are at risk for having homework problems.

Conclusions
This article describes the development of parent and teacher ratings scales to assess children’s
homework performance. A unique feature of the rating scales is that they were developed with
a focus on the assessment of strengths with regard to homework performance. Also, the scales
were developed to assess contextual factors that have an effect on students’ homework
performance. The findings of this study indicate that the HPQ-PS assesses three factors: student
task engagement/efficiency, student competence, and teacher support; and that the HPQ-TS

J Sch Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2008 June 1.

 Power et al. Page 11

assesses two factors: student responsibility and student competence. The student competence
factors of the HPQ-PS and HPQ-TS would appear to be useful in assessing the extent to which
homework assignments are at an appropriate instructional level for students. Also, the teacher
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

support factor of the HPQ-PS may provide helpful information about the extent to which
teachers are responsive to parents in addressing homework concerns. Additional research on
the HPQ is needed to determine whether it is possible to reliably, validly, and ethically assess
family contextual factors that influence homework performance. Also, research is needed to
establish the validity of the HPQ in relation to a wide range of criterion measures, identify
benchmarks for normative comparison, and identify cut-points for universal screening.

Acknowledgements
The authors are very grateful to the parents, teachers, and administrators affiliated with the school districts participating
in this study.

References
Achenbach, TM.; Rescorla, LA. Manual for the ASEBA School-Age Forms and Profiles. Burlington,
VT: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry; 2001.
Anesko KM, Schoiock G, Ramirez R, Levine FM. The Homework Problem Checklist: Assessing
children’s homework difficulties. Behavioral Assessment 1987;9:179–185.
Bartlett MS. A further note on the multiplying factors for various Χ2 approximations in factor analysis.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 1954;16:296–298.

Blom-Hoffman J, Leff SS, Franko D, Power TJ. Increasing student participation in school-based health
promotion program evaluations: A multicomponent strategy. 2006Manuscript under review
Briggs NE, MacCallum RC. Recovery of weak common factors by maximum likelihood and ordinary
least squares estimation. Multivariate Behavioral Research 2003;38:25–56.
Cattell RB. The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research 1966;1:245–276.
Cooper, H. Homework. White Plains, NY: Longman; 1989.
Cooper, H. The battle over homework: Common ground for administrators, teachers, and parents . 2.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press; 2001.
Cooper H, Lindsay JJ, Nye B, Greathouse S. Relationships among attitudes about homework, amount of
homework assigned and completed, and student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology
1998;90:70–83.
Cooper H, Robinson JC, Patall EA. Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of
research. Review of Educational Research 2006;76:1–62.
DuPaul, GJ.; Power, TJ.; Anastopoulos, AD.; Reid, R. The ADHD Rating Scale –IV: Checklists, norms,
and clinical interpretation. New York: Guilford Press; 1998.
Epstein JL. School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan
1995;76(9):701–712.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Fabrigar LR, Wegener DT, MacCallum RC, Strahan EJ. Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis
in psychological research. Psychological Methods 1999;4:272–299.
Fantuzzo J, McWayne C, Perry MA, Childs S. Multiple dimensions of family involvement and their
relations to behavioral and learning competencies for urban, lowincome children. School Psychology
Review 2004;33:467–480.
Gorsuch, RL. Factor analysis. In: Schinka, JA.; Velicer, F., editors. Handbook of psychology: Volume
2, research methods in psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2003. p. 143-164.
Gravois, TA.; Gickling, EE. Best practices in curriculum-based assessment. In: Thomas, A.; Grimes, J.,
editors. Best practices in school psychology IV. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School
Psychologists; 2002. p. 885-898.
Hinshaw SP, March JS, Abikoff H, Arnold LE, Cantwell DP, Conners CK, et al. Comprehensive
assessment of childhood attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in the context of a multisite,
multimodal clinical trial. Journal of Attention Disorders 1997;1:217–234.

J Sch Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2008 June 1.

 Power et al. Page 12

Horn J. A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika 1965;30:179–
185. [PubMed: 14306381]
Izzo CV, Weissberg RP, Kasprow WJ, Frendrich M. A longitudinal assessment of teacher perceptions
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

of parent involvement in children’s education and school performance. American Journal of

Community Psychology 1999;27:817–839. [PubMed: 10723536]
Kahle AL, Kelley ML. Children’s homework problems: A comparison of goal setting and parent training.
Behavior Therapy 1994;25:275–290.
Kaiser HF. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 1974;39:31–36.
Keith, TZ.; Keith, PB. Homework. In: Bear, GG.; Minke, KM., editors. Children’s Needs III:
Development, Prevention, and Intervention. Washington, DC: National Association of School
Psychologists; 2006. p. 615-629.
Kline, P. An easy guide to factor analysis. NY: Routledge; 1994.
Kohl GO, Lengua LJ, McMahon RJ, Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. Parent involvement
in school: Conceptualizing multiple dimensions and their relations with family and demographic risk
factors. Journal of School Psychology 2000;38:501–524.
Lahey BB, Applegate B, McBurnett K, Biederman J, Greenhill L, Hynd GW, et al. DSM-IV field trial
for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents. American Journal of
Psychiatry 1994;151:1673–1685. [PubMed: 7943460]
LeCompte, MD.; Schensul, JJ. Ethnographers’ toolkit, Book 5: Analyzing and interpreting ethnographic
data. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press; 1999.
Lincoln, YS.; Gruba, EG. Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1985.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Manz PH, Fantuzzo JF, Power TJ. Multidimensional assessment of family involvement among urban
elementary students. Journal of School Psychology 2004;42:461–475.
Miller DL, Kelley ML. The use of goal setting and contingency contracting for improving children’s
homework performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 1994;27:73–84. [PubMed: 8188565]
National Center for Educational Statistics . The condition of education. Washington, DC: US Department
of Education; 2004.
Olympia DE, Sheridan SM, Jenson WR, Andrews D. Using student-managed interventions to increase
homework completion and accuracy. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 1994;27:85–99.
[PubMed: 16795827]
Power, TJ.; Karustis, JL.; Habboushe, DF. Homework success for children with ADHD: A family-school
intervention program. New York: Guilford Press; 2001.
Power TJ, Soffer SL, Clarke AT, Mautone JA. Multisystemic intervention for children with ADHD.
Report on Emotional & Behavioral Disorders in Youth 2006;6:51–52. 67–69.
Power TJ, Werba BE, Watkins MW, Angelucci JG, Eiraldi RB. Patterns of parent-reported homework
problems among ADHD-referred and non-referred children. School Psychology Quarterly
2006;21:13–33.
Reynolds, CR.; Kamphaus, RW. Behavior Assessment System for Children. Second Edition. Circle Pines,
MN: American Guidance Service; 2004.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Tataryn DJ, Wood JM, Gorsuch RL. Setting the value of k in promax: A Monte Carlo study. Educational
and Psychological Measurement 1999;59:384–391.
Velicer WF. Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations.
Psychometrika 1976;41:321–327.
Velicer, WF.; Eaton, CA.; Fava, JL. Construct explication through factor or component analysis: A review
and evaluation of alternative procedures for determining the number of factors or components. In:
Goffin, RD.; Helmes, E., editors. Problems and solutions in human assessment: Honoring Douglas
N Jackson at seventy. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2000. p. 41-71.
Wegener, DT.; Fabrigar, LR. Analysis and design for nonexperimental data. In: Reis, HT.; Judd, CM.,
editors. Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology. NY: Cambridge
University Press; 2000. p. 412-450.
Weiner RK, Sheridan SM, Jenson WR. The effects of conjoint behavior consultation and a structured
homework program on math completion and accuracy in junior high school students. School
Psychology Quarterly 1998;13:281–309.

J Sch Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2008 June 1.

 Power et al. Page 13

Widaman KF. Common factor analysis versus principal component analysis: Differential bias in
representing model parameters? Multivariate Behavioral Research 1993;28:263–311.
Wood JM, Tataryn DJ, Gorsuch RL. Effects of under- and overextraction on principal axis factor analysis
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

with varimax rotation. Psychological Methods 1996;1:354–365.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

J Sch Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2008 June 1.

 NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Table 1
Distribution of students in the school samples and populations according to gender, race/ethnicity, and subsidized lunch status for each school district

District A District A Population χ2 District B District B Population χ2 Total Sample

Gender
Male 52 (54.7%) 54% 0.02 32 (47.1%) 51% 0.41 84 (51.5%)
Female 43 (45.3%) 46% 0.02 36 (52.9%) 49% 0.41 79 (48.5%)
Power et al.

Ethnicity
Caucasian 70 (73.7%) 79% 1.61 40 (58.8%) 51% 1.66 110 (67.5%)
African American 18 (18.9%) 15% 1.13 24 (35.3%) 33% 0.16 42 (25.8%)
Asian 3 (3.2%) 2% 0.70 1 (1.5%) 3% 0.53 4 (2.5%)
Hispanic 4 (4.2%) 4% 0.01 3 (4.4%) 13% 4.45* 7 (4.3%)
Free and reduced-fare Lunch 7 (7.4%) 11.9% 1.83 12 (17.6%) 30% 4.98* 19 (11.7%)

Note: χ2 reflects the difference between the study sample and school population for each school district.
*
p < .05

J Sch Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2008 June 1.

Page 14
 NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Table 2
Four-factor structure of the Homework Performance Questionnaire – Parent Scale

Factor Pattern Coefficients

Item I II III IV

5 – Child records homework assignment .350 -.191 .005 .160

Power et al.

6 – Child brings home necessary materials .230 .161 .041 .351

7 – Child denies having homework .383 -.003 -.141 .422
8 – Teacher and parent have similar expectations .019 .229 .407 -.064
9 – We always find time to complete homework -.198 .202 .117 .372
10 – Child understands how to do homework -.040 .697* -.065 .150
11 – Child is ready to begin homework on time .537 -.049 .173 .183
12 – Child gets frustrated with parents during homework .401 .268 .040 -.068
13 – Teachers assign too much homework .000 .085 .514 -.302
14 – Teachers understand challenges families face .174 -.085 .671* .007
15 – Family routine helps child complete homework .015 -.102 .446 .216
16 – Child must be reminded to begin homework .813* -.027 -.065 -.106
17 – Child does homework in quiet area without distractions .173 .010 .308 .070
18 – Homework assignments are easy for child -.050 .722* .112 -.043
19 – Child wastes time during homework .672* .046 .186 -.090
20 – Teachers seem willing to help -.022 .023 .649* .127
21 – Parents able to help if homework is confusing -.271 .208 .361 .269
22 – Child needs close supervision to complete homework .683* .200 -.096 -.172
23 – Child is able to complete homework -.015 .471 -.012 .418
24 – Takes child longer than classmates to complete homework .138 .374 .127 -.147
25 – Child is cooperative when given advice/direction .376 -.003 .210 .111
26 – Child able to work steadily on homework .445 .199 .068 .135
27 – Parents able to provide enough supervision during homework -.164 -.007 .149 .667*
28 – Child able to complete math homework .063 .756* -.205 .009
29 – Work assigned is too difficult -.061 .549 .291 -.162
30 – Parents able to remain patient with child during homework .204 .337 -.103 .192
31 – Teachers communicate with parents effectively about homework .037 -.130 .679* .009
32 – Child able to complete reading/language arts homework .058 .588 -.074 -.090
33 – Child brings completed homework back to class .197 .080 -.090 .652*
34 – Parents sign and return forms and tests .100 -.268 -.031 .730*
35 – Teachers check homework after it is completed .054 -.094 .381 .275
α .823 .805 .767 .716

J Sch Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2008 June 1.

Note. Salient and substantive pattern coefficients are indicated in bold.
*
Three highest structure coefficients for each factor.
Page 15
 NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Table 3
Two-factor structure of the Homework Performance Questionnaire – Teacher Scale

Factor Pattern Coefficients

Item I II

9 – Student writes down homework assignments independently .404 .101

Power et al.

10 – Student organizes necessary materials .570 .404

11 – Student has ability to complete homework independently -.115 .885*
12 – Student turns in homework on time .897* -.165
13 – Student finishes homework (regardless of quality) .936* -.185
14 – Quality of homework is acceptable .598 .253
15 – Student manages time effectively during homework .808* .114
16 – Forms and tests are signed and returned .478 .076
17 – Student is ready for homework upon leaving class .378 .477
18 – Homework assignments are easy for child .035 .829*
19 – Percentage of homework completed .879 -.133
20 – Percent accuracy of completed homework .333 .512
21 – Percentage of homework child is able to complete independently -.100 .929*
22 – Percentage of material assigned that child has learned and understood in class -.026 .783
α .861 .898

Note. Salient and substantive pattern coefficients are indicated in bold.

*
Three highest structure coefficients for each factor.

J Sch Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2008 June 1.

Page 16
 NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Table 4
Means and standard deviations by gender and grade level for each HPQ-PS and HPQ-TS factor

Grades 1 – 5 Grades 6 – 8

HPQ Factor Boys Girls Boy Girls

HPQ-PS Factor I 2.30 (0.52) 2.45 (0.40) 2.22 (0.65) 2.49 (0.40)
Power et al.

HPQ-PS Factor II 2.47 (0.44) 2.37 (0.42) 2.37 (0.46) 2.47 (0.32)
HPQ-PS Factor III 2.56 (0.42) 2.55 (0.40) 2.14 (0.46) 2.22 (0.41)
HPQ-TS Factor I 3.70 (0.42) 3.81 (0.35) 3.16 (0.93) 3.42 (0.80)
HPQ-TS Factor II 3.56 (0.61) 3.63 (0.58) 3.44 (0.57) 3.45 (0.67)

Notes: Standard deviations are indicated in parentheses. HPQ-PS Factor I refers to student task orientation/efficiency. HPQ-PS Factor II refers to student competence. HPQ-PS Factor III refers to teacher
support. HPQ-TS Factor I refers to student responsibility. HPQ-TS Factor II refers to student competence.

J Sch Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2008 June 1.

Page 17