Elementary School Success Profile – Parent Version

Dr. Mohammed Looti

Child & Adolescent Psychology Educational Assessment Family & Parenting Scales

Elementary School Success Profile – Parent Version

The Elementary School Success Profile – Parent Version (ESSP-Parent) is an ecologically based assessment instrument measuring family, school, neighborhood, and behavioral factors shaping elementary students’ academic success and psychosocial adaptation.

Dr. Mohammed Looti An academic and researcher specialized in

PUBLISHED September 25, 2026

Scientifically Reviewed · Dr. Marwa Abd-Alazim · September 25, 2026

Medically & Scientifically Reviewed Verified: September 25, 2026

Dr. Marwa Abd-Alazim PhD in Psychology

Faculty Member • University of Kerbala

Review Criteria & Clinical Standards

This content undergoes rigorous scientific peer-review and medical editorial standards at Arab Psychology Network to ensure clinical accuracy, validity, and compliance with evidence-based guidelines from leading psychological and healthcare authorities (APA / WHO).

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Abstract

The Elementary School Success Profile – Parent Version (ESSP-Parent) is a multidimensional, ecologically oriented assessment instrument designed to capture comprehensive collateral data regarding the social, familial, economic, and neighborhood environments that shape young children’s academic performance, behavioral adaptation, and social-emotional well-being. Developed as an integral component of the broader Elementary School Success Profile measurement system by Dr. Natasha K. Bowen, Dr. Gary L. Bowen, and colleagues at the School of Social Work at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the ESSP-Parent addresses critical gaps in conventional educational diagnostics by operationalizing Urie Bronfenbrenner’s social-ecological framework and developmental systems models. Comprising 54 core multi-part questions (yielding more than 110 distinct indicator variables), the instrument examines child physical health and developmental history, family sociodemographics, household financial strain, home learning environments, parental school engagement, neighborhood collective efficacy, community safety, peer networks, and child behavioral regulation (encompassing prosociality, self-regulation, and aggressive conduct).

Psychometric evaluations employing rigorous structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) have demonstrated robust dimensional structures for its primary psychometric subscales, notably across the home environment, neighborhood social cohesion, parent school involvement, and parent-reported child social behavior dimensions. Internal consistency reliabilities across multi-item latent factors routinely demonstrate Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability coefficients ranging from .72 to .91, establishing strong operational consistency. Construct validity is supported through substantial convergence with child self-reports on the companion ESSP-Child instrument, teacher evaluations on standardized behavioral rating systems, and official administrative school performance metrics, including standardized test achievement and disciplinary infractions. By providing school social workers, school psychologists, child clinical practitioners, and educational researchers with a standardized window into the micro-, meso-, and exosystemic factors operating within the child’s life space, the ESSP-Parent enables precisely tailored ecological interventions, data-driven multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS), and holistic preventative programming in elementary school settings.

Keywords

Elementary School Success Profile, ESSP-Parent, social-ecological assessment, child development, home learning environment, parental involvement, neighborhood collective efficacy, child social behavior, educational psychometrics, school social work.

Authors

The Elementary School Success Profile assessment suite, including the parent-report version, was conceptualized and developed by an interdisciplinary team of social work and prevention science researchers led by:

Natasha K. Bowen, Ph.D., MSW — Professor and prominent psychometrician in educational social work, formerly at the School of Social Work, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and currently Professor at the College of Social Work, The Ohio State University. Dr. Bowen has served as the principal investigator on multiple national projects assessing ecological determinants of academic outcomes.
Gary L. Bowen, Ph.D., ACSW — Kenan Distinguished Professor Emeritus and former Dean of the School of Social Work at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dr. Bowen is an internationally renowned scholar in family sociology, community capacity, and social environment assessment who co-created the pioneering School Success Profile (SSP) for middle and high school adolescents.
Jack M. Richman, Ph.D., MSW — Professor Emeritus and former Dean of the School of Social Work, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, recognized for his extensive methodological contributions to social support network analysis and adolescent risk and resilience assessment.
Contributing Psychometricians and Investigators: Subsequent validation and confirmatory factor analytic studies have featured significant contributions from researchers including Michael E. Woolley, Ph.D. (University of Maryland), John D. Powers, Ph.D. (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), Kate M. Wegmann, Ph.D., and Aaron M. Thompson, Ph.D. (University of Missouri).

Institutional origins: School of Social Work, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 325 Pittsboro Street, CB #3550, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-3550, USA.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Elementary School Success Profile – Parent Version is to provide a standardized, clinically and ecologically sensitive diagnostic inventory capable of systematically capturing the social contexts and environmental affordances that facilitate or hinder young children’s academic engagement and psychosocial development. Traditional educational assessment paradigms have overwhelmingly favored deficit-focused, child-centric models that localize academic difficulties or disruptive behavioral patterns entirely within individual neurodevelopmental, intellectual, or cognitive deficits. While psychoeducational test batteries excel at delineating specific cognitive impairments, they systematically fail to appraise the distal and proximal environmental determinants that govern a child’s readiness to learn, emotional safety, and day-to-day behavioral regulation.

The ESSP-Parent addresses this long-standing clinical and assessment deficit by serving multiple concurrent roles across elementary school settings, clinical social work practice, and developmental epidemiological research:

Ecological Risk and Protective Asset Profiling: The instrument identifies both environmental vulnerabilities (e.g., severe household financial stress, frequent residential moves, neighborhood violence exposure, parental health limitations) and vital compensatory protective assets (e.g., strong family cohesion, consistent home academic routines, high neighborhood collective efficacy, positive parent-school relational trust).
Triangulation of Multi-Informant School Data: In modern school psychology and social work, single-informant bias represents a severe threat to diagnostic validity. The ESSP-Parent functions alongside the ESSP-Child (administered to children in grades 3 through 5 via computer-assisted auditory software) and the ESSP-Teacher rating scale. Triangulating data across these ecological vantage points allows school teams to determine whether behavioral difficulties (such as aggressive conduct or attentional dysregulation) represent pervasive trans-situational impairments or context-specific adaptations to stressful environments.
Directing Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS): At the systemic school level, aggregate ESSP-Parent data enable school administrators, guidance counselors, and school social workers to identify community-wide needs. Schools serving catchments characterized by severe community violence or low collective efficacy can implement targeted family-engagement hubs, after-school safety corridors, and trauma-informed parent psychoeducation, matching scarce intervention resources to documented ecological liabilities.
Individualized Intervention and Clinical Treatment Planning: For school social workers and family therapists, the detailed response profile highlights explicit target mechanisms for therapeutic intervention. Practitioners can immediately discern whether a child’s academic struggles stem from lack of home homework routines, sleep-disrupting family life stressors, undetected chronic medical burdens, or severe social alienation among neighborhood peers.

Psychological Construct

The ESSP-Parent measures child functioning not as an isolated behavioral typology, but as an embedded output of transactional socio-environmental systems. The instrument operationalizes multiple interrelated constructs organized across distinctive ecological domains:

1. Household Sociodemographics and Structural Strain

This dimension assesses the baseline sociodemographic scaffolding of the child’s home, documenting primary caregiver status, family structure, household density (child-to-adult ratios), parental educational attainment, sibling high school dropout history, employment patterns, and reliance on state assistance (such as subsidized school meals). A core latent construct within this domain is Subjective Financial Strain (Item 11), which captures household economic volatility and the chronic stress associated with recurrent inability to make ends meet, known to impair parental emotional availability and family executive functioning.

2. Neighborhood Physical and Social Environment

Informed by sociological theories of systemic urban disorganization and social capital, this domain assesses the proximal community context surrounding the home:

Residential Instability: Assessed via neighborhood population turnover and annual household relocations (Items 17–18), reflecting disruptions in social networks and school continuity.
Neighborhood Crime and Violence Exposure: An eight-item past-month behavioral inventory (Item 21) measuring direct and witnessed exposure to violent offenses, muggings, break-ins, shootings, narcotics trafficking, homicides, gang violence, physical assaults, and child welfare interventions.
Neighborhood Collective Efficacy and Mutual Aid: A seven-item scale (Item 22) operationalizing informal social control and social cohesion—the willingness of neighborhood adults to intervene for the common good, look out for neighbors’ children, provide reciprocal emergency assistance, and uphold behavioral standards.
Perceived Neighborhood Safety and Trust: An evaluative dimension (Item 23) measuring the parent’s psychological sense of security, interpersonal trust, and neighborhood satisfaction.
Neighborhood Peer Norms: A ten-item inventory (Item 24) capturing perceived adolescent behavioral models in the immediate community, differentiating between prosocial trajectories (academic achievement, graduation, college orientation) and criminogenic risks (substance use, police contacts, gang affiliation, weapons carrying).

3. School Environment and School-Family Relational Capital

This domain captures the relational interface between the family microsystem and the school mesosystem. It assesses structural participation in extracurricular and after-school programs (Items 25–26), parental fear for child physical safety at school (Item 27), and Teacher Relational Support and Trust (Items 28–30), measuring the extent to which educators are perceived as genuinely caring, ambitious for the student, and communicatively proactive. Furthermore, it quantifies Parental School Efficacy (Item 31), general educational satisfaction (Item 32), occupational barriers to school involvement (Item 33), and active School-Based Parental Involvement (Item 34; conference attendance, classroom volunteering, PTA participation, school event attendance).

4. Home Learning Environment and Parenting Practices

Focusing on the proximal day-to-day family interactions that scaffold cognitive development, this domain encompasses:

Home Academic Socialization: Frequent communication regarding daily learning, school events, homework monitoring, and positive praise for effort (Item 35).
Cognitive Enrichment and Activity Management: Parental boundary setting around media consumption, recreational play, mandatory reading routines, and deliberate exposure to cultural or community learning experiences (Item 36).
Time Allocation and Routines: Objective behavioral estimates of time dedicated to homework, recreational television, video gaming, computer-based learning, and domestic chores (Items 40–44).
Intergenerational Closure: Social network integration quantified by whether parents know their child’s peer group and the parents of those peers (Items 45–46), reflecting Coleman’s construct of intergenerational social capital.
Parental Educational Aspirations: Long-term academic expectations held by caregivers regarding their child’s ultimate educational attainment (Item 47).
Parental Warmth, Acceptance, and Communication: Frequency of explicit emotional validation, affection, verbal praise, and shared leisure time (Item 48).
Family Cohesion and Mutual Support: A six-item structural assessment (Item 49) measuring emotional warmth, open listening, collaborative problem solving, and mutual assistance within the household.
Parental Discipline Practices: An inventory measuring parental behavioral management strategies (Item 51), differentiating between authoritative inductive discipline (explaining reasons, hearing child perspectives, maintaining calm consistency) and structured disciplinary consequences (time-outs, privilege removal).

5. Child Behavioral, Emotional, and Social Adaptation

The ESSP-Parent includes three robust sub-inventories completed by parents regarding the child’s functioning over the preceding 30 days:

Peer Social Acceptance and Sociability: Six items (Item 37) measuring positive peer relationships, friendliness, proactive interaction, and inclusion within well-behaved peer networks.
Executive Self-Regulation and Social Competence: Nine items (Item 38) assessing impulse control (thinking before acting), non-coercive assertiveness, emotional soothing, empathy, compliance with adult authority, and low stubbornness.
Aggressive and Disruptive Conduct: Four items (Item 39) evaluating physical fighting, intentional injury to others, rough physical aggression, and deliberate assaultive behavior.
Sibling Dynamics and Prosociality: Sibling-directed sharing, helping, and behavioral harmony (Item 50).
Anticipated Adolescent Substance Use Vulnerability: Parental risk perceptions regarding their child’s future likelihood of tobacco, alcohol, cannabis, and illicit drug involvement (Item 54).

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual architecture of the Elementary School Success Profile rests upon a convergence of prominent developmental, ecological, and sociological theories:

1. Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Theory of Human Development

At its core, the ESSP-Parent is grounded in Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, later elaborated into the Process-Person-Context-Time (PPCT) model. Bronfenbrenner posited that human development occurs through increasingly complex reciprocal interactions—termed proximal processes—between an active, evolving biopsychological human organism and the persons, objects, and symbols in its immediate external environment. For proximal processes to foster competence, they must occur on a regular basis over extended intervals.

The ESSP-Parent systematically catalogs these ecological spheres:

Microsystems: The immediate environments characterized by face-to-face interactions, operationalized as the family home, parenting interactions, and classroom teacher relations.
Mesosystems: The interactions and linkages between two or more primary microsystems, specifically captured in the ESSP-Parent by parent-teacher communication, parent involvement in school governance, and parental monitoring of school tasks.
Exosystems: Contexts that do not directly contain the developing child but profoundly exert indirect influence, represented by parental workplace schedules, household economic resources, and parental social support networks.
Macrosystems: The cultural, socio-structural, and institutional patterns that envelop all lower-order systems, reflected in racial/ethnic disparities, poverty indicators, and structural community disadvantages.

2. Social Capital and Collective Efficacy Theories

The ESSP-Parent integrates James Coleman’s social capital theory and Robert Sampson’s framework of Collective Efficacy. Coleman argued that social networks generate human capital when relationships are characterized by closure (e.g., parents knowing the parents of their children’s friends) and shared expectations. Sampson and colleagues demonstrated that neighborhood crime and developmental maladaptation are strongly mitigated when community residents exhibit high collective efficacy—the conjunction of mutual interpersonal trust and shared willingness to intervene for the public good and supervise youth. The ESSP-Parent explicitly measures these dynamics in items addressing neighborhood surveillance, mutual protection, and intergenerational familiarity.

3. Risk and Resilience / Social Development Frameworks

The scale incorporates the Social Development Model (Hawkins & Weis) and developmental psychopathology principles of equifinality and multifinality. Rather than presuming single deterministic trajectories from environmental adversity to academic failure, the ESSP paradigm posits that multi-layered protective factors (e.g., high parental warmth, structured homework environments, strong teacher relationships) act as systemic shock-absorbers that buffer children against the adverse impacts of community violence, socioeconomic deprivation, and biological vulnerabilities.

Validity

The validity of the ESSP-Parent has been systematically established through extensive psychometric testing across diverse urban, suburban, and rural school districts, primarily spearheaded by Dr. Natasha K. Bowen and her investigative teams (e.g., Bowen & Woolley, 2004; Bowen, 2008; Wegmann, Thompson, & Bowen, 2011).

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity has been comprehensively corroborated through large-scale structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analyses. In a benchmark methodological investigation involving parent responses across multiple elementary school cohorts, Wegmann, Thompson, and Bowen (2011) evaluated the structural integrity of the home environment and child social behavior scales. CFA models specified a priori demonstrated acceptable to superior model fit across multiple standalone and correlated factor structures.

Fit indices across established subscales consistently satisfied conventional psychometric benchmarks (CFI > .90 to .95, TLI > .90 to .94, and RMSEA < .06), verifying that parent responses reflect distinct latent dimensions (e.g., Parental Warmth, Family Cohesion, Parenting Discipline, Child Self-Regulation, and Child Aggressive Behavior) rather than an undifferentiated general response set.

Convergent and Multi-Informant Concurrent Validity

Concurrent and convergent validity have been examined by correlating ESSP-Parent scales with matched student self-reports (ESSP-Child) and standardized teacher evaluations (ESSP-Teacher and Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation [TOCA]):

Parent-Child Convergence: Parent reports of family cohesion and parental support exhibited statistically significant moderate positive correlations ( $r = .38$ to $.52, p < .001$ ) with children’s independently reported perceptions of family belonging and parental encouragement.
Parent-Teacher Behavioral Convergence: Parent ratings on child aggressive conduct (Item 39) and executive self-regulation (Item 38) demonstrated robust concordance with teacher behavioral ratings ( $r = .41$ to $.58, p < .001$ ), confirming that the behavioral indicators reliably capture trans-situational behavioral tendencies across both domestic and classroom environments.

Criterion and Predictive Validity

Predictive validity is evident in longitudinal and cross-sectional associations with objective educational benchmarks. Multilevel regressions published by Bowen and colleagues demonstrate that parent-reported home learning environments (Item 35–36), high parental educational expectations (Item 47), and neighborhood collective efficacy (Item 22) account for unique variance in end-of-year standardized reading and mathematics end-of-grade (EOG) test scores, even after controlling for baseline family socioeconomic status, child race, and prior attendance history. Conversely, high scores on parent-reported neighborhood violence exposure (Item 21) and household financial stress (Item 11) robustly predicted higher rates of chronic school absenteeism, office disciplinary referrals, and pediatric mental health interventions.

Reliability

The ESSP-Parent exhibits strong internal consistency, composite reliability, and measurement stability across demographically diverse populations.

Internal Consistency Reliability

Psychometric investigations utilizing large normative samples of elementary school caregivers have documented high internal consistency across the instrument’s multi-item latent subscales. Representative Cronbach’s alpha ( $lpha$ ) and raykov’s composite reliability ($
ho$) coefficients include:

Child Social Acceptance and Sociability (Item 37, 6 items): $lpha = .81$ to $.86$
Child Self-Regulation and Social Competence (Item 38, 9 items): $lpha = .82$ to $.87$
Child Aggressive Behavior (Item 39, 4 items): $lpha = .84$ to $.89$
Parental Warmth and Encouragement (Item 48, 5 items): $lpha = .83$ to $.88$
Family Cohesion and Mutual Support (Item 49, 6 items): $lpha = .86$ to $.91$
Parenting Discipline Strategies (Item 51, 6 items): $lpha = .72$ to $.78$
Neighborhood Collective Efficacy (Item 22, 7 items): $lpha = .85$ to $.89$
Neighborhood Safety and Trust (Item 23, 4 items): $lpha = .79$ to $.83$
Neighborhood Adolescent Social Models (Item 24, 10 items): Prosocial sub-dimension $lpha = .82$ ; Problem behavior sub-dimension $lpha = .84$
Home Academic Socialization (Item 35, 6 items): $lpha = .78$ to $.82$
Parent School Involvement (Item 34, 6 items): $lpha = .75$ to $.80$

Test-Retest Stability and Cross-Group Invariance

Subsample evaluations over 4- to 6-week test-retest intervals revealed intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) ranging from .74 to .88 for structural and neighborhood indices, reflecting high stability in the absence of catastrophic life disruptions. Measurement invariance testing across child gender, primary caregiver educational attainment, and racial groups (Black, White, Hispanic) confirmed metric and strong scalar invariance for the home environment and behavioral subscales, demonstrating that item loadings and latent thresholds function equivalently across culturally and socioeconomically varied populations.

Factor Analysis

The factorial validity of the ESSP-Parent has been rigorously established via exploratory factor analysis (EFA) during its initial conceptualization, followed by extensive confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) across diverse elementary cohorts.

Wegmann, Thompson, and Bowen (2011) Model Findings

In a seminal psychometric validation study published in Social Work Research, Wegmann and colleagues (2011) evaluated the structural models of parent-reported data from the ESSP. Focusing specifically on the Home Environment and Home Social Behavior modules, the authors utilized robust weighted least squares (WLSMV) estimation to accommodate ordered categorical and Likert-type indicators:

Home Social Behavior Measurement Model: Specified as two correlated latent factors: Social Competence / Self-Regulation (Items 38a–38e, 38g) and Aggressive Behavior (Items 39a–39d). Standardized factor loadings across all items were robust, ranging from .58 to .89 ( $p < .001$ ). The correlation between the two latent factors was moderate and inverse ( $r pprox -.46$ ), confirming that behavioral competence and aggressive conduct represent distinct, non-collinear developmental axes. Global model fit was excellent: $\chi^2 / df < 2.5$ , $ ext{CFI} = .96 $,$ ext{TLI} = .95 $, and$ ext{RMSEA} = .048$ ( $90% ext{ CI } [.039, .057]$ ).
Home Environment Measurement Model: Modeled as three interrelated latent constructs: Parental Warmth (Item 48), Family Problem Solving and Support (Item 49), and Parental Monitoring / Academic Scaffolding (Item 35). Standardized factor loadings loaded cleanly onto intended constructs (predominantly $lambda > .62$ ). Structural goodness-of-fit met stringent psychometric thresholds ($ ext{CFI} = .95 $,$ ext{RMSEA} = .051$), verifying distinct conceptual boundaries between general family climate and focused educational support.

Neighborhood and School Climate Factor Structures

Factor analyses conducted on the neighborhood modules (Items 21–24) confirmed a multi-tiered ecological factor architecture:

Neighborhood Collective Efficacy: Items 22a through 22g load unambiguously onto a unidimensional latent factor ( $lambda = .64$ to $.84$ ), confirming that perceived informal child monitoring and mutual adult assistance represent a unified social capital construct.
Neighborhood Risk Exposure: Items in Question 21 function as a cumulative risk index (formative measurement model), where the sum of past-month acute community stressors directly models environmental toxicity.
Adolescent Neighborhood Norms: CFA confirms a two-factor orthogonal or weakly correlated solution distinguishing Prosocial Peer Models (Items 24a, 24f, 24h, 24i, 24j; $lambda = .59$ to $.81$ ) from Delinquent / Criminogenic Peer Models (Items 24b, 24c, 24d, 24e, 24g; $lambda = .65$ to $.86$ ).

Instrument / Measurement Tool

Instrument Name: Elementary School Success Profile – Parent Version (ESSP-Parent).
Instrument Type: Standardized parent/caregiver self-report ecological survey and behavioral rating inventory.
Target Population: Parents, foster parents, grandparents, and legal guardians of children enrolled in elementary school (grades kindergarten through 5, typically ages 5 to 11).
Total Number of Core Questions: 54 primary numbered question blocks encompassing over 110 discrete indicator items.
Administration Modality: Paper-and-pencil self-administered questionnaire or secure computer-assisted web administration (available in English and Spanish).
Estimated Completion Time: Approximately 25 to 35 minutes.
Scale Dimensional Domains:
- Caregiver and Family Sociodemographics (Items 1–10, 12–14)
- Family Economic Strain and Transportation Resources (Items 11, 15)
- Child Physical and Mental Health History (Item 16)
- Neighborhood Residential Stability and Community Programs (Items 17–20)
- Neighborhood Crime, Safety, and Collective Efficacy (Items 21–24)
- Child School Connectedness and Parent-School Partnership (Items 25–34)
- Home Learning Environment, Academic Socialization, and Media Habits (Items 35–36, 40–44)
- Child Social Competence, Peer Relations, and Behavioral Regulation (Items 37–39, 50)
- Parental Social Capital, Expectations, and Parenting Practices (Items 45–49, 51)
- Family Stressors, Substance Psychoeducation, and Anticipated Risk (Items 52–54)
Response Formats: Categorical selection, nominal choices, dichotomous (No / Yes), and balanced 3-, 4-, and 6-point Likert-type scales (e.g., Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often, Very Often, Always; Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree; Not a problem, Somewhat of a problem, A big problem; Poor, Fair, Good, Excellent; Unlikely, Somewhat likely, Very likely).
Scoring and Profiling: Multi-item psychometric subscales are converted into standardized mean scores or transformed $T$ -scores ( $M = 50, SD = 10$ ). The instrument produces an automated visual “Ecological Profile” color-coding domains into Protective Assets (green), Average Functioning (yellow), and Ecological Risks / Intervention Targets (red). Reverse scoring is applied to negatively worded items within positive asset scales prior to score calculation.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Publication and Development Year: Initial development began in 2002; full psychometric scale publication and validation occurred between 2004 and 2008 (Bowen, Bowen, & Woolley, 2004; Bowen, 2008; Wegmann, Thompson, & Bowen, 2011).
Copyright and Intellectual Property: Copyright © Natasha K. Bowen and Gary L. Bowen. All rights reserved. Associated software and ecological reporting tools were historically supported via the School Success Online portal and Oxford University Press clinical sourcebooks.
Commercial Status and Access: The scale items and scoring guidelines are published in academic sourcebooks (notably Fischer & Corcoran, 2007) for non-profit clinical practice and research use. Academic researchers and school districts seeking to implement the interactive digital platform, computerized assessment scoring, or district-wide administrative profiles should contact the lead authors at The Ohio State University College of Social Work or the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Social Work.

References

Bowen, G. L., Richman, J. M., & Bowen, N. K. (2002). The School Success Profile: A results management approach to assessment and intervention planning. In A. R. Roberts & G. J. Greene (Eds.), Social workers’ desk reference (pp. 787–793). Oxford University Press.
Bowen, G. L., Rose, R. A., & Bowen, N. K. (2005). The reliability and validity of the School Success Profile. Xlibris.
Bowen, G. L., Rose, R. A., Powers, J. D., & Glennie, E. J. (2008). The joint effects of neighborhoods, schools, peers, and families on changes in the school success of middle school students. Family Relations, 57(4), 504–516. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00518.x
Bowen, N. K. (2006). Psychometric properties of the Elementary School Success Profile for Children. Social Work Research, 30(1), 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/30.1.51
Bowen, N. K. (2008). Psychometric properties of the Elementary School Success Profile for Parents [Paper presentation]. Society for Social Work and Research Annual Conference, Washington, DC, United States.
Bowen, N. K. (2008). Cognitive testing and the validity of child-report data from the Elementary School Success Profile. Social Work Research, 32(1), 7–18. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/32.1.7
Bowen, N. K., Bowen, G. L., & Woolley, M. E. (2004). Constructing and validating assessment tools for school-based practitioners: The Elementary School Success Profile. In A. R. Roberts & K. R. Yeager (Eds.), Evidence-based practice manual: Research and outcome measures in health and human services (pp. 509–517). Oxford University Press.
Bowen, N. K., & Powers, J. D. (2005). Knowledge gaps among school staff and the role of high-quality ecological assessments in schools. Research on Social Work Practice, 15(6), 491–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731505276077
Fischer, J., & Corcoran, K. J. (2007). Elementary School Success Profile (ESSP). In Measures for clinical practice and research: A sourcebook (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 510–528). Oxford University Press.
Wegmann, K. M., Thompson, A. M., & Bowen, N. K. (2011). A confirmatory factor analysis of home environment and home social behavior data from the Elementary School Success Profile for Families. Social Work Research, 35(2), 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/35.2.117

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)

Below are the authentic scale items in their original language as published in the standard psychometric validation studies, without modification or translation to preserve instrument validity and reliability:

1

I am the child's:

2

My child is a:

3

My child's race/ethnicity best described as:

4

My child is:

5

Are you currently married?

6

How many people age 17 or younger live in your home (including the child taking the ESSP)?

7

How many people age 18 or older live in your home (including yourself)?

8

How far in school did you go?

9

If there is a second parent or other adult in your child's home who helps take care of the child‚ how far in school did he or she go?

10

Did any of your child's brothers or sisters (Including step- or half-siblings) dr‎op out of school before graduating from high school?

11

How would you describe the financial situation of your household?

12

What is the zip code of your home address? (Write the numbers in the boxes‚ then fill in the right circle below each box.)

13

Do any of the adults (people 18 and Older) in the child’s home currently work for pay?

14

Does your child receive free or reduced price lunches at school?

15

Do you have a way to get to your child's school if needed?

16

Has a doctor suggested your child take medication this year for any of the following reasons? NO‚ YES

17

Do people move in and out of your neighborhood a lot?

18

How many times have you moved in the past year?

19

How much time per week does your child usually spend on neighborhood or community activities run by adults‚ such as team sports‚ the scouts‚ or programs at a community center or park?

20

How big of a problem are drugs in your neighborhood?

21

In the past 30days did any of the following things happen in your neighborhood? No‚ Yes

22

Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

23

Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

24

Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

25

Does your child receive after-school care at the school?

26

Does your child take part in any school clubs or activities that take place after school (such as team sports‚ band‚ drama‚ or science club)? No‚ Yes‚ Not available at the school

27

How often are you afraid that someone will hurt or bother your child at school? Never‚ Sometimes‚ Often‚ Always

28

My child's teacher cares about my child. Strongly disagree‚ Disagree‚ Agree‚ Strongly agree

29

My child's teacher wants my child to do well in school. Strongly disagree‚ Disagree‚ Agree‚ Strongly agree

30

My child's teacher or other school staff would contact me if they had a concern or question about my child's school behavior or progress. Strongly disagree‚ Disagree‚ Agree‚ Strongly agree

31

How much influence do you think parents like You can have in making schools a better place for students to learn and grow?

32

How good of an education do you think your child is getting at his or her school? Poor‚ Fair‚ Good‚ Excellent

33

My work schedule makes it hard for me to be involved at my child's school.

34

How often do you do the following?

35

How often do you do the following?

36

How often do you do the following?

37

For the following statements‚ choose the response that best describes your child within the past 30 days.

38

For the following statements‚ choose the response that best describes your child within the past30 days.

39

For the following statements. Choose the response that best describes your child within the past 30 days.

40

How much time does your child spend on homework on most school nights?

41

How much time does your child spend watching TV on most school nights?

42

How much time does your child spend playing non-educational computer or video games on most school nights?

43

How much time does your child spend using educational programs or doing homework on the computer on most school nights?

44

How much time each week does your child spend on chores (such as helping with meals‚ pets‚ or cleaning)?

45

How many of your child’s friends do you know?

46

How many of the parents of your child's friends do you know?

47

How far in school do you think your child will go?

48

How often do you do the following?

49

How often are the following statements true for your family?

50

How often does your child do the following?

51

How often do you do the following?

52

Has your child experienced the death of a parent‚ brother‚ sister‚ grandparent‚ or other close family member in the last year? No‚ Yes

53

Have you talked to your child about drugs‚ cigarettes‚ or alcohol?

54

Many young people get Involved with alcohol and drugs. How likely do you think it is that your child will do each of the following as he/she gets older?

Rate This Scale

Be the first to rate this

Search Our Site

Cite This Article