Chapter II. Literature Review
3.3. Characteristics of the samples
3.3.2. Characteristics of the Thai sample
3.3.1A. General Demographic Characteristics
The total Thai sample consisted of 988 participants—494 pupils and 494 parents.
The results of descriptive analysis showed (Table 3.13) that pupils ranged in age from 9 to 13 years (M = 10.83, SD = .71). Mothers ranged in age from 23 to 64 years (M = 41.14, SD = 5.56), and fathers ranged in age from 25 to 72 years (M = 43.63, SD = 6.02). The number of family members living in the household ranged between 2 and 19 (M = 4.91, SD = 1.92). The number of children living in the household ranged between 1 and 10 (M = 2.00, SD = 0.97).
Table 3.13
Descriptive Analysis of Demographic Characteristics of the Thai Sample by School Type
Demographic characteristic Min Max M SD
Pupil age 9 13 10.83 0.71
Mother age 23 64 41.14 5.56
Father age 25 72 43.63 6.02
Number of family members living in household 2 19 4.91 1.92 Number of children living in household 1 10 2.00 0.97
The results of the cross-tabulation analysis of demographic characteristics of the Thai sample by school type (see Table 3.14) revealed that the majority of pupils were boys (52%), were in 5th grade (51%), and lived with their parents (56%). The majority of parent responses (86%) were from mothers. Additionally, grade level and parent response did not vary across school types—that is, the majority of pupils from every school type (except the LAO) were in 5th grade (55% of OBEC, 52% of OHEC, 50% of OPEC). In every school type, the majority of parent responses were mothers (79% of OPEC, 75% of OHEC, 71%
of OBEC, 65% of LAO). However, pupils’ gender and family status varied slightly across school types: the majority of OPEC pupils (68%) were boys, whereas the majority of their peers in the other three school types were girls (62%
of LAO, 54% of OBEC, 53% of OHEC). The majority of OHEC pupils (45%) lived in extended families (including relatives), whereas the majority of pupils from other school types lived with their parents (65% of OPEC, 58% of LAO, 50% of OBEC).
Table 3.14
Demographic Characteristics of the Thai Sample by School Type
Demographic characteristic
School type Local
Admin (LAO)
Basic Education
(OBEC)
Higher Education
(OHEC)
Private Education
(OPEC)
Overview
Gender of pupil
Girl 63 72 47 55 237
62.40% 53.70% 52.80% 32.40% 48.00%
Boy 38 62 42 115 257
37.60% 46.30% 47.20% 67.60% 52.00%
Total 101 134 89 170 494
100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Φc with school type .24 p .00
Grade level Grade 5 49 73 46 85 253
48.50% 54.50% 51.70% 50.00% 51.20%
Grade 6 52 61 43 85 241
51.50% 45.50% 48.30% 50.00% 48.80%
Total 101 134 89 170 494
100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Φc with school type .04 p .81
Parent response
Mother 66 95 67 135 363
65.30% 70.90% 75.30% 79.40% 73.50%
Father 35 39 22 35 131
34.70% 29.10% 24.70% 20.60% 26.50%
Total 101 134 89 170 494
100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Φc with school type .12 p .07
Family status Living with parents (including stepparents)
59 67 38 110 274
58.40% 50.00% 42.70% 64.70% 55.50%
Living with single parent 17 16 6 12 51
16.80% 11.90% 6.80% 7.10% 10.30%
Living with parents and relatives 14 37 40 37 128
13.90% 27.60% 44.90% 21.70% 25.90%
Living with single parent and relatives
5 8 3 2 18
5.00% 6.00% 3.40% 1.20% 3.60%
Living with relatives 6 6 2 9 23
5.90% 4.50% 2.20% 5.30% 4.70%
Total 101 134 89 170 494
100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Φc with school type .16 p .00
Note. Φc = Cramér’s V correlation coefficient. The grey shading indicates the majority.
3.3.2B Family SES of the Thai Sample
The Highest Level of Parents’ Education
The majority of the Thai parents (55%) had completed higher education (holding university degrees). Furthermore, the highest level of parents’ education varied across school types (Φc = .38, p < .01). That is, the majority of OHEC parents (84%) as well as the majority of OPEC parents (77%) had university degrees. The majority of OBEC parents (53%) had completed higher vocational training or secondary education. Amongst all school types, the LAO school type had the largest proportion of parents who had completed only lower secondary education or primary education (54%). Details are shown in Table 3.15.
Table 3.15
Highest Level of Parents’ Education in the Thai Sample by School Type The highest level of parents’ education
(by the order of years attended)
School type Local
Admin (LAO)
Basic Education
(OBEC)
Higher Education
(OHEC)
Private Education
(OPEC)
Overview
None of educational degree 2 0 0 0 2
2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.40%
Primary education (Grade 6) 30 7 0 4 41
30.60% 5.20% 0.00% 2.50% 8.40%
Lower secondary education (Grade 9) 23 15 2 7 47
23.50% 11.30% 2.20% 4.10% 9.60%
Upper secondary education (Grade 12)/ lower vocational degree
23 32 7 12 74
23.50% 24.10% 7.90% 7.10% 15.20%
Higher vocational degree 9 23 5 15 52
9.20% 17.30% 5.60% 8.90% 10.70%
University degree (e.g. Bachelor’s degree, Master’s degree, Doctorate degree)
11 56 75 130 272
11.20% 42.10% 84.30% 77.40% 55.70%
Total 98 133 89 168 488
100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Φc with school type .38 p .00
Note. Φc = Cramér’s V correlation coefficient. The grey shading indicates the majority.
Home Literacy Resources
Overall, results revealed that the majority of Thai pupils had less than 100 general books at home (51%) and less than 50 children’s books at home (64%). Moreover, the number of general books as well as children’s book at home varied across school types (Φc general book = .34, p < .01; Φc children’s book = .34, p < .01). That is, the majority of OHEC pupils (85%) and the majority of OPEC pupils (65%) had more
than 100 general books in the household, whereas the majority of their peers from other school types had less than 100 general books (88% of LAO, 69% of OBEC). In addition, the majority of OHEC pupils (69%) and the majority of OPEC pupils (53%) had more than 50 children’s books at home, whereas their peers from other school types had less than 50 children’s books in the household (98% of LAO, 82% of OBEC). Details are shown in Table 3.16.
Table 3.16
Home Literacy Resources of the Thai Sample by School Type Number of books in household
School type Local
Admin (LAO)
Basic Education
(OBEC)
Higher Education
(OHEC)
Private Education
(OPEC)
Overview
General books
0–10 books 11 14 1 1 27
11.10% 10.60% 1.10% 0.60% 5.50%
11–25 books 41 33 4 13 91
41.40% 25.00% 4.50% 7.70% 18.60%
26–100 books 35 44 8 46 133
35.30% 33.30% 9.00% 27.20% 27.20%
101–200 books 5 21 15 28 69
5.10% 15.90% 16.90% 16.60% 14.10%
More than 200 books 7 20 61 81 169
7.10% 15.20% 68.50% 47.90% 34.60%
Total 99 132 89 169 489
100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Φc with school type .34 p .00
Children’s books
0–10 books 43 35 5 18 101
43.90% 26.70% 5.60% 10.60% 20.70%
11–25 books 42 44 7 28 121
42.90% 33.60% 7.90% 16.60% 24.90%
26–50 books 11 29 16 34 90
11.20% 22.10% 18.00% 20.10% 18.50%
51–100 books 0 16 24 36 76
0.00% 12.20% 27.00% 21.30% 15.60%
More than 100 books 2 7 37 53 99
2.00% 5.40% 41.50% 31.40% 20.30%
Total 98 131 89 169 487
100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Φc with school type .34 p .00
Note. Φc = Cramér’s V correlation coefficient. The grey shading indicates the majority.
Measurement Model of Family SES for the Thai Sample
First of all, the correlations among three indicators were examined (see Table 3.17). It was found that all correlations were statistically significant and ranged between .49 (p < .01) and .77 (p < .01). Bartlett’s test of sphericity yielded a χ² of
575.44 with df of 3 (p = .00), indicating that all off-diagonal elements of the correlation matrix were not equal to zero. The KMO of the correlation matrix was greater than .50 (KMO= .66), indicating that the three indicators correlated highly with each other. These findings, hence, confirmed that the data were appropriate for performing confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
Table 3.17
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlation Matrix for Three Indicators Measuring Family SES for the Thai Sample
Indicator 1 2 3
1. HEDU —
2. NBOOK .49** —
3. NCBOOK .51** .77** —
M 14.06 3.54 2.90
SD 3.84 1.28 1.43
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity = χ² (3, N = 494) = 575.44, p = .00, KMO = .66
* p < .05. ** p < .01.
The results of CFA (see Table 3.18) revealed that the measurement model yielded acceptable model fit indices [χ² (1, N = 494) = 1.22, χ²/df = 1.22, p = .27, CFI = 1.00, GFI = 1.00, SRMR = .01, RMSEA = .00]. All indicators were significantly important for the component of family SES. The factor loadings ranged between .56 (p < .01) and .92 (p < .01). Among the three indicators, the number of children’s book in the household yielded the highest factor loading.
Figure 3.2 shows the path diagram of the empirically validated measurement model. The FSES index of each participant was calculated by using the factor score. The factor score equation could be expressed as follows:
FSESThai Sample = .09(HEDU) + .30(NBOOK) + .65(NCBOOK).
Table 3.18
Standardized Parameter Estimates for the Measurement Model of Family SES for the Thai Sample
Indicator β SE t R2 Factor score
regression
1. HEDU .56** .04 12.96 .32 .09
2. NBOOK .84** .04 22.17 .70 .30
3. NCBOOK .92** .03 26.69 .85 .65
Model fit indices χ² (1, N = 494) = 1.22, χ²/df = 1.22, p = .27, CFI = 1.00, GFI = 1.00, SRMR = .01, RMSEA = .00
* p < .05. ** p < .01.
Figure 3.2. Empirically Validated Measurement Model of Family SES for the Thai sample
Table 3.19 presents a descriptive analysis of the family SES index (factor score) for the Thai sample. The index was categorized into three groups using percentile ranking. Cut-off points were estimated for three equal groups. The percentile rank of the index of less than 33.33 was classified as the lower middle group, whereas the percentile rank of the index ranging between 33.33 and 66.66 was classified as the middle group. The percentile rank of the index greater than 66.66 was classified as the higher middle group. As Table 3.19 shows, schools under the Local Administration Organizations (LAO) represented parents and pupils from the lower middle group, whereas parents and pupils recruited from schools under the Office of the Basic Education Commission (OBEC) and the Office of the Private Education Commission (OPEC) represented the middle group. Schools under the Office of the Higher Education Commission (OHEC) represented the upper middle group.
Table 3.19
Descriptive Analysis of the Family SES Index for the Thai Sample
School type n Min Max M SD Group belonged
Family
SES index Local Admin (LAO) 101 1.25 6.19 2.88 0.92 Lower middle
group Basic Education (OBEC)
134 1.49 6.37 3.66 1.13 Middle group
Higher Education (OHEC) 89 2.33 6.73 5.35 1.07 Upper middle
group
Private Education (OPEC) 170 2.06 6.73 4.86 1.24 Middle group
Total 494 1.25 6.73 4.22 1.44 Middle group
Range of percentile rank (PR) Range of factor score Interpretation
< 33.33 1.25–3.30 Lower middle group
PR 33.33–PR 66.66 3.31–4.99 Middle group
> PR 66.66 5.00–6.73 Upper middle group
3.3.3. Summary
The aim of this part of the analysis was to take a closer look at the characteristics of the German and Thai samples. Overall, the findings of descriptive analysis reveal that the general demographic characteristics of both samples were quite similar. That is, in both samples, the average age of pupils was 11 years, the average age of their mothers was 41 years, and the average age of their fathers was 44. There were approximately two children and four to five family members living in the household. The majority of pupils in both samples were boys, they were in 5th grade, and they lived with their parents. The majority of parent respondents in both samples were mothers.
The results of the descriptive analysis of family SES variables revealed, it was found that the highest level of parents’ education differed across the samples. The majority of German parents had completed vocational training or secondary education, whereas the majority of Thai parents held university degrees. In addition, the availability of general and children’s books in the household (home literacy resources) was also similar in both samples. That is, the majority of pupils had less than 100 general books and less than 50 children’s books at home.
The findings of CFA on the family SES revealed that two indicators of home literary resources in both samples were more important than the highest level of parents’ education. Furthermore, school types for both samples appeared to represent a variety of parent–child dyads from different social backgrounds. That is, the higher SES group is represented by the highest school track Gymnasium in