Associations between Adolescents’ Interpersonal Relationships, School Well-being, and Academic Achievement during Educational Transitions

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Associations between Adolescents’ Interpersonal Relationships, School Well-being, and Academic Achievement during Educational Transitions © 2020 the Author(s) Published version Kiuru, Noona; Wang, Ming-Te; Salmela-Aro, Katariina; Kannas, Lasse; Ahonen, Timo; Hirvonen, Riikka Kiuru, N., Wang, M.-T., Salmela-Aro, K., Kannas, L., Ahonen, T., & Hirvonen, R. (2020). Associations between Adolescents’ Interpersonal Relationships, School Well-being, and Academic Achievement during Educational Transitions. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49(5), 1057-1072. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01184-y 2020 Journal of Youth and Adolescence https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01184-y EMPIRICAL RESEARCH Associations between Adolescents’Interpersonal Relationships, School Well-being, and Academic Achievement during Educational Transitions Noona Kiuru 1●Ming-Te Wang2●Katariina Salmela-Aro3●Lasse Kannas4●Timo Ahonen1●Riikka Hirvonen5 Received: 11 October 2019 / Accepted: 10 December 2019 © The Author(s) 2020 Abstract A youth’s ability to adapt during educational transitions has long-term, positive impacts on their academic achievement and mental health. Although supportive relationships with parents, peers, and teachers are protective factors associated with successful educational transitions, little is known about the reciprocal link between the quality of these interpersonal relationships and school well-being, with even less known about how these two constructs affect academic achievement. This longitudinal study examined how the quality of interpersonal relationships and school well-being worked together to affect academic achievement during the transition from primary school to lower secondary school. Data were collected from 848 Finnish adolescents (54% girls, mean age at the outset 12.3 years) over the course of sixth and seventh grade. The results support a transactional model illustrating the reciprocal associations between the quality of interpersonal relationships and school well-being during the transition to lower secondary school. As such, the presence of high quality interpersonal relationships promoted higher academic achievement through increased school well-being, whereas high school well-being promoted higher subsequent academic achievement through increased quality of interpersonal relationships. Overall, the results suggest that promoting learning outcomes and helping adolescents with challenges during educational transitions is a critical part of supporting school well-being and the formation of high-quality interpersonal relationships. Keywords Early adolescence ●School well-being ●Interpersonal relationships ●Academic achievement ●Educational transition Introduction Educational transitions from primary to lower secondary school pose potential risks for declining learning motivation and academic achievement (Eccles 2004). Understanding the mechanisms that protect adolescents from disengagement during critical educational transitions is important, because successful adaptation to the new educational context predicts the completion of higher education, better job prospects, and higher life satisfaction (for a review see Upadyaya and Salmela-Aro 2013). The stage–environment fit model suggests that a poor fit between changes in individual (e.g., an intensified need for autonomy; a heightened need for social acceptance and support when facing changes related to puberty) and contextual (e.g., stricter grading practices and increasingly distant relationships with teachers) levels may hinder adolescents’adaptation during educational transitions (Eccles 2004; Hill and Wang 2015). Supportive relationships with parents, school friends, and teachers constitute one possible protective factor that may facilitate successful educational transitions (e.g., Burchinal et al. 2008; Waters et al. 2014) because these positive relationships can promote students’feelings of relatedness and facilitate adaptation to a new school environment (Ryan *Noona Kiuru noona.h.kiuru@jyu.fi 1Department of Psychology, University of Jyvaskyla, P.O. Box 35, 40014 Jyväskylä, Finland 2University of Pittsburg, Pittsburgh, PA, USA 3Department of Educational Science, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland 4Faculty of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland 5School of Applied Educational Science and Teacher Education, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland 1234567890();,: 1234567890();,: and Deci 2017). Although some theoretical suggestions have been posited on how interpersonal relationships, school well-being, and academic achievement may be related (Sameroff 2009), little is known about the reciprocal dynamics between the quality of interpersonal relationships and school well-being, and how these dynamics contribute to academic achievement. A better understanding of how quality of interpersonal relationships and school well-being work together to affect academic achievement during educational transitions is crucial, since successful adaptation during the critical transitions has long-term impacts on youth’s academic and mental-health outcomes (Upaydyaya and Salmela-Aro 2013). Consequently, this study examined (a) the longitudinal associations between quality of interpersonal relationships and school well-being, and (b) the mediating mechanisms through which quality of interpersonal relationships and school well-being combine to predict students’subsequent academic achievement during the transition to lower secondary school. Adolescent School Well-being and Interpersonal Relationships School is a central developmental context in early adolescents’lives. In fact, school can be seen as adolescents’main workplace, characterized by similar features to those of adults, such as standard tasks and activities, deadlines, work responsibility, and feedback routines (Samdal 2017). Similar to the adult workplace, adolescents contend with experiences that cause anxiety or stress, hence affecting their well-being. School well-being plays a significant role not only in current and future well-being and health conditions (Bond et al. 2007; Samdal et al. 2004) but also in subsequent educational outcomes (Upadyaya and Salmela- Aro 2013). In this study, adolescent school well-being is defined as school satisfaction and stress that are thought to reflect key aspects of adolescents’emotional experiences of the school environment. School satisfaction describes the overall positivity of adolescents’school experiences and refers to the liking, enjoyment, and interest associated with school (Eccles 2004; Huebner and Gilman 2006); school stress is defined as students’experiences of school-related expectations and demands that exceed their inner resources and endanger their well-being (Salmela-Aro and Upadyaya 2014; Sonmark and Modin 2017). School well-being is inextricably linked to the school’s social context (Sameroff 2009). The most prominent interpersonal relationships during the adolescent years involve friends and teachers at school and parents at home (Eccles and Roeser 2011; Moore et al. 2018; Wentzel 1998). Interpersonal support may be paramount during the transition from primary school to lower secondary school, not least because this change coincides with multiple challenges and changes in the organization and social structure of the educational setting (Eccles 2004). Although adolescents start to establish independence from parents while concurrently investing more time and energy into peer relationships (Steinberg and Morris 2001), parents still serve as important role models, as adolescents build their identities and adjust to new roles and responsibilities (Castro et al. 2015). While peer and teacher relationships are subject to change during this transitional period, parental support tends to remain stable (see also Hill and Wang 2015). Nevertheless, school friends and teachers form primary sources of social support in the school context. Teachers can be seen as temporary attachment figures serving as a safe haven and a secure basis for students (Verschueren 2015). However, particularly peers make students’time at school enjoyable (Kindermann 2016) and adolescence is a developmental period characterized by the heightened desire to “fitin ”with peers (Hamm and Zhang 2010). School-based relationships with teachers and peers have been shown to influence school well-being, and this influence is stronger than that exacted by more distal macrolevel factors, such as income and social-background related factors (Ottová-Jordan et al. 2015; Park et al. 2012). Adolescents themselves have also identified social interactions within the school community as simultaneously being the most rewarding yet the most challenging part of their school careers (Pyhältö et al. 2010). Despite possible changes in these relationships during transitional periods, maintaining supportive relationships with school friends and teachers may play a pivotal role in adolescent school well-being and successful adaptation to a new educational context (see also Longobardi et al. 2016; West et al. 2010). Adolescents not only form relationships with teachers and peers, they also enter into a dynamic, reciprocal relationship with their school environment. The transactional model (Sameroff 2009) suggests that adolescent development is a product of the continuous dynamic interactions between adolescents and the experiences provided by their social settings (e.g., parents, friends, teachers). The core of the transactional model lies in the interdependent effects of the adolescent and the environment, which are depicted in the reciprocal associations between the adolescent and others. On the one hand, the extent of perceived social support (e.g., closeness and conflict) from parents, school friends, and teachers may promote or undermine adolescent school well-being (i.e., socialization effects). On the other hand, adolescent school well-being may also elicit reactions from significant others, thereby influencing the quality of interpersonal relationships (see also Kerr and Stattin 2003; Nurmi and Kiuru 2015). The associations between adolescents’school-based interpersonal relationships and school well-being have been well established in the literature (e.g., Baker et al. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 2003; Quin 2017; Wang and Eccles 2012). However, the extant research is mostly limited to studies that use crosssectional designs or examine only unilateral relationships (i.e., either the effect of interpersonal relationships on school well-being—socialization effects—or the effect of school well-being on interpersonal relationships—evocative effects), thus making it difficult to draw conclusions about the direction of associations. Hence, less is known about the reciprocal associations between adolescent school wellbeing and their perceived quality of interpersonal relationships, particularly during the transition from primary to lower secondary school. Along the same line, only a few studies have simultaneously investigated adolescents’ interpersonal relationships with different social agents (i.e., parents, friends, teachers) and the effects of both positive (e.g., closeness) and negative (e.g., conflict) aspects of these relationships. According to the attachment-based relationship model (see Pianta 2001; Verschueren 2015) closeness and conflict are considered key dimensions of relationship quality. Closeness is characterized by high levels of warmth and trustworthiness between adolescents and their significant others, whereas conflict refers to strained and conflictual interactions with a negative tone within the relationship. Interpersonal Relationships, School Well-being, and Academic Achievement Supportive interpersonal relationships function as an important resource for promoting students’academic skill development. According to the self-determination theory (SDT), supportive relationships may fulfill the adolescent’s basic psychological need for social relatedness (Deci and Ryan 2000). When this need is met, adolescents feel connected to their teacher and peers, which fosters their motivation to behave in socially appropriate ways and concentrate on learning. Interpersonal support may also reduce stress in demanding situations and increase adolescent’s focus on and interest in learning tasks (Kiuru et al. 2014; Wang and Eccles 2012). The transactional dynamics between the quality of interpersonal relationships and school well-being may also impact adolescents’academic performance, though no prior studies have investigated these mechanisms during the critical transition from primary to lower secondary school. Among the studies targeting different age groups, it has been shown that children’s classroom engagement is an important mediator between their feelings of relatedness to peers, parents, and teachers and their academic achievement (Wang et al. 2019). In another study, supportive interpersonal environments with peers, parents, and teachers were shown to promote primary school children’s academic achievement through increased taskfocused behavior (Kiuru et al. 2014). Similarly, the effects of adolescent perceptions of supportive relationships with peers and teachers and the sense of school belonging have been shown to predict later academic achievement via academic engagement (Zimmer-Gembeck et al. 2006). Although rarely examined, the experiences of school wellbeing might also impact the quality of interpersonal relationships (see also Nurmi and Kiuru 2015), which in turn may have consequences for adolescents’subsequent academic achievement. To the authors’best knowledge, no previous cross-lagged longitudinal studies have investigated whether perceived quality of relationships with parents, friends, and teachers together with school well-being predict adolescents’academic achievement during school transitions. A better understanding of these dynamics could provide researchers, educators, and policy-makers means for preventing negative academic development that tend to co-occur during this critical transition. Current Study To overcome the limitations of previous research, this study aimed to investigate transactional associations between interpersonal relationships, school well-being, and academic achievement during the critical transition from primary to lower secondary school (for schematic figure, see Fig. 1). The first research question was to examine the reciprocal relationship between adolescents’ perceived quality (i.e., closeness, conflict) of their relationships with parents, school friends, and teachers, and school well-being (i.e., school satisfaction, school stress). It was expected that (a) high levels of closeness to and low levels of conflict with parents, school friends, and teachers would predict increased school well-being, and that (b) high school well-being would predict increased closeness to and decreased conflict with parents, friends, and teachers. The second research question was to examine the extent to which the quality of relationships with parents, school friends, and teachers predicted adolescents’academic achievement through school well-being. It was hypothesized that high closeness to and low conflict with parents, friends, and teachers would predict improved academic achievement through increased school well-being. The final research question was to examine the extent to which school wellbeing predicted adolescents’academic achievement through the perceived quality of their interpersonal relationships. It was hypothesized that high school wellbeing would predict improved academic achievement through increased closeness to and decreased conflict with parents, school friends, and teachers. Journal of Youth and Adolescence Method Participants and Procedure This study analyzed data from a broader longitudinal study that follows a community sample of Finnish students in Central Finland across the transition from primary to lower secondary school. Finnish children start their education at kindergarten during the year of their sixth birthday. One year later, at age 7, they move to comprehensive school where they continue for the next 9 years. Comprehensive school divides into a lower level (grades 1–6) and an upper level (grades 7–9). In the Finnish school system, the transition from primary (grades 1–6) to lower secondary school (grades 7–9) marks the first remarkable transition for students. The transition to lower secondary school marks a change in the school environment including multiple changes, such as increased workload, often shifting to other school buildings, and always moving from a classroom teacher system to a subject teacher system with increased amount of new teachers and classmates. For the present study, primary schools were selected from areas where all the children transfer to particular secondary schools instead of dispersing to different locations (see also Mauno et al. 2018). The sample of this study consisted of 848 adolescents (457 girls, 54%) who were examined both before (i.e., grade 6) and after (i.e., grade 7) their transition to lower secondary school. These adolescents came from 56 school classes, ranging in size between seven and thirty pupils (M=21.1, SD =4.66). A total of 91% of adolescents (n= 770) filled in the questionnaires at all the three time points (n=827 in the fall of the sixth grade; n=802 in the fall of the seventh grade; n=793 in the spring of the seventh grade); 9% of adolescents (n=78) completed the questionnaires only once or twice out of three time points. At the beginning of the study, the participants were in the fall semester of the sixth grade, and their ages ranged from 11 to 13 (M=12.3 years, SD =4.36 months). The participants’mother tongue was Finnish in 98% of the cases. The sample was fairly representative of the Finnish general population in regard to demographic characteristics (Official Statistics of Finland 2016a,2016b). Data were collected during normal school days in the 2014–2016 academic years. Information on adolescent school well-being and perceived quality of interpersonal relationships was collected using questionnaires. All the questionnaires were administered by trained testers with two trained research assistants being present at all the test situations. Information about the participants’academic achievement (i.e., school grades) was obtained from the school registers. The study has been evaluated and approved by the ethics committee of the University of Jyväskylä (February 12, 2014). Fig. 1 Schematic model for the role of associations between quality of interpersonal relationships, school well-being, and academic achievement. Journal of Youth and Adolescence Measures School Well-being (Grade 6 Fall; Grade 7 Fall; Grade 7 Spring) The adolescents reported their school-related well-being using the items adapted from the Health Behavior in School-aged Children (HBSC) Study (Currie et al. 2012; see also Kämppi et al. 2012). School satisfaction was assessed using three items (e.g., “I enjoy going to school”; α=0.88–0.90), and school stress was measured using four items (e.g., “I have too much schoolwork”;α=0.78–0.81) on a 5-point Likert scale (1=completely disagree;5= completely agree). Closeness to and Conflict with Parents (Grade 6 Fall; Grade 7 Fall) The adolescents were asked to rate their experienced closeness (five items; e.g., “I have a close and warm relationship with my mother/father”) and conflict (six items; e.g., “I often argue with my mother/father”) with their mothers and fathers using the Child Parent Relationship Scale (CPRS; Driscoll and Pianta 2011; see also Mauno et al. 2018). The adolescents answered the questions on a five-point Likert scale (1=not true at all;5=completely true). The mean scores were calculated to measure the adolescents’perceived closeness to and conflict with their mothers (α=0.83–0.86; α=0.79–0.86) and fathers (α= 0.86–0.87; α=0.77–0.86), respectively. Closeness to and Conflict with School Friends (Grade 6 Fall; Grade 7 Fall) The adolescents were asked to rate their experiences of closeness (seven items; e.g., “I feel happy when spending time with my friend”;α=0.86–0.88) and conflict (four items; e.g., “My friend and I argue a lot”;α=0.75–0.79) with their best friends at school using the Friendship Qualities Scale (Bukowski et al. 1994). The adolescents answered these questions using a five-point Likert scale (1 =not true at all;5=completely true). Closeness to and Conflict with Teachers (Grade 6 Fall; Grade 7 Fall) The adolescents were asked to rate their closeness (five items; e.g., “I have a close and warm relationship with my teacher”;α=0.80–0.82) and conflict (six items; e.g., “I often argue with my teacher”;α=0.77–0.84) with their sixth-grade classroom teacher during the 2014 fall semester and with their seventh-grade literacy, math, and other teachers during the 2015 fall semester using the Student- Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS-Short Form; Pianta 2001; see also Jerome et al. 2008). The adolescents answered the questions on a five-point Likert scale (1=not true at all;5=completely true). The mean scores were calculated across these ratings to attain an estimate of the adolescents’overall perceptions of their closeness to and conflict with their teachers. Academic Achievement (Grade 6 Fall; Grade 7 Spring) Information on the students’grade point average was acquired from the school registers in the fall of the sixth grade and spring of the seventh grade. In Finnish schools, the possible grades range from 4 to 10, with 5 being the lowest passing grade and 10 the highest passing grade. Statistical Analyses The descriptive statistics were analyzed first (see Table 1). Then the measurement models were estimated by using confirmatory factor analysis separately for each variable, measuring school well-being (i.e., school satisfaction, school stress) and perceived quality of interpersonal relationships (i.e., closeness to and conflict with parents, school friends, and teachers). The measurement models of school well-being consisted of three time points (i.e., Grade 6 fall, Grade 7 fall, and Grade 7 spring), and the measurement models of the quality of interpersonal relationships consisted of two time points (i.e., Grade 6 fall and Grade 7 fall). In these measurement models, factor loadings of the same items were constrained to be equal across time to ensure invariance of the measurement across time, and the latent factors were allowed to correlate with each other. Next, the crosslagged structural equation models for school well-being, perceived quality of interpersonal relationships, and academic achievement were estimated. In these models, factor loadings of the same items were constrained to be equal across time to ensure invariance of the measurement across time. Finally, the direct and indirect effects were estimated with the full cross-lagged structural equation models for school well-being, quality of interpersonal relationships, and academic achievement. The statistical analyses were performed using the Mplus statistical package (Version 8; Muthén and Muthén 1998– 2018) with the COMPLEX approach to account for the clustered nature of the data (Muthén and Muthén 1998– 2018; see also Asparouhov and Muthén 2006; Muthén and Satorra 1995). For the indirect effects, the coefficient estimates, standard errors, and p values were reported using the COMPLEX approach. In addition, a bootstrapping procedure was used to confirm the indirect effects and their 95% confidence intervals (MacKinnon et al. 2004). Journal of Youth and Adolescence The proportion of missing data for the main study variables ranged from 2% to 18.2% (M=5.26; SD =3.91). The parameters of the models were estimated using fullinformation maximum likelihood (FIML) with nonnormality robust standard errors (maximum likelihood robust, MLR; Muthén and Muthén 1998–2018). The goodness-of-fit of the estimated models was evaluated using the following absolute goodness-of-fit indices: (a) χ2test, (b) root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), (c) standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), and (d) comparative fit index (CFI). The acceptable fit was defined as RMSEA ≤0.08 and CFI ≥0.90 (Browne and Cudeck 1993; Hoyle 1995; Hu and Bentler 1999). Results Measurement Models The measurement models were built using confirmatory factor analysis, enabling to take measurement error into account in the primary analyses. These models were built separately for school satisfaction, school-related stress, and for perceived closeness and conflict in relationships with parents, friends, and teachers. In these models, factor loadings of the same items were constrained to be equal across time to ensure invariance of the measurement across time. If required for model fit, some autocovariances of residuals of the same items were estimated. The measurement models, assuming measurement invariance across time, fit the data well: χ2(1–73) =0.67–258.80–59.62, ps = 0.00–0.79, RMSEAs =0.00–0.06, CFIs =0.94–1.00, and SRMRs =0.03–0.06. The standardized estimates of factor loadings for the key constructs were high (i.e., no factor loading was lower than 0.40). The fact that the models fit the data well with high factor loadings suggests good structural validity and item reliability. Structural Equation Models for Interpersonal Relationships and School Well-being The first aim of this research was to investigate the extent to which the adolescents’perceived quality of interpersonal relationships predict their subsequent school well-being and vice versa. Table 2presents the correlations between the latent factors in Grades 6 and 7 and academic achievement. As the aim was to get a distinct picture of the negative and positive aspects of the perceived interpersonal relationships, the cross-lagged SEM models for school well-being were carried out separately for relationship closeness and conflict variables. Closeness of Interpersonal Relationships and School Well-being The final model for the adolescents’perceived closeness of interpersonal relationships and school well-being fit the data well: χ2(1081) =2008.64, p<0.001, CFI =0.94, RMSEA =0.03, SRMR =0.05. After controlling for the stabilities of the constructs, the results illustrated that the cross-lagged paths from closeness to parents (β=0.07, SE =0.03, p= 0.049) and to school friends (β=0.10, SE =0.04, p= 0.006) in the fall of the sixth grade to school satisfaction in the fall of the seventh grade, and from closeness to parents in the fall of the seventh grade (β=0.11, SE =0.04, p= 0.002) to school satisfaction in the spring of the seventh grade were positive. Furthermore, the cross-lagged paths from closeness to parents in the fall of the sixth grade (β= −0.12, SE =0.05, p=0.011) to school stress in the fall of the seventh grade, and from closeness to parents in the spring of the seventh grade (β=−0.09, SE =0.04, p= 0.021) to school stress in the spring of the seventh grade were negative. Finally, cross-lagged paths from school satisfaction in the fall of the sixth grade to the subsequent perceived closeness to parents (β=0.15, SE =0.03, p< 0.001), friends (β=0.10, SE =0.04, p=0.007), and teachers (β=0.09, SE =0.04, p=0.033) in the fall of the seventh grade were positive. In addition, a significant indirect effect (estimate =0.023, SE =0.010, p=0.024) Table 1 Means and standard deviations of the study variables. nMSDRange of scale School satisfaction (gr6, fall) 835 3.39 0.90 1–5 School satisfaction (gr7, fall) 799 3.65 0.88 1–5 School satisfaction (gr7, spring) 781 3.34 0.94 1–5 School-related stress (gr6, fall) 835 2.50 0.81 1–5 School-related stress (gr7, fall) 799 2.46 0.84 1–5 School-related stress (gr7, fall) 781 2.77 0.86 1–5 Closeness to parents (gr6, fall) 838 3.95 0.83 1–5 Closeness to parents (gr7, fall) 801 3.74 0.92 1–5 Closeness to friends (gr6, fall) 833 4.13 0.72 1–5 Closeness to friends (gr7, fall) 790 4.17 0.71 1–5 Closeness to teachers (gr6, fall) 835 2.30 0.83 1–5 Closeness to teachers (gr7, fall) 792 2.25 0.75 1–5 Conflict with parents (gr6, fall) 839 2.04 0.73 1–5 Conflict with parents (gr7, fall) 801 1.88 0.78 1–5 Conflict with friends (gr6, fall) 833 1.91 0.74 1–5 Conflict with friends (gr7, fall) 788 1.85 0.75 1–5 Conflict with teachers (gr6, fall) 837 1.63 0.68 1–5 Conflict with teachers (gr7, fall) 792 1.40 0.56 1–5 Academic achievement (gr6, fall) 694 8.25 0.66 5–10 Academic achievement (gr7, spring) 768 8.14 0.89 5–10 gr6 6th grade, gr7 7th grade Journal of Youth and Adolescence Table 2 Correlations of latent factors of school well-being and perceived relationship quality with academic achievement. 1 234567891011 121314151617181920 1. School satisfaction (gr6, fall) – 2. School satisfaction (gr7, fall) 0.66a– 3. School satisfaction (gr7, spring) 0.60a0.67a– 4. School stress (gr6, fall) −0.65a −0.49a −0.41a– 5. School stress (gr7, fall) −0.52a−0.63a−0.38a0.62a– 6. School stress (gr7, spring) −0.45a−0.43a−0.54a0.53a0.72a– 7. Closeness to parents (gr6, fall) 0.34a0.33a0.26a−0.21a−0.26a−0.22a– 8. Closeness to parents (gr7, fall) 0.28a0.33a0.33a−0.23a−0.32a−0.31a0.59a– 9. Closeness to friends (gr6, fall) 0.35a0.34a0.21a−0.17a−0.15a−0.08 0.44a0.37a– 10. Closeness to friends (gr7, falll) 0.31a0.40a0.24a−0.18a−0.24a−0.20a0.36a0.48a0.67a– 11. Closeness to teachers (gr6, fall) 0.39a0.26a0.22a −0.24a −0.20a −0.15b0.26a0.41a0.19a0.30a– 12. Closeness to teachers (gr7, fall) 0.28a0.40a0.34a −0.14c −0.33a −0.26a0.47a0.35a0.31a0.19a0.48a– 13. Conflict with parents (gr6, fall) −0.28a −0.24a −0.20a0.37a0.31a0.26a −0.26a −0.35a −0.08c −0.08c −0.15b −0.07 – 14. Conflict with parents (gr7, fall) −0.22a−0.26a−0.26a0.34a0.42a0.25a−0.25a−0.48a−0.14b−0.20a−0.21a−0.13c0.58a– 15. Conflict with friends (gr6, fall) −0.17a−0.15b−0.08 0.28a0.19a0.19a−0.10c−0.13c−0.14a−0.15a−0.05 −0.06 0.40a0.36a– 16. Conflict with friends (gr7, fall) −0.20a−0.33a−0.20a0.32a0.37a0.32a−0.23a−0.24a−0.19a−0.28a−0.15a−0.09c0.34a0.48a0.54a– 17. Conflict with teachers (gr6, fall) −0.43a−0.29a−0.24a0.40a0.32a0.25a−0.18a−0.22a−0.18a−0.22a−0.23a−0.10c0.53a0.35a0.28a0.24a– 18. Conflict with teachers (gr7, fall) −0.37a−0.44a−0.32a0.41a0.50a0.32a−0.26a−0.28a−0.26a−0.25a−0.15a−0.02 0.33a0.54a0.22a0.42a0.50a– 19. Ac. achievement (gr6, fall) 0.30a0.32a0.25a−0.32a−0.22a−0.21a0.13b0.16a0.25a0.19a0.05 0.05 −0.13a−0.07 −0.17a−0.18a−0.34a−0.24a– 20. Ac. achievement (gr7, spring) −40a0.40a0.38a −0.33a −0.30a −0.32a0.18a0.23a0.29a0.25a0.10c −0.11c −0.16a −0.15a −0.14a −0.20a −0.41a −0.28a0.84a– gr grade ap< 0.05; bp< 0.01; cp< 0.001 Journal of Youth and Adolescence was detected from high school satisfaction in the fall of the sixth grade to increased school satisfaction in the spring of the seventh grade through increased closeness to parents in the fall of the seventh grade. Similarly, an indirect effect (estimate =−0.014, SE =0.006, p=0.024) from high school satisfaction in the fall of the sixth grade to decreased school stress in the spring of the seventh grade through increased closeness to parents in the fall of the seventh grade was significant. Conflict in Interpersonal Relationships and School Well-being The final model for the adolescents’perceived conflict in interpersonal relationships and school well-being fit the data well: χ2(909) =1394.80, p< 0.001, CFI =0.97, RMSEA = 0.03, SRMR =0.05. The cross-lagged path from conflict with teachers in the fall of the sixth grade to school stress in the fall of the seventh grade (β=0.08, SE =0.04, p= 0.037) was positive, whereas the cross-lagged path from conflict with parents in the fall of the seventh grade to school satisfaction in the spring of the seventh grade (β= −0.07, SE =0.03, p=0.024) was negative. Similarly, the cross-lagged paths from school stress in the fall of the sixth grade to the subsequent perceived conflict with parents (β =0.15, SE =0.04, p< 0.001), friends (β=0.19, SE =0.03, p< 0.001) and teachers (β=0.25, SE =0.04, p< 0.001) in the fall of the seventh grade were positive. In addition, a significant indirect effect (estimate =0.019, SE =0.008, p =0.017) was detected from low school satisfaction in the fall of the sixth grade to decreased school satisfaction in the spring of the seventh grade through increased conflict with parents in the fall of the seventh grade. Similarly, an indirect effect (estimate =−0.014, SE =0.007, p=0.047) from high school stress in the fall of the sixth grade to decreased school satisfaction in the spring of the seventh grade through increased conflict with parents in the fall of the seventh grade was significant. Structural Equation Models for Interpersonal Relationships, School Well-being, and Academic Achievement As the final step, the participants’academic achievement was incorporated into the previously estimated models for perceived quality of interpersonal relationships and school well-being. Models for Closeness The final combined SEMs for closeness in interpersonal relationships, school well-being, and academic achievement is showninFig.2. The results for cross-lagged paths between closeness in interpersonal relationships and school well-being were same than those reported in the previous models (see Fig. 2). In addition, two significant cross-lagged effects for academic achievement were found. First, high academic achievement predicted the adolescents’increased school satisfaction in the fall of the seventh grade. Second, high school satisfaction in the fall of the seventh grade predicted the adolescents’increased academic achievement in the spring of the seventh grade. Three statistically significant indirect effects were detected as well (see Table 3): the adolescents’high closeness to their parents and friends in the fall of the sixth grade indirectly promoted the subsequent academic achievement in the spring of the seventh grade through increased school satisfaction in the fall of the seventh grade. In addition, adolescents’high school satisfaction in the fall of the sixth grade indirectly promoted the subsequent academic achievement in the spring of the seventh grade through increased closeness to parents in the fall of the seventh grade. Models for Conflict The final combined SEMs for conflict in interpersonal relationships, school well-being, and academic achievement is showninFig.3. The results for cross-lagged paths between conflict in interpersonal relationships and school well-being were same than those reported in the previous models (see Fig. 3). In addition, four significant cross-lagged effects for academic achievement were found. The first two effects were same than in the model for closeness: high academic achievement predicted the adolescents’increased school satisfaction in the fall of the seventh grade and high school satisfaction in the fall of the seventh grade predicted the adolescents’increased academic achievement in the spring of the seventh grade. In addition, low academic achievement predicted the adolescents’increased conflict with teachers in the fall of the seventh grade. Finally, increased conflict with teachers in the fall of the seventh grade predicted the adolescents decreased academic achievement in the spring of the seventh grade. Also one statistically significant indirect effect was found (see Table 3): school stress in the fall of the sixth grade indirectly hindered subsequent academic achievement in the spring of the seventh grade through increased conflict with teachers immediately after their transition in the fall of the seventh grade. Additional Analyses As additional analyses, the similar analyses reported above were also carried out separately for each type of relationship (school friends, parents, and teachers) without controlling for the effects of other types of relationships. The main pattern for the transactional associations between quality of interpersonal relationships and school well- Journal of Youth and Adolescence environment and indicators of subjective health in Finnish comprehensive schools. Children & Society,33, 488–502. https://doi. org/10.1111/chso.12334. Mauno, S., Hirvonen, R., & Kiuru, N. (2018). Children’s life satisfaction: The roles of mothers’work engagement and recovery from work. Journal of Happiness Studies,19, 1379–1393. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10902-017-9878-6. Moore, G.F., Cox, R., Evans, R.E., Hallingberg, B., Hawkings, J., Littlecott, H.J., et al. (2018). School, peer and family relationships and Aadolescent substance use, subjective wellbeing and mental health symptoms in Wales: a cross sectional study. Child Indicators Research,11, 1951–1965. Muthén, L., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2018). Mplus Version 8 & Mplus users’guide, Los Angeles, CA: Muthén and Muthén. http://www. statmodel.com. Muthén, B., & Satorra, A. (1995). Complex sample data in structural equation modeling. Sociological Methodology,25, 267–316. https://doi.org/10.2307/271070. Nurmi, J.-E., & Kiuru, N. (2015). Students’evocative impact on teacher instruction and teacher-child relationships: Theoretical background and an overview of previous research. International Journal of Behavioral Development,39, 445–457. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0165025415592514. Official Statistics of Finland. (2016a). Educational structure of population (e-publication). Helsinki, Finland: Statistics Finland. www.stat.fi/til/ vkour/2014/vkour_2014_2015-11-05_tie_001_en.html. Official Statistics of Finland. (2016b). Families. Appendix Table 3: families with underage children by type in 1950–2014 (e-pub- lication). Helsinki, Finland: Statistics Finland. www.stat.fi/til/ perh/2014/perh_2014_2015-05-28_tau_003_en.html. Ottová-Jordan, V., Smith, O. R. F., Augustine, L., Gobina, I., Rathmann, K., & Torsheim, T., et al. (2015). Trends in health complaints from 2002 to 2010 in 34 countries and their association with health behaviours and social context factors at individual and macro-level. European Journal of Public Health,25(Supplement 2), 83–89. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckv033. Park, S., Holloway, S. D., Arendtsz, A., Bempechat, J., & Li, J. (2012). What makes students engaged in learning? A time-use study of within- and between-individual predictors of emotional engagement in low-performing high schools. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,41, 390–401. Pianta, R. C. (2001). The student–teacher relationship scale. Odessa, FL: Personality Assessment Research. Pina, A. A., & Gonzales, N. A. (2014). The role of theory and culture in child and adolescent prevention science. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology,43, 397–399. Pyhältö, K., Soini, T., & Pietarinen, J. (2010). Pupils’pedagogical well-being in comprehensive school—significant positive and negative school experiences of Finnish ninth graders. European Journal of Psychology of Education,25, 207–221. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10212-010-0013-x. Pomerantz, E. M., & Eaton, M. M. (2001). Maternal intrusive support in the academic context: transactional socialization processes. Developmental Psychology,37, 174–186. Quin, D. (2017). Longitudinal and contextual associations between teacher-student relationships and student engagement: A systematic review. Review of Educational Research,87, 345–387. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York, NY: Guilford Press Publishing. Salmela-Aro, K., Kiuru, N., Leskinen, E., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2009). School-burnout inventory (SBI) –reliability and Validity. European Journal of Psychological Assessment,25,48–57. Salmela-Aro, K., & Upadyaya, K. (2014). School burnout and engagement in the context of demands–resources model. British Journal of Educational Psychology,84, 137–151. Samdal, O. (2017). School Health Promotion. In: S. R. Quah & W. C. Cockerham (Eds). The international encyclopedia of public health. 2nd edition. vol. 6. Oxford: Academic Press. Samdal, O., Dür, W., & Freeman, J. (2004). School. In C. Currie, C. Roberts, A. Morgan, R. Smith, W. Settertobulte & O. Samdal et al. (Eds), Young people´s health in context: international report from the HBSC 2001/02 survey. Health policy for children and adolescents (pp. 42–52). Copenhagen: World Health Organization. Sameroff, A. (2009). The transactional model of development: How children and contexts shape each other. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Sameroff, A. (2010). A unified theory of development: a dialectic integration of nature and nurture. Child Development,81,6–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01378.x. Silinskas, G., Kiuru, N., Aunola, K., Lerkkanen, M.-K., & Nurmi, J.- E. (2015). The developmental dynamics of children’s academic performance and mothers’homework-related affect and practices. Developmental Psychology,51, 419–433. https://doi.org/10. 1037/a0038908. Smetana, J. D. (1995). Parenting styles and conceptions of parental authority during adolescence. Child Development,66, 299–316. Sonmark, K., & Modin, B. (2017). Psychosocial work environment in school and students’somatic health complaints: an analysis of buffering resources. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health,45, 64–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494816677116. Spilt, J. L., Hughes, J. N., Wu, J.-Y., & Kwok, I.-M. (2012). Dynamics of teacher-student relationships: Stability and change across elementary school and the influence on children’s academic success. Child Development,83, 1180–1195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1467-8624.2012.01761.x. Steinberg, L., & Morris, A. S. (2001). Adolescent development. Annual Review of Psychology,52,83–110. Upadyaya, K., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2013). Development of school engagement in association with academic success and well-being in varying social contexts: a review of empirical research. European Psychologist,18, 136–147. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016- 9040/a000143. Verschueren, K. (2015). Middle childhood teacher–child relationships: Insights from an attachment perspective and remaining challenges. In G. Bosmans & K. A. Kerns (Eds), Attachment in middle childhood: theoretical advances and new directions in an emerging field. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 148, (77–91). Virtanen, T. E., Vasalampi, K., Kiuru, N., Lerkkanen, M.-K., & Poikkeus, A.-M. (2019). The role of perceived social support as a contributor to the successful transition from primary to lower secondary school. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research.https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2019.1639816. Wang, M.-T., & Brinkworth, M., & Eccles, J. (2013). Moderating effects of teacher–student relationship in adolescent trajectories of emotional and behavioral adjustment. Developmental Psychology,49, 690–705. Wang, M.-T., Degol, J. L., & Henry, D. A. (2019). An integrative development-in-sociocultural-context model for children’s engagement in learning. American Psychologist,74, 1086–1102. Wang, M.-T., & Eccles, J. S. (2012). Social support matters: Longitudinal effects of social support on three dimensions of school engagement from middle to high school. Child Development,83, 877–895. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01745.x. Wang, M.-T., Dishion, T. J., Stormshak, E. A., & Willett, J. (2011). Trajectories of family management practices and early adolescent behavioral outcomes. Developmental Psychology,47, 1324–1341. Wang, M.-T., Kiuru, N., Degol, J., & Salmela-Aro., K. (2018). Friends, academic achievement, and school engagement during adolescence: A social network approach to peer influence and Journal of Youth and Adolescence selection effects. Learning and Instruction,58, 148–160. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.06.003. Waters, S., Lester, L., & Cross, D. (2014). How does support from peers compare with support from adults as students transition to secondary school? Journal of Adolescent Health,54, 543–549. Wentzel, K. (1998). Social relationships and motivation in middle school: the role of parents, teachers, and peers. Journal of Educational Psychology,90, 202–209. West, P., Sweeting, H., & Young, R. (2010). Transition matters: pupils ´ experiences of the primary-secondary school transition in the West of Scotland and consequences for well-being and attainment. Research Papers in Education,25,21–50. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/02671520802308677. Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Chipuer, H. M., Hanisch, M., Creed, P. A., & McGregor, L. (2006). Relationships at school and stageenvironment fit as resources for adolescent engagement and achievement. Journal of Adolescence,29, 911–933. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.04.008. Noona Kiuru Department of Psychology, University of Jyvaskyla, Finland. Noona Kiuru is an Associate Professor at the University of Jyväskylä. She is interested in youth development, well-being, and social relationships, large-scale interventions, and longitudinal studies. Ming-Te Wang University of Pittsburg, USA. Ming-Te Wang is a Professor of Psychology and Education at the University of Pittsburgh. He received his doctorate in Human Development and Psychology from Harvard University. His major research interests include achievement motivation and engagement, school climate and parental socialization, diversity, opportunity, and equity, stereotype threat and learning, and psychosocial intervention. Katariina Salmela-Aro Department of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland. Katariina Salmela-Aro is a Professor at the University of Helsinki. Her research interests include student engagement and burnout, longitudinal and situational approaches and related interventions. Lasse Kannas Faculty of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Jyväskylä, Finland. Lasse Kannas is an Emeritus Professor at the University of Jyväskylä. His research interests include students’wellbeing, school perceptions, health behaviors and school health promotion. Timo Ahonen Department of Psychology, University of Jyvaskyla, Finland. Timo Ahonen is an Emeritus Professor at the University of Jyväskylä. He is interested in learning and learning disabilities, clinical child neuropsychology, and developmental psychology. Riikka Hirvonen School of Applied Educational Science and Teacher Education, University of Eastern Finland, Finland. Riikka Hirvonen is a Senior Researcher at the University of Eastern Finland. Her research interests include students’well-being, motivation, and learning-related emotions and behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence