Perceived Barriers, Parental Attitudes, and Interactive Parent–Child Shared Reading: A PLS-SEM Study in Taiwan

Parent–child shared reading supports early language and literacy development, but favorable beliefs do not always translate into sustained, high-quality interaction. This cross-sectional study examined how four perceived barriers—time constraints, resource limitations, uncertainty about reading methods, and digital media interference—were associated with parents’ interactive shared-reading behavior and whether barriers were indirectly associated with behavior through parental attitudes. The analysis was informed by expectancy–value reasoning, with the barrier dimensions treated as cost-like constraints rather than as direct measures of the expectancy–value cost construct. Survey data from 309 parents and primary caregivers of preschool children in Taiwan were analyzed using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) with a two-stage reflective–formative higher-order construct. Parents endorsed shared reading strongly (M = 3.41 on a four-point scale) but reported more moderate interactive practice (M = 2.71). Perceived barriers were associated with less favorable attitudes (β = −0.349, p < 0.001) and lower interactive shared-reading behavior (β = −0.407, p < 0.001), whereas attitudes were positively associated with behavior (β = 0.369, p < 0.001). The model explained 40.6% of the variance in behavior. The indirect association through attitudes was significant (β = −0.129, 95% CI [−0.193, −0.081]), while the direct association remained significant. Exploratory dimension-level analyses showed direct and indirect associations for time and method barriers, a direct association for digital media barriers, and no unique association for resource barriers. Method barriers were among the least strongly endorsed constraints yet showed the strongest association with behavior, suggesting that practical guidance in interactive reading, alongside time scaffolding, merits testing. Because the design is cross-sectional, the reported indirect effect is interpreted only as a contemporaneous statistical association and does not establish temporal ordering or causal mediation.