TL;DR: Sexism sucks.
It's true that the study is good news for fathers, but it's also very bad news for mothers. It comes from a 1994-95 Fertility and Family Survey of Switzerland--see Table 9--but the formatting on that page is pretty hard to read, so I'm reformatting it here for your ease of reading.
Abbreviations:
R=Regular religious practice
I=Irregular religious practice
NP=Non-practicing
Parents' Practice Children's Practice
Dad Mom R I NP Total
R R 32.8 41.4 25.8 100.0
R I 37.7 37.6 24.7 100.0
R NP 44.2 22.4 33.4 100.0
I R 3.4 58.6 38.0 100.0
I I 7.8 60.8 31.4 100.0
I NP 25.4 22.8 51.8 100.0
NP R 1.5 37.4 61.1 100.0
NP I 2.3 37.8 59.9 100.0
NP NP 4.6 14.7 80.7 100.0
So if these numbers hold generally, someone at the head of a religious community will have the best chance of creating a religiously-engaged next generation if he (I'll just assume it's a he) pours all his resources now into engaging the fathers of young children, while totally alienating their mothers. Driving the mothers away entirely while bringing the fathers in every week yields 44.2% of their children coming every week throughout their lives, and another 22.4% coming occasionally. Meanwhile, driving the fathers away entirely while making sure the mothers come every week yields only 1.5% of their children showing up every week and 37.4% coming occasionally. In fact, if Dad doesn't practice at all, the chances that the children will end up practicing their religion regularly is inversely related to the mother's practice: the more engaged the mother is, the less likely her children are to go to services every week as adults. This disturbing phenomenon becomes even easier to see if you reformat the data so that it holds Mom's activity constant while Dad's changes, like so:.
Parents' Practice Children's Practice
Mom Dad R I NP Total
R R 32.8 41.4 25.8 100.0
R I 3.4 58.6 38.0 100.0
R NP 1.5 37.4 61.1 100.0
I R 37.7 37.6 24.7 100.0
I I 7.8 60.8 31.4 100.0
I NP 2.3 37.8 59.9 100.0
NP R 44.2 22.4 33.4 100.0
NP I 25.4 22.8 51.8 100.0
NP NP 4.6 14.7 80.7 100.0
A little over a decade ago, somebody wrote an article about these numbers, drawing all the predictable misogynistic conclusions. If you have the stomach for that sort of thing, you can read it here
For the record, I think this phenomenon is much more easily explained by saying that if your culture celebrates "masculine" behavior and disparages "feminine" behavior, as ours does, and if your children think that what's masculine is whatever Dad does and what's feminine is whatever Mom does, then they will be more likely to try to be like Dad and not like Mom.