J Child Fam Stud DOI 10.1007/s10826-016-0370-4
ORIGINAL PAPER
The Relation Between Parenting Stress, Locus of Control and Child Outcomes: Predictors of Change in a Parenting Intervention Angela D. Moreland1 • Julia W. Felton2 • Rochelle F. Hanson1 • Carrie Jackson1 Jean E. Dumas1
•
Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016
Abstract This study examines the relationship among parent stress, parent locus of control, child disruptive behaviors, and child coping competence over the course of an 8-week parenting program. We predicted that parent stress and parent locus of control are correlated, decreases in parent stress and increases in parent internal locus of control predict increases in child coping competence, and decreases in child disruptive behavior and higher levels of internal parent LOC would relate to decreases in parent stress level. Measures and data from the original Parenting Our Children to Excellence study were used. The study found decreasing parent stress and increasing parent internal locus of control lead to positive changes in child outcomes, and decreasing parent stress changes their attributions of control. To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine changes in parent stress and locus of control, regarding child coping competence and child disruptive behavior, over time. Keywords Parenting Parent stress Parent locus of control Child disruptive behavior Child coping
Introduction Considerable research exists on the association between parent variables (e.g., parental control, criticism, and demandingness; low levels of praise for desired behaviors; & Angela D. Moreland
[email protected] 1
Medical University of South Carolina, 67 President Street – 2 South, Charleston, SC 29425, USA
2
Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, College Park, MD, USA
parent stress) and child outcomes (Cappa et al. 2011; Visconti et al. 2002; DuPaul et al. 2001; Stormshak et al. 2000). One of the most consistently identified variables associated with poor child outcomes is parenting stress (see Cappa et al. 2011; Crnic and Low 2002; Deater-Deckard 1998), defined by Abidin (1990) as the result of parents’ available resources being overwhelmed by the perceived demands of parenting. Parenting stress has been found to strongly correlate with child aggressive behavior and to influence poor treatment response in parenting interventions (Kashdan et al. 2004). It also has been significantly associated with negative child behaviors, such as general child externalizing problems (Williford et al. 2007), as well as a lack of positive child outcomes, such as child coping competence (i.e., ability to manage affective, social and achievement challenges; Begle et al. 2010). Literature on child coping competence theory suggests that children face a series of challenges, such as daily stressors and difficulties that require some kind of coping response (Moreland and Dumas 2008). Research has indicated that parent and child psychological stress are related, suggesting that parent and child coping in response to challenges may be also closely associated (Cappa et al. 2011). Researchers have also found significant links between parenting stress and maladaptive child coping strategies, which are related to detrimental emotional and behavioral problems (Podolski and Nigg 2001; Visconti et al. 2002). Parental locus of control has also been significantly associated with poor child outcomes. Locus of control (LOC; Rotter 1966), a derivative of social learning theory, refers to one’s beliefs regarding the extent to which one controls personal outcomes. Extended to parenting domains, parental LOC describes parents’ understanding of their own control over their child’s behavior, and can be measured on a continuum of the amount of control a parent
123
J Child Fam Stud
feels they have. Specifically, parents who have a high internal LOC believe that their parenting behaviors have a significant impact on their child’s development; whereas, parents with a low internal LOC believe that their child’s developmental course is shaped by forces outside of their control (Freed and Tompson 2011). The behavioral parent training literature suggests that the belief that one can positively affect their child’s behavior, rather than the environment or child variables, may increase the likelihood that a parent will engage in positive parenting practices taught in parenting interventions, as well as lead to increased belief in the efficacy of their parenting behaviors (Boggs, et al. 2005). Freed and Tompson (2011) conducted a prospective study examining parental locus of control and several correlates (i.e., maternal depression, maternal expressed emotion, and child internalizing and externalizing problems) and found that older age (of the child) and increased externalizing behavior predict lower levels of internal locus of control. In addition, studies suggest that parents with less internal LOC are more likely to report child behavior problems than those with a higher internal LOC (Berkovits et al. 2010; Hagekull et al. 2001). Internal parental LOC also has been associated with worse parent–child communication (Bugental et al. 1980) and punishing and inconsistent forms of discipline (Kokkinos and Panayiotou 2007)—all, of which, may serve to increase parental stress. Importantly, interventions aimed at decreasing child externalizing problems, increasing child coping competence, and preventing child physical abuse have shown simultaneous changes in parental LOC (Berkovits et al. 2010; Jouriles et al. 2010). No study, to our knowledge, has examined the relation between parental LOC, parental stress, and child coping competence (the ability to cope with affective, social, and achievement challenges), although past work has found a relation between coping competence and externalizing symptoms (Webster-Stratton and Lindsay 1999; Zeman et al. 2002). While a dearth of literature has supported a link between parenting variables (i.e., parental stress and locus of control) and poor child outcomes, less is known about the relationship between parental stress and locus of control or about the mechanisms of change in these variables. According to the cognitive theory of stress and coping (Folkman 1984), cognitive appraisal and coping are related to both stress and stress-related adaptation outcomes. Specifically, cognitive appraisal may influence whether or not a particular situation is labeled as stressful to the individual (Dunn et al. 2001). Applying this theory to parenting, one would posit a relationship between parental stress and locus of control, in that a parent’s perceived lack of control and/or ability to affect their child’s behavior (i.e., cognitive appraisal) may be related to the level of experienced parental stress. Findings on particular child
123
populations (i.e., children with intellectual disabilities, children with autism) have identified a link between parents perceived level of control and parenting stress, with less control being related to higher levels of stress (Hassell et al. 2005). Parent management training programs have been shown to be effective in directly targeting parental stress and parental locus of control in an effort to decrease negative parenting qualities and improve overall positive parent– child interactions, and thus, improve child outcomes (Cappa et al. 2011; Kaminski et al. 2008). Over the past 50 years, there have been an increasing number of studies and resources aimed at creating and implementing successful parenting programs (Kaminski et al. 2008). Indeed, many parenting interventions work directly with the parent in order to change parental attitudes and behaviors (e.g. The Incredible Years, Webster-Stratton 1992; Triple P, Bywater et al. 2009; Sanders 1999), thus contributing to a change in child behavior. Research indicates that many of these programs are efficacious in reducing child externalizing behaviors and increasing child coping competence (see Sandler et al. 2011 for review). Despite these findings, the mechanisms by which these programs elicit changes are still not well understood (Weersing and Weisz 2002). Recently, more attention has turned to predictors of change by which parenting interventions affect parent and child variables (e.g., decreased negative reciprocity and increased reinforcement of desired behaviors, encouragement of positive alternatives/activities, structural changes to the environment, positive involvement, skill encouragement, parenting skills and proactive parenting; Dishion et al. 2008; Gardner et al. 2006, 2007, 2010; Reid et al. 2004). Most of these studies have relied on secondary data analysis of randomized control studies and have looked at general skill building predicting changes in child behavior. Fewer have examined how interventions may affect parent attitudes and perceptions either directly or as mediators of child outcomes. Indeed, despite the consensus on the importance of reducing parental stress and increasing parental perceptions of control, particularly as they relate to child outcomes (e.g. child coping competence, child disruptive behavior), no study has examined how these variables change over the course of an intervention. The present study examined the bidirectional association between latent changes in parenting stress and LOC over the course of an 8-week parenting intervention designed to improve parenting skills and child coping competence, and reduce child disruptive behavior. Specifically, we sought to examine how the experiences of parenting-related stress and perception of parenting LOC affected one other. The content of the parenting program is aimed at teaching parents behavioral strategies to address children’s problem behaviors. We hypothesized that: (1) decreases in parenting
J Child Fam Stud
stress and increases in internal LOC over the course of the intervention would be correlated with subsequent decreases in child disruptive behavior and increases in child coping competence; and (2) as parents learned ways to control their child’s behavior, their stress levels would decrease, i.e. internal parenting LOC would drive decreases in parenting stress.
Method Participants All subjects (hereafter referred to as ‘‘parents’’) participated in the Parenting Our Children to Excellence (PACE) program at Head Start centers in Indianapolis, a large Midwestern city. Demographic data of the 610 parents involved in the program are displayed in Table 1. Of the 610 parents in the program, 566 mothers and 44 fathers participated. Parents ranged in age from 17 to 63
Table 1 Demographic information (n = 610) Variables Parent Sex (%) Male Female Age
7 93 31 ± 7
Race (%) Caucasian
46
African American
49
Other
5
Marital status (%) Married
47
Not married
53
Education (%) Less than high school
13
High school degree/GED
23
Some college College degree
35 29
Income (%) B$12,500
27
$12,500–$29,999
25
$30,000–$49,999
17
C$50,000
31
Child Sex (%) Male Female Age
52 48 4.4 ± 0.8
(M = 31.05, SD = 7.12). Forty-nine percent described their ethnicity as African American, 46 % as European American, and 5 % as Other (i.e., Asian, Native American, Hispanic, Biracial). Mean yearly household income was $26,572 (SD = $11,109), which is well below the median household income in Indianapolis. Approximately 1 in 2 families enrolled in the program qualified for subsidized childcare (M = .51, SD = .35). Each parent represented a distinct family and had primary caregiving and educational responsibilities for one target child between ages 3 and 6 at time of recruitment. Selection criteria included having a child between the ages of 3 and 6 enrolled in a participating day care center and an adequate level of English to participate in the program. Parents and their children did not have to meet specific criteria aside from those detailed above in order to participate. Procedures All procedures were approved by the Purdue University Institutional Review Board. Recruitment took place at 52 day care centers, with the help of Child Care Answers, an Indianapolis childcare provider training and licensing agency. To receive the program, centers had to serve: (1) a minimum of 35 families with children between the ages of 3 and 6 at time of recruitment, and (2) an economically and ethnically diverse population. All parents of children ages 3–6 were eligible to participate in PACE; families did not have to meet set income criteria and were not recruited to obtain predetermined percentages of participants from different ethnic groups. At each center, recruitment strategies included displaying poster advertisements in various locations, sending program registration forms to all eligible parents, and staffing a registration table twice a week for 4 weeks during which eligible parents were informed about the program and invited to participate. Poster advertisements summarized session content and stated that the program was free and that, at each session, parents and children would receive a free meal, free childcare, and $3 in cash to cover cost of transportation. Parents were given the opportunity to ask questions prior to providing informed consent, and enrolling in the program by turning in a competed enrollment form or attending the first session. Parents completed self-report assessment batteries at three time periods: pre-intervention (T1), post-intervention (T2), and at a 1 year follow-up (T3). All assessments were administered by trained research assistants. To circumvent problems associated with reading difficulties, measures were read aloud to each parent either at their home or at the daycare center. Parents provided informed consent before each interview and received $35 in cash for completing each assessment. To obtain pre, post, and follow-up
123
J Child Fam Stud
measures, trained research assistants implemented a standardized procedure to track all parents who enrolled in the program, whether they attended sessions or not (see Begle and Dumas 2011 for description). Intervention The PACE program (Begle and Dumas 2011) is an 8-week, manualized intervention composed of eight topic areas: (1) increasing child self-esteem, (2) developing children’s thinking skills, (3) effective praise, (4) setting limits, (5) sleep hygiene, (6) promoting good behavior, (7) increasing school-readiness, and (8) improving parent-support. PACE groups consisted of between 5 and 15 parents. Groups met for 2 h once a week. To address barriers to attendance and engagement, groups were offered free-of-charge, and parents were provided a meal, child-care, and money for transportation. Measures Parenting Stress Parent’s perceived level of stress was assessed by the Parenting Stress Index, Short-form (PSI/SF; Abidin 1995). The questionnaire is composed of 36 items rated on a fivepoint Likert-type scale ranging from ‘‘Strongly Agree’’ to ‘‘Strongly Disagree,’’ with higher scores indicating greater perceived stress. The scale demonstrates adequate reliability and validity (Abidin 1997). In the current study, the Cronbach’s alpha = 0.91. Locus of Control of Children’s Behavior Parental perceived controllability of their children’s behavior was measured by the Parental Locus of Control Scale (PLOC; Campis et al. 1986), which consists of five subscales, including parent efficacy, parent responsibility, child control of parent life, parent belief in fate/chance, and parent control of child’s behavior. For this study, we used only the Parental Control of Child’s Behavior subscale, consisting of 10 items, which has been shown to identify parents who are more likely to seek help for parenting problems (Robinson et al. 1991). Items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale, with responses ranging from ‘‘Strongly Disagree’’ to ‘‘Strongly Agree.’’ Higher scores indicated a less internal locus of control. In this study, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.77. Child Disruptive Behavior The Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI; Eyberg and Pincus 1999) is a 36-item measure of behavior problems.
123
We used the intensity subscale, which indicates the frequency of common child disruptive behavior on a Likerttype scale from ‘‘Never’’ to ‘‘Always.’’ Higher scores indicate more child disruptive behavior. Strong test–retest reliability and validity have been consistently demonstrated (Eisert et al. 1991; Funderburk et al. 2003). In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.91. Child Coping Competence The Coping Competence Scale—Revised (CCS_R; Moreland and Dumas 2007) is a 26-item, parent-report, measure comprised of three coping-related domains, including affective (the ability to manage emotional situations and demands), social (the ability to cope with interpersonal and social situations and demands) and achievement (the ability to manage goal-directed activities). The scale is rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from ‘‘Not at all’’ to ‘‘Very Much,’’ with higher scores indicating greater coping competence. The CCS_R has demonstrated high internal consistency and correlates significantly with other measures of adjustment in the preschool years (Moreland and Dumas 2007). In the current survey, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.91. Data Analysis The PSI, PLOC, CCS_R, and ECBI were given at pre(T1), post- (T2), and 1-year follow-up (T3) intervention. To examine the specific hypotheses, the current study utilizes the PSI and PLOC at T1 and T2 (to examine change in PSI and PLOC over the course of the intervention) and the ECBI and CCS_R at T3 (to examine subsequent child disruptive behavior and coping competence 1 year following intervention completion). To examine Hypothesis #1 (whether decreases in parenting stress and increases in PLOC over the course of the intervention would be correlated with subsequent decreases in child disruptive behavior and increases in coping competence), a series of hierarchical multiple regressions tested whether change in PLOC and PSI over the course of the intervention (T1–T2) predicted subsequent child disruptive behavior and child coping competence (see Table 4). In all regression analyses, covariates were entered in the first step (parent sex, race, gender, income level, marital status, and education level; child age and gender; daycare center; attendance in parenting program); baseline child disruptive behavior/child coping competence was entered in the second step; and change in PLOC/PSI was included in the third step. To examine Hypothesis #2 (ways in which PSI and PLOC changed over the course of the intervention), we created a structural equation model to examine how change
J Child Fam Stud
in one variable was associated with change in the other. MPlus version 6.1 (Muthen and Muthen 2010) was used to run the model, accounting for missing data using a maximum likelihood estimation method. In line with recommendations from Mcardle (2009), we created a latent change score model to examine the ‘‘the part of the score of [PSI at Wave 2] that is not identical to [PSI at Wave 1]’’ (McArdle 2009, p. 583). Latent change variables were extracted by estimating change between T1 and T2 variables while controlling for the auto-regressive paths between waves of data collection. This method has the further benefit of allowing us to directly examine the relation between the two latent difference scores.
Results Table 2 displays the descriptive statistics for parenting stress (PSI), parental locus of control (PLOC), child disruptive behavior (ECBI), and child coping competence (CCC). Table 3 displays the correlations among these measures. Prior to analyses, all variables were examined for normality. There was no significant skewness (i.e., values [2.0; Curren et al. 1996) or kurtosis (i.e., values [7.0; Curren et al. 1996). Consequently, normality was assumed. Results for Hypothesis #1 indicated that changes in both PLOC and PSI over the course of the intervention significantly predicted ECBI scores at follow-up (T3). Similarly, changes in both PLOC and PSI over the course of the intervention significantly predicted CCC scores at followup (T3). For Hypothesis #2, the model fit the data well (v2 = 0.75, df = 1, TLI = 1.00, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0.00, 90 % CI 0.00–0.10). The latent change variables were correlated -0.61, meaning that decreases in parenting stress were associated with greater internal
Table 2 Means and SDs of parent and child variables M
SD
T1 PSI
85.64
21.52
T2 PSI
82.18
20.22
T1 PLOC
25.61
5.14
T2 PLOC
26.36
4.53
T1 CCC T3 CCC
6.23 6.63
1.23 1.09
T1 ECBI
103.11
28.99
T3 ECBI
97.69
28.95
PSI Parenting Stress Inventory, PLOC parenting locus of control, CCC child coping competence, ECBI Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory, T1 pre intervention; T2 post intervention; T3 1 year follow-up
PLOC. Finally, the directional relation between these variables was examined using a nested model comparison approach, by which we examined changes in v2 associated with adding and constraining paths. The model in which latent change in LOC predicted latent change in PSI provided a significantly worse fit to the model; whereas including a path from the latent PSI change variable to latent LOC change improved the fit, suggesting that parenting stress was driving changes in parental locus of control (Table 4).
Discussion This study sought to further inform our understanding of the relations among parenting stress, parental locus of control, child disruptive behavior, and child coping competence. Increases in parenting stress and decreases in internal locus of control have each been linked to increases in negative child behaviors. Further, parenting stress has been inversely associated with child coping competence. The current study sought to replicate and extend these findings by examining how changes in stress and locus of control over the course of a parenting intervention may subsequently decrease child disruptive behavior and increase a child’s coping skills. A second goal was to investigate how stress and locus of control change over the course of an intervention. Results of this study indicate two important findings: first, decreasing parenting stress and increasing the internal locus of control do evince positive changes in child outcomes (supporting Hypothesis 1); and second, decreases in parenting stress drive changes in attributions of parenting control (in contrast to Hypothesis 2). This paper replicated the finding that decreasing parenting stress similarly decreases child disruptive behavior and increases child coping competence using the PACE program. It also demonstrated that higher levels of an internal locus of control are associated with decreased child behavior problems and increased child coping skills. While the program has been shown to be effective in both recruiting and engaging participants (Begle and Dumas 2011), this is the first study to suggest that the program may influence positive changes in specific parental perceived stress and control, and that these changes may be associated with improved child outcomes from pre- to postassessment (over the course of the intervention). Further, these analyses are the first, to our knowledge, to examine latent changes in parenting stress and locus of control over the course of an 8-week intervention. Modeling change using latent terms has several distinct advantages over using manifest variables (see Cole and Maxwell 2003; Curran and Hussong 2003). By creating an
123
J Child Fam Stud Table 3 Correlations between parent and child variables
T1 PSI T2 PSI
T2 PSI
T1 PLOC
T2 PLOC
T1 CCC
T3 CCC
T1 ECBI
.72**
T1 PLOC
-.65**
-.50**
T2 PLOC
-.45**
-.60**
.60**
T1 CCC
-.43**
-.39**
.39**
.29**
T3 CCC
-.36**
-.44**
.31**
.33**
.62**
T1 ECBI
.50**
.37**
-.57**
-.37**
-.54**
-.39**
T3 ECBI
.40**
.43**
-.43**
-.42**
-.39**
-.53**
.63**
PSI Parenting Stress Inventory, PLOC parenting locus of control, CCC child coping competence, ECBI Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory ** p \ .01
Table 4 Hierarchical multiple regression for parenting variable predicting child externalizing behaviors and child coping competence
T3 ECBI B
T3 CCC SE
b
B
SE
b
Parental locus of control Step 3 Center Parent gender
(R2 = 0.65***) 0.01 0.47
(R2 = 0.64***) 0.07 4.32
0.01 0.00
0.00 -0.17
0.00 0.16
-0.00 -0.04
Parent age
0.29
0.19
0.07
-0.01
0.01
-0.09
Parent ethnicity
3.51
2.78
0.07a
-0.18
0.11
-0.09b
Parent education
-0.85
1.21
-0.03
0.15
0.05
Marital status
-0.70
0.83
-0.04
-0.02
0.03
-0.03
Income
-0.48
0.44
-0.06
0.00
0.02
0.01
-0.08
0.08
-0.04a
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.52
0.04
0.58***
0.02
0.01
0.08*
Child gender
3.36
2.20
0.06 -0.05
Child ethnicity
-1.23
1.30
T1 ECBI/CCC
0.64
0.04
-0.69
0.28
Change in PLOC
a
0.63*** -0.10*
0.16*
Parenting stress Step 3
(R2 = 0.65***)
(R2 = 0.43***)
Center
0.01
0.08
0.01
0.00
0.00
-0.01
Parent gender
0.56
4.51
0.01
-0.16
0.17
-0.04
Parent age Parent ethnicity
0.24 5.48
0.19 2.95
0.06 0.11b
-0.01 -0.22
0.01 0.11
-0.08 -0.12*
-0.51
1.23
-0.02
0.14
0.05
Parent education
0.15**
Marital status
-0.41
0.84
-0.03
-0.03
0.03
Income
-0.57
0.44
-0.08
0.01
0.02
0.03
3.50
2.23
-0.07
0.09
-0.03b
Child gender
0.06a -0.07
-0.05
Child ethnicity
-1.74
1.39
0.02
0.05
0.02
T1 ECBI/CCC
0.62
0.04
0.62***
0.53
0.04
0.59***
Change in PSI
0.23
0.07
0.12**
0.03
0.01
0.15**
PSI Parenting Stress Inventory, PLOC parenting locus of control, CCC child coping competence, ECBI Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory * p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001 a
Significant at p \ .01 in Step 1
b
Significant at p \ .05 in Step 1
error-free change term we can examine the correlation between change in parenting stress and parental locus of control, while controlling for the tendency for respondents
123
to answer questionnaires similarly over time (i.e. the autoregressive path). Using this method we were able to show that there is a medium-effect size correlation between
J Child Fam Stud
parenting stress and locus of control (Cohen 1988). This relation is not surprising given that locus of control is an attribution of perceived stress; therefore, we would expect that these constructs would be significantly related. Importantly, this study also examined the temporal relation of this change over time. The final finding that decreases in parenting stress drove internal locus of control stands in contrast with our hypothesis regarding the temporal relation of these variables and suggests that changing a parent’s perception of his/her level of stress contributes to changing attribution of control, rather than the other direction. In support of this finding, Hamlyn-Wright et al. (2007) found that parental locus of control mediated the relationship between parental stress and pathology (specifically parents’ report of depression and anxiety), indicating increases in parenting stress effect pathology via its relation to changes in attributions regarding that stress. These findings have important implications in the design and implementation of future parenting programs. Specifically, they reiterate the importance of targeting parental perception and attributions of parent-related stress. This suggests that interventions should not only explicitly aim to decrease stress associated with raising children, but also to change parent’s attributions regarding these stressors, specifically by challenging parents to view their children’s behavior as under their own control. The directionality of these changes suggests, however, that it is important to target reduction of stressors to bring about re-appraisals of control. There are several limitations to the current study. First, although a latent change variable was created, latent construct variables could not be created because only one measure of each construct was available. Future research should utilize a multi-measure/multi-method approach to disentangle true change over time from measurement bias. Multiple measures of each construct would also allow for a fully latent model to test these hypotheses using error-free terms. Second, the current study did not have a control group, so conclusions cannot be drawn about the effects of the intervention. In the future, a randomized control trial could allow testing for true intervention effects. Finally, tests of mechanisms and temporal relations between variables are greatly enhanced by adding more assessment time points. The tests that could be run and thus, the conclusions, were limited because multiple measurements over the course of the intervention were not available. In the future, more assessment points could increase the understanding of the mechanisms by which changes in parenting-related variables bring about change in child outcomes. This study was one of the first to examine how changes in parenting stress and parental locus of control may be related to one another over the course of an 8-week parenting intervention and, further, how changes in these variables predicted decreased child disruptive behavior and
increased child coping competence. Future studies should continue to examine the mechanisms by which parenting interventions evince changes in child outcomes, in order to create, disseminate, and implement maximally effective interventions. Acknowledgments This study would not have been possible without the collaboration of Marsha Hearn-Lindsey, Director, Child Care Answers, Indianapolis, of all the parents and children who participated in various aspects of the research, and of staff members who played major roles in data collection and program implementation, including Amanda Mosby, Sharon Hampton, and Stephanie Wynder. Their help and encouragement are gratefully acknowledged. This study was supported by Grant R49/CCR 522339 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to the second author. The support and encouragement of Linda Anne Valle, Ph.D., and Michele Hoover is gratefully acknowledged. Compliance with Ethical Standards Conflict of interest
There are no conflicts of interest to report.
References Abidin, R. R. (1990). Parenting Stress Index, third edition: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources Inc. Abidin, R. R. (1995). Parenting Stress Index. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources Inc. Abidin, R. R. (1997). Parenting Stress Index: A measure of the parent–child system. In C. P. Zalaquett & R. J. Wood (Eds.), Evaluating stress: A book of resources (pp. 277–291). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education. Begle, A. M., & Dumas, J. E. (2011). Child and parental outcomes following involvement in a preventive intervention: Efficacy of the PACE program. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 32(2), 67–81. Begle, A. M., Dumas, J. E., & Hanson, R. F. (2010). Predicting child abuse potential: An empirical investigation of two theoretical frameworks. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 39(2), 208–219. Berkovits, M. D., O’Brien, K. A., Carter, C. G., & Eyberg, S. M. (2010). Early identification and intervention for behavior problems in primary care: A comparison of two abbreviated versions of parent–child interaction therapy. Behavior Therapy, 41(3), 375–387. Boggs, S. R., Eyberg, S. M., Edwards, D. L., Rayfield, A., Jacobs, J., Bagner, D., & Hood, K. K. (2005). Outcomes of parent–child interaction therapy: A comparison of treatment completers and study dropouts one to three years later. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 26(4), 1–22. Bugental, D. B., Caporael, L., & Shennum, W. A. (1980). Experimentally produced child uncontrollability: Effects on the potency of adult communication patterns. Child Development, 51(2), 520–528. Bywater, T., Hutchings, J., Daley, D., Whitaker, C., Yeo, S. T., Jones, K., et al. (2009). Long-term effectiveness of a parenting intervention for children at risk of developing conduct disorder. British Journal of Psychiatry, 195(4), 318–324. Campis, L. K., Lyman, R. D., & Prentice-Dunn, S. (1986). The Parental Locus of Control Scale: Development and validation. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 15(3), 260–267.
123
J Child Fam Stud Cappa, K. A., Begle, A. M., Conger, J. C., Dumas, J. E., & Conger, A. J. (2011). Bidirectional relationships between parenting stress and child coping competence: Findings from the PACE study. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 20(3), 334–342. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (2003). Testing mediational models with longitudinal data: Questions and tips in the use of structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112(4), 558–577. Crnic, K., & Low, C. (2002). Everyday stresses and parenting. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 2005: Practical issues in parenting (2nd ed., pp. 2243–2267). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Curran, P. J., & Hussong, A. M. (2003). The use of latent trajectory models in psychopathology research. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112(4), 526–544. Curren, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1, 16–29. Deater-Deckard, K. (1998). Parenting stress and child adjustment: Some old hypotheses and new questions. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 5(3), 314–332. Dishion, T. J., Shaw, D., Connell, A., Gardner, F., Weaver, C., & Wilson, M. (2008). The family check-up with high-risk indigent families: Preventing problem behavior by increasing parents’ positive behavior support in early childhood. Child Development, 79(5), 1395–1414. Dunn, M. E., Burbine, T., Bowers, C. A., & Tantleff-Dunn, S. (2001). Moderators of stress in parents of children with autism. Community Mental Health Journal, 37(1), 39–52. DuPaul, G. J., McGoey, K. E., Eckert, T. L., & VanBrakle, J. (2001). Preschool children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Impairments in behavioral, social, and school functioning. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 508–515. Eisert, D. C., Sturner, R. A., & Mabe, P. A. (1991). Questionnaires in behavioral pediatrics: Guidelines for selection and use. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 12(1), 42–50. Eyberg, S. M., & Pincus, D. (1999). Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory and Sutter–Eyberg student behavior inventory-revised: Professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Folkman, S. (1984). Personal control and coping processes: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(4), 839–852. Freed, R. D., & Tompson, M. C. (2011). Predictors of parental locus of control in mothers of pre- and early adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 40(1), 100–110. Funderburk, B. W., Eyberg, S. M., Rich, B. A., & Behar, L. (2003). Further psychometric evaluation of the Eyberg and Behar rating scales for parents and teachers of preschoolers. Early Education and Development, 14(1), 67–81. Gardner, F., Burton, J., & Klimes, I. (2006). Randomized controlled trial of a parenting intervention in the voluntary sector for reducing child conduct problems: Outcomes and mechanisms of change. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47(11), 1123–1132. Gardner, F., Hutchings, J., Bywater, T., & Whitaker, C. (2010). Who benefits and how does it work? Moderators and mediators of outcome in an effectiveness trial of a parenting intervention. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 39(4), 568–580. Gardner, F., Shaw, D. S., Dishion, T. J., Burton, J., & Supplee, L. (2007). Randomized prevention trial for early conduct problems: Effects on proactive parenting and links to toddler disruptive behavior. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(3), 398–406.
123
Hagekull, B., Bohlin, G., & Hammarberg, A. (2001). The role of parental perceived control in child development: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25(5), 429–437. Hamlyn-Wright, S., Draghi-Lorenz, R., & Ellis, J. (2007). Locus of control fails to mediate between stress and anxiety and depression in parents of children with a developmental disorder. Autism, 11(6), 489–501. Hassell, R., Rose, J., & McDonald, J. (2005). Parenting stress in mothers of children with an intellectual disability: The effects of parental cognitions in relation to child characteristics and family support. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 49, 405–418. Jouriles, E. N., McDonald, R., Rosenfield, D., Norwood, W. D., Spiller, L., Stephens, N., et al. (2010). Improving parenting in families referred for child maltreatment: A randomized controlled trial examining effects of project support. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(3), 328–338. Kaminski, J. W., Valle, L. A., Filene, J. H., & Boyle, C. L. (2008). A meta-analytic review of components associated with parent training program effectiveness. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 567–589. Kashdan, T. B., Jacob, R. G., Pelham, W. E., Lang, A. R., Hoza, B., Blumenthal, J. D., & Gnagy, E. M. (2004). Depression and anxiety in parents of children with ADHD and varying levels of oppositional defiant behaviors: Modeling relationships with family functioning. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33(1), 169–181. Kokkinos, C. M., & Panayiotou, G. (2007). Parental discipline practices and locus of control: Relationship to bullying and victimization experiences of elementary school students. Social Psychology of Education, 10(3), 281–301. McArdle, J. J. (2009). Latent variable modeling of differences and changes with longitudinal data. Annual review of psychology, 60, 577–605. Moreland, A. D. & Dumas, J. E. (2007). Evaluating child coping competence: Theory and measurement. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 17, 437–454. doi:10.1007/s10826-007-9165-y. Moreland, A. D. & Dumas, J. E. (2008). Categorical and Dimensional Approaches to the Measurement of Disruptive Behavior in the Preschool Years: A Meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 1059–1070. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2008.03.001. Muthe´n, L. K., & Muthe´n, B. O. (2010). Mplus user’s guide: Statistical analysis with latent variables: User’s guide. Muthe´n & Muthe´n. Webster-Stratton, C. (1992). Individually administered videotape parent training: ‘‘Who benefits?’’. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 16(1), 31–52. Podolski, C., & Nigg, J. T. (2001). Parent stress and coping in relation to child ADHD severity and associated child disruptive behavior problems. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 503–513. Reid, M. J., Webster-Stratton, C., & Baydar, N. (2004). Halting the development of conduct problems in head start children: The effects of parent training. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33(2), 279–291. Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (p. 753). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1–28. Sanders, M. R. (1999). Triple P-positive parenting program: Towards an empirically validated multilevel parenting and family support strategy for the prevention of behavior and emotional problems in children. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 2(2), 71–90.
J Child Fam Stud Sandler, I., Wolchik, S., & Schoenfelder, E. (2011). Evidence-based family-focused prevention programs for children. Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1), 299–329. Stormshak, E. A., Bierman, K. L., McMahon, R. J., & Lengua, L. J. (2000). Parenting practices and child disruptive behavior problems in early elementary school. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29(1), 17–29. Visconti, K. J., Saudino, K. J., Rappaport, L. A., Newburger, J. W., & Bellinger, D. (2002). Influence of parental stress and social support on the behavioral adjustment of children with transposition of the great arteries. Development and Behavioral Pediatrics, 23, 314–321. Webster-Stratton, C., & Lindsay, D. W. (1999). Social competence and conduct problems in young children: Issues in assessment. Journal of clinical child psychology, 28(1), 25–43.
Weersing, V. R., & Weisz, J. R. (2002). Mechanisms of action in youth psychotherapy. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43(1), 3–29. Williford, A. P., Calkins, S. D., & Keane, S. P. (2007). Predicting change in parenting stress across early childhood: Child and maternal factors. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology: An official publication of the International Society for Research in Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, 35(2), 251–263. Zeman, J., Shipman, K., & Suveg, C. (2002). Anger and sadness regulation: Predictions to internalizing and externalizing symptoms in children. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 31(3), 393–398.
123