Longitudinal Measurement Invariance of the Parenting Sense of Competence (PSoC): Evidence to Question Its Use?

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q2 PEDIATRICS Child Care Health and Development Pub Date : 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1111/cch.70030
Nicole Gridley, Kate Mooney, Sarah Blower, G J Melendez-Torres, Vashti Berry, Tracey Bywater
{"title":"Longitudinal Measurement Invariance of the Parenting Sense of Competence (PSoC): Evidence to Question Its Use?","authors":"Nicole Gridley, Kate Mooney, Sarah Blower, G J Melendez-Torres, Vashti Berry, Tracey Bywater","doi":"10.1111/cch.70030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study investigated the factor structure of the parenting sense of competence (PSoC), a measure of parenting self-efficacy, in a sample of parents recruited when their infants were under 2 months old. Due to the lack of longitudinal analysis of the PSoC's factor structure over time, the study sought to establish if the published two-factor structure was consistent over an 18-month period.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data collected from 536 parents who had participated in a randomised controlled trial of universal proportionate parenting support, delivered in five sites in England, were subject to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>CFA revealed that a three-factor model was the best fit for the data. Longitudinal measurement invariance testing examined the stability of the three-factor model across an 18-month period. The results suggest that while the PSoC appeared to have configural variance, the metric and scalar variance were not supported. PSoC may be unstable across time and might be unreliable as a measure of parenting competence in parents of infants.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings are particularly salient for researchers and clinicians who are utilising the PSoC as a measure of change in routine practice or as part of evaluations of interventions. Further investigation of individual items is needed to refine the PSoC and improve its psychometric validity. Additional analyses are also needed to establish the invariance of the measure across different groups (age, sex, ethnicity and socioeconomic status).</p>","PeriodicalId":55262,"journal":{"name":"Child Care Health and Development","volume":"51 1","pages":"e70030"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11684975/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Child Care Health and Development","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.70030","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This study investigated the factor structure of the parenting sense of competence (PSoC), a measure of parenting self-efficacy, in a sample of parents recruited when their infants were under 2 months old. Due to the lack of longitudinal analysis of the PSoC's factor structure over time, the study sought to establish if the published two-factor structure was consistent over an 18-month period.

Methods: Data collected from 536 parents who had participated in a randomised controlled trial of universal proportionate parenting support, delivered in five sites in England, were subject to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

Results: CFA revealed that a three-factor model was the best fit for the data. Longitudinal measurement invariance testing examined the stability of the three-factor model across an 18-month period. The results suggest that while the PSoC appeared to have configural variance, the metric and scalar variance were not supported. PSoC may be unstable across time and might be unreliable as a measure of parenting competence in parents of infants.

Conclusion: These findings are particularly salient for researchers and clinicians who are utilising the PSoC as a measure of change in routine practice or as part of evaluations of interventions. Further investigation of individual items is needed to refine the PSoC and improve its psychometric validity. Additional analyses are also needed to establish the invariance of the measure across different groups (age, sex, ethnicity and socioeconomic status).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
5.30%
发文量
136
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Child: care, health and development is an international, peer-reviewed journal which publishes papers dealing with all aspects of the health and development of children and young people. We aim to attract quantitative and qualitative research papers relevant to people from all disciplines working in child health. We welcome studies which examine the effects of social and environmental factors on health and development as well as those dealing with clinical issues, the organization of services and health policy. We particularly encourage the submission of studies related to those who are disadvantaged by physical, developmental, emotional and social problems. The journal also aims to collate important research findings and to provide a forum for discussion of global child health issues.
期刊最新文献
Implications and Identification of Specific Learning Disability Using Weighted Ensemble Learning Model. Longitudinal Measurement Invariance of the Parenting Sense of Competence (PSoC): Evidence to Question Its Use? Awareness, Acceptability and Factors Influencing Malaria Vaccine Uptake Among Caregivers of Children Under 5 in South-Western Nigeria. Development of a Self-Care Autonomy in Health Scale for Late Adolescents Longitudinal Associations Between Movement Behaviours and Development Among Infants Using Compositional Data Analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1