治疗组与非治疗组父母自我报告与观察教养的关系

Rabab Zahidi, Jessica Rogers, Wendy P Guastaferro, D. Whitaker
{"title":"治疗组与非治疗组父母自我报告与观察教养的关系","authors":"Rabab Zahidi, Jessica Rogers, Wendy P Guastaferro, D. Whitaker","doi":"10.20429/jgpha.2019.070217","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Most maltreatment, by definition, is a failure of parenting. However, even without maltreatment, poor parenting can lead to a variety of negative outcomes including social, emotional and behavioral problems. Given that parenting plays a key role in child outcomes, one of the foci of interventions are parenting programs. Interventions for parents must be evaluated using standardized assessment tools, which leads to an important question; how can we best assess parenting? Observational methods (observing a parent and child interact) are often regarded as the gold standard in the assessment of parental behaviors but are cumbersome to administer. Self-reports of parenting behaviors are the most commonly used measure due to ease of administration, but their validity may be questioned. The goal of this study is to examine the relationship between three observational measures of parenting and two self-report measures. Methods: Participants (n=133) were either parents who were receiving treatment at Metro-Atlanta drug courts or other caregivers. All participants completed self-report measures of parenting, and videotaped interaction task with a child. Videos were coded for a variety of behaviors, and two of those behaviors (affection and involvement) matched constructs that parents reported on in a self-report battery. Results: Correlations between selfreport and observational measures for the constructs affection and involvement for the whole sample ranged from r = -.03 to.06 for affection, and r = -.05 to .08 for involvement, but none were statistically significant. The relationship between self-report and observed parenting by adult type and child age was also examined. However, none of the correlations were statistically significant. Conclusions: Although there were no significant correlations found between self-report and observational measures, existing research suggests that self-reports are not interchangeable with observational methods. In future studies, constructs used to compare self-reports and observational methods should examine how each relates to the outcomes. Furthermore, CAIC (observational tool) should also be examined in further detail.","PeriodicalId":73981,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Georgia Public Health Association","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Relationship Between Self- Report and Observed Parenting Among Parents in Treatment Versus Not in Treatment Populations\",\"authors\":\"Rabab Zahidi, Jessica Rogers, Wendy P Guastaferro, D. Whitaker\",\"doi\":\"10.20429/jgpha.2019.070217\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Most maltreatment, by definition, is a failure of parenting. However, even without maltreatment, poor parenting can lead to a variety of negative outcomes including social, emotional and behavioral problems. Given that parenting plays a key role in child outcomes, one of the foci of interventions are parenting programs. Interventions for parents must be evaluated using standardized assessment tools, which leads to an important question; how can we best assess parenting? Observational methods (observing a parent and child interact) are often regarded as the gold standard in the assessment of parental behaviors but are cumbersome to administer. Self-reports of parenting behaviors are the most commonly used measure due to ease of administration, but their validity may be questioned. The goal of this study is to examine the relationship between three observational measures of parenting and two self-report measures. Methods: Participants (n=133) were either parents who were receiving treatment at Metro-Atlanta drug courts or other caregivers. All participants completed self-report measures of parenting, and videotaped interaction task with a child. Videos were coded for a variety of behaviors, and two of those behaviors (affection and involvement) matched constructs that parents reported on in a self-report battery. Results: Correlations between selfreport and observational measures for the constructs affection and involvement for the whole sample ranged from r = -.03 to.06 for affection, and r = -.05 to .08 for involvement, but none were statistically significant. The relationship between self-report and observed parenting by adult type and child age was also examined. However, none of the correlations were statistically significant. Conclusions: Although there were no significant correlations found between self-report and observational measures, existing research suggests that self-reports are not interchangeable with observational methods. In future studies, constructs used to compare self-reports and observational methods should examine how each relates to the outcomes. Furthermore, CAIC (observational tool) should also be examined in further detail.\",\"PeriodicalId\":73981,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Georgia Public Health Association\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Georgia Public Health Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.20429/jgpha.2019.070217\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Georgia Public Health Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20429/jgpha.2019.070217","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

背景:根据定义,大多数虐待行为都是父母养育子女的失败。然而,即使没有虐待,糟糕的育儿方式也会导致各种负面后果,包括社交、情绪和行为问题。鉴于养育子女对儿童的结果起着关键作用,干预措施的重点之一是养育子女计划。必须使用标准化的评估工具对父母的干预措施进行评估,这导致了一个重要问题;我们如何才能最好地评估养育子女?观察方法(观察父母和孩子的互动)通常被视为评估父母行为的黄金标准,但管理起来很麻烦。由于易于管理,育儿行为的自我报告是最常用的衡量标准,但其有效性可能会受到质疑。本研究的目的是检验三种育儿观察指标和两种自我报告指标之间的关系。方法:参与者(n=133)要么是在亚特兰大大都会毒品法庭接受治疗的父母,要么是其他照顾者。所有参与者都完成了自我报告的育儿措施,并录制了与孩子的互动任务。视频被编码为各种行为,其中两种行为(情感和参与)与父母在自我报告组中报告的结构相匹配。结果:自我报告和观察测量对整个样本的构念影响和参与的相关性在影响的r=-0.03到.06之间,参与的r=-0.05到.08之间,但没有统计学意义。还研究了成人类型和儿童年龄的自我报告和观察到的育儿之间的关系。然而,没有任何相关性具有统计学意义。结论:尽管在自我报告和观察测量之间没有发现显著的相关性,但现有研究表明,自我报告与观察方法是不可互换的。在未来的研究中,用于比较自我报告和观察方法的结构应该检查每种方法与结果的关系。此外,还应进一步详细审查CAIC(观测工具)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Relationship Between Self- Report and Observed Parenting Among Parents in Treatment Versus Not in Treatment Populations
Background: Most maltreatment, by definition, is a failure of parenting. However, even without maltreatment, poor parenting can lead to a variety of negative outcomes including social, emotional and behavioral problems. Given that parenting plays a key role in child outcomes, one of the foci of interventions are parenting programs. Interventions for parents must be evaluated using standardized assessment tools, which leads to an important question; how can we best assess parenting? Observational methods (observing a parent and child interact) are often regarded as the gold standard in the assessment of parental behaviors but are cumbersome to administer. Self-reports of parenting behaviors are the most commonly used measure due to ease of administration, but their validity may be questioned. The goal of this study is to examine the relationship between three observational measures of parenting and two self-report measures. Methods: Participants (n=133) were either parents who were receiving treatment at Metro-Atlanta drug courts or other caregivers. All participants completed self-report measures of parenting, and videotaped interaction task with a child. Videos were coded for a variety of behaviors, and two of those behaviors (affection and involvement) matched constructs that parents reported on in a self-report battery. Results: Correlations between selfreport and observational measures for the constructs affection and involvement for the whole sample ranged from r = -.03 to.06 for affection, and r = -.05 to .08 for involvement, but none were statistically significant. The relationship between self-report and observed parenting by adult type and child age was also examined. However, none of the correlations were statistically significant. Conclusions: Although there were no significant correlations found between self-report and observational measures, existing research suggests that self-reports are not interchangeable with observational methods. In future studies, constructs used to compare self-reports and observational methods should examine how each relates to the outcomes. Furthermore, CAIC (observational tool) should also be examined in further detail.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
Health Communications Trial with a Resistant Population to Increase Public Health Compliance during a Pandemic An analysis of Georgia mothers who gave birth in 2015 and 2016 without receiving prenatal care Role of Community-level Health Behaviors and Social Determinants of Health in Preventable Hospitalizations Elderly Educated Blacks and the influence of exercise identity, self-determination, and social determinants of health on physical activity Perception of Health Care Access in Rural Georgia: Findings From a Community Health Needs Assessment Survey
×
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