在养育子女的背景下心理灵活性的测量:范围审查

IF 3.4 3区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jcbs.2023.09.001
Stephanie V. Caldas , Lindsay R. Antonsen , Andrew S. Hamilton , Danielle N. Moyer
{"title":"在养育子女的背景下心理灵活性的测量:范围审查","authors":"Stephanie V. Caldas ,&nbsp;Lindsay R. Antonsen ,&nbsp;Andrew S. Hamilton ,&nbsp;Danielle N. Moyer","doi":"10.1016/j.jcbs.2023.09.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Psychological flexibility in the context of parenting (i.e., parenting flexibility) is associated with positive outcomes for parents and children, and it is a target of psychological interventions. Psychological flexibility as a construct has been historically difficult to define and measure, and parenting flexibility is subject to the same challenges. This scoping review aims to map and summarize the literature on development and validation of measures of parenting flexibility, and to provide recommendations for measurement selection to inform research and clinical practice. OVID MEDLINE, PsycINFO, SocINFO, and google scholar were searched for articles pertaining to the development and/or validation of a measure of parenting flexibility, supplemented with solicitation from professionals in the field. Two independent reviewers screened 820 titles and abstracts and assessed 32 full-text articles for inclusion criteria: peer reviewed, published in English, empirical studies using parent samples, assessed a construct related to parenting flexibility, and involved the development and/or validation of a measurement tool. Translated measures were included in the final article synthesis if a full-text English version was available. A total of 18 studies were included in the final scoping review. Charting was used to map demographic and sample characteristics, relevant results, and indications for measurement selection. Seven measures were identified, four for general parenting flexibility and three for specific parenting contexts. Validity and reliability across measures was variable, but generally demonstrated utility of use. There is overlap and divergence with regard to item wording, aspects of psychological flexibility being measured, and relevancy to different aspects of parenting. Limited evidence exists to determine which measure best applies to specific purposes. Recommendations are made for measurement selection and areas of future research.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47544,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science","volume":"30 ","pages":"Pages 61-69"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measurement of psychological flexibility in the context of parenting: A scoping review\",\"authors\":\"Stephanie V. Caldas ,&nbsp;Lindsay R. Antonsen ,&nbsp;Andrew S. Hamilton ,&nbsp;Danielle N. Moyer\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jcbs.2023.09.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Psychological flexibility in the context of parenting (i.e., parenting flexibility) is associated with positive outcomes for parents and children, and it is a target of psychological interventions. Psychological flexibility as a construct has been historically difficult to define and measure, and parenting flexibility is subject to the same challenges. This scoping review aims to map and summarize the literature on development and validation of measures of parenting flexibility, and to provide recommendations for measurement selection to inform research and clinical practice. OVID MEDLINE, PsycINFO, SocINFO, and google scholar were searched for articles pertaining to the development and/or validation of a measure of parenting flexibility, supplemented with solicitation from professionals in the field. Two independent reviewers screened 820 titles and abstracts and assessed 32 full-text articles for inclusion criteria: peer reviewed, published in English, empirical studies using parent samples, assessed a construct related to parenting flexibility, and involved the development and/or validation of a measurement tool. Translated measures were included in the final article synthesis if a full-text English version was available. A total of 18 studies were included in the final scoping review. Charting was used to map demographic and sample characteristics, relevant results, and indications for measurement selection. Seven measures were identified, four for general parenting flexibility and three for specific parenting contexts. Validity and reliability across measures was variable, but generally demonstrated utility of use. There is overlap and divergence with regard to item wording, aspects of psychological flexibility being measured, and relevancy to different aspects of parenting. Limited evidence exists to determine which measure best applies to specific purposes. Recommendations are made for measurement selection and areas of future research.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47544,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science\",\"volume\":\"30 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 61-69\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212144723001102\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212144723001102","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

育儿背景下的心理灵活性(即育儿灵活性)与父母和孩子的积极结果有关,是心理干预的目标。心理灵活性作为一种结构历来难以定义和衡量,而养育子女的灵活性也面临着同样的挑战。这篇范围界定综述旨在绘制和总结关于制定和验证育儿灵活性措施的文献,并为选择措施提供建议,为研究和临床实践提供信息。OVID MEDLINE、PsycINFO、SocINFO和谷歌学者被搜索到与制定和/或验证育儿灵活性措施有关的文章,并补充了该领域专业人士的征集。两名独立评审员筛选了820篇标题和摘要,并评估了32篇全文文章的纳入标准:同行评审,英文版,使用父母样本的实证研究,评估了与育儿灵活性相关的结构,并参与了测量工具的开发和/或验证。如果有英文全文,则在最后的文章综合中列入翻译的衡量标准。最终范围界定审查共包括18项研究。图表用于绘制人口统计学和样本特征、相关结果以及测量选择的指示。确定了七项措施,四项针对一般育儿灵活性,三项针对特定育儿环境。测量的有效性和可靠性各不相同,但总体上证明了使用的效用。在项目措辞、衡量心理灵活性的方面以及与养育子女不同方面的相关性方面存在重叠和分歧。确定哪项措施最适合用于特定目的的证据有限。对测量选择和未来研究领域提出了建议。
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
Measurement of psychological flexibility in the context of parenting: A scoping review

Psychological flexibility in the context of parenting (i.e., parenting flexibility) is associated with positive outcomes for parents and children, and it is a target of psychological interventions. Psychological flexibility as a construct has been historically difficult to define and measure, and parenting flexibility is subject to the same challenges. This scoping review aims to map and summarize the literature on development and validation of measures of parenting flexibility, and to provide recommendations for measurement selection to inform research and clinical practice. OVID MEDLINE, PsycINFO, SocINFO, and google scholar were searched for articles pertaining to the development and/or validation of a measure of parenting flexibility, supplemented with solicitation from professionals in the field. Two independent reviewers screened 820 titles and abstracts and assessed 32 full-text articles for inclusion criteria: peer reviewed, published in English, empirical studies using parent samples, assessed a construct related to parenting flexibility, and involved the development and/or validation of a measurement tool. Translated measures were included in the final article synthesis if a full-text English version was available. A total of 18 studies were included in the final scoping review. Charting was used to map demographic and sample characteristics, relevant results, and indications for measurement selection. Seven measures were identified, four for general parenting flexibility and three for specific parenting contexts. Validity and reliability across measures was variable, but generally demonstrated utility of use. There is overlap and divergence with regard to item wording, aspects of psychological flexibility being measured, and relevancy to different aspects of parenting. Limited evidence exists to determine which measure best applies to specific purposes. Recommendations are made for measurement selection and areas of future research.

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
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
18.00%
发文量
82
审稿时长
61 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science is the official journal of the Association for Contextual Behavioral Science (ACBS). Contextual Behavioral Science is a systematic and pragmatic approach to the understanding of behavior, the solution of human problems, and the promotion of human growth and development. Contextual Behavioral Science uses functional principles and theories to analyze and modify action embedded in its historical and situational context. The goal is to predict and influence behavior, with precision, scope, and depth, across all behavioral domains and all levels of analysis, so as to help create a behavioral science that is more adequate to the challenge of the human condition.
期刊最新文献
Exploring the interconnectedness of depression, anxiety, diabetes distress, and related psychosocial factors in adults with type 2 diabetes: A network analysis Effects of a randomized controlled trial of mobile app-based Acceptance and Commitment Therapy on depressive symptoms and process variables in college students - Focusing on the mediating effects of acceptance and cognitive defusion- Changes in university students’ behaviour and study burnout risk during ACT-based online course intervention: A mixed methods study Third wave interventions for adolescents with mental health disorders: A systematic review with meta-analysis Capturing the context of drug use for college students: A contextual behavioural science informed qualitative analysis of harm reduction practices using network feedback loops simulation modelling
×
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