Measurement of parental discipline and nurturance

Clinical Psychology Review 22 (2002) 895 – 929

Measurement of parental discipline and nurturance Lisa M. Locke, Ronald J. Prinz* Department of Psychology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA Received 21 May 2001; accepted 10 April 2002

Abstract This paper reviews the measurement of parental discipline and nurturance over the past 20 years. Discipline and nurturance are two of the most heavily referenced constructs in the parenting research literature, but there are varying ways to operationalize them with respect to both method and content. The review considered 76 questionnaires that purported to assess discipline, nurturance, or both. The evaluation included examination of a total of 27 interview schedules that used either in-person or telephone structured questions or a vignette format and focused on discipline and nurturance or discipline only. A total of 33 observational systems were reviewed, the majority of which addressed both discipline and nurturance. All measures were profiled, and several noteworthy instruments were discussed. Recommendations were offered regarding how to strengthen measurement and scientific understanding of discipline and nurturance, including the need for greater attention to cultural variation and measurement equivalence issues. D 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. Keywords: Parenting; Discipline; Nurturance; Family assessment; Parent – child interaction

1. Introduction The nature of parenting and its influence in childhood are areas of broad interest to behavioral scientists and the general public alike. Two facets of parenting, discipline and nurturance, appear repeatedly in the empirical and theoretical literatures on children and

* Tel.: +1-803-777-7143. E-mail address: [email protected] (R.J. Prinz). 0272-7358/02/$ – see front matter D 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. PII: S 0 2 7 2 - 7 3 5 8 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 1 3 3 - 2

896

L.M. Locke, R.J. Prinz / Clinical Psychology Review 22 (2002) 895–929

family life. Issues around parental discipline are implicated in conduct disorder and delinquency (Dishion, Patterson, Stoolmiller, & Skinner, 1991; Patterson & StouthamerLoeber, 1984), poor academic achievement (DeBaryshe, Patterson, & Capaldi, 1993), substance abuse (Hawkins, Catalano, & Miller, 1992; Vicary & Lerner, 1986), and related problems. Similarly, parental nurturance relates to several domains. Examples of these include positive dimensions such as school readiness and academic performance (Hess, Holloway, Dickson, & Price, 1984; Pettit, Bates, & Dodge, 1997), secure attachment style (Barnett, Kidwell, & Leung, 1998), and general prosocial development (Fine, Voydanoff, & Donnelly, 1993; Zahn-Waxler and Radke-Yarrow, 1990) and problem-related dimensions such as internalizing disorders, social withdrawal, and interpersonal difficulties (Belsky, Steinberg, & Draper, 1991; MacDonald, 1992; Rapee, 1997). Inappropriate discipline and low nurturance also obviously relate to facets of child abuse and neglect (Azar, Lauretti, & Loding, 1998; Budd, 2001; Budd & Holdsworth, 1996). Despite considerable research related to parental discipline and nurturance, there is relatively little agreement on how to measure these two constructs. Researchers point to the need for reliable, valid, and high-utility parenting measures for assessment of dysfunctional parenting (Kendziora & O’Leary, 1993) and for the establishment of reasonable universal criteria for parenting competence (Azar, Benjet, Fuhrmann, & Cavallero, 1995; Budd & Holdsworth, 1996). This review focuses on measures of parental discipline and nurturance that have been used during the past 20 years, including questionnaire, interview, and observational measures. Measures were evaluated with respect to theoretical foundation and development, psychometric and practical properties, utility, and prevalence of use. Included were measures of parental discipline and nurturance that were deployed during the 20-year span from 1978 to 1999. Measures developed earlier were included only if their use continued into the 1978–1999 period. This time period was chosen because: (a) most of the viable parenting measures, even if developed earlier, were used during this period; (b) the late 1970s showed a marked increase in the volume and breadth of research on family and parenting issues (L’Abate, 1998); and (c) parenting measures in use prior to 1978 have been compiled elsewhere (Hughes & Haynes, 1978; Straus & Brown, 1978). The review was intended to be comprehensive but not exhaustive, concentrating primarily on measures with some demonstrated utility or prevalence. Measures were selected for review if they included scales on discipline, nurturance, or both. Measures and associated studies were identified through multiple sources: keyword search of the PSYC-Lit database, manual search of relevant psychological journals (including ones related to child development), and referencing of measurement compendiums (Grotevant & Carlson, 1989; Jacob & Tennebaum, 1988; Touliatos, Perlmutter, & Straus, 1990). Included were measures related to parenting with children or adolescents 1–18 years of age. Measures pertaining to infants were excluded because parenting with this age group has unique issues beyond the scope of this paper. Because the focus was on measures of parenting practices, measures were excluded that addressed only parental beliefs, attitudes, satisfaction, stress, locus of control, or knowledge of child-rearing practices, all of which have been reviewed elsewhere (Holden, 1990; Holden & Edwards, 1989).

L.M. Locke, R.J. Prinz / Clinical Psychology Review 22 (2002) 895–929

897

2. Conceptualization of parental discipline and nurturance 2.1. Definitional issues 2.1.1. Parenting practices versus parenting styles Parenting has been defined as anything parents do, or fail to do, that may affect their children (Kendziora & O’Leary, 1993). Some conceptualizations made a further distinction between parenting practices and parenting styles. Darling & Steinberg (1993) defined parenting practices as those techniques that have ‘‘a direct effect on the development of specific child behaviors . . . and characteristics’’ (p. 493). Darling and Steinberg distinguished style from practice by defining style as ‘‘a constellation of attitudes toward the child that are communicated to the child and create an emotional climate in which the parent’s behaviors are expressed . . . tone of voice, body language, inattention, bursts of temper, and so on’’ (p. 493). Parenting practices, including discipline, tend to be assessed in terms of the content and frequency of specific parenting behaviors rather than the quality of parenting behaviors (Stevenson-Hinde, 1998), while parenting styles pertain more to the quality and valence of parent–child interactions (p. 698). In short, parenting practices encompass what parents do (e.g., spank, hug) and style implies how parents do it (e.g., with warmth or hostility). Using this distinction, researchers can test hypotheses more precisely (e.g., Practice A, expressed through Style B, is associated with Outcome C). Beyond parenting practices and style, two key parenting constructs are discipline and nurturance. Although these constructs are challenging to operationalize, some common definitions have emerged in the literature. 2.1.2. Discipline The word ‘‘discipline’’ most often refers to the methods parents use to discourage inappropriate behavior and gain compliance from children (Smith, 1967). Although discipline might be construed as involving only harsh and punitive actions, the construct actually encompasses a broader range of parental behaviors. Discipline includes parenting techniques deemed to be more effective (e.g., inductive reasoning) and less effective (e.g., coercion). Research has shown that some disciplinary techniques effectively encourage appropriate child behavior and prevent misbehavior (Maccoby, 1992; Russell & Russell, 1996). In contrast, other parenting discipline is seen as ineffective because it either reinforces child misbehavior or models inappropriate behavior such as poor temper control (Kendziora & O’Leary, 1993; Sansbury & Wahler, 1992). Ineffective practices are often described in the research literature as ‘‘dysfunctional’’ (Kendziora & O’Leary, 1993), ‘‘maladaptive’’ (Sansbury & Wahler, 1992), or ‘‘inept’’ (Patterson, 1986); this type of discipline will be referred to as maladaptive or ineffective for this review’s purposes. Effective practices are typically labeled simply as positive or proactive parenting (Russell & Russell, 1996), but for clarity, they will be referred to in this review as effective. Examples of discipline practices deemed more effective include use of clear rules and requests, direct reinforcement of appropriate behavior incompatible with the undesirable behavior (DRO), time out from a reinforcing environment, brief withdrawal of privileges, and application of

898

L.M. Locke, R.J. Prinz / Clinical Psychology Review 22 (2002) 895–929

reasoning and induction. Examples of discipline practices deemed ineffective include use of unclear rules and requests, excessive attention (social reinforcement) for inappropriate behaviors, use of harsh physical punishment without sufficient reinforcement for appropriate behaviors, and frequent reliance on coercion. Most effective and ineffective discipline practices are measured with conceptually distinct behaviors (e.g., use of time out, ignoring, or spanking). The developmental level of the child adds a complication in that discipline practices appropriate and effective at an early age may become inappropriate for older youth. On the other hand, discipline styles might be less subject to developmental considerations. The effectiveness of discipline styles are typically assessed on continua (e.g., consistent–inconsistent, strict–permissive). Most parents use a combination of effective and ineffective styles and practices based on situational demands, but researchers still attempt to categorize parents by their predominant styles and practices (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994). 2.1.3. Nurturance While parental discipline is considered more of a means of achieving specific positive child outcomes (e.g., rule acquisition, child compliance), parental nurturance is concerned more with providing a positive atmosphere for the parent–child relationship and the child’s emotional development. The research literature seems to focus on two major facets of nurturance: emotional expressions (e.g., hugs, verbal statements of love, communication of acceptance) and instrumental acts (e.g., playing a game together, doing a favor, helping). Although most research has focused on the benefits of effective parental nurturance such as the examples described above, it is important to note that many studies focus on the continuum between effective and ineffective nurturing behaviors such as acceptance– rejection, concern–overprotection, and warmth–coldness (Belsky, Domitrovich, & Crnic, 1997; Phelps, Belsky, & Crnic, 1998; Repetti & Wood, 1997). As with disciplinary techniques, nurturing behaviors change as children age; the amount and type of care, empathy, and protection required are very different for toddlers, school-aged children, and adolescents, and this factor must be considered in the measurement of these behaviors. For the purposes of this review, nurturance is divided into the emotional and instrumental categories described above, rather than effective and ineffective categories, because the distinction between effective and ineffective nurturance is more continuous than discrete. However, instruments that assess both effective and ineffective aspects of emotional and instrumental nurturance are noted.

3. Evaluated quality of instruments All instruments selected for this review underwent evaluation with respect to evidence for reliability, validity, theoretical grounding, ease of use, cultural/ethnic flexibility, and adoption by investigators. Only those instruments that showed clear psychometric adequacy (i.e., reliability, discriminant/convergent and construct validities) and also reflected higher quality across all of the evaluated dimensions are discussed in the text. More recently developed

L.M. Locke, R.J. Prinz / Clinical Psychology Review 22 (2002) 895–929

899

instruments with adequate psychometric properties but without extensive histories are discussed as well.

4. Measurement of parental discipline: questionnaires and interviews 4.1. Questionnaires The review identified 55 questionnaires that purported to measure discipline via parental self-report (26), youth report (8), or both (21), as listed in Table 1. Of the 55 questionnaires about parental discipline, 37 focused on both effective and ineffective discipline, 10 focused only on ineffective discipline, and 8 focused on effective discipline. Thirty-one of the 55 instruments assessed parental nurturance in addition to discipline. 4.1.1. Parental self-report questionnaires Of the 47 parental self-report questionnaires about discipline, 33 focused on both effective and ineffective discipline, 9 focused only on ineffective discipline, and 5 focused on effective discipline. With respect to age-group referent, 18 of the questionnaires pertained to early childhood, 21 pertained to early childhood through middle childhood, and 8 pertained to late childhood through adolescence. With respect to method of reporting, most parent self-report questionnaires (25) focused on frequency ratings for specific discipline acts (using either Likert-scale or daily frequency ratings), rather than on non frequency-related endorsement of specific discipline acts (using either Likert-scale or true/false responses) (21), Q-sorts (1), or multiple-choice questions (3). Several instruments used more than one response format, including the coding of open-ended responses (4). The frequency rating format typically requires parents to report how often they use various discipline methods. Some instruments draw on specific examples of child misbehavior (Pomerantz & Ruble, 1998), while others assess frequency of use for each discipline action during an identified time period, without reference to specific child behaviors (Budd & Holdsworth, 1996). The most noteworthy parental-discipline instruments are discussed below. The Child-Rearing Practices Report (CRPR; Block, 1965), a 91-item Q-sort assessing both effective and ineffective discipline practices, is widely used and has excellent psychometric properties established over 20 years. The CRPR has been reduced to a 40-item short version (Rickel & Biasatti, 1982), translated into several foreign languages, and used with parents of children from preschool-age to adolescence. Items from the CRPR have also been used to create new instruments e.g., Parenting Practices Questionnaire (Robinson, Mandleco, Olsen, & Hart, 1995). There is also a youth-report version that is useful for multiple informant comparisons, but the length of the instrument may be prohibitive in some instances. A newer instrument, the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire (APQ; Shelton, Frick, & Wootton, 1996), appears to be of high quality and utility. The 42 items are rated on a frequency Likert scale and encompass four discipline subscales: poor monitoring/supervision, inconsistent discipline, corporal punishment, and other discipline practices. The APQ has

900

L.M. Locke, R.J. Prinz / Clinical Psychology Review 22 (2002) 895–929

Table 1 Discipline and nurturance questionnaires Scales and items Instrument Parent report only Behavioral Management SelfAssessment (BMSA) Child Management Questionnaire Computer Presented Social Situations (CPSS) Daily Checklist

Discipline Record Booklet (DRB) Discipline Questionnaire Family Evaluation Form— Revised Iowa Parent Behavior Inventory Monitoring and Control Questionnaire Parent Behavior Inventory (PBI-a) Parent Behavior Inventory (PBI-b)

Child Age

Discipline

C

E+N

T

E+N

T-C

E+N

Pomerantz & Ruble, 1998

C-EA

E

Larzelere et al., 1996

T

E+N

21; FDR

Culp et al., 1999 Emery, Weintraub, & Neale, 1984 Crase, Clark, & Pease, 1980 Kotchick et al., 1997 Love & Kaswan, 1974 Budd, Riner, & Brockman, 1983

T

N

17; FR, O

NR

Cr

T-C

E+N

Em + I

128; EL

NR

Cv

C

E

Em + I

36; FR

I .62 – .84

Cr

C-EA

E+N

26; FR

I .84

C, Cv

C

N

14; FR

I-SS .50 – .82

C

C

E+N

10; FR

I-SS .63

C

Source August, Realmuto, Crosby, & MacDonald, 1995 Covell, Grusec, & King, 1995 Holden, 1988; Holden & Ritchie, 1991

Nurturance

No. and format

Reliability

Validity

15; EL

I .81, R .71 – .74

C

13; FR, O

NR

C

Em + I

73; MC, FDR, O

NR

C, Cr

Em + I

12; FDR

I .72, II .41, R .50 R-SS .52 – .94

C

C

(continued on next page)

L.M. Locke, R.J. Prinz / Clinical Psychology Review 22 (2002) 895–929

901

Table 1 (continued) Scales and items Instrument

Source

Child Age

Discipline

Nurturance

No. and format

Parent Behavior Checklist (PBC)

Fox, 1992

T

N

Em + I

100; FR

Parent – Child Activity Questionnaire Parent – Child Relationship Inventory (PCRI) Parent Practices Scale

Stuckey, McGhee, & Bell, 1982 Gerard, 1994

T

Em + I

21; FR

Parent Report

Parent SelfEvaluation Instrument Parental Affection to the Child Scale Parental Disciplinary Orientations Parental Discipline Techniques Parental Responses to Child Misbehavior Parental Style Questionnaire Parenting Dimensions Inventory Parenting Practices

Reliability

Validity

I-SS .82 – .97, R-SS .81 – .98 NR

C, Cr, Ct, D

I-SS .80 – .88, R-SS .73 – .93 I .78 – .79, R .70 – .79

C, Cr

C

T-C

E+N

I

55; EL

Strayhorn & Weidman, 1988 Dibble & Cohen, 1974 Edgmon et al., 1996 SavinWilliams & Small, 1986

T

E+N

Em + I

34; MC

T-A

E+N

Em + I

48; FR

R-SS .60 – .72

C, Cr, Ct

NR

Em + I

29; EL

NR

Ct

C

Em

7; FR

IT .55 – .85, I .89

Cv

Abelman, 1986

C

E+N

72; EL

NR

Cr

Gardner et al., 1980 Holden & Zambarano, 1992

T-A

E+N

16; O

NR

NR

T

E+N

9; FR

NR

Cv

Bornstein, 1989 Slater & Power, 1987 Hetherington & Clingempeel, 1992

T

E

Em + I

16; FR

C, Cr

T-EA

E+N

Em + I

54; MC, EL, FR

I-SS .62 – .66 I-SS .49 – .95

Em + I

10; EL

I .76 – .90, R .87 – .91

C

EA-A

C, Cr

C, Cr

(continued on next page)

902

L.M. Locke, R.J. Prinz / Clinical Psychology Review 22 (2002) 895–929

Table 1 (continued) Scales and items Instrument

Source

Parenting Questionnaire

McCabe, Clark, & Barnett, 1999 Arnold et al., 1993

Parenting Scale (PS)

Porter Parental Acceptance Scale (PPAS) Response Questionnaire Reward Scale Unnamed daily report survey Unnamed vignettes

Child report only Approval Support Scale for Children (ASSC) Children’s Expectations of Social Behavior Questionnaire Family Climate Inventory

Lifetime Experiences Survey

Child Age

Discipline

Nurturance

EA

N

Em + I

T-EA

N

Em

No. and format

Reliability

Validity

50; EL, FR

I-SS .65 – .90

Cr, Cv

30; EL

C, Cr

40; MC

I .84, I-SS .63 – .83, R .84, R-SS .79 – .83 SH .76

Ct

Porter, 1954

C

Dix et al., 1989 Fabes et al., 1989 Repetti, 1994 Rogriguez & Sutherland, 1999

T-EA

E+N

10; EL

NR

C

C

E

10; EL

I .85

C

T-C

E+N

22; FDR

Cr

C-EA

N

12; FR

I-SS .61 – .85 NR

C

Em + I

Harter & Robinson, 1988

EA-A

Em

4; EL

I-SS .91

C

Rudolph, Hammen, & Burge, 1995

C

Em + I

10; EL

I-SS .74 – .78, R-SS .82 – .86

C

Kurdek, Fine, & Sinclair, 1995 Jacobvitz & Bush, 1996

EA

E+N

Em + I

24; EL

I-SS .75 – .91

C

R:C-A

N

16; MC, FR, O

I .84, R .93

C, Cv

(continued on next page)

L.M. Locke, R.J. Prinz / Clinical Psychology Review 22 (2002) 895–929

903

Table 1 (continued) Scales and items Instrument

Source

Child Age

Mother – Father – Peer Scale Network of Relationships Inventory (NRI) Parent – Child Interaction Rating Scales Parent – Child Relationship Survey (PCRS) Parent Evaluation Scale Parental Bonding Instrument (PBdI) Parental Nurturance Scale Parental Support Inventory Parenting Context Questionnaire Parenting Questionnaire

Epstein, 1983

Parenting Style Scale (PSS) Patterns of Decision Making Questionnaire (DMQ)

Nurturance

No. and format

Reliability

Validity

R:C-A

Em + I

72; ETF

I-SS .91

C

Furman & Buhrmester, 1985, 1992

C

Em + I

10; EL

I .77 – .89

C

Heilbrun, 1964

A

Em + I

8; EL

I .41 – .68

Cr

Fine, Moreland, Schwebel, 1983

A

Em + I

48; EL

I-SS .61 – .96

C, Cr, P

Cooper, 1966

A

Em + I

26; ETF

C, Cn

Parker et al., 1979; Murphy et al., 1997 Buri, Louiselle, Misukanis, & Mueller, 1988 Barber & Thomas, 1986

R:C-A

Em + I

25; EL

EA-A

Em + I

24; EL

IT .66 – .88, R-SS .91 – .97 R-SS .63 – .88, SH-SS .74 – .88 I .93 – .95, R .92 – .94

R:C-A

Em + I

42; EL

I .79 – .90

C, Cr

Wellborn & Grolnick, 1988

EA-A

E

I

40; ETF

I-SS > .80

C

Lempers, Clark-Lempers, & Simons, 1989 Lamborn et al., 1991; Steinberg et al., 1994 Steinberg, 1987

A

E+N

Em + I

29; FR

I .80

C

EA-A

E

Em + I

19; EL, ETF

I-SS .72 – .76

Cr

EA-A

E

28; MC

I .78

C

Discipline

E+N

C

C

(continued on next page)

904

L.M. Locke, R.J. Prinz / Clinical Psychology Review 22 (2002) 895–929

Table 1 (continued) Scales and items Nurturance

No. and format

Reliability

Validity

A

Em + I

20; ETF

I .94, R .78

C, D

Wintre, Yaffe, & Crowley, 1995

A

Em + I

43; EL

I .92 – .95, I-SS .76 – .92

C, Cn, Cr

Harter, 1985

C-A

Em

24; EL

I .72 – .88

C

Dubow & Ullman, 1989

C-A

Em + I

31; FR

I .88, II .48

C

Koeske, 1998

A

E+N

Em

46; EL

I-SS .66 – .94

Cr

C-EA

E+N

Em + I

42; FR

Cr, Cv, D

EA-A

E

21; EL

Baumrind, 1979

C-A

E+N

39; EL

I-SS .45 – .85, R-SS .59 – .89 I(SS) .47 – .90, R(SS) .68 – .81 I(SS) .88 – .93

Hetherington & Clingempeel, 1992

EA-A

E+N

37; FR

Block, 1965

T-A

E+N

Instrument

Source

Perceived Social Support from Family (PSS-Fa) Perception of Parental Reciprocity Scale (POPRS) Social Support Scale for Children (SSSC) Survey of Children’s Social Support (SOCSS) Unnamed parenting style scale

Procidano & Heller, 1983

Parent and child report Shelton Alabama et al., Parenting 1996 Questionnaire (APQ) Baumrind, Assessment of 1978, 1979 Child Monitoring Child Monitoring and Control Inventory Child-Rearing Issues: Parent and Child Child-Rearing Practices Report (CRPR)

Child Age

Discipline

Em + I

91; QS

I(SS) .58 – .88, R(SS) .63 – .88 Excellent

C

C

C

C, Cn, Cr, P

(continued on next page)

L.M. Locke, R.J. Prinz / Clinical Psychology Review 22 (2002) 895–929

905

Table 1 (continued) Scales and items Child Age

Discipline

Nurturance

No. and format

Reliability

Validity

Schaefer, 1965

C-A

E+N

Em + I

192; EL

Excellent

C, Cr, Cv

Devereux et al., 1969

C-A

E+N

Em + I

100; FR

I-SS >.63

C, Cr

Patterson, 1982

C-A

Em + I

19; EL

C

Family DecisionMaking Scale (FDM) Family Environment Scale (FES)

Epstein & McPartland, 1977

EA

E+N

I-SS .62 – .86, R-SS .76 – .87 I-SS .60 – .71

Moos & Moos, 1983

EA-A

E+N

Em + I

90; EL, ETF

C, Cn, Cr, Ct, P

Family Functioning Scales Harsh Discipline Scale Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment Parent Behavior Form (PBF) Parent – child Conflict Tactics Scales (CTSPC) Parent Discipline Behavior Inventory

Bloom, 1985

C-A

E+N

Em + I

75; FR

I-SS .61 – .78, R-SS .73 – .78 I-SS .50 – .92

Simons et al., 1991 Armsden & Greenberg, 1987

EA

N

5; FR

I .70 – .74

C

Em + I

60; FR

I-SS .84 – .91

Cv, Cr

Worell & Worell, 1974

A

E+N

Em + I

117; EL

NR

C, Cr, Cv

Straus, 1979; Straus et al., 1998

T-A

E+N

34; FR

I-SS .22 – .70

C, D

Hagan, 1992

C-A

N

42; FR

I-SS .57 – .91

C

Instrument

Source

Children’s Report of Parental Behavior Inventory (CRPBI) Cornell Parent Behavior Inventory (CPBI) Expression of Affection Inventory

A

11; ETF

C

C

(continued on next page)

906

L.M. Locke, R.J. Prinz / Clinical Psychology Review 22 (2002) 895–929

Table 1 (continued) Scales and items Child Age

Discipline

Nurturance

No. and format

Reliability

Validity

Hazzard et al., 1983

C-A

E+N

Em + I

36; FR

I-SS .74 – .89

C, Cr, D, P

Rohner, 1986

C-A

E+N

Em + I

60; ETF

I-SS .72 – .95

C, Cr, Ct, Cv

Buri, 1991

C-A

E+N

Em + I

30; EL

C, Cn, Cr, D

Robinson et al., 1995

T-C

E+N

Em + I

62; FR

I-SS .74 – .87, R-SS .77 – .92 I-SS .75 – .91

Rohner, Kean, & Cournoyer, 1991 Daniels & Plomin, 1985

C-A

N

T-A

E+N

Instrument

Source

Parent Perception Inventory (PPI) Parental Acceptance – Rejection Questionnaire (PARQ) Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ) Parenting Practices Questionnaire (PPQ) Physical Punishment Questionnaire Sibling Inventory of Differential Experience (SIDE) Supportive Parenting Scale Weinberger Parenting Inventory (WPI)

Simons et al., 1992

EA-A

Feldman & Weinberger 1994

EA-A

E+N

C

14; EL, FR

I .74 – .78

Cr, Cv

Em + I

9; EL

I .79 – .84, R-SS .68 – .85

C, Cv

Em + I

9; FR

I .83 – .87

C

I

53; EL

I-SS .74 – .91

C, P

Child age: T = toddler/early childhood, C = child, EA = early adolescent, A = adolescent, R = adult retrospective report about childhood. Discipline: E = effective, N = noneffective. Nurturance: Em = emotional, I = instrumental. Format: EL = endorsement via Likert, ETF = endorsement via true/false, FR = frequency rating, FDR = daily freq. rate, MC = multiple choice, O = open-ended, QS = Q-sort, NR = not reported. Reliability: R = test – retest, I = internal consistency, II = interitem correlation, IT = item – total correlation, SH = split-half, default = total scale, SS = subscale, NR = not reported. Validity: C = concurrent, Cn = construct, Cr = criterion, Ct = construct, Cv = convergent, D = discriminant, P = predictive. The references cited in Tables 1 – 3 can be obtained from the authors.

multiple response formats (questionnaire and interview) and multiple informants (parent and youth), and has well-established psychometric properties. Shelton et al. (1996) found that the

L.M. Locke, R.J. Prinz / Clinical Psychology Review 22 (2002) 895–929

907

APQ reflected adequate though varied internal consistency and discriminated parents of behavior-disordered children from parents of nondisordered children. The Parent Behavior Checklist (PBC; Fox, 1992), formerly called the Parenting Inventory—Young Children, has clearly defined factors and robust psychometric properties, including content, concurrent, and discriminant/convergent validity, internal consistency, and test–retest reliability (Brenner & Fox, 1999; Fox & Bentley, 1992). However, it is limited to use with parents of preschool-aged children and focuses primarily on potentially less effective discipline techniques (e.g., yelling, threatening). The 30-item Parenting Scale (Arnold, O’Leary, Wolff, & Acker, 1993) focuses on ineffective discipline, uses a structured alternative response format with ‘‘functional’’ and ‘‘dysfunctional’’ endpoints, and has three factors—laxness, overreactivity, and verbosity. The Parenting Scale is correlated with observed parenting behavior and child misbehavior, discriminates between clinic and nonclinic participants, has adequate internal consistency and test–retest reliability (Arnold et al., 1993), and can assess parents of children through middle-school age (Irvine, Biglan, Smolkowski, & Ary, 1999). Reitman et al. (2001) replicated the psychometric properties of the instrument with a Head Start population but found a two-factor structure (overreactivity and laxness). The Computer-Presented Social Situations (CPSS; Holden, 1988; Holden & Ritchie, 1991) relied on an innovative format to assess parental responses to 27 computer-simulated vignettes of common child rearing problems. Parents indicate the frequency of child misbehaviors and their typical responses. The CPSS encompasses a variety of response choices and allows parents to report own and spouse’s child-rearing behaviors. The CPSS corresponds well with mother–child observational data and has construct validity in relation to parenting stress and parental beliefs about corporal punishment (Holden, Miller, & Harris, 1999; Ritchie & Holden, 1998). The instrument reflects moderate internal consistency (Ritchie & Holden, 1998). The Discipline Record Booklet (DRB; Larzelere, Schneider, Larson, & Pike, 1996) uses a diary method of data collection to reduce recall bias and eliminate complications of home observation. In this procedure, mothers record their discipline responses to each of their child’s misbehaviors throughout the day; maternal behaviors are coded as corporal or noncorporal punishment. However, test–retest reliability is variable (range r=.52–.94), and parents require training to accurately use the DRB. 4.1.2. Youth report Of the 29 youth report questionnaires about parental discipline, 21 focused on both effective and ineffective discipline, 4 focused only on ineffective discipline, and 4 focused only on effective discipline. With respect to age-group referent, 14 can be completed by young children through early adolescents, 14 can be completed by early through late adolescents, and 1 is a retrospective report of childhood, completed by young adults. With respect to response format, 18 required endorsement via Likert or true/false format, 12 required frequency ratings, 2 used multiple choice items, and 1 utilized an open-ended response format. The development of children’s reports of parenting behaviors, whether adapted from parent reports or developed uniquely for children, occurred parallel to the development of parent

908

L.M. Locke, R.J. Prinz / Clinical Psychology Review 22 (2002) 895–929

self-report instruments. Parental discipline questionnaires with parent and youth forms often use the youth’s report (age range 6–18 years) to corroborate the parent’s report. Mother and child reports have been shown to correlate significantly with each other, thus increasing convergent validity (Krevans & Gibbs, 1996). Using parent and child reports together can also reduce social desirability and single-reporter bias (Simons, Whitbeck, Conger, & ChyiIn, 1991). However, others have found youth report, particularly for children under age 9, to be less reliable and valid than parent report (Shelton et al., 1996). One of the best youth report instruments is the Children’s Report of Parental Behavior Inventory (CRPBI; Schaefer, 1965), originally designed for youth but later adapted for parents. The 260-item CRPBI assesses effective and ineffective discipline through three subscales: acceptance versus rejection, psychological autonomy versus psychological control, and firm control versus lax control. Several revisions of the original instrument have been published, including a 108-item version (Schludermann & Schludermann, 1970), a 56-item version (Margolies & Weintraub, 1977), and a 72-item version (Kawash & Clewes, 1988). The reliability, validity, and factor structure for the various versions have been well substantiated (Fristad and Karpowitz, 1988; Schwarz, Barton-Henry, & Pruzinsky, 1985). The CRPBI has been used with a wide range of ethnic/cultural populations (Taylor, Roberts, & Jacobsen, 1997). The Cornell Parent Behavior Inventory (CBPI; Devereux, Bronfenbrenner, & Rodgers, 1969), which was designed to assess youth perceptions of parental disciplinary behavior, has shown adequate reliability and construct validity (Buriel, 1981). The CPBI requires youth to rate the frequency of specific parental behaviors (including both effective and ineffective discipline). It has been used in cross-cultural research (Abraham, Christopherson, & Kuehl, 1984). The Parent Perception Inventory (PPI; Hazzard, Christensen, & Margolin, 1983) focuses on the frequency of specific maternal and paternal behaviors (e.g., monitoring, physical punishment, rewards), can be administered aloud to younger children, and has adequate psychometric properties. Internal consistency has held up for younger and older children, and the instrument has shown construct validity in relation to patterns of child functioning (Glaser, Horne, & Myers, 1995; Hazzard et al., 1983). The Parenting Style Scale (PSS; Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, & Dornbusch, 1991; Steinberg, Lamborn, Darling, Mounts, & Dornbusch, 1994) is an adolescent report questionnaire that assesses Baumrind’s (1971) parenting styles using an endorsement via Likertscale and true/false format. It encompasses original items and items adapted from popular instruments (e.g., CRPBI, CRPR) to assess three domains: acceptance–involvement, strictness – supervision, and psychological autonomy granting. The PSS has been used to categorize parents as authoritative, neglectful, authoritarian, and indulgent (Glasgow, Dornbusch, Troyer, Steinberg, & Ritter, 1997) and has been widely used to assess the effects of parenting practices on adolescents. 4.2. Interviews Three interview formats were identified: (1) in-person structured interviews, (2) telephonebased structured interviews, (3) and vignette-based interviews. Most interviews involved

L.M. Locke, R.J. Prinz / Clinical Psychology Review 22 (2002) 895–929

909

parents only, although a few also included youth informants. All of the interviews are listed in Table 2. Relatively few of the parental-discipline interview instruments were well developed and psychometrically sound. 4.2.1. In-person structured interviews A literature search identified 13 structured interviews that reflect adequate psychometric properties. Of these 13 interviews, 2 assess effective discipline, 5 assess ineffective discipline, and 6 assess both effective and ineffective discipline. Most focus on early through middle childhood (7), but some focus on adolescence (4), or are adult retrospective reports about childhood (2). Frequency rating scales were found in 9 of the interviews. Some open-ended questions were included in 4 of the interviews, and endorsement of descriptive statements via Likert-scale responses was found in 2 of the interviews. The Harsh Discipline Interview (HDI; Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 1994; Weiss, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1992) uses a series of open-ended and yes–no questions, in combination with interviewer ratings, to assess the severity of parental discipline practices. Although not widely adopted, this interview reflects sound development and psychometric quality. The more recently developed Parenting Rating Scale (PRS; Miliotis, Sesma, & Masten, 1999), derived from previous parenting instruments, combines parent responses to structured questions with global interviewer ratings for several variables. Three factors emerged from a factor analysis of the interviewer ratings, two of which refer to discipline and nurturance: parent–child closeness and firm, consistent discipline. Reliability and factor structure of the PRS are respectable with the population for which it was designed, namely African American families living in poverty (Miliotis et al., 1999). A structured interview used in the New York Longitudinal Study relied on either immediate interviewer ratings (e.g., Shaw, Emery, & Tuer, 1993) or transcription and coding (e.g., Lerner & Galambos, 1985) to characterize parents on several factors, including rejection, limit-setting, concern, and inconsistency. Although not widely used in other contexts, this interview showed adequate reliability, predictive validity, and construct validity. A structured interview developed by Ge et al. (1996) for the Colorado Adoption Project used a combination of parent, adolescent, and interviewer rating methods to assess adoptive parents’ harsh/inconsistent parenting (i.e., physical punishment, coercion, permissiveness) and hostility. Using interviewer ratings or coding of open-ended responses allows the researcher to conduct a flexible interview to gather rich data and then condense them to their most usable form. However, interview transcription and coding are time-consuming and open to rater bias. The interview demonstrated good reliability, construct validity, and descriptive utility (Ge et al., 1996). 4.2.2. Telephone-based structured interviews This review located 5 standardized telephone interviews. Two of these used both parent and youth informants, while the other three focused only on parents. Some interviews referred to middle childhood and adolescence (2), while others referred to toddlers and young children (3). The telephone interviews all assessed both effective and ineffective discipline; and two additionally assessed parental nurturance.

910

Scales and Items Instrument

Source

Child age

Discipline

T-C

N

R: C-A

N

T-C

Reliability

6; O

Interviewer rating of two EL items

IRR .97

Em + I

38; FR

6 factors

a=.63

E+N

Em

70; NR

6 factors

NR

C-EA

E

Em + I

14; EL

Interviewer rating

a=.94

C

E+N

Em + I

21; FR, O, EL O

Interviewer rating

a=.79 – .94

9 codes

k=.92

A

E

EA-A* C T R: C-A EA T-C

N E+N E+N E+N N N

Unnamed interview Unnamed interview

T-C T-C

E+N

Quinton & Rutter, 1988 Trickett & Susman, 1988

No. and Format

Miscellaneous

In-person structured interviews Harsh Discipline Weiss et al., 1992; Interview (HDI) Dodge et al., 1994; Pettit et al., 1997; Nix et al., 1999 Inventory of Zozus & Zax, 1991 Childhood Events Lerner & Galambos, 1985; New York Longitudinal Study Interview Vicary & Lerner, 1986; Shaw et al., 1993 Parenting Quality Gest et al., 1993 Scale (PQS) Parenting Rating Miliotis, Sesma, & Masten, 1999 Scale (PRS) Socialization Practices Patel, Power, & Bhavnagri, 1996 Interview Unnamed interview Ge et al., 1996 Unnamed interview Jagers, Bingham, & Hans, 1996 Unnamed interview Kasen et al., 1999 Unnamed interview Lyons-Ruth et al., 1989 Unnamed interview McLoyd et al., 1994 Unnamed interview Nobes et al., 1999

Nurturance

Em + I

Em

Em + I

18; FR 5; FR 13; FR 20; FR 5; FR 4 – 13; FR, O 4; EL 8; FR, EL

2 scales

Interviewer rating

a=.61 – .92 NR NR a=.46 – .76 a=.67 a=.98 IRR .63 – .75 NR

L.M. Locke, R.J. Prinz / Clinical Psychology Review 22 (2002) 895–929

Table 2 Discipline and nurturance interviews

Unnamed interview Vignette-based interviews Concerns and Constraints Interview Home Disciplinary Style Parent Discipline Interview (PDI) Parenting Role Play Test Problems Questionnaire Sensitivity to Children Questionnaire (SCQ) Unnamed interview Unnamed interview Unnamed interview

interviews Shelton et al., 1996

C-EA*

E+N

Frankel & Weiner, 1990 Chamberlain, 1977; Webster-Stratton & Spitzer, 1991

T T-C

E+N E+N

15; O 22; O

11 codes 6 codes

IRR .76 IRR .40 – .97

Patterson & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1984; Capaldi & Patterson, 1989, 1991; Capaldi, 1991; Capaldi, Crosby, & Stoolmiller, 1996 Hastings & Grusec, 1998

EA-A*

E+N

Varies; FR, EL

Telephone and in person

varies

C

E+N

O

7 codes

IRR .84

Deater-Deckard et al., 1996, 1998

C

E+N

5; V, O

Hart, Ladd, & Burleson, 1990

C

E+N

6; V, O

Scarr, Pinkerton, & Eisenberg, 1994; Miller & Scarr, 1989; Scarr & McCartney, 1988 Magen & Rose, 1998 Hansen et al., 1989 Stollak et al., 1973

T-C

E+N

C T-C T-EA

E+N E+N E+N

C* C T

E+N E+N E+N

Chilamkurti & Milner, 1993 Grusec, Dix, & Mills, 1982 Hess & McDevitt, 1984; Hess et al., 1984

Em + I

Em

Em

42; FR

a=.63 – .70 k=.86 a=.75

5; V, O

6-point coding scale 18 codes

IRR .75 – .92

45; V, O 15; V, O 16; V, O

Interviewer rating Interviewer rating 6 codes

IRR .73 IRR .94 IRR .91

18; V, O 36; V, O 6; V, O

8 codes 6 codes 6 codes

k=.80 – .86 IRR .80 – .87 IRR .80

L.M. Locke, R.J. Prinz / Clinical Psychology Review 22 (2002) 895–929

Telephone-based structured Alabama Parenting Questionnaire Child Conflict Index Parent Daily Report (PDR); Daily Discipline Interview Parental Monitoring and Discipline Interview (Oregon Youth Study [OYS])

Child age: T = toddler/early child, C = child, EA = early adolescent, A = adolescent, R = adult retrospective report about childhood. Discipline: E = effective, N = noneffective. Nurturance: Em = emotional, I = instrumental. Format: EL = endorsement via Likert; FR = frequency rating; O = open-ended; V = vignettes. Reliability: IRR = interrater reliability; a = alpha; k = Cohen’s kappa. * Indicates both parent and youth report. 911

912

L.M. Locke, R.J. Prinz / Clinical Psychology Review 22 (2002) 895–929

Telephone interviews are useful in several ways: (a) they assess a wide range of disciplinary practices in response to a child misbehaviors, (b) they possess time and cost efficiency, and (c) they reduce recall difficulties and increase accuracy by assessing disciplinary practices in response to actual, not hypothetical, child misbehaviors soon after they have occurred. They can be used multiple times throughout a study, lending themselves to excellent test–retest reliability and convergent validity (if multiple informants are used). To make scoring and comparison across informants easier and more accurate, most multiple informant interview protocols use structured or semistructured questions with parallel forms for each respondent (e.g., Capaldi & Patterson, 1991; DeBaryshe et al., 1993). The Parent Daily Report (PDR; Patterson, 1974; Reid & Patterson, 1976), or its variants, is a widely used method of assessing the frequency of specific child misbehaviors and parental responses to those misbehaviors. Parents’ open-ended responses to questions about recent parent – child conflicts are recorded and then coded into distinct disciplinary categories. The Parent Daily Telephone Discipline Interview (DDI) (Webster-Stratton & Spitzer, 1991), an enhanced version of the PDR (Chamberlain & Reid, 1987), uses a 6-category coding system for open-ended parental responses to all reported child misbehaviors. The DDI has excellent psychometric properties and a host of potential uses (see also Hastings & Grusec, 1998). Many large-scale longitudinal studies used the telephone interview approach to interview parents and adolescents (Patterson & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1984), and typically combined telephone reports and in-home interviewer checklists to assess monitoring and other discipline domains. The Oregon Youth Study (OYS) interview assessed parental monitoring and supervision, discipline practices, and discipline consistency, using frequency and endorsement ratings by parents and youth (Capaldi & Patterson, 1989; DeBaryshe et al., 1993). Compiling scores across informants and methods may lead to a stronger and more stable estimate of parental discipline by allowing a single construct to have several distinct but nonetheless related indicators (Capaldi & Patterson, 1991). The OYS interview, which is well tied to a cohesive theory about parental influence, showed strong evidence of validity in relating parental discipline to child conduct and depressive problems (Capaldi, 1991) and school performance (DeBaryshe et al., 1993). 4.2.3. Vignette interviews Nine psychometrically sound vignette-based parent discipline interviews were identified. All nine vignette interviews assessed effective and ineffective discipline practices, and all assessed parents of children from early and middle childhood. In vignette-based interviews, the interviewer reads aloud or plays a prerecorded audiotape of several situations involving child misbehavior and then asks parents to give their typical responses to each situation. Responses are either tape-recorded for later transcribing and coding, or coded concurrently during the interview. Vignette-based interviews allow researchers to study parental responses to specific child misbehaviors and allow parents to freely discuss their repertoire of parenting behaviors through open-ended responses. The validity of the vignette approach might be related to the extent to which the chosen vignettes actually sample from the pool of situations parents are likely to encounter in real life. Additionally, coding open-ended responses

L.M. Locke, R.J. Prinz / Clinical Psychology Review 22 (2002) 895–929

913

demands interrater reliability. Coding may be more reliable by using transcripts when raters are not distracted by the interview process itself. The Concerns and Constraints Questionnaire (CCQ; Deater-Deckard, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1996), a carefully developed vignette instrument, assesses the degree of concern parents have for children’s behavior (e.g., ‘‘How much would that behavior worry you?’’) and the degree of constraint that parents exhibit in punishment (e.g., ‘‘How much discipline would you use?’’). The interview is flexible and can be used to assess use of physical punishment (Deater-Deckard et al., 1996) and lack of positive discipline skills (DeaterDeckard, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1998). The CCQ showed variable internal consistency (a=.42–.82 across subscales and studies), adequate validity (e.g., the presence of physical punishment, in the context of low supportiveness, was negatively correlated with positive child outcomes), and utility with African American and Caucasian populations (DeaterDeckard et al., 1996, 1998; Pettit et al., 1997). The Parent Discipline Interview (PDI; Scarr and McCartney, 1988; Scarr, Pinkerton, & Eisenberg, 1994) uses five vignettes of common child misbehaviors (e.g., safety violations, noncompliance) to elicit reports of most characteristic parental responses. The responses are audiotaped and then categorized in an 18-category system (e.g., physical punishment, reasoning). The PDI reflected adequate reliability, construct validity, and clinical utility (Deater-Deckard & Scarr, 1996; Miller & Scarr, 1989).

5. Measurement of parental nurturance: questionnaires and interviews 5.1. Questionnaires The review identified 52 questionnaires that purported to measure nurturance via parental self-report (17), youth report (19), or both (16), as listed in Table 1. Of the 52 questionnaires pertaining to parental nurturance, 6 assessed emotional nurturance, 3 assessed instrumental nurturance, and 43 assessed both emotional and instrumental nurturance. Thirty-one of these instruments also assessed some form of parental discipline. 5.1.1. Parental self-report Of the 33 parental self-report questionnaires that assessed nurturance, 29 focused on both emotional and instrumental facets, while 2 focused only on emotional and 2 focused only on instrumental facets. With respect to age-group referent, 12 of the questionnaires covered early childhood, 15 covered early through middle childhood, and 5 pertained to early through late adolescence. The Porter Parental Acceptance Scale (PPAS; Porter, 1954) has been in use for over 40 years. The PPAS, which purports to measure parents’ acceptance of their children, was carefully developed from an operational definition of nurturance (e.g., acceptance of children’s feelings, encouragement of autonomy, expression of unconditional love and support). Several studies have demonstrated reliability and validity of the PPAS (e.g., Burchinal, 1958; Guerney & Gavigan, 1981).

914

L.M. Locke, R.J. Prinz / Clinical Psychology Review 22 (2002) 895–929

The PBC (Fox, 1992) assesses emotional and instrumental nurturance for parents with preschool-aged children. The nurturing subscale of the PBC has shown good internal consistency and test–retest reliability, discriminant validity, and construct validity (Fox & Bentley, 1992; Peters & Fox, 1993). The APQ (Shelton et al., 1996), the CRPR (Block, 1965), and the PPQ (Robinson et al., 1995), which all have psychometrically defensible discipline scales, also have parental nurturance scales with at least adequate psychometric characteristics (Colder, Lochman, & Wells, 1997; Devokic, Janssens, & Gerris, 1991; Hart, Nelson, Robinson, Olsen, & McNeilly-Choque, 1998; Reitman & Gross, 1997). All three instruments tap emotional and instrumental nurturance and provide parent and youth versions. Two other instruments warrant mention. The PPS (Strayhorn & Weidman, 1988) and the Parenting Dimensions Inventory (Slater & Power, 1987), which both have parent but not youth report forms, assess emotional and instrumental nurturance with psychometrically sound scales (Hardy, Power, & Jaedicke, 1993; Stormshak, Speltz, DeKlyen, & Greenberg, 1997; Strayhorn & Weidman, 1988). 5.1.2. Youth report A total of 35 youth report of parental nurturance questionnaires was identified: 3 focused on emotional nurturance, 2 focused on instrumental nurturance, and 30 focused on both aspects of nurturance. The majority of these questionnaires are parent-specific instruments (30), but some are general social-support measures that include a parent subscale (5). The literature review revealed a trend toward higher numbers of youth-only report instruments designed to measure parental nurturance exclusively (13), rather than parental discipline exclusively (2), or parental discipline and nurturance in combination (6). Most parent and youth report instruments assessing nurturance did so in combination with discipline (13); only 3 of such questionnaires assessed nurturance alone. As with the youth report discipline questionnaires, the targeted age range for most of these measures encompasses young schoolaged children (17) and older children and adolescents (15), although some are appropriate for use as adult retrospective reports of childhood (3). The majority of the questionnaires (27) use endorsement via Likert-scale or true/false response formats, while others used frequency rating formats (9). The Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI) (Parker, Tupling, & Brown, 1979) assesses maternal and paternal nurturance using two factor-analyzed subscales concerning effective and ineffective aspects of parental nurturance. Although the authors proposed two factors (i.e., caring and overprotection), other analyses of the PBI have found support for a third factor, namely authoritarianism (Cox, Enns, & Clara, 2000; Murphy, Brewin, & Silka, 1997). The PBI shows good correspondence with other parenting and personality instruments (Heiss, Berman, & Sperling, 1996; Myers, 1999). The Parental Acceptance–Rejection Questionnaire (PARQ; Rohner, 1986) is a highquality instrument that assesses several facets of nurturance: warmth–affection, hostility– aggression, indifference–neglect, and undifferentiated rejection. The PARQ’s construct validity and factor structure have been established across eight sociocultural groups worldwide (Rohner & Cournoyer, 1994).

L.M. Locke, R.J. Prinz / Clinical Psychology Review 22 (2002) 895–929

915

Using a social network approach, the Network of Relationships Inventory (NRI) (Furman & Buhrmester, 1985) assesses 10 different relationship qualities concerning as many as nine different social network members and has adequate internal consistency, convergent validity, and cross-cultural validation (Creasey & Jarvis, 1989; DeRosier & Kupersmidt, 1991). 5.2. Interviews Ten nurturance interviews were identified, all of which were part of interviews that also assessed discipline. Of the 10 interviews, 6 assessed emotional and instrumental nurturance, 4 assessed emotional nurturance only, and none assessed instrumental nurturance only. With respect to age group referent, 4 pertained to young children, 4 pertained to middle childhood through adolescence, and 2 were retrospective adult reports about childhood. Only two of the nine interviews used both parent and youth informants. Like the discipline interviews, the nurturance interviews cluster into three types: in-person structured, telephone-based structured, and vignette-based. Information on specific interviews is found in Table 2. 5.2.1. In-person structured interviews The Parenting Quality Scale (PQS; Gest, Neemann, Hubbard, Masten, & Tellegen, 1993) is an interview system that relies on interviewer ratings of parental nurturance. Interviewers rate parents on a 14-item scale, encompassing for example parental encouragement and positive attitudes toward children. The PQS has shown good interrater reliability and internal consistency. The interviewer rating system, but not the specific procedures of the interview itself, is well described. Ge et al. (1996) used a combination of parent, adolescent, and interviewer rating methods to assess adoptive parents with respect to nurturance (i.e., praise, encouragement of independence, supportiveness) and warmth. The Ge et al. approach produced a high level of internal consistency and validity across informants. 5.2.2. Telephone-based structured interviews The APQ (Shelton et al., 1996) has a psychometrically sound parent and youth telephone interview format that includes a section on parental nurturance. The APQ focuses on instrumental nurturance in the form of parental involvement, and on emotional nurturance in the form of warmth and supportiveness. The APQ youth interview is not recommended for use with children under age 10. 5.2.3. Vignette-based interviews The Sensitivity to Children Questionnaire (SCQ; Stollak, Scholom, Kallman, & Saturansky, 1973) is a vignette-based interview that can also be administered in a written format. Parents’ verbal descriptions of their possible responses to difficult parent–child situations are recorded verbatim and later coded based on an acceptance versus rejection scheme. Internal consistency and interrater reliability have proven to be adequate (Rogosch, Mowbray, & Bogat, 1992), and the SCQ has been used successfully to examine parenting styles of distressed mothers and to evaluate parent-training programs (Van Wyk, Eloff, & Heyns, 1983).

916

L.M. Locke, R.J. Prinz / Clinical Psychology Review 22 (2002) 895–929

6. Observation of parental discipline and nurturance Although many observational systems have been described in the literature, few of these have been sufficiently well developed and tested to warrant a strong recommendation. Thirtythree standardized observational systems were located and are listed in Table 3. Of these, 9 used microanalytic coding methods and 24 used frequency or rating methods. Twenty-seven of the 33 instruments assessed both discipline and nurturance, 3 assessed discipline alone, and 3 assessed nurturance alone. Concerning the format of the observational session, 9 used a structured format (i.e., specific tasks or games), 8 used an unstructured format (i.e., free play), and 16 included both unstructured and structured components. With respect to age-group referent, 25 pertained to toddlerhood and early childhood, 6 pertained to early through middle childhood, and 2 pertained to late childhood through adolescence. Observational methods vary across developmental level. Parent–child tasks (e.g., toy clean up, games, teaching new skills) are designed to elicit specific types of parental behaviors such as commands or physical affection in interactions with younger children. Parent–adolescent tasks, however, are primarily conversation oriented and tend to be rated based on affect or style (e.g., hostility, criticism, and acceptance of autonomy) rather than specific parenting techniques. 6.1. Discipline All of the nine microanalytic systems assessed both discipline and nurturance. Of the 24 frequency and rating systems, 18 assessed both discipline and nurturance, 3 assessed discipline alone, and 3 assessed nurturance alone. 6.1.1. Microanalytic interactional systems One of the better known microanalytic coding systems is the Family Interaction Coding System (FICS; Reid, 1978), use a certain number of behavior codes to continuously record behaviors. The FICS has 29 positive, negative, and neutral behavior codes, several of which reflect facets of parental discipline and nurturance. The system has well-established psychometric properties and has been widely used in parent–child interaction research (Hoffman, Fagot, Reid, & Patterson, 1987; Snyder, 1983). The Response-Class Matrix (RCM; Mash, Terdal, & Anderson, 1973) uses a contingency matrix to record antecedents and consequences in parent–child interactions. One rater records parent responses to specific child behaviors (e.g., compliance, play), and another rater records child responses to specific parent behaviors (e.g., command, praise). When combined, these matrices allow researchers to analyze behavioral contingencies in parent–child interactions. This system has been used with clinic-referred and nonreferred populations and is useful in treatment planning and outcome research (Barkley, 1989; Johnston & Pelham, 1990). Some observational instruments assessing parental discipline record the frequency of behaviors such as commands and reinforcement. The Dyadic Parent–Child Interaction Coding System (DPICS; Robinson & Eyberg, 1981) consists of 29 behavior categories that can be summed into composite scores such as total critical statements and physical negative

L.M. Locke, R.J. Prinz / Clinical Psychology Review 22 (2002) 895–929

917

behavior. An updated version, DPICS-II, has shown good reliability and validity as a system that is particularly useful for assessing treatment outcomes of parent training programs (Eyberg, Bessmer, Newcomb, Edwards, & Robinson, 1994). Although not as well known, two other well-designed microanalytic coding systems with very good measurement characteristics deserve mention: the Standardized Observational Codes, 3rd Revision (SOC-III-R) (Cerezo, 1988; Cerezo, Keesler, Dunn, & Wahler, 1986), and the INTERACT coding system (Dumas, 1987). 6.1.2. Frequency and rating methods Fagot (1992) developed an analog observation system to assess coercive parental discipline, the Coercive Discipline Scale. She compiled a video portraying vignettes of child misbehaviors, and then mothers watched the videos and indicated when and how they would discipline the toddlers involved (as if they were their own children). The video portrays only negative child behaviors, thus limiting the types of response parents can make, and it is less direct than observing parents with their own children. However, this instrument showed good test – retest reliability (r =.72) and was validated with self-report, interview, and other observational methods. When refined, this procedure will allow researchers and clinicians to assess parental discipline without the intrusiveness of home observations and the social desirability bias of written self-report methods. 6.2. Nurturance 6.2.1. Microanalytic interactional systems Microanalytic recording systems that assess nurturance typically focus on positive verbal and physical interactions, warmth, support, and acceptance. The Interactive Behavior Code (Fagot, 1983), a forerunner of the FICS, can be used to record parent–child interactions in structured and unstructured situations and uses a context–interaction–recipient–reactor– reaction coding sequence. It has been used to assess positive parental behaviors such as physical affection, cooperative play, and positive statements directed toward the child. High interrater reliability has been demonstrated for this system. Observational systems described previously for measurement of discipline, namely the FICS, RCM, INTERACT, SOC-III-R, and DPICS-II, all adequately assess nurturance as well. 6.2.2. Frequency and rating methods The Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment Inventory (HOME; Caldwell & Bradley, 1984) is one of the most widely used observer rating scales. Ratings of parent behavior and home environment are based on in-home observations of parent – child interactions and interviews with parents. There are versions for parents of children from infancy through early adolescence, each with developmentally appropriate items clustering into several subscales (e.g., acceptance, involvement, responsivity, encouragement). Its appropriateness for cross-cultural use has been examined extensively (Bradley, Corwyn, & Whiteside-Mansell, 1996), and its ratings have been associated with maternal social support (Burchinal, Follmer, & Bryant, 1996) and child school performance (Bradley, Caldwell, &

918

Table 3 Discipline and nurturance observational systems

Source

Coded constructs

Coding procedures

Discipline

Nurturance

Method

Task; Setting

Time

Reliability

Validity

T-C

B

B

CS

S,U; H

45 – 60 min

R .74 – .96

B

T-C

B

B

F,R

S,U; H,L

15 – 60 min

R .65 – .98, 68 – 92% k .75 – .93

B

Microanalytic interactional systems Behavioral Observation Scoring System (BOSS) Dyadic Parent – Child Interaction Coding System II (DPICS-II) Family Interaction Coding System (FICS) Family Process Code

Patterson, 1982; Reid, 1978 Dishion et al., 1983

C-A

B

B

CS

S,U; H,L

70 – 120 min

T-C

B

B

CS,R

U; H,L

50 min – 2 h

INTERACT Coding System

Dumas, 1987

T-EA

B

B

CS

S,U; H,L

40 – 60 min

Interpersonal Process Code

Rusby, Estes, & Dishion, 1991 Fagot, 1983

C

B

B

CS,R

S; L

45 min

T-C

B

B

CS

U; H

10 min – 5 h

Lytton, 1979 Mash, Terdal, & Anderson, 1973 Cerezo, Keesler, Dunn, & Wahler, 1986

T T-EA

B B

B B

CS IC

U; H S,U; H,L

3h 30 – 60 min

T-EA

B

B

CS

U; H,L

30 – 60 min

T-C T-C

B B

B

R F,R

U; H S; L

NR 10 min

NR 62 – 93%

B B

Coercive Discipline Scale

Magura & Moses, 1986 Roberts & Powers, 1988; Forehand & McMahon, 1981 Fagot, 1992

T

B

F

S; L

13.5 min

B

Dyadic Parent – Child Interaction Coding System (DPICS)

Robinson & Eyberg, 1981

T-C

B

F,R

S,U; H,L

15 – 60 min

IT .42, k .76, R .72 R .65 – .98, 68 – 92%

Interactive Behavior Code Parent – Child Interaction Code Response Class Matrix (RCM) Standardized Observation Code—Revised, 3rd Edition (SOC-R-III) Frequency and rating methods Child Well-Being Scales Clinic Task Analog

Burgess & Conger, 1978 Eyberg et al., 1994

B

k .52 – .72, 74 – 80% 95 – 99%, R .60 – .96 k .69 – .78 >85%, k .59 – .79 63 – 76% R .70 – .94, 78 – 96% k .34 – .93, 80 – 83%

B B B B ? No B B

B

L.M. Locke, R.J. Prinz / Clinical Psychology Review 22 (2002) 895–929

Instrument

Child age

Early Parenting Coding System (EPCS) Emotional Availability Scales

Parent – child Interaction System (PARCHISY) Post-Observation Questionnaire System for Coding Interactions and Family Functioning (SCIFF)

Kogan & Gordon, 1975 Melby et al., 1989 Kahen, Katz, & Gottman, 1994 Kahen et al., 1994 Tuteur et al., 1995 Tuteur et al., 1995 Rubin & McKinnon, 1993 Baumrind, 1982 Farran et al., 1986 Clark et al., 1980 Sweitzer & Boyd, 1979 Deater-Deckard, Pylas, & Petrill, 1997 Olson, Bates, & Bayles, 1982, 1984 Lindahl & Malik, 1996

T

B

T

B

F,R

S; L

NR

k .75 – .89

B

B

R

S,U; H,L

15 min

k .75 – .90

?

C-A

B

B

R

S,U; H,L

10 – 30 min

k .73 – .84

B

T T-EA

B B

B B

R F,R

S,U; H S; L

60 min 20 min

B B

T-C

B

B

R

S,U; H

1h

T-C EA-A T-C

B B

B B B

R R F

U; L S; H S,U; L

30 min 50 min 10 min

66 – 100% k .75, R .94 – .96 I .52 – .88, k .88 – .90, 93% 80 – 98% R .45 – .84 R .84 – .97

T-C T-C T-C T-C

B B B

B B B B

F R F,R R

S,U; L S; L S; L S,U; L

10 min 10 min 10 min 1–2 h

C T T

B B B

B B B

R R R

S,U; H,L U; H S,U; H,L

T-C

B

F

T

B

B

T

B

C-EA

B

B B B B B B B B

NR 20 – 30 min 10 – 40 min

R .86 – .99 R .85 R .80 – 1.0 R .80 – .99, k .76 – .91 R .45 – .96 R .88 – .94 R .74 – .98

S,U; H

30 min

k .81 – .88

B

R

S,U; H

20 min

R .80

B

B

R

U; H

3h

R .81 – .83

B

B

R

S; L

12 min

k .83

B

B B B

Child age: T = toddler/early childhood, C = child, EA = early adolescent, A = adolescent. Method: CS = continuous – sequential, F = frequency, IC = interval coding, R = rating. Task: S = structured, U = unstructured. Setting: H = home, L = laboratory. Reliability; R = interrater reliability, IT = item – total correlation.

L.M. Locke, R.J. Prinz / Clinical Psychology Review 22 (2002) 895–929

Family Interaction Coding System ratings Family Observation Manual High-Risk Interaction Coding System Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME) Interpersonal Behavior Construct Scale (IBCS) Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales Kahen Affect Coding System (KACS) Kahen Engagement Coding System (KECS) Maternal – Child Interaction Scale (MCIS) Maternal Observation Matrix (MOM) Maternal Warmth and Control Rating Scales Parent Behavior Rating Scales (PBR) Parent/Caregiver Involvement Scale (P/CIS) Parent – Child Early Relational Assessment (PCERA) Parent – Child Interaction Form (PCIF)

Winslow, Shaw, Bruns, & Kiebler, 1995 Biringen, Robinson, & Emde, 1988 Hetherington & Clingempeel, 1992 Pedersen et al., 1978 Cooperman & Steinbach, 1995 Caldwell & Bradley, 1984

919

920

L.M. Locke, R.J. Prinz / Clinical Psychology Review 22 (2002) 895–929

Rock, 1988), among other variables. The Child Well-Being Scales (Magura & Moses, 1986) were also developed to assess various aspects of parenting and household environment, especially in neglectful versus nonneglectful families (Gaudin, Polansky, & Kilpatrick, 1992). Scales pertaining specifically to parenting include ‘‘psychological nurturance’’ (i.e., acceptance, affection, stimulation), supervision, and physical care. The scale was designed primarily for use by child welfare agencies, and has less well-developed psychometric properties than the HOME. The Parent–Child Early Relational Assessment (Clark, Musick, Stott, & Klehr, 1980) rates parents on several behaviors and qualities related to nurturance, including physical contact, responsivity, connectedness, flexibility, intrusiveness, and many other aspects. Factor scores of parent nurturance and parent control can be calculated (Black, Hutcheson, Dubowitz, Starr, & Berenson-Howard, 1996), with the overall analysis focusing on the parent – child relationship. The assessment includes structured and free play situations and is typically used with very young children. The Parent/Caregiver Involvement Scale (Farran, Kasari, Comfort, & Jay, 1986) involves rating parents on the amount, quality, and appropriateness of nurturing behaviors such as physical involvement, verbal involvement, responsiveness, and play, and aspects of nurturing style such as warmth and acceptance. The instrument can be used to create ‘‘behavior profiles’’ to analyze parents at the individual level, or scores can be summarized and compared across individuals. 6.3. Racial/ethnic considerations An important issue is the extent to which discipline and nurturance questionnaires, interviews, and observational systems were based on a consideration of respondents’ racial/ethnic group membership. With respect to development, validation, and use of questionnaires, this concern can be analyzed at several levels. At a first level, it can be asked whether questionnaires were deployed with ethnically heterogeneous samples. Most questionnaires (56%) were developed and used with predominantly Caucasian samples. Some questionnaires (39%) were linked to heterogeneous samples that included at least 20% respondents belonging to minority groups (e.g., APQ, CRPR, CRPBI, CPBI, FES, IPPA, MCQ, PBQ, PARQ, PAQ, PBI, PDI, Parent–Child Conflict Tactics Scales, PPRS). For the remaining questionnaires (5%), racial and ethnic composition of the samples was indeterminant. A similar breakdown was found for interview methods. At a second level, it would be important to know if psychometric properties of the instrument, such as internal consistency, stability, factor analytic structure, and validity data, were ascertained for specific minority populations. This was a rare occurrence. Examples include Monitoring and Control Questionnaire, CRPR, and the Family Environment Scale. A third level, which the field has not yet routinely addressed, is the examination of measurement equivalence. The more promising measures of discipline and nurturance need to be subjected to validity analyses that would determine whether the items and subscales have similar or disparate meanings across racial, ethnic, and cultural groups. Investigators are beginning to ask the right questions about measurement equivalence and assessment of

L.M. Locke, R.J. Prinz / Clinical Psychology Review 22 (2002) 895–929

921

parenting (Bradley & Whiteside-Mansell, 1998; Gray & Steinberg, 1999; McLloyd & Steinberg, 1998), but as yet few if any measures of discipline or nurturance have been subjected to this type of analysis. Observational systems, and to a certain extent interviews, have an additional consideration besides the racial/ethnic group membership of the respondent. The race/ethnicity of the observer (observational coder) and the interviewer could certainly affect the cultural validity of either form of assessment. Even with a well-specified code, observers have to make judgments that may well be affected by cultural context. Little empirical work has been done addressing this issue with respect to the assessment of parental discipline and nurturance.

7. Conclusions and recommendations The field has produced many measures of discipline and nurturance, primarily relying on questionnaire format but also on structured interview and systematic observational methods. The measures vary greatly with respect to construct definition, item content, and emphasis. What is abundantly clear is that there is no accepted standard for the measurement of either discipline or nurturance. Nonetheless, several measures were identified for which adequate reliability and validity has been demonstrated. With respect to discipline, many of the measures focused primarily on ineffective or problematic parenting methods and less on effective ones. A number of concerns and challenges are inherent in this issue. A first concern is that there is no agreed-upon standard for discipline practices in terms of lesser or greater effectiveness. Although parenting practices such as setting limits and having clear rules are commonly put forth as desirable goals, the parameters for gauging the specific practices associated with these goals are not apparent. Compounding matters is that it is not clear how to assess discipline effectiveness. One way is to examine reductions in child misconduct over time as a function of specific discipline strategies (Larzelere, 2000). More often, researchers examine indirect evidence in terms of longitudinal measurement of child adjustment, and it is difficult to tease out the effects of specific discipline methods embedded in a large constellation of parenting practices. A second challenge is how to word items so as to better capture the more effective types of discipline practices without engendering a social-desirability bias. More general descriptions of discipline (e.g., firm disciplinary consequences, loving discipline) obscure variations in effective versus ineffective practices, but more specific items (e.g., spanking, disciplining in anger) might cause respondents to avoid endorsement of true parenting that is perceived to be less socially acceptable. A third problem pertains to context. Many of the instruments present items without relating them to a specific context. For a given item, respondents may feel that their discipline is context dependent and that they apply different practices depending on the specific child situation. The challenge is how to contextualize assessment of effective and ineffective practices while maintaining reasonable generalizability. The construct of nurturance faces other kinds of problems. As measured, nurturance has been represented in many forms, including acceptance, warmth, physical affection, support,

922

L.M. Locke, R.J. Prinz / Clinical Psychology Review 22 (2002) 895–929

encouragement, and involvement. It is an open question whether nurturance is more useful as a unitary global construct or as a set of related subconstructs. To further complicate matters, nurturance can also be divided into emotional and instrumental facets. Many of the nurturance measures covered both facets but usually did not make the distinction. Emotional and instrumental types of nurturance may both be important dimensions, but many measures do not allow examination of each separately. The following recommendations are offered for future research and development with respect to measurement of parental discipline and nurturance: 1. Research on parenting needs to examine discrimination at both the high and the low ends of the continuum. Accurate assessment of parenting at the low or problematic end is useful in understanding child abuse or neglect and characterizing minimum standards of parental competence (Budd, 2001). Precision at the high or effective end of the parenting continuum can contribute to efforts aimed at identifying and promoting conditions and socialization practices conducive to healthy child development (Sanders, 1999). 2. For evaluation of intervention outcomes, research is needed to establish measurement sensitivity to change. Descriptive measures of discipline and nurturance are not necessarily suited for tracking changes that might occur as a function of intervention aimed at improving or enhancing parenting. 3. Despite interest in the field, the cultural appropriateness of most discipline and nurturance measures has not been researched. There is a pressing need to conduct studies of measurement equivalence, which would aid in the validation and refinement of existing or new measures. As it currently stands, apparent cultural variation in parenting could be due to measurement problems, to actual cultural differences, or both. The identification and explication of universal as well as culturally unique parenting practices is dependent first on the establishment of measurement equivalence across cultural groups. 4. Discipline and nurturance change form across child development. While some practices may remain consistent across child age, others are discontinued and new practices introduced as children develop. For example, Straus and Stewart (1999) found in a national survey that over 90% of parents of 5-year-olds reported using corporal punishment compared with 30% for parents of 15-year-olds. Across all discipline and nurturance measures, better developmental mapping is needed. Some instruments limit the age range, which circumvents this issue to some degree. Other instruments cover a wide age range, which begs the question about developmental shifts in parenting. Some items in discipline/nurturance instruments can be used to study changes, while other items should represent differing practices at different child ages. 5. What parents report as their parenting practices and what they actually do in real interactions with their children may or may not correspond. More research is needed linking parental report measures to observational assessment to determine divergence and create conceptual frameworks that cut across method.

L.M. Locke, R.J. Prinz / Clinical Psychology Review 22 (2002) 895–929

923

References Abraham, K. G., Christopherson, V. A., & Kuehl, R. O. (1984). Navajo and Anglo childrearing behaviors: a crosscultural comparison. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 15, 373 – 388. Arnold, D. S., O’Leary, S. G., Wolff, L. S., & Acker, M. M. (1993). The parenting scale: a measure of dysfunctional parenting in discipline situations. Psychological Assessment, 5, 137 – 144. Azar, S. T., Benjet, C. L., Fuhrmann, G. S., & Cavallero, L. (1995). Child maltreatment and termination of parental rights: can behavioral research help Solomon? Behavior Therapy, 26, 599 – 623. Azar, S. T., Lauretti, A. F., & Loding, B. V. (1998). The evaluation of parental fitness in termination of parental rights cases: a functional – contextual perspective. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 1, 77 – 100. Barkley, R. A. (1989). Hyperactive girls and boys: stimulant drug effects on mother – child interactions. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 30, 379 – 390. Barnett, D., Kidwell, S. L., & Leung, K. H. (1998). Parenting and preschooler attachment among low-income urban African American families. Child Development, 69, 1657 – 1671. Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monograph, 4, 1 – 98. Belsky, J., Domitrovich, C., & Crnic, K. (1997). Temperament and parenting antecedents of individual differences in three-year-old boys’ pride and shame reactions. Child Development, 68, 456 – 466. Belsky, J., Steinberg, L., & Draper, P. (1991). Childhood experience, interpersonal development, and reproductive strategy: an evolutionary theory of socialization. Child Development, 62, 647 – 670. Black, M. M., Hutcheson, J. J., Dubowitz, H., Starr, Jr., R. H., & Berenson-Howard, J. (1996). The roots of competence: mother – child interaction among low income, urban, African American families. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 17, 367 – 391. Block, J. H. (1965). The Child-Rearing Practices Report. Berkeley: University of California. Bradley, R. H., Caldwell, B. M., & Rock, S. L. (1988). Home environment and school performance: a ten-year follow-up and examination of three models of environmental action. Child Development, 59, 852 – 867. Bradley, R. H., Corwyn, R. F., & Whiteside-Mansell, L. (1996). Life at home: same time, different places—an examination of the HOME inventory in different cultures. Early Development and Parenting, 5, 251 – 269. Bradley, R. H., & Whiteside-Mansell, L. (1998). Home environment and children’s development: age and demographic differences. In M. Lewis, & C. Feiring (Eds.), Families, risk, and competence (pp. 133 – 157). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Brenner, V., & Fox, R. A. (1999). An empirically derived classification of parenting practices. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 160, 343 – 356. Budd, K. S. (2001). Assessing parenting competence in child protection cases: a clinical practice model. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 4, 1 – 18. Budd, K. S., & Holdsworth, M. J. (1996). Issues in clinical assessment of minimal parenting competence. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 25, 2 – 14. Burchinal, L. G. (1958). Mothers’ and fathers’ differences in parental acceptance of children for controlled comparisons based on parental and family characteristics. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 92, 103 – 110. Burchinal, M. R., Follmer, A., & Bryant, D. M. (1996). The relations of maternal social support and family structure with maternal responsiveness and child outcomes among African American families. Developmental Psychology, 32, 1073 – 1083. Buriel, R. (1981). The relation of Anglo- and Mexican-American children’s locus of control beliefs to parents’ and teachers’ socialization practices. Child Development, 52, 104 – 113. Caldwell, B. M., & Bradley, R. H. (1984). Home Observation For Measurement of the Environment. Little Rock, AR: University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Capaldi, D. M. (1991). Co-occurrence of conduct problems and depressive symptoms in early adolescent boys: I. Familial factors and general adjustment at Grade 6. Development and Psychopathology, 3, 277 – 300. Capaldi, D. M., & Patterson, G. R. (1989). Psychometric properties of fourteen latent constructs from the Oregon Youth Study. New York: Springer-Verlag.

924

L.M. Locke, R.J. Prinz / Clinical Psychology Review 22 (2002) 895–929

Capaldi, D. M., & Patterson, G. R. (1991). Relation of parental transitions to boys’ adjustment problems: I. A linear hypothesis. II. Mothers at risk for transitions and unskilled parenting. Developmental Psychology, 27, 489 – 504. Cerezo, A., Keesler, T. Y., Dunn, E. S., & Wahler, R. G. (1986). Standardized observation codes: revision III-R. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee. Cerezo, M. A. (1988). Standardized observation codes. In M. Hersen , & A. Bellak (Eds.), Dictionary of behavioral assessment techniques (pp. 442 – 445). New York: Pergamon. Chamberlain, P., & Reid, J. B. (1987). Parent observation and report of child symptoms. Behavioral Assessment, 9, 97 – 109. Clark, R., Musick, J., Stoff, F., & Klehr, K. (1980). The Mother’s Project rating scales of mother – child interaction. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Medical School Department of Psychiatry. Colder, C. R., Lochman, J. E., & Wells, K. C. (1997). The moderating effects of children’s fear and activity level on relations between parenting practices and childhood symptomatology. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 25, 251 – 263. Cox, B. J., Enns, M. W., & Clara, I. P. (2000). The Parental Bonding Instrument: confirmatory evidence for a three-factor model in a psychiatric clinical sample and in the National Comorbidity Survey. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 35, 353 – 357. Creasey, G. L., & Jarvis, P. A. (1989). The child’s perceptions of familial relationships: convergence between two assessment techniques. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 150, 59 – 64. Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: an integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487 – 496. Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1996). Physical discipline among African American and European American mothers: links to children’s externalizing behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 32, 1065 – 1072. Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1998). Multiple risk factors in the development of externalizing behavior problems: group and individual differences. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 469 – 493. Deater-Deckard, K., & Scarr, S. (1996). Parenting stress among dual-earner mothers and fathers: are there gender differences? Journal of Family Psychology, 10, 45 – 59. DeBaryshe, B. D., Patterson, G. R., & Capaldi, D. M. (1993). A performance model for academic achievement in early adolescent boys. Developmental Psychology, 29, 795 – 804. DeRosier, M. E., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1991). Costa Rican children’s perceptions of their social networks. Developmental Psychology, 27, 656 – 662. Devereux, E. C., Bronfenbrenner, U., & Rodgers, R. R. (1969). Child-rearing in England and the United States: a cross-national comparison. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 31, 257 – 270. Devokic, M., Janssens, J. M., & Gerris, J. R. (1991). Factor structure and construct validity of the Block Child Rearing Practices Report (CRPR). Psychological Assessment, 3, 182 – 187. Dishion, T. J., Patterson, G. R., Stoolmiller, G., & Skinner, M. L. (1991). Family, school, and behavioral antecedents to early adolescent involvement with antisocial peers. Developmental Psychology, 27, 172 – 180. Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1994). Socialization mediators of the relation between socioeconomic status and child conduct problems. Child Development, 65, 649 – 665. Dumas, J. E. (1987). INTERACT—a computer-based coding and data management system to address family interactions. Advances in Behavioral Assessment of Children and Families, 3, 177 – 202. Eyberg, S. M., Bessmer, J., Newcomb, K., Edwards, D., & Robinson, E. (1994). Dyadic Parent – Child Interaction Coding System II: a manual. Social and Behavioral Sciences Documents (Ms. No. 2897). Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. Fagot, B. I. (1983). Training manual for the interactive code. Oregon: Oregon Social Learning Center. Fagot, B. I. (1992). Assessment of coercive parent discipline. Behavioral Assessment, 14, 387 – 406. Farran, D. C., Kasari, C., Comfort, M., & Jay, S. (1986). Parent/caregiver Involvement Scale: manual. Greensboro, NC: Child Development and Family Relations School of Home Economics at Greensboro.

L.M. Locke, R.J. Prinz / Clinical Psychology Review 22 (2002) 895–929

925

Fine, M. A., Voydanoff, P., & Donnelly, B. W. (1993). Relations between parental control and warmth and child well-being in stepfamilies. Journal of Family Psychology, 7, 222 – 232. Fox, R. A. (1992). Development of an instrument to measure the behaviors and expectations of parents of young children. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 17, 231 – 239. Fox, R. A., & Bentley, K. S. (1992). Validity of the parenting inventory: young children. Psychology in the Schools, 29, 101 – 107. Fristad, M. A., & Karpowitz, D. H. (1988). Norms for the Children’s Report of Parent Behavior Inventory— modified form. Psychological Reports, 62, 665 – 666. Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1985). Children’s perceptions of the personal relationships in their social networks. Developmental Psychology, 21, 1016 – 1024. Gaudin, Jr. J. M. , Polansky, N. A., & Kilpatrick, A. C. (1992). The child well-being scales: a field trial. Child Welfare, 71, 319 – 328. Ge, X., Conger, R. D., Cadoret, R. J., Neiderhiser, J. M., Yates, W., Troughton, E., & Stewart, M. A. (1996). The developmental interface between nature and nurture: a mutual influence model of child antisocial behavior and parent behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 32, 574 – 589. Gest, S. D., Neemann, J., Hubbard, J. J., Masten, A. S., & Tellegen, A. (1993). Parenting quality, adversity, and conduct problems in adolescence: testing process-oriented models of resilience. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 663 – 682. Glaser, B. A., Horne, A. M., & Myers, L. L. (1995). A cross-validation of the Parent Perception Inventory. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 17, 21 – 34. Glasgow, K. L., Dornbusch, S. M., Troyer, L., Steinberg, L., & Ritter, P. L. (1997). Parenting styles, adolescents’ attributions, and educational outcomes in nine heterogeneous high schools. Child Development, 68, 507 – 529. Gray, M. R., & Steinberg, L. (1999). Unpacking authoritative parenting: reassessing a multidimensional construct. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 574 – 587. Grotevant, H. D., & Carlson, C. I. (1989). Family assessment: a guide to methods and measures. New York: Guildford Press. Grusec, J. E., & Goodnow, J. J. (1994). Impact of parental discipline methods on the child’s internalization of values: a reconceptualization of current points of view. Developmental Psychology, 30, 4 – 19. Guerney, L. F., & Gavigan, M. A. (1981). Parent acceptance and foster parents. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 10, 27 – 32. Hardy, D. F., Power, T. G., & Jaedicke, S. (1993). Examining the relation of parenting to children’s coping with everyday stress. Child Development, 64, 1829 – 1841. Hart, C. H., Nelson, D. A., Robinson, B. C., Olsen, S. S., & McNeilly-Choque, M. K. (1998). Overt and relational aggression in Russian nursery-school-age children: parenting style and marital linkages. Developmental Psychology, 34, 687 – 697. Hastings, P. D., & Grusec, J. E. (1998). Parenting goals as organizers of responses to parent – child disagreement. Developmental Psychology, 34, 465 – 479. Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Miller, J. Y. (1992). Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: implications for substance abuse prevention. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 64 – 105. Hazzard, A., Christensen, A., & Margolin, G. (1983). Children’s perceptions of parental behaviors. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 11, 49 – 60. Heiss, G. E., Berman, W. H., & Sperling, M. B. (1996). Five scales in search of a construct: exploring continued attachment to parents in college students. Journal of Personality Assessment, 67, 102 – 115. Hess, R. D., Holloway, S. D., Dickson, W. P., & Price, G. G. (1984). Maternal variables as predictors of children’s school readiness and later achievement in vocabulary and mathematics in sixth grade. Child Development, 55, 1902 – 1912. Hoffman, D. A., Fagot, B. I., Reid, J. B., & Patterson, G. R. (1987). Parents rate the Family Interaction Coding System: comparisons of problem and nonproblem boys using parent-derived behavior composites. Behavioral Assessment, 9, 131 – 140.

926

L.M. Locke, R.J. Prinz / Clinical Psychology Review 22 (2002) 895–929

Holden, G. W. (1988). Adults’ thinking about a child-rearing problem: effects of experience, parental status, and gender. Child Development, 59, 1623 – 1632. Holden, G. W. (1990). Parenthood. In J. Touliatos, B.F. Perlmutter, & M. Straus (Eds.), Handbook of family measurement techniques (pp. 285 – 419). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Holden, G. W., & Edwards, L. A. (1989). Parental attitudes toward child rearing: instruments, issues, and implications. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 29 – 58. Holden, G. W., Miller, P. C., & Harris, S. D. (1999). The instrumental side of corporal punishment: parents’ reported practices and outcome expectancies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 908 – 919. Holden, G. W., & Ritchie, K. L. (1991). Linking extreme marital discord, child rearing, and child behavior problems: evidence from battered women. Child Development, 62, 311 – 327. Hughes, H. M., & Haynes, S. N. (1978). Structured laboratory observation in the behavioral assessment of parent – child interactions: a methodological critique. Behavior Therapy, 9, 428 – 447. Irvine, A. B., Biglan, A., Smolkowski, K., & Ary, D. V. (1999). The value of the Parenting Scale for measuring the discipline practices of parents of middle school children. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 37, 127 – 142. Jacob, T., & Tennebaum, D. L. (1988). Family assessment: rationale, methods, and future directions. New York: Plenum Press. Johnston, C., & Pelham, W. E. J. (1990). Maternal characteristics, ratings of child behavior, and mother – child interactions in families of children with externalizing disorders. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 18, 407 – 417. Kawash, G. F., & Clewes, J. L. (1988). A factor analysis of a short form of the CRPBI: are children’s perceptions of control and discipline multidimensional? Journal of Psychology, 122, 57 – 67. Kendziora, K. T., & O’Leary, S. G. (1993). Dysfunctional parenting as a focus for prevention and treatment of child behavior problems. Advances in Clinical Child Psychology, 15, 175 – 206. Krevans, J., & Gibbs, J. C. (1996). Parents’ use of inductive discipline: relations to children’s empathy and prosocial behavior. Child Development, 67, 3263 – 3277. L’Abate, L. (Ed.) (1998). Family psychopathology: the relational roots of dysfunctional behavior. New York: Guilford. Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 62, 1049 – 1065. Larzelere, R. E. (2000). Child outcomes of nonabusive and customary physical punishment by parents: an updated literature review. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 3, 199 – 221. Larzelere, R. E., Schneider, W. N., Larson, D. B., & Pike, P. L. (1996). The effects of discipline responses in delaying toddler misbehavior recurrences. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 18, 35 – 37. Lerner, J. V., & Galambos, N. L. (1985). Maternal role satisfaction, mother – child interaction, and child temperament: a process model. Developmental Psychology, 21, 1157 – 1164. Maccoby, E. E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children: an historical overview. Developmental Psychology, 28, 1006 – 1017. MacDonald, K. (1992). Warmth as a developmental construct: an evolutionary analysis. Child Development, 63, 753 – 773. Magura, S., & Moses, B. S. (1986). Outcome measures for child welfare service. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America. Margolies, P. J., & Weintraub, S. (1977). The revised 56-item CRPBI as a research instrument: reliability and factor structure. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33, 472 – 476. Mash, E. J., Terdal, L., & Anderson, K. (1973). The Response-Class Matrix: a procedure for recording parent – child interactions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 40, 163 – 164. McLloyd, V., & Steinberg L., (Eds.) Studying minority adolescents: conceptual, methodological, and theoretical issues. Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum. Miliotis, D., Sesma, Jr., A., & Masten, A. S. (1999). Parenting as a protective process for school success in children from homeless families. Early Education and Development, 10, 113 – 131.

L.M. Locke, R.J. Prinz / Clinical Psychology Review 22 (2002) 895–929

927

Miller, S., & Scarr, S. (1989). Diagnosis of behavior problems in two-year-olds. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 18, 290 – 298. Murphy, E., Brewin, C. R., & Silka, L. (1997). The assessment of parenting using the Parental Bonding Instrument: two or three factors? Psychological Medicine, 27, 333 – 342. Myers, L. B. (1999). Are different measures of parenting comparable? Journal of Genetic Psychology, 160, 255 – 256. Parker, G., Tupling, H., & Brown, L. B. (1979). A parental bonding instrument. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 52, 1 – 10. Patterson, G. R. (1974). Retraining of aggressive boys by their parents: review of recent literature and follow-up evaluation. Canadian Psychiatric Association Journal, 19, 142 – 161. Patterson, G. R. (1986). Performance models for antisocial boys. American Psychologist, 41, 432 – 444. Patterson, G. R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1984). The correlation of family management practices and delinquency. Child Development, 55, 1299 – 1307. Peters, C. L., & Fox, R. A. (1993). Parenting inventory: validity and social desirability. Psychological Reports, 72, 683 – 689. Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (1997). Supportive parenting, ecological context, and children’s adjustment: a seven-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 68, 908 – 923. Phelps, J. L., Belsky, J., & Crnic, K. (1998). Earned security, daily stress, and parenting: a comparison of five alternative models. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 21 – 38. Pomerantz, E. M., & Ruble, D. N. (1998). The role of maternal control in the development of sex differences in child self-evaluative factors. Child Development, 69, 458 – 478. Porter, B. M. (1954). Measurement of parental acceptance of children. Journal of Home Economics, 46, 176 – 182. Rapee, R. M. (1997). Potential role of childrearing practices in the development of anxiety and depression. Clinical Psychology Review, 17, 47 – 67. Reid, J. B. (Eds.) A social learning approach to family intervention: Vol. 2. Observation in home settings. Eugene, OR: Castalia Publishing. Reid, J. B., & Patterson, G. R. (1976). The modification of aggression and stealing behavior of boys in the home setting. In E. Ribes-Inesta, & A. Bandura (Eds.), Behavior modification: experimental analysis of aggression and delinquency (pp. 43 – 59). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Reitman, D., Currier, R. O., Hupp, D. A., Rhode, P. C., Murphy, M. A., & O’Callaghan, P. M. (2001). Psychometric characteristics of the parenting scale in a head start population. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 514 – 524. Reitman, D., & Gross, A. M. (1997). The relation of maternal child-rearing attitudes to delay of gratification among boys. Child Study Journal, 27, 279 – 300. Repetti, R. L., & Wood, J. (1997). Effects of daily stress at work on mothers’ interactions with preschoolers. Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 90 – 108. Rickel, A. U., & Biasatti, L. L. (1982). Modification of the block child rearing practices report. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 129 – 134. Ritchie, K. L., & Holden, G. W. (1998). Parenting stress in low-income battered and community women: effects on parenting behavior. Early Education and Development, 9, 97 – 112. Robinson, C. C., Mandleco, B., Olsen, S. F., & Hart, C. H. (1995). Authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting practices: development of a new measure. Psychological Reports, 77, 819 – 830. Robinson, E. A., & Eyberg, S. M. (1981). The Dyadic Parent – Child Interaction Coding System: standardization and validation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 245 – 250. Rogosch, F. A., Mowbray, C. T., & Bogat, G. A. (1992). Determinants of parenting attitudes in mothers with severe psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 4, 469 – 487. Rohner, R. P. (1986). The warmth dimension: foundations of parental acceptance – rejection theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Rohner, R. P., & Cournoyer, D. E. (1994). Universals in youths’ perceptions of parental acceptance and rejection:

928

L.M. Locke, R.J. Prinz / Clinical Psychology Review 22 (2002) 895–929

evidence from factor analyses within eight sociocultural groups worldwide. Cross-Cultural Research, 28, 371 – 383. Russell, A., & Russell, G. (1996). Positive parenting and boys’ and girls’ misbehaviour during a home observation. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 19, 291 – 307. 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, 71 – 90. Sansbury, L. L., & Wahler, R. G. (1992). Pathways to maladaptive parenting with mothers and their conduct disordered children. Behavior Modification, 16, 574 – 592. Scarr, S., & McCartney, K. (1988). Far from home: an experimental evaluation of the mother – child home program in Bermuda. Child Development, 59, 531 – 543. Scarr, S., Pinkerton, R., & Eisenberg, M. (1994). The Parental Discipline Interview manual. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia. Schaefer, E. S. (1965). Children’s reports of parental behavior: an inventory. Child Development, 36, 413 – 424. Schludermann, S., & Schludermann, E. (1970). Replicability of factors in Children’s Report of Parent Behavior (CRPBI). Journal of Psychology, 76, 239 – 249. Schwarz, J. C., Barton-Henry, M. L., & Pruzinsky, T. (1985). Assessing child-rearing behaviors: a comparison of ratings made by mother, father, child, and sibling on the CRPBI. Child Development, 56, 462 – 479. Shaw, D. S., Emery, R. E., & Tuer, M. D. (1993). Parental functioning and children’s adjustment in families in divorce: a prospective study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 21, 119 – 134. Shelton, K. K., Frick, P. J., & Wootton, J. (1996). Assessment of parenting practices in families of elementary school-age children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 25, 317 – 329. Simons, R. L., Whitbeck, L. B., Conger, R. D., & Chyi-In, W. (1991). Intergenerational transmission of harsh parenting. Developmental Psychology, 27, 159 – 171. Slater, M. A., & Power, T. G. (1987). Multidimensional assessment of parenting in single-parent families. Advances in Family Intervention, Assessment, and Theory, 4, 197 – 228. Smith, N. (1967). Psychology and child discipline. Child and Family, 6, 29 – 41. Snyder, J. (1983). Aversive social stimuli in the Family Interaction Coding System: a validation study. Behavioral Assessment, 5, 315 – 331. Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Darling, N., Mounts, N. S., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1994). Over-time changes in adjustment and competence among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 65, 754 – 770. Stevenson-Hinde, J. (1998). Parenting in different cultures: time to focus. Developmental Psychology, 34, 698 – 700. Stollak, G. E., Scholom, A., Kallman, J. R., & Saturansky, C. (1973). Insensitivity to children: responses of undergraduates to children in problem situations. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 4, 158 – 169. Stormshak, E. A., Speltz, M. L., DeKlyen, M., & Greenberg, M. G. (1997). Observed family interaction during clinical interviews: a comparison of families containing preschool boys with and without disruptive behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 25, 345 – 357. Straus, M. A., & Brown, B. W. (1978). Family measurement techniques: abstracts of published instruments ( pp. 1935 – 1974). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Straus, M. A., & Stewart, J. H. (1999). Corporal punishment by American parents: national data on prevalence, chronicity, severity, and duration, in relation to child and family characteristics. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 2, 55 – 70. Strayhorn, J. M., & Weidman, C. S. (1988). A Parent Practices Scale and its relation to parent and child mental health. Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 27, 613 – 618. Taylor, R. D., Roberts, D., & Jacobsen, L. (1997). Stressful life events, psychological well-being, and parenting in African American mothers. Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 436 – 446. Touliatos, J., Perlmutter, B. F., Straus, M. A. (Eds.) (1990). Handbook of family measurement techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

L.M. Locke, R.J. Prinz / Clinical Psychology Review 22 (2002) 895–929

929

Van Wyk, J. D., Eloff, M. E., & Heyns, P. M. (1983). The evaluation of an integrated parent-training program. Journal of Social Psychology, 121, 273 – 281. Vicary, J. R., & Lerner, J. V. (1986). Parental attributes and adolescent drug use. Journal of Adolescence, 9, 115 – 122. Webster-Stratton, C., & Spitzer, A. (1991). Development, reliability, and validity of the Daily Telephone Discipline Interview. Behavioral Assessment, 13, 221 – 239. Weiss, B., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1992). Some consequences of early harsh discipline: child aggression and a maladaptive social information processing style. Child Development, 63, 1321 – 1335. Zahn-Waxler, C., & Radke-Yarrow, M. (1990). The origins of empathic concern. Motivation and Emotion, 14, 107 – 130.