Measuring the Parenting Practices of Custodial Grandmothers.
Measuring the Parenting Practices of Custodial Grandmothers.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s10826-015-0176-9
复制
发表时间：
2015-12
影响因子：
2.1
通讯作者：
Montoro-Rodriguez J
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Smith GC;Merchant W;Hayslip B Jr;Hancock GR;Strieder F;Montoro-Rodriguez J
尽管监护祖母（CGM）对养育子女的兴趣越来越大，但很少有研究评估她们的养育行为。以CGMs为被试，我们检查了五个自我报告量表的因素结构，这些量表是作为测量父母养育和亲生父母管教的指标，然后检验了孙辈年龄（4 - <7岁vs ≥7 - 12岁）的测量不变性。我们还根据家庭压力模型检查了这些量表的同时效度。数据来自343名CGM（M = 58.45，SD = 8.22），参加了一项随机临床试验，照顾4至12岁的孙子（GC）（M = 7.81，SD = 2.56）。纪律进行了评估，从父母行为量表（一致性，有效的，惩罚性）的三个尺度。教养方式则以正面情感指数与亲职实务访谈之支持性教养行为量表进行评估。验证性因素分析（CFA）显示，这些量表最好的代表为五个不同的但共变的因素（RMSEA = 0.055; SRMR = 0.07）。每个GC年龄组的随访CFA支持这一模型，相应的诊断测试仅提示很少的变化。一个模型与这些变化，然后检查CG年龄组的测量不变性，完全测量不变性发现和所有项目加载到各自的因素显着。五个量表也与CGM心理困扰和GC调整指数相关。我们的结论是，这里检查的尺度可以使用有意义的CGM作为受访者。
Despite increased interest in parenting among custodial grandmothers (CGM), there is scant research on assessing their parenting practices. With CGMs as informants we examined the factor structure for five self-report scales developed as measures of parental nurturance and discipline with birth parents, and then tested for measurement invariance by grandchildren’s age (4 – <7 versus ≥7 – 12). We also examined concurrent validity for these scales according to the Family Stress Model. Data were from 343 CGMs (M = 58.45, SD = 8.22) enrolled in a randomized clinical trial caring for grandchildren (GC) aged 4 to 12 (M = 7.81, SD = 2.56). Discipline was assessed by three scales from the Parental Behavior Inventory (Consistency, Effective, and Punitive). Nurturance was assessed by the Positive Affect Index and the Supportive Engaged Behavior scale of the Parenting Practice Interview. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) revealed that these scales were best represented as five distinct yet covarying factors (RMSEA = .055; SRMR = .07). Follow-up CFAs within each GC age group supported this model, with only few changes suggested by the corresponding diagnostic tests. A model with these changes was then examined for measurement invariance by CG age group, with complete measurement invariance found and all items loading onto their respective factors significantly. The five scales also correlated as expected with indices of CGM psychological distress and GC adjustment. We conclude that the scales examined here can be used meaningfully with CGM as respondents.