The association between parent early adult drug use disorder and later observed parenting practices and child behavior problems: Testing alternate models.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study tested the association between parent illicit drug use disorder (DUD) in early adulthood and observed parenting practices at ages 27-28 and examined the following 3 theoretically derived models explaining this link: (a) a disrupted parent adult functioning model,(b) a preexisting parent personality factor model, and (c) a disrupted adolescent family process model. Associations between study variables and child externalizing problems also were examined. Longitudinal data linking 2 generations were drawn from the Seattle Social Development Project (SSDP) and The SSDP Intergenerational Project (TIP), and included 167 parents and their 2- to 8-year-old child. Path modeling revealed that parent DUD in early adulthood predicted later observed low-skilled parenting, which was related to child externalizing problems. The preexisting parent personality factor model was supported. Parent negative emotionality accounted for the association between parent early adult DUD and later parenting practices. Parent negative emotionality also was related directly to child externalizing behavior. Limited support for the disrupted transition to adulthood model was found. The disrupted adolescent family process model was not supported. Results suggest that problem drug use that occurs early in adulthood may affect later parenting skills, independent of subsequent parent drug use. Findings highlight the importance of parent negative emotionality in influencing his or her own problem behavior, interactions with his or her child, and his or her child's problem behavior. Prevention and treatment programs targeting young adult substance use, poor parenting practices, and child behavior problems should address parent personality factors that may contribute to these behaviors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".