Predictors of parenting self‐efficacy in mothers and fathers of toddlers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Researchers interested in child developmental outcomes have highlighted the role that parenting self-efficacy (PSE) plays in psychosocial child adjustment. PSE is a cognitive construct that can be broadly defined as an individual's appraisal of his or her competence in the parental role. PSE has emerged in the literature as an important variable when exploring variance in parenting skills. Despite this, much remains to be learned about PSE. Little is known about the predictors of PSE, with much of the existing research conducted in a piecemeal fashion that lacks a solid theoretical framework. In addition, PSE in fathers has been understudied and relatively little is known about PSE in families with toddler age children. Informed by Belsky's process model of parenting, this study explored similarities and differences in PSE and the predictors of PSE for mothers and fathers of toddlers. METHODS: A total of 62 cohabiting couples whose first-born child was 18-36 months old completed self-report measures of PSE, general self-efficacy, depression, marital satisfaction, parenting stress, child difficultness and family functioning. RESULTS: For fathers, parenting stress and their relational functioning (i.e. marital satisfaction and family functioning) with their spouse predicted PSE scores. For mothers, general self-efficacy and relational functioning were predictive of PSE. CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS: The results of this study support the use of Belsky's process model of parenting to study the predictors of PSE. Important differences were found in the prediction models for mothers and fathers. Future studies need to clarify the nature of parental self-efficacy beliefs in fathers and continue to use comprehensive theoretical models to identify potentially relevant covariates of PSE. Limitations of the current investigation include reliance on self-report measures and the homogeneity of the sample.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".