Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This paper describes a concept analysis carried out to remove some of the ambiguity surrounding the conceptual meaning of perceived parental efficacy and to distinguish it from related concepts such as parental confidence and parental competence. BACKGROUND: Constructing parental efficacy is a crucial step for family members after the birth of their first child. For some authors, perceived parental efficacy is a motor for adequate parental practices. Confusion about the definition and measurement of this concept has hindered both psychology and nursing practice and research. Concept delineation and concept clarification are required in order to further the development of the concept of perceived parental efficacy. METHODS: A literature search using a variety of online databases yielded 113 articles between the years 1980 and 2000. The final sample (n=60) consisted of 30 articles from two disciplines: nursing and psychology. A content analysis of the literature was done using Rodger's evolutionary concept analysis method. FINDINGS: Content analysis of the literature yielded four contributors to perceived parental efficacy: positive enactive mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion and an appropriate physiological and affective state. Perceived parental efficacy can thus be defined as 'beliefs or judgements a parent holds of their capabilities to organize and execute a set of tasks related to parenting a child'. CONCLUSION: This conceptual analysis has allowed perceived parental efficacy to be distinguished from parental confidence and parental competence. Both nursing and psychology research, practice and education will benefit from a more precise and delineated concept.
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 | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".