Relationship between Parenting Style and Children’s Behavior Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the family, parenting style directly impacts children’s behavior and symptoms of behavior. There is ample evidence to support the correlation between parenting style and children’s behavioral problems. However, parenting style and children’s behavioral problems have received little attention and research interest in Iran. Therefore, the current research is deemed necessary and timely. Thus, the major purpose of this current study is to investigate the relationship between parenting style and children’s behavioral problems. Parenting styles (Authoritative, Permissive, and Authoritarian) were assessed by Parent Authority Questioner (PAQ) and children’s behavioral problems (internalizing and externalizing symptoms) were assessed with the Children’s Behavior Checklist (CBCL). Respondents comprised 681 mothers of children in primary school (347girls and 334 boys) who were identified through their children selected by cluster sampling in the Iranian capital of Tehran. The results of the present study indicate that there is a significant correlation between Authoritative and internalizing (r= - .32, p<.001) externalizing (r= - .28, p<.001), Permissive and internalizing (r= .12, p<.001), externalizing (r= .12, p<.001), Authoritarian and internalizing (r= .25, p<.001), externalizing (r= .26, p<.001). In conclusion Authoritative parenting style with high responsiveness and high demanding in parenting behavior has shown to be directly related to less children’s internalizing and externalizing symptoms.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".