Linking Stepfamily Functioning, Marital Quality, and Steprelationship Quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To examine whether marital dynamics within remarried couples (in the form of perceived quality and confidence) or perceptions of stepparent–stepchild relationship quality were more strongly associated with stepfamily functioning. Background Stepfamilies are common in the United States, and identifying factors central to healthy stepfamily functioning is an important task. Some stepfamily clinicians contend that steprelationships may be more closely related to overall stepfamily functioning than remarriage quality, although empirical support for this assertion is limited. Method Heterosexual remarried couples (N = 291) responded to online surveys asking about marital quality, marital confidence, stepparent–stepchild relationship quality, and stepfamily functioning (i.e., stepfamily cohesion, expressiveness, and harmony). Data were analyzed using actor–partner interdependence modeling in a structural equation modeling framework. Results Marital dynamics were somewhat more strongly associated with stepfamily functioning than stepparent–stepchild relationship quality, although both were positively associated with stepfamily functioning. Confidence in the future of the marriage had a slightly stronger association with stepfamily functioning than did marital quality. Actor effects were more often statistically associated with stepfamily functioning than were partner effects for both stepparents and biological parents. Conclusion Findings validate a family systems approach to strengthening stepfamily functioning by highlighting the joint and unique contributions of both marital dynamics and stepparent–stepchild relationship quality. Implications Clinicians and educators working with stepfamilies should attend to both promoting positive, emotionally close steprelationships and strong marital bonds and confidence in higher order marriages.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".