Congruence and Incongruence in Father, Mother, and Adolescent Reports of Parental Monitoring: Examining the Links With Antisocial Behaviors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the level of congruence and incongruence between fathers’, mothers’, and adolescents’ perceptions of parental monitoring in relation to the adolescents’ antisocial behaviors. A sample of 163 father-mother-adolescent triads (59.5% girls; [Formula: see text] age = 12.35) filled out separate questionnaires assessing the dimensions of parental monitoring (i.e., parental knowledge, adolescent self-disclosure, parental control, and parental solicitation) and the adolescents also reported on the frequency of their antisocial behaviors. Polynomial regression analyses revealed that the higher the level of congruence between the father’s and/or mother’s and adolescent’s perceptions, the less the adolescent tended to present antisocial behaviors. Some results differed according to the parents’ gender. Incongruence between mothers’ and adolescents’ perceptions of parental knowledge was associated with higher levels of antisocial behaviors, whereas congruence between fathers’ and adolescents’ perceptions of parental knowledge showed a nonlinear relationship with these behaviors. These results shed light on how parental monitoring contributes to adolescent functioning.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".