Internalizing and externalizing correlates of parental overprotection as measured by the EMBU: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aspects of parenting including overprotection explain individual differences in child adjustment. This review and meta‐analysis summarizes studies on parental overprotection and internalizing and externalizing problems. To ensure that findings could be compared as systematically as possible, the focus was on studies that used the overprotection scale of the Egna Minnen Beträffande Uppfostran (“Memories of my Parents’ Upbringing”) (EMBU) questionnaire, a popular instrument to measure parental overprotection. In total, we extracted 176 effects from 29 studies. A modified version of the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale was used to perform quality assessments for the included studies. Parental overprotection was associated positively with offspring internalizing and externalizing problems, with overall estimates ranging from r = .14 to .18. Moderator analyses suggested that effects of maternal were larger than effects of paternal overprotection. Other factors that moderated the strength of the association between overprotection and maladjustment included whether outcomes were self‐reported or parent‐reported, the design was cross‐sectional or longitudinal, and publication year. Cultural context, age at exposure, and child sex did not explain differences between effect sizes. Most findings were based on cross‐sectional studies and therefore do not constitute proof of causal relations. Many studies were of less‐than‐satisfactory quality regarding representativeness of the sample, descriptions of the data collection, and statistical analyses. There is a clear need for well‐powered longitudinal studies to strengthen inferences about associations between parental overprotection and internalizing and externalizing problems.
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 | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".