A multidimensional measure of father involvement following parental separation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective The aim of this study is to partially validate the Father's Relative Involvement Postseparation scale (FRIPS). Background Separated fathers have time and accessibility constraints to their children. To date, models and measures used to study separated fathers' parental involvement have often focused on the amount of time they spend with their child, not considering how they are involved. Pleck's (2010) model of father involvement and the “Who does what” measure type may be relevant in this regard. Method This study is based on a representative sample of 656 fathers living in Quebec, Canada, who separated between 2016 and 2018 and who have at least one child under 14 years of age. Results Confirmatory factor analysis showed that a second‐order model, including positive involvement activities, indirect care, and decision‐making factors, fits the data well. Convergent and divergent validity is demonstrated with custody time, father–child relationship quality and the father's perceived parental competence. Multigroup analysis showed that the FRIPS scale can be used with confidence regardless of the child's gender and age. Conclusion The FRIPS is valid for assessing separated fathers' involvement. Implications This measure can be used to assess separated fathers' involvement, inclusive of nonresident, shared, and sole custody fathers.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".