The Moderating Role of Marital Adjustment in Relationship Between Perceived Maternal Parenting Styles and Family Functioning among Fathers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study investigated the moderating role of marital adjustment in the relationship between perceived maternal parenting styles and the family functioning of fathers. It was qualitative cross-sectional research comprised of fathers (N = 200). The measures used in exploring the relationship were the Parental Authority Questionnaire (Buri, 1991), the Family ICPS Scale (Intimacy, Conflict, and Parenting Styles) developed by Noller. et. al, 1992, and the Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Crane, Bean, & Middleton, 2000). Following the analysis, correlation, t-test, ANOVA, and regression (through Hayes Process Macro) was run. The results emphasize the importance of marital adjustment and the marital relationship’s quality influencing the effects of maternal parenting styles on family functioning and it acknowledges that perceptions play a crucial role in shaping family dynamics. It was found that with high marital adjustment, permissive and authoritative parenting styles influence the dynamics of family functioning, and with low marital adjustment, authoritarian parenting styles influence family functioning. The results provide insights into the dynamics of fatherhood within the context of Pakistani families, shedding light on the important factors that influence paternal experiences and overall family well-being. Further research and interventions in this area can potentially enhance family relationships and explore additional variables, such as children’s involvement, cultural norms, and societal expectations, to deepen the understanding of the complex dynamics within families.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".