Differences in parent and youth reported parenting strategies and the relationship with youth reported resilience: Who you ask matters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: It is common in parenting research for parents to report on the parenting strategies they utilize rather than soliciting children and youths’ experiences of being parented. Who we include in research may change our understanding of parent-child relationships and related outcomes for children and youth. Objective: To: a) examine similarities and differences among 21 parent- and youth-reported parenting strategies and b) examine the differences in trends for each parenting strategy and youth-reported resilience depending on who reported the parenting strategies. Participants and setting: Data were from the Well-being and Experiences (WE) Study (n = 1000 youth/parent dyads), a community sample of youth aged 14–17 years and parents from Canada collected from 2017 to 2018. Methods: Descriptive statistics, McNemar's test, and linear regression models were used to analyze the data. Findings: The prevalence of five parenting strategies were statistically similar when reported by youth and parents, while three parenting strategies were statistically higher among youth reports compared to parent reports, and 13 parenting strategies were statistically higher among parent reports compared to youth reports. Only one parent-reported parenting strategy was associated with decreased youth-reported resilience. No parent-reported strategies were associated with increased youth-reported resilience. For youth-reports, five parenting strategies were significantly related to increased youth resilience and three parenting strategies were significantly related to decreased youth resilience. Findings indicate that children's and youths' voices should be prioritized in future parenting research, which may inform parenting supports and interventions to prevent child maltreatment and to promote resilience for children and youth.
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 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".