Parenting Stress in the Relationship between Positive Psychological Capital and Parental Burnout
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research seeks to explore the pathways through which parents' psychological capital affects parental burnout, emphasizing the intermediary function of parenting stress. A questionnaire-based survey was conducted among 461 parents from various provinces and cities across China. The instruments used included the Psychological Capital Questionnaire (α = 0.90), the Parenting Stress Scale (α = 0.89), and the Parental Burnout Inventory (α = 0.91). The results indicated that psychological capital was significantly negatively correlated with parental burnout (r = -0.459, p < 0.001) and parenting stress (r = -0.428, p < 0.001), while parenting stress was positively correlated with parental burnout (r = 0.555, p < 0.001). Mediation analysis using PROCESS Model 4 with bootstrapping revealed that parenting stress partially mediated the relationship between psychological capital and parental burnout, accounting for 40.96% of the total effect. These findings underscore the protective role of psychological resources in reducing parenting stress and preventing burnout among parents. The results also offer valuable insights for developing targeted psychological support interventions aimed at enhancing family well-being.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".