Examining how fathers’ experience of childhood trauma and current coparenting quality contribute to paternal involvement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective This study examined the association between fathers’ experience of childhood trauma (CT) and paternal involvement and whether the severity of the fathers’ psychological symptoms and the quality of their coparenting relationship contribute to this association. Background CT is associated with long‐term mental health and interpersonal functioning; therefore experiences of CT may have implications for fathers’ later paternal involvement. Method The study sample included 366 fathers from Quebec, Canada, with children aged birth to 6 years, who completed measures assessing their CT, psychological health, quality of their current coparenting relationship, and levels of paternal involvement. Path analyses were conducted. Results No direct association between CT and paternal involvement was observed. However, CT predicted higher levels of psychological symptoms and a poorer coparenting relationship. In turn, psychological symptoms were associated with lower levels of emotional support toward the child, whereas the quality of the coparenting relationship predicted levels of psychological involvement in fatherhood and fathers’ engagement in emotional support, physical care, stimulating activities, and child‐related responsibilities. Conclusion The findings suggest an indirect association between CT and paternal involvement, primarily through the association between CT and the coparenting relationship. Implications This study highlights the importance of interventions that support coparenting quality and address psychological symptoms in fathers who have experienced CT.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".