The reciprocal nature of the relationship between parenting and adolescent problem behaviors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research is comprised of three separate studies which utilized adolescent self-report data from the Canadian National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY). The first study evaluated the factor structure and the equality of measurement properties of three parenting behavior scales (i.e., Parental Nurturance, Parental Rejection, and Parental Monitoring) over a four-year period and found that the factor structure of the NLSCY parenting behavior scales did not show a good fit across three age groups. Revised models for Parental Nurturance and Monitoring were tested and confirmed, however, these models exhibited only configural invariance over time. The second study examined the factor structure and the equality of measurement properties of three problem behavior scales (i.e., Indirect Aggression, Direct Aggression, and Property Offence) across gender and three adolescent age groups (10-11, 12-13, and 14-15 years). This study found support for the structure of the three problem behavior scales, but failed to provide evidence for measurement invariance across groups. All three scales achieved configural invariance across gender and age groups. In addition, the Indirect Aggression scale achieved loading invariance across gender and for the 12 versus 14 year-olds; whereas the Direct Aggression scale exhibited loading invariance for only the 10 versus 12 year-olds. The third study investigated the reciprocal relationship between parental nurturance and adolescent aggression (both indirect and direct aggression) over a four-year period and found that, for girls, parental nurturance at age 10 was associated with both indirect and direct aggression at age 12. For boys, parental nurturance at age 12 was associated with both aggressive behaviors at age 14. The implications of these results for the measurement of parenting and problem behaviors and for the examination of the reciprocal influences in transactional models are discussed, with suggestions for future research.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".