MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7103902745 · doi:10.61838/kman.jarac.7.3.23

Identifying the Components of Parent–Adolescent Communication Breakdown: A Qualitative Analysis

2025· article· W7103902745 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisQualitative researchNonprobability samplingReflexivityPsychological interventionSocioemotional selectivity theoryActive listeningFidelityInterpersonal communication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: The objective of this study was to explore and identify the key components of communication breakdown between parents and adolescents within the Canadian context. Methods and Materials: This qualitative research employed an exploratory design using semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 26 participants, including 13 parents and 13 adolescents residing in Canada. Participants were selected through purposive sampling to ensure diversity in gender, age, and family backgrounds. Data collection continued until theoretical saturation was achieved. All interviews, lasting 45–60 minutes, were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic analysis. NVivo 14 software was used to facilitate systematic coding, categorization, and theme development. Rigor and trustworthiness were ensured through member checking, audit trails, and peer debriefing. Findings: Analysis revealed three overarching categories of communication breakdown: emotional barriers, interactional dynamics, and contextual influences. Emotional barriers included lack of emotional expression, high reactivity, misinterpretation of intentions, lack of empathy, emotional distance, and spillover of parental stress. Interactional dynamics encompassed power struggles, poor listening skills, inconsistent communication styles, inadequate conflict resolution strategies, technology-related distractions, generational language gaps, and parentification of adolescents. Contextual influences comprised cultural expectations, family structure complexities, peer and social pressures, academic and career demands, socioeconomic stressors, and parental migration and adaptation challenges. Illustrative quotations highlighted how these components disrupted trust, openness, and relational balance within families. Conclusion: The study concludes that parent–adolescent communication breakdown is a multidimensional phenomenon shaped by emotional regulation challenges, relational dynamics, and broader socio-cultural contexts. Addressing these issues requires interventions that foster emotional literacy, active listening, and culturally responsive dialogue strategies. Findings contribute to a deeper understanding of family communication and provide implications for practitioners, educators, and policymakers seeking to strengthen adolescent well-being and family relationships.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.204

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.106
GPT teacher head0.514
Teacher spread0.409 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics→French-language works237,207→