MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7160322499 · doi:10.61838/kman.jprfc.3.1.5

How Psychological Flexibility and Trust Shape Parenting Efficacy: A Quantitative Analysis

2025· article· W7160322499 on OpenAlex
Daniela Gottschlich

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychosociological Research in Family and Culture · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldPsychology
TopicPerfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety Studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlexibility (engineering)Bivariate analysisCompetence (human resources)Psychological interventionRegression analysisDescriptive statisticsInterpersonal communicationMulticollinearityMultilevel modelScale (ratio)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: This study aimed to investigate the predictive relationship between psychological flexibility, trust in relationships, and parenting efficacy. Methods and Materials: This study employed a correlational descriptive design with a sample of 350 parents, selected based on the Morgan and Krejcie table. Standardized measures, including the Parenting Sense of Competence Scale (PSOC), the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II (AAQ-II), and the Trust Scale, were administered to assess parenting efficacy, psychological flexibility, and trust in relationships, respectively. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS version 27, including Pearson correlation to assess bivariate relationships and multiple linear regression to examine the combined predictive effect of psychological flexibility and trust on parenting efficacy. Assumptions of normality, linearity, and multicollinearity were confirmed before conducting regression analyses. Findings: The results demonstrated that psychological flexibility was significantly correlated with parenting efficacy (r = 0.54, p < 0.01), as was trust in relationships (r = 0.47, p < 0.01). Multiple regression analysis indicated that psychological flexibility (B = 0.65, p < 0.01) and trust in relationships (B = 0.48, p < 0.01) were both significant predictors of parenting efficacy, accounting for 37% of its variance (R² = 0.37, p < 0.01). Psychological flexibility exhibited a slightly stronger predictive effect than trust in relationships. These findings highlight the importance of both individual cognitive adaptability and interpersonal trust in shaping parents’ confidence in their parenting abilities. Conclusion: This study provides empirical support for the significant role of psychological flexibility and trust in relationships in predicting parenting efficacy. The findings suggest that interventions aimed at enhancing parents’ emotional adaptability and strengthening relational trust may contribute to improved parenting confidence. Future research should explore longitudinal effects and cultural variations in these relationships to develop targeted parenting interventions.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.236
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.276 · 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