How Psychological Flexibility and Trust Shape Parenting Efficacy: A Quantitative Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".