Item-Level Discordance in Parent and Adolescent Reports of Parenting Behavior and Its Implications for Adolescents’ Mental Health and Relationships with Their Parents
The phenomenon of discordance between parents’ and children’s ratings of the child’s mental health symptoms or of parenting behavior until recently has been treated as a problem of reliability. More recent work has sought to identify factors that may influence discordance, yet much remains to be learned about why informants’ ratings of developmental phenomena are discordant and the meaning of such discordance. This study examined the extent to which discordance can be treated as a measure of the difference between two equally valid perceptions, and as such an indicator of the quality of the parent–adolescent relationship. One category of concordance and three patterns of discordance were derived from item-level differences in ratings of affection, control, and punitiveness provided by a diverse sample (53% female; 46% Hispanic-American, 35% African-American, 15% European-American, 4% another race/ethnicity) of 484 adolescents aged 12–20 years (M = 15.67, SD = 1.72) and their parents. Over and above adolescents’ and parents’ independent ratings of parenting, the discordance between these ratings was found to predict adolescent reports of anxiety and conduct disorder symptoms, as well as the quality of the parent–adolescent relationship. This was particularly true when adolescents and parents were discordant in their ratings of affection and when adolescents rated their parents higher on affection than did parents themselves. Implications of these findings and future research directions are discussed.
KeywordsConcordance Informant discrepancies Parenting Mental health Parent-child relationship Adolescent
This work was funded through grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention through the Columbia Center for Youth Violence Prevention (CCR218598) and from the National Institute of Mental Health (1R01MH63685) awarded to the second and third authors.
- Berger, L. E., Jodl, K. M., Allen, J. P., McElhaney, K. B., & Kuperminc, G. P. (2005). When adolescents disagree with others about their symptoms: Differences in attachment organization as an explanation of discrepancies between adolescent, parent, and peer reports of behavior problems. Development and Psychopathology, 17, 509–528.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Brown, J. L., Roderick, T., Lantieri, L., & Aber, J. L. (2004). The resolving conflict creatively program: A school-based social and emotional learning program. In J. E. Zins, R. P. Weissberg, M. C. Wang, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Building academic success on social and emotional learning: What does the research say? (pp. 151–169). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
- C-DISC Development Group. (2000). Diagnostic interview schedule for children: Psychometrics. New York, NY: NIMH-DISC Training Center at Columbia University/New York State Psychiatric Institute.Google Scholar
- De Los Reyes, A., Goodman, K. L., Kliewer, W., & Reid-Quiñones, K. R. (2010). The longitudinal consistency of mother-child reporting discrepancies of parental monitoring and their ability to predict child delinquent behaviors two years later. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 1417–1430.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- De Los Reyes, A., Youngstrom, E. A., Pabon, S. C., Youngstrom, J. K., Feeny, N. C., & Findling, R. L. (2011). Internal consistency and associated characteristics of informant discrepancies in clinic referred youths age 11 to 17 years. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 40, 36–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandanavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65–70.Google Scholar
- Shaffer, D., Fisher, P., Lucas, C., Dulcan, M., & Schwab-Stone, M. (2000). NIMH diagnostic interview schedule for children version IV (NIMH DISC-IV): Description, differences from previous versions, and reliability of some common diagnoses. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39, 28–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar