Advertisement

Translational Behavioral Medicine

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 90–104 | Cite as

Translational research on parenting of adolescents: Linking theory to valid observation measures for family centered prevention and treatment

  • Amanda Chiapa
  • Georgina Parra Morris
  • Marie Hélène Véronneau
  • Thomas J. DishionEmail author
Original Research

Abstract

Parental monitoring and family problem solving are key parenting practices targeted in evidence-based interventions targeting adolescents and families, yet the constructs have yet to be validated across ethnic groups. The study’s objective was to promote translational research by evaluating convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the two constructs at age 16–17 years through the use of multiple observation indicators and methods and as a function of ethnic status. Videotaped parent–adolescent family interactions were coded for monitoring and problem solving in a sample of 714 European American (EA; 59.2 %) and African American (AA; 40.8 %) males (53.8 %) and females (46.2 %). Structural equation models established convergent and discriminant validity of parental monitoring and problem solving among parent, youth, and observation measures for AA and EA families. Low levels of parent monitoring was highly predictive of antisocial behavior in EA and in AA youths (p < 0.001) and moderately predicted future drug use (p < 0.001) for both groups at age 18–19. Poorer family problem solving was also moderately predictive of antisocial behavior (p < 0.001 for EA; p < 0.05 for AA) and drug use (p < 0.01 for EA; p < 0.05 for AA) at age 18–19. These findings suggest that interventions targeting parental monitoring and family problem solving can be reliably evaluated through various measurement methods and that such interventions are of value in efforts to prevent and treat problem behavior in adolescence. These family processes are readily observable in videotaped family interaction tasks in both EA and AA families.

Keywords

Parental monitoring Problem solving Problem behaviors Observations/video coding Ethnicity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This project was supported by grant DA07031 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse to Thomas Dishion and by a minority supplement to Georgina Parra Morris under grant DA016110 funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse to Thomas Dishion. The funders had no role in the design of the study, analyses, or interpretation of the findings. We acknowledge the contribution of the Project Alliance staff, Portland public schools, and the participating youths and families. Cheryl Mikkola is appreciated for editorial support on this manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare they have no conflict of interest.

Adherence to ethical principles

All procedures, including informed consent, were in accordance with the ethical standards of APA and the human subjects review board of the University of Oregon.

References

  1. 1.
    Henggeler SW, Schaeffer C. Treating serious antisocial behavior using multisystemic therapy. In: Weisz JR, Kazdin AE, eds. Evidence-based psychotherapies for children and adolescents. New York: Guilford; 2010: 259-276.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Liddle HA. Treating adolescent substance abuse using multidimensional family therapy. In: Weisz JR, Kazdin AE, eds. Evidence-Based Psychotherapies for Children and Adolescents. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2010.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Waldron HB, Brody JL. Functional family therapy for adolescent substance use disorders. In: Weisz JR, Kazdin AE, eds. Evidence-based psychotherapies for children and adolescents. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2010: 401-415.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dishion TJ, McMahon RJ. Parental monitoring and the prevention of child and adolescent problem behavior: a conceptual and empirical formulation. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 1998; 1: 61-75. doi: 10.1023/A:1021800432380.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Loeber R, Dishion TJ. Early predictors of male delinquency: a review. Psychol Bull. 1983; 94: 68-98. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.94.1.68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Patterson GR. A social learning approach: III. Coercive family process. Eugene: Castalia; 1982.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Patterson GR, Reid JB, Dishion TJ. Antisocial Boys. Eugene: Castalia; 1992.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kerr M, Stattin H. What parents know, how they know it, and several forms of adolescent adjustment: further support for a reinterpretation of monitoring. Dev Psychol. 2000; 36: 366-380. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.36.3.366.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Willoughby T, Hamza CA. A longitudinal examination of the bidirectional associations among perceived parenting behaviors, adolescent disclosure and problem behavior across the high school years. J Youth Adolesc. 2011; 40: 463-478. doi: 10.1007/s10964-010-9567-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Keijsers L, Branje SJT, VanderValk IE, Meeus W. Reciprocal effects between parental solicitation, parental control, adolescent disclosure, and adolescent delinquency. J Res Adolesc. 2010; 20(1): 88-113. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2009.00631.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dishion TJ, Bullock BM, Kiesner J. Vicissitudes of parenting adolescents: daily variations in parental monitoring and the early emergence of drug use. In: Kerr M, Stattin H, Engels RCME, eds. What can parents do? New insights into the role of parents in adolescent problem behavior. Chichester: Wiley; 2008: 113-133.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dishion TJ, Nelson SE, Kavanagh K. The family check-up with high-risk young adolescents: preventing early-onset substance use by parent monitoring [special issue]. Behav Ther. 2003; 34: 553-571. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7894(03)80035-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Costigan CL, Floyd FJ, Harter KSM, McClintock JC. Family process of adaptation to children with mental retardation: disruption and resilience in family problem-solving interactions. J Fam Psychol. 1997; 11: 415-529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Forgatch MS. Patterns and outcome in family problem solving: the disrupting effect of negative emotion. J Marriage Fam. 1989; 51: 115-124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Beauchaine TP, Beach SRH. Taxometrics and relational processes: relevance and challenges for the next nosology of mental disorders. In: Beach SRH, Wamboldt MZ, Kaslow NJ, Heyman RE, First MB, Underwood LG, Reiss D, eds. Relational processes and DSM-V: neuroscience, assessment, prevention, and treatment. Arlington: American Psychiatric Association; 2006: 123-137.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Van Ryzin MJ, Dishion TJ. The impact of a family-centered intervention on the ecology of adolescent antisocial behavior: modeling developmental sequelae and trajectories during adolescence. Dev Psychopathol. 2012; 24: 1139-1155. doi: 10.1017/S0954579412000582.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Forgatch MS, Patterson GR. Parent management training—Oregon model: an intervention for antisocial behavior in children and adolescents. In: Weisz JR, Kazdin AE, eds. Evidence-based psychotherapies for children and adolescents. New York: Guilford Press; 2010: 159-178.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Blechman EA, Taylor CJ, Schrader SM. Family problem solving versus home notes as early intervention with high-risk children. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1981; 49: 919-926. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.49.6.919.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Forgatch MS, Patterson GR. Parents and adolescents living together: part 2. Family problem-solving. Eugene: Castalia; 1989.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hops H, Tildesley E, Lichenstein E, Ary D, Sherman L. Parent–adolescent problem-solving interactions and drug use. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 1990; 16(3–4): 239-258. doi: 10.3109/009529990099001586.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Capaldi DM, Forgatch MS, Crosby L. Affective expression in family problem-solving discussions with adolescent boys: the association with family structure and function. J Adolesc Res. 1994; 9(1): 28-49. doi: 10.1177/074355489491004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Forgatch MS, Stoolmiller M. Emotions as contexts for adolescent delinquency. J Res Adolesc. 1994; 4: 601-614. doi: 10.1207/s15327795jra0404_10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Campbell DT, Fiske DW. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait and multimethod matrix. Psychol Bull. 1959; 56: 81-105. doi: 10.1037/h0046016.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gonzales NA, Cauce AM, Mason CA. Interobserver agreement in the assessment of parental behavior and parent–adolescent conflict: African American mothers, daughters and independent observers. Child Dev. 1996; 67: 1483-1498. doi: 10.2307/1131713.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Steinberg L, Dornbusch SM, Brown BB. Ethnic differences in adolescent achievement. Am Psychol. 1992; 47: 723-729.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Steinberg L, Lamborn SD, Dornbusch SM, Darling N. Impact of parenting practices on adolescent achievement: authoritative parenting, school involvement, and encouragement to succeed. Child Dev. 1992; 63: 1266-1281.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Catalano RF, Morrison DM, Wells EA, Gilmore MR, Irritani B, Hawkins JD. Ethnic differences and family factors related to early drug initiation. J Stud Alcohol. 1992; 53: 208-217.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Krishnakumar A, Buehler C, Barber BK. Youth perceptions of interparental conflict, ineffective parenting, and youth problem behaviors in European-American and African-American families. J Soc Pers Relat. 2003; 20: 239-260. doi: 10.1177/02654075030202007.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Metzler CW, Biglan A, Ary DV, Li F. The stability and validity of early adolescents’ reports of parenting constructs. J Fam Psychol. 1998; 12(4): 600-619. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.12.4.600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yasui M, Dishion TJ. Direct observation of adolescent family interaction: validity and reliability as a function of coder ethnicity and training. Behav Ther. 2008; 39: 336-347. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2007.10.001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dishion TJ, Peterson J, Winter CE, Jabson JM & Hogansen JM. Family Assessment Task Coder Impressions. Unpublished manuscript, University of Oregon, Child and Family Center; 2007.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Child and Family Center. (2001). CFC Youth Questionnaire (CFCQC). Unpublished Instrument, Child and Family Center, 6217 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Oregon Social Learning Center. Problem Solving Rating (PROB). Unpublished instrument, available from Child and Family Center, 6217 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403; 1997.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Achenbach TM, Rescorla LA. Manual for the ASEBA Adult Form & Profiles. Burlington: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families; 2003.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lewis-Beck MS, Bryman A, Liao TF. The SAGE encyclopedia of social science research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale: Erlbaum; 1988.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Little RJA. A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. J Am Stat Assoc. 1988; 83: 1198-1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2005.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Schermelleh-Engel K, Moosbrugger H, Müller H. Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods Psychol Res. 2003; 8(2): 23-74.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    McLoyd VC, Steinberg L. Studying minority adolescents: conceptual, methodological, and theoretical issues. Mahwah: lawrence erlbaum; 1998.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Darling N, Steinberg L. Parenting style as context: an integrative model. Psychol Bull. 1993; 113(3): 487-496. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Dishion TJ, Granic I. Naturalistic observation of relationship processes. In: Haynes SN, Heiby EM, Haynes SN, Heiby EM, eds. Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment, vol 3. Behavioral assessment. Hoboken: Wiley; 2004: 143-161.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Child and Family Center. CFC Parent Questionnaire. Unpublished instrument, Child and Family Center, 6217 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403; 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Behavioral Medicine 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amanda Chiapa
    • 1
  • Georgina Parra Morris
    • 1
  • Marie Hélène Véronneau
    • 2
  • Thomas J. Dishion
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Arizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Université du Québec à MontréalMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations