View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Parenting Children with and without Developmental Delay: The Role of Self-Mastery

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Parenting Children with and without Developmental Delay: The Role of Self-Mastery
Language: English
Authors: Paczkowski, E., Baker, B. L.
Source: Journal of Intellectual Disability Research. Jun 2007 51(6):435-446.
Availability: Blackwell Publishing. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8599; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: customerservices@blackwellpublishing.com; Web site: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/jnl_default.asp
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 12
Publication Date: 2007
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Measures (Individuals), Psychopathology, Personality Traits, Child Behavior, Child Rearing, Check Lists, Self Efficacy, Mothers, Developmental Delays, Behavior Problems, Parenting Styles, Comparative Analysis, Young Children, Coping, Negative Attitudes, Emotional Response, Parent Influence, Parent Attitudes
Geographic Terms: California, Pennsylvania
Assessment and Survey Identifiers: Child Behavior Checklist
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2006.00894.x
ISSN: 0964-2633
Abstract: Background: While parenting behaviours have direct effects on children's behavioural outcomes, other, more distal factors also may be shaping the way a mother handles parenting responsibilities. Dispositional factors are likely to be a major influence in determining how one parents. Although researchers have studied the relationships among maternal dispositional factors, parenting, and child behaviours, few studies have examined these relationships when the child is at developmental risk. Children with developmental delays evidence elevated clinical level behaviour problems, so this group is of primary interest in the search for precursors to psychopathology. The present study examined how the maternal dispositional trait of self-mastery, as well as supportive and non-supportive parenting, relate to behaviour problems in young children with and without developmental delay. Method: Participants were 225 families, drawn from Central Pennsylvania and Southern California. The children, all aged 4 years, were classified as delayed (n = 97) or non-delayed (n = 128). The Self-Mastery Scale measured perceived level of control over life events. The Coping with Children's Negative Emotions Scale measured different ways parents perceive themselves as reacting to their children's distress and negative affect. The Child Behavior Checklist assessed children's behaviour problems. Results: Delayed condition mothers reported significantly more child behaviour problems than non-delayed condition mothers; the two conditions did not differ in self-mastery, supportive parenting, or non-supportive parenting. Self-mastery, non- supportive parenting reactions, and child behaviour problems all related significantly to one another. For the sample as a whole and within the delayed condition, the association between self-mastery and child behaviour problems was partially mediated by non-supportive parenting reactions, although self-mastery was still significantly associated with problem behaviour. In the non-delayed condition, although significant relationships also were found among the variables of interest, non-supportive parenting did not have a significant main or mediation effect. Delay status moderated the relationship between negative parenting reactions and child behaviour problems, assessed by the Child Behavior Checklist Total and Internalizing scores. When mothers displayed low levels of non-supportive reactions, children in the delayed and non-delayed groups had similar levels of total problem behaviour. However, when mothers were medium or high in non-supportive reactions, children in the delayed group had much higher levels of problem behaviours than those in the non-delayed group. Conclusions: The present study extended research on parental dispositional factors and parenting by measuring self-mastery as a global personality trait rather than measuring self-efficacy related specifically to childrearing. Moreover, relationships were examined for both developmentally delayed and non-delayed samples, allowing for a clearer understanding of the influences on problem behaviours in children with developmental delays. The findings support the view that parenting behaviours have a greater impact on children at developmental risk.
Abstractor: Author
Number of References: 48
Entry Date: 2007
Accession Number: EJ762149
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFhD1cGyRv1Y08rtg9bfoojAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDFqCldju_NSTnsx6_gIBEICBmrXcmpJix71h5OQTPdaXJt0xIXuLExPRgStn3q3HGFsso6haqzB3chhxU_KVTvMeU-XFnSpWhUwkHrcHLO3It-wO6onTEdmg2HUm_9on3nkyPgWZzau_S7NF6NPPhMaS8Gh7LWAMYu-gG6fqowNhBOMGQGK-iPembzGvcZGmsd_vki5LvQxyKJG2mlLeZf2oS_iCEvNQyi5XWtU=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0024977149;eul01jun.07;2019Jun04.10:26;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0024977149-1">Parenting children with and without developmental delay: the role of self-mastery. </title> <p>Background  While parenting behaviours have direct effects on children's behavioural outcomes, other, more distal factors also may be shaping the way a mother handles parenting responsibilities. Dispositional factors are likely to be a major influence in determining how one parents. Although researchers have studied the relationships among maternal dispositional factors, parenting, and child behaviours, few studies have examined these relationships when the child is at developmental risk. Children with developmental delays evidence elevated clinical level behaviour problems, so this group is of primary interest in the search for precursors to psychopathology. The present study examined how the maternal dispositional trait of self‐mastery, as well as supportive and non‐supportive parenting, relate to behaviour problems in young children with and without developmental delay. Method  Participants were 225 families, drawn from Central Pennsylvania and Southern California. The children, all aged 4 years, were classified as delayed (n = 97) or non‐delayed (n = 128). The Self‐Mastery Scale measured perceived level of control over life events. The Coping with Children's Negative Emotions Scale measured different ways parents perceive themselves as reacting to their children's distress and negative affect. The Child Behavior Checklist assessed children's behaviour problems. Results  Delayed condition mothers reported significantly more child behaviour problems than non‐delayed condition mothers; the two conditions did not differ in self‐mastery, supportive parenting, or non‐supportive parenting. Self‐mastery, non‐ supportive parenting reactions, and child behaviour problems all related significantly to one another. For the sample as a whole and within the delayed condition, the association between self‐mastery and child behaviour problems was partially mediated by non‐supportive parenting reactions, although self‐mastery was still significantly associated with problem behaviour. In the non‐delayed condition, although significant relationships also were found among the variables of interest, non‐supportive parenting did not have a significant main or mediation effect. Delay status moderated the relationship between negative parenting reactions and child behaviour problems, assessed by the Child Behavior Checklist Total and Internalizing scores. When mothers displayed low levels of non‐supportive reactions, children in the delayed and non‐delayed groups had similar levels of total problem behaviour. However, when mothers were medium or high in non‐supportive reactions, children in the delayed group had much higher levels of problem behaviours than those in the non‐delayed group. Conclusions  The present study extended research on parental dispositional factors and parenting by measuring self‐mastery as a global personality trait rather than measuring self‐efficacy related specifically to childrearing. Moreover, relationships were examined for both developmentally delayed and non‐delayed samples, allowing for a clearer understanding of the influences on problem behaviours in children with developmental delays. The findings support the view that parenting behaviours have a greater impact on children at developmental risk.</p> <p>Keywords: developmental delay; parenting; self‐mastery; behavior problems</p> <p>In seeking to understand the origins of child behaviour problems, parenting behaviour is always a prime suspect. While parenting behaviours have direct effects on children's behavioural outcomes, other, more distal factors also may be shaping the way a mother handles parenting responsibilities. Dispositional factors are likely to be a major influence in determining how one parents ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref1">35</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although researchers have studied the relationships among maternal dispositional factors, parenting, and child behaviours, few studies have examined these relationships when the child is at developmental risk. Children with developmental delays evidence elevated clinical level behaviour problems, so this group is of primary interest in the search for precursors to psychopathology. The present study examined how the maternal dispositional trait of self‐mastery, as well as supportive and non‐supportive parenting, relate to behaviour problems in young children with and without developmental delay.</p> <hd id="AN0024977149-2">Child behaviour and developmental delay</hd> <p>Over the past two decades, studies have revealed rates of psychopathology in adults with intellectual disability (ID) three to four times as high as in the general population, a phenomenon referred to as dual diagnosis ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref2">36</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref3">31</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref4">28</reflink>]). These epidemiological findings have been extended downwards, with similar rates reported in adolescents and even children with ID ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref5">37</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref6">17</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref7">20</reflink>]). In a study of over 10 000 children aged between 5 and 15 years drawn from across Great Britain, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref8">20</reflink>]) found that the rate of psychiatric diagnoses among children with IDs was 39% versus 8.1% for children without IDs. Previous analyses with the current sample revealed that children as young as 3 years of age with developmental delays were three times as likely to exhibit clinical levels of behaviour problems, with a rate of 26.1% based on mothers' reports, as compared with 8.3% for children without delays ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref9">5</reflink>]). These behaviour problem rates were stable from age three to four ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref10">6</reflink>]). One explanation for the heightened rate of problem behaviours in children with ID is that such behaviours are characteristic of biological etiologies ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref11">16</reflink>]). There is, however, considerable variability in the extent of problem behaviour even within groups of children with the same syndrome, or with ID where the etiology is unknown, leaving considerable unexplained variance. Previous work with children at risk because of prematurity offers another explanation for increased behaviour problems in children with delays. In their study of pre‐term and full‐term infants, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref12">14</reflink>]) found that family functioning had a greater impact on development among high‐risk children. The risk factor of delay status will be explored as a moderator of the relationship between parenting and child behaviour problems.</p> <hd id="AN0024977149-3">Parenting self‐efficacy and child behaviour problems</hd> <p>Self‐efficacy has been posited to have both main and mediator relationships with child behaviour problems. In their review of the literature, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref13">12</reflink>]) elucidated the construct of parenting self‐efficacy, which comprises parents' perceptions of their ability to perform the tasks associated with parenting. Several authors have reported main effect relationships between parenting self‐efficacy and child behaviour problems. For example, in a sample of clinic‐referred children with conduct problems, parents with lower levels of parenting self‐efficacy reported higher rates of child behaviour problems ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref14">15</reflink>]). In a study of mothers and toddlers, an average of 12% of the variance in child behaviour was explained by parenting self‐efficacy. Children of mothers who reported greater parenting self‐efficacy exhibited greater compliance and affection towards the mother as well as less negativity ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref15">13</reflink>]).</p> <p>One possible mechanism through which parenting self‐efficacy impacts child behaviour is through specific parenting behaviours. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref16">30</reflink>]) found that parents lower in parenting self‐efficacy were more likely to be abusive. Among non‐abusive parents, lower levels of parenting self‐efficacy have been associated with greater use of coercion ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref17">8</reflink>]), harsh discipline, and permissive and inconsistent discipline ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref18">39</reflink>]). Alternatively, higher levels of parenting self‐efficacy were related to greater maternal warmth, sensitivity ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref19">46</reflink>]), and responsiveness ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref20">42</reflink>]). Mothers with high parenting self‐ efficacy also displayed more active coping ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref21">48</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0024977149-4">Self‐mastery and parenting</hd> <p>The studies considered above explored parents' self‐efficacy within the circumscribed realm of parenting tasks. The present study, on the other hand, employed a more global, dispositional trait, self‐mastery. Self‐mastery has been described as the perception that one has control over life events ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref22">34</reflink>]). Previous research has suggested that a sense of mastery is an essential component of psychological adjustment, especially in reaction to stressful life events ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref23">44</reflink>]). Self‐mastery has been found to relate to higher levels of active coping, like problem‐solving and efforts to alleviate stressful circumstances ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref24">40</reflink>]). Additionally, a strong sense of self‐mastery may be adaptive in increasing the likelihood that one will persevere in pursuing goals ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref25">45</reflink>]). Alternatively, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref26">3</reflink>]) found that participants who were higher in self‐mastery disengaged from unsolvable tasks sooner than those who exhibited lower levels of self‐mastery and were then able to allocate their efforts to solvable tasks. Taken together, these findings indicate that people with high self‐mastery may allocate their effort wisely and persevere only in instances in which it is likely to pay off. This disposition may be particularly helpful in parenting children with delays, as they pose greater caregiving challenges (e.g. to accept some behaviours and work to change others) than do typically developing children ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref27">21</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0024977149-5">Parenting and child behaviour problems</hd> <p>Although past researchers have viewed parenting from many different perspectives, the present study focused on parents' ways of reacting to children's negative emotions. Parents' reactions to their children's negative emotions can be classified as supportive or non‐supportive ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref28">23</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref29">23</reflink>]) describe three types of supportive reactions: emotion‐focused reactions, problem‐focused reactions, and expressive encouragement; and three types of non‐supportive reactions: minimization reactions, punitive reactions, and distress reactions. These reactions are thought to relate to the development of child behaviour problems ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref30">19</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref31">19</reflink>]) describe parents' reactions to children's emotional expressions as a means of socializing children's emotion‐related reactions. These emotion‐related responses have been shown to play a role in the development of social competence ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref32">38</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref33">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref34">27</reflink>]) as well as psychological problems ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref35">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>In their review of the literature, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref36">19</reflink>]) find that non‐supportive parental reactions have a modest positive association with low levels of children's emotional and social competence. The association between childhood competencies and supportive parental reactions is less consistent. Emotion‐focused reactions, like helping the child feel better, have been associated with children's use of constructive coping strategies ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref37">18</reflink>]). Encouraging children's expression of emotion, on the other hand, has been found to relate to positive socio‐emotional development in some cases, but to children's expression of anger and aggression in other cases ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref38">19</reflink>]). Finally, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref39">19</reflink>]) review of the literature noted that problem‐focused reactions, which emphasize children's instrumental problem‐solving, are positively related to social competence and constructive coping, but are not related to externalizing behaviour. The current study further examined supportive and non‐supportive parenting reactions in relation to child distress, assessing whether such parenting relates to self‐mastery and behaviour problems, and differs in families with and without a child with developmental delay.</p> <p>The present study, then, examined the nature of the relationships among maternal self‐mastery, parenting behaviours, and reported child behaviour problems across cognitive developmental status. There were four primary questions. First, do mothers of children with, or without, developmental delays differ in self‐mastery and supportive and non‐ supportive parenting behaviours? Second, are self‐mastery and parenting behaviours related to each other and to child behaviour problems? Third, if these relationships are found, does parenting behaviour mediate the relationship between self‐mastery and child behaviour problems, and is mediation stronger for families parenting a child with developmental delay? Fourth, does child delay status moderate the relationship between parenting behaviour and child behaviour problems? Is the effect of parenting stronger in delayed condition families?</p> <hd id="AN0024977149-6">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0024977149-7">Participants</hd> <p>Participants were 225 families, recruited to take part in a longitudinal study with samples drawn from Central Pennsylvania and Southern California. The children were classified as either delayed (<emph>n</emph> = 97) or non‐delayed (<emph>n</emph> = 128). Families in the delayed condition were recruited through community agencies serving persons with developmental disabilities. The selection criteria were that the child (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref40">1</reflink>) be between 30 and 39 months of age; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref41">2</reflink>) receive a score of 40–84 on the Bayley Scales of Infant Development II ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref42">7</reflink>]); (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref43">3</reflink>) be ambulatory; and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref44">4</reflink>) not be diagnosed with autism. Families in the non‐delayed condition were recruited primarily through preschools and daycare programmes. The selection criteria were that the child (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref45">1</reflink>) be between 30 and 39 months of age; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref46">2</reflink>) receive a score on the Bayley Scales of 85 or above; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref47">3</reflink>) not be born prematurely or have a developmental disability.</p> <p>The present study utilized data collected at the second annual assessment, when the children were 4 years old, as this was the only time‐point at which a measure of parenting practices was administered. Table 1 shows sample demographics. The combined sample was 58.5% male. The racial composition of the sample was 60.7% Caucasian, 16.1% Hispanic, 6.7% African American, 2.7% Asian and 13.8% mixed. The mean of mothers' highest grade completed was 15.2 (about 3 years of college), and 50.9% of families had an annual income of $50,000 or more. Compared with the delayed group families, the non‐delayed group had significantly lower maternal age, higher maternal education and more families with higher incomes (>$50K). Of the three variables that differed significantly between status groups, only maternal education and family income were significantly correlated with the outcome variables of child behaviour problems. After controlling for maternal education, family income was no longer significant. Thus, maternal education was controlled for in all analyses involving the delay status variable.</p> <p>1 Demographic information by cognitive status group</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th /><th><bold>Delayed (<italic>n</italic> = 97)</bold></th><th><bold>Non‐delayed (<italic>n</italic> = 128)</bold></th><th><bold><italic>t</italic>/χ<sup>2</sup></bold></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Child variables</td></tr><tr><td> Gender (% male)</td><td>67</td><td> 52</td><td>χ<sup>2</sup> = 5.13*</td></tr><tr><td> Race (% Caucasian)</td><td>60</td><td> 61</td><td>χ<sup>2</sup> = 0.29</td></tr><tr><td> Bayley Scales: MDI*</td><td>60.3 (SD = 12.9)</td><td>104.4 (SD = 11.7)</td><td><italic>t</italic> = 26.72***</td></tr><tr><td>Family variables</td></tr><tr><td> Maternal education (mean grade completed)</td><td>14.3</td><td> 15.8</td><td><italic>t</italic> = 4.55***</td></tr><tr><td> Maternal employment (% employed)</td><td>57</td><td> 58</td><td>χ<sup>2</sup> = 0.02</td></tr><tr><td> Maternal age (mean age)</td><td>33.5 (SD = 6.2)</td><td> 35.1 (SD = 5.6)</td><td><italic>t</italic> = 2.13*</td></tr><tr><td> Marital status (% married)</td><td>83</td><td> 90</td><td>χ<sup>2</sup> = 0.15</td></tr><tr><td> Siblings (% with siblings)</td><td>70</td><td> 72</td><td>χ<sup>2</sup> = 0.80</td></tr><tr><td> Family income (% >$50K)</td><td>41</td><td> 59</td><td>χ<sup>2</sup> = 7.15**</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 * <emph> P</emph> < 0.05;</p> <ulist> <item>2 ** <emph> P</emph> < 0.01;</item> <item>3 *** <emph> P</emph> < 0.001.</item> <item>4 MDI, mental development index; SD, standard deviation.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0024977149-8">Assessments</hd> <p>Measures of the child's developmental level were obtained at the first annual assessment, when the children were between 30 and 39 months of age. During this assessment, the staff visited the family home and administered the Bayley Scales of Infant Development ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref48">7</reflink>]). All other data were collected at child age 48 months. Demographic information was gathered through an interview with the mother. Measures of child behaviour, self‐mastery and parenting behaviour were part of a packet of measures completed by mothers.</p> <hd id="AN0024977149-9">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0024977149-10">Self‐Mastery Scale (Pearlin & Schooler 1978)</hd> <p>The Self‐Mastery Scale is a seven‐item questionnaire measuring one's perceived level of control over life events. Respondents rate the degree to which they agree with each item on a four‐point Likert scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree. Items include statements such as 'What happens to me in the future mostly depends on me'. Ratings for negatively phrased items are reverse coded, so higher summary scores indicate greater feelings of self‐ mastery. Total scores can range from 7 to 28. Previous studies employing this measure have reported Cronbach's alphas of 0.77 ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref49">29</reflink>]) and 0.75 ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref50">40</reflink>]). For the present sample, alpha = 0.77, and self‐mastery was found to be modestly stable from age three to four (<emph>r</emph> = 0.57, <emph>P</emph> < 0.001).</p> <hd id="AN0024977149-11">Coping with Children's Negative Emotions Scale (Fabes et al. 1990)</hd> <p>The Coping with Children's Negative Emotions Scale is a self‐reported measure comprising six sub‐scales that reflect different ways parents perceive themselves as reacting to their children's distress and negative affect. Respondents are presented with 12 hypothetical situations in which a child is either upset or angry and are asked to rate the likelihood that they would respond in each of six possible ways, which represent the six sub‐scales. Previous research with this measure has found acceptable internal reliability estimates for the sub‐scales: Punitive Responses, alpha = 0.69; Minimization Responses, alpha = 0.78; Distress Reactions, alpha = 0.70; Expressive Encouragement, alpha = 0.85; Emotion‐Focused Responses, alpha = 0.80; Problem‐Focused Responses, alpha = 0.78 ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref51">23</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref52">23</reflink>]) have divided these six sub‐scales into two composite variables labelled supportive and non‐supportive parenting. In the present study, a principal components analysis with a varimax rotation was employed to create two orthogonal components. The results of this analysis revealed the same two components described by [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref53">23</reflink>]). Three sub‐scales loaded onto the first component: Problem‐Focused Responses, Emotion‐Focused Responses, and Expressive Encouragement. The second component, non‐ supportive parenting, comprises Minimization Reactions, Punitive Reactions, and Distress Reactions. The sub‐scale scores were converted to z‐scores, and the three scores for each composite variable were summed. Alphas for mothers in the present sample were 0.90 (supportive parenting) and 0.84 (non‐supportive parenting).</p> <hd id="AN0024977149-12">Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 1.5–5 (Achenbach & Rescorla 2001)</hd> <p>This newer version of the widely used Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref54">1</reflink>]) is designed to assess the competencies and problems of children 1.5–5 years of age. The scale includes 99 items that describe childhood problems. Participants are asked to rate how well each item applies to their child now or within the past 2 months, on a scale of 0 = not true, 1 = somewhat or sometimes true, and 2 = very often or often true. CBCL scoring yields a total problem score, broadband externalizing and internalizing scores, and seven narrowband scales. The present study used the total problems score and the externalizing and internalizing broadband scores. Means are reported in T‐scores, which are standardized with M = 50 and SD = 10. Alphas for mothers in the present sample were 0.95 (total problems), 0.93 (externalizing) and 0.88 (internalizing). These scores were found to be stable from age three to four with correlations ranging from 0.66 to 0.76.</p> <hd id="AN0024977149-13">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0024977149-14">Overview of analyses</hd> <p>We conducted all analyses with the entire sample as well as with the delayed and non‐delayed subsamples separately. We initially addressed our first two questions, concerning delay status differences and Pearson correlation coefficients for self‐mastery, supportive and non‐supportive parenting behaviour, and child behaviour problems. The next set of analyses addressed the question of whether parenting behaviours mediate the relationship between self‐mastery and child behaviour problems. We conducted hierarchical regression analyses and employed the [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref55">41</reflink>]) test to determine whether the indirect effect of self‐mastery on child behaviour problems via the parenting variable was significantly different from zero, which would indicate a mediating effect of parenting behaviour. The final analyses examined cognitive delay status as a moderator of the relationship between parenting behaviour and child CBCL scores. We employed analysis of covariance, covarying for maternal education, and examined the status by parenting interaction to determine whether the relationship between parenting and child behaviour problems was different in the delayed and non‐delayed groups.</p> <hd id="AN0024977149-15">Delayed versus non‐delayed</hd> <p>Total behaviour problem T‐scores on the CBCL were significantly higher for delayed (M = 56.1, SD = 12.0) versus non‐delayed group children (M = 48.9, SD = 10.1), <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib212" id="ref56">212</reflink>) = 4.76, <emph>P</emph> < 0.001. T‐scores for the externalizing broadband scale were also significantly higher for delayed (M = 54.5, SD = 12.1) versus non‐delayed group children (M = 48.0, SD = 10.4), <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib212" id="ref57">212</reflink>) = 4.28, <emph>P</emph> < 0.001. Similar results were obtained when comparing internalizing broadband T‐scores for delayed (M = 54.9, SD = 11.7) versus non‐delayed group children (M = 49.0, SD = 10.6), <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib212" id="ref58">212</reflink>) = 3.86, <emph>P</emph> < 0.001. Self‐mastery was slightly, but not significantly, lower in mothers of delayed (M = 21.4, SD = 3.8) versus non‐delayed children (M = 22.3, SD = 3.4), <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib213" id="ref59">213</reflink>) = 1.65, <emph>P</emph> = 0.10. Mothers of delayed group and non‐delayed group children reported very similar levels of supportive parenting reactions, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib209" id="ref60">209</reflink>) = 1.04, <emph>P</emph> = 0.30, and of non‐supportive parenting reactions, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib209" id="ref61">209</reflink>) = 0.31, <emph>P</emph> = 0.76.</p> <hd id="AN0024977149-16">Correlations among variables of interest</hd> <p>Table 2 shows correlations among the variables of interest. In the whole sample, self‐mastery was significantly associated with child problem behaviour, such that mothers with higher levels of self‐mastery reported lower levels of internalizing, externalizing, and total child behaviour problems. Self‐mastery was also moderately inversely correlated with non‐supportive parenting reactions. Non‐supportive parenting reactions were significantly associated with child behaviour problems. The same pattern of relationships was also found in the delayed and non‐delayed subsamples, although non‐supportive reactions were not associated with internalizing behaviour problems in the non‐delayed subsample.</p> <p>2 Correlations among key variables</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th /><th><bold>Supportive reactions</bold></th><th><bold>Non‐supportive reactions</bold></th><th><bold>Total problem behaviour</bold></th><th><bold>Externalizing problem behaviour</bold></th><th><bold>Internalizing problem behaviour</bold></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Whole sample</td></tr><tr><td> Self‐mastery</td><td>0.12</td><td>−0.28***</td><td>−0.41***</td><td>−0.40***</td><td>−0.38***</td></tr><tr><td> Supportive reactions</td><td>–</td><td>−0.10</td><td>−0.09</td><td>−0.08</td><td>−0.03</td></tr><tr><td> Non‐supportive reactions</td><td /><td>–</td><td> 0.27***</td><td> 0.27***</td><td> 0.24**</td></tr><tr><td>Delayed subsample</td></tr><tr><td> Self‐mastery</td><td>0.11</td><td>−0.30**</td><td>−0.41***</td><td>−0.39***</td><td>−0.39***</td></tr><tr><td> Supportive reactions</td><td>–</td><td>−0.13</td><td>−0.03</td><td>−0.01</td><td> 0.01</td></tr><tr><td> Non‐supportive reactions</td><td /><td>–</td><td> 0.36**</td><td> 0.34**</td><td> 0.31**</td></tr><tr><td>Non‐delayed subsample</td></tr><tr><td> Self‐mastery</td><td>0.13</td><td>−0.26**</td><td>−0.39***</td><td>−0.39***</td><td>−0.34***</td></tr><tr><td> Supportive reactions</td><td>–</td><td>−0.07</td><td>−0.11</td><td>−0.14</td><td>−0.06</td></tr><tr><td> Non‐supportive reactions</td><td /><td>–</td><td> 0.19*</td><td> 0.20*</td><td> 0.16</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>5 *  <emph>P</emph> < 0.05;</item> <item>6 ** <emph> P</emph> < 0.01;</item> <item>7 *** <emph> P</emph> < 0.001.</item> </ulist> <p>Supportive parenting reactions were not significantly associated with self‐mastery, child behaviour problems, or with non‐supportive parenting reactions in the whole sample or in either subsample. Although supportive parenting as a unitary construct was not related to other key variables, both self‐mastery and child behaviour problems were found to relate modestly to some specific aspects of supportive parenting, but not to others. Self‐mastery was significantly associated with Expressive Encouragement (<emph>r</emph> = 0.15, <emph>P</emph> < 0.05) and Problem‐Focused Reactions (<emph>r</emph> = 0.16, <emph>P</emph> < 0.05), but not to Emotion‐Focused Reactions. Child behaviour problems were significantly associated with Problem‐Focused Reactions (<emph>r</emph> = −0.14, <emph>P</emph> < 0.05), but not to Expressive Encouragement or Emotion‐Focused Reactions.</p> <hd id="AN0024977149-17">Mediation analyses</hd> <p>Mothers' reactions to children's negative emotions were explored as a mediator of the relationship between self‐mastery and child behaviour problems. The prerequisite conditions for mediation were met, as the independent variable (self‐mastery), the mediator (non‐supportive parenting) and the dependent variable (child behaviour problems) were significantly related to one another. Table 3 shows the results of regression analyses testing for mediation. Non‐supportive parenting accounted for significant variance in child behaviour problems. Also, for the sample as a whole, the Sobel test for mediation yielded a significant result, indicating that the association between self‐mastery and child behaviour problems was significantly reduced by the inclusion of the mediating variable, non‐supportive parenting reactions. The mediation is partial because self‐mastery was still significantly associated with problem behaviour when the effect of non‐supportive parenting was controlled. This mediation effect was also examined for CBCL externalizing and internalizing scores separately, revealing a significant interaction for externalizing behaviour problems (Sobel test statistic = −2.16, <emph>P</emph> < 0.05), but not for internalizing behaviour problems.</p> <p>3 Mediation analyses for whole sample and each cognitive status group: child total CBCL</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th><bold>Regression model</bold></th><th><bold>Mean square</bold></th><th><bold>d.f.</bold></th><th><bold><italic>β</italic></bold></th><th><bold>SE <italic>β</italic></bold></th><th><bold><italic>β</italic></bold></th><th><bold>Sobel test</bold></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td><italic>Whole sample</italic></td></tr><tr><td>Problem behaviour</td></tr><tr><td>Model 1</td><td>19831.21</td><td>1</td><td /><td /><td /><td>−2.23*</td></tr><tr><td> Self‐mastery</td><td /><td /><td>−2.70***</td><td>0.41</td><td>−0.41</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Model 2</td><td>11332.98</td><td>2</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Self‐mastery</td><td /><td /><td>−2.39***</td><td>0.42</td><td>−0.37</td><td /></tr><tr><td> Non‐supportive parenting</td><td /><td /><td> 1.64*</td><td>0.63</td><td> 0.17</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Note <italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup> = 0.17 for Step 1 (<italic>P</italic> < 0.001); Δ<italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup> = 0.03 for Step 2 (<italic>P</italic> < 0.05).</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Delayed subsample</italic></td></tr><tr><td>Problem behaviour</td></tr><tr><td>Model 1</td><td>10681.39</td><td>1</td><td /><td /><td /><td>−1.97*</td></tr><tr><td> Self‐mastery</td><td /><td /><td>−2.90***</td><td>0.68</td><td>−0.41</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Model 2</td><td> 7227.24</td><td>2</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Self‐mastery</td><td /><td /><td>−2.36**</td><td>0.70</td><td>−0.33</td><td /></tr><tr><td> Non‐supportive parenting</td><td /><td /><td> 2.77*</td><td>1.06</td><td> 0.26</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Note <italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup> = 0.17 for Step 1 (<italic>P</italic> < 0.001); Δ<italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup> = 0.06 for Step 2 (<italic>P</italic> < 0.05).</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Non‐delayed subsample</italic></td></tr><tr><td>Problem behaviour</td></tr><tr><td>Model 1</td><td> 6353.30</td><td>1</td><td /><td /><td /><td>−1.16</td></tr><tr><td> Self‐mastery</td><td /><td /><td>−2.12***</td><td>0.46</td><td>−0.39</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Model 2</td><td> 3261.75</td><td>2</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Self‐mastery</td><td /><td /><td>−1.97***</td><td>0.47</td><td>−0.37</td><td /></tr><tr><td> Non‐supportive parenting</td><td /><td /><td> 0.75</td><td>0.69</td><td> 0.10</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Note <italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup> = 0.15 for Step 1 (<italic>P</italic> < 0.001); Δ<italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup> = 0.01 for Step 2 (ns).</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>8 *  <emph>P</emph> < 0.05;</item> <item>9 ** <emph> P</emph> < 0.01;</item> <item>10 ***  <emph>P</emph> < 0.001.</item> <item>11 CBCL, Child Behavior Checklist; d.f., degree of freedom; SE, standard error.</item> </ulist> <p>In the delayed sample, the predicted relationships among the variables of interest also held true. Non‐supportive parenting accounted for significant variance in child behaviour problems. The Sobel test yielded a significant result, indicating that non‐ supportive parenting partially mediated the self‐ mastery/child behaviour problems relationship. This mediation effect was not found when CBCL externalizing and internalizing scores were examined separately. In the non‐delayed subsample, although significant relationships also were found among self‐mastery, non‐supportive parenting, total child behaviour problems, and externalizing behaviour problems, non‐supportive parenting did not have a significant main or mediation effect.</p> <hd id="AN0024977149-18">Moderation analyses</hd> <p>To explore further how non‐supportive parenting reactions related to child problem behaviour in each of the two conditions (delayed, non‐delayed), the sample was divided into three equal groups, representing parents who were low (<emph>n</emph> = 69), medium (<emph>n</emph> = 70) and high (<emph>n</emph> = 69) in non‐supportive parenting reactions. Delay status was then examined as a moderator of the relationship between non‐ supportive parenting reactions and child CBCL total score through an ancova, controlling for maternal education. Figure 1 shows the moderation analyses. As expected, a significant main effect was found for delay status, <emph>F</emph><subs>1,201</subs> = 24.64, <emph>P</emph> < 0.001. A significant main effect was also found for non‐supportive parenting reactions, <emph>F</emph><subs>2,201</subs> = 9.01, <emph>P</emph> < 0.001, such that levels of child behaviour problems increased with each increase in the level of non‐supportive reactions. A significant interaction was found between child delay status and non‐supportive parenting reactions, <emph>F</emph><subs>2,201</subs> = 3.84, <emph>P</emph> = 0.02, such that when mothers displayed low levels of non‐supportive reactions, children in the delayed and non‐delayed groups had similar levels of problem behaviour. However, when mothers were medium or high in non‐supportive reactions, children in the delayed group had much higher levels of child problem behaviour than those in the non‐delayed group. This moderation effect was also examined for CBCL internalizing and externalizing scores separately, revealing a significant interaction for internalizing behaviour problems, <emph>F</emph><subs>2,201</subs> = 4.29, <emph>P</emph> = 0.02, but not for externalizing behaviour problems.</p> <p>Graph: 1 Child delay status moderates the relationship between non‐supportive parenting reactions and problem behaviour. CBCL, Child Behavior Checklist.</p> <hd id="AN0024977149-19">Discussion</hd> <p>The first question asked how mothers in the delayed and non‐delayed groups compared on self‐mastery and parenting reactions. Mothers of 4‐year‐old children with developmental delays did not differ from mothers of children without developmental delays in levels of supportive or non‐supportive parenting reactions, and they were only slightly lower than mothers in the non‐delayed group in self‐mastery, a trend‐level difference. This finding contradicts the results of a previous study of the mental health and adaptation of mothers of children between 3 and 7 years of age with cerebral palsy, where mothers reported lower levels of self‐mastery than did control mothers ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref62">25</reflink>]). The lack of a significant difference between our groups in self‐mastery supports the view of self‐mastery as a stable trait that is influenced little by life events, like having a child with a developmental delay. Following this sample over time, however, could reveal decreases in self‐mastery for mothers of children with developmental delays, as they experience chronic parenting challenges. On the other hand, self‐mastery among these mothers could increase. Some mothers of children with disabilities have reported gaining feelings of mastery from developing the skills necessary to deal with the unique demands of parenting a child with special needs ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref63">24</reflink>]).</p> <p>The second question was concerned with relationships among variables. Self‐mastery had a moderate and significant inverse relationship to child behaviour problems in the whole sample and in each subsample when analysed separately. These findings are in keeping with previous research on a more parenting‐ specific measure, parenting self‐efficacy, in which higher self‐efficacy was related to lower levels of child behaviour problems ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref64">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref65">13</reflink>]).</p> <p>Self‐mastery was also significantly related to non‐supportive parenting reactions, but not to supportive parenting reactions, in the whole sample and each subsample. Mothers lower in self‐mastery endorsed more non‐supportive parenting reactions. Findings concerning the relationship between self‐mastery and non‐supportive parenting behaviours were consistent with past research examining parents of typically developing children ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref66">30</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref67">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref68">39</reflink>]). However, the present work failed to yield the associations between self‐mastery and supportive parenting behaviour found by other researchers ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref69">48</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref70">46</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref71">42</reflink>]). One possible explanation for this lack of a significant relationship lies in the types of reactions that compose the supportive parenting score used here. While self‐mastery was found to be significantly related to both Problem‐Focused Responses and Expressive Encouragement, there was no correlation between self‐ mastery and Emotion‐Focused Responses. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref72">23</reflink>]) describe Emotion‐Focused Responses as reflecting parents' attempts to help the child feel better by doing things like comforting or distracting the child. Although these two strategies both focus on emotions, they represent very different levels of engagement with the child's problem. A mother with high self‐mastery may be likely to comfort and support her child, but unlikely to distract the child rather than attempting to deal with the problem. Thus, the degree of control one feels over life events may not be related in a consistent way to Emotion‐Focused Responses as a whole. However, high self‐mastery would relate to taking active steps to solve the problem, as with Problem‐Focused Responses, or actively engaging the child in expressing his negative emotions, as with Expressive Encouragement.</p> <p>We further examined whether parenting behaviours were related to child behaviour problems. In accordance with past work ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref73">19</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref74">43</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref75">9</reflink>]), higher levels of non‐supportive parenting were found to relate to higher levels of child behaviour problems. Yet, contrary to previous work ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref76">19</reflink>]), supportive parenting behaviours did not predict fewer problem behaviours. Again, the explanation for this finding may lie in the specific sub‐scales that make up supportive parenting behaviour. In the whole sample, child problem behaviours were found to relate to Problem‐Focused Responses, but not to Emotion‐Focused Responses or Expressive Encouragement. Parents who focus on the child's problem and help him or her to solve it may teach the child skills that help in dealing with life events in adaptive ways rather than by exhibiting maladaptive behaviours. However, focusing on the child's emotions or encouraging the child to express them may improve emotional processing skills or may actually reinforce problem behaviours ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref77">19</reflink>]). Neither possibility can be addressed with the present measures.</p> <p>The third question, of whether parenting behaviour mediates the relationship between self‐mastery and child behaviour problems, was answered in the affirmative for the whole sample and the delayed subsample, where non‐supportive parenting behaviour was found to partially mediate this relationship. This finding lends support to the body of literature that posits that relationships between parental dispositional characteristics and child behaviour problems are mediated by dysfunctional parenting behaviours ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref78">33</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref79">32</reflink>]), yet is more directly in line with [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref80">35</reflink>]) finding that some direct relationship also exists between parents' personality traits and child behaviour in addition to the indirect relationship that works through parenting (although we only looked at one aspect of parenting). The direct relationship found between self‐mastery and child behaviour may be explained by parental modeling of the behavioural manifestations of self‐mastery, which could translate into better behavioural regulation in children.</p> <p>Although self‐mastery, non‐supportive parenting, and child behaviour problems were all associated with one another in the non‐delayed subsample as well, non‐supportive parenting was not found to mediate the relationship between self‐mastery and problem behaviour in this sample. This finding is consistent with the argument that parenting behaviour may have greater influence on children already at risk ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref81">14</reflink>]), although the correlations in the two samples did not differ significantly.</p> <p>To further examine the differential effects of parenting by risk status, our fourth question asked whether the effect of non‐supportive parenting on child behaviour problems is stronger in delayed condition families. Delay status was found to be a significant moderator of the non‐supportive parenting/child behaviour problems relationship. Children in the delayed and non‐delayed groups displayed similarly low levels of total behaviour problems when their mothers were low in non‐supportive parenting behaviours. However, when mothers' responses indicated medium or high levels of non‐supportive parenting, children with delays exhibited much higher total behaviour problems than did children without delays, further supporting the notion that parenting behaviour has greater impact on at‐risk children ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref82">14</reflink>]). Additional analyses found these same relationships for internalizing, but not externalizing, behaviour problems. This finding is likely a reflection of the specific types of parenting reactions assessed by the Coping with Children's Negative Emotions Scale, which assesses how parents respond to their children's experience of negative emotions. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref83">19</reflink>]) note that these reactions are a means of socializing children's own emotion‐related reactions. Parents' non‐supportive reactions represent ways in which parents devalue or attempt to control their children's emotional displays or react by becoming dysregulated themselves ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref84">22</reflink>]). Such reactions may send the message to children that their emotional expressions are unacceptable, leading to the internalization of these negative emotions.</p> <p>The present study extended research on self‐ mastery and parenting, by measuring self‐mastery as a global dispositional trait rather than as efficacy related to childrearing. Moreover, in this study, we examined both typically developing and developmentally delayed samples, allowing for a clearer understanding of the influences on problem behaviours in children with developmental delays. The findings support the view that parenting behaviours have a greater impact on children at developmental risk.</p> <p>Future research could expand upon the current findings with mothers by exploring the same questions with fathers. Fathers are a particularly interesting group to study with respect to parenting children with developmental delays. In a study of parents of children with externalizing behaviour problems, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref85">4</reflink>]) found that mothers, compared with fathers, reported greater negative impact of the child's problems on parents' lives, more negative feelings about parenting, and more daily hassles. A study of parents of children with autism revealed that mothers and fathers reported similar levels of stress, but mothers' stress levels were related to levels of child behaviour problems, whereas fathers' stress levels were not ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref86">26</reflink>]). These studies indicate that the relationships among parental well‐being, parenting, and child behaviour problems may vary in meaningful ways between mothers and fathers.</p> <p>The findings of the present study must be interpreted with caution because of the small magnitude of some of the correlations. Investigating the current questions in a sample with more varied socio‐ economic status would also be informative. Parents in the present sample had an above‐average level of education; 48% of mothers in the sample had a college degree compared with 27.7% of adults in the general population ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref87">47</reflink>]). Given the relationship that has been found between education and self‐mastery in the previous studies ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref88">10</reflink>]), and even the modest relationship in the current sample [<emph>r</emph>(<reflink idref="bib214" id="ref89">214</reflink>) = 0.19, <emph>P</emph> < 0.01], examining a sample with more varied socio‐economic status could provide greater variance in self‐mastery and perhaps yield even stronger and more generalizable findings. Moreover, as the present findings are correlational at child age 4 years, they do not indicate causal directions in the relationships among self‐ mastery, parenting, and child behaviour problems. Future research could profitably employ a longitudinal design to determine whether parent or child behaviour is driving this relationship, or whether it is bi‐directional.</p> <hd id="AN0024977149-20">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>This article was based on activities of The Collaberative Family Study, supported by NICHD Grant ♯34879‐1459 (Keith Crnic, P.I., Bruce Baker, Jan Blacher & Craig Edelbrock, Co‐P.I.S). We are indebted to our staff and doctoral students at our three sites, Pennsylvania State University, UCLA and UC Riverside. We especially appreciate the participation of the families who made this research possible.</p> <ref id="AN0024977149-21"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref40" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Achenbach T. M. (1991) Manual for the CBCL 4–18. Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref41" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Achenbach T. M. & Rescorla L. A. (2001) Manual for ASEBA School‐Age Forms and Profiles. Research Center for Children, Youth & Families, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref26" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Aspinwall L. G. & Richter L. (1999) Optimism and self‐mastery predict more rapid disengagement from unsolvable tasks in the presence of alternatives. Motivation and Emotion 23, 221 – 45.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref44" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Baker B. L. & Heller T. L. (1996) Preschool children with externalizing behaviors: experience of fathers and mothers. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 24, 513 – 32.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref9" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Baker B. L., Blacher J., Crnic K. A. & Edelbrock C. (2002) Behavior problems and parenting stress in families of three‐year‐old children with and without developmental delays. American Journal of Mental Retardation 107, 433 – 44.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref10" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Baker B. L., McIntyre L. L., Blacher J., Crnic K., Edelbrock C. & Low C. (2003) Pre‐school children with and without developmental delay: behaviour problems and parenting stress over time. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research. Special Issue on Family Research 47, 217 – 30.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref42" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bayley N. (1993) Bayley Scales of Infant Development. Psychological Corporation, San Antonio, TX.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref17" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bondy E. M. & Mash E. J. (1999) Parenting efficacy, perceived control over caregiving failure, and mothers' reactions to preschool children's misbehavior. Child Study Journal 29, 157 – 73.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref75" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Boyle M. H., Jenkins J. M., Georgiades K., Cairney J., Duku E. & Racine Y. (2004) Differential‐maternal parenting behavior: estimating within‐ and between‐ family effects on children. Child Development 75, 1457 – 76.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bullers S. (1999) Selection effects in the relationship between women's work/family status and perceived control. Family Relations 48, 181 – 8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Casey R. J. (1996) Emotional competence in children with externalizing and internalizing disorders. In: Emotional Development in Atypical Children (eds M. Lewis & M. W. Sullivan), pp. 161 – 83. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coleman P. K. & Karraker K. H. (1998) Self‐efficacy and parenting quality: findings and future applications. Developmental Review 18, 47 – 85.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coleman P. K. & Karraker K. H. (2003) Maternal self‐efficacy beliefs, competence in parenting, and toddlers' behavior and developmental status. Infant Mental Health Journal 24, 126 – 48.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crnic K. A. & Greenberg M. T. (1987) Transactional relationships between perceived family style, rsik status, and mother–child interactions in two year olds. Journal of Pediatric Psychology 12, 343 – 62.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Day D. M., Factor D. C. & Szkiba‐Day P. J. (1994) Relations among discipline style, child behavior problems, and perceived ineffectiveness as a caregiver among parents with conduct problem children. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science 26, 520 – 33.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dykens E. M. (2000) Annotation: psychopathology in children with intellectual disability. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 41, 407 – 17.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Einfeld S. L. & Tonge B. J. (1996) Population prevalence of psychopathology in children and adolescents with intellectual disability, II: epidemiological findings. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 40, 99 – 109.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eisenberg N. & Fabes R. A. (1994) Mothers' reactions to children's negative emotions: relations to children's temperament and anger behavior. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 40, 138 – 56.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eisenberg N., Cumberland A. & Spinrad T. L. (1998) Parental socialization of emotion. Psychological Inquiry 9, 241 – 73.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Emerson E. (2003) Prevalence of psychiatric disorders in children and adolescents with and without intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 47, 51 – 8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Erikson M. E. & Upshur C. C. (1989) Caretaking burden and social support: comparison of mothers of infants with and without disabilities. American Journal on Mental Retardation 94, 250 – 8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fabes R. A., Esenberg N. & Bernzweig J. (1990) The Coping with Children's Negative Emotions Scale. Unpublished document available from the first author, Arizona State University, Tempe.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fabes R. A., Poulin R., Eisenberg N. & Madden‐Dierdich D. (2003) The coping with negative emotions scale: psychometric properties and relations with social competence. Marriage and Family Review 34, 285 – 310.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Featherstone H. (1980) A Difference in the Family: Life with A Disabled Child. Basic Books, New York.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Florian V. & Findler L. (2001) Mental health and marital adaptation among mothers of children with cerebral palsy. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 71, 358 – 67.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hastings R. P. (2003) Child behaviour problems and partner mental health as correlates of stress in mothers and fathers of children with autism. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 47, 231 – 7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hubbard J. & Coie J. D. (1994) Emotional determinants of social competence in children's peer relationships. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 40, 1 – 20.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kishore M. T., Nizamie A., Nizamie S. H. & Jahan M. (2004) Psychiatric diagnosis in persons with intellectual disability in India. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 48, 19 – 24.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marshall G. N. & Lang E. L. (1990). Optimism, self‐mastery, and symptoms of depression in women professionals. Journal of Personality Social Psychology 59, 132 – 9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mash E. J., Johnston C. & Kovitz K. (1983) A comparison of the mother–child interactions of physically abused and non‐abused children during play and task situations. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 12, 337 – 46.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nezu C. M., Nezu A. M. & Gill‐Weiss M. J. (1992) Psychopathology in Persons with Mental Retardation: Clinical Guidelines for Assessment and Treatment. Research Press, Champaign, IL.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patterson G. R. (2002) The early development of coercive family process. In: Antisocial Behavior in Children and Adolescents: Developmental Theories and Models for Intervention (eds J. B. Reid, G. R. Patterson & J. Snyder), pp. 25 – 44. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patterson G. R. & Dishion T. J. (1988) Multilevel family process models: traits, interactions, and relationships. In: Relationships within Families: Mutual Influences (eds R. Hinde & S. J. Hinde), pp. 283 – 310. Clarendon, Oxford.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pearlin L. I. & Schooler C. (1978) The structure of coping. Journal of Health Social Behavior 19, 2 – 21.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prinzie P., Onghena P., Hellinckx W., Grietens H., Ghesquiere P. & Colpin H. (2004) Parent and child personality characteristics as predictors of negative discipline and externalizing problem behavior in children. European Journal of Personality 18, 73 – 102.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reiss S. (1990) Prevalence of dual diagnosis in community‐based day programs in the Chicago metropolitan area. American Journal of Mental Retardation 94, 578 – 85.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rutter M., Tizard J., Yule W., Graham P. & Whitmore K. (1976) Research report: Isle of Wight studies, 1964–1974. Psychological Medicine 6, 313 – 32.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saarni C. (1990) Emotional competence: how emotions and relationships become integrated. In: Socioemotional Development (ed. R. A. Thompson), pp. 115 – 82. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sanders M. R. & Woolley M. L. (2004) The relationship between maternal self‐efficacy and parenting practices: implications for parent training. Child: Care, Health and Development 31, 65 – 73.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scheier M. F., Carver C. S. & Bridges M. W. (1994) Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self‐mastery, and self‐esteem): a reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality Social Psychology 67, 1063 – 78.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sobel M. E. (1982) Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. In: Sociological Methodology 1982 (ed. S. Leinhart), pp. 290 – 312. Jossey‐Bass, San Francisco, CA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stifter C. A. & Bono M. A. (1998) The effect of infant colic on maternal self‐perceptions an mother‐infant attachment. Child: Care, Health and Development 24, 339 – 51.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stormshak E., Kaminski R. & Goodman M. (2002) Enhancing the parenting skills of Head Start families during the transition to kindergarten. Prevention Science 3, 223 – 34.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor S. E. (1983) Adjustment to threatening events. American Psychologist 38, 1161 – 73.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor S. E. (1989) Positive Illusions: Creative Self‐Deception and the Healthy Mind. Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, New York.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Teti D. M. & Gelfand D. M. (1991) Behavioral competence among mothers of infants in the first year: the mediational role of maternal self‐efficacy. Child Development 62, 918 – 29.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> United States Census Bureau (2004) Educational attainment in the United States: 2004. Available at: <ulink href="http://www.census.gov/population/socdem/education/cps2004/tab01a‐01.pdf">http://www.census.gov/population/socdem/education/cps2004/tab01a‐01.pdf</ulink> (retrieved 22 November 2005).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wells‐Parker E., Miller D. I. & Topping S. (1990) Development of control of outcome scales and self‐efficacy scales for women in four life roles. Journal of Personality Assessment 54, 564 – 75.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By E. Paczkowski and B. L. Baker</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib212" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib213" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib209" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib214" firstref="ref89"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ762149
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Parenting Children with and without Developmental Delay: The Role of Self-Mastery
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Paczkowski%2C+E%2E%22">Paczkowski, E.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Baker%2C+B%2E+L%2E%22">Baker, B. L.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Intellectual+Disability+Research%22"><i>Journal of Intellectual Disability Research</i></searchLink>. Jun 2007 51(6):435-446.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Blackwell Publishing. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8599; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: customerservices@blackwellpublishing.com; Web site: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/jnl_default.asp
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 12
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2007
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Measures+%28Individuals%29%22">Measures (Individuals)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychopathology%22">Psychopathology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Personality+Traits%22">Personality Traits</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Behavior%22">Child Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Rearing%22">Child Rearing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Check+Lists%22">Check Lists</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Efficacy%22">Self Efficacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mothers%22">Mothers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Developmental+Delays%22">Developmental Delays</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Behavior+Problems%22">Behavior Problems</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parenting+Styles%22">Parenting Styles</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Comparative+Analysis%22">Comparative Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Young+Children%22">Young Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Coping%22">Coping</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Negative+Attitudes%22">Negative Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Emotional+Response%22">Emotional Response</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Influence%22">Parent Influence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Attitudes%22">Parent Attitudes</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22California%22">California</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pennsylvania%22">Pennsylvania</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Assessment and Survey Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Child+Behavior+Checklist%22">Child Behavior Checklist</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2006.00894.x
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0964-2633
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Background: While parenting behaviours have direct effects on children's behavioural outcomes, other, more distal factors also may be shaping the way a mother handles parenting responsibilities. Dispositional factors are likely to be a major influence in determining how one parents. Although researchers have studied the relationships among maternal dispositional factors, parenting, and child behaviours, few studies have examined these relationships when the child is at developmental risk. Children with developmental delays evidence elevated clinical level behaviour problems, so this group is of primary interest in the search for precursors to psychopathology. The present study examined how the maternal dispositional trait of self-mastery, as well as supportive and non-supportive parenting, relate to behaviour problems in young children with and without developmental delay. Method: Participants were 225 families, drawn from Central Pennsylvania and Southern California. The children, all aged 4 years, were classified as delayed (n = 97) or non-delayed (n = 128). The Self-Mastery Scale measured perceived level of control over life events. The Coping with Children's Negative Emotions Scale measured different ways parents perceive themselves as reacting to their children's distress and negative affect. The Child Behavior Checklist assessed children's behaviour problems. Results: Delayed condition mothers reported significantly more child behaviour problems than non-delayed condition mothers; the two conditions did not differ in self-mastery, supportive parenting, or non-supportive parenting. Self-mastery, non- supportive parenting reactions, and child behaviour problems all related significantly to one another. For the sample as a whole and within the delayed condition, the association between self-mastery and child behaviour problems was partially mediated by non-supportive parenting reactions, although self-mastery was still significantly associated with problem behaviour. In the non-delayed condition, although significant relationships also were found among the variables of interest, non-supportive parenting did not have a significant main or mediation effect. Delay status moderated the relationship between negative parenting reactions and child behaviour problems, assessed by the Child Behavior Checklist Total and Internalizing scores. When mothers displayed low levels of non-supportive reactions, children in the delayed and non-delayed groups had similar levels of total problem behaviour. However, when mothers were medium or high in non-supportive reactions, children in the delayed group had much higher levels of problem behaviours than those in the non-delayed group. Conclusions: The present study extended research on parental dispositional factors and parenting by measuring self-mastery as a global personality trait rather than measuring self-efficacy related specifically to childrearing. Moreover, relationships were examined for both developmentally delayed and non-delayed samples, allowing for a clearer understanding of the influences on problem behaviours in children with developmental delays. The findings support the view that parenting behaviours have a greater impact on children at developmental risk.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: Author
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 48
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2007
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ762149
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ762149
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2006.00894.x
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 12
        StartPage: 435
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Measures (Individuals)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychopathology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Personality Traits
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Rearing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Check Lists
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Efficacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mothers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Developmental Delays
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Behavior Problems
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parenting Styles
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Comparative Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Young Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Coping
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Negative Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Emotional Response
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parent Influence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parent Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: California
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pennsylvania
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Behavior Checklist
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Parenting Children with and without Developmental Delay: The Role of Self-Mastery
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Paczkowski, E.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Baker, B. L.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 06
              Type: published
              Y: 2007
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0964-2633
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 51
            – Type: issue
              Value: 6
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
              Type: main
ResultId 1