 

Warm

Z 007

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

PARENTING SELF-EFFICACY AMONG FIRST-TIME
FATHERS

presented by

Yi—Chun Lin

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

MA. degree in Family and Child Ecology

 

 

“M ij [ WY) NATE/LOJ‘ ng

Major Pfotesgcir’sj’éigﬁafﬁre

4 ll'Ol

 

Date

MSU is an aﬁ’mnative-action, equal-opportunity employer

 

- ‘-—-.--.-u---o-n-.—.— .-

..u-A----o----v-u-.-._.—.—.-r—c-n—-----o-------._ — _ _

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/07 p:/ClRC/DateDue.indd-p.1

PARENTING SELF-EFFICACY AMONG FIRST-TIME FATHERS
By

Yi-Chun Lin

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial ﬁJlﬁllment of the requirements
For the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Family and Child Ecology

2007

ABSTRACT
PARENTING SELF -EF FICACY AMONG FIRST-TIME FATHERS
BY

Yi-Chun Lin

This study examined several variables as predictors of parenting self-efﬁcacy
among ﬁrst-time fathers. Eighty parents with toddlers (45 boys and 35 girls), between the
ages of 18 and 36 months, were recruited through local area childcare centers. A structure
Equation Model was used to test the main hypotheses in the study.

Results indicated that paternal self-efﬁcacy was predicted by paternal
involvement, toddler mood, and paternal perceptions of co-parenting support. However,
paternal self-efﬁcacy was not predicted by paternal knowledge of child development and
maternal perceptions of co-parenting support as hypothesized. Additional pathways were
found in the hypothesized model. First, toddler mood predicted paternal perceptions of
co-parenting support. Second, paternal perceptions of co-parenting support mediated the
relationship between toddler mood and paternal self-efficacy. Third, maternal
perceptions of co-parenting support and paternal involvement were related. Fourth,
maternal self-efﬁcacy predicted emotional availability, one of the domains of paternal

self-eﬂicacy.

DEDICATION

To a special person
Who has given me the strength to stand alone in the US.

Thank you for always being there whenever I needed you,
and for clearing my mind when l was conﬁised.

I couldn’t have accomplished such a huge task without you.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Dr. Brophy-Herb, my committee chair and main advisor, for
her academic and emotional support as a mentor, and also sometimes as a mother,
throughout the writing of this thesis. Dr. Brophy-Herb has been the most important
person in my graduate program at Michigan State University and I always knew I could
depend on her whenever the need arose. I would also like to thank Dr. Whiren for her
advice, kind support, and understanding of me as an international student. I am grateﬁJl
to Dr. Luster for being a member of my committee; he was always supportive and
encouraged me all the time.

As an international student in the US, I would like to thank many friends who
have supported me during the past two years: the Chen family, the Foley family, and the
Yamazaki family, who all played important roles in my life here. My good friends, Lou
Grace Tan and Sun Young Ryang have been good listeners and huggers whenever I was
struggling with my thesis. I would also like to thank a group of my childhood friends in
Taiwan who supported me the whole time 1 was here. Finally, I would like to thank

deeply my parents and two older sisters for their unconditional love.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................. vii
CHAPTER 1 .

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
Statement of Purpose ..................................................................................... 4
Theoretical Framework ................................................................................. 4
Conceptual Model ......................................................................................... 7
Hypotheses ................................................................................................... 8
Conceptual and Operational Deﬁnitions ........................................................ 10

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................... 12
Parental Self-eﬂicacy .................................................................................... 12
Father Involvement ....................................................................................... 14
Knowledge of Child Development ................................................................ 15
Toddler Temperament .................................................................................... 17
Co-parenting Support .................................................................................... 18
Summary ...................................................................................................... 20

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 21
Participants ................................................................................................... 21
Procedures .................................................................................................... 25
Instruments ................................................................................................... 26
Data Analysis ................................................................................................ 29

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 31
Descriptive Analysis of the Data ................................................................... 31
Normality of Distribution .............................................................................. 34
Test of Main Hypotheses ............................................................................... 34
The Modiﬁed Model ..................................................................................... 39

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................... 45
Paternal Involvement 9 Paternal Self-Efﬁcacy ............................................ 45
Paternal Knowledge of Child Development 9 Paternal Self-Efﬁcacy ........... 46
Paternal Perceptions of Co-Parenting Support 9 Paternal Self-Efficacy ...... 47
Maternal Perceptions of Co-Parenting Support 9 Paternal Perceptions

of Co-Parenting Support 9 Paternal Self-Efﬁcacy .................................... 48

Maternal Perceptions of Co-Parenting Support 9 Paternal Self-Efﬁcacy ...... 49

Toddler Mood 9 Paternal Self-Efﬁcacy ...................................................... 50
Toddler Mood 9 Paternal Perceptions of Co-Parenting Support
9 Paternal Self-Efﬁcacy ............................................................................ 50
Maternal Perceptions of Co-Parenting Support (-9 Paternal Involvement .. 51
Conclusions .................................................................................................. 52
Limitations .................................................................................................... 52
Implications .................................................................................................. 53
APPENDICES ......................................................................................................... 54
Appendix A .................................................................................................. 55
Appendix B ................................................................................................... 56
Appendix C ................................................................................................... 57
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 59

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Family Demographic Information ............................................................... 22
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables ..................................................... 31
Table 3. Correlation Matrix with All of the Primary Study Variable ......................... 33
Table 4. Test of Main Hypotheses ............................................................................ 35
Table 5. Summary of Initial Hypothetical Model ...................................................... 38
Table 6. Signiﬁcant Path in the Hypothesized Model ............................................... 39
Table 7. Insigniﬁcant Path in the Hypothesized Model ............................................. 39
Table 8. Summary of Modiﬁed Model ..................................................................... 42
Table 9. Signiﬁcant Path in the modiﬁed Model ....................................................... 43
Table 10. Hypotheses Testing .................................................................................... 44
Table 11. Additional Findings in the Model ............................................................... 44

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Conceptual Model .................................................................................... 8
Figure 2. Initial Hypothetical Model ....................................................................... 37
Figure 3. The Modiﬁed Model ................................................................................. 41

viii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Parental self-efﬁcacy has often been associated with positive parenting behaviors
(Unger & Waudersman, 1985) and refers to parents’ expectations regarding the level to
which they are able to perform competently and effectively as parents (Teti & Gelfand,
1991). Also, parental self-efficacy can be deﬁned as parents’ perceived ability to exercise
inﬂuence on the behavior and development of their children in a positive way (Coleman
& Karraker, 1997). Interestingly, parental self-efﬁcacy is often studied as a predictor of
parenting behaviors rather than as an outcome of interest. Little is known about the
predictors of self-efficacy, and this is particularly true with regard to paternal self-efﬁcacy.
The goal of this study is to examine knowledge of child development, toddler
temperament, paternal and maternal perceptions of co-parenting support, and paternal
involvement as predictors of paternal self-efficacy among ﬁrst-time fathers.

The importance of parental self-efﬁcacy, particularly maternal self-efficacy, has
been investigated in the last two decades. Maternal self-efﬁcacy has been associated with
an easier transition to motherhood (Williams et al., 1987). Also, higher maternal self-
efﬁcacy contributes to successful adaptation to parenthood (Reese & Harkless, 1998). A
wealth of research has revealed associations between high maternal self-efﬁcacy and
speciﬁc positive parenting skills, such as more active and positive parenting interactions
(Mash & Johnston, 1983 a), and responsive, stimulating, and warm caregiving (Unger &
Waudersman, 1985). Self-efﬁcacy is also related to parenting behaviors such as

understanding and responding to infant cues (Donovan et., 1990). Mothers with higher

self-efﬁcacy tend to have active maternal coping orientations (Wells-Parker et al, 1990,
cited in Coleman & Karraker, 1997), and are less likely to perceive their toddlers as
having behavioral problems (Johnston & Mash, 1989). Furthermore, some research has
shown maternal self-efficacy to be a mediator between some characteristics, such as
maternal depression, social support, and parenting quality (Teti & Gelfand, 1991; Cutrona
& Troutman, 1986).

However, little is known about the characteristics which inﬂuence parental self-
eﬂicacy during toddlerhood among ﬁrst-time parents, especially among fathers.
Toddlerhood can provide certain challenges to parents as toddlers exert their
independence. During this stage of development, children make enormous gains in
virtually every area including cognitive, emotionaL language, and motor development
(Brook, 2004). Toddlers are emerging from being completely dependent on their parents
and are now eager to discover the world on their own. They are experiencing their own
feelings about having power and being independent. At this stage, parents need to
develop clear rules, as well as have the conﬁdence to enforce them and to respond
effectively and appropriately to behavioral challenges, such as tantrums. According to
Bandura (1982), acquiring new skills is facilitated by a belief in self-efﬁcacy. Therefore,
it is crucial for parents to feel conﬁdent in order to cope with the challenges and be
successﬁil in the parenting role, especially for ﬁrst-time parents.

As society changes, mothers are not necessarily the primary caregivers as often
both parents co-parent their children (Cabrera, et al. 2000). This shift is due to fathers’
increased involvement in child rearing. Research has revealed that father involvement has

increased over the past three decades (Cabrera, et al. 2000). Such changes have drawn

researchers’ attention and the majority of research on fathering has been published since
the mid-1990’s (Pickard, 1998).

Likewise, most research in the past on parental self-efﬁcacy has focused solely on
maternal efﬁcacy in the parenting role and little has addressed paternal self-efficacy. As
Reece and Harkless (1998) discussed, more data are needed to understand paternal self-
efﬁcacy, its relationship to fathers’ partners, infant characteristics, father support systems,
and as predictors of fathers’ self-efﬁcacy. Although paternal involvement has increased
recently, the level of that involvement is different from father to father, and, of course,
some fathers might not be involved in parenting roles at all. Those fathers, not involved
in the parenting role, would not have resources from which to form parental self-efﬁcacy.
Questions, such as the following, need to be addressed: Do fathers who are more
involved with their children feel more efficacious; does more "practice" in parenting
contribute to efﬁcacy?

This study focused on the relationship between father involvement, toddler
temperament, fathers’ and mothers’ perceptions of co-parenting support, and paternal
self-efﬁcacy. Utilizing a social cognitive perspective (Bandura, 1997), characteristics
such as child temperament, co-parenting support, and knowledge of development are
salient in the study of self-efﬁcacy, a key concept in social cognitive theory.
Understanding what characteristics are related to paternal self-efﬁcacy has important
implications for parenting education efforts aimed at assisting fathers in feeling

efﬁcacious in their parenting roles.

Statement of Purpose

The objective of this study was to examine several variables as predictors of

paternal self-efficacy among ﬁrst-time fathers. Speciﬁcally, paternal involvement,

knowledge of child development, toddler temperament, and fathers’ and mothers’

perceived co-parenting support are hypothesized as predictors of paternal self-efﬁcacy.

Speciﬁc research objectives were developed as follows:

I.

To examine paternal involvement as a predictor of paternal self-efﬁcacy
among ﬁrst-time fathers.

To examine paternal knowledge of child development as a predictor of
paternal self-efficacy among ﬁrst-time fathers.

To examine toddler temperament as a predictor of paternal self-efﬁcacy
among ﬁrst-time fathers.

To examine fathers’ perceptions of co-parenting support as a predictor of
paternal self-efficacy among ﬁrst-time fathers.

To examine mothers’ perceptions of co-parenting support as a predictor of
paternal self-efﬁcacy among ﬁrst-time fathers.

To examine mothers’ perceptions of co-parenting as an indirect predictor
of parental self-efﬁcacy, through fathers’ perceptions of co-parenting

support.

Theoretical Framework

This study is guided by Bandura’s theory on the development of self-efﬁcacy

(1997). Self-efﬁcacy refers to one’s belief about how effectively one can perform a

particular task or manage a situation (Bandura, 1986), such as parenting. People who feel

conﬁdent about a particular task are likely to be successful in that task. According to self-
ef’ﬁcacy theory (1997), self-efﬁcacy beliefs are constructed by the four principle sources
of information, which include: 1) enactive mastery experiences; 2) vicarious experiences;
3) verbal persuasions; and, 4) physiological states. Due to the increase of father
involvement, there are many sources for the formation of parenting self-efficacy.

In reference to the current study with ﬁrst-time fathers, the focus on the
characteristics of family members themselves (father’s knowledge of child development,
support from spouse, and the temperament of the child), and the variables which were
commonly examined in maternal self-efﬁcacy, the following three sources are most
relevant: perceived task diﬂiculties (the child), which is one of the elements of enactive
mastery experiences, verbal persuasion (the spouse), and knowledge of the tasks (father
himself), as they are relevant to this study, are described in further detail below and the
independent variables in this study will be discussed and deﬁned by Bandura’s sources of
self-efﬁcacy.

Verbal Persuasion

People who are verbally persuaded to perform a desired behavior or task are
likely to put greater effort into it and sustain it in order to master the behavior or task.
Self-efﬁcacy is thought to be enhanced by verbal persuasion. Self-efficacy is sensitive to
realistic encouragement provided by a spouse (Holloway et al, 2005). Moreover, verbal
persuasion contributes to performance by motivating an individual to work harder toward
success (Bandera, 1986). For ﬁrst-time parents, self-efﬁcacy may be especially enhanced
by approval and encouragement from the spouse (Reece & Harkless, 1998). For example,

a mother’s affirmation of a father’s competency, and their acknowledgment and respect

for the father’s contributions to the parenting role, may be important forms of verbal
persuasion. This kind of co-parenting support and evaluative feedback, highlighting
personal capabilities, may raise efficacy beliefs. Also, co-parenting support between
couples might inﬂuence each other. Mothers’ perceptions of co-parenting might predict
paternal self-efﬁcacy directly or indirectly through fathers’ perceptions of co-parenting
and paternal self-efﬁcacy. Wives who feel more co-parenting support may have better
interaction with their husbands, and when their husbands receive more positive cues, they
may feel more conﬁdent and make more effort in their parenting role. Therefore, in this
study, verbal persuasion is conceptualized as co-parenting support.

Co-parenting support includes not only verbal persuasion, but also nonverbal
support. For example, a husband supports his wife’s parental decision by telling their
children “Mommy asked you to wash your hands, please go wash your hands.” Although
Bandura (1997) only addressed verbal persuasions as one of the sources of self-efficacy,
nonverbal support should be taken into account also. In the current study, items relative
to co-parenting support include both verbal and nonverbal items, and there is sufficient
support in the literature that such forms of support may be related to self-efﬁcacy.
Perceived Task Diﬂiculty

Perceived task difficulty and repeated failures usually lower self-efficacy beliefs
(Bandura, 1997). In the current study, a child’s difficult temperament is one
characteristic that may make the task of parenting more challenging. For example, when
a new parent is successﬁrl in his effort to soothe and comfort his fussy baby, he may be
more likely to gain a greater sense of efficacy in the parental role. In contrast, if the

parent is repeatedly unsuccessful in soothing her baby, she may begin to feel less

efficacious about her parenting abilities (Porter & Hsu, 2003). So, child temperament
may contribute, to some degree, to parental self-efﬁcacy.
Knowledge of the Task

According to Bandura (1977), self-efficacy is signiﬁcantly determined by
people’s “knowledge and skills in dealing with the environment” (p. 203); the more
knowledgeable people are, the more efficacious they will feel in that domain. According
to two additional studies of self-efficacy (Conrad, et al., 1992; Hess, Teti, & Hussey-
Gardner, 2004), parental self—efﬁcacy beliefs should incorporate both the speciﬁc
knowledge involved in child rearing and the level of conﬁdence in one’s ability to carry
out the designated role behaviors. Parental self-efficacy is a necessary condition for
parents to perform successﬁrl tasks. For instance, mothers who are more knowledgeable
about child development and parenting reported having more conﬁdence in the parenting
role (Conrad, et al. 1992). Parents who know little about their child’s development may
experience lower self-efﬁcacy in the parenting role. Knowledge of child development is
deﬁned as the parents’ familiarity with infants’ developmental norms, and awareness of
parenting behavior related to children‘s cognitive, language, motor development, and
children’s health and nutrition (Benasich & Brooks-Gum, 1996); in the current study,
task knowledge is operationalized as knowledge of child development.

Conceptual Model

In this study, several variables are hypothesized as predictors of parental self-
efficacy. The conceptual model of this study is represented below. The direct paths
between paternal involvement, knowledge of child development (task knowledge),

toddler temperament (perceived task difﬁculty), father’s perception of co-parenting

support (verbal persuasion) and paternal self-efficacy are hypothesized. Also, an indirect
path between mother’s perception of co-parenting support (verbal persuasion) and
paternal self-efficacy is hypothesized through father’s perception of co-parenting support.

Figure 1. Conceptual Model

 

 

Paternal Involvement

 

 

 

Knowledge of child development
(Task knowledge)

 

 

 

Toddler Temperament Paternal self-efficacy
(Perceived task difﬁculty)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Father’s perception of co-parenting
support (Verbal persuasion)

 

 

i

 

 

Mother’s perception of co-parenting
support (Verbal Persuasion)

 

 

Hypotheses
H01 High involvement by the father does not predict high parental self-efﬁcacy.
Hal High involvement by father does predict high parental self-efficacy.
H02 High paternal knowledge of child development does not predict high

paternal self-efficacy.

Ha2

H03

Ha3

H04

Ha4

H05

H35

H06

Ha6

High paternal knowledge of child development does predict high paternal

self-efficacy.

Difficult toddler temperament does not predict low paternal self-efﬁcacy.

Difficult toddler temperament predicts low paternal self-efﬁcacy.

Paternal perception of supportive co-parenting does not predict high paternal
self-efficacy.
Paternal perception of supportive co-parenting predicts high paternal self-

efﬁcacy.

Maternal perception of supportive co-parenting does not predict high
paternal self-efficacy.
Maternal perception of supportive co-parenting predicts high paternal self-

efficacy.

Maternal perception of supportive co-parenting does not predict high
paternal self-efﬁcacy indirectly through paternal perception of supportive
co-parenting.

Maternal perception of supportive co-parenting predicts high paternal self-

efﬁcacy indirectly through paternal perception of supportive co-parenting.

Conceptual and Operational Deﬁnition

Parental Self-Eﬂicacy

The dependent variable in the study. Conceptually, parental self-efﬁcacy refers to
the parent’s expectations about the level to which they are able to perform competently
and effectively as parents (Teti & Gelfand, 1991). Operationally, the level of parental
self-efﬁcacy was measured by The Self-Efﬁcacy for Parenting Task Index-Toddler Scale
(SEPT I-TS) (Coleman & Karraker, 2003).
Paternal Knowledge of Child Development

Independent variable. Conceptually, paternal knowledge of child development is
deﬁned as the father’s familiarity with the infant’s developmental norms, and awareness
of parenting behavior related to children’s cognitive, language, motor development, and
children’s health and nutrition (Benasich & Brooks-Gunn, 1996). Operationally, the level
of parental knowledge of child development was measured by the Knowledge of Infant
Development Inventory (MacPhee, 1981) as self-reported by the fathers.
Toddler Temperament

Independent variable. Conceptually, toddler temperament is deﬁned as toddler’s
behavioral style including about activity level, rhythmicity of body ﬁmction, approach,
intensity, adaptability, mood, persistence, sensory threshold and distractibility (Fullard,
McDevitt, & Carey, 1984). Difficult toddler temperament is deﬁned as toddler with high
intensity and negative mood. Operationally, toddler temperament was measured by the
two subscales of The Toddler Temperament Scale (TTS) (Fullard, McDevitt, & Carey,

1984), intensity and mood, completed by fathers.

10

Perception of Co-Panenting Support

Independent variable. Conceptually, co-parenting support refers to each parent’s
supportiveness of the other. The supportiveness includes affirmation of the spouse’s
competency as a parent, acknowledging and respecting the spouse’s contributions, and
the supporting the spouse’s parenting decisions and authority (Feinberg, 2002).
Operationally, mothers' and fathers’ perceptions of co-parenting support was measured by
the Parenting Alliance Inventory (PAI) (Abidin & Brunner, 1995), completed

independently by each parent.

ll

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

In this chapter, current literature on parental self-efﬁcacy, knowledge of child
development, infant temperament, co-parenting support, and father involvement is
reviewed. Most of the literature on parental self-efﬁcacy has revolved almost exclusively
around mothers’ self-efficacy in the parental role. Given the lack of research on paternal
self-efficacy, the literature on maternal self-efﬁcacy is reviewed here. Deﬁcits in the
literature, particularly related to the lack of research on paternal self-efficacy, are noted.
Parental Self-Eﬂicacy

Parental self-efﬁcacy has been researched primarily over the last two decades
(Cutrona & Troutman, 1986; Donovan & Leavitt, 1989), and its importance for
improving parenting skills, such as the ability to attend to and understand infants’ signals
(Donovan et al., 1989), is nicely summarized in Coleman and Karraker’s (1997) review.
Parenting self-efficacy plays a key role in adaptation to parenthood (Williams et al.,
1987), because successful adaptation to parenthood may require that parents believe they
have the ability to succeed at this challenging task. Another point is that mothers, who
have a strong self-efﬁcacy belief in their parenting roles, experience more positive
emotional well-being, feel closer to their infants, have better adjustment in parenting, and
experience better marital relationships during their children's toddlerhood (Bandura,
1997). Finally, parenting self-efficacy is correlated with speciﬁc adaptive parenting skills,
such as providing responsive, stimulating, and warm caregiving (Unger & Waudersman,

1985). Parenting self-efficacy is related to child outcomes, such as the quality of infant

12

attachment ( Donovan & Leavitt, 1985) and children with fewer emotional problems who
are more sociable (Coleman & Karraker, 2000). Also, higher maternal self-efﬁcacy leads
to higher parenting satisfaction. (Coleman & Karraker, 2000). To summarize, people with
high self-efﬁcacy in their parenting roles interact with their children more optimistically,
sensitively, and consistently than those with less conﬁdence.

Some researchers have investigated parental self-efﬁcacy as a mediator between
several psychosocial variables (i.e., infant temperament, knowledge of child development,
parents’ education, and marital support) and maternal competence (Teti & Gelfand, 1991),
mother-toddler interaction (Conard et al., 1992), maternal depression (Cutrona, Troutman,
1986), infant attachment (Donovan & Leavitt, 1985), and parenting quality (Machida, et
al., 2002). For instance, Teti and Gelfand (1991) found that socio—demographic status,
infant temperament, social marital support, and depression were related to maternal
competence when self-efficacy was controlled. Also, Machida et al. (2002) examined the
mediating role of maternal self-efﬁcacy in predicting quality of parenting. Maternal self-
efﬁcacy was found to mediate the eﬂ‘ect of child temperament on the quality of the home
learning environment provided by mothers.

Several studies of parental self-efficacy have centered on toddlerhood, due to the
developmental changes and the challenges for parents that occur during this time, but
with a focus on mothers' self-efficacy. Higher self-efficacy appears to contribute to better
toddler developmental and behavioral outcomes (Coleman & Karraker, 2003). For
instance, in Coleman and Karraker’s (2003) study of 68 mother and toddler pairs,
maternal self-efﬁcacy beliefs predicted parenting competence, toddler developmental

status, and behavioral outcomes (toddler compliance, enthusiasm, and persistence). Also,

13

there was a 10-week training program for mothers and fathers focused on promoting
positive parent-toddler relationship (Gross, Fogg & Tucker, 1995). In this study, mothers
increased maternal self-efficacy, decreased maternal stress, and improved mother-toddler
interactions. However, there were no signiﬁcant changes in increasing paternal self-
eﬁicacy or decreasing paternal stress among fathers, probably because forty percent of
the fathers attended fewer than half of the training sessions (Gross, Fogg & Tucker, 1995).

In summary, research on self-efficacy has been ongoing for over 20 years and has
been well-developed. Early research focused on the inﬂuences of maternal self-efﬁcacy
on related characteristics, while, during the past 10 years, it has been studied as a
mediator or moderator of other parenting outcomes. On the other hand, paternal self-
ef’ﬁcacy has not caught the attention from scholars as a research topic and, thus, our
knowledge of its importance remains underdeveloped compared to our understanding of
maternal self-efficacy. Therefore, it is important to understand what inﬂuences paternal
self-efﬁcacy at this initial stage.
Father Involvement

Father involvement refers to father’s participation in child-rearing tasks. In most
of the research on father involvement, three dimensions are considered in father’s
participation: engagement, availability, and responsibility (Lamb, Pleck, Charnov, &
Levine, 1987). In this particular study, the level of father involvement is considered, such
that the amount of involvement they have in child-rearing activities is taken into account.

Since most of the research in the past on parenting self-efﬁcacy focused on
maternal self-efficacy, it was assumed that mothers were involved in their parenting roles

because mothers were the primary caregivers of their children traditionally. Therefore,

14

research focused on the inﬂuences on maternal self-efﬁcacy, rather than on the level of
involvement. As society has changed over the years, mothers are not necessarily the
primary caregivers anymore, as many parents co-parent their children (Cabraera, et al.,
2000). This shift is due to fathers’ increased involvement in child rearing. Research has
revealed that father involvement has increased over the past three decades (Cabraera, et al.
2000). Fathers today are typically more involved with the day-to-day experiences in their
children's lives than perhaps ever before (Cabraera, et al. 2000). Given the relatively new
role of fathers, very little is known about how paternal involvement might be related to
self-efficacy. For instance, do fathers, who are more involved with their children, feel
more efficacious? Does more "practice" in parenting contribute to efficacy? In a
Taiwanese study, among high SES fathers, paternal involvement in discipline, chores, or
emotional involvement increased paternal self-efficacy. (Li & Ma, 2004).
Knowledge of Child Development

Knowledge of child development reﬂects parents’ understanding of
developmental norms and milestones, progress of child development, and a general
understanding about the cues and behaviors of their young children. Smeriglio and Parks
(1983) divide this developmental knowledge into three parts: awareness of developmental
milestones, awareness of speciﬁc caregiving techniques, and perceptions on how to
support children’s development. Knowledge of child development enables parents to
understand the physical, psychological, and social capabilities of their children,
contributing to ways they expect their children to respond, how they perceive their
children’s communication abilities, and revises their parenting attitudes (Benasich &

Brooks-Gum, 1996, Todak, 1999). Boger and Smith (1986) noted that a basic knowledge

15

of infant behavior is predictive of parenting success and positive mother-infant
interactions. Moreover, knowledge bolsters competence, consistency, and self-efﬁcacy in
the parental role (Boger & Smith, 1986).

In accordance with Bandura’s self-efﬁcacy theory (1989), parental self-efﬁcacy
beliefs should incorporate both the speciﬁc knowledge involved in child rearing and the
level of conﬁdence in one’s ability to carry out the designated role behaviors. Parents
often overestimate the rate of development of their children (Cowen, 2001). When
parents have inappropriate expectations about typical child development, they are more
likely to experience impatience and intolerance with their children’s behaviors (Cowen,
2001). Moreover, unrealistic expectations of child behavior and development may
impede positive parent-infant communication, undermine parental conﬁdence and self-
esteem, and contribute to cumulative developmental risk factors or child behavior
problems (Todak, 1999). Therefore, fathers who know little about their children’s
development may have lower paternal self-efficacy in the parenting role.

Conard and colleagues (1992) found that maternal self-efficacy was related to the
quality of mother-child interaction only when knowledge of child development was taken
into account. For example, mothers who were the most knowledgeable about child
development and who felt conﬁdent about their parenting skills had the most positive
mother-toddler interactions. Hess, Teti and Hussey-Gardner (2004) found that the
relationship between maternal self-efficacy and parenting competence was moderated by
maternal knowledge of child development. For instance, maternal self-efficacy and
parenting competence were positively associated when knowledge of child development

was high. Among mothers who were more knowledgeable about child development, there

16

was a signiﬁcantly positive relation between parental self-efficacy and maternal
behavioral competence.
Toddler Temperament

Goldberg (1977) has suggested that maternal self-efﬁcacy is likely to be fostered
by infants who are predictable, manageable, and easily soothed. By contrast, difficulty of
infant temperament may impede maternal self-efficacy. Typical hallmarks of a difficult
temperament are such characteristics as fussiness, irritability, and frequent intense crying,
coupled with low soothability and manageability (Washs & Kohnstamm, 2001).

Many studies have found that maternal self-efﬁcacy is related to mothers’
perceptions of their babies with “easy” or “difﬁcult” temperaments. Childrens’ difficult
temperament is related to low maternal self-efficacy (Cutrono & Troutman, 1986;
Goldberg, 1977; Gross, Conrad, Food, & Wothke, 1994; Teti & Gelfand, 1991; Porter &
Hsu, 2003). In Porter and Hsu’s (2003) study, ﬁrst-time mothers’ perceptions of efficacy
was measured prenatally and postnatally. Maternal self-efﬁcacy was related to depression,
anxiety, marital conﬂict, and level of previous experience one month before going into
labor. Mothers’ perceptions of infant temperament were signiﬁcantly related to maternal
self-efﬁcacy when babies were three months old. This study suggested that maternal self-
efﬁcacy beliefs are being shaped by interactions between infants and mothers.

Machida et al. (2002) examined whether maternal self-efﬁcacy mediated the
relationship between child-family characteristics (i.e., mother’s education, child’s
difficult temperament, and family stress) and the involvement in home-learning activities
in Head Start families. The relationship between maternal self-efﬁcacy and infant

temperament, as cited in the research literature, is congruent with Bandura’s self-efﬁcacy

l7

theory (1989). As for parents, dealing with a difﬁcult infant temperament may be one of
the perceived task difficulties in the parenting role.
Co-Parenting Support

Co-parenting support refers to each parent’s supportiveness of the other. Such
support includes afﬁrmation of the spouse’s competency as a parent, acknowledging and
respecting the spouse’s contributions, and supporting the spouse’s parenting decisions
and authority (Feinberg, 2002). The co-parenting relationship has been found to be
associated with parenting quality and child outcomes. For example, positive perception of
the co-parenting relationship has been linked to authoritative parenting and lower
parenting stress (Abidin & Brunner, 1995) and higher levels of perceived parental
competence (Floyd & Zmich, 1991). According to self-efﬁcacy theory, the social-marital
support’s inﬂuence on efﬁcacy is through processes involving social persuasion, verbal
encouragement, and opportunities for observing the signiﬁcant other’s parenting
interactions. Additionally, co-parenting support is viewed as the most powerﬁrl
environmental inﬂuence on maternal self-efficacy (Feinberg, 2002).

Relevant research indicates the importance of social and marital support in the
parenting role, which is positively related to maternal eﬂicacy (Holloway, et al., 2005).
In contrast, marital conﬂict or lack of social support is negatively related to maternal
efﬁcacy (Cutroma & Troman, 1986; Teti & Gelfand, 1991). Elder ( 1993 ) found that, of
all possible sources of support, spousal support (in most studies identiﬁed as husbands’
support of their wives) is most highly related to maternal self-efﬁcacy (as cited in
Holloway et al, 2005 ). Similarly, Holloway et al. (2005) found that the support husbands

provide is an important source of maternal self-efﬁcacy due to the strong connection

18

between it and satisfaction with husbands’ support. Teti, O’Connell, and Reiner (1996)
noted that parental self-efficacy was fostered by a positive co-parenting relationship,
especially in the area of co-parenting supportiveness. A supportive co-parenting
relationship helps couples conﬁont difﬁculties in the parenting role together, and thus
helps them establish and maintain a sense of conﬁdence in their parenting roles (Floyd,
Gilliom, & Costigan, 1998). Also, parenting efﬁcacy has been demonstrated to be linked
to maternal sensitivity and warmth ( Feinberg, 2002).

Whether one’s spouse feels co-parenting support ﬁ‘om a partner may inﬂuence
their behavior in the parenting role. McBride and Rane (1998) examined the relationship
between perceptions of co-parenting relationships, marital quality, and the amount of
involvement of fathers with young children and found that fathers, whose wives gave a
more positive emotional appraisal of their parenting skills, were also more involved and
responsible for child-rearing. Moreover, fathers, whose wives perceived a greater sense
of shared philosophy and perceptions of parenting with them, also interacted more with
and assumed more responsibility for their young child.

Wives’ perceptions of co-parenting support, or not, could affect husband’s
parenting behavior. Wives, who feel more co-parenting support, may have better
interactions with their husbands, and when their husbands receive more positive cues,
may feel more conﬁdent in their parenting roles. In this study, the relationship between
maternal perception of co-parenting and paternal parenting behavior is clear; what is
unknown is the relationship between maternal perceptions of co-parenting and paternal
self-efﬁcacy, and if maternal perceptions of co-parenting predicts paternal self-efﬁcacy

indirectly through paternal perception of co-parenting.

l9

Summary

A review of the relevant literature indicates the importance of self-efﬁcacy in the
parenting role. The existing literature on maternal self-efﬁcacy reviewed so far has
clearly demonstrated that maternal self-efficacy has been an inﬂuential mediator of
several of the determinants that have been examined in relation to parenting behavior,
including child temperament, social/marital supports, parenting stress, and knowledge of
child development. Most of the literature described parental self-efﬁcacy as a mediator
and discussed the inﬂuences of maternal self-efficacy. There were few studies that
discussed predictors of parental self-efﬁcacy and those few were examined among
mothers and rarely among fathers. Knowledge of child development and infant
temperament has been examined in several studies, and obviously these two variables
were strongly associated with maternal self-efﬁcacy. Little is known about fathers’
knowledge of child development and the relationship between paternal self-efficacy and
infant temperament. Moreover, no single study focuses on self-efﬁcacy of fathers and
their support systems. Understanding predictors of paternal self-efficacy is a necessary

next step in better understanding fathers' parenting experiences.

20

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

Participants

Eighty parents with toddlers (45 boys and 35 girls) between the ages of 18 and 36
months were recruited from childcare centers in the greater Lansing area. The criteria for
participation in this study were: 1) intact family, 2) ﬁrst-time parents, and 3) parents with
children 18-36 months of age. Mean age was 26 months (SD=5.6) for children. Fathers
were an average of 34 years old (SD = 5.5) while the mean age for mothers was 32 years
(SD = 5.9). The predominant ethnic group represented in the sample was Caucasian
(73%). Seventy eight percent of fathers and 85% of mothers reported holding a college
degree or an advanced degree and the mean income range was 75,000-85,000. Full

demographic information on the sample is reported in Table 1 on the next page.

21

Table 1.

Family Demographic Information (n=80)

 

 

Family Demographic Information N %
Child Gender
Male 45 56%
Female 35 44%

 

Educational Attainment of Fathers

Not yet completed high school

 

0 O %
High school diploma 14 18%
Assocrates Degree 3 4%
Bachelor 5 Degree 34 42%
Masters Degree 11 14%
Doctorate, M.D., JD 18 22%
Educational Attainment of Mothers
Not yet completed high school 0 0.0%
High school Diploma 7 9%
Associates Degree 5 6%
Bachelor Degree 41 51%
Masters Degree 20 25%
Doctorate, MD, JD 7 9%

 

22

Table 1 (Continued)

Family Demographic Information (n=80)

 

 

Family Annual Income

Less than $15,000 3 4%

$15,000-$24,999 3 4%

$25,000-$34,999 2 3%

$35,000-$44,999 5 6%

$45,000-$54,999 9 11%
$55,000-$64,999 8 10%
365,000-374,999 8 10%
$75,000-$84,999 5 6%

$85,000-S94,000 7 9%

$95 ,000-$l 04,999 6 7%

$105,000 or greater 24 30%
Fathers ’Ethnicity

Caucasian 59 74%
Aﬁ'ican American 4 5%

Hispanic 0 0%

Asian 15 19%
Other 2 2%

 

23

Table 1 (Continued)

Family Demographic Information (n=80)

 

Mothers ’Ethnicity

Caucasian 59
African American 4
Hispanic 2
Asian 14
Other 1

74%

5%

2%

18%

1%

 

24

Procedures

The researcher explained to the directors of each childcare center the purpose of
the study, detailing the procedural protocol, and seeking permission to recruit parents for
the study. After the researcher obtained permission, forms were put in the children’s
cubbies at the centers. Parents who were willing to participate in the study ﬁlled out their
and their children’s names on the forms and returned them to the childcare providers.
Next, they received survey packages ﬁ'om the childcare providers at the center (via
children's cubbies or backpacks). The package to parents included descriptions of the
study, two questionnaire booklets (one for mothers and one for fathers), instructions to
mothers and fathers to complete the questionnaires independently, and consent forms for
each parent. Fathers completed questionnaire packages, which included demographic
information, parenting self-efﬁcacy, knowledge of child development, toddler
temperament, co-parenting support scales, and father involvement. Mothers completed a
questionnaire, which included questions regarding demographic information (maternal
education) and co-parenting support. Each questionnaire package was labeled with the
parent ID number to match the couples’ surveys. These surveys took approximately 30-
45 minutes for fathers and 10 minutes for mothers to complete.

In order to keep their answers anonymous, the two completed surveys and
consent forms were returned in sealed envelopes to two separate drop boxes (one box for
surveys and one box for consent forms) in the childcare centers, so that the researcher
wouldn’t be able to match the surveys and consent forms. Since questionnaires and
consent forms were returned in two separate drop boxes at the same time, the researcher

sent out children's books to the participants according to the returned consent forms.

25

Approximately 356 families received the forms, and approximately 100 were
willing to participate in this study. In the end, 80 questionnaires were obtained. The
response rate was 22.4%.

Instruments
Demographic Questionnaire

Fathers and mothers were asked to provide some basic background information
about their age, children’s age, educational level, and annual family income. This
information was used to describe the sample of participants.

Parental Self-Eﬂicacy

Paternal self-efficacy was assessed using the Self-Efﬁcacy for Parenting Tasks
Index-Toddler Scale (SEPTI-TS) (Coleman & Karraker, 1998). This is a 53-item scale
measuring seven dimensions of parenting based on the most important dimensions of
toddler-caregiver relationships as delineated by Zeanah et al. (1997) and originally
formulated by Emde (1989) (as cited in Coleman & Karraker, 1998). The seven
dimensions are: l) emotional availability; 2) nurturance, valuing the child, and
empathetic responsiveness; 3) discipline and limit setting; 4) protection; 5) play; 6)
teaching; and 7) instrumental care. In this study, 46 items were used because the
protections from harm or injury subscale was eliminated due to the low alpha coefﬁcient
in Coleman et al’s study. Items were scored on a six-point Likert scale and the responses
ranged ﬁom “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree.” The total score ranged form 46 to
276, and higher scores indicated stronger parental self-efficacy. The six domains, with
alpha coefﬁcients in this study noted, included the following: emotional availability (.80);

nurturance, valuing the child, and empathetic responsiveness (.70); discipline and limit

26

setting (.75); play (.76); teaching (.79); and instrumental care (.87). The alpha coefficient
for the ﬁtll scale in the current study was .92.
Knowledge of Child Development

Fathers’ knowledge about child development was assessed using the Knowledge
of Infant Development Inventory (KIDI; MacPhee, 1981). This 58-item questionnaire
assesses fathers’ knowledge about child-rearing practices, developmental processes, and
infant normative milestones. Questions include items related to children’s physical, social,
language, perceptual, and cognitive development. Additionally, items related to children’s
early experiences, the bidirectional nature of social inﬂuences, atypical development, and
health and safety issues are included. In this study, the ﬁrst 39 items were used in the
survey. Responses included “agree,” “disagree,” or “not sure,” to the statement presented.
MacPhee (1981) reported a test-retest reliability of .92 for total score over a 2-week
interval and a Cronbach’s alpha of .82 for parents’ KIDI scores. In this study, the alpha
coefficient (the ﬁrst 39 items) was .80
Toddler Temperament

The Toddler Temperament Scale (TI‘S) (Fullard, McDevitt, & Carey, 1984)
assessed toddler temperament. This scale includes 97 items, which measures parents’
perception of their 12- to- 36 month-old children’s behavior along nine dimensions of
temperament. The nine dimensions are activity level, rhythmicity of body ﬁrnction,
approach, intensity, adaptability, mood, persistence, sensory threshold, and distractibility.
Two particular dimensions of interest were measured in the current study, intensity and
mood, were measured. These two subscales were of particular interest because they more

easily characterize temperament as being more ﬂexible or more challenging. Fathers were

27

instructed to rate their child’s typical behavior in a variety of situations along a scale of 1
(almost never) to 6 (almost always). Fathers completed the mood and intensity subscale
of "ITS-the dimensions. In examining the data as the preliminary step in the analyses, the
mood subscale was more highly correlated with the outcome variable. Therefore, only the
mood subscale was used in analyzing in the SEM model. The alpha coefﬁcient for the
mood subscale in the current study was .77.
Co-parenting Support

The Parenting Alliance Inventory, a 20-item self-report scale (Abidin & Brunner,
1995) assessed co-parenting support. Mothers and fathers completed this instrument
individually and responded to each item along a 5-point Likert scale, ranging ﬁ'om (1)
strongly disagrees to (5) strongly agrees. This scale displayed high internal consistency;
the alpha coefﬁcients were .90 (father reported) and .92 (mother reported), respectively.
Paternal Involvement

Paternal involvement was assessed by the Paternal Involvement and Child Care
Index (Radin, 1982). This instrument contains 23 items, some of which are scored on a
Likert-type scale, while simultaneously asking parents to delineate the percentage of
responsibility on different items. Five areas of paternal involvement were noted: 1)
statement of involvement consists of degree of involvement caring for the child; 2)
childcare responsibility involves feeding the child, having sole responsibility, bathing,
dressing, and putting the child to bed; 3) socialization responsibility involves discipline,
setting limits for the child’s behavior, helping the child with personal problems, and
helping the child to learn; 4) inﬂuence in child-rearing decision involves who decides

when the child should be disciplined and when the child is old enough to try new things;

28

and 5) availability involves how frequently the father is in the home and available to the
child for speciﬁed activities. Two of the subscales, childcare responsibility and
socialization responsibility, were used in this study. The alpha reliability was .85.

Data Analysis

Data analysis was carried out in a two-step plan, which included descriptive
analyses of data and hypothesis testing using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). SPSS
13.0 was used for descriptive analyses of data, and AMOS 6 (Arbuckle, 2005) was used
to analyze the structural models utilized in testing the hypothesis. First, ﬁequencies and
percentages for demographic variables in the study were calculated and examined. In
addition, the mean scores and standard deviations of the independent and dependent
variables were calculated. Distribution of data was examined in these descriptive analyses
as well. The correlations among the self-efficacy measure and the four independent
variables were examined and are presented in Table 2 and 3. In the second step of the
analysis process, the main hypotheses in this study were examined by Structure Equation
Model.

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was used to test the conceptual model
presented in Figure 1. SEM is a multivariate statistical technique used to determine the
validity of a certain model. SEM combines conﬁrmatory factor analysis and path analysis
(Kline, 2004). There are several advantages to use SEM. First of all, compared to
multiple regression, SEM not only tests direct prediction, but also provides information
about indirect prediction paths. Secondly, SEM demonstrates a more precise estimation
of the indirect effects of the exogenous variables on all endogenous variables than path

analysis does. Finally, all the variables in this study, toddler temperament, paternal self-

29

efﬁcacy, and perception of co-parenting, are latent variables, which are better evaluated
with SEM (Musil, Jones, & Warner, 1998).

To use SEM, there are numerous data assumptions. First of all, a theoretical basis
for model speciﬁcation is required. Secondly, dependent and mediating variables need to
be continuously distributed. Third, based on Stevens (1996)’ rule of thumb, at least 15
cases per measured variable or indicator are needed. All assumptions were met in the

current study.

30

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

This chapter describes the ﬁndings from this study. Three sections include the
descriptive analysis of the data, the hypothesized structural equation model and the
revised structural equation model.

Descriptive Analysis of the Data
Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables

Table 2 provides the descriptive statistics for all of the primary study variables.
Paternal self-efficacy tended to be moderately high for the sample and the fathers in this
study are highly involved in the parenting role. Maternal and paternal perceptions of co-
parenting support tended to be very high for the couples. The toddler mood is generally
positive in this study. Table 3 provides a correlation matrix with all the primary study
variables.

Table 2

Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables (n = 80)

 

 

Variables Mean Standard Potential Range
Deviation

Paternal Self-efﬁcacy 4.75 .50 1.00-6.00
(Total Score) 5
Paternal Self-efficacy 5.02 .66 1 00-600
(Emotional availability) 2
Paternal Self-efﬁcacy 4.87 .49 LOO-6.00
(nurturance/valuing/

empathetic responsiveness)

31

Table 2 (Continued)

Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables (n = 80)

Paternal Self-efficacy 4.37 .72 LOO-6.00
(discipline/limit setting)

Paternal Self-efﬁcacy 4.95 .67 LOO-6.00
(play)

Paternal Self-efficacy 4.76 .62 LOO-6.00
(teaching)

Paternal Self-efﬁcacy 4.57 .87 LOO-6.00
(instrumental care/structure/routine)

Paternal Perception of Co-parenting 4.48 .37 LOO-5.00
Maternal Perception of Co- 4.51 .53 LOO-5.00
parenting

Knowledge of Child Development .75 .11 0.00-1.00
Toddler mood 2.85 .63 LOO-6.00
Paternal Involvement 2.43 .43 LOO-3.00

 

32

3059295 .5502... .N. .EuEEKEo. 5.2.5.... : Jens—no.0.»3. 236. .0 "53.50:! 2 4.59.3 manages «62.522. 3:33.. .o Jan—9.6 men—.933
we 5:522. 3:03.: a. 28m .53 $0350.25 .h BEBE—areaugo §:§.mc._-_6853:um .e .w:.:o§..noaoEo..__uw .n can—an haunted-8 .v
m:.:8=8..\9:=13m6 ASHE—04.3 .n mvocozmconmu. o..£¥nEo..M£=_n>\3agt==- 68594.3 .N 5:53.86 35.550.350.22 .. 00:80qu

 

303$. .26. mo. o o... .a scan... a 8.3.230 .
62.2.8 .o>u. E. o o... .a 235:9... a. 8.3.2.5 :

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ . . .
p at: up”. M Ewen. . :8“. Ema... .Lsnn. $63.. in. Emma. M .Lmon. Emma. w>..o>z.
M _ a.
2... v «9.- Trim? 8.... ALB? .238. :80. .925; M3... _....o~m.. ream? 000.2
M . 2
«a an..- M TEN. m8. Cmmw. 3.. .men. CE. «2. 59. FE. wesozx
_. . . o.

M .
Comm. .LSQ- 6&3. L .Lmtw. .LoS. Cwﬁ. .van. renew. it .763. .Lvmv. aooa<o
n a
gun. 8a.- M2... 1:38. . 5m. 2.... or... 96. mmo. Fiﬁ. Exam. “.0050:
. . e
H 3<PDC
F5... .252..- exam, F35. SN. . p.62. F52. .mex. .23... .LE. .Lovn 030.28
, s
M. EEG.
Finn. CE»... 8.. MvaN. :3. FEE. F 9.5%. .353. .163. .Louv. Snow 385928
M m
. , .02....Q<mt
F53”. .2697 Fawn. 9.3.“. m2. :8». Fawn. . FEE. FEE. recon. rent... ESEoéow
m
$55
SN. FEM; SEN .Lnov. 95. .mes. Tens FEE. . .Lm; .thc. 7.31m. 6321.3
v
.629
SEN van- we. :2. mac. EVE. 7.69.. .238. :94. F {St .LSv. caution
n
23.552.
Emma. 7.5%.- m9. .353... Snow. .Lvt. PEN»... .Lmom. FE... .mev. p :8... 3853.3
m
a 3va
.238. £36.. v8. revue. .25.”. $.52. Ewan .Lmvm. F53. Trev. .Lnnb . Eﬁﬁvaow
. p
N. 2 S a w .. w m. e n N F 8.3.9

 

 

 

 

32......» his .9553 95.3 :a 5.3 x235 5:33:50 . m 035...

33

Normality of Distribution

According to the assumptions of SEM, the data of observed variables have to be
normal distributed. The distribution of the observed variables and tests for skewness and
kurtosis was performed before proceeding with analyses. Some of the variables were not
normally distributed in this study and were negatively skewed. The Cubic transformation
was used to reduce extreme negative skew and the Square transformation was used to
reduce negative skew. These variables included Paternal Perception of Co-parenting,
Maternal Perception of Co-parenting, Knowledge of Child Development, Paternal
Involvement, and the four subscales of paternal self-efﬁcacy.

Test of Main Hypotheses

The main hypotheses were tested using Structure Equation Modeling. Several
variables were hypothesized as predictors of parental self-efﬁcacy. The conceptual model
tested is represented below. The direct paths between paternal involvement, knowledge of
child development (knowledge), toddler temperament (termed as “mood” in the
remainder of the paper), father’s perception of co-parenting support (dadcop) and
paternal self-efficacy were hypothesized. Also, an indirect path between mother’s
perception of co-parenting support (momcop) and paternal self-efﬁcacy was hypothesized
through father’s perception of co-parenting support. Paternal self-efﬁcacy, the
independent variable in this study, was a latent variable which was measured by six
observed variables: 1) emotional availability; 2) nurturance/valuing/empathetic
responsiveness; 3) discipline/limit setting; 4) play; 5) teaching; and 6) instrumental

care/structure/routine.

34

Table 4

 

 

Test of Main Hypotheses
Hypotheses Test of Path Signiﬁcance
H1: High paternal knowledge of child Knowledge of child development9
development does predict high paternal self- Paternal self-efﬁcacy
efﬁcacy.
H2: Difﬁcult toddler mood predicts low Toddler Mood 9 Paternal self-efﬁcacy

paternal self-efﬁcacy

Paternal perception of co-parenting
H3: Paternal perception of supportive co- support9 Paternal self-efﬁcacy
parenting predicts high paternal self-efﬁcacy.

Maternal perception of co-parenting

H4: Maternal perception of supportive co- support 9 Paternal self-efﬁcacy
parenting predicts high paternal self-efﬁcacy.

H5: Maternal perception of supportive co- Maternal perception of co-parenting
parenting predicts high paternal self-efﬁcacy support 9 Paternal perception of co-
indirectly through paternal perception of parenting support

supportive co-parenting.

H6: High-involved father does predict high Paternal Involvement 9 Paternal self-
parental self-efﬁcacy amd a greater of number efﬁcacy

parenting tasks

Initial Analyses

The initial model was tested with AMOS. A summary of the initial model is presented in
Table 5. In SEM, there are several ﬁt indices to check model ﬁt. For this study, chi-square,
the Goodness of Fit Index (GFl), the Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI), the
Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
(RMSEA; Root mean square residual) were obtained. The structural models were
considered to ﬁt if the chi-square was not signiﬁcant, if GFI, AGFI, and CFI were each

greater than .90, and if RMSEA was less than .1 (Kline, 2004). The ﬁt indices of the

35

overall measurement model were obtained. The result indicated an inadequate model ﬁt
with the initial model. The xz/df and RMSEA statistics did not indicate a good ﬁt; the
chi-square was signiﬁcant, the values of GFl, AGFI, and CF] were not suﬂicient enough
to accept the model as a good ﬁt (x’=.000, GFI=.853, AGFI= .751, CFI= .861,
RESEA= .113 ).

In the model, the path is signiﬁcant at the 0.5 level when the Critical Ratio (CR) is
> 1.96 for a regression weight (Kline, 2004). The signiﬁcant and insigniﬁcant paths in

this hypothesized model are presented in table 7 and 8.

36

Figure 2: Initial Hypothetical Model

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

momcop
.29 '
mo @
.\.01 e ‘
.+ dadcop ‘ .74 25
a
.42 .80
. . -.46
52 disc: ®
' .22 -.33
Involve .72
a
_.37 .65 p Y
a a
mood -06
a... a
knowle
Reference: Self-efﬁcacy: paternal self-efﬁcacy, emo: emotional availability, nur:

nurturance/valuing/empathetic responsiveness, disci: discipline/limit setting, play: play, teach: teaching,
care: instrumental care/structure/routine, momcop: maternal perception of co-parenting support, dadcop:

paternal perception of co-parenting support, involve: paternal involvement, mood: toddler temperament,
knowledge: knowledge of child development.

37

Table 5

Summary of Initial Hypothetical Model

 

Parameter Estimate

 

 

 

Parameters Standardized C.R. Signiﬁcance
Estimates
Momcop 9 dadcop .295 2.742 .006
Momcop 9 self-efﬁcacy .009 .088 .930
Dadcop 9 self-efﬁcacy .419 3.705 .000
Involve 9 self-efﬁcacy .222 2.188 .029
Mood 9 self-efﬁcacy .371 -3.473 .000
Knowle 9 self-efﬁcacy .056 .564 .573
Self-efﬁcacy 9 emo .744 ----- -----
Self-efﬁcacy 9 nurtur .799 7.365 .000
Self-efﬁcacy 9 disci .525 4.191 .000
Self-efﬁcacy 9 play .723 5.429 .000
Self-efﬁcacy 9 teaching .649 5.081 .000
Self-efﬁcacy 9 care .564 4.046 .000
Goodness of F it Summary
36 Df xz/df GFI AGFI CFI RESEA
78.130 39 2.0 .930 .862 983 .046

38

Table 6

Significant Path in the Hypothesized Model

 

 

Signiﬁcant Path C.R.
Paternal involvement 9 Paternal self-efﬁcacy 2.188
Paternal perceptions of co-parenting support 9 Paternal self-efﬁcacy 3.705
Toddler temperament 9 Paternal self-eﬁicacy -3_473
Maternal perceptions of co-parenting support9 Paternal perceptions of 2.742

co-parenting support
Maternal perceptions of co-parenting support9 Paternal perceptions of

co-parenting support-9 Paternal self-efﬁcacy

 

The path is signiﬁcant at the .05 level when the Critical Ratio (CR) is > 1.96 for a regression weight.

Table 7

Insigniﬁcant Path in the Hypothesized Model

 

 

Insigniﬁcant Path C.R.
Direct Path
1. Knowledge of child development 9 Paternal self-efﬁcacy .564
2. Maternal perceptions of co-parenting support9 Paternal self-efﬁcacy .088

 

The Modiﬁed Model

The ﬁt measures indicated an unsatisfactory ﬁt in the initial hypothetical model.
Based on modiﬁcation indices (M.I) in AMOS 6.0, the model was modiﬁed in order to
have better model ﬁt. There were two steps in the modiﬁcation: First, the insigniﬁcant
paths (C.R < 1.96 - See Table 7), were removed. Second, according to the modiﬁcation

indices (M.I), some additional pathways were added if the paths were empirically and

39

theoretically supported (See Table 9). There were several major modiﬁcations made to
improve the model ﬁt of the initial hypothesized model. The ﬁrst modiﬁcation was to
remove paternal knowledge of child development. The second modiﬁcation was to
remove the direct path from maternal perceptions of co-parenting support to paternal self-
efﬁcacy and add a direct path from maternal perceptions of co-parenting support to one
of the observed variable, which indicates paternal self-eﬁicacy-emotional availability
instead. The third modiﬁcation was to add a direct path from toddler mood to paternal
perceptions of co-parenting support based on literature review. The last modiﬁcation was
to add a covariance between maternal perceptions of co-parenting support and paternal
involvement.

The modiﬁed model is presented in Figure 3 and the summary of this model is
presented in Table 8 and 9. After the modiﬁcations, the ﬁt indices of the model indicated
the model was a good model as well as a good representation of the data. The xz/df and
RMSEA statistics were small enough to indicate a good ﬁt; the chi-square was not
signiﬁcant, and the values of GFI, AGFI, and CFI were sufficient enough to accept the
model as a good ﬁt (x2=30.l97, GFI=.938 , AGFI= .878 , CFI= .992 , RESEA= .032 ).

All the paths are signiﬁcant in this modiﬁed model. Table 10 and 11 present

hypotheses testing and the additional paths found in the modiﬁed model.

40

Figure 3. The Modiﬁed Model

 

momoop

2i

dadcop
-. j
-.35

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mood
.20
involve
Reference: Self-efﬁcacy : paternal self-efﬁcacy, emo: emotional availability, nur:

nurturance/valuing/empathetic responsiveness, disci: discipline/limit setting, play: play, teachzteaching, care:
instrumental care/structure/routine, momcop: maternal perception of co-parenting support, dadcop: paternal

perception of co—parenting support, involve: paternal involvement, mood: toddler temperament, knowle:
knowledge of child development.

41

Table 8

Summary of modiﬁed model

 

Parameter Estimate

 

 

 

Parameters Standardized C.R. Signiﬁcance
Momcop 9 dadcop .282 2.826 .005
Mood 9 dadcop -.367 -3.677 .000
Dadcop 9 self-efﬁcacy .399 3.721 .000
Involve 9 self-efﬁcacy -.349 3.326 .000
Mood 9 self-efﬁcacy .203 -2. 151 .031
Self-efﬁcacy 9 emo .746 --- —--
Self-efﬁcacy 9 nurtur .828 7.989 .000
Self-efﬁcacy 9 disci .552 4.616 .000
Self-efficacy 9 play .754 6.065 .000
Self-efﬁcacy 9 teaching .668 5.559 .000
Self-efﬁcacy 9 care .586 4.377 .000
Momcop 9 emo .167. 2.500 .012
Goodness of F it Summary
76 Df xz/df GFI AGFl CF I RESEA
30.197 28 1.078 .938 .878 992 .032

42

Table 9.

Signiﬁcant Path in the modified Model

 

Signiﬁcant Path in the Modiﬁed Model C.R.

 

Direct Path

1. Paternal involvement-9Patemal self-efﬁcacy 3.326
2. Paternal perceptions of co-parenting support 9 Paternal self-efﬁcacy 3721
3. Toddler mood 9 paternal self-efﬁcacy -2.151
4

. Maternal perceptions of co-parenting support9 Paternal perceptions of 2.826
co-parenting support

5. Toddler mood9 paternal perception of co-parenting support _3 677

6. Maternal perceptions of co-parenting support9 paternal self-efﬁcacy 2 500
(Emotional availability) .

Indirect Path

7. Maternal perceptions of co-parenting support9 Paternal perceptions of
co-parenting support-9Patemal self-efﬁcacy

8. Toddler mood9patemal perception of co-parenting support9 paternal ----
self-efﬁcacy

 

43

Table 10.

 

 

 

Hypotheses Testing
Hypotheses Result
H1. Highly involved father predicts high parental self-efﬁcacy. Supported
H2. High paternal knowledge of child development predicts high Unsupported
paternal self-efﬁcacy.
H3. Difficult toddler mood predicts low paternal self-efﬁcacy. Supported
H4. Paternal perception of supportive co-parenting predicts high Supported
paternal self-efﬁcacy.
H5. Maternal perception of supportive co-parenting predicts high Unsupported
paternal self-efﬁcacy.
H6. Paternal perception of supportive co-parenting predicts high
paternal self-efﬁcacy. Supported
Table 11

Additional Findings in the Model

 

Path

 

. Toddler mood 9 paternal perception of co-parenting support.

Maternal perceptions of co-parenting support 9 paternal self-efﬁcacy (Emotional

availability)

efﬁcacy.

. Toddler mood 9 paternal perception of co-parenting support 9 paternal self-

 

44

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The present study investigated the predictors of paternal self-efﬁcacy among ﬁrst-
time fathers. Overall, results indicated that paternal self-efficacy was predicted by
paternal involvement, toddler mood, and paternal perceptions of co-parenting support.
However, paternal self-efﬁcacy was not predicted by paternal knowledge of child
development and maternal perceptions of co-parenting support as hypothesized.

In the study, unexpected pathways were found in the hypothesized model. First,
toddler mood predicted paternal perceptions of co-parenting support. Second, paternal
perceptions of co-parenting support mediated the relationship between toddler mood and
paternal self-efﬁcacy. Third, maternal perceptions of co-parenting support and paternal
involvement were related. Fourth, maternal self-efﬁcacy predicted one of the domains of
paternal self-efﬁcacy-emotional availability. In this chapter, the discussion of the direct
and indirect paths in the structural equation model is given and suggestions for ﬁrture
research are made.

Paternal Involvement 9 Paternal Self-Eﬂicacy

Paternal involvement was found to predict paternal self-efﬁcacy. Fathers who
were highly involved in the parenting role had higher paternal self-efﬁcacy. According to
past research on parenting self-eﬁicacy, most research has focused on maternal self-
efﬁcacy. It was assumed that mothers were involved in their parenting roles because
mothers were the primary caregivers of their children, therefore, there was no research

focus on the relationship between maternal self-efﬁcacy and maternal involvement.

45

However, father involvement is an important consideration in the study of
paternal self-efﬁcacy. Some of the fathers are primary caregivers or they co-parent their
children (Cabraera, et al. 2000) due to the increase in father involvement. This ﬁnding
was consistent with a Taiwanese study that indicated that paternal involvement in
discipline, chores, or emotional involvement respectively can each increase paternal self-
efﬁcacy among high SES fathers. (Li & Ma, 2004). One possible explanation for the
relationship between paternal involvement and paternal self-efﬁcacy is that fathers who
are highly involved in the parenting role have more opportunities to form parenting self-
efﬁcacy.

According to Bandura, self-efﬁcacy can be formed by the following sources:
enactive mastery experience, vicarious experience, verbal persuasions, and physiological
state. For example, fathers who have more experience performing child care might have
more opportunities to receive positive feedback from their spouses (verbal persuasions).
Also, fathers who are highly involved in the parenting role might have a more successful
experiences remaining involved in the parenting role, which, in turn, raises their self-
efﬁcacy (enactive mastery experience). Further, the positive experience of paternal
involvement might be beneﬁcial to paternal self-eﬂicacy. Further study should consider
if positive or negative experiences of involvement might inﬂuence parenting self-efﬁcacy.
Paternal Knowledge of Child Development 9 Paternal Seleﬂicacy

Based on this study, knowledge of child development does not predict paternal
self-efﬁcacy. There are several possible explanations for this. First, the sample size in this
study was small, and the current sample is predominantly White, upper class, highly

educated, and demographically restricted. The current sample may not have enough

46

variability in the knowledge scores because this population is a group of fathers who may
be more likely to read books on child development and childcare. Therefore, the sample
in the current study made it difﬁcult to detect the relationship between knowledge of
child development and paternal self-efﬁcacy. Also, among such a high SES group,
parenting roles might differ from other SES groups. In general samples, knowledge of
child development might not be dropped in the model. Second, the instrument used to
assess paternal self-efﬁcacy was task-domain speciﬁc. Some of the KIDI items cannot
reﬂect on the knowledge of parenting tasks in the self-efﬁcacy for parenting tasks index-
toddler scale. Although fathers got high scores on KIDIs, the level of knowledge of
infant development may not predict higher paternal self-efﬁcacy.
Paternal Perceptions of Co-Parenting Support 9 Paternal Self-Eﬂicacy

The results from this study indicated that paternal perceptions of co-parenting
support predicted paternal self-efﬁcacy. When fathers are acknowledged and respected
for their efforts in the parenting role, and receive verbal encouragement and non-verbal
support ﬁ'om their wives, they report higher parenting self-efﬁcacy. Previous studies
indicated that the support husbands provide to wives is an important source of maternal
self-efﬁcacy (Holloway, 2005). In a similar manner, the support that wives provide to
husbands also seems to be an important source of paternal self-efﬁcacy in the current
study. This ﬁnding conﬁrmed the thought that parental self-efﬁcacy would be fostered by
a positive co-parenting relationship, especially in the area of co-parenting supportiveness
(Teti, O’Connell, Reiner, 1996).

Supportive co-parenting helps couples to confront difﬁculties in the parenting role

together, and thus helps them establish and maintain a sense of conﬁdence in their

47

parenting roles (Floyd, Gilliom, & Costigan, 1998). The result was consistent with
Bandura’s theory that self-efﬁcacy is sensitive to realistic encouragement provided by
spouse and verbal persuasion contributes to performance by motivating an individual to
work harder toward success (Bandera, 1986).

Maternal Perceptions of Co-Parenting Support 9 Paternal Perceptions of C0-
Parenting Support 9 Paternal Self-Eﬂicacy

This study found that maternal perceptions of co-parenting support inﬂuence
paternal perceptions of co-parenting support. One possible explanation for this is that
wives who feel more co-parenting support from their husbands have better interactions
with their husbands; in turn, their husbands receive more positive cues and feel supported
by their wives. This direct path from maternal perceptions of co-parenting support to
paternal perceptions of co-parenting support is consistent with McBride and Rane’s (1998)
ﬁnding that paternal and maternal perceptions of co-parenting inﬂuence each other. Also,
a study revealed that when a husband perceives co-parenting support from his wife, the
wife should also evaluate the support (or not) that her husband gives her in the parenting
role. Therefore, the perception of co-parenting support between fathers and mothers are
bidirectional and reciprocal. (Chen & Li, 2003).

The other possible explanation is that the marital relationship may have an
inﬂuence on the co-parenting relationship. In Kitzman’s study (2000), higher levels of
negativity expressed between couples “spilled over” into triadic interactions. Marital
conﬂict led to more negative family processes, including less supportive co-parenting. In
contrast, during marital interactions, fathers demonstrating warmth and support verbally

and nonverbally predict the degree to which both parents experience co-parenting

48

positively (Van Egeren, 2004).

In this study, paternal perceptions of co-parenting support played a mediational
role between maternal perceptions of co-parenting support and paternal self-efﬁcacy.
Maternal perceptions of co-parenting support indirectly predicted paternal self-efﬁcacy
through paternal perceptions of co-parenting support. As discussed above, wives who feel
more co-parenting support from their husbands have better interactions with their
husbands, and when their husbands receive more positive cues and feel supported by their
wives, they feel more efﬁcacious in their parenting roles.

Maternal Perceptions of Co-Parenting Support 9 Paternal Self-Eﬁicacy

The results from this study showed that maternal perceptions of co-parenting
support predicted paternal self-efﬁcacy through paternal perceptions of co—parenting
support. However, this study failed to support the hypothesis that maternal perceptions of
co-parenting support predicts paternal self-efﬁcacy directly. Interestingly, with all of the
parenting task domains of paternal self-efﬁcacy, emotional availability is the only domain
that was directly predicted by maternal perceptions of co-parenting support. Fathers feel
more efﬁcacious in being emotionally available to their children when their wives
perceive co-parenting support ﬁom them.

According to Feinberg (2002), enhancing co-parenting quality will improve the
sensitivity, warmth, and consistency of parenting. One possibility is that if a father is
able to afﬁrm the spouse’s competency as a parent, acknowledge and respect the spouse’s
contributions, and give verbal and nonverbal emotional support, he might be more
sensitive to his child’s cues, and, in turn, feel efﬁcacious about being available

emotionally to his child.

49

Toddler Mood 9 Paternal Self-Eﬂicacy

In this study, toddler mood strongly predicted paternal self-efﬁcacy. The moodier
a toddler was, the lower the parenting self-efﬁcacy fathers reported. When a father senses
that it is difﬁcult to sooth his toddler, parenting is likely more challenging, and he
becomes less efﬁcacious in his parenting role. This ﬁnding was replicated and was
consistent with previous studies that showed that babies’ temperaments are related to
maternal self-efﬁcacy (Cutrono & Troutman, 1986; Goldberg, 1977; Gross, Conrad, Food,
& Wothke, 1994; Teti & Gelfand, 1991; Porter, & Hsu, 2003).

In addition, the current ﬁnding is congruent with Bandura’s self-efﬁcacy theory
that shows that perceived task difﬁculty and repeated failures usually lower self-eﬂ'rcacy
beliefs (Bandura, 1997). Soothing a moody child can make the task of parenting more
challenging. Therefore, when parents perceive task difﬁculty in their parenting role, it
contributes to lower parenting self-efﬁcacy.

Toddler Mood 9 Paternal Perceptions of Co-Parenting Support 9 Paternal
Self-Eﬂicacy

The unexpected ﬁnding in this study indicated that toddler mood negatively
predicted paternal perceptions of co-parenting support. Fathers of toddlers who tend to
have negative moods perceive less support from their wives. One of the possibilities
might be that mothers think they can do a better job than fathers in soothing a moody
toddler. Therefore, when fathers try to soothe the moody toddlers, mothers are likely to be
“gatekeepers” and get involved in soothing the toddlers or comment on the way fathers
soothe the toddlers. Under such a circumstance, fathers might feel less support from their

wives. In addition, a study showed (Van Egeren, 2004) that paternal perception of infant

50

temperament was associated with the co-parenting relationship. When fathers interacted
with fussy babies, they tended to do more soothing than they had expected (Van Egeren,
2004)

Another possible effect of a difﬁcult temperament in a toddler may be that
parents fail to co-parent effectively, because the stress of interacting with a child with a
difﬁcult temperament affects the quality of interactions between parents (Straight, Bales,
2003). This ﬁnding is consistent with previous research that shows that one dimension of
difﬁcult temperament, infant negative mood, predicts supportive and unsupportive co-
parenting during family interactions with toddlers (Jacobson, Belsky, & Cmic, 1995).

This study found that paternal perceptions of co-parenting support mediate the
relation between toddler mood and paternal self-efﬁcacy. As noted above, mothers may
serve as gatekeepers, overtly or covertly (DeLuccie, 1995). In accordance with Bandura’s
theory, parenting with a child who has a difﬁcult temperament is a difﬁcult task. Pleck
(1983) notes that mothers discourage paternal involvement in some parenting tasks
because they believe that men are unfamiliar with such tasks. When fathers receive such
cues from mothers, they may interpret it as not being competent to deal with such tasks,

which, in turn, lowers their self-efﬁcacy in the parenting role.

Maternal Perceptions of Co-Parenting Support 69 Paternal Involvement

This study revealed that maternal perceptions of co-parenting support are
signiﬁcantly related to paternal involvement. Fathers are highly involved in their
parenting roles when mothers perceive supportive co-parenting from fathers. One

possible explanation is that mothers who perceive co-parenting support from their

51

husbands might have a better relationship with their husband. In turn, fathers might be
more willing to be more involved in caregiving. This ﬁnding is consistent with a
previous study when fathers whose wives perceived more co-parenting support interacted
more with and assumed more responsibility for their young children (McBride & Rane,
1998). The other possible explanation is that if fathers are willing to participate more in
the parenting role, mothers might feel they are being helped and supported by their
husband.
Conclusions

This study investigated the predictors of paternal self-efﬁcacy among ﬁrst-time
fathers who were raising toddlers. Co-parenting support and toddler mood are strong
predictors of parental self-efﬁcacy. However, knowledge of child development did not
predict paternal self-efﬁcacy as expected. Many unexpected pathways were found among
the predictors in the hypothesized model. The result of this investigation reveals that the
variables that predict paternal self-efﬁcacy are not simply determined. Also, this study
helps to ﬁll some of the signiﬁcant gaps in paternal self-efﬁcacy research.

Limitations

The results from this study must be considered cautiously due to several
limitations. First, the sample size (N=80) was small (a sample of 75 is required),
especially for the statistical method (Structural Equation Modeling) used in this study.
The sample was very homogenous, and socio-economically advantaged, which limited
the generalizability of the ﬁndings. Second, most of the data in this study were obtained
from fathers who self-reported. As such, there could be some issues with shared method

variance and the potential for distortion of the obtained results. Third, a further

52

understanding of the relationship between toddler temperament, and co-parenting support
and paternal self-efﬁcacy, should encourage researchers to include multiple measures of
toddler temperament, including both subjective and objective measurement.

Implications

First-time parents need to learn new parenting skills in order to deal with the
challenges that occur when their children reach toddlerhood. Therefore, new parents are
more likely to be open to learning more about child development and feeling supported,
due to the stress and challenges of this period (Feinberg, 2002). Understanding what
characteristics are related to paternal self-efﬁcacy has important implications for
parenting education efforts aimed at assisting fathers to feel efficacious in their parenting
role.

The present ﬁndings have important implications for the development of parent
education and support program aimed at enhancing parenting self-efﬁcacy by increasing
father involvement, co-parenting support, understanding a child’s temperament, and
setting accurate expectations for children. According to this study, the predictors of
paternal self-efﬁcacy cannot be considered isolated, therefore, when designing parenting
education, the characteristics of whole family systems should be considered. Parent
education will be more effective if the programs are designed for both fathers and
mothers. In such programs, parent educators might help couples develop mutual
agreement on parenting values and belief by setting more open communication around
parenting issues. Moreover, co-parenting intervention may be useﬁrl for families during
the toddler and early preschool years when behavior problems emerge in some children

(Feinberg, 2002).

53

APPENDICES

54

APPENDIX A

 

UNIVERSITY. InitIaIIRB
Application
Septemwrs.2ooe Approval
To: Holly e. BROPHY—HERB
3Humen Ecology
MSU
Re: IRB 0 08.704 Category: EXPEDITED 2-7

Approve! Date: September 14, 2000
Expiration Date: September 13. 2001

Title: PARENTING SELF EFFICACY AMONG FIRST TIME FATHERS

ThelnetituttoneIRevlewBoardheecompletedtherrevIewofyomproject Iempleeeedtoedvieeyoumat
yourprojectheebeenepproved.

Theoomlneeheetoundmetyommeerenpmyectbeppropdetehdeeim. pmteetetherlghteendmel‘aeot
human subjects. and meet: Iherequ'nmenteotMSU‘e FedereIWIdeAleurenoe Indthe Federal Guldelnee
(450FR46end210FRPert50).Theprotectlonothumeubjeotelnreeeardrleemempbetweenm
mow the inveettgeton. Welootrtorward to workingwithyoueewebotntuml owmpomibilltlee.

Reneweh: IRB approval It valid urlilthe earplratlon date listed above. Ityou ere oontlmlngyourproleet. you
must eubmitenAppttcedonlorReneweteppIIcetlon etleeetone monm beforeexplretton. ttthe pmlectle
completed. please submit an Appllce tron for Permanent Closure.

Revisions: ThelRBmuetrevIewenydwrgeehmeproleapnortomolmchanoe. Pleaeeeubmlten
AppllcertenferRevtelontoheveywdrenoeerevtewed. ﬂdranoutemdeetthetlmeotremet.”
Include an Appttceﬂonforﬂevtetonwtththe ronewelepplicetton.

Problems: Itleeueeehoutderteedumtheconduetotthereeeercn. webeeunenttdpetedprobbme. edveree
events. oranyproblemthetmeyhcreuetheriektothetmmeneubiecte, notltytnelﬂeoﬂloepromptly. Forms
ereevallebletoreporttheeelssues

Pleeeeueethe IRB numberlleted above onenytorms euﬂnlttedwhichreMetothteproMoron my
correspondence wan the IRB ofﬁce.

Good Incltlnyourreseereh. Itwe cenbeolturther assistance. please oontaduet517-355-21800rvteemal
NW. Thenlryoutoryouroooperetlon.

Sincerely.

’I

944/233. .

Peter Vasilenko. PhD.

SIRB Chet

c: Yl-Chm Lh
1547 Spartan Vllege AptH
Eeet Leneinp
MI48823

55

APPENDIX B

W

ry
Knowledge to Go Plum

Human Development
and Family Studies

1570 Campus Delivery

Fort (lolIine. Colorado 80523-1570
(970) 491-5558

FAX: (970) 491-7975

~13)! 12 2006 umw.coloetatc.edull)epMIDPS

Yi-Chun Lin

cfo Nickie Foley
1610 Blair Street
Lansing. MI 48910

Dear Yi-Chun:

As you requested. I have enclosed a copy of the KIDI and its manual. You will ﬁnd copies
of the KIDI for ages birth-3 and a preschool version in the back of the manual, along wrth
directions for scoring the KIDI. The manual was updated to include information from recent
studies and program evaluations. Norms based on several large sampr will be included later.

I hope you ﬁnd the KIDI to be useful in your research. If you do use it, you may make
copies from the originals provided in the manual. Some folks have used abbreviated versions.
such as the milestone items, which is ﬁne. If you do adopt it for your project, 1 only ask that you
Inform me of the results so that lmay refer to them in future revisions of the manual. An abstract
or copy of the pertinent sections of the results would be great. If you are willing to share your
data. so that I can include them in the norms, I would be most appreciative. Best of luck with
your thesis. If you need further information. you can call me at 970-491-5503 or e-mail me at
macphee@cahs.colostate.edu.

Sincerely,
i ' . f.‘
JIM"? 4}”? (”O/4wrs.

David MacPhee, PhD.
Professor

56

APPENDIX C

Psycholoﬂcal
Assessment

Resources

tthJVc-nha'.o

“204 M FLORIDA AVENUE
iUlZ Fit, 50A 33549

lei... (833) 908-3533
Fax. (813) 308-7598
W WHOM

Scat Via Email; linyichugalmstmdu

May 12, 2006

Yi-Chun' Lin " ‘

Michigan State University

Dept of Family & Child Ecology
1547 Spartan Village, Apt. H
East Lansing, MI 48823

Dear Yi-Chun Lin:

In response to your recent request, permission is hereby granted to you to modify the format of
the Parenting Alliance Measure (PAM) to include it in a larger questionnaire and reproduce up to
a total of 100 copies for use in your Master’s Thesis titled, Parental Self-Eﬂicacy Among First-
Time Fathers. If additional copies are needed, you will nwd to write to PAR for further
permission. Permission is also granted for you to reproduce up to a total of 2 sample items from
the PAM for use in the appendix of your thesis.

This Agreement is subject to the following restrictions:

(1)

(2)

(3)

Any and all material will contain the following credit line:

"Adapted and reproduced by special permission of the Publisher,
Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc., 16204 North Florida
Avenue, Lutz, Florida 33549, from the Parenting Alliance Measure
by Richard Abidin, EdD and Timothy R Konold, PhD, Copyright
1999 by PAR, 1110. Further reproduction is prohibited without
permission from PAR, Inc.”

None of the material may be sold, given away. or used for
purposes other than those described above.

Payment of a royalty/license fee of $108.00 (51 .08 per cow for
100 copies). This fee includes a 40% graduate student discount.

erect-m ma Winﬁtar‘rm t:- nodih the lam- (up Niel-ﬁelder

A tradition of innovative assessment solutions and unparalleled service.

57

(4) One copy of any of the material reproduced will be sent to the
Publisher to indicate that the proper credit line has been used.

TWO COPIES of this Permission Agreement should be signed and returned to me, along with
your check for $108.00 to cover the royalty/license fee, to indicate your agreement with the
above restrictions. 1 will return a fully executed copy to you for your records.

Sincerely,

Molly K. Montgomery
Permissions Specialist
mmontgomery@parinc.com
l-800-33 l ~8378 (phone)
l-800—727-9329 (fax)

ACCEPTED AND AGREED: ACCEPTED AND AGREED:
'A
BY: BY:
‘ l-CHUN LIN IMt OLEY mourgmeﬁ
DATE: 0‘6» YT - v 4, DATE: 11 up}!

 

 

PAYMENT RECEIVED: Cl- ”“62

SIGNATURE OF PROFESSOR REQUIRED:

I hereby agree to supervise this student‘s use ofthese materials. l also certify that I am qualiﬁed
to use and interpret the results of these tests as recommended in the Slandards for Educational
and Psychological Testing, and I assume full responsibility for the proper use of all materials
used per this Agreement.

BY: 47(/ , ’. £15», ~ .4

Printed Name: .u . I 1 . ’ ”El/9,

cam“. and gawk/31.2 my»; I a meat, the bran (lumen-than: do:

A tradition of innmmiw assessment solutions and unparalleled «nice.

58

BIBLIOGRAPHY

59

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abdin, R. R., & Brunner, J. F. (1995). Development of a parenting alliance Inventory.
Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 24(1), 31-40.

Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). Amos 4.0 user ’s guide. Chicago, IL: Small Waters.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efﬁcacy mechanisms in human agency. American
Psychological Review, 84 (2), 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1989). Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived self-efﬁcacy.
Developmental Psychology, 25 (5), 729-735.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efﬁcacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Benasich, A. A., & Brooks-Gum, J. (1996). Maternal Attitude and Knowledge of child-
rearing: Associations with family and child outcomes. Child Development, 67,
1186-1205.

Boger, R.P., & Smith, A. B. (1986). Developing parental skills: A holistic longitudinal
process. Infant Mental Health Journal, 7, 103-111.

Brooks, J .B. (2004). The Process of Parenting 6'” Edition. New York, McGraw Hill.

Byrne, BM. (2001 ). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concept,
Application, and Programing. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Association.

Cabrera, N.J., Tamis-LeMonda, C. 8., Bradley, R. H., Hoi’ferth, S., & Lamb, M. E. (2000).
Fatherhood in the Twenty-First Century. Child Development, 71 (1), 127-136.

Chen, R, & Li, T. (2002). Co-parenting support and Aﬂection in Marriage. Paper
presented at the fourth annual conference of the association for the Chinese
Psychology, NangKan, Taiwan.

Coleman, P. K., & Karraker, K.H. (1997). Self-efficacy and Parenting Quality: Findings
and Future Applications. Developmental Review, 18, 47-85.

Coleman, P. K., & Karraker, K.H. (2000). Parenting Self-Efﬁcacy Among Mothers of
School-Age Children: Conceptualization, Measurement, and Correlates. Family
Relations, 4 9( l ), 13-25.

60

Coleman, P. K., & Karraker, K.H. (2003). Maternal self-efficacy belief; competence in
parenting, and toddlers’ behavior and developmental status. Infant Mental Health
Journal, 24(2), 126-148.

Conrad, B., Gross, D., F ogg, L., & Ruchala, P. (1992). Maternal Conﬁdence, Knowledge,
and Quality of Mother-Toddler Interactions: A Preliminary Study. Infant Mental
Health Journal, 13 (4), 353-362.

Cowen, RS. (2001). Effectiveness of a parent education intervention for at-risk families.
Journal of the society of Pediatric Nurses, 6, 73-82.

Cutrona, C. E., & Troutman, B. R. (1986). Social support, infant temperament, and
parenting self-efficacy: A mediational model of postpartum depression. Child
Development, 47, 1507—1518.

DeLuccie, M.F. (1995). Mothers as gatekeepers: A model of maternal mediators of father
involvement. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 152, 225-238.

Donovan, W.L., & Leavitte, LA. (1989). Maternal self-eﬂicacy and infant attachment:
Integrating Physiology, perceptions, and behavior. Child Development, 60, 460-
472.

Hess, C. R., Teti, D. M., & Hussy-Gardner, B. (2004). Self-efﬁcacy and Parenting of
high-risk infants: The moderating role of parent knowledge of infant development.
Applied Developmental Psychologz, 25, 423-437.

Holloway, S., Suzuki, S., Yamamoto, Y., & Behrens, K.Y. (2005). Parenting Self-efﬁcacy
Among Japanese Mothers. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 36 (1), 61-76.

F einberg, M. E. (2002). Co-parenting and the transition to Parenthood: A ﬁ'amework for
prevention. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 5(3), 173- 1 94.

Floyd, F. J ., & Zmich, D. E. (1991). Marriage and the parenting partnership: Perceptions
and interactions of parents with mentally retarded and typically developing
children. Child Development, 62, 1434-1448.

Floyd, F. J ., Laura, (1 A., & Costigan, CL. (1998). Marriage and the Parenting Alliance:
Longitudinal Prediction of Change in Parenting Perceptions and behavior. Child
Development ,69 (5), 1461-1479.

Fullard, W., McDevitt, S., & Carey, W. (1984). Assessing temperament in one- to three-
year-old children. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 9, 205—217.

Goldberg, S. (1977). Social competence in infancy: A model of parent- infant interaction.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 23, 163-177.

61

Gross, D., Conrad, B., Fogg, L., & Wothke, W. (1994). A longitudinal model of maternal
self-efﬁcacy, depression, and difficult temperament during toddlerhood. Research
in Nursing & Health, I 7, 207-215.

Jacobson, K. C., Belsky, J., & Cmic, K. (1995, March). Antecedents of co-parenting
across the terrible twos, Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society
For Research on Child Development, Indianapolis, IN.

Kline, RB. (2004). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, Second
Edition. New York: The Guilford Press.

Lamb, M. E., Pleck, J.H., Charnov, E. L., & Levine, J. A. (1985). Paternal behavior in
humans, American Zoologist, 25, 883-894.

Li, T. & Ma, T. (2004). Father involvement, paternal self-eﬁ‘icacy and satisfaction of
parent-child relationship. Unpublished maters’ thesis, F u Jen Catholic University,
Taipei, Taiwan.

Kitzmann, KM. (2000). Effects of Marital Conftlict on Subsequent Triadic Family
Interactions and Parenting. Developmental psychology, 36(1), 3-13.

Musil, C.M. & Jones, S. L., & Warner, C. D. (1998). Structural Equation Modeling and
its relationship to multiple regression and factor analysis. Research in Nursing &
Health, 21, 271-281.

Machida, S., Taylor, A.R., & Kim, J. (2002). The Role of maternal beliefs in predicting
home learning activities in head start families. Family Relations, 51, 176-184.

Mash, E. J ., & Johnston, C. (1983 a). Parental perceptions of child behavior problems,
parenting self—esteem, and mothers’ reported stress in younger and older

hyperactive and normal children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
51 , 86-99.

MacPhee, D. (1981). The Knowledge of Infant Development Inventory Unpublished
questionnaire and manual.

McBride, B. A., & Rane, T. R. (1998). Parenting Alliance as a predictor of father
involvement: An Exploratory Study. Family Relations, 47(3), 229-236.

Parks, P.L., Smeriglio, V.L. (1983). Parenting knowledge among adolescent mothers.
Journal of Adolescent Health ,4, 163-167.

Pickard, M.J. (1998). Fatherhood in Contemporary Society. Family Relations, 47(2) 205-
208.

62

Porter, C., & Hsu, H. (2003). First-time mothers' perceptions of efficacy during the
transition to motherhood: Links to infant temperament. Journal of Family
Psychology, 17, 54—64.

Radin, N. (1982). Primary caregiving and role-sharing fathers. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.).
Nontraditional families: Parenting and child development (pp. 173-204). Hillsdale,
Nj: Erlbaum.

Reece, S. M., & Harkless, (1 (1998). Self-efficacy, stress and parental Adaptation:
Applications to the care of childbearing families. Journal of family nursing, 4(2),
198-215.

Parks, P., & Smeriglio, V. (1983). Parenting Knowledge among adolescent mothers.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 4, 163-167.

Smeriglio , V., & Parks, P. (1983). Measuring mothers’ perceptions about the inﬂuences
of infant cargiving practices. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 13,
189-200.

Stright, A.D., & Bales, 8.8. (2003). Co-parenting quality: Contributions of child and
parent characteristics. Family Relations, 52(3), 232.

Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. (3rd Ed.).
Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

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, 918-929.

Teti, D. M., O’Connell, M. A., & Reiner, CD. (1996). Parenting sensitivity, parenting
depression and child health: The mediational role of parental self-efficacy. Early-
Developmental-and Parenting, 5, 237-250.

Todak, D. A. (1999). Maternal knowledge of infant development and maternal
characteristics .' Links to quality of mother-infant interactions. Unpublished
maters’ thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA.

Van Egeren, L. A. (2004). The development of co-parenting over the transition to
parenthood. Infant Mental Health Journal, 25, 453-477.

Wachs, T. D., & Kohnstamm, G. A. (2001). Temperament in context. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbum.

Williams, T. M., Joy, L.A., Travis, L., Gotowiec, A., Blum-Steele, M., Aiken, L. S.,

Painter, S. L., & Davidson, S. M. (1987). Transition to motherhood: A
longitudinal study. Infant Mental Health Journal, 8, 251-265.

63

Unger, D. G., & Wandersman, L. P. (1985). Social support and adolescent mothers:
Action research contributions to theory and application. Journal of Social Issues,
41(1), 29-45.

64

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

uniuliiiliumwyiiliilimtnl