Growing up in Scotland: parenting and children's health

CHAPTER 3 PARENTING MEASURES

3.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the measures of day-to-day parenting used in the study. It explains how individual measures were combined to give an index of overall parenting skills and examines whether, and how, parenting varies according to the level of family adversity.

3.2 Key findings

• Greater family adversity was associated with more negative parenting. The higher adversity the lower connection and control, and the greater negativity in parenting, although there were no clear associations between adversity and the mother-infant attachment or smacking measures.
• Parents were divided into three equal groups with low, average and high parenting skills. This measure of the level of parenting skill was associated with family adversity. Families in more adverse circumstances were more likely to be in the low and less likely to be in the high parenting skill group.
• In the group with no family adversity (e.g. those with a family adversity score of zero), the majority (80%) of parents had high or average parenting skills. However, amongst those with an adversity score of three or more, more than half of parents fell into the low parenting skills group.

3.3 Description of parenting measures

Growing Up in Scotland interviewers asked mothers about a number of different aspects, or dimensions, of day-to-day parenting of their child. These dimensions were grouped into three 'domains': connection, negativity and control - similar to other research (Belsky et al. 2007). Each domain contained two or three separate measures, or 'dimensions', of parenting as follows:

• Connection: mother-infant attachment, warmth of parent-child relationship, level of joint mother and child activities
• Negativity: parent-child conflict, use of smacking
• Control: parental supervision, rules and degree of 'home chaos'

For each dimension of parenting, groups of parents are compared with one another, rather than with any particular 'standard' or 'threshold' of good practice. Where possible the complete range of scores found for each measure of parenting behaviour was subdivided into tertiles, so that a third of parents fall into each band of scores. These bands are then compared with one another. For some parenting measures, because there were a large number of cases all with the same score, it was not possible to subdivide parents into three groups that were identical in size. Where groups were markedly unequal this has been highlighted in the descriptions of individual measures below.

3.3.1 Connection

Early mother-infant attachment was measured at sweep 1 using an abbreviated six-item version of the Condon mother-infant attachment scale (Condon and Corkindale 1998). Mothers were asked about their feelings for their child, with four different possible responses for each item. The scale had a low reliability ⁷ (Cronbach alpha=0.52), and this should be borne in mind when interpreting the results. Mean scores were divided into tertiles indicating low, medium and high mother-infant attachment.

The warmth of mother-child relationship was measured at sweep 5 using seven items from the Pianta scale (Pianta 1992) (reliability acceptable, Cronbach alpha=0.67). Each item was scored as 1 definitely does not apply, 2 not really, 3 neutral, 4 applies sometimes, or 5 definitely applies. 'Can't say' responses were considered as missing. Scores were summed for parents who had completed all warmth items. A high number of parents scored the maximum of 35, and so the lowest third of parents (with scores between 7 and 33) were contrasted with the remainder (referred to as 'high warmth').

Information on each mother's activities with their child was measured at sweeps 2, 3 and 4. A count of the number of activities that the mother had carried out with the child in the past week was made for each of sweeps 2 to 4 (from a list of six: books/stories, played outdoors, painting or drawing, nursery rhymes or songs, letters or shape recognition, used a computer or games console). Mean scores were computed and divided into thirds: low (0 to 3 activities), medium (4 activities) and high (5 or 6 activities).

3.3.2 Negativity

Mother-child conflict was measured at sweep 5 using eight items from the Pianta scale (Pianta 1992) with items scored on a 4-point scale as for the Pianta warmth items (see above). Cronbach's alpha indicated good reliability (0.80). Scores were summed for parents who had completed all conflict items and grouped into thirds as 8-12 (lowest conflict), 13-18 (medium conflict), or 19-40 (high conflict).

Harsh discipline was measured at sweeps 2 and 4 from parents' replies to questions about whether they had ever smacked their child at sweep 2, and whether they had ever smacked, or smacked in the last year, at sweep 4. Any report of smacking was contrasted with no mention of smacking.

3.3.3 Control

Parental supervision was measured at sweep 4 using an abbreviated version of the Parent Supervision Attributes Profile Questionnaire (Morrongiello and Corbett 2006). Mothers were asked for their agreement with statements covering protectiveness ("I feel very protective of my child", "I think of all the dangerous things that could happen", "I keep my child from playing rough games or doing things where he/she might get hurt") and supervision while the child plays outdoors ("I can trust my child to play by (him/herself) without constant supervision", "I stay close enough to my child so that I can get to him/her quickly", "I make sure I know where my child is and what he/she is doing").

Answers were coded on a 5-point scale from 1 strongly agree to 5 strongly disagree. Item 4 was reverse-coded, and a mean score of the six items (Cronbach's alpha=0.67, indicating acceptable reliability) was computed and divided into thirds of low, medium and high parental supervision.

Rules and routines were measured at sweeps 2 and 5. A count of the number of 'rules' or routines was derived from the following: 'always' responses to question on regular meals at sweep 2, a question on regular bedtime at sweep 5 and four questions at sweep 5 on whether the child had to tidy up toys, brush teeth, stay in room, and turn off TV or music in room (using 4-point scale - always/usually/sometimes/never or almost never). The number of rules was banded into low (0-3 rules), medium (4-5 rules) or high (all 6 rules). These bands were unequal in size, with 36% having low, 55% medium, and 10% high numbers of rules.

Home chaos was measured at sweep 5. This was an abbreviated version of the Confusion, Hubbub, and Order scale (Coldwell et al. 2006), devised as a measure of household disorganisation that captures noise, crowding, home 'traffic' (people coming and going) and a lack of routine or regularity. A number studies suggest that household disorganisation may impair effective parenting (Coldwell et al. 2006; Valiente et al. 2007; Deater-Deckard et al. 2009; Mokrova et al. 2010).

For the chaos scale, mothers were asked for their agreement with four items (Cronbach alpha=0.63, indicating acceptable reliability): "It's really disorganised in our home", "You can't hear yourself think in our home", "The atmosphere in our home is calm" and "First thing in the day, we have a regular routine at home". The first two items were reverse coded. Mean scores were divided into three groups, indicating low, medium and high levels of chaos. Because of large numbers of tied scores these groups were unequal in size, with 49% in low, 16% in medium and 35% in high chaos homes.

3.4 Associations between parenting measures

Most parenting measures were weakly or moderately, but statistically significantly, correlated (see Table 2.2 in the Technical Appendix). For instance, parents who had a warm relationship with their child were also likely to be parents who undertook many joint activities with their child, had more rules about behaviour, low levels of conflict and home chaos. The analysis undertaken here controls for these relationships between the different parenting measures.

3.5 Associations between different dimensions of parenting and family adversity

Figure 3-A indicates that most aspects of parenting were strongly patterned according to family adversity. Families with the highest adversity score had less optimal parenting practices, with lower connection, greater negativity and less control. Only mother-infant attachment and smacking did not show clear associations with family adversity (associations not statistically significant).

Figure 3-A Percentage of parents in each band of eight parenting measures, according to level of family adversity

n=3486 (unweighted)

Associations between family adversity and mother-infant attachment and smacking were both not significant. Associations between family adversity and other parenting measures were all significant p<0.001.

3.6 Index of parenting skill

Although it is instructive to examine various different dimensions of parenting for associations with child health and health behaviours, it may also be useful to consider how a single composite measure of positive parenting is associated with health outcomes. This report follows a similar approach to the one taken by in the evaluation of the Sure Start programme (National Evaluation of Sure Start 2008).

Six dimensions of parenting were used to create the parenting index: Pianta warmth of mother child relationship, level of mother-child activities, Pianta conflict in mother-child relationship, supervision, rules, and home chaos. Smacking and mother-infant attachment were excluded from the index, as these measures were not clearly associated with family adversity (see above). Standardised scores for all measures were then summed and divided into three groups indicating low, average and high parenting skills. Within the limits of 'granularity' in the data (where it is impossible to split parents who have the same score), these groups were more or less equal in size. In the total sample there were 37% of parents in the low, 32% in the average and 30% in the high parenting skill bands.

3.7 Associations between index of parenting skill and family adversity

Section 3.5 showed that the parenting measures that were combined to form the parenting index were all individually associated with family adversity. Therefore it is not suprising that the three groups or bands of the parenting skill index were also strongly patterned according to family adversity (see Figure 3-B).

In the group with no family adversity (e.g. those with a family adversity score of zero), the majority (79%) of parents had high or average parenting skills. Amongst those with an adversity score of three or more (the three columns on the righthand side of Figure 3-B), more than half of parents fell into the low parenting skills group.

Figure 3-B Percentage of parents in each band of parenting index according to level of family adversity

n=3486 (unweighted)