Inside the Black Box of Interactions Between Programs and Participants: Re-conceptualizing Subgroups for Fatherhood Program Evaluation. APPENDIX F: COMPILATION OF MEASURES OF PSYCHOSOCIAL PREDICTORS USED IN STUDIES OF LOW-INCOME FATHERS

10/12/2012



In this appendix, we provide a listing and brief summary of the measures used as predictors of fatherhood-related outcomes in the 64 studies of low-income fathers reviewed for this project.

Our purpose for documenting measures in this manner is twofold:

1.      To help the reader better interpret studies' findings. In operationalizing psychosocial constructs, study authors used a variety of measures to create a wide range of variables. We often encountered what Marsh (1994) calls the "jingle-jangle fallacy," whereby different theories address the same constructs but operationalize them differently, or empirical studies use the same constructs (even operationalized identically) but label them differently. Providing the actual wording of items comprising a given measure clarifies what was asked.

2.    To inform future research on low-income fathers.

-          Inform measures selection. Researchers can see which measures have most often been used, and which have been found to be predictive (given the size and composition of the given study sample). May help them decide what's suitable for their studies.

-          Inform measures development. Show which constructs are not often examined, perhaps due to lack of suitable measurement.

In documenting the measures used as predictor variables in each study, we sought to capture the following information:

·      Name of the measure

·      Author

·      Brief description of the construct/phenomenon the measure is meant to tap

·      Wording for each item included in the measure

·      Response categories

·      How items were coded and aggregated to create the variable used in analyses

·      Psychometrics (validity and reliability) for resulting variable in given study sample (unless otherwise indicated)

In no case did the articles included in the literature review provide each of these pieces of information. There are a few reasons for this. Publishers impose page limits for submitted manuscripts, and this works against a detailed description or wholesale inclusion of study measures, even in an appendix. In addition, some measures are copyrighted and cannot be re-published without permission from the measure's developer.

We provide as much information in the above areas as was included in the reviewed articles. For example, if the wording for each item was not provided (which was often the case), we at least indicated how many items comprise the measure. And if only the anchor response categories were provided, we indicate what these anchor categories were (for example, 1=almost never or never, 4=almost always or always).

Table F.1. Personal History: Variables and Measures Used in Studies of Low-Income Fathers

Variable/Measure

Study Citation

Description of Variable/Measure Used

Quality of Parenting Received As a Child

Quality of own father's parenting

Kerr et al. 2009

Variable created from four component constructs: monitoring, parent involvement, positive parent–child relationship, and confident and efficacious discipline. Constructs were assessed three times, when target was 9-10, 10-11, and 11-12. Monitoring was based on parent and child in-person and telephone interviews and ratings completed by interviewers. Parent involvement was composed of child and parent in person and telephone interviews, interviewer rating, child and parent questionnaire reports on the Family Activities Checklist (Oregon Social Learning Center [OSLC], 1982-2007) regarding activities with the child in the past week, and staff ratings following home observation. Positive parent-child relationship was based on child and parent interview scales, home observer ratings, and parent interviewer ratings, child reports on the Parent and Peer Attachment Questionnaire (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987) and Social Control Questionnaire (OSLC, 1982-2007). Confident and efficacious discipline constructs were formed from the Poor Implementation (measuring calmness, consistency, and follow through) and Low Confidence (measuring perceived effectiveness of disciplinary efforts) subscales derived from mother and father interviews.

Harsh discipline

Jaffee et al. 2001

Parents indicated if they engaged in any of 10 behaviors, such as "smack [your child] or hit him/her with something" and "try to frighten [your child] with someone like his/her father or a policeman". Response categories: yes/no. Alpha=.71

Inconsistent discipline

Jaffee et al. 2001

Each father's mother evaluated how consistently she and her husband dealt with their child when he was naughty or misbehaved. Response categories: 0 (always the same) to 3 (very changeable). Items were averaged across mothers and fathers. Alpha=.60

Physical abuse as a child

Coohey, 2000

Frequency of severe assaults by father's mother and father's father measures using the following three items from Straus 1998 (with slight modifications): "hit with an object," "hit with closed hand," and "hit a lot at one time". Respondents received a score of 1 if they indicated any assault, and 0 if no assault.

History of child maltreatment

Locke et al. 2004

Assessed with the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ; Bernstein et al. 1994), a self-report inventory that yields scores on five different subscales: emotional neglect, physical neglect, emotional abuse, physical abuse, and sexual abuse. Sample items from the five subscales are as follows: "My family was a source of strength and support" (emotional neglect; reverse scored); "I had to wear dirty clothes" (physical neglect); "People in my family said hurtful or insulting things to me" (emotional abuse); "People in my family hit me so hard it left me with marks or bruises" (physical abuse); and "As a child someone tried to make me do sexual things or watch sexual things" (sexual abuse).

Experienced maltreatment in childhood

Ferrari, 1999

Assessed with the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ; Bernstein, 1993). Sum of responses to 70 items assessing the severity of physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, physical neglect, and emotional neglect. Sample item: "When I was growing up, my parents were too drunk or too high to take care of the family." Response categories: 1=never true to 5=very often true. Higher scores indicate more severe abuse or neglect. Alpha=.95

Poor confidence in discipline by own parents; Poor implementation of discipline by own parents

Capaldi et al. 2008

Poor implementation of discipline (author-created). Score is average of four to six items. Alpha=0.59-0.70

Poor confidence in discipline (author-created). Score is average of three items. Alpha=0.55-0.67

Own parents' discipline practices

Patterson et al. 1991

Assessing Environments Questionnaire (Knutson, 1985). Measure consists of three scales (abusive discipline, explosive discipline, negative atmosphere) but is used as a single construct in analysis. Alpha not reported.

Residence with Parent(s)/Caretakers in Childhood

Number of caretaker changes

Jaffee et al. 2001

Father's caretakers in childhood were identified at each assessment based on who was reported as "mother figure" and "father figure." The number of different caretakers from birth to age 15 was summed.

Number of years living with a single mother

Jaffee et al. 2001

The number of years the child spent in a single-parent home between birth and age 15.

Whether lived with own father while growing up

Vogel et al. 2003

Participants were asked whom they lived with when they were (1) five years of age or younger, (2) age six through age 10 years, (3) age 11 through age 15 years, and (4) age 16 through age 18 years. Men who never lived with their fathers in any of the periods were compared to men who lived with their fathers in at least one of the periods.

Number of years lived with biological father

Shields, 1998

Childhood Paternal Relationship Scale-Part A (author-created). Nine items explored the amount of time spent with father growing up and reasons for any absences. Sample item: "How many years of your childhood (0-18 years) did your biological father live with you?" Response categories: 1=none to 5=a great deal.

Quality of Relationship With Parents During Childhood

Parent-child relationship quality

Jaffee et al. 2001

Assessed when fathers were at ages 13 and 15 using the Inventory of Parent Attachment (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987). Fathers responded to 12 items that tap the extent to which they feel they can trust their parents, communicate with their parents, and are not alienated from their parents. Response categories: 1=almost never or never to 4=almost always or always. Alpha=.82

Family conflict

Jaffee et al. 2001

Summary of affirmative responses to nine items from the Family Environment Scale (Moos & Moos, 1981) assessing whether there was openly expressed anger, aggression, and conflict among family members growing up. Sample items: "family members often criticized each other" and "family members rarely became openly angry." Response categories: Yes/No. Alpha=.85

Paternal attachment

Wright, 2004

Inventory of Parental and Peer Attachment (IPPA) was modified to ask specifically about attachment to father. 28 items were rated on a Likert scale (almost never/never=1 to almost always/always=5) with higher scores reflecting greater quality of father attachment. Alpha=.91

Quality of relationship with own father while growing up

Wright, 2004

Childhood Paternal Relationship Scale-Quality of Parental Relationship Subscale (CPRS Part C; Shields & Harrell, 1997). 15 items were rated on a Likert scale (not at all=0 to a lot=3), with higher scores reflecting greater quality of relationship. Alpha =.84

Perceived similarities between own and fathers' parenting styles

Wright, 2004

Childhood Paternal Relationship Scale-Similarities of Paternal Relationship Subscale (CPRS Part D; Shields & Harrell, 1997). Three items were rated on a Likert scale (strongly true=1 to strongly false=5), with higher scores reflecting greater perceived similarity between respondent and his father. Alpha = .86

Perceived similarities with father

Shields, 1998

Childhood Paternal Relationship Scale-Part D (author-created). Sum of responses ("strongly true" to "strongly false") to three items, two of which were reverse coded. Sample items: "I am raising my child (children) very much like my father raised me; I make an effort to be a very different kind of father than my father was as I was growing up." A higher score reflects a greater perceived similarity.

Childhood relationship with mother; Childhood relationship with father

Shannon et al. 2005

Men were first asked questions about their family of origin: (a) who raised them (i.e., biological father or father figure; biological mother or mother figure), and (b) how frequently they saw each parent or parent figure (1=never; 5=every day or almost every day). Then the adult version of the Parental Acceptance–Rejection Questionnaire (PARQ; Rohner, 1991) was administered. The original scale is a 60-item, self-report instrument in which men are asked, separately, how their father and mother treated them while they were growing up, with responses on a four-point Likert scale (1=almost never true; 4=almost always true). Sample items: "My father/mother said nice things about me," and "My father/mother punished me severely when he/she was angry." A short form (24 items) of the PARQ was developed based on factor analyses conducted by Sherman and Donovan (1991). These 24 items were further reduced to 12 in this study-those with the highest loadings on the PARQ. Two separate composite scores were calculated-paternal acceptance scale (alpha=.89) and maternal acceptance scale (alpha=.88). The negatively worded items were reverse coded. A high score reflected maximum perceived acceptance and minimum perceived rejection.

Childhood relationship with mother; Childhood relationship with father

Dechman, 1994

Relationship with Mother and Father (developed for survey). Sum of responses to two items: How would you describe your relationship with your mother/father. Response categories: 1=very poor to 7=excellent. High scores indicate a more positive relationship.

Relationship with own father and perception of self as father in comparison

Le Bourdais et al. 2002

Authors created a single variable based on two survey questions from the General Social Survey (Statistics Canada). Participants were grouped into 4 categories: (1) close to own father, considers self to be better father; (2) close to own father but did not consider self as better father; (3) not close to own father, considers self to be better father; (4) not close to own father, does not consider self to be better father.

Father contact with own father

Levine Coley et al. 2006

Authors created a single variable based on two items from the Welfare, Children, and Families: A Three-City Study. Participants reported on their length of residence with their own biological father prior to age 16 and frequency of contact with own father (1=never live with/see to 4=always).

Quality of fathers' relationship with own parents during childhood

Vogel et al. 2003

Parent Acceptance-Rejection Questionnaire (PARQ) (Rohner 1984; and Sherman and Donovan 1991). Total score based on sum of scores on 12 items with each rated on a four-point scale.

Father care; Mother care; Overprotection

Boyce et al. 2007

The Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI; Parker, 1979) was used to assess how fathers perceived their parents' behavior towards them for the first 16 years of their lives.

Adult Attachment

Attachment style

Paquette et al. 2000

The father's personality traits related to his attachment history were measured using the Attachment Style Questionnaire (Feeney et al. 1994) which measures the respondent's general style of social relations. Measure consists of 40 items corresponding to three factors: security, seven items (alpha=.53); anxiety, 14 items (alpha=.71); and, avoidance, nine items (alpha=.52). Response categories: 1=totally disagree to 6=totally agree.

Adult attachment: Relationship anxiety

Roggman et al. 2002

Measured by averaging two subscales (relationship avoidance and relationship ambivalence) on the 13-item Adult Attachment Scale (Simpson, Rholes, Nelligan, 1992). Fathers were asked to respond to statements such as: "I find it relatively easy to get close to others" or "I'm not very comfortable having to depend on other people" or "I often worry that the people close to me don't love me". Response categories ranged from 1 = Strongly agree to 5 = Strongly agree. Authors reported reliability for each subscale - avoidance: 0.81 and ambivalence: 0.58 to 0.61.

Psychological Well-Being and Adjustment as a Child

History of conduct disorder

Jaffee et al. 2001

Assessed according to the criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) using information gathered during interviews with and from checklists completed by fathers' parents and teachers.

History of depression

Jaffee et al. 2001

The Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (DISC-C; Costello, Edelbrock, Kalas, Kessler, & Klaric, 1982) was administered to assess DSM-III depressive disorders. The modifications, psychometric properties, and descriptive epidemiology of the DISC-C in this sample have been described by McGee et al. (1990).

Childhood aggression; Childhood withdrawal

Temcheff, 2008

Pupil Evaluation Inventory (PEI-French translation; Pekarik et al. 1976), a peer nomination instrument. The PEI consists of 34 items that load onto three factors: Aggression, Withdrawal, and Likeability. Scale items assess not only the behavior of the child but also the reaction of peers toward the child. For the purposes of the study, children were screened only on the Aggression and Withdrawal factors. Within each classroom, children were asked to nominate up to four boys and four girls in their class who best matched each item on the PEI. The number of nominations received by each child was summed to obtain Aggression and Withdrawal scores.

Own parent's alcohol and drug related problems

Locke et al. 2004

A modified 16-item version of the Children of Alcoholics Screening Test (CAST; Newcomb & Rickards, 1995; Stacy, Newcomb, & Bentler, 1991) was used to assess parent alcohol- and drug-related problems. Three scales assessed (a) negative parental consequences associated with drinking and drug use, (b) negative child consequences associated with drinking and drug use, and (c) parental aggression associated with drinking and drug use. Sample items from this measure include "Did you ever encourage a parent to stop drinking or using drugs?" and "Did you ever protect another family member from a parent who was drinking or using drugs?"

Table F.2. Identity: Variables and Measures Used in Studies of Low-Income Fathers

Variable/Measure

Study Citation

Description of Variable/Measure Used

Personality

Neuroticism

Boyce et al. 2007

Authors used the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ; Eysenck, 1975) to measure extraversion and neuroticism (no info on items or response choices was reported).

Ego defense styles

Boyce et al. 2007

Authors used the Defence Style Questionnaire (DSQ; Andrews, 1989) to group fathers as having mature, neurotic, or immature defence styles.

Neuroticism

Sloper et al. 1993

Personal resources of the parent were assessed with the Eysenck Personality Inventory (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1964) and the Brief Locus of Control Scale (Lumpkin, 1983).

Negative emotionality; Positive emotionality; Constraint

Jaffee 2001

Modified version of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ; Tellegen, 1982). Ten scales designed to assess a broad range of individual differences in affective and behavioral style were combined to measure three higher-order superfactors: Negative Emotionality, Positive Emotionality, and Constraint (Tellegen & Waller, in press). Individuals high on Negative Emotionality have a low general threshold for the experience of negative emotions such as fear, anxiety, and anger and tend to break down under stress. Individuals high on Positive Emotionality tend to seek pleasurable experiences by forming relationships with others and by engaging the environment and overcoming the challenges it presents. Individuals high on Constraint tend to endorse social norms, act in a cautious and restrained manner, and avoid thrills (Tellegen et al. 1988). The reliabilities of the three superfactors were above alpha=.79.

Interpersonal affect

Fagan 1996

Assessed using the Jackson Personality Inventory - Interpersonal Affect Scale (Jackson, 1976).

Religiosity

Guzell 2001

Single item created by author - "How religious do you consider yourself to be now?" Response categories: 1=not religious at all to 5=very religious.

Self-Esteem

Self-esteem

Dechman 1994

Subset of questions extracted from the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1979). Score is the sum of responses (1=strongly disagree; 4=strongly agree) to four items: "I have always felt pretty sure my life would work out the way I wanted it to," "I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others," "On the whole, I am satisfied with myself," "I am able to do things as well as other people." High scores indicate higher self esteem (alpha=.87).

Self-esteem

Frost 1997

Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965). Score is the sum of 10 items on a four-point scale (1=strongly agree to 4=strongly disagree). Alpha .82-.84.

Self-esteem

Fagan 1996, 1998

Jackson Personality Inventory, Self-Esteem Scale (Jackson, 1976). Responses (true or false) to 20 items (alpha=.73). High scores indicate lower levels of self-esteem. The self-esteem scale assesses the degree to which a person perceives himself as socially adequate and deserving of the care of others. Sample items: "I have never been a very popular person" and "I am seldom at a loss for words."

Antisocial Behavior

Antisocial behavior

Capaldi et al. 2008

Sum of 16 items measuring risky behavior/delinquency from the National Youth Survey (categorical scale created based on continuous counts). Alpha=0.72

Antisocial Behavior

Florsheim et al. 1999

Diagnostic Interview for Children and Adolescents-Revised (Reich, 1991). Scores reflect the number of diagnostically relevant symptoms related to the occurrence of either oppositional defiant disorder or conduct disorder. Interrater reliability ranged from .58 to 1.0 with a mean of .76

Antisocial behavior

Patterson et al. 1991

Author-created measure based on state records of arrests, state records of driver's license suspensions, self-reported substance use, and hypomania and psychopathic deviance scores on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (Hathaway & McKinley, 1967).

Types of criminal offenses

Jaffee et al. 2001

Self-Reported Crime Interview (Elliott & Huizinga, 1989), a standardized instrument that inquires about 48 different illegal acts that study members might have committed in the past 12 months. Details about the reliability and validity of this instrument in this study are available in Moffitt, Silva, Lynam, and Henry (1994) (alpha=.88).

Criminal convictions

Jaffee et al. 2001

The number of adult criminal convictions was obtained through a search of police records.

Psychiatric Health

History of conduct disorder, anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, antisocial personality disorder, substance use disorder

Johnson et al. 2004

Paternal alcohol abuse, drug abuse, and antisocial behavior were assessed during the 1975, 1983, and 1985–1986 maternal interviews using the Disorganizing Poverty Interview (DPI; Kogan et al. 1977). Psychiatric treatment history was assessed with items asking whether the father had received any treatment for emotional problems or substance abuse. In addition, lifetime histories of paternal attention deficit disorder (ADD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), major depressive disorder (MDD), conduct disorder (CD), alcohol abuse or dependence and drug abuse or dependence were assessed during the 1991–93 maternal interview using items adapted from the New York High Risk Study Family Interview (Squires-Wheeler & Erlenmeyer-Kimling, 1986). Data regarding the age of onset of paternal disorders permitted identification of psychiatric disorders that were evident during the childhood or adolescence of the offspring. Computerized DSM-IV-based diagnostic algorithms were developed using items from these instruments that assessed DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for paternal CD, GAD, MDD, PTSD, alcohol abuse or dependence and drug abuse or dependence, and paternal antisocial personality disorder.

Identity as a Parent

Identification with a procreative role

Bialik 2011

Data obtained from Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project.

Identity as a procreative father was a measure created by the author based on the construct defined by Erikson (1963). Score is the sum of eight attributes assessed by coding interviews (alpha=.63)

Role as a parent includes preparing child for school

Freeman et al. 2008

Measure of fathers' beliefs about their role in the target child's development and education and was adapted from Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler (1995), Hoover-Dempsey et al. (2005), and Green et al. (2007). Responses to four items assessing how strongly fathers agreed with statements related to components of fathers' role including: making sure the child attends and is prepared for preschool, and talking with the teacher about things that concern the child (alpha = .70). Response categories: 0 = not at all, 4 = very much

Perception of self as father in comparison with own father

Le Bourdais et al. 2002

Authors created a single variable based on 2 survey questions from the General Social Survey (Statistics Canada). Participants were grouped into four categories: (1) close to own father, considers self to be better father; (2) close to own father but did not consider self as better father; (3) not close to own father, considers self to be better father; (4) not close to own father, does not consider self to be better father.

Satisfaction with time spent with children

Le Bourdais et al. 2002

Based on a single item from the General Social Survey (Statistics Canada): "Fathers responded to a statement asking whether they were "satisfied with time in general spent with their children." Response categories: yes/no

Satisfaction with custody arrangement

Le Bourdais et al. 2002

Based on a single item from the General Social Survey (Statistics Canada): "Fathers responded to a statement asking whether they were "satisfied with where and with whom the child lives." Response categories: yes/no

Parental role strain

Bowman et al. 1997

Based on a single item from the National Survey of Black Americans: "How well have you done at being a good father to your children?" Response categories: 1=not well at all to 4=very well

Identity as a Provider

Primary provider strain

Bowman et al. 1997

Based on a single item from National Survey of Black Americans: "Given the chances you have had, how well have you done in taking care of your family's wants and needs?" Response categories: 1=not well at all to 4=very well 

Co-provider attitude

Bowman et al. 1997

Based on a single item from National Survey of Black Americans
"Both men and women should have jobs to support the family"
Response categories: 1=strongly disagree to 4=strongly agree

Identity as a Man1

Gender role attitudes (Machismo)

Ferrari 1999

Assessed using the Multiphasic Assessment of Cultural Constructs-Short Form, Machismo subscale (Cuellar, Arnold, Gonzalez 1995). Sum of responses to 17 items measuring gender role attitudes. Sample items include: "Boys should not be allowed to play with dolls and other girls' toys" and "There are some jobs women simply should not have." In the original measure, respondents are asked to indicate whether they believe the statements are true or false. For this study, to increase the variability of responses, the author used a six-point scale. Higher scores indicate stronger endorsement of machismo attitudes (alpha=.78). Response categories: 0=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree.

Attitudes towards gender roles

Caputo 2006

Author-created measure based on fathers' evaluation of two statements: (1) The important decisions in a family should be made by the man in the house; (2) It is much better for everyone if the man earns the main living and the woman takes care of the home and family. Response categories ranged from 1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly. Score is the average rating across the 2 statements.

Sex role

Boyce et al. 2007

Authors used the Bem Sex Role Inventory to assess psychological masculinity, femininity, and androgyny (Bem, 1974)

Identification with Mexican heritage

Coltrane et al. 2004

Assessed with the Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans, Mexican Orientation subscale (Cuellar, Arnold & Maldonado, 1995). Items indicate preference for and use of Spanish, and questions about self-identification and social group affiliation. Response categories: not at all to extremely often/almost always. Score is sum of responses with higher scores representing stronger Mexican orientation (alpha=.92).

Notes: 1. These measures of gender-role attitudes tap how the father views himself as a man. Studies examining general gender-role attitudes are listed in Table II.F. Cognitions, under the Gender-Role Attitudes subheading.

Table F.3. Values and Lifestyles: Variables and Measures Used in Studies of Low-Income Fathers

Variable/Measure

Study Citation

Description of Variable/Measure Used

Family Activities

Family rituals

Coltrane et al. 2004

Family Routines Questionnaire (Fiese, 1994). Sum of responses to eight items assessing participation (e.g., frequency, organization) in two family rituals (i.e., mealtimes and weekend activities). Sample items: Our family regularly eats the main meal together; In our family, we have set routines and regular events that we all participate in on the weekends. Response categories: not at all true, sort of true, and very true. Higher scores represented more emphasis on family rituals. Alpha=.65

Activities with Child

Engagement at birth of child; Change in engagement

Knoester et al. 2007

Authors created two variables based on survey items from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study.

Engagement at birth of child was measured based on the sum of responses to six items about early involved fathering (e.g., present at birth). Response categories: yes/no. Alpha=.44

Engagement a year after birth was measured based on the mean of responses to three items about activity participation. Response categories: 0 to 7 days a week.

Change in engagement was measured by standardizing engagement scores at each time point and calculating the difference between the two standardized scores.

Frequency of activities

Castillo, 2009, 2010

Author created a single variable based on eight items from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study. Each item measured the number of times in a week the father engaged in activities with his child. Response categories: 0 to 7 days a week. Score is the sum of responses. Alpha=.83

Activities with child

Holmes, 2010

Author created two variables based on survey items from the Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project (EHSREP):

Participation in prenatal activities was assessed by asking mothers if fathers participated in the following activities: discuss the pregnancy; and go to the doctor with mother. Response categories: yes/no. Prenatal behaviors items were summed to obtain the number of prenatal activities in which the father participated (range 0 – 2).

Participation in activities at birth was assessed by asking mothers if fathers participated in the following activities: present at birth; and visit child in hospital after birth. Response categories: yes/no. If the baby was not born in a hospital (N = 15), the question of "Did father visit child in the hospital" was skipped. Because attending the birth was highly associated with visiting the child in the hospital (90% participated in both), for cases in which the father was present at the birth and the baby was not born in the hospital, visiting in the hospital were recoded as "yes." Birth behaviors items were summed to obtain the number of birth behaviors in which the father participated (range 0 – 2).

Father activities with children

Roggman et al. 2002

Trained research staff interviewed parents to assess the frequency with which fathers engaged in activities with their infants. Activities include: reading or telling stories, feeding, eating a meal together, going to the playground, playing at home. Response categories ranged from 1 = not at all to 5 = several times a week.

Daily involvement in care of the child

Guzell, 2001

18 items from the Who Does What Scale (Cowan, Cowan, Coie, & Coie, 1985) were summed and averaged.

Religious and Civic Activities

Religious activity

Roggman et al. 2002

Trained research staff interviewed parents to assess the frequency of Religious activity. Fathers were asked "How often are you actively involved in your religion?" Response categories: more than once a week, once a week, 2-3 times a month, once a month, 2-3 times a year, yearly or rarely, and never.

Religious affiliation

Caputo, 2006

Respondents indicated whether they identified themselves as: Baptist, Catholic, Mainline Protestant, Other, None

Religious activity

Caputo, 2006

Respondents were asked how frequently they attended religious services. Response categories ranged from 1 = Never to 5 = More than once a week.

Religious involvement

Wilcox et al. 2001

Authors measured religious involvement by asking respondents about their frequency of participation in church related organizations such as men's groups, Bible studies, soup kitchens. Response choices ranged from 1 = never to 5 = several times a week.

Religious socialization

Bowman et al. 1997

Authors created a single variable based on a survey item from the National Survey of Black Americans. Respondents were asked "how important is it for African American parents to send or take their children to religious services?" Response categories: 1=not important at all to 4=very important

Civic participation

Wilcox et al. 2001

Authors measured civic engagement by examining the frequency of participation in five types of activities: sports groups, fraternal organizations (veteran's groups, fraternities), professional organizations (unions, etc), service organizations (Charitable groups, political, etc), cultural activities (literary or arts related groups). Response choices ranged from 1 = never to 5 = several times a week.

Job Characteristics

Employment status and work schedule

Le Bourdais et al. 2002

Authors created a single variable based on data from General Social Survey (Statistics Canada). Categories: (a)full-time/day; (b)not working; (c)part-time; (d)full-time/evening, night, weekend

Work hours

Formoso et al. 2007

Mothers and fathers reported the number of hours they worked per week. To test for interaction effects between work hours and partner relationship, the authors probed the interaction by creating the following groups based on maternal work hours: unemployed (0 hours), part-time employed (20 hours) and full-time employed (40 hours).

Work hours

Roggman et al. 2002

Trained research staff interviewed parents to collect data on the number of hours fathers worked per week.

Occupational self direction

Goodman et al. 2008

Author-created measure based on information from the Occupational Information Network database (Peterson et al. 2001). The measure consists of 16 items rated on a 100-point scale, including those representing occupational complexity (e.g., ‘‘making decisions, solving problems''; ‘‘develop objectives, strategies'') and management (e.g., ‘‘coordinate, lead others''; ‘‘guide, direct, motivate others''). Alpha=.98

Job involves caregiving

Goodman et al. 2008

Author-created measure based on information from the Occupational Information Network database (Peterson et al. 2001). The measure consists of four items rated on a 100-point scale related to caring for or assisting others, including ‘‘dealing with physically aggressive people,'' ‘‘assist, care for others,'' and ‘‘exposed to disease or infections." Alpha=.86

Occupational complexity

Whitbeck et al. 1997

Author created measure based on occupation codes from the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (U.S. Department of Labor, 1991). Score is the sum of three worker function ratings: working with data, working with people, and working with things. Higher scores indicate more occupational complexity.

Job autonomy

Whitbeck et al. 1997

Author-created measure. Score is the sum of responses to three items: "I have a flexible work schedule; I am mostly my own boss; and, I have a lot of opportunity to use my ideas and imagination in this job." Response categories: 1=strongly agree to 5=strongly disagree. A high score indicates more autonomy.

Work flexibility

Shields, 1998

Respondents indicated how much flexibility they had at work. Response categories: not very flexible, somewhat flexible, very flexible.

Table F.4. Stress and Coping: Variables and Measures Used in Studies of Low-Income Fathers

Variable/Measure

Study Citation

Description of Variable/Measure Used

Life Stressors

Stressors

Coohey, 2000

Fathers were asked if they experienced any of the following life events or conditions: death of someone close, serious health problem, moved, stopped or started working, stopped or started going to school, had a problem with custody or visiting, was separated or divorced, was hit by partner, partner was pregnant or gave birth, had a problem with government check. Response categories: yes = 1, no = 0. Score is the sum of all items.

Stressors

Anderson et al. 2005

Resource Challenges Scale (Anderson et al, 2005) consists of seven items assessing whether the respondent: is currently unemployed, is unable to pay full amount of child support order, has limited access to reliable transportation, has no permanent place to live, has problems with alcohol or drugs, has health problems or a disability, has ever been convicted of a crime. Scores were calculated by summing items (yes = 1, no = 0). Alpha = 0.64

Life stress

Hoard et al. 2004

Life Stress Index (LSI; author-created). The LSI includes seven questions. The LSI total score had the possibility of ranging from 0 to 7, with a higher number indicating more life stresses. Alpha=. 51

Six questions had the response categories 1=yes or 0=no: "Are you currently employed?;" Do you have a permanent place to live?," "Do you have problems with alcohol or drugs?," "Do the following make it hard for you to find or keep a job-health problems or disabilities?," "Do you have access to reliable transportation?," and "Have you ever been convicted of a felony, a violent crime, spousal abuse, or child abuse?"

The last question asked respondents to describe their relationship with their child's other parent. Responses of "very friendly", "somewhat friendly", or "neutral" were coded as 0 to indicate the absence of stress and responses of "somewhat hostile" or "very hostile" were coded as "1" to indicate the presence of stress.

Stressful life events

Boyce et al. 2007

Authors used a shortened version of the Life Event Scale (Tennant and Andrews, 1977) to measure the level of stressful life events in the fathers' lives in the past three months. The measure was scored by summing the total number of life events.

Acute stress

Conger et al. 1995

The construct of acute stress was assessed using two measures: First, respondents reported whether they experienced the following events in the last two years: (1) significant decreases in income, (2) other family member serious medical problem, and (3) frequency of times the respondent experienced injury or illness requiring medical attention. The second measure was based on the PERI measure of objective-life event ratings (Dohrenwend, Krasnoff, Askenasy, & Dohrenwend, 1978) which captured the occurrence of 35 negative events (job disruptions, financial problems, illness, injury, etc.) that happened to the respondent, a family member or friend in last 12 months.

Stressful events

Rienks et al. 2011

Authors used a modified 33-item version of the Family Inventory of Life Events and Changes (McCubbin & Patterson,
1991) to assess the types of stressful events i.e., ‘‘Increase in conflict or arguments among family members,'' ‘‘Had to borrow money, took out or refinanced a loan'') participants encountered within the last year . Responses (1 = yes, 0 = no) were summed to obtain a total score. Alpha=.82

Life events strain

Sloper et al. 1993

Authors used a 42-item checklist (Cheang & Cooper, 1984) that measured the individual's perception of the strain resulting from life events on a 10-point Likert scale.

Stressful life events

Proctor, 2005

Measured with the Life Experiences Survey (Sarason, Johnson, and Siegel, 1978). Respondents indicated whether they experienced 49 events (such as death, financial problems, change of residence or job, and separation from a family member) during the last year and the impact of the event on their life. Score is the sum of items parents rated as negative on a three-point scale (somewhat to extremely negative).

Other Specific Stressors

Exposure to community violence

Proctor, 2005

Assessed using the Community Violence Questionnaire-Parent Version patterned after the Survey of Exposure to Community Violence (SECV; Richters and Saltzman, 1990). For each of 25 events, respondents reported on whether they had ever experienced each event and on the frequency of exposure in the past year. For this study, only responses pertaining to whether the individual had ever experienced each even were used. Responses to 25 items were summed to capture parents' exposure to violence or violence-related activities via witnessing and victimization. Alpha=.88

Job demands (work hours, job pressure, role overload)

Bumpus et al. 1999

Families were categorized into three groups based on the job demands of the mothers and fathers. Three measures of job demands were used: work hours, role overload, and job pressure.

Work hours included time spent at work, time spent at home on work related tasks, and time spent driving to and from work.

Role overload was based on responses to 13 items (Reilly, 1982); Example item: "There are too many demands on my time". Response categories were on a five-point scale, alpha = 0.88 for mothers and 0.89 for fathers.

Job pressure was assessed using the Work Pressure Scale which was a modified version of the Work Environment Scale (Moos, 1986). Scores were based on nine items with responses provided on a four-point scale. Alpha = 0.79 for mothers, and 0.72 for fathers.

Role overload

Goodman et al. 2008

Authors used a modified, six-item version of the Role Overload Scale (Reilly, 1982). Responses were rated on a five-point scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Alpha=.91

Financial Stress

Monetary stress

Bowman et al. 1997

Authors created a single variable based on a survey item from the National Survey of Black Americans. Respondents were asked "So have you had money problems-how much did that upset you?" Response categories: 0=no problem to 4=a great deal.

Perceived income inadequacy

Bowman et al. 1997

Authors created a single variable based on a survey item from the National Survey of Black Americans. Respondents were asked "how much do you worry that your income will not meet your family's expenses and bills?" Response categories: 1=not at all to 4=a great deal.

Perceptions of financial stress

Coltrane et al. 2004

Authors used a measure based on a similar instrument by Conger, Conger, Elder & Lorenz (1992). Score is the sum of responses to two items with higher values representing less financial stress. The questions asked about difficulty paying bills and whether respondents typically had money left over at the end of the month. Alpha=.70

Perceived economic hardship

Gonzales et al. 2011

Authors measured perceived economic hardship separately for mothers and for fathers using three subscales based on items from Conger et al (1994). Respondents were asked two items on inability to make ends meet, seven items on not having enough money for necessities, and two items on financial strain. Authors scored this measure by averaging the subscales with higher scores representing greater economic hardship. Alpha (English) = 0.76 for mothers, and 0.82 for fathers. Alpha (Spanish) = 0.75 for mothers and 0.76 for fathers.

Financial stress

Thornberry et al. 2003

Author created a single variable using data from the Rochester Youth Development Study (RYDS). The variable represents the number (0 to 5) of signs of financial hardship (e.g., difficulty paying bills) experienced by the respondent.

Financial difficulties

Flouri et al. 2003

Authors documented if a family was having financial difficulties using a combination of two measures (used at different time-points): At child age seven, authors relied on receipt of free school meals or if unavailable, then the Health Visitor's assessment of financial difficulties experienced by the families. At child age 11 and 16, authors based their assessment on receipt of free school meals.

Economic Pressure

Whitbeck et al. 1997

Economic pressure was measured by three scales. The first scale used two items to assess the degree to which the family's income covered the family's expenses (alpha=.82). The second scale consisted of seven items (alpha=.90) that assessed whether the family had enough money for the kind of home, clothing, furniture, car, medical care, and leisure activities they would like to have. Each item was rated on a five-point scale (1=strongly agree to 5=strongly disagree). The third scale consisted of 27 items (alpha=.85) and assessed whether the family had to make adjustments (e.g., used savings to meet expenses, sold possessions or cashed in insurance policies, postponed medical or dental care) in order to meet their financial obligations.

Parenting Stress

Parenting stress and aggravation

Bronte-Tinkew et al. 2010

Measure was adapted from the Parenting Stress Index (PSI; Abidin, 1983). Sample item: Fathers were asked how true it was that being a parent is harder than they thought it would be. Score is the sum of responses (0=strongly disagree; 3=strongly agree) to four items (alpha= .77).

Parental stress

Paquette et al. 2000

Parenting Stress Index-short version (validated for the French-speaking population of Quebec by Bigras et al. 1996). Score is the sum of responses to 36 items composing three subscales: parental distress, dysfunctional parent-child interactions, and stress relating to a difficult child (alpha=.88).

Parental distress; Parent-child dysfunctional interaction

Vogel et al. 2003

Parenting Stress Index - Parental distress and parent-child dysfunctional interaction subscales (Abidin 1995). Parents with scores at the 75th percentile (based on the norming sample) or higher were coded as having high levels of stress. The Parental Distress subscale is based on 12 items; the Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction subscale is based on 11 items.

Parental stress

Whipple et al. 1991

Assessed using the Parenting Stress Index (PSI; Lloyd and Abidin, 1985). Measures consists of 126 items, divided into parent and child characteristics. Authors used only the Parent Domain for their analysis, represented by seven subscales: depression, attachment, restrictions of role, sense of competences, social isolation, spouse support, health. A high score indicates stress related to parent functioning. Alpha = 0.93

Depressive Symptoms or Psychological Distress

Psychological distress

Levine Coley et al. 2006

Assessed using the Brief Symptom Inventory-18 (Derogatis, 2000). Score is the average on 18 items. Response categories: 0=not at all to 4=extremely. Alpha=.91

Psychological distress

Proctor, 2005

Psychological Distress was measured with the Symptom Checklist 90-Revised (SCL-90-R; Derogatis, 1994). Score is the mean of responses to 90 items describing a wide range of psychological symptoms including depression, anxiety, hostility, interpersonal sensitivity, and somatization. Responses range from "not at all" to "extremely." Alpha=.95

Depressive symptoms

Roggman et al. 2002

Authors assessed depressive symptoms using the 22 item Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff 1977). Example items: Fathers were asked to respond to statements beginning with a phrase "During the past week" and describing a symptom such as "I was bothered by things that usually don't bother me" or "I did not feel like eating; my appetite was poor". Response categories ranged from 1 = less than once to 4 = more than five days. Alpha = 0.90

Depressive symptoms

Cabrera et al. 2009

Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale-Short Form (Ross, Mirowsky, & Huber, 1983). Score is the mean of responses to 12 items. Response categories: 0=Rarely or never to 3=Most or all days. Alpha=.80

Depressive symptoms

Bronte-Tinkew et al. 2010

A dichotomous measure of major depression was constructed from the short form of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI-SF; Kessler, Andrews, Mroczek, Utsun, & Wittchen, 1998), and based on the criteria for major depression in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd ed., rev.) (American Psychiatric Association, 1987). Respondents to the short form who affirmed screener questions were asked about seven symptoms. Following the procedures of Kessler and colleagues (1998), a numeric score ranging from 0 to 7 was converted to a probability of caseness ranging between 0 and 1. Respondents reporting three or more symptoms with a probability score greater than .5 were considered to have major depression (Walters, Kessler, Nelson, & Mroczek, 2002).

Stress-related paternal depression

Conger et al. 1995

Five measures of depression were used: (1) CES-D (Radloff, 1977); (2) the Lubin Checklist (Lubin, 1963); (3) the SCL-90-R, Depression subscale (Derogatis, 1983); (4) Spouse-reported depression (author-created) based on the sum of two items pertaining to spouse's emotional state. Responses range from 1=agree to 5=disagree. (5) Observer-reported rating of fathers' and mothers' degree of sadness (single item).

Depressive symptoms

Vogel et al. 2003

Authors assessed depressive symptoms using the 22 item Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff 1977).

Depressive symptoms

Chambers, 2004

Author created a single variable based on the following survey item from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study: "In the past week, how often did you feel everything was an effort?" Response categories: 0 days, 1-4 days, 5-7 days

Depressive symptoms

Ash, 1999

Authors assessed depressive symptoms using 20 items from the CES-D (Radloff 1977). Alpha=.84

Parental depression & anxiety

Whipple et al. 1991

The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Beck, 1967; alpha = 0.93) was used by authors to measure depression. It has 21 items consisting of statements relating to cognitive symptoms of depression, and parents indicated (on a scale of 0 to 3) how each statement represented their state of mind. A score of 10 or more reflects clinical depression.

The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger, 1983; alpha = 0.86 to 0.95) was used to measure anxiety. The measure consists of two 20-item scales: the State Anxiety scale included 20 items on how respondents felt at the time of completing the questionnaire (i.e. pleasant, happy, sad, etc) and the Trait Anxiety scale included 20 items on how the respondent felt generally (i.e. calm, secure, tense, anxious, etc).

Anxiety and depression

Rienks et al. 2011

The Brief Symptom Inventory-18 (BSI-18; Derogatis, 2000) asks participants to indicate how they have felt in the past week on a five-point Likert scale. Response categories: 0=not at all to 4=extremely. Alpha=.84 for anxiety and .90 for depressed mood).

Well-being

Well-being

Dechman, 1994

Author-created measure based on a single survey item: "Taking all things together, how would you say things are these days?" Response categories: 1=very unhappy to 7=very happy

Coping

Coping efficacy

Rienks et al. 2011

The authors used a modified six-item version of Sandler, Tein, Mehta, Wolchik, and Ayers' (2000) coping efficacy scale that assesses how participants feel about how well they cope with stress and how effective they feel their coping strategy will be in the future on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 4 (well). Alpha=.88

Coping strategies

Sloper et al. 1993

Coping Strategies were measured using the Ways of Coping Questionnaire (Revised) (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985), adapted to measure the ways in which parents coped with problems concerning their child (Knussen, Sloper, Cunningham & Tumer, in press). Responses from mothers and fathers were pooled and subjected to principal components factor analysis. Seven factors based on 54 items were obtained. The factors were labeled 1. Practical coping; 2. Wishful thinking; 3. Seeking social support; 4. Stoicism; 5. Denial/delay; 6. Passive optimism; 7. Distancing. Proportional coping scores for each factor were calculated by obtaining mean item scores for the factor and dividing these by the sum of the means for all factors.

Coping strategies

Roggman et al. 2002

Social support was measured using an unspecified number of items from the F-COPES (McCubbin and Patterson, 1982). The measure consisted of several subscales which were then averaged together to calculate a total social support score: Informal Support (Family and friends), Community support, and Spiritual support (alphas ranged from 0.79 to 0.87 for the three subscales). Fathers reported the frequency with which they took the following types of actions when they had problems: "Talk about it with relatives", "Ask for encouragement or support from friends", "Ask for information from your family doctor", or "Participate in church or other spiritual activities". Response categories ranged from 1 = never to 5 = always

Table F.5. Knowledge: Variables and Measures Used in Studies of Low-Income Fathers

Variable/Measure

Study Citation

Description of Variable/Measure Used

Knowledge about infant development

Guzell, 2001

Knowledge of Infant Development Inventory (MacPhee, 1981). Respondents indicated whether they agree or disagree with factual statements about children's developmental milestones. If they disagreed with certain statements, they were asked to indicate whether the statement reflects a milestone for an older or younger child. Alpha=.59 (author notes this is lower than those reported by MacPhee)

 

Table F.6. Cognitions: Variables and Measures Used in Studies of Low-Income Fathers

Variable/Measure

Study Citation

Description of Variable/Measure Used

Parenting Attitudes

Attitude towards the use of harsh discipline

Coohey, 2000

Single item from the General Social Science Survey: "It is sometimes necessary to discipline a child with a good, hard spanking." Response categories: "strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree"

Valuing of children

Ferrari, 1999

Author-created variable based on the sum of responses to 15 items concerning the acceptance of children into the family and community, such as acceptance of children in restaurants, airplane travel, and adult conversation. Sample items include: "Young children should be able to sit through a three-hour movie like the Titanic without disturbing their parents" and "Kid-friendly restaurants like ‘Friendly's' or ‘Ground Round' are a bad idea because they encourage children to misbehave at dinnertime." Response categories: 0=strong disagreement, 5=strong agreement. Nine of the items are reverse coded. Higher scores indicate stronger valuing of children (alpha=.78).

Severity ratings of vignettes depicting child maltreatment

Ferrari, 1999

Respondents rated the severity of maltreatment as depicted in 54 vignettes (vignettes were adapted from Giovannoni and Becerra, 1979 and Isman, Glenwick, and Schiaffino's, 1996). Ratings were based on a six-point response scale (0 corresponds to "the parent is not mistreating the child"; 5 corresponds to a rating of "extremely serious"). Alpha=.81

Happy to have had a child

Le Bourdais et al. 2002

Single item from the General Social Survey (Statistics Canada). Fathers responded to a statement indicating that "the fact of having children made them happier." Response categories: yes/no

Positive attitude toward fathering; Change in positive attitude toward fathering

Knoester et al. 2007

Authors created two variables based on survey items from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study.

Positive attitude toward fathering at the time of the child's birth was based on responses to three items about the importance of fathering. Response categories: 1=strongly agree to 4=strongly disagree. Alpha=.72

Positive attitude toward fathering a year after the child's birth was based on items pertaining to parenting aggravation. Response categories: 1=strongly agree to 4=strongly disagree. Alpha=.58

Change in attitude was measured by standardizing scores at each time point and calculating the difference between the two standardized scores.

Gender Role Attitudes1

Sex role egalitarianism

Shields, 1998

Sex Role Egaliatarian Scale-Short Form (King & King, 1993). Sum of responses to 25 items, eight of which are reverse coded. Sample items: The family home will run better if the father, rather than the mother, sets the rules for the children." "Women have just as much ability as men to make major business decisions." Response categories: 1=strongly agree to 5=strongly disagree. Higher scores indicate greater sex role egalitarianism. Alphas from a previous study ranged from .89 to .92. Alphas for study sample were not reported.

Gender traditionalism

Coltrane et al. 2004

Gender Based Attitudes Toward Marriage Scale (Hoffman & Kloska, 1995). Sample items: A husband's job is more important than a wife's; men should make the really important decisions in the family; a man should help in the house, but housework and child care should mainly be a woman's job. Score is the sum of responses across seven items (alpha=.82). Response categories: strongly disagree to strongly agree. Higher scores represented more traditional ideals and lower scores represented more egalitarian ideals.

Whether tasks related to children are men's responsibility

Le Bourdais et al. 2002

Single item from the General Social Survey (Statistics Canada). Fathers responded to a statement indicating that "everyday tasks linked to children are not principally men's responsibility." Response categories: five-point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

Co-involved child care attitude

Bowman et al. 1997

Single item from the General Social Survey (Statistics Canada). Fathers responded to a statement indicating that "both men and women should share equally in child care and housework." Response categories: four-point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

Attitudes Towards Marriage or Relationships

Attitudes towards marriage

Caputo, 2006

Author created a single variable based on participant responses to two items: (1) Is it better for a couple to get married than to just live together?; (2) Is it better for children if their parents are married? Response categories ranged from 1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree. Authors averaged scores across the two items.

Distrust of opposite sex

Caputo, 2006

Author asked each parent to respond to the following statements: (1) Men [women] cannot be trusted to be faithful; (2) In a dating relationship a man [woman] is largely out to take advantage of a woman [man]. Response categories ranged from 1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree. Authors averaged scores of the two items.

Work-Related Attitudes

Job satisfaction, job involvement

Paquette et al. 2000

Job satisfaction was assessed using the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (Weiss et al. 1959). Scores were based on responses to four items with each rated on a seven-point Likert scale. Alpha=.78

The Job Involvement Scale (Lodahl and Kejner, 1965) measured psychological involvement in work. Scores were based on responses to 20 items with each rated on a four-point Likert scale. Alpha=.74

Self-Efficacy

Father efficacy

Freeman et al. 2008

Subscale was adapted from the Parent Perceptions of Parent Efficacy Scale (Hoover-Dempsey et al. 1992). Fathers responded to 11 items assessing their perceived ability to help the child grow, develop, and learn. Items were reworded to address development and learning in the preschool period, as opposed to the school-age period. Sample questions include: ‘My efforts to help my child learn are successful' and ‘I know how to help my child do well in preschool/childcare.' Negatively worded items were re-coded. Response categories: 0 = not at all to 4 = very much. Alpha=.73

Feelings of incompetence

Frost, 1997

Assessed with the Parenting Stress Index - Competence scale (PSI; Abidin, 1986). The subscale consists of 11 items each rated on a five-point scale (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree). Alpha=.77

Parental self-efficacy

Guzell, 2001

Assessed with the Parenting Self-Efficacy Scale (Fish, Stifter, & Belsky, 1991). Measure consists of 20 items rated on a six-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree to 6=strongly agree). Alpha=.76

Responsibility/Perceived Control

Perceived control over caregiving outcomes

Guzell, 2001

The Parent Attribution Test (PAT; Bugental et al, 1989; Bugental, 1993) consists of 18 items rated on a seven-point scale ranging from 0=not at all important to 6=very important. Each item assesses the importance the respondent gives different factors that could make a caregiving experience positive or negative. Two subscale scores are calculated: Child control over failure and adult control over failure. Participants were grouped based on subscale scores as follows: (1) Low perceived control - parents whose score on the child control subscale is higher than the median and whose score on the adult control subscale is lower than the median; (2) High perceived control - everyone else in the sample. The dichotomous indicator of subgroup was used as a predictor in analyses.

Responsibility for child's learning

Freeman et al. 2008

Based on responses to four items that measured fathers' feelings of responsibility for the child's learning and interactions with the child's teacher or family advocate. Sample items included: ‘I assume my child is doing all right if I don't hear anything from his or her teachers' and ‘My child's learning is up to the teacher and my child'. Response categories: 0 = not at all, 4 = very much. Alpha = .62

Parent cognition: child-responsible factor; parent-causal factor

Snarr et al. 2009

The Parent Cognition Scale (Snarr et al. 2009) is a 30-item self-report measure designed to assess the degree to which parents endorse dysfunctional child-responsible and parent-causal attributions for child misbehavior. Respondents are asked to think about a target child's misbehavior over the past two months and to rate various possible causes for their child's misbehavior on a six-point Likert scale that ranges from 1 (always true) to 6 (never true); when scoring, each item is reverse scored so that higher scores indicate greater endorsement.

Child-responsible factor: Ten items attributed child misbehavior to factors under the child's control, child willful intent to misbehave, and/or child desire to have a negative effect on the parent (e.g., "My child is headstrong," "My child tries to get my goat or push my buttons").

Parent-causal factor: An additional 10 items attributed the child's misbehavior to stable, global, trait-like characteristics of the respondent (e.g., "I'm not patient," "I can't control my child").

The remaining 10 items, not used in scoring, attributed the child's misbehavior to uncontrollable and/or unintentional child-focused factors (e.g., "My child is in a stage"), or to unstable, specific, and situational parent factors (e.g., "I was tired at the time").

Partner cognition: partner-responsible factor; self-causal factor

Snarr et al. 2009

The Partner Cognition Scale (Snarr & Slep, 2009) is a self-report measure that was derived from the Parent Cognition Scale and is designed to assess the degree to which the respondent endorses dysfunctional attributions for undesirable behavior on the part of the respondent's romantic partner. This measure comprises two factors, Partner-Responsible (eight items) and Self-Causal (nine items)

Partner-Responsible items attribute undesirable partner behavior to factors under the partner's control, partner willful intent to be unpleasant, and/or partner desire to have a negative effect on the respondent

Self-Causal items attribute negative partner behavior to stable, global, trait-like characteristics of the respondent (e.g., "I'm unable to be a good husband/wife"). Cronbach's alphas for fathers were .92 on Partner-Responsible and .88 on Self-Causal.

Belief that own economic situation will dictate child's future (used to predict depression)

Ash, 1999

Single item from the Perceived Parental Influence Scale (author-created):

Fathers responded to the question "Do you feel that your financial situation will dictate your children's future?" Response categories: yes, no, don't know

Perceived Outcomes

Expectations about pregnancy and fatherhood

Boyce et al. 2007

Authors asked fathers a number of questions about whether the pregnancy was planned or unplanned, whether their expectations about the birth were clear or unclear, and whether they were aware of positive or negative experiences of other men regarding fatherhood

Notes: 1. These measures of gender-role attitudes tap general gender-role attitudes. Studies examining how the father views himself as a man are listed in Table II.C. Identity, under the Identity as a Man subheading.

Table F.7. Social Norms: Variables and Measures Used in Studies of Low-Income Fathers

Variable/Measure

Study Citation

Description of Variable/Measure Used

Acceptance of negative stereotypes about African American men

Shields, 1998

Assessed using the author-created Acceptance of Negative Stereotypes Scale. Score is based on the sum of responses to seven items, one of which is reverse coded. Higher scores indicate greater acceptance of negative stereotypes. Sample items: "Nowadays, African American men are not committed enough to their children and families; Generally, African American men are very involved with their children." Response categories: 1=strongly agree to 5=strongly disagree.

Internalized negative stereotypes about African Americans

Wright, 2004

The Stereotype Scale Black male subscale (Kelly & Floyd, 2001) is a 52-item survey that assesses participants' internalized negative stereotypes about African Americans. Response categories: 1=strongly agree to 5=strongly disagree. Lower scores reflect greater acceptance of negative stereotypes. Alpha=.76

Neighborhood familism

Gonzales et al. 2011

Self-reported measure based on the Mexican American Cultural Values Scale-Familism subscale (Knight et al, in press). The subscale consisted of: six items on support and emotional closeness ["Parents should teach their children that family always comes first"]; five items on obligations ["If a relative is having a hard time, one should help them out if possible"]; five items on family as a referent ["It is important to work hard and do one's best because this work reflects on the family"]. Respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement with each item, ranging from 1 = not at all to 5 = completely. Authors averaged the scores for mother and fathers which yielded a familism score for the family (alphas = 0.75 for mothers and 0.79 for fathers). Authors calculated the neighborhood familism score by averaging the family familism scores in each neighborhood.

 

Table F.8. Relationship with Child's Mother: Variables and Measures Used in Studies of Low-Income Fathers

Variable/Measure

Study Citation

Description of Variable/Measure Used

Negative Partner Characteristics

Negative partner characteristics

Coohey, 2000

Fathers were asked if their partners had any of the following ‘negative' characteristics: not able to control her anger, is unreliable, is critical of you, has a drug or alcohol problem. Response categories: yes = 1, no = 0

Conflict

Areas of conflict

Caputo, 2006

This variable was based on 10 items asking respondents to choose how often certain issues (e.g., faithfulness, money, sex, spending time together, pregnancy) were sources of conflict in their relationship. Response categories: Often, sometimes or none. Authors coded "Often" as 1 and "Sometimes" or "None" as 0.

Marital concerns

Frost, 1997

Partner Role Quality Scale (Barnett & Marshall, 1989). Measure consists of 22 items rated on a four-point scale (1=not at all, 4=extremely). Alpha=.90

Relationship disagreement

Bronte-Tinkew et al. 2010

Variable was based on nine survey items from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study. Score is the sum of responses across items (alpha=.71). Sample item: Overall frequency of disagreements related to the mother being fair and willing to compromise when the mother and the father disagree.

Level of hostility

Florsheim et al. 1999

This measure is based on observer ratings of expectant couples as they participated in a 15-minute communication task. Couples were instructed to discuss and resolve a recent conflict. The interactions were coded using the Structural Analysis of Social Behavior observational coding scheme (Florsheim & Moore, 1997; Humphrey & Benjamin, 1989). Interrater reliability ranged from .80 to .95, with a mean of .90.

Domestic tension

Flouri et al. 2003

Authors measured co-parental relations based on the Health Visitor's assessment of domestic tension, and mental illness in the family.

Couple conflict

Cabrera et al. 2009

Mean scores were calculated across nine items assessing frequency and level of conflict with spouse/partner. Response categories: 1=never/hardly to 3=often. Alpha=.75

Partner violence

Jaffee et al. 2001

Partner violence was assessed with nine physical violence items from the Conflict Tactic Scales (CTS, Form R; Straus, 1990) plus four additional items that capture other physically abusive behaviors (scored 0-1). Scores were calculated for physical violence perpetration (alpha=.76) and physical violence victimization (alpha=.82). Only individuals who had a partner for at least one month in the past year were scored on this variable.

Communication

Negative communication

Rienks et al. 2011

The Communication Skills Test (Saiz & Jenkins, 1995) consists of 32 questions about negative and positive communication patterns, answered on a seven-point Likert scale. This study utilized the negative communication subscale. Alpha =.92

Communication danger signs

Rienks et al. 2011

The eight-item Danger Signs Scale (Stanley & Markman, 1997) was used to assess relationship ‘‘danger signs'' such as escalation, invalidation, and withdrawal.

Relationship Quality

Quality of relationship

Shannon et al. 2005

A composite measure of men's relationship with their partners was based on one general question and responses to six items from the Love and Relationship Scale (LRS; Braiker & Kelley, 1979). The general question asked, "In general, how would you rate the quality of your relationship with [child]'s mother?" Responses were rated on a five-point Likert scale (1=poor; 5=excellent). Sample items from the LRS include: "My spouse/partner listens to me when I need someone to talk to," and "I can state my feelings without her getting defensive." Negatively worded items were recoded so that higher scores indicated more positive relationships. Alpha for LRS=.81

Love for mother

Fagan, 1996

Author-created variable based on three items that assessed the amount of the father's love for the mother, the intensity of his love, and feelings of closeness to the mother. Each item was rated on a five-point Likert-type scale. Alpha=.90

Relationship quality

Dush et al. 2011

Data and measure obtained from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study. Score is the sum of multiple items. Response categories: 0 (never), 1 (sometimes), and 3 (often). Alpha: mothers (.62-.63), fathers (.70-.77)

Marital happiness

Frost, 1997

Partner Role Quality Scale (Barnett & Marshall, 1989). Measure consists of 22 items rated on a four-point scale (1=not at all, 4=extremely). Alpha .91

Marital relationship quality

Whipple et al. 1991

The Marital Adjustment Test (MAT; Locke & Wallace, 1959) was completed by only parents who were married at the time of intake. The measure consists of 32 self-reported items, measuring the level of marital satisfaction. A score of 100 or more indicated supportive marriages.

Relationship with partner

Castillo, 2009, 2010

Variable is based on a single item from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study. Fathers rated their relationship with their partner as poor, fair, good, very good, or excellent.

Overall happiness

Cabrera et al. 2009

Respondents rated their level of happiness in their marriage/relationship on the following scale: 1=not too happy, 3=very happy. A binary variable was used in analysis with 0=not happy or somewhat happy and 1=very happy.

Partner closeness

Mitchell, 2008

Measure was adapted from Cabrera et al. (2004). Score is the average of responses to three items such as:"She listens to me when I need someone to talk to," "I can state my feelings without her getting defensive," and "She can really understand my hurts and joys." Response categories: 1=strongly disagree; 4=strongly agree. Higher scores represented greater closeness. Alpha=.77

Relationship adjustment

Rienks et al. 2011

A seven-item version of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; Spanier, 1976) was used.

Relationship quality

Knoester et al. 2007

Data and measure obtained from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study. Relationship Quality with Coparent was assessed at child's birth and one year later. Fathers responded to four statements about the child's birth mother: (1) She was fair and willing to compromise when you had a disagreement; (2) She expressed affection or love for you, (3) She insulted or criticized you or your ideas (reverse coded), and (d) She encouraged or helped you to do things that were important to you. Response categories: 1=never to 3=often. The average rating was calculated across the four statements at each time point and the difference between scores was calculated as a measure of change.

Interpersonal behavior with partner

Moore, 2003

Couples engaged in a 10 minute videotaped task in which they were asked to discuss and resolve a recent conflict and try to come to some resolution. Videotaped interactions were coded using the Structural Analysis of Social Behavior Composite Observational Coding Scheme (Moore & Florsheim, 1999, 2001). Three types of interactions were coded and subgroups of couples were identified based on the predominant type of interaction observed:1) demand-withdraw - control/blaming behavior by one partner and walling-off behavior by the other; 2) nurture-disclose - interpersonally warm expressions of control and autonomy; 3) control-assert - polar control and assertiveness

Quality of romantic relationship

Gavin et al. 2002

Authors used the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) to measure relationship quality. Example items included: how often respondents considered breaking up, confide in each other, quarrel, kiss, do things together, etc. The DAS consists of 15 questions that form two subscales: dyadic satisfaction and dyadic cohesion. Response categories: 0-5 Likert Scale, with low scores indicating low cohesion/satisfaction, and high scores indicating high cohesion and satisfaction. Total scores ranged from 0 to 74. Alphas = 0.89 for fathers and 0.91 for mothers.

Relationship quality

Kalil et al. 2005

Authors measured the father-mother relationship quality by asking mothers how well they got along with their child's father. Response categories: 0-4 Likert Scale with higher ratings representing higher quality relationships.

Partner's supportiveness

Coohey, 2000

To assess supportiveness of partners, authors measured both perceived support and received support.

For perceived support, fathers were asked "how supportive is your partner?" Response categories: 1 (very unsupportive) to 5 (very supportive).

For received support, fathers were asked whether they received six types of resources from their partner (and other first order kin: father's mother, and father's father) within the past 30 days: gave money or loans, helped with chores housework or errands, baby-sat, really listened, helped with decision-making, and was someone to do things with. Response categories: Yes = 1, No = 0.

Relationship quality

Caputo, 2006

Mothers and fathers were asked the extent to which their partners: were affectionate (often, sometimes, none), were willing to compromise or treat them fairly (often, sometimes, none), insulted or criticized them (never, sometimes, always), encouraged or helped them (often, sometimes, none). For positive attributes, authors coded "often" as 1; sometimes and none were coded as 0. For negative attributes, authors coded "never" as 1; sometimes or always was coded as 0.

Relationship quality

Boyce et al. 2007

Assessed using the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; Spanier, 1976). The measure consists of 32 items divided into four scales reflecting dyadic consensus, cohesion, satisfaction, and affectional expression.

Perceived caring

Boyce et al. 2007

Authors used the Intimate Bond Measure (IBM; Wilhelm, 1988) to measure the fathers' perceptions of caring and control in their partner. The measure consisted of two scales, with a total of 24 items.

Relationship Satisfaction

Relationship satisfaction

Rienks et al. 2011

One item assessed participants' global satisfaction with their relationship, rated on a scale of 1 (extremely unhappy) to 7 (perfectly happy).

Relationship Satisfaction

Shields, 1998

Respondents rated their relationship satisfaction before and after having children. Response categories: not at all satisfied, not very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, very satisfied, extremely satisfied.

Relationship satisfaction

Moore, 2003

Assessed using the Quality of Relationship Inventory (Pierce, Sarason & Sarason, 1991)

Satisfaction with relationship

Wright, 2004

Fathers were asked "how satisfied are you with your relationship with your child(ren)'s mother?" Response categories: not too satisfied, somewhat satisfied, very satisfied, extremely satisfied

Relationship satisfaction

Chambers, 2004

Data and measure obtained from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study. The Relationship Satisfaction Scale (no author info) consisted of 10 items each rated on a three-point scale (0=often, 1=sometimes, 2=never). A rating of 0 indicated unhappiness in the relationship. A rating of 2 indicated a happy relationship with no conflict. Two subgroups were identified using LCA and IRT methods based on scores on individual items. Subgroup 1 consisted of fathers in prototypical relationships - some disagreements, but nothing out of the ordinary; Subgroup 2 consisted of fathers with stress in their relationships, including problems with money, time, sex, pregnancy, drinking, and faithfulness.

Marital satisfaction

Sloper et al. 1993

Resources within the family system were assessed with the Measure of Marital Satisfaction (Kelso, Stewart, Bullers & Eginton, 1984).

Marital satisfaction

Bumpus et al. 1996

Relationships Questionnaire - Love subscale (Brakier and Kelley, 1979). Nine items were measured on a nine-point scale. Sample item: How committed do you feel toward your partner? Alphas were 0.93 for mothers and 0.91 for fathers.

Quality of Co-Parental Relationship

Co-parenting conflict

Mitchell, 2008

The Father Conflict measure was drawn from the National Survey of Families and Households (Sweet & Bumpass, 1996). Score is the sum of responses to 14 items reflecting various childrearing issues about which parents may disagree such as "disciplining child," "how mother spends money on child," "the activities your child does," and "spending enough time with child." Response categories: 0=no disagreement to 2=a great deal of disagreement. Higher scores indicated more conflict. Alpha=.84

Co-parenting conflict

Anderson et al. 2005

Respondents were asked the amount of conflict they experienced with their child's mother over how the child is raised. Original response categories: 2 = a great deal, 1 = some, 0 = no conflict. Responses were recoded to simply show presence or absence of conflict: 1 = yes, 0 = no.

Father-mother conflict surrounding parenting

Levine Coley et al. 2006

Data obtained from the Welfare, Children, and Families: A Three-City
Study. Measure adapted from Vogel et al. (2003). Score is the average of responses to six items. Response categories:1=never to 5=always or 1=none to 4=a lot. Alpha=.59 for fathers, .57 for mothers.

Parenting alliance

Formoso et al. 2007

Assessed using a modified version of the Measure of the Co-Parenting Alliance (Dumka, Prost, & Barrera, 2002), which assesses the extent to which parents share parenting beliefs, value and respect the judgments of the other parent, and support each other's parenting. Three items were eliminated because of nonequivalence across languages, which resulted in a 12-item scale. Alphas ranged from .90 to .94 depending on who is reporting (mother or father) and whether the respondent was an English or Spanish speaker.

Interparental conflict

Formoso et al. 2007

The Interparental Conflict measure was constructed from six-items of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; Spanier, 1976) and three additional author-created items. The six DAS items focused on conflict about money, household tasks and responsibilities, friends, sex, religious matters, and relations with family. The three additional items addressed conflict about alcohol and substance use, time spent together, and work issues. Alphas ranged from .58 to .85 depending on who is reporting and whether the respondent was an English or Spanish speaker.

Interparental conflict

Cabrera et al. 2009

Fathers were asked to assess the level of conflict with their partner about issues regarding their children. Response categories: 1=never/hardly ever to 3=often. Higher scores indicated more frequent conflict.

Parenting alliance

Rienks et al. 2011

Assessed using the Parenting Alliance Inventory (Abidin & Brunner, 1995). Measure consists of 20 items, all of which were rated on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and summed to create a total alliance score. Alpha = .95

Parenting alliance

Bialik, 2011

Data obtained from Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project. Parenting alliance (author-created, based on Abidin & Konold, 1999). Sum of three attributes assessed by coding interviews (alpha=.62).

Nature or Status of Relationship

Relationship status

Holmes, 2010

Coparental relationship status was measured concurrently with father involvement at 14-, 24-, 36-, and 64-months. Repeated measurement of the time-varying covariate captured the changes in teen fathers' lives. Mothers indicated the status of the coparental relationship during each interview wave. Relationship status consisted of mutually exclusive, non-ordinal categories: Husband = 1; Live-in Partner = 2; Boyfriend = 3; Friend = 4; Divorced/Separated = 5; No Relationship = 6; or Something Else = 7. Relationship status was then dummy coded into Romantic Relationships = 1 (i.e., Husband, Live-In Partner, Boyfriend) and Non-Romantic Relationships = 0 (i.e., Friend, Divorced/Separated, No Relationship, Something Else) to allow adequate cell size in subsequent analyses.

Nature of relationship

Dush et al. 2011

Sample and measures are from the Fragile Families Study. Authors created a single variable to reflect relationship status of child's parents in period prior to relationship dissolution commitment. The variable was coded as follows: 0=the couple was dating at the wave prior to the dissolution, 1=the couple was dating and living together (cohabiting) at the wave prior to the dissolution, and 2=the couple was married at the wave prior to the dissolution. Source items were slightly different at birth vs. post-birth waves.

Nature/status

Cabrera et al. 2004

Authors documented relationship status based on mothers' reports. Mothers identified fathers as: married, cohabiter, boyfriend (non-resident but romantically involved with mother), friend (nonresident but divorced/separated), no relationship (mother reported having no relationship, romantic or otherwise, with the father)

Marital status

Goodman et al. 2008

Single variable indicating whether the couple was married or cohabitating

Living arrangement

Florsheim et al. 1999

Single variable indicated whether the couple was cohabiting or living in separate households

Family structure

Cabrera et al. 2009

Family Structure was coded as: married, cohabitation, single parents

Marital status

Coohey, 2000

Fathers were asked if they were married or unmarried

Length of relationship

Coohey, 2000

Fathers were asked how long they had been with their partner

Breakup with child's mother

Knoester et al. 2007

Authors created a variable to indicate whether fathers experienced changes in relationship status based on survey items from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study. Relationship status when the child was born was compared to relationship status a year after the child's birth. The resulting variable had the following categories: transition to marriage, transition to cohabitation, transition to a relationship with someone other than the birth mother, break up with birth mother.

Marital status

Bronte-Tinkew et al. 2010

Single variable indicated whether the couple was cohabiting or married

Relationship status

Cabrera et al. 2008

Mothers characterized their relationship with their child's non-resident biological fathers as: romantic partners, friends, in no relationship, or separated/divorced/other. Authors coded romantic partners = 1, and all other relationships = 0.

Type of union at birth

Le Bourdais et al. 2002

Type of union at child's birth was coded as: marriage, marriage preceded by cohabitation, cohabitation, out of union

Years together before having children

Shields, 1998

Couples reported the number of years they were living together before having children.

Table F.9. Social Support: Variables and Measures Used in Studies of Low-Income Fathers

Variable/Measure

Study Citation

Description of Variable/Measure Used

Quality of Kin Relationships

Cohesive family relationship

Sloper et al. 1993

The Family Relationships Index (Holahan & Moos, 1983) was used to assess the resources within the family system.

Quality of extended family relationship

Mitchell, 2008

Average of responses (1=poor; 5=excellent) assessing the quality of eight relationships (his mother, his other adult female relatives, his father, his other adult male relatives, mother's mother, mother's other adult female relatives, mother's father, mother's other adult male relatives). Higher scores reflect higher quality extended family relationships (alpha=.82).

Father's Relationship with child's maternal grandmother

Gavin et al. 2002

Authors measured relationship using three subscales from the Network of Relationships Inventories (NRI): 1) Enhancement of Worth, 2) Conflict, and 3) Annoyance (nine items). Example items included: "How much does the maternal grandmother like or approve of the things you do?; How much do you get on each other's nerves?" Response categories ranged from 0 = not often/never to 4 = always. Authors summed the scores (reverse coding where necessary), with higher scores representing more positive relationships. Alphas = 0.81 for maternal grandmothers and 0.89 for fathers. 

New Partner Status

Formation of new relationship

Knoester et al. 2007

Authors created a variable to indicate whether fathers experienced changes in relationship status based on survey items from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study. Relationship status when the child was born was compared to relationship status a year after the child's birth. The resulting variable had the following categories: transition to marriage, transition to cohabitation, transition to a relationship with someone other than the birth mother, break up with birth mother.

Former partner involved in a new romantic relationship

Dush et al. 2011

Data and measure obtained from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study. Mother indicated whether she had a new partner. Response categories: yes/no

Father has new partner and/or child

Le Bourdais et al. 2002

Uses data from General Social Survey (Statistics Canada)Single categorical variable with the following categories: (a) father has formed a new conjugal union; (b) new partner has other children; (c) father has child within new union

Kin Support

Kin Involvement with children

Coohey, 2000

Fathers were asked whether any first order kin (father's mother, father's father, partner), second order kin (sisters/brothers), or third order kin (grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins) provided the following types of care for his children: listens or talks to them, gives them gifts, disciplines them, watches them even when you're around, teaches them new things. To score, authors summed the number of kin reported by the father to have provided each type of care.

Kin emotional support

Coohey, 2000

Fathers were asked whether they received three types of emotional resources (really listened, helped with decision-making, was someone to do things with) within the past 30 days first order kin (father's mother, father's father, partner), second order kin (sisters/brothers), or third order kin (grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins). To score, authors summed the number of kin reported by the father to have provided each type of emotional support.

Instrumental support from extended family

Coohey, 2000

Fathers were asked whether they received three types of instrumental resources (gave money or loans, helped with chores housework or errands, baby-sat) within the past 30 days from first order kin (father's mother, father's father, partner), second order kin (sisters/brothers), or third order kin (grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins). To score, authors summed the number of kin members reported by the father to have provided each type of instrumental support.

Emotional support from friends

Coohey, 2000

Fathers were asked whether they received three types of emotional resources (really listened, helped with decision-making, was someone to do things with) from friends within the past 30 days. To score, authors summed the number of friends reported by the father to have provided each type of emotional support.

Friend instrumental support

Coohey, 2000

Fathers were asked whether they received three types of instrumental resources (gave money or loans, helped with chores housework or errands, baby-sat) from friends within the past 30 days. To score, authors summed the number of friends reported by the father to have provided each type of instrumental support.

Friend Involvement with Children

Coohey, 2000

Fathers were asked to identify friends who provided the following types of care for his children: listens or talks to them, gives them gifts, disciplines them, watches them even when you're around, teaches them new things. To score, authors summed the number of friends reported by the father to have provided each type of care.

Involvement with family and friends

Castillo, 2010

Non-resident fathers' involvement with informal and formal networks was assessed using numerous items included in versions of the standardized Family Support Scale (FSS) (Dunst et al. 1984). The FSS assesses the helpfulness of familial supports-parents; extra-familial supports-friends, and social groups; and professional supports–social service agencies. Score is the sum of responses across six items. Response categories: 0=no involvement to 2=high involvement. Alpha=.89

Support For From Networks

Non-supportive work environment

Goodman et al. 2008

Non-supportive Work Environment was measured using two instruments: (1) a modified four-item version of the Flexible Work Arrangements Scale (Bond, Gallinsky, & Swanberg, 1998). Responses were rated on a four-point scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. (2) Moos Work Environment Scale (Moos, 1986), Co-Worker Support & Supervisor Support subscales. The nine-item subscales were rated on a four-point scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Mean scores for each individual scale were summed to create a single, global measure (alpha=.77)

Involvement with public welfare institutions

Castillo, 2009, 2010

Non-resident fathers' involvement with informal and formal networks was assessed using numerous items included in versions of the standardized Family Support Scale (FSS) (Dunst et al. 1984). The FSS assesses the helpfulness of familial supports-parents; extra-familial supports-friends, and social groups; and professional supports–social service agencies. Score is the sum of responses across six items. Response categories: 0=no involvement to 2=high involvement. Alpha=.89

General Support Across Networks

Support from family, friends and community workers

Anderson et al. 2005; Hoard et al. 2004

Assessed using a modified version of the Family Support Scale (FSS; Dunst, Jenkins, & Trivette, 1984). The authors added six additional items to the FSS to assess support from: friends of father's parents, father's current partner, partner's parents, partner's relatives, partner's friends (if not biological mom), other fathers. The modified instrument included 24 items, each rated on a 5 point Likert scale, ranging from: 0 = not at all helpful and 4 = extremely helpful. Three subscales of support were included in analysis: 1) family support (parents, partner, own children); 2) support from extra-familial individuals (friends, coworkers, social groups; 3) professional supports (teachers, doctors, therapists, etc). Average scores were calculated for each subscale. Total FSS score was calculated by summing all 24 items, ranging from 0 to 96 (Alpha = 0.91).

Financial support

Chambers, 2004

Data and measure obtained from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study. Fathers were asked "During baby's mother pregnancy did you receive any financial support?" Response categories: yes/no

Amount of social support, Satisfaction with social support

Boyce et al. 2007

Authors used the Sarason Social Support Scale (SSSS; Sarason 1983) to measure the level of social support fathers received, and their satisfaction with the support. The measure consists of 12 items.

Social support

Sloper et al. 1993

Social support resources were assessed with the Social Support Resources Questionnaire (Vaux & Harrison, 1985).

Social support

Wade et al. 2011

Assessed using the Medical Outcomes Study-Social Support instrument (Sherbourne & Stewart, 1991). Score is the sum across four subscales: tangible support, affection, positive social interaction, and emotional-informational support.

View full report

Preview
Download

"rpt_insidebb.pdf" (pdf, 1.35Mb)

Note: Documents in PDF format require the Adobe Acrobat Reader®. If you experience problems with PDF documents, please download the latest version of the Reader®