University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Parenting during a pandemic: how stress and supports influence parental perceptions of child behaviors

(USC Thesis Other)

Parenting during a pandemic: how stress and supports influence parental perceptions of child behaviors

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Parenting During a Pandemic: How Stress and Supports Influence Parental Perceptions of
Child Behaviors
by
Lily Ross

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

August 2021

© Copyright by Lily Ross 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Lily Ross certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Mary Andres
Julie Cederbaum
Ruth Chung, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021

iv
Abstract
Using the Family Stress Model theory created by Conger and Elder (1994) and Ecological theory
created by Bronfenbrenner (1986) the purpose of this study was to better understand the needs of
parents of elementary school aged children during the COVID-19 pandemic. 195 parents of
elementary school students participated in an online survey that examined the relationship
between parental stress, supports, sense of efficacy, role satisfaction and their perceptions of
their children’s behaviors. Measurement tools used included the Parental Sense of Competence
Scale (Gibaud-Wallsston &Wandersman,1978), the Family Support Scale (Dunst et al.,1984),
the Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen & Williamson,1988)), the Romantic Partner Conflict Scale
(Zacchilli et al., 2009), and the Brief Problem Monitor Scale (Achenbach et al., 2011), which
measured children’s internalizing, externalizing and inattentive behaviors. Main findings
indicated that family supports significantly reduced perceived stress and improved overall
parental sense of competence. Additionally, parental efficacy, satisfaction, and support
significantly predicted parents’ perceptions of their children’s behaviors. Specifically, parents
who reported higher support from their children’s school reported less inattentive, externalizing,
and internalizing behaviors. Results of this study have implications for micro practice aimed at
increasing parental feelings of competence as well as interventions at the school level to increase
perceived support of families during times of stress such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

v
Acknowledgements
My family is the best! Justin, Celia, Theo, you three have all sacrificed so much for me to
be on this journey and have been there for me every step of the way. Cece and Theo, I know this
was not easy for you two. Every day I am so proud to be your mom and have loved your wise,
funny, and thoughtful ideas about how to make my dissertation better. You listened to me talk
about the mistakes I made, reminded me to keep trying, and cheered with me through every
accomplishment. Bentley, thank you for being my walking buddy this year. Justin, I know you
joke about a joint doctorate. In many ways, this is true! I think that the commitment you made to
this process was as great as me completing it. This has been something that we have discussed
for years and I’m endlessly thankful to you for doing so much to make it happen. You are my
rock. I love you.
The past three years would not have been possible without my village. Unironically, a
paper about parental support has made me intensely grateful for my network. My parents, family,
and framily listened to me talk endlessly about the details of the process – even when it was
super boring. Ellyn, you never missed an opportunity to cheer me on and encourage me to keep it
up. You will be my first phone call, forever! The community of support for my children at their
school and in our circle provided scaffolding when things felt like they were falling through the
cracks. My cohort group kept me laughing even during complete chaos. Ella, when we met on
the first day of orientation, it was my great luck to randomly sit next to you. I’ve loved being
with you throughout this whole process. Tam, you are my person. I’m not sure what I would
have done without you as my friend, confidant, pep talk giver, and co-conspirator. May our big
plans come to fruition!

vi
An extra huge thank you to Dr. Ruth Chung, Dr. Mary Andres and Dr. Julie Cederbaum.
Dr. Andres, it was important to me to have a committee that understood strengths based and anti-
deficit work. I so appreciate how you pushed my topic towards that shared value. Dr.
Cederbaum, thank you so much for your mentorship, honesty, and friendship this year and
always. Dr. Chung, your patience with my impatience was incredible! Though you never said it
out loud, I can hear you in my head saying, “Slow down, Lily”. I’ve learned so much from you
outside of quantitative research and statistics (which I discovered that I love). I learned how to
move past the edges of my comfort zone. I learned that having a growth mindset when
challenged is hard, but important. I’ll never forget the day that we planned to meet and right as
the zoom opened, the dog started barking, one child came into the room hungry and the other
came into the room in tears with a school project. I was beside myself and determined to
continue our meeting. Dr. Chung, you calmly and empathically said that we could meet another
time and then willingly made yourself available. These are lessons that I hope to take with me in
my own work and lifelong learning.
This has been one of the hardest years of my life and the dissertation process will always
be part of my COVID story. Now that this process (and hopefully the worst of the pandemic) is
coming to an end, I am recognizing how much I have grown during this past year. I found
reserves of strength and perseverance that I did not know I had. The three building blocks of
motivation: active choice, persistence and mental effort became my mantras, as I dug deeper. I
unearthed ways to be vulnerable and ask for help – and learned that help was there. I discovered
new ways to believe in myself, trust my instincts and to remember to always be true to myself.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... v
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x
Chapter One: Introduction and Overview of the Study .................................................................. 1
The COVID-19 Pandemic and Impact on Families ............................................................ 1
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 2
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 3
Theoretical Framework ....................................................................................................... 7
Importance and Purpose of the Study ............................................................................... 11
Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................. 13
Children’s Internalizing, Externalizing and Inattentive Behaviors ................................... 13
The School Experience and Children’s Behavior ............................................................. 20
Systemic Factors and Children’s Behavior ....................................................................... 22
Parenting Practices ............................................................................................................ 25
Parental Stress ................................................................................................................... 26
Parental Support ................................................................................................................ 30
General Research on Perceived Support and Resilience .................................................. 30
Types of Parental Supports and Their Impact ................................................................... 32
Parental Sense of Competence .......................................................................................... 40
Summary of Literature Review ......................................................................................... 47
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions .................................................................. 48
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 51
Participants and Procedure ................................................................................................ 51

viii
Instruments ........................................................................................................................ 54
Chapter Four: Results ................................................................................................................... 58
Preliminary Analysis ......................................................................................................... 58
Analysis of Main Research Questions .............................................................................. 60
Research Question One ..................................................................................................... 60
Research Question Two .................................................................................................... 62
Research Question Three .................................................................................................. 67
Additional Descriptive Analysis ....................................................................................... 74
Chapter Five: Discussion .............................................................................................................. 78
Discussion of Main Findings ............................................................................................ 78
Implications for Practice ................................................................................................... 84
Limitations of the Study .................................................................................................... 85
Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................................ 86
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 87
References ..................................................................................................................................... 89
Appendix A: Participant Consent Statement .............................................................................. 116
Appendix B: Demographic Questions ........................................................................................ 117
Appendix C: Parenting Sense of Competence Scale .................................................................. 119
Appendix D: Family Support Scale ............................................................................................ 120
Appendix E: Perceived Stress Scale ........................................................................................... 121
Appendix F: Romantic Partner Conflict Scale ............................................................................ 122
Appendix G: Brief Problem Monitor Scale ................................................................................ 123

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Frequency Distribution of Participants 52
Table 2: Correlation of Scales and Subscales 59
Table 3: Means and Standard Deviations of Perceived Stress, Internalizing 61
Behavior, and Inattentive Behavior by Race

Table 4: Regression of Types of Family Support Predicting Perceived 63
Parental Stress

Table 5: Regression of Types of Family Support Predicting Parental Efficacy 65
Table 6: Regression of Types of Family Support Predicting Parental Satisfaction 66
Table 7: Regression of Partner Conflict, Perceived Stress, Parental Efficacy, 68
Parental Satisfaction and the 18 Types of Family Support Predicting
Reported Internalizing Behaviors

Table 8: Regression of Partner Conflict, Perceived Stress, Parental Efficacy, 70
Parental Satisfaction and the 18 Types of Family Support Predicting
Reported Externalizing Behaviors

Table 9: Regression of Partner Conflict, Perceived Stress, Parental Efficacy, 71
Parental Satisfaction and the 18 Types of Family Support Predicting
Reported Inattentive Behaviors

Table 10: Regression of Full Scores of Partner Conflict, Perceived Stress, 73
Parental Sense of Competence and Family Support Predicting
Reported Children’s Behaviors

Table 11: Family Support Scale 75
Table 12: Family Support by Category 76
Table 13: Perceived Stress Scale 77

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Ecological Theory 8
Figure 2: Family Stress Model Theory 10

Chapter One: Introduction and Overview of the Study
In the United States 35.5 million children attended public elementary school in 2018
(educationdata.org). Children ages six through ten experience significant cognitive, academic,
and social-emotional development that can set the stage for adulthood (Mah & Ford-Jones,
2012). Adversities during this stage can have lasting health, mental health, and social effects
(Felitti et al., 2019). The COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 and 2021 and stay-at-home orders led to
many elementary school aged children participating in online learning and families had to make
dramatic shifts. Understanding the pandemic as a time of adversity for children, it is important to
consider possible long-term impacts. For students who were already at risk of adverse outcomes,
the COVID crisis may exacerbate their challenges. As children do not exist in isolation, the
impact on parents and families must be considered when addressing children’s needs during this
time.
The COVID-19 Pandemic and Impact on Families
The COVID-19 pandemic has added new stressors to families. As stay-at home orders
and homeschooling continued through the 2020-2021 school year, it is unclear how this will
ultimately affect children and their families, though there has already been evidence of impact.
Racial disparity during this crisis has been seen on many levels that impact children and families
such as, increased educational inequity and inequitable health supports (Fortuna et al. 2020).
Brown et al. (2020) found that there was an increase in parental stress for families without
support and who had more feelings of uncertainty during this crisis. With the increased stress on
families during this crisis, Griffith (2020) found an increase in parental stress and burnout. She
argued that parental burnout during the crisis could put more children at risk for maltreatment.
Parents’ reports of having more challenges with their children’s behavior has also been reported.
2

Romero et al. (2020) found that parents who experienced increased distress due to the COVID
crisis in Spain saw an increase in their children’s disruptive behaviors. Applying a multi-
systemic lens could help influence families’ and communities’ resilience in addressing needs
during this crisis (Masten & Motti-Stefanidi, 2020). Increased parental support during crises such
as this one, as well as reducing parental stress can be a mitigating factor for long-term family
impacts (Brown et al., 2020; Griffith, 2020; Romero et al., 2020). Understanding the ways in
which parents are coping by accessing support, and their perceptions of their roles during the
crisis would influence ways to assist children and families in overcoming any long
term emotional and family system damage and mitigate any lasting mental illness/behavioral
challenges in children due to this time of crisis.
Statement of the Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic and prolonged online schooling have created stress for
elementary school children and their families. Parents who experience stressors may need
additional support to feel competent and connected. This is a problem because the more
disenfranchised parents feel, the less likely they may be to seek support from systems, ultimately
impacting their children. For example, in settings where children interact, this could leave them
vulnerable to discrimination and marginalization without their caregivers’
advocacy. Additionally, stress may influence the feelings a parent has about their child’s
behavior and their own ability to parent (Semke et al., 2010; Tucker & Rodriguez, 2014), further
isolating the child and supporting the damaging impacts for youth who are stigmatized by their
behaviors.
The relationship between parents and settings should be regarded as contributing factors
in developing an understanding of children’s behaviors. Oftentimes the onus falls to the parents
3

to develop these relationships. However, most of the research on childhood behaviors and
parenting focuses on parenting practices and not parental perceptions or supports when parents
are faced with these challenges. The resulting outcomes can create stress for parents and family
systems. Children who exhibit difficult behaviors may do so for a wide range of reasons and face
numerous challenges. They are frequently disenfranchised and segregated in school due to their
behaviors and racial disparity is evident in the way children are labeled (Sullivan,
2017). Understanding the connection between parents’ support systems, their role satisfaction,
and their children’s behaviors can help service providers consider ways to engage parents and
emphasize the need for a more holistic approach to practice during times of crisis and stress such
as the COVID-19 pandemic.
Background of the Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic and related challenges, such as stay at home orders, have been
a tremendous source of stress for children and families. As such, behaviors that may be seen as
connected to PTSD symptoms can be expected from children (Galea et al., 2020). This is likely
due to the impact of isolation and loneliness on symptoms related to depression and anxiety in
children. In a study conducted on children ages 3-18 in the Shaanxi province in China,
researchers found significant emotional distress related to the COVID-19 outbreak (Jiao et al.,
2020). They found that clinginess, inattention, and irritability were the main symptoms reported
and likened these emotional responses to the responses of children when they are exposed to
trauma. Romero et al. (2020) found that 30-40% of children studied in Spain displayed more
behavioral disturbances during the COVID crisis. However, they did find that some children
displayed increased resilience during the crisis. Phelps and Sperry (2020) argued that children
who were already in need of mental health services will experiences more dramatic impacts from
4

the ongoing stay at home orders which may include limit their connection to school-based
services. The additional strain of the traumatic reactions to the COVID crisis may not be
adequately addressed during virtual experiences (Phelps & Sperry, 2020). Additionally, children
and families from low socioeconomic groups (Phelps & Sperry, 2020) and in minoritized racial
groups (Fortuna et al., 2020) may be the more significantly impacted than their peers.
When there are stressors in a family, the entire system is impacted. Darling (2007)
expanded on the interactional nature of the systems within the ecological theory. Specifically
related to parenting, she discussed the concept of Parental Monitoring, which is a parent’s ability
to be present and involved for their child. The more a parent can monitor their child, the better
the outcomes for the child. Using the Ecological theory, Darling (2007), made the connection
between socioeconomic status and a parent’s ability to monitor; families who have higher
income are more available to engage in parental monitoring of their children. She found that the
need for families to be financially secure impacted multiple levels of the system. Algood et al.’s
(2013) research supports the notion of the interactional nature of ecological systems in parenting
children with disabilities. They found that families with greater support in the mezzo and macro
systems were better able to provide care and feel less parental stress. Putting children and parents
in the center of this model during the COVID-19 pandemic can illuminate how the various
systems may influence childhood behavior, resulting in possible adverse outcomes.
Children who are identified as having internalizing, externalizing, or inattentive
behaviors are at risk for poorer outcomes in adulthood, including mood and anxiety disorder and
difficulty with affect regulation (Althoff et al., 2010). Bradshaw et al. (2010) studied long term
outcomes and gender differences for African American youth who were identified by their
teachers to exhibit challenging behaviors. They found that males and females had similar
5

negative outcomes, except for dropping out of high school which was significantly higher in
males. Though the negative trajectory in these studies are significant, the subjective nature of the
diagnoses related to behavior is not captured, nor do they capture the etiological and systemic
factors that may contribute to or mitigate disruptive behaviors in youth. To address these factors,
a more holistic, resilience focused approach is needed, particularly during times of crisis, such as
during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Family resilience is conceptualized as the ways in which individual family members and
the family as a unit overcome risks, crises, and stressors. This influences the family as a whole,
as well as individual members (Bethell et al., 2019; Patterson, 2002; Walsh, 2016). Patterson
(2002) made connections between family resilience and family stress theory. Family stressors
can be internal and related to family dynamics, or external, systemic stressors (Patterson, 2002).
Walsh (2016) theorized that family stressors can have long-lasting impacts on a family system
and the ways families are resilient within their dynamics can help them overcome adversities.
The interactional processes that contribute to family resilience, according to Walsh (2016) are
belief systems, organizational processes, and communication/problem solving processes. Bethell,
et al. (2019) found that children had better indicators of flourishing (overall wellbeing) when
their families had higher indicators of family resilience despite exposure to Adverse Childhood
Experiences (ACEs). Additionally, parents report less stress when their families have higher
levels of resilience (Plumb, 2011).
The ways in which a family system becomes resilient is related to community and socio-
cultural supports and stressors (Bermudez & Mancini, 2013; Walsh, 2016). Bermudez and
Mancini (2013) found that community engagement and support was a factor that contributed to
resilience in Latino families. They argued that families with a stronger internal system of
6

support, more positive ethnic identities, and individual characteristics that promote resilience
also contributed to family resilience for this demographic. McConnell et al. (2014) found that
families in lower socioeconomic groups with less social support scored lower on family
resilience scales than families with more socioeconomic means and higher social support. They
found that families who had children with disruptive behaviors or cognitive disabilities scored
higher on resilience factors when they had greater social support and were more financially
stable. Essentially, family resilience, like family stress, may be environmentally dependent and
parents play a role in the development of resilience in their children.
Parents are often the advocates for their children. When children exhibit difficult
behaviors, parents can seek and receive support to strengthen the system around their child.
When parents are involved and the community is supportive, children may have better outcomes.
Connections between parenting and childhood disruptive behaviors often highlight parenting
practices that influence the problem (Bradley & Corwyn, 2013; Duncombe et al., 2012; Lansford
et al.,2012; Morris et al., 2017). When children exhibit difficult behaviors, parents may
experience more stress and their parenting practices may be compromised (Jackson,
2000). However, when systems focus solely on blaming parents versus supporting them parents
may feel less likely to engage to collaborate on solutions. This may leave children vulnerable and
at risk for poorer outcomes.
Engaging parents is frequently a goal, however parental engagement continues to be a
challenge for schools and service professionals (LaRocque et al., 2011). Parents are often seen as
contributing to or exacerbating the child’s behaviors (Bradley & Corwyn, 2013; Duncombe et
al., 2012; Lansford et al., 2012; Morris et al., 2017). This sense of blame combined with
7

parenting a child during a time of crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, may impact parents’
ability to engage with systems, as well as their overall stress and wellbeing.
During the COVID-19 global crisis and with ongoing virtual schooling, it can be assumed
that children and their parents are under a great deal of stress and children may exhibit behaviors
that reflect that stress. Family stress can have detrimental effects on children’s overall wellness
(Masarik & Conger, 2017). Though the research supports the belief that improved social
supports mitigate parenting stress (Lakey & Orehek, 2011). Although parental engagement with
schools and other settings is seen as beneficial to children’s education and overall family
resilience, there is little research about parent’s perspectives of these systems, whether they feel
as though the systems increase their ability to cope with stress related to crises such as the
COVID-19 pandemic, and how this impacts outcomes for children.
Theoretical Framework
Ecological Theory
Bronfenbrenner’s (1986) ecological theory posits that children’s development and
behaviors are centered in their environment. According to Ecological theory, children do not
develop independently, but instead are influenced by their micro, mezzo, and macro systems
(Bronfenbrenner, 1986). Eamon (2001) used Ecological theory to discuss how children develop
in different contexts and the influences of stressors, such as poverty on development. Applying
the ecological approach, Eamon (2001) shed light on ways children and their families are
interactionally related. Through this theoretical framework, the settings with which children and
families interact are at the exosystem and mesosystem levels, and the macrosystem is influenced
by the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, the parents, family and child are at the center of the
microsystem (See Figure 1).
8

Figure 1
Ecological Theory

Note. This figure depicts Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Theory with COVID-19 as part of the
Macrosystem that influences the child. Adapted from Vélez-Agosto, N. M., Soto-Crespo, J. G.,
Vizcarrondo-Oppenheimer, M., Vega-Molina, S., & García Coll, C. (2017). Bronfenbrenner’s
bioecological theory revision: Moving culture from the macro into the micro. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 12(5), 900-910. Copyright, 2017 by Perspectives on Psychological
Science.

9

Family Stress Model Theory
Expanding from the Ecological model, the Family Stress Model Theory explores the
ways systemic stressors can influence parenting and children. The Family Stress Model was first
developed by Conger and Elder in 1994. The original model stated that when rural families were
under economic stress, the results were emotional distress that impacted the entire family
(Conger & Elder, 1994). Recent adaptations widened to the various ways environmental stressors
influence family interactions. One of the stressors that impacts parents and the family system is
when children exhibit disruptive behaviors (Mackler et al., 2015). Other stressors include
poverty (Wadsworth et al., 2013), racism-related stress (Nomaguchi & House, 2013), and social
isolation (Semke et al., 2010).
The Family Stress Model can help with understanding the research on the various ways in
which parents experience stress can influence children’s development and behavior. For this
study, the precipitating stressor is the COVID-19 pandemic and related challenges such as the
stay-at-home orders and online schooling, causing distress. Parenting disruptions are understood
through the way parents perceive their role during the time of stress. Interparental relationship
problems are understood through the lens of partner conflict. Child adjustment problems are
understood through the lens of parent’s perceptions of children’s behaviors. Finally, risk or
protective factors are understood through parents’ perceptions of support by various familial and
social systems (See Figure 2).

10

Figure 2
Family Stress Model

Note. This figure depicts the original model of family stress model theory. The COVID-19
pandemic could be seen as a risk factor or could be seen as a precipitating stressor. From
Masarik, A. S., & Conger, R. D. (2017). Stress and child development: A review of the Family
Stress Model. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 85-90. CC BY 4.0

Summary
The theoretical frameworks presented posit that the relationships between parents and
their environments may play a role in the ways they identify the behaviors of their children. The
COVID-19 pandemic has been a time of high stress for families. The lenses of Ecological
Theory and the Family Stress Model Theory can help make connections to the factors that
11

influence parental stress, parenting roles, relationships, and children’s behaviors during this
difficult time.
Importance and Purpose of the Study
With a greater knowledge about the experience of parents and caregivers, systems such as
schools and organizations can work to create more programming that engages and supports
whole families. Programs to promote parental satisfaction and increased self-efficacy could be
implemented and less stigmatization or disenfranchisement would happen. Ultimately this would
benefit children, as a reduction in challenging behaviors would help them learn in school and
reduce the risk of poor outcomes for youth. Understanding the experiences of families during
times of crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic can help service organizations and schools
develop more effective, holistic strategies.
The purpose of this study is to better understand the needs of parents of elementary
school aged children. By knowing their experiences of systems and support, providers can
determine ways to best mitigate detrimental effects for youth. Using an ecological and family
stress model perspective, connections can be made between children’s behaviors, family and
parental stressors, and the macro systems with which they interact. Amplifying the perspectives
of caregivers, gives voice to a population that has often been seen as contributing to the problem
as opposed to strengthening protective factors.
Specifically, this study will examine the relationship between the level of parental stress,
perceived parental personal and social support, and parental sense of competence during the
COVID-19 crisis. It will also look at the relationship between parental social support, stress, and
competence, and parental perceptions of the level of their elementary school aged children’s
12

behaviors. In looking at these critical elements, the study hopes to identify new ways that
children and families can be holistically supported.

13

Chapter Two: Literature Review
This chapter will review the relevant literature related to the study’s purpose which is to
identify the relationships between parental stress, relationships, supports, sense of competence
and parents’ reports of their children’s behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic. The chapter
begins with a review of children’s internalizing, externalizing and inattentive behaviors. The
research about the school experience and children’s behaviors, and systemic factors and
children’s behaviors are reviewed. Next, the literature around parenting practices, parental stress,
parental support, the types of parental support and their impact, and parental sense of
competence is examined. Finally, specific research questions and their hypotheses are presented.
Children’s Internalizing, Externalizing and Inattentive Behaviors
During the COVID-19 crisis, many mental health practitioners believe that children have
been at greater risk for mental illness. (Imran et al., 2020, Liu et al., 2020). Some contributing
factors may be, increased screen time, reduced socialization, exposure to the media creating
increased anxiety, and parental stress (Imran et al., 2020). Loades et al. (2020) reviewed previous
literature on the impact of isolation and loneliness on children and found evidence supporting
increased depression and anxiety. They hypothesized that children during and after the COVID-
19 pandemic may have increased mental health symptoms.
Emotional and behavioral challenges in children can be divided into three main
categories: internalizing, externalizing and inattentive behaviors. These categories are not
mutually exclusive and there are often many overlapping features as well as comorbidity in the
related diagnoses. However, conceptualizing behaviors through these categories can help service
providers and parents better understand children’s needs. Each of these is discussed below along
with some of the associated diagnoses and challenges.
14

Internalizing Behaviors
Internalizing behaviors are best understood by looking at the ways the child’s inner world
is responding to situations and how context shapes the ways in which the child interprets or is
impacted internally (Liu et al., 2011). The most common diagnoses associated with internalizing
behaviors are depression and anxiety (Liu et al,, 2011; Garber et al., 2014).
Common symptoms associated with depressive disorders are sad or low mood, somatic
complaints, irritability, and cognitive changes (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). In
children, a diagnosis of pervasive depressive disorder (Dysthymia) would include symptoms
such as changes in eating, low mood, irritability or anger, and sleep changes for the past year
(American Psychiatric Association, 2013). As these symptoms may present as irritability or
anger in children, there is sometimes an overlap between depression and externalizing symptoms
such as anger and temper tantrums. (American Psychiatric Association, 2013; Garber et al.,
2014; Liu et al., 2011).
According to the DSM V, common symptoms associated with generalized anxiety
disorder are excessive fear or worrying, restlessness, fatigue, difficulty with focus, muscle
tension, sleep disturbance, and irritability (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). In children,
worries often focus on separation or performance in school (American Psychiatric Association,
2013). Presentation of anxiety symptoms may be different across cultural groups (Good &
Kleinman, 2019). Children are specifically more likely to endorse somatic, or physical symptoms
related to their anxiety such as muscle tension, stomach aches, headaches, and dizziness (Gupta
&Winslor, 2016). Von Gontart et al. (2015) found that nearly a third of children who presented
with stomach aches in their study also had symptoms of anxiety. Somatization may be due to
15

developmental factors in a young child’s cognitive development (Gupta& Wisnlor, 2016) or the
child’s ability to regulate and identify their emotions (Khuanghlawn, 2012).
There are high prevalence rates for depression and anxiety in children with specific
considerations around children who have experienced loss, trauma, or marginalization. Ghandour
et al. (2019) found that in the United States in 2016, 3.2% of children ages 3-17 were diagnosed
with depression and 7.1% with anxiety. They found connections between children with
diagnosed depression and reported behavioral challenges. Elmore et al. (2020) made connections
between prevalence of anxiety and depression in children and exposure to Adverse Childhood
Experiences (ACES). Priest et al. (2013) found that youth who perceived racial discrimination
had higher rates of anxiety and depression. Ghandour et al. (2019) also noted the connection
between diagnosis of depression and anxiety in children and socioeconomic status and race.
Their findings indicated that children living in lower SES families had higher rates of depression
and anxiety, though received less treatment. Additionally, they found that youth in families that
identified as African American, or Latino also received less treatment for their diagnoses.
Externalizing Behaviors
Externalizing behaviors in children are best understood as a cluster of symptoms that are
outwardly focused and impact the child’s external environment (Liu, 2004). The main behaviors
associated with this term are aggression, tantrums, defiance and delinquency (Liu, 2004).
Oppositional Defiant Disorder
One of the most common diagnoses for children with externalizing behavior is
Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD). ODD is described in the American Psychiatric
Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders V (DSM V) by the
following symptoms: angry/irritable mood, argumentative and defiant behavior, and
16

vindictiveness (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). This disorder manifests in children
under the age of 18 and is classified by marked defiance to rules, disruptive behaviors, and angry
acting out behaviors without remorse. For a child to qualify for an ODD diagnosis, their
behaviors need to cause significant distress in their lives or the lives of their families (American
Psychiatric Association, 2013). Additionally, a diagnosis of ODD is seen to possibly be a
predictor to an eventual diagnosis of Conduct Disorder (CD) which is noted by more extreme
behaviors (Burke et al., 2010). However, Cavanagh et al. (2017) found a key difference between
CD and ODD to be emotional dysregulation in children with ODD diagnoses whereas CD is
marked by defiance.
ODD has a worldwide prevalence rate of 3.3% (Canino et al., 2010). However, many
argue that the diagnosis is problematic and over diagnosed in youth who are African American
and male. For example, Potter (2014) discussed the ways defiant behavior is understood in
relationship to race-based stress and argued that youth with ODD diagnoses who have
experienced racism are exhibiting behaviors that would be expected and should not be
stigmatized. Day (2002) found a significant difference in his study of 225 clinicians’ diagnosis of
ODD based on the race of the client vignettes they read. He found that not only did the clinicians
diagnose more African American children with ODD, they also stated that they had more clinical
confidence in these diagnoses. Grimmett et al. (2016) explored the ways African American
males are disproportionately diagnosed with ODD whereas their Caucasian counterparts may be
diagnosed with adjustment disorder. They connected implicit biases of therapists to the ways the
diagnosis is given. Finally, using a Critical Race Theory lens, Ballantine (2019) studied the
difference in the ways African American children are diagnosed with ODD whereas Caucasian
children are diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). She found that
17

the disproportionality in the diagnoses led to a greater stigmatization of African American youth.
Caucasian youth who exhibit similarly disruptive behaviors were more likely to be diagnosed
with ADHD. Though Ballantine (2019) asserted that both diagnoses lead to difficulties for youth,
she argues that an ODD diagnosis carries greater stigma for affected youth. The negative
perception of this diagnosis could have drastic impacts for children and their families.
Conduct Disorder
Conduct Disorder (CD) is diagnosed in children and adults who exhibit extreme
disruptive behaviors. Symptoms of CD are categorized into aggression to people and animals,
destruction of property, and serious violations of rules (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).
Children and adolescents with CD diagnoses often exhibit lack of remorse for their actions and
exhibit a lack of empathy for others (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). According to
Canino et al. (2010), the worldwide prevalence of CD is 3.2%. Often, children with a diagnosis
of CD are hospitalized for their extreme behaviors (Patel et al., 2018). Cavanagh et al. (2017)
found a key difference between CD and ODD to be emotional dysregulation in children with
ODD diagnosis whereas CD is marked by defiance. Burke et al. (2010) found that youth who had
early diagnosis of ODD often had later diagnoses of CD. Additionally, they found that in youth
with extreme CD symptoms, one-third later went on to have adult diagnosis of Antisocial
Personality Disorder, which is associated with delinquent behavior.
The diagnosis of CD has many challenges. Patel et al. (2018) found disparities in age,
gender, and race, with youth who were under eleven, male and African American being the most
likely to be hospitalized. Additionally, they found that youth from low-income families are
significantly more likely to be referred for in-patient care than youth from higher SES groups.
Similar to ODD, Conduct Disorder is disproportionately diagnosed in African American and
18

Latinx males (Mizock & Harkins, 2011). Mizock and Harkins (2011), discussed the long-term
impact of this disparity in juvenile justice and mental health over-representation. They went on
to identify therapist bias as a key factor in the disparate diagnoses and urged a deeper
understanding of the environmental factors that may impact a youth’s behavior, ruling out the
clinical diagnosis.
Inattentive Behaviors
Though not all children who exhibit inattentive behaviors meet the criteria for Attention
Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), the symptoms associated with these behaviors are most
closely related to this diagnosis and are best understood by looking at the diagnostic
criteria. Unlike ODD and CD which are classified as Disruptive Disorder in the DSM V, ADHD
is classified as a neurodevelopmental disability (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).
Symptoms of ADHD include inattention and/or hyperactivity and impulsivity (American
Psychiatric Association, 2013). A child could exhibit either or both symptoms, however the
symptoms of hyperactivity and impulsivity would be most noticeable in children who are labeled
disruptive. The DSM V points to the overlap in symptom presentation between ADHD and ODD
as a child who exhibits impulsivity may be misidentified as defiant (American Psychiatric
Association, 2013). Additionally, the DSM V highlights mood disorders, anxiety disorder and
attachment disorders as having similar symptomatology in children. Untreated, ADHD can result
in long term educational effects for individuals such as low self-esteem and social skills
difficulties (Harpin et al., 2016). Sibley et al. (2011) found that youth with ADHD and comorbid
diagnoses of ODD or CD had higher risks of later delinquency than youth with ADHD alone.
However, they stated that youth with ADHD alone had higher risks of later delinquency than
youth without diagnoses.
19

ADHD has a high prevalence rate of approximately 9.5% nationwide in 2007 (Polanczyk
et al., 2014). Danielson et al., (2018) estimated that 6.1 million US children were diagnosed with
ADHD in 2016. Though the ability to capture the rate of diagnosis has many variable factors and
an accurate picture is not easy to gather (Polanczyk et al., 2014). Siegel et al. (2016) found a
significantly higher rate of Caucasian children were diagnosed with ADHD than African
American and Latinx children. They attributed this disparity to the use of private pay insurance
by Caucasian families. Morgan et al. (2013) also found higher rates of diagnosis in Caucasian
children. Specifically, Caucasian males had the highest rate. Additionally, they found that among
all children diagnosed with ADHD, Caucasian children were the most likely to receive
medication treatment for their diagnosis. Ballentine (2019) hypothesized that the disparities in
diagnosis (with more African American boys receiving ODD diagnosis) was related to bias in
identification. She argued that behaviors that may be seen as hyperactive or impulsive in
Caucasian youth, would be seen as defiance in African American and Latinx youth. Coker et al.
(2016) found that the racial disparities were due to underdiagnosis of ADHD in African
American and Latinx youth versus overdiagnosis of Caucasian youth. Bruchmüller et al. (2012)
found that clinicians often misdiagnose boys with ADHD in the vignettes they used for their
sample. They argued that clinicians are not aware of the diagnostic criteria and were using biases
about gender to guide diagnostics.
Summary
As part of the developmental process, many children may behave in ways that are
challenging to the adults in their lives and not every childhood behavior warrants a diagnosis or a
label. However, when children exhibit ongoing challenging behaviors or are struggling at home
or school, it can be helpful to identify if they are internalizing, externalizing, or inattentive
20

behaviors. During and after the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important to understand the impact on
children’s mental health. Though the list of related diagnoses above is not exhaustive and there is
often overlap in symptoms, understanding these three groups when children are struggling can
help determine how to provide support, both at home and at school.
The School Experience and Children’s Behavior
Elementary school is a huge part of a young child’s life and teachers play a strong role in
the way internalizing, externalizing and inattentive behaviors are identified and described.
Although many students were participating in class from their homes during the COVID-19
pandemic, interactions with their classroom teachers and teachers’ perceptions of their students
could still potentially influence behaviors. Alter et al. (2013) studied what behaviors teachers
identified to be the most challenging in the classroom. They also studied whether there were
demographic differences among teachers that predicted what the teachers would report. The
study found that behaviors in the categories of “off-task”, “verbal disturbance”, “verbal
aggression”, and “out of seat” were the most prevalent in elementary school teachers’ reports.
They also found that there were significant differences in the perceptions of teachers based on
years of service, gender, and race, for some categories of behaviors. O’Brennan et al. (2014)
found a significant connection between teachers’ perceptions of student behaviors and their
perceptions of their school climate. Teachers who reported more supportive school climates also
reported fewer disruptive behaviors.
Teacher Bias and Behavior
Research overwhelmingly supports the notion that teacher biases dramatically influence
their perception of student behaviors (Gilliam et al., 2016; O’Brennan et al., 2014; Skiba et al.,
2011). Gilliam et al. (2016) found that preschool teachers exhibited implicit biases when
21

describing expectations and assessing behaviors of African American and Caucasian students.
They found that these biases are present in teachers who identify as African American as well as
teachers who identify as Caucasian. They further hypothesized a connection between biases in
preschool teachers and the disparity in preschool expulsions and suspensions. Epstein et al.
(2017) discussed the implications of their research around the ways African American girls are
perceived as older than their Caucasian counterparts in terms of the perceptions of adults around
the African American girls’ behaviors. The ways teacher perception is influenced by personal,
external, and implicit factors dramatically impacts children who are identified to have difficult
behaviors.
Belonging and Behavior
Teachers who practice intentional and interactive classroom management strategies
reported fewer behavioral challenges in their classrooms and a reciprocal relationship can be
seen between teacher perception of behaviors and teacher interactions with their students (Butler
& Monda-Amaya, 2016; Oliver et al., 2011; Thompson & Webber, 2010). Chang and Davis
(2009) found a transactional relationship between student behaviors, teacher perceptions and
teacher burnout. There is some evidence that students’ perceptions of belonging in classrooms
can positively influence their behavior and research suggest that when teachers promote
belonging, students are more engaged and then exhibit fewer disruptive behaviors (Brackett et
al., 2011; Gray et al., 2018; O’Brennan et al., 2014; Pekrun, & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2012).
Brackett et al. (2011) found that when fifth and sixth grade students perceived a warmer
classroom climate and more connection with their teachers, there were significantly fewer
classroom conduct problems reported by the teachers. They recommended that teachers
intentionally promote belonging in classrooms to reduce incidents of disruptive behaviors. The
22

interactions with positive, supportive systems can be connected to positive student behaviors
when seen through an ecological lens.
Summary
The time children spend in elementary school sets the stage for their future educational
attainment. When children feel supported and connected in the classroom, they are more
motivated to learn and exhibit fewer challenging behaviors. Teacher perception plays an
important role in whether a child’s behavior is labeled as disruptive or not and it is important to
be aware of the role bias plays in the perceptions of behaviors. School is one of the many settings
that influence children’s behaviors. Looking at behavior through an ecological lens can help to
identify other systemic factors that impact behavior.
Systemic Factors and Children’s Behavior
The ecological theory supports the notion that children’s behaviors do not occur in a
vacuum but are constructed by interactions with systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1986). The Family
Stress Model expands this construct to look at the ways a family’s interaction with external
stressors influences children’s behavior (Conger et al., 2010). Specifically, during the COVID-19
pandemic, it has been seen that existing challenges and disparities have only been exacerbated by
ongoing stay-at-home orders, financial loss, and health disparities related to the illness itself
(Perry et al., 2021). An understanding of the ways factors such as: trauma, poverty and
experiencing racism may influence children’s behaviors will help mitigate the impact of crises
such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
Trauma
According to the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) study conducted on 17,337
adults from 1995 to 1997, two-thirds of participants reported one or more adverse early
23

experiences (cdc.gov). The study findings connected early adverse experience to behavioral and
health outcomes (Felitti et al., 2019). Trauma exposure and PTSD can influence children’s
hormonal and neurological responses, which in turn influences their behavior and ability to
regulate their moods and can also influence ability to retain attention. This could result in
disruptive and distracted behaviors (Carrion & Kletter, 2012; Kisiel et al., 2014). For example,
McLaughlin et al. (2010) found parents in New Orleans reported significantly higher rates of
disruptive behaviors in their children post Hurricane Katrina. They found that the ongoing
stressors post-Katrina impacted children’s continued behavioral challenges. Cook et al. (2017)
described complex trauma as the experiences of multiple traumatic events. They argued that
often children who have experienced complex trauma will be misdiagnosed with ADHD, ODD,
or Depression and stated that the following domains of symptoms are present with children who
have complex trauma: attachment, biology, affect regulation, dissociation, behavioral control,
cognition and self-concept. Because these symptoms are so profound and unique to children Van
der Kolk (2017) argued that a new diagnosis “Developmental Trauma Disorder” be developed
for children. Furthermore, Cénat and Dalexis (2020) found risk of complex trauma during
COVID-19 stay at home orders is increased not only by the possible traumatic responses of the
stay-at-home order but also by possible increase of child maltreatment.
Poverty
Economic stress in a family, specifically poverty, may contribute to challenging
behaviors in children. Masarik and Conger (2017) pointed to poverty as a contributing factor for
children’s disruptive behaviors using the family stress model. Conger et al. (2010) discussed the
various ways economic stress can influence child development. They argued that when families
address the stress of economic strain and exhibit resilience, children display better outcomes.
24

Using the family stress model, Shaw and Shelleby (2014) connected living in poverty to parental
stress and childhood development of behavioral challenges. Chaudry and Wimer (2016) found
significant connections between children’s health wellness, educational attainment, and poverty.
They found family stress to be just one of many factors that is associated with children's
outcomes when the family experiences both short term and long-term poverty. Parents who
experience stress from poverty also have more difficulty attending to their children’s needs
(Evans & Kim, 2013). Wadsworth et al. (2013) found changes in parents' reports of children’s
behaviors when their economic situations changed. Roy et al. (2019) found that subjective social
status influenced the family stress and children’s behaviors when families experience poverty.
According to their study, parenting stress was a mediating factor between experiencing poverty
and children’s behaviors. Essentially, although poverty itself is a stressor, identifying ways to
support parents may be a bigger influence on children’s behaviors. During the COVID-19 crisis,
many families have experienced job loss and financial stress (Perry et al., 2021).
Racism
Perceived racism can influence the behavior of children. In a study to determine the
impact of racism on children, Pachter et al. (2010) found that 88% of children surveyed
experienced racism in some form. They found that the settings most common to experience
racism were in the school and in the community, and that racism can be experienced both from
peers and adults. Racial discrimination has been linked to poor health, mental health, and
behavioral outcomes for both children and adults (Priest et al., 2013). Specifically, for children, a
review of the research by Priest et al. (2013) found that disruptive behaviors were significantly
correlated to perceived racial discrimination. Flores et al. (2010) made connections between
perceived racial discrimination, race-based traumatic stress and disruptive behaviors in Mexican-
25

American adolescents. Race-based traumatic stress connects incidents of racial discrimination to
symptoms of PTSD, which can manifest in difficult behaviors for youth.
Summary
Trauma, poverty and racism are systemic factors that are closely connected to children's
internalizing, externalizing, and inattentive behaviors. In times of communal crisis such as the
COVID-19 pandemic, these systemic factors can be exacerbated, impacting children's overall
wellness. A thorough understanding of the ways in which systemic factors, schools and parents
interact when children are struggling can help service providers and schools find ways to support
families with a holistic approach.
Parenting Practices
When children exhibit difficult behaviors, parents can experience various stressors
(Jackson, 2000). However, much of the discourse about parents of children with challenging
behaviors relates to the parents' roles and behaviors in relation to their children. This scrutiny
may increase any stress they experience. Most of the discussions around parents of children with
challenging behaviors is around how their parenting interventions can impact the issue and how
parenting practices contribute to exacerbating the issue.
There is a good deal of discussion in the literature about how caregivers can intervene to
reduce disruptive behaviors. Brook et al. (2012) and Duncombe et al. (2012) both advocated for
promoting early childhood attachment practices in parents as a preventive measure for disruptive
behaviors. Interventions such as Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (Zisser & Eyberg, 2010),
Parent Management Training (Michelson et al., 2013), and The Positive Parenting Program
(Sanders et al., 2014) are widely researched evidence informed practices that child therapists use
to help parents guide children’s behaviors. All these practices are based in a behavioral model
26

that promotes positive reinforcements for behaviors and guide parents to redirect behaviors in
their children. Yi et al. (2016) found that when parents promoted positive emotions in their
elementary school aged children, there was a correlation with reduced disruptive behaviors.
Research frequently points to actions that parents do to contribute to the issue of
children’s behaviors (Bradley & Corwyn, 2013; Duncombe et al., 2012; Lansford et al., 2012;
Morris et al., 2017). Inconsistent parenting, negative emotional expression, and parental mental
illness influence children’s behaviors (Duncombe et al., 2012). For example, parents who
regulate their emotions both individually and within the family dynamic and coach versus
dismiss their children’s emotional expressions report that their children have less emotional
dysregulation and fewer disruptive behaviors (Morris et al., 2017). Bradley and Corwyn (2013)
found that in parents of fifth graders, parental harshness and sensitivity was negatively correlated
with externalizing behaviors. They found that in older children, there are correlations to harsh
parenting in early childhood and externalizing behaviors in adolescence. Support may not be
fully accessed when a parent who is struggling to address their child’s behaviors feels judged.
This could cause parents to feel increased isolation and a negative sense of themselves in the
role. This type of scrutiny on parents could increase stress which could possibly have a negative
impact on children’s behaviors.
Parental Stress
Stress, and parental stress specifically, can have significant impacts on the minds and
bodies of parents and can affect their ability to care for their children. When individuals
experience overwhelming stress, they experience an overload of stress hormones such as cortisol
and their bodies go into what medical professionals call, allostatic overload (McEwen,
2005). This means that the individual’s body is not returning to an initial homeostatic state but is
27

instead maintaining the high stress state that one might experience during a stressful event,
causing physical and emotional impacts on the body such as hypertension, immunosuppression,
increased risk of mood and anxiety disorders (McEwen, 2005). Two studies demonstrated the
impact that parental stress can have on the effectiveness of parents to attend to their
children. Cramm and Nieboer (2011) studied parental psychological wellbeing as it impacts
children with intellectual disabilities and their ability to maintain their children in the home.
They found parental stress to be a mediating factor that contributed to the overall wellbeing of
the parent and their ability to support their child. Gallagher et al. (2010) found that parents of
children with developmental disabilities experienced stress that manifested in a lack of sleep. In
this group, they also found that the greater the stressors (childhood disruptive behavior) the
worse the sleep of the parents. Additionally, parental health behaviors and social support were
seen as mediators. This section will review specific factors associated with parental stress: social
isolation, children with disruptive behavior, poverty, and race-related stress. Understanding some
of the influencers of parental stress will help conceptualize the ways the family stress model
impacts children and their parents.
Parental Stress and Social Isolation
Parents who experience feelings of social isolation may experience higher rates of stress
(Nam, n.d.; Semke et al., 2010; Tucker & Rodriguez, 2014). Nam (n.d.) found that there was a
negative correlation between social support and parental stress across racial groups. However,
she found that parents in minoritized groups reported fewer social supports that impacted their
higher stress. Semke et al. (2010) found that parents who reported higher stress also reported less
involvement with their children’s school. The directional causality of this relationship was not
indicated in their study, though it is important to note that the lack of involvement with the
28

school could contribute to a parents ongoing feeling of isolation. Tucker and Rodriguez (2014)
found a significant relationship between parental stress, parental isolation, and risk of child
maltreatment. Alternatively, Respler-Herman et al. (2012) found no connection between parental
social support, parental stress and parental efficacy. More research around whether parental
isolation influences parenting practices is warranted as well as whether COVID-19 stay at home
orders increased parents’ feelings of isolation and related stress.
Parental Stress and Children’s Behavior
Parents of children with difficult behaviors or mental health diagnoses face additional
stressors and the relationship between parental stress and externalizing behaviors is complex.
Jackson (2000) found a significant connection between parenting stress and children’s behaviors.
Compared to other factors in her study, children’s behaviors were the most significant indicators
of parental stress. Shaw and Shelleby (2014) also found a correlation between conduct problems
and parental stress related to poverty. Craig et al. (2016) found that parents of children with
neurodevelopmental disorders that manifest in externalizing behavior (such as ADHD or ASD)
experience significantly higher stress than parents with both neurotypical children and children
with neurodevelopmental disorders without externalizing behavior (such as learning delay).
Mackler et al. (2015) studied the transactional nature of parental stress and children’s
externalizing behaviors. They found connections in their longitudinal study around the ways
parental reactions serve as a mediator between parental stress and children’s behaviors and their
results were consistent through the elementary school age group. Lavigne et al. (2012) found a
direct connection between what they call contextual stressors, such as parental and family stress,
environmental stress and SES with increased Oppositional Defiant Disorder symptoms. Finally,
29

Semke et al. (2010) found that parents who experienced more stress had less motivation to be
involved with their children’s education when their children exhibited disruptive behaviors.
Parental Stress and Socioeconomic Status
One of the main causes of societal stress, in particular parental stress is socioeconomic
status (SES) (Evans & Kim, 2013; Jackson, 2000, Wadsworth et al., 2013). Evans and Kim
(2013) discussed the ways chronic stress from poverty can cause long term physical, cognitive
and emotional challenges throughout development. This form of chronic stress can also influence
parenting, according to their research. Jackson (2000) studied mothers who identified as African
American and who were welfare recipients. She found that mothers who were employed reported
significantly lower stress than unemployed mothers. In their longitudinal study, Wadsworth et al.
(2013) found that when parents’ economic situations improved over time, their coping improved,
and overall stress decreased. Steele et al. (2016) found that parents living in poverty reported
significantly higher (70% in the measurement versus 14% in parents who did not live in poverty)
levels of parenting stress. Additionally, they found a significant correlation between the group
that was in poverty and higher Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACES) which are known to
cause chronic stress. Raikes and Thompson (2005) made connections between poverty, parental
stress, and parental efficacy. They found that parents who had higher levels of efficacy also
experienced lower levels of poverty-related stress. However, they did not find parental social
support to be a moderator between poverty and parenting stress.
Parental Stress and Racism
Racism-related stress can have health, wellbeing, and mental health impacts (Jones et al.,
2020; Liu, & Suyemoto, 2016; Werekeitzen, 2017). When parents in minoritized racial groups
face race-related stress, their parenting approach is impacted, both positively and negatively.
30

Mothers who identify as African American or Hispanic show significantly higher rates of
parental stress than their Caucasian counterparts (Nam, n.d.; Nomaguchi & House,
2013). Nomaguchi and House (2013) found that mothers who identify as African American
experienced greater stress as their children grew older. They hypothesized that racial stress may
have a factor for this group of parents. Thomas et al. (2010) found that when African American
parents experienced racial stress, they were more likely to raise their children with a positive
racial outlook and a greater sense of racial identity, known as race-based socialization.
Summary
Stress impacts many people’s overall wellness and mental health. When individuals
experience overwhelming stress, it impacts their functioning in many domains, including
parenting. When parents experience stress, their ability to attend to the role of parenting is
impacted. Parents can experience stress for many reasons, including their own children’s
behaviors, socioeconomic factors, and experiencing racism. The impacts of these factors are
mitigated by increased support networks and family resilience.
Parental Support
Parents interact with many settings and from these settings, they can feel support that
could reduce the impact of the above-mentioned stressors. This section will review the relevant
literature on systemic support, and then examine the different systems that parents interact with
and the research about the impact of the support parents feel from these systems.
General Research on Perceived Support and Resilience
Social supports are defined as the people and systems in an individual’s life that provide
them with care, network, and reliably add value to someone’s life (Zimet et al., 1988). According
to Ecological Theory, this support could come from a micro, mezzo, or macro level
31

(Bronfenbrenner, 1988). Thoits (2011) found that individuals with higher levels of social support
reported lower stress and overall improved wellness.
When assessing personal and social support, the subjective perception of the individual
experiencing the support is an important factor. Lakey and Orehek (2011) found that when
individuals perceive social support, overall wellness and mental health is improved. They
discussed, however, the importance of the perception of the individual versus what they describe
as enacted support. Swickert et al. (2010) found that personality traits directly affect the way an
individual may perceive support. They emphasize the need for understanding the interaction
between personality type and the ways someone may perceive support. Reid and Taylor (2015)
found a connection between perceived social support, stress and postpartum depression. They
indicated that perceived social support is a significant protective factor for parents who are at
risk for postpartum depression. Additionally, Debnam et al. (2012) found a positive relationship
between perceived social support and positive health behaviors in African Americans who attend
church. Essentially, when an individual feels a sense of personal and social support, they have
better mental health, resilience, and overall wellness.
Resilience is associated with the ways individuals respond to and overcome stressors
(Ungar, 2012). Increased positive social support networks are seen to support increased
resilience (Thoits, 2011; Ungar, 2012). Panagioti et al. (2014) found that individuals with PTSD
showed fewer suicidal ideations and increased resilience when they also had more perceived
social support. Lakey and Orehek (2011) discussed regulation and the connection to resilience.
They found that individuals with higher perceived social support had a better ability to regulate
their emotions, essentially, they were more resilient. Understanding the ways social support and
32

resilience relates to alleviating parenting stress can help develop improved outcomes for parents
and children.
Types of Parental Supports and Their Impact
Personal and social support may mitigate parenting stress (Lakey & Orehek, 2011). For
example, Gallagher et al. (2010) found a reduction in parental stress with an increase of social
support. Parents interact with a variety of settings. They also interact with partners, co-parents,
and extended family. Each of these systems provides the opportunity for a parent to either feel
supported or can influence increased parental stress. This section will examine the literature
around the relevant personal and social settings for parents of elementary school aged children.
Partners and Partner Conflict
When parents feel supported in their romantic relationships, there is a positive impact on
the parent’s stress level (Ponnet et al., 2013), their co-parenting skills, and their children's
behavior (Camisasca et al., 2019). The connection between parental relationship satisfaction,
parental stress, and parent/child interactions is complex and bi-directional (Ponnet et al., 2013).
Parents with more instability in their relationships report higher levels of parenting stress
(Halpern-Meeky & Turney, 2016). Marital quality also is connected to the parent/child
relationship quality (Kouros et al., 2014), and the connection between marital satisfaction and
co-parenting also has an influence on children’s behaviors (Camisasca et al., 2019). It is of note
that positive co-parenting relationships are also seen to reduce parental stress and improve
parental efficacy even when the romantic relationship is dissolved (Choi et al., 2019).
Extended Family
Family relationships are dynamic and complex. The quality of these relationships can
have an impact on an individual’s overall well-being (Thomas et al., 2017) and there are
33

differences in perceptions and use of family support across racial groups (Amos, 2013; Taylor et
al., 2017). Positive family support can influence mental health, specifically reducing symptoms
of depression in adults (Taylor et al., 2015). Families with a supportive kin network report
protective factors, such as having greater resources. However, relationship conflict can create
stress in families where the family network is not supportive (Malan-Van Rooyen, n.d.).
Anyanwu et al. (2019) found that Nigerian parents of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder
who perceived more support from extended family reported reduced stress. Often, grandparents
are a source of support to families. Greenfield (2011) discussed ways in which parental stress
was impacted by the parent’s perception of support by a grandparent. She found differences in
stress levels related to whether the grandparent lived with the family and across racial groups.
The perception of support appears to play a strong role in whether the family relationship
reduces or increases stress.
School
Children ages 6-10 spend most of their day in school. It is, therefore, this setting in which
parents should have the most involvement and connection. Parents and teachers should
collaborate when children display difficult behavior, but the research indicates that this
relationship is often challenging (Garbacz et al., 2016; Minke et al., 2014; Thijs, & Eilbracht,
2012). During the COVID-19 crisis, relationships between elementary school parents and
schools may have become even more tenuous as children’s learning needs have been required to
be met at home. Garbe et al. (2020) found that, though they largely agreed with the stay-at-home
orders, parents reported feeling overwhelmed with the educational needs of their children during
remote learning and that most parents spent between one and two hours a day working with their
children.
34

Increased parental involvement is often noted as a goal in elementary school settings.
Overwhelmingly, schools report that parents are not as involved with their children's education
as they would wish (LaRocque et al., 2011). Though there are many possible reasons why this
may be the case, the result is a general lack of collaboration between parents and schools
(LaRocque et al., 2011). When parents are more involved, children have better outcomes
educationally (Izzo et al., 1999; LaRocque et al., 2011). Izzo et al. (1999) found that parental
involvement decreased slightly over their three-year study, however they also found that the
biggest gap was in the teachers’ ability to connect with what the parents were doing at home to
support learning. Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1997) researched the reasons why parents may
become more or less involved in their children's schools. They found that there were three
primary factors that influenced involvement: their beliefs about their role, their sense of efficacy
in impacting their children’s education, and opportunities for involvement by the
school. According to the study, all three factors would need to be considered to help increase
parental involvement.
Perceptions of the school environment also factor into involvement. Rowley et al. (2010)
found a correlation between African American mothers’ school involvement and their own
experiences of racism in school. They found that African American mothers became more
involved with their children’s learning when they had experienced racism or bias during their
own childhood. However, there is a scarcity of research about if parents perceive the school
setting and school staff to be sources of parental support and how that influences involvement.
Teachers
The relationship between parents and teachers relates to trust between the parent and
teacher and has an impact on children’s academic performance and behavior (Garbacz et al.,
35

2016; Minke et al., 2014; Thijs & Eilbracht, 2012). Parents' relationships with teachers evolve
over time with shared beliefs and trust, however, the perception of the quality of the relationship
may differ between the parent and the teacher (Minke et al., 2014). Minke et al. (2014) found
that the congruence of perceptions of the relationship quality influenced teachers’ perceptions of
students. Santiago et al. (2016) found that parents in lower socioeconomic status family groups
reported less trust in their children’s teacher. Grace and Gerdes (2019) found that perceived
racial bias impacted Latino parent’s relationships with their children’s teachers. In their meta-
analysis Gwernan-Jones et al. (2015) found that parents of children with severe emotional
disturbance classifications reported poor parent/teacher relationships across the board. They
found that parents reported feeling as though they were disrespected, silenced, criticized and that
conflict was the normative experience.
Community/Informal Networks
Community and neighborhood connections provide important informal support to
parents. The construct of Social Capital relates to the idea that individuals’ community networks
and interactions contribute to overall wellbeing (Giordano et al., 2013). With increased social
capital through community networks, parents have opportunities to seek help from others and
feel connected (Ferguson et al., 2016). Strange et al. (2016) studied increased perceived social
support, perceived social capital and mental well-being amongst mothers who participated in a
local support group. Though participation in the support group alone would help with many of
these factors, they also found that mothers who participated locally had a greater outcome than
those who participated in groups outside of their communities. When comparing the use of
informal versus formal networks, Woodward (2011) found that individuals in minoritized racial
groups with mental illness diagnoses were more likely to seek informal support such as
36

community supports versus their Caucasian counterparts. In fact, Ferguson et al. (2016) found
that families who were in low socioeconomic groups were more likely to seek formal support
only when they had fewer informal supports. The lack of social capital, in their research, was
what led to seeking support outside of community networks. Overall, however, informal
networks, social capital, and community-based support are seen to increase wellbeing (Giordano
et al., 2013), and, for parents reduce stress and increase parental wellness (Owen & Anderson,
2017; Strange et al., 2016).
Workplace
Workplace social support can help parents with overall wellbeing as well as employment
security. When parents feel supported in their workplace either by the workplace culture
(Pedersen et al., 2010), policy (Avendano & Panico, 2018) or social support (Leschyshyn &
Minnotte, 2014), they also have better overall outcomes. Leschyshyn and Minnotte (2014) found
that when parents have more social support in the workplace, they feel more professional
satisfaction and loyalty. They found a difference in the ways support is interpreted between
mothers and fathers with mothers feeling more influenced by their direct supervisors and fathers
being more influenced by the overall workplace culture. Additionally, they made a connection
between increased employee loyalty and a greater tendency for mothers to remain in the
workforce. Avendano and Panico (2018) advocated for strong workplace and public policies
around flexible working environments and that this could contribute to parents having overall
less stress and better health outcomes. Finally, Pedersen et al. (2010) researched the connection
between a parent’s relationships in the workplace and their family cohesion in the home.
Unsurprisingly, when parents had more supportive workplace cultures and more workplace
social support, they also felt more cohesion in their families. The authors hypothesized that this
37

correlation may be mediated by the reduced stress of a supportive workplace and their research
found that this was more true for mothers than fathers. Overall, having a supportive workplace
and social support at work can contribute to parenting wellness.
Religion
Religious involvement may influence parenting styles and provide support to parents
(Petro et al., 2018). Petro et al. (2018) reviewed the literature around the ways religious
involvement influences parental behaviors, health behaviors and overall wellness. They found
that parents who were involved in organized religion found their religiosity to help them
influence their parenting style. Health behaviors and reduced stress are seen to improve when
individuals are involved in religious organizations (Debnam et al., 2012). Overall, there are
many benefits to religious support.
Certainly, during difficult times, religion is seen to play a specific supportive role for
parents (Abu-Raiya et al., 2015; Hexem et al., 2011; Szczesniak et al., 2015). For example, in
religious parents of children with Cystic Fibrosis, Szczesniak et al. (2015) found an increase of
perceived congregational support and religiosity than in a group of parents of children without
Cystic Fibrosis diagnoses. Hexem et al. (2011) surveyed parents of children receiving palliative
care and found that for the parents who were involved in a religious organization or spiritual
practice, both the faith in their religion and the support of the community helped them cope with
the difficult time. Abu-Raiya et al. (2015) found that both social support and religiosity helped
parents who identified as Muslim cope with their children’s cancer diagnosis and treatment.
Religious affiliation can provide both social and spiritual support for parents.
38

Child Welfare Systems
When Parents are involved with child welfare systems, there is often a great deal of
difficulty with engagement and rapport, and yet, greater engagement with parents yields better
outcomes for children and families involved with the system (Platt, 2012). Platt (2012) discussed
the factors that influenced parental engagement in treatment. The most notable for this study was
the parent’s perception of the worker’s support and the usefulness of treatment. Ayón et al.
(2010) studied the perceptions of Mexican parents who were mandated to be involved in child
welfare services. They found that the factors that influenced positive engagement were parents’
perceptions of being heard by their case worker, parents’ fears about the consequences of
disengagement, and parents’ knowledge levels around their ability to advocate. The authors
recommended increased cultural competence and support of parents’ voices to promote positive
engagement. Essentially, when parent’s feel supported by the child welfare system, they are
more likely to engage and have more positive outcomes.
Pediatricians/Medical Professionals
The concept of shared decision-making states that parents and pediatricians together
should (alongside their children when appropriate) make the choices for the care of the patients
(Fiks et al., 2011; Lipstein et al., 2012). The ways in which parents perceive their children's
doctors may influence this relationship and the level of support that the parents feel they receive
from this setting. Fiks et al. (2011) found that parents wanted to participate and felt more
supported when their children’s doctors included them in decision making and when they did not
feel pressured into choices. They found that parents who identified as Caucasian felt a stronger
connection to their children’s doctors than parents who identified in a minoritized group. In their
review of the literature, Lipstein et al. (2012) found that parents expected pediatricians to be
39

knowledgeable of their children’s medical needs and to support them by providing concrete
information. They stated that parents felt discouraged and unsupported when pediatricians’
knowledge was limited about a specific topic. Finally, Konstantynowicz et al. (2016) found that
with chronically ill children, parents noted two factors that contributed to their feelings of
support. They were the doctors’ bedside manner and the doctors’ use of jargon in describing the
medical condition. When doctors appeared to have more time and were more compassionate, and
when they described conditions using non-jargon language, parents felt more supported.
Mental Health Practitioners
When children are involved in their own mental health services, the question of when,
how, and why parents become engaged and involved is often discussed as parent involvement is
a crucial part of improving children’s outcomes (Haine-Schlagel & Walsh, 2015). Haine-
Schlagel and Walsh (2015) reviewed relevant literature regarding parental engagement in
children’s mental health and found that overall, when parents are involved, children’s outcomes
are improved in mental health services. Creighton and Mills (2016) studied parental engagement
and outcomes for teenagers who were involved in residential substance use treatment. They
found that when parents participated in treatment, the youth had better outcomes and maintained
sobriety for longer when they left treatment. Alternatively, Breinholst et al. (2012) reviewed the
literature on ways that the therapist’s engagement and use of parents during treatment could
impact the outcomes for youth diagnosed with Anxiety. The ways in which parents were
engaged and the treatment that was provided dramatically influenced the outcomes for the
children in their study.
There are several reasons why parents might not engage in their children’s treatment.
Haine-Schlagel and Walsh (2015) found that parents may not become involved because of
40

factors related to the therapy, the parents’ perception of the child, or the parent’s perception of
the treatment provider. Baker-Ericzén et al. (2013) stated the four main reasons why parents do
not engage in treatment. They were: feeling too overwhelmed by their children’s behavior to
attend, general system suspicion, feeling ignored and shamed by the child’s therapist, and
generally not feeling satisfied by the services. Parents also may have a sense of being stigmatized
in general by their child’s mental illness, which may impact engagement in services (Eaton et al.,
2016). To this end, Dynes et al. (2018) developed a validated tool called, The Therapist Barriers
to Engaging Parents measure that sought to determine what role the therapist may play in the
ways parents do not engage in treatment. This tool could be used to help therapists identify their
own role in the lack of engagement by parents.
Summary
Parents of elementary school students may experience multiple stressors. Understanding
the role of systemic and personal support can help parents increase their family
resilience. Parents interact with a variety of settings and may perceive support from these
settings. Parents with children who exhibit challenging behaviors may experience increased
isolation and stress. Additionally, parents in minoritized or marginalized groups may not seek
support or feel support for many reasons. The ways in which parents perceive support could
influence the ways they think about themselves in their role.
Parental Sense of Competence
In addition to stressors and the different types of settings of support for parents,
understanding parental sense of competence can clarify the ways parents feel about their
motivation to parent their children and their perceptions of their role. How parents feel about
their ability to fulfill the role of parenting impacts the relationships they build with their children
41

and the engagement in parenting tasks. The concept of parental competence is divided into both a
parent’s sense of self-efficacy (Jones & Prinz, 2005) and their sense of satisfaction (Márk-
Ribiczey et al., 2016). This section will review the literature around competence as it is broken
into efficacy and satisfaction for parents, as well as the connections in the research between
parental sense of competence and children’s behaviors.
Self-determination theory posits that there are three psychological factors that influence
one’s intrinsic motivation. They are competence, relatedness, and autonomy (Ryan & Deci,
2000b). Ryan and Deci (2000b) stated that a person’s sense of competence in a task will increase
their intrinsic motivation to complete that task. As intrinsic motivation is connected to one’s own
satisfaction in completing the task (Ryan and Deci, 2000a), a sense of competence is connected
to feelings of being able to complete the task (self-efficacy) and satisfaction in doing the task.
Self-determination theory and the concepts of efficacy and satisfaction apply to many roles,
including parenting.
Parental Sense of Competence and Parenting
When parents feel competent, they display greater flexibility in their parenting (Belean &
Nastasa, 2017). Miklósi et al. (2017) found that parents who had experienced early childhood
maltreatment themselves displayed lower levels of parental competence. However, they saw a
connection between increased mindfulness and improved parental competence. Belean and
Nastasa (2017), found relationships between parenting style and a greater sense of competence.
They found that parents that displayed higher feelings of competence also displayed higher
emotional intelligence. Additionally, they correlated this to a more authoritative parenting
style. In this type of parenting, the parent provides a more structured but warm environment for
their children and more positive behavioral results are seen (Belean & Nastasa, 2017). Strickland
42

and Samp (2013) found that parents with higher parental competence had a lower risk of child
maltreatment. Elaborating on the authoritative parenting style, they looked at a parent’s ability to
form a plan for a difficult child interaction and how that influenced the reduced risk of
maltreatment. When parents had a more comprehensive plan, there was less maltreatment.
Parents who made these plans also showed higher levels of sense of competence. Berryhill
(2016) made connections between maternal stress, competence and engagement in a five-year
study. She found that mothers who reported a lower sense of competence when their child was
three years old had less engagement with their child at five years old. Finally, Preyde et al.
(2015) validated the negative relationship between parental sense of competence and children’s
disruptive behaviors in children who are in residential treatment. Although they could not
identify a directional component to their research, the aforementioned influence of parental
competence on parenting styles may indicate that there is some connection to child behavior.
Helping a parent increase their sense of competence will help them in developing a more
engaged relationship with their child (Berryhill, 2016) as well as improved parent/child
interactions (Belean & Nastasa, 2017; Strickland & Samp, 2013). In one example, Deković et al.,
(2010) studied the effects of an intensive home-based prevention program on the sense of
competence for mothers with young children. They found that through the program, which
provides a wide range of support, mothers reported an increased sense of competence and a more
supportive discipline style.
Parental Sense of Competence and Children’s Behaviors
Parental sense of competence is connected to both parenting and children’s behaviors
(Latham et al., 2018). Preyde et al. (2015) found a significant connection between a reduced
sense of competence in parents who have children with acting out behaviors. When parents have
43

increased competence, they use more effective parenting strategies (Deković et al., 2010).
Deković et al. (2010) found that increased parental competence was the mediating factor
between a home-based intervention program and more effective parenting. Their findings did not
connect a change in children’s behaviors to the increased competence. However, in another study
about Multisystemic Family Therapy and families with adolescents, Deković et al. (2012) did see
that increased parental competence was a mediating factor that predicted both increased positive
discipline and decreased adolescent disruptive behavior. Latham et al. (2018) found that parental
sense of competence was impacted by positive co-parenting and that this also impacted
children’s behaviors. These findings support the assumption that parents of children who exhibit
internalizing or externalizing behaviors may have a reduced sense of parental competence.
Parental Self-Efficacy
Parental sense of competence is divided into parental self-efficacy and parental
satisfaction. The concept of self-efficacy was first discussed by Albert Bandura in 1977 and is
directly connected to a sense of competence and increased motivation and performance.
Bandura, a social-cognitive theorist, found that when individuals felt more confident in their
ability to complete a task, or more efficacious, they displayed more motivation and ultimately
more success in completing that task (Bandura, 1977). Since introducing the concept, self-
efficacy has been widely used in many fields (Schwarzer & Warner, 2013). Some criticism of the
concept has arisen around the lack of nuance (Jackson et al., 2012) or whether it can truly
measure gains in learning (Kardong-Edgren, 2013). However Bandura, in a 2012 response to the
critique, emphasized the importance of agency for motivation and supported the notion that an
individual’s perceived self-efficacy can support their success in task-completion. Schwarzer and
Warner (2013) connected the traits of self-efficacy to increased resilience across several
44

demographics and domains including work, health behaviors, mental health, and educational
settings. Self-efficacy can be seen as an indicator of intent to persist and exertion of effort in
many domains, including parenting.
Parental self-efficacy relates to the ways in which a parent experiences their own agency
over their ability to complete the role (Jones & Prinz, 2005). Parents who feel more efficacious
report less parenting stress (Bloomfield & Kendall, 2012; Farkas & Valdés, 2010). Farkas and
Valdés (2010) found that both parental efficacy and parental stress were correlated with
environmental stressors such as poverty. Jones and Prinz (2005) also found that contextual
factors such as socioeconomic status, family history, cultural beliefs around parenting, parental
mental health, and environmental stressors influence the ways parental self-efficacy is reported.
Parental self-efficacy influences parenting behaviors. Jones and Prinz (2005) conducted a
review of the literature about the connections between parental self-efficacy and parenting
behaviors. They found strong support for the connection between parental self-efficacy and both
parents’ and children’s behaviors. Parenting behaviors were seen to be positively connected to
parental self-efficacy in both observational and self-reported studies. Children’s behaviors were
seen to have a negative connection. However, the directionality of this connection was difficult
to measure. Albanese et al. (2019) reviewed the relevant research and found positive associations
between parental self-efficacy and parent and child wellness. Additionally, they found that as a
parent’s sense of their own efficacy can only come from self-report, the tool to measure parental
self-efficacy is inherently biased. Using attachment theory, Caldwell et al. (2011) drew
connections between a parent’s own history of childhood maltreatment, anxious and avoidant
attachment styles, depression, and parental self-efficacy. They made a direct connection between
childhood maltreatment and parental self-efficacy with depression as a significant mediator.
45

Meunier et al. (2011) studied the bi-directional nature of parenting style and children’s
externalizing behaviors. They found parental self-efficacy to be a mediating factor in
determining the parent’s response to their children. They did see a difference in the responses
between mothers and fathers regarding responses to children’s behaviors. Murdock (2013) found
a significant similarity in the ways parental self-efficacy is seen in mothers and fathers in many
domains. However, he found slight differences in the ways child behavior and parental control
influence mothers and fathers.
In specific demographic groups, parental self-efficacy is also measured. Kim and Manion
(2019) studied the effects of groups based on improving self-efficacy in parents who are
teenagers. They stated that there was an increase in self-efficacy and self-esteem in teenagers
who participated in group-based activities. Giallo et al. (2013) studied mothers of children with
Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) diagnoses. They found that mothers with children who have
ASD reported higher levels of fatigue which was seen to have a relationship with lowered
parental self-efficacy in this group.
Parental Satisfaction
Parental Satisfaction relates to the ways parents derived a sense of fulfillment or
wellbeing from the role (Márk-Ribiczey et al., 2016). Márk-Ribiczey et al. (2016) found a
significant correlation between parental self-efficacy and parental satisfaction. Their research
also validated a negative correlation between parental reports of childhood behaviors and role
satisfaction. Burkhart et al. (2017) discovered an indirect connection between parental
attachment anxiety and parental satisfaction.
Overall, there is less specifically written about parenting satisfaction as a unique subset
apart from parental self-efficacy. However with particular demographics, there has been some
46

research that distinguishes parental satisfaction. For example, in parents of children diagnosed
with Autism Spectrum Disorder, a relationship was found between higher levels of parental
compassion, role satisfaction and efficacy (Conti, 2015). In a longitudinal study of parents of
children with Down Syndrome, parental satisfaction was seen to increase over time while there
was no change seen in parental efficacy (Gilmore & Cuskelly, 2012). The study authors
hypothesized that the change in satisfaction was due to the changes related to parenting a young
child versus an older child as there were not significant differences between parents of children
with Down Syndrome and parents of children without Down Syndrome (Gilmore & Cuskelly,
2012). In parents of infants, perceived externalized need for perfectionism was seen to have a
decreased sense of parental satisfaction (Lee et al., 2012). Most notably, Brown et al. (2018)
found a significant correlation between parental stress, satisfaction and perceived support with
low-income single adolescent mothers who identified as African American. Within this specific
group, the greater the social support, the more parental satisfaction the mothers reported. Though
there is limited data specific to parental satisfaction, the evidence that is there not only
emphasizes its importance for parenting sense of competence but also connects it to parental
efficacy, children’s behaviors, and parental social support in specific groups. More research is
needed to identify the ways these factors are related.
Summary
Parents who feel a greater sense of competence may be more likely to seek out support or
feel motivated to address the needs of their children. Additionally, parents of children with
challenging behaviors may feel a lack of competence if the settings that they interact with do not
provide them with support or guidance. The impact on families may be increased stress and
47

reduced family resilience. Parents of children who exhibit challenging behaviors and identify in
minoritized groups may have fewer supports and report fewer feelings of competence.
Summary of Literature Review
The literature around children with challenging behavior and their parents provides
context for the importance of understanding the connections between parents’ support networks,
their perceptions of their roles and children’s behaviors. The theoretical frameworks of the
ecological model and family stress theory model posit that children’s behaviors do not occur in
isolation, but that there are a multitude of systems and family relationships that influence
behaviors. The ecological model points to the interplay between children’s behaviors and family,
mezzo, and macro systems. The family stress model highlights the impact of parental stress on
parenting, parent’s relationships, and children’s behaviors. This literature review examined the
relevant research around these factors, which will be further examined as variables for this study.
Children’s behaviors can be categorized into internalizing, externalizing, and inattentive
behaviors. When children in elementary school exhibit such behaviors, they are more likely to be
stigmatized and separated from their classmates (Becker et al., 2010). Additionally, teacher bias
influences the ways in which children in minoritized groups are labeled, disciplined, and the
treatment they receive (Skiba et al., 2011). Parental involvement can improve outcomes for
children (LaRocque et al., 2011), however without a holistic approach that includes parents,
children are at higher risk for poor outcomes.
Parents experience stress for a variety of reasons and the COVID-19 pandemic
introduced new stressors. For example, social isolation, which has been found to increase stress
(Nam, n.d.; Semke et al., 2010; Tucker & Rodriguez, 2014) was increased for many parents
48

during this time. Stress can impact a parent’s overall wellness (McEwen, 2005) and is connected
to children’s behaviors (Jackson, 2000).
Factors such as perceived social support, reduced partner conflict, and increased parental
sense of competence may mitigate the impact of parental stress on parents’ perceptions of their
children’s behaviors. When parents feel more connected to support networks, they experience
less stress in their parenting role (Lakey & Orehek, 2011). Parents who have solid co-parenting
relationships also experience less stress (Ponnet et al., 2013) and the nature of this relationship
also influences children’s behaviors (Camisasca et al., 2019). Finally, when parents feel a greater
sense of competence, they are better able to attend to their children’s needs (Belean & Nastasa,
2017). However, little is known about the connections between parent’s stress, their perceptions
of the systems they interact with, and their perception of their children’s behaviors.
Understanding the connections between these factors will help service providers incorporate
more holistic approaches to practice during times of stress such as the COVID-19 pandemic and
improve outcomes for vulnerable youth and families.
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this study is to better understand the needs of caregivers of elementary
school aged children during the COVID-19 pandemic. By knowing parents’ experiences of
systems and support, providers can determine ways to best mitigate detrimental effects for youth.
Using the family stress model perspective, a holistic way to support children is to understand
their systems and reduce parental stress. By amplifying the perspectives of caregivers, we are
giving voice to a population that has often been seen as contributing to the problem versus as a
protective factor for youth. In looking at this critical element, the study hopes to identify ways in
49

which children and families can be assisted during times of stress such as the COVID-19
pandemic.
Research Questions
The following questions and hypotheses will be addressed in the study.
Research Question 1
Are there racial and socioeconomic group differences in reports of parents’ perceived
support, parental stress, partner conflict, parental sense of competence, and parents’ reports of
their children’s behavior during Covid19 pandemic?
Hypothesis 1: There will be racial and socioeconomic group differences in the reports of
perceived support, parental stress, partner conflict, parental sense of competence, and parents’
reports of their children’s behavior. Parents in lower socioeconomic groups will report greater
stress, more conflict, and less perceived support.
Research Question 2
Does parental perceived support predict the degree of parental stress and parental sense
of competence?
Hypothesis 2a. Higher parental perceived support will negatively predict parental stress.
Hypothesis 2b. Higher parental perceived support will positively predict degree of
parental sense of competence.
Research Question 3
Do parental stress, perceived support, partner conflict, and parental sense of competence
predict parents’ reports of their children’s internalizing, externalizing, and inattentive behaviors?
Hypothesis 3a. Higher parental stress will positively predict parents’ reports of their
children’s internalizing, externalizing, and inattentive behaviors.
50

Hypothesis 3b. Higher Degree of parental sense of competence will negatively predict
parents’ reports of children’s internalizing, externalizing, and inattentive behaviors.
Hypothesis 3c. Higher parental perceived support will negatively predict parent’s reports
of children’s internalizing, externalizing and inattentive behaviors.
Hypothesis 3d. Higher inter-parental conflict will positively predict parent’s reports of
children's internalizing, externalizing and inattentive behaviors.
51

Chapter Three: Methodology
This chapter discusses methods used to conduct the study including participants,
instruments used, and procedures for gathering data.
Participants and Procedure
Participants in the study were parents of elementary school children recruited to
participate in an online survey. Their participation was voluntary and based on convenience
sampling. Participants were recruited through local schools and organizations within the Los
Angeles metropolitan area, as well as online resources for a two-month period in the beginning
of 2021. Participants could enter a raffle for a $50 gift card. Requirements for parents were that
they be over the age of 18 and their children were between the ages of 5 and 11 as these are the
ages of children in elementary school. Parents were asked to identify their children’s ages and
the number of children in their home as well as their own demographic information.
The investigator for this study used several methods to gather participants. Primarily,
several elementary schools in the Los Angeles area (Independent Charter schools and local
school districts) distributed the survey directly to their parent groups. Additionally, many
parenting groups on social media were utilized as well as professional contacts within local
nonprofits throughout the Los Angeles area. A brief description of the survey along with the
consent and the link to the survey were provided. The average time for completing the survey
was 31 minutes. As an incentive for completing the survey, participants were given the option to
enter themselves into a raffle for a $50 Amazon gift card. All protocol were approved by the
Institutional Review Board of the University of Southern California.
Due to COVID-19 stay at home orders, the surveys were all distributed online versus
possible paper distribution. A total of 243 surveys were completed. Of the 243, 48 could not be
52

used due to incomplete responses (less than 75% completed) leaving a final sample size of
N=195. As shown in Table 1 – 62.1% of the sample self-identified as Caucasian and 88.2% were
female. 60.5 % of participants reported household incomes of greater than $150,000.
Additionally, questions related to COVID-19 were asked, including whether the parent left home
for work and how the child was attending school. Most participants indicated being married or in
a relationship (93.3%), not leaving the home for work (77.9%), and having children who were
currently fully in online learning (88.7%). Participants’ race, income level, gender and other
demographic information, are presented below (See Table 1).

Table 1
Frequency Distribution of Participants
Participants (N=195) N Percentage
Adults in the home
1
2
3
4+

9
167
8
11

4.6
85.6
4.1
5.6
Children in the home
1
2
3
4

41
116
31
6

21
59.5
15.9
3.1
Marital status
Married
Single
Divorced
Widowed

182
8
4
1

93.3
4.1
2.1
0.5
Gender
Female
Male

172
23

88.2
11.8
53

Participants (N=195) N Percentage
Race
Asian American
Asian Pacific Islander
Black/African American
Latinx
White
Other

29
4
22
14
121
5

14.9
2.1
11.3
7.2
62.1
2.6
Annual household income
Under $50,000
$50,001-$100,000
$100,001-$150,000
Over $150,000

8
24
45
118

4.1
12.3
23.1
60.5
Child’s age
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

20
36
32
41
31
21
13

10.3
18.5
16.4
21
15.9
10.8
6.7
Child’s gender
Female
Male
Other

90
104
1

46.2
53.3
0.5
Parents leave home for work
Yes
No

43
152

22.1
77.9
Children in school online/hybrid/in
person
Online
Hybrid
In Person

173
15
7

88.7
7.7
3.6

54

Instruments
As shown in Appendix A participants provided informed consent. The data for this study
were obtained through a quantitative survey divided into six sections: demographic information,
(Appendix B) parental sense of competence, (Appendix C) parental perceived support,
(Appendix D) parental stress (Appendix E) partner conflict (Appendix F), and childhood
behavior (Appendix G).
Parental Sense of Competence
To measure parental sense of competence, the Parenting Sense of Competence Scale
(PSOC) was used (Gibaud-Wallsston & Wandersman, 1978). The PSOC is a 17-item scale with
two subscales: parental self-efficacy and parental satisfaction. Participants completed this Likert
style scale that ranges from “Strongly agree” to “Strongly Disagree”, with an additional neutral
item. A sample question that measures parental self-efficacy is, “Being a parent is manageable,
and any problems are easily solved” (Johnston & Mash, 1989). A sample question that measures
parental satisfaction is, “My talents and interests are in other areas, not in being a parent”
(Johnston & Mash, 1989). Higher scores on both subscales indicate high degrees of satisfaction
and efficacy in parenting. Language was adapted from the original version to reflect gender
neutrality (“parent” versus “mother”).
Johnston and Mash (1989) found a high internal consistency .75 for the Satisfaction scale
and .76 for the Efficacy scale and a .79 alpha factor overall. They also found the scale to be
highly valid and found a correlation between high PSOC scores and better outcomes on the Child
Behavior Checklist Scale. For this study, the subscales of Parental Efficacy and Parental
Satisfaction had reliability scores of .82 and .81 respectively.
55

Parental Perceived Support
To measure perceived support from various systems, the 18-item Family Support Scale
(FSS) was used (Dunst et al., 1984). Participants complete this 6-point Likert style scale that
ranged from “Not Available” to “Extremely Helpful”. The participant was asked to rank each
item in the list; some are familial supports and others are supports outside of the family. Sample
items include “Your spouse” or “Your Parents” for familial support. “Co-Workers” and “Social-
groups/Clubs” are examples of outside support that are listed (Dunst et al., 1984).
This measure was selected for the ease of use, support for the research question, and
validity. Dunst et al (1984) found the scale to have an internal reliability with Cronbach’s alpha
of .77. When tested on Head Start families, Hanley et al. (1998) reported reliability of .85. The
internal reliability score for this scale based on the sample in this study was .89.
Parental Stress
To measure parental stress levels, the 10-item version of the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-
10) was used (Cohen & Williamson, 1988). The scale is used to measure an individual’s feelings
of stress and was created to cover a general sense of stress (Cohen et al., 1983) and uses a Likert
type response from “Never” to “Very Often”. Participants are asked to reflect on the past month
and then answer questions about their feelings of stress in that time. Examples of questions are
“In the last month, how often have you felt that you were unable to control the important things
in your life?” and "In the last month, how often have you been angered because of things that
happened that were outside of your control?” (Cohen & Williamson, 1988).
The PSS-10 has good internal reliability with a .78 alpha factor (Cohen & Williamson,
1988). The PSS-10 also was found to have high validity (Cohen & Williamson, 1988). The PSS-
10 was chosen because of the solid level of validity, and reliability, the length of time needed to
56

complete the form, and ease of use for the participants. For this study, the PSS had a reliability
score of .89.
Partner Conflict
To measure perceived support and level of conflict between parents, the Romantic
Partner Conflict Scale (RPCS) was used. The RPCS was created by Zacchilli et al. in 2009. The
RPCS is a 39-item scale with 6 subscales: compromise, avoidance, interactional reactivity,
separation, domination, and submission (Zacchilli et al., 2009). The 6-question subscale for
interactional reactivity was utilized to capture the variable of partner conflict. The six Likert
style questions ask participants to rate from Strongly Disagree to Strongly agree their perceptions
of their interactions with their romantic partners. Examples of questions are, “When my partner
and I disagree, we argue loudly” and “My partner and I have frequent conflicts” (Zacchilli et al.,
2009).
The RPCS had good internal reliability. The Interactional Reactivity subscale had a .82
alpha factor and good validity when compared to other relationship conflict scales (Zacchilli et
al., 2009). It was chosen because of the solid level of validity, and reliability, the length of time
needed to complete the form, applicability to the study, and ease of use for the participants. For
this study, the subscale of Interactional Reactivity had a reliability score of .87.
Children’s Behaviors
The Brief Problem Monitor (BPM) scale was chosen to measure parents’ perceptions
their children’s behaviors. The BPM is an abbreviated version of the Child Behavior Checklist
(CBCL), which is a well-established and highly used scale (Achenbach et al., 2011). This scale is
used to capture a parent’s perspective of their child’s externalizing, internalizing, and attention
related behaviors. There are 19 questions using Likert type response options style questions with
57

two options for parents to write in additional concerns. The scale can be completed in 1-2
minutes compared to the CBCL which takes several minutes. Examples of questions are,
“Inattentive or Easily Distracted” (Attention), “Feels worthless or inferior” (Internalizing), and
“Argues a lot” (Externalizing) (Achenbach et al., 2011). The BPM was chosen because of the
high level of validity, and reliability, the length of time needed to complete the form, and ease of
use for the participants.
The BPM has test-retest reliability across all subscales with an overall alpha of .85
(Achenbach et al., 2011). The BPM also has high levels of validity when compared to the CBCL
(Piper et al., 2014). Piper et al. (2014) found that an issue of consistency was the report of
parents versus youths and teachers who complete the form. However, for the purpose of this
study, parent perception is the most relevant item. For this study, the subscales of Inattentive,
Internalizing, and Externalizing behaviors had reliability scores of .87, .87, and .82 respectively.

58

Chapter Four: Results
The following chapter provides an overview of the study results. It includes preliminary
analyses, analyses of the research questions and post hoc analyses.
Preliminary Analysis
Pearson product correlations were conducted to determine the relationships between the
major study variables: Parental Stress, Parental Perceived Support, Parental Sense of competence
subscales of Parental Satisfaction, Parental Efficacy, Partner Conflict, and the Brief Problem
Monitor Subscales of Inattentive, Externalizing, and Internalizing Behaviors. Most of the
variables had significant correlations with Parental Stress, Parental Satisfaction and Parental
Efficacy having strongly significant correlations with all the other variables. Partner Conflict and
Parental Perceived Support had the fewest correlations with other variables. There was no
significant correlation between Partner Conflict, Parental Perceived Support, and the subscales of
Inattentive Behaviors, Externalizing Behaviors, or Internalizing Behaviors. Additionally, no
significant correlation was found between Partner Conflict and Parental Perceived Support (See
Table 2).

Table 2
Correlation of Scales and Subscales

Note. Significant correlations *p<.05. **p<.01.

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Parental sense of competence scale
1.Parental efficacy 4.81 .96 -- .56** -.44** -.27** -.41** -.52** .25** -.16*
2.Parental satisfaction 4.43 1.04 -- -.41** -.29** -.50** -.71** .27** -.15*
Brief problem monitor scale
3.Inattentive behaviors 0.63 .53 -- .39** .59** .40** -.13 .09
4.Internalizing behaviors 0.49 .49 -- .50** .35** -.04 -.03
5.Externalizing behaviors 0.45 .42 -- .42** -.14 .13
6. Parental stress 1.96 .65 -- -.30** .25**
7. Parental perceived support 1.57 .62 -- .05
8. Partner conflict 1.04 .74 --
59
60

Analysis of Main Research Questions
The following section will review the analyses of the three main research questions put
forth for this study. Procedures for the analyses will be discussed. Significant findings will also
be presented.
Research Question One
Are there racial and socioeconomic group differences in reports of parents’ perceived
support, parental stress, partner conflict, parental sense of competence, and parents’
perceptions children’s behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic?
Hypothesis 1: There will be racial and socioeconomic group differences in the reports of
perceived support, parental stress, partner conflict, parental sense of competence, and parents’
perceptions of their children’s behavior. Parents in lower socioeconomic groups will report
greater stress, more conflict, and less perceived support.
Due to uneven cell sizes, race was recoded into two groups: (1) Caucasian, and (2) Non-
Caucasian (Asian, Latinx, African American Native American [ALANA] combined). Income
also was recoded into three groups: Under $100,000, $100,001-$150,000, and Over $150,000.
To test research question 1, five one-way M/ANOVAs were conducted with each of the
IVs and DVs separately. Income was not significant, but race was significant for the dependent
variable of Perceived Stress (F = 8.01, p =.005). Follow-up analysis of means revealed
that Perceived Stress was significant with ALANA parents reporting lower overall means than
Caucasian parents. The overall MANOVA trended towards significance for the main effect of
Race in the three BPM subscales (F = 2.45, p =.066, Wilks Lambda= 0.96). Subsequent
ANOVAs revealed significant differences for the subscales of Internalizing (F = 5.79, p = .017)
and Inattentive (F =3.97, p = .048) behaviors with ALANA parents reporting overall lower
61

means than Caucasian parents in both subscales. The means of the significant scale and subscales
by race are in Table 3.

Table 3
Means and Standard Deviations of Perceived Stress, Internalizing Behavior, and Inattentive
Behavior by Race
Variables Race Mean SD
Perceived stress scale
ALANA
Caucasian

1.79
2.06

0.653
0.630
Internalizing behaviors subscale
ALANA
Caucasian

0.38
0.56

0.400
0.527
Inattentive behaviors subscale
ALANA
Caucasian

0.54
0.69

0.489
0.552

62

Research Question Two
Does parental perceived support predict the degree of parental stress and parental sense
of competence?
Hypothesis 2a: Higher parental perceived support will negatively predict parental
stress.
Hypothesis 2b: Higher parental perceived support will positively predict degree of
parental sense of competence.
Family Support and Parental Stress
A simultaneous multiple linear regression with the Perceived Stress Scale as the criterion
variable and the 18-items of the Family Support Scale as the predictor variable was conducted.
The regression model was significant (F = 3.600, p <.001) with the eighteen items explaining
27% of the variances in the way stress is reported in parents. However, only the Own Child was
a significant predictor (See Table 4).

63

Table 4
Regression of Types of Family Support Predicting Perceived Parental Stress
R² F B p
Family support scale .272 3.597 .001
Parents -.039 .219
Spouse’s parents .041 .324
Relatives or kin -.045 .248
Spouse’s relatives or kin -.008 .881
Spouse -.021 .535
Friends -.041 .324
Spouse’s friends -.067 .149
Own child -.108 .002
Other parents -.018 .649
Co-workers .018 .615
Parent groups .063 .094
Social clubs -.019 .612
Religious group members/religious leader -.043 .212
Family or child’s physician -.052 .147
Early childhood intervention .018 .758
School/day care -.021 .453
Professional helpers .053 .070
Professional agencies .043 .323

Note. Items in bold indicate statistical significance.

64

Family Support and Parental Sense of Competence
Two simultaneous multiple linear regressions with the subscales of the Parental Sense of
Competence (Parental Efficacy and Parental Satisfaction) scale as the criteria variables and the
18 items of the Family support Scale as the predictor variable were conducted. The regression
model for Parental Efficacy was significant (F =2.90, p <.001), with the eighteen items
explaining 23% of the variances in the way efficacy is reported in parents. However, Own Child
and Co-Workers were the only significant predictors. The regression model for Parental
Satisfaction was significant (F = 2.82, p <.001), with the eighteen items explaining 22% of the
variances in the way satisfaction is reported in parents. Own Child and Religious Groups were
the only significant predictors (See Tables 5 and 6).

65

Table 5
Regression of Types of Family Support Predicting Parental Efficacy
R² F B p
Family support scale .229 2.902 .001
Parents .072 .129
Spouse’s parents -.023 .710
Relatives or kin .033 .566
Spouse’s relatives or kin .059 .463
Spouse .091 .080
Friends .118 .058
Spouse’s friends -.106 .132
Own child .199 .001
Other parents -.033 .574
Co-workers -.117 .031
Parent groups -.006 .914
Social clubs .097 .082
Religious group members/religious leader .071 .170
Family or child’s physician .068 .208
Early childhood intervention -.038 .671
School/day care -.024 .564
Professional Helpers -.029 .501
Professional Agencies .010 .876

Note. Items in bold indicate statistical significance.

66

Table 6
Regression of Types of Family Support Predicting Parental Satisfaction
R² F B p
Family support scale .224 2.816 .001
Parents .036 .495
Spouse’s parents -.048 .487
Relatives or kin .056 .384
Spouse’s relatives or kin .064 .469
Spouse .050 .469
Friends .067 .325
Spouse’s friends -.037 .626
Own child .175 .002
Other parents .028 .668
Co-workers -.002 .969
Parent groups -.114 .069
Social clubs .023 .706
Religious group members/religious leader .132 .021
Family or child’s physician .035 .552
Early childhood intervention .015 .880
School/day care .031 .498
Professional helpers -.040 .397
Professional agencies -.029 .685

Note. Items in bold indicate statistical significance.

67

Because each of the multiple linear regressions was significant, the hypotheses for
Research Question 2 can be fully supported and family supports can be understood to influence
parental stress and sense of competence in this sample.
Research Question Three
Do parental stress, parental perceived support, partner conflict, and parental sense of
competence predict parents’ perceptions of their children’s internalizing, externalizing, and
inattentive behaviors?
Hypothesis 3a: Higher parental stress will positively predict parents’ perceptions of their
children’s internalizing, externalizing, and inattentive behaviors.
Hypothesis 3b: Higher Degree of parental sense of competence will negatively predict
parents’ perceptions of children’s internalizing, externalizing, and inattentive behaviors.
Hypothesis 3c: Higher parental perceived support will negatively predict parent’s
perceptions of children’s internalizing, externalizing and inattentive behaviors.
Hypothesis 3d: Higher partner conflict will positively predict parents’ perceptions of
children’s’ internalizing, externalizing and inattentive behaviors.
Three multiple linear regressions were conducted, one for each subscale of the BPM,
Internalizing, Externalizing, and Inattentive. The individual items of the FSS, the subscales of
the PSOC (Efficacy and Satisfaction), the RPCS interactional reactivity subscale and the PSS
were used as the IVs.
Internalizing Subscale
A simultaneous multiple linear regression with the Internalizing behavior subscale of the
BPM as the criterion variable and Parental Efficacy, Parental Satisfaction, Partner Conflict,
Perceived Stress and the 18 items of the Family support Scale as the predictor variables was
68

conducted. The regression model was significant (F = 2.82, p <.001), with the IVs explaining
27% of the variances in the way internalizing behavior was reported. Partner Conflict and
Perceived Stress were significant predictors. Additionally, from the Family Support Scale, Own
Child, Family Physician, School/Daycare, and Professional Helpers were significant predictors
(See Table 7).

Table 7
Regression of Partner Conflict, Perceived Stress, Parental Efficacy, Parental Satisfaction and
the 18 Types of Family Support Predicting Reported Internalizing Behaviors
R² F B p
.273 2.818 .001
Partner conflict -.122 .020
Perceived stress .204 .012
Parental efficacy -.067 .140
Parental satisfaction -.009 .846
Parents -.008 .748
Spouse’s parents -.028 .373
Relatives or kin .018 .555
Spouse’s relatives or kin .031 .447
Spouse .006 .827
Friends .039 .230
Spouse’s friends -.025 .487
Own child -.064 .023
Other parents .019 .536
Co-workers .012 .673
69

R² F B p
Parent groups .013 .649
Social clubs -.025 .375
Religious group members/religious leader -.003 .913
Family or child’s physician .058 .036
Early childhood intervention -.083 .069
School/day care -.045 .039
Professional helpers .060 .009
Professional agencies .028 .404

Note. Items in bold indicate statistical significance.

Externalizing Subscale
A simultaneous multiple linear regression with the Externalizing behavior subscale of the
BPM as the criterion variable and Parental Efficacy, Parental Satisfaction, Partner Conflict,
Perceived Stress and the 18 items of the Family support Scale as the predictor variables was
conducted. The overall regression model was significant (F = 5.18, p <.001), with the IVs
explaining 41% of the variances in the way internalizing behavior was reported. Parental
Efficacy and Parental Satisfaction were significant predictors. From the Family Support Scale,
Own Child, School/Daycare, and Professional Helpers were significant predictors (See Table 8).

70

Table 8
Regression of Partner Conflict, Perceived Stress, Parental Efficacy, Parental Satisfaction and
the 18 Types of Family Support Predicting Reported Externalizing Behaviors
R² F B p
.408 5.173 .001
Partner conflict -.006 .873
Perceived stress -.032 .602
Parental efficacy -.099 .005
Parental satisfaction -.132 .001
Parents -.015 .438
Spouse’s parents 0.11 .662
Relatives or kin .009 .694
Spouse’s relatives or kin .009 .775
Spouse .022 .320
Friends .029 .236
Spouse’s friends -.054 .056
Own child -.053 .015
Other parents -.003 .883
Co-workers -.016 .453
Parent groups .008 .727
Social clubs .032 .148
Religious group members/religious leader .014 .481
Family or child’s physician .002 .938
Early childhood intervention -.004 .907
School/day care -.037 .028
Professional helpers .044 .013
71

R² F B p
Professional agencies .046 .075

Note. Items in bold indicate statistical significance.

Inattentive Subscale
A simultaneous multiple linear regression with the Inattentive behavior subscale of the
BPM as the criterion variable and Parental Efficacy, Parental Satisfaction, Partner Conflict,
Parental Stress and the 18 items of the Family Support Scale as the predictor variables was
conducted. The overall regression model was significant (F = 4.01, p <.001), with the IVs
explaining 36% of the variances in the way internalizing behavior was reported. Parental
Efficacy was a significant predictor. From the Family Support Scale, Social Clubs,
School/Daycare, and Professional Helpers were significant predictors (See Table 9).

Table 9
Regression of Partner Conflict, Parental Stress, Parental Efficacy, Parental Satisfaction and the
18 Types of Family Support Predicting Reported Inattentive Behaviors
R² F B p
.356 4.071 .001
Partner conflict -.051 .351
Parental stress .048 .571
Parental efficacy -.159 .001
Parental satisfaction -.090 .074
Parents .038 .143
72

R² F B p
Spouse’s parents -.030 .357
Relatives or kin -.015 .646
Spouse’s relatives or kin .008 .860
Spouse .002 .959
Friends -.048 .156
Spouse’s friends -.005 .900
Own child -.057 .053
Other parents .040 .200
Co-workers .002 .955
Parent groups -.046 .127
Social clubs .059 .046
Religious group members/religious leader .020 .465
Family or child’s physician .039 .175
Early childhood intervention .058 .231
School/day care -.048 .035
Professional helpers .056 .018
Professional Agencies .013 .712

Note. Items in bold indicate statistical significance.

Although many of the hypotheses in Research Question 3 were supported, there was an
inconsistent pattern for the subscales of the BPM, so the overall hypotheses were only partially
supported.
73

Full Scale Scores
In a simplified regression of the total scale scores, PSS and the full score of PSOC were
seen to be statistically significant predictors of the total scale score for the Brief Problem
Monitor full scale score. The overall simplified model was significant (F =20.27, p <.001) and
predicted 31% of the variance in parent’s reports of their children’s behaviors (See Table 10).

Table 10
Regression of Full Scores of Partner Conflict, Perceived Stress, Parental Sense of Competence
and Family Support Predicting Parent’s Perceptions of Children’s Behaviors
R² F B p
.310 20.261 .001
Partner conflict -.026 .438
Parental stress .130 .020
Parental sense of competence -.178 .000
Parental perceived support .053 .216

Note. Items in bold indicate statistical significance.

74

Additional Descriptive Analysis
To better understand the extent of the impact of stress and support on parents, additional
descriptive analyses were conducted. The findings from this analysis can support the amount of
isolation and stress parents experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic. The following section
discusses the descriptive findings from the Family Support Scale and Perceived Stress Scale.
Types of Support
As family supports appeared to be influential in the regressions for Childhood Behavior,
Parental Stress, and Parental Sense of Competence, post hoc analyses were conducted to further
explore the family support scale. Descriptive findings from this scale indicate that parents
reported low scores for many of the items with only the items of “Spouse” and “Own Child”
having a higher level of percent of responses in the “Extremely Helpful” category (See Table 11
for FSS items by mean and percent responses for N/A and Not at all helpful).

75

Table 11
Family Support Scale
Mean SD N/A Not
available
Not at all
helpful
Family support full scale score 1.57 0.616
Parents 1.73 1.628 33.8 12.8
Spouse’s parents 1.25 1.401 40.5 24.6
Relatives or kin 1.31 1.428 41.0 17.4
Spouse’s relatives or kin 1.08 1.245 41.5 29.7
Spouse 3.65 1.433 5.1 1.5
Friends 2.15 1.453 19.5 12.3
Spouse’s friends 1.22 1.283 39.0 26.7
Own child 2.53 1.378 11.3 5.1
Other parents 1.97 1.482 26.2 8.2
Co-workers 1.17 1.381 49.7 10.8
Parent groups 1.34 1.417 45.6 7.7
Social clubs 1.16 1.396 50.8 10.3
Religious group members/religious leader .99 1.425 61.5 6.2
Family or child’s physician 1.79 1.362 21.5 13.8
Early childhood intervention .28 .791 86.2 4.6
School/day care 2.01 1.661 32.8 4.6
Professional helpers 2.03 1.648 31.8 5.6
Professional agencies .53 1.159 77.4 7.7

Furthermore, the Family Support items were divided into two subgroups of “familial
support” (Parents -Own Child) and “external support” (Other Parents- Professional Agencies).
76

Though not validate subscales, the descriptive results indicated that the mean score for familial
support items were higher than the mean for external support items. Independent t-tests revealed
a significant (p <.001) difference between the means of each category (See Table 12).

Table 12
Family Support by Category
Mean SD
Familial support items 1.87 0.807
External support items 1.33 0.688

77

Perceived Stress
Post hoc analyses were conducted to further explore the Perceived Stress Scale. The
overall mean score for the scale was 1.96 with a standard deviation of 0.65. This indicates that
most of the responses were relatively high. Though not fully validated, some researchers have
divided the PSS into two subgroups based on items that indicate difficulty coping with stress and
items that indicate confidence when coping with stress (Taylor, 2015). For this study, results
indicated that the score for perceived stress from the “negatively worded items” subgroup was
higher than the score for perceived stress from the “positively worded items” subgroup.
Independent t-tests revealed a significant (p <.001) difference between the means of each
subgroup (See Table 13).

Table 13
Perceived Stress Scale
Mean SD
Perceived stress scale full score 1.96 0.650
Positively worded items 1.67 0.648
Negatively worded items 2.15 0.741

78

Chapter Five: Discussion
The purpose of this study was to explore the connections between parents' reports of
stress, support, satisfaction, efficacy, and their perceptions of the behaviors of their elementary
school aged children. During times of crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and prolonged
stay at home orders, parents experience tremendous stress. This study looked at the ways familial
and systemic supports influenced parents’ stress and their perceptions about their parenting and
their children’s behaviors. This chapter will review the main findings of the study, implications
for practice, limitations, and recommendations for future research.
Discussion of Main Findings
This study sought to explore the relationships between parental perceived stress, support,
sense of competence and parent’s perceptions of children’s behaviors. This section will discuss
the study’s main findings.
Parental Stress, Support, Efficacy, Satisfaction, and Perceived Children’s Behaviors
Findings from the research confirmed the hypotheses around the ways parental efficacy,
satisfaction, stress, and supports predict parents’ perceptions of their children’s internalizing,
externalizing, and inattentive behaviors. This section will discuss the specific influential
variables.
Parental efficacy and satisfaction were the biggest predictors of parents’ perceptions of
their children’s externalizing and inattentive behaviors. Parental efficacy predicted a reduction in
reports of externalizing and inattentive behaviors and parental satisfaction predicted a reduction
in reported externalizing behaviors. This confirms and expands upon previous research around
the connection between children’s behaviors and parental satisfaction (Márk-Ribiczey et al.,
79

2016), and efficacy (Jones & Prinz, 2005; Meunier et al., 2011) with more specific data in this
study around three subscales of internalizing, externalizing, and inattentive behaviors.
In a simplified model with full scale scores, stress appeared to influence parents’
perceptions of their children’s behaviors overall, however, the more complex model only
revealed significant reduction in parents’ perceptions of their children’s internalizing behaviors
with reduced reported stress. The fact that stress did not significantly predict parents’ perceptions
of their children’s externalizing or inattentive behavior conflicts with previous research around
parental stress and externalizing (Lavigne et al., 2012; Mackler et al., 2015; Shaw & Shelleby,
2014) or inattentive (Craig et al., 2016) behaviors. The findings around parental stress
significantly predicting parent’s perceptions of their children’s internalizing behaviors highlights
a lack of previous research on this topic.
Parental perceived support from their child’s school and their own child were significant
predictors of reports reduced perceived internalizing, externalizing and inattentive behaviors.
Parents' reports of support from their own child significantly predicted a reduction in their
perceptions of their child’s internalizing and externalizing behaviors. Though not statistically
significant, parents’ report of support from their own child did also predict perceptions of
reduced inattentive behaviors. Though there is limited previous research on this item, the
findings expand upon previous research around the ways family supports influence parenting
(Malan-Van Rooyen, n.d.).
Notably, of all the variables and Family Support Scale items, only perceived support
from children’s school predicted reduced perception of behaviors in all three subscales of
inattentive, externalizing, and internalizing behaviors. This extends previous research around the
connection between perceived support from a child’s school and educational attainment (Izzo et
80

al., 1999; LaRocque et al., 2011). As educational attainment is connected to children’s behavior,
these findings highlight the importance of the parent/school relationship. The fact that school
supports were the only predictor for all three subscales indicates the overall importance of school
communities for families.
The research on belonging in motivational theory indicates that the greater sense of
belonging for a child in a school setting, the more motivated the child is to engage in learning
(Brackett et al., 2011; Gray et al., 2018; O’Brennan et al., 2014; Pekrun & Linnenbrink-Garcia,
2012). The findings around the importance of school support in predicting parents’ perceptions
of their children’s behaviors may indicate that parental sense of belonging and support from
schools may also be a critical factor in supporting educational attainment.
Family Support Scale and Perceived Stress Scale Overall Scores
Although parent’s reports of support from their child’s school significantly predicted
reduced perceived internalizing, externalizing, and inattentive behaviors, it is important to note
the low mean scores for the various family support items indicating that many parents reported
some or no support from the different sources. In the time of the global pandemic with isolation
being such a significant risk factor for parental stress, the findings around low overall support are
critically important. During this difficult time with children at home learning, the low scores
around parents' perceived support from their school or other professional therapeutic
organizations are particularly interesting.
The lack of perceived support from professional organizations such as schools or non-
profit supports is consistent with the literature around the tenuous relationship between parents
and schools (LaRocque et al., 2011) or other professional organizations (Haine-Schlagel &
Walsh, 2015). This study extends this literature around perceived support as the COVID-19
81

pandemic may have played a role in the lack of perceived support. Further research is warranted
here.
The high overall rating on the Perceived Stress Scale may be indicative of the COVID-19
pandemic stressors. This extends literature on the high amount of perceived stress in adults
during this time (Park et al., 2020). Although the COVID-19 stay at home orders are changing
with reduced restrictions, it is important to notice the high level of stress and connection to the
previous research about the detrimental effects of stress (McEwen, 2005).
Parental Supports, Stress, and Competence
Findings from the research confirmed the hypothesis that parental perceived support
influences parental stress, parental satisfaction, and efficacy. Parental stress was lower in parents
that reported more support. Satisfaction and efficacy were both higher in parents with more
support. When the individual factors that contributed to the DVs were identified, main sources of
support were the items of “Own Child” for all three DVs and “Religious Group” for Parental
satisfaction. The overall model indicates that increased family support increases Parental
Efficacy and Satisfaction and reduces Parental Stress.
This study extends the research about the predictive value of perceived parental support
and parental efficacy and satisfaction. There is not much previous research in this specific area.
However, findings from this study confirm previous research around the connection between
perceived support and self-efficacy in other various domains such as adult life satisfaction
(Gayathri & Karthikeyan, 2016), reducing postnatal depression (Leahy-Warren et al., 2012), and
emotional exhaustion in graduate students (Rigg et al., 2013).
The findings also extend the research around the influence of parental support in reducing
parental stress. This confirms previous research around the impact of parental isolation on
82

parental stress (Nam, n.d.; Semke et al., 2010; Tucker & Rodriguez, 2014), which is of particular
importance during the COVID-19 isolation. This study results also confirm previous research
around the protective impact of social support on parental stress (Gallagher et al., 2010).
There were some notable items in the Family Support Scale results related to the three
DVs of parental stress, satisfaction, and efficacy. Support by a religious institution or religious
leader significantly predicted increased parental satisfaction. This extends research by Petro et al.
(2018) who researched the connections between religious involvement and parental behaviors.
Though overall, parents reported low connection to a religious institution, it is worth further
research to determine the relationship between parental satisfaction and increased perceived
support by religious groups. Additionally of note, support by the child’s school, professional
helpers, and professional agencies did not significantly predict reduced stress or increase
satisfaction or efficacy. This is important to consider as schools and professional organizations
continue to work to engage parents around the ways they can support their children.
Racial Differences in Parental Experiences
The hypothesis around racial and economic differences and the study’s variables was that
parents in lower income groups and parents in minoritized racial groups would report more
stress, fewer supports, lower parental sense of competence, and increased perceived
internalizing, externalizing and inattentive behaviors in their children. This was hypothesized
because of previous literature that suggests that parents in minoritized groups experienced more
stress (Nam, n.d.; Nomaguchi & House, 2013) which, according to the family stress model,
would influence their parenting and their perceptions of their children’s behaviors (Conger &
Elder, 1994). Parents in minoritized groups also reported less perceived support from various
83

social situations such as the relationship with their children’s teachers (Grace & Gerdes, 2019),
and child protective services (Ayón et al. 2010)
For this study, the hypothesis was not supported. However, findings were significant
between ALANA and Caucasian parents for the variables of Inattentive Behaviors, Internalizing
Behaviors, and Parental Stress with ALANA parents reporting lower scores in all three items.
Additionally, though not significantly different, ALANA parents reported lower perceived
Externalizing Behaviors, more family support, higher parental satisfaction, and higher parental
efficacy.
This research question sought to understand the different perspectives of parents based on
race and income during the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings from the variable of Inattentive
Behaviors confirmed previous research around Caucasian parents reporting more inattentive
behaviors in their children and higher rates of ADHD diagnosis in Caucasian children (Morgan
et al., 2013; Siegal et al., 2016). However, findings from the two variables of Parental Stress and
Internalizing behaviors differ from previous research around race and parental stress that found
higher rates of stress in parents who identify in minoritized racial groups (Nam, n.d.; Nomaguchi
& House, 2013). Additionally, previous findings around internalizing behaviors that contribute to
depression and anxiety indicated higher rates in youth who identified as being in minoritized
groups (Ghandor et al., 2019).
Parental Stress had the most significant difference between the two racial groups with
Caucasian parents reporting higher stress than ALANA parents. This differs from previous
research which indicates that parents who identified in minoritized groups had higher reported
stress than Caucasian parents (Nam, n.d.; Nomaguchi & House, 2013). Further research is
needed to better understand the cause of this significant difference; however, it is possible that
84

the COVID-19 pandemic played a role. Furthermore, the small amount of difference in other
variables may have been indicative of a universality of the difficulties experienced during the
pandemic across racial groups.
Summary
Findings from this study point to the needs of parents for greater support networks during
times of stress. Parental supports were found to mitigate the impact of stressors, increase parental
sense of competence and reduce parental perceptions of internalizing, externalizing and
inattentive behaviors of their children. As the descriptive findings around family support were
low, the connection between supports and the other variables is critical and points to practice
implications.
Implications for Practice
The study presented several important implications for practice as schools and
organizations seek to support families as they re-integrate children into in-person learning. With
the reduction in COVID-19 related restrictions, it is important to consider ways to support
families in the event of future crises, either at the personal or systemic level. With a deeper
understanding of the needs of parents during this time, practice implications on the systemic and
family levels will be discussed.
The findings indicated a strong connection between parental perceived support,
specifically from schools, and parental perceptions of children’s behaviors. However, many
parents reported low or no support from professional organizations such as schools. The
noticeably low reports of support from schools, professional organizations and teachers during
this crisis was indicative of the isolation that parents may feel. Helping families feel more
connected should be a goal of any setting that seeks to support children. Schools and
85

organizations need to find ways to strengthen parents’ perceived support. As children in
elementary school spend much of their time with their teachers and school staff, continuing to
reach out to provide support to parents and make holistic connections will support youth.
As the findings indicated that parental efficacy and satisfaction had a strongly significant
connection to parent’s perceptions of their children’s behaviors, at a family level, developing
interventions that target increasing parental satisfaction and efficacy are recommended. Though
many parenting programs and classes target specific skills gained for parents and this may have a
secondary effect of increasing efficacious and satisfied feelings, addressing this directly may also
be a way to intervene with parents. For example, Gavita et al. (2011) recommended a cognitive
behavioral therapy (CBT) approach when working with parents of children with externalizing
behaviors. They stated that including parental affect regulation would help with decreasing
parental stress and help the parent better attend to their children’s needs. Research previously
mentioned by Deković et al. (2010) highlights the important connection between home based
intensive services and parental sense of competence. Creation of an intervention specifically
targeting parental efficacy and satisfaction could include CBT components and home-based
services. Instead of focusing on parenting skills specifically, the goal should be helping parents
feel more satisfied and effective.
Limitations of the Study
This section will discuss limitations to the study. Sample size and makeup, historical
context around the timeline of the data collection, and study methodology will be explored.
Two potential limitations to the study related to the sample were the small sample size
and limited demographic diversity. The lack of diversity in the sample was around
socioeconomics, race, gender, and marital status despite a fair amount of outreach to diverse
86

sources in the Los Angeles area. Families in lower SES and racially minoritized groups may
have been under such extreme overwhelm during the height of the pandemic that they did not
have the time to complete the study. Another consideration was the pandemic and ongoing stay
at home orders which limited the ability to distribute the survey live or do much face-to-face
outreach with diverse groups. Additionally, as the study was only administered in English,
parents who were monolingual Spanish speakers were not able to complete the survey. Reaching
out to larger or specific sample groups would be recommended in future studies.
As the data was gathered from January-March 2021, there were many influential
historical events that transpired that would have potentially influenced parents’ stress levels,
such as the election of Joe Biden, the insurrection at the U.S. Capital and ongoing racial and
political unrest. Later respondents in March may have had different levels of stress based on
increased vaccine availability and reduced COVID-19 restrictions. This may have also
influenced the study results.
Another limitation was the methodology of the study. Qualitative data would have been
useful to better understand the ways perceived support and stress are felt and interpreted by
parents during this time. Though the findings suggested that perceived support was low, without
qualitative data, it is hard to understand what a parent would need to feel supported by a system.
Recommendations for Future Research
Future research recommendations would expand upon the limitations of the study and
help to further understand the connections between parental support, efficacy, satisfaction, stress
and perceptions of children's behaviors. Primarily, a larger sample that included individuals from
more diverse backgrounds could broaden understanding of these concepts.
87

Future research that would target specific groups of parents who experience ongoing
stress, for example, parents of children with IEPs or other learning needs would illuminate the
needs of a specific group of parents who experience ongoing stress. This would further
strengthen organizations' understanding about how to support diverse groups of parents and their
children during times of stress.
Finally, qualitative data would help better understand the nature of perceived support,
efficacy and satisfaction. Qualitative research could illuminate which interventions increase
specifically parental satisfaction and efficacy. Direct questions to parents about their interactions
with settings would provide a deeper understanding about what factors create the conditions for
perceived support. This would help practitioners and organizations support children and families
from a holistic perspective.
Conclusion
Overall, the findings emphasize the importance of service providers working to connect
with and support parents during times of stress. This study sought to better understand the
connection between parents’ stress, support, parenting and their perceptions of their children’s
behaviors during times of stress such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the results indicated an
overall lack of parental perceived support.
The study explored whether increased support predicted reduced stress and increased
parental sense of competence. Additionally, it sought to understand what parental factors
predicted parents’ perceptions of their children’s internalizing, externalizing, and inattentive
behaviors. Results revealed that parents who have more support experience increased feelings of
competence and decreased feelings of stress. Additionally, perceived support and competence
positively impact the ways parents report their children’s behaviors and perceived stress
88

negatively impact the ways parents report their children’s behaviors. Importantly, the level of
perceived support from a child’s school significantly predicted parents’ perceptions of their
children’s externalizing, internalizing, and inattentive behaviors. As overall perceived support
was low in the responses, findings offer important implications for future research and practice
in school settings.
As schools, organizations, and other settings work to support children, parents are a key
element in the ecological system. Parents need a supportive network so that they can attend to
the needs of their children and can feel more confident in their parenting. As elementary school
aged children begin to return to school, reaching out to parents and understanding the importance
of this support from a holistic perspective will help children overcome this stressful transition,
mitigate the impact of future stressors, and lead to better outcomes for youth.
89

References
Abu-Raiya, H., Hamama, L., & Fokra, F. (2015). Contribution of Religious Coping and Social
Support to the Subjective Well-Being of Israeli Muslim Parents of Children with Cancer:
A Preliminary Study. Health & Social Work, 40(3), e83–e91.
https://doi.org/10.1093/hsw/hlv031
Achenbach, T. M., McConaughy, S. H., Ivanova, M. Y., & Rescorla, L. A. (2011). Manual for
the ASEBA brief problem monitor (BPM). ASEBA, 1-33.
Albanese, A., Russo, G., & Geller, P. (2019). The role of parental self‐efficacy in parent and
child well‐being: A systematic review of associated outcomes. Child: Care, Health, and
Development., 45(3), 333–363. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12661
Algood, C. L., Harris, C., & Hong, J. S. (2013). Parenting success and challenges for families of
children with disabilities: An ecological systems analysis. Journal of Human Behavior in
the social environment, 23(2), 126-136.
Alter, P., Walker, J. N., & Landers, E. (2013). Teachers' perceptions of students' challenging
behavior and the impact of teacher demographics. Education and Treatment of Children,
51-69.
Althoff, R. R., Verhulst, F. C., Rettew, D. C., Hudziak, J. J., & van der Ende, J. (2010). Adult
outcomes of childhood dysregulation: a 14-year follow-up study. Journal of the American
Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 49(11), 1105-1116.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(5th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596
Amos, P. M. (2013). Parenting and culture–Evidence from some African communities.
In Parenting in South American and African contexts. IntechOpen.
90

Anyanwu, J. I., Onuigbo, L. N., Obiyo, N. O., Eze, U. N., Akaneme, I. N., Aye, E. N., ... &
Adimora, E. D. (2019). Parenting stress in families of children with autism spectrum
disorder: The roles of the extended family. Global Journal of Health Science, 11(8), 51-
60.
Avendano, M., & Panico, L. (2018). Do flexible work policies improve parents’ health? A
natural experiment based on the UK Millennium Cohort Study. Journal of Epidemiology
and Community Health, 72(3), 244–251. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2017-209847
Ayón, C., Aisenberg, E., & Erera, P. (2010). Learning how to dance with the public child welfare
system: Mexican parents' efforts to exercise their voice. Journal of Public Child Welfare,
4(3), 263-286.
Baik, S. H., Fox, R. S., Mills, S. D., Roesch, S. C., Sadler, G. R., Klonoff, E. A., & Malcarne, V.
L. (2019). Reliability and validity of the Perceived Stress Scale-10 in Hispanic
Americans with English or Spanish language preference. Journal of health
psychology, 24(5), 628-639.
Baker-Ericzén, M. J., Jenkins, M. M., & Haine-Schlagel, R. (2013). Therapist, Parent, and Youth
Perspectives of Treatment Barriers to Family-Focused Community Outpatient Mental
Health Services. Journal of child and family studies, 22(6), 854–868.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-012-9644-7
Ballentine, K. L. (2019). Understanding Racial Differences in Diagnosing ODD Versus ADHD
Using Critical Race Theory. Families in Society, 100(3), 282-292.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.84.2.191
91

Bandura, A. (2012). On the Functional Properties of Perceived Self-Efficacy Revisited. Journal
of Management, 38(1), 9–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410606
Becker, S. P., Paternite, C. E., Evans, S. W., Andrews, C., Christensen, O. A., Kraan, E. M., &
Weist M. D. (2010). Eligibility, assessment, and educational placement issues for
students classified with emotional disturbance: Federal and state-level analysis. School
Mental Health, 3, 24-34.
Belean, R. D., & Năstasă, L. E. (2017). The relationship between parental style, parental
competence and emotional intelligence. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Brasov.
Series VII, Social Sciences and Law, 10(2), 181-190.
Bermudez, J. M., & Mancini, J. A. (2013). Familias fuertes: Family resilience among Latinos. In
Handbook of family resilience (pp. 215-227). Springer.
Berryhill, M. B. (2016). Mothers’ parenting stress and engagement: Mediating role of parental
competence. Marriage & Family Review, 52(5), 461-480.
Bethell, C. D., Gombojav, N., & Whitaker, R. C. (2019). Family resilience and connection
promote flourishing among US children, even amid adversity. Health Affairs, 38(5), 729-
737.
Bloomfield, L., & Kendall, S. (2012). Parenting self-efficacy, parenting stress and child
behaviour before and after a parenting programme. Primary health care research &
development, 13(4), 364-372.
Brackett, M. A., Reyes, M. R., Rivers, S. E., Elbertson, N. A., & Salovey, P. (2011). Classroom
emotional climate, teacher affiliation, and student conduct. The Journal of classroom
interaction, 27-36.
92

Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. (2013). From parent to child to parent…: Paths in and out of
problem behavior. Journal of abnormal child psychology, 41(4), 515-529.
Bradshaw, C. P., Schaeffer, C. M., Petras, H., & Ialongo, N. (2010). Predicting negative life
outcomes from early aggressive–disruptive behavior trajectories: Gender differences in
maladaptation across life domains. Journal of youth and adolescence, 39(8), 953-966.
Breinholst, S., Esbjørn, B. H., Reinholdt-Dunne, M. L., & Stallard, P. (2012). CBT for the
treatment of child anxiety disorders: A review of why parental involvement has not
enhanced outcomes. Journal of anxiety disorders, 26(3), 416-424.
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of cross-cultural
psychology, 1(3), 185-216.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research
perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22(6), 723-742.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1037/0012-1649.22.6.723
Brook, J. S., Lee, J. Y., Finch, S. J., & Brown, E. N. (2012). The association of externalizing
behavior and parent–child relationships: An intergenerational study. Journal of Child and
Family Studies, 21(3), 418-427.
Brown, S. G., Hudson, D. B., Campbell-Grossman, C., Kupzyk, K. A., Yates, B. C., & Hanna,
K. M. (2018). Social support, parenting competence, and parenting satisfaction among
adolescent, African American, mothers. Western journal of nursing research, 40(4), 502-
519.
Brown, S. M., Doom, J. R., Lechuga-Peña, S., Watamura, S. E., & Koppels, T. (2020). Stress
and parenting during the global COVID-19 pandemic. Child abuse & neglect, 110,
104699.
93

Bruchmüller, K., Margraf, J., & Schneider, S. (2012). Is ADHD diagnosed in accord with
diagnostic criteria? Overdiagnosis and influence of client gender on diagnosis. Journal of
consulting and clinical psychology, 80(1), 128.
Burke, J. D., Waldman, I., & Lahey, B. B. (2010). Predictive validity of childhood oppositional
defiant disorder and conduct disorder: Implications for the DSM-V. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 119(4), 739.
Burkhart, M. L., Borelli, J. L., Rasmussen, H. F., Brody, R., & Sbarra, D. A. (2017). Parental
mentalizing as an indirect link between attachment anxiety and parenting satisfaction.
Journal of Family Psychology, 31(2), 203.
Butler, A., & Monda-Amaya, L. (2016). Preservice teachers’ perceptions of challenging
behavior. Teacher Education and Special Education, 39(4), 276-292.
Byrd, A. L., Loeber, R., & Pardini, D. A. (2012). Understanding desisting and persisting forms
of delinquency: The unique contributions of disruptive behavior disorders and
interpersonal callousness. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 53(4), 371-380.
Caldwell, J. G., Shaver, P. R., Li, C. S., & Minzenberg, M. J. (2011). Childhood maltreatment,
adult attachment, and depression as predictors of parental self-efficacy in at-risk mothers.
Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 20(6), 595-616.
Camisasca, E., Miragoli, S., Di Blasio, P., & Feinberg, M. (2019). Co-parenting mediates the
influence of marital satisfaction on child adjustment: The conditional indirect effect by
parental empathy. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28(2), 519-530.
Canino, G., Polanczyk, G., Bauermeister, J. J., Rohde, L. A., & Frick, P. J. (2010). Does the
prevalence of CD and ODD vary across cultures?. Social psychiatry and psychiatric
epidemiology, 45(7), 695-704.
94

Carrion, V. G., & Kletter, H. (2012). Posttraumatic stress disorder: Shifting toward a
developmental framework. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America,
21(3), 573-591
Cavanagh, M., Quinn, D., Duncan, D., Graham, T., & Balbuena, L. (2017). Oppositional defiant
disorder is better conceptualized as a disorder of emotional regulation. Journal of
Attention Disorders, 21(5), 381-389.
Chang, M. L., & Davis, H. A. (2009). Understanding the role of teacher appraisals in shaping the
dynamics of their relationships with students: Deconstructing teachers’ judgments of
disruptive behavior/students. In Advances in teacher emotion research (pp. 95-127).
Springer.
Chaudry, A., & Wimer, C. (2016). Poverty is not just an indicator: The relationship between
income, poverty, and child well-being. Academic pediatrics, 16(3), S23-S29.
Choi, J. K., Wang, D., Reddish, L., & Brand, G. (2019). Efficacy of co-parenting for successful
kids: a longitudinal pilot investigation. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 60(8), 630-
644.
Cénat, J. M., & Dalexis, R. D. (2020). The Complex Trauma Spectrum During the COVID-19
Pandemic: A Threat for Children and Adolescents’ Physical and Mental Health.
Psychiatry Research, 293, 113473.
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 385–396.
Cohen, S., & Williamson, G. (1988). Perceived stress in a probability sample of the United
States. In S. Spacapan & S. Oskamp (Eds.), The social psychology of health: Claremont
Symposium on Applied Social Psychology (pp. 31–67). Sage.
95

Coker, T. R., Elliott, M. N., Toomey, S. L., Schwebel, D. C., Cuccaro, P., Emery, S. T., ... &
Schuster, M. A. (2016). Racial and ethnic disparities in ADHD diagnosis and treatment.
Pediatrics, 138(3).
Conger, RD.; Elder, GH., Jr, editors. Families in troubled times: Adapting to change in rural
America. Aldine de Gruyter; 1994.
Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., & Martin, M. J. (2010). Socioeconomic status, family processes,
and individual development. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 685-704. doi:
10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00725.x
Conti, R. (2015). Compassionate parenting as a key to satisfaction, efficacy and meaning among
mothers of children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45(7),
2008-2018.
Cook, A., Spinazzola, J., Ford, J., Lanktree, C., Blaustein, M., Cloitre, M., ... & Mallah, K.
(2017). Complex trauma in children and adolescents. Psychiatric annals, 35(5), 390-398.
Craig, F., Operto, F. F., De Giacomo, A., Margari, L., Frolli, A., Conson, M., ... & Margari, F.
(2016). Parenting stress among parents of children with neurodevelopmental disorders.
Psychiatry research, 242, 121-129.
Cramm, J. M., & Nieboer, A. P. (2011). Psychological well-being of caregivers of children with
intellectual disabilities: Using parental stress as a mediating factor. Journal of Intellectual
Disabilities, 15(2), 101-113.
Creighton, V., & Mills, L. (2016). Family matters: Engaging parents in youth treatment. Journal
of Therapeutic Schools and Programs, 57.
Danielson, M. L., Bitsko, R. H., Ghandour, R. M., Holbrook, J. R., Kogan, M. D., & Blumberg,
S. J. (2018). Prevalence of parent-reported ADHD diagnosis and associated treatment
96

among US children and adolescents, 2016. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent
Psychology, 47(2), 199-212.
Darling, N. (2007) Ecological Systems Theory: The Person in the Center of the Circles.
Research in Human Development, 4:3-4, 203-217, DOI: 10.1080/15427600701663023
Day, J. (2002). The Effect of Race on the Diagnosis of Oppositional Defiant Disorder.
Debnam, K., Holt, C. L., Clark, E. M., Roth, D. L., & Southward, P. (2012). Relationship
between religious social support and general social support with health behaviors in a
national sample of African Americans. Journal of behavioral medicine, 35(2), 179-189.
Deković, M., Asscher, J. J., Hermanns, J., Reitz, E., Prinzie, P., & Van Den Akker, A. L. (2010).
Tracing changes in families who participated in the home-start parenting program:
parental sense of competence as mechanism of change. Prevention science, 11(3), 263-
274.
Deković, M., Asscher, J. J., Manders, W. A., Prins, P. J., & van der Laan, P. (2012). Within-
intervention change: Mediators of intervention effects during multisystemic therapy.
Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 80(4), 574.
Duncombe, M. E., Havighurst, S. S., Holland, K. A., & Frankling, E. J. (2012). The contribution
of parenting practices and parent emotion factors in children at risk for disruptive
behavior disorders. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 43(5), 715-733.
Dunst, C., Jenkins, J., & Trivette, C. M. (1984). Family support scale: Reliability and validity.
Journal of Individual, Family, and Community Wellness, 1, 45–52.
Dynes, M. E., Tompsett, C. J., & Domoff, S. E. (2018). Development and validation of the
Therapist Barriers to Engaging Parents (TBEP) measure. Community mental health
journal, 54(7), 967-977.
97

Eamon, M. (2001). The Effects of Poverty on Children’s Socioemotional Development: An
Ecological Systems Analysis. Social Work., 46(3), 256–266.
https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/46.3.256
Eaton, K., Ohan, J., Stritzke, W., & Corrigan, P. (2016). Failing to meet the good parent ideal :
self-stigma in parents of children with mental health disorders. Journal of Child and
Family Studies, 25(10), 3109–3123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-016-0459-9
Elmore, A. L., & Crouch, E. (2020). The association of adverse childhood experiences with
anxiety and depression for children and youth, 8 to 17 years of age. Academic
pediatrics, 20(5), 600-608.
Epstein, R., Blake, J., & González, T. (2017). Girlhood interrupted: The erasure of Black girls’
childhood. Available at SSRN 3000695.
Evans, G. W., & Kim, P. (2013). Childhood poverty, chronic stress, self‐regulation, and coping.
Child development perspectives, 7(1), 43-48.
Farkas, C., & Valdés, N. (2010). Maternal stress and perceptions of self-efficacy in
socioeconomically disadvantaged mothers: An explicative model. Infant Behavior and
Development, 33(4), 654-662.
Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards, V., ... &
Marks, J. S. (2019). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many
of the leading causes of death in adults: The adverse childhood experiences (ACE) study.
American journal of preventive medicine, 56(6), 774-786.
Ferguson, K., Ziemer, K., Oviedo, S., & Ansbrow, J. (2016). Social Capital and Help-Seeking
Behavior Among Urban, Minority Parents Participating in the CONNECT Program: The
98

Role of Informal Community Supports. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social
Work, 25(2), 77–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313204.2015.1134372
Fiks, A. G., Hughes, C. C., Gafen, A., Guevara, J. P., & Barg, F. K. (2011). Contrasting parents'
and pediatricians' perspectives on shared decision-making in ADHD. Pediatrics, 127(1),
e188-e196.
Flores, E., Tschann, J. M., Dimas, J. M., Pasch, L. A., & de Groat, C. L. (2010). Perceived
racial/ethnic discrimination, posttraumatic stress symptoms, and health risk behaviors
among Mexican American adolescents. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57(3), 264.
Fortuna, L. R., Tolou-Shams, M., Robles-Ramamurthy, B., & Porche, M. V. (2020). Inequity
and the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on communities of color in the United
States: The need for a trauma-informed social justice response. Psychological Trauma:
Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 12(5), 443.
Galea, S., Merchant, R. M., & Lurie, N. (2020). The mental health consequences of COVID-19
and physical distancing: The need for prevention and early intervention. JAMA internal
medicine, 180(6), 817-818.
Gallagher, S., Phillips, A. C., & Carroll, D. (2010). Parental stress is associated with poor sleep
quality in parents caring for children with developmental disabilities. Journal of Pediatric
Psychology, 35(7), 728-737.
Garbe, A., Ogurlu, U., Logan, N., & Cook, P. (2020). COVID-19 and remote learning:
experiences of parents with children during the pandemic. American Journal of
Qualitative Research, 4(3), 45-65.
99

Garber, J., Quiggle, N. L., Panak, W., & Dodge, K. A. (2014). Aggression and depression in
children: Comorbidity, specificity, and social cognitive processing. In Internalizing and
externalizing expressions of dysfunction (pp. 233-272). Psychology Press.
Gaviţa, O. A., Joyce, M. R., & David, D. (2011). Cognitive behavioral parent programs for the
treatment of child disruptive behavior. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 25(4), 240-
256.
Gayathri, N., & Karthikeyan, P. (2016). The role of self-efficacy and social support in improving
life satisfaction. Zeitschrift für Psychologie.
Ghandour, R. M., Sherman, L. J., Vladutiu, C. J., Ali, M. M., Lynch, S. E., Bitsko, R. H., &
Blumberg, S. J. (2019). Prevalence and treatment of depression, anxiety, and conduct
problems in US children. The Journal of pediatrics, 206, 256-267.
Giallo, R., Wood, C. E., Jellett, R., & Porter, R. (2013). Fatigue, wellbeing and parental self-
efficacy in mothers of children with an autism spectrum disorder. Autism, 17(4), 465-480.
Gibaud-Wallston, J., & Wandersmann, L. P. (1978). Development and utility of the Parenting
Sense of Competence Scale. John F. Kennedy center for research on education and
human development.
Gilliam, W. S., Maupin, A. N., Reyes, C. R., Accavitti, M., & Shic, F. (2016). Do early
educators’ implicit biases regarding sex and race relate to behavior expectations and
recommendations of preschool expulsions and suspensions. Yale University Child Study
Center, 9(28), 2016.
Gilmore, L., & Cuskelly, M. (2012). Parenting satisfaction and self-efficacy: A longitudinal
study of mothers of children with Down syndrome. Journal of Family Studies, 18(1), 28-
35.
100

Giordano G.N., Merlo J., Ohlsson H., Rosvall M. & Lindstrom€ M. (2013) Testing the
association between social capital and health over time: a family-based design. BMC
Public Health 13 (1), 665.
Glatz, T., & Buchanan, C. M. (2015). Over-time associations among parental self-efficacy,
promotive parenting practices, and adolescents’ externalizing behaviors. Journal of
Family Psychology, 29(3), 427.
Good, B. J., & Kleinman, A. M. (2019). Culture and anxiety: Cross-cultural evidence for the
patterning of anxiety disorders. In Anxiety and the anxiety disorders (pp. 297-324).
Routledge.
Gray, D. L., Hope, E. C., & Matthews, J. S. (2018). Black and belonging at school: A case for
interpersonal, instructional, and institutional opportunity structures. Educational
Psychologist, 53(2), 97-113.
Greenfield, E. A. (2011). Grandparent involvement and parenting stress among nonmarried
mothers of young children. Social Service Review, 85(1), 135-157.
Griffith, A. K. (2020). Parental burnout and child maltreatment during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Journal of Family Violence, 1-7.
Grimmett, M. A., Dunbar, A. S., Williams, T., Clark, C., Prioleau, B., & Miller, J. S. (2016). The
Process and Implications of Diagnosing Oppositional Defiant Disorder in African
American Males. Professional Counselor, 6(2).
Gupta Karkhanis, D., & Winsler, A. (2016). Somatization in Children and Adolescents: practical
implications. Journal of Indian Association for Child & Adolescent Mental Health, 12(1).
101

Haine-Schlagel, R., & Walsh, N. (2015). A Review of Parent Participation Engagement in Child
and Family Mental Health Treatment. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review,
18(2), 133–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-015-0182-x
Halpern‐Meekin, S., & Turney, K. (2016). Relationship churning and parenting stress among
mothers and fathers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78(3), 715-729.
Harpin, V., Mazzone, L., Raynaud, J. P., Kahle, J., & Hodgkins, P. (2016). Long-term outcomes
of ADHD: a systematic review of self-esteem and social function. Journal of attention
disorders, 20(4), 295-305.
Hanley, B., Tassé, M. J., Aman, M. G., & Pace, P. (1998). Psychometric properties of the family
support scale with head start families. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 7(1), 69-77.
Hexem, K., Mollen, C., Carroll, K., Lanctot, D., & Feudtner, C. (2011). How parents of children
receiving pediatric palliative care use religion, spirituality, or life philosophy in tough
times. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 14(1), 39–44.
https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2010.0256
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their
children’s education?. Review of educational research, 67(1), 3-42.
Imran, N., Zeshan, M., & Pervaiz, Z. (2020). Mental health considerations for children &
adolescents in COVID-19 Pandemic. Pakistan journal of medical sciences,
36(COVID19-S4), S67.
Izzo, C. V., Weissberg, R. P., Kasprow, W. J., & Fendrich, M. (1999). A longitudinal assessment
of teacher perceptions of parent involvement in children's education and school
performance. American journal of community psychology, 27(6), 817-839.
102

Jackson, A. P. (2000). Maternal self-efficacy and children's influence on stress and parenting
among single black mothers in poverty. Journal of Family Issues, 21(1), 3-16.
Jackson, J., Hill, P., & Roberts, B. (2012). Misconceptions of Traits Continue to Persist: A
Response to Bandura. Journal of Management, 38(3), 745–752.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312438775
Jiao, W. Y., Wang, L. N., Liu, J., Fang, S. F., Jiao, F. Y., Pettoello-Mantovani, M., & Somekh,
E. (2020). Behavioral and emotional disorders in children during the COVID-19
epidemic. The journal of Pediatrics, 221, 264.
Johnston, C., & Mash, E. J. (1989). A measure of parenting satisfaction and efficacy. Journal of
clinical child psychology, 18(2), 167-175.
Jones, S. C., Anderson, R. E., Gaskin-Wasson, A. L., Sawyer, B. A., Applewhite, K., & Metzger,
I. W. (2020). From “crib to coffin”: Navigating coping from racism-related stress
throughout the lifespan of Black Americans. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
90(2), 267.
Jones, T. L., & Prinz, R. J. (2005). Potential roles of parental self-efficacy in parent and child
adjustment: A review. Clinical psychology review, 25(3), 341-363.
Kardong-Edgren, S. (2013). Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory…Something Is Missing. Clinical
Simulation in Nursing, 9(9), e327–e328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2013.07.001
Kim, L. & Manion, A. (2019). Improving Self-Esteem and Building Self-Confidence in
Adolescent Mothers: Implementation of Self-Efficacy-Focused Activity Sessions.
Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 57(8), 11–15.
https://doi.org/10.3928/02793695-20190528-04
103

Kisiel, C., Conradi, L., Fehrenbach, T., Torgersen, E., & Briggs, E. C. (2014). Assessing the
effects of trauma in children and adolescents in practice settings. Child and Adolescent
Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 23(2), 223-242.
Khuanghlawn, P. A. (2012). The Mediating Role of Emotion Regulation in the Relations of
Between Somatization and Internalizing Disorders in Children.
Konstantynowicz, J., Marcinowicz, L., Abramowicz, P., & Abramowicz, M. (2016). What Do
Children with Chronic Diseases and Their Parents Think About Pediatricians? A
Qualitative Interview Study. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 20(8), 1745–1752.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-016-1978-0
Kouros, C. D., Papp, L. M., Goeke-Morey, M. C., & Cummings, E. M. (2014). Spillover
between marital quality and parent–child relationship quality: Parental depressive
symptoms as moderators. Journal of Family Psychology, 28(3), 315.
Lakey, B. & Orehek, E. (2011). Relational regulation theory: a new approach to explain the link
between perceived social support and mental health. Psychological review, 118(3), 482.
Lansford, J. E., Wager, L. B., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., & Dodge, K. A. (2012). Forms of
spanking and children's externalizing behaviors. Family Relations, 61(2), 224-236.
LaRocque, M., Kleiman, I., & Darling, S. M. (2011). Parental involvement: The missing link in
school achievement. Preventing School Failure, 55(3), 115-122.
Latham, R. M., Mark, K. M., & Oliver, B. R. (2018). Coparenting and children’s disruptive
behavior: Interacting processes for parenting sense of competence. Journal of Family
Psychology, 32(1), 151
104

Lavigne, J. V., Gouze, K. R., Hopkins, J., Bryant, F. B., & LeBailly, S. A. (2012). A multi-
domain model of risk factors for ODD symptoms in a community sample of 4-year-olds.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 40(5), 741-757.
Leahy‐Warren, P., McCarthy, G., & Corcoran, P. (2012). First‐time mothers: social support,
maternal parental self‐efficacy and postnatal depression. Journal of clinical
nursing, 21(3‐4), 388-397.
Lee, M. A., Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., & Dush, C. M. K. (2012). Parenting perfectionism and
parental adjustment. Personality and individual differences, 52(3), 454-457.
Leschyshyn, A., & Minnotte, K. (2014). Professional parents’ loyalty to employer: The role of
workplace social support. The Social Science Journal, 51(3), 438–446.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2014.04.003
Lipstein, E. A., Brinkman, W. B., & Britto, M. T. (2012). What is known about parents’
treatment decisions? A narrative review of pediatric decision making. Medical Decision
Making, 32(2), 246-258.
Liu, C. M., & Suyemoto, K. L. (2016). The effects of racism-related stress on Asian Americans:
Anxiety and depression among different generational statuses. Asian American Journal of
Psychology, 7(2), 137.
Liu, J. (2004). Childhood externalizing behavior: Theory and implications. Journal of child and
adolescent psychiatric nursing, 17(3), 93-103.
Liu, J. J., Bao, Y., Huang, X., Shi, J., & Lu, L. (2020). Mental health considerations for children
quarantined because of COVID-19. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, 4(5), 347-
349.
105

Liu, J., Chen, X., & Lewis, G. (2011). Childhood internalizing behaviour: analysis and
implications. Journal of psychiatric and mental health nursing, 18(10), 884-894.
Loades, M. E., Chatburn, E., Higson-Sweeney, N., Reynolds, S., Shafran, R., Brigden, A., ... &
Crawley, E. (2020). Rapid systematic review: the impact of social isolation and
loneliness on the mental health of children and adolescents in the context of COVID-19.
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry.
Mackler, J. S., Kelleher, R. T., Shanahan, L., Calkins, S. D., Keane, S. P., & O'Brien, M. (2015).
Parenting stress, parental reactions, and externalizing behavior from ages 4 to 10. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 77(2), 388-406.
Mah, V. K., & Ford-Jones, E. L. (2012). Spotlight on middle childhood: Rejuvenating the
‘forgotten years’. Paediatrics & child health, 17(2), 81-83.
Malan-Van Rooyen, M. (n.d.). Emotional Development, Effects of Parenting and Family
Structure on. In International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences /(pp. 438–
444). Elsevier,. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.23048-1
Márk-Ribiczey, N., Miklósi, M., & Szabó, M. (2016). Maternal self-efficacy and role
satisfaction: The mediating effect of cognitive emotion regulation. Journal of child and
family studies, 25(1), 189-197.
Masarik, A. S., & Conger, R. D. (2017). Stress and child development: A review of the Family
Stress Model. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 85-90.
Masten, A. S., & Motti-Stefanidi, F. (2020). Multisystem Resilience for Children and Youth in
Disaster: Reflections in the Context of COVID-19. Adversity and Resilience Science, 1-
12.
106

McConnell, D., Savage, A., & Breitkreuz, R. (2014). Resilience in families raising children with
disabilities and behavior problems. Research in developmental disabilities, 35(4), 833-
848.
McEwen, B. S. (2005). Stressed or stressed out: what is the difference?. Journal of Psychiatry
and Neuroscience, 30(5), 315.
McLaughlin, K. A., Fairbank, J. A., Gruber, M. J., Jones, R. T., Osofsky, J. D., Pfefferbaum, B.,
... & Kessler, R. C. (2010). Trends in serious emotional disturbance among youths
exposed to Hurricane Katrina. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent
Psychiatry, 49(10), 990-1000.
Meunier, J. C., Roskam, I., & Browne, D. T. (2011). Relations between parenting and child
behavior: Exploring the child’s personality and parental self-efficacy as third variables.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35(3), 246-259.
Michelson, D., Davenport, C., Dretzke, J., Barlow, J., & Day, C. (2013). Do evidence-based
interventions work when tested in the “real world?” A systematic review and meta-
analysis of parent management training for the treatment of child disruptive behavior.
Clinical child and family psychology review, 16(1), 18-34.
Miklósi, M., Szabó, M., & Simon, L. (2017). The Role of Mindfulness in the Relationship
Between Perceived Parenting, Early Maladaptive Schemata and Parental Sense of
Competence. Mindfulness, 8(2), 471–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-016-0619-4
Mizock, L., & Harkins, D. (2011). Diagnostic bias and conduct disorder: Improving culturally
sensitive diagnosis. Child & Youth Services, 32(3), 243-253.
107

Morgan, P. L., Staff, J., Hillemeier, M. M., Farkas, G., & Maczuga, S. (2013). Racial and ethnic
disparities in ADHD diagnosis from kindergarten to eighth grade. Pediatrics, 132(1), 85-
93.
Morris, A. S., Criss, M. M., Silk, J. S., & Houltberg, B. J. (2017). The impact of parenting on
emotion regulation during childhood and adolescence. Child Development Perspectives,
11(4), 233-238.
Murdock, K. W. (2013). An examination of parental self-efficacy among mothers and fathers.
Psychology of men & masculinity, 14(3), 314.
Nam, Y. (n.d.). Racial and Ethnic Differences in Parenting Stress: Evidence from a Statewide
Sample of New Mothers. Journal of Child and Family Studies., 24(2), 278–288.
https://doi.org/info:doi/
Nomaguchi, K. & House, A. (2013). Racial-Ethnic Disparities in Maternal Parenting Stress: The
Role of Structural Disadvantages and Parenting Values. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 54(3), 386–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146513498511
O’Brennan, L. M., Bradshaw, C. P., & Furlong, M. J. (2014). Influence of classroom and school
climate on teacher perceptions of student problem behavior. School mental health, 6(2),
125-136
Oliver, R. M., Wehby, J. H., & Reschly, D. J. (2011). Teacher classroom management practices:
Effects on disruptive or aggressive student behavior. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 7(1),
1-55.
Owen, A., & Anderson, B. (2017). Informal community support for parents of pre-school
children: A comparative study investigating the subjective experience of parents
attending community-based toddler groups in different socio-economic situations.
108

Journal of Early Childhood Research, 15(2), 212–224.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X15597022
Pachter, L. M., Bernstein, B. A., Szalacha, L. A., & Coll, C. G. (2010). Perceived racism and
discrimination in children and youths: An exploratory study. Health & Social Work,
35(1), 61-69.
Panagioti, M., Gooding, P. A., Taylor, P. J., & Tarrier, N. (2014). Perceived social support
buffers the impact of PTSD symptoms on suicidal behavior: implications into suicide
resilience research. Comprehensive psychiatry, 55(1), 104-112.
Park, C. L., Russell, B. S., Fendrich, M., Finkelstein-Fox, L., Hutchison, M., & Becker, J.
(2020). Americans’ COVID-19 stress, coping, and adherence to CDC guidelines. Journal
of general internal medicine, 35(8), 2296-2303.
Patel, R. S., Amaravadi, N., Bhullar, H., Lekireddy, J., & Win, H. (2018). Understanding the
Demographic Predictors and Associated Comorbidities in Children Hospitalized with
Conduct Disorder. Behavioral Sciences, 8(9), 80.
Patterson, J. M. (2002). Integrating family resilience and family stress theory. Journal of
marriage and family, 64(2), 349-360.
Pedersen, D., Minnotte, K., & Mannon, S. (2010). Getting by with a Little Help from Workplace
Friends: Workplace Culture, Social Support, and Family Cohesion. Marriage & Family
Review, 46(6-7), 400–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2010.528322
Pekrun, R., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2012). Academic emotions and student engagement. In
Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 259-282). Springer.
109

Perry, B. L., Aronson, B., & Pescosolido, B. A. (2021). Pandemic precarity: COVID-19 is
exposing and exacerbating inequalities in the American heartland. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 118(8).
Petro, M., Rich, E., Erasmus, C., & Roman, N. (2018). The Effect of Religion on Parenting in
Order to Guide Parents in the Way They Parent: A Systematic Review. Journal of
Spirituality in Mental Health, 20(2), 114–139.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19349637.2017.1341823
Phelps, C., & Sperry, L. L. (2020). Children and the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychological
Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 12(S1), S73.
Piper, B. J., Gray, H. M., Raber, J., & Birkett, M. A. (2014). Reliability and validity of brief
problem monitor, an abbreviated form of the child behavior checklist. Psychiatry and
clinical neurosciences, 68(10), 759-767.
Platt, D. (2012). Understanding parental engagement with child welfare services: An integrated
model. Child & Family Social Work, 17(2), 138-148.
Plumb, J. C. (2011). The impact of social support and family resilience on parental stress in
families with a child diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder.
Polanczyk, G. V., Willcutt, E. G., Salum, G. A., Kieling, C., & Rohde, L. A. (2014). ADHD
prevalence estimates across three decades: an updated systematic review and meta-
regression analysis. International journal of epidemiology, 43(2), 434-442.
Ponnet, K., Mortelmans, D., Wouters, E., Van Leeuwen, K., Bastaits, K., & Pasteels, I. (2013).
Parenting stress and marital relationship as determinants of mothers' and fathers'
parenting. Personal relationships, 20(2), 259-276.
110

Potter, N. N. (2014). Oppositional defiant disorder: Cultural factors that influence interpretations
of defiant behavior and their social and scientific consequences. Classifying
psychopathology: Mental kinds and natural kinds, 175.
Priest, N., Paradies, Y., Trenerry, B., Truong, M., Karlsen, S., & Kelly, Y. (2013). A systematic
review of studies examining the relationship between reported racism and health and
wellbeing for children and young people. Social science & medicine, 95, 115-127.
Preyde, M., VanDonge, C., Carter, J., Lazure-Valconi, K., White, S., Ashbourne, G., Penney, R.,
Frensch, K., & Cameron, G. (2015). Parents of Youth in Intensive Mental Health
Treatment: Associations Between Emotional and Behavioral Disorders and Parental
Sense of Competence. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 32(4), 317–327.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-014-0375-z
Raikes, H. A., & Thompson, R. A. (2005). Efficacy and social support as predictors of parenting
stress among families in poverty. Infant Mental Health Journal: Official Publication of
The World Association for Infant Mental Health, 26(3), 177-190.
Reid, K. M., & Taylor, M. G. (2015). Social support, stress, and maternal postpartum depression:
A comparison of supportive relationships. Social Science Research, 54, 246-262.
Respler-Herman, M., Mowder, B. A., Yasik, A. E., & Shamah, R. (2012). Parenting beliefs,
parental stress, and social support relationships. Journal of Child and Family Studies,
21(2), 190-198.
Rigg, J., Day, J., & Adler, H. (2013). Emotional exhaustion in graduate students: The role of
engagement, self-efficacy and social support. Journal of Educational and Developmental
Psychology, 3(2), 138.
111

Roberti, J. W., Harrington, L. N., & Storch, E. A. (2006). Further psychometric support for the
10‐item version of the perceived stress scale. Journal of College Counseling, 9(2), 135-
147.
Romero, E., López-Romero, L., Domínguez-Álvarez, B., Villar, P., & Gómez-Fraguela, J. A.
(2020). Testing the effects of COVID-19 confinement in Spanish children: The role of
parents’ distress, emotional problems and specific parenting. International journal of
environmental research and public health, 17(19), 6975.
Rowley, S. J., Helaire, L. J., & Banerjee, M. (2010). Reflecting on racism: School involvement
and perceived teacher discrimination in African American mothers. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 31(1), 83-92.
Roy, A. L., Isaia, A., & Li-Grining, C. P. (2019). Making meaning from money: Subjective
social status and young children’s behavior problems. Journal of Family Psychology,
33(2), 240.
Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New
Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.
https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55(1), 68.
Sanders, M. R., Kirby, J. N., Tellegen, C. L., & Day, J. J. (2014). The Triple P-Positive
Parenting Program: A systematic review and meta-analysis of a multi-level system of
parenting support. Clinical psychology review, 34(4), 337-357.
Schwarzer, R., & Warner, L. M. (2013). Perceived self-efficacy and its relationship to resilience.
In Resilience in children, adolescents, and adults (pp. 139-150). Springer.
112

Semke, C. A., Garbacz, S. A., Kwon, K., Sheridan, S. M., & Woods, K. E. (2010). Family
involvement for children with disruptive behaviors: The role of parenting stress and
motivational beliefs. Journal of School Psychology, 48(4), 293-312.
Siegel, C. E., Laska, E. M., Wanderling, J. A., Hernandez, J. C. & Levenson, R. B. (2016).
Prevalence and diagnosis rates of childhood ADHD among racial-ethnic groups in a
public mental health system. Psychiatric Services, 67, 199-205.
Shaw, D. S., & Shelleby, E. C. (2014). Early-starting conduct problems: Intersection of conduct
problems and poverty. Annual review of clinical psychology, 10, 503-528.
Sibley, M. H., Pelham, W. E., Molina, B. S., Gnagy, E. M., Waschbusch, D. A., Biswas, A., ... &
Karch, K. M. (2011). The delinquency outcomes of boys with ADHD with and without
comorbidity. Journal of abnormal child psychology, 39(1), 21-32
Skiba, R. J., Horner, R. H., Chung, C. G., Karega Rausch, M., May, S. L., & Tobin, T. (2011).
Race is not neutral: A national investigation of African American and Latino
disproportionality in school discipline. School Psychology Review, 40(1), 85.
Steele, H., Bate, J., Steele, M., Dube, S. R., Danskin, K., Knafo, H., ... & Murphy, A. (2016).
Adverse childhood experiences, poverty, and parenting stress. Canadian Journal of
Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 48(1), 32.
Strange, C., Bremner, A., Fisher, C., Howat, P., & Wood, L. (2016). Mothers’ group
participation: associations with social capital, social support and mental well‐being.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(1), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12809
Strickland, A. L., & Samp, J. A. (2013). Parental competence and maltreatment: The curvilinear
influence of plan complexity. Journal of interpersonal violence, 28(5), 997-1019.
113

Sullivan, A. L. (2017). Wading through quicksand: Making sense of minority disproportionality
in identification of emotional disturbance. Behavioral disorders, 43(1), 244-252.
Swickert, R. J., Hittner, J. B., & Foster, A. (2010). Big Five traits interact to predict perceived
social support. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(6), 736-741.
Szczesniak, R., Zou, Y., Wetzel, J., Krause, N., & Grossoehme, D. (2015). Increased
Congregational Support for Parents of Children with Cystic Fibrosis. Journal of Religion
and Health, 54(2), 664–675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-014-9928-x
Taylor, J. M. (2015). Psychometric analysis of the ten-item perceived stress scale. Psychological
assessment, 27(1), 90.
Taylor, R. J., Chae, D. H., Lincoln, K. D., & Chatters, L. M. (2015). Extended family and
friendship support networks are both protective and risk factors for major depressive
disorder, and depressive symptoms among African Americans and Black Caribbeans. The
Journal of nervous and mental disease, 203(2), 132.
Taylor, R. J., Forsythe-Brown, I., Lincoln, K. D., & Chatters, L. M. (2017). Extended family
support networks of Caribbean Black adults in the United States. Journal of Family
Issues, 38(4), 522-546.
Thoits, P. A. (2011). Mechanisms linking social ties and support to physical and mental health.
Journal of health and social behavior, 52(2), 145-161.
Thomas, A. J., Speight, S. L., & Witherspoon, K. M. (2010). Racial socialization, racial identity,
and race-related stress of African American parents. The Family Journal, 18(4), 407-412.
Thomas, P. A., Liu, H., & Umberson, D. (2017). Family relationships and well-being. Innovation
in aging, 1(3), igx025.
114

Thompson, A. M., & Webber, K. C. (2010). Realigning student and teacher perceptions of
school rules: A behavior management strategy for students with challenging behaviors.
Children & Schools, 32(2), 71-79.
Tucker, M. C., & Rodriguez, C. M. (2014). Family dysfunction and social isolation as
moderators between stress and child physical abuse risk. Journal of family violence,
29(2), 175-186
Ungar, M. (2012). Social ecologies and their contribution to resilience. In M. Ungar (Ed.), The
social ecology of resilience: A handbook of theory and practice (pp. 13–32). Springer.
Van der Kolk, B. A. (2017). Developmental trauma disorder: toward a rational diagnosis for
children with complex trauma histories. Psychiatric annals, 35(5), 401-408.
Vélez-Agosto, N. M., Soto-Crespo, J. G., Vizcarrondo-Oppenheimer, M., Vega-Molina, S., &
García Coll, C. (2017). Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory revision: Moving culture
from the macro into the micro. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(5), 900-910.
von Gontard, A., Moritz, A. M., Thome‐Granz, S., & Equit, M. (2015). Abdominal pain
symptoms are associated with anxiety and depression in young children. Acta
paediatrica, 104(11), 1156-1163.
Wadsworth, M. E., Rindlaub, L., Hurwich-Reiss, E., Rienks, S., Bianco, H., & Markman, H. J.
(2013). A longitudinal examination of the adaptation to poverty-related stress model:
Predicting child and adolescent adjustment over time. Journal of Clinical Child &
Adolescent Psychology, 42(5), 713-725.
Walsh, F. (2016). Family resilience: A developmental systems framework. European journal of
developmental psychology, 13(3), 313-324.
115

Werekeitzen, J. (2017). Discrimination and Health: Sleep and Racism-related Vigilance in Wave
5 of Americans' Changing Lives Study.
Woodward, A. T. (2011). Discrimination and help-seeking: Use of professional services and
informal support among African Americans, Black Caribbeans, and non-Hispanic Whites
with a mental disorder. Race and Social Problems, 3(3), 146–159. doi:10.1007/s12552-
011-9049-z
Yi, C. Y., Gentzler, A. L., Ramsey, M. A., & Root, A. E. (2016). Linking maternal socialization
of positive emotions to children’s behavioral problems: The moderating role of self-
control. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(5), 1550-1558.
Zacchilli, T. L., Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. (2009). The Romantic Partner Conflict Scale: A
new scale to measure conflict in dating relationships. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 1073-1096.
Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988). The multidimensional scale
of perceived social support. Journal of personality assessment, 52(1), 30-41.
Zisser, A., & Eyberg, S. M. (2010). Parent-child interaction therapy and the treatment of
disruptive behavior disorders.
116

Appendix A: Participant Consent Statement
If you are the parent of an Elementary School- Aged child, you are invited to participate
in this study. The purpose of this study is to determine if there is a relationship between
parent's stress/supports and feelings about parenting with children’s behaviors during the
COVID-19 pandemic. We hope to learn what is impacting parents and how children are
currently behaving during this time.
The following survey will take approximately 20 minutes and is anonymous. By
participating in this survey, you are indicating your consent to be part of this study. You may
stop at any time without incurring any penalty. At the end of the survey, you will have the
chance to be entered into a raffle to win a $50 Amazon gift card.
This research has been reviewed by the USC Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB
is a research review board that reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and
welfare of research participants. Contact the IRB if you have questions about your rights as a
research participant or you have complaints about the research. You may contact the IRB at
(323) 442-0114 or by email at irb@usc.edu.

117

Appendix B: Demographic Questions
1. Including yourself, how many adults live in your home?
a. 1
b. 2
c. 3
d. 4
e. More than 4

2. How many children live in your home?
a. 1
b. 2
c. 3
d. 4
e. More than 4

3. What is your marital status?
a. Married or in a domestic partnership
b. Single or never married
c. Divorced or Separated
d. Widowed

4. What is your family income?
a. Under $50,000 a year
b. $50,0001- $100,000 a year
c. $100,001-$150,000 a year
d. More than $150,000 a year

5. What is your race/ethnicity?
a. American Indian or Alaska Native
b. Asian American
c. Black or African American
d. Chicano/Hispanic/Latinx
e. Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
f. White
g. Other

6. What is your gender?
a. Female
b. Male
c. Transgender Female
d. Transgender Male
e. Agender or Non-Binary
f. Other
7. What is the age of your child? (If you have more than one child in elementary school, please
select the younger child for this study)
118

a. 5
b. 6
c. 7
d. 8
e. 9
f. 10
g. 11

8. What is the gender of your child?
a. Female
b. Male
c. Transgender Female
d. Transgender Male
e. Agender or Non-Binary
f. Other

9. Do you currently leave your house to go to work?
a. Yes
b. No

10. How does your child currently attend school?
a. Fully Online
b. Hybrid (half online, half in-person at their school site)
c. Fully in-person at their school site

119

Appendix C: Parenting Sense of Competence Scale
Please rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Somewhat
Disagree
4
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
5
Somewhat
Agree
6
Agree
7
Strongly
Agree

1. The problems of taking care of a child are easy to solve once you
know how your actions affect your child, an understanding I have
acquired.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Even though being a parent could be rewarding, I am frustrated now
while my child is at his/her present age.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. I go to bed the same way I wake up in the morning, feeling I have not
accomplished a whole lot.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. I do not know why it is, but sometimes when I’m supposed to be in
control, I feel more like the one being manipulated.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. My mother/father was better prepared to be a good mother/father
than I am.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. I would make a fine model for a new parent to follow in order to
learn what she would need to know in order to be a good parent.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. Being a parent is manageable, and any problems are easily solved. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. A difficult problem in being a parent is not knowing whether you’re
doing a good job or a bad one.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. Sometimes I feel like I’m not getting anything done. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. I meet by own personal expectations for expertise in caring for my
child.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. If anyone can find the answer to what is troubling my child, I am the
one.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12. My talents and interests are in other areas, not being a parent. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13. Considering how long I’ve been a parent; I feel thoroughly familiar
with this role.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14. If being a parent of a child were only more interesting, I would be
motivated to do a better job as a parent.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15. I honestly believe I have all the skills necessary to be a good parent
to my child.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
16. Being a parent makes me tense and anxious. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
17. Being a good parent is a reward in itself. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Note. Adapted from Gibaud-Wallston, J., & Wandersmann, L. P. (1978). Development and
utility of the Parenting Sense of Competence Scale. John F. Kennedy center for research on
education and human development. In the public domain.
120

Appendix D: Family Support Scale
Please rate how helpful you feel sources have been to your family during the past 3 to 6 months.
0
Not Available/Not
Applicable
1
Not at all
Helpful
2
Sometimes
Helpful
3
Generally
Helpful
4
Very
Helpful
5
Extremely
Helpful

1. Your parents 0 1 2 3 4 5
2. Your spouse or partner’s parents 0 1 2 3 4 5
3. Your relatives/kin (other than parents) 0 1 2 3 4 5
4. Your spouse or partner’s relatives/kin 0 1 2 3 4 5
5. Spouse or partner 0 1 2 3 4 5
6. Your friends 0 1 2 3 4 5
7. Your spouse or partner’s friends 0 1 2 3 4 5
8. Your own children 0 1 2 3 4 5
9. Other parents 0 1 2 3 4 5
10. Co-workers 0 1 2 3 4 5
11. Parent groups 0 1 2 3 4 5
12. Social groups/clubs 0 1 2 3 4 5
13. Religious group members/religious leader 0 1 2 3 4 5
14. Your family or child’s physician 0 1 2 3 4 5
15. Early childhood intervention programs 0 1 2 3 4 5
16. School/day care center 0 1 2 3 4 5
17. Professional helpers (social workers,
therapists, teachers etc.)
0 1 2 3 4 5
18. Professional agencies (public health, social
services, mental health, etc.)
0 1 2 3 4 5

Note. Adapted from Dunst, C., Jenkins, J., & Trivette, C. M. (1984). Family support scale:
Reliability and validity. Journal of Individual, Family, and Community Wellness, 1, 45–52. In
the public domain.

121

Appendix E: Perceived Stress Scale
The questions in this scale ask about your feelings and thoughts during the last month. In each
case, you will be asked to indicate how often you felt or thought a certain way.
0
Never
1
Almost Never
2
Sometimes
3
Fairly Often
4
Very Often

1. In the last month, how often have you been upset because of
something that happened unexpectedly?
0 1 2 3 4
2. In the last month, how often have you felt that you were unable to
control the important things in your life?
0 1 2 3 4
3. In the last month, how often have you felt nervous and stressed? 0 1 2 3 4
4. In the last month, how often have you felt confident about your
ability to handle your personal problems?
0 1 2 3 4
5. In the last month, how often have you felt that things were going
your way?
0 1 2 3 4
6. In the last month, how often have you found that you could not
cope with all the things that you had to do?
0 1 2 3 4
7. In the last month, how often have you been able to control
irritations in your life?
0 1 2 3 4
8. In the last month, how often have you felt that you were on top of
things?
0 1 2 3 4
9. In the last month, how often have you been angered because of
things that happened that were outside of your control?
0 1 2 3 4
10. In the last month, how often have you felt difficulties were piling
up so high that you could not overcome them?
0 1 2 3 4

Note. Adapted from Cohen, S., & Williamson, G. (1988). Perceived stress in a probability
sample of the United States. In S. Spacapan & S. Oskamp (Eds.), The social psychology of
health: Claremont Symposium on Applied Social Psychology (pp. 31–67). Sage. In the public
domain.

122

Appendix F: Romantic Partner Conflict Scale
Subscale for Interactional Reactivity
Think about how you handle conflict with your romantic partner. Specifically, think about a
significant conflict issue that you and your partner have disagreed about recently. Using the
scale below, fill in which response is most like how you handled conflict. If you do not have a
romantic partner, respond with your most recent partner in mind. If you have never been in a
romantic relationship, answer in terms of what you think your responses would most likely be.
0
Strongly
Disagree
1
Disagree
2
Neither Disagree nor
Agree
3
Agree
4
Strongly
Agree

1. When my partner and I disagree, we argue loudly. 0 1 2 3 4
2. Our conflicts usually last quite a while. 0 1 2 3 4
3. My partner and I have frequent conflicts. 0 1 2 3 4
4. I suffer a lot from conflict with my partner. 0 1 2 3 4
5. I become verbally abusive to my partner when we have
conflict.
0 1 2 3 4
6. My partner and I often argue because I do not trust him/her. 0 1 2 3 4

Note. Adapted from Zacchilli, T. L., Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. (2009). The Romantic Partner
Conflict Scale: A new scale to measure conflict in dating relationships. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 1073-1096. Copyright 2007, Tammy Lowery Zacchilli, Texas Tech
University

123

Appendix G: Brief Problem Monitor Scale
Below is a list of items that describe children and youth. Please rate each item to describe your
child now or within the past 30 days. If you have more than one child in Elementary School,
please select your youngest child.
0
Not True (as far as you
know)
1
Somewhat True
2
Very True

1. Acts too young for his/her age 0 1 2
2. Argues a lot 0 1 2
3. Fails to finish things he/she starts 0 1 2
4. Can’t concentrate, can’t pay attention for long 0 1 2
5. Can’t sit still, restless, or hyperactive 0 1 2
6. Destroys things belonging to his/her family or others 0 1 2
7. Disobedient at home 0 1 2
8. Disobedient at school 0 1 2
9. Feels worthless or inferior 0 1 2
10. Impulsive or acts without thinking 0 1 2
11. Too fearful or anxious 0 1 2
12. Feels too guilty 0 1 2
13. Self-conscious or easily embarrassed 0 1 2
14. Inattentive or easily distracted 0 1 2
15. Stubborn, sullen, or irritable 0 1 2
16. Temper tantrums or hot temper 0 1 2
17. Threatens people 0 1 2
18. Unhappy, sad, or depressed 0 1 2
19. Worries 0 1 2

Note. Adapted from Achenbach, T. M., McConaughy, S. H., Ivanova, M. Y., & Rescorla, L. A.
(2011). Manual for the ASEBA brief problem monitor (BPM). ASEBA, 1-33. Copyright, 2011
T.M. Achenbach.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Adolescent mental health disorders and school-based supports pre- and during COVID-19

PDF

The exploration of lived experiences of Black women directors in student affairs who led others during COVID-19

PDF

Teaching in the time of COVID: secondary educators’ experiences during and after the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

Well-being, employee effectiveness, and organizational support: community college administrators during the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

A case study of the academic and behavioral support provided to military-connected children in public schools

PDF

Analyzing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic On K-12 southern California public school districts and understanding what district and site administrators…

PDF

Lived experiences of transgender young adults transitioning during the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

Remote learning and parent engagement during a crisis

PDF

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals

PDF

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals

PDF

A phenomenological study examining experiences of families of students with disabilities in Georgia public schools during the COVID-19 pandemic and looking forward

PDF

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals

PDF

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals

PDF

Military spouse well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals

PDF

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals

PDF

Exploring the relationship between academic achievement and classroom behavior of Asian American elementary school students

PDF

Leadership practices impacting Minnesota school principals’ employee well-being and burnout during the pandemic

PDF

Gay straight alliances: A case study of member perceptions of support at an international school

PDF

Frontline workers serving students: a study on the well-being of student affairs professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic

Asset Metadata

Creator Ross, Lily (author)

Core Title Parenting during a pandemic: how stress and supports influence parental perceptions of child behaviors

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Degree Conferral Date 2021-08

Publication Date 07/26/2023

Defense Date 06/24/2021

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag behaviors,Children,COVID-19,OAI-PMH Harvest,Parenting,support

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Chung, Ruth (committee chair), Andres, Mary (committee member), Cederbaum, Julie (committee member)

Creator Email lilyross@usc.edu,lilyrosslcsw@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC15659671

Unique identifier UC15659671

Legacy Identifier etd-RossLily-9924

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Ross, Lily

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu