View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Cascading Effects of the Family Check-Up on Mothers' and Fathers' Observed and Self-Reported Parenting and Young Adult Antisocial Behavior: A 12-Year Longitudinal Intervention Trial

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Cascading Effects of the Family Check-Up on Mothers' and Fathers' Observed and Self-Reported Parenting and Young Adult Antisocial Behavior: A 12-Year Longitudinal Intervention Trial
Language: English
Authors: Timothy F. Piehler (ORCID 0000-0001-5192-6012), Guanyu Wang, Yunqi He, Thao Ha
Source: Prevention Science. 2024 25(5):786-797.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 12
Publication Date: 2024
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) (DHHS/PHS)
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) (DHHS/NIH)
Contract Number: DA07031
AA022071
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Longitudinal Studies, Antisocial Behavior, Early Adolescents, Parent Child Relationship, Parenting Styles, Mothers, Fathers, At Risk Students, Intervention, Multi Tiered Systems of Support, Naturalistic Observation
DOI: 10.1007/s11121-024-01685-8
ISSN: 1389-4986
1573-6695
Abstract: Over a 12-year period, this study examined the effects of the Family Check-Up preventive intervention model on both observed and self-reported parenting behaviors of mothers and fathers as well as how those parenting behaviors were associated with young adult antisocial behavior. Teachers identified 641 early adolescent youth from school settings to be at elevated risk for the development of externalizing behavior and/or substance use. These youth and their families were randomly assigned to the Family Check-Up intervention model (consisting of an adaptive, multi-tiered model of support, including a school-based family resource room, the Family Check-Up, and targeted follow-up services) or a control condition. Using an intent-to-treat approach, the Family Check-Up intervention model positively impacted mothers' observed parenting approximately 5 years later in middle adolescence but was not associated with changes in fathers' observed or self-reported parenting. Mothers' observed adaptive parenting and fathers' self-reported adaptive parenting in middle adolescence were associated with lower risk for young adult antisocial behavior. The cascading effects of brief, family-focused interventions are discussed along with implications for the measurement of parenting in mothers and fathers in the context of preventive intervention trials.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1435435
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFkm_ZX4pMAFF8Lc_EFf7D-AAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDLSHw9kJ0qTk-SbNmAIBEICBmpgqoxExHi-a6waUd9PgO-HFwlrvkMUt0EvP8kpNPIKSXdk8yNj8KvqO9xbEFLtJSnCJKwAtfAPrAGAs9mJM4yAZORyCS2QCHXpCSpsPhwcp9vDco_I8ovQ7GeUxkxHUZPI_FSK0AML7Njc76PBknsQOz79K3J-AKmX68PePtEMETzer21WP2Kk7XZwSi4vRkEb5gEpH3txpvGQ=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0179040054;n9p01jul.24;2024Aug19.06:02;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0179040054-1">Cascading Effects of the Family Check-Up on Mothers' and Fathers' Observed and Self-Reported Parenting and Young Adult Antisocial Behavior: a 12-Year Longitudinal Intervention Trial </title> <p>Over a 12-year period, this study examined the effects of the Family Check-Up preventive intervention model on both observed and self-reported parenting behaviors of mothers and fathers as well as how those parenting behaviors were associated with young adult antisocial behavior. Teachers identified 641 early adolescent youth from school settings to be at elevated risk for the development of externalizing behavior and/or substance use. These youth and their families were randomly assigned to the Family Check-Up intervention model (consisting of an adaptive, multi-tiered model of support, including a school-based family resource room, the Family Check-Up, and targeted follow-up services) or a control condition. Using an intent-to-treat approach, the Family Check-Up intervention model positively impacted mothers' observed parenting approximately 5 years later in middle adolescence but was not associated with changes in fathers' observed or self-reported parenting. Mothers' observed adaptive parenting and fathers' self-reported adaptive parenting in middle adolescence were associated with lower risk for young adult antisocial behavior. The cascading effects of brief, family-focused interventions are discussed along with implications for the measurement of parenting in mothers and fathers in the context of preventive intervention trials.</p> <p>Keywords: Family check-up; Parenting; Antisocial behavior; Adolescence; Young adulthood</p> <p>Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</p> <p>Antisocial behavior includes actions that violate societal laws, norms, and expectations that often impinge upon the rights of others (Hiatt & Dishion, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref1">16</reflink>]). These behaviors typically begin in adolescence, and if they persist into adulthood, can have serious consequences for individuals in the forms of criminal behavior, justice system involvement, substance use, maladaptive relationships, and poor educational and occupational attainment (Fergusson et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref2">13</reflink>]; Frick, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref3">15</reflink>]). Given these profound implications, a number of preventive interventions have targeted processes associated with the development and persistence of antisocial behavior during childhood and adolescence (Dishion & Patterson, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref4">9</reflink>]; Piquero et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref5">28</reflink>]; Sorensen et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref6">32</reflink>]). In alignment with social interaction learning theory, parenting practices such as monitoring, effective limit setting, and problem solving represent a common target for interventions given their developmental association with antisocial behavior (Patterson, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref7">25</reflink>]; Patterson et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref8">26</reflink>]). While supported by well-established theory, limited research has directly demonstrated the role that intervention-related changes in parenting processes during adolescence play in antisocial behaviors in adulthood (Sorensen et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref9">32</reflink>]). Furthermore, the preponderance of prior research examining intervention-related parenting change has focused on mothers. We know little about whether mothers and fathers may respond differently to family-focused interventions and in turn how any changes in their parenting may differentially impact the development of antisocial behavior into adulthood. This study sought to address these limitations by investigating the cascading impact of the Family Check-Up (FCU) preventive intervention on parenting practices of mothers and fathers during adolescence and antisocial behavior in young adulthood.</p> <hd id="AN0179040054-2">Parenting Practices and Antisocial Behavior</hd> <p>Parenting practices during adolescence have reliably been linked to the development of antisocial behavior (Patterson, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref10">25</reflink>]). The transmission of family dynamics to young adult adjustment is consistent with developmental cascade models, in which adaptation or maladaptation in one domain spreads to another domain over the course of development (Masten & Cicchetti, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref11">20</reflink>]). Social interaction learning theory stresses the role of the family context in shaping adolescent behavioral outcomes (Patterson, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref12">25</reflink>]; Patterson et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref13">26</reflink>]). The theory emphasizes that adolescent antisocial behavior is shaped through contingency-based interactions between parents and adolescents. Ineffective parenting practices such as escalating or removing demands in response to aversive adolescent behaviors may inadvertently reinforce negative behavioral responses in adolescents. Without intervention, these coercive patterns of interaction can solidify and lead to escalations in problem behaviors. Adaptive parenting practices such as using positive reinforcement for appropriate behaviors, building positive parent–child relationships, and supporting effective problem solving can interrupt coercive interaction cycles and are associated with reduced risk for the development and maintenance of antisocial behavior. Parents who effectively monitor their adolescents' whereabouts and activities also reduce risk for the development of problem behaviors (Dishion & McMahon, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref14">8</reflink>]). While parental engagement typically lessens during the transition to adulthood, antisocial trajectories supported by family dynamics in adolescence are likely to persist into adulthood (Dishion & Patterson, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref15">25</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0179040054-3">Family Check-Up</hd> <p>A number of family-focused intervention models have demonstrated success in promoting adaptive parenting practices, which in turn reduce risk for antisocial behavior (Fagan & Benedini, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref16">12</reflink>]). The FCU is one such model with strong evidence of its ability to positively impact family dynamics as well as improve antisocial behavior outcomes in youth (Dishion & Stormshak, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref17">11</reflink>]). The FCU is a brief, assessment-driven and motivationally-focused family-centered intervention. Designed to motivate parenting change when it is needed, the FCU utilizes a comprehensive assessment to identify potential areas of change. While the primary FCU intervention consists of three sessions, the FCU provides families with a menu of potential additional services that are targeted to a family's specific needs. In multiple randomized controlled trials, the FCU has been demonstrated to improve parenting and reduce risk for problem behaviors and substance use when delivered in adolescence as well as early childhood (Dishion & Mauricio, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref18">7</reflink>]; Stormshak & Dishion, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref19">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>Relative to other intensive models of family-focused preventive interventions (e.g., Forgatch & Gewirtz, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref20">14</reflink>]; Webster-Stratton & Reid, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref21">36</reflink>]), the brief, targeted nature of the FCU is less burdensome for families and adaptive to families' level of need. Unlike traditional, fixed intervention models that provide standard programming to all participants, the FCU adapts by providing varying dosage and services to meet individual family goals and needs. However, given that FCU often provides a lower dosage of programming compared to other intervention models, there is some question as to the longitudinal stability of its effects. When delivered in early adolescence, the FCU has been shown to reduce family conflict in early to mid-adolescence, which was in turn associated with reductions in antisocial behavior in late adolescence (Van Ryzin & Dishion, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref22">35</reflink>]). However, there is less evidence of the stability of FCU effects beyond late adolescence, with some studies identifying FCU-associated reductions in young adult risk behaviors (Stormshak et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref23">33</reflink>]) and others noting a waning of FCU effects by young adulthood (Connell et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref24">5</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0179040054-4">Measurement of Parenting Outcomes</hd> <p>Parenting outcomes in family-focused prevention studies are typically evaluated by either self-reported, survey-based measures or observational measures of parenting behaviors. While each approach has strengths and limitations, observational measures present several advantages. Observational measures may better capture the complex interactive and dynamic aspects of parenting behaviors and may also be more sensitive to intervention-related change relative to survey-based measures (McMahon & Metzler, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref25">21</reflink>]; Smith, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref26">30</reflink>]). Survey-based measures tend to be particularly susceptible to social desirability effects and recall biases (Lindhiem & Shaffer, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref27">18</reflink>]). Furthermore, the observational measurement of parenting practices may also have advantages for predictive validity related to child outcomes. Relative to survey-based measures, observational measures of parenting have been shown to demonstrate a stronger association with child outcomes (Zaslow et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref28">38</reflink>]).</p> <p>Survey-based measures of parenting also have several advantages that contribute to their widespread use. Ease of administration represents a primary advantage of survey-based measures over labor-intensive observational assessment and coding of parenting behaviors. Furthermore, survey-based measures may provide parents with the ability to consider their parenting across contexts rather than in a potentially artificial or contrived observational task setting (Lindhiem & Shaffer, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref29">18</reflink>]). Interestingly, survey-based measures and observational measures of similar parenting constructs often demonstrate limited associations, implying that each approach may capture unique aspects of a particular parenting behavior (Dishion et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref30">6</reflink>]; Zahidi et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref31">37</reflink>]; Zaslow et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref32">38</reflink>]). Despite the potential for each measurement approach to uniquely contribute to our understanding of parenting, few family-focused prevention studies have simultaneously examined both survey-based and observed parenting outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0179040054-5">Underrepresentation of Fathers</hd> <p>Despite fathers' pivotal role in their children's development, they are notably underrepresented in the family-focused intervention literature (Cabrera et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref33">3</reflink>]; Phares et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref34">27</reflink>]). Research in this area often provides general statements regarding intervention effects on parents, while utilizing samples that are predominately mothers (Cabrera et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref35">3</reflink>]). The lack of inclusion of fathers in parent samples as well as limited examination of father-specific processes has notably limited our understanding of how fathers may respond differently to preventive interventions as well as how changes in their parenting may impact the adjustment of their children. Notably, while FCU effects have been evaluated in parent samples including both mothers and fathers, father-specific effects have not been previously examined.</p> <hd id="AN0179040054-6">The Current Study</hd> <p>Using a secondary data analysis, the current study investigated the longitudinal impact of the FCU intervention on both observed and self-reported parenting practices of mothers and fathers during adolescence and the subsequent association of those parenting strategies with antisocial behavior in young adulthood. Our study sought to advance our understanding of the FCU in several ways, including investigating distinct effects on mothers' versus fathers' parenting as well examining how these effects may differ using different measurement strategies (i.e., self-report versus observational). While longitudinal effects of the FCU on antisocial behavior have been previously demonstrated, it is not clear how longitudinal effects of the FCU on antisocial behavior through parenting practices may differ by parent gender and parenting measurement strategy. With these limitations in mind, our study addressed three primary questions, including (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref36">1</reflink>) Does the FCU intervention delivered in early adolescence improve mothers' and fathers' parenting behaviors in middle adolescence?; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref37">2</reflink>) Are mothers' and fathers' parenting practices in middle adolescence associated with decreases in young adult antisocial behavior?; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref38">3</reflink>) Do these processes differ when examining observed versus self-reported parenting practices? Finally, given the racial and ethnic disparities commonly observed in family-focused prevention outcomes, we followed recommendations to examine race/ethnicity as a moderator of the key pathways in the questions above as an additional exploratory analysis (Boyd et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref39">1</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0179040054-7">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0179040054-8">Participants</hd> <p>Participants for the current study were drawn from the Project Alliance I study (<emph>n</emph> = 998). Project Alliance I is a longitudinal, randomized controlled intervention study of youth and their families evaluating the FCU intervention model. Participants were recruited from a large metropolitan area in the northwestern USA. The current study focused on a subsample of youth (<emph>n</emph> = 641) who were identified at ages 11 to 12 from the larger sample through a brief teacher screening as at risk for the development of externalizing problems and/or substance use due to their school behavior, peer relationships, academic performance, and/or lack of family involvement. At Time 1, adolescents were generally between 11 and 12 years old, and 54% were male. The participant population was ethnically diverse (37% White; 33% Black or African American; 7% Hispanic or Latinx; 3% Asian American; 2% Native or Native American; 3% Other; and 14% Biracial).</p> <hd id="AN0179040054-9">Intervention Procedures</hd> <p>Adolescent participants and their parents were randomly assigned to intervention or control conditions at baseline. Families assigned to the FCU intervention model received a larger system of multi-tiered support that was adaptive based on families' levels of need, which included a school-based family resource room, the FCU, and targeted follow-up services. All families in the intervention condition, regardless of risk levels, were provided with access to a family resource room, including access to parenting and child development resources, embedded within their public middle school. All families in the current subsample met the teacher screening risk designation described above which triggered outreach by intervention staff to families in order to offer the opportunity to participate in the FCU. The FCU is delivered through three meetings with parents and is designed to motivate change in problematic parenting behaviors, support existing family strengths and identify services to meet family needs (Dishion & Stormshak, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref40">11</reflink>]). In the first session, clinicians conduct interviews to explore parents' concerns as well as readiness and motivation to change. The focus of the second session is on assessment, during which parents and teens complete a variety of survey-based measures and are also video recorded engaging in parent–child interaction tasks. Finally, in the third session, families receive feedback regarding the results of the assessment, including a systematic summary and feedback from the clinician utilizing motivational interview strategies. The feedback session is designed to help parents identify strengths and challenges within their family and motivate change where it may be helpful. As a part of the feedback session, clinicians also present an individually-tailored menu of follow-up services to participants. Common follow-up services included parent management training and case management support (e.g., referrals for financial assistance programs).</p> <p>Following the risk screening process in 6th grade, intervention-group participants identified to be at risk for the development of externalizing and/or substance use (<emph>n</emph> = 328) were offered the FCU by intervention staff during the 7th and 8th grades. Participants completed baseline assessments and were provided with access to the family resource room during the time between initial screening and completion of the FCU. Families were not required to participate in the FCU as a condition of their involvement in the study. Of the 328 families assigned to the intervention condition and offered the FCU, 115 families elected to receive the FCU, and 88 of these families received at least one follow-up service following completion of the FCU. Control condition assigned youth included in this study (<emph>n</emph> = 313) were also identified as at risk through the same teacher screening process and received school services as usual.</p> <hd id="AN0179040054-10">Assessment Procedures</hd> <p>Assessments were administered beginning when adolescent participants were ages 11 to 12 through young adulthood when participants were between 22- and 24-years old. While the larger Project Alliance study included a number of additional assessment points, the current study will focus on three specific time points: Time 1: age 11–12, Time 2: ages 16–17, and Time 3: ages 22–24. Assessments were primarily completed in schools and through US mail.</p> <hd id="AN0179040054-11">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0179040054-12">Antisocial Behavior</hd> <p>Antisocial behavior was measured at Time 1 and Time 3 using self-report surveys. At Time 1, youth reports of frequency of engagement in different types of antisocial behavior over the past month were averaged across 11 items. The items included behaviors such as lying, hitting or threatening others, theft, damaging property, and skipping school (e.g., "Purposely damaged or tried to damage property"). Items were rated on a 6-point scale ranging from <emph>never</emph> to <emph>more than 20 times during the past month</emph>. This scale demonstrated acceptable reliability (Cronbach's alpha =.83).</p> <p>At Time 3, participants completed a self-report survey including 28 items about their antisocial behavior over the previous 3 months, including behaviors such as lying, skipping school or work, physical fights, theft, arrests, carrying a weapon, and other criminal behaviors (e.g., "In the last 3 months did you physically fight with someone outside the family"). Participants reported the frequency of each behavior on a 4-point scale with options including "Never," "Once or Twice a month," "Weekly," and "Everyday." A mean score of these items reflected acceptable reliability (Cronbach's alpha =.72).</p> <hd id="AN0179040054-13">Observed Adaptive Parenting Behaviors</hd> <p>Observed adaptive parenting behaviors were assessed at Time 2. Youth and families were invited to a lab setting to complete a 1-h Family Interaction Task (FIT) in which they were asked to complete 7 primary structured discussion tasks. Following an uncoded warm-up task, the first portion of the FIT involved both child and parents (including one or two parents if present), and included three 5-min tasks: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref41">1</reflink>) encouraging growth (i.e., discussing an area of self-improvement identified by the teen and ways to provide support), (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref42">2</reflink>) monitoring and listening (i.e., discussing a time spent with only friends or peers identified by the teen), and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref43">3</reflink>) family conflict (i.e., discussing a time of disagreement and how it was resolved). In part three, the whole family including any other caregivers (e.g., grandparents) and siblings were invited to join and participate in 4 tasks. The tasks in this portion included (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref44">1</reflink>) problem solving (i.e., discussing a family-identified problem to come up with a solution), (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref45">2</reflink>) substance use (i.e., discussing the use of tobacco, alcohol, marijuana and other drugs, and expectations for the teen), (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref46">3</reflink>) planning an activity (i.e., planning a family activity that could be done within a week), and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref47">4</reflink>) positive recognition (i.e., sharing what they like about their family and each other). Families were allotted 5–8 min to complete each discussion task. All FIT tasks were video recorded for later coding.</p> <p>Multiple trained coders then reviewed the recordings and rated parenting behaviors of all parents using global ratings. Inter-rater reliability was established by double coding approximately 20% of all recordings by at least two trained coders. The average percentage agreement among coders was 0.84, reflective of an acceptable level of inter-rater reliability.</p> <p>The present study focused on three identified adaptive parenting strategies, including (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref48">1</reflink>) <emph>problem-solving</emph>, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref49">2</reflink>) <emph>positive behavior support</emph>, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref50">3</reflink>) <emph>parental monitoring</emph>. For each question, coders were asked to respond on a 9-point Likert scale (i.e., 1 = not at all, 5 = somewhat, 9 = very much) regarding their observations of mothers and fathers separately during the full Family Interaction Task. <emph>Problem-solving</emph> reflected a mean score of five items, including behaviors such as proposing positive solutions, listening to the child, and flexibility in problem-solving (e.g., "[Mother/Father] offers solutions in a positive tone"). The problem-solving scale demonstrated good reliability for both mothers and fathers (Cronbach's alpha: mothers = 0.88, fathers = 0.90). <emph>Positive behavior support</emph> was measured using a mean score of eight items, including behaviors such as focusing on positive behaviors, providing clear expectations, encouraging positive change, and using positive reinforcement to encourage behavior change (e.g., "[Mother/Father] mentions the use of incentives to build motivation for developing good habits"). The positive behavior support scale demonstrated acceptable reliability for both mothers and fathers (Cronbach's alpha: mothers = 0.82, fathers = 0.86). Finally, <emph>parental monitoring</emph> was measured using a mean score of eight items. Items included awareness of activities and friends, effectively gathering information, and rules surrounding activities and friends (e.g., "Does this parent seem to be monitoring with whom the child spends time?") The <emph>parental monitoring</emph> scale demonstrated acceptable reliability (Cronbach's alpha: mothers = 0.82, fathers = 0.81).</p> <hd id="AN0179040054-14">Self-Reported Adaptive Parenting Behaviors</hd> <p>Parents completed the CFC Parent Questionnaire to evaluate their self-reported adaptive parenting behaviors (Child & Family Center, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref51">4</reflink>]). We identified three scales from the measure that best corresponded with the observed adaptive parenting measures, including <emph>positive family relationships</emph>, <emph>positive behavior support</emph>, and <emph>parental monitoring</emph>. Parents responded to each item on a 5-point Likert scale (i.e., 1 = never or almost never, 3 = about half the time, 5 = always or almost always). While there was not a self-reported scale that directly corresponded to the observed <emph>problem-solving</emph> scale, <emph>positive family relationships</emph> reflected the closest match. This scale included 8 items that centered on positive interactions between the parent and child (e.g., "I got along well with my teen"). The <emph>positive family relationships</emph> scale demonstrated good reliability (Cronbach's alpha: mothers = 0.88, fathers = 0.97). <emph>Positive behavior support</emph> included two items that reflected praise or support for positive behaviors (e.g., "Give your teen something extra for doing something well."). The two <emph>positive behavior support</emph> items demonstrated high intercorrelations (mothers: <emph>r</emph> =.48, <emph>p</emph> =.000; fathers: <emph>r</emph> =.52, <emph>p</emph> =.000). The <emph>parental monitoring</emph> scale consisted of four items reflecting parental knowledge of their adolescent's activities and whereabouts (e.g., "Know where your teen was after school"). The scale demonstrated good reliability for both mothers and fathers (Cronbach's alpha: mothers = 0.89, fathers = 0.89).</p> <hd id="AN0179040054-15">Additional Variables</hd> <p>Randomly assigned intervention status was coded as 0 for control and 1 for the FCU intervention model condition. Additional covariates were included in analyses. Adolescent gender was coded as 0 for males and 1 for females (no other gender options were available at the time of original data collection). Single-parent status was coded as 1 for a single parent or 0 for a two-parent family based on the presence or absence of an additional parent in the home at Time 2 when parenting data were collected. Finally, two racial/ethnic groups had sufficient representation for a multigroup analysis (see "Data Analytic Plan"), including youth identifying as White (<emph>n</emph> = 239) and Black or African American (<emph>n</emph> = 211).</p> <hd id="AN0179040054-16">Data Analytic Plan</hd> <p>We used structural equation models to estimate pathways from intervention condition using an intent-to-treat approach at Time 1 to adaptive parenting measures (including distinct latent factors for observed and self-reported parenting) at Time 2 to young adult antisocial behavior at Time 3 (see Fig. 1). All models were estimated in Mplus Version 8 (Muthén & Muthén, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref52">22</reflink>]–[<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref53">22</reflink>]). Our analytic plan was not preregistered. Models were estimated separately for mothers and fathers, in part due to a high level of multicollinearity between mother and father latent factors with a corresponding measurement method (i.e., self-report versus observed). Parent latent factors were allowed to covary within each model. Multiple covariates were included in each model, including adolescent gender and single parent status predicting each latent parenting construct as well as young adult antisocial behavior. Time 1 early adolescent antisocial behavior was also included as a covariate when predicting Time 3 young adult antisocial behavior. In order to avoid collapsing across multiple diverse racial/ethnic categories as well as common efforts to "account" for the effects of race/ethnicity in analysis, we did not include racial and ethnic minority status as a covariate. However, to explore potential differences by race and ethnicity, we conducted a multigroup analysis evaluating differences in the estimated model between adolescent participants who identified as White versus those who identified as Black or African American. Indirect effects from intervention condition to young adult antisocial behavior through adaptive parenting latent constructs were estimated using bias-corrected bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals (MacKinnon et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref54">19</reflink>]). If a confidence interval did not include zero, we considered the indirect effect to be statistically significant.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Mother and father path models</p> <p>We evaluated model fit using guidelines from Hu and Bentler ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref55">17</reflink>]) who suggested that a <emph>CFI</emph> greater than or equal to.95 and an <emph>SRMR</emph> below.09 indicate acceptable model fit. Multigroup invariance was examined using chi-square difference testing evaluating the change in model fit between freely estimated and constrained two-group models. Missing data were managed using full information maximum likelihood (Muthén & Muthén, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref56">22</reflink>]–[<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref57">22</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0179040054-17">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0179040054-18">Preliminary Analyses</hd> <p>Descriptive statistics, including correlations, means, and standard deviations, for all study variables are reported in Table 1. Missing data were present in the sample. The majority of missing data resulted from participants choosing not to participate in the assessment activities at a given time point and/or attrition over the course of the study. At Time 2 (5 years after baseline), 423 out of 641 families in the original Time 1 sample provided either mother or father parenting data. At Time 3 (12 years after baseline), 545 families out of the original 641 provided young adult survey data. Across all study variables, Little's MCAR test was consistent with data missing completely at random (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref58">6</reflink>) = 12.55, <emph>p</emph> =.051). We also evaluated whether there were significant differences between those families who were missing data and those who provided data at each assessment point. For Time 2 data, there were no differences in baseline variables or Time 3 antisocial behavior between those who provided data and those who were missing data. For Time 3 data, two differences were noted between those families who provided data and those who did not. Those families with missing data were more likely to have male adolescents, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib639" id="ref59">639</reflink>) = 2.84, <emph>p</emph> =.005 and have higher father observed problem solving scores, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib173" id="ref60">173</reflink>) = −2.59, <emph>p</emph> =.010. All other Time 1 and Time 2 variables did not exhibit significant differences between those families missing data at Time 3 and those reporting data at Time 3.</p> <p>Table 1 Correlations, means, and standard deviations of key study variables</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Measure</p></th><th align="left"><p>1</p></th><th align="left"><p>2</p></th><th align="left"><p>3</p></th><th align="left"><p>4</p></th><th align="left"><p>5</p></th><th align="left"><p>6</p></th><th align="left"><p>7</p></th><th align="left"><p>8</p></th><th align="left"><p>9</p></th><th align="left"><p>10</p></th><th align="left"><p>11</p></th><th align="left"><p>12</p></th><th align="left"><p>13</p></th><th align="left"><p>14</p></th><th align="left"><p>15</p></th><th align="left"><p>16</p></th><th align="left"><p>17</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>1. T1 Antisocial behavior</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−</p></td><td align="left" colspan="16" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2. T3 antisocial behavior</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.11*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−</p></td><td align="left" colspan="15" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3. M. Obs. problem solving</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.01</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.14**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−</p></td><td align="left" colspan="14" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4. M. Obs. monitoring</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.08</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.08</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.39**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−</p></td><td align="left" colspan="13" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>5. M. Obs. positive behavior support</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.00</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.12*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.44**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.36**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−</p></td><td align="left" colspan="12" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>6. M. S. R. positive family relations</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.12*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.12*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.06</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.09</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.05</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−</p></td><td align="left" colspan="11" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>7. M. S. R. monitoring</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.22**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.02</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.08</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.15**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.12*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.58**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−</p></td><td align="left" colspan="10" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>8. M. S. R. positive behavior support</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.01</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.05</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.00</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.56**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.47**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−</p></td><td align="left" colspan="9" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>9. F. Obs. problem solving</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.02</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.08</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.54**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.23**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.33**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.09</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.06</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.06</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−</p></td><td align="left" colspan="8" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>10. F. Obs. monitoring</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.01</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.01</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.18*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.43**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.28**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.00</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.10</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.28**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−</p></td><td align="left" colspan="7" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>11. F. Obs. positive behavior support</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.07</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.08</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.30**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.10</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.68**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.02</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.38**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.46**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−</p></td><td align="left" colspan="6" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>12. F. S. R. positive family relations</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.09</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.18*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.02</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.07</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.02</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.53**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.40**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.19*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.11</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.01</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.00</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−</p></td><td align="left" colspan="5" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>13. F. S. R. monitoring</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.25**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.09</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.07</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.37**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.43**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.10</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.01</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.02</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.66**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−</p></td><td align="left" colspan="4" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>14. F. S. R. positive behavior support</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.02</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.10</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.06</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.15</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.23**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.12</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.11</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.09</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.05</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.07</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.59**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.56**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−</p></td><td align="left" colspan="3" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>15. Intervention condition</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.00</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.12*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.10</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.02</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.00</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.06</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.11</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.13</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.01</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.01</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.01</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>16. Adolescent gender</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.11**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.15**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.01</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.05</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.02</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.06</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.09</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.01</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.07</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.05</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>□</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>17. Single parent status</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.18**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.09</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.00</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.07</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.06</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.15**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.01</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.06</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.05</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.02</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.01</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.06</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.07</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.06</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>□</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Mean</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.44</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.31</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.33</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.58</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.85</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.84</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.94</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.63</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.30</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.27</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.66</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.70</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.70</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.28</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.51</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.46</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.61</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Standard deviation</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.63</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.24</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.56</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.15</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.16</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.77</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.99</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.96</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.57</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.18</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.26</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.82</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.02</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.99</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.50</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.50</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.49</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Intervention condition (Family Check-Up = 1, control = 0); adolescent gender (1 = female, 0 = male); single parent status (1 = single parent home, 0 = two-parent home) <emph>M</emph>. mother, <emph>F</emph>. rather, <emph>Obs.</emph> observed, <emph>S. R.</emph> = self-report *<emph>p</emph> <.05; ** <emph>p</emph> <.01</p> <p>The distributions of all study variables were examined for univariate normality and the presence of outliers. All variables demonstrated near normal distributions with the exception of the Time 1 and Time 3 antisocial behavior scales. These scales demonstrated moderate positive skew (Time 1: 2.60; Time 3: 2.23). The Time 3 antisocial behavior scale also included one extreme outlier. Sensitivity analyses were completed for both the mother and father models, testing the effects of using natural log transformations for each antisocial behavior variable as well as removing the Time 3 antisocial behavior outlier. These analyses did not reveal any significant changes in results from the original untransformed models. Therefore, the untransformed variables with all data points included were utilized in the final models below.</p> <p>In order to evaluate the fit of the latent factors evaluating observed and self-reported parenting, we first estimated a confirmatory factor analysis (<emph>CFA</emph>) combining both mother and father latent factors into a single model. This model included four latent factors (i.e., mother observed parenting, father observed parenting, mother self-reported parenting, and father self-reported parenting), each with three indicators. This combined model represented a marginal fit for the data, (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref61">48</reflink>) = 192.37, <emph>p</emph> <.000, <emph>CFI</emph> =.86, <emph>SRMR</emph> =.07). Notably, mother and father observed parenting demonstrated a very strong correlation (<emph>φ</emph> =.89, <emph>p</emph> <.001) as did mother and father self-reported parenting (<emph>φ</emph> =.61, <emph>p</emph> <.001). Given the poor fit and high potential for multicollinearity among mother and father parenting variables as predictors of young adult antisocial behavior, we decided to run two-factor (i.e., self-reported and observed parenting) <emph>CFA</emph> models separately for mothers and fathers. These separate two-factor CFA models each demonstrated a strong fit (mother <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref62">8</reflink>) = 11.28, <emph>p</emph> =.186, <emph>CFI</emph> =.99, <emph>SRMR</emph> =.03; father: <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref63">8</reflink>) = 9.63, <emph>p</emph> =.292, <emph>CFI</emph> =.99, <emph>SRMR</emph> =.03). Standardized indicator loadings ranged from.57 to.84 in the mother model and.49 to.83 in the father model. Interestingly, observed and self-reported parenting factors did not demonstrate significant correlations in either model (mother <emph>φ</emph> =.13, <emph>p</emph> =.08; father <emph>φ</emph> =.03, <emph>p</emph> =.75).</p> <hd id="AN0179040054-19">Primary Analyses</hd> <p>The mother and father models are depicted in Fig. 1. The mother model demonstrated a generally acceptable fit for the data (<emph>n</emph> = 641; <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref64">30</reflink>) = 59.96, <emph>p</emph> =.001, <emph>CFI</emph> =.94, <emph>SRMR</emph> =.04). Intervention condition significantly predicted mothers' observed parenting (<emph>β</emph> =.135, <emph>p</emph> =.032, Cohen's <emph>d</emph> =.27), with assignment to the FCU condition predicting higher adaptive parenting at Time 2 relative to the control condition, reflecting a small effect size. Furthermore, mothers' observed adaptive parenting at Time 2 was a significant negative predictor of young adult antisocial behavior at Time 3 (<emph>β</emph> = −0.150, <emph>p</emph> =.015), with higher levels of adaptive parenting at Time 2 predicting lower levels of young adult antisocial behavior. Intervention condition did not predict mothers' self-reported parenting at Time 2, nor was mothers' self-reported parenting significantly associated with young adult antisocial behavior at Time 3. None of the covariates was significant predictors of either parenting construct. Intervention condition did not directly predict young adult antisocial behavior. The indirect effect from intervention condition to young adult antisocial behavior through observed parenting approached but did not reach significance (95% <emph>CI</emph> − 0.06, 0.00). The indirect effect through self-reported parenting was not significant. Several covariates were also significant predictors of young adult antisocial behavior. Time 1 early adolescent antisocial behavior was significantly associated with Time 3 young adult antisocial behavior (<emph>β</emph> = 0.12, <emph>p</emph> =.032). Females demonstrated lower levels of antisocial behavior relative to males (<emph>β</emph> = −0.14, <emph>p</emph> =.001). Finally, single parent status was surprisingly associated with lower levels of young adult antisocial behavior (<emph>β</emph> = −0.11, <emph>p</emph> =.033).</p> <p>The father model demonstrated an acceptable fit for the data (<emph>n</emph> = 641; <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref65">30</reflink>) = 46.27, <emph>p</emph> =.03, <emph>CFI</emph> =.95, <emph>SRMR</emph> =.06). Intervention condition was not a significant predictor of either self-reported or observed parenting in fathers. None of the covariates was significant predictors of either parenting construct as well. Fathers' self-reported parenting at Time 2 did significantly predict young adult antisocial behavior (<emph>β</emph> = −0.06, <emph>p</emph> =.036), with higher levels of positive parenting during adolescence predicting lower levels of antisocial behavior in young adulthood. Fathers' observed parenting was not significantly associated with young adult antisocial behavior. Like the mothers' model, intervention condition did not directly predict young adult antisocial behavior. The indirect effects from the intervention condition to young adult antisocial behavior through fathers' self-reported and observed parenting were not significant. The pattern of significant covariates in the father model was consistent with the mother model, with Time 1 antisocial behavior and male adolescent gender each demonstrating a positive association with young adult antisocial behavior (Time 1 antisocial behavior <emph>β</emph> = 0.05, <emph>p</emph> =.021; adolescent gender <emph>β</emph> = −0.07, <emph>p</emph> =.001), and single parent status demonstrating a negative association with young adult antisocial behavior (<emph>β</emph> = −0.06, <emph>p</emph> =.028).</p> <hd id="AN0179040054-20">Exploratory Analyses</hd> <p>Two-group models were estimated for both mother and father models in order to investigate potential differences in key model paths for African American and Black (<emph>n</emph> = 211) and White adolescent participants (<emph>n</emph> = 239). Other racial or ethnic groups did not have sufficient representation for inclusion as an independent group in a multi-group model. Key model paths included the pathways from intervention condition to the self-reported and observed parenting latent factors as well as the pathways from those parenting factors and intervention condition to young adult antisocial behavior. For both mother and father models, chi-square difference testing evaluating the impact of freely estimating these model parameters separately for African American/Black and White adolescents did not reveal a significant improvement in fit when compared to a constrained model with those parameters fixed to be equivalent in both groups.</p> <hd id="AN0179040054-21">Discussion</hd> <p>This study evaluated the cascading effects of the FCU intervention model on observed and self-reported parenting in mothers and fathers and young adult antisocial behavior over a 12-year period. Our findings suggest distinct responses to the FCU in mothers and fathers and also highlight unique effects associated with observed versus self-reported parenting measures. Using an intent-to-treat approach, the FCU delivered in early adolescence produced a positive impact on mothers' observed parenting strategies during middle adolescence. Mothers' observed adaptive parenting in middle adolescence was in turn associated with lower levels of antisocial behavior in young adulthood. The FCU did not impact mothers' self-reported parenting, nor was mothers' self-reported parenting associated with young adult antisocial behavior. Assignment to the FCU condition was not associated with change in either observed or self-reported parenting for fathers. Fathers' self-reported but not observed adaptive parenting in middle adolescence was negatively associated with young adult antisocial behavior.</p> <p>The positive impact of the FCU intervention model on mothers' observed parenting is consistent with previous findings demonstrating the positive impact of the FCU on parenting (Brennan et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref66">2</reflink>]; Dishion et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref67">10</reflink>]; Stormshak & Dishion, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref68">34</reflink>]). However, these effects have primarily been noted in early childhood with more limited research identifying a positive impact of the FCU on parenting behaviors in adolescence. This study provides evidence that the FCU produces positive effects on mothers' observed adaptive parenting behaviors during adolescence, including in key domains during this developmental period such as positive behavior support, problem solving, and monitoring. The FCU effects observed in the study are noteworthy for a few reasons. First, we demonstrated these effects using an intent-to-treat approach that likely provides a conservative estimate of the effect given the relatively modest engagement in the FCU by the intervention group. Second, the effects were found 5 years after participating in the FCU, demonstrating the longitudinal stability of this positive impact.</p> <p>In the first evaluation of the impact of the FCU intervention model specifically on fathers' parenting, we did not find significant effects using an intent-to-treat approach. While this may indicate that the FCU does not engage fathers as successfully as mothers, it is important to interpret the lack of FCU intervention effects in fathers cautiously. Given the adaptive nature of the FCU intervention model employed in this study, a large percentage of those families assigned to the FCU condition did not complete the FCU. Therefore, an intent-to-treat approach with the current dataset is quite conservative in estimating FCU intervention effects and may underestimate true effects.</p> <p>Mothers' observed parenting and fathers' self-reported parenting in middle adolescence were associated with antisocial behavior in young adulthood, approximately 7 years later. Parenting practices such as reinforcement of positive behaviors, providing appropriate support to guide problem solving, building positive parent–child relationships, and effective monitoring of adolescents' activities reduce risk for antisocial behaviors that interfere with successful educational, occupational, and social functioning in adulthood. Consistent with social interaction learning theory, our findings reflect a large body of research that has similarly demonstrated the importance of the family environment and specifically parenting practices and parent–child dynamics, in shaping children's developmental trajectories into adulthood (Dishion & Patterson, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref69">9</reflink>]; Patterson, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref70">25</reflink>]). Importantly, the full indirect effect spanning 12 years from the delivery of the FCU to young adult antisocial through mothers' observed parenting approached but did not reach statistical significance. Despite this, our findings highlight the developmental importance of an intervention that can improve mothers' parenting practices during adolescence, given the impact of these parenting practices on subsequent young adult adjustment.</p> <p>Consistent with previous research incorporating both observed and self-reported measures of parenting, we found very limited cross-method associations between parenting constructs (Dishion et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref71">6</reflink>]; Zahidi et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref72">37</reflink>]; Zaslow et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref73">38</reflink>]). Self-reported and observational approaches to evaluating parenting seem to evaluate distinct aspects of parenting even when targeting similar parenting constructs. These differences are likely impacted by a number of factors, including the situational specificity of observational measures versus the greater generality of self-reported measures as well as the ability of observational measures to capture dynamic processes. Unique sources of measurement error are also likely to contribute to differences observed between the two methods, including social desirability effects and recall biases in self-reported surveys, reactivity to observational tasks, and observational coder biases.</p> <p>Our findings highlighted potential differences by parent gender in observed and self-reported parenting constructs in regard to sensitivity to intervention effects as well as predictive validity. Our models demonstrated that observed parenting seemed to be most relevant for mothers relative to fathers, both in demonstrating intervention effects as well as predicting young adult adjustment. While neither measurement approach was associated with intervention effects for fathers, fathers' self-reported and not observed parenting was associated with young adult adjustment. One hypothesis to explain this difference could be that observational tasks allow a "primary parent" to better showcase their parenting skills. Fathers were much more likely to participate in the task with a spouse (87%) relative to mothers' rates of participation with a spouse (42%). If fathers tended to allow mothers to lead parenting interactions and discussions, these tasks may not allow fathers to demonstrate their parenting style and skills to the same degree as mothers. The association between fathers' self-reported parenting and young adult adjustment implies that survey-based assessment may have some ability to better capture variability in father parenting relative to observational measures. To our knowledge, this is the first study in the area of family-focused prevention to examine how parent gender and assessment methods may interact in this way. Additional research will clearly be important in order to replicate similar patterns of findings.</p> <p>While not a primary research question, our findings did not reveal significant differences in key model pathways for White versus African American and Black adolescents. Other evaluations of the FCU have similarly not found significant differences in intervention effects by race (Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref74">31</reflink>]). Despite the lack of differences observed in the current models, we caution against making an assumption that these processes are equally applicable across racial and ethnic groups. We lacked adequate representation of other racial and ethnic groups in our sample to evaluate group differences. As a limitation of our secondary data analysis, we also lacked key contextual variables that may be relevant to the experiences of ethnic minority youth and interact with parenting behaviors (e.g., discrimination experiences, neighborhood risk; Park et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref75">24</reflink>]; Simons et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref76">29</reflink>]). Future research may delve more deeply into relevant processes to better understand the applicability of our findings across racial and ethnic groups.</p> <p>Several additional limitations are important to note when interpreting our study findings. First, our use of separate models for mothers and fathers did not allow for an evaluation of the relative contributions of each in predicting young adult antisocial behavior. Because of the high correlation between mothers' and fathers' parenting in corresponding measurement strategies, our preliminary measurement model combining mother and father constructs demonstrated a limited ability to delineate between mother and father constructs. A path model combining both mother and father constructs would have been problematic due to a high level of multicollinearity; thus, this combined model was not possible. Second, our self-reported and observed parenting constructs each included one non-overlapping indicator (i.e., observed problem solving versus self-reported positive family relationships). This may have contributed to weaker associations between parenting constructs across methods than if all three indicators had corresponded more closely. The difference in indicators could also account for some of the differences observed between the two methods in our models. Third, we were not able to control for baseline levels of parenting constructs in examining the impact of the FCU on parenting outcomes. Parenting measures were not collected from the full sample at baseline. Fourth, we used distinct measures of antisocial behavior in early adolescence and young adulthood. While this was necessary given typical developmental changes in antisocial behavior (Patterson et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref77">26</reflink>]), our ability to evaluate change in these behaviors over time may have been limited somewhat due to differences in the measures. Finally, while our analyses were driven by a priori hypotheses, our analytic plan was not preregistered. We recognize that detailed preregistration would increase confidence in our research process and associated findings.</p> <hd id="AN0179040054-22">Implications and Future Directions</hd> <p>Our study adds to the strong evidence supporting the longitudinal impact of brief family-focused preventive interventions such as the FCU. Brief interventions that incorporate motivational and adaptive components to meet individual family needs can lead to a lasting impact on parenting. Furthermore, our findings emphasize the importance of parenting as an intervention target during adolescence, providing evidence for the association between adaptive parenting skills during this period and reduced risk for antisocial behavior in young adulthood. Our results encourage a focus on improving fathers' responses to family-focused interventions. An attenuated response from fathers relative to mothers to this type of programming is unfortunately a recurring theme in the literature (Panter-Brick et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref78">23</reflink>]). Additional efforts to engage fathers in family-focused programming, emphasize the importance of their parenting role, and address their specific parenting needs may help improve their response.</p> <p>Our findings also have methodological implications. Observational and self-reported, survey-based measurement of parenting may have different connotations for mothers versus fathers. Structured observational tasks seem well suited to capture mothers' parenting. However, observational tasks involving a partner may not adequately capture the key elements of fathers' parenting that are important for their children's adjustment. Future research may explore whether conducting father-child dyad only portions of observational tasks could increase the predictive validity of those data or if survey-based measures may best capture father parenting behaviors.</p> <p>Broadly, our study findings encourage continued efforts to better understand how different parents and caregivers may respond differently to family-focused interventions. Rather than assuming heterogeneity in response, examination of differences, including by gender or other parent variables, may allow us to uncover for whom programming is falling short. Armed with this knowledge, we can create more effective programming that better meets the needs of diverse caregivers.</p> <hd id="AN0179040054-23">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>We gratefully acknowledge the contribution of the Project Alliance staff, Portland public schools, and the participating youths and families. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily reflect the official views of the National Institute on Drug Abuse or the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.</p> <hd id="AN0179040054-24">Funding</hd> <p>This research was supported by grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA07031) and National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (AA022071) to Thao Ha.</p> <hd id="AN0179040054-25">Data Availability</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, TP, upon reasonable request.</p> <hd id="AN0179040054-26">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0179040054-27">Ethics Approval</hd> <p>The Institutional Review Board of the University of Oregon approved this research. The procedures used in this study adhere to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.</p> <hd id="AN0179040054-28">Consent to Participate</hd> <p>Informed consent was obtained from all the research participants and the legal guardians of minor participants.</p> <hd id="AN0179040054-29">Conflict of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no competing interests.</p> <hd id="AN0179040054-30">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0179040054-31"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref36" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Boyd RC, Castro FG, Finigan-Carr N, Okamoto SK, Barlow A, Kim B-KE, Lambert S, Lloyd J, Zhang X, Barksdale CL, Crowley DM, Maldonado-Molina M, Obasi EM, Kenney A. Strategic directions in preventive intervention research to advance health equity. Prevention Science. 2023; 24; 4: 577-596. 10.1007/s11121-022-01462-5. 36469162</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref37" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Brennan LM, Shelleby EC, Shaw DS, Gardner F, Dishion TJ, Wilson M. Indirect effects of the family check-up on school-age academic achievement through improvements in parenting in early childhood. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2013; 105; 3: 762-773. 10.1037/a0032096</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref33" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Cabrera NJ, Volling BL, Barr R. Fathers are parents, too! Widening the lens on parenting for children's development. Child Development Perspectives. 2018; 12; 3: 152-157. 10.1111/cdep.12275</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref47" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Child and Family Center. (2001). CFC Parent questionnaire. Unpublished instrument. (Available from the Prevention Science Institute, 6217 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref24" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Connell AM, Magee K, Stormshak E, Ha T, Westling E, Wilson M, Shaw D. Long-term cross-over effects of the family check-up prevention program on child and adolescent depression: Integrative data analysis of three randomized trials. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2021; 89; 9: 773-782. 10.1037/ccp0000677. 34591550. 9664381</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref30" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Dishion TJ, Li F, Spracklen K, Brown G, Haas.Ashery RS, Robertson EB, Kumpfer KL. Measurement of parenting practices in research on adolescent problem behavior: A multimethod and multitrait analysis. Drug abuse prevention through family interventions (NIDA Research Monograph. 1998; US Government Printing Office: 260-291</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref18" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Dishion, T. J, & Mauricio, A. M. (2015). The family check-up model as prevention and treatment of adolescent drug (ab)use: The intervention strategy, outcomes, and implementation model. In, M. J. Van Ryzin, K. L. Kumpfer, Karol L, G. M. Fosco, M. T. Greenberg (Eds.). Family-based prevention programs for children and adolescents: Theory, research, and large-scale dissemination (pp. 86–110). Psychology Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref14" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Dishion TJ, McMahon RJ. Parental monitoring and the prevention of child and adolescent problem behavior: A conceptual and empirical formulation. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review. 1998; 1; 1: 61-75. 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3M3osl2mtA%3D%3D. 10.1023/A:1021800432380. 11324078</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref4" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Dishion, T. J, & Patterson, G. R. (2015). The development and ecology of antisocial behavior in children and adolescents. In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental Psychopathology: Risk, Disorder, and Adaptation (Vol. 3, pp. 503–541). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470939406.ch13</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dishion TJ, Shaw D, Connell A, Gardner F, Weaver C, Wilson M. The Family Check-Up with high-risk indigent families: Preventing problem behavior by increasing parents' positive behavior support in early childhood. Child Development. 2008; 79; 5: 1395-1414. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01195.x. 18826532. 2683384</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dishion TJ, Stormshak EA. Intervening in children's lives: An ecological, family-centered approach to mental health care. 2007; American Psychological Association. 10.1037/11485-000</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fagan AA, Benedini KM. How do family-focused prevention programs work? A review of mediating mechanisms associated with reductions in youth antisocial behaviors. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review. 2016; 19; 4: 285-309. 10.1007/s10567-016-0207-0. 27365100</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ, Ridder EM. Conduct and attentional problems in childhood and adolescence and later substance use, abuse and dependence: Results of a 25-year longitudinal study. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2007; 88: S14-S26. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.12.011. 17292565</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forgatch MS, Gewirtz AHWeisz JR, Kazdin AE. The evolution of the Oregon model of parent management training. Evidence-based psychotherapies for children and adolescents. 20173; Guilford Press: 85-102</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frick PJ. Developmental pathways to conduct disorder: Implications for future directions in research, assessment, and treatment. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2012; 41; 3: 378-389. 10.1080/15374416.2012.664815. 22475202</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hiatt KD, Dishion TJBeauchaine TP, Hinshaw SP. Antisocial personality development. Child and adolescent psychopathology. 2008; John Wiley & Sons: 370-404</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling. 1999; 6; 1: 1-55. 10.1080/10705519909540118</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lindhiem O, Shaffer A. Introduction to the special series: Current directions for measuring parenting constructs to inform prevention science. Prevention Science. 2017; 18; 3: 253-256. 10.1007/s11121-016-0724-6. 27834033. 5354953</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacKinnon DP, Lockwood CM, Williams J. Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 2004; 39; 1: 99-128. 10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4. 20157642. 2821115</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Masten AS, Cicchetti D. Developmental cascades. Development and Psychopathology. 2010; 22; 3: 491-495. 10.1017/S0954579410000222. 20576173</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McMahon RJ, Metzler CWAshery RS, Robertson EB, Kumpfer KL. Selecting parenting measures for assessing family-based prevention interventions. Drug abuse prevention through family interventions (NIDA Research Monograph. 1998; US Government Printing Office: 294-323</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muthén, L. K, & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2017). Mplus user's guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén. https://<ulink href="http://www.statmodel.com/HTML%5fUG/introV8.htm">www.statmodel.com/HTML%5fUG/introV8.htm</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Panter-Brick C, Burgess A, Eggerman M, McAllister F, Pruett K, Leckman JF. Practitioner review: Engaging fathers – Recommendations for a game change in parenting interventions based on a systematic review of the global evidence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2014; 55; 11: 1187-1212. 10.1111/jcpp.12280. 24980187</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Park NS, Lee BS, Sun F, Vazsonyi AT, Bolland JM. Pathways and predictors of antisocial behaviors in African American adolescents from poor neighborhoods. Children and Youth Services Review. 2010; 32; 3: 409-415. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.10.012. 20161497. 2796796</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patterson, G. R. (2016). Coercion theory: The study of change. In T. J. Dishion & J. Snyder (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Coercive Relationship Dynamics (pp. 7–22). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199324552.013.2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patterson, G. R, Reid, J. B, & Dishion, T. J. (1992). Antisocial boys. Castalia.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Phares V, Lopez E, Fields S, Kamboukos D, Duhig AM. Are fathers involved in pediatric psychology research and treatment?. Journal of Pediatric Psychology. 2005; 30; 8: 631-643. 10.1093/jpepsy/jsi050. 15772363</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Piquero AR, Jennings WG, Diamond B, Farrington DP, Tremblay RE, Welsh BC, Gonzalez JMR. A meta-analysis update on the effects of early family/parent training programs on antisocial behavior and delinquency. Journal of Experimental Criminology. 2016; 12; 2: 229-248. 10.1007/s11292-016-9256-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simons RL, Simons LG, Burt CH, Drummund H, Stewart E, Brody GH, Gibbons FX, Cutrona C. Supportive parenting moderates the effect of discrimination upon anger, hostile view of relationships, and violence among African American boys. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2006; 47; 4: 373-389. 10.1177/002214650604700405. 17240926</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith M. Measures for assessing parenting in research and practice. Child and Adolescent Mental Health. 2011; 16; 3: 158-166. 10.1111/j.1475-3588.2010.00585.x. 32847235</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith JD, Knoble NB, Zerr AA, Dishion TJ, Stormshak EA. Family Check-Up effects across diverse ethnic groups: Reducing early-adolescence antisocial behavior by reducing family conflict. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology. 2014; 43; 3: 400-414. 10.1080/15374416.2014.888670</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sorensen, L. C, Dodge, K. A, & Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. How does the Fast Track Intervention prevent adverse outcomes in young adulthood?. Child Development. 2016; 87; 2: 429-445. 10.1111/cdev.12467</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stormshak EA, DeGarmo D, Chronister K, Caruthers A. The impact of family-centered prevention on self-regulation and subsequent long-term risk in emerging adults. Prevention Science. 2018; 19; 4: 549-558. 10.1007/s11121-017-0852-7. 29101645. 5899683</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stormshak EA, Dishion TJ. A school-based, family-centered intervention to prevent substance use: The Family Check-Up. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse. 2009; 35; 4: 227-232. 10.1080/00952990903005908. 20180675. 2829741</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Ryzin MJ, Dishion TJ. The impact of a family-centered intervention on the ecology of adolescent antisocial behavior: Modeling developmental sequelae and trajectories during adolescence. Development and Psychopathology. 2012; 24; 3: 1139-1155. 10.1017/S0954579412000582. 22781876</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Webster-Stratton C, Reid MJWeisz JR, Kazdin AE. The Incredible Years parents, teachers, and children training series: A multifaceted treatment approach for young children with conduct disorders. Evidence-based psychotherapies for children and adolescents. 20102; Guilford Press: 194-210</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zahidi R, Rogers J, Guastaferro W, Whitaker D. Relationship between self-report and observed parenting among parents in treatment versus not in treatment populations. Journal of the Georgia Public Health Association. 2019; 7; 2: 112-120. 10.20429/jgpha.2019.070217</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zaslow MJ, Weinfield NS, Gallagher M, Hair EC, Ogawa JR, Egeland B, Tabors PO, De Temple JM. Longitudinal prediction of child outcomes from differing measures of parenting in a low-income sample. Developmental Psychology. 2006; 42; 1: 27-37. 10.1037/0012-1649.42.1.27. 16420116</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Timothy F. Piehler; Guanyu Wang; Yunqi He and Thao Ha</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib639" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib173" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref78"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1435435
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Cascading Effects of the Family Check-Up on Mothers' and Fathers' Observed and Self-Reported Parenting and Young Adult Antisocial Behavior: A 12-Year Longitudinal Intervention Trial
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Timothy+F%2E+Piehler%22">Timothy F. Piehler</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5192-6012">0000-0001-5192-6012</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Guanyu+Wang%22">Guanyu Wang</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yunqi+He%22">Yunqi He</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Thao+Ha%22">Thao Ha</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Prevention+Science%22"><i>Prevention Science</i></searchLink>. 2024 25(5):786-797.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 12
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) (DHHS/PHS)<br />National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) (DHHS/NIH)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: DA07031<br />AA022071
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Longitudinal+Studies%22">Longitudinal Studies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Antisocial+Behavior%22">Antisocial Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Early+Adolescents%22">Early Adolescents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Child+Relationship%22">Parent Child Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parenting+Styles%22">Parenting Styles</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mothers%22">Mothers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Fathers%22">Fathers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22At+Risk+Students%22">At Risk Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Multi+Tiered+Systems+of+Support%22">Multi Tiered Systems of Support</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Naturalistic+Observation%22">Naturalistic Observation</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s11121-024-01685-8
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1389-4986<br />1573-6695
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Over a 12-year period, this study examined the effects of the Family Check-Up preventive intervention model on both observed and self-reported parenting behaviors of mothers and fathers as well as how those parenting behaviors were associated with young adult antisocial behavior. Teachers identified 641 early adolescent youth from school settings to be at elevated risk for the development of externalizing behavior and/or substance use. These youth and their families were randomly assigned to the Family Check-Up intervention model (consisting of an adaptive, multi-tiered model of support, including a school-based family resource room, the Family Check-Up, and targeted follow-up services) or a control condition. Using an intent-to-treat approach, the Family Check-Up intervention model positively impacted mothers' observed parenting approximately 5 years later in middle adolescence but was not associated with changes in fathers' observed or self-reported parenting. Mothers' observed adaptive parenting and fathers' self-reported adaptive parenting in middle adolescence were associated with lower risk for young adult antisocial behavior. The cascading effects of brief, family-focused interventions are discussed along with implications for the measurement of parenting in mothers and fathers in the context of preventive intervention trials.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1435435
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1435435
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s11121-024-01685-8
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 12
        StartPage: 786
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Longitudinal Studies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Antisocial Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Early Adolescents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parent Child Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parenting Styles
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mothers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Fathers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: At Risk Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Multi Tiered Systems of Support
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Naturalistic Observation
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Cascading Effects of the Family Check-Up on Mothers' and Fathers' Observed and Self-Reported Parenting and Young Adult Antisocial Behavior: A 12-Year Longitudinal Intervention Trial
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Timothy F. Piehler
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Guanyu Wang
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yunqi He
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Thao Ha
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 07
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1389-4986
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-6695
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 25
            – Type: issue
              Value: 5
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Prevention Science
              Type: main
ResultId 1