Nama : Riska AriniProdi : S1 Keperawatan 3BNIM : III.11.3083

ANALISA JURNAL1. Judul penelitian : Gaya pola asuh sebagai Mediator Antara Emosionalitas Negatif Anak dan Perilaku Bermasalah pada Anak Usia Dini.2. Tujuan penelitian : Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui apakah ada hubungan antara emosionalitas negatif dan perilaku bermasalah anak (internalisasi dan eksternalisasi) yang sebagian dimediasi oleh gaya pola asuh (otoritatif dan otoriter)3. Metodologi penelitian a. Variable penelitian : Variabel yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah:1) Variabel independen (bebas)Pada penelitian ini, variabel independennya adalah gaya pola asuh orangtua.2) Variabel dependen (terikat)Variabel dependen dalam penelitian ini adalah emosionalitas negatif dan perilaku bermasalah anak usia dini.b. Hipotesis : Ha : Ada hubungan antara gaya pola asuh orangtua dengan emosionalitas negatif dan perilaku bermasalah pada anak usia dini.c. Rancangan penelitian 1) Jenis penelitian : Penelitian ini adalah penelitian observasional/ survey yaitu penelitian yang dilakukan tanpa melakukan intervensi terhadap subjek penelitian.2) Pendekatan waktu :Pendekatan yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah pendekatan cross sectional yaituh Variabel sebab (Independent Variable) dan variabel akibat (dependent variable) yang terjadi pada obyek penelitian di ukur atau dikumpulkan secara simultan atau dalam waktu bersamaan.3) Pengumpulan data :267 keluarga (36%) yang setuju untuk berpartisipasi dikirim satu set kuesioner yang harus diselesaikan di rumah oleh orang tua yang paling terlibat dalam perkembangan anak. Orang tua kemudian mengembalikan kuesioner melalui pos. Kami menerima 201 (75%) set kuesioner. Karena semua tapi 5 set kuesioner yang diisi oleh ibu-ibu, kami hanya melaporkan data yang berkaitan dengan ibu (N = 196). Karena undang-undang privasi Belanda, itu tidak mungkin untuk menyelidiki apakah bias nonresponse ada.4) Populasi :Populasi dalam penelitian ini adalah 750 keluarga di provinsi North-Holland, Belanda yang dipilih secara acak dan dihubungi melalui surat dari pusat kesehatan anak untuk menanyakan apakah mereka akan berpartisipasi dalam sebuah studi temperamen dan pengembangan.5) Sampel dan teknik pengambilan : Bekerja sama dengan pusat kesehatan anak Belanda di provinsi North-Holland, merekrut 196 anak-anak usia prasekolah (98 perempuan, 98 laki-laki, umur M = 3,4 tahun, SD = 0,4 tahun) dan ibu mereka (usia M = 35,9 tahun, SD = 3,7 tahun) untuk berpartisipasi dalam penelitian ini. Di Belanda, pusat kesehatan anak melayani masyarakat umum. Dari keluarga yang berpartisipasi, 99% adalah keluarga dengan dua orang tua; ibu entah menikah atau hidup dengan ayah dari anak tersebut. 92% dari ibu lahir di Belanda, dan 8% dari ibu lahir di tempat lain. 47% dari anak-anak sulung dan 53% kemudian lahir.Kami menghubungi 750 keluarga yang dipilih secara acak melalui surat dari pusat kesehatan anak dan bertanya apakah mereka akan berpartisipasi dalam sebuah studi temperamen dan pengembangan. Sebuah formulir pendaftaran dan amplop perangko-bayar (untuk dikirim ke universitas) yang tertutup. Peserta meyakinkan kerahasiaan dan bahwa mereka akan menerima laporan singkat tentang hasil penelitian. 6) Instrumen penelitian : Emosionalitas Negatif : Untuk mengukur tingkat emosionalitas negatif, ibu menyelesaikan lima skala Kuesioner Perilaku Anak (Children's Behavior Questionnaire) (CBQ; Majdandzic & van den Boom, 2001; Rothbart, Ahadi, Hershey, & Fisher, 2001).Gaya pengasuhan : Kami berasal langkah-langkah komposit untuk gaya pengasuhan otoritatif dan otoriter dari 6 skala yg ibu selesaikan.Prilaku Bermasalah : Kami menilai perilaku bermasalah menggunakan Checklist Perilaku Anak (CBCL, Achenbach, 1992; Koot, van den Oord, Verhulst, & Boomsma, 1997). The CBCL berisi 100 item masalah yang mencetak gol pada 3-point skala Likert-type.7) Analisa data : Emosionalitas Negatif : Untuk mengukur tingkat emosionalitas negatif, ibu menyelesaikan lima skala Kuesioner Perilaku Anak (Children's Behavior Questionnaire) (CBQ; Majdandzic & van den Boom, 2001; Rothbart, Ahadi, Hershey, & Fisher, 2001). 1. Skala Anger-frustrasi (13 item) disebut gangguan tugas yang sedang berlangsung atau pemblokiran gawang. Alpha Cronbach memperkirakan konsistensi internal untuk skala ini adalah .83. 2. Skala Ketidaknyamanan (12 item, = 0,69) reaksi yang bersangkutan untuk kualitas sensorik dari rangsangan, termasuk intensitas, tingkat, atau kompleksitas cahaya, gerakan, suara, dan tekstur. 3. Skala Takut (12 item, = 0,71) termasuk kegelisahan, khawatir, atau gugup, yang berhubungan dengan nyeri diantisipasi atau tekanan atau situasi yang berpotensi mengancam. 4. Skala Kesedihan (12 item, = 0,68) bersangkutan paparan penderitaan, kekecewaan, dan kehilangan objek dan karenanya menurunkan mood dan energi. 5. Skala Soothability (13 item, = 0,81) bersangkutan laju pemulihan dari tekanan puncak, kegembiraan, atau gairah umum.

Ibu menilai anak mereka pada skala Likert-type 7 poin mulai dari 1 (sangat tidak benar anak Anda) sampai 7 (sangat benar anak Anda). Ibu juga memiliki pilihan respon nonapplicable untuk digunakan saat anak tidak (belum) bisa diamati dalam situasi yang dijelaskan. Kami menilai validitas konstruk menggunakan analisis komponen utama, yang mengungkapkan solusi satu-dimensi dengan soothability memuat negatif, faktor loadings mulai 0,69-0,82, dan perbedaan dijelaskan dari 58%. Konsistensi internal untuk mengukur komposit emosionalitas negatif adalah = 0,82. Rata-rata untuk komposit mengukur emosionalitas negatif adalah 3,32 (SD = 0,70, N = 196). Gaya pengasuhan : Kami berasal langkah-langkah komposit untuk gaya pengasuhan otoritatif dan otoriter dari enam skala yg ibu selesaikan. 1. Skala Responsiveness (8 item, = 0,92) disebut sejauh mana ibu menganggap dirinya responsif terhadap kebutuhan dan sinyal anaknya. Itu berasal dari barang-barang dari Nijmegen ParentingQuestionnaire (Gerris et al, 1993;. Gerrits, Dekovic, Groenendaal, & Noom 1996). 2. Skala Konsistensi (8 item, = 0,70) disebut sejauh mana perilaku ibu sudah bisa ditebak bagi anak dan diukur dengan item dari Parenting Dimensi Inventory (Gerrits, Groenendaal, Dekovic, & Noom, 1996; Slater & Power, 1987). 3. Skala Acceptance (12 item, = .62) mengacu pada sejauh mana anak tinggal sampai dengan harapan fisik, intelektual, dan emosional ibu. Item berasal dari Indeks Stres Parenting (diterjemahkan dan direvisi oleh Brock, Vermulst, Gerris, & Abidin, 1992; Groenendaal, Gerrits, & Rispens, 1996). Ibu menilai perilaku pola asuh mereka pada skala Likert-type 6 poin mulai dari 1 (sangat tidak setuju) sampai 6 (sangat setuju). 4. Skala Induksi (5 item, = 0,83) menunjukkan mendisiplinkan teknik, seperti menunjukkan konsekuensi dari nakal ke anak dan penalaran dengan anak. 5. Skala Daya pernyataan (5 item, = 0,79) menunjukkan teknik seperti meninggikan suara seseorang, penggunaan hukuman fisik, menghilangkan hak istimewa, atau memberikan anak sebuah tugas tambahan mendisiplinkan. 6. Skala Cinta penarikan (5 item, = 0,81) disebut teknik seperti menghukum anak mendisiplinkan dengan mengabaikan dia atau mengirim anak pergi. Induksi, daya pernyataan, dan cinta penarikan diukur dengan item dari Parenting Dimensi Inventory (Gerrits, Groenendaal et al, 1996;. Slater & Power, 1987). Ibu membaca lima sketsa situasi pola asuh dan 10 reaksi yang mungkin. Selanjutnya, mereka menggunakan skala Likert-type 4 poin mulai dari 1 (sangat tidak mungkin) sampai 4 (sangat mungkin) untuk menilai seberapa besar kemungkinan mereka menganggap diri mereka untuk bereaksi dengan cara ini.

Prilaku Bermasalah : Kami menilai perilaku bermasalah menggunakan Checklist Perilaku Anak (CBCL, Achenbach, 1992; Koot, van den Oord, Verhulst, & Boomsma, 1997). The CBCL berisi 100 item masalah yang mencetak gol pada 3-point skala Likert-type. Ibu menunjukkan apakah deskripsi perilaku adalah 0 (sama sekali tidak benar), 1 (agak benar), atau 2 (sangat benar) anak mereka. Secara keseluruhan skor yang diperoleh untuk sindrom broadband perilaku internalisasi (cemas-tertekan dan menarik diri, 26 item, = 0,88) dan externalizingbehavior (perilaku agresif dan destruktif, 25 item, = 0,74). Rata-rata untuk internalisasi behaviorwas 6.00 (SD = 4.25, N = 196). Rata-rata untuk perilaku eksternalisasi adalah 11,44 (SD = 7,54, N = 196).SES. SES keluarga adalah kombinasi dari latar belakang pendidikan dan kejuruan dari kedua orang tuanya seperti yang dilaporkan oleh ibu dan dihitung atas dasar faktor loadings-contoh spesifik dan standar deviasi. Nilai rata-rata berhubungan dengan strata sosial ekonomi: 3-9 adalah kelas bawah, 9-12 adalah kelas menengah, dan 12-16 adalah kelas atas (Bernstein & Brandis, 1970). Analisis komponen utama menunjukkan solusi satu-dimensi dengan faktor loadings mulai dari .71 (latar belakang kejuruan ibu) ke .82 (latar belakang pendidikan ibu) dan varians menjelaskan dari 63%. Konsistensi internal dari skala adalah = 0,80. Rata-rata untuk SES adalah 12.13 (SD = 2.57, N = 196). Sampel terdiri terutama (90%) dari keluarga kelas menengah dan atas.

Parenting Style as a Mediator Between Children's Negative Emotionality and Problematic Behavior in Early ChildhoodPaulussen-Hoogeboom, Marja C;Stams, Geert Jan J M;Hermanns, Jo M A;Peetsma, Thea T D;van den Wittenboer, Godfried L H.The Journal of Genetic Psychology169.3(Sep 2008): 209-26.

Abstract (summary)Negative emotionality is considered to be the core of the difficult temperament concept (J. E. Bates, 1989; R. L. Shiner, 1998). In this correlational study, the authors examined whether the relations betweenchildren's negative emotionality and problematicbehavior(internalizing and externalizing) were partially mediated byparentingstyle (authoritative and authoritarian) in a community sample of 196 3-year-oldchildrenand their mothers. The authors assessed maternal perception ofchildnegative emotionality using theChildren'sBehaviorQuestionnaire (M. K. Rothbart, S. A. Ahadi, K. L. Hershey, & P. Fisher, 2001) and assessed problematic child behaviorby means of maternal report using theChild BehaviorChecklist (T. M. Achenbach, 1992). The results showed that the relations betweenchildnegative emotionality and internalizing and externalizing behaviorswere partially mediated by mothers' authoritativeparentingstyle. Moreover, when the authors used confirmatory factor analysis to decontaminate possible overlap in item content between measures assessing temperament and problematicbehavior, the association between negative emotionality and internalizingbehaviorwas fully mediated by authoritativeparenting. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]Full TextHeadnoteABSTRACT. Negative emotionality is considered to be the core of the difficult temperament concept (J. E. Bates, 1989; R. L. Shiner, 1998). In this correlational study, the authors examined whether the relations betweenchildren's negative emotionality and problematicbehavior(internalizing and externalizing) were partially mediated byparentingstyle (authoritative and authoritarian) in a community sample of 196 3-year-oldchildrenand their mothers. The authors assessed maternal perception ofchildnegative emotionality using theChildren'sBehaviorQuestionnaire (M. K. Rothbart, S. A. Ahadi, K. L. Hershey, & P. Fisher, 2001) and assessed problematicchild behaviorby means of maternal report using theChild BehaviorChecklist (T. M. Achenbach, 1992). The results showed that the relations betweenchildnegative emotionality and internalizing and externalizingbehaviorswere partially mediated by mothers' authoritativeparentingstyle. Moreover, when the authors used confirmatory factor analysis to decontaminate possible overlap in item content between measures assessing temperament and problematicbehavior, the association between negative emotionality and internalizingbehaviorwas fully mediated by authoritativeparenting.Keywords: externalizing, internalizing,parenting, temperamentCHILDRENDIFFER FROM EACH OTHER beginning early in life, and these differences may have implications for parent-childinteractions. Some important differences pertain tochildren's temperament (Putnam, Sanson, & Rothbart, 2002). Although ideas about temperament go back to ancient Greco-Roman times, Thomas, Chess, Birch, Hertzig, and Korn (1963) conducted the first major study of temperament inchildren. Their New York Longitudinal Study (NYLS) identified nine dimensions of temperament: activity level, approach-withdrawal, adaptability, mood, threshold, intensity, distractibility, rhythmicity, and attention-span persistence (Thomas et al., 1963). They also developed a difficult temperament concept that included the negative poles of the dimensions approach-withdrawal, adaptability, mood, intensity, and rhythmicity. They concluded that difficult preschoolers in the NYLS were at increased risk for later behavioral and emotional problems (Thomas, Chess, & Birch, 1968). This finding has spurred much research examining the association between temperament characteristics and developmental outcomes.Although researchers have debated the definition of temperament over the past several decades, a consensus has emerged that the term refers to constitutionally based differences in behavioral style that are visible from thechild's earliest years (Sanson, Hemphill, & Smart, 2004). Three broad aspects of temperament are gaining wide acceptance: negative emotionality, self-regulation, and a dimension variously labeled as approach-withdrawal, inhibition, or sociability (Sanson et al., 2004). Negative emotionality can be considered the core of the difficult temperament concept (Bates, 1989; Lee & Bates, 1985; Prior, 1992; Shiner, 1998). A widely accepted definition of negative emotionality is thechild's tendency to react to stressors with high degrees of emotionality, including anger, irritability, fear, or sadness (Rothbart, Ahadi, & Hershey, 1994).Temperament is considered more a function of the biological makeup of thechildand less a product of the child's interaction with caregivers (Zeanah & Fox, 2004). Researchers support the view of temperament as innate or biological and have found the genetic component of temperament to be fairly large. For example, Bokhorst et al. (2003) compared temperament in monozygotic and dizygotic twins and calculated that 77% of the variance in temperamental reactivity could be explained by genetic factors. Accordingly, temperament also has been shown to be moderately stable over time, with correlations ranging from .2 to .4, although stability may be higher (.7 < r < .8) if measurement error is taken into account (Sanson et al., 2004).Temperament is generally measured using parent questionnaires because researchers tend to be primarily interested in parental perceptions of temperament. Although some researchers have questioned the validity of parent report as an objective measure ofchildtemperament (Mangelsdorf, Schoppe, & Buur, 2000), other researchers have argued that there is a strong objective component in parent ratings ofchildtemperament (Rothbart & Bates, 1998). This last claim is supported by empirical studies showing convergence between parent ratings and observational assessments of temperament (e.g., Kochanska, 1995; Pauli-Pott, Mertesacker, Bade, Bauer, & Beckmann, 2000; Schuler, Black, & Starr, 1995).Temperament and ProblematicBehaviorIn the decades following the NYLS, empirical evidence has accumulated showing that difficult temperament in early childhood is both concurrently and prospectively related to internalizingbehavior, such as anxiety, sadness, social withdrawal, and fearfulness, and externalizingbehavior, such as overactivity, poor impulse control, noncompliance, aggression toward peers, and tantrums (Rothbart & Bates, 1998; Sanson et al., 2004). Most researchers focus on externalizingbehavior, presumably because pure internalizing symptoms are difficult to identify and thus harder to study in youngchildren(Campbell, 1995). When measured at the preschool age, however, externalizing and internalizingbehaviorsare substantially correlated in clinical and nonclinical samples (Campbell; Gilliom & Shaw, 2004; Gjone & Stevenson, 1997). This co-occurrence is not well understood. Although shared risk factors, genetic influences, and risk factors that stem from the development of an initial disorder constitute some of the proposed explanatory factors, few researchers to date have explored this phenomenon (Oland & Shaw, 2005). Regarding gender, Campbell concluded that the bulk of evidence suggests that gender differences in internalizing and externalizingbehaviorsare not marked in preschool-agedchildren. Although school-aged boys have a higher incidence of externalizingbehavior, by early adolescence, girls shift toward more internalizingbehavior(Achenbach, Howell, Quay, & Conners, 1991).Like temperament assessment, assessment of problematicbehaviorin preschool-agedchildrenoften involves adult-rated questionnaires (mostly by parents, sometimes combined with preschool or daycare teachers). The validity of parent report of problematicbehaviorhas been demonstrated in several studies (Campbell, 1995). According to Campbell, preschool-agedchildrenwhom parents or teachers rate higher on externalizingbehaviorsare also more difficult to handle when they are observed interacting with teachers, parents, and peers in structured and unstructured situations.Parenting BehaviorResearchers have consistently describedparenting behavioralong two dimensions: support and control (Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Rollins & Thomas, 1979). Support can be designated as parentalbehaviorthat makes thechildfeel comfortable in the relationship with his or her parent, fostering an internal representation in thechildthat he or she is basically accepted (Rollins & Thomas). Supportiveparentingrelates to constructs such as warmth, sensitivity, responsiveness, and acceptance and is considered essential for the formation of secure attachments and other positive developmental outcomes (e.g., Coplan, Hastings, Lagace-Seguin, & Moulton, 2002; van IJzendoorn & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2004), whereas lack of support may contribute to problematicbehavior(Rothbaum & Weisz, 1994). The second dimension, control, is "behaviorof the parent toward thechildwith the intent of directing thebehaviorof thechildin a manner desirable to the parents" (Rollins & Thomas, p. 321). Control strategies may vary from positive to negative, depending on the parent and the situation. One negative strategy, restrictive control, is characterized by high power assertion, negativity, intrusiveness, hostility, overcontrol, or overinvolvement. More restrictive control has been associated with increased externalizingbehavior(Calkins, 2002; Campbell, 1995).Maccoby and Martin (1983) proposed a fourfold scheme in which combinations of support (high and low) and control (high and low) describe fourparentingstyles: authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and neglecting. The most commonparentingstyles in this fourfold scheme are authoritative and authoritarianparenting. Authoritativeparentingis characterized by a combination of high warmth, firm but fair control, and the use of explanations and reasoning (Campbell, 1995). Authoritarianparentinginvolves power assertion without warmth, nurturance, or two-way communication. Authoritativeparentingis generally advantageous tochilddevelopment (Coplan et al., 2002; Rothbart & Bates, 1998). In addition, this method also captures the sense of mutuality that may be particularly important forparenting childrenwho have high levels of negative emotionality (Rothbaum & Weisz, 1994). In contrast, authoritarian maternalparentingthat is arbitrary, negative, or uninvolved is associated with noncompliance, defiance, and low internalization of control (Campbell). Fathers generally report less authoritativeparentingthan do mothers (e.g., Winsler, Madigan, & Aquilino, 2005). An explanation for this finding may be that mothers are generally more emotionally invested inparenting, face relatively strong societal expectations aboutparenting, and, as a rule, have the most responsibility forparenting(Corwyn & Bradley, 1999; Geary, 2000).Parentingstyle is more authoritative andchild-centered in families of higher socioeconomic status (SES), in contrast to the authoritarian parent-centered style that characterizes lower SES families (Hoff, Laursen, & Tardif, 2002). Furthermore,childrenshowing problematicbehaviorat preschool age are more likely to come from families of lower SES (Campbell, 1995). These findings may be explained by the more stressful family circumstances in lower SES families, such as financial problems, housing problems, and difficulty in accessingchildwelfare, medical facilities, or other social services that can be used as a source of support.Mediation byParentingIn the majority of studies, researchers report small to moderate associations betweenchildren's negative emotionality and problematicbehavior(Sanson, Oberklaid, Pedlow, & Prior, 1991). In addition, most researchers only focus on direct effects. What appear to be direct effects, however, could also result from more complex and indirect relations, such as mediation processes. Mediation byparentingmay be a plausible indirect pathway connecting temperament with problematicbehavior(Collins, Maccoby, Steinberg, Hetherington, & Bornstein, 2000; Lee & Bates, 1985; Rothbart & Bates, 1998). Mediation byparentingimplies that thechild's negative emotionality affectsparentingand thatparentingsubsequently affects thechild'sbehavior. Several researchers already have investigated these separate paths. Empirical evidence has shown that higher levels ofchildnegative emotionality are associated with (a) more authoritarianparenting behaviors, such as power assertion, low emotional support, punitiveness, and general unresponsiveness, and (b) less authoritativeparenting(e.g., Sanson et al., 2004). Therefore, these authoritarianparenting behaviorsare related to more externalizingbehavior(Paterson & Sanson, 1999; Rothbaum & Weisz, 1994; Rubin, Burgess, Dwyer, & Hastings, 2003) and internalizingbehavior(Morris et al., 2002).Present StudyIn the present study, we attempted to provide more insight into the mechanism that relates preschoolers' negative emotionality to their problematic internalizing and externalizingbehaviors, as measured by maternal perceptions. We examined direct and indirect associations in this community sample. We focused on 3-year-olds to fill a gap in the existing literature. Based on our proposed mediation model (see Figure 1), we expected to find (a) direct associations betweenchildnegative emotionality and both internalizing and externalizingbehaviors, (b) direct associations among higher levels of negative emotionality, less authoritativeparenting, and more authoritarianparenting, (c) direct associations between less authoritative and more authoritarianparentingand higher levels of internalizing and externalizingbehavior, (d) indirect, mediated paths from negative emotionality throughparentingstyles to more problematicbehavior, (e) associations between lower levels of SES and higher and lower levels of authoritativeparenting, and (f) associations between lower levels of SES and higher levels of internalizing and externalizingbehaviors. Because we consideredparentingstyle to be only one of the processes linking temperament with problematicbehavior, we hypothesized partial mediation, which indicates that the effects of negative emotionality on internalizing and externalizingbehaviorsremain significant in a model that accounts for mediation byparenting.We note that confounding of measures due to item-content overlap in the assessment of temperament and problematicbehaviormay invalidate conclusions about the relation between negative emotionality and both internalizing and externalizingbehaviors. However, Lemery, Essex, and Smider (2002) and Lengua, West, and Sandler (1998) showed that even after the removal of contaminated questionnaire items, there continued to be significant and interpretable relations between temperament and problematicbehavior. In this study, we accounted for possible contamination of the measures for negative emotionality and problematicbehaviorby repeating the analyses of our final model using the decontaminated measures derived from a confirmatory factor analysis.MethodParticipantsIn collaboration with Dutchchildhealth centers in the province North- Holland, we recruited 196 preschool-agedchildren(98 girls, 98 boys; M age = 3.4 years, SD = 0.4 years) and their mothers (M age = 35.9 years, SD = 3.7 years) to participate in this study. In The Netherlands,childhealth centers serve the general population. Of the participating families, 99% were two-parent families; mothers were either married to or living with the father of thechild. Ninety-two percent of the mothers were born in The Netherlands, and 8% of the mothers were born elsewhere. Forty-seven percent of thechildrenwere firstborn and 53% were later born.ProcedureWe contacted 750 randomly selected families through a letter from thechildhealth centers and asked if they would participate in a study of temperament and development. A registration form and a postage-paid envelope (to be sent to the university) were enclosed. Participants were assured confidentiality and that they would receive a brief report about the results of the study. The 267 families (36%) who agreed to participate were sent a set of questionnaires to be completed at home by the parent who was most involved in raising thechild. The parents returned the questionnaires by mail. We received 201 (75%) sets of completed questionnaires. Because all but 5 of the sets of questionnaires were completed by mothers, we report only data with regard to mothers (N = 196). Due to Dutch privacy legislation, it was not possible to investigate whether a nonresponse bias existed.MeasuresNegative emotionality. For the composite measure of negative emotionality, mothers completed five scales of theChildren'sBehaviorQuestionnaire (CBQ; Majdandzic & van den Boom, 2001; Rothbart, Ahadi, Hershey, & Fisher, 2001).1. Anger-frustration scale (13 items) referred to interruption of ongoing tasks or goal blocking. Cronbach's alpha estimating internal consistency for this scale was .83.2. Discomfort scale (12 items, = .69) concerned reactions to sensory qualities of stimulation, including intensity, rate, or complexities of light, movement, sound, and texture.3. Fear scale (12 items, = .71) included unease, worry, or nervousness, which are related to anticipated pain or distress or potentially threatening situations.4. Sadness scale (12 items, = .68) concerned exposure to suffering, disappointment, and object loss and hence lowered mood and energy.5. Soothability scale (13 items, = .81) concerned the rate of recovery from peak distress, excitement, or general arousal.Mothers rated theirchildon a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (extremely untrue of yourchild) to 7 (extremely true of yourchild). Mothers also had a nonapplicable response option to be used when thechildhad not (yet) been observed in the situation described. We assessed construct validity using principal component analysis, which revealed a one-dimensional solution with soothability loading negatively, factor loadings ranging from .69 to .82, and an explained variance of 58%. Internal consistency for the composite negative emotionality measure was = .82. The mean score for the composite negative emotionality measure was 3.32 (SD = 0.70, N = 196).Parentingstyles. We derived the composite measures for authoritative and authoritarianparentingstyles from six scales that the mother completed.1. Responsiveness scale (8 items, = .92) referred to the extent to which the mother considered herself responsive to the needs and signals of herchild. It was derived from items from the NijmegenParentingQuestionnaire (Gerris et al., 1993; Gerrits, Dekovic, Groenendaal, & Noom 1996).2. Consistency scale (8 items, = .70) referred to the extent to which the mother'sbehaviorwas predictable for thechildand was measured by items from theParentingDimensions Inventory (Gerrits, Groenendaal, Dekovic, & Noom, 1996; Slater & Power, 1987).3. Acceptance scale (12 items, = .62) referred to the extent to which thechildlived up to the mother's physical, intellectual, and emotional expectations. The items came from theParentingStress Index (translated and revised by Brock, Vermulst, Gerris, & Abidin, 1992; Groenendaal, Gerrits, & Rispens, 1996). Mothers rated theirparenting behavioron a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 6 (totally agree).4. Induction scale (5 items, = .83) indicated disciplining techniques, such as pointing out consequences of misbehaving to thechildand reasoning with thechild.5. Power assertion scale (5 items, = .79) indicated disciplining techniques such as raising one's voice, the use of physical punishment, taking away privileges, or giving thechildan extra chore.6. Love withdrawal scale (5 items, = .81) referred to disciplining techniques such as punishing thechildby ignoring him or her or sending thechildaway.Induction, power assertion, and love withdrawal were measured by items from theParentingDimensions Inventory (Gerrits, Groenendaal et al., 1996; Slater & Power, 1987). Mothers read five vignettes describingparentingsituations and 10 possible reactions. Subsequently, they used a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very improbable) to 4 (very probable) to rate how likely they considered themselves to react in these ways.Principal component analysis revealed a two-dimensional solution with 29% of the variance explained by a factor dealing with authoritativeparentingand 28% of the variance explained by a factor that could be labeled authoritarianparenting. Scales loading on authoritativeparentingwere Responsiveness (factor loading = .59), Acceptance (.71), Induction (.52), and Consistency (.74). Scales loading on authoritarianparentingwere Power assertion (.88) and Love withdrawal (.87). We standardized the six separate scale scores before computing composite scores. Internal consistency for the composite authoritativeparentingmeasure was = .83. Internal consistency for the composite authoritarianparentingmeasure was = .76.Problematicbehavior. We assessed problematicbehaviorusing theChild BehaviorChecklist (CBCL; Achenbach, 1992; Koot, van den Oord, Verhulst, & Boomsma, 1997). The CBCL contains 100 problem items that are scored on 3-point Likert-type scales. Mothers indicated whether behavioral descriptions were 0 (not at all true), 1 (somewhat true), or 2 (very true) of theirchild. Overall scores were obtained for the broadband syndromes of internalizingbehavior(anxious-depressed and withdrawn; 26 items, = .88) and externalizingbehavior(aggressive and destructivebehavior; 25 items, = .74). The mean score for internalizingbehaviorwas 6.00 (SD = 4.25, N = 196). The mean score for externalizingbehaviorwas 11.44 (SD = 7.54, N = 196).SES. SES of the family was a combination of the educational and vocational backgrounds of both parents as reported by the mother and was computed on the basis of sample-specific factor loadings and standard deviations. Mean scores corresponded to socioeconomic strata: 3-9 was lower class, 9-12 was middle class, and 12-16 was upper class (Bernstein & Brandis, 1970). Principal component analysis revealed a one-dimensional solution with factor loadings ranging from .71 (vocational background of mother) to .82 (educational background of mother) and an explained variance of 63%. Internal consistency of the scale was = .80. The mean score for SES was 12.13 (SD = 2.57, N = 196). The sample consisted primarily (90%) of middle- and upper-class families.ResultsCorrelations and covariances for the study variables are presented in Table 1. In preliminary analyses, we examined gender and birth-order differences with respect to the composites of negative emotionality, authoritative and authoritarianparentingstyles, and internalizing and externalizingbehaviors. There were no significant gender or birth-order differences in mean scores on any of the variables. We analyzed data on the sample covariance matrix estimates using maximum-likelihood estimation. We used AMOS, version 4.0 (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999). We performed tests of indirect, mediated effects using bootstrap procedures. Bootstrapping results in enhanced statistical power for testing mediational models when sample sizes are moderate or small (Shrout & Bolger, 2002). Overall model fit was assessed using chi-square, the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), and Steiger's root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). The AGFI is a measure of the relative amount of variance and covariance that are jointly accounted for by the model. It ranges from 0 to 1, and values close to 1 indicate a good fit (Jreskorg & Srbom, 1989). The RMSEA is a population-based index and is relatively insensitive to sample size (Loehlin, 1998). According to Loehlin, an RMSEA of .05 or less would indicate a close fit of the model.We started with the full theoretical model (see Figure 1), which we found fit the data well, ^sup 2^(2, N = 196) = 1.91, p = .38; AGFI = .97; RMSEA = .00. However, the direct paths from SES to authoritativeparenting, negative emotionality to authoritarianparenting, and authoritarianparentingto both internalizing and externalizingbehaviorwere not significant. Omitting these paths from the model for parsimony left authoritarianparentingdisconnected from both predictor (negative emotionality) and outcome variables (problematicbehavior). Therefore, we removed authoritarianparentingfrom the model.The adjusted model (see Figure 2) still fit the data well, ^sup 2^(2, N = 196) = 2.49, p = .29; AGFI = .96; RMSEA = .04. All direct paths in this model were significant, so no further adjustments were made.Children's negative emotionality was positively associated withchildren's externalizingbehavior( = .44, p = .002) and internalizingbehavior( = .39, p = .002). We found a negative association betweenchildren's negative emotionality and maternal authoritativeparentingstyle ( = -.40, p = .002). Maternal authoritativeparentingstyle was also negatively associated withchildren's externalizingbehavior( = -.17, p = .015), as was the association between maternal authoritativeparentingstyle andchildren's internalizingbehavior( = -.17, p = .008). Family SES was negatively associated with bothchildren's internalizing ( = -.19, p = .007) and externalizingbehaviors( = -.18, p = .002). However, SES was not associated with maternal authoritativeparentingstyle.Children's externalizing and internalizingbehaviorswere moderately correlated (r = .46, p = .002). With regard to the hypothesized indirect effects, the association betweenchildren's negative emotionality and externalizingbehaviorwas partially mediated by maternal authoritativeparentingstyle ( = .07, p < .05), and the association betweenchildren's negative emotionality and internalizingbehaviorwas also partially mediated by maternal authoritativeparentingstyle ( = .07, p < .01). The model accounted for 26% of the variance in internalizingbehaviorand 32% of the variance in externalizingbehavior.In additional analyses, we tested the final mediation model after decontamination of the CBQ and CBCL items through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA; see Lengua et al., 1998). CFA of the CBQ and CBCL yielded three meaningful constructs (negative emotionality, internalizingbehavior, and externalizingbehavior) with satisfactory internal consistencies (.68 < < .85). Item-content overlap proved to be most prominent in the scale for internalizingbehavior. The CFA model showed an acceptable fit to the data, ^sup 2^(1376, N = 196) = 2611.31, p < .00; AGFI = .66; RMSEA = .07: The ratio between the chi-square statistic and the degrees of freedom was lower than 2.5 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Subsequently, we tested the final mediation model using the decontaminated CBQ and CBCL. The decontaminated mediation model still showed an adequate fit to the data, ^sup 2^(3, N = 196) = 4.14, p = .25; AGFI = .96; RMSEA = .04. The direct association between negative emotionality and externalizingbehaviorwas less strong in the decontaminated model but still significant. The direct association between negative emotionality and internalizingbehavior, however, was reduced to nonsignificance. The mediated effects that we found in the adjusted model were also present in the decontaminated model and were of similar size. However, the finding that the direct association between negative emotionality and internalizingbehaviorwas reduced to nonsignificance indicates that this association was then fully mediated by authoritativeparentinginstead of partially mediated.DiscussionOur aim in the present study was to investigateparentingas a possible mechanism linkingchildren's negative emotional reaction style to their problematicbehaviorin families drawn from the general population. In line with earlier findings, the results of this study show a relation betweenchildnegative emotionality and problematicbehavior. More important, though, is the finding that this relation was mediated by mother's authoritativeparentingstyle. As relations between temperament and problematicbehaviormay be inflated because of item-content overlap, we used CFA as a means of decontamination. The decontaminated model differed from the previous best-fitting model in that the direct relation between negative emotionality and internalizingbehaviorwas reduced to nonsignificance, indicating that the association between negative emotionality and internalizingbehaviorwas fully mediated by authoritativeparenting. It seems that decontamination of measures assessing negative emotionality and problematicbehavioryields a clearer picture of the mediation process. Moreover, our findings match those of Sanson, Prior, and Kyrios (1990), who found a significant amount of overlap between temperament and internalizingbehavior, indicating that parents may infer theirchild's internalizingbehaviorpartly from perceptions of theirchild's temperament.Theoretical RelevanceThe coefficients of the mediated paths were small but of theoretical interest because this study demonstrates thatparentingcan mediate the relation betweenchildren's difficult temperament and problematicbehavior. Furthermore, with authoritarianparentingstyle's not being a mediator, our results suggest that authoritativeparentingmay be more important for the behavioral adjustment of preschoolers than is authoritarianparenting. This is in line with findings by Pettit and Bates (1989) and Rothbaum and Weisz (1994), who have suggested that, despite both authoritative and authoritarianparentingstyles being high on the control dimension, parental control should be exercised in a sensitive way to be effective. In this way, it appears that love withdrawal and power assertion are aspects of control that do not contribute to the prevention of problematicbehavior. Coplan et al. (2002) suggested that an authoritarianparentingstyle functions as a lens through which allchildren'sbehaviorsare perceived and evaluated. The researchers found the default emotional response of authoritarian mothers to be negative, regardless ofchild behavior. It is possible that a parent-centeredparentingstyle also generates a default behavioral response and consequently does not show any variation in negativeparenting behaviorwhen compared with varying degrees of negative emotionality.Our findings agree with those of studies showing associations between internalizing and externalizingbehaviorsat the preschool age (Campbell, 1995; Gilliom & Shaw, 2004; Gjone & Stevenson, 1997). The moderate relation between internalizing and externalizingbehaviorsmay partly be accounted for by a process of multifinality, namely, a similar initial condition (difficult temperament) that leads to different effects (internalizing and externalizingbehavior; Cicchetti & Rogosch, 1996). We found empirical evidence for a link between negative emotionality and both internalizing and externalizingbehaviors. It is interesting that the relation between negative emotionality and externalizingbehaviorproved to be partially mediated byparenting, whereas the relation between negative emotionality and internalizingbehaviorwas fully mediated byparentingin the model that was not affected by item-content overlap in measures of temperament and problematicbehavior.Last, as hypothesized, family SES proved to be modestly related to problematicbehavior. The relations between SES and authoritative and authoritarianparentingstyles were in the expected direction, though not significant, indicating thatparentingdid not act as a mediator here. Stronger relations may be found in more heterogeneous samples.Practical RelevanceThe finding that an authoritativeparentingstyle mediates the relations between negative emotionality and problematicbehaviorsunderscores the importance of providing effectiveparentingsupport to parents who have difficulties in dealing with their youngchild's negative emotionality on a daily basis. When parents can be trained and encouraged to react to theirchildren's negative emotionality in an adaptive way, parent-childinteractions may become more enjoyable, thereby reducing the occurrence of problematicbehaviorsand preventing more serious behavioral problems later in life (Campbell, 1995; Patterson, 1982). We note that even in general population samples, a substantial percentage ofchildren(up to 10%) may develop internalizing- and externalizing-behaviorproblems in the clinical range (Achenbach et al., 1991; Verhulst, van der Ende, & Koot, 1996). The present study adds to the body of literature showing how normal development may go awry.LimitationsSome limitations of this study should be mentioned. The first is the correlational nature of the design, which sets limits on the causal interpretation of our results. Second, it is possible that the mediations we found may be accounted for by genetic similarities between parent andchild. However, researchers focusing on individual differences in internalizing and externalizingbehaviorshave shown that both genes and environment play a role and that shared environmental factors, especiallyparenting, can be considered important for the stability of internalizing and externalizingbehaviorfrom preschool to middle childhood and early adolescence (Bartels, 2004; Stams, Juffer, & van IJzendoorn, 2002; van der Valk, van den Oord, Verhulst, & Boomsma, 2003). A third limitation of the study is its limited generalizability because the participants predominantly came from middle to high socioeconomic backgrounds. Notably, a recent meta-analysis of negative emotionality andparentingshowed the association between morechildnegative emotionality and less supportiveparentingto be stronger in lower SES families than in families from middle or higher socioeconomic backgrounds (Paulussen-Hoogeboom, Stams, Hermanns, & Peetsma, 2007). Last, the present findings may be generalized only to mothers and not to fathers. For example, researchers investigating the ecology of fathering have shown that fathers and mothers differ in both caregiving sensitivity and play interaction, which may have different developmental consequences for thechild(Grossmann et al., 2002; Lamb, Frodi, Frodi, & Hwang, 1982; Parke, 1995).Suggestions for Additional ResearchDespite the increasing involvement of fathers inchildrearing in many Western countries, researchers in this field still tend to focus almost exclusively on mothers. However, a more complete examination of the associations among negative emotionality,parentingstyle, and problematicbehaviorwould require a greater number of studies that include data from fathers. Thus, although fathers are generally less willing to participate in research than are mothers, it is essential that researchers make every effort to get and keep fathers involved. In addition to including fathers, we also recommend that future researchers use longitudinal designs to test the proposed mediational model in the most robust way.In sum, this study revealed that difficult temperament in preschoolers, characterized by expressions of negative emotionality, was related to both externalizing and internalizingbehaviors. Moreover, we found initial evidence that an authoritativeparentingstyle mediates the relation betweenchildren's difficult temperament and problematicbehavior. Although replication of our results is needed, this study adds to a greater understanding of the processes that are responsible for the progression of difficult temperament into problematicbehavior.

REFERENCESAchenbach, T. M. (1992). Manual for theChild BehaviorChecklist/2-3 and 1992 profile. Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.Achenbach, T. M., Howell, C. T., Quay, C. T., & Conners, C. K. (1991). National survey of problems and competencies among four- to sixteen-year-olds: Parents' reports from normative and clinical samples. Monographs of the Society for Research inChildDevelopment, 56(3, Serial No. 225).Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). Amos 4.0 user's guide. Chicago: SmallWaters.Bartels, M. (2004). De oorzaken van individuele verschillen in stabiliteit en verandering van gedragsproblemen [Causes of individual differences in stability and change ofbehaviorproblems]. Neuropraxis, 8, 107-115.Bates, J. E. (1989). Concepts and measures of temperament. In G. A. Kohnstamm & J. E. Bates (Eds.), Temperament in childhood (pp. 3-26). New York: Wiley.Bernstein, B., & Brandis, W. (1970). Social class differences in communication and control. In W. Brandis & D. Henderson (Eds.), Social class, language and communication (pp. 93-153). London: Routledge.Bokhorst, C. L., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Pasco Fearon, R. M., van IJzendoorn, M. H., Fonagy, P., & Schuengel, C. (2003). The importance of shared environment in mother-infant attachment security: A behavioral genetic study.ChildDevelopment, 74, 1769-1782.Brock, A. J. L. L., Vermulst, A. A., Gerris, J. R. M., & Abidin, R. R. (1992). Nijmeegse ouderlijke stress index: Handleiding experimentele versie [NijmegenParentingStress Index: Manual experimental version]. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.Calkins, S. D. (2002). Does aversivebehaviorduring toddlerhood matter?: The effects of difficult temperament on maternal perceptions andbehavior. Infant Mental Health Journal, 23, 381-402.Campbell, S. B. (1995).Behaviorproblems in preschoolchildren: A review of recent research. Journal ofChildPsychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 36, 113-149.Cicchetti, D., & Rogosch, F. A. (1996). Equifinality and multifinality in developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 597-600.Collins, W. A., Maccoby, E. E., Steinberg, L., Hetherington, E. M., & Bornstein, M. H. (2000). Contemporary research onparenting: The case for nature and nurture. American Psychologist, 55, 218-232.Coplan, R. J., Hastings, P. D., Lagace-Seguin, D. G., & Moulton, C. E. (2002). Authoritative and authoritarian mothers'parentinggoals, attributions and emotions across different childrearing contexts.Parenting: Science and Practice, 2, 1-26.Submitted January 12, 2006Accepted February 4, 2008AuthorAffiliationMARJA C. PAULUSSEN-HOOGEBOOMGEERT JAN J. M. STAMSJO M. A. HERMANNSTHEA T. D. PEETSMAGODFRIED L. H. VAN DEN WITTENBOERUniversity of AmsterdamAddress correspondence to Marja C. Paulussen-Hoogeboom, Department of Education, Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences, University of Amsterdam, PO Box 94208, 1090 GE Amsterdam, The Netherlands; m.c.paulussen-hoogeboom@uva.nl (e-mail).AuthorAffiliationAUTHOR NOTESMarja C. Paulussen-Hoogeboom is a developmental psychologist. Her research interests are in temperament, specifically negative emotionality,parenting, andbehaviorproblems in youngchildren. Geert Jan J. M. Stams has conducted longitudinal research, intervention studies, and several meta-analyses in the areas of socioemotional and moral development, focusing on familial and extrafamilial determinants ofbehaviorproblems in early childhood, middle childhood, and adolescence. Jo M. A. Hermanns is a developmental psychologist. His research interests are family support,parenting, and developmental risks. Thea T. D. Peetsma is senior researcher at the SCO-Kohnstamm Institute at the University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands, and coordinator of the division for basic research of this institute. She specializes in psychosocial development, learning motivation ofchildren, andchildrenwith special educational needs. Godfried L. H. van den Wittenboer has researched the methodological issues of educational and psychological measurement, varying from problems in facet theory, such as reducing complex research designs, response scalability, the structure of measurement in facet designs and interaction problems in simple research designs, to issues in longitudinal data analysis.Word count:7178Copyright Heldref Publications Sep 2008