latent profiles of parental self-efficacy and children's multisource-evaluated social...

British Journal of Educational Psychology (2014), 84, 397–414

© 2014 The British Psychological Society

www.wileyonlinelibrary.com

Latent profiles of parental self-efficacy andchildren’s multisource-evaluated socialcompetence

Niina Junttila1,2,3* and Marja Vauras2,3

1Turku Institute for Advanced Studies, University of Turku, Finland2Centre for Learning Research, University of Turku, Finland3Department of Teacher Education, University of Turku, Finland

Background. The interrelation between mothers’ parental self-efficacy (PSE) and their

school-aged children’s well-being has been repeatedly proved. The lack of research in this

area situates mainly on the absence of fathers, non-existent family-level studies, the

paucity of independent evaluators, and the use of global PSE estimates.

Aims. We aimed to qualitatively identify different subgroups of mothers, fathers, and

couples based on their PSE factors. Furthermore, we aimed to study the interrelations

between these PSE subgroups and children’s school-related social competence evaluated

by the children themselves as well as by their peers, teachers, and parents.

Sample. Sample (n = 981; girls n = 467; boys n = 514) consisted of fourth-grade (mean

age, 10 years old) children, their teachers, peers, and parents (mothers n = 876; fathers

n = 696).

Methods. Latent profile analysis was used to identify parents with similar patterns of

PSE. The data of mothers and fathers were modelled separately and as a family-level

combination. Interrelations between PSE subgroups and children’smultisource-evaluated

social competence were analysed with group comparisons.

Results. Separate subgroups of mothers, fathers, and couples were identified and

labelled based on their PSE profiles. Subgroups were found to differ among mothers’ age

and education and children’s academic skills. Most of the interrelations between PSE

subgroups and children’s social competence were statistically significant in a sense that

children of parents with strong PSE were evaluated as more prosocial and less antisocial

than others.

Conclusion. Despite new perspectives on parents’ PSE estimates and use of behaviour

evaluators outside the family system, the interrelation between positive PSE and

children’s social competence and learning remains strong.

Parents’ conjoint influence of parental self-efficacy (PSE) on their children’s socialcompetence has been scarcely examined, and there has been a strong tendency to focus

on the influence of the mother’s PSE. It is plausible to assume, though, that there are

distinct family parenting styles reflected in the integrated patterns of PSE beliefs that may

(even more strongly than individual parental beliefs) interact with the development of

*Correspondence should be addressed to Niina Junttila, Turku Institute for Advanced Studies, Centre for Learning Research,University of Turku, FIN-20014 Turku, Finland (email: [email protected]).

DOI:10.1111/bjep.12040

397

children’s social competence. Thus, this study aimed to examine both parents’ individual

and joint PSE in relation to their children’s learning and social competence. A latent profile

analysis (LPA) was used to identify parents with similar patterns of PSE.

Parental (or parenting) self-efficacy has been identified as parents’ self-referentestimations of competence in the parental role or as parents’ perceptions of their ability to

positively influence the behaviour and development of their children (Coleman &

Karraker, 1998; Teti & Gelfand, 1991). Following the notions of Bandura’s self-efficacy

theory (1997), PSE incorporates both the level of knowledge pertaining to the behaviours

involved in child development and rearing and the degree of confidence in a parent’s

ability to confront the designated role behaviours without feelings of frustration or

incompetence (Coleman & Karraker, 1998). Thus, PSE belongs to the more general class

of constructs associated with personal efficacy and is a potentially important cognitiveconstruct related to child and family functioning (for a review, see Jones & Prinz, 2005).

More specifically, PSE can be identified as parents’ self-referent appraisals of

competence in the parental role or as parents’ perceptions of their ability to positively

influence the behaviour and development of their children (Coleman & Karraker, 1998;

2000). As Ardelt and Eccles (2001) noted, PSE is a belief that parents embrace to

influence their children’s behaviour and the environment to support their children’s

development. These beliefs may include, for example, the parents’ sense of competence

in facilitating the child’s achievement in school, supporting the child’s need forrecreation (including socializing with peers), promoting structure and discipline,

providing emotional nurturance, and maintaining the child’s physical health (Coleman &

Karraker, 2000).

In their review, Jones and Prinz (2005) analysed the relations of PSE with different

areas of child adjustment and concluded that PSE has been linked both directly and

indirectly to children’s psychological adjustment, thus possessing and importantly

mediating link between distinct parental factors, child characteristics, and situational

factors (cf. Coleman & Karraker, 2000). However, Jones and Prinz (2005) also raise animportant concern that both PSE and child behaviour have often been measured via

parental reports. This leaves open the question of whether these documented relations

are a reflection of the parental perceptions of child behaviour and are thus possibly

affected by parental self-doubt about their parenting efficacy (e.g., after receiving negative

feedback from a child’s teacher or sensing the child’s negative feelings about him or

herself; Junttila, 2010). Nonetheless, children presumably acquire beliefs about their own

self-efficacy, self-worth, and the principles of social behaviour by listening to and

watching their parents (Jones & Prinz, 2005).According to Ardelt and Eccles (2001; cf. Coleman & Karraker, 2000), parents with

higher PSE aremore likely to use adequate parenting strategies, which in turn increase the

likelihood that their children will succeed in the social, academic, and interpersonal

domains. The opposite is found in families where the parents’ PSE is low. Low PSE seems

to correlate with parental depression, defensive and controlling parental strategies, high

levels of parental stress, passive coping and feelings of helplessness in a parenting role,

and the use of punitive disciplinary techniques (for a review, see Coleman & Karraker,

2000). As an example, an interesting and yet rare longitudinal study (Steca, Bassi, Caprara,&Fave, 2011) showed that adolescents (at the ageof 13 and later at the age of 17)withhigh

PSE parents reported higher competence, freedom, andwell-being in learning activities as

well as in social interactions. They further reported fewer problems and more

opportunities for optimal experience.

398 Niina Junttila and Marja Vauras

However, most studies have been focused on mother’s PSE or have not separated the

effects of mothers and fathers. In the latter type of study, either the mother or the father

was asked to respond, and the mother’s response rate was typically substantially higher.

The very few studies that focus and separate the influences of both mothers’ and fathers’parental support indicate that a mother’s parental support has a stronger effect than the

father’s (e.g., Laible & Carlo, 2004) or that the effect is conjoint (Junttila, 2010). Although

the current yet rare studies emphasize the role of mothers’ PSE in fostering children’s

development, evidence of the effects of fathers’ PSE still remains scarce and hypothetical.

Interestingly, Murdock’s (2013) argument, which typically uses measurement strategies

of paternal self-efficacy, may have identified tasks more applicable to mothers than to

fathers. Another possibility addressed in this study is that we focus both parents’ PSE in an

integrated way to see whether converging or incompatible PSE beliefs interrelate withchildren’s development and psychosocial well-being. Adopting this strongly systemic

approach, we may be able to shed more light on the role of fathers’ PSE.

Aims of the present study

The focus of this study is the relationship between parental PSE beliefs and children’s

social competence. PSE can be described in global terms, such as the ability to

effectively attain and maintain positive social outcomes by organizing one’s ownpersonal and environmental resources (e.g., Anderson-Butcher, Iachini, & Amorose,

2008; Ladd, 1999; Semrud-Clikeman, 2007) or in more specific, contextual terms, such

as the ability to collaborate, empathize, and prohibit disruptive impulses in school

contexts (Junttila, 2010; Junttila, Voeten, Kaukiainen, & Vauras, 2006). Social

competences, in turn, have been shown in longitudinal studies to relate to later

psychosocial problems such as loneliness, social anxiety, social phobia, and depression

(Burt, Obradovic, Long, & Masten, 2008; Junttila, Vauras, Niemi & Laakkonen, 2012).

Therefore, given the potentially robust developmental consequences, we argue that therole of both parents’ PSE beliefs needs to be scrutinized more closely than has been

done in the existing literature. We further argue that both parents’ individual and joint

influences should be studied simultaneously to establish more coherent evidence. To

the best of our knowledge, no prior studies have analysed the joint phenomenon of

parental PSE. As the data are cross-sectional, we do not aim to study the (causal)

influence of parents’ PSE on their children’s behaviour. Despite the fact this would be

impossible with the current data, it is also against our idea that these phenomena share

a common dynamic interaction rather than one-directional causality (cf. Sameroff,1993).

The first main aim of this study was to identify different subgroups (latent classes) of

(1) mothers, (2) fathers, and (3) paired parents who showed different profiles in their PSE

evaluations, which consisted of four separate factors. These factors included recreation,

discipline, nurture, and participation. Second,we aimed to investigate the interrelation of

these PSE profiles with their children’s school-related social competence, including

cooperating skills (CO), empathy (EM), impulsivity (IM), and disruptiveness (DI),

evaluated by the (1) children themselves, (2) their peers (classmates), (3) their teachers,and (4) their parents. However, low or mediocre correlations between the four agents

rating children’s social competence have proved to be statistically significant (Junttila

et al., 2006), indicating the influence of different perspectives and contexts on assessing

social competence. Therefore, all four sources are relevant in the process of evaluating

children’s social competence. For a comprehensive viewof children’s social competence,

PSE and children’s social competence 399

it is important to take all four perspectives into account. If using only one perspective, a

careful choice must be made as to which of these perspectives is relevant for the given

social context and the purpose of this study (Junttila, 2010).

Method

Participants

To ensure optimal representativeness of the sample, the project leader chose a selection

of schools. The school principals were contacted and informed of the aims and

intervention procedures of the larger longitudinal study. Almost all of the principles (i.e.,principles from a total of 15 schools from small- to medium-sized towns, as well as from

rural communities, around southern Finland) chose to participate in this research project.

The sample (n = 981) consisted of fourth-grade students from these elementary schools,

including their teachers, peers, and parents. The parents were informed about the

purpose of the study, and almost 90%of themgavewritten consent for their own aswell as

their children’s participation in the study. The teachers, principals, and school

administrators endorsed the study. The number of girls (n = 467) was a little lower

than the number of boys (n = 514). The mean age of the children was 10 years and3 months (SD 6.3 months).

Measures

Themainmeasurement scales in this studywere (1) the PSE Scale, indicatingmothers’ and

fathers’ feelings about their competence in parenting, and the (2)Multisource Assessment

of Social Competence Scale (MASCS), estimating the ratings of children’s social

competence experienced by the children themselves, their peers, their teachers, andtheir parents. These scales are described below. In addition, we used standardized scales

to assess children’s reading comprehension (Finnish Standardized Reading Test for

elementary school children, Lindeman, 1998) and arithmetical skills (RMAT, R€as€anen,2004). Background information of the families (parents’ age, education) was asked about

along with the PSE questionnaire.

Parental self-efficacy

To evaluate parents’ self-referent feelings of their own PSE, we used a scale originally

developed by Coleman and Karraker (2000) and later on translated, modified, and

validated with Finnish mothers and fathers by Junttila, Vauras, and Laakkonen (2007).

The modified Finnish scale consisted of (1) three items measuring emotional

nurturance (e.g., ‘I frequently encourage my child to express his or her emotions’),

(2) three items measuring participation, mainly with regard to school duties and

learning activities (e.g., ‘I am not as involved in my child’s school work as I think I should

be’), and (3) two items measuring recreation, including socializing with peers (e.g.,‘I am skilful in organizing my child to play with friends’), and three items measuring

discipline (e.g., ‘It is difficult for me to decide on appropriate rules for my child’).

Parents were asked to rate their degree of agreement for each item on a 6-point

Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The

Cronbach’s alphas for the mothers’ and fathers’ evaluations are presented in Table 1,

along with the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) fit indexes.


Social competence

Children’s social competence was rated using the Multisource Assessment of Children’sSocial Competence Scale (Junttila et al., 2006). The scale includes four factors of social

competence: (1) CO (e.g., ‘effectively participates to group activities’) and (2) EM (e.g., ‘Is

sensitive to the feelings of others’) to assess the prosocial dimension, and (3) IM (e.g., ‘has

a short fuse’) and (4) DI (e.g., ‘argues and quarrels with peers’) to assess the antisocial

dimension of social competence. The rating scale is a 4-point scale that designates

frequency, as follows: 1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = frequently, and 4 = very frequently.

The items were rated by (1) the children themselves, (2) their peers (classmates), (3)

their teachers, and (4) their parents. The teacher who taught the most in the class wasinvited to evaluate the students. In practice, these were in most cases the class’s own

teacher. Peer ratings were collected from every student in the classroom and averaged to

obtain one rating for each child from his or her peers in the classroom. The Cronbach’s

alphas for the self-, peer, teacher, and parent ratings are presented in Table 1with theCFA

fit indexes.

Procedure and statistical analysesBoth parents (or single parents) filled in the PSE questionnaires to assess their own

competence in (1) recreation, (2) nurturance, (3) discipline, and (4) participation at

home. They then returned these to the schools in a sealed envelope. A total of 876mothers

and 696 fathers provided data of their own PSE measures. The amount of data for fathers

was smaller primarily because there were many single mothers in the sample, but also

because of absent or incomplete answers. The cases with a few missing values were

included in the analyses and treated using the Mplus missing data procedure (Muth�en &

Muth�en, 2010).Researchers collected the self- and peer ratings of children’s social competence during

a normal classroom lesson. Teachers were given the questionnaire in the same format as

the one used for peer ratings and self-ratings. One or both of the parents filled in the

questionnaire concerning their child’s social competence at home and returned it to the

Table 1. The validity and reliability estimates for the scales being used

v2 (df) CFI/TLI RMSEA/SRMR Cronbach’s a

Parental self-efficacy (recreation; discipline; nurturance; participation)

Mothers’ (n = 876) 89.617 (38) .962/.945 .039/.031 .737

Fathers’ (n = 696) 74.623 (38) .979/.969 .037/.030 .702

Social competence (cooperating skills, EM; IM, DI)

Self-ratings (n = 964) 160.843 (84) .976/.969 .031/.026 .855/.834a

Peer ratings (n = 974) 187.828 (82) .980/.974 .036/.025 .960/.950

Teacher ratings (n = 975) 263.050 (71)b .960/.949 .053/.045 .908/.929

Parent ratings (n = 889) 237.979 (82) .960/.949 .046/.043 .847/.814

Notes. DI, disruptiveness; EM, empathy; IM, impulsivity.aThe alphas are presented for the prosocial dimension consisted of cooperating skills and EM, and for the

antisocial dimension consisted of IM and DI.bDue to the large sample size, the chi-square index may not be considered as a reliable estimate (Ullman,

2001).


schools. Therewere very fewmissing values in the self-, peer, and teacher ratings of social

competence due to the online control of the data collection by researchers (see Table 1).

The analyses were run in Mplus software, version 6.11 (Muth�en & Muth�en, 2010). Totest the construct validity of the PSE and Social Competence scales, we used CFA.Furthermore, a LPA was used to identify parents with similar patterns of PSE (i.e., a

combination of their PSE factors, namely recreation, discipline, nurturance, and

participation). LPA is a model-based variant of traditional cluster analysis that aims to

find the unobserved subpopulations (latent classes) within the data (see Muth�en, 2001;Vermunt&Magidson, 2002;Wang&Bodner, 2007). The data ofmothers and fatherswere

first modelled separately to study the differences between mothers and fathers as well as

to include single parents. Second, the same analyses were conducted with combined

parental data (i.e., parents from the same family were paired together). After havingestablished the latent groups ofmothers’, fathers’, and paired parents’ PSE, we conducted

ANOVAs to examine the possible differences between children’s self-, peer-, teacher-, and

parent-rated social competence.

The fit indexes

In structural equation modelling, a chi-square index measures the distance between the

sample covariance matrix and the fitted covariance matrix. However, with large samplesizes (around 1,000 cases), the chi-square index may be considered an unreliable test

estimate (Ullman, 2001). Therefore, we also used other fit indexes. The CFI indicates how

much better themodel fits than the independencemodel. The index varies between 0 and

1, and the value should be close to .90 for the model to be suitable (Bentler, 1990).

However, according to Little, Card, Preacher, and McConnell (2009), values between .85

and .90 were considered average. In addition, the TLI, developed by Tucker and Lewis

(1973), indicates how much better the model fits than the independence model. The

index varies between 0 and 1, and the value should, according to Hu and Bentler (1999),be close to .95 for the model to be suitable. The RMSEA is a measure of discrepancy per

degree of freedom (Steiger, 1990). According to Hu and Bentler (1999), a cut-off value

close to .06 for the RMSEA indicates a good fit. The SRMR is the average of the standardized

residuals between the observed and the predicted covariancematrix; a cut-off value close

to .08 indicates a good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

To compare the resultant latent profile classes,weused the log-likelihood (Log L) value

(where a higher number indicates a better fit), the Akaike information criterion (AIC), and

the Bayesian information criterion (BIC). The AIC and BIC estimate guides to choosingbetween competing statistical models such that the smaller the value, the more

parsimonious the model is indicated to be (Akaike, 1987). Additionally, we used the

entropy value (which varies between 0 and 1) as a value closer to 1 indicates a clearer

classification and the probability estimates of cases belonging to each class (Vermunt &

Magidson, 2002; Wang & Bodner, 2007).

Results

Descriptive statistics formothers’ and fathers’ PSE and children’s self-, peer-, teacher-, and

parent-evaluated social competence are presented in Table 2. Due to the large number of

study variables (82), the descriptive statistics are presented as sum scores (based on the

confirmed latent variables). The skewness and kurtosis of the items, as well as the latents,


were all within reasonable limits, that is, between�2.0 and 2.0 for skewness and between

�7.0 and 7.0 for kurtosis (Curran, West, & Finch, 1996). If needed, the complete item

descriptive statistics are available from the first author.

The construct validity and internal correlations of the measures

The construct validity of the PSE andMASCSmeasurements was tested withmultiple CFAmodels (Table 1). For PSE, the model for both mothers and fathers fits the data without

any modifications. For different data sets of MASCS, some modifications were necessary.

For peer evaluations, error correlation was allowed between two items belonging to the

prosocial dimension (‘Is sensitive to the feelings of others’ and ‘Is skilful in starting

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for mothers’ and fathers’ parental self-efficacy (PSE) factors and

children’s self-, peer-, teacher-, and parent-rated social competence (SC) factors

Min. Max. Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis

Mothers’ PSE

Recreation 2.0 12.0 9.041 1.908 �0.391 �0.354

Discipline 3.0 18.0 13.478 3.083 �0.700 0.115

Nurturance 6.0 18.0 14.560 2.269 �0.487 0.064

Participation 3.0 18.0 12.968 2.872 �0.370 0.006

Fathers’ PSE

Recreation 2.0 12.0 7.787 1.834 �0.076 �0.162

Discipline 3.0 18.0 13.313 3.150 �0.653 0.020

Nurturance 3.0 18.0 10.584 3.834 �0.065 �0.986

Participation 3.0 18.0 12.119 2.837 �0.126 �0.204

SC/self-ratings

CO 5.0 20.0 15.415 3.045 �0.611 0.370

EM 3.0 12.0 9.556 1.865 �0.701 0.454

IM 3.0 12.0 5.102 2.202 1.202 1.148

DI 4.0 16.0 6.389 2.318 1.113 1.498

SC/peer ratings

CO 5.6 19.7 13.479 2.019 �0.416 0.429

EM 3.7 11.4 8.234 1.187 �0.543 0.468

IM 3.0 11.1 5.144 1.166 1.444 2.785

DI 4.0 13.8 6.838 1.526 1.197 1.530

SC/teacher ratings

CO 5.0 20.0 13.671 3.390 �0.302 �0.568

EM 4.0 12.0 8.933 1.895 �0.120 �0.665

IM 3.0 12.0 5.032 2.185 1.189 0.925

DI 4.0 16.0 7.124 2.820 0.965 0.350

SC/parent ratings

CO 6 20.0 15.892 2.395 �0.415 0.266

EM 3 12.0 9.666 1.350 �0.231 0.630

IM 3 12.0 6.637 1.692 0.599 0.817

DI 4 15.0 7.502 1.710 0.271 1.106

Notes. DI, disruptiveness; CO, cooperating skills; EM, empathy; IM, impulsivity.


conversations withmates’) and between two items belonging to the antisocial dimension

(‘Has a short fuse’ and ‘Bothers and annoys other students’). For teacher evaluations, the

item ‘Co-operates with other students’ was removed due to the size of the modification

indexes, suggesting it to have a cross-loading to every other factor. For parent evaluations,two error correlationswithin the same factors (‘Effectively participates in group activities’

and ‘Invites other students to participate in activities’) and (‘Teases andmakes fun of other

students’ and ‘Argues and quarrels with peers’) were allowed. For self-evaluations, no

modifications were needed.

The correlations within and between latent variables of mothers’ and fathers’ PSE

are presented in Table 3. The correlations within mothers’ PSE factors were all

statistically significant. For fathers, the correlations between nurturance and discipline,

as well as between nurturance and participation, were not statistically significant.Between mothers and fathers, the correlations between recreation, discipline, and

participation were statistically significant. Between nurturance factors, the correlation

was close to zero. Comparing the children’s gender differences between these

mothers’ and fathers’ PSE latents, we found statistically significant (p < .05)

differences in mothers’ discipline and nurturance, as well as in fathers’ recreation

and nurturance. Among all of these, the parents’ PSE values were higher for girls than

for boys.

Concerning MASCS, all the correlations between factors (CO, EM, IM, and DI) withinand between raters (self, peers, teachers, and parents) were statistically significant

(although quite low in magnitude), indicating that most of the evaluators saw children’s

social competence differently. The strongest correlations were found between peer and

teacher evaluations. If necessary, the complete correlationmatrix is available from thefirst

author.

Latent profiles of mothers’, fathers’, and paired parents’ PSEThe first main aim of this study was to identify different subgroups (latent classes) of

parents’ PSE. To investigate the differences between mothers’ and fathers’ profiles, we

conducted latent profile analyses (LPAs) series separately for both parents. Furthermore,

Table 3. Correlations within and between latent variables of mothers’ and fathers’ parental self-efficacy

Mothers’ PSE Fathers’ PSE

Rec. Dis. Nur. Par. Rec. Dis. Nur.

Mothers’ PSE

Dis. .368**

Nur. .378** .221**

Par. .429** .455** .290**

Fathers’ PSE

Rec. .391**

Dis. .663** .303**

Nur. �.037 .261** �.001

Par. .556** .340** .421** �.020

Notes. Rec., recreation; Dis., discipline; Nur., nurturance; Par., participation.

**Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed).


we were interested to see whether the combination of mothers’ and fathers’ PSE

profiles was either similar or different inside the families. Therefore, we also ran the LPA

series for these so-called paired parents.

The resultant Log L, AIC, BIC, and entropy estimates, as well as the class propositionsand average latent class posterior probabilities for the consecutive amount of classes

(1, 2, 3, and 4), are presented in Table 4. To choose the smallest possible amount of

classes, we used the criterion to be guided with (1) the fit of the model (using Log L, AIC,

and BIC), (2) distinguishability of the latent classes (using entropy and average latent class

posterior probabilities), (3) latent class sizes (class propositions), and (4) the theoretical

justification and interpretability of the latent classes (see Muth�en, 2003). Concerning themodel for mothers, the Log L, AIC, and BIC estimates preferred the four-class solution;

however, the entropy, class propositions, and latent class posterior probabilitiespreferred the three-class solution. Concerning fathers, the BIC, entropy, class proposi-

tions, and latent class posterior probabilities preferred the three-class solution, while Log

L and AIC supported the four-class solution. For paired parents, the AIC, BIC, and entropy

indicated to choose the four-class solution; however, a trustworthy Log L value could not

be estimated, even after increasing the start and iteration values and class proportions, as

well the class posterior probabilities, which preferred the three-class solution. Concern-

ing all of these series, the two-class solution was rejected as the class proportions were

very close to 50%, indicating classes of strong and low PSE. The four-class solutions wererejected based on the lack of theoretical justification and interpretability of the latent

classes. Therefore, the three-class solution was chosen for mothers, fathers and for paired

parents.

The three classes of mothers were labelled according to their profiles as (1) low

PSE mothers (12.6%), (2) mediocre PSE mothers (60.0%), and (3) strong PSE mothers

(27.4%). The profiles are presented in Figure 1a. For fathers, the classes were labelled

as (1) low PSE fathers (50.3%), (2) divergent PSE fathers (19.0%), and strong PSE

fathers (30.7%). These fathers’ latent profiles are presented in Figure 1b. Finally, forpaired parents, the latent classes were labelled as (1) low PSE couples (14.6%), (2)

mediocre PSE couples (57.8%), and (3) strong PSE couples (27.6%). The profiles of

these classes are presented in Figure 1c.

The descriptive statistics of background information of these classes, namely the

mothers’ and fathers’ age, education and children’s non-verbal intelligence (Raven’s

test), reading comprehension, and arithmetic skills, are presented in Table 5.

Between the latent classes of mothers’ PSE, there were statistically significant

differences in mothers’ age and education, in a sense that strong PSE mothers wereolder and more educated than others. Between the classes of fathers’ PSE, these

differences did not exist. Again, in paired parents’ data, the strong PSE mothers were

statistically (and significantly) more educated than others. Concerning non-verbal

intelligence, reading comprehension, and arithmetic skills, there were statistically

significant differences in all (except for fathers’ PSE and children’s non-verbal

intelligence) group comparisons in favour of the children with strong PSE mothers,

fathers, and paired parents.

Latent classes of PSE as a predictor for multisource-evaluated social competence

Finally, our second main aim was to study whether the children belonging to different

latent classes of mothers, fathers, and paired parents were evaluated differently

concerning their social competence. To assess social competence, we used self-, peer,


Table

4.Modelfitestimates,distinguishability

estimates,andclassproportionsfortheseriesofmothers’,fathers’,andpairedparents’latentprofileanalysis

Loglikelihood

AIC

BIC

Entropy

Class

proportions

Average

latentclass

posteriorprobabilities

Mothers’PSE

1Class

�8164.271

16344.542

16382.742

1.000

1.000

1.000

2Class

�7870.137

15774.273

15855.455

.662

.515/.485

.912/.887

3Class

�7809.311

15670.622

15794.781

.700

.126/.600/.274

.874/.824/.840

4Class

�7767.603

15605.207

15772.345

.693

.283/.087/.476/.154

.873/.786/.822/.729

Fathers’PSE

1Class

�6830.072

13676.143

13712.506

1.000

1.000

1.000

2Class

�6681.044

13396.089

13473.360

.590

.497/.503

.877/.873

3Class

�6606.862

13265.724

13383.903

.745

.503/.190/.307

.905/.853/.868

4Class

�6580.678

13231.356

13390.443

.685

.092/.267/.161/.480

.789/.864/.854/.788

Pairedparents’PSE

1Class

�13069.930

26171.860

26244.308

1.000

1.000

1.000

2Class

�12595.597

25257.195

25406.618

.773

.563/.437

.944/.920

3Class

�12452.349

25004.698

25231.096

.793

.139/.585/.276

.888/.914/.898

4Class

–a24835.870

25139.243

.796

.097/.333/.465/.104

.879/.854/.896/.921

Notes.AIC,A

kaikeinform

ationcriterion;BIC,B

ayesian

inform

ationcriterion;PSE,parentalself-efficacy.

aThelog-likelihoodvaluewas

nottrustworthyevenafterincreasingthestarts(50020)anditerations(20)


Latent classes of mothers´ parenting self-efficacy. m_rec = Recreation; m_dis = Discipline; m_nur = Nurturance; m_par = Participation.

Latent classes of fathers parenting self-efficacyf_rec = Recreation; f_dis = Discipline; f_nur = Nurturance; f_par = Participation.

Latent classes of paired parents´ parenting self-efficacym = Mothers´ ; f = Fathers´ ; rec = Recreation; dis = Discipline; nur = Nurturance; par = Participation.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 1. Profiles of latent classes of mothers’ (a), fathers’ (m_rec, recreation; m_dis, discipline; m_nur,

nurturance; m_par, participation) (b) and paired parents’ (f_rec, recreation; f_dis, discipline; f_nur,

nurturance; f_par, participation) (c) parenting self-efficacy (m, mothers´; f, fathers´; rec, recreation; dis,discipline; nur, nurturance; par, participation).


teacher, and parent ratings of children’s CO, EM, IM, and DI. The means, standard

deviations, and p-values for the differences between latent classes are presented in

Table 6. Most of these differences were statistically significant in the sense that the

children of mothers, fathers, and paired parents with strong PSE were evaluated as

Table 5. Descriptive statistics of mothers’ and fathers’ age, education, and children’s cognitive skills

within mothers’, fathers’, and paired parents’ latent classes

Mothers Fathers Children’s cognitive skills

Mothers’

age

Mothers’

education

Fathers’

age

Fathers’

education

Raven’s

test

Reading

comp.

Arithmetic

skills

Mothers’ latent class 1 (low PSE); 12.6% of mothers

Mean 38.52 3.92 40.96 3.63 37.67 15.72 27.45

SD 5.96 1.59 6.39 1.62 7.96 4.22 6.35

Mothers’ latent class 2 (mediocre PSE); 60.0% of mothers

Mean 38.71 4.23 41.28 3.98 39.83 17.40 29.71

SD 4.87 1.47 5.34 1.51 7.74 4.22 6.40

Mothers’ latent class 3 (strong PSE); 27.4% of mothers

Mean 38.74 4.43 41.86 4.03 40.67 17.59 31.23

SD 4.90 1.46 6.07 1.57 6.57 4.26 6.52

p-valuea .032 .026 .387 .136 .003 .000 .000

Fathers’ latent class 1 (low PSE); 50.3% of fathers

Mean 39.18 4.18 41.42 3.86 39.22 16.72 29.07

SD 5.11 1.51 5.57 1.54 7.92 4.31 6.33

Fathers’ latent class 2 (mediocre PSE); 19.0% of fathers

Mean 38.11 4.19 41.33 3.93 39.82 17.48 29.27

SD 4.75 1.50 5.58 1.57 7.01 3.91 5.99

Fathers’ latent class 3 (strong PSE); 30.7% of fathers

Mean 38.73 4.32 40.83 3.98 40.65 18.17 32.00

SD 4.48 1.42 5.53 1.52 7.43 4.19 6.74

p-valueb .118 .536 .517 .700 .100 .001 .000

Paired parents’ latent class 1 (low PSE); 14.6% of two-parent families

Mean 39.11 3.71 41.87 3.53 38.03 15.76 27.16

SD 5.85 1.59 6.20 1.57 7.73 4.30 6.11

Paired parents’ latent class 2 (mediocre PSE); 57.8% of two-parent families

Mean 38.64 4.31 40.91 3.97 39.92 17.44 30.04

SD 4.66 1.42 5.24 1.50 7.86 4.14 6.43

Paired parents’ latent class 3 (strong PSE); 27.6% of two-parent families

Mean 39.08 4.33 41.46 3.99 40.55 17.84 31.41

SD 4.70 1.46 5.89 1.60 6.75 4.26 6.50

p-valuec .523 .002 .305 .064 .033 .000 .000

Notes. PSE, parental self-efficacy.

p-values are for the difference between alatent classes of mothers; blatent classes of fathers; and clatent

classes of paired parents.


Table

6.Themeans,standarddeviations,p-values,andCohen’sdeffectsizesforthedifferencesinchildren’scooperatingskills(C

O),empathy(EM),impulsivity(IM),

anddisruptiveness

(DI)inself-,peer,teacher,andparentevaluationsbetw

eenmothers’,fathers’,andpairedparents’PSE

classes

Self-evaluations

Peerevaluations

Teacherevaluations

Parentevaluations

CO

EM

IMDI

CO

EM

IMDI

CO

EM

IMDI

CO

EM

IMDI

Mothers’PSE

latentclass1

Mean

3.04

3.20

1.73

1.64

2.61

2.71

1.76

1.75

2.52

2.85

1.64

1.78

3.05

3.13

2.32

1.92

SD0.596

0.680

0.808

0.688

0.406

0.415

0.489

0.467

0.683

0.595

0.725

0.687

0.527

0.503

0.562

0.395

Mothers’PSE

latentclass2

Mean

3.04

3.16

1.69

1.58

2.70

2.74

1.71

1.70

2.81

3.03

1.65

1.75

3.12

3.19

2.23

1.89

SD0.623

0.648

0.740

0.566

0.381

0.373

0.359

0.355

0.659

0.619

0.719

0.690

0.446

0.417

0.537

0.411

Mothers’PSE

latentclass3

Mean

3.21

3.32

1.59

1.51

2.83

2.89

1.61

1.59

2.84

3.11

1.52

1.59

3.41

3.43

2.00

1.73

SD0.562

0.558

0.666

0.558

0.371

0.361

0.307

0.314

0.662

0.600

0.594

0.575

0.422

0.398

0.491

0.404

p-value

.014

.003

.062

.007

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.001

.001

.000

.000

.000

.000

ES1–2

.000

.060

.095

.228

.076

.116

.120

.432

.296

.013

.043

.143

.129

.163

.074

ES2–3

.286

.264

.124

.345

.408

.299

.328

.045

.131

.197

.251

.667

.588

.447

.392

ES1–3

.293

.192

.207

.565

.462

.367

.402

.475

.435

.181

.299

.754

.661

606

.475

Fathers’PSE

latentclass1

Mean

3.06

3.16

1.71

1.61

2.68

2.73

1.73

1.73

2.69

2.93

1.70

1.81

3.10

3.17

2.25

1.93

SD.610

.652

.750

.608

.390

.382

.392

.384

.667

.615

.738

.706

.478

.485

.534

.401

Fathers’PSE

latentclass2

Mean

3.22

3.35

1.52

1.47

2.83

2.88

1.62

1.61

2.85

3.07

1.55

1.62

3.29

3.35

2.05

1.74

SD.623

.636

.697

.625

.345

.349

.294

.323

.631

.564

.626

.621

.438

.400

.532

.434

Continued


Table

6.(Continued)

Self-evaluations

Peerevaluations

Teacherevaluations

Parentevaluations

CO

EM

IMDI

CO

EM

IMDI

CO

EM

IMDI

CO

EM

IMDI

Fathers’PSE

latentclass3

Mean

3.07

3.19

1.69

1.55

2.72

2.79

1.65

1.63

2.87

3.16

1.51

1.59

3.28

3.29

2.14

1.79

SD.585

.585

.712

.505

.398

.390

.370

.349

.684

.618

.625

.589

.453

.413

.539

.396

p-value

.031

.016

.035

.054

.000

.001

.006

.000

.005

.000

.004

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

ES1–2

.259

.295

.262

.227

.407

.409

.317

.338

.246

.237

.219

.285

.414

.409

.375

.454

ES2–3

.248

.261

.241

.140

.295

.243

.089

.059

.030

.152

.063

.049

.022

.147

.168

.120

ES1–3

.016

.048

.027

.107

.101

.155

.209

.272

.266

.373

.277

.338

.386

.266

.205

.351

Pairedparents’PSE

latentclass1

Mean

3.04

3.20

1.73

1.64

2.61

2.71

1.76

1.75

2.52

2.85

1.64

1.78

3.05

3.13

2.32

1.92

SD.596

.680

.808

.688

.406

.415

.489

.467

.683

.595

.725

.687

.527

.503

.562

.395

Pairedparents’PSE

latentclass2

Mean

3.04

3.16

1.69

1.58

2.70

2.74

1.71

1.70

2.81

3.03

1.65

1.75

3.12

3.19

2.23

1.89

SD.623

.647

.740

.566

.381

.373

.359

.355

.659

.619

.719

.690

.446

.417

.537

.411

Pairedparents’PSE

latentclass3

Mean

3.21

3.32

1.59

1.51

2.83

2.89

1.61

1.59

2.84

3.11

1.52

1.59

3.41

3.43

2.00

1.73

SD.562

.558

.666

.558

.371

.361

.307

.314

.662

.600

.594

.575

.422

.400

.491

.404

p-value

.005

.011

.197

.190

.000

.000

.001

.000

.000

.004

.087

.013

.000

.000

.000

.000

ES1–2

.000

.060

.228

.076

.116

.120

.432

.296

.043

.143

.129

.163

.074

ES2–3

.286

.264

.345

.408

.299

.328

.045

.131

.251

.667

.587

.447

.392

ES1–3

.293

.192

.565

.462

.367

.402

.475

.435

.299

.754

.660

.606

.475

Note.

PSE,parentalself-efficacy.


being more cooperative and empathic – and less impulsive and disruptive – than

others. The non-significant values were mostly in the data of self-evaluations,

particularly in the evaluations of antisocial behaviour. Additionally, the difference

between children’s IM among paired parents’ latent classes was not statisticallysignificant in the data by teachers. In sum, the higher the mothers’, fathers’, and/or

paired parents’ PSE profiles, the higher their children were evaluated in prosocial

behaviour and vice versa: the evaluations of their children’s antisocial behaviour were

almost always the lowest ones.

Discussion

The first main aim of this study was to analyse whether there exist different

unidentified subgroups within the data of mothers’, fathers’ and paired parents’

(combination of mother and father within the family) PSE. After confirming the

construct validity of the scale, we conducted a series of latent profile analyses based

on the recreation, discipline, nurturance, and participation latent scores and decided

to use three-class solutions for the consecutive analyses. For mothers, the classes were

labelled as (1) low PSE, (2) mediocre PSE, and (3) strong PSE mothers. For fathers, theywere labelled as (1) low PSE, (2) diverged PSE, and (3) strong PSE fathers. For the

profiles of paired parents, these latent classes were labelled as (1) low PSE, (2)

mediocre PSE, and (3) strong PSE couples.

Based on the background descriptive statistics, the mothers with strong PSE were

older and more educated than others and their children had the highest scores in

non-verbal intelligence, reading comprehension, and arithmetic skills. Among fathers, the

only statistically significant difference existed between their children’s reading compre-

hension and arithmetic skills in a sense that the children of fatherswith strong PSE had thehighest scores among these tests. Among the paired parents, the children of strong PSE

couples had statistically significantly higher scores in cognitive skills. Additionally, the

mothers in this class were more educated than in other classes.

Second, we aimed to analyse whether these latent classes were associated with

children’s social competence as evaluated by the children themselves, their peers,

teachers, and parents. With few exceptions among the self-evaluated antisocial skills and

one teacher-evaluated impulsive score, all of these interrelations between latent classes

and children’s CO, EM, IM, and DI were statistically significant and indicated that thechildren of the strong PSE mothers, fathers, and couples had a tendency to have higher

scores in prosocial behaviour and lower scores in antisocial behaviour.

These results are in line with Ardelt and Eccles’s (2001) argument that parents with

strong PSE probably use child-rearing strategies, which increase the likelihood that their

childrenwill succeed in interpersonal and social domains. It may also be that the children

with efficacious parents learn, by either observational learning or modelling, to use

strategies and behave in ways that make them feel more efficacious about themselves and

therefore be more open and willing to partake in new social situations, interactions, andlearning possibilities. Still, we cannot forget the aspect of continuous dyadic interaction

between parents and their children; it is easy to understood how the parents whose

children are socially competent and skilful feel proud of their children and thus may see

themselves as more efficacious and successful parents (cf. Bandura, 1997; Stattin & Kerr,

2000). According to Sameroff (1993, p. 4), ‘developmental outcomes are not a product of

the initial characteristics of the child or the context, or even of their combination.


Outcomes are the result of the interplay between child and context across time, in which

the state of one affects the next state of the other in a continuous, dynamic process’. Thus,

children’s social competence, as well as parents’ PSE, may be seen as a product of this

continuous dynamic interaction between the child, her or his parents, peers in school,teachers as well as other important social agents. Furthermore, the experiences provided

by the social environment are not independent of the child (or parent), as his or her

previous behaviour may have been a strong determinant of current experiences (cf.

Sameroff, 1993).

The important aspect of the results between parents’ PSE and children’s social

competence is that social competence was evaluated by multiple social agents – the

children themselves, their peers, their teachers and their parents. Studies of the relations

between PSE and children’s social behaviour have been criticized for the use of sameevaluator (usuallymother) for her own PSE aswell as her child’s behaviour (Jones & Prinz,

2005). Not only due to this lack of independence between evaluations, the parents’

evaluations concerning their children’s behaviour may also be criticized by the fact that

parents’ affection for their child can colour their evaluations to a considerable degree

(Schneider & Byrne, 1989). However, in this study, the differences between strong and

low PSE parents’ and their children’s social competence were confirmed not only with

parents’, but also with their peers’ and teachers’ evaluations. We assume that it is

impossible for all students in a class to knowhow strong a PSE someone’smother or fatherhas. Therefore, the relationship between parents’ PSE and their child’s pro- and antisocial

behaviour evaluated in a school context by his or her peers can be seen as trustworthy.

The weakest relationships were obtained between self-evaluated social competence

and parents’ PSE. This may be due to the possible bias of social desirability or immature

cognitive skills to evaluate such behaviour (Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989). Still, we

considered the self-evaluations as valuable information, as they allowed us to understand

the subjective interpretations of children and provided information that was not available

from other sources (e.g., see Hope et al., 1999).

Limitations and future directions

The obvious weakness of this study is the use of cross-sectional data of mothers’ and

fathers’ PSE, as well as their children’s multisource-evaluated social competence.

Therefore, the results reveal only the prevailing situation, that is, both parents’ parental

self-efficacies explain their children’s self-, peer-, teacher-, and parent-evaluated social

competence consisted of CO, EM, IM, and DI. Even so, this study, with its large samplesize,multisource evaluations, and sophisticated new researchmethods,was carried out as

no other studies of this kind have been done. We believe that the results of this study will

benefit new research studying the area more deeply. Indeed, while writing this, we have

already started a longitudinal research project aiming to follow themechanism of PSE as a

moderating factor to parents’, and their children’s psychosocial well-being from

pregnancy until the age of 15 (or older).

Acknowledgements

The Quest of Meaning project was supported by Grant 47369 from the Council of Cultural

and Social Science Research, The Academy of Finland, to the second author.


References

Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis andAIC.Psychometrika, 52, 317–332. doi: 10.1007/BF02294359Anderson-Butcher, D., Iachini, A. L., & Amorose, A. J. (2008). Initial reliability and validity of the

perceived social competence scale. Research on Social Practice, 18, 47–54.

doi:10.1177/1049731507304364.

Ardelt, M., & Eccles, J. S. (2001). Effects of mothers’ parental efficacy beliefs and promotive

parenting strategies on inner-city youth. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 944–972.doi: 10.1177/019251301022008001

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman and

Company.

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit index in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238

Burt, K. B., Obradovic, J., Long, J. D., &Masten, A. S. (2008). The interplay of social competence and

psychopathology over 20 years: Testing transactional and cascade models. Child Development,

79, 359–374. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01130.x.

Coleman, P. K., & Karraker, K. H. (1998). Self-efficacy and parenting quality: Findings and future

applications. Developmental Review, 18, 47–85. doi: 10.1177/105381510502700306

Coleman, P. K., & Karraker, K. H. (2000). Parenting self-efficacy among mothers of school-age

children: Conceptualization, measurement and correlates. Family Relations, 49, 13–24. doi:10.

1111/j.1741-3729.2000.00013.x.

Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to non-normality and

specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1, 16–29.doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.16

Eisenberg, N., & Mussen, P. (1989). The roots of prosocial behaviour in children. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

Hope, T. L., Adams, C., Reynolds, L., Powers, D., Perez, R. A., & Kelley, M. L. (1999). Parent vs.

self-report: Contributions toward diagnosis of adolescent psychopathology. Journal of

Psychopathology and Behavioural Assessment, 21, 349–363. doi: 10.1023/A:1022124900328Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:

Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling, 6, 1–55.doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118

Jones, T. L., & Prinz, R. J. (2005). Potential roles of parental self-efficacy in parent and child

adjustment: A review. Clinical Psychology Review, 25, 341–363. doi: 10.1037/a0020833

Junttila, N. (2010). Social competence and loneliness during the school years – Issues in

assessment, interrelations and intergenerational transmission. Annales Universitatis

Turkuensis, Serie B, part 325.

Junttila, N., Vauras,M.,& Laakkonen, E. (2007). The role of parenting self-efficacy in children’s social

and academic behaviour. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22, 41–61. doi:10.

1007/BF03173688

Junttila, N., Vauras, M., Niemi, P. M., & Laakkonen, E. (2012). Multisource assessed social

competence as a predictor for later loneliness, social anxiety, and social phobia. Journal for

Educational Research Online, 4, 73–98. doi:10.1080/00313831.2011.581683.

Junttila, N., Voeten, M., Kaukiainen, A., & Vauras, M. (2006). Multisource assessment of children’s

social competence. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 874–895.doi: 10.1177/0013164405285546

Ladd, G. W. (1999). Peer relationships and social competence during early and middle childhood.

Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 333–359. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.333.

Laible, D. J., & Carlo, G. (2004). The differential relations of maternal and paternal support and

control to adolescents social competence, self-worth and sympathy. Faculty Publications,

University of Nebraska. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?

article=1029&context=psychfacpub


Lindeman, J. (1998). Ala-asteen lukutesti. [Comprehensive school reading test]. University of

Turku, Centre for Learning Research.

Little, T. D., Card, N. A., Preacher, K. J., & McConnell, E. (2009). Modeling longitudinal data from

research on adolescence. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent

psychology: Vol. 1. Individual bases of adolescent development (pp. 15–54). Hoboken, NJ:Wiley.

Murdock, K. V. (2013). An examination of parental self-efficacy among mothers and fathers.

Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14, 314–323. doi:10.1037/a0027009.Muth�en, B. O. (2001). Latent variable mixture modelling. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker

(Eds.), New developments and techniques in structural equation modelling (pp. 1–33).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Muthen, B. (2003). Statistical and substantive checking in growth mixture modeling: Comment on

Bauer and Curran (2003). Psychological Methods, 8, 369–377. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.8.3.369.

Muth�en, L. K., & Muth�en, B. O. (2010). Mplus version 6.11. Statistical analysis with latent

variables. Los Angeles, CA: Muth�en & Muth�en.R€as€anen, P. (2004). RMAT – Matematiikan suoritustesti 9–12 vuotiaille. [RMAT – A test for

mathematical achievement for ages 9–12]. Jyv€askyl€a, Finland: Niilo M€aki Institute.Sameroff, A. J. (1993). Models of development and developmental risk. In C. H. Zeanah Jr (Ed.),

Handbook of infant mental health. (pp. 3–13). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Schneider, B. H., & Byrne, B. M. (1989). Parents rating children’s social behaviour: How focused the

lens? Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 18, 237–241. doi: 10.1207/s15374424jccp1803_6Semrud-Clikeman, M. (2007). Social competence in children. New York, NY: Springer.

Stattin, H., & Kerr, M. (2000). Parental monitoring: A reinterpretation. Child Development,

71, 1072–1085. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00210

Steca, P., Bassi, M., Caprara, G. V., & Fave, A. D. (2011). Parents’ self-efficacy beliefs and their

children’s psychosocial adaptation during adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40,

320–331. doi:10.1007/s10964-010-9514-9.Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation andmodification: An interval estimation approach.

Multivariate Behaviour Research, 25, 173–180. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4

Teti, D. M., & Gelfand, D. M. (1991). Behavioural competence among mothers of infants in the first

year: The mediational role of maternal self-efficacy. Child Development, 62, 918–929.doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1991.tb01580.x

Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis.

Psychometrika, 38, 1–10. doi: 10.1007/BF02291170

Ullman, J. B. (2001). Structural equation modelling. In B. G. Tabachnik & L. S. Fidell (Eds.), Using

multivariate statistics (pp. 653–771). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Vermunt, J. K., & Magidson, J. (2002). Latent class cluster analysis. In J. A. Hagenaars & A. L.

McCutcheon (Eds.), Applied latent class analysis (pp. 89–106). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

Wang, M., & Bodner, T. E. (2007). Growth mixture modelling – Identifying and predicting

unobserved subpopulations with longitudinal data. Organizational Research Methods, 10,

635–656. doi: 10.1177/1094428106289397

Received 1 February 2014; revised version received 3 May 2014


latent profiles of parental self-efficacy and children's multisource-evaluated social...

Documents