Measures of Father Engagement for Nonresident Fathers

Abstract

Objective To develop reliable and valid measures of nonresident father engagement. Background Although engagement measures exist for resident fathers, they have not been validated for nonresident fathers. Without valid and reliable measures, research on and programs for these fathers are limited in their ability to capture this salient dimension of fathering. Method From a focus group of 71 nonresident biological fathers, father–child engagement scales were created. Separate scales were created for fathers of children aged 0 to 1 years, 1 to 5 years, 6 to 11 years, and 12 to 18 years. Scales were administered to 542 nonresident (primarily low income) fathers to test reliability and convergent and predictive validity. Results Analyses identified a “caregiving play” domain of engagement across all age groups. For fathers of children 0 to 1 years, a “cognitive stimulation” domain emerged. For all age groups, a “support” domain emerged. All measures had acceptable reliability and (except in 1 instance) were related to at least 1 validity construct. Measures were nonequivalent across groups except for support in 2 groups. Conclusion Measures of nonresident father engagement had good reliability and validity. Further, with a minimal number of items, the scales are relatively easy and cost‐effective to administer. Implications With reliable and valid measures of engagement, those researching or intervening with nonresident fathers can more accurately capture this highly relevant construct.

The Evolution of Fathering Research in the 21st Century: Persistent Challenges, New Directions

“…Researchers who employ survey techniques, and those who design large‐scale survey data collections, should take care to use measures of fathering and related constructs (e.g., coparenting and maternal gatekeeping) with strong psychometric properties. In particular, the past decade has seen the development of more sophisticated measures of nonresident fathering that capture multiple dimensions of father involvement (i.e., engagement, accessibility, responsibility) with distinct versions for fathers of children of various ages (Dyer, Kauffman, Fagan, Pearson, & Cabrera, ; Fagan, Dyer, Kaufman, & Pearson, ). Fagan, Kaufman, and Dyer () found that measuring nonresidential fathers' telephone and social media contact is as important as measuring face‐to‐face contact.…”

Pathways Linking Parental Relationship Changes, Depressive Symptoms, and Parenting Behaviors to Young Children's Development

“…Preschool‐age children from low‐income families are at risk for compromised development (Lengua et al, 2007) in these areas, which are implicated in longitudinal trajectories of social–emotional development (Shaw et al, 2003). Identifying specific family‐based pathways conferring developmental risks provides key information for researchers and practitioners, especially when this research takes a whole family perspective and includes fathers (Cabrera et al, 2014; Dyer et al, 2018).…”

Testing the effects of a prenatal depression preventive intervention on parenting and young children’s self-regulation and functioning (EPIC): protocol for a longitudinal observational study

“…They will rate their own Hostile/reactive parenting using the hostile/reactive parenting subscale of the PACOTIS, which measures parents’ and caregivers’ responses to difficult behavior in young children. Fathers/caregivers will rate their level of Engagement with the child using the FRPN Father Engagement scale [ 43 ].…”