Parental Monitoring Instrument

Cottrell, Scott; Branstetter, Steven A.; Cottrell, Lesley; Harris, Colin; Rishel, Carrie W.; Stanton, Bonita

doi:10.1037/t68567-000

Cited by 3 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…2) if they were scales that extended one of the five constructs by examining a very narrow facet of the construct, such as the Computer Monitoring scale developed by Cottrell, Branstetter, et al (2007). The reason for this latter exclusion criterion was twofold.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet, as Barber et al (2008) (Cottrell, Branstetter, Cottrell, Stanton, & Harris 2007), Perceptions of Parental Prohibiting (Mounts, 2000;2001), Parental Control (Fletcher et al, 2004;, Adolescent…”

Section: Validated 10mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In spite of the interpretation problems for analyses nine through eleven, factors continued to load on 68 of the 76 remaining parental monitoring variables. The eight items that did not load were from two scales: Restrictive Monitoring as developed by Cottrell, Branstetter, et al (2007) and Parental Regulation as developed by Barber (2002). The Restrictive Monitoring scale consists of three variables.…”

Section: Primary Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Consolidation of parental monitoring variables and scales: Preliminary evidence for construct validity

Anderson¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Validated 10mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Primary Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Consolidation of parental monitoring variables and scales: Preliminary evidence for construct validity

Anderson¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Many research studies have been conducted to explore the concept of parental monitoring as it relates to adolescent-risk taking (Crouter& Head, 2002;Dishion et al, 1991;Graber et al, 2006;Kerr & Stattin, 2000;Rodgers, 1999;Sullivan et al, 2004) and resiliency (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005;Griffin, 1999;Rai et al, 2003) however, few validated instruments have been developed to assess parental monitoring (Cottrell, Branstetter, Cottrell, Stanton, & Harris, 2007). The goals of the study conducted by Cottrell, Branstetter, Cottrell, Stanton, and Harris (2007) in the study and the methods of recruitment. After approval was given through the various recruitment sources in each county, all school students meeting the following criteria were eligible to participate: (1) one or more parents/legal guardians agreed to participate in this longitudinal study, (2) adolescents were no younger than 12 years old and no older than 17 years old, and (3) adolescents resided in the same household with the participating parent for at least 6 months of the previous year.…”

Section: Parental Monitoring Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Five of the families were omitted due to missing data in the information packet from the adolescent and/or caregiver, resulting in 518 total adolescent-parent dyads. The data for the Cottrell et al (2007) study was derived from the baseline questionnaire responses in the longitudinal study examining parental monitoring, parental knowledge, adolescents' and parents' perceptions of parental monitoring, and adolescent risk-taking. See Cottrell et al (2007) for more details.…”

Section: Parental Monitoring Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do parental monitoring strategies, parental knowledge, and adolescent risk -taking differ based on family income and parental marital status? The role of resiliency

Golden-Llewellyn¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adolescents living in low socioeconomic status (SES) are more likely to engage in risktaking behaviors, such as alcohol and other drug use, sexual behavior, and vandalism. Resiliency theory suggests that protective factors could reduce adolescent risk-taking in low SES families. Parental monitoring, parent behaviors involved in tracking their adolescents' whereabouts and activities, tends to be less evident in low SES families. However, it has also been identified as a protective factor in fostering resiliency in adolescents living in high-risk situations. The current study examined group differences in parental knowledge, parental monitoring strategies, and adolescent risk-taking based on two socioeconomic factors, parental income and parental marital status. Furthermore, it evaluated the group differences in adolescent risk-taking based on the type of parental monitoring strategy utilized. This study surveyed 526 parent/adolescent dyads throughout various counties in the state of West Virginia. A final sample of 518 participant dyads were included in the study. Data analyses revealed no significant differences in adolescent risk-taking or parental knowledge based on family income and parental marital status. Additionally, there were no significant differences in the use of direct, indirect, or restrictive parental monitoring strategies based on family income and parental marital status; however, there was a statistically significant interaction effect. Finally, an exploratory analysis was conducted to examine group differences in adolescent risk-taking based on the use of each parental monitoring strategy and significant group differences emerged. Clinical implications and limitations were discussed as well as suggestions for future research.

show abstract

What is parental monitoring?

Pelham,

Racz,

Davis

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Parental monitoring is a construct of longstanding interest in multiple fields—but what is it? In the first part of this paper, we review how the published literature has defined and operationalized parental monitoring. We analyze the theoretical definitions offered in 26 seminal articles and the conceptual content of 281 items from rating scales used to measure monitoring. We find that the monitoring construct has been defined indirectly, capaciously, and inconsistently and been measured using instruments that vary widely in conceptual content. Thus, what is today regarded as a single, unified literature on parental monitoring is more accurately regarded as a complex set of literatures–each one theorizing about and measuring a different amalgam of concepts. In the second part of this paper, we propose a new formulation of the monitoring construct intended to remedy this situation. We define parental monitoring as the set of all behaviors performed by caregivers to gather information about youths’ activities and life. We then develop a taxonomy identifying 5 distinct types of monitoring behaviors, each of which varies along 5 dimensions (performer, target, frequency, context, style). We position parental monitoring as one element within the broader parent-youth monitoring process: the continuous, dyadic interplay between caregivers and youth as they navigate caregivers attempts' to monitor youth. We argue that conceptualizing parental monitoring as a set of behaviors performed only by parents, rather than as a capacious, dyadic construct, will enable more rigorous and impactful science.

show abstract

Parental Monitoring Instrument

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Consolidation of parental monitoring variables and scales: Preliminary evidence for construct validity

Consolidation of parental monitoring variables and scales: Preliminary evidence for construct validity

Do parental monitoring strategies, parental knowledge, and adolescent risk -taking differ based on family income and parental marital status? The role of resiliency

What is parental monitoring?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About