Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T06:47:09.681Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A longitudinal path model examining the transactional nature of parenting and child externalizing behaviors in a large, sociodemographically diverse sample

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 October 2024

Shaikh I. Ahmad
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA
Kristen L. Rudd
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, CO, USA
Kaja Z. LeWinn
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA
W. Alex Mason
Affiliation:
Department of Child, Youth and Family Studies, Nebraska Center for Research on Children, Youth, Families & Schools, University of Nebraska – Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA
J. Carolyn Graff
Affiliation:
College of Nursing, The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA
Danielle S. Roubinov
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Nicole R. Bush*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA Department of Pediatrics, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA
*
Corresponding author: Nicole R. Bush, Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Children’s externalizing behaviors are associated with impairments across the lifespan. Developmental psychopathology theories propose transactional (bidirectional) associations between child externalizing behaviors and parenting during childhood and adolescence. Yet, these foundational relations in early childhood are not well-studied. Utilizing a large, mixed-sex sample, we examined the reciprocal nature of parenting and child externalizing behaviors across early childhood using robust repeated-measures models. Repeated measures data were drawn from a socioeconomically diverse, longitudinal pregnancy cohort of 1287 (64% Black, 31% White) mother-child dyads at four time points (ages one to six). Three variables were included in cross-lagged panel models: observed parenting quality, child externalizing symptoms, and a maternal risk composite. In covariate-adjusted models, higher parenting quality at Wave 1 predicted lower child externalizing symptoms at Wave 2. Higher externalizing symptoms at Wave 1 and Wave 2 predicted lower parenting quality at Wave 2 and Wave 3, respectively. Maternal risk and parenting quality were not significantly associated. Findings showed both parent-driven and child-driven effects across early childhood that did not vary by child sex. The transactional nature of the parent-child relationship begins in infancy, underscoring the importance of early screening and provision of supports for families to minimize and prevent the development of serious psychopathology.

Type
Regular Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Externalizing behavior problems, including oppositionality, hyperactivity and impulsivity, emotion dysregulation, conduct problems, and aggression, are among the most prevalent forms of psychopathology exhibited by children (Costello et al., Reference Costello, Mustillo, Erkanli, Keeler and Angold2003). Such behavior problems are particularly important to assess and treat early because their emergence early in life is strongly associated with a multitude of maladaptive consequences across several domains of functioning later in life (Beauchaine et al., Reference Beauchaine, Shader, Hinshaw, Beauchaine and Hinshaw2016). For example, young children who exhibit externalizing behavior problems are more likely to experience signficant challenges as they get older, including academic struggles, delinquency, antisocial behavior, and involvement in the criminal justice system, as well as greater levels of family dysfunction, interpersonal and work environment problems, and increased risk for comorbid psychopathology, such as depression, anxiety, and self-harm (Hechtman et al., Reference Hechtman, Swanson, Sibley, Stehli, Owens, Mitchell, Arnold, Molina, Hinshaw, Jensen, Abikoff, Perez Algorta, Howard, Hoza, Etcovitch, Houssais, Lakes, Nichols, Vitiello, Severe, Jensen, Arnold, Hoagwood, Richters, Vereen, Hinshaw, Elliott, Wells, Epstein, Murray, Conners, March, Swanson, Wigal, Cantwell, Abikoff, Hechtman, Greenhill, Newcorn, Molina, Hoza, Pelham, Gibbons, Marcus, Hur, Kraemer, Hanley and Stern2016; Odgers et al., Reference Odgers, Caspi, Broadbent, Dickson, Hancox, Harrington, Poulton, Sears, Thomson and Moffitt2007; Pinderhughes et al., Reference Pinderhughes, Dodge and Greenberg2005; Sourander et al., Reference Sourander, Jensen, Davies, Niemelä, Elonheimo, Ristkari, Helenius, Sillanmäki, Piha, Kumpulainen, Tamminen, Moilanen and Almqvist2007).

Parenting behavior is a key factor that influences the development of children’s self-regulation skills and can mitigate or exacerbate the manifestation of early externalizing psychopathology (Davies & Cicchetti, Reference Davies and Cicchetti2004; Dodge & Pettit, Reference Dodge and Pettit2003; Kiff et al., Reference Kiff, Lengua and Zalewski2011; Klein et al., Reference Klein, Lengua, Thompson, Moran, Ruberry, Kiff and Zalewski2018; Lengua et al., Reference Lengua, Honorado and Bush2007; Pardini et al., Reference Pardini, Fite and Burke2008). Parents and caregivers play a key role in child development, as children learn from and respond to parental and caregiver behaviors (Calkins et al., Reference Calkins, Propper and Mills-Koonce2013; Cummings et al., Reference Cummings, Davies and Campbell2002). The impact of parenting is particularly strong during early childhood, before the school environment and peers become powerful influences (Dora & Baydar, Reference Dora and Baydar2020; Patterson, Reference Patterson, Reid, Patterson and Snyder2002). Just as parenting behaviors influence early childhood development, young children’s behaviors also influence parents and caregivers. Indeed, a longstanding body of research in developmental psychopathology has considered the transactional nature of the parent-child relationship, referring to the bidirectional, interdependent effects between between parenting behaviors and children’s behavior problems (Cicchetti, Reference Cicchetti1993; Eisenberg et al., Reference Eisenberg, Taylor, Widaman and Spinrad2015; Pettit & Arsiwalla, Reference Pettit and Arsiwalla2008; Sameroff, Reference Sameroff and Sameroff2009; Serbin et al., Reference Serbin, Kingdon, Ruttle and Stack2015).

Few studies have examined this bidirectional relationship across early childhood when problems typically first emerge and intervention might be most potent; even fewer use large, longitudinal samples with repeated measures for both parenting and child behaviors. In addition, prior examinations often do not consider the role of other important, time-varying family factors that can affect this bidirectional relationship (for example, parental stress and psychopathology, social support, family conflict), which obscures the full picture of the multi-system influences on the changing parent-child relationship (Campbell et al., Reference Campbell, Shaw and Gilliom2000; Carneiro et al., Reference Carneiro, Dias and Soares2016; Deater-Deckard et al., Reference Deater-Deckard, Dodge, Bates and Pettit1998; Shaw et al., Reference Shaw, Owens, Giovannelli and Winslow2001). The main aim of the present study was to leverage a large, well-characterized, sociodemographically diverse prospective pregnancy cohort to examine the bidirectional nature of parenting behaviors and child externalizing behavior problems during early childhood – a key period for the development of later psychopathology– using a robust, repeated-measures model that also considered the potential role of family risk factors.

The importance of bidirectional processes in parenting and child externalizing behavior

The relations between parenting behaviors and child externalizing behaviors are complex and change over time. Patterson’s coercion theory highlights how child externalizing behavior, combined with ineffective parenting behaviors (i.e., increasingly harsh, threatening, and coercive behaviors), mutually reinforce each other and can set the stage for later, more serious behavioral problems, such as aggression, delinquency, substance use, and criminality (Besemer et al., Reference Besemer, Ahmad, Hinshaw and Farrington2017; Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, Reference Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber1998; Patterson, Reference Patterson1982, Reference Patterson, Reid, Patterson and Snyder2002). Using longitudinal, repeated measures designs, studies have provided evidence that both “parent-driven” processes (where parenting behaviors have an impact on child behavior) as well as “child-driven” processes (where the opposite occurs) are likely at play and are mutually influential (Lansford et al., Reference Lansford, Criss, Laird, Shaw, Pettit, Bates and Dodge2011; Pardini et al., Reference Pardini, Fite and Burke2008; Yan et al., Reference Yan, Ansari and Peng2021). However, most of the extant research has focused on parent-driven processes. For example, numerous studies have documented that a range of parenting behaviors – both “positive” and “negative” aspects of parenting – are predictive of child externalizing behaviors. Among these parent-driven processes, positive aspects of parenting, such as warmth, responsiveness, monitoring, and sensitivity have all been associated with reductions in child externalizing behaviors (Harvey & Metcalfe, Reference Harvey and Metcalfe2012; Merz et al., Reference Merz, Landry, Montroy and Williams2017; Pearl et al., Reference Pearl, French, Dumas, Moreland and Prinz2014; Pinquart, Reference Pinquart2017; Willoughby & Hamza, Reference Willoughby and Hamza2011), suggesting the importance of focusing on those domains in externalizing research. Notably, these studies have primarily focused on later childhood and adolescence, with fewer studies examining early childhood, limiting our understanding of the early origins of these reciprocal relations.

Child-driven processes have received less empirical attention, but evaluations generally find that children’s externalizing behaviors predict decreases in positive parenting behaviors and increases in negative parenting behaviors (Dieleman et al., Reference Dieleman, De Pauw, Soenens, Beyers and Prinzie2017; Lansford et al., Reference Lansford, Criss, Laird, Shaw, Pettit, Bates and Dodge2011; Serbin et al., Reference Serbin, Kingdon, Ruttle and Stack2015). Few studies examining these reciprocal transactional relations have done so during early childhood using large, mixed-sex samples and prior work has often been limited to studies with only two time points of data (Paschall & Mastergeorge, Reference Paschall and Mastergeorge2016). Of related studies that focus on very young children, there is evidence for the bidirectional associations between parenting behavior and early temperament (see, e.g., Klein et al., Reference Klein, Lengua, Thompson, Moran, Ruberry, Kiff and Zalewski2018; Krieger & Stringaris, Reference Krieger, Stringaris, Beauchaine and Hinshaw2016; Lengua & Kovacs, Reference Lengua and Kovacs2005; Wittig & Rodriguez, Reference Wittig and Rodriguez2019). Although temperatment is distinct from psychopathology, such empirical research suggest that reciprocal relations between parenting and child behaviors begin very early (Mesman et al., Reference Mesman, Stoel, Bakermans-Kranenburg, Van Ijzendoorn, Juffer, Koot and Alink2009; Muris & Ollendick, Reference Muris and Ollendick2005; Smith & Day, Reference Smith and Day2018). We also know little about how these processes (either parent-driven or child-driven) might change across early childhood – which could inform intervention strategies by identifying optimal windows for intervening to either sustain positive or redirect problematic pathways.

Another important benefit of utilizing such bidirectional repeated-measure, longitudinal designs is that they can advance insights into the complexities of emerging psychopathology by partially accounting for the stability of individual factors over time. This is accomplished by assessing changes in behavior over time while holding effects of initial levels of parenting and child behavior constant (Beauchaine et al., Reference Beauchaine, Shader, Hinshaw, Beauchaine and Hinshaw2016). Importantly, most studies have been conducted with predominantly White or middle-to-upper income samples, with less representation from sociodemographically diverse populations (see, however, Pearl et al., Reference Pearl, French, Dumas, Moreland and Prinz2014). These relationships are important to explore across samples with greater diversity, to improve representation in research, ensure generalizability of findings across populations, and reduce biases in healthcare and healthcare decision making that contribute to health disparities (e.g., across race/ethnicity and socioeconomic position; Dovidio & Fiske, Reference Dovidio and Fiske2012; Fitzgerald & Hurst, Reference Fitzgerald and Hurst2017; Pedersen et al., Reference Pedersen, Lindstrom, Powe, Louie and Escobar-Viera2022; Roberts et al., Reference Roberts, Bareket-Shavit, Dollins, Goldie and Mortenson2020). In particular, this can disproportionately impact youth of color with regard to diagnoses for externalizing disorders (Fadus et al., Reference Fadus, Ginsburg, Sobowale, Halliday-Boykins, Bryant, Gray and Squeglia2020).

Measuring parenting in transactional parent-child research

There is a robust, informative literature examining the transactional nature of parenting behaviors and externalizing behaviors in middle-late childhood and adolescence. Most of these studies share two noteworthy limitations regarding the operationalization of parenting. First, few studies utilize comprehensive, multi-faceted measures of parenting behaviors or include aspects of parenting that might be particularly salient for younger children – such as scaffolding and responsive behaviors. These behaviors – showing warmth, empathy and support, establishing structure, and importantly, providing encouragement (such as when faced with a novel/challenging task) – are especially important to assess with young children, as these developing self-regulation skills are important for later executive functioning and behavioral outcomes (Blair & Diamond, Reference Blair and Diamond2008; Bornstein et al., Reference Bornstein, Putnick and Suwalsky2018; Morawska et al., Reference Morawska, Dittman and Rusby2019; Sulik, Reference Sulik2017). Many bidirectional parent-child studies are also limited by utilizing only one or two aspects of parenting, focus on specific subscales within a given parenting measure, or instead focus on negative aspects of parenting (see, e.g., Ciciolla et al., Reference Ciciolla, Gerstein and Crnic2014; Dora & Baydar, Reference Dora and Baydar2020; Harris et al., Reference Harris, Vazsonyi and Bolland2017; Lewis et al., Reference Lewis, Collishaw, Thapar and Harold2014; Taraban et al., Reference Taraban, Shaw, Leve, Natsuaki, Ganiban, Reiss and Neiderhiser2019; Wang & Liu, Reference Wang and Liu2018). Given that many aspects of parenting behavior influence child behavior over time, this focus on specific aspects of parenting limits capture of the broad dynamics of the parent-child relationship and, might miss key aspects of parenting that are especially important for young children.

A second limitation in extant bidirectional studies regarding measures of parenting behavior relates to informants. Very few studies examining the bidirectional nature of parenting and child externalizing behavior utilize observational measures of parenting, most often relying on self-reported instruments, which are subject to potential informant biases and do not correlate strongly with observational data (Hendriks et al., Reference Hendriks, Van der Giessen, Stams and Overbeek2018; Korelitz & Garber, Reference Korelitz and Garber2016; Morsbach & Prinz, Reference Morsbach and Prinz2006). The utilization of more objective measures of parenting behavior, including direct observation and coding of parenting behaviors in the laboratory or in the home environment, is often considered the “gold standard” for assessing parenting behavior and can minimize potential biases regarding parent self-reports, (see Ciciolla et al., Reference Ciciolla, Gerstein and Crnic2014; Coe et al., Reference Coe, Davies, Hentges and Sturge-Apple2020; Merz et al., Reference Merz, Landry, Montroy and Williams2017).

Additional factors affecting parenting and child externalizing behavior

Other factors within the family environment – particularly parental psychopathology and parenting stress – are rarely accounted for when examining the transactional nature of parenting behaviors and child externalizing behaviors (Bayer et al., Reference Bayer, Hiscock, Ukoumunne, Price and Wake2008; Coe et al., Reference Coe, Davies, Hentges and Sturge-Apple2020; Dix & Meunier, Reference Dix and Meunier2009; Dora & Baydar, Reference Dora and Baydar2020; Schleider et al., Reference Schleider, Patel, Krumholz, Chorpita and Weisz2015; Taraban et al., Reference Taraban, Shaw, Leve, Natsuaki, Ganiban, Reiss and Neiderhiser2019). A large body of literature shows that maternal mental health (such as depression or anxiety), as well as parenting-related stress, are associated with offspring psychopathology, including child externalizing problems (Ashman et al., Reference Ashman, Dawson and Panagiotides2008; Goodman et al., Reference Goodman, Rouse, Connell, Broth, Hall and Heyward2011; Roubinov et al., Reference Roubinov, Epel, Adler, Laraia and Bush2022; Taraban et al., Reference Taraban, Shaw, Leve, Natsuaki, Ganiban, Reiss and Neiderhiser2019; Yan et al., Reference Yan, Ansari and Peng2021). Parental psychopathology has been associated with negative parenting behaviors, such as negativity and ineffective discipline practicies (Berg-Nielsen et al., Reference Berg-Nielsen, Vikan and Dahl2002), which in turn is associated with child behavior problems. Parenting stress has also been associated with parenting behavior and child behavior problems (Abidin, Reference Abidin1992; Crnic et al., Reference Crnic, Gaze and Hoffman2005). For example, Williford et al. (Reference Williford, Calkins and Keane2007) found that both parental psychopathology and child emotion dysregulation, among other factors, were longitudinally associated with parenting stress, and stability of parenting stress was predicted by child externalizing problems. Although some studies account for such factors in their models, this is most often as a covariate, mediator, or moderator at a single point in time, without accounting for how these factors change over time. Very few studies have accounted for these dynamic factors in longitudinal models utilizing a repeated-measure design (for an exception, see Wei et al., Reference Wei, Eisenberg, Ramos-Olazagasti, Wall, Chen, Bird and Duarte2017). The exclusion of these factors from bidirectional parenting-child externalizing studies overlooks the possibility that such factors may contribute to either parenting behaviors or child behaviors across time and their omission might bias the estimated effects of parenting behaviors on child behavior, or vice versa (Barroso et al., Reference Barroso, Mendez, Graziano and Bagner2018; Yan et al., Reference Yan, Ansari and Peng2021).

The present study

In the present study, our primary aim was to employ a repeated measures, longitudinal design to examine the transactional nature of parenting behavior and child externalizing symptoms in a large, well-characterized, socioeconomically diverse, predominantly Black sample of mothers and their offspring across early childhood (ages 1–6). To advance the rigor of evidence in this domain, we utilized a high-quality, observed measure of overall parenting quality that included aspects of parenting that are particularly relevant for younger children (i.e., scaffolding activities that support a young child’s socioemotional and cognitive growth – such as teaching them a new skill). Additionally, we incorporated repeated measures of two important maternal psychosocial factors (i.e., parenting stress and psychopathology) known to be associated with both parenting behaviors as well as child externalizing psychopathology into our longitudinal design. Finally, given the mixed findings regarding sex differences for these associations during childhood, and a particular lack of evidence for very young children (Rothbaum & Weisz, Reference Rothbaum and Weisz1994; Yan et al., Reference Yan, Ansari and Peng2021), we explored whether the developmental associations within this transactional model varied by child sex within this large community sample. Based on prior research, we predicted: (Hypothesis 1) that higher levels of developmentally-appropriate measures of parenting quality would be longitudinally associated with lower levels of child externalizing behaviors at an early age, and higher levels of child externalizing behaviors would subsequently be associated with lower levels of parenting quality; and (Hypothesis 2) these associations would be maintained even after accounting for other maternal psychosocial risk factors over time. Regarding potential moderation by child sex (Hypothesis 3), given the mixed findings to date and limited evidence in mixed-sex samples of young children, we made no specific prediction regarding whether these longitudinal associations would differ by child sex.

Method

Participants and procedure

The present study used data from the Conditions Affecting Neurocognitive Development and Learning in Early Childhood (CANDLE) study (Sontag-Padilla et al., Reference Sontag-Padilla, Burns, Shih, Griffin, Martin, Chandra and Tylavsky2015), part of the ECHO PATHWAYS consortium (Lewinn et al., Reference LeWinn, Karr, Hazlehurst, Carroll, Loftus, Nguyen, Barrett, Swan, Szpiro, Paquette, Moore, Spalt, Younglove, Sullivan, Colburn, Byington, Sims Taylor, Moe, Wang, Cordeiro, Mattias, Powell, Johnson, Norona-Zhou, Mason, Bush and Sathyanarayana2022). CANDLE is a longitudinal pregnancy cohort study that was designed to assess the pre- and postnatal factors that impact neurocognitive development using a robust, longitudinal design. The study enrolled 1503 pregnant women within the greater Memphis, Tennessee area between 2006 and 2011. Women were enrolled in their second trimester, were between ages 16 and 40, did not have chronic preexisting conditions that required medication, and were considered low-risk pregnancies. See Table 1 for participant demographic information. The sample was racially (64% self-identified as Black, 31% as White, 5% as Mixed Race or Other) and socioeconomically diverse, although more than half of families were considered lower-income (median family-size-adjusted annual household income of $15,151; 59% reported being on federal or state-supplemented health insurance and almost 41% had private/employer health insurance). Approximately 2% of participants self-identified as Hispanic/Latino. Participants were fairly representative, based on US census bureau statistics, of the greater Memphis metropolitan area in terms of race, education, income, and health insurance status (Sontag-Padilla et al., Reference Sontag-Padilla, Burns, Shih, Griffin, Martin, Chandra and Tylavsky2015). The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center.

Table 1. Demographic information and model variables (N = 1287)

Baseline data were collected at study enrollment during pregnancy. Perinatal data were additionally collected during a third trimester visit and then again at childbirth. Following childbirth, families were followed prospectively, with data collected at four clinic visits occurring at approximately child ages one-year (Wave 1; N = 1106), two-years (Wave 2; N = 1074), three-years (Wave 3; N = 1023), and four-to-six years (Wave 4; N = 1099). Families were compensated for their time after each assessment they completed. The following information was obtained during clinic visits: demographic information, mother-reports of both mother and child psychosocial functioning (maternal psychopathology, parenting stress, child externalizing behavior), and clinical observations of parent-child interactions. The analytic sample (N = 1287) comprised all mother-child dyads for which there was at least one measure of child behavior and one measure of parent-child interactions across the four in-person follow-up visits (Waves 1–4). Approximately 8% of the sample contributed only one timepoint of parent-child data; most dyads (92%) contributed two or more waves of parent-child data. For the postnatally-retained sample, mothers tended to be older at study enrollment (M age = 26.3 years vs. 24.2 years, t = 3.94, p < .001), and had slightly higher adjusted household incomes (M = $20.4k years vs. $16.4k, t = 2.33, p = .011) compared to mothers who were lost to attrition, but otherwise did not significantly differ on study variables.

Measures

Repeated measures

Three constructs were utilized for the cross-lagged panel model design: parenting quality (Waves 1–3), child externalizing behaviors (Waves 1–4), and a maternal risk composite (Waves 1–4).

Parenting quality

Parenting behavior was assessed during clinic visits at Waves 1–3 using the Nursing Child Assessment Satellite Training Parent-Child Interaction Teaching Scale (NCAST; Huber, Reference Huber1991; Oxford & Findlay, Reference Oxford and Findlay2013). The NCAST comprises 73 items, each endorsed yes/no, and was completed by study staff (psychologists or psychology interns) who received rigorous training in the NCAST coding system. All examiners maintained 85% interrater reliability during the initial training and all subsequent training that occurred every six months during the data collection period. During this task, the examiner asked the mother to review a list of possible activities and select one that her child had not yet mastered. The mother then teaches her child the activity while the examiner observes, which can place some stress on the parent-child interaction, thus allowing observation of adaptive patterns of behavior between mother and child outside of their usual interactive routines (Graff et al., Reference Graff, Bush, Palmer, Murphy, Whitaker and Tylavsky2017). The NCAST was completed by a single, trained, examiner immediately after observing the mother-child interaction for approximately five minutes. We use the term “parenting quality” moving forward to capture the overall measure of parenting behavior, which was assessed using the Total Caregiver score (with higher scores indicating more positive responses from the parent). This score consists of 50 items that comprise the following four subscales that assess a range of social, nurturant, and didactic caregiving behaviors: (1) sensitivity to cues (e.g., “caregiver gives instruction only when child is attentive” and “caregiver praises child’s success or partial successes”), (2) response to child’s distress (e.g., “caregiver makes positive, sympathetic, or soothing verbalization” and “caregiver avoids making negative comments to the child”), (3) social-emotional growth-fostering (e.g., “caregiver laughs or smiles at child during the teaching interaction” and “caregiver makes cheerleading style statements to the child during the teaching interaction”), and (4) cognitive growth-fostering (e.g., “caregiver focuses attention and child’s attention on the task during most of the teaching (60% of the time)” and “caregiver uses both verbal description and modeling simultaneously in teaching any part of the task”). The NCAST has been used with diverse populations and has been associated with infant cognitive and socioemotional development (Britton et al., Reference Britton, Gronwaldt and Britton2001; Letourneau et al., Reference Letourneau, Tryphonopoulos, Novick, Hart, Giesbrecht and Oxford2018; Lugo-Gil & Tamis-LeMonda, Reference Lugo-Gil and Tamis-LeMonda2008; Page et al., Reference Page, Wilhelm, Gamble and Card2010; Ransone et al., Reference Ransone, Graff, Bush, Oxford and Wicks2018). This measure has shown good internal consistency and test-retest reliability; Cronbach’s alpha for the present sample was also good (α = .83; Graff et al., Reference Graff, Bush, Palmer, Murphy, Whitaker and Tylavsky2017).

Child externalizing behaviors

Two measures were used to assess child externalizing behaviors across Waves 1–4, based on what was appropriate for their age and developmental stage (see also Roubinov et al., Reference Roubinov, Browne, LeWinn, Lisha, Mason and Bush2022 for a previous example). At Waves 1 and 2, mothers reported on their child’s externalizing symptoms via the Brief Infant Toddler Social Emotional Assessment (BITSEA; Briggs-Gowan et al., Reference Briggs-Gowan, Carter, Irwin, Wachtel and Cicchetti2004). This measure has demonstrated good test-retest reliability and interrater agreement between parents, as well as good criterion and predictive validity to the Child Behavior Checklist CBCL (Briggs-Gowan et al., Reference Briggs-Gowan, Carter, Irwin, Wachtel and Cicchetti2004, Reference Briggs-Gowan, Carter, McCarthy, Augustyn, Caronna and Clark2013). We utilized the externalizing subscale, which consists of six items measured on a 3-point scale (“not really true/rarely,” somewhat true/sometimes,” and “very true/often”). Example items include: “is restless and can't sit still,” “often gets very upset,” and “hits, bites, or kicks you (and other parent).” At Waves 3 and 4, mothers reported on their child’s externalizing symptoms using the externalizing subscale from the CBCL/1.5–5 (Achenbach & Rescorla, Reference Achenbach and Rescorla2000). The CBCL evaluates some of the same externalizing behaviors as the BITSEA (e.g., “hits others”) and also includes other developmentally-appropriate items for children aged 3–5. The CBCL is widely used and has strong psychometric properties, including reliability and validity (Achenbach & Rescorla, Reference Achenbach and Rescorla2000).

Maternal risk composite

Following an approach similar to Wei et al. (Reference Wei, Eisenberg, Ramos-Olazagasti, Wall, Chen, Bird and Duarte2017), maternal risk was assessed at all four study timepoints (Waves 1–4) using a composite of two measures. Maternal self-reported psychopathology symptoms were measured by the Global Severity Index from the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI; Derogatis, Reference Derogatis1983; Urbán et al., Reference Urbán, Kun, Farkas, Paksi, Kökönyei, Unoka, Felvinczi, Oláh and Demetrovics2014). The BSI is a widely used measure of overall psychiatric symptoms that is based on the longer Symptom Checklist-90. Parenting stress was measured by the total score from the Parenting Stress Index – Short Form version (PSI; Abidin, Reference Abidin1990). A maternal risk composite was utilized for analytic purposes to reduce the complexity of the cross-lagged panel model (correlations between the BSI and PSI across Waves 1–4 ranged from .48 to .53; all p’s < .001; refer to Supplemental Figure 1). Both measures were standardized at each time point, then averaged to create the composite, with higher scores indicating more risk (i.e., higher psychopathology and parenting stress) and lower scores indicating less risk.

Covariates

All models included the following covariates: maternal age at study enrollment and marital status at time of child’s birth; household income adjusted for family size; and child gestational age at birth and sex.

Analytic plan

All analyses were performed in MPLUS version 8. Bivariate correlations evaluated the associations among all study variables. To test Hypotheses 1-3, the current study used cross-lagged panel model (CLPM) analyses to examine the between-family differences for the associations among maternal parenting quality, child externalizing behaviors, and the maternal risk composite across Waves 1–4 (see Figure 1).Footnote 1 CLPM simultaneously examines both autoregressive paths within variables as well as cross-lagged paths between two different variables (Selig & Little, Reference Selig, Little, Laursen, Little and Card2012). The autoregressive paths estimate directional associations within a variable across time (i.e., stability; e.g., child externalizing from Wave 1 to Wave 2). The cross-lagged paths then estimate the direction of influence of one variable on subsequent changes in the other variables (e.g., parenting practices at Wave 1 to child externalizing at Wave 2, controlling for child externalizing at Wave 1). We also included paths from the maternal risk composite to child externalizing behaviors and t-2 autocorrelations among the residuals of the maternal parenting and, separately, the child externalizing measures to account for the high stability in our repeated measures. Our analyses utilized 3 main models, with each subsequent model built on the prior model. For Model 1, model fit evaluations examined all directional paths between parenting and child behavior (see Figure 2). Model 2 builds on Model 1 by adding the maternal risk composite into the model to predict parenting and child externalizing behavior – both concurrently and at the subsequent wave (see Figure 3). To determine the best-fitting model, we utilized the root mean squared error of the approximation (RMSEA) with 90% confidence intervals, comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), and chi-square with degrees of freedom and p-value (Hu & Bentler, Reference Hu and Bentler1999; Xia & Yang, Reference Xia and Yang2019). The covariates – maternal age, marital status, adjusted household income, gestational age, as well as child sex – were included as correlated exogenous variables at Wave 1, with the exception of child age at Wave 4, which was included as a correlated exogenous variable at Wave 4. This method was used in all adjusted models. Prior to model estimation, all externalizing scores were standardized for comparability (BITSEA at Waves 1 and 2, and CBCL at Waves 3 and 4). Missing data was handled using maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors (MLR).

Figure 1. Bivariate correlations among all study variables.

Figure 2. Evaluation of transactions between observed parenting quality and child externalizing problems (Model 1). All cross-sectional paths between parenting quality and child externalizing problems were negative and significant (p’s ranged from < .001 to .014). Model covariates included: adjusted household income, maternal age, marital status, gestational age, child sex, and child age.

Figure 3. Evaluation of transactions between observed parenting quality, maternal risk, and child externalizing problems (Model 2).All cross-sectional paths between parenting quality and child externalizing problems were negative and significant (p’s ranged from .004 to .029). Model covariates included: adjusted household income, maternal age, marital status, gestational age, child sex, and child age.

To test Hypothesis 3 (Model 3) – we build on Model 2 by examining child sex as a moderator of the associations between parenting quality and child externalizing behaviors across time by evaluating multigroup comparisons within the best-fitting transactional model. First, we constrained all bidirectional paths to be equivalent across males and females (fully constrained model). Next, we allowed all bidirectional paths to be estimated freely across males and females (fully unconstrained model). Chi-squared difference tests compared the fit of these two models to determine if allowing the paths to vary among child sex would result in better model fit (i.e., support examining moderation by child sex).

Results

The analytic sample included 1,287 mother-child dyads who had at least one measurement of observed parenting and one measure of child externalizing behavior. Full sample demographics are presented in Table 1. Bivariate correlations are presented in Figure 1. Coded parenting quality demonstrated appropriate levels of variability in the total caregiver score across the sample and was moderately and positively correlated across time (r’s = 0.29–0.38). Child externalizing symptomatology was also positively correlated across time, though the strength of the association varied (r’s = 0.22–0.70) with weaker associations for the most distant assessments (i.e., between Wave 1 and Wave 4). There were also small negative correlations between parenting and child externalizing across time (r’s = −0.02 – −0.18).

Transactions between parenting and child externalizing behaviors

Fit indices identified a good fitting model for Model 1 (χ 2 (70) = 1846.9, p = 0.00, RMSEA = 0.062 [90% CI = 0.055, 0.069], CFI = 0.873, TLI = 0.826, SRMR = 0.077; see Figure 2). Autoregressive paths for observed parenting were significant across age 1–2 (β = 0.34, SE = 0.03, p < 0.001) and age 2–age 3 (β = 0.30, SE = 0.03, p < 0.001). Similarly, autoregressive paths for child externalizing were also significant from age 1–2 (β = 0.40, SE = 0.03, p < 0.001), age 2–age 3 (β = 0.43, SE = 0.03, p < 0.001) and age 3–age 4–6 (β = 0.55, SE = 0.03, p < 0.001). Evaluating Hypothesis 1, evidence of transactional associations between observed parenting and child externalizing behaviors emerged at three timepoints. First, higher observed parenting quality at 1-year predicted decreased child externalizing behaviors at 2-years (β = −0.07, SE = 0.03, p = 0.013). Additionally, higher child externalizing behaviors at 1-year predicted lower observed parenting quality at 2-years (β = −0.010, SE = 0.03, p = 0.001). Subsequently, higher child externalizing behaviors at 2-years predicted decreased observed parenting quality scores at 3-years (β = −0.11, SE = 0.03, p < 0.001). The maternal-directed paths from parenting at ages 2-years and 3-years were not statistically significant.

Maternal risk in the transactions between parenting and child externalizing behaviors

Next, for Model 2 we included the directional paths from the maternal risk composite variable predicting concurrent parenting quality as well as concurrent and future child externalizing behaviors to examine Hypothesis 2 (see Figure 3). Fit indices identified a good fitting model and improved model fit over Model 1 (χ 2 (115) = 4564.67, p = 0.00, RMSEA = 0.054 [90% CI = 0.049, 0.060], CFI = 0.926, TLI = 0.899, SRMR = 0.058). Like Model 1, autoregressive paths for both observed parenting quality and child externalizing behaviors were significant (all ps < 0.001) and identified stability across time for both constructs. The transactional associations between parenting and child externalizing behaviors were consistent with Model 1. First, higher observed parenting quality at 1-year predicted decreased child externalizing behaviors at 2-years (β = −0.06, SE = 0.03, p = 0.047). Additionally, higher child externalizing behaviors at 1-year predicted lower observed parenting quality at 2-years years (β = −0.09, SE = 0.03, p = 0.003). Subsequently, higher child externalizing behaviors at 2-years predicted lower observed parenting quality at 3-years (β = −0.10, SE = 0.03, p = 0.001). The maternal-directed paths from parenting at ages 2-years to child externalizing behaviors at 3-years, and from parenting at age 3-years to child externalizing behaviors at 4-years, were not statistically significant.

Of note, none of the cross-sectional paths between the maternal risk composite and observed parenting quality were significant across early childhood. In contrast, all of the cross-sectional paths between the maternal risk composite and child externalizing behaviors at all four time points were significant, with higher maternal risk associated with higher child externalizing behaviors at the same timepoint (β’s ranged from 0.32 to 0.44, p’s < .001). Finally, after adjusting for all other associations in the model, two unexpected findings emerged: longitudinal associations between the maternal risk composite at 1-year predicted decreased child externalizing behaviors at 2-years (β = −0.10, p = .007) and maternal risk at 3-years predicted decreased externalizing behaviors at 4-years (β = −0.08, p = .009), although these coefficients were small compared to the (expected) positive associations between maternal risk and concurrent child externalizing behaviors.

Evaluation of moderation by child sex

Hypothesis 3 examined whether these patterns varied by child sex. We evaluated model fit indices of a fully constrained model where all paths were constrained to be equal for boys and girls and an unconstrained model where all paths were free to vary by sex. In comparing these fit indices, we found that the fully constrained (χ 2 (174) = 550.79, p = 0.00, BIC = 104188.70, RMSEA = 0.058 [90% CI = 0.053, 0.063], CFI = 0.915, TLI = 0.897, SRMR = 0.070) had similar fit to the unconstrained model (χ 2 (144) = 510.345, p = 0.00, BIC = 104604.75, RMSEA = 0.062 [90% CI = 0.057, 0.068], CFI = 0.918, TLI = 0.881, SRMR = 0.060) and was not statistically different in a chi-squared difference test (χ 2 Δ(30) = 10, p = 0.104). Therefore, there was no evidence to support moderation by child sex.

Discussion

Early childhood is a sensitive period during which developmental changes, combined with evolving family dynamics and parenting, contribute significantly to the development of children’s self-regulation abilities and behavior more broadly. Theories and research in developmental psychopathology have highlighted the importance of the bidirectional relations between parenting behaviors and child externalizing psychopathology (Burke et al., Reference Burke, Pardini and Loeber2008; Calkins et al., Reference Calkins, Propper and Mills-Koonce2013; Pettit & Arsiwalla, Reference Pettit and Arsiwalla2008; Sameroff, Reference Sameroff and Sameroff2009), yet few studies have examined how these patterns might develop and change during early childhood or have taken into account other salient family factors. The present study utilized a large, socioeconomically diverse, well-characterized sample of Black and White families in the South to examine these transactional relations during early childhood – a key period for the initial development of externalizing psychopathology. Our repeated-measures longitudinal design allowed us to examine these relationships across multiple time points, from age one to age 4–6. Moreover, our bidirectional models incorporated repeated measures of objectively-coded parenting during a series of teaching tasks as well as a multi-domain measure of maternal risk factors that have rarely been incorporated into extant bidirectional parent-child developmental psychopathology research.

We found evidence for transactional associations (both parent-driven and child-driven effects) between parenting quality and child externalizing behavior during early childhood. First, higher levels of parenting quality at child age 1 were associated with decreases in child externalizing behavior problems at age 2. Although such positive parenting behaviors (involving scaffolding and teaching tasks) have been associated with language and cognitive development in very young children, to our knowledge, no previous studies have identified associations with child behavior. Our observed associations between these scaffolding/teaching parenting behaviors and reductions in early child externalizing behavior are a particularly novel contribution to the literature and suggest additional targets for prevention and intervention. Later parenting quality (e.g., at Wave 2 or Wave 3), however, was not associated with subsequent child externalizing problems in our cross-lagged model. One possible explanation for this pattern is that parents are a key factor in the development of self-regulation in very young children, but as children get older, additional factors – especially factors outside of the home – become increasingly influential (Eisenberg et al., Reference Eisenberg, Taylor, Widaman and Spinrad2015; Karreman et al., Reference Karreman, Van Tuijl, Van Aken and Deković2006; Sulik et al., Reference Sulik, Blair, Mills-Koonce, Berry and Greenberg2015). Augmenting prior research with older children, we found significant associations between concurrent parenting quality and child externalizing behaviors at all time points, as well as stability in both child externalizing behaviors and parenting quality across time in early childhood. Although not tested in the present study, a more direct examination of the potential associations between parenting behaviors, child self-regulation, and externalizing behavior problems would be informative.

Additionally, we found that higher levels of child externalizing behavior problems were longitudinally associated with decreases in parenting quality at two time points. Although evidence for such child-driven effects has gained more prominence in recent years (Roubinov et al., Reference Roubinov, Browne, LeWinn, Lisha, Mason and Bush2022; Yan et al., Reference Yan, Ansari and Peng2021), our findings are novel in that they show that such patterns can manifest at very early ages when externalizing behavior problems may first begin to emerge. Importantly, these effects were present after accounting for the stability of child externalizing behaviors and parenting behaviors over time and after incorporating repeated measures of a maternal risk composite into the models. These findings are consistent with Patterson’s coercion theory, whereby children’s externalizing behaviors have a negative effect on subsequent parenting behaviors (Patterson, Reference Patterson1982, Patterson, Reference Patterson, Reid, Patterson and Snyder2002), and also suggest the potential importance of sustained interventions to ensure that any early improvements in child behavior are not lost over time. It is compelling to note that this pattern of child-driven findings is consistent with some prior transactional parent-child research among older offspring (Dieleman et al., Reference Dieleman, De Pauw, Soenens, Beyers and Prinzie2017; Serbin et al., Reference Serbin, Kingdon, Ruttle and Stack2015; Wang & Liu, Reference Wang and Liu2018). For example, Serbin et al. (Reference Serbin, Kingdon, Ruttle and Stack2015) found that, in a 3-wave design of school-aged children and adolescents (ages 7–13), higher levels of positive parenting at Wave 1 was associated with lower levels of externalizing behavior at Wave 2, whereas higher levels of externalizing behavior at Wave 2 was associated with lower levels of positive parenting at Wave 3. Our findings extend the evidence for this process to young children, beginning as early as toddlerhood.

Study findings highlight the dynamic interplay of parenting behaviors and child externalizing psychopathology beginning in toddlerhood. Whereas most longitudinal studies tend to utilize longer inter-wave intervals (e.g., 2–4 years between study visits), one strength of the present study is the evaluation of how changes in parenting behaviors predict changes in externalizing psychopathology over a 1-year period of time and vice versa. Shorter intervals are particularly important to capture rapid developmental changes that occur during infancy and toddlerhood that require changes in parenting to support safety vs. exploration in early years while responding to the development of self-regulation skills (Lengua et al., Reference Lengua, Honorado and Bush2007). Our findings indicate that younger children may be particularly sensitive to caregiving behaviors, consistent with the known powerful influence of parenting and caregiving behaviors on child behavior during this developmental period. Consequently, aligned with developmental theories of psychopathology (e.g., Calkins et al., Reference Calkins, Propper and Mills-Koonce2013; Cummings et al., Reference Cummings, Davies and Campbell2002; Patterson, Reference Patterson, Reid, Patterson and Snyder2002), early screening and dyadic prevention and intervention programs that occur early in childhood may be particularly impactful – especially for children at higher risk for later behavior problems. Of note, parenting quality at later waves (e.g., Wave 2 or Wave 3) was not associated with subsequent child externalizing behavior problems in our sample after accounting for prior effects, despite the study’s large sample size and robust measurement of positive parenting behaviors (for a similar finding, see, Dora & Baydar, Reference Dora and Baydar2020), suggesting the particular importance of early life parenting for the behaviors assessed here. Our findings regarding child-driven effects point to toddlerhood as a particularly important period for the influence of child externalizing behaviors’ on positive parenting. After adjusting for this period of behavior, subsequent preschool behavior problems may be less powerful – at least for this domain of parenting. As children get older, they might be more likely to have a subsequent influence on other aspects of parenting behaviors (e.g., Serbin et al, Reference Serbin, Kingdon, Ruttle and Stack2015), just as their behaviors are more influenced by factors outside of the home.

Consistent with prior research, we found marked continuity for all three key constructs in our models – maternal parenting quality, child externalizing behaviors, and a maternal risk composite variable. In other words, earlier parenting behaviors predicted later parenting behaviors, which was similarly the case for child externalizing behaviors and other maternal psychosocial risk factors. We also found significant cross-sectional associations between several key study variables, including between a maternal risk composite and child externalizing problems, which aligns with the broader evidence base cited earlier. More notably, however, we did not find an association between concurrent maternal self-reported psychosocial risk (i.e., psychopathology and parenting stress) and observed parenting quality. Despite empirical associations between maternal psychopathology and parenting, literature also suggests that mothers who experience stress and related mental health problems can enjoy secure attachments with their offspring and be responsive and supportive parents (Daryanani et al., Reference Daryanani, Hamilton, Abramson and Alloy2016; Davis & Narayan, Reference Davis and Narayan2020; Greene et al., Reference Greene, McCarthy, Estabrook, Wakschlag and Briggs-Gowan2020; Jones-Mason et al., Reference Jones-Mason, Coccia, Alkon, Melanie Thomas, Laraia, Adler, Epel and Bush2023). Our pattern of findings may also be related to differences in how parenting quality and maternal risk were measured. In the current study, parenting quality measure was derived from a standardized observational assessments of mothers engaging with children in a novel task in-clinic, while the parenting stress measure reflects a mother’s perception of both herself as a parent and of her child. Some research indicates that mothers – especially mothers who experience psychopathology – might have more biased, negative self-perceptions of their own parenting behaviors as well as the behaviors of their child (e.g., Muzik et al., Reference Muzik, Morelen, Hruschak, Rosenblum, Bocknek and Beeghly2017), when, in fact, their observed parenting behaviors are more positive and supportive.

After accounting for the multitude of other associations in the model, our composite measure of maternal risk was negatively associated with later child externalizing behavior problems at ages two and four. We would have expected the association to be in the opposite direction – given that the maternal risk composite was positively associated with child externalizing behavior problems across all waves at the bivariate level (for similar cross-sectional findings, see Kochanova et al., Reference Kochanova, Pittman and McNeela2022). It is possible that this association is substantively meaningful and would be mediated by other omitted psychosocial/family factors for the current sample. It is also possible that these counterintuitive results are a statistical artifact of the complex multivariate models (e.g., due to statistical suppression). We are therefore hesitant to interpret these findings, especially within the context of such a robust model, where the remaining variance to be explained is quite reduced.

Finally, the present study did not find that any tested associations differed by child sex. Findings regarding sex-specific associations between parenting and child externalizing behaviors have been inconsistent (e.g., Blatt-Eisengart et al., Reference Blatt-Eisengart, Drabick, Monahan and Steinberg2009; Smith & Day, Reference Smith and Day2018; Xing et al., Reference Xing, Wang, Zhang, He and Zhang2011; for an early meta-analysis, see Rothbaum & Weisz, Reference Rothbaum and Weisz1994). This may be due to differences in child age ranges assessed, the type of parenting behaviors measured, and the informants utilized. As our study was well-powered, this might suggest that associations between positive parenting behaviors and child externalizing behaviors may not be unique to boys or girls during the early childhood period, which could indicate that interventions during early childhood may have positive benefits for children (and parents) regardless of the child’s sex. However, we are hesitant to overly interpret our lack of evidence for moderation as more research is necessary during early childhood that utilizes objective measures of parenting and child behaviors to determine whether our null findings replicate.

We note several strengths in the present study. We utilized a large, predominantly Black, socioeconomically diverse sample – both of which are under-represented in extant psychopathology literature. We also leveraged a robust model with multiple repeated measures over time. In addition, the use of trained observers and an established coding paradigm to evaluate parenting behaviors is a noteworthy strength for this study, especially given the large sample size. This measure of parenting assesses behaviors that are very relevant for younger children, such as cognitive and social-emotional growth-fostering behaviors, as well as parental sensitivity, warmth, and responsivity. Another unique strength is the inclusion of other maternal psychosocial factors – which also have the potential to impact parenting and child behavior – within our repeated-measures models. In addition to the fact that their inclusion goes beyond the majority of extant literature, it further increases confidence that the present findings have more to do with parenting than maternal mental health. Our study design also had some limitations. First, we utilized two different measures for child behavior across our four waves of analysis. Although the measures used were age-appropriate and demonstrated some degree of stability across time, we may have been unable to detect some changes over time due to the change in the measure used. Additionally, child behavior was reported by mothers in the present study and mothers also self-reported on their parenting stress and psychopathology indicators, which introduces potential for informant bias. Although parents are a key informant for child behaviors during early childhood, and our use of objectively-rated parenting offsets risk of same-reporter-driven findings, this study would have been strengthened with measures of child externalizing collected from other adults, caregivers, or during laboratory visits. Additionally, although the use of an observational measure to assess parenting quality is a strength, there is still a possibility for rater bias. Also, observed parenting was not assessed at wave 4, which prevented us from evaluating its lagged and cross-sectional associations at that final time point. Although self-regulation is one possible mechanism by which parenting is linked to later externalizing behaviors, it was not assessed in the current study and thus could not be evaluated as a mechanistic link; future work should further elucidate this pathway. Finally, other social determinants of health, such as discrimination and structural racism or childcare quality, certainly have varying affects on family dynamics, including parenting and child behaviors, disproportionately affecting minoritized families or those with fewer resources. Although measures of such constructs were not available for the present study, their roles in the processes studied here are important considerations for future research.

It is important to acknowledge that numerous structural and societal barriers disadvantage some families (particularly lower-income families and families of color), limiting their ability to establish more nurturing home environments with optimal resources for caregiving (Bailey et al., Reference Bailey, Krieger, Agénor, Graves, Linos and Bassett2017; Conradt et al., Reference Conradt, Carter and Crowell2020; O’Brien et al., Reference O’Brien, Neman, Seltzer, Evans and Venkataramani2020; Palmer et al., Reference Palmer, Anand, Graff, Murphy, Qu, Völgyi, Rovnaghi, Moore, Tran and Tylavsky2013; Rowell & Neal-Barnett, Reference Rowell and Neal-Barnett2022). Although we highlight the importance of the mother-child relationship herein, the responsibility for children’s behavioral development certainly does not lie solely with the mother, but also other caregivers, such as fathers (Cardenas et al., Reference Cardenas, Morris, Marshall, Aviv, Martínez García, Sellery and Saxbe2022), and is critically dependent on society providing sufficient resources and supports to children and families (Jones et al., Reference Jones, Simon, Yadeta, Patterson and Anderson2023; McLean et al., Reference McLean, Fish, Rogers and Syed2023; Okuzono et al., Reference Okuzono, Wilson and Slopen2023; Phelan & Link, Reference Phelan and Link2015; Suslovic & Lett, Reference Suslovic and Lett2023; Traub & Boynton-Jarrett, Reference Traub and Boynton-Jarrett2017; Walker et al., Reference Walker, Wachs, Grantham-McGregor, Black, Nelson, Huffman, Baker-Henningham, Chang, Hamadani, Lozoff, Gardner, Powell, Rahman and Richter2011; Winett et al., Reference Winett, Wulf and Wallack2016). Eliminating structural inequities and providing additional supports and resources for parents and families (e.g., parental leave, adequate wages for child care, perinatal interventions, cash transfer programs, family tax credits, increased mental health insurance coverage) that reduce stress and enable positive parenting, in addition to directly supporting the psychosocial interactions among the parent-child dyad early in development, are needed for the prevention of later child psychopathology. Future studies in developmental psychopathology would benefit from including these relevant factors (i.e., examining multiple generations, including family-level factors, as well as structural barriers) when conducting research on parent and child psychopathology and well-being (see, also, McLean et al., Reference McLean, Fish, Rogers and Syed2023).

Conclusion

Overall, the present findings indicate that the transactional nature of the parent-child relationship starts in infancy – with evidence for both parent-driven and child-driven effects across early childhood. Findings underscore the importance of supports for parents, children, and families in order to prevent the development of child externalizing psychopathology. Additionally, given the potential manifestation and stability of early childhood externalizing behaviors, early life interventions provided on an on-going basis seem more likely to sustain improvements in child behaviors over time. With the growing body of literature that highlights the importance of taking a two-generational view on prevention and early intervention strategies for child psychopathology (Ahmad et al., Reference Ahmad, Rudd, LeWinn, Mason, Murphy, Juarez, Karr, Sathyanarayana, Tylavsky and Bush2022; Bush, Reference Bush2024; Roubinov et al., Reference Roubinov, Browne, LeWinn, Lisha, Mason and Bush2022), our findings provide further support for the potential benefits of early screening and intervention for both parenting challenges as well as child externalizing problems (see also Hagan et al., Reference Hagan, Browne, Sulik, Ippen, Bush and Lieberman2017; Piotrowski et al., Reference Piotrowski, Talavera and Mayer2009). Especially for younger children, supportive family- or dyadic-level interventions are likely to be particularly beneficial in the prevention of child psychopathology.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579424001147.

Author contributions

Drs. Roubinov and Bush contributed equally to the conceptualization, supervision, and mentoring on this manuscript as co-senior authors.

Funding statement

The ECHO PATHWAYS consortium is funded by the NIH (grants 1UG3OD023271-01 and 4UH3OD023271-03). The CANDLE study was also funded by the Urban Child Institute and the NIH (R01 HL109977). We are grateful for the participation of families enrolled in the CANDLE cohort, as well as the dedication of CANDLE and PATHWAYS research staff and investigators. Dr Bush is the Lisa and John Pritzker Distinguished Professor of Developmental and Behavioral Health and receives support from the Lisa and John Pritzker Family Foundation and the Tauber Family Foundation.

Competing interests

None.

Footnotes

1 We initially evaluated random intercept cross-lagged panel model (RI-CLPM) analyses to disentangle the within versus between person effects (Hamaker et al., Reference Hamaker, Kuiper and Grasman2015). However, all attempts led to model non-convergence due to negative variance components, suggesting that this model was not an appropriate fit for these data. Therefore, we utilized the less complex cross-lagged panel models in line with previous work in this sample (Roubinov et al, Reference Roubinov, Browne, LeWinn, Lisha, Mason and Bush2022).

References

Abidin, R. R. (1990). Parenting stress index, short form. Pediatric Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Abidin, R. R. (1992). The determinants of parenting behavior. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 21(4), 407412. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15374424JCCP2104_12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2000). Manual for the ASEBA preschool forms and profiles. Research Center for Children,Youth, and Families, University of Vermont.Google Scholar
Ahmad, S. I., Rudd, K. L., LeWinn, K. Z., Mason, W. A., Murphy, L., Juarez, P. D., Karr, C. J., Sathyanarayana, S., Tylavsky, F. A., & Bush, N. R. (2022). Maternal childhood trauma and prenatal stressors are associated with child behavioral health. Journal of Developmental Origins of Health and Disease, 13(4), 483493. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2040174421000581 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ashman, S. B., Dawson, G., & Panagiotides, H. (2008). Trajectories of maternal depression over 7 years: Relations with child psychophysiology and behavior and role of contextual risks. Development and Psychopathology, 20(1), 5577. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579408000035 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bailey, Z. D., Krieger, N., Agénor, M., Graves, J., Linos, N., & Bassett, M. T. (2017). Structural racism and health inequities in the USA: Evidence and interventions. The Lancet, 389(10077), 14531463. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30569-X CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barroso, N. E., Mendez, L., Graziano, P. A., & Bagner, D. M. (2018). Parenting stress through the lens of different clinical groups: A systematic review & meta-analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 46(3), 449461. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10802-017-0313-6 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bayer, J. K., Hiscock, H., Ukoumunne, O. C., Price, A., & Wake, M. (2008). Early childhood aetiology of mental health problems: A longitudinal population-based study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(11), 11661174. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1469-7610.2008.01943.X CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beauchaine, T. P., Shader, T. M., & Hinshaw, S. P. (2016). An ontogenic processes model of externalizing psychopathology. In Beauchaine, T. P., & Hinshaw, S. P. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of externalizing spectrum disorders (pp. 485501). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Berg-Nielsen, T. S., Vikan, A., & Dahl, A. A. (2002). Parenting related to child and parental psychopathology: A descriptive review of the literature. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 7(4), 529552. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359104502007004006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besemer, S., Ahmad, S. I., Hinshaw, S. P., & Farrington, D. P. (2017). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the intergenerational transmission of criminal behavior. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 37(October), 161178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.10.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blair, C., & Diamond, A. (2008). Biological processes in prevention and intervention: The promotion of self-regulation as a means of preventing school failure. Development and Psychopathology, 20(3), 899911. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579408000436 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blatt-Eisengart, I., Drabick, D. A. G., Monahan, K. C., & Steinberg, L. (2009). Sex differences in the longitudinal relations among family risk factors and childhood externalizing symptoms. Developmental Psychology, 45(2), 491502. https://doi.org/10.1037/A0014942 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bornstein, M. H., Putnick, D. L., & Suwalsky, J. T. D. (2018). Parenting cognitions → parenting practices → child adjustment? The standard model. Development and Psychopathology, 30(2), 399416. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579417000931 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Briggs-Gowan, M. J., Carter, A. S., Irwin, J. R., Wachtel, K., & Cicchetti, D. V. (2004). The brief infant-toddler social and emotional assessment: Screening for social-emotional problems and delays in competence. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 29(2), 143155. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsh017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briggs-Gowan, M. J., Carter, A. S., McCarthy, K., Augustyn, M., Caronna, E., & Clark, R. (2013). Clinical validity of a brief measure of early childhood social-emotional/Behavioral problems. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 38(5), 577587. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jst014 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Britton, H. L., Gronwaldt, V., & Britton, J. R. (2001). Maternal postpartum behaviors and mother-infant relationship during the first year of life. The Journal of Pediatrics, 138(6), 905909. https://doi.org/10.1067/MPD.2001.113358 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burke, J. D., Pardini, D. A., & Loeber, R. (2008). Reciprocal relationships between parenting behavior and disruptive psychopathology from childhood through adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36(5), 679692. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10802-008-9219-7 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bush, N. R. (2024). Programming the next generation of prenatal programming of stress research: A review and suggestions for the future of the field. Development and Psychopathology, 114. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579424000488 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Calkins, S. D., Propper, C., & Mills-Koonce, W. R. (2013). A biopsychosocial perspective on parenting and developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 25(4pt2), 13991414. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579413000680 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, S. B., Shaw, D. S., & Gilliom, M. (2000). Early externalizing behavior problems: Toddlers and preschoolers at risk for later maladjustment. Development and Psychopathology, 12(3), 467488. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400003114 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cardenas, S. I., Morris, A. R., Marshall, N., Aviv, E. C., Martínez García, M., Sellery, P., & Saxbe, D. E. (2022). Fathers matter from the start: The role of expectant fathers in child development. Child Development Perspectives, 16(1), 5459. https://doi.org/10.1111/CDEP.12436 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carneiro, A., Dias, P., & Soares, I. (2016). Risk factors for internalizing and externalizing problems in the preschool years: Systematic literature review based on the child behavior checklist 11/2-5. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(10), 29412953. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10826-016-0456-Z/TABLES/2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicchetti, D. (1993). Developmental psychopathology: Reactions, reflections, projections. Developmental Review, 13(4), 471502. https://doi.org/10.1006/DREV.1993.1021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ciciolla, L., Gerstein, E. D., & Crnic, K. A. (2014). Reciprocity among maternal distress, child behavior, and parenting: Transactional processes and early childhood risk. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 43(5), 751764. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2013.812038 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coe, J. L., Davies, P. T., Hentges, R. F., & Sturge-Apple, M. L. (2020). Understanding the nature of associations between family instability, unsupportive parenting, and children’s externalizing symptoms. Development and Psychopathology, 32(1), 257269. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579418001736 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conradt, E., Carter, S. E., & Crowell, S. E. (2020). Biological embedding of chronic stress across two generations within marginalized communities. Child Development Perspectives, 14(4), 208214. https://doi.org/10.1111/CDEP.12382 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costello, E. J., Mustillo, S., Erkanli, A., Keeler, G., & Angold, A. (2003). Prevalence and development of psychiatric disorders in childhood and adolescence. Archives of General Psychiatry, 60(8), 837844. https://doi.org/10.1001/ARCHPSYC.60.8.837 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crnic, K. A., Gaze, C., & Hoffman, C. (2005). Cumulative parenting stress across the preschool period: Relations to maternal parenting and child behaviour at age 5. Infant and Child Development, 14(2), 117132. https://doi.org/10.1002/ICD.384 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummings, E. M., Davies, P., & Campbell, S. B. (2002). Developmental psychopathology and family process: Theory, research, and clinical implications. Guilford.Google Scholar
Daryanani, I., Hamilton, J. L., Abramson, L. Y., & Alloy, L. B. (2016). Single mother parenting and adolescent psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 44(7), 14111423. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10802-016-0128-X CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davies, P. T., & Cicchetti, D. (2004). Toward an integration of family systems and developmental psychopathology approaches. Development and Psychopathology, 16(3), 477481. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579404004626 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davis, E. P., & Narayan, A. J. (2020). Pregnancy as a period of risk, adaptation, and resilience for mothers and infants. Development and Psychopathology, 32(5), 16251639. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579420001121 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1998). Multiple risk factors in the development of externalizing behavior problems: Group and individual differences. Development and Psychopathology, 10(3), 469493. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579498001709 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Derogatis, L. R. (1983). The brief symptom inventory: An introductory report. Psychological Medicine, 13(3), 595605. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291700048017 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dieleman, L. M., De Pauw, S. S. W., Soenens, B., Beyers, W., & Prinzie, P. (2017). Examining bidirectional relationships between parenting and child maladjustment in youth with autism spectrum disorder: A 9-year longitudinal study. Development and Psychopathology, 29(4), 11991213. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579416001243 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dix, T., & Meunier, L. N. (2009). Depressive symptoms and parenting competence: An analysis of 13 regulatory processes. Developmental Review, 29(1), 4568. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.DR.2008.11.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodge, K. A., & Pettit, G. S. (2003). A biopsychosocial model of the development of chronic conduct problems in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 39(2), 349371. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.39.2.349 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dora, B., & Baydar, N. (2020). Transactional associations of maternal depressive symptoms with child externalizing behaviors are small after age 3. Development and Psychopathology, 32(1), 293308. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579419000075 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dovidio, J. F., & Fiske, S. T. (2012). Under the radar: How unexamined biases in decision-making processes in clinical interactions can contribute to health care disparities. American Journal of Public Health, 102(5), 945952. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300601 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eisenberg, N., Taylor, Z. E., Widaman, K. F., & Spinrad, T. L. (2015). Externalizing symptoms, effortful control, and intrusive parenting: A test of bidirectional longitudinal relations during early childhood. Development and Psychopathology, 27(4pt1), 953968. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579415000620 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fadus, M. C., Ginsburg, K. R., Sobowale, K., Halliday-Boykins, C. A., Bryant, B. E., Gray, K. M., & Squeglia, L. M. (2020). Unconscious bias and the diagnosis of disruptive behavior disorders and ADHD in African American and hispanic youth. Academic Psychiatry, 44(1), 95102. https://doi.org/10.1007/S40596-019-01127-6/METRICS CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fitzgerald, C., & Hurst, S. (2017). Implicit bias in healthcare professionals: A systematic review. BMC Medical Ethics, 18(1), 118. https://doi.org/10.1186/S12910-017-0179-8/TABLES/3 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodman, S. H., Rouse, M. H., Connell, A. M., Broth, M. R., Hall, C. M., & Heyward, D. (2011). Maternal depression and child psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 14(1), 127. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10567-010-0080-1 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graff, J. C., Bush, A. J., Palmer, F. B., Murphy, L. E., Whitaker, T. M., & Tylavsky, F. A. (2017). Maternal and child characteristics associated with mother-child interaction in one-year-olds. Research in Nursing and Health, 40(4), 323340. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.21798 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greene, C. A., McCarthy, K. J., Estabrook, R., Wakschlag, L. S., & Briggs-Gowan, M. J. (2020). Responsive parenting buffers the impact of maternal PTSD on young children. Parenting, 20(2), 141165. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2019.1707623/SUPPL_FILE/HPAR_A_1707623_SM7424.DOCX CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hagan, M. J., Browne, D. T., Sulik, M., Ippen, C. G., Bush, N. R., & Lieberman, A. F. (2017). Parent and child trauma symptoms during child-parent psychotherapy: A prospective cohort study of dyadic change. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 30(6), 690697. https://doi.org/10.1002/JTS.22240 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamaker, E. L., Kuiper, R. M., & Grasman, R. P. P. P. (2015). A critique of the cross-lagged panel model. Psychological Methods, 20(1), 102116. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038889 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, C., Vazsonyi, A. T., & Bolland, J. M. (2017). Bidirectional relationships between parenting processes and deviance in a sample of inner-city African American youth. Journal of Research On Adolescence, 27(1), 201213. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12267 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, E. A., & Metcalfe, L. A. (2012). The interplay among preschool child and family factors and the development of ODD symptoms. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 41(4), 458470. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2012.673161 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hechtman, L., Swanson, J. M., Sibley, M. H., Stehli, A., Owens, E. B., Mitchell, J. T., Arnold, L. E., Molina, B. S. G., Hinshaw, S. P., Jensen, P. S., Abikoff, H. B., Perez Algorta, G., Howard, A. L., Hoza, B., Etcovitch, J., Houssais, S., Lakes, K. D., Nichols, J. Q., Vitiello, B., Severe, J. B., Jensen, P. S., Arnold, L. E., Hoagwood, K., Richters, J., Vereen, D., Hinshaw, S. P., Elliott, G. R., Wells, K. C., Epstein, J. N., Murray, D. W., Conners, C. K., March, J., Swanson, J., Wigal, T., Cantwell, D. P., Abikoff, H. B., Hechtman, L., Greenhill, L. L., Newcorn, J. H., Molina, B., Hoza, B., Pelham, W. E., Gibbons, R. D., Marcus, S., Hur, K., Kraemer, H. C., Hanley, T., & Stern, K. (2016). Functional adult outcomes 16 years after childhood diagnosis of attention-deficit/Hyperactivity disorder: MTA results. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 55(11), 945952.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2016.07.774 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hendriks, A. M., Van der Giessen, D., Stams, G. J. J. M., & Overbeek, G. (2018). The association between parent-reported and observed parenting: A multi-level meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 30(5), 621633. https://doi.org/10.1037/PAS0000500 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 155. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, C. J. (1991). Documenting quality of parent-child interaction: Use of the NCAST scales. Infants and Young Children, 4(2), 6375. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001163-199110000-00012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, S. C. T., Simon, C. B., Yadeta, K., Patterson, A., & Anderson, R. E. (2023). When resilience is not enough: Imagining novel approaches to supporting black youth navigating racism. Development and Psychopathology, 35(5), 21322140. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579423000986 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones-Mason, K., Coccia, M., Alkon, A., Melanie Thomas, K. C..-P., Laraia, B., Adler, N., Epel, E. S., & Bush, N. R. (2023). Parental sensitivity modifies the associations between maternal prenatal stress exposure, autonomic nervous system functioning and infant temperament in a diverse, low-income sample. Attachment & Human Development, 25(5), 487523. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2023.2257669 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karreman, A., Van Tuijl, C., Van Aken, M. A. G., & Deković, M. (2006). Parenting and self-regulation in preschoolers: A meta-analysis. Infant and Child Development, 15(6), 561579. https://doi.org/10.1002/ICD.478 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiff, C. J., Lengua, L. J., & Zalewski, M. (2011). Nature and nurturing: Parenting in the context of child temperament. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 14(3), 251301. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10567-011-0093-4 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klein, M. R., Lengua, L. J., Thompson, S. F., Moran, L., Ruberry, E. J., Kiff, C., & Zalewski, M. (2018). Bidirectional relations between temperament and parenting predicting preschool-age children’s adjustment. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 47(sup1), S113S126. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2016.1169537 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kochanova, K., Pittman, L. D., & McNeela, L. (2022). Parenting stress and child externalizing and internalizing problems among low-income families: Exploring transactional associations. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 53(1), 7688. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-020-01115-0 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Korelitz, K. E., & Garber, J. (2016). Congruence of parents’ and children’s perceptions of parenting: A meta-analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(10), 19731995. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10964-016-0524-0 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krieger, F. V., & Stringaris, A. (2016). Temperament and vulnerability to externalizing behavior. In Beauchaine, T. P., & Hinshaw, S. P. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of externalizing spectrum disorders (pp. 170183). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lansford, J. E., Criss, M. M., Laird, R. D., Shaw, D. S., Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (2011). Reciprocal relations between parents’ physical discipline and children’s externalizing behavior during middle childhood and adolescence. Development and Psychopathology, 23(1), 225238. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579410000751 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lengua, L. J., Honorado, E., & Bush, N. R. (2007). Contextual risk and parenting as predictors of effortful control and social competence in preschool children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28(1), 4055. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APPDEV.2006.10.001 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lengua, L. J., & Kovacs, E. A. (2005). Bidirectional associations between temperament and parenting and the prediction of adjustment problems in middle childhood. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26(1), 2138. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APPDEV.2004.10.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Letourneau, N. L., Tryphonopoulos, P. D., Novick, J., Hart, J. M., Giesbrecht, G., & Oxford, M. L. (2018). Nursing child assessment satellite training parent-child interaction scales: Comparing American and Canadian normative and high-risk samples. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 40, 4757. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PEDN.2018.02.016 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
LeWinn, K. Z., Karr, C. J., Hazlehurst, M., Carroll, K., Loftus, C., Nguyen, R., Barrett, E., Swan, S. H., Szpiro, A. A., Paquette, A., Moore, P., Spalt, E., Younglove, L., Sullivan, A., Colburn, T., Byington, N., Sims Taylor, L., Moe, S., Wang, S., Cordeiro, A., Mattias, A., Powell, J., Johnson, T., Norona-Zhou, A., Mason, A., Bush, N. R., & Sathyanarayana, S. (2022). Cohort profile: The ECHO prenatal and early childhood pathways to health consortium (ECHO-PATHWAYS). BMJ Open, 12(10), e064288. https://doi.org/10.1136/BMJOPEN-2022-064288 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, G., Collishaw, S., Thapar, A., & Harold, G. T. (2014). Parent-child hostility and child and adolescent depression symptoms: The direction of effects, role of genetic factors and gender. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 23(5), 317327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-013-0460-4 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1998). Development of juvenile aggression and violence: Some common misconceptions and controversies. American Psychologist, 53(2), 242259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.2.242 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lugo-Gil, J., & Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (2008). Family resources and parenting quality: Links to children’s cognitive development across the First 3 years. Child Development, 79(4), 10651085. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-8624.2008.01176.X CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McLean, K. C., Fish, J., Rogers, L. O., & Syed, M. (2023). Integrating systems of power and privilege in the study of resilience. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/yhmj9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merz, E. C., Landry, S. H., Montroy, J. J., & Williams, J. M. (2017). Bidirectional associations between parental responsiveness and executive function during early childhood. Social Development, 26(3), 591609. https://doi.org/10.1111/SODE.12204 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mesman, J., Stoel, R., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Van Ijzendoorn, M. H., Juffer, F., Koot, H. M., & Alink, L. R. A. (2009). Predicting growth curves of early childhood externalizing problems: Differential susceptibility of children with difficult temperament. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37(5), 625636. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10802-009-9298-0/TABLES/3 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morawska, A., Dittman, C. K., & Rusby, J. C. (2019). Promoting self-regulation in young children: The role of parenting interventions. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 22(1), 4351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-019-00281-5 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morsbach, S. K., & Prinz, R. J. (2006). Understanding and improving the validity of self-report of parenting. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 9(1), 121. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10567-006-0001-5/TABLES/2 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muris, P., & Ollendick, T. H. (2005). The role of temperament in the etiology of child psychopathology. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 8(4), 271289. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10567-005-8809-Y/METRICS CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muzik, M., Morelen, D., Hruschak, J., Rosenblum, K. L., Bocknek, E., & Beeghly, M. (2017). Psychopathology and parenting: An examination of perceived and observed parenting in mothers with depression and PTSD. Journal of Affective Disorders, 207, 242250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2016.08.035 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Brien, R., Neman, T., Seltzer, N., Evans, L., & Venkataramani, A. (2020). Structural racism, economic opportunity and racial health disparities: Evidence from U.S. counties. SSM - Population Health, 11, 100564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2020.100564 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Odgers, C. L., Caspi, A., Broadbent, J. M., Dickson, N., Hancox, R. J., Harrington, H. L., Poulton, R., Sears, M. R., Thomson, W. M., & Moffitt, T. E. (2007). Prediction of differential adult health burden by conduct problem subtypes in males. Archives of General Psychiatry, 64(4), 476484. https://doi.org/10.1001/ARCHPSYC.64.4.476 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Okuzono, S. S., Wilson, J., & Slopen, N. (2023). Resilience in development: Neighborhood context, experiences of discrimination, and children’s mental health. Development and Psychopathology, 35(5), 25512559. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579423001025 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oxford, M. L., & Findlay, D. M. (2013). NCAST caregiver/parent-child interaction teaching manual. NCAST Programs, University of Washington, School of Nursing.Google Scholar
Page, M., Wilhelm, M. S., Gamble, W. C., & Card, N. A. (2010). A comparison of maternal sensitivity and verbal stimulation as unique predictors of infant social-emotional and cognitive development. Infant Behavior and Development, 33(1), 101110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2009.12.001 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palmer, F. B., Anand, K. J. S., Graff, J. C., Murphy, L. E., Qu, Y., Völgyi, E., Rovnaghi, C. R., Moore, A., Tran, Q. T., & Tylavsky, F. A. (2013). Early adversity, socioemotional development, and stress in urban 1-year-old children. Journal of Pediatrics, 163(6), 17331740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2013.08.030 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pardini, D. A., Fite, P. J., & Burke, J. D. (2008). Bidirectional associations between parenting practices and conduct problems in boys from childhood to adolescence: The moderating effect of age and African-American ethnicity. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36(5), 647662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-007-9162-z CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paschall, K. W., & Mastergeorge, A. M. (2016). A review of 25 years of research in bidirectionality in parent-child relationships. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 40(5), 442451. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025415607379 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process. Castalia Pub. Co.Google Scholar
Patterson, G. R. (2002). The early development of coercive family process. In Reid, J. B., Patterson, G. R., & Snyder, J. (Ed.), Antisocial behavior in children and adolescents: A developmental analysis and model for intervention (pp. 2544). American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Pearl, A. M., French, B. F., Dumas, J. E., Moreland, A. D., & Prinz, R. (2014). Bidirectional effects of parenting quality and child externalizing behavior in predominantly single parent, under-resourced African American families. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23(2), 177188. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10826-012-9692-Z/TABLES/3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, S. L., Lindstrom, R., Powe, P. M., Louie, K., & Escobar-Viera, C. (2022). Lack of representation in psychiatric research: A data-driven example from scientific articles published in 2019 and 2020 in the. American Journal of Psychiatry, 179(5), 388392. https://doi.org/10.1176/APPI.AJP.21070758 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pettit, G. S., & Arsiwalla, D. D. (2008). Commentary on special section on “Bidirectional parent-child relationships”: The continuing evolution of dynamic, transactional models of parenting and youth behavior problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36(5), 711718. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10802-008-9242-8 2008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phelan, J. C., & Link, B. G. (2015). Is racism a fundamental cause of inequalities in health? Annual Review of Sociology, 41(1), 311330. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073014-112305 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinderhughes, E. E., Dodge, K. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2005). The high costs of aggression: Public expenditures resulting from conduct disorder. American Journal of Public Health, 95(10), 17671772. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2004.061424 Google Scholar
Pinquart, M. (2017). Associations of parenting dimensions and styles with externalizing problems of children and adolescents: An updated meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 53(5), 873932. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000295 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Piotrowski, C. C., Talavera, G. A., & Mayer, J. A. (2009). Healthy steps: A systematic review of a preventive practice-based model of pediatric care. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 30(1), 91103. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0B013E3181976A95 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ransone, S. H., Graff, J. C., Bush, A. J., Oxford, M., & Wicks, M. N. (2018). Psychometric evaluation of the nursing child assessment teaching (NCAT) scale in a community-based sample. Research in Nursing & Health, 41(3), 301311. https://doi.org/10.1002/NUR.21867 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, S. O., Bareket-Shavit, C., Dollins, F. A., Goldie, P. D., & Mortenson, E. (2020). Racial inequality in psychological research: Trends of the past and recommendations for the future. Perspectives On Psychological Science, 15(6), 12951309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620927709/ASSET/IMAGES/LARGE/10.1177_1745691620927709-FIG4.JPEG CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rothbaum, F., & Weisz, J. R. (1994). Parental caregiving and child externalizing behavior in nonclinical samples: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 5574. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.55 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roubinov, D. S., Browne, D., LeWinn, K. Z., Lisha, N., Mason, W. A., & Bush, N. R. (2022). Intergenerational transmission of maternal childhood adversity and depression on children’s internalizing problems. Journal of Affective Disorders, 308(April), 205212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2022.04.030 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roubinov, D. S., Epel, E. S., Adler, N. E., Laraia, B. A., & Bush, N. R. (2022). Transactions between maternal and child depressive symptoms emerge early in life. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 51(1), 6172. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2019.1644649 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rowell, T., & Neal-Barnett, A. (2022). A systematic review of the effect of parental adverse childhood experiences on parenting and child psychopathology. Journal of Child and Adolescent Trauma, 15(1), 167180. https://doi.org/10.1007/S40653-021-00400-X/FIGURES/1 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sameroff, A. (2009). The transactional model. In Sameroff, A. (Ed.), The transactional model of development: How children and contexts shape each other (pp. 321). American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schleider, J. L., Patel, A., Krumholz, L., Chorpita, B. F., & Weisz, J. R. (2015). Relation between parent symptomatology and youth problems: Multiple mediation through family income and parent-youth stress. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 46(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10578-014-0446-6/FIGURES/2 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Selig, J. P., & Little, T. D. (2012). Autoregressive and cross-lagged panel analysis for longitudinal data. In Laursen, B., Little, T. D., & Card, N. A. (Ed.), Handbook of developmental research methods (pp. 265278). The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Serbin, L. A., Kingdon, D., Ruttle, P. L., & Stack, D. M. (2015). The impact of children’s internalizing and externalizing problems on parenting: Transactional processes and reciprocal change over time. Development and Psychopathology, 27(4pt1), 969986. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579415000632 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shaw, D. S., Owens, E. B., Giovannelli, J., & Winslow, E. B. (2001). Infant and toddler pathways leading to early externalizing disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 40(1), 3643. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-200101000-00014 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, C. L., & Day, K. L. (2018). Parenting, anger, and effortful control as predictors of child externalizing behavior: The role of child sex as a moderator. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 42(2), 248256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025417692898 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sontag-Padilla, L., Burns, R., Shih, R., Griffin, B., Martin, L., Chandra, A., & Tylavsky, F. (2015). The Urban child institute CANDLE STUdy: Methodological overview and baseline sample description. https://doi.org/10.7249/RR1336. RAND Corporation.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sourander, A., Jensen, P., Davies, M., Niemelä, S., Elonheimo, H., Ristkari, T., Helenius, H., Sillanmäki, L., Piha, J., Kumpulainen, K., Tamminen, T., Moilanen, I., & Almqvist, F. (2007). Who is at greatest risk of adverse long-term outcomes? The finnish from a boy to a man study. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 46(9), 11481161. https://doi.org/10.1097/CHI.0B013E31809861E9 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sulik, M. J. (2017). Introduction to the special section on executive functions and externalizing symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 45(8), 14731475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-017-0349-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sulik, M. J., Blair, C., Mills-Koonce, R., Berry, D., & Greenberg, M. (2015). Early parenting and the development of externalizing behavior problems: Longitudinal mediation through children’s executive function. Child Development, 86(5), 15881603. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12386 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Suslovic, B., & Lett, E. (2023). Resilience is an adverse event: A critical discussion of resilience theory in health services research and public health. Community Health Equity Research & Policy, 44(3), 339343. https://doi.org/10.1177/2752535X231159721 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taraban, L., Shaw, D. S., Leve, L. D., Natsuaki, M. N., Ganiban, J. M., Reiss, D., & Neiderhiser, J. M. (2019). Parental depression, overreactive parenting, and early childhood externalizing problems: Moderation by social support. Child Development, 90(4), e468e485. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13027 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Traub, F., & Boynton-Jarrett, R. (2017). Modifiable resilience factors to childhood adversity for clinical pediatric practice. Pediatrics, 139(5). https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-2569 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Urbán, R., Kun, B., Farkas, J., Paksi, B., Kökönyei, G., Unoka, Z., Felvinczi, K., Oláh, A., & Demetrovics, Z. (2014). Bifactor structural model of symptom checklists: SCL-90-R and brief symptom inventory (BSI) in a non-clinical community sample. Psychiatry Research, 216(1), 146154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2014.01.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, S. P., Wachs, T. D., Grantham-McGregor, S., Black, M. M., Nelson, C. A., Huffman, S. L., Baker-Henningham, H., Chang, S. M., Hamadani, J. D., Lozoff, B., Gardner, J. M. M., Powell, C. A., Rahman, A., & Richter, L. (2011). Inequality in early childhood: Risk and protective factors for early child development. The Lancet, 378(9799), 13251338. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60555-2 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, M., & Liu, L. (2018). Reciprocal relations between harsh discipline and children’s externalizing behavior in China: A 5-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 89(1), 174187. https://doi.org/10.1111/CDEV.12724 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wei, C., Eisenberg, R. E., Ramos-Olazagasti, M. A., Wall, M., Chen, C., Bird, H. R., Duarte, C. S., & et al. (2017). Developmental psychopathology in a racial/Ethnic minority group: Are cultural risks relevant? Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 56(12), 10811088.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2017.10.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williford, A. P., Calkins, S. D., & Keane, S. P. (2007). Predicting change in parenting stress across early childhood: Child and maternal factors. J Abnorm Child Psychol, 35(2), 251263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-006-9082-3 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Willoughby, T., & Hamza, C. A. (2011). A longitudinal examination of the bidirectional associations among perceived parenting behaviors, adolescent disclosure and problem behavior across the high school years. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(4), 463478. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10964-010-9567-9/TABLES/3 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winett, L. B., Wulf, A. B., & Wallack, L. (2016). Framing strategies to avoid mother-blame in communicating the origins of chronic disease. American Journal of Public Health, 106(8), 13691373. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303239 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wittig, S. M. O., & Rodriguez, C. M. (2019). Emerging behavior problems: Bidirectional relations between maternal and paternal parenting styles with infant temperament. Developmental Psychology, 55(6), 11991210. https://doi.org/10.1037/DEV0000707 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xia, Y., & Yang, Y. (2019). RMSEA, CFI, and TLI in structural equation modeling with ordered categorical data: The story they tell depends on the estimation methods. Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 409428. https://doi.org/10.3758/S13428-018-1055-2/TABLES/9 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xing, X., Wang, M., Zhang, Q., He, X., & Zhang, W. (2011). Gender differences in the reciprocal relationships between parental physical aggression and children’s externalizing problem behavior in China. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(5), 699708. https://doi.org/10.1037/A0025015 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yan, N., Ansari, A., & Peng, P. (2021). Reconsidering the relation between parental functioning and child externalizing behaviors: A meta-analysis on child-driven effects. Journal of Family Psychology, 35(2), 225235. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000805 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1. Demographic information and model variables (N = 1287)

Figure 1

Figure 1. Bivariate correlations among all study variables.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Evaluation of transactions between observed parenting quality and child externalizing problems (Model 1). All cross-sectional paths between parenting quality and child externalizing problems were negative and significant (p’s ranged from < .001 to .014). Model covariates included: adjusted household income, maternal age, marital status, gestational age, child sex, and child age.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Evaluation of transactions between observed parenting quality, maternal risk, and child externalizing problems (Model 2).All cross-sectional paths between parenting quality and child externalizing problems were negative and significant (p’s ranged from .004 to .029). Model covariates included: adjusted household income, maternal age, marital status, gestational age, child sex, and child age.

Supplementary material: File

Ahmad et al. supplementary material

Ahmad et al. supplementary material
Download Ahmad et al. supplementary material(File)
File 293 KB