4.2 Article

Age, Gender, and Ethnicity Effects on Parent-Child Discrepancy Using Identical Item Measures

Journal

JOURNAL OF CHILD AND FAMILY STUDIES
Volume 18, Issue 2, Pages 125-135

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10826-008-9213-2

Keywords

Agreement; Correspondence; Discrepancies; Informants' ratings; Child psychopathology; Inter-rater reliability

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective assessment of child and adolescent behavioral and emotional symptoms is traditionally obtained from multiple sources. However, a substantial body of research indicates that parental and child reports provide significant amounts of contradicting diagnostic information. Although a large and growing body of research attempts to identify potential influences of discrepant reports, the current research improves upon previous research in three primary ways: using identical item measures, using expanded statistical analyses, and evaluating cultural influences on observed discrepancies. A total of 2,153 parent-child dyads completed ratings of child behavior and emotional functioning. Specifically, parents and children completed the Ohio Scales, an empirically supported, identical item measure. Generally, reporter agreement was greater than typically reported. Similar to previous research with clinical populations, parents reported greater levels of child problems than their children. While age was not associated with observed discrepancies, parents and daughters demonstrated greater discrepancies on fewer specific items while parents and sons demonstrated more pervasive yet less severe discrepancies. Additionally, Hispanic dyads demonstrated less discrepancy than did African American and Caucasian dyads independent of discrepancy analysis. Discrepancies must be measured using multiple statistical methods in order to understand patterns. Furthermore, discrepancy research must address key demographic factors (e. g., ethnicity, gender).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available