Personal agency in children

Abstract

The aim of this study is to develop a multidimensional measure for assessing children’s personal agency to handle parental conflict through their coping self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1997). Coping self-efficacy beliefs are individuals’ perceived ability to motivate themselves, access cognitive resources, and perform the actions required to take control of stressful situations. This study examines the psychometric properties and validation of the newly created Parental Conflict Coping Self-Efficacy Scale (PCC-SES). The study was based on 663 children, in grades 5 and 7 and their mothers. An exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis through structural equation modeling supported the structure of the PCC-SES. The PCC-SES’s structure was facilitated by three global strategies, namely Proactive Behavior (problem solving and seeking social support), Avoiding Maladaptive Cognitions (avoiding preoccupation, avoiding self-blame and distancing) and Avoiding Maladaptive Behavior (avoiding aggression and avoiding overinvolvement).

Keywords

Agency child adjustment coping self-efficacy parental conflict

Exposure to parental conflict can negatively impact children’s psychosocial development (Johnson, 2002; Johnson, LaVoie, & Mahoney, 2001), psychological maladjustment (Emery, 1982; Grych & Fincham, 1990), externalizing behavior (Cummings & Davis, 2002), sleep (El-Sheikh & Kelly, 2011), and their ability to form future romantic relationships (Cui, Fincham, & Pasley, 2008). These negative effects may be exacerbated if parents do not resolve marital conflict or if they display hostility and aggression toward each other (Cummins, Goeke-Morey, & Papp, 2003; Pendry, Carr, Papp, & Antles, 2013). Of relevance to children experiencing parental conflict is their belief in their ability to cope with the parental conflict, that is, their coping self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1997; Frydenberg, 2004). Children’s coping self-efficacy beliefs about parental conflict are important because they can influence children’s psychological adjustment (Bandura, 2006). Coping self-efficacy beliefs have been previously linked with better psychological adjustment in other contexts such as peer victimization (Singh & Bussey, 2009). It is therefore possible that children’s beliefs in their ability to cope with parental conflict may be associated with better psychological outcomes. However, there are currently no validated comprehensive coping self-efficacy measures for children in the context of parental conflict that incorporate a range of coping self-efficacy strategies to assess this possibility. The aim of the current study, therefore, is to construct such a scale, the Parental Conflict Coping Self-Efficacy Scale (PCC-SES), and to assess its psychometric properties.

Coping self-efficacy is situated within the agentic Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), which postulates that individuals can influence their own outcomes (Bandura, 2006, 2008, 2012). A driving force of agency, which is a fundamental part of the SCT framework, is conceptualized as a person’s self-efficacy beliefs in his or her ability to execute a particular action or activities (Bandura, 1994, 2008). Self-efficacy is considered the most central mechanism of agency that can impact human behavior (Bandura, 1990). It is a self-regulatory process that affects goals, the perception of difficulty of various activities, aspirations, emotional states, and the choice of activities in different contexts (Bandura, 2012; Pajares, 1996). Individuals can therefore be producers of their social environments through their beliefs about what they are able to achieve. It is not necessarily about the individuals’ actual abilities but rather about their belief in their ability to perform an action (Bandura, 2007, 2008; Pajares, 1996). Individuals are more likely to act based on their self-efficacy beliefs which provide the confidence to execute a particular action (Bandura, 1997). If people do not believe that they can perform a particular behavior, it is unlikely that they will be motivated to do so (Bandura, 2000, 2008). However, for those who hold high levels of self-efficacy beliefs, obstacles are perceived as challenges to persevere through and take control of, rather than as threats that can be avoided or dwelled on (Bandura, 1994).

Coping self-efficacy beliefs are an individuals’ perceived ability to self-motivate and to access cognitive resources and self-confidence in performing the actions required to cope with stressful or threatening situations (Bandura, 1997; Benight & Bandura, 2004; Ozer & Bandura, 1990; Singh & Bussey, 2011). These judgments of coping abilities are part of the intra-personal factors of SCT (Bandura, 1997). Previous studies have found that higher levels of coping self-efficacy beliefs are associated with less psychological maladjustment and increased recovery from stressful experiences such as threat, peer victimization, trauma, and chronic illness (see Bandura, 1997; Benight & Bandura, 2004; Singh & Bussey, 2011). Individuals who believe in their ability to exercise control over a potential threat are likely to remain calm and experience minor distress, compared to those who believe the threat is unmanageable (Singh & Bussey, 2009). It is not assumed that those who possess strong coping self-efficacy beliefs associated with a particular situation have direct experience in that situation. Coping self-efficacy is not about the frequency of actions taken in the past, but about an individual’s perceived ability to take action in a proposed or imagined situation (Bandura, 2006). It is expected that children who believe in their ability to cope are better equipped to face stressful situations and that they will experience fewer negative outcomes than children with lower levels of coping self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1997).

It is apparent that children’s coping self-efficacy beliefs are relevant in the study of parental conflict. Although there has been some research in this area, it is constrained by various factors. One of the first measures of coping self-efficacy beliefs involving parental conflict was the Coping Efficacy subscale of the Children’s Perception of Interparental Conflict questionnaire for children between the ages of 9 and 12 (CPIC; Grych, Seid, & Fincham, 1992). This six-item subscale focused on the concept of coping self-efficacy as a unidimensional construct. Although the responses to the items were on a three-point scale, an improved measure, consistent with Bandura’s (2006) guidelines for constructing self-efficacy scales, would incorporate a broader range of interval ratings to increase the potential differentiating information and reliability of the scale. Further, according to Bandura (2006), coping self-efficacy measures should be phrased to assess perceived future ability. Therefore, the wording of the items should target children’s beliefs in their ability to use different coping strategies in parental conflict situations. Further issues of concern with this measure include its internal consistency, which has been identified as a weakness, requiring replication and caution in interpretation (Fosco & Grych, 2010).

In the context of divorce, another measure of children’s coping self-efficacy beliefs has been developed for children between the ages of 9 and 12 (Sandler, Tein, Mehta, Wolchik, & Ayers, 2000). This seven-item global scale assesses children’s overall past competence and anticipated effectiveness at addressing future problems. Although other studies have employed this scale (e.g., Wolchik et al., 2000), a measure specific to parental conflict, assessing children’s belief in their ability to use particular coping strategies would have provided a more appropriate measure of children’s coping self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 2006; Benight, Ironson, & Durham, 1999). Self-efficacy measures should be domain specific, taking into consideration potential impediments and facilitators to the proposed goal. It is pertinent for the coping self-efficacy measure to be domain specific given that it refers to the perceived ability of an individual which varies from context to context (Bandura, 2006). The aforementioned studies emphasized the importance of coping self-efficacy beliefs, however, they also highlighted the need for the re-development of a coping self-efficacy measure, specific to parental conflict.

Accordingly, the aim of the current study was to develop an improved measure of children’s coping self-efficacy beliefs about parental conflict, the PCC-SES, for children between the ages of 10 and 12 years. Children in the concrete operational and early adolescence period of development (i.e., 10–12 years of age) are most reactive to parental conflict when compared to younger children as they are able to make causal connections between parental conflict and its impact on future interactions (Davies, Meyers, Cummings, & Heindel, 1999). They are increasingly able to develop sophisticated hypotheses about the meaning of parental conflict and identify the possible implications for their lives (Cummings & Davies, 2010). During this stage, not only do children strive for greater independence and have more cognitive flexibility, but also their coping self-efficacy beliefs can have more of an effect over their lives than at earlier ages (Skinner & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2009; Zimmer-Gembeck & Skinner, 2011). This may be one reason why the previously mentioned self-efficacy studies have focused on this age range (Grych et al., 1992; Sandler et al., 2000). Therefore, the current study aims to provide information about children’s coping self-efficacy beliefs within the 10 to 12 age group.

PCC-SES Scale Development

The development of the PCC-SES follows Bandura’s (2006) guidelines for the construction of self-efficacy scales, including the assessment of the multidimensional nature of coping self-efficacy beliefs. An appropriate way to conceive of the structure of PCC-SES is as perceived beliefs in one’s capability to perform specific actions in specific contexts rather than as a global trait. It is a differentiated set of self-beliefs, which are linked to diverse areas of functioning. By using a multidimensional approach, the pattern and degree of self-efficacy beliefs can be accommodated and measured (Bandura, 2006). Multidimensionality was assessed through the inclusion of specific coping self-efficacy strategies from different domains (Bandura, 2006). The specific strategies were chosen based on their prominence in the distinct but related area of children’s coping and parental conflict (see Causey & Dubow, 1992; Frydenberg, 2004; Little, Lopez, & Wanner, 2001). These specific strategies included problem solving, seeking social support, self-blame, preoccupation, distancing, overinvolvement, and aggression.

The conceptualization of a higher-order hierarchical system, as described in Skinner et al. (2003) served as a guide for the organizational structure of the PCC-SES. In particular, Skinner, Edge, Altman, and Sherwood (2003) discussed the aim of categorizing coping strategies into higher-order hierarchical systems was not to indicate superiority of any category over another, but rather to allow lower-order systems to be nested in higher order categories (see note 1 in Skinner et al., 2003). In a similar manner, three global strategies, namely Proactive Behavior, Avoiding Maladaptive Cognitions, and Avoiding Maladaptive Behavior were used to thematically group specific coping self-efficacy strategies (Frydenberg, 2004; Roth & Cohen, 1986; Singh & Bussey, 2009; Skinner & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2009). Since there are no fixed number of families of coping or ways of coping (Skinner et al., 2003), these three global strategies where not expected to represent all coping families which have been identified in the literature. Rather, these three global strategies were those that more consistenlty emerged from a review of the coping literature and are directly relevant to the study of parental conflict and self-efficacy (Maybery, Steer, Reupert, & Goodyear, 2009; Skinner et al., 2003). This approach is consistent with Bandura’s (2006) self-efficacy scale construction guidelines as it draws specifically on the parental conflict literature to select the specific strategies that should be included in the scale. The literature supporting each of the coping self-efficacy strategies comprising the PCC-SES is presented below.

Proactive Behavior

The first global strategy, proactive behavior, involved children’s self-efficacy beliefs about their ability to search for options to minimize the possibility of negative outcomes. These beliefs focused on children’s ability to take action to improve stressful situations and to ask for assistance. These specific strategies have been previously noted to protect children from psychological maladjustment (Frydenberg, 2004; Sandler et al., 2000). Children who report higher levels of self-efficacy for problem solving may work at a problem directly or create an opportunity to alter the situation (Causey & Dubow, 1992; Frydenberg, 2004; Little et al., 2001). Similarly, children’s perceived ability to elicit social support from a variety of sources could promote their positive affect and reduce negative reactions to stress. Seeking social support is a proactive behavior as it can equip children with the resources to reduce the psychological impact of parental conflict (Tremblay, Hébert, & Piché, 1999). Children who engage in seeking social support and live in homes in which parental conflict occurs are likely to have lower externalizing and depression scores than children who do not seek social support (Rogers & Holmbeck, 1997). Therefore, the specific strategies of coping self-efficacy for problem solving and seeking social support were included in the global strategy of proactive behavior.

Avoiding Maldaptive Cognitions

The second global strategy of interest focused on children’s self-efficacy beliefs to avoid maladaptive cognitions. In order to overcome difficulties, individuals need to be able to exert control over disturbing and intrusive thoughts (e.g., avoid worry, avoid being afraid). Possessing this cognitive control can lead to both affective regulation and behavior change indirectly (Little et al., 2001; Steffen, McKibbin, Zeiss, Gallagher-Thompson, & Bandura, 2002). Children who cope with stressful situations through maladaptive cognitions may respond by withdrawing from others and experiencing increased anxious symptomology (Causey & Dubow, 1992). Therefore, children may need to avoid specific strategies that have been linked with psychological maladjustment, such as preoccupation, and self-blaming, and be able to distance themselves from the situation. These specific cognitive coping strategies are relevant for the assessment of avoiding maladaptive cognitions coping self-efficacy global strategy within the context of parental conflict (Sandler, Tein, & West, 1994). Children’s preoccupation with parental conflict refers to children’s worries about the harmful effects of parental conflict. It has been related to the development of anxiety as children may be concerned about the parental conflict escalating, or that they will become involved in the conflict (Grych et al., 1992). This view is consistent with the suggestion by Grych and Fincham (1990) that as children become more preoccupied with parental conflict, they feel threatened, blame themselves for the situation, and can experience greater psychological maladjustment. When children engage in self-blame, they perceive themselves at fault or responsible for aspects of parental conflict and they may develop symptoms such as low self-esteem, depressive symptomology, and shame (Cunningham & Walker, 1999; Frydenberg, 2004; Grych & Fincham, 1993). Alternatively, children may cognitively distance themselves from the parental conflict through imaginative and magical thinking (Cummings & Davies, 2002; Sandler et al., 1994). Distancing from the stressor may be adaptive in some situations, particularly in the short term, as it allows the child to have space from the situation and to emotionally disengage (Forman & Davies, 2005). As children’s ability to avoid preoccupation, to avoid self-blame, and to distance themselves may prevent cognitive dwelling on the parental conflict, these strategies were included in the global strategy of coping self-efficacy for avoiding maladaptive cognitions (Shelton, Harold, Goeke-Morey, & Cummings, 2006).

Avoiding Maladaptive Behavior

Finally, the third global strategy of children’s coping self-efficacy beliefs was avoiding maladaptive behavior. This global strategy involved children’s perceived ability to resist negative behavioral reactions such as aggression and overinvolvement (see Causey & Dubow, 1992; Frydenberg, 2004). Children who cope by using antisocial coping strategies are more likely to experience depression and aggressive symptoms, longitudinally (Vandele, Little, & Card, 2006). Children may engage in aggression as a specific coping strategy for dealing with parental conflict if they are vigilant to the conflict and if it has a spillover effect on the child–parent relationship (Bradford et al., 2004; Shelton et al., 2006). In contrast, coping by avoiding aggression includes avoiding throwing objects, and physically hurting other people, as described by Singh and Bussey (2009). Similarly, children’s coping self-efficacy to avoid overinvolvement in the parental conflict taps into the child’s resistance to be drawn into the conflict or confront his or her parents. Previous research has noted that children may be motivated to become involved in the parental conflict in an attempt to increase their agency and reduce their emotional insecurity (Cummings & Schermerhorn, 2003). However, children who become overinvolved with the parental conflict may have poor parental relationships and are likely to experience internalizing and externalizing symptoms (Davies, Forman, Rasi, & Stevens, 2002; Fosco & Grych, 2010; Shelton et al., 2006).

It should be noted that the coping self-efficacy scale shares similarities with the Behavioral Inventory of Strategic Control (BISC) measure which is based on action-control theory (Little et al., 2001). Similar to self-efficacy, action-control theory proposes that individuals’ judgments not only of what leads to a desired outcome, but also of their personal beliefs in the extent to which they possess the means to attain the desired goal will influence the strategy they adopt when stressed (Vandele et al., 2006). Four dimensions of children’s coping have been suggested through the BISC (Little et al., 2001), namely, direct action, indirect action, prosocial, and antisocial coping (or control) strategies. Direct actions are similar to approach strategies or problem-focused coping, and they focus on reducing or eliminating the stressor (Causey & Dubow, 1993; Little et al., 2001). The direct actions/prosocial axes of the BISC are akin to the aforementioned concept of proactive behavior. The indirect actions which are avoidance based or emotion-focused coping, address the stressor through distraction, avoidance of the stimuli or through emotional regulation (Causey & Dubow, 1993; Little et al., 2001). The indirect/antisocial axes of the BISC share similarity with self-efficacy for avoiding maladaptive cognitions and avoiding maladaptive behavior.

A further aim of this study was to validate the PCC-SES using a multi-informant method. The validation of the PCC-SES was assessed by examining the relationship between children’s coping self-efficacy beliefs, as reported by the children, and the criterion measures of child psychological adjustment, as reported by children and their parents. Psychological adjustment was assessed through the measurement of anxiety symptoms (Reynolds & Richmond, 2005), internalization, externalization as measured by the Total Difficulty Index (TDI), and prosocialness as reported by children and their parents (Goodman 1997; Goodman, Meltzer, & Bailey, 1998). It was predicted that there would be a negative relationship between coping self-efficacy for proactive behavior, avoiding maladaptive cognitions and avoiding maladaptive behavior, and child psychological maladjustment as reported by children and their parents (Cummings & Davis, 2002; Grych & Fincham, 1990). A positive relationship was expected between the three global strategies and prosocialness based on children’s and parents’ reports.

Gender differences were expected in children’s coping self-efficacy beliefs. Causey and Dubow (1992) and Frydenberg (2004) have suggested that girls are more likely than boys to engage in approach-based and overall more positive coping strategies. Thus, it was predicted that girls’ self-efficacy for proactive behavior (problem solving and seeking social support) would be higher than for boys. Based on research findings that girls tend to engage in more internalization than do boys, girls were expected to score lower on coping self-efficacy beliefs for avoiding maladaptive cognitions than were boys (avoiding self-blame, avoiding preoccupation and distancing) (Davies et al., 2002; El-Sheikh & Reiter, 1996; Goeke-Morey, Cummings, Harold & Shelton, 2003). Boys were predicted to report lower levels of avoiding maladaptive behavior (avoiding overinvolvement and avoiding aggression specific strategies) than girls as boys are more likely to become involved in parental conflict (Davies et al., 2002; Jaffe, Wolfe, & Wilson, 1990; Shelton et al., 2006).

Method

Participants

Thirty schools from New South Wales, Australia, participated in the current study. Once school principals gave active consent to participate, consent forms were sent to the parents of all grade 5 and 7 students. Six hundred and sixty-three students (M = 11.19 years, SD = 1.10), in grade 5 (149 males, 166 females, M = 10.17 years, SD = .53) and grade 7 (150 males, 198 females, M = 12.11 years, SD = .52), participated. The sample was from middle-class suburbs and the ethnic composition was approximately 72% White, 20% Asian, 4% Middle Eastern, and 4% from other ethnic groups. Three hundred and forty-six mothers also participated in the study (M = 43.54 years, SD = 4.87). Mothers were approached in the current study to maintain parental consistency in the sample and avoid parental gender differences between families (Kearney & Bussey, 2014). Parents gave written consent for their children and themselves to participate in the study. Additionally, children gave written consent for their own participation.

Measures

Parental Conflict Coping Self-Efficacy Scale (PCC-SES)

The scale initially comprised 34 items, which were developed to measure seven specific strategies of coping self-efficacy in a parental conflict context. The three global strategies were represented by seven specific strategies: proactive behavior (problem solving and seeking social support), avoiding malaptive cognititons (avoiding preoccupation, avoiding self-blame and distancing) and avoiding maladaptive behavior (avoiding aggression and avoiding overinvolvement). The items were converted to self-efficacy questions, following Bandura’s (2006) guidelines for constructing such scales. The participants responded on a seven-point scale (1 = not well at all, 7 = very well) to the stem “If your parents had an argument, how well can you…”. The items were simplified for a young audience. A high score in each subscale represented a child’s belief in his or her ability to use the specific coping strategy.

Self-efficacy for problem solving was assessed by six items based on Causey and Dubow’s (1992) coping statements, Davies and colleagues’ (2002) Security in the Interparental Subsystem (SIS) Scale, and Singh and Bussey’s (2009) Peer Aggression Coping Self-Efficacy Scale for Adolescents (PA-CSES). The four items for self-efficacy for seeking social support were based on Causey and Dubow’s (1992) coping statements. Self-efficacy for avoiding preoccupation was assessed by five items adapted from the CPIC (Grych et al., 1992). The six items for self-efficacy for distancing were based on Causey and Dubow’s (1992) coping statements and the SIS scale (Davis et al., 2002). Five items assessed self-efficacy for avoiding self-blame (Causey & Dubow, 1992; Grych et al., 1992). Four items were formed for self-efficacy for avoiding aggression (Singh & Bussey, 2009). Finally, the four items for self-efficacy for avoiding overinvolvement were based on the overinvolvement scale by Shelton and Harold (2008). When these coping self-efficacy specific strategies were pilot tested with 79 school students (M = 9.80 years, SD = .40), the Cronbach’s alphas ranged between .76 and .89.

Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)

The self-report version of the SDQ included 25 items, which measured five domains: hyperactivity-inattention, emotional symptoms, conduct problem, peer problems, and the prosocialness (Goodman 1997; Goodman, Meltzer, & Bailey, 1998). Participants responded on a three-point scale (0 = not true, 1 = somewhat true, 2 = certainly true). The Total Difficulty Index (TDI) experienced by the child was composed by the sum of the hyperactivity-inattention, emotional symptoms, conduct problems, and peer problems scores. The Cronbach’s alpha for the TDI in this study was .78, and for prosocialness it was .56.

Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale (RCMAS)

The Short Form of Total Anxiety (SF-TOT) of the RCMAS was administered. The SF-TOT of the RCMAS provided an evaluation of the overall anxiety level experienced by a child. This scale consisted of ten self-report items, and was appropriate for ages six and up. The participants responded on a two-point scale (1 = yes, 2 = no). The short form was used because the study had a 50-minute time restraint in order to minimize disruptions to the school day. The original Cronbach’s alpha for the SF-TOT of the RCMAS was .82 (Reynolds & Richmond, 2005). The Cronbach’s alpha in this study was .78.

Parent questionnaire

The parent questionnaire included the same psychological adjustment measures as completed by the children, the SDQ and the RCMAS. Example items include “my child thinks things out before acting” and “my child is nervous” from each scale respectively. The Cronbach’s alpha for the parent-report of the SDQ for TDI was .81; SDQ for prosocialness .74; and .76 for the RCMAS.

Missing Data

The small amounts of data that were missing were assumed to be Missing At Random (MAR; Rubin, 1976) at the item level (range .0–2.0%). The single shot Expectation-Maximization (EM) imputation procedure was used in SPSS with individual items as predictors. In EM, the estimated means and covariance matrix is produced by an iterative process which can be used to provide imputed values for the missing data (Enders, 2001; Schlomer, Bauman, & Card, 2010). This method is recommended as superior to list-wise deletion, pairwise deletion, or means substitution (Allison, 2002; Enders, 2001; Little, Jorgensen, Lang, & Moore, 2014; Schafer & Graham, 2002).

Procedure

The measures were administered in a self-report questionnaire that took approximately 50 minutes for children to complete in a location specified by the school principal. The position of the measures within the questionnaire was randomized in two versions of the questionnaire to control for any potential order effects. The two versions were administered to approximately equal numbers of students. Research assistants, the investigator, and schoolteachers supervised the children in classrooms consisting of about 20 students per group. The supervisors asked the children not to interact with each other while completing the questionnaires. Further, the students were seated away from each other and were ensured confidentiality. Students were not required to write their names on the questionnaire. The children were given the instructions to generate their own unique code (used for matching the parent and child data), and to write this code on their questionnaire booklet. They were told that there were no right or wrong answers. The children were given an opportunity to speak to the research team or request an appointment with the school counselor if they wanted discuss their responses to the questionnaire. The children were given the parent questionnaires in a sealed reply paid envelope to take home. They were reassured that their parents did not have to write their names on the questionnaire. The children were thanked for their participation and resumed schoolwork.

Results

Data Analytic Plan

The results are presented in three sections. The results of the exploratory factor analyses and the confirmatory factor analyses are presented first. Two subsamples were randomly selected from the total sample. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted on a sample of 334 children and the confirmatory factor analysis on another sample of 329 children. Such methodology has been previously employed in the child psychology literature and in other self-efficacy scale development (Fitzpatrick & Bussey, 2011; Gini, Pozzoli, & Bussey, 2014; Singh & Bussey, 2009). This was followed by an examination of grade and gender effects associated with the PCC-SES. Lastly, validation was assessed through the relationship between the PCC-SES and psychological adjustment variables as rated by the children and their mothers.

Structure of the Parental Conflict Coping Self-Efficacy Scale (PCC-SES)

Exploratory factor analyses

Three factor analyses were performed to examine the structure of the PCC-SES. In the first analysis, the 34 items were entered into the exploratory factor analysis with principal axis extraction and an oblimin rotation. The oblimin rotation was used as correlations between the coping factors were expected. The correlation matrix indicated that the factors were correlated between .0 and .45. The scree plot of the exploratory factor analysis suggested seven factors. The 34 items were re-entered into a second exploratory factor analysis and a seven-factor solution was specified. Three items were discarded because they failed to load by more than .30 (try to get away from them; avoid arguing with one or both of them; stop feeling sorry for yourself) (Costello & Osborne, 2005). The remaining 31 items were entered into a third exploratory factor analysis. Seven factors were again specified and the scree plots were examined. A further four items were removed because they cross-loaded with more than one factor (forgive them; avoid being scared; avoid crying about it; avoid getting mad at yourself). This final factor analysis resulted in a seven-factor solution that was conceptually meaningful and accounted for 48.53% of the variance. The seven factors were also confirmed by further examination of the scree plots. The same seven factors were observed for males, females, grade 5, and grade 7. The factors were labeled: self-efficacy for problem solving, self-efficacy for seeking social support, self-efficacy for avoiding preoccupation, self-efficacy for distancing, self-efficacy for avoiding self-blame, self-efficacy for avoiding aggression, and self-efficacy for avoiding overinvolvement.

Internal consistency analyses were computed for the seven factors independently after the overall structure of the PCC-SES was assessed with the exploratory factor analysis. This method has been previously used in the literature to assess for items which reduce the reliability of each of the indexes, something that may not be specifically assessed in the overall exploratory factor analysis which mainly focuses on determining the homogenous items for the scales (Terwee et al., 2007). Items that resulted in a reduction of the Cronbach’s alpha for a particular subscale were deleted (Clark & Watson, 1995). One item from the self-efficacy for problem solving (do something so this doesn’t happen again) and one from the self-efficacy for distancing (say I don’t care) were deleted. See Table 1 for the Cronbach’s alphas of the PCC-SES subscales and Table 2 for the factor loadings of the final 25 items.

Table 1.

Cronbach Alphas for the Parental Conflict Coping Self-Efficacy Scale Specific Strategies.

Specific Strategy	Cronbach Alpha	Number of Items
Self-efficacy for problem solving	0.76	4
Self-efficacy for seeking social support	0.88	4
Self- efficacy for avoiding preoccupation	0.72	3
Self-efficacy for distancing	0.79	4
Self-efficacy for avoiding self-blame	0.74	3
Self-efficacy for avoiding aggression	0.75	4
Self-efficacy for avoiding overinvolvement	0.58	3

Note. n = 663 children.

Table 2.

Factor Structure and Factor Loadings for Items of the Parental Conflict Coping Self-Efficacy Scale.

Parental Conflict Coping Self-Efficacy subscales and items			Factor Loadings
Parental Conflict Coping Self-Efficacy subscales and items	Skewness (SE = .10)	Kurtosis (SE = .19)	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
If your parents had an argument, how well can you…
Higher Order Factor 1: Proactive Behavior
1. Self-efficacy for Problem Solving (.99)
In a calm and pleasant manner tell them to stop fighting	0.08	−1.21	0.78
In a clear and strong voice tell them that you don’t like what they are doing	0.13	−1.38	0.63
Try to solve the problem for them	0.18	−1.18	0.58
Do something to make up for the situation	−0.13	−1.03	0.41
2. Self-Efficacy for Seeking Social Support (.55)
Ask someone for advice	0.35	−1.23		0.83
Get help from a friend	0.09	−1.32		0.82
Ask someone who has been through this what he/she would do	0.31	−1.23		0.78
Talk to somebody about how it made you feel	0.49	−1.00		0.71
Higher Order Factor 2: Avoiding Maladaptive Cognitions
3. Self-efficacy for Avoiding Preoccupation (.85)
Stop worrying that they might get divorced	−0.24	−1.50			0.53
Avoid worrying that one of them will get hurt	−0.21	−1.34			0.51
Avoid worrying about what will happen to you	−0.25	−1.16			0.34
4. Self-efficacy for Distancing (.81)
Forget the whole thing	−0.15	−1.31				0.67
Tell yourself it doesn’t matter	0.14	−0.97				0.67
Make believe nothing happened	0.31	−0.95				0.60
Refuse to think about it	−0.16	−1.00				0.57
5. Self-efficacy for Avoiding Self-Blame (.94)
Avoid thinking that your parents blame you	−0.40	−1.01					0.77
Avoid being afraid that they will yell at you too	−0.27	−1.16					0.64
Keep from thinking it is your fault	−0.42	−1.05					0.45
Higher Order Factor 3: Avoiding Maladaptive Behavior
6. Self-efficacy for Avoiding Aggression (.86)
Avoid yelling to let off steam	−0.74	−0.67						0.72
Stop yourself from swearing out loud	−1.41	0.96						0.65
Avoid getting mad and throwing or hitting something	−0.92	−0.48						0.52
Avoid holding a grudge against them	−0.71	−0.52						0.42
7. Self-efficacy for Avoiding Overinvolvement (.76)
Avoid taking sides with one of them	−0.87	−0.50							0.78
Stop trying to protect one parent from the other	−0.41	−1.22							0.58
Avoid telling one of them that he/she is wrong.	−0.43	−1.15							0.32

Note. n = 663 children. We have reversed the sign of the reported factor loadings for Self-efficacy for Problem Solving, Self-efficacy for Avoiding Preoccupation, and Avoiding Self-Blame to reflect them as positive values. The loadings of the lower order factors are in parenthesis.

Confirmatory factor analyses

The replicability of the seven-factor solution obtained in the exploratory factor analyses was tested with confirmatory factor analyses. Several descriptive fit indices and chi-squared tests of the model fit were evaluated. Since the chi-square statistic is sensitive to the number of variables in the model, as well as the size of the sample (Hox & Bechger, 2001; Kaplan, 2000), the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker Lewis Index (TLI), and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) were also examined. Hu and Bentler (1999) have proposed that the CFI and TLI at a level of .95 or higher and RMSEA with values of .06 or lower suggest good model fit whereas Browne and Cudeck (1993) have proposed a good model fit at a RMSEA value of .08 or less. Vandenberg and Lance (2000) recommend cut-off values of higher than .90 for CFI and TLI, and less than .08 for RMSEA. These criteria have also been deemed acceptable by Vanlede et al. (2006). Vandenberg and Lance (2000) have proposed that the Hu and Bentler (1999) criteria has high confidence limits and that their proposed cut-offs were acceptable lower bounds of model fit. Therefore, the Vandenberg and Lance (2000) approach was followed to test the model fit as it has also been used in other studies of coping self-efficacy scales (see Chesney, Neilands, Chambers, Taylor, & Folkman, 2006; Singh & Bussey, 2009). A seven-factor model was specified. The errors of four sets of items were allowed to correlate because the items shared similar wording such as “tell them to/tell them that,” “avoid worrying that/stop worrying that,” “someone/somebody.” Failure to allow such residuals to correlate can result in errors in the interpretation of the model (Cole, Ciesla, & Steiger, 2007). A model that contained one higher-order factor, namely, the PCC-SES, with seven lower-order factors, each representing a specific strategy of coping self-efficacy indicated good model fit, X² (264, N = 329) = 486.991, p < .001, CFI = .92, TLI = .91, RMSEA = .05 (90% C.I. .044–.058), BCC = 619.49. Although the chi-square value was significant, the other fit indices, which are less influenced by sample size, indicated a satisfactory model fit. The factor loadings can be observed in Table 2.

A further analysis was performed to assess the model fit of the seven specific strategies into the three hypothesized factors of coping discussed in the introduction, namely, the Proactive Behavior, Avoiding Maladaptive Cognitions, and Avoiding Maladaptive Behavior global strategies. A model in which the seven specific coping strategies were grouped into the three higher order factors of coping revealed a better model fit than without the categorization, X² (261, N = 329) = 408.44, p < .001, CFI = .95, TLI = .94, RMSEA = .04 (90% C.I. .034–.049), BCC = 601.763. There was a significant difference between these two aforementioned models (p < .01, chi-square test). Cohen’s effect size was w = .28, suggesting a medium effect size (Cohen, 1992). As such, the model with the three higher order factors had better model fit. There was also no significant difference (p = .201, chi-square test) between the three higher order factor model when compared to a model in which all lower-order factors were allowed to covary, X² (250, N = 329) = 393.81, p < .001, CFI = .95, TLI = .94, RMSEA = .04 (90% C.I. .034–.050), BCC = 556.73.

Gender and grade multigroup analysis

In the next step, the fit of the CFA model, for males and females, and for grade 5 and grade 7 was tested through the analysis of covariance structures (Byrne, 2001, 2010). In order to have sufficient power, the full sample was used in this step. Two unconstrained models, one for gender and another for grade, were independently fitted to provide a baseline for the two parameters. There was adequate model fit for the gender unconstrained baseline model, X² (522, N = 663) = 867.34, p < .001, CFI = .94, TLI = .93, RMSEA = .03 (90% C.I. .028–.035), BCC = 1145.46, and for the grade unconstrained baseline model, X² (522, N = 663) = 881.80, p < .001, CFI = .94, TLI = .93, RMSEA = .03 (90% C.I. .029–.036), BCC = 1159.73. Next, factor loadings, factor variances, and covariances were constrained for both models (Byrne, 2010). The covariance structure was equivalent for gender, X² (550, N = 663) = 889.53, p < .001, CFI = .94, TLI = .93, RMSEA = .03 (90% C.I. .027–.034), BCC = 1106.812, and grade, X² (550, N = 663) = 928.86, p < .001, CFI = .93, TLI = .93, RMSEA = .03 (90% C.I. .029–.036), BCC = 1145.99 (Chen, 2007). The equivalency of the covariance structures were supported as the change in CFI for gender (.001) and grade (.003) were both under .01 (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002). The chi-square difference tests were also non-significant at p < .01 for gender (p = .772) and for grade (p = .014).

In order to assess the potential gender and grade latent mean differences, metric invarience (factor loadings are equal, but intercepts are allowed to differ), and scalar invariance (loadings and intercepts are constrained to be equal) models were equated (Ong & Van Dulmen, 2007). The chi-square difference tests were not significant at p < .01 for gender metric, grade metric, and grade scalar invarience. There was a significant chi-square different test for gender scalar invarience. Nevertheless, all invariance tests showed CFI changes under .01 (see Table 3). CFI changes of under .01 have been previously reported as sufficient for tests of invarience (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002; Little, 2013). For example, Byrne (2010) proposed that if there are CFI changes under .01 in addition to good fit for CFI and RMSEA, but statistically significant chi-square difference tests, it is appropriate to interpret subsequent estimates related to the models.

Table 3.

Metric and Scalar Invariance for Gender and Grade.

	X ²	df	p	CFI	TLI	RMSEA (90% C.I.)	BCC	Compared to:	CFI Difference	X² Difference Test at p<.01
Gender
Metric Invariance	888.71	547	<.001	0.94	0.93	0.03 (.027 - .034)	1112.508	Unconstrained Baseline Model	0.001	p = .67
Scalar Invariance	954.221	566	<.001	0.93	0.93	0.03 (.029 - .036)	1245.377	Metric Invariance	0.009	p < .001
Grade
Metric Invariance	924.43	547	<.001	0.93	0.93	0.03 (.029 - .036)	1145.069	Unconstrained Baseline Model	0.003	p = .02
Scalar Invariance	955.19	566	<.001	0.93	0.93	0.03 (.029 - .036)	1246.139	Metric Invariance	0.002	p = .04

Note. n = 663 children.

Gender and Grade Latent Mean Differences

According to Byrne (2010) and Little, Slegers, and Card (2006), factor identification is necessary in latent mean comparisons. There is a requirement that one group is fixed to zero so the latent mean for the other group can be compared to that reference group, or be freely estimated. In this study males and grade 5 children were chosen as reference groups, respectively. The Critical Ratio (CR) index is the parameter estimate divided by its standard error and the test statistic needs to be greater or less than 1.96 before the null hypothesis can be rejected (Tsaousis & Kazi, 2013). In the current study, there was a significant gender difference, in which females reported lower scores in Self-Efficacy for Avoiding Maladaptive Cognitions when compared to males (CR = −3.44). There was no significant difference between males and females for Self-Efficacy for Avoiding Maladaptive Behavior (CR = −.39) or Self-Efficacy for Proactive Behavior (CR = −.97). Furthermore, there was no significant difference between grades 5 and 7 children for Self-Efficacy for Avoiding Maladaptive Cognitions (CR = 1.85), Self-Efficacy for Avoiding Maladaptive Behavior (CR = −.41) or Self-Efficacy for Proactive Behavior (CR = .20).

The Relationship the PCC-SES and Psychological Adjustment

The construct validity of the PCC-SES was investigated by the correlations of the three coping self-efficacy higher order factors and the psychological adjustment measures: the TDI, prosocialness, and symptoms of anxiety. These correlations were performed in SEM given that the psychological adjustment variables were also latent in nature. The CFA model described above was replicated in this analysis with the addition of the psychological adjustment measures. This model was constructed to provide further information about the relationship between the psychological adjustment measures and the three higher order structure of the PCC-SES.

Gender and grade multigroup analysis for the full correlated model

Before discussing these specific findings, the model fit for gender and grade were assessed for covariance structural equivalence (Byrne, 2001) in AMOS. The unconstrained models provided baselines, to which the constrained models assessing gender and grade were compared. The first unconstrained baseline model, X² (814, N = 663) = 1330.79, p < .001, CFI = .92, TLI = .91, RMSEA = .03 (90% C.I. .028–.034), BCC = 1725.43, did not vary by gender when factor loadings, variances, and covariances were constrained, X² (856, N = 663) = 1366.10, p < .001, CFI = .92, TLI = .92, RMSEA = .03 (90% C.I. .027–.033), BCC = 1667.62. The change in CFI for gender (.001) was less than .1 (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002). The chi-square difference test was non-significant, p = .76. The grade unconstrained model baseline model, X² (814, N = 663) = 1397.37, p < .001, CFI = .92, TLI = .90, RMSEA = .03 (90% C.I. .030–.036), BCC = 1791.65, also did not vary by grade when factor loadings and structural components were constrained, X² (856, N = 663) = 1460.45, p < .001, CFI = .91, TLI = .90, RMSEA = .03 (90% C.I. .030–.036), BCC = 1761.70. The change in CFI for grade (.003) further indicated covariance structure equivalence (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002). The chi-square difference test was also non-significant (p = .02) at p < .01. Since the covariance structures were equivalent, the correlations between the three higher order PCC-SES factors and the psychological adjustment measures (described below) did not control for gender or grade.

Construct validity

A model, based on the child data, which allowed the three higher order factors of the PCC-SES and psychological adjustment measures to be correlated attained good model fit, X² (407, N = 663) = 835.46, p < .001, CFI = .94, TLI = .93, RMSEA = .04 (90% C.I. .036–.044), BCC = 1022.50. Although the three coping self-efficacy higher order factors were moderately positively intercorrelated, the magnitude of their correlations varied across the psychological adjustment measures (see Table 4). The three PCC-SES higher order factors were moderately negatively correlated with the TDI and symptoms of anxiety. Higher levels of coping self-efficacy beliefs for parental conflict were associated with lower levels of TDI and lower levels of anxiety. In addition, the three higher order factors of the PCC-SES were positively correlated with prosocialness.

Table 4.

Correlations between Psychological Adjustment and Parental Conflict Coping Self-Efficacy Scale Higher Order Factors.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Based on Child Self-Report
1. Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire – Total Difficulty Index	-	−.64*	.63*	−.49*	−.54*	−.56*	.50*	−.03	.34*
2. Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire – Prosocialness		-	−.04	.54*	.15*	.25*	−.23*	.37*	−.07
3. Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale – Anxiety symptoms			-	−.28*	−.52*	−.36*	.25*	.11	.23*
4. Parental Conflict Coping Self-Efficacy Scale – Proactive Behavior				-	.41*	.31*	−.19*	.12	.10
5. Parental Conflict Coping Self-Efficacy Scale – Avoiding Maladaptive Cognitions					-	.77*	−.06	−.16*	.03
6. Parental Conflict Coping Self-Efficacy Scale – Avoiding Maladaptive Behavior						-	−.25*	.13	.08
Based on Parent Report
7. Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire – Total Difficulty Index							-	−.41*	.68*
8. Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire – Prosocialness								-	−.22*
9. Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale – Anxiety symptoms									-
									-

Note. n = 663 children, n = 346 parents. *p < .05.

A further model which allowed the three higher order PCC-SES factors, the child reported psychological adjustment latent measures mentioned in the previous model, and psychological adjustment latent variables based on the parent data to be correlated also attained model fit, X² (886, N = 346) = 1322.45, p < .001, CFI = .91, TLI = .90, RMSEA = .04 (90% C.I. .033–.042), BCC = 1770.14. Based on the parent report of children’s psychological adjustment, the three psychological adjustment outcome measures were intercorrelated. The highest correlation in the model was the positive relationship between the TDI and symptoms of anxiety (see Table 4). Further, the three child psychological adjustment measures, as reported by the parent, were positively correlated with the same child psychological adjustment measures, as reported by the child.

Parents’ report of children’s TDI had a significant negative relationship with coping self-efficacy for proactive behavior and coping self-efficacy for avoiding maladaptive behavior. The higher the level of children’s belief in their ability to engage in proactive behavior and to avoid maladaptive behavior, the lower the TDI, as reported by parents. In contrast to child self-report, parental report of prosocialness was related to lower levels of coping self-efficacy for avoiding maladaptive cognitions.

Discussion

The current study empirically tested a multidimensional and theoretically based measure of children’s coping self-efficacy beliefs about parental conflict. The PCC-SES displayed good psychometric properties with children in grades 5 and 7 and its construct validity was demonstrated through its relationship with children’s psychological outcomes. The seven specific coping self-efficacy strategies predicted in the current study were confirmed within the context of parental conflict. These specific strategies were self-efficacy for problem solving, seeking social support, avoiding preoccupation, avoiding self-blame, distancing, avoiding aggression, and avoiding overinvolvement. As expected, the specific strategies cohered into one of three conceptually meaningful behavioral and cognitive global strategies, namely, self-efficacy for proactive behavior, for avoiding maladaptive cognitions, and for avoiding maladaptive behaviors. The three global strategies of the PCC-SES and their corresponding coping self-efficacy specific strategies are discussed below.

As predicted, proactive behavior coping self-efficacy was a higher order factor and therefore a categorizing global strategy of both the problem solving and the seeking social support coping self-efficacy specific strategies. Since the specific strategies of problem solving and seeking social support both loaded on this global strategy, it assessed children’s perceived ability to find solutions to the parental conflict and to ask for support (Bandura, 2006; Causey & Dubow, 1992; Frydenberg, 2004). Gender differences were not found for proactive behavior, as has been the case in previous studies of gender differences in problem solving (e.g., Eschenbeck, Kohlmann, & Lohaus, 2007).

The global strategy of coping self-efficacy for proactive behavior was validated with the three indices of child psychological adjustment, namely the TDI, anxiety symptoms, and prosocialness. Higher levels of self-efficacy for proactive behavior were associated with less anxiety symptomatology and difficulties, such as internalizing and externalizing. In addition, there was a positive relationship between self-efficacy for proactive behavior and children’s prosocialness, suggesting that higher levels of self-efficacy for proactive behavior were related to greater levels of prosocial behavior.

The associations between the child-reported scores on the PCC-SES and parent-reported child psychological adjustment were overall weaker than the relationships between the child reported PCC-SES and self-report for child psychological adjustment. However, when the parents’ report of the TDI were considered, a negative association between the total number of difficulties and levels of self-efficacy for proactive behavior was found. Thus, the parent report of children’s psychological adjustment complemented the child report of self-efficacy for proactive behavior. This supports the validity of the coping self-efficacy for proactive behavior global strategy as it is congruent with past literature that identifies proactive coping as a positive and desirable strategy (Frydenberg, 2004). The personal agency nature of coping self-efficacy beliefs also allows the assessment of children’s confidence in utilizing positive coping strategies and may be a useful indicator of resilience.

As was expected, coping self-efficacy for avoiding maladaptive cognitions was identified as a global strategy that incorporated the specific coping self-efficacy strategies of avoiding preoccupation, avoiding self-blame, and distancing. This encapsulation is supported by previous literature, as the specific strategies are prominent within the internalization coping literature and were therefore reasonably expected in the framework of coping self-efficacy beliefs (Causey & Dubow, 1992). Girls reported lower scores on self-efficacy for avoiding maladaptive cognitions. This is consistent with past findings that since girls typically adopt more maladaptive cognitions than do boys, girls may be less able to believe in their ability to avoid utilizing such specific strategies (Davies et al., 2002; El-Sheikh & Reiter, 1996; Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993; Goeke-Morey et al., 2003).

The coping self-efficacy for avoiding maladaptive cognitions global strategy was validated through the examination of its relationship with children’s psychological outcomes as reported by children and their parents. Based on children’s reports, the TDI and anxiety symptoms were found to be negatively associated with self-efficacy for avoiding maladaptive cognitions. Higher levels of coping self-efficacy for avoiding maladaptive cognitions were associated with lower levels of anxiety symptoms and difficulties as reported by children. Although prosocialness was positively associated with self-efficacy for avoiding maladaptive cognitions based on children’s report, there was a negative relationship between self-efficacy for avoiding maladaptive cognitions and parent-reported prosocialness.

This parent–child discrepancy may be due to parents’ limited insight into children’s beliefs about their ability to avoid maladaptive cognitions. Although parents could observe their children’s prosocialness, they may not be able to perceive children’s belief in their ability to avoid maladaptive cognitions, as it is not an observable behavior (Achenbach, McConoughy, & Howell, 1987). Therefore, it is not surprising that parents’ reports did not replicate the relationship found between coping self-efficacy to avoid maladaptive cognitions and levels of prosocialness, as reported by children. Collectively, within the context of parental conflict, these validating relationships suggest that it may be beneficial for children to increase their coping self-efficacy beliefs for avoiding maladaptive cognitions in order to have lower levels of psychological maladjustment.

Consistent with the hypotheses, coping self-efficacy for avoiding maladaptive behavior was also a global strategy due to its higher order factor structure. Although past studies have examined the prominence of maladaptive behavior in the context of coping, this global strategy gives insight into children’s personal agency because both specific strategies of avoiding aggression and avoiding overinvolvement coping self-efficacy loaded on this global strategy (Causey & Dubow, 1992; Frydenberg, 2004). Although it was predicted that boys would endorse lower levels of self-efficacy for avoiding maladaptive behavior, this was not found in the current study. The absence of a gender effect may be due to the greater gender inconsistencies for maladaptive behaviors when compared to maladaptive cognitions (Shelton et al., 2006).

The global strategy of self-efficacy for avoiding maladaptive behavior was also validated through its relationship with children’s psychological adjustment. A negative relationship was evident between coping self-efficacy for avoiding maladaptive behavior, the child’s TDI, and anxiety symptomology. When children reported higher levels of self-efficacy for avoiding maladaptive behavior, they also reported lower scores on anxiety and difficulties. In addition, children with higher levels of self-efficacy for avoiding maladaptive behavior reported higher prosocialness scores. Similarly, parents’ report of TDI was negatively associated with coping self-efficacy for avoiding maladaptive behavior. These relationships suggest that self-efficacy for avoiding maladaptive behavior may be adaptive given previous links with maladaptive behavior, delinquency, and antisocial behavior (Cummings & Davis, 2002).

Children in the 10 to 12 age range are able to contemplate and assess different hypotheses about parental conflict (Cummings & Davies, 2010). They are also cognitively flexible and amenable to cognitive interventions (Skinner & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2009; Zimmer-Gembeck & Skinner, 2011). The findings of this study are important for children of this age because the PCC-SES can be used as a tool to help increase children’s positive and constructive coping self-efficacy beliefs with the aim of reducing psychological maladjustment.

It is important to note that the structure, reliability, and validity of the PCC-SES was demonstrated for children in grades 5 and 7, as well as for boys and girls, through analysis of covariance structures and latent mean comparisons. This lends support to the measure’s ability to be used with boys and girls of different ages. Given that this study involved children between the ages of 8 and 12, an age when children have the ability to draw causal relations between parental conflict and their consequences, it would be expected that the PCC-SES would also be relevant for older children too (Davies et al., 1999).

Strengths

The current study encompasses several strengths worthy of mention. First, it relies on a multi-informant methodology from a large number of children and their parents. Second, the structure of the PCC-SES was confirmed by two statistical methods: exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses using structural equation modeling. Last, the construct validity of the PCC-SES was validated with the children’s psychological outcomes, as reported by children and their parents.

Limitations

As with any study, limitations are also noteworthy. First, the sample is a community sample and may not give insight into families with extreme levels of parental conflict. Although the frequency of parental conflict had little influence on children’s responses based on the PCC-SES in this study, the sample did not include clinical levels of parental conflict. As such, the findings are generalizable more broadly to community samples that could benefit from preventative interventions rather than children who are experiencing extreme levels of parental conflict. Only mothers were invited to participate in the study to limit parental gender differences between families. In order to further validate the PCC-SES and assess its generalizability, future studies should assess its psychometric properties with a clinical, a more ethnically diverse, and older samples of children.

Future Research

It would also be useful to include other multi-informants such as the children’s schoolteachers and school counselors since most of the significant correlations between the PCC-SES and psychological maladjustment emerged from the child data. When considering other informants, it would be advisable to consider using different methods between participants to reduce the likelihood of shared method variance. Similar to other studies, the internal consistency for the child-reported prosocialness measure of the SDQ was comparatively lower than the TDI (Muris, Meesters, & van den Berg, 2003). This may be explained by the prosocialness subscale’s five-item composition compared with the 20-items of the TDI and also the lower frequency of prosocial behavior. In addition, the current study was based on cross-sectional data. Consequently, the reciprocal associations between coping self-efficacy and children’s psychological maladjustment could not be fully addressed in this cross-sectional design. Future research employing a longitudinal design is necessary. In such a study, it will be possible to examine the relationship and directionality between the PCC-SES and children’s psychological outcomes.

As the current study has established a link between children’s coping self-efficacy beliefs and their psychological adjustment, the next step is to examine the relationship between parental conflict and children’s coping self-efficacy beliefs. This is important as parental conflict can affect children’s psychological adjustment to varying degrees (Davies et al., 2002; Fosco & Grych, 2010). A future study may investigate the mediating role of children’s coping self-efficacy beliefs in the relationship between parental conflict and child psychological adjustment. This relationship may be key in guiding future interventions for parental conflict.

In conclusion, the PCC-SES is the first to conceptually assess children’s multidimensional coping self-efficacy beliefs in the specific context of parental conflict by examining for different coping self-efficacy strategies. It provides an insight into the strategies, amenable to intervention, that may reduce the effects of parental conflict on children’s psychological outcomes.

References

Achenbach

T. M.

McConaughy

S. H.

Howell

C. T.

(1987). Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: Implications of cross-informant correlations for situational specificity. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 213–232.

Allison

(2002). Missing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bandura

(1990). Perceived self-efficacy in the exercise of personal agency. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 2, 128–163.

Bandura

(1994). Self-efficacy. New York: Academic Press.

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Bandura

(2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 75–78.

Bandura

(2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents, 5, 307–337.

Bandura

(2007). Much ado over a faulty conception of perceived self-efficacy grounded in faulty experimentation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26, 641–658.

Bandura

(2008). Toward an agentic theory of the self. Advances in Self Research, 3, 15–49.

10.

Bandura

(2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of Management, 38, 9–44.

11.

Benight

C. C.

Bandura

(2004). Social cognitive theory of posttraumatic recovery: The role of perceived self-efficacy. Behavior Research and Therapy, 42, 1129–1148.

12.

Benight

C. C.

Ironson

Durham

R. L.

(1999). Psychometric properties of a hurricane coping self-efficacy measure. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 12, 379–386.

13.

Bradford

Barber

B. K.

Olsen

J. A.

Maughan

S. L.

Erickson

L. D.

Ward

Stolz

H. E.

(2004). A multi-national study of interparental conflict, parenting, and adolescent functioning: South Africa, Bangladesh, China, India, Bosnia, Germany, Palestine, Colombia, and the United States. Marriage & Family Review, 35, 107–137.

14.

Browne

M.W.

Cudeck

(1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen

K.A.

Long

J. S.

(Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models (pp. 36–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

15.

Byrne

B. M.

(2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

16.

Byrne

B. M.

(2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.

17.

Causey

D. L.

Dubow

E. F.

(1992). Development of a self-report coping measure for elementary school children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 21, 47–59.

18.

Chen

F. F.

(2007). Sensitivity of goodness fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464–504.

19.

Chesney

M. A.

Neilands

T. B.

Chambers

B. A.

Taylor

J. M.

Folkman

(2006). A validity and reliability study of the coping self-efficacy scale. British Journal of Health Psychology, 11, 421–437.

20.

Cheung

G. W.

Rensvold

R. B.

(2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255.

21.

Clark

L. A.

Watson

(1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309–319.

22.

Cohen

(1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.

23.

Cole

D.A.

Ciesla

J.A.

Steiger

(2007). The insidious effects of failing to include design-driven correlated residuals in latent-variable covariance structure analysis. Psychological Methods, 12, 381–398.

24.

Costello

A. B.

Osborne

J. W.

(2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10, 1–9.

25.

Cui

Fincham

F. D.

Pasley

B. K.

(2008). Young adult romantic relationships: The role of parents’ marital problems and relationship efficacy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1226–1235.

26.

Cummings

E. M.

Davies

P. T.

(2002). Effects of marital conflict on children: Recent advances and emerging themes in process-oriented research. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43, 31–63.

27.

Cummings

E. M.

Davies

P. T.

(2010). Marital conflict and children: An emotional security perspective. New York: Guilford.

28.

Cummings

E. M.

Goeke-Morey

M. C.

Papp

L. M.

(2003). Children’s responses to everyday marital conflict tactics in the home. Child Development, 74, 1918–1929.

29.

Cummings

E. M.

Schermerhorn

A. C.

(2003). A developmental perspective on children as agents in the family. In Kuczynski

(Ed.), Handbook of dynamics in parent-child relations (pp. 91–108). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

30.

Cunningham

E.G.

Walker

(1999). Screening for at-risk youth: Predicting adolescent depression from coping styles. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 9, 15–24.

31.

Davies

P. T.

Forman

E. M.

Rasi

J. A.

Stevens

K. I.

(2002). Assessing children’s emotional security in the interparental relationship: The security in the interparental subsystem scales. Child Development, 73, 544–562.

32.

Davies

P. T.

Harold

G. T.

Goeke-Morey

M. C.

Cummings

E. M.

Shelton

Rasi

J. A.

Jenkins

J. M.

(2002). Child emotional security and interparental conflict. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 67, i–127.

33.

Davies

P. T.

Myers

R. L.

Cummings

E. M.

Heindel

(1999). Adult conflict history and children’s subsequent responses to conflict: An experimental test. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 610–628.

34.

El-Sheikh

Kelly

(2011). Sleep in children: Links with marital conflict and child development. In Sheikh

(Ed.), Sleep and development: Familial and socio-cultural considerations (pp. 3–28). New York: Oxford University Press.

35.

El-Sheikh

Reiter

S. L.

(1996). Children’s responding to live interadult conflict: The role of form of anger expression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 24, 401–415.

36.

Emery

R. E.

(1982). Interparental conflict and the children of discord and divorce. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 310–330.

37.

Enders

(2001). A primer on maximum likelihood algorithms available for use with missing data. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 128–141.

38.

Eschenbeck

Kohlmann

C. W.

Lohaus

(2007). Gender differences in coping strategies in children and adolescents. Journal of Individual Differences, 28, 18–26.

39.

Fitzpatrick

Bussey

(2011). The development of the social bullying involvement scales. Aggressive Behavior, 37, 177–192.

40.

Forman

E. M.

Davies

P. T.

(2005). Assessing children’s appraisals of security in the family system: The development of the Security in the Family System (SIFS) scales. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 900–916.

41.

Fosco

G. M.

Grych

J. H.

(2010). Adolescent triangulation into parental conflicts: Longitudinal implications for appraisals and adolescent-parent relations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 254–266.

42.

Frydenberg

(2004). Coping competences: What to teach and when. Theory Into Practice, 43, 14–22.

43.

Frydenberg

Lewis

(1993). Manual: The adolescent coping scale. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

44.

Gini

Pozzoli

Bussey

(2014). Collective moral disengagement: Initial validation of a scale for adolescents. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 11, 386–395.

45.

Goeke-Morey

M. C.

Cummings

E. M.

Harold

G. T.

Shelton

K. H.

(2003). Categories and continua of destructive and constructive marital conflict tactics from the perspective of US and Welsh children. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 327.

46.

Goodman

(1997). The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 581–586.

47.

Goodman

Meltzer

Bailey

(1998). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A pilot study on the validity of the self-report version. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 7, 125–130.

48.

Grych

J. H.

Fincham

F. D.

(1990). Marital conflict and children’s adjustment: A cognitive-contextual framework. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 267–290.

49.

Grych

J. H.

Fincham

F. D.

(1993). Children’s appraisals of marital conflict: Initial investigations of the cognitive-contextual framework. Child Development, 64, 215–230.

50.

Grych

J. H.

Seid

Fincham

F. D.

(1992). Assessing marital conflict from the child’s perspective: The Children’s Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale. Child Development, 63, 558–572.

51.

Hox

J. J.

Bechger

T. M.

(2001). An introduction to structural equation modeling. Family Science Review, 11, 354–373.

52.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Model, 6, 1–55.

53.

Jaffe

P. G.

Wolfe

D. A.

Wilson

S. K.

(1990). Children of Battered Women. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

54.

Johnson

H. D.

(2002). Associations among family adaptability and cohesion, interparental conflict, and tactics used during young adults’ conflict with parents. Psychological Reports, 91, 315–325.

55.

Johnson

H. D.

Lavoie

J. C.

Mahoney

(2001). Interparental conflict and family cohesion predictors of loneliness, social anxiety, and social avoidance in late adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Research, 16, 304–318.

56.

Kaplan

(2000). Structural equation modeling: Foundations and extensions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

57.

Kearney

Bussey

(2014). The impact of pressured information management on boys’ and girls’ psychological functioning. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 35, 234–244.

58.

Little

P. T. D.

(2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.

59.

Little

T. D.

Jorgensen

T. D.

Lang

K. M.

Moore

E. W. G.

(2014). On the joys of missing data. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 39, 151–162.

60.

Little

T. D.

Lopez

D. F.

Wanner

(2001). Children’s action-control behaviors (Coping): A longitudinal validation of the behavioral inventory of strategic control. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 14, 315–336.

61.

Little

T. D.

Slegers

D. W.

Card

N. A.

(2006). A non-arbitrary method of identifying and scaling latent variables in SEM and MACS models. Structural Equation Modeling, 13, 59–72.

62.

Maybery

Steer

Reupert

Goodyear

(2009). The kids coping scale. Stress and Health, 25, 31–40.

63.

Muris

Meesters

van den Berg

(2003). The strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ). European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 12, 1–8.

64.

Ong

A. D.

Van Dulmen

M. H.

(2007). Oxford handbook of methods in positive psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.

65.

Ozer

E. M.

Bandura

(1990). Mechanisms governing empowerment effects: A self-efficacy analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 472–486.

66.

Pajares

(1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543–578.

67.

Pendry

Carr

A. M.

Papp

L. M.

Antles

(2013). Child presence during psychologically aggressive interparental conflict: Implications for internalizing and externalizing behavior. Family Relations, 62, 755–767.

68.

Reynolds

C. R.

Richmond

B. O.

(2005). Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale (RCMAS), 9th ed. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.

69.

Rogers

M. J.

Holmbeck

G. N.

(1997). Effects of interparental aggression on children’s adjustment: The moderating role of cognitive appraisal and coping. Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 125–130.

70.

Roth

Cohen

L. J.

(1986). Approach, avoidance, and coping with stress. American Psychologist, 41, 813–819.

71.

Rubin

D. B.

(1976). Inference and missing data. Biometrika, 63, 581–592.

72.

Sandler

I. N.

Tein

J. Y.

Mehta

Wolchik

Ayers

(2000). Coping efficacy and psychological problems of children of divorce. Child Development, 71, 1099–1118.

73.

Sandler

I. N.

Tein

J. Y.

West

S. G.

(1994). Coping, stress, and the psychological symptoms of children of divorce: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study. Child Development, 65, 1744–1763.

74.

Schafer

Graham

(2002). Missing data: our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147–177.

75.

Schlomer

G. L.

Bauman

Card

N. A.

(2010). Best practices for missing data management in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57, 1–10.

76.

Shelton

K. H.

Harold

G. T.

(2008). Pathways between interparental conflict and adolescent psychological adjustment: Bridging links through children’s cognitive appraisals and coping strategies. Journal of Early Adolescence, 28, 555–582.

77.

Shelton

K. H.

Harold

G. T.

Goeke-Morey

M. C.

Cummings

E. M.

(2006). Children’s coping with marital conflict: The role of conflict expression and gender. Social Ddevelopment, 15, 232–247.

78.

Singh

Bussey

(2009). The development of a Peer Aggression Coping Self-Efficacy Scale for adolescents. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27, 971–992.

79.

Singh

Bussey

(2011). Peer victimization and psychological maladjustment: The mediating role of coping self-efficacy. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 420–433.

80.

Skinner

E. A.

Edge

Altman

Sherwood

(2003). Searching for the structure of coping: A review and critique of category systems for classifying ways of coping. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 216–269.

81.

Skinner

E. A.

Zimmer-Gembeck

M. J.

(2009). Challenges to the developmental study of coping. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 124, 5–17.

82.

Steffen

A. M.

McKibbin

Zeiss

A. M.

Gallagher-Thompson

Bandura

(2002). The revised scale for caregiving self-efficacy reliability and validity studies. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 57, 74–86.

83.

Terwee

C. B.

Bot

S. D.

de Boer

M. R.

van der Windt

D. A.

Knol

D. L.

Dekker

… de Vet

H. C.

(2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60, 34–42.

84.

Tremblay

Hébert

Piché

(1999). Coping strategies and social support as mediators of consequences in child sexual abuse victims. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23, 929–945.

85.

Tsaousis

Kazi

(2013). Factorial invariance and latent mean differences of scores on trait emotional intelligence across gender and age. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 169–173.

86.

Vandenberg

R. J.

Lance

C. E.

(2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4–70.

87.

Vanlede

Little

T. D.

Card

N. A.

(2006). Action-control beliefs and behaviors as predictors of change in adjustment across the transition to middle school. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 19, 111–127.

88.

Wolchik

S. A.

West

S. G.

Sandler

I. N.

Tein

J. Y.

Coatsworth

Lengua

… Griffin

W. A.

(2000). An experimental evaluation of theory-based mother and mother–child programs for children of divorce. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 843.

89.

Zimmer-Gembeck

M. J.

Skinner

E. A.

(2011). Review: The development of coping across childhood and adolescence: An integrative review and critique of research. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35, 1–17.