Predictors of Maternal Participation in Fatherhood Intervention Research With African American Nonresident Fathers

Abstract

Purpose:

The goal of this study was to understand factors that predict mothers’ decisions to participate as data informants in a randomized controlled trial of a fatherhood intervention for African-American non-resident fathers.

Method:

Baseline data from 178 fathers and 125 mothers in the Dedicated African American Dad (DAAD) study were examined. Prior research and theoretical frameworks by Feinberg and Morawska informed father variable selection. Data were analyzed via bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses.

Results:

Mothers were likely to participate as data informants when they had younger children, the father reported higher stress, less conflict with the mother, and the mothers’ female relatives were less supportive of the father.

Conclusion:

Mothers’ decisions to participate as data informants in a fatherhood intervention are shaped by a complex array of social, interpersonal and family relationships that impact co-parenting. More research is needed to explore maternal characteristics and additional factors that could influence maternal predictors of participation. Future intervention research with African American non-resident fathers should seek to capitalize on the importance of the co-parenting relationship, by intervening prenatally, bolstering social support, and including extended family and kin networks.

Keywords

community intervention outcome study intervention quantitative African Americans population men women

Half of African American (AA) children reside in households with their biological father (Child Trends, 2008–2015). When fathers reside apart from their children, father–child involvement tends to decrease over time and can be detrimental to the well-being of the child, father, and mother (Adamsons & Johnson, 2013; Eggebeen et al., 2013; Randles, 2020a). One of the key reasons that nonresident fathers are less involved with their children is due to difficulties maintaining a harmonious relationship with the child’s mother (Waller, 2012). Thus, an understanding of mothers’ roles in impacting father involvement in the context of nonresidential fatherhood is warranted. In order to better understand co-parenting relationships between AA nonresident fathers and the custodial mothers of their children, we explored the participation of mothers, as a data informant, in a randomized controlled trial of a fatherhood intervention. In this study, co-parents are defined as the nonresident father of a child aged 2–6 and the child’s mother. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to examine predictors that influence mother participation as a data informant in the Dedicated African American Dad (DAAD) study. Our premise was that mothers’ willingness to participate reflects the co-parenting relationship. Potential predictors were identified based upon the literature and our prior research with AA nonresident fathers (Gamboa & Julion, 2019; Goldberg & Carlson, 2015; Julion et al., 2012; Trahan, 2018)

AA Nonresident Fathers

Nonresident fatherhood has increased among all racial groups. In general, AA fathers tend to maintain active involvement at higher levels than fathers of other races, even after interpersonal relationships have ended (Edin et al., 2009; Ellerbe et al., 2014; Johnson & Young, 2016). Unfortunately, AA fathers are more likely to be portrayed negatively by the media and the public compared to fathers of other races (Goodman, 2018).

Fathers’ residency status can negatively impact father–child involvement (Goodman, 2018). Data from the Fragile Families Study reveal that over 90% of nonresident fathers are present at their child’s birth or visit while the mother and newborn are in the hospital (McLanahan & Beck, 2010). However, fathers’ involvement with their child can decline or fluctuate with fathers demonstrating varying degrees of involvement with their child over time (Nepomnyaschy & Teitler, 2013). Diminishing levels of involvement hold true despite fathers expressing dissatisfaction with their involvement with their children (Rusten et al., 2019).

Father involvement in AA nonresident fathers can be influenced by a number of factors such as intergenerational father absence and contentious co-parenting relationships with their child’s mother (Perry & Lewis, 2016). In addition, father characteristics such as fathers’ socioeconomic status (i.e., income, education, employment status), parental mental health (Bamishigbin et al., 2017), parenting skills, communication skills, and engagement in antisocial behaviors such as intimate partner violence and criminal activity can affect father involvement (Zhang & Fuller, 2012). Conversely, fathers’ strengths in the form of resilience and utilization of social support can bolster co-parenting and father involvement (Castillo & Sarver, 2012; Fagan & Lee, 2011; Murphy et al., 2013). Social support could be general in nature from family and friends or reflect social support that is directly related to being a father in the context of co-parenting (Castillo & Sarver, 2012; Trahan & Cheung, 2012).

The Impact of Intergenerational Father Absence

There is an intergenerational tendency toward father nonresidency status in AA fathers because currently nearly half of AA men (49%) grow up in households apart from their own biological fathers (Child Trends, 2008–2015; Stahlschmidt et al., 2013). Indeed, nonresident fatherhood is more prevalent among AA families (over 49% vs. 26% in Latinos and 15% in Whites; Child Trends, 2008–2015). Intergenerational father absence can influence future generations of fathers because men who grew up living apart from their fathers may not have benefited from their fathers’ presence and may subsequently undervalue their importance to their own children (Guzzo, 2011). Because they lack the experience of living in households where they were able to learn about fathering from their own fathers, they may also lack fathering skills and be unsure of how to parent, discipline, and support the healthy growth and development of their children (Gamboa & Julion, 2019). In fact, some AA fathers have acknowledged that they have limited knowledge, skills, and self-confidence in parenting their young children (Trahan, 2018).

Father Factors

Fathers with higher levels of socioeconomic disadvantage are at higher risk for disputatious co-parenting relationships (Lemmons & Johnson, 2019). These fathers have more challenges in providing financially for their children (Waller et al., 2018) and are more likely to face additional personal and social challenges (Fagan et al., 2020; Lemmons & Johnson, 2019). Subsequently, mothers may be more likely to engage in maternal gatekeeping (Carlson et al., 2005; Palmer, 2011; Tach et al., 2010). Maternal gatekeeping—limiting fathers’ access to their children—can be associated with less father involvement in various forms of caregiving (Gaunt, 2008); however, gatekeeping does not always negatively impact father involvement. Recent studies have shown that mothers also engage in maternal gate-opening behaviors that facilitate co-parenting and father involvement (Fagan & Cherson, 2017; Nixon & Hadfield, 2018).

A number of factors impact the psyche of AA fathers including disproportionate rates of exposure to racism, discrimination, and encounters with law enforcement officers. The increased likelihood that AA fathers will experience involvement in the criminal justice system can influence AA men’s mental health and their ability to be involved in the lives of their children (Lemmons & Johnson, 2019). The impact of being apart from their children can subsequently result in psychological harm in the form of depression or anxiety in fathers (Rusten et al., 2019). If mothers perceive that the state of fathers’ mental health could be harmful to their children or to themselves, they are unlikely to engage in co-parenting (Goodman, 2018).

Fathers’ parenting and parenting self-efficacy can influence their involvement with their children. Nonresident fathers may engage in parenting that is out of sync with maternal parenting because fathers with limited time with their children understandably want their time together to be enjoyable and may forego stringent limit setting (Osborne et al., 2014; Whyte, 2017). In addition, fathers may lack confidence in their parenting skills if they have not learned socially acceptable, culturally aligned parenting strategies from their own fathers (Gamboa & Julion, 2019).

AA fathers have many strengths and play a critical role in fostering child development. For example, AA fathers readily assume caregiving roles and engage in parenting that socializes children to effectively navigate potentially unsafe neighborhoods and racist encounters (Randles, 2020b). Numerous fatherhood studies have highlighted the value that AA fathers place on “being there” for their children, which means they serve as nurturer, teacher, protector, and provider of in-kind support even in the face of limited financial means (East et al., 2020). Furthermore, AA fathers are highly resilient and known for perseverance in the face of hardship such as racism, discrimination, and elevated socioeconomic risk (Jamison et al., 2017; Toldson & Johns, 2016). They are also competent in developing and engaging in supportive community environments (Teti et al., 2012). There is strong evidence that resilience is bolstered by social support that can buffer the impact of stressors on unmarried co-parents (Trahan & Cheung, 2012). Finally, when fathers feel more efficacious about their parenting, they are more likely to demonstrate resilience in father involvement, even in the face of multiple challenges (Teti et al., 2012; Trahan, 2018).

The Value of Positive Father Involvement

Positive father involvement benefits children, mothers, and fathers themselves. Positive father involvement is defined as engagement/interaction (the amount of time fathers spend interacting with their children), accessibility/availability (the nature of the contact between fathers and children), and responsibility (the extent to which the father assumes ultimate oversight for his child’s welfare and care; Kennedy et al., 2015; Lamb et al., 1987). Positively involved fathers actively contribute to their children’s well-being by participating in a range of activities that are social, emotional, financial, or physical (Adamsons & Johnson, 2013). Early, active, positive, and sustained father involvement facilitates child development, academic success, and long-term well-being (Henry et al., 2020). Positive father involvement is important to mothers because positively involved fathers are more likely to provide financial or in-kind support for their children (Randles, 2020b). Mothers who have the support of involved fathers experience enhanced emotional and psychological well-being because they feel supported in their parenting efforts (Nomaguchi et al., 2017). Finally, fatherhood is important to men (Eggebeen et al., 2013; Nelson-Coffey et al., 2019) because positive fathering can be an important turning point for men which can promote male maturity, increased economic capital, improved health behaviors, and decreased engagement in antisocial behaviors (Blair et al., 2020; Whyte, 2017).

The Co-Parenting Relationship and Mother as a Data Informant

In order for nonresident fathers to build and nurture positive relationships with their children, they must have collegial relationships with their child’s mother. Among nonresident fathers, co-parenting support and quality of co-parenting relationships have positive effects on fathers’ involvement with their children (Fagan & Palkovitz, 2011). Timing is important when considering co-parenting within the boundaries of fatherhood research because father involvement that occurs earlier in the child’s life is critical for both the child and the father. Strengthening the co-parent relationship may enhance the quality of the parent–child relationship and positively influence children’s developmental and family outcomes (McHale & Carter, 2012; Pudasainee-Kapri & Razza, 2015). Since it remains unclear how the co-parenting relationship directly influences mothers’ decisions to participate as a data informant in fatherhood interventions, maternal perspectives can illuminate a deeper understanding of the factors that influence parenting alliances in nonresident couples (Charles et al., 2018). In addition, obtaining reports of father involvement from multiple informants can enhance study validity (Roy et al., 2015). If only self-reported father measures are used (Washington et al., 2018), effects of parent education for low-income fathers in particular can have overstated effects due to the likelihood of socially desirable responses. Conversely, differential findings between parents could indicate that mothers may be slower to recognize meaningful changes taking place in fathers’ co-parenting behavior (Fagan & Kaufman, 2015). Quality data focused on childhood and father outcomes should not rely exclusively on one source of data (Volling & Cabrera, 2019).

Theoretical Framework

This study and selection of research variables are framed by Feinberg’s (2003) theory of influential factors that contribute to co-parenting and Morawska’s model of factors that influence parents’ participation in parent training (Morawska et al., 2014). Feinberg’s theory is central to the framework for this study. Factors from Morawska’s model are mapped onto the Feinberg model. Feinberg postulates that multilayered factors such as agreement or disagreement on child-rearing, division of labor, support/undermining, and joint family management are important in understanding co-parenting. Co-parenting relations, in turn, impact outcomes and interactions between outcomes and other factors that have the potential to impact co-parenting—such as stressors or resources (Feinberg et al., 2019).

Morawska and colleagues (2014) suggest that parent, child, and family factors can indirectly and directly impact parents’ participation in parenting interventions. Indirect factors include child gender, perception of child problems, socioeconomic risk, and parental depression. Since depressive symptoms, perceived stress, and racial stress can exert a negative impact on AA fathers’ mental health, these concepts have been added to the analytic model (Baker, 2014; Bamishigbin et al., 2017). Direct factors include perceived child problem severity, parents’ self-efficacy, social support, and quality of co-parenting relationships. The quality of the co-parenting relationship is particularly salient with AA nonresident fathers because the co-parenting relationship often dictates the degree of father involvement (Coates & Phares, 2019).

In this article focused on maternal participation in a fatherhood intervention, the authors combine components of Feinberg’s and Morawska’s models and organize them through the lens of an ecological model. In this ecological model, individual characteristics, familial and relationship influences, and extrafamilial influences impact the co-parenting relationship and can influence maternal participation as a data informant in a fatherhood intervention (see Figure 1). Next, the authors provide a depiction of how the levels of the ecological model are aligned with the study variables (see Figure 2). Individual-level influences include parental self-efficacy, parental mental health, perceived child behavior problem severity, and ineffective parenting. Family and relationship influences include quality of relationship and social support. Finally, extrafamilial influences include socioeconomic risk. This guides our understanding of how multilevel co-parenting contexts can influence maternal participation as a data informant in a fatherhood intervention.

Figure 1.
Ecological model of co-parenting contexts.

Figure 2.
Mapping theoretical frameworks to Dedicated African American Dad (DAAD) study variables.

Method

The DAAD study is a randomized controlled trial testing the efficacy of a fatherhood intervention for AA nonresident fathers of children aged 2–6. To investigate predictors of mothers’ willingness to participate in the DAAD study as a data informant, we analyzed baseline data collected between May 2015 and September 2018. We considered maternal participation as a data informant as a proxy for co-parenting relationships (Nixon & Hadfield, 2018; Schoppe-Sullivan & Fagan, 2020). Baseline data included father reports on measures of well-being, parenting behavior, parenting self-efficacy, social support, and quality of father–mother relationship; maternal reports of mother demographics; child gender and age; and decision to participate as a data informant.

The study was approved by the university institutional review board, and a Certificate of Confidentiality was obtained to protect the privacy of sensitive participant information. Full details regarding the DAAD study design and inclusion/exclusion criteria are available elsewhere (Julion et al., 2016).

Recruitment

The primary participants for this study were AA fathers who did not reside with their young children (aged 2–6) on a full-time basis. Recruiters were AA male and female research assistants who were comfortable recruiting in urban settings and communities of color. Recruitment sites were community settings such as barbershops, churches, and sporting venues. In addition, study advertisements were displayed and distributed in community settings, and potential participants could inquire through a recruitment study line. Inclusion criteria were AA biological father of a child 2–6 years old, child lived with father no more than 48 hr per week, and child lived with the biological mother (or other custodial relative such as grandmother). Fathers who met inclusion criteria were given a choice of interview location (their home or nearby community site) and reimbursed with a US $50 gift card for data collected at baseline. At the time of the baseline interview, contact information for the mother of the target child was requested. Mothers were contacted by a female recruiter and invited to participate in the study as a data informant. Mothers were reimbursed with a US $40 gift card for data collected at the baseline interview.

Variables and Measures

Individual influences

Parental mental health

Three measures were used to assess father mental health because of the multiple stressors facing AA men and included depression, perceived stress, and racial stress. Depression was evaluated with the 20-item Center for Epidemiologic Studies–Depression (CES-D) Scale (Radloff, 1977). Fathers reported how often they have felt or behaved in a certain way during the past week on a 4-point scale ranging from rarely/none of the time to most/all of the time. Higher scores reflect higher depressive symptoms. In light of the potential for fathers in the current study to represent a vulnerable or disenfranchised population, we decreased the cut score for the CES-D from 16 to 12 as previously done by other researchers (Minkler, 2004). In this sample, α coefficient was .82.

General stress was assessed via the 10-item Perceived Stress Scale (PSS; Cohen et al., 1983; Lee T. W. et al., 2012). The PSS measures the perceived degree of stress caused by situations in one’s life over the past month. Fathers were asked how often they felt a certain way using a 5-point scale ranging from never to very often. Higher scores reflect higher perceived stress. α coefficient for the scale in this sample was .77.

Racial stress was examined using the Perceived Racism Scale across five domains (overt public, subtle public, employment, academic, and racist statement domains; McNeilly et al., 1996). The 27-item instrument measures the multidimensional experience of racism as perceived by AA adults. For the current study, we examined fathers’ baseline ratings for the past year using a 5-point scale from never to very often. In this sample, α coefficient was .90.

Father parenting behavior

Parenting behaviors were measured using the 32-item Parent Behavior Checklist (PBC; Fox, 1992). The PBC measures how parents raise young children with three subscales: Developmental Expectations (12 items; e.g., “My child should be old enough to share toys”), Discipline (10 items; e.g., “I yell at my child for whining”), and Nurturing (10 items; e.g., “I read to my child at bedtime”). Each item is scored on a 4-point scale ranging from almost never or never to almost always or always. Lower scores reflect less effective parenting. In this sample, α coefficients for the three PBC subscales ranged from .72 to .84.

Father parental self-efficacy

Parental self-efficacy and satisfaction with parenting were measured using the 17-item Parenting Sense of Competence Scale. Two subscales include Satisfaction (nine items; assessing anxiety, motivation, and frustration) and Self-Efficacy (seven items; assessing competence, capability, and problem-solving). Responses are recorded on a 6-point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Higher scores reflect higher parenting efficacy and satisfaction (Ohan et al., 2000). In this sample, α coefficients were .59 on the Satisfaction subscale and .70 on the Self-Efficacy subscale.

Perceived child problem severity

The Behavior Assessment System for Children, second edition, Parent Rating Scales (BASC-2) were used to measure child behavior and emotions (Reynolds, 2010). The 134-item preschool version was used to evaluate children from age 2 to 5. The 160-item BASC 6- to 11-year-old version was used for children aged 6 years. Father ratings of their child’s behavior over the last few months were reported on a scale ranging from 0 to 3 (never to almost always). Higher scores reflect higher child problem severity. In the preschool sample, α coefficients on the five BASC subscales were .67–.85. The coefficients for the BASC preschool version was used rather than the BASC 6- to 11-year-old version because there were only 19 children who were of age 6 years in the study.

Familial and relationship influences

Social support

The Social Support Questionnaire-6, a six-item survey, was used to examine social support (Sarason et al., 1987). Participants were asked about the people in their life who provide them with help or support across six domains. Each question consists of two parts: (a) listing of all people they know who can provide support in that domain and (b) rating of satisfaction with support in that domain on a 6-point scale from very dissatisfied to very satisfied. In this sample, the α coefficient was .84 for satisfaction. Data on the number of people who provide support were not included in these analyses.

Support for being a father

Four items were used to examine father social support networks. These items examined fathers’ perceptions of supportiveness and encouragement for being a father from the mother and her friends and family members (Cabrera et al., 2004; Cabrera & Peters, 2000). Fathers identified the extent that specific members of their network supported them in being a father. Responses were on a 4-point scale ranging from doesn’t support me at all to is very supportive. In this sample, individual items were used for the analyses.

Quality of relationship

Quality of relationship was measured using the 25-item Quality of Relationships Inventory (QRI). The QRI measures ways parents feel supported by their co-parent. Three subscales include Conflict, Supportiveness, and Depth of the Relationships (Reiner et al., 2012). Responses are on a 4-point scale from not at all to very much. In this sample, α coefficients ranged from .83 to .87 on the three scales.

Tolerance for disagreement (TFD)

The 15-item TFD Scale is designed to measure the degree to which an individual can tolerate other people disagreeing with what the individual believes to be true (Teven et al., 1998). The concept mirrors argumentativeness, and those with high argumentativeness tend to have a higher tolerance for disagreement. The 5-point scale was scored such that higher scores reflect higher tolerance for disagreement from strongly disagree to strongly agree. α reliability in this sample was .68.

Extrafamilial influences

Socioeconomic risk

Socioeconomic risk is defined as sociodemographic factors that contribute to overall health and well-being (Schoon & Melis, 2019). Father socioeconomic risk was assessed with the following demographic variables: father age, educational level, monthly income, and employment status.

Mother demographics and agreement to participate as a data informant

Mothers responded to the same socioeconomic risk demographic questions as the fathers (e.g., age, educational level, monthly income, employment status). Since not all mother participants were AA, mothers also reported their race and ethnicity. Mothers were categorized as participant or nonparticipant based on whether they completed a baseline interview.

Data Analysis

Given the relatively large number of potential predictors of mothers’ participation, the first step in building a model predicting participation was to conduct a series of bivariate analyses to examine the association between candidate predictors and whether the child’s mother agreed to participate in the study. These analyses included t tests (continuous predictors) and χ² analyses (categorical predictors).

Variables with a significance level less than or equal to .10 in the bivariate analyses were included in a multivariate logistic regression analysis. A stepwise approach with backward elimination was used to achieve a parsimonious final model.

Results

Participant Demographics

One hundred seventy-eight fathers and 125 mothers provided baseline data for father and mother demographics (see Table 1). The mean age of the fathers was 34 years (range 19–62). At the time of data collection, nearly 75% of fathers were never married, and only 3% were currently married or living with a domestic partner (not the mother of the target child). Fifty-four percent of fathers had attended college or earned a college degree. The majority of fathers were employed or attending school, and 36% of fathers were unemployed. The median monthly income was between $1,001 and $2,000. The average age of their child for the study was just under 4 years old, and slightly more than half of the target children were boys.

Table 1.
Study Participant Demographic Characteristics.

Demographic Variable Mother Participation

No Yes Total t or χ² p Value

n % n % n %

91 87 178

Father characteristics

Age M (SD) 34.23 (9.48) 32.83 (8.37) 33.54 (8.96) 1.05 .30

Marital status

Married/living with partner 4 4 2 2 6 3 2.50 .48

Separated 9 10 13 15 22 12

Divorced 13 14 8 9 21 12

Never married 65 71 64 74 129 73

Education

<High school degree 45 50 36 41 81 46 1.17 .28

Some college or more 46 50 51 59 97 54

Employment status

Part-time 22 24 21 24 43 24 0.95 .92

Full-time 30 33 28 32 58 33

Not currently working 34 38 30 35 64

Going to school 2 2 3 3 5 3

Working and going to school 3 3 5 6 8 4

Monthly income

<$500 22 24 25 29 47 26 4.00 .41

$501–$1,000 22 24 15 17 37 21

$1,001–$2,000 21 23 25 29 46 26

$2,001–$3,000 11 12 5 6 16 9

$3,001+ 15 17 16 19 31 18

Child characteristics

Age M (SD) 4.02 (1.23) 3.63 (1.22) 3.83 (1.24) 2.12 .04*

Gender

Male 51 57 42 48 93 53 1.25 .26

Female 39 43 45 52 84 47

Mother characteristics ^a

Age 31.33 (7.22)

Marital status

Married/living with partner 8 9

Separated 7 8

Divorced 7 8

Never married 65 75

Education

≤High school degree 30 35

Some college or more 57 65

Job status

Part-time 11 13

Full-time 41 47

Not currently working 19

Going to school 5 5

Working and going to school 11 13

Monthly income

<$500 11 14

$501–$1,000 20 24

$1,001–$2,000 27 33

$2,001–$3,000 18 22

$3,001+ 6 7

^a Mother characteristics are for participating mothers only.

p < .05.

The mean age of mothers (n = 125) who participated in the study was 31 years (range 19–57 years). Like fathers, 75% of mothers were never married, and 9% were currently married or living with a domestic partner. Nearly two thirds of mothers had at least some college education. Most mothers were employed or attending school with 22% unemployed. Mothers reported median monthly income was between $1,001 and $2,000 (see Table 1).

Predictors of Mother Participation

Of the mothers who participated in the study, their children were 4.2 months younger than nonparticipating mothers (p = .04). Bivariate analyses revealed several significant associations with mother participation (p ≤ .10; see Table 2). Mother participation was associated with fathers’ reports of higher levels of depressive symptoms (2.3 points higher on the CES-D) and perceived stress (2.1 points higher on the PSS). Fathers’ perceived support for fatherhood from the mothers’ female relatives was .3 points higher when the mother declined participation. Finally, father’s perceptions of the co-parent relationship differed by mother participation on two subscales such that depth of relationship was .2 points higher and level of conflict was .2 points lower when mothers participated (see Table 2).

Table 2.
Bivariate Analysis of Predictors of Mother Participation.

Predictor Mother Participation

No Yes Total sample t p Value

M SD M SD M SD

Parenting

Parenting Behavior Checklist

Expectations 3.09 0.55 2.99 0.56 3.04 0.55 1.18 .24

Discipline^a 1.44 0.38 1.52 0.45 1.48 0.42 −1.30 .20

Nurturing 3.07 0.51 2.97 0.43 3.02 0.47 1.35 .18

Perceived child problem severity

Behavior Assessment System for Children^b

Adaptability 45.84 9.38 46.43 9.61 46.13 9.47 −0.40 .69

Aggression^a 48.16 10.16 47.58 11.36 47.88 10.74 0.36 .72

Attention 50.39 8.75 50.04 9.22 50.22 8.96 0.26 .80

Functional communication 47.39 9.23 48.24 8.74 47.81 8.97 −0.62 .53

Hyperactivity 50.50 9.40 48.92 11.72 49.72 10.61 0.98 .33

Social skills 50.08 10.71 48.17 9.67 49.14 10.22 1.24 .22

Parental self-efficacy

Parenting Sense of Competence Scale

Satisfaction 23.85 6.46 24.34 8.41 24.09 7.46 −0.43 .67

Efficacy 13.99 5.39 14.86 5.88 14.42 5.64 −1.02 .31

Father psychological well-being

Center for Epidemiological Studies–Depression 13.21 7.68 15.48 0.78 14.32 8.29 −1.83 .07

Perceived Stress Scale 15.65 5.76 17.70 6.08 16.65 5.99 −2.32 .02*

Perceived Racism Scale

Past year^a 13.39 13.72 11.70 11.68 12.57 12.76 0.88 .38

Social support

Perceived support

Child’s mother 3.62 1.20 3.79 1.20 3.71 1.20 −0.91 .36

Mother’s female relatives 3.66 0.99 3.38 1.11 3.52 1.05 1.72 .09*

Mother’s male relatives 3.60 0.99 3.49 0.94 3.54 0.96 0.73 .46

Mother’s friends 3.38 1.03 3.38 1.01 3.38 1.01 0.36 .97

The Social Support Questionnaire

Satisfaction 33.49 4.35 33.20 4.38 33.34 4.35 0.44 .66

Co-parenting relationships

Quality of Relationships Inventory

Support 2.38 0.80 2.53 0.82 2.45 0.81 −1.30 .20

Conflict 2.54 0.63 2.37 0.54 2.46 0.59 1.94 .05*

Depth 2.40 0.80 2.60 0.83 2.50 0.82 −1.66 .10*

Total score 2.46 0.42 2.47 0.44 2.46 0.43 −0.12 .91

Tolerance for Disagreement Scale 47.93 7.45 49.17 7.62 48.54 7.54 −1.24 .27

^a Analysis of log-transformed variable and untransformed variable yielded the same results. The result of analysis of the untransformed variable is presented.

p ≤ .10.

Of the significant predictors entered into the logistic regression model, five variables were retained in the final model (see Table 3). The odds of mother participation were 20% lower for each year of age of the target child with this finding approaching statistical significance. As fathers’ perception of support from mothers’ female relatives increased, the odds of mother participation decreased by 27%. Greater father perceived stress was associated with 9% higher odds of mother participation. Finally, a better co-parent relationship was associated with mother participation. Each point increase in father-reported conflict was associated with a 56% reduction in odds of mother participation, and each point increase in relationship depth was associated with a 60% increase in the odds of mother participation.

Table 3.
Final Multivariable Logistic Regression of Predictors of Maternal Participation.

Predictor OR 95% CI p Value

Child age 0.78 [0.60, 1.02] .068

Perceived support

Mother’s female relatives 0.63 [0.45, 0.89] .008

Perceived stress 1.09 [1.02, 1.15] .007*

Quality of relationships

Conflict 0.44 [0.23, 0.84] .013*

Depth 1.60 [1.03, 2.49] .036*

Note. CI = confidence interval; OR = odds ratio.

*p < .05.

Discussion

Our findings reveal that mothers were more likely to participate as a data informant when children were younger, fathers perceived their stress as higher, fathers perceived less conflict with the mother, and the father perceived that he had lower levels of support from the mother’s female relatives. Factors typically noted as being important to family functioning and co-parenting alliances such as employment status, and income did not significantly influence mothers’ participation. The current study reveals factors influential to mother support of father involvement and aspects of the co-parenting relationship in AA co-parents which are beyond the current research literature.

Individual Influences

In the current study, having a younger child was associated with the mother’s participation as a data informant. Research conducted with unmarried couples supports the notion that co-parenting relationships and father–child engagement tend to be firmer when children are younger (Goldberg & Carlson, 2015), which might suggest that parents are more likely to be connected when children are younger. Much of the work in early childhood development confirms the importance of early connections between parents and their children, and it may be easier for parents to remain connected in their child’s early years even in the absence of a solid relationship between the parents (McHale & Carter, 2012). In addition, maintaining the positive involvement of both parents in early childhood provides a more secure footing on which to build healthy child development (Newland, 2015). Therefore, supporting this relationship early, when parents may be more amenable to participating, could be a critical step in maintaining positive and effective co-parenting relationships.

The finding that when the father’s perceived stress was high, the mother was more likely to participate as a data informant is an interesting one. Stress can negatively impact parents, children, and overall family functioning (Cappa et al., 2011). Determinants of parenting stress are multifaceted and can include individual parent characteristics such as depression, child characteristics, co-parent relationship, parent–child relationships, the environment, and interactions across all factors (Nomaguchi et al., 2017). Perhaps mothers are attuned to father’s stress and see their encouragement of fatherhood intervention participation as an opportunity to help alleviate stress. It is possible that a mother perceives that supporting the child’s father’s participation in fatherhood interventions would benefit the father and subsequently the child. Therefore, given the potential positive impact on her child, she might be more willing to support the father’s participation in a fatherhood intervention by serving as a data informant. Future research should continue to explore and address a variety of additional factors that impact parental stress, mental health, and the co-parenting relationship for AA fathers such as racism, employment, and limited access to resources (Nomaguchi & Johnson, 2016; Threlfall et al., 2013). In addition, Feinberg et al. (2019) posit that in light of the potential for fluctuations in parenting stress, the quality of the co-parenting relationship may not be static and could better inform the co-parenting relationship if assessed via data collected at multiple time points.

Research that explores additional aspects of fathers’ characteristics that can influence mother participation is warranted. Although mothers in the current study were more likely to participate when the father perceived that his stress was elevated, there may be limits to how much the mother is willing to tolerate to help buffer the father’s stress. For example, if fathers handle their stress by engaging in behaviors that diverge from family, cultural, and community norms, the mother may feel that it is in her best interest and the best interest of the child to remain distant. Similarly, when fathers’ behaviors contribute to family disorder (i.e., home confusion and disorganization), children have elevated behavior problems, and parents engage in less effective discipline strategies (Dumas et al., 2005; Petren, 2017). Previous research has shown that the effects of parenting interventions are compromised when parents cannot work as a team to implement the program (Dush et al., 2011), highlighting the importance of making sure that both parents have the requisite co-parenting skills (Pearson et al., 2020). Father, mother, and child individual characteristics can influence mother participation as a data informant in parenting interventions because family relationships are dynamic and interrelated. According to Feinberg et al. (2019), mother characteristics have the potential to influence the contexts of the co-parenting relationship and the enactment of parenting strategies. Additional information on family characteristics could better inform the likelihood of maternal participation as data informants in fatherhood interventions.

Relationship and Family Influences

Poor co-parenting relationships between parents living apart negatively influence fathers’ accessibility and interactions with their children. A significant reason for couple discord is when fathers are noncompliant or inconsistent in their visitation and financial support. Co-parenting relationships in this context can also be complicated by the erosion of romantic relationships that are supplanted by contentious relationships, making it difficult to maintain cordial contact for the sake of the child (Carlson et al., 2005; Palmer, 2011; Tach et al., 2010). When these circumstances occur, mothers may limit fathers’ contact with their child.

To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine predictors of mothers’ participation as a data informant in fatherhood intervention research. Most prior parenting interventions designed to improve child outcomes have focused on mothers as the recipient of the intervention (Panter-Brick et al., 2014). Mothers have also been used to support recruitment of fathers and sons into intervention research studies (Caldwell et al., 2010, 2014). However, recruiting fathers through the mother does not address the capacity to recruit and engage fathers in fatherhood research when fathers have poor or nonexistent relationships with the mothers of their children. Furthermore, this approach systematically marginalizes fathers from fatherhood intervention research and places mothers in a research-gatekeeping role (Fagan & Cherson, 2017). Gatekeeping has not been explicitly studied in relation to recruitment and enrollment in intervention research. It remains unclear to what extent mothers have the potential to regulate fathers’ enrollment in interventions. Even so, a strong co-parenting relationship focused on the child’s best interest would need to be in place in order for such an approach to be successful (Camisasca et al., 2015). In future studies that are focused on father participation in intervention research, it will be important to refine recruitment strategies that can facilitate engaging co-parents even when only one parent is the target of the proposed intervention. According to Morawska et al. (2014), recruitment approaches should describe the benefits of participation in terms of reducing behavior problems and also include affirmative messages about the importance of fostering child competence and well-being.

Although we are learning more about the predictors of mothers’ participation in fatherhood research, evidence reveals that parental conflict can not only negatively impact child well-being but also the mother’s decision to be involved in any activities related to the father (Camisasca et al., 2016). Conversely, a strong co-parenting relationship would suggest that mothers would be more likely to support father engagement in parent training because there is mutual trust, high-quality communication between co-parents, and the father is an important resource for the mother (Nomaguchi et al., 2017). In addition, if maternal beliefs about parenting roles include the importance of the father as caregiver, nurturer, and educator, she will be invested in fathers’ efforts to better themselves for the benefit of the child (Trahan, 2018). In an effort to minimize family chaos (e.g., lack of routine, disorder, conflict, stress), mothers may be more likely to endorse opportunities for fathers to participate in programs that help bolster positive father involvement for the good of their children (Budescu & Taylor, 2013). Mothers may view their participation in a fatherhood study as a data informant as a means to facilitate positive co-parenting and view father participation in a fatherhood intervention as a way to mitigate their own stress by sharing parenting responsibilities with fathers (Nomaguchi et al., 2017).

Among nonmarried parents, relationships are likely to be unstable with 60% of nonmarried parents severing their interpersonal relationship by their child’s fifth birthday (McLanahan & Beck, 2010). The lack of relationship stability as the child ages supports the premise that the younger the child, the more likely the parents are to be connected. The finding that mothers are more likely to participate as a data informant when the child is young and there is less co-parenting conflict speak to the need to support early collaborative co-parenting relationships. Early efforts to bolster collaborative co-parenting, prior to relationship dissolution, can buffer against co-parenting decline (Carlson & Högnäs, 2011; Dush et al., 2011).

Mothers in our sample were less likely to participate as a data informant if the father perceived that the mother’s female relatives were more supportive of his being a father. This counterintuitive finding is based on paternal reports and could imply that fathers perceive mothers take a step back when her female relatives are supportive of the father. The role of the extended family is more pronounced in AA families, particularly for single mothers (Parke & Cookston, 2019).This may be particularly so when maternal grandmothers or other female relatives provide social support to co-parents. There is evidence that mothers’ relatives can play a significant role in moderating the relationship between estranged parents, particularly if the mother is younger or the child’s grandmother perceives that the father is not living up to his responsibilities as a father (Högnäs & Williams, 2017; Perry, 2009). Overall, literature supports the notion that fathers who report having more cooperative co-parenting relatives in their networks also report having higher parenting self-efficacy and father–child closeness (Fagan et al., 2016). Children are best served when all of the adults responsible for their care and upbringing are communicating, coordinating, and working together. Even so, additional research is needed to examine the impact of familial support on parent participation in intervention research.

Extrafamilial Influences

Although socioeconomic risk did not influence mothers’ participation in this study, we know that fathers’ provision of financial support to the mother can play a role in the co-parenting relationship. According to Parke and Cookston (2019), the sociocultural contexts that impact fathering can include income, social class, employment opportunities, work schedules, and institutional constraints related to military service and mass incarceration (Lemmons & Johnson, 2019). Thus, multiple contexts can potentially impact fathers’ ability to meaningfully engage in fatherhood interventions. Finally, extrafamilial influences can impact father’s mental health and self-efficacy as families and society often ascribe being a provider to fathers (Cabrera & Volling, 2019). When fathers are narrowly prescribed to the role of provider and subsequently struggle to fulfill that role, mental health can suffer. More nuanced research is necessary to tease out if extrafamilial and sociocultural factors mediate/moderate the co-parenting relationship and participation in fatherhood interventions. Additionally, extrafamilial influences related to the impact on fatherhood that mass incarceration causes warrant further investigation (Lemmons & Johnson, 2019). Thus, additional exploration of the origins and impact of stressors and the availability of resources for co-parents are important because each parent’s well-being is entangled within the interrelated nature of the co-parenting relationship (Feinberg et al., 2019).

Limitations

There are limitations to the current study. First, our study is limited because it only considers mothers’ initial enrollment in the study. It is possible that over time, the predictors of mothers’ participation may change as their perspectives of fathers’ behaviors and interactions with their children evolve over time. Despite the use of a conceptual framework to guide the selection of predictors for the current study, we may not have evaluated other salient predictors that may have influenced mothers’ willingness to participate in the study as a data informant. For example, when fathers are engaged in risky behaviors, substance abuse, or the criminal justice system, mothers may opt out of the relationship (Stykes, 2015). These data are just from the 125 maternal caregivers who decided to participate in the current study as a data informant. Consequently, the perspectives of mothers who decided not to participate remain unknown. Findings, related to predictors of mothers’ participation, may have differed considerably among mothers who declined participation. This is particularly relevant because there may be numerous reasons that are directly related to the co-parenting relationship that can cause relationships to splinter such as infidelity, intimate partner violence, and either parent deciding to move on to form a new interpersonal relationship (Bonevski et al., 2014). The challenges inherent in research that seeks to garner the perspectives of adults who may not be bound by marital relationships and household ties are many (Bonevski et al., 2014). Attempting to obtain maternal participation in research may also be influenced by conducting research with participants who may be ill-inclined to participate in research or mistrustful of researchers (Scharff et al., 2010). In addition, due to the potential for members of the target groups to change their residence or contact information, fathers who have limited contact with the mothers of their children may literally lose contact with their children due to change in residence of either parent (Bonevski et al., 2014; Cheadle et al., 2010). Finally, our understanding of maternal participation as a data informant is hindered by incomplete understanding of maternal characteristics that could influence her decision making.

Implications

As long as co-parents maintain good relationships, parenting alliances can be forged (McHale & Carter, 2012). Since the aim of parent training interventions is to facilitate family and child well-being, it may be important to examine the family as an extended kin network that can help co-parents work together (Jones, 2011; Minniear & Soliz, 2019). It is likely that single mother–headed households include extended maternal and/or paternal kin. The role of extended kin in fostering effective co-parenting relationship is important to explore and may also help to shed light on father’s participation in fatherhood interventions (Högnäs & Williams, 2017).

Interventions developed and implemented specifically for fathers who live apart from their children (i.e., nonresident) are nascent (Henry et al., 2020). In addition, existing interventions designed for nonresident fathers tend to focus more on school-age and male children (Davis et al., 2009) and less frequently on preschool-aged children and daughters (Caldwell et al., 2010, 2014; S. J. Lee et al., 2011). Research on intervention approaches geared specifically toward parents who are co-parenting children in separate households, and attentive to diversity among unmarried parents and child gender, will be a significant advance for this field (Carter & McHale, 2012; McHale & Carter, 2012). Of particular importance will be differences in programming for parents whose relationships are ongoing, those whose relationships dissolved, and those who had a more casual relationship to begin with. Key recommendations moving forward include offering relationship skills support, focusing on fathers’ desires to make life better for their children, and providing supplementary support related to interpersonal communication skills and problem-solving (Holcomb et al., 2015).

Conclusion

Mothers’ participation as a data informant in a fatherhood intervention is reflective of the co-parenting relationship and important to data reliability and validity. Efforts to strengthen co-parenting among couples should begin prenatally, continue once the child is born, and involve extended kin in order to optimize child well-being (Panter-Brick et al., 2014). Such an approach would capitalize on the likelihood of parents building a strong alliance with the child’s best interest at heart. Strong and healthy families are bolstered when co-parents are integrated in families and communities that surround families in a matrix of support that could improve the long-term well-being of fathers, children, and families.

Demographic Variable	Mother Participation
Father characteristics
Age M (SD)	34.23 (9.48)		32.83 (8.37)		33.54 (8.96)		1.05	.30
Marital status
Married/living with partner	4	4	2	2	6	3	2.50	.48
Separated	9	10	13	15	22	12
Divorced	13	14	8	9	21	12
Never married	65	71	64	74	129	73
Education
<High school degree	45	50	36	41	81	46	1.17	.28
Some college or more	46	50	51	59	97	54
Employment status
Part-time	22	24	21	24	43	24	0.95	.92
Full-time	30	33	28	32	58	33
Not currently working	34	38	30	35	64
Going to school	2	2	3	3	5	3
Working and going to school	3	3	5	6	8	4
Monthly income
<$500	22	24	25	29	47	26	4.00	.41
$501–$1,000	22	24	15	17	37	21
$1,001–$2,000	21	23	25	29	46	26
$2,001–$3,000	11	12	5	6	16	9
$3,001+	15	17	16	19	31	18
Child characteristics
Age M (SD)	4.02 (1.23)		3.63 (1.22)		3.83 (1.24)		2.12	.04*
Gender
Male	51	57	42	48	93	53	1.25	.26
Female	39	43	45	52	84	47
Mother characteristics ^a
Age			31.33 (7.22)
Marital status
Married/living with partner			8	9
Separated			7	8
Divorced			7	8
Never married			65	75
Education
≤High school degree			30	35
Some college or more			57	65
Job status
Part-time			11	13
Full-time			41	47
Not currently working			19
Going to school			5	5
Working and going to school			11	13
Monthly income
<$500			11	14
$501–$1,000			20	24
$1,001–$2,000			27	33
$2,001–$3,000			18	22
$3,001+			6	7

Predictor	Mother Participation
Parenting
Parenting Behavior Checklist
Expectations	3.09	0.55	2.99	0.56	3.04	0.55	1.18	.24
Discipline^a	1.44	0.38	1.52	0.45	1.48	0.42	−1.30	.20
Nurturing	3.07	0.51	2.97	0.43	3.02	0.47	1.35	.18
Perceived child problem severity
Behavior Assessment System for Children^b
Adaptability	45.84	9.38	46.43	9.61	46.13	9.47	−0.40	.69
Aggression^a	48.16	10.16	47.58	11.36	47.88	10.74	0.36	.72
Attention	50.39	8.75	50.04	9.22	50.22	8.96	0.26	.80
Functional communication	47.39	9.23	48.24	8.74	47.81	8.97	−0.62	.53
Hyperactivity	50.50	9.40	48.92	11.72	49.72	10.61	0.98	.33
Social skills	50.08	10.71	48.17	9.67	49.14	10.22	1.24	.22
Parental self-efficacy
Parenting Sense of Competence Scale
Satisfaction	23.85	6.46	24.34	8.41	24.09	7.46	−0.43	.67
Efficacy	13.99	5.39	14.86	5.88	14.42	5.64	−1.02	.31
Father psychological well-being
Center for Epidemiological Studies–Depression	13.21	7.68	15.48	0.78	14.32	8.29	−1.83	.07*
Perceived Stress Scale	15.65	5.76	17.70	6.08	16.65	5.99	−2.32	.02*
Perceived Racism Scale
Past year^a	13.39	13.72	11.70	11.68	12.57	12.76	0.88	.38
Social support
Perceived support
Child’s mother	3.62	1.20	3.79	1.20	3.71	1.20	−0.91	.36
Mother’s female relatives	3.66	0.99	3.38	1.11	3.52	1.05	1.72	.09*
Mother’s male relatives	3.60	0.99	3.49	0.94	3.54	0.96	0.73	.46
Mother’s friends	3.38	1.03	3.38	1.01	3.38	1.01	0.36	.97
The Social Support Questionnaire
Satisfaction	33.49	4.35	33.20	4.38	33.34	4.35	0.44	.66
Co-parenting relationships
Quality of Relationships Inventory
Support	2.38	0.80	2.53	0.82	2.45	0.81	−1.30	.20
Conflict	2.54	0.63	2.37	0.54	2.46	0.59	1.94	.05*
Depth	2.40	0.80	2.60	0.83	2.50	0.82	−1.66	.10*
Total score	2.46	0.42	2.47	0.44	2.46	0.43	−0.12	.91
Tolerance for Disagreement Scale	47.93	7.45	49.17	7.62	48.54	7.54	−1.24	.27

Predictor	OR	95% CI	p Value
Child age	0.78	[0.60, 1.02]	.068
Perceived support
Mother’s female relatives	0.63	[0.45, 0.89]	.008*
Perceived stress	1.09	[1.02, 1.15]	.007*
Quality of relationships
Conflict	0.44	[0.23, 0.84]	.013*
Depth	1.60	[1.03, 2.49]	.036*

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

Dawn T. Bounds is now at the Sue and Bill Gross School of Nursing, University of California Irvine. Susan M. Breitenstein is now at The Martha S. Pitzer Center for Women, Children and Youth, College of Nursing, The Ohio State University.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by National Institute of Nursing Research (grant ID: 5RO1NR011182-06).

ORCID iD

Wrenetha A. Julion

References

Adamsons

Johnson

S. K.

(2013). An updated and expanded meta-analysis of nonresident fathering and child well-being. Journal of Family Psychology, 27(4), 589–599. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033786

Baker

C. E.

(2014). African American fathers’ depression and stress as predictors of father involvement during early childhood. Journal of Black Psychology, 40(4), 311–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798413486480

Bamishigbin

O. N.

Dunkel Schetter

Guardino

C. M.

Stanton

A. L.

Schafer

Shalowitz

Gaines

Thorp

Raju

(2017). Risk, resilience, and depressive symptoms in low-income African American fathers. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 23(1), 70–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000088

Blair

Voith

L. A.

Zhang

Yoon

(2020). Expanding the scope of resilience research with socioeconomically disadvantaged men: Considering the sociocultural context. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 28(1), 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1060826519842797

Bonevski

Randell

Paul

Chapman

Twyman

Bryant

Brozek

Hughes

(2014). Reaching the hard-to-reach: A systematic review of strategies for improving health and medical research with socially disadvantaged groups. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-42

Budescu

Taylor

R. D.

(2013). Order in the home: Family routines moderate the impact of financial hardship. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 34(2), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2012.11.006

Cabrera

N. J.

Moore

Bronte-Tinkew

Halle

West

Brooks-Gunn

Reichman

Teitler

Ellingsen

Nord

C. W.

Boller

(2004). The DADS initiative: Measuring father involvement in large-scale surveys. In Day

R. D.

Lamb

M. E.

(Eds.), Conceptualizing and measuring father involvement (pp. 417–452). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Cabrera

N. J.

Peters

H. E.

(2000). Public policies and father involvement. Marriage & Family Review, 29(4), 295–314. https://doi.org/10.1300/j002v29n04_04

Cabrera

N. J.

Volling

B. L.

(2019). Moving research on fathering and children’s development forward: Priorities and recommendations for the future. Monographs of the Society for Research & Child Development, 84, 107–117.

10.

Caldwell

C. H.

Antonakos

C. L.

Assari

Kruger

Loney

E. H.

Njai

(2014). Pathways to prevention: Improving nonresident African American fathers’ parenting skills and behaviors to reduce sons’ aggression. Child Development, 85(1), 308–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12127

11.

Caldwell

C. H.

Rafferty

Reischl

T. M.

De Loney

E. H.

Brooks

C. L.

(2010). Enhancing parenting skills among nonresident African American fathers as a strategy for preventing youth risky behaviors. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(1), 17–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-009-9290-4

12.

Camisasca

Miragoli

Caravita

Di Blasio

(2015). The parenting alliance measure: The first contribution to the validation of the measure in Italian mothers and fathers. TPM: Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 22(1), 71–95. https://doi.org/10.4473/TPM22.1.6

13.

Camisasca

Miragoli

Di Blasio

(2016). Families with distinct levels of marital conflict and child adjustment: Which role for maternal and paternal stress? Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(3), 733–745. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-015-0261-0

14.

Cappa

K. A.

Begle

A. M.

Conger

J. C.

Dumas

J. E.

Conger

A. J.

(2011). Bidirectional relationships between parenting stress and child coping competence: Findings from the pace study. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 20(3), 334–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-010-9397-0

15.

Carlson

M. J.

Högnäs

R. S.

(2011). Coparenting in fragile families: Understanding how parents work together after a nonmarital birth. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7b79/851de4dbe02d9cc305f35ff1c2c023e33007.pdf

16.

Carlson

M. J.

McLanahan

England

Devaney

(2005). What we know about unmarried parents: Implications for building strong families programs. Mathematica Policy Research. https://ideas.repec.org/p/mpr/mprres/dbc27c22c38748c185042b023029fae5.html

17.

Carter

D. K.

McHale

J. P.

(2012). Applications of focused coparenting consultation with unmarried and divorced families. Independent Practitioner, 32, 106–110.

18.

Castillo

J. T.

Sarver

C. M.

(2012). Nonresident fathers’ social networks: The relationship between social support and father involvement. Personal Relationships, 19(4), 759–774. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01391.x

19.

Charles

Spielfogel

Gorman-Smith

Schoeny

Henry

Tolan

(2018). Disagreement in parental reports of father involvement. Journal of Family Issues, 39(2), 328–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513x16644639

20.

Cheadle

J. E.

Amato

P. R.

King

(2010). Patterns of nonresident father contact. Demography, 47(1), 205–225. https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.0.0084

21.

Child Trends calculations of U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement (2008–2015). America’s Families and Living Arrangements (Tables C-2, C-3). http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hh-fam/.html

22.

Coates

E. E.

Phares

(2019). Pathways linking nonresident father involvement and child outcomes. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28(6), 1681–1694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01389-6

23.

Cohen

Kamarck

Mermelstein

(1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24(4) 385–396. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136404

24.

Davis

R. N.

Caldwell

C. H.

Clark

S. J.

Davis

M. M.

(2009). Depressive symptoms in nonresident African American fathers and involvement with their sons. Pediatrics, 124(6), 1611–1618. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-0718

25.

Dumas

J. E.

Nissley

Nordstrom

Smith

E. P.

Prinz

R. J.

Levine

D. W.

(2005). Home chaos: Sociodemographic, parenting, interactional, and child correlates. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34(1), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp3401_9

26.

Dush

C. M. K.

Kotila

L. E.

Schoppe-Sullivan

S. J.

(2011). Predictors of supportive coparenting after relationship dissolution among at-risk parents. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(3), 356–365. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023652

27.

East

Hutchinson

Power

Jackson

. (2020). “Being a father”: Constructions of fatherhood by men with absent fathers. Journal of Family Studies, 26(3), 477–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/13229400.2018.1459308

28.

Edin

Tach

Mincy

(2009). Claiming fatherhood: Race and the dynamics of paternal involvement among unmarried men. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 621(1), 149–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716208325548

29.

Eggebeen

D. J.

Knoester

McDaniel

(2013). The implications of fatherhood for men. In Cabrera

N. J.

Tamis-LeMonda

C. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of father involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 338–357). Routledge.

30.

Ellerbe

C. Z.

Jones

J. B.

Carlson

M. J.

(2014). Nonresident fathers’ involvement after a nonmarital birth: Exploring differences by race/ethnicity. Center for Research on Child Wellbeing. http://crcw.Princeton.edu/workingpapers/WP14-07-FF.Pdf

31.

Fagan

Cherson

(2017). Maternal gatekeeping: The associations among facilitation, encouragement, and low-income fathers’ engagement with young children. Journal of Family Issues, 38(5), 633–653. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513x15578007

32.

Fagan

Kaufman

(2015). Co-parenting relationships among low-income, unmarried parents: Perspectives of fathers in fatherhood programs. Family Court Review, 53(2), 304–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12152

33.

Fagan

Lee

(2011). Do coparenting and social support have a greater effect on adolescent fathers than adult fathers? Family Relations, 60(3), 247–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00651.x

34.

Fagan

Levine

E. C.

Kaufman

Hammar

(2016). Low-income, nonresident fathers’ coparenting with multiple mothers and relatives: Effects on fathering. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(6), 665–675. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000231

35.

Fagan

Palkovitz

(2011). Coparenting and relationship quality effects on father engagement: Variations by residence, romance. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73(3), 637–653. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00834.x

36.

Fagan

Pearson

Kaufman

(2020). A descriptive study of low-income never-married fathers’ coparenting with mothers and relatives. Family Relations, 69(1), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12384

37.

Feinberg

M. E.

(2003). The internal structure and ecological context of coparenting: A framework for research and intervention. Parenting: Science and Practice, 3(2), 95–131. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327922par0302_01

38.

Feinberg

M. E.

Jones

D. E.

McDaniel

B. T.

Liu

Almeida

(2019). New fathers’ and mothers’ daily stressors and resources influence parent adjustment and family relationships. Monographs of the Society for Research & Child Development, 84, 18–34.

39.

Fox

R. A.

(1992). Development of an instrument to measure the behaviors and expectations of parents of young children. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 17(2), 231–239. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/17.2.231

40.

Gamboa

C. J.

Julion

W. A.

(2019). Group-based transmission of fatherhood among intergenerational African American fathers: A case study. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 32(2), 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcap.12227

41.

Gaunt

(2008). Maternal gatekeeping antecedents and consequences. Journal of Family Issues, 29(3), 373–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513x07307851

42.

Goldberg

J. S.

Carlson

M. J.

(2015). Patterns and predictors of coparenting after unmarried parents part. Journal of Family Psychology, 29(3), 416–426. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000078

43.

Goodman

J. D.

(2018). Defining nonresidential fatherhood for Black Americans in the 21st century. Negro Educational Review, 69(1–4), 52–142.

44.

Guzzo

K. B.

(2011). New father’s experiences with their own fathers and attitudes toward fathering. Fathering, 9(3), 268–290. https://doi.org/10.3149/fth.0903.268

45.

Henry

J. B.

Julion

W. A.

Bounds

D. T.

Sumo

J. N.

(2020). Fatherhood matters: An integrative review of fatherhood intervention research. The Journal of School Nursing, 36(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059840519873380

46.

Högnäs

R. S.

Williams

(2017). Maternal kinship involvement and father identity in fragile families. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 38(2), 249–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-016-9487-2

47.

Holcomb

Edin

Max

Young

D’Angelo

Valdovinos

F. D.

Clary

Johnson

W. E

. (2015). In their own voices: The hopes and struggles of responsible fatherhood program participants in the parents and children together evaluation. OPRE, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre/resource/in-their-voices-hopes-struggles-responsible-fatherhood-parents-children-evaluation

48.

Jamison

T. B.

Ganong

Proulx

C. M.

(2017). Unmarried coparenting in the context of poverty: Understanding the relationship between stress, family resource management, and resilience. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 38(3), 439–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-016-9518-z

49.

Johnson

M. S.

Young

A. A.

(2016). Diversity and meaning in the study of Black fatherhood: Toward a new paradigm. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 13(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1742058x16000047

50.

Jones

D. J.

(2011). Coparenting in extended kinship systems: African American, Hispanic, Asian heritage, and Native American families. In McHale

J. P.

Lindahl

K. M.

(Eds.), Coparenting: A conceptual and clinical examination of family systems (pp. 61–79). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12328-003

51.

Julion

W. A.

Bounds

D. T.

Breitenstein

S. M.

Schoeny

Gross

Fogg

(2016). Study protocol for a randomized clinical trial of a fatherhood intervention for African American non-resident fathers: Can we improve father and child outcomes? Contemporary Clinical Trials, 49, 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2016.05.005

52.

Julion

W. A.

Breitenstein

S. M.

Waddell

(2012). Fatherhood intervention development in collaboration with African American non-resident fathers. Research in Nursing & Health, 35(5), 490–506. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.21492

53.

Kennedy

Betts

Dunn

Sonuga-Barke

Underwood

(2015). Applying Pleck’s model of paternal involvement to the study of preschool attachment quality: A proof of concept study. Early Child Development and Care, 185(4), 601–613. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2014.944907

54.

Lamb

M. D.

Pleck

J. H.

Charnov

E. L.

Levine

J. A.

(1987). A biosocial perspective on paternal involvement and involvement. In Lancaster

J. B.

Altmann

Rossi

A. S.

Sherrod

L. R.

(Eds.), Parenting across the life span: Biosocial dimensions (pp. 111–142). Aldine. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315126005-7

55.

Lee

S. J.

Yelick

Brisebois

Banks

K. L.

(2011). Low-income fathers’ barriers to participation in family and parenting programs. Journal of Family Strengths, 11(1), 12. https://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/jfs/vol11/iss1/12

56.

Lee

T. W.

Lee

S. H.

Kim

H. H.

Kang

S. J.

(2012). Effective intervention strategies to improve health outcomes for cardiovascular disease patients with low health literacy skills: A systematic review. Asian Nursing Research, 6(4), 128–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anr.2012.09.001

57.

Lemmons

B. P.

Johnson

W. E.

(2019). Game changers: A critical race theory analysis of the economic, social, and political factors impacting Black fatherhood and family formation. Social Work in Public Health, 34(1), 86–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/19371918.2018.1562406

58.

McHale

Carter

(2012). Applications of focused coparenting consultation with unmarried and divorced families. Independent Practitioner, 32(3), 106–110.

59.

McLanahan

Beck

A. N.

(2010). Parental relationships in fragile families. The Future of Children/Center for the Future of Children, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, 20(2), 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2010.0007

60.

McNeilly

M. D.

Anderson

N. B.

Armstead

C. A.

Clark

Corbett

Robinson

E. L.

Pieper

C. F.

Lepisto

E. M.

(1996). The Perceived Racism Scale: A multidimensional assessment of the experience of White racism among African Americans. Ethnicity & Disease, 6(1–2), 154–166.

61.

Minkler

(2004). Ethical challenges for the “outside” researcher in community-based participatory research. Health Education & Behavior, 31(6), 684–697. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198104269566

62.

Minniear

Soliz

(2019). Family communication and messages about race and identity in Black families in the United States. Journal of Family Communication, 19(4), 329–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2019.1593170

63.

Morawska

Dyah Ramadewi

Sanders

M. R.

(2014). Using epidemiological survey data to examine factors influencing participation in parent-training programmes. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 12(3), 264–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718x14536952

64.

Murphy

A. D.

Gordon

Sherrod

Dancy

Kershaw

(2013). Friends, family, and foes: The influence of father’s social networks. American Journal of Men’s Health, 7(3), 228–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557988312467816

65.

Nelson-Coffey

S. K.

Killingsworth

Layous

Cole

S. W.

Lyubomirsky

(2019). Parenthood is associated with greater well-being for fathers than mothers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(9), 1378–1390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219829174

66.

Nepomnyaschy

Teitler

(2013). Cyclical cohabitation among unmarried parents in fragile families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75(5), 1248–1265. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12064

67.

Newland

L. A.

(2015). Family well-being, parenting, and child well-being: Pathways to healthy adjustment. Clinical Psychologist, 19(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/cp.12059

68.

Nixon

Hadfield

(2018). Construction of single mothers’ roles as gatekeepers between children and nonresident fathers. Journal of Family Issues, 39(14), 3732–3752. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513x18796051

69.

Nomaguchi

Brown

Leyman

T. M.

(2017). Fathers’ participation in parenting and maternal parenting stress: Variation by relationship status. Journal of Family Issues, 38(8), 1132–1156. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513x15623586

70.

Nomaguchi

Johnson

(2016). Parenting stress among low-income and working-class fathers: The role of employment. Journal of Family Issues, 37(11), 1535–1557. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513x14560642

71.

Ohan

J. L.

Leung

D. W.

Johnston

(2000). The Parenting Sense of Competence Scale: Evidence of a stable factor structure and validity. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 32(4), 251–261. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087122

72.

Osborne

Austin

Dion

Dyer

Fagan

Harris

Scott

(2014). Framing the future of responsible fatherhood evaluation research. Fatherhood Research and Practice Network. Retrieved May 17, 2020, from https://www.frpn.org/evaluating-programs/our-research

73.

Palmer

(2011). Predictors of social and emotional involvement of non-residential fathers (Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study Working Papers No. 1300). https://fragilefamilies.princeton.edu/sites/fragilefamilies/files/wp11-05-ff.pdf

74.

Panter-Brick

Burgess

Eggerman

McAllister

Pruett

Leckman

J. F

. (2014). Practitioner review: Engaging fathers–recommendations for a game change in parenting interventions based on a systematic review of the global evidence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 55(11), 1187–1212. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12280

75.

Parke

R. G.

Cookston

S. T.

(2019). Commentary: Many types of fathers, many types of contexts: An agenda for future progress in fathering research. Monographs of the Society for Research & Child Development, 84, 132–146.

76.

Pearson

Henson

Fagan

(2020). What nonresident mothers and fathers have to say about a mother-only coparenting intervention: A qualitative assessment of understanding Dads^TM. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 101(2), 167–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044389419899601

77.

Perry

A. R.

(2009). The influence of the extended family on the involvement of nonresident African American fathers. Journal of Family Social Work, 12(3), 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/10522150903046390

78.

Perry

A. R.

Lewis

(2016). Leaving legacies: African American men discuss the impact of their fathers on the development of their own paternal attitudes and behavior. Journal of Family Social Work, 19(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10522158.2015.1112332

79.

Petren

R. E.

(2017). Paternal multiple partner fertility and environmental chaos among unmarried nonresident fathers. Journal of Social Service Research, 43(1), 100–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2016.1235069

80.

Pudasainee-Kapri

Razza

R. A.

(2015). Associations among supportive coparenting, father engagement and attachment: The role of race/ethnicity. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(12), 3793–3804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-015-0187-6

81.

Radloff

L. S.

(1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662167700100306

82.

Randles

. (2020a). “Harder being without the baby”: Fathers’ coparenting perspectives in responsible fatherhood programming. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(2), 550–565. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12641

83.

Randles

(2020b). The means to and meaning of “being there” in responsible fatherhood programming with low-income fathers. Family Relations, 69(1), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12376

84.

Reiner

Beutel

Skaletz

Brähler

Stöbel-Richter

(2012). Validating the German version of the quality of relationship inventory: Confirming the three-factor structure and report of psychometric properties. PLoS One, 7(5), e37380. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0037380

85.

Reynolds

C. R.

(2010). Behavior assessment system for children. The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470479216.corpsy0114

86.

Roy

Zvonkovic

Goldberg

Sharp

LaRossa

(2015). Sampling richness and qualitative integrity: Challenges for research with families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77(1), 243–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12147

87.

Rusten

N. F.

Peterson

E. R.

Underwood

Verbiest

M. E.

Waldie

K. E.

Berry

Carr

P. A.

Grant

Pryor

Nicolson

Morton

S. M.

(2019). Psychological distress among resident and nonresident fathers: Findings from New Zealand’s who are today’s dads? project. Journal of Family Issues, 40(3), 293–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513x18808827

88.

Sarason

I. G.

Sarason

B. R.

Shearin

E. N.

Pierce

G. R.

(1987). A brief measure of social support: Practical and theoretical implications. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4(4), 497–510. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407587044007

89.

Scharff

D. P.

Mathews

K. J.

Jackson

Hoffsuemmer

Martin

Edwards

(2010). More than Tuskegee: Understanding mistrust about research participation. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 21(3), 879–897. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.0.0323

90.

Schoon

Melis

(2019). Intergenerational transmission of family adversity: Examining constellations of risk factors. PLoS One, 14(4), e0214801. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214801

91.

Schoppe-Sullivan

S. J.

Fagan

. (2020). The evolution of fathering research in the 21st century: Persistent challenges, new directions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 175–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12645

92.

Stahlschmidt

M. J.

Threlfall

Seay

K. D.

Lewis

E. M.

Kohl

P. L.

(2013). Recruiting fathers to parenting programs: Advice from dads and fatherhood program providers. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(10), 1734–1741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.07.004

93.

Stykes

J. B.

(2015). What matters most? Money, relationships, and visions of masculinity as key correlates of father involvement. Fathering, 13(1), 60–79.

94.

Tach

Mincy

Edin

(2010). Parenting as a “package deal”: Relationships, fertility, and nonresident father involvement among unmarried parents. Demography, 47(1), 181–204. https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.0.0096

95.

Teti

Martin

A. E.

Ranade

Massie

Malebranche

D. J.

Tschann

J. M.

Bowleg

. (2012). “I’ma keep rising. I’ma keep going forward, regardless” exploring Black men’s resilience amid sociostructural challenges and stressors. Qualitative Health Research, 22(4), 524–533. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732311422051

96.

Teven

J. J.

McCroskey

J. C.

Richmond

V. P.

(1998). Measurement of tolerance for disagreement. Communication Research Reports, 15(2), 209–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824099809362115

97.

Threlfall

J. M.

Seay

K. D.

Kohl

P. L.

(2013). The parenting role of African-American fathers in the context of urban poverty. Journal of Children and Poverty, 19(1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/10796126.2013.764846

98.

Toldson

I. A.

Johns

D. J.

(2016). Erasing deficits. Teachers College Record, 118(6), 1–7.

99.

Trahan

M. H.

(2018). Paternal self-efficacy and father involvement: A bi-directional relationship. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 19(4), 624. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000130

100.

Trahan

M. H.

Cheung

(2012). Fathering behavior within the context of role expectations and marital satisfaction: Framework for studying fathering behavior. Journal of Family Strengths, 12(1), 7. https://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/jfs/vol12/iss1/7

101.

Volling

B. L.

Cabrera

N. J.

(2019). Advancing research and measurement on fathering and child development: Introducing the issues and a conceptual framework. Monographs of the Society for Research & Child Development, 84, 7–17.

102.

Waller

M. R.

(2012). Cooperation, conflict, or disengagement? Coparenting styles and father involvement in fragile families. Family Process, 51(3), 325–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2012.01403.x

103.

Waller

M. R.

Emory

A. D.

Paul

(2018). Money, time, or something else? Measuring nonresident fathers’ informal and in-kind contributions. Journal of Family Issues, 39(13), 3612–3640. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513x18783801

104.

Washington

H. M.

Juan

Haskins

A. R.

(2018). Incapacitated involvement: Incarceration and fatherhood in fragile families at age 9. Journal of Family Issues, 39(13), 3463–3486. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513x18783225

105.

Whyte

(2017). Non-resident fathers: A literature review of factors influencing their world. Journal of Social Care, (1), 1–9. https://arrow.tudublin.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=jsoc

106.

Zhang

Fuller

(2012). Neighborhood disorder and paternal involvement of nonresident and resident fathers. Family Relations, 61(3), 501–513. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00705.x

Demographic Variable	Mother Participation
	No		Yes		Total		t or χ²	p Value
	n	%	n	%	n	%
	91		87		178
Father characteristics
Age M (SD)	34.23 (9.48)		32.83 (8.37)		33.54 (8.96)		1.05	.30
Marital status
Married/living with partner	4	4	2	2	6	3	2.50	.48
Separated	9	10	13	15	22	12
Divorced	13	14	8	9	21	12
Never married	65	71	64	74	129	73
Education
<High school degree	45	50	36	41	81	46	1.17	.28
Some college or more	46	50	51	59	97	54
Employment status
Part-time	22	24	21	24	43	24	0.95	.92
Full-time	30	33	28	32	58	33
Not currently working	34	38	30	35	64
Going to school	2	2	3	3	5	3
Working and going to school	3	3	5	6	8	4
Monthly income
<$500	22	24	25	29	47	26	4.00	.41
$501–$1,000	22	24	15	17	37	21
$1,001–$2,000	21	23	25	29	46	26
$2,001–$3,000	11	12	5	6	16	9
$3,001+	15	17	16	19	31	18
Child characteristics
Age M (SD)	4.02 (1.23)		3.63 (1.22)		3.83 (1.24)		2.12	.04*
Gender
Male	51	57	42	48	93	53	1.25	.26
Female	39	43	45	52	84	47
Mother characteristics ^a
Age			31.33 (7.22)
Marital status
Married/living with partner			8	9
Separated			7	8
Divorced			7	8
Never married			65	75
Education
≤High school degree			30	35
Some college or more			57	65
Job status
Part-time			11	13
Full-time			41	47
Not currently working			19
Going to school			5	5
Working and going to school			11	13
Monthly income
<$500			11	14
$501–$1,000			20	24
$1,001–$2,000			27	33
$2,001–$3,000			18	22
$3,001+			6	7

Predictor	Mother Participation
	No		Yes		Total sample		t	p Value
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	t	p Value
Parenting
Parenting Behavior Checklist
Expectations	3.09	0.55	2.99	0.56	3.04	0.55	1.18	.24
Discipline^a	1.44	0.38	1.52	0.45	1.48	0.42	−1.30	.20
Nurturing	3.07	0.51	2.97	0.43	3.02	0.47	1.35	.18
Perceived child problem severity
Behavior Assessment System for Children^b
Adaptability	45.84	9.38	46.43	9.61	46.13	9.47	−0.40	.69
Aggression^a	48.16	10.16	47.58	11.36	47.88	10.74	0.36	.72
Attention	50.39	8.75	50.04	9.22	50.22	8.96	0.26	.80
Functional communication	47.39	9.23	48.24	8.74	47.81	8.97	−0.62	.53
Hyperactivity	50.50	9.40	48.92	11.72	49.72	10.61	0.98	.33
Social skills	50.08	10.71	48.17	9.67	49.14	10.22	1.24	.22
Parental self-efficacy
Parenting Sense of Competence Scale
Satisfaction	23.85	6.46	24.34	8.41	24.09	7.46	−0.43	.67
Efficacy	13.99	5.39	14.86	5.88	14.42	5.64	−1.02	.31
Father psychological well-being
Center for Epidemiological Studies–Depression	13.21	7.68	15.48	0.78	14.32	8.29	−1.83	.07*
Perceived Stress Scale	15.65	5.76	17.70	6.08	16.65	5.99	−2.32	.02*
Perceived Racism Scale
Past year^a	13.39	13.72	11.70	11.68	12.57	12.76	0.88	.38
Social support
Perceived support
Child’s mother	3.62	1.20	3.79	1.20	3.71	1.20	−0.91	.36
Mother’s female relatives	3.66	0.99	3.38	1.11	3.52	1.05	1.72	.09*
Mother’s male relatives	3.60	0.99	3.49	0.94	3.54	0.96	0.73	.46
Mother’s friends	3.38	1.03	3.38	1.01	3.38	1.01	0.36	.97
The Social Support Questionnaire
Satisfaction	33.49	4.35	33.20	4.38	33.34	4.35	0.44	.66
Co-parenting relationships
Quality of Relationships Inventory
Support	2.38	0.80	2.53	0.82	2.45	0.81	−1.30	.20
Conflict	2.54	0.63	2.37	0.54	2.46	0.59	1.94	.05*
Depth	2.40	0.80	2.60	0.83	2.50	0.82	−1.66	.10*
Total score	2.46	0.42	2.47	0.44	2.46	0.43	−0.12	.91
Tolerance for Disagreement Scale	47.93	7.45	49.17	7.62	48.54	7.54	−1.24	.27