Parental Discipline in Emerging Adulthood: The Creation and Validation of the Domains of Young Adult Discipline Scale (DYADS)

Abstract

Emerging evidence suggests that parents engage in discipline practices during emerging adulthood, and the use of physical discipline is associated with negative mental health outcomes for emerging adults. However, it appears that no measure of discipline strategies used in emerging adulthood exists. The current study developed the Domains of Young Adult Discipline Scale (DYADS), a measure of parental discipline during emerging adulthood. After item construction, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted on a random half of the data (N = 288), followed by a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the second random half of the data (N = 304). Results of the CFA supported the factor structure of the EFA (i.e., three-factor structure) and revealed the best fitting model contained 24 items. The DYADS correlated with measures of parenting style and discipline as well as a measure of emerging adult mental health. Implications for future research are discussed.

Keywords

emerging adults parenting discipline scale development

Emerging adulthood is a developmental time period in which individuals between the ages of 18 and 25 years transition from their adolescent lifestyle to an increasingly independent adult lifestyle (Arnett, 2000, 2014). During this time, emerging adults experience a shift in the dynamics of their relationship with their parents (Hardie, 1999; Kloep & Hendry, 2010); yet, research has consistently demonstrated that parents continue to engage in parenting strategies similar to those used with younger children with their emerging adult offspring (McKinney, Milone, & Renk, 2011; Nelson, Padilla-Walker, Christensen, Evans, & Carroll, 2011; Padilla-Walker & Nelson, 2012).

To date, research investigating parenting during this time has focused on parenting styles, relationship quality between parents and emerging adult offspring, and the influence of these variables on emerging adult well-being; however, few studies have examined the discipline practices that also might be present during this time. A recent study of emerging adults conducted by McKinney, Walker, and Kwan (2016) found that approximately 23% of females and 36% of males endorsed receiving physical punishment from their fathers within the past year. However, one criticism of this research is that the study assessed discipline using a measure designed to assess discipline in childhood (i.e., Conflict Tactics Scale, Parent–Child Version [CTSPC]; Straus, Hamby, Finkelhor, Moore, & Runyan, 1998). As such, the CTSPC items may not accurately depict the type of discipline that is occurring during this time. Yet, no specific measure of discipline practices used in emerging adulthood appears to exist. Thus, the current study developed a measure of discipline practices used during emerging adulthood and established the psychometric properties of the measure.

Parenting in Emerging Adulthood

For the current study, parenting practices (i.e., behaviors) are defined as specific behaviors that parents use in child-rearing to achieve some specific goal (e.g., spanking to immediately stop a behavior), whereas parenting style refers to a general pattern of parenting behaviors (i.e., authoritarian, authoritative, permissive, and neglectful; Baumrind, 1991). Parenting styles and parenting behaviors are significantly related; for example, authoritarian parents (i.e., high demandingness and low responsiveness) may utilize corporal punishment as a parenting practice. However, the current study primarily focuses on the measurement of parenting behaviors, namely, parenting behaviors that attempt to discipline or exert control over their emerging adult offspring.

Although some research has suggested the purpose of parenting during emerging adulthood is to help children transition into the role of an adult (Kloep & Hendry, 2010), the overarching goal of parenting during this period remains largely unclear. Research has shown that emerging adults are still influenced by their parental relationships, and in some cases (e.g., for those living away from home), they continuously rely on their parents (Donnelly, Renk, & McKinney, 2013; McKinney & Renk, 2008; Nelson et al., 2011). Simultaneously, emerging adults tend to experience a shift in their relationship dynamics with their parents, and the ways in which parents interact with their emerging adults appear to play a crucial role in the successful transition into adulthood (King & Chassin, 2004). Research has examined parenting styles during emerging adulthood and generally have found that emerging adults with authoritative parents tend to have less reported psychopathology than emerging adults with authoritarian or permissive parents (Nelson et al., 2011). Yet, less research has examined parental practices or behaviors during this time, and even fewer studies have examined parental discipline behaviors during emerging adulthood.

Discipline in Emerging Adulthood

In earlier developmental periods, discipline behaviors can generally be categorized as power assertion, love withdrawal, or inductive reasoning (Barnett, Quackenbush, & Sinisi, 1996; Hoffman, 1963). Power assertion strategies involve the use of physical force (e.g., corporal punishment), removal of privileges, or threats because of children’s behavior. Love withdrawal strategies typically involve guilt-inducing practices such as psychological aggression, ignoring or isolating children, or directly stating a dislike for children to change children’s behavior. Inductive strategies involve the use of nonphysical strategies (e.g., time-out, logical consequences) coupled with clear communication and reasoning for setting standards for children’s behavior. For example, a parent may clearly explain that if a child breaks a toy, then the toy will not be replaced. In sum, children who largely receive power assertion strategies tend to experience negative outcomes relative to children who do not (Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016; Lynch et al., 2006; Straus & Stewart, 1999), whereas children who receive inductive discipline strategies have better psychological adjustment than children who do not (McKinney et al., 2011).

The purpose of discipline in childhood is largely to teach rules and guide children toward appropriate socialization (e.g., manners, self-control). For example, a child may draw on the wall with markers, and a parent may discipline the child by removing the markers and making the child clean up the mess to teach accountability (i.e., inductive strategy). Discipline in adolescence appears to serve the same purpose as it does in childhood. Parents may use techniques that were used in childhood but adapt them to the developmental status of their adolescent. For example, an adolescent may wreck the family car, and the parent would require the adolescent to help pay for the repairs to teach accountability. Although conflict within the adolescent–parent relationship occurs more frequently in adolescence than in other developmental periods (Smetana, 2011), these conflicts typically involve minor struggles such as chores, personal hygiene, and peers (Collins & Laursen, 2004). This finding may be due to, in part, that the parent still has “control” over the adolescent (e.g., adolescent lives in the parent’s home, parent financially provides for adolescent) until they achieve independence.

However, the roles of parent and child become blurred in the transition from adolescence to adulthood, which can lead to conflict (Kloep & Hendry, 2010). For example, emerging adults may attempt to seek emotional support from their parents regarding failing grades; however, parents who are paying for tuition may choose to intervene with strategies that usually “worked” in childhood or adolescence (e.g., removal of privileges) to serve their own interests (e.g., help their child and bank account). The mismatch between emerging adults’ need for autonomy and parents’ expectations can lead to conflict that would best be resolved. Despite evidence linking physical discipline methods to harmful outcomes in earlier developmental periods (Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016) and the influence of parents in emerging adulthood (Donnelly et al., 2013; McKinney & Renk, 2008), very little appears to be known about how parents discipline their emerging adult children.

McKinney and colleagues (i.e., McClelland & McKinney, 2016; McKinney & Brown, 2017; McKinney, Brown, & Malkin, 2018; McClelland & McKinney, 2016; McKinney, Stearns, & Szkody, 2018; McKinney, Walker, and Kwan, 2016; Pollard & McKinney, 2016) have frequently used the CTSPC (Straus et al., 1998) to assess parental use of inductive tactics, psychological aggression, and physical punishment (i.e., physical assault and/or corporal punishment) during emerging adulthood. Although they generally found low rates of parental psychological aggression and physical assault, a significant portion of their samples (i.e., >5%) reported extremely high rates of these behaviors and concurrent high rates of psychological problems. Additionally, examination of the percentage of participants reporting at least one occurrence of specific conflict strategies within the past year highlights the critical importance of examining these parenting strategies during this age period. For example, 10.5% of emerging adult males reported that either parent Hit with fist or kicked [them] hard within the past year, and 32.9% of females reported that their mother Slapped [them] on [the] hand, arm, or leg (McKinney et al., 2016).

Although the findings from these studies are vital to the understanding of discipline in emerging adulthood, a critique of this work has been that the studies utilized a discipline measure originally designed for childhood to assess current parenting behaviors in emerging adulthood. Yet, most of the existing discipline measures assess common disciplinary practices used in childhood and adolescence. Some of the items on these measures (e.g., How many times were you put in time out?) may not apply to emerging adults, as the dynamics within the parent–child relationship have changed and/or emerging adults may not live in the same household as their parents. In addition, given that the goal of parenting during emerging adulthood appears to be to help emerging adults fully transition into adulthood, the behaviors that parents utilize during this developmental time are likely different than what is used in childhood and adolescence, where the goal is typically to socialize children (e.g., teaching manners, social skills, and academic ability). In addition, parents have less authority in emerging adulthood than in adolescence and childhood, and, as a result, the ways in which parents attempt to exert their authority to control their offspring’s behavior may require adaptation. Thus, a need exists for a developmentally appropriate measure of discipline in emerging adulthood.

Current Study

The current study developed a measure of parental discipline strategies used during emerging adulthood. Given that parental discipline is understudied during this time, the overall purpose of the study was exploratory. However, it was hypothesized that parental discipline would resemble discipline constructs found in earlier developmental time periods, such as power assertion, love withdrawal, and inductive reasoning. After constructs were identified, the current study correlated measures of parenting style, discipline, and mental health with the Domains of Young Adult Discipline Scale (DYADS) constructs to establish validity.

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of 592 participants who ranged in age from 18 to 25 years (M = 19.64, SD = 1.46). Participants reported on their gender (78.2% female) and identified as White (68.6%), Black (27.9%), Hispanic/Latino (3.4%), Asian (1.7%), Native American (1.7%), or other (2.9%), with 6.2% identifying as more than one race. Most participants were freshman (47.0%), followed by sophomores (18.6%), juniors (18.6%), and seniors (15.9%). A large percentage of the participants (82.1%) reported having a two-parent household, and fewer reported having a single-parent household (17.9%). Almost all participants (98.1%) reported living away from home (e.g., in apartment, dorm room), whereas a small percentage (1.9%) reported living at home with their parents. Most participants (88.5%) reported their region of origin (i.e., which region of the country are you from?) as “U.S. Southeast” (i.e., AR, AL, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, and WV).

Procedure

Following institutional review board approval, the survey was posted to an online participant research pool system. Potential participants read a description of the study and clicked a link to participate. Participants were presented with an informed consent form. After providing consent, the questionnaires were presented in random order. Participants completed each questionnaire separately for their mother and/or father and were instructed to complete all measures with current perceptions. Following completion of or voluntary withdrawal from the study, participants were provided with a printable debriefing form and awarded class credit for their participation.

Scale Development

DYADS

Development of the DYADS was conducted in three phases. In Phase 1, items were constructed based on theoretical relevance and review of related scales of parental discipline during childhood. Scales included Dimensions of Discipline Inventory (Straus & Fauchier, 2007), Alabama Parenting Questionnaire (Frick, 1991), CTSPC (Straus et al., 1998), and Parent Discipline Scale (Lopez, Schneider, & Dula, 2002).

Phase 2 of scale development consisted of an analysis of qualitative data from a previously conducted focus groups with emerging adults attending college in which research assistants asked questions regarding participants’ current interactions with their parents. Examples of prompting questions included What are some consequences for when you disagree with your parents? and What type of punishments have you received as a college student? Responses were transcribed and coded for relevant themes. After the coding process, additional items were added based on the qualitative themes (i.e., guilt-inducing strategies, behavioral control) of the focus group.

Phase 3 of scale development involved factor analytic methods for item reduction and factor structure identification. This phase is described more in depth in the Data Analyses section.

Measures

DYADS

The initial draft of the measure contained 113 items and was reduced to 24 items using factor analytic techniques (see Results section). Participants indicated their responses to each item on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (always) and were instructed to consider the past 6 months when reporting their mothers’ and fathers’ behavior.

CTSPC

The CTSPC (Straus et al., 1998) is a 22-item scale that assesses conflict strategies between parents and children. For the current study, the CTSPC was used to demonstrate concurrent validity. In previous studies, the CTSPC has demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties (Straus et al., 1998). Internal consistency for the current study ranged from acceptable to good for mothers (nonviolent: α = .69, physical assault: α = .80, psychological aggression: α = .82) and fathers (nonviolent: α = .72, physical assault: α = .84, psychological aggression: α = .80).

Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ)

The PAQ (Buri, 1991) is a 30-item inventory designed to measure parenting styles from the perspective of the child and was used to demonstrate convergent validity of the DYADS. The PAQ contains three 10-item subscales: Authoritative, Authoritarian, and Permissive. The PAQ has demonstrated good reliability and validity (Buri, 1991; Turner, Chandler, & Heffer, 2009). In the current study, internal consistency on the PAQ subscales were good for mothers (permissive: α = .80, authoritarian: α = .88, authoritative: α = .90) and fathers (permissive: α = .80, authoritarian: α = .90, authoritative: α = .92).

Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)

The SDQ (Goodman, 1997) is a 25-item measure that assesses internalizing and externalizing symptoms and was used in the current study to assess concurrent validity. Previous studies have demonstrated good psychometric properties (Muris, Meesters, & van den Berg, 2003). Internal consistency for the emotional symptoms subscale was good (α = .76), whereas the values for the conduct and peer relationship problems subscales were poor (α = .51, α = .50). Cronbach’s α of .63 for the total difficulties subscale was acceptable.

Data Analyses

Missing data were less than 2% for all variables; thus, any missing data were handled using mean substitution per recommendations by Bennett (2001). Per recommendations from Matsunaga (2010), an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted on a random half of the data set (n = 288), followed by a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the second random half of the data set (n = 304). Random samples were identified using SPSS 24.0, and demographic frequencies were compared to ensure equality across the subsamples. Factor analyses were completed for maternal and paternal items separately, although items retained were required to load adequately for both maternal and paternal models, so that a single measure could be used and paternal and maternal factors could be compared directly (e.g., recent research often compares maternal and paternal effects; McKinney et al., 2016). The EFA was conducted using SPSS 24.0 using principle axis with promax rotation. Principle axis is considered more appropriate for identifying latent factors than other methods (e.g., principal components analysis), and promax rotation is appropriate for factors that are suspected to correlate yet remain distinguishable. Given that factors have many items that are highly correlated, a sample size of 100–200 is sufficient (Matsunaga, 2010). Number of factors retained in the EFA was determined using parallel analysis (PA), perhaps the most valid technique for determining number of factors (Matsunaga, 2010). Items loading onto factors in the EFA were retained using the .6/.3 rule (i.e., items must load onto their highest factor > .60 and must load onto their second highest factor < .30; Matsunaga, 2010).

Items retained in the EFA were then entered in a CFA using AMOS 24.0. The maximum likelihood method of covariance structure analysis was used. Fit was examined using the comparative fix index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; Hu and Bentler, 1999; Schreiber, Nora, Barlow, & King, 2006). It should be noted that an EFA will always fit the data better than a CFA, since an EFA allows all indicators to load on all factors, whereas a CFA constrains several loadings to zero (e.g., when cross-loadings are not permitted). Given that a CFA is a stricter test than an EFA, modification of the accepted EFA was expected. Modification of the CFA was done by removing poorly loading (i.e., factor loadings < .40) or highly redundant items (i.e., items with multiple highly correlated errors based on modification indices > 20).

The final accepted CFA model was tested for invariance across gender (i.e., males and females), race (i.e., White and Black), and parents reported on (i.e., maternal and paternal and fathers), whereas invariance among other groups was not tested due to not having sufficient numbers. Invariance testing was conducted using multiple group analysis (MGA) according to ΔCFI, ΔRMSEA, and ΔSRMR cutoffs established by Putnick and Bornstein (2016; i.e., ΔCFI < .02, ΔRMSEA < .015, and ΔSRMR < .03). Metric (i.e., factor loadings are not significantly different across groups, allowing for direct comparisons among path coefficients and correlations), scalar (i.e., intercepts are not significantly different across groups, allowing for direct mean comparisons), and residual invariance (i.e., error terms are not significantly different across groups) were tested. For the purposes of MGA involving males and females as well as White and Black participants, the following samples sizes were used: female (n = 459), male (n = 127), Black (n = 165), White (n = 406), Black female (n = 126), Black male (n = 37), White female (n = 312), and White male (n = 85).

Results

EFA

An EFA with promax rotation was performed on 113 items from a random half of the sample containing 288 participants. Analyses for mother and father items were conducted separately (see Table 1 for factor loadings). Number of factors to be retained in the EFA was determined using PA. Per recommendations of Matsunaga (2010), the .6/.3 rule was utilized for factor extraction. Results of the PA suggested retaining 3 factors for both maternal and paternal models. Factor 1 was labeled Abuse and explained 26.1% of the total variance (eigenvalue = 29.53) for fathers and 31.2% of the variance (eigenvalue = 35.31) for mothers. Factor 2 was labeled Approval and explained 15.8% of the variance (eigenvalue = 17.85) for fathers and 6.20% of the variance (eigenvalue = 7.00) for mothers. Lastly, Factor 3 was labeled Disappointment and explained 6.6% of the variance (eigenvalue = 7.41) for fathers and 8.9% of the variance for mothers (eigenvalue = 10.10). Using the .6/.3 rule, 56 of the 113 items were retained.

Table 1.

Exploratory Factor Analysis With Factor Loadings.

	Item	Factors
	Item	1	2	3
1	Explains how she or he feels about my good and bad choices and actions		.74 (.68)
4	Explains the reasons behind the expectations and consequences set		.76 (.64)
11	Celebrates me by taking me to a special event, dinner, location, and so on		.77 (.77)
13	Supports my beliefs even if he or she disagrees		.77 (.63)
15	Defends my choices to others		.73 (.70)
16	Explains why he or she disagrees with my choices		.65 (.61)
18	Gets involved in my personal interests when I want him or her to		.80 (.68)
20	Expresses that he or she values my opinion/input in making rules/expectations		.79 (.73)
24	Tries to understand the reasons behind my actions and choices		.82 (.73)
31	Tells others about my good behavior		.81 (.73)
33	Verbally praises me (“good job”) for good behavior		.84 (.77)
34	Celebrates my good behavior		.86 (.75)
35	Encourages me		.91 (.77)
52	Approves of my personal hobbies when I meet his or her expectations		.66 (.60)
67	Talks to me in a warm and friendly voice		.80 (.68)
75	Takes my friends and I do to things		.60 (.68)
108	Hugs me		.78 (.77)
109	Gives me a “high five”		.75 (.66)
111	Pats me on the back		.73 (.74)
112	Is affectionate to me		.82 (.78)
113	Smiles at me		.80 (.72)
21	Expresses doubt about my decisions or actions			.73 (.72)
28	Deliberately makes me feel ashamed or guilty			.69 (.64)
39	Questions my decisions or actions			.78 (.70)
54	Compares me with others (e.g., siblings, friends, relatives)			.67 (.70)
55	Tells me what I should have done/should do in the future			.68 (.72)
56	Argues with me about my decisions/opinions/values/life			.80 (.77)
57	Verbally expresses disappointment with me			.82 (.75)
58	Expresses frustration in me or my actions			.80 (.88)
61	Tells me “I should do better”			.73 (.76)
62	Reminds me of the things he or she does for me (e.g., pays tuition, rent)			.75 (.81)
66	Nonverbally expresses disappointment with his or her body language (e.g., frowns, turns away from me)			.61 (.65)
74	Brings up past mistakes when he or she criticizes me			.70 (.77)
76	Tries to limit what I do on the weekend and during my free time			.63 (.68)
37	Threatens to physically harm me	.61 (.69)
42	Leaves notes to tell me he or she is disappointment in me	.60 (.74)
45	Tells me I am not his or her child when I disappoint him or her	.64 (.60)
46	Steals money I have earned without asking	.64 (.83)
59	Threatens to disown me from my family	.62 (.69)
68	Temporarily locks me out of the house	.91 (.93)
69	Permanently kicks me out of the house	.74 (.78)
81	Damages or destroys my property or his or her property that I use (e.g., Xbox, car, phone)	.76 (.87)
84	Changes Wi-Fi password until I please him or her	.82 (.72)
88	Takes away my bedroom door until I please him or her	.85 (.79)
96	Punches or slaps me with his or her hand	.83 (.79)
97	Hits me with an object (e.g., spoon, switch, belt)	.86 (.80)
98	Strangles me or grabs me around the throat	.91 (.91)
99	Physically fights me	.83 (.76)
100	Hits me with a weapon	.84 (.93)
101	Pushes me down the stairs	.82 (.99)
102	Pushes me against the wall	.70 (.83)
103	Shoves me	.89 (.76)
104	Yanks or pulls my extremities (hair, leg, arm, ear, and so on)	.72 (.90)
105	Shakes me	.89 (.86)
106	Burns or scalds me on purpose	.81 (.79)
107	Sexually assaults me	.89 (.78)

Note. Factor 1 = Abuse; Factor 2 = Approval; Factor 3 = Disappointment. Maternal factor loadings are noted within parentheses.

CFA

A CFA was performed loading the 56 items in Table 1 onto three latent variables as indicated by the EFA. This CFA was conducted on the other random half of the sample (N = 304) to attenuate overfitting issues, and analyses were conducted separately for maternal and paternal variables. The three-factor model using 56 items fit the data poorly for paternal (CFI = .76, TLI = .75, RMSEA = .09, SRMR = .08) and maternal (CFI = .66, TLI = .65, RMSEA = .08, SRMR = .09) models. After removal of poorly loading or redundant items, the modified model as shown in Table 2 fit the data well for paternal (CFI = .95, TLI = .95, RMSEA = .05, SRMR = .05) and maternal (CFI = .96, TLI = .95, RMSEA = .04, SRMR = .06) models. The final accepted model retained 8 items per factor for a total of 24 items (see Table 3 for final model items and factor loadings).

Table 2.

Final Confirmatory Factor Analysis Model Fit Indices.

Model	CFI	TLI	RMSEA (90% CI)	SRMR	X² (df)
Maternal	.96	.95	.040 [.031, .049]	.06	363.04 (244)
Paternal	.95	.95	.053 [.046, .061]	.05	453.82 (244)

Note. CFI = comparative fix index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; TLI = Tucker–Lewis Index; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; CI = confidence interval; df = degrees of freedom.

Table 3.

Final Confirmatory Factor Analysis Model Items With Factor Loadings.

	Item	Subscales
	Item	Abuse	Approval	Disappointment
1	Celebrates me by taking me to a special event, dinner, location, and so on		.79 (.72)
2^a	Defends my choices to others		.79 (.66)
3	Expresses that he or she values my opinion/input in making rules/expectations		.75 (.60)
4^b	Tells others about my good behavior		.88 (.79)
5^a,b	Hugs me		.91 (.82)
6	Gives me a “high five”		.61 (.50)
7	Is affectionate to me		.81 (.78)
8	Smiles at me		.88 (.86)

9	Expresses doubt about my decisions or actions			.71 (.71)
10	Questions my decisions or actions			.78 (.64)
11	Tells me what I should have done/should do in the future			.64 (.57)
12	Argues with my about my decisions/opinions/values/life			.66 (.68)
13^c	Verbally expresses disappointment with me			.66 (.70)
14	Tells me “I should do better”			.64 (.74)
15	Reminds me of the things he or she does for me (e.g., pays tuition, rent)			.75 (.55)
16^c	Nonverbally expresses disappointment with his or her body language (e.g., frowns, turns away from me)			.61 (.67)
17	Leaves notes to tell me he or she is disappointment in me	.80 (.56)
18^d	Steals money I have earned without asking	.63 (.54)
19^e	Temporarily locks me out of the house	.68 (.49)
20	Damages or destroys my property or his or her property that I use (e.g., Xbox, car, phone)	.84 (.65)
21^d	Changes Wi-Fi password until I please him or her	.79 (.53)
22	Punches or slaps me with his or her hand	.83 (.63)
23	Shoves me	.53 (.53)
24^e	Yanks or pulls my extremities (hair, leg, arm, ear, and so on)	.73 (.47)

Note. Maternal factor loadings are noted within parentheses. Superscripts denote correlated error terms.

MGA

MGAs were conducted to determine whether the CFA model in Table 2 was invariant across gender (i.e., males and females), race (i.e., White and Black), and parent reported on (i.e., maternal and paternal). As shown in Table 4 for gender, Table 5 for race, and Table 6 for parent reported on, results revealed ΔCFI < .02, ΔRMSEA < .015, and ΔSRMR < .03 when testing for metric invariance (i.e., comparing the unconstrained model with the model with factor loadings constrained). Thus, metric invariance was established between males and females, between White and Black participants, and between parents reported on, indicating that factor loadings are similar across these comparisons and that path coefficients and correlations among these constructs may be directly compared. Similarly, results supported scalar invariance (i.e., comparing the metric invariance model to a model with intercepts constrained) for gender, race, and parent reported on, indicating that means of the constructs represent the same scale and may be compared directly (e.g., using t tests). When testing for residual invariance, only the gender MGA for the maternal model demonstrated residual invariance.

Table 4.

Invariance Testing for Gender.

Model	χ² (df)	CFI	RMSEA (90% CI)	SRMR	Model Compared	Δχ² (Δdf)	ΔCFI	ΔRMSEA	ΔSRMR	Decision
Maternal model
Model 1: configural invariance	938.08 (488)	.932	.040 [.036, .044]	.09	—	—	—	—	—	—
Model 2: metric invariance	966.54 (509)	.931	.039 [.035, .043]	.09	Model 1	28.46 (21)	.001	.001	.00	Accept
Model 3: scalar invariance	1,000.17 (533)	.929	.039 [.035, .042]	.09	Model 2	33.63 (24)	.002	.000	.00	Accept
Model 4: residual invariance	1,114.05 (568)	.917	.041 [.037, .044]	.10	Model 3	113.88 (35)**	.012	.002	.01	Accept
Paternal model
Model 1: configural invariance	989.42 (488)	.938	.042 [.038, .046)	.07	—	—	—	—	—	—
Model 2: metric invariance	1,193.13 (509)	.918	.048 [.044, .052]	.09	Model 1	203.71 (21)**	.020	.006	.02	Accept
Model 3: scalar invariance	1,250.93 (533)	.914	.048 [.045, .051]	.09	Model 2	57.79 (24)**	.004	.000	.00	Accept
Model 4: residual invariance	1,487.56 (568)	.890	.053 [.049, .056]	.09	Model 3	236.63 (35)**	.024	.005	.00	Reject

Note. N = 592, female (n = 463) and male (n = 129). CFI = comparative fix index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; CI = confidence interval; df = degrees of freedom.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 5.

Invariance Testing for Race.

Model	χ² (df)	CFI	RMSEA (90% CI)	SRMR	Model comp	Δχ² (Δdf)	ΔCFI	ΔRMSEA	ΔSRMR	Decision
Maternal model
Model 1: configural invariance	941.58 (488)	.930	.040 [.037, .044]	.06	—	—	—	—	—	—
Model 2: metric invariance	977.14 (509)	.928	.040 [.036, .044]	.06	Model 1	35.56 (21)*	.002	.000	.00	Accept
Model 3: scalar invariance	1,054.20 (533)	.920	.041 [.038, .045]	.06	Model 2	77.06 (24)**	.008	.001	.00	Accept
Model 4: residual invariance	1,670.56 (568)	.830	.058 [.055, .062]	.06	Model 3	616.36 (35)**	.19	.017	.00	Reject
Paternal model
Model 1: configural invariance	1,267.38 (488)	.906	.053 [.049, .057]	.05	—	—	—	—	—	—
Model 2: metric invariance	1,407.11 (509)	.892	.056 [.052, .059]	.05	Model 1	139.73 (21)**	.014	.003	.02	Accept
Model 3: scalar invariance	1,481.66 (533)	.886	.056 [.053, .059]	.05	Model 2	74.55 (24)**	.006	.000	.00	Accept
Model 4: residual invariance	1,892.41 (568)	.841	.064 [.061, .067]	.09	Model 3	410.75 (35)**	.045	.008	.04	Reject

Note. N = 592, Black (n = 197) and White (n = 385). CFI = comparative fix index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; CI = confidence interval; df = degrees of freedom.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 6.

Invariance Testing for Parent Reported On.

Model	χ² (df)	CFI	RMSEA (90% CI)	SRMR	Model comp	Δχ² (Δdf)	ΔCFI	ΔRMSEA	ΔSRMR	Decision
Model 1: configural invariance	1,231.60 (488)	.949	.036 (.033, .038)	.05	—	—	—	—	—	—
Model 2: metric invariance	1,305.14 (509)	.946	.036 (.034, .039)	.05	Model 1	73.54 (21)**	.003	.000	.00	Accept
Model 3: scalar invariance	1,515.63 (533)	.933	.039 (.037, .043)	.05	Model 2	210.49 (24)**	.013	.003	.00	Accept
Model 4: residual invariance	2,009.20 (568)	.901	.046 (.044, .049)	.08	Model 3	493.57 (35)**	.032	.007	.03	Reject

Note. N = 592. CFI = comparative fix index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; CI = confidence interval; df = degrees of freedom.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Invariance testing across gender and race simultaneously was attempted (i.e., testing Black females, Black males, White females, and White males as groups). However, small sample sizes of Black and White males (i.e., <100) prohibited obtaining a good fitting model.

Reliability and Descriptive Statistics

Overall, the subscales of the final DYADS demonstrated good to excellent internal consistency (maternal approval: α = .90, paternal approval: α = .93, maternal disappointment: α = .86, paternal disappointment: α = .88, maternal abuse: α = .89, paternal abuse: α = .91; see Table 7 for Maternal and Paternal subscale means, standard deviations, and mean comparisons and see Tables 8 and 9 for mean comparisons across race and gender groups). Results of paired samples t tests revealed that maternal ratings, compared to paternal ratings, had significantly higher mean scores for approval, t(591) = 10.83, p < .001; disappointment, t(591) = 5.53, p < .001; and abuse, t(591) = 2.73, p < .01. Results of independent samples t tests revealed that White participants, compared to Black participants, had significantly higher mean scores for paternal approval, t(238.48) = 5.30, p < .001, and paternal disappointment, t(535) = 3.86, p < .001. However, White participants had significantly lower mean scores for maternal abuse than Black participants, t(195.57) = −2.96, p = .004. When examining gender, results revealed that male participants had significantly lower mean scores for maternal, t(584) = −3.99, p < .001, and paternal approval, t(584) = −2.64, p = .008, than female participants.

Table 7.

DYADS Subscales Means and SD.

DYADS Subscales	Maternal (N = 592)				Paternal (N = 592)				Cohen’s d
DYADS Subscales	Mean	SD	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	SD	Minimum	Maximum	Cohen’s d
Approval	40.60**	10.49	8	56	34.86	13.12	8	56	.44
Disappointment	23.51**	9.61	8	56	20.97	9.74	8	54	.23
Abuse	9.91*	5.11	8	47	9.39	4.46	8	36	.11

Note. DYADS = Domains of Young Adult Discipline Scale; SD = standard deviation.

*p < .01. **p < .001.

Table 8.

DYADS Subscales Means and SD Across Race.

DYADS Subscales	White (N = 385)		Black (N = 152)		Cohen’s d
DYADS Subscales	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Cohen’s d
Approval
Maternal	41.67	9.76	39.72	10.76	.19
Paternal	37.33*	12.14	30.27	14.54	.53
Disappointment
Maternal	22.74	9.53	23.97	9.17	.13
Paternal	21.81*	9.58	18.30	9.34	.37
Abuse
Maternal	9.33	4.14	11.10*	6.89	.31
Paternal	9.27	4.16	9.28	4.41	.00

Note. DYADS = Domains of Young Adult Discipline Scale; SD = standard deviation.

*p < .001.

Table 9.

DYADS Subscales Means and SD Across Gender.

DYADS Subscales	Male (N = 127)		Female (N = 459)		Cohen’s d
DYADS Subscales	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Cohen’s d
Approval
Maternal	37.29	10.61	41.44**	10.30	.40
Paternal	32.28	12.17	35.73*	13.25	.27
Disappointment
Maternal	22.38	9.22	23.83	9.72	.15
Paternal	20.21	8.62	21.25	9.99	.11
Abuse
Maternal	10.46	5.93	9.76	4.88	.13
Paternal	9.86	5.08	9.26	4.30	.13

Note. DYADS = Domains of Young Adult Discipline Scale; SD = standard deviation.

*p < .01. **p < .001.

Validity

Given that the purpose of the study was exploratory, hypotheses regarding relationships between the DYADS and other measures were not made a priori. However, after the factor structure of the DYADS was confirmed, post hoc analyses were conducted to establish validity. Given that the DYADS is a measure of parenting behavior rather than parenting style, the subscales of the DYADS were correlated with an existing measure of parenting style (PAQ; Buri, 1991) to establish construct validity. Then, the DYADS subscales were correlated with an existing measure of discipline that is often used in the emerging adult literature (CTSPC; Straus et al., 1998) to establish construct validity. Lastly, given that research has established discipline behaviors are related to varying mental health outcomes (e.g., Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016), the subscales of the DYADS were correlated with a gross measure of mental health to establish concurrent validity (see Tables 10 and 11 for correlations among the DYADS subscales across race and gender groups and Table 12 for the correlations among the final structure of the DYADS and validity measures).

Table 10.

DYADS Subscale Correlations Across Gender.

DYADS Subscales	Approval	Disappointment	Abuse
Approval	—	−.05 ns (.19*)	−.22* (−.02 ns)
Disappointment	−.19 (.03 ns)	—	.34 (.27)
Abuse	−.36 (−.11*)	.34 (.30)	—

Note. Pearson correlation coefficients presented above the diagonal reflect male participants and below the diagonal reflect female participants. Maternal correlations are noted first, and paternal correlations are noted in parentheses. All correlations are significant at the .01 level unless otherwise specified. DYADS = Domains of Young Adult Discipline Scale; ns = not significant.

*p < .05.

Table 11.

DYADS Subscale Correlations Across Race.

DYADS Subscales	Approval	Disappointment	Abuse
Approval	—	−.20 (−.19)	−.38 (−.18)
Disappointment	.01 ns (.48)	—	.38 (.27)
Abuse	−.25 (.03 ns)	.26 (.31)	—

Note. Pearson correlation coefficients presented above the diagonal reflect White participants and below the diagonal reflect Black participants. Maternal correlations are noted first, and paternal correlations are noted in parentheses. All correlations are significant at the .01 level unless otherwise specified. DYADS = Domains of Young Adult Discipline Scale; ns = not significant.

Table 12.

Correlations Among DYADS Subscales and Validity Measures.

Measures	DYADS Subscales
Measures	Approval	Disappointment	Abuse
CTSPC
Psychological aggression	−.32 (−.16)	.58 (.54)	.40 (.23)
Physical assault	−.26 (−.10)	.34 (.23)	.59 (.46)
Nonviolent/inductive reasoning	.11 (.27)	.28 (.32)	.09 (.06 ns)
PAQ
Authoritarian	−.10* (−.08 ns)	.44 (.50)	.14 (.00 ns)
Permissive	.18 (.15)	−.21 (−.17)	.04 ns (.12)
Authoritative	.66 (.71)	−.16 (−.03 ns)	−.31 (−.14)
SDQ
Externalizing problems	−.24 (−.14)	.25 (.16)	.26 (.25)
Internalizing problems	−.24 (−.18)	.26 (.20)	.17 (.24)
Total difficulties	−.28 (−.19)	.29 (.21)	.23 (.25)

Note. Maternal correlations are noted first, and paternal correlations are noted in parentheses. All correlations are significant at the .01 level unless otherwise specified. CTSPC = Conflict Tactics Scale, Parent–Child Version; PAQ = Parental Authority Questionnaire; SDQ = Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire; ns = not significant.

*p < .05.

PAQ

The DYADS Approval subscale was positively related to the Permissive and Authoritative subscales for mothers and fathers, whereas it was negatively related to the Authoritarian subscale for mother items only. The DYADS Disappointment subscale was positively related to the Authoritarian subscale and negatively related to the Permissive subscale for mother and father items. However, the Disappointment subscale was negatively related to the Authoritative subscale for mother but not for father items. The DYADS Abuse subscale was negatively related to the Authoritative subscale for mothers and fathers, as would be expected, but the Abuse subscale was positively related to the Authoritarian subscale for mother items only. Interestingly, the DYADS Abuse subscale was positively correlated with the Permissive subscale for father items.

CTSPC

As would be expected, the DYADS Approval subscale was negatively correlated with the Psychological Aggression and Physical Assault subscales and positively correlated with the Nonviolent/Inductive Reasoning subscale for mothers and fathers. The Disappointment subscale was positively related to all subscales. Lastly, the Abuse subscale was positively related to psychological aggression and physical assault for mothers and fathers and, surprisingly, the Nonviolent/Inductive Reasoning subscale for mothers.

SDQ

The DYADS Abuse and Disappointment subscales were positively related to all SDQ subscales, suggesting higher levels of abuse and disappointment are related to higher levels of mental health problems. The DYADS Approval subscale was negatively related to all SDQ subscales.

Discussion

The goal of the current study was to develop a multidimensional measure of discipline strategies used by parents of emerging adults and to test its psychometric properties. The items of the DYADS were constructed based on theoretical relevance, a review of existing scales of discipline during childhood, and qualitative data obtained in focus group interviews.

Factor Structure

An EFA was utilized to determine factor structure and for item reduction. Results of the EFA revealed a three-factor structure and reduced the number of items from 113 to 56. Next, a CFA was utilized to confirm the factor structure provided by the EFA and for further item reduction. Results of CFA confirmed the three-factor structure—Abuse, Approval, and Disappointment—and revealed the best fitting model contained 24 items. Results of the MGA suggested the model demonstrated metric and scalar invariance across gender (i.e., males and females), race (i.e., White and Black), and parent reported on (i.e., maternal and paternal). Thus, the current study provides some confidence that these constructs can be compared between males and females, between Black and White participants, and between maternal and paternal ratings.

Consistent with theory (Barnett et al., 1996; Hoffman, 1963), the results of the current study suggest the domains of discipline (i.e., love withdrawal, power assertion, and inductive reasoning) in emerging adulthood are similar to those in childhood and adolescence. These findings are not entirely surprising, as parents and their emerging adult offspring are likely entrenched in a pattern of learned behavior that has been present since birth. However, the specific parental discipline behaviors that are used appear to be adapted to the developmental status of emerging adult offspring.

Specifically, items on the Abuse subscale of the DYADS reflect power assertion strategies that involve the use of physical violence and removal of resources. It is interesting to note that most of the items on this subscale appear to reflect messages of complete parental control (e.g., Steals money that I have earned without asking) in a way that holds the emerging adult in little regard. In addition, these strategies appear to discourage the expression of autonomy. Although parents may not have specific control over the actions of their emerging adults, they may attempt to exert control by threatening to remove or removing some of the resources required to function independently. In addition, it appears that physical discipline in emerging adulthood, when it is occurring, is more severe than “typical” corporal punishment and potentially more indicative of physical assault. It may be that parents who utilize these techniques with their emerging adult offspring consider their child to be “grown-up” and therefore more capable of withstanding physical violence. It also is interesting to note that the item Leaves notes to tell me he or she is disappointed in me loaded with the abuse items rather than the disappointment items. This finding suggests that the act of leaving a note expressing disappointment is a qualitatively different and more severe behavior than verbally expressing disappointment.

The Disappointment subscale appears to reflect love withdrawal tactics or practices that involve guilt-inducing strategies such as Reminds me of the things he or she does for me or Tells me I should be better. In addition, items on the Disappointment subscale reflect strategies that imply that the parent may not like their emerging adult (e.g., Verbally expresses disappointment with me) or a decision or behavior the emerging adult has made (e.g., Questions or doubts my decisions, Argues with me about my decisions/opinions/values/life).

Lastly, the Approval subscale of the DYADS reflects inductive strategies or strategies that use nonphysical tactics and clear communication, in response to an emerging adult’s behavior (e.g., Expresses that he or she values my opinion/input in making rules/expectations). In addition, items on this scale may reflect a shift in the parent–child relationship, such that the parent shows more behaviors that display regard, affection, and respect for the emerging adult’s autonomy and fewer behaviors associated with guidance and control.

DYADS Reliability and Descriptive Statistics

Overall, the DYADS obtained good to excellent internal consistency across all subscales. Results suggested participant gender and race mean differences as well as mean differences between maternal and paternal ratings across the DYADS subscales. Specifically, Black participants reported higher levels of abuse parenting from their mothers than White participants, and White participants reported higher levels of approval and disappointment from their fathers than Black participants. This finding is consistent with existing literature (Malkin & McKinney, 2018) that demonstrated Black participants reported more maternal physical maltreatment and less paternal parental involvement than White participants. Regarding gender, male participants reported less parental approval than female participants. This finding is consistent with literature that suggests parents may be more supportive with their daughters and more controlling with their sons, particularly if the parents hold traditional gender normative values (Endendijk, Groeneveld, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & Mesman, 2016). Lastly, mean maternal ratings were significantly higher than paternal ratings on each DYADS subscale. This finding is consistent with the literature documenting gender-based parenting differences (McKinney, Brown, & Malkin, 2018; Power, McGrath, Hughes, & Manire, 1994).

Validity

The DYADS largely demonstrated construct validity with a measure of parenting style. Specifically, the DYADS Approval subscale shared a large correlation with the Authoritative subscale of the PAQ. This finding makes sense, as an authoritative parenting style is typically characterized by providing discipline in the context of warmth, reason, and flexibility and is usually related to positive child outcomes (Buri, 1991). Additionally, the Authoritarian subscale shared a medium to large correlation with the DYADS Disappointment subscale. This finding is consistent with the existing literature, as authoritarian parenting is typically less warm than other parenting styles but also favors punitive measures to control their child’s behavior (Buri, 1991). However, it is interesting to note that the DYADS Abuse subscale shared only a small correlation with the Authoritarian subscale of the PAQ for mother items but not for father items. This finding suggests that the Abuse subscale of the DYADS is less clearly related to a parenting style construct assessed by the current study.

The subscales of the DYADS demonstrated concurrent validity with a gross measure of mental health outcomes (i.e., SDQ). Specifically, the Approval subscale shared small negative correlations with mental health outcomes, and the Disappointment and Abuse subscales shared small positive correlations with mental health outcomes. This finding is consistent with literature that indicates parental discipline behaviors that closely align with inductive strategies typically lead to better mental health outcomes than love withdrawal and power assertation strategies (Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016; Lynch et al., 2006; McKinney & Milone, 2012; Straus & Stewart, 1999).

Lastly, the DYADS demonstrated construct validity with an existing measure of discipline, the CTSPC. The Approval subscale shared a small correlation with Nonviolent/Inductive Reasoning subscale of the CTSPC. Although a relationship between the two subscales would be expected, it is not surprising that they share a small correlation given the differences in items. Specifically, it may be that the items reflected on the CTSPC Inductive subscale truly represent different strategies that are not expressed in emerging adulthood and add further argument for the need of a discipline measure in this period.

The Disappointment subscale shared a large correlation with the Psychological Aggression subscale of the CTSPC and small to moderate correlation with the Physical Assault subscale. However, it is interesting to note that the Disappointment subscale also shared a small to moderate correlation with the Nonviolent/Inductive Reasoning subscale of the CTSPC (i.e., a subscale that typically correlates with positive outcomes). It may be that some strategies that fall into the Disappointment subscale may not necessarily reflect “negative” discipline behaviors, particularly if coupled with other strategies. Lastly, the Abuse subscale shared moderate to strong correlations with the Physical Assault and Psychological Aggression subscales of the CTSPC, which is expected given the types of discipline strategies that are reflected in these subscales (e.g., Slapped you on the face or head or ears; Shouted, yelled, or screamed at you).

Although the DYADS demonstrated small to large correlations with the CTSPC subscales, it should be noted that items from the CTSPC were included in scale development; however, only 3 items from the CTSPC remained in the final DYADS after factor analytic methods were used. This finding suggests that the DYADS taps into strategies that are like the constructs measured by the CTSPC, but the actual discipline behaviors used are different than what is currently depicted on the CTSPC. Taken together, these findings strengthen the rationale for a parental discipline measure in emerging adulthood.

Limitations

Although the results from the current study substantively add to the current body of literature, it is not without limitations. First, the study utilized a cross-sectional design that hinders discussion of causality among variables. For example, results do not suggest abuse or disappointment strategies cause externalizing and internalizing symptoms in emerging adults, especially given research demonstrating that children with problems elicit more discipline from parents (e.g., Jaffee et al., 2004). However, the use of a cross-sectional design can be appropriate for the sole purpose of scale development. Future research should utilize longitudinal designs to further explore the relationships between the DYADS and other outcome variables, such as mental health and academic outcomes, as well as to establish test–retest reliability.

The sample only included emerging adults enrolled in university, and most of these participants reported living away from home. Given the small number of participants living with their parents in the current sample, invariance based on residential status could not be examined and is considered a limitation. The experiences of emerging adults who enter the workforce or continue to live with their parents in this period may be significantly different from that of college students. Additionally, the current study tested invariance using only two racial groups (i.e., White and Black) and did not examine invariance across gender and race simultaneously (e.g., comparing ratings by Black daughters to White sons) due to small sample sizes. This measurement limitation prohibits the comparison across gender and racial groups simultaneously and further discussion of the intersection of gender and race in discipline behaviors in emerging adulthood. The current study also created a single measure for both mothers and fathers to directly compare maternal and paternal effects and demonstrated invariance between maternal and paternal ratings. However, a single measure for mothers and fathers is limited, as it may lose some of the variability in gender-based parenting behaviors (e.g., an item about sexual assault and an item about scalding/burning loaded highly for fathers but not mothers and thus were removed). More work is needed to determine whether the DYADS is valid for nonstudent populations, including those who reside with and away from their parents, as well as across different racial, cultural, and socioeconomic strata.

Footnotes

Author Contributions

Courtney S. Walker contributed to conception, design, analysis, and interpretation; drafted the manuscript; critically revised the manuscript; gave final approval; and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of work ensuring integrity and accuracy. Cliff McKinney contributed to design, analysis, and interpretation; critically revised the manuscript; gave final approval; and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of work ensuring integrity and accuracy.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Open Practices

Data and materials for this study have not been made publicly available. The design and analysis plans were not preregistered.

References

Arnett

J. J.

(2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469–480.

Arnett

J. J.

(2014). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Barnett

Quackenbush

Sinisi

(1996). Factors affecting children’s, adolescents’, and young adults’ perceptions of parental discipline. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 157, 411–424.

Baumrind

(1991). Effective parenting during the early adolescent transition. In Cowan

P. A.

Hetherington

(Eds.), Advances in family research series. Family transitions (pp. 111–163). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bennett

D. A.

(2001). How can I deal with missing data in my study? Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 25, 464–469.

Buri

J. R.

(1991). Parental Authority Questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57, 110–119.

Collins

W. A.

Laursen

(2004). Parent-adolescent relationships and influences. In Lerner

R. M.

Steinberg

(Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 331–362). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Donnelly

Renk

McKinney

(2013). Emerging adults’ stress and health: The role of parent behaviors and cognitions. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 44, 19–38.

Endendijk

J. J.

Groeneveld

M. G.

Bakermans-Kranenburg

M. J.

Mesman

(2016). Gender-differentiated parenting revisited: Meta-analysis reveals very few differences in parental control of boys and girls. PLoS One, 11, e0159193.

10.

Frick

P. J

. (1991). The Alabama Parenting Questionnaire (Unpublished rating scale). University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL.

11.

Gershoff

E. T.

Grogan-Kaylor

(2016). Spanking and child outcomes: Old controversies and new meta-analyses. Journal of Family Psychology, 30, 453–469.

12.

Goodman

(1997). The Strengths And Difficulties Questionnaire: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 581–586.

13.

Hardie

(1999). The transition from late adolescence to young adulthood: Student life. In Hindle

Smith

M. V.

(Eds.), Personality Development: A Psychoanalytic Perspective, 158–174.

14.

Hoffman

(1963). Parent discipline and the child’s consideration for others. Child Development, 34, 573–588.

15.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

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

16.

Jaffee

S. R.

Caspi

Moffitt

T. E.

Polo-Tomas

Price

T. S.

Taylor

(2004). The limits of child effects: Evidence for genetically mediated child effects on corporal punishment but not on physical maltreatment. Developmental Psychology, 40, 1047–1058.

17.

King

K. M.

Chassin

(2004). Mediating and moderated effects of adolescent behavioral under control and parenting in the prediction of drug use disorders in emerging adulthood. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18, 239–249.

18.

Kloep

Hendry

L. B.

(2010). Letting go or holding on? Parents’ perceptions of their relationships with their children during emerging adulthood. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 28, 817–834.

19.

Lopez

N. L.

Schneider

H. G.

Dula

C. S.

(2002). Parent discipline scale: Discipline choice as a function of transgression type. North American Journal of Psychology, 4, 381–393.

20.

Lynch

S. K.

Turkheimer

D’Onofrio

B. M.

Mendle

Emery

R. E.

Slutske

W. S.

Martin

N. G.

(2006). A genetically informed study of the association between harsh punishment and offspring behavioral problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 190–198.

21.

Malkin

M. L.

McKinney

. (2018). Racial differences in parental involvement and physical and psychological maltreatment: Processes related to regard for parents. Journal of Family Issues. doi:10.1177/0192513X18819218

22.

Matsunaga

(2010). How to factor-analyze your data right: Do’s, don’ts, and how-to’s. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3, 97–110.

23.

McClelland

E. N.

McKinney

(2016). Disruptive behavior and parenting in emerging adulthood: Mediational effect of parental psychopathology. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25, 212–223.

24.

McKinney

Brown

(2017). Parenting and emerging adult internalizing problems: Regional differences suggest Southern parenting factor. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26, 3156–3166.

25.

McKinney

Brown

Malkin

(2018). Parenting style, discipline, and parental psychopathology: Gender dyadic interactions in emerging adults. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27, 290–301.

26.

McKinney

Milone

M. C.

Renk

(2011). Parenting and late adolescent emotional adjustment: Mediating effects of discipline and gender. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 42, 463–481.

27.

McKinney

Milone

M. C.

(2012). Parental and late adolescent psychopathology: Mothers may provide support when needed most. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 43, 747–760.

28.

McKinney

Renk

(2008). Differential parenting between mothers and fathers: Implications for late adolescents. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 806–827.

29.

McKinney

Stearns

Szkody

. (2018). Maltreatment and affective and behavioral problems in emerging adults with and without oppositional defiant disorder symptoms: Mediation by parent-child relationship quality. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. doi:10.1177/0886260518760014

30.

McKinney

Walker

C. S.

Kwan

J. W

. (2016). Mother-father dyad conflict strategy clusters: Implications for emerging adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. doi:10.1177/0886260516683177

31.

Muris

Meesters

van den Berg

(2003). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 12, 1–8.

32.

Nelson

L. J.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Christensen

K. J.

Evans

C. A.

Carroll

J. S.

(2011). Parenting in emerging adulthood: An examination of parenting clusters and correlates. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 730–743.

33.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Nelson

L. J.

(2012). Black hawk down? Establishing helicopter parenting as a distinct construct from other forms of parental control during emerging adulthood. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 1177–1190.

34.

Pollard

M. W.

McKinney

. (2016). Parental physical force and alcohol use in emerging adults: Mediation by psychological problems. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. doi:10.1177/0886260516659654

35.

Power

T. G.

McGrath

M. P.

Hughes

S. O.

Manire

S. H.

(1994). Compliance and self-assertion: Young children’s responses to mothers versus fathers. Developmental Psychology, 30, 980–989.

36.

Putnick

D. L.

Bornstein

M. H.

(2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71–90.

37.

Schreiber

J. B.

Nora

Stage

F. K.

Barlow

E. A.

King

(2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational Research, 99, 323–338.

38.

Smetana

J. G.

(2011). Adolescents’ social reasoning and relationships with parents: Conflicts and coordinations within and across domains. In Amsel

Smetana

(Eds.), Adolescent vulnerabilities and opportunities: Constructivist and developmental perspectives (pp. 139–158). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

39.

Straus

M. A.

Fauchier

. (2007). Manual for the Dimensions of Discipline Inventory (DDI). Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment. doi:10.1037/t37478-000

40.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Finkelhor

Moore

D. W.

Runyan

(1998). Identification of child maltreatment with the Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scales: Development and psychometric data for a national sample of American parents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22, 249–270.

41.

Straus

M. A.

Stewart

J. H.

(1999). Corporal punishment by American parents: National data on prevalence, chronicity, severity, and duration, in relation to child and family characteristics. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 2, 55–70.

42.

Turner

E. A.

Chandler

Heffer

R. W.

(2009). The influence of parenting styles, achievement motivation, and self-efficacy on academic performance in college students. Journal of College Student Development, 50, 337–346.