Effects of a prebirth coparenting intervention on the parenting behaviors of young fathers

The current study investigated the effectiveness of a prebirth coparenting intervention in improving father involvement and the quality of fathering amongst adolescent and young fathers. Participants included 96 expectant adolescent couples who comprised the first wave of participants in the Young Parenthood Study. Adolescent couples participated in a baseline assessment occurring before the adolescent mother was 26 weeks gestation, and participated in two follow-up assessments at 8 weeks and 18 months postbirth. Adolescent couples were randomized into the intervention group («=51) or control group (n=45) following the baseline assessment, with intervention couples participating in 5-10 intervention sessions occurring before the baby was born. The intervention was designed to improve the quality of the coparenting relationship, with the intention that the quality of the coparenting relationship would "spill-over" into the quality of parent-child relations. Results indicated that fathers participating in the coparenting intervention had higher father-reported scores (but not mother-reported scores) of father involvement at 18 months postbirth as compared to fathers in the control group. Additionally, although only marginally significant, fathers in the coparenting intervention were warmer with their children during a play interaction at the 18-month follow-up. There were no observed intervention effects, however, on the quality of the coparenting relationship at follow-up, but the quality of the coparenting relationship was related to both father involvement scores and father warmth. As the first study to investigate the use of a coparenting intervention with adolescent mothers and young fathers together, the results of the current study offer support for the continued development of coparenting interventions for use with adolescents.

INTERVENTION FATHERS EFFECTS OF A PREBIRTH COPARENTING INTERVENTION ON THE PARENTING BEHAVIORS OF YOUNG FATHERS by Cristina M. Hudak A thesis submitted to the faculty of the University of Utah in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Department of Psychology The University of Utah May 2010 Copyright © Cristina M. Hudak 2010 All Rights Reserved Graduate SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE APPROVAL of a thesis submitted by This thesis has been read by each member of the following supervisory committee and by a majority vote has been found to be satisfactory. Timothy WTSmith / Date/ ~*\AJames F. Alexander ' The Graduate School THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH APPRO V AL Cristina M. Hudak satisfactory. Date kN~ y.sillith Date rA~~P The Graduate School THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH FINAL READING APPROVAL To the Graduate Council of the University of Utah: m i t s - n a l f o r m a n d h a v e found that (1) committee and is ready for submission to The Graduate School. -~"~v-~-- - , Chair of the Supervisory Committee orsheim Department l^\^Hiz £. /-C , Chair / Dean Jynthia q Request for Publication Embargo ProQuest/UMI USpace) supervisory committee joins me in this request for an embargo. 1 Office. D , Student Date , Chair of the Supervisory Committee Date Approved for the Graduate Council Graduate School THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH FINAL READING APPROV AL To the Graduate Council of the University of Utah: I have read the thesis of Cristina M. Hudak in its final form and have found that ----------~~~~~~~~~----------- l ) its format, citations, and bibliographic style are consistent and acceptable; (2) its illustrative materials including figures, tables, and charts are in place; (3) the final manuscript is satisfactory to the supervisory Th raduate ";/2 r,..IIU ~d,,-::-:::±---::.~--:--' _ ___ Date P~ Approved for the Major Department Date Cynthia A. Berg Please DO NOT complete this boxed section UNLESS you are requesting a publication embargo. I request that The Graduate School, the University of Utah, delay the publication of my thesis or dissertation through ProQuestlUMI and the University of Utah Libraries Institutional Repository (US pace) for a period of six months. The chair of my I am requesting this embargo because (check one): o I have a patent pending through the University of Utah Technology Transfer Office. o I have a copyright issue with the Journal of I understand that the embargo may be lifted at my written request. I also understand that any extension to the approved embargo must be submitted in writing before the embargo is lifted and that the extension will be for an additional six months. Committee The embargo is for a period of six months beginning with the date this form is approved by the Dean of The Graduate School. Date APprol/2vfoerd~ the~ .;:ate Council ~ , Dean of The Graduate School Charles A. Wi adolescent and young fathers. Participants included 96 expectant adolescent couples who comprised the first wave of participants in the Young Parenthood Study. Adolescent couples participated in a baseline assessment occurring before the adolescent mother was 26 weeks gestation, and participated in two follow-up assessments at 8 weeks and 18 months postbirth. Adolescent couples were randomized into the intervention group («=51) or control group (n=45) following the baseline assessment, with intervention couples participating in 5-10 intervention sessions occurring before the baby was born. The intervention was designed to improve the quality of the coparenting relationship, with the intention that the quality of the coparenting relationship would "spill-over" into the quality of parent-child relations. in ABSTRACT The current study investigated the effectiveness of a prebirth coparenting intervention in improving father involvement and the quality of fathering amongst n=45) Results indicated that fathers participating 111 the coparenting intervention had higher father-reported scores (but not mother-reported scores) of father involvement at 18 months postbirth as compared to fathers in the control group. Additionally, although only marginally significant, fathers in the coparenting intervention were warmer with their children during a play interaction at the 18-month follow-up. There were no observed intervention effects, however, on the quality of the coparenting relationship at follow-up, but the quality of the coparenting relationship was related to both father involvement scores and father warmth. As the first study to investigate the use of a coparenting intervention with adolescent mothers and young fathers together, the results of the current study offer support for the continued development of coparenting interventions for use with adolescents. v TABLE OF CONTENTS iv TABLES vii INTRODUCTION 1 3 Coparenting and Intervention 5 The Importance of Prebirth Interventions 10 Defining "Good Fathering" 11 Current Study and Hypotheses 12 Measures Values 30 Coparenting Relationship Quality and Fathering Behaviors Intervention Effects on Father Involvement 33 Intervention Effects on the Quality of Fathering 33 Intervention Effects on the Quality of the Coparenting Relationship 35 Purpose 36 Improving Fathering With Coparenting Interventions 37 Improving the Coparenting Relationship Amongst Expectant Adolescents . . . 41 44 Future Directions 45 48 ABSTRACT ...... ........... . LIST OF TABLES. INTRODUCTION. Parenting Interventions for Young Fathers . . Coparenting and Intervention . . . . . . . . . The Importance of Prebirth Interventions Defining "Good Fathering" ... Current Study and Hypotheses. . . . . . METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Procedure ... . .. ........ .. .. . The Young Parenthood Program Intervention . Measures. RESULTS .... Preliminary Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Attrition Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Missing Values. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DISCUSSION . Purpose. ......... . Adolescents. Limitations of the Current Study . . . . . . . . . IV VIJ 5 10 11 12 15 15 15 16 17 26 26 26 31 36 44 45 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... .. 48 Principal Component Analysis 21 2. Demographic Variables by Gender and Treatment Group 27 3. Baseline Psychosocial Functioning by Gender and Treatment Group 28 4. Bivariate Correlations Between Outcome Variables 32 5. Means and Standard Deviations of Outcome Variables by Treatment Group . . . . 34 6. Relative Frequencies of SASB Codes by Treatment Group 35 LIST OF TABLES 1. Individual Factor Loadings of Coparenting Relationship Scales From Principal Component Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2. Demographic Variables by Gender and Treatment Group ...... .... . ... 27 3. Baseline Psychosocial Functioning by Gender and Treatment Group . . .. ... . 28 4. Bivariate Correlations Between Outcome Variables. . . . . . . . . . 32 5. Mearrs and Standard Deviations of Outcome Variables by Treatment Group 34 6. Relative Frequencies of SASB Codes by Treatment Group. . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 While the rate of adolescent pregnancy has been decreasing since 1991, 2006 marked the first increase in teen birthrates in 15 years (Hamilton, Martin & Ventura), leaving the United States with one of the highest teen birthrates in the industrialized world (Singh & Darroch, 2000). This high number of adolescent births is of concern, as studies have shown that children born to adolescents are more likely to have developmental delays (Borkowski et al., 2002), are more likely to be insecurely attached (Lounds et al., 2005; Spieker & Bensley, 1994; Ward & Carlson, 1995), and are at higher risk for internalizing and externalizing problems (Pogarsky, Thornberry, & Lizotte, 2006). These negative developmental outcomes coupled with the high rate of teen pregnancy begin to highlight the need for additional resources for young parents. A brief glimpse into the current research findings on adolescent mothers further emphasizes the need for interventions for young parents. For example, research on adolescent mothers has shown that they tend to be less empathic and less responsive as compared to older mothers (Coll, Hoffman, & Oh, 1987; Elster, McAnarney, & Lamb, 1983; Miller & Moore, 1990), perhaps due to the increased stress that adolescent mothers Coll, & & & INTRODUCTION Currently in the United States, approximately 40 out of every 1000 adolescents between the ages of 15 and 19 give birth each year (Hamilton, Martin & Ventura, 2007). ai., ai., further ColI, experience (Garcia-ColI, 1990; Passino Whitman, 1993). Becoming a mother can be a stressful transition for women of any age (Cowan Cowan, 1992; Feldman Nash, & of this, parenting interventions may be particularly beneficial for young mothers. shows a relative lack of research in comparison to research on young mothers. While adolescent mothers have consistently been in the research literature for the past 30 years, it has only been more recently that researchers have begun to explore the experiences of adolescent and young fathers and the roles they play in their children's lives. Although the research on adolescent fathers is minimal, the current research continues to emphasize the need for interventions not only for adolescent mothers, but for adolescent fathers as well. For example, studies have found that by 18 months following birth, only 16% - 29% of young fathers either live with their child or provide child support (Danziger & Radin, 1990; Hardy, Duggan, Masnyk & Pearson, 1989). This pattern of disengagement is of concern as current research has indicated that positive father involvement plays an important role in the developmental outcomes of children (Marsiglio, Amato, Day & Lamb, 2000). There is also some evidence that the effect of father involvement on child development is even stronger for children born to adolescent mothers (Cutrona, Hessling, Bacon & Russell, 1998; Furstenberg & Hughes, 1995). Considering the implications of the lack of father involvement amongst young fathers in the context of the previously discussed research on adolescent mothers and their children fully accentuates the need for effective interventions for adolescent parents. 2 1984), but adolescent mothers may be less developmentally equipped to handle the responsibilities of becoming a mother (Chase-Lansdale Brooks-Gunn, 1994). Because Looking into the research literature on adolescent and young fathers, however, & & Hughes. & Mclntyre, on mother-child relations and place little emphasis on either father-child or mother-father relations. quantity involvement, quality Empowerment Project, a group intervention designed for high-risk families, was modified for use with & This program was found to be helpful to young fathers in increasing their commitment and involvement with their children; however, little is known about the effectiveness of such programs in improving the quality of father-child interactions. focused 3 Parenting Interventions for Young Fathers In recent years there has been a growing number of parenting intervention programs available for adolescent mothers, including some that have demonstrated success in improving both mother and child outcomes (Mann, Pearl Behle, 2004; Stoiber and McIntyre, 2006). These parenting interventions, however, primarily focus mother-While the number of programs available for young fathers is growing, it is still far less than the number of programs available for young mothers. Additionally, programs for young mothers have aimed at improving the quality of parenting, while programs for young fathers have primarily focused on increasing the quantify of father involvement, rather than the of father involvement. For example, the Parent Empowerment young fathers in the juvenile justice system (Parra-Cardrona, Wampler, Sharp, 2006). It is not surprising that interventions for young fathers to date have focused heavily on increasing father presence, given that early research characterizing young fathers has focused on their relative absence in comparison to older fathers and the negative developmental outcomes associated with father absence, such as dropping out of school (McLanahan, 1985) and behavioral or emotional problems (Gabel, 1992). However, other studies have suggested that some of the negative developmental 4 factors & fathers need to move beyond a dichotomous focus on either father absence or father presence. & quality quantity father involvement. Specifically, when fathers displayed high quality parenting behavior, father involvement was essentially unrelated to attachment security; however, when the quality of fathering was low, father involvement was inversely related to attachment security. Similarly, Easterbrooks and Goldberg (1984) found that in predicting toddler development, the qualitative factors related to parenting were more salient than quantitative factors. These findings highlight the importance of focusing interventions for young fathers on improving not only the quantity of father involvement, but the quality of fathering, as well. important to consider the factors that impact father involvement amongst young fathers outcomes associated with father absence may really be a result of economic factors (Crockett, Eggebeen, Hawkins, 1993), indicating that conceptualizations of young More recent research on fathering has provided further impetus for focusing interventions around improving the quality of parenting behaviors. For example, in a study investigating factors affecting father-child attachment (Brown, McBride, Shin, Bost, 2007), the of fathering was found to moderate the effects of the of With the understanding that future interventions for young fathers need to place greater emphasis on improving both the quality and quantity of father involvement, it is when developing effective interventions for this population. One factor that is repeatedly emerging as a strong influence on fathering is the quality of the relationship between the young father and the adolescent mother. Current research has indicated that a strong mother-father relationship can help to buffer the effects of the barriers to positive father & & & & effect. 5 involvement that young fathers face, including an increased rate of poverty and unemployment, a lack of education, and poor relationship skills (Marsiglio & Cohan, 1997). There is also evidence that a strong mother-father relationship can help to improve not only the quantity, but the quality of father involvement amongst young fathers (Easterbrooks, Barrett, Brady Davis, 2007; Florsheim Smith, 2005). Given the importance of the mother-father relationship in fostering positive father involvement, it seems that interventions for young fathers should place at least some emphasis on strengthening this relationship. However, there have been few interventions for adolescent parents that work with both the mother and father together or even place emphasis on the importance of the mother-father relationship (Fagan, 2008). Coparenting and Intervention The quality of the mother-father relationship has repeatedly been implicated as an important factor affecting parent-child relations (Coiro & Emery, 1998; Cowan & Cowan, 2000; Erel & Burman, 1995; Katz & Gottman, 1996; Krishnakumar & Buehler, 2000). For example, high marital stress has been negatively correlated with parental sensitivity (Pelchat, Bisson, Bois, Saucier, 2003) and a harmonious marital relationship is associated with better quality of parenting (Cox, Owen, Lewis Henderson, 1989). It has been hypothesized that this association results from the quality of the couple relationship "spilling-over" into parenting behaviors and the parent-child relationship, hence known as the "spill-over" effect. While early research on the spill-over effect was conducted with adult married couples, recent research has provided evidence of the spill-over effect in samples of adolescent couples as well, and has indicated its importance for both mothers and fathers mother-mother-child interactions at 2 years postbirth (Florsheim Smith). Relatedly, observed hostility in the couple relationship was found to predict observed hostility in a father-child play interaction (Moore & Florsheim, 2008). mother-father relationship that are not directly related to parenting, including romantic, financial and sexual relations (Feinberg, 2003). Prior studies have indicated that the coparenting relationship may be more predictive of parenting and child outcomes than other aspects of the mother-father relationship (Feinberg, 2003). This indicates that interventions designed to improve the mother-father relationship could be more effective in also improving parenting and child outcomes if the focus of the intervention were to be on the coparenting relationship. Crnic, 6 (Easterbrooks et al., 2007; Florsheim & Smith, 2005; Moore & Florsheim, 2008). For example, in a study of expectant adolescent couples, the quality of the mother-father relationship before birth was found to predict the quality of both father-child and mother­child & Research on the spill-over effect has also been extended beyond the marital relationship and into the coparenting relationship, a concept that has been receiving increased attention over the past 15 years. The notion of the coparenting relationship has previously been defined as "the ways that parents and/or parental figures relate to each other in the role of parent" (Feinberg, 2003, p. 96), and does not include aspects of the effective Research on coparenting has shown that healthy coparenting relationships positively affect both child adjustment and parenting practices. For example, within the coparenting relationship, the extent of support has been linked to children's inhibition at age three (Belsky, Putnam & ernie, 1996), and the degree of conflict around childrearing has been linked to both parental negativity and adolescent maladjustment (Feinberg, Kan 7 al., from which to improve both mother-child and father-child relations. & relationship, the coparenting relationship often ceases (Fagan et al.). By focusing interventions on improving the coparenting relationship, it may be possible for adolescent couples to maintain a healthy coparenting relationship regardless of whether they stay together romantically. For young fathers, this healthy coparenting relationship may be particularly important in increasing their father involvement with their children. Given the finding that a strong mother-father relationship can help to overcome barriers to father involvement (Marsiglio & Cohan, 1997), an intervention focusing on improving the coparenting relationship could potentially increase the extent of a young father's involvement in child-rearing activities. given & 2001). & Hetherington, 2007). Additionally, the effect of a healthy coparenting relationship on parenting quality holds true for both mothers and fathers, and there is some evidence that the coparenting relationship may be even more important for fathers than for mothers in improving their engagement with their children (Belsky et aL 1996). With this understanding, the coparenting relationship can serve as a focus of intervention from In working with adolescent and young fathers, a focus on the coparenting relationship may be even more important. Research has indicated that adolescent parents have much more difficulty maintaining long-term romantic relationships as compared to adults (Fagan, Farrie, Cabrera Roy, 2007), and that with the dissolution of the romantic focusing father's Coparenting interventions are also particularly important for adolescents gIven research indicating that expectant adolescent tend to display less warmth and greater interpersonal hostility than nonexpectant adolescent couples (Moore Florshiem, 200 1). This increased level of hostility in the couple relationship is concerning, especially when & fathers on the coparenting relationship could therefore not only help to increase father involvement, but also help to improve family relations as a whole, including father-child relations. focuses on strengthening the coparenting relationship, rather than individual parenting practices. Feinberg's model, four factors comprise the coparenting relationship, including joint family management, support/undermining, division of labor, and child-rearing agreement. Studies have shown that interventions targeting these aspects of the coparenting relationship were successful in improving not only the coparenting relationship, but parent-child relations as well (Feinberg & Kan, 2008). These studies of coparenting, however, have focused on adult couples, and until recently, there have been no published studies of coparenting interventions for adolescents. communication comparing 8 considered in the context of the spill-over effect, which indicates that young fathers are at greater risk for displaying hostile or abusive parenting behaviors when there is hostility in the couple relationship (Moore Florsheim, 2008). Focusing interventions for young With the understanding that coparenting interventions could be particularly beneficial for young fathers, it is important to consider the components of the coparenting relationship that can serve as targets for interventions. Feinberg (2002, 2003) has proposed a general framework for coparenting prevention and intervention, which In child­rearing however. Fagan (2008) published the first study of a prebirth coparenting intervention for young fathers utilizing a group treatment model. The intervention focused on improving three aspects of the coparenting relationship, including support, commun ication around the needs of the child, and solidarity and alliance. When companng the coparenting intervention to a typical childbirth intervention, Fagan found that the coparenting differences group, however, consisted of those who refused either of the interventions and who therefore were not randomized into the control group, introducing a potential confound in the study. father together. Including both the mother and father together in the intervention provides the opportunity to simultaneously improve the coparenting relationship between the mother 9 intervention was more effective in improving fathers' perceptions (but not mothers' perceptions) of father engagement in child-rearing. Fagan did find significant differences in both mother- and father-reports of father engagement when comparing the coparenting intervention to a no-treatment comparison group. The young fathers in the no-treatment It is also important to note that Fagan's model of intervention involved a group intervention for young fathers that focused on coparenting topics, but did not involve the young mother in the actual intervention. As of yet, there have been no studies of coparenting interventions for adolescents which involve both the mother and father and the father, the mother-child relationship and the father-child relationship. It is also important to note that the majority of parenting and coparenting interventions have followed a group treatment model over an individual treatment model. There has been little research exploring how working with expectant couples individually as opposed to in a group setting may affect the couple relationship and parenting behaviors. While Fagan's research was seminal in laying the groundwork for the development of effective coparenting interventions for young couples, it is important to explore other models of coparenting interventions and how they may be beneficial to young parents. 10 especially in the work with adolescents. studies of married adult couples, it has been found that the quality of the marital relationship decreases following the birth of the couple's first child (Cowan & Cowan, 2000). This effect tends to be strongest for couples who, during the pregnancy, are in disagreement about whether or not they want to have the baby (Cowan & Cowan). While this effect was observed in a sample of married adult couples, it seems likely that this same effect would be observed in adolescent couples as well, and perhaps even to a greater degree considering that many adolescent pregnancies are unplanned. By initiating a coparenting intervention prebirth, it is the intention to better prepare the couple for the birth of the child so as to prevent or reduce the decline in the quality of the relationship that has been seen postbirth. The Importance of Prebirth Interventions In designing interventions for adolescent parents, it is important to consider the timing of such interventions. The coparenting interventions discussed thus far have each occurred prenatally, taking a preventative approach to intervention. There are a number of reasons why prebirth interventions may be more effective than postbirth interventions, In Another reason that a prebirth intervention may be more effective in the work with adolescents is due to the fact that a large number of young fathers cease contact with their children during the first year after birth. As previously mentioned, the quality of the father's relationship with the adolescent mother may help to maintain father involvement. Therefore, if the intervention is initiated prenatally, it may be more likely to improve the mother-father relationship in order to prevent father disengagement after the birth of the baby. This is also supported by the work of Fagan (2008). absence of fathers in relation to child outcomes (e.g., Gabel, 1992; McLanahan, 1985), current research has focused on elucidating the concept of the "good father" in relation to the quality of parenting behaviors. It is important to understand the current theoretical definition of "good fathering," as it is this notion that guides the development of parenting interventions and the empirical study of their effectiveness. & & warmth plays in child development. For example, observations of father-child interactions have indicated that the cognitive abilities of toddlers were higher when Cabrera, 2002). Similar factors, including father warmth, have also been linked to father-child attachment security (Brown et al., 2007). Finally, interviews with low-income fathers have also implicated father warmth as an essential component to positive 11 Defining "Good Fathering" While research in psychology has long attempted to define positive maternal characteristics, it has only been in the past several decades that there has been a burgeoning of research aiming to elucidate the concept of the "good father." While early research characterizing positive fathering behaviors has focused on the presence or effectiveness. While the concept of positive fathering is multifaceted and tends to vary with age, there are two components that seem essential to positive fathering, particularly in relation to toddlers. The first of these components is the capability of the father to warmly engage with his child, which is consistent with prior definitions of positive parenting with toddlers (Edwards Liu, 1995; Grossman Grossman, 2003). Additional support for the importance of father warmth comes from research highlighting the role that father father-fathers were warm, communicative and playful (Shannon, Tamis-LeMonda, London, and father­child Boiler, & doubt." In this stage, toddlers must begin to differentiate themselves from their caregivers while exploring their surroundings. In order for toddlers to achieve autonomy, their caregivers must therefore support and encourage autonomy seeking behaviors in their children. This aspect of good fathering is also consistent with prior definitions of positive parenting with toddlers (Edwards & Liu, 1995; Grossman & Grossman, 2003). Grossman and Grossman (2003) emphasize the importance of both father warmth and the encouragement of autonomy, stating that parents of toddlers should "provide a loving and trusting relationship to facilitate attachment;...enhance cognitive growth by scaffolding intellectual experiences; and motivate the child through appreciation of his or her accomplishments" (p. 14). It is the understanding that positive fathering involves both warmth and the encouragement of autonomy that guides the current study. 12 fathering, as emotional support and love were identified by these fathers as one of four factors comprising "good fathering" (Summers, Boller, Schiffman, Raikes, 2006). A second component essential to good fathering is the capacity to encourage autonomy and exploration. According to Erikson (1966), the stage of psychosocial development corresponding to toddlerhood is that of "autonomy versus shame and caregIvers caregIvers attachment; ... Current Study and Hypotheses Having reviewed the current research on parenting behaviors of young parents and developmental outcomes associated with their children, it is clear that there is a need for interventions for adolescent parents. While there has been an increase in the number of programs available for young parents in recent years, the current research on these programs points to several deficiencies, including: 1) a relative lack of interventions 13 presence demonstrated "spill-over" of the quality of the coparenting relationship into the father-child relationship, the intervention involves both the mother and father together and focuses on improving the coparenting relationship. Additionally, the intervention is administered prenatally, as a prebirth intervention may be more beneficial in preventing father disengagement and negative parenting practices occurring after the birth of the child. fathering & coparenting the coparenting relationship will offer additional insight into the mechanism of available for young fathers as compared to young mothers; 2) a focus on father presence over the quality of fathering; and 3) a lack of interventions involving both mothers and fathers. In order to address these deficiencies, the current study evaluates both the quantity and the quality of parenting amongst young fathers participating in a coparenting intervention designed for adolescent couples expecting their first child. Given the father­child The current study will also contribute to the research on coparenting interventions by including a randomized control group and analyzing the quality of the coparenting relationship as a partial mediator between the intervention and its effects on fathering behaviors. While prior research has indicated that coparenting interventions have been successful in improving both mother-father and father-child relations (Fagan, 2008; Feinberg Kan, 2008), research has yet to examine the mediating role that the quality of the co parenting relationship could play. Considering the demonstrated spill-over of the coparenting relationship into the father-child relationship, it is likely that coparenting interventions indirectly improve the quality of fathering in part through improving the quality of the coparenting relationship. Analyzing the mediating effects of the quality of couples. following hypotheses are proposed: 1: following the birth of their child as compared to young fathers and mothers who do not participate in the intervention. in intervention will be more involved in child-rearing activities and will display fathering behaviors that a) are higher in warmth and b) involve a higher level of autonomy-support. effects fathering behaviors between treatment groups. 14 coparenting interventions and how they may be beneficial to expectant adolescent Considering past research on young fathers and coparenting interventions, the Hypothesis J: Young fathers and young mothers who participate in a prebirth coparenting intervention will report a better quality coparenting relationship following Hypothesis 2: Young fathers who participate 111 a prebirth coparenting autonomy-Hypothesis 3: The quality of the coparenting relationship will mediate the effects of the coparenting intervention on the parenting behaviors of young fathers, such that the quality of the coparenting relationship will account for at least some of the variance in in the Young Parenthood Study include pregnant adolescents (ages 14 to 18) and the fathers of their babies (ages 14 to 24) who are expecting their first child and have decided to keep their baby. Participants were recruited from health clinics and schools for pregnant adolescents within the Salt Lake City area. Because the Young Parenthood Study evaluates the effects of a coparenting intervention, adolescent mothers had to participate in the study with the father of the baby in order to be eligible, but they did not need to be romantically involved. METHODS Participants The participants 111 this study were 107 expectant adolescent couples who comprised the first wave of participants in the Young Parenthood Study. Participants in Procedure After participants were recruited into the Young Parenthood Study and after informed consent was obtained, participants were administered the first assessment (baseline), which occurred prenatally before the mother was 26 weeks gestation. During the baseline assessment, the expectant mothers and fathers were each administered a series of computerized self-report measures assessing demographic information (age, ethnicity, household income) and initial levels of psychosocial functioning (depression, lifetime drug use, lifetime delinquency, and quality of relationship with partner). The from 1 completed computerized self-report measures assessing the quality of the coparenting relationship, again with mothers and fathers in separate rooms. During the second follow-up assessment (T3), couples again completed computerized self-report measures assessing the quality of the coparenting relationship as well as a measure assessing each parent's involvement in child-rearing activities. Additionally, fathers participated in a 12-minute semi structured play task with their toddler. After the completion of each assessment (baseline, T2, and T3), each participant was paid $40. al., 16 measures were collected with the mothers and fathers in separate rooms to promote more candid responses trom participants. Following the baseline assessment, participants were randomly assigned to either the intervention group or the control group, with a 1: 1 ratio of intervention participants to control participants. All participants in both the intervention group and the control group participated in two follow-up assessments, occurring when the couple's child was 6 weeks old and 18 months old. During the first follow-up assessment (T2), couples semistructured The Young Parenthood Program Intervention Based on the demonstrated importance of the coparenting relationship in predicting both parent and child outcomes (e.g., Feinberg, 2003; Feinberg et aI., 2007), the goal of the Young Parenthood Program intervention is to help adolescent couples develop the skills necessary to establish and maintain a healthy coparenting relationship so that they may provide their child with a positive family environment. The Young Parenthood Program is unique amongst coparenting programs for adolescents because it utilizes a couple treatment model, rather than a group treatment model. Each couple in the intervention was assigned a therapist (a graduate student therapist or master's level 17 $10 10 reflective relationship is relevant to their child's development. The second step of the program is then designed to help partners clarify their personal goals and identify how their goals relate to their partner's goals, their respective roles as parents, and their co-parenting relationship. The third and fourth steps of the program, respectively, target communication skills (reflective listening, clear expression, communicating acceptance, and support) and conflict-negotiation skills in order to improve the couple's ability to function as partners regardless of relationship outcome. Finally, the fifth step of the program is designed to help the couple summarize and integrate what they have gained and to engage in the process of forecasting and preparing for future difficulties. fit which their household income fell. Participants were given eight choices ranging from clinician) and were paid per person for each intervention session that they attended. Couples each attended between 5 and therapy sessions which occurred before the baby was born. The intervention sessions were structured around five steps, which are ref1ective of the components of coparenting outlined by both Feinberg (2002, 2003) and Fagan (2008) in their coparenting intervention models. During the first step of the program, the intervention focuses on building rapport and educating the couple about how their difficulties. While the Young Parenthood Program is a manualized intervention, there is also a high degree of flexibility built into the intervention model so that the intervention can be tailored to each couple's needs. Measures Demographics To assess socioeconomic status, participants were asked to select the range in Functioning Depression: (BDI-& adolescents (Osman et al., 2004). 15-self-al., levels of drug and alcohol use. This index of substance use has been previously found to be adequately valid and reliable (Elliott et al., 1989; Johnson, Wish, Schmeidler, & Huizinga, 1991). Cronbach's alpha was 0.987 for males and 0.961 for females. Huizinga, & Menard, 1989) and used to assess current and previous illegal activities. Respondents are asked to report on their frequency of engagement in specific illegal fights) during their life time. The Youth Survey upon which this measure is based has 18 $0-4999 to $50,000+. Ethnicity was measured using a single item asking participants to select the ethnic group(s) to which they felt they belonged. Psychosocial Functioning Baseline levels of depression were assessed for both mothers and fathers using the Beck Depression Inventory-II CBDI-II; Beck, Steer Brown, 1996). The BDI-II is a 21-item self-report measure assessing levels of depressive symptoms using a 4-point Likert scale, and has been shown to have high reliability and validity with aI., Drug Use: Levels of lifetime drug use were assessed at baseline for both mothers and fathers using the Drug Use Index (DUI). The DUI is a IS-item self-report questionnaire modified from the National Youth Survey (Elliott et aI., 1989) to assess aI., 1991). Delinquency: Levels of lifetime delinquency were assessed at baseline for both mothers and fathers using the Delinquent/Criminal Behavior Checklist (DCBC). The DCBC is a 24-item questionnaire based on the National Youth Survey Interview (Elliott, activities including theft, burglary, assault, drug dealing, carrying a weapon, and gang related activities (e.g., shooting at cars, houses, or people, participating in gang related 19 of Relationship using different measures: the Quality of Relationships Inventory (QRI; Pierce, 1994) and the Parenting Alliance Inventory (PAI; Abidin, 1988). The QRI and PAI were administered together at the T2 and T3 assessments to both fathers and mothers. The QRI was also administered during the baseline assessment to assess initial levels of the quality of the couple relationship. relationship. The QRI includes items such as, "To what extent could you turn to the following person for help with a problem?" and "How significant is your relationship with the following person?" Responses to items are on a 4-point scale ranging from not at all to a lot. Research on the QRI has demonstrated high internal consistency, test-retest reliability, as well as high convergent, discriminate, and construct validity (Pierce, 1996; Pierce et al., 1997). For the current sample, Cronbach's alpha for the three subscales ranged from 0.880 to 0.950 for both males and females. PAI been previously found to have adequate reliability and validity (Elliott et al., 1989). Cronbach's alpha for the current sample was 0.925 for males and 0.860 for females. Quality oj Coparenting Relationship The quality of the coparenting relationship was assessed usmg two different PAl; PAL The QRI is a 25-item self-report measure assessing an individual's perceptions of specific dyadic relationships, including the partner relationship. The measure is comprised of three subscales measuring levels of support, conflict, and depth within a not test­retest The PAl is a 20-item self-report measure assessing the degree to which parents believe they have a strong working relationship with their child's other parent. Participants are asked to respond to items utilizing a 5-point Likert scale, assessing the degree to which they agree or disagree with statements such as, "When there is a problem 20 PAI 1995). Cronbach's alpha for this sample was 0.963 for males and 0.975 for females. PAI relationship quality is that these two instruments each assess different aspects of the coparenting relationship. While the QRI assesses factors that are critical elements of the coparenting relationship including support, conflict, and depth, it does not assess these factors specifically in relation to parenting. The PAI, on the other hand, assesses the mother-father relationship in the context of parenting, but does not include separate measures of support, conflict and depth. PAI the scale level of the PAI and QRI subscale scores collected from participants. The sample size was larger at the T2 follow-up assessment as compared to the T3, and because the relations amongst these variables were likely to remain consistent over time. Additionally, separate factor analyses were conducted for the male and female participants in order to account for the interdependency between the couples' scores. = 20 with our children, we work out a solution." Research on the PAl has demonstrated high internal consistency as well as high concurrent and construct validity (Abidin & Brunner, The rationale behind using the QRI and PAl together as a measure of coparenting PAl, In order to determine whether the QRI and PAl scores could be combined into a single score, principle components analysis was utilized to explore the factor structure at PAl sub scale participants' scores from the T2 assessment were utilized in the factor analysis as the Principle components analysis revealed a unitary factor structure corresponding to coparenting relationship quality, as only one factor emerged with an Eigenvalue over 1 for both males (Eigenvalue = 2.606, % variance = 65.2) and females (Eigenvalue = 2.621, % variance = 65.5). Additionally, each of the four scales were significant contributors to the factor (see Table 1 for individual factor loadings), supporting a decision to weight 21 Factor Conflict PAI Child-Rearing up, bathing the child, feeding the child, playing with the child, and putting the child to bed, which are each rated on a 5-point scale (l=partner's job; 3=we share equally; 5 my job). This questionnaire was administered to both mothers and fathers to result in mother-reported and father-reported Father Involvement (FI) scores. Mothers' scores on this measure were reverse scored so that high mother-reported and father-reported involvement scores both indicated higher levels of father involvement in child rearing activities. Cronbach's alpha was 0.898 for males and 0.931 for females. Table 1. Individual Factor Loadings of Coparenting Relationship Scales From Principal Component Analysis Scale Parenting Alliance Inventory Quality of Relationships Inventory- Support Quality of Relationships Inventory- Depth Quality of Relationships Inventory- Conflict F actor Loading (Males) 0.767 0.883 0.896 0.658 Factor Loading (Females) .880 .914 .925 .396 each of these scales equally in creating an overall score of the coparenting relationship quality for both the T2 and T3 assessments. The overall "Coparenting Relationship Quality" (CRQ) score, was calculated by first converting the QRI and PAl scores into standard scores, and then adding these four standard scores together. Father Involvement in Child-Rearing During the T3 follow-up. the extent of father involvement in child-rearing activities was assessed using a measure adapted from the Caregiving Activities Questionnaire (NICHD, Early Child Care Research Network, 2002) and the "Who does what Questionnaire" (Cowan & Cowan, 2000). The measure includes 9 items such as 1 =partner's = father-reported Behavior in age-appropriate the room so as not to distract participants during the play interaction. using other-focused behavior and Circumplex 2 corresponds to self-focused behavior. included on the vertical axis of the circumplex. In each of the two circumplexes, the 22 Observed Fathering Behavior During the T3 follow-up, fathers were asked to participate 111 a 12-minute unstructured play interaction with their child. The fathers were given a set of age­appropriate toys to play with on a blanket and were instructed to play with their child as they would normally. They were also asked to keep their child on the blanket in order to remain in view of the camera. After administering the instructions, the interviewer left The fathers' behavior during the play interaction was coded uS1l1g an observational coding system based on the Structural Analysis of Social Behavior (SASB; Benjamin, 1974). The SASB model (Figure 1) is structured around three dimensions of interpersonal behavior. The first dimension is the focus of the behavior, which is represented in the SASB model through the inclusion of separate circumplexes corresponding to different foci of behavior. While the SASB model includes a total of three circumplexes, only two are used in the current study; Circumplex 1 corresponds to The second two dimensions of interpersonal behavior included in the SASB model are affiliation and interdependence, which comprise the orthogonal axes of each circumplex. Affiliation corresponds to the degree of warmth or hostility within a unit of behavior and is represented along the horizontal axis of the model. Behaviors falling to the left of the vertical axis are considered hostile and behaviors to the right are considered warm. Interdependence, or the degree of enmeshment reflected in a unit of behavior, is degree of enmeshment increases as you move down the vertical axis; however, the 1-1. FREEING FORGETTING 1-8, IGNORING NEGLECTING 1-7, ATTACKING & REJECTING 6, 2, UNDERSTANDING 1-3, LOVING & APPROACHING 1-4, NURTURING PROTECTING 1-5, WATCHING CONTROLLING 2-8, WALLING-OFF DISTANCING 2-7, PROTESTING & RECOILING 2-6, SULKING SCURRYING 2-3, JOYFULLY CONNECTING 2-5, DEFERRING SUBMITTING 23 FOCUS ON OTHER & & 1-2, AFFIRMING & UNDERSTANDING 1-6, BELITTLING & BLAMING & & FOCUS ON SELF 2-1, ASSERTING & SEPARATING & DISTANCING 2-2, DISCLOSING & EXPRESSING & 2-4, TRUSTING & RELYING & Figure 1. The Combined Quadrant and Cluster Versions of SASB Models (From Benjamin, 2000. Copyright University of Utah. Used with permission.) self-focused. other-but are considered to be autonomy-taking when the behavior is self-focused. of behavior, rather than to code an overall global assessment of an individual's behavior. & & number of specific SASB codes across each 12-minute interaction. The composite scores were then used to determine a warmth score and an autonomy-support score. The warmth score was determined by dividing the total number of warm behaviors (behaviors in cluster 2, 3, or 4 of the SASB model) by the total number of nonwarm behaviors (clusters 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8) and warm behaviors. The autonomy score was determined by dividing the total percentage of autonomy-supporting behaviors (behaviors in cluster 2) 24 vertical axis has different interpretations based on whether the behavior is other- or self­focused. Behaviors falling below the horizontal axis are considered to be controlling when the behavior is self-focused (circumplex 2). Similarly, behaviors falling above the horizontal axis are considered to be autonomy-giving when the behavior is other-focused self-focused. Each circumplex of the SASB model consists of eight clusters of behavior corresponding to varying levels of affiliation and interdependence. Because there are two circumplexes being used in this study, with eight clusters in each circumplex, there are a total of 16 different SASB codes that can be assigned to an individual unit of behavior. It is important to note that the SASB model is intended to be used to code individual units In this study, the SASB-composite system (Florsheim Benjamin, 2001; Moore Flrosheim) was used to code the father's behavior during the play interaction. In the SASB-composite system, coders watch the play interaction in 2-minute intervals, tallying the number of specific SASB codes for each interval. In the current study, however, 1- minute intervals were used instead of 2-minute intervals in order to ensure a higher degree of reliability. The coder than calculates a "composite" score, by tallying the total 1,5, autonomy-supporting behaviors. minimum SASB/SASB-composite Intraclass correlations were used to determine interrater reliability, with coders demonstrating a correlation of at least 0.85 before they began coding. Additionally, 20% of the videotaped interactions were coded by both graduate students for the purpose of intermittent reliability checks. Intraclass correlations ranged from 0.81 to 0.96 throughout coding, with an average reliability of 0.89. 25 by the total number of controlling behaviors (clusters 4, 5, and 6) and autonomy­supporting All videos were coded by one of two graduate students who had each received a lTIlillmUm of 80 hours of training in the coding systems. Preliminary analyses were conducted to assess the equivalence between psychosocial functioning. Chi square analysis of the ethnic composition of treatment and control groups (reported in Table 2) indicated that there were no significant differences between groups. All other demographic variables and psychosocial functioning variables were analyzed using Mests, with mothers and fathers analyzed separately. Analyses indicated that for mothers, there were no significant differences between treatment and control groups on the BDI-II, DUI, DCBC or QRI, nor in age or household income. Similar results were found for fathers, except that there was a significant difference between groups on the DUI, with control group fathers having a higher DUI score than intervention fathers at baseline (t = 2.254, p = .027; see Table 3 for group means and standard deviations). Because of this, baseline DUI scores were entered as a covariate in all analyses examining intervention effects on outcome variables. and completed the baseline assessment. However, it was later determined that 11 of these couples were no longer eligible for the study, as 5 pregnant adolescents miscarried, 2 couples gave their child up for adoption, 2 fathers were not the biological father, 1 father RESULTS Preliminary Analyses intervention and control groups on participant demographics and initial levels of differences t-tests, difference I = Attrition Analyses Initially, a total of 107 expectant adolescent couples were recruited into the study Table 2. Demographic Variables by Gender and Treatment Group Fathers Intervention Control Combined Intervention Control Combined # = 5 1 ) # = 4 5 ) # = 9 6 ) # = 5 1 ) ( # = 45) ( # = 9 6 ) (%) (%) 55.6 50.0 31.4 DJ.J 41.7 37.8 42.7 52.9 33.3 43.8 2.2 4.2 7.8 4.5 6.2 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.2 2.1 2,2 1.0 5.9 4.5 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 1.0 (M(SD)) 16.66 18.31 18.76 18.52 1.22) (1.13) (2.19) (2.09) (2.15) 10000- $15,000- $15000- $15000- $14999 $19,999 $19,999 $19,999 Demographic Variable Ethnicity White Hispanic African American Asian American American Indian Pacific Islander Age in years (M(SD)) Household Income (average range) ( N= 51) (%) 45.1 47.0 5.9 2.0 0.0 16.55 (l.22) $10000 - $14999 Mothers ( N= 45) (%) 16.78 (1.02) $10000 - $14999 ( N= 96) (%) l .13) $10000 - ( N= 51) (%) N= (%) 53.3 N= 96) (%) 02=«=0=51) 0=45) (SD) M (SD) SD) M (SD) II %.U(5.81) (4.99) (9.04) 6.00(7.18) lifetime 1.61 (9.09) (6.90) (14.19) (16.50) (14.86) 13.89(15.28) 22. 76)* 31.91 (31.18)* (12.34) (12.21) (10.45) (9.92) 86 adolescent mothers (89.6%) and 82 young fathers (85.4%) returned to complete the T2 follow-up. For the T3 follow-up, 76 adolescent mothers (79.2%) and 70 young fathers (73%) returned. Thirteen adolescent mothers (13.5%) and 13 adolescent fathers (13.5%) refused to participate, and 7 adolescent mothers (7.3%) and 13 adolescent fathers (13.5%) were unable to be contacted. (See Figure 2 for a representation of attrition rates by treatment group.) Results indicated that there was not a significant difference in attrition rates between the treatment and control groups for either mothers or fathers at the T2 and T3 follow-up. follow-follow-up father involvement, Mests were used to examine whether mother-reported and father- 28 Table 3. Baseline Psychosocial Functioning by Gender and Treatment Group Mothers Fathers Baseline Intervention Control Intervention Control Measure (n=51) (n=45) (n=51) (n=45) M (SD) M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) BDI-ll 8.84 (5.81) 10.09 (4.99) 6.59 (9.04) 6.00 (7.18) DCBC-lifetime 7.67 (9.09) 8.20 (6.90) 13.18 (14.19) 16.67 (16.50) DUI-lifetime 12.21 (14.86) l3.89 (15.28) 19.45 (22.76) * 3l.91 (31.18)* QRI-partner 78.45 (12.34) 81.49 (12.21) 78.63 (10.45) 80.71 (9.92) * Indicates statistically significant difference between groups (p < .05) was too old, and 1 father was deceased at the time of follow-up. These couples were therefore not included in the current data set, leaving a total of 96 eligible expectant adolescent couples (45 intervention and 51 control). Of the 96 eligible expectant couples, While survey data was collected for all 70 fathers returning for the follow-up assessment, only 56 completed the video-taped assessment used to assess the quality of fathering, primarily as a result of not having the child with them at the time of the follow-up assessment. In order to examine whether this might be a function of differences in t-tests father- Enrolled in YPP Study n = 110 couples Refused to Complete Baseline Assessment n =3 couples Determined Ineligible {Father too old) n =1 couple Determined Ineligible n = 6 couples (Miscarriage: n=3, Adoption: n=2; father deceased: n=\) Lost to Attrition Refused intervention: n=2 couples, refused follow-up: n =3, Unable to contact: n=2 mothers/ 3 fathers Lost to Attrition Refusal: n=4 mothers / 4 fathers Unable to contact: n=2 3 fathers Did Not Complete Video-taped Interaction n = 2 fathers Completed Baseline Assessment n = 107 couples Randomize n - 106 cou Intervention Group = 51 couples Control Group = 45 couples Completed First Follow-up Assessment n 44 mothers and 41 fathers Completed First Follow-up Assessment n = 42 mothers and 41 fathers Completed Second Follow-up Assessment n = 38 mothers and 34 fathers Completed Second Follow-up Assessment n = 38 mothers and 36 fathers Completed Video­taped Interaction n = 32 fathers Completed Video­taped Interaction n = 24 fathers Determined Ineligible n = 4 couples (Miscarriage: n=2, unknown paternity: n=2) Lost to Attrition Refusal: n=2 mothers/ 3 fathers, Unable to contact: n=\ mother/ 3 fathers Lost to Attrition Refusal: n=2 mothers/ 2 fathers. Unable to contact: n=2 mothers/ 3 fathers Did Not Complete Video-taped Interaction n = 12 fathers 29 (old) 1 .11~ Ineligib le 3 , paternity: deceased: n=1) n = n Rejilsed Rejilsal: moth ers! father s, contact: n=1 contact: Fi rst mothers! fa thers = Rejilsal: Rejilsal: fathers, contact: contact: mothers! mothers/ fathers i + Video- Video-taped taped Figure 2. Flow Chart of Participant Attrition 30 the video-taped interaction actually had significantly lower father-reported FI scores than {t = 2.594, p = fathers completing the video-taped interaction had significantly higher father-reported FI scores than those who did not (/ = -2.278, p = .014). The trend seen in the control group for father-reported FI scores was also seen for mother-reported FI scores across both the intervention and control groups, with those fathers completing the video-taped interaction having significantly higher mother-reported FI scores than those not completing it (t = -3.326,/? = 0.002). follow-up and those who did not. Within the intervention group, there was no significant difference in baseline psychosocial functioning between those adolescents who returned for the T3 follow-up and those who did not. Within the control group, however, II baseline than those who did not (7=2.773, /?=0.008). Similarly, adolescent fathers in the control group who did not return for the follow-up assessment had significantly higher DCBC scores (7=2.609, /?=.012) and DUI scores (7=2.374, p=.022) at baseline than fathers who did return for the follow-up assessment. Missing Values using series missing given reported FI scores differed for those fathers who completed the video assessment and those who did not. Results indicated that in the intervention group, fathers completing those who did not complete it (= = .014). In the control group, however, those (t P = 3.326, p Additional analyses were conducted to examine potential differences in baseline psychosocial functioning between those mothers and fathers who completed the T3 significant adolescent mothers who did not return for the T3 follow-up had higher BDI-ll scores at t=p=DeBe t=p=.t=022) At the item-level, missing values were replaced usmg the senes mean for participants whose total mIssmg items did not exceed 10% on a gIven measure; no PAI, missing values (Schlomer, Bauman & Card, 2010) Scores for participants who did not have at least one measure completed at follow-up were not imputed, given that our attrition analyses indicated that there were significant differences between those attending the follow-up assessment and those who did not. This is also a more conservative approach to data analysis. Additionally, no missing SASB data was imputed given the findings that those who did not complete the video-taped interaction differed significantly from those who did. relationship and fathering behaviors, bivariate correlations (reported in Table 4) were used to compare coparenting relationship quality (CRQ) scores with the father actually negatively correlated to father-reported FI scores. 31 measure had greater than 5% of items missing. At the scale level, multiple imputation (utilizing 10 imputations) was utilized to calculate missing scores for participants who had completed at least one follow-up measure (QRI, PAl, or FI). Multiple imputation has recently been recommended as one of the more effective strategies in handling significantly Coparenting Relationship Quality and Fathering Behaviors In order to examine the relation between the quality of the coparenting involvement (FI) scores and observed father warmth and autonomy scores. Results indicated that mother-reported CRQ scores at T2 and T3, as well as father-reported CRQ scores at T3, were all positively correlated to mother-reported FI scores within the sample. However, only mother-reported CRQ scores at T3 were positively correlated to father-reported FI scores, and father-reported FI scores at T2 were In assessing the relationship between CRQ scores and observed fathering quality, only father-reported CRQ scores at T3 were positively correlated to observed father CRQ-FR CRQ-MR T2 CRQ-FR CRQ-MR T3 Warmth Score Autonomy Score .034 .321* .092 .163 1 454*** .601*** -.043 -.227 1 591*** .216 .207 .102 452*** -.062 .037 1 712*** .304* -.294* 1 0.180 -.286* 1 0.031 1 Note. MR=FR=father-* p<. 05 p<0\ p<001 Table 4. Bivariate Correlations Between Outcome Variables CRQ- CRQ- CRQ- CRQ- FI-FR FI-MR FR T2 MRT2 FR T3 MR FI-FR .239 -.316* .073 .321 * FI-MR .192 .454*** .540*** .601 *** CRQ-FR .595*** .591 *** T2 CRQ-MR 1 .388** .452*** T2 CRQ-FR .712*** T3 CRQ-MR T3 Warmth Score Autonomy Score FI=Father Involvement, CRQ=Coparenting Relationship Quality, MR=mother-reported, FR =father -reported * 05 ** p<.OI ***p<.OOl w N negatively ANOVAs Involvement (FI) scores. (See Table 5 for group means and standard deviations.) When father-reported FI scores were analyzed, fathers in the intervention group reported higher FI scores on average than fathers in the control group (F= 6.858, p-.0\ 1). When mother-reported scores were analyzed, however, there was no significant difference between the intervention and control group in FI scores. /-compare the resulting father-mother difference scores of the intervention and control groups. The mean difference between father- and mother-reported scores of father involvement was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group 0 = 2.198,/? = 0.032). ANOVAs means and standard deviations of warmth and autonomy scores.) When examining the observed autonomy-supporting behaviors, there were no significant differences found 33 warmth. Additionally, both father- and mother-reported CRQ scores at T3 were correlated to autonomy scores. Intervention Effects on Father Involvement A series of univariate ANOV As were used to evaluate differences between the treatment and control groups on both mother-reported and father-reported Father p=.011). mother­reported To further investigate the discrepancy in results between the mother-reported and father-reported FI data, a father-mother difference score was calculated by subtracting the mother-reported FI score from the father-reported FI score. A {-test was then utilized to (I = 2.198, p = Intervention Effects on the Quality of Fathering A series of univariate ANOV As were used to examine the intervention effects on the quality of fathering behaviors observed during the play task. (See Table 5 for group Intervention Control Effect Size M (SD) M (SD) (Cohen's^ (n =76) (6.39) (6.38) Father-reported (n =70) 6.27)** Observed Fathering Quality («=56) .916 (037)* .951 (067)* 0.351* (n =56) .234 (.071) .222 (.083) Coparenting Relationship Quality (CRQ) Mother-reported T2 (n (3.32) 0.516 (2.96) Father-reported T2 (n 0.229 (2.82) Mother-reported T3 (n =76) -0.252 (2.84) 0.252 (3.63) O=70) (2.80) -0.341 (3.40) * Indicates significant difference at the p<. 10 level ** Indicates significant difference at the p<0.05 level. Table 5. Means and Standard Deviations of Outcome Variables by Treatment Group Outcome Variable Father Involvement (FI) Mother-reported Warmth n 56) Autonomy =86) =82) Father-reported T3 (n=* 1 0 M(SD) 18.70 26.15 (6.33)** .976(03 7)* (-0.481 -0.220 (3.62) 0.188 * * 0.05 M(SD) 19.64 21.73 (6.27) ** .957 ((Cohen's d) -0.147 0.701 ** 0.351 * 0.155 -0.317 -0.138 -0.155 0.170 35 SASB Code (n = (n = M (SD) M (SD) d) 1-1 (.005) (.029) -0.240 (.068) (.082) 0.080 022) (.028) 0 1-4 (.067) .738 (.100) .082 (.030) .030 (057) (.008) (.002) (000) (.000) 0 1-8 .000 (000) (.006) (.018) .004 (.012) 0 2-2 .035 (.049) (.030) 0.418 between intervention and control groups in the autonomy score. However, when approached significance (F = 3.214, p = 0.079), with fathers in the intervention group displaying a slightly higher relative frequency of warm behaviors during the play task than fathers in the control group. Further analysis of the SASB codes indicated that there were no group differences in the relative frequencies of each code (reported in Table 6). between the intervention group and the control group, the mother-reported Coparenting Relationship Quality (CRQ) Score and the father-reported CRQ Score were analyzed separately using a series of univariate ANOVAS. No significant differences between treatment and control groups were found for either the mother-reported or father-reported CRQ scores, at either the T2 or T3 follow-up. (See Table 5 for means and standard deviations of CRQ scores.) examining observed warmth, the difference between intervention and control groups Intervention Effects on the Quality of the Coparenting Relationship To investigate potential differences in the quality of the coparenting relationship ANOV AS. father-Table 6. Relative Frequencies of SASB Codes by Treatment Group Intervention = 32) M(SD) .001 (.005) 1-2 .182 (068) 1-3 .014(022) .745 (067) 1-5 .016 (030) 1-6 .003 (008) 1-7 .000 (000) (000) 2-1 .004 (018) (049) Control 24) M(SD) .006 (.029) .188 (082) .014 (.028) .738(100) (057) .001 (002) .000 (000) .001 (006) (012) .018 (030) Effect Size (Cohen's o -.307 .343 o -0.236 o aim examine in fathering behaviors. As discussed previously, both the quantity and the quality of Brown et al., 2007; Easterbrooks & Goldberg, 1984). With this understanding, it was important for the current study to examine whether a coparenting intervention for adolescent couples could potentially be beneficial in improving not only the quantity of father involvement in child-rearing activities, but also the quality of the young father's interactions with his child. based on prior research supporting the "spill-over" effect amongst adolescent couples (Easterbrooks et al., 2007; Florsheim & Smith, 2005; Moore & Florsheim, 2008), or the idea that the quality of the coparenting relationship would spill-over into the quality of parent-child interactions. Because of this, it was important to investigate the quality of the coparenting relationship as a mediator of the intervention effects on fathering behaviors. DISCUSSION Purpose The primary aIm of the current study was to examme the effectiveness of a coparenting intervention designed for expectant adolescent couples m improving fathering have been shown to play important roles in predicting child outcomes (e.g., father's The second aim of the study was to investigate the quality of the coparenting relationship as a mediator of the intervention effects on fathering behaviors. The current intervention was designed to specifically target the quality of the coparenting relationship their implications for the further development of coparenting interventions for use with adolescents. using both mother-reported and father-reported measures of father involvement. Based solely on father-reported data, the results of the current study indicate that a prebirth coparenting intervention could be effective in improving the extent of father involvement in child-rearing activities amongst young fathers. Fathers in the intervention group were more likely to indicate that they either shared the responsibility of various child-rearing activities with their partner or were solely responsible for various child-rearing activities. & & & need for interventions to improve father involvement amongst young fathers, but also indicates that increasing father involvement amongst young fathers may be particularly difficult. 37 The results of the current study will first be discussed in the context of understanding whether and how coparenting interventions can be effective in improving fathering behaviors amongst young fathers, and will then be discussed in the context of Improving Fathering With Coparenting Interventions In the current study, the intervention effects on father involvement were assessed While previous studies of coparenting interventions have demonstrated their success in improving father involvement amongst adults (Feinberg Kan, 2008), the ability for coparenting interventions to improve father involvement amongst adolescents is particularly noteworthy. Adolescent fathers have typically been characterized in the research literature by their lack of involvement in their children's lives (Danziger Radin, 1990; Hardy, Duggan, Masnyk Pearson, 1989). This not only highlights the of children born to adolescent parents as well. Although not specifically assessed in the current study or in Fagan's study, the ability of coparenting interventions to improve father involvement could also translate into improved child functioning, given research implicating father involvement as an important predictor of child outcomes (Cutrona et al., 1998; Furstenberg & Hughes, 1995; Marsiglio et al., 2000). findings greater control group, which could be explained in one of two ways. One possibility is that the mothers in the intervention group, as a result of the emphasis on the importance of 38 The results of the current study, as well as the results of Fagan's study on a group coparenting intervention for young fathers (2008), offer support for the ability of prebirth coparenting interventions to increase fathers' perceptions of their involvement in child-rearing activities amongst young fathers. These findings also have important implications for the well-being III Improve aI., Marsiglio aI., While the results of the father-reported data from the current study are promising, it is also important to consider the mother-reported data on father involvement, as well. Unfortunately, there were no identified intervention effects on father involvement with the mother-reported data in the current study, which is consistent with Fagan's findings (2008). To better understand the difference in mother-reported and father-reported scores of father involvement in the current study, it is important to consider how the discrepancy between the father-reported and mother-reported data differed between the intervention and control groups. Results indicated that there was a discrepancy between the mother- and father-reports of father involvement in the intervention group than in the coparenting in the intervention, may have differing expectations of their partners than therefore negating any potential intervention effects within the mother-reported data. them more vulnerable to the effects of a response bias. If this is the case, it is possible that the demonstrated intervention effects within the father-reported data were exaggerated. Considering these two alternative explanations highlights the complexity in knowing which source (mother or father) is a more valid indicator of father involvement. It seems plausible that both explanations could be operating, that is, that mothers in the intervention are underreporting father involvement while at the same time fathers in the intervention group are over-reporting their involvement. With this understanding, averaging the mother-reported and father-reported scores may offer a more balanced and valid indication of father involvement. al., & quality 39 those mothers in the control group. If the mothers in the intervention group have higher expectations for the ideal level of father involvement, they may be more likely to rate father involvement lower as compared to mothers with lower expectations, therefore Alternatively, fathers in the intervention could be more aware of the discrepancy between ideal father involvement and their own lack of involvement, perhaps leaving Because recent research has indicated that the quality of fathering, in addition to the quantity of fathering, plays an important role in predicting child outcomes (Brown et aI., 2007; Easterbrooks Goldberg, 1984), the current study aimed to assess the effectiveness of a prebirth coparenting intervention in improving not only the extent of father involvement, but the of fathering as well. While Fagan (2008) demonstrated improvements in father involvement using a group coparenting intervention for adolescent fathers, the quality of fathering was not assessed. The results of the current study indicate that a coparenting intervention for adolescents may be effective in in significant. difference. meaningful differences in nonwarmth) affect child outcomes. autonomy-task used, rather than the intervention itself. controlling within 40 increasing how warm fathers are when interacting with their children. While the difference 111 father warmth between the intervention and control groups was only marginally significant, it is possible that with a larger sample size these results would be One question that needs to be answered, however, is whether or not the observed difference between treatment groups in father warmth is actually a meaningful difference. The overall difference between the intervention and control groups in the percentage of observed warm behaviors was only 2%. In order to assess whether this is a meaningful difference, it will be important for future studies to also include measures of child outcomes in order to determine whether small differences in warmth (and hence small While the results of the current study indicate that coparenting interventions could be effective in increasing father warmth, the current study was unable to identify any intervention effects on the degree of autonomy-supporting behaviors observed amongst young fathers. While this lack of significant findings in relation to autonomy-supporting behaviors and the minimal differences in father warmth could be considered disheartening, it is important to consider that this may be a function of the type of play The current study utilized a free-play task to assess the quality of fathering in terms of both the degree of father warmth/hostility present in the interaction as well as the degree of autonomy-supporting/controlling behaviors. In analyzing the range of observed behaviors displayed during the play interaction, it became apparent that there was very little variability both between groups, as well as groups, with a strong father-reported couples, nonexpectant adolescent couples, are more likely to have higher rates of hostility in the couple relationship (Moore & Florsheim, 2001). These two factors (increased hostility in the couple relationship and difficulty maintaining long-term romantic relations) contribute to the difficulty in implementing successful coparenting interventions with expectant adolescents and may in part explain the lack of intervention effects found in the current study. It is important to consider, however, that this was only the second coparenting intervention to be used with adolescents and the first to involve both adolescent mothers and young fathers together in the intervention. It is possible that with 41 majority of behaviors falling in cluster 4 of the SASB model (warm control). It is possible that the nature of a play task elicits primarily warm behaviors, and does not capture the true variability of fathering behaviors that may be present in the sample. One alternative is to include a task in which fathers are asked to complete a specific task with their child. It is possible that the inclusion of a goal-oriented task might capture a greater range of wamth versus hostility amongst young fathers, which may make it easier to observe group differences in the quality of fathering. Improving the Coparenting Relationship Amongst Expectant Adolescents The results of the current study indicate that the intervention was most likely not effective in improving either mothers' or fathers' perceptions of the quality of the coparenting relationship, as there were no group differences in mother- or father-reported CRQ scores at either the T2 or T3 follow-up. As discussed previously, adolescent parents, as compared to adults, are less likely to maintain long-term relationships with their partners (Fagan et al., 2007), and expectant adolescent couples. as compared to 42 mediator of the observed intervention effects on fathering behaviors. This indicates that while the intervention had some direct effects on father involvement and father warmth, there were no indirect intervention effects on fathering behaviors arising from improvements in the coparenting relationship, which was what was predicted. However, the results of the current study do indicate that the quality of the coparenting relationship is highly related to fathering behaviors, which offers continuing support for the importance of the spill-over effect amongst adolescent couples. child-rearing fathering further refinement of the intervention model, the coparenting intervention could be successful in improving the coparenting relationship quality amongst adolescents. While it was predicted that the intervention effects on fathering behaviors would be mediated in part by the coparenting relationship quality, the lack of intervention effects on the quality of the coparenting relationship indicate that it was not a likely Support for the spill-over effect can be seen in the correlations between the CRQ scores and FI scores, which indicate that fathers are more likely to be involved in child­rearing activities when the coparenting relationship quality is high. The results also indicate that mothers' perceptions of the relationship quality (as compared to fathers' perceptions), seem to be particularly important in predicting father involvement, as mother-reported CRQ scores at T2 and T3 were correlated to mother-reported FI scores, and mother-reported CRQ scores at T3 were correlated to father-reported FI scores. Additional support for the spill-over effect (and for the importance of mothers' perceptions of the coparenting relationship quality) can be seen when examining the relation between coparenting relationship quality and the observed quality of fathering behaviors. Results indicated that higher mother-reported relationship quality at T3 43 degrees of control/submission present in the couple relationship. If this is the case, then it is possible that this higher degree of enmeshment "spills-over" and translates into a higher degree of control present in the father-child relationship as well. Another explanation of the negative correlation between relationship quality and autonomy-support is that the autonomy-support may actually be related to the extent of father involvement. Fathers that are less involved in child-rearing activities may actually feel less comfortable teaching and instructing their children, which would result in a higher autonomy score. This explanation is also partially supported by the negative correlation between mother-reported FI scores and autonomy scores which approached significance. It is important that this negative correlation be further investigates, as it is important for parents to encourage the development of autonomy in their children (Edwards & Liu, 1995; Erikson, 1966; Grossman & Grossman, 2003). coparenting fathering correlated with higher levels of father warmth in the play interaction. Additionally, both mother and father reports of the relationship quality at T3 were related to the level of autonomy-supporting behaviors in the play interaction. However, the correlation between relationship quality and autonomy-support was negative, which is in the opposite direction as would have been expected. While this result is puzzling, it could be possible that for the adolescent couples in our study, higher coparenting relationship quality might actually be associated with higher degrees of enmeshment in the couple relationship, which would indicate higher autonomy­support significance. Regardless of the interpretation of the negative correlation between coparenting relationship quality and autonomy scores, it seems apparent that the quality of the coparenting relationship is related to father involvement and the quality of fathering offers interventions for adolescents in community settings. The difficulty in retaining expectant adolescent couples in a research study for which they are paid will likely translate into an even greater difficulty in initiating and maintaining engagement in treatment in the fathers It did not follow-up further 44 behaviors, offering support for the spill-over effect. The understanding that the spill-over effect is operating amongst expectant adolescent couples is important, because it offers further impetus to continue refining coparenting interventions to be used with adolescent couples in the future. It is possible that further refinement of the coparenting intervention to effectively target the quality of the coparenting relationship would translate to increased improvements in father involvement and the quality of fathering. Limitations of the Current Study One of the major limitations of the current study is the small sample size at follow-up resulting from the high attrition rates of the sample. While the high attrition rate is in part a reflection of the difficulty in collecting longitudinal data with a high-risk population, it also has important implications for the implementation of coparenting community setting. The results of the attrition analyses also revealed important differences between mothers and fathers who returned for the follow-up assessment and mothers and fathers who did not. seems that the mothers and fathers who return for the follow-up assessment represented a higher-risk population at baseline than those adolescent mothers and fathers who did return for their follow-up assessment. Nonreturning mothers had higher baseline depression scores than returning mothers, while nonreturning fathers had higher delinquency and drug-use scores than returning fathers. While this further emphasizes the difficulty in engaging high-risk populations in research and treatment, it It ethnic minority populations. Additionally, the small sample size of the current study did not allow for the intervention effects to be examined separately within different ethnicities, which might have revealed different relations amongst outcome variables. use 45 also could be affecting the significance of the results found in the current study. Without this higher-risk population included in the control group, the control group scores at follow-up could be inflated, therefore minimizing the effects of the intervention in the current study. Additionally, it is difficult to know how this higher-risk population would respond to treatment. Another limitation of the current study is related to the ethnic diversity of the sample. While the high percentage of Latinos and Latinas in the sample is a strength (especially given the relative lack of Latinos and Latinas represented in psychological research in general), the current study lacks the representation of other ethnic minorities, including African Americans. Although the ethnic composition of the sample is reflective of the geographical location from which the sample was taken, it still limits the ability of the results to be generalized to other ethnic groups. is possible that the current intervention could have differing effects amongst African Americans and other different Future Directions As discussed previously, the current study was the first to examine the effects of a prebirth coparenting intervention that included both adolescent mothers and young fathers together in the intervention. Although the current study found only minimal differences between intervention and control groups on outcome variables, these differences offer support for the continued development of coparenting interventions for usc with adolescents and can be used to better understand how coparenting interventions play a the quality of the coparenting relationship as compared to adults. In fact, for some adolescents, it is likely that their own parents could be acting as additional coparents. With an understanding of how extended family relations may be impacting the coparenting relationship, it may be possible to develop interventions that involve other family members in the coparenting intervention in addition to the expectant adolescent mothers and fathers. maximize services. in indirectly 46 could be modified to increase their effectiveness amongst adolescent mothers and young fathers in the future. In future studies, it may be important to first begin with furthering our understanding of the factors that affect the coparenting relationship amongst adolescents and examine how this might differ amongst varying ethnicities. It is possible that for adolescents, relations with parents and other family members may playa greater role in In order to maXImIze the effectiveness of coparenting interventions with adolescents, it may be helpful to supplement the coparenting intervention with additional serVIces. One such example would be to incorporate more instruction on parenting practices m order to directly improve fathering behaviors. While focusing on the coparenting relationship could improve fathering behaviors, including instruction on parenting practices would help to increase the direct effects of the intervention on father involvement and the quality of parenting. Another way in which coparenting interventions could be supplemented with additional resources would be to incorporate case-management services into the intervention model. Given the relatively high rates of depression, drug use and delinquency seen in the current sample, it may be important to help young fathers (and improvements in the quality of the coparenting relationship as well as parenting practices. Case-management services could be helpful in helping adolescent mothers and fathers find additional mental health services in the community, such as substance-abuse treatment programs, and could also be utilized to reduce some of the barriers to father-involvement, including a lack of education and financial resources. inclusion of ethnic minorities in the study sample is a step in the right direction, it will be important for the effectiveness of such interventions within ethnic minority populations to be examined separately, which will hopefully allow for the development of coparenting interventions for adolescents that are effective cross-culturally. 47 young mothers) improve their psychosocial functioning in order to allow for greater fathers substance-father­involvement, Finally, it will be important for future research on coparenting interventions with adolescents to examine their effectiveness amongst ethnic minorities. While the Abidin, Parenting Alliance Inventory. scale, & Psychology, & Kenny, 57(& Brown, Manual for Depression & & how family - level parent families Psychological 81, C , & Influences intellectual, & Bristol- Power (Eds.), Parenting and the child's world: Influences on academic, intellectual, and social-emotional development (pp.161-184). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. & Bost, Fathering, & C.B. & developmental & Family Psychology Review, 7(23-REFERENCES Abidin. R.R. (1988) Unpublished scale. University of Virginia, Charlottesville. Abidin, R.R., Brunner, J.F. (1995). Development of a parenting alliance inventory. Journal of Clinical Child P~ychology, 24, 31-40. Baron, R.M., Kenny. D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182. Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., Brown. G. K. (1996). Manualfor the Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd ed. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Belsky, J., Putnam, S., Crnic, K. (1996). Coparenting, parenting, and early emotional development. In J.P. McHale P.A. Cowan (Eds.), Understanding hOVl'family­level dynamics affect children's development: Studies of two-parent jamilies (pp. 45-55). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Benjamin, L.S. (1979). Structural analysis of social behavior. P~ychological Review, 81, 392-425. Borkowski, J.G., Bisconti, T., Weed, K., Willard, c., Keogh, D.A., Whitman, T.L. (2002). The adolescent as parent: Ini1uences on children's intellectual. academic, and socioemotional development. In J.G. Borkowski, S. Ramey, M. Bristol­Power academic, emotional Brown, G.L., McBride, B.A., Shin, N., Bost K.K. (2007). Parenting predictors of father-child attachment security: Interactive effects of father involvement and fathering quality. 5(3), 197-219. Chase-Lansdale, P.L., Brooks-Gunn, J. (1994). Correlates of adolescent pregnancy and parenthood. In c.B. Fisher R.L. Lerner (Eds.), Applied developmental psychology (pp. 207-236). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Coiro, M.J., Emery, R.E. (1998). Do marriage problems affect fathering more than mothering? A quantitative and qualitative review. Clinical Child and Family 1(1), 23-40. 49 Coll, 4), 955-C P . , & 25(4), C P . , parents: change Child Development, 60, & Journal of Family Issues, 14(3), Cutrona, E., Hessling, R. M., Bacon, P. L., & Russell, D. W. (1998). Predictors and Psychology, & 636- 642. family: Development, 55, 740-752. Applied 4), 214-C P . , Pediatrics, 71(4), O., & 118(1), of Psychiatry, 3), 281 - 309-& PA. ColI, C.G., Hoffman, J., & Oh, W. (1987). The social ecology and early parenting of Caucasian adolescent mothers. Child Development, 58(4),955-963. Cowan, C.P., Cowan, P.A. (1992) Is there love after baby? Psychology Today, 25(4), 58-65. Cowan c.P., & Cowan P. A. (2000). When partners become parents.' The big life change for couples. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Cox, M., Owen, M., Lewis, J., & Henderson V. (1989). Marriage, adult adjustment, and early parenting. 1015-1024. Crockett, L.J., Eggebeen, D.J., Hawkins, A.J. (1993). Father's presence and young children's behavioral and cognitive adjustment. 14(3), 355-377. C. correlates of continuing involvement with the baby's father among adolescent mothers. Journal of Family P!Jychology, 12, 369-387. Danziger, S.K. Radin, N. (1990). Absent does not equal involved: Predictors of fathering in teen mother families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 52(3), 636- Easterbrooks, M.A., & Goldberg, W.A. (1984). Toddler development in the family: Impact of father involvement and parenting characteristics. Child Development, 55,740-752. Easterbrooks, M.A., Barrett,L.R., Brady, A.E. & Davis, C.R. (2007). Complexities in research on fathering: Illustrations from the tufts study of young fathers. Applied Developmental Science, 11(4),214-220. Edwards, C.P., & Liu, W. (1995). Parenting toddlers. In M.H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (Vol. 1, pp 41-63), Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Elster, A.B., McAnarney, E.R., & Lamb, M.E. (1983). Parental behavior of adolescent mothers. Pediatrics. 71 (4), 494-503. Erel, 0., Burman, B. (1995). Interrelatedness of marital relations and parent-child relations: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 1), 108-132. Erikson, E. (1966). Eight ages of man. International Journal o/Psychiatry, 2(3),281- 300. Fagan, J. (2008). Randomized study of a prebirth coparenting intervention with adolescent and young fathers. Family Relations, 57(3), 309-323. Fagan, J., Farrie, D., Cabrera, N., Roy, K. (2007). Adolescent parents' relationship status three years following the birth of a child. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the National Council on Family Relations, Pittsburgh, P A. 50 & Psychology 5(2), 131. & Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(3), 687-702. 2), 253-& C. 77(61-& & Family NJ: 6), & 580-592. 3), Coll, process-2), 27-289. & The organization of attachment relationship: Maturation, culture and context (pp. 13-37). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. J.1), 1-J.Perspectives, 21(4), Feinberg, M.E. (2002). Coparenting and the transition to parenthood: A framework for prevention. Clinical Child Family P5ychology Review, 5(3), 173-195. Feinberg, M.E. (2003). The internal structure and ecological context of coparenting: A framework for research and intervention. Parenting: Science and Practice, 3(2). 95-13l. Feinberg, M.E., Kan, M.L., Hetherington, E.M. (2007). The longitudinal influence of coparenting conflict on parental negativity and adolescent maladjustment. Journal 3),687-702. Feinberg, M.E., & Kan, M.L. (2008). Establishing family foundations: Intervention effects on coparenting, parent/infant well-being, and parent-child relations. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(2),253-263. Feldman, S.S., Nash, S.c. (1984). The transition from expectancy to parenthood: Impact of the firstborn child on men and women. Sex Roles, 11(1-2), 61-78. Florsheim, P., Benjamin, L.S. (2001) Chapter 8: The structural analysis of social behavior observational coding scheme. In P. Kerig K. Lindahl, Family observational coding systems (pp. 127-150). Mahwah, Nl: Erlbaum. Florsheim, P., & Smith, A. (2005). Expectant adolescent couples' relations and subsequent parenting behavior. Infant Mental Health Journal, 26(6), 533-548. Furstenberg, F.F., Hughes, M.E. (1995). Social capital and successful development among at-risk youth. Journal of Marriage and Family, 57(3), 580-592. Gabel, S. (1992). Behavioral problems in sons of incarcerated or otherwise absent fathers: The issue of separation. Family Process, 31(3), 303-314. Garcia-CoIl, C. (1990). Developmental outcome of minority infants: A process-oriented look into our beginnings. Child Development, 61(2),27-289. Grossman, K. & Grossman, K. (2003). Parents and toddlers at play: Evidence for separate qualitative functioning of the play and the attachment system. In P.M. Crittenden A.H. Claussen (Eds.), relationship: Maturation. Hamilton, B.E., Martin, 1.A., & Ventura S.J. (2007). Births: preliminary data for 2006. National Vital Statistics Reports, 56(7), 1-18. Hardy, 1.B., Duggan, A.K., Masnyk, K., & Pearson, C. (1989). Fathers of children born to young urban mothers. Family Planning Per5pectives, 21 (4), 159-187. Holmbeck, G.N. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the study of mediators and moderators: Examples from the child-clinical and pediatric 65(4), ' J.J.A. how family-level Studies parent Jossey-Bass. A., J.J., J.G., & 1), 91-117. & 355-360. & fatherhood of Marriage American 4), 873-901. A. and and 4), 463-A., A., & psychology literatures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65(4), 599-610. 51 Katz, L.F., & Gottman, 1.M. (1996). Spillover effects of marital conflict: In search of parenting and coparenting mechanisms. In 1.P. McHale & P.A Cowan (Eds.), Understanding howfamity-level dynamics affect children's development: Studies of two-pa rent families (pp. 57-76). San Francisco, CA: lossey-Bass. Kotelchuck, M. (1976). The infant's relationship to the father: Experimental evidence. In M.E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (pp.329-344). New York: Wiley. Krishnakumar, A, & Buehler, C. (2000). Interparental conflict and parenting behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Family Relations, 49, 25-44. Lounds, 1.1., Borkowski, 1.Whitman, T.L., Maxwell, S.E., Weed, K. (2005). Adolescent parenting and attachment during infancy and early childhood. Parenting: Science and Practice, 5(1),91-117. Mann, M.B., Pearl, P.T., Behle, P.D. (2004). Effects of parent education on knowledge and attitudes. Adolescence, 39(154), 355-360. Marsiglio, W., Amato, P., Day, R.D., Lamb, M. E. (2000). Scholarship on fatherhood in the 1990s and beyond. Journal ofklarriage and Family, 62, 1173-1191. Marsiglio, W., & Cohan, M. (1997). Young fathers and child development. In M. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (3rd ed., pp. 224-227). New York: Wiley. McLanahan, S. (1985). Family structure and the reproduction of poverty. American Journal of Sociology, 90(4),873-90l. Miller, B.C., & Moore, K.A (1990). Adolescent sexual behavior, pregnancy, and parent: Research through the 1980s. Journal of Marriage and Family, 52, 1025-1044. Moore, D.R., & Florshiem, P. (2001). Interpersonal processes and psychopathology among expectant and nonexpectant adolescent couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, 101-113. Moore, D.R., & Florsheim, P. (2008). Interpartner conflict and child abuse risk among African American and Latino adolescent parenting couples. Child Abuse and Neglect, 32(4),463-475. Osman, A, Kopper, B.A, Barrios, F.X., Gutierrez, P.M., Bagge, C.L. (2004). Reliability and validity of the Beck Depression Inventory-II with adolescent psychiatric inpatients. Psychological Assessment, 16, 120-132. 52 father'': fathers program. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 32, 215-231. 25(J., C , J. Pierce, G.R. (1994). The quality of relationships inventory: Assessing the interpersonal and community J. of Marriage 68(2), 332-344. of Counseling Psychology, development at 24 months. Parenting: Science and Practice, 2, 77-104. J.E. 32(\), S.J., & support in adolescent mothering and infant attachment. Developmental Psychology, 30(\), 102-111. & Mclntyre, & III: and Psychologists. Boiler, 1), Parra-Cardona, J. R., Wampler, R. S., & Sharp, E. A. (2006). "Wanting to be a good father": Experiences of adolescent fathers of Mexican descent in a teen fathers o.f Passino, A.W., & Whitman, T.L. (1993). Personal adjustment during pregnancy and adolescent parenting. Adolescence, 28(109), 97-122. Pelchat, D., Bisson, l, Bois, C., & Saucier, 1 (2003). The effects of early relational antecedents and other factors on the parental sensitivity of mothers and fathers. Infant and Child Development, 12, 27-51. context of social support. In B.R. Burleson, T.L. Albrecht, & I.G. Sarason (Eds.), Communication and social support: Messages, interactions, relationships, and (pp. 247-264). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Pogarsky, G., Thornberry, T.P., & Lizotte, A.l (2006). Developmental outcomes for children of young mothers. Journal o.fMarriage and Family, 2),332-344. Schomer, G., Bauman, S., & Card, N. (2010). Best practices for missing data management in counseling psychology. Journal (?fCoullseling P"ychology, 57(1), 1-10. Shannon, J. D., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., London, K., & Cabrera, N. J. (2002). Beyond rough and tumble: Low-income fathers' interactions and children's cognitive /)'cience Singh, S., & Darroch, lE. (2000). Adolescent pregnancy and childbearing: Levels and trends in developed countries. Family Planning Perspectives, 32(1), 14-23. Spieker, SJ., Bensley, L. (1994). Roles of living arrangements and grandmother social Developmental 30(1), Stoiber, K.C., McIntyre, H. (2006). Adolescent pregnancy and parenting. In G.G. Bear K.M. Minke (Eds.), Children's needs Ill: Development, prevention, and intervention (pp. 705-719). Washington, DC: National Association of School Summers, J.A., Boller, K., Schiffman, R.F., & Raikes, H.H. (2006). The meaning of "good fatherhood:" Low-income fathers' social constructions of their roles. Parenting: Science and Practice, 6(2), 145-165. Ward, M. J., & Carlson, E. A. (1995). Associations among adult attachment representations, maternal sensitivity, and infant-mother attachment in a sample of adolescent mothers. Child Development, 66(1), 69-79.