Self-Efficacy and Parenting Quality: Findings and Future Applications
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The conceptual framework underlying the intervention is Bandura's self-efficacy theory.
“The conceptual framework underlying the intervention is Bandura’s self-efficacy theory: self-efficacy is defined as “the belief in one’s capabilities to achieve a goal or perform a task and can influence personal motivation and ability to succeed” [15,31].”
From HAPPY MAMA Project (Part 2)—Maternal Distress and Self-Efficacy: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Field Trial (2022) · cites this paper as [31]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 152 · Cited by 1,156
- Authors
- Coleman, P. K., & Karraker, K. H.
- Affiliations
- West Virginia University (US)
- Venue
- Developmental Review
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1998-03
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 47-85
- ISSN
- 0273-2297 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2043137568
- Cited by
- 1,156
- References
- 152
- Citations by year
- 2026: 41 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 65 · 2023: 64 · 2022: 71 · 2021: 84 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 64 · 2018: 57 · 2017: 62 · 2016: 55 · 2015: 61 · 2014: 66 · 2013: 57 · 2012: 46
- FWCI
- 5.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Developmental Review (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
- Social Sciences › Demography › Family Dynamics and Relationships
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
- Keywords
- parental self-efficacy, parenting quality, parenting skills, parental satisfaction, maternal depression, child temperament, social support, poverty, self-efficacy theory, parenting support, at-risk parents
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
