Cited by 302Survey Methodology and NonresponsePsychometric Methodologies and TestingFamily Dynamics and Relationships

Understanding and Improving the Validity of Self-Report of Parenting

Morsbach, Sarah K., Prinz, Ronald J.·2006·Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review

Abstract

Although researchers using parental self-report data have questioned its validity (Holden, 2001) and called for more work in this area (Krevans & Gibbs, 1996; Locke & Prinz, 2002), methodological concerns regarding self-report about parenting practices have not been addressed adequately. The susceptibility of parental report to systematic distortions suggests a need for research on ways to improve self-report. This paper attempts to synthesize research findings from other fields (e.g., survey methodology) about ways to improve the validity of self-report, and to discuss the implications for self-report of parenting behaviors. Methods for improving self-report are presented for each of the 5 major tasks in responding to a question: (1) understanding the question, (2) recalling relevant behavior, (3) inference and estimation, (4) mapping the answer onto the response format, and (5) "editing" the answer for reasons of social desirability. Self-administered interviewing, audio-computer-assisted interviewing, pretesting, conversational interviewing, and the decompositional item may be among the best candidates for use in parental self-report. Recommendations are offered with respect to strategies that might prove useful in improving parental assessment of parenting, and to research efforts to evaluate the utility and potential costs of these strategies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10567-006-0001-5

Cites

109 of 109 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Morsbach, S. K., & Prinz, R. J.
Affiliations
University of South Carolina (US)
Corresponding author
Prinz, Ronald J.
Venue
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review
Published
2006-03
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
1-21
ISSN
  • 1096-4037 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2827
OpenAlex
W1995902576
Cited by
302
References
109
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 6
FWCI
2.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Family Dynamics and Relationships
Keywords
parental self-report, parenting practices, measurement validity, social desirability bias, computer-assisted interviewing, pretesting, question comprehension
MeSH terms
Cues, Data Collection, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Parents, Surveys and Questionnaires, Mental Recall, Reproducibility of Results, Parenting

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