observed parenting practices of first-generation latino families

JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY, Vol. 34, No. 2, 133–148 (2006)Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).© 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/jcop.20088

OBSERVED PARENTINGPRACTICES OF FIRST-GENERATIONLATINO FAMILIES

Melanie Domenech Rodríguez, Melissa R. Davis, JesúsRodríguez, and Scott C. Bates Utah State University

This study used an established behavioral observation methodology to examinethe parenting practices of first-generation Latino parents of children 4 to 9years of age. The study had three central aims, to examine: (1) the feasibility ofusing a behavioral observation methodology with Spanish-speaking immigrantfamilies, (2) the utility of the Parent Peer Process Code (PPPC; Forgatch,Knutson, & Mayne, 1992) for coding parent–child interactions, and (3) therelationship between observed parenting practices, as coded with the PPPC,and child outcomes. Families consisted of 48 fathers, 49 mothers, and 50children. Families participated in cooperative, problem-solving, and skills-building tasks. The authors coded in five broad categories: problem solving,skills building, positive involvement, effective discipline, and monitoring.Findings show that the behavioral observation methodology is feasible to usewith Spanish-speaking immigrant families, that the PPPC is useful inunderstanding parent–child interactions, and that the coded parent–childinteractions predict differential child outcomes. This information can helpinform the development or adaptation of culturally sensitive parentinginterventions to this underserved population. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Structured parent–child interactions have been extensively used successfully in clinicalresearch and have been deemed necessary to obtain valid data to inform clinical interven-tion development (Patterson & Forgatch, 1995; Webster-Stratton & Woolley Lindsay,1999). The behavioral observation activities described here are part of a broader programof research focused on culturally adapting, delivering, and evaluating a parenting inter-

A R T I C L E

This research was supported by NIMH grant K01-MH066297, and a Utah State University New Faculty Grant tothe first author. The authors are grateful to Dr. Marion Forgatch for her invaluable mentorship on this project.Correspondence to: Melanie Domenech Rodríguez, 2810 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84321. E-mail:[email protected]

vention for Spanish-speaking Latino parents. Research has shown that there is a high needfor services among Latino families and children (U.S. Department of Health and HumanServices [DHHS], 2001), that there are few interventions available to ethnic minority fam-ilies in need of services, and that, of those interventions that are available, few have beenrigorously tested for scientific merit (Dumka, Lopez, & Jacobs Carter, 2003). In the pres-ent study, we examine the feasibility of using a behavioral observation methodology withSpanish-speaking immigrant families, as well as the utility of the Parent Peer Process Code(PPPC; Forgatch, Knutson, & Mayne, 1992) for coding parent–child interactions (i.e., Willcoders reach reliability? Will constructs show variability? Will they correlate in the expect-ed directions?). If the proposed methodology and instrument were feasible, we wouldthen examine the relationship between observed parenting practices, as coded with thePPPC, and child outcomes. The observational methods and the parenting interventionare part of a broader program of research and collaboration between the first author andthe Oregon Social Learning Center (Domenech Rodríguez & Wieling, 2004).

OBSERVATIONAL METHODS

Observational methods are at the core of the theoretical framework of the Oregon SocialLearning Center’s Parent Management Training (OSLC-PMT) model, and have beenfound over time to be better predictors of child outcomes than parent or teacher reports(Forgatch & DeGarmo, 2002; Patterson & Forgatch, 1995). The OSLC-PMT modelemphasizes that a child’s interaction style is learned within the family and over repeatedtrials. Because the learning process is not conscious but rather over-learned, it is neces-sary to collect systematically structured observations for an accurate assessment of par-ent–child behavior patterns (Dishion, Patterson, & Kavanagh, 1992). The core positiveparenting practices of the OSLC-PMT model, assessed via observations, are skills encour-agement, discipline, monitoring, problem solving, and positive involvement. Throughskill encouragement parents promote competencies by using positive reinforcement.Discipline refers to appropriate rule setting with mild sanctions for violations.Monitoring reflects parental knowledge of where children are, whom they are with, whatthey are doing, and who the responsible adults in charge are. Problem-solving skills pre-pare parents to resolve disagreements, negotiate rules, and establish positive and nega-tive consequences for either following or violating rules. Finally, positive involvementrefers to parental attention to their children.

Coercive processes are to be circumvented whenever possible as they become over-learned and will ultimately generalize to other social settings. Forgatch and Martinez(1999) highlight three particularly troublesome coercive processes: negative reciprocity,escalation, and negative reinforcement. Negative reciprocity refers to a negativeaction–reaction sequence in interactions (e.g., parent shouts at child and child shoutsback). Escalation refers to the increase in intensity of hostile behaviors (e.g., from shout-ing to hitting). Finally, negative reinforcement is the basic mechanism for both reciproc-ity and escalation. Negative reinforcement occurs when an aversive stimulus leads to aparticular response. In parenting, this is often seen when children throw tantrums.Parents experience the tantrum as the aversive stimulus and give in to the child’sdemands to terminate the aversion. In the process, the child learns to throw a tantrumto obtain their wish. Negative parenting practices are also measured via parent–childobservations; however, they require microskills coding, a particularly painstaking andcostly procedure.

134 • Journal of Community Psychology, March 2006

Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop

THE LATINO POPULATION

There are no known studies documenting the use of structured observational techniquesin research with Latino families. This knowledge gap is particularly noteworthy given thepopulations’ need for services, and the need for studies to inform the development ofempirically validated treatments for Latinos in the United States (DHHS, 2001; Kazdin,1996). Latinos currently comprise 13.3% of the U.S. population and are the largest eth-nic minority group in the nation (Ramirez & De La Cruz, 2003). The growth of theLatino population is due partly to new births but also to continued immigration fromMexico and Latin America. In fact, if estimates of undocumented immigrants are added,the Latino population grows to 45.2 million from the present 37.4 counted by the U.S.Census Bureau (Bean, VanHook, & Woodrow-Lafield, 2002).

Spanish-speaking Latinos present a particular set of challenges to practitionersbecause they are often first generation and have limited English proficiency. Of the over135,000 Latinos that reported speaking Spanish in the decennial census, more than 45%reported speaking English less than “very well” (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). These num-bers would likely increase when undocumented immigrants are taken into account. Ofcourse, the composition of Latino communities around the nation varies. In our specif-ic setting (a small Western community), the Latino population has grown quite rapidlyin the past decade, an increase of 225% in the past decade. Latinos now represent over6% of the city’s population (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2001). In the state, Latinos com-prise almost 8% of the population, with a majority being of Mexican descent (73.4%; U.S.Census Bureau, 2000).

Latinos face a multiplicity of stressors that affect parenting practices and mentalhealth. Nationally, Latinos, and especially children, are overrepresented among the poor(U.S. Census Bureau, 2001). The same is true in our region where 28% of Latino fami-lies compared to 10% of White families are living in poverty (Kaiser Family Foundation,2001). Some of the risks facing Latinos in our region are the same as those facing Latinosaround the nation: high rates of children born to teen mothers, high rates of uninsured,and a median family income that is markedly below that of Whites (Kaiser FamilyFoundation, 2001). Thus, Latinos represent a fast growing ethnic minority group thatfaces multiple challenges that have been documented to create stressors in parentingand negatively affect parent–child relationships (McLoyd, 1990).

In contrast to the numerous social stressors, Latino children are underrepresentedin all sectors of care: mental health, child welfare, juvenile justice, alcohol and drug treat-ment, and services for children with serious emotional disturbances (Bui & Takeuchi,1992; McCabe et al., 1999). This under-representation is occurring despite evidence ofhigher rates of mental disorders among Latinos (DHHS, 2001), including externalizingbehaviors (Achenbach et al., 1990), and high rates of delinquency (U.S. Department ofJustice, 1999).

Latinos’ Parenting Practices

Available research findings suggest that there are more similarities than differencesacross ethnic groups in parenting practices (Julian, McKenry, & McKelvey, 1994;McDade, 1995; Solís-Cámara & Fox, 1995, 1997), particularly in the child’s early years.These findings of similarities suggest that methods and instruments used to developinterventions for majority populations may be useful with Latinos as well. Rather than

Observed Parenting of First-Generation Latinos • 135


emphasize ethnic group membership, research among Mexican and U.S. parents sug-gests that maternal age, marriage status, and socioeconomic (SES) status play a more sig-nificant role in shaping parenting behaviors than ethnicity (MacPhee, Fritz, & Miller-Heyl, 1996; Solís-Cámara & Fox, 1995, 1996, 1997).

However, numerous noteworthy differences have been noted across studies in par-enting practices. These findings suggest that adaptations of existing instruments andmethodologies must be applied carefully to avoid misusing existing tools and potentiallyharming those who are most in need of services. Julian et al. (1994), for example, foundthat Latino parents placed greater emphasis on self-control, getting along with others,and obedience, than Asian American or White parents. Latino parents also used praisewith their children significantly less than White parents, a significant finding given thatpraise is prescribed within the OSLC-PMT model. Okagaki and Frensch (1998) foundthat Latino parents gave higher importance ratings to the need for children to developconformity and have parental monitoring, as compared to Asian American and Whiteparents. Research findings have also shown that positive orientation to culture and focuson interdependence are important child-rearing goals among ethnic minority parents, ascompared to White parents (Harrison, Wilson, Pine, Chan, & Buriel, 1990). Importantgender differences have also been found in Latino parents. Julian and colleagues (1994)found that fathers placed more emphasis on controlling temper, obedience, gettingalong with other children, and doing well in athletics than their partners.

In addition, differential levels of acculturation have yielded significant differences inLatino parents’ knowledge about school activities, perceived barriers to involvement, lev-els of perceived efficacy, educational expectations, and spousal support, highlightingimportant intra-group differences (Moreno & Lopez, 1999). For Latina mothers specifi-cally, level of acculturation has been found to relate to parenting behaviors (Planos,Zayas, & Busch-Rossnagel, 1995) and understanding of child development (Gutierrez,Sameroff, & Kareer, 1988).

There are also documented differences in parenting practices between Latino sub-groups. For example, one study of Dominican and Puerto Rican mothers found differ-ences in the mothers’ microsocial behaviors during a teaching task. Puerto Rican moth-ers favored inquiry and praise whereas Dominican mothers favored modeling whenteaching a cognitive-perceptual task (Planos, Zayas, & Busch-Rossnagel, 1997). Thesefindings highlight the complexity of conducting research on parenting practices withLatino populations.

Overall, the available literature on Latinos’ parenting practices, beliefs, and values islimited. However, findings suggest that practices, beliefs, and values do not markedlydeviate from majority values or from values of other ethnic groups. It is possible thatwhen children are as young as is the case in the samples of children used in these stud-ies (and in the present study), the basic needs and cultural rules are more universal thanthey are in later years (e.g., during adolescence when cultural beliefs about autonomywould directly impact parenting practices), making established research proceduresmore amenable to adaptation for use with Latino populations.

The procedures and interventions developed at the OLSC are particularly well suitedto cultural adaptation. The intervention is theory-based and has been hailed as one of themost promising available treatments for children, given its proven efficacy with WhiteAmerican youngsters (Kazdin & Wiesz, 1998). Social interaction learning theory places theparent–child relationship in a broader social context (Dishion et al. 1992; Patterson, Reid,& Dishion, 1992). The theory takes into account proximal as well as distal factors, and bidi-rectional influences on behavior. It posits that parents use both positive and coercive



parenting practices that directly impact child adjustment. These practices are also affectedby contextual factors in the parenting environment that affect youth to the degree that theyaffect the quality of parenting (Forgatch & Bank, 2002; Forgatch & Martinez, 1999).

The efficacy of OSLC-PMT has been proven in preventive as well as treatment inter-ventions for severely behaviorally disordered youth (Kazdin & Wiesz, 1998). The interven-tion teaches effective parenting practices, which have the potential of generalizing to allchildren in the family. The benefits for children of parents who are participating in aOSLC-PMT program are wide ranging, including prevention of noncompliance (Martinez& Forgatch, 2001), reduction of problem behaviors at school (Forgatch & DeGarmo,1999), physical aggression (Reid, Eddy, Fetrow, & Stoolmiller, 1999), lower likelihood ofpolice contacts and fewer days institutionalized (Chamberlain, 1990), and acceleratedrecovery from poverty among divorced mothers (Forgatch & DeGarmo, 2002). Finally, theinterventions have been mainly developed for and used with low-income, hard-to-reach,White families. These families present challenges similar to those of Latino families, suchas negative experiences with service sectors (e.g., schools, mental health), high illiteracy,multiple social stressors, and difficulties accessing services.

Consistent with the study goals and the available literature, we expected that: (a) itwould be feasible to use a behavioral observation methodology with Spanish-speakingLatino parents, (b) the PPPC would be usable with this sample, and (c) we would findsignificant relationships between coded parental behaviors and child outcomes in thedirections expected (i.e., poorer parenting skills relate to poorer child outcomes).

METHODS

Sample

Participants for this study were recruited from a Western rural community. The commu-nity where the study took place is primarily White non-Latino. Countywide statistics reflect89.7% of the population is White non-Latino, with the next largest ethnic group beingLatinos (6.3%; U.S. Census, 2001). City statistics show only a slightly higher number ofLatinos (8.2%; U.S. Census, 2000). The study focused on Spanish-speaking Latino parentswith a child between 5 and 9 years of age, and required one-time parental and child par-ticipation lasting approximately 2 1/2 hours. Initially, the study sample was restricted to fam-ilies with two biological parents present; however, with roughly 20% of the data collected,it seemed that the requirements were too stringent for the local population. Single,divorced, and repartnered parents were made eligible to participate. Parents who hadbeen previously screened out were recontacted to participate. Regardless of this shift,most families (88%) that participated were two-parent biological families.

A total of 50 Spanish-speaking families with a target child between 4 and 9 years of age1

participated in the study. Of the 50 families, 44 were two-parent intact families, 2 were two-parent step-families, and 4 were one-parent families (3 single mothers and 1 single father).The children ranged in ages from 4 to 9 (M � 6.64, SD � 1.44), although the vast majori-ty (86%) were between 5 and 8 years of age. There were 20 males and 30 females, and nostatistically significant differences in age between the two groups. Families’ economic status



1Regardless of the fact that we screened families, four families reported having a child who was 5 years of age, andwhen the age was calculated using the reported birth date on the CBCL, it turned out the child was 4 years old.

was low. All families reported earning between “less than $10,000” and $75,000 annually,with the vast majority earning under $35,000 (92%, N � 87).

All mothers (N � 49) were born outside the United States; 39 were born in Mexico, 9were born in other Latin American countries, and 1 did not report her country of origin.Their mean age was 32.2 (range � 21—44; SD � 5.1). While a sizeable number of mothersreported working full- or part-time (N � 19, 40.4%), most reported being unemployed orhomemakers (N � 27, 54%). An overwhelming majority of mothers had a low level of edu-cation, with 68.8% reporting completing the eighth grade or less. Almost 17% reportedcompleting high school, 6.3% had some college, and 8.3% had finished college. For the vastmajority of parents (N � 92, 97%), education was completed in their country of origin.

Fathers reported being slightly older than mothers, with a mean age of 35.7 years(range � 27 to 50; SD � 5.4). All fathers were born outside the United States; 39 wereborn in Mexico, 7 were born in another Latin American country, and 1 did not reportcountry of origin. Almost all fathers reported working full time (93.6%). Like mothers,fathers had a low level of education, with 68.9% reporting eighth-grade completion orless. Almost 18% completed high school, and slightly over 13% complete some collegeor beyond.

Data Collection Procedures

Families were recruited via announcements made at local Catholic and Latter Day Saintschurches, announcements at local schools (i.e., flyers and community parent groups),flyers placed at strategic community locations, active recruitment by research assistants,and word of mouth from past participants. Radio and web announcements were alsomade but yielded no phone calls from potential participants. The overwhelming majori-ty of participants contacted the researchers from word-of-mouth referrals (46%).Recruitment resulted in an “easy to recruit” sample and a “hard to recruit” sample withdifferent demographic characteristics and levels of pathology, which ensured variabilityin the constructs of interest (Domenech Rodríguez, Rodríguez, & Davis, in press).

Regardless of recruitment method, families made phone contact with theresearchers to determine qualification to participate in the study and to set up anappointment. Once families were deemed eligible to participate, an appointment timewas set up for families to visit a laboratory setting at the authors’ university. To accommo-date participants, appointments were set up entirely at the parents’ convenience, and thusoccurred during day and nighttime hours, and on weekdays and weekends. Childcareand transportation were provided when needed.

Data collection was conducted in two separate rooms. Parents were asked to be inone room to complete the study questionnaires while one or two researchers were pres-ent to answer questions. For those parents for whom literacy was an issue, one researcherwould accompany the parent to a separate room and read the survey items. This set-upensured each parents’ privacy, as well as guarded against data contamination (i.e.,answers provided verbally affecting the other parent’s answers). After 1 hour of filling outsurvey data, both parents were asked to go to the observation room with the target child.There, they were instructed to plan a “fun family activity” (cooperation task). After thatobservation, one parent was asked to return to the survey room to finish answering thesurveys, while the other parent continued in the observation room with their child. Thedecision as to which parent would remain with the child was based on a Latin Squarestable created to ensure that order did not affect study results.



The observation room had three video cameras and a television and videocassetterecorder (VCR) on a stand. There were two sofas where the parent and child could sitcomfortably. After the initial “fun family activity,” the remaining parent–child team wasinstructed to solve a given preselected problem (from the Hot Topics list). One hot topicwas selected by the parent and one by the child. Order of presentation was based on aLatin Squares table. Following the two problem-solving tasks, the parent–child dyad wasinstructed to work on a task resembling school homework (i.e., skills-building task). Thehomework was purposely selected at one grade level above the child’s grade to ensurethat it would be challenging and that it would require parental assistance. Homeworksheets were provided in English because that is what children receive at school.

Two-parent families were paid $50 for their participation. One-parent families werepaid $25. Even though families were paid at rates comparable to other behavioral obser-vation studies (i.e., approximately $10 per hour), the Institutional Review Board had rea-sonable concerns about coercion. To that end, an item was added to the questionnaireasking the parent if they felt payment was too small, just right, or too large for what theywere asked to do. Almost 75% of the sample responded that it was “just right,” with 2.1%reporting that it was too little, and 14.9% reporting that it was “too much.” Word-of-mouth referrals were paid at $10 per successful referral. The possibility of making refer-rals was only mentioned once the study had concluded to avoid any further potential feel-ings of coercion to participate in the study. Ethical issues that arose from this referralstrategy are discussed elsewhere (Domenech Rodríguez et al., in press). Childcare wasprovided, parking was paid, and a snack was provided for families during the short break.In rare instances, transportation was arranged and paid for.

Measures

This study included survey and observational measures. The survey measures used were theChild Behavior Checklist (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983), the Acculturation Rating Scale forMexican Americans – II (Cuellar, Arnold, & Maldonado, 1995), and a brief demographic sur-vey that included education, income, and age. The ARSMA was initially being considered ascovariate; however, due to the great homogeneity of the sample (80% fell under the “separat-ed/traditional” acculturation category), this variable was removed from further analyses.

Parents also completed a Hot Topics list, which provides a number of problems thatparents and children typically have. This list was generated from years of research at theOSLC. Additionally, parents completed the Alabama Parenting scale (Shelton, Frick, &Wooton, 1996) and the Should–Should Not scale (Rickard, Graziano, & Forehand,1984); however, those measures are not included in the present analyses as they do notpertain to the three central aims of the present study. Additionally, given these two sur-vey measures were not available in Spanish, understanding their psychometric propertiesand utility to the present study require too much space, and thus will be examined in aseparate article. All questionnaires were available in English and Spanish and simultane-ously presented. All parents completed the questionnaires in Spanish.

In addition to the survey measures, a global coding scheme was used to categorizethe observational data. The coding system was developed by Forgatch, Knutson, andMayne (1992) and has been used in longitudinal studies and has been found to reliablypredict child outcomes over time (e.g., Forgatch & DeGarmo, 2002). The global codingscheme provides the scores for the positive parenting practices: positive involvement,skills encouragement, monitoring, effective discipline, and problem solving.



Child Behavior Checklist

The Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) has 118 items that describe specific behavioraland emotional problems. There are three global ratings: internalizing, externalizing,and total behavior problem. The composite scores classify children into either non-clinical, borderline, or clinical level of behavior problems. The scales have proven psy-chometric properties (intraclass correlation of .98 for interparent agreement and .84for test–retest reliability; Achenback & Edelbrock, 1983), and have been used success-fully across cultural and national groups, including a variety of Latino subgroups (e.g.,Achenbach et al., 1990; Crijnen, Achenbach, & Verhulst, 1999; Dumka, Roosa, &Jackson, 1997; Lambert, Lyubansky, & Achenbach, 1998).

Global Coding of Parenting Practices

The global coding scheme measures five positive parenting practices based on theparent–child behavioral observations. All scales were built using the structure of the scalesdeveloped at the OSLC. Any deviations from these scales are noted and explained below. Toestablish reliability in coding the PI and a research assistant (both bilingual and bicultural)were trained by an OSLC researcher. We coded four families, and intraclass correlationsranged from .77 to .94 (two-way and three-way, for each of four families). Achieving ade-quate reliability from the very first family is indicative of ease of use of the OSLC coding sys-tem. Adequate reliabilities were established between the three researchers from the start;therefore, we stopped after four tapes. Then, the authors established reliabilities with thecurrent sample. Intraclass correlations calculated individually for eight families (16% of thesample) ranged from .88 to .97. Because both raters were bilingual, the global coding ratingsheet was not translated to avoid introducing error to the measurement from translation.

Positive involvement. The positive involvement scale is a 9-item Likert scale (1–7) with lowscores reflecting low positive involvement. Positive involvement was calculated as the meanof four subscales and one item: positive involvement during fun task (� � .74 for dads, .40for moms), positive involvement during problem solving (� � .78 for dads, .70 for moms),positive involvement during skills-building task (� � .70 for dads, .85 for moms), overall pos-itive involvement (� � .82 for both), and a general impressions item (the parent–child rela-tionship seemed: very good to very poor). Items were equally weighted; thus, the Cronbachalphas reported here are based on standardized items. The scale showed good reliabilitiesfor both mothers (� � .81; M � 5.77, SD � 0.52) and fathers (� � .86; M � 5.8, SD � 0.59).

Problem solving. The problem-solving scale is an 18-item scale comprised of problem-solving codes for two parent–child trials and included ratings on the following: extent ofproblem resolution, wide range of solutions suggested, proposed one or more realisticsolutions, plan was developed, and likely to follow through. The scale ranges between 1and 7 with lower scores corresponding to lesser ability to problem solve. The scalesshowed excellent reliability for both mothers (� � .92, M � 3.89, SD � 0.75) and fathers(� � .90, M � 4.11, SD � 0.68).

Skills building. The skills building scale is a three-item scale comprised of two items and asummation scale which include ratings on the following: Parent broke down tasks as



necessary, parent encouraged target child to work independently, parent provided rein-forcement for correct responses, and parent skills as teacher in meeting target child’sneeds. The summation scale adds nine dichotomous items and had an alpha of .70 formothers and .72 for fathers. Cronbach’s alpha for the mothers’ skills building scale was .79(M � 4.30; SD � 1.16). Cronbach’s alpha for the fathers’ skills-building scale is .54. Thisalpha is lower than desired, but not entirely unexpected given the low number of items.

Parental monitoring. The parental monitoring scale is a nine-item scale rated on a 1–5 con-tinuum, with low scores indicating low parental monitoring. This is the only scale that wasconstructed slightly differently than OSLC standards because in the OSLC calculationstwo separate coding forms were used to create the scale, whereas this study only utilizedone coding form. The same items from the OSLC global coding scheme were used toform the scale; items from the second coding sheet used at OSLC were omitted. Sampleitems include: skillful at obtaining information from the child and parent allows antiso-cial behavior. The scale showed solid reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha of .87 for bothmothers (M � 4.09, SD � 0.41) and fathers (M � 4.06, SD � 0.45).

Effective discipline. The discipline scale is a 13-item scale. The range on this scale is 1–5,with 1 indicating inept discipline and 5 indicating effective discipline. Sample items areoverly strict, authoritarian, oppressive, even-handed, appropriately firm when necessary,expresses anger/hostility while disciplining, and threatens unlikely disciplines.Reliabilities were strong for both mothers (� � .85, M � 4.16, SD � 0.46) and fathers (�� .79, M � 4.26, SD � 0.37).

Parenting composite. The parenting composite scale is the mean of the five parentingscales: parental monitoring, adequate discipline, problem solving, skills building, andpositive involvement. A high score on this scale is indicative of overall positive parentingpractices. Cronbach’s alpha for mothers is .82 (M � 4.83, SD � .54) and .80 for fathers(M � 4.95, SD � 0.49).

FINDINGS

The first of three central questions in this study focused on the feasibility of using thebehavioral observation methodology with Spanish-speaking Latino immigrant families.Answering this question was of central importance to the first author, as she has effortsunderway to conduct an intervention trial that would use this methodology in the evalu-ation of the intervention’s effectiveness. Overall, it appears the methodology is feasible.All but one family that presented to the study for participation completed the study. Onefamily dropped out before the behavioral observation sequence began because of childdistress at separation from the caregiver.

Parents were asked a number of questions about the observational environment.When asked the degree to which the laboratory situation was “strange,” almost 79% ofparents reported it was a little or not at all strange. The remainder reported it was slight-ly strange; no one reported it was extremely strange. When similarly asked about theactivities they engaged in with their children, 83% of parents reported these activitieswere a little or not at all strange. When asked to rate on a continuum how confident,



calm, and comfortable they felt, 88%, 91.7%, and 89.9% of parents reported feeling onthe positive end of each continuum, respectively. A full 100% of parents reported theywould participate in a study like this one again.

The second question of interest pertained to the usability of the Parent Peer ProcessCode (PPPC) developed and extensively used at the Oregon Social Learning Center. Inconducting Latino/a mental health research, an important and debated area of concernis whether to use existing tools in research or develop new ones created for the popula-tion under study (Dumka et al., 2003). Given the comparatively lower cost and effort ofusing and adapting (e.g., translating) existing measures rather than creating new ones,and the fact that the literature does not document drastic differences in parenting prac-tices of Latinos as compared to White non-Hispanics (the comparison group becausemeasures have been created and tested primarily with this group), this study investigatedthe possible use of an existing measure, the PPPC.

Usability of the measure was examined through three main questions: Will codersreach reliability? Will constructs show variability? Will they correlate in the expecteddirections? Results show that bilingual/bicultural coders did reach reliability immediate-ly with the Spanish-speaking Latino sample. Similarly, the constructs of positive parent-ing, discipline, monitoring, skills building, and problem solving showed variability withresponses (see Table 1). Finally, relationships between parenting practices were correlat-ed using Pearson Product Moment correlations and were all in the expected directions(see Table 2). There were particularly high negative correlations between: (a) inept dis-cipline and positive involvement, (b) inept discipline and monitoring, and (c) positiveinvolvement and monitoring, for both mothers and fathers.

The third, and final, question regards the predictive validity of the PPPC. To testwhether the PPPC would predict child outcomes, we conducted multiple regressionanalyses. However, the analytic approach was somewhat complex because of: (a) the rel-ative independence of the sample for the observation activities (mothers and fathersinteracted with their children primarily in parent–child dyads) and (b) the relativedependence of sample given that they were all from the same families. A brief explana-tion of how the final approach was selected is of importance.

To examine which analytic approach was best, we examined a variety of factors.Initially, an attempt was made to combine mother and father reports on the CBCL into



Table 1. Information on Variability of Parenting Practices Global Rating Form Scales for Mothers and Fathers

Scale Possible range Recorded range M SD

Mothers Positive involvement 1–7 4.2–6.7 5.77 0.52Problem solving 1–7 2.0–5.3 3.89 0.75Skills building 1–7 1.4–7.0 4.30 1.16Parental monitoring 1–5 2.8–4.6 4.09 0.41Discipline 1–5 1.3–2.9 1.90 0.46Parental composite 1–10 5.5–8.9 7.31 0.75

Fathers Positive involvement 1–7 3.9–6.6 5.76 0.59Problem solving 1–7 2.3–5.1 4.11 0.68Skills building 1–7 1.7–6.3 4.60 1.01Parental monitoring 1–5 2.9–4.6 4.10 0.45Discipline 1–5 1.0–2.8 1.80 0.46Parental composite 1–10 5.8–9.1 7.50 0.72

one categorization of clinical or nonclinical. Children were categorized as clinical that(a) had one or both parents rate them in the clinical range on the CBCL or (b) had bothparents rate them in the borderline range. Children that were categorized in the non-clinical range by both parents, or were categorized by one parent as nonclinical and bythe other as borderline were rated as nonclinical. This a priori conceptualization result-ed in 50% of the sample being categorized in each of the categories. However, mothersand fathers did not have particularly good agreement on clinical designation. Agreementwas 45.7% on internalizing (� � .019, significance � .85) and 70% on externalizingbehavior problems (� � .013, significance � .90).

Logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine the potential of the clinicaldesignation developed from the combination of both mother and father reports ofbehavior problems. None was significant. Additionally, factor scores were calculated,again to combine mother and father reports, but these were not predicted by parentingpractices. It is likely that, in addition to significantly restricting the range by making con-tinuous variables into dichotomous categories, artificially combining mothers’ andfathers’ scores resulted in an artificial score that did not accurately represent eithermothers’ or fathers’ perceptions of their child’s mental health. Thus, the analyses wereconducted separately using mothers’ and fathers’ scores.

Multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine the parenting practices ofmothers and fathers together taking into account each, and their interaction.Regression analyses included the mother’s composite score, father’s composite score,and the interaction effect. The outcome variables were mothers’ and fathers’ CBCL Tscores on the externalizing and internalizing scales. T scores were used instead of rawscores because two different forms for the CBCL were used (CBCL 11/2–5 and 6–18).While T scores for syndrome scales are truncated, this is not the case for the internal-izing and externalizing scales; thus, use of T scores should not affect the results(Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000).

Parenting practices did not predict mothers’ externalizing nor internalizing T scoreson the CBCL. Parenting practices, on the other hand, significantly predicted fathers’ rat-ings on the CBCL for both internalizing and externalizing behavior problems. For father-reported externalizing behavior problems, parents’ parenting practices accounted for19.4% of the variance. Parenting practices accounted for 21.5% of the variance in father-reported internalizing problems (see Table 3 for regression models).

These findings are relatively complex because of the significant interaction. Whenthe effects of the predictor variables on the response variable are not additive (i.e., a



Table 2. Correlations (r) between Parenting Practices: Mothers (below dotted line; N � 49) and Fathers(above dotted line; N � 46)

Skills Problem Positivebuilding solving Discipline involvement Monitoring

Skills building — 0.21 –0.30* 0.45** 0.23Problem solving 0.36** — –0.41** 0.39** 0.38**Inept discipline –0.25 –0.43** — –0.67*** –0.68***Positive involvement 0.39** 0.54*** –0.66*** — 0.65***Monitoring –0.29* 0.43** –0.69*** 0.72*** -—

*p � .05. ** p � .01. *** p � .001.

significant interaction term is present), the effects of one predictor variable depends onthe levels of the other predictor variables. The presence of a significant interaction term(fathers’ and mothers’ composite parenting practices) in the predictive model indicatesthat the relationship between fathers’ ratings of externalizing behavior and fathers’ com-posite parenting practices score depend on mothers’ composite parenting score. Therelationship between fathers’ parenting practices and child externalizing behaviors isstrongest when mothers exhibit low parenting scores and weakest when mothers’ com-posite parenting scores are high. A similar relationship is observed with fathers’ reportsof internalizing problems (see Figures 1 and 2).

DISCUSSION

In this article, we have described the procedures and methods in conducting behavioralobservation research with Spanish-speaking Latino families. Results indicate that familiesare willing to travel to a laboratory setting and engage in observational research, thusdemonstrating the feasibility of conducting this type of research with immigrant Latinos.Some families did report to the researchers that they were initially reluctant to partici-pate, but word-of-mouth from friends and family who had participated allayed fears andencouraged participation (Domenech Rodríguez et al., in press). While recruitmentneeds to be conducted in a culturally sensitive manner, once engaged, Spanish-speakingLatino families will participate in observational research.

In addition to being feasible, the study revealed that the existing behavioral observa-tion global rating form, the Parent Peer Process Code, developed at the Oregon SocialLearning Center and used primarily with White families, worked well with this sample ofLatino families. Virtually all scales showed solid reliabilities with only one exception(fathers’ skills-building scale). Parenting practices were all correlated in the expecteddirections, and many were significantly correlated. A significant limitation needs to beacknowledged: By using existing categories, one may potentially ignore an equally ormore significant parenting practice. While this may seem like the kind of omission thatis inevitable in quantitative research, it can potentially have a powerful impact as resultsare used to culturally adapt an existing intervention. To address this limitation, qualita-tive analyses of session transcripts, as well as focus groups, are underway to ensure thatculturally specific parenting practices are identified.



Table 3. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Fathers’ Externalizing andInternalizing T Score on the CBCL

Variable B SE B �

Externalizing Father’s parenting score –8.170 2.50 –6.280*Mother’s parenting score –0.094 2.26 –0.007Father � mother interaction –7.394 2.69 –0.481*

Internalizing Father’s parenting score –6.850 2.59 –0.500*Mother’s parenting score –2.610 2.35 –0.188Father � mother interaction –9.540 2.79 –0.590*

Note. R 2 for externalizing is .247, and the adjusted R 2 is .194. R 2 for internalizing is .268, and the adjusted R 2 is .215. *p � .05.

Finally, the relationship between parents’ ratings of their child’s behaviors and theobserved parenting practices were correlated. It is in this phase of the study that we findone of the more fascinating results of this study, namely, the relationship between parent-ing practices and mothers’ and fathers’ reports of externalizing and internalizing behav-ior problems. Traditionally, psychological studies on parenting have focused on mothers’assessments of their children’s behaviors, yet this study found that fathers’ assessmentsare the ones that are accurately predicted by both mothers’ and fathers’ practices. Thereare numerous explanations for this that we cannot address within the confines of thisstudy; for example, if mothers in the sample were overwhelmingly depressed, it is possi-ble that this would have affected their ratings of their children’s current behavioral state.This is a limitation of the study; while in our data collection procedures, we could observea great deal of distress in some of the mothers (certainly as compared to fathers), we do



Figure 1. For externalizing behavior problems, fathers’ parenting practices are moderated by mothers’parenting practices.

Figure 2. For internalizing problems, fathers’ parenting practices are moderated by mothers’ parenting practices.

not have data to examine this relationship. Regardless of the reason, these findingsunderscore the importance of gathering data from both mothers and fathers on theirperceptions of their children’s behaviors.

Additionally, we found that it is the interaction of both parents’ parenting practices thatdetermines the child’s outcomes. Again, this finding is critical to researchers. While thesefindings are not necessarily relevant to single-parent households, many children grow up intwo-parent households. This may be particularly true of Latinos who have lower divorce ratesthan White non-Latinos (Ramirez & De La Cruz, 2003). When conducting research withSpanish-speaking Latino families, researchers might want to reconsider the acceptability ofcurrent practices of examining mothers’ data alone because of fathers’ inability or lack ofdesire to participate in research activities. Reaching out to fathers and ensuring thatresearch procedures are acceptable to them will help in giving developmental researchers abetter idea of the impact of parenting practices on children’s development.

To underscore the need for including fathers’ and mothers’ data, there PPPC didnot predict child outcomes when mother and father outcome scores were combined intoa composite score. A variety of analyses were conducted to examine the relationshipbetween parenting practices and composite child outcome scores that took into accountboth mother and father reports of child behavior problems. These did not yield signifi-cant findings. It seems that in this sample, mother and father reports were not congru-ent enough to be combined.

Given the directionality and significance of relationships, results suggest that specif-ic areas already outlined in the OSLC-PMT intervention would be appropriate forSpanish-speaking Latino families. The additional qualitative analyses of the presenteddata, coupled with existing guidelines for culturally based modifications to existing inter-ventions (Bernal, Bonilla, & Bellido, 1995), will yield an intervention that is likely to bewell received in this community, given the apparent need of families to assist their chil-dren in developmental and cultural adjustment tasks that will set them on a path to morepositive outcomes.

REFERENCES

Achenbach, T.M., Bird, H.R., Canino, G., Phares, V., Gould, & Rubio-Stipec, M. (1990).Epidemiological comparisons of Puerto Rican and U.S. mainland children: Parent, teacher, andself-reports. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 29, 84–93.

Achenback, T.M., & Edelbrock, C.S. (1983). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist and RevisedChild Behavior Profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children,Youth, & Families.

Achenback, T.M., & Rescorla, L.A. (2000). Manual for the ASEBA preschool forms and profiles.Burlington, VT: University Associates in Psychiatry.

Bean, F.F., VanHook, J., & Woodrow-Lafield, K. (2002). Estimates of the numbers of unauthorizedmigrants residing in the United States: The total, Mexican, and non-Mexican CentralAmerican unauthorized populations in mid-2002. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.

Bernal, G., Bonilla, J., & Bellido, C. (1995). Ecological validity and cultural sensitivity for outcomeresearch: Issues for the cultural adaptation and development of psychosocial treatments withHispanics. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 23, 67–82.

Bui, K.V.T., & Takeuchi, D.T. (1992). Ethnic minority adolescents and the use of community men-tal health care services. American Journal of Community Psychology, 20(4), 403–417.

Chamberlain, P. (1990). Comparative evaluation of specialized foster care for seriously delinquentyouths: A first step. Community Alternatives: International Journal of Family Care, 2(2), 21–36.



Crijnen, A.A.M., Achenbach, T.M., & Verhulst, F.C. (1999). Problems reported by parents of chil-dren in multiple cultures: The Child Behavior Checklist syndrome constructs. AmericanJournal of Psychiatry, 156, 569–574.

Cuellar, I., Arnold, B., & Maldonado, R. (1995). Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans–II:A revision of the original ARSMA Scale. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 17, 275–304.

Dishion, T.J., Patterson, G.R., & Kavanagh, K.A. (1992). An experimental test of the coercionmodel. In J. McCord & R. Trembly (Eds.), The interaction of theory and practice:Experimental studies of interventions (pp. 253–282). New York: Guilford Press.

Domenech Rodríguez, M., Rodríguez, J., & Davis, M.R. (in press). Recruitment of first generationLatinos in a rural community: The essential nature of personal contact. Family Process.

Domenech Rodríguez, M., & Wieling, E. (2004). Developing culturally appropriate evidence basedtreatments for interventions with ethnic minority populations. In M. Rastogi & E. Wieling(Eds.), Voices of color: First person accounts of ethnic minority therapists (pp. 313–333).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dumka, L.E., Lopez, V., & Jacobs Carter, S. (2003). Parenting interventions adapted for Latino fam-ilies: Progress and prospects. In J.M. Contreras, A.M. Neal-Barnett, & K.A. Kerns (Eds.), Latinochildren and families in the United States. Westport, CT: Greenwood/Praeger Press.

Dumka, L.E., Roosa, M.W., & Jackson, K.M. (1997). Risk, conflict, mother’s parenting, and chil-dren’s adjustment in low-income, Mexican immigrant, and Mexican American families.Journal of Marriage & the Family, 59, 309–323.

Forgatch, M.S., & Bank, N. (2002). Linking basic and applied research in a prevention scienceprocess. In H.A. Liddle, D.A. Santisteban, R.F. Levant, & J.H. Bray (Eds.), Family psychology:Science based interventions (pp. 239–257). Washington, DC: American Psychology Association.

Forgatch, M.S., & DeGarmo, D.S. (1999). Parenting through change: An effective prevention pro-gram for single mothers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 711–724.

Forgatch, M.S. & DeGarmo, D.S. (2002). Extending and testing the social interaction learningmodel with divorce samples. In J.B. Reid & G.R. Patterson (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in chil-dren and adolescents: A developmental analysis and model for intervention (pp. 235–256).Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Forgatch, M.S., Knutson, N., & Mayne, T. (1992). Coder impressions of ODS lab tasks. Eugene, OR:Oregon Social Learning Center.

Forgatch, M.S., & Martinez, C. (1999). Parent management training: A program linking basicresearch and practical application. Tidsskrift for Norsk Psykologforening, 36(10), 923–937.

Gutierrez, J., Sameroff, A.J., & Kareer, B.M. (1988). Acculturation and SES effects on Mexican-American parents’ concepts of development. Child Development, 59, 250–255.

Harrison, A.O., Wilson, M.N., Pine, C.J., Chan, S.Q., & Buriel, B. (1990). Family ecologies of eth-nic minority children. Child Development, 61, 347–362.

Julian, T.W., McKenry, P.C., & McKelvey, M.W. (1994). Cultural variations in parenting: Perceptions ofCaucasian, African American, Hispanic and Asian American parents. Family Relations, 43, 30–37.

Kaiser Family Foundation. (2001). State health facts on-line: Utah-at-a-glance. Retrieved August 6, 2001,from http://www.statehealthfacts.kff.org/cgi-bin/healthfacts.cgi?action�profile&area�Utah

Kazdin, A.E. (1996). Developing effective treatments for children and adolescents. In E.D.Hibbs & P.S. Jensen (Eds.), Psychosocial treatments for children and adolescents:Empirically based strategies for clinical practice (pp. 9–18). Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.

Kazdin, A.E., & Weisz, J.R. (1998). Identifying and developing empirically supported child and ado-lescent treatments. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 19–36.

Lambert, M.C., Lyubansky, M., & Achenbach, T.M. (1998). Behavioral and emotional problemsamong adolescents of Jamaica and the United States: Parent, teacher, and self-reports for ages12 to 18. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 6(3), 180–187.



MacPhee, D., Fritz, J., & Miller-Heyl, J. (1996). Ethnic variations in personal social networks andparenting. Child Development, 67, 3278–3295.

Martinez, C.R., Jr., & Forgatch, M.S. (2001). Preventing problems with boys' noncompliance:Effects of a parent training intervention for divorcing mothers. Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology, 69, 416–428.

McCabe, K., Yeh, M., Hough, R.L., Landsverk, J., Hurlburt, M.S., Wells Culver, S., et al. (1999).Racial/ethnic representation across five public sectors of care for youth. Journal of Emotionaland Behavioral Disorders, 7(2), 72–82.

McDade, K. (1995). How we parent: Race and ethnic differences. In C.K. Jacobson (Ed.), Americanfamilies: Issues in race and ethnicity (pp. 283–300). New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.

McLoyd, V.C. (1990). The impact of economic hardship on Black families and children: Psychologicaldistress, parenting, and socioeconomic development. Child Development, 61, 311–346.

Moreno, R.P., & Lopez, J.A. (1999). Latina mothers’ involvement in the children’s schooling: Therole of maternal education and acculturation (JSRI Working Paper #44). East Lansing, MI:The Julian Samora Research Institute.

Okagaki, L., & Frensch, P.A. (1998). Parenting and children’s school achievement: A multiethnicperspective. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 123–144.

Patterson, G.R., & Forgatch, M.S. (1995). Predicting future clinical adjustment from treatment out-come and process variables. Psychological Assessment, 7, 275–285.

Patterson, G.R., Reid, J.B., & Dishion, T.J. (1992). Antisocial boys. Eugene, OR: Castalia.Planos, R., Zayas, L.H., & Busch-Rossnagel, N.A. (1995). Acculturation and teaching behaviors of

Dominican and Puerto Rican mothers. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 17, 225–236.Planos, R., Zayas, L.H., & Busch-Rossnagel, N.A. (1997). Mental health factors and teaching behav-

iors among low-income Hispanic mothers. Families in Society, 78(1), 4–12.Ramirez, R.R., & De La Cruz, G.P. (2003). The Hispanic population in the United States: March

2002 (U.S. Census Report P20-545). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Reid, J.B., Eddy, J.M., Fetrow, R.A., & Stoolmiller, M. (1999). Description and immediate impacts

of a preventive intervention for conduct problems. American Journal of CommunityPsychology, 27, 483–517.

Rickard, K.M., Graziano, W., Forehand, R. (1984). Parental expectations and childhood deviance inclinic-referred and non-clinic children. Journal of Clinical and Child Psychology, 13, 179–186.

Shelton, K.K., Frick, P.J., & Wooton, J. (1996). Assessment of parenting practices in families of ele-mentary school-age children. Journal of Clinical and Child Psychology, 25, 317–329.

Solís-Cámara, P., & Fox, R.A. (1995). Parenting among mothers with young children in Mexico andthe United States. Journal of Social Psychology, 135, 591–599.

Solís-Cámara, P., & Fox, R.A. (1996). Parenting practices and expectations among Mexican moth-ers with young children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 157, 465–476.

Solís-Cámara, P., & Fox, R.A. (1997). Parenting of young children by fathers in Mexico and theUnited States. Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 489–495.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). 2000 state and national profiles. Retrieved August 6, 2001, fromhttp://www.census.gov/c2ss/www/Products/Profiles/2000/index.htm

U.S. Census Bureau. (2001). The Hispanic population: 2000. Retrieved August 30, 2001, fromhttp://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-3.pdf

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2001). Mental health: Culture, race, and ethnic-ity—A supplement to mental health: A report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: Author.

U.S. Department of Justice. (1999). 1999 national report series. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. RetrievedSeptember 18, 2001, from http://www.ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp/9912_1/contents.html

Webster-Stratton, C., & Woolley Lindsay, D. (1999). Social competence and conduct problems inyoung children: Issues in assessment. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 28, 25–43.



observed parenting practices of first-generation latino families

Documents