You are on page 1of 13

J Abnorm Child Psychol (2018) 46:113–125

DOI 10.1007/s10802-017-0284-7

The Influence of Child Gender on the Prospective Relationships


between Parenting and Child ADHD
David H. Demmer 1,2 & Francis Puccio 3,4 & Mark A. Stokes 1,2 & Jane A. McGillivray 1,2 &
Merrilyn Hooley 1,2

Published online: 2 March 2017


# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Abstract The aims of the current study were to (i) explore the prospective, bi-directional relationship (whereby increases in
potential bidirectional, prospective relationships between par- one predicted increases in the other over time) during earlier
enting and child ADHD, and (ii) explore whether these rela- years of development. Latent growth curve models demon-
tionships differed on the basis of child gender. Data were strated that increases in Angry Parenting across time
obtained from waves 1 (children aged 4- to 5-years) to 5 (chil- were significantly predicted by increases in child
dren aged 12- to 13-years) of the Longitudinal Study of ADHD symptoms. A logistic regression demonstrated
Australian Child (LSAC) dataset (child cohort). In order to that both mothers’ and fathers’ Angry Parenting at wave
examine dimensions of both mothers’ and fathers’ parenting, 1 significantly predicted an ADHD diagnosis in children
a subsample of nuclear families with mothers, fathers and at wave 3. No predictive relationships differed between
children present at all waves was extracted (final sam- child genders; thus, it appears these prospective path-
ple = 1932; sons = 981, daughters = 951). Child ADHD mea- ways are similar for both sons and daughters.
sures included the hyperactive-impulsive subscale of the
strengths and difficulties questionnaire for symptoms, and Keywords Childhood psychopathology . ADHD .
parent-report question for diagnosis. Mothers and fathers Externalizing disorder . Parent . Gender
completed scales on dimensions of Angry, Warm and
Consistent Parenting. A cross-lagged panel model demon-
strated (i) higher child ADHD symptoms at wave 1 led to a Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a
global increase in less-than-optimal parenting at wave 2, and neurodevelopmental disorder involving difficulties with atten-
(ii) child ADHD symptoms and Angry Parenting shared a tion and/or hyperactive and impulsive behaviours (American
Psychiatric Association [APA] 2013). ADHD affects approx-
imately 5% of children worldwide, with prevalence estimates
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article increasing or decreasing based on time period and/or culture
(doi:10.1007/s10802-017-0284-7) contains supplementary material,
considered (Polanczyk et al. 2014). ADHD can have negative
which is available to authorized users.
impacts on various domains of functioning, including family
* Merrilyn Hooley
and peer relationships (Hoza 2007; Keown and Woodward
merrilyn.hooley@deakin.edu.au 2002) and academic achievement (Barbaresi et al. 2007;
Reid et al. 2004), and is also a significant predictor of both
1
School of Psychology, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, concurrent and later psychopathology (Biederman et al. 2006;
Geelong, Australia Burke et al. 2005; Meinzer et al. 2016). Therefore, under-
2
Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC 3125, standing the factors associated with the aetiology and devel-
Australia opment of ADHD can help inform targets for intervention to
3
Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, assist in lessening these negative consequences.
Melbourne, Australia One factor that has consistently been associated with the
4
University of Melbourne, Grattan Street, Parkville, VIC 3010, development of child ADHD is less-than-optimal parenting.
Australia Cross-sectional research has demonstrated that children with a
114 J Abnorm Child Psychol (2018) 46:113–125

diagnosis of ADHD tend to have parents who are less warm et al., suggest bi-directional relationships likely exist between
and less involved (Ellis and Nigg 2009; Tripp et al. 2007), less parenting and child ADHD. Third, both studies omit child
consistent in their punishment (Cussen et al. 2012), and/or gender as a potential moderator despite the potential impor-
more overprotective (Chang et al. 2013) and controlling tance in examining its effect on the relationship between par-
(Rogers et al. 2009) than the parents of their typically- enting and child ADHD (Braza et al. 2015; Johnston & Mash).
developing peers. Higher levels of child ADHD symptoms Gender, specifically male gender, is a known risk factor in
are also related to higher levels of maternal hostility (Harold the development of ADHD, as demonstrated by the higher
et al. 2013), parental stress (Graziano et al. 2011), as well as prevalence of ADHD in boys when compared to girls
various other aspects of negative parenting (e.g., poor (approximately three boys to every one girl in community
monitoring/supervision, inconsistent discipline and corporal samples; Erskine et al. 2013; Willcutt 2012). However, as
punishment; Haack et al. 2016). ADHD research typically involves male-only samples, the
Despite the wealth of investigations into the relationships way that child gender operates as a risk factor in the develop-
between various aspects of parenting and child ADHD, sev- ment of the disorder remains unclear (Johnston and Mash
eral important questions remain unanswered. First, as most 2001). This may have important implications in the treatment
previous investigations have been cross-sectional in design, of ADHD, particularly if different pathways of disease occur
the causal direction of the association between parenting and for boys and girls. For example, parent training is an important
child ADHD (i.e., whether certain parenting dimensions are component of most psychosocial treatments for child ADHD
predictive of, or an outcome of, child ADHD, or if a bi- (National Health and Medical Research Council 2012) based
directional relationship exists) remains unclear. Second, de- on the notion that parenting impacts child ADHD. Therefore,
spite suggestions that child gender may moderate the relation- if parenting is differentially related to ADHD for girls and
ship between parenting and child ADHD (Braza et al. 2015; boys then current interventions may not be equally effective
Johnston and Mash 2001), this notion is yet to be formally for both genders if the current ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to
tested (Lifford et al. 2008). treatment is taken.
Two longitudinal studies have explored the prospective Although the notion of whether the prospective relation-
relationships between parenting and child ADHD (Keown ships between parenting and ADHD differ between daughters
2012; Lifford et al. 2008) in attempts to address the question and sons is yet to be examined, parallel areas of research
of causality. The first, Lifford et al., examined the notion of bi- suggest a gender difference may exist. For example, it has
directionality and found different results for mothers and fa- consistently been demonstrated that parents commonly en-
thers. For mothers, higher levels of child ADHD gage in different parenting behaviours with sons compared
symptomology predicted higher levels of maternal rejection to daughters. Sons tend to receive higher levels of authoritar-
over a 12-month period, while the reverse relationship was ian parenting (e.g., corporal punishment, lack of explanation
found for fathers, with higher levels of paternal rejection about punishment, verbal hostility) and less positive parenting
predicting increases child ADHD symptoms in children over (e.g., less displays of warmth, less aware and responsive to
the same period. The second, Keown (2012), examined uni- cues from the child) than girls (Barnett and Scaramella 2013;
directional relationships only, and again found different rela- Russell et al. 1998). Sons also receive fewer displays of emo-
tionships for mothers and fathers. Results demonstrated that tional understanding (Fivush et al. 2000), praise, and physical
higher levels of paternal sensitivity and positive regard, and affection than daughters, yet receive higher rates of yelling
higher levels of maternal positive regard, predicted lower and smacking (Lloyd and Devine 2006). Given that (i) many
levels of ADHD symptoms in sons across a 2 1/2 year period. of these less-than-optimal parenting behaviours have been
Further, lower levels of maternal warmth predicted higher linked to ADHD, and (ii) child gender is related to both par-
levels of sons’ ADHD symptoms over the same period. enting and ADHD, it might be that child gender also impacts
The findings of Lifford et al. (2008) and Keown (2012) the relationship between parenting and ADHD. For example,
contribute to the understanding of the prospective relationship theory (e.g., Keenan and Shaw 1997) as well as previous
between parenting and child ADHD, however several limita- research (e.g., Wright et al. 2013) suggests that the
tions exist with these investigations that necessitate further socialisation of gender often involves a greater tolerance of
work in this area. First, both studies called for investigations internalising behaviours in girls and externalising behaviours
utilising larger sample sizes to strengthen the confidence of in boys by socialising agents (e.g., parents). These socialising
findings. Second, Keown was limited by investigating only influences potentially attenuate the relationship between neg-
uni-directional relationships (earlier parenting predicting later ative parenting and externalising behaviours in girls, and in
child ADHD), which precluded the potential identification of boys potentially contribute to the development of a maladap-
alternate, or bi-directional relationships. This is a notable tive cycle of less-than-optimal parenting influencing
omission given common developmental models of ADHD externalising behaviours, which go on to influence less-than-
(e.g., Johnston and Mash 2001), and the findings of Lifford optimal parenting. It might therefore be expected that less-
J Abnorm Child Psychol (2018) 46:113–125 115

than-optimal parenting might have a greater influence on the Method


development of externalising behaviours (such as those dem-
onstrated in ADHD) in boys than in girls. Participants

Data for this study were obtained from waves 1 through 5 of


the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC). A
The Current Study comprehensive overview of the LSAC sampling design, data
collection methods and measures have been described else-
The aims of the current study were twofold; first, to where (Australian Institute of Family Studies 2013; Soloff
explore the potential bidirectional, prospective relation- et al. 2005; Zubrick et al. 2014), thus only a brief outline is
ships between parenting dimensions and child ADHD, provided here. A two-stage cluster sampling design was used
and second, to explore whether these relationships dif- to recruit two cohorts, an infant cohort (children 3–19 months
fered on the basis of child gender, in a large sample of of age at wave 1) and a child cohort (children 4–5 years of age
Australian nuclear families. Nuclear families were inves- at wave 1). First, stratification occurred at the state of resi-
tigated due to previous research often focusing only on dence level, and urban versus rural level. Postcodes (exclud-
mothers’ parenting. This focus, however, overlooks the ing the most remote) were then sampled. Second, all children
important influence of fathers’ parenting on child behav- from sampled postcodes who were born between March 2003
iours. As evidence suggests that child developmental out- and February 2004 (infant cohort), and March 1999 and
comes differ depending on whether maternal or paternal February 2000 (child cohort), and enrolled in the Australian
influences are considered (Braza et al. 2015; Lamb Medicare Database, which is the most comprehensive data-
2004), and based on previous longitudinal research in base of Australia’s population, were contacted. Final samples
this area demonstrating that mothers’ and fathers’ parent- were 5107 for the infant cohort and 4983 for the child cohort.
ing are differentially associated with child ADHD Only the child cohort was used in the current study due to
(Keown 2012; Lifford et al. 2008), it is important to child ADHD measures being present from wave 1 for
consider both parents in investigations. The current study this cohort but not for the infant cohort. In order to
tested a number of hypotheses. Bi-directional relation- explore dimensions of both maternal and paternal par-
ships were expected based on arguments by common enting, a subsample of the original 4983 child cohort
developmental models of ADHD (e.g., Johnston and cases was extracted. Cases were included in the current
Mash 2001). Gender differences in these relationships sample if mother, father and child were present, and
were also expected based on previous theory (Keenan participated, through all waves, with a final subsample
and Shaw 1997) that suggests girls might be discouraged of 1932; 951 daughters (49.2%) and 981 sons (50.8%).
from presenting their difficulties in an externalizing man- As causal pathways between non-referred and referred
ner. It was hypothesized that: cases are considered fundamentally different, all referred cases
(i.e., children with a diagnosis of ADHD) were removed from
1. Bi-directional, prospective relationships will exist be- the cross-lagged path analysis and the latent growth curve
tween parenting dimensions and child ADHD symptoms. models (LGCMs) as per appropriate epidemiological method-
Specifically, higher levels of less-than-optimal parenting ology (Rothman et al. 2008). However, parallel cross-lagged
(i.e., higher scores on Angry Parenting, lower scores on and LGCM analyses were conducted with the full sample (i.e.,
Consistent Parenting, and lower scores on Warm referred and non-referred cases) with no difference in path-
Parenting) will be predictive of, and predicted by, higher ways found between the models. Referred cases were includ-
levels of ADHD symptoms in boys and girls across time ed in the logistic regression as child ADHD diagnosis was the
2. The predictive relationship between parenting dimensions dependent variable in this analysis.
and child ADHD symptoms will be stronger for boys than
girls as measured by chi square change between gender- Measures
specific models
3. Less-than-optimal parenting (i.e., higher scores on Angry ADHD
Parenting, lower scores on Consistent Parenting, and low-
er scores on Warm Parenting) at wave 1 will be predictive Child ADHD symptoms were measured in the LSAC dataset
of an ADHD diagnosis in boys and girls at wave 3 via the strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ;
4. The predictive relationship between parenting dimensions Cronbach’s α = 0.88). Mothers’ SDQ scores were used in
and ADHD diagnosis will be stronger for boys than girls the current study as mothers had lower levels of missing data
as measured by chi square change between gender- on this measure compared to fathers. The SDQ is a brief be-
specific models havioural screening questionnaire for children 4- to 16-years
116 J Abnorm Child Psychol (2018) 46:113–125

of age, consisting of 25 items covering behavioural and emo- was measured using a modified scale from the Childrearing
tional problems, and prosocial behaviours (Goodman 1997), Questionnaire (Patterson and Sanson 1999).
and contains five subscales. The hyperactivity-inattention sub- Angry Parenting measured parents’ use of aversive or
scale is made up of five items (e.g., BRestless, overactive, harsh discipline via items regarding feelings of anger or frus-
cannot stay still for long^ and Beasily distracted, concentration tration towards the child, as well as emotional reactivity (e.g.,
wanders^). Items on the subscale are rated on a three-point BHow often are you angry when you punish this child?^), with
index: 0 (not true), 1 (somewhat true), or 2 (certainly true), higher scores on this measure representing less praise, more
with a possible range of scores from 0 to 10. Higher scores disapproval, and more negative emotions directed towards the
indicate higher levels of hyperactive-inattentive symptoms. child. Parents of children with ADHD have been demonstrat-
The validity and sensitivity of the SDQ as a screening tool ed to be more angry and mean in their disciplinary encounters
for ADHD symptoms has been well established (Goodman with their children than parents of non-ADHD children
et al. 2000; Stone et al. 2010), including in Australian samples (Keown and Woodward 2002). Further, harsh discipline and/
(Hawes and Dadds 2004). For example, Hawes and Dadds or hostility directed towards children has been shown to influ-
used factor analytic techniques to investigate the validity and ence the development and maintenance of behavioural prob-
reliability of the SDQ (parent-report) on an Australian com- lems during childhood (Chang et al. 2003), while decreases in
munity sample of 1359 boys and girls 4- to 9-years of age. these parenting behaviours leads to positive change in child
Moderate to strong internal reliability and stability was found behaviour (Sanders et al. 2000).
across all subscales, suggesting the SDQ is a valid and reliable Warm Parenting measured the amount of warmth and
measure of both behavioural and emotional symptomology in affection displayed towards the child (e.g., BHow often
Australian children. do you hug or hold this child for no particular reason?^),
Child ADHD diagnosis in the LSAC dataset was deter- with higher scores on this measure representing more dis-
mined by a single item parent-report question with a yes or plays of warmth and affection. Children with ADHD reg-
no response (BDoes child have any of these ongoing prob- ularly receive less warmth (Chang et al. 2013), with lower
lems? ADD or ADHD?^). A second question regarding levels of parental warmth predicting poorer developmental
ADHD medication use (BHas your child ever taken any med- outcomes for children (Davidov and Grusec 2006) and
ication for attention deficit disorder or ADHD?^) was used in substance use disorders in children with ADHD once they
the current study to validate the response (83% of parents who reach adolescence (Tandon et al. 2014).
reported ‘yes’ to ADD or ADHD as an ongoing problem also Consistent Parenting measured the setting and consistent
reported their children had been prescribed ADD or ADHD application of age-appropriate rules and expectations (e.g.,
medication at wave 5). BHow often does this child get away with things that you feel
should have been punished?^). Higher scores on this measure
Parenting Dimensions represented the more consistent setting and application of
rules and expectations. Inconsistent parenting has been shown
The parenting dimensions extracted from the LSAC dataset to strongly contribute to children’s problem behaviours, and is
were Angry Parenting, Warm Parenting and Consistent one of the key areas addressed in behavioural family interven-
Parenting. These dimensions have previously demonstrated tions (Sanders et al. 2000).
associations with child ADHD (angry: Keown and
Woodward 2002; warm: Chang et al. 2013; Keown 2012; Statistical Methods
consistent: Ellis and Nigg 2009). The construct validity and
measurement quality of these scales, as they relate to the In order to conduct a comprehensive investigation, a series of
LSAC dataset, have been published in a technical paper analyses were selected and conducted to test the hypotheses of
(Zubrick et al. 2014). For the current study, very good internal the current study and to address different aspects of prospec-
consistencies were found for all scales (mothers’ Angry tive relationships between parenting and (i) child ADHD
Parenting α = 0.86, fathers’ Angry Parenting α = 0.85; symptoms, and (ii) child ADHD diagnosis. A cross-lagged
mothers’ Consistent Parenting α = 0.88, fathers’ Consistent panel model, two latent growth curve models (LGCMs), as
Parenting α = 0.86; mothers’ Warm Parenting α = 0.88; fa- well as a logistic regression, were used to test the hypotheses.
thers’ Warm Parenting α = 0.89). Each scale contained five All analyses were performed using Mplus version 7.2 and
items with responses provided on a 5-point scale (1 = never/ SPSS version 23. Standard cut-offs for fit indices were used:
almost never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, 5 = always/ CFI and TLI > 0.95 for excellent fit and >0.90 for acceptable
almost always). Both Angry Parenting and Consistent fit and RMSEA <0.05 for good fit (Browne and Cudeck 1993;
Parenting were measured using items from scales in the MacCallum et al. 1996; Steiger 1989). Socio-economic status
National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (SES) was controlled for within all analyses as SES has been
(NLSYC; Statistics Canada 2000), while Warm Parenting shown to be an important associate for both parenting
J Abnorm Child Psychol (2018) 46:113–125 117

(Friedson 2016; Pinderhughes et al. 2000) and child ADHD Warm Parenting were predictors for the slope of child
(Russell et al. 2015). The SES variable was a single continu- ADHD symptoms. In the second LGCM, the intercept
ous score calculated based on (i) combined family income, (ii) and slope of child ADHD symptoms were the predictor
educational attained of both parents, and (iii) parents’ occupa- variables, with the slopes of mothers’ and fathers’
tional status. This score therefore represented the social and Consistent, Angry and Warm Parenting as outcomes.
economic resources available to the family. Rates of missing
data for all variables ranged from approximately 0.1% to 8.3% Logistic Regression
for individual variables across waves. Dimensions of fathers’
parenting generally had the highest rates of missing data A logistic regression analysis was used to test Hypothesis 3,
across all waves. Missing data were imputed using multiple and examined if mothers’ and fathers’ Consistent, Angry and/
imputation in MPLUS. or Warm Parenting at Wave 1 predicted a child ADHD diag-
nosis at wave three. Wave 1 was selected as the prediction
Cross-Lag Panel Model wave as the cross-lagged model demonstrated that this was
the time point where parenting and child ADHD symptoms
A cross-lagged panel analysis using continuous manifest var- were most related. Wave 3 was selected because children at
iables was conducted to test Hypothesis 1. Bi-directional ef- this age (8- and 9-years of age) are at the average age of child
fects examine the reciprocal relationship between two con- ADHD diagnosis (Kessler et al. 2005).
structs measured across time, and addresses whether a partic-
ular construct, measured at a particular time point, is predic- Structural Invariance Testing
tive of change in another variable at a later time point. In our
model, variance in each of the variables of interest (parenting Structural invariance testing was conducted for the cross-lag
dimensions and child ADHD symptoms) was predicted from panel model and LGCMs to test Hypothesis 2, and also for the
two main sources: autoregressive paths and cross-lagged logistic regression to test Hypothesis 4 (except where statisti-
paths. The autoregressive paths represent the effect of the cal significance was not found in the relationships of interest),
construct on itself across time (e.g., child ADHD symptoms to determine whether the predictive relationships in these
at time 1 predicting child ADHD symptoms at time 2; Selig models were equivalent across child genders. First, an uncon-
and Little 2012). The inclusion of autoregressive paths mini- strained model was tested for boys and girls separately, in
mises bias in the estimation of cross-lagged paths (Cole and which parameters were free to vary. Second, the model was
Maxwell 2003; Gollob and Reichardt 1987; Selig & Little). constrained whereby the regression paths for each gender
The cross-lagged paths represent the relationships of interest were constrained to be equal. The paths for both models were
(e.g., the variance in child ADHD at time 2 that is predicted by then compared. Structural invariance (i.e., the models were
parenting dimensions at time 2). Given the inclusion of the different based on child gender) was determined if Delta chi-
autoregressive paths, the only variance available for prediction square (Δχ2) significantly differed from zero (p < 0.05).
by the cross-lagged paths is the residual variance in the out-
come variable, thus providing a more sensitive analysis.
Results
Latent Growth Curve Models
Preliminary Analyses
Latent growth curve models were also used to test Hypothesis
1. LGCMs assess whether initial levels of one variable Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations (SDs) of
(known as the intercept), or the change trajectory (known as parenting dimensions and child ADHD symptoms for non-
the slope) in that variable over time, predicts the change tra- referred and referred children separately, and summarises the
jectory (slope) of another variable over time. The value of the results of t-tests (significant differences and Cohen’s D effect
LGCM is that it establishes how different responses emerge sizes) comparing non-referred and referred children on parent-
across time, accounting for how earlier decisions influence ing dimensions and child ADHD symptoms. Table 2 presents
later outcomes. Further, this enables an understanding of the means and SDs of parenting dimensions and child ADHD
how subtle differences at a given time point may lead to con- symptoms for non-referred girls and boys separately, and
siderable differences in outcome (i.e., sensitive dependence summarises the results of t-tests (significant differences and
upon initial conditions). Two separate LGCMs were con- Cohen’s D effect sizes) comparing girls and boys on parenting
structed to assess the relationships between the intercept dimensions and child ADHD symptoms. Mothers’ and
and slope of a predictor variable on the slope of an out- fathers’ Angry Parenting was higher in (i) referred children
come variable. In the first LGCM, the intercepts and compared to non-referred children and (ii) non-referred boys
slopes of mothers’ and fathers’ Consistent, Angry and compared to non-referred girls across all five waves. From
118 J Abnorm Child Psychol (2018) 46:113–125

Table 1 Means and standard deviations for, and significant differences and effect sizes (Cohen’s D) between, non-referred and referred children across
waves

Non-referred children Mean(SD) Referred children Mean(SD) [Cohen’s D effect size for non-referred versus
referred children t-test]

Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4 Wave 5 Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4 Wave 5

Mother Angry 2.15 2.13 2.12 2.10 2.08 2.72 2.76 2.78 2.78 2.57
parenting (0.57) (0.55) (0.60) (0.62) (0.64) (0.67)* (0.68)** (0.70)*** (0.63)*** (0.83)***
[0.92] [1.02] [1.01] [1.09] [0.66]
Father Angry 2.26 2.06 2.13 2.16 2.10 3.14 2.59 2.82 2.64 2.74
parenting (0.59) (0.58) (0.60) (0.61) (0.63) (0.74)** (0.71)** (0.67)*** (0.56)*** (0.61)***
[1.31] [0.82] [1.08] [0.82] [1.03]
Mother Warm 4.42 4.43 4.32 4.27 4.18 4.45 4.43 4.11 4.02 3.98
parenting (0.43) (0.47) (0.53) (0.85) (0.62) (0.33) (0.55) (0.52)* (0.47)** (0.61)*
[ns] [ns] [0.40] [0.47] [0.32]
Father Warm 4.07 4.13 4.05 3.94 3.82 3.57 3.92 3.83 3.81 3.67
parenting (0.53) (0.59) (0.61) (0.62) (0.68) (0.50)* (0.78) (0.62)* (0.68) (0.60)
[0.97] [ns] [0.36] [ns] [ns]
Mother 4.20 4.27 4.26 4.27 4.22 3.92 4.07 4.12 4.02 4.21
consistent (0.61) (0.55) (0.58) (0.59) (0.62) (0.10) (0.66) (0.57) (0.68)** (0.58)
parenting [ns] [ns] [ns] [0.39] [ns]
Father 4.04 4.15 4.15 4.11 4.08 3.82 3.86 3.90 4.10 3.94
consistent (0.65) (0.63) (0.63) (0.62) (0.63) (0.68) (0.65) (0.65)* (0.71) (0.69)
parenting [ns] [0.45] [0.39] [ns] [ns]
ADHD 3.14 2.92 2.79 2.78 2.53 7.90 8.55 7.69 7.80 7.19
symptoms (2.20) (2.15) (2.14) (2.16) (2.11) (1.52)*** (1.90)*** (1.75)*** (2.28)*** (2.29)***
[2.52] [2.77] [2.50] [2.26] [2.12]

t-tests compared non-referred children to referred children for wave and parenting dimension. E.g., Wave 1 mother angry parenting for non-referred
children compared to Wave 1 mother angry parenting for referred children. Significances and effect sizes relate to these comparisons
ns = t-test non-significant therefore no effect size calculated
*p < 0.05
**p < 0.01
***p < 0.001

wave 3, referred children received significantly less Warm prospective, bidirectional pathways between parenting dimen-
Parenting from their mothers than non-referred children. This sions and child ADHD symptoms): χ2(523, N = 1932)
same difference was found for fathers’ Warm Parenting in waves =2157.99. The addition of the pathways of interest significant-
1 and 3. Mothers’ Warm Parenting was higher for daughters than ly improved the model χ2(48, N = 1932) = 306.39, p < 0.001,
for sons in waves 4 and 5, and fathers’ Warm Parenting were demonstrating that the pathways of interest were important
higher for daughters than sons from wave 2 onwards. Referred additions to the model and predicted significant variance in
children had significantly higher ADHD symptoms than non- the model over and above the control/autoregressive model.
referred children across all waves (see Table 1). Further, non- Good fit for the cross-lagged model examining the bi-
referred boys had significantly higher child ADHD symptoms directional effects of parenting dimensions and child ADHD
than non-referred girls across all waves (see Table 2). was found (RMSEA = 0.04, CFI = 0.96, TFI = 0.94). For
Table 3 presents the rates of ADHD diagnosis across waves simplicity, Fig. 1 presents just the significant findings regard-
for girls and boys, as well as significant differences and effect ing the relationships of interest (i.e., the bi-directional pro-
sizes. Across all waves, boys were significantly more likely spective relationships between parenting dimensions and
than girls to have an ADHD diagnosis. child ADHD symptoms) as well as the significant
autoregressive pathways of the connecting time points. The
Cross-Lagged Panel Model full table of results is available by request from the corre-
sponding author. Overall, mothers’ and fathers’ Angry
First, a baseline control model was run containing only the Parenting and child ADHD symptoms demonstrated a pro-
autoregressive pathways: χ2(571, N = 1932) = 2464.38. The spective, bi-directional relationship; however this was only
pathways of interest were then added to the model (i.e., the significant in the early years (ages 4- to 7-years). Further, this
J Abnorm Child Psychol (2018) 46:113–125 119

Table 2 Means and standard deviations for, and significant differences and effect sizes (Cohen’s D) between, non-referred girls and boys across waves

Non-referred girls Mean(SD) Non-referred boys Mean(SD) [Cohen’s D effect size for girls versus boys t-test]

Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4 Wave 5 Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4 Wave 5

Mother 2.10 2.08 2.05 2.02 2.00 2.19 (0.61)** 2.17 (0.57)** 2.18 (0.61)*** 2.17 (0.64)*** 2.16 (0.65)***
angry (0.53) (0.53) (0.58) (0.58) (0.62) [0.16] [0.16] [0.22] [0.24] [0.25]
parenting
Father angry 2.19 2.00 2.05 2.07 2.02 2.31 (0.59)*** 2.12 (0.57)*** 2.20 (0.61)*** 2.23 (0.60)*** 2.18 (0.63)***
parenting (0.57) (0.57) (0.57) (0.59) (0.62) [0.21] [0.21] [0.27] [0.27] [0.25]
Mother 4.43 4.45 4.35 4.32 4.22 4.41 (0.44) 4.42 (0.47) 4.30 (0.55) 4.23 (0.59)** 4.14 (0.63)**
warm (0.41) (0.47) (0.52) (0.56) (0.60) [ns] [ns] [ns] [0.14] [0.13]
parenting
Father warm 4.09 4.18 4.12 4.00 3.87 4.06 (0.54) 4.08 (0.60)** 3.98 (0.61)*** 3.89 (0.62)*** 3.76 (0.69)**
parenting (0.52) (0.58) (0.60) (0.61) (0.67) [ns] [0.17] [0.23] [0.18] [0.16]
Mother 4.21 4.28 4.27 4.29 4.24 4.18 (0.61) 4.25 (0.55) 4.24 (0.57) 4.25 (0.60) 4.20 (0.62)
consistent (0.51) (0.55) (0.59) (0.59) (0.61) [ns] [ns] [ns] [ns] [ns]
parenting
Father 4.04 4.14 4.14 4.13 4.08 4.04 (0.66) 4.16 (0.63) 4.16 (0.62) 4.11 (0.63) 4.09 (0.64)
consistent (0.64) (0.63) (0.63) (0.61) (0.61) [ns] [ns] [ns] [ns] [ns]
parenting
ADHD 2.61 2.40 2.19 2.20 1.95 3.53 (2.24)*** 3.31 (2.19)*** 3.30 (2.20)*** 3.26 (2.18)*** 3.06 (2.22)***
symptoms (1.98) (1.90) (1.84) (1.93) (1.80) [0.48] [0.44] [0.55] [0.51] [0.55]

t-tests compared girls to boys for wave and parenting dimension. E.g., Wave 1 mother angry parenting for girls compared to Wave 1 mother angry
parenting for boys. Significances and effect sizes relate to these comparisons
ns = t-test non-significant therefore no effect size calculated
*p < 0.05
**p < 0.01
***p < 0.001

relationship appeared more continuous over time for fathers Latent Growth Curve Models
than mothers. In terms of uni-directional effects, higher levels
of child ADHD symptoms predicted higher levels of mothers’ Two separate LGCMs were conducted. The paths specified in
and fathers’ Angry Parenting throughout all waves. In addi- the LGCMs were identical to the cross-lagged path model
tion, higher levels of child ADHD symptoms at wave 1 pre- however also included the intercept and slopes for ADHD
dicted decreases in Warm Parenting at wave 2 for fathers and symptoms and each parenting dimension for both mothers
at wave 3 for both mothers and fathers. Higher child ADHD and fathers. Model one, where the intercept and slope of
symptoms at preceding waves also predicted less Consistent mothers’ and fathers’ Consistent, Angry and Warm
Parenting at wave four for mothers and wave five for fathers. Parenting were predictors, demonstrated good fit
Increases in mothers’ Consistent Parenting at wave three also (RMSEA = 0.02, CFI = 0.99, TFI = 0.99). Model one results
predicted decreases in child ADHD symptoms at wave four. demonstrated that no parenting dimension significantly pre-
Structural invariance testing indicated the cross-lag model did dicted change in child ADHD symptoms over time. Due to
not differ based on the gender of the child (Δχ2 = p > 0.05). this null finding, no invariance testing for child gender was

Table 3 Rates of ADHD diagnosis, significant differences and effect size (phi), for girls and boys across waves

Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4 Wave 5

Girls 0 (0.00%) 3 (0.31%) 3 (0.31%) 5 (0.52%) 9 (0.95%)


Boys 10** (1.02%) 17** (1.73%; ratio = 5.67:1) 34*** (3.46%; ratio = 11.34:1) 35*** (3.57%; ratio = 7:1) 45*** (4.59%; ratio = 5:1)
phi = −0.07 phi = −0.07 phi = −0.11 phi = −0.11 phi = −11

Ratio = boy:girl ratio


*p < 0.05
**p < 0.01
***p < 0.001
120 J Abnorm Child Psychol (2018) 46:113–125

Fig. 1 Results of the cross-lagged model. MCon Mothers consistent parenting, MWar Mothers warm parenting, MAng Mothers angry parenting, FCon
Fathers consistent parenting, FWar Fathers warm parenting, FAng Fathers angry parenting, ADHD ADHD scores as measured on SDQ, W Wave

conducted. Model two, where the intercept and slope of child Discussion
ADHD symptoms were the predictors of the slope of mothers’
and fathers’ Consistent, Angry and Warm Parenting were out- The aim of the current study was to explore the potentially
comes, also demonstrated good fit (RMSEA = 0.02, bidirectional prospective relationships between parenting and
CFI = 0.99, TFI = 0.99). Model two results indicated that child ADHD, and to examine if these relationships varied as a
increases in child ADHD symptoms over time significantly function of child gender. Partial support was found for
predicted increases in both mothers’ and fathers’ Angry Hypothesis 1, that predicted bi-directional prospective relation-
Parenting, as well as decreases in mothers’ Warm Parenting, ships between less-than-optimal parenting and child ADHD
over time. Child ADHD did not significantly predict any other symptoms, with significant prospective, bi-directional relation-
parenting dimensions. Structural invariance testing demon- ships found between mothers’ and fathers’ Angry Parenting
strated these relationships were not significantly different and child ADHD symptoms in our cross-lagged panel models,
based on the gender of the child (Δχ2 = p > 0.05). however these bi-directional relationships appeared confined
to early years (children aged 4- to 7-years) and were more
continuous for fathers than for mothers. Although Angry
Logistic Regression Parenting no longer predicted child ADHD symptoms from
wave three, higher child ADHD symptoms continued to pre-
The results of the logistic regression demonstrated that dict higher levels of Angry Parenting throughout all waves in a
mothers’ and fathers’ Angry Parenting at wave one sig- uni-directional manner. Higher child ADHD symptoms at
nificantly predicted a child ADHD diagnosis at wave wave 1 (children age 4- and 5-years) also appeared to lead to
three. No other parenting styles were significant predic- an overall increase in less-than-optimal parenting (i.e., higher
tors of a child ADHD diagnosis. Structural invariance anger, lower warmth and lower consistency) when children
testing demonstrated these relationships were not signif- were 6- and 7-years and 10- and 11-years of age, however
icantly different based on the gender of the child these patterns were not identical. Child ADHD symptoms also
(Δχ2 = p > 0.05). The full table of results can be predicted the overall increase in Angry Parenting across all
found in the online supplementary material. waves, as evidenced in LGCM two. Hypothesis 2, that the
J Abnorm Child Psychol (2018) 46:113–125 121

bi-directional prospective relationships between less- Angry Parenting shares a bi-directional relationship with child
than-optimal parenting and child ADHD symptoms ADHD symptoms in early years before converting to a uni-
would be stronger for sons than daughters, was not directional prospective relationship (child ADHD predicting
supported as the modelled relationships did not differ angry parenting) in middle childhood, is in line with previous
as a function of child gender. suggestions that parenting may become less influential on
Partial support was also found for Hypothesis 3 that pre- ADHD at later stages of development (Carlson et al. 1995;
dicted less-than-optimal parenting (i.e., higher scores on Johnston and Mash 2001). The continued influence of child
Angry Parenting, lower scores on Consistent Parenting, and ADHD symptoms on Angry Parenting may have flow-on ef-
lower scores on Warm Parenting) at wave one would be pre- fects in other domains. For example, parent anger and hostility
dictive of a child ADHD diagnosis at wave three. Only has been linked to children’s perceptions of parental detach-
mothers’ Angry Parenting and fathers’ Angry Parenting at ment (Domitrovski and Bierman 2001), the adoption of a
wave one were predictive of a child’s ADHD diagnosis at more authoritarian parenting approach (Coplan et al. 2002),
wave three. Hypothesis 4 was not supported as these predic- parental conflict (Krishnakumar and Buehler 2000) and the
tive relationships between parenting and children’s’ ADHD development of depression in adolescence (Kaitainen et al.
diagnosis did not differ between sons and daughters. 1999). Further, Angry Parenting behaviours are transmitted
Mothers and fathers in the current sample appear similar to generationally, influencing the level of hostility children will
existing literature in regards to their parenting of sons and later display towards their offspring (Scaramella and Conger
daughters. For example, the temporal stability of the 2003). Thus, ADHD treatments that lower ADHD symptoms
autoregressive paths for parenting dimensions in the cross- may assist in also lowering rates of Angry Parenting and the
lagged panel model demonstrate that parenting remains some- negative outcomes associated with angry parenting within,
what stable over time (Holden and Miller 1999; Landry et al. and across, generations.
2001). Further, as is commonly found in parenting literature Our results extend the findings of previous longitudinal
(e.g., Barnett and Scaramella 2013; Russell et al. 1998), non- studies regarding parenting and ADHD behaviours; for
referred sons and daughters in the current sample received example, the studies by Keown (2012) and Lifford et al.,
different levels of parenting dimensions, with sons receiving (2008), by considering (i) bi-directional relationships, and
higher levels of less-than-optimal parenting compared to girls (ii) invariance in these relationships across child genders.
(e.g., lower levels of warmth and higher levels of anger). However, some differences are notable. Keown found less-
than-optimal parenting (i.e., lower positive regard, sensitivity
Prospective Relationships between Parenting and Child and warmth) was predictive of higher child ADHD symptoms
ADHD across children 4- to 7-years of age. Within the same age range
in the current sample, we found a bi-directional relationship
The results of our cross-lagged panel model, LGCM two, and for Angry Parenting, and uni-directional influences of child
logistic regression add to the existing evidence regarding the ADHD symptoms predicting less-positive parenting (i e., low-
prospective relationships between parenting and child ADHD. er Warm and Consistent Parenting). Further, across a 12-
These results provide some support for claims (e.g., Johnston month period, Lifford et al. investigated the cross-lagged re-
and Mash 2001) that a bi-directional relationship exists be- lationships between parental rejection and ADHD symptoms
tween child behaviour and parenting. Our results, however, in 11- to-12 year old children. Lifford et al. found higher levels
suggest this bi-directional relationship is confined to earlier of paternal rejection predicted higher child ADHD symptoms,
in childhood and may be more consistent for fathers than while higher rates of child ADHD symptoms predicted higher
mothers, while a uni-directional relationship whereby child maternal rejection. This suggests different relationships exist
ADHD predicts certain parenting dimensions (Angry between parenting and child ADHD symptoms depend-
Parenting in the current sample), continues throughout child- ing on whether mothers or fathers are considered.
hood and into early adolescence. Therefore, our results also Comparison of the findings of waves four and five of
support arguments that child behaviour may actually be a the current study (where children were identical in age
stronger or more consistent predictor of parenting across time to the Lifford et al. study) supports their finding that
than the reverse relationship (Barkley 1988; Singh 2003). ADHD symptoms predict fathers’ Angry Parenting,
As discussed, the most consistent findings that arose from however extends this same finding to mothers.
the current analyses relates to the relationship between child Several factors may account for the differences between the
ADHD and mothers’ and fathers’ Angry Parenting. Our mea- present results and those of Lifford et al., (2008). First, with
sure of Angry Parenting related to parental feelings of anger both mothers and fathers included in a single, bi-directional
and annoyance towards the child, the level of praise/approval model in the current study, as opposed to separate models for
directed towards their child, and the difficulty parents experi- mothers and fathers in Lifford et al., less variance was avail-
enced in managing their child’s behaviours. Our findings that able in each outcome variable for significant prediction in our
122 J Abnorm Child Psychol (2018) 46:113–125

model (i.e., significant relationships were harder to find). emotional climate in which parenting occur; Darling
However, given the models in the current study were strin- and Steinberg 1993) and child ADHD more so than the
gently controlled with autoregressive paths and for SES, our relationship between parenting dimensions and child
findings were sensitive to predictive relationships. Second, ADHD. As parenting dimensions appear to be more in-
our models extended over a longer period (children aged fluenced by child behaviours than are parenting styles, it
4- to 13-years), compared to Lifford et al. (children aged may be that parenting styles are more influenced by child
from 11- to 13-years). As such, we were able to examine gender. For example, the authoritative and/or authoritari-
predictive relationships across a broader range of develop- an styles may hold significant differences in their rela-
mental periods. Further, by the ages of 11- to 13-years it is tionships to child ADHD based on child gender than do
possible the behaviours of the children in Lifford et al. more transient and reactive parenting dimensions.
were well established, with parenting having only an inci- It has also been suggested that child gender may be a
dental, rather than predictive, effects. stronger moderator when considering ADHD subtypes
rather than ADHD-combined (Bauermeister et al.
The Influence of Child Gender on the Prospective 2007). Thus, the current study may have failed to find
Relationships between Parenting Dimensions and ADHD significant child gender differences given our measure
of ADHD assessed the combined subtype (i.e., included
Gender differences were found in several aspects of the cur- questions regarding both the inattentive and hyperactive/
rent results. First, across all waves, boys had significantly impulsive). It may be fruitful for future research to ex-
higher ADHD symptoms than girls, and were significantly amine ADHD subtypes when exploring child gender
more likely to have a diagnosis of ADHD, consistent with differences in prospective relationships between parent-
previous findings (Erskine et al. 2013; Willcutt 2012). ing and child ADHD.
Gender differences were also found in relation to parenting,
with sons more likely to receive higher levels of angry parent- Limitations
ing than daughters from both mothers and fathers across all
waves. However, no gender differences were found in the The authors acknowledge limitations of the current study. It is
predictive relationships examined. Taken together with the possible the mother-report measurement of child ADHD
finding that sons had higher ADHD symptoms than daughters symptomology on the SDQ may have overestimated/
across all waves, this suggests boys and girls are not parented underestimated symptoms. Despite the established validity
differently as a function of their gender, but rather, differential and reliability of the SDQ, previous research has demonstrat-
parenting may occur as a function of child behaviours. This ed some inconsistency between SDQ ratings between infor-
idea requires further investigation and suggests that future mants (e.g., mother, father, teacher, self; Stokes et al. 2014).
research into the relationship between parenting and gender Thus, different relationships may have been found in our
should consider child behaviour as an influential associate. models had different ADHD informants been used. Further,
No differences between sons and daughters were ratings of parenting dimensions and child ADHD symptoms
found in the prospective relationships between parenting relied on self-report and informant-report, respectively. This
and child ADHD in the current study. Thus, although may have impacted the validity and reliability of ratings com-
gender differences existed in the mean levels of ADHD pared to a more objective measure of these variables, such as
symptoms and parenting dimensions, as well as in the behavioural observation. Identification of the clinical sample
rate of diagnosis, it appears ADHD in both boys and was also based on parent report, and although a further ques-
girls share the same relationships with mothers’ and tion regarding medication use was used in an attempt to verify
fathers’ Angry, Warm and Consistent Parenting. One clinical status, it is not possible to determine reliability of self-
possibility that may inform future research is that gen- reported diagnosis.
der differences may arise when comparing boys and There is also Type 1 error potential given the multi-
girls who receive similar mean levels of parenting and/ ple analyses and pathways in the current study.
or have similar levels of ADHD symptoms. However, confidence that true relationships were found
It may be that child gender more closely impacts the is increased by (i) the relationships being in the expect-
relationship between parenting dimensions, other than ed directions, and (ii) the fact significant results were
those investigated here, and child ADHD symptomology found despite the comprehensive autoregressive/control
(e.g., autonomy support, coercion, control, responsive- model. In order to examine both maternal and paternal
ness; Holden and Miller 1999; Skinner et al. 2005). parenting styles, non-nuclear families (e.g., single-parent
Further research is needed. It may also be that child families, same-sex parents) were excluded from the cur-
gender impacts the relationship between parenting styles rent analysis, thus precluding generalisation of our find-
(i.e., the more stable aspects of parenting and the ings to non-nuclear families. Unfortunately, limitations
J Abnorm Child Psychol (2018) 46:113–125 123

existed in the measurement of culture in the current References


data, and thus it was unable to be included in the anal-
ysis. However, it will be important for future studies to American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical
consider the role cultural plays in this area (at the least manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington: American
Psychiatric Publishing.
as a control variable), particularly in countries with high
Australian Institute of Family Studies. (2013). The longitudinal study of
cultural variability. Australian Chilren: 2011–12 annual report. Melbourne: Australian
Institute of Family Studies Retrieved from: https://www.dss.gov.
au/our-responsibilities/families-and-children/publications-
articles/growing-up-in-australia-the-longitudinal-study-of-
Conclusion australian-children-2011-12-annual-report.
Barbaresi, W. J., Katusic, S. K., Colligan, R. C., Weaver, A. L., &
The results of the current study suggest implications for Jacobsen, S. J. (2007). Long-term school outcomes for children with
the psychosocial interventions for child ADHD. In par- attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a population-based perspec-
tive. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 28, 265–
ticular, they suggest that treatment should occur within 273.
a systemic framework; at a minimum, at the child and Barkley, R. A. (1988). The effects of methylphenidate on the interactions
parent levels; should involve both parents in dual-family of preschool ADHD children with their mothers. Journal of the
households; and that similar interventions may be effec- American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 27, 336–341.
Barnett, M., & Scaramella, L. (2013). Mothers’ parenting and child sex
tive for both boys and girls. Further, in the early child-
differences in behaviour problem among African American pre-
hood years (between 4- to 7-years of age), addressing schoolers. Journal of Family Psychology, 27, 773–783.
levels of Angry Parenting may help to lessen ADHD Bauermeister, J. J., Shrout, P. E., Chávez, L., Rubio-Stipec, M., Ramírez,
symptoms in children. Ensuring behaviours associated R., Padilla, L., et al. (2007). ADHD and gender: are risks and se-
quela of ADHD the same for boys and girls? Journal of Child
with angry parenting are addressed in parent training
Psychology and Psychiatry, 48, 831–839.
programs for child ADHD, particularly given the possi- Biederman, J., Monuteaux, M. C., Mick, E., Spencer, T., Wilens, T. E.,
ble flow-on effects of angry parenting into other do- Silva, J. M., et al. (2006). Young adult outcome of attention deficit
mains of family functioning, may be beneficial. hyperactivity disorder: a controlled 10-year follow-up study.
Despite the null findings of the current study in terms Psychological Medicine, 36, 167–179.
Braza, P., Carreras, R., Muñoz, J. M., Braza, F., Azurmendi, A., Pascual-
of the influence of child gender on the relationship be- Sagastizábal, E., et al. (2015). Negative maternal and paternal par-
tween parenting and child ADHD, the strong association enting styles as predictors of children’s behavioral problems: mod-
in existing literature between child gender and ADHD, erating effects of the child’s sex. Journal of Child and Family
and child gender and parenting, suggests effects are Studies, 24, 847–856.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternate ways of assessing model
likely occurring between these constructs, though possi- fit. In K. Bollen & J. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation
bly not in the specific parenting dimensions investigated models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park: Sage.
in the current study. Continued investigations are needed Burke, J. D., Loeber, R., Lahey, B. B., & Rathouz, P. J. (2005).
into this notion in order to help understand the Developmental transitions among affective and behavioral disorders
in adolescent boys. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
aetiology and maintenance factors of child ADHD. and Allied Disciplines, 46, 1200–1210.
Carlson, E. A., Jacobvitz, D., & Sroufe, L. A. (1995). A developmental
Acknowledgements None. investigation of inattentiveness and hyperactivity. Child
Development, 66, 37–54.
Chang, L., Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., & McBride-Chang, C. (2003).
Compliance with Ethical Standards Harsh parenting in relation to child emotion regulation and aggres-
sion. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 598–606.
Funding There was no funding for this study. Chang, L. R., Chiu, Y. N., Wu, Y. Y., & Gau, S. S. F. (2013). Father’s
parenting and father–child relationship among children and adoles-
cents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Comprehensive
Conflict of Interest David H. Demmer declares he has no conflict of
interest. Francis Puccio declares he has no conflict of interest. Mark A. Psychiatry, 54, 128–140.
Stokes declares he has no conflict of interest. Jane A. McGillivray de- Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (2003). Testing mediational models with
clares she has no conflict of interest. Merrilyn Hooley declares she has no longitudinal data: Questions and tips in the use of structural equation
conflict of interest. modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 558–577.
Coplan, R. J., Hastings, P. D., Lagacé-Séguin, D. G., & Moulton, C. E.
(2002). Authoritative and authoritarian mothers’ parenting goals,
Ethical Approval All procedures performed in studies involving hu- attributions, and emotions across different childrearing contexts.
man participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Parenting, 2, 1–26.
institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Cussen, A., Sciberras, E., Ukoumunne, O. C., & Efron, D. (2012).
Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical Relationship between symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity
standards. disorder and family functioning: a community-based study.
European Journal of Pediatrics, 171, 271–280.
Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: an inte-
participants included in the study. grative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487–496.
124 J Abnorm Child Psychol (2018) 46:113–125

Davidov, M., & Grusec, J. E. (2006). Untangling the links of parental Keown, L. J., & Woodward, L. J. (2002). Early parent–child relations and
responsiveness to distress and warmth to child outcomes. Child family functioning of preschool boys with pervasive hyperactivity.
Development, 77, 44–58. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 541–553.
Domitrovski, C. E., & Bierman, K. L. (2001). Parenting practices and Kessler, C., Berglund, P., Demler, O., Jin, R., Merikangas, K., & Walters,
child social adjustment. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 47, 235–263. E. (2005). Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of
Ellis, B., & Nigg, J. (2009). Parenting practices and attention-deficit/hy- DSM-IV disorders in the national comorbidity survey replication.
peractivity disorder: new findings suggest partial specificity of ef- Archives of General Psychiatry, 62, 593–602.
fects. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Krishnakumar, A., & Buehler, C. (2000). Interparental conflict and par-
Psychiatry, 48, 146–154. enting behaviours: a meta-analysis. Family Relations, 49, 25–44.
Erskine, H., Ferrari, A., Nelson, P., Polanczyk, G., Flaxman, A., Vos, T., Lamb, M. E. (2004). The role of the father in child development (4th ed.).
et al. (2013). Research review: epidemiological modelling of atten- Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
tion-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and conduct disorder for the glob- Landry, S. H., Smith, K. E., Swank, P. R., Assel, M. A., & Vellet, S.
al burden of disease study 2010. Journal of Child Psychology and (2001). Does early responsive parenting have a special importance
Psychiatry, 54, 1263–1274. for children’s development or is consistency across time early child-
Fivush, R., Brotman, M., Buckner, J., & Goodman, S. (2000). Gender hood necessary? Developmental Psychology, 37, 387–403.
difference in parent-child emotion narratives. Sex Roles, 42, 233– Lifford, K. J., Harold, G. T., & Thapar, A. (2008). Parent-child relation-
253. ships and ADHD symptoms: a longitudinal analysis. Journal of
Friedson, M. (2016). Authoritarian parenting attitudes and social origin: Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 285–296.
the multigenerational relationship of socioeconomic position to Lloyd, K., & Devine, P. (2006). Parenting practices in northern England:
childrearing values. Child Abuse & Neglect, 51, 263–275. evidence from the northern England household panel survey. Child
Gollob, H. F., & Reichardt, C. S. (1987). Taking account of time lags in Care in Practice, 12, 365–376.
causal models. Child Development, 58, 80–92. MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power
Goodman, R. (1997). The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: a re- analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure
search note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 581– modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149.
586. Meinzer, M. C., Pettit, J. W., Waxmonsky, J. G., Gnagy, E., Molina, B. S.,
& Pelham, W. E. (2016). Does childhood attention-deficit/hyperac-
Goodman, R., Ford, T., Simmons, H., Gatward, R., & Meltzer, H. (2000).
tivity disorder (ADHD) predict levels of depressive symptoms dur-
Using the strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ) to screen
ing emerging adulthood? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
for child psychiatric disorders in a community sample. The British
44, 787–797.
Journal of Psychiatry, 177, 534–539.
National Health and Medical Research Council. (2012). Clinical practice
Graziano, P. A., McNamara, J. P., Geffken, G. R., & Reid, A. (2011).
points on the diagnosis, assessment and management of ADHD in
Severity of children’s ADHD symptoms and parenting stress: a mul-
children and adolescents. Retrieved from: https://www.nhmrc.gov.
tiple mediation model of self-regulation. Journal of Abnormal Child
au/guidelines-publications/mh26.
Psychology, 39, 1073–1083.
Patterson, G., & Sanson, A. (1999). The association between behavioural
Haack, L. M., Villodas, M. T., McBurnett, K., Hinshaw, S., & Pfiffner, L.
adjustment to temperament, parenting and family characteristics
J. (2016). Parenting mediates symptoms and impairment in children
among 5 year-old children. Social Development, 8, 293–309.
with ADHD-inattentive subtype. Journal of Clinical Child &
Pinderhughes, E. E., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., & Zelli, A.
Adolescent Psychology, 45, 155–166.
(2000). Discipline responses: influences of parents’ socioeconomic
Harold, G. T., Leve, L. D., Barrett, D., Elam, K., Neiderhiser, J. M., status, ethnicity, beliefs about parenting, stress, and cognitive-
Natsuaki, M. N., et al. (2013). Biological and rearing mother influ- emotional processes. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 380.
ences on child ADHD symptoms: revisiting the developmental in- Polanczyk, G. V., Willcutt, E. G., Salum, G. A., Kieling, C., & Rohde, L.
terface between nature and nurture. Journal of Child Psychology A. (2014). ADHD prevalence estimates across three decades: an
and Psychiatry, 54, 1038–1046. updated systematic review and meta-regression analysis.
Hawes, D. J., & Dadds, M. R. (2004). Australian data and psychometric International Journal of Epidemiology, 43, 434–442.
properties of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire. Australian Reid, R., Gonzalez, J. E., Nordness, P. D., Trout, A., & Epstein, M. H.
and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 38, 644–651. (2004). A meta-analysis of the academic status of students with
Holden, G. W., & Miller, P. C. (1999). Enduring and different: a meta- emotional/behavioral disturbance. Journal of Special Education,
analysis of the similarity on parents’ child rearing. Psychological 38, 130–143.
Bulletin, 125, 223–254. Rogers, M. A., Wiener, J., Marton, I., & Tannock, R. (2009). Parental
Hoza, B. (2007). Peer functioning in children with ADHD. Journal of involvement in children's learning: comparing parents of children
Pediatric Psychology, 32, 655–663. with and without attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
Johnston, C., & Mash, E. (2001). Families of children with attention- Journal of School Psychology, 47, 167–185.
deficit/hyperactivity disorder: review and recommendations for fu- Rothman, K. J., Lash, T. L., & Greenland, S. (Eds.). (2008). Modern
ture research. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 4, epidemiology. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
183–207. Russell, A., Aloa, V., Feder, T., Glover, A., Miller, H., & Palmer, G.
Kaitainen, S., Raeikkoenen, K., Keskivaara, P., & Keltikangas-Jaervinen, (1998). Sex-based differences in parenting styles in a sample with
L. (1999). Maternal child-rearing attitudes and role satisfaction and preschool children. American Journal of Psychology, 50, 89–99.
children’s temperament as antecedents of adolescent depressive ten- Russell, A. E., Ford, T., Williams, R., & Russell, G. (2015). The associ-
dencies: follow-up study of 6- to 15-year-olds. Journal of Youth and ation between socioeconomic disadvantage and attention deficit/
Adolescence, 28, 139–163. hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): a systematic review. Child
Keenan, K., & Shaw, D. (1997). Developmental and social influences on Psychiatry & Human Development, 47, 1–19.
young girls’ early problem behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 121, Sanders, M. R., Gooley, S., & Nicholson, J. (2000). Early intervention in
95–113. conduct problems in children. In R. Rosky, A. O’Hanlon, G. Matin,
Keown, L. (2012). Predictors of boys’ ADHD symptoms from early to & C. Davis (Eds.), Clinical approaches to early intervention in child
middle childhood: the role of father-child and mother-child interac- and adolescent mental health (Vol. 3). Bedford Park: Australian
tions. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 40, 569–581. Early Intervention Network for Mental Health in Young People.
J Abnorm Child Psychol (2018) 46:113–125 125

Scaramella, L. V., & Conger, R. D. (2003). Intergenerational continuity of Stone, L. L., Otten, R., Engels, R. C., Vermulst, A. A., & Janssens, J. M.
hostile parenting and its consequences: the moderating influence of (2010). Psychometric properties of the parent and teacher versions
children’s negative emotional reactivity. Social Development, 12, of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire for 4- to 12-year-olds:
420–439. A review. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 13, 254–
Selig, T. D., & Little, J. P. (2012). Autoregressive and cross-lagged panel 274.
analysis for longitudinal data. In B. Laursen, T. D. Little, & N. A. Tandon, M., Tillman, R., Spitznagel, E., & Luby, J. (2014). Parental
Card (Eds.), Handbook of developmental research methods. New warmth and risks of substance use in children with attention-defi-
York: The Guilded Press. cit/hyperactivity disorder. Addiction Research & Theory, 22, 239–
Singh, I. (2003). Boys will be boys: fathers’ perspectives on ADHD 250.
symptoms, diagnosis and drug treatment. Harvard Review of Tripp, G., Schaughency, E. A., Langlands, R., & Mouat, K. (2007).
Psychiatry, 11, 308–316. Family interactions in children with and without ADHD. Journal
Skinner, E., Johnson, S., & Snyder, T. (2005). Six dimensions of parent- of Child and Family Studies, 16, 385–400.
ing: amotivational model. Parenting: Science and Practice, 5, 175– Willcutt, R. (2012). The prevalence of DSM-IV attention-deficit/hyperac-
235. tivity disorder: a meta-analytic review. Neurotherapeutics, 9, 490–
Soloff, C., Lawrence, D., & Johnstone, R. (2005). LSAC technical paper 499.
no. 1: sample design. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Wright, A. W., Parent, J., Forehand, R., Edwards, M. C., Conners-
Studies. Burrow, N. A., & Long, N. (2013). The relation of parent and child
Statistics Canada. (2000). National longitudinal survey of children and gender to parental tolerance of child disruptive behaviors. Journal of
youth (NLSCY) cycle 3 survey instruments: parent questionnaire. Child and Family Studies, 22, 779–785.
Ottawa: Author.
Zubrick, S. R., Lucas, N., Westrupp, E. M., & Nicholson, J. M. (2014).
Steiger, J. H. (1989). Causal modelling: a supplementary module for
Parenting measures in the longitudinal study of Australian children:
SYSTAT and SYGRAPH. Evanston: SYSTAT.
construct validity and measurement quality, waves 1 to 4. Canberra:
Stokes, M., Mellor, D., Yeow, J., & Hapidzal, N. (2014). Do parents,
Department of Social Services.
teachers and children use the SDQ in a similar fashion? Quality
and Quantity, 48, 983–1000.

You might also like