Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science 5 (2016) 111–120

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jcbs

Empirical research

Parent's psychological flexibility: Associations with parenting and child

psychosocial well-being
Anne A. Brassell a, Elyse Rosenberg a, Justin Parent a,n, Jennifer N. Rough a,
Karen Fondacaro a, Martin Seehuus b
a
University of Vermont, United States
b
Middlebury College, United States

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Recent research has started to examine psychological flexibility both in normative samples and within
Received 13 October 2015 the family context. The current study aimed to extend this research by testing a model examining as-
Received in revised form sociations between general psychological flexibility, psychological flexibility specific to the parenting
17 February 2016
role, adaptive parenting practices, and child internalizing and externalizing problems across three de-
Accepted 5 March 2016
velopmental stages. Participants (N¼615; 55% female) were parents of children in young childhood (3–7
years; n ¼ 210), middle childhood (8–12 years; n ¼200), and adolescence (13–17 years; n ¼ 205). Parents
Keywords: reported on their general psychological flexibility, parenting-specific psychological flexibility, parenting
Psychological flexibility practices, and their child's or adolescent's internalizing and/or externalizing problems. Findings were
Parenting
consistent across child age groups and demonstrated that higher levels of parenting-specific psycholo-
Youth internalizing
gical flexibility were indirectly related to lower levels of youth internalizing and externalizing problems
Youth externalizing
through adaptive parenting practices. Implications for promotion of well-being within the family context
among normative samples are discussed.
& 2016 Association for Contextual Behavioral Science. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction examining individual psychological flexibility within the family

In the past several years, there has been a strong focus on in-
vestigating the relationship between psychological flexibility and
psychosocial outcomes. Psychological flexibility refers to the abil-
ity of an individual to accept aversive emotional experiences in the
moment while maintaining engagement in value-based behaviors
(Hayes, Luoma, Bond, Masuda, & Lillis, 2006). Not surprisingly,
greater psychological flexibility is related to a host of positive
outcomes, including higher quality of life, greater emotional
well-being, and more adaptive psychological functioning (Bond &
Bunce, 2003; Hayes et al., 2006). Alternatively, lower levels of
psychological flexibility are associated with greater emotional re-
activity (Sloan, 2004) and increased psychopathology (Tull, Gratz,
Salters, & Roemer, 2004).
To date, a large portion of research investigating the effects of
psychological flexibility has focused on individual outcomes
(Hayes et al., 2006). However, there is some evidence to suggest
that individual psychological flexibility further affects the broader
systems to which the individual belongs. Specifically, research
n
Correspondence to: University of Vermont, 2 Colchester Ave., Burlington, VT
05405, United States.
E-mail address: Justin.Parent@uvm.edu (J. Parent).
context has found a connection between a parent's psychological
flexibility and their child's psychological outcomes (e.g., Cheron,
Ehrenreich, & Pincus, 2009; Williams, Ciarrochi, & Heaven, 2012).
However, the mechanisms underlying the relation between par-
ental psychological flexibility and child outcomes remain unclear.
Identifying these mechanisms is imperative to informing inter-
vention efforts for effective parenting, with implications for un-
derstanding specific parenting factors predictive of healthy child
development. For example, psychological flexibility may promote
consistent positive parenting practice through parental acceptance
of aversive cognitive/affective experiences, so that parental re-
sponse in moments of stress may remain rooted in family par-
enting values and in the best interest of the child, rather than
thwarted by experiential avoidance. Therefore, the current study
tested a hypothesized model predicting the pathway between a
parent's psychological flexibility and their child's internalizing and
externalizing problems. More specifically, we examined whether
greater levels of general psychological flexibility led to greater
psychological flexibility within the parenting role, whether greater
parenting-specific psychological flexibility was further associated
with implementation of more adaptive parenting practices, and
finally whether greater parenting-specific psychological flexibility
was directly or indirectly associated with more adaptive child
psychological outcomes (see Fig. 1).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2016.03.001
2212-1447/& 2016 Association for Contextual Behavioral Science. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
112 A.A. Brassell et al. / Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science 5 (2016) 111–120
Fig. 1. Theoretical model delineating the indirect influence of parent psychological flexibility on parenting and youth psychosocial well-being.
In the first step of the model, we examined the relation be-
tween a parent's general psychological flexibility and their par-
enting-specific psychological flexibility. These domains of psy-
chological flexibility are considered related (Cheron et al., 2009),
yet distinct, as psychological flexibility is theorized to be a context-
dependent process (Gloster, Hummel, Lyudmirskaya, Hauke, &
Sonntag, 2012), which can vary by an individual's values within
the specific context (Hayes, Strosahl, & Wilson, 1999). Within the
parenting role, the meaning of psychological flexibility specifically
refers to a parent's ability to accept negative thoughts, emotions,
and impulses spurred by parenting stress. One prior study has
demonstrated greater general psychological flexibility to be re-
lated to greater psychological flexibility in parenting (Cheron et al.,
2009). As such, we hypothesized that the same positive relations
would hold in the current model.
In the next step of the model, we examined the relation be-
tween parenting psychological flexibility and adaptive parenting
practices. Although fewer studies have investigated this associa-
tion, preliminary research has provided evidence that increased
parenting psychological flexibility is related to greater use of po-
sitive parenting strategies (Burke & Moore, 2014). The presence of
this association is likely due to the idea that individuals who de-
monstrate greater psychological flexibility in the parenting role
are better able to maintain present moment and nonjudgmental
awareness of their internal experiences allowing them to engage
in behaviors (i.e., parenting practices) consistent with their fa-
milial and parenting values. For example, when confronted with
difficult parenting situations (e.g., child noncompliance), parents
with greater psychological flexibility are likely better able to tol-
erate their negative thoughts (e.g., “My child never listens to me”),
emotions (e.g., anger at child), and impulses (e.g., desire to yell).
This ability to hold acceptance of these experiences by nonjudg-
mental observation in the moment, when interacting with the
child, is thought to promote adaptive, value-driven parental
practices, including the use of positive parenting practices (Burke
& Moore, 2014; Moyer & Sandoz, 2015). Given this existing evi-
dence, we hypothesized that greater parenting psychological
flexibility would be related to more adaptive parenting practices in
the current study.
In the final stage of the model, we tested the extension of
psychological flexibility into parenting practices, and in turn, to
child outcomes, hypothesizing that adaptive parenting practices
would lead to more positive child outcomes, specifically focusing
on internalizing and externalizing behaviors. This model tested
whether adaptive parenting practices may be a mediating me-
chanism linking greater parenting-specific psychological flexibility
and more positive child outcomes. An extensive body of evidence
demonstrates that more positive parenting practices are related to
better child outcomes, including increased child empathy, positive
affect, and social outcomes (e.g., Davidov & Grusec, 2006). In
contrast, poorer parenting practices, such as harsh discipline, are
related to negative child outcomes, including aggressive behavior,
poor social behaviors (Weiss, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1992), and
anxiety (Rodriguez, 2003). Given these relations, we hypothesized
that adaptive parenting practices would serve as a mediator for
parenting psychological flexibility on child outcomes, whereby
greater adaptive parenting practices would be related to decreased
child internalizing and externalizing problems.
2. A developmental perspective
Existing psychological flexibility research has demonstrated the
importance of this construct to the parenting context for youth
across a variety of ages (e.g., Burke & Moore, 2014; Coyne,
McHugh, & Martinez, 2011; McCracken & Gauntlett-Gilbert, 2011;
Moyer & Sandoz, 2015; Whittingham, Sanders, McKinlay, & Boyd,
2014). However, many of the aforementioned studies examining
the effects on child outcomes have primarily drawn conclusions
based on samples with limited child age ranges, or wide age spans,
thus precluding comparison of possible stable versus variable ef-
fects across development stages. Alternatively, the current study
acknowledges the possibility of salient differences in these effects
across development stages. Therefore, the current study in-
corporated a developmental perspective by recruiting three sub-
samples (young childhood, middle childhood, and adolescence) in
order to more accurately explore associations between parent
psychological flexibility and child psychological outcomes within
and across developmental age ranges, whereby increasing the
utility of findings. By examining the proposed model among three
age groups, important differences between parent characteristics
and child psychological outcomes can be better understood, with
implications for promoting psychological flexibility and child well-
being by developmental cohort.
3. The current study
We tested a model predicting the indirect pathways between a
parent's general psychological flexibility to child outcomes
through parenting flexibility and/or adaptive parenting practices.
We hypothesized that greater general psychological flexibility
would lead to greater parenting psychological flexibility, which
would be associated with more adaptive parenting practices, and
in turn, decreased child behavior problems. Further, we hypothe-
sized that parent's general psychological flexibility would be in-
directly, rather than directly, associated with adaptive parenting
practices through parenting-specific psychological flexibility, and
 A.A. Brassell et al. / Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science 5 (2016) 111–120 113

with child problem behavior through parenting-specific psychol- Table 1

ogy flexibility and/or adaptive parenting practices. This model Sample demographic characteristics by study.

builds upon existing literature examining psychological flexibility

M (S.D.) or percentage
more broadly (e.g., Hayes et al., 2006), and extends the growing
body of research on psychological flexibility within parenting and Young Middle Adolescents n¼ 205
family contexts (e.g., Cheron et al., 2009; Moyer & Sandoz, 2015). n¼210 n¼200

Importantly, the current study also expands existing literature by Parent age 32.61 (7.44) 34.43 (6.92) 40.54 (18.34)
examining potential mechanisms underlying the associations be- Parent (% Mothers) 59.0% 51% 53.2%
tween psychological flexibility and child outcomes. Lastly, the Parent race
current study intends to improve understanding of these effects by White 78.4% 72.7% 80.5%
examining the hypothesized model across three developmental Black 12.0% 17.3% 10.2%
stages: young childhood, middle childhood, and adolescence. Latino/a 4.3% 3.5% 5.4%
Asian 5.3% 4.5% 2.4%
Other 0% 2.0% 1.5%
Parent marital status
4. Method
Single 17% 21.1% 21.9%
Married 60.2% 58.3% 58.2%
4.1. Overview Cohabitating 22.8% 20.6% 19.9%
Parent education
Parents were recruited online through Amazon's Mechanical Did not complete H.S. .5% 1.0% 1.5%
Turk (MTurk) as part of a larger study on the assessment of par- H.S. or GED 11.9% 14.0% 16.6%
enting. Parents responded to an advertisement for a study on Some college 35.2% 33.5% 28.8%
parenting which was listed separately for three age groups to College degree 36.2% 36.5% 41.5%
4 College degree 16.2% 15.0% 11.8%
ensure roughly equal sample sizes in the following child age Parent employment status
ranges: young childhood (3–7 years old), middle childhood (8–12
Full-time 56.2% 59.0% 63.9%
years old), and adolescence (13–17 years old). As MTurk is a re-
Half-time 20.0% 20.5% 23.4%
latively new recruitment method, we describe it in detail in a Unemployed 23.8% 20.5% 12.7%
subsequent section. Family income

Under $30,000 24.3% 27.0% 24.9%

4.2. Participants $30,000–$49,999 31.9% 15.5% 26.8%
$50,000–$69,999 20.4% 20.0% 24.4%
$70,000–$99,999 14.8% 15.5% 16.1%
Data from three samples (N ¼615) of parents with children
$100,000 or more 8.6% 12.0% 7.8%
between the ages of three and seventeen were included in the Family neighborhood
current study. Sample demographics by group (young, school, and
Urban 27.6% 23.5% 28.3%
adolescent age groups) are presented in Table 1.
Suburban 51.0% 54.0% 53.7%
Rural 21.4% 22.5% 18.0%
4.3. Mechanical turk Number of children 1.75 (.92) 1.77 (.89) 1.83 (.90)
Youth age 4.75 (1.34) 9.3 (1.22) 14.42 (1.38)
Child birth order
Mechanical Turk is currently the dominant crowdsourcing ap-
plication in the social sciences and is a popular method for re- First born 27.1% 32.0% 43.4%
Middle child 7.6% 10.0% 6.3%
cruiting large samples at relatively low cost (Shapiro, Chandler, &
Youngest child 25.7% 19.5% 20.5%
Mueller, 2013). On MTurk, workers browse Human Intelligence Only child 39.5% 38.5% 29.8%
Tasks (HITs) by title, keyword, reward, availability, and so on, and Youth gender (% Girls) 47.1% 45% 37.1%
complete HITs of interest. Participants are compensated by re-
questers upon successful completion of tasks. For an introduction
to using MTurk, see Mason and Suri (2012).
4.4. Procedure
There are several advantages for the use of crowdsourcing
methods in clinical and developmental research. First, relatively
All study procedures were approved by the Institutional Review
large samples sizes can be collected quickly (e.g., Buhrmester,
Board (IRB) at a northeastern university. Parents provided consent
Kwang, & Gosling, 2011) for a minimal cost (Horton & Chilton, online before beginning the survey in accordance with the ap-
2010). Second, participants who are diverse in a number of im- proved IRB procedures. Three different HITs were listed on MTurk
portant ways (e.g., race, SES, household composition) can be re- (one for each child age range), each of which offered $2.00 in
cruited from across the United States (e.g., Buhrmester et al., 2011; compensation. For families with multiple children in the target age
Casler, Bickel, & Hackett, 2013; Paolacci, Chandler, & Ipeirotis, range, one child was randomly selected and parents were in-
2010). Third, prior research has convincingly demonstrated that structed to complete the measures in reference to their parenting
data obtained via crowdsourcing methods are as reliable as those specific to this child and child's behavior. Participants were re-
obtained via more traditional data collection methods (e.g., cruited from MTurk under the restriction that they were U.S. re-
Buhrmester et al., 2011; Casler et al., 2013). Fourth, previous work sidents and had at least a 90% task approval rate for their previous
has also shown that participation and data quality are unaffected HITs. Ten instructional manipulation check items (Oppenheimer,
by compensation rate or task length (Buhrmester et al., 2011; Meyvis, & Davidenko, 2009) were placed throughout the online
Shapiro et al., 2013). Fifth, as demonstrated by the current study, survey. These questions asked participants to enter a specific re-
crowdsourcing methods afford an opportunity to recruit both sponse, such as “Please select the Almost Never response option,”
mothers and fathers, whereas fathers are long underrepresented that changed throughout the survey appearing in random order
in clinical research (Phares, 1992; Phares, Fields, Kamboukos, & within other survey items. Participants who had more than one
Lopez, 2005). incorrect response to the ten check items (n¼ 9) were not included
114 A.A. Brassell et al. / Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science 5 (2016) 111–120
in the study (i.e., their data were removed from the dataset).
4.5. Measures
4.5.1. Demographic information
Parents responded to demographic questions about themselves
(e.g., parental age, education), their families (e.g., household in-
come), and the target child's demographic information (e.g., gen-
der, age).
4.5.2. Parent psychological flexibility
Parents completed the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II
(AAQ-II; Bond et al., 2011) to assess parent's dispositional psy-
chological flexibility. In response to concerns regarding psycho-
metric properties of the original AAQ and potential overlap with
theoretically related constructs (e.g., mindfulness), Bond and col-
leagues (2011) developed the AAQ-II and found improved psy-
chometric properties. The incremental validity of the AAQ-II has
been investigated in three studies. McCracken and Zhao-O’Brien
(2010) found that the AAQ-II added significant variance to the
prediction of the quality of daily patient functioning above and
beyond acceptance of pain and general mindfulness. Karekla and
Panayiotou (2011) showed that the AAQ-II explained unique var-
iance in psychological distress and quality of life above and beyond
various coping styles (e.g., active coping, emotional support).
Fledderus and colleagues (2012) demonstrated that the AAQ-II
showed incremental validity beyond mindfulness in explaining
depression, anxiety, and positive mental health. Taken together,
these studies provide promising support for the psychometric
qualities of the AAQ-II. For the current study, parents were asked
to rate each statement on a scale from 1 (never true) to 7 (always
true). The seven negatively phrased items (e.g. “I’m afraid of my
feelings”, “Worries get in the way of my success”) were reverse-
coded before the items were summed to form the total score. The
AAQ-II total was further reverse-coded, so that higher scores re-
present higher levels of psychological flexibility. The alpha coef-
ficient averaged across all three current samples was excellent
(α ¼ .93).
4.5.3. Psychological flexibility in the parent role
The Parenting-Specific Psychological Flexibility (PSPF) scale
was created for the current study by adapting item content on the
AAQ-II so that all items on the AAQ-II were adapted to reference
parenting or one's role as a parent. Example item adaptations in-
clude: “I worry about not being able to control my worries and
feelings” adapted to “In my role as a parent, I worry about not
being able to control my worries and feelings”; “Emotions cause
problems in my life” to “Emotions cause problems in my parent-
ing”; “Worries get in the way of my success” to “Worries get in the
way of my success as a parent.” A confirmatory factor analysis was
conducted using data from participants across all child age groups.
Results demonstrated excellent fit and confirmed the hypothe-
sized one-factor model (χ2 (11, N ¼615) ¼11.09, p4 .15,
RMSEA ¼.00, 95% CI.00 .04, CFI¼1.0, SRMR ¼.01) allowing for
correlated residuals between three pairs on items (i.e., 1 and 4,
2 and 3, 6 and 7). All item loadings were significant and above
0.75. Reliability for the PSPF averaged across the three samples in
the current study was excellent (α ¼ .94). Two-week test–retest
reliability of the PFPF in the current sample was strong (r ¼.74,
p o.001). The PSPF was reverse-coded to reflect parenting-specific
psychological flexibility rather than inflexibility.
4.5.4. Adaptive parenting
The positive parenting, negative parenting, harsh discipline,
and lax discipline subscales of the Multidimensional Assessment
of Parenting Scale (MAPS; Parent & Forehand, 2015) were used for
the current study. MAPS items were selected and adapted from
several well-established parenting scales: The Alabama Parenting
Questionnaire (APQ; Frick, 1991), the Parenting Practices Ques-
tionnaire (PPQ; Block, 1965; Robinson, Mandleco, Olsen, & Hart,
1995), the Parenting Scale (PS; Arnold, O’Leary, Wolff, & Acker,
1993), the Management of Children’s Behavior Inventory (MCBS;
Perepletchikova & Kazdin, 2004), the parent report version of the
Children’s Report of Parenting Behavior Inventory (CRPBI; Schae-
fer, 1965; Schludermann, & Schludermann, 1988), the Parent Be-
havior Inventory (PBI; Lovejoy, Weis, O’Hare, & Rubin, 1999), the
Parenting Young Children scale (PARYC; Dishion, Weaver, Shaw,
Wilson, & Gardner, 2012), and the Parental Monitoring scale (PM;
Stattin & Kerr, 2000; Parent, McKee, & Forehand, 2016; Parent
et al., 2016).
The 11-item positive parenting subscale included items re-
presenting expressions of warmth and affection (e.g., “I express
affection by hugging, kissing, and holding my child”), use of po-
sitive reinforcement (e.g., “If I give my child a request and she/he
carries out the request, I praise her/him for listening and com-
plying”), using clear instructions [e.g., “I give reasons for my re-
quests (such as “We must leave in five minutes, so it’s time to
clean up”)”], and facilitating supportive parent-child communica-
tion (e.g., “I encourage my child to talk about her/his troubles”).
The 7-item negative parenting subscale included items re-
presenting reactive parenting (e.g., “I lose my temper when my
child does not do something I ask him/her to do”), intrusive par-
enting (e.g., “When I am upset or under stress, I am picky and on
my child's back”), coercive disciplinary tactics (e.g., “I yell or shout
when my child misbehaves”), ineffective discipline (e.g., “I use
threats as punishment with little or no justification”), and high
levels of expressed hostility (e.g., “I explode in anger toward my
child”).
The 6-item harsh discipline subscale includes items re-
presenting use of physical discipline (e.g., “I spank my child with
my hand when he/she has done something wrong”), and corporal
punishment (e.g., “When spanking my child, I have used other
things besides my hand”). The 9-item lax discipline subscale in-
cludes items representing inconsistent discipline (e.g., “If my child
whines or complains when I take away a privilege, I will give it
back”) and permissive parenting (e.g., “I am afraid that disciplining
my child for misbehavior will cause her/him to not like me”, “I am
the kind of parent who lets my child do whatever he/she wants”).
Averaged across the three samples, the reliability of the broadband
positive parenting (α ¼.90), broadband negative parenting
(α ¼.83), harsh discipline parenting (α ¼.90), and lax discipline
(α ¼.86) subscales were acceptable.
4.5.5. Youth internalizing and externalizing problems
The caregiver form of the 12-item Brief Problem Checklist (BPC;
Chorpita et al., 2010) was used in the current study to measure
youth internalizing and externalizing problems. The BPC was de-
veloped by applying item response theory and factor analysis to
the Youth Self-Report (YSR; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001) and the
Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001).
Chorpita and colleagues (2010) found that the internal consistency
and test–retest reliability of the BPC were excellent, and that factor
analyses yielded one internalizing and one externalizing factor.
Furthermore, validity tests showed large correlations with corre-
sponding scales of the CBCL and YSR as well as with diagnoses
obtained from a structured diagnostic interview (Chorpita et al.,
2010). The alpha coefficients for internalizing and externalizing
problems averaged across the three samples for the current study
were .80 and .84, respectively.
 A.A. Brassell et al. / Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science 5 (2016) 111–120 115

4.6. Data analytic plan
4.6.1. Evaluation of the hypothesized model
Structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted with Mplus
6.0 software (Muthen & Muthen, 2010) to test the hypothesized
structural model. To account for skewed data, maximum likelihood
estimation with robust standard errors (MLR) was used. The following
fit statistics were employed to evaluate model fit: Chi-square (χ2;
p4.05 excellent), Comparative Fit Index (CFI;4.90 acceptable,4.95
excellent), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA;o.08
acceptable,o.05 excellent) and the Standardized Root Mean Square
Residual (SRMR;o.08 acceptable,o.05 excellent) (Hu & Bentler,
1999). As missing data were less than 1% overall for all core variables,
the mechanism of missingness was treated as ignorable (i.e., missing
at random) and full information maximum likelihood estimation
techniques were used for inclusion of all available data.
A series of model comparisons were conducted: Model 1 is
depicted in Fig. 1; Model 2 added direct paths between parent
psychological flexibility and parent's psychological flexibility in
the parenting role; Model 3 added direct paths from parent psy-
chological flexibility to youth internalizing and externalizing pro-
blems; Model 4 added direct paths from parent's psychological
flexibility in the parenting role to youth internalizing and ex-
ternalizing problems. If improvement in model fit in a given nes-
ted model emerged for one sample it was used for the other
samples in order to increase comparability of model results across
developmental stages. The use of the MLR estimator required the
use of a scaled chi-square difference test (Satorra, 2000) for
making key comparisons among nested models. To test the sig-
nificance of the indirect effect, the Model Indirect command in
Mplus was utilized to calculate a standardized indirect effect
parameter and biased-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals.
Lastly, the ratio of the indirect effect to the total effect (ab/c;
Preacher & Kelley, 2011) was calculated for each significant in-
direct effect test.
4.6.2. MIMIC models
Although not included in the proposed conceptual model pre-
sented in Fig. 1, the effects of control variables (e.g., parent gender,
race/ethnicity) on the model were examined by running a multi-
ple-indicator/multiple-cause (MIMIC; Muthen, 1989) model in
which all major constructs of the final model were regressed on
each of the covariates separately. If paths in the structural model
remained significant with the inclusion of these covariates, it was
concluded that the control variables did not influence the re-
lationships among variables in the model.
5. Results
5.1. Preliminary analysis
All analyses were conducted separately by sample (i.e., young
childhood, middle childhood, and adolescence). Means, standard
deviations, ranges, and bivariate correlations for all study variables
are shown in Table 2. Prior to MIMIC analyses, three demographic
variables were dichotomized based on sample size in groups and
inspection of the means. Race was dichotomized to White (1) or
Person of Color (2), marital status was dichotomized to single
(1) or in a relationship (2), and parent education was dichotomized
to some college or less (1) or college degree or more (2).
5.2. Primary analyses
Model fit for the first model (see Fig. 1) ranged from good to
adequate for the young childhood, middle childhood, and

Table 2
Means and correlations among main study variables by developmental stage.

Young childhood M (SD) Range 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. AAQ-II 30.76 (8.7) 7–49 .81** .25**  .40**  .24**  .43**  .35**  .31**
2. PSPF 32.56 (8.8) 7–49 – .38**  .44**  .31**  .54**  .40**  .42**
3. Positive parenting 45.54 (7.6) 11–55 –  .27**  .32**  .35**  .27**  .10
4. Negative parenting 11.78 (3.8) 6–35 – .49** .40** .39** .50**
5. Harsh discipline 10.31 (4.2) 7–30 – .23** .23** .29**
6. Lax discipline 18.16 (5.9) 9–45 – .32** .30**
7. Youth internalizing 1.18 (1.8) 0–12 – .52**
8. Youth externalizing 1.96 (2.3) 0–12 –

Middle childhood 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. AAQ-II 32.52 (8.8) 7–49 .86** .40**  .53**  .45**  .50**  .45**  .29**
2. PSPF 33.89 (8.9) 7–49 – .45**  .56**  .46**  .54**  .45**  .30**
3. Positive Parenting 45.18 (6.9) 11–55 –  .34**  .22**  .42**  .14*  .20**
4. Negative Parenting 11.52 (3.8) 6–35 – .57** .54** .38** .31**
5. Harsh Discipline 7.43 (3.5) 7–30 – .33** .26** .35**
6. Lax Discipline 16.39 (5.6) 9–45 – .33** .23**
7. Youth Internalizing 1.24 (1.8) 0–12 – .45**
8. Youth Externalizing 1.63 (2.2) 0–12 –

Adolescence 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. AAQ-II 30.20 (9.7) 7–49 .86** .20**  .49**  .34**  .34**  .41**  .30**
2. PSPF 32.48 (8.6) 7–49 – .28**  .57**  .38**  .45**  .44**  .35**
3. Positive Parenting 43.44 (7.1) 11–55 –  .42**  .32**  .42**  .22**  .23**
4. Negative Parenting 12.22 (3.7) 6–35 – .51** .61** .41** .47**
5. Harsh Discipline 10.83 (4.8) 7–30 – .34** .22** .23**
6. Lax Discipline 17.42 (5.4) 9–45 – .26** .36**
7. Youth Internalizing 1.97 (2.3) 0–12 – .55**
8. Youth Externalizing 1.77 (2.4) 0–12 –

Note: N ¼ 615,**¼ p o .01,* ¼p o .05; PSPF ¼Parenting-Specific Psychological Flexibility scale.

116 A.A. Brassell et al. / Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science 5 (2016) 111–120

Table 3
Direct and indirect effects from the final structural model (Model 3) by study sample.

Standardized estimate [95% CI]

Young n¼ 210 Middle n¼ 200 Adolescents n ¼205

Adaptive parenting
Broadband positive parenting .46 [.32–.60] .51 [.37–.65] .49 [.37–.62]
Broadband negative parenting  .70 [  .82 to  .59]  .79 [  .89 to  .68]  .89 [  .95 to  .83]
Harsh discipline  .53 [  .68 to  .38]  .62 [  .74 to  .50]  .56 [  .68 to  .44]
Lax discipline  .62 [  .68 to  .38]  .68 [  .78 to  .57]  .69 [  .79 to  .58]
Direct effects

AAQ-II – PSPF .81 [.76–.87] .86 [.80–.92] .86 [.81–.90]

PSPF – adaptive parenting .72 [.59–.84] .76 [.67–.84] .65 [.54–.75]
Adaptive parenting – youth internalizing  .48 [  .67 to  .29]  .30 [  .51 to  .09]  .32 [  .48 to  .15]
Adaptive parenting – youth externalizing  .60 [  .77 to  .42]  .40 [  .63 to  .17]  .50 [  .65 to  .35]
AAQ-II – youth internalizing  .07 [  .25 to .10]  .25 [  .42 to  .07]  .25 [  .40 to  .09]
AAQ-II – youth externalizing .04 [  .12 to .20]  .02 [  .21 to .18]  .03 [  .18 to .12]
Internalizing WITH externalizing .32 [.14–.50] .33 [.20–.47] .43 [.23–.62]
Indirect effects

AAQ-II – Adaptive parenting .58 [.47–.70] .65 [.56–.75] .55 [.45–.65]

AAQ-II – Youth internalizing  .28 [  .40 to  .15]  .20 [  .33 to  .06]  .17 [  .27 to  .08]
AAQ-II – Youth externalizing  .35 [  .48 to  .22]  .26 [  .42 to  .10]  .27 [  .38 to  .17]

Note: 95% CI that do not contain zero are equivalent to po .05; PSPF ¼ Parenting  Specific Psychological Flexibility scale. The AAQ-II and PSPF were reverse coded from
originally measuring psychological inflexibility.

adolescence samples. Next, nested model comparisons were tested
using a series of scaled chi-square difference tests for Models 2–4.
The first nested model compared the above model with one that
added direct paths from parent psychological flexibility to adap-
tive parenting (Model 2). Model fit was not significantly improved
with the inclusion of this path (p 4.10 in all cases), which suggests
that the more parsimonious Model 1 was preferred. The next
nested model comparison evaluated Model 1 against a model that
added direct paths from parent psychological flexibility to youth
internalizing and externalizing problems (Model 3). Model fit was
significantly improved with the inclusion of these paths for the
middle childhood and adolescence samples (p o.05). Thus, Model
3 was the preferred model and was compared to Model 4, which
added direct paths from parent's psychological flexibility to youth
internalizing and externalizing problems. Model fit was not sig-
nificantly improved with the inclusion of these paths (p 4.10 in all
cases). Thus, Model 3 was adopted based on overall fit to the data
and theoretical interpretability. The standardized estimates of di-
rect and indirect effects are presented in Table 3 along with bias-
corrected bootstrap confidence intervals for all effects for each of
the three samples. Fig. 2 displays significant standardized esti-
mates for the young childhood, middle childhood, and adolescence
samples, respectively. Model fit for the final model was adequate
for the young childhood sample (χ2 (17, N ¼ 210) ¼56.61, p o.05,
RMSEA ¼.11, 95% CI.08  .14, CFI ¼.91, SRMR ¼.05), ranged from
adequate to good for the middle childhood sample (χ2 (17,
N ¼200) ¼37.3, p o.05, RMSEA ¼ .08, 95% CI.04–.11, CFI¼ .96,
SRMR¼ .04), and was excellent for the adolescence sample (χ2 (17,
N ¼205) ¼11.5, p4 .15, RMSEA ¼.00, 95% CI.00  .04, CFI¼1.0,
SRMR¼ .03).
MIMIC models tested the influence of parent age, parent gen-
der, parent race, parent education, family income, parent marital
status, number of children in the home, and youth gender on the
associations in Model 3 for each sample. All the major constructs
of Model 3 were regressed on each of the control variables sepa-
rately. For the eight MIMIC models, all paths in the model across
all three samples were largely unaffected by the inclusion of these
covariates; thus, it was concluded that the control variables did
not influence the original relationships among variables in the
model.
The significance and standardized estimates of pathways in the
model were generally consistent across all three samples. Direct
paths will be reviewed first. As predicted, higher levels of parent
psychological flexibility were associated with higher levels of
parent's psychological flexibility in the parenting role. Next, con-
sistent with hypotheses, higher levels of psychological flexibility in
the parenting role were related to higher levels of adaptive par-
enting. As hypothesized, higher levels of adaptive parenting were
related to lower levels of youth internalizing and externalizing
problems in all three samples. Contrary to hypotheses, direct ef-
fects emerged for the path between parent psychological flexibility
and youth internalizing problems for the middle childhood and
adolescence samples, whereby higher levels of parent psycholo-
gical flexibility were associated with lower levels of youth inter-
nalizing and externalizing problems. Consistent with hypotheses,
no direct effect emerged between parent psychological flexibility
and adaptive parenting or youth externalizing problems nor be-
tween psychological flexibility in the parenting role and either
youth internalizing or externalizing problems.
In regard to indirect effects, all findings were consistent across
the three samples and in support of hypotheses (see Table 3 for
indirect effects). Parent psychological flexibility was indirectly
related to adaptive parenting through psychological flexibility in
the parenting role. The ratio of the indirect effect to the total effect
for parent psychological flexibility on adaptive parenting for the
young, middle, and adolescent samples was 99%, 74%, and 92%,
respectively. Furthermore, parent psychological flexibility was in-
directly related to youth internalizing and externalizing problems
through adaptive parenting and by parent's psychological flex-
ibility in the parent role. The ratio of the indirect effect to the total
effect for parent psychological flexibility on youth internalizing for
the young, middle, and adolescent samples was 77%, 46%, and 40%,
respectively. Lastly, the ratio of the indirect effect to the total effect
for parent psychological flexibility on youth externalizing for the
young, middle, and adolescent samples was 90%, 96%, and 90%,
respectively.
6. Discussion
The purpose of the current study was to test a model of
the indirect pathways between a parent's general psychological
 A.A. Brassell et al. / Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science 5 (2016) 111–120 117

Fig. 2. Final structural model (Model 3) with standardized estimates for each sample. Note: only significant paths are depicted.

flexibility to youth outcomes through parenting-specific psycholo-
gical flexibility and adaptive parenting practices. Building upon
existing research examining psychological flexibility within the
parenting context, the current study incorporated a developmental
perspective by testing the hypothesized mechanistic model across
three distinct stages of childhood and adolescence. Consistent with
hypotheses, all direct pathways were significant: parents’ general
psychological flexibility was associated with greater parenting-
specific psychological flexibility, parenting-specific psychological
flexibility positively predicted adaptive parenting practices, and
adaptive parenting practices were associated with lower levels of
youth internalizing and externalizing problems. The current study
also aimed to examine the indirect effects of psychological flexibility
on youth psychosocial outcomes through parenting-specific psy-
chological flexibility and adaptive parenting practices. Again, con-
sistent with hypotheses, the findings indicate that parenting-spe-
cific psychological flexibility and adaptive parenting may represent
mechanisms through which parents' general psychological flex-
ibility influences youth internalizing and externalizing problems.
Further, these findings were consistent across youth developmental
stages. Although our finding of a direct effect between parent's own
psychological flexibility and youth internalizing problems was un-
expected, the findings are congruent with research on parent
mindfulness and youth internalizing problems (e.g., Parent et al.,
2010; Parent, McKee, Rough, & Forehand, 2016). Specifically, our
findings suggest that greater parent psychological flexibility is re-
lated to less internalizing difficulties for their child. As psychological
flexibility is related to more adaptive psychological functioning (e.g.,
less depression), it is of no surprise that children of parents with
higher psychological flexibility have better functioning. Of note, this
finding was only observed for the middle childhood and adolescent
samples likely due to the notion that these are the developmental
time periods were internalizing difficulties are more likely to
emerge.
118 A.A. Brassell et al. / Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science 5 (2016) 111–120
The consistency of the indirect pathway findings across de-
velopmental stages for children ranging in age from 3 to 17 pro-
vides substantial support for the proposed influences of the par-
ent's psychological flexibility on developmental outcomes across
childhood and adolescence. Thus, the current findings robustly
indicate that parents’ abilities to be aware of, and accept, their own
internal experiences and remain engaged in the present moment
predict greater adaptive parenting behaviors, and significantly
more beneficial psychosocial outcomes for youth across all ages. Of
note, however, we examined children in three different age groups
cross-sectionally; therefore it is not possible to infer or address
causality from the data. Nevertheless, these findings are among
the first to elucidate the universal relationship of parent psycho-
logical flexibility to youth problem behaviors across develop-
mental stages and to address the potential mechanisms that may
account for this relation.
In addition to these novel findings, the results of the current
study supports and builds upon existing research examining psy-
chological flexibility within the family context. Prior research has
concluded that psychological flexibility extends beyond the in-
dividual context into differing contextual domains (e.g., Cheron
et al., 2009; Moyer & Sandoz, 2015). Our results were consistent
with previous findings indicating that general psychological flex-
ibility is positively related to psychological flexibility specifically
within the context of the parenting role (Cheron et al., 2009).
Notably, in our sample general psychological flexibility and par-
enting-specific psychological flexibility were highly related;
however, the constructs were distinct, as they did not predict the
same outcomes. Specifically, only parenting-specific psychological
flexibility was predictive of adaptive parenting practices across
developmental subsamples. The high relation of general and par-
enting-specific psychological flexibility is likely due to the possi-
bility that parents who have greater general psychological flex-
ibility are better able/prone to tolerate negative thoughts or
emotions in parenting as well. Given the expected generalizability
of flexibility across context, it may be beneficial to promote both
general and parenting-specific flexibility in parents of youth.
Our results are also consistent with prior work demonstrating
that parenting-specific psychological flexibility is associated with
the use of more adaptive parenting practices (e.g., Burke & Moore,
2014; Moyer & Sandoz, 2015), and that these parenting practices
are related to youth internalizing and externalizing problems (e.g.,
Davidov & Grusec, 2006; Rodriguez, 2003; Weiss et al., 1992). Al-
though the individual links in our model have been demonstrated
in previous research, the current study is the first to test the effects
in one comprehensive model, and thereby to examine mediators
of the association between parental general psychology flexibility
and youth psychosocial outcomes.
The current study has a variety of implications for promoting
well-being and preventing psychological distress within the family
context. These findings indicate that programs designed for chil-
dren and adolescents may benefit from including skills for parents
aimed at fostering their own psychological flexibility and their
psychological flexibility in the parenting role. In addition, in-
corporating psychological flexibility with behavioral parent train-
ing may be beneficial as parents would gain knowledge regarding
adaptive parenting practices and learn ways of accepting and tol-
erating challenging internal experiences in order to implement
these skills, thus acting consistently with their parenting values.
Notably, our sample consisted of families from the general popu-
lation. Thus, findings support the benefits of prevention strategies
for improving developmental outcomes in the general population.
Such prevention efforts may indirectly increase the use of adaptive
parenting practices and potentially lead to fewer internalizing and
externalizing problems for children across development. Im-
portantly, the consistency of results across developmental stages
tentatively suggests that these efforts may be equally influential
for parents of children in young childhood, middle childhood, and
adolescence.
There are several limitations of the current study. First, as no-
ted, the data are cross-sectional, raising questions about the
causality of effects and temporal precedence that are better ad-
dressed by longitudinal designs. Caution should be used when
interpreting influential pathways in the current model, and future
research examining similar questions should utilize longitudinal
designs in order to examine the hypothesized associations over
time. Second, all variables in the model were from a single re-
porter. As this is a potential issue of shared method variance, the
use of multiple reporters on constructs of interest could
strengthen confidence of findings in future work. Third, our
measure of child psychosocial adjustment was brief. Although the
Brief Problem Checklist is highly correlated with more compre-
hensive measures (i.e., CBCL; Chorpita et al., 2010), different re-
sults may have emerged if a more comprehensive measure or
multiple measurement techniques were utilized. For example,
future studies could benefit from the inclusion of more objective
measurement by using observational data for externalizing beha-
vior. Finally, the measure used to assess parenting-specific psy-
chological flexibility (PSPF) is a new measure adapted from the
AAQ-II. Associations with general psychological flexibility, adap-
tive parenting practices, and youth outcomes lend initial support
for the validity of the AAQ-II adaptation for the parenting context
but future research should continue to rigorously test the relia-
bility and validity of this measure (see online Appendix for the full
measure).
The current study also had several significant methodological
strengths that should be noted. First, we applied a devel-
opmentally-informed approach with targeted recruitment of three
separate samples of parents with children in three distinct de-
velopmental stages. Second, the sample was comprised of greater
than 45% fathers, a group which is most often underrepresented in
clinical child and adolescent research (Phares, 1992; Phares et al.,
2005). The balance of mothers and fathers greatly enhances the
confidence in our findings regarding potential mechanisms of in-
terest and extends their generalizability to broader family contexts
across child developmental stages. Third, using a multiple-in-
dicator/multiple-cause (MIMIC; Muthen, 1989) model, parent age,
marital status, parent education level, and parent gender were
statistically controlled and did not significantly alter the relations
among the variables in the final structural model. Fourth, this
study incorporated a developmental perspective into the growing
body of research examining the role of psychological flexibility
among normative samples, with important implications for child
development. Lastly, although many of the hypothesized associa-
tions had been documented in prior piecemeal empirical in-
vestigations, this was the first to test the effects within one com-
prehensive model and to examine mediating mechanisms of the
association between psychological flexibility among parents and
youth psychosocial outcomes. Further, the current study is the first
to demonstrate that adaptive parenting practices are an important
mediating process through which parenting-specific psychological
flexibility influences youth internalizing and externalizing pro-
blems across three distinct youth developmental stages. This
finding highlights the importance of translating parent-specific
psychological flexibility into adaptive parenting practices for the
benefit of child development. Future research will benefit from
evaluating the validity of this model within the context of atypical
childhood populations, such as children with Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder, as such a model could greatly inform
treatment efforts for various populations.
 A.A. Brassell et al. / Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science 5 (2016) 111–120
7. Conclusions
Overall, results of the current study demonstrate that within
the family context, parent psychological flexibility may have an
important role in positively influencing children's psychological
well-being. Specifically, findings demonstrate that psychological
flexibility specifically within the parenting role is positively related
to adaptive parenting practices, which are inversely related to
youth internalizing and externalizing behaviors. The current re-
sults extend the existing literature examining psychological flex-
ibility within the parenting context by demonstrating consistent
results across three distinct developmental stages of childhood
and adolescence. Further, findings suggest that adaptive parenting
practices represent an important mechanistic behavioral process
through which parenting-specific psychological flexibility influ-
ences youth psychosocial outcomes. Although cross-sectional, the
data suggest that fostering psychological flexibility in the parent-
ing role among normative samples may have important implica-
tions for adaptive family functioning and positive child develop-
ment. Thus, parents may benefit from Acceptance and Commit-
ment Therapy-based preventative interventions that foster pre-
sent moment consciousness and value driven behavior allowing
them to better maintain nonjudgmental awareness of their own
experiences so that they are better able to act within accordance to
their parenting values. By utilizing such techniques, parents will
be better able to engage in adaptive and non-reactive parenting
practices (i.e., empathetic listening) that lead to better outcomes
for the child and healthier family dynamics.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the Child and Adolescent Psy-
chology Training and Research, Inc. (CAPTR). The third author is
supported by NICHD F31HD082858. The content is solely the re-
sponsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the
official views of the National Institutes of Health.
References
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. (2001). ASEBA school-age forms and profiles. Bur-
lington: ASEBA.
Arnold, D. S., O’Leary, S. G., Wolff, L. S., & Acker, M. M. (1993). The parenting scale: a
measure of dysfunctional parenting in discipline situations. Psychological As-
sessment, 5(2), 137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.5.2.137.
Block, J. H. (1965). The child-rearing practices report. Berkeley: University of
California.
Bond, F. W., & Bunce, D. (2003). The role of acceptance and job control in mental
health, job satisfaction, and work performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88
(6), 1057–1067. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.1057.
Bond, F. W., Hayes, S. C., Baer, R. A., Carpenter, K. M., Guenole, N., Orcutt, H. K., &
Zettle, R. D. (2011). Preliminary psychometric properties of the acceptance and
action questionnaire—II: A revised measure of psychological inflexibility and
experiential avoidance. Behavior Therapy, 42(4), 676–688. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.beth.2011.03.007.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s mechanical turk: A
new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 6(1), 3–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980.
Burke, K., & Moore, S. (2014). Development of the parental psychological flexibility
questionnaire. Child Psychiatry Human Development, 46(4), 1–10. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s10578-014-0495-x.
Casler, K., Bickel, L., & Hackett, E. (2013). Separate but equal? A comparison of
participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-
face behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2156–2160. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.009.
Cheron, D. M., Ehrenreich, J. T., & Pincus, D. B. (2009). Assessment of parental ex-
periential avoidance in a clinical sample of children with anxiety disorders.
Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 40(3), 383–403. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s10578-009-0135-z.
Chorpita, B. F., Reise, S., Weisz, J. R., Grubbs, K., Becker, K. D., & Krull, J. L. (2010).
Evaluation of the brief problem checklist: Child and caregiver interviews to
measure clinical progress. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78(4),
119
526–536. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019602.
Coyne, L. W., McHugh, L., & Martinez, E. R. (2011). Acceptance and commitment
therapy (ACT): Advances and applications with children, adolescents, and fa-
milies. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 20(2), 379–399.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chc.2011.01.010.
Davidov, M., & Grusec, J. E. (2006). Untangling the links of parental responsiveness
to distress and warmth to child outcomes. Child Development, 77(1), 44–58.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00855.x.
Fledderus, M., Oude Voshaar, M. A. H., ten Klooster, P. M., & Bohlmeijer, E. T. (2012).
Further evaluation of the psychometric properties of the acceptance and action
Questionnaire–II. Psychological Assessment, 24(4), 925–936. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/a0028200.
Frick, P. J. (1991) . The Alabama parenting questionnaire. Unpublished Rating Scale,
University of Alabama.
Gloster, A. T., Hummel, K. V., Lyudmirskaya, I., Hauke, C., & Sonntag, R. F. (2012).
Aspects of exposure therapy in acceptance and commitment therapy. Exposure
Therapy (pp. 127–152)New York: Springer.
Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (1999). Acceptance and commitment
therapy: an experiential approach to behavior change. New York: Guilford Press.
Hayes, S. C., Luoma, J. B., Bond, F. W., Masuda, A., & Lillis, J. (2006). Acceptance and
commitment therapy: Model, processes and outcomes. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 44(1), 1–25.
Horton, J. J. & Chilton, L. B. (2010). The labor economics of paid crowdsourcing. In
Proceedings of the 11th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
10705519909540118.
Karekla, M., & Panayiotou, G. (2011). Coping and experiential avoidance: Unique or
overlapping constructs? Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psy-
chiatry, 42(2), 163–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2010.10.002.
Lovejoy, M. C., Weis, R., O’Hare, E., & Rubin, E. C. (1999). Development and initial
validation of the parent behavior inventory. Psychological Assessment, 11(4),
534. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.11.4.534.
Mason, W., & Suri, S. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon's me-
chanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 44(1), 1–23. http://dx.doi.org/
10.3758/s13428-011-0124-6.
McCracken, L. M., & Zhao-O’Brien, J. (2010). General psychological acceptance and
chronic pain: there is more to accept than the pain itself. European Journal of
Pain, 14(2), 170–175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpain.2009.03.004.
McCracken, L. M., & Gauntlett-Gilbert, J. (2011). Role of psychological flexibility in
parents of adolescents with chronic pain: Development of a measure and
preliminary correlation analyses. PAIN, 152(4), 780–785. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.pain.2010.12.001.
McEachern, A. D., Dishion, T. J., Weaver, C. M., Shaw, D. S., Wilson, M. N., & Gardner,
F. (2012). Parenting young children (PARYC): Validation of a Self-Report Par-
enting Measure. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 21(3), 498–511. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1007/s10826-011-9503-y.
Moyer, D. N., & Sandoz, E. K. (2015). The role of psychological flexibility in the
relationship between parent and adolescent distress. Journal of Child and Family
Studies, 24(5), 1406–1418. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10826-014-9947-y.
Muthen, B. O. (1989). Latent variable modeling in heterogeneous populations.
Psychometrika, 54(4), 557–585.
Muthen, B. O., & Muthen, L. K. (2010). Mplus user's guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA:
Muthen & Muthen.
Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation
checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experi-
mental Social Psychology, 45(4), 867–872. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
jesp.2009.03.009.
Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon
mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(5), 411–419.
Parent, J., McKee, L. G., & Forehand, R. (2016). Seesaw discipline: The interactive
effect of harsh and lax discipline on youth psychological adjustment. Journal of
Child and Family Studies, 25(2), 396–406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10826-015-0244-1.
Parent, J., McKee, L. G., Rough, J. N., & Forehand, R. (2016). The association of parent
mindfulness with parenting and youth psychopathology across three devel-
opmental stages. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 1(44), 191–202. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10802-015-9978-x.
Parent, J., Garai, E., Forehand, R., Roland, E., Champion, J. E., Haker, K., Hardcastle, E.
J., & Compass, B. E. (2010). Parent mindfulness and child outcome: The roles of
parent depressive symptoms and parenting. Mindfulness, 1, 254–264. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1007/s12671-010-0034-1.
Parent, J., McKee, L. G., Anton, M., Gonzalez, M., Jones, D. J., & Forehand, R. (2016).
Mindfulness in parenting and coparenting. Mindfulness, 7, 504–513. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1007/s12671-015-0485-5.
Parent, J. & Forehand, R. (2015). Multidimensional Assessment of Parenting Scale
(MAPS) Unpublished Rating Scale, University of Vermont.
Perepletchikova, F., & Kazdin, A. E. (2004). Assessment of parenting practices re-
lated to conduct problems: Development and validation of the management of
children's behavior scale. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 13(4), 385–403.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:JCFS.0000044723.45902.70.
Phares, V. (1992). Where’s poppa? The relative lack of attention to the role of fa-
thers in child and adolescent psychopathology. American Psychologist, 47(5),
656. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.47.5.656.
Phares, V., Fields, S., Kamboukos, D., & Lopez, E. (2005). Still looking for Poppa. American
120 A.A. Brassell et al. / Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science 5 (2016) 111–120
Psychologist, 60(7), 735–736. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.7.735.
Preacher, K. J., & Kelley, K. (2011). Effect size measures for mediation models:
Quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychological Meth-
ods, 16(2), 93–115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022658.
Robinson, C. C., Mandleco, B., Olsen, S. F., & Hart, C. H. (1995). Authoritative, au-
thoritarian, and permissive parenting practices: Development of a new mea-
sure. Psychological Reports, 77(3), 819–830. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/
pr0.1995.77.3.819.
Rodriguez, C. M. (2003). Parental discipline and abuse potential affects on child
depression, anxiety, and attributions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65(4),
809–817. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00809.x.
Satorra, A. (2000). Scaled and adjusted restricted tests in multi-sample analysis of
moment structures In: R. D.H. Heijmans, D. S.G. Pollock, & A. Satorra (Eds.),
Innovations in Multivariate Statistical Analysis: A fest-schrift for Heinz Neudecker
(pp. 233–247). London: Kluwer Academic.
Schaefer, E. S. (1965). Children's reports of parental behavior: an inventory. Child
Development, 36, 413–424. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1126465.
Schludermann, S., & Schludermann, E. (1988). Replicability of factors in children's
report of parent behavior (CRPBI). Journal of Psychology, 76, 239–249. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1970.9916845.
Shapiro, D. N., Chandler, J., & Mueller, P. A. (2013). Using mechanical Turk to study
clinical populations. Clinical Psychological Science, 1(2), 213–220. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/2167702612469015.
Sloan, D. M. (2004). Emotion regulation in action: Emotional reactivity in experi-
ential avoidance. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42(11), 1257–1270.
Stattin, H., & Kerr, M. (2000). Parental monitoring: a reinterpretation. Child Devel-
opment, 71(4), 1072–1085. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00210.
Tull, M. T., Gratz, K. L., Salters, K., & Roemer, L. (2004). The role of experiential
avoidance in posttraumatic stress symptoms and symptoms of depression,
anxiety, and somatization. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 192(11),
754–761.
Weiss, B., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1992). Some consequences of early
harsh discipline: Child aggression and a maladaptive social information pro-
cessing style. Child Development, 63(6), 1321–1335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-8624.1992.tb01697.x.
Whittingham, K., Sanders, M., McKinlay, L., & Boyd, R. N. (2014). Interventions to
reduce behavioral problems in children with cerebral palsy: An RCT. Pediatrics,
133(5), e1249–e1257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-3620.
Williams, K. E., Ciarrochi, J., & Heaven, P. C. (2012). Inflexible parents, inflexible kids:
A 6-year longitudinal study of parenting style and the development of psy-
chological flexibility in adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41(8),
1053–1066. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9744-.