JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON ADOLESCENCE, 18(1), 187–200

Copyright r 2008, Society for Research on Adolescence

The Continued Importance of Quality

Parent–Adolescent Relationships During
Late Adolescence
Elizabeth C. Hair, Kristin A. Moore, Sarah B. Garrett,
Thomson Ling, and Kevin Cleveland
Child Trends

The quality of adolescents’ relationships with residential parents has been

found to predict many different health and behavioral youth outcomes;
strong associations have also been found between these outcomes and fam-
ily processes, and between relationship quality and family processes. Data
from Rounds 1–5 of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, 1997 were
used to examine hypotheses about the influence of the parent–adolescent
relationship on subsequent adolescent mental well-being and delinquency,
as mediated by family processes. Using structural equation modeling, we
found that the influence of a positive residential parent–adolescent rela-
tionship on better mental well-being and fewer delinquency was entirely
mediated by family routines, parental monitoring, and parental support-
iveness, net of sociodemographic controls.

Although parents sometimes doubt their importance, a large body of ev-

idence indicates that parents play an important part in the development of
their adolescent children (Steinberg, 2001). For example, high-quality
parent–adolescent relationships predict lower levels of adolescent de-
pression (Aseltine, Gore, & Colten, 1998) and delinquent behaviors (Hair
et al., 2005). Positive parent–child relationships also protect against an-
tisocial behaviors for children in families experiencing marital conflict or
disruption (Conger, Ge, Elder, Lorenz, & Simons, 1994). Finally, positive
parent–child relationships protect adolescents from the negative effects of

Requests for reprints should be sent to Elizabeth C. Hair, Child Trends, 4301 Connecticut
Avenue, NW Suite 350, Washington, DC 20008. E-mail: ehair@childtrends.org
188 HAIR, MOORE, GARRETT, LING, AND CLEVELAND

authoritarian and permissive parenting styles (Moore, Guzman, Hair,

Lippman, & Garrett, 2004).
While research has shown strong correlations among many familial
and parenting practices, the pathways through which quality parent–
adolescent relationships may influence adolescent behaviors are not fully
understood. The parent–youth relationship is linked with parenting prac-
tices such as awareness or monitoring, supportiveness, strictness, and
family routines (Paschall, Ringwalt, & Flewelling, 2003; Smetana, Crean, &
Daddis, 2002). For example, parents with negative attitudes toward their
children are significantly less likely to engage in proper amounts of pa-
rental monitoring (Kim, Hetherington, & Reiss, 1999). These parental
practices, in turn, predict positive adolescent and youth outcomes. For
example, parental awareness predicts healthy preteen psychological ad-
justment (Brody, Murry, Kim, & Brown, 2002) and a lower incidence of
internalizing and externalizing problems (Smetana et al., 2002). Con-
versely, lack of parental monitoring predicts antisocial behaviors, sub-
stance use, and various delinquent behaviors (Griffin, Botvin, Scheier,
Diaz, & Miller, 2000; Kim et al., 1999). Similarly, parental support predicts
reduced levels of depression, psychological disorders, externalizing be-
haviors, and behavior problems among youth (Aseltine et al., 1998;
McLoyd, 1990). In addition, very low and very high levels of parental
strictness predict higher levels of problem behaviors (Walker-Barnes &
Mason, 2001) whereas moderate levels of strictness appear to have a pro-
tective influence (Mason, Cauce, Gonzales, & Hiraga, 1996). Finally, the
presence of family rituals promotes adolescents’ sense of identity, greater
general self-esteem in young adults, lower levels of conduct disorder, and
greater family cohesion and helps family members weather difficult times
and disruption (Fiese, 1992; Griffin et al., 2000; Steinberg, 2001).
In sum, both problem behaviors and mental health during childhood
and early adolescence are associated with parent–adolescent relation-
ships and with parenting practices. It is not well understood, however,
whether and how these parental factors influence outcomes for older
adolescents because most of the studies that address these issues are cross-
sectional and tend to focus on younger adolescents. Also, the longer-term
implications for development during the transition to adulthood have not
been fully explored. Finally, almost no research examines these processes
separately for mothers and fathers. We hypothesized that parenting
practices such as routine family activities and perceived parental aware-
ness, as well as continued support from the parent, would mediate the
relationship between high-quality parent–early adolescent relationships
and adolescent delinquency and mental well-being several years later.
Longitudinal data were examined for mothers and for fathers.
QUALITY PARENT–ADOLESCENT RELATIONSHIPS DURING LATE ADOLESCENCE 189

METHOD
Data

The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, 1997 cohort (NLSY97) is a

nationally representative sample of adolescents who were ages 12–16 in
1997 and contains questions on a variety of topics including school prog-
ress, labor force behavior, and the transition from school to work. Data are
collected annually from the adolescent respondents. Our study used
Round 1 data for the parent–adolescent relationship measure, Round 3
(1999) data for family process mediator variables (residential parent
awareness/monitoring, supportiveness, strictness, and family routine ac-
tivities), Round 4 (2000) data for mental health outcome variables, and
Round 5 (2001) data for the delinquency variables (Table 1).

Sample

Respondents were ages 12 (32%), 13 (34%), and 14 (34%) at the end of 1996.
We limited our sample to these ages because they were the subjects that
were asked the rich set of parenting measures. If households had more than
one adolescent respondent (n 5 656), a single respondent was randomly
selected. Our final analytic sample was 4,671 adolescents with residential
parents (defined as a biological, adoptive, or stepparent). In 1997, approx-
imately 50% of the respondents were White and 50% had a minority back-
ground (25% African American, 21% Hispanic, and 4% were of another
racial/ethnic background). Fifty-one percent of the sample was male. Par-
ticipants represented a range of socioeconomic statuses. Approximately
17% of family incomes were below 100% of the poverty threshold, 16% were
at 100–200% of the threshold, 26% at 200–400% of the threshold, and 16%
were at 400% of the threshold or higher. The majority of respondents lived
with two biological parents (51%). Over a third lived with a single biological
parent and nearly 1 in 20 lived in another family structure (e.g., foster care,
grandparents), and 13% lived with a biological parent and an unrelated
parent figure, such as a stepparent. Over a quarter of the adolescents lived
in a family where at least one parent had a college degree, over a third lived
in families where at least one parent had a HS degree and/or some college,
and nearly one in five live in families with no HS degree.

Measures

Using a self-administered, laptop computer-based questionnaire, eight

questions assessed the adolescent’s perception of the quality of the
 TABLE 1
190
Correlations Between Observed Sociodemographic Controls and Latent Parenting and Adolescent Outcomes From the Structural Equation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Observed sociodemographic controls

1 White 1.00 .25nnn .11nnn .00 .02 .32nnn .09nnn .08nn .04 .06 .03 .03 .01 .03
2 Family income .25nnn 1.00 .20nnn .01 .00 .32nnn .00 .11nn .03 .06n .07nn .01 .03 .02
3 2 Biological parents .11nnn .20nnn 1.00 .01 .03 .20nnn .01 .09nn .03 .01 .08nn .00 .01 .06nn
4 Age .00 .01 .01 1.00 .01 .02 .11nnn .11nnn .05n .18nnn .01 .06n .02 .02
5 Male .02 .00 .03 .01 1.00 .00 .11nnn .08nn .02 .04n .08nn .04 .24nnn .19nnn
6 Parents’ highest education .32nnn .32nnn .20nnn .02 .00 1.00 .06nnn .07nn .00 .12nnn .09nn .01 .03 .02
7 Behavior problems in 1997 .09nnn .00 .01 .11nnn .11nnn .06nnn 1.00 .22nnn .15nnn .14nnn .14nnn .01 .12nnn .12
Parenting (latent variables)
8 Parent–adolescent .05nn .04n .07nn .13nnn .05n .07nn .27nnn 1.00 .39nnn .31nnn .44nnn .01 .19nnn .08n
relationship
9 Parent awareness .06nn .03 .07nn .08nn .19nn .06n .18nnn .54nnn 1.00 .50nnn .56nnn .12nnn .21nnn .14nn
10 Routine family activites .06nn .05n .05nn .21nnn .06n .05n .15nnn .34nnn .47nnn 1.00 .34nnn .10nn .19nnn .15nn
11 Perceived parent .05n .10nn .10nnn .02 .05nn .12nnn .12nnn .43nnn .40nnn .23nnn 1.00 .05n .25nnn .15nn
supportiveness
12 Perceived parent strictness .02 .01 .02 .07nnn .01 .04n .04n .06n .13nnn .15nnn .03 1.00 .05n .05
Adolescent outcomes (latent variables)
HAIR, MOORE, GARRETT, LING, AND CLEVELAND

13 Mental well-being .01 .03 .01 .02 .24nnn .03 .12nnn .15nnn .17nnn .20nnn .19nnn .01 1.00 .03n
14 Delinquency .03 .02 .06nn .02 .19nnn .02 .12nnn .12nnn .19nnn .16nnn .11nnn .06nn .03n 1.00

Note. These data are from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997, consisting of young men and women who were aged 12–14 on
December 31, 1996.
Correlations presented above the diagonal are for the father parenting measures and correlations below the diagonal are for the mother parenting
measures.
Source. Original analyses by Child Trends of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
n
po.05; nnpo.01; nnnpo.001.
QUALITY PARENT–ADOLESCENT RELATIONSHIPS DURING LATE ADOLESCENCE 191

parent–adolescent relationship (a 5 .79 for the mother and a 5 .82 for the
father). The items included how much the adolescent (1) enjoys spending
time with parent; (2) wants to be like parent; (3) thinks highly of parent;
and how much the adolescent thinks that his/her mother (father) (4)
praises adolescent for doing well; (5) criticizes adolescent or adolescent’s
ideas; (6) helps adolescent with things important to him/her; (7) blames
adolescent for parent’s problems; and (8) cancels plans with adolescent for
good reason.
The perceived awareness/monitoring measure was composed of four
adolescent-report items (a 5 .82 for the mother and a 5 .85 for the father).
The items measured how much the adolescent’s parent knows about (1)
the adolescent’s friends; (2) the adolescent’s close friends’ parents; (3) who
the adolescent is with when not at home; and (4) the adolescent’s teachers
and school activities. Perceived parental supportiveness was assessed
with an item asking the adolescents how supportive their parent was.
Perceived parental strictness was assessed with a dichotomous item ask-
ing the adolescents how strict or permissive their parents were in making
them do what they are supposed to do. The routine family activities index
was composed of three adolescent-report items on the number of days a
week that the adolescent: typically ate dinner with his/her family, did a
family religious activity, or did something fun with the family.
The dependent variables, delinquency and mental well-being, were
based on eight and five items, respectively. The self-reported delinquency
index measured various illegal behaviors such as carrying a handgun,
selling drugs, damaging property, stealing (o$50 and 4$50), property
crimes, attacking someone, or being arrested. The self-reported mental
well-being scale (a 5 .82) measured the degree to which the respondent
had been happy and calm/peaceful, and not depressed, downhearted or
nervous in the past month.

Strategy of Analysis

Structural equation modeling was used to examine the hypothesis that the
relationship between adolescent outcomes in late adolescence (mental
well-being in 2000; delinquency in 2001) and the measure of perceived
quality parent–adolescent relationships in early adolescence (1997) is
mediated by measures of perceived parenting practices during middle
adolescence (1999). Models were run separately for the adolescents’
relationships with each of their parents.
In specifying the measurement component of the model, we used
the individual items described above for the constructs of the perceived
192 HAIR, MOORE, GARRETT, LING, AND CLEVELAND

parent–adolescent relationship, routine family activities, perceived

parental awareness, perceived supportiveness, perceived strictness, and
self-reported delinquency and mental well-being. It is important to
recognize that perceived supportiveness is akin to and connected with the
perceived parent–adolescent relationship scale, though the items mea-
suring each are different. In addition, the adolescent’s race/ethnicity, age,
and gender; parent reports of family income, family structure, and par-
ents’ highest educational level; and a parent-report measure of adolescent
behavior problems in 1997 were used as predictors of both the quality of
the parent–adolescent relationship in 1997 and the level of the outcome
variable in either 2000 or 2001.

RESULTS
Preliminary Analyses

Before investigating potential mediators, multivariate regressions (can be

found at: www.childtrends.org) examined the association between the
quality of the parent–adolescent relationship and adolescent outcomes.
Positive relationships between adolescents and their mother and/or
father figures significantly predicted lower levels of delinquency in 2001
(b 5 .08 for both) and higher levels of mental well-being in 2001 (b 5 .12
for mothers and .16 for fathers). All relationships at the bivariate level
were in the expected directions.

Parenting Behaviors as a Mediator of Effects on Early Adult

Delinquency and Mental Well-Being

Figure 1 provides the structural equation models for delinquency and

mental well-being. Standardized regression coefficients are shown on
the figure. To evaluate model fit, we used three conventional indices: The
Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI), and
the Delta2 Incremental Fit Index (IFI). For all three, values of .95 or greater
reflect an adequate fit of a specified model to the data (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
In addition, we report on the root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA). A value of o.05 indicates an adequately fitting model. The fit of
the initially specified model of the role of maternal parenting and early
adulthood delinquency, w2 (405, n 5 3,122) 5 1,165.76, p  .0001,
RMSEA 5 .03, CFI 5 .95, NNFI 5 .93, and IFI 5 .95, and mental well-
being, w2 (322, n 5 3,187) 5 1,194.07, p  .0001, RMSEA 5 .03, CFI 5 .95,
NNFI 5 .93, and IFI 5 .95, indicated that the models describe the relation-
QUALITY PARENT–ADOLESCENT RELATIONSHIPS DURING LATE ADOLESCENCE 193

Routine
Family
Activities

.32***/ .29*** −.13*

Monitoring/
* Awareness
** −.0
*** /.40 of Adolescent 3
.51
Quality Parent- −.01 Delinquent
Adolescent Behaviors
Relationship 2001
44*
**
7*
Supportiveness −. 0

.07*/ −.01 -.03

Strictness

Routine
Family
Activities

.32***/ .29*** .12*

Monitoring/
Awareness
***
.39 of Adolescent .10
***/ *
.52
Quality Parent- .04 Mental Well-
Adolescent Being
Relationship 2000
.44
***
Supportiveness .10*

.07*/−.01 −.05*

Strictness

Parent-Adolescent Parent-Adolescent
Youth Outcomes Early
Relationship in Early Relationship in Later
Adulthood (2000/2001)
Adolescence (1997) Adolescence (1999)

FIGURE 1 Structural equation model for the influence of high-quality parent–adolescent

relationships in early adolescence and parenting during middle adolescence on delinquent
behaviors and mental well-being in late adolescence. Where there was a statistically signifi-
cant difference, standardized b coefficients for both the mother and father are presented on
the figure as mother/father, otherwise only a single standardized coefficient is presented.
194 HAIR, MOORE, GARRETT, LING, AND CLEVELAND

ships adequately. Similarly, the fit for the models examining the role of
paternal parenting and early adulthood delinquency, w2 (416,
n 5 2,238) 5 1,148.96, p  .0001, RMSEA 5 .03, CFI 5 .95, NNFI 5 .94,
and IFI 5 .95, and mental well-being, w2 (337, n 5 2,276) 5 1,222.66,
p  .0001, RMSEA 5 .035, CFI 5 .95, NNFI 5 .94, and IFI 5 .95, indicated
that the models fit well.
We also used cross-group analyses in LISREL to examine whether the
gender of the parent statistically moderated the relationship between per-
ceived parent–adolescent relationship, perceived parenting, delinquency,
and mental well-being. For these models, we constrained the paths from
the parent–adolescent relationship to the parenting practices and the
paths from the parenting practices to the youth outcomes to be equal
across the mother and father models. w2 difference tests were used to
determine whether the paths were statistically different across the models.
We found that the gender of the parent was significantly related to the
magnitude of the effect of the parent–adolescent relationship on other par-
enting practices such as family routines, monitoring, and strictness; how-
ever, the gender of the parent did not affect the associations of the
perceived parenting practices with delinquency and mental well-being.
Regression coefficients that were statistically significant across the models
are presented on the figure as mother/father.
As expected, the models indicated that perceived high-quality parent–
adolescent relationships were strongly linked to participation in more
routine activities with the family, a higher level of perceived parental
awareness of the adolescent, and more adolescent-perceived parental
supportiveness. The associations between the mother–adolescent rela-
tionship and routine family activities and perceived awareness were
stronger than the same associations for the father–adolescent relationship.
In addition, the path from the parent–adolescent relationship to perceived
strictness was much smaller, and was only significant in the mother re-
lationship models, such that higher quality relationships with mothers
were associated with more perceived strictness.
After including the middle adolescence parenting mediators, the
direct paths from a quality parent–adolescent relationship in 1997 to
delinquency and mental well-being were completely mediated by 1999
perceived parenting variables. The findings suggested that high-quality
parent–adolescent relationships in 1997 influenced delinquent be-
haviors through the pathways of routine family activities and perceived
supportive relationships. Specifically, adolescents who participated
in more routine activities with their families and who perceived
supportive relationships with their parents engaged in fewer delinquent
behaviors.
QUALITY PARENT–ADOLESCENT RELATIONSHIPS DURING LATE ADOLESCENCE 195

For mental well-being, the findings suggested that high-quality parent–

adolescent relationships in 1997 functioned through the pathways of
perceived awareness, routine family activities, and perceived supportive
relationships. Specifically, adolescents who participated in more routine
activities with their families, who had parents the adolescent thought were
more knowledgeable about their lives, and who perceived supportive re-
lationships with their parents reported higher levels of mental well-being
in late adolescence. In contrast, adolescents with mothers they thought
were strict reported lower levels of mental well-being.

Sociodemographic Controls

We found that race/ethnicity did not predict quality parent–adolescent

relationship but having two biological parents did (see in Table 2). Being
male was a positive predictor of a perceived high quality father–adoles-
cent relationship and a negative predictor of a perceived high-quality
mother–adolescent relationship. For the father–adolescent relationship

TABLE 2
Standardized Path Coefficients From the Structural Equation Models for Sociodemographic
Controls

Quality
Parent–Adolescent Delinquent Mental Well-Being
Relationship (1997) Behaviors (2001) (2000)

Mother Father Mother Father Mother Father

White .00 .03 .041 .06n .02 .03

Family income .01 .09n .03 .03 .02 .01
2 Biological parents .07n .08n .05n .03 .03 .01
Parents’ highest .05n .02 .02 .05 .02 .06n
education
Age .10nn .09nn .06n .06n .06n .07n
Male .05n .07n .20nnn .20nn .24nnn .21nnn
Behavior problems .26nnn .20nn .12nn .12nn .05n .07n
in 1997

Note. These data are from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997, consisting of
young men and women who were aged 12–14 on December 31, 1996.
Source. Original analyses by Child Trends of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997,
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
n
po.05; nnpo.01; nnnpo.001.
196 HAIR, MOORE, GARRETT, LING, AND CLEVELAND

models only, a quality relationship was positively predicted by family

income. For the mother–adolescent relationships models, a quality rela-
tionship was positively predicted by parents’ highest level of education.
For both fathers and mothers, the strongest predictors of quality parent–
adolescent relationship were behavior problems in 1997 and age of child,
both of which were negative.
Delinquent behaviors were most strongly predicted by being male and
having behavior problems in 1997. Age negatively predicted delinquent
behaviors while being White was positively related. For models of
mother–adolescent relationships, having two biological parents negative-
ly predicted delinquent behaviors. Additionally, having behavior prob-
lems in 1997 negatively predicted mental well-being. Finally, for models of
father–adolescent relationships, parents’ highest education positively
predicted mental well-being. Age and being male, additionally, positively
predicted mental well-being.

Differences by Gender and Minority Status of the Adolescent

To examine the possibility that the associations between the perceived

parent–adolescent relationship, perceived parenting, delinquency, and
mental well-being might differ by the gender or minority status of the
adolescent, we conducted two sets of cross-group comparisons in LISREL.
No statistically significant differences were found across the models for
either gender or minority status of the adolescent.

DISCUSSION

These analyses supported five primary conclusions: (1) the quality of the
parent–adolescent relationship matters, even for adolescents beginning
the transition to adulthood; (2) the relationship between parents and their
adolescent children relates to adolescent development primarily through
its association with subsequent routine family activities, perceived pa-
rental awareness, and perceived parental supportiveness; (3) while co-
efficients were slightly weaker for fathers than for mothers (presumably
because more residential fathers are stepfathers than is the case for moth-
ers), both the father–adolescent and the mother–adolescent relationships
are important; (4) parents matter for both sons and daughters. Specifically,
while levels of delinquency and mental well-being may differ by gender,
the structural relationship between positive parenting, delinquency, and
mental well-being was consistent for both the male and female adoles-
cents; and (5) multiple aspects of perceived family processes matter, as
QUALITY PARENT–ADOLESCENT RELATIONSHIPS DURING LATE ADOLESCENCE 197

well, and should not be represented by a single variable. All four measures
of perceived parenting significantly predicted at least one of the depen-
dent variables. Also, the adolescent’s perception of their relationship with
their mother and father predicted three of the four family process vari-
ables (i.e., routine family activities, monitoring/awareness of adolescent,
supportiveness). Thus, these parenting practices were not only predicted
by earlier parenting, but appeared to represent distinct and important
aspects of parenting during adolescence.
Moreover, a set of critical sociodemographic and behavioral controls
was included in each of these models, so these associations occurred over
and above the effects of background factors. In fact, in the structural
models we allowed a parent-report measure of the adolescent’s behavior
problems before 1997 to predict to both the parent–adolescent relationship
and to older adolescents’ delinquency and mental health. In other words,
we controlled for one aspect of ‘‘child effects’’ on the quality of the parent–
adolescent relationship. Our findings suggested that quality relationships
with parents mattered for later adolescent development even when prior
behavioral problems were taken into account. It warrants noting that the
parents’ 1997 report of whether their child lies or cheats, included as a
control variable, strongly predicted both the parent–adolescent relation-
ship and both outcomes. Clearly, this was a salient marker for parents, as
they knew and could actually report in an interview that their child was
demonstrating early evidence of upcoming difficulties.
These findings have important implications for families, particularly
for parents who are frequently told by the media that their adolescent
children do not value them and that they should step back from their
parenting roles. These findings highlight instead the ongoing importance
of parenting during adolescence. Not only do the quality of the parent–
adolescent relationship and perceived supportiveness continue to be im-
portant, but the behavioral measure of routine family activities and the
measure of awareness about critical aspects of the adolescent’s life also
matter. At the same time, we recognize several limitations. First, some of
the parenting measures in the survey were quite brief. Longer measures
might capture a richer and more detailed picture of parenting during
adolescence. In addition, although the data were longitudinal, we did not
have information on family processes before age 12, and we have not yet
followed the adolescents into their 20s. For instance, it is likely that a
foundation was established earlier in childhood for positive parenting.
While the SEM models employed the variables in their temporal ordering,
we anticipate that, when future waves of the data become available, pos-
itive family routines, supportiveness, and awareness during adolescence
will in turn predict positive parent–young adult relationships. While our
198 HAIR, MOORE, GARRETT, LING, AND CLEVELAND

study adds to the research literature about the importance of parenting

during adolescence, future work should examine in more detail what
constitutes developmentally appropriate parenting during the transition
to adulthood.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Research for this project was made possible by the generous support of the
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
through the Family and Child Well-being Research Network, Grant 1 U01
HD37558-01.

REFERENCES

Aseltine, R. H., Gore, S., & Colten, M. E. (1998). The co-occurrence of depression and sub-
stance use in late adolescence. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 549–570.
Brody, G. H., Murry, V. M., Kim, S., & Brown, A. C. (2002). Longitudinal pathways to com-
petence and psychological adjustment among African American children living in rural
single-parent households. Child Development, 73, 1505–1516.
Conger, R. D., Ge, X., Elder, G. H., Lorenz, F. O., & Simons, R. L. (1994). Economic stress,
coercive family process, and developmental problems of adolescents. Child Development,
65, 541–561.
Fiese, B. H. (1992). Dimensions of family rituals across two generations: Relation to adolescent
identity. Family Process, 31, 151–162.
Griffin, K. W., Botvin, G. J., Scheier, L. M., Diaz, T., & Miller, N. L. (2000). Parenting practices as
predictors of substance use, delinquency, and aggression among urban minority youth:
Moderating effects of family structure and gender. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 14,
174–184.
Hair, E. C., Moore, K. A., Garrett, S. B., Kinukawa, A., Lippman, L., & Michelson, E. (2005).
The parent–adolescent relationship scale. In K. A. Moore & L. Lippman (Eds.), Concep-
tualizing and measuring indicators of positive development: What do children need to flourish?
(pp. 183–202). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Kim, J. E., Hetherington, E. M., & Reiss, D. (1999). Associations among family relationships,
antisocial peers, and adolescents’ externalizing behaviors: Gender and family type differ-
ences. Child Development, 70, 1209–1230.
Mason, C. A., Cauce, A. M., Gonzales, N., & Hiraga, Y. (1996). Neither too sweet nor too sour:
Problem peers, maternal control, and problem behavior in African American adolescents.
Child Development, 67, 2115–2130.
McLoyd, V. C. (1990). The impact of economic hardship in Black families and children:
Psychological distress, parenting, and socioemotional development. Child Development,
61, 311–346.
Moore, K. A., Guzman, L., Hair, E. C., Lippman, L., & Garrett, S. B. (2004). Parent–teen
relationship and interactions: Far more positive than not. Washington, DC: Child Trends.
QUALITY PARENT–ADOLESCENT RELATIONSHIPS DURING LATE ADOLESCENCE 199

Paschall, M. J., Ringwalt, C. L., & Flewelling, R. L. (2003). Effects of parenting, father absence,
and affiliation with delinquent peers on delinquent behavior among African-American
male adolescents. Adolescence, 38, 15–34.
Smetana, J. G., Crean, H. F., & Daddis, C. (2002). Family processes and problem behaviors in
middle-class African American adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 12, 275–304.
Steinberg, L. (2001). We know some things: Parent–adolescent relationships in retrospect and
prospect. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11, 1–19.
Walker-Barnes, C. J., & Mason, C. A. (2001). Ethnic differences in the effect of parenting on
gang involvement and gang delinquency: A longitudinal, hierarchical linear modeling
perspective. Child Development, 72, 1814–1831.
Copyright r 2008, Society for Research on Adolescence