Search
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Panel
Browse By Session Type
Browse By Topic Area
Search Tips
Register for SRCD21
Personal Schedule
Change Preferences / Time Zone
Sign In
X (Twitter)
Lower parental monitoring is associated with risky adolescent behavior and discrepancies among parent and adolescent reports of monitoring are associated with increased risk for adverse adolescent outcomes (Abar et al., 2015). This study examined the predictive utility of five methods for characterizing discrepancies in parent and adolescent reports of parental monitoring in predicting cannabis use among court-involved non-incarcerated adolescents.
Adolescents who screened positive for cannabis use at intake in Rhode Island Family Court were recruited for a randomized controlled trial of a computer-assisted, brief motivational interview plus parenting training intervention to reduce adolescent cannabis use. The study reported here utilized baseline data. Participants were 71 adolescents (Mage= 15.8; 73% male) and their parent or guardian (80% female). Adolescent cannabis use was measured by the proportion of days of cannabis use over the prior 60 days using the Timeline Followback (Sobel & Sobel, 1992). Parents and adolescents completed the Parental Monitoring Questionnaire and the Parental Solicitation, Parental Control, and Child Disclosure subscales of the Sources of Parental Monitoring Scale (Kerr & Stattin, 2000).
Following Abar et al. (2015), a series of multiple regressions were performed, predicting cannabis use for each monitoring-related construct (parental knowledge, parental control, parental solicitation, and child disclosure), controlling for age and sex. For each construct, five models reflecting different methods to measure parent/adolescent discrepancies were run. Model 1 included main effects of parent and adolescent reports of parental monitoring. For Models 2a and 2b, adolescent reports were subtracted from parent reports to create familial discrepancy scores, with higher scores indicating higher standardized parent reports than adolescent reports. Models were run separately with parent reports and the discrepancy score (Model 2a) and adolescent reports and the discrepancy score (Model 2b). In Model 3, parent and adolescent reports were standardized and multiplied to create a two-way interaction term. In Model 4, four groups were created based on mean splits: 1) low parent/low adolescent; 2) high parent/low adolescent; 3) low parent/high adolescent; and 4) high parent/high adolescent.
Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1. Parent reports of solicitation (t[140]=-3.84, p<.001) and parental control (t[140]=-3.42 p<.001) were significantly higher than adolescent reports. Parent and adolescent ratings of each monitoring construct were positively associated with each other with the exception of solicitation. Table 2 presents multiple regression results. Neither level of nor discrepancy in parental knowledge predicted cannabis use. For solicitation and child disclosure, only discrepancy was a significant predictor, with Model 3 accounting for the most variance in cannabis use. A greater discrepancy (larger interaction term) between parent reports and adolescent reports predicted increased cannabis use. For parental control, increased adolescents’ reports predicted decreased use across most models, and increased parent/adolescent discrepancies predicted increased use.
Adolescent reports of parental control best predicted adolescent cannabis use. For three of the four indices of monitoring, cannabis use was greater when parent report of monitoring diverged from their child’s report. Consequences for measuring and intervening on parental monitoring will be discussed.
Lauren Micalizzi, Brown University
Presenting Author
Aya Cheaito, University of Vermont
Non-Presenting Author
Lynn Hernandez, Brown University
Non-Presenting Author
Kathleen Kemp
Non-Presenting Author
Kristina Jackson, Brown University
Non-Presenting Author
Anthony Spirito, Brown University
Non-Presenting Author