Primary Health Care Research & Development 2012; 13: 364–372

doi:10.1017/S1463423612000060 RESEARCH

Parenting self-efficacy, parenting stress and

child behaviour before and after a parenting
programme
Linda Bloomfield1 and Sally Kendall2
1
Research Fellow, Centre for Research in Primary and Community Care, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK
2
Director, Centre for Research in Primary and Community Care, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK

Aim: To explore whether changes in parenting self-efficacy after attending a parenting

programme are related to changes in parenting stress and child behaviour. Back-
ground: Adverse parenting is a risk factor in the development of a range of health and
behavioural problems in childhood and is predictive of poor adult outcomes. Strate-
gies for supporting parents are recognised as an effective way to improve the health,
well-being and development of children. Parenting is influenced by many factors
including the behaviour and characteristics of the child, the health and psychological
well-being of the parent and the contextual influences of stress and support. Parenting
difficulties are a major source of stress for parents, and parenting self-efficacy has
been shown to be an important buffer against parenting stress. Methods: In all,
63 parents who had a child under the age of 10 years took part in the research. Of
those, 58 returned completed measures of parenting self-efficacy, parenting stress and
child behaviour at the start of a parenting programme and 37 at three-month follow-
up. Findings: Improvements in parenting self-efficacy and parenting stress were
found at follow-up, but there was less evidence for improvements in child behaviour.
The findings clearly suggest a relationship between parenting self-efficacy and par-
enting stress; parents who are feeling less efficacious experience higher levels of
stress, whereas greater parenting self-efficacy is related to less stress. This study adds
to the evidence that parent outcomes may be a more reliable measure of programme
effectiveness than child outcomes at least in the short term.

Key words: child behaviour; parenting programmes; parenting self-efficacy; parent-

ing stress; TOPSE
Received 20 July 2011; revised 12 October 2011; accepted 31 January 2012;
first published online 2 April 2012

Background range of health problems both in childhood

and adulthood (World Health Organization, 2002;
There is increasing recognition and concern that Her Majesty’s Government, 2006; Stewart-Brown,
strategies for supporting parents are the most 2008). The development of the Healthy Child
effective way to improve the health, well-being Programme (Department of Health, 2009) is based
and development of children, and that adverse on evidence of early intervention by health prac-
parenting is a risk factor for the development of a titioners that will promote child development in
the early years. Much of the success of this pro-
gramme will depend on health visitors and public
Correspondence to: Linda Bloomfield, Centre for Research in
Primary and Community Care, University of Hertfordshire, health nurses providing support and information
College Lane, Hatfield, Hertfordshire AL10 9AB, UK. Email: for parents (Department of Health, 2011). Failure
[email protected] to address children’s needs has been linked to
r Cambridge University Press 2012

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1463423612000060 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Parenting self-efficacy stress and child behaviour 365

negative outcomes in terms of later social and and child functioning (Deater-Deckard, 1998).
emotional development (Macdonald, 2001). Parenting stress acts to negatively influence par-
Behaviour problems in children are an important enting behaviour (Abidin, 1986) and negative
area in which parenting has an impact. Parenting is parenting behaviour has been linked to higher
recognised as being key to the prevention of crime parental stress and more problem behaviours in
and educational failure (Stewart-Brown, 2008) and children (Deater-Deckard and Scarr, 1996).
there is a growing body of international evidence Parenting self-efficacy has been shown to be an
that parenting programmes can be both effective important buffer against parenting stress (Coleman
and cost-effective in helping children with challen- and Karraker, 1998; Raikes and Thompson, 2005).
ging behaviour (Scott et al., 2001a; Gardner et al., Grounded in social cognitive theory (Bandura,
2006; Petrie et al., 2007; Edwards et al., 2007). Sup- 1989; 1997), parenting self-efficacy is broadly
port for parents contributes to the prevention of defined as an individual’s appraisal of his or her
longer term problems of neglect, abuse and anti- competence in the parenting role (Coleman and
social behaviour, and this is endorsed by Allen’s Karraker, 2000; Kendall and Bloomfield, 2005).
‘campaign on parenting’ (Allen, 2011). The increas- Greater perceived competence in parenting is
ing prevalence of child behaviour problems and their associated with the tendency to assess situations
association with parenting have led to the develop- as less problematic and to feel confident that
ment of a range of interventions by statutory and difficulties can be resolved (Mash and Johnston,
voluntary agencies that focus on improving family 1990; Coleman and Karraker, 1998; Coleman
relationships and reducing behavioural problems and Karraker, 2003). A key tenet of self-efficacy
(Scott, 1998; Anderson et al., 2005). Group parenting theory is that a person’s self-efficacy expectations
programmes have shown positive results with par- in any domain of behaviour will be developed by
ents of children with clinically defined behaviour performance mastery and vicarious experience
disorders and those at high risk of developing and learning through role modelling (Bandura,
behaviour problems (Scott and Stradling, 1987; 1982; 1986; 1989). Rather than a fixed personality
Barlow and Stewart-Brown, 2000; Scott et al., 2001b). trait, self-efficacy is a dynamic and emerging
Parental functioning is determined by the inter- process that is modified by task and situational
play of characteristics of the child, the personal and demands, as well as changing individual factors
psychological resources of the parent, and the (Sevigny and Loutzenhiser, 2009). Parenting self-
contextual sources of stress and support (Belsky, efficacy has been identified as a major determi-
1984). Belsky proposed that well-functioning nant of parenting behaviours and closely linked to
parenting can be largely explained and under- child development outcomes and psychosocial
stood in relation to these three key determinants child adjustment (Teti and Gelfand, 1991; Gross
in the process of parenting. Both child tempera- and Tucker, 1994; Coleman and Karraker, 2003;
ment (Putnam et al., 2002) and parental psycho- Jones and Prinz, 2005).
pathology (Goodman and Gotlib, 2002) contribute Given previous research on parenting, the
to parenting behaviour and the pattern of interac- theoretical contribution of parenting self-efficacy
tion between parent and child. to parenting stress seems highly likely. It is known
Perceived parenting difficulties is a major source from previous studies in the United Kingdom that
of stress for parents (Vondra and Belsky, 1993), parenting self-efficacy improves after attending a
particularly when the child is viewed as moody or range of community-based parenting programmes
demanding and interactions between parent and (Bloomfield and Kendall, 2007; 2010). Parenting
child are perceived by the parent as difficult (Ost- programmes provide opportunities for parents
berg and Hagekull, 2000). Parenting stress arises to develop their self-efficacy through learning and
from the parent’s perception of their own compe- achieving positive behaviours, by experiencing
tence in the parenting role, as well as a perception other parents’ success, and through encourage-
of their child’s behaviour (Abidin and Burke, 1978; ment from programme facilitators and other
Abidin, 1997). Parenting stress is thought to involve parents (Kendall, 1991; Bloomfield and Kendall,
characteristics of the child, the parent and the 2007). Recent parenting programme evaluations
context (Abidin, 1986; Ostberg and Hagekull, 2000) have demonstrated increased parenting self-efficacy
and has been linked to both parenting behaviour after attending a parenting programme and this has
Primary Health Care Research & Development 2012; 13: 364–372

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1463423612000060 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 366 Linda Bloomfield and Sally Kendall

shown to be sustained over time (Bloomfield and the United Kingdom and takes into account the
Kendall, 2007; 2010). Parents felt more confident in views and experiences of parents from a diverse
all domains of their parenting role and had positive range of cultural, educational and social back-
expectations of the effect on their child at the end grounds (Bloomfield et al., 2005; Kendall and
of the programme and four months afterwards. Bloomfield, 2005). The theoretical underpinning
With Belsky’s model of the determinants of par- of TOPSE is based on the self-efficacy theory
enting in mind, we wanted to further the research developed by Albert Bandura (Bandura, 1982;
on parenting programme outcomes. We selected a 1986; 1989). TOPSE is a multi-dimensional instru-
before and after quasi-experimental design without ment of 48 statements within eight scales, each
randomisation and measured parenting self-efficacy, scale having six statements and representing a
parenting stress and child behaviour at baseline and distinct dimension of parenting: emotion and
three months following the end of the parenting affection, play and enjoyment, empathy and
programme. We aimed to explore whether changes understanding, control, discipline and boundaries,
in parenting self-efficacy after attending a parenting pressures, self-acceptance, learning and knowl-
programme are related to changes in parenting edge. The items are rated on an 11-point Likert
stress and child behaviour. scale where 0 represents completely disagree and
10 represents completely agree. The scale con-
tains positive and negatively worded items and
Methods the responses are summed to create a total score;
the lower the score, the lower the level of par-
Intervention enting self-efficacy.
Parenting support is provided through a range of
group-based programmes that have various approa-
ches to supporting parents to become more effective The parenting stress index (PSI) short form
and confident. ‘123Magic’ (Phelan, 2004) is a par- The PSI (Abidin, 1986) was developed as a
enting programme that encourages parents of chil- screening and diagnostic instrument for use with
dren between the ages of 2 and 12 to explore, discuss parents of children aged 12 and below, with
and practise positive parenting strategies before the primary focus being the pre-school child. The
taking them home to their families. The programme PSI identifies parent–child systems under stress
consists of six weekly sessions each of 2 h, delivered and at risk for dysfunctional parenting and the
by trained parenting programme facilitators. development of emotional pathology in children.
‘123Magic’ has been rated highly on research evi- The PSI short form is a direct derivative of the
dence (Bradley et al., 2003) using the California full-length test and consists of 36 items to yield a
Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare total stress score from three scales to measure
(CEBC) scientific rating scale and also on the child parental distress, dysfunctional interaction and
welfare scale. A modified version of ‘123Magic’ was difficult child.
the programme of choice for the current study as
it was widely used in the area where the study took The strength and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ)
place and has demonstrated an impact on parenting The SDQ (Goodman, 1997) is a 25-item beha-
self-efficacy (Bloomfield and Kendall, 2010). vioural screening questionnaire to measure five
Through group work, parents have the opportunity distinct domains of child behaviour in children
to listen to other parents and share their parenting aged 3 to 16. The 25 items are divided between
experiences. Parents can tailor approaches to their five scales of five items each, generating scores
own family circumstances and gain support and for conduct problems, hyperactivity-inattention,
validation for their individual techniques. emotional symptoms, peer problems and pro-
social behaviour, and is completed by parents
Measures or teachers. The SDQ discriminates between
children with clinically significant behaviour
Tool to measure parenting self-efficacy (TOPSE) problems, borderline problems and those with
TOPSE is a parenting programme evaluation no problems, and it focuses on strengths and
tool that is sensitive and specific to parenting in difficulties.
Primary Health Care Research & Development 2012; 13: 364–372

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1463423612000060 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Parenting self-efficacy stress and child behaviour 367

Demographic questionnaire ensure that all sets of questionnaires were matched

This was collected at baseline and included to the participant.
variables to measure family structure, ethnicity,
working status, parental age and parity. It enabled Ethical considerations
a comparison of parents who completed both sets Approval for the study was granted by the
of questionnaires with those who dropped out of University Research Ethics Committee. Parents
the study. attending parenting programmes were given an
information sheet outlining the study, together
Participants with a consent form to complete and return to the
All parents of children from six months to ten parenting programme facilitator.
years who were attending ‘123Magic’ parenting
programmes in the county where the study took Data analysis
place were eligible to take part. Fourteen pro- The data were analysed using the Statistical
grammes running between January 2009 and June Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version
2009 were included. Only parents who attended 14.0. Paired t-tests were conducted to determine
all six sessions of the parenting programme were differences in scores from baseline to three-
included. These programmes were run in a num- month follow-up on measures of TOPSE, PSI and
ber of Children’s Centres by trained parenting SDQ. Kruskall–Wallis independent samples tests
programme facilitators. Each programme was run were conducted on all measures to test whether
by two facilitators from a range of backgrounds, there was a difference in baseline scores between
including health visitors, family centre workers parents who completed both sets of questionnaires
and parents. All facilitators had undertaken certified and those who dropped out of the study. SPSS
courses in group dynamics and handling sensitive correlation methods were conducted to look at the
issues in groups, as well as training in the specific relationship between TOPSE with both PSI and
parenting programme. Parents generally self-referred SDQ scores.
onto the programme or were recommended.
Estimates of reliability and validity
Data collection Previous studies have provided support for the
The parenting programme was provided in a reliability and validity of TOPSE. For the current
community setting, over six weeks of 2 hours at study, internal consistency reliability for each
each session. All facilitators had the same training instrument was estimated at baseline through the
in delivering the parenting programme. Data were use of Cronbach’s alpha coefficients (Table 1).
collected over an eight-month period. A member
of the research team attended the first session of
each parenting programme to talk to parents about Results
the study and respond to questions and concerns.
A study information sheet and consent form was Data were collected for 63 parents attending 14
given to parents to take home. Parents were asked parenting programmes. All parents completed the
to sign and return the consent form the following SDQ and PSI baseline questionnaires, including
week if they agreed to take part. 57 mothers (90.5%) and 6 fathers. Fifty-eight of
Parents who provided signed consent com- those parents completed all baseline TOPSE scales,
pleted baseline questionnaires of all measures at including 52 mothers and 6 fathers. The age range,
the start of the second session. These were col- n 5 63, was from 23 to 57 years (mean age 37.4
lected by the programme facilitator and delivered years). Fifty-seven parents lived with their spouse
to the research team. Three months following the or partner and the remaining six parents (9.5%)
end of the programme, parents were sent a fur- lived alone. All parents had between one and five
ther copy of each questionnaire for completion children, the majority (36) having two children and
and returned to the research team in prepaid three parents had adopted children. Thirty-nine
addressed envelopes. Questionnaires were coded parents (60%) were working either full or part
with unique participant identity numbers to time, 30 (48%) had left full-time education by the
Primary Health Care Research & Development 2012; 13: 364–372

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1463423612000060 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 368 Linda Bloomfield and Sally Kendall

Table 1 Pre-programme Cronbach’s a reliability Baseline data

coefficients for all scales The total PSI pre-programme score was above
the 90th percentile (M 5 91.17, SD 5 24.36),
Scale n a
indicating clinically significant levels of stress for
TOPSE 1: Emotion & Affection 58 0.775 some parents. The total SDQ score (M 5 13.32,
TOPSE 2: Play & Enjoyment 58 0.904 SD 5 6.77) fell between normal (0–13) and bor-
TOPSE 3: Empathy & Understanding 58 0.898 derline (14–16), suggesting that some parents
TOPSE 4: Control 58 0.857
TOPSE 5: Discipline & Setting Boundary 58 0.852 rated their child’s behaviour as problematic. The
TOPSE 6: Pressure 58 0.778 subscale for conduct (M 5 3.57, SD 5 2.16) falls
TOPSE 7: Self-acceptance 58 0.904 between borderline and abnormal, and hyper-
TOPSE 8: Learning & Knowledge 58 0.821 activity (M 5 5.38, SD 5 2.93) falls between the
Total TOPSE (sum of TOPSE 1–8) 0.914
normal range and borderline. Baseline scores for
PSI: Parental Distress (PD) 63 0.882 TOPSE were similar to those found in previous
PSI: Parent–Child Dysfunctional Interaction 63 0.897 studies; emotion (M 5 49.78, SD 5 8.57), play
(P-CDI)
PSI: Difficult Child (DC) 63 0.889
(M 5 45.26, SD 5 10.34), empathy (M 5 43.16, SD 5
Total PSI Stress (sum of PD, P-CDI & DC) 0.858 9.84), control (M 5 28.55, SD 5 10.54), boundaries
(M 5 33.35, SD 5 10.30), pressures (M 5 36.63,
SDQ: Emotional Symptoms 63 0.753
SDQ: Conduct Problems 63 0.715
SD 5 11.67), acceptance (M 5 44.03, SD 5 10.59),
SDQ: Hyperactivity 63 0.835 learning (M 5 49.36, SD 5 7.69).
SDQ: Peer Problems 63 0.634
SDQ: Prosocial 63 0.737
Total Difficulties Score (not prosocial) 0.687 Non-responders to follow-up
To determine whether there were differences
TOPSE 5 tool to measure parenting self-efficacy; between parents who completed follow-up ques-
PSI 5 parenting stress index; SDQ 5 strength and tionnaires and those who dropped out of the
difficulties questionnaire.
study, baseline scores were analysed. There were
no significant differences in baseline measures
of TOPSE, PSI or SDQ between participants who
age of 16 years, a further 27 (43%) continued to completed both sets of questionnaires and those
18 years and five (8%) attended higher education. who completed only baseline questionnaires.
Fifty-eight parents were of White British ethnicity. Neither were there any differences at baseline
Data were collected for 37 parents (59%) at according to any demographic variables. Inde-
three-month follow-up, including 31 mothers and pendent samples t-tests were conducted on total
6 fathers. All parents returned the completed scale scores and subscale scores for each of the
TOPSE, SDQ and PSI questionnaires, including three measures.
31 mothers and 6 fathers. The age range of par-
ents completing follow-up questionnaires was
23–50 years (mean age 37.7 years), and 36 were Pre- and post-programme change in scores
living with their spouse or partner and one parent There was a statistically significant increase in
lived alone. Parents had between one and three mean scores from baseline to follow-up on all
children and three had adopted children. Twenty- TOPSE scales except the scale to measure learning
three parents (62%) were working full or part time. (Table 2). There was a statistically significant dif-
Thirty-six per cent had left education by the age of ference in mean scores from baseline to follow-up
16 years, a further 54% continued to 18 years and on all PSI scales (Table 3). There was no significant
10% attended higher education. Thirty-five parents difference in SDQ scores except for the scale to
(95%) were of White British ethnicity. measure conduct (Table 4).
Two parents who completed follow-up ques-
tionnaires had omitted to complete the baseline Correlations
TOPSE. A Pearson’s correlation coefficient was com-
There were no differences in scores on measures puted to assess the relationship between TOPSE
of parenting self-efficacy, parenting stress or SDQ and PSI pre-programme and at three-month follow-
according to any demographic variables. up. There was a positive correlation between the
Primary Health Care Research & Development 2012; 13: 364–372

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1463423612000060 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Parenting self-efficacy stress and child behaviour 369

Table 2 Mean change in scores for TOPSE

TOPSE n 5 35 P

Mean (95% CI)

Emotion & Affection 3.5 (1.4, 5.6) 0.002

Play 5.3 (1.5, 8.3) 0.001
Empathy & Understanding 6.5 (3.7, 9.4) 0.000
Control 10.3 (6.8, 13.8) 0.000
Discipline & Boundaries 9.2 (6.0, 12.3) 0.000
Pressures 4.7 (0.7, 8.8) 0.023
Self-acceptance 4.5 (1.8, 7.3) 0.002
Learning & Knowledge 2.5 (20.5, 5.4) 0.100
Total 46.5 (28.1, 65.0) 0.000

TOPSE 5 tool to measure parenting self-efficacy.

Table 3 Mean change in scores for PSI Figure 1 Pre-programme

PSI n 5 37 P

Mean (95% CI)

Parental distress 2.4 (4.5, 0.3) 0.024

Parent–child 1.5 (3.0, 0.0) 0.050
dysfunctional interaction
Difficult child 4.6 (7.0, 2.2) 0.000
Total difficulties 8.5 (13.5, 3.5) 0.002

PSI 5 parenting stress index.

Table 4 Mean change in scores for SDQ

SDQ n 5 37 P

Mean (95% CI)

Emotion 0.42 (1.0, 20.2) 0.180

Conduct 0.74 (1.2, 0.3) 0.004
Hyperactivity 0.24 (0.9, 20.4) 0.462
Peer problems 20.11 (0.3, 20.5) 0.629 Figure 2 Three-month follow-up
Prosocial 20.42 (0.2, 21.1) 0.192
Total SDQ score 1.29 (2.7, 20.1) 0.063

SDQ 5 strength and difficulties questionnaire. Discussion

two variables pre-programme (r 5 774, n 5 58, Parents demonstrated a significant change in both
P ,.001) and at three-month follow-up (r 5 715, parenting self-efficacy and parenting stress after
n 5 37, P ,.001). Scatterplots summarise the results attending a parenting programme. At the start of
(Figures 1 and 2). A Pearson’s correlation coeffi- the programme, many parents reported significantly
cient was also computed to assess the relationship high levels of parenting stress and these scores were
between TOPSE and SDQ pre-programme and within the normal range three months after attend-
at three-month follow-up. A weak correlation was ing the parenting programme. Parenting self-efficacy
found pre-programme(r 5 445, n 5 58, P ,.001) also improved three months following the pro-
and at three-month follow-up (r 5 .016, n 5 37, gramme, consistent with previous studies (Bloomfield
P 5.001). and Kendall, 2007; 2010). The correlations between
Primary Health Care Research & Development 2012; 13: 364–372

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1463423612000060 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 370 Linda Bloomfield and Sally Kendall

parenting stress and parenting self-efficacy showed challenging behaviour than the general popula-
that as self-efficacy increased, levels of parenting tion (Bywater et al., 2011).
stress decreased. This clearly suggests that parents We did not find child behaviour to be strongly
who are feeling less confident in their parenting are associated with parenting self-efficacy and this
also experiencing higher levels of stress and that supports the finding that child difficultness does
greater confidence is related to less stress. This was not emerge as a predictor of parenting self-
found both at baseline measures and at three- efficacy (Sevigny and Loutzenhiser, 2009). Parenting
month follow-up. The tools used to measure programmes are designed to support parents and
parenting self-efficacy and parenting stress have to facilitate and empower them in their parenting
no overlapping items. role. Opportunities are provided to enhance par-
These findings are consistent with other studies ent’s self-belief that they are more able to cope with
that demonstrate that parenting stress and par- their child’s difficult behaviour. Many parents seem
enting self-efficacy co-vary (Jones and Prinz, to gain a fairly rapid insight when attending pro-
2005; Sevigny and Loutzenhiser, 2009). Although grammes that it is their own behaviours and
we cannot infer a causal relationship in the current response to their child that needs to change before
study, the results support the research evidence that changes in child behaviour can take place. Perhaps
parental perceptions of competence determine increased parental confidence and lower parental
feelings of stress (Mash and Johnston, 1990; Vondra stress are necessary precursors to changes in child
and Belsky, 1993). The interaction between parent- behaviour. Changes in the child may occur over a
ing stress and parenting self-efficacy has also been longer period once both parent and child have
found to be a significant predictor of paediatric adjusted to new parenting techniques and new ways
primary care use in the United States (Janicke and of interacting with each other. This study adds to
Finney, 2003). The finding also supports Belskey’s the evidence that parent outcomes may be a more
earlier work on determinants of parenting that reliable and appropriate measure of programme
psychosocial support is a key variable (Belsky, effectiveness than child outcomes at least in the
1984). This may suggest implications for parenting short term. The association between parenting self-
confidence and appropriate use of health-care ser- efficacy and parenting stress indicates that both
vices for children in the United Kingdom and is TOPSE and the PSI may be useful predictive
worthy of further research. indicators of positive parenting that may in the
There was no significant change from the start longer term have implications for child behaviour.
of the programme to three-month follow-up on This needs further testing.
any measure of child strengths and difficulties The Healthy Child Programme (Department of
except for the scale to measure conduct. The rea- Health, 2009) and the current independent enquiry
sons given for attending parenting programmes are on early intervention evidence (Allen, 2011) focus
often around coping with child conduct (Bloomfield on the need to use reliable evidence to develop
et al., 2005) and this was reflected in the baseline parenting interventions that will support child
SDQ scores. The mean baseline scores for the scale development in the early years. The evidence from
to measure conduct fell between the borderline and this study also contributes to the current emphasis
clinical range. Although there was an improvement in the Department of Health for England on
in conduct at three months, the mean scores developing the health visiting service (Department
remained in the borderline range. A number of stu- of Health, 2011). Although the facilitators in this
dies have found improvements in child conduct study were not all health visitors, the implications
scores post programme, but these have not been for expanding their role with parents in line with
maintained at 12 months and beyond (Patterson current Department of Health policy is worthy of
et al., 2002; Anderson et al., 2005) and no difference further consideration.
was found between control group and intervention
group on any measure of child emotional or beha-
vioural adjustment at 12 months (Stewart-Brown Limitations and conclusions
et al., 2004). Studies that have found post-programme There are some limitations of the study. The
improvements in child behaviour have tended study was undertaken with a small sample of parents
to focus on samples with a high incidence of attending one type of parenting programme. Further
Primary Health Care Research & Development 2012; 13: 364–372

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1463423612000060 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Parenting self-efficacy stress and child behaviour 371

research over a longer period and with a larger Bandura, A. 1986: Social foundations of thought and action: a
sample to explore the effects of a range of parenting social cognitive theory. Engle Wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
programmes may yield other findings and provide Bandura, A. 1989: Regulation of cognitive processes through
further generalisable evidence for parent and child perceived self-efficacy. Developmental Psychology 25,
729–35.
outcomes. As with many before and after studies,
Bandura, A. 1997: Self-efficacy: the exercise of control.
there was an inevitable loss to follow-up. However,
New York: Freeman.
no differences were found in baseline scores Barlow, J. and Stewart-Brown, S. 2000: Behaviour problems
between parents who dropped out of the study and and group-based parent education programmes.
those who completed the follow-up questionnaires; Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics 21, 356–70.
therefore, we feel the results were not confounded Belsky, J. 1984: The determinants of parenting: a process
in terms of selection bias. Neither were differences model. Child Development 55, 83–96.
found in outcome measures dependent on any Bloomfield, L. and Kendall, S. 2007: Testing a parenting
demographic variables. Owing to the correlation programme evaluation tool as a pre- and post-course
nature of the study, it has not been possible to make measure of parenting self-efficacy. Journal of Advanced
Nursing 60, 487–93.
any causal inferences between parenting stress and
Bloomfield, L. and Kendall, S. 2010: Audit as evidence: the
parenting self-efficacy. Furthermore, we have made
effectiveness of ‘123 Magic’ programmes. Community
no correction for facilitator style, which may con- Practitioner 83, 26–30.
found the findings. Further research that takes Bloomfield, L., Kendall, S., Applin, L., Attarzadeh, V.,
account of facilitator style would also be of interest. Dearnley, K., Edwards, L., Hinshelwood, L., Lloyd, P.
This study has nonetheless provided evidence and Newcombe, T. 2005: A qualitative study exploring the
to suggest a relationship between parenting self- experiences and views of parents, health visitors and family
efficacy and parenting stress; parents who feel support centre workers on the challenges and difficulties of
less efficacious experience higher levels of stress, parenting. Health and Social Care in the Community 13,
whereas greater parenting self-efficacy is associated 46–55.
Bradley, S.J., Jadaa, D., Brody, J., Landy, S., Tallett, S.,
with lower stress. Parent outcomes may be a more
Watson, W., Shea, N. and Stephens, D. 2003: Brief
reliable measure of programme effectiveness than psychoeducational parenting program: an evaluation and
child outcomes at least in the short term. 1-year follow-up. Journal of the American Academy of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 42, 1171–78.
Bywater, T., Hutchings, J., Linck, P., Whitaker, C., Daley, D.,
Acknowledgements Yeo, S.T. and Edwards, R.T. 2011: Incredible years parent
training support for foster carers in Wales: a multi-centre
We thank all participating parents and parenting feasibility study. Child, Care, Health and Development
programme facilitators for their help and support. 37(2), 233–243.
CEBC California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child
Welfare, 2006. www.cebc4cw.org.
References Coleman, P. and Karraker, K. 1998: Self-efficacy and parenting
quality: findings and future applications. Developmental
Abidin, R. and Burke, W. 1978: The development of the parenting Review 18, 47–85.
stress index. Annual meeting of the American Psychological Coleman, P. and Karraker, K. 2000: Parenting self-efficacy
Association. Toronto: American Psychological Association. among mothers of school-age children: conceptualization,
Abidin, R.R. 1986: Parenting stress index. Charlottesville, VA. measurement and correlates. Family Relations 49, 13–24.
Pediatric Psychology Press. Coleman, P.K. and Karraker, K.H. 2003: Maternal self-efficacy
Abidin, R.R. 1997: Parenting stress index: a measure of the beliefs, competence in parenting, and toddlers behaviour
parent child system. In Zalaquett, C. and Woods, R., and development status. Infant Mental Health Journal 24,
editors, Evaluating stress: a book of resources (pp. 277–291). 126–48.
Lanham MD: Scarecrow Press Inc. Deater-Deckard, K. 1998: Parenting stress and child adjustment:
Allen, G. 2011: Early intervention: the next steps. London: HMG. some old hypotheses and new questions. Clinical Psychology:
Anderson, L., Vostanis, P. and O’reilly, M. 2005: Three-year Science and Practice 5, 314–32.
follow-up of a family support service cohort of children Deater-Deckard, K. and Scarr, S. 1996: Parenting stress
with behavioural problems and their parents. Child, care, among dual-earner mothers and fathers: are there gender
health and development 31, 469–77. differences? Journal of Family Psychology 10, 45–59.
Bandura, A. 1982: Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. Department of Health. 2009: The healthy child programme.
American Psychologist 37, 122–47. London: Department of Health.
Primary Health Care Research & Development 2012; 13: 364–372

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1463423612000060 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 372 Linda Bloomfield and Sally Kendall

Department of Health. 2011: The health visiting through parenting programmes: block randomised controlled
implementation plan. London: Department of Health. trial. Archives of Disease in Childhood 87, 472–77.
Edwards, R.T., Ceilleachair, A., Bywater, T., Hughes, D. and Petrie, J., Bunn, F. and Byrne, G. 2007: Parenting programmes
Hutchings, J. 2007: Parenting programmes for parents of for preventing tobacco, alcohol or drugs misuse in children
children at risk of developing conduct disorder: cost ,18: a systematic review. Health Education Research 37(2),
effectiveness analysis. British Medical Journal 334, 682–85. 233–243.
Gardner, F., Burton, J. and Klimes, I. 2006: Randomised Phelan, T. 2004: 1-2-3 magic: effective discipline for children.
controlled trial of a parenting intervention in the voluntary Child Management Inc., Illinois.
sector for reducing child conduct problems: outcomes and Putnam, S.P., Sanson, A.V. and Rothbar, M.K. 2002: Child
mechanisms of change. Journal of Child Psychology and temperament and parenting. In Bornstein, M.H., editor,
Psychiatry 47, 1123–32. Handbook of parenting, second edition. Mahwah, NJ:
Goodman, R. 1997: The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: a Erlbaum.
research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 38, Raikes, H. and Thompson, R. 2005: Efficacy and social support
581–86. as predictors of parenting stress among families in poverty.
Goodman, S.H. and Gotlib, I.H. 2002: Children of depressed Mental Health Journal 26, 177–90.
parents: alternative pathways to risk for psychopathology. Scott, M.J. and Stradling, S. 1987: Evaluation of a group
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association program for parents of problem children. Behavioural
Press. Psychotherapy 15, 224–39.
Gross, D. and Tucker, S. 1994: Parenting confidence during Scott, S. 1998: Intensive interventions to improve parenting.
toddlerhood: a comparison of mothers and fathers. Nurse Archives of Disease in Childhood 79, 90–93.
Practitioner 19, 19–29. Scott, S., Knapp, M., Henderson, J. and Maughn, B. 2001a:
Her Majesty’s Government 2006: Reaching out: an action plan Financial cost of social exclusion: follow up study of antisocial
on social exclusion. London: Cabinet Office. children into childhood. British Medical Journal 323, 1–5.
Janicke, D.M. and Finney, J.W. 2003: Children’s primary Scott, S., Spender, Q., Doolan, M., Jacobs, B. and Aspland, H.
health care services: social-cognitive factors related to 2001b: Multicentre controlled trial of parenting groups for
utilization. Journal of Paediatric Psychology 28, 547–57. childhood antisocial behaviour in clinical practice. British
Jones, T. and Prinz, R. 2005: Potential roles of parental self- Medical Journal 323, 194–97.
efficacy in parent and child adjustment: a review. Clinical Sevigny, P.R. and Loutzenhiser, L. 2009: Predictors of
Psychology Review 25, 341–63. parenting self-efficacy in mothers and fathers of toddlers.
Kendall, S. 1991: A home visit by a health visitor using Child: care, health and development 36, 179–98.
Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy. In While, A., editor, Stewart-Brown, S. 2008: Improving parenting: the why and the
Caring for children: towards partnership with families. how. Archives Of Disease In Childhood 93, 102–104.
London: Arnold. Stewart-Brown, S., Paterson, J., Mockford, C., Barlow, J.,
Kendall, S. and Bloomfield, L. 2005: Developing and Klimes, I. and Pyper, C. 2004: Impact of a general practice
validating a tool to measure parenting self-efficacy. based group parenting programme: quantitative and
Journal of Advanced Nursing 51, 174–81. qualitative results from a controlled trial at 12 months.
Macdonald, G. 2001: Effective interventions for child abuse Archives of Disease in Childhood 89, 519–25.
and neglect. An evidence-based approach to planning and Teti, D. and Gelfand, D. 1991: Behavioural competence among
evaluating interventions. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd. mothers of infants in the first year: The mediational role of
Mash, E. and Johnston, C. 1990: Determinants of parenting maternal self-efficacy. Child Development 62, 918–29.
stress: illustrations from families of hyperactive children Vondra, J. and Belsky, J. 1993: Developmental origins of
and families of physically abused children. Journal of parenting: personality and relationship factors. In Luster, T.
Clinical Child Psychology 19, 313–28. and Okagaki, L., editors, Parenting: an ecological perspective.
Ostberg, M. and Hagekull, B. 2000: A structural modeling Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
approach to the understanding of parenting stress. Journal World Health Organization. 2002: A review: a critical link,
of Clinical Child Psychology 29, 615–25. intervention for physical growth and development. Child
Patterson, J., Barlow, J., Mockford, C., Klimes, I., Pyper, C. and adolescent health and development. Geneva: World
and Stewart-Brown, S. 2002: Improving mental health Health Organisation.

Primary Health Care Research & Development 2012; 13: 364–372

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1463423612000060 Published online by Cambridge University Press