The COVID-19 Family Stressor Scale: Validation and Measurement Invariance in Female and Male Caregivers

The COVID-19 pandemic has raised significant concerns regarding the effect of social disruptions on parental mental health, family well-being, and children's adjustment. Due to the pace of the pandemic, measures of pandemic-related disruption have not been subject to rigorous empirical validation. To address this gap, a multi-national sample (United Kingdom, 76%; United States, 19%; Canada, 4%, and Australia, 1%) of 372 female caregivers and 158 male caregivers of 5–18-year-old children was recruited online. Participants completed a survey including a 25-item scale indexing disruption in finances, basic needs, personal and family welfare, career/education, household responsibilities, and family relationships related to the pandemic. An exploratory factor analysis yielded an optimal three-factor solution: factors included Income Stress (five items related to income, debt, and job loss; loadings ranged from 0.57 to 0.91), Family Stress (seven items related to family altercations and child management; loadings from 0.57 to 0.87), and Chaos Stress (four items related to access to supplies, crowded shopping areas, news coverage; loadings from 0.53 to 0.70). Multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated measurement invariance of each factor across female and male caregivers, indicating that factor structure, loadings, and thresholds were equivalent across groups. Composites reflective of each factor were computed, and Mann-Whitney U tests indicated that female caregivers consistently scored higher than male caregivers on COVID-19 stressors related to income, family, and chaos. Finally, concurrent validity was demonstrated by significant bivariate correlations between each scale and caregiver, family, and child outcomes, respectively. This demonstrates the validity of the COVID-19 Family Stressor Scale for use with female and male caregivers in family-based research. The current sample was predominantly White-European, married/common-law, and had at least some post-secondary education. Additional sampling and validation efforts are required across diverse ethnic/racial and socioeconomic groups.

The COVID-19 Family Stressor Scale: Validation and Measurement Invariance in Female and Male Caregivers

The COVID-19 pandemic has raised significant concerns regarding the effect of social disruptions on parental mental health, family well-being, and children’s adjustment. Due to the pace of the pandemic, measures of pandemic-related disruption have not been subject to rigorous empirical validation. To address this gap, a multi-national sample (United Kingdom, 76%; United States, 19%; Canada, 4%, and Australia, 1%) of 372 female caregivers and 158 male caregivers of 5-18 year-old children was recruited online. Participants completed a survey including a 25-item scale indexing disruption in finances, basic needs, personal and family welfare, career/education, household responsibilities, and family relationships related to the pandemic. An exploratory factor analysis yielded an optimal three-factor solution: factors included Income Stress (5 items related to income, debt, and job loss; loadings ranged from .57 to .91), Family Stress (7 items related to family altercations and child management; loadings from .57 to .87), and Chaos Stress (4 items related to access to supplies, crowded shopping areas, news coverage; loadings from .53 to .70). Multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated measurement invariance of each factor across female and male caregivers, indicating that factor structure, loadings, and thresholds were equivalent across groups. Composites reflective of each factor were computed, and paired samples t-tests showed that female caregivers consistently report higher levels of COVID-19 stress related to income, family, and chaos compared to male caregivers. Finally, concurrent validity was demonstrated by significant bivariate correlations between each scale and indicators of parental and child mental health and family relationships. This demonstrates validity of the COVID-19 Family Stressor Scale for use with female and male caregivers in family-based research. The current sample was predominantly White-European. Additional sampling and validation efforts are required in order to provide adequate description of racialized and minority communities at disproportionate risk of social consequences related to the pandemic.

Parental Incarceration and Family Inequality in the United States

This chapter argues that mass incarceration is an insidious mechanism to limit equal opportunity to freely and optimally ‘do family’. Indeed, research documents a host of negative family outcomes associated with parental incarceration and children seem to be particularly vulnerable. This chapter introduces a ‘Family Inequality Framework’ (FIF), which builds on research and theory that conceptualizes parental incarceration as an ongoing family stressor that influences critical parenting processes and indices of family functioning. Based on family stress theory and ecological frameworks, the FIF points to material hardship as the main conduit through which parental incarceration contributes to and reproduces family inequality. Moreover, an FIF represents a shift in emphasis from how mass imprisonment contributes to inequality among incarcerated adults, to how parental incarceration contributes to inequality among children.

A 20-year prospective study of marital separation and divorce in stepfamilies: Appraisals of family stress as predictors

The current study aimed to test competing hypotheses about the role of appraisals of family stressor severity in long-term relationship outcomes. Traditional cognitive models of stress predict that those who appraise stress as most serious are at greatest risk of poor outcomes. However, social contextual and dyadic models of stress and coping argue that a belief that one’s spouse shares in this appraisal might play a protective role in marital outcomes. We examined the associations between appraisals of family stressor severity and subsequent marital dissolution in a sample of 170 couples in stepfamilies. Stepfamilies are an at-risk group, given they have been found to experience a greater number and variety of stressors as compared to traditional families, and have an increased risk of marital instability. As predicted by traditional cognitive models of stress, participants who reported family problems that they appraised as more serious were found to be at greater risk of marital dissolution over time. However, the risk of separation or divorce was lower when participants reported that their spouse also considered the problem as serious. In addition, comparing data from both spouses indicated that when both reported the same problem as their most serious, the risk of marital dissolution was also decreased. Our findings support social contextual and dyadic coping models in which shared appraisals of stress, and even the perception of such, can serve a protective function. Understanding how couples appraise the stressors they encounter may help identify useful targets for preventive marital interventions.