Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

A Systematic Review of Parental Self-efficacy Among Parents of School-Age Children and Adolescents

A Systematic Review of Parental Self-efficacy Among Parents of School-Age Children and Adolescents What function does parental self-efficacy have for parenting behaviors and children’s adjustment, and what explains individual variations in parents’ self-efficacy? Parental self-efficacy involves parents’ beliefs about their influence on their children and this systematic review presents results from 35 empirical studies published between 2003 and 2022 among parents of school-aged children and adolescents. First, the studies in this review show a bi-directional association between parental self-efficacy and positive parenting, and some empirical evidence that parental self-efficacy influences children indirectly, via parenting. The few longitudinal studies examining associations between parental self-efficacy and child behaviors suggest that self-efficacy might emerge as a reaction to children’s behaviors. Second, many child, parent, and sociocultural factors were shown to predict parental self-efficacy (e.g., child gender and age, parents’ psychological well-being, and socio-economic status), and results suggest that these associations are similar across multiple countries and age groups. Finally, studies report- ing on parental self-efficacy at different time points or a correlation between self-efficacy and the child’s age suggested that parental self-efficacy decreases over the school-age and adolescent period. This review shows the complex role of parental self-efficacy in associations with parent and child factors, and it also highlight questions to address for future research. Keywords Parental self-efficacy · School-age children · Adolescents · Systematic literature review · Parent and child variables Introduction positive effect on children’s adjustment. Given the growth of research in this area, a systematic review is needed to Over the last decades, there have been substantial increases synthesize the current state of knowledge. This systematic in the amount of research on parental self-efficacy, defined review study presents research on the various roles of paren- as parents’ perceptions about being able to influence and tal self-efficacy in the associations with parent and child help their children develop pro-social behaviors and avoid variables, as well as studies on developmental changes. risky behaviors (Bandura, 1977, 1997, 2002). According to social cognitive theory, parental self-efficacy is linked to Previous Reviews on Parental Self‑efficacy increased motivation and persistence in the face of chal- lenges (Bandura, 1997). Parents who feel efficacious tend As the most cited and influential review on parental self- to be better equipped to handle challenging child behaviors efficacy, Jones and Prinz (2005) helped conceptualize it (Bandura, 2002; Coleman & Karraker, 1997), which has a and synthesize research establishing associations between parental self-efficacy and various parent and child variables. The authors highlighted evidence of multiple roles of paren- * Terese Glatz tal self-efficacy, including a predictor and outcome of par - terese.glatz@oru.se enting practices. Self-efficacy was also linked directly and School of Law, Psychology and Social Work, Örebro indirectly, via parenting practices, with child outcomes, and University, Fakultetsgatan 1, 701 82 Örebro, Sweden child behaviors also predicted levels of self-efficacy. Finally, School of Social Work, University of North Carolina contextual factors (e.g., ethnicity, SES, environmental fac- at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, USA tors) moderated the link between parental self-efficacy and Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, National University parent and child variables. Two main limitations and gaps of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3 Adolescent Research Review of knowledge were identified by Jones and Prinz (2005). et al., 2021), and, thus, provided little insight on complex First, although Bandura (1997) argued that self-efficacy is and potential reciprocal associations among parental self- a dynamic factor and part of a transactional process, most efficacy, parenting, and child behaviors. studies up to that point had been using cross-sectional data, Second, earlier reviews have excluded studies that which limits the conclusions about complex and longitudinal examine similar measures to parental self-efficacy (e.g., processes involving parental self-efficacy and its association parental perceived competence, confidence, esteem, par - with parent and child variables. Second, Jones and Prinz enting agency), which are often used interchangeably (2005) pointed to the lack of studies focusing on the malle- (Vance & Brandon, 2017, see Table 1 for definitions and ability of parental self-efficacy to change over time, which related concepts). In fact, a variety of theoretical concepts was also a result of few longitudinal studies. have been used to represent what is ultimately parental More recently, two systematic reviews have been con- self-efficacy (Wittkowski et al., 2017), and studies that use ducted (Albanese et al., 2019; Fang et al., 2021). The review similar terms often use the same scales (Vance & Brandon, by Albanese and colleagues (2019) reviewed 115 studies 2017). Hence, there are strong arguments for examining focusing on parental self-efficacy as a predictor of parent studies on parental self-efficacy and similar concepts, as and child outcomes, and the authors concluded that higher these studies would ultimately explain how parental self- levels were related to positive outcomes in three domains: efficacy is related to parenting and child variables. the parent–child relationship, parent mental health, and child Third, there is a need for reviews that focus more development (e.g., better behavioral child outcomes). Fang closely on specific developmental periods. Being a par - and colleagues (2021) reviewed 30 studies that examined ent can be very different in different developmental peri- parental self-efficacy as an outcome of parent, child, and ods, as they include a vastly different focus and present socio-contextual factors. The authors concluded that poten- unique challenges. These age-related differences might tially modifiable factors, such as parenting stress and depres - affect parents’ beliefs about their influence on their chil- sion were especially strong predictors of self-efficacy. dren—as well as the effect of parental self-efficacy on par - enting and child outcomes and relevant predictors (Jones Limitations with Earlier Reviews and Identified & Prinz, 2005). Both recent reviews examined parental Research Gaps self-efficacy broadly, including studies with infants up to adolescents, but did not discuss potential differences Although recent reviews (Albanese et  al., 2019; Fang between developmental periods. During school-age and et  al., 2021) offer an update on the research on paren- adolescence, children undergo major physical, cognitive, tal self-efficacy—including studies published both before and socio-emotional changes, which all have an impact and after the review conducted by Jones and Prinz (2005), on parents and their beliefs about parenting (Bornstein, some gaps of knowledge exist regarding the current state 2019). Additionally, most children start school around the of research. First, the two recent review studies did not age of six, which not only changes the tasks of parenting, examine the various roles of parental self-efficacy in rela- but it also leads to increased independence for the child tion to parent, and child variables, which have been pro- and the introduction of other external influences. These posed in earlier conceptual models (Bandura, 1997; Jones observations and characteristics make school-age and & Prinz, 2005). Specifically, the reviews included studies adolescence particularly relevant developmental periods that conceptualized parental self-efficacy as a predictor to study parental self-efficacy and its associations with only (Albanese et  al., 2019) or an outcome only (Fang parenting and child variables. Table 1 Definitions of PSE and similar concepts Concept Definition Parental self-efficacy Parental beliefs or confidence in their ability to successfully carry out parenting tasks Parental sense of competence A parent’s perception of his or her ability perform tasks associated with caring for their child Parental confidence The belief or judgment a parent holds about their ability to be successful in tasks associated with parenting Parental self-esteem Parents’ judgement of worth as a parent Parenting self-agency Parents’ overall confidence in their ability to act successfully in the parental role Based on definitions offered by Vance and Brandon (2017) and Wittkowski and colleagues (2017). The definition of parenting self-agency is taken from Dumka and colleagues (1996) 1 3 Adolescent Research Review Confiden* OR Competen* OR Esteem OR Agency). Note Current Study that the asterisk on some of the words captures words with alternative endings or forms. All these combinations were There is a need for an updated review of current research used in each of the databases. In total, the searches included on the various roles and changes in parental self-efficacy. seven combinations of search terms in each of the seven This systematic review synthesizes findings from 35 studies databases (total 49 searches). examining parental self-efficacy among parents of school- As a second step, reference lists of the existing literature age children and adolescents (6 to 18 years) published since review articles were examined, and all studies that had cited the Jones and Prinz (2005) review. It summarizes current these review articles, to find additional potentially relevant research on the associations among parental self-efficacy, studies to include in the review (Horsley et al., 2011). Check- parenting, and child behaviors, as well as additional factors ing reference lists (i.e., “snowballing” method) has shown associated with parental self-efficacy. It also review results to be efficient in finding relevant literature (e.g., Greenhalgh on changes over the school-age and adolescent period. Find- & Peacock, 2005; Horsley et al., 2011), with recent studies ings are contextualized and analyzed with consideration of suggesting snowball techniques may capture more articles study design (longitudinal versus cross-sectional) and study than a reliance only on systematic database searches (Green- sample (school-age children versus adolescents), which halgh & Peacock, 2005; Horsley et al., 2011). The snowball enhances the understanding of the development of parental method was used in this study as a complementary method self-efficacy and longitudinal and reciprocal relationships to the systematic database search strategy described above. with other variables. Studies on parental self-efficacy and related concepts were included to ensure a comprehensive examination of the current research. In addition to this anal- Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria ysis, this systematic review also identifies gaps in current understanding of parental self-efficacy and outlines future Studies were considered eligible if they met the following research directions. a priori inclusion criteria: (a) used a sample of parents of school-aged children or adolescents (six to 18 years), (b) analyzed empirical data, (c) was peer-reviewed and written Methods in English. Only studies on children’s psychosocial behav- iors were included. In the screening of articles, studies that Identifying Literature examined child physical health (e.g., such as child weight and physical activity) were excluded, as such behaviors are The steps for research synthesis and meta-analysis outlined conceptually distinct from psychosocial behaviors and might by Cooper (2010) were used to identify the literature, and have a unique relationship with PSE (e.g., Pulgarón, 2013). the following electronic databases were used in the searches, No distinction was made between studies that examined gen- with the n fi al search being conducted in July 2022: Medline, eral PSE and task-specific PSE; both types of studies were PsycINFO, PsychARTICLES, ERIC, PubMed, Web of Sci- included. Conceptually, self-efficacy regarding specific tasks ence, and Google Scholar. Search filters were used to limit or on a general level are expected to predict parenting and retrieved studies to those published in 2003 onward, as this child outcomes in a similar way. To include studies using would capture relevant studies published since the Jones and measures of parental self-efficacy on different levels offered Prinz (2005) review. a holistic analysis that would aid the conceptual understand- ing of PSE. Several exclusion criteria were used to evaluate fit and Search Terms to exclude studies that did not fit the aim of the study. Stud- ies were excluded if they: (a) covered only a small part of The search terms were based on the keywords specified in the developmental range and also included children outside studies within the literature on parental self-efficacy (PSE) of the age range (e.g., children under age 6), (b) provided (Albanese et al., 2019; Črnčec et al., 2010; Jones & Prinz, an unspecified age group (i.e., children below 18 without 2005; Vance & Brandon, 2017; Wittkowski et al., 2017). As any age-specific information), (c) included parents and/or many studies might examine PSE but use different terms for children who were drawn from a clinical population, (d) pre- this concept (Vance & Brandon, 2017; Wittkowski et al., sented an evaluation/examination of a measure without any 2017), a liberal set of synonyms were used in the searches, further examination of the relation to other relevant variables rather than only using self-efficacy or PSE. Specifically, (e.g., child behaviors, parent behaviors), and (e) examined we used the following search string focused on study titles: PSE as an outcome of an intervention without any further (Parent* AND Self-efficacy OR Parental Self-Efficacy OR examination of associations with relevant variables. 1 3 Adolescent Research Review and disagreements about study relevance (28% of the stud- Study Screening and Selection ies) were discussed until consensus was reached about all studies deemed potentially relevant in preparation for full- The review of research in this study was guided by the steps from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews text review. Of the 172 unique articles, 132 ultimately were deemed irrelevant by both reviewers (e.g., study samples and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA). Figure  1 illustrates each step of the systematic review process. The search process covered an irrelevant age range), leaving 40 articles sub- jected to full-text review. An additional nine studies were yielded a total of 6629 studies. The initial search and screen- ing for relevance based on titles were conducted by the first identified through other sources (i.e., from literature lists of earlier review studies and articles citing these review author in consultation with the second author. In this step, the author assessed the alignment between the study titles studies). As a result of the full-text review, five articles were excluded because they covered a different age range and inclusion criteria; 377 articles met the inclusion cri- teria on the basis of title screening. Of these, 205 articles or because PSE was measured as part of a larger parenting construct making it difficult to discern the role of PSE spe- were excluded because they were duplicates, leaving 172 unique articles. In a second step of the review process, the cifically. Ultimately, 35 studies were identified as relevant and included in the systematic review. None of these studies first and second authors both screened the abstracts of these 172 studies. This was done independently by both authors, were included in the review by Jones and Prinz (2005). Parent* and Parent* and Parent* and Parent* and Satisfaction Self-efficacy Competen* Esteem (n = 2422) (n = 1486) (n = 1054) (n = 745) Parent* and Parent* and Parent* and PSE Confiden* Agency (n = 361) (n = 362) (n = 199) Records screened by type of title (n =6629) Irrelevant records excluded (n = 6252) Records screened by type of abstract (n = 377) Duplicates (n = 205) Irrelevant records (n = 132) Full-text articles assessed for eligibility (n = 40) From database sources (n = 31) From additional sources (n = 9) Records excluded Not relevant age of child (n = 4) PSE part of larger construct (n = 1) Articles included in the review (n = 35) Fig. 1 PRISMA diagram over each step of the systematic review process 1 3 Included Eligibility Screening Identification Adolescent Research Review ethnicity or country), and design (cross-sectional or lon- Data Extraction gitudinal). In the data extraction process, notes were made about internal and external validity, which is included in The authors extracted relevant data from the 35 studies included in the review using a structured coding guide the discussion about the research. All information was inserted into a Microsoft Excel sheet for further analyses. (See Table 2). In this guide, data points included study results, sample characteristics (e.g., age of the children, One team member re-checked all the data extracted by Table 2 Characteristics of the studies included in the review Authors Concept Age of child N’s Parent gender Country Design Babskie et al., 2017 Confidence 12–18 years 161 Both (33% fathers) The United States Cross Bandura et al., 2011 Efficacy 13–19 years 284 Both (50% fathers) Italy Cross Bornstein et al., 2017 Efficacy 8 years 2273 Both (47%) China, Colombia, Italy, Long Jordan, Kenya, Philippines, Sweden, Thailand, the United States Carless et al., 2015 Efficacy 12–17 years 106 Both (8% fathers) Australia Cross Buchanan et al., 2022 Efficacy 11 years 136 Mothers The United States Cross Chang et al., 2015 Confidence Competence 12–15 years 2015 Both (20% fathers) Taiwan Cross Costigan & Koryzma, 2011 Efficacy 10–14 years 177 Both (48% fathers) Canada Cross Daganzo et al., 2014 Efficacy 7–9 years 99 Mothers Philippines Cross de Haan et al., 2009 Sense of competence 5–11 years 1107 Both (47% fathers) Belgium Long Dumka et al., 2010 Sense of competence 11–14 years 189 Mothers The United States Long Efficacy Egberts et al., 2015 Sense of competence 11–12 years 404 Both (48% fathers) Belgium Long Garcia & Alampay, 2012 Efficacy 8 years 215 Both (46% fathers) Philippines Cross Glatz & Buchanan, 2022 Efficacy 11–18 years 1020 Both (50% fathers) The United States Cross Glatz & Buchanan, 2015a Sense of competence Per- 11–12 years 398 Both (29% fathers) The United States Long ceived influence Glatz & Buchanan, 2015b Sense of competence Per- 11–12 years 401 Both (29% fathers) The United States Long ceived influence Glatz & Trifan, 2019 Efficacy 11–18 years 968 Both (50% fathers) The United States Cross Glatz et al., 2017 Perceived influence M = 12 130 Both (32% fathers) The United States Cross age Glatz et al., 2018 Efficacy 11–18 years 1025 Both (50% fathers) The United States Cross Henney, 2016 Confidence 6–18 years 121 Mothers The United States Cross Holloway et al., 2016 Perceived capability M = 7 309/372 Mothers Japan/Korea Cross age Junttila & Vauras, 2014 Efficacy M = 10 1572 Both (44% fathers) Finland Cross age Junttila et al., 2007 Efficacy M = 10.5 1572 Both (44% fathers) Finland Cross age Kiang et al., 2021 Efficacy 11–18 years 219 Both (65% fathers) The United States Cross Kiang et al., 2017 Sense of competence 11–18 years 211 Both (65% fathers) The United States Cross Latham et al., 2018 Efficacy; Satisfaction M = 6 216 Both (50% fathers) England/Wales Cross age Lippold et al., 2019 Sense of competence 11–14 years 432 Mothers The United States Long Mahabee-Gittens et al., 2011 Efficacy Confidence 9–16 years 272 Both (13% fathers) The United States Cross Malm et al., 2017 Efficacy 9–10 years 142 Both (13% fathers) The United States Cross Morrissey & Gondoli, 2012 Perceived influence 9–11 years 166 Mothers The United States Long Slagt et al., 2012 Sense of competence 6–10 years 1102 Both (50% fathers) Belgium Long Steca et al., 2011 Efficacy M = 13.5 130 Both (22% fathers) Italy Long age Suzuki, 2010 Efficacy Confidence 7–8 years 98 Mothers Japan Cross Tazouti & Jarlégan, 2019 Efficacy M = 8.5 406 Both (50% fathers) France Cross age van Eldik et al., 2017 Sense of competence 6–10 years 723 Both (49% fathers) Belgium Long Wong & Lee, 2017 Confidence 12–17 years 1233 Both (27% fathers) Hong Kong Cross Cross cross-sectional study; Long Longitudinal study abcde Studies with same subscripts use the same dataset 1 3 Adolescent Research Review the team members with a 99% rate of agreement. Salient Results trends and patterns were identified in the data across and between studies, which facilitated summary and identified Quality Assessment of the Studies contrasts within and across studies. An adapted list of quality assessment criteria (Kmet et al., 2004) were used to evaluate the quality of the studies (see Table  3 for the quality scores). Studies were evaluated Table 3 Quality assessment Criteria of the studies included in the review Authors C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 Summary score Babskie et al., 2017 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 17 (.94) Bandura et al., 2011 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 17 (.94) Bornstein et al., 2017 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 17 (.94) Carless et al., 2015 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 16 (.88) Buchanan et a., 2022 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 16 (.88) Chang et al., 2015 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 15 (.83) Costigan & Koryzma, 2011 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 15 (.83) Daganzo et al., 2014 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 13 (.72) de Haan et al., 2009 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 17 (.94) Dumka et al., 2010 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 14 (.78) Egberts et al., 2015 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 15 (.83) Garcia & Alampay, 2012 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 14 (.78) Glatz & Buchanan, 2022 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 17 (.94) Glatz & Buchanan, 2015a 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 17 (.94) Glatz & Buchanan, 2015b 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 17 (.94) Glatz & Trifan, 2019 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 14 (.78) Glatz et al., 2017 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 14 (.78) Glatz et al., 2018 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 15 (.83) Henney, 2016 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 13 (.72) Holloway et al., 2016 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 17 (.94) Junttila & Vauras, 2014 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 17 (.94) Junttila et al., 2007 2 2 1 2 2 1 0 2 2 14 (.78) Kiang et al., 2021 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 14 (.78) Kiang et al., 2017 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 14 (.78) Latham et al., 2018 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 15 (.83) Lippold et al., 2019 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 16 (.88) Mahabee-Gittens et al., 2011 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 16 (.88) Malm et al., 2017 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 14 (.78) Morrissey & Gondoli, 2012 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 15 (.83) Slagt et al., 2012 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 17 (.94) Steca et al., 2011 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 2 1 14 (.78) Suzuki, 2010 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 13 (.72) Tazouti & Jarlégan, 2019 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 11 (.61) van Eldik et al., 2017 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 17 (.94) Wong & Lee, 2017 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 14 (.78) C1 = Question/objective sufficiently described? C2 = Study design evident and appropriate? C3 = Subject (and comparison group, if applicable) characteristics sufficiently described? C4 = Sample size appropriate? C5 = Analytic methods described/justified and appropriate? C6 = Some estimate of variance is reported for the main results? C7 = Controlled for demographic variables? C8 = Results reported in sufficient detail? C9 = Conclusions supported by the results? 2 points = yes; 1 = partial; 0 = No. Summary score = total points (total points/total possible points) 1 3 Adolescent Research Review on a total of 9 criteria and were given 0–2 points (0 = no; study limitations (e.g., inappropriately implying or explic- 1 = p a r t i a l ; 2 = ye s ) o n e a ch . T h e f irst criterion was itly drawing causal inferences). whether the research questions/objective was sufficiently As can be seen in Table 3, most studies received a high described. Studies were given 2 points if they had a clear score (M = 15; maximum points were 18). Points ranged points section in the end of the introduction that presented a clear from 11 to 17, with most studies receiving either 14 (28%) or research question/aim and information about the target; 1 17 (28%) points. On criteria 6–9, most studies received max- point was given if this information was not clearly stated imum points. On criteria 1 and 2, about 60% of the studies or if this information was gained elsewhere in the manu- received maximum points and on criteria 3 and 5, about 50% script. The second criterion was whether the study design received maximum points. The reasons for lower points on was evident and appropriate (2 points). Studies were given these criteria were mostly due to the use of cross-sectional 2 points if the study design enabled testing of the pro- design although research questions specified a longitudi - posed research question. Studies were given partial points nal relation, missing information about the participants or (1 point) if the design did not enable test of the research research questions, or lack of information on missing data. questions (e.g., research question specifies a mediation, Criteria 4 (i.e., appropriate sample size) included the high- but the study had a cross-sectional design). The third cri- est number of studies with only partial points. According to terion involved the description of the participants. Stud- the specified cutoffs described above (2 points = at least 781 ies were given 2 points if they reported descriptive infor- participants; 1 point = at least 82 participants), most studies mation on child’s age and sex, parents’ age and sex, and (69%) used too small samples to be able to detect weak cor- family background (e.g., SES). One point was given if relations. Overall, then, although the majority of the stud- only partial information was reported. For the fourth cri- ies received high scores on quality, lower scores were due terion, the appropriateness of the sample size was evalu- to designs not appropriate for the research questions, small ated. N = 781 was used as the cutoff to get 2 points, which samples, and limited information on participants. should be enough to detect a weak correlation (0.10) with a power of 0.80 (alpha = 0.05). To get 1 point, n = 82 was What Role Does PSE have in Associations used as the cutoff, which should be enough to detect a with Parenting and Child Behaviors? moderately strong correlation (0.30) with a power of 0.80 (alpha = 0.05). The fifth criterion involved the analytical Associations Among PSE and Parenting methods. Studies were given 2 points if they reported on model fit and missing data, and if the statistical analyses A total of 19 studies have examined the associations between were appropriate for the test of the research questions. If PSE and parent behaviors (see Table 4 for results). Across all studies did not report on this or used inappropriate analy- 19 studies, independent of age of the sample, PSE and par- ses, they were given either 1 or 0 points. The sixth criterion enting were significantly associated. Eleven studies exam- was whether studies reported some estimate of variance ined the cross-sectional associations at one time point only for the main results. Two points were given if there was and found consistent evidence of an association between a standard deviation or confidence interval; 1 point was PSE and a range of positive parenting behaviors. Higher given if studies presented only standardized coefficients; PSE have been associated with, for example, more positive 0 if they did not include any indicators of variance. For parenting practices in samples in the United States (Glatz the seventh criterion, studies were evaluated on the inclu- & Trifan, 2019; Glatz et al., 2017; Kiang et al., 2021) and sion of demographic controls. Studies were given 2 points Canada (Costigan & Koryzma, 2011), and more open and if they accounted for at least one demographic variable positive parent–child communication in Italy (Bandura et al., (i.e., race/gender/age), either as a central control variable 2011), the United States (Glatz et al., 2018) and Taiwan or a moderator of study effects. If studies did not include (Chang et al., 2015). In addition, there is some evidence that any demographic variables, they received 0 points. The higher PSE is associated with lower levels of negative par- eighth criterion involved whether the results were reported enting practices, such as parental rejection and aggression, in sufficient detail. Studies received 2 points if the results in samples in the Philippines (Daganzo et al., 2014; Garcia section and associated tables and figures offered enough & Alampay, 2012) and higher levels of parental monitoring details to enable readers to discern all results related to in the United States and Taiwan (Chang et al., 2015; Malm the research questions or study aims. For the ninth cri- et al., 2017). One recent study by Buchanan and colleagues terion, studies were given points based on whether their (2022) found that parents with higher levels of PSE among conclusions supported the results. Two points were given mothers of children in early adolescence showed lower if study conclusions aligned with the research questions physiological responses to stress (i.e., more moderate skin and study aims without extending beyond the bounds of conductance and a smaller increase in cortisol). 1 3 Adolescent Research Review Table 4 Results on associations among PSE, parent, and child behaviors Cross-sectional Longitudinal Cross-sectional Longitudinal Authors PSE Parent PSEParent ParentPSE PSE Child PSEChild ChildPSE PSEParentChild Babskie et al., 2017 – – – Sig – – – Bandura et al., 2011 Sig – – – – – – Buchanan et al., 2022 Sig – – – – – – Bornstein et al., 2017 – – – – Non-sig – – Chang et al., 2015 Sig – – Sig – – – Costigan & Koryzma, 2011 Sig – – Sig – – – Daganzo et al., 2014 Sig – – – – – – Dumka et al., 2010 – Sig Non-sig – Sig – Non-sig Egberts et al., 2015 – Sig – – – – – Garcia & Alampay, 2012 Sig – – Non-sig – – – Glatz & Buchanan, 2022 – – – Sig – – – Glatz & Buchanan, 2015a – – – – – Sig – ab Glatz & Buchanan, 2015b – Sig Sig – Non-sig Sig Sig (mothers) Glatz & Trifan, 2019 Sig – – – – – – Glatz et al., 2017 Sig – – Sig – – – Glatz et al., 2018 Sig – – – – – – Junttila & Vauras, 2014 Sig – – – Lippold et al., 2019 – Sig Sig – – – – Kiang et al., 2021 Sig – – – – – – Mahabee-Gittens et al., 2011 – – – Sig – – – Malm et al., 2017 Sig – – Sig – – – ab Morrissey & Gondoli, 2012 – Sig Non-sig – Non-sig Sig – ab Slagt et al., 2012 – Sig Sig – Non-sig Sig Non-sig Steca et al., 2011 – Sig – Sig – – – ab van Eldik et al., 2017 – Sig Sig – Non-sig Sig – = correlation; = prediction over time Test of bi-directional link between PSE and parenting Test of bi-directional link between PSE and child behavior Two longitudinal studies have examined PSE as a predic- be predicted by parenting. Five of these studies measured tor of parenting (Egberts et al., 2015; Steca et al., 2011). In PSE and parenting at two or more time points and used a Belgian sample (children ages 11 or 12), PSE predicted cross-lagged models or alternative models to examine the higher levels of warmth and support, and lower levels of reciprocal relationships between parenting and PSE (Dumka parental reactivity two years later (Egberts et al., 2015). et al., 2010; Glatz & Buchanan, 2015b; Lippold et al., 2019; Further, in an Italian sample (children ages 13 or 14) (Steca Morrisey & Gondoli, 2012; van Eldik et al., 2017). The sixth et al., 2011), PSE predicted higher levels of parent–child study (Slagt et al., 2012), measured PSE at the first and third positive and open communication three years later (Egberts time points, and parenting at the second time point (i.e., par- et al., 2015). These two studies used longitudinal data (PSE enting was used as a predictor of changes in PSE, but PSE at the first time point and parenting at the second time was not used as a predictor of changes in parenting). Regard- point), but they did not control for parenting at the first time ing findings, four of these studies—covering both school-age point, and, thus, the results do not inform about increases or and adolescence—showed support for a reciprocal relation: decreases in parenting over time. higher levels of PSE predicted higher levels or increases Six additional longitudinal studies among parents of ado- in positive parenting (high support and low inept disci- lescents in the United States (Dumka et al., 2010; Glatz & pline, mindful parenting, and promotive parenting [parents’ Buchanan, 2015b; Lippold et al., 2019; Morrisey & Gon- practices that aim to cultivate children’s skills, talents, and doli, 2012) and parents of children in school-age collected interests and to prevent negative adjustment, Furstenberg in Belgium (Slagt et al., 2012; van Eldik et al., 2017) have et al., 1999) or parental well-being. Higher levels of positive examined the possibility that PSE might both predict and parenting or parental well-being also predicted increases in 1 3 Adolescent Research Review PSE (Glatz & Buchanan, 2015b; Lippold et al., 2019; Slagt Bornstein and colleagues (2017), on the other hand, did et al., 2012; van Eldik et al., 2017). The two additional stud- not find support for a link between PSE and changes in ies involved parents of adolescents (11–14 years, Dumka child externalizing behaviors (age 8 at the starting point) et al., 2010) and parents of late school-age children/early in nine different countries (China, Colombia, Italy, Jor - adolescents (9–11 years, Morrissey & Gondoli, 2012). These dan, Kenya, Philippines, Sweden, Thailand, and the United studies showed a unidirectional association: PSE predicted States). The only study that examined child behaviors as changes in mothers’ parenting (democratic style, parental a predictor of changes in PSE (Glatz & Buchanan, 2015a) control), but mothers’ parenting did not predict changes in found that internalizing behaviors predicted initial levels, PSE. but not changes, in PSE. Four longitudinal studies—all conducted in either the Associations Between PSE and Child Behaviors United States or Belgium—tested for bidirectional links between PSE and child externalizing behaviors over time In total, 17 studies have examined the association between (Glatz & Buchanan, 2015b; Morrissey & Gondoli, 2012; PSE and child behaviors (mostly commonly externalizing Slagt et al., 2012; van Eldik et al., 2017). All four stud- behaviors) and showed evidence of a significant association ies measured PSE and child behaviors with two or more between these. The longitudinal studies on this association, time points and used cross-lagged or alternative models however, showed not only that these are associated, but also to examine reciprocal relations. These studies covered that the association might go one way. samples of children from six to 12 years at the starting Ten of the studies were cross-sectional and examined point, which, as they are longitudinal, together cover a the association between PSE and child outcomes at one large part of the school-age and adolescent period. All time point. These studies included both school-aged and bidirectional studies provided evidence that difficult child adolescent-aged children, and all studies reported a signifi- and adolescent behaviors predicted decreases in PSE, but cant association between PSE and child outcomes except none showed evidence of an effect of PSE on changes in for one (Garcia & Alampay, 2012). Results showed that child behaviors. parents with higher levels of PSE had children with fewer internalizing and externalizing behaviors in comparison to parents with lower levels of PSE. For example, Chang and Indirect Eec ff ts of PSE on Child Behaviors, via Parent colleagues (2015) found that higher PSE in Taiwanese par- Behaviors ents about substance use was associated with lower levels of tobacco use and alcohol drinking. Mahabee-Gittens and col- In addition to tests of direct effects among PSE, parent, leagues (2011) found that U.S. parents who had higher PSE and child behaviors presented above, three identified stud- had children with fewer intentions to smoke. Other studies ies tested an indirect effect of PSE on child behaviors, via have found higher PSE to be associated with lower child parenting behaviors. These have presented mixed results, aggression, violence, and bullying in U.S. samples (Malm with some showing empirical support and some not. One et al., 2017) and Italian samples (Steca et al., 2011). Finally, longitudinal study on U.S. parents of children ages 11 or there is some evidence that higher PSE is associated with 12 at the starting point found evidence of such media- better child psychological adjustment (Costigan & Kory- tion. Specifically, Glatz and Buchanan ( 2015b) found that zma, 2011), and lower risk for loneliness and depression in higher PSE predicted more promotive parenting, which school-age children and adolescents in Finland (Junttila & in turn predicted lower levels of externalizing behavior, Vauras, 2014) and Italy (Steca et al., 2011). but only among mothers. Among fathers, the link between Three longitudinal studies have examined associations PSE and parenting was not significant. Yet other studies between PSE and child behaviors over time. These stud- have not found support for an indirect effect. Slagt and col- ies have either examined PSE as a predictor of changes leagues (2012) conducted a longitudinal study in Belgium in child behaviors (Bornstein et al., 2017; Dumka et al., on parents of children 6 to 10 years at the starting point, 2010) or child behaviors as a predictor of changes in PSE and they did not find inept discipline (i.e., criticism, anger, (Glatz & Buchanan, 2015a). None of these studies, how- Prinzie et al., 2007) or supportive parenting to be signifi- ever, have examined bi-directional links between PSE cant mediators between PSE and later child externalizing and child behaviors. The two studies examining PSE as a behaviors. Similarly, a longitudinal study by Dumka and predictor of changes in child behaviors showed different colleagues (2010) conducted in the United States, found results. Dumka and colleagues (2010) found a significant that the effect of maternal PSE on adolescents’ external- link between PSE and changes in conduct problems among izing behaviors (11–14 years at the starting point) was not parents of children somewhat later in the adolescent period mediated by changes in maternal control practices. (11–14 years at the starting point) in the United States. 1 3 Adolescent Research Review attitudes, expectations, and aspirations as they relate to their What Additional Parent, Child, and Socio‑contextual Factors are Associated with PSE? child are linked to PSE. For instance, U.S. parents’ higher expectations of adolescents’ risk-taking behavior were asso- Parent Characteristics as Predictors of PSE ciated with lower PSE (Glatz & Buchanan, 2015a). Another study on French parents of school-age children found that Twenty-three (66%) of the studies examined additional higher aspirations and expectations among parents for their child were associated with lower levels of PSE (Tazouti & correlates of PSE. Parent characteristics were the most fre- quently examined factor among studies on parents of both Jarlégan, 2019). school-age children and adolescents (n = 18, 51%). Parents’ age, ethnicity, and gender were significant predictors of PSE, Child Characteristics as Predictors of PSE although there were some mixed findings. Older parental age was found to be associated with higher levels of PSE In seven studies (20%), child demographic characteristics in a sample including mostly mothers (Carless et al., 2015). Regarding parents’ gender, the few existing studies show and personality traits were assessed as predictors of PSE. In studies conducted in Asia (Japan and Taiwan) and in the mixed results. One study found that Belgian mothers of chil- dren ages 5–11 reported lower levels of PSE than Belgian United States, parents of school-age children and adoles- cents have shown to report higher levels of PSE for girls fathers (de Haan et al., 2009), whereas another study sug- gested that Taiwanese mothers of adolescents have higher than for boys, (Chang et al., 2015; Glatz & Buchanan, 2022; Holloway et al., 2016). There is also some evidence that mean levels of PSE than Taiwanese fathers (Chang et al., 2015). early pubertal changes make parents feel less efficacious before and during the transition to adolescence (Glatz & With respect to racial/ethnic identity, one cross-sectional study (Glatz & Trifan, 2019) and one longitudinal study Buchanan, 2015a), perhaps because these changes signal to parents about increased independence. In terms of child (Glatz & Buchanan, 2015a) found that parents of adolescents who identified as African American reported higher initial personality, one longitudinal study found that higher levels of child extraversion and conscientiousness were associ- levels of PSE. In the study by Glatz and Buchanan (2015a), however, parents identifying as European American changed ated with higher levels of PSE, whereas child benevolence, emotional stability, and imagination were not significantly less in their PSE over time in comparison to parents who identified as African American. Another study found no dif- associated with PSE (Egberts et al., 2015). ference between African American and European American parents of children ages nine to 16 (Mahabee-Gittens et al., Socio‑contextual and Relational Factors 2011). In the context of immigration, cross-sectional studies from the United States found that acculturation was posi- as Predictors of PSE tively associated with PSE, whereas acculturation conflict between parents and adolescent-aged children (10–18 years) Eight studies (23%) have examined factors within a larger socio-contextual and relational domain as predictors of was negatively associated with PSE (Costigan & Koryzma, 2011; Kiang et al., 2017). PSE. These include relational aspects (e.g., parent–child, co-parenting) and family aspects (family dysfunction, SES), Other studies have examined associations between par- ents’ psychological well-being, adjustment, and values in which are not related specifically to either the parent or the child. Parent–child communication quality and coparent- shaping PSE. Most of these studies were cross-sectional, and the results presented here are associations at one time point ing quality were both found to predict PSE, both concur- rently (Latham et al., 2018) and longitudinally (Glatz & only. Several studies conducted in Europe and Asia indicate that higher levels of parent depression, anxiety, stress, and Buchanan, 2015a). Parent–child conflict was found to be negatively associated with smartphone-specific PSE in a loneliness are associated with lower levels of PSE among parents of children in both school-age and adolescence cross-sectional study on a sample including a majority of mothers of adolescents in Hong Kong (Wong & Lee, 2017). (Carless et al., 2015; Junttila et al., 2007; Suzuki, 2010). Two studies (conducted in Belgium and the United States) In terms of family-level characteristics, family dysfunction was found to be negatively associated with PSE in mothers assessed associations between parents’ personality and PSE, finding that higher levels of extraversion, agreeableness, of adolescents in Australia (Carless et al., 2015), whereas higher socio-economic status and household income were emotional stability, autonomy, dominance, self-control, and independence were associated with higher levels of PSE; both found to be positively associated with PSE in parents of school-age children and adolescents in the United States, whereas higher levels of apprehension and anxiety were associated with lower levels of PSE (de Haan et al., 2009; Asia, and Europe (Glatz et al., Holloway et al., 2016; Tazouti & Jarlégan, 2019). Henney, 2016). There is also some evidence that parents’ 1 3 Adolescent Research Review What Moderates the Associations Among PSE, How Does PSE Change Over the Developmental Parenting, and Child Behaviors? Period? Although the studies in this review were conducted in 14 dif- Some studies have examined potential changes in PSE over ferent countries, there were very few studies in which com- time—either by presenting a correlation between age and parisons were performed between participants based on race, PSE, by examining the means of PSE in different age groups culture, or nationality. As exceptions, four studies compared (cross-sectional data), or by reporting on PSE at multiple findings in samples from two or more cultures. In two stud- times (longitudinal data). Most of these studies suggest that ies, Kiang and colleagues (Kiang et al., 2017, 2021) showed PSE decreases over the school-age and adolescent period. some differences in associations among Asian American Seven studies reported on correlations between children’s parents and Latinx parents of adolescents. The first study age and PSE. Three of them—covering both school-age and (Kiang et al., 2017) showed that among Asian American par- adolescence (Carless et al., 2015; de Haan et al., 2009; Wong ticipants, but not Latinx participants, acculturation conflicts & Lee, 2017)—reported a non-significant correlation. Four predicted lower PSE, especially when parents felt less effi- studies (Egberts et al., 2015; Glatz & Trifan, 2019; Glatz cacious in transmitting heritage messages to their children et al., 2018; Kiang et al., 2017) reported a significant nega- (low levels of cultural-specific PSE). In the second study tive correlation suggesting that PSE was lower for parents (Kiang et al., 2021), for Latinx parents, the negative correla- of older children than for parents of younger children. One tion between grade and PSE was weaker when parents were additional cross-sectional study on American parents of ado- high on involvement. In a third study by Mahabee-Gittens lescents (Babskie et al., 2017) tested and showed evidence and colleagues (2011), the authors tested if there were racial that parents of older adolescents reported lower levels of differences in the effects of PSE on youth smoking inten- PSE than parents of younger adolescents. tions in a sample of majority mothers (ages 9–16), finding Eight longitudinal studies on parents of school-age chil- associations in their models were similar between African dren (Morrissey & Gondoli, 2012; Slagt et al., 2012; van American and Caucasian families. A fourth study (Bornstein Eldik et al., 2017) and/or adolescents (Chang et al., 2015; et al., 2017) was the only study testing differences between Glatz & Buchanan, 2015a, 2015b; Lippold et al., 2019; Steca parents of school-age children living in different countries, et  al., 2011) reported the means of PSE at multiple time and they showed that PSE was not a significant predictor of points. Most of these studies reported lower means over time child externalizing behavior in any of the countries (China, (Chang et al., 2015; Glatz & Buchanan, 2015a, 2015b; Slagt Colombia, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Philippines, Sweden, Thai- et al., 2012; Steca et al., 2011; van Eldik et al., 2017), sug- land, and the United States). gesting that PSE decreases as children become older. Two In terms of gender, out of the 35 studies included in studies conducted in the USA showed slightly different the review, eight included a sample of only mothers. The results. First, one study on parents of school-age children rest (n = 27) included both mothers and fathers, but with showed somewhat stable means in PSE over time (Morrissey a general underrepresentation of the number of fathers in & Gondoli, 2012), and one study covering both school-age the sample. A few of these studies have examined gender and adolescence showed higher means in mothers’ PSE over differences in the associations involving PSE. These studies time (Lippold et al., 2019). The study by Lippold and col- have presented mixed findings, with slightly more studies leagues used data from an intervention study, which may be showing a non-significant effect. Babskie and colleagues why means of PSE increased over time. Although several (2017) found that higher PSE regarding alcohol and anti- studies reported PSE means at multiple time points, only social peers for mothers, but not fathers, was associated one study tested for significance in changes of PSE. Spe - with less youth drinking and delinquency. Further, Glatz cifically, Glatz and Buchanan (2015a) used Latent Growth and Buchanan (2015b) found PSE to be more predictive of Curve Modeling to test for a significant slope in PSE among promotive parenting for U.S. mothers than for U.S. fathers, parents in the United States (Glatz & Buchanan, 2015a); a and promotive parenting mediated the association between test that supported a significant decrease in PSE from 11 or PSE and child externalizing behaviors for mothers but not 12 years of age to 14 or 15 years of age. for fathers. These two studies were conducted on parents of adolescents between 11 and 18 years of age. Four other stud- ies—covering a somewhat younger developmental period Discussion (5–12 years of age) than the two above-mentioned studies— did not find parent gender differences in the associations Parental self-efficacy has been studied extensively, mainly between PSE and parenting (Daganzo et al., 2014; de Haan because it is believed to be an important antecedent of et al., 2009; Egberts et al., 2015), or between PSE and child effective parenting and subsequent child adjustment. To externalizing (van Eldik et al., 2017). get a better understanding of the various roles of parental 1 3 Adolescent Research Review self-ec ffi acy for parent and child behaviors, as well as devel - very few studies examining these complex models, which opmental changes, there is a need for an updated system- makes the conclusions less certain. For example, for a long atic review. The purpose of this study was to review current time, research has conceptualized parental self-efficacy as research among parents of school-age children and adoles- a predictor of parenting and subsequent child adjustment cents. The studies included in this review showed evidence (i.e., a mediation model). This idea is in line with social of a reciprocal association between parental self-efficacy and cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997), which suggest that parents parenting behaviors, and some evidence that self-efficacy who feel efficacious are more motivated to persist in their predicted child behaviors indirectly via parenting. Further, parenting efforts, which subsequently would have positive studies suggest a decrease in parental self-efficacy over this implications for child adjustment. A sense of efficacy may developmental period, and that various individual and fam- also reduce parental frustration, allowing them to facilitate ily factors might help explain differences in the level. This a close, warm relationship with their children, all which review offered insight into the nature of these associations, should have positive effects on children’s behaviors. To as it includes studies that examined parental self-efficacy examine this conceptual model fully, there is a need for lon- as both a predictor and an outcome, and because the design gitudinal data. As to date, only three longitudinal studies on of the studies (cross-sectional versus longitudinal) were in parents of school-age children and adolescents have exam- focus in the analysis. ined these mediational links and the existing studies differ in whether they find significant or non-significant results. One Associations Among Parental Self‑efficacy, study (Glatz & Buchanan, 2015b) found that parental self- Parenting, and Child Behaviors efficacy predicted positive parenting and subsequently better child outcomes, yet others did not (Dumka et al., 2010; Slagt Most of the studies showed a significant association among et al., 2012). These mixed findings may be due to differences parental self-efficacy and parenting. Significant correlations in the type of parenting examined. It is possible that parental in cross-sectional studies were supported by longitudinal self-efficacy has an indirect effect on child behaviors, but studies highlighting that parents with higher levels of self- only via certain parenting behaviors. Differences might also efficacy demonstrated more positive parenting. Importantly, be because of different age ranges in the studies. The studies studies that examined parental self-efficacy as part of trans- that did not find significant mediation (Dumka et al., 2010; actional models offer the most comprehensive picture of Slagt et al., 2012) used larger age ranges (ages 6–10 and relations among these variables. Most longitudinal studies 11–14) whereas the study by Glatz and Buchanan (2015b) that examined reciprocal relations showed that the influ- included parents of adolescents ages 11 or 12. It is possible ence went both ways. This finding support ideas in line with that different processes take place depending on the child’s social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997), in which parents age, and that studying more narrow age ranges may capture who feel efficacious are more likely to parent in a positive more nuanced processes. way, which in turn increases their self-efficacy. Turning to the association between parental self-efficacy Factors that are Associated with Parental and child behaviors, results differed depending on the study Self‑efficacy design. Many cross-sectional studies found a significant cor - relation between parental self-efficacy and child behaviors. Factors associated with parental self-efficacy were found in However, longitudinal studies examining reciprocal rela- all domains, but most commonly in the parent domain. This tions have found that difficult child behaviors predict lower is in line with general models of determinants of parenting self-efficacy, but not the reverse. Hence, in general, findings (Belsky, 1984) and earlier review studies on predictors of did not support a bi-directional relation. This is in line with parental self-efficacy (Fang et al., 2021). Parents’ compro- ideas of the child as active in the changes and development mised well-being, anxious personality traits, challenging of parenting, and that parents’ experiences with their chil- child behaviors, and low qualities of dyads and families, dren likely affect their perceived competence and confidence were all important correlates of lower self-efficacy. Some of (e.g., Bell, 1968). The unfolding of the direction of this asso- these represent malleable factors (i.e., factors that are subject ciation has important implications for the understanding of to change or influence, Fang et al., 2021), whereas other cor - the role of parental self-efficacy for child behaviors. To only relates are more static or intractable. Among those interested examine and report results on one direction could risk a fl wed in understanding how to cultivate parents’ self-efficacy, it conclusions. will be important to focus on those correlates that are malle- As research models become more complex and aimed able (e.g., well-being, family communication). Importantly, at examining underlying mediational and transactional pro- many variables assessed as predictors were not also mod- cesses among parental self-efficacy, parenting, and child eled as being influenced by parental self-efficacy. It is pos- variables, the conclusions become less clear. There are also sible that self-efficacy also exerts influence on some of the 1 3 Adolescent Research Review predictors represented in studies. For example, in the studies socio-emotional changes, which all have an impact on par- by Steca and colleagues (2011) and Glatz and Buchanan ents and their beliefs about parenting (Bornstein, 2019). (2015a), parent–child communication was used to predict The studies in this review suggested that there might be the level of parental self-efficacy. It is, however, possible that more similarities than differences in parental self-efficacy parents who feel more efficacious have better communica- during these two age periods. For example, studies showed tion skills, resulting in more positive communication with decreasing means in both time periods, suggesting that their children. Moreover, and perhaps more likely, the asso- parents might start to feel less efficacious at the time their ciations between parental self-efficacy and these variables children start school and continue decreasing the older might be bidirectional or transactional. In fact, many of the the child gets. However, it is important to note that only studies that conceptualized and tested parental self-efficacy one study (Glatz & Buchanan, 2015b) tested significant as an outcome used cross-sectional data that, unfortunately, changes and showed evidence that parental self-efficacy did not provide opportunities to test for causality. As a final decreased from early adolescence to middle adolescence. remark, some of the factors were only examined in one or Other studies report decreasing means as youth become two studies, which makes conclusions rather unsure, and older but did not test for significant changes over time. other factors are yet to be studied (e.g., impact of siblings) As the study by Glatz and Buchanan (2015b) reported on in future research. changes when the youth were 11 to the time they were The studies in this review were diverse in terms of the 15, it is still unknown if there are similar changes before ethnicity of the participants or country of data collection. No the age of 11 and after the age of 18. Such knowledge is clear differences were found as a result of ethnicity or coun- critical given the important developmental processes that try, rather the results seemed to be  similar across studies, may start prior to age 11 (i.e., puberty) and after 18 (i.e., suggesting that many of the processes are universal. How- increased autonomy/independence). Further, such changes ever, it should be noted that there is a lack of studies from may vary depending on cultural differences, which cannot many countries (e.g., African countries, countries in Central be captured by one USA study only. America) and there is an overrepresentation of studies from Studies found that parenting predicted parental self- western countries. This has the potential to bias the under- efficacy similarly across these developmental periods, standing of processes involving parental self-efficacy, and it but some differences emerged regarding some sociode- is, thus, difficult to conclude that the findings in the studies mographic factors. For example, parents’ personality, are completely universal. Although studies were conducted parents’ compromised well-being (parent domain), par- in multiple countries, few studies did explicit comparisons ent–child communication, SES (socio-contexual domain), across countries or cultures. In fact, although a result might and children’s gender (child domain) seem to have simi- be significant in studies on different samples, it is possible lar associations with parental self-efficacy regardless of that results would differ between two samples if they were whether the sample focused on school-aged or adolescent- explicitly compared. That there are few studies examining aged children. However, more stable, sociodemographic differences as a function of ethnicity, culture, or country is a factors predicted self-efficacy differently in these devel- notable limitation, given a body of research and theory that opmental periods, at least in some studies. Two studies suggests that parenting and its effects on children may differ (Chang et al., 2015; de Haan et al., 2009) suggested that based on culture and race (e.g., Coard et al., 2004; Jensen mothers might feel more efficacious than fathers during & Dost-Gözkan, 2015). Further, there may be specific cul- the school-age period whereas fathers might feel more effi- tural parenting practices or beliefs that affect or are affected cacious than mothers during adolescence. Other studies by parental self-efficacy. Yet only one study examined such showed more differences between mothers and fathers in potential difference (Kiang et al., 2017). Future studies are the associations among parental self-efficacy, parent, and clearly needed that examine the role of culture and race and child variables among parents of adolescents than among ethnicity in predicting self-efficacy and modifying its rela- parents of school-age children. Specifically, some stud- tions to parent and child behaviors. ies suggested that ethnic differences might be more pro- nounced during adolescence than during the school-age Parental Self‑efficacy from a Developmental period (Glatz & Buchanan, 2015a; Glatz & Trifan, 2019; Perspective Mahabee-Gittens et al., 2011). It seems then that parents’ gender and ethnicity might play different roles for parental An important question for research and interventions is self-efficacy in different developmental periods—and more if and how parental self-efficacy develops over time. This differences might be present in later ages than in earlier review included studies on parents of school-age chil- ages. Importantly, these differences should be interpreted dren and adolescents (6 to 18 years). These are periods with caution and should be seen as indications rather than in which children undergo major physical, cognitive, and 1 3 Adolescent Research Review strong evidence, as the number of studies exploring these beyond those discussed in this paper. Readers are encour- factors were few. aged to review Tables 2 and 4, as well as the original arti- cles for more details about each paper. Limitations Strengths The research on parental self-efficacy is currently limited in three main ways. This was clear from the analysis of the This study also has a number of strengths that help move the results of the studies (Tables 2 and 4), but also apparent in research field forward. First, the focus of the various roles the analysis of the quality of the studies (Table 3). First, of parental self-efficacy is unique and offers an important there is a need to unfold longitudinally whether and how step in the understanding. In comparison to recent reviews parental self-efficacy influences parenting behavior and that examined parental self-efficacy as either a predictor subsequently child externalizing behaviors. Longitudinal (Albanese et al., 2019) or an outcome (Fang et al., 2021), studies using different parenting mediation variables and/ this review included studies that have conceptualized and or that account for the reciprocal relations between paren- examined different roles of parental self-efficacy in relation tal self-efficacy and parenting would move the field for - to child and parent behaviors. As a result, it offered a more ward in this respect. Second, it is still somewhat unknown comprehensive view of the empirical evidence regarding the about the developmental course. Out of the 35 studies different associations described in social cognitive theory included in the review, only one-third (n = 11) examined and transactional models of reciprocal effects between par - longitudinal data, which limits conclusions about devel- ents and children (Bandura, 1997; Sameroff, 2009). Second, opmental changes in parental self-efficacy. Although all studies reviewed in this study cover parents of school- exploring means at different time points or in different age aged children and adolescents. This focus allowed us to groups might hint at potential changes, more longitudinal focus in on a time period when parental self-efficacy tends examinations on changes over time are needed to confirm to decrease (Ballenski & Cook, 1982; Glatz & Buchanan, that parents report lower levels of self-efficacy over the 2015a) and also that may require new skills, as parents course of school-age and adolescence. Third, future stud- spend less time with children once they enter school. Third, ies need to take on a more thorough examination of the the review criteria were broad and included several related role of race, ethnicity, and culture on parental self-efficacy. search terms (i.e., perceived competence and confidence), as Such studies would shed light on the generalizability of well as parental self-efficacy on different levels (i.e., task- both predictors of parental self-efficacy as well as how it specific and general parental self-efficacy). This follows the is related to parenting and child behaviors. Future studies approach used by Jones and Prinz (2005) and the decision that use longitudinal data on diverse samples will con- was based on earlier conceptual papers that have shown tinue to enhance the understanding of this important par- high congruency between these concepts (Vance & Bran- ent construct. don, 2017; Wittkowski et al., 2017). In general, relationships This particular review also has limitations that should among parental self-efficacy on the one hand and parent- be discussed. First, although this review takes a clear and child variables on the other hand, did not seem to differ developmental approach, it focuses only on parents depending on the operationalization, which support earlier of school-aged and adolescent children. As such, it is studies regarding overlapping constructs. Thus, combining unknown if these findings can be generalized to infancy them gained a more comprehensive view of the literature. or early childhood, or other times when parental self- efficacy may also be important. Additionally, the present review does not allow a fine-grained analysis of specific Conclusion time periods (i.e., middle childhood vs late adolescence). As more developmental studies that specify a smaller age What role does parental self-efficacy have in relation to range become available, a deeper dive into a particular parent and child behaviors, and what explain differences developmental period within the school-age years is criti- between parents? Although the number of publications cal. Second, like all systematic reviews, different search on parental self-efficacy have increased over the last two criteria may have resulted in a different array of articles decades, without a full review of the current literature, the to review. The conclusions drawn here are based on these answers to these questions are unknown. The aim of this studies and might not show a complete picture of the cur- review study was to analyze current research to get a bet- rent research. Third, this review aimed to examine results ter understanding of the role of parental self-efficacy in and patterns across a broad array of studies. There may relation to parent and child factors, as well as changes over be many reasons for different or mixed findings between the school-age and adolescent period. The results support studies (i.e., different demographics, ages, study design) a reciprocal relation between parental self-efficacy and 1 3 Adolescent Research Review Parenting: Science and Practice, 17(4), 242–261. https://doi. or g/ parenting: Parents who feel efficacious use more positive 10. 1080/ 15295 192. 2017. 13693 14 parenting practices, which in turn increase their efficacy. Ballenski, C. B., & Cook, A. S. (1982). Mothers’ perceptions of their Additionally, research has started to unfold the developmen- competence in managing selected parenting tasks. Journal of tal course, suggesting that parental self-efficacy decrease Applied Family Studies, 31(4), 489–494. https://doi. or g/10. 2307/ over these years. The development and impact of parental Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behav - self-efficacy, however, is multifaceted and there might be ioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https:// doi. large individual differences. Studies show that whether par - org/ 10. 1037/ 0033- 295X. 84.2. 191 ents feel efficacious or not is influenced by their perceptions Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman. Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied of their child’s difficult behaviors, as well as a large scope Psychology: An International Review, 51(2), 269–290. https://doi. of parent-, child-, and family-specific variables. org/ 10. 1111/ 1464- 0597. 00092 * Bandura, A., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Regalia, C., & Scabini, Acknowledgements Nothing to acknowledge. E. (2011). Impact of family efficacy beliefs on quality of family functioning and satisfaction with family life. Applied Psychol- Authors’ Contributions TG did the initial literature search, screened ogy, 60(3), 421–448. https://do i. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1464- 0597. 2010. abstracts and full texts of relevant articles, worked on the data extrac- 00442.x tion, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript; ML screened abstracts Bell, R. Q. (1968). A reinterpretation of the direction of effects in stud- and full texts of relevant articles, worked on the data extraction, and ies of socialization. Psychological Review, 75(2), 81–95. https:// helped to draft the manuscript; GC did a re-check of the data extraction doi. org/ 10. 1037/ h0025 583 and helped to draft the manuscript; TJ worked on the data extraction Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. and helped to draft the manuscript. All authors read and approved the Child Development, 55(1), 83–96. https:// doi. or g/ 10. 2307/ final manuscript. 11298 36 Bornstein, M. H. (2019). Handbook of parenting. Routledge. Funding Open access funding provided by Örebro University. * Bornstein, M. H., Putnick, D. L., Lansford, J. E., Al-Hassan, S. M., Bacchini, D., Bombi, A. S., Chang, L., Deater-Deckard, Declarations K., di Giunta, L., Dodge, K. A., Malone, P. S., Oburu, P., Pas- torelli, C., Skinner, A. T., Sorbring, E., Steinberg, L., Tapanya, Conflict of interest On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author S., Tirado, L. M. U., Zelli, A., & Alampay, L. P. (2017). “Mixed states that there is no conflict of interest. blessings”: Parental religiousness, parenting, and child adjust- ment in global perspective. The Journal of Child Psychology Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri- and Psychiatry, 58(8), 880–892. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jcpp. bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta- tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Exper- as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, iments by nature and design. Harvard University Press. provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes *Buchanan, C. M., Gangel, M. J., McCurdy, A. L., Fletcher, A. C., were made. The images or other third party material in this article are & Buehler, C. (2022). Parental self-efficacy and physiological included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated responses to stress among mothers of early adolescents. Journal otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in of Youth and Adolescence, 51(4), 643–658. https:// doi. org/ 10. the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not 1007/ s10964- 022- 01577-6 permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will * Carless, B., Melvin, G. A., Tonge, B. J., & Newman, L. K. (2015). need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a The role of parental self-efficacy in adolescent school-refusal. copy of this licence, visit http://cr eativ ecommons. or g/licen ses/ b y/4.0/ . Journal of Family Psychology, 29(2), 162–170. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ fam00 00050 * Chang, F.-C., Chang, Y.-C., Lee, C.-M., Lung, C.-N., Liao, H.-J., Lee, S.-C., Miao, N.-F., Lin, S.-H., & Zeng, W.-T. (2015). Parental efficacy and adolescent competence skills associated with ado- References lescent substance use. Journal of Substance Use, 20(2), 85–92. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3109/ 14659 891. 2013. 859752 Coard, S. I., Wallace, S. A., Stevenson, H. C., Jr., & Brotman, L. M. (2004). Towards culturally relevant preventive interventions: The consideration of racial socialization in parent training with References marked with an asterisk indicate studies African American families. Journal of Child and Family Studies, included in the systematic review 13(3), 277–293. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1023/B: JCFS. 00000 22035. 07171. f8 Albanese, A. M., Russo, G. R., & Geller, P. (2019). The role of parental Coleman, P. K., & Karraker, K. H. (1997). Self-efficacy and parenting self-efficacy in parent and child well-being: A systematic review quality: Findings and future applications. Developmental Review, of associated outcomes. Child Care, Health and Development, 18(1), 47–85. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1006/ drev. 1997. 0448 45(3), 333–363. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ cch. 12661 Cooper, H. (2010). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by- Ardelt, M., & Eccles, J. (2001). Effects of mothers’ parental efficacy step approach. Sage Publications, Inc. beliefs and promotive parenting practices on inner-city youth. * Costigan, C. L., & Koryzma, C. M. (2011). Acculturation and adjust- Journal of Family Issues, 22(8), 944–972. https://doi. or g/10. 1177/ ment among immigrant Chinese parents: Mediating role of parent- 01925 13010 22008 001 ing efficacy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(2), 183–196. * Babskie, E., Powell, D. N., & Metzger, A. (2017). Variability in https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0021 696 parenting self-efficacy across prudential adolescent behaviors. 1 3 Adolescent Research Review Črnčec, R., Barnett, B., & Matthey, S. (2010). Review of scales of * Holloway, S. D., Campbell, E. J., Nagase, A., Kim, S., Suzuki, S., parenting confidence. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 18(3), Wang, Q., Iwatate, K., & Baak, S. Y. (2016). Parenting self- 210–240. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1891/ 1061- 3749. 18.3. 210 efficacy and parental involvement: Mediators or moderators * Daganzo, M. A. A., Alampy, L. P., & Lansford, J. E. (2014). Filipino between socioeconomic status and children’s academic com- mothers’ self-efficacy in managing anger and in parenting, and petence in Japan and Korea? Research in Human Development, parental rejection as predictors of child delinquency. Philippine 13(3), 258–272. https://doi. or g/10. 1080/ 15427 609. 2016. 11947 Journal of Psychology, 47(1), 1–26. 10 * de Haan, A. D., Prinzie, P., & Deković, M. (2009). Mothers’ and Horsley, T., Dingwall, O., & Sampson, M. (2011). Checking reference fathers’ personality and parenting: The mediating role of sense lists to find additional studies for systematic reviews. Cochrane of competence. Developmental Psychology, 45(6), 1695–1707. Database of Systematic Reviews. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ 14651 https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0016 121858. MR000 026. pub2 * Dumka, L. E., Gonzales, N. A., Wheeler, L. A., & Millsap, R. E. Jensen, L. A., & Dost-Gözkan, A. (2015). Adolescent–parent relations (2010). Parenting self-efficacy and parenting practices over time in Asian Indian and Salvadoran immigrant families: A cultural– in Mexican American families. Journal of Family Psychology, developmental analysis of autonomy, authority, conflict, and cohe- 24(5), 522–531. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0020 833 sion. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 25(2), 340–351. https:// Dumka, L. E., Stoerzinger, H. D., Jackson, K. M., & Roosa, M. W. doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jora. 12116 (1996). Examination of the cross-cultural and cross-language Jones, T. L., & Prinz, R. J. (2005). Potential roles of parental self- equivalence of the parenting self-agency measure. Family Rela- efficacy in parent and child adjustment: A review. Clinical Psy - tions, 45(2), 216–222. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 585293 chology Review, 25(3), 341–363. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cpr. * Egberts, M. R., Prinzie, P., Deković, M., de Haan, A. D., & van 2004. 12. 004 den Akker, A. L. (2015). The prospective relationship between * Junttila, N., & Vauras, M. (2014). Latent profiles of parental self- child personality and perceived parenting: Mediation by paren- efficacy and children’s multisource-evaluated social competence. tal sense of competence. Personality and Individual Differences, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 397–414. 77, 193–198. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. paid. 2014. 12. 046https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ bjep. 12040 Fang, Y., Boelens, M., Windhorst, D. A., Raat, H., & van Grieken, * Junttila, N., Vauras, M., & Laakkonen, E. (2007). The role of par- A. (2021). Factors associated with parenting self-efficacy: A enting self-efficacy in children’s social and academic behavior. systematic review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 77(6), 2641– European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22, 41–61. https:// 2661. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jan. 14767doi. org/ 10. 1007/ BF031 73688 Furstenberg, F. F., Cook, T. D., Eccles, J., Elder, G. J., Jr., & * Kiang, L., Glatz, T., & Buchanan, C. M. (2017). Acculturation con- Sameroff, A. (1999). Managing to make it: Urban families and flict, cultural parenting self-efficacy, and perceived parenting adolescent success. University of Chicago Press. competence in Asian American and Latino/a Families. Family * Garcia, A. S., & Alampay, L. P. (2012). Parental efficacy, experi- Process, 56(4), 943–961. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ famp. 12266 ence of stressful life events, and child externalizing behaviors * Kiang, L., Glatz, T., & Buchanan, C. M. (2021). Developmental cor- as predictors of Filipino mothers’ and fathers’ parental hostility relates of cultural parental self-efficacy among Asian and Latinx and aggression. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 45(1), 1–24. parents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 30, 2563–2574. * Glatz, T., & Buchanan, C. M. (2015a). Change and predictors of https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10826- 021- 02065-4 change in parental self-efficacy from early to middle adoles- * Latham, R. M., Mark, K. M., & Oliver, B. R. (2018). Coparenting and cence. Developmental Psychology, 51(10), 1367–1379. https:// children’s disruptive behavior: Interacting processes for parent- doi. org/ 10. 1037/ dev00 00035 ing sense of competence. Journal of Family Psychology, 32(1), * Glatz, T., & Buchanan, C. M. (2015b). Over-time associations 151–156. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ fam00 00362 among parental self-efficacy, promotive parenting practices, and * Lippold, M. A., Jensen, T. M., Duncan, L. G., Nix, R. L., Coats- adolescents’ externalizing behaviors. Journal of Family Psy- worth, J. D., & Greenberg, M. T. (2019). Mindful parenting, par- chology, 29(3), 427–437. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ fam00 00076 enting cognitions, and parent-youth communication: Bidirectional * Glatz, T., & Buchanan, C. M. (2022). Exploring how adolescent linkages and mediational processes. Mindfulness, 12, 381–391. boys’ and girls’ internalizing and externalizing behaviors impact https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12671- 019- 01119-5 parental self-efficacy: A vignette study. Family Relations. * Mahabee-Gittens, E. M., Huang, B., Chen, C., Dorn, L. D., Ammer- https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ fare. 12696 man, R. T., & Gordon, J. S. (2011). The association of parental * Glatz, T., Cotter, A., & Buchanan, C. M. (2017). Adolescents’ self-efficacy and parent–youth connectedness with youth smok - behaviors as moderators for the link between parental self-effi- ing intentions. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Com- cacy and parenting practices. Journal of Child and Family Stud- munity, 39(3), 194–208. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10852 352. 2011. ies, 26(4), 989–997. https://doi. or g/10. 1007/ s10826- 016- 0623-2 576962 * Glatz, T., Crowe, E., & Buchanan, C. M. (2018). Internet-specific * Malm, E. K., Henrich, C., Varjas, K., & Meyers, J. (2017). Paren- parental self-efficacy: Developmental differences and links to tal self-efficacy and bullying in elementary school. Journal of internet-specific mediation. Computers in Human Behavior, 84, School Violence, 16(4), 411–425. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 15388 8–17. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chb. 2018. 02. 014220. 2016. 11687 43 * Glatz, T., & Trifan, T. A. (2019). Examination of parental self- * Morrissey, R. A., & Gondoli, D. M. (2012). Change in parenting efficacy and their beliefs about the outcomes of their parenting democracy during the transition to adolescence: The roles of practices. Journal of Family Issues, 40(10), 1321–1345. https:// young adolescents’ noncompliance and mothers’ perceived influ- doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01925 13X19 835864 ence. Parenting, 12(1), 57–73. https://doi. or g/10. 1080/ 15295 192. Greenhalgh, T., & Peacock, R. (2005). Effectiveness and efficiency 2012. 638872 of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: Prinzie, P., Onghena, P., & Hellinckx, W. (2007). Reexamining the Audit of primary sources. BMJ, 331(7524), 1064–1065. https:// Parenting Scale: Reliability, factor structure, and concurrent valid- doi. org/ 10. 1136/ bmj. 38636. 593461. 68 ity of a scale for assessing the discipline practices of mothers and * Henney, S. M. (2016). The relationship between personality and fathers of elementary-school-aged children. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23(1), 24–31. https://doi. or g/10. 1027/ parental confidence in mothers of school-aged children. SAGE 1015- 5759. 23.1. 24 Open. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 21582 44016 659317 1 3 Adolescent Research Review Pulgarón, E. R. (2013). Childhood obesity: A review of increased risk * van Eldik, W. M., Prinzie, P., Deković, M., & de Haan, A. D. (2017). for physical and psychological comorbidities. Clinical Therapeu- Longitudinal associations between marital stress and externalizing tics, 35(1), A18–A32. https://doi. or g/10. 1016/j. clint her a.2012. 12. behavior: Does parental sense of competence mediate processes? 014 Journal of Family Psychology, 31(4), 420–430. https:// doi. org/ Sameroff, A. (2009). The transactional model. In A. Sameroff (Ed.), 10. 1037/ fam00 00282 The transactional model of development: How children and Vance, A. J., & Brandon, D. H. (2017). Delineating among parenting context shape each other (pp. 3–21). American Psychological confidence, parenting self-efficacy, and competence. Advances Association. in Nursing Science, 40(4), 18–37. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1097/ ANS. * Slagt, M., Decović, M., de Haan, A. D., van den Akker, A. L., & 00000 00000 000179 Prinzie, P. (2012). Longitudinal associations between mothers’ Wittkowski, A., Garrett, C., Calam, R., & Weisberg, D. (2017). Self- and fathers’ sense of competence and children’s externalizing reported measures of parental self-efficacy: A systematic review problems: The mediating role of parenting. Developmental Psy- of the current literature. Journal of Family Studies, 26, 2960– chology, 48(6), 1554–1562. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0027 719 2978. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10826- 017- 0830-5 * Steca, P., Bassi, M., Caprara, G. V., & Fave, A. D. (2011). Parents’ * Wong, Y.-C., & Lee, V. W. P. (2017). Parenting methods and self- self-efficacy beliefs and their children’s psychosocial adaptation efficacy of parents in supervising children’s use of mobile devices: during adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(3), The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Technology in Human Ser- 320–331. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10964- 010- 9514-9 vices, 35(1), 63–85. https:// doi. or g/ 10. 1080/ 15228 835. 2017. * Suzuki, S. (2010). The effects of marital support, social network 12779 11 support, and parenting stress on parenting: Self-efficacy among mothers of young children in Japan. Journal of Early Childhood Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to Research, 8(1), 40–66. https:// doi. or g/ 10. 1177/ 14767 18X09 jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. * Tazouti, Y., & Jarlégan, A. (2019). The mediating effects of parental self-efficacy and parental involvement on the link between family socioeconomic status and children’s academic achievement. Jour- nal of Family Studies, 25(3), 250–266. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13229 400. 2016. 12411 85 1 3 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Adolescent Research Review Springer Journals

A Systematic Review of Parental Self-efficacy Among Parents of School-Age Children and Adolescents

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/a-systematic-review-of-parental-self-efficacy-among-parents-of-school-t3oL9VyJuO

References (59)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2023
ISSN
2363-8346
eISSN
2363-8354
DOI
10.1007/s40894-023-00216-w
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

What function does parental self-efficacy have for parenting behaviors and children’s adjustment, and what explains individual variations in parents’ self-efficacy? Parental self-efficacy involves parents’ beliefs about their influence on their children and this systematic review presents results from 35 empirical studies published between 2003 and 2022 among parents of school-aged children and adolescents. First, the studies in this review show a bi-directional association between parental self-efficacy and positive parenting, and some empirical evidence that parental self-efficacy influences children indirectly, via parenting. The few longitudinal studies examining associations between parental self-efficacy and child behaviors suggest that self-efficacy might emerge as a reaction to children’s behaviors. Second, many child, parent, and sociocultural factors were shown to predict parental self-efficacy (e.g., child gender and age, parents’ psychological well-being, and socio-economic status), and results suggest that these associations are similar across multiple countries and age groups. Finally, studies report- ing on parental self-efficacy at different time points or a correlation between self-efficacy and the child’s age suggested that parental self-efficacy decreases over the school-age and adolescent period. This review shows the complex role of parental self-efficacy in associations with parent and child factors, and it also highlight questions to address for future research. Keywords Parental self-efficacy · School-age children · Adolescents · Systematic literature review · Parent and child variables Introduction positive effect on children’s adjustment. Given the growth of research in this area, a systematic review is needed to Over the last decades, there have been substantial increases synthesize the current state of knowledge. This systematic in the amount of research on parental self-efficacy, defined review study presents research on the various roles of paren- as parents’ perceptions about being able to influence and tal self-efficacy in the associations with parent and child help their children develop pro-social behaviors and avoid variables, as well as studies on developmental changes. risky behaviors (Bandura, 1977, 1997, 2002). According to social cognitive theory, parental self-efficacy is linked to Previous Reviews on Parental Self‑efficacy increased motivation and persistence in the face of chal- lenges (Bandura, 1997). Parents who feel efficacious tend As the most cited and influential review on parental self- to be better equipped to handle challenging child behaviors efficacy, Jones and Prinz (2005) helped conceptualize it (Bandura, 2002; Coleman & Karraker, 1997), which has a and synthesize research establishing associations between parental self-efficacy and various parent and child variables. The authors highlighted evidence of multiple roles of paren- * Terese Glatz tal self-efficacy, including a predictor and outcome of par - terese.glatz@oru.se enting practices. Self-efficacy was also linked directly and School of Law, Psychology and Social Work, Örebro indirectly, via parenting practices, with child outcomes, and University, Fakultetsgatan 1, 701 82 Örebro, Sweden child behaviors also predicted levels of self-efficacy. Finally, School of Social Work, University of North Carolina contextual factors (e.g., ethnicity, SES, environmental fac- at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, USA tors) moderated the link between parental self-efficacy and Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, National University parent and child variables. Two main limitations and gaps of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3 Adolescent Research Review of knowledge were identified by Jones and Prinz (2005). et al., 2021), and, thus, provided little insight on complex First, although Bandura (1997) argued that self-efficacy is and potential reciprocal associations among parental self- a dynamic factor and part of a transactional process, most efficacy, parenting, and child behaviors. studies up to that point had been using cross-sectional data, Second, earlier reviews have excluded studies that which limits the conclusions about complex and longitudinal examine similar measures to parental self-efficacy (e.g., processes involving parental self-efficacy and its association parental perceived competence, confidence, esteem, par - with parent and child variables. Second, Jones and Prinz enting agency), which are often used interchangeably (2005) pointed to the lack of studies focusing on the malle- (Vance & Brandon, 2017, see Table 1 for definitions and ability of parental self-efficacy to change over time, which related concepts). In fact, a variety of theoretical concepts was also a result of few longitudinal studies. have been used to represent what is ultimately parental More recently, two systematic reviews have been con- self-efficacy (Wittkowski et al., 2017), and studies that use ducted (Albanese et al., 2019; Fang et al., 2021). The review similar terms often use the same scales (Vance & Brandon, by Albanese and colleagues (2019) reviewed 115 studies 2017). Hence, there are strong arguments for examining focusing on parental self-efficacy as a predictor of parent studies on parental self-efficacy and similar concepts, as and child outcomes, and the authors concluded that higher these studies would ultimately explain how parental self- levels were related to positive outcomes in three domains: efficacy is related to parenting and child variables. the parent–child relationship, parent mental health, and child Third, there is a need for reviews that focus more development (e.g., better behavioral child outcomes). Fang closely on specific developmental periods. Being a par - and colleagues (2021) reviewed 30 studies that examined ent can be very different in different developmental peri- parental self-efficacy as an outcome of parent, child, and ods, as they include a vastly different focus and present socio-contextual factors. The authors concluded that poten- unique challenges. These age-related differences might tially modifiable factors, such as parenting stress and depres - affect parents’ beliefs about their influence on their chil- sion were especially strong predictors of self-efficacy. dren—as well as the effect of parental self-efficacy on par - enting and child outcomes and relevant predictors (Jones Limitations with Earlier Reviews and Identified & Prinz, 2005). Both recent reviews examined parental Research Gaps self-efficacy broadly, including studies with infants up to adolescents, but did not discuss potential differences Although recent reviews (Albanese et  al., 2019; Fang between developmental periods. During school-age and et  al., 2021) offer an update on the research on paren- adolescence, children undergo major physical, cognitive, tal self-efficacy—including studies published both before and socio-emotional changes, which all have an impact and after the review conducted by Jones and Prinz (2005), on parents and their beliefs about parenting (Bornstein, some gaps of knowledge exist regarding the current state 2019). Additionally, most children start school around the of research. First, the two recent review studies did not age of six, which not only changes the tasks of parenting, examine the various roles of parental self-efficacy in rela- but it also leads to increased independence for the child tion to parent, and child variables, which have been pro- and the introduction of other external influences. These posed in earlier conceptual models (Bandura, 1997; Jones observations and characteristics make school-age and & Prinz, 2005). Specifically, the reviews included studies adolescence particularly relevant developmental periods that conceptualized parental self-efficacy as a predictor to study parental self-efficacy and its associations with only (Albanese et  al., 2019) or an outcome only (Fang parenting and child variables. Table 1 Definitions of PSE and similar concepts Concept Definition Parental self-efficacy Parental beliefs or confidence in their ability to successfully carry out parenting tasks Parental sense of competence A parent’s perception of his or her ability perform tasks associated with caring for their child Parental confidence The belief or judgment a parent holds about their ability to be successful in tasks associated with parenting Parental self-esteem Parents’ judgement of worth as a parent Parenting self-agency Parents’ overall confidence in their ability to act successfully in the parental role Based on definitions offered by Vance and Brandon (2017) and Wittkowski and colleagues (2017). The definition of parenting self-agency is taken from Dumka and colleagues (1996) 1 3 Adolescent Research Review Confiden* OR Competen* OR Esteem OR Agency). Note Current Study that the asterisk on some of the words captures words with alternative endings or forms. All these combinations were There is a need for an updated review of current research used in each of the databases. In total, the searches included on the various roles and changes in parental self-efficacy. seven combinations of search terms in each of the seven This systematic review synthesizes findings from 35 studies databases (total 49 searches). examining parental self-efficacy among parents of school- As a second step, reference lists of the existing literature age children and adolescents (6 to 18 years) published since review articles were examined, and all studies that had cited the Jones and Prinz (2005) review. It summarizes current these review articles, to find additional potentially relevant research on the associations among parental self-efficacy, studies to include in the review (Horsley et al., 2011). Check- parenting, and child behaviors, as well as additional factors ing reference lists (i.e., “snowballing” method) has shown associated with parental self-efficacy. It also review results to be efficient in finding relevant literature (e.g., Greenhalgh on changes over the school-age and adolescent period. Find- & Peacock, 2005; Horsley et al., 2011), with recent studies ings are contextualized and analyzed with consideration of suggesting snowball techniques may capture more articles study design (longitudinal versus cross-sectional) and study than a reliance only on systematic database searches (Green- sample (school-age children versus adolescents), which halgh & Peacock, 2005; Horsley et al., 2011). The snowball enhances the understanding of the development of parental method was used in this study as a complementary method self-efficacy and longitudinal and reciprocal relationships to the systematic database search strategy described above. with other variables. Studies on parental self-efficacy and related concepts were included to ensure a comprehensive examination of the current research. In addition to this anal- Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria ysis, this systematic review also identifies gaps in current understanding of parental self-efficacy and outlines future Studies were considered eligible if they met the following research directions. a priori inclusion criteria: (a) used a sample of parents of school-aged children or adolescents (six to 18 years), (b) analyzed empirical data, (c) was peer-reviewed and written Methods in English. Only studies on children’s psychosocial behav- iors were included. In the screening of articles, studies that Identifying Literature examined child physical health (e.g., such as child weight and physical activity) were excluded, as such behaviors are The steps for research synthesis and meta-analysis outlined conceptually distinct from psychosocial behaviors and might by Cooper (2010) were used to identify the literature, and have a unique relationship with PSE (e.g., Pulgarón, 2013). the following electronic databases were used in the searches, No distinction was made between studies that examined gen- with the n fi al search being conducted in July 2022: Medline, eral PSE and task-specific PSE; both types of studies were PsycINFO, PsychARTICLES, ERIC, PubMed, Web of Sci- included. Conceptually, self-efficacy regarding specific tasks ence, and Google Scholar. Search filters were used to limit or on a general level are expected to predict parenting and retrieved studies to those published in 2003 onward, as this child outcomes in a similar way. To include studies using would capture relevant studies published since the Jones and measures of parental self-efficacy on different levels offered Prinz (2005) review. a holistic analysis that would aid the conceptual understand- ing of PSE. Several exclusion criteria were used to evaluate fit and Search Terms to exclude studies that did not fit the aim of the study. Stud- ies were excluded if they: (a) covered only a small part of The search terms were based on the keywords specified in the developmental range and also included children outside studies within the literature on parental self-efficacy (PSE) of the age range (e.g., children under age 6), (b) provided (Albanese et al., 2019; Črnčec et al., 2010; Jones & Prinz, an unspecified age group (i.e., children below 18 without 2005; Vance & Brandon, 2017; Wittkowski et al., 2017). As any age-specific information), (c) included parents and/or many studies might examine PSE but use different terms for children who were drawn from a clinical population, (d) pre- this concept (Vance & Brandon, 2017; Wittkowski et al., sented an evaluation/examination of a measure without any 2017), a liberal set of synonyms were used in the searches, further examination of the relation to other relevant variables rather than only using self-efficacy or PSE. Specifically, (e.g., child behaviors, parent behaviors), and (e) examined we used the following search string focused on study titles: PSE as an outcome of an intervention without any further (Parent* AND Self-efficacy OR Parental Self-Efficacy OR examination of associations with relevant variables. 1 3 Adolescent Research Review and disagreements about study relevance (28% of the stud- Study Screening and Selection ies) were discussed until consensus was reached about all studies deemed potentially relevant in preparation for full- The review of research in this study was guided by the steps from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews text review. Of the 172 unique articles, 132 ultimately were deemed irrelevant by both reviewers (e.g., study samples and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA). Figure  1 illustrates each step of the systematic review process. The search process covered an irrelevant age range), leaving 40 articles sub- jected to full-text review. An additional nine studies were yielded a total of 6629 studies. The initial search and screen- ing for relevance based on titles were conducted by the first identified through other sources (i.e., from literature lists of earlier review studies and articles citing these review author in consultation with the second author. In this step, the author assessed the alignment between the study titles studies). As a result of the full-text review, five articles were excluded because they covered a different age range and inclusion criteria; 377 articles met the inclusion cri- teria on the basis of title screening. Of these, 205 articles or because PSE was measured as part of a larger parenting construct making it difficult to discern the role of PSE spe- were excluded because they were duplicates, leaving 172 unique articles. In a second step of the review process, the cifically. Ultimately, 35 studies were identified as relevant and included in the systematic review. None of these studies first and second authors both screened the abstracts of these 172 studies. This was done independently by both authors, were included in the review by Jones and Prinz (2005). Parent* and Parent* and Parent* and Parent* and Satisfaction Self-efficacy Competen* Esteem (n = 2422) (n = 1486) (n = 1054) (n = 745) Parent* and Parent* and Parent* and PSE Confiden* Agency (n = 361) (n = 362) (n = 199) Records screened by type of title (n =6629) Irrelevant records excluded (n = 6252) Records screened by type of abstract (n = 377) Duplicates (n = 205) Irrelevant records (n = 132) Full-text articles assessed for eligibility (n = 40) From database sources (n = 31) From additional sources (n = 9) Records excluded Not relevant age of child (n = 4) PSE part of larger construct (n = 1) Articles included in the review (n = 35) Fig. 1 PRISMA diagram over each step of the systematic review process 1 3 Included Eligibility Screening Identification Adolescent Research Review ethnicity or country), and design (cross-sectional or lon- Data Extraction gitudinal). In the data extraction process, notes were made about internal and external validity, which is included in The authors extracted relevant data from the 35 studies included in the review using a structured coding guide the discussion about the research. All information was inserted into a Microsoft Excel sheet for further analyses. (See Table 2). In this guide, data points included study results, sample characteristics (e.g., age of the children, One team member re-checked all the data extracted by Table 2 Characteristics of the studies included in the review Authors Concept Age of child N’s Parent gender Country Design Babskie et al., 2017 Confidence 12–18 years 161 Both (33% fathers) The United States Cross Bandura et al., 2011 Efficacy 13–19 years 284 Both (50% fathers) Italy Cross Bornstein et al., 2017 Efficacy 8 years 2273 Both (47%) China, Colombia, Italy, Long Jordan, Kenya, Philippines, Sweden, Thailand, the United States Carless et al., 2015 Efficacy 12–17 years 106 Both (8% fathers) Australia Cross Buchanan et al., 2022 Efficacy 11 years 136 Mothers The United States Cross Chang et al., 2015 Confidence Competence 12–15 years 2015 Both (20% fathers) Taiwan Cross Costigan & Koryzma, 2011 Efficacy 10–14 years 177 Both (48% fathers) Canada Cross Daganzo et al., 2014 Efficacy 7–9 years 99 Mothers Philippines Cross de Haan et al., 2009 Sense of competence 5–11 years 1107 Both (47% fathers) Belgium Long Dumka et al., 2010 Sense of competence 11–14 years 189 Mothers The United States Long Efficacy Egberts et al., 2015 Sense of competence 11–12 years 404 Both (48% fathers) Belgium Long Garcia & Alampay, 2012 Efficacy 8 years 215 Both (46% fathers) Philippines Cross Glatz & Buchanan, 2022 Efficacy 11–18 years 1020 Both (50% fathers) The United States Cross Glatz & Buchanan, 2015a Sense of competence Per- 11–12 years 398 Both (29% fathers) The United States Long ceived influence Glatz & Buchanan, 2015b Sense of competence Per- 11–12 years 401 Both (29% fathers) The United States Long ceived influence Glatz & Trifan, 2019 Efficacy 11–18 years 968 Both (50% fathers) The United States Cross Glatz et al., 2017 Perceived influence M = 12 130 Both (32% fathers) The United States Cross age Glatz et al., 2018 Efficacy 11–18 years 1025 Both (50% fathers) The United States Cross Henney, 2016 Confidence 6–18 years 121 Mothers The United States Cross Holloway et al., 2016 Perceived capability M = 7 309/372 Mothers Japan/Korea Cross age Junttila & Vauras, 2014 Efficacy M = 10 1572 Both (44% fathers) Finland Cross age Junttila et al., 2007 Efficacy M = 10.5 1572 Both (44% fathers) Finland Cross age Kiang et al., 2021 Efficacy 11–18 years 219 Both (65% fathers) The United States Cross Kiang et al., 2017 Sense of competence 11–18 years 211 Both (65% fathers) The United States Cross Latham et al., 2018 Efficacy; Satisfaction M = 6 216 Both (50% fathers) England/Wales Cross age Lippold et al., 2019 Sense of competence 11–14 years 432 Mothers The United States Long Mahabee-Gittens et al., 2011 Efficacy Confidence 9–16 years 272 Both (13% fathers) The United States Cross Malm et al., 2017 Efficacy 9–10 years 142 Both (13% fathers) The United States Cross Morrissey & Gondoli, 2012 Perceived influence 9–11 years 166 Mothers The United States Long Slagt et al., 2012 Sense of competence 6–10 years 1102 Both (50% fathers) Belgium Long Steca et al., 2011 Efficacy M = 13.5 130 Both (22% fathers) Italy Long age Suzuki, 2010 Efficacy Confidence 7–8 years 98 Mothers Japan Cross Tazouti & Jarlégan, 2019 Efficacy M = 8.5 406 Both (50% fathers) France Cross age van Eldik et al., 2017 Sense of competence 6–10 years 723 Both (49% fathers) Belgium Long Wong & Lee, 2017 Confidence 12–17 years 1233 Both (27% fathers) Hong Kong Cross Cross cross-sectional study; Long Longitudinal study abcde Studies with same subscripts use the same dataset 1 3 Adolescent Research Review the team members with a 99% rate of agreement. Salient Results trends and patterns were identified in the data across and between studies, which facilitated summary and identified Quality Assessment of the Studies contrasts within and across studies. An adapted list of quality assessment criteria (Kmet et al., 2004) were used to evaluate the quality of the studies (see Table  3 for the quality scores). Studies were evaluated Table 3 Quality assessment Criteria of the studies included in the review Authors C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 Summary score Babskie et al., 2017 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 17 (.94) Bandura et al., 2011 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 17 (.94) Bornstein et al., 2017 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 17 (.94) Carless et al., 2015 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 16 (.88) Buchanan et a., 2022 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 16 (.88) Chang et al., 2015 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 15 (.83) Costigan & Koryzma, 2011 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 15 (.83) Daganzo et al., 2014 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 13 (.72) de Haan et al., 2009 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 17 (.94) Dumka et al., 2010 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 14 (.78) Egberts et al., 2015 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 15 (.83) Garcia & Alampay, 2012 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 14 (.78) Glatz & Buchanan, 2022 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 17 (.94) Glatz & Buchanan, 2015a 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 17 (.94) Glatz & Buchanan, 2015b 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 17 (.94) Glatz & Trifan, 2019 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 14 (.78) Glatz et al., 2017 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 14 (.78) Glatz et al., 2018 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 15 (.83) Henney, 2016 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 13 (.72) Holloway et al., 2016 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 17 (.94) Junttila & Vauras, 2014 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 17 (.94) Junttila et al., 2007 2 2 1 2 2 1 0 2 2 14 (.78) Kiang et al., 2021 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 14 (.78) Kiang et al., 2017 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 14 (.78) Latham et al., 2018 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 15 (.83) Lippold et al., 2019 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 16 (.88) Mahabee-Gittens et al., 2011 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 16 (.88) Malm et al., 2017 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 14 (.78) Morrissey & Gondoli, 2012 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 15 (.83) Slagt et al., 2012 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 17 (.94) Steca et al., 2011 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 2 1 14 (.78) Suzuki, 2010 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 13 (.72) Tazouti & Jarlégan, 2019 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 11 (.61) van Eldik et al., 2017 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 17 (.94) Wong & Lee, 2017 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 14 (.78) C1 = Question/objective sufficiently described? C2 = Study design evident and appropriate? C3 = Subject (and comparison group, if applicable) characteristics sufficiently described? C4 = Sample size appropriate? C5 = Analytic methods described/justified and appropriate? C6 = Some estimate of variance is reported for the main results? C7 = Controlled for demographic variables? C8 = Results reported in sufficient detail? C9 = Conclusions supported by the results? 2 points = yes; 1 = partial; 0 = No. Summary score = total points (total points/total possible points) 1 3 Adolescent Research Review on a total of 9 criteria and were given 0–2 points (0 = no; study limitations (e.g., inappropriately implying or explic- 1 = p a r t i a l ; 2 = ye s ) o n e a ch . T h e f irst criterion was itly drawing causal inferences). whether the research questions/objective was sufficiently As can be seen in Table 3, most studies received a high described. Studies were given 2 points if they had a clear score (M = 15; maximum points were 18). Points ranged points section in the end of the introduction that presented a clear from 11 to 17, with most studies receiving either 14 (28%) or research question/aim and information about the target; 1 17 (28%) points. On criteria 6–9, most studies received max- point was given if this information was not clearly stated imum points. On criteria 1 and 2, about 60% of the studies or if this information was gained elsewhere in the manu- received maximum points and on criteria 3 and 5, about 50% script. The second criterion was whether the study design received maximum points. The reasons for lower points on was evident and appropriate (2 points). Studies were given these criteria were mostly due to the use of cross-sectional 2 points if the study design enabled testing of the pro- design although research questions specified a longitudi - posed research question. Studies were given partial points nal relation, missing information about the participants or (1 point) if the design did not enable test of the research research questions, or lack of information on missing data. questions (e.g., research question specifies a mediation, Criteria 4 (i.e., appropriate sample size) included the high- but the study had a cross-sectional design). The third cri- est number of studies with only partial points. According to terion involved the description of the participants. Stud- the specified cutoffs described above (2 points = at least 781 ies were given 2 points if they reported descriptive infor- participants; 1 point = at least 82 participants), most studies mation on child’s age and sex, parents’ age and sex, and (69%) used too small samples to be able to detect weak cor- family background (e.g., SES). One point was given if relations. Overall, then, although the majority of the stud- only partial information was reported. For the fourth cri- ies received high scores on quality, lower scores were due terion, the appropriateness of the sample size was evalu- to designs not appropriate for the research questions, small ated. N = 781 was used as the cutoff to get 2 points, which samples, and limited information on participants. should be enough to detect a weak correlation (0.10) with a power of 0.80 (alpha = 0.05). To get 1 point, n = 82 was What Role Does PSE have in Associations used as the cutoff, which should be enough to detect a with Parenting and Child Behaviors? moderately strong correlation (0.30) with a power of 0.80 (alpha = 0.05). The fifth criterion involved the analytical Associations Among PSE and Parenting methods. Studies were given 2 points if they reported on model fit and missing data, and if the statistical analyses A total of 19 studies have examined the associations between were appropriate for the test of the research questions. If PSE and parent behaviors (see Table 4 for results). Across all studies did not report on this or used inappropriate analy- 19 studies, independent of age of the sample, PSE and par- ses, they were given either 1 or 0 points. The sixth criterion enting were significantly associated. Eleven studies exam- was whether studies reported some estimate of variance ined the cross-sectional associations at one time point only for the main results. Two points were given if there was and found consistent evidence of an association between a standard deviation or confidence interval; 1 point was PSE and a range of positive parenting behaviors. Higher given if studies presented only standardized coefficients; PSE have been associated with, for example, more positive 0 if they did not include any indicators of variance. For parenting practices in samples in the United States (Glatz the seventh criterion, studies were evaluated on the inclu- & Trifan, 2019; Glatz et al., 2017; Kiang et al., 2021) and sion of demographic controls. Studies were given 2 points Canada (Costigan & Koryzma, 2011), and more open and if they accounted for at least one demographic variable positive parent–child communication in Italy (Bandura et al., (i.e., race/gender/age), either as a central control variable 2011), the United States (Glatz et al., 2018) and Taiwan or a moderator of study effects. If studies did not include (Chang et al., 2015). In addition, there is some evidence that any demographic variables, they received 0 points. The higher PSE is associated with lower levels of negative par- eighth criterion involved whether the results were reported enting practices, such as parental rejection and aggression, in sufficient detail. Studies received 2 points if the results in samples in the Philippines (Daganzo et al., 2014; Garcia section and associated tables and figures offered enough & Alampay, 2012) and higher levels of parental monitoring details to enable readers to discern all results related to in the United States and Taiwan (Chang et al., 2015; Malm the research questions or study aims. For the ninth cri- et al., 2017). One recent study by Buchanan and colleagues terion, studies were given points based on whether their (2022) found that parents with higher levels of PSE among conclusions supported the results. Two points were given mothers of children in early adolescence showed lower if study conclusions aligned with the research questions physiological responses to stress (i.e., more moderate skin and study aims without extending beyond the bounds of conductance and a smaller increase in cortisol). 1 3 Adolescent Research Review Table 4 Results on associations among PSE, parent, and child behaviors Cross-sectional Longitudinal Cross-sectional Longitudinal Authors PSE Parent PSEParent ParentPSE PSE Child PSEChild ChildPSE PSEParentChild Babskie et al., 2017 – – – Sig – – – Bandura et al., 2011 Sig – – – – – – Buchanan et al., 2022 Sig – – – – – – Bornstein et al., 2017 – – – – Non-sig – – Chang et al., 2015 Sig – – Sig – – – Costigan & Koryzma, 2011 Sig – – Sig – – – Daganzo et al., 2014 Sig – – – – – – Dumka et al., 2010 – Sig Non-sig – Sig – Non-sig Egberts et al., 2015 – Sig – – – – – Garcia & Alampay, 2012 Sig – – Non-sig – – – Glatz & Buchanan, 2022 – – – Sig – – – Glatz & Buchanan, 2015a – – – – – Sig – ab Glatz & Buchanan, 2015b – Sig Sig – Non-sig Sig Sig (mothers) Glatz & Trifan, 2019 Sig – – – – – – Glatz et al., 2017 Sig – – Sig – – – Glatz et al., 2018 Sig – – – – – – Junttila & Vauras, 2014 Sig – – – Lippold et al., 2019 – Sig Sig – – – – Kiang et al., 2021 Sig – – – – – – Mahabee-Gittens et al., 2011 – – – Sig – – – Malm et al., 2017 Sig – – Sig – – – ab Morrissey & Gondoli, 2012 – Sig Non-sig – Non-sig Sig – ab Slagt et al., 2012 – Sig Sig – Non-sig Sig Non-sig Steca et al., 2011 – Sig – Sig – – – ab van Eldik et al., 2017 – Sig Sig – Non-sig Sig – = correlation; = prediction over time Test of bi-directional link between PSE and parenting Test of bi-directional link between PSE and child behavior Two longitudinal studies have examined PSE as a predic- be predicted by parenting. Five of these studies measured tor of parenting (Egberts et al., 2015; Steca et al., 2011). In PSE and parenting at two or more time points and used a Belgian sample (children ages 11 or 12), PSE predicted cross-lagged models or alternative models to examine the higher levels of warmth and support, and lower levels of reciprocal relationships between parenting and PSE (Dumka parental reactivity two years later (Egberts et al., 2015). et al., 2010; Glatz & Buchanan, 2015b; Lippold et al., 2019; Further, in an Italian sample (children ages 13 or 14) (Steca Morrisey & Gondoli, 2012; van Eldik et al., 2017). The sixth et al., 2011), PSE predicted higher levels of parent–child study (Slagt et al., 2012), measured PSE at the first and third positive and open communication three years later (Egberts time points, and parenting at the second time point (i.e., par- et al., 2015). These two studies used longitudinal data (PSE enting was used as a predictor of changes in PSE, but PSE at the first time point and parenting at the second time was not used as a predictor of changes in parenting). Regard- point), but they did not control for parenting at the first time ing findings, four of these studies—covering both school-age point, and, thus, the results do not inform about increases or and adolescence—showed support for a reciprocal relation: decreases in parenting over time. higher levels of PSE predicted higher levels or increases Six additional longitudinal studies among parents of ado- in positive parenting (high support and low inept disci- lescents in the United States (Dumka et al., 2010; Glatz & pline, mindful parenting, and promotive parenting [parents’ Buchanan, 2015b; Lippold et al., 2019; Morrisey & Gon- practices that aim to cultivate children’s skills, talents, and doli, 2012) and parents of children in school-age collected interests and to prevent negative adjustment, Furstenberg in Belgium (Slagt et al., 2012; van Eldik et al., 2017) have et al., 1999) or parental well-being. Higher levels of positive examined the possibility that PSE might both predict and parenting or parental well-being also predicted increases in 1 3 Adolescent Research Review PSE (Glatz & Buchanan, 2015b; Lippold et al., 2019; Slagt Bornstein and colleagues (2017), on the other hand, did et al., 2012; van Eldik et al., 2017). The two additional stud- not find support for a link between PSE and changes in ies involved parents of adolescents (11–14 years, Dumka child externalizing behaviors (age 8 at the starting point) et al., 2010) and parents of late school-age children/early in nine different countries (China, Colombia, Italy, Jor - adolescents (9–11 years, Morrissey & Gondoli, 2012). These dan, Kenya, Philippines, Sweden, Thailand, and the United studies showed a unidirectional association: PSE predicted States). The only study that examined child behaviors as changes in mothers’ parenting (democratic style, parental a predictor of changes in PSE (Glatz & Buchanan, 2015a) control), but mothers’ parenting did not predict changes in found that internalizing behaviors predicted initial levels, PSE. but not changes, in PSE. Four longitudinal studies—all conducted in either the Associations Between PSE and Child Behaviors United States or Belgium—tested for bidirectional links between PSE and child externalizing behaviors over time In total, 17 studies have examined the association between (Glatz & Buchanan, 2015b; Morrissey & Gondoli, 2012; PSE and child behaviors (mostly commonly externalizing Slagt et al., 2012; van Eldik et al., 2017). All four stud- behaviors) and showed evidence of a significant association ies measured PSE and child behaviors with two or more between these. The longitudinal studies on this association, time points and used cross-lagged or alternative models however, showed not only that these are associated, but also to examine reciprocal relations. These studies covered that the association might go one way. samples of children from six to 12 years at the starting Ten of the studies were cross-sectional and examined point, which, as they are longitudinal, together cover a the association between PSE and child outcomes at one large part of the school-age and adolescent period. All time point. These studies included both school-aged and bidirectional studies provided evidence that difficult child adolescent-aged children, and all studies reported a signifi- and adolescent behaviors predicted decreases in PSE, but cant association between PSE and child outcomes except none showed evidence of an effect of PSE on changes in for one (Garcia & Alampay, 2012). Results showed that child behaviors. parents with higher levels of PSE had children with fewer internalizing and externalizing behaviors in comparison to parents with lower levels of PSE. For example, Chang and Indirect Eec ff ts of PSE on Child Behaviors, via Parent colleagues (2015) found that higher PSE in Taiwanese par- Behaviors ents about substance use was associated with lower levels of tobacco use and alcohol drinking. Mahabee-Gittens and col- In addition to tests of direct effects among PSE, parent, leagues (2011) found that U.S. parents who had higher PSE and child behaviors presented above, three identified stud- had children with fewer intentions to smoke. Other studies ies tested an indirect effect of PSE on child behaviors, via have found higher PSE to be associated with lower child parenting behaviors. These have presented mixed results, aggression, violence, and bullying in U.S. samples (Malm with some showing empirical support and some not. One et al., 2017) and Italian samples (Steca et al., 2011). Finally, longitudinal study on U.S. parents of children ages 11 or there is some evidence that higher PSE is associated with 12 at the starting point found evidence of such media- better child psychological adjustment (Costigan & Kory- tion. Specifically, Glatz and Buchanan ( 2015b) found that zma, 2011), and lower risk for loneliness and depression in higher PSE predicted more promotive parenting, which school-age children and adolescents in Finland (Junttila & in turn predicted lower levels of externalizing behavior, Vauras, 2014) and Italy (Steca et al., 2011). but only among mothers. Among fathers, the link between Three longitudinal studies have examined associations PSE and parenting was not significant. Yet other studies between PSE and child behaviors over time. These stud- have not found support for an indirect effect. Slagt and col- ies have either examined PSE as a predictor of changes leagues (2012) conducted a longitudinal study in Belgium in child behaviors (Bornstein et al., 2017; Dumka et al., on parents of children 6 to 10 years at the starting point, 2010) or child behaviors as a predictor of changes in PSE and they did not find inept discipline (i.e., criticism, anger, (Glatz & Buchanan, 2015a). None of these studies, how- Prinzie et al., 2007) or supportive parenting to be signifi- ever, have examined bi-directional links between PSE cant mediators between PSE and later child externalizing and child behaviors. The two studies examining PSE as a behaviors. Similarly, a longitudinal study by Dumka and predictor of changes in child behaviors showed different colleagues (2010) conducted in the United States, found results. Dumka and colleagues (2010) found a significant that the effect of maternal PSE on adolescents’ external- link between PSE and changes in conduct problems among izing behaviors (11–14 years at the starting point) was not parents of children somewhat later in the adolescent period mediated by changes in maternal control practices. (11–14 years at the starting point) in the United States. 1 3 Adolescent Research Review attitudes, expectations, and aspirations as they relate to their What Additional Parent, Child, and Socio‑contextual Factors are Associated with PSE? child are linked to PSE. For instance, U.S. parents’ higher expectations of adolescents’ risk-taking behavior were asso- Parent Characteristics as Predictors of PSE ciated with lower PSE (Glatz & Buchanan, 2015a). Another study on French parents of school-age children found that Twenty-three (66%) of the studies examined additional higher aspirations and expectations among parents for their child were associated with lower levels of PSE (Tazouti & correlates of PSE. Parent characteristics were the most fre- quently examined factor among studies on parents of both Jarlégan, 2019). school-age children and adolescents (n = 18, 51%). Parents’ age, ethnicity, and gender were significant predictors of PSE, Child Characteristics as Predictors of PSE although there were some mixed findings. Older parental age was found to be associated with higher levels of PSE In seven studies (20%), child demographic characteristics in a sample including mostly mothers (Carless et al., 2015). Regarding parents’ gender, the few existing studies show and personality traits were assessed as predictors of PSE. In studies conducted in Asia (Japan and Taiwan) and in the mixed results. One study found that Belgian mothers of chil- dren ages 5–11 reported lower levels of PSE than Belgian United States, parents of school-age children and adoles- cents have shown to report higher levels of PSE for girls fathers (de Haan et al., 2009), whereas another study sug- gested that Taiwanese mothers of adolescents have higher than for boys, (Chang et al., 2015; Glatz & Buchanan, 2022; Holloway et al., 2016). There is also some evidence that mean levels of PSE than Taiwanese fathers (Chang et al., 2015). early pubertal changes make parents feel less efficacious before and during the transition to adolescence (Glatz & With respect to racial/ethnic identity, one cross-sectional study (Glatz & Trifan, 2019) and one longitudinal study Buchanan, 2015a), perhaps because these changes signal to parents about increased independence. In terms of child (Glatz & Buchanan, 2015a) found that parents of adolescents who identified as African American reported higher initial personality, one longitudinal study found that higher levels of child extraversion and conscientiousness were associ- levels of PSE. In the study by Glatz and Buchanan (2015a), however, parents identifying as European American changed ated with higher levels of PSE, whereas child benevolence, emotional stability, and imagination were not significantly less in their PSE over time in comparison to parents who identified as African American. Another study found no dif- associated with PSE (Egberts et al., 2015). ference between African American and European American parents of children ages nine to 16 (Mahabee-Gittens et al., Socio‑contextual and Relational Factors 2011). In the context of immigration, cross-sectional studies from the United States found that acculturation was posi- as Predictors of PSE tively associated with PSE, whereas acculturation conflict between parents and adolescent-aged children (10–18 years) Eight studies (23%) have examined factors within a larger socio-contextual and relational domain as predictors of was negatively associated with PSE (Costigan & Koryzma, 2011; Kiang et al., 2017). PSE. These include relational aspects (e.g., parent–child, co-parenting) and family aspects (family dysfunction, SES), Other studies have examined associations between par- ents’ psychological well-being, adjustment, and values in which are not related specifically to either the parent or the child. Parent–child communication quality and coparent- shaping PSE. Most of these studies were cross-sectional, and the results presented here are associations at one time point ing quality were both found to predict PSE, both concur- rently (Latham et al., 2018) and longitudinally (Glatz & only. Several studies conducted in Europe and Asia indicate that higher levels of parent depression, anxiety, stress, and Buchanan, 2015a). Parent–child conflict was found to be negatively associated with smartphone-specific PSE in a loneliness are associated with lower levels of PSE among parents of children in both school-age and adolescence cross-sectional study on a sample including a majority of mothers of adolescents in Hong Kong (Wong & Lee, 2017). (Carless et al., 2015; Junttila et al., 2007; Suzuki, 2010). Two studies (conducted in Belgium and the United States) In terms of family-level characteristics, family dysfunction was found to be negatively associated with PSE in mothers assessed associations between parents’ personality and PSE, finding that higher levels of extraversion, agreeableness, of adolescents in Australia (Carless et al., 2015), whereas higher socio-economic status and household income were emotional stability, autonomy, dominance, self-control, and independence were associated with higher levels of PSE; both found to be positively associated with PSE in parents of school-age children and adolescents in the United States, whereas higher levels of apprehension and anxiety were associated with lower levels of PSE (de Haan et al., 2009; Asia, and Europe (Glatz et al., Holloway et al., 2016; Tazouti & Jarlégan, 2019). Henney, 2016). There is also some evidence that parents’ 1 3 Adolescent Research Review What Moderates the Associations Among PSE, How Does PSE Change Over the Developmental Parenting, and Child Behaviors? Period? Although the studies in this review were conducted in 14 dif- Some studies have examined potential changes in PSE over ferent countries, there were very few studies in which com- time—either by presenting a correlation between age and parisons were performed between participants based on race, PSE, by examining the means of PSE in different age groups culture, or nationality. As exceptions, four studies compared (cross-sectional data), or by reporting on PSE at multiple findings in samples from two or more cultures. In two stud- times (longitudinal data). Most of these studies suggest that ies, Kiang and colleagues (Kiang et al., 2017, 2021) showed PSE decreases over the school-age and adolescent period. some differences in associations among Asian American Seven studies reported on correlations between children’s parents and Latinx parents of adolescents. The first study age and PSE. Three of them—covering both school-age and (Kiang et al., 2017) showed that among Asian American par- adolescence (Carless et al., 2015; de Haan et al., 2009; Wong ticipants, but not Latinx participants, acculturation conflicts & Lee, 2017)—reported a non-significant correlation. Four predicted lower PSE, especially when parents felt less effi- studies (Egberts et al., 2015; Glatz & Trifan, 2019; Glatz cacious in transmitting heritage messages to their children et al., 2018; Kiang et al., 2017) reported a significant nega- (low levels of cultural-specific PSE). In the second study tive correlation suggesting that PSE was lower for parents (Kiang et al., 2021), for Latinx parents, the negative correla- of older children than for parents of younger children. One tion between grade and PSE was weaker when parents were additional cross-sectional study on American parents of ado- high on involvement. In a third study by Mahabee-Gittens lescents (Babskie et al., 2017) tested and showed evidence and colleagues (2011), the authors tested if there were racial that parents of older adolescents reported lower levels of differences in the effects of PSE on youth smoking inten- PSE than parents of younger adolescents. tions in a sample of majority mothers (ages 9–16), finding Eight longitudinal studies on parents of school-age chil- associations in their models were similar between African dren (Morrissey & Gondoli, 2012; Slagt et al., 2012; van American and Caucasian families. A fourth study (Bornstein Eldik et al., 2017) and/or adolescents (Chang et al., 2015; et al., 2017) was the only study testing differences between Glatz & Buchanan, 2015a, 2015b; Lippold et al., 2019; Steca parents of school-age children living in different countries, et  al., 2011) reported the means of PSE at multiple time and they showed that PSE was not a significant predictor of points. Most of these studies reported lower means over time child externalizing behavior in any of the countries (China, (Chang et al., 2015; Glatz & Buchanan, 2015a, 2015b; Slagt Colombia, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Philippines, Sweden, Thai- et al., 2012; Steca et al., 2011; van Eldik et al., 2017), sug- land, and the United States). gesting that PSE decreases as children become older. Two In terms of gender, out of the 35 studies included in studies conducted in the USA showed slightly different the review, eight included a sample of only mothers. The results. First, one study on parents of school-age children rest (n = 27) included both mothers and fathers, but with showed somewhat stable means in PSE over time (Morrissey a general underrepresentation of the number of fathers in & Gondoli, 2012), and one study covering both school-age the sample. A few of these studies have examined gender and adolescence showed higher means in mothers’ PSE over differences in the associations involving PSE. These studies time (Lippold et al., 2019). The study by Lippold and col- have presented mixed findings, with slightly more studies leagues used data from an intervention study, which may be showing a non-significant effect. Babskie and colleagues why means of PSE increased over time. Although several (2017) found that higher PSE regarding alcohol and anti- studies reported PSE means at multiple time points, only social peers for mothers, but not fathers, was associated one study tested for significance in changes of PSE. Spe - with less youth drinking and delinquency. Further, Glatz cifically, Glatz and Buchanan (2015a) used Latent Growth and Buchanan (2015b) found PSE to be more predictive of Curve Modeling to test for a significant slope in PSE among promotive parenting for U.S. mothers than for U.S. fathers, parents in the United States (Glatz & Buchanan, 2015a); a and promotive parenting mediated the association between test that supported a significant decrease in PSE from 11 or PSE and child externalizing behaviors for mothers but not 12 years of age to 14 or 15 years of age. for fathers. These two studies were conducted on parents of adolescents between 11 and 18 years of age. Four other stud- ies—covering a somewhat younger developmental period Discussion (5–12 years of age) than the two above-mentioned studies— did not find parent gender differences in the associations Parental self-efficacy has been studied extensively, mainly between PSE and parenting (Daganzo et al., 2014; de Haan because it is believed to be an important antecedent of et al., 2009; Egberts et al., 2015), or between PSE and child effective parenting and subsequent child adjustment. To externalizing (van Eldik et al., 2017). get a better understanding of the various roles of parental 1 3 Adolescent Research Review self-ec ffi acy for parent and child behaviors, as well as devel - very few studies examining these complex models, which opmental changes, there is a need for an updated system- makes the conclusions less certain. For example, for a long atic review. The purpose of this study was to review current time, research has conceptualized parental self-efficacy as research among parents of school-age children and adoles- a predictor of parenting and subsequent child adjustment cents. The studies included in this review showed evidence (i.e., a mediation model). This idea is in line with social of a reciprocal association between parental self-efficacy and cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997), which suggest that parents parenting behaviors, and some evidence that self-efficacy who feel efficacious are more motivated to persist in their predicted child behaviors indirectly via parenting. Further, parenting efforts, which subsequently would have positive studies suggest a decrease in parental self-efficacy over this implications for child adjustment. A sense of efficacy may developmental period, and that various individual and fam- also reduce parental frustration, allowing them to facilitate ily factors might help explain differences in the level. This a close, warm relationship with their children, all which review offered insight into the nature of these associations, should have positive effects on children’s behaviors. To as it includes studies that examined parental self-efficacy examine this conceptual model fully, there is a need for lon- as both a predictor and an outcome, and because the design gitudinal data. As to date, only three longitudinal studies on of the studies (cross-sectional versus longitudinal) were in parents of school-age children and adolescents have exam- focus in the analysis. ined these mediational links and the existing studies differ in whether they find significant or non-significant results. One Associations Among Parental Self‑efficacy, study (Glatz & Buchanan, 2015b) found that parental self- Parenting, and Child Behaviors efficacy predicted positive parenting and subsequently better child outcomes, yet others did not (Dumka et al., 2010; Slagt Most of the studies showed a significant association among et al., 2012). These mixed findings may be due to differences parental self-efficacy and parenting. Significant correlations in the type of parenting examined. It is possible that parental in cross-sectional studies were supported by longitudinal self-efficacy has an indirect effect on child behaviors, but studies highlighting that parents with higher levels of self- only via certain parenting behaviors. Differences might also efficacy demonstrated more positive parenting. Importantly, be because of different age ranges in the studies. The studies studies that examined parental self-efficacy as part of trans- that did not find significant mediation (Dumka et al., 2010; actional models offer the most comprehensive picture of Slagt et al., 2012) used larger age ranges (ages 6–10 and relations among these variables. Most longitudinal studies 11–14) whereas the study by Glatz and Buchanan (2015b) that examined reciprocal relations showed that the influ- included parents of adolescents ages 11 or 12. It is possible ence went both ways. This finding support ideas in line with that different processes take place depending on the child’s social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997), in which parents age, and that studying more narrow age ranges may capture who feel efficacious are more likely to parent in a positive more nuanced processes. way, which in turn increases their self-efficacy. Turning to the association between parental self-efficacy Factors that are Associated with Parental and child behaviors, results differed depending on the study Self‑efficacy design. Many cross-sectional studies found a significant cor - relation between parental self-efficacy and child behaviors. Factors associated with parental self-efficacy were found in However, longitudinal studies examining reciprocal rela- all domains, but most commonly in the parent domain. This tions have found that difficult child behaviors predict lower is in line with general models of determinants of parenting self-efficacy, but not the reverse. Hence, in general, findings (Belsky, 1984) and earlier review studies on predictors of did not support a bi-directional relation. This is in line with parental self-efficacy (Fang et al., 2021). Parents’ compro- ideas of the child as active in the changes and development mised well-being, anxious personality traits, challenging of parenting, and that parents’ experiences with their chil- child behaviors, and low qualities of dyads and families, dren likely affect their perceived competence and confidence were all important correlates of lower self-efficacy. Some of (e.g., Bell, 1968). The unfolding of the direction of this asso- these represent malleable factors (i.e., factors that are subject ciation has important implications for the understanding of to change or influence, Fang et al., 2021), whereas other cor - the role of parental self-efficacy for child behaviors. To only relates are more static or intractable. Among those interested examine and report results on one direction could risk a fl wed in understanding how to cultivate parents’ self-efficacy, it conclusions. will be important to focus on those correlates that are malle- As research models become more complex and aimed able (e.g., well-being, family communication). Importantly, at examining underlying mediational and transactional pro- many variables assessed as predictors were not also mod- cesses among parental self-efficacy, parenting, and child eled as being influenced by parental self-efficacy. It is pos- variables, the conclusions become less clear. There are also sible that self-efficacy also exerts influence on some of the 1 3 Adolescent Research Review predictors represented in studies. For example, in the studies socio-emotional changes, which all have an impact on par- by Steca and colleagues (2011) and Glatz and Buchanan ents and their beliefs about parenting (Bornstein, 2019). (2015a), parent–child communication was used to predict The studies in this review suggested that there might be the level of parental self-efficacy. It is, however, possible that more similarities than differences in parental self-efficacy parents who feel more efficacious have better communica- during these two age periods. For example, studies showed tion skills, resulting in more positive communication with decreasing means in both time periods, suggesting that their children. Moreover, and perhaps more likely, the asso- parents might start to feel less efficacious at the time their ciations between parental self-efficacy and these variables children start school and continue decreasing the older might be bidirectional or transactional. In fact, many of the the child gets. However, it is important to note that only studies that conceptualized and tested parental self-efficacy one study (Glatz & Buchanan, 2015b) tested significant as an outcome used cross-sectional data that, unfortunately, changes and showed evidence that parental self-efficacy did not provide opportunities to test for causality. As a final decreased from early adolescence to middle adolescence. remark, some of the factors were only examined in one or Other studies report decreasing means as youth become two studies, which makes conclusions rather unsure, and older but did not test for significant changes over time. other factors are yet to be studied (e.g., impact of siblings) As the study by Glatz and Buchanan (2015b) reported on in future research. changes when the youth were 11 to the time they were The studies in this review were diverse in terms of the 15, it is still unknown if there are similar changes before ethnicity of the participants or country of data collection. No the age of 11 and after the age of 18. Such knowledge is clear differences were found as a result of ethnicity or coun- critical given the important developmental processes that try, rather the results seemed to be  similar across studies, may start prior to age 11 (i.e., puberty) and after 18 (i.e., suggesting that many of the processes are universal. How- increased autonomy/independence). Further, such changes ever, it should be noted that there is a lack of studies from may vary depending on cultural differences, which cannot many countries (e.g., African countries, countries in Central be captured by one USA study only. America) and there is an overrepresentation of studies from Studies found that parenting predicted parental self- western countries. This has the potential to bias the under- efficacy similarly across these developmental periods, standing of processes involving parental self-efficacy, and it but some differences emerged regarding some sociode- is, thus, difficult to conclude that the findings in the studies mographic factors. For example, parents’ personality, are completely universal. Although studies were conducted parents’ compromised well-being (parent domain), par- in multiple countries, few studies did explicit comparisons ent–child communication, SES (socio-contexual domain), across countries or cultures. In fact, although a result might and children’s gender (child domain) seem to have simi- be significant in studies on different samples, it is possible lar associations with parental self-efficacy regardless of that results would differ between two samples if they were whether the sample focused on school-aged or adolescent- explicitly compared. That there are few studies examining aged children. However, more stable, sociodemographic differences as a function of ethnicity, culture, or country is a factors predicted self-efficacy differently in these devel- notable limitation, given a body of research and theory that opmental periods, at least in some studies. Two studies suggests that parenting and its effects on children may differ (Chang et al., 2015; de Haan et al., 2009) suggested that based on culture and race (e.g., Coard et al., 2004; Jensen mothers might feel more efficacious than fathers during & Dost-Gözkan, 2015). Further, there may be specific cul- the school-age period whereas fathers might feel more effi- tural parenting practices or beliefs that affect or are affected cacious than mothers during adolescence. Other studies by parental self-efficacy. Yet only one study examined such showed more differences between mothers and fathers in potential difference (Kiang et al., 2017). Future studies are the associations among parental self-efficacy, parent, and clearly needed that examine the role of culture and race and child variables among parents of adolescents than among ethnicity in predicting self-efficacy and modifying its rela- parents of school-age children. Specifically, some stud- tions to parent and child behaviors. ies suggested that ethnic differences might be more pro- nounced during adolescence than during the school-age Parental Self‑efficacy from a Developmental period (Glatz & Buchanan, 2015a; Glatz & Trifan, 2019; Perspective Mahabee-Gittens et al., 2011). It seems then that parents’ gender and ethnicity might play different roles for parental An important question for research and interventions is self-efficacy in different developmental periods—and more if and how parental self-efficacy develops over time. This differences might be present in later ages than in earlier review included studies on parents of school-age chil- ages. Importantly, these differences should be interpreted dren and adolescents (6 to 18 years). These are periods with caution and should be seen as indications rather than in which children undergo major physical, cognitive, and 1 3 Adolescent Research Review strong evidence, as the number of studies exploring these beyond those discussed in this paper. Readers are encour- factors were few. aged to review Tables 2 and 4, as well as the original arti- cles for more details about each paper. Limitations Strengths The research on parental self-efficacy is currently limited in three main ways. This was clear from the analysis of the This study also has a number of strengths that help move the results of the studies (Tables 2 and 4), but also apparent in research field forward. First, the focus of the various roles the analysis of the quality of the studies (Table 3). First, of parental self-efficacy is unique and offers an important there is a need to unfold longitudinally whether and how step in the understanding. In comparison to recent reviews parental self-efficacy influences parenting behavior and that examined parental self-efficacy as either a predictor subsequently child externalizing behaviors. Longitudinal (Albanese et al., 2019) or an outcome (Fang et al., 2021), studies using different parenting mediation variables and/ this review included studies that have conceptualized and or that account for the reciprocal relations between paren- examined different roles of parental self-efficacy in relation tal self-efficacy and parenting would move the field for - to child and parent behaviors. As a result, it offered a more ward in this respect. Second, it is still somewhat unknown comprehensive view of the empirical evidence regarding the about the developmental course. Out of the 35 studies different associations described in social cognitive theory included in the review, only one-third (n = 11) examined and transactional models of reciprocal effects between par - longitudinal data, which limits conclusions about devel- ents and children (Bandura, 1997; Sameroff, 2009). Second, opmental changes in parental self-efficacy. Although all studies reviewed in this study cover parents of school- exploring means at different time points or in different age aged children and adolescents. This focus allowed us to groups might hint at potential changes, more longitudinal focus in on a time period when parental self-efficacy tends examinations on changes over time are needed to confirm to decrease (Ballenski & Cook, 1982; Glatz & Buchanan, that parents report lower levels of self-efficacy over the 2015a) and also that may require new skills, as parents course of school-age and adolescence. Third, future stud- spend less time with children once they enter school. Third, ies need to take on a more thorough examination of the the review criteria were broad and included several related role of race, ethnicity, and culture on parental self-efficacy. search terms (i.e., perceived competence and confidence), as Such studies would shed light on the generalizability of well as parental self-efficacy on different levels (i.e., task- both predictors of parental self-efficacy as well as how it specific and general parental self-efficacy). This follows the is related to parenting and child behaviors. Future studies approach used by Jones and Prinz (2005) and the decision that use longitudinal data on diverse samples will con- was based on earlier conceptual papers that have shown tinue to enhance the understanding of this important par- high congruency between these concepts (Vance & Bran- ent construct. don, 2017; Wittkowski et al., 2017). In general, relationships This particular review also has limitations that should among parental self-efficacy on the one hand and parent- be discussed. First, although this review takes a clear and child variables on the other hand, did not seem to differ developmental approach, it focuses only on parents depending on the operationalization, which support earlier of school-aged and adolescent children. As such, it is studies regarding overlapping constructs. Thus, combining unknown if these findings can be generalized to infancy them gained a more comprehensive view of the literature. or early childhood, or other times when parental self- efficacy may also be important. Additionally, the present review does not allow a fine-grained analysis of specific Conclusion time periods (i.e., middle childhood vs late adolescence). As more developmental studies that specify a smaller age What role does parental self-efficacy have in relation to range become available, a deeper dive into a particular parent and child behaviors, and what explain differences developmental period within the school-age years is criti- between parents? Although the number of publications cal. Second, like all systematic reviews, different search on parental self-efficacy have increased over the last two criteria may have resulted in a different array of articles decades, without a full review of the current literature, the to review. The conclusions drawn here are based on these answers to these questions are unknown. The aim of this studies and might not show a complete picture of the cur- review study was to analyze current research to get a bet- rent research. Third, this review aimed to examine results ter understanding of the role of parental self-efficacy in and patterns across a broad array of studies. There may relation to parent and child factors, as well as changes over be many reasons for different or mixed findings between the school-age and adolescent period. The results support studies (i.e., different demographics, ages, study design) a reciprocal relation between parental self-efficacy and 1 3 Adolescent Research Review Parenting: Science and Practice, 17(4), 242–261. https://doi. or g/ parenting: Parents who feel efficacious use more positive 10. 1080/ 15295 192. 2017. 13693 14 parenting practices, which in turn increase their efficacy. Ballenski, C. B., & Cook, A. S. (1982). Mothers’ perceptions of their Additionally, research has started to unfold the developmen- competence in managing selected parenting tasks. Journal of tal course, suggesting that parental self-efficacy decrease Applied Family Studies, 31(4), 489–494. https://doi. or g/10. 2307/ over these years. The development and impact of parental Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behav - self-efficacy, however, is multifaceted and there might be ioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https:// doi. large individual differences. Studies show that whether par - org/ 10. 1037/ 0033- 295X. 84.2. 191 ents feel efficacious or not is influenced by their perceptions Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman. Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied of their child’s difficult behaviors, as well as a large scope Psychology: An International Review, 51(2), 269–290. https://doi. of parent-, child-, and family-specific variables. org/ 10. 1111/ 1464- 0597. 00092 * Bandura, A., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Regalia, C., & Scabini, Acknowledgements Nothing to acknowledge. E. (2011). Impact of family efficacy beliefs on quality of family functioning and satisfaction with family life. Applied Psychol- Authors’ Contributions TG did the initial literature search, screened ogy, 60(3), 421–448. https://do i. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1464- 0597. 2010. abstracts and full texts of relevant articles, worked on the data extrac- 00442.x tion, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript; ML screened abstracts Bell, R. Q. (1968). A reinterpretation of the direction of effects in stud- and full texts of relevant articles, worked on the data extraction, and ies of socialization. Psychological Review, 75(2), 81–95. https:// helped to draft the manuscript; GC did a re-check of the data extraction doi. org/ 10. 1037/ h0025 583 and helped to draft the manuscript; TJ worked on the data extraction Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. and helped to draft the manuscript. All authors read and approved the Child Development, 55(1), 83–96. https:// doi. or g/ 10. 2307/ final manuscript. 11298 36 Bornstein, M. H. (2019). Handbook of parenting. Routledge. Funding Open access funding provided by Örebro University. * Bornstein, M. H., Putnick, D. L., Lansford, J. E., Al-Hassan, S. M., Bacchini, D., Bombi, A. S., Chang, L., Deater-Deckard, Declarations K., di Giunta, L., Dodge, K. A., Malone, P. S., Oburu, P., Pas- torelli, C., Skinner, A. T., Sorbring, E., Steinberg, L., Tapanya, Conflict of interest On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author S., Tirado, L. M. U., Zelli, A., & Alampay, L. P. (2017). “Mixed states that there is no conflict of interest. blessings”: Parental religiousness, parenting, and child adjust- ment in global perspective. The Journal of Child Psychology Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri- and Psychiatry, 58(8), 880–892. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jcpp. bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta- tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Exper- as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, iments by nature and design. Harvard University Press. provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes *Buchanan, C. M., Gangel, M. J., McCurdy, A. L., Fletcher, A. C., were made. The images or other third party material in this article are & Buehler, C. (2022). Parental self-efficacy and physiological included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated responses to stress among mothers of early adolescents. Journal otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in of Youth and Adolescence, 51(4), 643–658. https:// doi. org/ 10. the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not 1007/ s10964- 022- 01577-6 permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will * Carless, B., Melvin, G. A., Tonge, B. J., & Newman, L. K. (2015). need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a The role of parental self-efficacy in adolescent school-refusal. copy of this licence, visit http://cr eativ ecommons. or g/licen ses/ b y/4.0/ . Journal of Family Psychology, 29(2), 162–170. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ fam00 00050 * Chang, F.-C., Chang, Y.-C., Lee, C.-M., Lung, C.-N., Liao, H.-J., Lee, S.-C., Miao, N.-F., Lin, S.-H., & Zeng, W.-T. (2015). Parental efficacy and adolescent competence skills associated with ado- References lescent substance use. Journal of Substance Use, 20(2), 85–92. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3109/ 14659 891. 2013. 859752 Coard, S. I., Wallace, S. A., Stevenson, H. C., Jr., & Brotman, L. M. (2004). Towards culturally relevant preventive interventions: The consideration of racial socialization in parent training with References marked with an asterisk indicate studies African American families. Journal of Child and Family Studies, included in the systematic review 13(3), 277–293. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1023/B: JCFS. 00000 22035. 07171. f8 Albanese, A. M., Russo, G. R., & Geller, P. (2019). The role of parental Coleman, P. K., & Karraker, K. H. (1997). Self-efficacy and parenting self-efficacy in parent and child well-being: A systematic review quality: Findings and future applications. Developmental Review, of associated outcomes. Child Care, Health and Development, 18(1), 47–85. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1006/ drev. 1997. 0448 45(3), 333–363. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ cch. 12661 Cooper, H. (2010). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by- Ardelt, M., & Eccles, J. (2001). Effects of mothers’ parental efficacy step approach. Sage Publications, Inc. beliefs and promotive parenting practices on inner-city youth. * Costigan, C. L., & Koryzma, C. M. (2011). Acculturation and adjust- Journal of Family Issues, 22(8), 944–972. https://doi. or g/10. 1177/ ment among immigrant Chinese parents: Mediating role of parent- 01925 13010 22008 001 ing efficacy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(2), 183–196. * Babskie, E., Powell, D. N., & Metzger, A. (2017). Variability in https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0021 696 parenting self-efficacy across prudential adolescent behaviors. 1 3 Adolescent Research Review Črnčec, R., Barnett, B., & Matthey, S. (2010). Review of scales of * Holloway, S. D., Campbell, E. J., Nagase, A., Kim, S., Suzuki, S., parenting confidence. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 18(3), Wang, Q., Iwatate, K., & Baak, S. Y. (2016). Parenting self- 210–240. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1891/ 1061- 3749. 18.3. 210 efficacy and parental involvement: Mediators or moderators * Daganzo, M. A. A., Alampy, L. P., & Lansford, J. E. (2014). Filipino between socioeconomic status and children’s academic com- mothers’ self-efficacy in managing anger and in parenting, and petence in Japan and Korea? Research in Human Development, parental rejection as predictors of child delinquency. Philippine 13(3), 258–272. https://doi. or g/10. 1080/ 15427 609. 2016. 11947 Journal of Psychology, 47(1), 1–26. 10 * de Haan, A. D., Prinzie, P., & Deković, M. (2009). Mothers’ and Horsley, T., Dingwall, O., & Sampson, M. (2011). Checking reference fathers’ personality and parenting: The mediating role of sense lists to find additional studies for systematic reviews. Cochrane of competence. Developmental Psychology, 45(6), 1695–1707. Database of Systematic Reviews. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ 14651 https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0016 121858. MR000 026. pub2 * Dumka, L. E., Gonzales, N. A., Wheeler, L. A., & Millsap, R. E. Jensen, L. A., & Dost-Gözkan, A. (2015). Adolescent–parent relations (2010). Parenting self-efficacy and parenting practices over time in Asian Indian and Salvadoran immigrant families: A cultural– in Mexican American families. Journal of Family Psychology, developmental analysis of autonomy, authority, conflict, and cohe- 24(5), 522–531. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0020 833 sion. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 25(2), 340–351. https:// Dumka, L. E., Stoerzinger, H. D., Jackson, K. M., & Roosa, M. W. doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jora. 12116 (1996). Examination of the cross-cultural and cross-language Jones, T. L., & Prinz, R. J. (2005). Potential roles of parental self- equivalence of the parenting self-agency measure. Family Rela- efficacy in parent and child adjustment: A review. Clinical Psy - tions, 45(2), 216–222. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 585293 chology Review, 25(3), 341–363. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cpr. * Egberts, M. R., Prinzie, P., Deković, M., de Haan, A. D., & van 2004. 12. 004 den Akker, A. L. (2015). The prospective relationship between * Junttila, N., & Vauras, M. (2014). Latent profiles of parental self- child personality and perceived parenting: Mediation by paren- efficacy and children’s multisource-evaluated social competence. tal sense of competence. Personality and Individual Differences, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 397–414. 77, 193–198. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. paid. 2014. 12. 046https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ bjep. 12040 Fang, Y., Boelens, M., Windhorst, D. A., Raat, H., & van Grieken, * Junttila, N., Vauras, M., & Laakkonen, E. (2007). The role of par- A. (2021). Factors associated with parenting self-efficacy: A enting self-efficacy in children’s social and academic behavior. systematic review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 77(6), 2641– European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22, 41–61. https:// 2661. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jan. 14767doi. org/ 10. 1007/ BF031 73688 Furstenberg, F. F., Cook, T. D., Eccles, J., Elder, G. J., Jr., & * Kiang, L., Glatz, T., & Buchanan, C. M. (2017). Acculturation con- Sameroff, A. (1999). Managing to make it: Urban families and flict, cultural parenting self-efficacy, and perceived parenting adolescent success. University of Chicago Press. competence in Asian American and Latino/a Families. Family * Garcia, A. S., & Alampay, L. P. (2012). Parental efficacy, experi- Process, 56(4), 943–961. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ famp. 12266 ence of stressful life events, and child externalizing behaviors * Kiang, L., Glatz, T., & Buchanan, C. M. (2021). Developmental cor- as predictors of Filipino mothers’ and fathers’ parental hostility relates of cultural parental self-efficacy among Asian and Latinx and aggression. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 45(1), 1–24. parents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 30, 2563–2574. * Glatz, T., & Buchanan, C. M. (2015a). Change and predictors of https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10826- 021- 02065-4 change in parental self-efficacy from early to middle adoles- * Latham, R. M., Mark, K. M., & Oliver, B. R. (2018). Coparenting and cence. Developmental Psychology, 51(10), 1367–1379. https:// children’s disruptive behavior: Interacting processes for parent- doi. org/ 10. 1037/ dev00 00035 ing sense of competence. Journal of Family Psychology, 32(1), * Glatz, T., & Buchanan, C. M. (2015b). Over-time associations 151–156. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ fam00 00362 among parental self-efficacy, promotive parenting practices, and * Lippold, M. A., Jensen, T. M., Duncan, L. G., Nix, R. L., Coats- adolescents’ externalizing behaviors. Journal of Family Psy- worth, J. D., & Greenberg, M. T. (2019). Mindful parenting, par- chology, 29(3), 427–437. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ fam00 00076 enting cognitions, and parent-youth communication: Bidirectional * Glatz, T., & Buchanan, C. M. (2022). Exploring how adolescent linkages and mediational processes. Mindfulness, 12, 381–391. boys’ and girls’ internalizing and externalizing behaviors impact https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12671- 019- 01119-5 parental self-efficacy: A vignette study. Family Relations. * Mahabee-Gittens, E. M., Huang, B., Chen, C., Dorn, L. D., Ammer- https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ fare. 12696 man, R. T., & Gordon, J. S. (2011). The association of parental * Glatz, T., Cotter, A., & Buchanan, C. M. (2017). Adolescents’ self-efficacy and parent–youth connectedness with youth smok - behaviors as moderators for the link between parental self-effi- ing intentions. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Com- cacy and parenting practices. Journal of Child and Family Stud- munity, 39(3), 194–208. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10852 352. 2011. ies, 26(4), 989–997. https://doi. or g/10. 1007/ s10826- 016- 0623-2 576962 * Glatz, T., Crowe, E., & Buchanan, C. M. (2018). Internet-specific * Malm, E. K., Henrich, C., Varjas, K., & Meyers, J. (2017). Paren- parental self-efficacy: Developmental differences and links to tal self-efficacy and bullying in elementary school. Journal of internet-specific mediation. Computers in Human Behavior, 84, School Violence, 16(4), 411–425. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 15388 8–17. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chb. 2018. 02. 014220. 2016. 11687 43 * Glatz, T., & Trifan, T. A. (2019). Examination of parental self- * Morrissey, R. A., & Gondoli, D. M. (2012). Change in parenting efficacy and their beliefs about the outcomes of their parenting democracy during the transition to adolescence: The roles of practices. Journal of Family Issues, 40(10), 1321–1345. https:// young adolescents’ noncompliance and mothers’ perceived influ- doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01925 13X19 835864 ence. Parenting, 12(1), 57–73. https://doi. or g/10. 1080/ 15295 192. Greenhalgh, T., & Peacock, R. (2005). Effectiveness and efficiency 2012. 638872 of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: Prinzie, P., Onghena, P., & Hellinckx, W. (2007). Reexamining the Audit of primary sources. BMJ, 331(7524), 1064–1065. https:// Parenting Scale: Reliability, factor structure, and concurrent valid- doi. org/ 10. 1136/ bmj. 38636. 593461. 68 ity of a scale for assessing the discipline practices of mothers and * Henney, S. M. (2016). The relationship between personality and fathers of elementary-school-aged children. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23(1), 24–31. https://doi. or g/10. 1027/ parental confidence in mothers of school-aged children. SAGE 1015- 5759. 23.1. 24 Open. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 21582 44016 659317 1 3 Adolescent Research Review Pulgarón, E. R. (2013). Childhood obesity: A review of increased risk * van Eldik, W. M., Prinzie, P., Deković, M., & de Haan, A. D. (2017). for physical and psychological comorbidities. Clinical Therapeu- Longitudinal associations between marital stress and externalizing tics, 35(1), A18–A32. https://doi. or g/10. 1016/j. clint her a.2012. 12. behavior: Does parental sense of competence mediate processes? 014 Journal of Family Psychology, 31(4), 420–430. https:// doi. org/ Sameroff, A. (2009). The transactional model. In A. Sameroff (Ed.), 10. 1037/ fam00 00282 The transactional model of development: How children and Vance, A. J., & Brandon, D. H. (2017). Delineating among parenting context shape each other (pp. 3–21). American Psychological confidence, parenting self-efficacy, and competence. Advances Association. in Nursing Science, 40(4), 18–37. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1097/ ANS. * Slagt, M., Decović, M., de Haan, A. D., van den Akker, A. L., & 00000 00000 000179 Prinzie, P. (2012). Longitudinal associations between mothers’ Wittkowski, A., Garrett, C., Calam, R., & Weisberg, D. (2017). Self- and fathers’ sense of competence and children’s externalizing reported measures of parental self-efficacy: A systematic review problems: The mediating role of parenting. Developmental Psy- of the current literature. Journal of Family Studies, 26, 2960– chology, 48(6), 1554–1562. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0027 719 2978. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10826- 017- 0830-5 * Steca, P., Bassi, M., Caprara, G. V., & Fave, A. D. (2011). Parents’ * Wong, Y.-C., & Lee, V. W. P. (2017). Parenting methods and self- self-efficacy beliefs and their children’s psychosocial adaptation efficacy of parents in supervising children’s use of mobile devices: during adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(3), The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Technology in Human Ser- 320–331. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10964- 010- 9514-9 vices, 35(1), 63–85. https:// doi. or g/ 10. 1080/ 15228 835. 2017. * Suzuki, S. (2010). The effects of marital support, social network 12779 11 support, and parenting stress on parenting: Self-efficacy among mothers of young children in Japan. Journal of Early Childhood Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to Research, 8(1), 40–66. https:// doi. or g/ 10. 1177/ 14767 18X09 jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. * Tazouti, Y., & Jarlégan, A. (2019). The mediating effects of parental self-efficacy and parental involvement on the link between family socioeconomic status and children’s academic achievement. Jour- nal of Family Studies, 25(3), 250–266. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13229 400. 2016. 12411 85 1 3

Journal

Adolescent Research ReviewSpringer Journals

Published: Mar 1, 2024

Keywords: Parental self-efficacy; School-age children; Adolescents; Systematic literature review; Parent and child variables

There are no references for this article.