Talk:WikiJournal Preprints/Parenting stress
Abidin, R; Smith, L; Kim, H.
The authors appreciate the reviewers’ feedback and their suggestions to improve this brief encyclopedia entry. Where possible material was added to address concerns, and redundancy was eliminated. The primary changes were made in relation to the suggestion that additional substantive content be included. This was done along with a substantial increase in the relevant references. Our aim is to create for the reader a basic understanding of the concept of parenting stress, how it is understood to operate, and the relevance of parenting stress to parents’ and children’s behavioral and physiological functioning. With the information provided, the reader should be in a position to explore the concept in greater depth and in the area of their focus.
Comments by Dr. Jason Dixon
These comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article
The article focuses on establishing ""Parenting stress"" as a statistical construct (i.e. and depending on the scope of the research by the authors), should rely and clearly state the methodology used to establish ""Face validity"" then ""construct validity"" of the statistical factor in your work.
The article is intended as a brief narrative review, not a statistical analysis. We have clarified this in the revision by adding the phrase “This article serves as a brief narrative review of the construct.” to the abstract. We have also added content to the future directions section to provide further clarity.
If the authors have a data set related directly to this work, there's no ethical problem to do an ad hoc Confirmatory Factor Analysis or similar SEM to confirm if there is evidence of construct validity. Please note you can not conduct an exploratory factor analysis and if it looks good conduct a CFA. It's bordering on unethical conduct and what I consider scholarly cheating. So choose one or the other wisely. As a peer reviewer I'm not in a position to prescribe such advise you, because this is your research, and I believe there's a boundary to recognise between your role and mine in this capacity. However I do think it's fair to suggest that you conduct a Principal Components Analysis to see if your construct could be bidimensional or have multidimensional properties. If so then your CFA can assist in detecting if any of these dimensions are orthogonal. If they look to be oblique, then this is perfectly relevant to state to your audience. The statistical construct could be unidimensional and your ad hoc analysis can assist in clarifying this as well. These are suggestions for you to consider if they are possible and appropriate given your research design and how your data was collected.
These analytic recommendations have been acknowledged in a future directions section at the end, should others have relevant data.
The language of the article should also clearly state that eg, that ""Parenting stress"" is a ""statistical construct"" etc. This will improve your work by clarifying to the reader that there is some (I assume), statistically significant results on the ""Parenting stress"" as a statistical construct rather than a general statement about the stress of parenting. These matters are your limitations and delimitations of your research. Please state them as they add to the scholarly rigorous of your work, and are interesting for audience and to other researchers who wish to build upon your work. These are the comments have to offer at this point in time. I hope this assists you with what is a worthy topic for research and very attractive to epidemiology researcher psyshometricians. As an example your future work could look at the association between ""Study burden"" and ""Parenting stress""! That would be good stuff indeed! Your article could benefit by having a future research section before your conclusion.
We have revised to better distinguish when talking about construct in general versus a specific scale or psychometric variable. Thank you for the constructive comments and ideas!
First peer review
anonymous peer reviewer , Doctorate in Clinical Child Psychology
This review was submitted on , and refers to this previous version of the article
The article, “Parenting Stress” is a cursory overview of the impact of being a parent. Although this is an interesting topic and the model illustration is informative, overall, I found the content vague and superficial. There is little knowledge communicated. Specific comments follow.
We sought to write something concise so that more people are likely to read it and add updates, but we agree with the recommendation and have added more content, as detailed below.
The introduction would benefit from significant expansion. In particular, this sentence “Abidin has presented a non exhaustive model and a measure that attempts to define the major components of parenting stress, and the impact of these stressors on parenting behavior and their child’s development” could be expanded to clarify the ideas.
We have added a significant amount of content to the introduction and expanded the literature review to include 35 citations.
Even though this article is very short, it’s rather repetitive. The idea that parenting stress affects one’s mental and physical health is repeated, but without much explication in terms of the specific ways parents are affected.
We have now delineated a range of associations.
This sentence is too jargony and will be difficult for most readers to understand: Selye demonstrated that a physiological response occurred in the body by phenomenological events in a manner similar to that of physical environmental stimuli.
Thank you, we have re-written to make this more accessible to a general readership as follows: “Selye demonstrated that a physiological response occurred in the body by phenomenological events in a manner similar to that of physical environmental stimuli. Further, he demonstrated that, regardless of the sources of stress, the greater the number of stressors, the larger the physiological response of the body.That finding suggested that parenting stress would need to be understood and measured by considering multiple variables.”
The authors say that more stress leads to a greater physiological response – is this adaptive or maladaptive? Are there consequences or is this protective?
Although not always maladaptive, the stress in the context of parenting is more likely to be maladaptive, especially when the stress is severe or chronic. The text has been revised to include this clarification.
The authors write “Lazarus articulated the connection of perceptions to emotions, and subsequently to both the physiological response, and the likely behavioral response of individuals.” Please provide a better transition from Selve to Lazarus and connect the two theories more explicitly.
Thank you, we have re-written to improve the transition: “That finding suggested that parenting stress would need to be understood and measured by considering multiple variables.”
At the end of this section on Selve and Lazarus, the authors say, “For a review of the available evidence-based measures of parenting stress see Holly et al.” They do not link the Selve and Lazarus to parenting, leaving it up to the reader to reinterpret this general threat-response work in the context of parenting.
Thanks- we have revised to make it more clear that Selye and Lazarus provide conceptual frameworks for understanding the links between emotion perception, stress, and coping. “Thus, the works of Selye and Lazarus provide conceptual frameworks for understanding the links between emotion perception, stress, and coping”
The next section “Summary of the Research on Parenting Stress” does not clear link to the preceding text and, although it could be described as a summary, it is really a list, which is not very informative.
Thank you, we have revised the summary.