Literature DB >> 21484418

Mothers' predictions of their son's executive functioning skills: relations to child behavior problems.

Charlotte Johnston1.   

Abstract

This study examined mothers' ability to accurately predict their sons' performance on executive functioning tasks in relation to the child's behavior problems. One-hundred thirteen mothers and their 4-7 year old sons participated. From behind a one-way mirror, mothers watched their sons perform tasks assessing inhibition and planning skills. Before each task, mothers predicted how their sons would perform. Both the absolute discrepancy between mothers' predictions and their child's performance (summing both mothers' over- and under-estimations), and the mothers' under-estimations of their child's performance accounted for significant variance in reports of child behavior problems. These predictions were significant even with the child's age and level of task performance controlled. The results suggest that a mother's lack of ability to accurately predict her child's executive functioning skills may contribute to the development of child problems, perhaps through increased difficulties in parenting in a manner that is responsive to the child's abilities.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21484418     DOI: 10.1007/s10578-011-0221-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Child Psychiatry Hum Dev        ISSN: 0009-398X


  12 in total

1.  The relations of problem behavior status to children's negative emotionality, effortful control, and impulsivity: concurrent relations and prediction of change.

Authors:  Nancy Eisenberg; Adrienne Sadovsky; Tracy L Spinrad; Richard A Fabes; Sandra H Losoya; Carlos Valiente; Mark Reiser; Amanda Cumberland; Stephanie A Shepard
Journal:  Dev Psychol       Date:  2005-01

Review 2.  Multiple regression analyses in clinical child and adolescent psychology.

Authors:  James Jaccard; Vincent Guilamo-Ramos; Margaret Johansson; Alida Bouris
Journal:  J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol       Date:  2006-09

3.  The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: a research note.

Authors:  R Goodman
Journal:  J Child Psychol Psychiatry       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 8.982

4.  Effortful control in early childhood: continuity and change, antecedents, and implications for social development.

Authors:  G Kochanska; K T Murray; E T Harlan
Journal:  Dev Psychol       Date:  2000-03

5.  Does early responsive parenting have a special importance for children's development or is consistency across early childhood necessary?

Authors:  S H Landry; K E Smith; P R Swank; M A Assel; S Vellet
Journal:  Dev Psychol       Date:  2001-05

6.  The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: U.S. normative data and psychometric properties.

Authors:  Karen H Bourdon; Robert Goodman; Donald S Rae; Gloria Simpson; Doreen S Koretz
Journal:  J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 8.829

7.  Are planning, working memory, and inhibition associated with individual differences in preschool ADHD symptoms?

Authors:  Edmund J S Sonuga-Barke; Lindy Dalen; Dave Daley; Bob Remington
Journal:  Dev Neuropsychol       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 2.253

Review 8.  Psychometric properties of the parent and teacher versions of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire for 4- to 12-year-olds: a review.

Authors:  Lisanne L Stone; Roy Otten; Rutger C M E Engels; Ad A Vermulst; Jan M A M Janssens
Journal:  Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev       Date:  2010-09

9.  Parents' estimations of their own intelligence and that of their children: a comparison between English and Icelandic parents.

Authors:  Adrian Furnham; Halldor Valgeirsson
Journal:  Scand J Psychol       Date:  2007-08

10.  Executive functions in preschool children with aggressive behavior: impairments in inhibitory control.

Authors:  Maartje A J Raaijmakers; Diana P Smidts; Joseph A Sergeant; Gerard H Maassen; Jocelyne A Posthumus; Herman van Engeland; Walter Matthys
Journal:  J Abnorm Child Psychol       Date:  2008-04-25
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.