1. Association Between Socioeconomic Risk and Parenting Behaviours Association Between Socioeconomic Risk and Parenting Behaviours Nicole Gridley, Judy Hutchings & Helen Baker-Henningham Centre for Evidence Based Early Intervention, School of Psychology, Bangor University AIMS To investigate associations between five socioeconomic risk factors and two measures of parental language, and home stimulation outcomes, in a sample of parents living in Flying Start areas in Wales To investigate associations between multiple-risk and parental outcomes RATIONALE Socioeconomic disadvantage predicts poor parental behaviours and subsequent poor child developmental outcomes. Wales reports the highest percentage of children living in poverty (32%) relative to Britain (31%). Flying Start areas, in receipt of additional funding, are school-catchment areas with the highest proportion of children accessing free-school meals and greatest level of deprivation as defined using the Welsh Index of Mnltiple Deprivation. However, many disadvantaged families live outside these areas and are not able to receive additional services they require so it is important to identify the specific family characteristics that predict poor outcomes for children. PREDICTORS & OUTCOMES Demographic data, IT-HOME inventory scores and videos of parent-child dyads playing, that were collected as part of the Evaluation of the Incredible Years Parent-Toddler programme, were used for this study. Videos were transcribed and number of words and different words used during the final 15-minutes of free-play were calculated Demographic information provided criteria for risk factor predictors: Caregiver Education: No education beyond 16 years Marital Status: not married or cohabiting for two years Family Size*: three or more children Quality of Housing: based on bedroom standards and light, air, safety and cleanliness Employment Status: unemployed or living on benefits Parenting Outcomes: Total words Total different words Infant-Toddler HOME inventory *Family size was not correlated with any of the three outcome measures and so was excluded from the final analysis RESULTS Using stepwise linear regression employment and quality of housing independently predicted parents use of more total words, different words and better home stimulation Education beyond 17 years independently predicted better home stimulation practices (Table 1) There was a dose-response relationship between number of risk factors experienced by families and each parenting measure (Figure 1), with mothers experiencing one risk factor demonstrating poorer outcomes compared to those with no risk, but this was not significant Exposure to two or more risk factors were attributable to differences of 1 or more standard deviation TAKE HOME MESSAGE For this sample of Flying Start parents quality of housing, based on bedroom standards and housing standards, was strongly associated with poor parenting outcomes Multiple-risk was also associated with poorer parental outcomes regardless of which risk factors were present Demographic data could be used as a cost-effective method for identifying families at-risk, and in need of additional services Results are based on cross-sectional data and therefore demonstrate correlation but do not explaining causality. They should therefore be interpreted with caution SAMPLE Baseline video-tapes from 81 parent-child dyads drawn from a randomised controlled trial Evaluation of the Incredible Years Parent-Toddler programme were used Parents were aged between 16 and 45 years old (M = 28.94, SD = 6.72) and were primarily mothers (n = 79). Children were aged between 12 and 36 months at recruitment. Figure 1. Association between number of risk factors and parenting measures For more information please contact Nicole. Email: psp80b@bangor.ac.uk.psp80b@bangor.ac.uk Visit our websites: www.centreforearlyinterventionwales.co.uk http://incredible-years-wales-research.bangor.ac.uk Ta ble 1. Predictive models of risk factors when controlling for child age and child gender * ** p ≤.001 ** p ≤.01 * p ≤.05 Child age and gender entered in the first step. Employment, Marital Status, Education and Housing offered in the second step CI: confidence interval ES: effect size (regression coefficient/pooled standard deviation)