Father-child teaching interactions: The relationship to father involvement in caregiving☆☆☆

Article Outline

• Abstract
• Method
  • Participants
  • Data collection
  • Measures
  • Data analysis
• Results
• Discussion
• References
• Copyright

Abstract 

This study examined whether the amount of caregiving is related to the behavior of a father and his child during a structured teaching interaction. Healthy infants and toddlers (51 girls and 59 boys) and their fathers were observed in their homes. Fathers reported the frequency of involvement in caregiving during the previous week. Although fathers in higher and lower involvement groups were equally sensitive to the child's cues and responsive to the child's distress, fathers who were more involved in caregiving had higher scores in cognitive growth fostering as measured by the Nursing Child Assessment Teaching Scale. Copyright 2003, Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.

Nurses traditionally provide care to mothers and children in a variety of settings but recently have broadened their focus to include fathers (Tiedje & Darling-Fisher, 1996). Education and support programs can increase the amount of time the father spends with his child and the responsiveness of his interactions with his child (Mahoney, Wiggers, & Lash, 1996; McBride, 1991). However, parenting programs for fathers (McBride & Darragh, 1995) and research on how fathers interact with their children are limited. More knowledge of father-child interactions is needed as a basis for designing effective intervention programs for fathers and their infants and toddlers.

It can be argued that the more involvement the father has with his child during infancy and toddlerhood, the more likely it is that his interactions will be sensitive and appropriate for the child. However, there is a need to understand what father involvement means. One conceptualization of father involvement (Lamb, Pleck, Charnov, & Levine, 1987) includes 3 components: engagement, or the father's experience of shared interactions with his child; accessibility, as measured by the amount of time that the father is available to the child; and responsibility, or the degree of accountability for the child's day-to-day care including the provision of financial resources. Other researchers have examined the types of engagement or interaction between parents and children. Bornstein (1995) proposes that parents' caregiving interactions with infants can be classified as nurturant (meeting physical needs), material (provision of the physical world), social (comfort and play), and didactic (stimulation and teaching). In comparison to mothers, fathers in North America are more involved in social interactions with the child than caregiving (Horn, 2000; Pleck, 1997) and are more likely to focus on active play (Crockenberg & Leerkes, 2000). There is no evidence linking accessibility or the amount of father contact with an infant with desirable child outcomes (Cabrera, Tamis-LeMonda, Bradley, Hofferth, & Lamb, 2000), but sensitive, responsive father-infant interactions are related to more optimal child development (Gable, Crnic, & Belsky, 1994; Graham, 1993; Magill-Evans & Harrison, 1999, Magill-Evans & Harrison, 2001), probably because the quality of interaction is more important than the quantity. Responsibility is the least investigated aspect of involvement but is proposed by some researchers to be the most important component (Horn, 2000). The amount of responsibility may be related to the mother's willingness to allow the father to have responsibility and to participate in caregiving (DeLuccie, 1996).

The purpose of this study was to determine whether the frequency of responsibility for providing caregiving for a child is related to the behavior of a father and his child during a noncaregiving interaction. The research question was “Are fathers more sensitive and responsive during a teaching interaction with their infant or toddler if they report taking sole responsibility more frequently for the care of their child?”

Back to Article Outline

Method 

Participants 

This study included 110 healthy children (51 girls and 59 boys) and their fathers, who met the following inclusion criteria: child's age between 2 and 24 months and born at term; English-speaking fathers who were over 20 years of age, living in a stable relationship with the child's mother who was the primary caregiver, and not seeing a professional for marital concerns. Fathers were recruited over a 10-year period as part of four studies (Harrison, 1990; Harrison & Magill-Evans, 1996; Harrison, Magill-Evans, & Benzies, 1999; Harrison, Magill-Evans, & Sadoway, 2001). All but 6 fathers were Euro-Canadian.

Data collection 

Prior to data collection, the study was approved by ethics committees of the university, community health agencies, and hospitals in which recruitment took place. The fathers from the community were recruited through posters placed at the university, selected Public Health Centers, churches, and day cares, as well as by word of mouth (snowball technique). Research assistants also recruited fathers from well child clinics and newborn units in hospitals. If the father and child were eligible for inclusion in the study, an appointment was made to visit the father in his home at a time that was convenient to the family and when the child was awake and rested.

The purpose of the study was explained to the father, who then completed the consent form. The father was observed teaching the child to use a standardized teaching item (e.g., grab a ring, take the lid off a small container). The father was told to take as long as he liked and to let the observers know when he was finished. Two trained observers (both female) watched the father teach his child. The father then completed the demographic questionnaire while each research assistant independently scored the interaction on the Nursing Child Assessment Teaching Scale (NCATS). At the conclusion of the home visit, the research assistants pointed out the strengths that they saw in the interaction between the father and child. Immediately upon leaving the home, the research assistants came to a consensus on items that they scored differently. Only consensus scores were used for the data analysis.

The research assistants were formally trained in the use of the NCATS by a certified trainer. Observers were required to achieve 85% agreement with a partner on at least 5 cases before they could administer the tool (Barnard et al., 1989; Barnard, 1997). All research assistants maintained an inter-rater reliability greater than 85% during the entire data collection period.

Measures 

The NCATS has been widely used to test the quality of interaction between the caregiver and the child (Sumner & Spietz, 1994). The NCATS consists of 73 behaviors that are scored “yes” or “no.” It provides a Child Total Score from 2 subscales (Clarity of Cues and Responsiveness to Caregiver/Parent) and a Parent Total Score from 4 subscales (Sensitivity to Cues, Response to Child's Distress, Social-Emotional Growth Fostering, and Cognitive Growth Fostering). There is also a Parent Contingency Score and a Child Contingency Score. Higher scores indicate more sensitive teaching interactions.

The NCATS has high internal consistency on Total Scores for mothers (Sumner & Spietz, 1994). For fathers of children ages 2 to 12 months (Harrison et al., 1999) and 13 to 24 months (Harrison et al., 2001), the Cronbach α values are .68 and .70 for the Parent Total Score and .82 and .77 for the Child Total Score, respectively. Test-retest reliability over 12 months is unknown for fathers but reported as .85 for the Parent Total Score and .55 for the Child Total Score for mothers (Sumner & Spietz, 1994). It is expected that the test-retest reliability will be lower for a child because of developmental changes over time. The NCATS discriminates between groups who differ in interactive ability and differentiates between maternal interactions with preterm and term infants (Barnard, Bee, & Hammond, 1984; Harrison, 1990); mother-infant interactions for at-risk mothers, adolescent mothers, and preterm infants (Barnard, Osofsky, Beckwith, Hammond, & Appelbaum, 1996); and mother and father interactions with term and preterm infants (Harrison & Magill-Evans, 1996). The NCATS is a valid predictor of later parent-child interaction and child cognitive outcomes (Barnard et al., 1989; Morisset, 1996).

Father involvement in caregiving was measured using a question from a study on father involvement by Katsh (1981). The father reported on a questionnaire how often he had sole responsibility for the child in the previous week. This question was chosen as a measure of the father's willingness and comfort in assuming responsibility and providing care for the child, as well as an indirect measure of the willingness of the child's mother to relinquish responsibility. Frequency of sole responsibility was assumed to be a stronger measure of father involvement than the number of child care hours per day or the frequency of care while the child was awake. In the latter two instances there is a possibility that the mother is present and assisting the father. The father also provided his age and education, the birth order of the child, and the child's age in months.

Data analysis 

The sample was split into two groups by using the median for the number of times per week that the father was solely responsible for his child. Fathers in the lower involvement group reported sole responsibility for their child 2 or fewer times a week (10 fathers reported 0, 14 fathers reported 1, and 24 fathers reported 2). Fathers in the higher involvement group reported sole responsibility 3 or more times a week (mean, 5.8 times [SD, 3.5 times]; range, 3-20 times). The father and child scores on the NCATS for each group were compared by t tests for independent samples using the statistical program SPSS, version 10 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL). The level of significance was .05.

Back to Article Outline

Results 

The Father Total Scores and the Child Total Scores on the NCATS are reported in Table 1.

Table 1. NCATS scores for father-child interaction (N = 110)

There was a significant difference between groups only for the Father Total Score, with more involved fathers having higher or more optimal scores. To determine the source of the differences on the Father Total Score, the 4 subscales were examined. The only significant difference was on the Cognitive Growth Fostering scale; more involved fathers had higher scores. Fathers in both groups were equally sensitive to the child's cues and responsive to the child's distress. The children in both groups were equally responsive to their fathers.

Characteristics of the father were examined to determine whether the groups differed on more than involvement. Fathers in the higher involvement group were 2 years older, had 1 more year of education, and were parenting children 2 months older than fathers in the lower involvement group (Table 2).

Table 2. Fathers and children in lower and higher involvement groups (N = 110)

There were similar proportions of boys and girls and first-born or later-born children in each group. Information on whether the mother worked outside the home was not collected. When the characteristics of the father (age and education) and the child (age, gender, and birth order) were examined in relation to the Father Total Score and the Cognitive Growth Fostering Score, there were no significant correlations with one exception. For less involved fathers, the father's age was negatively correlated with the Father Total Score (r = −.29); older fathers had lower Father Total Scores.

Back to Article Outline

Discussion 

There was a significant difference in scores measuring the father's contribution to a teaching interaction with his child between fathers reporting more or less frequent responsibility for caregiving. Fathers who were more frequently solely responsible for giving care to their child had higher scores on the NCATS Cognitive Growth Fostering scale. This scale measures parental behavior such as waiting for the child to attempt the task, allowing non-task manipulation of the materials, praising the child's attempts, and verbally describing and modeling the task. This finding is in keeping with the literature that suggests that infants whose fathers are more positively involved with the child have better cognitive growth (Nugent, 1991).

There are a number of possible explanations for the link between a father's ability to stimulate cognitive growth and his frequency of involvement in caregiving. The findings might be confounded by the gender, birth order, or age of the child. Some studies (Jones & Heermann, 1992; Rustia & Abbott, 1993; Shields & Sparling, 1993), but not all (Belsky, Gilstrap, & Rovine, 1984; Broom, 1994), have shown that fathers are more involved with sons than daughters during infancy, but there were similar proportions of boys and girls in both groups in the present study. There is inconsistent evidence in previous research on how birth order predicts fathers' interactions with infants and toddlers. Jones and Heermann (1992) suggest that younger fathers with fewer children or one child give more care to the newborn infants, but Marsiglio (1991) reported that the number of children at home was not a significant predictor of father involvement with children up to age 4 years. In this study there were similar proportions of first-born and later-born children in the groups of fathers with higher involvement and those with lower involvement. The infants of fathers in the higher involvement group were on average 2 months older. This seems too small an age difference to account for differences in father involvement. Other studies of father involvement with young children also have conflicting results. Jones and Heermann (1992) found that fathers provided more caregiving to 12-month-old infants in comparison to children aged 1 month, whereas DeLuccie (1996) found that fathers were more frequently involved with younger children.

Alternative explanations focus on father characteristics. Volling and Belsky (1991) reported that older fathers engaged in more responsive, stimulating, and affectionate interactions with both 3- and 9-month-old infants whereas more educated fathers stimulated and provided care more often to 9-month-old infants. In contrast, Broom (1994) noted that the father's age was not a significant predictor of sensitivity in observed interactions with 3-month-old infants. Using father self-reports, Marsiglio (1991) and DeLuccie (1996) found that the father's educational level was a poor predictor of the father's accessibility or frequency of involvement with preschool children. Fathers, in the higher involvement group in the present study, were on average 2 years older and had 1 more year of education, but paternal age and education in this group were not correlated with the NCATS scores. In the lower involvement group, fathers who were older had lower scores on the NCATS, but there was no relationship between education and their NCATS scores. Thus educational level and age did not appear to explain the differences between groups.

Given the correlational nature of the research, it is possible that other variables such as maternal encouragement of father involvement or the father's perception of self-efficacy might more directly explain the differences between the groups. Mothers who encourage and support the father both in caregiving and in teaching interactions allow the father more time alone with the child to become familiar with the child's behavior. This experience gives him an opportunity to learn how to structure the environment to match his child's needs and promote the child's learning of new skills. Other research has shown that when mothers are not supportive or satisfied with the involvement of the child's father, fathers may be less involved with children (DeLuccie, 1995; Parke, 1995) and less sensitive in interactions (Harrison, 1990). Self-efficacy, the perception that one's behavior can influence outcomes (Bandura, 1982), might be a factor in father involvement. In studies where fathers received education in how to provide care or play with their infant, fathers had higher levels of involvement (Parke, 1995). Those fathers who see themselves as competent in caregiving may be more willing to be solely responsible for their child and more likely to be interested in teaching their child.

The self-report measure of father involvement was a limitation in this study. Father involvement was measured as the number of times the father had sole responsibility for the child in the past week, a general estimate of father involvement. This measure reflects, to some degree, the availability of the father, the father's willingness to take responsibility to provide care, the mother's willingness to relinquish care, and indirectly, the father's skill in child care. However, it may not be representative of what usually occurs between the father and his child. There is a need to measure father involvement over a period longer than 1 week and to use measures that provide more detail on the types and degree of father involvement. For example, researchers could measure the frequency of a father's participation in arranging child care or health supervision, the number of hours of the day that a father supervised a child when he or she was not asleep, and the father's satisfaction with his involvement. Other measures that directly assess the mother's role in gatekeeping (i.e., the mother's ability to mediate father involvement) and the father's skill in child care need to be included in future research.

Another limitation of the study was the time period for the data collection. Father-infant observations and the measure of father involvement were collected over a 10-year period. With changes in social norms over that time, fathers who participated in the early phase of the study may have had less encouragement to be involved with their child compared with fathers in the later phase of the study.

Fagot and Hagan (1991) argue that home observations produce the largest effect size, as home observations allow the parents and child to react more naturally than in the laboratory. Father-child interactions during a teaching situation were observed in the home in this study, and the average scores for each subscale of the NCATS in this study were similar to those reported in other observational studies on fathers and children (Broom, 1994; Brophy-Herb, Gibbons, Omar, & Schiffman, 1999; Nakamura, Stewart, & Tatarka, 2000). However, only one observation was done, and the observed teaching interactions were brief. A better understanding of the relationship between father involvement in caregiving and paternal behavior during a teaching interaction might be obtained with repeated observations of the same father-child dyad.

Nevertheless, there is preliminary evidence that fathers play an important role in fostering their infant's emotional regulation and mental health (Crockenberg & Leerkes, 2000). As there is an association between the father's frequency of involvement in caregiving and his skill in cognitive growth fostering, the findings of this study suggest that interventions that encourage a father's active role in caregiving during infancy and toddlerhood can make a contribution to child development. Nurses have opportunities in prenatal classes, well child health clinics, home visits, and hospital settings to support fathers in activities that promote the development of their children. For example, a father can be encouraged to read with his child and to show the child how to play with a new toy (Conner, Knight, & Cross, 1997). Nurses also can explore with a mother ways that the mother can facilitate the father's involvement in various activities with the child. Fathers are more likely to be involved in the nurturing of young children when the mothers believe that the fathers are able to provide nurturing care (Rane & McBride, 2000).

Back to Article Outline

References 

1. Bandura A. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist. 1982;37:122–147
   • View In Article
2. Barnard K. Reliability issues using the NCAST feeding and teaching scales. NCAST National News. 1997;13(2):7–8
   • View In Article
3. Barnard K, Bee H, Hammond M. Developmental changes in maternal interactions with term and preterm infants. Infant Behavior and Development. 1984;7:101–113
   • View In Article
4. Barnard K, Hammond M, Booth C, et al.  Measurement and meaning of parent-child interaction. In:  Morrison FJ,  Lord C,  Keating DP editor. Applied developmental psychology. Vol. 3:New York: Academic Press; 1989;p. 40–79
   • View In Article
5. Barnard K, Osofsky J, Beckwith L, Hammond M, Appelbaum M. A collaborative effort to study mother-child interaction in three risk groups: Social risk mother, adolescent mother, preterm infant. Infant Mental Health Journal. 1996;17:293–301
   • View In Article
6. Belsky J, Gilstrap B, Rovine M. The Pennsylvania infant and family development project, I: Stability and change in mother-infant and father-infant interaction in a family setting at one, three and nine months. Child Development. 1984;55:692–705
   • View In Article
   • MEDLINE
   • CrossRef
7. Bornstein MH. Parenting of infants. In:  Bornstein MH editors. Handbook of parenting. Volume 1: Children and parenting. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 1995;p. 3–40
   • View In Article
8. Broom B. Impact of marital quality and psychological well-being on parental sensitivity. Nursing Research. 1994;43:138–143
   • View In Article
   • MEDLINE
9. Brophy-Herb H, Gibbons C, Omar M, Schiffman R. Low-income fathers and their infants: Interactions during teaching episodes. Infant Mental Health Journal. 1999;20:305–321
   • View In Article
10. Cabrera N, Tamis-LeMonda C, Bradley R, Hofferth S, Lamb M. Fatherhood in the twenty-first century. Child Development. 2000;71:127–136
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
11. Conner DB, Knight DK, Cross DR. Mothers' and fathers' scaffolding of their 2-year-olds during problem-solving and literacy interactions. British Journal of Developmental Psychology. 1997;15:323–338
    • View In Article
12. Crockenberg S, Leerkes E. Infant social and emotional development in family context. In: 2nd ed.  Zeanah CH editors. Handbook of infant mental health. New York: Guilford; 2000;p. 60–90
    • View In Article
13. DeLuccie MF. Mothers as gatekeepers: A model of maternal mediators of father involvement. Journal of Genetic Psychology. 1995;156:115–131
    • View In Article
14. DeLuccie MF. Mothers: Influential agents in father-child relations. Genetic Social and General Psychology. 1996;122:287–307
    • View In Article
15. Fagot B, Hagan R. Observations of parent reactions to sex-stereotyped behaviors: Age and sex effects. Child Development. 1991;62:617–628
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
16. Gable S, Crnic K, Belsky J. Co-parenting within the family system: Influences on children's development. Family Relations. 1994;43:380–386
    • View In Article
17. Graham M. Parental sensitivity to infant cues: Similarities and differences between mothers and fathers. Journal of Pediatric Nursing. 1993;8:376–384
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
18. Harrison MJ. A comparison of parental interactions with term and preterm infants. Research in Nursing & Health. 1990;13:173–179
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
19. Harrison MJ, Magill-Evans J. Mother and father interactions over the first year with term and preterm infants. Research in Nursing & Health. 1996;19:451–459
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
20. Harrison MJ, Magill-Evans J, Benzies K. Fathers' scores on the Nursing Child Assessment Teaching Scale: Are they different from those of mothers?. Journal of Pediatric Nursing. 1999;14:248–254
    • View In Article
    • Abstract
    • Full-Text PDF (685 KB)
    • CrossRef
21. Harrison MJ, Magill-Evans J, Sadoway D. Scores on the Nursing Child Assessment Teaching Scale for father-toddler dyads. Public Health Nursing. 2001;18(2):94–100
    • View In Article
22. Horn W. Fathering infants. In:  Osofsky J,  Fitzgerald H editor. WAIMH handbook of infant mental health. Volume 3: Parenting and child care. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2000;p. 271–297
    • View In Article
23. Jones L, Heermann J. Parental division of infant care: Contextual influences and infant characteristics. Nursing Research. 1992;41:228–234
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
24. Katsh BS. Fathers and infants: Reported caregiving and interaction. Journal of Family Issues. 1981;2:275–296
    • View In Article
25. Lamb M, Pleck J, Charnov E, Levine J. A biosocial perspective on paternal behavior and involvement. In:  Lancaster J,  Altmann J,  Rossi A,  Sherrod L editor. Parenting across the lifespan: Biosocial perspectives. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Grutyer; 1987;p. 111–142
    • View In Article
26. Magill-Evans J, Harrison MJ. Parent-child interactions and development of toddlers born preterm. Western Journal of Nursing Research. 1999;21:292–307
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
27. Magill-Evans J, Harrison MJ. Parent-child interactions, parenting stress, and developmental outcomes at 4 years. Children's Health Care. 2001;30:135–150
    • View In Article
28. Mahoney G, Wiggers B, Lash S. Using a relationship-focused intervention program to enhance father involvement. The Transdisciplinary Journal. 1996;6:295–308
    • View In Article
29. Marsiglio W. Paternal engagement activities with minor children. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1991;53:973–986
    • View In Article
30. McBride B. Parent education and support programs for fathers: Outcome effects on paternal involvement. Early Child Development and Care. 1991;67:73–85
    • View In Article
31. McBride B, Darragh J. Interpreting the data on father involvement: Implications for parenting programs for men. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services. 1995;76:490–497
    • View In Article
32. Morisset C. What the teaching scale measures: Insights from multiple studies, sites and samples. NCAST National News. 1996;12(1):1–3 6-7
    • View In Article
33. Nakamura W, Stewart K, Tatarka M. Assessing father-infant interactions using the NCAST teaching scale: A pilot study. American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2000;54:44–51
    • View In Article
34. Nugent JK. Cultural and psychological influences on the father's role in infant development. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1991;53:475–485
    • View In Article
35. Parke RD. Fathers and families. In:  Bornstein MH editors. Handbook of parenting. Volume 3: Status and social conditions of parenting. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 1995;p. 27–64
    • View In Article
36. Pleck JH. Paternal involvement: Levels, sources and consequences. In: 3rd ed.  Lamb ME editors. The role of the father in child development. New York: Wiley; 1997;p. 66–103
    • View In Article
37. Rane TR, McBride BA. Identity theory as a guide to understanding fathers' involvement with their children. Journal of Family Issues. 2000;21:347–366
    • View In Article
38. Rustia J, Abbott D. Father involvement in infant care. Two longitudinal studies. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 1993;30:467–476
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
39. Shields M, Sparling J. Fathers' play and touch behaviors with their three-month-old infants. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics. 1993;13(1):39–59
    • View In Article
40. Sumner G, Spietz A. NCAST caregiver/parent-child interaction teaching manual. Seattle: NCAST Publications, University of Washington, School of Nursing; 1994;
    • View In Article
41. Tiedje L, Darling-Fisher C. Fatherhood reconsidered: A critical review. Research in Nursing & Health. 1996;19:471–484
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
42. Volling B, Belsky J. Multiple determinants of father involvement during infancy in dual-earner and single-earner families. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1991;53:461–474
    • View In Article